Skip to main content

Full text of "Systematic theology : a compendium and commonplace book designed for the use of theological students"

See other formats 


PRESENTED  BY  THE  AUTHOR , 

Dr. 

AUGUSTUS  H.  STRONG, 

17  Sibley  Place, 

Rochester,  N.  Y. 

z\ 


SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY 


riLP*T 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY 


S  Compendium  ano  Commonplace*36ooft 

\ 

DESIGNED    FOR    THE    USE    OF 
THEOLOGICAL    STUDENTS 


BY 

AUGUSTUS  HOPKINS  STRONG,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

PBE5TPENT  AND  PROFr.^SCR  O"  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  IN  THE 

KocHi-vr-i:  ~l;Y.nl  D'giCAL  SEMINARY 

AUTHOR  OF  "  THE  GREAT  POETS  AND  THEIR  THEOLOGY  " 

"'HiUST  IN    TEATlcN,"  "PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGION" 

"  MISCLLLANiES,"  VOLS.  I   AND  II,  ETC. 


THREE  VOLUMES  IN  ONE 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  GRIFFITH  &  ROWLAND  PRESS 

BOSTON  CHICAGO  ST.  LOUIS  TORONTO,  CAN. 


fTHENEV/yT 
W^J;    UStfAHY 

/>  ^  r-  -  -    **■ 

I)  0  i 

*»iQF>r  I 'VOX  AND 

fl       tt»a       L 


6 


f55 


COPYRIGHT 

By  AUGUSTUS  HOPKINS  STRONG 

1907 


Published  .JlHy,*  1912."    • 


Cl)ri0to  £>eo  ^altoatoru 


"  The  eye  sees  only  that  which  it  brings  with  it  the  power 
of  seeing." — Cicero. 

"Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  i  may  behold  wondrous  things 
out  OF  thy  law." — Psalm  119  :  IS. 

"  For  with  thee  is  the  poi  n  i  ,\  i  \  01:  li  i  k,  ; .  In  t^y  light  shall 
we  see  light." — Psalm  3d':-  #. 

"For  we  know  in  part,  and  We  i'!;cphesy;iN  part;  but  when 
that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in  part 

SHALL  BE  DONE  AWAY." — 1  Cor.  13  :  9,  10. 


PREFACE 


The  present  work  is  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  my 
"  Systematic  Theology,"  first  published  in  1886.  Of  the  original 
work  there  have  been  printed  seven  editions,  each  edition  embody- 
ing successive  corrections  and  supposed  improvements.  During 
the  twenty  years  which  have  intervened  since  its  first  publication 
I  have  accumulated  much  new  material,  which  I  now  offer  to  the 
reader.  My  philosophical  and  critical  point  of  view  meantime  has 
also  somewhat  changed.  While  I  still  hold  to  the  old  doctrines,  I 
interpret  them  differently  and  expound  them  more  clearly,  because 
I  seem  to  myself  to  have  reached  a  fundamental  truth  which 
throws  new  light  upon  them  all.  This  truth  I  have  tried  to  set 
forth  in  my  book  entitled  "  Christ  in  Creation,"  and  to  that  book 
1  refer  the  reader  for  further  information. 

That  Christ  is  the  one  and  only  Eevealer  of  God,  in  nature,  in 
humanity,  in  history,  in  science,  in  Scripture,  is  in  my  judgment 
the  key  to  theology.  This  view  implies  a  monistic  and  idealistic 
conception  of  the  world,  together  with  an  evolutionary  idea  as  to 
its  origin  and  progress.  But  it  is  the  very  antidote  to  pantheism, 
in  that  it  recognizes  evolution  as  only  the  method  of  the  tran- 
scendent and  personal  Christ,  who  fills  all  in  all,  and  who  makes  the 
universe  teleological  and  moral  from  its  centre  to  its  circumference 
and  from  its  beginning  until  now. 

Neither  evolution  nor  the  higher  criticism  has  any  terrors  to  one 
who  regards  them  as  parts  of  Christ's  creating  and  educating  pro- 
cess. The  Christ  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge  himself  furnishes  all  the  needed  safeguards  and  limita- 
tions.    It  is  only  because  Christ  has  been  forgotten  that  nature  and 

vii 


VI 11  PREFACE. 

law  have  been  personified,  that  history  has  been  regarded  as  unpur- 
posed development,  that  Judaism  has  been  referred  to  a  merely 
human  origin,  that  Paul  has  been  thought  to  have  switched  the 
church  off  from  its  proper  track  even  before  it  had  gotten  fairly 
started  on  its  course,  that  superstition  and  illusion  have  come  to 
seem  the  only  foundation  for  the  sacrifices  of  the  martyrs  and  the 
triumphs  of  modern  missions.  I  believe  in  no  such  irrational  and 
atheistic  evolution  as  this.  I  believe  rather  in  him  in  whom  all 
things  consist,  who  is  with  his  people  even  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  who  has  promised  to  lead  them  into  all  the  truth. 

Philosophy  and  science  are  good  servants  of  Christ,  but  they  are 
poor  guides  when  they  rule  out  the  Son  of  God.  As  I  reach  my 
seventieth  year  and  write  these  words  on  my  birthday,  I  am  thank- 
ful for  that  personal  experience  of  union  with  Christ  which  lias 
enabled  me  to  see  in  science  and  philosophy  the  teaching  of  my 
Lord.  But  this  same  personal  experience  has  made  me  even  more 
alive  to  Christ's  teaching  in  Scripture,  has  made  me  recognize  in 
Paul  and  John  a  truth  profounder  than  that  disclosed  by  any 
secular  writers,  truth  with  regard  to  sin  and  atonement  for  sin, 
that  satisfies  the  deepest  wants  of  my  nature  and  that  is  self- 
evidencing  and  divine. 

I  am  distressed  by  some  common  theological  tendencies  of  our 
time,  because  I  believe  them  to  be  false  to  both  science  and 
religion.  How  men  who  have  ever  felt  themselves  to  be  lost  sin- 
ners and  who  have  once  received  pardon  from  their  crucified  Lord 
and  Savior  can  thereafter  seek  to  pare  down  his  attributes,  deny 
his  deity  and  atonement,  tear  from  his  brow  the  crown  of  miracle 
and  sovereignty,  relegate  him  to  the  place  of  a  merely  moral  teacher 
who  influences  us  only  as  does  Socrates  by  words  spoken  across  a 
stretch  of  ages,  passes  my  comprehension.  Here  is  my  test  of 
orthodoxy  :  Do  we  pray  to  Jesus  ?  Do  wo  call  upon  the  name  of 
Christ,  as  did  Stephen  and  all  the  early  church  ?     Is  he  our  living 


PREFACE.  IX 

Lord,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  omnipotent  ?  Is  he  divine  only 
in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  divine,  or  is  he  the  only-begotten  Son, 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  in  whom  is  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily  ?  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ  ?  is  still  the  critical 
question,  and  none  are  entitled  to  the  name  of  Christian  who,  in  the 
face  of  the  evidence  he  has  furnished  us,  cannot  answer  the  ques- 
tion aright. 

Under  the  influence  of  Eitschl  and  his  Kantian  relativism,  many 
of  our  teachers  and  preachers  have  swung  off  inio  a  practical  denial 
of  Christ's  deity  and  of  his  atonement.  We  seem  upon  the  verge 
of  a  second  Unitarian  defection,  that  will  break  up  churches  and 
compel  secessions,  in  a  worse  manner  than  did  that  of  Channing 
9£d  Ware  a  century  ago.  American  Christianity  recovered  from 
that  disaster  only  by  vigorously  asserting  the  authority  of  Christ 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  We  need  a  new  vision  of 
the  Savior  like  that  which  Paul  saw  on  the  way  to  Damascus  and 
John  saw  on  the  isle  of  Patmos,  to  convince  us  that  Jesus  is  lifted 
above  space  and  time,  that  his  existence  antedated  creation,  that  he 
conducted  the  march  of  Hebrew  history,  that  he  was  born  of  a 
virgin,  sulTcred  on  the  cross,  rose  from  the  dead,  and  now  lives 
forevermore,  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  the  only  God  with  whom  we 
have  to  do,  our  Savior  here  and  our  Judge  hereafter.  Without  a 
revival  of  this  faith  our  churches  will  become  secularized,  mission 
enterprise  will  die  out,  and  the  candlestick  will.be  removed  out  of 
its  place  as  it  was  with  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  and  as  it  has 
been  with  the  apostate  churches  of  New  England. 

I  print  this  revised  and  enlarged  edition  of  my  "  Systematic 
Theology,"  in  the  hope  that  its  publication  may  do  something  to 
stem  this  fast  advancing  tide,  and  to  confirm  the  faith  of  God's 
elect.  I  make  no  doubt  that  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  still 
hold  the  faith  that  was  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  that 
they  will  sooner  or  later  separate  themselves  from  those  who  deny 


X  PREFACE. 

the  Lord  who  bought  them.  When  the  enemy  comes  in  like  a 
flood,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  will  raise  up  a  standard  against  him. 
I  would  do  my  part  in  raising  up  such  a  standard.  I  would  lead 
others  to  avow  anew,  as  I  do  now,  in  spite  of  the  supercilious 
assumptions  of  modern  infidelity,  my  firm  belief,  only  confirmed 
by  the  experience  and  reflection  of  a  half-century,  in  the  old 
doctrines  of  holiness  as  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  of  an 
original  transgression  and  sin  of  the  whole  human  race,  in  a  divine 
preparation  in  Hebrew  history  for  man's  redemption,  in  the  deity, 
pretixistence,  virgin  birth,  vicarious  atonement  and  bodily  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  and  in  his  future  coming  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  that  these  are  truths  of  science 
as  well  as  truths  of  revelation;  that  the  supernatural  willy^tbe 
seen  to  be  most  truly  natural  ;  and  that  not  the  open-minded  theo- 
logian but  the  narrow-minded  scientist  will  be  obliged  to  hide  his 
head  at  Christ's  coming. 

The  present  volume,  in  its  treatment  of  Ethical  Monism,  Inspir- 
ation, the  Attributes  of  God,  and  the  Trinity,  contains  an  antidote 
to  most  of  the  false  doctrine  which  now  threatens  the  safety  of  the 
church.  I  desire  especially  to  call  attention  to  the  section  on 
Perfection,  and  the  Attributes  therein  involved,  because  I  believe 
that  the  recent  merging  of  Holiness  in  Love,  and  the  practical 
denial  that  Righteousness  is  fundamental  in  God's  nature,  ara 
responsible  fur  the  utilitarian  views  of  law  and  the  superficial  views 
of  sin  which  now  prevail  in  some  systems  of  theology.  There  can 
be  no  proper  doctrine  of  the  atonement  and  no  proper  doctrine  of 
retribution,  so  long  as  Holiness  is  refused  its  preeminence.  Love 
must  have  a  norm  or  standard,  and  this  norm  or  standard  can  be 
found  only  in  Holiness.  The  old  conviction  of  sin  aud  the  sense  of 
guilt  that  drove  the  convicted  sinner  to  the  cross  are  inseparable 
from  a  firm  belief  in  the  self-affirming  attribute  of  God  as  logicall) 
prior  to  and  as  conditioning  the  self-communicating  attribute.    The 


PKEFACE.  XI 

theology  of  our  day  needs  a  new  view  of  the  Righteous  One.  Such 
a  view  will  make  it  plain  thatUrod  must  be  reconciled  before  man 
can  be  saved,  and  that  the  human  conscience  can  be  pacified  only 
upon  condition  that  propitiation  is  made  to  the  divine  Righteous- 
ness. In  this  volume  I  propound  what  I  regard  as  the  true  Doc- 
trine of  God,  because  upon  it  will  be  based  all  that  follows  in  the 
volumes  on  the  Doctrine  of  Man,  and  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation. 

The  universal  presence  of  Christ,  the  Light  that  lighteth  every 
man,  in  heathen  as  well  as  in  Christian  lands,  to  direct  or  overrule 
all  movements  of  the  human  mind,  gives  me  confidence  that  the 
reevmt  attacks  upon  the  Christian  faith  will  fail  of  their  purpose. 
It  becomes  evident  at  last  that  not  only  the  outworks  are  assaulted, 
out  the  very  citadel  itself.  We  are  asked  to  give  np  all  belief  in 
special  revelation.  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  said,  has  come  in  the  flesh 
precisely  as  each  one  of  us  has  come,  and  he  was  before  Abraham 
only  in  the  same  sense  that  we  were.  Christian  experience  knows 
how  to  characterize  such  doctrine  so  soon  as  it  is  clearly  stated. 
And  the  new  theology  will  be  of  use  in  enabling  even  ordinary 
believers  to  recognize  soul-destroying  heresy  even  under  the  mask 
of  professed  orthodoxy. 

I  make  no  apology  for  the  homiletical  element  in  my  book.  To 
be  either  true  or  useful,  theology  must  be  a  passion.  Pectus  est 
quod  theologum  facit,  and  no  disdainful  cries  of  "Pectoral 
Theology  ! "  shall  prevent  me  from  maintaining  that  the  eyes  of  the 
heart  must  be  enlightened  in  order  to  perceive  the  truth  of  God, 
and  that  to  know  the  truth  it  is  needful  to  do  the  truth.  Theology 
is  a  science  which  can  be  successfully  cultivated  only  in  connection 
with  its  practical  application.  I  would  therefore,  in  every  discus- 
sion of  its  principles,  point  out  its  relations  to  Christian  experience, 
and  its  power  to  awaken  Christian  emotions  and  lead  to  Christian 
decisions.  Abstract  theology  is  not  really  scientific.  Only  that 
theology  is  scientific  which  brings  the  student  to  the  feet  of  Christ, 


Xll  PREFACE. 

I  would  hasten  the  day  when  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall 
bow.  1  believe  that,  if  any  man  serve  Christ,  him  the  Father  will 
honor,  and  that  to  serve  Christ  means  to  honor  him  as  I  honor  the 
Father.  I  would  not  pride  myself  that  I  believe  so  little,  but 
rather  that  I  believe  so  much.  Faith  is  God's  measure  of  a  man. 
Why  should  I  doubt  that  God  spoke  to  the  fathers  through  the 
.  prophets  ?  Why  should  I  think  it  incredible  that  God  should  raise 
the  dead  ?  The  things  that  are  impossible  with  men  are  possible 
with  God.  When  the  Son  of  man  comes,  shall  he  find  faith  on  the 
earth  ?  Let  him  at  least  find  faith  in  us  who  profess  to  be  his 
followers.  In  the  conviction  that  the  present  darkness  is  bui 
temporary  and  that  it  will  be  banished  by  a  glorious  sunrising,  I 
give  this  new  edition  of  my  "Theology"  to  the  public  with  the 
prayer  that  whatever  of  good  seed  is  in  it  may  bring  forth  fruit, 
and  that  whatever  plant  the  heavenly  Father  has  not  planted  may 
be  rooted  up. 

Rochester  Theological  Seminary, 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  3,  1906. 


TA'BLE    OF    CONTENTS. 
70LUME    I. 


Preface, vii-xii 

Table  of  Contexts, ....  xiii-xvii 

PART    L— PBQIiEGOMENA, 1-51 

Chapteh  I. — Idt:a  op  Theology, 1-24 

I. — Definition  <>f  Theology, 1-2 

II. — Aim  of  Theology, 2 

III. — Possibility  of  Theology — grounded  in, 2-15 

1.  The  existence  of  a  G<  >d; 3-  5  V 

2.  Man's  capacity  for  the  knowledge  of  God, 5-11    V 

3.  God's,  revelation  of  himself  to  man, 11-15    v 

TV. — Necessity  of  Theology, 15-19 

•     V.— Relation  of  Theology  to  Religion, 19-24 

Chapter  II. — Material  of  Theology, 25-37 

I. — Sources  of  Theology, 25-34 

1.  Scripture  and   Nature, 2G-2!) 

2.  Scripture  and    Rationalism, 29-31 

3.  Scripture  and  Mysticism, 31-33 

4.  Scripture  and  Romanism, 33-34 

II. — Limitations  of  Theology, 34-36 

III. — Relations  of  Material  to  Progress  in  Theology, 36-37 

Chapter  III.  — Method  of  Theology, 38-51 

I. — Requisites  to  the  study  of  Theology, 38-41 

II.—  Divisions  of  Theology, 41-44 

III. — History  of  Systematic  Theology, 44-49 

IV.— Order  of  Treatment, 49-50 

V.— Text-Books  in   Theology, 50-51 

PART  II.— THE  EXISTENCE   OF    GOD, 52-110 

Chapter  I. — Origin  of  our  Idea  of   God's  Existence, 52-70 

I.— First  Truths  in  General, 53-56 

II.— The  Existence  of  God  a  First  Truth, 56-C-   • 

1.  Its  universality, 56-58 

2.  Its  necessity, 58-59 

3.  Its  logical  independence  and  priority, 59-62    v 

III. — Other  supposed  Sources  of  the  Idea 62-67 

IV.— Contents  of  this  Intuition, 67-70 

xiii 


x'lV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Chapter  II. — Corroborative  Evidences  of  God's  Existence,  71-89 

I. — The  Cosrnological  Argument, 73-75 

II.— The  Teleological  Argument, 75-80 

III. — The  Anthropological  Argument, 80-85 

IV. — The  Ontological  Argument, 85-89 

Chapter  III. — Erroneous  Explanations,  and  Conclusion,.  .  90-110 

I.— Materialism, 90-95 

II. — Materialistic  Idealism, 95-100 

III.— Idealistic  Pantheism, 100-105 

IV.— Ethical  Monism, 105-110 

PART  III.— THE    SCRIPTURES  A  REVELATION    FROM 

GOD, 111-242 

Chapter  I. — Preliminary  Considerations, 111-144 

I. — Reasons  a  priori  for  expecting  a  Revelation  from  God,  111-114 

II. — Marks  of  the  Revelation  man  may  expect, 114-117 

III. — Miracles  as  attesting  a  Divine  Revelation, 117-133 

1.  Definition  of  Miracle, 117-120 

2.  Possibility  of  Miracles, 121-123 

3.  Probability  of  Miracles, 124-127 

4.  Amount  of  Testimony  necessary  to  prove  a  Miracle,  127-128 

5.  Evidential  Force  of  Miracles, 128-131 

6.  Counterfeit  Miracles, 132-133 

IV. — Prophecy  as  attesting  a  Divine   Revelation, 134-141 

V. — Principles    of    Historical    Evidence   applicable   to  the 

Proof  of  a  Divine  Revelation, 141-144 

1.  As  to  Documentary  Evidence, 141-142 

2.  As  to  Testimony  in  General, 142-144 

Chapter  II. — Postttve  Proofs  that  the  Scriptures  are  a 

Divine  Revelation, 145-195 

I. — Genuineness  of  the  Christian  Documents, 145-172 

1.  Genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament, .  146-165 

1st.  The  Myth-theory  of  Strauss, 155-157 

2d.    The  Tendency-theory  of  Baur, 157-160 

3d.    The  Romance- theory  of   Renan, 160-162 

4th.  The  Development-theory  of  Harnack, 162-165 

2.  Genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,..  165-172 

The  Higher  Criticism  in  General, 169-170 

The  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  particular,  170-172 

II.—  Credibility  of  the  Writers  of  the  Scriptures, 172-175 

III. — Supernatural  Character  of  the  Scripture  Teaching,..  175-190 

1.  Scripture  Teaching  in  General, 175-177 

2.  Moral  System  of  the  New  Testament, ...    177-186 

Heathen  Systems  of  Morality, 179-186 

3.  The  Person  and  Character  of  Christ, 186-189 

4.  The  Testimony  of  Christ  to  himself, 189-190 

IV. — Historical  Results  of  the   Propagation    of    Scripture 

Doctrine, 191-195 


/  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS.  XV 

Chapter  III. — Inspiration  op  the  Scriptures, 196-242 

I. — Definition  of  Inspiration, 196-198 

IX—  Proof  of  Inspiration, . u 198-202 

LLT.— Theories  of  Inspiration, 202-212 

1.  The  Intuition-theory 202-204 

2.  The  Illumination-theory, 204-208 

3.  The  Dictation-theory, 208-211 

4.  The  Dynamical  theory, 211-212 

TV. — The  Union   of  the  Divine  and  Human  Elements  in 

Inspiration, 212-222 

V. — Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Inspiration, 222-242 

1.  Errors  in  matters  of  Science, 223-226 

2.  Errors  in  matters  of  History, 226-229 

3.  Errors  in  Morality, * 230-232 

4.  Errors  of  Reasoning, 232-233 

5.  Errors  in  Quoting  or  Interpreting  the  Old  Testament,  231-235 

6.  Errors  in  Prophecy, 235-236 

7.  Certain  Books  unworthy  of  a  Place  in  inspired  Script- 

ure,    236-238 

8.  Portions  of  the  Scripture  Books  written   by  others 

than  the  Persons  to  whom  they  are  ascribed, 238-240 

9.  Sceptical  or  Fictitious  Narratives, 240-242 

10.     Acknowledgment  of   the    Non-inspiration  of   Script- 
ure Teachers  and  their  "Writings, 242 

PAET  TV.—  THE  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF 

GOD, 243-370 

Chapter  I. — The  Attributes  of  God, 243-303 

I. — Definition  of  the  term  Attributes, "         244 

LI. — Relation  of  the  Divine  Attributes  to  the  Divine  Essence,  244-2K5 

III. — Methods  of  Determining  the  Divine  Attributes, 246-247 

IT.— Classification  of  the  Attributes, 247-249 

V. — Absolute  or  Immanent  Attributes, 249-275 

First  Division. — Spirituality,  and  Attributes  therein 

involved, ". 249-254 

1.  Life, 251-252 

2.  Personality, 252-254 

Second  Division. — Infinity,  and   Attributes  therein 

involved, 254-260 

1.  Self-existence, 256-257 

2.  Immutabilitv, 257-259 

3.  Unity, 259-260 

Third  Division. — Perfection,  and  Attributes  therein 

involved, 260-275 

1.  Truth, 260-262 

2.  Love, 263-268 

3.  Holiness, 268-275 

VI.—  Relative  or  Transitive    Attributes, 275-295 


XVI  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

First  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Time 

and  Space, 275-279 

1.  Eternity, 275-278 

2.  Immensity, 278-279 

Second  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Cre- 
ation,    279-288 

1.  Omnipresence, 279-282 

2.  Omniscience, 282-286 

3.  Omnipotence, 286-288 

Third  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Moral 

Beings, 288-295 

1.     Veracity   and    Faithfulness,    or    Transitive 

Truth, 288-289 

2. — Mercy  and  Goodness,  or  Transitive  Love,..  289-290 
3.     Justice    and    Righteousness,   or    Transitive 

Holiness, 290-295 

VII. — Hank  and  Relations  of  the  several  Attributes, 295-303 

1.  Holiness  the  Fundamental  Attribute  in  God, 296-298 

2.  The  Holiness  of  God  the  Ground  of  Moral  Obligation,  298-303 
Chapter  II. — Doctrine  of  the  Tkinity, 301-352 

I. — In  Scripture  there  are  Three  who  are  recognized  as  God,  305-322 

1.  Proofs  from  the  New  Testament, 305-317 

A.  The  Father  is  recognized  as  God, 305 

B.  Jesus  Christ  is  recognized  as  God, 305-315 

C.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  recognized  a^  God, 315-317 

2.  Intimations  of  the  Old  Testament, 317-322 

A.  Passages  which  seem  to  teach   Plurality   of 

some  sort  in  the  Godhead, 317-319 

B.  Passages  relating  to  the  Angel  of  Jehovah, .  . .  319-320 

C.  Descriptions  of  the  Divine  Wisdom  and  Word,  320-321 

D.  Descriptions  of  the  Messiah, 321-322 

II. — These  Three  are  so  described  in  Scripture,  that  we  are 

compelled  to  conceive  them  as  distinct  Persons,    ....  322-326 

1.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  Persons  distinct 

from  each  other, 322 

2.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  Persons  distinct 

from  the  Spirit, 322-323 

3.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  a  Person, 323  326 

III. — This  Tripersonality  of  the  Divine  Nature  is  not  merely 

economic  and  temporal,  but  is  immanent  and  eternal,  326-330 

1.  Scripture  Proof  that  these  distinctions  of  Per- 

sonality are  eternal, 326 

2.  Errors  refuted  by  the  Scripture  Passages, .  .  .   327-330 

A.  The  Sabellian, 327-328 

B.  The  Arian, 328-330 

IV. — While  there  are  three  Persons,  there  is  but  one  Essence,  330-334 

V. — These  three  Persons  are  Equal, 334-343 

1.     These  Titles  belong  to  the  Persons, 334-335 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XV11 

2.     Qualified  Sens3  of  these  Titles, 335-340 

3      Generation  and  Procession  consistent  with  Equal- 
ity,  V..' ••••   3^0-343 

VI.— The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  inscrutable,  yet  not  self- 
contradictory,  but  the  Key  to  all  other  Doctrines,  344-352 

1.  The  Mode  of  this  Triune  Existence  is  inscrutable,  344-345 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is   not  self-contra- 

dictory,     345-347 

3.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  important  rela- 

tions to  other  Doctrines, 347-352 

Chapter  III.— The  Decrees  of  God, 353-370 

I.— Definition  of  Decrees, 353-355 

II._ Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees, 355-359 

1.  From  Scripture, 355-356 

2.  Prom  Reason, 356-359 

A.  From  the  Divine  Foreknowledge, 356-358 

B.  From  the  Divine  Wisdom, 358 

C.  From  the  Divine  Immutability, 358-359 

D.  From  the  Divine  Benevi  lence, 359 

III.— Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees, 359-368 

1.  That  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  Free  Agency 

of  Man, 359-362 

2.  That  they  take  away  all  Motive  for  Human  Exer- 

tion, .' 363-364 

3.  That  they  make  God  the  Author  of  Sin, 365-3G8 

IV.— Concluding  Remarks, 368-370 

1.  Practical  Uses  of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees, 368-369 

2.  True  Method  of  Preaching  the  Doctrine 369-370 


VOLUME  II. 


Chaptek  IV. — The  Works  of  God,  ob  the  Execution  of  the 

Decrees, 371-464 

Section  I. — Creation, 371-410 

J.  —  Definition  of  Creation, 371-373 

H.— Proof  of  the  Doctrine, 374-378 

1.  Direct  Scripture  Statements, 374-377 

2.  Indirect  Evidence  from  Scripture, 377-378 

TTT- — Theories  which  oppose  Creation, 378-391 

1.  Dualism, 378-383 

2.  Emanation, 383-386 

3.  Creation  from  Eternity, 386-389 

4.  Spontaneous  Generation, 389-391 

IV.— The  Mosaic  Account  of  Creation, 391-397 

1.  Its  Twofold  Nature, 391-393 

2.  Its  Proper  Interpretation, 393-397 

V.— God's  End  in  Creation, 397-402 

1.  The  Testimony  of  Scripture, 397-398 

2.  The  Testimony  of  Reason, 398-402 

YL — Relation  of  the  Doctrine  of  Creation  to  other  Doctrines,  402-410 

1.  To  the  Holiness  and  Benevolence  of  God, 402-403 

2.  To  the  Wisdom  and  Free  Will  of  God, 404-405 

3.  To  Christ  as  the  Revealer  of  God, 405-407 

4.  To  Providence  and  Redemption, . 407-408 

5.  To  the  Observance  of  the  Sabbath, 408-410 

Section  II. — Preservation, 410-419 

I. — Definition  of  Preservation, 410-411 

II. — Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Preservation, 411-414 

1.  From  Scripture, 411-412 

2.  From  Reason, 412-414 

IH. — Theories  which  virtually  deny  the  Doctrine  of  Preserva- 
tion,    414-418 

1.  Deism, 414-415 

2.  Continuous  Creation, 415-418 

TV. — Remarks  upon  the  Divine  Concurrence, 418-419 

Section  III. — Providence, 419-443 

I. — Definition  of  Providence, 419-420 

IL— Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Providence, 421-427 

1.  Scriptural  Proof, 421-425 

2.  Rational  Proof, 425-427 

xviii 


TABLE   OF    CONTENTS.  XIX 

ILT. — Theories  opposing  the  Doctrine  of  Providence, 427-431 

1.  Fatalism, 427 

2.  Casualism,  ...*... 427-428 

3.  Theory  of  a  merely  General  Providence, 428-431 

IV. — Relations  of  the  Doctrine  of  Providence, 431-443 

1.  To  Miracles  and  Works  of  Grace, 431-433 

2.  To  Prayer  and  its  Answer 433-439 

3.  To  Christian  Activity, 439-441 

4.  To  the  Evil  Acts  of  Free  Agents, 441-443 

Section  rV. —  Good  and  Evil  Angels, 443-4G4 

I. — Scripture  Statements  and  Intimations, 444-459 

1.  As  to  the  Nature  and  Attributes  of  Angels, 444-447 

2.  As  to  their  Number  and  Organization 447-450 

3.  As  to  then-  Moral  Character, 450-451 

4-    As  to  their  Employments, 451-459 

A.  The  Employments  of  Good  Angels, 451-454 

B.  The  Employments  of  Evil  Angels, 454-459 

H. — Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Angels, 459-462 

1.  To  the  Doctrine  of  Angels  in  General, 459-460 

2.  To  the  Doctrine  of  Evil  Angels  in  Particular, ...     460-462 
HI. — Practical  Uses  of  the  Doctrine  of  Angels, 462-464 

1.  Uses  of  the  Doctrine  of  Good  Angels, 462-463 

2.  Uses  of  the  Doctrine  of  Evil  Angels, 463-464 

PART  V.— ANTHROPOLOGY,  OR  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN,  465-664 

Chapter  I. — Preliminary, 465-513 

I.— Man  a  Creation  of  God  and  a  Child  of  God, 465-476 

II.— Unity  of  the  Race, 476  483 

1.  Argument  from  History, 477-478 

2.  Argument  from  Language 478-479 

-3.    Argument  from  Psychology, 479-480 

■    4.   Argument  from  Physiology, 480-483 

m.— Essential  Elements  of  Human  Nature, 483-488 

1 .  The  Dichotomous  Theory, 483-484 

2.  The  Trichotomous  Theory, 484-488 

IV.— Origin  of  the  Soul, 488-497 

1.  The  Theory  of  Preexistence, 488-491 

2.  The  Creatian  Theory, 491-493 

3.  The  Traducian  Theory, 493-497 

V.— The  M(  »ral  Nature  of  Man, 497-513 

1.  Conscience, 498-504 

2.  Will, 504-513 

Chapter  II. — The  Original  State  of  Man, 514-532 

I.— Essentials  of  Man's  Original  State, 514-523 

1.  Natural  Likeness  to  God,  or  Personality, 515-516 

2.  Moral  Likeness  to  God,  or  Holiness, 516-523 

A.    The  Image  of  God  as  including  only  Person- 
ality,  ■ 518-520 


XX  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

B.    The  Image  of  God  as  consisting  simply  in 

Man's  Natural  Capacity  for  Religion, 520-523 

IL— Incidents  of  Man's  Original  State, 523-532 

1.  Results  of  Man's  Possession  of  the  Divine  Image,  523-525 

2.  Concomitants  of  Man's  Possession  of  the  Divine 

Image, 525-527 

1st.     The  Theory  of  an  Original  Condition  of 

Savagery, 527-531 

2nd.    The  Theory  of  Comte  as  to  the  Stages  of 

Human  Progress, 531-532 

Chaptek  III. — Sin,  ok  Man's  State  of  Apostasy, 533-664 

Section  I. — The  Law  of  God, 533-549 

I. — Law  in  General, 532-536 

II.— The  Law  of  God  in  Particular, 536-547 

1.  Elemental  Law, 536-544 

2.  Positive  Enactment, 544-547 

III. — Relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Grace  of  God, 547-549 

Section  II. — Nature  of  Sin, 549-573 

I.— Definition  of  Sin, 549-559 

1.  Proof, 552-557 

2.  Inferences, 557-559 

II.  —The  Essential  Principle  of  Sin, 559-573 

1.  Sin  as  Sensuousness, 559-563 

2.  Sin  as  Finiteness, 563-566 

3.  Sin  as  Selfishness, 566-573 

Section  HI. —  Universality  of  Sin, 573-582 

I. — Every  human  being  who  has  arrived  at  moral  conscious- 
ness has  committed  acts,  or  cherished  dispositions,  con- 
trary to  the  Divine  Lav/, 573-577 

H. — Every  member  of  the  human  race,  without  exception, 
possesses  a  corrupted  nature,  which  is  a  source  of  ac- 
tual sin,  and  is  itself  sin, 577-582 

Section  PV. —  Origin  of  Sin  in  the  Personal  Act  of  Adam,  582-593 
I. — The  Scriptural  Account  in  Genesis, 582-585 

1.  Its  General  Character  not  Mythical  or  Allegorical, 

but  Historical, 582-583 

2.  The  Course  of  the  Temptation,  and  the  resulting 

Fall, 584-585 

H. — Difficulties  connected  with  the  Fall,  consideued  as  the 

personal  Act  of  Adam, 585-590 

1.  How  could  a  holy  being  fall  ? 585-588 

2.  How  could  God  justly  permit  Satanic  Temptation  ?  588-589 

3.  How  could  a  Penalty  so  great  be  justly  connected 

with  Disobedience  to  so  slight  a  Command  ? .  . .  589-590 

TTT. —  Consequences  of  the  Fall — so  far  as  respects  Adam, . .   590-593 

1.    Death, 590-592 


Table  of  CONTENTS.  xxi 

A.  Physical  Death  or  the  Se]  taration  of  the  Soul 

from  the  Body, 590-591 

B.  Spiritual  JDeath,  or  thu  Separation  of  the 

Soul  from  God, 591-592 

2.    Positive  and  formal  Exclusion  from  God's  Pres- 
ence,    592-593 

Section  Y. — Imputation  of  Adam's  Sin  to  his  Posterity,.  .  593-637 

Scripture  Teaching  as  to  Race-sin  and  Race-responsi- 
bility,    593-597 

I.— Theories  of  Imputation, 597-628 

1.  The  Pelagian  Theory,  or  Theoiy  of  Man's  Natural 

Innocence, 597-601 

2.  The  Arminian  Theoiy,  or  Theory  of  voluntarily 

appropriated   Depravity, 601-606 

3.  The  New-School  Theory,  or  Theory  of  uncondem- 

nal  ile  Yitiosity, 606-612 

4.  The  Federal  Theoiy,  or  Theory  of  Condemnation 

1  >y  C<  ivenant, 612-616 

5.  Theoiy  of  Mediate  Imputation,  or  Theoiy  of  Con- 

demnation for  Depravity, 616-619 

6.  Augustinian  Theory,  or  Theoiy  of  Adam's  Natural 

Headship, 619-627 

Exposition  of  Rom.  5  :  12-19, 625-627 

Tabular  View  of  the  various  Theories  of  Im- 
putation,   628 

II. —  Objections  to  the  Augustinian  Theory  of  Imputation,.  629-637 

Section  YI. — Consequences  of  Sin  to  Adam's  Posterity,  . .  637-660 

I.— Depravity, 637-644 

1.  Depravity  Partial  or  Total  ? 637-610 

2.  Ability  or  Inability? 610-644 

n.— Guilt,  , 641-652 

1.  Nature  of  Guilt, 644-647 

2.  Degrees  of  Guilt, 618-652 

1TI.— Penalty, 652-660 

1.  Idea  of  Penalty, 652-656 

2.  Actual  Penalty  of  Sin, 656-660 

Section  YII.  —  The  Salvation  of  Infants, 660-664 

PART  YI.— SOTERIOLOGY,  OR  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SAL- 
YATION  THROUGH  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 
AND  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT, 665-894 

Chapter  I. — Christology,  or  the  Redemption  Wrought  by 

Christ, 665-773 

Section  I.  —  Historical  Preparation  for  Redemption,.  . . .   665-668 
I. — Negative  Preparation,  in  the  History  of  the  Heathen 

World,  . : 665-666 

II. —  Positive  Preparation,  in  the  History  of  Israel, 666-668 


xxii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Section  II. — The  Person  op  Christ, . .  669-700 

I. — Historical  Survey  of  Views  respecting  the  Person  of 

Christ, 669-673 

1.  The  Ebionites, 669-670 

2.  The  Docetee, 670 

3.  The  Arians 670 

4.  The  Apollinarians, 670-671 

5.  The  Nestorians, 671-672 

6.  The  Eutycbians, - 672 

7.  The  Orthodox  Doctrine, 673 

II. — The  two  Natures  of  Christ, — their  Reality  and  Integ- 
rity,    673-683 

1.  The  Humanity  of  Christ, 673-681 

A.  Its  Reality, 673-675 

B.  Its  Integrity, 675-681 

2.  The  Deity  of  Christ, 681-683 

III. — The  Union  of  the  two  Natures  in  one  Person, 683-700 

1.  Proof  of  this  Union, 684-686 

2.  Modern  Misrepresentations  of  this  Union, 686-691 

A.  The  Theory  of  Gess  and  Beecher,  that  the 

Humanity  of  Christ  is  a  Contracted  and 
Metamorphosed  Deity, 686-688 

B.  The  Theory  of  Dorner  and  Rothe,  that  the 

Union  between  the  Divine  and  the  Human 
Natures  is  not  completed  by  the  Incarna- 
ting Act, 688-691 

3.  The  Real  Nature  of  this  Union, 691-700 

Section  III. — The  Two  States  of  Christ, 701-710 

I.— The  State  of  Humiliation, 701-706 

1.  The  Nature  of  Christ's  Humiliation, 701-704 

A.  The  Theory  of  Thcmasins,  Delitzsch,  and 

Crosby,  that  the  Humiliation  consisted  in 

the  Surrender  of  the  Relative  Attributes,  701-703 

B.  The  Theory  that  the  Humiliation  consisted 

in  the  Surrender  of  the  Independent  Ex- 
ercise of  the  Divine  Attributes, 703-704 

2.  The  Stages  of  Christ's  Humiliation, 704-706 

Exposition  of  Philippians  2  :  5-9, 705-706 

H.— The  State  of  Exaltation, 706-710 

1.  The  Nature  of  Christ's  Exaltation, 706-707 

2.  The  Stages  of  Christ's  Exaltation, 707-710 

Section  IV. — The  Offices  of  Christ, 710-776 

I.   The  Prophetic  Office  of  Christ, 710-713 

1.  The  Nature  of  Christ's  Prophetic  Work, 710-711 

2.  The  Stages  of  Christ's  Prophetic  Work, 711-713 

II.    The  Priestly  Office  of  Christ, 713-775 

1.    Christ's  Sacrificial  Work,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the 

Atonement, 713-773 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XX1U 

General  Statement  of  the  Doctrine, 713-716 

A     Scriptural  Methods  of  Representing  the  Atone- 
ment, ...  u 716-722 

B.  The  Institution  of  Sacrifice,  especially  as  found 

in  the  Mosaic  System, 722-728 

C.  Theories  of  the  Atonement, 728-766 

1st.     The  Socinian,  or  Example  Theory  of 

the  Atonement, 728-733 

2d.   The    Bushnellian,   or    Moral-Influence 

Theory  of  the  Atonement, 733-740 

3d.    The  Grotian,  or  Governmental  Theoiy 

of  the  Atonement, 740-744 

4th.    The  Irvingian  Theoiy,  or  Theory  of 

gradually  extirpated  Depravity, 744-747 

6th.    The  Auselmic,  or  Commercial  Theory 

of  the  Atonement, 747-750 

6th.    The  Ethical  Theory  of  the  Atonement,  750-766 
First,  The  Atonement  as  related  to 

Holiness  in  God, 751-754 

Exposition  of  Romans  3  :  25,  26, . .  753-754 
Secondly,  The  Atonement  as  related 

to  Humanity  in  Christ, 754-766 

Exposition  of  2  Corinthians  5  :  21,  760-761 

D.  Objections  to  the  Ethical  Theory  of  the  Atone- 

ment,     766-771 

E.  The  Extent  of  the  Atonement, 771-773 

2.     Christ's  Intercessory  Work, 773-775 

ILL— The  Kingly  Office  of  Christ, 775-776 


VOLUME  III. 


Chapter  II. — The  Reconciliation   op  Man  to  God,   o*,  ths 
Application    op    Redemption    through    the 

Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 777  -886 

Section  I. —  The  Application  of  Christ's  Redemption,   in 

its  Preparation, 777-793 

I.— Election, 779-790 

1.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Election, 779-785 

2.  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Election, 785-790 

II.—  Calling, 790-793 

A.  Is  God's  General  Call  Sincere  ? 791-792 

B.  Is  God's  Special  CaU  Irresistible  ? 792-793 

Section  II. —  The  Application  op  Christ's  Redemption,  in 

its  Actual  Beginning, 793-868 

I.—  Union  with  Christ, 795-809 

1.  Scripture  Representations  of  this  Union, 795-798 

2.  Nature  of  this  Union, 798-802 

3.  Consequences  of  this  Union, 802-809 

II.—  Regeneration, 809-829 

1.  Scripture  Representations, 810-812 

2.  Necessity  of  Regeneration, 812-814 

3.  The  Efficient  Cause  of  Regeneration, 814-820 

4.  The  Instrumentality  used  in  Regeneration, 820-823 

5.  The  Nature  of  the  Change  wrought  in  Regeneration,  823-829 
in.— Conversion, 829-819 

1.  Repentance, 832-836 

Elements  of  Repentance, 832-834 

Explanations  of  the  Scripture  Representations, . . .  834-836 

2.  Faith, 836-849 

Elements  of  Faith, 837-840 

Explanations  of  the  Scripture  Representations, ....  840-849 
IT.— Justification, 846-868 

1.  Definition  of  Justification, 849 

2.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification, 849-854 

3.  Elements  of  Justification, 854-859 

4.  Relation  of  Justification  to  God's  Law  and  Holiness,  859-861 

5.  Relation  of  Justification  to  Union  with  Christ  and 

the  Work  of  the  Spirit, 861-864 

xxiv 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS.  XXV 

6.  Relation  of  Justification  to  Faith, 864-867 

7.  Advice  to  Inquirers  demanded  by  a  Scriptural  View 

of  Justification, . .  m 868 

Section  HI. — The  Application  of  Christ's  Redemption,  in 

its  Continuation, 868-886 

L—  Sanctification, 869-881 

1.  Definition  of  Sanctification, 869-870 

2.  Explanations  and  Scripture  Proof, 870-875 

3.  Erroneous  Views  refuted  by  the  Scripture  Passages,  875-881 

A.  The  Antinoniian, 875-877 

B.  The  Perfectionist, 877-881 

II.— Perseverance, 881-886 

1.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Perseverance, 882-883 

2.  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Perseverance, 883-886 

PART  Vn.— ECCLESIOLOGY,   OR    THE    DOCTRINE  OF 

THE  CHURCH, 887-980 

Chapter  I. —  The  Constitution  op  the  Church,  or  Church 

Polity, 889-929 

L—  Definition  of  the  Church, 887-894 

1.  The  Church,  like  the  Family  and  tho  State,  is  an 

Institution  of  Divine  Appointment, 892-893 

2.  The  Church,  unlike  the  Family  and  tho  State,  is  a 

Voluntary  Society, 893-894 

II. —  Organization  of  the  Church, 894-903 

1.  The  Fact  of  Organization, 894-897 

2.  The  Nature  of  this  Organization, 897-900 

3.  The  Genesis  of  this  Organization, 900-903 

JH.—  Government  of  the  Church, 903-926 

1.  Nature  of  this  Government  in  General, 903-914 

A.  Proof  that  the  Government  of  tho  Church  is 

Democratic  or  Congregational, 904-908 

B.  Erroneous  Views  as  to  Church  Government, 

refuted  by  the  Scripture  Passages, 908-914 

( a )  The    World-church    Theory,    or    the 

Romanist  View, 908-911 

(o)  The  National-church  Theory,  or  the 
Theory  of  Provincial  or  National 
Churches, 912-914 

2.  Officers  of  the  Church, 914-924 

A.  The  Number  of  Offices  in  the  Church  is  two, . . .  914-916 

B.  The  Duties  belonging  to  these  Offices, 916-918 

C.  Ordination  of  Officers, 918-924 

(a)  What  is  Ordination? 918-920 

( b  )  Who  are  to  Ordain  ? 920-924 

3.  Discipline  of  the  Church, 924-926 

A.  Kinds  of  Discipline, 924-925 

B.  Relation  of  the  Pastor  to  Discipline, 925-926 

TV. —  Relation  of  Local  Churches  to  one  another, 926-929 


xxvi  TABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 

1.  The   General   Nature    of    this  Eelation   is  that  of 

Fellowship  between  Equals, 926-927 

2.  This  Fellowship  involves  the  Duty  of  Special  Con- 

sultation   with  regard    to    Matters  affecting  the 
common  Interest, 927 

3.  This  Fellowship  may  be  broken  by  manifest  Depart- 

ures from  the  Faith  or  Practice  of  the  Scriptures 

on  the  part  of  any  Church, 928-929 

Chapter  II.  —  The  Ordinances  of  the  Church, 930-980 

I.—  Baptism, 931-959 

1.  Baptism  an  Ordinance  of  Christ, 931-933 

2.  The  Mode  of  Baptism, 933-940 

A.  The  Command  to  Baptize  is  a  Command  to 

Immerse, 933-938 

B.  No  Church  has  the  Bight  to  Modify  or  Dispense 

with  this  Command  of  Christ, 939-940 

3.  The  Symbolism  of  Baptism, 940-945 

A.  Expansion  of  the  Statement  as  to  the  Symbolism 

of  Baptism, 940-942 

B.  Inferences  from  the  Passages  referred  to, 942-945 

4.  The  Subjects  of  Baptism, 945-959 

A.  Proof  that  only  Persons  giving  Evidence  of 

being  Begenerated  are    proper  Subjects  of 
Baptism, 945-946 

B.  Inferences  from  the  Fact  that  only  Persons  giv- 

ing Evidence  of  being  Begenerate  are  proper 
Subjects  of  Baptism, 946-951 

C.  Infant  Baptism, 951-959 

(  a  )  Infant  Baptism  without  "Warrant  in  the 

Scripture, 951-952 

(  b  )  Infant  Baptism  expressly  Contradicted 

by  Scripture, 952-953 

(  c  )  Its  Origin  in  Sacramental  Conceptions 

of  Christianity, 953-954 

( d )  The  Beasoning  by  which  it  is  supported 
Unscriptural,  Unsound,  and  Dangerous 
in  its  Tendency, 954-956 

( c  )  The  Lack  of  Agreement  among  Pedo- 

baptists, 956-957 

(/ )  The  Evil  Effects  of  Infant  Baptism, 957-959 

-'   II.—  The  Lord's  Supper, 959-980 

1.  The  Lord's  Supper    an    Ordinance  instituted  by 

Christ, 959-960 

2.  The  Mode  of  Administering  the  Lord's  Supper, ....  960-962 

3.  The  Symbolism  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 962-965 

A.  Expansion  of  the  Statement  as  to  the  Symbolism 

of  the  Lord's  Supper, 962-964 

B.  Inferences  from  this  Statement,    964-965 

4.  Erroneous  Views  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 965-969 


TABLE   OP    CONTENTS.  xxvii 

A.  The  Romanist  View, 965-968 

B.  The  Lutheran  and  High  Church  View, 968-969 

.  5,  Prerequisites  to  Participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  969-  980 

A.  There  are  Prerequisites, 969-970 

B.  Laid  down  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 970 

C.  The  Prerequisites  are  Four, 970-975 

First,  —  Regeneration, 971 

Secondly, —  Baptism, 971-973 

Thirdly,—  Church  Membership, 973 

Fourthly,—  An  Orderly  Walk, 973-975 

D.  The  Local  Church  is  the  Judge  whether  these 

Prerequisites  are  fulfilled, 975-977 

E.  Special  Objections  to  Open  Communion, 977-980 

PART  VTIL—  ESCHATOLOGY,   OR   THE  DOCTRINE  OF 

FINAL  THINGS, 981-1056 

L—  Physical  Death, 982-998 

That  this  is  not  Annihilation,  argued  : 

1.  Upon  Rational  Grounds, 984-991 

2.  Upon  Scriptural  Grounds, 991-998 

II.— The  Intermediate  State, 998-1003 

1.  Of  the  Righteous, 998-  999 

2.  Of  the  Wicked, 999-1000 

Refutation  of  the  two  Errors  : 

( a )  That  the  Soul  sleeps,  between  Death 

and  the  Resurrection, 1000 

(  b)  That  the  Suffering  of  the  Intermediate 

State  is  Purgatorial, 1000-1002 

Concluding  Remark, 1002-1003 

TTI.—  The  Second  Coming  of  Christ, 1003-1015 

1.  The  Nature  of  Christ's  Coming, 1004-1005 

2.  The  Time  of  Christ's  Coming, 1005-1008 

3.  The  Precursors  of  Christ's  Coming, 1008-1010 

4.  Relation    of  Christ's    Second    Coming    to    the 

Millennium, 1010-1015 

TV.—  The  Resurrection, 1015-1023 

1.  The  Exegetical  Objection, 1016-1018 

2.  The  Scientific  Objection, 1018-1023 

V.— The  Last  Judgment, 1023-1029 

1.  The  Nature  of  the  Final  Judgment, 1024-1025 

2.  The  Object  of  the  Final  Judgment, 1025-1027 

3.  The^  Judge  in  the  Final  Judgment, 1027-1028 

4.  The~Subjects  of  the  Final  Judgment, 1028 

5.  The  Grounds  of  the  Final  Judgment, 1029 

VL— The  Final  States  of  the  Righteous  and  of  the  Wicked, . .  1029-1056 

1.  Of  the  Righteous, 1029-1033 

A.  Is  Heaven  a  Place  as  well  as  a  State  ? 1032 

B.  Is  this  Earth  to  be  the  Heaven  of  the  Saints  ?  1032-1033 

2.  Of  the  Wicked, 1033-1056 


XXV1U  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

A.  Future  Punishment  is  not  Annihilation 1 035-1 C39 

B.  Punishment  after  Death  excludes  new  Pro- 

bation and  ultimate  Restoration, 1039-1044 

C.  This  Future  Punishment  is  Everlasting, 1044-1046 

D.  Everlasting  Punishment  is  not  inconsistent 

with  God's  Justice, 1046-1051 

E.  Everlasting  Punishment  is  not  inconsistent 

with  God's  Benevolence, 1051-1054 

F.  Preaching  of  Everlasting  Punishment  is  not 

a  Hindrance  to  the  Success  of  the  Gospel,  1054-1056 


Index  of  Subjects, 1059-1116 

Index  of  Authors, 1117-1138 

Index  of  Scripture  Texts, 1139-1157 

Index  of  Apocrtfhad  Texts, 1158 

Index  of  Greek  Words, 1159-1163 

Index  of  Hebrew  Words,  .   1165-1166 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


VOLUME  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF   GOD. 


PART  I. 

PEOLEGOMENA. 


CHAPTER   I. 

IDEA    OF  THEOLOGY. 

I.  Definition. — Theology  is  the  science  of  God  and  of  the  relations 
between  God  and  the  universe. 

Though  the  word  "theology"  is  sometimes  employed  in  dogmatic  writings  to 
designate  that  single  department  of  the  science  which  treats  of  the  divine  nature  and 
attributes,  prevailing  usage,  since  Abelard  (A.  D.  1079-1142)  entitled  his  general  treatise 
"Theologia  Christiana,"  has  included  under  that  term  the  whole  range  of  Christian 
doctrine.  Theology,  therefore,  gives  account,  not  only  of  God,  but  of  those  relations 
between  God  and  the  universe  in  view  of  which  we  speak  of  Creation,  Providence  and 
Redemption. 

John  the  Evangelist  is  called  by  the  Fathers  "the  theologian,"  because  he  most  fully 
treats  of  the  internal  relations  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
(328)  received  this  designation  because  he  defended  the  deity  of  Christ  against  the 
Arians.  For  a  modern  instance  of  this  use  of  the  term  "theology"  in  the  narrow  sense, 
seethe  title  of  Dr.  Hodge's  first  volume:  "Systematic  Theology,  Vol.1:  Theology." 
But  theology  is  not  simply  "the  science  of  God,"  nor  even  "the  science  of  God  and 
man."    It  also  gives  account  of  the  relations  between  God  and  the  universe. 

If  the  universe  were  God,  theology  would  be  the  only  science.  Since  the  universe  is 
but  a  manifestation  of  God  and  is  distinct  from  God,  there  are  sciences  of  nature  and  of 
mind.  Theology  is  "the  science  of  the  sciences,"  not  in  the  sense  of  including  all  these 
sciences,  but  in  the  sense  of  using  their  results  and  of  showing  their  underlying  ground; 
( see  Wardlaw,  Theology,  1 :  1,  2).  Physical  science  is  not  a  part  of  theology.  As  a  mere 
physicict,  Humboldt  did  not  need  to  mention  the  name  of  God  in  his  "  Cosmos"  (  but  see 
Co  mos,  2:  413,  where  Humboldt  says:  "Psalm  104  presents  an  image  of  the  whole 
Cosmos").  Bishop  of  Carlisle:  "Science  is  atheous,  and  therefore  cannot  be  atheistic." 

Only  when  we  consider  th;  relations  of  finite  things  to  God,  does  the  study  of  them 
lurnish  material  for  theology.  Anthropology  is  a  part  of  theology,  because  man's 
nature  is  the  work  of  God  and  because  God's  dealings  with  man  throw  light  upon  the 
character  of  God.  GcJ  is  known  through  his  works  and  his  activities.  Theology 
therefore  gives  account  cf  these  works  and  activities  so  far  as  they  come  within  our 
knowledge.  All  other  sciences  require  theology  for  their  complete  explanation.  Proud- 
hon  :  "  if  you  go  very  deeply  into  politics,  you  are  sure  to  get  into  theology."  On  the 
1 


2  PROLEGOMENA. 

definition  of  theology,  see  Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogniatik,  1:  2;  Blunt,  Diet. 
Doct.  and  Hist.  Theol.,  art. :  Theology  ;  H.  B.  Si  nth,  Introd.  to  Christ.  Theol.,  44  •  cf. 
Aristotle,  Metaph.,  10,  7,  4;  11,  6,  4  ;  and  Lactantius,  De  Ira  Dei,  11. 

II.  Aim. — The  aim  of  theology  is  tlie  ascertainment  of  the  facts  respect- 
ing God  and  the  relations  between  God  and  the  universe,  and  the  exhibi- 
tion of  these  facts  in  their  rational  unity,  as  connected  parts  of  a  formulated 
and  organic  system  of  truth. 

In  defining  theology  as  a  science,  we  indicate  its  aim.  Science  does  not  create ;  it 
discovers.  Theology  answers  to  this  description  of  a  science.  It  discovers  facts  and 
relations,  but  it  does  not  create  them.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  141— 
"  Schiller,  referring  to  the  ardor  of  Columbus's  faith,  says  that,  if  the  great  discoverer 
had  not  found  a  continent,  he  would  have  created  one.  But  faith  is  not  creative.  Had 
Columbus  not  found  the  land— had  there  been  no  real  object  answering  to  his  belief— 
his  faith  would  have  been  a  mere  fancy."  Because  theology  deals  with  objective  facts, 
we  refuse  to  define  it  as  "  the  science  of  religion  ";  versus  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  1850 :  101-126, 
and  Thornwell,  Theology,  1 :  139.  Both  the  facts  and  the  relations  with  which  theology 
has  to  deal  have  an  existence  independent  of  the  subjective  mental  processes  of  the 
theologian. 

Science"  is  not  only  the  observing,  recording,  verifying,  and  formulating  of  object- 
ive facts;  it  is  also  the  recognition"  and  explication  of  the  relations  between  these 
facts,  and  the  synthesis  of  both  the  facts  and  the  rational  principles  which  unite  them 
in  a  comprehensive,  rightly  proportioned,  and  organic  system.  Scattered  bricks  and 
timbers  are  not  a  house;  severed  arms,  legs,  heads  and  trunks  from  a  dissecting  room 
are  not  living  men  ;  and  facts  alone  do  not  constitute  science.  Science  =  facts  +  rela- 
tions; Whewell,  Hist.  Inductive  Sciences,  I,  Introd.,  43 -"There  maybe  facts  without 
science,  as  in  the  knowledge  of  the  common  quarryman ;  there  may  be  thought  with- 
out science,  as  in  the  early  Greek  philosophy."  A.  MacDonald  :  "  The  a  priori  method 
is  related  to  the  a  posteriori  as  the  sails  to  the  ballast  of  the  boat :  the  more  philosophy 
the  better,  provided  there  are  a  sufficient  number  of  facts ;  otherwise,  there  is  danger 
of  upsetting  the  craft." 

President  Woodrow  Wilson :  " '  Give  us  the  facts '  is  the  sharp  injunction  of  our  age 
to  its  historians. .  .  But  facts  of  themselves  do  not  constitute  the  truth.  The  truth  is 
abstract,  not  concrete.  It  is  the  just  idea,  the  right  revelation,  of  what  things  mean. 
It  is  evoked  only  by  such  arrangements  and  orderings  of  facts  as  suggest  meanings." 
Dove,  Logic  of  the  Christian  Faith,  14—"  The  pursuit  of  science  is  the  pursuit  of  rela- 
tions." Everett,  Science  of  Thought,  3— "Logy"  (c.  q.,  in  "theology"),  from  Aoyos, 
=word  +  reason,  expression  +  thought,  fact  +  idea ;  cf.  John  1 :  1  —  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word." 

As  theology  deals  with  objective  facts  and  their  relations,  so  its  arrangement  of  these 
facts  is  not  optional,  but  is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  material  with  which  it  deals. 
A  true  theology  thinks  over  again  God's  thoughts  and  brings  them  into  God's  order,  as 
the  builders  of  Solomon's  temple  took  the  stones  already  hewn,  and  put  them  into  the 
places  for  which  the  architect  had  designed  them;  Reginald  Heber:  "No  hammer  fell, 
no  pondex-ous  axes  rung ;  Like  some  tall  palm,  the  mystic  fabric  sprung."  Scientific 
men  have  no  fear  that  the  data  of  physics  will  narrow  or  cramp  their  intellects;  no 
more  should  they  fear  the  objective  facts  which  are  the  data  of  theology.  We  cannot 
make  theology,  any  more  than  we  can  make  a  law  of  physical  nature.  As  the  natural 
philosopher  is  "  Naturas  minister  et  interpres,"  so  the  theologian  is  the  servant  and 
interpreter  of  the  objective  truth  of  God.  On  the  Idea  of  Theology  as  a  System,  see 
H.  B.  Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  125-166. 

III.  Possibility.  —The  possibility  of  theology  has  a  threefold  ground  : 
1.  In  the  existence  of  a  God  who  has  relations  to  the  universe  ;  2.  In  the 
capacity  of  the  human  mind  for  knowing  God  and  certain  of  these  relations  ; 
and  3.  In  the  provision  of  means  by  which  God  is  brought  into  actual  con- 
tact with  the  mind,  or  in  other  words,  in  the  provision  of  a  revelation. 

Any  particular  science  is  possible  only  when  three  conditions  combine,  namely,  the 
actual  existence  of  the  object  with  which  the  science  deals,  the  subjective  capacity  of 


POSSIBILITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  3 

the  human  mind  to  know  that  object,  and  the  provision  of  definite  means  by  which  thri 
object  ie  brought  into  contact  with  the  mind.  We  may  illustrate  the  conditions  of 
theology  from  selenology  —  the  science,  not  of  "  lunar  politics,"  which  John  Stuart  Mill 
thought  so  vain  a  pursuit,  but  of  lunar  physics.  Selenology  has  three  conditions:  1. 
the  objective  existence  of  the  moon  ;  2.  the  subjective  capacity  of  the  human  mind  to 
know  the  moon  ;  and  3.  the  provision  of  some  means  ( e.  g.,  the  eye  and  the  telescope ) 
by  which  the  gulf  between  man  and  the  moon  is  bridged  over,  and  by  which  the  mind 
can  come  into  actual  cognizance  of  the  facts  with  regard  to  the  moon. 

1.  In  the  existence  of  a  God  who  has  relations  to  the  universe. — It  lias 
been  objected,  indeed,  that  since  God  and  these  relations  are  objects 
apprehended  only  by  faith,  they  are  not  proper  objects  of  knowledge  or 
subjects  for  science.     We  reply  : 

A.  Faith  is  knowledge,  and  a  higher  sort  of  knowledge. — Physical  sci- 
ence also  rests  upon  faith — faith  in  our  own  existence,  in  the  existence  of  a 
world  objective  and  external  to  ns,  and  in  the  existence  of  other  persons 
than  ourselves ;  faith  in  our  primitive  convictions,  such  as  space,  time, 
cause,  substance,  design,  right;  faith  in  the  trustworthiness  of  our  facilities 
and  in  the  testimony  of  our  fellow  men.  But  physical  science  is  not  thereby 
invalidated,  because  this  faith,  though  unlike  sense-perception  or  logical 
demonstration,  is  yet  a  cognitive  act  of  the  reason,  and  may  be  defined 
as  certitude  with  respect  to  matters  in  which  verification  is  unattainable. 

The  objection  to  theology  thus  mentioned  and  answered  is  expressed  in  the  words  of 
Sir  William  Hamilton,  Metaphysics,  44,  531—"  Faith  —  belief  —  is  the  organ  by  which  we 
apprehend  what  is  beyond  our  knowledge."  But  science  is  knowledge,  and  what  is 
beyond  our  knowledge  cannot  be  matter  for  science.  Pres.  E.  G.  Kobinson  says  well, 
that  knowledge  and  faith  cannot  be  severed  from  one  another,  like  bulkheads  in  a  ship, 
the  first  of  which  may  be  crushed  in,  while  the  second  still  keeps  the  vessel  afloat.  The 
mind  is  one,— "it  cannot  be  cut  in  two  with  a  hatchet."  Faith  is  not  antithetical  to 
knowledge, — it  is  rather  a  larger  and  more  fundamental  sort,  of  knowledge.  It  is  never 
opposed  to  reason,  but  only  to  Bight.  Tennyson  was  wrong  when  he  wrote  :  "  We  have 
but  faith :  we  cannot  know  ;  For  knowledge  is  of  things  we  see"  ( In  Memoriam,  Intro- 
duction). This  would  make  sensuous  phenomena  the  only  objects  of  knowledge.  Faith 
in  supersensible  realities,  on  the  contrary,  is  the  highest  exercise  of  reason. 

Sir  William  Hamilton  consistently  declares  that  the  highest  achievement  of  science 
is  the  erection  of  an  altar  "  To  the  Unknown  God."  This,  however,  is  not  the  repre- 
sentation of  Scripture.  C/.  John  17:  3 — "this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee,  the  only  true  God"; 
and  Jer.  9 :  24 — "  let  him  that  glorieth  glory  in  that  he  hath  understanding  and  knoweth  me."  For  criticism 
of  Hamilton,  see  H.  B.  Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  297-336.  Fichte :  "  We  are  born  in 
faith."  Even  Goethe  called  himself  a  believer  in  the  five  senses.  Balfour,  Defence  of 
Philosophic  Doubt,  277-295,  shows  that  intuitive  beliefs  in  space,  time,  cause,  substance, 
right,  are  presupposed  in  the  acquisition  of  all  other  knowledge.  Dove,  Logic  of  the 
Christian  Faith,  14  —  "  If  theology  is  to  be  overthrown  because  it  starts  from  some  pri- 
mary terms  and  propositions,  then  all  other  sciences  are  overthrown  with  it."  Mozley, 
Miracles,  defines  faith  as  "unverified  reason."  See  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Re- 
ligion, 19-30. 

B.  Faith  is  a  knowledge  conditioned  by  holy  affection. — -The  faith  which 
apprehends  God's  being  and  working  is  not  opinion  or  imagination.  It  is 
certitude  with  regard  to  spiritual  realities,  upon  the  testimony  of  our 
rational  nature  and  upon  the  testimony  of  God.  Its  only  peculiarity  as  a  cog- 
nitive act  of  the  reason  is  that  it  is  conditioned  by  holy  affection.  As  the 
science  of  aesthetics  is  a  product  of  reason  as  including  a  power  of  recog- 
nizing beauty  practically  inseparable  from  a  love  for  beauty,  and  as  the 
science  of  ethics  is  a  product  of  reason  as  including  a  power  of  recognizing 
the  morally  right  practically  inseparable  from  a  love  for  the  morally  right,  so 


4  PROLEGOMENA. 

the  science  of  theology  is  a  product  of  reason,  but  of  reason  as  including 
a  power  of  recognizing  God  which  is  practically  inseparable  from  a  love  for 
God. 

We  here  use  the  term  "reason"  to  signify  the  mind's  whole  power  of  knowing. 
Reason  in  this  sense  includes  states  of  the  sensibility,  so  far  as  they  are  indispensable 
to  knowledge.  We  cannot  know  an  orange  by  the  eye  alone;  to  the  understanding  of 
it,  taste  is  as  necessary  as  sight.  The  mathematics  of  sound  cannot  give  us  an  under- 
standing of  music;  we  need  also  a  musical  ear.  Logic  alone  cannot  demonstrate  the 
beauty  of  a  sunset,  or  of  a  noble  character;  love  for  the  beautiful  and  the  right  pre- 
cedes knowledge  of  the  beautiful  and  the  right.  Ullman  draws  attention  to  the  deriva- 
tion  of  sapientia,  wisdom,  from  sapgre,  to  taste.  So  we  cannot  know  God  by  intellect 
alone  ;  the  heart  must  go  with  the  intellect  to  make  knowledge  of  divine  things  possible. 
"Human  things,"  saidPascal,  "need  only  to  be  known,  in  order  to  be  loved;  but 
divine  things  must  first  be  loved,  in  order  to  be  known."  "This  [religious]  faith  of 
the  intellect,"  said  Kant,  "is  founded  on  the  assumption  of  moral  tempei's."  If  one 
were  utterly  indifferent  to  moral  laws,  the  philosopher  continues,  even  then  religious 
truths  "  would  be  supported  by  strong  arguments  from  analogy,  but  not  by  such  as  an 
obstinate,  sceptical  heart  might  not  overcome." 

Faith,  then,  is  the  highest  knowledge,  because  it  is  the  act  of  the  integral  soul,  the 
insight,  not  of  one  eye  alone,  but  of  the  two  eyes  of  the  mind,  intellect  and  love  to  God. 
With  one  eye  we  can  see  an  object  as  flat,  but,  if  we  wish  to  see  around  it  and  get  the 
stereoptic  effect,  we  must  use  both  eyes.  It  is  not  the  theologian,  but  the  undevout 
astronomer,  whose  science  is  one-eyed  and  therefore  incomplete.  The  errors  of  the 
rationalist  are  errors  of  defective  vision.  Intellect  has  been  divorced  from  heart,  that 
is,  from  a  right  disposition,  right  affections,  right  purpose  in  life.  Intellect  says:  "  I 
cannot  know  God  " ;  and  intellect  is  right.  What  intellect  says,  the  Scripture  also  says  : 
1  Cor.  2 :  14 — "the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  and  he 
cannot  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged";  1  :  21 — "in  the  wisdom  of  God  the  world  through  its  wis- 
dom knew  not  God." 

The  Scripture  on  the  other  hand  declares  that  "  by  faith  we  know"  (Heb.  11 :  3 ).  By  "heart" 
the  Scripture  means  simply  the  governing  disposition,  or  the  sensibility  +  the  will ;  and 
it  intimates  that  the  heart  is  an  organ  of  knowledge:  Ex.  35:  25 — "  the  women  that  were  wise- 
hearted  ";  Ps.  34 :  8  —  "  0  taste  and  see  that  Jehovah  is  good  "  ==  a  right  taste  precedes  correct  sigh  t ; 
Jer.24:  7—"  I  will  givo  them  a  heart  to  know  me  "  ;  Mat.5:  8 — "Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart;  for  they  shall  se) 
God";  Luke  24:  25— "slow  of  heart  to  believe"  ;  John  7:  17— "If  any  man  willeth  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of 
the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  from  myself"  ;  Eph.  1 :  18— "having  the  eyes  of  your  heart 
enlightened,  that  ye  may  know  "  ;  1  John  4 :  7,  8—"  Every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  God,  and  knoweth  God.  H) 
that  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God."  See  Frank,  Christian  Certainty,  303-324 ;  Clarke,  Clmst. 
Theol.,  36-;  Ulingworth,  Div.  and  Hum.  Personality,  114-137 ;  R.  T.  Smith,  Man's  Know- 
ledge of  Man  and  of  God,  6  ;  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Method  of  Rev.,  6;  William  James,  The 
Will  to  Believe,  1-31 ;  Geo.  T.  Ladd,  on  Lotze's  view  that  love  is  essential  to  the 
knowledge  of  God,  in  New  World,  Sept.  1895:  401-406;  Gunsaulus,  Transfig.  of  Christ, 
14,  15. 

C.  Faith,  therefore,  can  furnish,  and  only  faith  can  furnish,  fit  and 
sufficient  material  fir  a  scientific  theology.— As  an  operation  of  man's 
higher  rational  nature,  though  distinct  from  ocular  vision  or  from  reason- 
ing, faith  is  not  only  a  kind,  but  the  highest  kind,  of  knowing.  It  gives 
us  understanding  of  realities  which  to  sense  alone  are  inaccessible,  namely, 
God's  existence,  and  some  at  least  of  the  relations  between  God  and  his 
creation. 

Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  50,  follows  Gerhard  in  making  faith  the  joint  act  of  intel- 
lect and  wild.  Hopkins,  Outline  Study  of  Man,  77,  78,  speaks  not  only  of  "the  aesthetic 
reason"  but  of  "the  moral  reason."  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  91, 109, 145, 191— 
"Faith  is  the  certitude  concerning  matter  in  which  verification  is  unattainable."  Emer- 
son, Essays,  2 :  96—"  Belief  consists  in  accepting  the  affirmations  of  the  soul— unbelief 
in  rejecting  them."  Morell,  Philos.  of  Religion,  38,  52,  53,  quotes  Coleridge :  "Faith 
consists  in  the  synthesis  of  the  reason  and  of  the  individual  will,  .  .  .  and  by  vir- 
tue of  the  former  (that  is,  reason),  faith  must  be  a  light,  a  form  of  knowing,  a  behold- 


POSSIBILITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  0 

ing  of  truth."  Faith,  then,  is  not  to  be  pictured  as  a  blind  girl  clinging  to  a  cross- 
faith  is  not  blind — "  Else  the  cross  may  just  as  well  be  a  crucifix  or  an  image  of  Gaud- 
ama."  "  Blind  unbelief,"  not  blind  faith,  "  is  sure  to  err,  And  scan  his  works  in  vain."  As 
in  conscience  we  recognize  an  invisible  authority,  and  know  the  truth  just  in  propor- 
tion to  our  willingness  to  "  do  the  truth,"  so  in  religion  only  holiness  can  understand 
holiness,  and  only  love  can  understand  love  (c/.  John  3 :  21 — "he  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the 
light"). 

I  f  a  right  state  of  heart  be  indispensable  to  faith  and  so  to  the  knowledge  of  God, 
can  there  beany  "theologia  irregenitorum,"  or  theology  of  the  unregenerate?  Yes,  we 
answer;  just  as  theblind  man  can  have  a  science  of  optics.  The  testimony  of  others 
gives  it  claims  upon  him  ;  the  dim  light  penetrating  the  obscuring  membrane  corrob- 
orates this  testimony.  The  unregenerate  man  can  know  God  as  power  and  justice, 
and  can  fear  him.  But  this  is  nit  a  knowledge  of  God's  inmost  character;  it  furnishes 
some  material  for  a  defective  and  ill-proportioned  theology;  but  it  does  not  furnish 
tit  or  sufficient  material  for  a  correct  theology.  As,  in  order  to  make  his  science  of 
optics  satisfactory  and  complete,  the  blind  man  must  have  the  cataract  removed  from 
his  eyes  by  some  competent  oculist,  so,  in  order  to  any  complete  or  satisfactory  theol- 
ogy, the  veil  must  be  taken  away  from  the  heart  by  (Jod  himself  (cf.  2  Cor.  3 :  15,16 — "a 
voil  lieth  upon  their  heart.     But  whsnsojver  it  [marg.  'a  man']  shall  turn  to  the  Lord,  the  veil  is  taken  away"). 

Our  doctrine  that  faith  is  knowledge  and  the  highest  knowledge  is  to  be  distinguish)  d 
from  that  of  Kitschl,  whose  theology  is  an  appeal  to  the  heart  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
head— to  flducia  without  notitia.  But  flducia  Includes  notitia,  else  it  is  blind,  irrational, 
and  unscientific.  Bobert  Browning,  in  like  manner,  fell  into  a  deep  speculative  error, 
when,  in  order  to  substantiate  his  optimistic  faith,  he  stigmatized  human  knowledge 
as  merely  apparent.  The  appeal  of  both  Kitschl  and  Browning  from  the  head  to  the 
heart  should  rather  be  an  appeal  from  the  narrower  knowledge  of  the  mere 
intellect  to  the  larger  knowledge  conditioned  upon  right  affection.  See  A.  Ii. 
Strong,  The  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  JU.  On  Hitachi's  postulates,  sec  Stearns, 
Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  274-380,  and  Pfleiderer,  Die  Ritschl'sche  Theologie. 
On  the  relation  of  love  and  will  to  knowledge,  sec  Kaftan,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology, 
1900:  717;  Hovey,  Manual  Christ.  Theol.,9;  Foundations  of  our  Faith,  12,  13;  Bhedd, 
Hist.  Doet.,  1:151-164;  Pre.-b.  Quar.,  Oct.  1871,  Oct.  is;.',  Oct.  1873;  Calderwood, 
Philos.  Infinite, 99,  117;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  8-8;  New  Englander,  July,  1873: 
181;  Princeton  Rev.,  1864:  1~*J;  Cbristlieb,  Hod.  Doubt,  124,  1~>">;  Grau,  Glaube  als  bSeh- 
Bte  Vernunft,  in  Beweis  tics  Glaubens,  1865:  110;  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theol.,  228; 
Newman,  Univ.  Sermons,  206;   Hinton,  Art  of  Thinking,  lutrod.  by  Hodgson,  5. 

2.     In  the  capacity  of  the  human  mind  for  knowing  God  and  certain 

of  these  relations. — But  it  has  urged  that  such  knowledge  is  impossible 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

A.  Because  ^e  can  know  only  phenomena.  We  reply  :  (a)  We  know 
mental  as  \\;'1L  as  physical  phenomena.  (6)  In  knowing  phenomena, 
whether  mental  or  physical,  we  know  substance  as  underlying  the  phe- 
nomena, as  manifested  through  them,  and  as  constituting  their  ground  of 
unity,  (c)  Our  minds  bring  to  the  observation  of  phenomena  not  only 
this  knowledge  of  substance,  but  also  knowledge  of  time,  space,  cause,  and 
right,  realities  which  are  in  no  sense  phenomenal.  Since  these  objects  of 
knowledge  are  not  phenomenal,  the  fact  that  God  is  not  phenomenal  can- 
not prevent  us  from  knowing  him. 

What  substance  is,  we  need  not  here  determine.  Whether  we  are  realists  or  idealists. 
we  are  compelled  to  grant  that  there  cannot  be  phenomena  without  nournena,  cannot 
be  appearances  without  something  that  appeals,  cannot  be  qualities  without  something 
that  is  qualified.  This  something  which  underlies  or  stands  under  appearance  or  qual- 
ity we  call  substance.  We  are  Lotzeans  rather  than  Kantians,  in  our  philosophy.  To 
say  that  we  know,  not  the  self,  but  only  its  manifestations  in  thought,  is  to  confound 
self  with  its  thinking  and  to  teach  psychology  without'a  soul.  To  say  that  we  know 
no  external  world,  but  only  its  manifestations  in  sensations,  is  to  ignore  the  principle 
that  binds  these  sensations  together ;  for  without  a  somewhat  in  which  qualities inh<  re 
they  can  have  no  ground  of  unity.    In  like  manner,  to  say  that  we  know  nothing  of 


6  PROLEGOMENA. 

God  but  his  manifestations,  is  to  confound  God  with  the  world  and  practicaJly  to  deny 
that  there  is  a  God. 

Stiihlin,  in  his  work  on  Kant,  Lotze  and  Ritschl,  186-191,218,  219,  says  well  that  "limita- 
tion of  knowledge  to  phenomena  involves  the  elimination  from  theology  of  all  claim 
to  know  the  objects  of  the  Christian  faith  as  they  are  in  themselves."  This  criticism 
justly  classes  Ritschl  with  Kant,  rather  than  with  Lotze  who  maintains  that  knowing 
phenomena  we  know  also  the  noumena  manifested  in  them.  While  Ritschl  professes 
to  follow  Lotze,  the  whole  drift  of  his  theology  is  in  the  direction  of  the  Kant'an 
identification  of  the  world  with  our  sensations,  mind  with  our  thoughts,  and  God  with 
such  activities  of  his  as  we  can  perceive.  A  divine  nature  apart  from  its  activities,  a 
preexistent  Christ,  an  immanent  Trinity,  are  practically  denied.  Assertions  that  God 
is  self-conscious  love  and  fatherhood  become  judgments  of  merely  subjective  value. 
On  Ritschl,  seethe  works  of  Orr,  of  Garvie,  and  of  Swing;  also  Minton,  in  Pres.  and 
Ret'.  Rev.,  Jan.  1902:  1(52-109,  and  C.  W.  Hodge,  il>iil.,  Apl.  1902  :  321-320;  Flint,  Agnosti- 
cism, 590-597;  Everett,  Essays  Tlieol.  and  Lit.,  92-99. 

We  grant  that  we  can  know  God  only  so  far  as  his  activities  reveal  him,  and  so  far  as 
our  minds  and  lie-arts  are  receptive  of  his  revelation.  The  appropriate  faculties  must 
be  exercised — not  the  mathematical,  the  logical,  or  the  prudential,  but  the  ethical  ami 
the  religious.  It  is  the  merit  of  Ritschl  that  he  recognizes  the  practical  in  distinction 
from  the  speculative  reason  ;  his  error  is  in  not  recognizing  that,  when  we  do  thus  use 
the  proper  powers  of  knowing,  we  gain  not  merely  subjective  but  also  objective  truth, 
and  come  in  contact  not  simply  with  God's  activities  but  also  with  God  himself.  Normal 
religious  judgments,  though  dependent  upon  subjective  conditions,  are  not  simply 
"■judgments  of  worth  "  or  "  value-judgments," — they  give  us  the  knowledge  of  "things 
in  themselves."  Edward  Caird  says  of  his  brother  John  Caird  (Fund.  Ideas  of  Chris- 
tianity, Introd.  exxi)  —  "The  conviction  that  God  can  be  known  and  is  known,  and 
that,  in  the  deepest  sense,  all  our  knowledge  is  knowledge  of  him,  was  the  corner-stone 
of  1) is  theology." 

Ritsehl's  phenomenalism  is  allied  to  the  positivism  of  Comte,  who  regarded  all  so-called 
knowledge  of  other  than  phenomenal  objects  as  purely  negative.  The  phrase  "  Posi- 
tive Philosophy  "  implies  indeed  that  all  knowledge  of  mind  is  negative  ;  see  Comte, 
Pos.  Philosophy,  Martineau's  translation,  26,  28,  33 — "In  order  to  observe,  your  intel- 
lect must  pause  from  activity — yet  it  is  this  very  activity  you  want  to  observe.  If  you 
cannot  effect  the  pause,  you  cannot  observe ;  if  you  do  effect  it,  there  is  nothing  to 
observe."  This  view  is  refuted  by  the  two  facts :  (1)  consciousness,  and  (2)  memory; 
for  consciousness  is  the  knowing  of  the  self  side  by  side  with  the  knowing  of  its 
thoughts,  and  memory  is  the  knowing  of  the  self  side  by  side  with  the  knowing  of  its 
past;  see  Marline. in,  Essays  Philos.  and  Theol.,  1:  24-10,207-212.  By  phenomena  we 
mean  "facts,  in  distinction  from  their  ground,  principle,  or  law";  "neither  phenom- 
ena nor  qualities,  as  such,  are  perceived,  but  objects,  percepts,  or  beings;  audit  is 
by  an  after-thought  or  reflex  process  that  these  are  connected  as  qualities  and  arc 
referred  to  as  substances  "  ;  see  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  51,  238,  520,  619-637,  640-015. 

Phenomena  may  be  internal,  c.  r;.,  thoughts;  in  this  case  the  nouraenon  is  the  mind,  of 
which  these  thoughts  are  the  manifestations.  Or,  phenomena  may  be  external,  «.  g., 
color,  hardness,  shape,  size  ;  in  t  his  case  the  noumenon  is  matter,  of  which  these  qualities 
are  the  manifestations.  But  qualities,  whether  mental  or  material,  imply  the  existence 
of  a  substance  to  which  they  belong:  they  can  no  more  be  conceived  of  as  existing 
apart  from  substance,  than  the  upper  side  of  a  plank  can  bo  c  mceived  of  as  existing 
without  an  under  side;  see  Bowne,  Review  of  Herbert  .Spencer,  47,  207-217;  Martin* 
eau,  Types  of  Ethical  Theory,  1 ;  455,  456—"  Comte's  assumption  that  mind  cannot  know 
itself  or  its  states  is  exactly  balanced  by  Kant's  assumption  that  mind  cannot  know 
anything  outside  of  itself.  .  .  .  It  is  precisely  because  all  knowledge  is  of  relations 
that  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  of  phenomena  alone.  The  absolute  cannot  per  sc  be 
known,  because  in  being  known  it  would  ipso  facto  enter  into  relations  and  be  abso- 
lute no  more.  But  neither  can  the  phenomenal  per  se  be  known,  i.  c,  be  known  as 
phenomenal,  without  simultaneous  cognition  of  what  is  non-phenomenal."  MeCosh, 
Intuitions,  138-154,  states  the  characteristics  of  substance  as  (1)  being,  (2)  power,  (3) 
permanence.  Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  337,  363—"  The  theory  that  disproves  God, 
disproves  an  external  world  andthc  existence  of  the  soul."  We  know  something  beyond 
phenomena,  viz. :  law,  cause,  force,— or  we  can  have  no  science ;  see  Tulloeh,  on  Comte, 
in  Modern  Theories,  53-73;  see  aho  Bib.  Sac.,  1874:  211;  Alden,  Philosophy,  44;  Hop- 
kins, Outline  Study  of  Man,  87;  Fleming,  Vocab.  of  Philosophy,  art.:  Phenomena; 
New  Englander,  July,  1875:  5)7-539. 


POSSIBILITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  7 

B.  Because  we  can  know  only  that  which  bears  analogy  to  our  own 
nature  or  experience.  We  reply  :  (a)  It  is  not  essential  to  knowledge 
that  there  he  similarity  of  nature  between  the  knower  and  the  known. 
We  know  by  difference  as  well  as  by  likeness.  (6)  Our  past  experience, 
though  greatly  facilitating  new  acquisitions,  is  not  the  measure  of  our  pos- 
sible knowledge.  Else  the  first  act  of  knowledge  would  be  inexplicable, 
and  all  revelation  of  higher  characters  to  lower  would  be  precluded,  as  well 
as  all  progress  to  knowledge  which  surpasses  our  present  attainments, 
(c)  Even  if  knowledge  depended  upon  similarity  of  nature  and  experience, 
we  might  still  know  God,  since  Ave  are  made  in  God's  image,  and  there 
are  important  analogies  between  the  divine  nature  and  our  own. 

(a)  The  dictum  of  Empedocles,  "Similia  similibus  percipiuirtur,"  must  be  supple- 
mented by  a  second  diet  urn,  "Similia  dissimilibus  pereipiuntur."  All  things  are  alike, 
in  being  objects.  Hut  kiowiug  is  distinguishing-,  and  there  must  be  contrast 
between  objects  to  awaken  our  attention.  God  knows  sin,  though  it  is  the  antithesis 
to  his  holy  being.  The  ego  knows  the  non-ego.  We  cannot  know  even  self,  without 
objectifying  it,  distinguishing  it  from  its  thoughts,  and  regarding  it  as  another. 

(b)  Versus  Herbert  Spencer,  First  Principles,  T'J-n~—  "Knowledge  is  recognition  and 
classification."  But  we  reply  that  a  thing  must  first  be  perceived  in  order  to  be  recog- 
nized or  compared  with  something  else ;  and  this  is  as  true  of  the  first  sensation  as  of 
the  later  and  more  definite  forms  of  knowledge,— indeed  there  is  no  sensation  which 
does  not  involve,  as  its  complement,  an  at  least  incipient  perception ;  see  Sir  Wil- 
liam Hamilton,  Metaphysics,  351,  352 ;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  306. 

(e)  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  486 — "Induction  is  possible  only  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  intellect  of  man  is  a  rellex  of  the  divine  intellect,  or  that  man  is  made  in  the 
image  of  God."  Note,  however,  that  man  is  made  in  God's  image,  not  God  in  man's. 
The  painting  is  the  image  of  the  landscape,  not,  vice  versa,  the  landscape  the  image  of 
the  painting ;  for  there  is  much  in  the  landscape  that  has  nothing  corresponding  to 
it  in  the  painting.  Idolatry  perversely  makes  God  in  the  image  of  man,  and  so  deifies 
man's  weakness  and  impurity.  Trinity  in  God  may  have  no  exact  counterpart  in  man's 
present  constitution,  though  it  may  disclose  to  us  the  goal  of  man's  future  develop- 
ment and  the  meaning  of  the  increasing  differentiation  of  man's  powers.  Gore,  Incar- 
nation, 116— "If  anthropomorphism  as  applied  to  God  is  false,  yet  thcomorphism  as 
applied  to  man  is  true;  man  is  made  in  God's  image,  and  his  qualities  are,  not  the  meas- 
ure of  the  divine,  but  their  counterpart  and  real  expression."  See  Murphy,  Scientific 
Bases,  122;  MeCosh,  :n  Internat.  Rev.,  1875:  105;  Bib.  Sac,  1867:  624;  Martineau, 
Types  of  Ethical  Theory ,  2  :  4-8,  and  Study  of  Religion,  1 :  94. 

C.  Because  we  know  only  that  of  which  we  can  conceive,  in  the  sense 
of  forming  an  adequate  mental  image.  We  reply  :  (a)  It  is  true  that 
Ave  know  only  that  of  Avhich  we  can  conceive,  if  by  the  term  "conceive" 
Ave  mean  our  distinguishing  in  thought  the  object  known  from  all  other 
objects.  But,  ('/)  The  objection  confounds  conception  with  that  Avhich  is 
merely  its  occasional  acconq>animent  and  help,  namely,  the  picturing  of 
the  object  by  the  imagination.  In  this  sense,  conceivability  is  not  a  final 
t?st  of  truth,  (c)  That  the  formation  of  a  mental  image  is  not  essential 
to  conception  or  knowledge,  is  plain  Avhen  Ave  remember  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  we  both  conceive  and  know  many  things  of  which  Ave  cannot  form 
a  mental  image  of  any  sort  that  in  the  least  corresponds  to  the  reality  ;  for 
example,  force,  cause,  laAv,  space,  our  OAvn  minds.  So  we  may  know  God, 
though  Ave  cannot  form  an  adequate  mental  image  of  him. 

The  objection  here  refuted  is  expressed  most  clearly  in  the  words  of  Herbert  Spen- 
cer, First  Principles,  25-36,  98 — "The  reality  underlying  appearances  is  totally  and  for- 
ever inconceivable  by  us."  Mansel,  Prolegomena  Logica,  77,  78  (  cf.  26  )  suggests  the 
source  of  this  error  in  a  wrong  view  of  the  nature  of  the  concept:    "The  first  distin- 


8  PROLEGOMENA. 

guishing-  feature  of  a  concept,  viz.:  that  it  cannot  in  itself  be  depicted  to  sense  or 
imagination."  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  392  (see  also  429,  656)— "The  concept  is  not  a 
mental  image"— only  the  percept  is.  Lotze :  "  Color  in  general  is  not  representable  by 
any  image;  it  looks  neither  green  nor  red,  but  has  no  look  whatever."  The  generic 
horse  has  no  particular  color,  though  the  individual  horse  may  be  black,  white,  or 
bay.    So  Sir  William  Hamilton  speaks  of  "the  unpicturable  notions  of  the  intelligence." 

Martineau,  Religion  and  Materialism,  39,  40—"  This  doctrine  of  Nescience  stands  in 
exactly  the  same  relation  to  causal  power,  whether  you  construe  it  as  Material  Force 
or  as  Divine  Agency.  Neither  can  be  observed;  one  or  the  other  must  be  assumed.  If 
you  admit  to  the  categ-ory  of  knowledge  only  what  we  learn  from  observation,  par- 
ticular or  generalized,  then  is  Force  unknown;  if  you  extend  the  word  to  what  is 
imported  by  the  intellect  itself  into  our  cognitive  acts,  to  make  them  such,  then  is 
God  known."  Matter,  ether,  energy,  protoplasm,  organism,  life,— no  one  of  these  can 
be  portrayed  to  the  imagination;  yet  Mr.  Spencer  deals  with  thera  as  objects  of 
Science.  If  these  are  not  inscrutable,  why  should  he  regard  the  Power  that  gives 
unity  to  all  things  as  inscrutable  ? 

Herbert  Spencer  is  not  in  fact  consistent  with  himself,  for  in  divers  parts  of  his  writ- 
ings he  calls  the  inscrutable  Reality  back  of  phenomena  the  one,  eternal,  ubiquitous, 
infinite,  ultimate,  absolute  Existence,  Power  and  Cause.  "  It  seems,"  says  Father  Dal- 
gairns,  "that  a  great  deal  is  known  about  the  Unknowable."  Chad  wick,  Unitarianism, 
75—"  The  beggar  phrase  'Unknowable'  becomes,  after  Spencer's  repeated  designations 
of  it,  as  rich  as  Croesus  with  all  saving  knowledge."  Matheson :  "  To  know  that  we 
know  nothing  is  already  to  have  reached  a  fact  of  knowledge."  If  Mr.  Spencer 
intended  to  exclude  God  from  the  realm  of  Knowledge,  he  should  first  have  excluded 
him  from  the  realm  of  Existence;  for  to  grant  that  he  is,  is  already  to  grant  that  we 
not  only  may  know  him,  but  that  we  actually  to  some  extent  do  know  him  ;  see  D.  J. 
Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  23;  McCosh,  Intuitions,  186-189  (Eng.  ed..  214);  Murphy,  Scien- 
tific Bases,  133;  Bowne,  Review  of  Spencer,  30-34;  New  Englander,  July,  1875:  543,  544; 
Oscar  Craig,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  July,  1883 :  594-602. 

D.  Because  we  can  know  truly  only  that  which  we  know  in  whole  and 
not  in  part.  We  reply  :  («)  The  objection  confounds  partial  knowledge 
with  the  knowledge  of  a  part.  We  know  the  mind  in  part,  but  we  do 
not  know  a  part  of  the  mind,  (b)  If  the  objection  were  valid,  no  real 
knowledge  of  anything  would  be  possible,  since  we  know  no  single  thing 
in  all  its  relations.  We  conclude  that,  although  God  is  a  being  not  com- 
posed of  parts,  we  may  yet  have  a  partial  knowledge  of  him,  and  this 
knowledge,  though  not  exhaustive,  may  yet  be  real,  and  adequate  to  the 
purposes  of  science. 

(a)  The  objection  mentioned  in  the  text  is  urged  by  Mansel,  Limits  of  Religious 
Thought,  97,  98,  and  is  answered  by  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  291.  The  mind  does  not  exist 
in  space,  and  it  has  no  parts:  we  cannot  speak  of  its  south-west  corner,  nor  can  we 
divide  it  into  halves.  Yet  we  find  the  material  for  mental  science  in  partial  knowledge 
of  the  mind.  So,  while  we  are  not  "geographers  of  the  divine  nature"  (Bowne,  Review 
of  Spencer,  72),  we  may  say  with  Paul,  not  "now  know  we  a  part  of  God,"  but  "now  I 
know  [God,  in  part"  (1  Cor.  13 :  12).  We  may  know  truly  what  we  do  not  know  exhaustively; 
see  Eph.  3: 19— "to  know  the  love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowledge."  I  do  not  perfectly  understand 
myself,  yet  I  know  myself  in  part ;  so  I  may  know  God,  though  I  do  not  perfectly 
understand  him. 

(6)  The  same  argument  that  proves  God  unknowable  proves  the  universe  unknow- 
able also.  Since  every  particle  of  matter  in  the  universe  attracts  every  other,  no  one 
particle  can  be  exhaustively  explained  without  taking  account  of  all  the  rest.  Thomas 
Carlyle:  "It  is  a  mathematical  fact  that  the  casting  of  this  pebble  from  my  hand 
alters  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  universe."  Tennyson,  Higher  Pantheism:  "Flower 
in  the  crannied  wall,  I  pluck  you  out  of  the  crannies ;  Hold  you  here,  root  and  all,  in 
my  hand,  Little  flower;  but  if  I  could  understand  What  you  are,  root  and  all,  and 
all  in  all,  I  should  know  what  God  and  man  is."  Schurman,  Agnosticism,  119—"  Partial 
as  it  is,  this  vision  of  the  divine  transfigures  the  life  of  man  on  earth."  Pfleiderer,  Phi- 
los.  Religion,  1  :  167—"  A  faint-hearted  agnosticism  is  worse  than  the  arrogant  and 
titanic  gnosticism  against  which  it  protests." 


POSSIBILITY   OF   THEOLOGY.  '.I 

E.  Because  all  predicates  of  God  are  negative,  and  therefore  furnish 
no  real  knowledge.  We  answer  :  (a)  Predicates  derived  from  our  con- 
sciousness, such  as  spirit,  love,  an$  holiness,  are  positive.  (6)  The  terms 
"  infinite"  and  "absolute,"  moreover,  express  not  merely  a  negative  but  a 
positive  idea — the  idea,  in  the  former  case,  of  the  absence  of  all  limit,  the 
idea  that  the  object  thus  described  goes  on  and  on  forever  ;  the  idea,  in 
the  latter  case,  of  entire  self-sufficiency.  Since  predicates  of  God,  there- 
fore, are  not  merely  negative,  the  argument  mentioned  above  furnishes  no 
valid  reason  why  we  may  not  know7  him. 

Fergus Bir  William  Hamilton,  Metaphysics,  530— "The absolute  and  the  infinite  can 
each  only  be  conceived  as  a  negation  of  the  thinkable ;  in  other  words,  of  the  absolute 
and  infinite  we  have  no  conception  at  all."  Hamilton  here  confounds  the  infinite,  or 
the  absence  of  all  limits,  with  the  indefinite,  or  the  absence  of  all  known  limits.  Per 
contra,  see  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  248,  and  Philosophy  of  the  Infinite,  272— 
"Negation  of  one  thing-  is  possible  only  by  affirmation  of  another."  Porter,  Human 
Intellect,  652 — "If  the  Sandwich  Islanders,  for  lack  of  name,  had  called  the  ox  a  not- 
li»<j,  the  use  of  a  negative  appellation  would  not  necessarily  authorize  the  inference 
of  a  want  of  definite  conceptions  or  positive  knowledge."  So  with  the  infinite  or  not- 
finite,  the  unconditioned  or  not-conditioned,  the  independent  or  not-dependent, -- 
these  names  do  not  imply  that  we  cannot  conceive  and  know  it  as  something-  positive. 
Spcncei-,  First  Principles,  92— "Our  consciousness  of  the  Absolute,  indefinite  though 
it  is,  is  positive,  and  not  negative." 

Schurman,  Agnosticism,  100,  speaks  of  "the  farce  of  nescience  playing  at  omniscience 
in  setting  the  bounds  of  science."  "The  agnostic,"  he  says,  "sets  up  the  invisible  picture 
of  a  Grand  tltre,  formless  and  colorless  in  itself,  absolutely  separated  from  man  and 
from  the  world — blank  within  and  void  without^its  very  existence  indistinguish- 
able from  its  non-existence,  and,  bowing  down  before  this  idolatrous  creation,  he 
pours  out  his  soul  in  lamentations  over  the  incognizableness  of  such  a  mysterious  and 
awful  non-entity.  .  .  .  The  truth  is  that  the  agnostic's  abstraction  of  a  Deity  is 
unknown,  only  because  it  is  unreal."  See  McOosh,  Intuitions,  194,  note ;  Mivart,  Lessons 
from  Nature,  368.  God  is  not  necessarily  infinite  in  every  respect.  He  is  infinite  only 
in  every  excellence.  A  plane  which  is  unlimited  in  the  one  respect  of  length  may  be 
limited  in  anotherrespeel .  such  as  breadth.  Our  doctrine  here  is  not  therefore  incon- 
sistent with  what  immediately  follows. 

F.  Because  to  know  is  to  limit  or  define.  Hence  the  Absolute  as 
unlimited,  and  the  Infinite  as  undefined,  cannot  be  known.  We  answer  : 
(a)  God  is  absolute,  not  as  existing  in  no  relation,  but  as  existing  in  no 
necessary  relation;  and  (6)  God  is  infinite,  not  as  excluding  all  coexistence 
of  the  finite  with  himself,  but  as  being  the  ground  of  the  finite,  and  so 
unfettered  by  it.  (c)  God  is  actually  limited  by  the  unchangeablenessof  his 
own  attributes  and  personal  distinctions,  as  well  as  by  his  self-chosen 
relations  to  the  universe  he  has  created  and  to  humanity  in  the  person  of 
Christ.  God  is  therefore  limited  and  defined  in  such  a  sense  as  to  render 
knowledge  of  him  possible. 

Versus  Mansel,  Limitations  of  Religious  Thought,  75-84,  93-95;  cf.  Spinoza:  "Omnis 
determinatio  est  negatio ;  "  hence  to  define  God  is  to  deny  him.  But  we  reply  that 
perfection  is  inseparable  from  limitation.  Man  can  be  other  than  he  is  :  not  so  God, 
at  least  internally.  But  this  limitation,  inherent  in  his  unchangeable  attributes  and 
personal  distinctions,  is  God's  perfection.  Externally,  all  limitations  upon  God  are 
self-limitations,  and  so  are  consistent  with  his  perfection.  That  God  should  not  be 
able  thus  to  limit  himself  in  creation  and  redemption  would  render  all  self-sacrifice  in 
him  impossible,  and  so  would  subject  him  to  the  greatest  of  limitations.  We  may  say 
therefore  that  God's  1.  Perfection  involves  his  limitation  to  ( a )  personality,  ( b )  trinity, 
( c )  righteousness ;  2.  Revelation  involves  his  self-limitation  in  (a)  decree,  (b)  creation, 
(c)  preservation,  (d)  government,  (e)  education  of  the  world  ;    3.  Redemption  involves 


10  PROLEGOMENA. 

his  infinite  self-limitation  in  the  (a)  person  and  (b)  work  of  Jesus  Christ;  see  A.  H. 
Strong',  Christ  in  Creation,  87-101,  and  in  Bap.  Qnar.  Rev..  Jan.  1891 :  521-532. 

Bowno,  Philos.  of  Theism,  135— "The  infinite  is  not  the  quantitative  all ;  the  absolute 
is  not  the  unrelated  . . .  Both  absolute  and  infinite  mean  only  the  independent  ground 
of  thing's."  Julius  Midler,  Doct.  Sin,  Introduo.,  10— "Religion  has  to  do,  not  with  an 
Object  that  must  let  itself  be  known  because  its  very  existence  is  contingent  upon  its 
being  known,  but  with  the  Object  in  relation  to  whom  we  are  truly  subject,  dependent 
upon  him,  and  waiting  until  he  manifest  himself."  James  Martineau,  Study  of  Reli- 
gion, 1 :  346—"  We  must  not  confound  the  infinite  with  the  total. .  . .  The  self-abnegation 
of  infinity  is  but  a  form  of  self-assertion,  and  the  only  form  in  which  it  can  reveal 
itself.  .  .  .  However  instantaneous  the  omniscient  thought,  however  sure  the 
almighty  power,  the  execution  has  to  be  distributed  in  time,  and  must  have  an  order 
of  successive  steps;  on  no  other  terms  can  the  eternal  become  temporal,  and  the  infi- 
nite articulately  speak  in  the  finite." 

Perfect  personality  excludes,  not  self-determination,  but  determination  from  with- 
out, determination  by  another.  God's  self-limitations  are  the  self-limitations  of  love, 
and  therefore  the  evidences  of  his  perfection.  They  are  signs,  not  of  weakness  but  of 
power.  God  has  limited  himself  to  the  method  of  evolution,  gradually  unfolding  him- 
self in  nature  and  in  history.  The  government  of  sinners  by  a  holy  God  involves  con- 
stant self- repression.  The  education  of  the  race  is  along  process  of  divine  forbear- 
ance; Herder:  "  The  limitations  of  the  pupil  are  limitations  of  the  teacher  also."  In 
inspiration,  God  limits  himself  by  the  human  element  through  which  he  works. 
Above  all,  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  we  have  infinite  self-limitation :  Infinity 
narrows  itself  down  to  a  point  in  the  incarnation,  and  holiness  endures  the  agonies  of 
the  Cross.  God's  promises  are  also  self-limitations.  Thus  both  nature  and  grace  are 
self-imposed  restrictions  upon  God,  and  these  self-limitations  are  the  means  by  which 
he  reveals  himself.  See  Pfleiderer,  Die  Religion,  1 :  189, 195;  Porter,  Human  Intellect, 
C53;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases,  130;  Calderwood,  Philos.  Infinite,  168;  McCosh,,  Intui- 
tions, 186;  Hickok,  Rational  Cosmology,  85;  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  2:  85,  86, 362; 
Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  1 :  189-191. 

G.  Because  all  knowledge  is  relative  to  the  knowing  agent;  that  is, 
what  we  know,  we  know,  not  as  it  is  objectively,  but  only  as  it  is  related 
to  our  own  senses  and  faculties.  In  reply :  (a)  We  grant  that  we  can 
know  only  that  which  has  relation  to  our  faculties.  But  this  is  simply  to 
say  that  we  know  only  that  which  we  come  into  mental  contact  with,  that 
is,  we  know  only  what  Ave  know.  But,  (o)  We  deny  that  what  we  come 
into  mental  contact  with  is  known  by  us  as  other  than  it  is.  So  far  as  it  is 
known  at  all,  it  is  known  as  it  is.  In  other  words,  the  laws  of  our  knowing 
are  not  merely  arbitrary  and  regulative,  but  correspond  to  the  nature  of 
things.  We  conclude  that,  in  theology,  we  are  equally  warranted  in 
assuming  that  the  laws  of  our  thought  are  laws  of  God's  thought,  and  that 
the  results  of  normally  conducted  thinking  with  regard  to  God  correspond 
to  the  objective  reality. 

Versus  Sir  Win.  Hamilton,  Metaph.,  96-116,  and  Herbert  Spencer,  First  Principles, 
68-97.  This  doctrine  of  relativity  is  derived  from  Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  who 
holds  that  a  priori  judgments  are  simply  "regulative."  But  we  reply  that  when  our 
primitive  beliefs  are  found  to  be  simply  regulative,  they  will  cease  to  regulate. 
The  forms  of  thought  are  also  facts  of  nature.  The  mind  does  not,  like  the  glass  of  a 
kaleidoscope,  itself  furnish  the  forms ;  it  recognizes  these  as  having  an  existence  exter- 
nal to  itself.  The  mind  reads  its  ideas,  not  into  nature,  but  in  nature.  Our  intuitions 
are  not  green  goggles,  which  make  all  the  world  seem  greeu :  they  are  the  lenses  of  a 
microscope,  which  enable  us  to  see  what  is  objectively  real  (Royce,  Spirit  of  Mod. 
Philos.,  125).  Kant  called  our  understanding  "the  legislator  of  nature."  But  it  is  so, 
only  as  discoverer  of  nature's  laws,  not  as  creator  of  them.  Human  reason  does 
impose  its  laws  and  forms  upon  the  universe ;  but,  in  doing  this,  it  interprets  the  real 
meaning  of  the  universe. 

Ladd,  Philos.  of  Knowledge  :    "All  judgment  implies  an  objective  truth  according 


POSSIBILITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  11 

to  which  we  judge, -which  constitutes  the  standard,  and  with  which  we  have  some- 
thing in  common,  i.  6.,  ourmindsare  part  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  Mind."  French 
aphorism:  "  When  you  are  right,  you,  are  more  right  than  you  think  you  arc."  God 
will  not  put  us  to  permanent  intellectual  confusion.  Kant  vainly  wrote  "No 
thoroughfare  "  over  the  reason  in  its  highest  excrci.se.  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion, 
1:135,  136 — "  Over  against  Kant's  assumption  that  the  mind  cannot  know  anything  out- 
side of  itself,  we  may  set  Comte's  equally  unwarrantable  assumption  that  the  mind 
cannot  know  itself  or  its  states.  We  cannot  have  philosophy  without  assumptions. 
You  dogmatize  if  you  say  that  the  forms  correspond  with  reality;  but  5'ou  equally 
dogmatize  if  you  say  that  they  do  not.  .  .  .  79 — That  our  cognitive  faculties  corres- 
pond to  things  as  tin  n  are,  is  much  less  surprising  than  that  they  should  correspond  to 
thinga  as  they  are  not."  W.  T.  Harris,  inJourn.  Spec.  Philos.,  1:22,  exposes  Herbert 
Silencer's  self-contradiction:  "All  knowledge  is,  not  absolute,  but  relative;  our 
knowledge  of  this  fact  however  is,  not  relative,  but  absolute." 

Ritschl,  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  8 :  16-81,  sets  out  with  a  correct  statement 
of  the  nature  of  knowledge,  and  gives  in  his  adhesion  to  the  doctrine  of  Lotze,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  that  of  Kant,  liitschl's  statement  may  lie  summarized  as  follows: 
"  We  deal,  not  with  the  abstract  God  of  metaphysics,  but  with  the  God  self-limited, 
who  is  revealed  in  Christ.  We  do  not  know  either  things  or  God  <ii>nrt  from  their 
phenomena  or  manifestations,  as  Plato  imagined  :  we  do  not  know  phenomena  or  man- 
ifestations alone,  without  knowing  either  things  or  God,  as  Kani  supposed  ;  but  we  do 
know  both  things  and  Cod  in  their  phenomena  or  manifestations,  as  Lotze  taught. 
We  hold  to  no  mystical  union  with  God,  back  of  all  experience  in  religion,  as  Pietism 
does  ;  soul  is  always  and  only  active,  and  religion  is  the  activity  of  the  human  spirit,  in 
which  feeling,  knowing  ami  willing  combine  in  an  intelligible  order." 

But  Dr.  C.  M.  Mead,  liitschl's  Place  in  the  History  of  Doctrine,  has  well  shown  that 
Hitschl  has  not  followed  Lotze.  His " value- judgments "  are  simply  an  application  to 
theology  of  the  "  regulative  "  principle  of  Kant.  He  holds  that  we  can  know  things 
not  as  they  are  in  themselves,  but  only  as  they  are  for  us.  We  reply  thai  what  things 
are  worth  for  US  depends  on  what  they  are  in  themselves.  Ritschl  regards  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ's  precxistence,  divinity  and  atonement  as  intrusions  of  metaphysics 
into  theology,  matters  about  which  we  cannot  know,  and  with  which  we  have  nothing 
to  do.  There  is  no  propitiation  or  mystical  union  with  Christ;  and  Christ  is  our 
Kxamplc,  but  not  our  atoning  Savior.  Ritschl  does  well  in  recognizing  that  love  in 
us  gives  eyes  to  the  mind,  and  enables  us  to  see  the  beauty  of  Christ  and  his  truth. 
But  our  judgment  is  not,  as  he  holds,  a  merely  subjective  value-judgment, —  it  is  a 
coming  in  contact  with  objective  fact.  On  the  theory  of  knowledge  held  by  Kant, 
Hamilton  and  Spencer,  see  Bishop  Temple,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1884:  13;  H.  B. 
Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  297-33(5;  J.  S.  Mill,  Examination,  1:  113-134;  Herbert, 
Modern  Realism  Examined;  M.  15.  Anderson,  art.:  "  Hamilton,"  in  Johnson's  Encyclo- 
pedia; MCCosh,  Intuitions,  139-146,  340,  311,  and  Christianity  and  Positivism,  9T-123; 
Maurice,  what  is  Revelation?  Alden,  Intellectual  Philosophy,  48-79,  esp.  71-79;  Por- 
ter, Hum.  Intellect,  5:.':;;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases,  103;  Bib.  Sac.  April,  1808 :  341; 
Princeton  Rev.,  1861:  122;  Bowne,  Review  of  Herbert  Spencer,  70;  Bowen,  in  Prince- 
ton Rev.,  March,  1878:  445-148;  Mind,  April,  1878:  257;  Carpenter,  Mental  Physiology, 
117  ;  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  109-113;  Iverach,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  5  :  No.  29; 
Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  1:  79,  l-'0,  121,  135,  136. 

3.  In  God's  actual  revelation  of  himself  and  certain  of  these  rela- 
tions.— As  we  do  not  in  this  place  attempt  a  positive  proof  of  God's  exist- 
ence or  of  man's  capacity  for  the  knowledge  of  God,  so  we  do  not  now 
attempt  to  prove  that  God  has  brought  himself  into  contact  with  man's 
mind  by  revelation.  We  shall  consider  the  grounds  of  this  belief  here- 
after. Our  aim  at  present  is  simply  to  show  that,  granting  the  fact  of 
revelation,  a  scientific  theology  is  possible.  This  has  been  denied  upon 
the  following  grounds  : 

A.  That  revelation,  as  a  making  known,  is  necessarily  internal  and 
subjective  —  either  a  mode  of  intelligence,  or  a  quickening  of  man's  cog- 
nitive powers — and  hence  can  furnish  no  objective  facts  such  as  constitute 
the  proper  material  for  ;  cience. 


12  PROLEGOMENA. 

Morell,  Philos.  Religion,  128-1:31,  1 43— "The  Bible  cannot  in  strict  accuracy  of  lan- 
guage be  called  a  revelation,  since  a  revelation  always  implies  an  actual  process  of 
intelligence  in  a  living  mind."  F.  W.  Newman,  Phases  of  Faith,  l.VJ— "  Of  our  moral 
and  spiritual  God  we  know  nothing  without — everything  within."  Theodore  Parker: 
"Verbal  revelation  can  never  communicate  a  simple  idea  like  that  of  God,  Justice, 
Love,  Religion  "  ;  see  review  of  Parker  in  Bib.  Sac,  18  :  24-27.  James  Martineau,  Seat 
of  Authority  in  Religion  :  "As  many  minds  as  there  are  that  know  God  at  first  hand, 
so  many  revealing  acts  there  have  been,  and  as  many  as  know  him  at  second  hand  are 
strangers  to  revelation  " ;  so,  assuming  external  revelation  to  be  impossible,  Martin- 
eau subjects  all  the  proofs  of  such  revelation  to  unfair  destructive  criticism.  Pfleid- 
erer,  Philos.  Religion,  1:  185—  "As  all  revelation  is  originally  an  -inner  living  experience, 
the  springing  up  of  religious  truth  in  the  heart,  no  external  event  can  belong  in  itself 
to  revelation,  no  matter  whether  it  be  naturally  or  supernaturally  brought  about." 
Professor  George  M.  Forbes:  "Nothing  can  be  revealed  to  us  which  we  do  not  grasp 
with  our  reason.  It  follows  that,  so  far  as  reason  acts  normally,  it  is  a  part  of  revela- 
tion." Ritchie,  Darwin  and  Hegel,  30— "The  revelation  of  God  is  the  growth  of  the 
idea  of  God." 

In  reply  to  this  objection,   urged  mainly  by  idealists  in  philosophy, 

(a)  We  grant  that  revelation,  to  be  effective,  must  be  the  means  of 
inducing  a  new  mode  of  intelligence,  or  in  other  words,  must  be  under- 
stood. We  grant  that  this  understanding  of  divine  things  is  impossible 
without  a  quickening  of  man's  cognitive  powers.  We  grant,  moreover, 
that  revelation,  when  originally  imparted,  was  often  internal  and 
subjective. 

Matheson,  Moments  on  the  Mount,  51-";:!,  on  Gal.  1:  16 — "  to  reveal  his  Son  In  me "  :  "The 
revelation  on  the  way  to  Damascus  would  not  have  enlightened  Paul,  had  it  been 
merely  a  vision  to  his  eye.  Nothing  can  be  revealed  to  us  which  has  not  been  revealed 
in  us.  The  eye  does  not  see  the  beauty  of  the  landscape,  nor  the  ear  hear  the  beauty 
of  music.  So  flesh  and  blood  do  not  reveal  Christ  to  us.  Without  the  teaching  of 
the  Spirit,  the  external  facts  will  be  only  like  the  letters  of  a  book  to  a  child  that  can- 
not read."  We  may  say  with  Channing  :  "  I  am  more  sure  that  my  rational  nature  is 
from  God,  than  that  any  book  is  the  expression  of  his  will." 

(b)  But  we  deny  that  external  revelation  is  therefore  useless  or  impos- 
sible. Even  if  religious  ideas  sprang  wholly  from  within,  an  external  rev- 
elation might  stir  up  the  dormant  powers  of  the  mind.  Religious  ideas, 
however,  do  not  spring  wholly  from  within.  External  revelation  can 
impart  them.  Man  can  reveal  himself  to  man  by  external  communica- 
tions, and,  if  God  has  equal  power  with  man,  God  can  reveal  himself  to 
man  iu  like  manner. 

Rogers,  in  his  Eclipse  of  Faith,  asks  pointedly:  "If  Messrs.  Morell  and  Newman 
can  teach  by  a  book,  cannot  God  do  the  same?  "  Lotze,  Microcosmos,  2:  660  (book  9, 
chap.  4),  speaks  of  revelation  as  "either  contained  in  some  divine  act  of  historic 
occurrence,  or  continually  repeated  in  men's  hearts."  But  in  fact  there  is  no  alter- 
native here;  the  strength  of  the  Christian  creed  is  that  God's  revelation  is  both 
external  and  internal ;  see  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  33S.  Rainy,  in  Critical  Review,  1 :  1-21, 
well  says  that  Martineau  unwarrantably  Isolates  the  witness  of  God  to  the  individual 
soul.  The  inward  needs  to  be  combined  with  the  outward,  iu  order  to  make  sure  that 
it  is  not  a  vagary  of  the  imagination.  We  need  to  distinguish  God's  revelations  from 
our  own  fancies.  Hence,  before  giving  the  internal,  God  commonly  gives  us  the 
external,  as  a  standard  by  which  to  try  our  impressions.  We  are  finite  and  sinful, 
and  we  need  authority.  The  external  revelation  commends  itself  as  authoritative  to 
the  heart  which  recognizes  its  own  spiritual  needs.  External  authority  evokes  the 
inward  witness  and  gives  added  clearness  to  it,  but  only  historical  revelation  furnishes 
indubitable  proof  that  God  is  love,  and  gives  us  assurance  that  our  longings  after 
God  are  not  in  vain. 


POSSIBILITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  13 

(c)  Hence  God's  revelation  may  be,  and,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  it  is, 
in  great  part,  an  external  revelation  in  works  and  words.  The  universe  is 
a  revelation  of  God  ;  God's  works  in  nature  precede  God's  words  in  history. 
We  claim,  moreover,  that,  in  many  eases  where  truth  was  originally  com- 
municated internally,  the  same  Spirit  who  communicated  it  has  brought 
about  an  external  record  of  it,  so  that  the  internal  revelation  might  be 
handed  down  to  others  than  those  who  first  received  it. 

We  must  not  limit  rcv<  lat  ion  tot  lie  Scriptures.  The  eternal  Word  antedated  the  written 
word,  and  through  the  eternal  Word  God  is  made  known  in  nature  and  in  history.  Inter- 
nal revelation  is  preceded  by,  and  conditioned  upon,  external  revelation.  In  point  of 
time  earth  comes  before  man,  and  sensation  before  perception.  Action  best  expresses 
character,  and  historic  revelation  is  more  by  deeds  than  by  words.  Dorner,  Hist.  Prot. 
Tbeol.,  1:  831-264— "The  Word  is  not  in  the  Scriptures  alone.  The  whole  creation 
reveals  the  Word.  In  nature  God  shows  his  power;  in  incarnation  his  grace  and  truth. 
Scripture  testifies  of  these,  but.  Scripture  is  not  the  essential  Word.  The  Scripture 
is  truly  apprehended  and  appropriated  when  in  it  and  t  hrougb  it  we  see  the  living  and 
present  Christ.  It  does  not  bind  men  to  itself  alone,  but  it  points  them  to  the  Chris! 
of  whom  it  testifies.  Christ  is  the  authority.  In  the  Scriptures  he  points  us  to  him- 
self and  demands  our  faith  in  him.  This  faith,  once  begotten,  leads  us  to  new  appro- 
priation of  Scripture,  bul  also  to  new  criticism  of  Scripture.  We  find  Christ  more 
and  more  in  Scripture,  and  yet  we  judge  Scripture  more  and  more  by  the  standard 
which  we  find  in  Christ." 

Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics,  71-^:':  '"There  is  but  one  authority— Christ.  His 
Spirit  works  in  many  ways,  bul  chiefly  in  two  :  first,  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  secondly,  the  leading  of  the  church  into  the  truth.  The  latter  is  not  to  be  isolated 
or  separated  from  the  former.  Scripture  is  law  to  the  Christian  consciousness,  and 
Christian  consciousness  in  time  becomes  law  to  i  he  Script  ure  interpreting,  criticizing, 
verifying  it.  The  word  and  the  spirit  answer  to  each  other.  Scripture  and  faith  are  coor- 
dinate. Protestantism  has  exaggerated  the  fust;  Romanism  the  second.  Martineau 
fails  to  grasp  the  coordination  of  Scripture  and  faith." 

(d)  With  this  external  record  we  shall  also  see  that  there  is  given 
under  proper  conditions  a  special  influence  of  God's  Spirit,  so  to  quicken 
our  cognitive  powers  that  the  external  record  reproduces  in  oar  minds  the 
ideas  with  which  the  minds  of  the  writers  were  at  first  divinely  filled. 

We  may  illustrate  the  need  of  internal  revelation  from  Egyptology,  which  is  impos- 
sible so  long  as  the  external  revelation  in  the  hieroglyphics  is  uninterpreted  ;  from  the 
ticking  of  the  clock  in  a  dark  room,  where  only  the  lit  caudle  enables  us  to  tellthetime; 
from  the  landscape  spread  out  around  the  Rigi  in  Switzerland,  invisible  until  the  first 
rays  of  the  sun  touch  the  snowy  mountain  peaks.  External  revelation  (^are'pwo-t?,  Rom.  1 :  19, 
20)  must  be  supplemented  by  internal  revelation  (aTroKaAv^or,  l  Cor.  2:  10,  12).  Christ  is  the 
organ  of  external,  the  Holy  Spirit  the  organ  of  internal,  revelation.  In  Christ  (2  Cor.  1 : 
20)  are  "the  yea"  and  "the  Amen"— the  objective  certainty  and  the  subjective  certitude, 
the  reality  and  the  realization. 

Objective  certainty  must  become  subjective  certitude  in  order  to  a  scientific 
theology.  Before  conversion  we  have  the  first,  the  external  truth  of  Christ ;  only  at  con- 
version and  after  conversion  do  we  have  thesecond,  "  Christ  formed  in  us"  (Gal.  4:19).  We  have 
objective  revelation  at  Sinai  (Ei.  20:  22) ;  subjective  revelation  in  Elisha's  knowledge  of 
(ieliazi  (2  K.  5:26).  James  Russell  Lowell,  Winter  Evening  Hymn  to  my  Fire:  " There- 
fore with  thee  I  love  to  read  Our  brave  old  poets:  at  thy  touch  how  stirs  Life  in  the 
withered  words !  how  swift  recede  Time's  shadows!  and  how  glows  again  Through  its 
dead  mass  the  incandescent  verse.  As  when  upon  the  anvil  of  the  brain  It  glittering 
lay,  cyclopically  wrought  By  the  fast  throbbing  hammers  of  the  poet's  thought!" 

(e)  Internal  revelations  thus  recorded,  and  external  revelations  thus 
interpreted,  both  furnish  objective  facts  which  may  serve  as  proper  mater- 
ial for  science.  Although  revelation  iti  its  widest  sense  may  include,  and 
as  constituting  the  ground  of  the  possibility  of  theology  does  include,  both 


14  PROLEGOMENA. 

insight  and  illumination,  it  may  also  be  used  to  denote  simply  a  pro- 
vision of  the  external  means  of  knowledge,  and  theology  has  to  do  with 
inward  revelations  only  as  they  are  expressed  in,  or  as  they  agree  with, 
this  objective  standard. 

We  have  here  suggested  the  vast  scope  and  yet  the  insuperable  limitations  of  the- 
ology. So  far  as  God  is  revealed,  whether  in  nature,  history,  conscience,  or  Scripture, 
theology  may  find  material  for  its  structure.  Since  Christ  is  not  simply  the  incarnate 
Son  of  God  but  also  the  eternal  Word,  the  only  Revealer  of  God,  there  is  no  theology 
apart  from  Christ,  and  all  theology  is  Christian  theology.  Nature  and  history  are  but 
the  dimmer  and  more  general  disclosures  of  the  divine  Being,  of  which  the  Cross  is 
the  culmination  and  the  key.  God  does  not  intentionally  conceal  himself.  He  wishes 
to  be  known.  He  reveals  himself  at  all  times  just  as  fully  as  the  capacity  of  his  crea- 
tures will  permit.  The  infantile  intellect  cannot  understand  God's  boundlessness,  nor 
can  the  perverse  disposition  understand  God's  disinterested  affection.  Yet  all  truth  is 
in  Christ  and  is  open  to  discovery  by  the  prepared  mind  and  heart. 

The  Infinite  One,  so  far  as  he  is  unrevealed,  is  certainly  unknowable  to  the  finite.  But 
the  Infinite  One,  so  far  as  he  manifests  himself,  is  knowable.  This  suggests  the  mean- 
ing of  the  declarations:  John  1 :  18— " No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him  "  ;  14 :  9  —  "  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father " ;  1  Tim.  6 :  16 
—"whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see."  We  therefore  approve  of  the  definition  of  Kaftan, 
Dogmatik,  1—"  Dogmatics  is  the  science  of  the  Christian  truth  which  is  believed  and 
acknowledged  in  the  church  upon  the  ground  of  the  divine  revelation  "—in  so  far  as  it 
limits  the  scope  of  theology  to  truth  revealed  by  God  and  apprehended  by  faith.  But 
theology  presupposes  both  God's  external  and  God's  internal  revelations,  and  these,  as 
we  shall  see,  include  nature,  history,  conscience  and  Scripture.  On  the  whole  subject, 
see  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3:  37-43;  Nitzsch,  System  Christ.  Doct.,  72;  Luthardt,  Fund. 
Truths,  193 ;  Auberlen,  Div.  Rev.,  Introd.,  29  ;  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  171,  280 ;  Bib.  Sac, 
18(17:  593,  and  1872:  428;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  373-375;  C.  M.  Mead,  in  Boston  Lec- 
tures, 1871 :  58. 

B.  That  many  of  the  truths  thus  revealed  are  too  indefinite  to  consti- 
tute the  material  for  science,  because  they  belong  to  the  region  of  the  feel- 
ings, because  they  are  beyond  our  full  understanding,  or  because  they  are 
destitute  of  orderly  arrangement. 

We  reply  : 

(a)  Theology  has  to  do  with  subjective  feelings  only  as  they  can  be 
defined,  and  shown  to  be  effects  of  objective  truth  upon  the  mind.  They 
are  not  more  obscure  than  are  the  facts  of  morals  or  of  psychology,  and  the 
same  objection  which  would  exclude  such  feelings  from  theology  would 
make  these  latter  sciences  impossible. 

See  Jacobi  and  Schleiermacher,  who  regard  theology  as  a  mere  account  of  devout 
Christian  feelings,  the  grounding  of  which  in  objective  historical  facts  is  a  matter  of 
comparative  indifference  (Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2:401-403).  Schleiermacher 
therefore  called  his  system  of  theology  "  Der  Christliche  Glaube,"  and  many  since  his 
time  have  called  their  systems  by  the  name  of  "  Glaubenslehre."  Kitschl's  "value- 
judgments,"  in  like  manner,  render  theology  a  merely  subjective  science,  if  any 
subjective  science  is  possible.  Kaftan  improves  upon  Ritschl,  by  granting  that  we 
know,  not  only  Christian  feelings,  but  also  Christian  facts.  Theology  is  the  science  of 
God,  and  not  simply  the  science  of  faith.  Allied  to  the  view  already  mentioned  is  that 
of  Icueibach,  to  whom  religion  is  a  matter  of  subjective  fancy;  and  that  of  Tyndall, 
who  would  remit  theology  to  the  region  of  vague  feeling  and  aspiration,  but  would 
exclude  it  from  the  realm  of  science;  see  Feuerbach,  Essence  of  Christianity,  trans- 
lated by  Marian  Evans  (George  Eliot) ;  also  Tyndall,  Belfast  Address. 

(b)  Those  facts  of  revelation  which  are  beyond  our  full  understanding  may, 
like  the  nebular  hypothesis  in  astronomy,  the  atomic  theory  in  chemistry, 
or  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  biology,  furnish  a  principle  of  union  between 


NECESSITY    OF   THEOLOGY.  15 

great  classes  of  other  facts  otherwise  irreconcilable.     We  may  define  our 

concepts  of  God,  and  even  of  the  Trinity,  at  least  sufficiently  to  distinguish 

them  from  all  other  concepts ;  and  whatever  difficulty  may  encumber  the 

putting  of  them  into  language  only  shows  the  importance  of  attempting  it 

and  the  value  of  even  an  approximate  success. 

Horace  Bushnell :  "Theology  can  never  be  a  science,  on  account  of  the  infirmities  of 
language."  But  this  principle  would  render  void  botli  ethical  and  political  science. 
Fisher,  Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Revelation,  145—"  Hume  and  Gibbon  refer  to  faith  as  some- 
thing too  sacred  to  rest  on  proof.  Thus  religious  beliefs  are  made  to  hang  in  mid-air, 
without  any  support.  But  the  foundation  of  these  beliefs  is  no  less  solid  for  the  rea- 
son that  empirical  tests  are  not  applicable  to  them.  The  data  on  which  they  rest  are  real, 
and  the  inferences  from  the  data  are  fairly  drawn."  Hodgson  indeed  pours  contempt 
on  the  whole  intuitional  method  by  saying:  "  Whatever  you  are  totally  ignorant  of, 
assert  to  be  the  explanation  of  everything  else  !  "  Yet  he  would  probably  grant  that 
he  begins  his  investigations  by  assuming  his  own  existence.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  not  wholly  comprehensible  by  us,  and  we  accept  it  at  the  first  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Scripture  ;  the  full  proof  of  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  each  successive  doc- 
trine of  theology  is  bound  up  with  it,  and  witli  it  stands  or  falls.  The  Trinity  is  rational 
because  it  explains  Chrisl  ian  experience  as  well  as  Christian  doctrine. 

(c)  Even  though  there  were  no  orderly  arrangement  of  these;  facts,  either 
in  nature  or  in  Scripture,  an  accurate  systematizing  of  them  by  the  human 
mind  would  not  therefore  be  proved  impossible,  unless  a  principle  were 
assumed  which  would  show  all  physical  science  to  be  equally  impossible. 
Astronomy  and  geology  are  constructed  by  putting  together  multitudinous 
facts  which  at  first  sight  seem  to  have  no  order.  So  with  theology.  And 
yet,  although  revelation  does  not  present  to  us  a  dogmatic  system  ready- 
made,  a  dogmatic  system  is  not  only  implicitly  contaiued  therein,  but  parts 
of  the  system  are  wrought  out  in  the  epistles  of  the  Xew  Testament,  as  for 
example  in  Kom.  5  :  12-19  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  3,  4  ;  8  :  G ;  1  Tim.  3:16;  Heb.  6 : 
1,  2. 

We  may  illustrate  the  construction  of  theology  from  the  dissected  map,  two  pieces 
of  which  a  father  puts  together,  leaving  his  child  to  put  together  the  rest.  Or  we  may 
illustrate  from  the  physical  universe,  which  to  the  unthinking  reveals  little  of  its  order. 
"  Nature  makes  no  fences."  One  thing  seems  to  glide  into  another.  It  is  man's  busi- 
ness to  distinguish  and  classif.v  and  combine.  Origen  :  "God  gives  us  truth  in  single 
threads,  which  we  must  weave  into  a  finished  texture."  Andrew  Fuller  said  of  the 
doctrines  of  theology  that  "they  are  united  together  like  chain-shot,  so  that,  which- 
ever one  enters  the  heart,  the  others  must  certainly  follow."  George  Herbert:  "Oh 
that  I  knew  how  all  thy  lights  combine,  And  the  configuration  of  their  glory;  Seeing 
not  only  how  each  verse  doth  shine,  But  all  the  constellations  of  the  story  !  " 

Scripture  hints  at  the  possibilities  of  combination,  in  Rom.  5 :  12-19,  with  its  grouping  of 
the  facts  of  sin  and  salvation  about  the  two  persons,  Adam  and  Christ ;  in  Rom.  4  :  24,25, 
with  its  linking  Of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  our  justification  ;  in  1  Cor.  8  :  6,  with  its 
indication  of  the  relations  between  the  Father  and  Christ ;  in  1  Tim.  3:  16,  with  its  poetical 
summary  of  the  facts  of  redemption  (see  Commentaries  of  DeWette,  Meyer,  Fair- 
bairn);  in  Heb.  6:  1,  2,  with  its  statement  of  the  first  principles  of  the  Christian  faith. 
God's  furnishing  of  concrete  facts  in  theology,  which  we  ourselves  are  left  to  system- 
atize, is  in  complete  accordance  with  his  method  of  procedure  with  regard  to  the 
development  of  other  sciences.  See  Martineau,  Essays,  1  :  29,  40;  Am.  Theol.  Rev., 
1859:  101-126  — art.  on  the  Idea,  Sources  and  Uses  of  Christian  Theology. 

IV.     Necessity. — The  necessity  of  theology  has  its  grounds 

(a)    In  the  organizing  instinct <>f  the  human  mind.     This  organizing 

principle  is  a  part  of  our  constitution.     The  mind  cannot  endure  confusion 

or  apparent  contradiction  in  known   facts.     The   tendency   to   harmonize 

and  unify  its  knowledge  appears  as  soon  as  the  mind  becomes  reflective; 


16  PROLEGOMENA. 

just  in  proportion  to  its  endowments  and  culture  does  the  impulse  to  sys- 
tematize and  formulate  increase.  This  is  true  of  all  departments  of  human 
inquiry,  but  it  is  peculiarly  true  of  our  knowledge  of  God.  Since  the  truth 
with  regard  to  God  is  the  most  important  of  all,  theology  meets  the  deepest 
want  of  man's  rational  nature.  Theology  is  a  rational  necessity.  If  all 
existing  theological  systems  were  destroyed  to-day,  new  systems  would  rise 
to-morrow.  So  inevitable  is  the  operation  of  this  law,  that  those  who  most 
decry  theology  show  nevertheless  that  they  have  made  a  theology  for  them- 
selves, and  often  one  sufficiently  meagre  and  blundering.  Hostility  to 
theology,  where  it  does  not  originate  in  mistaken  fears  for  the  corruption 
of  God's  truth  or  in  a  naturally  illogical  structure  of  mind,  often  proceeds 
from  a  license  of  speculation  which  cannot  brook  the  restraints  of  a  com- 
plete Scriptural  system. 

President  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Every  man  has  as  much  theology  as  he  can  hold."  Con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  we  philosophize,  as  naturally  as  we  speak  prose.  "Be 
moquer  de  la  philosophie  c'est  vraiment  philosopher."  Gore,  Incarnation,  21—"  Chris- 
tianity became  metaphysical,  only  because  man  is  rational.  This  rationality  means  that 
he  must  attempt '  to  give  account  of  thing's,'  as  Plato  said, '  because  he  was  a  man,  not 
merely  because  he  was  a  Greek.' "  Men  often  denounce  systematic  theology,  while 
they  extol  the  sciences  of  matter.  Has  God  then  left  only  the  facts  with  regard  to  him- 
self in  so  unrelated  a  state  that  man  cannot  put  them  tog-ether  ?  All  other  sciences  are 
valuable  only  as  they  contain  or  promote  the  knowledg-e  of  God.  If  it  is  praiseworthy 
to  classify  beetles,  one  science  may  be  allowed  to  reason  concerning'  God  and  the  soul. 
In  speaking-  of  Schelling,  Royce,  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  173,  satirically  exhorts 
us:  "Trust  your  genius;  follow  your  noble  heart;  change  your  doctrine  whenever 
your  heart  changes,' and  change  your  heart  often,— such  is  the  practical  creed  of  the 
romanticists."  Ritchie,  Darwin  and  Hegel,  3—"  Just  those  persons  who  disclaim  meta- 
physics are  sometimes  most  apt  to  be  infected  with  the  disease  they  profess  to  abhor— 
and  not  to  know  when  they  have  it."  See  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  27-52;  Mur- 
phy, Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  195-199. 

(6)  In  the  relation  of  systematic  truth  to  the  development  of  charac- 
ter. Truth  thoroughly  digested  is  essential  to  the  growth  of  Christian 
character  in  the  individual  and  in  the  church.  All  knowledge  of  God  has 
its  influence  upon  character,  but  most  of  aU  the  knowledge  of  spiritual 
facts  in  their  relations.  Theology  cannot,  as  has  sometimes  been  objected, 
deaden  the  religious  affections,  since  it  only  draws  out  from  their  sources 
and  puts  into  rational  connection  with  each  other  the  truths  which  are 
best  adapted  to  nourish  the  religious  affections.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
strongest  Christians  are  those  who  have  the  firmest  grasp  upon  the  great 
doctrines  of  Christianity  ;  the  heroic  ages  of  the  church  are  those  which 
have  witnessed  most  consistently  to  them ;  the  piety  that  can  be  injured  by 
the  systematic  exhibition  of  them  must  be  weak,  or  mystical,  or  mistaken. 

Some  knowledge  is  necessary  to  conversion— at  least,  knowledge  of  sin  and  knowl- 
edge of  a  Savior ;  and  the  putting  together  of  these  two  great  truths  is  a  beginning  of 
theology.  All  subsequent  growth  of  character  is  conditioned  upon  the  increase  of  this 
knowledge.  Col.  1  :  10 — avfacdjixei'oi  rfj  iTTLyvuxrei  toO  ©eoO  [omit  c^]  =" increasing  by  the  knowledge 
of  God"— the  instrumental  dative  represents  the  knowledge  of  God  as  the  dew  or  rain 
which  nurtures  the  growth  of  the  plant ;  c.f.  2  Pet.  3.18  —  "  grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ."  For  texts  which  represent  truth  as  nourishment,  see  Jer.  3  :  15 
—  "  feed  you  with  knowledge  and  understanding  "  ;  Mat.  4:4  —  "  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every 
word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  Sod  ";  1  Cor.  3  : 1,  2  —  "  babes  in  Christ  ...  I  fed  you  with  milk,  not 
with  meat "  ;  Heb.  5 :  14  —  "  but  solid  food  is  for  full-grown  men."  Christian  character  rests  upon  Chris- 
tian truth  as  its  foundation ;  see  1  Cor.  3 :  10-15  —  "  I  laid  a  foundation,  and  another  buildeth  thereon." 
See  Dorus  Clarke,  Saying  the  Catechism  ;  Simon,  on  Christ  Doct.  and  Life,  in  Bib.  Sac, 
July,  1884 :  433-439. 


NECESSITY   OF  THEOLOGY.  17 

Ignorance  is  the  mother  of  superstition,  not  of  devotion.  Talbot  W.  Chambers: 
—"Doctrine  without  doty  is  a  tree  without  fruits  ;  duty  without  doctrine  isa  tree  with- 
out roots."  Christian  morality  is  a  fruit  which  grows  only  from  the  tree  of  Christian 
doctrine.  We  cannot  long  keep  the  fruits  of  faith  after  we  have  cut  down  the  tree 
upon  which  they  have  grown.  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  82—"  Naturalistic  virtu* 
is  parasitic,  and  when  the  host  perishes,  the  parasite  perishes  also.  Virtue  without 
religion  will  die."  Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  214  — "  Because  the  fruit  survives  for  a  time 
when  removed  from  the  tree,  and  even  mellows  and  ripens,  shall  we  say  that  it  is 
independent  of  the  tree?"  The  twelve  manner  of  fruits  on  the  Christmas-tree  are 
only  tacked  on,  —  they  never  grew  there,  and  they  can  never  reproduce  their  kind. 
The  withered  apple  swells  out  under  the  exhausted  receiver,  but  it  will  go  back  again 
toitsformer  shrunken  form;  so  the  sell-righteousness  of  those  who  get  out  of  the 
atmosphere  of  Christ  and  have  no  divine  ideal  with  which  to  compare  themselves. 
W.  M.  Lisle:  "It  is  the  mistake  and  disaster  of  the  Christian  world  t  hat  effects  are 
sought  instead  of  causes."  George  A.  Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  2K—  "  Without  the  his- 
torical Christ  and  personal  love  for  that  Christ,  the  broad  theology  of  our  day  will 
reduce  itself  to  a  dream,  powerless  to  rouse  a  sleeping  church." 

(c)  In  the  importance  to  the  preacher  of  definite  and  just  views  of 
Christian  doctrine.      His  chief    intellectual   qualification  must  1  >c  the 

power  clearly  and  comprehensively  to  conceive,  and  accurately  and  power- 
fully to  express,  the  truth.  He  can  be  the  agent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  con- 
verting and  sanctifying  men,  only  as  he  can  wield  "  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God"  (  Eph.  G:  17),  or,  in  other  language, 
ouly  as  he  can  impress  truth  upon  the  minds  and  consciences  of  his 
hearers.  Nothing  more  certainly  nullifies  his  efforts  than  confusion  and 
inconsistency  in  his  statements  of  doctrine.  His  object  is  to  replace 
obscure  and  erroneous  .conceptions  among  his  hearers  by  those  which  are 
correct  and  vivid.  He  cannot  do  this  without  knowing  the  facts  with 
regard  to  God  in  their  relations  —  knowing  them,  in  short,  as  parts  of  a 
system.  With  this  truth  he  is  put  in  trust.  To  mutilate  it  or  misrepresent 
it,  is  not  only  sin  against  the  Revealer  of  it, — it  may  prove  the  ruin  of 
men's  souls.  The  best  safeguard  against  such  mutilation  or  misrepresen- 
tation, is  the  diligent  study  of  the  several  doctrines  of  the  faith  in  their 
relations  to  one  another,  and  especially  to  the  central  theme  of  theology, 
the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  more  refined  and  reflective  the  age,  the  more  it  requires  reasons  for  feeling. 
Imagination,  as  exercised  in  poetry  and  eloquence  and  as  exhibited  in  politics  or 
war,  is  not  less  strong  than  of  old, —  it  is  only  more  rational.  Notice  the  progress  from 
"Buncombe",  in  legislative  and  forensic  oratory,  to  sensible  and  logical  address.  Bas- 
sanio  in  Shakespeare's  Merchant  of  Venice,  1 : 1:  113  —  "  Gratiano  speaks  an  infinite  deal 
of  nothing.  .  .  .  His  reasons  arc  as  two  grains  of  wheat  hid  in  two  bushels  of  chaff." 
So  in  pulpit  oratory,  mere  Scripture  quotation  and  fervid  appeal  are  no  longer  suffi- 
cient. As  well  be  a  howling  dervish,  as  to  indulge  in  windy  declamation.  Thought  is 
the  staple  of  preaching.  Feeling  must  be  roused,  but  only  by  bringing  men  to  "the 
knowledge  of  the  truth"  (  2  Tim.  2:  25).  The  preacher  must  furnish  the  basis  for  feeling  by  pro- 
ducing intelligent  conviction.  He  must  instruct  before  he  can  move.  If  the  object  of 
the  preacher  is  first  to  know  God,  and  secondly  to  make  God  known,  then  the  study  of 
theology  is  absolutely  necessary  to  his  success. 

Shall  the  physician  practice  medicine  without  study  of  physiology,  or  the  lawyer 
practice  law  without  study  of  jurisprudence?  Professor  Blackie:  "One  may  as 
well  expect  to  make  a  great  patriot  out  of  a  fencing-master,  as  to  make  a  great  orator 
out  of  a  mere  rhetorician."  The  preacher  needs  doctrine,  to  prevent  his  being  a  mere 
barrel-organ,  playing  over  and  over  the  same  tunes.  John  Henry  Newman:  "The 
false  preacher  is  one  who  has  to  say  something ;  the  true  preacher  is  one  who  has  some 
thing  to  say."  «ourgeon,  Autobiography,  1 :  167— "Constant  change  of  creed  is  sure  loss. 
2 


18  PROLEGOMENA. 

If  a  tree  has  to  be  taken  up  two  or  three  times  a  year,  you  will  not  need  to  build  a  very 
large  loft  in  which  to  store  the  apples.  When  people  are  shifting'  their  doctrinal  prin- 
ciples, they  do  not  bring'  forth  much  fruit.  .  .  .  We  shall  never  have  great  preach- 
ers till  we  have  great  divines.  You  cannot  build  a  man  of  war  out  of  a  currant-bush, 
nor  can  great  soul-moving  preachers  be  formed  out  of  superficial  students."  Illustrate 
the  harmf ulness  of  ignorant  and  erroneous  preaching,  by  the  mistake  in  a  physician's 
prescription  ;  by  the  wrong  trail  at  Lake  Placid  which  led  astray  those  ascending  White- 
face;  by  the  sowing  of  acorns  whose  crop  was  gathered  only  after  a  hundred  years. 
Slight  divergences  from  correct  doctrine  on  our  part  may  be  ruinously  exaggerated 
in  those  who  come  after  us.  Though  the  moth-miller  has  no  teeth,  its  offspring  has. 
2  Tim.  2  :  2 — "And  the  things  which  thou  hast  heard  irom  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also." 

(d)  In  the  intimate  connection  between  correct  doctrine  and  the 
safety  and  aggressive  power  of  the  church.  The  safety  and  progress  of 
the  church  is  dependent  upon  her  "holding  the  pattern  of  sound  words" 
(2  Tim.  1  :  13),  and  serving  as  "  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  "  (1  Tim.  3: 
15).  Defective  understanding  of  the  truth  results  sooner  or  later  in 
defects  of  organization,  of  operation,  and  of  life.  Thorough  comprehen- 
sion of  Christian  truth  as  an  organized  system  furnishes,  on  the  other  hand, 
not  only  an  invaluable  defense  against  heresy  and  immorality,  but  also  an 
indispensable  stimulus  and  instrument  in  aggressive  labor  for  the  world's 
conversion. 

The  creeds  of  Christendom  have  not  originated  in  mere  speculative  curiosity  and 
logical  hair-splitting.  They  are  statements  of  doctrine  in  which  the  attacked  and 
imperiled  church  has  sought  to  express  the  truth  which  constitutes  her  very  life. 
Those  who  deride  the  early  creeds  have  small  conception  of  the  intellectual  acumen  and 
the  moral  earnestness  which  went  to  the  making  of  them.  The  creeds  of  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  embody  the  results  of  controversies  which  exhausted  the  possibilities 
of  heresy  with  regard  to  the  Trinity  and  the  person  of  Christ,  and  which  set  up  bars 
against  false  doctrine  to  the  end  of  time.  Mahaffy :  "What  converted  the  world 
was  not  the  example  of  Christ's  life, — it  was  the  dogma  of  his  death."  Coleridge :  "  He 
who  does  not  withstand,  has  no  standing  ground  of  his  own."  Mrs.  Browning :  "  Entire 
intellectual  toleration  is  the  mark  of  those  who  believe  nothing."  E.  G.  Robinson, 
Christian  Theology,  360-362— "A  doctrine  is  but  a  precept  in  the  style  of  a  proposition  ; 
and  a  precept  is  but  a  doctrine  in  the  form  of  a  command.  .  .  .  Theology  is  God's 
garden  ;  its  trees  are  trees  of  his  planting ;  and  '  all  the  trees  of  the  Lord  are  full  of  sap '  (Ps.  104: 16)." 

Bose,  Ecumenical  Councils :  "  A  creed  is  not  catholic  because  a  council  of  many  or 
of  few  bishops  decreed  it,  but  because  it  expresses  the  common  conviction  of  entire 
generations  of  men  and  women  who  turned  their  understanding  of  the  New  Testament 
into  those  forms  of  words."  Dorner  :  "  The  creeds  are  the  precipitate  of  the  relig- 
ious consciousness  of  mighty  men  and  times."  Foster,  Christ.  Life  and  Theol.,  162— 
"  It  ordinarily  requires  the  shock  of  some  great  event  to  startle  men  into  clear  appre- 
hension and  crystallization  of  their  substantial  belief.  Such  a  shock  was  given  by  the 
rough  and  coarse  doctrine  of  Arius,  upon  which  the  conclusion  arrived  at  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  followed  as  rapidly  as  in  chilled  water  the  crystals  of  ice  will  sometimes 
form  when  the  containing  vessel  receives  a  blow."  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  287 
— "  The  creeds  were  not  explanations,  but  rather  denials  that  the  Arian  and  Gnostic 
explanations  were  sufficient,  and  declarations  that  they  irremediably  impoverished  the 
idea  of  the  Godhead.  They  insisted  on  preserving  that  idea  in  all  its  inexplicable  ful- 
ness." Denny,  Studies  in  Theology,  192— "Pagan  philosophies  tried  to  capture  the 
church  for  their  own  ends,  and  to  turn  it  into  a  school.  In  self-defense  the  church  was 
compelled  to  become  somewhat  of  a  school  on  its  own  account.  It  had  to  assert  its 
facts ;  it  had  to  define  its  ideas ;  it  had  to  interpret  in  its  own  way  those  facts  which 
men  were  misinterpreting." 

Professor  Howard  Osgood :  "A  creed  is  like  a  backbone.  A  man  does  not  need  to 
wear  his  backbone  in  front  of  him ;  but  he  must  have  a  backbone,  and  a  straight  one, 
or  he  will  be  a  flexible  if  not  a  humpbacked  Christian."  Yet  we  must  remember  that 
creeds  are  credita,  and  not  credenda;  historical  statements  of  what  the  church  has 
believed,  not  infallible  prescriptions  of  what  the  church  must  believe.    George  Dana 


RELATION    OF  THEOLOGY   TO    RELIGION.  19 

Boardinan,  The  Church,  98— "Creeds  are  apt  to  become  cages."  Schurnian,  Agnosti- 
cism, 151 — "The  creeds  were  meant  to  be  defensive  fortifications  of  religion;  alas, 
that  they  should  have  sometimes  turtacd  their  artillery  against  the  citadel  itself." 
T.  H.  Green  :  "  We  are  told  that  we  must  be  loyal  to  the  beliefs  of  the  Fathers.  Yes,  but 
who  knows  what  the  Fathers  believe  now  ?  "  George  A.  Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  00 
— "The  assumption  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  concerned  in  the  development  of  theo- 
logical thought,  nor  manifest  in  the  intellectual  evolution  of  mankind,  is  the  super- 
lative heresy  of  our  generation.  .  .  .  The  metaphysics  of  Jesus  aie  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  his  ethics.  .  .  .  If  his  thought  is  a  dream,  his  endeavor  for  man  is  a  delusion." 
See  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  1 :  8,  15, 16;  Storrs,  I)iv.  Origin  of  Christianity,  121 ; 
Ian  Maelaren  (John  Watson),  Cure  of  Souls,  152;  Frederick  Harrison,  in  Fortnightly 
He  v.,  Jan.  1?W. 

(e)  In  the  direct  and  indirect  injunctions  of  Scripture  The  Scrip- 
ture urges  upon  us  the  thorough  and  comprehensive  study  of  the  truth 
(Johu  5:39,  marg.,  —  "Search  the  Scriptures"),  the  comparing  and 
harmonizing  of  its  different  parts  (1  Cor.  2:  13 — "comparing  spiritual 
tliiugs  with  spiritual"),  the  gathering  of  all  about  the  great  central  fact  of 
revelation  (Col.  1  :  27 — "which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of  glory"),  the 
preaching  of  it  in  its  wholeness  as  well  as  in  its  due  proportions  (2  Tim.  4  : 
2 —  "Preach  the  word").  The  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  called  " a  scribe 
who  hath  been  made  a  disciple  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Mat.  13 :  52) ; 
the  "pastors"  of  the  churches  are  at  the  same  time  to  be  "teachers" 
(Eph.  4  :  11);  the  bishop  must  be  "apt  to  teach"  (1  Tim.  3  :  2),  "  handling 
aright  the  word  of  truth  "  (  2  Tim.  2  :  15  ),  "  holding  to  the  faithful  word 
which  is  according  to  the  teaching,  that  he  may  be  able  both  to  exhort  in 
the  sound  doctrine  and  to  convict  the  gainsayers  "  (Tit.  1 :  9). 

As  a  means  of  instructing  the  church  and  of  securing  progress  in  his  own  under- 
standing of  Christian  truth,  it  is  well  for  the  pastor  to  preach  regularly  each  month  a 
doctrinal  sermon,  and  to  expound  in  course  the  principal  articles  of  the  faith.  The 
treatment  of  doctrine  in  these  sermons  should  be  simple  enough  to  be  comprehensible 
by  intelligent  youth  ;  it  should  be  made  vivid  and  interesting  by  the  help  of  brief 
illustrations ;  and  at  least  one-third  of  each  sermon  should  be  devoted  to  the  practical 
applications  of  the  doctrine  propounded.  See  Jonathan  Edwards's  sermon  on  the 
Importance  of  the  Knowledge  of  Divine  Truth,  in  Works,  1 : 1-15.  The  actual  sermons 
of  Edwards,  however,  are  not  models  of  doctrinal  preaching  for  our  generation.  They 
are  too  scholastic  in  form,  too  metaphysical  for  substance ;  there  is  too  little  of  Scrip- 
ture and  too  little  of  illustration.  The  doctrinal  preaching  of  the  English  Puritans  in 
a  similar  manner  addressed  itself  almost  wholly  to  adults.  The  preaching  of  our  Lord 
on  the  other  hand  was  adapted  also  to  children.  No  pastor  should  count  himself 
faithful,  who  permits  his  young  people  to  grow  up  without  regular  instruction  from 
the  pulpit  in  the  whole  circle  of  Christian  doctrine.  Shakespeare,  K.  Henry  VI,  2nd 
part,  4:  7—"  Ignorance  is  the  curse  of  God;  knowledge  the  wing  wherewith  we  fiy  to 
heaven." 

V.  Relation  to  Religion. — Theology  and  religion  are  related  to  each 
other  as  effects,  in  different  spheres,  of  the  same  cause.  As  theology  is  an 
effect  produced  iu  the  sphere  of  systematic  thought  by  the  facts  respecting 
God  and  the  universe,  so  religion  is  an  effect  which  these  same  facts  pro- 
duce in  the  sphere  of  individual  and  collective  life.  With  regard  to  the 
term  'religion',  notice: 

1.     Derivation. 

(a)  The  derivation  from  religure,  'to  bind  back'  (man  to  God),  is 
negatived  by  the  authority  of  Cicero  and  of  the  best  modern  etymologists; 
by  the  difficulty,  on  this  hypothesis,  of  explaining  such  forms  as  religio, 
reltgms;    and  by   the  necessity,    in  that  case,  of  presupposing  a  fuller 


20  PROLEGOMENA. 

knowledge  of  sin  and  redemption  than  was  common  to  the  ancient  world. 
(6)      The  more  correct  derivation  is  from  rclegere,   "  to  go  over  again," 
"carefully  to    ponder."      Its  original  meaning    is  therefore    "reverent 
observance  "  (of  duties  due  to  the  gods). 

For  advocacy  of  the  derivation  of  religio,  as  meaning: "  binding-  duty,"  from  religarc, 
see  Lange,  Dogmatik,  1 :  185-196.  This  derivation  was  first  proposed  by  Lactantius, 
Inst.  Div.,  4  :  28,  a  Christian  writer.  To  meet  the  objection  that  the  form  reliijio  seems 
derived  from  a  verb  of  the  third  conjugation,  Lange  cites  rebellio,  from  rebellare,  and 
optio,  from  optrirc.  But  we  reply  that  these  verbs  of  the  first  conjugation,  like  many 
others,  are  probably  derived  from  obsolete  verbs  of  the  third  conjugation.  For  the 
derivation  favored  in  the  text,  see  Curtius,  Griechische  Etymologie,  5te  Auti.,  364; 
Fick,  Vergl.  WSrterb.  der  indoger.  Spr.,  2  :  227  ;  Vanicek,  Gr.-Lat.  Etym.  Worterb., 
2  :  829 ;  Andrews,  Latin  Lexicon,  in  voce;  Nitzsch,  System  of  Christ.  Doctrine,  7 ;  Van 
Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  75-77 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  l:6;Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3:18; 
Menzies,  History  of  Religion,  11 ;  Max  Mliller,  Natural  Religion,  lect.  2. 

2.     False  Conceptions. 

(a)  Eeligion  is  not,  as  Hegel  declared,  a  kind  of  knowing ;  for  it 
would  then  be  only  an  incomplete  form  of  philosophy,  and  the  measure  of 
knowledge  in  each  case  would  be  the  measure  of  piety. 

In  a  system  of  idealistic  pantheism,  like  that  of  Hegel,  God  is  the  subject  of  religion 
as  well  as  its  object.  Religion  is  God's  knowing  of  himself  through  the  human  con- 
sciousness. Hegel  did  not  utterly  ignore  other  elements  in  religion.  "  Feeling,  intui- 
tion, and  faith  belong  to  it,"  he  said,  "and  mere  cognition  is  one-sided."  Yet  he  was 
always  looking  for  the  movement  of  thought  in  all  forms  of  life  ;  God  and  the  universe 
were  but  developments  of  the  primordial  idea.  "What  knowledge  is  worth  knowing," 
he  asked,  "if  God  is  unknowable?  To  know  God  is  eternal  life,  and  thinking  is  also 
true  worship."  Hegel's  error  was  in  regarding  life  as  a  process  of  thought,  rather  than 
in  regarding  thought  as  a  process  of  life.  Here  was  the  reason  for  the  bitterness 
between  Hegel  and  Schleiermacher.  Hegel  rightly  considered  that  feeling  must  become 
intelligent  before  it  is  truly  religious,  but  he  did  not  recognize  the  supreme  importance 
of  love  in  a  theological  system.  He  gave  even  less  place  to  the  will  than  he  gave  to  the 
emotions,  and  he  failed  to  see  that  the  knowledge  of  God  of  which  Scripture  speaks  is 
a  knowing,  not  of  the  intellect  alone,  but  of  the  whole  man,  iucludiug  the  affectional 
and  voluntary  nature. 

Goethe :  "  How  can  a  man  come  to  know  himself  ?  Never  by  thinking,  but  by  doing. 
Try  to  do  your  duty,  and  you  will  know  at  once  what  you  are  worth.  You  cannot  play 
the  flute  by  blowing  alone,— you  must  use  your  fingers."  So  we  can  never  come  to 
know  God  by  thinking  alone.  John  7  :  17 — "  If  any  man  willcth  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teach- 
ing, whether  it  is  of  God."  The  Gnostics,  Stapfer,  Henry  VIII,  all  show  that  there  may  be 
much  theological  knowledge  without  true  religion.  Chillingworth's  maxim,  "  The 
Bible  only,  the  religion  of  Protestants,"  is  inadequate  and  inaccurate;  for  the  Bible, 
without  faith,  love,  and  obedience,  may  become  a  fetich  and  a  snare :  John  5  :  39,  40—"  Ye 
search  the  Scriptures,  .  .  .  and  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye  may  have  life."  See  Sterrett,  Studies  in 
Hegel's  Philosophy  of  Religion;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  59,  60,  412,  525-536,  589,650; 
Morell,  Hist.  Philos.,  476,  477  ;  Hamerton,  Intel.  Life,  214  ;  Bib.  Sac,  9  :374. 

(6)  Eeligion  is  not,  as  Schleiermacher  held,  the  mere  feeling  of  depend- 
ence ;  for  such  feeling  of  dependence  is  not  religious,  unless  exercised 
toward  God  and  accompanied  by  moral  effort. 

In  German  theology,  Schleiermacher  constitutes  the  transition  from  the  old  rational- 
ism to  the  evangelical  faith.  "Like  Lazarus,  with  the  grave  clothes  of  a  pantheistic 
philosophy  entangling  his  steps,"  yet  with  a  Moravian  experience  of  the  life  of  God  in 
the  soul,  he  based  religion  upon  the  inner  certainties  of  Christian  feeling.  But,  as  Prin- 
cipal Fairbairn  remarks,  "  Emotion  is  impotent  unless  it  speaks  out  of  conviction ;  and 
where  conviction  is,  there  will  be  emotion  which  is  potent  to  persuade."  If  Christian- 
ity is  religious  feeling  alone,  then  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  it  and  other 
religions,  for  all  alike  are  products  of  the  religious  sentiment.  But  Christianity  is  dis- 
tinguished from  other  religious  by  its  peculiar  religious  conceptions.    Doctrine  pre- 


RELATION    OP   THEOLOGY   TO    RELIGION.  21 

cedes  life,  and  Christian  doctrine,  not  mere  religious  feeling-,  is  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity as  a  distinctive  relijrion.  Though  faith  begins  in  feeling,  moreover,  it  does  not 
end  there.  We  see  the  worthlessness  of  mere  feeling  in  the  transient  emotions  of 
theatre-goers,  and  in  the  occasional  phenomena  of  revivals. 

Sabatier,  Philos.  Relig.,  27,  adds  to  Sehleiermacher's  passive  element Otf  dependence, 
the  active  element  of  prayer.  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  10  —  "Sehleiermacher  regards  God  as 
the  Source  of  our  being,  but  forgets  that  he  is  also  our  End."  Fellowship  and  progress 
are  as  important  elements  in  religion  as  is  dependence;  and  fellowship  must  come 
before  progress— such  fellowship  as  presupposes  pardon  and  life.  Sehleiermacher 
apparently  believed  in  neither  a  personal  God  nor  his  own  personal  immortality;  see 
his  Life  and  Letters,  2:  77-90;  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  2:  357.  Charles  Hodge 
compares  him  to  a  ladder  in  a  pit— a  good  tiling  for  those  who  wish  to  get  out,  but  not 
for  those  who  wish  to  get  in.  Dorner:  "The  Moravian  brotherhood  was  his  mother  ; 
Greece  was  his  nurse."  On  Sehleiermacher,  see  Herzog,  Realencyclopiidie,  In  DOCi  ;  Bib. 
Sac,  1852:  375;  1883:  534;  Liddon,  Elements  of  Religion,  leet.  I;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 : 
14  ;  Julius  MtHler,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1 :  175;  Fisher,  Supcrnat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  503- 
570;  Caird,  Philos.  Religion,  160-180. 

(c)  Religion  is  not,  as  Kant  maintained,  morality  or  moral  action  ;  for 
morality  is  conformity  to  an  abstract  law  of  right,  while  religion  is  essen- 
tially a  relation  to  a  person,  from  whom  the  soul  receives  blessing  and  t<  > 
whom  it  surrenders  itself  in  love  and  obedience. 

Kant,  Kritik  der  praktischen  Vernunft,  Beschluss:  "I  know  of  but  two  beautiful 
things,  the  starry  heavens  above  my  head,  and  the  sense  of  duty  within  my  heart." 
But  the  mere  sense  of  duty  often  distresses.  We  object  to  the  word  "  obey  "  as  the 
imperative  of  religion,  because  (1)  it  makes  religion  a  matter  of  the  will  only;  (2)  will 
presupposes  affection  ;  (3)  love  is  not  subject  to  will ;  (4)  it  makes  God  all  law,  and  no 
grace;  (5)  it  makes  the  Christian  a  servant  only,  not  a  friend  ;  cf.  John  15:  15— "No  longer  do 
I  call  you  servants  ....  but  I  have  called  you  friends"— a  relation  not  of  service  but  of  love 
(Westcott,  Bib.  Coin.,  in  loco).  The  voice  that  speaks  is  the  voice  of  love,  rather  than  the 
voice  of  law.  We  object,  also  to  Matthew  Arnold's  definition:  "  Religion  is  ethics 
heightened,  enkindled,  lit  up  by  feeling  ;  morality  touched  with  emotion."  This  leaves 
out  of  view  the  receptive  element  in  religion,  as  well  as  its  relation  to  a  personal  God. 
A  truer  statement  would  be  that  religion  is  morality  toward  God,  as  morality  is 
religion  toward  man.  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  251  — "  Morality  that  goes  beyond 
mere  conscientiousness  must  have:  recourse  to  religion  ";  see  Lotze,  Philos.  of  Religion, 
128-142.  Goethe:  "  Unqualified  activity,  <>f  whatever  kind,  leads  at  last  to  bankruptcy  "; 
see  also  Pfieiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1  :  65-69;  Shedd,  Sermons  to  tin-  Natural  Man,  244- 
240;  Liddon,  Elements  of  Religion,  19. 

3.  Essential  Idea.  Religion  in  its  essential  idea  is  a  life  in  Clod,  a  life 
lived  in  recognition  of  God,  in  communion  with  God,  and  under  control  of 
the  indwelling  Spirit  of  God.  Since  it  is  a  life,  it  cannot  be  described  as  con- 
sisting solely  in  the  exercise  of  any  one  of  the  powers  of  intellect,  affection, 
or  will.  As  physical  life  involves  the  unity  and  cooperation  of  all  the  organs 
of  the  body,  so  religion,  or  spiritual  life,  involves  the  united  working  of  all 
the  powers  of  the  soul.  To  feeling,  however,  we  must  assign  the  logical 
priority,  since  holy  affection  toward  God,  imparted  in  regeneration,  is  the 
condition  of  truly  knowing  God  and  of  truly  serving  him. 

See  Godet,  on  the  Ultimate  Design  of  Man— "God  in  man,  and  man  in  God"— in 
Princeton  Rev.,  Nov.  1880 ;  Pfieiderer,  Die  Religion,  5-79,  and  Religionsphilosophie,  255 
—Religion  is  "  Sache  des  ganzen  Geisteslebens  ":  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  4—"  Reli- 
gion is  the  personal  influence  of  the  immanent  God  ";  Sterrett,  Reason  and  Authority 
in  Religion,  31,  32 — "  Religion  is  the  reciprocal  relation  or  communion  of  God  and  man, 
involving  (1)  revelation,  (2)  faith  "  ;  Dr.  J.  W.  A.  Stewart :  "  Religion  is  fellowship  with 
God";  Pascal:  "  Piety  is  God  sensible  to  the  heart "  ;  Ritschl,  Justif.  and  Reconcil.,  13 
— "  Christianity  is  an  ellipse  with  two  foci— Christ  as  Redeemer  and  Christ  as  King, 
Christ  for  us  and  Christ  in  us,  redemption  and  morality,  religion  and  ethics  "  ;  Kaftan, 
Dogmatik,  8 — "The  Christian  religion  is  (1)  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  goal  above  the 


22  PROLEGOMENA. 

world,  to  be  attained  by  moral  development  here,  and  (2)  reconciliation  with  God  per- 
mitting- attainment  of  this  goal  in  spite  of  our  sins.  Christian  theology  once  grounded 
itself  in  man's  natural  knowledge  of  God ;  we  now  start  with  religion,  i.  e.,  that 
Christian  knowledge  of  God  which  we  call  faith." 

Herbert  Spencer:  "Religion  is  an  a  priori  theory  of  the  universe";  Romanes, 
Thoughts  on  Religion,  43,  adds:  "which  assumes  intelligent  personality  as  the  orig- 
inating cause  of  the  universe,  science  dealing1  with  the  How,  the  phenomenal  process, 
religion  dealing  with  the  Who,  the  intelligent  Personality  who  works  through  the 
process."  Holland,  in  Lux  Mundi,  27—"  Natural  life  is  the  life  in  God  which  has  not  yet 
arrived  at  this  recognition  " —  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  God  is  in  all  things  —  "  it 
is  not  yet,  as  such,  religious ; . . .  Religion  is  the  discovery,  by  the  son,  of  a  Father  who  is 
in  all  his  works,  yet  is  distinct  from  them  all."  Dewey,  Psychology,  283 — "Feeling 
finds  its  absolutely  universal  expression  in  religious  emotion,  which  is  the  finding  or 
realization  of  self  in  a  completely  realized  personality  which  unites  in  itself  truth,  or 
the  complete  unity  of  the  relations  of  all  objects,  beauty  or  the  complete  unity  of  all 
ideal  values,  and  Tightness  or  the  complete  unity  of  all  persons.  The  emotion  which 
accompanies  the  religious  life  is  that  which  accompanies  the  complete  activity  of  our- 
selves; tbe  self  is  realized  and  finds  its  true  life  in  God."  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
262—  "  Ethics  is  simply  the  growing  insight  into,  and  the  effort  to  actualize  in  society, 
the  sense  of  fundamental  kinship  and  identity  of  substance  in  all  men ;  while  religion 
is  the  emotion  and  the  devotion  which  attend  the  realization  in  our  self-consciousness 
of  an  inmost  spiritual  relationship  arising  out  of  that  unity  of  substance  which  con- 
stitutes man  the  true  son  of  the  eternal  Father."  See  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  81-85 ; 
Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2 :  227 ;  Nitzsch,  Syst.  of  Christ.  Doct.,  10-28 ;  Luthardt,  Fund. 
Truths,  147  ;  Twesten,  Dogmatik,  1 :  12. 

4.     Inferences. 

From  this  definition  of  religion  it  follows  : 

(a)  That  in  strictness  there  is  but  one  religion.  Man  is  a  religious  being, 
indeed,  as  having  the  capacity  for  this  divine  life.  He  is  actually  religious, 
however,  only  when  he  enters  into  this  living  relation  to  God.  False 
religions  are  the  caricatures  which  men  given  to  sin,  or  the  imaginations 
which  men  groping  after  light,  form  of  this  life  of  the  soul  in  God. 

Peabody,  Christianity  the  Religion  of  Nature,  18—"  If  Christianity  be  true,  it  is  not  a 
religion,  but  the  religion.  If  Judaism  be  also  true,  it  is  so  not  as  distinct  from  but  as 
coincident  with  Christianity,  the  one  religion  to  which  it  can  bear  only  the  relation  of 
a  part  to  the  whole.  If  there  be  portions  of  truth  in  other  religious  systems,  they  are 
not  portions  of  other  religions,  but  portions  of  the  one  religion  which  somehow  or 
other  became  incorporated  with  fables  and  falsities."  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Chris- 
tianity, 1 :  25  — "You  can  never  get  at  the  true  idea  or  essence  of  religion  merely  by 
trying  to  find  out  something  that  is  common  to  all  religions  ;  and  it  is  not  the  lower 
religions  that  explain  the  higher,  but  conversely  the  higher  religion  explains  all  the 
lower  religions."  George  P.  Fisher :  "  The  recognition  of  certain  elements  of  truth  in 
the  ethnic  religions  does  not  mean  that  Christianity  has  defects  which  are  to  be  repaired 
by  borrowing  from  them ;  it  only  means  that  the  ethnic  faiths  have  in  fragments  what 
Christianity  has  as  a  whole.  Comparative  religion  does  not  bring  to  Christianity  new 
truth  ;  it  provides  illustrations  of  how  Christian  truth  meets  human  needs  and  aspi- 
rations, and  gives  a  full  vision  of  that  which  the  most  spiritual  and  gifted  among-  the 
heathen  only  dimly  discerned." 

Dr.  C.  H.  Parkhurst,  sermon  on  Proverbs  20 :  27— "The  spirit  of  man  is  the  lamp  of  Jehovah"— "a  lamp, 
but  not  necessarily  lighted ;  a  lamp  that  can  be  lit  only  by  the  touch  of  a  divine  flame ' '  = 
man  has  naturally  and  universally  a  capacity  for  religion,  but  is  ty  no  means  naturally 
and  universally  religious.  All  false  religions  have  some  elemer^.  of  truth ;  otherwise 
they  could  never  have  gained  or  kept  their  hold  upon  mankind.  We  need  to  recognize 
these  elements  of  truth  in  dealing  with  them.  There  is  some  silver  in  a  counterfeit  dol- 
lar, else  it  would  deceive  no  one ;  but  the  thin  washing  of  silver  over  the  lead  does  not 
prevent  it  from  being  bad  money.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  8—"  See  Paul's  methods 
of  dealing  with  heathen  religion,  in  Acts  14  with  gross  paganism  and  in  Acts  17  with  its 
cultured  form.  He  treats  it  with  sympathy  and  justice.  Christian  theology  has  the 
advantage  of  walking  in  the  light  of  God's  self-manifestation  in  Christ,  while  heathen 


RELATION    OF  THEOLOGY   TO    RELIGION".  23 

religions  grope  after  God  and  worship  him  in  ignorance";  of.  Acts  14 :  15— "  We  .  .  . 
bring  you  good  tidings,  that  ye  shoild  tarn  from  these  vain  things  uuto  a  living  God  ";  17 :  22—"  I  perciivo  that  ye 
are  more  than  usually  reverent  toward  the  divinities.  .  .  .  What  therefore  ye  worship  in  ignorance,  this  I  set 
forth  unto  you." 

Matthew  Arnold:  "Children  of  men!  the  unseen  Power  whose  eye  Forever  doth 
accompany  mankind,  Hath  looked  on  no  religion  scornfully  That  man  did  ever  find. 
Which  has  not  taught  weak  wills  how  much  they  can?  Which  lias  not  fallen  on  the 
dry  heart  like  rain  ?  Which  lias  not  cried  to  sunk,  self-weary  man,  Thou  must  be  born 
ag-ain?"  Christianity  is  absolutely  exclusive,  because  it  is  absolutely  inclusive.  It  is 
not  an  amalgamation  of  oilier  religions,  but  it  has  in  it  all  that  is  best  and  truest 
iu  other  religions.  It  is  the  white  light  that,  contains  all  the  colored  rays.  God 
may  have  made  disclosures  of  truth  outside  <>l  Judaism,  and  did  so  in  Balaam 
and  Melchisedek,  in  Confucius  and  Socrates.  But  while  other  religions  have  a 
relative  excellence,  Christ  ianity  is  the  absolute  religion  that  contains  all  excellencies. 
Matheson,  Messag-es  of  the  Old  Religions,  328-343 — "Christianity  is  reconciliation. 
Christianity  includes  the  aspiration  of  Egypt ;  it  sees,  in  this  aspiration,  God  in  the  soul 
(Brahmanism);  rec-og-nizes  the  evil  power  of  sin  with  Parseeism;  goes  back  to  a  pure 
beginning  like  China;  surrenders  itself  to  human  brotherhood  like  Buddha;  gets  all 
things  from  within  like  Judaism ;  makes  the  present  lite  beautiful  like  Greece;  seeks 
a  universal  kingdom  like  Koine  ;  shows  a  growth  of  divine  life,  like  the  Teuton.  Chris- 
tianity is  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.''  See  also  Van  Oosterzee,  Dog-maties,  88-93. 
Shakespeare:  "  There  is  some  soul  of  goodness  in  things  evil,  Would  men  observingly 
distill  it  out." 

(b)  That  the  content  of  religion  is  greater  than  that  of  theology.  The 
facts  of  religion  come  within  the  range  of  theology  only  so  far  as  they  can 
be  definitely  conceived,  accurately  expressed  iu  language,  and  brought 
into  rational  relation  to  each  other. 

This  principle  enables  us  to  define  the  proper  limits  of  religious  fellowship.  It  should 
be  as  wide  as  is  religion  itself.  But  it  is  important  to  remember  what  religion  is. 
Religion  is  not  to  be  identified  with  tin'  capacity  for  religion.  Nor  can  we  regard  the 
perversions  and  caricatures  of  religion  as  meriting  our  f<  Uowship.  otherwise  we  might 
be  required  to  have  fellowship  with  devil- worship,  polygamy,  ihug'-iciy,  and  the  inquisi- 
tion ;  for  all  these  have  been  dignified  with  the  name  of  religion.  True  religion  involves 
some  knowledge,  however  rudimentary,  of  the  true  (dd,  the  God  of  righteousness; 
some  sense  of  sin  as  the  contrast  between  human  character  and  the  divine  standard  ; 
some  casting  of  the  soul  upon  divine  mercy  and  a  divine  way  of  salvation,  in  place  of 
self-righteous  earning  of  merit  and  reliance  upon  one's  works  and  one's  record; 
some  practical  effort  to  reali/.e  ethical  principle  in  a  pure  life  ami  in  influence  over 
others.  Wherever  these  marks  of  true  religion  appear,  even  in  Unitarians,  Roman- 
ists, Jews  or  Buddhists,  then-  we  recognize  the  demand  for  fellowship.  But  we  also 
attribute  these  germs  of  true  religion  to  the  in  working-  of  the  omnipresent  Christ, 
"  the  light  which  lighteth  ev^ry  man"  ( John  1 :  9  I,  and  we  see  in  them  incipient  repentance  and  faith, 
even  though  the  Christ  who  is  their  object  is  yet  unknown  by  name.  Christian  fellow- 
ship must  have  a  larger  basis  in  accepted  Christian  truth,  and  ( 'hurch  fellowship  a  still 
larger  basis  in  common  acknowledgment  of  .\.  T.  teaching-  as  to  the  church.  Religious 
fellowship,  in  the  widest  sense,  rests  upon  the  fact  that  "  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons :  but  in 
every  nation  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  acceptable  to  him' '  (Acts  10 :  34,  35) . 

(c)  That  religion  is  to  be  distinguished  from  formal  worship,  which  is 
simply  the  outward  expression  of  religion.  As  such  expression,  worship  is 
"formal  communion  between  God  and  his  people. "  In  it  God  speaks  to 
man,  and  man  *i  God.  It  therefore  properly  includes  the  reading  of 
Scripture  and  preaching  on  the  side  of  God,  and  prayer  and  song  on  the 
side  of  the  people. 

Sterrett,  Reason  and  Authority  in  Religion,  106 — "Christian  worship  is  the  utterance 
(outerance)  of  the  spirit."  But  there  is  more  in  true  love  than  can  be  put  into  a  love- 
letter,  and  there  is  more  in  true  religion  than  can  be  expressed  either  in  theology  or 
in  worship.  Christian  worship  is  communion  between  God  and  man.  But  communion 
cannot  be  one-sided.  Madame  de  Stael,  whom  Heine  called  "  a  whirlwind  in  petticoats," 


24  PROLEGOMENA. 

ended  one  of  her  brilliant  soliloquies  by  saying- :  "What  a  delightful  conversation  we 
have  had  !"  We  may  fir.d  a  better  illustration  of  the  nature  of  worship  in  Thomas  a 
Kempis's  dialogues  between  the  saint  and  his  Savior,  in  the  Imitation  of  Christ. 
Goethe :  "Against  the  great  superiority  of  another  there  is  no  remedy  but  love.  .  .  . 
To  praise  a  man  is  to  put  one's  self  on  his  level."  If  this  be  the  effect  of  loving  and 
praising  man,  what  must  be  the  effect  of  loving-  and  praising  God  !  Inscription  in  Gras- 
mere  Church  :  "Whoever  thou  art  that  enterest  this  church,  leave  it  not  without  one 
prayer  to  God  for  thyself,  for  those  who  minister,  and  for  those  who  worship  here." 
In  James  1 :  27 — "  Pure  religion  and  undofiled  before  our  God  and  Father  is  this,  to  visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in 
their  affliction,  and  to  keep  oneself  unspotted  from  the  world"  —  "religion,"  i^prjo-xeia,  is  cultus  exterior; 
and  the  meaning  is  that  "the  external  service,  the  outward  garb,  the  very  ritual  of 
Christianity,  is  a  life  of  purity,  love  and  self-devotion.  What  its  true  essence,  its 
inmost  spirit  may  be,  the  writer  does  not  say,  but  leaves  this  to  be  inferred."  On  the 
relation  between  religion  and  worship,  see  Prof.  Day,  in  New  Englander,  Jan.  1882; 
Prof.  T.  Harwood  Pattison,  Public  Prayer;  Trench,  Syn.  N. T.,  1:  sec. 48;  Coleridge, 
Aids  to  Reflection,  Introd.,  Aphorism  23 ;  Lightfoot,  Gal.,  351,  note  2. 


CHAPTER  II. 

MATERIAL   OF   THEOLOGY. 

I.  Sources  of  Theology. — God  himself,  in  the  last  analysis,  must  be  the 
only  source  of  knowledge  with  regard  to  his  own  being  and  relations. 
Theology  is  therefore  a  summary  and  explanation  of  the  content  of  God's 
self- revelations.  These  are,  first,  the  revelation  of  God  in  nature ;  secondly 
and  supremely,  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  Scriptures. 

Ambrose:  "To  whom  shall  I  give  greater  credit  concerning  God  than  to  God  him- 
self?" Von  Baader :  "  To  know  God  without  God  is  impossible ;  there  is  no  knowledge 
without  him  who  is  the  prime  source  of  knowledge."  C.  A.  Briggs,  Whither,  8  — "God 
reveals  truth  in  several  spheres  :  in  universal  nature,  in  the  constitution  of  mankind, 
in  the  history  of  our  race,  in  the  Sucre  1  Scriptures,  but  above  all  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord."  F.  H.  Johnson,  What  is  Reality?  39)— "The  teacher  intervenes 
when  needed.  Revelation  helps  reason  and  conscience,  but  is  not  a  substitute  tor  them. 
But  Catholicism  affirms  this  substitution  for  the  church,  and  Protestantism  for  the 
Bible.  The  Bible,  like  nature,  gives  many  free  gifts,  but  more  in  the  germ.  Growing 
ethical  ideals  must  interpret  the  Bible."  A.  J.  F.  Behrends:  "The  Bible  is  only  a  tele- 
scope, not  the  eye  which  sees,  nor  the  stars  whioh  the  telesoope  brings  to  view.  It  is 
your  business  and  mine  to  see  the  stars  with  our  own  eyes."  Schurman,  Agnosticism, 
178 — "  The  Bible  is  a  glass  through  which  to  see  the  living  God.  But  it  is  useless  when 
you  put  your  eyes  out." 

We  can  know  God  only  so  far  as  he  has  revealed  hims  df.  The  immanent  God  is 
known,  but  the  transcendent  God  we  do  not  know  any  more  than  we  know  the  side  of 
the  moon  that  is  turned  away  from  us.  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  11.3 — "The 
word  '  authority '  is  derived  from  auctor,  augeo,  'to  add.'  Authority  adds  something 
to  the  truth  communicated.  The  thing  added  is  the  personal  element  of  witness.  This 
is  needed  wherever  there  is  ignorance  which  cannot  be  removed  by  our  own  effort,  or 
unwillingness  which  results  from  our  own  sin.  In  religion  I  need  to  add  to  niy  own 
knowledge  that  which  God  imparts.  Reason,  conscience,  church,  Scripture,  are  all 
delegated  and  subordinate  authorities ;  the  only  original  and  supreme  authority  is  God 
himself,  or  Christ,  who  is  only  God  revealed  and  made  comprehensible  by  us."  Gore, 
Incarnation,  181  — "All  legitimate  authority  represents  the  reason  of  God,  educating 

the  reason  of  man  and  communicating  itself  to  it Man  is  made  in  God's  image : 

he  is,  in  his  fundamental  capacity,  a  son  of  God,  and  he  becomes  so  in  fact,  and  fully, 
through  union  with  Christ.  Therefore  in  the  truth  of  God,  as  Christ  presents  it  to  him, 
he  can  recognize  his  own  better  reason,  — to  US3  Plato's  beautiful  expression,  he  can 
salute  it  by  force  of  instinct  as  something  akin  to  himself,  before  he  can  give  intellec- 
tual account  of  it." 

Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  33J-337,  holds  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  unassisted 
reason,  and  that,  even  if  there  were,  natural  religion  is  not  one  of  its  products.  Behind 
all  evolution  of  our  own  reason,  he  says,  stands  the  Supreme  Reason.  "Conscience, 
ethical  ideals,  capacity  for  admiration,  sympathy,  repentance,  righteous  indignation, 
as  well  as  our  delight  in  beauty  and  truth,  are  all  derived  from  God."  Kaftan,  in  Am. 
Jour.  Theology,  1900 ;  718,  719,  maintains  that  there  is  no  other  principle  for  dogmatics 
than  Holy  Scripture.  Yet  he  holds  that  knowledge  never  comes  directly  from 
Scripture,  but  from  faith.  The  order  is  not :  Scripture,  doctrine,  faith ;  but  rather, 
Scripture,  faith,  doctrine.  Scripture  is  no  more  a  direct  authority  than  is  the  church. 
Revelation  is  addressed  to  the  whole  man,  that  is,  to  the  will  of  the  man,  and  it 
claims  obedience  from  him.  Since  all  Christian  knowledge  is  mediated  through  faith, 
it  rests  on  obedience  to  the  authority  of  revelation,  and  revelation  is  self-manifestation 

25 


26  PROLEGOMENA. 

on  the  part  of  God.  Kaftan  should  have  recognized  more  fully  that  not  simply 
Scripture,  but  all  knowable  truth,  is  a  revelation  from  God,  and  that  Christ  is  "  the  light 
which  lighbth  every  man  "  ( John  1:9).  Revelation  is  an  organic  whole,  which  begins  in  nature, 
but  finds  its  climax  and  key  in  the  historical  Christ  whom  Scripture  presents  to  us. 
See  H.  C.  Minton's  review  of  Martineau's  Seat  of  Authority,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev., 
Apr.  1900  :  203  sq. 

1.  Scripture  and  Nature.  By  nature  we  here  mean  not  only  physical 
facts,  or  facts  with  regard  to  the  substauces,  properties,  forces,  and  laws 
of  the  material  world,  but  also  spiritual  facts,  or  facts  with  regard  to  the 
intellectual  and  moral  constitution  of  man,  and  the  orderly  arrangement  of 
human  society  and  history. 

We  here  use  the  word  "nature"  in  tin ^  ordinary  sense,  as  including  man.  There  is 
another  and  more  proper  use  of  the  word  "  nature,"  which  makes  it  simply  a  complex 
of  forces  and  beings  under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  To  nature  in  this  sense  man 
belongs  only  as  respects  his  body,  while  as  immaterial  and  personal  he  is  a  supernatural 
being.  Free  will  is  not  under  the  law  of  physical  and  mechanical  causation.  As 
Bushnell  has  said  :  "  Nature  and  the  supernatural  together  constitute  the  one  system 
of  God.''  Drummond,  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  232  —  "Things  are  natural 
or  supernatural  according  to  where  we  stand.  Man  is  supernatural  to  the  mineral; 
God  is  supernatural  to  the  man."  We  shall  in  subsequent  chapters  use  the  term 
"  nature  "  in  the  narrow  sense.  The  universal  use  of  the  phrase  "  Natural  Theology,  " 
however,  compels  us  in  this  chapter  to  employ  the  word  "  nature  "  in  its  broader  sense 
as  inducing  man,  although  we  do  this  under  protest,  and  with  this  explanation  of  th?, 
more  proper  meaning  of  the  term.  See  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Review,  Sept.  1882 :  183  s  /. 

E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Bushnell  separates  nature  from  the  supernatural.  Nature  is  a 
blind  train  of  causes.  God  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  except  as  he  steps  into  it  from 
without.  Man  is  supernatural,  because  he  is  outside  of  nature,  having  the  power  of 
originating  an  independent  train  of  causes."  If  this  were  the  proper  conception  of 
nature,  then  we  might  be  compelled  to  conclude  with  P.  T.  Forsyth,  in  Faith  and 
Criticism,  100—  "There  is  no  revelation  in  nature.  There  can  be  none,  because  there 
is  no  forgiveness.    We  cannot  be  sure  about  her.    She  is  only  assthetic.    Her  ideal  is 

harmony,  not  rcconciliatiou For  the  conscience,  stricken  or  strong,  she  has  no 

word.  .  . .  Nature  does  not  contain  her  own  teleology,  and  for  the  moral  soul  that 
refuses  to  be  fancy-fed,  Christ  is  the  one  luminous  smile  on  the  dark  faoo  of  the  world." 
But  this  is  virtually  to  confine  Christ's  revelation  to  Scripture  or  to  the  incarnation. 
As  there  was  an  astronomy  without  the  telescope,  so  there  was  a  theology  before  the 
Bible.  George  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  411  — "Nature  is  both  evolution  and  revela- 
tion. As  soon  as  the  question  How  is  answered,  the  questions  Whence  and  Why  arise. 
Nature  is  to  God  what  speech  is  to  thought."  The  title  of  Henry  Drummond's  book 
should  have  been:  "  Spiritual  Law  in  the  Natural  World,"  for  nature  is  but  the  free 
though  regular  activity  of  God ;  what  we  call  the  supernatural  is  simply  his  extraordi- 
nary working. 

(a)  Natural  theology. — The  universe  is  a  source  of  theology.  The 
Scriptures  assert  that  God  has  revealed  himself  in  nature.  There  is  not 
only  an  outward  witness  to  his  existence  and  character  in  the  constitution 
and  government  of  the  universe  (Ps.  19  ;  Acts  14  :17;  Rom.  1:20),  but  an 
inward  witness  to  his  existence  and  character  in  the  heart  of  every  man 
(Rom.  1  :17,  18,  19,  20,  32;  2  :  15).  The  systematic  exhibition  of  these 
facts,  whether  derived  from  observation,  history  or  science,  constitutes 
natural  theology. 

Outward  witness  :  Ps.  19 ;  1-6  —  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  Sod  ";  Acts  14 :  17  —  "  he  left  not  himself 
without  witness,  in  that  he  did  good,  and  gave  you  from  heaven  rains  and  fruitful  seasons  "  ;  Rom.  1  :  20  —  "  for  the 
invisible  things  of  him  since  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  perceived  through  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  his  everlasting  power  and  divinity."  Inward  witness:  Rom.  1:19  —  to  yicoo-Tw  to0  ©eo0  =  "that 
which  is  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them."  Compare  the  anoKa^v-nrerai  of  the  gospel  in  verse  IV, 
with  the  djroKaAu'TTTeTai  of  wrath  in  verse  18  —  two  revelations,  one  of  opyij,  the  other  of 
*<»pis;  see  Shedd,  Homiletics,  11.    Rom.  1 :  32  — "  knowing  the  ordinance  of  God  "  ;  2  :  15  —  "they  show  tho 


SOURCES   OF   THEOLOGY.  27 

werfc  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts."  Therefore  even  the  heathen  are  "  without  eicuse  "  ( Rom.  1 :  20 ). 
There  are  two  books:  Nature  and  Scripture  — one  written,  the  other  unwritten :  and 
there  is  need  of  studying  both.  On  the  passages  in  Romans,  see  the  Commentary  of 
Hodge. 

Spurgeon  told  of  a  godly  person  who,  when  sailing  down  the  Rhine,  closed  his  eyes, 
lest  the  beauty  of  the  scene  should  divert  his  mind  from  spiritual  themes.  The  Puritan 
turned  away  from  tue  moss-rose,  saying  that  he  would  count  nothing  on  earth  lovely. 
Rut  this  is  to  despise  God's  works.  J.  H.  Harrows:  "The  Himalayas  are  the  raised 
letters  upon  which  we  blind  children  put  our  Angers  to  spell  out  the  name  of  God." 
To  despise  the  works  of  God  is  to  despise  God  himself.  God  is  present  in  nature,  and 
is  now  speaking.  Ps.  19  :  i  —  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handi- 
work "  —present  tenses.  Nature  is  not  so  much  a  book,  as  a  voice.  Huttou,  Essays,  2 :  236 
—  "  The  direct  knowledge  of  spiritual  communion  must  be  supplemented  by  knowledge 
of  God's  ways  gained  from  the  study  of  nature.  To  neglect  the  study  of  the  natural 
mysteries  of  the  universe  leads  to  an  arrogant  and  illicit  intrusion  of  moral  and  spirit- 
ual assumptions  into  a  different  world.  This  is  the  lesson  of  the  book  of  Job."  Hatch, 
Hibbert  Lectures,  85  — "Man,  the  servant  and  interpreter  of  nature,  is  also,  and  is 
thereby,  the  servant  and  interpreter  of  the  living  God."  Rooks  of  science  are  the 
record  of  man's  past  interpretations  of  God's  works. 

(  b  )  Natural  theology  supplemented.  —  The  Christian  revelation  is  the 
chief  source  of  theology.  The  Scriptures  plainly  declare  that  the  revela- 
tion of  God  in  nature  does  not  supply  all  the  knowledge  which  a  sinner 
needs  (  Acts  17  :  23  ;  Eph.  3:9).  This  revelation  is  therefore  supplemented 
by  another,  in  which  divine  attributes  and  merciful  provisions  only  dimly 
shadowed  forth  in  nature  are  made  known  to  men.  This  latter  revela- 
tion consists  of  a  series  of  supernatural  events  and  communications,  the 
record  of  which  is  presented  in  the  Scriptures. 

Acts  17  :  23  — Paul  shows  that,  though  the  Athenians,  in  the  erection  of  an  altar  to  an 
unknown  God,  "acknowledged  a  divine  existence  beyond  any  which  the  ordinary  rites 
of  their  worship  recognized,  that  Reing  was  still  unknown  to  them  ;  they  had  no  just 
conception  of  his  nature  and  perfections"  (  Hackett,  in  loco  ).  Eph.  3:9  —  "the  mystery  which 
hath  been  hid  in  God" — this  mystery  is  in  the  gospel  made  known  for  man's  salvation. 
Hegel,  in  his  Philosophy  of  Religion,  says  that  Christianity  is  the  only  revealed  religion, 
because  the  Christian  God  is  the  only  one  from  whom  a  revelation  can  come.  We  may 
add  that  as  science  is  the  record  of  man's  progressive  interpretation  of  God's  revela- 
tion in  the  realm  of  nature,  so  Scripture  is  the  record  of  man's  progressive  interpreta- 
tion of  God's  revelation  in  the  realm  of  spirit.  The  phrase  "word  of  God  "  does  not  prima- 
rily denote  a  record, —  it  is  the  spoken  word,  the  doctrine,  the  vitalizing  truth,  disclosed 
by  Christ ;  see  Mat.  13 :  19  —  "  heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom  ";  Luke  5  :  1 — "  heard  tho  word  of  God  ";  Acts  8  : 
25  —  "spoken  tho  word  of  the  Lord"  ;  13:48,49  —  "glorified  the  word  of  God:  .  .  .  the  word  of  the  Lord  was 
spread  abroad  ";  19 :  10,  20  —  "  hoard  the  word  of  the  Lord,  .  .  .  mightily  grew  the  word  of  the  Lord";  1  Cor. 
1 :  18  — "  the  word  of  the  cross"  —  all  designating  not  a  document,  hut  an  unwritten  word;  cf. 
jer.  i :  4  —  "the  word  of  Jehovah  cams  unto  me '  ;  Ez.  1 : 3  —  "  the  word  of  J.hovah  came  expressly  unto  EzekieL 
the  priest." 

( c)  The  Scriptures  the  final  standard  of  appeal.  — Science  and  Scripture 
throw  light  upon  each  other.  The  same  divine  Spirit  who  gave  both  reve- 
lations is  still  present,  enabling  the  believer  to  interpret  the  one  by  the 
other  and  thus  progressively  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
Because  of  our  finiteness  and  sin,  the  total  record  in  Scripture  of  God's  past 
communications  is  a  more  trustworthy  source  of  theology  than  are  our 
conclusions  from  nature  or  our  private  impressions  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Spirit.  Theology  therefore  looks  to  the  Scripture  itself  as  its  chief  source 
of  material  and  its  final  standard  of  appeal. 

There  is  an  internal  work  of  the  divine  Spirit  by  which  the  outer  word  is  made  an 
inner  word,  and  its  truth  and  power  are  manifested  to  the  heart.    Scripture  represents 


28  PROLEGOMENA. 

this  work  of  the  Spirit,  not  as  a  giving  of  new  truth,  but  as  an  illumination  of  the  mind 
to  perceive  the  fulness  of  meaning  which  lay  wrapped  up  in  the  truth  already  revealed. 
Christ  is  "the  truth"  (John  14:  6) ;  "in  whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  hidden"  (Col.  2:3)  ; 
the  Holy  Spirit,  Jesus  says,  " shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you  "  (John  16:14).  The 
incarnation  and  the  Cross  express  the  heart  of  God  and  the  secret  of  the  universe;  all 
discoveries  in  theology  are  but  the  unfolding  of  truth  involved  in  these  facts.  The 
Spirit  of  Christ  enables  us  to  compare  nature  with  Scripture,  and  Scripture  with 
nature,  and  to  correct  mistakes  in  interpreting  the  one  by  light  gained  from  the  other. 
Because  the  church  as  a  whole,  by  which  we  mean  the  company  of  true  believers  in  all 
lands  and  ages,  has  the  promise  that  it  shall  be  guided  "into  all  the  truth"  (John  16. 13),  wo 
may  confidently  expect  the  progress  of  Christian  doctrine. 

Christian  experience  is  sometimes  regarded  as  an  original  source  of  religious  truth. 
Experience,  however,  is  but  a  testing  and  proving  of  the  truth  objectively  contained 
in  God's  revelation.  The  word  "experience"  is  derived  from  experior,  to  test,  to  try. 
Christian  consciousness  is  not  "norma  normans,"  but  "norma  normata."  Light,  like 
life,  comes  to  us  through  the  mediation  of  others.  Yet  the  first  comes  from  God  as 
really  as  the  last,  of  which  without  hesitation  we  say:  "God  made  me,"  though  we 
have  human  parents.  As  I  get  through  the  service  pipe  in  my  house  the  same  water 
which  is  stored  in  the  reservoir  upon  the  hillside,  so  in  the  Scriptures  I  get  the  same 
truth  which  the  Holy  Spirit  originally  communicated  to  prophets  and  apostles.  Calvin, 
Institutes,  book  I,  chap.  7  —  "As  nature  has  an  immediate  manifestation  of  God  in 
conscience,  a  mediate  in  his  works,  so  revelation  has  an  immediate  manifestation  of  God 
i n  the  Spirit,  a  mediate  in  the  Scriptures."  "  Man's  nature,"  said  Spurgeon,  "is  not 
an  organized  lie,  yet  his  inner  consciousness  has  been  warped  by  sin,  and  though  once 
it  was  an  infallible  guide  to  truth  and  duty,  sin  has  made  it  very  deceptive.  The 
standard  of  infallibility  is  not  in  man's  consciousness,  but  in  the  Scriptures.  When 
consciousness  in  any  matter  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  we  must  know  that  it  is 
not  God's  voice  within  us,  but  the  devil's."  Dr.  George  A.  Gordon  says  that  "  Christian 
history  is  a  revelation  of  Christ  additional  to  that  contained  in  the  New  Testament." 
Should  we  not  say  "illustrative,"  instead  of  "additional"?  On  the  relation  between 
Christian  experience  and  Scripture,  see  Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  286- 
309 :  Twesten,  Dogmatik,  1 :  344-348 ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  15. 

H.  II.  Bawden  :  "  God  is  the  ultimate  authority,  but  there  are  delegated  authorities, 
such  as  family,  state,  church  ;  instincts,  feelings,  conscience ;  the  general  experience  of 
the  race,  traditions,  utilities ;  revelation  in  nature  and  in  Scripture.  But  the  highest 
authority  available  for  men  in  morals  and  religion  is  the  truth  concerning  Christ  con- 
tained in  the  Christian  Scriptures.  What  the  truth  concerning  Christ  is,  is  determined 
by :  ( 1 )  the  human  reason,  conditioned  by  a  right  attitude  of  the  feelings  and  the  will ; 
( 2 )  in  the  light  of  all  the  truth  derived  from  nature,  including  man ;  ( 3 )  in  the  light  of 
the  history  of  Christianity;  (4)  in  the  light  of  the  origin  and  development  of  the 
Scriptures  themselves.  The  authority  of  the  generic  reason  and  the  authority  of 
the  Bible  are  co-relative,  since  they  both  have  been  developed  in  the  providence  of 
God,  and  since  the  latter,  is  in  large  measure  but  the  reflection  of  the  former.  This 
view  enables  us  to  hold  a  rational  conception  of  the  function  of  the  Scripture  in 
religion.  This  view,  further,  enables  us  to  rationalize  what  is  called  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration,  the  Bible  as  history — a  record  of  the 
historic  unfolding  of  revelation ;  the  Bible  as  literature  —  a  compend  of  life-prin- 
ciples, rather  than  a  book  of  rules  ;  the  Bible  Christoceutric — an  incarnation  of  the 
divine  thought  and  will  in  human  thought  and  language." 

(d)  The  theology  of  Scripture  not  unnatural. — Though  we  speak  of 
the  systematized  truths  of  nature  as  constituting  natural  theology,  we  are 
nut  to  infer  that  Scriptural  theology  is  unnatural.  Since  the  Scriptures 
have  the  same  author  as  nature,  the  same  principles  are  illustrated  in  the 
oue  as  in  the  other.  All  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  have  their  reason  in 
that  same  nature  of  God  -which  constitutes  the  basis  of  all  material  things. 
Christianity  is  a  supplementary  dispensation,  not  as  contradicting,  or  cor- 
recting errors  in,  natural  theology,  but  as  more  perfectly  revealing  the 
truth.  Christianity  is  indeed  the  ground-plan  upon  which  the  whole 
creation  is  built — the  original  aud  eternal  truth  of  which  natural  theology 


SOURCES    OF   THEOLOGY.  #9 

is  but  a  partial  expression.  Hence  the  theology  of  nature  and  the  theol- 
ogy of  Scripture  are  mutually  dependent.  Natural  theology  not  only  pre- 
pares the  way  for,  but  it  receives  stimulus  and  aid  from,  Scriptural 
theology.  Natural  theology  may  now  be  a  source  of  truth,  which,  before 
the  Scriptures  came,  it  could  not  furnish. 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  23— "There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  natural 
religion  or  religion  of  reason  distinct  from  revealed  religion.  Christianity  is  more 
profoundly,  more  comprehensively,  rational,  more  accordant  with  the  deepest  princi- 
ples of  human  nature  and  human  thought  than  is  natural  religion;  or,  as  we  may  put 
it,  Christianity  is  natural  religion  elevated  and  transmuted  into  revealed."  Peabody, 
Christianity  the  Religion  of  Nature,  lecture  2—"  Kevelation  is  the  unveiling,  uncover- 
ing of  what  previously  existed,  and  it  excludes  the  idea  of  newness,  invention,  creation. 
.  .  .  The  revealed  religion  of  earth  is  the  natural  religion  of  heaven."  Compare 
Rev.  13  :  8  —  "  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  =  the  coming  of  Christ  was 
no  make-shift ;  in  a  true  sense  the  Cross  existed  in  eternity ;  the  atonement  is  a  revela- 
tion of  an  eternal  fact  in  the  being  of  God. 

Note  Plato's  illustration  of  the  cave  which  can  be  easily  threaded  by  one  who  has 
previously  entered  it  with  a  torch.  Nature  is  the  dim  light  from  the  cave's  mouth  ; 
the  torch  is  Scripture.  Kant  to  Jacobi.  iu  Jacobi's  Werke,  3  :  523—  "  If  the  gospel  had 
not  previously  taught  the  universal  moral  laws,  reason  would  not  yet  have  obtained 
so  perfect  an  insight  into  them."  Alexander  McLaren : "  Non-Christian  thinkers  now 
talk  eloquently  about  God's  love,  and  even  reject  the  gospel  iu  the  name  of  that  love, 
thus  kicking  down  the  ladder  by  which  they  have  climbed.  But  it  was  the  Cross  that 
taught  the  world.the  love  of  God,  and  apart  from  the  death  of  Christ  men  may  hope 
that  there  is  a  heart  at  the  centre  of  the  universe,  but  they  can  never  be  sure  of  it." 
The  parrot  fancies  that  he  taught  men  to  talk.  So  Mr.  Spencer  fancies  that  he 
invented  ethics.  He  is  only  using  the  twilight,  after  his  sun  has  goue  down.  Doraer, 
Hist.  Prot.  Theol.,  252,  253—  "  Faith,  at  the  Reformation,  first  gave  scientific  certainty  ; 
it  had  God  sure  :  hence  it  proceeded  to  banish  scepticism  in  philosophy  and  science." 
See  also  Dove,  Logic  of  Christian  Faith,  333;  Bowen,  Metaph.  ami  Ethics,  443-463; 
Bib.  Sac.,  lHTt  :4:itl;  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  228,  227. 

2.  Scripture  and  Rationalism.  Although  the  Scriptures  make  known 
much  that  is  beyond  the  power  of  man's  unaided  reason  to  discover  or 
fully  to  comprehend,  their  teachings,  when  taken  together,  in  no  way  con- 
tradict a  reason  conditioned  in  its  activity  by  a  holy  affection  and  enlight- 
ened by  the  Spirit  of  God.  To  reason  in  the  large  sense,  as  including  the 
mind's  power  of  cognizing  God  and  moral  relations — not  in  the  narrow 
sense  of  mere  reasoning,  or  the  exercise  of  the  purely  logical  faculty — the 
Scriptures  continually  appeal. 

A.  The  proper  ollice  of  reason,  in  this  large  sense,  is  :  (a)  To  furnish 
us  with  those  primary  ideas  of  space,  time,  cause,  substance,  design,  right, 
and  God,  which  are  the  conditions  of  all  subsequent  knowledge,  (b)  To 
judge  with  regard  to  man's  need  of  a  special  and  supernatural  revelation. 
(c)  To  examine  the  credentials  of  communications  i^rofessing  to  be,  or  of 
documents  professing  to  record,  such  a  revelation,  (d)  To  estimate  and 
reduce  to  system  the  facts  of  revelation,  when  these  have  been  found  pro- 
perly attested,  (e)  To  deduce  from  these  facts  their  natural  and  logical 
conclusions.  Thus  reason  itself  prepares  the  way  for  a  revelation  above 
reason,  and  warrants  an  implicit  trust  in  such  revelation  when  once  given. 

Dove,  Logic  of  the  Christian  Faith,  318—"  Reason  terminates  in  the  proposition  : 
Look  for  revelation."  Leibnitz :  "  Revelation  is  the  viceroy  who  first  presents  his  cre- 
dentials to  the  provincial  assembly  (reason  ),  and  then  himself  presides."  Reason  can 
recognize  truth  after  it  is  made  known,  as  for  example  in  the  demonstrations  of  geom- 
etry, although  it  could  never  discover  that  truth  for  itself.    See  Calderwood's  illustra- 


30  PROLEGOMENA. 

tion  of  the  party  lost  in  tbe  woods,  who  wisely  take  the  course  indicated  by  one  at  the 
tree-top  with  a  larger  view  than  their  own  (  Philosophy  of  the  Infinite,  126).  The  nov- 
ice does  well  to  trust  his  guide  in  the  forest,  at  least  till  he  learns  to  recognize  for  him- 
self the  marks  blazed  upon  the  trees.  Luthardt,  Fund.  Truths,  lect.  viii— "Reason 
could  never  have  invented  a  self-humiliating  God,  cradled  in  a  manger  and  dying  on  a 
cross."  Lessing,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Litteratur,  6 :  134— "What  is  the  meaning  of  a 
revelation  that  reveals  nothing  ?" 

Ritschl  denies  the  presuppositions  of  any  theology  based  on  the  Bible  as  the  infal- 
lible word  of  God  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  validity  of  the  knowledge  of  God  as 
obtained  by  scientific  and  philosophic  processes  on  the  other.  Because  philosophers, 
scientists,  and  even  exegetes,  are  not  agreed  among  themselves,  he  concludes  that  no 
trustworthy  results  are  attainable  by  human  reason.  We  grant  that  reason  without 
love  will  fall  into  many  errors  with  regard  to  God,  and  that  faith  is  therefore  the  organ 
by  which  religious  truth  is  to  be  apprehended.  But  we  claim  that  this  faith  includes 
reason,  and  is  itself  reason  in  its  highest  form.  Faith  criticizes  and  judges  the  pro- 
cesses of  natural  science  as  well  as  the  contents  of  Scripture.  But  it  also  recognizes  in 
science  and  Scripture  prior  workings  of  that  same  Spirit  of  Christ  which  is  the  source 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  life.  Ritschl  ignores  Christ's  world-relations  and  there- 
fore secularizes  and  disparages  science  and  philosophy.  The  faith  to  which  he  trusts  as 
the  source  of  theology  is  unwarrantably  sundered  from  reason.  It  becomes  a  subjective 
and  arbitrary  standard,  to  which  even  the  teaching  of  Scripture  must  yield  prece- 
dence. We  hold  on  the  contrary,  that  there  are  ascertained  results  in  science  and  in 
philosophy,  as  well  as  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  as  a  whole,  and  that  these 
results  constitute  an  authoritative  revelation.  See  Orr,  The  Theology  of  Ritschl ;  Dor- 
ner,  Hist.  Prot.  Theol.,  1 :  233—  "The  unreasonable  in  the  empirical  reason  is  taken 
captive  by  faith,  which  is  the  nascent  true  reason  that  despairs  of  itself  and  trustfully 
lays  hold  of  objective  Christianity." 

B.  Rationalism,  on  the  other  hand,  holds  reason  to  be  the  ultimate 
source  of  all  religious  truth,  while  Scripture  is  authoritative  only  so  far  as  its 
revelations  agree  with  previous  conclusions  of  reason,  or  can  be  rationally 
demonstrated.  Every  form  of  rationalism,  therefore,  commits  at  least  one 
of  the  following  errors  :  (a)  That  of  confounding  reason  with  mere  rea- 
soning, or  the  exercise  of  the  logical  intelligence.  (A)  That  of  ignoring 
the  necessity  of  a  holy  affection  as  the  condition  of  all  right  reason  in 
religious  things,  (e)  That  of  denying  our  dependence  in  our  present  state 
of  sin  upon  God's  past  revelations  of  himself,  (d)  That  of  regarding  the 
unaided  reason,  even  its  normal  and  unbiased  state,  as  capable  of  dis- 
covering, comprehending,  and  demonstrating  all  religious  truth. 

Reason  must  not  be  confounded  with  ratiocination,  or  mere  reasoning.  Shall  we  fol- 
low reason  ?  Yes,  but  not  individual  reasoning,  against  the  testimony  of  those  who 
are  better  informed  than  we  ;  nor  by  insisting  on  demonstration,  where  probable  evi- 
dence alone  is  possible ;  nor  by  trusting  solely  to  the  evidence  of  the  senses,  when 
spiritual  things  are  in  question.  Coleridge,  in  replying  to  those  who  argued  that  all 
knowledge  comes  to  us  from  the  senses,  says :  "  At  any  rate  we  must  bring  to  all  facts 
the  light  in  which  we  see  them."  This  the  Christian  does.  The  light  of  love  reveals 
much  that  would  otherwise  be  invisible.  Wordsworth,  Excursion,  book  5  ( 598 )  —  "  The 
mind's  repose  On  evidence  is  not  to  be  ensured  By  act  of  naked  reason.  Moral  truth 
Is  no  mechanic  structure,  built  by  rule." 

Rationalism  is  the  mathematical  theory  of  knowledge.  Spinoza's  Ethics  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  it.  It  would  deduce  the  universe  from  an  axiom.  Dr.  Hodge  very  wrongly 
described  rationalism  as  "an  overuse  of  reason."  It  is  rather  the  use  of  an  abnormal, 
perverted,  improperly  conditioned  reason ;  see  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  34,  39,  55,  and 
criticism  by  Miller,  in  his  Fetich  in  Theology.  The  phrase  "  sanctified  intellect "  means 
simply  intellect  accompanied  by  right  affections  toward  God,  and  trained  to  work 
under  their  influence.  Bishop  Butler :  "  Let  reason  be  kept  to,  but  let  not  such  poor 
creatures  as  we  are  go  on  objecting  to  an  infinite  scheme  that  we  do  not  see  the  neces- 
sity or  usefulness  of  all  its  parts,  and  call  that  reasoning."  Newman  Smyth,  Death's 
Place  in  Evolution,  86— "Unbelief  is  a  shaft  sunk  down  into  the  darkness  of  the  earth. 


SOURCES    OF   THEOLOGY.  31 

Drive  the  shaft  deep  enough,  and  it  would  come  out  into  the  sunlight  on  the  earth's 
other  side."  The  most  unreasonable  people  in  the  world  are  those  who  depend  solely 
upon  reason,  in  the  narrow  sense.  "  The  better  to  exalt  reason,  they  make  the  world 
irrational."  "The  hen  that  has  hatehea  ducklings  walks  with  them  to  the  water's  edge, 
but  there  she  stops,  and  she  is  amazed  when  they  go  on.  So  reason  stops  and  faith  goes 
on,  finding  its  proper  element  in  the  invisible.  Reason  is  the  feet  that  stand  on  solid 
earth;  faith  is  the  wings  that  enable  us  to  fly;  and  normal  man  is  a  creature  with 
wings."  Compare  7iw<ri«  ( 1  Tim.  6:  20  —  " the  knowledge  which  is  falsely  so  called")  with  iiriyvtiHTt? 
(2  Pet.  1 :  2  —  "the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus  our  Lord"  =  full  knowledge,  or  true  knowledge ). 
See  Twesten,  Dogmatik,  1  :  467-500;  Julius  Miiller,  Proof -texts,  4,5;  Mansel,  Limits 
of  Religious  Thought,  90 ;  Dawson,  Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution. 

3.  Scripture  and  Mysticism.  As  rationalism  recognizes  too  little  as 
coming  from  God,  so  mysticism  recognizes  too  much. 

A.  True  mysticism. — We  have  seen  that  there  is  an  illumination  of  the 
minds  of  all  believers  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Spirit,  however,  makes  no 
new  revelation  of  truth,  but  uses  for  his  instrument  the  truth  already 
revealed  by  Christ  in  nature  and  in  the  Scriptures.  The  illuminating 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  an  opening  of  men's  minds  to  understand 
Christ's  previous  revelations.  As  one  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  Chris- 
tianity, every  true  believer  may  be  called  a  mystic.  True  mysticism  is 
that  higher  knowledge  and  fellowship  w  hich  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  through 
the  use  of  nature  and  Scripture  as  subordinate  and  principal  means. 

"  Mystic  "  =  one  initiated,  from  /ivw,  "  to  close  the  eyes  "  —  probably  in  order  that  the 
soul  may  have  inward  vision  of  truth.  But  divine  truth  is  a  "  mystery,"  not  only  as 
something  into  which  one  must  be  initiated,  but  as  inrip&6.\\ovoa.  t^s  yniaews  ( Eph.  3  :  19 ) 
—surpassing  full  knowledge,  even  to  the  believer  ;  see  Meyer  on  Rom.  11 :  25  —  "  I  would  not, 
brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of  this  mystery."  The  Germans  have  MystQt  with  a  favorable  sense, 
Musticisnius  with  an  unfavorable  sense,— corresponding  respectively  to  our  true  and 
false  mysticism.  True  mysticism  is  intimated  in  J.ihn  16  :  13  —  "the  spirit  of  truth  ,  .  .  shall 
guide  you  into  all  the  truth  " ;  Eph.  3  :  9  —  "dispensation  of  the  mystery  "  ;  1  Cor.  2  :  10  —  "  unto  us  God  revealed 
them  through  the  Spirit."  Nitzsch,  Syst.  of  Christ.  Duct.,  35—"  Whenever  true  religion 
revives,  there  is  an  outers  against  inyst  icism,  (.  < .,  higher  knowledge,  fellowship,  activ- 
ity through  the  Spirit  of  Cod  in  the  heart."  Compare  the  charge  against  Paul  that  he 
was  mad,  in  Acts  26 :  24,  25,  with  his  self-vindication  in  2  Cor.  5  :  13  — "  whether  we  are  beside  our- 
selves, it  is  unto  God." 

Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  21  — "  Harnack  speaks  of  mysticism  as  rationalism  applied 
to  a  sphere  above  reason.  He  should  have  said  reason  applied  to  a  sphere  above  ration- 
alism. Its  fundamental  doctrine  is  the  unity  of  all  existence.  Man  can  realize  his  indi- 
viduality only  by  transcending  it  and  finding  himself  in  the  larger  unity  of  God's 
being.  Man  is  a  microcosm.  He  recapitulates  the  race,  the  universe,  Christ  himself." 
Ibid.,  5  —  Mysticism  is  "  the  attempt  to  realize  in  thought  and  feeling  the  immanence  of 
the  temporal  in  the  eternal,  and  of  the  eternal  in  tho  temporal.  It  implies  ( 1)  that 
the  soul  can  see  and  perceive  spiritual  truth  ;  (2)  that  man,  in  order  to  know  God,  must 
be  a  partaker  of  the  divine  nature ;  (3)  that  without  holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord ; 
(4)  that  the  true  hierophant  of  the  mysteries  of  God  is  love.  The  'scala  perfectionis ' 
is  (a)  the  purgative  life;  (b)  the  illuminative  life;  (c)  the  unitive  life."  Stevens, 
Johannine  Theology,  239,  240—  "The  mysticism  of  John  ...  is  not  a  subjective  mys- 
ticism which  absorbs  the  soul  in  self-contemplation  and  revery,  but  an  objective  and 
rational  mysticism,  which  lives  in  a  world  of  realities,  apprehends  divinely  revealed 
truth,  and  bases  its  experience  upon  it.  It  is  a  mysticism  which  feeds,  not  upon  its  own 
feelings  and  fancies,  but  upon  Christ.  It  involves  an  acceptance  of  him,  and  a  life  of 
obedience  to  him.  Its  motto  is:  Abiding  in  Christ."  As  the  power  press  cannot  dis- 
pense with  the  type,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  does  notdispense  with  Christ's  external  revela- 
tions in  nature  and  in  Scripture.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  304—  "  The  word 
of  God  is  a  form  or  mould,  into  which  the  Holy  Spirit  delivers  us  when  he  creates  us 
anew ' ' ;  cf.  Rom.  6  :  17  —  "ye  became  obedient  from  the  heart  to  that  form  of  teaching  whereunto  ye  were 
delivered  " 


32  PROLEGOMENA. 

B.  False  mysticism.  — Mysticism,  however,  as  the  term  is  commonly 
used,  errs  in  holding  to  the  attainment  of  religions  knowledge  by  direct 
communication  from  God,  and  by  passive  absorption  of  the  human  activi- 
ties into  the  divine.  It  either  partially  or  wholly  loses  sight  of  (a)  the  out- 
ward organs  of  revelation,  nature  and  the  Scriptures ;  (6)  the  activity  of 
the  human  powers  in  the  reception  of  all  religious  knowledge  ;  (e)  the 
personality  of  man,  and,  by  consequence,  the  personality  of  God. 

In  opposition  to  false  mysticism,  we  are  to  remember  that  the  Holy  Spirit  works 
through  the  truth  externally  revealed  in  nature  and  in  Scripture  ( lets  14 :  17  —  "  ha  left 
not  himself  without  witness  ";  Rom.  1 :  20  —  "  the  invisible  things  of  him  since  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen  "  ;  Acts  7:  51  —  "ye  do  always  resist  the  My  Spirit :  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye"  ;  Eph.  6  :  17  —  "the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God  "  ).  By  this  truth  already  given  we  are  to  test  all  new 
communications  which  would  contradict  or  supersede  it  (1  John  4:  1  —  "  believe  not  every 
spirit,  but  prove  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God  ";  Eph.  5 :  10 — "proving  what  is  well  pleasing  unto  the  Lord  "). 
By  these  tests  we  may  try  Spiritualism,  Mormonism,  Swedenborgianism.  Note  the 
mystical  tendency  in  Francis  de  Sales,  Thomas  a  Kempis,  Madame  Guyon,  Thomas  C. 
Upham.  These  writers  seem  at  times  to  advocate  an  unwarrantable  abnegation  of  our 
reason  and  will,  and  a  "swallowing  up  of  man  in  God."  But  Christ  does  not  deprive  us 
of  reason  and  will ;  he  only  takes  from  us  the  perverseness  of  our  reason  and  the  self- 
ishness of  our  will;  so  reason  and  will  are  restored  to  their  normal  clearness  and 
strength.  Compare  Ps.  16  :  7  —  "Jehovah,  who  hath  given  me  counsel ;  yea,  my  heart  instructed  me  in  the 
night  seasons"  =  God  teaches  his  people  through  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties. 

False  mysticism  is  sometimes  present  though  unrecognized.  All  expectation  of 
results  without  the  use  of  means  partakes  of  it.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  288 — 
"  The  lazy  will  would  like  to  have  the  vision  while  the  eye  that  apprehends  it  sleeps." 
Preaching  without  preparation  is  like  throwing  ourselves  down  from  a  pinnacle  of  the 
temple  and  depending  on  God  to  send  an  angel  to  hold  us  up.  Christian  Science  would 
trust  to  supernatural  agencies,  while  casting  aside  the  natural  agencies  God  has 
already  provided ;  as  if  a  drowning  man  should  trust  to  prayer  while  refusing  to  seize 
the  rope.  Using  Scripture  "  ad  aperturam  libri "  is  like  guiding  one's  actions  by  a 
throw  of  the  dice.  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  171,  note  —  "Both  Charles  and  John 
Wesley  were  agreed  in  accepting  the  Moravian  method  of  solving  doubts  as  to  some 
course  of  action  by  opening  the  Bible  at  hazard  and  regarding  the  passage  on  which 
the  eye  first  alighted  as  a  revelation  of  God's  will  in  the  matter  "  ;  cf.  Wedgwood,  Life 
of  Wesley,  193 ;  Southey,  Life  of  Wesley,  1 :  210.  J.  G.  Paton,  Life,  2 :  74  —  "After  many 
prayers  and  wrestlings  and  tears,  I  went  alone  before  the  Lord,  and  on  my  knees  cast 
lots,  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  God,  and  the  answer  came  :  '  Go  home! '  "  He  did  this 
only  once  in  his  life,  in  overwhelming  perplexity,  and  finding  no  light  from  human 
counsel.    "  To  whomsoever  this  faith  is  given,"  he  says,  "let  him  obey  it." 

F.  B.  Meyer,  Christian  Living,  18  —  "  It  is  a  mistake  to  seek  a  sign  from  heaven  ;  to 
run  from  counsellor  to  counsellor ;  to  cast  a  lot ;  or  to  trust  in  some  chance  coinci- 
dence. Not  that  God  may  not  reveal  his  will  thus ;  but  because  it  is  hardly  the  behav- 
ior of  a  child  with  its  Father.  There  is  a  more  excellent  way,"  —  namely,  appropriate 
Christ  who  is  wisdom,  and  then  go  forward,  sure  that  we  shall  be  guided,  as  each  new 
step  must  be  taken,  or  word  spoken,  or  decision  made.  Our  service  is  to  be  "rational  ser- 
vice" (Rom.  12  :  1 ) ;  blind  and  arbitrary  action  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  Christian- 
ity. Such  action  makes  us  victims  of  temporary  feeling  and  a  prey  to  Satanic  decep- 
tion. In  eases  of  perplexity,  waiting  for  light  and  waiting  upon  God  will  commonly 
enable  us  to  make  an  intelligent  decision,  while  "whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin"  (Rom.  14:  23). 

"  False  mysticism  reached  its  logical  result  in  the  Buddhistic  theosophy.  In  that  sys- 
tem man  becomes  most  divine  in  the  extinction  of  his  own  personality.  Nirvana  is 
reached  by  the  eightfold  path  of  right  view,  aspiration,  speech,  conduct,  livelihood, 
effort,  mindfulness,  rapture ;  and  Nirvana  is  the  loss  of  ability  to  say :  '  This  is  I,'  and 
'  This  is  mine.'  Such  was  Hypatia's  attempt,  by  subjection  of  self,  to  be  wafted  away 
into  the  arms  of  Jove.  George  Eliot  was  wrong  when  she  said  :  '  The  happiest  woman 
has  no  history.'  Self-denial  is  not  self-effacement.  The  cracked  bell  has  no  individual- 
ity. In  Christ  we  become  our  complete  selves."  Col.  2 :  9, 10  —  "  For  in  him  dweheth  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily,  and  in  him  ye  are  made  full." 

Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2  :  248,  249  —  "  Assert  the  spiritual  man ;  abnegate  the 
natural  man.    The  fleshly  self  is  the  root  of  all  evil;  the  spiritual  self  belongs  to  a 


SOURCES   OF   THEOLOGY.  33 

higher  realm.  But  tins  spiritual  self  lies  at  first  outside  the  soul ;  it  becomes  ours  only 
by  grace.  Plato  rightly  made  the  eternal  Ideas  the  source  of  all  human  truth  and 
goodness.  Wisdom  comes  into  a  man,Jike  Aristotle's  vovs."  A.  H.  Bradford,  The 
Inner  Light,  in  making  the  direct  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  sufficient  if  not  the 
sole  source  of  religious  knowledge,  seems  to  us  to  ignore  the  principle  of  evolution  in 
religion.  God  builds  upon  the  past.  His  revelation  to  prophets  and  apostles  consti- 
tutes the  norm  and  corrective  of  our  individual  experience,  even  while  our  experience 
throws  new  light  upon  that  revelation.  On  Mysticism,  true  and  false,  see  Inge,  Chris- 
tian Mysticism,  4,  5,  11;  Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  289-294;  Dorner, 
Geschichte  d.  prot.  Theol., 48-59, 243 ;  Herzog,  Encycl.,  art. :  Mystik,  by  Lange ;  Vaughan, 
Hours  with  the  Mystics,  1  :  199;  Morell,  Hist.  Philos.,  58,  191-215,  556-625,  726;  Hodge, 
Syst.  Theol.,  1:  61-69,  9V,  104;  Fleming',  Vocab.  Philos.,  in  voce;  Tholuck,  Introd.  to 
Bliithensammlung  aus  der  morgenlandischen  Mystik ;  William  James,  Varieties  of 
Religious  Experience,  379-429. 

4.  Scripture  and  Romanism.  While  the  history  of  doctrine,  as  show- 
ing the  progressive  apprehension  and  unfolding  by  the  church  of  the  truth 
contained  in  nature  and  Scripture,  is  a  subordinate  source  of  theology, 
Protestantism  recognizes  the  Bible  as  under  Christ  the  primary  and  final 
authority. 

Romanism,  on  the  other  hand,  commits  the  two-fold  error  («)  Of  making 
the  church,  and  not  the  Scriptures,  the  immediate  and  sufficient  source  of 
religious  knowledge;  and  (b)  Of  making  the  relation  of  the  individual  to 
Christ  depend  upon  his  relation  to  the  church,  instead  of  making  his  rela- 
tion to  the  church  depend  upon,  follow,  and  express  his  relation  to  Christ. 

In  Roman  Catholicism  there  is  a  mystical  element.  The  Scriptures  are  not  the  com- 
plete or  final  standard  of  belief  and  practice.  God  gives  to  the  world  from  time  to 
time,  through  popes  and  councils,  new  communications  of  truth.  Cyprian:  "He  who 
has  not  the  church  for  his  mother,  has  not  Cod  for  his  Father."  Augustine:  "I  would 
not  believe  the  Scripture,  unless  the  authority  of  the  church  also  influenced  me." 
Francis  of  Assisi  and  Ignatius  Loyola  both  represented  the  truly  obedient  person  as 
one  dead,  moving  only  as  moved  by  his  superior;  the  true  Christian  has  no  life  of  his 
own,  but  is  the  blind  instrument  of  the  church.  John  Henry  Newman,  Tracts,  Theol- 
and  Eccl.,  287— "The  Christian  dogmas  were  in  the  church  from  the  time  of  the 
apos  les,— they  were  ever  in  their  substance  what  they  are  now."  But  this  is  demon- 
strably untrue  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary:  of  the  treasury  of 
merits  to  be  distributed  in  indulgences;  .of  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  (see  Gore, 
Incarnation,  180).  In  place  of  the  true  doctrine,  "  T'bi  SpiritUS,  ibi  ecclesia,"  Roman- 
ism substitutes  her  maxim,  "I'bi  ecclesia,  ibi  Spiritus."  Luther  saw  in  this  the  prin- 
ciple of  mysticism,  when  he  said:  "  Papatus  est  merus  enthusiasmus."  See  Hodge, 
Syst.  Theol.,  1  :  61-69. 

In  reply  to  the  Romanist  argument  that  the  church  was  before  the  Bible,  and  that 
the  same  body  that  gave  the  truth  at  the  first  can  make  additions  to  that  truth,  we  say 
that  the  unwritten  word  was  before  the  church  and  made  the  church  possible.  The 
word  of  God  existed  before  it  was  written  down,  and  by  that  word  the  first  disciples  as 
well  as  the  latest  were  begotten  ( 1  Pet.  1 :  23  —  "  begotten  again  .  .  .  through  the  word  of  God"). 
The  grain  of  truth  in  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  is  expressed  in  1  Tim.  3  :  15  —  "the  church  of 
the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  "  =  the  church  is  God's  appointed  proclaimer  of 
truth  ;  cf.  Phil.  2 :  16  —  "  holding  forth  the  word  of  life."  But  the  church  can  proclaim  the  truth, 
only  as  it  is  built  upon  the  truth.  So  we  may  say  that  the  American  Republic  is  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  liberty  in  the  world  ;  but  this  is  true  only  so  far  as  the  Republic  is 
built  upon  the  principle  of  liberty  as  its  foundation.  When  the  Romanist  asks:  "Where 
was  your  church  before  Luther?  "  the  Protestant  may  reply :  "Where  yours  is  not  now 
—  in  the  word  of  God.  Where  was  your  face  before  it  was  washed  ?  Where  was  the 
fine  flour  before  the  wheat  went  to  the  mill  ?  "  Lady  Jane  Grey,  three  days  before  her 
execution,  February  12,  15.54,  said :  "I  ground  my  faith  on  God's  word,  and  not  upon 
the  church;  for,  if  the  church  be  a  good  church,  the  faith  of  the  church  must  be  tried 
by  God's  word,  and  not  God's  word  by  the  church,  nor  yet  my  faith." 

The  Roman  church  would  keep  men  in  perpetual  childhood  —  coming  to  her  for  truth 

3 


34  PROLEGOMENA. 

instead  of  going-  directly  to  t  lie  Bible ;  "  like  the  foolish  mother  who  keeps  her  boy  pin- 
ing- ill  the  house  lest  he  stub  his  toe,  and  would  love  best  to  have  him  remain  a  babe  for- 
ever, thatshe  miglit  mother  him  still."  Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  30—"  Roman? 
ism  is  so  busy  in  building  up  a  system  of  guarantees,  that  she  forgets  the  truth  of  Christ 
which  she  would  guarantee."  George  Herbert :  "  What  wretchedness  can  give  him  any 
room,  Whose  house  is  foul  while  he  adores  his  broom  ! "  It  is  a  semi-parasitic  doctrine 
of  safety  without  intelligence  orspirituality.  Romanism  says :  "  Man  for  the  machine !" 
Protestantism : "  The  machine  for  man  !"  Catholicism  strangles,  Protestantism  restores, 
individuality.  Yet  the  Romanist  principle  sometimes  appears  in  so-called  Protestant 
churches.  The  Catechism  published  by  the  League  of  the  Holy  Cross,  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  contains  the  following:  "It  is  to  the  priest  only  that  the  child  must  acknowl- 
edge his  sins,  if  he  desires  that  God  should  forgive  him.  Do  you  know  why?  It  is 
because  God,  when  on  earth,  gave  to  his  priests  and  to  them  alone  the  power  of  forgiv- 
ing sins.  Go  to  the  priest,  Who  is  the  doctor  of  your  soul,  and  who  cures  you  in  the 
name  of  God."  But  this  contradicts  John  10  :  7  — where  Christ  says  "I  am  the  door"  ;  and 
1  Cor.  3:11  —  "  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ "  =  Salvation  is 
attained  by  immediate  access  to  Christ,  and  there  is  no  door  between  the  soul  and 
him.  See  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theol.,  227  ;  Schleiermacher,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  24  ;  Rob- 
inson, in  Mad.  Av.  Lectures,  387;  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Method  of  Revelation,  10;  Watkins, 
Bampton  Lect.  for  1890:  149;  Drummond,  Nat.  Law  in  Spir.  World,  327. 

II.  Limitations  of  Theology.  —  Although  theology  derives  its  mate- 
rial from  God's  two-fold  revelation,  it  does  not  profess  to  give  an  exhaus- 
tive knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  relations  between  God  and  the  universe. 
After  showing  what  material  we  have,  we  must  show  what  material  we  have 
not.  We  have  indicated  the  sources  of  theology  ;  we  now  examine  its  limi- 
tations.    Theology  has  its  limitations  : 

(«)  In  the  ftniteness  of  the  human  understanding.  This  gives  rise 
to  a  class  of  necessary  mysteries,  or  mysteries  connected  with  the  infinity 
and  inconrprehensibleness  of  the  divine  nature  (Job  11  :  7  ;  Rom.  11  :  33). 

Job  11:7  —  "  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God  ?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfection  ?"  Rom.  11 :  33 
—  "how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out!  "  Every  doctrine,  therefore, 
has  its  inexplicable  side.  Here  is  the  proper  meaning  of  Tertullian's  sayings  :  "  Cer- 
tum  est,  quia  impossible  est;  quo  absurdius,  eo  verius  ";  that  of  Anselm :  "Credo, 
ut  intelligam  "  ;  and  that  of  Abelard  :  "Qui  credit  cito,  levis  corde  est."  Drummond, 
Nat.  Law  in  Spir.  World  :  "  A  science  without  mystery  is  unknown  ;  a  religion  without 
mystery  is  absurd."  E.  G.  Robinson:  "A  finite  being  cannot  grasp  even  its  own  rela- 
tions to  the  Infinite."  Hovey,  Manual  of  Christ.  Theol.,  7  —  "  To  infer  from  the  per- 
fection of  God  that  all  his  works  [  nature,  man,  inspiration  ]  will  be  absolutely  and 
unchangeably  perfect;  to  infer  from  the  perfect  love  of  God  that  there  can  be  no  sin 
or  suffering  in  the  world  ;  to  infer  from  the  sovereignty  of  God  that  man  is  not  a  free 
moral  agent;  —  all  these  inferences  are  rash;  they  are  inferences  from  the  cause  to  the 
effect,  while  the  cause  is  imperfectly  known."  See  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  Infinite, 
491 ;  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Discussions,  22. 

(b)  In  the  imperfect,  state  of  science,  both  natural  and  metaphysical. 
This  gives  rise  to  a  class  of  accidental  mysteries,  or  mysteries  which 
consist  in  the  apparently  irreconcilable  nature  of  truths,  Avhich,  taken 
separately,  are  perfectly  comprehensible. 

We  are  the  victims  of  a  mental  or  moral  astigmatism,  which  sees  a  tingle  point  of 
truth  as  two.  We  see  God  and  man,  divine  sovereignty  and  human  freedom,  Christ's 
divine  nature  and  Christ's  human  nature,  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  respect- 
ively, as  two  disconnected  facts,  when  perhaps  deeper  insight  would  see  but  one. 
Astronomy  has  its  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces,  yet  they  are  doubtless  one  force. 
The  child  cannot  hold  two  oranges  at  once  in  its  little  hand.  Negro  preacher  :  "  You 
can't  carry  two  watermelons  under  one  arm."  Shakespeare,  Antony  and  Cleopatra, 
1 :  2  —  "  In  nature's  infinite  book  of  seeresy,  A  little  I  can  read."  Cooke,  Credentials  of 
Science,  34  — "Man's  progress  in  knowledge  has  been  so  constantly  and  rapidly  accel- 
erated that  more  has  been  gained  during-  the  lifetime  of  men  still  living  than  during  all 


LIMITATIONS   OF   THEOLOGY.  35 

human  history  before."  And  yet  we  may  say  with  D'Arcy,  Idealism  and  Ifteology,  ~ls 
—  "Man's  positiou  in  the  universe  is  eccentric.  God  alone  is  at  the  centre.  To  him 
alone  is  the  orbit  of  truth  completeljyiisplayed.   .   .   .  There  are  circumstances  in 

which  to  us  the  onward  movement  of  truth  may  seem  a  retrogression."  William  Wat- 
son, Collected  Poems,  271  —  "  Think  not  thy  wisdom  can  illume  away  The  ancient  tan- 
gletnent  of  night  and  day.  Enough  to  acknowledge  both,  and  both  revere:  They  see 
not  elearliest  who  see  all  things  clear." 

(c)  In  the  inadequacy  of  language.  Since  language  is  the  medium 
through  which  truth  is  expressed  and  formulated,  the  invention  of  a  pro- 
per terminology  in  theology,  as  in  every  other  science,  is  a  condition  and 
criterion  of  its  progress.  The  Scriptures  recognize  a  peculiar  difficulty  in 
putting  spiritual  truths  into  earthly  language  (  1  Cor.  2  :  13  ;  2  Cor.  3:6; 
12  :  4  ). 

1  Cor.  2:  13  —  " not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth  "  ;  2  Cor.  3  :  6  — "the  letter  killeth  "  ;  12  :  4  — 
" unspjakable  words."'  God  submits  to  conditions  Of  revelation;  cf.  John  16:  12  — "I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now."  Language  has  to  be  created.  Words 
have  to  be  taken  from  a  common,  and  to  be  put  to  a  larger  and  more  sacred,  use,  so 
that  they  "  stagger  under  their  weight  of  meaning  "  —  e.  (/.,  the  word  "day,"  in  Genesis  1, 
and  the  word  aya7r>)  in  1  Cor.  IS.  See  Gould,  in  Amer.  Com.,  on  1  Cor.  13  :  12— "now  we  see  in 
a- mirror,  darkly"  — in  a  metallic  mirror  whose  surface  is  dim  and  whose  images  are 
obscure  =  Now  we  behold  Christ,  the  truth,  only  as  he  is  reflected  in  imperfect  speech 
—  "but  then  face  to  face "  =  immediately,  without  the  intervention  of  an  imperfect 
medium.  "As  fast  as  we  tunnel  into  the  sandbank  of  thought,  the  stones  of  language 
must  be  built  into  walls  and  arches,  to  allow  further  progress  into  the  boundless  mine." 

(d)  In  the  incompleteness  of  our  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures. 
Since  it  is  not  the  mere  letter  of  the  Scriptures  that  constitutes  the  truth, 
the  progress  of  theology  is  dependent  upon  hermeneutics,  or  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  word  of  God. 

Notice  the  progress  in  commenting,  from  horn i let ioal  to  grammatical,  historical,  dog- 
matic, illustrated  in  Scott,  Ellieott,  Stanley,  Lightfoot.  John  Robinson:  "I  am  ver- 
ily persuaded  thai  the  Lord  hath  more  truth  yet  to  break  forth  from  his  holy  word." 
Recent  criticism  has  shown  the  necessity  of  studying  each  portion  of  Scripture  in  the 
light  of  its  origin  and  connections.  There  has  been  an  evolution  of  Scripture,  as  truly 
as  there  has  been  an  evolution  of  natural  science,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  was  in 
the  prophets  has  brought  about  a  progress  from  germinal  and  typical  expression  to 
expression  that  is  complete  and  clear.  Yet  we  still  need  to  offer  the  prayer  of  Ps.  119:  18 
— "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things  oat  of  thy  law."  On  New  Testament  Interpre- 
tation, see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  324-336. 

(e)  In  the  silence  of  written  revelation.  For  our  discipline  and  pro- 
bation, much  is  probably  hidden  from  us,  which  we  might  even  with  our 
present  powers  comprehend. 

Instance  the  silence  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  the  life  and  death  of  Mary  the  Vir- 
gin, the  personal  appearance  of  Jesus  and  his  occupations  in  early  life,  the  origin  of 
evil,  the  method  of  the  atonement,  the  state  alter  death.  So  also  as  to  social  and  polit- 
ical questions,  such  as  slavery,  the  liquor  traffic,  domestic  virtues,  governmental  cor- 
ruption. "  Jesus  was  in  heaven  at  the  revolt  of  the  angels,  yet  he  tells  us  little  about 
angels  or  about  heaven.  He  does  not  discourse  about  Eden,  or  Adam,  or  the  fall  of 
man,  or  death  as  the  result  of  Adam's  sin  ;  and  he  says  little  of  departed  spirits,  whe- 
ther they  are  lost  or  saved."  It  was  better  to  inculcate  principles,  and  trust  his  follow- 
ers to  apply  them.  His  gospel  is  not  intended  to  gratify  a  vain  curiosity.  He  would 
m  it  divert  men's  minds  from  pursuing  the  one  thing  needful ;  cf.  Luke  13  :  23,  24  —  "  lord, 
are  they  few  that  are  saved  ?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Strive  to  enter  in  by  the  narrow  door :  for  many,  I  say  unto  you, 
shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able."  Paul's  silence  upon  speculative  questions  which  he 
must  have  pondered  with  absorbing  interest  is  a  proof  of  his  divine  inspiration.  John 
Foster  spent  his  life,"  gathering  questions  for  eternity";  cf.  John  13:  7  —  "What  I  do  thou 
knowest  not  now  ;  but  thou  shalt  understand  hereafter."    The  most  beautiful  thing  in  a  countenance 


36  PROLEGOMENA. 

is  that  which  a  picture  can  never  express.  He  who  would  speak  well  must  omit  well. 
Story :  "  Of  every  noble  work  the  silent  part  is  best ;  Of  all  expressions  that  which  can- 
not be  expressed."  Cf.  1  Cor.  2 :  9  —  "  Things  which  eye  saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  And  which  entered  not 
into  the  heart  of  man,  Whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them  that  love  him"  ;  Deut.  29:  29  —  "The  secret  things 
belong  unto  Jehovah  our  God :  but  the  things  that  are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  children."  For  Luther's 
view,  see  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2 :  338.  See  also  B.  D.  Thomas,  The  Secret  of  the 
Divine  Silence. 

(/)  In  the  lack  of  spiritual  discernment  caused  by  sin.  Since  holy 
affection  is  a  condition  of  religious  knowledge,  all  moral  imperfection  in 
the  individual  Christian  and  in  the  church  serves  as  a  hindrance  to  the 
working  out  of  a  complete  theology. 

John  3:  3  —  "Except  one  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  spiritual  ages  make 
most  progress  in  theology,  —  witness  the  half-century  succeeding  the  Reformation, 
and  the  half-century  succeeding  the  great  revival  in  New  England  in  the  time  of  Jona- 
than Edwards.  Ueberweg,  Logic  (Lindsay's  trausl.),  514  —  "  Science  is  much  under 
the  influence  of  the  will ;  and  the  truth  of  knowledge  depends  upon  the  purity  of  the 
conscience.  The  will  has  no  power  to  resist  scientific  evidence ;  but  scientific  evidence 
is  not  obtained  without  the  continuous  loyalty  of  the  will."  Lord  Bacon  declared 
that  man  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  science,  any  more  than  he  can  enter  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  without  becoming  a  little  child.  Darwin  describes  his  own  mind  as 
having  become  a  kind  of  machine  for  grinding  general  laws  out  of  large  collections 
df  facts,  with  the  result  of  producing  "  atrophy  of  that  part  of  the  brain  on  which  the 
higher  tastes  depend."  But  a  similar  abnormal  atrophy  is  possible  in  the  case  of  the 
moral  and  religious  faculty  (see  Gore,  Incarnation,  37).  Dr.  Allen  said  in  his  Introduc- 
f  ory  Lecture  at  Lane  Theological  Seminary :  "  We  are  very  glad  to  see  you  if  you  wish 
to  be  students ;  but  the  professors'  chairs  are  all  filled." 

III.     Belattons  of  Material  to  Progress  in  Theology. 

(a)  A  perfect  system  of  theology  is  impossible.  We  do  not  expect  to 
construct  such  a  system.  All  science  but  reflects  the  present  attainment, 
of  the  human  mind.  No  science  is  complete  or  finished.  However  it 
may  be  with  the  sciences  of  nature  and  of  man,  the  science  of  God  will 
never  amount  to  an  exhaustive  knowledge.  We  must  not  expect  to  dem- 
onstrate all  Scripture  doctrines  upon  rational  grounds,  or  even  in  every 
case  to  see  the  principle  of  connection  between  them.  Where  we  cannot 
do  this,  we  must,  as  in  every  other  science,  set  the  revealed  facts  in  then- 
places  and  wait  for  further  light,  instead  of  ignoring  or  rejectmg  any  of 
them  because  we  cannot  understand  them  or  their  relation  to  other  parts 
of  our  system. 

Three  problems  left  unsolved  by  the  Egyptians  have  been  handed  down  to  our  <> it- 
eration: (1)  the  duplication  of  the  cube;  (2)  the  triseetion  of  the  angle;  (3)  the 
quadrature  of  the  circle.  Dr.  Johnson :  "  Dictionaries  are  like  watches ;  the  worst  is 
better  than  none ;  and  the  best  can.iot  be  expected  to  go  quite  true."  Hood  spoke  of 
Dr.  Johnson's  "  Contradictionarjy '  which  had  both  "  interiour  "  and  "  exterior."  Sir 
William  Thompson  (Lord  Kelvin)  at  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  his  professorship 
said  :  "  One  word  characterizes  the  most  strenuous  of  the  efforts  for  the  advancement 
of  science  which  I  have  made  perseveringly  through  fifty-live  years:  that  word  is 
failure  ;  I  know  no  more  of  electric  and  magnei  io  force,  or  of  Die  relations  between 
ether,  electricity  ami  ponderable  matter,  or  of  chemical  affinity,  than  I  knew  and 
tried  io  teach  my  students  of  natural  philosophy  fifty  years  ago  in  my  first  session  as 
professor."  Allen,  Religious  Progress,  mentions  three  tendencies.  "The  first  says: 
Destroy  the  new!  The  second  says  :  Destroy  the  old  !  The  third  says  :  Destroy  not  h- 
ing!  Let  the  old  gradually  and  quietly  grow  into  the  new,  as  Erasmus  wished.  We 
should  accept  contradictions,  whether  they  can  be  intellectually  reconciled  or  not. 
The  truth  has  never  prospered  by  enforcing  some  '  via  media.'  Truth  lies  rather  in 
the  union  of  opposite  propositions,  as  in  Christ's  divinity  and  humanity,  and  in  grace 


RELATIONS   OF   MATERIAL   TO    PROGRESS    IN   THEOLOGY.  37 

and  freedom.  Blanco  White  went  from  Rome  to  infidelity ;  Orestes  Brownson  from 
infidelity  to  Rome;  so  the  bi-others  John  Henry  Newman  and  Francis  W.  Newman, 
and  the  brothers  George  Herbert  of  Bemerton  and  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury.  One 
would  secularize  the  divine,  the  other  would  divinize  the  secular.  But  if  one  is  true, 
so  is  the  other.  Let  us  adopt  both.  All  progress  is  a  deeper  penetration  into  the 
moaning  of  old  truth,  and  a  larger  appropriation  of  it." 

(b)  Theology  is  nevertheless  progressive.  It  is  progressive  in  the 
sense  that  our  subjective  understanding  of  the  facts  with  regard  to  God, 
and  our  consequent  expositions  of  these  facts,  may  and  do  become  more 
perfect.  But  theology  is  not  progressive  in  the  sense  that  its  objective 
facts  change,  either  in  their  number  or  their  nature.  With  Martineau  we 
may  say  :  "Religion  has  been  reproached  with  not  being  progressive  ;  it 
makes  amends  by  being  imperishable."  Though  our  knowledge  may  be 
imperfect,  it  will  have  great  value  still.  Our  success  in  constructing  a 
theology  will  depend  upon  the  proportion  which  clearly  expressed  facts  of 
Scripture  bear  to  mere  inferences,  and  upon  the  degree  in  which  they  all 
cohere  about  Christ,  the  central  person  and  theme. 

The  progress  of  theology  is  progress  in  apprehension  by  man,  not  progress  in  com- 
munication by  God.  Originality  in  astronomy  is  not  man's  creation  of  new  planets, 
but  man's  discovery  of  planets  that  were  never  seen  before,  or  the  bringing  to  light 
of  relations  between  them  that  were  never  before  suspected.  Robert  Kerr  Eccles: 
"Originality  is  a  habit  of  recurring  to  origins-  the  habit  of  securing  personal  exper- 
ience by  personal  application  to  original  facts.  It  is  not  an  eduction  of  novelties 
either  from  nature.  Scripture,  or  inner  consciousness  ;  it  is  rather  the  habit  of  resorting 
t"  primitive  tacts,  and  of  securing  the  personal  experiences  which  arise  from  contact 
with  these  facts."  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Revelation,  48— "  The  starry  heavens  ai*e 
now  what  they  were  of  old;  there  is  no  enlargement  of  the  stellar  universe,  except 
that  which  comes  through  the  increased  power  and  use  of  the  telescope."  We  must 
not  imitate  the  green  sailor  who,  when  set  to  steer,  said  he  had  "sailed  by  that  star." 

Martineau,  Types,  1  : 492,  403  —"Metaphysics,  so  far  as  they  are  true  to  their  work, 
are  stationary,  precisely  because  they  have  in  charge,  not  what  begins  and  ceases  to 
be,  but  what  always  fs.  ...  It  is  absurd  to  praise  motion  for  always  making  way, 
while  disparaging  space  for  still  being-  what  it  ever  was:  as  if  the  motion  you  prefer 
could  be,  without  the  space  which  you  reproach."  Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics, 
4.">,  i;7-7n,  79— "True  conservatism  is  progress  which  takes  direction  from  the  past  and 
fulfils  its  good  ;  false  conservatism  is  a  narrowing  and  hopeless  reversion  to  the  past, 
which  is  a  betrayal  of  the  promise  of  the  future.  So  Jesus  came  not  'to  destroy  the  law  or 
the  prophets';  he  'ame  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil'  (Mat.  5:17).  .  .  .  The  last  book  on  Christian 
Ethics  will  not  lie  written  before  the  Judgment  Day."  John  Milton,  Areopagitica: 
"  Truth  is  compared  in  the  [Script  ure  to  a  streaming  fountain ;  if  her  waters  flow  not 
in  a  perpetual  progression,  they  sirfken  into  a  muddy  pool  of  conformity  and  tra- 
dition. A  man  may  be  a  heretic  in  the  truth."  Paul  in  Rom.  2: 16,  and  in  2  Tim.  2:8— 
speaks  of  "my  gospel."  It  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  to  have  his  own  conception  of 
the  truth,  while  he  respects  the  conceptions  of  others.  Tennyson,  Locksley  Hall :  "  I 
that  rather  held  it  better  men  should  perish  one  by  one,  Than  that  earth  should  stand 
at  gaze  like  Joshua's  moon  at  Ajalon."  We  do  not  expect  any  new  worlds,  and  we 
need  not  expect  any  new  Scriptures ;  but  we  may  expect  progress  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  both.    Facts  are  final,  but  interpretation  is  not. 


CHAPTER    III. 


METHOD    OF   THEOLOGY. 

I.  ^Requisites  to  the  Study. —  The  requisites  to  the  successful  study 
of  theology  have  already  in  part  been  indicated  in  speaking  of  its  limita- 
tions.    In  spite  of  some  repetition,  however,  we  mention  the  following  : 

(«)  A  disciplined  mind.  Only  such  a  mind  can  patiently  collect  the 
facts,  hold  in  its  grasp  many  facts  at  once,  educe  by  continudus  reflection 
their  connecting  principles,  suspend  final  judgment  until  its  conclusions 
are  verified  by  Scripture  and  experience. 

Robert  Browning,  Ring-  and  Book,  175  (Pope,  228)  —  "Truth  nowhere  lies,  yet  every- 
where, in  these ;  Not  absolutely  in  a  portion,  yet  Evolveable  from  the  whole  :  evolved 
at  last  Painfully,  held  tenaciously  by  me."  Teachers  and  students  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes:  ( 1)  those  who  know  enough  already  ;  (2)  those  wish  to  learn  more 
than  they  now  know.  Motto  of  Winchester  School  in  England:  "  Disce,  aut  disced©." 
Butcher,  Greek  Genius,  213,  230  —  "  The  Sophists  fancied  that  t  hey  were  imparting  edu- 
cation, when  they  were  only  imparting  results.  Aristotle  illustrates  their  method  by 
the  example  of  a  shoemaker  who,  professing  to  teach  the  art  of  making  painless  shoes, 
puts  into  the  apprentice's  hand  a  large  assortment  of  shoes  ready-made.  A  witty 
Frenchman  classes  together  those  who  would  make  science  popular,  metaphysics 
intelligible,  and  vice  respectable.  The  word  o-xoAtj,  which  first  meant  'leisure,' 
then  'philosophical  discussion,'  and  finally  'school,'  shows  the  pure  love  of  learning 
among  the  Greeks."  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  said  that  the  average  provincial  clergyman 
is  like  the  land  of  the  upper  Potomac  spoken  of  by  Tom  Randolph,  as  almost  worthless 
in  its  original  state,  and  rendered  wholly  so  by  cultivation.  Lotze,  Metaphysics,  1 :  16 
— "  the  constant  whetting  of  the  knife  is  tedious,  if  it  is  not  proposed  to  cut  anything 
with  it."  "To  do  their  duty  is  their  only  holiday,"  is  the  description  of  Athenian 
character  given  by  Thucydides.  Chitty  asked  a  father  inquiring  as  to  his  son's  qualifi- 
cations for  the  law :  "Can  your  son  eat  sawdust  without  any  butter?  "  On  opportu- 
nities for  culture  in  the  Christian  ministry,  see  New  Englander,  Oct.  1S75:  644;  A.  H. 
Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  27:1-275 ;  Christ  in  Creation,  318-320. 

(J>)  An  intuitional  as  distinguished  from  a  merely  logical  habit  of 
mind,—  or,  trust  in  the  mind's  primitive  convictions,  as  well  as  in  its 
processes  of  reasoning.  The  theologian  must  have  insight  as  well  as  under- 
standing. He  must  accustom  himself  to  ponder  spiritual  facts  as  well  as 
those  which  are  sensible  and  material ;  to  see  things  in  their  inner  relations 
as  well  as  in  then-  outward  forms ;  to  cherish  confidence  in  the  reality  and 
the  unity  of  truth. 

Vinet,  Outlines  of  Philosophy,  39,  40  —  "  If  I  do  not  fee)  that  good  is  good,  who  will 
ever  prove  it  to  me  ?  "  Pascal :  "  Logic,  which  is  an  abstraction,  may  shake  everything. 
A  being  purely  intellectual  will  be  incurably  sceptical."  Calvin:  "Satan  is  an  acute 
theologian."  Some  men  can  see  a  fly  on  a  barn  door  a  mile'  away,  and  yet  can  never 
see  the  door.  Zeller,  Outlines  of  Greek  Philosophy,  93— "Gorgias  the  Sophist  was 
able  to  show  metaphysically  that  nothing  can  exist:  that  what  does  exist  cannot  be 
known  by  us;  and  that  what  is  known  by  us  cannot  be  imparted  to  others"  (quoted 
by  Wenley,  Socrates  and  Christ,  28).    Aristotle  differed  from  those  moderate  men  who 

38 


REQUISITES   TO   THE   STUDY.  39 

thought  it  impossible  to  go  over  the  same  river  twice,  —  he  held  that  it  could  not  be 
done  even  once  (cf.  Wordsworth,  Prelude,  536).  Dove,  Logic  of  the  Christian  Faith, 
1-29,  and  especially  25,  gives  a  demonstration  of  the  impossibility  of  motion :  A  thing 
cannot  move  in  the  place  where  it  is ;  Yt  cannot  move  in  the  places  where  it  is  not; 
but  the  place  where  it  is  and  the  places  where  it  is  not  are  all  the  places  that  there 
are;  therefore  a  thing  cannot  move  at  all.  Hazard,  Man  a  Creative  First  Cause,  109, 
shows  that  the  bottom  of  a  wheel  does  not  move,  since  it  goes  backward  as  fast  as  the 
top  goes  forward.  An  instantaneous  photograph  makes  the  upper  part  a  confused 
blur,  while  the  spokes  of  (he  lower  part  are  distinctly  visible.  Abp.  Whately  :  "Weak 
arguments  are  often  thrust  before  my  path  ;  but,  although  they  are  most  unsubstan- 
tial, it  is  uoteasy  to  destroy  them.  There  is  not  a  more  difficult  feat  known  than  to 
cut  through  a  cushion  with  a  sword."  Cf.  1  Tim.  6:  20  —  "oppositions  of  the  knowledge  which  is 
falsely  so  called";  3  :  2  —  "  the  bishop  therefore  must  be  .  .  .  sob?r-niinded  " — <ru<\>pu>v  =  "  well  bal- 
anced. '  The  Scripture  speaks  of  "sound  [  uyiijs  =  healthful  ]  doctrine  "  ( 1  Tim  1 :  10  ).  Contrast 
1  Tim  6:4  —  [  voautv  =  ailing]  "diseased  about  questionings  and  disputes  of  words." 

('•)  An  acquaintance  with  physical,  mental,  and  moral  science. 
The  method  of  conceiving  and  expressing  Scripture  truth  is  so  affected  by 

our  elementary  notions  of  these  sciences,  and  the  weapons  with  which 
theology  is  attacked  and  defended  are  so  commonly  drawn  from  them  as 
arsenals,  that  the  student  cannot  afford  to  be  ignorant  of  them. 

Goethe  explains  his  own  greatness  by  his  avoidance  of  metaphysics  :  "  Mein  Kind, 
Ich  babe  es  king  gemacht:  Icb  habe  nie  fiber's  Dcnkcn  gedachl  "—  "  I  have  been 
wise  in  never  thinking  about  thinking";  he  would  have  licen  wiser,  had  he  pondered 
more  deeply  the  fundamental  principles  of  bis  philosophy;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  The 
Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  296-299,  and  Philosophy  and  Religion,  1-18;  also  in  Bap- 
tist Quarterly,  2 :  :mx<i.  Many  a  theological  system  has  fallen,  like  the  Campanile  at 
Venice,  because  its  foundations  were  insecure.  Sir  William  Hamilton:  "No  diffi- 
culty arises  in  theology  which  has  not  first  emerged  in  philosophy."  N.W.Taylor: 
"Give  me  a  young  man  in  metaphysics,  and  I  care  not  who  has  him  in  theology." 
President  Samson  Talbot :  "  I  love  metaphysics,  because  they  have  to  do  with  reali- 
ties." The  maxim  "  Ubi  ties  medici,ibi  duo  athei,"  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  Galen's 
words:  opto-ros  iarpb?  icai  <i>iK6<jo<f>o<;  — "the  best  physician  is  also  a  philosopher."  Theology 
cannot  dispense  with  science,  any  more  than  science  can  dispense  with  philosophy. 
E.  G.  Robinson:  "Science  has  not  invalidated  any  fundamental  truth  of  revelation, 
though  it  has  modified  the  statement  of  many.  .  .  .  Physical  Science  will  undoubtedly 
knock  some  of  our  crockery  gods  on  the  head,  and  the  sooner  the  better."  There  is 
great  advantage  to  the  preacher  in  taking  up,  as  did  Frederick  W.  Robertson,  one 
science  after  another.  Chemistry  entered  into  his  mental  structure,  as  he  said,  "like 
iron  into  the  blood." 

(d)  A  knoirlcdf/c  of  the  original  languagi  s  of  the  Bible.  This  is 
necessary  to  enable  us  not  only  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  funda- 
mental terms  of  Scripture,  such  as  holiness,  sin,  propitiation,  justification, 
but  also  to  interpret  statements  of  doctrine  by  their  connections  with  the 
context. 

Emerson  said  that  the  man  who  reads  a  book  in  a  strange  tongue,  when  he  can  have 
a  good  translation,  is  a  fool.  Dr.  Bebrends  replied  that  he  is  a  fool  who  is  satisfied  with 
the  substitute.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Language  is  a  great  organism,  and  no  study  so  dis- 
ciplines the  mind  as  the  dissection  of  an  organism."  Chrysostom  :  "  This  is  the  cause 
of  all  our  evils  —  our  not  knowing  the  Scriptures."  Yet  a  modern  scholar  has  said  : 
"  The  Bible  is  the  most  dangerous  of  all  God's  gifts  to  men."  It  is  possible  to  adore  the 
letter,  while  we  fail  to  perceive  its  spirit.  A  narrow  interpretation  may  contradict  its 
meaning.  Much  depends  upon  connecting  phrases,  as  for  example,  the  Sia  toOto  and  e4>' 
u,  in  Rom.  5:  12.  Professor  Philip  Lindsley  of  Princeton,  1813-1853,  said  to  his  pupils: 
"  One  of  the  best  preparations  for  death  is  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Greek  gram- 
mar." The  youthful  Erasmus :  "  When  I  get  some  money,  I  will  get  me  some  Greek 
books,  and,  after  that,  some  clothes."  The  dead  languages  are  the  only  really  living 
ones — free  from  danger  of  misunderstanding  from  changing  usage.    Divine  Provi- 


40  PROLEGOMENA. 

dence  has  put  revelation  into  fixed  forms  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek.  Sir  Willian, 
Hamilton,  Discussions,  330  —  "To  be  a  competent  divine  is  in  fact  to  be  a  scholar." 
On  the  true  idea  of  a  Theological  Seminary  Course,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philos.  and  Relig- 
ion, 303-313. 

(e)  A  holy  affection  toward  God.  Only  the  renewed  heart  can  pro- 
perly feel  its  need  of  divine  revelation,  or  understand  that  revelation  when 
given. 

Ps.  25:14  —  "  The  secret  of  Jehovah  is  with  them  that  fear  him"  ;  Rom.  12:2  —  "  prove  what  is  the  .  .  . 
will  of  God  "  ;  cf.  Ps.  36 :  1  —  "  the  transgression  of  the  wicked  speaks  in  his  heart  like  an  oracle."  "It  is  the 
heart  and  not  the  brain  That  to  the  highest  doth  attain."  To  "  learn  by  heart  "  is  some- 
thing more  than  to  learn  by  mind,  or  by  head.  All  heterodoxy  is  preceded  by  hetero- 
praxy.  In  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Progress,  Faithful  does  not  go  through  the  Slough  of 
Despond,  as  Christian  did  ;  and  it  is  by  getting  over  the  fence  to  find  an  easier  road,  that 
Christian  and  Hopeful  get  into  Doubting  Castle  and  the  hands  of  Giant  Despair. 
"  Great  thoughts  come  from  the  heart,"  said  Vauvenargues.  The  preacher  cannot, 
like  Dr.  Kane,  kindle  fire  with  a  lens  of  ice.  Aristotle:  "The  power  of  attaining 
moral  truth  is  dependent  upon  our  acting  rightly."  Pascal :  "We  know  truth,  not 
only  by  the  reason,  but  by  the  heart.  .  .  .  The  heart  has  its  reasons,  which  the  reason 
knows  nothing  of ."  Hobbes:  "  Even  the  axioms  of  geometry  would  be  disputed,  if 
men's  passions  were  concerned  in  them."  Macaulay :  "  The  law  of  gravitation  would 
still  be  controverted,  if  it  interfered  with  vested  interests."  Nordau,  Degeneracy: 
"  Philosophic  systems  simply  furnish  the  excuses  reason  demands  for  the  unconscious 
impulses  of  the  race  during  a  given  period  of  time." 

Lord  Bacon :  "  A  tortoise  on  the  right  path  will  beat  a  racer  on  the  wrong  path." 
Goethe:  "As are  the  inclinations,  so  also  are  the  opinions.  ...  A  work  of  art  can  be 
comprehended  by  the  head  only  with  the  assistance  of  the  heart.  .  .  .  Only  law  can 
give  us  liberty."  Fichte :  "Our  system  of  thought  is  very  often  only  the  history  of 
our  heart.  .  .  .  Truth  is  descended  from  conscience.  .  .  .  Men  do  not  will  according  to 
their  reason,  but  they  reason  according  to  their  will."  Neander's  motto  was :  "  Pectus 
est  quod  theologum  facit" — "It  is  the  heart  that  makes  the  theologian."  John 
Stirling :  "  That  is  a  dreadful  eye  which  can  be  divided  from  a  living  human  heavenly 
heart,  and  still  retain  its  all-penetrating  vision, —  such  was  the  eye  of  the  Gorgons." 
But  such  an  eye,  we  add,  is  not  all-penetrating.  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Never  study  theol- 
ogy in  cold  blood."  W.  C.  Wilkinson :  "  The  head  is  a  magnetic  needle  with  truth  for 
its  pole.  But  the  heart  is  a  hidden  mass  of  magnetic  iron.  The  head  is  drawn  somewhat 
toward  its  natural  pole,  the  truth;  but  more  it  is  drawn  by  that  nearer  magnetism." 
See  an  aCecting  instance  of  Thomas  Carlyle's  enlightenment,  after  the  death  of  his 
wife,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  in  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Revelation, 
165.  On  the  importance  of  feeling,  in  association  of  ideas,  see  Dewey,  Psychology, 
106,  107. 

(/)  The  enlightening  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  only  the 
Spirit  fathoms  the  things  of  God,  so  only  he  can  illuminate  our  minds  to 
apprehend  them. 

1  Cor.  2 :  11,  12  —  "  the  things  of  God  none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  we  received  ...  the  Spirit 
which  is  from  God ;  that  we  might  know."  Cicero,  Nat.  Deorum,  6G  —  "  Nemo  igitur  vir  magnus 
sine  aliquo  adflatu  divino  unquam  f uit."  Professor  Beck  of  Tubingen  :  "  For  the  stu- 
dent, there  is  no  privileged  path  leading  to  the  truth;  the  only  one  which  leads  to  it 
is  also  that  of  the  unlearned  ;  it  is  that  of  regeneration  and  of  gradual  illumination  by 
the  Holy  Spirit;  and  without  the  Holy  Spirit,  theology  is  not  only  a  cold  stone,  it  is  a 
deadly  poison."  As  all  the  truths  of  the  differential  and  integral  calculus  are  wrapped 
up  in  the  simplest  mathematical  axiom,  so  all  theology  is  wrapped  up  in  the  declaration 
that  God  is  holiness  and  love,  or  in  the  protevangelium  uttered  at  the  gates  of  Eden. 
But  dull  minds  cannot  of  themselves  evolve  the  calculus  from  the  axiom,  nor  can  sin- 
ful hearts  evolve  theology  from  the  first  prophecy.  Teachers  are  needed  to  demon- 
strate geometrical  theorems,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  needed  to  show  us  that  the  "new 
commandment"  illustrated  by  the  death  of  Christ  is  only  an  "old  commandment  which  ye  had  from  the 
beginning"  (1  John  2:  7).  The  Principia  of  Newton  is  a  revelation  of  Christ,  and  so  are  the 
Scriptures.  The  Holy  Spirit  enables  us  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  Christ's  revelations 


DIVISIONS   OF   THEOLOGY.  41 

iu  both  Scripture  and  nature;  to  interpret  the  one  by  the  other;  and  so  to  work  out 
original  demonstrations  and  applications  of  the  truth  ;  Mat.  13  :  52  —  "Therefore  every  scribe  who 
hath  been  made  a  disciple  of  the  kingdom  of  heaveaos  like  unto  a  man  that  is  a  householder,  wno  bringeth  forth  out  of 
his  treasure  things  new  and  old."  See  Adolph  Monod's  sermons  on  Christ's  Temptation,  ad- 
dressed to  the  theological  students  of  Montauban,  in  Select  Sermons  from  the  French 
and  German,  117-179. 

II.  Divisions  of  Theology. — Theology  is  commonly  divided  into  Bibli- 
cal, Historical,  Systematic,  and  Practical. 

1.  Biblical  Theology  aims  to  arrange  and  classify  the  facts  of  revelation, 
confining  itself  to  the  Scriptures  for  its  material,  and  treating  of  doctrine 
only  so  far  as  it  was  develoj^ed  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age. 

Instance  DeWette,  Biblischo  Theologie ;  Hof  maun,  Schrif  tbeweis ;  Nitzsch,  .System 
of  Christian  Doctrine.  The  last,  however,  has  more  of  the  philosophical  elemeut  than 
properly  belongs  to  Biblical  Theology.  The  third  volume  of  Kitschl's  Justification  and 
.Reconciliation  is  intended  as  a  system  of  Biblical  Theology,  the  first  and  second 
volumes  being  little  more  than  an  historical  introduction.  But  metaphysics,  of  a 
Kantian  relativity  and  phenomenalism,  enter  so  largely  into  Kitschl's  estimates  and 
interpretations,  as  to  render  his  conclusions  both  partial  and  rationalistic.  Notice  a 
questionable  use  of  the  term  Biblical  Theology  to  designate  the  theology  of  a  part  of 
Scripture  severed  from  the  rest,  as  Steudel's  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
Schmidt's  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament;  and  in  the  common  phrases: 
Biblical  Theology  of  Christ,  or  of  Paul.  These  phrases  are  objectionable  as  intimating 
that  the  books  of  Scripture  have  only  a  human  origin.  Upon  the  assumption  that 
there  is  no  common  divine  authorship  of  Scripture,  Biblical  Theology  is  conceived  of 
as  a  series  of  fragments,  corresponding  to  the  differing  teachings  of  the  various 
prophets  and  apostles,  and  the  theology  of  Paul  is  held  to  be  an  unwarranted  and 
incongruous  addition  to  the  theology  of  Jesus.  See  Keuss,  History  of  Christian 
Theology  iu  the  Apostolic  Age. 

2.  Historical  Theology  traces  the  development  of  the  Biblical  doctrines 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day,  and  gives  account  of  the 
results  of  this  development  in  the  life  of  the  church. 

By  doctrinal  development  we  mean  the  progressive  unfolding  and  apprehension,  by 
the  church,  of  the  truth  explicitly  or  implicitly  contained  iu  Scripture.  As  giving 
account  of  the  shaping  of  the  Christian  faith  into  doctrinal  statements,  Historical 
Theology  is  called  the  History  of  Doctrine.  As  describing  the  resulting  and  accom- 
panying changes  in  the  life  of  the  church,  outward  and  inward.  Historical  Theology 
is  called  Church  History.  Instance  Cunningham's  Historical  Theology;  Hagenbach's 
and  Shedd's  Histories  of  Doctrine  ;  Neander's  Church  History.  There  is  always  a  danger 
that  the  historian  will  see  his  own  views  too  clearly  reflected  in  the  history  of  the  church. 
Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  has  beeu  called  "The  History  of  Dr.  Shedd's 
Christian  Doctrine."  But  if  Dr.  Shedd's  Augustiuianism  colors  his  History,  Dr. 
Sheldon's  Arniiniauism  also  colors  his.  G.  P.  Fisher's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  is 
unusually  lucid  and  impartial.  See  Neander's  Introduction  and  Shedd's  Philosophy  of 
History. 

3.  Systematic  Theology  takes  the  material  furnished  by  Biblical  and 
by  Historical  Theology,  and  with  this  material  seeks  to  build  up  into  an 
organic  and  consistent  whole  all  our  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  relations 
between  God  and  the  universe,  whether  this  knowledge  be  originally 
derived  from  nature  or  from  the  Scriptures. 

Systematic  Theology  is  therefore  theology  proper,  of  which  Biblical  and  Historical 
Theology  are  the  incomplete  and  preparatory  stages.  Systematic  Theology  is  to  be 
clearly  distinguished  from  Dogmatic  Theology.  Dogmatic  Theology  is,  in  strict  usage, 
the  systematizing  of  the  doctrines  as  expressed  in  the  symbols  of  the  church,  together 
with  the  grounding  of  these  iu  the  Scriptures,  and  the  exhibition,  so  far  as  maybe,  of 
their  rational  necessity.    Systematic  Theology  begins,  on  the  other  hand,  not  with  the 


42  PROLEGOMENA. 

symbols,  but  with  the  Scriptures.  It  asks  first,  not  what  the  church  has  believed,  but 
what  is  the  truth  of  God's  revealed  word.  It  examines  that  word  with  all  the  aids 
which  nature  and  the  Spirit  have  giveu  it,  using'  Biblical  and  Historical  Theology  as  its 
servants  and  helpers,  but  not  as  its  masters.  Notice  here  the  technical  use  of  the  word 
"  symbol,"  from  <™^0aAAu>,  =  a  brief  throwing-  together,  or  condensed  statement  of  the 
essentials  of  Christian  doctrine.  Synonyms  are :  Confession,  creed,  consensus,  decla- 
ration, formulary,  canons,  articles  of  faith. 

Dogmatism  argues  to  foregone  conclusions.  The  word  is  not,  however,  derived 
from  "dog,"  as  Douglas  Jerrold  facetiously  suggested,  when  he  said  that  "  dogmatism 
is  puppyism  full  grown,"  but  from  Soxew,  to  think,  to  opine.  Dogmatic  Theology  has 
two  principles:  (1)  The  absolute  authority  of  creeds,  as  decisions  of  the  church:  (2) 
The  application  to  these  creeds  of  formal  logic,  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating 
their  truth  to  the  understanding.  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  not  the  Scripture 
but  the  church,  and  the  dogma  given  by  it,  is  the  decisive  authority.  The  Protestant 
principle,  on  the  contrary,  is  that  Scripture  decides,  and  that  dogma  is  to  be  judged  by 
it.  Following  Schleiermacher,  Al.  Schweizer  thinks  that  the  term  "Dogmatik" 
should  be  discarded  as  essentially  unprotestant,  and  that  "Glaubenslehre"  should 
take  its  place;  and  Harnack,  Hist.  Dogma,  6,  remarks  that  "dogma  has  ever,  in  the 
progress  of  history,  devoured  its  own  progenitors."  While  it  is  true  that  every  new 
and  advanced  thinker  in  theology  has  been  counted  a  heretic,  there  has  always  been 
a  common  faith  —  "the  faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints  "  (Jude  3)  — and  the  study 
of  Systematic  Theology  has  been  one  of  the  chief  means  of  preserving  this  faith  in  the 
world.  Mat.  15  :13,  14  —  "Every  plant  which  my  heavenly  Father  planted  not,  shall  be  rooted  up.  Let  them 
alone:  they  are  blind  guldes"=  there  is  truth  planted  by  God,  and  it  has  permanent  divine 
life.  Human  errors  have  no  permanent  vitality  and  they  perish  of  themselves.  See 
Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  2,  3. 

4.  Practical  Theology  is  the  system  of  truth  considered  as  a  means  of 
renewing  and  sanctifying  men,  or,  in  other  words,  theology  in  its  publica- 
tion and  enforcement. 

To  this  department  of  theology  belong  Homiletics  and  Pastoral  Theology,  since 
these  are  but  scientific  presentations  of  the  right  methods  of  unfolding  Christian 
truth,  and  of  bringing  it  to  bear  upon  men  individually  and  in  the  church.  See  Van 
Oosterzee,  Practical  Theology ;  T.  Harwood  Pattison,  The  Making  of  the  Sermon,  and 
Public  Prayer ;  Yale  Lectures  on  Preaching  by  H.  W.  Beecher,  R.  W.  Dale,  Phillips 
Brooks,  E.  G.  Robinson,  A.  J.  F.  Behrends,  John  Watson,  and  others ;  and  the  work  on 
Pastoral  Theology,  by  Harvey. 

It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  there  are  other  departments  of  theology  not  included  in 
those  above  mentioned.  But  most  of  these,  if  not  all,  belong  to  other  spheres  of 
research,  and  cannot  properly  be  classed  under  theology  at  all.  Moral  Theology,  so 
called,  or  the  science  of  Christian  morals,  ethics,  or  theological  ethics,  is  indeed  the 
proper  result  of  theology,  but  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  it.  Speculative  theology, 
so  called,  respecting,  as  it  does,  such  truth  as  is  mere  matter  of  opinion,  is  either 
extra-scriptural,  and  so  belongs  to  the  province  of  the  philosophy  of  religion,  or  is  an 
attempt  to  explain  truth  already  revealed,  and  so  falls  within  the  province  of  Syste- 
matic Theology.  "Speculative  theology  starts  from  certain  a  priori  principles,  and 
from  them  undertakes  to  determine  what  is  and  must  be.  It  deduces  its  scheme 
of  doctrine  from  the  laws  of  mind  or  from  axioms  supposed  to  be  inwrought  into  its 
constitution."  Bib.  Sac,  1852:376— "Speculative  theology  tries  to  show  that  the 
dogmas  agree  with  the  laws  of  thought,  while  the  philosophy  of  religion  tries  to 
show  that  the  laws  of  thought  agree  with  the  dogmas."  Theological  Encyclopedia 
( the  word  signifies  "instruction  in  a  circle  ")  is  a  general  introduction  to  all  the  divi- 
sions of  Theology,  together  with  an  account  of  the  relations  between  them.  Hegel's 
Encyclopaedia  was  an  attempted  exhibition  of  the  principles  and  connections  of  all 
the  sciences.  See  Crooks  and  Hurst,  Theological  Encyclop;odia  and  Methodology ; 
Zockler,  Handb.  der  theol.  Wissenschaf  ten,  2 :  606-769. 

The  relations  of  theology  to  science  and  philosophy  have  been  variously  stated,  but 
by  none  better  than  by  H.  B.  Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  18— "Philosophy  is  a  mode 
of  human  knowledge  —  not  the  whole  of  that  knowledge,  but  a  mode  of  it  —  the 
knowing  of  things  rationally."  Science  asks:  "What  do  I  know?"  Philosophy  asks: 
"What  can  I  know?"    William  James,  Psychology,  1:145— "Metaphysics  means  nothing 


DIVISIONS   OF   THEOLOGY.  43 

but  an  unusually  obstinate  effort  to  think  clearly."  Aristotle:  "The  particular 
.sciences  are  toiling  workmen,  while  philosophy  i.s  the  architect.  The  workmen  are 
slaves,  existing  lor  the  free  master.  So  philosophy  rules  the  sciences."  With  regard  to 
philosophy  and  science  J. "id  Bacon  remarks:  "Those  who  have  handled  knowledge 
have  been  too  much  either  men  of  mere  observation  or  abstract  reasoners.  The 
former  are  like  the  ant  :  t  hey  only  collect  material  and  put  it  to  immediate  use.  The 
abstract  reasoners  are  like  spiders,  who  make  cobwebs  out  of  their  own  substance. 
But  the  bee  takes  a  middle  course:  it  gathers  its  material  from  the  flowers  of  the 
garden  and  the  field,  while  it  transforms  and  digests  what  it  gathers  by  a  power  of  its 
own.  Not  unlike  this  is  the  work  of  the  philosopher."  Novalis:  "Philosophy  can 
bake  no  bread  ;  but  it  can  give  us  God,  freedom  and  immortality."  Prof.  DeWitt  of 
Princeton:  "Science,  philosophy,  and  theology  are  the  three  great  modes  of  organ- 
izing the  universe  into  an  intellectual  system.  Science  never  goes  below  second 
causes;  if  it  does,  it  is  no  longer  science, —  it  becomes  philosophy.  Philosophy  views 
the  universe  as  a  unity,  and  the  goal  it  is  always  seeking  to  reach  is  the  source  and 
centre  of  this  unity— the  Absolute,  the  First  Cause.  This  goal  of  philosophy  is  the 
point  of  departure  for  theology.  What  philosophy  is  striving  to  find,  theology 
asserts  has  been  found.  Theology  therefore  starts  with  the  Absolute,  the  First 
Cause."  W.  X.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  48  —  "Science  examines  and  classifies 
farts;  philosophy  inquires  concerning  spiritual  meanings.  Science  seeks  to  know  the 
universe;  philosophy  to  understand  it." 

Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief, 7  -".Natural  science  has  for  its  subject  matter 
things  and  events.  Philosophy  is  the  systematic  exhibition  of  the  grounds  of  our 
knowledge.  Metaphysics  is  our  knowledge  respecting  realities  which  are  not  phenom- 
enal, c.  y.,  God  and  the  soul."  Knight,  Essays  in  Philosophy,  81  — "The  aim  of  the 
sciences  is  increase  of  knowledge,  by  the  discovery  of  laws  within  which  all  phenom- 
ena may  be  embraced  and  by  means  of  which  they  may  be  explained.  The  aim  of 
philosophy,  OB  the  other  hand,  is  to  explain  the  sciences,  by  at  once  including  and 
transcending  them.  Its  sphere  is  substance  and  essence."  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought 
and  Knowledge,  B-S  -  "  Philosophy  =  doctrine  of  I,  nowledge  i  Is  mind  passive  or  active 
in  knowing  ?i-Bpistemo  logy  J  +  doctrine  of  ii<iit<<,  (is  fundamental  being  mechanical 
and  unintelligent,  or  purposive  and  intelligent?— Metaphysics).  The  systems  of 
Locke,  Hume,  and  Kant  are  preeminently  theories  of  knowing;  the  systems  of 
Spinoza  and  Leibnitz,  are  preeminently  theories  of  being.  Historically  theories  of 
being  come  first,  because  the  object  is  the  only  determinant  for  reflective  thought. 
But  the  instrument  of  philosophy  is  though!  itself.  First  then,  we  must  study  Logic, 
or  the  theory  of  thought;  secondly,  Bpistemology,  or  the  theory  of  knowledge; 
thirdly.  Metaphysics,  or  the  theory  of  being." 

Prof essor  George  M.  Forbes  on  the  New  Psychology:  "Locke  and  Kant  represent 
the  two  tendencies  in  philosophy  the  empirical,  physical,  scientific,  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  rational,  metaphysical,  logical,  on  the  other.  Locke  furnishes  the  basis  For 
the  associational  schemes  of  Hartley,  the  Mills,  and  Bain;  Kant  for  the  idealistic 
scheme  of  Fichte,  Schelling,  and  Hegel.  The  t  wo  are  not  cont  radictory,  but  comple- 
mentary, and  the  Scotch  Beid  and  Hamilton  combine  them  both,  reacting  against  the 
extreme  empiricism  and  scepticism  of  Hume.  Hickok.  Porter,  and  McCosh  repre- 
sented t  he  Scotch  school  in  America.  If  was  exclusively  analytical;  its  psychology 
was  the  faculty-psychology ;  it  represented  the  mind  a<  a  bundle  of  faculties.  The 
unitary  philosophy  of  T.  H.  Green,  Edward  Caird,  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  America, 
of  W.  T.  Harris,  George  S.  Morris,  and  John  Dewey,  was  a  reaction  against  this  faculty- 
psychology,  under  the  influence  of  Hegel.  A  second  reaction  under  the  influence  of 
the  Herbartian  doctrine  of  apperception  substituted  function  for  faculty,  making  all 
processes  phases  of  apperception.  G.  F.  Stout  and  J.  Mark  Baldwin  represent  this 
psychology.  A  third  reaction  comes  from  the  influence  of  physical  science.  All 
attempts  to  unify  are  relegated  to  a  metaphysical  Hades.  There  is  nothing  but  state-. 
and  processes.  The  only  uuity  is  the  laws  of  their  coexistence  and  succession.  There 
is  nothing  apriori.  Wundt  identifies  apperception  with  will,  and  regards  it  as  the 
unitary  principle.  Kiilpe  and  Titchener  find  no  self,  or  will,  or  soul,  but  treat  these  as 
inferences  little  warranted.  Their  psychology  is  psychology  without  a  soul.  The  old 
psychology  was  exclusively  static,  while  the  new  emphasizes  the  genetic  point  of  view. 
Growth  and  development  are  the  leading  ideas  of  Herbert  Spencer,  Preyer,  Tracy 
and  Stanley  Hall.  William  James  is  explanatory,  while  George  T.  Ladd  is  descriptive. 
Cattell,  Scripture,  and  Miinsterberg  apply  the  methods  of  Fechner,  and  the  Psycholog- 


44  PROLEGOMENA. 

ical  Review  is  their  organ.  Their  error  is  in  their  negative  attitude.  The  old  psychol- 
ogy is  needed  to  supplement  the  new.  It  has  greater  scope  and  more  practical 
significance."  On  the  relation  of  theology  to  philosophy  and  to  science,  see  Luthardt, 
Compend.  der  Dogmatik,  4 ;  Hagenbach,  Encyclopedic,  109. 

III.     History  of  Systematic  Theology. 

1.  In  the  Eastern  Church,  Systematic  Theology  may  be  said  to  have 
had  its  beginning  and  end  in  John  of  Damascus  (700-760). 

Ignatius  (+  115— Ad  Trail.,  c.  9)  gives  us  "the  first  distinct  statement  of  the  faith 
drawn  up  in  a  series  of  propositions.  This  systematizing  formed  the  basis  of  all  later 
efforts"  (Prof.  A.  H.  Newman).  Origen  of  Alexandria  (186-251)  wrote  his  ilepi  'Apx^1'! 
Athanasius  of  Alexandria  (300-373)  his  Treatises  on  the  Trinity  and  the  Deity  of  Christ; 
and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  in  Cappadocia  (332-398)  his  Aoyos  KaTT)xr)T<-K'0^  °  ^ya*.  Hatch, 
Hibbert  Lectures,  323,  regards  the  "  De  Principiis"  of  Origen  as  the  "  first  complete  sys- 
tem of  dogma,"  and  speaks  of  Origen  as  "the  disciple  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the 
fiist  great  teacher  of  philosophical  Christianity."  But  while  the  Fathers  just  men- 
tioned seem  to  have  conceived  the  plan  of  expounding  the  doctrines  in  order  and  of 
showing  their  relation  to  one  another,  it  was  John  of  Damascus  (700-700)  who  first 
actually  carried  out  such  a  plan.  His  "E/cSoo-is  dxpiSiis  t>}s  bp&o&6£ov  HiVrecus,  or  Summary 
of  the  Orthodox  Faith,  may  be  considered  the  earliest  work  of  Systematic  Theology. 
Neander  calls  it  "  the  most  important  doctrinal  text-book  of  the  Greek  Church."  John, 
like  the  Greek  Church  in  general,  was  speculative,  theological,  semi-pelagian,  sacra- 
mentarian.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  so  called,  is,  in  its  present  form,  not  earlier  than  the 
fifth  century;  see  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  1  :  19.  Mr.  Gladstone  suggested  that 
the  Apostles'  Creed  was  a  development  of  the  baptismal  formula.  McGiffert,  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  assigns  to  the  meagre  original  form  a  date  of  the  third  quarter  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  and  regards  the  Roman  origin  of  the  symbol  as  proved.  It  was  framed 
as  a  baptismal  formula,  but  specifically  in  opposition  to  the  teachings  of  Marcion, 
which  were  at  that  time  causing  much  trouble  at  Rome.  Harnack  however  dates  the 
original  Apostles'  Creed  at  150,  and  Zahn  places  it  at  120.  See  also  J.  C.  Long,  in  Bap. 
Quar.  Uev.,  Jan.  1893:  89-101. 

2.  In  the  Western  Church,  we  may  ( with  Hagenbach )  distinguish 
three  periods  : 

(a)  The  period  of  Scholasticism,  —  introduced  by  Peter  Lombard 
(1100-1160),  and  reaching  its  culmination  in  Thomas  Aquinas  (1221-1271) 
and  Duns  Scotus  ( 1265-1308). 

Though  Systematic  Theology  had  its  beginning  in  the  Eastern  Church,  its  develop- 
ment has  been  confined  almost  wholly  to  the  Western.  Augustine  (353-430)  wrote 
his  "  Encheiridion  ad  Laurentium"  and  his  "De  Civitate  Dei,"  and  John  Scotus  Eri- 
gena  (+  850),  Roscelin  (1092-1122),  and  Abelard  (1079-1142),  in  their  attempts  at  the 
rational  explanation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  foreshadowed  the  works  of  the  great 
scholastic  teachers.  Anselm  of  Canterbury  (1034-1109),  with  his  "Proslogion  de  Dei 
Existeutia"  and  his  "  Cur  Deus  Homo,"  has  sometimes,  but  wrongly,  been  called  the 
founder  of  Scholasticism.  Allen,  in  his  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  represents 
the  transcendence  of  God  as  the  controlling  principle  of  the  Augustinian  and  of  the 
Western  theology.  The  Eastern  Church,  he  maintains,  had  founded  its  theology  on 
God's  immanence.  Paine,  in  his  Evolution  of  Triuitarianism,  shows  that  this  is  erron- 
eous. Augustine  was  a  theistic  monist.  He  declares  that "  Dei  voluntas  rerum  Datura 
est,"  and  regards  God's  upholding  as  a  continuous  creation.  Western  theology  recog- 
nized the  immanence  of  God  as  well  as  his  transcendence. 

Peter  Lombard,  however,  (1100-1100),  the  "  magister  sententiarum,"  was  the  first 
great  systematizer  of  the  Western  Church,  and  his  "  Libri  Sententiarum  Quatuor  "  was 
the  theological  text-book  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Teachers  lectured  on  the  "  Sentences" 
(  Sententia  =  sentence,  Satz,  locus,  point,  article  of  faith  ),  as  they  did  on  the  books  of 
Aristotle,  who  furnished  to  Scholasticism  its  impulse  and  guide.  Every  doctrine  was 
treated  in  the  order  of  Aristotle's  four  causes:  the  material,  the  formal,  the  efficient, 
the  final.  ( "  Cause  "  here  =  requisite :  ( 1 )  matter  of  which  a  thing  consists,  c.  (j.,  bricks 
and  mortar ;  ( 2 )  form  it  assumes,  e.  g.,  plan  or  design ;  (  3 )  producing  agent,  e.  g., 
builder ;  (  4  )  end  for  which  made,  e.  g.,  house.)    The  organization  of  physical  as  well  as 


HISTORY    OF   SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY.  45 

Of  theological  science  was  due  to  Aristotle.  Dante  called  him  "  the  master  of  those  who 
know."  James  Ten  Broeke,  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1893:  1-20  —  "The  Revival  of  Learn- 
ing- showed  the  world  that  the  real  Aristotle  was  much  broader  than  the  Scholastic 
Aristotle  —  information  very  unwelcome  to  the  Roman  Church."  For  the  influence 
of  Scholasticism,  compare  the  literary  methods  of  Augustine  and  of  Calvin,  —  the 
former  giving'  us  his  materials  in  disorder,  like  soldiers  bivouacked  for  the  night ;  the 
latter  arranging  them  like  those  same  soldiers  drawn  up  in  battle  array;  see  A.  H. 
Strong,  Philosophy  anil  Religion,  4,  and  Christ  in  Creation,  188,  189. 

Candlish,  art. :  Dogmatic,  in  Encycl.  Brit.,  7  :  310  —  "  By  and  by  a  mighty  intellectual 
force  took  hold  of  the  whole  collected  dogmatic  material,  and  reared  out  of  it  the  great 
scholastic  systems,  which  have  been  compared  to  the  grand  Gothic  cathedrals  that  were 
the  work  of  the  same  ages."  Thomas  Aquinas  (1231-1274),  the  Dominican,  "doctor 
angelicus,"  Augustinian  and  Realist,  —  and  Duns  Scotus  (1265-1308),  the  Franciscan, 
"doctor  subtilis," — wrought  out  the  scholastic  theology  more  fully,  and  left  behind 
them,  in  their  Summcti,  gigantic  monuments  of  intellectual  industry  and  acumen. 
Scholasticism  aimed  at  the  proof  and  systematizing  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
by  means  of  Aristotle's  philosophy.  It  became  at  last  an  illimitable  morass  of  useless 
subtilitics  and  abstractions,  and  it  finally  ended  in  the  norninalistic  scepticism  of 
William  of  Occam  (1270-1347).  See  Townsend,  The  Great  Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

(0)  The  period  of  Symbolism, — represented  by  tin;  Lutheran  theol- 
ogy of  Philip  Melanchthon  (1497—1560),  and  the  Reformed  theology  of 
John  Calvin  (1509-1564);  the  former  connecting  itself  with  the  Analytic 
theology  of  Calixtus  (1585-1656),  and  the  latter  with  the  Federal  theology 
of  Cocceins  (1603-1669). 

The  Lutheran  Tlieoloyij.— Preachers  precede  theologians,  and  Luther  (1485-1546)  was 
preacher  rather  than  theologian.  But  Melanchthon  (1497-1560),  "the  preceptor  of 
Germany,"  as  he  was  called,  embodied  I  he  theology  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  his  "Loci 
Communes  "  =  points  of  doctrine  common  to  believers  (  first  edition  Augustinian, 
afterwards  substantially  Arminian  ;  grew  out  of  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ). 
He  was  followed  by  Chemnitz  1 1523-1586),  "  clear  and  accurate,"  the  most  learned  of  the 
disciples  of  Melanchthon.  Leonhard  Hutter  (1563-1616),  called  "Lutheiiis  redivivus," 
and  John  Gerhard  (1582-1637)  followed  Luther  rather  than  Melanchthon.  "Fifty  years 
after  the  death  of  Melanchthon,  Leonhard  Hutter,  his  successor  in  the  chair  of  theology 
at  Wittenberg,  on  an  occasion  when  the  authority  of  Melanchthon  was  appealed  to, 
tore  down  from  the  wall  the  portrait  of  the  great  Reformer,  and  trampled  it  under  foot 
in  the  presence  of  the  assemblage"  (  E.  D.  Morris,  paper  at  the  60th  Anniversary  of  Lane 
Seminary).  George  Calixtus  (1586-1656)  followed  Melanchthon  rather  than  Luther. 
He  taught  a  theology  which  recognized  the  good  element  in  both  the  Reformed  and 
the  Romanist  doctrine  and  which  was  called  "Syncretism."  He  separated  Ethics  from 
Systematic  TJheology,  and  applied  the  analytical  method  of  investigation  to  the  latter, 
beginning  with  the  end,  or  final  cause,  of  all  things,  viz. :  blessedness.  He  was  followed 
in  his  analytic  method  by  Dannhauer  (1003-1606),  who  treated  theology  allegori- 
cally,  Calovius  (1012-1080),  "the  most  uncompromising  defender  of  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy and  the  most  drastic  polemicist  against  Calixtus,"  Quenstedt  (1617-1688),  whom 
Hovey  calls  "learned,  comprehensive  and  logical,"  and  Hollaz  (+  1730).  The  Lutheran 
theology  aimed  to  purify  the  existing  church,  maintaining  that  what  is  not  against 
the  gospel  is  for  it.  It  emphasized  the  material  principle  of  the  Reformation,  justifica- 
tion by  faith  ;  but  it  retained  many  Romanist  customs  not  expressly  forbidden  in 
Scripture.  Kaftan,  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  1900:  716  — "Because  the  mediaeval  school- 
philosophy  mainly  held  sway,  the  Protestant  theology  representing  the  new  faith  was 
meanwhile  necessarily  accommodated  to  forms  of  knowledge  thereby  conditioned, 
that  is,  to  forms  essentially  Catholic." 

The  Reformed  Theology.  —  The  word  "  Reformed  "  is  here  used  in  its  technical  sense, 
as  designating  that  phase  of  the  new  theology  which  originated  in  Switzerland.  Zwin- 
gle,  the  Swiss  reformer  (1484-1531),  differing  from  Luther  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper  and  as 
to  Scripture,  was  more  than  Luther  entitled  to  the  name  of  systematic  theologian. 
Certain  writings  of  his  may  be  considered  the  beginning  of  Reformed  theology.  But 
it  was  left  to  John  Calvin  (1509-1564),  after  the  death  of  Zwingle,  to  arrange  the  princi- 
ples of  that  theology  in  systematic  form.  Calvin  dug  channels  for  Zwingle's  flood  to 
flow  in,  as  Melanchthon  did  for  Luther's.    His  Institutes  (  "  Institutio  Religionis  Chris- 


46  PROLEGOMENA. 

tlarue  "  ),  is  one  of  the  great  works  in  theology  (  superior  as  a  systematic  work  to  Mel- 
anchthon's  "Loci  ").  Calvin  was  followed  by  Peter  Martyr  (1500  1562),  Chamier  (1565- 
1621),  and  Theodore  Beza  (1519-1605).  Beza  carried  Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination 
to  an  extreme  supralapsarianism,  which  is  hyper-Calvinistic  rather  than  Calviuistic. 
Cocceius  (1603-1669),  and  after  him  Witsius  (1626-1708),  made  theology  centre  about  the 
idea  of  the  covenants,  and  founded  the  Federal  theology.  Leydecker  (1642-1721) 
treated  theology  in  the  order  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity.  Amy  raid  us  (1596-1661) 
and  Placeus  of  Saumur  (1596-1632)  modified  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  latter  by  his 
theory  of  mediate  imputation,  and  the  former  by  advocating  the  hypothetic  universal- 
ism  of  divine  grace.  Turretin  (1671-1737),  a  clear  and  strong  theologian  whose  work 
is  still  a  text-book  at  Princeton,  and  Pictet  (1655-1725),  both  of  them  Federalists, 
showed  the  influence  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy.  The  Reformed  theology  aimed  to 
build  a  new  church,  affirming  that  what  is  not  derived  from  the  Bible  is  against  it.  It 
emphasized  the  formal  principle  of  the  Reformation,  the  sole  authority  of  Scripture. 
In  general,  while  the  line  between  Catholic  and  Protestant  in  Europe  runs  from  west 
to  east,  the  line  between  Lutheran  and  Reformed  runs  from  south  to  north,  the 
Reformed  theology  flowing  with  the  current  of  the  Rhine  northward  from  Switzerland 
to  Holland  and  to  England,  in  which  latter  country  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  represent 
the  Reformed  faith,  while  the  Prayer-book  of  the  English  Church  is  substantially 
Arminian  ;  see  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theologie,  Einleit.,  9.  On  the  difference  between 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  doctrine,  see  Schaff,  Germany,  its  Universities,  Theology  and 
Religion,  167-177.  On  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe  and  America,  see  EL  B.  Smith, 
Faith  and  Philosophy,  87-124. 

(c)  The  period  of  Criticism  and  Speculation,  —  in  its  three  divisions  : 
the  Rationalistic,  represented  by  Sender  (1725-1791)  ;  the  Transitional,  by 
Schleierniacher  (1768-1834)  ;  the  Evangelical,  by  Nitzsch,  Muller,  Thuluck 
and  Dorner. 

First  Division.  Rationalistic  theologies :  Though  the  Reformation  had  freed  theology 
in  great  part  from  the  bonds  of  scholasticism,  other  philosophies  after  a  time  took  its 
place.  The  Leibnitz- (1646-1754)  Wolffian  (1679-1754)  exaggeration  of  the  powers  of 
natural  religion  prepared  the  way  for  rationalistic  systems  of  theology.  Buddeus 
(1667-1129)  combated  the  new  principles,  but  Semler's  (1725-1791)  theology  was  built 
upon  them,  and  represented  the  Scriptures  as  having  a  merely  local  and  temporary 
character.  Michaelis  (1716-1784)  and  Doederlein  (1714-1789)  followed  Sender,  and  the 
tendency  toward  rationalism  was  greatly  assisted  by  the  critical  philosophy  of  Kant 
(1724-1804),  to  whom  "revelation  was  problematical,  and  positive  religion  merely  the 
medium  through  which  the  practical  truths  of  reason  are  communicated  "  (  Hagenbach, 
Hist.  Doct.,  2:397).  Amnion  (1766-1850)  and  Wegscheider  (1771-1848)  were  represent- 
atives of  this  philosophy.  Daub,  Marheineeke  and  Strauss  (1808-1874)  were  the  Hegelian 
dogmatists.  The  system  of  Strauss  resembled  "  Christian  theology  as  a  cemetery  resem- 
bles a  town."  Storr  (1746-1805),  Reinhard  (1753-1812),  and  Knapp  (1753-1825),  in  the 
main  evangelical,  endeavored  to  reconcile  revelation  with  reason,  but  were  more  or 
less  influenced  by  this  rationalizing  spirit.  Bretschneider  (1776-1828)  ami  De  Wette 
(1780-1819)  may  be  said  to  have  held  middle  ground. 

Second  Division.  Transition  to  a  more  Scriptural  theology.  Herder  (1714-1.SD3)  and 
Jacobi  (1743-1819),  by  their  more  spiritual  philosophy,  prepared  the  way  for  Schleier- 
macher's  (1768-1834)  grounding  of  doctrine  in  the  facts  of  Christian  experience.  The 
writings  of  Schleierniacher  constituted  an  epoch,  and  had  great  influence  in  delivering 
Germany  from  the  rationalistic  toils  into  which  it  had  fallen.    We  may  now  speak  of  a 

Third  Divisinn—  and  in  this  division  we  may  put  the  names  of  Neander  and  Tholuck, 
Twesten  and  Nitzsch,  Muller  and  Luthardt,  Dorner  and  Philippi,  Ebrard  and  Thomas- 
ius,  Lange  and  Kahnis,  all  of  them  exponents  of  a  far  more  pure  and  evangelical  the- 
ology than  was  common  in  Germany  a  century  ago.  Two  new  forms  of  rationalism, 
however,  have  appeared  in  Geimauy,  the  one  based  upon  the  philosophy  of  Hegel,  and 
numbering  among  its  adherents  Strauss  and  Baur,  Biedermann,  Lipsius  and  Pfleid- 
erer  ;  the  other  based  upon  the  philosophy  of  Kant,  and  advocated  by  Ritschl  and  his 
followers,  Harnack,  Hermann  and  Kaftan  ;  the  former  emphasizing  the  ideal  Christ, 
the  latter  emphasizing  the  historical  Christ;  but  neither  of  the  two  fully  recognizing 
the  living  Christ  present  in  every  believer  ( sec  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia,  art. :  Theology, 
by  A.  H.  Strong). 


HISTORY   OF   SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY.  47 

3.  Among  theologians  of  views  diverse  from  the  prevailing  Protes- 
tant faith,  may  lie  mentioned  : 

(a)     Bellarmine  (1542-1621),  the  Roman  Catholic. 

Besides  Bellarmine,  "  the  best  controversial  writer  of  his  age  "  (  Bayle),  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  numbers  among1  its  noted  modern  theologians:  — Petavius  (1583-1652), 
whose  dogmatic  theology  Gibbon  calls  "a  work  of  incredible  labor  and  compass"  ; 
Melchior  Canus  (1523-1561)),  an  opponent  of  the  Jesuits  and  their  scholastic  method; 
Bossuet  (1627-1701),  who  idealized  Catholicism  in  his  Exposition  of  Doctrine,  and 
attacked  Protestantism  in  his  History  of  Variations  of  Protestant  Churches ;  Janscn 
(1585-1638),  who  attempted,  in  opposition  to  the  Jesuits,  to  reproduce  the  theology  of 
Augustine,  and  who  had  in  this  the  powerful  assistance  of  Pascal  (1623-1662).  Jansen- 
ism, so  far  as  the  doctrines  of  grace  are  concerned,  but  not  as  respects  the  sacraments, 
is  virtual  Protestantism  within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Moehler's  Symbolism,  Per- 
rone's  " Prelectiones  Theologies,"  and  Hurter's  "Compendium  Theologian  Dogmat- 
ics"  are  the  latest  ami  inosl  approved  expositions  of  Roman  Catholic  doctrine. 

(/>)     Arminius  (1560-1609),  the  opponent  of  predestination.' 

Among  the  followers  of  Arminius  (1560  1609)  must  bo  reckoned  Bpiscopius  (1583- 
1613),  who  carried  Aiiniiiianism  to  almost  Pelagian  extremes;  Hugo  Grotius  (  1553 
16)5),  the  jurist  and  statesman,  author  of  the  governmental  theory  of  the  atonement; 
and  Limborch  (U833-1712),  the  most  thorough  expositor  of  the  Arminian  doctrine. 

(e)  Laeliua  Socinus  (1525-1562),  and  Faustus  Socimis  (1539-1604), 
the  leaders  of  the  modern  Unitarian  movement. 

The  works  of  Laelius  Socinus  I 1525-1562)  and  his  nephew,  Faustus  Socinus  ( 1539-1601) 
constituted  the  beginnings  of  modern  (Jmtariaiiism.  Laelius  Socinus  was  the  preacher 
and  reformer,  as  Faustus  Socinus  was  the  theologian;  or,  as  Baumgarten  Crusius 
expresses  it :  "the  former  was  the  spiritual  founder  of  Soeinianism,  and  the  latter  the 
founder  of  the  sect."  Their  writings  are  collected  in  the  Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polon- 
orum.  The  Racovian  Catechism,  taking  its  name  from  the  Polish  town  Racow, 
contains  the  most  succinct  exposition  of  their  views.  In  1660,  the  Unitarian  church 
of  the  Socini  in  Poland  was  destroyed  by  persecution,  but  its  Hungarian  offshoot 
has  still  more  than  a  hundred  congregations. 

4.  British  Theology,  represented  by : 

(a)  The  Baptists,  John  Bunyan  (1628-1638),  John  Gill  (1697-1771), 
and  Andrew  Fuller  (1754-1815). 

Some  of  the  best  British  theology  is  Baptist.  Among  John  Bunyan's  works  we  may 
mention  his  "Gospel  Truths  Opened,''  though  his  "Pilgrim's  Progress"  and  "Holy 
War"  are  theological  treatises  in  allegorical  form.  Maeaulay  calls  Milton  and 
Bunyan  the  two  great  creative  minds  of  England  during  the  latter  part  of  the  17th 
century.  John  Gill's  "  Body  of  Practical  Divinity  "  shows  much  ability,  although  the 
Rabbinical  learning  of  the  author  occasionally  displays  itself  in  a  curious  exegesis,  as 
when  on  the  word  "Abba  "  he  remarks :  "  You  see  that  this  word  which  means  '  Father ' 
reads  the  same  whether  we  read  forward  or  backward  ;  which  suggests  that  God  is  the 
same  whichever  way  we  look  at  him."  Andrew  Fuller's  "  Letters  on  Systematic 
Divinity"  is  a  brief  compend  of  theology.  His  treatises  upon  special  doctrines  are 
marked  by  sound  judgment  and  clear  insight.  They  were  the  most  influential  factor 
in  rescuing  the  evangelical  churches  of  England  from  antinomianism.  They  justify 
the  epithets  which  Robert  Hall,  one  of  the  greatest  of  Baptist  preachers,  gives  him  : 
"sagacious,"  "luminous,"  "powerful." 

(b)  The  Puritans,  John  Owen  (1616-1683),  Richard  Baxter  (1615-1691), 
John  Howe  (1530- 1705),  and  Thomas  Ridgeley  (1666-1734). 

Owen  was  the  most  rigid,  as  Baxter  was  the  most  liberal,  of  the  Puritans.  The 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica  remarks  :  "As  a  theological  thinker  and  writer,  John  Owen 
holds  his  own  distinctly  defined  place  among  those  titanic  intellects  with  which  the 


48  PROLEGOMENA. 

age  abounded.  Surpassed  by  Baxter  in  point  and  pathos,  by  Howe  in  imagination 
and  the  higher  philosophy,  he  is  unrivaled  in  his  power  of  unfolding-  the  rich  meanings 
of  Scripture.  In  his  writings  he  was  preeminently  the  great  theologian."  Baxter 
wrote  a  "  Methodus  Theologias,"  and  a  "Catholic  Theology";  John  Howe  is  chiefly 
known  by  his  "Living  Temple";  Thomas  Ridgeley  by  his  "Body  of  Divinity." 
Charles  H.  Spurgeon  never  ceased  to  urge  his  students  to  become  familiar  with  the 
Puritan  Adams,  Ambrose,  Bowden,  Manton  and  Sibbes. 

(c)  The  Scotch  Presbyterians,  Thomas  Boston  (1676-1732),  John  Dick 
(1764-1833),  and  Thomas  Chalmers  (1780-1847). 

Of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians,  Boston  is  the  most  voluminous,  Dick  the  most  calm  and 
fair,  Chalmers  the  most  fervid  and  popular. 

(d)  The  Methodists,   John  Wesley   (1703-1791),    and  Kichard  Watson 

(1781-1833). 

Of  the  Methodists,  John  Wesley's  doctrine  is  presented  in  "  Christian  Theology," 
collected  from  his  writings  by  the  Rev.  Thornley  Smith.  The  great  Methodist  text- 
book, however,  is  the  "  Institutes"  of  Watson,  who  systematized  and  expounded  the 
Wesleyan  theology.  Pope,  a  recent  English  theologian,  follows  Watson's  modified 
and  improved  Arminianism,  while  Whedon  and  Raymond,  recent  Americ  an  writers, 
hold  rather  to  a  radical  and  extreme  Arminianism. 

(e)  The  Quakers,  George  Fox  (1624-1691),  and  Bobert  Barclay  (1648- 
1690). 

As  Jesus,  the  preacher  and  reformer,  preceded  Paul  the  theologian;  as  Luther 
preceded  Melanchthon;  as  Zwingle  preceded  Calvin;  as  Laelius  Socinus  preceded 
Faustus  Socinus ;  as  Wesley  preceded  Watson ;  so  Fox  preceded  Barclay.  Barclay 
wrote  an  "Apology  for  the  true  Christian  Divinity,"  which  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson 
described  as  "  not  a  formal  treatise  of  Systematic  Theology,  but  the  ablest  exposition 
of  the  views  of  the  Quakers."  George  Fox  was  the  reformer,  William  Ponu  the  social 
founder,  Robert  Barclay  the  theologian,  of  Quakerism. 

(/)  The  English  Churchmen,  Kichard  Hooker  (1553-1600),  Gilbert 
Burnet  (1643-1715),  and  John  Pearson  (1613-1686). 

The  English  church  has  produced  no  great  systematic  theologian  (see  reasons 
assigned  in  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theologie,  470).  The  "judicious  "  Hooker  is  still  its 
greatest  theological  writer,  although  his  work  is  only  on  "Ecclesiastical  Polity." 
Bishop  Burnet  is  the  author  of  the  "  Exposition  of  the  XXXIX  Articles,"  and  Bishop 
Pearson  of  the  "Exposition  of  the  Creed."  Both  these  are  common  English  text- 
books. A  recent  "  Compendium  of  Dogmatic  Theology,"  by  Litton,  shows  a  tendency 
to  return  from  the  usual  Arminianism  of  the  Anglican  church  to  the  old  Augustinian- 
ism;  so  also  Bishop  Moule's  "Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine,"  and  Mason's  "Faith  of 
the  Gospel." 

5.     American  theology,  running  in  two  lines: 

(a)  The  Beformed  system  of  Jonathan  Edwards  (1703-1758),  modified 
successively  by  Joseph  Bellamy  (1719-1790),  Samuel  Hopkins  (1721-1803), 
Timothy  Dwight  (1752-1817),  Nathanael  Emmons  (1745-1840),  Leonard 
Woods  (1774-1854),  Charles  G.  Finney  (1792-1875),  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor 
(1786-1858),  and  Horace  Bushnell  (1802-1876).  Calvinism,  as  thus 
modified,  is  often  called  the  New  England,  or  New  School,  theology. 

Jonathan  Edwards,  one  of  the  greatest  of  metaphysicians  and  theologians,  was  an 
idealist  who  held  that  God  is  the  only  real  cause,  either  in  the  realm  of  matter  or  in 
the  realm  of  mind.  He  regarded  the  chief  good  as  happiness  — a  form  of  sensibility. 
Virtue  was  voluntary  choice  of  this  good.  Hence  union  with  Adam  in  acts  and 
exercises  was  sufficient.  This  God's  will  made  identity  of  being  with  Adam.  This  led 
to  the  exercise-system  of  Hopkins  and  Emmons,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Bellamy'sand 


ORDER   OF   TREATMENT   IN    SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY.  49 

Dwight's  denial  of  any  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  or  of  inborn  depravity,  on  the  other— 
in  which  last  denial  agree  many  other  New  England  theologians  who  reject  the  exercise- 
scheme,  as  for  example,  Strong,  Tyler,  Smalley,  Burton,  Woods,  and  Park.  Dr.  N.  W. 
Taylor  added  a  more  distinctly  ArmrUian  element,  the  power  of  contrary  choice— and 
with  this  tenet  of  the  New  Haven  theology,  Charles  G.  Finney,  of  Oberlin,  substantially 
agreed.  Horace  Bushnell  held  to  a  practically  Sabellian  view  of  the  Trinity,  and  to  a 
moral-influence  theory  of  the  atonement.  Thus  from  certain  principles  admitted  by 
Edwards,  who  held  in  the  main  to  an  Old  School  theology,  the  New  School  theology 
has  been  gradually  developed. 

Robert  Hall  called  Edwards  "the  greatest  of  the  sons  of  men."  Dr.  Chalmers 
regarded  him  as  the  "greatest  of  theologians."  Dr.  Pairbairn  says:  "He  is  not  only 
the  greatest  of  all  the  thinkers  that  America  has  produced,  but  also  the  highest  specula- 
tive genius  of  the  eighteenth  century.  In  a  far  higher  degree  than  Spinoza,  he  was  a 
'God-intoxicated  man.'"  His  fundamental  notion  that  there  is  no  causality  except 
the  divine  was  made  the  basis  of  a  theory  of  necessity  which  played  into  the  hands  of 
the  deists  whom  he  opposed  and  was  alien  not  only  to  Christianity  but  even  to  theism. 
Edwards  could  not  have  gotten  his  idealism  from  Berkeley  ;  it  may  have  been  sug- 
gested to  him  by  the  writings  of  Locke  or  Newton,  Cudworth  or  Descartes,  John 
Norris  or  Arthur  Collier.  See  prof.  II.  X.  Gardiner,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Nov.  1900:573- 
596;  Prof.  B.  C.  Smyth,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  Oct.  1897:956;  Allen.  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, 16,  308-310,  and  in  Atlantic  .Monthly,  Dec.  1891  :767;  Sanborn,  in  Jour.  X[,rr. 
Philos.,  Oct.  1883:401-420;  G.  P.  Fisher,  Edwards  on  the  Trinity,  in,  19. 

(/>)  The  older  Calvinism,  represented  by  Charles  Hodge  the  father  (1797- 
1878)  and  A.  A.  Hodge  the  son  (1823-1886),  together  with  Henry  B. 
Smith  (  1815-1877 ),  Robert  J.  Breckinridge  ( 1800-1871 ),  Samuel  J.  Baird, 
and  William  G.  T.  Shedd  (1820-1894).  All  these,  although  with  minor 
differences,  hold  to  views  of  human  depravity  and  divine  grace  more  nearly 
conformed  to  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  and  Calvin,  and  are  for  this  reason 
distinguished  from  the  New  England  theologians  and  their  followers  by 
the  popular  title  of  Old  School. 

Old  School  theology,  in  its  view  of  predesl  [nation,  exalts  God ;  New  School  theology, 
by  emphasizing  the  freedom  of  the  will,  exalts  man.  It  is  yet  more  important  to  notice 
that  Old  School  theology  has  for  its  characteristic  tenet  the  guilt  of  inborn  depravity. 
But  among  those  who  hold  this  view,  some  are  federalists  and  creatianists,  and  justif y 
God's  condemnation  of  all  men  upon  the  ground  that  Adam  represented  his  posterity. 
Such  are  the  Princeton  theologians  generally,  including  Charles  Hodge,  A.  A.  Hodge, 
and  the  brothers  Alexander.  Among  those  who  hold  to  the  Old  School  doctrine  of  the 
guilt  of  inborn  depravity,  however,  there  are  others  who  are  traducians,  and  who 
explain  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  upon  the  ground  of  the  natural 
union  between  him  and  them.  Baird's  "  Elohim  Revealed  "  and  Shedd's  essay  on 
"  Original  Sin  "  ( Sin  a  Nature  and  that  Nature  Guilt )  represent  this  realistic  conception 
of  the  relation  of  the  race  to  its  first  father.  It.  J.  Breckinridge,  R.  L.  Dabney,  and 
J.  H.  Thornwell  assert  the  fact  of  inherent  corruption  and  guilt,  but  refuse  to  assign 
any  rationale  for  it,  though  they  tend  to  realism.  H.  B.  Smith  holds  guardedly  to  the 
theory  of  mediate  imputation. 

On  the  history  of  Systematic  Theology  in  general,  see  Hagenbach,  History  of  Doc- 
trine (from  which  many  of  the  facts  above  given  are  taken ),  and  Shedd,  History  of 
Doctrine;  also,  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1:44-100;  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  1:15-128;  Hase,  Hut- 
terus  Redivivus,  34-52.  Gretillat,  Theologie  Systematique,  3:34-130,  has  given  an 
excellent  history  of  theology,  brought  down  to  the  present  time.  On  the  history  of 
New  England  theology,  see  Fisher,  Discussions  and  Essays,  385-354. 

IV.     Order  of  Treatment  in  Systematic  Theology. 

1.      Various  methods  of  arranging  the  topics  of  a  theological  system. 

(a)  The  Analytical  method  of  Calixtus  begins  with  the  assumed  end  of 
all  things,  blessedness,  and  thence  passes  to  the  means  by  which  it  is 
secured,     (b)  The  Trinitarian  method  of  Leydecker  and  Martensen  regards 


50  PROLEGOMENA. 

Christian  doctrine  as  a  manifestation  successively  of  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit,  (e)  The  Federal  method  of  Cocceius,  Witsins,  and  Boston 
treats  theology  under  the  two  covenants,  {d )  The  Anthropological  method 
of  Chalmers  and  Rothe  ;  the  former  beginning  with  the  Disease  of  Man 
and  passing  to  the  Remedy  ;  the  latter  dividing  his  Dogmatik  into  the 
Consciousness  of  Sin  and  the  Consciousness  of  Redemption,  (e)  The 
Christological  method  of  Hase,  Thomasius  and  Andrew  Fuller  treats  of 
God,  man,  and  sin,  as  presuppositions  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ. 
Mention  may  also  he  made  of  (/)  The  Historical  method,  followed  by 
Ursinus,  and  adopted  in  Jonathan  Edwards's  History  of  Redemption  ;  and 
([/)  The  Allegorical  method  of  Dannhauer,  in  which  man  is  described  as  a 
wanderer,  life  as  a  road,  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  light,  the  church  as  a  candle- 
stick, God  as  the  end,  and  heaven  as  the  home  ;  so  Bunyan's  Holy  War, 
and  Howe's  Living  Temple. 

See  Calixtus,  Epitome  Theologiae ;  Leydecker,  De  (Economia  trium  Personam m  in 
Negotio  Salutis  humanse ;  Martensen  (1808-1884),  Christian  Dogmatics ;  Cocceius,  Summa 
Theologize,  and  Summa  Doctrinae  de  Fcedere  ct  Testamento  Dei,  in  Works,  vol.  vi ; 
Witsius,  The  Economy  of  the  Covenants;  Boston,  A  Complete  Body  of  Divinity  (in 
Works,  vol.  1  and  2  ),  Questions  in  Divinity  (  vol.  6 ),  Human  Nature  in  its  Fourfold 
State  (  vol.  8 ) ;  Chalmers,  Institutes  of  Theology ;  Rothe  ( 1799-1867  ),  Dogmatik,  and 
Theologische  Ethik  ;  Hase  ( 1800-1890),  Evangelische  Dogmatik  ;  Thomasius  ( 1803-1875  ), 
Christi  Person  und  Werk;  Fuller,  Gospel  Worthy  of  all  Acceptation  (in  Works, 
2:338-416),  and  Letters  on  Systematic  Divinity  (1:681-711);  Ursinus  (1534-1583),  Loci 
Theologici  ( in  Works,  1:426-909);  Dannhauer  ( 1603-1666 )  Hodosophia  Christiana,  seu 
Theologia  Positiva  in  Methodum  redacta.  Jonathan  Edwards's  so-called  History  of 
Redemption  was  in  reality  a  system  of  theology  in  historical  form.  It  "  was  to  begin 
and  end  with  eternity,  all  great  events  and  epochs  in  time  being  viewed 'sub  specie 
eternitatis.'  The  three  worlds— heaven,  earth  and  hell— were  to  be  the  scenes  of  this 
grand  drama.  It  was  to  include  the  topics  of  theology  as  living  factors,  each  in  its 
own  place,"  and  all  forming  a  complete  and  harmonious  whole ;  see  Allen,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  379,  380. 

2.  The  Synthetic  Method,  which  we  adopt  in  this  compendium,  is  both 
the  most  common  and  the  most  logical  method  of  arranging  the  topics 
of  theology.  This  method  proceeds  from  causes  to  effects,  or,  in  the 
language  of  Hagenbach  (  Hist.  Doctrine,  2  :  152 ),  "starts  from  the  highest 
principle,  God,  and  proceeds  to  man,  Christ,  redemption,  and  finally  to 
the  end  of  all  things.  "  In  such  a  treatment  of  theology  we  may  best 
arrange  our  topics  in  the  following  order  : 

1st.  The  existence  of  God. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  a  revelation  from  God. 

3d.  The  nature,  decrees  and  works  of  God. 

4th.  Man,  in  his  original  likeness  to  God  and  subsequent  apostasy. 

5th.  Redemption,  through  the  work  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6th.  The  nature  and  laws  of  the  Christian  church. 

7th.  The  end  of  the  present  system  of  things. 

V.     Text-books  in  Theology,  valuable  for  reference  : — 

1.  Confessions:  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom. 

2.  Compendiums  :  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christian  Theology  ;  A.  A. 
Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology  ;  E.  H.  Johnson,  Outline  of  Systematic 
Theology  ;  Hovey,  Manual  of  Theology  and  Ethics  ;  W.  N.  Clarke,  Outline 


TEXT-BOOKS   1ST   THEOLOGY.  51 

of  Christian  Theology  ;  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus  ;  Luthardt,  Compendium 
der  Dogmatik  ;  Kurtz,  Religionslehre. 

3.  Extended  Tr<  atises  :  Dorner,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine  ;  Shedd, 
Dogmatic  Theology ;  Calvin,  Institutes ;  Charles  Hodge,  Systematic 
Theology  ;  Van  Oostarzee,  Christian  Dogmatics  ;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed  ; 
Luthardt,  Fundamental,  Saving,  and  Moral  Truths;  Phillippi,  Glaubens- 
lehre  ;  Thomasins,  Christi  Person  and  Werk. 

4.  Collet-fed   Works  :  Jon  than  Edwards  ,  Andrew  Fuller. 

5.  ffistorii  s  of  Doctrine  :  Harnack  ;  Hagenbach  ;  Shedd  ;  Fisher  ; 
Sheldon  ;  Orr,  Progress  of  Dogma. 

6.  Monographs :  Julius  Midler,  Doctrine  of  Sin  ;  Shedd,  Discourses 
and  Essays;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity;  Dorner,  History  of  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ ;  Dale,  Atonement ;  Strong,  Christ 
in  Creation  ;  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures. 

7.  Theism  :  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion  ;  Harris,  Philosophical 
Basis  of  Theism  ;  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion;  Brace,  Apologetics; 
Druniinond,  Ascent  of  Man  ;  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ. 

8.  Christian  Evidences:  Butler,  Analogy  of  Natural  and  Revealed 
Religion  ;  Fisher,  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief  ;  Row,  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1877  ;  Peabody,  Evidences  of  Christianity;  Mair,  Christian 
Evidences;  Fairbairn,  Philosophy  of  the  Christian  Religion;  Matheson, 
Spiritual  Development  of  St.  Paul. 

9.  Intellectual  Philosophy  :  Stout,  Handbook  of  Psychology  ;  Bowne, 
Metaphysics;  Porter,  Human  Intellect;  Hill,  Elements  of  Psychology; 
Dewey,  Psychology. 

10.  Mural  Philosophy:  Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality  ; 
Smyth,  Christian  Ethics  ;  Porter,  Elements  of  Moral  Science  ;  Calderwood, 
Moral  Philosophy  ;  Alexander,  Moral  Seience ;  Robins,  Ethics  of  the 
Christian  Life. 

11.  General  Scit  nee :  Todd,  Astronomy  ;  Wentworthand  Hill,  Physics ; 
Remsen,  Chemistry  ;  Brigham,  Geology  ;  Parker,  Biology ;  Martin, 
Physiology;  Ward,  Fairbanks,  or  West,  Sociology;  Walker,  Political 
Economy. 

12.  Theological  Encyclopaedias:  Schaff-Herzog  (English);  McClin- 
tock  and  Strong  ;  Herzog  (Second  German  Edition). 

13.  Bible  Dictionaries  :  Hastings  ;  Davis  ;  Cheyne  ;  Smith  (edited  by 
Hackett ). 

II.  Commentaries  :  Meyer,  on  the  New  Testament;  Plnlippi,  Lange, 
Shedd,  Sanday,  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  Godet,  on  John's  Gospel  ; 
Lightfoot,  on  Philippiaus  and  Colossians  ;  Expositor's  Bible,  on  the  Old 
Testament  books. 

15.  Bibles:    American   Revision    (standard  edition);   Revised   Greek- 
English  New  Testament  ( published  by  Harper  &  Brothers)  ;  Annotated 
Paragraph   Bible    (published  by  the  London  Religious  Tract  Society) 
Stier  and  Theile,  Polyglotten-Bibel. 

Au  attempt  has  been  made,  in  the  list  of  text-books  given  above,  to  put  first  in  eaoh 
class  the  book  best  worth  purchasing  by  the  average  theological  student,  and  to  arrange 
the  books  that  follow  this  first  one  in  the  order  of  their  value.  German  books,  however 
when  they  are  not  yet  accessible  in  an  English  translation,  are  put  last,  simply  because 
they  are  less  likely  to  be  used  as  books  of  reference  by  the  average  student. 


PART    IT. 

THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD. 
CHAPTER    I. 

ORIGIN    OF    OUR    IDEA    OF   GOD'S    EXISTENCE. 

God  is  the  infinite  and  perfect  Spirit  in  whom  all  things  have  their  source, 
support,  and  end. 

On  the  definition  of  the  term  God,  see  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  366.  Other  definitions 
are  those  of  Calovius:  "Essentia  spirituals  infiuita";  Ebrard  :  "The  eternal  source 
of  all  that  is  temporal"  ;  Kahnis:  "The  infinite  Spirit";  John  Howe:  "An  eternal, 
uncaused,  independent,  necessary  Being-,  that  hath  active  power,  life,  wisdom,  good- 
ness,  and  whatsoever  other  supposable  excellencs',  in  the  highest  perfection,  in  and  of 
itself"  ;  Westminster  Catechism  :  "  A  Spirit  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable  in  his 
being-,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth";  Andrew  Fuller:  "The 
first  cause  and  last  end  of  all  things." 

The  existence  of  God  is  a  first  truth  ;  in  other  words,  the  knowledge 
of  God's  existence  is  a  rational  intuition.  Logically,  it  precedes  and  con- 
ditions all  observation  and  reasoning.  Chronologically,  only  reflection 
upon  the  phenomena  of  nature  and  of  mind  occasions  its  rise  in  con- 
sciousness. 

The  term  intuition  means  simply  direct  knowledge.  Lowndes  ( Philos.  of  Primary 
Beliefs,  78 )  and  Mansel  (  Metaphysics,  52 )  would  use  the  term  only  of  our  direct  knowl- 
edge of  substances,  as  self  and  body ;  Porter  appli  s  it  by  preference  to  our  cognition 
of  first  truths,  such  as  have  been  already  mentioned.  Harris  (  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism, 
4-1-151,  but  esp.  45,  46)  makes  it  include  both.  He  divides  intuitions  into  two  classes:  1. 
Presentative  intuitions,  as  self-consciousness  ( in  virtue  of  which  I  perceive  the  exist- 
ence of  spirit  and  already  come  in  contact  with  the  supernatural ),  and  sense-perception 
(in  virtue  of  which  I  perceive  the  existence  of  matter,  at  least  in  my  own  organism, 
and  come  in  contact  with  nature);  2.  Rational  intuitions,  as  space,  time,  substance, 
cause,  final  cause,  right,  absolute  being.  We  may  accept  this  nomenclature,  using 
the  terms  "first  truths"  and  "rational  intuitions"  as  equivalent  to  each  other,  and 
classifying  rational  intuitions  under  the  heads  of  ( 1 )  intuitions  of  relations,  as  space 
and  time;  (2)  intuitions  of  principles,  as  substance,  cause,  final  cause,  right;  and  (;j) 
intuition  of  absolute  Being,  Power,  Reason,  Perfection,  Personality,  as  God.  We  hold 
that,  as  upon  occasion  of  the  senses  cognizing  (a)  extended  matter,  (b)  succession, 
( c )  qualities,  ( (I )  change,  ( e )  order,  (/ )  action,  respectively,  the  mind  cognizes  ( a )  space, 
( b  )  time,  (  c  )  substance,  ( d )  cause,  (  e )  design,  (/)  obligation,  so  upon  occasion  of  out- 
cognizing  our  finiteness,  dependence  and  responsibility,  the  mind  directly  cognizes  the 
existence  of  an  Infinite  and  Absolute  Authority,  Perfection,  Personality,  upon  whom 
we  are  dependent  and  to  whom  we  are  responsible. 

Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  60 — "As  we  walk  in  entire  ignorance 
of  our  muscles,  so  we  often  think  in  entire  ignorance  of  the  principles  which  underlie 

52 


FIRST   TRUTHS    IN    GENERAL.  53 

and  determine  thinking.  Bui  as  anatomy  reveals  thai  the  apparently  simple  acl  o£ 
walking  involves  a  highly  complex  muscular  activity,  so  analysis  reveals  that,  the 
apparently  simple  act  of  thinking  involves  a  system  of  mental  principles."  Dewey, 
Psychology,  238,  24  l  —  "  Perception,  memory,  imagination,  conception  —  each  of  these 
is  an  act  of  intuition.  .  .  .  Every  concrete  act  of  knowledge  involves  an  intuition  of 
God."  Martineau,  Types,  1 :  159  — The  attempt  to  divest  experience  of  either  percepts 
or  intuitions  is  "like  the  attempt  to  peel  a  bubble  in  search  for  its  colors  and  con- 
tents :  in  tenuem  ex  oculis  evanuit  auram  "  ;  Study,  1  :  199  —  "  Try  with  all  your  might 
to  do  something  difficult,  c .  g  ,  to  shut  a  door  against  a  furious  wind,  and  you  recog- 
nize Self  and  Nature  — causal  will,  over  against  external  causality";  201  — "Hence 
our  fellow-feeling  with  Nature";  65— "As  Perception  gives  us  Will  in  the  shape  of 
Causality  over  against  us  in  the  non-ego,  so  Conscience  gives  us  Will  in  the  shape  of 
Authority  over  against  us  in  the  non-ego  ";  Types,  2:  5  —  "In  perception  it  is  self  ami 
nature,  in  morals  it  is  self  and  God,  that  stand  face  to  face  in  the  subjective  and 
objective  antithesis";  Study,  2 :  3, 3  — "  In  volitional  experience  we  meet  with  objec- 
tive cawality ;  in  moral  experience  we  meet  with  objective  authority,  —  both  being 
objects  of  immediate  knowledge,  on  the  same  footing  of  certainty  with  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  external  material  world.  I  know  of  no  logical  advantage  which  the  belief 
in  finite  objects  around  us  can  boast  over  t lit-  belief  in  the  infinite  and  righteous 
Cause  of  all";  Til  —  "In  recognition  of  God  as  Cause,  we  raise  the  University;  in 
recognition  of  God  as  Authority,  we  raise  the'  Church." 

Kant  declares  that  the  idea  of  freedom  is  the  source  of  our  idea  of  personality,-— per- 
sonality consists  in  the  freedom  of  the  whole  soul  from  the  mechanism  of  nature. 
Lotze,  Metaphysics,  g  244 — "So  far  as,  and  so  long  as,  the  soul  knows  itself  as  the  iden- 
tical subject  of  inward  experience,  it  is,  and  is  named  simply  for  that  reason,  sub- 
stance." Illingworth,  Personality,  Human  and  Divine,  32 — "  Our  conception  of  sub- 
stance is  detived,  not  from  the  physical,  but  from  the  mental  world.  Substance  is  first 
of  all  that  which  underlies  our  mi  ntal  affections  and  manifestations."  James,  Will  to 
Believe,  80  —  "  Substance,  as  Kant  says,  means  'das  Beharrliche,' the  abiding,  that 
which  will  be  as  it  has  been,  because  its  being  is  essential  and  eternal."  In  this  sense  w<- 
have  an  intuitive  belief  in  an  abiding  substance  which  underlies  our  own  thoughts  and 
volitions,  and  this  we  call  t  lie  soul.  But  we  also  have  an  intuitive  belief  in  an  abiding 
substance  which  underlies  all  natural  phenomena  and  all  the  events  of  history,  and 
this  we  call  God.  Among  those  who  hold  to  this  general  view  of  an  intuitive  knowl- 
edge of  God  may  lie  mentioned  the  following  :  — Calvin,  Institutes,  book  I,  chap.  3  ; 
Nitzsch,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  15-26,  133-140;  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1  : 
78-84;  Ulrici,  Leibund  Seele,  688-725 ;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  497;  Hickok,  Rational 
Cosmology,  58-89;  Farrar,  Science  in  Theology,  27-29;  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1872 :  533,  and 
January,  1873:204;  Miller,  Fetich  in  Theology,  110-122 ;  Fisher,  Essays,  565-572 ;  Tulloch, 
Theism,  314-336;  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  1  :  191-203;  Cliristlieb,  Mod.  Doubt  and 
Christian  Belief,  75,  76 ;  Raymond,  Syst.  Theology,  1:247-262;  Bascom,  Science  of 
Mind,  246,  217;  Knight,  Studies  in  1'hilos.  and  Lit.,  155-224;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy 
and  Religion,  76  89. 

I.     First  truths  in  general,. 

1.     Their  nature. 

A.  Negatively. — A  first  truth  is  not  («)  Truth  written  prior  to  conscious- 
ness upon  the  substance  of  the  soul — for  such  passive  knowledge  implies  a 
materialistic  view  of  the  soul ;  (6)  Actual  knowledge  of  which  the  soul 
finds  itself  in  possession  at  birth  —  for  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  soul 
has  such  knowledge  ;  (c)  An  idea,  undeveloped  at  birth,  but  which  has 
the  niower  of  self-development  apart  from  observation  and  experience  —  for 
this  is-Cbntrary  to  all  we  know  of  the  laws  of  mental  growth. 

Cicero,  De  Natura  Deorum,  1 :  17  — "  Iutelligi  necesse  est  esse  deos,  guoniam  insitas 
eorum  vel  potius  inuatas  cogitatioues  babemus."  Origen,  Adv.  Celsum,  1  :  4  — "Men 
would  not  be  guilty,  if  they  did  not  carry  in  their  minds  common  notions  of  morality, 
innatfe  and  written  in  divine  letters."  Calvin,  Institutes,  1  :  3  :  3—  "Those  who  rightly 
judge  will  always  agree  that  there  is  an  indelible  sense  of  divinity  engraven  upon 
men's  minds."     Fleming,   Vocab.  of  Philosophy,  art.:  "Innate  Ideas "  —  " Descartes 


54  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

is  supposed  to  have  taught  I  and  Lo<  ke  devoted  the  first  book  of  his  Essays  to  refuting 
the  doctrine)  that  these  ideas  are  innate  or  connate  with  the  soul;  i.  6.,  the  intellect 
iinds  itself  at  birth,  or  as  soon  as  it  wakes  to  conscious  activity,  to  be  possessed  of  ideas 
to  which  it  has  only  to  attach  the  appropriate  names,  or  of  judgments  which  it  only 
needs  to  express  in  lit  propositions  —  i.  c,  prior  to  any  experience  of  individual  objects." 

Itoyce,  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  77—"  In  certain  families,  Descartes  teaches,  good 
breeding  and  the  gout  are  innate.  Yet,  of  course,  the  children  of  such  families  have  to 
be  instructed  in  deportment,  and  the  infants  just  learning  to  walk  seem  happily  quite 
free  from  gout.  Even  so  geometry  is  innate  in  us,  but  it  does  not  come  to  our  con- 
sciousness without  much  trouble  "  ;  79—  Locke  found  uo  innate  ideas.  He  maintained, 
in  reply,  that  "infants,  with  their  rattles,  showed  no  sign  of  being  aware  that  things 
which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing  are  equal  to  each  other."  Schopenhauer  said  that 
"  Jacobi  had  the  trifling  weakness  of  taking  all  he  had  learned  and  approved  before  his 
fifteenth  year  for  inborn  ideas  of  the  human  mind."  Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  5  — 
"  That  the  rational  ideas  are  conditioned  by  the  sense  experience  and  are  sequent  to  it, 
is  unquestioned  by  any  one ;  and  that  experience  shows  a  successive  order  of  manifes- 
tation is  equally  undoubted.  But  the  sensationalist  has  always  shown  a  curious  blind- 
ness to  the  ambiguity  of  such  a  fact.  He  will  have  it  that  what  comes  after  must  be  a 
modification  of  what  weut  before;  whereas  it  might  be  tliat,  and  it  might  be  a  new, 
though  conditioned,  manifestation  of  an  immanent  nature  or  law.  Chemical  affinity  is 
not  gravity,  although  affinity  cannot  manifest  itself  until  gravity  has  brought  the  ele- 
ments into  certain  relations." 

Prieiderer,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  1  :  103  —  "  This  principle  was  not  from  the  begin- 
ning in  the  consciousness  of  men  ;  for,  in  order  to  think  ideas,  reason  must  be  clearly 
developed,  which  in  the  first  of  mankind  it  could  just  as  little  be  as  in  children.  This 
however  does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  there  was  from  the  beginning  the  unconscious 
rational  impulse  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  formation  of  the  belief  in  God,  however 
manifold  may  have  been  the  direct  motives  which  co-operated  with  it."  Self  is  implied 
in  the  simplest  act  of  knowledge.  Sensation  gives  us  two  things,  e.g.,  blac.c  and  white; 
but  I  cannot  compare  them  without  asserting  difference  for  me.  Different  sensations 
make  no  knowledge*  without  a  self  to  bring  them  together.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
lecture  2—  "  You  could  as  easily  prove  theexistence  of  anexternal  world  to  a  man  who 
h  id  no  senses  to  perceive  it,  as  you  could  prove  the  existence  of  God  to  one  who  had 
no  consciousness  of  God." 

B.  Positively. — A  first  truth  is  a  knowledge  which,  though  developed 
upon  occasion  of  observation  and  reflection,  is  not  derived  from  observa- 
tion and  reflection, — a  knowledge  on  the  contrary  which  has  such  logical 
priority  that  it  must  be  assumed  or  supposed,  in  order  to  make  any  obser- 
vation or  reflection  possible.  Such  truths  are  not,  therefore,  recognized 
first  in  order  of  time  ;  some  of  them  are  assented  to  somewhat  late  in  the 
mind's  growth  ;  by  the  great  majority  of  men  they  are  never  consciously 
formulated  at  all.  Yet  they  constitute  the  necessary  assumptions  upon 
which  all  other  knowledge  rests,  and  the  mind  has  not  only  the  inborn 
capacity  to  evolve  them  so  soon  as  the  proper  occasions  are  presented,  but 
the  recognition  of  them  is  inevitable  so  soon  as  the  mind  begins  to  give 
account  to  itself  of  its  own  knowledge. 

Mansel,  Metaphysics,  52,  279  —  "To  describe  experience  as  the  cause  of  the  idea  of 
space  would  be  as  inaccurate  as  to  speak  of  the  soil  in  which  it  was  planted  as  the 
cause  of  the  oak  — though  the  planting  in  the  soil  is  the  condition  which  brings  into 
manifestation  the  latent  power  of  the  acorn."  Coleridge :  "  We  see  before  we  know  that 
we  have  eyes ;  but  when  once  this  is  known,  we  perceive  that  eyes  must  have  preexisted 
in  order  to  enable  us  to  see."  Coleridge  speaks  of  first  truths  as  "those  neces- 
sities of  mind  or  forms  of  thinking,  which,  though  revealed  to  us  by  experience,  must 
yet  have  preexisted  in  order  to  make  experience  possible."  McCosh,  Intuitions,  48,  49 
—  Intuitions  are  "  like  flower  and  fruit,  which  are  in  the  plant  from  its  embryo,  but 
may  not  be  actually  formed  till  there  have  been  a  stalk  and  branches  and  leaves."* 
Porter,  Human  Intellect,  501,  519  —  "  Such  truths  cannot  be  acquired  or  assented  to  first 
of  all."'    Some  are  reached  last  of  all.    The  moral  intuition  is  often  developed  late,  and 


FIRST   TRUTHS    IN"   GENERA  1..  55 

sometimes,  even  then,  only  upon  oceasi f  corporal  punishment.    "  Every  man  is  as 

lazy  as  oifoumstanccs  will  admit."  Our  physical  laziness  is  occasional;  our  mental 
laziness  frequent ;  our  moral  laziness  ikcessant.  Wearetoo  lazyto  think,  and  especially 
to  think  of  religion.    Onaccounl  of  this  depravity  of  human  nature  we  should  expecl 

the  intuition  of  God  to  be  developed  last  of  all.  Men  shrink  from  contact  with  God 
and  from  the  thought  of  Cod.  In  faet,  their  dislike  for  the  intuition  of  God  leads  them 
not  seldom  to  deny  all  their  other  intuitions,  even  those  of  freedom  and  of  right. 
Hence  the  modern  "psychology  without  a  soul." 

Schurman,  Agnosticism  and  Religion,  105-115  —  "  The  idea  of  God  .  .  .  is  latest  to 
develop  into  clear  consciousness  .  .  .  and  must  be  latest,  for  it  is  the  unity  of  the 
difference  of  the  self  and  the  not-self,  which  are  therefore  presupposed."  But  "it  has 
not  less  validity  in  itself ,  it  gives  no  less  trustworthy  assurance  of  actuality,  than  the 
consciousness  of  the  self,  or  the  consciousness  of  the  not-self.  .  .  .  The  conscious- 
ness of  God  is  the  logical  prius  of  the  consciousness  of  Belt  and  of  the  world.  But  not, 
as  already  observed,  the  chronological;  for,  according  to  the  profound  observation  of 
Aristotle,  what  in  the  nature  of  things  is  first,  is  in  the  order  of  development  last.  Just 
because  God  is  the  first  principle  of  being  and  knowing,  he  is  the  last  to  be  manifested 
and  known.  .  .  .  The  tinite  and  the  infinite  are  both  known  together,  and  it  is  as 
impossible  to  know  one  without  the  other  as  it  is  to  apprehend  an  angle  without  the 
sides  which  contain  it."  For  account  of  the  relation  of  the  intuitions  to  experience,  see 
especially  Cousin,  True,  Beautiful  and  Good,  39-04,  and  History  of  Philosophy, 2 :  l'.t'.)- 
245.  Compare  Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  Introd.,  1,  See  also  Bascom,  in  Bib.  Sac, 
23  :  1-47  ;  27  :  (53-90. 

2.  Their  criteria.  The  criteria  by  which  first  truths  are  to  be  tested 
are  three  : 

A.  Their  universality.  By  this  we  mean,  not  that  till  men  assent  to 
them  or  understand  them  when  propounded  in  scieutitic  form,  but  that  all 
men  manifest  a  practical  belief  in  them  by  their  language,  actions,  and 
expectations. 

B.  Their  necessity.  By  this  we  mean,  not  that  it  is  impossible  to  deny 
these  truths,  but  that  the  mind  is  compelled  by  its  very  constitution  to 
recognize  them  upon  the  occurrence  of  the  proper  conditions,  and  to 
employ  them  in  its  arguments  to  prove  their  non-existence. 

C.  Their  logical  independence  and  priority.  By  this  we  mean  that 
these  truths  can  be  resolved  into  no  others,  and  proved  by  no  others  ;  that 
they  are  presupposed  in  the  acquisition  of  all  other  knowledge,  and  can 
therefore  be  derived  from  no  other  source  than  an  original  cognitive  power 
of  the  mind. 

Instances  of  the  professed  and  formal  denial  of  first  truths:  —  the  positivist  denies 
causality;  the  idealist  denies  substance ;  the  pantheist  denies  personality ;  the  necessi- 
tarian denies  freedom  ;  the  nihilist  denies  his  own  existence.  A  man  may  in  like  man- 
ner argue  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  an  atmosphere;  but  even  while  he  argues,  he 
breathes  it.  Instance  the  knock-down  argument  to  demonstrate  the  freedom  of  the 
will.  I  grant  mjr  own  existence  in  the  very  doubting  of  it;  f  or  "  cogito,  ergo  sum,"  as 
Descartes  himself  insisted,  really  means  "cogito,  scilicet  sum";  H.  B.  Smith:  "The 
statement  is  analysis,  not  proof."  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Knowledge,  59  —  "  The  cogito, 
in  barbarous  Latin  =  cogitaiis  sum  :  thinking  is  self-conscious  being."  Bentham  :  "  The 
word  ought  is  an  authoritative  imposture,  and  ought  to  be  banished  from  the  realm  of 
morals."  Spinoza  and  Hegel  really  deny  self-consciousness  when  they  make  man  a 
phenomenon  of  the  infinite.  Royce  likens  the  denier  of  personality  to  the  man  who 
goes  outside  of  his  own  house  and  declares  that  no  one  lives  there  because,  when  he 
looks  in  at  the  window,  he  sees  no  one  inside. 

Professor  James,  in  his  Psychology,  assumes  the  reality  of  a  brain,  but  refuses  to 
assume  the  reality  of  a  soul.  This  is  essentially  the  position  of  materialism.  But  this 
assumption  of  a  brain  is  metaphysics,  although  the  author  claims  to  be  writing   a 


5G  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD. 

psychology  without  metaphysics.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  3  — "The  materialist 
believes  in  causation  proper  so  longas  he  is  explaining  the  origin  of  mind  from  mat- 
ter, but  when  ho  is  asked  to  see  in  mind  the  cause  of  physical  change  he  at  once 
becomes  a  mere  phenomenalist."  Uoyce,  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  400  —  "  I  know 
that  all  beings,  if  only  they  can  count,  must  find  that  three  and  two  make  five.  Per- 
haps the  angels  cannot  count ;  but,  if  they  can,  this  axiom  is  true  for  them.  If  I  met 
an  angel  who  declared  that  his  experience  had  occasionally  shown  him  a  three  and  two 
that  did  not  make  five,  I  should  know  at  once  what  sort  of  an  angel  he  was."  On  the 
criteria  of  first  truths,  see  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  510,511.  On  denial  of  them,  see 
Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  1 :  213. 

II.     The  Existence  of  God  a  first  truth. 

1.  That  the  knowledge  of  God's  existence  answers  the  first  criterion 
of  universality,  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations : 

A.  It  is  an  acknowledged  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  men  have  actu- 
ally recognized  the  existence  of  a  spiritual  being  or  beings,  upon  whom 
they  conceived  themselves  to  be  dependent. 

The  Vedas  declare  :  "  There  is  but  one  Being  —  no  second."  Max  Mailer,  Origin  and 
Growth  of  Religion,  34  —  "  Not  the  visible  sun,  moon  and  stars  are  invoked,  but  some- 
thing else  that  cannot  be  seen."  The  lowest  tribes  have  conscience,  fear  death,  believe 
in  witches,  propitiate  or  frighten  away  evil  fates.  Even  the  fetich-worshiper,  who 
calls  the  stone  or  the  tree  a  god,  shows  that  he  has  already  the  idea  of  a  God.  We  must 
not  measure  the  ideas  of  the  heathen  by  their  capacity  for  expression,  any  more  than 
we  should  judge  the  child's  belief  in  the  existence  of  his  lather  by  his  success  in  draw- 
ing the  father's  picture.  On  heathenism,  its  origin  and  nature,  see  Tholuck,  in  Bib. 
llcpos.,  1832  :  86 ;  Scholz,  Gotzendienst  und  Zauberwesen. 

B.  Those  races  and  nations  which  have  at  first  seemed  destitute  of  such 
knowledge  have  uniformly,  upon  further  investigation,  been  found  to  pos- 
sess it,  so  that  no  tribe  of  men  with  which  we  have  thorough  acquaintance 
can  be  said  to  be  without  an  object  of  worship.  We  may  presume  that 
further  knowledge  will  show  this  to  be  true  of  all. 

Moffat,  who  reported  that  certain  African  tribes  were  destitute  of  religion,  was  cor- 
rected by  the  testimony  of  his  son-in-law,  Livingstone:  " The  existence  of  God  and  of 
a  future  life  is  everywhere  recognized  in  Africa."  Where  men  are  most  nearly  destitute 
of  any  formulated  knowledge  of  God,  the  conditions  for  the  awakening  of  the  idea 
are  most  nearly  absent.  An  apple-tree  may  be  so  conditioned  that  it  never  bears 
apples.  "  Wc  do  not  judge  of  the  oak  by  the  stunted,  fiowerless  specimens  on  the  edge 
of  the  Arctic  Circle."  The  presence  of  an  occasional  blind,  deaf  or  dumb  man  does 
not  disprove  the  definition  that  man  is  a  seeing,  hearing  and  speaking  creature. 
Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  154— "We  need  not  tremble  for  mathematics,  even  if 
some  tribes  should  be  found  without  the  multiplication-table.  .  .  .  Sub-moral  and 
sub-rational  existence  is  always  with  us  in  the  case  of  young  children  ;  and,  if  we 
should  find  it  elsewhere,  it  would  have  no  greater  significance." 

Victor  Hugo :  "  Some  men  deny  the  Infinite  ;  some,  too,  deny  the  sun  ;  they  are  the 
blind."  Gladden,  What  is  Left?  148  — "A  man  may  escape  from  his  shadow  by  going 
into  the  dark ;  if  he  comes  under  the  light  of  the  sun,  the  shadow  is  there.  A  man  may 
be  so  mentally  undisciplined  that  he  does  not  recognize  these  ideas;  but  let  him  learn 
the  use  of  his  reason,  let  him  rellect  on  his  own  mental  processes,  and  he  will  know 
that  they  are  necessary  ideas."  On  an  original  monotheism,  see  Diestel,  in  Jahrbuch 
fur  deutschc  Theologie,  1860,  and  vol.  5 :  069;  Max  Miiller,  Chips,  1:337;  Uawlinson,  in 
Present  Day  Tracts,  No.  11;  Legge,  Religions  of  China,  8-11;  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theol- 
ogy, 1:201-208.  Per  contra,see  Asmus,  Indogerm.  Relig.,  2:1-8;  and  synopsis  in  Bib. 
Sac,  Jan.  1877  :  167-172. 

C.  This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  those  individuals,  in 
heathen  or  in  Christian  lands,  who  profess  themselves  to  be  without  any 


THE    EXISTENCE   OF    GOD   A    FIRST   TRUTH.  ■         57 

knowledge  of  a  spiritual  power  or  powers  above  them,  do  yet  indirectly 
manifest  the  existence  of  such  an  idea  in  their  minds  and  its  positive  influ- 
ence over  them. 

Cotato  said  that  science  would  conduct  God  to  the  frontier  and  then  bow  him  out, 
with  thanks  for  his  provisional  services.  But  Herbert  Spencer  affirms  the  existence  of 
a  "  Power  to  which  no  limit  in  time  or  space  is  conceivable,  of  which  all  phenomena  as 
presented  in  consciousness  are  manifestations."  The  intuition  of  God,  though  formally 
excluded,  is  implicitly  contained  in  Spencer's  system,  in  the  shape  of  the  "irresistible 
belief"  in  Absolute  Being-,  which  distinguishes  his  position  from  that  of  Comte;  see 
H.  Spencer,  who  says :  "One  truth  must  ever  grow  clearer  —  the  truth  that  there  is  an 
inscrutable  existence  everywhere  manifested,  to  which  we  can  neither  find  nor  con- 
ceive beginning  or  end  —the  one  absolute  certainty  that  we  are  ever  in  the  presence  of 
an  infinite  and  eternal  energy  from  which  all  things  proceed."  Mr.  Spencer  assumes 
unity  in  the  underlying  Reality.  Frederick  Harrison  sneeringly  asks  him  :  "  Why  not 
say  'forces,'  instead  of  'force'?"  While  Harrison  gives  us  a  supreme  moral  ideal 
without  a  metaphysical  ground,  Spencer  gives  ua  an  ultimate  metaphysical  principle 
without  a  final  moral  purpose.  The  idea  of  God  is  the  synthesis  of  the  two,  —"They 
are  hut  broken  lights  of  Tl ,  And  thou.  0  Lord,  art  more  than  they"  (Tenny- 
son, In  Memoriam). 

Solon  spoke  of  o  -Scot  and  of  to  tfeiW,  and  Sophocles  of  6  jieyas  tfeds.  The  term  for 
"God"  is  identical  In  all  the  Indo-European  languages,  and  therefore  belonged  to  the 
time  before  those  languages  separated  ;  see  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1:301-208.  In  Virgil's 
^Eneid,  Mezentius  is  an  atheist,  a  despiser  of  the  gods,  trusting  only  in  his  spear 
and  in  his  right  arm;  but,  when  the  corpse  of  his  son  is  brought  to  him,  his  first  act  is  to 
raise  his  hands  to  heaven.  Hume  was  a  sceptic,  but  he  said  to  Ferguson,  as  they 
walked  on  a  starry  night:  "Adam,  there  is  a  God!"  Voltaire  prayed  in  an  Alpine 
thunderstorm.  Shelley  wrote  his  name  in  the  visitors'  book  of  the  inn  :tf.  Montanvert, 
and  added:  "Democrat,  philanthropist,  atheist";  yet  he  loved  to  think  of  a  "tine 
intellectual  spirit  pervading  the  universe"  ;  and  be  also  wrote:  "The  (me  remains,  the 
many  change  and  pass;  Heaven's  light  forever  shines,  Earth's  shadows  fly."  Strauss 
worships  the  Cosmos,  because  "order  and  law,  reason  and  goodness''  are  the  soul  of  it. 
llenan  trusts  in  goodness,  design,  ends.  (  barbs  I  arwin,  Lite,  1  : 274— "In  my  most 
extreme  fluctuations,  I  have  never  been  an  atheist,  in  the  sense  of  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  a  God." 

D.  This  agreement  among  individuals  and  nations  so  widely  separated 
in  time  and  place  can  be  most  satisfactorily  explained  by  supposing  that  it 
has  its  ground,  not  in  accidental  circumstances,  but  in  the  nature  of  man  as 
man.  The  diverse  and  imperfectly  developed  ideas  of  the  supreme  Being 
which  prevail  among  men  are  best  accounted  for  as  misinterpretations  and 
perversions  of  an  intuitive  conviction  common  to  all. 

Huxley,  Lay  Sermons,  163  —  "  There  are  savages  without  God,  in  any  proper  sense  of 
the  word  ;  but  there  are  none  without  ghosts."  Martineau,  Study,  2 :  353,  well  replies : 
"Instead  of  turning  other  people  into  ghosts,  and  then  appropriating  one  to  ourselves 
^and  attributing  another  to  God,  we  may  add  ]  by  way  of  imitation,  we  start  from  the 
sense  of  personal  continuity,  and-rhen  predicate  the  same  of  others,  under  the  figures 
which  keep  most  clear  of  the  physical  and  perishable."  Grant  Allen  describes  the 
higher  religions  as  "a  grotesque  fungoid  growth,"  that  has  gathered  about  a  primitive 
thread  of  ancestor-worship.  But  this  is  to  derive  the  greater  from  the  less.  Sayce, 
Ilibbert  Lectures,  358—  "  I  can  find  no  trace  of  ancestor-worship  in  the  earliest  litera- 
ture of  Babylonia  which  has  survived  to  us"— this  seems  fatal  to  Huxley's  and  Allen's 
view  that  the  idea  of  God  is  derived  from  man's  prior  belief  in  spirits  of  the  dead. 
C.  M.  Tyler,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theo.,  Jan.  1899 :  144—  "  It  seems  impossible  to  deify  a  dead 
man,  unless  there  is  embryonic  in  primitive  consciousness  a  prior  concept  of  Deity." 

Renouf,  Religion  of  Ancient  Egypt,  93— "The  whole  mythology  of  Egypt    .    .    . 
turns  on  the   histories  of  Ra  and  Osiris.    .   .    .  Texts  are  discovered  which  identify 
Osiris  and  Ra.    .    .    .   Other  texts  are  known  wherein  Ra,  Osiris,  Anion,  and  all  other 
gods  disappear,  except  as  simple  names,  and  the  unity  of  God  is  asserted  in  the  noblest 
language  of  monotheistic  religion."    These  facts  are  earlier  than  any  known  ancestor- 


58         •  THE   EXISTENCE   OF    GOD. 

worship.  "They  point  to  an  original  idea  of  divinity  above  humanity  "  (see  Hill,  Gen- 
etic Philosophy,  317 ).  We  must  add  the  idea  of  the  superhuman,  before  we  can  turn 
any  animism  or  ancestor-worship  into  a  religion.  This  superhuman  element  was  sug- 
gested to  early  man  by  all  he  saw  of  nature  about  him,  especially  by  the  sight  of  the 
heavens  above,  and  by  what  he  knew  of  causality  within.  For  the  evidence  of  a  uni- 
versal recognition  of  a  superior  power,  see  Flint,  Anti-theistic  Theories,  250-289,  522-533 ; 
Renouf ,  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1879 :  100 ;  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1884 :  132-157 ;  Peschel,  Races  of 
Men,  261 ;  Ulrici,  Leib  und  Seele,  688,  and  Gott  und  die  Natur,  658-670,  758 ;  Tylor,  Primi- 
tive Culture,  1:377,  381,  418:  Alexander,  Evidences  of  Christianity,  22;  Calderwood, 
Philosophy  of  the  Infinite,  512 ;  Liddon,  Elements  of  Religion,  50 ;  Methodist  Quar.  Rev., 
Jan.  1875: 1 ;  J.  F.  Clark,  Ten  Great  Religions,  2 :  17-21. 

2.  That  the  knowledge  of  God's  existence  answers  the  second  criterion 
of  necessity,  will  be  seen  by  considering  : 

A.  That  men,  under  circumstances  fitted  to  call  forth  this  knowledge, 
cannot  avoid  recognizing  the  existence  of  God.  In  contemplating  finite 
existence,  there  is  inevitably  suggested  the  idea  of  an  infinite  Being  as  its 
correlative.  Upon  occasion  of  the  mind's  perceiving  its  own  finiteness, 
dependence,  responsibility,  it  immediately  and  necessarily  perceives  the 
existence  of  an  infinite  and  unconditioned  Being  upon  whom  it  is  depend- 
ent and  to  whom  it  is  responsible. 

We  could  not  recognize  the  finite  as  finite,  except  by  comparing  it  with  an  already 
existing  standard  —  the  Infinite.  Mansel,  Limits  of  Religous  Thought,  lect.  3  —  "  We  are 
compelled  by  the  constitution  of  our  minds  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  an  Absolute 
and  Infinite  Being  —  a  belief  which  appears  forced  upon  us  as  the  complement  of  our 
consciousness  of  the  relative  and  finite."  Fisher,  Journ.  Chr.  Philos.,  Jan.  1883 :  113  — 
"  Ego  and  non-ego,  each  being  conditioned  by  the  other,  presuppose  unconditioned 
being  on  which  both  are  dependent.  Unconditioned  being  is  the  silent  presupposition 
of  all  our  knowing."  Perceived  dependent  being  implies  an  independent ;  independent 
being  is  perfectly  self-determining;  self-determination  is  personality;  perfect  self- 
determination  is  infinite  Personality.  John  Watson,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Sept.  1893:526  — 
"There  is  no  consciousness  of  self  apart  from  the  consciousness  of  other  selves  and 
things ;  and  no  consciousness  of  the  world  apart  from  the  consciousness  of  the  single 
Reality  presupposed  in  both."  E.  Caird,  Evolution  of  Religion,  64-68—  In  every  act  of 
consciousness  the  primary  elements  are  implied  :  "  the  idea  of  the  object,  or  not-self  ; 
the  idea  of  the  subject,  or  self;  and  the  idea  of  the  unity  which  is  presupposed  in  the 
difference  of  the  self  and  not-self,  and  within  which  they  act  and  react  on  each  other." 
See  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  Infinite,  46,  and  Moral  Philos.,  77  ;  Hopkins,  Outline  Study 
of  Man,  283-285  ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  211. 

B.  That  men,  in  virtue  of  their  humanity,  have  a  capacity  for  religion. 
This  recognized  capacity  for  religion  is  proof  that  the  idea  of  God  is  a  neces- 
sary one.  If  the  mind  upon  proper  occasion  did  not  evolve  this  idea,  there 
would  be  nothing  in  man  to  which  religion  could  appeal. 

"It  is  the  suggestion  of  the  Infinite  that  makes  the  line  of  the  far  horizon,  seen  over 
land  or  sea,  so  much  more  impressive  than  the  beauties  of  any  limited  landscape."  In 
times  of  sudden  shock  and  danger,  this  rational  intuition  becomes  a  presentative 
intuition,  — men  become  more  conscious  of  God's  existence  than  of  the  existence  of 
their  fellow-men  and  they  instinctively  cry  to  God  for  help.  In  the  commands  and 
reproaches  of  the  moral  nature  the  soul  recognizes  a  Lawgiver  and  Judge  whose  voice 
conscience  merely  echoes.  Aristotle  called  man  "a  political  animal"  ;  it  is  still  more 
true,  as  Sabatier  declares,  that  "  man  is  incurably  religious."  St.  Bernard  :  "  Noverim 
me,  noverim  te."  O.  P.  Gifford :  "As  milk,  from  which  under  proper  conditions  cream 
does  not  rise,  is  not  milk,  so  the  man,  who  upon  proper  occasion  shows  no  knowledge 
of  God,  is  not  man,  but  brute."  We  must  not  however  expect  cream  from  frozen 
milk.    Proper  environment  and  conditions  are  needed. 

It  is  the  recognition  of  a  divine  Personality  in  nature  which  constitutes  the  greatest 
merit  and  charm  of  Wordsworth's  poetry.  In  his  Tintern  Abbey,  he  speaks  of  "A  pres- 


THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD    A    FIRST   TRUTH.  59 

ence  that  disturbs  me  with  the  joy  Of  elevated  thoughts;  a  sense  sublime  Of  some- 
thing far  moi'e  deeply  interfused,  Whose  dwelling1  is  the  light  of  setting-  suns.  And 
the  round  ocean  and  the  living  air,  AiKi  the  blue  sky  and  in  the  mind  of  man  :  A  mo- 
tion and  a  spirit  that  impels  All  thinking  things,  all  objects  of  all  thought,  And  rolls 
through  all  things."  Robert  Browning  sees  God  in  humanity,  as  Wordsworth  sees  God 
in  nature.  In  his  Hohenstiel-Sehwangau  he  writes:  "This  is  the  glory,  that  in  all 
conceived  Or  felt  or  known,  I  recognize  a  Mind  — Not  mine,  but  like  mine  — for  the  dou- 
ble joy  Making  all  things  for  me,  and  me  for  Him."  John  Ruskin  held  that  the  foun- 
dation of  beauty  in  the  world  is  the  presence  of  God  in  it.  In  his  youth  he  tells  us  that 
he  had  "  a  continual  perception  of  sanctity  in  the  whole  of  nature,  from  the  slightest 
thing  to  the  vastest  —  an  instinctive  awe  mixed  with  delight,  an  indefinable  thrill  such 
as  we  sometimes  imagine  to  indicate  the  presence  of  a  disembodied  spirit."  But  it 
was  not  a  disembodied,  but  an  embodied,  Spirit  that  he  saw.  Nitzsch,  Christian  Doc- 
t  rine,  fj  7  —  "Unless  education  and  culture  were  preceded  by  an  innate  consciousness  of 
God  as  an  operative  predisposition,  there  would  be  nothing  for  education  and  culture 
to  work  upon."  On  Wordsworth's  recognition  of  a  divine  personality  in  nature,  see 
Knight,  Studies,  383-317,  405-426;  Button,  Essays,  2  :  113. 

C.  That  he  who  denies  God's  existence  must  tacitly  assume  that  existence 
in  his  very  argument,  by  employing  logical  processes  whose  validity  rests 
upon  the  fact  of  God's  existence.  The  full  proof  of  this  belongs  under  the 
next  head. 

"I  am  an  atheist,  God  knows"  —  was  the  absurd  beginning  of  an  argument  to  dis- 
prove the  divine  existence.  Cutler,  Beginnings  of  Ethics,  33— "Even  the  Nihilists, 
whose  first  principle  is  that  God  and  duty  are  great  bugbears  to  be  abolished,  assume 
that  God  and  duty  exist,  and  they  are  impelled  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  abolish  them." 
Mrs.  Browning,  The  Cry  of  the  Human  :  "'There  is  no  God,'  the  foolish  saith;  But 
none,  'There  is  no  sorrow  ' ;  And  nature  oft  the  cry  of  faith  In  bitter  need  will  bor- 
row :  Eyes  which  the  preacher  could  not  school  By  wayside  graves  are  raised;  And  lips 
say,  'God  be  pitiful,'  Who  ne'er  said,  'God  be  praised.'"  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen,  when  called 
to  treat  an  Irishman's  aphasia,  said  :  "  Well,  Dennis,  how  are  you  ?  "  "  Oh,  doctor,  I 
cannot  spake!"  "  But,  Dennis,  you  are  speaking."  "Oh,  doctor,  it's  many  a  word  I 
cannot  spake ! "  "  Well,  Dennis,  now  I  will  try  you.  See  if  you  cannot  say,  '  Horse.'  " 
"  Oh,  doctor  dear,  '  horse '  is  the  very  word  I  cannot  spake!"  On  this  whole  section, 
see  A.  M.  Fairbairn,  origin  and  Development  of  Idea  of  God,  in  Studies  in  Philos.  of 
Relig.  and  History;  Martineau,  Religion  and  Materialism,  45;  Bishop  Temple,  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,  1884  :  37-65. 

3.  That  the  knowledge  of  God's  existence  answers  the  third  criterion 
of  logical  independence  and  priority,  may  be  shown  as  follows  : 

A.  It  is  presupposed  in  all  other  knowledge  as  its  logical  condition  and 
foundation.  The  validity  of  the  simplest  mental  acts,  such  as  sense-percep- 
tion, self-consciousness,  and  memory,  depends  upon  the  assumption  that  a 
God  exists  who  has  so  constituted  our  minds  that  they  give  us  knowledge 
of  things  as  they  are. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  of  Religion,  1 :  88  —  "  The  ground  of  science  and  of  cognition  gen- 
erally is  to  be  found  neither  in  the  subject  nor  in  the  object  perse,  but  only  in  the  divine 
thinking  that  combines  the  two,  which,  as  the  common  ground  of  the  forms  of  thinking 
in  all  finite  minds,  and  of  the  forms  of  being  in  all  things,  makes  possible  the  correspon- 
dence or  agreement  between  the  former  and  the  latter,  or  in  a  word  makes  knowl- 
edge of  truth  possible."  91  — "Religious  belief  is  presupposed  in  all  scientific  knowl- 
edge as  the  basis  of  its  possibility."  This  is  the  thought  of  Psalm  36 :  10  —  "  In  thy  light  shall 
wa  see  light."  A.  J.  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  303  —  "  The  uniformity  of  nature  can- 
not be  proved  from  experience,  for  it  is  what  makes  proof  from  experience  possible. 
.  .  .  Assume  it,  and  we  shall  find  that  facts  conform  to  it.  .  .  .  309  — The  uni- 
formity of  nature  can  be  established  only  by  the  aid  of  that  principle  itself,  and  is 
necessarily  involved  in  all  attempts  to  prove  it.  .  .  .  There  must  be  a  God,  to  justify 
our  confidence  in  innate    ideas." 


60  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  276  —  "  Reflection  shows  that  the  com- 
munity of  individual  intelligences  is  possible  only  through  an  all-embracing  Intelli- 
gence, the  source  and  creator  of  finite  minds."  Science  rests  upon  the  postulate  of  a 
world-order.  Huxley:  "  The  object  of  science  is  the  discovery  of  the  rational  order 
which  pervades  the  universe."  This  rational  order  presupposes  a  rational  Author. 
Dubois,  in  New  Englander,  Nov.  1890:408  — "  Wc  assume  uniformity  and  continuity, 
or  we  can  have  no  science.  An  intelligent  Creative  Will  is  a  genuine  scientific  hypoth- 
esis [  postulate  ?  ],  suggested  by  analogy  and  confirmed  by  experience,  not  contradict- 
ing the  fundamental  law  of  uniformity  but  accounting  for  it."  Ritchie,  Darwin  and 
Hegel,  18—  "  That  nature  is  a  system,  is  the  assumption  underlying  the  earliest  mythol- 
ogies :  to  fill  up  this  conception  in  the  aim  of  the  latest  science."  Royce,  Uelig.  Aspect 
of  Philosophy,  435  —  "  There  is  such  a  thing  as  error ;  but  error  is  inconceivable  unless 
there  be  such  a  thing  as  truth;  and  truth  is  inconceivable  unless  there  be  a  seat  of 
truth,  an  Infinite  all-including  Thought  or  Mind ;  therefore  such  a  Mind  exists." 

B.  The  more  complex  processes  of  the  mind,  such  as  induction  and  de- 
duction, can  be  relied  on  only  by  presupposing  a  thinking  Deity  who  has 
made  the  various  parts  of  the  universe  and  the  various  aspects  of  truth  to 
correspond  to  each  other  and  to  the  investigating  faculties  of  man. 

We  argue  from  one  apple  to  the  others  on  the  tree.  Newton  argued  from  the  fall  of 
an  apple  to  gravitation  in  the  moon  and  throughout  the  solar  system.  Rowland 
argued  from  the  chemistry  of  our  world  to  that  of  Sirius.  In  all  such  argument  there 
is  assumed  a  unifying  thought  and  a  thinking  Deity.  This  is  Tyndall's  "  scientific  use 
of  the  imagination."  "Nourished,"  he  says,  "by  knowledge  partially  won,  and 
bounded  by  cocipeiant  reason,  imagination  is  the  mightiest  instrument  of  the  physical 
discoverer."  What  Tyndall  calls  "  imagination  ",  is  really  insight  into  the  thoughts  of 
God,  the  great  Thinker.  It  prepares  the  way  for  logical  reasoning,— it  is  not  the  pro- 
duct of  mere  reasoning.  For  this  reason  Goethe  called  imagination  "die  Vorschule 
des  Denkens,"  or  "thought's  preparatory  school." 

Peabody,  Christianity  the  Religion  of  Nature,  23  — "Induction  is  syllogism,  with  the 
immutable  attributes  of  God  for  a  constant  term."  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect,  492 — 
'.'  Induction  rests  upon  the  assumption,  as  it  demands  for  its  ground,  that  a  personal  or 
thinking  Deity  exists  "  ;  658  —  "  It  has  no  meaning  or  validity  unless  we  assume  that  the 
universe  is  constituted  in  such  a  way  as  to  presuppose  an  absolute  and  unconditioned 
originator  of  its  forces  and  laws";  002  —  "We  analyze  the  several  processes  of 
knowledge  into  their  underlying  assumptions,  and  we  find  that  the  assumption  which 
underlies  them  all  is  that  of  a  self -existent  Intelligence  who  not  only  can  be  known  by 
man,  but  must  be  known  by  man  in  order  that  man  may  know  anything  besides  "  ;  see 
also  pages  486,  COS,  509,  518,  519,  585,  616.  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  81  —  "  The 
processes  of  reflective  thought  imply  that  the  universe  is  grounded  in,  and  is  the  man- 
ifestation of,  reason  "  ;  500—  "The  existence  of  a  personal  God  is  a  necessary  datum  of 
scientific  knowledge."  So  also,  Fisher,  Essays  on  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity, 
504,  and  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,  Jan.  1S83  :  129,  130. 

C.  Our  primitive  belief  in  final  cause,  or,  in  other  words,  our  convic- 
tion that  all  things  have  their  ends,  that  design  pervades  the  universe, 
involves  a  belief  in  God's  existence.  In  assuming  that  there  is  a  universe, 
that  the  universe  is  a  rational  whole,  a  system  of  thought-relations,  we 
assume  the  existence  of  an  absolute  Thinker,  of  whose  thought  the 
universe  is  an  expression. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  of  Religion,  1 :  81  —  "The  real  can  only  be  thinkable  if  it  is  realized 
thought,  a  thought  previously  thought,  which  our  thinking  has  only  to  think  again. 
Therefore  the  real,  in  order  to  be  thinkable  for  us,  must  be  the  realized  thought  of  the 
creative  thinking  of  an  eternal  divine  Reason  which  is  presented  to  our  cognitive 
thinking."  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2:41  —  "  Universal  teleology  constitutes  the 
essence  of  all  facts."  A.  H.  Bradford,  The  Age  of  Faith,  142  —  "  Suffering  and  sorrow 
are  universal.  Either  God  could  prevent  them  and  would  not,  and  therefore  he  is 
neither  beneficent  nor  loving ;  or  else  he  cannot  prevent  them  and  therefore  something 
is  greater  than  God,  and  therefore  there  is  no  God?    But  here  is  the  use  of  reason  in 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF   GOD    A    FIRST   TRUTH.  61 

the  individual  reasoning.  Reasoning  in  the  individual  necessitates  ;!••■  absolute  or 
universal  reason.  If  there  is  the  absolute  reason,  then  the  universe  and  history  are 
ordered  and  administered  in  harmony ^jvith  reason  ;  then  suffering  and  sorrow  ean  be 
neither  meaningless  nor  final,  since  that  would  be  the  contradiction  of  reason.  That 
cannot  be  possible  in  the  universal  and  absolute  which  contradicts  reason  in  man." 

D.  Our  primitive  belief  in  moral  obligation,  or,  in  otlier  words,  our 
conviction  that  right  has  universal  authority,  involves  the  belief  in  God's 
existence.  In  assuming  that  the  universe  is  a  moral  whole,  we  assume  the 
existence  of  an  absolute  Will,  of  whose  righteousness  the  universe  is  an 
expressiou. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  of  Religion,  1  :  88 -"The  ground  of  moral  obligation  is  found 
neither  in  the  subject  nor  in  society,  but.  only  in  the  universal  or  divine  Will  that  com- 
bines both.  .  .  .  103— Theideaqf  God  is  the  unity  of  the  true  and  the  good,  or  of  the  two 
highest  ideas  which  our  reason  thinks  as  theoretical  reason,  but  demands  as  practical 
reason.  ...  In  the  idea  of  God  we  find  the  only  synthesis  of  the  world  that  fe— the 
world  of  science,  and  of  the  world  that,  onyltt  to  he  — the  world  of  religion."  Seth 
Ethical  Principles,  425  —  "This  is  not  a  mathematical  demonstration.  Philosophy  never 
is  an  exact  science.  Rather  is  it  offered  as  the  only  sufficient  foundation  of  the  moral 
.'ife.  .  .  .  The  life  of  goodness  .  .  .  is  a  life  based  on  the  conviction  that  its  source  and  Ms 
issues  are  in  the  Eternal  and  the  Infinite."  As  finite  truth  and  goodness  are  compre- 
hensible only  in  the  light  of  some  absolute  principle  which  furnishes  for  them  an  ideal 
standard,  so  finite  beauty  is  Inexplicable  except  as  there  exists  a  perfect  standard  with 
which  it  may  be  compared.  The  beautiful  Is  more  than  the  agreeable  or  the  useful. 
Proportion,  order,  harmony,  unity  in  diversity— all  these  are  characteristics  of 
beauty.  But  they  all  imply  an  intellectual  and  spiritual  Being,  from  whom  they  pro- 
ceed and  by  whom  they  can  lie  measured.  Moth  physical  and  moral  beauty,  in  finite 
things  and  beings,  are  symbols  and  manifestations  of  Him  who  is  the  author  and  lover 
of  beauty,  and  who  is  himself  the  infinite  and  absolute  Beauty.  The  beautiful  in 
nature  and  in  art  shows  that  the  idea  of  God's  existence  is  logically  independent  and 
prior.  See  Cousin,  The  True,  the  Beautiful,  and  the  Good,  1  m  153 ;  Kant,  Metaphysicof 
Ethics,  who  holds  that  belief  in  God  is  the  necessary  presupposition  of  the  belief  in  duty. 

To  repeat  those  four  points  in  another  form — the  intuition  of  an  Abso- 
lute Keason  is  (a)  the  necessary  presupposition  of  all  other  knowledge,  so 
that  we  cannot  know  anything  else  to  exist  except  by  assuming  first  of  all 
that  God  exists ;  (/>)  the  necessary  basis  of  all  logical  thought,  so  that  we 
cannot  put  confidence  in  any  one  of  our  reasoning  processes  except  by 
taking  for  granted  that  a  thinking  Deity  has  constructed  our  minds  with 
reference  to  the  universe  and  to  truth  ;  (c)  the  necessary  implication  of  our 
primitive  belief  in  design,  so  that  we  can  assume  all  things  to  exist  for  a 
purpose,  only  by  making  the  prior  assumption  that  a  purposing  God  exists 
—  can  regard  the  universe  as  a  thought,  only  by  postulating  the  existence 
of  an  absolute  Thinker  ;  and  (d)  the  necessary  foundation  of  our  convic- 
tion of  moral  obligation,  so  that  we  can  believe  in  the  universal  authority 
of  right,  only  by  assuming  that  there  exists  a  God  of  righteousness  who 
reveals  his  will  both  in  the  individual  conscience  and  in  the  moral  universe 
at  large.  We  cannot  prove  that  God  is ;  but  we  can  show  that,  in  order  to 
the  existence  of  any  knowledge,  thought,  reason,  conscience,  in  man, 
man  must  assume  that  God  is. 

As  Jacobi  said  of  the  beautiful :  "  Es  kann  gewieseu  aber  nichi  bewiesen  werden"  — 
it  can  be  shown,  but  not  proved.  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  472— "Our  objective  knowl- 
edge of  the  finite  must  rest  upon  ethical  trust  in  the  infinite";  480— "Theism  is  the 
absolute  postulate  of  all  knowledge,  science  and  philosophy";  "God  is  the  most 
certain  fact  of  objective  knowledge."  Ladd,  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1877  :  611-616— "Cogito, 
ergo  Deus  est.    We  are  obliged  to  postulate  a  not-ourselves  which  makes  for  rational- 


G2  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD. 

ity,  as  well  as  for  righteousness."  W.  T.  Harris  :  "  Even  natural  science  is  iuipossiblo, 
where  philosophy  has  not  yet  taught  that  reason  made  the  world,  and  that  nature  is  a 
revelation  of  1  he  rational."  Whately,  Logic,  2T0:  New  Englander,  Oct.  1871,  art.  on 
Grounds  of  Confidence  in  Inductive  Reasoning,  Bib.  Sac,  7:415-425;  Dorner,  Glau- 
benslehre,  1:197;  Trendelenburg,  Logische  Untersuchungen,  ch.  "Zweck";  Ulrici 
Gott  und  die  Natur,  540-626 ;  Lachelier,  Du  Fondement  de  Flnduction,  78.  Per  contra, 
see  Janet,  Final  Causes,  174,  note,  and  457-464,  who  holds  final  cause  to  be,  not  an 
intuition,  but  the  result  of  applying  the  principle  of  causality  to  cases  which  mechan- 
ical laws  alone  will  not  explain. 

Pascal :  "  Nature  confounds  the  Pyrrhonist,  and  Reason  confounds  the  Dogmatist. 
We  have  an  incapacity  of  demonstration,  which  the  former  cannot  overcome ;  we 
have  a  conception  of  truth  which  the  latter  cannot  disturb."  "  There  is  no  Unbelief ! 
Whoever  says,  'To-morrow,'  'The  Unknown,'  '  The  Future,'  trusts  that  Power  alone. 
Nor  dares  disown."  Jones,  Robert  Browning,  314  —  "  We  cannot  indeed  prove  God  as 
the  conclusion  of  a  syllogism,  for  he  is  the  primary  hypothesis  of  all  proof."  Robert 
Browning,  Hohenstiel-Schwangau :  "  I  know  that  he  is  there,  as  I  am  here,  By  the 
same  proof,  which  seems  no  proof  at  all,  It  so  exceeds  familiar  forms  of  proof " ; 
Paracelsus,  27— "To  know  Rather  consists  in  opening  out  a  way  Whence  the 
imprisoned  splendor  may  escape  Than  in  effecting  entrance  for  a  light  Supposed  to  be 
without."  Tennyson,  Holy  Grail :  "  Let  visions  of  the  night  or  day  Come  as  they  will, 
and  many  a  time  they  come.  ...  In  moments  when  he  feels  he  cannot  die,  And  knows 
himself  no  vision  to  himself.  Nor  the  high  God  a  vision,  nor  that  One  Who  rose 
again  " ;  The  Ancient  Sage,  548  —  "  Thou  canst  not  prove  the  Nameless,  O  my  son  I  Nor 
canst  thou  prove  the  world  thou  movest  in.  Thou  canst  not  prove  that  thou  art  body 
alone,  Nor  canst  thou  prove  that  thou  art  spirit  alone,  Nor  canst  thou  prove  that  thou 
art  both  in  one.  Thou  canst  not  prove  that  thou  art  immortal,  no,  Nor  yet  that  thou 
art  mortal.  Nay,  my  son,  thou  canst  not  prove  that  I,  who  speak  with  thee,  Am  not 
thyself  in  converse  with  thyself.  For  nothing  worthy  proving  can  be  proven,  Nor  yet 
disproven  :  Wherefore  be  thou  wise,  Cleave  ever  to  the  sunnier  side  of  doubt,  And  cling 
to  Faith  beyond  the  forms  of  Faith." 

III.     Other  Supposed  Sources  of  our  Idea  of  God's  Existence. 

Our  proof  that  the  idea  of  God's  existence  is  a  rational  intuition  will  not 
be  complete,  until  we  show  that  attempts  to  account  in  other  ways  for  the 
origin  of  the  idea  are  insufficient,  and  require  as  their  presupposition  the 
very  intuition  which  they  would  supplant  or  reduce  to  a  secondary  place. 
We  claim  that  it  cannot  he  derived  from  any  other  source  than  an  original 
cognitive  power  of  the  mind. 

1.  Not  from  external  revelation, — whether  communicated  (a)  through 
the  Scriptures,  or  (6)  through  tradition  ;  for,  unless  man  had  from  another 
source  a  previous  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  a  God  from  whom  such  a 
revelation  might  come,  the  revelation  itself  could  have  no  authority  for 
him. 

(a)  See  Gillespie,  Necessary  Existence  of  God,  10;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1  :  117;  H.  B. 
Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  18  — "A  revelation  takes  for  granted  that  he  to  whom  it 
is  made  has  some  knowledge  of  God,  though  it  may  enlarge  and  purify  that 
knowledge."  We  cannot  prove  God  from  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  then  also 
prove  the  Scriptures  from  the  authority  of  God.  The  very  idea  of  Scripture  as  a  revela- 
tion presupposes  belief  in  a  God  who  can  make  it.  Newman  Smyth,  in  New 
Englander,  1878 :  355— We  cannot  derive  from  a  sun-dial  our  knowledge  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  sun.  The  sun-dial  presupposes  the  sun,  and  cannot  be  understood  without 
previous  knowledge  of  the  sun.  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  2  :  103—  "  The  voice  of  the 
divine  ego  does  not  first  come  to  the  consciousness  of  the  individual  ego  from  with- 
out; rather  does  every  external  revelation  presuppose  already  this  inner  one;  there 
must  echo  out  from  within  man  something  kindred  to  the  outer  revelation,  in  order 
to  its  being  recognized  and  accepted  as  divine." 

Fairbairn,  Studies  in  Philos.  of  Relig.  and  Hist.,  21,  22  —  "  If  man  is  dependent  on  an 
outer  revelation  for  his  idea  of  God,  then  he  must  have  what  Schelling  happily  termed 


OTHER   SUPPOSED    SOURCES    OF   THE    IDEA.  63 

'an  original  atheism  of  consciousness.'  Religion  cannot,  in  that  case,  be  rooted  in  the 
nature  of  man,  — it  must  he  implanted  from  without."  Sctaurman,  Belief  in  God,  78 
"A  primitive  revelation  of  God  eould^nly  mean  that  God  had  endowed  man  with  the 
capacity  of  apprehending-  his  divine  original.  This  capacity,  like  every  other,  is 
innate,  and  like  every  other,  it  realizes  itself  only  in  the  presence  of  appropriate  con- 
ditions." Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  112  — "  Revelation  cannot  demonstrate  God's 
existence,  for  it  must  assume  it;  but  it  will  manifest  his  existence  and  character  to 
men,  and  will  serve  them  as  the  chief  source  of  certainty  concerning  him,  for  it  will 
teach  them  what  they  could  not  know  by  other  means." 

CO  Nor  does  our  idea  of  God  come  primarily  from  tradition,  for  "tradition  can  per- 
petuate only  what  has  already  been  originated  "  ( Patton ).  If  the  knowledge  thus 
handed  down  is  the  knowledge  of  a  primitive  revelation,  then  the  argument  just  stated 
applies— that  very  revelation  presupposed  in  those  who  first  received  it,  and  presup- 
poses in  those  to  whom  it  is  handed  down,  some  knowledge  of  a  Being  from  whom 
such  a  revelation  might  come.  If  the  knowledge  thus  handed  down  is  simply 
knowledge  of  the  results  of  the  reasonings  of  the  race,  then  the  knowledge  of  God 
comes  originally  from  reasoning  — an  explanation  which  we  consider  further  on.  On 
the  traditive  theory  of  religion,  see  Flint,  Theism,  23,  338;  Cockei-,  Christianity  and 
Greek  Philosophy,  80-96 ;  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  Phiios.  of  Relig.  and  Hist.,  14, 15;  Boweu, 
Metaph.  and  Ethics,  453,  and  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  lt-Tti ;  Ptieiderer,  Religionsphilos.,  312-322. 

Similar  answers  must  be  returned  to  many  common  explanations  of  man's  belief  in 
God:  "Primus  in  orbe  deos  fecit  timor";  Imagination  made  religion;  Priests 
invented  religion;  Religion  is  a  matter  of  imitation  and  fashion.  But  we  ask  again: 
What  caused  the  fear?  Who  made  the  imagination?  What  made  priests  possible? 
What  made  imitation  and  fashion  natural?  To  say  that  man  worships,  merely  because 
he  sees  other  men  worshiping,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  that  a  horse  eats  hay  because  he 
sees  other  horses  eating  it.  There  must  be  a  hunger  in  the  soul  to  be  satisfied,  or 
external  things  would  never  attract  man  to  worship.  Priests  could  never  impose 
upon  men  so  continuously,  unless  there  was  in  human  nature  a  universal  belief  in  a 
God  who  might  commission  priests  as  his  representatives.  Imagination  itself  requires 
some  basis  of  reality,  and  a  larger  basis  as  civilization  advances.  The  fact  that  belief  in 
God's  existence  gets  a  wider  hold  upon  the  race  with  each  added  century,  shows  that, 
instead  of  fear  having  caused  belief  in  God,  the  truth  is  that  belief  in  God  has  caused 
fear;  indeed,  "  the  fear  of  Jehovah  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom"  (Ps.  Ill :  10). 

2.  Not  from  experience,  —  whether  this  mean  (a)  the  sense-perception 
and  reflection  of  the  individual  (Locke),  (6)  the  accnmnlated  results  of  the 
sensations  and  associations  of  past  generations  of  the  race  (Herbert  Silen- 
cer), or  (c)  the  actual  contact  of  our  sensitive  nature  with  God,  the  super- 
sensible reality,  through  the  religious  feeling  (Newman  Smyth). 

The  first  form  of  this  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  the  idea 
of  God  is  not  the  idea  of  a  sensible  or  material  object,  nor  a  combination 
of  such  ideas.  Since  the  spiritual  and  infinite  are  direct  opposites  of  the 
material  and  finite,  no  experience  of  the  latter  can  account  for  our  idea  of 
the  former. 

With  Locke  ( Essay  on  Hum.  Understanding,  2:1:4),  experience  is  the  passive  recep- 
tion of  ideas  by  sensation  or  by  reflection.  Locke's  "tabula  rasa  "  theory  mistakes  the 
occasion  of  our  primitive  ideas  for  their  cause.  To  his  statement :  "  Nihil  est  in  intel- 
lectu  nisi  quod  ante  fuerit  in  sensu,"  Leibnitz  replied:  "Nisi  intellectus  ipse." 
Consciousness  is  sometimes  called  the  source  of  our  knowledge  of  God.  But  con- 
sciousness, as  simply  an  accompanying  knowledge  of  ourselves  and  our  states,  is  not 
properly  the  source  of  any  other  knowledge.  The  German  GottesbevmssUein  =  not 
"  consciousness  of  God,"  but  "knowledge  of  God";  Bewusstscin  here  =  not  a  "con- 
knowing,"  but  a  "beknowing";  see  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  86;  Cousin,  True, 
Beautiful  and  Good,  48,  49. 

Fraser,  Locke,  143-147  —  Sensations  are  the  bricks,  and  association  the  mortar,  of  the 
mental  house.  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thous-ht  and  Knowledge,  47  —  "  Develope  language 
by  allowing  sounds  to  associate  and  evolve  meaning  for  themselves  ?  Yet  this  is  the 
exact  parallel  of  the  philosophy  which  aims  to  build  intelligence  out  of  sensation. 


64  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

....  52 —  One  who  does  not  know  how  to  read  woidd  look  iu  vain  for  meaning1  in  a 
printed  page,  and  in  vain  would  he  seek  to  help  his  failure  by  using  strong  spectacles." 
Yet  even  if  the  idea  of  God  were  a  product  of  experience,  we  should  not  be  warranted 
in  rejecting  it  as  irrational.  See  Brooks,  Foundations  of  Zoology,  132— "There  is  no 
antagonism  between  those  who  attribute  knowledge  to  experience  and  those  who 
attribute  it  to  our  innate  reason  ;  between  those  who  attribute  the  development  of  the 
germ  to  mechanical  conditions  and  those  who  attribute  it  to  the  inherent  potency  of 
the  germ  itself;  between  those  who  hold  that  all  nature  was  latent  in  the  cosmic 
vapor  and  those  who  believe  that  everything  in  nature  is  immediately  intended  rather 
than  predetermined."    All  these  may  be  methods  of  the  immanent  God. 

The  second  form  of  the  theory  is  open  to  the  objection  that  the  very  first 
experience  of  the  first  man,  equally  with  man's  latest  experience,  presup- 
poses this  intuition,  as  well  as  the  other  intuitions,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
the  cause  of  it.  Moreover,  even  though  this  theory  of  its  origin  were  cor- 
rect, it  would  still  be  impossible  to  think  of  the  object  of  the  intuition  as 
not  existing,  and  the  intuition  would  still  represent  to  us  the  highest  meas- 
ure of  certitude  at  present  attainable  by  man.  If  the  evolution  of  ideas  is 
toward  truth  instead  of  falsehood,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  act  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  our  primitive  belief  is  veracious. 

Martineau,  Study,  2 :  2ti  —  "  Nature  is  as  worthy  of  trust  in  her  processes,  as  in  her 
gifts."  Bowne,  Examination  of  Spencer,  lt53,  lt54  —  "  Are  we  to  seek  truth  iu  the  minds 
of  pre-human  apes,  or  in  the  blind  stirrings  of  some  primitive  pulp  ?  In  that  case  we 
can  indeed  put  away  all  our  science,  but  we  must  put  away  the  great  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion along  with  it.  The  experience-philosophy  cannot  escape  this  alternative:  either 
the  positive  deliverances  of  our  mature  consciousness  must  be  accepted  as  they  stand, 
or  all  truth  must  be  declared  impossible."    See  also  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  Theism,  137-142. 

Charles  Darwin,  in  a  letter  written  a  year  before  his  death,  referring  to  his  doubts  as  to 
the  existence  of  God,  asks :  "  Can  we  trust  to  the  convictions  of  a  monkey's  mind  V  "  We 
may  reply :  "Can  we  trust  the  conclusions  of  one  who  was  once  a  baby?"  Bowne, 
Ethics,  3  —  "  The  genesis  and  emergence  of  an  idea  are  one  thing ;  its  validity  is  quite 
another.  The  logical  value  of  chemistry  cannot  be  decided  by  reciting  its  beginnings 
in  alchemy ;  and  the  logical  value  of  astronomy  is  independent  of  the  fact  that  it  began 
in  astrology.  ...  11—  Even  if  man  came  from  the  ape,  we  need  not  tremble  for  the 
validity  of  the  multiplication-table  or  of  the  Golden  Rule.  If  we  have  moral  insight, 
it  is  no  matter  how  we  got  it;  and  if  we  have  no  such  insight,  there  is  no  help  in  any 
psychological  theory.  .  .  .  159  — We  must  not  appeal  to  savages  and  babies  to  flud 
what  is  natural  to  the  human  mind.  ...  In  the  case  of  anything  that  is  under  the 
law  of  development  we  can  find  its  true  nature,  not  by  going  back  to  its  crude  begin- 
nings, but  by  studying  the  finished  outcome."  Dawson,  Mod.  Ideas  of  Evolution,  13  — 
"If  the  idea  of  God  be  the  phantom  of  an  apelike  brain,  can  we  trust  to  reason  or  con- 
science in  any  other  matter?  May  not  science  and  philosophy  themselves  be  similar 
phantasies,  evolved  by  mere  chance  and  unreason?"  Even  though  man  came  from 
the  ape,  there  is  no  explaining  his  ideas  by  the  ideas  of  the  ape :  "  A  man  's  a  man  for 
a'  that." 

We  must  judge  beginnings  by  endings,  not  endings  by  beginnings.  It  matters  not 
how  the  development  of  the  eye  took  place  nor  how  imperfect  was  the  first  sense  of 
sight,  if  the  eye  now  gives  us  correct  information  of  external  objects.  So  it  matters 
not  how  the  intuitions  of  right  and  of  God  originated,  if  they  now  give  us  knowl- 
edge of  objective  truth.  We  must  take  for  granted  that  evolution  of  ideas  is  not  from 
sense  to  nonsense.  G.  H.  Lewes,  Study  of  Psychology,  122  —  "  We  can  understand  the 
amoeba  and  the  polyp  only  by  a  light  reflected  from  the  study  of  man."  Seth,  Ethical 
Principles,  429—  "  The  oak  explains  the?  acorn  even  more  truly  than  the  acorn  explains 
the  oak."  Sidgwick :  "  No  one  appeals  from  the  artist's  sense  of  beauty  to  the  child's. 
Higher  mathematics  are  no  less  true,  because  they  can  be  apprehended  only  by  trained 
intellect.  No  strange  importance  attaches  to  what  was  first  felt  or  thought."  Robert 
Browning,  Paracelsus :  "  Man,  once  descried,  imprints  forever  His  presence  on  all  life- 
less things.  ...  A  supplementary  reflux  of  light  Illustrates  all  the  inferior  grades, 
explains  Each  back  step  in  the  circle."  Man,  with  his  higher  ideas,  shows  the  meaning 
and  content  of  all  that  led  up  to  him.  He  is  the  last  round  of  the  ascending  ladder, 
and  fr  m  this  highest  product  and  from  his  ideas  we  may  infer  what  his  Maker  is. 


OTHER   SUPPOSED    SOURCES   OF   THE    IDEA.  65 

Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  168,246-*-" Evolution  simply  gave  man  such  height  tht.t  be? 
could  at  last  discern  the  .stars  of  moral  trutb  which  had  previously  been  below  the 
horizon.  This  is  very  different  from  saving  that  moral  truths  are  merely  transmitted 
products  of  the  experiences  of  utility.  .  .  .  The  germ  of  the  idea  of  God,  as  of  the 
idea  of  right,  must  have  been  iu  man  just  so  soon  as  he  became  man,  —the  brute's  gain- 
ing it  turned  him  into  man.  Reason  is  not  simply  a  register  of  physical  phenomena 
and  of  experiences  of  pleasure  and  pain  :  it  is  creative  also.  It  discerns  the  oneness  of 
tilings  and  the  supremacy  of  God."  Sir  Charles  Lyell:  "The  presumption  is  enor- 
mous that  all  our  faculties,  though  liable  to  err,  are  true  iu  the  main  and  point  to  real 
objects.  The  religious  faculty  hi  man  is  one  of  the  strongest  of  all.  It  existed  in  the 
earliest  ages,  and  instead  of  wearing  out  before  advancing  civilization,  it  grows 
stronger  and  stronger,  and  is  to-day  more  developed  among  the  highest  races  than  it 
ever  was  before.  I  think  we  may  safely  trust  that  it  points  to  a  great  truth."  Fisher, 
Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Rev.,  137,  quotes  Augustine:  "Sccurus  judicat  orbis  terrarum," 
and  tells  us  that  the  intellect  is  assumed  to  be  an  organ  of  knowledge,  however  the 
intellect  may  have  been  evolved.  But  if  the  intellect  is  worthy  of  trust,  BO  is  the  moral 
nature.  George  A.  Gordon,  The  Christ  of  To-day,  103  — "To  Herbert  Spencer,  human 
history  is  but  an  incident  of  natural  history,  and  force  is  supreme.  To  Christianity 
nature  is  only  the  beginning,  and  man  the  consummation.  Which  gives  the  higher 
revelation  of  the  life  of  the  tree  — the  seed,  or  the  fruit?" 

The  third  form  of  tho  theory  seems  to  make  God  a  sensuous  object,  to 
reverse  the  proper  order  of  knowing  and  feeling,  to  ignore  the  fact  that  in 
all  feeling  there  is  at  least  some  knowledge  of  an  object,  and  to  forget  that 
the  validity  of  this  very  feeling  can  be  maintained  only  by  previously 
assuming  the  existence  of  a  rational  Deity. 

Newman  Smyth  tells  us  thai  feeling  comes  first  :  t  he  idea  is  secondary.  Intuitive  ideas 
are  not  denied,  but  llie\  are  declared  to  be  direct  reflections,  in  though  I,  Of  the  feelings. 
They  are  the  mind's  immediate  perception  of  what  it  feels  to  exist.  Direct  knowledge 
of  God  by  intuition  is  considered  to  be  idealistic,  reaching  God  by  inference  Is  regarded 
as  rationalistic,  in  its  tendency.  See  Smyth,  The  Religious  Feeling;  reviewed  by 
Harris,  in  New  Englander,  Jan.,  1878:  reply  by  Smyth,  in  (few  Englander,  Way,  1878. 

We  grant  that,  even  in  the  case  of  unregenerate  men,  great  peril,  great  joy,  great  sin 
often  turn  the  rational  intuition  of  God  into  a  present  at  ive  intuition.  The  present  a- 
tive  intuition,  however,  cannot  be  affirmed  t<>  be  common  to  all  men.  It  does  not  fur- 
nish the  foundation  or  cxplanat  ion  of  a  universal  capacity  for  religion.  Without  the 
rational  intuition,  the  presentat  ive  would  not  be  possible,  since  it  is  only  the  rational 
that  enables  man  to  receive  and  to  interpret  the  presentative.  The  very  trust  that  we 
put  in  feeling  presupposes  an  intuitive  belief  in  a  true  and  good  God.  Tennyson  said 
in  1869 :  "  Yes,  it  is  true  that  there  are  moments  when  the  flesh  is  nothing  to  me ;  when 
I  know  and  feel  the  flesh  to  be  the  vision ;  God  and  the  spiritual  is  the  real ;  it  belongs 
to  me  more  than  tiic  hand  and  the  foot.  You  may  tell  me  that  my  hand  and  my  foot 
are  only  imaginary  symbols  of  my  existence,  —  I  could  believe  you;  but  you  never, 
never  can  convince  me  that  the  I  is  not  an  eternal  Reality,  and  that  the  spiritual  is  not 
the  real  and  true  part  of  me." 

3.     Not  from  reasoning,  —  because 

(a)  The  actual  rise  of  this  knowledge  in  the  great  majority  of  minds  is 
not  the  result  of  any  consekms  process  of  reasoning.  On  the  other  hand, 
upon  occurrence  of  the  proper  conditions,  it  flashes  upon  the  soul  with  the 
quickness  and  force  of  an  immediate  revelation. 

( b )  The  strength  of  men's  faith  in  God's  existence  is  not  proportioned  to 
the  strength  of  the  reasoning  faevdty.  On  the  other  hand,  men  of  greatest 
logical  power  are  often  inveterate  sceptics,  while  men  of  unwavering  faith 
are  found  among  those  who  cannot  even  understand  the  arguments  for 
God's  existence. 

(c)  There  is  more  in  this  knowledge  than  reasoning  could  ever  have 


G6  THE   EXISTENCE   OP   GOD. 

furnished.  Men  do  not  limit  their  belief  in  God  to  the  just  conclusions  of 
argument.  The  arguments  for  the  divine  existence,  valuable  as  they  are  for 
purposes  to  be  shown  hereafter,  are  not  sufficient  by  themselves  to  warrant 
our  conviction  that  there  exists  an  infinite  and  absolute  Being.  It  will 
appear  upon  examination  that  the  a  priori  argument  is  capable  of  proving 
only  an  abstract  and  ideal  proposition,  but  can  never  conduct  us  to  the 
existence  of  a  real  Being.  It  will  appear  that  the  a  posteriori  arguments, 
from  merely  finite  existence,  can  never  demonstrate  the  existence  of  the 
infinite.  In  the  words  of  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  (Discussions,  23) —  "A  dem- 
onstration of  the  absolute  from  the  relative  is  logically  absurd,  as  in  such 
a  syllogism  we  must  collect  in  the  conclusion  what  is  not  distributed  in 
the  premises"  —  in  short,  from  finite  premises  we  cannot  draw  an  infinite 
conclusion. 

Whately,  Logic,  290-292 ;  Jevons,  Lessons  in  Logic,  81 ;  Thompson,  Outline  Laws  of 
Thought,  sections  82-92 ;  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  Infinite,  60-69,  and  Moral  Philosophy,  238 ; 
Turnbull,  in  Bap.  Quarterly,  July,  1872 :  271 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  239 ;  Dove,  Logic 
of  Christian  Faith,  21.  Sir  Win.  Hamilton  :  "  Departing  from  the  particular,  we  admit 
that  we  cannot,  in  our  highest  generalizations,  rise  above  the  finite."  Dr.  E.  G. 
Robinson  :  "  The  human  mind  turns  out  larger  grists  than  are  ever  put  in  at  the  hop- 
per." There  is  more  in  the  idea  of  God  than  could  have  come  out  so  small  a  knot-hole 
as  human  reasoning.  A  single  word,  a  chance  remark,  or  an  attitude  of  prayer,  sug- 
gests the  idea  to  a  child.  Helen  Keller  told  Phillips  Brooks  that  she  had  always  known 
that  there  was  a  God,  but  that  she  had  not  known  his  name.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of 
Mind,  119  —  "  It  is  a  foolish  assumption  that  nothing  can  be  certainly  known  unless  it 
be  reached  as  the  result  of  a  conscious  syllogistic  process,  or  that  the  more  compli- 
cated and  subtle  this  process  is,  the  more  sure  is  the  conclusion.  Inferential  knowl- 
edge is  always  dependent  upon  the  superior  certainty  of  immediate  knowledge." 
George  M.  Duncan,  in  Memorial  of  Noah  Porter,  246  —  "  All  deduction  rests  either  on 
the  previous  process  of  induction,  or  on  the  intuitions  of  time  and  space  which  involve 
the  Infinite  and  Absolute." 

( d )  Neither  do  men  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  God's  existence  by  infer- 
ence; for  inference  is  condensed  syllogism,  and,  as  a  form  of  reasoning,  is 
equally  open  to  the  objection  just  mentioned.  We  have  seen,  moreover, 
that  all  logical  processes  are  based  upon  the  assumption  of  God's  existence. 
Evidently  that  which  is  presupposed  in  all  reasoning  cannot  itself  be  proved 
by  reasoning. 

By  inference,  we  of  course  mean  mediate  inference,  for  in  immediate  inference  ( e.  g„ 
"  All  good  rulers  are  just ;  therefore  no  unjust  rulers  are  good  " )  there  is  no  reasoning, 
and  no  progress  in  thought.  Mediate  inference  is  reasoning  — is  condensed  syllogism  ; 
and  what  is  so  condensed  may  be  expanded  into  regular  logical  form.  Deductive  infer- 
ence :  "  A  negro  is  a  fellow-creature ;  therefore  he  who  strikes  a  negro  strikes  a  fellow- 
creature."  Inductive  inference :  "  The  first  finger  is  before  the  second ;  therefore  it  is 
before  the  third."  On  inference,  see  Martineau,  Essays,  1:105-108;  Porter,  Human 
Intellect,  444-148 ;  Jevons,  Principles  of  Science,  1 :  14, 136-139, 168,  262. 

Flint,  in  his  Theism,  77,  and  Herbert,  in  his  Mod.  Realism  Examined,  would  reach  the 
knowledge  of  God's  existence  by  inference.  The  latter  says  God  is  not  demonstrable, 
but  his  existence  is  inferred,  like  the  existence  of  our  fellow  men.  But  we  reply  that  in 
this  last  case  we  infer  only  the  finite  from  the  finite,  while  the  difficulty  in  the  case  of 
God  is  in  inferring  the  infinite  from  the  finite.  This  very  process  of  reasoning,  more- 
over, presupposes  the  existence  of  God  as  the  absolute  Reason,  in  the  way  already 
indicated. 

Substantially  the  same  error  is  committed  by  H.  B.  Smith,  Introd.  to  Chr.  Theol.,  84-133, 
and  by  Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  316,  364,  both  of  whom  grant  an  intuitive  element, 
but  use  it  only  to  eke  out  the  insufficiency  of  reasoning.  They  consider  that  the  intui- 
tion gives  us  only  an  abstract  idea,  which  contains  in  itself  no  voucher  for  the  existence 


CONTENTS   OF  THIS   INTUITION.  67 

of  an  actual  being  corresponding  to  the  idea,  and  that  we  reach  real  being  only  by 
inference  from  the  facts  of  our  own  spiritual  natures  and  of  the  outward  world.  But 
we  reply,  in  the  words  of  McCosh,  thart;  "the  intuitions  are  primarily  directed  to  indi- 
vidual objects."  We  know,  not  the  infinite  in  the  abstract,  but  infinite  space  and  time, 
and  the  infinite  Ood.  See  McCosh,  Intuitions,  26, 199,  who,  however,  holds  the  view  here 
combated. 

Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  43  —  "  I  am  unable  to  assign  to  our  belief  in  God  a  higher 
certainty  than  that  possessed  by  the  working  hypotheses  of  science  .  .  .  57  — The 
nearest  approach  made  by  science  to  our  hypothesis  of  the  existenceof  God  lies  in  the 
assertion  of  the  universality  of  law  .  .  .  based  on  the  conviction  of  the  unity  and 
systematic  connection  of  all  reality  .  .  .  64  — This  unity  can  be  found  only  in  self- 
conscious  spirit."  The  fault  of  this  reasoning  is  that  it  gives  us  nothing  necessary  or 
absolute.  Instances  of  working  hypotheses  are  the  nebular  hypothesis  in  astronomy, 
the  law  of  gravitation,  the  atomic  theory  in  chemistry,  the  principle  of  evolution.  No 
one  of  these  is  logically  independent  or  prior.  Each  of  them  is  provisional,  and  each 
may  be  superseded  by  new  discovery.  Not  so  with  the  idea  of  God.  This  idea  is  pre- 
supposed by  all  the  others,  as  the  condition  of  every  mental  process  and  the  guarantee 
of  its  validity. 

IV.     Contents  of  this  Intuition. 

1.  In  this  fundamental  knowledge  that  God  is,  it  is  necessarily  implied 
that  to  some  extent  men  know  intuitively  ivhat  God  is,  namely,  ( a )  a 
Eeason  in  which  their  mental  processes  are  grounded  ;  (  b )  a  Power  above 
them  upon  which  they  are  dependent";  ( c )  a  Perfection  which  imposes  law 
upon  their  moral  natures  ;  (  d )  a  Personality  which  they  may  recognize  in 
prayer  and  worship. 

In  maintaining  that  we  have  a  rational  intuition  of  God,  we  by  no  means 
imply  that  a  presentative  intuition  of  God  is  impossible.  Such  a  prcsenta- 
tive  intuition  was  perhaps  characteristic  of  unfallen  man  ;  it  does  belong 
at  times  to  the  Christian  ;  it  will  be  the  blessing  of  heaven  (  Mat.  5:8  — 
"the  pure  in  heart .  .  .  shall  see  God" ;  Rev.  22  : 4  —  " they  shall  see  his 
face  " ).  Men's  experiences  of  face-to-face  apprehension  of  God,  in  danger 
and  guilt,  give  some  reason  to  believe  that  a  presentative  knowledge  of 
God  is  the  normal  condition  of  humanity.  But,  as  this  presentative  intui- 
tion of  God  is  not  in  our  present  state  universal,  we  here  claim  only  that  all 
men  have  a  rational  intuition  of  God. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  loss  of  love  to  God  has  greatly 
obscured  even  this  rational  intuition,  so  that  the  revelation  of  nature  and 
the  Scriptures  is  needed  to  awaken,  confirm  and  enlarge  it,  and  the  special 
work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  to  make  it  the  knowledge  of  friendship  and 
communion.  Thus  from  knowing  about  God,  we  come  to  know  God  ( John 
17  :  3—  "This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  "  ;  2  Tim.  1  :  12 
—  "I  know  him  whom  I  have  believed " ). 

Plato  said,  for  substance,  that  there  can  be  no  on  ol&ev  without  something  of  the 
a  olhiv.  Harris,  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism,  208—"  By  rational  intuition  man  knows 
that  absolute  Being  exists  ;  his  knowledge  of  what  it  is,  is  progressive  with  his  progres- 
sive knowledge  of  man  and  of  nature."  Hutton,  Essays :  "  A  haunting  presence  besets 
man  behind  and  before.  He  cannot  evade  it.  It  gives  new  meanings  to  his  thoughts, 
new  terror  to  his  sins.  It  becomes  intolerable.  He  is  moved  to  set  up  some  idol,  carved 
out  of  his  own  nature,  that  will  take  its  place  —  a  non-moral  God  who  will  not  disturb 
his  dream  of  rest.  It  is  a  righteous  Life  and  Will,  and  not  the  mere  idea  of  righteousness 
that  stirs  men  so."  Porter,  Hum.  Int.,  661  —  "  The  Absolute  is  a  thinking  Agent."  The 
intuition  does  not  grow  in  certainty ;  what  grows  is  the  mind's  quickness  in  applying 
it  and  power  of  expressing  it.  The  intuition  is  not  complex  ;  what  is  complex  is  the 
Being  intuitively  cognized.    See  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  232 :  Lowndes,  Philos. 


68  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

of  Primary  Beliefs,  lOS-11:^;  Luthardt,  Fuud.  Truths,  157  — Latent  faculty  of  speech  is 
called  forth  by  speech  of  others;  the  choked-up  well  flows  again  when  debris  is  cleared 
away.    Bowen,  in  Bib.  Sac,  33 :  710-754  ;  Bowne,  Theism,  79. 

Knowledge  of  a  person  is  turned  into  personal  knowledge  by  actual  communication  or 
revelation.  First,  comes  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  God  possessed  by  all  men  —  the 
assumption  that  there  exists  a  Reason,  Power,  Perfection,  Personality,  that  makes  cor- 
rect thinking  and  acting  possible.  Secondly,  comes  the  knowledge  of  God's  being  and 
attributes  which  nature  and  Scripture  furnish.  Thirdly,  comes  the  personal  and  pre- 
ventative knowledge  derived  from  actual  reconciliation  and  intercourse  with  God, 
through  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  ~08  — 
"  Christian  experience  verifies  the  claims  of  doctrine  by  experiment,  —  so  transforming 
probable  knowledge  into  real  knowledge. "  Biedermann,  quoted  by  Pfleidei-er,  Grundriss, 
18  — "  God  reveals  himself  to  the  human  spirit,  1.  as  its  infinite  Ground,  in  the  reason ;  2.  as 
its  infinite  Norm,  in  the  conscience ;  3.  as  its  infinite  Strength,  in  elevation  to  relig- 
ious truth,  blessedness,  and  freedom." 

Shall  I  object  to  this  Christian  experience,  because  only  compai"atively  few  have  it, 
and  I  am  not  among  the  number  ?  Because  I  have  not  seen  the  moons  of  Jupiter,  shall 
I  doubt  the  testimony  of  the  astronomer  to  their  existence  ?  Christian  experience,  like 
the  sight  of  the  moons  of  Jupiter,  is  attainable  by  all.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  113 
—  "One  who  will  have  full  proof  of  the  good  God's  reality  must  put  it  to  the  experi- 
mental test.  He  must  take  the  good  God  for  real,  and  receive  the  confirmation  that  will 
follow.  When  faith  reaches  out  after  God,  it  finds  him.  .  .  .  They  who  have  found 
him  will  be  the  sanest  and  truest  of  their  kind,  and  their  convictions  will  be  among  the 
safest  convictions  of  man.  .  .  .  Those  who  live  in  fellowship  with  the  good  God  will 
grow  in  goodness,  and  will  give  practical  evidence  of  his  existence  aside  from  their  oral 
testimony." 

2.  The  Scriptures,  therefore,  do  not  attempt  to  prove  the  existence  of 
God,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  both  assume  and  declare  that  the  knowledge 
that  God  is,  is  universal  (Rom.  1  :  19-21,  28,  32  ;  2  :  15).  God  has  inlaid 
the  evidence  of  this  fundamental  truth  in  the  very  nature  of  man,  so  that 
nowhere  is  he  without  a  witness.  The  preacher  may  confidently  follow  the 
example  of  Scripture  by  assttming  it.  But  he  must  also  explicitly  declare 
it,  as  the  Scripture  does.  "For  the  invisible  things  of  him  since  the 
creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen"  (jui&opaTat  —  spiritually  viewed);  the 
organ  given  for  this  purpose  is  the  vovq  (voovuevci)  ;  but  then — and  this 
forms  the  transition  to  our  next  division  of  the  subject  —  they  are  "per- 
ceived through  the  things  that  are  made"  (  rolg  notfjjiaciv,  Rom.  1  :20). 

On  Rom.  1 :  19-21,  see  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  251,  note ;  also  commentaries  of  Meyer, 
Alford,  Tholuck,  and  Wordsworth ;  to  yviaa-rhv  tou  deov  =  not  "that  which  may  be  known  "  (Rev. 
Vers.)  but  "  that  which  is  known  "  of  God ;  voovneva.  Ka.dop5.TaL  =  are  clearly  seen  in  that  they 
are  perceived  by  the  reason  —  voov^eva  expresses  the  manner  of  the  KadopaTon  ( Meyer  ) ; 
compare  John  1:9;  Acts  17  :  27 ;  Rom.  1  :  23 ;  2  :  15.  On  1  Cor.  15  :  34,  see  Calderwood,  Philos.  of 
Inf.,  468  —  ayvoio-iav  ©eoO  nve?  e^outri  =  do  not  possess  the  specially  exalted  knowledge  of 
God  which  belongs  to  believers  in  Christ  ( cf.  1  Jo.  4  :  7  —  "every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  Gcd, 
and  knoweth  God  " ).  On  Eph.  2  :  12,  see  Pope,  Theology,  1 :  240  —  atfeoi  iv  t<u  koo-^w  is  opposed  to 
being  in  Clmst,  and  signifies  rather  forsaken  of  God,  than  denying  him  or  entirely  i 
ignorant  of  him.  On  Scripture  passages,  see  Schmid,  Bib.  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  480 ;  Hof- 
matin,  Schrif  tbeweis,  1 :  62. 

E.G.  Robinson  :  "  The  first  statement  of  the  Bible  is,  not  that  there  is  a  God,  but  that 
'  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  '  ( Gen.  1:1).  The  belief  in  God  never  was  and 
never  can  be  the  result  of  logical  argument,  else  the  Bible  would  give  us  proofs." 
Many  texts  relied  upon  as  proofs  of  God's  existence  are  simply  explications  of  the  idea 
'if  God,  as  for  example :  Ps.  94 : 9,  10  —  "  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear  ?  He  that  formed  the 
.ye,  shall  he  not  see?  He  that  chastiseth  the  nations,  shall  not  he  correct,  evon  he  that  teacheth  man  knowledge?" 
Plato  says  that  God  holds  the  soul  by  its  roots,  —  he  therefore  does  not  need  to  demon- 
strate to  the  soul  the  fact  of  his  existence.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  308,  says 
well  that  Scripture  and  preaching  only  interpret  what  is  already  in  the  heart  which  it 
addresses :  "  Flinging  a  warm  breath  on  the  inward  oracles  hid  in  invisible  ink,  it  renders 


CONTENTS   OF  THIS   INTUITION.  69 

them  articulate  and  dazzling-  as  the  handwriting-  on  the  wall.  The  divine  Seer  does 
not  convey  to  you  his  revelation,  but  qualifies  you  to  receive  your  own.  This  mutual 
relation  is  possible  only  through  the*oinmon  presence  of  God  in  the  conscience  of  man- 
kind." Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  1 :  195-230— "The  earth  and  sky  make  the  same 
sensible  impressions  on  the  organs  of  a  brute  that  they  do  upon  those  of  a  man;  but 
the  brute  never  discerns  the  '  invisible  things '  of  God,  his  'eternal  power  and  godhood '  "  ( Rom.  1 :  20). 
Our  subconscious  activity,  so  far  as  it  is  normal,  is  under  the  guidance  of  the  imma- 
nent Reason.  Sensation,  before  it  results  in  thought,  has  in  it  logical  elements  which 
are  furnished  by  mind  — not  ours,  but  that  of  the  Infinite  One.  Christ,  the  Revealer 
of  God.  reveals  God  in  every  man's  mental  life,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  the  princi- 
ple of  self-consciousness  in  man  as  in  God.  Harris,  God  the  Creator,  tells  us  that  "man 
finds  the  Reason  that  is  eternal  and  universal  revealing  itself  in  the  exercise  of  his  own 
reason."  Savage, Life  after  Death,  288  —  "How  do  you  know  that  your  subliminal 
consciousness  does  not  tap  Omniscience,  and  get  at  tin-  tacts  of  the  universe?" 
Savage  negatives  this  suggestion,  however,  and  wrong])-  favors  the  spirit-theory.  For 
his  own  experience,  sec  pages  295-329  of  his  book. 

CM.  Barrows,  in  Proceedings  of  Soc.  for  Psychical  Research,  vol.  12,  part  30,  pages  34- 
86— "There  is  a  subliminal  agent  What  if  this  is  simply  one  intelligent  Actor,  filling 
the  universe  with  his  presence,  as  the  ether  fills  space  ;  the  common  Inspirer  of  all  man- 
kind, a  skilled  Musician,  presiding  over  many  pipes  and  keys,  and  playing  through  each 
what  music  he  will  ?  The  subliminal  self  is  a  universal  fountain  of  energy,  and  each  man 
is  an  outlet  of  the  stream.  Each  man's  personal  self  is  contained  in  it,  and  thus  each 
man  is  made  one  with  every  other  man.  In  that  deep  Force,  the  last  fact  behind  which 
analysis  cannot  go,  all  psychical  and  bodily  effects  find  their  common  origin."  This 
statement  needs  to  be  qualified  by  the  assertion  of  man's  ethical  nature  and  distinct 
personality;  see  section  of  this  work  on  Ethical  Monism,  in  chapter  III.  But  there  is 
truth  here  like  that  which  Coleridge  sought  to  express  in  his  .Mohan  Harp :  "And  what 
it  all  of  animated  Nature  Be  but  organic  harps  diversely  framed,  That  tremble  into 
thought,  as  o'er  them  sweeps.  Plastic  and  vast,  one  intellectual  breeze,  At  once  the  soul 
of  each,  and  God  of  all  V  "    See  1'.  W.  11.  Myers,  Human  Personality. 

Dorner,  System  of  Theology,  1 :  75—  "  The  consciousness  of  God  is  the  true  fastness 
of  our  self-consciousness.  .  .  .  Since  it  is  only  in  the  God-conscious  man  that  the 
innermost  personality  comes  to  light,  in  like  manner,  by  means  of  the  interweaving  of 
that  consciousness  of  God  and  of  the  world,  the  world  is  viewed  in  God  ('sub  specio 
eternitatis'),  and  the  certainty  of  the  world  first  obtains  its  absolute  security  for  tin- 
spirit."  Royce,  Spirit  of  Mod.  Philosophy,  synopsis  in  N.  Y.  Nation:  "The  one  indubit- 
able fact  is  the  existence  of  an  infinite  self,  a  Logos  or  World-mind  (345).  That  it  exists 
is  clear,  I.  Because  idealism  shows  that  real  things  are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  ideas, 
or  'possibilities  of  experience';  but  a  mere  'possibility',  as  such,  is  nothing,  and  a 
world  of  '  possible '  experiences,  in  so  far  as  it  is  real,  must  be  a  world  of  actual  exper- 
ience to  some  self  (3(57 ).  If  then  there  be  a  real  world,  it  has  all  the  while  existed  as 
ideal  and  mental,  even  before  it  became  known  to  the  particular  mind  with  which  we 
conceive  it  as  coming  into  connection  (368).  II.  But  there  is  such  a  real  world ;  for, 
when  I  think  of  an  object,  when  I  mean  it,  I  do  not  merely  have  in  mind  an  idea 
resembling  it,  for  I  aim  at  the  object,  I  pick  it  out,  I  already  in  some  measure  possess 
it.  The  object  is  then  already  present  in  essence  to  my  hidden  6elf  (370).  As  truth 
ci  msists  in  knowledge  of  the  conformity  of  a  cognition  to  its  object,  that  alone  can  know 
a  truth  which  includes  within  itself  both  idea  and  object.  This  inclusive  Knower  is  the 
Infinite  Self  (374).  With  this  I  am  in  essence  identical  ( :>71 ) ;  it  is  my  larger  self  (372) ; 
and  this  larger  self  alone  is  (.179).  It  includes  all  reality,  and  we  know  other  finite 
minds,  because  we  are  one  with  them  in  its  unity  "  ( 409  ). 

The  experience  of  George  John  Romanes  is  instructive.  For  years  he  could  recog- 
nize no  personal  Intelligence  controlling  the  universe.  He  made  four  mistakes  :  1. 
He  forgot  that  only  love  can  Bee,  that  God  is  not  disclosed  to  the  mere  intellect,  but  only 
to  the  whole  man,  to  the  integral  mind,  to  what  the  Scripture  calls  "  the  eyes  of  your  heart 
(  Eph.  1 :  18).  Experience  of  life  taught  him  at  last  the  weakness  of  mere  reasoning,  and 
led  him  to  depend  more  upon  the  affections  and  intuitions.  Then,  as  one  might  say,  he 
gave  the  X-rays  of  Christianity  a  chance  to  photograph  God  upon  his  soul.  2.  He  began 
at  the  "wrong  end,  with  matter  rather  than  with  mind,  with  cause  and  effect  rather  than 
with  right  and  wrong,  and  so  got  involved  in  the  mechanical  order  and  tried  to  inter- 
pret the  moral  realm  by  it.  The  result  was  that  instead  of  recognizing  freedom,  respon- 
sibility, sin,  guilt,  he  threw  them  out  as  pretenders.    But  study  of  conscience  and  will 


70  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

set  him  right.  He  learned  to  take  what  he  found  instead  of  trying  to  turn  it  into  some- 
thing else,  and  so  came  to  interpret  nature  by  spirit,  instead  of  interpreting  spirit  by 
nature.  3.  He  took  the  Cosmos  by  bits,  instead  of  regarding  it  as  a  whole.  His  early  think- 
ing insisted  on  finding  design  in  each  particular  part,  or  nowhere.  But  his  more  mature 
thought  recognized  wisdom  and  reason  in  the  ordered  whole.  As  he  realized  that  this 
is  a  universe,  he  could  not  get  rid  of  the  idea  of  an  organizing  Mind.  He  came  to  see 
that  the  Universe,  as  a  thought,  implies  a  Thinker.  4.  He  fancied  that  nature  excludes 
God,  instead  of  being  only  the  method  of  God's  working.  When  he  learned  how  a  thing 
was  done,  he  at  first  concluded  that  God  had  not  done  it.  His  later  thought  recognized 
that  God  and  nature  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  So  he  came  to  find  no  difficulty  even 
in  miracles  and  inspiration  ;  for  the  God  who  is  in  man  and  of  whose  mind  and  will 
nature  is  only  the  expression,  can  reveal  himself,  if  need  be,  in  special  ways.  So  George 
John  Romanes  came  back  to  prayer,  to  Christ,  to  the  church. 

On  the  general  subject  of  intuition  as  connected  with  our  idea  of  God,  see  Ladd,  in 
Bib.  Sac,  1877:  1-36,  611-610;  1878:  619;  Fisher,  on  Final  Cause  an  Intuition,  in  Jouru. 
Christ.  Philos.,  Jan.  1883 :  113-134  ;  Patton,  on  Genesis  of  Idea  of  God,  in  Jour.  Christ. 
Philos.,  Apl.  1883:  283-307;  McCosh,  Christianity  and  Positivism,  124-140;  Mansel,  in 
Encyc.  Brit.,  8th  ed.,  vol.  14 :  604  and  615;  Robert  Hall,  sermon  on  Atheism;  Hutton, 
on  Atheism,  in  Essays,  1 : 3-37  ;  Shairp,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  March,  1881 :  264. 


CHAPTER  II. 

CORROBORATIVE   EVIDENCES   OF   GOD'S   EXISTENCE. 

Although  the  knowledge  of  God's  existence  is  intuitive,  it  may  be  expli- 
cated and  confirmed  by  arguments  drawn  from  the  actual  universe  and 
from  the  abstract  ideas  of  the  human  mind. 

Remark  1.  These  arguments  are  probable,  not  demonstrative.  For  this 
reason  they  supplement  each  other,  and  constitute  a  series  of  evidences 
which  is  cumulative  in  its  nature.  Though,  taken  singly,  none  of  them  can 
be  considered  absolutely  decisive,  they  together  furnish  a  corroboration 
of  our  primitive  conviction  of  God's  existence,  which  is  of  great  practical 
value,  and  is  in  itself  sufficient  to  bind  the  moral  action  of  men. 

Butler,  Analogy,  Introd.,  Bonn's  ed.,  72  —  Probable  evidence  admits  of  degrees,  from 
the  highest  moral  certainty  to  the  lowest  presumption.  Yet  probability  is  the  guide  of 
life.  In  matters  of  morals  and  religion,  we  are  not  to  expect  mathematical  or  demon- 
strative, but  only  probable,  evidence,  and  the  slightest  preponderance  of  such  evidence 
may  be  sufficient  to  bind  our  moral  action.  The  truth  of  our  religion,  like  the  truth  of 
common  matters,  is  to  be  judged  by  the  whole  evidence  taken  together;  for  probable 
proofs,  by  being  added,  not  only  increase  the  evidence,  but  multiply  it.  Dove, 
Logic  of  Christ.  Faith,  24 — Value  of  the  arguments  taken  together  is  much  greater 
than  that  of  any  single  one.  Illustrated  from  water,  air  and  food,  together  but  not 
separately,  supporting  life  ;  value  of  £1000  note,  not  in  paper,  stamp,  writing,  signature, 
taken  separately.  A  whole  bundle  of  rods  cannot  be  broken,  though  each  rod  in  the 
bundle  may  be  broken  separately.  The  strength  of  the  bundle  is  the  strength  of  the 
whole.  Lord  Bacon,  Essay  on  Atheism  :  "  A  little  philosophy  inclineth  man's  mind  to 
atheism,  but  depth  in  philosophy  bringeth  men's  minds  about  to  religion.  For  while 
the  mind  of  man  lookcth  upon  second  causes  scattered,  it  may  sometimes  rest  in  them 
and  go  no  further,  but,  when  it  bcholdeth  the  chain  of  them  confederate  and  linked 
together,  it  must  needs  fly  to  Providence  and  Deity."  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of 
Faith,  221-223—"  The  proof  of  a  God  and  of  a  spiritual  world  which  is  to  satisfy  us 
must  consist  in  a  number  of  different  but  converging  lines  of  proof." 

In  a  case  where  onl3r  circumstantial  evidence  is  attainable,  many  lines  of  proof  some- 
times converge,  and  though  no  one  of  the  lines  reaches  the  mark,  the  conclusion  to 
which  they  all  point  becomes  the  only  rational  one.  To  doubt  that  there  is  a  London, 
or  that  there  was  a  Napoleon,  would  indicate  insanity ;  yet  London  and  Napoleon  are 
proved  by  only  probable  evidence.  There  is  no  constraining-  efficacy  in  the  arguments 
for  God's  existence;  but  the  same  can  be  said  of  all  reasoning  that  is  not  demonstra- 
tive. Another  interpretation  of  the  facts  is  possible,  but  no  other  conclusion  is  so 
satisfactory,  as  that  God  is;  see  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  129.  Prof. 
Rogers:  "If  in  practical  affairs  we  were  to  hesitate  to  act  until  we  had  absolute  and 
demonstrative  certainty,  we  should  never  begin  to  move  at  all."  For  this  reason  an 
old  Indian  official  advised  a  young  Indian  judge  "always  to  give  his  verdict,  but 
always  to  avoid  giving  the  grounds  of  it." 

Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  11-14—  "Instead  of  doubting  everything  that  can  be 
doubted,  let  us  rather  doubt  nothing  until  we  are  compelled  to  doubt. ...  In  society 
we  get  on  better  by  assuming  that  men  are  truthful,  and  by  doubting  only  for  special 
reasons,  than  we  should  if  we  assumed  that  all  men  are  liars,  and  believed  them  only 
when  compelled.  So  in  all  our  investigations  we  make  more  progress  if  we  assume 
the  truthfulness  of  the  universe  and  of  our  own  nature  than  we  should  if  we  doubted 

both The  first  method  seems  the  more  rigorous,  but  it  can  be  applied  only  to 

71 


72  THE   EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

mathematics,  which  is  a  purely  subjective  science.    When  we  come  to  deal  with 

reality,  the  method  brings  thought  to  a  standstill The  law  the  logician  lays  down 

is  this :  Nothing  may  be  believed  which  is  not  proved.  The  law  the  mind  actually 
follows  is  this :  Whatever  the  mind  demands  for  the  satisfaction  of  its  subjective 
interests  and  tendencies  may  be  assumed  as  real,  in  default  of  positive  disproof." 

Remark  2.  A  consideration  of  these  arguments  may  also  serve  to  expli- 
cate the  contents  of  an  intuition  which  has  remaidecl  obscure  and  only  half 
conscious  for  lack  of  reflection.  The  arguments,  indeed,  are  the  efforts  of 
the  mind  that  already  has  a  conviction  of.  God's  existence  to  give  to  itself  a 
formal  account  of  its  belief.  An  exact  estimate  of  their  logical  value  and 
of  their  relation  to  the  intuition  which  they  seek  to  express  in  syllogistic 
form,  is  essential  to  any  proper  refutation  of  the  prevalent  atheistic  and 
pantheistic  reasoning. 

Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  363— "Nor  have  I  claimed  that  the  existence,  even,  of 
this  Being  can  be  demonstrated  as  we  demonstrate  the  abstract  truths  of  science.  I 
have  only  claimed  that  the  universe,  as  a  great  fact,  demands  a  rational  explanation, 
and  that  the  most  rational  explanation  that  can  possibly  be  given  is  that  furnished  in 
the  conception  of  such  a  Being.  In  this  conclusion  reason  rests,  and  refuses  to  rest  in 
any  other."  RUckert:  "Wer  Gott  nicht  fiihlt  in  sich  und  alien  Lebenskreisen,  Dem 
werdet  ihr  nicht  ihn  beweisen  mit  Beweisen."  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  30"  — 
"  Theology  depends  on  noetic  and  empirical  science  to  give  the  occasion  on  which  the 
idea  of  the  Absolute  Being  arises,  and  to  give  content  to  the  idea."  Andrew  Fuller, 
Part  of  Syst.  of  Divin.,  4  :  283,  questions  "  whether  argumentation  in  favor  of  the  exist- 
ence of  God  has  not  made  more  sceptics  than  believers."  So  far  as  this  true,  it  is  due 
to  an  overstatement  of  the  arguments  and  an  exaggerated  notion  of  what  is  to  be 
expected  from  them.  See  Nitzsch,  Christian  Doctrine,  translation,  140  ;  Ebrard,  Dog- 
matik,  1 :  119, 120 ;  Fisher,  Essays  on  Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity,  572,  573;  Van 
Oosterzee,  238,  241. 

"  Evidences  of  Christianity  ?  "  said  Coleridge,  "  1  am  weary  of  the  word."  The  more 
Christianity  was  proved,  the  less  it  was  believed.  The  revival  of  religion  under  White- 
field  and  Wesley  did  what  all  the  apologists  of  tbe  eighteenth  century  could  not  do,— 
it  quickened  men's  intuitions  into  life,  and  made  them  practically  recognize  God. 
Martineau,  Types,  2:231— Men  can  "  bow  the  knee  to  the  passing  Zeitgeist,  while  turn- 
ing the  back  to  the  consensus  of  all  the  ages  " ;  Seat  of  Authority,  312  —  "  Our  reason- 
ings lead  to  explicit  Theism  because  they  start  from  implicit  Theism."  niingworth, 
Div.  and  Hum.  Personality,  81  — "  The  proofs  are ....  attempts  to  account  for  and 
explain  and  justify  something  that  already  exists;  to  decompose  a  highly  complex 
though  immediate  judgment  into  its  constituent  elements,  none  of  which  when 
isolated  can  have  the  completeness  or  the  cogency  of  the  original  conviction  taken  as  a 
whole." 

Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  31,  32  —  "  Demonstration  is  only  a  makeshift  for  helping 
ignorance  to  insight.  .  .  .  When  we  come  to  an  argument  in  which  the  whole  nature  is 
addressed,  the  argument  must  seem  weak  or  strong,  according  as  the  nature  is  feebly, 
or  fully,  developed.  The  moral  argument  for  theism  cannot  seem  strong  to  one  with- 
out a  conscience.  The  argument  from  cognitive  interests  will  be  empty  when  there  is 
no  cognitive  interest.  Little  souls  find  very  little  that  calls  for  explanation  or  that 
excites  surprise,  and  they  are  satisfied  with  a  correspondingly  small  view  of  life  and 
existence.  In  such  a  case  we  cannot  hope  for  universal  agreement.  We  can  only 
proclaim  the  faith  that  is  in  us,  in  hope  that  this  proclamation  may  not  be  without 

some  response  in  other  minds  and  hearts We  have  only  probable  evidence  for  the 

uniformity  of  nature  or  for  the  affection  of  friends.  We  cannot  logically  prove  either. 
The  deepest  convictions  are  not  the  certainties  of  lo^ic,  but  the  certainties  of  life." 

Remark  3.  The  arguments  for  the  divine  existence  may  be  reduced  to 
four,  namely :  I.  The  Cosmological ;  II.  The  Teleological ;  III.  The 
Anthropological ;  and  TV.  The  Ontological.  We  shall  examine  these  in 
order,  seeking  first  to  determine  the  precise  conclusions  to  which  they 
respectively  lead,  and  then  to  ascertain  in  what  manner  the  four  may  be 
combined. 


THE   COSMOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT.  73 

I.  The  CosMOLoaiCAii  Argument,  or  Argument  from  Change  in 
Nature. 

This  is  not  properly  an  argument  from  effect  to  cause  ;  for  the  proposi- 
tion that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause  is  simply  identical,  and  means  only 
that  every  caused  event  must  have  a  cause.  It  is  rather  an  argument  from 
begun  existence  to  a  sufficient  cause  of  that  beginning,  and  may  be  accu- 
rately stated  as  follows : 

Everything  begun,  whether  substance  or  phenomenon,  owes  its  existence 
to  some  producing  cause.  The  universe,  at  least  so  far  as  its  present  form 
is  concerned,  is  a  thing  begun,  and  owes  its  existence  to  a  cause  which  is 
equal  to  its  production.     This  cause  must  be  indefinitely  great. 

Tt  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  argument  moves  wholly  in  the  realm  of  nature.  The 
argument  from  man's  constitution  and  beginning  upon  the  planet  is  treated  under 
another  head  ( see  Anthropological  Argument ).  That  the  present  form  of  the  universe 
is  not  eternal  in  the  past,  but  lias  begun  to  be,  not  only  personal  observation  but  the 
testimony  of  geology  assures  US.  For  statements  of  the  argument,  see  Kant,  Critique? 
of  Pure  Reason  (Bonn's  transl.),  370;  Gillespie,  Necessary  Existence  of  God,  8  :  34-44; 
Rib.  Sac,  1849:613;  ia50:613;  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect,  570;  Herbert  Spencer,  First  Prin- 
ciples, 9:j.  It  has  often  been  claimed,  as  by  Locke,  Clarke,  and  Robert  Hall,  that  this 
argument  is  sufficient  to  conduct  the  mind  to  an  Eternal  and  Infinite  First  Cause.  We 
proceed  therefore  to  mention 

1.      The  defects  of  the  Cosmological  Argument. 

A.  It  is  impossible  to  show  that  the  universe,  so  far  as  its  substance  is 
concerned,  has  had  a  beginning.  The  law  of  causality  declares,  not  that 
everything  has  a  cause  —  for  then  God  himself  must  have  a  cause  —  but 
rather  that  everything  begun  has  a  cause,  or  in  other  words,  that  every 
event  or  change  has  a  cause. 

Hume,  Philos.  Works,  2:411  «/.,  urges  with  reason  that  we  never  saw  a  world  made. 
Many  philosophers  in  Christian  lands,  as,  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  206,  and  the  prevailing 
opinions  of  ante-Christian  times,  have  held  matter  to  be  eternal.  Bowne,  Metaphysics, 
107  — "  For  being  itself ,  the  reflective  reason  never  asks  a  cause,  unless  the  being  show 
signs  of  dependence.  It  is  change  that  first  gives  rise  to  the  demand  for  cause."  Mar- 
tineau, Types,  1 :  291  —  "  It  is  not  existence,  as  such,  that  demands  a  cause,  but  the  coming 
into  existence  of  what  did  not  exist  before.  The  intellectual  law  of  causality  is  a  law 
for  phenomena,  and  not  for  entity."  See  also  McCosh,  Intuitions,  225-241;  Calderwooo, 
Philos.  of  Infinite,  61.  Per  contra,  see  Murphy,  Scient,  Bases  of  Faith,  49, 195,  and  Habit 
and  Intelligence,  1  :  55-67 ;  Knight,  Lect.  on  Metaphysics,  lect.  ii,  p.  19. 

B.  Granting  that  the  universe,  so  far  as  its  phenomena  are  concerned, 
has  had  a  cause,  it  is  impossible  to  show  that  any  other  cause  is  required 
than  a  cause  within  itself,  such  as  the  pantheist  sujDposes. 

Flint.  Theism,  65  —  "  The  cosmological  argument  alone  proves  only  force,  and  no  mere 
force  is  God.  Intelligence  must  go  with  power  to  make  a  Being  that  can  be  called 
God."  Diman,  Theistic  Argument:  "The  cosmological  argument  alone  cannot  decide 
whether  the  force  that  causes  change  is  permanent  self-existent  mind,  or  permanent 
self-existent  matter."  Only  intelligence  gives  the  basis  for  an  answer.  Only  mind  in 
t  lie  universe  enables  us  to  infer  mind  in  the  maker.  But  the  argument  from  intelligence 
is  not  the  Cosmological,  but  the  Teleological,  and  to  this  last  belong  all  proofs  of  Deity 
from  order  and  combination  in  nature. 

Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  201-296  —  Science  has  to  do  with  those  changes  which  one 
portion  of  the  visible  universe  causes  in  another  portion.  Philosophy  and  theology 
deal  with  the  Infinite  Cause  which  brings  into  existence  and  sustains  the  entire  series 
of  finite  causes.  Do  we  ask  the  cause  of  the  stars?  Science  says:  Fire- mist,  or  an 
infinite  regress  of  causes.    Theology  says :  Granted ;  but  this  infinite  regress  demanaa 


74  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

for  its  explanation  the  belief  in  God.  We  must  believe  both  in  God,  and  in  an  endless 
series  of  finite  causes.  God  is  the  cause  of  all  causes,  the  soul  of  all  souls :  "  Centre  and 
soul  of  every  sphere,  Yet  to  each  loving  heart  how  near ! "  We  do  not  need,  as  mere 
matter  of  science,  to  think  of  any  beginning'. 

C.  Granting  that  the  universe  must  have  had  a  cause  outside  of  itself,  it 
is  impossible  to  show  that  this  cause  has  not  itself  been  caused,  i.  e. ,  consists 
of  an  infinite  series  of  dependent  causes.  The  principle  of  causality  does 
not  require  that  everything  begun  should  be  traced  back  to  an  uncaused 
cause  ;  it  demands  that  we  should  assign  a  cause,  but  not  that  we  should 
assign  a  first  cause. 

So  with  the  whole  series  of  causes.  The  materialist  is  bound  to  find  a  cause  for  this 
series,  only  when  the  series  is  shown  to  have  had  a  beginning.  But  the  very  hypothesis 
of  an  infinite  series  of  causes  excludes  the  idea  of  such  a  beginning.  An  infinite  chain 
has  no  topmost  link  (versus  Robert  Hall );  an  uncaused  and  eternal  succession  does  not 
need  a  cause  (versus  Clarke  and  Locke).  See  Whately,  Logic,  270;  New  Englander, 
Jan.  1874 :  75 ;  Alexander,  Moral  Science,  221 ;  Pfleiderer,  Die  Religion,  1 :  160-164 ;  Calder- 
wood,  Moral  Philos.,  225;  Herbert  Spencer,  First  Principles,  37  —  criticized  by  Bowne, 
Review  of  H.  Spencer,  36.  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2 :  128,  says  that  the  causal  principle 
is  not  satisfied  till  by  regress  we  come  to  a  cause  which  is  not  itself  an  effect  — to  one 
who  is  causa  sui;  Aids  to  Study  of  German  Theology,  15-17— Even  if  the  universe  be 
eternal,  its  contingent  and  relative  nature  requires  us  to  postulate  an  eternal  Creator; 
Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  86  —  "  While  the  law  of  causation  does  not  lead  logically  up 
to  the  conclusion  of  a  first  cause,  it  compels  us  to  affirm  it."  We  reply  that  it  is  not 
the  law  of  causation  which  compels  us  to  affirm  it,  for  this  certainly  "does  not  lead 
logically  up  to  the  conclusion."  If  we  infer  an  uncaused  cause,  we  do  it,  not  by  logical 
process,  but  by  virtue  of  the  intuitive  belief  within  us.  So  substantially  Secretan,  and 
Whewell,  in  Indications  of  a  Creator,  and  in  Hist,  of  Scientific  Ideas,  2:321,  322  — "The 
mind  takes  refuge,  in  the  assumption  of  a  First  Cause,  from  an  employment  inconsist- 
ent with  its  own  nature  "  ;  "  we  necessarily  infer  a  First  Cause,  although  the  paketio- 
logical  sciences  only  point  toward  it,  but  do  not  lead  us  to  it." 

D.  Granting  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  has  not  itself  been  caused, 
it  is  impossible  to  show  that  this  cause  is  not  finite,  like  the  universe 
itself.  The  causal  principle  requires  a  cause  no  greater  than  just  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  effect. 

We  cannot  therefore  infer  an  infinite  cause,  unless  the  universe  Is  infinite  — which 
cannot  be  proved,  but  can  only  be  assumed  — and  this  is  assuming  an  infinite  in  order 
to  prove  an  infinite.  All  we  know  of  the  universe  is  finite.  An  infinite  universe  implies 
infinite  number.  But  no  number  can  be  infinite,  for  to  any  number,  however  great,  a 
unit  can  be  added,  which  shows  that  it  was  not  infinite  before.  Here  again  we  see 
that  the  most  approved  forms  of  the  Cosmological  Argument  are  obliged  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  intuition  of  the  infinite,  to  supplement  the  logical  process.  Versus 
Martineau,  Study,  1:416  —  "  Though  we  cannot  directly  infer  the  infinitude  of  God  from 
a  limited  creation,  indirectly  we  may  exclude  every  other  position  by  resort  to  its 
unlimited  scene  of  existence  ( space )."  But  this  would  equally  warrant  our  belief  in  the 
infinitude  of  our  fellow  men.  Or,  it  is  the  argument  of  Clarke  and  Gillespie  ( see  Onto- 
logical  Argument  below).  Schiller,  Die  Grosse  der  Welt,  seems  to  hold  to  a  boundless 
universe.  He  represents  a  tired  spirit  as  seeking  the  last  limit  of  creation.  A  second 
pilgrim  meets  him  from  the  spaces  beyond  with  the  words :  "  Steh !  du  segelst  umsonst, 
—  vor  dir  Unendlichkeit "  —  "  Hold !  thou  journeyest  in  vain,—  before  thee  is  only  Infin- 
ity."   On  the  law  of  parsimony,  see  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Discussions,  628. 

2.  The  value  of  the  Cosmological  Argument,  then,  is  simply  this, —  it 
proves  the  existence  of  some  cause  of  the  universe  indefinitely  great. 
When  we  go  beyond  this  and  ask  whether  this  cause  is  a  cause  of  being, 
or  merely  a  cause  of  change,  to  the  universe  ;  whether  it  is  a  cause  apart 
from  the  universe,  or  one  with  it ;  whether  it  is  an  eternal  cause,  or  a  cause 


THE   TELEOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT.  75 

dependent  upon  some  other  cause;  whether  it  is  intelligent  or  unintelli- 
gent, infinite  or  finite,  one  or  many,  — this  argument  cannot  assure  us. 

\» 
On  the  whole  argument,  see  Flint,  Theism,  93-1:50 ;  Mozley,  Essays,  Hist,  and  Theol., 
2:414-444;  Hedge,  Ways  of  the  Spirit,  148-154;  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1870:9-31. 

II.  The  Teleological  Argument,  or  Argument  from  Order  and 
Useful  Collocation  in  Nature. 

This  is  not  properly  an  argument  from  design  to  a  designer;  for  that 
design  implies  a  designer  is  simply  an  identical  proposition.  It  may  be 
more  correctly  stated  as  follows  :  Order  and  useful  collocation  pervading  a 
system  respectively  imply  intelligence  and  purpose  as  the  cause  of  that  order 
and  collocation.  Since  order  and  useful  collocation  pervade  the  universe, 
there  must  exist  an  intelligence  adequate  to  the  production  of  this  order, 
and  a  will  adequate  to  direct  this  collocation  to  useful  ends. 

Etymologically,  "  teleological  argument "  =  argument  to  ends  or  final  causes,  that  is, 
"causes  which,  beginning  as  a  thought,  work  themselves  out  into  a  fact  as  an  end  or 
result"  (  Porter.  Hum.  Intellect,  592-618) ;— health,  for  example,  is  the  final  cause  of 
exercise,  while  exercise  is  the  efficient  cause  of  health.  This  definition  of  the  argument 
would  be  broad  enough  to  cover  the  proof  of  a  designing  intelligence  drawn  from  the 
constitution  of  man.  This  last,  however,  is  treated  as  a  part  of  the  Anthropological 
Argument,  which  follows  this,  and  the  Teleological  Argument  covers  only  the  proof 
of  a  designing  intelligence  drawn  from  nature.  Hence  Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason 
(  Bonn's  trans.),  381,  calls  it  the  physico-theologieal  argument.  On  methods  of  stating 
the  argument,  see  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1867 :  625.  See  also  Hedge,  Ways  of  the  Spirit,  155-185; 
Mozley,  Essays  Hist,  and  Theol.,  2 :  365-413. 

Hicks,  in  his  Critique  of  Design-Arguments,  347-389,  makes  two  arguments  instead  of 
one :  ( 1 )  the  argument  from  order  to  intelligence,  to  which  he  gives  the  name  Eutaxio- 
logical;  (2)  the  argument  from  adaptation  to  purpose,  to  which  he  would  restrict  the 
name  Teleological.  He  holds  that  teleology  proper  cannot  prove  intelligence,  because  in 
speaking  of  "ends"  at  all,  it  must  assume  the  very  intelligence  which  it  seeks  to  prove; 
that  it  actually  does  prove  simply  the  int<  ntionalext  rcise  of  an  intelligence  whose  exist- 
ence has  been  previously  established.  "  Circumstances,  forces  or  agencies  converging 
to  a  definite  rational  result  imply  volition  —  imply  that  this  result  is  intended  —  is  an  end. 
This  is  the  major  premise  of  this  new  teleology."  He  objects  to  the  term  "final  cause." 
The  end  is  not  a  cause  at  all  — it  is  a  motive.  The  characteristic  element  of  cause  is 
power  to  produce  an  effect.  Ends  have  no  such  power.  The  will  may  choose  them  or 
set  them  aside.    As  alieady  assuming  intelligence,  ends  cannot  prove  intelligence. 

With  this  in  the  main  we  agree,  and  count  it  a  valuable  help  to  the  statement  and 
understanding  of  the  argument.  In  the  very  observation  of  ordU  r,  however,  as  well  as 
in  arguing  from  it,  we  are  obliged  to  assume  the  same  all-arranging  intelligence.  We 
see  no  objection  therefore  to  makinsr  Eutaxiology  the  first  part  of  the  Teleological 
Argument,  as  we  do  above.  See  review  of  Hicks,  in  Meth.  Quar.  Rev.,  July,  1883 :  569- 
576.    We  proceed  however  to  certain 

1.     Further  ex2)lana(ions. 

A.  The  major  premise  expresses  a  primitive  conviction.  It  is  not 
invalidated  by  the  objections  :  ( a )  that  order  and  useful  collocation  may 
exist  without  being  purposed  —  for  we  are  compelled  by  our  very  mental 
constitution  to  deny  this  in  all  cases  where  the  order  and  collocation 
pervade  a  system  :  (6)  that  order  and  useful  collocation  may  result  from  the 
mere  operation  of  physical  forces  and  laws — for  these  very  forces  and  laws 
imply,  instead  of  excluding,  an  originating  and  superintending  intelligence 
and  will. 

Janet,  in  his  work  on  Final  Causes,  8,  denies  that  finality  is  a  primitive  conviction,  like 
causality,  and  calls  it  the  result  of  an  induction.    He  therefore  proceeds  from(l) 


76  THE   EXISTENCE   OP   GOD. 

marks  of  order  and  useful  collocation  to  (2)  finality  in  nature,  and  then  to  (.1)  an  intel- 
ligent cause  of  this  finality  or  " pre-conf ormity  to  future  event."  So  Diman,  Theistic 
Argument,  105,  claims  simply  that,  as  change  requires  cause,  so  orderly  change  requires 
intelligent  cause.  We  have  shown,  however,  that  induction  and  argument  of  every 
kind  presupposes  intuitive  belief  in  final  cause.  Nature  does  not  give  us  final  cause ; 
but  no  more  does  she  give  us  efficient  cause.  Mind  gives  us  both,  and  gives  them  as 
clearly  upon  one  experience  as  after  a  thousand.  Ladd :  "  Things  have  mind  in  them  : 
else  they  could  not  be  minded  by  us."  The  Duke  of  Argyll  told  Darwin  that  it  seemed 
to  him  wholly  impossible  to  ascribe  the  adjustments  of  nature  to  any  other  agency  than 
that  of  mind.  "Well,"  said  Darwin,  "that  impression  has  often  come  upon  me  with 
overpowering  force.  But  then,  at  other  times,  it  all  seems—;"  and  then  he  passed 
his  hands  over  his  eyes,  as  if  to  indicate  the  passing  of  a  vision  out  of  sight.  Darwinism 
is  not  a  refutation  of  ends  in  nature,  but  only  of  a  particular  theory  with  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  ends  are  realized  in  the  organic  world.  Darwin  would  begin  with  an 
infinitesimal  germ,  and  make  all  the  subsequent  development  unteleological ;  see 
Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  193. 

( a )  Illustration  of  unpurposed  order  in  the  single  throwing  of  "  double  sixes,"— 
constant  throwing  of  double  sixes  indicates  design.  So  arrangement  of  detritus  at 
mouth  of  river,  and  warming  pans  sent  to  the  West  Indies,  —  useful  but  not  purposed. 
Momerie,  Christianity  and  Evolution,  72  — "It  is  only  within  narrow  limits  that  seem- 
ingly purposeful  arrangements  are  produced  by  chance.  And  therefore,  as  the  signs 
of  purpose  increase,  the  presumption  in  favor  of  their  accidental  origin  diminishes." 
Elder,  Ideas  from  Nature,  81,  83  —  "  The  uniformity  of  a  boy's  marbles  shows  them  to 
be  products  of  design.  A  single  one  might  be  accidental,  but  a  dozeu  cannot  be.  So 
atomic  uniformity  indicates  manufacture."  Illustrations  of  purposed  order,  in  Beat- 
tie's  garden,  Tillotson's  blind  men,  Kepler's  salad.  Dr.  Carpenter :  "The  atheist  is  like 
a  man  examining  the  machinery  of  a  great  mill,  who,  finding  that  the  whole  is  moved 
by  a  shaft  proceeding  from  a  brick  wall,  infers  that  the  shaft  is  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion of  what  he  sees,  and  that  there  is  no  moving  power  behind  it."  Lord  Kelvin :  "  The 
atheistic  idea  is  nonsensical."  J.  G.  Paton,  Life,  2:  191  —  The  sinking  of  a  well  on  the 
island  of  Aniwa  convinces  the  cannibal  chief  Namakei  that  Jehovah  God  exists,  the 
invisible  One.  See  Chauncey  Wright,  in  N.  Y.  Nation,  Jan.  15,  1874 ;  Murphy,  Scien- 
tific Bases  of  Faith,  208. 

(h)  Bowne,  Review  of  Herbert  Spencer,  231-247  —  "Law  is  method,  not  cause.  A 
man  cannot  offer  the  very  fact  to  be  explained,  as  its  sufficient  explanation."  Marti- 
neau,  Essays,  1  :  144  —  "  Patterned  damask,  made  not  by  the  weaver,  but  by  the  loom?  " 
Dr.  Stevenson :  "  House  requires  no  architect,  because  it  is  built  by  stone-masons  and 
carpenters?"  Joseph  Cook:  "Natural  law  without  God  behind  it  is  no  more  than  a 
glove  without  a  hand  in  it,  and  all  that  is  done  by  the  gloved  hand  of  God  in  nature  is 
done  by  the  hand  and  not  by  the  glove.  Evolution  is  a,  process,  not  a  power ;  a  method 
of  operation,  not  an  operator.  A  book  is  not  written  by  the  laws-of  spelling  and  gram- 
mar, but  according1  to  those  laws.  So  the  book  of  the  universe  is  not  written  by  the 
laws  of  heat,  electricity,  gravitation,  evolution,  but  according  to  those  laws."  G.  F. 
Wright,  Ant.  and  Orig.  of  Hum.  Race,  lecture  IX  —  "It  is  impossible  for  evolution  to 
furnish  evidence  which  shall  drive  design  out  of  nature.  It  can  only  drive  it  back  to 
an  earlier  point  of  entrance,  thereby  increasing  our  admiration  for  the  power  of  the 
Creator  to  accomplish  ulterior  designs  bj'  unlikely  means." 

Evolution  is  only  the  method  of  God.  It  has  to  do  with  the  how,  not  with  the  why, 
of  phenomena,  and  therefore  is  not  inconsistent  with  design,  but  rather  is  a  new  and 
higher  illustration  of  design.  Henry  Ward  Beecher :  "  Design  by  wholesale  is  greater 
than  design  by  retail."  Frances  Power  Cobbe:  "  It  is  a  singular  fact  that,  whenever 
we  find  out  how  a  thing  is  done,  our  first  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  God  did  not 
do  it."  Why  should  we  say:  "The  more  law,  the  less  God?"  The  theist  refers  the 
phenomena  to  a  cause  that  knows  itself  and  what  it  is  doing ;  the  atheist  refers  them 
to  a  powepwhich  knows  nothing  of  itself  and  what  it  is  doing  (  Bowne ).  George  John 
Romanes  said  that,  if  God  be  immanent,  then  all  natural  causation  must  appear  to  be 
mechanical,  and  it  is  no  argument  against  the  divine  origin  of  a  thing  to  prove  it  due 
to  natural  causation :  "  Causes  in  nature  do  not  obviate  the  necessity  of  a  cause  in 
nature."  Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  47— Evolution  shows  that  the  direction  of 
affairs  is  under  control  of  something  like  our  own  intelligence :  "  Evolution  spells 
Purpose."  Clarke,  Christ.  Theology,  105  — "  The  modern  doctrine  of  evolution  has 
been  awake  to  the  existence  of  innumerable  ends  within  the  universe,  but  not  to  the 
one  great  end  for  the  universe  itself."    Huxley,  Critiques  and  Addresses,  274,  275,  307  — 


THE   TELEOLOGICAL   ARGUMENT.  77 

"The  teleological  and  mechanical  views  of  the  universe  are  not  mutually  exclusive." 
Sir  William  Hamilton,  Metaphysics :  "  Intelligence  stands  first  in  the  order  of  existence. 
Efficient  causes  are  preceded  by  final  causes."  See  also  Thornton,  Old  Fashioned 
Ethics,  199-265;  Archbp.  Temple,  Bampton  Lect.,  1881:  99-123;  Owen,  Anat.  of  Verte- 
brates, 3 :  796;  Peirce,  Ideality  in  the  Physical  Sciences,  1-35;  Newman  Smyth,  Through 
Science  to  Faith,  96 ;  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Rev.,  135. 

B.  The  minor  premise  expresses  a  working-principle  of  all  science, 
namely,  that  all  things  have  their  uses,  that  order  pervades  the  universe,  and 
that  the  methods  of  nature  are  rational  methods.  Evidences  of  this  appear 
in  the  correlation  of  the  chemical  elements  to  each  other  ;  in  the  fitness  of 
the  inanimate  world  to  be  the  basis  and  support  of  life  ;  in  the  typical  forms 
and  unity  of  plan  apparent  in  the  organic  creation ;  in  the  existence  and 
cooperation  of  natural  laws  ;  in  cosmical  order  and  compensations. 

This  minor  premise  is  not  invalidated  by  the  objections:  (a)  That  we 
frequently  misunderstand  the  end  actually  subserved  by  natural  events  and 
objects  ;  for  the  principle  is,  not  that  we  necessarily  know  the  actual  end, 
but  that  we  necessarily  believe  that  there  is  some  end,  in  every  case  of 
systematic  order  and  collocation.  (/>)  That  the  order  of  the  universe  is 
manifestly  imperfect;  for  this,  if  granted,  would  argue,  not  absence  of 
contrivance,  but  some  special  reason  lor  imperfection,  either  in  the  limita- 
tions of  the  contriving  intelligence  itself,  or  in  the  nature  of  the  end  sought 
(as,  for  example,  correspondence  with  the  moral  state  and  probation  of 
sinners). 

The  evidences  of  order  and  useful  collocation  arc  found  both  in  the  indefinitely  small 
and  the  indefinitely  great.  The  molecules  are  manufactured  articles;  and  the  com- 
pensations of  the  solar  system  which  provide  that  a  secular  flattening  of  the  earth's 
orbit  shall  be  made  up  for  by  a  secular  rounding  of  that  same  orbit,  alike  show  an 
intelligence  far  transcending  our  own ;  see  Cooke,  Religion  and  Chemistry,  and  Cre- 
dentials of  Science,  23  —  "  Beauty  is  the  harmony  of  relations  which  perfect  fitness  pro- 
duces; law  is  the  prevailing  principle  which  underlies  that  harmony.  Hence  both 
beauty  and  law  imply  design.  From  energy,  fitness,  beauty,  order,  sacrifice,  we  argue 
might,  skill,  perfection,  law,  and  love  in  a  Supreme  Intelligence.  Christianity  implies 
design,  and  is  the  completion  of  the  design  argument."  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion, 
1 :  168 —  "  A  good  definition  of  beaut y  is  immanent  purposiveness,  the  teleological  ideal 
background  of  reality,  the  shining  of  the  Idea  through  phenomena." 

Bowne,  Philos.  Theism,  85  —  "  Design  is  never  causal.  It  is  only  ideal,  and  it  demands 
an  efficient  cause  for  its  realization.  If  ice  is  not  to  sink,  and  to  freeze  out  life,  there 
must  be  some  molecular  structure  which  shall  make  its  bulk  greater  than  that  of  an 
equal  weight  of  water."  Jackson,  Theodore  Parker,  355  — "  Rudimentary  organs  are 
like  the  silent  letters  in  many  words,— both  are  witnesses  to  a  past  history ;  and  there 
is  intelligence  in  their  preservation."  Diman,  Theistic  Argument:  "Not  only  do  we 
observe  in  the  world  the  change  which  is  the  basis  of  the  Cosmological  Argument,  but 
we  perceive  that  this  change  proceeds  according  to  a  fixed  and  invariable  rule.  In  inor- 
ganic nature,  general  order,  or  reaularitu ;  in  organic  nature,  special  order  or  adapta- 
tion." Bowne,  Review  of  H.  Spencer,  113-115, 224-230 :  "  Inductive  science  proceeds  upon 
the  postulate  that  the  reasonable  and  the  natural  are  one."  This  furnished  the  guiding 
clue  to  Harvey  and  Cuvier;  see  Whewell,  Hist.  Induct.  Sciences,  2:  489-491.  Kant: 
"The  anatomist  must  assume  that  nothing  in  man  is  in  vain."  Aristotle:  "Nature 
makes  nothing  in  vain."  On  molecules  as  manufactured  articles,  see  Maxfield,  in  Nat- 
ure, Sept.  25, 1873.  See  also  Tulloch,  Theism,  116,  120 ;  LeConte,  Religion  and  Science, 
lect.  2  and  3;  McCosh,  Typical  Forms,  81,  420;  Agassiz,  Essay  on  Classification,  9,  10; 
Bib.  Sac,  1849 :  626  and  1850 :  613 ;  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Review,  1882 :  181. 

( a )  Design,  in  fact  that  rivers  always  run  by  large  towns  ?  that  springs  are  always 
found  at  gambling  places?  Plants  made  for  man,  and  man  for  worms?  Voltaire: 
"Noses  are  made  for  spectacles— let  us  wear  them!"  Pope:  "While  man  exclaims 
'See  all  things  for  my  use,'  'See  man  for  mine,'  replies  the  pampered  goose.  "    Cher- 


78  THE   EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

ries  do  not  ripen  in  the  cold  of  winter  when  they  do  not  taste  as  well,  and  grapes  do 
not  ripen  in  the  heat  of  summer  when  the  new  wine  would  turn  to  vinegar?  Nature 
divides  melons  into  sections  for  convenience  in  family  eating?  Cork-tree  made  for 
bottle-stoppers?  The  child  who  was  asked  the  cause  of  salt  in  the  ocean,  attributed 
it  to  codfish,  thus  dimly  confounding  final  cause  with  efficient  cause.  Teacher : 
"What  are  marsupials?''  Pupil:  "Animals  that  have  pouches  in  their  stomachs." 
Teacher:  "And  what  do  they  have  pouches  for?"  Pupil:  "To  crawl  into  and  con- 
ceal themselves  in,  when  they  are  pursued."  Why  are  the  days  longer  in  summer  than 
in  winter?  Because  it  is  the  property  of  all  natural  objects  to  elongate  under  the 
influence  of  heat.  A  Jena  professor  held  that  doctors  do  not  exist  because  of  disease, 
but  that  diseases  exist  precisely  in  order  that  there  may  be  doctors.  Kepler  was  an 
astronomical  Don  Quixote.  He  discussed  the  claims  of  eleven  different  damsels  to 
become  his  second  wife,  and  he  likened  the  planets  to  huge  animals  rushing  through 
the  sky.  Many  of  the  objections  to  design  arise  from  confounding  a  part  of  the 
creation  with  the  whole,  or  a  structure  in  the  process  of  development  with  a  structure 
completed.    For  illustrations  of  mistaken  ends,  see  Janet,  Final  Causes. 

( h  )  Alphonso  of  Castile  took  offense  at  the  Ptolemaic  System,  and  intimated  that,  if 
he  had  been  consulted  at  the  creation,  he  could  have  suggested  valuable  improve- 
ments. Lange,  in  his  History  of  Materialism,  illustrates  some  of  the  methods  of 
nature  by  millions  of  gun  barrels  shot  in  all  directions  to  kill  a  single  hare ;  by  ten  thou- 
sand keys  bought  at  haphazard  to  get  into  a  shut  room  ;  by  building  a  city  in  order  to 
obtain  a  house.  Is  not  the  ice  a  little  overdone  about  the  poles?  See  John  Stuart 
Mill's  indictment  of  nature,  in  his  posthumous  Essays  on  Keligion,  29  — "Nature 
impales  men,  breaks  men  as  if  on  a  wheel,  casts  them  to  be  devoured  by  wild  beasts, 
crushes  them  with  stones  like  the  first  Christian  martyr,  starves  them  with  hunger, 
freezes  them  with  cold,  poisons  them  with  the  quick  or  slow  venom  of  her  exhalations, 
and  has  hundreds  of  other  hideous  deaths  in  reserve,  such  as  the  ingenious  cruelty  of 
a  Nabis  or  a  Domitian  never  surpassed."    So  argue  Schopenhauer  and  Von  Hartmaun. 

The  doctrine  of  evolution  answers  many  of  these  objections,  by  showing  that  order 
and  useful  collocation  in  the  system  as  a  whole  is  necessarily  and  cheaply  purchased 
by  imperfection  and  suffering  in  the  initial  stages  of  development.  The  question  is: 
Does  the  system  as  a  whole  imply  design  ?  My  opinion  is  of  no  value  as  to  the  useful- 
ness of  an  intricate  machine  the  purpose  of  which  I  do  not  know.  If  I  stand  at  the 
beginning  of  a  road  and  do  not  know  whither  it  leads,  it  is  presumptuous  in  me  to 
point  out  a  more  direct  way  to  its  destination.  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  20-22—  "  In 
order  to  counterbalance  the  impressions  which  apparent  disorder  and  immorality  in 
nature  make  upon  us,  we  have  to  assume  that  the  universe  at  its  root  is  not  only 
rational,  but  good.  This  is  faith,  but  it  is  an  act  on  which  our  whole  moral  life 
depends."  Metaphysics,  165  —  ''The  same  argument  which  would  deny  mind  in  nature 
denies  mind  in  man."  Fisher,  Nat.  and  Meth.  of  Rev.»  264  —  "  Fifty  years  ago,  when 
the  crane  stood  on  top  of  the  tower  of  unfinished  Cologne  Cathedral,  was  there  no  evi- 
dence of  design  in  the  whole  structure  ?  "  Yet  we  concede  that,  so  long  as  we  cannot 
with  John  Stuart  Mill  explain  the  imperfections  of  the  universe  by  auy  limitations  in 
the  Intelligence  which  contrived  it,  we  are  shut  up  to  regarding  them  as  intended  to 
correspond  with  the  moral  state  and  probation  of  sinners  which  God  foresaw  and  pro- 
vided for  at  the  creation.  Evil  things  in  the  universe  are  symbols  of  sin,  and  helps  to 
its  overthrow.  See  Bowne,  Review  of  II.  Spencer,  2G4,  265;  McCosh,  Christ,  and  Posi- 
tivism, 82  sq. ;  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  50,  and  Study,  1  :  351-398  ;  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect, 
599 ;  Mivart,  Lessons  from  Nature,  366-371 ;  Princeton  Itev.,  1878  :  272-303 ;  Shaw,  on 
Positivism. 

2.  Defects  of  the  Teleological  Argument.  These  attach  not  to  the 
premises  but  to  the  conclusion  sought  to  be  drawn  therefrom. 

A.  The  argument  cannot  prove  a  personal  G<  >d.  The  order  and  useful 
collocations  of  the  universe  may  be  only  the  changing  phenomena  of  an 
impersonal  intelligence  and  will,  such  as  pantheism  supposes.  The  finality 
may  be  only  immanent  finality. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  immanent  and  unconscious  finality.  National  spirit,  without 
set  purpose,  constructs  language.  The  bee  works  unconsciously  to  ends.  Strato  of 
Lampsacus  regarded  the  world  as  a  vast  animal.  Aristotle,  Phys.,  2:8 —  "Plant  the 
ship-builder's  skill  within  the  timber  itself,  and  you  have  the  mode  in  which  nature 


THE   TELEOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT.  79 

produces. "  Here  we  see  a  dim  anticipation  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  development 
from  within  instead  of  creation  from  without.  Neander  :  "  The  divine  work  goes  on 
from  within  outward."  John  Fiske :  '^The  argument  from  the  watch  has  been  super- 
seded by  the  argument  from  the  flower."  Iverach,  Theism,  91  —  "  The  effect  of  evolution 
has  been  simply  to  transfer  the  cause  from  a  mere  external  influence  working  from 
without  to  an  immanent  rational  principle."  Martineau,  Study,  1:349,  350  — "Theism 
is  in  no  way  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  a  God  external  to  the  world  .  .  .  nor  does 
intelligence  require,  in  order  to  gain  an  object,  to  give  it  externality." 

Newman  Smyth,  Place  of  Death,  62-80—  "The  universe  exists  iu  some  all-pervasive 
Intelligence.  Suppose  we  could  see  a  small  heap  of  brick,  scraps  of  metal,  and  pieces 
of  mortar,  gradually  shaping  themselves  into  the  walls  and  interior  structure  of  a 
building,  adding  needed  material  as  the  work  advanced,  and  at  last  presenting  in  its 
completion  a  factory  furnished  with  varied  and  finely  wrought  machinery.  Or,  a 
locomotive  carrying  a  process  of  self-repair  to  compensate  for  wear,  growing  and 
increasing  in  size,  detaching  from  itself  at  intervals  pieces  of  brass  or  iron  endowed  witli 
the  power  of  growing  up  step  by  step  into  other  locomotives  capable  of  running  them- 
selves and  of  reproducing  new  locomotives  in  their  turn."  So  nature  in  its  separate 
parts  may  seem  mechanical,  but  as  a  whole  it  is  rational.  Weismann  does  not  "disown 
a  directive  power,"  —  only  this  power  is  "  behind  the  mechanism  as  its  final  cause 
...  it  must  be  teleological." 

Impressive  as  are  these  evidences  of  intelligence  iu  the  universe  as  a  whole,  and 
increased  in  number  as  they  are  by  the  new  light  of  evolution,  we  must  still  hold  that 
nature  alone  cannot  prove  that  this  intelligence  is  personal.  Hopkins,  Miscellanies, 
18-36  —  "So  long  as  there  is  such  a  thing  as  impersonal  and  adapting  intelligence  in  the 
brute  creation,  we  cannot  necessarily  infer  from  unchanging  laws  a  free  and  personal 
God."  See  Fisher,  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  576-578.  Kant  shows  that  the 
argument  does  not  prove  intelligence  apart  from  the  world  ( Critique,  370 ).  We  must 
bring  mind  to  the  world,  if  we  would  find  mind  in  it.  Leave  out  man,  and  nature  can- 
not be  properly  interpreted :  the  intelligence  and  will  in  nature  may  still  be  unconscious. 
But,  taking  in  man,  we  are  bound  to  get  our  idea  of  the  intelligence  and  will  in  nature 
from  the  highest  type  of  intelligence  and  will  we  know,  and  that  is  man's.  "  Nullus  in 
microcosmo  spiritus,  nullus  in  macrocosmo  Deus.  "  "  We  receive  but  what  we  give, 
And  in  our  life  alone  does  Nature  live." 

The  Teleological  Argument  therefore  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  the  Anthropo- 
logical Argument,  or  the  argument  from  the  mental  and  moral  constitution  of  man. 
By  itself,  it  does  not  prove  a  Creator.  See  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  26 ;  Ritter,  Hist. 
Anc.  Philos.,  bk.  9,  chap.  6;  Foundations  of  our  Faith,  38;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases, 
215 ;  Habit  and  Intelligence,  2 :  6,  and  chap.  27.  On  immanent  finality,  see  Janet,  Final 
Causes,  345-415;  Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  201-203.  Since  righteousness  belongs  only 
to  personality,  this  argument  cannot  prove  righteousness  in  God.  Flint,  Theism,  66— 
"Power  and  Intelligence  alone  do  not  constitute  God,  though  they  be  infinite.  A  being 
may  have  these,  and,  if  lacking  righteousness,  may  be  a  devil."  Here  again  we  see  the 
need  of  the  Anthropological  Argument  to  supplement  this. 

B.  Even  if  this  argument  could  prove  personality  in  the  intelligence 
and  will  that  originated  the  order  of  the  universe,  it  could  not  prove  either 
the  unity,  the  eternity,  or  the  infinity  of  God  ;  not  the  unity — for  the  use- 
ful collocations  of  the  universe  might  be  the  result  of  oneness  of  counsel, 
instead  of  oneness  of  essence,  in  the  contriving  intelligence  ;  not  the  eter- 
nity— for  a  created  demiurge  might  conceivably  have  designed  the  universe ; 
not  the  infinity  —  since  all  marks  of  order  and  collocation  within  our  obser- 
vation are  simply  finite. 

Diman  asserts  (Theistic  Argument,  114)  that  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  must 
be  due  to  the  same  source  — since  all  alike  are  subject  to  the  same  method  of  sequence, 
e.  g.,  gravitation  —  and  that  the  evidence  points  us  irresistibly  to  some  one  explanatory 
cause.  We  can  regard  this  assertion  only  as  the  utterance  of  a  primitive  belief  in  a  first 
cause,  not  as  the  conclusion  of  logical  demonstration,  for  we  know  only  an  infinitesimal 
part  of  the  universe.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  intuition  of  an  Absolute  Reason, 
however,  we  can  cordially  assent  to  the  words  of  F.  L.  Patton :  "  When  we  consider 
Matthew  Arnold's  'stream  of  tendency,'   Spencer's  'unknowable,'    Schopenhauer's 


80  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

'  world  as  will,'  and  Hartrnann's  elaborate  defence  of  finality  as  the  product  of  uncon- 
scious intelligence,  we  may  well  ask  if  the  theists,  with  their  belief  in  one  personal 
God,  are  not  in  possession  of  the  only  hypothesis  that  can  save  the  language  of  these 
writers  from  the  charge  of  meaningless  and  idiotic  raving "  ( Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,. 
April,  1883  :  283-307 ). 

The  ancient  world,  which  had  only  the  light  of  nature,  believed  in  many  gods. 
William  James,  Will  to  Believe,  44  —  "  If  there  be  a  divine  Spirit  of  the  universe,  nature, 
such  as  we  know  her,  cannot  possibly  be  its  ultimate  word  to  man.  Either  there  is 
no  spirit  revealed  in  nature,  or  else  it  is  inadequately  revealed  there;  and  (as  all 
the  higher  religions  have  assumed )  what  we  call  visible  nature,  or  this  world,  must  be 
but  a  veil  and  surface-show  whose  full  meaning  resides  in  a  supplementary  unseen,  or 
other  world."  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  234  —  "  But  is  not  intelligence 
itself  the  mystery  of  mysteries?  .  .  .  No  doubt,  intellect  is  a  great  mystery.  .  .  . 
But  there  is  a  choice  in  mysteries.  Some  mysteries  leave  other  things  clear,  and  some 
leave  things  as  dark  and  impenetrable  as  ever.  The  former  is  the  case  with  the  mys- 
tery of  intelligence.    It  makes  possible  the  comprehension  of  everything  but  itself." 

3.  The  value  of  the  Teleologlcal  Argument  is  simply  this,  — it  proves 
from  certain  useful  collocations  and  instances  of  order  which  have  clearly 
had  a  beginning,  or  in  other  words,  from  the  present  harmony  of  the  uni- 
verse, that  there  exists  an  intelligence  and  will  adequate  to  its  contrivance. 
But  whether  this  intelligence  and  will  is  personal  or  impersonal,  creator  or 
only  fashioner,  one  or  many,  finite  or  infinite,  eternal  or  owing  its  being  to 
another,  necessary  or  free,  this  argument  cannot  assure  us. 

In  it,  however,  we  take  a  step  forward.  The  causative  power  which  we 
have  proved  by  the  Cosmological  Argument  has  now  become  an  intelligent 
and  voluntary  power. 

John  Stuart  Mill,  Three  Essays  on  Theism,  168-170— "In  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge,  the  adaptations  in  nature  afford  a  large  balance  of  probability  in  favor  of 
causation  by  intelligence."  Ladd  holds  that,  whenever  one  being  acts  upon  its  like, 
each  being  undergoes  changes  of  state  that  belong  to  its  own  nature  under  the  circum- 
stances. Action  of  one  body  on  another  never  consists  in  toansferring  the  state  of 
one  being  to  another.  Therefore  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  beings  that  are  unlike 
acting  on  one  another  than  in  beings  that  are  like.  We  do  not  transfer  ideas  to  other 
minds,  — we  only  rouse  them  to  develop  their  own  ideas.  So  force  also  is  positively 
not  transferable.  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  49,  begins  with  "the  conception  of  things 
interacting  according  to  law  and  forming  an  intelligible  system.  Such  a  system 
cannot  be  construed  by  thought  without  the  assumption  of  a  unitary  being  which  is 
the  fundamental  reality  of  the  system.  53  — No  passage  of  influences  or  forces  will 
avail  to  bridge  the  gulf,  so  long  as  the  things  are  regarded  as  independent.  56  — The 
system  itself  cannot  explain  this  interaction,  for  the  system  is  only  the  members  of  it. 
There  must  be  some  being  in  them  which  is  their  reality,  and  of  which  they  are  in  some 
sense  phases  or  manifestations.  In  other  words,  there  must  be  a  basal  monism." 
All  this  is  substantially  the  view  of  Lotze,  of  whose  philosophy  see  criticism  in  Stahlin's 
Kant,  Lotze,  and  Ritschl,  116-156,  and  especially  123.  Falckenberg,  Gesch.  der  neueren 
Philosophie,  454,  shows  as  to  Lotze's  view  that  his  assumption  of  monistic  unity  and 
continuity  does  not  explain  how  change  of  condition  in  one  thing  should,  as  equal- 
ization or  compensation,  follow  change  of  condition  in  another  thing.  Lotze  explains 
this  actuality  by  the  ethical  conception  of  an  all-embracing  Person.  On  the  whole  argu- 
ment, see  Bib.  Sac,  1849 :634 ;  Murphy,  Sci.  Bases,  216 ;  Flint,  Theism,  131-210 ;  Pfleiderer, 
Die  Religion,  1 :  164-174;  W.  R.  Benedict,  on  Theism  and  Evolution,  in  Andover  Rev., 
1886  :  307-350,  607-622. 

III.  The  Anthropological  Argument,  ok  Argument  from  Man's 
Mental  and  Moral  Nature. 

This  is  an  argument  from  the  mental  and  moral  condition  of  man  to 
the  existence  of  an  Author,-  Lawgiver,  and  End.  It  is  sometimes  called 
the  Moral  Argument. 


THE   ANTHROPOLOGICAL   ARGUMENT.  81 

The  common  title  "  Moral  Argument "  is  much  too  narrow,  for  it  seems  to  take 
account  only  of  conscience  in  man,  whereas  the  argument  which  this  title  so  imper- 
fectly designates  really  proceeds  from  man's  intellectual  and  emotional,  as  well  as  from 
his  moral,  nature.  In  choosing  the  designation  we  have  adopted,  we  desire,  moreover, 
to  rescue  from  the  mere  physicist  the  term  "  Anthropology  "  —  a  term  to  which  he  has 
attached  altogether  too  limited  a  signification,  and  which,  in  his  use  of  it,  implies 
that  man  is  a  mere  animal,— to  him  Anthropology  is  simply  the  study  of  la  bete 
humaine.  Anthropology  means,  not  simply  the  science  of  man's  physical  nature, 
origin,  and  relations,  but  also  the  science  which  treats  of  his  higher  spiritual  being. 
Hence,  in  Theology,  the  term  Anthropology  designates  that  division  of  the  subject 
which  treats  of  man's  spiritual  nature  and  endowments,  his  original  state  and  his 
subsequent  apostasy.  As  an  argument,  therefore,  from  man's  mental  and  moral 
nature,  we  can  with  perfect  propriety  call  the  present  argument  the  Anthropological 
Argument. 

The  argument  is  a  complex  one,  and  may  be  divided  into  three  parts. 

1.  Man's  intellectual  and  moral  nature  must  have  had  for  its  author  an 
intellectual  and  moral  Being.  The  elements  of  the  proof  are  as  follows :  — 
(a)  Man,  as  an  intellectual  and  moral  being,  has  had  a  beginning  upon 
the  planet,  (b)  Material  and  unconscious  forces  do  not  aff<  >rd  a  sufficient 
cause  for  man's  reason,  conscience,  and  freewill.  (<•)  Man,  as  an  effect, 
can  be  referred  only  to  a  cause  possessing  self-consciousness  and  a  moral 
nature,  in  other  words,  personality. 

This  argument  is  in  part  an  application  to  man  of  the  principles  of  both  the  Cos- 
mological  and  the  Teleological  Arguments.  Flint,  Theism,  74  — "Although  causality 
does  not  involve  design,  nor  design  goodness,  yet  design  involves  causality,  and  good- 
ness both  causality  and  design."    Jacobi :  "  Nature  conceals  God ;  man  reveals  him." 

Man  is  an  effect.  The  history  of  the  geologic  ages  proves  that  man  has  not  always 
existed,  and  even  if  the  lower  creatures  were  his  progenitors,  his  intellect  and  freedom 
are  not  eternal  a  parte  ante.  We  consider  man,  not  as  a  physical,  but  as  a  spiritual, 
being.  Thompson,  Christian  Theism,  75  — "Every  true  cause  must  be  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  effect."  Locke,  Essay,  book  4,  chap.  10  —  "Cogitable  existence  cannot 
be  produced  out  of  incogitable."    Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  1 :  258  sq. 

Even  if  man  had  always  existed,  however,  we  should  not  need  to  abandon  the 
argument.  We  might  start,  not  from  beginning  of  existence,  but  from  beginning  of 
phenomena.  I  might  see  God  in  the  world,  just  as  I  see  thought,  feeling,  will,  in 
my  fellow  men.  Fullerton,  Plain  Argument  for  God  :  I  do  not  infer  you,  as  cause  of 
the  existence  of  your  body :  I  recognize  you  as  present  and  working  through  your  body. 
Its  changes  of  gesture  and  speech  reveal  a  personality  behind  them.  So  I  do  not 
need  to  argue  back  to  a  Being  who  once  caused  nature  and  history ;  I  recognize  a 
}>rcsent  Being,  exercising  wisdom  and  power,  by  signs  such  as  reveal  personality  in 
man.  Nature  is  itself  the  Watchmaker  manifesting  himself  in  the  very  process  of 
making  the  watch.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  noble  Epilogue  to  Robert  Browning's 
Dramatis  Personam,  252  — "  That  one  Face,  far  from  vanish,  rather  grows,  Or  decomposes 
but  to  recompose,  Become  my  universe  that  feels  and  knows."  "  That  Face,"  said 
Mr.  Browning  to  Mrs.  Orr,  "  That  Face  is  the  face  of  Christ;  that  is  how  I  feel  him." 
Nature  is  an  expression  of  the  mind  and  will  of  Christ,  as  my  face  is  an  expression 
of  my  mind  and  will.  But  in  both  cases,  behind  and  above  the  face  is  a  personality,  of 
which  the  face  is  but  the  partial  and  temporary  expression. 

Bowne,  Philos.  Theism,  104,  107  — "My  fellow  beings  act  as  if  they  had  thought, 
feeling,  and  will.  So  nature  looks  as  if  thought,  feeling,  and  will  were  behind  it.  If 
we  deny  mind  in  nature,  we  must  deny  mind  in  man.  If  there  be  no  controlling 
mind  in  nature,  moreover,  there  can  be  none  in  man,  for  if  the  basal  power  is  blind 
and  necessary,  then  all  that  depends  upon  it  is  necessitated  also."  LeConte,  in  Royce's 
Conception  of  God,  44—"  There  is  only  one  place  in  the  world  where  we  can  get  behind 
physical  phenomena,  behind  the  veil  of  matter,  namely,  In  our  own  brain,  and  we 
find  there  a  self,  a  person.  Is  it  not  reasonable  that,  if  we  could  get  behind  the  veil 
of  nature,  we  should  find  the  same,  that  is,  a  Person?  But  if  so,  we  must  conclude, 
an  infinite  Person,  and  therefore  the  only  complete  Personality  that  exists.    Perfect 

(3 


82  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

personality  is  not  only  self-conscious,  but  self-existent.    They  are  only  imperfect 
images,  and,  as  it  were,  separated  fragments,  of  the  infinite  Personality  of  God." 

Personality  =  self -consciousness  +  self-determination  in  view  of  moral  ends.  The 
brute  has  intelligence  and  will,  but  has  neither  self-consciousness,  conscience,  nor 
free-will.  See  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1:76  sq.  Diman,  Theistic  Argument, 
91,  251—  "Suppose  'the  intuitions  of  the  moral  faculty  are  the  slowly  organized  results 
of  experience  received  from  the  race';  still,  having  found  that  the  universe  affords 
evidence  of  a  supremely  intelligent  cause,  we  may  believe  that  man's  moral  nature 
affords  the  highest  illustration  of  its  mode  of  working";  358— "Shall  we  explain  the 
lower  forms  of  will  by  the  higher,  or  the  higher  by  the  lower  ?  " 

2.  Man's  moral  nature  proves  the  existence  of  a  holy  Lawgiver  and 
Judge.  The  elements  of  the  proof  are  : — (a)  Conscience  recognizes  the 
existence  of  a  moral  law  which  has  supreme  authority.  (  b )  Known  viola- 
tions of  this  moral  law  are  followed  by  feelings  of  ill-desert  and  fears  of 
judgment,  (c)  This  moral  law,  since  it  is  not  self-imposed,  and  these 
threats  of  judgment,  since  they  are  not  self-executing,  respectively  argue 
the  existence  of  a  holy  will  that  has  imposed  the  law,  and  of  a  punitive 
power  that  will  execute  the  threats  of  the  moral  nature. 

See  Bishop  Butler's  Sermons  on  Human  Nature,  in  Works,  Bonn's  ed.,  385-414.  But- 
ler's great  discovery  was  that  of  the  supremacy  of  conscience  in  the  moral  constitution 
of  man  :  "  Had  it  strength  as  it  has  right,  had  it  power  as  it  has  manifest  authority,  it 
would  absolutely  govern  the  world."  Conscience  =  the  moral  judiciary  of  the  soul  — 
not  law,  nor  sheriff,  but  judge  ;  see  under  Anthropology.  Diman,  Theistic  Argument, 
251  —  "  Conscience  does  not  lay  down  a  law  ;  it  warns  us  of  the  existence  of  a  law  ;  and 
not  only  of  a  law,  but  of  a  purpose  —  not  our  own,  but  the  purpose  of  another,  which 
it  is  our  mission  to  realize."  See  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  218  sq.  It  proves 
personality  in  the  Lawgiver,  because  its  utterances  are  not  abstract,  like  those  of 
reason,  but  are  in  the  nature  of  command;  they  are  not  in  the  indicative,  but  in  the 
imperative,  mood ;  it  says,  "  thou  shalt "  and  "  thou  shalt  not."    This  argues  will. 

Hutton,  Essays,  1 :  11 — "  Conscience  is  an  ideal  Moses,  and  thunders  from  an  invisible 
Sinai "  ;  "  the  Atheist  regards  conscience  not  as  a  skylight,  opened  to  let  in  upon  human 
nature  an  infinite  dawn  from  above,  but  as  a  polished  arch  or  dome,  completing  and 
reflecting  the  whole  edifice  beneath."  But  conscience  cannot  be  the  mere  reflection 
and  expression  of  nature,  for  it  represses  and  condemns  nature.  Tulloch,  Theism: 
"  Conscience,  like  the  magnetic  needle,  indicates  the  existence  of  an  unknown  Power 
which  from  afar  controls  its  vibrations  and  at  whose  presence  it  trembles."  Nero 
spends  nights  of  terror  in  wandering  through  the  halls  of  his  Goldeu  House.  Kant 
holds  that  faith  in  duty  requires  faith  in  a  God  who  will  defend  and  reward  duty — see 
Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  359-387.    See  also  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  524. 

Kant,  in  his  Metaphysic  of  Ethics,  represents  the  action  of  conscience  as  like  "  con- 
ducting a  case  before  a  court,"  and  he  adds :  "  Now  that  he  who  is  accused  before  his 
conscience  should  be  figured  to  be  just  the  same  person  as  his  judge,  is  an  absurd  repre- 
sentation of  a  tribunal ;  since,  in  such  an  event,  the  accuser  would  always  lose  his 
suit.  Conscience  must  therefore  represent  to  itself  always  some  other  than  itself  as 
Judge,  unless  it  is  to  arrive  at  a  contradiction  with  itself,"  See  also  his  Critique  of  the 
Practical  Reason,  Werke,  8  :  214— "Duty,  thou  sublime  and  mighty  name,  that  hast  in 
thee  nothing  to  attract  or  win,  but  challengest  submission;  and  yet  dost  threaten 
nothing  to  sway  the  will  by  that  which  may  arouse  natural  terror  or  aversion,  but 
merely  boldest  forth  a  Law  ;  a  Law  which  of  itself  finds  entrance  into  the  mind,  and 
even  while  we  disobey,  against  our  will  compels  our  reverence,  a  Law  in  presence  of 
which  all  inclinations  grow  dumb,  even  while  they  secretly  rebel ;  what  origin  is  there 
worthy  of  thee  ?  Where  can  we  find  the  root  of  thy  noble  descent,  which  proudly 
rejects  all  kinship  with  the  inclinations?  "  Archbishop  Temple  answers,  in  his  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,  58,  59,  "This  eternal  Law  is  the  Eternal  himself,  the  almighty  God." 
Robert  Browning :  "  The  sense  within  me  that  I  owe  a  debt  Assures  me  —  Somewhere 
must  be  Somebody,  Ready  to  take  his  due.  All  comes  to  this :  Where  due  is,  there 
acceptance  follows :  find  Him  who  accepts  the  due." 

Salter,  Ethical  Religion,  quoted  in  Ptieiderer's  article  on  Religiouless  Morality,  Am. 
Jour.  Theol.,  3  :  237  — "The  earth  and  the  stars  do  not  create  the  law  of  gravitation 


THE   ANTHROPOLOGICAL   ARGUMENT.  83 

which  they  obey ;  no  more  does  man,  or  the  united  hosts  of  rational  beings  in  the  uni- 
verse, create  the  law  of  duty."  The  will  expressed  in  the  moral  imperative  is  superior 
to  ours,  for  otherwise  it  would  issue  noucommands.  Yet  it  is  one  with  ours  as  the  life 
of  an  organism  is  one  with  the  life  of  its  members.  Theonomy  is  not  heterouomy 
but  the  highest  autonomy,  the  guarantee  of  our  personal  freedom  against  all  servitude 
of  man.  Seneca:  "Deo  parere  libertas  est."  Knight,  Essays  in  Philosophy,  272— "In 
conscience  we  see  an  '  alter  ego ',  in  us  yet  not  of  us,  another  Personality  behind  our 
own."  Martineau,  Types,  2  :  105  —  "  Over  a  person  only  a  person  can  have  authority. 
...  A  solitary  being,  with  no  other  sentient,  nature  in  the  universe,  would  feel  no 
duty";  Study,  1  :  26-  "As  Perception  gives  us  Will  in  the  shape  of  Causality  over 
against  us  in  the  Non-Ego,  so  Conscience  gives  us  Will  in  the  shape  of  A  wthority  over 
against  us  in  the  Xon-Ego.  .  .  .  2  :  7  — We  cannot  deduce  the  phenomena  of  character 
from  an  agent  who  has  none."  Hutton,  Essays,  1 :  41,  42— "When  we  disobey  con- 
science, the  Power  which  has  therein  ceased  to  more  us  has  retired  only  to  observe  —  to 
keep  watch  over  us  as  we  mould  ourselves."  Cardinal  Newman,  Apologia,  377  —  "  Were 
it  not  for  the  voice  speaking  so  clearly  in  my  conscience  and  my  heart,  I  should  be  an 
atheist,  or  a  pantheist,  or  a  poiytheist,  when  I  looked  into  the  world." 

3.  Man's  emotional  and  voluntary  nature  proves  the  existence  of  a 
Being  who  can  furnish  in  himself  a  satisfying  object  of  human  affection 
and  an  end  which  will  call  forth  man's  highest  activities  and  ensure  his 
highest  progress. 

Only  a  Being  of  power,  wisdom,  holiness,  and  goodness,  and  all  these 
indefinitely  greater  than  any  that  we  know  upon  the  earth,  can  meet  this 
demand  of  the  human  soul.  Such  a  Being  must  exist.  Otherwise  man's 
greatest  need  would  be  unsupplied,  and  belief  in  a  lie  be  more  productive 
of  virtue  than  belief  in  the  truth. 

Feuerbach  calls  God  "  the  Brocken-shadow  of  man  himself  "  ;  "  consciousness  of  God 
=  self-consciousness " ;  "religion  is  a  dream  of  the  human  soul";  "all  theology  is 
anthropology  " ;  "  man  made  God  in  his  own  image."  But  conscience  shows  that  man 
does  not  recognize  in  God  simply  his  like,  but  also  his  opposite.  Not  as  Galton  :  "  Piety 
=  conscience  +  instability."  The  finest  minds  are  of  the  leaning  type;  see  Murphy, 
Scientific  Bases,  370;  Augustine,  Confessions,  1  :  1  —  "  Thou  liiist  made  us  for  thyself, 
and  our  heart  is  restless  till  it  finds  rest  in  thee."  On  John  Stuart  Mill  —  "a  mind  that 
could  not  find  God,  and  a  heart  that  could  not  do  without  him  "  —  see  his  Autobiogra- 
phy, and  Browne,  in  Strivings  for  the  Faith  (Christ.  Ev.  Socy.),  259-287.  Comte,  in  his 
later  days,  constructed  an  object  of  worship  in  Universal  Humanity,  and  invented  a 
ritual  which  Huxley  calls  "  Catholicism  minus  Christianity."  See  also  Tyndall,  Belfast 
Address:  "  Did  I  not  believe,  said  a  great  man  to  me  once,  that  an  Intelligence  exists 
at  the  heart  of  things,  my  life  on  earth  would  be  intolerable."  Martineau,  Types  of 
Ethical  Theory,  1 :  505,  506. 

The  last  line  of  Schiller's  Pilgrim  reads :  "  Und  das  Dort  ist  niemals  hier."  The 
finite  never  satisfies.  Tennyson,  Two  Voices:  "  'T  is  life,  whereof  our  nerves  are  scant, 
Oh  life,  not  death,  for  which  we  pant;  More  life,  and  fuller,  that  I  want."  Seth, 
Ethical  Principles,  419  — "A  moral  universe,  an  absolute  moral  Being,  is  the  indispen- 
sable environment  of  the  ethical  life,  without  which  it  cannot  attain  to  its  perfect 
growth.  .  .  .  There  is  a  moral  Qod,  or  this  is  no  universe."  James,  Will  to  Believe,  116 
—  "A  God  is  the  most  adequate  possible  object  for  minds  framed  like  our  own  to  con- 
ceive as  lying  at  the  root  of  the  universe.  Anything  short  of  God  is  not  a  rational 
object,  anything  more  than  God  is  not  possible,  if  man  needs  an  object  of  knowledge, 
feeling,  and  will." 

Romanes,  Thoughts  on  Religion,  41  —  "  To  speak  of  the  Religion  of  the  Unknowable, 
the  Religion  of  Cosmism,  the  Religion  of  Humanity,  where  the  personality  of  the 
First  Cause  is  not  recognized,  is  as  unmeaning  as  it  would  be  to  speak  of  the  love  of  a 
triangle  or  the  rationality  of  the  equator."  It  was  said  of  Comte's  system  that,  "  the 
wine  of  the  real  presence  being  poured  out,  Ave  are  asked  to  adore  the  empty  cup." 
"  We  want  an  object  of  devotion,  and  Comte  presents  us  with  a  looking-glass  " 
( Martineau ).  Huxley  said  he  would  as  soon  adore  a  wilderness  of  apes  as  the  Positivist  s 
rationalized  conception  of  humanity.    It  is  only  the  ideal  in  humanity,  the  divine 


84  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

element  in  humanity  that  can  be  worshiped.  And  when  we  once  conceive  of  this,  we 
cannot  be  satisfied  until  we  find  it  somewhere  realized,  as  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  265-272  —  Huxley  believes  that  Evolution  is  "  a  materialized 
logical  process  " ;  that  nothing-  endures  save  the  flow  of  energy  and  "  the  rational 
order  which  pervades  it."  In  the  earlier  part  of  this  process,  nature,  there  is  no  moral- 
ity or  benevolence.  But  the  process  ends  by  producing-  man,  who  can  make  progress 
only  by  waging  moral  war  against  the  natural  forces  which  impel  him.  He  must  be 
benevolent  and  just.  Shall  we  not  say,  in  spite  of  Mr.  Huxley,  that  this  shows  what 
the  nature  of  the  system  is,  and  that  there  must  be  a  benevolent  and  just  Being  who 
ordained  it?  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  63-68  — "  Though  the  authority  of  the 
higher  incentive  is  self-known,  it  cannot  be  self-created  ;  for  while  it  is  in  me,  it  is 
above  me.  .  .  .  This  authority  to  which  conscience  introduces  me,  though  emerging 
in  consciousness,  is  yet  objective  to  us  all,  and  is  necessarily  referred  to  the  nature  of 
things,  irrespective  of  the  accidents  of  our  mental  constitution.  It  is  not  dependent 
on  us,  but  independent.  All  minds  born  into  the  universe  are  ushered  into  the  pres- 
ence of  a  real  righteousness,  as  surely  as  into  a  scene  of  actual  space.  Perception 
reveals  another  than  ourselves ;  conscience  reveals  a  higher  than  ourselves." 

We  must  freely  grant,  however,  that  this  argument  from  man's  aspirations  has 
weight  only  upon  the  supposition  that  a  wise,  truthful,  holy,  and  benevolent  God 
exists,  who  has  so  constituted  our  minds  that  their  thinking  and  their  affections  cor- 
respond to  truth  and  to  himself.  An  evil  being  might  have  so  constituted  us  that  all 
logic  would  lead  us  into  error.  The  argument  is  therefore  the  development  and 
expression  of  our  intuitive  idea  of  God.  Luthardt,  Fundamental  Truths  :  "  Nature  is 
like  a  written  document  containing  only  consouauts.  It  is  we  who  must  furnish  the 
vowels  that  shall  decipher  it.  Unless  we  bring  with  us  the  idea  of  God,  we  shall  find 
nature  but  dumb."    See  also  Pfleiderer,  Die  Religion,  1 :  174. 

A.  The  defects  of  the  Anthropological  Argument  are  :  (a)  It  cannot 
prove  a  creator  of  the  material  universe.  (  b )  It  cannot  prove  the  infinity 
of  God,  since  man  from  whom  we  argue  is  finite.  (  c )  It  cannot  prove  the 
mercy  of  God.     But, 

B.  The  value  of  the  Argument  is,  that  it  assures  us  of  the  existence  of 
a  personal  Being,  who  rules  us  in  righteousness,  and  who  is  the  proper 
object  of  supreme  affection  and  service.  But  whether  this  Being  is  the 
original  creator  of  all  things,  or  merely  the  author  of  our  own  existence, 
whether  he  is  infinite  or  finite,  whether  he  is  a  Being  of  simple  righteous- 
ness or  also  of  mercy,  this  argument  cannot  assure  us. 

Among  the  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God,  however,  we  assign  to 
this  the  chief  place,  since  it  adds  to  the  ideas  of  causative  power  (which 
we  derived  from  the  Cosmological  Argument)  and  of  contriving  intelli- 
gence (which  we  derived  from  the  Teleological  Argument),  the  far  wider 
ideas  of  personality  and  righteous  lordship. 

Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Works  of  Reid,  2  :  971,  note  U;  Lect.  on  Metaph.,  1:33— "The 
only  valid  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God  and  for  the  immortality  of  the  soul  rest 
upon  the  ground  of  man's  moral  nature  "  ;  "  theology  is  wholly  dependent  upon  psy- 
chology, for  with  the  proof  of  the  moral  nature  of  man  stands  or  falls  the  proof  of  the 
existence  of  a  Deity."  But  Diman.  Theistic  Argument,  244,  very  properly  objects  to 
making  this  argument  from  the  nature  of  man  the  sole  proof  of  Deity :  "  It  should  be 
rather  used  to  show  the  attributes  of  the  Being  whose  existence  has  been  already 
proved  from  other  sources  " ;  "  hence  the  Anthropological  Argument  is  as  dependent 
upon  the  Cosmological  and  Teleological  Arguments  as  they  are  upon  it." 

Yet  the  Anthropological  Argument  is  needed  to  supplement  the  conclusions  of  the 
two  others.  Those  who,  like  Herbert  Spencer,  recognize  an  infinite  and  absolute 
Being,  Power  and  Cause,  may  yet  fail  to  recognize  this  being  as  spiritual  and  per- 
sonal, simply  because  they  do  not  recognize  themselves  as  spiritual  and  personal 
beings,  that  is,  do  not  recognize  reason,  conscience  and  free-will  in  man.  Agnosticism 
in  philosophy  involves  agnosticism  in  religion.    R.  K.  Eccles:  "All  the  most  advanced 


THE    ONTOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT.  85 

languages  capitalize  the  word  '  God,' and  the  word'L'  "  See  Flint,  Theism,  68;  Mill, 
Criticism  of  Hamilton,  3:266;  Dove,  Logic  of  Christian  Faith,  211-336,261-399;  Mar- 
tincau,  Types,  Introd.,  3;  Cooke,  Religion  and  Chemistry:  "God  is  love;  but  nature 
could  not  prove  it,  and  the  Lamb  was  sfain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  in  order 
to  attest  it." 

Everything  in  philosophy  depends  on  where  we  begin,  whether  with  nature  or  with 
self,  whether  with  the  necessary  or  with  the  free.  In  one  sense,  therefore,  we  should 
in  practice  begin  with  the  Anthropological  Argument,  and  then  use  the  Cosmological 
and  Teleological  Arguments  as  warranting  the  application  to  nature  of  the  conclu- 
sions which  we  have  drawn  from  man.  As  God  stands  over  against  man  in  Conscience, 
and  says  to  him :  "  Thou  "  ;  so  man  stands  over  against  God  in  Nature,  and  may  say  to 
him:  "Thou."  Mulford,  Republic  of  God,  28  — "As  the  personality  of  man  has  its 
foundation  in  the  personality  of  God,  so  the  realization  by  man  of  his  own  personality 
always  brings  man  nearer  to  God."  Robert  Browning :  "  Quoth  a  young  Sadducee  : 
'  Reader  of  many  rolls.  Is  it  so  certain  we  Have,  as  they  tell  us,  souls  ? '  '  Son,  there  is 
no  reply!'  The  Rabbi  bit  his  beard:  '  Certain,  a  soul  have  I—  We  may  have  none,'  he 
sneered.  Thus  Karshook,  the  Hiram's  Hammer,  The  Right-hand  Temple-column, 
Taught  babes  in  grace  their  grammar,  And  struck  the  simple,  solemn." 

It  is  very  common  at  this  place  to  treat  of  what  are  called  the  Historical  and  the 
Biblical  Arguments  for  the  existence  of  God  —  the  former  arguing,  from  the  unity  of 
history,  the  latter  arguing,  from  the  unity  of  the  Bible,  that  this  unity  must  in  each 
case  have  for  its  cause  and  explanation  the  existence  of  God.  It  is  a  sufficient  reason 
for  not  discussing  these  arguments,  that,  without  a  previous  belief  in  the  existence  of 
God,  no  one  will  see  unity  either  in  history  or  in  the  Bible.  Turner,  the  painter, 
exhibited  a  picture  which  seemed  all  mist  and  cloud  until  he  put  a  dab  of  scarlet  into 
it.  That  gave  the  true  point  of  view,  and  all  the  rest  became  intelligible.  So  Chris!  s 
coming  and  Christ's  blood  make  intelligible  both  the  Scriptures  and  human  history. 
He  carries  in  his  girdle  the  key  to  all  mysteries.  Schopenhauer,  knowing  no  Christ, 
admitted  no  philosophy  of  history.  He  regarded  history  as  the  mere  fortuitous  play 
of  individual  caprice.  Pascal:  "Jesus  Christ  is  the  centre  of  everything,  and  the 
object  of  everything,  and  he  that  does  not  know  him  knows  nothing  of  nature,  and 
nothing  of  himself." 

IV.  The  Ontological,  Argument,  or  Argument  from  our  Abstract 
and  Necessary  Ideas. 

This  argument  infers  the  existence  of  God  from  the  al  >stract  and  neces- 
sary ideas  of  the  human  mind.     It  has  three  forms  : 

1.  That  of  Samuel  Clarke.  Space  and  time  are  attributes  of  substance 
or  being.  But  space  and  time  are  respectively  infinite  and  eternal.  There 
must  therefore  be  an  infinite  and  eternal  substance  or  Being  to  whom  these 
attributes  belong. 

Gillespie  states  the  argument  somewhat  differently.  Space  and  time  are 
modes  of  existence.  But  space  and  time  are  respectively  infinite  and  eter- 
nal. There  must  therefore  be  an  infinite  and  eternal  Being  who  subsists 
in  these  modes.     But  we  reply  : 

Space  and  time  are  neither  attributes  of  substance  nor  modes  of  exist- 
ence. The  argument,  if  valid,  woidd  jjrove  that  God  is  not  mind  but  matter, 
for  that  could  not  be  mind,  but  only  matter,  of  which  space  and  time  were 
either  attributes  or  modes. 

The  Ontological  Argument  is  frequently  called  the  a  priori  argument,  that  is,  the 
argument  from  that  which  is  logically  prior,  or  earlier  than  experience,  viz.,  our  intu- 
itive ideas.  All  the  forms  of  the  Ontological  Argument  are  in  this  sense  a  priori.  Space 
and  time  are  a  priori  ideas.  See  Samuel  Clarke,  Works,  2 :  521 ;  Gillespie,  Necessary 
Existence  of  God.  Per  contra,  see  Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  364:  Calderwood, 
Moral  Philosophy,  226— "To  begin,  as  Clarke  did,  with  the  proposition  that  'something 
has  existed  from  eternity,'  is  virtually  to  propose  an  argument  after  having  assumed 
what  is  to  be  proved.  Gillespie's  form  of  the  a  priori  argument,  starting  with  the  prop- 


86  THE   EXISTENCE   OF  GOD. 

osition  '  infinity  of  extension  is  necessarily  existing,'  is  liable  to  the  same  objection, 
with  the  additional  disadvantage  of  attributing  a  property  of  matter  to  the  Deity. 

H.  B.  Smith  says  that  Brougham  misrepresented  Clarke :  "  Clarke's  argument  is  in  his 
sixth  proposition,  and  supposes  the  e.\  istence  proved  in  what  goes  bef ore.  He  aims  here 
to  establish  the  infinitude  and  omnipresence  of  this  First  Being.  He  does  not  prove 
existence  from  immensity."  But  we  reply,  neither  can  he  prove  the  infinity  of  God 
from  the  immensity  of  space.  Space  and  time  are  neither  substances  nor  attributes,  but 
are  rather  relations ;  see  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  Infinite,  331-335 ;  Cocker,  Theistic  Con- 
ception of  the  World,  66-9o.  The  doctrine  that  space  and  time  are  attributes  or  modes 
of  God's  existence  tends  to  materialistic  pantheism  like  that  of  Spinoza,  who  held  that 
"  the  one  and  simple  substance  "  ( substantia  una  et  unica )  is  known  to  us  through  the 
two  attributes  of  thought  and  extension ;  mind  =  God  in  the  mode  of  thought ;  matter 
=  God  in  the  mode  of  extension.  Dove,  Logic  of  the  Christian  Faith,  137,  says  well  that 
an  extended  God  is  a  material  God  ;  "space  and  time  are  attributes  neither  of  matter 
nor  mind  "  ;  "  we  must  carry  the  moral  idea  into  the  natural  world,  not  the  natural 
idea  into  the  moral  world."  See  also,  Blunt,  Dictionary  Doct.  and  Hist.  Theol.,  740 ; 
Porter,  Human  Intellect,  567.  H.  M.  Stanley,  on  Space  and  Science,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Nov. 
1898:  615 — "Space  is  not  full  of  things,  but  things  are  spaceful.  .  .  .  Space  is  a  form 
of  dynamic  appearance."  Prof.  C.  A.  Strong :  "  The  world  composed  of  consciousness 
and  other  existences  is  not  in  space,  though  it  maybe  in  something  of  which  space  is 
the  symbol." 

2.  That  of  Descartes.  We  have  the  idea  of  an  infinite  and  perfect 
Being.  This  idea  cannot  be  derived  from  imperfect  and  finite  things. 
There  must  therefore  be  an  infinite  and  perfect  Being  who  is  its  cause. 

But  we  reply  that  this  argument  confounds  the  idea  of  the  infinite  with 
an  infinite  idea.  Man's  idea  of  the  infinite  is  not  infinite  but  finite,  and 
from  a  finite  effect  we  cannot  argue  an  infinite  cause. 

This  form  of  the  Ontolcgical  Argument,  while  it  is  a  priori,  as  based  upon  a  necessary 
idea  of  the  human  mind,  is,  unlike  the  other  forms  of  the  same  argument,  a  posteriori, 
as  arguing  from  this  idea,  as  an  effect,  to  the  existence  of  a  Being  who  is  its  cause.  A 
■posteriori  argument =from  that  which  is  later  to  that  which  is  earlier,  that  is,  from 
effect  to  cause.  The  Cosmological,  Teleological,  and  Anthropological  Arguments  are 
arguments  a  posteriori.  Of  this  sort  is  the  argument  of  Descartes ;  see  Descartes,  Med- 
itation 3:  Hrec  idea  quae  in  nobis  est  requirit  Deum  pro  causa;  Deusque  proinde 
existit."  The  idea  in  men's  minds  is  the  impression  of  the  workman's  name  stamped 
indelibly  on  his  work  —  the  shadow  cast  upon  the  human  soul  by  that  unseen  One  of 
whose  being  and  presence  it  dimly  informs  us.  Blunt,  Diet,  of  Theol.,  739 ;  Saisset,  Pan- 
theism, 1 :  54 —  "  Descartes  sets  out  from  a  fact  of  consciousness,  while  Anselm  sets  out 
from  an  abstract  conception  " ;  "  Descartes's  argument  might  be  considered  a  branch  of 
the  Anthropological  or  Moral  Argument,  but  for  the  fact  that  this  last  proceeds  from 
man's  constitution  rather  than  from  his  abstract  ideas."    See  Bib.  Sac,,  1849  :  637. 

3.  That  of  Anselm.  We  have  the  idea  of  an  absolutely  perfect  Being. 
But  existence  is  an  attribute  of  perfection.  An  absolutely  perfect  Being 
must  therefore  exist. 

But  we  reply  that  this  argument  confounds  ideal  existence  with  real 
existence.     Our  ideas  are  not  the  measure  of  external  reality. 

Anselm,  Proslogion,  2—  "  Id,  quo  majus  cogitari  nequit,  non  potest  esse  in  intellect  u 
solo."  See  translation  of  the  Proslogion,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1851 :  529,  699 ;  Kant,  Critique,  368. 
The  arguments  of  Descartes  and  Anselm,  with  Kant's  reply,  are  given  in  their  original 
form  by  Harris,  in  Journ.  Spec.  Philos.,  15: 420-428.  The  major  premise  here  is  not  that 
all  perfect  ideas  imply  the  existence  of  the  object  which  they  represent,  for  then,  as 
Kant  objects,  I  might  argue  from  my  perfect  idea  of  a  $100  bill  that  I  actually  possessed 
the  same,  which  would  be  far  from  the  fact.  So  I  have  a  perfect  idea  of  a  per- 
fectly evil  being,  of  a  centaur,  of  nothing,  —  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  evil  being, 
that  the  centaur,  that  nothing,  exists.  The  argument  is  rather  from  the  idea  of  absolute 
and  perfect  Being  — of  "that,  no  greater  than  which  can  be  conceived."  There  can  be 
but  one  such  being,  and  there  can  be  but  one  such  idea. 


THE   ONTOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT.  8? 

Yet,  even  thus  understood,  we  cannot  argue  from  the  idea  to  the  actual  existence  of 
su.h  a  being.  Case,  Physical  Realism,  173— "  God  is  not  an  idea,  and  consequently  can- 
not be  inferred  from  mere  ideas."  Bojurne,  Philos.  Theism,  43  — The  Ontological  Argu- 
ment "  only  points  out  that  the  idea  of  the  perfect  must  include  the  idea  of  existence ; 
but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  self-consistent  idea  represents  an  objective  real- 
ity." I  can  imagine  the  Sea-serpent,  the  Jinn  of  the  Thousand  and  One  Nights,  "The 
Anthropophagi,  and  men  whose  heads  Do  grow  beneath  their  shoulders."  The  winged 
horse  of  Uhland  possessed  every  possible  virtue,  and  only  one  fault,— it  was  dead. 
If  every  perfect  idea  implied  the  reality  of  its  object,  there  might  be  horses  with 
ten  legs,  and  trees  with  roots  in  the  air. 

"  Anselm's  argument  implies,"  says  Fisher,  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,  Jan.  1883:  114, 
"  that  existence  in  re  is  a  constituent  of  the  concept.  It  would  conclude  the  existence 
of  a  being  from  the  definition  of  a  word.  This  inference  is  justified  only  on  the  basis  of 
philosophical  realism."  Dove,  Logic  of  the  Christ.  Faith,  141  — "The  Ontological 
Argument  is  the  algebraic  formula  of  the  universe,  which  leads  to  a  valid  conclusion 
with  regard  to  real  existence,  only  when  we  All  it  in  with  objects  with  which  we  become 
acquainted  in  the  arguments  a  posteriori."  See  also  Shedd,  Hist.  Doct.,  1:331,  Dogm. 
Theol.,  1:231-241,  and  in  Presb.  Rev.,  April,  1884:212-227  (favoring  the  argument); 
Fisher,  Essays,  574;  Thompson,  Christian  Theism,  171;  H.  IS.  Smith,  Introd.  to  Christ. 
Theol.,  122 ;  Pfieiderer,  Die  Religion,  1 :  181-187 ;  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1875  :  611-655. 

Dorner,  in  his  Glaubenslehre,  1: 197,  gives  us  the  best  statement  of  the  Ontological 
Argument :  "  Reason  thinks  of  God  as  existing.  Reason  would  not  be  reason,  if  it  did 
not  think  of  God  as  existing.  Reason  only  is,  upon  the  assumption  that  God  is."  But 
this  is  evidently  not  argument,  but  only  vivid  statement  of  the  necessary  assumption 
of  the  existence  of  an  absolute  Reason  which  conditions  and  gives  validity  to  ours. 

Although  this  last  must  be  considered  the  most  perfect  form  of  the  Onto- 
logical Argument,  it  is  evident  that  it  conducts  us  only  to  an  ideal  con- 
clusion, not  to  real  existence.  In  common  with  the  two  preceding  forms 
of  the  argument,  moreover,  it  tacitly  assumes,  as  already  existing  in  the 
human  mind,  that  very  knowledge  of  God's  existence  which  it  would  derive 
from  logical  demonstration.  It  has  value,  therefore,  simply  as  showing 
what  God  must  be,  if  he  exists  at  all. 

But  the  existence  of  a  Being  indefinitely  great,  a  personal  Cause,  Con- 
triver and  Lawgiver,  has  been  proved  by  the  preceding  arguments  ;  for  the 
law  of  parsimony  requires  us  to  apply  the  conclusions  of  the  first  three 
arguments  to  one  Being,  and  not  to  many.  To  this  one  Being  we  may 
now  ascribe  the  infinity  and  perfection,  the  idea  of  which  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  Ontological  Argument  —  ascribe  them,  not  because  they  are  demon- 
strably his,  but  because  our  mental  constitution  will  not  allow  us  to  think 
otherwise.  Thus  clothing  him  with  all  perfections  which  the  human  mind 
can  conceive,  and  these  in  illimitable  fullness,  we  have  one  whom  we  may 
justly  call  God. 

McCosh,  Div.  Govt.,  12,  note—  "  It  is  at  this  place,  if  we  do  not  mistake,  that  the  idea 
of  the  Infinite  comes  in.  The  capacity  of  the  human  mind  to  form  such  an  idea,  or 
rather  its  intuitive  belief  in  an  Infinite  of  which  it  feels  that  it  cannot  form  an  adequate 
conception,  may  be  no  proof  (as  Kant  maintains)  of  the  existence  of  an  infinite  Being; 
but  it  is,  we  are  convinced,  the  means  by  which  the  mind  is  enabled  to  invest  the  Deity, 
shown  on  other  grounds  to  exist,  with  the  attributes  of  infinity,  i.  c,  to  look  on  his 
being,  power,  goodness,  and  all  his  perfections,  as  infinite."  Even  Flint,  Theism,  68, 
who  holds  that  we  reach  the  existence  of  God  by  inference,  speaks  of  "  necessary  con- 
ditions of  thought  and  feeling,  and  ineradicable  aspirations,  which  force  on  us  ideas  of 
absolute  existence,  infinity,  and  perfection,  and  will  neither  permit  us  to  deny  these 
perfections  to  God,  nor  to  ascribe  them  to  any  other  being."  Belief  in  God  is  not  the 
conclusion  of  a  demonstration,  but  the  solution  of  a  problem.  Calderwood,  Moral 
Philosophy,  226—  "  Either  the  whole  question  is  assumed  in  starting,  or  the  Infinite  is 
not  reached  in  concluding." 


88  THE    EXISTENCE    OP    GOD. 

Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  97-114,  divides  his  proof  into  two  parts :  I.  Evidence  of 
the  existence  of  God  from  the  intellectual  starting-point :  The  discovery  of  Mind  in 
the  universe  is  made,  1.  through  the  intelhgibleness  of  the  universe  to  us ;  2.  through 
the  idea  of  cause;  3.  through  the  presence  of  ends  in  the  universe.  II.  Evidence  of 
the  existence  of  God  from  the  religious  starting-point ;  The  discovery  of  the  good  God  is 
made,  1.  through  the  religious  nature  of  man;  2.  through  the  great  dilemma  — God 
the  best,  or  the  worst ;  3.  through  the  spiritual  experience  of  men,  especially  in  Chris- 
tianity. So  far  as  Dr.  Clarke's  proof  is  intended  to  be  a  statement,  not  of  a  primitive  belief, 
but  of  a  logical  process,  we  must  hold  it  to  be  equally  defective  with  the  three  forms 
of  proof  which  we  have  seen  to  furnish  some  corroborative  evidence  of  God's  exist- 
ence. Dr.  Clarke  therefore  does  well  to  add :  "  Religion  was  not  produced  by  proof 
of  God's  existence,  and  will  not  be  destroyed  by  its  insufficiency  to  some  minds.  Relig- 
ion existed  before  argument ;  in  fact,  it  is  the  preciousness  of  religion  that  leads  to  the 
seeking  for  all  possible  confirmations  of  the  reality  of  God." 

The  three  forms  of  proof  already  mentioned  — the  Cosmological,  the  Teleological,  and 
the  Anthropological  Arguments  — may  be  likened  to  the  three  arches  of  a  bridge  over 
a  wide  and  rushing  river.  The  bridge  has  only  two  defects,  but  these  defects  are  very 
serious.  The  first  is  that  one  cannot  get  on  to  the  bridge ;  the  end  toward  the  hither 
bank  is  wholly  lacking  ;  the  bridge  of  logical  argument  cannot  be  entered  upon  except 
by  assuming  the  validity  of  logical  processes ;  this  assumption  takes  for  granted  at  the 
outset  the  existence  of  a  God  who  has  made  our  faculties  to  act  correctly ;  we  get  on 
to  the  bridge,  not  by  logical  process,  but  only  by  a  leap  of  intuition,  and  by  assuming 
at  the  beginning  the  very  thing  which  we  set  out  to  prove.  The  second  defect  of  the 
so-called  bridge  of  argument  is  that  when  one  has  once  gotten  on,  he  can  never  get  off. 
The  connection  with  the  further  bank  is  also  lacking.  All  the  premises  from  which 
we  argue  being  finite,  we  are  warranted  in  drawing  only  a  finite  conclusion.  Argu- 
ment cannot  reach  the  Infinite,  and  only  an  infinite  Being  is  worthy  to  be  called  God. 
We  can  get  off  from  our  logical  bridge,  not  by  logical  process,  but  only  by  another  and 
final  leap  of  intuition,  and  by  once  more  assuming  the  existence  of  the  infinite  Being 
whom  we  had  so  vainly  sought  to  reach  by  mere  argument.  The  process  seems  to  be 
referred  to  in  Job  11:  7  —  " Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  Sod?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto 
perfection?" 

As  a  logical  process  this  is  indeed  defective,  since  all  logic  as  well  as  all 
observation  depends  for  its  validity  upon  the  presupposed  existence  of 
God,  and  since  this  particular  process,  even  granting  the  validity  of  logic 
in  general,  does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  God  exists,  except  upon  a 
second  assumption  that  our  abstract  ideas  of  infinity  and  perfection  are  to 
be  applied  to  the  Being  to  whom  argument  has  actually  conducted  us. 

But  although  both  ends  of  the  logical  bridge  are  confessedly  wanting,  the 
process  may  serve  and  does  serve  a  more  useful  purpose  than  that  of  mere 
demonstration,  namely,  that  of  awakening,  explicating,  and  confirming  a 
conviction  which,  though  the  most  fundamental  of  all,  may  yet  have  been 
partially  slumbering  for  lack  of  thought. 

Morell,  Philos.  Fragments,  177, 179  — "We  can,  in  fact,  no  more  prove  the  existence  of 
a  God  by  a  logical  argument,  than  we  can  prove  the  existence  of  an  external  world ;  but 
none  the  less  may  we  obtain  as  strong  a  practical  conviction  of  the  one,  as  the  other." 
"  We  arrive  at  a  scientific  belief  in  the  existence  of  God  just  as  we  do  at  any  other  pos- 
sible human  truth.  We  assume  it,  as  a  hypothesis  absolutely  necessary  to  account  for 
the  phenomena  of  the  universe ;  and  then  evidences  from  every  quarter  begin  to  con- 
verge upon  it,  until,  in  process  of  time,  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  cultivated  and 
enlightened  by  ever  accumulating  knowledge,  pronounces  upon  the  validity  of  the 
hypothesis  with  a  voice  scarcely  less  decided  and  universal  than  it  does  in  the  case  of 
our  highest  scientific  convictions." 

Fisher,  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  572—  "  What  then  is  the  purport  and  force 
of  the  several  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God?  We  reply  that  these  proofs  are 
the  different  modes  in  which  faith  expresses  itself  and  seeks  confirmation.  In  them 
faith,  or  the  object  of  faith,  is  more  exactly  conceived  and  defined,  and  in  them  is  found 
a  corroboration,  not  arbitrary  but  substantial  and  valuable,  of  that  faith  which  springs 


THE   ONTOLOGICAL   ARGUMENT.  89 

from  the  soul  itself.  Such  proofs,  therefore,  are  neither  on  the  one  hand  sufficient  to 
create  and  sustain  faith,  nor  are  they  on  the  other  hand  to  be  set  aside  as  of  no  value." 
A.  J.  Barrett:  "The  arguments  are  not  so  much  a  bridge  in  themselves,  as  they  are 
guys,  to  hold  firm  the  great  suspension-bridge  of  intuition,  by  which  we  pass  the  gulf 
from  man  to  God.  Or,  while  they  are  not  a  ladder  by  which  we  may  reach  heaven, 
they  are  the  Ossa  on  Pelion,  from  whose  combined  height  we  may  descry  heaven." 

Anselm:  "Negligentia  mini  videtur,  si  postouam  couflrmati  sumus  in  fide  non  stu- 
demus  quod  credimus  iutelligere."  Bradley,  Appearance  and  Reality:  "Metaphysics 
is  the  finding  of  bad  reasons  for  what  we  believe  upon  instinct;  but  to  find  these  rea- 
sons is  no  less  an  instinct."  Illiugworth,  Div.  and  Hum.  Personality,  lect.  Ill— "Belief 
in  a  personal  God  is  an  instinctive  judgment,  progressively  justified  by  reason." 
Knight,  Essays  in  Philosophy,  241  — The  arguments  are  "  historical  memorials  of  the 
efforts  of  the  human  race  to  vindicate  to  itself  the  existence  of  a  reality  of  which  it  is 
conscious,  but  which  it  cannot  perfectly  define."  H.  Fielding,  The  Hearts  of  Men,  313 
—  "Creeds  are  the  grammar  of  religion.  They  are  to  religion  what  grammar  is  to 
speech.  Words  are  the  expression  of  our  wants;  grammar  is  the  theory  farmed  after- 
wards. Speech  never  proceeded  from  grammar,  but  the  reverse.  As  speech  pro- 
gresses and  changes  from  unknown  causes,  grammar  must  follow."  Pascal:  "The 
heart  has  reasons  of  its  own  which  the  reason  does  not  know."  Fiances  Power  Cobbe : 
"Intuitions are  God's  tuitions."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Cudworth,  Intel.  System, 
3:42;  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  Infinite,  150  sq. ;  Curtis,  Human  Element  in  Inspiration, 
242 ;  Peabody,  in  Andover  Rev.,  July,  1884 ;  Hahn,  History  of  Arguments  for  Existence 
of  God ;  Lotze,  Philos.  of  Religion,  8-34  ;  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  Jan.  1U06  :  53-71. 

Hegel,  in  his  Logic,  page  3,  speaking  of  the  disposition  to  regard  the  proofs  of  God's 
existence  as  the  only  means  of  producing  faith  in  God,  says:  "  Such  a  doctrine  would 
find  its  parallel,  if  we  said  that  eating  was  impossible  before  we  had  acquired  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  chemical,  botanical  and  zoological  qualities  of  our  food  ;  and  that  we  must 
delay  digestion  till  we  had  finished  the  study  of  anatomy  and  physiology."  It  is  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  there  can  be  no  religious  life  without  a  correct  theory  of  life. 
Must  I  refuse  to  drink  water  or  to  breathe  air,  until  lean  manufacture  both  for  myself? 
Some  things  are  given  to  us.  Among  these  things  are  "  grace  and  truth  "( John  1 :  17 ;  cf.  9). 
But  there  are  ever  those  who  are  willing  to  take  nothing  as  a  free  gift,  and  who  insist 
on  working  out  all  knowledge,  as  well  as  all  salvation,  by  processes  of  their  own. 
Pelagianism,  with  its  denial  of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  is  but  the  further  development 
of  a  rationalism  which  refuses  to  accept  primitive  truths  unless  these  can  be  logically 
demonstrated.  Since  the  existence  of  the  soul,  of  the  world,  and  of  God  cannot  be 
proved  in  this  way,  rationalism  is  led  to  curtail,  or  to  misinterpret,  the  deliverances  of 
consciousness,  and  hence  result  certain  systems  now  to  be  mentioned. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ERRONEOUS  EXPLANATIONS,  AND   CONCLUSION. 

Any  correct  explanation  of  the  universe  niust  postulate  an  intuitive 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  external  world,  of  self,  and  of  God. 
The  desire  for  scientific  uuity,  however,  has  occasioned  attempts  to  reduce 
these  three  factors  to  one,  and  according  as  one  or  another  of  the  three  has 
been  regarded  as  the  all-inclusive  principle,  the  result  has  been  Materialism, 
Materialistic  Idealism,  or  Idealistic  Pantheism.  This  scientific  impulse  is 
better  satisfied  by  a  system  which  we  may  designate  as  Ethical  Monism. 

We  may  summarize  the  present  chapter  as  follows:  1.  Materialism:  Universe  = 
Atoms.  Reply :  Atoms  can  do  nothing  without  force,  and  can  be  nothing  ( intelligible ) 
without  ideas.  2.  Materialistic  Idealism :  Universe  =  Force  +  Ideas.  Reply:  Ideas 
belong  to  Mind,  and  Force  can  be  exerted  only  by  Will.  3.  Idealistic  Pantheism: 
Universe  =  Immanent  and  Impersonal  Mind  and  Will.  Reply :  Spirit  in  man  shows 
that  the  Infinite  Spirit  must  be  Transcendent  and  Personal  Mind  and  Will.  We  are  led 
from  these  three  forms  of  error  to  a  conclusion  which  we  may  denominate  4.  Ethical 
Monism:  Universe  =  Finite,  pai-tial,  graded  manifestation  of  the  divine  Life;  Matter 
being  God's  self -limitation  under  the  law  of  necessity,  Humanity  being  God's  self -lim- 
itation under  the  law  of  freedom,  Incarnation  and  Atonement  being  God's  self-limita- 
tions under  the  law  of  grace.  Metaphysical  Monism,  or  the  doctrine  of  one  Substance, 
Principle,  or  Ground  of  Being,  is  consistent  with  Psychological  Dualism,  or  the  doc- 
trine that  the  soul  is  personally  distinct  from  matter  on  the  one  hand  and  from  God  on 
the  other. 

I.     Materialism. 

Materialism  is  that  method  of  thought  which  gives  priority  to  matter, 
rather  than  to  mind,  in  its  explanations  of  the  universe.  Upon  this  view, 
material  atoms  constitute  the  ultimate  and  fundamental  reality  of  which 
all  things,  rational  and  irrational,  are  but  combinations  and  phenomena. 
Force  is  regarded  as  a  universal  and  inseparable  property  of  matter. 

The  element  of  truth  in  materialism  is  the  reality  of  the  external  world. 
Its  error  is  in  regarding  the  external  world  as  having  original  and  inde- 
pendent existence,  and  in  regarding  mind  as  its  product. 

Materialism  regards  atoms  as  the  bricks  of  which  the  material  universe,  the  house 
we  inhabit,  is  built.  Sir  William  Thomson  (Lord  Kelvin)  estimates  that,  if  a  drop  of 
water  were  magnified  to  the  size  of  our  earth,  the  atoms  of  which  it  consists  would 
certainly  appear  larger  than  boy's  marbles,  and  yet  would  be  smaller  than  billiard  balls. 
Of  these  atoms,  all  things,  visible  and  invisible,  are  made.  Mind,  with  all  its  activities, 
is  a  combination  or  phenomenon  of  atoms.  "  Man  ist  was  er  iszt :  ohne  Phosphor  kein 
Gedanke"  —  "  One  is  what  he  eats :  without  phosphorus,  no  thought."  Ethics  is  a  bill 
of  fare ;  and  worship,  like  heat,  is  a  mode  of  motion.  Agassiz,  however,  wittily  asked : 
"  Are  fishermen,  then,  more  intelligent  than  farmers,  because  they  eat  so  much  fish, 
and  therefore  take  in  more  phosphorus?  " 

It  is  evident  that  much  is  here  attributed  to  atoms  which  really  belongs  to  force. 
Deprive  atoms  of  force,  and  all  that  remains  is  extension,  which  =  space  =  zero. 
Moreover,  "  if  atoms  are  extended,  they  cannot  be  ultimate,  for  extension  implies 
divisibility,  and  that  which  is  conceivably  divisible  cannot  be  a  philosophical  ultimate. 

90 


MATERIALISM.  91 

But,  if  atoms  are  not  extended,  then  even  an  infinite  multiplication  and  combination  of 
them  could  not  produce  an  extended  substance.  Furthermore,  an  atom  that  is  neither 
extended  substance  nor  thinking:  substance  is  inconceivable.  The  real  ultimate  is 
force,  and  this  force  cannot  be  exerted  by  nothing,  but,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  can 
be  exerted  only  by  a  personal  Spirit,  for  this  alone  possesses  the  characteristics  of  real- 
ity, namely,  definiteness,  unity,  and  activity." 

Not  only  force  but  also  intelligence  must  be  attributed  to  atoms,  before  they  can 
explain  any  operation  of  nature.  Herschel  says  not  only  that  "  the  force  of  gravita- 
tion seems  like  that  of  a  universal  will,"  but  that  the  atoms  themselves,  in  recognizing 
each  other  in  order  to  combine,  show  a  great  deal  of  "presence  of  mind."  Ladd, 
lntrod.  to  Philosophy,  209  —  "A  distinguished  astronomer  has  said  that  every  body  in 
the  solar  system  is  behaving  as  if  it  knew  precisely  how  it  ought  to  behave  in  consist- 
ency with  its  own  nature,  and  with  the  behavior  of  every  other  body  in  the  same  sys- 
tem. .  .  .  Each  atom  has  danced  countless  millions  of  miles,  with  countless  millions 
of  different  partners,  many  of  which  required  an  important  modification  of  its  mode  of 
motion,  without  ever  departing  from  the  correct  step  or  the  right  time."  J.  P.  <  loofce, 
Credentials  of  Science,  104,  177,  suggests  that  something  more  than  atoms  is  needed  to 
explain  the  universe.  A  correlating  Intelligence  and  Will  must  lie  assumed.  Atoms 
by  themselves  would  be  like  a  heap  of  loose  nails  which  need  to  be  magnetized  if  they 
are  to  hold  together.  All  structures  would  be  resolved,  and  all  forms  of  matter  would 
disappear,  if  the  Presence  which  sustains  them  were  withdrawn.  The  atom,  like  the 
monad  of  Leibnitz,  is  "parvus  in  suo  genere  deus"  —  "a  little  god  in  its  nature"  — only 
because  it  is  the  expression  of  the  mind  and  will  of  an  immanent  God. 

Plato  speaks  of  men  who  are  "  dazzled  by  too  near  a  look  at  material  things."  They 
do  not  perceive  that  these  very  material  tilings,  since  they  can  be  interpreted  only  in 
terms  of  spirit,  must  themselves  be  essentiallyspiritiial.  Materialism  is  the  explanation 
of  a  world  of  which  we  know  something  — the  world  of  mind  —by  a  world  of  which  we 
know  next  to  nothing-  the  world  of  matter.  Upton,  Hibbcrt  Lectures,  397,  89i— 
"  How  about  your  material  atoms  and  brain-molecules?  They  have  no  real  existence 
save  as  objects  of  thought,  and  therefore  the  very  thought,  which  you  say  your  atoms 
produce,  turns  out  to  be  the  essential  precondition  of  their  own  existence."  With  this 
agree  the  words  of  Dr.  Ladd  :  "  Knowledge  of  matter  involves  repeated  activities  of 
sensation  and  reflection,  of  inductive  and  deductive  inference,  of  intuitional  belief  in 
substance.  These  are  all  activities  of  mind.  Only  as  the  mind  has  a  self-conscious  life, 
is  any  knowledge  of  what  matter  is,  or  can  do,  to  be  gained.  .  .  .  Everything  is  real 
which  is  the  permanent  subject  of  changing  states.  That  which  touches,  feels,  sees,  is 
more  real  than  that  which  is  touched,  felt,  seen." 

H.  N.  Gardner,  Presb.  Rev.,  1885 :  301,  605,  606  —  "  Mind  gives  to  matter  its  chief  mean- 
ing,—hence  matter  alone  can  never  explain  the  universe."  Gore,  Incarnation,  31  — 
"  Mind  is  not  the  product  of  nature,  but  the  necessary  constituent  of  nature,  considered 
as  an  ordered  knowable  system."  Fraser,  Philos.  of  Theism :  "  An  immoral  act  must 
originate  in  the  immoral  agent;  a  physical  effect  is  not  known  to  originate  in  its 
physical  cause."  Matter,  inorganic  and  organic,  presupposes  mind  ;  but  it  is  not  true 
that  mind  presupposes  matter.  LeConte :  "  If  I  could  remove  your  brain  cap,  what 
would  I  see?  Only  physical  changes.  But  you  —  what  do  you  perceive?  Conscious- 
ness, thought,  emotion,  will.  Now  take  external  nature,  the  Cosmos.  The  observer 
from  the  outside  sees  only  phs'sical  phenomena.  But  must  there  not  be  in  this  case 
also  —  on  the  other  side  —  psychical  phenomena,  a  Self,  a  Person,  a  Will  ?  " 

The  impossibility  of  finding  in  matter,  regarded  as  mere  atoms,  any  of  the  attributes 
of  a  cause,  has  led  to  a  general  abandonment  of  this  old  Materialism  of  Democritus, 
Epicurus,  Lucretius,  Condillac,  Holbach,  Feuerbach,  Biichncr;  and  Materialistic 
Idealism  has  taken  its  place,  which  instead  of  regarding  force  as  a  property  of  matter, 
regards  matter  as  a  manifestation  of  force.  From  this  section  we  therefore  pass  to 
Materialistic  Idealism,  and  inquire  whether  the  universe  can  be  interpreted  simply  as  a 
system  of  force  and  of  ideas.  A  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  John  Tyndall,  in  his  open- 
ing address  as  President  of  the  British  Association  at  Belfast,  declared  that  in  matter 
was  to  be  found  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of  life.  But  in  1898,  Sir  William 
Crookes,  in  his  address  as  President  of  that  same  British  Association,  reversed  the 
apothegm,  and  declared  that  in  life  he  saw  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of 
matter.  See  Lange,  History  of  Materialism ;  Janet,  Materialism ;  Fabri,  Materialismus ; 
Herzog,  Encyclopadie,  art. :  Materialismus ;  but  esp.,  Stallo,  Modern  Physics,  148-170. 


S2  THE    EXISTENCE   OF    GOD. 

In  addition  to  the  general  error  indicated  above,  we  object  to  this  system 
as  follows : 

1.  In  knowing  matter,  the  mind  necessarily  judges  itself  to  be  different 
in  kind,  and  higher  in  rank,  than  the  matter  which  it  knows. 

We  here  state  simply  an  intuitive  conviction.  The  mind,  in  using-  its  physical  organ- 
ism and  through  it  bringing  external  nature  into  its  service,  recognizes  itself  as  differ- 
ent from  and  superior  to  matter.  See  Martineau,  quoted  in  Brit.  Quar.,  April,  1883: 
173,  and  the  article  of  President  Thomas  Hill  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1853 :  353  — 
"All  that  is  really  given  by  the  act  of  sense-perception  is  the  existence  of  the  con- 
scious self,  floating  in  boundless  space  and  boundless  time,  surrounded  and  sustained 
by  boundless  power.  The  material  moved,  which  we  at  first  think  the  great  reality,  is 
only  the  shadow  of  a  real  being,  which  is  immaterial."  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism, 
317  —  "Imagine  an  infinitesimal  being  in  the  brain,  watching  the  action  of  the  mole- 
cules, but  missing  the  thought.  So  science  observes  the  universe,  but  misses  God." 
Hebberd,  in  Journ.  Spec.  Philos..  April,  1886 :  135. 

Itobert  Browning,  "  the  subtlest  assertor  of  the  soul  in  song,"  makes  the  Pope,  in 
The  Ring  and  the  Book,  say :  "  Mind  is  not  matter,  nor  from  matter,  but  above."  So 
President  Francis  Wayland:  "  What  is  mind  ?  "  "No  matter."  "What  is  matter?" 
"Nevermind."  Sully,  The  Human  Mind,  2 :  369  —  "  Consciousness  is  a  reality  wholly 
disparate  from  material  processes,  and  cannot  therefore  be  resolved  into  these. 
Materialism  makes  that  which  is  immediately  known  ( our  mental  states )  subordinate 
to  that  which  is  only  indirectly  or  inf erentially  known  ( external  things ).  Moreover,  a 
material  entity  existing  per  se  out  of  relation  to  a  cogitant  mind  is  an  absurdity."  As 
materialists  work  out  their  theory,  their  so-called  matter  grows  more  and  more  ether- 
eal, until  at  last  a  stage  is  reached  when  it  cannot  be  distinguished  from  what  others 
call  spirit.  Martineau:  "The  matter  they  describe  is  so  exceedingly  clever  that  it  is 
up  to  anything,  even  to  writing  Hamlet  and  discovering  its  own  evolution.  In  short, 
but  for  the  spelling  of  its  name,  it  does  not  seem  to  differ  appreciably  from  our  old 
friends,  Mind  and  God."  A.  W.  Momerie,  in  Christianity  and  Evolution,  54  —  "  A  being 
conscious  of  his  unity  cannot  possibly  be  formed  out  of  a  number  of  atoms  uncon- 
scious of  their  diversity.  Any  one  who  thinks  this  possible  is  capable  of  asserting  that 
half  a  dozen  fools  might  be  compounded  into  a  single  wise  man." 

2.  Since  the  mind's  attributes  of  (a)  continuous  identity,  (6)  self-activity, 
(c)  unrelatedness  to  space,  are  different  in  kind  and  higher  in  rank  than  the 
attributes  of  matter,  it  is  rational  to  conclude  that  mind  is  itself  different  in 
kind  from  matter  and  higher  in  rank  than  matter. 

This  is  an  argument  from  specific  qualities  to  that  which  underlies  and  explains  the 
qualities.  ( a )  Memory  proves  personal  identity.  This  is  not  an  identity  of  material 
atoms,  for  atoms  change.  The  molecules  that  come  cannot  remember  those  that 
depart.  Some  immutable  part  in  the  brain  ?  organized  or  unorganized  ?  Organized 
decays;  unorganized  =  soul,  (b)  Inertia  shows  that  matter  is  not  self-moving.  It  acts 
only  as  it  is  acted  upon.  A  single  atom  would  never  move.  Two  portions  are  necessary, 
and  these,  in  order  to  useful  action,  require  adjustment  by  a  power  which  does  not 
belong  to  matter.  Evolution  of  the  universe  inexplicable,  unless  matter  were  first 
moved  by  some  power  outside  itself.  See  Duke  of  Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  93.  (c )  The 
highest  activities  of  mind  are  independent  of  known  physical  conditions.  Mind  con- 
trols and  subdues  the  body.  It  does  not  cease  to  grow  when  the  growth  of  the  body 
ceases.    When  the  body  nears  dissolution,  the  mind  often  asserts  itself  most  strikingly. 

Kant:  "  Unity  of  apprehension  is  possible  on  account  of  the  transcendental  unity 
of  self-consciousness."  I  get  my  idea  of  unity  from  the  indivisible  self.  Stout,  Manual  i  if 
Psychology,  53— "So  far  as  matter  exists  independently  of  its  presentation  to  a  cogni- 
tive subject,  it  cannot  have  material  properties,  such  as  extension,  hardness,  color, 

weight,   etc The   world    of   material   phenomena   presupposes   a   system    of 

immaterial  agency.  In  this  immaterial  system  the  individual  consciousness  originates. 
This  agency,  some  say,  is  thought,  others  will.'"  A.  J.  Dubois,  in  Century  Magazine, 
Dec.  1894 :  338  —  Since  each  thought  involves  a  molecular  movement  in  the  brain,  and  this 
moves  the  whole  universe,  mind  is  the  secret  of  the  universe,  and  we  should  interpret 
nature  as  the  expression  of  underlying  purpose.    Science  is  mind  following  the  traces 


MATERIALISM.  93 

(  f  mind.  There  can  be  no  mind  without  antecedent  mind.  That  all  human  beings 
have  the  same  mental  modes  shows  that  these  modes  are  not  due  simply  to  environ- 
ment. Bowne:  "Things  act  upon  the  mind  and  the  mind  reacts  with  knowledge. 
Knowing  is  not  a  passive  receiving,  but  an  active  construing."  Wuudt :  "  We  are 
compelled  to  admit  that  the  physical  development  is  not  the  cause,  but  much  more  the 
effect,  of  psychical  development." 

Paul  Carus,  Soul  of  Man,  52-64,  defines  soul  as  "  the  form  of  an  organism,"  and  mem- 
ory as  "the  psychical  aspect  of  the  preservation  of  form  in  living  substance."  This 
seems  to  give  priority  to  the  organism  rather  than  to  the  soul,  regardless  of  the  fact 
that  without  soul  no  organism  is  conceivable.  Clay  cannot  be  the  ancestor  of  the 
potter,  nor  stone  the  ancestor  of  the  mason,  nor  wood  the  ancestor  of  the  carpenter. 
W.  N.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  99  —  "  The  intelligibleucss  of  the  universe  to  us  is 
strong  and  ever  present  evidence  that  there  is  an  all-pervading  rational  Mind,  from 
which  the  universe  received  its  character."  We  must  add  to  the  maxim,  "  Cogito,  erg  > 
sum,"  the  other  maxim,  "Intelligo,  ergo  Deus  est."  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Relig.,  1:273  — 
"The  whole  idealistic  philosophy  of  modern  times  is  in  fact  only  the  carrying  out  and 
grounding  of  the  conviction  that  Nature  is  ordered  by  Spirit  and  for  Spirit,  as  a  subser- 
vient means  for  its  eternal  ends;  that  it  is  therefore  not,  as  the  heathen  naturalism 
thought,  the  one  and  all,  the  last  and  highest  of  things,  but  has  the  Spirit,  and  the 
moral  Ends  over  it,  as  its  Lord  and  Master."  The  consciousness  by  which  things  are 
known  precedes  the  things  themselves,  in  the  order  of  logic,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
explained  by  them  or  derived  from  them.  See  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  22, 131, 132. 
McCosh,  Christianity  and  Positivism,  chap,  on  Materialism;  Divine  Government,  71- 
91;  Intuitions,  110-115.  Hopkins,  Study  of  Man,  53-56;  Morcll,  Hist,  of  Philosophy,  318- 
334 ;  Hickok,  Rational  Cosmology,  403 ;  Theol.  Eclectic,  6 :  555 ;  Appleton,  Works,  1 :  151- 
154 ;  Calderwood,  Moral  Philos.,  235 ;  Ulrici,  Leib  und  Seele,  688-725,  and  synopsis,  in  Bap. 
Quar.,  July,  1873:380. 

3.  Mind  rather  than  matter  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  original 
and  independent  entity,  unless  it  can  be  scientifically  demonstrated  that 
mind  is  material  in  its  origin  and  nature.  But  all  attempts  to  explain  the 
psychical  from  the  physical,  or  the  organic  from  the  inorganic,  are  acknowl- 
edged failures.  The  most  that  can  be  claimed  is,  that  psychical  are  always 
accompanied  by  physical  changes,  and  that  the  inorganic  is  the  basis  and 
support  of  the  organic.  Although  the  precise  connection  between  the  mind 
and  the  body  is  unknown,  the  fact  that  the  continuity  of  physical  changes 
is  unbroken  in  times  of  psychical  activity  renders  it  certain  that  mind  is  not 
transformed  physical  force.  If  the  facts  of  sensation  indicate  the  depen- 
dence of  mind  upon  body,  the  facts  of  volition  equally  indicate  the  depen- 
dence of  body  upon  mind. 

The  chemist  can  produce  organic,  but  not  organized,  substances.  The  life  cannot  be 
produced  from  matter.  Even  in  living  things  progress  is  secured  only  by  plan.  Multi- 
plication of  desired  advantage,  in  the  Darwinian  scheme,  requires  a  selecting  thought ; 
in  other  words  the  natural  selection  is  artificial  selection  after  all.  John  Fiske, 
Destiny  of  the  Creature,  109  —  "  Cerebral  physiology  tells  us  that,  during  the  present 
life,  although  thought  and  feeling  are  always  manifested  in  connection  with  a  peculiar 
form  of  matter,  yet  by  no  possibility  can  thought  and  feeling  be  in  any  sense  the 
product  of  matter.  Nothing  could  be  m<  ire  grossly  unscientific  than  the  famous  remark 
of  Cabanis,  that  the  brain  secretes  thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile.  It  is  not  even 
correct  to  say  that  thought  goes  on  in  the  brain.  What  goes  on  in  the  brain  is  an 
amazingly  complex  series  of  molecular  movements,  with  which  thought  and  feeling 
are  in  some  unknown  way  correlated,  not  as  effects  or  as  causes,  but  as  concomitants." 

Leibnitz's  "  preestabhshed  harmony  "  indicates  the  difficulty  of  defining  the  relatii  m 
between  mind  and  matter.  They  are  like  two  entirely  disconnected  clocks,  the  one  of 
which  has  a  dial  and  indicates  the  hour  by  its  hands,  while  the  other  without  a  dial 
simultaneously  indicates  the  same  hour  by  its  striking  apparatus.  To  Leibnitz  the 
world  is  an  aggregate  of  atomic  souls  leading  absolutely  separate  lives.  There  is  no 
real  action  of  one  upon  another.  Everything  in  the  monad  is  the  development  of  its 
individual  unstimulated  activity.    Yet  there  is  a  preestabbshed  harmony  of  them  all, 


94  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

arranged  from  the  beginning:  by  the  Creator.  The  internal  development  of  each  monad 
is  so  adjusted  to  that  of  all  the  other  monads,  as  to  produce  the  false  impression  that 
they  are  mutually  influenced  by  each  other  (see  Johnson,  in  Andover  Rev.,  Apl.  1890 : 
407,  408).  Leibnitz's  theory  involves  the  complete  rejection  of  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will  in  the  libertarian  sense.  To  escape  from  this  arbitrary  connection  of  mind  and 
matter  in  Leibnitz's  preestablished  harmony,  Spinoza  rejected  the  Cartesian  doctrine 
of  two  God-created  substances,  and  maintained  that  there  is  but  one  fundamental 
substance,  namely,  God  himself  (see  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  172). 

There  is  an  increased  flow  of  blood  to  the  head  in  times  of  mental  activity.  Some- 
times, in  intense  heat  of  literary  composition,  the  blood  fairly  surges  through  the 
brain.  No  diminution,  but  further  increase,  of  physical  activity  accompanies  the 
greatest  efforts  of  mind.  Lay  a  man  upon  a  balance  ;  fire  a  pistol  shot  or  inject  sud- 
denly a  great  thought  into  his  mind  ;  at  once  he  will  tip  the  balance,  and  tumble  upon 
his  head.  Romanes,  Mind  and  Motion,  21  —  "  Consciousness  causes  physical  changes, 
but  not  vice  versa.  To  say  that  mind  is  a  function  of  motion  is  to  say  that  mind  is  a 
function  of  itself,  since  motion  exists  only  for  mind.  Better  suppose  the  physical  and 
the  psychical  to  be  only  one,  as  in  the  violin  sound  and  vibration  are  one.  Volition  is 
a  cause  in  nature  because  it  has  cerebration  for  its  obverse  and  inseparable  side.  But 
if  there  is  no  motion  without  mind,  then  there  can  be  no  universe  without  God."  .  .  . 
34  —  "  Because  within  the  limits  of  human  experience  mind  is  only  known  as  associated 
with  brain,  it  does  not  follow  that  mind  cannot  exist  without  brain.  Helmholtz's 
explanation  of  the  effect  of  one  of  Beethoven's  sonatas  on  the  brain  may  be  perfectly 
correct,  but  the  explanation  of  the  effect  given  by  a  musician  may  be  equally  correct 
within  its  category." 

Herbert  Spencer,  Principles  of  Psychology,  1 :  §  56  — "Two  things,  mind  and  nervous 
action,  exist  together,  but  we  cannot  imagine  how  they  are  related"  (see  review  of 
Spencer's  Psychology,  in  N.  Englander,  July,  1873).  Tyndall,  Fragments  of  Science, 
120  —  "The  passage  from  the  physics  of  the  brain  to  the  facts  of  consciousness  is 
unthinkable."  Schurman,  Agnosticism  and  Religion,  95  — "The  metamorphosis  of 
vibrations  into  conscious  ideas  is  a  miracle,  in  comparison  with  which  the  floating  of 
iron  or  the  tm-ning  of  water  into  wine  is  easily  credible."  Bain,  Mind  and  Body,  131 — 
There  is  no  break  in  the  physical  continuity.  See  Brit.  Quar.,  Jan.  1874 ;  art.  by  Her- 
bert, on  Mind  and  the  Science  of  Energy;  McCosh,  Intuitions,  145;  Talbot,  In  Bap. 
Quar.,  Jan.  1871.  On  Geulincx's  "occasional  causes"  and  Descartes's  dualism,  see 
Martineau,  Types,  144,  145, 156-158,  and  Study,  2  :  77. 

4.  The  materialistic  theory,  denying  as  it  does  the  priority  of  spirit, 
can  furnish  no  sufficient  cause  for  the  highest  features  of  the  existing 
universe,  namely,  its  personal  intelligences,  its  intuitive  ideas,  its  free-will, 
its  moral  progress,  its  beliefs  in  God  and  immortality. 

Herbert,  Modern  Realism  Examined :  "  Materialism  has  no  physical  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  consciousness  in  others.  As  it  declares  our  fellow  men  to  be  destitute  of 
free  volition,  so  it  should  declare  them  destitute  of  consciousness ;  should  call  them,  as 
well  as  brutes,  pure  automata.  If  physics  are  all,  there  is  no  God,  but  there  is  also  no 
man,  existing."  Some  of  the  early  followers  of  Descai-tes  used  to  kick  and  beat  their 
dogs,  laughing  meanwhile  at  their  cries  and  calling  them  the  "  creaking  of  the  machine." 
Huxley,  who  calls  the  brutes  "  conscious  automata,"  believesin  the  gradual  banish- 
ment, from  all  regions  of  human  thought,  of  what  we  call  spirit  and  spontaneity : 
"A  spontaneous  act  is  an  absurdity  ;  it  is  simply  an  effect  that  is  uncaused." 

James,  Psychology,  1 :  149—"  The  girl  in  Midshipman  Easy  could  not  excuse  the  ille- 
gitimacy of  her  child  by  saying  that  'it  was  a  very  small  one.'  And  consciousness, 
however  small,  is  an  illegitimate  birth  in  any  philosophy  that  starts  without  it,  and 
yet  professes  to  explain  all  facts  by  continued  evolution.  .  .  .  Materialism  denies 
reality  to  almost  all  the  impulses  which  we  most  cherish.  Hence  it  will  fail  of  univer- 
sal adoption."  Clerk  Maxwell,  Life,  391  — "The  atoms  are  a  very  tough  lot,  and  can 
stand  a  great  deal  of  knocking  about,  and  it  is  strange  to  find  a  number  of  them  com- 
bining to  form  a  man  of  feeling.  ...  426  — I  have  looked  into  most  philosophical 
systems,  and  I  have  seen  none  that  will  work  without  a  God."  President  E.  B. 
Andrews  :  "  Mind  is  the  only  substantive  thing  in  this  universe,  and  all  else  is  adjec- 
tive. Matter  is  not  primordial,  but  is  a  function  of  spirit."  Theodore  Parker :  "  Man 
is  the  highest  product  of  his  own  history.   The  discoverer  finds  nothing  so  tall  or  grand 


MATERIALISTIC    IDEALISM.  95 

as  himself,  nothing-  so  valuable  to  him.  The  greatest  star  is  at  the  small  end  of  the 
telescope  —  the  star  that  is  looking-,  not  looked  after,  nor  looked  at." 

Materialism  makes  men  to  be  "aserictecomic  procession  of  wax  figures  or  of  cunning 
casts  in  clay  "  ( Bowne ).  Man  is  "  the  cunningcst  of  clocks."  But  if  there  were  nothing 
but  matter,  there  could  be  uo  materialism,  for  a  system  of  thought,  like  materialism, 
implies  consciousness.  Martineau,  Types,  preface,  xii,  xiii— "It  was  the  irresistible 
pleading  of  the  moral  consciousness  which  first  drove  me  to  rebel  against  the  limits 
of  the  merely  scientific  conception.  It  became  incredible  to  me  that  nothing  was 
possible  except  the  actual.  ...  Is  there  then  no  ought  to  be,  other  than  what  tef" 
Dewey,  Psychology,  81  — "A  world  without  ideal  elements  would  be  one  in  which  the 
home  would  be  four  walls  and  a  roof  to  keep  out  cold  and  wet ;  the  table  a  mess  for 
animals :  and  the  grave  a  hole  in  the  ground."  Omar  Khayyam,  Itubaiyat,  stanza  72  — 
"And  that  inverted  bowl  they  call  the  Sky,  Whercunder  crawling  coop'd  we  live  aud  die, 
Lift  not  your  hands  to  It  for  help  —  for  it  As  impotently  moves  as  you  or  I."  Victor 
Hugo  :  "You  say  the  soul  is  nothing  but  the  resultant  of  bodily  powers?  Why  then  is 
my  soul  more  luminous  when  my  bodily  powers  begin  to  fail?  Winter  is  on  my  head, 
and  eternal  spring  is  in  my  heart.  .  .  .  Tin;  nearer  I  approach  the  end,  the  plainer  I 
hear  the  immortal  symphonies  of  the  worlds  which  invite  me." 

Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  348—  "  Materialism  can  never  explain  the  fact  that  mat- 
ter is  always  combined  with  force.  Coordinate  principles?  then  dualism,  instead  of 
monism.  Force  cause  ot  matter  ?  then  we  preserve  unity,  but  destroy  materialism  ; 
for  we  trace  matter  to  an  immaterial  source.  Behind  multiplicity  of  natural  forces 
we  must  postulate  some  single  power— which  can  be  nothing  but  coordinating  mind." 
Mark  Hopkins  sums  up  Materialism  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Nov.  1879: -DO — "1.  Man,  who  is 
a  person,  is  made  by  a  thing,  i.  e.,  matter.  2.  Matter  is  to  be  worshiped  as  man's 
maker,  if  anything  is  to  be  (  Rom.  1:25  ).  3.  Man  is  to  worship  himself —  his  God  is  his 
belly."  See  also  Martineau,  Religion  aud  Materialism,  25  31,  Types,  1 : preface,  xii, 
xiii,  and  Study,  1 :  248,  250,  345;  Christlieb,  Modern  Doubt  aud  Christian  Belief,  145-ltJl ; 
Buchanan,  Modern  Atheism,  247,  248;  McCosh,  in  International  Rev.,  Jan.  1895;  Con- 
temp.  Rev.,  Jan.  1875,  art. :  Man  Transoorporeal ;  Calderwood,  Relations  of  Mind  and 
Brain;  Laycock,  Mind  and  Brain;  Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  358;  Wilkinson,  in  Pres- 
ent Day  Tracts,  3 :  no.  17  ;  Shcdd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 : 487-499;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philos.  and 
Relig.,  31-38. 

II.     Materialistic  Idealism. 

Idealism  proper  is  that  method  of  thought  which  regards  all  knowledge 
as  conversant  only  with  aiu-ctions  of  the  percipient  mind. 

Its  element  of  truth  is  the  fact  that  these  affections  of  the  percipient 
mind  are  the  conditions  of  our  knowledge.  Its  error  is  in  denying  that 
through  these  and  in  these  we  know  that  which  exists  independently  of  our 
consciousness. 

The  idealism  of  the  present  day  is  mainly  a  materialistic  idealism.  It 
defines  matter  and  mind  alike  in  terms  of  sensation,  and  regards  both  as 
opposite  sides  or  successive  manifestations  of  one  underlying  and  unknow- 
able force. 

Modern  subjective  idealism  is  the  development  of  a  principle  found  as  far  back  as 
Locke.  Locke  derived  all  our  knowledge  from  sensation ;  the  mind  only  combines 
ideas  which  sensation  furnishes,  but  gives  no  material  of  its  own.  Berkeley  held  that 
externally  we  can  be  sure  only  of  sensations, —  cannot  be  sure  that  any  external  world 
exists  apart  from  mind.  Berkeley's  idealism,  however,  was  objective ;  for  he  maintained 
that  while  things  do  not  exist,  independently  of  consciousness,  they  do  exist  indepen- 
dently of  our  consciousness,  namely,  in  the  mind  of  God,  who  in  a  correct  philosophy- 
takes  the  place  of  a  mindless  external  world  as  the  cause  of  our  ideas.  Kant,  in  like 
manner,  held  to  existences  outside  of  our  own  minds,  although  he  regarded  these  exist- 
ences as  unknown  and  unknowable.  Over  against  these  forms  of  objective  idealism 
we  must  put  the  subjective  idealism  of  Hume,  who  held  that  internally  also  we  cannot 
be  sure  of  anything  but  mental  phenomena  ;  we  know  thoughts,  feelings  and  volitions, 
but  we  do  not  know  mental  substance  within,  any  more  than  we  know  material  sub- 
stance without ;  our  ideas  are  a  string  of  beads,  without  any  string ;  we  need  no  cause 


96  THE   EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

for  these  ideas,  in  an  external  world,  a  soul,  or  God.  Mill,  Spencer,  Bain  and  Tyndall 
are  Humists,  and  it  is  their  subjective  idealism  which  we  oppose. 

All  these  regard  the  material  atom  as  a  mere  centre  of  force,  or  a  hypothetical  cause 
of  sensations.  Matter  is  therefore  a  manifestation  of  force,  as  to  the  old  materialism 
force  was  a  property  of  matter.  But  if  matter,  mind  and  God  are  nothing  but  sensa- 
tions, then  the  body  itself  is  nothing-  but  sensations.  There  is  no  body  to  have  the  sen- 
sations, and  no  spirit,  either  human  or  divine,  to  produce  them.  John  Stuart  Mill,  in 
his  Examination  of  Sir  William  Hamilton,  1 :  234-263,  makes  sensations  the  only  orig- 
inal sources  of  knowledge.  He  defines  matter  as  "  a  permanent  possibility  of  sensation," 
and  mind  as  "a series  of  feelings  aware  of  itself."  So  Huxley  calls  matter  "only  a 
name  for  the  unknown  cause  of  the  states  of  consciousness  ";  although  he  also  declares : 
"  If  I  am  compelled  to  choose  between  the  materialism  of  a  man  like  Buchuer  and  the 
idealism  of  Berkeley,  I  would  have  to  agree  with  Berkeley."  He  would  hold  to  the 
priority  of  matter,  and  yet  regard  matter  as  wholly  ideal.  Since  John  Stuart  Mill,  of 
all  the  materialistic  idealists,  gives  the  most  precise  definitions  of  matterand  of  mind, 
we  attempt  to  show  the  inadequacy  of  his  treatment. 

The  most  complete  refutation  of  subjective  idealism  is  that  of  Sir  William  Hamilton, 
in  his  Metaphysics,  348-372,  and  Theories  of  Sense-perception  —  the  reply  to  Brown. 
See  condensed  statement  of  Hamilton's  view,  with  estimate  and  criticism,  in  Porter, 
Human  Intellect,  236-240,  and  on  Idealism,  129,  132.  Porter  holds  that  original  percep- 
tion gives  us  simply  affections  of  our  own  sensorium  ;  as  cause  of  these,  we  gain  knowl- 
edge of  extended  externality.  So  Sir  William  Hamilton :  "  Sensation  proper  has  no 
object  but  a  subject-object."  But  both  Porter  and  Hamilton  hold  that  through  these 
sensations  we  know  that  which  exists  independently  of  our  sensations.  Hamilton's 
natural  realism,  however,  was  an  exaggeration  of  the  truth.  Bowne,  Introd.  to  Psych. 
Theory,  257,  258  —  "  In  Sir  William  Hamilton's  desire  to  have  no  go-betweens  in  per- 
ception, he  was  forced  to  maintain  that  every  sensation  is  felt  where  it  seems  to  be,  and 
hence  that  the  mind  fills  out  the  entire  body.  Likewise  he  had  to  affirm  that  the  object 
in  vision  is  not  the  thing,  but  the  rays  of  light,  and  even  the  object  itself  had,  at  last, 
to  be  brought  into  consciousness.  Thus  he  reached  the  absurdity  that  the  true  object 
in  perception  is  something  of  which  we  are  totally  unconscious."  Surely  we  cannot, 
be  immediately  conscious  of  what  is  outside  of  consciousness.  James,  Psychology,  1 : 
11  —  "The  terminal  organs  are  telephones,  and  brain-cells  are  the  receivers  at  which  the 
mind  listens.''  Berkeley's  view  is  to  be  found  in  his  Principles  of  Human  Knowledge, 
1 18  sq.  See  also  Prcsb.  Rev.,  Apl.  1885  :  301-315 ;  Journ.  Spec.  Philos.,  1884  :  246-260,  383- 
399;  Tulloch,  Mod.  Theories,  360,  361 ;  Encyc.  Britaunica,  art. :  Berkeley. 

There  is,  however,  an  idealism  which  is  not  open  to  Hamilton's  objections,  and  to 
which  most  recent  philosophers  give  their  adhesion.  It  is  the  objective  idealism  of 
Lotze.  It  argues  that  we  know  nothing  of  the  extended  world  except  through  the 
forces  which  impress  our  nervous  organism.  These  forces  take  the  form  of  vibrations 
of  air  or  ether,  and  we  interpret  them  as  sound,  light,  or  motion,  according  as  they 
affect  our  nerves  of  hearing,  sight,  or  touch.  But  the  only  force  which  we  immediately 
know  is  that  of  our  own  wills,  and  we  can  either  not  understand  matter  at  all  or  we 
must  understand  it  as  the  product  of  a  will  comparable  to  our  own.  Things  are  simply 
"concreted  laws  of  action,"  or  divine  ideas  to  which  permanent  reality  has  been  given 
by  divine  will.  What  we  perceive  in  the  normal  exercise  of  our  faculties  has  existence 
not  only  for  us  but  for  all  intelligent  beings  and  for  God  himself;  in  other  words,  our 
idealism  is  not  subjective,  but  objective.  We  have  seen  in  the  previous  section  that 
atoms  cannot  explain  the  universe,  — they  presuppose  both  ideas  and  force.  We  now 
see  that  this  force  presupposes  will,  and  these  ideas  presuppose  mind.  But,  as  it  still 
may  be  claimed  that  this  mind  is  not  self-conscious  mind  and  that  this  will  is  not  per- 
sonal will,  we  pass  in  the  next  section  to  consider  Idealistic  Pantheism,  of  which  these 
claims  are  characteristic.  Materialistic  Idealism,  in  truth,  is  but  a  half-way  house 
between  Materialism  and  Pantheism,  in  which  no  permanent  lodging  is  to  be  found  by 
the  logical  intelligence. 

Lotze,  Outlines  of  Metaphysics,  152  — "  The  objectivity  of  our  cognition  consists 
therefore  in  this,  that  it  is  not  a  meaningless  play  of  mere  seeming ;  but  it  brings 
I  before  us  a  world  whose  coherency  is  ordered  in  pursuance  of  the  injunction  of 
the  sole  Keality  in  the  world,  to  wit,  the  Good.  Our  cognition  thus  possesses  more 
of  truth  than  if  it  copied  exactly  a  world  that  has  no  value  in  itself.  Although  it 
does  not  comprehend  iu  what  manner  all  that  is  phenomenon  is  presented  to  the 
view,  still  it  understands  what  is  the  meaning  of  it  all ;  and  is  like  to  a  spectator 


MATERIALISTIC    IDEALISM.  97 

who  comprehends  the  aesthetic  significance  of  that  which  takes  place  on  the  stage  of  a 
theatre,  and  would  sain  nothing  essential  if  he  were  to  see  besides  the  machinery  l>y 
means  of  which  the  changes  are  effected  on  the  stage."  Professor  C.  A.  Strong:  "Percep- 
tion is  a  shadow  thrown  upon  the  mino*  by  a  thing-in-itself.  The  shadow  is  the  symbol 
of  the  thing;  and,  as  shadows  are  soulless  and  dead,  physical  objects  may  seem  soulless 
and  dead,  while  the  reality  symbolized  is  never  so  soulful  and  alive.  Consciousness  is 
reality.  The  only  existence  of  which  we  can  conceive  is  mental  in  its  nature.  All 
existence  for  consciousness  is  existence  of  consciousness.  The  horse's  shadow  accom- 
panies him,  but  it  does  not  help  him  to  draw  the  cart.  The  brain-event  is  simply  the 
mental  state  itself  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  perception." 

Aristotle:  "Substance  is  in  its  nature  prior  to  relation  "  =  there  can  be  no  relation 
without  things  to  be  related.  Fiehte :  "Knowledge,  just  because  it  is  knowledge,  is 
not  reality,  —  it  comes  not  first,  but  second."  Veitch,  Knowing  and  Being,  216,  217,  292, 
29U  — "Thought  can  do  nothing,  except  as  it  is  a  synonym  for  Thinker.  .  .  .  Neither 
the  finite  nor  the  infinite  consciousness,  alone  or  together,  can  constitute  an  object 
external,  or  explain  its  existence.  The  existence  of  a  thing  logically  precedes  the 
perception  of  it.  Perception  is  not  creation.  It  is  not  the  thinking  that  makes  the 
ego,  but  the  ego  that,  makes  the  thinking."  Sethi  Hegelianism  and  Personality: 
"Divine  thoughts  presuppose  a  divine  Being.  Cod's  thoughts  do  not  constitute  the 
real  world.  The  lval  force  does  not  lie  in  them,  — it  lies  in  the  divine  Being,  as  living, 
active  Will."  Here  was  t  he  fundamental  error  of  Hegel,  that  he  regarded  t  he  Universe 
as  mere  Idea,  and  gave  little  thought  to  the  Love  and  the  Will  that  constitute  it.  See 
John  Fiske,  Cosmic  Philosophy,  1  :  7") ;  2  :  SO;  Con  temp.  Be  v.,  Oct.  1S72  •  art.  on  Huxley; 
L  >wndes,  Philos.  Primary  Beliefs,  1)5-143;  At  water  (on  Ferrier),  in  Princeton  Rev., 
1857;  958,  2^0;  Cousin,  Hist.  Philosophy,  2:  339-848;  Veitch's  Hamilton,  (Blackwood's 
Philos.  Classics,)  170,  191 ;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  5S-74. 

To  this  view  we  make  the  following  objections: 

1.  Its  definition  of  matter  as  a  "permanent  possibility  of  sensation  " 
contradicts  our  intuitive  judgment  that,  in  knowing  the  phenomena  of 
matter,  we  have  direct  knowledge  of  substance  as  underlying  phenomena, 
as  distinct  from  our  sensations,  and  as  external  to  the  mind  which 
experiences  these  sensations. 

Bowne,  Metaphysics,  432  —  "How  the  possibility  of  an  odor  and  a  flavor  can  he  the 
cause  of  the  yellow  color  of  an  orange  is  probably  unknowable,  except  to  a  mind  that 
can  see  that  two  and  two  may  make  live."  See  Ivoraeh's  Philosophy  of  Spencer  Exam- 
ined, in  Present  Day  Tracts,  5  :  no.  29.  Martineau,  Study,  1 :  102-112—  "  If  external 
impressions  are  telegraphed  to  the  brain,  intelligence  must  receive  the  message  at 
the  beginning  as  well  as  deliver  it  at  the  end.  ...  It  is  the  external  object  which 
gives  the  possibility,  not  the  possibility  which  gives  the  external  object.  The  mind 
cannot  make  both  its  cognita  anil  its  cognitio.  It  cannot  dispense  with  standing- 
ground  for  its  own  feet,  or  with  atmosphere  for  its  own  wings."  Professor  Charles  A. 
Strong  :  "  Kant  held  to  things-in-themselvcs  back  of  physical  phenomena,  as  well  as  to 
things-in-themselves  back  of  mental  phenomena;  he  thought  things-iu-themselves 
back  of  physical  might  be  identical  with  things  in- themselves  back  of  mental  phenom- 
ena. And  since  mental  phenomena,  on  this  theory,  are  not  specimens  of  reality,  and 
reality  manifests  itself  indifferently  through  them  and  through  physical  phenomena, 
he  naturally  concluded  that  we  have  no  ground  for  supposing  reality  to  be  like  either 
—  that  we  must  conceive  of  it  as  '  weder  Materie  noeh  ein  denkend  Wesen '  — '  neither 
matter  nor  a  thinking  being '  —  a  theory. of  the  Unknowable.  Would  that  it  had  been 
also  the  Unthinkable  and  the  Unmentionable!"  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  was  a  sub- 
jective idealist ;  but,  when  called  to  inspect  a  farmer's  load  of  wood,  he  said  to  his 
company:  "Excuse  me  a  moment,  my  friends;  we  have  to  attend  to  these  matters, 
just  as  if  they  were  real."    See  Mivart,  On  Truth,  71-141. 

2.  Its  definition  of  mind  as  a  "series  of  feelings  aware  of  itself" 
contradicts  our  intuitive  judgment  that,  in  knowing  the  phenomena  of 
mind,  we  have  direct  knowledge  of  a  spiritual  substance  of  which  these 
phenomena  are  manifestations,  which  retains  its  identity  independently  of 

7 


98  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

our  consciousness,  and  which,  in  its  knowing,  instead  of  being  the  passive 
recipient  of  impressions  from  without,  always  acts  from  within  by  a  power 
of  its  own. 

James,  Psychology,  1  :  226  — "It seems  as  if  the  elementary  psychic  fact  were  not 
thought,  or  this  thought,  or  that  thought,  but  my  thought,  every  thought  being  owned. 
The  universal  conscious  fact  is  not  'feelings  and  thoughts  exist,'  but  'I  think,'  and 
'  I  feel.'  "  Professor  James  is  compelled  to  say  this,  even  though  he  begins  his  Psychology 
without  insisting  upon  the  existence  of  a  soul.  Hamilton's  Iteid,  443 — "  Shall  I  think 
that  thought  can  stand  by  itself?  or  that  ideas  can  feel  pleasure  or  pain?  "  R.  T.  Smith, 
Man's  Knowledge,  44—  "  We  say  '  my  notions  and  my  passions, '  and  when  we  use  these 
phrases  we  imply  that  our  central  self  is  felt  to  be  something  different  from  the  notions 
or  passions  which  belong  to  it  or  characterize  it  for  a  time."  Lichtenberg :  "  We  should 
say,  'It  flunks;'  just  as  we  say,  'It  lightens,'  or  'It  rains.'  In  saying  'Cogito,'  the 
philosopher  goes  too  far  if  he  translates  it, '  I  think.'  "  Are  the  faculties,  then,  an  army 
without  a  general,  or  an  engine  without  a  driver?  In  that  case  we  should  not  have 
sensations,  —  we  should  only  be  sensations. 

Professor  C.  A.  Strong :  "  I  have  knowledge  of  other  minds.  This  non-empirical 
knowledge  — transcendent  knowledge  of  things-in-themselves,  derived  neither  from 
experience  nor  reasoning,  and  assuming  that  like  consequents  (intelligent  movements) 
must  have  like  antecedents  ( thoughts  and  feelings  ),  and  also  assuming  instinctively 
that  something  exists  outside  of  my  own  mind— this  refutes  the  post- Kantian  phe- 
nomenalism. Perception  and  memory  also  involve  transcendence.  In  both  I  transcend 
the  bounds  of  experience,  as  truly  as  in  my  knowledge  of  other  minds.  In  memory 
I  recognize  a  past,  as  distinguished  from  the  present.  In  perception  I  cognize  a 
possibility  of  other  experiences  like  the  present,  and  this  alone  gives  the  sense  of 
permanence  and  reality.  Perception  and  memory  refute  phenomenalism.  Things-in- 
themselves  must  be  assumed  in  order  to  fill  the  gaps  between  individual  minds,  and 
to  give  coherence  and  intelligibility  to  the  universe,  and  so  to  avoid  pluralism.  If 
matter  can  influence  and  even  extinguish  our  minds,  it  must  have  some  force  of  its 
own,  some  existence  in  itself.  If  consciousness  is  an  evolutionary  product,  it  must 
have  arisen  from  simpler  mental  facts.  But  these  simpler  mental  facts  are  only  another 
name  for  things-in-themselves.  A  deep  prerational  instinct  compels  us  to  recognize 
them,  for  they  cannot  be  logically  demonstrated.  We  must  assume  them  in  order 
to  give  continuity  and  intelligibility  to  our  conceptions  of  the  universe."  See,  on 
Bain's  Cerebral  Psychology,  Martineau's  Essays,  1 :265.  On  the  physiological  method 
of  mental  philosophy,  see  Talbot,  iu  Bap.  Quar.,  1871 :  1 ;  Bowen,  in  Princeton  Rev., 
March,  1878:423-450;  Murray,  Psychology,  279-287. 

3.  In  so  far  as  this  theory  regards  mind  as  the  obverse  side  of  matter, 
or  as  a  later  and  higher  development  from  matter,  the  mere  reference  of 
both  mind  and  matter  to  an  underlying  force  does  not  save  the  theory  from 
any  of  the  difficulties  of  pure  materialism  already  mentioned  ;  since  in 
this  case,  equally  with  that,  force  is  regarded  as  purely  physical,  and  the 
priority  of  spirit  is  denied. 

Herbert  Spencer,  Psychology,  quoted  by  Fiske,  Cosmic  Philosophy,  2 :  80  — "  Mind  and 
nervous  action  are  the  subjective  and  objective  faces  of  the  same  thing.  Yet  we 
remain  utterly  incapable  of  seeing,  or  even  of  imagining,  how  the  two  are  related. 
Mind  still  continues  to  us  a  something  without  kinship  to  other  things."  Owen,  Anat- 
omy of  Vertebrates,  quoted  by  Talbot,  Bap.  Quar.,  Jan.  1871 : 5—  "  All  that  I  know  of 
matter  and  mind  in  themselves  is  that  the  former  is  an  external  centre  of  force,  and 
the  latter  an  internal  centre  of  force."  New  Englander,  Sept.  1883 ;  636  —  "  If  the  atom 
be  a  mere  centre  of  force  and  not  a  real  thing  in  itself,  then  the  atom  is  a  supersensual 
essence,  an  immaterial  being.  To  make  immaterial  matter  the  source  of  conscious 
mind  is  to  make  matter  as  wonderful  as  an  immortal  soul  or  a  personal  Creator."  See 
New  Englander,  July,  1875:  532-535;  Martineau,  Study,  102-130,  and  Relig.  and  Mod. 
Materialism,  25  —  "  If  it  takes  mind  to  construe  the  universe,  how  can  the  negation  of 
mind  constitute  it?  " 

David  J.  Hill,  in  his  Genetic  Philosophy,  200,  201,  seems  to  deny  that  thought  pre- 
cedes force,  or  that  force  precedes  thought :    "  Objects,  or  things  in  the  external  world. 


MATERIALISTIC    IDEALISM.  99 

may  be  elements  of  a  thought-process  in  a  cosmic  subject,  without  themselves  being 

conscious A  true  analysis  and  a  rational  genesis  require  the  equal  recognition 

of  both  the  objective  and  the  subjective  elements  of  experience,  without  priority  in 
time,  separation  in  spuce  or  disruption  of  being.  So  far  as  our  minds  can  penetrate 
reality,  as  disclosed  in  the  activities  of  thought,  we  are  everywhere  confronted  with 
a  Dynamic  Reason."  In  Dr.  Hill's  account  of  the  genesis  of  the  universe,  however,  the 
unconscious  comes  first,  and  from  it  the  conscious  seems  to  be  derived.  Consciousness 
of  the  object  is  only  the  obverse  side  of  the  object  of  consciousness.  This  is,  as  Mar- 
tineau,  Study,  1 :  341,  remarks,  "  to  take  the  sea  on  board  the  boat."  We  greatly  prefer 
the  view  of  Lotze,  2 :  641  —  "  Things  are  acts  of  the  Infinite  wrought  within  minds  alone, 

or  states  which   the  Infinite  experiences  nowhere  but  in  minds Things  and 

events  are  the  sum  of  those  actions  which  the  highest  Principle  performs  in  all  spirits  so 
uniformly  and  coherently,  that  to  these  spirits  there  must  seem  to  be  a  world  of  sub- 
stantial and  efficient  things  existing  in  space  outside  themseh-es."  The  data  from 
which  we  draw  our  inferences  as  to  the  nature  of  the  external  world  being  mental  and 
spiritual,  it  is  more  rational  to  attribute  to  that  world  a  spiritual  reality  than  a  kind  of 
reality  of  which  our  experience  knows  nothing.  See  also  Schurman,  Relief  in  God, 
208,  225. 

4.  In  so  far  as  this  theory  holds  the  underlying  force  of  which  matter 
and  mind  are  manifestations  to  be  in  any  sense  intelligent  or  voluntary,  it 
renders  necessary  the  assumption  that  there  is  an  intelligent  and  voluntary 
Being  who  exerts  this  force.  Sensations  and  ideas,  moreover,  are  expli- 
cable only  as  manifestations  of  Mind. 

Many  recent  Christian  thinkers,  as  Murphy,  Scientific  Rases  of  Faith,  13-15,  29-36, 
42  52,  would  define  mind  as  a  function  of  matter,  matter  as  a  function  of  force,  force 
as  a  function  of  will,  and  therefore  as  the  power  of  an  omnipresent  and  personal  God. 
All  force,  except  that  of  man's  free  wiR,  is  the  wiR  of  God.  So  Herschel,  Lectures,  4(i0 ; 
Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  121-127;  Wallace  on  Nat.  Selection,  363-371 ;  Martineau,  Essays, 
1 :  63, 121, 14">,  265 ;  Rowcn,  Metaph.  and  Ethics,  146-102.  These  writers  are  led  to  their 
conclusion  in  large  part  by  the  considerations  that  nothing  dead  can  be  a  proper  cause ; 
that  wRl  is  the  only  cause  of  which  we  have  immediate  knowledge ;  that  the  forces  of 
nature  are  intelligible  only  when  they  are  regarded  as  exertions  of  will.  Matter,  there- 
fore, is  simply  centres  of  force  — the  regular  and,  as  it  were,  automatic  expression  of 
God 's  mind  and  wfil.  Second  causes  in  nature  are  only  secondary  activities  of  the  great 
First  Cause. 

This  view  is  held  also  by  Rowne,  in  his  Metaphysics.  He  regards  only  personality  as 
real.  Matter  is  phenomenal,  although  it  is  an  activity  of  the  divine  will  outside  of  us. 
Rowne's  phenomenalism  is  therefore  an  objective  idealism,  greatly  preferable  to  that 
of  Rerkeley  who  held  to  God's  energizing  indeed,  but  only  within  the  soul.  This 
idealism  of  Rowne  is  not  pantheism,  for  it  holds  that,  while  there  are  no  second 
causes  in  nature,  man  is  a  second  cause,  with  a  personality  distinct  from  that  of 
God,  and  lifted  above  nature  by  his  powers  of  free  wiR.  Royce,  however,  in  his  Relig- 
ious Aspect  of  Philosophy,  and  in  his  The  World  and  the  Individual,  makes  man's  con- 
sciousness a  part  or  aspect  of  a  universal  consciousness,  and  so,  instead  of  making  God 
come  to  consciousness  in  man,  makes  man  come  to  consciousness  in  God.  While  this 
scheme  seems,  in  one  view,  to  save  God's  personality,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it 
equally  guarantees  man's  personality  or  leaves  room  for  man's  freedom,  responsibility, 
sin  and  guilt.  Rowne,  Philos.  Theism,  175—" '  Universal  reason  '  is  a  class-term  which 
denotes  no  possible  existence,  and  which  has  reality  only  in  the  specific  existences  from 
which  it  is  abstracted."  Rowne  claims  that  the  impersonal  finite  has  only  such  other- 
ness as  a  thought  or  act  has  to  its  subject.  Their  is  no  substantial  existence  except  in 
persons.  Seth,  Hegelianism  and  Personality:  "Neo-  Kantianism  erects  into  a  God  the 
mere  form  of  self -consciousness  in  general,  that  is,  confounds  consciousness  ilherliaupt 
with  a  universal  consciousness." 

Rowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  318-343,  esp.  328  —  "  Is  there  anything  in 
existence  but  myself  ?  Yes.  To  escape  solipsism  I  must  admit  at  least  other  persons. 
Does  the  world  of  apparent  objects  exist  for  me  only?  No ;  it  exists  for  others  also, 
so  that  we  live  in  a  common  world.  Does  this  common  world  consist  in  anything  more 
than  a  simfiarity  of  impressions  in  finite  minds,  so  that  the  world  apart  from  these  is 
nothing?    This  view  cannot  be  disproved,  but  it  accords  so  ill  with  the  impression  of 


652^1)5 


100  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

our  total  experience  that  it  is  practically  impossible.  Is  then  the  world  of  things  a 
continuous  existence  of  some  kind  independent  of  finite  thought  and  consciousness? 
This  claim  cannot  be  demonstrated,  but  it  is  the  only  view  that  does  not  involve  insu- 
perable difficulties.  What  is  the  nature  and  where  is  the  place  of  this  cosmic  existence? 
That  is  the  question  between  Realism  and  Idealism.  Realism  views  things  as  existing 
in  a  real  space,  and  as  true  ontological  realities.  Idealism  views  both  them  and  the 
space  in  which  they  are  supposed  to  be  existing  as  existing  only  in  and  for  a  cosmic 
Intelligence,  and  apart  from  which  they  are  absurd  and  contradictory.  Things  are 
independent  of  our  thought,  but  not  independent  of  all  thought,  in  a  lumpish  materi- 
ality which  is  the  antithesis  and  negation  of  consciousness."  See  also  Martineau, 
Study,  1 :  214-230,  311.  For  advocacy  of  the  substantive  existence  of  second  causes, 
see  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect.  582-588;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  590 ;  Alden,  Philosophy,  48- 
80 ;  Hodgson,  Time  and  Space,  149-218 ;  A.  J.  Balfour,  in  Mind,  Oct.  1893 :  430. 

III.     Idealistic  Pantheism. 

Pantheism  is  that  method  of  thought  which  conceives  of  the  universe  as 
the  development  of  one  intelligent  and  voluntary,  yet  impersonal,  sub- 
stance, which  reaches  consciousness  only  in  man.  It  therefore  identifies 
God,  not  with  each  individual  object  in  the  universe,  but  with  the  totality 
of  things.     The  current  Pantheism  of  our  day  is  idealistic. 

The  elements  of  truth  in  Pantheism  are  the  intelligence  and  voluntari- 
ness of  God,  and  his  immanence  in  the  universe  ;  its  error  lies  in  denying 
God's  personality  and  transcendence. 

Pantheism  denies  the  real  existence  of  the  finite,  at  the  same  time  that  it  deprives  the 
Infinite  of  self-consciousness  and  freedom.  See  Hunt,  History  of  Pantheism ;  Manning, 
Half-truths  and  the  Truth;  Bayne,  Christian  Life,  Social  and  Individual,  21-51;  Hut- 
ton,  on  Popular  Pantheism,  in  Essays,  1:55-76  — "The  pantheist's  'I  believe  in  God',  is 
a  contradiction.  He  says:  'I  perceive  the  external  as  different  from  myself;  but  on 
further  reflection,  I  perceive  that  this  external  was  itself  the  percipient  agency.'  So 
the  worshiped  is  really  the  worshiper  after  all."  Harris,  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism, 
173  —  "Man  is  a  bottle  of  the  ocean's  water,  in  the  ocean,  temporarily  distinguish- 
able by  its  limitation  within  the  bottle,  but  lost  again  in  the  ocean,  so  soon  as  these  fra- 
gile limits  are  broken."  Martineau,  Types,  1 :  23— Mere  immanency  excludes  Theism ; 
transcendency  leaves  it  still  possible ;  211-225— Pantheism  declares  that "  there  is  nothing 
but  God ;  he  is  not  only  sole  cause  but  entire  effect ;  he  is  all  in  all."  Spinoza  has  been 
falsely  called  "the  God- intoxicated  man."  "Spinoza,  on  the  contrary,  translated  God 
into  the  universe ;  it  was  Malebrauche  who  transfigured  the  universe  into  God." 

The  later  Brahmanism  is  pantheistic.  Rowland  Williams,  Christianity  and  Hinduism, 
quoted  in  Mozley  on  Miracles,  284—  "  In  the  final  state  personality  vanishes.  You  will 
not,  says  the  Brahman,  accept  the  term  '  void '  as  an  adequate  description  of  the  mys- 
terious nature  of  the  soul,  but  you  will  clearly  apprehend  soul,  in  the  final  state,  to  be 
unseen  and  ungrasped  being,  thought,  knowledge,  joy  — no  other  than  very  God." 
Flint,  Theism,  69  —  "  Where  the  will  is  without  energy,  and  rest  is  longed  for  as  the  end 
of  existence,  as  among  the  Hindus,  there  is  marked  inability  to  think  of  God  as  cause 
or  will,  and  constant  inveterate  tendency  to  pantheism." 

Hegel  denies  God's  transcendence :  "  God  is  not  a  spirit  beyond  the  stars ;  he  is  spirit 
in  all  spirit ";  which  means  that  God,  the  impersonal  and  unconscious  Absolute,  comes 
to  consciousness  only  in  man.  If  the  eternal  system  of  abstract  thoughts  were  itself 
conscious,  finite  consciousness  would  disappear ;  hence  the  alternative  is  either  mo  God, 
or  no  man.  Stirling :  "  The  Idea,  so  conceived,  is  a  blind,  dumb,  invisible  idol,  and 
the  theory  is  the  most  hopeless  theory  that  has  ever  been  presented  to  humanity."  It 
is  practical  autolatry.  or  self-deification.  The  world  is  reduced  to  a  mere  process  of 
logic ;  thought  thinks ;  there  is  thought  without  a  thinker.  To  this  doctrine  of  Hegel 
we  may  well  oppose  the  remarks  of  Lotze :  "  We  cannot  make  mind  the  e<i  uivalent  of  the 
infinitive  to  think —we  feel  that  it  must  be  that  which  thinks;  the  essence  of  things 
cannot  be  either  existence  or  activity,— it  must  be  that  which  exists  and  that  which 
acts.  Thinking  means  nothing,  if  it  is  not  the  thinking  of  a  thinker ;  acting  and  work- 
ing mean  nothing,  if  we  leave  out  the  conception  of  a  subject  distinguishable  from 
them  and  from  which  they  proceed."     To  Hegel,  Being  is  Thought ;  to  Spinoza,  Being 


IDEALISTIC    PANTHEISM.  101 

has  Thought  +  Extension ;  the  truth  seems  to  be  that  Being-  has  Thought  +  Will,  and 
may  reveal  itself  in  Extension  aud  Evolution  (  Creation  ). 

By  other  philosophers,  however,  Heyel  is  otherwise  interpreted.  Prof.  H.  Jones,  in 
Mind,  July,  1898: -889-306,  claims  that  Hegel's  fundamental  Idea  is  not  Thought,  but 
Thinking :  "  The  universe  to  him  was  not  a  system  of  thoughts,  but  a  thinking  reality, 
manifested  most  fully  in  man The  fundamental  reality  is  the  universal  intelli- 
gence whose  operation  we  should  seek  to  detect  in  all  things.  All  reality  is  ultimately 
explicable  as  Spirit,  or  Intelligence, —  hence  our  ontology  must  be  a  Logic,  and  the  laws 
of  things  must  be  laws  of  thinking."  Sterrett,  in  like  manner,  in  his  Studies  in  Hegei's 
Philosophy  of  Religion,  17,  quotes  Hegel's  Logic,  Wallace's  translation,  89,91,  238: 
"  Spinoza's  Substtwce  is,  as  it  were,  a  dark,  shapeless  abyss,  which  devours  all  definite 
content  as  utterly  null,  and  produces  from  itself  nothing  that  has  positive  subsistence 

in  itself God  is  Substance, —  he  is,  however,  no  less  the  Absolute  Person."    This 

is  essential  to  religion,  but  this,  says  Hegel,  Spinoza  never  perceived:  "Everything 
depends  upon  the  Absolute  Truth  being  perceived,  not  merely  as  Substance,  but  as  Sub. 
jeet."  God  is  self-conscious  and  self-determining  Spirit.  Necessity  is  excluded,  Man 
is  free  and  immortal.  Men  are  not  mechanical  parts  of  God,  nor  do  they  lose  their 
identity,  although  they  find  tin  madves  truly  only  in  him.  With  this  estimate  of  Hegel's 
system,  Caird,  Erdmann  and  Mulford  substantially  agree.  This  is  Tennyson's  "  Higher 
Pantheism." 

Set  h,  Ethical  Principles,  440—"  Hegel  conceived  the  superiority  of  his  system  to  Spino- 
zism  to  lie  in  the  substitution  of  Subject  for  Substance.  The  true  Absolute  must  eon- 
tain,  Instead  of  abolishing,  relations;  the  true  Monism  must  include,  instead  of  exclud- 
ing, Pluralism.  A  One  which,  like  Spinoza's  Substance,  or  the  Hegelian  Absolute,  does 
not  enable  us  to  think  the  Many,  cannot  be  the  true  One  —  the  unity  of  the  Manifold. 
....since  evil  exists,  Seln ipenhauer  substituted  for  Hegel's  Panlogism,  which 
asserted  the  identity  of  the  rational  and  the  real,  a  blind  impulse  of  life,— for  absolute 
Reason  he  substituted  a  reasonless  Will"— a  system  of  practical  pessimism.  Alexan- 
der, Theories  of  Will,  5—"  Spinoza  recognized  no  distinction  between  will  and  intellec- 
tual affirmation  or  denial."  John  Cairo,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1 :  107  — "As  there 
is  no  reason  in  the  conception  of  pure  space  why  any  figures  or  forms,  lines,  surfaces, 
solids,  Should  arise  in  it,  so  there  is  no  reason  in  the  pure  colorless  abstraction  of  Infinite 
Substance  why  any  world  of  finite  things  and  beings  should  ever  come  into  existence. 
It  is  the  grave  of  all  things,  the  productive  source  of  nothing."  Hegel  called  Schelling's 
Identity  or  Absolute  "  the  infinite  night  in  which  all  cows  are  black  "  — an  allusion  to 
Goethe's  Faust,  part  3,  act  1,  where  the  words  are  added:  "and  cats  are  gray." 
Although  Hegel's  preference  of  the  term  Subject,  instead  of  the  term  Substance,  has  led 
many  to  maintain  that  he  believed  in  a  personality  of  God  distinct  from  that  of  man,  his 
over-emphasis  of  the  Idea,  and  his  comparative  ignoring  of  the  elements  of  Love  and 
Will,  leave  it  still  doubtful  whether  his  Idea  was  anything  more  than  unconscious  and 
impersonal  intelligence  —  less  materialistic  than  that  of  Spinoza  indeed,  yet  open  to 
many  of  the  same  objections. 

We  object  to  this  system  as  follows  : 

1.  Its  idea  of  God  is  self -contradictory,  since  it  makes  him  infinite,  yet 
consisting  only  of  the  finite  ;  absolute,  yet  existing  in  necessary  relation  to 
the  universe  ;  supreme,  yet  shut  u}>  to  a  process  of  self-cvomtion  and 
dependent  for  self-consciousness  on  man ;  without  self-determination,  yet 
the  cause  of  all  that  is. 

Saisset,  Pantheism,  148  —  "An  imperfect  God,  yet  perfection  arising  from  imperfec- 
tion." Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  1 :  13 — "  Pantheism  applies  to  God  a  principle  of  growth 
and  imperfection,  which  belongs  only  to  the  finite."  Calderwood,  Moral  Philos.,  345  — 
"  Its  first  requisite  is  moment,  or  movement,  which  it  assumes,  but  does  not  account 
for."  Caro's  sarcasm  applies  here :  "Your  God  is  not  yet  made  —  he  is  in  process  of 
manufacture."  See  H.  B.  Smith,  Faith  and  Philosophy,  25.  Pantheism  is  practical  athe- 
ism, for  impersonal  spirit  is  only  blind  and  necessary  force.  Angelus  Silesius:  "  Wir 
beten  '  Es  gescheh  ',  mein  Herr  und  Gott,  dein  Wille ' ;  Und  sieh ',  Er  hat  nicht  Will ', — 
Er  ist  ein  ew'ge  Stille  "  —  which  Max  M  Ciller  translates  as  follows :  "  We  pray,  '  O  Lord 
our  God,  Do  thou  thy  holy  Will ';  and  see  !  God  has  no  will ;  He  is  at  peace  and  still.' 
Angelus  Silesius  consistently  makes  God  dependent  lor  self-cousciousccss  on  man: 


102  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

"  I  know  that  God  cannot  live  An  instant  without  me  ;  He  must  give  up  the  ghost,  If  I 
should  cease  to  be."  Seth,  Hegelianism  and  Personality :  "  Hegelianism  destroys  both 
God  and  man.  It  reduces  man  to  an  object  of  the  universal  Thinker,  and  leaves  this 
universal  Thinker  without  any  true  personality."  Pantheism  is  a  game  of  solitaire,  in 
which  God  plays  both  sides. 

2.  Its  assumed  unity  of  substance  is  not  only  without  proof,  but  it  directly 
contradicts  our  intuitive  judgments.  These  testify  that  we  are  not  parts  and 
particles  of  God,  but  distinct  personal  subsistences. 

Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  158  — "Even  for  immanency,  there  must  be  something  wherein 
to  dwell,  and  for  life,  something  whereon  to  act."  Many  systems  of  monism  contradict 
consciousness;  they  confound  harmony  between  two  with  absorption  in  one.  "In 
Scripture  we  never  find  the  universe  called  to  -nav,  for  this  suggests  the  idea  of  a  self- 
contained  unity :  we  have  everywhere  ii  tto-vto.  instead."  The  Bible  recognizes  the 
element  of  truth  in  pantheism  — God  is 'through  all';  also  the  element  of  truth  in 
mysticism  —  God  is  'in  you  all' ;  but  it  adds  the  element  of  transcendence  which  both 
these  fail  to  recognize— God  is  '  above  all '  ( Eph.  4:6).  See  Fisher,  Essays  on  Supernat.  Grig, 
of  Christianity,  539.  G.  D.  B.  Pepper:  "He  who  is  over  all  and  in  all  is  yet  distinct 
from  all.  If  one  is  over  a  thing,  he  is  not  that  very  thing  which  he  is  over.  If  one 
is  in  something,  he  must  be  distinct  from  that  something.  And  so  the  universe,  over 
which  and  in  which  God  is,  must  be  thought  of  as  something  distinct  from  God.  The 
creation  cannot  be  identical  with  God,  or  a  mere  form  of  God."  We  add,  however, 
that  it  may  be  a  manifestation  of  God  and  dependent  upon  God,  as  our  thoughts 
and  acts  arc  manifestations  of  our  mind  and  will  and  dependent  upon  our  mind  and  will. 
yet  are  not  themselves  our  mind  and  will. 

Pope  wrote :  "  All  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole,  Whose  body  nature  is  and 
God  the  soul."  But  Case,  Physical  Realism,  193,  replies:  "Not  so.  Nature  is  to  God 
as  works  are  to  a  man ;  and  as  man's  works  are  not  his  body,  so  neither  is  nature 
the  body  of  God."  Matthew  Arnold,  On  Heine's  Grave :  "  What  are  we  all  but  a  mood, 
A  single  mood  of  the  life  Of  the  Being  in  whom  we  exist,  Who  alone  is  all  things 
in  one?"  Hovey,  Studies,51— "Scripture  recognizes  the  element  of  truth  in  panthe- 
ism, but  it  also  teaches  the  existence  of  a  world  of  things,  animate  and  inanimate,  in 
distinction  from  God.  It  represents  men  as  prone  to  worship  the  creature  more  than  the 
Creator.  It  describes  them  as  sinners  worthy  of  death  .  .  .  moral  agents.  ...  It  no 
more  thinks  of  men  as  being  literally  parts  of  God,  than  it  thinks  of  children  as  being 
parts  of  their  parents,  or  subjects  as  being  parts  of  their  king."  A.  J.  F.  Behrends : 
"  The  true  doctrine  lies  between  the  two  extremes  of  a  crass  dualism  which  makes  God 
and  the  world  two  self-contained  entities,  and  a  substantial  monism  in  which  the  universe 
has  only  a  phenomenal  existence.  There  is  no  identity  of  substance  nor  division  of  the 
divine  substance.  The  universe  is  eternally  dependent,  the  product  of  the  divine 
Word,  not  simply  manufactured.  Creation  is  primarily  a  spiritual  act."  Prof.  George 
M.  Forbes :  "  Matter  exists  in  subordinate  dependence  upon  God  ;  spirit  in  coordinate 
dependence  upon  God.  The  body  of  Christ  was  Christ  externalized,  made  manifest 
to  sense-perception.  In  apprehending  matter,  I  am  apprehending  the  mind  and  will  of 
God.  This  is  the  highest  sort  of  reality.  Neither  matter  nor  finite  spirits,  then,  are 
mere  phenomena." 

3.  It  assigns  no  sufficient  cause  for  that  fact  of  the  universe  which  is 
highest  in  rank,  and  therefore  most  needs  explanation,  namely,  the  exist- 
ence of  personal  intelligences.  A  substance  which  is  itself  unconscious,  and 
under  the  law  of  necessity,  cannot  produce  beings  who  are  self-conscious 
and  free. 

Gess,  Foundations  of  our  Faith,  36  —  "  Animal  instinct,  and  the  spirit  of  a  nation  work- 
ing out  its  language,  might  furnish  analogies,  if  they  produced  personalities  as  their 
result,  but  not  otherwise.  Nor  were  these  tendencies  self- originated,  but  received  from 
an  external  source."  McCosh,  Intuitions,  215,  393,  and  Christianity  and  Positivism,  180. 
Seth,  Freedom  as  an  Ethical  Postulate,  47  —  "  If  man  is  an  '  imperium  in  iinperio,'  not  a 
person,  but  only  an  aspect  or  expression  of  the  universe  or  God,  then  he  cannot  be 
free.  Man  may  be  depersonalized  either  into  nature  or  into  God.  Through  the  con- 
ception of  our  own  personality  we  reach  that  of  God.     To  resolve  our  personality 


IDEALISTIC    PANTHEISM.  103 

into  that  of  God  would  be  to  negate  the  divine  greatness  itself  by  invalidating  the  con- 
ception through  which  it  was  reached."  Bradley,  Appearance  and  Reality,  551,  is  more 
ambiguous :  "  The  positive  relation  o|  every  appearance  as  an  adjective  to  Reality ; 
and  the  presence  of  Reality  among  its  appearances  in  different  degrees  and  with  diverse 
values  ;  this  double  truth  we  have  found  to  be  the  centre  of  philosophy."  He  protests 
against  both  "  an  empty  transcendence  "  and  "  a  shallow  pantheism."  Hegelian  imma- 
nence and  knowledge,  he  asserts,  identified  God  and  man.  But  God  is  more  than  man 
or  man's  thought.  He  is  spirit  and  life  —  best  understood  from  the  human  self,  with  its 
thoughts,  feelings,  volitions.  Immanence  needs  to  be  qualified  by  transcendence. 
"  God  is  not  God  till  he  has  become  all-in-all,  and  a  God  which  is  all-in-all  is  not  the  God 
of  religion.  God  is  an  aspect,  and  that  must  mean  but  an  appearance  of  the  Absolute." 
Bradley's  Absolute,  therefore,  is  not  so  much  personal  as  super-personal ;  to  which  we 
reply  with  Jackson,  James  Hartiueau,  410  —  "  Higher  than  personality  is  lower;  beyond 
it  is  regression  from  its  height.  From  the  equator  we  may  travel  northward,  gaining 
ever  higher  and  higher  latitudes;  but,  if  ever  the  pole  is  reached,  pressing  on  from 
thence  will  be  descending  into  lower  latitudes,  not  gaining  higher.  .  .  .  Do  I  say,  I  am 
a  pantheist?  Then,  ipso  facto,  I  deny  pantheism  ;  for,  in  the  very  assertion  of  the  Ego, 
I  imply  all  else  as  objective  to  me." 

4.  It  therefore  contradicts  the  affirmations  of  our  moral  and  religious 
natures  by  denying  man's  freedom  and  responsibility ;  by  making  God  to 
include  in  himself  all  evil  as  well  as  all  good ;  and  by  precluding  all  prayer, 
worship,  and  hope  of  immortality. 

Conscience  is  the  eternal  witness  against  pantheism.  Conscience  witnesses  to  our 
freedom  and  responsibility,  and  declares  that  moral  distinctions  are  not  illusory. 
Renouf,  Hibbert  Lect.,  234 — "It  is  only  out  of  condescension  to  popular  language  that 
pantheistic  systems  can  recognize  the  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  of  iniquity  and  sin. 
If  everything  really  emanates  from  God,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  sin.  And  the 
ablest  philosophers  who  have  been  led  to  pantheistic  views  have  vainly  endeavored 
to  harmonize  these  views  with  what  we  understand  by  the  notion  of  sin  or  moral  evil. 
The  great  systematic  work  of  Spinoza  is  entitled  '  Ethica ' ;  but  for  real  ethics  we  might 
as  profitably  consult  the  Elements  of  Euclid."  Hodge,  System.  Theology,  1 :  299-330  — 
"  Pantheism  is  fatalistic.  On  this  theory,  duty  =  pleasure  ;  right  =  might ;  sin  =  good 
in  the  making.  Satan,  as  well  as  Gabriel,  is  a  self-development  of  God.  The  practical 
effects  of  pantheism  upon  popular  morals  and  life,  wherever  it  has  prevailed,  as  in 
Buddhist  India  and  China,  demonstrate  its  falsehood."  See  also  Dove,  Logic  of  the 
Christian  Faith,  118  ;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  202 ;  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1867 :  603-615 ; 
Dix,  Pantheism,  Introd.,  12.  On  the  fact  of  sin  as  refuting  the  pantheistic  theory, 
see  Bushnell,  Nature  and  the  Supernat.,  140-164. 

Wordsworth  :  "  Look  up  to  heaven !  the  industrious  sun  Already  half  his  course  hath 
run  ;  He  cannot  halt  or  go  astray ;  But  our  immortal  spirits  may."  President  John  H. 
Harris;  "You  never  ask  a  cyclone's  opinion  of  the  ten  commandments."  Bowne, 
Philos.  of  Theism,  245 — "Pantheism  makes  man  an  automaton.  But  how  can  an 
automaton  have  duties?"  Principles  of  Ethics,  18  — "Ethics  is  defined  as  the  science 
of  conduct,  and  the  conventions  of  language  are  relied  upon  to  cover  up  the  fact 
that  there  is  no  '  conduct '  in  the  case.  If  man  be  a  proper  automaton,  we  might  as  well 
speak  of  the  conduct  of  the  winds  as  of  human  conduct;  and  a  treatise  on  planetary 
motions  is  as  truly  the  ethics  of  the  solar  system  as  a  treatise  on  human  movements  is 
the  ethics  of  man."  For  lack  of  a  clear  recognition  of  personality,  either  human  or 
divine,  Hegel's  Ethics  is  devoid  of  all  spiritual  nourishment, —  his  "  Rechtsphilosophie  " 
has  been  called  "  a  repast  of  bran."  Yet  Professor  Jones,  in  Mind,  July,  1893 ;  304,  tells 
us  that  Hegel's  task  was  "  to  discover  what  conception  of  the  single  principle  or  funda- 
mental unity  which  alone  is,  is  adequate  to  the  differences  which  it  carries  within  it. 
' Being,'  he  found,  leaves  no  room  for  differences, —it  is  overpowered  by  them.  .  .  . 
He  found  that  the  Reality  can  exist  only  as  absolute  Self -consciousness,  as  a  Spirit, 
who  is  universal,  and  who  knows  himself  in  all  things.  In  all  this  he  is  dealing,  not 
simply  with  thoughts,  but  with  Reality."  Prof.  Jones's  vindication  of  Hegel,  however, 
still  leaves  it  undecided  whether  that  philosopher  regarded  the  divine  self-consciousness 
as  distinct  from  that  of  finite  beings,  or  as  simply  inclusive  of  theirs.  See  John  Caird, 
Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1  :  109. 


104  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

5.  Our  intuitive  conviction  of  the  existence  of  a  God  of  absolute  per- 
fection compels  us  to  conceive  of  God  as  possessed  of  every  highest  quality 
and  attribute  of  men,  and  therefore,  especially,  of  that  "which  constitutes 
the  chief  dignity  of  the  human  spirit,  its  personality. 

Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  328— "We  have  no  right  to  represent  the  supreme  Cause 
as  inferior  to  ourselves,  yet  we  do  this  when  we  describe  it  under  phrases  derived  from 
physical  causation."  Mivart,  Lessons  from  Nature,  351 — "  We  cannot  conceive  of  any- 
thing- as  impersonal,  yet  of  higher  nature  than  our  own,  —  any  being  that  has  not 
knowledge  and  will  must  be  indefinitely  inferior  to  one  who  has  them."  Lotze  holds 
truly,  not  that  God  is  supra-personal,  but  that  man  is  m/ra-personal,  seeing  that  in  the 
infinite  Being  alone  is  self-subsistence,  and  therefore  perfect  personality.  Knight, 
Essays  in  Philosophy,  224  —  "  The  radical  feature  of  personality  is  the  survival  of  a 
permanent  self,  under  all  the  fleeting  or  deciduous  phases  of  experience ;  in  other 
words,  the  personal  identity  that  is  involved  in  the  assertion  'I  am.'  ...  Is  limitation  a 
necessary  adjunct  of  that  notion?  "  Seth,  Hegelianism  :  "As  in  us  there  is  more  for 
ourselves  than  for  others,  so  iu  God  there  is  more  of  thought  for  himself  than  he  mani- 
fests to  us.  Hegel's  doctrine  is  that  of  immanence  without  transcendence."  Heinrich 
Heine  was  a  pupil  and  intimate  friend  of  Hegel.  He  says  :  "  I  was  young  and  proud, 
and  it  pleased  my  vain-glory  when  I  learned  from  Hegel  that  the  true  God  was  not,  as 
my  grandmother  believed,  the  God  who  lived  in  heaven,  but  was  rather  myself  upon 
the  earth."  John  Fiske,  Idea  of  God,  xvi  —  "Since  our  notion  of  force  is  purely  a 
generalization  from  our  subjective  sensations  of  overcoming  resistance,  there  is  scarcely 
less  anthropomorphism  in  the  phrase  '  Infinite  Power '  than  in  the  phrase  '  Infinite 
Person.'  We  must  symbolize  Deity  in  some  form  that  has  meaning  to  us ;  we  cannot 
symbolize  it  as  physical ;  we  are  bound  to  symbolize  it  as  psychical.  Hence  we  may 
say,  God  is  Spirit.    This  implies  God's  personality." 

6.  Its  objection  to  the  divine  personality,  that-over  against  the  Infinite 
there  can  be  in  eternity  past  no  non-ego  to  call  forth  self- consciousness,  is 
refuted  by  considering  that  even  man's  cognition  of  the  non-ego  logically 
presupposes  knowledge  of  the  ego,  from  which  the  non-ego  is  distinguished  ; 
that,  in  an  absolute  mind,  self-consciousness  cannot  be  conditioned,  as  in 
the  case  of  finite  mind,  upon  contact  with  a  not-self  ;  and  that,  if  the  dis- 
tinguishing of  self  from  a  not-self  were  an  essential  condition  of  divine 
self -consciousness,  the  eternal  personal  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature  or 
the  eternal  states  of  the  divine  mind  might  furnish  such  a  condition. 

Pfleiderer,  Die  Religion,  1 :  163, 190  sq.  —  "  Personal  self-consciousness  is  not  primarily 
a  distinguishing  of  the  ego  from  the  non-ego,  but  rather  a  distinguishing  of  itself  from 
itself,  i.  e.,  of  the  unity  of  the  self  from  the  plurality  of  its  contents.  .  .  .  Before 
the  soul  distinguishes  self  from  the  not-self,  it  must  know  self  —  else  it  could  not  see 
the  distinction.  Its  development  is  connected  with  the  knowledge  of  the  non-ego,  but 
this  is  due,  not  to  the  fact  of  personality,  but  to  the  fact  at  finite  personality.  The 
mature  man  can  live  for  a  long  time  upon  his  own  resources.  God  needs  no  other,  to 
stir  him  up  to  mental  activity.  Finiteness  is  a  hindrance  to  the  development  of  our 
personality.  Infiniteness  is  necessary  to  the  highest  personality."  Lotze,  Microcos- 
mos,  vol.  3,  chapter  4;  transl.  in  N.  Eng.,  March,  1881: 191-200— "Finite  spirit,  not 
having  conditions  of  existence  in  itself,  can  know  the  ego  only  upon  occasion  of  know- 
ing the  non-ego.  The  Infinite  is  not  so  limited.  He  alone  has  an  independent  existence, 
neither  introduced  nor  developed  through  anything  not  himself,  but,  in  an  inward 
activity  without  beginning  or  end,  maintains  himself  in  himself."  See  also  Lotze, 
Philos.  of  Religion,  55-69 ;  H.  N.  Gardiner  on  Lotze,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1885 :  669-673 ;  Webb, 
in  Jour.  Theol.  Studies,  2:49-61. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre :  "  Absolute  Personality  =  perfect  consciousness  of  self,  and 
perfect  power  over  self.  We  need  something  external  to  waken  our  consciousness  —  yet 
self-consciousness  comes  [  logically  ]  before  consciousness  of  the  world.  It  is  the  soul's 
act.  Only  after  it  has  distinguished  self  from  self,  can  it  consciously  distinguish  self 
from  another."  British  Quarterly,  Jan.  1874  :  32,  note;  July,  1884  :  103  — "The  ego  is 
thinkable  only  in  relation  to  the  non-ego;  but  the  ego  is  liveable  long  before  any  such 


ETHICAL   MONISM.  105 

relation/'  Shedd,  Dogm.  TheoL,  1:185,  186—  In  the  pantheistic  scheme,  "God  distin- 
guishes himself  from  the  worid,  and  thereby  finds  the  ohject  required  by  the  subject; 
....  in  the  Christian  scheme,  God  distinguishes  himself  from  himself,  not  from  some- 
thing-that  is  not  himself."  See  Julius  Mtiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2: 133-126;  Christlieb,  Mod. 
Doubt  and  Christ.  Belief,  101-100 ;  Haune,  Idee  der  absoluten  Personlichkeit ;  Eichhorn, 
Die  Personlichkeit  Gottes;  Seth,  Hegelianism  and  Personality;  Knight,  on  Personality 
and  the  Infinite,  in  Studies  in  Philos.  and  Lit.,  70-118. 

On  the  whole  subject  of  Pantheism,  see  Martineau, Study  of  Religion,  2:141-194; 
esp.  192— "The  personality  of  God  consists  in  his  voluntary  agency  as  tree  cause  in  an 
unpledged  sphere,  that  is,  a  sphere  transcending  that  of  immanent  law.  But  precisely 
this  also  it  is  that  constitutes  his  Infinity,  extending  his  sway,  afterit  has  lilled  the 
actual,  over  all  the  possible,  and  giving  command  over  indefinite  alternatives.  Though 
you  might  deny  his  infinity  without  prejudice  to  his  personality,  you  cannot  deny  his 
personality  without  sacrificing'  his  infinitude  :  for  there  is  a  mode  of  action  -  the  pre) 
erential,  the  very  mode  which  distinguishes  rational  beings—  from  which  you  exclude 
him";  341  —  "The  metaphysicians  who,  in  their  impatience  of  distinction,  insist  on 

taking-  the  sea  on  board  the  boat,  swamp  nol  only  it  but  the  thought  it  holds,  and  leave 
an  infinitude  which,  as  it  can  look  into  no  eye  and  whisper  into  do  ear,  they  contradict 
in  the  very  act  of  affirming."  Jean  Paul  Bidder's  "Dream":  "I  wandered  to  the 
farthest  yerge  of  Creation,  and  there  I  saw  a  Socket,  where  an  Eye  should  have  been, 
and  I  heard  the  shriek  of  a  Fatherless  World"  i  quoted  in  David  Brown's  Memoir  of 
John  Duncan,  49-70).  Shelley,  Beatrice  Cenci:  "Sweet  Heaven,  forgive  weak 
thoughts!  If  there  should  be  No  God,  no  Heaven,  no  Earth,  in  the  void  world— The 
wide, grey,  lampless,  deep,  unpeopled  world!" 

For  the  opposite  view,  see  Biedermann,  Dogmatifc,  638-647— "Only  man,  as  finite 
spirit,  is  personal ;  God,  as  absolute  Spirit,  is  nol  personal.  Yet  in  religion  the  mutual 
relations  of  intercourse  and  communion  a  re  always  personal.  .  .  .  Personality  is  the  only 
adequate  term  by  which  we  can  rep  re-en  t  the  theistie  conception  of  God,"  Bruce,  Provi- 
dential Order,  76 —  " Schopenhauer  does  not  level  up  cosmic  force  to  the  human,  but 
levels  down  human  will-force  to  (he  cosmic.  Spinoza  held  intellect  in  God  to  bono 
n  line  like  man's  than  the  dog-  Star  18  like  a  dog.  Hart  maun  added  intellect  to  Schopen- 
hauer's will,  hut  the  intellect  is  unconsi  LOUS  and  knows  no  moral  distinctions."  See  also 
Bruce,  Apologetics,  71-90;  Bowne,  Philos. of  Theism,  128-134, 171-186 j  J.  M.  Whiten, 
Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  Apl.  l'Jlil  :306  Pantheism  =  God  consists  in  all  things;  Theism=  All 
things  consist  iu  God,  their  ground,  not  their  sum.  Spirit  in  man  shows  that  the 
infinite  Spirit  must  be  personal  and  t  raiiscendent  Mind  and  Will. 

IV.     Ethical  Monism. 

Ethical  Monism  is  that  method  of  thought  which  holds  to  a  single  sub- 
stance, ground,  or  principle  of  being,  namely,  God,  but  which  also  holds 
to  the  ethical  facts  of  God's  transcendence  as  well  as  his  immanence,  and 
of  God's  personality  as  distinct  from,  and  as  guaranteeing,  the  personality 
of  man. 

Although  we  do  not  here  assume  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  reserving  our  proof  of 
this  to  the  next  following-  division  on  The  Scriptures  a  Revelation  f roin  God,  we  may 
yet  cite  passages  which  show  that  our  doctrine  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  teachings 
of  holy  Writ.  The  immanence  of  God  is  implied  in  all  statements  of  his  omnipresence, 
as  for  example  :  Ps.  139 :  7  si[.  —  "  "Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit  ?  Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  pres- 
ence ?  "  Jer.  23  :  23,  24  —  "  Am  I  a  God  at  hand,  saith  Jehovah,  and  not  a  God  afar  off  ?  ...  Do  not  I  fill  heaven 
and  earth?"  Acts  17 :  27,  28  —  "he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us:  for  in  him  we  live,  and  more,  and  have  oar 
baing."  The  transcendence  of  God  is  implied  in  such  passages  as  :  1  Kings  8 :  27—  "  the  heaven 
ani  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee"  ;  Ps.  113  :  5  —  "that  hath  his  seat  on  high"  ;  Is.  57  :  15  —  "the  high 
and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity." 

This  is  the  faith  of  Augustine:  "O  God,  thou  hast  made  us  for  thyself,  and  our 
heart  is  restless  till  it  find  rest  in  thee.  ...  I  could  not  be,  O  my  God,  could  not  be 
at  all,  wert  thou  not  in  me ;  rather,  were  not  I  in  thee,  of  whom  are  all  things,  by  whom 
are  all  things,  in  whom  are  all  thing's."  And  Auselrn,  in  his  Proslogion,  says  of  the 
divine  nature:  "It  is  the  essence  of  the  being-,  the  principle  of  the  existence,  of  all 
things.  .  .  .  Without  parts,  without  differences,  without  accidents,  without  changes, 
it  might  be  said  in  a  certain  sense  alone  to  exist,  for  in  respect  to  it  the  other  things 


106  THE    EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

which  appear  to  be  have  no  existence.  The  unchangeable  Spirit  is  all  that  is,  and  it  is  this 
without  limit,  simply,  interminably.  It  is  the  perfect  and  absolute  Existence.  The 
rest  has  come  from  non-entity,  and  thither  returns  it  not  supported  by  God.  It  does 
not  exist  by  itself.    In  this  sense  the  Creator  alone  exists  ;  created  things  do  not." 

1.  While  Ethical  Monism  embraces  the  one  element  of  truth  contained 
in  Pantheism  —  the  truth  that  God  is  in  all  things  and  that  all  things  are  in 
God  —  it  regards  this  scientific  unity  as  entirely  consistent  with  the  facts  of 
ethics — man's  freedom,  responsibility,  sin,  and  guilt;  in  other  words, 
Metaphysical  Monism,  or  the  doctrine  of  one  substance,  ground,  or  prin- 
ciple of  being,  is  qualified  by  Psychological  Dualism,  or  the  doctrine  that 
the  soul  is  personally  distinct  from  matter  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  God 
on  the  other. 

Ethical  Monism  is  a  monism  which  holds  to  the  ethical  facts  of  the  freedom  of  man 
and  the  transcendence  and  personality  of  God ;  it  is  the  monism  of  free-will,  in  which  per- 
sonality, both  human  and  divine,  sin  and  righteousness,  God  and  the  world,  remain  — 
two  in  one,  and  one  in  two  — in  their  moral  antithesis  as  well  as  their  natural  unity. 
Ladd,  Introd.  to  Philosophy :  "  Dualism  is  yielding,  in  history  and  in  the  judgment- 
halls  of  reason,  to  a  monistic  philosophy.  .  .  .  Some  form  of  philosophical  monism 
is  indicated  by  the  researches  of  psycho-physics,  and  by  that  philosophy  of  mind  which 
builds  upon  the  principles  ascertained  by  these  researches.  Realities  correlated  as  are 
the  body  and  the  mind  must  have,  as  it  were,  a  common  ground.  .  .  .  They  have 
their  reality  in  the  ultimate  one  Reality ;  they  have  their  interrelated  lives  as  expres- 
sions of  the  one  Life  which  is  immanent  in  the  two.  .  .  .  Only  some  form  of  monism 
that  shall  satisfy  the  facts  and  truths  to  which  both  realism  and  idealism  appeal  can 
occupy  the  place  of  the  true  and  final  philosophy.  .  .  .  Monism  must  so  construct  its 
tenets  as  to  preserve,  or  at  least  as  not  to  contradict  and  destroy,  the  truths  implicated 
in  the  distinction  between  the  me  and  the  i)ot-me,  .  .  .  between  the  morally  good 
and  the  morally  evil.  No  form  of  monism  can  persistently  maintain  itself  which  erects 
its  system  upon  the  ruins  of  fundamentally  ethical  principles  and  ideals."  .  .  .  Phi- 
losophy of  Mind,  411—"  Dualism  must  be  dissolved  in  some  ultimate  monistic  solution. 
The  Being  of  the  world,  of  which  all  particular  beings  are  but  parts,  must  be  so  con- 
ceived of  as  that  in  it  can  be  found  the  one  ground  of  all  interrelated  existences  and 
activities.  .  .  .  This  one  Principle  is  an  Other  and  an  Absolute  Mind." 

Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  of  Christ,  II,  3 :  101,  231  — "  The  unity  of  essence  in  God  and 
man  is  the  great  discovery  of  the  present  age.  .  .  .  The  characteristic  feature  of  all 
recent  Christologies  is  the  endeavor  to  point  out  the  essential  unity  of  the  divine  and 
human.  To  the  theology  of  the  present  day,  the  divine  and  human  are  not  mutually 
exclusive,  but  are  connected  magnitudes.  .  .  .  Yet  faith  postulates  a  difference  between 
the  world  and  God,  between  whom  religion  seeks  an  union.  Faith  does  not  wish 
to  be  a  relation  merely  to  itself,  or  to  its  own  representations  and  thoughts;  that 
would  be  a  monologue, —  faith  desires  a  dialogue.  Therefore  it  does  not  consort  with  a 
monism  which  recognizes  only  God,  or  only  the  world;  it  opposes  such  a  monism  as 
this.  Duality  is,  in  fact,  a  condition  of  true  and  vital  unity.  But  duality  is  not  dual- 
ism. It  has  no  desire  to  oppose  the  rational  demand  for  unity."  Professor  Small  of 
Chicago :  M  With  rare  exceptions  on  each  side,  all  philosophy  to-day  is  monistic  in  its 
ontological  presumptions;  it  is  dualistic  in  its  methodological  procedures."  A.  H. 
Bradford,  Age  of  Faith,  71  — "Men  and  God  are  the  same  in  substance,  though  not 
identical  as  individuals."  The  theology  of  fifty  years  ago  was  merely  individualistic, 
and  ignored  the  complementary  truth  of  solidarity.  Similarly  we  think  of  the  con- 
tinents and  islands  of  our  globe  as  disjoined  from  one  another.  The  dissociable  sea  is 
regarded  as  an  absolute  barrier  between  them.  But  if  the  ocean  could  be  dried,  we 
should  see  that  all  the  while  there  had  been  submarine  connections,  and  the  hidden 
unity  of  all  lands  would  appear.  So  the  individuality  of  human  beings,  real  as  it  is,  is 
not  the  only  reality.  There  is  the  prof ounder  fact  of  a  common  life.  Even  the  great 
mountain-peaks  of  personality  are  superficial  distinctions,  compared  with  the  organic 
oneness  in  which  they  are  rooted,  into  which  they  all  dip  down,  and  from  which  they 
all,  like  volcanoes,  receive  at  times  quick  and  overflowing  impulses  of  insight,  emotion 
and  energy ;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation  and  Ethical  Monism,  189, 190. 


ETHICAL   MONISM.  107 

2.  In  contrast  then  with  the  two  errors  of  Pantheism  —  the  denial  of 
God's  transcendence  and  the  denial  of  God's  personality— Ethical  Monism 
holds  that  the  universe,  instead  of  being  one  with  God  and  conterminous 

with  God,  is  but  a  finite,  partial  and  pr<  >gressive  manifestation  of  the  divine 
Life  :  Matter  being  God's  self-limitation  under  the  law  of  Necessity ; 
Humanity  being  God's  self -limitation  under  the  law  of  Freedom  ;  Incarna- 
tion and  Atonement  being  God's  self-Umitations  under  the  law  of  Grace. 

The  universe  is  related  to  God  as  my  thoughts  are  related  to  me,  the  thinker.  I  am 
greater  than  my  thoughts,  and  my  thoughts  vary  in  moral  value.  Ethical  Monism  t  rates 
the  universe  back  to  a  beginning,  while  Pantheism  regards  the  universe  as  coSter- 
nal  with  God.  Ethical  Monism  asserts  God's  transcendence,  while  Pantheism  regards 
God  as  imprisoned  in  the  universe!.  Ethical  Monism  asserts  that  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain  him,  but  that  contrariwise  the  whole  universe  taken  tog-ether,  with  its 
elements  and  forces,  its  suns  and  systems,  is  lint  a  light  breath  from  his  mouth,  or  a 
drop  of  dew  upon  the  fringe  of  his  garment.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures:  "  The  Eternal 
is  present  in  ei  ery  finite  thing,  and  is  Celt  and  known  to  be  present  in  every  rational 
soul;  but  still  is  not  broken  up  into  individualities,  but  ever  remains  one  and  the 
sameeternal  substance,  one  and  the  same  undying  principle,  immanently  and  indivis- 
ibly  present  in  every  one  odE  thai  countless  plurality  of  finite  individuals  into  which 
man's  analyzing  understanding:  dissects  the  Cosmos."  James  Martineau,  in  19th  Cen- 
tury, Apl.  1S95  :  55'. ►  —  "  What  is  Nature  but  i  he  province  of  God's  pledged  and  habitual 
causality  ?  And  what  is  Spii  it,  but  the  province  of  his  free  causality,  responding  to  the 
needs  and  affections  of  his  children  ?  .  .  .  Cod  is  not  a  retired  architect,  who  may  now 
and  then  be  called  in  for  repairs.  Nature  is  not  self-active,  and  God's  agency  is 
not  intrusive."    Calvin :  Pie  hoc  potest  dici,  Deum  esse  Naturam. 

With  this  doctrine  many  poets  show  their  sympathy.  "  Every  fresh  and  new  crea- 
tion, A  divine  improvisation,  From  the  heart  of  God  proceeds."  Robert  Browning 
asserts  God's  immanence;  Hohenstiel-Schwangau  :  "This  is  the  glory  that,  in  all  con- 
ceived Or  felt,  or  known,  I  recognize  a  Mind— Not  mine,  but  like  mine  —  forthedouble 
joy,  .Making  all  things  for  me,  and  me  for  him  ";  Ring  and  Book,  Pope:  "O  thou,  as 
represented  to  me  here  In  such  conception  as  my  soul  allows  —  I'uder  thy  measureless, 
my  atom- width !  Man's  mind,  what  is  it  but  a  convex  glass,  Wherein  are  gathered  ail 
the  scattered  points  Picked  out  ot  the  immensity  of  sky.  To  reunite  there,  be  our  hea\  ren 
for  earth,  Our  Known  Unknown,  our  God  revealed  toman  ?"  But  Browning  also  asserts 
God's  transcendence :  in  Death  in  the  Desert,  we  nail:  "Man  is  not  God,  but  hath 
God's  end  to  serve,  A  Master  to  obey,  a  Cause  to  take,  .Somewhat  to  cast  oil,  somewhat 
to  become";  in  Christmas  Eve,  the  poet  derides  "The  important  stumble  Of  adding, 
he,  the  sage  and  humble.  Was  also  one  with  the  Creator";  he  tells  us  that  it  was  God's 
plan  to  make  man  in  his  image:  "To  create  man,  and  then  leave  him  Able,  his  own 
word  saith,  to  grieve  him ;  Put  able  to  glorify  him  too,  As  a  mere  machine  could  never 
do  That  prayed  or  praised,  all  unaware  Of  its  fitness  For  aught  bul  praise  or  prayer, 
Made  perfect  as  a  thing  of  course.  .  .  .  God,  whose  pleasure  brought  Man  into  being, 
stands  away,  As  it  were,  a  hand-breadth  off ,  to  give  Uoomforthe  newly  made  to  live 
And  look  at  him  from  a  place  apart  And  use  his  gifts  of  brain  and  heart";  "Life's 
business  being-  just  the  terrible  choice." 

So  Tennyson's  Higher  Pantheism  :  "  The  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  the  seas,  the  hills, 
and  the  plains.  Are  not  these, '  >  so  id,  the  vision  of  Him  who  reigns?  Dark  is  the  world  to 
thee;  thou  thyself  art  the  reason  why;  For  is  not  He  all  but  thou,  that  hast  power 
to  feel  'lam  I'?  Speak  to  him,  thou,  for  he  hears,  and  spirit  with  spirit  can  meet; 
Closer  is  he  than  breathing,  and  nearer  than  hands  and  feet.  And  the  ear  of  man  can- 
not hear,  and  the  eye  of  man  cannot  see;  Put  if  we  could  see  and  heaz',  this  vision 
—  were  it  not  He  ?  ' '  Also  Tennyson's  Ancient  Sage  :  "  But  that  one  ripple  on  the  bound- 
less deep  Feels  that  the  deep  is  boundless,  and  itself  Forever  changing  form,  but  ever- 
more One  with  the  boundless  motion  of  the  deep  "  ;  and  In  Memoriam:  "One  God,  one 
law,  one  element.  And  one  far-otf  divine  event,  Toward  which  the  whole  creation 
moves."  Emerson :  "The  day  of  days,  the  greatest  day  in  the  feast  of  life,  is  that  in 
which  the  inward  eye  opens  to  the  unity  of  things  "  ;  "  In  the  mud  and  scum  of  things 
Something  always,  always  sings."  Mrs.  Browning:  "Earth  is  crammed  with  heaven. 
And  every  common  bush  afire  with  God ;  But  only  he  who  sees  takes  off  his  shoes."  So 
manhood  is  itself  potentially  a  divine  thing.    All  life,  in  all  its  vast  variety,  can  have 


108  THE   EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

but  one  Source.  It  is  either  one  God,  above  all,  through  all,  and  in  all,  or  it  is  no  God 
at  all.  E.  M.  Poteat,  On  Chesapeake  Bay  :  "Night's  radiant  glory  overhead,  A  softer 
glory  there  below,  Deep  answered  unto  deep,  and  said :  A  kindred  fire  in  us  doth  glow. 
For  life  is  one  —  of  sea  and  stars,  Of  God  and  man,  of  earth  and  heaven  —  And  by  no 
theologic  bars  Shall  my  scant  life  from  God's  be  riven."  See  Professor  Henry  Jones, 
Robert  Browning. 

3.  The  immanence  of  God,  as  the  one  substance,  ground  and  principle 
of  being,  does  not  destroy,  but  rather  guarantees,  the  individuality  and 
rights  of  each  portion  of  the  universe,  so  that  there  is  variety  of  rank  and 
endowment.  In  the  case  of  moral  beings,  worth  is  determined  by  the 
degree  of  their  voluntary  recognition  and  appropriation  of  the  divine. 
While  God  is  all,  he  is  also  in  all ;  so  making  the  universe  a  graded  aud  pro- 
gressive manifestation  of  himself,  both  in  his  love  for  righteousness  and 
his  opposition  to  moral  evil. 

II  lias  been  charged  that  the  doctrine  of  monism  necessarily  Involves  moral  indiffer- 
ence; that  the  divine  presence  in  all  tilings  breaks  down  all  distinctions  of  rank  and 
makes  each  tiling  equal  to  every  other  ;  that  the  evil  as  well  as  the  good  is  legitimated 
and  consecrated.  Of  pantheistic  monism  all  this  is  true, —  it  is  not  true  of  ethical 
monism ;  for  ethical  monism  is  the  monism  that  recognizes  the  ethical  fact  of  personal 
intelligence  and  will  in  both  God  and  man,  and  with  these  God's  purpose  in  making  the 
universe  a  varied  manifestation  of  himself.  The  worship  of  cats  and  bulls  and  croco- 
diles in  ancient  Egypt,  and  the  deification  of  lust  in  the  Brahmanlc  temples  of  India, 
were  expressions  of  a  non-ethical  monism,  which  saw  in  God  no  moral  attributes,  and 
which  identified  God  with  his  manifestations.  As  an  illustration  of  the  mistakes  into 
which  the  critics  of  monism  may  fall  for  lack  of  discrimination  between  monism  that 
is  pantheistic  and  monism  that  is  ethical,  we  qu<  »te  from  Emma  Marie  Caillard  :  "  Inte- 
gral parts  of  God  are,  on  monistic  premises,  liars,  sensualists,  murderers,  evil  livers 
and  evil  thinkers  of  every  description.  Their  crimes  and  their  passions  enter  intrinsi- 
cally into  the  divine  experience.  The  infinite  Individual  in  his  wholeness  may  reject 
them  indeed,  but  none  the  less  are  these  evil  finite  individuals  constituent  parts  of  him, 
even  as  the  twigs  of  a  tree,  though  they  are  not  the  tree,  and  though  the  tree  transcends 
any  or  all  of  them,  are  yet  constituent  parts  of  it.  Can  he  whose  universal  conscious- 
ness includes  and  defines  all  finite  consciousnesses  be  other  than  responsible  for  all 
finite  actions  and  motives  V  " 

To  this  indictment  we  may  reply  in  the  words  of  Bowne,  The  Divine  Immanence, 
130-133  —  "Some  weak  heads  have  been  so  heated  by  the  new  wine  of  immanence 
as  to  put  all  things  on  the  same  Level,  ami  make  men  and  mice  Of  equal  value.  But 
there  is  nothing  in  the  dependence  of  all  things  on  God  to  remove  their  distinctions 
of  value.  One  confused  talker  of  this  type  was  led  to  say  that  he  had  no  trouble  with 
the  notion  of  a  divine  man,  as  he  believed  in  a  divine  oyster.  Others  have  used  the 
doctrine  to  cancel  moral  differences  ;  for  if  Uod  be  in  all  things,  and  if  all  things  repre- 
sent his  will,  then  whatever  is  is  right.  But  this  too  is  hasty.  Of  course  even  the  evil  will 
is  not  independent  of  God,  but  lives  and  moves  and  has  its  being  in  and  through  the 
divine.  But  through  its  mysterious  power  of  selfhood  aud  self-determination  the  evil 
will  is  able  to  assume  an  attitude  of  hostility  to  the  divine  law,  which  forthwith 
vindicates  itself  by  appropriate  reactions. 

"  These  reactions  are  not  divine  in  the  highest  or  ideal  sense.  They  represent  nothing 
which  God  desires  or  in  which  he  delights ;  but  they  are  divine  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  things  to  be  done  under  the  circumstances.  The  divine  reaction  in  the  case  of  t  he 
good  is  distinct  from  the  divine  reaction  against  evil.  Both  are  divine  as  represent  ing 
God's  action,  but  only  the  former  is  divine  in  the  sense  of  representing  God's  approval 
and  sympathy.  All  things  serve,  said  Spinoza.  The  good  serve,  and  are  furthered  by 
their  service.  The  bad  also  serve  and  arc  used  up  in  the  serving.  According  to 
Jonathan  Edwards,  the  wicked  are  useful  'in  being  acted  upon  and  disposed  of.'  As 
'  vessels  of  dishonor '  they  may  reveal  the  majesty  of  God.  There  is  nothing  therefore 
in  the  divine  immanence,  in  its  only  tenable  form,  to  cancel  moral  distinctions  or  to 
minify  retribution.  The  divine  reaction  against  iniquity  is  even  more  solemn  in  this 
doctrine.  The  besetting  God  is  the  eternal  and  unescapable  environment ;  and  only  as 
we  are  in  harmony  with  him  can  there  be  any  peace.  .  .  .  What  God  thinks  of  sin, 


ETHICAL   MONISM.  109 

ami  what  his  will  is  concerning  it  can  tie  plainly  seen  in  the  natural  consequences  which 
attend  it.  .  .  .  In  law  itself  we  are  face  to  face  with  God;  and  natural  consequences 
have  a  supernatural  meaning-." 

4.  Since  Christ  is  the  Logos  of  God,  the  immanent  God,  God  revealed 
in  Nature,  in  Humanity,  in  Redemption,  Ethical  Monism  recognizes  the 
universe  as  created,  upheld,  and  governed  by  the  same  Being  who  in  the 
course  of  history  was  manifest  in  human  form  and  who  made  atonement 
for  human  sin  by  his  death  on  Calvary.  The  secret  of  the  universe  and 
the  key  to  its  mysteries  are  to  be  found  in  the  Cross. 

John  1  : 1-4  (marg.),  14,  18  —  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made  through  him  ;  and  without  him  was  not 
any  thing  made.  That  which  hath  been  made  was  life  in  him  ;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.  .  .  .  And  the 
Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us.  .  .  .  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Fathtr,  he  hath  declared  him."  Col.  1 :  16,  17 —  "  for  in  him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and  things  invisible,  whether  thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities  or 
powers  ;  -all  things  have  been  created  through  him  and  unto  him  ;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  in  him  all  things 
consist."  Heb.  1 :  2,  3  —  "his  Son  .  .  .  through  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds  .  .  .  upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power  " ;  Eph.  1 :  22,  23  —  "  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all "  =  tills 
all  things  with  all  thai  tiny  contain  of  truth,  beauty,  ami  goodness;  Col.  2:2,  3,  9  —  "the 
mystery  of  God,  even  Christ,  in  whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  hidden.  ...  for  in  him  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily." 

This  view  of  the  relation  of  the  universe  to  God  lays  the  foundation  tor  a  Christian 
application  of  recent  philosophical  doctrine.  Mattel-  is  no  longer  blind  and  dead,  but  is 
spiritual  in  its  nature,  not  in  the  sense  that  it  18 spirit,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the 
continual  manift  station  of  spirit,  just  as  my  thoughts  are  a  living  and  continual  mani- 
festation of  myself.  Vet  matter  does  not  consist  simply  in  /<',  >-,  tor  ideas,  deprived  of 
an  external  object  and  of  an  Internal  subject,  an-  left  suspended  in  the  air.  Ideas  are  the 
product  of  Mind.  Hut  matter  is  known  only  as  t  lie  op<  ration  of  force,  and  force  is  the 
product  of  "Will.  Since  this  force  work-;  in  rational  ways,  it  can  be  t  lie  product  only  of 
Spirit.  The  system  of  forces  which  we  call  the  universe  is  the  immediate  product  of 
the  mind  ami  will  of  God;  ami,  since  Christ  is  the  mind  and  will  of  God  in  exercise, 
Christ  is  the  Creator  and  Upholder  of  the  universe.  Nature  j-  the  omnipresent  Christ, 
manifesting  God  to  creatures. 

Christ  is  the  principle  of  cohesion,  attraction, interaction,  not  only  in  the  physical 
universe,  but  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  universe  as  well.  In  all  our  knowing-, 
the  knower  and  known  are  "connected  by  some  Being  who  is  their  reality,"  and 
this  being-  is  Christ,  "the  Light  wh:ch  lighteth  every  man"  (John  1:9).  We  know  in  Christ, 
just  as  "in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being"  (Acts  17:  28).  As  the  attraction  of 
gravitation  and  the  principle  of  evolution  are  only  other  names  for  Christ,  so  he  is 
the  basis  of  inductive  reasoning  and  the  ground  of  moral  unity  in  the  creation.  I  am 
bound  to  lot  e  my  neighbor  as  myself  because  he  has  in  him  t  he  same  life  that  is  in  me, 
the  life  of  God  in  Christ.  The  Christ  in  whom  all  humanity  is  created,  and  in  whom  all 
humanity  consists,  holds  together  the  moral  universe,  drawing  all  men  to  himself  and 
so  drawing-  them  to  God.  Through  him  God  "reconciles  all  things  unto  himself.  .  .  whether 
th:ngs  upon  the  earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens  "  ( Col.  1 :  20  ). 

As  Pantheism  =  exclusive  lmmanence=  God  imprisoned,  so  Deism  =  exclusive  tran- 
scendence —  God  banished.  Ethical  Monism  holds  to  the  truth  contained  in  each  of 
these  systems,  while  avoiding  their  respective  errors.  It  furnishes  the  basis  for  a  new 
interpretation  of  many  theological  as  well  as  of  many  philosophical  doctrines.  It  helps 
our  understanding  of  the  Trinity.  If  within  the  bounds  of  Hods  being  there  can  exist 
multitudinous  finite  personalities,  it  becomes  easier  to  comprehend  how  within  those 
same  bounds  there  can  be  three  eternal  and  infinite  personalities,— indeed,  theintegra- 
t;on  of  plural  consciousnesses  in  an  all-embracing-  divine  consciousness  may  find  a  valid 
analogy  in  the  integration  of  subordinate  consciousnesses  in  the  unit- personality  of 
man  ;  see  Baldwin,  Handbook  of  Psychology,  Feeling  and  Will,  53,  54. 

Ethical  Monism,  since  it  is  ethical,  leaves  room  for  human  wills  and  for  their  free- 
dom. While  man  could  never  break  the  natural  bond  which  united  him  to  God,  he 
could  break  the  spiritual  bond  and  introduce  into  creation  a  principle  of  discord  and 
evil.  Tie  a  cord  tig-htly  about  your  finger;  you  partially  isolate  the  finger,  dimmish 
its  nutrition,  bring-  about  atrophy  and  disease.    So  there  has  been  giveu  to  each  intel- 


110  THE    EXISTENCE    OF   GOD. 

ligent  and  moral  agent  the  power,  spiritually  to  isolate  himself  from  God  while  yet  he 
is  naturally  joined  to  God.  As  humanity  is  created  in  Christ  and  lives  only  in  Christ, 
man's  self-isolation  is  his  moral  separation  from  Christ.  Simon,  Redemption  of  Man, 
339  —  "  Rejecting-  Christ  is  not  so  much  refusal  to  become  one  with  Christ  as  it  is  refusal 
to  remain  one  with  him,  refusal  to  let  him  be  our  life."  All  men  are  naturally  one 
with  Christ  by  physical  birth,  before  they  become  morally  one  with  him  by  spiritual 
birth.  They  may  set  themselves  against  ham  and  may  oppose  him  forever.  This  our 
Lord  intimates,  when  he  tells  us  that  there  are  natural  branches  of  Christ,  which  do  not 
"abide  in  the  vine"  or  "bear  fruit,"  and  so  are  "cast  forth,"  "withered,"  and  "burned"  (John  15:4-6). 

Ethical  Monism,  however,  since  it  is  Monism,  enables  us  to  understand  the  principle 
of  the  Atonement.  Though  God's  holiness  binds  him  to  punish  sin,  the  Christ  who  has 
joined  himself  to  the  sinner  must  share  the  sinner's  punishment.  He  who  is  the  life  of 
humanity  must  take  upon  his  own  heart  the  burden  of  shame  and  penalty  that  belongs 
to  his  members.  Tie  the  cord  about  your  finger ;  not  only  the  finger  suffers  pain,  but 
also  the  heart ;  the  life  of  the  whole  system  rouses  itself  to  put  away  the  evil,  to  untie 
the  cord,  to  free  the  diseased  and  suffering  member.  Humanity  is  bound  to  Christ,  as 
the  finger  to  the  body.  Since  human  nature  is  one  of  the  "all  things"  that  " consist "  or 
hold  together  in  Christ  ( Col.  1 :  17),  and  man's  sin  is  a  self-perversion  of  a  part  of  Christ's 
own  body,  the  whole  must  be  injured  by  the  self-inflicted  injury  of  the  part,  and  "it 
must  needs  be  that  Christ  should  suffer"  (Acts  17:3).  Simon,  Redemption  of  Man,  321  — "If  the 
Logos  is  the  Mediator  of  the  divine  immanence  in  creation,  especially  in  man;  if  men 
are  differentiations  of  the  effluent  divine  energy;  and  if  the  Logos  is  the  immanent 
controlling  principle  of  all  differentiation  —  i.  c,  the  principle  of  all  form— must  not 
the  self-perversion  of  these  human  differentiations  react  on  him  who  is  their  constitu- 
tive principle  ?  "  A  more  full  explanation  of  the  relations  of  Ethical  Monism  to  other 
doctrines  must  be  reserved  to  our  separate  treatment  of  the  Trinity,  Creation,  Sin, 
Atonement,  Regeneration.  Portions  of  the  subject  are  treated  by  Upton,  Hibbert 
Lectures ;  Le  Conte,  in  Royce's  Conception  of  God,  43-50 ;  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought 
and  Knowledge,  297-301,  311-317,  and  Immanence  of  God,  5-32,  116-153;  Ladd,  Philos.  of 
Knowledge,  574-590,  and  Theory  of  Reality,  525-529;  Edward  Caird,  Evolution  of 
Religion,  2:48;  Ward,  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  2  :  258-283 ;  Goschel,  quoted  in 
Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  of  Christ,  5  :  170.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  treat  the 
whole  subject  by  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation  and  Ethical  Monism,  1-  86, 141-162, 
166-180, 186-208. 


PART  III. 

THE  SCRIPTURES  A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 
CHAPTER   I. 

PRELIMINARY    CONSIDERATIONS. 

I.     Reasons  a  priori  for  expecting  a  Revelation  from  God. 

1.  Needs  of  man's  nature.  Man's  intellectual  and  moral  nature  requires, 
in  order  to  preserve  it  from  constant  deterioration,  and  to  ensure  its  moral 
growth  and  progress,  an  authoritative  and  helpful  revelation  of  religious 
truth,  of  a  higher  and  completer  sort  than  any  to  which,  in  its  present  state 
of  sin,  it  can  attain  by  the  use  of  its  unaided  powers.  The  proof  of  this 
proposition  is  partly  psychological,  and  partly  historical. 

A.  Psychological  proof. — (a)  Neither  reason  nor  intuition  throws  light 
upon  certain  questions  whose  solution  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us ;  for 
example,  Trinity,  atonement,  pardon,  method  of  worship,  personal  existence 
after  death.  ( b  )  Even  the  truth  to  which  we  arrive  by  our  natural  powers 
needs  divine  confirmation  and  authority  when  it  addresses  minds  and  wills 
perverted  by  sin.  (c)  To  break  this  power  of  sin,  and  to  furnish  encourage- 
ment to  moral  effort,  we  need  a  special  revelation  of  the  merciful  and  help- 
ful aspect  of  the  divine  nature. 

(a)  Bremen  Lectures,  72,  73;  Plato,  Second  Alcibiades,  22,  23;  Phsedo,  85  —  \6yov deiou 
tivos.  Iamblicus,  n-epi  toC  TlvdayopcKov  /3iov,  chap.  28.  yEschylus,  in  his  Agamemnon, 
shows  how  completely  reason  and  intuition  failed  to  supply  the  knowledge  of  God 
which  man  needs  :  "  Renown  is  loud,"  he  says,  "and  not  to  lose  one's  senses  is  God's 
greatest  gift.  .  .  .  The  being  praised  outrageously  Is  grave ;  for  at  the  eyes  of  sucli 
a  one  Is  launched,  from  Zeus,  the  thunder-stone.  Therefore  do  I  decide  For  so  muuh 
and  no  more  prosperity  Than  of  his  envy  passes  unespied."  Though  the  gods  might 
have  favorites,  they  did  not  love  men  as  men,  but  rather,  envied  and  hated  them. 
William  James,  Is  Life  Worth  Living  V  in  Internat.  Jour.  Ethics,  Oct.  1895:10  — "Ali 
we  know  of  good  and  beauty  proceeds  from  nature,  but  none  the  less  all  we  know  o*. 
evil.  .  .  .  To  such  a  harlot  we  owe  no  moral  allegiance.  ...  If  there  be  a  divine 
Spirit  of  the  universe,  nature,  such  as  we  know  her,  cannot  po&sibly  be  its  ultimate 
word  to  man.  Either  there  is  no  Spirit  revealed  in  nature,  or  else  it  is  inadequately 
revealed  there;  and,  as  all  the  higher  religious  have  assumed,  what  we  call  visible 
nature,  or  this  world,  must  be  but  a  veil  and  surface-show  whose  full  meaning  resides 
in  a  supplementary  unseen  or  other  world." 

( b )  Vt rsus  Socrates :  Men  will  do  right,  if  they  only  know  the  right.  Pneiderer, 
Philos.  Relig.,  1 :219  —  "  In  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  Socrates  that  badness  rests  upon 
ignorance,  Aristotle  already  called  the  fact  to  mind  that  the  doing  of  the  good  is  not 
always  combined  with  the  knowing  of  it,  seeing  that  it  depends  also  on  the  passions. 
If  badness  consisted  only  in  the  want  of  knowledge,  then  those  who  are  theoretically 

J." 


112  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM   GOD. 

most  cultivated  must  also  be  morally  the  best,  which  no  one  will  venture  to  assert." 
W.  S.  Lilly,  On  Shibboleths :  "Ignorance  is  often  held  to  be  the  root  of  all  evil.  But 
mere  knowledge  cannot  transform  character.  It  cannot  minister  to  a  mind  diseased. 
It  caunot  convert  the  will  from  bad  to  good.  It  may  turn  crime  into  different  channels, 
and  render  it  less  easy  to  detect.  It  does  not  change  man's  natural  propensities  or  his 
disposition  to  gratify  them  at  the  expense  of  others.  Knowledge  makes  the  good  man 
more  powerful  for  good,  the  bad  man  more  powerful  for  evil.  Aud  that  is  all  it  can 
do."  Gore,  Incarnation,  174  —  "  We  must  not  depreciate  the  method  of  argument,  for 
Jesus  and  Paul  occasionally  used  it  in  a  Socratic  fashion,  but  we  must  recognize  that 
it  is  not  the  basis  of  the  Christian  system  nor  the  primary  method  of  Christianity." 
Martineau,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  1:331,531,  and  Types,  1:112  — "Plato  dissolved  the 
idea  of  the  right  into  that  of  the  good,  aud  this  again  was  indistinguishably  mingled 
with  that  of  the  true  and  the  beautiful."    See  also  Flint,  Theism,  305. 

( c )  Versus  Thomas  Paine :  "  Natural  religion  teaches  us,  without  the  possibility  of 
being  mistaken,  all  that  is  necessary  or  proper  to  be  known."  Plato,  Laws,  9 :  854,  c, 
for  substance :  "Be  good;  but,  if  you  cannot,  then  kill  yourself."  Farrar,  Darkness 
and  Dawn,  75—"  Plato  says  that  man  will  never  know  God  until  God  has  revealed  him- 
self in  the  guise  of  suffering  man,  and  that,  when  all  is  on  the  verge  of  destruction, 
God  sees  the  distress  of  the  universe,  and,  placing  himself  at  the  rudder,  restores  it  to 
order."  Prometheus,  the  type  of  humanity,  can  never  be  delivered  "  until  some  god 
descends  for  him  into  the  black  depths  of  Tartarus."  Seneca  in  like  manner  teaches 
that  man  cannot  save  himself.  He  says :  "  Do  you  wonder  that  men  go  to  the  gods  ? 
God  comes  to  men,  yes,  into  men."  We  are  sinful,  and  God's  thoughts  arc  not  as  our 
thoughts,  nor  his  ways  as  our  ways.  Therefore  he  must  make  known  his  thoughts  to 
us,  teach  us  what  we  are,  what  true  love  is,  and  what  will  please  him.  Shaler,  Inter- 
pretation of  Nature,  227—"  The  inculcation  of  moral  truths  can  be  successfully  effected 
only  in  the  personal  way ;  ...  it  demands  the  intlueuce  of  personality ;  .  .  .  the  weight 
of  the  impression  depends  upon  the  voice  and  the  eye  of  a  teacher."  In  other  words, 
we  need  not  only  the  exercise  of  authority,  but  also  the  manifestation  of  love. 

B.  Historical  proof .  —  (a)  The  knowledge  of  moral  and  religious  truth 
possessed  by  nations  and  ages  in  which  special  revelation  is  unknown  is 
grossly  and  increasingly  imperfect,  (b)  Man's  actual  condition  in  ante- 
Christian  times,  and  in  modern  heathen  lands,  is  that  of  extreme  moral 
depravity,  (c)  With  this  depravity  is  found  a  general  conviction  of  help- 
lessness, and  on  the  part  of  some  nobler  natures,  a  longing  after,  and  hope 
of,  aid  from  above. 

Pythagoras  :  "It  is  not  easy  to  know  [duties],  except  men  were  taught  them  by  God 
himself,  or  by  some  person  who  had  received  them  from  God,  or  obtained  the  knowl- 
edge of  them  through  some  divine  means."  Socrates :  "  Wait  with  patience,  till  we  know 
with  certainty  how  we  ought  to  behave  ourselves  toward  God  and  man."  Plato :  "  We 
will  wait  for  one,  be  he  a  God  or  an  inspired  man,  to  instruct  us  in  our  duties  and  to  take 
away  the  darkness  from  our  eyes."  Disciple  of  Plato  :  "  Make  probability  our  raft, 
while  we  sail  through  life,  unless  we  could  have  a  more  sure  and  safe  conveyance,  such 
as  some  divine  communication  would  be."  Plato  thanked  God  for  three  things :  fust, 
that  he  was  born  a  rational  soul;  secondly,  that  he  was  born  a  Greek;  and,  thirdly, 
that  he  lived  in  the  days  of  Socrates.  Yet,  with  all  these  advantages,  lie  had  only  prob- 
ability for  a  raft,  on  which  to  navigate  strange  seas  of  thought  far  beyond  his  depth, 
and  he  longed  for  "  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy  "  (2  Pet.  1:19).  See  references  and  quotations 
in  Peabody,  Christianity  the  Religion  of  Nature,  35,  and  in  Luthardt,  Fundamental 
Truths,  150-172,  335-338 ;  Farrar,  Seekers  after  God ;  Garbett,  Dogmatic  Faith,  187. 

2.  Presumption  of  siqiply.  What  we  know  of  God,  by  nature,  affords 
ground  for  hope  that  these  wants  of  our  intellectual  aud  moral  being  will  be 
met  by  a  corresponding  supply,  in  the  shape  of  a  special  divine  revelation. 
We  argue  this  : 

(«)  From  our  necessary  conviction  of  God's  wisdom.  Having  made 
man  a  spiritual  being,  for  spiritual  ends,  it  may  be  hoped  that  he  will  furnish 
the  means  needed  to  secure  these  ends.     ( b )  From  the  actual,  though  incom- 


REASONS  A   PRIORI  FOR  EXPECTING   REVELATION.  113 

plete,  revelation  already  given  in  nature.  Since  God  has  actually  under- 
taken to  make  himself  known  to  men,  we  may  hope  that  he  will  finish  the 
work  he  has  begun.  ( c  )  From  the  general  connection  of  want  and  supply. 
The  higher  our  needs,  the  more  intricate  and  ingenious  are,  in  general,  the 
contrivances  for  meeting  them.  We  may  therefore  hope  that  the  highest 
want  will  be  all  the  more  surely  met.  (d)  From  analogies  of  nature  and 
history.  Signs  of  reparative  go<  »dnesa  in  nature  and  of  forbearance  in  provi- 
dential dealings  lead  us  to  hope  that,  while  justice  is  executed,  God  may 
still  make  known  some  way  of  restoration  for  sinners. 

(a)  There  were  two  stages  in  Dr.  John  Duncan's  escape  from  pantheism:  1.  when  he 
cume  first  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  God,  and  "danced  for  joy  upon  the  brig  o' 
Dee"  ;  and  2.  when,  under  Malan's  influence,  he  came  also  to  believe  that  "  God  meant 
that  we  should  know  him."  In  the  story  in  the  old  Village  Reader,  t  he  mother  broke 
completely  down  when  she  found  that  her  son  was  likely  to  grow  ud  stupid,  but  her 
tears  conquered  him  and  made  him  intelligent.  Laura  Bridgman  was  blind  deaf  and 
dumb,  and  had  but  small  sense  of  taste  or  smell.  When  her  mother,  after  long- separa- 
tion, went  to  her  in  Boston,  the  mot  tier's  heart  was  in  distress  lest  the  daughter  should 
not  recognize  her.  When  at  last,  by  some  peculiar  mother's  sign,  she  pierced  t  he  ve\] 
of  insensibility,  it  was  a  glad  time  for  both.  So  God,  our  Father,  tries  to  i-eveal  himself 
to  our  blind,  deaf  and  dumb  souls.  The  agony  of  the  Cross  is  the  sign  of  Cod's  distress 
over  the  insensibility  of  humanity  which  sin  has  caused.  If  he  is  the  Maker  of  mans 
being,  he  will  surely  seek  to  lit  it  for  that  communion  with  himself  for  which  it  was 
designed. 

(b)  Gore,  Iucarnatiou,  52,  53— "Nature  is  a  first  volume,  in  itself  incomplete,  and 
demanding  a  second  volume,  which  is  Christ."  (c)  R.  T.  Smith,  Man's  Knowledge  of 
Man  and  of  God,  838—"  Mendicants  do  not  ply  their  calling  for  years  in  a  desert  where 
there  arc  no  jiv -rs.  Enough  of  supply  has  been  received  to  keep  the  sense  of  want 
alive."  (d)  In  the  natural  arrangements  for  the  healing  of  bruises  in  plants  and  for 
the  mending  of  broken  bones  in  the  animal  creatii  in,  in  the  provision  of  remedial  agents 
for  the  oure  cf  human  diseases,  and  especially  in  the  delay  to  inflict  punishment  upon 
the  transgressor  and  the  space  given  him  for  repentance,  we  have  some  indications 
which,  if  uncontradicted  by  other  evidence,  might  lead  us  to  regard  the  God  of  nature 
as  a  God  of  forbearance  and  mercy.  Plutarch's  treatise  "  De  Sera  Numinia  Vindieta  "  is 
proof  that  this  thought  had  occurred  to  the  heathen.  It  may  be  doubted  indeed 
whether  a  heathen  religion  could  even  continue  to  exist,  without  embracing  in  it  some 
element  of  hope.  Yet  this  very  delay  in  the  execution  of  the  diviue  judgments  gave 
its  own  occasion  for  doubting  the  existence  of  a  God  who  was  both  good  and  just 
"Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold,  Wrong  forever  on  the  throne,"  is  a  scandal  to  the 
divine  government  which  only  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  can  fully  remove. 

The  problem  presents  itself  also  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  Job  21,  and  in  Psalms,  17  37  49 
73,  there  are  partial  answers  ;  see  Job  21 :  7—  "  Wherefore  do  the  wicked  live,  Become  old,  yea,  wai  mighty 
in  power  ?  "  24 :  1  —  "  Why  are  not  judgment  times  determined  by  the  Almighty  ?  And  they  that  know  him,  why 
see  they  not  his  days?  "  The  New  Testament  intimates  the  existence  of  a  witness  to  God's 
goodness  among  the  heathen,  while  at  the  same  time  it  declares  that  the  full  knowledge 
of  forgiveness  and  salvation  is  brought  only  by  Christ.  Compare  Acts  14 :  17—  "  And  yet  he 
left  not  himself  without  witness,  in  that  he  did  good,  and  gave  you  from  heaven  rains  and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  your 
hearts  with  food  and  gladness  "  ;  17 :  25-27  —  "  he  himself  giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things ;  and  he  made 
of  one  every  nation  of  men  .  .  .  that  they  should  seek  God,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him  and  find  him  "  •  Rom 
2  :  4  —  "  ihe  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance  "  ;  3  :  25  —  "  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in 
the  forbearance  of  God"  ;  Eph.  3  :  9  —  "  to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  dispensation  of  the  mystery  which  for  ages 
hath  been  hid  in  God"  ;  2  Tim.  1:10  —  "our  Savior  Christ  Jesus,  who  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  incorrup- 
tion  to  light  through  the  gospel."  See  Hackett's  edition  of  the  treatise  of  Plutarch,  as  also 
Bowen,  Metaph.  and  Ethics,  462-487  ;  Diinan,  Theistic  Argument,  371. 

We  conclude  this  section  upon  the  reasons  a  priori  for  expecting  a 

revelation  from  God  with  the  acknowledgment  that  the  facts  wan-ant  that 

degree  of  expectation  which  we  call  hope,  rather  than  that  larger  degree 

of  expectation  which  we  call  assurance ;  and  this,  for  the  reason  that,  while 

8 


114  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

conscience  gives  proof  that  God  is  a  God  of  holiness,  we  have  not,  from  the 
light  of  nature,  equal  evidence  that  God  is  a  God  of  love.  Reason  teaches 
man  that,  as  a  sinner,  he  merits  condemnation  ;  hut  he  cannot,  from  reason 
alone,  know  that  God  will  have  mercy  upon  him  and  provide  salvation. 
His  douhts  can  be  removed  only  by  God's  own  voice,  assuring  him  of 
"redemption  .  .  .  the  forgiveness  of  .  .  .  trespasses"  (Eph.  1:7)  and 
revealing  to  him  the  way  in  which  that  forgiveness  has  been  rendered  possible. 

Conscience  knows  no  pardon,  and  no  Savior.  Hovey,  Manual  of  Christian  Theology,  9, 
seems  to  us  to  go  too  far  when  he  says  ■  "  Even  natural  affection  and  conscience  afford 
some  clue  to  the  goodness  and  holiness  of  God,  though  much  more  is  needed  by  one 
who  undertakes  the  study  of  Christian  theology."  We  grant  that  natural  affection 
gives  some  clue  to  God's  goodness,  but  we  regard  conscience  as  reflecting  only  God's 
holiness  and  his  hatred  of  sin.  We  agree  with  Alexander  McLaren :  "  Does  God's  love 
need  to  be  proved  ?  Yes,  as  all  paganism  shows.  G  ods  vicious,  gods  careless,  gods  cruel, 
gods  beautiful,  there  are  in  abundance  ;  but  where  is  there  a  god  who  loves?  " 

II.     Marks  of  the  Revelation  man  may  expect. 

1.  vis  to  its  substance.  We  may  expect  this  later  revelation  not  to  con- 
tradict, but  to  confirm  and  enlarge,  the  knowledge  of  God  which  we  derive 
from  nature,  while  it  remedies  the  defects  of  natural  religion  and  throws 
light  upon  its  problems. 

Isaiah's  appeal  is  to  God's  previous  communications  of  t  ruth :  Is.  8 :  20  —  "  To  the  law  and  to 

the  testimony !  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  surely  then  is  no  morning  for  them."  And  Malachi 
follows  the  example  of  Isaiah ;  Mai.  4:4  —  "  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant."  Our  L,< >rd 
himself  based  his  claims  upon  the  former  utterances  of  God :  Luke  24  :  27  — "beginning  from 
Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself." 

2.  As  to  its  method.  We  may  expect  it  to  follow  God's  methods  of 
procedure  in  other  communications  of  truth. 

Bishop  Butler  ( Analogy,  part  ii,  chap,  iii )  has  denied  that  there  is  any  possibility  of 
judging  a  priori  how  a  divine  revelation  will  be  given,  "  We  are  in  no  sort  judges 
beforehand,"  he  says,  "by  what  methods,  or  in  what  proportion,  it  were  to  be  expected 
that  this  supernatural  light  and  instruction  would  be  afforded  us."  But  Bishop  Butler 
somewhat  later  in  his  great  work  (  part  ii,  chap,  iv)  shows  that  God's  progressive  plan  in 
revelation  has  its  analogy  in  the  slow,  successive  steps  by  which  God  accomplishes  his 
ends  in  nature.  We  maintain  that  the  revelation  in  nat  ure  affords  certain  presumptions 
with  regard  to  the  revelation  of  grace,  such  for  example  as  those  mentioned  below. 

Leslie  Stephen,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Feb.  18'Jl:  180  —  "Butler  answered  the  argu- 
ment of  the  deists,  that  the  God  of  Christianity  was  unjust,  by  arguing  that  the  God  of 
nature  was  equally  unjust.  James  Mill,  admitting  the  analogy,  refused  to  believe  in 
either  God.  Dr.  Martiueau  has  said,  for  similar  reasons,  that  Butler  '  wrote  one  of  the 
most  terrible  persuasives  to  atheism  ever  produced.'  So  J.  H.  Newman's  '  kill  or  cure ' 
argument  is  essentially  that  God  has  either  revealed  nothing,  or  has  made  revelations  in 
some  other  places  than  in  the  Bible.  His  argument,  like  Butler's,  may  be  as  good  a 
persuasive  to  scepticism  as  to  belief."  To  this  indictment  by  Leslie  Stephen  we  reply 
that  it  has  cogency  only  so  long  as  we  ignore  the  fact  of  human  sin.  Granting  this  fact, 
our  world  becomes  a  world  of  discipline,  probation  and  redemption,  and  both  the  God 
of  nature  and  the  God  of  Christianity  are  cleared  from  all  suspicion  of  injustice.  The 
analogy  between  God's  methods  in  the  Christian  system  and  his  methods  in  nature 
becomes  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  former. 

(  a )  That  of  continuous  historical  development,  — that  it  will  be  given 
in  germ  to  early  ages,  and  will  be  more  fully  unfolded  as  the  race  is  pre- 
pared to  receive  it. 

Instances  of  continuous  development  in  God's  impartations  are  found  in  geological 
history  ;  in  the  growth  of  the  sciences ;  in  the  progressive  education  of  the  individual 


MARKS    OF   THE    REVELATION   MAN   MAY    EXPECT.  115 

and  of  the  race.  No  other  religion  but  Christianity  shows  "  a  steady  historical  progress 
of  the  vision  of  one  infinite  Character  unfolding-  itself  to  man  through  a  period  of 
many  centuries."  Sec  sermon  by  Dr.  Tt,-mplc,  on  the  Education  of  the  World,  in  Essays 
and  Reviews;  Rogers,  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  371  384;  Walker,  Philosophy 
of  the  Plan  of  Salvation.  On  the  gradualness  of  revelation,  Bee  Fisher,  Nature  and 
Method  of  Revelation,  46-86 :  Arthur  H.  Hallain,  in  John  Brown's  Rah  and  his  Friends, 
382 — "Revelation  is  a  gradual  approximation  of  the  infinite  Being  to  the  ways  ami 
thoughts  of  finite  humanity."  A  little  tire  can  kindle  a  city  or  a  world;  but  ten  times 
the  heat  of  that  little  lire,  if  widely  diffused,  would  not  kindle  anything. 

( b  )  That  of  original  delivery  to  a  single  nation,  and  to  single  persons 
in  that  nation,  that  it  may  through  them  be  communicated  to  mankind. 

Each  nation  represents  an  idea.  As  the  Greek  had  a  genius  for  liberty  and  beauty, 
and  the  Roman  a  genius  for  organization  and  law,  so  the  Hebrew  nation  had  a  "gen- 
ius for  religion  "  |  Kenan  )  ;  this  last,  however,  would  have  been  useless  without  special 
divine  aid  and  superintendence,  as  witness  other  productions  of  this  same  Semitic  race, 
such  as  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha;  the  gospels  of  the  Apoc- 
ryphal New  Testament  ;  and  later  still,  the  Talmud  and  the  Koran. 

The  O.  T.  Apocrypha  relates  that,  when  Daniel  was  thrown  a  second  time  into  the 
lions' den,  an  angel  seized  Habbakuk  in  Judea  by  the  hair  of  his  head  and  carried  him 
with  a  bowl  of  pottage  to  give  to  Daniel  for  his  dinner.  There  were  seven  lions,  and 
Daniel  was  among  them  seven  days  and  nights.  Tobias  starts  from  his  father's  house 
to  secure  his  inheritance,  and  his  little  dog  goes  witli  him.  On  the  banks  of  the  great 
riyer  a  great  Bah  threatens  to  devour  him,  but  he  captures  and  despoils  the  fish.  He 
finally  returns  successful  to  his  father's  house,  and  his  little  dog  goes  in  with  him.  Iu 
the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  Jesus  carries  water  in  his  mantle  when  his  pitcher  is  broken  : 
makes   clay  birds  on  the  Sabbath,  and,  when  rebuked,  causes  them  to  fly;  strikes   a 

youthful  companion  with  death,  and  then  curses  his  accusers  with  blindness;  mocks 
his  teachers,  and  resents  control.  Later  .Moslem  legends  declare  that  Mohammed 
caused  darkness  at  noon;  whereupon  the  moon  Hew  to  him,  went  Seven  times  around 
the  Kaflba,  bowed,  entered  his  right  sleeve,  splil  into  two  halves  after  slipping  out  at 
the  left,  and  the  two  halves,  alter  retiring  to  the  ext  reme  east  and  west,  were  reunited. 
These  products  of  the  Semitic  race  show  that  neither  the  influence  of  environment  nor 
a  native  genius  for  religion  furnishes  an  adequate  explanation  of  our  Scriptures.  As 
the  flame  on  Elijah's  altar  was  caused,  not  by  the  dead  sticks,  but  by  the  tire  from  heaven, 
so  only  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  can  explain  the  unique  revelation  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments. 

The  Hebrews  saw  God  in  conscience.  For  the  most  genuine  expression  of  their  life 
we  "must  look  beneath  the  surface,  in  the  soul,  where  worship  and  aspiration  and 
prophetic  faith  come  face  to  face  with  God"  (Genung,  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life,  28). 
But  the  Hebrew  religion  needed  to  be  supplemented  by  the  sight  of  God  in  reason,  aud 
iu  the  beauty  of  the  world.  The  Greeks  had  the  love  of  knowledge,  and  the  aesthetic 
sense.  Butcher,  Aspects  of  the  Greek  Genius,  31 — "  The  Phoenicians  taught  the  Greeks 
how  to  write,  but  it  was  the  Greeks  who  wrote."  Aristotle  was  the  beginner  of  science, 
and  outside  the  Aryan  race  none  but  the  Saracens  ever  felt  the  scientific  impulse. 
But  the  Greek  made  his  problem  clear  by  striking  all  the  unkuown  quantities  out  of  it. 
Greek  thought  would  never  have  gained  universal  currency  and  permanence  if  it  had 
not  beeu  for  Roman  jurisprudence  and  imperialism.  England  has  contributed  her 
constitutional  government,  and  America  her  manhood  suffrage  and  her  religious  free- 
dom. So  a  definite  thought  of  God  is  incorporated  iu  each  nation,  and  each  uation  has 
a  message  to  every  other.  Acts  17:  26  —  God  "  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth,  having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  "  ;  Rom.  3 :  12 —  "  What  advan- 
tage then  hath  the  Jew?  .  .  .  first  of  all,  that  they  were  entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God."  God's  choice 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  as  the  repository  aud  communicator  of  religious  truth,  is  analo- 
gous to  his  choice  of  other  nations,  as  the  repositories  and  communicators  of  aesthetic, 
scientific,  governmental  truth. 

Hegel:  "No  nation  that  has  played  a  weighty  and  active  -part  in  the  world's  history 
has  ever  issued  from  the  simple  development  of  a  single  race  along  the  unmodified 
lines  of  blood-relationship.  There  must  be  differences,  conflicts,  a  composition  of 
opposed  forces."  The  conscience  of  the  Hebrew,  the  thought  of  the  Greek,  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Latin,  the  personal  loyalty  of  the  Teuton,  must  all  be  united  to  form  a 
I>erfect  whole.    "  While  the  Greek  church  was  orthodox,  the  Latin  church  was  Catholic ; 


116  THE  SCRIPTURES  A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

while  the  Greek  treated  of  the  two  wills  in  Christ,  the  Latin  treated  of  the  harmony 
of  our  wills  with  God;  while  the  Latin  saved  through  a  corporation,  the  Teuton 
saved  through  personal  faith."  Brereton,  in  Educational  Review,  Nov.  1901 :  339— 
"  The  problem  of  France  is  that  of  the  religious  orders ;  that  of  Germany,  the  construc- 
tion of  society;  that  of  America,  capital  and  labor."  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1: 
183, 181  — "Great  ideas  never  come  from  the  masses,  but  from  marked  individuals. 
These  ideas,  when  propounded,  however,  awaken  an  echo  in  the  masses,  which  shows 
that  the  ideas  had  been  slumbering-  unconsciously  in  the  souls  of  others."  The  hour 
strikes,  and  a  Newton  appears,  who  interprets  God's  will  in  nature.  So  the  hour 
strikes,  and  a  Moses  or  a  Paul  appears,  who  interprets  God's  will  in  morals  and  religion. 
The  few  grains  of  wheat  found  in  the  clasped  hand  of  the  Egyptian  mummy  would 
have  been  utterly  lost  if  one  grain  had  been  sown  in  Europe,  a  second  in  Asia,  a  third 
in  Africa,  and  a  fourth  in  America ;  all  being  planted  together  in  a  flower-pot,  and 
their  product  in  a  garden-bed,  and  the  still  later  fruit  in  a  farmer's  field,  there  came  at 
last  to  be  a  sufficient  crop  of  new  Mediterranean  wheat  to  distribute  to  all  the  world. 
So  God  followed  his  ordinary  method  in  giving  religious  truth  first  to  a  single  nation 
and  to  chosen  individuals  in  that  nation,  that  through  them  it  might  be  given  to  all 
mankind.    See  British  Quarterly,  Jan.  1874:  art. :  Inductive  Theology. 

(  c )  That  of  preservation  in  written  and  accessible  documents,  handed 
down  from  those  to  whom  the  revelation  is  first  communicated. 

Alphabets,  writing,  books,  are  our  chief  dependence  for  the  history  of  the  past ;  all 
the  great  religions  of  the  world  are  book-religions ;  the  Karens  expected  their  teachers 
in  the  new  religion  to  bring  to  them  a  book.  But  notice  that  false  religions  have 
scriptures,  but  not  Scripture ;  their  sacred  books  lack  the  principle  of  unity  which  is 
furnished  by  divine  inspiration.  H.  P.  Smith,  Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  68 
—  "Mohammed  discovered  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Jews  were  the  source  of  their 
religion.  He  called  them  a  '  book-people,'  and  endeavored  to  construct  a  similar  code 
for  his  disciples.  In  it  God  is  the  only  speaker ;  all  its  contents  are  made  known  to  the 
prophet  by  direct  revelation ;  its  Arabic  style  is  perfect ;  its  text  is  incorruptible ;  it  is 
absolute  authority  in  law,  science  and  history."  The  Koran  is  a  grotesque  human  par- 
ody of  the  Bible;  its  exaggerated  pretensions  of  divinity,  indeed,  are  the  best  proof 
that  it  is  of  purely  human  origin.  Scripture,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  no  such  claims 
for  itself,  but  points  to  Christ  as  the  sole  and  final  authority.  In  this  sense  we  may  say 
with  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  20— "Christianity  is  not  a  book-religion,  but  a  life- 
religion.  The  Bible  does  not  give  us  Christ,  but  Christ  gives  us  the  Bible."  Still  it  is  true 
that  for  our  knowledge  of  Christ  we  are  almost  wholly  dependent  upon  Scripture.  In 
giving  his  revelation  to  the  world,  God  has  followed  his  ordinary  method  of  communi- 
cating and  preserving  truth  by  means  of  written  documents.  Recent  investigations, 
however,  now  render  it  probable  that  the  Karen  expectation  of  a  book  was  the  sur- 
vival of  the  teaching  of  the  Nestorian  missionaries,  who  as  early  as  the  eighth  century 
penetrated  the  remotest  parts  of  Asia,  and  left  in  the  wall  of  the  city  of  Singwadu  in 
Northwestern  China  a  tablet  as  a  monument  of  their  labors.  On  book-revelation,  see 
Rogers,  Eclipse  of  Faith,  73-96,  381-301. 

3.  As  to  its  attestation.  We  may  expect  that  this  revelation  will  be 
accompanied  by  evidence  that  its  author  is  the  same  being  whom  we  have 
previously  recognized  as  God  of  nature.  This  evidence  must  constitute  (a) 
a  manifestation  of  God  himself ;  (/;)  in  the  outward  as  well  as  the  inward 
world  ;  ( C  )  such  as  only  God's  power  or  knowledge  can  make  ;  and  (  d  )  such 
as  cannot  be  counterfeited  by  the  evil,  or  mistaken  by  the  candid,  soul. 
In  short,  we  may  expect  God  to  attest  by  miracles  and  by  prophecy,  the 
divine  mission  and  authority  of  those  to  whom  he  communicates  a  revelation. 
Some  such  outward  sign  would  seem  to  be  necessary,  not  only  to  assure 
the  original  recipient  that  the  supposed  revelation  is  not  a  vagary  of  his 
own  imagination,  but  also  to  render  the  revelation  received  by  a  single 
individual  authoritative  to  all  ( compare  Judges  6  :  17,  36-40  —  Gideon 
asks  a  sign,  for  himself  ;  1  K.  18 :  36-38  —  Elijah  asks  a  sign,  for. others). 


MIRACLES  AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  117 

Bat  in  order  that  our  positive  proof  of  a  divine  revelation  may  not  be 
embarrassed  by  the  suspicion  that  the  miraculous  and  prophetic  elements 
in  the  Scripture  .history  create  a  presumption  against  its  credibility,  it  will 
be  desirable  to  take  up  at  this  point  the  general  subject  of  miracles  and 
prophecy. 

III.     Miracles,  as  attesting  a  Divine  Kevelation. 

1.     Definition  of  Miracle. 

A.  Preliminary  Definition.  —  A  miracle  is  an  event  palpable  to  the 
senses,  produced  for  a  religious  purpose  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God  ; 
au  event  therefore  which,  though  not  contravening  any  law  of  nature,  the 
laws  of  nature,  if  fully  known,  would  not  without  this  agency  of  God  be 
competent  to  explain. 

This  definition  corrects  several  erroneous  conceptions  of  the  miracle  :  — 
(«)  A  miracle  is  not  a  suspension  or  violation  of  natural  law;  since 
natural  law  is  in  operation  at  the  time  of  the  miracle  just  as  much  as  before. 
(b)  A  miracle  is  Hot  a  sudden  product  of  natural  agencies— a  product 
merely  foreseen,  by  him  who  appears  to  work  it ;  it  is  the  effect  of  a  will 
outside  of  nature,  (c)  A  miracle  is  not  an  event  without  a  cause  ;  since 
it  has  for  its  cause  a  direct  volition  of  God.  (d)  A  miracle  is  not  an 
irrational  or  capricious  act  of  God ;  but  an  act  of  wisdom,  performed  in 
accordance  with  the  immutable  laws  of  his  being,  so  that  in  the  same  cir- 
cumstances the  same  course  would  be  again  pursued.  (  <  )  A  miracle  is  not 
contrary  to  experience  ;  since  it  is  not  contrary  to  experience  for  a  new 
cause  to  be  followed  by  a  new  effect.  (/)  A  miracle  is  not  a  matter  of 
internal  experience,  like  regeneration  or  illumination  ;  but  is  an  event  pal- 
pable to  the  sens: 's,  which  may  serve  as  an  objective  proof  to  all  that  the 
worker  of  it  is  divinely  coin  missioned  as  a  religious  teacher. 

For  various  definitions  of  miracles,  see  Alexander,  Christ  :n id  Christianity,  302.  On 
the  whole  subject,  see  Mozley,  Miracles;  Christlieb,  Mud.  Doubt  and  Christ.  Belief,  285- 
339;  Fisher,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Nov.  1880,  and  Jan.  1881;  A.  H.  Strong-,  Philosophy  and 
Religion,  129-147,  and  in  Baptist  Review,  April,  1879.  The  definition  given  above  is 
intended  simply  as  a  definition  Of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  or,  in  other  words,  of 
the  events  which  profess  t<>  attest  a  dft  ine  revelation  in  the  Scriptures.  The  New  Tes- 
tament designates  these  events  in  a  two-fold  way,  viewing  them  either  subjectively, 
as  producing  effects  upon  men,  or  objectively,  as  revealing  the  power  and  wisdom  of 
God.  In  the  former  aspect  they  are  called  Te'para,  'wonders,'  and  or^cla  'signs,'  ( John4:  48; 
Acts  2:  22).  In  the  latter  aspect  they  are  called Swa/iets,  'powers,'  and  epya,  '  works,' (  Mat.  7: 
22;  John  14:  11).  See  H.  B.  Smith,  Lect.  on  Apologetics,  90-110,  esp.  94—  "aijp.eioi',  sign, 
marking  the  purpose  or  object,  the  moral  end,  placing  the  event  in  connection  with 
revelation."  The  Bible  Union  Version  uniformly  and  properly  renders  Tepas  by  'wonder,' 
8uva/ous  by  'miracle,'  epyor  by  '  work,'  and  crrjjueioi'  by  'sign.'  Goethe,  Faust :  "  Alles  VergSng- 
liche  ist  nur  ein  Gleichniss  :  Das  Unzulangliche  wird  hier  Ertigniss  "—"  Everything 
transitory  is  but  a  parable;  The  unattainable  appears  assoiid  fact."  So  the  miracles 
of  the  New  Testament  are  acted  parables,— Christ  opens  the  eyes  of  the  blind  to  show 
that  he  is  the  Light  of  the  world,  multiplies  the  loaves  to  show  that  he  is  the  Bread  of 
Life,  and  raises  the  dead  to  show  that  he  lifts  men  up  from  the  death  of  trespasses  and 
sins.    Sec  Broadus  on  Matthew,  175. 

A  modification  of  this  definition  of  the  miracle,  however,  is  demanded  by  a  large  class 
of  Christian  physicists,  in  the  supposed  interest  of  natm-al  law.  Such  a  modification  is 
proposed  by  Babbage,  in  the  Ninth  Bridgewater  Treatise,  chap.  viii.  Babbage  illus- 
trates the  miracle  by  the  action  of  his  calculating  machine,  which  would  present  to  the 
observer  in  regular  succession  the  series  of  units  from  one  to  ten  million,  but  which 
would  then  make  a  leap  and  show,  not  ten  million  and  one, but  a  hundred  million; 


118  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   PROM   GOD. 

Ephraim  Peabody  illustrates  the  miracle  from  the  cathedral  clock  which  strikes  only 
once  in  a  hundred  years ;  yet  both  these  results  are  due  simply  tothe  original  construc- 
tion of  the  respective  machines.  Bonnet  held  this  view ;  see  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  1 : 
591,  592;  Eng.  translation,  2  :  155, 156;  so  Matthew  Arnold,  quoted  in, Bruce,  Miraculous 
Element  in  Gospels,  53 ;  see  also  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  129-147.  Babbage 
and  Peabody  would  deny  that  the  miracle  is  due  to  the  direct  and  immediate  agency  of 
God,  aud  would  regard  it  as  belonging  to  a  higher  order  of  nature.  God  is  the  author 
of  the  miracle  only  in  the  sense  that  he  instituted  the  laws  of  nature  at  the  beginning 
and  provided  that  at  the  appropriate  time  miracle  should  be  their  outcome.  In  favor 
of  this  view  it  has  been  claimed  that  it  does  not  dispense  with  the  divine  working,  but 
only  puts  it  further  back  at  the  origination  of  the  system,  while  it  still  holds  God's 
work  to  be  essential,  not  only  to  the  upholding  of  the  system,  but  also  to  the  inspiring 
of  the  religious  teacher  or  leader  with  the  knowledge  needed  to  predict  the  unusual 
working  of  the  system.  The  wonder  is  confined  to  the  prophecy,  which  may  equally 
attest  a  divine  revelation.    See  Matheson,  in  Christianity  and  Evolution,  1-26. 

But  it  is  plain  that  a  miracle  of  this  sort  lacks  to  a  large  degree  the  element  of  'sig- 
nality'  which  is  needed,  if  it  is  to  accomplish  its  purpose.  It  surrenders  the  great 
advantage  which  miracle,  as  first  denned,  possessed  over  special  providence,  as  an  attes- 
tation of  revelation— the  advantage,  namely,  that  while  special  providence  affordsso»ie 
warrant  that  this  revelation  comes  from  God,  miracle  gives  full  warrant  that  it  comes 
from  God.  Since  man  may  by  natural  means  possess  himself  of  the  knowledge  of 
physical  laws,  the  true  miracle  which  God  works,  and  the  pretended  miracle  which  only 
man  works,  are  upon  this  theory  far  less  easy  to  distinguish  from  each  other :  Cortez, 
for  example,  could  deceive  Montezuma  by  predicting  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  Certain 
typical  miracles, like  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  refuse  to  be  classed  as  events  within 
the  realm  of  nature,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term  natux-e  is  ordinarily  used.  Our 
Lord,  moreover,  seems  clearly  to  exclude  such  a  theory  as  this,  when  he  says:  "If  I  by 
the  finger  of  God  cast  out  demons  "  (  Luke  11 :  20 ) ;  Mark  1 :  41 — "I  -ill ;  be  thou  made  clean."  The  view  of 
Babbage  is  inadequate,  not  only  because  it  fails  to  recognize  an5r  immediate  exercise 
of  will  in  the  miracle,  but  because  it  regards  nature  as  a  mere  machine  which  can  ope- 
rate apart  from  God  —  a  purely  deistic  method  of  conception.  On  this  view,  many  of 
the  products  of  mere  natural  law  might  be  called  miracles.  The  miracle  would  be  only 
the  occasional  manifestation  of  a  higher  order  of  nature,  like  the  comet  occasionally 
invading  the  solar  system.  William  Elder,  Ideas  from  Nature:  "The  century-plant 
which  we  have  seen  growing  from  our  childhood  may  not  unfold  its  blossoms  until  our 
old  age  comes  upon  us,  but  the  sudden  wonder  is  natural  notwithstanding.''  If,  how- 
ever, we  interpret  nature  dynamically,  rather  than  mechanically,  and  regard  it  as  the 
regular  working  of  the  divine  will  instead  of  the  automatic  operation  of  a  machine, 
there  is  much  in  this  view  which  we  may  adopt.  Miracle  may  be  both  natural  and 
supernatural.  We  may  hold,  with  Babbage,  that  it  has  natural  antecedents,  while  at 
the  same  time  we  hold  that  it  is  produced  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God.  Wo  pro- 
ceed therefore  to  an  alternative  and  preferable  definition,  which  in  our  judgment 
combines  the  merits  of  both  that  have  been  mentioned.  On  miracles  as  already 
denned,  see  Mozley,  Miracles,  preface,  ix-xxvi,  7, 143-160;  Bushnell,  Nature  and  Super- 
natural, 333-336;  Smith's  and  Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible,  art.:  Miracles;  Abp.  Temple, 
Bamptou  Lectures  for  1884: 193-221 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  1:541,  542. 

B.  Alternative  and  Preferable  Definition.  —  A  miracle  is  an  event  in 
nature,  so  extraordinary  in  itself  and  so  coinciding  with  the  prophecy  or 
command  of  a  religious  teacher  or  leader,  as  fully  to  warrant  the  con- 
viction, on  the  part  of  those  who  witness  it,  that  God  has  wrought  it  with 
the  design  of  certifying  that  this  teacher  or  leader  has  been  commissioned 
by  him. 

This  definition  has  certain  marked  advantages  as  compared  with  the  pre- 
liminary definition  given  above  :  —  ( a )  It  recognizes  the  immanence  of 
God  and  his  immediate  agency  in  nature,  instead  of  assuming  an  antithesis 
between  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  will  of  God.  (  b )  It  regards  the  mira- 
cle as  simply  an  extraordinary  act  of  that  same  God  who  is  already  present 
in  all  natural  operations  and  who  in  them  is  revealing  his  general  plan. 


MIRACLES   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION".  119 

(e)  It  holds  that  natural  law,  as  the  method  of  God's  regular  activity,  in 
no  way  precludes  nnique  exertions  of  his  power  when  these  will  Lest  secure 
his  purpose  in  creation,  (d)  If  leaves  it  possible  that  all  miracles  may 
have  their  natural  explanations  and  may  hereafter  be  traced  to  natural 
causes,  while  both  miracles  and  their  natural  causes  may  be  only  names 
for  the  one  and  self-same  will  of  God.  (e)  It  reconciles  the  claims  of 
both  science  and  religion  :  of  science,  by  permitting  any  possible  or  prob- 
able physical  antecedents  of  the  miracle;  of  religion,  by  maintaining  that 
these  very  antecedents  together  with  the  miracle  itself  are  to  be  interpreted 
as  signs  of  God's  special  commission  to  him  under  whose  teaching  or 
leadership  the  miracle  is  wrought. 

Augustine,  who  declares  that  "  Dei  voluntas  rerum  natura  est,"  defines  the  miracle 
in  De  Civitate  Dei,  21 :8—  "Portentum  ergo  fit  non  contra  naturam,  sed  contra  quam 
est  nota  natura."  He  says  also  that  a  birth  is  more  miraculous  than  a  resurrection, 
because  it  is  more  wonderful  that  something  that  never  was  should  begin  to  be,  than 
that  something  that  was  and  ceased  to  be  should  begin  again.  E.  (I.  Robinson,  Christ. 
Theology,  101  —  '*  The  natural  is  God's  work.  He  originated  it.  There  is  no  separation 
between  the  natural  anrl  the  supernatural.  The  natural  is  supernatural.  God  works 
in  everything.  Every  end,  even  though  attained  by  mechanical  means,  is  God's  end 
as  truly  as  if  he  wrought  by  miracle."  Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  ill,  regards 
miracle  as  something  exceptional,  ye(  under  the  control  of  natural  law;  the  latent  in 
nature  suddenly  manifesting  itself;  the  revolution  resulting  from  the  slow  accumula- 
tion of  natural  forces.  In  the  Windsor  Hotel  fire,  the  heated  and  charred  woodwork 
suddenly  burst  into  flame.  Flame  is  very  different  from  mere  heat,  but  it  may  be  the 
result  of  a  regularly  rising  temperature.  Nat  ore  may  be  God's  regular  action,  miracle 
its  unique  result.  God's  regular  action  may  l>e  entirely  free,  and  yet  its  extraordinary 
result  may  be  entirely  natural.  With  these  qualifications  and  explanations, ire  may- 
adopt  the  statement  of  Etiedermann,  Dogmatik,  581-591  — "Everything  is  miracle,— 
therefore  faith  sees  God  everywhere  ;  Nothing  is  miracle, —  therefore  science  sees  God 
nowhere." 

Miracles  are  never  considered  by  the  Scripture  writers  as  infractions  of  law.  Bp. 
Southampton,  Place  of  Miracles,  18—"  The  Hebrew  historian  or  prophet  regarded  mir- 
aclesas  only  the  emergence  into  sensible  experience  of  that  divine  force  which  was  all 
along,  though  invisibly,  controlling  the  course  of  nature."  Hastings,  Bible  Dictionary, 
4  :  117  — "The  force  of  a  miracle  to  us,  arising  from  our  notion  of  law,  would  not  be  felt 
by  a  Hebrew,  because  he  had  no  notion  of  natural  law."  Ps.  77:19,  20  — "Thy  way  was  in  the 
sea,  And  thy  paths  in  the  great  waters,  And  thy  footsteps  were  not  known  "  =  They  knew  not,  and  we 
know  not,  by  what  precise  means  the  deliverance  was  wrought,  or  by  what  precise  track 
the  passage  through  the  Red  Sea  was  effected  ;  all  we  know  is  that  "  Thou  leddest  thy  people 
like  a  flock,  By  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron."  J.  M.  Whiton,  Miracle-  and  Supernatural  Religion: 
"The  supernatural  is  in  nature  itself,  at  its  very  heart,  at  its  very  life;  .  .  .  not  an 
outside  power  interfering  with  the  course  of  nature,  but  an  inside  power  vitalizing 
nature  and  operating  through  it."  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  3d—  "Mir- 
acle, instead  of  spelling  "monster',  as  Emerson  said,  simply  bears  witness  to  some 
otherwise  unknown  or  unrecognized  aspect  of  the  divine  character."  Shedd,  Dogm. 
Theol.,  1:533— "To  cause  the  sun  to  rise  and  to  cause  Lazarus  to  rise,  both  demand 
omnipotence;  but  the  manner  in  which  omnipotence  works  in  one  instance  is  unlike 
the  manner  in  the  other." 

Miracle  is  an  immediate  operation  of  God;  but,  since  all  natural  processes  are  also 
immediate  operations  of  God,  we  do  not  need  to  deny  the  use  of  these  natural  pro- 
cesses, so  far  as  they  will  go,  in  miracle.  Such  wonders  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  partings  of  the  Red  Sea  and  of  the  Jordan,  the 
calling  clown  of  fire  from  heaven  by  Elijah  andthe  destruction  of  the  army  of  Senna- 
cherib, are  none  the  less  works  of  God  when  regarded  as  wrought  by  the  use  of  natural 
means.  In  the  New  Testament  Christ  took  water  to  make  wine,  and  took  the  five 
loaves  to  make  bread,  just  as  in  ten  thousand  vineyards  to-day  he  is  turning  the  moist- 
ure of  the  earth  into  the  juice  of  the  grape,  and  in  ten  thousand  fields  is  turning  carbon 
into  corn.  The  virgin-birthof  Christ  may  be  an  extreme  instance  of  parthenogenesis, 
which  Professor  Loeb  of  Chicago  has  just  demonstrated  to  take  place  in  other  than  the 


120  THE   SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

lowest  forms  of  life  and  winch  he  believes  to  be  possible  in  all.  Christ's  resurrection 
may  be  an  illustration  of  the  power  of  the  normal  and  perfect  human  spirit  to  take  to 
itself  a  proper  body,  and  so  may  be  the  type  and  prophecy  of  that  great  change  when 
we  too  shall  lay  down  our  life  and  take  it  again.  The  scientist  may  yet  find  that  his 
disbelief  is  not  only  disbelief  in  Christ,  but  also  disbelief  in  science.  All  miracle  may 
have  its  natural  side,  though  we  now  are  not  able  to  discern  it ;  and,  if  this  were  true, 
the  Christian  argument  would  not  one  whit  be  weakened,  for  still  miracle  would  evidence 
the  extraordinary  working  of  the  immanent  God,  and  the  impartation  of  his  knowl- 
edge to  the  prophet  or  apostle  who  was  his  instrument. 

This  view  of  the  miracle  renders  entirely  unnecessary  and  irrational  the  treatment 
accorded  to  the  Scripture  narratives  by  some  modern  theologians.  There  is  a  credulity 
of  scepticism,  which  minimizes  the  miraculous  element  in  the  Bible  and  treats  it  as 
mythical  or  legendary,  in  spite  of  clear  evidence  that  it  belongs  to  the  realm  of  actual 
history.  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Relig.,  1:395  — "  Miraculous  legends  arise  in  two  ways, 
partly  out  of  the  idealizing  of  the  real,  and  partly  out  of  the  realizing  of  the  ideal. 
.  .  .  Every  occurrence  may  obtain  for  the  religious  judgment  the  significance  of  a  sign 
or  proof  of  the  world-governing  power,  wisdom,  justice  or  goodness  of  God.  .  .  . 
Miraculous  histories  are  a  poetic  realizing  of  religious  ideas."  Pfleiderer  quotes  Goethe's 
apothegm  :  "  Miracle  is  faith's  dearest  child."  Foster,  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
128-138— "We  most  honor  biblical  miraculous  narratives  when  we  seek  to  understand 
them  as  poesies."  Ritschl  defines  miracles  as  "those  striking  natural  occurrences 
with  which  the  experience  of  God's  special  help  is  connected."  He  leaves  doubtful  the 
bodily  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  many  of  his  school  deny  it;  see  Mead,  Ritschl's  Place 
in  the  History  of  Doctrine,  11.  We  do  not  need  to  interpret  Christ's  resurrection  as  a 
mere  appearance  of  his  spirit  to  the  disciples.  Gladden,  Seven  Puzzling  Books,  202 
—  "  In  the  hands  of  perfect  and  spiritual  man,  the  forces  of  nature  are  pliant  and  tract, 
able  as  they  are  not  in  ours.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  only  a  sign  of  the  superior- 
ity of  the  life  of  the  perfect  spirit  over  external  conditions.  It  may  be  perfectly  in 
accordance  with  nature."  Myers,  Human  Personality,  2 :  -88  —  '•  I  predict  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  new  evidence,  all  reasonable  men,  a  century  hence,  will  believe  the 
resurrection  of  Christ."  We  may  add  that  Jesus  himself  intimates  that  the  working  of 
miracles  is  hereafter  to  be  a  common  and  natural  manifestation  of  the  new  life  which 
he  imparts  :  John  14  :  12  —  "He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  also  ;  and  greater  works 
than  these  shall  he  do,  because  I  go  unto  the  Father." 

We  append  a  number  of  opinions,  ancient  and  modern,  with  regard  to  miracles,  all 
tending  to  show  the  need  of  so  defining  them  as  not  to  conflict  with  the  just  claims  of 
science.  Aristotle:  " Nature  is  not  full  of  episodes,  like  a  bad  tragedy."  Shakespeare, 
All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  2:3:1  — "They  say  miracles  are  past;  and  we  have  our 
philosophical  persons  to  make  modern  and  familiar  things  supernatural  and  causeless. 
Hence  it  is  that  we  make  trifles  of  terrors,  ensconsing  ourselves  into  seeming  knowl- 
edge, when  we  should  submit  ourselves  to  an  unknown  fear."  Keats,  Lamia :  "  There 
was  an  awful  rainbow  once  in  heaven ;  We  know  her  woof,  her  texture :  she  is  given  In 
the  dull  catalogue  of  common  things."  Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  331—  "Biological  and 
psychological  science  unite  in  affirming  that  every  event,  organic  or  psychic,  is  to  be 
explained  in  the  terms  of.  its  immediate  antecedents,  and  that  it  can  be  so  explained. 
There  is  therefore  no  necessity,  there  is  even  no  room,  for  interference.  If  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Deity  depends  upon  the  evidence  of  intervention  and  supernatural  agency, 
faith  in  the  divine  seems  to  be  destroyed  in  the  scientific  mind."  Theodore  Parker : 
"  No  whim  in  God,  — therefore  no  miracle  in  nature."  Armour,  Atonement  and  Law, 
15-33 — "The  miracle  of  redemption,  like  all  miracles,  is  by  intervention  of  adequate 
power,  not  by  suspension  of  law.  Redemption  is  not '  the  great  exception.'  It  is  the 
fullest  revelation  and  vindication  of  law."  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  320—  "  Redemption  is 
not  natural  but  supernatural  —  supernatural,  that  is,  in  view  of  the  false  nature  which 
man  made  for  himself  by  excluding  God.  Otherwise,  the  woi'k  of  redemption  is  only 
the  reconstitution  of  the  nature  which  God  had  designed."  Abp.  Trench  :  "  The  world 
of  nature  is  throughout  a  witness  for  the  world  of  spirit,  proceeding  from  the  same 
hand,  growing  out  of  the  same  root,  and  being  constituted  for  this  very  end.  The 
characters  of  nature  which  everywhere  meet  the  eye  are  not  a  common  but  a  sacred 
writing,—  they  are  the  hieroglyphics  of  God."  Pascal :  "  Nature  is  the  image  of  grace." 
President  Mark  Hopkins :  "  Christianity  and  perfect  Reason  are  identical."  See  Mead, 
Supernatural  Revelation,  97-123;  art. :  Miracle,  by  Bernard,  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible.  The  modern  and  improved  view  of  the  miracle  is  perhaps  best  presented  by 
T.  H.  Wright,  The  Finger  of  God  ;  and  by  W.  N.  Rice,  Christian  Faith  in  an  Age  of 
Science,  336. 


MIRACLES    AS    ATTESTING    REVELATION.  121 

2.     Possibility  of  Miracle. 

An  event  in  nature  may  be  caused  by  an  agent  in  nature  yet  above 
nature.     This  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 

(a)  Lower  forces  and  laws  in  nature  are  frequently  counteracted  and 
transcended  by  the  higher  ( as  mechanical  forces  and  laws  by  chemical,  and 
chemical  by  vital),  while  yet  the  lower  forces  and  laws  are  not  suspended 
or  annihilated,  but  are  merged  in  the  higher,  and  made  to  assist  in  accom- 
plishing purposes  to  which  they  are  altogether  unequal  when  left  to  them- 
selves. 

By  nature  we  mean  nature  iuthe  proper  sense — not 'everything  that  is  not  Cod,'  but 
'everything  that  is  not  God  or  made  in  the  image  of  Cod  ' ;  see  Hopkins,  Outline  Study 
of  Man,  258, 259.  Man's  will  does  not  belong1  to  nature,  bul  is  above  nature.  On  the 
transcending-  of  lower  forces  by  higher,  see  Murphy,  Habit  and  Intelligence,  1:88. 
James  Robertson,  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  23— "Is  it  impossible  that  there  should  be 
unique  things  in  the  world  V  Is  it  scientific  to  assert  that  there  are  not  V  "  Ladd,  Phi- 
losophy of  Knowledge,  40ij  — "  Why  does  not  the  projecting  part  of  the  coping-stone  fall, 
in  obedience  to  the  Jaw  of  gravitation,  from  the  top  of  yonder  building?  Because,  as 
physics  declares,  the  forces  of  collision,  acting  under  quite  different  laws,  thwart  and 
oppose  for  the  time  being  the  law  of  gravitation.  .  .  .  But  now,  after  a  frosty 
night,  the  coping-stone  actually  break-,  off  and  tumbles  to  the  ground  ;  for  that  unique 
law  which  makes  water  forcibly  expand  at  32  Fahrenheit  has  contradicted  the  laws  of 
cohesion  and  has  restored  to  the  law  of  gravitation  its  temporarily  suspended  rights 
over  this  nniss  of  matter."  Gore,  Incarnation,  48 — "  Evolution  views  nature  as  a  pro- 
gressive order  in  which  there  are  new  departures,  fresh  levels  won,  phenomena 
unknown  before.  When  organic  life  appealed,  the  future  did  not  resemble  the  past. 
So  when  man  came.  Christ  is  a  new  nature—  thecreath  e  Word  made  liesli.  It  is  to  be 
expected  that,  as  new  nature,  he  will  exhibit  new  phenomena.  New  vital  energy  will 
radiate  from  him,  controlling  the  material  forces.  Miracles  are  the  proper  accompani- 
ments of  his  person."  We  may  add  that,  as  Christ  is  the  immanent  God,  he  is  present 
in  nature  while  at  the  same  time  he  Is  above  nature,  and  he  whose  steady  will  is  the 
essence  of  all  natural  law  can  transcend  all  past  exertions  of  that  will.  The  infinite 
One  is  not  a  being  of  endless  mi  motony.  William  Elder,  Ideas  from  Nat  uie,  156—  "  God 
is  not  bound  hopelessly  to  his  process,  like  Ixion  to  his  wheel.1' 

(/>)  The  human  will  acts  upon  its  physical  organism,  and  so  upon  nature, 
and  produces  results  which  nature  left  to  herself  never  could  accomplish, 
while  yet  no  law  of  nature  is  suspended  or  violated.  Gravitation  still  ope- 
rates upon  the  axe,  even  while  man  holds  it  at  the  surface  of  the  water — 
for  the  axe  still  has  weight  (ef.  2  K.  6  :  5-7). 

Versus  Hume,  Philos.  Works,  4 :  loO— "A  miracle  is  a  violal  ion  of  the  laws  of  nature." 
Christian  apologists  have  too  often  needlessly  embarrassed  their  argument  by  accept- 
ing Hume's  definition.  The  stigma  is  entirely  undeserved.  If  man  can  support  the  axe 
at  the  surface  of  the  water  while  gravitation  still  acts  upon  it,  God  can  certainly,  at 
the  prophet's  word,  make  the  iron  to  swim,  while  gravitation  still  acts  upon  it.  But  this 
last  is  miracle.  See  Mansel,  Essay  on  Miracles,  in  Aids  to  Faith,  2G,  27:  After  the 
greatest  wave  of  the  season  has  landed  its  pebble  high  up  on  the  beach,  I  can  move  the 
pebble  a  foot  further  without  altering  the  force  of  wind  or  wave  or  climate  in  a  distant 
continent.  Fisher,  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  El ;  Hamilton,  Autoiogy,  685-ti90; 
Bowen,  Metaph.  and  Ethics,  445;  Row,  Bampton  Lectures  on  Christian  Evidences,  54-74; 
A.  A.  Hodge  :  Pulling  out  a  new  stop  of  the  organ  does  not  suspend  the  working  or 
destroy  the  harmony  of  the  other  stops.  The  pump  does  not  suspend  the  law  of 
gravitation,  nor  does  our  throwing  a  ball  into  the  air.  If  gravitation  did  not  act,  the 
upward  velocity  of  the  ball  would  not  diminish  and  the  ball  would  never  return. 
"  Gravitation  draws  iron  down.  But  the  magnet  overcomes  that  attraction  and  draws 
the  iron  up.  Yet  here  is  no  suspension  or  violation  of  lav,-,  but  rather  a  harmonious 
working  of  two  laws,  each  in  its  sphere.    Death  and  n<  it  life  is  the  order  of  nature.  But 


122  THE    SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

men  live  notwithstanding.  Life  is  supernatural.  Only  as  a  force  additional  to  mere 
nature  works  against  nature  does  life  exist.  So  spiritual  life  uses  and  transcends  the 
laws  of  nature"  (Sunday  School  Times).  Gladden,  What  Is  Left?  CO— "Wherever 
you  find  thought,  choice,  love,  you  find  something-  that  is  not  under  the  dominion  of 
fixed  law.  These  are  the  attributes  of  a  free  personality."  William  James :  "We  need 
to  substitute  the  personal  view  of  life  for  the  impersonal  and  mechanical  view.  Mechan- 
ical rationalism  is  narrowness  and  partial  induction  of  facts,  — it  is  not  science." 

(  c  )  In  all  free  causation,  there  is  an  acting  without  means.  Man  acts 
upon  external  nature  through  his  physical  organism,  but,  in  moving  his 
physical  organism,  he  acts  directly  upon  matter.  In  other  words,  the 
human  will  can  use  means,  only  because  it  has  the  power  of  acting  initially 
without  means. 

See  Hopkins,  on  Prayer-gauge,  10,  and  in  Princeton  Review,  Sept.  1883:188.  A.  J. 
Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  311  — "Not  Divinity  alone  intervenes  in  the  world  of 
things.  Each  living  soul,  in  its  measure  and  degree,  does  the  same."  Each  soul  that 
acts  in  any  way  on  its  surroundings  does  so  on  the  principle  of  the  miracle.  Phillips 
Brooks,  Life,  2  :  350—  "  The  making  of  all  events  miraculous  is  no  more  an  abolition  of 
miracle  than  the  flooding  of  the  world  with  sunshine  is  an  extinction  of  the  sun." 
George  Adam  Smith,  on  Is.  33  :  14  — " devouring  fire  .  .  .  everlasting  burnings":  "If  we  look 
at  a  conflagration  through  smoked  glass,  we  see  buildings  collapsing,  but  we  see  no 
fire.  So  science  sees  results,  but  not  the  power  which  produces  them  ;  sees  cause  and 
effect,  but  does  not  see  God."  P.  S.  Henson :  "The  current  in  an  electric  wire  is  invis- 
ible so  long  as  it  circulates  uniformly.  But  cut  the  wire  and  insert  a  piece  of  carbon 
between  the  two  broken  ends,  and  at  once  you  have  an  arc-light  that  drives  away  the 
darkness.  So  miracle  is  only  the  momentary  interruption  in  the  operation  of  uniform 
laws,  which  thus  gives  light  to  the  ages,"  —  or,  let  us  say  rather,  the  momentary  change 
in  the  method  of  their  operation  whereby  the  will  of  God  takes  a  new  form  of  mani- 
festation. Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  100—  "  Spinoza  leugnete  ihre  metaphysische  Moglich- 
keit,  Hume  ihre  geschichtliche  Erkennbarkeit,  Kant  ihre  practische  Brauchbarkeit, 
Schleiermacher  ihre  religiose  Bedeutsamkeit,  Hegel  ihre  geistige  Beweiskraft,  Fichte 
ihre  wahre  Christlichkeit,  und  die  kritische  Theologie  ihre  wahre  Geschichtlichkeit." 

( d )  What  the  human  will,  considered  as  a  supernatural  force,  and  what 
the  chemical  and  vital  forces  of  nature  itself,  are  demonstrably  able  to 
accomplish,  cannot  be  regarded  as  beyond  the  power  of  God,  so  long  as 
God  dwells  in  and  controls  the  universe.  If  man's  will  can  act  directly 
upon  matter  in  his  own  physical  organism,  God's  will  can  work  imme- 
diately upon  the  system  which  he  has  created  and  which  he  sustains.  In 
other  words,  if  there  be  a  God,  and  if  he  be  a  personal  being,  miracles  are 
possible.  The  impossibility  of  miracles  can  be  maintained  only  upon  prin- 
ciples of  atheism  or  pantheism. 

See  Westcott,  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  19 ;  Cox,  Miracles,  an  Argumeut  and  a 
Challenge :  "  Anthropomorphism  is  preferable  to  hylomorphism."  Newman  Smyth, 
Old  Faiths  in  a  New  Light,  ch.  1  —  "  A  miracle  is  not  a  sudden  blow  struck  in  the  face 
of  nature,  but  a  use  of  nature,  according  to  its  inherent  capacities,  by  higher  powers." 
See  also  Gloatz,  Wunder  und  Natm-gesetz,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1886 :  403-516;  Gun- 
saulus,  Transfiguration  of  Christ,  18,  19,  26;  Andover  Review,  on  "Robert  Elsmerc," 
1888 :  303 ;  W.  E.  Gladstone,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  1888  :  766-788 ;  Dubois,  on  Science  and 
Miracle,  in  New  Englander,  July,  1889:  1-32  — Three  postulates:  (1)  Every  particle 
attracts  every  other  in  the  universe ;  (2)  Man's  willis  free;  (2)  Every  volition  is  accom- 
panied by  corresponding  brain-action.  Hence  every  volition  of  ours  causes  changes 
throughout  the  whole  universe;  also,  in  Century  Magazine,  Dec.  1894:229  — Conditions 
are  never  twice  the  same  in  nature ;  all  things  are  the  results  of  will,  since  we  know 
that  the  least  thought  of  ours  shakes  the  universe ;  miracle  is  simply  the  action  of  will 
in  unique  conditions;  the  beginning  of  life,  the  origin  of  consciousness,  these  are  mir- 
acles, yet  they  are  stiictly  natural ;  prayer  and  the  mind  that  frames  it  are  conditions 
which  the  Mind  in  nature  cannotignore.    Vf.  Ps.  115:3  — "our  God  is  in  the  heavens:    He  hath  done 


MIRACLES   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  123 

whatsoever  he  pleased"  =  his  almighty  power  and  freedom  do  away  with  all  a  priori  objec- 
tions to  miracles.    If  God  is  not  a  mere  /orce,  but  a  person,  then  miracles  are  possible. 

to 
(  c  )  This  possibility  of  miracles  becomes  doubly  sure  to  those  who  see 

in  Christ  none  other  than  the  immanent  God  manifested  to  creatures.  The 
Logos  or  divine  Reason  who  is  the  principle  of  all  growth  and  evolution 
can  make  God  known  only  by  means  of  successive  new  importations  of  his 
energy.  Since  all  progress  implies  increment,  and  Christ  is  the  only 
source  of  life,  the  whole  history  of  creation  is  a  witness  to  the  possibility 
of  miracle. 

See  A.  H.  Strong-,  Christ  in  Creation,  163-166 — "This  conception  of  evolution  is  that 
Of  Lotze.  That  great  philosopher,  whose  influence  is  more  potent  than  any  other  in 
present  thought,  does  not  regard  the  universe  as  a  plenum  to  which  nothing-  can  In- 
added  in  the  way  of  force.  He  looks  upon  the  universe  rather  as  a  plastic  organism  to 
which  new  impulses  can  be  imparted  from  him  of  whose  thought  and  will  it  is  an 
expression.  These  impulses,  once  imparted,  abide  in  the  organism  and  are  thereafter 
subject  to  its  law.  Though  these  impulses  come  from  within,  they  come  not  from  the 
Pnito  mechanism  but  from  the  immanent  God.  Robert  Browning's  phrase,  'All's  love, 
but  all 's  law,'  must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  very  movements  of  the  planets 
and  all  the  operations  of  nature  are  revelations  Oi  a  personal  and  present  God,  but  it 
must  not  be  interpreted  as  meaning*  that  God  runs  in  a  rut,  t  hat  he  is  confined  to  mech- 
anism, that  he  is  incapable  of  unique  and  startling  manifestations  of  power. 

"The  idea  that  gives  to  evolution  its  hold  upon  thinking  minds  is  the  idea  of  conti- 
nuity. But  absolute  continuity  is  inconsistent  with  progress.  If  t  he  future  is  not  sim- 
ply a  reproduction  of  the  past,  there  must  be  some  new  cause  of  change.  In  order  to 
progress  there  must  be  either  a  new  force,  or  a  new  combination  of  forces,  and  the 
new  combination  of  forces  can  be  explained  only  by  some  new  force  that  causes  the 
combination.  This  new  force,  moreover,  must  be  intelligent  force,  if  the  evolution  is 
to  be  toward  the  better  instead  of  toward  the  worse.  The  continuity  must  be  conti- 
nuity not  of  forces  but  of  plan.  The  forces  may  increase,  nay,  they  must  increase,  unless 
the  new  is  to  be  a  mere  repetition  of  the  old.  There  must  be  additional  energy 
imparted,  the  new  combination  brought  about,  and  all  this  implies  purpose  and  will. 
But  through  all  there  runs  one  continuous  plan,  aud  upon  this  plan  the  rationality  of 
evolution  depends. 

"A  man  builds  a  house.  In  laying  the  foundation  he  uses  stone  aud  mortar,  but  he 
makes  the  walls  of  wood  and  the  roof  of  tin.  In  the  superstructure  he  brings  into 
play  different  laws  from  those  which  apply  to  the  foundation.  There  is  continuity, 
not  of  material,  but  of  plan.  Progress  from  cellar  to  garret  requires  breaks  here  and 
there,  and  the  bringing  in  of  new  forces ;  in  fact,  without  the  bringing  in  of  these  new 
forces  the  evolution  of  the  house  would  be  impossible.  Now  substitute  for  the  foun- 
dation and  superstructure  living  things  like  the  chrysalis  and  the  butterfly;  imagine 
the  power  to  work  from  within  and  not  from  without ;  and  you  see  that  true  continu- 
ity does  not  exclude  but  involves  new  beginnings. 

"Evolution,  then,  depends  on  increments  of  force  y>lus  continuity  of  plan.  New  cre- 
ations are  possible  because  the  immanent  God  has  not  exhausted  himself.  Miracle  is 
possible  because  God  is  not  far  away,  but  is  at  hand  to  do  whatever  the  needs  of  his 
moral  universe  may  require.  Regeneration  and  answers  to  prayer  are  possible  for  the 
very  reason  that  these  are  the  objects  for  which  the  universe  was  built.  If  we  were 
deists,  believing  in  a  distant  God  and  a  mechanical  universe,  evolution  and  Christian- 
ity would  be  irreconcilable.  But  since  we  believe  in  a  dynamical  universe,  of  which 
the  personal  and  living  God  is  the  inner  source  of  energy,  evolution  is  but  the  basis, 
foundation  and  background  of  Christianity,  the  silent  and  regular  working  of  him 
who,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  utters  his  voice  in  Christ  and  the  Cross." 

Lotze's  own  statement  of  his  position  may  be  found  in  his  Microcosmos,  2:  479  sq. 
Professor  James  Ten  Broeke  has  interpreted  him  as  follows :  "  He  makes  the  possibil- 
ity of  the  miracle  depend  upon  the  close  and  intimate  action  and  reaction  between  the 
world  and  the  personal  Absolute,  in  consequence  of  which  the  movements  of  the  nat- 
ural world  are  carried  on  only  through  the  Absolute,  with  the  possibility  of  a  variation 
in  the  general  course  of  things,  according  to  existing  facts  and  the  purpose  of  the 
divine  Governor." 


124  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

3.     Probability  of  Miracles. 

A.  We  acknowledge  that,  so  long  as  we  confine  our  attention  to  nature, 
there  is  a  presumption  against  miracles.  Experience  testifies  to  the  uni- 
formity of  natural  law.  A  general  uniformity  is  needful,  in  order  to  make 
possible  a  rational  calculation  of  the  future,  and  a  proper  ordering  of  life. 

See  Butler,  Analogy,  part  ii,  chap,  ii ;  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  3-45 ; 
Modern  Scepticism,  1:  179-227;  Chalmers,  Christian  Revelation,  1:  47.  G.  D.  B.  Pep- 
per :  "Where  there  is  no  law,  no  settled  order,  there  can  be  no  miracle.  The  miracle 
presupposes  the  law,  and  the  importance  assigned  to  miracles  is  the  recognition  of  the 
reign  of  law.  But  the  making  and  launching  of  a  ship  may  be  governed  by  law,  no  less 
than  the  sailing  of  the  ship  after  it  is  launched.  So  the  introduction  of  a  higher  spirit- 
ual order  into  a  merely  natural  order  constitutes  a  new  and  unique  event."  Some 
Christian  apologists  have  erred  in  affirming  that  the  miracle  was  antecedently  as  prob- 
able as  any  other  event,  whereas  only  its  antecedent  improbability  gives  it  value  as  a 
proof  of  revelation.  Horace :  "Nee  deus  intersit,  nisi  dignus  vindice  nodus  Incident." 

B.  But  we  deny  that  this  uniformity  of  nature  is  absolute  and  univer- 
sal. (  a )  It  is  not  a  truth  of  reason  that  can  have  no  exceptions,  like  the 
axiom  that  a  whole  is  greater  than  its  parts.  ( 6  )  Experience  could  not 
warrant  a  belief  in  absolute  and  universal  uniformity,  unless  experience 
were  identical  with  absolute  and  universal  knowledge.  (  c  )  We  know,  on 
the  contrary,  from  geology,  that  there  have  been  breaks  in  this  uniformity, 
such  as  the  introduction  of  vegetable,  animal  and  human  life,  which  can- 
not be  accounted  for,  except  by  the  manifestation  in  nature  of  a  super- 
natural power. 

( «  )  Compare  the  probability  that  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow  morning  with  the  cer- 
tainty that  two  and  two  make  four.  Huxley,  Lay  Sermons,  158,  indignantly  denies  that 
there  is  any  '  must '  about  the  uniformity  of  nature  :  "  No  one  is  entitled  to  say  a  pri- 
ori that  any  given  so-called  miraculous  event  is  impossible."  Ward,  Naturalism  and 
Agnosticism,  1 :  84  —  "  There  is  no  evidence  for  the  statement  that  the  mass  of  the  uni- 
verse is  a  definite  and  unchangeable  quantity  " ;  108, 109—  "  Why  so  confidently  assume 
that  a  rigid  and  monotonous  uniformity  is  the  only,  or  the  highest,  indication  of  order, 
the  order  of  an  ever  living  Spirit,  above  all?  How  is  it  that  we  depreciate  machine- 
made  articles,  and  prefer  those  in  which  the  artistic  impulse,  or  the  fitness  of  the  indi- 
vidual case,  is  free  to  shape  and  to  make  what  is  literally  manufactured,  hand-made? 
....  Dangerous  as  teleological  arguments  in  general  may  be,  we  may  at  least  safely 
say  the  world  was  not  designed  to  make  science  easy.  ...  To  call  the  verses  of  a 
poet,  the  politics  of  a  statesman,  or  the  award  of  a  judge  mechanical,  implies,  as  Lotze 
has  pointed  out,  marked  disparagement,  although  it  implies,  too,  precisely  those  char- 
acteristics—exactness and  invariability —  in  which  Maxwell  would  have  us  see  a  token 
of  the  divine."  Surely  then  we  must  not  insist  that  divine  wisdom  must  always  run  in 
a  rut,  must  ever  repeat  itself,  must  never  exhibit,  itself  in  unique  acts  like  incarna- 
tion and  resurrection.  See  Edward  Hitchcock,  in  Bib.  Sac,  20:  489-501,  on  "The  Law 
of  Nature's  Constancy  Subordinate  to  the  Higher  Law  of  Change  ";  Jevons,  Principles 
of  Science,  2 :  430-438 ;  Mozley,  Miracles,  26. 

(h)  S.  T.  Coleridge,  Table  Talk,  18  December,  1831  — "The  light  which  experience 
jrives  us  is  a  lantern  on  the  stern  of  the  ship,  which  shines  only  on  the  waves  behind 
us."  Hobbes :"  Experience  concludeth  nothing  universally."  Brooks,  Foundations 
of  Zoology,  131  — "  Evidence  can  tell  us  only  what  has  happened,  and  it  can  never 
assure  us  that  the  future  must  be  like  the  past;  132— Proof  that  all  nature  is  mechani- 
cal would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  belief  that  everything  in  nature  is  immediately 
sustained  by  Providence,  and  that  my  volition  counts  for  something  in  determining 
the  course  of  events."  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2:  204—"  Uniformity  is  not  abso- 
lute. Nature  is  a  vaster  realm  of  life  and  meaning,  of  which  we  men  form  a  part,  and 
of  which  the  final  unity  is  in  God's  life.  The  rhythm  of  the  heart-beat  has  its  normal 
regularity,  yet  its  limited  persistence.  Nature  may  be  merely  the  Itahitx  of  free  will. 
Every  region  of  this  universally  conscious  world  may  be  a  centre  whence  issues  new 


MIRACLES  AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  125 

conscious  life  for  communication  to  all  the  worlds."  Principal  Fairbairn  :  "  Nature  is 
Spirit."  We  prefer  to  say  :  "Nature  is  the  manifestation  of  spirit,  the  regularities  of 
freedom." 

(  c )  Other  breaks  in  the  uniformity  of  nature  are  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  regen- 
eration of  a  human  soul.  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity,  18,  holds  that  though  there 
are  no  interruptions  to  the  working  of  natural  law,  natural  law  is  not  yet  fully  known. 
While  there  are  no  miracles,  there  is  plenty  of  the  miraculous.  The  power  of  mind  over 
matter  is  beyond  our  present  conceptions.  Bowne,  Philosophy  of  Theism,  210  —  The 
effects  are  no  more  consequences  of  the  laws  than  the  laws  are  consequences  of  the 
etfects  =  both  laws  and  effects  are  exercises  of  divine  will.  King,  Reconstruction  in 
Theology,  50 — We  must  hold,  not  to  the  uniform  ity  of  law,  but  to  the  universality  of  law ; 
for  evolution  has  successive  stages  with  new  laws  coming  in  and  becoming  dominant 
that  had  not  before  appeared.  The  new  and  higher  stage  is  practically  a  miracle  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  lower.  See  British  Quarterly  Review,  (Jet.  1881 :  154  ;  Martin- 
eau,  Study,  2 :  200,  203,  209. 

C.  Since  the  inworking  of  the  moral  law  into  the  constitution  and 
course  of  nature  shows  that  nature  exists,  not  for  itself,  but  for  the  con- 
templation and  use  of  moral  beings,  it  is  probable  that  the  God  of  nature 
will  produce  effects  aside  from  those  of  natural  law,  whenever  there  are 
sufficiently  important  moral  ends  to  be  served  thereby. 

Beneath  the  expectation  of  uniformity  is  the  intuition  of  final  cause;  the  former 
may  therefore  give  way  to  the  latter.  See  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  592-015  — Efficient 
causes  and  final  causes  may  conflict,  and  then  the  efficient  give  place  to  the  final.  This 
is  miracle.  See  Hutton,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Aug.  1885,  and  Channiug,  Evidences  of 
Revealed  Religion,  quoted  in  Shcdd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  534,  535  — "The  order  of  the  uni- 
verse is  a  means,  not  an  end,  and  like  all  other  means  must  give  way  when  the  end  can 
be  best  promoted  without  it.  It  is  the  mark  of  a  weak  mind  tomakeanidol  of  order 
and  method  ;  to  cling  to  established  forms  of  business  when  they  clog  instead  of  advanc- 
ing it."  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief ,  857  —  '* The  stability  of  the  heavens  is  in  the 
sight  of  God  of  less  importance  than  the  moral  jrrowthof  the  human  spirit."  This  is 
proved  by  the  Incarnation.  The  Christian  sees  in  this  little  earth  the  scene  of  God's 
greatest  revelation.  The  superiority  of  the  spiritual  to  the  physical  helps  us  to  see  our 
true  dignity  in  the  creation,  to  rule  our  bodies,  t<>  overcome  our  sins.  Christ's  suffer- 
ing shows  us  that  God  is  no  indifferent  spectator  of  human  pain.  He  subjects  himself 
to  our  conditions,  or  rather  in  this  subjection  reveals  to  us  God's  own  eternal  suffering 
for  sin.    The  atonement  enables  us  to  solve  the  problem  of  sin. 

D.  The  existence  of  moral  disorder  consequent  upon  the  free  acts  of 
man's  will,  therefore,  changes  the  presumption  against  miracles  into  a  pre- 
sumption in  their  favor.  The  non-appearance  of  miracles,  in  this  case, 
would  be  the  greatest  of  wonders. 

Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  331-335  —  So  a  man's  personal  conscious- 
ness of  sin,  and  above  all  his  personal  experience  of  regenerating  grace,  will  constitute 
the  best  preparation  for  the  study  of  miracles.  "  Christianity  cannot  be  proved  except 
to  a  bad  conscience."  The  dying  Vinet  said  well :  "  The  greatest  miracle  that  I  know  of 
is  that  of  my  conversion.  I  was  dead,  and  I  live ;  I  was  blind,  and  I  see ;  I  was  a  slave, 
and  I  am  free ;  I  was  an  enemy  of  God,  and  I  love  him  ;  prayer,  the  Bible,  the  society  of 
Christians,  these  were  to  me  a  source  of  profound  ennui ;  whilst  now  it  is  the  pleasures 
of  the  world  that  are  wearisome  to  ine,  and  piety  is  the  source  of  all  my  joy.  Behold 
the  miracle !  And  if  God  has  been  able  to  work  that  one,  there  are  none  of  which  he  is 
not  capable." 

Yet  the  physical  and  the  moral  are  not  "sundered  as  with  an  axe."  Nature  is  but  the 
lower  stage  or  imperfect  form  of  the  revelation  of  God's  truth  and  holiness  and  love. 
It  prepares  the  way  for  the  miracle  by  suggesting,  though  more  dimly,  the  same 
essential  characteristics  of  the  divine  nature.  Ignorance  and  sin  necessitate  a  larger 
disclosure.  G.  S.  Lee,  The  Shadow  Christ,  84  —  "  The  pillar  of  cloud  was  the  dim  night- 
lamp  that  Jehovah  kept  burning  over  his  infant  children,  to  show  them  that  he  was  there. 
They  did  not  know  that  the  night  itself  was  God."  Why  do  we  have  Christmas  pres- 
ents in  Christian  homes  ?  Because  the  parents  do  not  love  their  children  at  other  times  ? 


126  THE   SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

No ;  but  because  the  mind  becomes  sluggish  in  the  presence  of  merely  regular  kindness, 
and  special  gifts  are  needed  to  wake  it  to  gratitude.  So  our  sluggish  and  unloving 
minds  need  special  testimonies  of  the  divine  mercy.  Shall  God  alone  be  shut  up  to 
dull  uniformities  of  action  ?  Shall  the  heavenly  Father  alone  be  unable  to  make  special 
communications  of  love?  "Why  then  are  not  miracles  and  revivals  of  religion  constant 
and  uniform?  Because  uniform  blessings  would  be  regarded  simply  as  workings  of  a 
machine.  See  Mozley,  Miracles,  preface,  xxiv ;  Turner,  Wish  and  Will,  291-315  ;  N.  W. 
Taylor,  Moral  Government,  2  :  388-423. 

E.  As  belief  in  the  possibility  of  miracles  rests  upon  our  belief  in  the 
existence  of  a  personal  God,  so  belief  in  the  probability  of  miracles  rests 
upon  our  belief  that  God  is  a  moral  and  benevolent  being.  He  who  has 
no  God  but  a  God  of  physical  order  will  regard  miracles  as  an  impertinent 
intrusion  upon  that  order.  But  he  who  yields  to  the  testimony  of  con- 
science and  regards  God  as  a  God  of  holiness,  will  see  that  man's  unholi- 
ness  renders  God's  miraculous  interposition  most  necessary  to  man  and 
most  becoming  to  God.  Our  view  of  miracles  will  therefore  be  determined 
by  our  belief  in  a  moral,  or  in  a  non-moral,  God. 

Philo,  in  his  Life  of  Moses,  1 :  88,  speaking  of  the  miracles  of  the  quails  and  of  the 
water  from  the  rock,  says  that  "all  these  unexpected  and  extraordinary  things  are 
amusements  or  playthings  of  God."  He  believes  that  there  is  room  for  arbitrariness 
in  the  divine  procedure.  Scripture  however  represents  miracle  as  an  extraordinary, 
rather  than  as  an  arbitrary,  act.  It  is  "his  work,  his  strange  work  ...  his  act,  his  strange  act" 
( Is.  28 :  21 ).  God's  ordinary  method  is  that  of  regular  growth  and  development.  Chad- 
wick,  Unitarianism,  72  —  "  Nature  is  economical.  If  she  wants  an  apple,  she  develops  a 
leaf ;  if  she  wants  a  brain,  she  develops  a  vertebra.  We  always  thought  well  of  back- 
bone ;  and,  if  Goethe's  was  a  sound  suggestion,  we  think  better  of  it  now." 

It  is  commonly,  but  very  erroneously,  taken  for  granted  that  miracle  requires  a 
greater  exercise  of  power  than  does  God's  upholding  of  the  ordinary  processes  of 
nature.  But  to  an  omnipotent  Being  our  measures  of  power  have  no  application.  The 
question  is  not  a  question  of  power,  but  of  rationality  and  love.  Miracle  implies  self- 
restraint,  as  well  as  self-unfolding,  on  the  part  of  him  who  works  it.  It  is  therefore 
not  God's  common  method  of  action ;  it  is  adopted  only  when  regular  methods  will  not 
suffice ;  it  often  seems  accompaniod  by  a  sacrifice  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  Christ  ( Mat. 
17  :  17 —  "0  faithless  and  perverse  generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with  vou  ?  how  long  shall  I  bear  with  you  ? 
bring  him  hither  to  me"  ;  Mark  7  :  34  — "looking  up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,  and  saith  unto  him,  Ephphatha,  that  is, 
Be  opened  "  ;  cf.  Mat.  12:  39  —  "  An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign  ;  and  there  shall  no  sign 
be  given  to  it  but  the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet." 

F.  From  the  point  of  view  of  ethical  monism  the  probability  of  miracle 
becomes  even  greater.  Since  God  is  not  merely  the  intellectual  but  the 
moral  Eeason  of  the  world,  the  disturbances  of  the  world-order  which  are 
due  to  sin  are  the  matters  which  most  deeply  affect  him.  Christ,  the  life  of 
the  whole  system  and  of  humanity  as  well,  must  suffer  ;  and,  since  we  have 
evidence  that  he  is  merciful  as  well  as  just,  it  is  probable  that  he  will  rec- 
tify the  evil  by  extraordinary  means,  when  merely  ordinary  means  do  not 
avail. 

Like  creation  and  providence,  like  inspiration  and  regeneration,  miracle  is  a  work  in 
which  God  limits  himself,  by  a  new  and  peculiar  exercise  of  his  power,  —  limits  himself 
as  part  of  a  process  of  condescending  love  and  as  a  means  of  teaching  sense-environed 
and  sin-burdened  humanity  what  it  would  not  learn  in  any  other  way.  Self-limitation, 
however,  is  the  very  perfection  and  glory  of  God,  for  without  it  no  self-sacrificing  love 
would  be  possible  ( see  page  9,  F. ).  The  probability  of  miracles  is  therefore  argued  not 
only  from  God's  holiness  but  also  from  his  love.  His  desire  to  save  men  from  their 
sins  must  be  as  infinite  as  his  nature.    The  incarnation,  the  atonement,  the  resurrection, 

when  once  made  known  to  us,  commend  themselves,  not  only  as  satisfying  our  human 

needs,  but  as  worthy  of  a  God  of  moral  perfection. 


MIRACLES   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  127 

An  argument  for  the  probability  of  the  miracle  might  be  drawn  from  the  concessions 
of  one  of  its  chief  modern  opponents,  Thomas  H.  Huxley.  He  tells  us  in  different 
places  that  the  object  of  science  is  "  t  lie  discovery  of  the  rational  order  that  pervades  the 
universe,"  which  iu  spite  of  his  professed  agnosticism  is  an  unconscious  testimony  to 
Reason  and  Will  at  the  basis  of  all  things.  He  tells  us  again  that  there  is  no  necessity  in 
the  uniformities  of  nature:  "  When  we  chang-c  '  will '  into  'must,'  we  introduce  anidea 
of  necessity  which  has  no  warrant  in  the  observed  facts,  and  has  no  warranty  that  I 
can  discover  elsewhere."  He  speaks  of  "  the  infinite  wickedness  that  has  attended  the 
course  of  human  history."  Vet  he  has  uo  hope  in  man's  power  to  save  himself :  "  I  would 
as  soon  adore  a  wilderness  of  apes,"  as  the  Pantheist's  rationalized  conception  of 
humanity.  He  grants  that  Jesus  Christ  is  "  the  noblest  ideal  of  humanity  which  mankind 
has  yet  worshiped."  Why  should  he  not  g-o  further  and  concede  that  Jesus  Christ  most 
truly  represents  the  infinite  Reason  at  the  heart  of  things,  and  that  his  purity  and  love, 
demonstrated  by  suffering  and  death,  make  it  probable  that  God  will  use  extraordi- 
nary means  for  man's  delis-erauce?  It  is  doubtful  whether  Huxley  recognized  his 
own  personal  sinfulness  as  fully  as  he  recognized  the  sinfulness  of  humauityiu  general. 
If  he  had  done  so,  he  would  have  been  willing  to  accept  miracle  upon  even  a  slight  pre- 
ponderance of  historical  proof.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  rejected  miracle  upon  the 
grounds  assigned  by  Hume,  which  we  now  proceed  to  mention. 

4.  The  amount  of  testimony  necessary  to  prove  a  miracle  is  no 
greater  than  that  which  is  requisite  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  any  other 
unusual  but  confessedly  possible  event. 

Hume,  indeed,  argued  that  a  miracle  is  so  contradictory  of  all  human 
experience  that  it  is  more  reasonable  to  believe  any  amount  of  testimony 
false  than  to  believe  a  miracle  to  be  true. 

The  original  form  of  the  argument  can  be  found  in  Hume's  Philosophical  Works,  4 : 
1-4-150.  See  also  lifb.  Sac,  Oct.  1867  :  615.  For  the  most  recent  and  plausibl3  statement 
of  it,  see  Supernatural  Religion,  1 :  55-94.  The  argument  maintains  for  substance 
that  things  are  impossible  because  improbable.  It  ridicules  the  credulity  of  those  who 
"  thrust  their  fists  against  the  posts.  And  still  insist  they  see  the  ghosts,"  and  holds  with 
the  German  philosopher  who  declared  that  he  would  not  believe  in  a  miracle,  even  if 
he  saw  one  with  his  own  eyes.  Christianity  is  so  miraculous  that  it  takes  a  miracle  to 
make  one  believe  it. 

The  argument  is  fallacious,  because 

(a)  It  is  chargeable  with  a  pet  It  in  principii,  in  making  our  own  per- 
sonal experience  the  measure  of  all  human  experience  „  The  same  principle 
would  make  the  proof  of  any  absolutely  new  fact  impossible.  Even  though 
God  should  work  a  miracle,  he  could  never  prove  it. 

( b  )  It  involves  a  self-contradiction,  since  it  seeks  to  overthrow  our  faith 
in  human  testimony  by  adducing  to  the  contrary  the  general  experience  of 
men,  of  which  we  know  only  fri  an  testimony.  This  general  experience, 
moreover,  is  merely  negative,  and  cannot  neutralize  that  which  is  positive, 
except  upon  principles  which  would  invalidate  all  testimony  whatever. 

(  c  )  It  requires  belief  in  a  greater  wonder  than  those  which  it  would 
escape.  That  multitudes  of  intelligent  and  honest  men  should  against  all 
their  interests  unite  in  deliberate  and  persistent  falsehood,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances narrated  in  the  New  Testament  record,  involves  a  change  in  the 
sequences  of  nature  far  more  incredible  than  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles. 

(a)  John  Stuart  Mill,  Essays  on  Theism,  216-241,  grants  that,  even  if  a  miracle  were 
wrought,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  it.  In  this  he  only  echoes  Hume,  Miracles, 
112  — "The  ultimate  standard  by  which  we  determine  all  disputes  that  may  arise  is 
always  derived  from  experience  and  observation."    But  here  our  own  personal  exper- 


128  THE  SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

ience  is  made  the  standard  by  which  to  judge  all  human  experience.  Whately,  Historic 
Doubts  relative  to  Napoleon  Buonaparte,  shows  that  the  same  rule  would  require  us  to 
deny  the  existence  of  the  great  Frenchman,  since  Napoleon's  conquests  were  contrary 
to  all  experience,  and  civilized  nations  had  never  before  been  so  subdued.  The  London 
Times  for  June  18, 1888,  for  the  first  time  in  at  least  a  hundred  years  or  in  31,200  issues, 
was  misdated,  and  certain  pages  read  June  IT,  although  June  17  was  Sunday.  Yet  the 
paper  would  have  been  admitted  in  a  court  of  justice  as  evidence  of  a  marriage.  The 
real  wonder  is,  not  the  break  in  experience,  but  the  continuity  without  the  break. 

( b )  Lyman  Abbott :  "  If  the  Old  Testament  told  the  story  of  a  naval  engagement 
between  the  Jewish  people  and  a  pagan  people,  in  which  all  the  ships  of  the  pagan 
people  were  absolutely  destroyed  and  not  a  single  man  was  killed  among  the  Jews,  all 
the  sceptics  would  have  scorned  the  narrative.  Every  one  now  believes  it,  except  those 
who  live  in  Spain."  There  are  people  who  in  a  similar  way  refuse  to  investigate  the 
phenomena  of  hypnotism,  second  sight,  clairvoyance,  and  telepathy,  declaring  a  priori 
that  all  these  things  are  impossible.  Prophecy,  in  the  sense  of  prediction,  is  discred- 
ited. Upon  the  same  principle  wireless  telegraphy  might  be  denounced  as  an  impost- 
ure. The  son  of  Erin  charged  with  murder  defended  himself  by  saying:  "Your 
honor,  I  can  bring  fifty  people  who  did  not  see  me  do  it."  Our  faith  in  testimony  can- 
not be  due  to  experience. 

(c)  On  this  point,  see  Chalmers,  Christian  Revelation,  3 :  70 ;  Starkie  on  Evidence, 
739 ;  De  Quincey,  Theological  Essays,  1 :  162-188 ;  Thornton,  Old-fashioned  Ethics,  143- 
153;  Campbell  on  Miracles.  South's  sermon  on  The  Certainty  of  our  Savior's  Resur- 
rection had  stated  and  answered  this  objection  long  before  Hume  propounded  it. 

5.     Evidential  force  of  Miracles. 

(a)  Miracles  are  the  natural  accompaniments  and  attestations  of  new 
communications  from  God.  The  great  epochs  of  miracles  —  represented  by 
Moses,  the  prophets,  the  first  and  second  comings  of  Christ  —  are  coinci- 
dent with  the  great  epochs  of  revelation.  Miracles  serve  to  draw  attention 
to  new  truth,  and  cease  when  this  truth  has  gained  currency  and  foothold. 

Miracles  are  not  scattered  evenly  over  the  whole  course  of  history.  Few  miracles  are 
recorded  during  the  2500  yeai'S  from  Adam  to  Moses.  When  the  N.  T.  Canon  is  com- 
pleted and  the  internal  evidence  of  Scripture  has  attained  its  greatest  strength,  the 
external  attestations  by  miracle  are  either  wholly  withdrawn  or  begin  to  disappear. 
The  spiritual  wonders  of  regeneration  remain,  and  for  these  the  way  has  been  pre- 
pared by  the  long  progress  from  the  miracles  of  power  wrought  by  Moses  to  the  mir- 
acles of  grace  wrought  by  Christ.  Miracles  disappeared  because  newer  and  higher 
proofs  rendered  them  unnecessary.  Better  things  than  these  are  now  in  evidence. 
Thomas  Fuller :  "  Miracles  are  the  swaddling-clothes  of  the  infant  church."  John  Fos- 
ter :  "  Miracles  are  the  great  bell  of  the  universe,  which  draws  men  to  God's  sermon." 
Kenry  Ward  Beecher :  "  Miracles  are  the  midwives  of  great  moral  truths ;  candles  lit 
before  the  dawn  but  put  out  after  the  sun  has  risen."  Illingworth,  in  Lux  Mundi,  210 
—  "  When  we  are  told  that  miracles  contradict  experience,  we  point  to  the  daily  occur- 
rence of  the  spiritual  miracle  of  regeneration  and  ask :  '  Winch  is  easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  are  for- 
given ;  or  to  say,  Arise  and  walk  ?  '  ( Mat.  9:5)." 

Miracles  and  inspiration  go  together ;  if  the  former  remain  in  the  church,  the  latter 
should  remain  also  ;  see  Marsh,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  1887:225-212.  On  the  cessation  of 
miracles  in  the  early  church,  see  Henderson,  Inspiration,  443-490 ;  Buckmann,  in  Zeit- 
sch.  f .  luth.  Theol.  u.  Kirche,  1878  :  216.  On  miracles  in  the  second  century,  see  Bar- 
nard, Literature  of  the  Second  Century,  139-180.  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit, 
167  —  "  The  apostles  were  commissioned  to  speak  for  Christ  till  the  N.  T.  Scriptures,  his 
authoritative  voice,  were  completed.  In  the  apostolate  we  have  a  provisional  inspira- 
tion ;  in  the  N.  T.  a  stereotyped  inspiration ;  the  first  being  endowed  with  authority  ad 
interim  to  forgive  sins,  and  the  second  having  this  authority  in  pcrpetuo."'  Dr.  Gor- 
don draws  an  analogy  between  coal,  which  is  fossil  sunlight,  and  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  fossil  inspiration.  Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  74  —  "  The  Bible  is  very  free  from 
the  senseless  prodigies  of  oriental  mythology.  The  great  prophets,  Isaiah,  Amos, 
Micah,  Jeremiah,  John  the  Baptist,  work  no  miracles.  Jesus'  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
ness is  a  victory  of  the  moral  consciousness  over  the  religion  of  mete  physical  prodigy." 
Trench  says  that  miracles  cluster  about  the  foundation  of  the  theocratic  kingdom 


MIRACLES   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  129 

under  Moses  and  Joshua,  and  about  the  restoration  of  that  kingdom  under  Elijah  and 
Elisha.  In  the  O.  T.,  miracles  confute  the  gods  of  Egypt  under  Moses,  the  Phoenician 
Baal  under  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  the  gods  of  Babylon  under  Daniel.  See  Diman.The- 
istic  Argument,  370,  and  art. :  Miracle,  by  Bernard,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

(  b )  Miracles  generally  certify  to  the  truth  of  doctrine,  not  directly,  but 
indirectly  ;  otherwise  a  new  miracle  must  needs  accompany  each  new 
doctrine  taught.  Miracles  primarily  and  directly  certify  to  the  divine  com- 
mission and  authority  of  a  religious  teacher,  and  therefore  warrant  accept- 
ance of  his  doctrines  and  obedience  to  his  commands  as  the  doctrines  and 
commands  of  God,  whether  these  be  communicated  at  intervals  or  all 
together,  orally  or  in  written  documents. 

The  exceptions  to  the  above  statement  are  very  few,  and  are  found  only  in  cases 
where  the  whole  commission  and  authority  of  Christ,  and  not  some  fragmentary  doe- 
trine,  are  involved.  Jesus  appeals  to  his  miracles  as  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  teaching 
in  Mat.  9  :  5,  6  —  "Which  is  easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven;  or  to  say,  Arise  and  walk?  But  that  ye  may 
know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgivo  sins  ( then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy ),  Arise,  and 
take  up  thy  bod,  and  go  unto  thy  house  "  ;  12 :  28  —  "  if  I  by  the  spirit  of  God  cast  out  demons,  then  is  the  kingdom  of 
God  come  upon  you.''  So  Paul  in  Rom.  1:4,  says  that  Jesus  "was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,.  ...  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  Mair,  Christian  Evidences,  223,  quotes  from 
Natural  Religion,  181 — "It  is  said  that  the  theo-philanthropist  Larevelliere-Lepeaux 
once  confided  to  Talleyrand  his  disappointment  at  the  ill  success  of  his  attempt  to  bring 
into  vogue  a  sort  of  improved  Christianity,  a  sort  of  benevolent  rationalism  which  he 
had  invented  to  meet  the  wants  of  a  benevolent  age.  'His  propaganda  made  no 
way,'  he  said.  'What  was  he  to  do?'  he  asked.  The  ex-bishop  Talleyrand  politely 
condoled  with  him,  feared  it  was  a  difficult  task  to  found  a  new  religion,  more  difficult 
than  he  had  imagined,  so  difficult  that  he  hardly  knew  what  to  advise.  'Still,'  — so  he 
went  on  after  a  moment's  reflection,  -'  there  Is  one  plan  which  you  might  at  least  try : 
I  should  recommend  you  to  be  crucified,  and  to  rise  again  the  third  day."  See  also 
Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  147-ltiT ;  Farrar,  Life  of  Christ,  1 :  168-172. 

(c)  Miracles,  therefore,  do  not  stand  alone  as  evidences.  Power  alone 
?auiiot  prove  a  divine  commission.  Purity  of  life  and  doctrine  must  go 
with  the  miracles  to  assure  us  that  a  religious  teacher  has  come  from  God. 
The  miracles  and  the  doctrine  in  this  manner  mutually  support  each  other, 
and  form  parts  of  one  whole.  The  internal  evidence  for  the  Christian 
system  may  have  greater  power  over  certain  minds  and  over  certain  ages 
than  the  external  evidence. 

Pascal's  aphorism  that  "  doctrines  must  be  judged  by  miracles,  miracles  by  doctrine," 
needs  to  be  supplemented  by  Mozley's  statment  that  "  a  supernatural  fact  is  the  proper 
proof  of  a  supernatural  doctrine,  while  a  supernatural  doctrine  is  not  the  proper  proof 
of  a  supernatural  fact."  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  107,  would  "  defend  mir- 
acles, but  would  not  buttress  up  Christianity  by  them.  .  .  .  No  amount  of  miracles 
could  convince  a  good  man  of  the  divine  commission  of  a  known  bad  man  ;  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  could  any  degree  of  miraculous  power  suffice  to  silence  the  doubts  of  an 
evil-minded  man.  .  .  .  The  miracle  is  a  certification  only  to  him  who  can  perceive 
its  significance.  .  .  .  The  Christian  church  has  the  resurrection  written  all  over  it. 
Its  very  existence  is  proof  of  the  resurrection.  Twelve  men  could  never  have  founded 
the  church,  if  Christ  had  remained  in  the  tomb.  The  living  church  is  the  burning  bush 
that  is  not  consumed."  Gore,  Incarnation,  57  —  "  Jesus  did  not  appear  after  his  resur- 
rection to  unbelievers,  but  to  believers  only, —  which  means  that  this  crowning  mir- 
acle was  meant  to  confirm  an  existing  faith,  not  to  create  one  where  it  did  not  exist." 

Christian  Union,  July  11,  1891  — "If  the  anticipated  resurrection  of  Joseph  Smith 
were  to  take  place,  it  would  add  nothing  whatever  to  the  authority  of  the  Mormon 
religion."  Schurman,  Agnosticism  and  Religion,  57  — "Miracles  are  merely  the  bells 
to  call  primitive  peoples  to  church.  Sweet  as  the  music  they  once  made,  modern  ears 
find  them  jangling  and  out  of  tune,  and  their  dissonant  notes  scare  away  pious  souls 
who  would  fain  enter  the  temple  of  worship."    A  new  definition  of  miracle  which  rec- 

9 


130  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

ognizes  their  possible  classification  as  extraordinary  occurrences  in  nature,  yet  sees  in 
all  nature  the  working-  of  the  living-  God,  may  do  much  to  remove  this  prejudice. 
Bishop  of  Southampton,  Place  of  Miracle,  53  —  "  Miracles  alone  could  not  produce  con- 
viction. The  Pharisees  ascribed  them  to  Beelzebub.  Though  Jesus  had  done  so  many 
signs,  yet  they  believed  not.  .  .  .  Though  miracles  were  frequently  wrought,  they 
were  rarely  appealed  to  as  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  They  are  simply  signs 
of  God's  presence  in  his  world.  By  itself  a  miracle  had  no  evidential  force.  The  only 
test  for  distinguishing-  divine  from  Satanic  miracles  is  that  of  the  moral  character  and 
purpose  of  the  worker ;  and  therefore  miracles  depend  for  all  their  force  upon  a  pre- 
vious appreciation  of  the  character  and  personality  of  Christ  ( 79 ).  The  earliest  apolo- 
gists make  no  use  of  miracles.  They  are  of  no  value  except  in  connection  with  proph- 
ecy. Miracles  are  the  revelation  of  God,  not  the  proof  of  revelation."  Versus  Super- 
natural Religion,  1 :  23,  and  Stearns,  in  New  Englander,  Jan.  1882 :  80.  See  Mozley,  Mir- 
acles, 15;  Nicoll,  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  1:33;  Mill,  Logic,  374-382;  H.  B.  Smith.  Int.  to 
Christ.  Theology,  167-169 ;  Fisher,  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,  April,  1883 :  270-283. 

(  d  )  Yet  the  Christian  miracles  do  not  lose  their  value  as  evidence  in  the 
process  of  ages.  The  loftier  the  structure  of  Christian  life  and  doctrine  the 
greater  need  that  its  foundation  be  secure.  The  authority  of  Christ  as  a 
teacher  of  supernatural  truth  rests  upon  his  miracles,  and  especially  upon 
the  miracle  of  his  resurrection.  That  one  miracle  to  which  the  church 
looks  back  as  the  source  of  her  life  carries  with  it  irresistibly  all  the  other 
miracles  of  the  Scripture  record ;  upon  it  alone  we  may  safely  rest  the 
proof  that  the  Scriptures  are  an  authoritative  revelation  from  God. 

The  miracles  of  Christ  are  simple  correlates  of  the  Incarnation  — proper  insignia  of 
his  royalty  and  divinity.  By  mere  external  evidence  however  we  can  more  easily 
prove  the  resurrection  than  the  incarnation.  In  our  arguments  with  sceptics,  we 
should  not  begin  with  the  ass  that  spoke  to  Balaam,  or  the  fish  that  swallowed  Jonah, 
but  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  that  conceded,  all  other  Biblical  miracles  will  seem 
only  natural  preparations,  accompaniments,  or  consequences.  G.  F.  Wright,  in  Bib. 
Sac,  1889:  707  — "The  difficulties  created  by  the  miraculous  character  of  Christianity 
may  be  compared  to  those  assumed  by  a  builder  when  great  permanence  is  desired  in 
the  structure  erected.  It  is  easier  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  temporary  structure 
than  of  one  which  is  to  endure  for  the  ages."  Pressense :  "  The  empty  tomb  of  Christ 
has  been  the  cradle  of  the  church,  and  if  in  this  foundation  of  her  faith  the  church  has 
been  mistaken,  she  must  needs  lay  herself  dowu  by  the  side  of  the  mortal  remains,  I 
say,  not  of  a  man,  but  of  a  religion." 

President  Schurman  believes  the  resurrection  of  Christ  to  be  "  an  obsolete  picture  of 
an  eternal  truth  — the  fact  of  a  continued  life  with  God."  Harnack,  Wesen  des  Christen- 
thums,  102,  thinks  no  consistent  union  of  the  gospel  accounts  of  Christ's  resurrection 
can  be  attained ;  appai'eutly  doubts  a  literal  and  bodily  rising;  yet  traces  Christianity 
back  to  an  invincible  faith  in  Christ's  conquering  of  death  and  his  continued  life. 
But  why  believe  the  gospels  when  they  speak  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ,  yet  disbelieve 
them  when  they  speak  of  his  miraculous  power?  We  have  no  right  to  trust  the  narra- 
tive when  it  gives  us  Chi-ist's  words  "Weep  not"  to  the  widow  of  Nain,  ( Luke  7 :  13),  and 
then  to  distrust  it  when  it  tells  us  of  his  raising  the  widow's  son.  The  words  "  Jesus  wept" 
belong  inseparably  to  a  story  of  which  "  Lazarus,  come  forth ! "  forms  a  part  ( John  11 :  35,  43 ). 
It  is  improbable  that  the  disciples  should  have  believed  so  stupendous  a  miracle  as 
Christ's  resurrection,  if  they  had  not  previously  seen  other  manifestations  of  miracu- 
lous power  on  the  part  of  Christ.  Christ  himself  is  the  great  miracle.  The  conception 
of  him  as  the  risen  and  glorified  Savior  can  be  explained  only  by  the  fact  that  he  did  so 
rise.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ .  Theology,  109  —  "  The  Church  attests  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection quite  as  much  as  the  resurrection  attests  the  divine  origin  of  the  church.  Resur- 
rection, as  an  evidence,  depends  on  the  existence  of  the  church  which  proclaims  it." 

(e)  The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus'  Christ  —  by  which  we  mean 
his  coming  forth  from  the  sepulchre  in  body  as  well  as  in  spirit  —  is  demon- 
strated by  evidence  as  varied  and  as  conclusive  as  that  which  proves  to  us 
any  single  fact  of  ancient  history.     Without  it  Christianity  itself  is  inexpli- 


MIRACLES    AS    ATTESTING    REVELATION.  131 

cable,  as  is  shown  by  the  failure  of  all  modem  rationalistic  theorios  to 
account  for  its  rise  and  progress. 

lb 

In  discussing-  the  evidence  of  Jesus'  resurrection,  we  are  confronted  with  three  main 
rationalistic  theories : 

I.  The  Swoon-theory  of  Strauss.  This  holds  that  Jesus  did  not  really  die.  The  cold 
and  the  spices  of  the  sepulchre  revived  him.  We  reply  that  the  blood  and  water,  and 
the  testimony  of  the  centurion  ( Mark  15 :  45 ),  proved  actual  death  ( see  Bib.  Sac,  April, 
1889:  228;  Forrest,  Christ  of  History  and  Experience,  137-170).  The  rolling  away  of  the 
stone,  and  Jesus'  power  immediately  alter,  are  inconsistent  with  immediately  preced- 
ing swoon  and  suspended  animation.  How  was  his  life  preserved?  where  did  he  go? 
when  did  he  die?  His  not  dying-  implies  deceit  on  his  own  part  or  on  that  of  his 
disciples, 

II.  The  Spirit-theory  of  Keim.  Jesus  really  died,  but  only  his  spirit  appeared.  The 
spirit  of  Jesus  grave  the  disciples  a  sign  of  his  continued  life,  a  telegram  from  heaven. 
But  we  reply  that  the  telegram- was  untrue,  for  it  asserted  that  his  bodj  had  risen  from 
the  tomb.  The  tomb  was  empty  and  the  linen  cloths  showed  an  orderly  departure. 
Jesus  himself  denied  that  he  was  a  bodiless  spirit  :  " a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bonos,  as  ye  see  me 
having  "  ( Luke  24 :  39 ).  Did  "  his  flesh  see  corruption  "  (  Acts  2 :  31 )  ?  Was  the  penitent  thief  raised 
from  the  dead  as  much  as  he?  Godet,  Lectures  in  Defence  of  the  Christian  Faith,  lect.i-. 
A  dilemma  for  those  who  deny  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection:  Either  his  body 
remained  in  the  hands  of  his  disciples,  or  it  was  given  up  to  the  Jews.  If  the  disciples 
retained  it,  they  were  impostors :  but  this  is  not  maintained  by  modern  rationalists.  II 
the  Jews  retained  it,  why  did  they  not  produce  it  as  conclusive  evidence  against  the 
disciples? 

III.  The  Vision-theory  of  Renan.  Jesus  died,  and  there  was  no  objective  appearance 
even  of  his  spirit.  Mary  Magdalene  was  the  victim  of  subjective  hallucination,  and 
her  hallucination  became  contagious.  This  was  natural  because  the  Jews  expected 
that  the  Messiah  would  work  miracles  and  would  rise  from  the  dead.  We  reply  thai 
the  disciples  did  not  expect  Jesus' resurrection.  The  women  went  to  the  sepulchre, 
not  to  see  a  risen  Redeemer,  but  to  embalm  a  dead  body.  Thomas  and  those  at 
Emmaus  had  given  up  all  hope.  Four  hundred  years  bad  passed  since  the  days  of 
miracles;  John  the  Baptisi  "  did  no  miracle"  (John  10:  41);  the  Sadducees  said  "  ihore  is  no  resur- 
rection "(  Mat.  22 :  23 ).  There  were  thirteen  dill'erent  appearances,  t  o  :  I.  the  Magdalen ;  2. 
other  women;  3.  Peter;  4.  Emmaus;  5.  the  Twelve;  6.  the  Twelve  after  eight  days; 
7.  Galilee  seashore  ;  8.  Galilee  mountain;  9.  Galilee  five  hundred  ;  10.  .James ;  11.  ascension 
at  Bethany;  12.  Stephen;  13.  Paul  on  way  to  Damascus.  Paul  describes  Christ's  appear- 
ance to  him  as  something  objective',  and  he  implies  that  Christ  \s  previous  appearances 

to  others  were  objective  also :  "  last  of  all  [  these  bodily  appearances] he  appeared  to  me  also " 

(1  Cor.  15 .-  8 ).  Bruce,  Apologetics,  396 —  "  Faul'8  interest  and  intention  in  classing  the  t  wo 
together  was  to  level  his  own  vision  [  of  Christ  ]  up  to  the  objectivity  of  the  early  Chris- 
tophanies.  He  believed  that  the  eleven,  that  Peter  in  particular,  had  seen  the  risen  Christ 
with  the  eye  of  the  body,  and  he  meant  to  claim  for  himself  a  vision  of  t  he  same  kind." 
Paul's  was  a  sane,  strong  nature.  Subjective  visions  do  not  transform  human  Lives ; 
the  resurrection  moulded  the  apostles;  they  did  not  create  the  resurrection  (see  Gore, 
Incarnation,  70).  These  appearances  soon  ceased,  unlike  the  law  of  hallucinations, 
which  increase  in  frequency  and  intensity.  It  is  impossible  to  explain  the  ordinances, 
the  Lord's  day,  or  Christianity  itself,  if  Jesus  did  not  rise  from  the  dead. 

The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  teaches  three  important  lessons :  ( 1 )  It  showed  that  his 
work  of  atonement  was  completed  and  was  stamped  with  the  divine  approval ;  (2)  It 
showed  him  to  be  Lord  of  all  and  gave  the  one  sufficient  external  proof  of  Christianity  ; 
(3)  Itfurnished  the  ground  and  pledgeof  our  own  resurrection,  and  thus  "brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light"  ( 2  Tim.  1 .- 10 ).  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  resurrect  ion  was  the  one 
sign  upon  which  Jesus  himself  staked  his  claims  —  "the  sign  of  Jonah"  (Luke  11:  29j;  and  that 
the  resurrection  is  proof,  not  simply  of  God's  power,  but  of  Christ's  own  power:  Jim 
10  :  18  —  "I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again  "  ;  2 :  19  —  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up".  .  .  .  21  —  "he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body."  See  Alexander,  Christ 
and  Christianity,  9,  158-224,  302;  Mill,  Theism,  210;  Auberlen,  Div.  Revelation,  50; 
Boston  Lectures,  203-239;  Christlieb,  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,  448-503;  Row, 
Bampton  Lectures,  1887  :  358-423 ;  Hutton,  Essays,  1 :  119 ;  Schaff,  in  Princton  Rev.,  May, 
1880;  411-419;  Fisher,  Christian  Evidences,  41-46,  82-85;  West,  in  Defence  and  Conf.  of 
Faith,  80-129 ;  also  special  works  on  the  Resurrection  of  our  Lord,  by  Milligan,  Morrison, 
Kennedy,  J.  Baldwin  Brown. 


132  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM   GOD. 

G.    Counterfeit  Minutes. 

Since  only  an  act  directly  wrought  by  God  can  properly  l>e  called  a 
miracle,  it  follows  that  surprising  events  brought  about  by  evil  spirits  or 
by  men,  through  the  use  of  natural  agencies  1  teyond  our  knowledge,  are 
not  entitled  to  this  appellation.  The  Scriptures  recognize  the  existence  of 
such,  but  denominate  them  "lying  wonders"  (2  Thess.  2:9). 

These  counterfeit  miracles  in  various  ages  argue  that  the  belief  in  miracles 

is  natural  to  the  race,  and  that  somewhere  there  must  exist  the  true.  They 

|  serve  to  show  that  not  all  supernatural  occurrences  are  divine,  and  to  impress 

upon  us  the  necessity  of  careful  examination  before  we  accept  them  as 

divine. 

False  miracles  may  commonly  be  distinguished  from  the  true  by  ( a  )  their 
accompaniments  of  immoral  conduct  or  of  doctrine  contradictory  to  truth 
already  revealed  —  as  in  modern  spiritualism  ;  ( b )  their  internal  character- 
istics of  inanity  and  extravagance  —  as  in  the  liquefaction  of  the  blood  of 
St.  Januarius,  or  the  miracles  of  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament ;  (  c)  the 
insufficiency  of  the  object  which  they  are  designed  to  further — as  in  the 
case  of  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  or  of  the  miracles  said  to  accompany  the  pub- 
lication of  the  doctrines  of  the  immaculate  conception  and  of  the  papal 
infallibility;  (d)  their  lack  of  substantiating  evidence  —  as  in  niediseval 
miracles,  so  seldom  attested  by  contemporary  and  disinterested  witnesses  ; 
( e )  their  denial  or  undervaluing  of  God's  previous  revelation  of  himself  in 
nature — as  shown  by  the  neglect  of  ordinary  means,  in  the  cases  of  Faith- 
cure  and  of  so-called  Christian  Science. 

Only  what  is  valuable  is  counterfeited.  False  miracles  presuppose  the  true.  Fisher, 
Nature  and  Method  of  Kcvelation,  283— "The  miracles  of  Jesus  originated  faith  in  him, 
while  mediaeval  miracles  follow  established  faith.  The  testimony  of  the  apostles  was 
given  in  the  face  of  incredulous  Sadducces.  They  were  ridiculed  and  maltreated  on 
account  of  it.  It  was  no  time  for  devout  dreams  and  the  invention  of  romances." 
The  blood  of  St.  Januarius  at  Naples  is  said  to  be  contained  in  a  vial,  one  side  of  which 
is  of  thick  glass,  while  the  other  side  is  of  thin.  A  similar  miracle  was  wrought  at 
Hales  in  Gloucestershire.  St.  Alban,  the  first  martyr  of  Britain,  after  his  head  is  cut 
off,  carries  it  about  in  his  hand.  In  Ireland  the  place  is  shown  where  St.  Patrick  in  the 
fifth  century  drove  all  the  toads  and  snakes  over  a  precipice  into  the  nether  regions. 
The  legend  however  did  not  become  current  until  some  hundreds  of  years  after  the 
saint's  bones  had  crumbled  to  dust  at  Saul,  near  Downpatrick  (see  Hemphill,  Liter- 
ature of  the  Second  Century,  180-182).  Compare  the  story  of  the  book  of  Tobit  (US), 
which  relates  the  expu  sion  of  a  demon  by  smoke  from  the  burning  heart  and  liver  of  a 
fish  caught  in  the  Tigris,  and  the  story  of  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament  (I,  Infancy), 
which  tells  of  the  expulsion  of  Satan  in  the  form  of  a  mad  dog  from  Judas  by  the 
child  Jesus.  On  counterfeit  miracles  in  general,  see  Mozley,  Miracles,  15,  161;  F.  W. 
Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  72;  A.  S.  Farrar,  Science  and  Theology,  208; 
Tholuck,  Vermischte  Schriften,  1 :  27  ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1:  630;  Presb.  Rev.,  1881: 
687-719. 

Some  modern  writers  have  maintained  that  the  gift  of  miracles  still  remains  in  the 
church.  Bcngel:  "The  reason  why  many  miracles  are  not  now  wrought  is  not  so 
much  because  faith  is  established,  as  because  unbelief  reigns."  Christlieb:  "  It  is  the 
want,  of  faith  in  our  age  which  is  the  greatest  hindrance  to  the  stronger  and  more 
marked  appearance  of  that  miraculous  power  which  is  working  here  and  there  in  quiet 
concealment.  Unbelief  is  the  final  and  most  important  reason  for  the  retrogression  of 
miracles."  Edward  Irving,  Works,  5 :  164  —  "  Sickness  is  sin  apparent  in  the  body,  the 
presentiment  of  death,  the  forerunner  of  corruption.  Now,  as  Christ  came  to  destroy 
death,  and  will  yet  redeem  the  body  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  if  the  church  is 
to  have  a  first  fruits  or  earnest  of  this  power,  it  must  be  by  receiving  power  over  dis- 


MIRACLES   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION".  133 

cases  that  are  the  first  fruits  and  earnest  of  death."  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon,  in  his  Ministry 
of  Healing,  held  to  this  view.  See  also  Boys,  Proofs  of  the  Miraculous  in  the  Experi- 
ence of  the  Church;  Bushnell,  Nature  fend- the  Supernatural,  446-493;  Review  of  Gor- 
don, by  Vincent,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1883 :  473-502 ;  Review  of  Vincent,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1884 : 
49-79. 

In  reply  to  the  advocates  of  faith-cure  in  general,  we  would  grant  that  nature  is  plas- 
tic in  God's  hand  ;  that  he  can  work  miracle  when  and  where  it  pleases  him ;  and  that 
he  has  given  promises  which,  with  certain  Scriptural  and  rational  limitatii  ins,  encour- 
age believing  prayer  for  healing  in  cases  of  sickness.  But  we  incline  to  the  belief  that 
in  these  later  ages  God  answers  such  prayer,  not  by  miracle,  but  by  special  providence, 
and  by  gifts  of  courage,  faith  and  will,  thus  acting  by  his  Spirit  directly  upon  the  soul  and 
only  indirectly  upon  the  body.  The  laws  of  nature  are  generic  volitions  of  God,  and  to 
ignore  them  and  disuse  means  is  presumption  and  disrespect  to  God  himself.  The 
Scripture  promise  to  faith  is  always  expressly  or  impliedly  conditioned  upon  our  use 
of  means:  we  are  to  work  out  our  own  sal  vat  [on,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  God  who 
works  in  us;  it  is  vain  for  the  drowning  man  to  pray,  30  long  as  he  refuses  to  lay  hold 
of  the  rope  that  is  thrown  to  him.  Medicines  and  physicians  are  i  he  rope  thrown  to  us 
by  God;  we  cannot  expect  miraculous  help,  while  we  neglect  the  help  God  has  already 
given  us;  to  refuse  this  help  is  practically  to  deny  Christ's  revelation  in  nature.  Why 
not  live  without  eating,  as  well  as  recover  from  sickness  without  medicine?  Faith-feed- 
ing is  quite  as  rational  as  faith-healing.  To  except  cases  of  disease  from  this  general  rule 
as  to  the  use  of  means  has  no  warrant  eithv  in  reason  or  in  Scripture.  The  atonement 
has  purchased  complete  salvation,  and  some  day  salvation  shall  be  ours.  But  death  and 
depravity  still  remain,  not  as  penalty,  but  as  chastisement.  So  disease  remains  also. 
Hospitals  for  Incurables,  and  the  deaths  even  of  advocates  of  faith-cure,  show  that  they 
too  are  compelled  to  recognize  some  limit  to  the  application  of  the  New  Testament 
promise. 

In  view  of  the  preceding  discussion  we  must  regard  the  so-called  christian  Scienceas 
neither  Christian  nor  scientific.  Mrs.  Mary  Baker  G.  Eddy  denies  the  authority  of  all 
that  part  of  revelation  which  God  has  made  to  man  in  nature,  and  holds  that  the 
laws  of  nature  may  be  disregarded  with  impunity  by  those  who  have  proper  faith  ;  see 
G.  F.  Wright,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  April,  1899 : 375.  Bishop  Lawrence  of  Massachusetts :  "One 
of  the  errors  of  Christian  Science  is  its  neglect  of  accumulated  knowledge,  of  the 
fund  of  information  stored  up  tor  these  Christian  centuries.  That  knowledge  is  just 
as  much  God's  gift  as  is  the  knowledge  obtained  from  direct  revelation.  In  rejecting 
accumulated  knowledge  and  professional  skill,  Christian  Science  rejects  the  gift  of 
God."  Most  of  the  professed  cures  of  Christian  Science  are  explicable  by  the  influence 
of  the  mind  upon  the  body,  through  hypnosis  or  suggestion;  (see  A.  A.  Bennett,  in 
Watchman,  Feb.  13,  1903 ).  Mental  disturbance  may  make  the  mother's  milk  a  poison  to 
the  child;  mental  excitement  is  a  common  cause  of  indigestion;  mental  depression 
induces  bowel  disorders  ;  depressed  mental  and  moral  conditions  render  a  person  more 
susceptible  to  grippe,  pneumonia,  typhoid  fever.  Reading  the  account  of  an  accident 
in  which  the  body  is  torn  or  maimed,  we  ourselves  feel  pain  in  the  same  spot;  when  the 
child's  hand  is  crushed,  the  mother's  hand,  though  at  a  distance,  becomes  swollen  ;  the 
mediaeval  stigmata  probably  resulted  from  continuous  broodiug  upon  the  sufferingsof 
Christ  (see  Carpenter,  Mental  Physiology,  676-690  \. 

But  mental  states  may  help  as  well  as  harm  the  body.  Mental  expectancy  facilitates 
cure  in  cases  of  sickness.  The  physician  helps  the  patient  by  inspiring  hope  and  cour- 
age. Imagination  works  wonders,  especially  in  the  case  of  nervous  disorders.  The 
diseases  said  to  be  cured  by  Christian  Science  are  commonly  of  this  sort.  In  every  age 
fakirs,  mesmerists,  and  quacks  have  availed  themselves  of  these  underlying  mental 
forces.  By  inducing  expectancy,  imparting  courage,  rousing-  the  paralyzed  will,  they 
have  indirectly  caused  bodily  changes  which  have  been  mistaken  for  miracle.  Tacitus 
tell  us  of  the  healing  of  a  blind  man  by  the  Emperor  Vespasian.  Undoubted  cures  have 
been  wrought  by  the  royal  touch  in  England.  Since  such  wonders  have  been  per- 
formed by  Indian  medicine-men,  we  cannot  regard  them  as  having  any  specific  Chris- 
tian character,  and  when,  as  in  the  present  case,  we  find  them  used  to  aid  in  the  spread 
of  false  doctrine  with  regard  to  sin,  Christ,  atonement,  and  the  church,  we  must  class 
them  with  the  "lying  wonders  '  of  which  we  are  warned  in  2  Thess.  2:9.  See  Harris,  Philo- 
sophical Basis  of  Theism,  381-386 ;  Buckley,  Faith-Healing,  and  in  Century  Magazine, 
June,  1886 : 221-236 ;  Bruce,  Miraculous  Element  in  Gospels,  lecture  8 ;  Andover  Review, 
1887 :  240-264. 


134  THE   SCKIPIUKES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

IV.     Pkophecy  as  Attesting  a  Divine  Eevelation. 

"We  here  consider  prophecy  in  its  narrow  sense  of  mere  prediction, 
reserving  to  a  subsequent  chapter  the  consideration  of  prophecy  as  inter- 
pretation of  the  divine  will  in  general. 

1.  Definition.  Prophecy  is  the  foretelling  of  future  events  by  virtue  of 
direct  communication  from  God  —  a  foretelling,  therefore,  which,  though 
not  contravening  any  laws  of  the  human  mind,  those  laws,  if  fully  known, 
would  not,  without  this  agency  of  God,  be  sufficient  to  explain. 

In  discussing-  the  subject  of  prophecy,  we  are  met  at  the  outset  by  the  contention 
that  there  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  any  real  foretelling-  of  future  events  beyond  that 
which  is  possible  to  natural  prescience.  This  is  the  view  of  Kuenen,  Prophets  and 
Prophecy  in  Israel.  Pfieiderer,  Philos.  Relig.,  2 :  42,  denies  any  direct  prediction.  Proph- 
ecy in  Israel,  he  intimates,  was  simply  the  consciousness  of  God's  righteousness,  pro- 
claiming its  ideals  of  the  future,  and  declaring  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  moral  ideal 
of  the  good  and  the  law  of  the  world's  history,  so  that  the  fates  of  nations  are  condi- 
tioned by  their  bearing  toward  this  moral  purpose  of  God:  "The  fundamental  error 
of  the  vulgar  apologetics  is  that  it  confounds  prophecy  with  heathen  soothsaying  — 
national  salvation  without  character."  W.  Robertson  Smith,  in  Encyc.  Britannica,  19 : 
821,  tells  us  that  "  detailed  prediction  occupies  a  very  secondary  place  in  the  writings  of 
the  prophets;  or  rather  indeed  what  seem  to  be  predictions  in  detail  are  usually  only 
free  poetical  illustrations  of  historical  principles,  which  neither  received  nor  demanded 
exact  fulfilment." 

As  in  the  case  of  miracles,  our  faith  in  an  immanent  God,  who  is  none  other  thau  the 
Logos  or  larger  Christ,  gives  us  a  point  of  view  from  which  we  may  reconcile  the  con- 
tentions of  the  naturalists  and  supernaturalists.  Prophecy  is  an  immediate  act  of 
God;  but,  since  all  natural  genius  is  also  due  to  God's  energizing,  we  do  not  need  to 
deny  the  employment  of  man's  natural  gilts  in  prophecy.  The  instances  of  telepathy, 
presentiment,  and  second  sight  which  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research  has  demon- 
strated to  be  facts  show  that  prediction,  in  the  history  of  divine  revelation,  may  be 
only  an  intensification,  under  the  extraordinary  impulse  of  the  divine  Spirit,  of  a  power 
that  is  in  some  degree  latent  in  all  men.  The  author  of  every  great  work  of  creative 
imagination  knows  that  a  higher  power  than  his  own  has  possessed  him.  In  all  human 
reason  there  is  a  natural  activity  of  the  divine  Reason  or  Logos,  and  he  is  "the light  which 
lighteth  every  man"  ( John  1 :  9).  So  there  is  a  natural  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  who 
completes  the  circle  of  the  divine  consciousness  completes  also  the  circle  of  human 
consciousness,  gives  self-hood  to  every  soul,  makes  available  to  man  the  natural  as  well 
as  the  spiritual  gifts  of  Christ ;  cf.  John  16 :  14  —  "  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you." 
The  same  Spirit  who  in  the  beginning  "  brooded  over  the  face  of  the  waters "  (  Gen.  1:2)  also  broods 
over  humanity,  and  it  is  he  who,  according  to  Christ's  promise,  was  to  "declare  unto  you  the 
things  that  are  to  come  "  ( John  16 :  13  ).  The  gift  of  prophecy  may  have  its  natural  side,  like  the 
gift  of  miracles,  yet  may  be  finally  explicable  only  as  the  result  of  an  extraordinary 
working  of  that  Spirit  of  Christ  who  to  some  degree  manifests  himself  in  the  reason 
and  conscience  of  every  man ;  cf.  1  Pet.  1 :  11  —  "  searching  what  time  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  point  unto,  when  it  test  fled  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories  that 
should  follow  them."    See  Myers,  Human  Personality,  2 :  262-292. 

A.  B.  Davidson,  in  his  article  on  Prophecy  and  Prophets,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary, 
4  :  120, 121,  gives  little  weight  to  this  view  that  prophecy  is  based  on  a  natural  power  of 
the  human  mind:  "The  arguments  by  which  Giesebrecht,  Berufsgabung,  13  ff.,  sup- 
ports the  theory  of  a  'faculty  of  presentiment'  have  little  cogency.  This  faculty  is 
supposed  to  reveal  itself  particularly  on  the  approach  of  death  ( Gen.  28  and  49).  The  con- 
temporaries of  most  great  religious  personages  have  attributed  to  them  a  prophetic 
gift.  The  answer  of  John  Knox  to  those  who  credited  him  with  such  a  gift  is  worth 
reading  :  '  My  assurances  are  not  marvels  of  Merlin,  nor  yet  the  dark  sentences  of  pro- 
fane prophecy.  But  first,  the  plain  truth  of  God's  word ;  second,  the  invincible  justice 
of  the  everlasting  God ;  and  third,  theordinary  course  of  his  punishments  and  plagues 
from  the  beginning,  are  my  assurances  and  grounds.'  "  While  Davidson  grants  the  ful- 
filment of  certain  specific  predictions  of  Scripture,  to  be  hereafter  mentioned,  he  holds 
that  "such  presentiments  as  we  can  observe  to  be  authentic  are  chiefly  products  of  the 


PROPHECY   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  135 

conscience  or  moral  reason.  True  prophecy  is  based  on  moral  grounds.  Everywhere 
the  menacing-  future  is  connected  with  the  evil  past  by  'therefore'  (  Micah  3:12;  Is.  5  :  13;  Amos 
1:  2)."  AVe  hold  with  Davidson  to  the  moral  element  in  prophecy,  but  we  also  recog- 
nize a  power  in  normal  humanity  which  he  would  minimize  or  deny.  We  claim  that 
the  human  mind  even  iu  its  ordinary  and  secular  working  gives  occasional  signs  of 
transcending  the  limitations  of  the  present.  Believing  in  the  continual  activity  of 
the  divine  Reason  in  the  reason  of  man,  we  have  no  need  to  doubt  the  possibility  of 
an  extraordinary  insight  into  the  future,  and  such  insight  is  needed  at  the  great  epochs 
of  religious  history.  Expositor's  Gk.  Test.,  2:  34 — "Savonarola  foretold  as  early  as 
1496  the  capture  of  Home,  which  happened  in  1527,  and  he  did  this  not  only  in  general 
terms  but  in  detail;  his  words  were  realized  to  the  letter  when  the  sacred  churches 
of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  became,  as  the  prophet  foretold,  stahles  for  the  conquerors' 
horses."  On  the  general  subject,  see  Payne-Smith,  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for 
Christ;  Alexander,  Christ  and  Christianity  ;  Farrar,  Science  and  Theology,  1U0;  Newton 
on  Prophecy  ;  Fairhairn  on  Prophecy. 

2.  Relation  of  Prophecy  to  Miracles.  Miracles  are  attestations  of 
revelation  proceeding  from  divine  power  ;  prophecy  is  an  attestation  of  rev- 
elation proceeding  from  divine  knowledge.  Only  God  can  know  the  con- 
tingencies of  the  future.  The  possibility  and  probability  of  prophecy  may 
be  argued  upon  the  same  grounds  upon  which  we  argue  the  possibility  and 
probability  of  miracles.  As  an  evidence  of  divine  revelation,  however, 
prophecy  possesses  two  advantages  over  miracles,  namely  :  (  a  )  The  proof, 
in  the  case  of  prophecy,  is  uot  derived  from  ancient  testimony,  but  is  under 
our  eyes,  (b)  The  evidence  of  miracles  cannot  become  stronger,  whereas 
every  new  fulfilment  adds  to  the  argument  from  prophecy  . 

3.  Requirements  in  Prophecy,  considered  as  an  Evidence  of  Revela- 
tion, (a)  The  utterance  must  be  distant  from  the  event.  (  b )  Nothing 
must  exist  to  suggest  the  event  to  merely  natural  prescience.  ( c )  The 
utterance  must  be  free  from  ambiguity,  (d)  Yet  it  must  not  be  so  pre- 
cise as  to  secure  its  own  fulfilment.  ( e  )  It  must  be  followed  in  due  time 
by  the  event  predicted. 

Hume:  "All  prophecies  are  real  miracles,  and  onty  as  such  can  be  admitted  as  proof 
of  any  revelation."  See  Wardlaw,  Syst.  Theol.,  1:  347.  (a)  Hundreds  of  years  inter- 
vened between  certain  of  the  O.  T.  predictions  and  their  fulfilment,  (b)  Stanley 
instances  the  natural  sagacity  of  Burke,  which  enabled  him  to  predict  the  French  Rev- 
olution. But  Burke  also  predicted  in  1793  that  France  would  be  partitioned  like  Poland 
among  a  confederacy  of  hostile  powers.  Canning  predicted  that  South  American 
colonies  would  grow  up  as  the  United  States  had  grown.  D'Isracli  predicted  that  our 
Southern  Confederacy  would  become  an  independent  nation.  Ingersoll  predicted  that 
within  ten  years  there  would  be  two  theatres  for  one  church.  ( c )  Illustrate  ambigu- 
ous prophecies  by  the  Delphic  oracle  to  Croesus :  "  Crossing  the  river,  thou  destroyest 
a  great  nation  "  —  whether  his  own  or  his  enemy's  the  oracle  left  undetermined.  "  Ibis 
et  redibis  nunquam  peribis  in  bello."  (d)  Strauss  held  that  O.  T.  prophecy  itself 
determined  either  the  events  or  the  narratives  of  the  gospels.  See  Greg,  Creed  of 
Christendom,  chap.  4.  (e)  Cardan,  the  Italian  mathematician,  predicted  the  day  and 
hour  of  his  own  death,  and  committed  suicide  at  the  proper  time  to  prove  the  predic- 
tion true.  Jehovah  makes  the  fulfilment  of  his  predictions  the  proof  of  his  deity  in 
the  controversy  with  false  gods :  Is.  41 :  23  —  "  Declare  the  things  that  are  to  come  hereafter,  that  we  may 
know  that  ye  are  gods"  ;  42:  9 —  "Behold,  the  former  things  are  come  to  pass  and  new  things  do  I  declare:  before 
they  spring  forth  I  tell  you  of  them." 

4.  General  Features  of  Prophecy  in  the  Scriptures,  (a)  Its  large 
amount  —  occupying  a  great  j>ortion  of  the  Bible,  and  extending  over  many 
hundred  years.  (  b  )  Its  ethical  and  religious  nature  —  the  events  of  the 
future  being  regarded  as  outgrowths  and  results  of  men's  present  attitude 


136  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

toward  God.  (c)  Its  unity  in  diversity — finding  its  central  point  in 
Christ  the  true  servant  of  God  and  deliverer  of  his  people.  ( d)  Its  actual 
fulfilment  as  regards  many  of  its  predictions  —  while  seeming  non-fulfil- 
ments are  explicable  from  its  figurative  and  conditional  nature. 

A.  B.  Davidson,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  4 :  125,  has  suggested  reasons  for  the 
apparent  non-f  ulfllment  of  certain  predictions.  Prophecy  is  poetical  and  figurative ; 
its  details  are  not  to  be  pressed :  they  are  only  drapery,  needed  for  the  expression  of  the 
idea.  In  Isa.  13 :  16  —  "  Their  infants  shall  be  dashed  in  pieces  .  .  .  and  their  wives  ravished ' '  —  the  prophet 
gives  an  ideal  picture  of  the  sack  of  a  city ;  these  tilings  did  not  actually  happen,  but 
Cyrus  entered  Babylon  "in  peace."  Yet  the  essential  truth  remained  that  the  city  fell 
into  the  enemy's  hands.  The  prediction  of  Ezekiel  with  regard  to  Tyre,  Ez.  26 :  7-14,  is  rec- 
ognized in  Ez.  29:  17-20  as  having  been  fulfilled  not  in  its  details  but  in  its  essence— the 
actual  event  having  been  the  breaking  of  the  power  of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Is.  17 : 
I  —"Behold,  Damascus  is  taken  away  from  being  a  city,  and  it  shall  be  a  ruinous  heap"  — must  be  interpreted 
as  predicting  the  blotting  out  of  its  dominion,  since  Damascus  has  probably  never 
ceased  to  be  a  city.  The  conditional  nature  of  prophecy  explains  other  seeming  non- 
fulfilments.    Predictions  were  often  threats,  which  might  be  revoked  upon  repentance. 

Jer.  26:  13 "amend  your  ways  .  .  .  and  the  Lord  will  repent  him  of  the  evil  which  he  hath  pronounced  against 

you."  Jonah  3:4  —  "  Yet  forty  days,  and  Nineveh  shall  be  overthrown  ...  10  —  God  saw  their  works,  that  they 
turned  from  their  evil  way  ;  and  God  repented  of  the  evil,  which  he  said  he  would  do  unto  them ;  and  he  did  it  not " ; 
cf.  Jer.  18:8;  26:19. 

Instances  of  actual  fufilment  of  prophecy  are  found,  according  to  Davidson,  in  Sam- 
uel's  prediction  of  some  things  that  would  happen  to  Sau),  which  the  history  declares 
did  happen  (1  Sam.  1  and  10).  Jeremiah  predicted  the  death  of  Hananiah  within  the  year, 
which  took  place  (Jer.  28).  Micaiah  predicted  the  defeat  and  death  of  Ahab  at  Ramoth- 
Gilead  (1  lings  22).  Isaiah  predicted  the  failure  of  the  northern  coalition  to  subdue  Jeru- 
salem (Is.  7);  the  overthrow  in  two  or  three  years  of  Damascus  and  Northern  Israel 
before  the  Assyrians  ( Is.  8  and  17 ) ;  the  failure  of  Sennacherib  to  capture  Jerusalem,  and 
the  melting  away  of  his  army  ( Is.  37 :  34-37  ).  "And  in  general,  apart  from  details,  the 
main  predictions  of  the  prophets  regarding  Israel  and  the  nations  were  verified  in  his- 
tory, for  example,  Amos  1  and  2.  The  chief  predictions  of  the  prophets  relate  to  the 
imminent  downfall  of  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah ;  to  what  lies  beyond  this, 
namely,  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  to  the  state  of  the  people  in  their 
condition  of  final  felicity."  For  predictions  of  the  exile  and  the  return  of  Israel,  sec 
especially  Amos  9  :  9  —  "  For,  lo,  I  will  command,  and  I  will  sift  the  house  of  Israel  among  all  the  nations,  like  as 
grain  is  sifted  in  a  sieve,  yet  shall  not  the  least  kernel  fall  upon  the  earth.  ...  14  — And  I  will  bring  again  the 
captivity  of  my  people  Israel,  and  they  shall  build  the  waste  cities  and  inhabit  them."  Even  if  we  accept  the 
theory  of  composite  authorship  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  we  still  have  a  foretelling  of  the 
sending  back  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  and  a  designation  of  Cyrus  as  God's  agent,  in 
Is.  44  :  28  —  "  that  saith  of  Cyrus,  He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure :  even  saying  of  Jerusalem, 
She  shall  be  built ;  and  of  the  temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid"  ;  see  George  Adam  Smith,  in  Has- 
tings' Bible  Dictionary,  2  :  493.  Frederick  the  Great  said  to  his  chaplain :  "  Give  me  in 
Qne  word  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible";  and  the  chaplain  well  replied: 
"  The  Jews,  your  Majesty."  In  the  case  of  the  Jews  we  have  even  now  the  unique  phe- 
nomena of  a  people  without  a  land,  and  a  land  without  a  people,  —  yet  both  these  were 
predicted  centuries  before  the  event. 

5.  Messianic  Prophecy  in  general,  (a)  Direct  predictions  of  events 
—  as  in  Old  Testament  prophecies  of  Christ's  birth,  suffering  and  subse- 
quent glory.  (  b  )  General  prophecy  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  of  its  gradual  triumph.  (  c  )  Historical  types  in  a  nation  and 
in  individuals  — as  Jonah  and  David,  (d)  Prefigurations  of  the  future 
in  rites  and  ordinances  —  as  in  sacrifice,  circumcision,  and  the  passover. 

6.  fecial  Prophecies  uttered  by  Christ.  («)  As  to  his  own  death 
and  resurrection.  (  6  )  As  to  events  occurring  between  his  death  and  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ( multitudes  of  impostors  ;  wars  and  rumors  of 
wars;   famine  and  pestilence),     (c)  As  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 


PROPHECY   AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION.  137 

ami  the  Jewish  polity  (Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies;  abomination  of 
desolation  in  the  holy  place  ;  flight  of  Christians;  misery  ;  massacre  ;  dis- 
persion), (d)  As  to  the  world-wide  diffusion  of  his  gospel  (the  Bible 
already  the  most  widely  circulated  book  in  the  world ). 

The  most  important  feature  in  prophecy  is  its  Messianic  element;  see  Luke  24  .-27  — 
"beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself";  Acts  10  :  43  — "to  him  bear  all  the  prophets  witness";  Rev.  19  :  10  —  "the  testimony  of  Jesus  is  the 
spirit  of  prophecy."  Types  are  intended  resemblances,  designed  prefigurations :  for  exam- 
ple, Israel  is  a  type  of  the  Christian  church;  outside  nations  are  types  of  the  hostile 
world ;  Jonah  and  David  are  types  of  Christ.  The  typical  nature  of  Israel  rests  upon 
the  deeper  fact  of  the  community  of  life.  As  the  life  of  God  the  Logos  lies  at  the  basis 
of  universal  humanity  and  interpenetrates  it  in  every  part,  so  out  of  this  universal 
humanity  grows  Israel  in  general ;  out  of  Israel  as  a  nation  springs  the  spiritual  Israel, 
and  out  of  spiritual  Israel  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  — the  upward  rising  pyramid 
finds  its  apex  and  culmination  in  him.  Hence  the  predictions  with  regard  to  "the  servant 
of  Jehovah  "  ( Is.  42  : 1-7  >,  and  "  the  Messiah  "  ( Is.  61 : 1 ;  John  1 :  41 ),  have  partial  fulfilment  in  Israel, 
but  perfect  fulfilment  only  in  Christ ;  so  Delitzsch,  Oehler,  and  Cheyne  on  Isaiah,  2 :  203. 
Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  59  —  "If  humanity  were  not  potentially  and  in  some  degree 
Immanuel,  God  with  us,  there  would  never  have  issued  from  its  bosom  he  who  bore 
and  revealed  this  blessed  name."  Gardiner,  O.  T.  and  N.  T.  in  their  Mutual  Relations, 
170-194. 

In  the  O.  T.,  Jehovah  is  the  Redeemer  of  his  people.  He  works  through  judges, 
prophets,  kings,  but  he  himself  remains  the  Savior;  "it  is  only  the  Divine  in  them  that 
saves";  "Salvation  is  of  Jehovah  "  (Jonah  2:9).  Jehovah  is  manifested  in  the  Davidic  King 
under  the  monarchy  ;  in  Israel,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  during  the  exile;  and  in  the 
Messiah,  or  Anointed  One,  in  the  post-exilian  period.  Because  of  its  conscious  identi- 
fication with  Jehovah,  Israel  is  always  a  forward-looking  people.  Each  new  judge, 
king,  prophet  is  regarded  as  heralding  the  coming  reign  of  righteousness  and  peace. 
These  earthly  deliverers  are  saluted  with  rapturous  expectation  ;  the  prophets  express 
this  expectation  in  terms  that  transcend  the  possibilities  of  the  present ;  and,  when  this 
expectation  fails  to  be  fully  realized,  the  Messianic  hope  is  simply  transferred  to  a 
larger  future.  Each  separate  prophecy  has  its  drapery  furnished  by  the  prophet's 
immediate  surroundings,  and  finds  its  occasion  in  some  event  of  contemporaneous  his- 
tory. But  by  degrees  it  becomes  evident  that  only  an  ideal  and  perfect  King  and  Sav- 
ior can  fill  out  the  requirements  of  prophecy.  Only  when  Christ  appears,  does  the 
real  meaning  of  the  various  Old  Testament  predictions  become  manifest.  Only  then 
are  men  able  to  combine  the  seemingly  inconsistent  prophecies  of  a  priest  who  is  also  a 
king  ( Psalm  110 ),  and  of  a  royal  but  at  the  same  time  a  suffering  Messiah  (Isaiah  53).  It 
is  not  enough  for  us  to  ask  what  the  prophet  himself  meant,  or  what  his  earliest  hear- 
ers understood,  by  his  prophecy.  This  is  to  regard  prophecy  as  having  only  a  single, 
and  that  a  human,  author.  With  the  spirit  of  man  cooperated  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  the 
Holy  Spirit  ( 1  Pet.  1:11  —  "  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  "  ;  2  Pet.  1 : 21  —  "no  prophecy  ever  came  by 
the  will  of  man ;  but  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  ).  All  prophecy  has  a  twofold 
authorship,  human  and  divine;  the  same  Christ  who  spoke  through  the  prophets 
brought  about  the  fulfilment  of  their  words. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  he  who  through  the  prophets  uttered  predictions  with  regard  to 
himself  should,  when  he  became  incarnate,  be  the  prophet  par  excellence  ( Deut,  18 :  15 ;  Acts 
3:22 — "Moses  indeed  said,  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  God  raise  up  from  among  your  brethren,  like  unto  me;  to  him 
shall  ye  hearken "  ).  In  the  predictions  of  Jesus  we  find  the  proper  key  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  prophecy  in  general,  and  the  evidence  that  while  no  one  of  the  three  theories 
—  the  preterist,  the  continuist,  the  futurist— furnishes  an  exhaustive  explanation,  each 
one  of  these  has  its  element  of  truth.  Our  Lord  made  the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction 
of  his  own  resurrection  a  test  of  his  divine  commission  :  it  was  "the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet " 
( Mat.  12 :  39 ).  He  promised  that  his  disciples  should  have  prophetic  gifts :  John  15 :  15  —  "  No 
longer  do  I  call  you  servants ;  for  the  servant  knoweth  not  what  his  lord  doeth :  but  I  have  called  you  friends ;  for 
all  things  that  I  heard  from  my  Father  I  have  made  known  unto  you"  ;  16  :  13  —  "the  Spirit  of  truth  ...  he 
shall  declare  unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come."  Agabus  predicted  the  famine  and  Paul's 
imprisonment  ( Acts  11 :  28 ;  21 :  10 ) ;  Paul  predicted  heresies  ( Acts  20 :  29,  30 ),  shipwreck  (  Acts 
27 :  10,  21-26),  "the  man  of  sin "  (2  Thess.  2:3),  Christ's  second  coming,  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  saints  ( 1  Thess.  4  :  15-17 ). 


138  THE    SCKIPTURES    A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

7.     On  the  double  sense  of  Prophecy, 

(a)  Certain  prophecies  apparently  contain  a  fulness  of  meaning  which 
is  not  exhausted  by  the  event  to  which  they  most  obviously  and  literally 
refer.  A  prophecy  which  had  a  partial  fulfilment  at  a  time  not  remote 
from  its  utterance,  may  find  its  chief  fulfilment  in  an  event  far  distant. 
Since  the  principles  of  God's  administration  find  ever  recurring  and  ever 
enlarging  illustration  in  history,  prophecies  which  have  already  had  a 
partial  fulfilment  may  have  whole  cycles  of  fulfilment  yet  before  them. 

In  prophecy  there  is  an  absence  of  perspective ;  as  in  Japanese  pictures  the  near  and 
the  far  appear  equally  distant ;  as  in  dissolving-  views,  the  immediate  future  melts  into 
a  future  immeasurably  far  away.  The  candle  that  shines  through  a  narrow  aperture 
sends  out  its  light  through  an  ever-increasing  area;  sections  of  the  triangle  correspond 
to  each  other,  but  the  more  distant  are  far  greater  than  the  near.  The  chalet  on  the 
mountain-side  may  turn  out  to  be  only  a  black  cat  on  the  woodpile,  or  a  speck  upon  the 
window  pane.  "A  hill  which  appears  to  rise  close  behind  another  is  found  on  nearer 
approach  to  have  receded  a  great  way  from  it."  The  painter,  by  foreshortening,  brings 
together  things  or  parts  that  are  relatively  distant  from  each  other.  The  prophet  is  a 
painter  whose  foreshortening^  are  supernatural ;  he  seems  freed  from  the  law  of  space 
and  time,  and,  rapt  into  the  timelessness  of  God,  he  views  the  events  of  history  "sub 
specie  eternitatis."  Prophecy  was  the  sketching  of  an  outline-map.  Even  the  prophet 
could  not  fill  up  the  outline.  The  absence  of  perspective  in  prophecy  may  account 
for  Paul's  being  misunderstood  by  the  Thessalonians,  and  for  the  necessity  of  his  expla- 
nations in  2  Thess.  2  : 1,  2.  In  Isaiah  10  and  11,  the  fall  of  Lebanon  ( the  Assyrian )  is  immedi. 
ately  connected  with  the  rise  of  the  Branch  C Christ) ;  in  Jeremiah  51 :  41,  the  first  capture 
audthe  complete  destruction  of  Babylon  are  connected  with  each  other,  without  notice 
of  the  interval  of  a  thousand  years  between  them. 

Instances  of  the  double  sense  of  prophecy  may  be  found  in  Is.  7 :  14-16 ;  9 : 6,  7  —  "  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  .  .  .  unto  us  a  son  is  given  "  —  compared  with  Mat.  1 :  22,  23,  where  the 
prophecy  is  applied  to  Christ  (see  Meyer,  in  loco);  Hos.  11:1  — "I  ...  .  called  my  son  out  of 
Egypt "_  referring  originally  to  the  calling  of  the  nation  out  of  Egypt— is  in  Mat.  2  15 
referred  to  Christ,  who  embodied  and  consummated  the  mission  of  Israel ;  Psalm  118:22, 

23 "The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  Is  become  the  head  of  the  corner" — which  primarily  referred 

to  the  Jewish  nation,  conquered,  carried  away,  and  flung  aside  as  of  no  use,  but  divinely 
destined  to  a  future  of  importance  and  grandeur,  is  in  Mat.  21:42  referred  by  Jesus  to 
himself,  as  the  true  embodiment  of  Israel.  William  Arnold  Stevens,  on  The  Man  of 
Sin,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  July,  1889  :  328-360  —  As  in  Daniel  11 :  36,  the  great  enemy  of  the 
faith,  who  "shall  exalt  himself,  and  magnify  himself  above  every  god,"  is  the  Syrian  King,  Antiochus 
Epiphaues,  so  "the  man  of  lawlessness"  described  by  Paul  in  2  Thess.  2:3  is  the  corrupt  and 
impious  Judaism  of  the  apostolic  age.  This  had  its  seat  in  the  temple  of  God,  but  was 
doomed  to  destruction  when  the  Lord  should  come  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  But 
even  this  second  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  does  not  preclude  a  future  and  final  fulfil- 
ment. Broadus  on  Mat.,  page  480  —  In  Isaiah  41  :  8  to  chapter  53,  the  predictions  with  regard 
to  "the  servant  of  Jehovah  "  make  a  gradual  transition  from  Israel  to  the  Messiah,  the  for- 
mer alone  being  seen  in  41 : 8,  the  Messiah  also  appearing  in  42 : 1  sq.,  and  Israel  quite 
sinking  out  of  sight  in  chapter  53. 

The  most  marked  illustration  of  the  double  sense  of  prophecy  however  is  to  be  found 
in  Matthew  24  and  25,  especially  24 :  34  and  25 :  31,  where  Christ's  prophecy  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  passes  into  a  prophecy  of  the  end  of  the  world.  Adamson,  The  Mind 
in  Christ,  183  — "To  him  history  was  the  robe  of  God,  and  therefore  a  constant  repe- 
tition of  positions  really  similar,  kaleidoscopic  combining  of  a  few  truths,  as  the  facts 
varied  in  which  they  were  to  be  embodied."  A.  J.  Gordon  :  "  Prophecy  has  no  sooner 
become  history,  than  history  in  turn  becomes  prophecy."  Lord  Bacon  :  "  Divine  proph- 
ecies have  springing  and  germinant  accomplishment  through  many  ages,  though  the 
height  or  fulness  of  them  may  refer  to  some  one  age."  In  a  similar  manner  there  is 
a  manifolduess  of  meaning  in  Dante's  Divine  Comedy.  C.  E.  Norton,  Inferno,  xvi  — 
"  The  narrative  of  the  poet's  spiritual  journey  is  so  vivid  and  consistent  that  it  has  all 
the  reality  of  an  account  of  an  actual  experience ;  but  within  and  beneath  runs  a  stream 
of  allegory  not  less  consistent  and  hardly  less  continuous  than  the  narrative  itself." 
A.  H.  Strong,  The  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  116—"  Dante  himself  has  told  us  that 


PROPHECY    AS   ATTESTING    REVELATION".  139 

there  are  four  separate  senses  which  he  intends  his  story  to  convey.  There  ore  the  lit- 
eral, the  allegorical,  the  moral,  and  the  analogical.    Iu  Psalm  114 : 1  we  have  the  words, 

'  When  Israel  went  forth  out  of  Egypt.'  This,  say%the  poet,  may  lie  taken  literally,  of  the  actual 
deliverance  of  God's  ancient  people;  or  allegorically,  of  the  redemption  of  the  world 
through  Christ ;  or  morally,  of  the  rescue  Of  the  sinner  from  the  bondage  of  his  sin  ;  or 
analogically,  of  the  passage  of  both  soul  and  body  from  the  lower  life  of  earth  to  the 
higher  life  of  heaven.  So  from  Scripture  Dante  illustrates  the  method  oi  his  poem.'' 
See  further,  our  treatment  of  Eschatology.  See  also  Dr.  Arnold  of  Rugby,  Sermons  on 
the  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  Appendix  A,  pages  441-454;  Aids  to  Faith,  449-402; 
Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  4  :  2T27.  Per  contra,  see  Elliott,  Hone  Apocalypticae,  4  :  602.  Gar- 
diner, O.  T.  and  N.  T.,  262-274,  denies  double  sense,  but  affirms  manifold  applications  of 
a  single  sense.    Broadus,  on  Mat.  24 : 1,  denies  double  sense,  but  affirms  the  use  of  types. 

(b)  The  prophet  -was  not  always  aware  of  the  meaning  of  his  own  proph- 
ecies ( 1  Pet.  1:11).  It  is  enongh  to  constitute  his  prophecies  a  proof  of 
divine  revelation,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  correspondences  between 
thein  and  the  actual  events  are  such  as  to  indicate  divine  wisdom  and  pur- 
pose in  the  giving  of  them  —  in  other  words,  it  is  enough  if  the  inspiring 
Sjjiiit  knew  then  meaning,  even  though  the  inspired  prophet  did  not. 

It  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  view,  but  rather  confirms  it,  that  the  near  event,  and 
not  the  distant  fulfilment,  was  often  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  in  the  mind  of  the  pro- 
phet when  he  Wrote.  Scripture  declares  that  the  prophets  did  not  always  understand 
their  own  predictions:  1  Pet.  1  :  11  —  "searching  what  time  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  them  did  point  unto,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories  that  should  fol- 
low them."  Emerson:  "Himself  from  God  he  could  not  tree;  Hebuilded  better  than  he 
knew."  Keble:  "As  little  children  lisp  and  tell  of  heaven,  So  thoughts  beyond  their 
thoughts  to  those  high  bards  weregiven."  Westeott:  Preface  to  Com.  on  Hebrews, 
vi  —  "No  one  would  limit  the  teaching  of  a  poet's  words  to  that  which  was  definitely 
in  (  sent  to  his  mind.  Still  less  can  we  suppose  that  he  who  is  inspired  to  give  a  niCB- 
sa^c  of  God  to  all  ages  sees  himself  the  completeness  of  the  truth  which  all  life  serves 
to  illuminate."  Alexander  McLaren:  "  Peter  teaches  that  Jewish  prophets  foretold  the 
events  of  Christ's  life  and  especially  his  sufferings ;  that  they  did  so  as  organs  of  (bid's 
Spirit;  that  they  were  so  completely  organs  of  a  higher  voice  that  they  did  not  under- 
stand the  significance  of  their  own  words,  but  were  wiser  than  they  knew  and  had  to 
search  what  were  the  date  and  the  characteristics  of  the  strange  things  which  they 
foretold;  and  that  by  further  revelation  they  learned  that  '  the  vision  is  yet  for  many  days '  (Is. 
24:22;  Dan.  10: 14;.  If  Peter  was  right  in  his  conception  of  t  he  natnre  of  Messianic  proph- 
ecy, a  good  many  learned  men  of  to-day  are  wrong."  Matthew  Arnold,  Literature  and 
Dogma:  "Mightnoi  the  prophetic  ideals  be  poetic  dreams,  and  the  correspondence 
between  them  and  the  life  of  Jesus,  so  far  as  real,  only  a  curious  historical  phenome- 
non?" BrUce,  Apologetics,  359,  replies:  "Such  scepticism  is  possible  only  to  those 
who  have  no  faith  in  a  living  God  who  works  out  purposes  in  history."  it  is  compar- 
able only  to  the  unbelief  of  the  materialist  who  regards  the  physical  constitution  of 
the  universe  as  explicable  by  the  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms. 

8.  Bwrpose  of  Prophecy —  so  far  as  it  is  yet  unfulfilled,  (a)  Not  to 
enable  us  to  map  out  the  details  of  the  future  ;  but  rather  (  6 )  To  give  gen- 
eral assurance  of  God's  power  and  foreseeing  wisdom,  and  of  the  certainty 
of  his  triumph  ;  and  (c)  To  furnish,  after  fulfilment,  the  proof  that  God 
saw  the  end  from  the  beginning. 

Dan.  12 :  8, 9  —  "  And  I  heard,  but  I  understood  not ;  then  said  I,  0  my  Lord,  what  shall  be  the  issue  of  these  things  ? 
And  he  said,  Go  thy  way,  Daniel;  for  the  words  are  shut  up  and  sealed  till  the  time  of  the  end'' ;  2  Pet.  1:19  —  proph- 
ecy is  "a  lamp  shining  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn '=  not  until  day  dawns  can  distant 
objects  be  seen  ;  20  —  "  no  prophecy  of  scripture  is  of  private  interpretation  "  =  only  God,  by  the  event, 
can  interpret  it.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  :  "  God  gave  the  prophecies,  not  to  gratify  men's 
curiosity  by  enabling  them  to  foreknow  things,  but  that  after  they  were  fulfilled  they 
might  be  interpreted  by  the  event,  and  his  own  providence,  not  the  interpreter's,  be 
thereby  manifested  to  the  world."  Alexander  McLaren :  "  Great  tracts  of  Scripture  are 
dark  to  us  till  life  explains  them,  and  then  they  come  on  us  with  the  force  of  a  new 


140  THE   SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOO. 

revelation,  like  the  messages  which  of  old  were  sent  by  a  strip  of  parchment  coiled 
upon  a  baton  and  then  written  upon,  and  which  were  unintelligible  unless  the  receiver 
had  a  corresponding-  baton  to  wrap  them  round."  A.  H.  Strong-,  The  Great  Poets  and 
their  Theology,  23  —  "  Archilochus,  a  poet  of  about  700  B.  C,  speaks  of  'a  grievous  scy- 
talc'— the  scytalc  being  the  staff  on  which  a  strip  of  leather  for  writing  purposes  was 
rolled  slantwise,  so  that  the  message  inscribed  upon  the  strip  could  not  be  read  until  the 
leather  was  rolled  again  upon  another  staff  of  the  same  size ;  since  only  the  writer  and 
the  receiver  possessed  staves  of  the  proper  size,  the  scytalc  answered  all  the  ends  of 
a  message  in  cypher." 

Prophecy  is  like  the  German  sentence, —  it  can  be  understood  only  when  we  have 
read  its  last  word.  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  48—  "  God's  providence  is  like 
the  Hebrew  Bible;  we  must  begin  at  the  end  and  read  backward,  in  order  to  under- 
stand it."  Yet  Dr.  Gordon  seems  to  assert  that  such  understanding  is  possible  even 
before  fulfilment :  "  Christ  did  not  know  the  day  of  the  end  when  here  in  his  state  of 
humilation;  but  he  does  know  now.  He  has  shown  his  knowledge  in  the  Apocalypse, 
and  we  have  received  '  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  him  to  show  unto  his  servants,  even  the 
things  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass'  (Rev.  1 :  1 )."  A  study  however  of  the  multitudinous  and 
conflicting  views  of  the  so-called  interpreters  of  prophecy  leads  us  to  prefer  to  Dr. 
Gordon's  view  that  of  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecies,  49—  "  The  first  advent  is  the  resol- 
ver  of  all  Old  Testament  prophecy;  .  .  '.  the  second  advent  will  give  the  key  to  New 
Testament  prophecy.  It  is 'the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain'  (Rev.  5:  12)  .  .  .  who  alone  opens 
the  sealed  book,  solves  the  riddles  of  time,  and  resolves  the  symbols  of  prophecy." 

Nitzsch  :  "It  is  the  essential  condition  of  prophecy  that  it  should  not  disturb  man's 
relation  to  history."  In  so  far  as  this  is  forgotten,  and  it  is  falsely  assumed  that  the 
purpose  of  prophecy  is  to  enable  us  to  map  out  the  precise  events  of  the  future  before 
they  occur,  the  study  of  prophecy  ministers  to  a  diseased  imagination  and  diverts 
attention  from  practical  Christian  duty.  Calvin :  "  Aut  insanum  inveniet  aut  faciet "  ; 
or,  as  Lord  Brougham  translated  it :  "  The  study  of  prophecy  either  finds  a  man  crazy, 
or  it  leaves  him  so."  Second  Adventists  do  not  often  seek  conversions.  Dr.  dimming 
warned  the  women  of  his  flock  that  they  must  not  study  prophecy  so  much  as  to  neg- 
lect their  household  duties.  Paul  has  such  in  mind  in  2  Thess.  2:  1,  2  — "touching  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  that  ye  be  not  quickly  shaken  from  your  mind  ...  as  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  just  at 
hand  "  ;  3 :  11  —  "  For  we  hear  of  some  that  walk  among  you  disorderly." 

9.  Evidential  force  of  Prophecy  —  so  far  as  it  is  fulfilled.  Prophecy, 
like  miracles,  does  not  stand  alone  as  evidence  of  the  divine  commission  of 
the  Scripture  writers  and  teachers.  It  is  simply  a  corroborative  attesta- 
tion, which  unites  with  miracles  to  prove  that  a  religious  teacher  has  come 
from  God  and  speaks  with  divine  authority.  We  cannot,  however,  dispense 
with  this  portion  of  the  evidences,  —  for  unless  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  are  events  foreknown  and  foretold  by  himself,  as  well  as  by  the 
ancient  prophets,  we  lose  one  main  proof  of  his  authority  as  a  teacher  sent 
from  God. 

Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  338  — "The  Christian's  own  life  is  the  pro- 
gressive fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  that  whoever  accepts  Christ's  grace  shall  be  born 
again,  sanctified,  and  saved.  Hence  the  Christian  can  believe  in  God's  power  to  pre- 
dict, and  in  God's  actual  predictions."  See  Stanley  Leathes,  O.  T.  Prophecy,  xvii  — 
"  Unless  we  have  access  to  the  supernatural,  we  have  no  access  to  God."  In  our  dis-' 
cussions  of  prophecy,  we  are  to  remember  that  before  making  the  truth  of  Christianity 
stand  or  fall  with  any  particular  passage  that  has  been  regarded  as  prediction,  we  must 
be  certain  that  the  passage  is  meant  as  prediction,  and  not  as  merely  figurative  descrip- 
tion. Gladden,  Seven  Puzzling  Bible  Books,  195—  "  The  book  of  Daniel  is  not  a  proph- 
ecy,— it  is  an  apocalypse.  .  .  .  The  author  [of  such  books]  puts  his  words  into  the 
mouth  of  some  historical  or  traditional  writer  of  eminence.  Such  are  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  Baruch,  1  and  3  Esdras,  and  the  Sibylline  Oracles. 
Enigmatic  form  indicates  persons  without  naming  them,  and  historic  events  as  animal 
forms  or  as  operations  of  nature.  .  .  .  The  book  of  Daniel  is  not  intended  to  teach  us 
history.  It  does  not  look  forward  from  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  but  backward 
from  the  second  century  before  Christ.  It  is  a  kind  of  story  which  the  Jews  called 
Haggada.  It  is  aimed  at  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who,  from  his  occasional  fits  of  melan- 
choly, was  called  Epimaues,  or  Antiochus  the  Mad." 


PRINCIPLES    OF    HISTORICAL   EVIDENCE.  141 

Whatever  may  be  our  conclusion  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  we 
must  recognize  in  it  an  element  of  prediction  which  has  been  actually  fulfilled.  The 
most  radical  interpreters  do  not  place  ita date  later  than  103  B.  C.  Our  Lord  sees  in  the 
book  clear  reference  to  himself  (Mat.  26:  64  —  "the  Son  of  man,  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  Power, 
and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven"  ;  cf.  Dan.  7:  13  ) ;  and  he  repeats  with  emphasis  certain  pre- 
dictions of  the  prophet  which  were  yet  unfulfilled  (  Mat.  24  :  15  —  "  When  ye  see  the  abomination  of 
desolation,  which  was  spoken  of  through  Daniel  the  prophet"  ;  cf.  Dan.  9  :  27  ;  11 :  31 ;  12  :  11 ).  The  book  of 
Daniel  must  therefore  be  counted  profitable  not  only  for  its  moral  and  spiritual  les- 
:  ons,  but  also  for  its  act  ual  predictions  of  Chrisl  and  of  the  universal  triumph  of  his  king- 
dom (Dan.2:  45  —  "  a  stone  cat  out  of  the  mountain  without  hands").  See  on  Daniel,  Hastings'  Bible 
Dictionary;  Farrar,  in  Expositor's  Bible.  On  the  general  subject  see  Annotated  Para- 
graph Bible,  Introd.  to  Prophetical  Books;  Cairns,  on  Present  State  of  Christian  Argu- 
ment from  Prophecy,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  5  :  no.  87 ;  Edersheim,  Prophecy  and  His- 
tory; Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy;  Bedford,  Prophecy,  its  Nature  and  Evidence; 
Willis  J.  Beecher,  the  Prophet  and  the  Promise ;  Orr,  Problem  of  the  O.  T.,  455-465. 

Having  thus  removed  the  presumption  originally  existing  against  mir- 
acles and  prophecy,  we  may  now  consider  the  ordinary  laws  of  evidence 
and  determine  the  rules  to  be  followed  in  estimating  the  weight  of  the 
Scripture  testimony. 

V.  Principles  of  Historical  Evidence  applicable  to  the  Proof  of 
a  Divine  Kevelation  (mainly  derived  from  Grecnleaf,  Testimony  of  the 
Evangelists,  and  from  Starkie  on  Evidence ). 

1.     As  to  documentary  evidence. 

(a)  Documents  apparently  ancient,  not  hearing  upon  their  face  the 
marks  of  forgery,  and  found  in  proper  custody,  arc  presumed  to  he  genuine 
until  sufficient  evidence  is  brought  to  the  contrary.  The  New  Testament 
documents,  since  they  are  found  in  the  custody  of  the  church,  their  natural 
and  legitimate  depository,  must  by  this  rule  be  presumed  to  be  genuine. 

The  Christian  documents  were  not  found,  like  the  Hook  of  Mormon,  in  a  cave,  or 
in  the  custody  of  angels.  Martimau,  Seat  of  Authority,  328  —  "The  Mormon  prophet, 
Who  cannot  tell  God  from  devil  close  at  hand,  is  well  up  with  the  history  of  both 
worlds,  and  commissioned  to  gel  ready  the  second  promised  land."  Washington  Glad- 
den, Who  wrote  the  Bible?  "An  angel  appeared  to  Smith  and  told  him  where  he  would 
find  this  book  ;  he  went  to  the  spot  designated  and  found  in  a  stone  box  a  volume  six 
inches  thick,  composed  of  thin  gold  plates,  eight  inches  by  seven,  held  together  by 
three  gold  rings;  these  plates  were  covered  with  writing,  in  the 'Reformed  Egyptian 
tongue' ;  with  this  book  were  the  '  1'iini  and  Thumniim',  a  pair  of  supernatural  spec- 
tacles, by  means  of  which  he  was  able  to  read  and  translate  this  'Reformed  Egyptian' 
language."  Bagebeer,  The  Bible  in  Court,  113  —  "If  the  ledger  of  a  business  firm  has 
always  been  received  and  regarded  as  a  ledger,  its  value  is  not  at  all  impeached  if  it  is 
impossible  to  tell  which  particular  clerk  kept  this  ledger.  .  .  .  The  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  would  be  no  less  valuable  as  evidence,  if  shown  not  to  have  been  written  by 
Paul."  See  Starkie  on  Evidence,  480 sq. ;  Chalmers,  Christian  Revelation,  in  Works,  3: 
147-171. 

(b)  Copies  of  ancient  documents,  made  by  those  most  interested  in  their 
faithfulness,  are  presumed  to  correspond  with  the  originals,  even  although 
those  originals  no  longer  exist.  Since  it  was  the  church's  interest  to  have 
faithful  copies,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  objector  to  the  Christian 
documents. 

Upon  the  evidence  of  a  copy  of  its  own  records,  the  originals  having  been  lost,  the 
House  of  Lords  decided  a  claim  to  the  peerage;  see  Starkie  on  Evidence,  51.  There  is 
no  manuscript  of  Sophocles  earlier  than  the  tenth  century,  while  at  least  two  manu- 
scripts of  the  N.  T.  go  back  to  the  fourth  century.  Frederick  George  Kenyon,  Hand- 
book to  Textual  Criticism  of  X.  T. :    "We  owe  our  knowledge  of  most  of  the  great 


142  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

works  of  Greek  and  Latin  literature  —  iEschylus,  Sophocles,  Thucydides,  Horace, 
Lucretius,  Tacitus,  and  many  more— to  manuscripts  written  from  900  to  1500  years 
after  their  authors'  deaths ;  while  of  the  N.  T.  we  have  two  excellent  and  approxi- 
mately complete  copies  at  an  interval  of  only  250  years.  Again,  of  the  classical  writers 
we  have  as  a  rule  only  a  few  score  of  copies  ( often  less ),  of  which  one  or  two  stand  out 
as  decisively  superior  to  all  the  rest ;  but  of  the  N.  T.  we  have  more  than  3000  copies 
(besides  a  very  large  number  of  versions),  and  many  of  these  have  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent value."  The  mother  of  Teschendorf  named  him  Lobgott,  because  her  fear 
that  her  babe  would  be  born  blind  had  not  come  true.  No  man  ever  had  keener  sight 
than  he.  He  spent  his  life  in  deciphering  old  manuscripts  which  other  eyes  could  not 
read.  The  Sinaitic  manuscript  which  he  discovered  takes  us  back  within  three  cen- 
turies of  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

(  c )  In  determining  matters  of  fact,  after  the  lapse  of  considerable  time, 
documentary  evidence  is  to  be  allowed  greater  weight  than  oral  testimony. 
Neither  memory  nor  tradition  can  long  be  trusted  to  give  absolutely  correct 
accounts  of  partictilar  facts.  The  New  Testament  documents,  therefore, 
are  of  greater  weight  in  evidence  than  tradition  would  be,  even  if  only 
thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  death  of  the  actors  in  the  scenes  they 
relate. 

See  Starkie  on  Evidence,  51,  730.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  its  leg-ends  of  the 
saints,  shows  how  quickly  mere  tradition  can  become  corrupt.  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
assassinated  in  1865,  yet  sermons  preached  to-day  on  the  anniversary  of  his  birth  make 
him  out  to  be  Unitarian,  Universalist,  or  Orthodox,  according  as  the  preacher  himself 
believes. 

2.     As  to  testimony  in  general. 

( a  )  In  questions  as  to  matters  of  fact,  the  proper  inquiry  is  not  whether 
it  is  possible  that  the  testimony  may  be  false,  but  whether  there  is  sufficient 
probability  that  it  is  true.  It  is  unfair,  therefore,  to  allow  our  examination 
of  the  Scripture  witnesses  to  be  prejudiced  by  suspicion,  merely  because 
their  story  is  a  sacred  one. 

There  must  be  no  prejudice  against,  there  must  be  open-mindedness  to,  truth ;  there 
must  be  a  normal  aspiration  after  the  signs  of  communication  from  God.  Telepathy, 
forty  days  fasting,  parthenogenesis,  all  these  might  once  have  seemed  antecedently 
incredible.  Now  we  see  that  it  would  have  been  more  rational  to  admit  their  exist- 
ence on  presentation  of  appropriate  evidence. 

( b )  A  proposition  of  fact  is  proved  when  its  truth  is  established  by  com- 
petent and  satisfactory  evidence.  By  competent  evidence  is  meant  such 
evidence  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  to  be  proved  admits.  By  satisfactory 
evidence  is  meant  that  amount  of  proof  which  ordinarily  satisfies  an 
unprejudiced  mind  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  Scripture  facts  are  there- 
fore proved  when  they  are  established  by  that  kind  and  degree  of  evidence 
which  would  in  the  affairs  of  ordinary  life  satisfy  the  mind  and  conscience 
of  a  common  man.  "When  we  have  this  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  it  is 
unreasonable  to  require  more. 

In  matters  of  morals  and  religion  competent  evidence  need  not  be  mathematical  or 
even  logical.  The  majority  of  cases  in  criminal  courts  are  decided  upon  evidence  that 
is  circumstantial.  We  do  not  determine  our  choice  of  friends  or  of  partners  in  life  by 
strict  processes  of  reasoning.  The  heart  as  well  as  the  head  must  be  permitted  a  voice, 
and  competent  evidence  includes  considerations  arising  from  the  moral  needs  of  the 
soul.  The  evidence,  moreover,  does  not  require  to  be  demonstrative.  Even  a  slight 
balance  of  probability,  when  nothing  more  certain  is  attainable,  may  suffice  to  consti- 
tute rational  proof  and  to  bind  our  moral  action. 


PRINCIPLES   OF    HISTORICAL   EVIDENCE.  143 

(c)  In  the  absence  of  circumstances  which  generate  suspicion,  every 
witness  is  to  be  presumed  credible,  until  the  contrary  is  shown ;  the  burden 
of  impeaching  his  testimony  lyingpapon  the  objector.  The  principle  which 
leads  men  to  give  true  witness  to  facts  is  stronger  than  that  which  leads 
them  to  give  false  witness.  It  is  therefore  unjust  to  compel  the  Christian 
to  establish  the  credibility  of  his  witnesses  before  proceeding  to  adduce 
ttieir  testimony,  and  it  is  equally  unjust  to  allow  the  uncorroborated  testi- 
mony of  a  profane  writer  to  outweigh  that  of  a  Christian  writer.  Christian 
witnesses  should  not  be  considered  interested,  and  therefore  untrustworthy  ; 
for  they  became  Christians  against  their  worldly  interests,  and  because  they 
could  not  resist  the  force  of  testimony.  Varying  accounts  among  them 
should  be  estimated  as  we  estimate  the  varying  accounts  of  profane  writers. 

John's  account  of  Jesus  differs  from  that  of  the  synoptic  gospels ;  but  in  a  very  simi- 
lar manner,  and  probably  for  a  very  similar  reason,  Plato's  account  of  Socrates  differs 
from  that  of  Xenophon.  Each  saw  ami  described  that  side  of  hissubject  which  he  was 
by  nature  best  fitted  to  comprehend,  —compare  the  Venice  of  Canaletto  with  the  Venice 
of  Turner,  the  former  the  picture  of  an  expert  draughtsman,  the  latter  the  vision  of  a 
poet  who  sees  the  palaces  of  the  Doges  glorified  by  air  and  mist  and  distance,  la  Christ 
there  was  a  "hiding  of  his  power"  (Hab.  3  :  4  ) ;  "  how  small  a  whisper  do  we  hear  of  him!"  (Job  26  :  14) ;  he, 
rather  than  Shakespeare,  is  "the  myriad-minded  "  ;  no  one  evangelist  can  be  expected 
to  know  or  describe  him  except  "in  part "  ( 1  Cor.  13  :  12  ).  Frances  Power  Cobbe,  Life,  2 :  402 
—  "All  of  us  human  beings  resemble  diamonds,  in  having  several  distinct  facets  to  our 
characters;  and,  as  we  always  turn  one  of  these  to  one  person  and  another  to  another, 
there  is  generally  some  fresh  side  to  be  seen  in  a  particularly  brilliant  gem."  E.  P. 
Tenney,  Coronation,  45  — "The  secret  and  powerful  life  he  [the  hero  of  the  story]  was 
leading  was  like  certain  solitary  streams,  deep,  wide,  and  swift,  which  run  unseen 
through  vast  and  unfrequented  forests.  So  wide  and  varied  was  this  man's  nature,  thai 
whole  courses  of  life  might  thri\  e  in  its  secret  places,  —and  his  neighbors  might  touch 
him  and  know  him  only  on  that  side  on  which  he  was  like  them." 

(d)  A  slight  amount  of  positive  testimony,  so  long  as  it  is  uncontradicted, 
outweighs  a  very  great  amount  of  testimony  that  is  merely  negative.  The 
silence  of  a  second  witness,  or  his  testimony  that  ho  did  not  see  a  certain 
alleged  occurrence,  cannot  counterbalance  the  positive  testimony  of  a  first 
witness  that  he  did  see  it.  We  should  therefore  estimate  the  silence  of  pro- 
fane writers  with  regard  to  facts  narrated  in  Scripture  precisely  as  we  should 
estimate  it  if  the  facts  about  which  they  are  silent  were  narrated  by  other 
profane  writers,  instead  of  being  narrated  by  the  writers  of  Scripture. 

Egyptian  monuments  make  no  mention  of  the  destruction  of  Pharaoh  and  his  army ; 
but  then,  Napoleon's  dispatches  also  make  no  mention  of  his  defeat  at  Trafalgar.  At 
the  tomb  of  Napoleon  in  the  Invalides  of  Paris,  the  walls  are  inscribed  with  names  of 
a  multitude  of  places  where  his  battles  were  fought,  but  Waterloo,  the  scene  of  his 
great  defeat,  is  not  recorded  there.  So  Sennacherib,  in  all  his  monuments,  does  not 
refer  to  the  destruction  of  his  army  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  Napoleon  gathered 
450,000  men  at  Dresden  to  invade  Russia.  At  Moscow  the  soft-falling  snow  conquered 
him.  In  one  night  20,000  horses  perished  with  cold.  Not  without  reason  at  Moscow,  on 
the  anniversary  of  the  retreat  of  the  French,  the  exultation  of  the  prophet  over  the 
fall  of  Sennacherib  is  read  in  the  churches.  James  Robertson,  Early  History  of  Israel, 
395,  note  — "  Whately,  in  his  Historic  Doubts,  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
principal  Parisian  journal  in  1814,  on  the  very  day  on  which  the  allied  armies  entered 
Paris  as  conquerors,  makes  no  mention  of  any  such  event.  The  battle  of  Poictiers  in 
132,  which  effectually  checked  the  spread  of  Mohammedanism  across  Europe,  is  not 
once  referred  to  in  the  monastic  annals  of  the  period.  Sir  Thomas  Browne  lived 
through  the  Civil  Wars  and  the  Commonwealth,  yet  there  is  no  syllable  in  his  writings 
with  regard  to  them.  Sale  says  that  circumcision  is  regarded  by  Mohammedans  as  an 
ancient  divine  institution,  the  rite  having  been  in  use  many  years  before  Mohammed, 
yet  it  is  not  so  much  as  once  mentioned  in  the  Koran." 


144  THE   SCRIPTUKES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

Even  though  we  should  grant  that  Josephus  does  not  mention  Jesus,  we  should  have 
a  parallel  in  Thucydides,  who  never  once  mentions  Socrates,  the  most  important  charac- 
ter of  the  twenty  years  embraced  in  his  history.  Wieseler,  however,  in  Jahrbuch  f.  d. 
Theologie,  23 :  98,  maintains  the  essential  genuineness  of  the  commonly  rejected  passage 
with  regard  to  Jesus  in  Josephus,  Antiq.,  18:  3:  3,  omitting,  however,  as  interpolations, 
the  phrases:  "if  it  be  right  to  call  him  man";  "this  was  the  Christ";  "  he  appeared 
alive  the  third  day  according  to  prophecy  ";  for  these,  if  genuine,  would  prove  Josephus 
a  Christian,  which  he,  by  all  ancient  accounts,  was  not.  Josephus  lived  from  A.  D.  31 
to  possibly  114.  He  does  elsewhere  speak  of  Christ;  for  he  records  (20:  9:  1)  that 
Albinus  "  assembled  the  Sanhedrim  of  judges,  and  brought  before  them  the  brother  of 
Jesus  who  was  called  Christ,  whose  name  was  James,  and  some  others  .  .  .  and  delivered 
them  to  be  stoned."  See  Niese's  new  edition  of  Josephus ;  also  a  monograph  on  the  sub- 
ject by  Gustav  Adolph  Mttller,  published  at  Innsbruck,  1890.  Rush  Rhees,  Life  of  Jesus, 
of  Nazareth,  22  —  "  To  mention  Jesus  more  fully  would  have  required  some  approval  of 
his  life  and  teaching.  This  would  have  been  a  condemnation  of  his  own  people  whom 
he  desired  to  commend  to  Gentile  regard,  and  he  seems  to  have  taken  the  cowardly 
course  of  silence  concerning  a  matter  more  noteworthy,  for  that  generation,  than 
much  else  of  which  he  writes  very  fully." 

(  e  )  "  The  credit  due  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses  depends  upon  :  first, 
their  ability  ;  secondly,  their  honesty  ;  thirdly,  their  number  and  the  con- 
sistency of  their  testimony;  fourthly,  the  conformity  of  their  testimony  with 
experience  ;  and  fifthly,  the  coincidence  of  their  testimony  with  collateral 
circumstances."  We  confidently  submit  the  New  Testament  witnesses  to 
each  and  all  of  these  tests. 

See  Starkie  ou  Evidence,  726. 


CHAPTER  II. 

POSITIVE    PROOFS   THAT   THE   SCRIPTURES  ARE   A    DIVINE 
REVELATION. 

I.  The  Genuineness  of  the  Christian  Documents,  or  proof  that  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  written  at  the  age  to  which  they 
are  assigned  and  by  the  men  or  class  of  men  to  whom  they  are  ascribed. 

Our  present  discussion  comprises  the  first  part,  and  only  the  first  part,  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Canon  (Kavmv,  a  measuring-reed ;  hence,  a  rule,  a  standard ).  It  is  important  to 
observe  that  the  determination  of  the  Canon,  or  list  of  the  books  of  sacred  Scripture, 
is  not  the  work  of  the  church  as  an  organized  body.  We  do  not  receive  these  books 
upon  the  authority  of  Fathers  or  Councils.  We  receive  them,  only  as  the  Fathers  and 
Councils  received  them,  because  we  have  evidence  that  they  arc  the  writings  of  the 
men,  or  class  of  men,  whose  names  they  bear,  and  that  they  are  also  credible  and 
inspired.  If  the  previous  epistle  alluded  to  in  1  Cor.  5 :  9  should  be  discovered  and  be  uni- 
versally judged  authentic,  it  could  be  placed  with  Paul's  other  letters  and  could  form 
part  of  the  Canon,  even  though  it  has  been  lost  for  1800  years.  Bruce,  Apologetics, 
321—"  Abstractly  the  Canon  is  an  open  question.  It  can  never  be  anything  else  on  the 
principles  of  Protestantism  which  forbid  us  to  accept  the  decisions  of  church  councils, 
whether  ancient  or  modern,  as  final.  But  practically  the  question  of  the  Canon  is 
closed."  The  Westminster  Confession  says  that  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God 
"  does  not  rest  upon  historic  evidence ;  it  does  not  rest  upon  the  authority  of  Councils ; 
it  does  not  rest  upon  the  consent  of  the  past  or  the  excellence  of  the  matter ;  but  it  rests 
upon  the  Spirit  of  God  bearing  witness  to  our  hearts  concerning  its  divine  authority." 
Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  24  — "The  value  of  the  Scriptures  to  us  does  not  depend 
upon  our  knowing  who  wrote  them.  In  the  O.  T.  half  its  pages  are  of  uncertain  author- 
ship. New  dates  mean  new  authorship.  Criticism  is  a  duty,  for  dates  of  authorship 
give  means  of  interpretation.  The  Scriptures  have  power  because  God  is  in  them,  and 
because  they  describe  the  entrance  of  God  into  the  life  of  man." 

Saintine,  Picciola,  782 — "  Has  not  a  feeble  reed  provided  man  with  his  first  arrow,  his 
first  pen.  his  first  instrument  of  music  ?"  Hugh  Macmillan :  "  The  idea  of  stringed  instru- 
ments was  first  derived  from  the  twang  of  the  well  strung  bow,  as  the  archer  shot  his 
arrows ;  the  lyre  and  the  harp  which  discourse  the  sweetest  music  of  peace  were  invented 
by  those  who  first  heard  this  inspiring  sound  in  the  excitement  of  battle.  And  so  there  is 
no  music  so  delightful  amid  the  jarring  discord  of  the  world,  turning  everything  to 
music  and  harmonizing  earth  and  heaven,  as  when  the  heart  rises  out  of  the  gloom  of 
anger  and  revenge,  and  converts  its  bow  into  a  harp,  and  sings  to  it  the  Lord's  song  of 
infinite  forgiveness."  George  Adam  Smith,  Mod.  Criticism  and  Preaching  of  O.  T.,  5  — 
"  The  church  has  never  renounced  her  liberty  to  revise  the  Canon.  The  liberty  at  the 
beginning  cannot  be  more  than  the  liberty  thereafter.  The  Holy  Spirit  has  not  for- 
saken the  leaders  of  the  church.  Apostolic  writers  nowhere  define  the  limits  of  the 
Canon,  any  more  than  Jesus  did.  Indeed,  they  employed  extra-canonical  writings. 
Christ  and  the  apostles  nowhere  bound  the  church  to  believe  all  the  teachings  of  the 
O.  T.  Christ  discriminates,  and  forbids  the  literal  interpretation  of  its  contents.  Many 
of  the  apostolic  interpretations  challenge  our  sense  of  truth.  Much  of  their  exegesis 
was  temporary  and  false.  Their  judgment  was  that  much  in  the  O.  T.  was  rudimentary. 
This  opens  the  question  of  development  in  revelation,  and  justifies  the  attempt  to  fix 
the  historic  order.  The  N.  T.  criticism  of  the  O.  T.  gives  the  liberty  of  criticism,  and  the 
need,  and  the  obligation  of  it.  O.  T.  criticism  is  not,  like  Baur's  of  the  N.  T.,  the  result 
of  a  priori  Hegelian  reasoning.  From  the  time  of  Samuel  we  have  real  history.  The 
prophets  do  not  appeal  to  miracles.    There  is  more  gospel  in  the  book  of  Jonah,  whcD 


10 


115 


146  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

it  is  treated  as  a  parable.  The  O.  T.  is  a  gradual  ethical  revelation  of  God.  Few  realize 
that  the  church  of  Christ  has  a  higher  warrant  for  her  Canon  of  the  O.  T.  than  she  has 
for  her  Canon  of  the  N.  T.  The  O.  T.  was  the  result  of  criticism  in  the  widest  sense  of 
that  word.  But  what  the  church  thus  once  achieved,  the  church  may  at  any  time 
revise." 

We  reserve  to  a  point  somewhat  later  the  proof  of  the  credibility  and  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures.  We  now  show  their  genuineness,  as  we  would  show  the  genuineness 
of  other  religious  books,  like  the  Koran,  or  of  secular  documents,  like  Cicero's  Orations 
against  Catiline.  Genuineness,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use  the  term,  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  authenticity  ( i.  e.,  truthfulness  and  authority );  see  Blunt,  Diet.  Doct.  and 
Hist.  Theol.,  art.:  Authenticity.  Documents  may  be  genuine  which  are  written  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  persons  other  than  they  whose  names  they  bear,  provided  these 
persons  belong  to  the  same  class.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  though  not  written  by 
Paul,  is  genuine,  because  it  proceeds  from  one  of  the  apostolic  class.  The  additioa  of  Deut. 
34,  after  Moses'  death,  does  not  invalidate  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch ;  nor  would 
the  theory  of  a  later  Isaiah,  even  if  it  were  established,  disprove  the  genuineness  of  that 
prophecy ;  provided,  in  both  cases,  that  the  additions  were  made  by  men  of  the  pro- 
phetic class.  On  the  general  subject  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Scripture  documents,  see 
Alexander,  Mcllvaine,  Chalmers,  Dodge,  and  Peabody,  on  the  Evidences  of  Christian- 
ity ;  also  Archibald,  The  Bible  Verified. 

1.     Genuineness  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament. 

We  do  not  need  to  adduce  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  Looks  of  the  New 
Testament  as  far  back  as  the  third  century,  for  we  possess  manuscripts  of 
them  which  are  at  least  fourteen  hundred  years  old,  and,  since  the  third 
century,  references  to  them  have  been  inwoven  into  all  history  and  litera- 
ture. We  begin  our  proof,  therefore,  by  showing  that  these  documents  not 
only  existed,  but  were  generally  accepted  as  genuine,  before  the  close  of 
the  second  century. 

Origcn  was  born  as  early  as  186  A.  D.;  yet  Tregelles  tells  us  that  Origen's  works  contain 
citations  embracing  two-thirds  of  the  New  Testament.  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
12  —  "The  early  years  of  Christianity  were  in  some  respects  like  the  early  years  of  our 
lives.  .  .  .  Those  early  years  are  the  most  important  in  our  education.  We  learn 
then,  we  hardly  know  how,  through  effort  and  struggle  and  innocent  mistakes,  to  use 
our  eyes  and  ears,  to  measure  distance  and  direction,  by  a  process  which  ascends  by 
unconscious  steps  to  the  certainty  which  we  feel  in  our  maturity.  .  .  .  It  was  in  some 
such  unconscious  way  that  the  Christian  thought  of  the  early  centuries  gradually 
acquired  the  form  which  we  find  when  it  emerges  as  it  were  into  the  developed  man- 
hood of  the  fourth  century." 

A.  All  the  books  of  tbe  New  Testament,  with  the  single  exception  of 
2  Peter,  were  not  only  received  as  genuine,  but  were  used  in  more  or  less 
collected  form,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century.  These  collections 
of  writings,  so  slowly  transcribed  and  distributed,  imply  the  long  continued 
previous  existence  of  the  separate  books,  and  forbid  us  to  fix  their  origin 
later  than  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 

(a)  Tertullian  (160-230)  appeals  to  the  'New Testament'  as  made  up  of 
the  'Gospels'  and  'Apostles.'  He  vouches  for  the  genuineness  of  the  four 
gospels,  the  Acts,  1  Peter,  1  John,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse ;  in  short,  to  twenty-one  of  the  twenty-seven  books  of  our  Canon. 

Sanday,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1893,  is  confident  that  the  first  three  gospels  took  their 
present  shape  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Yet  he  thinks  the  first  and  third 
gospels  of  composite  origin,  and  probably  the  second.  Not  later  than  125  A.  D.  the  four 
gospels  of  our  Canon  had  gained  a  recognized  and  exceptional  authority.  Andover 
Professors,  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  40  —  "  The  oldest  of  our  gospels  was  written  about 
the  year  70.  The  earlier  one,  now  lost,  a  great  part  of  which  is  preserved  in  Luke  and 
Matthew,  was  probably  written  a  few  years  earlier," 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  14? 

( 6 )  The  Muratorian  Canon  in  the  West  and  the  Peshito  Version  in  the 
East  (  having  a  common  date  of  about  160 )  iu  their  catalogues  of  the  New 
Testament  -writings  mutually  complement  each  other's  slight  deficiencies, 
and  together  witness  to  the  fact  that  at  that  time  every  book  of  our  present 
New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  2  Peter,  was  received  as  genuine. 

Hovey,  Manual  of  Christian  Theology,  50— "The fragment  on  the  Canon,  discovered 
by  Muratori  in  1738,  was  probably  -written  about  170  A.  D.,  in  Greek.  It  begins  with 
the  last  words  of  a  sentence  which  must  have  referred  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  speak  of  the  Third  Gospel  as  written  by  Luke  the  physician,  who  did  uotseethe 
Lord,  and  then  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  written  by  John,  a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  at  the 
request  of  his  fellow  disciples  and  his  elders."  Bacon,  N.  T.  Introduction,  50,  gives  the 
Muratorian  Canon  in  full ;  30  —  "  Theophilus  of  Antioch  ( 181-190 )  is  the  first  to  cite  a 
gospel  by  name,  quoting  John  1 : 1  as  from  'John,  one  of  those  who  were  vessels  of  the 
Spirit."  On  the  Muratorian  Canon,  see  Tregelles,  Muratorian  Canon.  On  the  Peshito 
Version,  see  Sehaff,  Iutrod.  to  Rev.  Gk.-Eng.  N.  T.,  xxxvii;  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  pp. 
3388,  3389. 

(c)  The  Canon  of  Marcion  (140),  though  rejecting  all  the  gospels  but 
that  of  Luke,  and  all  the  epistles  but  ten  of  Paul's,  shows,  nevertheless, 
that  at  that  early  day  "apostolic  writings  were  regarded  as  a  complete 
original  rule  of  doctrine."  Even  Marcion,  moreover,  does  not  deny  the 
genuineness  of  those  wri tings  which  for  doctrinal  reasons  he  rejects. 

Marcion,  the  Gnostic,  was  the  enemy  of  all  Judaism,  and  regarded  the  God  of  the 
O.T.  as  a  restricted  divinity,  entirely  different  from  the  (rod  of  the  N.  T.  Marcion  was 
"ipso  Paulo  paulinior  "  — "  plus  loyal  que  le  roi."  He  held  that  Christianity  was  some- 
thing entirely  new,  and  that  it  stood  in  opposition  to  all  that  went  before  it.  His 
Canon  consisted  of  two  parts:  the  "Gospel"  (Luke,  with  its  text  curtailed  by  omission 
of  the  Hebraistic  elements)  and  the  Apostolicon  (the  epistles  of  Paul).  Theepistleto 
TMognetus  by  an  unknown  author,  and  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  shared  the  view  of 
Manion.  The  name  of  the  Deity  was  changed  from  Jehovah  to  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  If  Mansion's  view  had  prevailed,  the  ( >ld  Testament  would  have  been  lost 
to  the  Christian  Church.  God's  revelation  would  have  been  deprived  of  its  proof  from 
prophecy.  Development  from  the  past,  and  divine  conduct  of  Jewish  history,  would 
have  been  denied.  But  without  the  Old  Testament,  as  H.  W.  Beecher  maintained,  the 
New  Testament  would  lack  background ;  our  chief  source  of  knowledge  with  regard 
to  God's  natural  attributes  of  power,  wisdom,  and  truth  would  be  removed  :  the  love 
and  mercy  revealed  in  the  New  Testament  would  seem  characteristics  of  a  weak  being, 
who  could  not  enforce  law  or  inspire  respect.  A  tree  has  as  much  breadth  below  ground 
as  there  is  above ;  so  the  <).  T.  roots  of  God's  revelation  are  as  extensive  and  necessary 
as  are  its  N.  T.  trunk  and  branches  and  leaves.  See  Allen,  Religious  Progress,  81 ; 
Westcott,  Hist.  N.  T.  Canon,  and  art. :  Canon,  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary.  Also  Reuss, 
History  of  Canon ;  Mitchell,  Critical  Handbook,  part  I. 

B.  The  Christian  and  Apostolic  Fathers  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century  not  only  quote  from  these  books  and  allude  to  them, 
but  testify  that  they  were  written  by  the  apostles  themselves.  We  are 
therefore  compelled  to  refer  their  origin  still  further  back,  namely,  to  the 
first  century,  when  the  apostles  lived. 

(  a  )  Iremeus  ( 120-200)  mentions  and  quotes  the  four  gospels  by  name, 
and  among  them  the  gospel  according  to  John:  " Afterwards  John,  the 
disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  leaned  upon  his  breast,  he  likewise  published 
a  gospel,  while  he  dwelt  in  Ephesus  in  Asia. "  And  Irenseus  was  the  dis- 
ciple and  friend  of  Polycarp  ( 80-166 ),  who  was  himself  a  personal  acquain- 
tance of  the  Apostle  John.  The  testimony  of  Irenseus  is  virtually  the 
evidence  of  Polycarp,  the  contemporary  and  friend  of  the  Apostle,  that  each 
of  the  gospels  was  written  by  the  person  whose  name  it  bears. 


148  THE   SCKIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

To  this  testimony  it  is  objected  that  Irenaeus  says  there  are  four  gospels  because 
there  are  four  quarters  of  the  world  and  four  living  creatures  in  the  cherubim.  But 
we  reply  that  Irenaeus  is  here  stating,  not  his  own  reason  for  accepting  four  and 
only  four  gospels,  but  what  he  conceives  to  be  God's  reason  for  ordaining  that  there 
should  be  four.  We  are  not  warranted  in  supposing  that  he  accepted  the  four  gospels 
on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  testimony  that  they  were  the  productions  of  apos- 
tolic men. 

Chrysostom,  in  a  similar  manner,  compares  the  four  gospels  to  a  chariot  and  four: 
When  the  King  of  Glory  rides  forth  in  it,  he  shall  receive  the  triumphal  acclamations 
of  all  peoples.  So  Jerome:  God  rides  upon  the  cherubim,  and  since  there  are  four 
cherubim,  there  must  be  four  gospels.  All  this  however  is  an  early  attempt  at  the 
philosophy  of  religion,  and  not  an  attempt  to  demonstrate  historical  fact.  L.  L.  Paine, 
Evolution  of  Trinitarianism,  319-367,  presents  the  radical  view  of  the  authorship  of 
the  fourth  gospel.  He  holds  that  John  the  apostle  died  A.  D.  70,  or  soon  after,  and 
that  Irenaeus  confounded  the  two  Johns  whom  Papias  so  clearly  distinguished  — John 
the  Apostle  and  John  the  Elder.  With  Harnack,  Paine  supposes  the  gospel  to  have 
been  written  by  John  the  Elder,  a  contemporary  of  Papias.  But  we  reply  that  the  tes- 
timony of  Irenaeus  implies  a  long  continued  previous  tradition.  R.  W.  Dale,  Living 
Christ  and  Four  Gospels,  145  —  "  Religious  veneration  such  as  that  with  which  Irenaeus 
regarded  these  books  is  of  slow  growth.  They  must  have  held  a  great  place  in  the 
Church  as  far  back  as  the  memory  of  living  men  extended."  See  Hastings'  Bible  Dic- 
tionary, 2:  695. 

(6)  Justin  Martyr  (died  148)  speaks  of  'memoirs  (airofivTj/iovev/iaTa)  of 
Jesus  Christ,'  and  his  quotations,  though  sometimes  made  from  memory, 
are  evidently  cited  from  our  gospels. 

To  this  testimony  it  is  objected:  (1)  That  Justin  Martyr  uses  the  term  'memoirs' 
instead  of  '  gospels. '  We  reply  that  he  elsewhere  uses  the  term  '  gospels '  and  identifies 
the  'memoirs'  with  them:  Apol.,  1 :  66  — "The  apostles,  in  the  memoirs  composed  by 
them,  which  are  called  gospels,"  i.  e.,  not  memoirs,  but  gospels,  was  the  proper  title  of 
his  written  records.  In  writing  his  Apology  to  the  heathen  Emperors,  Marcus  Aurelius 
and  Marcus  Antoninus,  he  chooses  the  term  '  memoirs',  or  '  memorabilia',  which  Xeno- 
phon  had  used  as  the  title  of  his  account  of  Socrates,  simply  in  order  that  he  may  avoid 
ecclesiastical  expressions  unfamiliar  to  his  readers  and  may  commend  his  writing  to 
lovers  of  classical  literature.  Notice  that  Matthew  must  be  added  to  John,  to  justify 
Justin's  repeated  statement  that  there  were  "memoirs  "  of  our  Lord  "written  by  apos- 
tles," and  that  Mark  and  Luke  must  be  added  to  justify  his  further  statement  that 
these  memoirs  were  compiled  by  "  his  apostles  and  those  who  followed  them."  Analo- 
gous to  Justin's  use  of  the  word  '  memoirs '  is  his  use  of  the  term  '  Sunday',  instead  of 
Sabbath :  Apol.  1 :  67  —  "  On  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country 
gather  together  to  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  or  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  are  read."  Here  is  the  use  of  our  gospels  in  public  worship,  as  of  equal 
authority  with  the  O.  T.  Scriptures ;  in  fact,  Justin  constantly  quotes  the  words  and  acts 
of  Jesus'  life  from  a  written  source,  using  the  word  yiypa-mai.  See  Morison,  Com.  on 
Mat.,  ix ;  Hemphill,  Literature  of  Second  Century,  234. 

To  Justin's  testimony  it  is  objected :  ( 2 )  That  in  quoting  the  words  spoken  from  hea- 
ven at  the  Savior's  baptism,  he  makes  them  to  be :  "  My  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee,"  so  quoting  Psalm  2:  7,  and  showing  that  he  was  ignorant  of  our  present  gospel. 
Mat.  3 :  17.  We  reply  that  this  was  probably  a  slip  of  the  memory,  quite  natural  in 
a  day  when  the  gospels  existed  only  in  the  cumbrous  form  of  manuscript  rolls.  Justin 
also  refers  to  the  Pentateuch  for  two  facts  which  it  does  not  contain  ;  but  we  should  not 
argue  from  this  that  he  did  not  possess  our  present  Pentateuch.  The  plays  of  Terence 
are  quoted  by  Cicero  and  Horace,  and  we  require  neither  more  nor  earlier  witnesses  to 
their  genuineness,  — yet  Cicero  and  Horace  wrote  a  hundred  years  after  Terence.  It 
is  unfair  to  refuse  similar  evidence  to  the  gospels.  Justin  had  a  way  of  combining  into 
one  the  sayings  of  the  different  evangelists  — a  hint  which  Tatian,  his  pupil,  probably 
followed  out  in  composing  his  Diatessaron.  On  Justin  Martyr's  testimony,  see  Ezra 
Abbot,  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  49,  note.  B.  W.  Bacon,  Introd.  to  N.  T., 
speaks  of  Justin  as  "  writing  circa  155  A.  D." 

(e)  Papias  ( 80-164 ),  whom  Irenaeus  calls  a  'hearer  of  John,' testifies 
that  Matthew  "  wrote  in  the  Hebrew  dialect  the  sacred  oracles  (  rd  My  a ,," 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN"    DOCUMENTS.  149 

and  that  "  Mark,  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  after  Peter,  (vcrepov  Tltrpu ) 
[  or  under  Peter's  direction  ],  an  unsystematic  account  ( ov  rd^t )  "  of  the 
same  events  and  discourses. 

To  this  testimony  it  is  objected:  (1)  That  Papias  could  not  have  had  our  gospel  of 
Matthew,  for  the  reason  that  this  is  Greek.  We  reply,  either  with  Bleek,  that  Papias 
erroneously  supposed  a  Hebrew  translation  of  Matthew,  which  he  possessed,  to  be  the 
original ;  or  with  Weiss,  that  the  original  Matthew  was  in  Hebrew,  while  our  present 
Matthew  is  an  enlarged  version  of  the  same.  Palestine,  like  modern  Wales,  was  bilin- 
gual ;  Matthew,  like  James,  might  write  both  Hebrew  and  Greek.  While  B.  W.  Bacon 
gives  to  the  writing  of  Papias  a  date  so  late  as  145-160  A.  D.,  Lightfoot  gives  that  of  130 
A.  D.  At  this  latter  date  Papias  could  easily  remember  stories  told  him  so  far  back  as  80 
A.  D.,  by  men  who  were  youths  at  the  time  when  our  Lord  lived,  died,  rose  and  ascended. 
The  work  of  Papias  hail  for  its  title  Aoyiuiv  Kvpiaxuv  efijyrjo-i? —  "  Exposition  of  Oracles 
relating  to  the  Lord"  =  Commentaries  on  the  Gospels.  Two  of  these  gospels  were 
Matthew  and  Mark.  The  view  of  Weiss  mentioned  above  has  been  criticized  upon  the 
ground  that  the  quotations  from  the  O.  T.  in  Jesus'  discourses  in  Matthew  arc  all  taken 
from  the  Septuagint  and  not  from  the  Hebrew.  Westcott  answers  this  criticism  by  sug- 
gesting that,  In  translating  his  Hebrew  gospel  into  Greek,  Matthew  substituted  for  his 
own  oral  version  of  Christ's  discourses  the  version  of  these  already  existing  in  the  oral 
common  gospel.  There  was  a  common  oral  basis  of  true  teaching,  the  "deposit" — t'^v 
irap<xdr)Kr)v  —  committed  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  6:  20;  2  Tim.  1:  12,  14  ),  the  same  story  told  many 
times  and  getting  to  be  told  in  the  same  way.  The  narratives  of  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke  are  independent  versions  of  this  apostolic  testimony.  First  came  belief;  sec- 
ondly, oral  teaching ;  thirdly,  written  gospels.  That  the  original  gospel  was  in  Ara- 
maic seems  probable  from  the  fact  that  the  <  tricntal  name  for  "tares,"  zauan,  (Mat.  13:  25) 
has  been  transliterated  into  Greek,  ^ana.  Morison,  Com.  on  Mat.,  thinks  that  Matthew 
originally  wrote  in  Hebrew  a  collection  of  ravings  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  theNazarenes 
and  Ebionites  added  to,  partly  from  tradition,  and  partly  from  translating  his  full  gospel, 
till  the  result  was  the  so-called  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews;  but  that  Matthew  wrote  his 
own  gospel  in  Greek  after  lie  had  written  the  Sayings  in  Hebrew.  Professor  W.  A. 
Stevens  thinks  that  Papias  probably  alluded  to  the  original  autograph  which  Matthew 
wrote  in  Aramaic,  but  which  lie  afterwards  enlarged  ami  translated  into  Greek.  See 
Hemphill,  Literature  of  the  Second  Century,  267. 

To  the  testimony' of  Papias  it  is  also  objected:  (2)  That  Mark  is  the  most  systematic 
of  all  evangelists,  presenting  events  as  a  true  annalist,  in  chronological  order.  We 
reply  that  while,  so  far  as  chronological  order  is  concerned,  Mark  is  systematic,  so  far 
as  logical  order  is  concerned  he  is  the  most  unsystematic  of  the  evangelists,  showing 
little  of  the  power  of  historical  grouping  which  is  so  discernible  in  Matthew.  Mat- 
thew aimed  to  portray  a  life,  rather  than  to  record  a  chronology.  He  groups  Jesus' 
teachings  in  chapters  •">,  6,  and  T;  his  miracles  in  chapters  8  and  0;  his  directions  to  the 
apostles  in  chapter  10;  chapters  11  and  12  describe  the  growing  opposition;  chapter  13 
meets  this  opposition  with  his  parables;  the  remainder  of  the  gospel  describes  our 
Lord's  preparation  for  his  death,  his  progress  to  Jerusalem,  the  consummation  of  his 
work  in  the  Cross  and  in  the  resurrection.  Here  is  true  .system,  a  philosophical  arrange- 
ment of  material,  compared  with  which  the  method  of  Mark  is  eminently  unsystema- 
tic. Mark  is  a  Froissart,  while  Matthew  has  the  spirit  of  J.  R.Green.  See  Bleek,  Introd. 
to  N.  T.,  1 :  108,  126 ;  Weiss,  Life  of  Jesus,  1  :  27-39. 

(  d)  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  — Clement  of  Rome  ( died  101 ),  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  (martyred  115),  and  Polycarp  (80-166), — companions  and  friends 
of  the  apostles,  have  left  us  in  their  writings  over  one  hundred  quotations 
from  or  allusions  to  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  among  these  every 
book,  except  four  minor  epistles  (2  Peter,  Jude,  2  and  3  John)  is  repre- 
sented. 

Although  these  are  single  testimonies,  we  must  remember  that  they  are  the  testi- 
monies of  the  chief  men  of  the  churches  of  their  day,  and  that  they  express  the  opin- 
ion of  the  churches  themselves.  "  Like  banners  of  a  hidden  army,  or  peaks  of  a 
distant  mountain  range,  they  represent  and  are  sustained  by  compact,  continuous 
bodies  below."  In  an  article  by  P.  W.  Calkins,  McClintock  and  Strong's  Encyclopaedia, 
1 :  315-317,  quotations  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  in  great  numbers  are  put  side  by 


150  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

side  with  the  New  Testament  passages  from  which  they  quote  or  to  which  they  allude. 
An  examination  of  these  quotations  and  allusions  convinces  us  that  these  Fathers 
were  in  possession  of  all  the  principal  books  of  our  New  Testament.  See  Ante-Nicene 
Library  of  T.  and  T.  Clark ;  Thayer,  in  Boston  Lectures  for  1871 :  334 ;  Nash,  Ethics  and 
Revelation,  11—"  Ignatius  says  to  Polycarp :  'The  times  call  for  thee,  as  the  winds  call 
for  the  pilot.'  So  do  the  times  call  for  reverent,  fearless  scholarship  in  the  church." 
Such  scholarship,  we  are  persuaded,  has  already  demonstrated  the  genuineness  of  the 
N.  T.  documents. 

(  e )  In  the  synoptic  gospels,  the  omission  of  all  mention  of  the  fulfil- 
ment of  Christ's  prophecies  with  regard  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is 
evidence  that  these  gospels  were  written  before  the  occurrence  of  that 
event.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  universally  attributed  to  Luke,  we  have 
an  allusion  to  '  the  former  treatise',  or  the  gospel  by  the  same  author,  which 
must,  therefore,  have  been  written  before  the  end  of  Paul's  first  imprison- 
ment at  Rome,  and  probably  with  the  help  and  sanction  of  that  apostle. 

Acts  1:1  —  "The  former  treatise  I  made,  0  Theophilus,  concerning  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach." 
If  the  Acts  was  written  A.  D.  63,  two  years  after  Paul's  arrival  at  Rome,  then  "  the  for- 
mer treatise,"  the  gospel  according  to  Luke,  can  hardly  be  dated  later  than  60 ;  and  since 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  took  place  in  70,  Matthew  and  Mark  must  have  published 
their  gospels  at  least  as  early  as  the  year  68,  when  multitudes  of  men  were  still  living 
who  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  events  of  Jesus'  life.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method 
of  Revelation,  180— "At  any  considerably  later  date  [than  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  ] 
the  apparent  conjunction  of  the  fall  of  the  city  and  the  temple  with  the  Parousia 
would  have  been  avoided  or  explained.  .  .  .  Matthew,  in  its  present  form,  appeared 
after  the  beginning  of  the  mortal  struggle  of  the  Romans  with  the  Jews,  or  between 
ti5  and  70.  Mark's  gospel  was  still  earlier-.  The  language  of  the  passages  relative  to  the 
Parousia,  in  Luke,  is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  wrote  after  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  but  not  with  the  supposition  that  it  was  long  after."  See  Norton,  Genu- 
ineness of  the  Gospels ;  Alford,  Greek  Testament,  Prolegomena,  30,  31,  36,  45-47. 

C.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  this  acceptance  of  the  New  Testament  doc- 
uments as  genuine,  on  the  part  of  the  Fathers  of  the  churches,  was  for 
good  and  sufficient  reasons,  both  internal  and  external,  and  this  presump- 
tion is  corroborated  by  the  following  considerations  : 

(  a )  There  is  evidence  that  the  early  churches  took  every  care  to  assure 
themselves  of  the  genuineness  of  these  writings  before  they  accepted  them. 

Evidences  of  care  are  the  following:  —  Paul,  in  2  Thess.  2:2,  urged  the  churches  to  use 
care,  "  to  the  end  that  ye  be  not  quickly  shaken  from  your  mind,  nor  yet  be  troubled,  either  by  spirit,  or  by  word, 
or  by  epistle  as  from  us  "  ;  1  Cor.  5:9  —  "I  wrote  unto  you  in  my  epistle  to  have  no  company  with  fornicators  "  ;  Col. 
:  16  —  "  when  this  epistle  hath  been  read  among  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans ;  and 
that  ye  also  read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea."  Mclito  ( 169 ),  Bishop  of  Sardis,  who  wrote  a  treatise  on 
the  Revelation  of  John,  went  as  far  as  Palestine  to  ascertain  on  the  spot  the  facts  relat- 
ing to  the  Canon  of  the  O.  T.,  and  as  a  result  of  his  investigations  excluded  the  Apoc- 
rypha. Ryle,  Canon  of  O.  T.,  203  —  "  Melito,  the  Bishop  of  Sardis,  sent  to  a  friend  a  list 
of  the  O.  T.  Scriptures  which  he  professed  to  have  obtained  from  accurate  inquiry, 
while  traveling  in  the  East,  in  Syria.  Its  contents  agree  with  those  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon,  save  in  the  omission  of  Esther-."  Serapion,  Bishop  of  Antioch  ( 191-213,  Abbot), 
says:  "We  receive  Peter  and  other  apostles  as  Christ,  but  as  skilful  men  we  reject 
those  writings  which  are  falsely  ascribed  to  them."  Geo.  H.  Ferris,  Baptist  Congress, 
1899: 94  — "  Serapion,  after  permitting  the  reading  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  in  public  ser- 
vices, finally  decided  against  it,  not  because  he  thought  there  could  be  no  fifth  gospel, 
but  because  he  thought  it  was  not  written  by  Peter."  Tertullian  ( 160-230)  gives  an 
example  of  the  deposition  of  a  presbyter  in  Asia  Minor  for  publishing  a  pretended  work 
of  Paul ;  see  Tertullian,  De  Baptismo,  referred  to  by  Godet  on  John,  Introduction ; 
Lardner,  Works,  2:304,  305;  Mcllvaine,  Evidences,  92. 

(6  )  The  style  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  their  complete  cor- 
respondence with  all  we  know  of  the  lands  and  times  in  which  they  profess 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  151 

to  have  been  written,  affords  convincing  proof  that  they  belong  to  the 

apostolic  age. 

sp 

Notice  the  mingling  of  Latin  and  Greek,  as  in  <nrei<ov\dTu>p  (Mark  6:27)  and  KtvTvpUov 
(Mark  15:39);  of  Greek  and  Aramaean,  as  in  npaaiai  npaaiai  (Mark  6: 40}  and  pSi\vyp.a  t>js 
eprj^uio-ews  ( Mat.  24  :  15 ) ;  this  could  hardly  have  occurred  after  the  first  century.  Com- 
pare the  anachronisms  of  style  and  description  in  Thackeray's  "  Henry  Esmond," 
which,  in  spite  of  the  author's  special  studies  and  his  determination  to  exclude  all  words 
and  phrases  that  had  originated  in  his  own  century,  was  marred  by  historical  errors 
that  Macaulay  in  his  most  remiss  moments  would  hardly  have  made.  James  Russell 
Lowell  told  Thackeray  that  "different  to"  was  not  a  century  old.  "Hang  it,  no!'' 
replied  Thackeray.  In  view  of  this  failure,  on  the  part  of  an  author  of  great  literary 
skill,  to  construct  a  story  purporting-  to  be  written  a  century  before  his  time  and  that 
could  stand  the  test  of  historical  criticism,  we  may  well  reg-ard  the  success  of  our  gos- 
pels in  standing  such  tests  as  a  practical  demonstration  that  they  were  written  in,  and 
not  after,  the  apostolic  age.  See  Alexander,  Christ  aud  Christianity,  27-37 ;  Blunt, 
Scriptural  Coincidences,  244-354. 

(  e )  The  genuineness  of  the  fourth  gospel  is  confirmed,  by  the  fact  that 
Tatian  (  155-170  ),  the  Assyrian,  a  disciple  of  Justin,  repeatedly  quoted  it 
without  naming  the  author,  and  composed  a  Harmony  of  our  four  gospels 
which  he  named  the  Diatessaron  ;  while  Basilides  (130)  aud  Vuleutinus 
(  150  ),  the  Gnostics,  both  quote  from  it. 

The  sceptical  work  entitled  "  Supernatural  Religion  "  said  in  1S74  ;  "  No  one  seems  to 
have  seen  Tatian's  Harmony,  probably  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  there  was  no 
such  work"  ;  and  "There  is  no  evidence  whatever  connecting  Tatian's  Gospel  with 
those  of  our  Canon."  In  1870,  however,  there  was  published  in  a  Latin  form  in  Venice 
the  Commentary  of  Bphraem  Syrus  on  Tatian,  anil  the  commencement  of  it  was:  "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word  "( John  1 : 1 ).  In  18s8,  the  Diatessaron  itself  was  published  in  Home  in 
the  form  of  an  Arabic  translation  made  in  the  eleventh  century  from  the  Syriac.  J. 
Rendel  Harris,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  L893:  800«/.,saye  that  the  recovery  of  Tatian's  Diates- 
saron has  indefinitely  postponed  the  literary  funeral  of  St.  John.  Advanced  critics,  he 
intimates,  are  so  called,  because  they  run  ahead  of  the  facts  they  discuss.  The  gospels 
must  have  been  well  established  in  the  Christian  church  when  Tatian  undertook  to  com- 
bine them.  Mrs.  A.  S.  Lewis,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Jan.  23, 1904  — "The  gospels  were  trans- 
lated into  Syriac  before  A.  D.  1G0.  It  follows  that  the  Greek  document  from  which 
they  were  translated  was  older  still,  and  since  the  one  includes  the  gospel  of  St.  John, 
so  did  the  other.''  Hemphill,  Literature  of  the  Second  Century,  183-231,  gives  the  birth 
of  Tatian  about  130,  and  the  date  of  his  Diatessaron  as  172  A.  D. 

The  difference  in  style  between  the-  lievclat  ion  and  the  gospel  of  John  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  Revelation  was  written  during' John's  exile  in  Patmos,  under  Nero,  in  67 
or  68,  soon  after  John  had  left  Palestine  and  had  taken  up  his  residence  at  Ephesus.  He 
had  hitherto  spoken  Aramaean,  and  Greek  was  comparatively  unfamiliar  to  him.  The 
gospel  was  written  thirty  years  after,  probably  about  97,  when  Greek  had  become  to 
him  like  a  mother  tongue.  See  Lightfoot  on  Galatians,  343, 347 ;  per  contra,  see  Milligan, 
Revelation  of  St.  John.  Phrases  and  ideas  which  indicate  a  common  authorship  of  the 
Revelation  and  the  gospel  are  the  following:  "the  Lamb  of  God,"  "  the  Word  of  God,"  "the  True" 
as  an  epithet  applied  to  Christ,  "  the  Jews  "  as  enemies  of  God,  "manna,"  "him  whom  they  pierced"; 
see  Elliott,  Horoe  Apocalypticas,  1:4, 5.  In  the  fourth  gospel  we  have  d)j.v6s,  in  Apoc.  dpviov, 
perhaps  better  to  distinguish  "the  Lamb  "  from  the  diminutive  to  faipiov,  "the  beast."  Com- 
mon to  both  Gospel  and  Rev.  are  noulv,  "  to  do "  [the  truth];  -ntpiira-rilv,  of  moral  con- 
duct; dArjiJo'os,  "genuine";  Stij/ay,  ireiv$v,  of  the  higher  wants  of  the  soul;  aurivovv  «>■, 
n-oi/u.ai'i'eii',  oSrjyeu- ;  also  'overcome,'  'testimony,'  '  Bridegooom,'  'Shepherd,'  '  Water  of  life.'  In  the  Reve- 
lation there  are  grammatical  solecisms:  nominative  for  genitive,  1:4  —  awbbuv;  nomina- 
tive for  accusative,  7:9 — cl&ov  ....  6;\Aos  woAvs;  accusative  for  nominative,  20:2  — 
t'ov  SpdicovTa.  6  60is.  Similarly  we  have  in  Rom.  12:5  —  to  6e  nad'  eU  instead  of  to  Se  <ay  eVa, 
where  Kara  has  lost  its  regimen  —  a  frequent  solecism  in  later  Greek  writers ;  see  Godet 
on  John,  1:  269,  270.  Emerson  reminded  Jones  Very  that  the  Holy  Ghost  surely  writes 
good  grammar.    The  Apocalypse  seems  to  show  that  Emerson  was  wrong. 

The  author  of  the  fourth  gospel  speaks  of  John  in  the  third  person,  "and  scorned  to 
blot  it  with  a  name."    But  so  does  Caesar  speak  of  himself  in  his  Commentaries.    Har- 


152  THE   SCRIPTURES  A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

nack  regards  both  the  fourth  gospel  and  the  Revelation  as  the  work  of  John  the  Pres- 
byter or  Elder,  the  former  written  not  later  than  about  110  A.  D.;  the  latter  from  93  to 
96,  but  being  a  revision  of  one  or  more  underlying  Jewish  apocalypses.  Vischer  has 
expounded  this  view  of  the  Revelation ;  and  Porter  holds  substantially  the  same,  in  his 
article  on  the  Book  of  Revelation  in  Hastings'  Rible  Dictionary,  4 :  239-266.  "  It  is  the 
obvious  advantage  of  the  Vischer-Haruack  hypothesis  that  it  places  the  original  work 
under  Nero  and  its  revised  and  Christianized  edition  under  Domitian."  ( Sanday,  Inspi- 
ration, 371,  372,  nevertheless  dismisses  this  hypothesis  as  raising  worse  difficulties  than  it 
removes.  He  dates  the  Apocalypse  between  the  death  of  Nero  and  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  by  Titus.)  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  227,  presents  the  moral  objections 
to  the  apostolic  authorship,  and  regards  the  Revelation,  from  chapter  4: 1  to  22:5,  as  a 
purely  Jewish  document  of  the  date  66-70,  supplemented  and  revised  by  a  Christian, 
and  issued  not  earlier  than  136 :  "  How  strange  that  we  should  ever  have  thought  it 
possible  for  a  personal  attendant  upon  the  ministry  of  Jesus  to  write  or  edit  a  book 
mixing  up  fierce  Messianic  conflicts,  in  which,  with  the  sword,  the  gory  garment, 
the  blasting  flame,  the  rod  of  iron,  as  his  emblems,  he  leads  the  war-march,  and 
treads  the  winepress  of  the  wrath  of  God  until  the  deluge  of  blood  rises  to  the  horses' 
bits,  with  the  speculative  Christology  of  the  second  century,  without  a  memory  of  his 
life,  a  feature  of  his  look,  a  word  from  his  voice,  or  a  glance  back  at  the  hillsides  of 
Galilee,  the  courts  of  Jerusalem,  the  road  to  Bethany,  on  which  his  image  must  be  for- 
ever seen ! " 

The  force  of  this  statement,  however,  is  greatly  broken  if  we  consider  that  the  apos- 
tle John,  iu  his  earlier  days,  was  one  of  the  "  Boanerges,  which  is,  Soas  of  thunder  "  (Mark  3. -17), 
but  became  in  his  later  years  the  apostle  of  love:  1  John  4  :  7  —  "  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another : 
for  love  is  of  God."  The  likeness  of  the  fourth  gospel  to  the  epistle,  which  latter  was 
undoubtedly  the  work  of  John  the  apostle,  indicates  the  same  authorship  for  the  gos- 
pel. Thayer  remarks  that  "  the  discovery  of  the  gospel  according  to  Peter  sweeps  away 
half  a  century  of  discussion.  Brief  as  is  the  recovered  fragment,  it  attests  indubitably 
all  four  of  our  canonical  books."  Riddle,  in  Popular  Com.,  1 :25  —  "  If  a  forger  wrote 
the  fourth  gospel,  then  Beelzebub  has  been  casting  out  devils  for  these  eighteen  hun- 
dred years."  On  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  gospel,  see  Bleek,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  1 : 
250;  Fisher,  Essays  on  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  33,  also  Beginnings  of  Chris- 
tianity, 320-362,  and  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief,  215-309 ;  Sanday,  Author- 
ship of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  and  Criticism  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel ;  Ezra  Abbott,  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  52,  80-87 ;  Row,  Bampton  Lec- 
tures on  Christian  Evidences,  219-287 ;  British  Quarterly,  Oct.  1872  :  216;  Godet,  in  Pres- 
ent Day  Tracts,  5  :  no.  25 ;  Westcott,  in  Bib.  Com.  on  John's  Gospel,  Introd.,  xxviii- 
xxxii ;  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1890;  W.  L.  Ferguson,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  1896  : 1-27. 

(d)  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  appears  to  have  been  accepted  during 
tin;  first  century  after  it  was  written  (so  Clement  of  Rome,  Justin  Martyr, 
and  the  Peshito  Version  Avitness).  Then  for  two  centuries,  especially  in 
the  Roman  and  North  African  churches,  and  probably  because  its  internal 
characteristics  were  inconsistent  with  the  tradition  of  a  Pauline  authorship, 
its  genuineness  was  doubted  (so  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Ireuams,  Muratorian 
Canon).  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  Jerome  examined  the  evidence 
and  decided  in  its  favor;  Augustine  did  the  same;  the  third  Council  of 
Carthage  formally  recognized  it  (397)  ;  from  that  time  the  Latin  churches 
united  with  the  East  in  receiving  it,  and  thus  the  doubt  was  finally  and 
forever  removed. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  style  of  which  is  so  unlike  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
was  possibly  written  by  Apollos,  who  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  "  a  learned  man "  and 
"  mighty  in  the  Scriptures "  (Acts  18: 24);  but  it  may  notwithstanding  have  been  written  at  the 
suggestion  and  under  the  direction  of  Paul,  and  so  be  essentially  Pauline.  A.  C. 
Kendrick,  in  American  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  points  out  that  while  the  style  of 
Paul  is  prevailingly  dialectic,  and  only  in  rapt  moments  becomes  rhetorical  or  poetic, 
the  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  prevailingly  rhetorical,  is  free  from  ana- 
coloutha,  and  is  alwaj-s  dominated  by  emotion.  He  holds  that  these  characteristics 
point  to  Apollos  as  its  author.  Contrast  also  Paul's  method  of  quoting  the  O.  T. :  "it 
is  written"  (Rom.  11:8;  1  Cor.  1 :  31 ;  Gal.  3  :  10 )  with  that  of  the  Hebrews:  "he  saith"  (8  :  5,  13),  "he 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  153 

nath  said"  (4:4).  Paul  quotes  the  O.  T.  fifty  or  sixty  times,  but  never  in  this  latter  way. 
Heb.  2:3  —  "which  having  at  the  first  been  spoken  by  the  Lord,  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard ' '  —  shows 
that  the  winter  did  not  receive  the  gospefcjt  first  hand.  Luther  and  Calvin  rightly  saw 
In  this  a  decisive  proof  that  Paul  was  not  the  author,  for  he  always  insisted  on  the 
primary  and  independent  character  of  his  gospel.  Harnack  formerly  thought  the 
epistle  written  by  Barnabas  to  Christians  at  Rome,  A.  D.  81-96.  More  recently  how- 
ever he  attributes  it  to  Priscilla,  the  wife  of  Aquila,  or  to  their  joint  authorship.  The 
majesty  of  its  diction,  however,  seems  unfavorable  to  this  view.  William  T.  C.  Hanna  : 
"The  words  of  the  author  .  .  .  are  marshalled  grandly,  and  move  with  the  tread 
of  an  army,  or  with  the  swell  of  a  tidal  wave  "  ;  sec  Franklin  Johnson,  Quotations  in 
N.  T.  from  O.  T.,  xii.  Plumptre,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  37,  and  in  Expositor,  Vol.  I,  regards 
the  author  of  this  epistle  as  the  same  with  that  of  the  Apocryphal  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
the  latter  being  composed  before,  the  former  after,  the  writer's  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity. Perhaps  our  safest  conclusion  is  that  of  Origen :  "God  only  knows  who 
wrote  it."  Harnack  however  remarks:  "The  time  in  which  our  ancient  Christian 
literature,  the  N.  T.  included,  was  considered  as  a  web  of  delusions  and  falsifications, 
is  past.  The  oldest  literature  of  the  church  is,  in  its  main  points,  and  in  most  of  its 
details,  true  and  trustworthy."  See  articles  on  Hebrews,  in  Smith's  and  in  Hastings' 
Bible  Dictionaries. 

(  e  )  As  to  2  Peter,  Jude,  and  2  and  3  John,  the  epistles  most  frequently 
held  to  be  spurious,  we  may  say  that,  although  we  have  no  conclusive 
external  evidence  earlier  than  A.  D.  160,  and  in  the  case  of  2  Peter  none 
earlier  than  A.  D.  230-250,  wo  may  fairly  urge  in  favor  of  their  genuine- 
ness not  only  their  internal  characteristics  of  literary  style  and  moral  value, 
but  also  the  general  acceptance  of  them  all  since  the  third  century  as  the 
actual  productions  of  the  men  or  class  of  men  whose  names  they  bear. 

Firmilianus(  250),  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  is  tin  •  first  clear  witness  to  2  Peter. 
Origen  (230)  names  it,  but,  in  naming  it,  admits  thai  it-  genuineness  is  questioned. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea  (372)  first  received  it  into  the  Canon.  With  this  very  gradual 
recognition  and  acceptance  of  2  Peter,  compare  the  loss  of  the  later  works  of  Aristotle 
for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  his  death,  and  their  recognition  as  genuine  so  soon 
as  they  were  recovered  from  the  cellar  of  the  family  of  Neleus  in  Asia;  DeWette's 
first  publication  of  certain  letters  of  Luther  alter  the  lapse  of  three  hundred  years, 
yet  without  occasioning  doubt  as  to  their  genuineness;  or  the  concealment  of  Milton's 
Treatise  on  Christian  Doctrine,  among  the  lumber  of  the  State  Paper  Office  in  London, 
from  1077  to  1823}  see  Mair,  Christian  Evidences,  95.  Sir  William  Hamilton  complained 
that  there  were  treatises  of  Cudworth,  Berkeley  and  Collier,  still  lying  unpublished 
and  even  unknown  to  their  editors,  biographers  and  fellow  metaphysicians,  but  yet  of 
the  highest  interest  and  importance;  see  Mansel,  Letters,  Lectures  and  Reviews,  381; 
Archibald,  The  Bible  Verified,  27.  2  Peter  was  probably  sent  from  the  East  shortly 
before  Peter's  martyrdom;  distance  and  persecution  may  have  prevented  its  rapid 
circulation  in  other  countries.  Sagebeer,  The  Bible  in  Court,  114  — "A  ledger  may 
have  been  lost,  or  its  authenticity  for  a  long  time  doubted,  but  when  once  it  is  dis- 
covered and  proved,  it  is  as  trustworthy  as  any  other  part  of  the  res  gestae."  See 
Plumptre,  Epistles  of  Peter,  Introd.,  73-81;  Alford  on  2  Peter,  i:  Prolegomena,  157; 
Westcott,  on  Canon,  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  1:370,  373;  Blunt,  Diet.  Doct.  and  Hist. 
Theol.,  art. :  Canon. 

It  is  urged  by  those  who  doubt  the  genuineness  of  2  Peter  that  the  epistle  speaks 
of  " your  apostles "  (3:2),  just  as  Jude  17  speaks  of  "the  apostles,"  as  if  the  writer  did  not 
number  himself  among  them.  But  2  Peter  begins  with  "  Simon  Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  Jude,  "brother  of  James"  (verse  1 )  was  a  brother  of  our  Lord,  but  not  an  apostle. 
Hovey,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  xxxi— "The  earliest  passage  manifestly  based  upon  2  Peter 
appears  to  be  in  the  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  the  Roman  Clement,  16  :  3,  which 
however  is  now  understood  to  be  a  Christian  homily  from  the  middle  of  the  second 
century"  Origen  (born  186)  testifies  that  Peter  left  one  epistle,  "and  perhaps  a 
second,  for  that  is  disputed."  He  also  says:  "John  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  and  an 
epistle  of  very  few  lines ;  and,  it  may  be,  a  second  and  a  third ;  since  all  do  not  admit 
them  to  be  genuine."  He  quotes  also  from  James  and  from  Jude*,  adding  that  their 
canonicity  was  doubted. 


154  THE    SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOP. 

Harnack  regards  1  Peter,  2  Peter,  James,  and  Jude,  as  written  respectively  about 
160,  170,  130,  and  130,  but  not  by  the  men  to  whom  they  are  ascribed — the  ascriptions  to 
these  authors  being-  later  additions.  Hort  remarks :  "If  I  were  asked,  I  should  say  that 
the  balance  of  the  argument  was  against  2  Peter,  but  the  moment  I  had  done  so  I 
should  begin  to  think  I  might  be  in  the  wrong."  Sanday,  Oracles  of  God,  73  note, 
considers  the  arguments  in  favor  of  2  Peter  unconvincing,  but  also  the  arguments 
against.  He  cannot  get  beyond  a  nnn  liquet.  He  refers  to  Salmon,  Introd.  to  N.  T., 
529-559,  ed.  4,  as  expressing  his  own  view.  But  the  later  conclusions  of  Sanday  are 
more  radical.  In  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  Inspiration,  348,  399,  he  says:  2  Peter  "is 
probably  at  least  to  this  extent  a  counterfeit,  that  it  appears  under  a  name  which  is 
not  that  of  its  true  author." 

Chase,  in  Hastings'  Bib.  Diet.,  3  :  80U-817,  says  that  "  the  first  piece  of  certain  evidence 
as  to  2  Peter  is  the  passage  from  Origen  quoted  by  Eusebius,  though  it  hardly  admits 
of  doubt  that  the  Epistle  was  known  to  Clement  of  Alexandria.  .  .  .  We  hud  no  trace 
of  the  epistle  in  the  period  when  the  tradition  of  apostolic  days  was  still  living.  ...  It 
was  not  the  work  of  the  apostle  but  of  the  second  century  . .  .  put  forward  without 
any  sinister  motive  .  .  .  the  personation  of  the  apostle  an  obvious  literary  device  rather 
than  a  religious  or  controversial  fraud.  The  adoption  of  such  a  verdict  can  cause  per- 
plexity only  when  the  Lord's  promise  of  guidance  to  his  Church  is  regarded  as  a  charter 
of  infallibility."  Against  this  verdict  we  would  urge  the  dignity  and  spiritual  value 
of  2  Peter  — internal  evidence  which  in  our  judgment  causes  the  balance  to  incline  in 
favor  of  its  apostolic  authorship. 

(/)  Upon  no  other  hypothesis  than  that  of  their  genuineness  can  the 
general  acceptance  of  these  four  minor  epistles  since  the  third  century,  and 
of  all  the  other  hooks  of  the  New  Testament  since  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  If  they  had  been  mere  collections 
of  Moating  legends,  they  could  not  have  secured  wide  circulation  as  sacred 
books  for  which  Christians  must  answer  with  their  blood.  If  they  had  been 
forgeries,  the  churches  at  large  could  neither  have  been  deceived  as  to 
their  previous  non-existence,  nor  have  been  induced  unanimously  to  pre- 
tend that  they  were  ancient  and  genuine.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  other 
accounts  of  their  origin,  inconsistent  with  their  genuineness,  are  now  cur- 
rent, we  proceed  to  examine  more  at  length  the  most  important  of  these 
opposing  views. 

The  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole  would  still  be  demonstrable, 
even  if  doubt  should  still  attach  to  one  or  two  of  its  books.  It  does  not  matter  that 
2nd  Alcibiades  was  not  written  by  Plato,  or  Pericles  by  Shakespeare.  The  Council  of 
Carthage  in  397  gave  a  place  in  the  Canon  to  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  but  the  Reformers 
tore  it  out.  Zwingli  said  of  the  Revelation:  "It  is  not  a  Biblical  book,"  and  Luther 
spoke  slightingly  of  the  Epistle  of  James.  The  judgment  of  Christendom  at  large  is 
more  trustworthy  than  the  private  impressions  of  any  single  Christian  scholar.  To 
hold  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  to  be  written  in  the  second  century  by  other  than  those 
whose  names  they  bear  is  to  hold,  not  simply  to  forgery,  but  to  a  conspiracy  of  for- 
gery. There  must  have  been  several  forgers  at  work,  and,  since  their  writings  wonder- 
fully agree,  there  must  have  been  collusion  among  them.  Yet  these  able  men  have 
been  forgotten,  while  the  names  of  far  feebler  writers  of  the  second  century  have 
been  preserved. 

G.  F.  Wright,  Scientific  Aspects  of  Christian  Evidences,  343  —  "  In  civil  law  there  are 
'statutes  of  limitations'  which  provide  that  the  general  acknowledgment  of  a  pur- 
ported fact  for  a  certain  period  shall  be  considered  as  conclusive  evidence  of  it.  If, 
for  example,  a  man  has  remained  in  undisturbed  possession  of  land  for  a  certain  num- 
ber of  years,  it  is  presumed  that  he  has  a  valid  claim  to  it,  and  no  one  is  allowed  to 
dispute  his  claim."  Mair,  Evidences,  99  —  "We  probably  have  not  a  tenth  part  of  the 
evidence  upon  which  the  early  churches  accepted  the  N.  T.  books  as  the  genuine  pro- 
ductions of  their  authors.  We  have  only  their  verdict."  Wynne,  in  Literature  of  the 
Second  Century,  53,—  "  Those  who  gave  up  the  Scriptures  were  looked  on  by  their  fel- 
low Christians  as  'traditores,'  traitors,  who  had  basely  yielded  up  what  they  ought  to 
have  treasured  as  dearer  than  life.    But  all  their  books  were  not  equally  sacred.    Some 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  155 

were  essential,  and  some  were  non-essential  to  the  faith.  Hence  arose  the  distinction 
between  canonical  and  non-canonical.  The  general  consciousness  of  Christians  grew 
into  a  distinct  registration."  Such  registration  is  entitled  to  the  highest  respect,  and 
lays  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  objector.  See  Alexander,  Christ  and  Christianity, 
Introduction;  Hovey,  General  Introduction  to  American  Commentary  on  N.  T. 

D.  Rationalistic  Theories  as  to  the  origin  of  the  gospels.  These  are 
attempts  to  eliminate  the  miraculous  element  from  the  New  Testament 
records,  and  to  reconstruct  the  sacred  history  upon  principles  of  naturalism. 

Against  them  we  urge  the  general  objection  that  they  are  unscientific  in 
their  principle  and  method.  To  set  out  in  an  examination  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament documents  with  the  assumption  that  all  history  is  a  mere  natural 
development,  and  that  miracles  are  therefore  impossible,  is  to  make  history 
a  matter,  not  of  testimony,  but  of  apriori  speculation.  It  indeed  renders 
any  history  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  impossible,  since  the  witnesses  whose 
testimony  witli  regard  to  miracles  is  discredited  can  no  longer  be  con- 
sidered worthy  of  credence  in  their  account  of  Christ's  life  or  doctrine. 

In  Germany,  half  a  century  ago,  "  a  man  was  famous  according  as  he  had  lifted  up  aies  upon  the  thick 
trees"  (Ps.  74:  5,  A.  V.),  just  as  among  the  American  Indians  he  was  not  counted  a  man  who 
could  not  show  bis  scalps.  The  critics  fortunately  scalped  each  other;  see  T3der,  Theol- 
ogy of  Greek  Poets,  79— on  Homer.  Nlcoll,  The  Church's  One  Foundation,  15  — "Like 
the  mummers  of  old,  sceptical  critics  send  one  before  them  with  a  broom  to  sweep  the 
stage  clear  of  everything  for  their  drama.  If  we  assume  at  the  threshold  of  the  gos- 
pel study  that  everything  of  the  nature  of  miracle  is  Impossible,  then  the  specific  ques- 
tions are  decided  before  the  criticism  begins  to  operate  in  earnest."  Matt  hew  Arnold  : 
"  Our  popular  religion  at  present  conceives  the  birth,  ministry  and  death  of  Christ  as 
altogether  steeped  in  prodigy,  brimful  of  miracle,  and  miracles  do  noi  htii>i>i  it."  This 
presupposition  influences  the  investigations  of  Kuenen,  and  of  A.  E.  Abbott,  in  his 
art  icle  on  the  Gospels  in  t  lie  Encyc.  Britannlca.  We  give  special  attention  to  four  of 
the  theories  based  upon  this  assumption. 

1st.     The  Myth-theory  of  Strauss  ( 1808-1874). 

According  to  this  view,  the  gospels  are  crystallizations  into  story  of  Mes- 
sianic ideas  which  had  for  several  generations  filled  the  minds  of  imagina- 
tive men  in  Palestine.  The  myth  is  a  narrative  in  which  such  ideas  are 
unconsciously  clothed,  and  from  which  the  element  of  intentional  and 
deliberate  deception  is  absent. 

This  early  view  of  Strauss,  which  has  become  identified  with  his  name,  was  exchanged 
in  late  years  for  a  more  advanced  view  which  extended  the  meaning  of  the  word 
'myths'  so  as  to  include  all  narratives  that  spring  out  of  a  theological  idea,  and  it 
admitted  the  existence  of  '  pious  frauds '  in  the  gospels.  Baur,  he  says,  first  convinced 
him  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  gospel  had  "not  unfrequently  composed  mere 
fables,  knowing  them  to  be  mere  fictions."  The  animating  spirit  of  both  the  old  view 
and  the  new  is  the  same.  Strauss  says :  "  We  know  with  certainty  what  Jesus  was  not, 
and  what  he  has  not  done,  namely,  nothing  superhuman  and  supernatural."  "  No  gos- 
pel can  claim  that  degree  of  historic  credibility  that  would  be  required  in  order  to  make 
us  debase  our  reason  to  the  point  of  believing  mirach  s."  He  calls  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  "ein  weltgeschichtlicher  Humbug."  "  If  the  gospels  are  really  historical  doc- 
uments, we  caunot  exclude  miracle  from  the  life-story  of  Jesus ; "  see  Strauss,  Life  of 
Jesus,  1-7 ;  New  Life  of  Jesus,  1 :  preface,  xii.  Vatke,  Einleitung  in  A.  T.,  ^'10,  211,  dis- 
tinguishes the  myth  from  the  saga  or  legend  :  The  criterion  of  the  pure  myth  is  that 
the  experience  is  impossible,  whde  the  saya  is  a  tradition  of  remote  antiquity ;  the 
myth  has  in  it  the  element  only  of  belief,  the  saga  has  in  it  an  element  of  history. 
Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  37  — "A  myth  is  false  in  appearance  only.  The  divine  Spirit 
can  avail  himself  of  the  fictions  of  poetry  as  well  as  of  logical  reasonings.  When  the 
heart  was  pure,  the  veils  of  fable  always  allowed  the  face  of  truth  to  shine  through. 
And  does  not  childhood  run  on  into  maturity  and  old  age?  " 


156  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM   GOD. 

It  is  very  certain  that  childlike  love  of  truth  was  not  the  animating-  spirit  of  Strauss. 
On  the  contrary,  his  spirit  was  that  of  remorseless  criticism  and  of  uncompromising  hos- 
tility to  the  supernatural.  It  has  been  well  said  that  he  gathered  up  all  the  previous 
objections  of  sceptics  to  the  gospel  narrative  and  hurled  them  in  one  mass,  just  as 
if  some  Sadducee  at  the  time  of  Jesus' trial  had  put  all  the  taunts  and  gibes,  all  the  buf- 
fetings  and  insults,  all  the  shame  and  spitting,  into  one  blow  delivered  straight  into 
the  face  of  the  Redeemer.  An  octogenarian  and  saintly  German  lady  said  unsuspect- 
ingly that "  somehow  she  never  could  get  interested  "  in  Strauss's  Leben  Jesu,  which  her 
sceptical  son  had  given  her  for  religious  reading.  The  work  was  almost  altogether 
destructive,  only  the  last  chapter  suggesting'  Strauss's  own  view  of  what  Jesus  was. 

If  Luther's  dictum  is  true  that  "the  heart  is  the  best  theologian,"  Strauss  must  be 
regarded  as  destitute  of  the  main  qualification  for  his  task.  Encyc.  Britannica,  22: 
592 — "Strauss's  mind  was  almost  exclusively  analytical  and  critical,  without  depth  of 
religious  feeling,  or  philosophical  penetration,  or  historical  sympathy.  His  work  was 
rarely  constructive,  and,  save  when  he  was  dealing  with  a  kindred  spirit,  he  failed  as  a 
historian,  biographer,  and  critic,  strikingly  illustrating  Goethe's  profoundly  true  prin- 
ciple that  loving  sympathy  is  essential  for  productive  criticism."  Pfleiderer,  Strauss's 
Life  of  Jesus,  xix  — "Strauss  showed  that  the  church  formed  the  mythical  traditions 
about  Jesus  out  of  its  faith  in  him  as  the  Messiah;  but  he  did  not  show  how  the  church 
came  by  the  faith  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah."  See  Carpenter,  Mental 
Physiology,  362;  Grote,  Plato,  1:  249. 

We  object  to  the  Myth-theory  of  Strauss,  that 

( a )  The  time  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  publication  of  the 
gospels  was  far  too  short  for  the  growth  and  consolidation  of  such  mythi- 
cal histories.  Myths,  on  the  contrary,  as  the  Indian,  Greek,  Roman  aud 
Scandinavian  instances  bear  witness,  are  the  slow  growth  of  centuries. 

(  b )  The  first  century  was  not  a  century  when  such  formation  of  myths 
was  possible.  Instead  of  being  a  credulous  and  imaginative  age,  it  was  an 
age  of  historical  inquiry  and  of  Sadduceeism  in  matters  of  religion. 

Horace,  in  Odes  1 :  34  and  3 :  6,  denounces  the  neglect  and  squalor  of  the  heathen 
temples,  and  Juvenal,  Satire  2 :  150,  says  that  "  Esse  aliquid  manes  et  subterranea 
regna  Nee  pueri  credunt."  Arnold  of  Rugby :  "  The  idea  of  men  writing  mythic  his- 
tories between  the  times  of  Li  vy  and  of  Tacitus,  and  of  St.  Paul  mistaking  them  for  real- 
ities!" Pilate's  sceptical  inquiry,  "  What  is  truth ?  "  (John  18:38),  better  represented  the  age. 
"The  mythical  age  is  past  when  an  idea  is  presented  abstractly —  apart  from  narra- 
tive." The  Jewish  sect  of  the  Sadducees  shows  that  the  rationalistic  spirit  was  not 
confined  to  Greeks  or  Romans.  The  question  of  John  the  Baptist,  Mat.  11 :  3  —  "  Art  thou  he 
that  cometh,  or  look  we  for  another ? "  and  our  Lord's  answer,  Mat.  11:4,  5—  "Go  and  tell  John  the  thing 
which  je  hear  and  see :  the  blind  receive  their  sight ...  the  dead  are  raised  up,"  show  that  the  Jews  expected 
miracles  to  be  wrought  by  the  Messiah;  yet  John  10:  41  — "John  indeed  did  no  sign"  shows  also 
no  irresistible  inclination  to  invest  popular  teachers  with  miraculous  powers;  see 
E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Evidences,  22 ;  Westcott,  Com.  on  John  10 :  41 ;  Rogers,  Super- 
human Origin  of  the  Bible,  61 ;  Cox,  Miracles,  50. 

(  c )  The  gospels  cannot  be  a  mythical  outgrowth  of  Jewish  ideas  and 
expectations,  because,  in  their  main  features,  they  run  directly  counter  to 
these  ideas  aud  expectations.  The  sullen  and  exclusive  nationalism  of  the 
Jews  could  not  have  given  rise  to  a  gospel  for  all  nations,  nor  could  their 
expectations  of  a  temporal  monarch  have  led  to  the  story  of  a  suffering 
Messiah. 

The  O.  T.  Apocrypha  shows  how  narrow  was  the  outlook  of  the  Jews.  2  Esdras  6 : 
55,  56  says  the  Almighty  has  made  the  world  "  for  our  sakes  ";  other  peoples,  though 
they  "also come  from  Adam,"  to  the  Eternal  "are  nothing,  but  be  like  unto  spittle." 
The  whole  multitude  of  them  are  only,  before  him,  "  like  a  single  foul  drop  that  oozes 
out  of  a  cask  "  ( C.  Geikie,  in  S.  S.  Times).  Christ's  kingdom  differed  from  that  which 
the  Jews  expected,  both  in  its  spirituality  and  its  universality  (Bruce,  Apologetics, 
3).    There  was  no  missionary  impulse  in  the  heathen  world;  on  the  other  hand, 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   DOCUMENTS.  15? 

it  was  blasphemy  for  an  ancient  tribesman  to  make  known  his  sod  to  an  outsider 
(  Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  106).  The  Apocryphal  gospels  show  what  sort  of  myths 
the  N.  T.  age  would  have  elaborated  :  tout  of  a  demoniac  young  woman  Satan  is  said 
to  depart  in  the  form  of  a  young  man  ( Bernard,  in  Literature  of  the  Second  Century, 
99-136). 

(  d )  The  belief  and  propagation  of  such  myths  are  inconsistent  -with 
what  we  know  of  the  sober  characters  and  self-sacrificing  lives  of  the 
apostles. 

(e)  The  mythical  theory  cannot  account  for  the  acceptance  of  the 
gospels  among  the  Gentiles,  who  had  none  of  the  Jewish  ideas  and  expec- 
tations. 

(/)  It  cannot  explain  Christianity  itself,  with  its  belief  in  Christ's  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection,  and  the  ordinances  which  commemorate  these  facts. 

(d)  Witness  Thomas's  doubting,  and  Paul's  shipwrecks  and  scourgings.  Cf.  2  Pet.  1 
16  —  ou  yap  o-ecro^ioTitpot?  /uuflois  ega.KoXovdriaai'Tes  —  "  we  have  not  been  on  the  false  track 
of  myths  artificially  elaborated."  See  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  49-88. 
( e )  See  the  two  books  entitled  :  If  the  Gospel  Narratives  are  Mythical,  —  What  Then  ? 
and,  But  How, —  if  the  Gospels  are  Historic?  (/)  As  the  existence  of  the  American 
Republic  is  proof  that  there  was  once  a  Revolutionary  War,  so  the  existence  of 
Christianity  is  proof  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The  change  from  the  seventh  day  to  the 
lirst,  in  Sabbath  observance,  could  never  have  come  about  in  a  nation  so  Sabbatarian, 
had  not  the  first  day  been  the  celebration  of  an  actual  resurrection.  Like  the  Jewish 
Passover  and  our  own  Independence  Day,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  be 
accounted  for,  except  as  monuments  and  remembrances  of  historical  facts  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  church.  See  Muir,  on  the  Lord's  Supper  an  abiding  Witness 
to  the  Death  of  Christ,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  6 :  no.  36.  On  Strauss  and  his  theory,  see 
Hackett,  in  Christian  Rev.,  48  ;  Weiss,  Lite  of  Jesus,  155-163;  Christlieb,  Mod.Doubtand 
Christ.  Belief,  379-125;  Maclear,  in  Strivings  for  the  Faith,  1-136;  H.  B.  Smith,  in  Faith 
and  Philosophy,  442-468;  Bayne,  Review  of  Stniuss's  New  Life,  in  Theol.  Eclectic,  4  :  74  ; 
Row,  in  Lectures  on  Modern  Scepticism,  305-360;  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1871:  art.  by 
Prof.  W.  A.  Stevens;  Burgess,  Antiquity  and  Unity  of  Man,  263,  264;  Curtis  on  Inspi- 
ration, 62-67;  Alexander,  Christ  and  Christianity,  92-126;  A.  P.  Peabody,  in  Smith's 
Bible  Diet.,  2:  954  95s. 

2nd.     The  Tendency-theory  of  Baur  ( 1792-1860  ). 

This  maintains  that  the  gospels  originated  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  were  written  under  assumed  names  as  a  means  of  reconciling 
opposing  Jewish  and  Gentile  tendencies  in  the  church.  "These  great 
national  tendencies  find  their  satisfaction,  not  in  events  corresponding  to 
them,  but  in  the  elaboration  of  conscious  fictions." 

Baur  dates  the  fourth  gospel  at  160-170  A.  D. ;  Matthew  at  130;  Luk«  at  150;  Mark  at 
150-160.  Baur  never  inquires  who  Christ  was.  He  turns  his  attention  from  the  facts  to 
the  documents.  If  the  documents  be  proved  unhistorical,  there  is  no  need  of  examin- 
ing the  facts,  for  there  are  no  facts  to  examine.  He  indicates  the  presupposition  of  his 
investigations,  when  he  says:  "The  principal  argument  for  the  later  origin  of  the 
gospels  must  forever  remaiu  this,  that  separately,  and  still  more  when  taken  together, 
they  givean  accouutof  the  life  of  Jesus  which  involves  impossibilities"—!,  e.,  miracles. 
He  would  therefore  remove  their  authorship  far  enough  from  Jesus'  time  to  pei'mit 
regarding  the  miracles  as  inventions.  Baur  holds  that  in  Christ  were  united  the  uni- 
versalis! ic  spirit  of  the  new  religion,  and  the  particularistic  form  of  the  Jewish  Messi- 
anic idea ;  some  of  his  disciples  laid  emphasis  on  the  one,  some  on  the  other ;  hence 
first  conflict,  but  finally  reconcilation ;  see  statement  of  the  Tubingen  theory  and  of 
the  way  in  which  Baur  was  led  to  it,  in  Bruce.  Apologetics,  360.  E.  G.  Robinson  inter- 
prets Baur  as  follows:  " Paul  =  Protestant ;  Peter  =  sacramentarian  ;  James  =  ethical; 
Paul  +  Peter  +  James  =  Christianity.  Protestant  preaching  should  dwell  more  on  the 
ethical  — cases  of  conscience  —  and  less  on  mere  doctrine,  such  as  regeneration  and 
justification." 


158  THE   SGKt-MrlfcES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

Baur  was  a  stranger  to  the  needs  of  his  own  soul,  and  so  to  the  real  character  of  the 
gospel.  One  of  his  friends  and  advisers  wrote,  after  his  death,  in  terms  that  were 
meant  to  be  laudatory :  "  His  wasa  completely  objective  nature.  No  trace  of  personal 
needs  or  struggles  is  discernible  in  connection  with  his  investigations  of  Christianity." 
The  estimate  of  posterity  is  probably  expressed  in  the  judgment  with  regard  to  the 
Tubingen  school  by  Harnack  :  "The  possible  picture  it  sketched  was  not  the  real,  and 
the  key  with  which  it  attempted  to  solve  all  problems  did  not  suffice  for  the  most 
simple.  .  .  .  The  Tubingen  views  have  indeed  been  compelled  to  undergo  very  large 
modifications.  As  regards  the  development  of  the  church  iu  the  second  century,  it 
may  safely  be  said  that  the  hypotheses  of  the  Tubingen  school  have  proved  them- 
selves everywhere  inadequate,  very  erroneous,  and  are  to-day  held  by  only  a  very  few 
scholars."  See  Baur,  Die  kanonischeu  Evangelien  ;  Canonical  Gospels  (Eng.  transl. ), 
530 ;  Supernatural  Religion,  1.:  212-444  and  vol.  2  :  Pfieiderer,  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1885. 
For  accounts  of  Baur's  position,  see  Herzog,  Encyclopadie,  art. :  Baur;  Clarke's  transl. 
of  Hase's  Life  of  Jesus,  34-36 ;  Farrar,  Critical  History  of  Free  Thought,  227,  228. 

We  object  to  the  Tendency -theory  of  Baur,  that 

( a )  The  destructive  criticism  to  which  it  subjects  the  gospels,  if  applied 
to  secular  documents,  would  deprive  us  of  any  certain  knowledge  of  the 
past,  and  render  all  history  impossible. 

The  assumption  of  artifice  is  itself  unfavorable  to  a  candid  examination  of  the  docu- 
ments. A  perverse  acuteness  can  descry  evidences  of  a  hidden  animus  in  the  most 
simple  and  ingenuous  literary  productions.  Instance  the  philosophical  interpretation 
of  "Jack  and  Jill." 

(  b  )  The  antagonistic  doctrinal  tendencies  which  it  professes  to  find  in 
the  several  gospels  are  more  satisfactorily  explained  as  varied  but  consistent 
aspects  of  the  one  system  of  truth  held  by  all  the  apostles. 

Baur  exaggerates  the  doctrinal  and  official  differences  between  the  leading  apostles. 
Peter  was  not  simply  a  Judaizing  Christian,  but  was  the  first  preacher  to  the  Gentiles, 
arid  his  doctrine  appears  to  have  been  subsequently  influenced  to  a  considerable  extent 
by  Paul's  (see  Piumptre  on  1  Pet.,  68-10).  Paul  was  not  an  exclusively  Hellenizing 
Christian,  but  invariably  addressed  the  gospel  to  the  Jews  before  he  turned  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  evangelists  give  pictures  of  Jesus  from  different  points  of  view.  As  the 
Parisian  sculptor  constructs  his  bust  with  the  aid  of  a  dozen  photographs  of  his  subject, 
all  taken  from  different  points  of  view,  so  from  the  four  portraits  furnished  us  by 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  we  are  to  construct  the  solid  and  symmetrical  life  of 
Christ.  The  deeper  reality  which  makes  reconciliation  of  the  different  views  possible 
is  the  actual  historical  Christ.  Marcus  Dods,  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  1:  675— 
"They  are  not  two  Christs,  but  one,  which  the  four  Gospels  depict:  diverse  as  the 
profile  and  front  face,  but  one  another's  complement  rather  than  contradiction." 

Godet,  Introd.  to  Gospel  Collection,  272  — Matthew  shows  the  greatness  of  Jesus  — 
his  full-length  portrait;  Mark  his  indefatigable  activity;  Luke  his  beneficent  com- 
passion ;  John  his  essential  divinity.  Matthew  first  wrote  Aramaean  Logia.  This  was 
translated  into  Greek  and  completed  by  a  narrative  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  for  the 
Greek  churches  founded  by  Paul.  This  translation  was  not  made  by  Matthew  and  did 
not  make  use  of  Mark  (217-224).  E.D.  Burton:  Matthew  =  fulfilment  of  past  prophecy ; 
Mark  =  manifestation  of  present  power.  Matthew  is  argument  from  prophecy  ;  Mark 
is  argument  from  miracle.  Matthew,  as  prophecy,  made  most  impression  on  Jewish 
readers;  Mark,  as  power,  was  best  adapted  to  Gentiles.  Prof.  Burton  holds  Mark  to  be 
based  upon  oral  tradition  alone ;  Matthew  upon  his  Logia  ( his  real  earlier  Gospel )  and 
other  fragmentary  notes ;  while  Luke  has  a  fuller  origin  in  manuscripts  and  in  Mark. 
See  Aids  to  the  Study  of  German  Theology,  148-155;  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History 
to  Christ,  61. 

(  o  )  It  is  incredible  that  productions  of  such  literary  power  and  lofty 
religious  teaching  as  the  gospels  should  have  sprung  up  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  or  that,  so  springing  up,  they  should  have  been  pub- 
lished under  assumed  names  and  for  covert  ends. 


THE  GENUINENESS   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  159 

The  general  character  of  the  literature  of  the  second  century  is  illustrated  by  Igna- 
tius's  fanatical  desire  for  martyrdom,  the  value  ascribed  by  Hennas  to  ascetic  rigor, 
the  insipid  allegories  Of  Barnabas,  Clement  of  Koine's  lielief  in  the  phoenix,  and  the 
absurdities  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  The  author  of  the  fourth  gospel  among  the 
writers  of  the  second  century  would  have  been  a  mountain  among  mole-hills.  Wynne, 
Literature  of  the  Second  Century,  60—"  The  apostolic  and  the  sub-apostolic  writers  dif- 
fer from  each  other  as  a  nugget  of  pure  gold  differs  from  a  block  of  quartz  with  veins 
of  the  precious  metal  gleaming  through  it."  Dorncr,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  Christ,  1 : 1 :92 
—  "  Instead  of  the  writers  of  the  second  century  marking  an  advance  on  the  apostolic 
age,  or  developing  the  germ  given  them  by  the  apostles,  the  second  century  shows  great 
retrogression,  — its  writers  were  not  able  to  retain  or  comprehend  all  that  had  been 
given  them."  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  291  — "Writers  not  only  barbarous  in 
speech  and  rude  in  art,  but  too  often  puerile  in  conception,  passionate  in  temper,  and 
credulous  in  belief.  The  legends  of  Paplas,  the  visions  of  Hermas,  the  imbecility  of 
Ircnseus,  the  fury  of  Tertullian,  the  rancor  and  indelicacy  of  Jerome,  the  stormy  intoler- 
ance of  Augustine,  cannot  fail  to  startle  and  repel  the  student;  and,  if  he  turns  to  the 
milder  Hippolytus,  he  is  introduced  to  a  brood  of  thirty  heresies  which  sadly  dissipate  his 
dream  of  the  unity  of  the  church."  We  can  apply  t<>  the  writers  of  the  second  century 
the  question  of  It.  G.  Ingersoll  in  the  Shakespeare- Bacon  controversy:  "Is  it  possible 
that  Bacon  left  the  best  children  of  his  brain  on  Shakespeare's  doorstep,  and  kept  only 
the  deformed  ones  at  home?"  On  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  see  Cowper,  in  Strivings 
for  the  Faith,  73-108. 

(d)  The  theory  requires  us  to  believe  in  a  moral  anomaly,  namely,  that 
a  faithful  disciple  of  Christ  in  the  second  century  could  he  guilty  of  fabri- 
cating a  life  of  his  master,  and  of  claiming  authority  for  it  on  the  ground 
that  the  author  had  been  a  companion  of  Christ  or  his  apostles. 

"  A  genial  set  of  Jesuitical  religionists"  —  with  mind  and  heart  enough  to  write  the 
gospel  according  to  John,  and  who  at  the  same  time  have  cold-blooded  sagacity  enough 
to  keep  out  of  their  writings  every  trace  of  the  developments  of  church  authority 
belonging  to  the  second  century.  The  newly  discovered  "Teaching  of  the  Twelve- 
Apostles,"  if  dating  from  the  early  part  of  that  century,  shows  that  such  a  combi- 
nation is  impossible.  The  critical  theories  assume  that  one  who  knew  Christ  as  a  man 
could  not  possibly  also  regard  him  as  God.  Lowrie,  Doctrine  of  St.  John,  12  —  "  If  St. 
John  wrote,  it  is  not  possible  to  say  that  the  genius  of  St.  Paul  foisted  upon  the  church 
a  conception  which  was  strange  to  the  original  apostles."  Fairbairn  has  well  shown 
that  if  Christianity  had  been  simply  the  ethical  teaching  of  the  human  Jesus,  it  would 
have  vanished  from  the  earth  like  the  sects  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees;  if 
on  the  other  hand  it  had  been  simply  the  Logos-doctrine,  the  doctrine  of  a  divine 
Christ,  it  would  have  passed  away  like  the  speculations  of  Plato  or  Aristotle ;  because 
Christianity  unites  the  idea  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God  with  that  of  the  incarnate  Son  of 
man,  it  is  fitted  to  be  and  it  has  become  an  universal  religion  ;  see  Fairbairn,  Philos- 
ophy of  the  Christian  Religion,  4,  15  —  "Without  the  personal  charm  of  the  historical 
Jesus,  the  (ecurnenieat  creeds  would  never  have  been  either  formulated  or  tolerated, 
and  without  the  metaphysical  conception  of  Christ  the  Christian  religion  would  long  ago 
have  ceased  to  live.  ...  It  is  not  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  has  so  powerfully  entered  into 
history  ;  it  is  the  deified  Christ  who  has  been  believed,  loved  and  obeyed  as  the  Savior 
of  the  world.  .  .  .  The  two  parts  of  Christian  doctrine  are  combined  in  the  one  name 
'Jesus  Christ. ' " 

( e  )  This  theory  cannot  account  for  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  gos- 
pels at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  among  widely  separated  communi- 
ties where  reverence  for  writings  of  the  apostles  was  a  mark  of  orthodoxy, 
and  where  the  Gnostic  heresies  would  have  made  new  documents  instantly 
liable  to  suspicion  and  searching  examination. 

Abbot,  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  52,  80,  88,  89.  The  Johannine  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,  if  first  propounded  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  would  have  ensured 
the  instant  rejection  of  that  gospel  by  the  Gnostics,  who  ascribed  creation,  not  to  the 
Logos,  but  to  successive  "  ^Eons."  How  did  the  Gnostics,  without  "  peep  or  mutter," 
come  to  accept  as  genuine  what  had  only  in  their  own  time  been  first  sprung  upon  the 


160  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

churches?  While  Basilidcs  ( 130)  and  Valcntinus  (150),  the  Gnostics,  both  quote  from 
the  fourth  gospel,  they  do  not  dispute  its  genuineness  or  suggest  that  it  was  of  recent 
origin.  Bruce,  in  his  Apologetics,  says  of  Baur  "  He  believed  in  the  all-sufficiency  of 
the  Hegelian  theory  of  development  through  antagonism.  He  saw  tendency  every- 
where. Anything  additional,  putting  more  contents  into  the  person  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  than  suits  the  initial  stage  of  development,  must  be  reckoned  spurious.  If  we 
find  Jesus  in  any  of  the  gospels  claiming  to  be  a  supernatural  being,  such  texts  can 
with  the  utmost  confidence  be  set  aside  as  spurious,  for  such  a  thought  could  not 
belong  to  the  initial  stage  of  Christianity."  But  such  a  conception  certainly  existed  in 
the  second  century,  and  it  directly  antagonized  the  speculations  of  the  Gnostics.  F. 
W.  Farrar,  on  Hebrews  1  2  — "The  word  ceon  was  used  by  the  later  Gnostics  to  describe 
the  various  emanations  by  which  they  tried  at  once  to  widen  and  to  bridge  over  the 
gulf  between  the  human  and  the  divine.  Over  that  imaginary  chasm  John  threw  the 
arch  of  the  Incarnation,  when  he  wrote:  'The  Word  became  flesh'  (Johnl:  14)."  A  document 
which  so  contradicted  the  Gnostic  teachings  could  not  in  the  second  century  have  been 
quoted  by  the  Gnostics  themselves  without  dispute  as  to  its  genuineness,  if  it  had  not 
been  long  recognized  in  the  churches  as  a  work  of  the  apostle  John. 

(/)  The  acknowledgment  by  Bam-  that  the  epistles  to  the  Romans,  Gala- 
tians  and  Corinthians  were  written  by  Paul  in  the  first  century  is  fatal  to 
his  theory,  since  these  epistles  testify  not  only  to  miracles  at  the  period 
at  which  they  were  written,  but  to  the  main  events  of  Jesus'  life  and  to  the 
miracle  of  his  resurrection,  as  facts  already  long  acknowledged  in  the 
Christian  church. 

Baur,  Paulus  der  Apostel,  276— "There  never  has  been  the  slightest  suspicion  of 
unauthenticity  cast  on  these  epistles  (Gal.,  1  and  2  Cor.,  Rom.),  and  they  bear  so  incon- 
testably  the  character  of  Pauline  originality,  that  there  is  no  conceivable  ground  for 
the  assertion  of  critical  doubts  in  their  case."  Baur,  in  discussing  the  appearance  of 
Christ  to  Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  explains  the  outward  from  the  inward  :  Paul 
translated  intense  and  sudden  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  into  an 
outward  scene.  But  this  cannot  explain  the  hearing  of  the  outward  sound  by  Paul's 
companions.  On  the  evidential  value  of  the  epistles  here  mentioned,  see  Lorimer,  in 
Strivings  for  the  Faith,  109-144  ;  Howson,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  4  :  no.  24 ;  Row,  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures  for  1877:  289-356.  On  Baur  and  his  theory  in  general,  see  Weiss,  Life  of 
Jesus,  1:  157  sr/.;  Christlieb,  Mod.  Doubt  and  Christ.  Belief ,  504-549 ;  Hutton,  Essays,  1 : 
176-215;  Theol.  Eclectic,  5:  1-42;  Auberlen,  Div.  Revelation;  Bib.  Sac,  19:  75;  Answers 
to  Supernatural  Religion,  in  Westcott,  Hist.  N.  T.  Canon,  4th  ed.,  Introd. ;  Lightfoot,  in 
Contemporary  Rev.,  Dec.  18.74,  and  Jan.  1875;  Salmon,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  6-31;  A.  B. 
Bruce,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  7  :  no.  38. 

3d.     The  Eomance- theory  of  Eenan  (  1823-1892  ). 

This  theory  admits  a  basis  of  truth  in  the  gospels  and  holds  that  they 
all  belong  to  the  century  following  Jesus'  death.  "According  to"  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  etc.,  however,  means  only  that  Matthew,  Mark,  etc.,  wrote 
these  gospels  in  substance.  Eenan  claims  that  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life  were 
so  sublimated  by  enthusiasm,  and  so  overlaid  with  pious  fraud,  that  the  gos- 
pels in  their  present  form  cannot  be  accepted  as  genuine, —  in  short,  the 
gospels  are  to  be  regarded  as  historical  romances  which  have  only  a  foun- 
dation in  fact. 

The  animus  of  this  theory  is  plainly  shown  in  Renan's  Life  of  Jesus,  preface  to  13th 
ed.— "If  miracles  and  the  inspiration  of  certain  books  are  realities,  my  method  is 
detestable.  If  miracles  and  the  inspiration  of  books  are  beliefs  without  reality,  my 
method  is  a  good  one.  But  the  question  of  the  supernatural  is  decided  for  us  with  per- 
fect certainty  by  the  single  consideration  that  there  is  no  room  for  believing  in  a  thing 
of  which  the  world  offers  no  experimental  trace."  "On  the  whole,"  says  Renan,  "  I 
admit  as  authentic  the  four  canonical  gospels.  All,  in  my  opinion,  date  from  the  first 
century,  and  the  authors  are,  generally  speaking,  those  to  whom  they  are  attributed." 
He  regards  Gal.,  1  and  2  Cor.,  and  Rom.,  as  "indisputable  and  undisputed."    He  speaks 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  161 

of  them  as  "  being  texts  of  an  absolute  authenticity,  of  complete  sincerity,  and  without 
leg-ends"  (  Lcs  Apoircs,  xxix  ;  Lea  Evangiles,  xi).  Yet  he  denies  to  Jesus  "sincerity 
with  himself";  attributes  to  him  "inno/jent  artifice"  and  the  toleration  of  pious  fraud, 
as  for  example  in  the  case  of  the  stories  of  Lazarus  and  of  his  own  resurrection.  "  To 
conceive  the  good  is  not  sufficient :  it  must  be  made  to  succeed;  to  accomplish  this,  less 
pure  paths  must  be  followed.  .  .  .  Not  by  any  fault  of  his  own,  his  conscience  lost 
somewhat  of  its  original  purity, —  his  mission  overwhelmed  him.  .  .  .  Did  he  regret 
his  too  lofty  nature,  and,  victim  of  his  own  greatness,  mourn  that  he  had  not  remained 
a  simple  artizan  ?  "  So  Kenan  "  pictures  Christ's  later  life  as  a  misery  and  a  lie,  yet  he 
requests  us  to  bow  before  this  sinner  and  before  his  superior,  Sakya-Mouni,  as  demi- 
gods "  (see  Nicoll,  The  Church's  One  Foundation,  63, 63).  Of  the  highly  wrought  imagi- 
nation of  Mary  Magdalene,  he  says :  "  O  divine  power  of  love  !  sacred  moments,  in  which 
the  passion  of  one  whose  senses  wire  deceived  gives  us  a  resuscitated  God  I"  See 
Kenan,  Life  of  Jesus,  21. 

To  this  Romance-theory  of  Renan,  we  object  that 

(a)  It  involves  an  arbitrary  ami  partial  treatment  of  the  Christian  doc- 
uments. The  claim  that  one  writer  not  only  borrowed  from  others,  but 
interpolated  ad  libitum,  is  contradicted  by  the  essential  agreement  of  the 
manuscripts  as  quoted  by  the  Fathers,  and  as  now  extant. 

Kenan,  according  to  Mair,  Christian  Evidences,  153,  dates  Matthew  at  81  A.  D.;  Mark 
at  76;  Luke  at  '.it;  John  at  1:.'.").  These  dates  mark  a  considerable  retreat  from  the 
advanced  positions  taken  by  Baur.  Mair,  in  his  chapter  on  Recent  Keverses  in  Nega- 
tive Criticism,  attributes  this  result  to  the  late  discoveries  with  regard  to  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  Hippolyt  us's  Refutation  of  all  Heresies,  the  Clementine  Homilies,  and 
Tatian's  Diatessaron :  "According  to  Baur  and  his  immediate  followers,  we  have  less 
than  one  quarter  of  the  N.  T.  belonging  to  the  first  century.  According  to  Hilgeufeld, 
the  present  head  of  the  Baur  school,  we  have  somewhat  less  than  three  quarters  belong- 
ing to  the  first  century,  while  substantially  the  same  thing  may  be  said  with  regard  to 
Holzmann.  According  to  Kenan,  we  have  distinctly  more  than  three  quarters  of  the 
N.  T.  falling  within  the  first  century,  and  therefore  within  the  apostolic  age.  This 
surely  indicates  a  very  decided  and  extraordinary  retreat  since  the  time  of  Baur's  grand 
assault,  that  is,  within  the  last  fifty  years."  We  may  add  thatthe  concession  of  author- 
ship within  the  apostolic  age  renders  nugatory  Kenan's  hypothesis  that  theN. T.  docu- 
ments have  been  so  enlarged  by  pious  fraud  that  they  cannot  be  accepted  as  trustworthy 
accounts  of  such  events  as  miracles.  The  oral  tradition  itself  had  attained  so  fixed  a 
form  that  the  many  manuscripts  used  by  the  Fathers  were  in  substantial  agreement  in 
respect  to  these  very  events,  and  oral  tradition  in  the  East  hands  down  without  serious 
alteration  much  longer  narratives  than  those  of  our  gospels.  The  Pundita  Kamabai 
can  repeat  after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years  portions  of  the  Hindu  sacred  books  exceed- 
ing in  amount  the  whole  contents  of  our  Old  Testament.  Many  cultivated  men  in 
Athens  knew  by  heart  all  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  of  Homer.  Memory  and  reverence 
alike  kept  the  gospel  narratives  free  from  the  corruption  which  Renan  supposes. 

(&)  It  attributes  to  Christ  and  to  the  apostles  an  alternate  fervor  of 
romantic  enthusiasm  and  a  false  pretense  of  miraculous  power  which  are 
utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  manifest  sobriety  and  holiness  of  their  lives 
and  teachings.     If  Jesus  did  not  work  miracles,  he  was  an  impostor. 

On  Ernest  Renan,  His  Life  and  the  Life  of  Jesus,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation, 
332-363,  especially  356 — "  Renan  attributes  the  origin  of  Christianity  to  the  predomi- 
nance in  Palestine  of  a  constitutional  susceptibility  to  mystic  excitements.  Christ  is  to 
him  the  incarnation  of  sympathy  and  tears,  a  being  of  tender  impulses  and  passionate 
ardors,  whose  native  genius  it  was  to  play  upon  the  hearts  of  men.  Truth  or  falsehood 
made  little  difference  to  him  ;  anything  that  would  comfort  the  poor,  or  touch  the  finer 
feelings  of  humanity,  he  availed  himself  of;  ecstasies,  visions,  melting  moods,  these 
were  the  secrets  of  his  power.  Religion  was  a  beneficent  superstition,  a  sweet  delusion 
—  excellent  as  a  balm  and  solace  for  the  ignorant  crowd,  who  never  could  be  philoso- 
phers if  they  tried.  And  so  the  gospel  river,  as  one  has  said,  is  traced  back  to  a  foun- 
tain of  weeping  men  and  women  whose  brains  had  oozed  out  at  their  eyes,  and  the  per- 
fection of  spirituality  is  made  to  be  a  sort  of  maudlin  monasticLsm.  .  .  .  How  differ- 

11 


162  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION'    FROM    GOD. 

ent  from  the  strong  and  holy  love  of  Christ.,  which  would  save  men  only  by  bringing 
them  to  the  truth,  and  which  claims  mou's  imitation  only  because,  without  love  for  God 
and  for  the  soul,  a  man  is  without  truth.  How  inexplicable  from  this  view  the  fact 
that  a  pure  Christianity  has  everywhere  quickened  the  intellect  of  the  nations,  and 
that  every  revival  of  it,  as  at  the  Reformation,  has  been  followed  by  mighty  forward 
leaps  of  civilization.  Was  Paul  a  man  carried  away  by  mystic  dreams  and  irrational 
enthusiasms?  Let  the  keen  dialectic  skill  of  his  epistles  and  his  profound  grasp  of  the 
great  matters  of  revelation  answer.  Has  the  Christian  church  been  a  company  of  pul- 
ing sentimentalists?  Let  the  heroic  deaths  for  the  truth  suffered  by  the  martyrs  wit- 
ness. Nay,  he  must  have  a  low  idea  of  his  kind,  and  a  yet  lower  idea  of  the  God  who 
made  them,  who  can  believe  that  the  noblest  spirits  of  the  race  have  risen  to  greatness 
by  abnegating  will  and  reason,  and  have  gained  influence  over  all  ages  by  resigning 
themselves  to  semi-idiocy." 

( c  )  It  fails  to  account  for  the  power  and  progress  of  the  gospel,  as  a 
system  directly  opposed  to  men's  natural  tastes  and  prepossessions  —  a 
system  which  substitutes  truth  for  romance  aud  law  for  impulse. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  358  — "And  if  the  later  triumphs  of  Christianity 
are  inexplicable  upon  the  theory  of  Renan,  how  can  we  explain  its  founding?  The 
sweet  swain  of  Galilee,  beloved  by  women  for  his  beauty,  fascinating  the  unlettered 
crowd  by  his  gentle  speech  and  his  poetic  ideals,  giving  comfort  to  the  sorrowing  and 
hope  to  the  poor,  credited  with  supernatural  power  which  at  first  he  thinks  it  not 
worth  while  to  deny  and  finally  gratifies  the  multitude  by  pretending  to  exercise, 
roused  by  opposition  to  polemics  and  invective  until  the  delightful  youug  rabbi 
becomes  a  gloomy  giant,  an  intractable  fanatic,  a  fierce  revolutionist,  whose  denunci- 
ation of  the  powers  that  be  brings  him  to  the  Cross,— what  is  there  in  him  to  account 
for  the  moral  wonder  which  we  call  Christianity  and  the  beginnings  of  its  empire  in  the 
world?  Neither  delicious  pastorals  like  those  of  Jesus' first  period,  nor  apocalyptic 
fevers  like  those  of  his  second  period,  according  to  Renan's gospel,  f  urnishany  rational 
explanation  of  that  mighty  movement  which  has  swept  through  the  earth  and  has 
revolutionized  the  faith  of  mankind." 

Berdoe,  Browning,  47—  "  If  Christ  were  not  God,  his  life  at  that  stage  of  the  world's 
history  could  by  no  possibility  have  had  the  vitalizing  force  aud  love-compelling  power 
that  Renan's  pages  everywhere  disclose.  Renan  has  strengthened  faith  in  Christ's 
deity  while  laboring  to  destroy  it." 

Renan,  in  discussing  Christ's  appearance  to  Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  explains 
the  inward  from  the  outward,  thus  precisely  reversing  the  conclusion  of  Baur.  A  sud- 
den storm,  a  flash  of  lightning,  a  sudden  attack  of  ophthalmic  fever,  Paul  took  as  an 
appearance  from  heaven.  But  we  reply  that  so  keen  an  observer  and  reasoner  could  not 
have  been  thus  deceived.  Nothing  could  have  made  him  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  but 
a  sight  of  the  glorified  Christ  aad  the  accompanying  revelation  of  the  holiness  of  God, 
his  own  sin,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God,  its  universal  efficacy,  the  obligation  laid 
upon  him  to  proclaim  itto  the  ends  of  the  earth.  For  reviews  of  Renan,  see  Hutton, 
Essays,  261-281,  and  Contemp.  Thought  and  Thinkers,  1 :  227-234;  H.  B.  Smith,  Faith  and 
Philosophy,  401-441:  Christlieb,  Mod.  Doubt,  425-447;  Pressense,  in  Theol.  Eclectic, 
1  :  199  ;  Uhlhorn,  Mod.  Representations  of  Life  of  Jesus,  1-33 ;  Bib.  Sac,  22  :  207 ;  23  :  353, 
529;  Present  Day  Tracts,  3 :  no.  16,  and  4:  no.  21 ;  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Evidences, 
43-48 ;  A.  H.  Strong,  Sermon  before  Baptist  World  Congress,  1905. 

4th.     The  Development-theory  of  Harnack  (born  1851). 

This  holds  Christianity  to  be  a  historical  development  from  germs  which 
were  devoid  of  both  dogma  and  miracle.  Jesus  was  a  teacher  of  ethics, 
and  the  original  gospel  is  niost  clearly  represented  by  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Greek  influence,  and  especially  that  of  the  Alexandrian  philoso- 
phy, added  to  this  gospel  a  theological  and  supernatural  element,  and  so 
changed  Christianity  from  a  life  into  a  doctrine. 

Harnack  dates  Matthew  at  70-75 ;  Mark  at  65-70 :  Luke  at  78-93 ;  the  fourth  gospel  at 
80-110.  He  regards  both  the  fourth  gospel  and  the  book  of  Revelation  as  the  works, 
not  of  John  the  Apostle,  but  of  John  the  Presbyter.    He  separates  the  prologue  of  the 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   DOCUMENTS.  1G3 

fourth  gospel  from  the  gospel  itself,  and  considers  the  prologue  as  a  preface  added 
after  its  original  composition  in  order  to  enable  the  Hellenistic  reader  to  understand  it. 
"  The  gospel  itself,"  says  Harnaek,  "contains  no  Logos-idea  ;  it  did  not  develop  out  of 
a  Logos-idea,  such  as  flourished  at  Alexandria;  it  only  connects  itself  with  such  an 
idea.  The  gospel  itself  is  based  upon  the  historic  Christ ;  he  is  the  subject  of  all  its 
statements.  This  historical  trait  can  in  no  way  be  dissolved  by  any  kind  of  speculation. 
The  memory  of  what  was  actually  historical  was  still  too  powerful  to  admit  at  this  point 
any  Gnostic  influences.  The  Logos-idea  of  the  prologue  is  the  Logos  of  Alexandrine 
Judaism,  the  Logos  of  Philo,  and  it  is  derived  ultimately  from  the  'Son  of  man  '  in  the 
book  of  Daniel.  .  .  .  The  fourth  gospel,  which  does  not  proceed  from  the  Apostle 
John  and  does  not  so  claim,  cannot  be  used  as  a  historical  source  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
that  word.  .  .  .  The  author  has  managed  with  sovereign  freedom  ;  has  transposed  occur- 
rences and  has  put  them  in  a  light  that  is  foreign  to  them ;  has  of  his  own  accord  com- 
posed the  discourses,  and  has  illustrated  lofty  thoughts  by  inventing  situations  for 
them.  Difficult  as  ir  is  to  recognize,  an  actual  tradition  in  his  work  is  not  wholly  lack- 
ing. For  the  hist  my  of  Jesus,  however,  it  can  hardly  anywhere  be  taken  into  account; 
only  little  can  be  taken  from  it,  and  that  with  caution.  ...  On  the  other  hand  it  is  a 
source  of  the  liist  rank  for  the  answer  of  the  <iuest  ion  what  living  views  of  the  persou  of 
Jesus,  what  light  and  what  warmth,  the  gospel  has  brought  into  being."  See  Harnack's 
article  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theol.  u.  Kirchc,  2:  189-231,  and  his  Wesen  des  (hristenthums, 
13.  Kaftan  also,  who  belongs  to  the  same  Kit  schlian  school  with  Harnaek,  tells  us  in 
his  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  1  : '.IT,  that  as  the  result  of  the  Logos-speculation, 
"the  centre  of  gravity,  instead  of  being  placed  in  the  historical  Christ  who  founded 
the  kingdom  of  God,  is  placed  in  the  Christ  who  as  eternal  Logos  of  God  was  the 
mediator  in  the  creation  of  the  world."  This  view  is  elaborated  by  Hatch  in  his  Hib- 
bcrt  Lectures  for  1888,  on  the  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  upon  the  Christian 
Church. 

We  object  to  the  Develojjmcnt-theory  of  Harnaek,  that 
(  a )  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  not  the  sum  of  the  gosjiel,  nor  its 
original  form.     Mark  is  the  mo8t  original  of  the  gospels,  yet  Mark  omits 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  ami  Mark  is  ]  ireeniinently  the  gospel  of  the 
miracle-w<  >rker. 

(b)  All  four  gospels  lay  the  emphasis,  not  on  Jesus'  lite  and  ethical 
teaching,  hut  on  his  (hath  and  resurrection.  Matthew  implies  Christ's 
deity  when  it  asserts  his  absolute  knowledge  of  the  Father  (11  :  27),  his 
universal  judgeship  (25  :  32),  his  supreme  authority  (28  :  18),  and  his 
omnipresence  (28  :  20),  while  the  phrase  "Son  of  man"  implies  that  he  is 
also  "Son  of  God." 

Mat.  11 :  27  —  "  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father :  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ; 
neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him"  :  25  :  32— "and 
before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations :  and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  the  shepherd  separateth  the 

sheep  from  the  goats"  ;  28  :  18  —  "All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  mo  in  heaven  and  on  earth"  ;  28  :  20 "lo,  I 

am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  These  sayings  of  Jesus  in  Matthew's  gospel 
show  that  the  conception  of  Christ's  greatness  was  not  peculiar  to  John  :  "I  am"  tran- 
scends time;  "with  you"  transcends  space.  Jesus  speaks  "sub  specie  tternitatis" ;  his 
utterance  is  equivalent  to  that  of  John  8 :  58 —  " Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am,"  and  to  that  of 
Hebrews  13 : 8  —  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day,  yea  and  for  ever."  He  is,  as  Paul  declares  in 
Eph.  1 :  23,  one  "that  filleth  all  in  all,  '  that  is,  who  is  omnipresent. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Philos.  and  Religion,  20*;  —  The  phrase  "Son  of  man"  intimates  that 
Christ  was  more  than  man :  "  Suppose  I  were  to  go  about  proclaiming  myself  '  Son  of 
man.'  Who  does  not  see  that  it  would  be  mere  impertinence,  unless  I  claimed  to  be 
something  more.  '  Son  of  Man  ?  But  what  of  that  ?  Cannot  every  human  being  call 
himself  the  same  ?'  When  one  takes  the  title  '  Son  of  man '  for  his  characteristic  designa- 
tion, as  Jesus  did,  he  implies  that  there  is  something  strange  in  his  being  Son  of  man; 
that  this  is  not  his  original  condition  and  dignity;  that  it  is  condescension  on  his  part 
to  be  Son  of  man.  In  short,  when  Christ  calls  himself  Son  of  man,  it  implies  that  he 
has  come  from  a  higher  level  of  being  to  inhabit  this  low  earth  of  ours.  And  so,  when 
we  are  asked  '  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ  ?    whose  son  is  he  ? '  we  must  answer,  not 


164  THE   SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION    PROM    GOD. 

simply,  He  is  Son  of  man,  but  also,  He  is  Son  of  God."  On  Son  of  man,  sec  Driver;  on 
Son  of  God,  see  Sanday ;  both  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  Sanday:  "The 
Son  is  so  called  primarily  as  incarnate.  But  that  which  is  the  essence  of  the  Incarna- 
tion must  needs  be  also  larger  than  the  Incarnation.  It  must  needs  have  its  roots  in 
the  eternity  of  Godhead."  Gore,  Incarnation,  65,  73—  "  Christ,  the  final  Judge,  of  the 
synoptics,  is  not  dissociable  from  the  divine,  eternal  Being,  of  the  fourth  gospel." 

( c )  The  preexistence  and  atonement  of  Christ  cannot  be  regarded  as 
accretions  upon  the  original  gospel,  since  these  find  expression  in  Paul 
who  wrote  before  any  of  our  evangelists,  and  in  his  epistles  anticipated  the 
Logos-doctrine  of  John. 

(  d)  We  may  grant  that  Greek  influence,  through  the  Alexandrian  phi- 
losophy, helped  the  New  Testament  writers  to  discern  what  was  already 
present  in  the  life  and  work  and  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  but,  like  the  microscope 
which  discovers  but  does  not  create,  it  added  nothing  to  the  substance  of 
the  faith. 

Gore,  Incarnation,  62  — "The  divinity,  incarnation,  resurrection  of  Christ  were  not 
an  accretion  upon  the  original  belief  of  the  apostles  and  their  first  disciples,  for  these 
are  all  recognized  as  uncontroverted  matters  of  faith  in  the  four  great  epistles  of  Paul, 
written  at  a  date  when  the  greater  part  of  those  who  had  seen  the  risen  Christ  were 
still  alive."  The  Alexandrian  philosophy  was  not  the  source  of  apostolic  doctrine,  but 
only  the  form  in  which  that  doctrine  was  cast,  the  light  thrown  upon  it  which  brought 
out  its  meaning.  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  140  — "When  we  come  to  John's 
gospel,  therefore,  we  find  in  it  the  mere  unfolding  of  truth  that  for  substance  had 
been  in  the  world  for  at  least  sixty  years.  .  .  .  If  the  Platonizing  philosophy  of  Alexan- 
dria assisted  in  this  genuine  development  of  Christian  doctrine,  then  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy  was  a  providential  help  to  inspiration.  The  microscope  does  not  invent;  it 
only  discovers.  Paul  and  John  did  not  add  to  the  truth  of  Christ ;  their  philosophical 
equipment  was  only  a  microscope  which  brought  into  clear  view  the  truth  that  was 
there  already." 

Plleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1  :  126  — "The  metaphysical  conception  of  the  Logos,  as 
immanent  in  the  world  and  ordering  it  according  to  law,  was  tilled  with  religions  and 
moral  contents.  In  Jesus  the  cosmical  principle  of  nature  became  a  religious  principle 
of  salvation."  See  Kilpatrick's  article  on  Philosophy,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 
Kilpatrick  holds  that  Harnack  ignores  the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus;  does  not  fairly 
interpret  the  Acts  in  its  mention  of  the  early  worship  of  Jesus  by  the  church  before 
Greek  philosophy  had  influenced  it;  refers  to  the  intellectual  peculiarities  of  the  N.  T. 
writers  conceptions  which  Paul  insists  are  simply  the  faith  of  all  Christian  people  as 
such;  forgets  that  the  Christian  idea  of  union  with  God  secured  through  the  atoning 
and  reconciling  work  of  a  personal  Redeemer  utterly  transcended  Greek  thought,  and 
furnished  the  solution  of  the  problem  after  which  Greek  philosophy  was  vainly  groping. 

(e)  Though  Mark  says  nothing  of  the  virgin-birth  because  his  story  is 
limited  to  what  the  apostles  had  witnessed  of  Jesus'  deeds,  Matthew  appar- 
ently gives  us  Joseph's  story  and  Luke  gives  Mary's  story  —  both  stories 
naturally  published  only  after  Jesus'  resurrection. 

(/)  The  larger  understanding  of  doctrine  after  Jesus'  death  was  itself 
predicted  by  our  Lord  (John  16  :  12).  The  Holy  Spirit  was  to  bring  his 
teachings  to  remembrance,  and  to  guide  into  all  the  truth  (16  :  13),  and 
the  apostles  were  to  continue  the  work  of  teaching  which  he  had  begun 
(Acts  1  :  1). 

John  16  :  12, 13  —  "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit,  when  he,  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  ail  the  truth ' ' ;  Acts  1:1  —  "  The  former  treatise  I  made,  0  Theophilus, 
concerning  all  that  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach."  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  146— "That 
the  beloved  disciple,  after  a  half  century  of  meditation  upon  what  he  had  seen  and 
heard  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  should  have  penetrated  more  deeply  into  the  mean- 
ing of  that  wonderful  revelation  is  not  only  not  surprising,  —  it  is  precisely  what  Jesus 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  165 

himself  foretold.  Our  Lord  had  many  things  to  say  to  his  disciples,  but  then  they 
could  not  bear  them.  He  promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  bring-  to  their  remem- 
brance both  himself  and  his  words,  and  should  lead  them  into  all  the  truth.  And  this 
is  the  whole  secret  of  what  are  called  accretions  to  original  Christianity.  So  far  as 
they  are  contained  in  Scripture,  they  are  inspired  discoveries  and  uufoldings,  not  mere 
speculations  and  inventions.  They  are  not  additions,  but  elucidations,  not  vain 
imaginings,  but  correct  intepretations.  .  .  .  When  the  later  theology,  then,  throws 
out  the  supernatural  and  dogmatic,  as  coming  not  from  Jesus  but  from  Paul's  epistles 
and  from  the  fourth  gospel,  our  claim  is  that  Paul  and  John  are  only  inspired  and 
authoritative  interpreters  of  Jesus,  seeing  themselves  and  making  us  see  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  that  dwelt  in  him." 

While  Harnack,  in  our  judgment,  errs  in  his  view  that  Paul  contributed  to  the  gos- 
pel elements  which  it  did  not  originally  possess,  he  shows  us  very  clearly  many  of  the 
elements  in  that  gospel  which  he  was  the  first  to  recognize.  In  his  Wesen  des  Christen - 
thuins,  111,  he  tells  us  that  a  lew  years  ago  a  celebrated  Protestant  theologian  declared 
that  Paul,  with  his  Rabbinical  theology,  was  the  destroyer  of  the  Christian  religion. 
Others  have  regarded  him  as  the  founder  of  that  religion.  But  the  majority  have 
seen  in  him  the  apostle  who  best  understood  his  Lord  and  did  most  to  continue  his 
work.  Paul,  as  Harnack  maintains,  first  comprehended  the  gospel  definitely:  (1)  as 
an  accomplished  redemption  and  a  present  salvation  — the  crucified  and  risen  Christ 
as  giving  access  to  God  and  righteousness  and  peace  therewith  ;  (2)  as  something  new, 
which  does  away  with  the  religion  of  the  law  ;  (3)  as  meant  for  all,  and  therefore  for 
Gentiles  also,  indeed,  as  superseding  Judaism  ;  (4)  as  expressed  in  terms  which  are  not 
simply  Greek  but  also  human,  —  Paul  made  the  gospel  comprehensible  to  the  world. 
Islam,  rising  in  Arabia,  is  an  Arabian  religion  still.  Buddhism  remains  an  Indian 
religion.  Christianity  is  at  home  in  all  lands.  Paul  put  new  life  into  the  Roman 
empire,  and  inaugurated  the  Christian  culture  of  the  West.  He  turned  a  local  into  a 
universal  religion.  His  influence  however, according  to  Harnack,  tended  to  the  undue 
exaltatioifot  organization  and  dogma  and  <).  T.  inspiration —  points  in  which,  in  our 
judgment,  Paul  took  sober  middle  ground  and  saved  Chrisi  ian  truth  for  the  world. 

2.     GfanM&neness  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Since  nearly  one  half  of  the  Old  Testament  is  of  anonymous  authorship 
and  certain  of  its  books  may  be  attributed  to  delinite  historic  characters 
only  by  way  of  convenient  classification  or  of  literary  personification,  we 
here  mean  by  genuineness  honesty  of  purpose  and  freedom  from  any- 
thing counterfeit  or  intentionally  deceptive  so  far  as  respects  the  age  or 
the  authorship  of  the  documents. 

We  show  the  genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament  books  : 

( a  )  From  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  all  but  six  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  either  quoted  or  alluded  to  as  genuine. 

The  N.  T.  shows  coincidences  of  language  with  the  0.  T.  Apocryphal  books,  but  it 
contains  only  one  direct  quotation  from  them;  while,  with  the  exception  of  Judges, 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Esther,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  every  book  in  the  Hebrew  canon 
is  used  either  for  illustration  or  proof.  The  single  Apocryphal  quotation  is  found  in  Jude  H 
and  is  in  all  probability  taken  from  the  book  of  Enoch.  Although  Volkmar  puts  the 
date  of  this  book  at  133  A.  D.,  and  although  some  critics  hold  that  Jude  quoted  only 
the  same  primitive  tradition  of  which  the  author  of  the  book  of  Enoch  afterwards 
made  use,  the  weight  of  modern  scholarship  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the  book 
its  It  was  written  as  early  as  170-70  B.  C,  and  that  Jude  quoted  from  it ;  see  Hastings' 
Bible  Dictionary:  Book  of  Enoch;  Sanday,  Bampton  Lect.  on  Inspiration,  95.  "If 
Paul  could  quote  from  Gentile  poets  (Acts  17  :  28  ;  Titus  1 :  12),  it  is  hard  to  understand  whs' 
Jude  could  not  cite  a  work  which  was  certainly  in  high  standing  among  the  faithful "  ; 
see  Schodde,  Book  of  Enoch,  41,  with  the  Introd.  by  Ezra  Abbot.  While  Jude  14  gives 
us  the  only  direct  and  express  quotation  from  an  Apocryphal  book,  Jude  6  and  9  con- 
tain allusions  to  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  to  the  Assumption  of  Moses ;  see  Charles, 
Assumption  of  Moses,  62.  In  Hebrews  1:  3,  we  have  words  taken  from  Wisdom  7  :  20; 
and  Hebrews  11 :  34-38  is  a  reminiscence  of  1  Maccabees. 


166  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

(  b  )  From  the  testimony  of  Jewish  authorities,  ancient  and  modern, 
who  declare  the  same  books  to  be  sacred,  and  only  the  same  books,  that 
are  now  comprised  in  our  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

Josephus  enumerates  twenty-two  of  these  books  "  which  are  justly  accredited"  (omit 
0eia  —  Niese,  and  Hastings'  Diet.,  3:607).  Our  present  Hebrew  Bible  makes  twenty- 
four,  by  separating  Ruth  from  Judges,  and  Lamentations  from  Jeremiah.  See  Josephus, 
Against  Apion,  1:8;  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  article  on  the  Canon,  1 :  359,  3G0.  Philo 
(  born  20  B.  C. )  never  quotes  an  Apocryphal  book,  although  he  does  quote  from  nearly 
all  the  books  of  the  O.  T.;  see  Ryle,  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture.  George  Adam  Smith, 
Modern  Criticism  and  Preaching,  V  — "The  theory  which  ascribed  the  Canon  of  the  O. 
T.  to  a  single  decision  of  the  Jewish  church  in  the  days  of  its  inspiration  is  not  a  theory 
supported  by  facts.  The  growth  of  the  O.  T.  Canon  was  very  gradual.  Virtually  it 
began  in  621  B.  C,  with  the  acceptance  by  all  Judah  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  adop- 
tion of  the  whole  Law,  or  first  five  books  of  the  O.  T.,  under  Nehemiah  in  445  B.  C. 
Then  came  the  prophets  before  200  B.  C,  and  the  Hagiographa  from  a  century  to  two 
centuries  later.  The  strict  definition  of  the  last  division  was  not  complete  by  the  time 
of  Christ.  Christ  seems  to  testify  to  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms;  yet 
neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  make  any  quotation  from  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther, 
Canticles,  or  Ecclesiastes,  the  last  of  which  books  were  not  yet  recognized  by  all  the 
Jewish  schools.  But  while  Christ  is  the  chief  authority  for  the  O.  T.,  he  was  also  its 
first  critic.  He  rejected  some  parts  of  the  Law  and  was  indifferent  to  many  others. 
He  enlarged  the  sixth  and  seventh  commandments,  and  reversed  the  eye  for  an  eye, 
and  the  permission  of  divorce;  touched  the  leper,  and  reckoned  all  foods  lawful; 
broke  away  from  literal  observance  of  the  Sabbath-day;  left  no  commands  about 
sacrifice,  temple-worship,  circumcision,  but,  by  institution  of  the  New  Covenant,  abro- 
gated these  sacraments  of  the  Old.  The  apostles  appealed  to  extra-canonical  writings." 
Gladden,  Seven  Puzzling  Bible  Books,  68-96—"  Doubts  were  entertained  in  qur  Lord's 
day  as  to  the  canonicity  of  several  parts  of  the  O.  T.,  especially  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Solomon,  Esther." 

(  c  )  From  the  testimony  of  the  Septuagint  translation,  dating  from  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century,  or  from  280  to  180  B.  C. 

MSS.  of  the  Septuagint  contain,  indeed,  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  but  the  writers  of  the 
latter  do  not  recognize  their  own  work  as  on  a  level  with  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
which  they  regard  as  distinct  from  all  other  books  (Ecclesiasticus,  prologue,  and 
48 :  24  ;  also  24 :  23  27 ;  1  Mac.  12  :  9  ;  2  Mac.  6 :  23 ;  1  Esd.  1 :  28 ;  6 :  1 ;  Baruch  2 :  21 ).  So 
both  ancient  and  modern  Jews.  See  Bissell,  in  Lange's  Commentary  on  the  Apocrypha, 
Introduction,  44.  In  the  prologue  to  the  apocryphal  book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  we  read 
of  "the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  rest  of  the  books,"  which  shows  that  as  early 
as  130  B.  C,  the  probable  date  of  Ecclesiasticus,  a  threefold  division  of  the  Jewish 
sacred  books  was  recognized.  That  the  author,  however,  did  not  conceive  of  these 
books  as  constituting  a  completed  canon  seems  evident  from  his  assertion  in  this  con- 
nection that  his  grandfather  Jesus  also  wrote.  1  Mac.  12  :  9  ( 80-90  B.  C. )  speaks  of  "  the 
sacred  books  which  are  now  in  our  hands."  Hastings,  Bible  Dictionary,  3:  611 — "The 
O.  T.  was  the  result  of  a  gradual  process  which  began  with  the  sanction  of  the  Hexateuch 
by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  practically  closed  with  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of 
Jamnia  "  —  Jamnia  is  the  ancient  Jabneh,  7  miles  south  by  west  of  Tiberias,  where  met 
a  council  of  rabbins  at  some  time  between  90  to  118  A.  D.  This  Council  decided  in 
favor  of  Canticles  and  Ecclesiastes,  and  closed  the  O.  T.  Canon. 

The  Greek  version  of  the  Pentateuch  which  forms  a  part  of  the  Septuagint  is  said  by 
Josephus  to  have  been  made  in  the  reign  and  by  the  order  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphia, 
King  of  Egypt,  about  270  or  280  B.  C.  "  The  legend  is  that  it  was  made  by  seventy-two 
persons  in  seventy-two  days.  It  is  supposed,  however,  by  modern  critics  that  this 
version  of  the  several  books  is  the  work  not  only  of  different  hands  but  of  separate 
times.  It  is  probable  that  at  first  only  the  Pentateuch  was  translated,  and  the  remain- 
ing books  gi-adually;  but  the  translation  is  believed  to  have  been  completed  by  the 
second  century  B.  C."  ( Century  Dictionary,  in  voce ).  It  therefore  furnishes  an  impor- 
tant witness  to  the  genuineness  of  our  O.  T.  documents.  Driver,  Introd.  to  O.  T.  Lit., 
xxxi  — "  For  the  opinion,  often  met  with  in  modern  books,  that  the  Canon  of  the  O.  T. 
was  closed  by  Ezra,  or  in  Ezra's  time,  there  is  no  foundation  in  antiquity  what- 
ever. .  .  .  All  that  can  reasonably  be  treated  as  historical  in  the  accounts  of  Ezra's 
literary  labors  is  limited  to  the  Law." 


THE    GENUINENESS   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  167 

( d )  From  indications  that  soon  after  the  exile,  and  so  early  as  the 
times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ( 500-450  B.  C. ),  the  Pentateuch  together  with 
the  book  of  Joshua  was  not  only  in  existence  but  was  regarded  as  authori- 
tative. 

2  Mn<j.  2 :  13-15  intimates  that  Nehemiah  founded  a  library,  and  there  is  a  tradition 
that  a  "Gi-eat  Synagogue"  was  gathered  in  his  time  to  determine  the  Canon.  But 
Hastings'  Dictionary,  4  :  644,  asserts  that  "the  Great  Synagogue  was  originally  a  meet- 
ing, and  not  an  institution.  It  met  once  for  all,  and  all  that  is  told  about  it,  except 
what  we  read  in  Nehemiah,  is  pure  fable  of  the  later  Jews."  In  like  manner  no  depen- 
dence is  to  be  placed  upon  the  tradition  that  Ezra  miraculously  restored  the  ancient 
Scriptures  that  had  been  lost  during  the  exile.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says:  "Since 
the  Scriptures  perished  in  the  Captivity  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Esdras  i  the  Greek  form  of 
Ezra)  the  Levite,  the  priest,  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  Ring  of  the  Persians, having 
become  inspired  in  the  exercise  of  prophecy,  restored  again  the  whole  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures."  But  the  work  now  divided  into  1  and  %  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
mentions  Darius  Codomannus  ( Neh.  12 :  22 ),  whose  date  is 386  B.< '.  The  utmost  the  tradition 
proves  is  that  about  300  B.  C.  the  Pentateuch  was  in  some  sense  attributed  to  Moses ; 
see  Bacon,  Genesis  of  Genesis,  35;  Bib.  Sac.,  1863:  381,  660,  799;  Smith,  Bible  Diet.,  art,: 
Pentateuch;  Theological  Eclectic,  6:215;  Bissell,  Hist.  Origin  of  the  Bible, 398-403. 
On  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  see  Wright,  Ecclesiastes,  5-12,  475-177. 

(  c )  From  the  testimony  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  dating  from  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (500-450  B.  0.  ). 

The  Samaritans  had  been  brought  by  the  king  of  Assyria  from  "Babylon,  and  from  Cuthah 
and  from  Avva,  and  from  Hamath  and  Sepharvaim  "  (  2  L 17 : 6, 24, 26  ),  to  take  the  place  of  the  people  <>f 
Israel  whom  the  king  had  carried  away  captive  to  his  own  Land.  The  colonists  had 
brought  their  heathen  gods  with  them,  and  the  incursions  of  wild  beasts  which  the 
intermission  of  tillage  occasioned  gave  rise  to  the  belief  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  against 
them.  One  of  the  captive  Jewish  priests  was  therefore  sent  to  teach  them  "the  law  of  the 
god  of  the  land"  and  he  "taught  them  how  they  should  fear  Jehovah"  (2  I.  17:  27,  28).  The  result  was 
that  they  adopted  the  Jewish  ritual,  but  combined  the  worship  of  Jehovah  with  that  of 
their  graven  images  (verse  33).  When  the  Jews  returned  from  Babylon  and  began  to 
rebuild  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  the  Samaritans  offered  their  aid,  but  this  aid  was  indig- 
nantly refused  (  Ezra  4  and  Nehemiah  4  ).  Hostility  arose  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  —  a 
hostility  which  continued  not  only  to  the  time  of  Christ  (John  4:  9),  but  even  to  the 
present  day.  Since  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  substantially  coincides  with  the  Hebrew 
Pentateuch,  it  furnishes  us  with  a  definite  past  date  at  which  it  certainly  existed  in 
nearly  its  present  form.  It  witnesses  to  t  he  existence  of  our  Pentateuch  in  essentially 
its  present  form  as  far  hack  as  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

G  reen,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  44, 45  —  "After  being  repulsed  by  the  Jews, 
the  Samaritans,  to  substantiate  their  claim  of  being  sprung  from  ancient  Israel,  eagerly 
accepted  the  Pentateuch  which  was  brought  them  by  a  renegade  priest."  W.  Robertson 
Smith,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  21 :  244  — "The  priestly  law,  which  is  throughout  based  on  the 
practice  of  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  before  the  captivity,  was  reduced  to  form  after  the 
exile,  and  was  first  published  by  Ezra  as  the  law  of  the  rebuilt  temple  of  Zion.  The 
Samaritans  must  therefore  have  derived  their  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews  after  Ezra's 
reforms,  i.  c,  after  444  B.  C.  Before  that  time  Samaritahism  cannot  have  existed  in 
a  form  at  all  similar  to  that  which  we  know  ;  but  there  must  have  been  a  community 
ready  to  accept  the  Pentateuch."  See  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  art. :  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch ;  Hastings,  Bible  Dictionary,  art.:  Samaria ;  Stanley  Leathes,  Structure  of  the 
O.  T.,  1-41. 

(/)  From  the  finding  of  "the  book  of  the  law"  in  the  temple,  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah,  or  in  621  B.  C. 

2  X.  22:  8 — "And  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe,  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law 
in  the  house  of  Jehovah."  23:  2  —  "The  book  of  the  covenant"  was  read  before  the  people  by  the 
king  and  proclaimed  to  be  the  law  of  the  land.  Curtis,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Diet.,  3 : 
596  — "The  earliest  written  law  or  book  of  divine  instruction  of  whose  introduction 
or  enactment  an  authentic  account  is  given,  was  Deuteronomy  or  its  main  portion, 
represented  as  found  in  the  temple  in  the  18th  year  of  king  Josiah  (B.  C.  021)  and 


168  THE   SCKIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

proclaimed  by  the  king-  as  the  law  of  the  laud.  From  that  time  forward  Israel  had 
a  written  law  which  the  pious  believer  was  commanded  to  ponder  day  and  night  (Joshua 
1 :  8 ;  Ps.  i  :  2 ) ;  and  thus  the  Torah,  as  sacred  literature,  formally  commenced  in  Israel. 
This  law  aimed  at  a  right  application  of  Mosaic  principles."  Ryle,  in  Hastings'  Bible 
Diet.,  1 :  602— "The  law  of  Deuteronomy  represents  an  expansion  and  development  of 
the  ancient  code  contained  in  Exodus  20-23,  and  precedes  the  final  formulation  of  the 
priestly  ritual,  which  only  received  its  ultimate  form  in  the  last  period  of  revising  the 
structure  of  the  Pentateuch." 

Andrew  Harper,  on  Deuteronomy,  in  Expositor's  Bible:  "Deuteronomy  does  not 
claim  to  have  been  written  by  Moses.  He  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person  in  the  intro- 
duction and  historical  framework,  while  the  speeches  of  Moses  are  in  the  first  person. 
In  portions  where  the  author  speaks  for  himself,  the  phrase  'beyond  Jordan'  means 
east  of  Jordan  ;  in  the  speeches  of  Moses  the  phrase  '  beyond  Jordan '  means  west  of 
Jordan ;  and  the  only  exception  is  Deut.  3  :  8,  which  cannot  originally  have  been  part  of 
the  speech  of  Moses.  But  the  style  of  both  parts  is  the  same,  and  if  the  3rd  person  parts 
are  by  a  later  author,  the  1st  person  parts  are  by  a  later  author  also.  Both  differ  from 
other  speeches  of  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch.  Can  the  author  be  a  contemporary  writer 
who  gives  Moses'  words,  as  John  gave  the  words  of  Jesus  ?  No,  for  Deuteronomy  covers 
only  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  Exodus  20-23.  It  uses  JE  but  not  P,  with  which  JE  is 
interwoven.  But  JE  appears  in  Joshua  and  contributes  to  it  an  account  of  Joshua's 
death.  JE  speaks  of  kings  in  Israel  (Gen.  36:31-39).  Deuteronomy  plainly  belongs  to 
the  early  centuries  of  the  Kingdom,  or  to  the  middle  of  it." 

Bacon,  Genesis  of  Genesis,  43-49—  "  The  Deuteronomic  law  was  so  short  that  Shaphan 
could  read  it  aloud  before  the  king  (2  I.  22:  10)  and  the  king  could  read  "the  whole  of  it" 
before  the  people  (23  :  2);  compare  the  reading  of  the  Pentateuch  for  a  whole  week 
(Neh.  8:  2-18).  It  was  in  the  form  of  a  covenant;  it  was  distinguished  by  curses;  it 
was  an  expansion  and  modification,  fully  within  the  legitimate  province  of  the  prophet, 
of  a  Torah  of  Moses  codified  from  the  traditional  form  of  at  least  a  century  before. 
Such  a  Torah  existed,  was  attributed  to  Moses,  and  is  now  incorporated  as  'the  book 
of  the  covenant'  in  Exodus  20  to  24.  The  year  620  is  therefore  the  terminus  a  quo  of  Deuter- 
onomy. The  date  of  the  priestly  code  is  444  B.  C."  Sanday,  Bampton  Lectures  for 
1893,  grants  "  ( 1 )  the  presence  in  the  Pentateuch  of  a  considerable  element  which  in  its 
present  shape  is  held  by  many  to  be  not  earlier  than  the  captivity;  (2)  the  composi- 
tion of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  not  long,  or  at  least  not  very  long,  before  its  pro- 
mulgation by  king  Josiah  in  the  year  621,  which  thus  becomes  a  pivot-date  in  the  history 
of  Hebrew  literature." 

(g)  From  references  in  the  prophets  Hosea  ( B.  C.  743-737)  and  Amos 
( 759-745)  to  a  course  of  divine  teaching  and  revelation  extending  far  hack 
of  their  day. 

Hosea  8  :  12  —  "I  wrote  for  him  the  ten  thousand  things  of  my  law"  ;  here  is  asserted  the  existence 
prior  to  the  time  of  the  prophet,  not  only  of  a  law,  but  of  a  written  law.  All  critics  admit 
the  book  of  Hosea  to  be  a  genuine  production  of  the  prophet,  dating  from  the  eighth 
century  B.  C. ;  see  Green,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1886 :  585-C08.  Amos  2:4  —  "they  hare  rejected  the  law 
of  Jehovah,  and  have  not  kept  bis  statutes"  ;  here  is  proof  that,  more  than  a  century  before  the 
finding  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  temple,  Israel  was  acquainted  with  God's  law.  Fisher, 
Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  26,  27  —  "  The  lofty  plane  reached  by  the  prophets 
was  not  reached  at  a  single  bound.  .  .  .  There  must  have  been  a  tap-root  extending 
far  down  into  the  earth."  Kurtz  remarks  that  "the  later  books  of  the  O.  T.  would  be 
a  tree  without  roots,  if  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  were  transferred  to  a  later 
period  of  Hebrew  history."  If  we  substitute  for  the  word  'Pentateuch'  the  words 
'  Book  of  the  covenant,'  we  may  assent  to  this  dictum  of  Kurtz.  There  is  sufficient  evidence 
that,  before  the  times  of  Hosea  and  Amos,  Israel  possessed  a  written  law  — the  law 
embraced  in  Exodus  20-24 — but  the  Pentateuch  as  we  now  have  it,  including  Leviticus, 
seems  to  date  no  further  back  than  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  445  B.  C.  The  Levitical  law 
however  was  only  the  codification  of  statutes  and  customs  whose  origin  lay  far  back 
in  the  past  and  which  were  believed  to  be  only  the  natural  expansion  of  the  principles 
of  Mosaic  legislation. 

Leathes,  Structure  of  O.  T.,  54  —  "Zeal  for  the  restoration  of  the  temple  after  the 
exile  implied  that  it  had  long  before  been  the  centre  of  the  national  polity,  that  there 
had  been  a  ritual  and  a  law  before  the  exile."    Present  Day  Tracts,  3:52  —  Leviikal 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  169 

institutions  could  nol  bavebeen  first  established  by  David.  It  is  inconceivable  that  he 
"  could  have  taken  a  whole  tribe,  am!  qo  trace  remain  of  so  revolutionary  a  measure  as 
the  dispossessing  them  of  their  proper*}-  to  make  them  ministers  of  religion."  James 
Robertson,  Early  History  of  Israel :  "  The  varied  literature  of  850-750  B.  C.  implies  the 
existence  of  reading  and  writing  for  some  time  before.  Amos  and  Hosea  hold,  for  the 
period  succeeding  Moses,  the  same  scheme  of  history  which  modern  critics  pronounce 
late  and  unhistorical.  The  eighth  century  B.  C.  was  a  time  of  broad  historic  day,  when 
Israel  had  a  definite  account  to  give  of  itself  and  of  its  history.  The  critics  appeal  to  the 
prophets,  but  they  reject  the  prophets  when  these  tell  us  that  other  teachers  taught 
the  same  truth  before  them,  and  when  they  declare  that  their  nation  had  been  taught 
a  better  religion  and  had  declined  from  it,  in  other  words,  that  there  had  been  law 
long  before  their  day.  The  kings  did  not  give  law.  The  priests  presupposed  it. 
There  must  have  been  a  formal  system  of  law  much  earlier  than  the  critics  admit,  and 
also  an  earlier  reference  in  their  worship  to  the  great  e\  ents  which  made  them  a  separate 
people.''  And  Dillman  goes  yet  further  back  and  declares  that  the  entire  work  of 
Moses  presupposes  "  a  preparatory  stage  of  higher  religion  in  Abraham." 

(//)  From  the  repeated  assertionsof  Scripture  that  Moses  himself  wrote 
a  law  for  his  people,  confirmed  as  these  are  by  evidence  of  literary  and 
legislative  activity  in  other  nations  far  antedating  his  time. 

Ei.  24  :  4  —  "  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Jehovah  "  ;  34  :  27  —  "  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou 
these  words:  for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel"  ;  Num.  33:  2 — 
"  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of  Jehovah  "  ;  Deut.  31 :  9  — 
"And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  that  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah,  and  unto  all  Ihe  elders  of  Israel "  ;  22  —  "So  Moses  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it  the  children 
of  Israel " ;  24-26 —  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book, 
until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  that  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  saying,  Take 
this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for 
a  witness  against  thee."  The  law  here  mentioned  may  possibly  be  only  'the  book  of  the  cove- 
nant" (Ex.  20-24),  and  the  speeches  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  may  have  been  orally  handed 
down.  But  the  fact  thai  Moses  was  "instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  "( Acts  7 :  22  ) , 
together  with  the  fact  t  hat  the  art  of  writing  was  known  in  Egypt  for  many  hundred 
years  before  his  time,  make  it  more  probable  that  a  larger  portion  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  of  his  own  composition. 

Kenyon,  in  Hastings'  Diet.,  art.:  Writing,  dates  the  Proverbs  of  Ptah-hotep,  the  firs! 
recorded  literary  composition  in  Egypt,  at  3580-3536  B.  C,  and  asserts  the  free  use  of 
writing  among  the  Sumerian  inhabitants  of  Babylonia  as  early  as  4000  B.  C.  The  statutes 
of  Hammurabi  king  of  Babylon  compare  for  extent  with  those  of  Leviticus,  yet  they 
date  back  to  the  time  of  Abraham,  ^J00  B.  C,  —  indeed  Hammurabi  is  now  regarded  by 
many  as  the  Amraphel  of  Gen.  14 : 1.  Yet  these  statutes  antedate  Moses  by  700  years.  It 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  Hammurabi  professes  to  have  received  his  statutes 
directly  from  the  Sun-god  of  Bippar,  bis  capital  city.  See  translation  by  Winckler,  in 
Dot  alte  <  )rient ,  97  ;  Johns,  The  ( Eldest  Code  of  Laws ;  Kelso,  in  Princeton  Theol.  Rev., 
July,  1905:  399-412—  Facts  'authenticate  the  traditional  date  of  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant, overthrow  the  formula  Prophets  and  Law,  restore  the  old  order  Law  and 
Prophets,  and  put  into  historical  perspective  the  tradition  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  Sinaitic  legislation." 

As  the  controversy  with  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament 
books  has  turned  of  late  upon  the  claims  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in 
general,  and  upon  the  claims  of  the  Pentateuch  in  particular,  we  subjoin 
separate  notes  upon  these  subjects. 

The  Higher  Criticism  in  general.  Higher  Criticism  does  not  mean  criticism  in  any 
invidious  sense,  any  more  than  Kant's  Critique  of  Pure  Reason  was  an  unfavorable  or 
destructive  examination.  It  is  merely  a  dispassionate  investigation  of  the  authorship, 
date  and  purpose  of  Scripture  books,  in  the  light  of  their  composition,  style  and 
internal  characteristics.  As  the  Lower  Criticism  is  a  text-critique,  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism is  a  structure-critique.  A  bright  Frenchman  described  a  literary  critic  as  one 
who  rips  open  the  doU  to  get  at  the  sawdust  there  is  in  it.  This  can  be  done  with  a 
sceptical  and  hostile  spirit,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  some  of  the  higher  critics 
of  the  Old  Testament  have  begun  their  studies  with  prepossessions  against  the  super- 


170  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

natural,  which  have  vitiated  all  their  conclusions.  These  presuppositions  are  ofter 
unconscious,  but,  none  the  less  influential.  When  Bishop  Colenso  examined  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Joshua,  he  disclaimed  any  intention  of  assailing  the  miraculous  narrative* 
as  such ;  as  if  he  had  said  :  "  My  dear  little  fish,  you  need  not  fear  me  ;  I  do  not  wish  tc 
catch  you ;  I  only  intend  to  drain  the  pond  in  which  you  live."  To  many  scholars  the 
waters  at  present  seem  very  low  in  the  Hexateuch  and  indeed  throughout  the  whole 
Old  Testament. 

Shakespeai-e  made  over  and  incorporated  many  old  Chronicles  of  Plutarch  and  Hol- 
inshed,  and  many  Italian  tales  and  early  tragedies  of  other  writers;  but  Pericles  and 
Titus  Andronicus  still  pass  current  under  the  name  of  Shakespeare.  We  speak  even 
now  of  "  Gesenius'  Hebrew  Grammar,"  although  of  its  twenty-seven  editions  the  last 
fourteen  have  been  published  since  his  death,  and  more  of  it  has  been  written  by  other 
editors  than  Gesenius  ever  wrote  himself.  We  speak  of  "  Webster's  Dictionary," 
though  there  are  in  the  "  Unabridged  "  thousands  of  words  and  definitions  that  Web- 
ster never  saw.  Francis  Brown :  "  A  modern  writer  masters  older  records  and  writes 
a  wholly  new  book.  Not  so  with  eastern  historians.  The  latest  comer,  as  Renan  says, 
'absorbs  his  predecessors  without  assimilating  them,  so  that  the  most  recent  has  in  its 
belly  the  fragments  of  the  previous  works  in  a  raw  state.'  The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian 
is  a  parallel  to  the  composite  structure  of  the  O.  T.  books.  One  passage  yields  the  fol- 
lowing :  Mat.  21 :  12  a ;  John  2:14a;  Mat.  21 :  12  b ;  John  2  :  14  b,  15 ;  Mat.  21 :  12  c,  13 ;  John  2:16;  Mark  11 :  16  ; 
John  2:  17-22;  all  succeeding  each  other  without  a  break."  Gore,  Lux  Mundi,  353— "Thei-e 
is  nothing  materially  untruthful,  though  there  is  something  uncritical,  in  attributing 
the  whole  legislation  to  Moses  acting  under  the  divine  command.  It  would  be  only  of 
a  piece  with  the  attribution  of  the  collection  of  Psalms  to  David,  and  of  Proverbs  to 
Solomon." 

The  opponents  of  the  Higher  Criticism  have  much  to  say  in  reply.  Sayce,  Early 
History  of  the  Hebrews,  holds  that  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  were  copied  from 
Babylonian  sources,  but  he  insists  upon  a  Mosaic  or  pre-Mosaic  date  for  the  copying. 
Hilprecht  however  declares  that  the  monotheistic  faith  of  Israel  could  never  have  pro- 
ceeded "from  the  Babylonian  mountain  of  gods— that  charnel-house  full  of  corrup- 
tion and  dead  men's  bones."  Bissell,  Genesis  Printed  in  Colors,  Introd.,  iv  —  "It is 
improbable  that  so  many  documentary  histories  existed  so  early,  or  if  existing  that  the 
compiler  should  have  attempted  to  combine  them.  Strange  that  the  earlier  should  be 
J  and  should  use  the  word  'Jehovah,'  while  the  later  P  should  use  the  word  '  Elohim,' 
when  'Jehovah*  would  have  far  better  suited  the  Priests'  Code.  .  .  .  xiii  — The 
Babylonian  tablets  contain  in  a  continuous  narrative  the  more  prominent  facts  of  both 
the  alleged  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  sections  of  Genesis,  and  present  them  mainly  in 
the  Biblical  order.  Several  hundred  years  before  Moses  what  the  critics  call  two  were 
already  one.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that  the  unity  was  due  to  a  redactor  at  the  period  of 
the  exile,  444  B.  C.  He  who  believes  that  God  revealed  himself  to  primitive  man  as  one 
God,  will  see  in  the  Akkadian  story  a  polytheistic  corruption  of  the  original  monothe- 
istic account."  We  must  not  estimate  the  antiquity  of  a  pair  of  boots  by  the  last  patch 
which  the  cobbler  has  added ;  nor  must  we  estimate  the  antiquity  of  a  Scripture  book 
by  the  glosses  and  explanations  added  by  later  editors.  As  the  London  Spectator 
remarks  on  the  Homeric  problem  :  "  It  is  as  impossible  that  a  first-rate  poem  or  work 
of  art  should  be  produced  without  a  great  master-mind  which  first  conceives  the  whole, 
as  that  a  fine  living  bull  should  be  developed  out  of  beef -sausages."  As  we  shall  pro- 
ceed to  show,  however,  these  utterances  overestimate  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  ana 
ignore  some  striking  evidences  of  its  gradual  growth  and  composite  structure. 

The  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  particular.  Recent  critics,  especially  Kuenen 
and  Robertson  Smith,  have  maintained  that  the  Pentateuch  is  Mosaic  only  in  the  sense 
of  being  a  gradually  growing  body  of  traditional  law,  which  was  codified  as  late  as  the 
time  of  Ezekiel,  and,  as  the  development  of  the  spirit  and  teachings  of  the  great  law- 
giver, was  called  by  a  legal  fiction  after  the  name  of  Moses  and  was  attributed  to  him. 
The  actual  order  of  composition  is  therefore  :  ( 1 )  Book  of  the  Covenant  (  Exodus  20-23 ) ; 
(2)  Deuteronomy ;  (3)  Leviticus.  Among  the  reasons  assigned  for  this  view  are  the 
facts  ( a)  that  Deuteronomy  ends  with  an  account  of  Moses'  death,  and  therefore  could 
not  have  been  written  by  Moses ;  ( b )  that  in  Leviticus  Levites  are  mere  servants  to  the 
priests,  while  in  Deuteronomy  the  priests  are  officiating  Levites,  or,  in  other  words,  all 
the  Levites  are  priests ;  ( c )  that  the  books  of  Judges  and  of  1  Samuel,  with  their  record 
of  sacrifices  offered  in  many  places,  give  no  evidence  that  either  Samuel  or  the  nation 
of  Israel  had  any  knowledge  of  a  law  confining  worship  to  a  local  sanctuary.    See 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    DOCUMENTS.  171 

Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel ;  Wellhausen,  Geachichte  Israels,  Rami  1 ;  and 
art.:  Israel,  in  Bncyc.  Brit.,  13:398,399,415;  w.  Robertson  Smith,  O.  T.  in  Jewish  Church, 

30ti,  380,  and  Prophets  of  Israel ;  Hastings,  Bible  Diet.,  arts. :  Deuteronomy,  Hexateuch, 
and  Canon  of  the  O.  T. 

It  has  been  urged  in  reply,  ( 1 )  that  Moses  may  have  written,  not  autographic-ally, 
but  through  a  scribe  (  perhaps  Joshua  ).  and  that  this  scribe  may  have  completed  the 
history  in  Deuteronomy  with  the  account  of  Moses' death  ;  (2)  that  Ezra  or  subsequent 
prophets  may  have  subjected  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  recension,  and  may  have 
added  explanatory  notes;  (3)  that  documents  of  previous  ages  may  have  been  incor- 
porated, in  course  of  its  composition  by  Moses,  or  subsequently  by  his  successors; 
(4)  that  the  apparent  lack  of  distinction  between  the  different  classes  of  Levites  in 
Deuteronomy  may  lie  explained  by  the  fact  that,  while  Leviticus  was  written  with 
exact  detail  for  the  priests,  Deuteronomy  is  the  record  of  a  brief  general  and  oral  sum- 
mary of  the  law,  addressed  to  the  people  at  large  and  therefore  naturally  mentioning 
the  clergy  as  a  whole;  (5)  that  the  .silence  of  the  book  of  Judges  as  to  the  Mosaic 
rit  ual  may  be  explained  by  the  design  <d'  the  !><>i>k  to  describe  only  general  history,  and 
by  the  probability  that  at  the  tabernacle  a  ritual  was  observed  of  which  the  people  in 
genera]  were  ignorant.  Sacrifices  in  other  places  only  accompanied  special  divine 
manifestations  which  made  the  recipient  temporarily  a  priest.  Even  if  it  were  proved 
that  the  law  with  regard  to  a  central  sanctuary  was  not  observed,  it  would  not  show 
that  tiie  law  diil  not  exist,  any  more  than  violation  of  the  second  commandment  by 
Solomon  proves  his  ignorance  of  the  decalogue,  or  the  mediaeval  neglect  of  the  N.  T. 
by  the  Roman  church  proves  that  the  N.  T.  did  not  then  exist.  We  cannot  argue  that 
"where  there  was  transgression,  there  was  no  law''  (Watts,  New  Apologetic,  83,  and 
The  Newer  Criticism). 

In  the  light  of  recent  research,  however,  we  cannot  regard  these  replies  as  satisfac- 
tory. Woods,  in  his  article  on  the  Hexateuch,  Hastings'  Dictionary,  2 :  365,  presents  a 
moderate  statement  of  the  results  of  the  higher  criticism  which  commends  itself  to  us 
as  more  trustworthy.  He  calls  it  a  theory  of  stratification,  and  holds  that  "certain 
more  or  less  independent  documents,  dealing  largely  with  the  same  series  of  events, 
were  composed  at  different  periods,  or,  at  any  rate,  under  different  auspices,  and  were 
afterwards  combined,  so  that  out-  present  Hexateuch,  which  means  our  Pentateuch 
with  the  addition  of  Joshua,  contains  these  several  different  literary  strata.  .  .  .  The 
main  grounds  for  accepting  this  hypothesis  of  Stratification  arc  f  l )  that  the  various 
literary  pieces,  with  very  few  exceptions,  will  lie  found  on  examination  to  arrange 
themselves  by  common  characteristics  into  comparatively  few  groups;  (~)  that  an 
original  consecution  of  narrative  may  be  frequently  traced  between  what  in  their 
present  form  are  isolated  fragments, 

"This  will  be  better  understood  by  the  following  illustration.  Let  us  suppose  a  prob- 
lem of  this  kind  :  Given  a  patchwork  quilt,  explain  the  character  of  the  original  pieces 
out  of  which  the  bits  of  stuff  composing  the  quilt  were  cut.  First,  we  notice  that,  how- 
ever well  the  colors  may  blend,  however  nice  and  complete  the  whole  may  look,  many 
of  the  adjoining  pieces  do  not  agree  in  material,  texture,  pattern,  color,  or  the  like. 
Ergo,  they  have  been  made  up  out  of  very  different  pieces  of  stuff.  .  .  .  But  suppose 
we  further  discover  that  many  of  the  bits,  though  now  separated,  are  like  one  another 
in  material,  texture,  etc.,  we  may  conjecture  that  these  have  been  cut  out  of  one  piece. 
But  we  shall  prove  this  beyond  reasonable  doubt  if  we  find  that  several  bits  when 
unpicked  lit  together,  so  that  the  pattern  of  one  is  continued  in  the  other;  and, 
moreover,  that  if  all  of  like  character  are  sorted  out,  they  form,  say,  four  groups,  each 
of  which  was  evidently  once  a  single  piece  of  stuff,  though  parts  of  each  arc  found 
missing,  because,  no  doubt,  they  have  not  been  required  to  make  the  whole.  But  we 
make  the  analogy  of  the  Hexateuch  even  closer,  if  we  further  suppose  that  in  certain 
parts  of  the  quilt  the  hits  belonging  to,  say,  two  of  these  groups  are  so  combined  as  to 
form  a  subsidiary  pattern  within  the  larger  pattern  of  the  whole  quilt,  and  had  evi- 
dently been  sewed  together  before  being  connected  with  other  parts  of  the  quilt;  and 
we  may  make  it  even  closer  still,  if  we  suppose  that,  besides  the  more  important  bits 
of  stuff,  smaller  embellishments,  borderings,  and  the  like,  had  been  added  so  as  to 
improve  the  general  effect  of  the  whole." 

The  author  of  this  article  goes  on  to  point  out  three  main  portions  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch which  esseutially  differ  from  each  other.  There  are  three  distinct  codes:  the 
Covenant  code  (  C  =  Ex.  20  :  22  to  23 :  33,  and  24 : 3-8 ),  the  Deuteronomic  code  ( D ),  and  the 
Priestly  code  (  P ).    These  codes  have  peculiar  relations  to  the  narrative  portions  of  the 


172  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

Hexateuch.  In  Genesis,  for  example,  "the  greater  part  of  the  hook  is  divided  into 
groups  of  longer  or  shorter  pieces,  generally  paragraphs  or  chapters,  distinguished 
respectively  by  the  almost  exclusive  use  of  Elohim  or  Jehovah  as  the  name  of  God." 
Let  us  call  these  portions  J  and  E.  But  we  find  such  close  affinities  between  C  and 
JE,  that  we  may  regard  them  as  substantially  one.  "We  shall  find  that  the  larger 
part  of  the  narratives,  as  distinct  from  the  laws,  of  Exodus  and  Numbers  belong  to 
JE ;  whereas,  with  special  exceptions,  the  legal  portions  belong-  to  P.  In  the  last  chap- 
ters of  Deuteronomy  and  in  the  whole  of  Joshua  we  find  elements  of  JE.  In  the  latter 
book  we  also  find  elements  which  connect  it  with  D. 

"  It  should  be  observed  that  not  only  do  we  find  here  and  there  separate  pieces  in  the 
Hexateuch,  shown  by  their  characters  to  belong  to  these  three  sources,  JE,  D,  and 
P,  but  the  pieces  will  often  be  found  connected  together  by  an  obvious  continuity  of 
subject  when  pieced  together,  like  the  bits  of  patchwork  in  the  illustration  with  which 
we  started.  For  example,  if  we  read  continuously  Gen.  11 :  27-32 ;  12  : 4  b,  5 ;  13:6a,  11  b,  12a; 
16:1a,  3,  15, 16  ;  17 ;  19  :  29 ;  21  :  1  a,  2  b  -5  ;  23  ;  25  :  7-11  a  —  passages  mainly,  on  other  grounds, 
attributed  to  P,  we  get  an  almost  continuous  and  complete,  though  very  concise, 
account  of  Abraham's  life."  We  may  concede  the  substantial  correctness  of  the  view 
thus  propounded.  It  simply  shows  God's  actual  method  in  making  up  the  record  of 
his  revelation.  We  may  add  that  any  scholar  who  grants  that  Moses  did  not  himself 
write  the  account  of  his  own  death  and  burial  in  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  or 
who  recognizes  two  differing  accounts  of  creation  in  Genesis  1  and  2,  has  already  begun 
an  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  and  has  accepted  the  essential  principles  of  the  higher 
criticism. 

In  addition  to  the  literature  already  referred  to  mention  may  also  he  made  of 
Driver's  Introd.  to  O.  T.,  1 18-150,  and  Deuteronomy,  Introd.;  W.  R.  Harper,  in  Hebraica, 
Oct.-Dec.  1888,  and  W.  H.  Green's  reply  in  Hebraica,  Jan.  Apl.  1889;  also  Green, 
The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  Hebrew  Feasts,  and  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  with  articles  by  Green  in  Presb.  Rev.,  Jan.  1882  and  Oct. 
1886 ;  Howard  Osgood,  in  Essays  on  Pentateuehal  Criticism,  and  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1888, 
and  July,  1893 ;  Watts,  The  Newer  Criticism,  and  New  Apologetic,  83 ;  Presb.  Rev.,  arts, 
by  H.  P.  Smith,  April,  1882,  and  by  F.  L.  Patton,  1883  :  341-410  ;  Bib.  Sac,  April,  lt-82  :  291- 
344,  and  by  G.  F.  Wright,  July,  1898  :  515-525 ;  Brit.  Quar.,  July,  1881 :  123 ;  Jan.  1884  :  138- 
143;  Mead,  Supernatural  Revelation,  373-385;  Stebbins,  A  Study  in  the  Pentateuch; 
Bissell,  Historic  Origin  of  the  Bible,  277-342,  and  The  Pentateuch,  its  Authorship  and 
Structure ;  Bartlett,  Sources  of  History  in  the  Pentateuch,  180-216,  and  The  Veracity 
of  the  Hexateuch;  Murray,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalms,  58;  Payne-Smith,  in 
Present  Day  Tracts,  3  :  no.  15;  Edersheim,  Prophecy  and  History;  Kurtz,  Hist.  Old 
Covenant,  1 :  46 ;  Perowne,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Jan.  and  Feb.  18S8 ;  Chambers,  Moses  and 
his  Recent  Critics ;  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets ;  Davis,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.: 
Pentateuch;  Willis  J.  Beecher,  The  Prophets  and  the  Promise;  Orr,  Problem  of  the 
O.  T.,  326-329. 

II.     Credibility  of  the  Writers  op  the  Scriptures. 

We  shall  attempt  to  prove  this  only  of  the  writers  of  the  gospels  ;  for  if 
they  are  credible  witnesses,  the  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  which 
they  bore  testimony,  follows  as  a  matter  of  course. 

1.  They  are  capable  or  competent  ivitnesses, — that  is,  they  possessed 
actual  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  facts  they  professed  to  relate,  (a) 
They  had  opportunities  of  observation  and  inquiry.  (  b )  They  were  men 
of  sobriety  and  discernment,  and  could  not  have  been  themselves  deceived, 
(c)  Their  circumstances  were  such  as  to  impress  deeply  upon  their  minds 
the  events  of  which  they  were  witnesses. 

2.  They  are  honest  witnesses.  This  is  evident  when  we  consider  that : 
( a )  Their  testimony  imperiled  all  their  worldly  interests.  ( b )  The  moral 
elevation  of  their  writings,  and  their  manifest  reverence  for  truth  and  con- 
stant inculcation  of  it,  show  that  they  were  not  wilful  deceivers,  but  good 


CREDIBILITY    OF  THE    WRITERS   OF   THE    SCRIPTURES.  173 

men.  ( c )  There  are  minor  indications  of  the  honesty  of  these  writers  in 
the  circumstantiality  of  their  story,  in  the  absence  of  any  expectation  that 
their  narratives  would  be  questioned,  in  their  freedom  from  all  disposition 
to  screen  themselves  or  the  apostles  from  censure. 

Lessing  says  that  Homer  never  calls  Helen  beautiful,  but  he  gives  the  reader  an 
impression  of  her  surpassing  loveliness  by  portraying  the  effect  produced  by  her  pres- 
e  ice.  So  the  evangelists  do  not  describe  Jesus'  appearance  or  character,  but  lead  us  to 
conceive  the  cause  that  could  produce  such  effects.  Gore,  Incarnation,  77  — "  Pilate, 
Caiaphas,  Herod,  Judas,  are  not  abused, —  they  are  photographed.  The  sin  of  a  Judas 
and  a  Peter  is  told  with  equal  simplicity.  Such  fairness,  wherever  you  find  it,  belongs 
to  a  trustworthy  witness." 

3.  The  writings  of  the  evangt lists  mutually  support  each  other.  We 
argue  their  credibility  upon  the  ground  of  their  number  and  of  the  con- 
sistency of  their  testimony.  While  there  is  enough  of  discrepancy  to 
show  that  there  has  been  no  collusion  between  them,  there  is  concurrence 
enough  to  make  the  falsehood  of  them  all  infinitely  improbable.  Four 
points  under  this  head  deserve  mention  :  (a)  The  evangelists  are  indepen- 
dent witnesses.  This  is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  futility  of  the  attempts  to 
prove  that  any  one  of  them  has  abridged  or  transcribed  another.  ( 6 )  The 
discrepancies  between  them  are  none  of  them  irreconcilable  with  the 
truth  of  the  recorded  facts,  but  only  jrresent  those  facts  in  new  lights  or 
with  additional  detail,  (c)  That  these  witnesses  were  friends  of  Christ 
does  not  lessen  the  value  of  their  united  testimony,  since  they  followed 
Christ  only  because  they  were  convinced  that  these  facts  were  true,  (d) 
While  one  witness  to  the  facts  of  Christianity  might  establish  its  truth,  the 
combined  evidence  of  four  witnesses  gives  us  a  warrant  for  faith  in  the  facts 
of  the  gospel  such  as  we  possess  for  no  other  facts  in  ancient  history  what- 
soever. The  same  rule  which  would  refuse  belief  in  the  events  recorded 
in  the  gospels  "would  throw  doubt  on  any  event  in  history." 

No  man  does  or  can  write  his  own  signature  twice  precisely  alike.  When  two 
signatures,  therefore,  purporting  to  be  written  by  the  same  person,  are  precisely  alike, 
it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  one  of  them  is  a  forgery.  Compare  the  combined  testimony 
of  the  evangelists  with  the  combined  testimony  of  our  five  senses.  "Let  us  assume," 
says  Dr.  C.  E.  Rider,  "that  the  chances  of  deception  are  as  one  to  ten  when  we  use  our 
eyes  alone,  one  to  twenty  when  we  use  our  ears  alone,  and  one  to  forty  when  we  use 
our  sense  of  touch  alone ;  what  are  the  chances  of  mistake  when  we  use  all  these  senses 
simultaneously  ?  The  true  result  is  obtained  by  multiplying  these  proportions  together. 
This  gives  one  to  eight  thousand." 

4.  The  conformity  <>/  tnr  gospel  testimony  xvith  experience.  We  have 
already  shown  that,  granting  the  fact  of  sin  and  the  need  of  an  attested 
revelation  from  God,  miracles  can  furnish  no  presumption  against  the  tes- 
timony of  those  who  record  such  a  revelation,  but,  as  essentially  belonging 
to  such  a  revelation,  miracles  may  be  proved  by  the  same  kind  and  degree 
of  evidence  as  is  required  in  proof  of  any  other  extraordinary  facts.  We 
may  assert,  then,  that  in  the  New  Testament  histories  there  is  no  record 
of  facts  contrary  to  experience,  but  only  a  record  of  facts  not  witnessed  in 
ordinary  experience  —  of  facts,  therefore,  in  which  we  may  believe,  if  the 
evidence  in  other  respects  is  sufficient. 

5.  Coincidence  of  this   testimony  with  collateral  facts  and  circiun 
stances.     Under  this  head  we  may  refer  to  (  a )  the  numberless  correspon- 


174  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"   FROM    GOD. 

dences  between  the  narratives  of  tlie  evangelists  and  contemporary  history ; 
(6)  the  failure  of  every  attempt  thus  far  to  show  that  the  sacred  history  is 
contradicted  by  any  single  fact  derived  from  other  trustworthy  sources ; 
( c )  the  infinite  improbability  that  this  minute  and  complete  harrnory 
should  ever  have  been  secured  in  fictitious  narratives. 

6.  Conclusion  from  the  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  writers  of 
the  gos^iels.  These  writers  having  been  proved  to  be  credible  witnesses, 
their  narratives,  including  the  accounts  of  the  miracles  and  prophecies  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  must  be  accepted  as  true.  But  God  would  not 
work  miracles  or  reveal  the  future  to  attest  the  claims  of  false  teachers. 
Christ  and  his  apostles  must,  therefore,  have  been  what  they  claimed  to  be, 
teachers  sent  from  God,  and  their  doctrine  must  be  what  they  claimed  it 
to  be,  a  revelation  from  God  to  men. 

On  the  whole  subject,  see  Ebrard,  Wissensch.  Kritik  tier  evang.  Geschicbte;  Green- 
leaf,  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists,  30,  31;  Starkie  on  Evidence,  734 ;  Whatcly,  Historic 
Doubts  as  to  Napoleon  Buonaparte;  Haley,  Examination  of  Alleged  Discrepancies; 
Smith's  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul;  Paley,  Hone  Paulinas;  Birks,  in  Strivings 
for  the  Faith,  37-73  —  "  Discrepancies  are  like  the  slight  diversities  of  the  different  pic- 
tures of  the  stereoscope."  Renan  calls  the  land  of  Palestine  a  fifth  gospel.  Weiss  con- 
trasts the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  where  there  is  no  historical  setting  and  all  is  in  the  air, 
with  the  evangelists,  where  time  and  place  are  always  stated. 

No  modern  apologist  has  stated  the  argument  for  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment with  greater  clearness  and  force  than  Paley, —  Evidences,  chapters  8  and  10 — "  No 
historical  fact  is  more  certain  than  that  the  original  propagators  of  the  gospel  volun- 
tarily subjected  themselves  to  lives  of  fatigue,  danger,  and  sufferiug,  in  the  prosecution 
of  their  undertaking.  The  nature  of  the  undertaking,  the  character  of  the  persons 
employed  in  it,  the  opposition  of  their  tenets  to  the  fixed  expectations  of  the 
country  in  which  they  at  first  advanced  them,  their  undissembled  condemnation  of  the 
religion  of  all  other  countries,  their  total  want  of  power,  authority,  or  force,  render  it 
in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  this  must  have  been  the  case. 

"  The  probability  is  increased  by  what  we  know  of  the  fate  of  the  Founder  of  the 
institution,  who  was  put  to  death  for  his  attempt,  and  by  what  we  also  know  of  the  cruel 
treatment  of  the  converts  to  the  institution  within  thirty  years  after  its  commence- 
ment—  both  which  points  are  attested  by  heathen  writers,  and,  being  once  admitted, 
leave  it  very  incredible  that  the  primitive  emissaries  of  the  religion  who  exercised  their 
ministry  first  amongst  the  people  who  had  destroyed  their  Master,  and  afterwards 
amongst  those  who  persecuted  their  converts,  should  themselves  escape  with  impunity 
or  pursue  their  purpose  in  ease  and  safety. 

"This  probability,  thus  sustained  by  foreign  testimony,  is  advanced,  I  think,  to  his- 
torical certainty  by  the  evidence  of  our  own  books,  by  the  accounts  of  a  writer  who  was 
the  companion  of  the  persons  whose  sufferings  he  relates,  by  the  letters  of  the  persons 
themselves,  by  predictions  of  persecutions,  ascribed  to  the  Founder  of  the  religion, 
which  predictions  would  not  have  been  inserted  in  this  history,  much  less,  studi- 
ously dwelt  upon,  if  they  had  not  accorded  with  the  event,  and  which,  even  if  falsely 
ascribed  to  him,  could  only  have  been  so  ascribed  because  the  event  suggested  them  ; 
lastly,  by  incessant  exhortations  to  fortitude  and  patience,  and  by  an  earnestness,  repe- 
tition and  urgency  upon  the  subject  which  were  unlikely  to  have  appeared,  if  there 
had  not  been,  at  the  time,  some  extraordinary  call  for  the  exercise  of  such  virtues.  It 
is  also  made  out,  I  think,  with  sufficient  evidence,  that  both  the  teachers  and  converts 
of  the  religion,  in  consequence  of  their  new  profession,  took  up  a  new  course  of  life 
and  conduct. 

"  The  next  great  question  is,  what  they  did  this  for.  It  was  for  a  miraculous  story  of 
some  kind,  since  for  the  proof  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ought  to  be  received  as  the  Mes- 
siah, or  as  a  messenger  for  God,  they  neither  had  nor  could  have  anything  but  miracles 
to  stand  upon.  ...  If  this  be  so,  the  religion  must  be  true.  These  men  could  not  be 
deceivers.  By  only  not  bearing  testimony,  they  might  have  avoided  all  these  suffer- 
in<rs  and  lived  quietly.  Would  men  in  such  circumstances  pretend  to  have  seen  what 
they  never  saw,  assert  facts  winch  they  had  no  knowledge  of,  go  about  lying  to 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.       175 

teach  virtue,  and  though  not  only  convinced  of  Christ's  being:  an  impostor,  but  having 
seen  the  success  of  his  imposture  in  his  crucifixion,  yet  persist  in  carrying  it  on,  and  so 
persist  as  to  bring  upon  themselves,  for  nothing,  and  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  con- 
sequences, enmity  and  hatred,  danger  Jmd  death  ?  " 

Those  who  maintain  this,  moreover,  require  us  to  believe  that  the  Scripture  writers 
were  "villains  for  no  end  but  to  teach  honesty,  and  martyrs  without  the  least  prospect 
of  honor  or  advantage."  Imposture  must  have  a  motive.  The  self-devotion  of  the 
apostles  is  the  strongest  evidence  of  their  truth,  for  even  Hume  declares  that  "  we  can- 
not make  use  of  a  more  convincing  argument  in  proof  of  honesty  than  to  prove  that 
the  actions  ascribed  to  any  persons  are  contrary  to  the  course  of  nature,  and  that  no 
human  motives,  in  such  circumstances,  could  ever  induce  them  to  such  conduct." 

III.     The  Supernatural  Character  of  the  Scripture  Teaching. 

1.     Scripture  teaching  in  general. 

A.     The  Bible  is  the  work  of  one  ruind. 

(a)  In  spite  of  its  variety  of  authorship  and  the  vast  separation  of  its 
writers  from  one  another  in  point  of  time,  there  is  a  unity  of  subject,  spirit, 
and  aim  throughout  the  whole. 

We  here  begin  a  new  department  of  Christian  evidences.  We  have  thus  far  only 
adduced  external  evidence.  We  now  turn  our  attention  to  internal  evidence.  The  rela- 
tion of  external  to  internal  evidence  seems  to  be  suggested  in  Christ's  two  questions  in 
Mark  8 :  27,  29 — "  Who  do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  .  .  .  who  say  j/r  that  I  am  ?  "  The  unity  in  variety  dis- 
played in  Scripture  is  oue  of  the  chief  internal  evidences.  This  unity  is  indicated  in 
our  word  "Bible,''  in  the  singular  number.  Yet  the  original  word  was  "Biblia,"a 
plural  number.  The  world  has  come  to  see  a  unity  in  what  were  once  scattered  frag- 
ments: the  many  "Biblia''  have  become  one  "  Bible."  In  one  sense  R.  W.  Emerson's 
contention  is  true:  "The  Bible  is  not  a  book,  —  it  is  a  literature."  But  we  may  also 
say,  and  with  equal  truth  :  "  The  Bible  is  not  simply  a  collection  of  books, — it  is  a  book." 
The  Bible  is  made  up  of  sixty-six  books,  by  forty  writers,  of  all  ranks,  —  shepherds, 
fishermen,  priests,  warriors,  statesmen,  kings,  —  composing  their  works  at  intervals 
through  a  period  of  seventeen  centuries.  Evidently  no  collusion  between  them  is  pos- 
sible. Scepticism  tends  ever  to  ascribe  to  the  Scriptures  greater  variety  of  authorship 
and  date,  but  all  this  only  increases  the  wonder  of  the  Bible's  unity.  If  unity  in  a  half 
dozen  writers  is  remarkable,  in  forty  it  is  astounding.  "The  many  diverse  instruments 
of  this  orchestra  p!ay  one  perfect  tune  :  hence  we  feel  that  they  are  led  by  one  master 
and  composer."  Yet  it  takes  the  same  Spirit  who  inspired  the  Bible  to  teach  its  unity. 
The  union  is  not  an  external  or  superficial  one,  but  one  that  is  internal  and  spiritual. 

(  b  )  Not  one  moral  or  religious  utterance  of  all  these  writers  has  been 
contradicted  or  superseded  by  the  utterances  of  those  who  have  come  later, 
but  all  together  constitute  a  consistent  system. 

Here  we  must  distinguish  between  the  external  form  and  the  moral  and  religious 
substance.  Jesus  declares  in  Mat.  5 :  21,  22,  27,  28,  33,  34,  38,  39,  43,  44,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to 
them  of  old  time  ...  bat  I  say  unto  you, "  and  then  he  seems  at  first  sight  to  abrogate  certain 
original  commands.  But  he  also  declares  in  this  connection,  Mat.  5 :  17, 18  —  "  Think  not  I  am 
come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven 
and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be  accomplished." 
Christ's  new  commandments  only  bring  out  the  inner  meaning  of  the  old.  He  fulfils 
them  not  in  their  literal  form  but  in  their  essential  spirit.  So  the  New  Testament  com- 
pletes the  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  and  makes  the  Bible  a  perfect  unity.  In 
this  unity  the  Bible  stands  alone.  Hindu,  Persian,  and  Chinese  religious  books  contain 
no  consistent  system  of  faith.  There  is  progress  in  revelation  from  the  earlier  to  the 
later  books  of  the  Bible,  but  this  is  not  progress  through  successive  steps  of  falsehood ; 
it  is  rather  progress  from  a  less  to  a  more  clear  and  full  unfolding  of  the  truth.  The 
whole  truth  lay  germinally  in  the  protevangelium  uttered  to  our  first  parents  ( Gen.  3 :  15  — 
the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head  ). 

( c )  Each  of  these  Avritings,  whether  early  or  late,  has  represented  moral 
and  religious  ideas  greatly  in  advance  of  the  age  in  which  it  has  appeared, 
and  these  ideas  still  lead  the  world. 


176  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

All  our  ideas  of  progress,  with  all  the  forward-looking  spirit  of  modern  Christendom, 
are  due  to  Scripture.  The  classic  nations  had  no  such  ideas  and  no  such  spirit,  except 
as  they  caught  them  from  the  Hebrews.  Virgil's  prophecy,  in  his  fourth  Eclogue,  of  a 
coming  virgin  and  of  the  reign  of  Saturn  and  of  the  return  of  the  golden  age,  was  only 
the  echo  of  the  Sibylline  books  and  of  the  hope  of  a  Redeemer  with  which  the  Jews 
had  leavened  the  whole  Roman  world ;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  The  Great  Poets  and  their 
Theology,  94-96. 

(  d )  It  is  impossible  to  account  for  this  unity  without  supposing  such  a 
supernatural  suggestion  and  control  that  the  Bible,  while  in  its  various 
parts  written  by  human  agents,  is  yet  equally  the  work  of  a  superhuman 
intelligence. 

We  may  contrast  with  the  harmony  between  the  different  Scripture  writers  the 
contradictions  and  refutations  which  follow  merely  human  philosophies  — e.  y.,  the 
Hegelian  idealism  and  the  Spencerian  materialism.  Hegel  is  "  a  name  to  swear  at,  as 
well  as  to  swear  by."  Dr.  Stirling,  in  his  Secret  of  Hegel,  "  kept  all  the  secret  to  him- 
self, if  he  ever  knew  it."  A  certain  Frenchman  once  asked  Hegel  if  he  could  not  gather 
up  and  express  his  philosophy  in  one  sentence  for  him.  "  No,"  Hegel  replied,  "  at  least 
not  in  French."  If  Talleyrand's  maxim  be  true  that  whatever  is  not  intelligible  is  not 
French,  Hegel's  answer  was  a  correct  one.  Hegel  said  of  his  disciples :  "  There  is  only 
one  man  living  who  understands  me,  and  he  does  not." 

Goeschel,  Gabler,  Daub,  Marheinecke,  Erdmann,  are  Hegel's  right  wing,  or  orthodox 
representatives  and  followers  in  theology;  see  Sterrett,  Hegel's  Philosophy  of  Relig- 
ion. Hegel  is  followed  by  Alexander  and  Bradley  in  England,  but  is  opposed  by  Seth 
and  Schiller.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  279-300,  gives  a  valuable  estimate  of  his  posi- 
tion and  influence :  Hegel  is  all  thought  and  no  will.  Prayer  has  no  effect  on  God,— it 
is  a  purely  psychological  phenomenon.  There  is  no  free-will,  and  man's  sin  as  much 
as  man's  holiness  is  a  manifestation  of  the  Eternal.  Evolution  is  a  fact,  but  it  is  only 
fatalistic  evolution.  Hegel  notwithstanding  did  great  service  by  substituting  knowl- 
edge of  reality  for  the  oppressive  Kantian  relativity,  and  by  banishing  the  old  notion  of 
matter  as  a  mysterious  substance  wholly  unlike  and  incompatible  with  the  properties 
of  mind.  He  did  great  service  also  by  showing  that  the  interactions  of  matter  and 
mind  are  explicable  only  by  the  presence  of  the  Absolute  Whole  in  every  part,  though 
he  erred  greatly  by  carrying  that  idea  of  the  unity  of  God  and  man  beyond  its  proper 
limits,  and  by  denying  that  God  has  given  to  the  will  of  man  any  power  to  put  itself  into 
antagonism  to  His  Will.  Hegel  did  great  service  by  showing  that  we  cannot  kuoweven 
the  part  without  knowing  the  whole,  but  he  erred  in  teaching,  as  T.  H.  Green  did,  that 
the  relations  constitute  the  reality  of  the  thing.  He  deprives  both  physical  and  psychi- 
cal existences  of  that  degree  of  selfhood  or  independent  reality  which  is  essential  to 
both  science  and  religion.  We  want  real  force,  and  not  the  mere  idea  of  force  ;  real 
will,  and  not  mere  thought. 

B.     This  one  mind  that  made  the  Bible  is  the  same  mind  that  made  the 

soul,  for  the  Bible  is  divinely  adapted  to  the  soul. 

( a )  It  shows  complete  acquaintance  with  the  soul. 

The  Bible  addresses  all  parts  of  man's  nature.  There  are  Law  and  Epistles  for  man's 
reason ;  Psalms  and  Gospels  for  his  affections ;  Prophets  and  Revelations  for  his  imagi- 
nation. Hence  the  popularity  of  the  Scriptures.  Their  variety  holds  men.  The  Bible 
has  become  interwoven  into  modern  life.  Law,  literature,  art,  all  show  its  moulding 
influence. 

(6)  It  judges  the  soul  — contradicting  its  passions,  revealing  its  guilt, 
and  humbling  its  pride. 

No  product  of  mere  human  nature  could  thus  look  down  upon  human  nature  and 
condemn  it.  The  Bible  speaks  to  us  from  a  higher  level.  The  Samaritan  woman's  words 
apply  to  the  whole  compass  of  divine  revelation  ;  it  tells  us  all  things  that  ever  we  did 
( John  4:29).  The  Brahmin  declared  that  Romans  1,  with  its  description  of  heathen  vices, 
must  have  been  forged  after  the  missionaries  came  to  India. 

( c)  It  meets  the  deepest  needs  of  the  soiU — by  solutions  of  its  problems, 
disclosures  of  God's  character,  presentations  of  the  way  of  pardon,  conso- 
lations and  promises  for  life  and  death. 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE  TEACHING.       177 

Neither  Socrates  nor  Seneca  seta  forth  the  nature,  origin  and  consequences  of  sin  as 
committed  against  the  holiness  of  God,  nor  do  they  point  out  the  way  of  pardon  and 
renewal.  The  Bible  teaches  us  what  nature  cannot,  viz. :  God's  creatorship,  the  origin 
of  evil,  the  method  of  restoration,  theHsertainty  of  a  future  state,  and  the  principle  of 
rewards  and  punishments  there. 

(d)  Yet  it  is  silent  upon  many  questions  for  which  writings  of  merely 
human  origin  seek  first  to  provide  solutions. 

Compare  the  account  of  Christ's  infancy  in  the  gospels  with  the  fables  of  the  Apocry- 
phal New  Testament;  compare  the  scant  utterances  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  the 
future  state  with  Mohammed's  and  Swedenborg's  revelations  of  Paradise.  See  Alex- 
ander McLaren's  sermon  on  The  Silence  of  Scripture,  in  his  book  entitled :  Christ  in  the 
Heart,  131-141. 

(e)  There  are  infinite  depths  and  inexhaustible  reaches  of  meaning  in 
Scripture,  which  difference  it  from  all  other  books,  and  which  compel  us  to 
believe  that  its  author  must  be  divine. 

Sir  Walter  Scott,  on  his  death  bed:  "Bring  me  the  Book!"  "What  book?"  said 
Lockhart,  his  son-in-law.  "There  is  but  one  book  !  "  said  t  he  dying  man.  Reville  con- 
cludes an  Essay  in  the  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  (1864) :  "One  day  the  question  was 
started,  in  an  assembly,  what  book  a  man  condemned  to  lifelong  imprisonment,  and  to 
Whom  but  one  book  would  be  permitted,  had  better  take  into  his  cell  with  him.  The 
company  consisted  of  Catholics,  Protestants,  philosophers  and  even  materialists,  but 
all  agreed  that  their  choice  would  fall  only  on  the  Bible." 

On  the  whole  subject,  see  Garbett,  God's  Word  Written,  3-56;  Luthardt,  Saving 
Truths,  210;  Rogers,  Superhuman  Origin  of  Bible,  155-181;  W.  L.  Alexander,  Connec- 
tion and  Harmony  of  O.  T.  and  N.  T.;  Stanley  Leathes,  Structure  of  the  O.  T. ;  Bernard, 
Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  N.  T. ;  Rainy,  Delivery  and  Development  of  Doctrine; 
Titcomb,  iu  Strivings  for  the  Faith;  Immer,  Hermeneutics,  91 ;  Present  Day  Tracts,  4: 
no.  23;  5:  no.  28 ;  6 :  no.  31 ;  Lee  on  Inspiration,  26-32. 

2.  Moral  System  of  the  Neiv  Testament. 

The  perfection  of  this  system  is  generally  conceded.  All  will  admit  that 
it  greatly  surpasses  any  other  system  known  among  men.  Among  its  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics  may  be  mentioned : 

(a)  Its  comprehensiveness, — including  all  human  duties  in  its  code, 
even  the  most  generally  misunderstood  and  neglected,  while  it  permits  no 
vice  whatsoever. 

Buddhism  regards  family  life  as  sinful.  Suicide  was  commended  by  many  ancient 
philosophers.  Among  the  Spartans  to  steal  was  praiseworthy, —only  to  be  caught 
stealing  was  criminal.  Classic  times  despised  humility.  Thomas  Paine  said  that  Chris- 
tianity cultivated  "the  spirit  of  a  spaniel,"  and  John  Stuart  Mill  asserted  that  Christ 
ignored  duty  to  the  state.  Yet  Peter  urges  Christians  to  add  to  their  faith  manliness, 
courage,  heroism  (2  Pet.  1:5  —  "in  your  faith  supply  virtue"),  and  Paul  declares  the  state  to 
be  God's  ordinance  ( Rom.  13:1  —  "  Let  every  soul  he  in  subjection  to  the  higher  powers :  for  there  is  no  power 
but  of  God;  and  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God  "  ).  Patriotic  defence  of  a  nation's  unity 
and  freedom  has  always  found  its  chief  incitement  and  ground  in  these  injunctions  of 
Scripture.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Christian  ethics  do  not  contain  a  particle  of  chaff,  —  all 
Is  pure  wheat." 

(6)  Its  spirituality, — accepting  no  merely  external  conformity  to  right 
precepts,  but  judging  all  action  by  the  thoughts  and  motives  from  which  it 
springs. 

The  superficiality  of  heathen  morals  is  well  illustrated  by  the  treatment  of  the 
corpse  of  a  priest  in  Siam  :  the  body  is  covered  with  gold  leaf,  and  then  is  left  to  rot  and 
shine.  Heathenism  divorces  religion  from  ethics.  External  and  ceremonial  obser- 
vances take  the  place  of  purity  of  heart.    The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  the  other  hand 

12 


178  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM   GOD. 

pronounces  blessing  only  upon  inward  states  of  the  soul.  Ps.  51 : 6  —  "  Behold,  thou  desirest 
truth  in  the  inward  parts,  and  in  the  hidden  part  thou  'wilt  make  me  to  know  wisdom  "  ;  Micah  6:8 —  "  what  doth 
Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  kindness,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ?  " 

(c)  Its  simplicity, — inculcating  principles  rather  than  imposing  rules; 
reducing  these  principles  to  an  organic  system  ;  and  connecting  this  system 
-with  religion  by  summing  up  all  human  duty  in  the  one  command  of  love 
to  God  and  man. 

Christianity  presents  no  extensive  code  of  rules,  like  that  of  the  Phai-isees  or  of  the 
Jesuits.  Such  codes  break  down  of  their  own  weight.  The  laws  of  the  State  of  New 
York  alone  constitute  a  library  of  themselves,  which  only  the  trained  lawyer  can 
master.  It  is  said  that  Mohammedanism  has  recorded  sixty-five  thousand  special 
instances  in  which  the  reader  is  directed  to  do  right.  It  is  the  merit  of  Jesus'  system 
that  all  its  requisitions  are  reduced  to  unity.  Mark  12 :  29-31  —  "  Hear,  0  Israel ;  The  Lord  our  God,  the 
Lord  is  one :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and 
with  all  thy  strength.  The  second  is  this :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  There  is  none  other  commandment 
greater  than  these."  Wcndt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2: 384-814,  calls  attention  to  the  inner  unity 
of  Jesus'  teaching.  The  doctrine  that  God  is  a  loving  Father  is  applied  with  unswerv- 
ing consistency.  Jesus  confirmed  whatever  was  true  in  the  O.  T.,  and  he  set  aside  the 
unworthy.  He  taught  not  so  much  about  God,  as  about  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
about  the  ideal  fellowship  between  God  and  men.  Morality  was  the  necessary  and 
natural  expression  of  religion.  In  Christ  teaching  and  life  were  perfectly  blended.  He 
was  the  representative  of  the  religion  which  he  taught. 

(d)  Its  practicality,  —  exemplifying  its  precepts  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and,  while  it  declares  man's  depravity  and  inability  in  his  own 
strength  to  keep  the  law,  furnishing  motives  to  obedience,  and  the  divine 
aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  make  this  obedience  possible. 

Revelation  has  two  sides:  Moral  law,  and  provision  for  fulfilling  the  moral  law  that 
has  been  broken.  Heathen  systems  can  incite  to  temporary  reformations,  and  they 
can  terrify  with  fears  of  retribution.  But  only  God's  regenerating  grace  can  make 
the  tree  good,  in  such  a  way  that  its  fruit  will  be  good  also  (Mat.  12 :  33).  There  is  a  differ- 
ence between  touching  the  pendulum  of  the  clock  and  winding  it  up,  —  the  former 
may  set  it  temporarily  swinging,  but  only  the  latter  secures  its  regular  and  permanent 
motion.  The  moral  system  of  the  N.  T.  is  not  simply  law,  —  it  is  also  grace :  John  1 :  17 — 
"  the  law  was  given  through  Moses;  grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus  Christ."  Dr.  William  Ashniore's 
tract  represents  a  Chinaman  in  a  pit.  Confucius  looks  into  the  pit  and  says  :  "If  you 
had  done  as  I  told  you,  you  would  never  have  gotten  in."  Buddha  looks  into  the  pit 
and  says:  "If  you  were  up  here  I  would  show  you  what  to  do."  So  both  Confucius 
and  Buddha  pass  on.  But  Jesus  leaps  down  into  the  pit  and  helps  the  poor  Chinaman 
out. 

At  the  Parliament  of  Religions  in  Chicago  there  were  many  ideals  of  life  propounded, 
but  no  religion  except  Christianity  attempted  to  show  that  there  was  any  power  given 
to  realize  these  ideals.  When  Joseph  Cook  challenged  the  priests  of  the  ancient 
religions  to  answer  Lady  Macbeth's  question:  "How  cleanse  this  red  right  hand?" 
the  priests  were  dumb.  But  Christianity  declares  that  "the  blood  of  Jesus  his  Son  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin"  (1  John  1:7).  E.  G.  Robinson:  Christianity  differs  from  all  other  religions  in 
being  (1)  a  historical  religion;  (2)  in  turning  abstract  law  into  a  person  to  be  loved; 
(o)  in  furnishing  a  demonstration  of  God's  love  in  Christ;  (4)  in  providing  atone- 
ment for  sin  and  forgiveness  for  the  sinner;  (5)  in  giving  a  power  to  fulfil  the  law 
and  sanctify  the  life.  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  249  —  "  Christianity,  by  making  the 
moral  law  the  expression  of  a  holy  Will,  brought  that  law  out  of  its  impersonal 
abstraction,  and  assured  its  ultimate  triumph.  Moral  principles  may  be  what  they  were 
before,  but  moral  practice  is  forever  different.  Even  the  earth  itself  has  another  look, 
now  that  it  has  heaven  above  it."  Frances  Power  Cobbe,  Life,  92—  "  The  achievement 
of  Christianity  was  not  the  inculcation  of  a  new,  still  less  of  a  systematic,  morality; 
but  the  introduction  of  a  new  spirit  into  morality;  as  Christ  himself  said,  a  leaven 
into  the  lump." 

We  may  justly  argue  that  a  moral  system  so  pure  and  perfect,  since  it 
surpasses  all  human  powers  of  invention  and  runs  counter  to  men's  natural 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.       179 

tastes  and  passions,  must  have  had  a  supernatural,  and  if  a  supernatural, 
then  a  olivine,  origin. 

Heathen  systems  of  morality  are  in  genera]  defective,  in  that  they  furnish  for  man's 
moral  action  no  sufficient  example,  rule,  motive,  or  end.  They  cannot  do  this,  for  the 
reason  that  they  practically  identify  God  with  nature,  and  know  of  no  clear  revelation 
of  his  holy  will.  Man  is  left  to  the  law  of  his  own  being-,  and  since  he  is  not  conceived 
of  as  wholly  responsible  and  free,  the  lower  impulses  are  allowed  sway  as  well  as  the 
higher,  and  selfishness  is  not  regarded  as  sin.  As  heathendom  does  not  recognize  man's 
depravity,  so  it  does  not  recognize  his  dependence  upon  divine  grace,  and  its  virtue  is 
self-righteousness.  Heathenism  is  man's  vain  effort  to  lift  himself  to  God  ;  Christianity 
is  God's  coming-  down  to  man  to  save  him ;  see  Guusaulus,  Transfig.  of  Christ,  11,  1:.'. 
Martineau,  1  :  15,  16,  calls  attention  to  the  difference  between  the  physiological  ethics 
of  heathendom  and  the  psychological  ethics  of  Christianity.  Physiological  ethics  begins 
with  nature;  and,  finding  in  nature  the  uniform  rule  of  necessity  and  the  operation 
of  cause  and  effect,  it  conies  at  last  to  man  and  applies  the  same  rule  to  him,  thus 
extinguishing  all  faith  in  personality,  freedom,  responsibility,  sin  and  guilt.  Psycho- 
logical ethics,  on  the  contrary,  wisely  begins  with  what  we  know  best,  with  man;  anil 
finding  in  him  free-will  atid  a  moral  purpose,  it  proceeds  outward  to  nature  and  inter- 
prets nature  as  the  manifestation  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God. 

"Psychological  ethics  arc  altogether  peculiar  to  Christendom.  .  .  .  Other  systems 
begin  outside  and  regard  the  soul  as  a  homogeneous  part  of  the  universe,  applying 
to  the  soul  the  principle  of  necessity  that  prevails  outside  of  it.  .  .  .  In  the  Christian 
religion,  on  the  other  hand,  the  interest,  the  mystery  of  the  world  are  concentrated  in 
human  nature.  .  .  .  The  sense  of  sin  —  a  sentiment  that  left  no  trace  in  Athens- 
involves  a  consciousness  of  personal  alienation  from  the  Supreme  Goodness ;  the  aspi- 
ration after  holiness  directs  itself  to  a  union  of  affection  and  will  with  the  source  of 
all  Perfection  ;  the  agency  for  transforming  men  from  their  old  estrangement  to  new 
reconciliation  is  a  Person,  in  whom  the  divine  and  human  historically  blend;  and 
the  sanctifying  Spirit  by  which  they  arc  sustained  at  the  height  of  their  purer  life 
is  a  living  link  of  communion  between  their  minds  and  the  Soul  of  souls.  ...  So 
Nature,  to  the  Christian  consciousness,  sank  into  the  accidental  and  the  neutral." 
Measuring  ourselves  by  human  standards,  we  nourish  pride;  measuring  ourselves 
by  diviue  standards,  we  nourish  humility.  Heathen  nations,  identifying1  God  with 
nature  or  with  man,  are  unprogressive.  The  flat  architecture  of  the  Parthenon,  with 
its  lines  parallel  to  the  earth,  is  t  he  type  of  heathen  religion  ;  the  aspiring  arches  of  the 
Gothic  cathedral  symbolize  Christianity. 

Sterrett,  Studies  in  Hegel,  33,  says  that  Hegel  characterized  the  Chinese  religion  as 
that  of  Measure,  or  temperate  conduct;  Brahmanism  as  that  of  Phantasy,  or  inebri- 
ate dream-life  ;  Buddhism  as  that  of  Self-involvement ;  that  of  Egypt  as  the  imbruted 
religion  of  Enigma,  symbolized  by  the  Sphynx ;  that  of  Greece,  as  the  religion  of 
Beauty  ;  the  Jewish  as  that  of  Sublimity  ;  and  Christianity  as  the  Absolute  religion,  the 
fully  revealed  religion  of  truth  and  freedom.  In  all  this  Hegel  entirely  fails  to  grasp  the 
elements  of  Will,  Holiness,  Love,  Life,  which  characterize  Judaism  and  Christianity, 
and  distinguish  them  from  all  other  religions.  K.  H.  Hutton :  "  Judaism  taught  us 
that  Nature  must  be  interpreted  by  our  knowledge  of  God,  not  God  by  our  knowledge 
of  Nature."  Lyman  Abbott:  "  Christianity  is  not  a  new  life,  but  a  new  power;  not  a 
summons  to  a  new  life,  but  an  offer  of  new  life;  not  a  reenactment  of  the  old  law, 
but  a  power  of  God  unto  salvation ;  not  love  to  God  and  man,  but  Christ's  message  that 
God  loves  us,  and  will  help  us  to  the  life  of  love." 

Besschlag,  N.  T.  Theology,  5,  6  — "Christianity  postulates  an  opening  of  the  heart  of 
the  eternal  God  to  the  heart  of  man  coming  to  meet  him.  Heathendom  shows  us  the 
heart  of  man  blunderingly  grasping  the  hem  of  God's  garment,  and  mistaking-  Nature, 
his  majestic  raiment,  for  himself.  Only  in  the  Bible  does  man  press  beyond  God's 
external  manifestations  to  God  himself."  See  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1:37-173; 
Porter,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  4  :  no.  19,  pp.  33-64:  Blackie,  Four  Phases  of  Morals; 
Faiths  of  the  World  (  St.  Giles  Lectures,  second  series) ;  J.  F.  Clarke,  Ten  Great  Relig- 
ions, 2:280-317;  Garbett,  Dogmatic  Faith;  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  134, 
and  Seekers  after  God,  181, 182,  320 ;  Curtis  on  Inspiration,  288.  For  denial  of  the  all- 
comprehensive  character  of  Christian  Morality,  see  John  Stuart  Mill,  on  Liberty  ;  in  r 
contra,  see  Review  of  Mill,  in  Theol.  Eclectic,  6  :508t512;  Row,  in  Strivings  for  the 
Faith,  pub.  by  Christian  Evidence  Society,  181-220 ;  also,  Bampton  Lectures,  1877  :  130- 
176 ;  Fisher,  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  28-38,  174. 


180  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

In  contrast  with  the  Christian  system  of  morality  the  defects  of  heathen 
systems  are  so  marked  and  fundamental,  that  they  constitute  a  strong 
corroborative  evidence  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scripture  revelation.  We 
therefore  append  certain  facts  and  references  with  regard  to  particular 
heathen  systems. 

1.  Confucianism.  Confucius  ( Kung-fu-tse ),  B.  C.  551-478,  contemporary  with  Pythag- 
oras and  Buddha.  Socrates  was  born  ten  years  after  Confucius  died.  Mencius  ( 371-278 ) 
was  a  disciple  of  Confucius.  Matheson,  in  Faiths  of  the  World  (St.  Giles  Lectures), 
73-108,  claims  that  Confucianism  was  "  an  attempt  to  substitute  a  morality  for  theology." 
Legge,  however,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  3  :  no.  18,  shows  that  this  is  a  mistake.  Confu- 
cius simply  left  religion  where  he  found  it.  God,  or  Heaven,  is  worshiped  in  China, 
but  only  by  the  Emperor.  Chinese  religion  is  apparently  a  survival  of  the  worship  of 
the  patriarchal  family.  The  father  of  the  family  was  its  only  head  and  priest.  In  China, 
though  the  family  widened  into  the  tribe,  and  the  tribe  into  the  nation,  the  father  still 
retained  his  sole  authority,  and,  as  the  father  of  his  people,  the  Emperor  alone  officially 
offered  sacrifice  to  God.  Between  God  and  the  people  the  gulf  has  so  widened  that  the 
people  may  be  said  to  have  no  practical  knowledge  of  God  or  communication  with  him. 
Dr.  W.  A.  P.  Martin  :  "  Confucianism  has  degenerated  into  a  pantheistic  medley,  and  ren- 
ders worship  to  an  impersonal  'anima  mundi,'  under  the  leading  forms  of  visible  nature." 

Dr.  William  Ashmore.  private  letter:  "The  common  people  of  China  have:  (1) 
Ancestor-worship,  and  the  worship  of  deified  heroes:  (2)  Geomancy,  or  belief  in 
the  controlling  power  of  the  elements  of  nature ;  but  back  of  these,  and  antedating 
them,  is  (3)  the  worship  of  Heaven  and  Earth,  or  Father  and  Mother,  a  very  ancient 
dualism  ;  this  belongs  to  the  common  people  also,  though  once  a  year  the  Emperor, 
as  a  sort  of  high-priest  of  his  people,  offers  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  Heaven ;  in  this 
he  acts  alone.  'Joss'  is  not  a  Chinese  word  at  all.  It  is  the  corrupted  form  of  the 
Portuguese  word  '  Deos.'  The  word  '  pidgin  '  is  similarly  an  attempt  to  say  '  business ' 
(  big-i-nessorbidgin).  'Joss-pidgin'  therefore  means  simply  'divine  service,' or  service 
offered  to  Heaven  and  Earth,  or  to  spirits  of  any  kind,  good  or  bad.  There  are  many 
gods,  a  Queen  of  Heaven,  King  of  Hades,  God  of  War,  god  of  literature,  gods  of  the  hills, 
valleys,  streams,  a  goddess  of  small-pox,  of  child-bearing,  and  all  the  various  trades 
have  their  gods.  The  most  lofty  expression  the  Chinese  have  is  '  Heaven,'  or  '  Supreme 
Heaven,'  or  '  Azure  Heaven.'  This  is  the  surviving  indication  that  in  the  most  remote 
times  they  had  knowledge  of  one  supreme,  intelligent  and  personal  Power  who  ruled 
overall."  Mr.  Yugoro  Chiba  has  shown  that  the  Chinese  classics  permit  sacrifice  by  all 
the  people.  But  it  still  remains  true  that  sacrifice  to  "  Supreme  Heaven  "  is  practically 
confined  to  the  Emperor,  who  like  the  Jewish  high-priest  offers  for  his  people  once  a 
year. 

Confucius  did  nothing  to  put  morality  upon  a  religious  basis.  In  practice,  the  rela- 
tions between  man  and  man  are  the  only  relations  considered.  Benevolence,  righteous- 
ness, propriety,  wisdom,  sincerity,  are  enjoined,  but  not  a  word  is  said  with  regard  to 
man's  relations  to  God.  Love  to  God  is  not  only  not  commanded  —  it  is  not  thought  of 
as  possible.  Though  man's  being  is  theoretically  an  ordinance  of  God,  man  is  practically 
a  law  to  himself.  The  first  commandment  of  Confucius  is  that  of  filial  piety.  But  this 
includes  worship  of  dead  ancestors,  and  is  so  exaggerated  as  to  bury  from  sight  the 
related  duties  of  husband  to  wife  and  of  parent  to  child.  Confucius  made  it  the  duty  of 
a  son  to  slay  his  father's  murderer,  just  as  Moses  insisted  on  a  strictly  retaliatory 
penalty  for  bloodshed;  see  J.  A.  Farrer,  Primitive  Manners  and  Customs,  80.  He 
treated  invisible  and  superior  beings  with  respect,  but  held  them  at  a  distance.  He 
recognized  the  "  Heaven  "  of  tradition ;  but,  instead  of  adding  to  our  knowledge  of  it, 
he  stifled  inquiry.  Dr.  Legge :  "  I  have  been  reading  Chinese  books  for  more  than 
forty  years,  and  any  general  requirement  to  love  God,  or  the  mention  of  any  one 
as  actually  loving  him,  has  yet  to  come  for  the  first  time  under  my  eye." 

Ezra  Abbot  asserts  that  Confucius  gave  the  golden  rule  in  positive  as  well  as  nega- 
tive form  ;  see  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  222.  This  however  seems  to  be  denied 
by  Dr.  Legge,  Religions  of  China,  1-58.  Wu  Ting  Fang,  former  Chinese  minister  to 
Washington,  assents  to  the  statement  that  Confucius  gave  the  golden  rule  only  in  its 
negative  form,  and  he  says  this  difference  is  the  difference  between  a  passive  and  an 
aggressive  civilization,  which  last  is  therefore  dominant.  The  golden  rule,  as  Confu- 
cius gives  it,  is :  "  Do  not  unto  others  that  which  you  would  not  they  should  do  unto 
you."    Compare  with  this,  Isocrates :  "  Be  to  your  parents  what  you  would  have  your 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.       181 

children  be  to  you.  ...  Do  not  to  others  the  things  which  make  you  angry  when  ol  hers 
do  them  to  you  "  ;  Herodotus  :  "  What  I  punish  in  another  man,  I  will  myself,  as  tar  as 
I  can,  refrain  from  "  ;  Aristotle  :  "  We^should  behave  toward  our  friends  as  we  should 
wish  them  to  behave  toward  us" ;  Tobit,  i  :  15—"  What  thou  hatest,  do  to  no  one"; 
Philo  :  "  What  one  hates  to  endure,  let  him  not  do  "  ;  Seneca  bids  U6  "  give  as  we  wish 
to  receive";  Rabbi  Hillel:  "Whatsoever  is  hateful  to  you,  do  not  to  another ;  this  is 
the  whole  law,  and  all  the  rest  is  explanation." 

Broad  us,  in  Am.  Com.  on  Matthew,  101  — "The  sayings  of  Confucius,  Isocrates,  and 
the  three  Jewish  teachers,  are  merely  negative;  that  of  Seneca  is  confined  to  giving, 
and  that  of  Aristotle  to  the  treatment  of  friends.  Christ  lays  down  a  rule  for  positive 
action,  and  that  toward  all  men."  He  teaches  that  I  am  bound  to  do  to  others  all  that 
they  could  rightly  desire  me  to  do  to  them.  The  golden  rule  therefore  requires  a  sup- 
plement, to  show  what  others  can  rightly  desire,  namely,  God's  glory  first,  and  their 
good  as  second  and  incidental  thereto.  Christianity  furnishes  this  divine  ami  perfect 
standard;  Confucianism  is  defective  in  that  it  has  no  standard  higher  than  human  con- 
vention. While  Confucianism  excludes  polytheism,  idolatry,  and  deification  of  vice, 
it  is  a  shallow  and  tantalizing  system,  because  it  does  not  recognize  the  hereditary  cor- 
ruption of  human  nature,  or  furnish  any  remedy  for  moral  evil  except  the  "doctrines 
of  the  sages."  "The  heart  of  man,"  it  says,  "is  naturally  perfectly  upright  and  cor- 
rect." Sin  is  simply  "a  disease,  to  he  cured  by  self-discipline;  a  debt,  to  be  canceled 
by  meritorious  acts ;  an  ignorance,  to  be  removed  by  study  and  contemplation."  See 
Rib.  Sac,  1883:892,  393;  N.  Knglander,  1883:565;  Marcus  Dods,  in  Erasmus  and  other 
Kssays,  239. 

2.  The  Indian  Systems.  Brahmanism,  as  expressed  in  the  Vedas,  dates  back  to 
1000-1.-|00  R.  C.  As  Caird  ( in  Faiths  of  the  World,  St.  Giles  Lectures,  lecture i )  has  shown, 
it  originated  in  the  contemplation  of  the  power  in  nature  apart  from  the  moral  Person- 
ality that  works  in  and  through  nature.  Indeed  we  may  say  that  all  heathenism  is 
man's  choice  of  a  non-moral  in  place  of  a  moral  God.  Brahamanism  is  a  system  of  pan- 
theism, "a  false  or  illegitimate  consecration  of  the-  finite."  All  thing's  are  a  manifesta- 
tion of  Rrahma.  Hence  evil  is  deified  as  well  as  good.  Ami  many  thousand  gods  are 
wmshiped  as  partial  representations  of  the  living  principle  which  moves  through  all. 
"  How  many  gods  have  the  Hindus?"  asked  Dr.  Duff  of  his  class.  Henry  Drummond 
thought  there  were  about  twenty-five.  "Twenty-five?"  responded  the  indignant  pro- 
fessor; "twenty-five  millions  of  millions!  "  While  the  early  Vedas  present  a  compar- 
atively pure  nature- worship,  later  lirahmanisni  becomes  a  worship  of  the  vicious  and 
the  vile,  of  the  unnatural  and  the  cruel.  Juggernaut  and  the  suttee  did  not  belong  to 
original  Hindu  religion. 

Bruce,  Apologetics,  15— "Pantheism  in  theory  always  means  polytheism  in  practice." 
The  early  Vedas  are  hopeful  in  spirit ;  later  Brahmanism  isa  religion  of  disappointment. 
Caste  is  lixed  ami  consecrated  as  a  manifestation  of  God.  Originally  intended  to 
express,  in  its  four  divisions  of  priest, soldier,  agriculturist,  slave,  the  (Liferent  degrees 
of  unworldliuess  and  divine  indwelling-,  it  becomes  an  iron  fetter  to  prevent  all  aspira- 
tion and  progress.  Indian  religion  sought  to  exalt  receptivity,  the  unity  of  existence, 
and  rest  from  self-determination  and  its  struggles.  Hence  it  ascribed  to  its  gods  the 
same  character  as  nature-forces.  God  was  the  common  source  of  good  and  of  evil.  I  ts 
ethics  is  an  ethics  of  moral  indifference.  Its  charity  is  a  charity  for  sin,  and  the  temper- 
ance it  desires  is  a  temperance  that  will  let  the  intemperate  alone.  Mozoomdar,  for 
example,  is  ready  to  welcome  everything  in  Christianity  but  its  reproof  of  sin  and  its 
demand  for  righteousness.    Brahmanism  degrades  woman,  but  it  deifies  the  cow. 

Buddhism,  beginning  with  Ruddha,  6(10  R.  C,  "  recalls  the  mind  to  its  elevation  above 
the  finite,"  from  which  Brahmanism  had  fallen  away.  Buddha  was  in  certain  respects 
a  reformer.  Pie  protested  against  caste,  and  proclaimed  that  truth  and  morality  are  for 
all.  Hence  Ruddhism,  through  its  possession  of  this  one  grain  of  truth,  appealed  to 
the  human  heart,  and  became,  next  to  Christianity,  the  greatest  missionary  religion. 
Notice  then,  hist,  its  univcrsalism.  Rut  notice  also  that  this  is  a  false  univcrsalism. 
for  it  ignores  individualism  and  leads  to  universal  stagnation  and  slavery.  While  Chris- 
tianity is  a  religion  of  history,  of  will,  of  optimism,  Ruddhism  is  a  religion  of  illusion, 
of  quietism,  of  pessimism ;  see  Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  107-109.  In  characterizing 
Ruddhism  as  a  missionary  religion,  we  must  notice,  secondly,  its  element  of  altruism. 
Rut  this  altruism  is  one  which  destroys  the  self,  instead  of  preserving  it.  The  future 
Buddha,  out  of  compassion  for  a  famished  tiger,  permits  the  tiger  to  devour  him. 
"  Incarnated  as  a  hare,  he  jumps  into  the  Are  to  cook  himself  for  a  meal  for  a  beggar, 


182  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

—  having  previously  shaken  himself  three  times,  so  that  none  of  the  insects  in  his  fur 
should  perish  with  him";  see  William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  283. 
Buddha  would  deliver  man,  not  by  philosophy,  nor  by  asceticism,  but  by  self-renuncia- 
tion. All  isolation  and  personality  are  sin,  the  guilt  of  which  rests,  however,  not  on 
man,  but  on  existence  in  general. 

While  Brahmanism  is  pantheistic,  Buddhism  is  atheistic  in  its  spirit.  Pfleiderer,  Philos. 
Religion,  1 :  285  — "The  Brahmanic  Akosmism,  that  had  explained  the  world  as  mere 
6eeming,  led  to  the  Buddhistic  Atheism."  Finiteness  and  separateness  are  evil,  and  the 
only  way  to  purity  and  rest  is  by  ceasing  to  exist.  This  is  essential  pessimism.  The 
highest  morality  is  to  endure  that  which  must  be,  and  to  escape  from  reality  and  from 
personal  existence  as  soon  as  possible.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  Nirvana.  Rhys  Davids, 
in  his  Hibbert  Lectures,  claims  that  early  Buddhism  meant  by  Nirvana,  not  annihila- 
tion, but  the  extinction  of  the  self-life,  and  that  this  was  attainable  during  man's  pres- 
ent mortal  existence.  But  the  term  Nirvana  now  means,  to  the  great  mass  of  those  who 
use  it,  the  loss  of  all  personality  and  consciousness,  and  absorption  into  the  general  life 
of  the  universe.  Originally  the  term  denoted  only  freedom  from  individual  desire,  and 
those  who  had  entered  into  Nirvana  might  again  come  out  of  it;  see  Ireland,  Blot  on 
the  Brain,  238.  But  even  in  its  original  form,  Nirvana  was  sought  only  from  a  selfish 
motive.  Self-renunciation  and  absorption  in  the  whole  was  not  the  enthusiasm  of 
benevolence,  — it  was  the  refuge  of  despair.  It  is  a  religion  without  god  or  sacrifice. 
Instead  of  communion  with  a  personal  God,  Buddhism  has  in  prospect  only  an  extinc- 
tion of  personality,  as  reward  for  untold  ages  of  lonely  self-conquest,  extending  through 
many  transmigrations.  Of  Buddha  it  has  been  truly  said  "That  all  the  all  he  had  for 
needy  man  Was  nothing,  and  his  best  of  being  was  But  not  to  be."  Wilkinson,  Epic  of 
Paul,  296—  "  He  by  his  own  act  dying  all  the  time,  In  ceaseless  effort  utterly  to  cease, 
Will  willing  not  to  will,  desire  desiring  To  be  desire  no  more,  until  at  last  The  fugitive 
go  free,  emancipate  But  by  becoming  naught."  Of  Christ  Bruce  well  says:  "What  a 
contrast  this  Healer  of  disease  and  Preacher  of  pardon  to  the  worst,  to  Buddha,  with 
his  religion  of  despair !  " 

Buddhism  is  also  fatalistic.  It  inculcates  submission  and  compassion  —  merely  nega- 
tive virtues.  But  itkuows  nothing  of  manly  freedom,  or  of  active  love  —  the  positive 
virtues  of  Christianity.  It  leads  men  to  spare  others,  but  not  to  help  them.  Its  moral- 
ity revolves  around  self,  not  around  God.  It  has  in  it  no  organizing  principle,  for  it 
recognizes  no  God,  no  inspiration,  no  soul,  no  salvation,  no  personal  immortality. 
Buddhism  would  save  men  only  by  inducing  them  to  flee  from  existence.  To  the 
Hindu,  family  life  involves  sin.  The  perfect  man  must  forsake  wife  and  children.  All 
gratification  of  natural  appetites  and  passions  is  evil.  Salvation  is  not  from  sin,  but 
from  desire,  and  from  this  men  can  be  saved  only  by  escaping  from  life  itself.  Chris- 
tianity buries  sin,  but  saves  the  man;  Buddha  would  save  the  man  by  killing  him. 
Christianity  symbolizes  the  convert's  entrance  upon  a  new  life  by  raising  him  from  the 
baptismal  waters ;  the  baptism  of  Buddhism  should  be  immersion  without  emersion. 
The  fundamental  idea  of  Brahmanism,  extinction  of  personality,  remains  the  same  in 
Buddhism  ;  the  only  difference  being  that  the  result  is  secured  by  active  atonement  in 
the  former,  by  passive  contemplation  in  the  latter.  Virtue,  and  the  knowledge  that 
everything  earthly  is  a  vanishing  spark  of  the  original  light,  delivers  man  from 
existence  and  from  misery. 

Prof.  G.  H.  Palmer,  of  Harvard,  in  The  Outlook,  June  19, 1897  —  "  Buddhism  is  unlike 
Christianity  in  that  it  abolishes  misery  by  abolishing  desire  ;  denies  personality  instead 
of  asserting  it ;  has  many  gods,  but  no  one  God  who  is  living  and  conscious ;  makes  a 
shortening  of  existence  rather  than  a  lengthening  of  it  to  be  the  reward  of  righteous- 
ness. Buddhism  makes  no  provision  for  family,  church,  state,  science,  or  art.  It 
give  us  a  religion  that  is  little,  when  we  want  one  that  is  large."  Dr.  E.  Benjamin 
Andrews:  "Schopenhauer  and  Spencer  are  merely  teachers  of  Buddhism.  They 
regard  the  central  source  of  all  as  unknowable  force,  instead  of  regarding  it  as  a 
Spirit,  living  and  holy.  This  takes  away  all  impulse  to  scientific  investigation.  We 
need  to  start  from  a  Person,  and  not  from  a  thing." 

For  comparison  of  the  sage  of  India,  Sakya  Muni,  more  commonly  called  Buddha 
(properly  "the  Buddha  "=  the  enlightened ;  but  who,  in  spite  of  Edwin  Arnold's 
"  Light  of  Asia,"  is  represented  as  not  pure  from  carnal  pleasures  before  he  began  his 
work),  with  Jesus  Christ,  see  Bib.  Sac,  Jul y,  1882 : 458-498 ;  W.  C.  Wilkinson,  Edwin 
Arnold,  Poetizer  and  Paganizer ;  Kellogg,  The  Light  of  Asia  and  the  Light  of  the 
World.  Buddhism  and  Christianity  are  compared  in  Presb.  Rev.,  July,  1883:505-548; 
Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1 :  47-54 ;  Mitchell,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  6 :  no.  33.    See  also 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.       1S3 

Oldenberg,  Buddha;  Lillie,  Popular  Life  of  Buddha  ;  Beal,  Catena  of  Buddhist  Script- 
ures. 153—  "  Buddhism  declares  itself  ignorant  of  any  mode  of  personal  existence  com- 
patible with  the  idea  of  spiritual  perfection,  and  so  far  it  is  ignorant  of  God";  157  — 
"  The  earliest  idea  of  Nirvana  seems  to  have  included  in  it  no  more  than  the  enjoyment 
of  a  state  of  rest  consequent  on  the  extinction  of  all  causes  of  sorrow."  The  impos- 
sibility of  satisfying-  the  human  heart  with  a  system  of  atheism  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  Buddha  himself  has  been  apotheosized  to  furnish  an  object  of  worship.  Thus 
Buddhism  has  reverted  to  Brahmanism. 

Monier  Williams:  "Mohammed  has  as  much  claim  to  be  'the  Light  of  Asia'  as 
Buddha  has.  What  light  from  Buddha  ?  Not  about  the  heart's  depravity,  or  the  origin 
of  sin,  or  the  goodness,  justice,  holiness,  fatherhood  of  God,  or  the  remedy  for  sin,  but 
only  the  ridding  self  from  suffering  by  ridding  self  from  life  —a  doctrine  of  merit,  of 
self-trust,  of  pessimism,  and  annihilation  of  personality."  Christ,  himself  personal, 
loving  and  holy,  shows  that  God  is  a  person  of  holiness  and  love.  Robert  Browning: 
"He  that  created  love,  shall  not  he  love?"  Only  because  Jesus  is  Sod,  have  we  a 
gospel  for  the  world.  The  claim  that  Buddha  is  "the  Light  of  Asia  "  reminds  one  of 
the  man  who  declared  the  moon  to  be  of  greater  value  than  the  sun,  because  it  gives 
light  in  the  darkness  when  it  is  needed,  while  the  sun  gives  light  in  the  daytime  when 
it  is  not  needed. 

3.  The  Greek  Systems.  Pythagoras  ( 584-504)  based  morality  upon  the  principle  of 
numbers.  "  Moral  good  was  identified  with  unity  ;  evil  with  multiplicity  ;  virtue  was 
harmony  of  the  soul  and  its  likeness  to  God.  The  aim  of  life  was  to  make  it  repre- 
sent the  beautiful  order  of  the  Universe.  The  whole  practical  tendency  of  Pythagore- 
anism  was  ascetic,  and  included  a  strict  self-control  and  an  earnest  culture."  Here 
already  we  seem  to  see  the  defect  of  Greek  morality  in  confounding  the  good  with  the 
beautiful,  and  in  making  morality  a  mere  self-development.  Mathcson,  Messages  of 
the  Old  Religions:  Greece  reveals  the  intensity  of  the  hour,  the  value  of  the  present 
life,  the  beauty  of  the  world  that  now  is.  Its  religion  is  the  religion  of  beautiful 
humanity.  It  anticipates  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth.  Rome  on  the  other 
hand  stood  for  union,  incorporation,  a  universal  kingdom.  But  its  religion  deified 
only  the  Emperor,  not  all  humanity.  It  was  the  religion,  not  of  love,  but  of  power, 
and  it  identified  the  church  with  the  state. 

Socrates  (469-400)  made  knowledge  to  be  virtue.  Moralitj  consisted  in  subordinating 
irrational  desires  to  rat  ional  knowledge.  Although  here  we  rise  above  a  subjectively 
determined  good  as  the  goal  of  moral  effort,  we  have  no  proper  sense  of  sin.  Knowl- 
edge, and  not  love,  is  the  motive.  If  men  know  the  right,  they  will  do  the  right. 
This  is  a  great  overvaluing  of  knowledge.  With  Socrates,  teaching  is  a  sort  of  mid- 
wifery—not depositing  information  in  the  mind,  but  drawing  out  the  contents  of  our 
own  inner  consciousness.  Lewis  Morris  describes  it  as  the  life-work  of  Socrates 
to  "doubt  our  doubts  away."  Socrates  holds  it  right  to  injure  one's  enemies.  He 
shows  proud  self-praise  in  his  dying  address.  He  warns  against  pederasty,  yet  com- 
promises with  it.  He  does  not  insist  upon  the  same  purity  of  family  life  which 
Homer  describes  in  Ulysses  and  Penelope.  Charles  Kingsley,  in  Alton  Locke,  remarks 
that  the  spirit  of  the  Greek  tragedy  was 'man  mastered  by  circumstance';  that  of 
modern  tragedy  is  'man  mastering  circumstance.'  But  the  Greek  tragedians,  while 
showing  man  thus  mastered,  do  still  represent  him  as  inwardly  free,  as  in  the  case 
of  Prometheus,  and  this  sense  of  human  freedom  and  responsibility  appears  to  some 
extent  in  Socrates. 

Plato  (430-348)  held  that  morality  is  pleasure  in  the  good,  as  the  truly  beautiful,  and 
that  knowledge  produces  virtue.  The  good  is  likeness  to  God,  —  here  we  have  glimpses 
of  an  extra-human  goal  and  model.  The  body,  like  all  matter,  being  inherently  evil,  is 
a  hindrance  to  the  soul,  —  here  we  have  a  glimpse  of  hereditary  depravity.  But  Plato 
"reduced  moral  evil  to  the  category  of  natural  evil."  He  failed  to  recognize  God  as 
creator  and  master  of  matter;  failed  to  recognize  man's  depravity  as  due  to  his  own 
apostasy  from  God  ;  failed  to  found  morality  on  the  divine  will  rather  than  on  man's 
own  consciousness.  He  knew  nothing  of  a  common  humanity,  and  regarded  virtue  as 
only  for  the  few.  As  there  was  no  common  sin,  so  there  was  no  common  redemption. 
Plato  thought  to  reach  God  by  intellect  alone,  when  only  conscience  and  heart  could 
lead  to  him.  He  believed  in  a  freedom  of  the  soul  in  a  preexistent  state  where  a 
choice  was  made  between  good  and  evil,  but  he  believed  that,  after  that  antemundane 
decision  had  been  made,  the  fates  determined  men's  act  s  and  lives  irreversibly.  Reason 
drives  two  horses,  appetite  and  emotion,  but  their  course  has  been  predetermined. 


184  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

Man  acts  as  reason  prompts.  All  sin  is  ignorance.  Thei-e  is  nothing  in  this  life  but 
determinism.  Martineau,  Types,  13,  18, 49,  78,  88  —  Plato  in  general  has  no  proper  not  ion 
of  responsibility  ;  he  reduces  moral  evil  to  the  catagory  of  natural  evil.  His  Ideas  with 
one  exception  are  not  causes.  Cause  is  mind,  and  mind  is  the  Good.  The  Good  is 
the  apex  and  crown  of  Ideas.  The  Good  is  the  highest  Idea,  and  this  highest  Idea  is 
a  Cause.  Plato  has  a  feeble  conception  of  personality,  whether  in  God  or  in  man. 
Yet  God  is  a  person  in  whatever  sense  man  is  a  person,  and  man's  personality  is  reflective 
self-consciousness.  Will  in  God  or  man  is  not  so  clear.  The  Right  is  dissolved  into 
the  Good.    Plato  advocated  infanticide  and  the  killing  off  of  the  old  and  the  helpless. 

Aristotle  ( 384-322 )  leaves  out  of  view  even  the  element  of  God-likeness  and  antemun- 
dane  evil  which  Plato  so  dimly  recognized,  and  makes  morality  the  fruit  of  mere 
rational  self-consciousness.  He  grants  evil  proclivities,  but  he  refuses  to  call  them 
immoral.  Headvocatesa  certain  freedom  of  will,  and  he  recognizes  inborn  tendencies 
which  war  against  this  freedom,  but  how  these  tendencies  originated  he  cannot 
say,  nor  how  men  may  be  delivered  from  them.  Not  all  can  be  moral ;  the  majority 
must  be  restrained  by  fear.  He  finds  in  God  no  motive,  and  love  to  God  is  not  so 
much  as  mentioned  as  the  source  of  moral  action.  A  proud,  composed,  self-centered, 
and  self-contained  man  is  his  ideal  character.  See  Nicomachean  Ethics,  7 :  6,  and  10 : 
10;  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1 :  92-126.  Alexander,  Theories  of  Will,  39-54  — Aristotle 
held  that  desire  and  reason  are  the  springs  of  action.  Yet  he  did  not  hold  that  knowl- 
edge of  itself  would  make  men  virtuous.  He  was  a  determinist.  Actions  are  free 
only  in  the  sense  of  being  devoid  of  external  compulsion.  He  viewed  slavery  as 
both  rational  and  right.  Butcher,  Aspects  of  Greek  Genius,  76  — "While  Aristotle 
attributed  to  the  State  a  more  complete  personality  than  it  really  possessed,  he  did 
not  grasp  the  depth  and  meaning  of  the  personality  of  the  individual."  A.  H.  Strong, 
Christ  in  Creation,  289  —  Aristotle  had  no  conception  of  the  unity  of  humanity.  His  doc- 
trine of  unity  did  not  extend  beyond  the  State.  "  He  said  that '  the  whole  is  before  the 
parts,'  but  he  meant  by  '  the  whole '  only  the  pan-Hellenic  world,  the  commonwealth  of 
Greeks;  he  never  thought  of  humanity,  and  the  word  '  mankind '  never  fell  from  his 
lips.  He  could  not  understand  the  unity  of  humanity,  because  he  knew  nothing  of 
Christ,  its  organizing  principle."  On  Aristotle's  conception  of  God,  see  James  Ten 
Broeke,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1892  — God  is  recognized  as  personal,  yet  he  is  only  the 
Greek  Reason,  and  not  the  living,  loving,  providential  Father  of  the  Hebrew  revelation. 
Aristotle  substitutes  the  logical  for  the  dynamical  in  his  dealing  with  the  divine  causal- 
ity.   God  is  thought,  not  power. 

Epicurus  ( 342-270)  regarded  happiness,  the  subjective  feeling  of  pleasure,  as  the  high- 
est criterion  of  truth  and  good.  A  prudent  calculating  for  prolonged  pleasure  is 
the  highest  wisdom.  He  regards  only  this  life.  Concern  for  retribution  and  for  a  future 
existence  is  folly.  If  there  are  gods,  they  have  no  concern  for  men.  "Epicurus,  on 
pretense  of  consulting  for  their  ease,  complimented  the  gods,  and  bowed  them  out 
of  existence."  Death  is  the  falling  apart  of  material  atoms  and  the  eternal  cessation  of 
consciousness.  The  miseries  of  this  life  are  due  to  imperfection  in  the  fortuitously 
constructed  universe.  The  more  numerous  these  undeserved  miseries,  the  greater  our 
right  to  seek  pleasure.  Alexander,  Theories  of  the  Will,  55-75  — The  Epicureans  held 
that  the  soul  is  composed  of  atoms,  yet  that  the  will  is  free.  The  atoms  of  the  soul  are 
excepted  from  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  An  atom  may  decline  or  deviate  in  the 
universal  descent,  and  this  is  the  Epicurean  idea  of  freedom.  This  indeterminism  was 
held  by  all  the  Greek  sceptics,  materialists  though  they  were. 

Zeno,  the  founder  of  the  Stoic  philosophy  ( 34(1-264  ),  regarded  virtue  as  the  only  good. 
Thought  is  to  subdue  nature.  The  free  spirit  is  self-legislating,  self-dependent,  self- 
sufficient.  Thinking,  not  feeling,  is  the  criterion  of  the  true  and  the  good.  Pleasure  is 
the  consequence,  not  the  end  of  moral  action.  There  is  an  irreconcilable  antagonism  of 
existence.  Man  cannot  reform  the  world,  but  he  can  make  himself  perfect.  Hence  an 
unbounded  pride  in  virtue.  The  sage  never  repents.  There  is  not  the  least  recognition 
of  the  moral  corruption  of  mankind.  There  is  no  objective  divine  ideal,  or  revealed 
divine  will.  The  Stoic  discovers  moral  law  only  within,  and  never  suspects  his  own 
moral  perversion.  Hence  he  shows  self-control  and  justice,  but  never  humility  or  love. 
He  needs  no  compassion  or  forgiveness,  and  he  grants  none  to  others.  Vii'tue  is  not 
an  actively  outworking  character,  but  a  passive  resistance  to  irrational  reality.  Man 
may  retreat  into  himself.  The  Stoic  is  indifferent  to  pleasure  and  pain,  not  because  he 
believes  in  a  divine  government,  or  in  a  divine  love  for  mankind,  but  as  a  proud  defiance 
of  the  irrational  world.  He  has  no  need  of  God  or  of  redemption.  As  the  Epicurean 
gives  himself  to  enjoyment  of  the  world,  the  Stoic  gives  himself  to  contempt  of  the 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.       185 

world.  In  all  afflictions,  each  can  say,  "The  door  is  open."  To  the  Epicurean,  the 
refuge  is  intoxication  ;  to  the  Stoic,  the  refuge  is  suicide:  "If  the  house  smokes,  quit 
it."  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1:62-^61,  from  whom  much  of  this  account  of  the 
Greeks  systems  is  condensed,  describes  Epicureanism  and  Stoicism  as  alike  making- 
morality  subjective,  although  Epicureanism  regarded  spirit  as  determined  by  nature, 
while  Stoicism  regarded  nature  as  determined  by  spirit. 

The  Stoics  were  materialists  and  pantheists.  Though  they  speak  of  a  personal  God, 
this  is  a  figure  of  speech.  False  opinion  is  at  the  root  of  all  vice.  Chrysippus  denied 
what  we  now  call  the  liberty  of  indifference,  saying  that  there  could  not  be  an  effect 
without  a  cause.  Man  is  enslaved  to  passion.  The  Stoics  could  not  explain  how  a 
vicious  man  could  become  virtuous.  The  result  is  apathy.  Men  act  only  according  to 
character,  and  this  a  doctrine  of  fate.  The  Stoic  indifference  or  apathy  in  misfortune 
is  not  a  bearing  of  it  at  all,  but  rather  a  cowardly  retreat  from  it.  It  is  in  the  actual 
suffering  of  evil  that  Christianity  finds  "  the  soul  of  good."  The  office  of  misfortune  is 
disciplinary  and  purifying ;  see  Seth,  Ethical  Principles,  417.  "The  shadow  of  the 
sage's  self,  projected  on  vacancy,  was  called  God,  and,  as  the  sage  had  long  since 
abandoned  interest  in  practical  life,  be  expected  his  Divinity  to  do  the  same." 

The  Stoic  reverenced  God  just  because  of  his  unapproachable  majesty.  Christianity 
sees  in  God  a  Fathor,  a  Redeemer,  a  carer  for  our  minute  wants,  a  deliverer  from 
our  sin.  It  teaches  us  to  see  in  Christ  the  humanity  of  the  divine,  affinity  with 
God,  God's  supreme  interest  in  his  handiwork.  For  the  least  of  his  creatures  Christ 
died.  Kinship  with  God  gives  dignity  to  man.  The  individuality  that  Stoicism 
lost  in  the  whole,  Christianity  makes  the  end  of  the  creation.  The  State  exists  to 
develop  and  promote  it.  Paul  took  up  and  infused  new  meaning  into  certain  phrases  of 
the  Stoic  philosophy  about  the  freedom  and  royalty  of  the  wise  man,  just  as  John 
adopted  and  glorified  certain  phrases  of  Alexandrian  philosophy  about  the  AVord. 
Stoicism  was  lonely  and  pessimistic.  The  Stoics  said  that  the  best  thing  was  not  to 
be  born;  the  next  best  thing  was  to  die.  Because  Stoicism  had  no  God  of  helpful- 
ness and  sympathy,  its  virtue  was  mere  conformity  to  nature,  majestic  egoism  and 
self-complacency.  En  the  Roman  Epictetus  (89),  Seneca  (+»;:>),  and  Marcus  Aurelius 
(121-180),  the  religious  element  comes  more  into  the  foreground,  anil  virtue  appears 
once  more  as  God-likeness;  hut  it  is  possible  that  this  later  Stoicism  was  influenced 
by  Christianity.  On  Marcus  Aurelius,  see  New  Englander,  July,  1881:  415-431;  Capes, 
Stoicism. 

4.  Systems  op  Western  Asia.  Zoroaxlc r  ( 1000  R.  C.  ? ),  the  founder  of  the  Parsees, 
was  a  dualist,  at  least  so  far  as  to  explain  the  existence  of  evil  and  of  good  by  the  orig- 
inal presence  in  the  author  of  all  things  of  two  opposing  principles.  Here  is  evidently 
a  limit  put  upon  the  sovereignty  and  holiness  of  God.  Man  is  not  perfectly  dependent 
upon  him,  nor  is  God's  will  an  unconditional  law  for  his  creatures.  As  opposed  to  the 
Indian  systems,  Zoroaster's  insistence  upon  the  divine  personality  furnished  a  far 
better  basis  for  a  vigorous  and  manly  morality.  Virtue  was  to  be  won  by  hard  struggle 
of  free  beings  against  evil.  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  this  evil  was  conceived  as 
originally  due,  not  to  finite  beings  themselves,  but  either  to  an  evil  deity  who  warred 
against  the  good,  or  to  an  evil  principle  in  the  one  deity  himself.  The  burden  of  guilt 
is  therefore  shifted  from  man  to  his  maker.  Morality  I  icconics  subjective  and  unset- 
tle .  Not  love  to  God  or  imitation  of  God,  but  rather  self-love  and  self-development, 
furnish  the  motive  and  aim  of  morality.  No  fatherhood  or  love  is  recognized  in  the 
deity,  and  other  things  besides  God  (e.  g.,  fire)  are  worshiped.  There  can  be  no  depth 
to  the  consciousness  of  sin,  and  no  hope  of  divine  deliverance. 

It  ic  the  one  merit  of  Parseeism  that  it  recognizes  the  moral  conflict  of  the  world ;  its 
error  is  that  it  carries  this  moral  conflict  into  the  very  nature  of  God.  We  can  apply 
to  Parseeism  the  words  of  the  Conference  of  Foreign  Mission  Boards  to  the  Buddhists  of 
Japan  :  "  All  religions  are  expressions  of  man's  sense  of  dependence,  but  only  one  pro- 
vides fellowship  with  God.  All  religions  speak  of  a  higher  truth,  but  only  one  speaks 
of  that  truth  as  found  in  a  loving  personal  God,  our  Father.  All  religions  show  man's 
helplessness,  but  only  one  tells  of  a  divine  Savior,  who  offers  to  man  forgiveness  of  sin, 
and  salvation  through  his  death,  and  who  is  now  a  living  person,  working  in  and  with 
all  who  believe  in  him,  to  make  them  holy  and  righteous  and  pure."  Matheson,  Mes- 
sages of  Old  Religions,  says  that  Parseeism  recognizes  an  obstructive  element  in  the 
nature  of  God  himself.  Moral  evil  is  reality ;  but  thore  is  no  reconciliation,  nor  is  it 
shown  that  all  things  work  t  ogether  for  good.  See  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1 :  47-54 , 
Faiths  of  the  World  (St.  Giles  Lectures),  109-144;  Mitchell,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  3: 
no.  25 ;  Whitney  on  the  Avesta,  in  Oriental  and  Linguistic  Studies. 


186  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

Mohammed  (570-632  A.  D.),  the  founder  of  Islam,  gives  us  in  the  Koran  a  system 
containing  four  dogmas  of  fundamental  immorality,  namely,  polygamy,  slavery,  per- 
secution, and  suppression  of  private  judgement.  Mohammedanism  is  heathenism  in 
monotheistic  form.  Its  good  points  are  its  conscientiousness  and  its  relation  to  God. 
It  has  prospered  because  it  has  preached  the  unity  of  God,  and  because  it  is  a  book- 
religion.  But  both  these  it  got  from  Judaism  and  Christianity.  It  has  appropriated 
the  Old  Testament  saints  and  even  Jesus.  But  it  denies  the  death  of  Christ  and  sees  no 
need  of  atonement.  The  power  of  sin  is  not  recognized.  The  idea  of  sin,  in  Moslems,  is 
emptied  of  all  positive  content.  Sin  is  simply  a  falling  short,  accounted  for  by  the 
weakness  and  shortsightedness  of  man,  inevitable  in  the  fatalistic  universe,  or  not 
remembered  in  wrath  by  the  indulgent  and  merciful  Father.  Forgiveness  is  indul- 
gence, and  the  conception  of  God  is  emptied  of  the  quality  of  justice.  Evil  belongs  only 
to  the  individual,  not  to  the  race.  Man  attains  the  favor  of  God  by  good  works,  based 
on  prophetic  teaching.  Morality  is  not  a  fruit  of  salvation,  but  a  means.  There  is  no 
penitence  or  humility,  but  only  self-righteousness;  and  this  self-righteousness  is 
consistent  with  great  sensuality,  unlimited  divorce,  and  with  absolute  despotism  in 
family,  civil  and  religious  affairs.  There  is  no  knowledge  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  or 
of  the  brotherhood  of  man.  In  all  the  Koran,  there  is  no  such  declaration  as  that  "  God 
so  loyed  the  -world  "  ( John  3  :  16  ). 

The  submission  of  Islam  is  submission  to  an  arbitrary  will,  not  to  a  God  of  love. 
There  is  no  basing  of  morality  in  love.  The  highest  good  is  the  sensuous  happiness  of 
the  individual.  God  and  man  are  external  to  one  another.  Mohammed  is  a  teacher  but 
not  a  priest.  Mozley,  Miracles,  140,  141 —  "Mohammed  had  no  faith  in  human  nature. 
There  were  two  things  which  he  thought  men  could  do,  and  would  do,  for  the  glory  of 
God  —  transact  religious  forms,  and  fight ,  and  upon  these  two  points  he  was  severe ;  but 
within  the  sphere  of  common  practical  life,  where  man's  great  trial  lies,  his  code  exhibits 
the  disdainful  laxity  of  a  legislator  who  accomodates  his  rule  to  the  recipient,  and 
shows  his  estimate  of  the  recipient  by  the  accommodation  which  he  adopts.  .  .  . 
'  Human  nature  is  weak,'  said  he."  Lord  Houghton :  The  Koran  is  all  wisdom,  all  law, 
all  religion,  for  all  time.  Dead  men  bow  before  a  dead  God.  "  Though  the  world  rolls 
on  from  change  to  change,  And  realms  of  thought  expand,  The  letter  stands  without 
expanse  or  range,  Stiff  as  a  dead  man's  hand."  Wherever  Mohammedanism  has  gone, 
it  has  either  found  a  desert  or  made  one.  Fairbairn,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1882 :  866 
—  "The  Koran  has  frozen  Mohammedan  thought;  to  obey  is  to  abandon  progress." 
Muir,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  3 :  no.  14  —  "  Mohammedanism  reduces  men  to  a  dead  level 
of  social  depression,  despotism,  and  semi-barbarism.  Islam  is  the  work  of  man ;  Chris- 
tianity of  God."  See  also  Faiths  of  the  World  (St.  Giles  Lectures,  Second  Series ),  361- 
396;  J.  F.  Clarke,  Ten  Great  Religions,  1:  448-488;  280-317;  Great  Religions  of  the 
World,  published  by  the  Harpers ;  Zwemer,  Moslem  Doctrine  of  God. 

3.     The  person  and  character  of  Christ. 

A.  The  conception  of  Christ's  person  as  presenting  deity  and  humanity 
indissolubly  united,  and  the  conception  of  Christ's  character,  with  its  fault- 
less and  all-comprehending  excellence,  cannot  he  accounted  for  upon  any 
other  hypothesis  than  that  they  were  historical  realities. 

The  stylobate  of  the  Parthenon  at  Athens  rises  about  three  inches  in  the  middle  of 
the  101  feet  of  the  front,  and  four  inches  in  the  middle  of  the  228  feet  of  the  flanks.  A 
nearly  parallel  line  is  found  in  the  entablature.  The  axes  of  the  columns  lean  inward 
nearly  three  inches  in  their  height  of  34  feet,  thus  giving  a  sort  of  pyramidal  character 
to  the  structure.  Thus  the  architect  overcame  the  apparent  sagging  of  horizontal  lines, 
and  at  the  same  time  increased  the  apparent  height  of  the  edifice ;  see  Murray,  Hand- 
book of  Greece,  5th  ed.,  1884, 1 :  308,  309 ;  Ferguson,  Handbook  of  Architecture,  268-270. 
The  neglect  to  counteract  this  optical  illusion  has  rendered  the  Madeleine  in  Paris  a  stiff 
and  ineffective  copy  of  the  Parthenon.  The  Galilean  peasant  who  should  minutely 
describe  these  peculiarities  of  the  Parthenon  would  prove,  not  only  that  the  edifice 
was  a  historical  reality,  but  that  he  had  actually  seen  it.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  343 — "  In 
reading  the  memoirs  of  the  evangelists,  you  feel  as  one  sometimes  feels  in  a  picture- 
gallery.  Your  eye  alights  on  the  portrait  of  a  person  whom  you  do  not  know.  You 
look  at  it  intently  for  a  few  moments  and  then  remark  to  a  companion:  'That  must 
be  like  the  original,  —  it  is  so  life-like.'  "    Theodore  Parker  :  "  It  would  take  a  Jesus  to 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER   OF   SCRIPTURE  TEACHING.       l87 

forge  a  Jesus."  See  Row,  Bampton  Lectures,  187"  :  178-219,  and  in  Present  Day  Tracts, 
4 :  no.  33 ;  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ ;  Barry,  Boyle  Lecture  on  Manifold 
Witness  for  Christ.  v. 

(  a )  No  source  can  be  assigned  from  which  the  evangelists  could  have 
derived  such  a  conception.  The  Hindu  avatars  were  only  temporary 
unions  of  deity  with  humanity.  The  Greeks  had  men  half-deified,  but  no 
unions  of  God  and  man.  The  monotheism  of  the  Jews  found  the  person 
of  Christ  a  perpetual  stumbling-block.  The  Esseues  were  in  principle  more 
opposed  to  Christianity  than  the  Eabbinists. 

Herbert  Spencer,  Data  of  El  hies,  370  — "The  coexistence  of  a  perfect  man  and  an 
imperfect  society  is  impossible;  and  could  the  two  coexist,  the  resulting  conduct  would 
not  furnish  the  ethical  standard  sought."  We  must  conclude  that  the  perfect  man- 
hood of  Christ  is  a  miracle,  and  the  great  est  of  miracles.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  346,  351  — 
"  When  Jesus  asks  :  '  Why  callest  thou  me  good?'  he  means:  'Learn  tirst  what  good- 
ness is,  and  call  no  man  good  till  you  are  sure  that  hedeserves  it.'  Jesus'  goodness  was 
entirely  free  from  religious  scrupulosity;  it  was  distinguished  by  humanity;  it  was  full 
of  modesty  and  lowliness.  . . .  Buddhism  has  flourished  2000  years,  though  little  is  known 
of  its  founder.  Christianity  might  have  been  so  perpetuated,  but  it  is  not  so.  I  want 
to  be  sure  that  the  ideal  has  been  embodied  in  an  actual  life.  Otherwise  it  is  only 
poetry,  and  the  obligation  to  conform  to  it  ceases."  For  comparison  of  Christ's  incar- 
nation with  Hindu,  Greek,  Jewish,  and  Essene  ideas,  see  Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  of 
Christ,  Introduction.  On  the  Esseues,  see  Herzog,  Encyclop.,  art.;  Essener ;  Pressense, 
Jesus  Christ,  Life,  Times  and  Work,  84-87;  Lightfoot  on  Colossians,  349-419;  Godet, 
Lectures  in  Defence  of  the  Christian  Faith. 

(o)  No  mere  human  genius,  and  much  less  tit*-  genius  of  Jewish  fisher- 
men, could  have  originated  this  conception.  Bad  men  invent  only  such 
characters  as  they  sympathize  with.  But  Christ's  character  condemns  bad- 
ness. Such  a  portrait  could  not  have  been  drawn  without  supernatural 
aid.  But  such  aid  would  not  have  been  given  to  fabrication.  The  concep- 
tion can  be  explained  only  by  granting  that  Christ's  person  and  character 
were  historical  realities. 

Between  Pilate  and  Titus  30,000  Jews  arc  said  to  have  been  crucified  around  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem.  Many  of  these  were  young  men.  What  makes  one  of  them  stand  out  on 
the  pages  of  history?  There  are  two  answers:  The  character  of  Jesus  was  a  perfect 
character,  and.  He  was  God  as  well  as  man.  Gore,  Incarnation,  63  —  "The  Christ  of 
the  gospels,  if  he  be  not  true  to  history,  represents  a  combined  effort  of  the  creative 
imagination  without  parallel  ii.  literature.  But  the  literary  characteristics  of  Pales- 
tine in  the  first  century  make  the  hypothesis  of  such  an  effort  morally  impossible." 
The  Apocryphal  gospels  show  us  what  mere  imagination  was  capable  of  producing. 
That  the  portrait  of  Christ  is  not  puerile,  inane,  hysterical,  selfishly  assertive,  and  self- 
contradictory,  can  be  due  only  to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  photograph  from  real  life. 

For  a  remarkable  exhibition  of  the  argument  from  t  he  character  of  Jesus,  see  Buth- 
ncll,  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  376-332.  Bushnell  mentions  the  originality  and  vast- 
ness  of  Christ's  plan,  yet  its  simplicity  and  practical  adaptation;  his  moral  traits  of 
independence,  compassion,  meekness,  wisdom,  zeal,  humility,  patience;  the  combina- 
tion in  him  of  seemingly  opposite  qualities.  With  all  his  greatness,  he  was  condescend- 
ing and  simple ;  he  was  unworldly,  yet  not  austere ;  he  had  strong  feelings,  yet  was  self- 
possessed;  he  had  indignation  toward  sin,  yet  compassion  toward  the  sinner;  he  showed 
devotion  to  his  work,  yet  calmness  under  opposition ;  universal  philanthropy,  yet  sus- 
ceptibility to  private  attachments  ;  the  authority  of  a  Savior  and  Judge,  yet  the  grati- 
tude and  the  tenderness  of  a  sou  ;  the  most  elevated  devotion,  yet  a  life  of  activity  and 
exertion.  See  chapter  on  The  Moral  Miracle,  in  Bruce,  Miraculous  Element  of  the 
Gospels,  43-78. 

B.  The  acceptance  and  belief  in  the  New  Testament  descriptions  of 
Jesus  Christ  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  upon  the  ground  that  the 
person  and  character  described  had  an  actual  existence. 


188  THE   SCKIPTUEES   A    REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

( a  )  If  these  descriptions  were  false,  there  were  witnesses  still  living  who 
had  known  Christ  and  who  would  have  contradicted  them.  (  b  )  There  was 
no  motive  to  induce  acceptance  of  such  false  accounts,  but  every  motive  to 
the  contrary.  ( c )  The  success  of  such  falsehoods  could  be  explained  only 
by  supernatural  aid,  but  God  would  never  have  thus  aided  falsehood.  This 
person  and  character,  therefore,  must  have  been  not  fictitious  but  real;  and 
if  real,  then  Christ's  words  are  true,  and  the  system  of  which  his  person 
and  character  are  a  part  is  a  revelation  from  God. 

"  The  counterfeit  may  for  a  season  Deceive  the  wide  earth  ;  But  the  lie  waxing  great 
comes  to  labor,  And  truth  has  its  birth."  Matthew  Arnold,  The  Better  Part :  "  Was 
Christ  a  man  like  us  ?  Ah,  let  us  see,  If  we  then  too  can  be  Such  men  as  he  ! "  When 
the  blatant  sceptic  declared  :  "  I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  man  as  Jesus  Christ  ever 
lived,"  George  Warren  merely  replied :  "  I  wish  I  were  like  him  !  "  Dwight  L.  Moody 
was  called  a  hypocrite,  but  the  stalwart  evangelist  answered :  "  Well,  suppose  I  am. 
How  does  that  make  your  case  any  better?  I  know  some  pretty  mean  things  about  my- 
self ;  but  you  cannot  say  anything  against  my  Master."  Goethe  :  "  Let  the  culture  of 
the  spirit  advance  forever;  let  the  human  spirit  broaden  itself  as  it  will;  yet  it  will 
never  go  beyond  the  height  and  moral  culture  of  Christianity,  as  it  glitters  and  shines 
in  the  gospels." 

Renan,  Life  of  Jesus:  "Jesus  founded  the  absolute  religion,  excluding  nothing, 
determining  nothing,  save  its  essence.  .  .  .  The  foundation  of  the  true  religion  is  indeed 
his  work.  After  him,  thei-e  is  nothing  left  but  to  develop  and  fructify."  And  a  Chris- 
tum scholar  has  remarked :  "It  is  an  astonishing  proof  of  the  divine  guidance  vouch 
safed  to  the  evangelists  that  no  man,  of  their  time  or  since,  has  been  able  to  touch  the 
picture  of  Christ  without  debasing  it."  We  may  find  an  illustration  of  this  in  the 
words  of  Chadwick,  Old  and  New  Unitarianism,  207  —  "  Jesus'  doctrine  of  marriage  was 
ascetic,  his  doctrine  of  property  was  communistic,  his  doctrine  of  charity  was  senti- 
mental, his  doctrine  of  non-resistance  was  such  as  commends  itself  to  Tolstoi,  but  not 
to  many  others  of  our  time.  With  the  example  of  Jesus,  it  is  the  same  as  with  his 
teachings.  Followed  unreservedly,  would  it  not  justify  those  who  say  :  '  The  hope 
of  the  race  is  in  its  extinction ' ;  and  bring  all  our  joys  and  sorrows  to  a  sudden  end  ?  " 
To  this  we  may  answer  in  the  words  of  Huxley,  who  declares  that  Jesus  Christ  is  "the 
noblest  ideal  of  humanity  which  mankind  has  yet  worshiped."  Gordon,  Christ  of  To- 
Day,  179—  "  The  question  is  not  whether  Christ  is  good  enough  to  represent  the  Supreme 
Being,  but  whether  the  Supreme  Being  is  good  enough  to  have  Christ  for  his  represen- 
tative. John  Stuart  Mill  looks  upon  the  Christian  religion  as  the  worship  of  Christ, 
rather  than  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  this  way  he  explains  the  beneficence  of  its 
influence.'* 

John  Stuart  Mill,  Essays  on  Religion,  254  — "The  most  valuable  part  of  the  effect  on 
the  character  which  Christianity  has  produced,  by  holding  up  in  a  divine  person  a  stand- 
ard of  excellence  and  a  model  for  imitation,  is  available  even  to  the  absolute  unbeliever, 
and  can  never  more  be  lost  to  humanity.  For  it  is  Christ  rather  than  God  whom  Chris- 
tianity has  held  up  to  believers  as  the  pattern  of  perfection  for  humanity.  It  is  the  God 
incarnate,  more  than  the  God  of  the  Jews  or  of  nature,  who,  being  idealized,  has  taken 
so  great  and  salutary  hold  on  the  modern  mind.  And  whatever  else  may  be  taken 
away  from  us  by  rational  criticism,  Christ  is  still  left :  a  unique  figure,  not  more  unlike 
all  his  precursors  than  all  his  followers,  even  those  who  had  the  direct  benefit  of  his 
personal  preaching.  .  .  .  Who  among  his  disciples,  or  among  their  proselytes,  was  cap- 
able of  inventing  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and  character 
revealed  in  the  Gospels?  .  .  .  About  the  life  and  sayings  of  Jesus  there  is  a  stamp  of 
personal  originality  combined  with  profundity  of  insight  which,  if  we  abandon  the 
idle  expectation  of  finding  scientific  precision  where  something  very  different  was 
ai  med  at,  must  place  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  even  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  have 
no  belief  in  his  inspiration,  in  the  very  first  rank  of  the  men  of  sublime  genius  of  whom 
our  species  can  boast.  When  this  preeminent  genius  is  combined  with  the  qualities  of 
probably  the  greatest  moral  reformer  and  martyr  to  that  mission  who  ever  existed 
upon  earth,  religion  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  a  bad  choice  in  pitching  on  this  man 
as  the  ideal  representative  and  guide  of  humanity ;  nor  even  now  would  it  be  easy,  even 
for  an  unbeliever,  to  find  a  better  translation  of  the  rule  of  virtue  from  the  abstract 
into  the  concrete  than  the  endeavor  so  to  live  that  Christ  would  approve  our  life. 


SUPERNATURAL   CHARACTER  OF   SCRIPTURE  TEACHING.       189 

When  to  this  we  add  that,  to  the  conception  of  the  rational  sceptic,  it  remains  a  pos- 
sibility that  Christ  actually  was  ...  a  man  charged  with  a  special,  express  and  unique 
commission  from  God  to  lead  mankind  ty  truth  and  virtue,  we  may  well  conclude  that 
the  influences  of  religion  on  the  character,  which  will  remain  alter  rational  criticism 
has  done  its  utmost  against  the  evidences  of  religion,  are  well  worth  preserving,  and 
that  what  they  lack  in  direct  strength  as  compared  with  those  of  a  firmer  belief  is  more 
than  compensated  by  the  greater  truth  and  rectitude  of  the  morality  they  sanction." 
See  also  Ullmann,  Sinlessness  of  Jesus;  Alexander,  Christ*  and  Christianity,  159-15!'; 
Schaff,  Person  of  Christ ;  Young,  The  Christ  in  History ;  George  Dana  Boardman,  The 
Problem  of  Jesus. 

4.  The  testimony  of  Christ  to  himself — as  being  a  messenger  from 
God  and  as  being  one  with  God. 

Only  one  personage  in  history  has  claimed  to  teach  absolute  truth,  to  be 
one  -with  Cod,  and  to  attest  his  divine  mission  by  works  such  as  only  God 
could  perform. 

A.  This  testimony  cannot  be  accounted  for  upon  the  hypothesis  that 
Jesus  was  an  intentional  deceiver  :  for  ( a  )  the  perfectly  consistent  holiness 
of  his  life ;  ( b )  the  unwavering  confidence  with  which  he  challenged 
investigation  of  his  claims  and  staked  all  upon  the  result;  {<• )  the  vast 
improbability  of  a  lifelong  he  in  the  avowed  interests  of  truth  ;  and  {d) 
the  impossibility  that  deception  should  have  wrought  such  blessing  to  the 
world,  —  all  show  that  Jesus  was  no  conscious  impostor. 

Fisher,  Essays  on  the  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  515-538 — Christ  knew  how  vast 
his  claims  were,  yet  he  staked  all  upon  them.  Though  others  doubted,  he  never  doubted 
himself.  Though  persecuted  unto  death,  he  never  ceased  his  consistent  testimony. 
Yet  he  lays  claim  to  humility:  Mat.  11 :29  —  "  I  am  rocjkand  lowly  in  heart."  How  can  we  recon- 
cile with  humility  his  constant  self-assert  ion  ?  We  answer  that  Jesus'  self-assertion  was 
absolutely  essential  to  his  mission,  for  he  and  the  truth  were  one:  he  could  not  assert 
the  truth  without  asserting  himself,  and  be  could  not  assert  himself  without  asserting 
the  truth.  Since  he  was  the  truth,  he  needed  to  say  BO,  for  men's  sake  and  for  the 
truth's  sake,  and  he  could  be  meek  and  lowly  in  heart  in  saying  SO.  Humility  is  not 
self-depreciation,  but  only  the  judging  of  ourselves  according'  to  God's  perfect  Stand- 
ard. 'Humility'  is  derived  from  '  humus '.  Ptis  the  coming  down  from  airy  and  vain 
self-exploitation  to  the  solid  ground,  the  hard-pan,  of  actual  fact. 

God  requires  of  us  only  so  much  humility  as  is  consistent  with  truth.  The  self-glori- 
fication of  the  egotist  is  nauseating,  because  it  indicates  gross  ignorance  or  misrepre- 
sentation of  self.  But  it  is  a  duty  to  be  self-asserting,  just  so  far  as  we  represent  the 
truth  and  righteousness  of  God.  There  is  a  noble  self-assertion  which  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  humility.  Job  must  stand  for  his  integrity.  Paul's  humility  was  not  of 
the  Uriah  Heep  variety.  When  occasion  required,  he  could  assert  his  manhood  and 
his  rights,  as  at  Philippl  and  at  the  Castle  of  Antonia.  So  the  Christian  should  frankly 
say  out  the  truth  that  is  in  hiin.  Each  Christian  has  an  experience  of  his  own,  and 
should  tell  it  to  others.  In  testifying  to  the  truth  he  is  only  following  the  example  of 
"  Christ  Jesus,  who  before  Pontius  Pilate  witnessed  the  good  confession  "  ( 1  Tim.  6  :  13 ). 

B.  Nor  can  Jesus'  testimony  to  himself  be  explained  upon  the  hypoth- 
esis that  he  was  self-deceived :  for  this  would  argue  ( a )  a  weakness  and 
folly  amounting  to  positive  insanity.  But  his  whole  character  and  life 
exhibit  a  calmness,  dignity,  equipoise,  insight,  self-mastery,  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  such  a  theory.  Or  it  would  argue  (  6 )  a  self -ignorance  and  self- 
exaggeration  which  could  spring  only  from  the  deepest  moral  perversion. 
But  the  absolute  purity  of  his  conscience,  the  humility  of  his  spirit,  the 
self-denying  beneficence  of  his  life,  show  this  hypothesis  to  be  incredible. 

Rogers,  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  39— If  he  were  man,  then  to  demand  that  all 
the  world  should  bow  down  to  him  would  be  worthy  of  scorn  like  that  which  we  feel 
for  some  straw-crowned  monarch  of  Bedlam.    Forrest,  The  Christ  of  History  and  of 


190  THE   SCRIPTURES  A   REVELATION   EROM   GOD. 

Experience,  22,  76  — Christ  never  united  with  his  disciples  in  prayer.  He  went  up  into 
the  mountain  to  pray ,  but  not  to  pray  with  them :  Luke  9 :  18  —  "  as  he  was  alone  praying,  his  dis- 
ciples were  with  him."  The  consciousness  of  preexistence  is  the  indispensable  precondition 
of  the  total  demand  which  he  makes  iu  the  Synoptics.  Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ, 
81, 82— We  value  the  testimony  of  Christians  to  their  communion  with  God.  Much  more 
should  we  value  the  testimony  of  Christ.  Only  one  who,  first  being-  divine,  also  knew 
that  he  was  divine,  could  reveal  heavenly  things  with  the  clearness  and  certainty  that 
belong  to  the  utterances  of  Jesus.  In  him  we  have  something  very  different  from  the 
momentary  flashes  of  insight  which  leave  us  in  all  the  greater  darkness. 

Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  5  — "Self-respect  is  bottomed  upon  the  ability  to  become 
what  one  desires  to  be ;  and,  if  the  ability  steadily  falls  short  of  the  task,  the  springs 
of  self-respect  dry  up  ;  the  motives  of  happy  and  heroic  action  wither.  Science,  art, 
generous  civic  life,  and  especially  religion,  come  to  man's  rescue,"  — showing  him  his 
true  greatness  and  breadth  of  being  in  God.  The  State  is  the  individual's  larger  self. 
Humanity,  and  even  the  universe,  are  parts  of  him.  It  is  the  duty  of  man  to  enable 
all  men  to  be  men.  It  is  possible  for  men  not  only  truthfully  but  also  rationally  to 
assert  themselves,  even  in  earthly  affairs.  Chatham  to  the  Duke  of  Devonshire :  "  My 
Lord,  I  believe  I  can  save  this  country,  and  that  no  one  else  can."  Leonardo  da  Vinci, 
in  his  thirtieth  year,  to  the  Duke  of  Milan :  "  I  can  carry  through  every  kind  of  work 
in  sculpture,  in  clay,  marble,  and  bronze ;  also  in  painting  I  can  execute  everything 
that  can  be  demanded,  as  well  as  any  one  whosoever." 

Horace:  "  Exegi  monumentum  a?re  perennius."  Savage,  Life  beyond  Death,  209  — A 
famous  old  minister  said  once,  when  a  young  and  zealous  enthusiast  tried  to  get  him 
to  talk,  and  failing,  burstout  with,  "Have  you  no  religion  at  all  ?  "  "None  to  speakof," 
was  the  reply.  When  Jesus  perceived  a  tendency  in  his  disciples  to  self-glorification, 
he  urged  silence ;  but  when  he  saw  the  tendency  to  introspection  and  inertness,  he 
bade  them  proclaim  what  he  had  done  for  them  ( Mat.  8:4;  Mark  5 :  19 ).  It  is  never  right  for 
the  Christian  to  proclaim  himself;  but,  if  Christ  had  not  proclaimed  himself,  the  world 
could  never  have  been  saved.  Rush  Rhees,  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  235-237  — "In 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  two  topics  have  the  leading  place  —  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
himself.  He  sought  to  be  Lord,  rather  than  Teacher  only.  Yet  the  Kingdom  is  not 
one  of  power,  national  and  external,  but  one  of  fatherly  love  and  of  mutual  brother- 
hood." 

Did  Jesus  do  anything  for  effect,  or  as  a  mere  example ?  Not  so.  His  baptism  had 
meaning  for  him  as  a  consecration  of  himself  to  death  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and 
his  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  was  the  tit  beginning  of  the  paschal  supper  and  the 
symbol  of  his  laying  aside  his  heavenly  glory  to  purify  us  for  the  marriage  supper  of  the 
Lamb.  Thomas  si  Keinpis :  '"  Thou  art  none  the  holier  because  thou  art  praised,  and 
none  the  worse  because  thou  art  censured.  What  thou  art,  that  thou  art,  and  it  avails 
thee  naught  to  be  called  any  better  than  thou  art  in  the  sight  of  God."  Jesus' con- 
sciousness of  his  absolute  sinlessness  and  of  his  perfect  communion  with  Cod  is  the 
strongest  of  testimonies  to  his  divine  nature  and  mission.  See  Theological  Eclectic,  4 : 
137  ;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  153 ;  J.  S.  Mill,  Essays  on  Religion,  253 ;  Young,  Christ 
of  History;  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  Andover  Professors,  37-62. 

If  Jesus,  then,  cannot  be  charged  with  either  mental  or  moral  unsound- 
ness, his  testimony  must  be  true,  and  he  himself  must  be  one  with  God  and 
the  revealer  of  God  to  men. 

Neither  Confucius  nor  Buddha  claimed  to  be  divine,  or  the  organs  of  divine  revela- 
tion, though  both  were  moral  teachers  and  reformers.  Zoroaster  and  Pythagoras 
apparently  believed  themselves  charged  with  a  divine  mission,  though  their  earliest 
biographers  wrote  centuries  after  their  death.  Socrates  claimed  nothing  for  himself 
which  was  beyond  the  power  of  others.  Mohammed  believed  his  extraordinary  states 
of  body  and  soul  to  be  due  to  the  action  of  celestial  beings ;  he  gave  forth  the  Koran 
as  "a  warning  to  all  creatures,"  and  sent  a  summons  to  the  King  of  Persia  and  the 
Emperor  of  Constantinople,  as  well  as  to  other  potentates,  to  accept  the  religion  of 
Islam  ;  yet  he  mourned  when  he  died  that  he  could  not  have  opportunity  to  correct 
the  mistakes  of  the  Koran  and  of  his  own  life.  For  Confucius  or  Buddha,  Zoroaster 
or  Pythagoras,  Socrates  or  Mohammed  to  claim  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  would 
show  insanity  or  moral  perversion.  But  this  is  precisely  what  Jesus  claimed.  He  was 
either  mentally  or  morally  unsound,  or  his  testimony  is  true.  See  Baldensperger, 
Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu ;  E.  Ballentine,  Christ  his  own  Witness. 


HISTORICAL    RESULTS   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.  191 

IV.  The  Historical  Results  of  the  Propagation  ok  Scbiptcbe 
Doctrine. 

1.  The  rapid  progress  of  the  gospel  in  the  first  centuries  of  our  era 
shows  its  divine  origin. 

A.  That  Paganism  should  have  been  in  three  centuries  supplanted  by 

Christianity,  is  an  acknowledged  wonder  of  history. 

The  conversion  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  Christianity  was  the  most  astonishing  revo- 
lution of  faith  and  worship  ever  known.  Fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  there 
were  churches  in  all  the  principal  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Nero  ( 37-68  )  found  ( as 
Tacitus  declares )  an  "  ingens  multitudo"  of  Christians  to  persecute.  Pliny  writes  to 
Trajan  ( 52-117 )  that  they  "  pervaded  not  merely  the  cities  but  the  villages  and  country 
places,  so  that  the  temples  were  nearly  deserted."  Tertullian  ( 1(10-250 )  writes :  "  We  are 
but  of  yesterday,  and  yet  we  have  filled  all  your  places,  your  cities,  your  islands,  your 
castles,  your  towns,  your  council-houses,  even  your  camps,  your  tribes,  your  senate, 
your  forum.  We  ha  ve  left  you  nothing  but  your  temples."  In  the  time  of  the  emperor 
Valerian  (253-2(18),  the  Christians  constituted  half  the  population  of  Rome.  The  conver- 
sion of  the  emperor  Constantino  (272-3:17)  brought  the  whole  empire,  only  300  years 
after  Jesus'  death,  under  the  acknowledged  sway  of  the  gospel.  See  Mcllvaine  and 
Alexander,  Evidences  of  Christianity. 

B.  The  wonder  is  the  greater  when  we  consider  the  obstacles  to  the 
progress  of  Christianity  : 

(a)  The  scepticism  of  the  cultivated  classes;  [b)  the  prejudice  and 
hatred  of  the  common  people  ;  and  ( e )  the  persecutions  set  on  foot  by 
government. 

( a  )  Missionaries  even  now  find  it  difficult  to  get  a  hearing  among  the  cultivated 
classes  of  the  heathen.  But  the  gospel  appeared  in  the  most  enlightened  age  of 
antiquity  —  the  Augustan  age  of  literature  and  historical  inquiry.  Tacitus  called  the 
religion  of  Christ  "  exitiabilis  superstitio  "  —  "  quos  per  nagitia  lnvisos  vulgus  Christi- 
anos appellabat."  Pliny:  "  Nihil  aliud  inveni  quam  superstitionem  pravam  et  immo- 
dicam."  If  the  gospel  had  been  false,  its  preachers  would  not  have  ventu red  into  the 
centres  of  civilization,  and  refinement;  or  if  they  had,  they  would  have  been  detected. 
(//)  Consider  the  interweaving  of  heathen  religions  with  all  the  relations  of  life.  Chris- 
tians often  had  to  meet  the  Curious  zeal  and  blind  rage  of  the  mob,  —  as  at  Lystraand 
Ephesus.  (c)  Rawlinson,  in  his  Historical  Evidences,  claims  that  the  Catacombs  of 
Rome  comprised  nine  hundred  miles  of  streets  and  seven  millions  of  graves  within  a 
period  of  four  hundred  years  — a  far  greater  number  than  could  have  died  a  natural 
death  — and  that  vast  multitudes  of  these  must  have  been  massacred  for  their  faith. 
The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  however,  calls  the  estimate  of  He  Marchi,  which  Rawlin- 
son appears  to  have  taken  as  authority,  a  great  exaggeration.  Instead  of  nine  hundred 
miles  of  streets,  Northcote  has  three  hundred  fifty.  The  number  of  interments  to 
correspond  would  be  less  than  three  millions.  The  Catacombs  began  to  be  deserted  by 
the  time  of  Jerome.  The  times  when  they  were  universally  used  by  Christians  could 
have  been  hardly  more  than  two  hundred  years.  They  did  not  begin  in  sand-pits. 
There  were  three  sorts  of  tufa :  ( 1 )  rocky,  used-  for  quarrying  and  too  hard  for  Chris- 
tian purposes ;  ( 2 )  sandy,  used  for  sand-pits,  too  soft  to  permit  construction  of  galleries 
and  tombs;  (3)  granular,  that  used  by  Christians.  The  existence  of  the  Catacombs 
must  have  been  well  known  to  the  heathen.  After  Pope  Damasus  the  exaggerated 
reverence  for  them  began.  They  were  decorated  and  improved.  Hence  many  paint- 
ings are  of  later  date  than  400,  and  testify  to  papal  polity,  not  to  that  of  early  Chris- 
tianity. The  bottles  contain,  not  blood,  but  wine  of  the  eucharist  celebrated  at 
the  funeral. 

Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  2.50-258,  calls  attention  to  Matthew  Arnold's 
description  of  the  needs  of  the  heathen  world,  yet  his  blindness  to  the  true  remedy: 
"On  that  hard  pagan  world  disgust  And  secret  loathing  fell ;  Deep  weariness  and  sated 
lust  Made  human  life  a  hell.  In  his  cool  hall,  with  haggard  eyes,  The  Roman  noble 
lay ;  He  drove  abroad,  in  furious  guise,  Along  the  Appian  Way ;  He  made  a  feast, 
drank  fierce  and  last,  And  crowned  his  hair  with  flowers,  — No  easier  nor  no  quicker 


192  THE   SCK1PTUKES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

passed  The  impracticable  hours."  Yet  with  mingled  pride  and  sadness,  Mr.  Arnold  fas- 
tidiously rejects  more  heavenly  nutriment.  Of  Christ  he  says:  " Now  he  is  dead !  Far 
hence  he  lies.  In  the  lorn  Syrian  town,  And  on  his  grave,  with  shining  eyes,  The  Syrian 
stars  look  down."  He  sees  that  the  millions  "  Have  such  need  of  joy,  And  joy  whose 
grounds  are  true,  And  joy  that  should  all  hearts  employ  As  when  the  past  was  new ! " 
The  want  of  the  world  is :  "  One  mighty  wave  of  thought  and  joy,  Lifting  mankind 
amain."  But  the  poet  sees  no  ground  of  hope :  "  Fools !  that  so  often  here,  Happiness 
mocked  our  prayer,  I  think  might  make  us  fear  A  like  event  elsewhere,  —  Make  us  not 
fly  to  dreams.  But  moderate  desire."  He  sings  of  the  time  when  Christianity  was  young : 
"  Oh,  had  I  lived  in  that  great  day,  How  had  its  glory  new  Filled  earth  and  heaven,  and 
caught  away  My  ravished  spirit  too !  "  But  desolation  of  spirit  does  not  bring  with  it 
any  lowering  of  self-esteem,  much  less  the  humility  which  deplores  the  presence  and 
power  of  evil  in  the  soul,  and  sighs  for  deliverance.  "  They  that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  a 
physician,  but  they  that  are  sick  "  ( Mat.  9 :  12 ).  Rejecting  Christ,  Matthew  Arnold  embodies  in 
his  verse  "the  sweetness,  the  gravity,  the  strength,  the  beauty,  and  the  languor  of 
death"  (  Hutton,  Essays,  302). 

C.  The  wonder  becomes  yet  greater  when  we  consider  the  natural  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  ineuns  used  to  secure  this  progress. 

(a)  The  proclaim  ers  of  the  gospel  were  in  general  unlearned  men,  belong- 
ing to  a  despised  nation.  (  b  )  The  gospel  which  they  proclaimed  was  a 
gospel  of  salvation  through  faith  in  a  Jew  who  had  been  put  to  an  ignomi- 
nious death.  ( c  )  This  gospel  was  one  which  excited  natural  repugnance, 
by  humbling  men's  pride,  striking  at  the  root  of  their  sins,  and  demanding 
a  life  of  labor  and  self-sacrifice.  (  d )  The  gospel,  moreover,  was  an  exclu- 
sive one,  suffering  no  rival  and  declaring  itself  to  be  the  universal  and  only 
religion. 

( a )  The  early  Christians  were  more  unlikely  to  make  converts  than  modern  Jews  are 
to  make  proselytes,  in  vast  numbers,  in  the  principal  cities  of  Europe  and  America. 
Celsus  called  Christianity  "a  religion  of  the  rabble."  (/<)  The  cross  was  the  Roman 
gallows  —  the  punishment  of  slaves.  Cicero  calls  it  "  servitutis  extremum  summumque 
supplicium."  (  c  )  There  were  many  bad  religions :  why  should  the  mild  Roman  Empire 
have  persecuted  the  only  good  one  ?  The  answer  is  in  part :  Persecution  did  not  origi- 
nate with  the  official  classes;  it  proceeded  really  from  the  people  at  large.  Tacitus 
called  Christians  "haters  of  the  human  race."  M:n  recognized  in  Christianity  a  foe  to 
all  their  previous  motives,  ideals,  and  aims.  Altruism  would  break  up  the  old  society, 
for  every  effort  that  centered  iu  self  or  in  the  present  life  was  stigmatized  by  the  gos- 
pel as  unworthy,  (d)  Heathenism,  being  without  creed  or  principle,  did  not  care  to 
propagate  itself.  "A  man  must  be  very  weak,"  said  Celsus,  "  to  imagine  that  Greeks 
and  barbarians,  in  Asia,  Europe,  and  Libya,  can  ever  unite  under  the  same  system  of 
religion."  So  the  Roman  government  would  allow  no  religion  which  did  not  parti- 
cipate in  the  worship  of  the  State.  "Keep  yourselves  from  idols,"  "We  worship  no 
other  God,"  was  the  Christian's  answer.  Gibbon,  Hist.  Decline  and  Fall,  1:  chap.  15, 
mentions  as  secondary  causes :  (1)  the  zeal  of  the  Jews;  (2)  the  doctrine  of  immor- 
tality; (3)  miraculous  powers;  (4)  virtues  of  early  Christians;  (5)  privilege  of  par- 
cipation  in  church  government.  But  these  causes  were  only  secondary,  and  all  would 
have  been  insufficient  without  an  invincible  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
For  answer  to  Gibbon,  see  Perrone,  Prelectiones  Theologica1, 1 :  133. 

Persecution  destroys  falsehood  by  leading  its  advocates  to  investigate  the  grounds 
of  their  belief;  but  it  strengthens  and  multiplies  truth  by  leading  its  advocates  to  see 
more  clearly  the  foundations  of  their  faith.  There  have  been  many  conscientious  per- 
secutors :  John  16:2  —  "  They  shall  put  you  out  of  the  synagogues :  yea,  the  hour  cometh,  that  whosoever  killeth 
you  shall  think  that  he  offereth  service  unto  God."  The  Decretal  of  Pope  Urban  II  reads :  "  For  we 
do  not  count  them  to  be  homicides,  to  whom  it  may  have  happened,  through  their  burn- 
ing zeal  against  the  excommunicated,  to  put  any  of  them  to  death."  St.  Louis,  King 
of  France,  urged  his  officers  "  not  to  argue  with  the  infidel,  but  to  subdue  unbelievers 
by  thrusting  the  sword  into  them  as  far  as  it  will  go."  Of  the  use  of  the  rack  in 
England  on  a  certain  occasion,  it  was  said  that  it  was  used  with  all  the  tenderness  which 
the  nature  of  the  instrument  would  allow.    This  reminds  us  of  Isaak  Walton's  instruc- 


HISTORICAL    RESULTS   OP   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.  193 

tion  as  to  the  use  of  the  frog  :  "  Put  the  hook  through  his  mouth  and  out  at  his  gills ; 
ainl,  in  so  doing,  use  him  as  though  you  loved  him." 

Robert  Browning1,  in  his  Easter  Day,  875-288,  gives  us  what  purports  to  be  A  Martyr's 
Epitaph,  inscribed  upon  a  wall  of  the  Catacombs,  which  furnishes  a  valuable  contrast 
to  the  sceptical  and  pessimistic  strain  of  Matthew  Arnold:  "I  was  born  sickly,  poor 
and  mean,  A  slave:  no  misery  could  screen  The  holders  of  the  pearl  of  price  From 
f  fesar's  envy :  therefore  twice  I  fought  with  beasts,  and  three  iimes  saw  My  children 
suffer  by  his  law ;  At  length  my  own  release  was  earned :  I  was  some  time  in  being 
burned,  But  at  the  close  a  Hand  came  through  The  fire  above  my  head,  and  drew  My 
soul  to  Christ,  whom  now  I  see.  Sergius,  a  brother,  writes  for  me  This  testimony  on 
the  wall  —  For  me,  I  have  forgot  it  all." 

The  progress  of  a  religion  so  unprepossessing  and  uncompromising  to 
outward  acceptance  and  dominion,  within  the  space  of  three  hundred  years, 
cannot  be  explained  ■without  supposing  that  divine  power  attended  its  pro- 
mulgation, and  therefore  that  the  gospel  is  a  revelation  from  God. 

Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  1 :  527  — "In  the  Kremlin  Cathedral,  whenever  the  Metro- 
politan advanced  from  the  altar  to  give  his  blessing,  there  was  always  thrown  under 
his  feet  a  carpet  embroidered  with  the  eagle  of  old  Pagan  Rome,  to  indicate  that  the 
Christian  Church  and  Empire  of  Constantinople  had  succeeded  and  triumphed  over  it." 
On  this  whole  section,  see  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  91;  Mcllvaine, 
Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  139. 

2.  The  beneficent  influence  of  the  Scripture  doctrines  and  precepts, 
wherever  they  have  had  sway,  shotvs  their  divine  origin.     Notice  : 

A.  Their  influence  on  civilization  in  general,  securing  a  recognition  of 
principles  which  heathenism  ignored,  such  as  Garbett  mentions:  (a)  the 
importance  of  the  individual  ;  (  b )  the  law  of  mutual  love ;  (  e  )  the  sacred- 
ness  of  human  life  ;  ( d  )  the  doctrine  of  internal  holiness  ;  (  e )  the  sanctity 
of  home  ;  (/)  monogamy,  and  the  religious  equality  of  the  sexes  ;  ( g  )  iden- 
tification of  belief  and  practice. 

The  continued  corruption  of  heathen  lands  shows  that  this  change  is  not 
due  to  any  laws  of  merely  natural  progress.  The  confessions  of  ancient 
writers  show  that  it  is  not  due  to  philosophy.  Its  only  explanation  is  that 
the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God. 

Garbett,  Dogmatic  Faith,  177-186 ;  F.  W.  Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  chap, 
on  Christianity  and  the  Individual;  Brace,  Gesta  Christi,  preface,  vi  — "  Practices  and 
principles  implanted,  stimulated  or  supported  by  Christianity,  such  as  regard  for  the 
personality  of  the  weakest  and  poorest ;  respect  for  woman ;  duty  of  each  member  of 
the  fortunate  classes  to  raise  up  the  unfortunate  ;  humanity  to  the  child,  the  prisoner, 
the  stranger,  the  needy,  and  even  to  the  brute;  unceasing  opposition  to  all  forms  of 
cruelty,  oppression  and  slavery ;  the  duty  of  personal  purity,  and  the  sacredness  of 
marriage ;  the  necessity  of  temperance;  obligation  of  a  more  equitable  division  of  the 
profits  of  labor,  and  of  greater  cooperation  between  employers  and  employed  ;  the  right 
of  every  human  being  to  have  the  utmost  opportunity  of  developing  his  faculties,  and 
of  all  persons  to  enjoy  equal  political  and  social  privileges ;  the  principle  that  the  injury 
of  one  nation  is  the  injury  of  all,  and  the  expediency  and  duty  of  unrestricted  trade 
and  intercourse  between  all  countries ;  and  finally,  a  profound  opposition  to  war,  a 
determination  to  limit  its  evils  when  existing,  and  to  prevent  its  arising  by  means  of 
international  arbitration." 

Max  Muller:  "The  concept  cf  humanity  is  the  gift  of  Christ."  Guizot,  History  of 
Civilization,  1 :  Introd.,  tells  us  that  in  ancient  times  the  individual  existed  for  the  sake 
of  the  State  ;  in  modern  times  the  State  exists  for  the  sake  of  the  individual.  "  The 
individual  is  a  discovery  of  Christ."  On  the  relations  between  Christianity  and  Political 
Economy,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  pages  443—160;  on  the  cause  of 
the  changed  view  with  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  State,  see  page 
207 — "  What  has  wrought  the  change  ?  Nothing  but  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God.  When 
it  was  seen  that  the  smallest  child  and  the  lowest  slave  had  a  soul  of  such  worth 

13 


194  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

that  Christ  left  his  throne  and  gave  up  Ms  life  to  save  it,  the  world's  estimate  of 
values  changed,  and  modern  history  began."  Lucian,  the  Greek  satirist  and  humor- 
ist, 160  A.  D.,  said  of  the  Christians :  "  Their  first  legislator  [  Jesus  ]  has  put  it  into  their 
heads  that  they  are  all  brothers." 

It  is  this  spirit  of  common  brotherhood  which  has  led  in  most  countries  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  cannibalism,  infanticide,  widow-burning,  and  slavery.  Prince  Bismarck :  "  For 
social  well-being  I  ask  nothing  mo-3  than  Christianity  without  phrases "  — which 
means  the  religion  of  the  deed  rather  than  of  the  creed.  Yet  it  is  only  faith  in  the  his- 
torici  revelation  of  God  in  Christ  which  has  made  Christian  deeds  possible.  Shaler, 
Interpretation  of  Nature,  232-278—  Aristotle,  if  he  could  look  over  society  to-day,  would 
think  modern  man  a  new  species,  in  his  going  out  in  sympathy  to  distant  peoples. 
This  cannot  be  the  result  of  natural  selection,  for  self-sacrifice  is  not  profitable  to  the 
individual.  Altruistic  emotions  owe  their  existence  to  God.  Worship  of  God  has 
flowed  back  upon  man's  emotions  and  has  made  them  more  sympathetic.  Self-con- 
sciousness and  sympathy,  coming  into  conflict  with  brute  emotions,  originate  the  sense 
of  sin.  Then  begins  the  war  of  the  natural  and  the  spiritual.  Love  of  nature  and 
absorption  in  others  is  the  true  Nirvana.  Not  physical  science,  but  the  humanities,  are 
most  needed  in  education. 

H.  E.  Hersey,  Introd.  to  Browning's  Christmas  Eve,  19  —  "  Sidney  Lanier  tells  us  that 
the  last  twenty  centuries  have  spent  their  best  power  upon  the  development  of  per- 
sonality. Literature,  education,  government,  and  religion,  have  learned  to  recognize 
the  individual  as  the  unit  of  force.  Browning  goes  a  step  further.  He  declares  that 
so  powerful  is  a  complete  personality  that  its  very  touch  gives  life  and  courage  and 
potency.  He  turns  to  history  for  the  inspiration  of  enduring  virtue  and  the  stimulus 
for  sustained  effort,  and  he  finds  both  in  Jesus  Christ."  J.  P.  Cooke,  Credentials  of 
Science,  43  — The  change  from  the  ancient  philosopher  to  the  modern  investigator  is  the 
change  from  self-assertion  to  self-devotion,  and  the  great  revolution  can  be  traced  to 
the  influence  of  Christianity  and  to  the  spirit  of  humility  exhibited  and  inculcated  by 
Christ.  Lewes,  Hist.  Philos.,  1 :  408  — Greek  morality  never  embraced  any  conception 
of  humanity ;  no  Greek  ever  attained  to  the  sublimity  of  such  a  point  of  view. 

Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  165,  287— It  is  not  intellect  that  has  pushed  forward  the  world 
of  modern  times :  it  is  the  altruistic  feeling  that  originated  in  the  cross  and  sacrifice 
of  Christ.  The  French  Revolution  was  made  possible  by  the  fact  that  humanitarian 
ideas  had  undermined  the  upper  classes  themselves,  and  effective  resistance  was  impos- 
sible. Socialism  would  abolish  the  struggle  for  existence  on  the  part  of  individuals. 
What  security  would  be  left  for  social  progress  ?  Removing  all  restrictions  upon  popu- 
lation ensures  progressive  deterioration.  A  non-socialist  community  would  outstrip 
a  socialist  community  where  all  the  main  wants  of  life  were  secure.  The  real  tendency 
of  society  is  to  bring  all  the  people  into  rivalry,  not  only  on  a  footing  of  political  equality, 
but  on  conditions  of  equal  social  opportunities.  The  State  in  future  will  interfere  and 
control,  in  order  to  preserve  or  secure  free  competition,  rather  than  to  suspend  it.  The 
goal  is  not  socialism  or  State  management,  but  competition  in  which  all  shall  have 
equal  advantages.  The  evolution  of  human  society  is  not  primarily  intellectual  but 
religious.  The  winning  races  are  the  religious  races.  The  Greeks  had  more  intellect, 
but  we  have  more  civilization  and  progress.  The  Athenians  were  as  far  above  us  as  we 
are  above  the  negro  race.  Gladstone  said  that  we  are  intellectually  weaker  than  the 
men  of  the  middle  ages.  When  the  intellectual  development  of  any  section  of  the  race 
has  for  the  time  being  outrun  its  ethical  development,  natural  selection  has  appar- 
ently weeded  it  out,  like  any  other  unsuitable  product.  Evolution  is  developing  ref- 
erence, with  its  allied  qualities,  mental  energy,  resolution,  enterprise,  prolonged  and 
concentrated  application,  simple  minded  and  single  minded  devotion  to  duty.  Only 
religion  can  overpower  selfishness  and  individualism  and  ensure  social  progress. 

B.  Their  influence  upon  individual  character  and  happiness,  wherever 
they  have  been  tested  in  practice.  This  influence  is  seen  ( a  )  in  the  moral 
transformations  they  have  wrought  —  as  in  the  case  of  Paul  the  apostle,  and 
of  persons  in  every  Christian  community ;  (  b )  in  the  self-denying  labors 
for  human  welfare  to  which  they  have  led — as  in  the  case  of  Wilberf orce  and 
Judson ;  (c)  in  the  hopes  they  have  inspired  in  times  of  sorrow  and  death. 

These  beneficent  fruits  cannot  have  their  source  in  merely  natural  causes, 
apart  from  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  Scriptures ;  for  in  that  case  the 


HISTORICAL    RESULTS   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.  195 

contrary  beliefs  would  be  accompanied  by  the  same  blessings.  But  since 
we  find  these  blessings  only  in  connection  with  Christian  teaching,  we  may 
justly  consider  this  as  their  cause.  This  teaching,  then,  must  be  true,  and 
the  Scriptures  must  be  a.  divine  revelation.  Else  God  has  made  a  lie  to  be 
the  greatest  blessing  to  the  race. 

The  first  Moravian  missionaries  to  the  West  Indies  walked  six  hundred  miles  to  take 
ship,  worked  their  passage,  and  then  sold  themselves  as  slaves,  in  Older  to  get  the  priv- 
ilege of  preaching  to  the  negroes.  .  .  .  The  father  of  John  G.  Pat  on  was  a  stocking- 
weaver.  The  whole  family,  with  the  exception  of  the  very  small  children,  worked  from 
6  a.  m.  to  10  p.  m.,  with  one  hour  for  dinner  at  noon  and  a  half  hour  each  for  breakfast 
and  supper.  Yet  family  prayer  was  regularly  held  twice  a  day.  In  these  breathing- 
spells  for  daily  meals  John  G.  Baton  took  part  of  his  time  to  study  the  Latin  Gram- 
mar, that  he  might  prepare  himself  for  missionary  work.  When  told  by  an  uncle  that, 
it'  he  went  to  the  New  Hebrides,  the  cannibals  would  eat  him,  he  replied :  "  You  your- 
self will  soon  be  dead  and  buried,  and  1  had  as  lief  be  eaten  by  cannibals  as  by  worms." 
The  Aneityumese  raised  arrow-root  for  fifteen  years  and  sold  it  to  pay  the  £12h0 
required  for  printing  the  Bible  in  their  own  language.  Universal  church  attendance 
and  Bible-study  make  those  South  Sea  Islands  the  most  heavenly  place  ou  earth  on 
the  Sabbath-day. 

In  1839,  twenty  thousand  negroes  in  Jamaica  gathered  to  begin  a  life  of  freedom. 
Into  a  coffin  wire  put  the  handcuffs  and  shackles  of  slavery,  relics  of  the  whipping- 
post and  the  scourge.  As  the  clock  struck  twelve  at  night,  a  preacher  cried  with  the 
first  stroke:  "The  monster  is  dying  1 "  and  so  with  every  stroke  until  the  last,  when  he 
cried  :  "  The  monster  is  dead  ! "  Then  all  rose  from  their  knees  and  sang  :  "  Praise  God 
from  whom  all  blessings  tiow  !  "  .  .  .  "What  do  youdo  that  for  ?"  said  the  sick  China- 
man whom  the  medical  missionary  was  tucking  Dp  in  bed  with  a  care  which  the  patient 
had  never  received  since  he  was  a  baby.  The  missionary  took  the  opportunity  to  tell 
him  of  the  love  of  Christ.  .  .  .  The  aged  Australian  mother,  when  told  that  her  two 
daughters,  missionaries  in  Cbina,  had  both  of  them  been  murdered  by  a  heathen  mob, 
only  replied  :  "  This  decides  me  ;  I  will  go  to  China  now  myself,  and  try  to  teach  those 
poor  creatures  what  the  love  of  Jesus  means."  .  .  .  Dr.  William  Ashmore :  "Let  one 
missionary  die,  and  ten  come  to  bis  funeral."  A  shoemaker,  teaching  neglected  boys 
and  girls  while  he  worked  at  his  cobbler's  bench,  gave  the  impulse  to  Thomas  Guthrie's 
lite  of  faith. 

We  must  judge  religions  not  by  their  ideals,  but  by  their  performances.  Omar  Khay- 
yam and  Mozoomdar  give  us  beautiful  thoughts,  hut  the  former  is  not  Persia,  noris 
the  latter  India.  "  When  the  microscopic  search  of  scepticism,  which  has  hunted  the 
heavens  and  sounded  the  seas  to  disprove  the  existence  of  a  Creator,  has  turned  its 
attention  to  human  society  and  has  found  on  this  planet  a  place  ten  miles  square  where 
a  decent  man  can  live  in  decency,  comfort,  and  security,  supporting  and  educating  his 
children,  unspoiled  and  unpolluted  ;  a  place  where  age  is  reverenced,  infancy  protected, 
manhood  respected,  womanhood  honored,  and  human  life  held  in  due  regard— when 
sceptics  can  find  such  a  place  ten  miles  square  on  this  globe,  where  the  gospel  of  (in  ,.-i, 
has  not  gone  and  cleared  the  way  and  laid  the  foundations  and  made  decency  and  secur- 
ity possible,  it  will  then  be  in  order  for  the  sceptical  literati  to  move  thither  and  to  ven- 
tilate their  views.  But  so  long  as  these  very  men  are  dependent  upon  the  very  religion 
they  discard  lor  every  privilege  they  enjoy,  they  may  well  hesitate  before  they  rob  the 
Christian  of  his  hope  and  humanity  of  its  faith  in  that  Savior  who  alone  has  given  that 
hope  of  eternal  life  which  makes  life  tolerable  and  society  possible,  and  robs  death  of  its 
terrors  and  the  grave  of  its  gloom."  On  the  beneficent  influence  of  the  gospel,  see 
Schmidt,  Social  Results  of  Early  Christianity  ;  D.  J.  Hill,  The  Social  Influence  of  Chris- 
tianity. 


CHAPTER  III. 

INSPIRATION   OF   THE    SCRIPTURES. 

I.     Definition  of  Inspiration. 

Inspiration  is  that  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the  minds  of  the 
Scripture  writers  which  made  their  writings  the  record  of  a  progressive 
divine  revelation,  sufficient,  when  taken  together  and  interpreted  by  the 
same  Spirit  who  inspired  them,  to  lead  every  honest  inquirer  to  Christ  and 
to  salvation. 

Notice  the  significance  of  each  part  of  this  definition :  1.  Inspiration  is  an  influence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  not  a  merely  naturalistic  phenomenon  or  psychological 
vagary,  but  is  rather  the  effect  of  the  in  working  of  the  personal  divine  Spirit.  2.  Yet 
inspiration  is  an  influence  upon  the  mind,  and  not  upon  the  body.  God  secures  his  end 
by  awakening  man's  rational  powers,  and  not  by  an  external  or  mechanical  communi- 
cation. 3.  The  writings  of  inspired  men  are  the  record  of  a  revelation.  They  are  not 
themselves  the  revelation.  4.  The  revelation  and  the  record  are  both  progressive. 
Neither  one  is  complete  at  the  beginning.  5.  The  Scripture  writings  must  be  taken 
together.  Each  part  must  be  viewed  in  connection  with  what  precedes  and  with  what 
follows.  6.  The  same  Holy  Spirit  who  made  the  original  revelations  must  interpret  to 
us  the  record  of  them,  if  we  are  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  7.  So  used 
and  so  interpreted,  these  writings  are  sufficient,  both  in  quantity  and  in  quality,  for 
their  religious  purpose.  8.  That  purpose  is,  not  to  furnish  us  with  a  model  history  or 
with  the  facts  of  science,  but  to  lead  us  to  Christ  and  to  salvation. 

( a  )  Inspiration  is  therefore  to  be  defined,  not  by  its  method,  but  by  its 
result.  It  is  a  general  term  including  all  those  kinds  and  degrees  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  influence  which  were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  minds  of  the 
Scripture  writers,  in  order  to  secure  the  putting  into  permanent  and  written 
form  of  the  truth  best  adapted  to  man's  moral  and  religious  needs. 

(  b  )  Inspiration  may  often  include  revelation,  or  the  direct  communi- 
cation from  God  of  truth  to  which  man  could  not  attain  by  his  unaided 
powers.  It  may  include  illumination,  or  the  quickening  of  man's  cogni- 
tive powers  to  understand  truth  already  revealed.  Inspiration,  however, 
does  not  necessarily  and  always  include  either  revelation  or  illumination. 
It  is  simply  the  divine  influence  which  secures  a  transmission  of  -needed 
truth  to  the  future,  and,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  truth  to  be  trans- 
mitted, it  may  be  only  an  inspiration  of  superintendence,  or  it  may  be  also 
and  at  the  same  time  an  inspiration  of  illumination  or  revelation.  ; 

(  c  )  It  is  not  denied,  but  affirmed,  that  inspiration  may  qualify  for  oral 
utterance  of  truth,  or  for  wise  leadership  and  daring  deeds.  Men  may  be 
inspired  to  render  external  service  to  God's  kingdom,  as  in  the  cases  of 
Bezalel  and  Samson  ;  even  though  this  service  is  rendered  unwillingly  or 
unconsciously,  as  in  the  cases  of  Balaam  and  Cyrus.  All  human  intelli- 
gence, indeed,  is  due  to  the  inbreathing  of  that  same  Spirit  who  created 
man  at  the  beginning.  "We  are  now  concerned  with  inspiration,  however, 
only  as  it  pertains  to  the  authorship  of  Scripture. 

196 


DEFINITION    OF   INSPIRATION".  197 

Gen.  2:7  —  "  And  Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life;  and  man  became  a  living  soul";  Ex.  31:2,3  —  "  I  have  called  by  name  Bezalel  .  .  .  and  I  have  filled  him  with 
the  Spirit  of  God  ...  in  all  manner  of  workmanship";  Judges  13:  24,25  —  "called  his  name  Samson:  and  tlia 
child  grew,  and  Jehovah  blessed  him  And  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  began  to  move  him  "  ;  Num.  23 :  5  —  "  And  Jehovah 
put  a  word  in  Balaam's  mouth,  and  said,  Return  unto  Balak,  and  thus  shaltthou  speak"  ;  2  Chron.  36  :22 — "Jehovah 
stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Cyrus"  ;  Is.  44:  28  —  "that  saith  of  Cyrus,  He  is  my  shepherd"  ;  45:  5  —  "I  will  gird  the), 
though  thou  hast  not  known  me  "  ;  Job  32 : 8  —  "  there  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  them 
understanding."  These  passages  show  the  true  meaning'  of  2  Tim.  3: 16  —  "Every  scripture  inspire  1 
of  God."  The  word  fl-eonrevo-TDs  is  to  be  understood  as  alluding,  not  to  the  flute-player's 
breathing' into  his  instrument,  but  to  God's  original  inbreathing  of  life.  The  flute  is 
passive,  but  man's  soul  is  active.  The  flute  gives  out  only  what  it  receives,  but  the 
inspired  man  under  the  divine  influence  is  a  conscious  and  free  originator  of  thought 
and  expression.  Although  the  inspiration  of  which  we  are  to  treat  is  simply  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scripture  writings,  we  can  best  understand  this  narrower  use  of  the  term 
by  remembering  that  all  real  knowledge  has  in  it  a  divine  element,  and  that  we  are 
possessed  of  complete  consciousness  only  as  we  live,  move,  and  have  our  being  in  God. 
Since  Christ,  the  divine  Logos  or  Reason,  is  " the  light  which  lighteth  every  man  "( John  1 :  9  ),  a 
special  influence  of  "the  spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them"  ( 1  Pet.  1 :  11 )  rationally  accounts  for 
the  fact  that  "men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  ( 2  Pet.  1 :  21 ). 

It  may  help  our  understanding  of  terms  above  employed  if  we  adduce  instances  of 

( 1 )  Inspiration  without  revelation,  as  in  Luke  or  Acts,  Luke  1:1-3; 

(2 )  Inspiration  including  revelation,  as  in  the  Apocalypse,  Rev.  1:1,  11 ; 
(3  )  Inspiration  without  illumination,  as  in  the  prophets,  1  Pet.  1:11; 

(4  )  Inspiration  including  illumination,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  2: 12; 

(5 )  Revelation  without  inspiration,  as  in  God's  words  from  Sinai,  Er.  20  :1,  22; 

(6)  Illumination  without  inspiration,  as  in  modern  preachers,  Eph.  2:20. 

Other  definitions  are  those  of  Park:  "Inspiration  is  such  an  influence  over  the 
writers  Of  the  Bible  that  all  their  teachings  which  have  a  religious  character  are  trust- 
worthy"; of  Wilkinson:  "Inspiration  is  help  from  God  to  keep  the  report  of  divine 
revelation  free  from  error.  Help  to  whom?  No  matter  to  whom,  so  the  result  is 
secured.  The  final  result,  viz.:  the  record  or  report  of  revelation,  this  must  be  free 
from  error.  Inspiration  may  affect  one  or  all  of  the  agents  employed";  of  Hovey: 
"Inspiration  was  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on  those  powers  of  men  which  are 
concerned  in  the  reception,  retention  and  expression  of  religious  truth  —  an  influence 
so  pervading  and  powerful  that  the  teaching  of  inspired  men  was  according  to  the 
mind  of  God.  Their  teaching  did  not  in  any  instance  embrace  all  truth  in  respect  to 
God,  or  man,  or  the  way  of  life  ;  but  it  comprised  just  so  much  of  the  truth  on  any  par- 
ticular subject  as  could  lie  received  in  faith  by  the  inspired  teacher  and  made  useful  to 
those  whom  he  addressed.  In  this  sense  the  teaching  of  the  original  documents  com- 
posing our  Bible  may  be  pronounced  free  from  error" ;  of  G.  B.  Foster:  "  Revelation  is 
the  action  of  God  in  the  soul  of  his  child, resulting  in  divine  self-expression  there : 
Inspiration  is  the  action  of  God  in  the  soul  of  his  child,  resulting  in  apprehension  and 
appropriation  of  the  divine  expression.  Revelation  has  logical  but  not  chronological 
priority";  of  Horton,  Inspiration  and  the  Bible,  10-13 — "We  mean  by  Inspiration 
exactly  those  qualities  or  characteristics  which  are  the  marks  or  notes  of  the  Bible. 
.  .  .  We  call  our  Bible  inspired  ;  by  which  we  mean  that  by  reading  and  studying  it  we 
find  our  way  to  God,  we-  find  his  will  for  us,  and  we  find  how  we  can  conform  ourselves 
to  his  will." 

Fairbairn,  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  496,  while  nobly  setting  forth  the  naturalness 
of  revelation,  has  misconceived  the  relation  of  inspiration  to  revelation  by  giving 
priority  to  the  former  :  "  Tin.'  idea  of  a  written  revelation  may  be  said  to  be  logically 
involved  in  the  notion  of  a  living  God.  Speech  is  natural  to  spirit;  and  if  God  is  by 
nature  spirit,  it  will  be  to  him  a  matter  of  nature  to  reveal  himself.  But  if  he  speaks 
toman,  it  will  be  through  men;  and  those  who  hear  best  will  be  most  possessed  of 
God.  This  possession  is  termed  '  inspiration. '  God  inspires,  man  reveals:  revelation 
is  the  mode  or  form  — word,  character,  or  institution  —  in  which  man  embodies  what 
he  has  received.  The  terms,  though  not  equivalent,  are  co-extensive,  the  one  denoting 
the  process  on  its  inner  side,  the  other  on  its  outer."  This  statement,  although' approved 
by  Sanday,  Inspiration,  124, 125,  seems  to  us  almost  precisely  to  reverse  the  rig'ht  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  We  prefer  the  view  of  Evans,  Bib.  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  54  — 
"  God  has  first  revealed  himself,  and  then  has  inspired  men  to  interpret,  record  and  apply 


198  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"    FROM   GOD. 

this  revelation.  In  redemption,  inspiration  is  the  formal  factor,  as  revelation  is  the 
material  factor.  The  men  are  inspired,  as  Prof.  Stowe  said.  The  thoughts  are  inspired, 
as  Prof.  Briggs  said.  The  words  are  inspired,  as  Prof.  Hodge  said.  The  warp  and  woof 
of  the  Bible  is  Trvev/J-a :  "the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit "  (John  6  :  63 ).  Its  fringes 
run  off,  as  was  inevitable,  into  the  secular,  the  material,  the  psychic."  Phillips  Brooks, 
Life,  2:351  —  "If  the  true  revelation  of  God  is  in  Christ,  the  Bible  is  not  properly  a  rev- 
elation, hut  the  history  of  a  revelation.  This  is  not  only  a  fact  but  a  necessity,  for  a 
person  cannot  be  revealed  in  a  book,  but  must  find  revelation,  if  at  all,  in  a  person. 
The  centre  and  core  of  the  Bible  must  therefore  be  the  gospels,  as  the  story  of  Jesus." 

Some,  like  Priestley,  have  heid  that  the  gospels  are  authentic  but  not  inspired.  We 
therefore  add  to  the  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of  Scripture,  the  proof  of 
its  inspiration.  Chadwick,  Old  and  New  Unitarianism,  11—"  Priestley's  belief  in  super- 
natural revelation  was  intense.  He  had  an  absolute  distrust  of  reason  as  qualified  to 
furnish  an  adequate  knowledge  of  religious  things,  and  at  the  same  time  a  perfect  confi- 
dence in  reason  as  qualified  to  prov:  that  negative  and  to  determine  the  contents  of  the 
revelation."  We  might  claim  the  historical  truth  of  the  gospels,  even  if  we  did  not 
call  them  inspired.  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,.341 —  "  Christianity  brings  with  it  a  doctrine 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  is  not  based  upon  it."  Warfield  and 
Hodge,  Inspiration,  8  —  "  While  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  true,  and  being  true 
is  fundamental  to  the  adequate  interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  nevertheless  is  not,  in 
the  first  instance,  a  principle  fundamental  to  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion." 

On  the  idea  of  Revelation,  see  Ladd,  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,  Jan.  1883  :  156-178;  on 
Inspiration,  ibid.,  Apr.  1883:  225-248.  See  Henderson  on  Inspiration  ( 2nd  ed.),  58,  205, 
249,  303,  310.  For  other  works  on  the  general  subject  of  Inspiration,  see  Lee,  Banner- 
man,  Jamieson,  Macnaught;  Garbett,  God's  Word  Written;  Aids  to  Faith,  essay  on 
Inspiration.  Also,  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :205;  Westcott,  Introd.  to  Study  of  the 
Gospels,  27-65 ;  Bib.  Sac,  1 :  97;  4:154;  12:217;  15:29,314;  25:192-198;  Dr.  Barrows,  in 
Bib.  Sac.,  1867 :  593 ;  1872 :  428 ;  Farrar,  Science  in  Theology,  208 ;  Hodge  and  Warfield,  in 
Presto.  Rev.,  Apr.  1881:  225-201;  Manly,  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration;  Watts, 
Inspiration;  Mead,  Supernatural  Revelation,  350 ;  Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  136;  Hastings, 
Bible  Diet.,  1 :  296-299  ;  Sanday,  Bamptou  Lectures  on  Inspiration. 

II.     Pkoof  of  Inspiration. 

1.  Since  we  have  shown  that  God  has  made  a  revelation  of  himself  to 
man,  we  may  reasonably  presume  that  he  will  not  trust  this  revelation 
wholly  to  human  tradition  and  misrepresentation,  but  will  also  provide  a 
record  of  it  essentially  trustworthy  and  sufficient ;  in  other  words,  that  the 
same  Spirit  who  originally  communicated  the  truth  will  preside  over  its 
publication,  so  far  as  is  needed  to  accomplish  its  religious  purpose. 

Since  all  natural  intelligence,  as  we  have  seen,  presupposes  God's  indwelling,  and 
since  in  Scripture  the  all-prevailing  atmosphere,  with  its  constant  pressure  and  effort 
to  enter  every  cranny  and  corner  of  the  world,  is  used  as  an  illustration  of  the  impulse 
of  God's  omnipotent  Spirit  to  vivify  and  energize  every  human  soul  ( Gen.  2:7;  Job  32  : 8 ), 
we  may  infer  that,  but  for  sin,  all  men  would  be  morally  and  spiritually  inspired  ( Num. 
11  :  29  —  "  Would  that  all  Jehovah's  people  were  prophets,  that  Jehovah  would  put  his  Spirit  upon  them ! "  Is.  59  :  2 
—  "  your  iniquities  have  separated  between  you  and  your  God  ").  We  have  also  seen  that  God's  method 
of  communicating  his  truth  in  matters  of  religion  is  presumably  analogous  to  his 
method  of  communicating  secular  truth,  such  as  that  of  astronomy  or  history.  There 
is  an  original  delivery  to  a  single  nation,  and  to  single  persons  in  that  nation,  that  it  may 
through  them  be  given  to  mankind.  Sanday,  Inspiration,  140  —  "  There  is  a  '  purpose  of 
God  according  to  selection '  (Rom.  9:  11);  there  is  an  '  election '  or  '  selection  of  grace ' ;  and  the  object 
of  that  selection  was  Israel  and  those  who  take  their  name  from  Israel's  Messiah.  If 
a  tower  is  built  in  ascending  tiers,  those  who  stand  upon  the  lower  tiers  are  yet  raised 
above  the  ground,  and  some  may  be  raised  higher  than  others,  but  the  full  and  unim- 
peded view  is  reserved  for  those  who  mount  upward  to  the  top.  And  that  is  the  place 
destined  for  us  if  we  will  take  it." 

If  we  follow  the  analogy  of  God's  working  in  other  communications  of  knowledge, 
we  shall  reasonably  presume  that  he  will  preserve  the  record  of  his  revelations  in 
written  and  accessible  documents,  handed  down  from  those  to  whom  these  revelations 
weve  first  communicated,  and  we  may  expect  that  these  documents  will  be  kept  suf- 


PROOF   OF   INSPIRATION".  199 

ficiently  correct  and  trustworthy  to  accomplish  their  religious  purpose,  namely,  that 
of  f  umpiring  to  the  honest  inquirer  a  guide  to  Christ  and  to  salvation.  The  physician 
commits  his  prescriptions  to  writing ;  the  Clerk  of  Congress  records  its  proceedings; 
the  State  Departmentof  our  government  instructs  our  foreign  ambassadors,  not  orally, 
but  by  dispatches.  There  is  yet  greater  need  that  revelation  should  be  recorded,  since 
it  is  to  be  transmitted  to  distant  ages ;  it  contains  long  discourses ;  it  embraces  myster- 
ious doctrines.  Jesus  did  not  write  himself;  for  he  was  the  subject,  not  the  mere 
channel,  of  revelation.  His  unconcern  about  the  apostles'  immediately  committing  to 
writing  what  they  saw  and  heard  is  inexplicable,  if  he  did  not  expect  that  inspiration 
would  assist  them. 

We  come  to  the  discussion  of  Inspiration  with  a  presumption  quite  unlike  that  of 
Kuenen  and  Wellhauscn,  who  write  in  the  interest  of  almost  avowed  naturalism. 
Kuenen,  in  the  opening  sentences  of  bis  Religion  of  Israel,  does  indeed  assert  theruie 
of  God  in  the  world.  Hut  Sauday,  Inspiration,  117,  says  well  tiiat  "  Kuenen  keeps  this 
idea  very  much  in  the  background.  He  expended  a  whole  rolnme  of  593  large  octavo 
pages!  (Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  London,  1877)  in  proving- thai  the  prophets 
were  not  moved  to  speak  by  God,  but  that  their  utterances  were  all  their  own."  The  fol- 
lowing extract,  says  Sanduy,  Indicates  the  position  whieh  Dr.  Kuenen  really  held:  "  We 
do  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  deprived  of  God's  presence  in  history,  in  the  fortunes 
and  development  of  nations,  and  not  least  clearly  in  those  of  Israel,  we  see  Him,  the 
holy  and  all-wise  Instructor  of  his  human  children.  But  the  old  contrasts  must  be  alto- 
gether set  aside.  So  long  as  we  derive  a  separate  part  of  Israel's  religious  life  directly 
from  God,  and  allow  the  supernatural  or  immediate  revelation  to  intervene  in  even 
one  single  point,  so  long  also  our  view  of  the  whole  continues  to  be  incorrect,  and  we 
see  ourselves  here  and  there  necessitated  to  do  violence  to  the  well-authenticated  con- 
tents of  the  historical  documents.  It  is  the  supposition  of  a  natural  development  alone 
which  accounts  for  all  the  phenomena"  <  Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  685  I. 

2.  Jesus,  who  has  been  proved  to  be  not  only  a  credible  witness,  but  a 
messenger  from  God,  vouches  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  by 
quoting  it  with  the  formula:  "It  is  written"  ;  by  declaring  that  "one  jot 
or  one  tittle"  of  it  "shall  in  no  wise  pass  away,"  and  that  "the  Scripture 
cannot  be  broken. " 

Jesus  quotes  from  four  out  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  from  the  Psalms,  Isaiah, 
Malachi,  and  Zeehariah,  with  the  formula,  "it  is  written"  ;  see  Mat.  4:  4,  6,  7;  11 :  10;  Mark  14: 
27 ;  Luke  4 :  4-12.  This  formula  among  the  Jews  indicated  that  the  quotation  was  from  a 
sacred  book  and  was  divinely  inspired.  Jesus  certainly  regarded  the  Old  Testament 
with  as  much  reverence  as  the  Jews  of  his  day.  He  declared  that  "  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall 
in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  law  "  ( Mat.  5:18).  He  said  that  "  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken  "  ( John  10 :  35  ) 
=  " the  normative  and  judicial  authority  of  the  Scripture  cannot  be  set  aside;  notice 
here  [in  the  singular,  J)  vPa(#"ij  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  Scripture"  (Meyer).  And 
yet  our  Lord's  use  of  0.  T.  Scripture  was  wholly  free  from  the  superstitious  liter- 
alism which  prevailed  among  the  Jews  of  his  day.  The  phrases  "word  of  God  "  (John  10  :  35; 
Mark7:  13 ),"  wisdom  of  God"  (Luke  11:  49)  and  "oracles  of  God"  (Rom.  3:  2)  probably  designate 
the  original  revelations  of  God  and  not  the  record  of  these  in  Scripture  ;  cf.  1  Sam.  9  :  27; 

1  Chron.  17:  3 ;  Is.  40 :  8 ;  Mat.  13  :  19 ;  Luke  3:2;  Acts  8 :  25.  Jesus  refuses  assent  to  the  O.  T.  law 
respc  •cting  the  Sabbath  (Mark  2 :  27  sq. ),  external  defilements  <  Mark  7:15),  divorce  ( Mark  10 : 

2  sq.  I.  He  "  camo  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil "  (  Mat.  5 :  17 ) ;  yet  he  fulfilled  the  law  by  bringing  out 
its  inner  spirit  in  his  perfect  life,  rather  than  by  formal  and  minute  obedience  to  its 
precepts;  see  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2  :  5-35. 

The  apostles  quote  the  O.  T.  as  the  utterance  of  God  (Eph.  4:  8  —  Sib  Ae'yei,  sc.  dw). 
Paul's  insistence  upon  the  form  of  even  a  single  word,  as  in  Gal.  3:  16,  and  his  use  of  the 
O.  T.  for  purposes  of  allegory,  as  in  Gal.  4:  21-31,  show  that  in  his  view  the  O.  T.  text  was 
sacred.  Philo,  Josephus  and  the  Talmud,  in  their  interpretations  of  the  O.  T.,  fall  con- 
tinually into  a  "  narrow  and  unhappy  literalism."  "  The  N.  T.  does  not  indeed  escape 
Rabbinical  methods,  but  even  where  these  are  most  prominent  they  seem  to  affect  the 
form  far  more  than  the  substance.  And  through  the  temporary  and  local  form  the 
writer  constantly  penetrates  to  the  very  heart  of  the  O.  T.  teaching;"  see  Sanday, 
Bampton  Lectures  on  Inspiration,  87 ;  Henderson,  Inspiration,  254. 

3.  Jesus  commissioned  his  apostles  as  teachers  and  gave  them  promises 
of  a  supernatural  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  teaching,  like  the  promises 
made  to  the  Old  Testament  prophets. 


200  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   PROM    GOD. 

Mat.  28 :  19,  20  —  "  Go  ye  .  .  .  teaching  ...  and  lo,  I  am  with  you."  Compare  promises  to  Moses  ( Ex, 
3:  12),  Jeremiah  (Jer.  1:  5-8),  Ezekiel  ( Ezek.  2  and  3).  See  also  Is.  44:  3  and  Joel  2:  28  — "I  will 
pourmy  Spirit  upon  thy  seed";  Mat.  10:  7  — /'as  ye  go,  preach";  19  — "be  not  anxious  how  or  what  ye  shall 
speak ' ' ;  John  14 :  26  —  "  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  .  shall  teach  you  all  things  "  ;  15 :  26,  27  —  "  the  Spirit  of  truth  .  .  . 
shail  bear  witness  of  me :  and  ye  also  bear  witness  "=  the  Spirit  shall  witness  in  and  through  you ; 
16:  13— "he  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth "  =  (1)  limitation  —  all  the  truth  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  not 
of  philosophy  or  science,  but  of  religion ;  (2)  comprehension  —  all  the  truth  within  this 
limited  range,  i.  e.,  sufficiency  of  Scripture  as  rule  of  faith  and  practice  (  Hovey  ) ;  17:  8 
—  "the  words  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  unto  them";  Acts  1:4  —  "he  charged  them  .  .  .  to  wait  for 
the  promise  of  the  Father  "  ;  John  20  :  22  —  "  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Here  was  both  promise  and  communication  of  the  personal  Holy  Spirit.  Compare  Mat. 
10  :  19,  20  —  "it  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of 
your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you."    See  Henderson,  Inspiration,  247,  248. 

Jesus'  testimony  here  is  the  testimony  of  God.  In  Deut.  18:  18,  it  is  said  that  God  will 
put  his  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  great  Prophet.  In  John  12 :  49,  50,  Jesus  says :  "  I  spake 
not  from  myself,  but  the  Father  that  sent  me,  he  hath  given  me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  what  I  should 
speak.  And  I  know  that  his  commandment  is  life  eternal ;  the  things  therefore  which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Father  hath 
said  unto  me,  so  I  speak."  John  17 :  7,  8  —  "all  things  whatsoever  thou  hast  given  me  '.re  from  thee :  for  the  words 
which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  unto  them."  John  8  :  40  —  "a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I  heard 
from  God." 

4.  The  apostles  claim  to  have  received  this  promised  Spirit,  and  under 
his  influence  to  speak  with  divine  authority,  putting  their  writings  upon  a 
level  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  We  have  not  only  direct  state- 
ments that  both  the  matter  and  the  form  of  their  teaching  were  supervised 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  we  have  indirect  evidence  that  this  was  the  ca.su  in 
the  tone  of  authority  which  pervades  their  addresses  and  epistles. 

Statements:  —  1  Cor.  2:  10,  13  —  "unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  Which  things  also  we 
speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Spirit  teacheth";  11:  23  —  "I  received  of  the  Lord 
that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you  "  ;  12 :  8,  28  —  the  Adyos  ero</u'as  was  apparently  a  gift  peculiar  to 
the  apostles  ;  14:  37,38 — "the  things  which  I  write  unto  you  .  .  .  they  are  the  commandment  of  the  lord  " ; 
Gal.  1  :  12  —  "neither  did  I  receive  it  from  man,  nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me  through  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ";  1  Thess.  4 :  2,  8  —  "  ye  know  what  charge  we  gave  you  through  the  Lord  Jesus.  .  .  .  Therefore  he  that  reject- 
ed, rejecteth  not  man,  but  God,  who  giveth  his  Holy  Spirit  unto  you."  The  following  passages  put  the 
teaching  of  the  apostles  on  the  same  level  with  O.  T.  Scripture  :  1  Pet.  1 :  11,  12  —  "Spirit  of 
Christ  which  was  in  them  "  [  O.  T.  prophets  ]  ;  —  [  N .  T.  preachers  ]  ' '  preached  the  gospel  unto  you  by  tho 
Holy  Spirit"  ;  2  Pet.  1 :21  —  O.  T.  prophets  "spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  ;  3:2—  "remem- 
ber the  words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets"  [  O.  T.  ],  "and  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and 
Savior  through  your  apostles"  [N.  T.]  ;  16  —  "wrest  [Paul's  Epistles],  as  they  do  also  the  other  script- 
ures, unto  their  own  destruction."     Cf.  El.  4 :  14-16  ;  7  : 1. 

Implications:  —  2  Tim.  3:16 — "Every  scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable" — a  clear  implica- 
tion of  inspiration,  though  not  a  direct  statement  of  it  =there  is  a  divinely  inspired 
Scripture.  In  1  Cor.  5:  3-5,  Paul,  commanding  the  Corinthian  church  with  i-egard  to  the 
incestuous  person,  was  arrogant  if  not  inspired.  There  are  more  imperatives  in  the 
Epistles  than  in  any  other  writings  of  the  same  extent.  Notice  the  continual  assevera- 
tion of  authority,  as  in  Gal.  1 : 1,  2,  and  the  declaration  that  disbelief  of  the  record  is  sin, 
as  in  1  John  5:10,  11.  Jude  3— "the  faith  which  was  once  for  all  (aira£)  delivered  unto  the  saints."  See 
Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3:122;  Henderson,  Inspiration  (2nd  ed. ),  34,  234;  Conant,  Genesis, 
Introd.,  xiii,  note ;  Charteris,  New  Testament  Scriptures :  They  claim  truth,  unity, 
authority. 

The  passages  quoted  above  show  that  inspired  men  distinguished  inspiration  from 
their  own  unaided  thinking.  These  inspired  men  claim  that  their  inspiration  is  the 
same  with  that  of  the  prophets.  Rev.  22 :  6  —  "  the  Lord,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  the  prophets,  sent  his 
angel  to  show  unto  his  servants  the  things  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass  '  =  inspiration  gave  them  super- 
natural knowledge  of  the  future.  As  inspiration  in  the  O.  T.  was  the  work  of  the  pre- 
incarnate  Christ,  so  inspiration  in  the  N.  T.  is  the  work  of  the  ascended  and  glorified 
Christ  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  Relative  Authority  of  the  Gospels,  see  Gerhardt, 
in  Am.  Journ.  Theol.,  Apl.  1899 :  275-294,  who  shows  that  not  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the 
gospels  are  the  final  revelation,  but  rather  the  teaching  of  the  risen  and  glorified 
Christ  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  The  Epistles  are  the  posthumous  works  of  Christ. 
Pattison,  Making  of  the  Sermon,  23—"  The  apostles,  believing  themselves  to  be  inspired 


PROOF  OF  INSPIRATION.  201 

teachers,  often  preached  without  texts ;  and  the  fact  that  their  successors  did  not  fol- 
low their  example  shows  that  for  themselves  they  made  no  such  claim.  Inspiration 
ceased,  and  henceforth  authority  was  fjaund  in  the  use  of  the  words  of  the  now  com- 
plete Scriptures." 

5.  The  apostolic  -writers  of  the  New  Testament,  unlike  professedly 
inspired  heathen  sages  and  poets,  gave  attestation  by  miracles  or  prophecy 
that  they  were  inspired  by  God,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
productions  of  those  who  were  not  apostles,  such  as  Mark,  Luke,  Hebrews, 
James,  and  Jude,  were  recommended  to  the  churches  as  inspired,  by  apos- 
tolic sanction  and  authority. 

The  twelve  wrought  miracles  (Mat.  10:  1 ).  Paul's  "signs  af  an  apostle"  (2Cor.  13:  12)  =  mir- 
acles.  Internal  evidence  confirms  the  tradition  that  Mark  was  the  "interpreter  of 
Peter,"  and  that  Luke's  gospel  and  the  Acts  had  the  sanction  of  Paul.  Since  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Spirit's  bestowment  was  to  quality  those  who  were  to  be  the  teachers  and 
founders  of  the  now  religion,  it  is  only  fair  to  assume  that  Christ's  promise  of  the  Spirit 
was  valid  not  simply  to  the  twelve  but  to  all  who  stood  in  their  places,  and  to  these  not 
simply  as  speakers,  but,  since  in  this  respect  they  had  a  still  greater  need  of  divine 
guidance,  to  them  as  writers  also. 

The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  with  the  letters  of  James  and  Jude,  appeared  in  the  life- 
time of  some  of  the  twelve,  and  passed  unchallenged;  and  the  fact  that  they  all,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  ~  Peter,  were  very  early  accepted  by  the  churches  founded 
and  watched  over  by  the  apostles,  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  apostles  regarded  them 
as  inspired  productions.  As  evidences  that  the  writers  regarded  their  writings  as  of 
universal  authority,  sec  1  Ccr.  1:  2 —  "unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth  .  .  .  with  all  that  call 
upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  every  place,"  etc. ;  7 :  17 —  "so  ordain  I  in  all  the  churches " ;  Col.  4 :  16 
— "  And  when  this  epistle  hath  been  read  among  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans  "  ;  2  Pet. 
3  :  15,  16  —  "our  beloved  brother  Paul  also,  according  to  the  wisdom  given  to  him,  wrote  unto  you."  See  Bart- 
lett,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.  1880:  2;j-57;  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1884:  204,  205. 

Johnson,  Systematic  Theology,  40  —  "  Miraculous  gifts  were  bestowed  at  Pentecost 
on  many  besides  apostles.  Prophecy  was  not  an  uncommon  gift  during  the  apostolic 
period."  There  is  no  antecedent  improbability  that  inspiration  should  extend  to 
others  than  to  the  principal  leaders  of  the  church,  and  since  we  have  express  instances 
of  such  inspiration  in  oral  utterances  (Acts  11 :  28;  21 :  9,  10)  it  seems  natural  that  there 
should  have  been  instances  of  inspiration  in  written  utterances  also.  In  some  cases 
this  appears  to  have  been  only  an  inspiration  of  superintendence.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria says  only  that  Peter  neither  forbade  nor  encouraged  Mark  in  his  plan  of  writ- 
ing the  gospel.  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  Mark's  gospel  was  written  after  the  death  of 
Peter.  Papiassays  that  Mark  wrote  down  what  he  remembered  to  have  heard  from 
Peter.  Luke  does  not  seem  to  have  been  aware  of  any  miraculous  aid  in  his  writing, 
and  his  methods  appear  to  have  been  those  of  the  ordinary  historian. 

6.  The  chief  proof  of  inspiration,  however,  must  always  be  found  in  the 
internal  characteristics  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  these  are  disclosed 
to  the  sincere  inquirer  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  combines  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  to  convince  the  earnest 
reader  that  this  teaching  is  as  a  whole  and  in  all  essentials  beyond  the  power 
of  man  to  communicate,  and  that  it  must  therefore  have  been  put  into  per- 
manent and  written  form  by  special  inspiration  of  God. 

Foster,  Christian  Lift  and  Theology,  105—  "The  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  an  argu- 
ment from  identity  of  effects  —  the  doctrines  of  experience  and  the  doctrines  of  the 

Bible  —  to  identity  of  cause God-wrought  experience  proves  a  God-wrought 

Bible This  covers  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  if  not  the  whole  of  the  Bible.    It  is  true 

so  far  as  I  can  test  it.  It  is  to  be  believed  still  further  if  there  is  no  other  evidence.  " 
Lyman  Abbott,  iu  his  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  105,  calls  the  Bible  "a  record  of 
man's  laboratory  work  in  the  spiritual  realm,  a  history  of  the  dawning  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  God  and  of  the  divine  life  in  the  soul  of  man.  "  This  seems  to  us  unduly 
subjective.  We  prefer  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  also  God's  witness  to  us  of  his  presence 
and  working  in  human  hearts  and  in  human  history  — a  witness  which  proves  its 


202  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"   FROM    GOD. 

divine  origin  by  awakening  in  us  experiences  similar  to  those  which  it  desciibes,  and 
which  are  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  originate. 

G.  P.  Fisher,  in  Mag.  of  Christ.  Lit.,  Dec.  1SU2 :  239  —  "  Is  the  Bible  infallible  ?  Not  in 
the  sense  that  all  its  statements  extending  even  to  minutiae  in  matters  of  history  and 
science  are  strictly  accurate.  Not  in  the  sense  that  every  doctrinal  and  ethical  state- 
ment in  all  these  books  is  incapable  of  amendment.  The  whole  must  sit  in  judgment 
on  the  parts.  Revelation  is  progressive.  There  is  a  human  factor  as  well  as  a  divine. 
The  treasure  is  in  earthen  vessels.  But  the  Bible  is  infallible  in  the  sense  that  whoever 
surrenders  himself  in  a  docile  spirit  to  its  teaching  will  fall  into  no  hurtful  error  in 
matters  of  faith  and  charity.  Best  of  all,  he  will  find  in  it  the  secret  of  a  new,  holy  and 
blessed  life,  'hidden  with  Christ  in  God'  (Col.  3:3).  The  Scriptures  are  the  witness  to  Christ. 
....  Through  the  Scriptures  he  is  truly  and  adequately  made  known  to  us. "  Denney, 
Death  of  Christ,  314— "The  unity  of  the  Bible  and  its  inspiration  are  correlative 
terms.  If  we  can  discern  a  real  unity  in  it  — and  I  believe  we  can  when  we  see  that  it 
converges  upon  and  culminates  in  a  divine  love  bearing  the  sin  cf  the  world  — then 
that  unity  and  its  inspiration  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  And  it  is  not  only  inspired 
as  a  whole,  it  is  the  only  book  that  is  inspired.  It  is  the  only  book  in  the  world  to 
which  God  sets  his  seal  in  our  hearts  when  we  read  in  search  of  an  answer  to  the 
question,  How  shall  a  sinful  man  be  righteous  with  God?  ....  The  conclusion  of  our 
study  of  Inspiration  should  be  the  conviction  that  the  Bible  gives  us  a  body  of  doc- 
trine—  a  '  faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints '  ( Jude  3 )." 

III.     Theobies  op  Inspieation. 
1.     The  Intuition-theory : 

This  holds  that  inspiration  is  but  a  higher  development  of  that  natural 
insight  into  truth  which  all  men  possess  to  some  degree;  a  mode  of  intelli- 
gence in  matters  of  morals  and  religion  which  gives  rise  to  sacred  books,  as 
a  corresponding  mode  of  intelligence  in  matters  of  secular  truth  gives  rise 
to  great  works  of  philosophy  or  art.  This  mode  of  intelligence  is  regarded 
as  the  product  of  man's  own  powers,  either  without  special  divine  influence 
or  with  only  the  inworking  of  an  impersonal  God. 

This  theory  naturally  connects  itself  with  Pelagian  and  rationalistic  views  of  man's 
independence  of  God,  or  with  pantheistic  conceptions  of  man  as  being  himself  the  high- 
est manifestation  of  an  all-pervading  but  unconscious  intelligence.  Morell  and  F.  W. 
Newman  in  England,  and  Theodore  Parker  in  America,  are  representatives  of  this 
theory.  See  Morell,  Philos.  of  Religion,  127  179 — "Inspiration  is  only  a  higher  potency 
of  what  every  man  possesses  in  some  degree.  "  See  also  Francis  W.  Newman  ( brother 
of  John  Henry  Newman  ),  Phases  of  Faith  (=  phases  of  unbelief );  Theodore  Parker, 
Discourses  of  Religion,  and  Experiences  as  a  Minister :  "  God  is  infinite ;  therefore  he  is 
immanent  in  nature,  yet  transcending  it;  immanent  in  spirit,  yet  transcending  that. 
He  must  fill  each  point  of  spirit,  as  of  space  ;  matter  must  unconsciously  obey ;  man, 
conscious  and  free,  lias  power  to  a  certain  extent  to  disobey,  but  obeying,  the  imma- 
nent God  acts  in  man  as  much  as  in  nature  "  —  quoted  in  Chadwick,  Theodore  Parker, 
271.  Hence  Parker's  view  of  Inspiration:  If  the  conditions  are  fulfilled,  inspiration 
comes  in  proportion  to  man's  gifts  and  to  his  use  of  those  gifts.  Chadwick  himself,  in 
his  Old  and  New  Unitarianism,  68,  says  that  "the  Scriptures  are  inspired  just  so  far  as 
they  are  inspiring,  and  no  more.  " 

W.  C.  Gannett,  Life  of  Ezra  Stiles  Gannett,  196  —  " Parker's  spiritualism  affirmed,  as 
the  grand  truth  of  religion,  the  immanence  of  an  infinitely  perfect  God  in  matter  and 
mind,  and  his  activity  in  both  spheres."  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  2: 178-180  — 
"Theodore  Parker  treats  the  regular  results  of  the  human  faculties  as  an  immediate 

working  of  God,  and  regards  the  Principia  of  Newton  as  inspired AVhat  then 

becomes  of  the  human  personality?  He  calls  God  not  only  omnipresent,  but  omni- 
active.  Is  then  Shakespeare  only  by  courtesy  author  of  Macbeth?  ....  If  this  were 
more  than  rhetorical,  it  would  be  unconditional  pantheism."  Both  nature  and  man 
are  other  names  for  God.  Martineau  is  willing  to  grant  that  our  intuitions  and  ideals 
are  expressions  of  the  Deity  in  us,  but  our  personal  reasoning  and  striving,  he  thinks, 
cannot  be  attributed  to  God.  The  word  voO?  has  no  plural :  intellect,  in  whatever  sub- 
ject manifested,  being  all  one,  just  as  a  truth  is  one  and  the  same,  in  however  many 


THEORIES   OF    INSPIRATION".  203 

persons'  consciousness  it  may  present  itself;  see  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  403. 

Calmer,  Studies  in  Theological  Definition,  27  —  "We  can  draw  no  sharp  distinction 
between  the  human  mind  discovering  truth,  and  the  divine  mind  imparting-  revelation." 
Kueuen  belongs  to  this  school. 

With  regard  to  this  theory  we  remark  : 

(  a  )  Man  has,  indeed,  a  certain  natural  insight  into  truth,  and  we  grant 
that  inspiration  uses  this,  so  far  as  it  will  go,  and  makes  it  an  instrument  in 
discovering  and  recording  facts  of  nature  or  history. 

In  the  investigation,  for  example,  of  purely  historical  matters,  such  as  Luke  records, 
merely  natural  insig-ht  may  at  times  have  been  sufficient.  When  this  was  the  case, 
Luke  may  have  been  left  to  the  exercise  of  his  own  faculties,  inspiration  only  inciting 
and  supervising  the  work.  George  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  413— "God  could  not 
reveal  himself  to  man,  unless  he  first  revealed  himself  in  man.  If  it  should  be  written 
in  letters  on  the  sky:  'God  is  good,'  —  the  words  would  have  no  meaning,  unless  good- 
ness had  been  made  known  already  in  human  volitions.  Revelation  is  not  by  an  occa- 
sional stroke,  but  by  a  continuous  process.  It  is  not  superimposed,  but  inherent 

(ienius  is  inspired;  for  the  mind  which  perceives  truth  must  be  responsive  to  the 
Mind  that  made  things  the  vehicles  Of  thought,"  Sanday,  Hampton  Lectures  on  Inspi- 
ration: "In  claiming  for  the  Bible  inspiration,  we  do  not  exclude  the  possibility  of 
other  lower  or  more  partial  degrees  of  inspiration  in  other  literatures.  The  Spirit  of 
God  has  doubtless  touched  other  hearts  and  other  minds  ....  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
insight  into  truth,  besides  those  which  could  claim  descent  from  Abraham."  Philo 
thought  the  LXX  translators,  the  Greek  philosophers,  anil  at  times  even  himself,  to  be 
inspired.  Plato  he  regards  as  "most  sacred"  ( Upiototos ),  but  all  good  men  are  in  vari- 
ous degrees  inspired.  Yet  Philo  never  quotes  as  authoritative  any  but  the  Canonical 
Books.    He  attributes  to  them  an  authority  unique  in  its  kind. 

( b  )  In  all  matters  of  morals  and  religion,  however,  man's  insight  into 
truth  is  vitiated  by  wrong  affections,  and,  unless  a  supernatural  wisdom  can 
guide  him,  he  is  certain  to  en-  himself,  and  to  lead  others  into  error. 

1  Cor.  2  :  14  —  "  Now  tho  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ; 
and  he  cannot  know  them,  beuuse  they  are  spiritually  judged  " ;  10  —  "  But  unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the 
Sprit:  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  tha  deep  things  of  God.  "  See  (j notation  from  Coleridge,  in 
shairp,  Culture  and  Religion,  114— "Water  cannot  rise  higher  than  its  source;  neither 
can  human  reasoning-";  Emerson,  Prose  Works,  1  :474,-  2:468— "'Tis  curious  we  only 
believe  as  deep  as  we  live  "  ;  UUmunn,  Sinlessness of  Jesus,  183, 184.  For  this  reason  we 
hold  to  a  communication  of  religious  truth,  at  least  at  times,  more  direct  ami  objective 
than  is  granted  by  George  Adam  Smith,  Com.  on  [saiah,  1 :  372— "To  Isaiah  inspiration 
was  nothing  mere  nor  less  than  the  possession  of  certain  strong  moral  and  religious 
convictions,  which  lie  felt  he  owed  to  the  communication  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
according-  to  which  he  interpreted,  and  even  dared  to  foretell,  the  history  of  his  people 
and  of  the  world.  <»ur  study  completely  dispels, on  the  evidence  of  the  Bible  itself, 
that  view  of  inspiration  and  prediction  so  long-  held  in  the  church."  If  this  is  meant  as 
a  denial  of  any  communication  of  truth  other  than  the  internal  and  subjective,  we  set 
over  against  it  Num.  12:6-8 — "if  there  be  a  prophet  among  you,  I  the  Lord  will  make  myself  known  unto 
him  in  a  vision,  I  will  speak  with  him  in  a  dream.  My  servant  Moses  is  not  so;  he  is  faithful  in  all  my  house: 
with  him  will  I  speak  mouth  to  mouth,  even  manifestly,  and  not  in  dark  speeches ;  and  the  form  of  Jehovah  shall  he 
behold." 

( c  )  The  theory  in  question,  holding  as  it  does  that  natural  insight  is 
the  only  source  of  religious  truth,  involves  a  self-contradiction ;  —  if  the 
theory  be  true,  then  one  man  is  inspired  to  utter  what  a  second  is  inspired 
to  pronounce  false.  The  Vedas,  the  Koran  and  the  Bible  cannot  be  inspired 
to  contradict  each  other. 

The  Vedas  permit  thieving,  and  the  Koran  teaches  salvation  by  works ;  these  cannot 
be  inspired  and  the  Bible  also.  Paul  cannot  be  inspired  to  write  his  epistles,  and  Swe- 
denborg  also  inspired  to  reject  them.  The  Bible  does  not  admit  that  pagan  teachings 
have  the  same  divine  endorsement  with  its  own.    Among  the  Spartans  to  steal  was 


204  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

praiseworthy ;  only  to  be  caught  stealing  was  criminal.  On  the  religious  consciousness 
with  regard  to  the  personality  of  God,  the  divine  goodness,  the  future  life,  the  utilit  > 
of  prayer,  in  all  of  which  Miss  Cobbe,  Mr.  Greg  and  Mr.  Parker  disagree  with  each 
other,  see  Bruce,  Apologetics,  143, 144.  With  Matheson  we  may  grant  that  the  leading 
idea  of  inspiration  is  "  the  growth  of  the  divine  through  the  capacities  of  the  human," 
while  yet  we  deny  that  inspiration  confines  itself  to  this  subjective  enlightenment  of 
the  human  faculties,  and  also  we  exclude  from  the  divine  working  all  those  perverse 
and  erroneous  utterances  which  are  the  results  of  human  sin. 

(  d  )  It  makes  moral  and  religious  truth  to  be  a  purely  subjective  thing 
—  a  matter  of  private  opinion — having  no  objective  reality  independently 
of  men's  opinions  regarding  it. 

On  this  system  truth  is  what  men  'trow';  things  are  what  men  '  think '  — words 
representing  only  the  subjective.  "Better  the  Greek  akydeia.  =  ' the  unconcealed' 
(  objective  truth ) "—  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  183.  If  there  be  no  absolute  truth, 
Lessing's  'search  for  truth  '  is  the  only  thing  left  to  us.  But  who  will  search,  if  there 
is  no  truth  to  be  found  ?  Even  a  wise  cat  will  not  eternally  chase  its  own  tail.  The 
exercise  within  certain  limits  is  doubtless  useful,  but  the  cat  gives  it  up  so  soon  as 
it  becomes  convinced  that  the  tail  cannot  be  caught.  Sir  Richard  Burton  became  a 
Roman  Catholic,  a  Brahmin,  and  a  Mohammedan,  successively,  apparently  holding 
with  Hamlet  that  "  there  is  nothing  either  good  or  bad,  but  thinking  makes  it  so." 
This  same  scepticism  as  to  the  existence  of  objective  truth  appears  in  the  sayings: 
"  Your  religion  is  good  for  you,  and  mine  for  me  " ;  "  One  man  is  born  an  Augustinian, 
and  another  a  Pelagian."  See  Dix,  Pantheism,  Introd.,  12.  Richtcr:  "  It  is  not  the 
goal,  but  the  course,  that  makes  us  happy." 

(  e  )  It  logically  involves  the  denial  of  a  personal  God  who  is  truth  and 
reveals  truth,  and  so  makes  man  to  be  the  highest  intelligence  in  the  uni- 
verse. This  is  to  explain  inspiration  by  denying  its  existence  ;  since,  if 
there  be  no  personal  God,  inspiration  is  but  a  figure  of  speech  for  a 
purely  natural  fact. 

The  animus  of  this  theory  is  denial  of  the  supernatural.  Like  the  denial  of  miracles, 
it  can  be  maintained  only  upon  grounds  of  atheism  or  pantheism.  The  view  in  ques- 
tion, as  Hutton  in  his  Essays  remarks,  would  permit  us  to  say  that  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  Gibbon,  amid  the  ruins  of  the  Coliseum,  saying :  "  Go,  write  the  history  of  the 
Decline  and  Fall !  "  But,  replies  Hutton:  Such  a  view  is  pantheistic.  Inspiration  is 
the  voice  of  a  living  friend,  in  distinction  from  the  voice  of  a  dead  friend,  i.  e.,  the  influ- 
ence of  his  memory.  The  inward  impulse  of  genius,  Shakespeare's  for  example,  is  not 
properly  denominated  inspiration.  See  Row,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1877:428-474; 
Rogers,  Eclipse  of  Faith,  73  sq.  and  283  sq. ;  Henderson,  Inspiration  (2nd  ed.),  443-469, 
481-490.  The  view  of  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  302,  is  substantially  this.  See  criti- 
cism of  Martineau,  by  Rainy,  in  Critical  Rev.,  1 : 5-20. 

2.     The  Illumination  Theory. 

This  regards  inspiration  as  merely  an  intensifying  and  elevating  of  the 
religious  perceptions  of  the  Christian,  the  same  in  kind,  though  greater  in 
degree,  with  the  illumination  of  every  believer  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
holds,  not  that  the  Bible  is,  but  that  it  contains,  the  word  of  God,  and  that 
not  the  writings,  but  only  the  writers,  were  inspired.  The  illumination 
given  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  however,  puts  the  inspired  writer  only  in  full 
possession  of  his  normal  powers,  but  does  not  communicate  objective  truth 
beyond  his  ability  to  discover  or  understand. 

This  theory  naturally  connects  itself  with  Arminian  views  of  mere  cooperation  with 
God.  It  differs  from  the  Intuition-theory  by  containing  several  distinctively  Christian 
elements :  ( 1 )  the  influence  of  a  personal  God ;  ( 2 )  an  extraordinary  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  (3)  the  Christological  character  of  the  Scriptures,  putting  into  form  a  revela- 
tion of  which  Christ  is  the  centre  (Rev.  19 :  10  ).    But  while  it  grants  that  the  Scripture 


THEORIES   OF    INSPIRATION".  205 

writers  were  "moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit"  ((fiepo/mci'oi  —  2  Pet.  1 :21),  it  ignores  the  complementary 
fact  that  the  Scripture  itself  is  "inspired  of  God  "  ( deoTrvevo-Tos  —  2  Tim.  3 :  16 ).  Luther's  view- 
resembles  this;  see  Domer,  Gesch.  prot.  Theol.,  236,  237.  Schleiermacher,  with  the 
more  orthodox  Neander,  Tholuck  and  Cremer,  holds  it ;  see  Essays  by  Tholuck,  in  Her- 
zog,  Encyclopedic,  and  in  Noyes,  Theological  Essays;  Cremer,  Lexicon  N.  T.,  deonvevo-- 
'»!,  and  in  Herzog  and  Hauck,  Realeucj-c.,  9  :  18;»-203.  In  France,  Sabatier,  Philos.  Relig- 
ion, 90,  remarks:  "Prophetic  inspiration  is  piety  raised  to  the  second  power"— it 
differs  from  the  atety  of  common  men  only  in  intensity  and  energy.  See  also  Godet, 
in  Revue  Chretir-nne,  Jan.  1878. 
In  England  Coleridge  propounded  this  view  in  his  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit 

1  Works,  5:669 ) — "  Whatever  finds  mc  bears  witness  that  it  has  proceeded  from  a  Holy 
Spirit;  in  the  Bible  there  is  more  that  finds  me  than  I  have  experienced  in  all  other 
books  put  together."  [Shall  we  then  call  Baxter's  "  Saints'  Host"  inspired,  while  the 
Books  of  Chronicles  are  not?  ]  See  also  F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermon  I ;  Life  and  Letters, 
letter  53,  vol.  1 :  270 ;  2  :  143-150  —  "The  other  way,  some  twenty  or  thirty  men  in  the 
world's  history  have  had  special  communication,  miraculous  and  from  God;  Intkis 
way,  all  may  have  it,  and  by  devout  and  earnest  cultivation  of  the  mind  and  heart  may 
have  it  inimitably  increased."  Frederick  W.  H.  Myers,  Catholic  Thoughts  on  the  Bible 
and  Theology,  10-80,  emphasizes  the  idea  that  the  Scriptures  are,  in  their  earlier  parts 
not  merely  Inadequate,  bat  partially  untrue,  and  subsequently  superseded  by  fuller 
revelations.  The  leading  thought  is  that  of  accommodation  :  the  record  of  revelation  is 
not  necessarily  infallible.  Allen,  Religious  Progress,  41.  quotes  Bishop  ThirlwaU  :  "If 
that  Spirit  by  which  every  man  spoke  of  old  is  a  living  and  present  Spirit,  its  later  lea 
sons  may  well  transcend  its  earlier  ";  — Pascal's  'colossal  man'  is  t  he  race;  the  first 
men  represented  only  infancy  ;  ue  arc  '  the  ancients',  and  we  arc  wiser  than  our  fat  hers. 
See  also  Farrar,  Critical  History  of  Free  Trought,  473,  note  50;  Martineau,  Studies  in 
Christianity:  "  One  Gospel  in  Many  Dialects." 

Of  American  writers  who  favor  this  view,  see  J.  F.  Clarke,  Orthodoxy,  its  Truths  ami 
Errors,  74;  Curtis,  Human  Element  in  Inspiration;  Whiton,  in  N.  Eng.,  Jan.  1882  :  63- 
72;  Ladd,  in  Andover  Review,  July,  1885,  in  What  is  the  Bible'.'  and  in  Doctrine  of 
Sacred  Scripture,  1  :  759— "a  large  proportion  of  its  writings  inspired  "  ;  2  :  Ks,  275,  497  — 
"that  fundamental  misconception  which  identifies  the  Bible  and  the  word  of  God  "  ; 

2  :  488—  "  Inspiration,  as  the  subjective  condition  of  Biblical  revelation  and  the  predicate 
of  the  word  of  God,  Is  specifically  the  same  illumining,  quickening,  elevating  and  puri- 
fying work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  that  which  goes  on  in  the  persons  of  the  entire  believ- 
ing community."  Professor  Ladd  therefore  pares  down  all  predictive  prophecy,  and 
regards  Isaiah  53,  not  as  directly  and  solely,  but  only  as  typically,  Messianic.  Clarke, 
Christian  Theology,  35-44— "Inspiration  is  exaltation,  quickening  of  ability,  stimulation 
of  spiritual  power ;  it  is  uplifting  and  enlargement  of  capacity  for  perception,  compre- 
hension and  utterance  ;  and  all  under  the  influence  of  a  thought,  a  truth,  or  an  ideal 
that  has  taken  possession  of  the  soul.  .  .  .  Inspiration  to  write  was  not  different  in 
kind  from  the  common  influence  of  God  upon  his  people.  .  .  .  Inequality  in  the  Script- 
ures is  plain.  .  .  .  Even  if  we  were  convinced  that  some  book  would  better  have  been 
omitted  from  the  Canon,  our  confidencein  the  Scriptures  would  not  thereby  be  shaken. 
The  Canon  did  not  make  Scripture,  but  Scripture  made  the  Canon.  The  inspiration  of 
the  Bible  does  not  prove  its  excellence,  but  its  excellence  proves  its  inspiration.  The 
Spirit  brought  the  Scriptures  to  help  Christ's  work,  but  not  to  take  his  place.  Script- 
ure says  with  Paul :  '  Not  that  we  have  lordship  over  your  faith,  but  are  helpers  of  your  joy  :  for  in  faith  ye 
stand  fast'  (2  Cor.  1 :  24)." 

E.  G.  Robinson :  "  The  office  of  the  Spirit  in  inspiration  is  not  different  from  that 
which  he  performed  for  Christians  at  the  time  the  gospels  were  written.  .  .  .  When  the 
prophelssay:  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord,'  they  mean  simply  that  they  have  divine  authority  for 
what  they  utter."  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  History  of  Books  of  Bible,  19— "  It  is  not  the 
words  of  the  Bible  that  were  inspired.  It  is  not  the  thoughts  of  the  Bible  that  were 
inspired.  It  was  the  men  who  wrote  the  Bible  who  were  inspired."  Thayer,  Changed 
Attitude  toward  the  Bible, 63  — "It  was  not  before  the  polemic  spirit  becamcrife  in 
the  controversies  which  followed  the  Reformation  that  the  fundamental  distinction 
between  the  word  of  God  and  the  record  of  that  word  became  obliterated,  and  the  pesti- 
lent tenet  gained  currency  that  the  Bible  is  absolutely  free  from  every  error  of  every 
sort."  Principal  Cave,  in  Homiletical  Review,  Feb.  1892,  admitting  errors  but  none 
serious  in  the  Bible,  proposes  a  mediating  statement  for  the  present  controversy, 
namely,  that  Revelation  implies  inerrancy,  but  that  Inspiration  does  not.  Whatever 
God  reveals  must  be  true,  but  many  have  become  inspired  without  being  rendered 
infallible.    See  also  Head,  Supernatural  Revelation,  291  sq. 


206  THE    SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

With,  regard  to  this  theory  we  remark  : 

( o)  There  is  unquestionably  an  illumination  of  the  mind  of  every  believer 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  we  grant  that  there  may  have  been  instances  in 
which  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  in  inspiration,  amounted  only  to 
illumination. 

Certain  applications  and  interpretations  of  Old  Testament  Scripture,  as  for  example, 
John  the  Baptist's  application  to  Jesus  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  (John  1 :  29  — " Behold,  the  Lamb  of 
God,  that  taketh  away  [  marg.  '  beareth '  ]  the  sin  of  the  world  " ),  and  Peter's  interpretation  of  David's 
words  ( Acts  2 :  27  —  "  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  unto  Hades,  Neither  wilt  thou  give  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corrup- 
tion "  ),  may  have  required  only  the  illuminating-  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is 
a  sense  in  which  we  may  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  inspired  only  to  those  who  are 
themselves  inspired.  The  Holy  Spirit  must  show  us  Christ  before  we  recognize  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  in  Scripture.  The  doctrines  of  atonement  and  of  justification  per- 
haps did  not  need  to  he  newly  revealed  to  the  N.  T.  writers;  illumination  as  to  earlier 
revelations  may  have  sufficed.  But  that  Christ  existed  before  his  incarnation,  and 
that  there  are  personal  distinctions  in  the  Godhead,  probably  required  revelation. 
Edison  says  that  "inspiration  is  simply  perspiration."  Genius  has  been  defined  as 
"  unlimited  power  to  take  pains."  But  it  is  more  —  the  power  to  do  spontaneously  and 
without  effort  what  the  ordinary  man  does  by  the  hardest.  Every  great  genius  recog- 
nizes that  this  power  is  due  to  the  inflowing  into  him  of  a  Spirit  greater  than  his  own 
—  the  Spirit  of  divine  wisdom  and  energy.  The  Scripture  writers  attribute  their 
understanding  of  divine  things  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  see  next  paragraph.  On  genius,  as 
due  to  "  subliminal  uprush,"  see  F.  W.  H.  Myers,  Human  Personality,  1 :  70-120. 

(  b )  But  we  deny  that  this  was  the  constant  method  of  inspiration,  or 
that  such  an  influence  can  account  for  the  revelation  of  new  truth  to  the 
prophets  and  apostles.  The  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  no  new 
truth,  but  only  a  vivid  apprehension  of  the  truth  already  revealed.  Any 
original  communication  of  truth  must  have  required  a  work  of  the  Spirit 
different,  not  in  degree,  but  in  kind. 

The  Scriptures  clearly  distinguish  between  revelation,  or  the  communication  of  new 
truth,  and  illumination,  or  the  quickening  of  man's  cognitive  powers  to  perceive  truth 
already  revealed.  No  increase  in  the  power  of  the  eye  or  the  telescope  will  do  more 
than  to  bring  into  clear  view  what  is  already  within  its  range.  Illumination  will  not 
lift  the  veil  that  hides  what  is  beyond.  Revelation,  on  the  other  hand,  is  an 'unveil- 
ing'—the  raising  of  a  curtain,  or  the  bringing  within  our  range  of  what  was  hidden 
before.  Such  a  special  operation  of  God  is  described  in  2  Sam.  23  :  2,  3  —  "  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
spake  by  me,  And  his  word  was  upon  my  tongue.  The  God  of  Israel  said,  The  Rock  of  Israel  spake  to  me  "  ;  Mat.  10 : 
20  — "  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you  "  ;  1  Cor.  2 :  9-13  — "  Things  which 
eye  saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  And  which  entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man,  'Whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for 
them  that  love  him.  But  unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit:  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the 
deep  things  cf  God.  For  who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  the  man,  which  is  in  him  ? 
even  so  the  things  of  God  none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  we  received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the 
spirii  which  is  from  God  ;  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  were  freely  given  to  us  of  God." 

Clairvoyance  and  second  sight,  of  which  along  with  many  cases  of  imposition  and 
exaggeration  there  seems  to  be  a  small  residuum  of  proved  fact,  show  that  there  may 
be  extraordinary  operations  of  our  natural  powers.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  miracle,  the 
inspiration  of  Scripture  necessitated  an  exaltation  of  these  natural  powers  such  as  only 
the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  can  explain.  That  the  product  is  inexplicable 
t;s  due  to  mere  illumination  seems  plain  when  we  remember  that  revelation  sometimes 
excluded  illumination  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  which  was  communicated,  for  the  pro- 
phets are  represented  in  1  Pet.  1 :11  as  "searching  what  time  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  them  did  point  unto,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories  that  should  fol- 
low them."  Since  no  degree  of  illumination  can  account  for  the  prediction  of  "  things  that 
are  to  come"  (John  16  :  13),  this  theory  tends  to  the  denial  of  any  immediate  revelation  in 
prophecy  so-called,  and  the  denial  easily  extends  to  any  immediate  revelation  of 
doctrine. 


THEORIES   OF   INSPIRATION.  207 

( c )  Mere  illumination  could  not  secure  the  Scripture  writers  from 
frequent  and  grievous  error.  The  spiritual  perception  of  the  Christian 
is  always  rendered  to  some  extent*irnperfect  and  deceptive  by  remaining 
depravity.  The  subjective  element  so  predominates  in  this  theory,  that  no 
certainty  remains  even  with  regard  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures 
as  a  whole. 

While  we  admit  imperfections  of  detail  in  matters  not  essential  to  the  moral  and 
religious  teaching-  of  Scripture,  we  claim  that  the  Uible  furnishes  a  sufficient  guide  to 
Christ  and  to  salvation.  The  theory  we  are  considering,  however,  by  making  the 
measure  of  holiness  to  be  the  measure  of  inspiration,  renders  even  the  collective  testi- 
mony of  the  Scripture  writers  an  uncertain  guide  to  truth.  We  point  out  therefore 
that  inspiration  is  not  absolutely  limited  by  the  moral  condition  of  those  who  are 
inspired.  Knowledge,  in  the  Christian,  may  go  beyond  conduct.  Balaam  and  Caiaphas 
were  not  holy  men,  yet  they  were  inspired  (Num.  23:5;  John  11 : 49-52 ).  The  promise  of 
Christ  assured  at  least  the  essential  trustworthiness  of  his  witnesses  (  Mat.  10:7,19,  20;  John 
14:26;  15:26,27;  16:13;  17:8).  This  theory  that  inspiration  is  a  wholly  subjective  com- 
munication of  truth  leads  to  the  practical  rejection  of  important  parts  of  Scripture,  in 
fact  to  the  rejection  of  all  Scripl  ure  that  professes  to  convey  truth  beyond  the  power 
of  man  to  discover  or  to  understand.  Notice  the  progress  from  Thomas  Arnold  (Ser- 
mons, 2 :  186 1  to  Matthew  Arnold  ( Literature  and  Dogma,  KS4, 137 ).  Notice  also  Sweden- 
borg's  rejection  of  nearly  one  half  the  Bible  (  Ruth,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nohemiah,  Esther, 
Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastcs,  Song  of  Solomon,  and  the  whole  of  the  N.  T.  except  the 
Gospels  and  the  Apocalypse  ),  connected  with  the  claim  of  divine  authority  for  his  new 
revelation.  '"His  interlocutors  all  Swedenborgize "  ( R.  W.  Emerson).  On  Sweden- 
borg,  see  flours  with  the  Mystics.  2  :~?:in  ;  Moehler,  Symbolism,  436-466;  New  Englander, 
Jan.  1874:195;  Baptist  Review,  1883:143-157;  Pond,  Swedenborgianism ;  Ireland,  The 
Blot  on  the  Brain,  1-129. 

(d)  The  theory  is  logically  indefensible,  as  intimating  that  illumina- 
tion with  regard  to  truth  can  be  imparted  without  imparting  truth  itself, 
whereas  God  must  first  furnish  objective  truth  to  be  perceived  before  he 
can  illuminate  the  mind  to  perceive  the  meaning  of  that  truth. 

The  theory  is  analogous  to  the  views  that  preservation  is  a  continued  creation; 
knowledge  is  recognition  ;  regeneration  is  increase  of  light.  In  order  to  preservation, 
something  must  first  be  created  which  can  be  preserved;  in  order  to  recognition, 
something  must  be  known  which  can  be  recognized  or  known  again  ;  in  order  to  make 
increase  of  light  of  any  use,  there  must  first  be  the  power  to  see.  In  like  manner,  inspira- 
tion cannot  be  mere  illumination,  because  the  external  necessarily  i>recedesthe  inter- 
nal, the  objective  precedes  the  subjective,  the  truth  revealed  precedes  the  apprehen- 
sion of  that  truth.  In  the  case  of  all  truth  that  surpasses  the  normal  powers  of  man  to 
perceive  or  evolve,  there  must  be  special  communication  from  God  ;  revelation  must 
go  before  inspiration  ;  inspiration  alone  is  not  revelation.  It  matters  not  whether  this 
communication  of  truth  be  from  without  or  from  within.  As  in  creation,  God  can 
work  from  within,  yet  the  new  result  is  not  explicable  as  mere  reproduction  of  the 
past.  The  eye  can  see  only  as  it  receives  and  uses  the  external  light  furnished  by  the 
sun,  even  though  it  be  equally  true  that  without  the  eye  the  light  of  the  sun  would  be 
nothing  worth. 

Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  17-19,  says  that  to  Schleiermacher  revelation  is  the  original 
appearance  of  a  proper  religious  life,  which  life  is  derived  neither  from  external  com- 
munication nor  from  invention  and  reflection,  but  from  a  divine  impartation,  which 
impartation  can  be  regarded,  not  merely  as  an  instructive  influence  upon  man  as  an 
intellectual  being,  but  as  an  endowment  determining  his  whole  personal  existence  — 
an  endowment  analogous  to  the  higher  conditions  of  poetic  and  heroic  exaltation. 
Pfleiderer  himself  would  give  the  name  "revelation"  to  "every  original  experience 
in  which  man  becomes  aware  of,  and  is  seized  by,  supersensible  truth,  truth  which  does 
not  come  from  external  impartation  nor  from  purposed  reflection,  but  from  the  uncon- 
scious and  undivided  transcendental  ground  of  the  soul,  and  so  is  received  as  an 
impartation  from  God  through  the  medium  of  the  soul's  human  activity."  Kaftan, 
Dogmatik,  51  $q. —  "We  must  put  the  conception  of  revelation  in  place  of  inspiration. 


208  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

Scripture  is  the  record  of  divine  revelation.  We  do  not  propose  a  new  doctrine  or 
inspiration,  in  place  of  the  old.  We  need  only  revelation,  and,  here  and  there,  provi- 
dence. The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given,  not  to  inspiration,  but  to  revelation 
—  the  truths  that  touch  the  human  spirit  and  have  been  historically  revealed." 

Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  182— Edwards  held  that  spiritual  life  in  the  soul  is  given 
by  God  only  to  his  favorites  and  dear  children,  while  inspiration  may  be  thrown  out, 
as  it  were,  to  dogs  and  swine  — a  Balaam,  Saul,  and  Judas.  The  greatest  privilege  of 
apostles  and  prophets  was,  not  their  inspiration,  but  their  holiness.  Better  to  have 
grace  in  the  heart,  than  to  be  the  mother  of  Christ  ( Luke  11 :  27,  28).  Maltbie  D.  Babcock, 
in  S.  S.  Times,  1901 :  590—  "  The  man  who  mourns  because  infallibility  cannot  be  had  in 
a  church,  or  a  guide,  or  a  set  of  standards,  does  not  know  when  he  is  well  off.  How 
could  God  develop  our  minds,  our  power  of  moral  judgment,  if  there  were  no  '  spirit  to 
be  tried  '  ( 1  John  4 :  1 ),  no  necessity  for  discrimination,  no  discipline  of  search  and  chal- 
lenge and  choice  ?  To  give  the  right  answer  to  a  problem  is  to  put  him  on  the  side  of 
infallibility  so  far  as  that  answer  is  concerned,  but  it  is  to  do  him  an  ineffable  wrong 
touching  his  real  education.  The  blessing  of  life's  schooling  is  not  in  knowing  the  right 
answer  in  advance,  but  in  developing  power  through  struggle." 

Why  did  John  Henry  Newman  surrender  to  the  Church  of  Rome?  Because  he 
assumed  that  an  external  authority  is  absolutely  essential  to  religion,  and,  when  such 
an  assumption  is  followed,  Rome  is  the  only  logical  terminus.  "  Dogma  was,"  he  says, 
"  the  fundamental  principle  of  my  religion."  Modern  ritualism  is  a  return  to  this  medi- 
aeval notion.  "  Dogmatic  Christianity,"  says  Harnack,  "  is  Catholic.  It  needs  an  irier- 
rant  Bible,  and  an  infallible  church  to  interpret  that  Bible.  The  dogmatic  Protestant 
is  of  the  same  camp  with  the  sacramental  and  infallible  Catholic."  Lyman  Abbott: 
"The  new  Reformation  denies  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  as  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion denied  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  There  is  no  infallible  authority.  Infallible 
authority  is  undesirable.  .  .  .  God  has  given  us  something  far  better,  — life.  .  .  .  The 
Bible  is  the  record  of  the  gradual  manifestation  of  God  to  man  in  human  experience, 
in  moral  laws  and  their  applications,  and  in  the  life  of  Him  who  was  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh." 

Leighton  Williams:  "There  is  no  inspiration  apart  from  experience.  Baptists  are 
not  sacramental,  nor  creedal,  but  experimental  Christians  "  —  not  Romanists,  nor  Pro- 
testants, but  believers  in  an  inner  light.  "  Life,  as  it  develops,  awakens  into  self -con- 
sciousness. That  self-consciousness  becomes  the  most  reliable  witness  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  life  of  which  it  is  the  development.  Within  the  limits  of  its  own  sphere,  its  author- 
ity is  supreme.  Prophecy  is  the  utterance  of  the  soul  in  moments  of  deep  religious 
experience.  The  inspiration  of  Scripture  writers  is  not  a  peculiar  thing,—  it  was  given 
that  the  same  inspiration  might  be  perfected  in  those  who  read  their  writings."  Christ 
is  the  only  ultimate  authority,  and  he  reveals  himself  in  three  ways,  through  Scripture, 
the  Reason,  and  the  Church.  Only  Life  saves,  and  the  Way  leads  through  the  Truth  to 
the  Life.  Baptists  stand  nearer  to  the  Episcopal  system  of  life  than  to  the  Presbyterian 
system  of  creed.  Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  136  —  "  The  mistake  is  in  looking  to  the  Father 
above  the  world,  rather  than  to  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  within  the  world,  as  the  imme- 
diate source  of  revelation.  .  .  .  Revelation  is  the  unfolding  of  the  life  and  thought  of 
God  within  the  world.  One  should  not  be  troubled  by  finding  errors  in  the  Scriptures, 
any  more  than  by  finding  imperfections  in  any  physical  work  of  God,  as  in  the  human 
eye." 

3.      The  Dictation-theory. 

This  theory  holds  that  inspiration  consisted  in  such  a  possession  of  the 
minds  and  bodies  of  the  Scripture  writers  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they 
became  passive  instruments  or  amanuenses — pens,  not  penmen,  of  God. 

This  theory  naturally  connects  itself  with  that  view  of  miracles  which  regards  them 
as  suspensions  or  violations  of  natural  law.  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  1  :  624  ( transl.  2  : 
186-189),  calls  it  a  "docetic  view  of  inspiration.  It  holds  to  the  abolition  of  second 
causes,  and  to  the  perfect  passivity  of  the  human  instrument ;  denies  any  inspiration 
of  persons,  and  maintains  inspiration  of  writings  only.  This  exaggeration  of  the  divine 
element  led  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  multiform  divine  sense  in  Scripture,  and,  in  assign- 
ing the  spiritual  meaning,  a  rationalizing  spirit  led  the  way."  Representatives  of  this 
view  are  Quenstedt,  Theol.  Didact.,  1 :  76  —  "  The  Holy  Ghost  inspired  his  amanuenses 
with  those  expressions  which  they  would  have  employed,  had  they  been  left  to  them- 


THEORIES   OF   INSPIRATION.  209 

selves";  Hooker,  Works,  2;  383— "They  neither  spake  nor  wrote  any  word  of  their 
own,  but  uttered  syllable  by  syllable  as  the  Spirit  put  it  into  their  mouths" ;  Gaussen, 
Theopueusty,  6]  —"The  Bible  is  not  a  book  which  God  charged  men  already  enlight- 
ened to  make  under  his  protection;  it  is^a  book  which  God  dictated  to  them";  Cun- 
ningham, Theol.  Lectures,  349  — "The  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures [ which  he 
advocates]  implies  iu  general  that  the  words  of  Scripture  were  suggested  or  dictated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well  as  the  substance  of  the  matter,  and  this,  not  only  in  some 
portion  of  the  Scriptures,  but  through  the  whole."  This  reminds  us  of  the  old  theory 
that  God  created  fossils  iu  the  rocks,  as  they  would  be  had  ancient  seas  existed. 

Sanday,  Banip.  Lect.  on  Inspiration,  74,  quotes  Philo  as  saying:  "A  prophet  gives 
forth  nothing  at  all  of  his  own,  but  acts  as  interpreter  at  the  prompting  of  another  in 
all  his  utterances,  aud  as  long-  as  he  is  under  inspiration  he  is  iu  ignorance,  his  reason 
departing  from  its  place  and  yielding:  up  the  citadel  of  the  soul,  when  the  divine  Spirit 
enters  into  it  and  dwells  in  it  and  strikes  at  the  mechanism  of  the  voice,  sounding 
through  it  to  the  clear  declaration  of  that  which  he  prophesieth " ;  in  Gen.  15:  12  — "About 
the  setting  of  the  sun  a  trance  came  upon  Abram"  —  the  sun  is  the  light  of  human  reason  which  sets 
and  gives  place  to  the  Spirit  <  »f  God.  Sanday,  78,  says  also  :  "  Josephus  holds  that  even 
historical  narratives,  such  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  the  Pentateuch  which  were  not 
written  down  by  contemporary  prophets,  were  obtained  by  direct  inspiration  from 
God.  The  Jews  from  their  birth  regard  their  Scripture  as  *  the  decrees  of  God,'  which 
they  strictly  observe,  and  for  which  if  need  be  they  are  ready  to  die."  The  Rabbis  said 
that  "  Moses  did  not  write  one  word  out  of  his  own  knowledge." 

The  Reformers  held  to  a  much  freer  view  than  this.  Luther  said  :  "  What  does  not 
carry  Christ  with  it,  is  not  apostolic,  even  though  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul  taught  it.  If 
our  adversaries  fall  back  on  the  Scripture  against  Christ,  we  fall  back  on  Christ  against 
the  Scripture."  Luther  refused  canonical  authority  to  books  not  actually  written  by 
apostles  or  composed,  like  Mark  and  Luke,  under  their  direction.  So  he  rejected  from 
the  rank  of  canonical  authority  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  ~  Peter  and  Revelation.  Even 
Calvin  doubted  the  Petrine  authorship  of  .'.'  Peter,  excluded  the  book  of  Revelation 
from  the  Scripture  on  which  he  wrote  Commentaries,  and  also  thus  ignored  the  second 
and  third  epistles  of  John  ;  see  Prof.  R.  E.  Thompson,  in  a.  S.  Times,  Dec.  3,  1898 :  803, 
804.  The  dictation-theory  is  post- Reformat  ion.  II.  P.  Smith,  Bib.  Scholarship  and 
Inspiration,  85  — "After  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  Roman  Catholic  polemic  became 
sharper.  It  became  the  endeavor  of  that  party  to  show  the  necessity  of  tradition  and 
the  untrustworthiness  of  Scripture  alone.  This  led  the  Protestants  to  defend  the  Bible 
more  tenaciously  than  before."  The  Swiss  Formula  of  Consensus  in  1G75  not  only  called 
the  Scriptures  "the  very  word  of  God,"  but  declared  the  Hebrew  vowel-points  to  be 
inspired,  and  some  theologiaus  traced  them  back  to  Adam.  John  Owen  held  to  the 
inspiration  of  the  vowel-points ;  see  Horton,  Inspiration  and  Bible,  8.  Of  the  age  which 
produced  the  Protestant  dogmatic  theology,  Charles  Beard,  in  the  Hibbert  Lectures 
for  1S83,  says :  "I  know  no  epoch  of  Christianity  to  which  I  could  more  confidently 
point  in  illustration  of  the  fact  that  where  there  is  most  theology,  there  is  often  least 
religion." 

Of  this  view  we  may  remark : 

(a)  "We  grant  that  there  are  instances  when  God's  communications  were 
uttered  in  an  audible  voice  and  took  a  definite  form  of  words,  and  that  this 
■was  sometimes  accompanied  with  the  command  to  commit  the  words  to 
writing. 

For  examples,  see  Ex.  3 :  4  — "  God  called  unto  him  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush,  and  said,  Moses,  Moses";  20: 
22  —  "  Ye  yourselves  have  seen  that  I  have  talked  with  you  from  heaven";  cf.  Heb.  12:19  —  " the  voice  of  words ; 
which  voice  they  that  heard  entreated  that  no  word  more  should  be  spoken  unto  them"  ;  Numbers  7:89 — "And  when 
Moses  went  into  the  tent  of  meeting  to  speak  with  him,  then  he  heard  the  Voice  speaking  unto  him  from  above  the 
mercy-seat  that  was  upon  the  ark  of  the  testimony,  from  between  the  two  cherubim :  and  he  spake  unto  him";  8  1 
—  "  And  Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,"  etc. ;  Dan.  4  :  31  —  "  While  the  word  was  in  the  king's  mouth,  there  fell  a 
voice  from  heaven,  saying,  0  king  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  thee  it  is  spoken :  The  kingdom  is  departed  from  thee ' ' ;  Acts  9  : 
5 — "And  he  said,  "Who  art  thou,  Lord?  And  he  said,  I  am  Jesus  whom  thou  persecutest  "  ;  Rev.  19:9 — "And  he 
saith  unto  me,  Write,  Blessed  are  they  that  are  bidden  to  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb  "  ;  21 : 5  —  "  And  he  that 
sitteth  on  the  throne  said,  Behold,  I  make  all  things  new  "  ;  cf.  1 :  10,  11  —  "  and  I  heard  behind  me  a  great  voice,  as 
of  a  trumpet  saying,  What  thou  seest,  write  in  a  book  and  send  it  to  the  seven  churches."  So  the  voice  from 
heaven  at  the  baptism,  and  at  the  transfiguration,  of  Jesus  ( Mat.  3 :  17,  and  17:5;  see 
Broadus,  Amer.  Com.,  on  these  passages ). 
•  14 


210  THE    SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

(  6  )  The  theory  in  question,  however,  rests  upon  a  partial  induction  of 
Scripture  facts,  —  unwarrantably  assuming  that  such  occasional  instances 
of  direct  dictation  reveal  the  invariable  method  of  God's  communications  of 
truth  to  the  writers  of  the  Bible. 

Scripture  nowhere  declares  that  this  immediate  communication  of  the  words  was  uni- 
versal.    On  1  Cor.  2:13  —  ovk  ev  5iSa/cTois  <xv9pu>TTivr]<;  croi/u'as  Aoyois,  a\\'  ev  HiSclktois  Tryev/oiaTos, 

the  text  usually  cited  as  proof  of  invariable  dictation  —  Meyer  says :  "There  is  no  dic- 
tation here;  StSaKTois  excludes  everything  mechanical."  Henderson,  Inspiration  (2nd 
ed.),  333,  349  —  "As  human  wisdom  did  not  dictate  word  for  word,  so  the  Spirit  did  not." 
Paul  claims  for  Scripture  simply  a  general  style  of  plainness  which  is  due  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit.  Manly:  "Dictation  to  an  amanuensis  is  not  teaching.'"  Our  Revised 
Version  properly  translates  the  remainder  of  the  verse,  1  Cor.  2: 13 —  "  combining  spiritual  things 
with  spiritual  words." 

(  c  )  It  cannot  account  for  the  manifestly  human  element  in  the  Script- 
ures. There  are  peculiarities  of  style  which  distinguish  the  productions  of 
each  writer  from  those  of  every  other,  and  there  arc  variations  in  accounts 
of  the  same  transaction  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  a  solely 
divine  authorship. 

Notice  Paul's  anacoloutha  and  his  bursts  of  grief  and  indignation  ( Rom.  5 :  12  s'/.,  2  Cor, 
11:1 8q.),  and  his  ignorance  of  the  precise  number  whom  he  had  baptized  (ICor.  1:16). 
One  beggar  or  two  (Mat.  20:30;  cf.  Luke  18:35) ;  "  about  five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs  "  (John6:19); 
' '  shed  for  many  "  ( Mat.  26 :  28  has  nepC,  Mark  14 :  24  and  Luke  22 :  20  have  vnip).  Dictation  of  words 
which  were  immediately  to  be  lost  by  imperfect  transcription?  Clarke,  Christian 
Theology,  33-37  —  "  We  are  under  no  obligation  to  maintain  the  complete  inerrancy  of 
the  Scriptures.  In  them  we  have  the  freedom  of  life,  rather  than  extraordinary  pre- 
cision of  statement  or  accuracy  of  detail.  We  have  become  Christians  in  spite  of  dif- 
ferences between  the  evangelists.  The  Scriptures  are  various,  progressive,  free. 
There  is  no  authority  in  Scripture  for  applying  the  word  'inspired'  to  our  present 
Bible  as  a  whole,  and  theology  is  not  bound  to  employ  this  word  in  defining  the  Script- 
ures. Christianity  is  founded  in  history,  and  will  stand  whether  the  Scriptures  are 
inspired  or  not.  If  special  inspiration  were  wholly  disproved,  Christ  would  still  be  the 
Savior  of  the  world.    But  the  divine  element  in  the  Scriptures  will  never  be  disproved." 

(d)  It  is  inconsistent  with  a  wise  economy  of  means,  to  suppose  that 
the  Scripture  writers  should  have  had  dictated  to  them  what  they  knew 
already,  or  what  they  could  inform  themselves  of  by  the  use  of  their  nat- 
ural powers. 

Why  employ  eye-witnesses  at  all?  Why  not  dictate  the  gospels  to  Gentiles  living  a 
thousand  years  before?  God  respects  the  instruments  he  has  called  into  being,  and  he 
uses  them  according  to  their  constitutional  gifts.  George  Eliot  represents  Stradivar- 
iue  as  saying: —  "If  my  hand  slacked,  I  should  rob  God  — since  he  is  fullest  good  — 
Leaving  a  blank  instead  of  violins.  God  cannot  make  Antonio  Stradivari  s  violins, 
Without  Antonio."    Mark  11 : 3  —"The  Lord  hath  need  of  him,"  may  apply  to  man  as  well  as  beast. 

( e  )  It  contradicts  what  we  know  of  the  law  of  God's  working  in  the  soul. 
The  higher  and  nobler  God's  communications,  the  more  fully  is  man  in 
possession  and  use  of  his  own  facidties.  We  cannot  suppose  that  this  high- 
est work  of  man  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  was  purely  mechanical. 

Joseph  receives  communication  by  vision  (Mat.  1 : 20);  Mary,  by  words  of  an  angel 
spoken  in  her  waking  moments  ( Luke  1 :  28 ).  The  more  advanced  the  recipient,  the  more 
conscious  the  coram  unication.  These  four  theories  might  almost  be  called  the  Pelagian, 
the  Arminian,  the  Docetic,  and  the  Dynamical.  Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  41,  42,  87  — 
"  In  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  the  Father  says  at  the  baptism  to  Jesus  :  '  My  Son,  in 
all  the  prophets  I  was  waiting  for  thee,  that  thou  mightest  come,  and  that  I  might  rest 
in  thee.  For  thou  art  my  Rest.'  Inspiration  becomes  more  and  more  internal,  until  in 
Christ  it  is  continuous  and  complete.    Upon  the  opposite  Docetic  view,  the  most  per- 


THEORIES   OF   INSPIRATION".  211 

feet  inspiration  should  have  been  that  of  Balaam's  ass."  Semler  represents  the  Pelagian 
or  Ebionitic  view,  as  Quenstedt  represents  this  Docetic  view.  Semler  localizes  and 
tcmporalizes  the  contents  of  Scripture.  Yet,  though  he  carried  this  to  the  extreme  of 
excluding'  any  divine  authorship,  he  did  good  service  in  leading  the  way  to  the  histor- 
ical study  of  the  Bible. 

4.     The  Dynamical  Theory. 

The  true  view  holds,  iu  opposition  to  the  first  of  these  theories,  that 
inspiration  is  not  simply  a  natural  but  also  a  supernatural  fact,  and  that  it 
is  the  immediate  work  of  a  personal  God  in  the  soul  of  man. 

It  holds,  in  opposition  to  the  second,  that  inspiration  belongs,  not  only 
to  the  men  who  Wrote  the  Scriptures,  but  to  the  Scriptures  which  they 
wrote,  so  that  these  Scriptures,  wheu  taken  together,  constitute  a  trust- 
worthy and  sufficient  record  of  divine  revelation. 

It  holds,  in  opposition  to  the  third  theory,  that  the  Scriptures  contain  a 
human  as  well  as  a  divine  element,  so  that  while  they  present  a  body  of 
divinely  revealed  truth,  this  truth  is  shaped  in  human  moulds  and  adapted 
to  ordinary  human  intelligence. 

In  short,  inspiration  is  characteristically  neither  natural,  partial,  nor 
mechanical,  but  supernatural,  plenary,  and  dynamical.  Further  explan- 
ations will  be  grouped  under  the  head  of  The  Union  of  the  Divine  and 
Human  Elements  iu  Inspiration,  in  the  section  which  immediately  follows. 

If  the  small  circle  be  taken  as  symbol  of  the  human  element  in  inspiration,  and  the 
large  circle  as  symbol  of  the  divine,  then  the  Intuition-theory  would  be  represented  by 
the  small  circle  alone  ;  the  Dictation-theory  by  the  large  circle  alone;  the  Illumination- 
theory  by  the  small  circle  external  to  the  large,  and  touching  it  at  only  a  single  point; 
the  Dynamical-theory  by  two  concentric  circles,  the  small  included  in  the  large.  Even 
when  inspiration  is  but  the  exaltation  and  intensification  of  man's  natural  powers, 
it  must  be  considered  the  work  of  God  as  well  as  of  man.  God  can  work  from  within 
as  well  as  from  without.  As  creation  and  regeneration  are  works  of  the  immanent 
rather  than  of  the  transcendent  God,  so  inspiration  is  in  general  a  work  within  man's 
soul,  rather  than  a  communication  to  him  from  without.  Prophecy  may  be  natural  to 
perfect  humanity.  Revelation  is  an  unveiling,  and  the  Rontgen  rays  enable  us  to  see 
through  a  veil.  But  the  insight  of  the  Scripture  writers  into  truth  so  far  beyond  their 
mental  and  moral  powers  is  inexplicable  except  by  a  supernatural  influence  upon  their 
minds;  in  other  words,  except  as  they  were  lifted  up  into  the  divine  Reason  and 
endowed  with  the  wisdom  of  God. 

Although  we  propose  this  Dynamical-theory  as  one  which  best  explains  the  Scripture 
facts,  we  do  not  regard  this  or  any  other  theory  as  of  essential  importance.  No  theory 
of  inspiration  is  necessary  to  Christian  faith.  Revelation  precedes  inspiration.  There 
was  religion  before  the  Old  Testament,  and  an  oral  gospel  before  the  New  Testament. 
God  might  reveal  without  recording ;  might  permit  record  without  inspiration  ;  might 
inspire  without  vouching  for  anything  more  than  religious  teaching  and  for  the  his- 
tory, only  so  far  as  was  necessary  to  that  religious  teaching.  Whatever  theory  of 
inspiration  we  frame,  should  be  the  result  of  a  strict  induction  of  the  Scripture  facts, 
and  not  an  a  priori  scheme  to  which  Scripture  must  be  conformed.  The  fault  of  many 
past  discussions  of  the  subject  is  the  assumption  that  God  must  adopt  some  particular 
method  of  inspiration,  or  secure  an  absolute  perfection  of  detail  in  matters  not  essen- 
tial to  the  religious  teaching  of  Scripture.  Perhaps  the  best  theory  of  inspiration  is  to 
have  no  theory. 

Warfield  and  Hodge,  Inspiration,  8  — "  Yery  many  religious  and  historical  truths 
must  be  established  bef ore  we  come  to  the  question  of  inspiration,  as  for  instance  the 
being  and  moral  government  of  God,  the  fallen  condition  of  man,  the  fact  of  a  redemp- 
tive scheme,  the  general  historical  truth  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  validity  and  author- 
ity of  the  revelation  of  God's  will  which  they  contain,  i.  c,  the  general  truth  of 
Christianity  and  of  its  doctrines.  Hence  it  follows  that  while  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  is  true,  and  being  true  is  a  principle  fundamental  to  the  adequate  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture,  it  nevertheless  is  not,  in  the  first  instance,  a  principle  fundamental 


212  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

to  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion."  Warfield,  in  Presb.  and  Ref .  Rev.,  April,  1893 : 
208  —  "  We  do  not  found  the  whole  Christian  system  on  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
....  "Were  there  no  such  thine  as  inspiration,  Christianity  would  be  true,  and  all  its 
essential  doctrines  would  be  credibly  witnessed  to  us''— in  the  gospels  and  in  the  living 
church.  F.  L.  Patton,  Inspiration,  22 —  "I  must  take  exception  to  the  disposition  of 
some  to  stake  the  fortunes  of  Christianity  on  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  Not  that  1 
yield  to  any  one  in  profound  conviction  of  the  truth  and  importance  of  the  doctrine. 
But  it  is  proper  for  us  to  bear  in  mind  the  immense  argumentative  advantage  which 
Christianity  has,  aside  altogether  from  the  inspiration  of  the  documents  on  which  it 
rests."     So  argue  also  Sanday,  Oracles  of  God,  and  Dale,  The  Living  Christ. 

IV.     The  Union  of  the  Divine  and  Human  Elements  in  Inspiration. 

1.  Tlie  Scriptures  are  the  production  equally  of  God  and  of  man,  and 
are  therefore  never  to  be  regarded  as  merely  human  or  merely  divine. 

The  mystery  of  inspiration  consists  in  neither  of  these  terms  separately, 
but  in  the  union  of  the  two.  Of  this,  however,  there  are  analogies  in  the 
interpenetration  of  human  powers  by  the  divine  efficiency  in  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  and  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

According  to  "  Dalton's  law,"  each  gas  is  as  a  vacuum  to  every  other :  "Gases  are 
mutually  passive,  and  pass  into  each  other  as  into  vacua."  Each  interpenetrates  the 
other.  But  this  does  not  furnish  a  perfect  illustration  of  our  subject.  The  atom  of 
oxygen  and  the  atom  of  nitrogen,  in  common  air,  remain  side  by  side  but  they  do  not 
unite.  In  inspiration  the  human  and  the  divine  elements  do  unite.  The  Lutheran 
maxim,  "  Mens  humana  capax  divina?,"  is  one  of  the  most  important  principles  of  a  true 
theology.  "  The  Lutherans  think  of  humanity  as  a  thing  made  by  God  for  himself  and 
to  receive  himself.  The  Reformed  think  of  the  Deity  as  ever  preserving  himself  from 
any  confusion  with  the  creature.  They  fear  pantheism  and  idolatry  "  (  Bp.  of  Salisbury, 
quoted  in  Swayne,  Our  Lord's  Knowledge,  xx  ). 

Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  66  —  "  That  initial  mystery,  the  relation  in  our  conscious- 
ness between  the  individual  and  the  universal  element,  between  the  finite  and  the 
infinite,  between  God  and  man,  —  how  can  we  comprehend  their  coexistence  and  their 
union,  and  yet  how  can  we  doubt  it?  Where  is  the  thoughtful  man  to-day  who  has 
not  broken  the  thin  crust  of  his  daily  life,  and  caught  a  glimpse  of  those  profound  and 
obscure  waters  on  which  floats  our  consciousness  V  Who  has  not  felt  within  himself  a 
veiled  presence,  and  a  force  much  greater  than  his  own  ?  What  worker  in  a  lofty 
cause  has  not  perceived  within  his  own  personal  activity,  and  saluted  with  a  feeling  of 
veneration,  the  mysterious  activity  of  a  universal  and  eternal  Power  ?  '  In  Deo  vivimus, 
movemur,  et  suraus.'  ....  This  mystery  cannot  be  dissipated,  for  without  it  religion 
itself  would  no  longer  exist."  Quackenbos,  in  Harper's  Magazine,  July,  1900  :  264,  says 
that  "hypnotic  suggestion  is  but  inspiration."  The  analogy  of  human  influence  thus 
communicated  may  at  least  help  us  to  some  understanding  of  the  divine. 

2.  This  union  of  the  divine  and  human  agencies  in  inspiration  is  not  to 
be  conceived  of  as  one  of  external  impartation  and  reception. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  whom  God  raised  up  and  jjrovideutially  qualified 
to  do  this  work,  spoke  and  wrote  the  words  of  God,  when  inspired,  not  as 
from  without,  but  as  from  within,  and  that  not  passively,  but  in  the  most 
conscious  possession  and  the  most  exalted  exercise  of  then  own  powers  of 
intellect,  emotion,  and  will. 

The  Holy  Spirit  does  not  dwell  in  man  as  water  in  a  vessel.  We  may  rather  illustrate 
the  experience  of  the  Scripture  writers  by  the  experience  of  the  preacher  who  under  the 
influence  of  God's  Spirit  is  carried  beyond  himself,  and  is  conscious  of  a  clearer  appre- 
hension of  truth  and  of  a  greater  ability  to  utter  it  than  belong  to  his  unaided  nature, 
yet  knows  himself  to  be  no  passive  vehicle  of  a  divine  communication,  but  to  be  as 
never  before  in  possession  and  exercise  of  his  own  powers.  The  inspiration  of  the 
Scripture  writers,  however,  goes  far  beyond  the  illumination  granted  to  the  preacher, 
in  that  it  qualifies  them  to  put  the  truth,  without  error,  into  permanent  and  written 


DIVINE   AND   HUMAN   ELEMENTS   IN   INSPIRATION.  213 

form.  This  inspiration,  moreover,  is  more  than  providential  preparation.  Like  mira- 
cles, inspiration  may  use  man's  natural  powers,  but  man's  natural  powers  do  not 
explain  it.  Moses,  David,  Paul,  and  John  were  providentially  endowed  and  educated 
for  their  work  of  writing  Scripture,  bTit  this  endowment  and  education  were  not 
inspiration  itself,  but  only  the  preparation  for  it. 

Beyschlag :  "  With  John,  remembrance  and  exposition  had  become  inseparable."  E. 
G.  Robinson  ;  "Novelists  do  not  create  characters, —  they  reproduce  with  modifications 
material  presented  to  their  memories.  So  the  apostles  reproduced  their  impressions 
of  Christ."  Hutton,  Essays,  2  :  231  —  "The  Psalmists  vacillate  between  the  first  p?/*son 
and  the  third,  when  they  deliver  the  purposes  of  God.  As  they  warm  with  their  spirit- 
ual inspiration,  they  lose  themselves  in  the  person  of  Him  who  inspires  them,  and  then 
they  are  again  rccaLed  to  themselves."  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  1 :380— "  Revelation 
is  not  resolved  into  a  mere  human  process  because  we  are  able  to  distinguish  the  nat- 
ural agencies  through  which  it  was  communicated";  2:102—  "You  seem  to  me  to 
trausfertoo  much  to  these  ancient  prophets  and  writersand  chiefs  our  modern  notions 
of  divine,  origin.  .  .  .  Our  notion,  or  rather,  the  modern  Puritanical  notion  of  divine 
origin,  is  of  a  preternatural  force  or  voice,  putting  aside  secondary  agencies,  and  sep- 
arated from  thoseagencies  by  an  impassable  gulf.  The  ancient,  oriental,  Biblical  notion 
was  of  a  supreme  Will  acting  through  thoseagencies,  or  rather,  being  inseparable  from 
them.  Our  notions  of  inspiration  and  divine  communications  insist  on  absolute  perfec- 
tion of  fact,  morals,  doctrine.  The  Biblical  notion  was  that  inspiration  was  compatible 
with  weakness,  infirmity,  contradiction."  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  182  —  "  In  inspi- 
ration the  thoughts,  feelings,  purposes  are  organized  into  another  One  than  the  self  in 
which  they  were  themselves  born.  That  other  One  is  in  themselves.  They  enter  into 
communication  with  Him.  Yet  this  ma]  !><•  supernatural, even  though  natural  psycho- 
logical means  are  used.  Inspiration  which  is  external  is  not  inspiration  at  all."  This 
last  sentence,  however,  seems  to  us  a  needless  exaggeration  of  the  true  principle. 
Though  God  originally  inspires  from  within,  ho  may  also  communicate  truth  from 
without. 

3.  Inspiration,  therefore,  did  not  remove,  but  rather  pressed  into  its 
own  service,  all  the  personal  peculiarities  of  the  writers,  together  with  their 
defects  of  culture  and  literary  style. 

Every  imperfection  not  inconsistent  with  truth  in  a  human  composition 
may  exist  in  inspired  Scripture.  The  Bible  is  God's  word,  in  the  sense 
that  it  presents  to  us  divine  truth  in  human  forms,  and  is  a  revelation  not 
for  a  select  class  but  for  the  common  mind.  Rightly  understood,  this  very 
humanity  of  the  Bible  is  a  proof  of  its  divinity. 

Locke:  "When  God  made  the  prophet,  he  did  not  unmake  the  man."  Prof.  Day : 
"The  bush  in  which  God  appeared  to  Moses  remained  a  bush,  while  yet  burning  with 
the  brightness  of  God  and  uttering  forth  the  majesty  of  the  mind  of  God."  The  para- 
graphs of  the  Koran  are  called  ayat,  or  "sign,"  from  their  supposed  supernatural 
elegance.  But  elegant  literary  productions  do  not  touch  the  heart.  The  Bible  is  not 
merely  the  word  of  God ;  it  is  also  the  word  made  flesh.  The  Holy  Spirit  hides  himself, 
that  he  may  show  forth  Christ  (John 3: 8) ;  he  is  known  only  by  his  effects  —  a  pattern 
for  preachers,  who  are  ministers  of  the  Spirit  ( 2  Cor.  3:6).    See  Conant  on  Genesis,  65. 

The  I.I^'Slem  declares  that  every  word  of  the  Koran  came  by  the  agency  of  Gabriel 
from  the  seventh  heaven,  and  that  its  very  pronunciation  is  inspired.  Better  the  doc- 
trine of  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  2£9  —  "  Though  the  pattern  be  divine,  the  web 
that  bears  it  must  still  be  human."  Jackson,  James  Martineau, 255  —  "Paul's  metaphor 
of  the  'treasurein  earthen  vessels'  (2  Cor.  4:7)  you  cannot  allow  to  give  you  guidance  ;  you 
want,  not  the  treasure  only,  but  the  casket  too,  to  come  from  above,  and  be  of  the 
crystal  of  the  sky.  You  want  the  record  to  be  divine,  not  only  in  its  spirit,  but  also  in 
its  letter."  Charles  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  157  —  "  When  God  ordains  praise  out  of  the 
mouths  of  babes,  they  must  speak  as  babes,  or  the  whole  power  and  beauty  of  the 
tribute  will  be  lost." 

Evans,  Bib.  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  16,  25— "The  Tr^eO/ua  of  a  dead  wind  is  never 
changed,  as  the  Rabbis  of  old  thought,  into  the  nveina.  of  a  living  spirit.  The  raven 
that  fed  Elijah  was  nothing  more  than  a  bird.  Nor  does  man,  when  supernaturally 
influenced,  cease  to  be  a  man.    An  inspired  man  is  not  God,  nor  a  divinely  manipulated 


214  THE   SCRIPTURES   A   REVELATION   FROM   GOD. 

automaton  ";  "  In  Scripture  there  may  be  as  much  imperfection  as,  in  the  parts  of  any 
organism,  would  be  consistent  with  the  perfect  adaptation  of  that  organism  to  its  des- 
tined end.  Scripture  then,  taken  together,  is  a  statement  of  moral  and  religious  truth 
sufficient  for  men's  salvation,  or  an  infallible  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 
J.  S.  Wrightnour :  "  Inspire  means  to  breathe  in,  as  a  liute-player  breathes  into  his 
instrument.  As  different  flutes  may  have  their  own  shapes,  peculiarities,  and  what 
might  seem  like  defects,  so  here;  yet  all  are  breathed  into  by  one  Spirit.  The  same 
Spirit  who  inspired  them  selected  those  instruments  which  were  best  for  his  purpose, 
as  the  Savior  selected  his  apostles.  In  these  writings  theref  ore  is  given  us,  in  the  precise 
way  that  is  best  for  us,  the  spiritual  instruction  and  food  that  we  need.  Food  for  the 
body  is  not  always  given  in  the  most  concentrated  form,  but  in  the  form  that  is  best 
adapted  for  digestion.  So  God  gives  gold,  not  in  coin  ready  stamped,  but  in  the  quartz 
of  the  mine  whence  it  has  to  be  dug  and  smelted."  Remains  of  Arthur  H.  Hallam,  in 
John  Brown's  Ilab  and  his  Friends,  274  —  "  I  see  that  the  Bible  fits  in  to  every  fold  of  the 
human  heart.    I  am  a  man,  and  I  believe  it  is  God's  book,  because  it  is  man's  book." 

4.  In  inspiration  God  may  use  all  right  and  normal  methods  of  literary 
composition. 

As  we  recognize  in  literature  the  proper  function  of  history,  poetry,  and 
fiction  ;  of  prophecy,  parable,  and  drama  ;  of  personification  and  proverb  ; 
of  allegory  and  dogmatic  instruction  ;  and  even  of  myth  and  legend  ;  we 
cannot  deny  the  possibility  that  God  may  use  any  one  of  these  methods  of 
communicating  truth,  leaving  it  to  us  to  determine  in  any  single  case  which 
of  these  methods  he  has  adopted. 

In  inspiration,  as  in  regeneration  and  sanctification,  God  works  "in  divers  manners "  ( Heb. 
1:1).  The  Scriptures,  like  the  books  of  secular  literature,  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  their  purpose.  Poetry  must  not  be  treated  as  prose,  and  parable  must  not  be 
made  to  "go  on  all  fours,"  when  it  was  meant  to  walk  erect  and  to  tell  one  simple 
story.  Drama  is  not  history,  nor  is  personification  to  be  regarded  as  biography.  There 
is  a  rhetorical  overstatement  which  is  intended  only  as  a  vivid  emphasizing  of  impor- 
tant truth.  Allegory  is  a  popular  mode  of  illustration.  Even  myth  and  legend  may 
convey  great  lessons  not  otherwise  apprehensible  to  infantile  or  untrained  minds.  A 
literary  sense  is  needed  in  our  judgments  of  Scripture,  and  much  hostile  criticism  is 
lacking  in  this  literary  sense. 

Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  218  —  "  There  is  a  stage  in  which  the  whole  contents  of 
the  mind,  as  yetincapable  of  science  or  history,  may  be  called  mythological.  And  what 
criticism  shows  us,  in  its  treatment  of  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis,  is  that  God  does 
not  disdain  to  speak  to  the  mind,  nor  through  it,  even  when  it  is  at  this  lowly  stage. 
Even  the  myth,  in  which  the  beginnings  of  human  life,  lying-  beyond  human  research, 
are  represented  to  itself  by  the  child-mind  of  the  race,  maybe  made  the  medium  of 
revelation.  .  .  .  But  that  does  not  make  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  science,  nor  the 
third  chapter  history.  And  what  is  of  authority  in  these  chapters  is  not  the  quasi- 
scientific  or  quasi-historical  form,  but  the  message,  which  through  them  comes  to  1  he 
heart,  of  God's  creative  wisdom  and  power."  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  356 — "The  various 
sorts  of  mental  or  literary  activity  develop  in  their  different  lines  out  of  an  earlier 
condition  in  which  they  lie  fused  and  undifferentiated.  This  we  can  vaguely  call  the 
mythical  stage  of  mental  evolution.  A  myth  is  not  a  falsehood ;  it  is  a  product  of 
mental  activity,  as  instructive  and  rich  as  any  later  product,  but  its  characteristic  is 
that  it  is  not  yet  distinguished  into  history  and  poetry  and  philosophy."  So  Grote  calls 
t  he  Greek  myths  the  whole  intellectual  stock  of  the  age  to  which  they  belonged  —  the 
common  root  of  all  the  history,  poetry,  philosophy,  theology,  which  afterwards 
diverged  and  proceeded  from  it.  So  the  early  part  of  Genesis  may  be  of  the  nature  of 
myth  in  which  we  cannot  distinguish  the  historical  germ,  though  we  do  not  deny  that 
it  exists.  Robert  Browning's  Clive  and  Andrea  del  Sarto  are  essentially  correct  repre- 
sentations of  historical  charactei-s,  though  the  details  in  each  poem  are  imaginary. 

5.  The  inspiring  Spirit  has  given  the  Scriptures  to  the  world  by  a  pro- 
cess of  gradual  evolution. 

As  in  communicating  the  truths  of  natural  science,  God  has  communi- 
cated the  truths  of  religion  by  successive  steps,  germinally  at  first,  more 


DIVINE   AND    HUMAN    ELEMENTS   IN    INSPIRATION.  215 

fully  as  inen  have  been  able  to  comprehend  them.  The  education  of  the 
race  is  analogous  to  the  education  of  the  child.  First  came  pictures, 
object-lessons,  external  rites,  predictions  ;  then  the  key  to  these  in  Christ, 
and  theii  didactic  exposition  in  the  Epistles. 

There  have  been  "  divers  portions,"  as  well  as  "  divers  manners "  ( Heb.  1:1).  The  early  prophe- 
cies like  that  of  Gen.  3:15  —  the  seed  of  the  woman  bruising-  the  serpent's  head  —  were 
but  faint  glimmerings  of  the  dawn.  Men  had  to  be  raised  up  who  were  capable  of 
receiving  and  transmitting  the  divine  communications.  Moses,  David,  Isaiah  mark 
successive  advances  in  recipiency  and  transparency  to  the  heavenly  light.  Inspiration 
has  employed  men  of  various  degrees  of  ability,  culture  and  religious  insight.  As  all 
the  truths  of  the  calculus  lie  gerniiEally  in  the  simplest  mathematical  axiom,  so  all  the 
truths  of  salvation  may  be  wrapped  up  in  the  statement  that  God  is  holiness  and  love. 
But  not  every  scholar  can  evolve  the  calculus  from  the  axiom.  The  teacher  may  dic- 
tate propositions  which  the  pupil  does  not  understand:  he  may  demonstrate  in  such  a 
way  that  the  pupil  participates  in  the  process;  or,  best  of  all,  he  may  incite  the  pupil 
to  work  out  the  demonstration  for  himself.  Cod  seems  to  have  used  all  these  methods. 
But  while  there  are  instances  of  dictation  and  illumination,  and  inspiration  sometimes 
includes  these,  the  general  method  seems  to  have  been  such  a  divine  quickening  of 
man's  powers  that  he  discovers  and  expresses  the  truth  for  himself. 

A.  J.  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  339—"  Inspiration  is  that,  seen  from  its  divine 
side,  which  we  call  discovery  when  seen  from  the  human  side.  .  .  .  Every  addition  to 
knowledge,  whether  in  the  individual  or  the  community,  whether  scientific,  ethical  or 
theological,  is  due  to  a  cooperation  between  the  human  soul  which  assimilates  and  the 
divine  power  which  inspires.  Neither  acts,  or  could  act,  in  independent  isolation.  For 
'  unassisted  reason '  is  a  fiction,  and  pure  receptivity  it.  is  impossible  to  conceive.  Even 
the  emptiest  vessel  must  limit  the  quantity  and  determine  the  configuration  of  any 
liquid  with  which  it  may  be  filled.  .  .  .  Inspiration  is  limited  to  no  age,  to  no  country, 
to  no  people."  The  early  Semites  had  it,  and  the  great  ( Oriental  reformers.  There  can 
be  no  gathering  of  grapes  from  thorns,  or  of  tigs  from  thistles.  Whatever  of  true  or 
of  good  is  found  in  human  history  has  come  from  God.  On  the  Progressiveness  of 
Revelation,  see  Orr,  Problem  of  the  O.  T.,  431-478. 

6.  Inspiration  did  not  guarantee  inerrancy  in  tilings  not  essential  to  the 
main  purpose  of  Scripture. 

Inspiration  went  no  further  than  to  secure  a  trustworthy  transmission 
by  the  sacred  writers  of  the  truth  they  were  commissioned  to  deliver.  It 
was  not  omniscience.  It  was  a  bestowal  of  various  kinds  and  degrees  of 
knowledge  and  aid,  according  to  need;  sometimes  suggesting  new  truth, 
sometimes  presiding  over  the  collection  of  preexisting  material  and  guard- 
ing from  essential  error  in  the  final  elaboration.  As  inspiration  was  not 
omniscience,  so  it  was  not  complete  sanctification.  It  involved  neither 
personal  infallibility,  nor  entire  freedom  from  sin. 

God  can  use  imperfect  means.  As  the  imperfection  of  the  eye  does  not  disprove  its 
divine  authorship,  and  as  God  reveals  himself  in  nature  and  history  in  spite  of  their 
shortcomings,  so  inspiration  can  accomplish  its  purpose  through  both  writers  and 
writings  in  some  respects  imperfect.  God  is,  in  the  Bible  as  he  was  in  Hebrew  history, 
leading  his  people  onward  to  Christ,  but  only  by  a  progressive  unfolding  of  the  truth. 
The  Scripture  writers  were  not  perfect  men.  Paul  at  Antioch  resisted  Peter,  "  because  he 
stood  condemned  "  (  Gal.  2  :  11 ).  But  Peter  differed  from  Paul,  not  in  public  utterances,  nor  in 
written  words,  but  in  following  his  own  teachings  ( cf.  Acts  15 : 6-11 ) ;  versus  Norman  Fox, 
in  Bap.  Rev..  1885 :  469-482.  Personal  defects  do  not  invalidate  an  ambassador,  though 
they  may  hinder  the  reception  of  his  message.  So  with  the  apostles'  ignorance  of  the 
time  of  Christ's  second  coming.  It  was  only  gradually  that  they  came  to  understand 
Christian  doctrines  ;  they  did  not  teach  the  truth  all  at  once;  their  final  utterances  sup- 
plemented and  completed  the  earlier ;  and  all  together  furnished  only  that  measure  of 
knowledge  which  God  saw  needful  for  the  moral  and  religious  teaching  of  mankind. 
Many  things  are  yet  unrevealed,  and  many  things  which  inspired  men  uttered,  they 
did  not,  when  they  uttered  them,  fully  understand. 


216  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    PROM    GOD. 

Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  53,  54  —  "  The  word  is  divine-human  in  the  sense  that  it  has  for 
its  contents  divine  truth  in  human,  historical,  and  individually  conditioned  form. 
The  Holy  Scripture  contains  the  word  of  God  in  a  way  plain,  and  entirely  sufficient  to 
beget  saving  faith."  Frances  Power  Cobbe,  Life,  87  —  "Inspiration  is  not  a  miraculous 
and  therefore  incredible  thing,  but  normal  andin  accordance  with  the  natural  relations 
of  the  infinite  and  finite  spirit,  a  divine  inflowing  of  menial  light  precisely  analogous  to 
that  moral  influence  which  divines  call  grace.  As  every  devout  and  obedient  soul  may 
expect  to  share  in  divine  grace,  so  the  devout  and  obedient  souls  of  all  the  ages  have 
shared,  as  Parker  taught,  in  divine  inspiration.  And,  as  the  reception  of  grace  even  in 
large  measure  does  not  render  us  i'npcccahlc,  so  neither  does  the  reception  of  inspi- 
ration render  us  infallible."  We  may  concede  to  Miss  Cobbe  that  inspiration  consists 
with  imperfection,  while  yet  we  grant  to  the  Scripture  writers  an  authority  higher  than 
our  own. 

7.  Inspiration  did  not  always,  or  even  generally,  involve  a  direct  com- 
munication to  the  Scripture  writers  of  tire  words  they  wrote. 

Thought  is  possible  without  words,  and  in  the  order  of  nature  precedes 
words.  The  Scripture  writers  appear  to  have  been  so  influenced  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  they  perceived  and  felt  even  the  new  truths  they  were  to 
publish,  as  discoveries  of  their  own  minds,  and  were  left  to  the  action  of 
their  own  minds  in  the  expression  of  these  truths,  with  the  single  exception 
that  they  were  supernaturally  held  back  from  the  selection  of  wrong  words, 
and  when  needful  were  provided  with  right  ones.  Inspiration  is  therefore 
not  verbal,  while  yet  we  claim  that  no  form  of  words  which  taken  in  its 
connections  would  teach  essential  error  has  been  admitted  into  Scripture. 

Before  expression  there  must  be  something  to  be  expressed.  Thought  is  possible 
without  language.  The  concept  may  exist  without  words.  See  experiences  of  deaf- 
mutes,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  .Jan.  1881 :  104-128.  The  prompter  interrupts  only  when  the 
speaker's  memory  fails.  The  writing-master  guides  the  pupil's  hand  only  when  it  would 
otherwise  go  wrong.  The  lather  sutlers  the  child  to  walk  alone,  except  whenitisin 
danger  of  stumbling.  If  knowledge  be  rendered  certain,  it  is  as  good  as  direct  revela- 
tion. But  whenever  the  mere  communication  of  ideas  or  the  direction  to  proper 
material  would  not  suffice  to  secure  a  correct  utterance,  the  sacred  writers  were  guided 
in  the  very  selection  of  their  words.  Minute  criticism  proves  more  and  more  conclu- 
sively the  suitableness  of  the  verbal  dress  to  the  thoughts  expressed;  all  Biblical 
exegesis  is  based,  indeed,  upon  the  assumption  that  divine  wisdom  has  made  the  out- 
ward form  a  trustworthy  vehicle  of  the  inward  substance  of  revelation.  See  Hender- 
8i  m,  I  aspiration  ( 2nd  ed.),  102, 114 ;  Bib.  Sac.,  1872  :  428,  610 ;  AVilliam  James,  Psychology, 
1  :  266  sq. 

Watts,  New  Apologetic,  40,  111,  holds  to  a  verbal  inspiration  :  "  The  bottles  are  not  the 
wine,  but  if  the  bottles  perish  the  wine  is  sure  to  be  spilled  ";  the  inspiring  Spirit  cer- 
tainly gave  language  to  Peter  and  others  at  Pentecost,  for  the  apostles  spoke  with 
other  tongues ;  holy  men  of  old  not  only  thought,  but  "spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit"  ( 2  Pet.  1 :  21 ).  So  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  171  —  "  Why  the  minute  study  of 
the  tvords  of  Scripture,  carried  on  by  all  expositors,  their  search  after  the  precise  shade 
of  verbal  significance,  their  attention  to  the  minutest  details  of  language,  and  to  all 
the  delicate  coloring  of  mood  and  tense  and  accent  ?  "  Liberal  scholars,  Dr.  Gordon 
thinks,  thus  affirm  the  very  doctrine  which  they  deny.  Rothe,  Dogmatics,  238,  speaks 
of  "  a  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Oetinger  :  "  It  is  the  style  of  the  heavenly  court." 
But  Broadus,  an  almost  equally  conservative  scholar,  in  his  Com.  on  Mat.  3 :  17,  says  that 
the  difference  between  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,"  and  Luke  3 :  22  —  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,"  should 
make  us  cautious  in  theorizing  about  verbal  inspiration,  and  he  intimates  that  in  some 
cases  that  hypothesis  is  unwarranted.  The  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  is  refuted  by 
the  two  facts  :  1.  that  the  N.  T.  quotations  from  the  O.  T.,  in  99  cases,  differ  both  from 
the  Hebrew  and  from  the  LXX ;  2.  that  Jesus'  own  words  are  reported  with  varia- 
tions by  the  different  evangelists ;  see  Marcus  Dods,  The  Bible,  its  Origin  and  Nature, 
chapter  on  Inspiration. 

Helen  Keller  told  Phillips  Brooks  that  she  had  always  known  that  there  was  a  God, 
but  she  had  not  known  his  name.  Dr.  Z.  F.  Westervelt,  of  the  Deaf  Mute  Institute, 
had  under  hia  charge  four  children  of  different  mothers.    All  of  these  children  were 


DIVINE   AND    HUMAN"    ELEMENTS    IN    INSPIRATION.  217 

dumb,  though  there  was  no  defect  of  hearing  and  the  organs  of  speech  were  perfect. 
But  their  mothers  had  never  loved  them  and  had  never  talked  to  them  in  the  loving 
way  that  provoked  imitation.  The  children  heard  jcolding  and  harshness,  but  this  did 
not  attract.  So  the  older  members  of  the  church  in  private  and  in  the  meetings  for 
prayer  should  teach  the  younger  to  talk.  But  harsh  and  contentious  talk  will  not 
accomplish  the  result,  —  it  must  be  the  talk  of  Christian  love.  William  D.  Whitney,  in 
his  review  of  Max  Miiller's  Science  of  Language,  26-31,  combats  the  view  of  Midler  that 
thought  and  language  are  identical.  Major  Bliss  Taylor's  reply  to  Santa  Anna :  "  Gen- 
eral Taylor  never  surrenders ! "  was  a  substantially  correct,  though  a  diplomatic  and 
euphemistic,  version  of  the  General's  actual  profane  words.  Each  Scripture  writer 
uttered  old  truth  in  the  new  forms  with  which  his  own  experience  had  clothed  it. 
David  reached  his  greatness  by  leaving  off  the  mere  repetition  of  Moses,  and  by  speak- 
ing out  of  his  own  heart.  Paul  reached  his  greatness  by  giving  up  the  mere  teaching 
of  what  he  had  been  taught,  and  by  telling  what  God's  plan  of  mercy  was  to  all. 
Augustine  :  "Scriptura  est  sensus  Script  urae" — "Scripture  is  what  Scripture  means" 
Among  the  theological  writers  who  admit  the  errancy  of  Scripture  writers  as  to  some 
matters  unessential  to  their  moral  and  spiritual  teaching,  are  Luther,  Calvin,  Cocceius, 
Tholuck,  Neander,  Lange,  Stier,  Van  Oosterzee,  John  Howe,  Richard  Baxter,  C'ony- 
beare,  Alford,  Mead. 

8.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  ever-present  human  element,  the  all-per- 
vading inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  constitutes  these  various  writings  an 
organic  whole. 

Since  the  Bible  is  in  all  its  parts  the  work  of  God,  each  part  is  to  be 
judged,  not  by  itself  alone,  but  in  its  connection  with  every  other  part. 
The  Scriptures  are  not  to  be  interpreted  as  so  many  merely  human  produc- 
tions by  different  authors,  but  us  also  the  work  of  one  divine  mind.  Seem 
ingly  trivial  things  are  to  be  explained  from  their  connection  with  the  whole. 
One  history  is  to  be  built  up  from  the  several  accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
One  doctrine  must  supplement  another.  The  Old  Testament  is  part  of  a 
progressive  system,  whose  culmination  and  key  arc  to  be  found  in  the  New. 
The  central  subject  and  thought  which  binds  all  parts  of  the  Bible  together, 
and  in  the  light  of  which  they  are  to  be  interpreted,  is  the  person  and  work 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Bible  says  :  "  There  is  no  God  "  (  Ps.  14 :  1 ) ;  but  then,  this  is  to  be  taken  with  the  con- 
text: "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart."  Satan's  "it  is  written,"  (Mat.  4:  6)  is  supplemented  by 
Christ's  "It  is  written  again"  (Mat.  4:7).  Trivialities  are  like  the  hair  and  nails  of  the  body 
—  they  have  their  place  as  parts  of  a  complete  and  organic  whole  ;  seeEbrard,  Dogmatik, 
1:  40.  The  verse  which  mentions  Paul's  cloak  at  Trims  (2  Tim.  4:  13)  is  (l)asiguof 
genuineness  —  a  forger  would  not  invent  it ;  (2)  an  evidence  id'  temporal  need  endured 
for  the  gospel ;  (it)  an  indication  of  the  limits  of  inspiration,— even  Paul  must  have 
books  and  parchments.  Col.  2 :  21  —  "  Handle  not,  nor  taste,  nor  touch  "—is  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
context  in  verse  20 — "why  ...  do  ye  subject  yourselves  to  ordinances?"  and  by  verse  22  —  "after  the 
precepts  and  doctrines  of  men."  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  164  —  "  The  difference  between  John's 
gospel  and  the  book  of  Chronicles  is  like  that  between  man's  brain  and  the  hair  of  his 
head;  nevertheless  the  life  of  the  body  is  as  truly  in  the  hair  as  in  the  brain."  Like 
railway  coupons,  Scripture  texts  are  "  Not  good  if  detached." 

Crooker,  The  New  Bible  and  its  New  Uses,  137-144,  utterly  denies  the  unity  of  the 
Bible.  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson  of  Edinburgh  says  that  "A  theology  of  the  O.  T.  is  really 
an  impossibility,  because  the  O.  T.  is  not  a  homogeneous  whole."  These  denials  pro- 
ceed from  an  insuflicient  recognition  of  the  principle  of  evolution  in  O.  T.  history  and 
doctrine.  Doctrines  in  early  Scripture  are  like  rivers  at  their  source;  they  are  not 
yet  fully  expanded ;  many  affluents  are  yet  to  come.  See  Bp.  Bull's  Sermon,  in  Works, 
xv :  183;  and  Bruce,  Apologetics,  323— "The  literature  of  the  early  stages  of  revela- 
tion must  share  the  defects  of  the  revelation  which  it  records  and  interprets.  .  .  .  The 
final  revelation  enables  us  to  see  the  defects  of  the  earlier.  .  .  .  We  should  find  Christ 
in  the  O.  T.  as  we  And  the  butterfly  in  the  caterpiller,  and  man  the  crown  of  the  uni- 
verse in  the  fiery  cloud. ' '    Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  224  —  Every  part  is  to  be  mod- 


218  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

ified  by  every  other  part.  No  verse  is  true  out  of  the  Book,  but  the  whole  Book  taken 
together  is  true.  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  350  —  "To  recognize  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  is  to  put  ourselves  to  school  in  every  part  of  them."  Robert  Browning-,  Ring 
and  Book,  175  ( Pope,  228 )  —  "  Truth  nowhere  lies,  yet  everywhere,  in  these ;  Not  abso- 
lutely in  a  portion,  yet  Evolvable  from  the  whole ;  evolved  at  last  Painfully,  held  tena- 
ciously by  me."    On  the  Organic  Unity  of  the  O.  T.,  see  Orr,  Problem  of  the  O.  T.,  27-51. 

9.  When  the  unity  of  the  Scripture  is  fully  recognized,  the  Bible,  in 
spite  of  imperfections  in  matters  non-essential  to  its  religious  jmrpose,  fur- 
nishes a  safe  and  sufficient  guide  to  truth  and  to  salvation. 

The  recognition  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  agency  makes  it  rational  and  natural 
to  believe  in  the  organic  unity  of  Scripture.  When  the  earlier  parts  are 
taken  in  connection  with  the  later,  and  when  each  part  is  interpreted  by 
the  whole,  most  of  the  difficulties  connected  with  inspiration  disappear. 
Taken  together,  with  Christ  as  its  culmination  and  explanation,  the  Bible 
furnishes  the  Christian  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

The  Bible  answers  two  questions :  What  has  God  done  to  save  me  ?  and  What  must  I 
do  to  be  saved  ?  The  propositions  of  Euclid  are  not  invalidated  by  the  fact  that  he 
believed  the  earth  to  be  flat.  The  ethics  of  Plato  would  not  be  disproved  by  his  mistakes 
with  regard  to  the  solar  system.  So  religious  authority  is  independent  of  merely  secu- 
lar knowledge.— Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  was  a  great  painter,  and  a  great  teacher  of  his 
art.  His  lectures  on  painting  laid  down  principles  which  have  been  accepted  as  author- 
ity for  generations.  But  Joshua  Reynolds  illustrates  his  subject  from  history  and 
science.  It  was  a  day  when  both  history  and  science  were  young.  In  some  unimpor- 
tant matters  of  this  sort,  which  do  not  in  the  least  affect  his  conclusions,  Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds  makes  an  occasional  slip  ;  his  statements  are  inaccurate.  Does  he,  therefore, 
cease  to  be  an  authority  in  matters  of  his  art  V  —  The  Duke  of  Wellington  said  once  that 
no  human  being  knew  at  what  time  of  day  the  battle  of  Waterloo  began.  One  histor- 
ian gets  his  story  from  one  combatant,  and  he  puts  the  hour  at  eleven  in  the  morning. 
Another  historian  gets  his  information  from  another  combatant,  and  he  puts  it  at  noon. 
Shall  we  say  that  this  discrepancy  argues  error  in  the  whole  account,  and  that  we  have 
no  longer  any  certainty  that  the  battle  of  Waterloo  was  ever  fought  at  all  ? 

Such  slight  imperfections  are  to  be  freely  admitted,  while  at  the  same  time  we  insist 
that  the  Bible,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  incomparably  superior  to  all  other  books,  and  is 
"able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation"  (2  Tim.  3:  15).  Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity:  "  Whatsoever  is 
spoken  of  God  or  things  pertaining  to  God  otherwise  than  truth  is,  though  it  seem  an 
honor,  it  is  an  injury.  And  as  incredible  praises  given  unto  men  do  often  abate  and 
impair  the  credit  of  their  deserved  commendation,  so  we  must  likewise  take  great  heed 
lest,  in  attributing  to  Scripture  more  than  it  can  have,  the  incredibility  of  that  do 
cause  even  those  things  which  it  hath  more  abundantly  to  be  less  reverently  esteemed." 
Baxter,  Works,  21 :  .Jt'J  —  "  Those  men  who  think  that  these  human  imperfections 
of  the  writers  do  extend  further,  and  may  appear  in  some  passages  of  chronologies  or 
history  which  are  no  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  life,  do  not  hereby  destroy  the  Chris- 
tian cause.  For  God  might  enable  his  apostles  to  an  infallible  recording  and  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel,  even  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  though  he  had  not  made  them 
infallible  in  every  by-passage  and  circumstance,  any  more  than  they  were  indefectible 
in  life." 

The  Bible,  says  Beet,  "  contains  possible  errors  in  small  details  or  allusions,  but  it 
gives  us  with  absolute  certainty  the  great  facts  of  Christianity,  and  upon  these  great 
facts,  and  upon  these  only,  our  faith  is  based."  Evans,  Bib.  Scholarship  and  Inspira- 
tion, 15,  18,  65  —  "  Teach  that  the  shell  is  part  of  the  kernel  and  men  who  find  that  they 
cannot  keep  the  shell  will  throw  away  shell  and  kernel  together.  .  .  .  This  overstate- 
ment of  inspiration  made  Renan,  Bradlaugh  and  Ingersoll  sceptics.  ...  If  in  creatiou 
God  can  work  out  a  perfect  result  through  imperfection  why  cannot  he  do  the  like 
in  inspiration?  If  in  Christ  God  can  appear  in  human  weakness  and  ignorance,  why 
not  in  the  written  word?  " 

We  therefore  take  exception  to  the  view  of  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  71  —  "Let  the 
theory  of  historical  errors  and  scientific  errors  be  adopted,  and  Christianity  must  share 
the  fate  of  Hinduism.  If  its  inspired  writers  err  when  they  tell  us  of  earthly  things, 
none  will  believe  when  they  tell  of  heavenly  things."    Watts  adduces  instances  of 


DIVINE   AND    HUMAN    ELEMENTS    IN    INSPIRATION.  219 

Spinoza's  giving  up  the  form  while  claiming  to  hold  the  substance,  and  in  this  way 
reducing  revelation  to  a  phenomenon  of  naturalistic  pantheism.  We  reply  that  no  a 
priori  theory  of  perfection  in  divine  inspiration  must  blind  us  to  the  evidence  of  actual 
imperfection  in  Scripture.  As  in  creation  and  in  Christ,  so  in  Scripture,  God  humbles 
himself  to  adopt  human  and  imperfect  methods  of  self-revelation.  See  Jonathan 
Edwards,  Diary :  "  I  observe  that  old  men  seldom  have  any  advantage  of  new  discov- 
eries, because  they  are  beside  the  way  to  which  they  have  been  so  long  used.  Resolved, 
if  ever  I  live  to  years,  that  I  will  be  impartial  to  hear  the  reasons  of  all  pretended  dis- 
coveries, and  receive  them  if  rational,  however  long  soever  I  have  been  used  to  another 
way  of  thinking." 

Bowne,  The  Immanence  of  God,  109,  110 —  "  Those  who  would  find  the  source  of  cer- 
tainty and  the  seat  of  authority  in  the  Scriptures  alone,  or  in  the  church  alone,  or  rea- 
son and  conscience  alone,  rather  "than  in  the  complex  and  indivisible  coworking  of  all 
these  factors,  should  be  reminded  of  the  history  of  religious  thought.  The  stiff  est  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  inerrancy  has  not  prevented  warring  interpretations;  and  those  who 
would  place  the  seat  of  authority  in  reason  and  conscience  are  forced  to  admit  that 
outside  illumination  may  do  much  for  both.  In  some  sense  the  religion  of  the  spirit  is 
a  ver\  important  tact,  but  when  it  sets  up  in  opposition  to  the  religion  of  a  book,  the 
light  that  is  in  it  is  apt  to  turn  to  darkness." 

10.  Wliile  inspiration  constitutes  Scripture  an  authority  more  trust- 
worthy than  are  individual  reason  or  the  creeds  of  the  church,  the  only 
ultimate  authority  is  Christ  himself. 

Christ  has  not  su  constructed  Scripture  as  to  dispense  with  his  personal 
presence  and  teaching  by  his  Spirit.  The  Scripture  is  the  imperfect  mirror 
of  Christ.  It  is  defective,  yet  it  reflects  him  and  leads  to  him.  Authority 
resides  not  in  it,  but  in  him,  and  his  Spirit  enables  the  individual  Christian 
and  the  collective  church  progressively  to  distinguish  the  essential  from 
the  non-essential,  and  so  to  perceive  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  In  thus 
judging  Scripture  and  interpreting  Scripture,  we  tire  not  rationalists,  but 
are  rather  believers  in  him  who  promised  to  be  with  us  alway  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world  and  to  lead  us  by  his  Spirit  into  all  the  truth. 

James  speaks  of  the  law  as  a  mirror  ( James  1 :  23-25  —  "  like  unto  a  man  beholding  his  natural  face  in 
a  mirror  .  .  .  looketh  into  the  perfect  law");  the  law  convicts  of  sin  because  it  reflects  Christ. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  gospel  as  a  mirror  (2  Cor.  3:18  —  "we  all,  beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the 
Lord");  the  gospel  transforms  us  because  it  reflects  Christ.  Yet  both  law  and  gospel 
are  imperfect ;  they  are  like  mirrors  of  polished  metal,  whose  surface  is  often  dim,  and 
whose  images  are  obscure  ;  ( 1  Cor.  13  :  12 — "  For  now  we  see  in  a  mirror,  darkly ;  but  then  face  to  face  " )  ; 
even  inspired  men  know  only  in  part,  and  prophesy  only  in  part.  Scripture  itself  is  the 
conception  and  utterance  of  a  child,  to  be  done  away  when  that  which  is  perfect  is 
come,  and  we  see  Christ  as  he  is. 

Authority  is  the  right  to  imp*  se  beliefs  or  to  command  ol>edieuce.  The  only  ultimate 
authority  is  God,  for  he  is  truth,  justice  and  love.  But  he  can  impose  beliefs  and  com- 
mand obedience  only  as  he  is  known.  Authority  belongs  therefore  only  to  God  revealed, 
and  because  Christ  is  God  revealed  he  can  say:  "  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth"  (Mat.  28:18).  The  final  authority  in  religion  is  Jesus  Christ.  Every  one  of 
his  revelations  of  God  is  authoritative.  Both  nature  and  human  nature  are  such  reve- 
lations. He  exercises  his  authority  through  delegated  and  subordinate  authorities, 
such  as  parents  and  civil  government.  These  rightfully  ciaim  obedience  s*>  long  as 
they  hold  to  their  own  respective  spheres  and  recognize  their  relation  of  dependence 
upon  him.  "  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God  "  ( Rom.  13  : 1 ),  even  though  they  are  imperfect 
manifestations  of  his  wisdom  and  righteousness.  The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
are  authoritative  even  though  the  judges  are  fallible  and  come  short  of  establishing 
absolute  justice.  Authority  is  not  infallibility,  in  the  government  either  of  the  family 
or  of  the  state. 

The  church  of  the  middle  ages  was  regarded  as  possessed  of  absolute  authority.  But 
the  Protestant  Reformation  showed  how  vain  were  these  pretensions.  The  church  is 
an  authority  only  as  it  recognizes  and  expresses  the  supreme  authority  of  Christ.  The 
Reformers  felt  the  need  of  some  external  authority  in  place  of  the  church.     They  sub- 


220  THE   SCRIPTUKES    A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

stitutedthe  Scripture.  The  phrase  "the  word  of  God,"  which  designates  the  truth 
orally  uttered  or  affecting  the  minds  of  men,  came  to  signify  only  a  book.  Supreme 
authority  was  ascribed  to  it.  It  often  usurped  the  place  of  Christ.  While  we  vindicate 
the  proper  authority  of  Scripture,  we  would  show  that  its  authority  is  not  immedi- 
ate and  absolute,  but  mediate  and  relative,  through  human  and  imperfect  records,  and 
needing  a  supplementary  and  divine  teaching  to  interpret  them.  The  authority  of 
Scripture  is  not  apart  from  Christ  or  above  Christ,  but  only  in  subordination  to  him 
and  to  his  Spirit.  He  who  inspired  Scripture  must  enable  us  to  interpret  Scripture. 
This  is  not  a  doctrine  of  rationalism,  for  it  holds  to  man's  absolute  dependence  upon 
the  enlightening  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  not  a  doctrine  of  mysticism,  for  it  holds  that 
Christ  teaches  us  only  by  opening  to  us  the  meaning  of  his  past  revelations.  We  do  not 
expect  any  new  worlds  in  our  astronomy,  nor  do  we  expect  any  new  Scriptures  in  our 
theology.  But  we  do  expect  that  the  same  Christ  who  gave  the  Scriptures  will  give  us 
new  insight  into  their  meaning  and  will  enable  us  to  make  new  applications  of  their 
teachings. 

The  right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  with  regard  to  Scripture  belong  to  no 
ecclesiastical  caste,  but  are  inalienable  liberties  of  the  whole  church  of  Christ  and  of 
each  individual  member  of  that  church.  And  yet  this  judgment  is,  from  another 
point  of  view,  no  private  judgment.  It  is  not  the  judgment  of  arbitrariness  or  caprice. 
It  does  not  make  the  Christian  consciousness  supreme,  if  we  mean  by  this  term  the 
consciousness  of  Christians  apart  from  the  indwelling  Christ.  When  once  we  come  to 
Christ,  he  joins  us  to  himself,  he  seats  us  with  him  upon  his  throne,  he  imparts  to  us  his 
Spirit,  he  bids  us  use  our  reason  in  his  service.  In  judging  Scripture,  we  make  not  our- 
selves but  Christ  supreme,  and  recognize  him  as  the  only  ultimate  and  infallible  author- 
ity in  matters  of  religion.  We  can  believe  that  the  total  revelation  of  Christ  in  Scripture  is 
an  authority  superior  to  individual  reason  or  to  any  single  affirmation  of  the  church, 
while  yet  we  believe  that  this  very  authority  of  Scripture  has  its  limitation,  and  that 
Christ  himself  must  teach  us  what  this  total  revelation  is.  So  the  judgment  which 
Scripture  encourages  us  to  pass  upon  its  own  limitations  only  induces  a  final  and  more 
implicit  reliance  upon  the  living  and  personal  Son  of  God.  He  has  never  intended  that 
Scripture  should  be  a  substitute  for  his  own  presence,  and  it  is  only  his  Spirit  that  is 
promised  to  lead  us  into  all  the  truth. 

On  the  authority  of  Scripture,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  113-136—  "The 
source  of  all  authority  is  not  Scripture,  but  Christ.  .  .  Nowhere  are  we  told  that  the 
Scripture  of  itself  is  able  to  convince  the  sinner  or  to  bring  him  to  God.  It  is  a  glitter- 
ing sword,  but  it  is 'the  sword  of  the  Spirit'  (Eph.  6:17);  and  unless  the  Spirit  use  it,  it  will  never 
pierce  the  heart.  It  is  a  heavy  hammer,  but  only  the  Spirit  can  wield  it  so  that  it  breaks 
in  pieces  the  flinty  rock.  It  is  the  type  locked  in  the  form,  but  the  paper  will  never 
receive  an  impression  until  the  Spirit  shall  apply  the  power.  No  mere  instrument 
shall  have  the  glory  that  belongs  to  God.  Every  soul  shall  feel  its  entire  dependence 
upon  him.  Only  the  Holy  Spirit  can  turn  the  outer  word  into  an  inner  word.  And  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Christ  comes  into  direct  contact  with  the  soul.  He 
himself  gives  his  witness  to  the  truth.  He  bears  testimony  to  Scripture,  even  more 
than  Scripture  bears  testimony  to  him." 

11.  The  preceding  discussion  enables  us  at  least  to  lay  down  three  car- 
dinal principles  and  to  answer  three  common  questions  with  regard  to 
inspiration. 

Principles  :  (a)  The  human  mind  can  be  inhabited  and  energized  by  God 
while  yet  attaining  and  retaining  its  own  highest  intelligence  and  freedom. 
(6)  The  Scriptures  being  the  work  of  the  one  God,  as  well  as  of  the  men 
in  whom  God  moved  and  dwelt,  constitute  an  articulated  and  organic  uuity. 
( c )  The  unity  and  authority  of  Scripture  as  a  whole  are  entirely  consis- 
tent with  its  gradual  evolution  and  with  great  imperf  ection  in  its  non-essen- 
tial parts. 

Questions:  (a)  Is  any  part  of  Scripture  uninspired?  Answer  :  Every 
part  of  Scripture  is  inspired  in  its  connection  and  relation  with  every 
other  part.  ( b  )  Are  there  degrees  of  inspiration  ?  Answer  :  There  are 
degrees  of  value,  but  not  of  inspiration.     Each  part  in  its  connection  with 


DIVINE   AND   HUMAN    ELEMENTS   IN   INSPIRATION.  2&1 

the  rest  is  mucle  coini)letely  true,  and  completeness  lias  no  degrees.  (  c ) 
How  may  we  know  what  parts  are  of  most  value  and  what  is  the  teaching 
of  the  whole  ?  Answer  :  The  saYne  Spirit  of  Christ  who  inspired  the 
Bible  is  promised  to  take  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and,  by  showing  them  to 
us,  to  lead  us  progressively  into  all  the  truth. 

Notice  the  value  of  the  Old  Testament,  revealing'  as  it  does  the  natural  attributes  of 
God,  as  a  basis  and  background  for  the  revelation  of  mercy  in  the  New  Testament. 
Uevelation  was  in  many  parts  ( jroAv/nepws  —  Heb.  1 :1 )  as  well  as  in  many  ways.  "  Each 
individual  oracle,  taken  by  itself,  was  partial  and  incomplete  "  ( Robertson  Smith,  O.  T. 
in  Jewish  Ch.,  21 ).  But  the  person  and  the  words  of  Christ  sum  up  and  complete  the 
revelation,  so  that,  taken  together  and  in  their  connection  with  him,  the  various  parts 
of  Scripture  constitute  an  infallible  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  See 
Browne,  Inspiration  of  the  N.  T.;  Bernard,  Progress  of  Doctrine  iu  the  N.  T.;  Stanley 
Leathes,  Structure  of  the  0.  T.;  Rainy,  Delivery  and  Development  of  Doctrine.  See 
A.  H.  Strong,  on  Method  of  Inspiration,  in  Philosophy  and  Religion,  148-155. 

The  divine  influence  upon  the  minds  of  post-biblical  writers,  leading  to  the  composi- 
tion of  such  allegories  as  Pilgrim's  Progress,  and  such  dramas  as  Macbeth,  is  to  be 
denominated  illumination  rather  than  inspiration,  for  the  reasons  that  these  writings 
contain  error  as  well  as  truth  in  matters  of  religion  and  morals ;  that  they  add  nothing 
essential  to  what  the  Scriptures  give  us;  and  that,  even  in  their  expression  of  truth 
previously  made  known,  they  are  not  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  sacred  canon.  W.  H.  P. 
Faunoe :  "How  far  is  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Progress  true  to  present  Christian  experience? 
It  is  untrue  :  1.  In  its  despair  of  this  world.  The  Pilgrim  has  to  leave  this  world  in 
order  to  be  saved.  Modern  experience  longs  to  do  God's  will  here,  and  to  save  others 
instead  of  forsaking  them.  2.  In  its  agony  over  sin  and  frightful  conflict.  Bunyan 
illustrates  modern  experience  better  by  Christiana  and  her  children  who  go  through 
the  Valley  and  the  Shadow  of  Death  in  the  daytime,  and  without  conflict  with  Apollyon. 
3.  In  the  constant  uncertainty  of  the  issue  of  the  Pilgrim's  fight.  Christian  enters 
Doubting  Castle  and  meets  Giant  Despair,  even  after  he  has  won  most  of  his  victories. 
En  modern  experience,  " at  evening  time  thore  shall  be  light''  —  (Zeoh.  14:7).  1.  In  the  constant 
conviction  of  an  absent  Christ.  Bunyan's  Christ  is  never  met  this  sideofthi  Celestial 
City.  The  Cross  at  which  the  burden  dropped  is  the  symbol  of  a  Bacriflcial  act,  but  it 
is  not  the  Savior  himself.  Modern  experience  has  Christ  living  in  us  and  with  as 
alway,  and  not  simply  a  Christ  whom  we  hope  to  see  at  the  end  of  the  journey." 

Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.,  2: 18  —  "  Paul  declares  his  own  prophecy  ami  inspiration  to 
be  essentially  imperfect  (1  Cor.  13:9,  10,  12;  c/.  1  Cor.  12: 10;  1  Thess.  5  :  19  21 ).  This  admission 
justifies  a  Christian  criticism  even  of  his  views.  He  can  pronounce  an  anathema  on 
those  who  preach  'a  different  gospel '  ( Gal.  1:8,  9 ),  for  what  belongs  to  simple  faith,  the  facts 
of  salvation,  are  absolutely  certain.  But  where  prophetic  thought  and  speech  go 
beyond  these  facts  of  salvation,  wood  and  straw  may  be  mingled  with  the  gold,  silver 
and  precious  stones  built  upon  the  one  foundation.  So  he  distinguishes  his  own  modest 
yvu>nr)  from  the  eirnay'r)  Kvpiov  ( 1  Cor.  7:25,  40)."  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  44  — "The 
authority  of  Scripture  is  not  one  that  binds,  but  one  that  sets  free.  Paul  is  writing  of 
Scripture  when  he  says  :  '  Not  that  we  have  lordship  over  your  faith,  but  are  helpers  of  jour  joy  :  for  in  faith 
ye  stand  fast'  (2  Cor.  1 :24)." 

Cremer,  in  Herzog,  Kealencyc,  183-203 — "The  church  doctrine  is  that  the  Scriptures 
are  inspired,  but  it  has  never  been  determined  by  the  church  how  they  are  inspired." 
Butler,  Analogy,  part  n,  chap,  in — "The  only  question  concerning  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity is,  whether  it  be  a  real  revelation,  not  whether  it  be  attended  with  every  cir- 
cumstance which  we  should  have  looked  for;  and  concerning  the  authority  of  Script- 
ure, whether  it  be  what  it  claims  to  be,  not  whether  it  be  a  book  of  such  sort,  and  so 
promulgated,  as  weak  men  are  apt  to  fancy  a  book  containing  a  divine  revela- 
tion should.  And  therefore,  neither  obscurity,  nor  seeming  inaccuracy  of  style,  nor 
various  readings,  nor  early  disputes  about  the  authors  of  particular  parts,  nor  any 
other  things  of  the  like  kind,  though  they  had  been  much  more  considerable  than  they 
are,  could  overthrow  the  authority  of  the  Scripture  ;  unless  the  prophets,  apostles,  or 
our  Lord  had  promised  that  the  book  containing  the  divine  revelation  should  be  secure 
from  these  things."  W.  Robertson  Smith :  "  If  I  am  asked  why  I  receive  the  Scriptures 
as  the  word  of  God  and  as  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  life,  I  answer  with  all  the 
Fathers  of  the  Protestant  church  :  '  Because  the  Bible  is  the  only  record  of  the  redeem- 
ing love  of  God  ;  because  in  the  Bible  alone  I  find  God  drawing  nigh  to  men  in  Jesus 


222  THE    SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION   FROM    GOD. 

Christ,  and  declaring-  bis  will  for  our  salvation.  And  the  record  I  know  to  be  true  by 
the  witness  of  his  Spirit  in  my  heart,  whereby  I  am  assured  that  none  other  than  God 
himself  is  able  to  speak  such  words  to  my  soul."  The  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
airo£  keyotLtvov  of  the  Almighty.  See  Marcus  Dods,  The  Bible,  its  Origin  and  Nature ; 
Bowne,  The  Immanence  of  God,  66-115. 

V.     Objections  to  the  Doctrine  op  Inspiration. 

In  connection  with  a  divine-human  work  like  the  Bible,  insoluble  diffi- 
culties may  be  expected  to  present  themselves.  So  long,  however,  as  its 
inspiration  is  sustained  by  competent  and  sufficient  evidence,  these  difficul- 
ties cannot  jus.tly  prevent  our  f  ull  acceptance  of  the  doctrine,  any  more  than 
disorder  and  mystery  in  nature  warrant  us  in  setting  aside  the  proofs  of  its 
divine  authorship.  These  difficulties  are  lessened  with  time  ;  some  have 
already  disappeared  ;  many  may  be  due  to  ignorance,  and  may  be  removed 
hereafter  ;  those  which  are  permanent  may  be  intended  to  stimulate  inquiry 
and  to  discipline  faith. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  common  objections  to  inspiration  are  urged,  not 
so  much  against  the  religious  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  as  against  certain 
errors  in  secular  matters  which  are  supposed  to  be  interwoven  with  it.  But 
if  these  are  proved  to  be  errors  indeed,  it  will  not  necessarily  overthrow 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration ;  it  will  only  compel  us  to  give  a  larger  place 
to  the  human  element  in  the  composition  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  regard 
them  more  exclusively  as  a  text-book  of  religion.  As  a  rule  of  religious 
faith  and  practice,  they  will  still  be  the  infallible  word  of  God.  The  Bible 
is  to  be  judged  as  a  book  whose  one  aim  is  man's  rescue  from  sin  and 
reconciliation  to  God,  and  in  these  respects  it  will  still  be  found  a  record 
of  substantial  truth.  This  will  appear  more  fidly  as  we  examine  the  objec- 
tions one  by  one. 

"The  Scriptures  are  given  to  teach  us,  not  how  the  heavens  go,  but  how  to  go  to 
heaven."  Their  aim  is  certainly  not  to  teach  acience  or  history,  except  so  far  as  science 
or  history  is  essential  to  their  moral  and  religious  purpose.  Certain  of  their  doctrines, 
like  the  virgin-birth  of  Christ  and  his  bodily  resurrection,  are  historical  facts,  and  cer- 
tain facts,  like  that  of  creation,  are  also  doctrines.  With  regard  to  these  great  facts, 
we  claim  that  inspiration  has  given  us  accounts  that  are  essentially  trustworthy,  what- 
ever may  be  their  imperfections  in  detail.  To  undermine  the  scientific  trustworthiness 
of  the  Indian  Vedas  is  to  undermine  the  religion  which  they  teach.  But  this  only 
because  their  scientific  doctrine  is  an  essential  part  of  their  religious  teaching.  In  the 
Bible,  religion  is  not  dependent  upon  physical  science.  The  Scriptures  aim  only  to 
declare  the  creatorship  and  lordship  of  the  personal  God.  The  method  of  his  working 
may  be  described  pictorially  without  affecting  this  substantial  truth.  The  Indian  cos- 
mogonies, on  the  other  hand,  polytheistic  or  pantheistic  as  they  are,  teach  essential 
untruth,  by  describing  the  origin  of  things  as  due  to  a  series  of  senseless  transforma- 
tions without  basis  of  will  or  wisdom. 

So  long  as  the  difficulties  of  Scripture  are  difficulties  of  form  rather  than  substance, 
of  its  incidental  features  rather  than  its  main  doctrine,  we  may  say  of  its  obscurities  as 
Isocrates  said  of  the  work  of  Heraclitus:  "  What  I  understand  of  it  is  so  excellent 
that  I  can  draw  conclusions  from  it  concerning  what  I  do  not  understand."  "I-f  Ben- 
gel  finds  things  in  the  Bible  too  hard  for  his  critical  faculty,  he  finds  nothing  too  hard 
for  his  believing  faculty."  With  John  Smyth,  who  died  at  Amsterdam  in  1613,  we  may 
say :  "  I  profess  I  have  changed,  and  shall  be  ready  still  to  change,  for  the  better  " ;  and 
with  John  Robinson,  in  his  farewell  address  to  the  Pilgrim  Fathers:  "I  am  verily  per- 
suaded that  the  Lord  hath  more  truth  yet  to  break  forth  from  his  holy  word."  See 
Luthardt,  Saving  Truths,  205 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  205  sq. ;  Bap.  Rev.,  April,  1881 : 
art.  by  O.  P.  Eaches;  Cardinal  Newman,  in  19th  Century,  Feb.  1884. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION.  223 

1.     Errors  in  matters  of  Science. 
Upon  this  objection  we  remark  : 

(a)  We  do  not  admit  the  existence  of  scientific  error  in  the  Scripture. 
What  is  charged  as  such  is  simply  truth  presented  in  popular  and  impres- 
sive forms. 

The  common  mind  receives  a  more  correct  idea  of  unfamiliar  facts  when 
these  are  narrated  in  phenomenal  language  and  in  summary  fomi  than 
when  they  are  described  in  the  abstract  terms  and  in  the  exact  detail  of 
science. 

The  Scripture  writers  unconsciously  observe  Herbert  Spencer's  principle  of  style : 
Economy  of  the  reader's  or  hearer's  attention, —  the  more  energy  is  expended  upon  the 
form  the  less  there  remains  to  grapple  with  the  substance  (Essays,  1-47).  Wendt, 
Teaching-  of  Jesus,  1 :  130,  brings  out  the  principle  of  Jesus'  style :  "  The  greatest  cl<  sar- 
ness  in  the  smallest  compass."  Hence  Scripture  uses  the  phrases  of  common  life 
rather  than  scientific  terminology.  Thus  the  language  of  appearance  is  probably  used 
in  Gen.  7 :  19 — "  all  the  high  mountains  that  were  under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered  " — such  would  be  the 
appearance,  even  if  the  deluge  were  local  instead  of  universal ;  in  Josh.  10: 12, 13  —  "and  the 
sun  stood  still"  —  such  would  be  the  appearance,  even  if  the  sun's  rays  were  merely  refrac- 
ted so  as  preternaturally  to  lengthen  the  day ;  in  Ps.  93 : 1  —  "  The  world  also  is  established,  that  it 
cannot  be  moved  " — such  is  the  appearance,  even  though  the  earth  turns  on  its  axis  and 
moves  round  the  sun.  In  narrative,  to  substitute  for  "  sunset "  some  scientific  descrip- 
tion would  divert  attention  from  the  main  subject.  Would  it  be  preferable,  in  the 
O.  T.,  if  we  should  read  :  "  When  the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  caused  the  rays 
of  the  solar  luminary  to  impinge  horizontally  upon  the  retina,  Isaac  went  out  to  meditate"  ( Gen. 
24:63)?  "Le  secret  d'ennuyer  est  de  tout  dire."  Charles  Dickens,  in  his  American 
Notes,  72,  describes  a  prairie  sunset:  "The  decline  of  day  here  was  very  gorgeous, 
tinging  the  firmament  deeply  with  red  and  gold,  up  to  the  very  keystone  of  the  arch 
above  us"  (quoted  by  Hovey,  Manual  of  Christian  Theology,  97).  Did  Dickens  there- 
fore believe  the  firmament  to  be  a  piece  of  solid  masonry  ? 

Canon  Driver  rejects  the  Bible  story  of  creation  because  the  distinctions  made  by 
modern  science  cannot  be  found  in  the  primitive  Hebrew.  He  thinks  the  fluid  state  of 
the  earth's  substance  should  have  been  called  "surging  chaos,"  instead  of  "waters"  (Gen. 
1:2).  "An  admirable  phrase  for  modern  and  cultivated  minds,"  replies  Mr.  Gladstone, 
"but  a  phrase  that  would  have  left  the  pupils  of  the  Mosaic  writer  in  exactly  the  con- 
dition out  of  which  it  was  his  purpose  to  bring  them,  namely,  a  state  of  utter  ignorance 
and  darkness,  with  possibly  a  little  ripple  of  bewilderment  to  boot  ":  see  Sunday  School 
Times,  April  26,  1890.  The  fallacy  of  holding  that  Scripture  gives  in  detail  all  the  facts 
connected  with  a  historical  narrative  has  led  to  many  curious  arguments.  The  Gre- 
gorian Calendar  which  makes  the  year  begin  iu  January  was  opposed  by  representing 
that  Eve  was  tempted  at  the  outset  by  an  apple,  which  was  possible  only  in  case  the 
year  began  in  September;  see  Thayer,  Change  of  Attitude  towards  the  Bible,  46. 

(  b  )  It  is  not  necessary  to  a  proper  view  of  inspiration  to  suppose  that 
the  human  authors  of  Scripture  had  in  mind  the  proper  scientific  interpre- 
tation of  the  natural  events  they  recorded. 

It  is  enough  that  this  was  in  the  mind  of  the  inspiring  Spirit.  Through 
the  comparatively  narrow  conceptions  and  inadequate  language  of  the 
Scripture  writers,  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  may  have  secured  the  expres- 
sion of  the  truth  in  such  germinal  form  as  to  be  intelligible  to  the  times 
in  which  it  was  first  published,  and  yet  capable  of  indefinite  expansion  as 
science  should  advance.  In  the  miniature  picture  of  creation  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  and  in  its  power  of  adjusting  itself  to  every  advance  of 
scientific  investigation,  we  have  a  strong  proof  of  inspiration. 

The  word  "  day  "  in  Genesis  1  is  an  instance  of  this  general  mode  of  expression.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  teach  early  races,  that  deal  only  in  small  numbers,  about  the  myriads  of 
years  of  creation.    The  child's  object-lesson,  with  its  graphic  summary,  conveys  to  his 


224  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

mind  more  of  truth  than  elaborate  and  exact  statement  would  convey.  Conant  ( Genesis 
2  :  10 )  says  of  the  description  of  Eden  and  its  rivers:  "  Of  course  the  author's  object  is 
not  a  minute  topographical  description,  but  a  general  and  impressive  conception  as  a 
whole."  Yet  the  progress  of  science  only  shows  that  these  accounts  are  not  less  but 
more  true  than  was  supposed  by  those  who  first  received  them.  Neither  the  Hindu 
Shasters  nor  any  heathen  cosmogony  can  bear  such  comparison  with  the  results  of 
science.  Why  change  our  interpretations  of  Scripture  so  often  ?  Answer :  We  do  not 
assume  to  be  original  teachei'S  of  science,  but  only  to  interpret  Scripture  with  the  new 
lights  we  have.  See  Dana,  Manual  of  Geology,  741-746 ;  Guyot,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1855  :  324; 
Dawson,  Story  of  Earth  and  Man,  32. 

This  conception  of  early  Scripture  teaching  as  elementary  and  suited  to  the  childhood 
of  the  race  would  make  it  possible,  if  the  facts  so  required,  to  interpret  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Genesis  as  mythical  or  legendary.  God  might  condescend  to  "  Kindergarten  for- 
mulas." Goethe  said  that  "  We  should  deal  with  children  as  God  deals  with  us :  we  are 
happiest  under  the  influence  of  innocent  delusions."  Longfellow :  "  How  beautiful  is 
youth !  how  bright  it  gleams,  With  its  illusions,  aspirations,  dreams !  Book  of  begin- 
nings, story  without  end,  Each  maid  a  heroine,  and  each  man  a  friend ! "  We  might 
hold  with  Goethe  and  with  Longfellow,  if  we  only  excluded  from  God's  teaching  all 
essential  error.  The  narratives  of  Scripture  might  be  addressed  to  the  imagination, 
and  so  might  take  mythical  or  legendary  form,  while  yet  they  conveyed  substantial 
truth  that  could  in  no  other  way  be  so  well  apprehended  by  early  man ;  see  Robert 
Browning's  poem,  "  Development,"  in  Asolando.  The  Koran,  on  the  other  hand,  leaves 
no  room  for  imagination,  but  fixes  the  number  of  the  stars  and  declares  the  firmament 
to  be  solid.  Henry  Drummond  :  "  Evolution  has  given  us  a  new  Bible.  .  .  .  The  Bible 
is  not  a  book  which  has  been  made,  —  it  has  grown." 

Bagehot  tells  us  that  "  One  of  the  most  remarkable  of  Father  Newman's  Oxford  ser- 
mons explains  how  science  teaches  that  the  earth  goes  round  the  sun,  and  how  Script- 
ure teaches  that  the  sun  goes  round  the  earth;  and  it  ends  by  advising  the  discreet 
believer  to  accept  both."  This  is  mental  bookkeeping  by  double  entry  ;  see  Mackintosh, 
in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  Jan.  1899 :  41.  Lenormant,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Nov.  1879—"  While 
the  tradition  of  the  deluge  holds  so  considerable  a  place  in  the  legendary  memories  of 
all  branches  of  the  Aryan  race,  the  monuments  and  original  texts  of  Egypt,  with  their 
many  cosmogonic  speculations,  have  not  afforded  any,  even  distant,  allusion  to  this 
cataclysm."  Lenormant  here  wrongly  assumed  that  the  language  of  Scripture  is  scien- 
tific language.  If  it  is  the  language  of  appearance,  then  the  deluge  may  be  a  local  and 
not  a  universal  catastrophe.  G.  F.  Wright,  Ice  Age  in  North  America,  suggests  that 
the  numerous  traditions  of  the  deluge  may  have  had  their  origin  in  the  enormous 
floods  of  the  receding  glacier.  In  South-western  Queensland,  the  standard  guage  at 
the  Meteorological  Office  registered  lOf,  20,  35f,  lOf  inches  of  rainfall,  in  all  77J  inches, 
in  four  successive  days. 

(c)  It  may  be  safely  said  that  science  has  not  yet  shown  any  fairly 
interpreted  passage  of  Scripture  to  be  untrue. 

"With  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  race,  we  may  say  that  owing  to  the 
differences  of  reading  between  the  Septuagint  and  the  Hebrew  there  is  room 
for  doubt  whether  either  of  the  received  chronologies  has  the  sanction  of 
inspiration.  Although  science  has  made  probable  the  existence  of  man 
upon  the  earth  at  a  period  preceding  the  dates  assigned  in  these  chronol- 
ogies, no  statement  of  inspired  Scripture  is  thereby  proved  false. 

Usher's  scheme  of  chronology,  on  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew,  puts  the  creation  4004 
years  before  Christ.  Hales's,  on  the  basis  of  the  Septuagint,  puts  it  5111  B.  C.  The 
Fathers  followed  the  LXX.  But  the  genealogies  before  and  after  the  flood  may  pre- 
sent us  only  with  the  names  of  "  leading  and  representative  men."  Some  of  these 
names  seem  to  stand,  not  for  individuals,  but  for  tribes,  e.  g.:  Gen.  10:16  —  where  Canaan 
is  said  to  have  begotten  the  Jebusite  and  the  Amorite;  29  —  Joktau  begot  Ophir  and 
Havilah.  In  Gen.  10:6,  we  read  that  Mizraim  belonged  to  the  sons  of  Ham.  But  Mizraim 
is  a  dual,  coined  to  designate  the  two  parts,  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt.  Hence  a  son  of 
Ham  could  not  bear  the  name  of  Mizraim.  Gen.  10  :  13  reads  :  "And  Mizraim  begat  Ludim."  But 
Ludiru  is  a  plural  form.  The  word  signifies  a  whole  nation,  and  "begat"  is  not  employed 
in  a  literal  sense.    So  in  verses  15, 16:  "Canaan  begat  .  .  .  the  Jebusite,''  a  tribe;  the  ancestors  of 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION.  225 

which  would  have  been  called  Jebus.  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  however,  are  nam^s, 
not  of  tribes  or  nations,  but  of  Individuals  ;  see  Prof.  Edward  Konig,  of  Bonn,  in  S.  S. 
Times,  Dec.  14, 1901.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  We  may  pretty  safely  go  back  to  the  time  of 
Abraham,  but  no  further."  Bib.  Sac.,U899 :  403  —  "  The  lists  in  Genesis  may  relate  to 
families  and  not  to  individuals." 

G.  F.  Wright,  Ant.  and  Origin  of  Human  Race,  lect.  ii  —  "  When  in  David's  time  it 
is  said  that  'Shebuel,  the  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses,  was  ruler  over  the  treasures'  (1  Chron.  23  :16; 
26: 24 ),  Gershom  was  the  immediate  son  of  Moses,  but  Shebuel  was  separated  by  many 
generations  from  Gershom.  So  when  Seth  is  said  to  have  begotten  Enosh  when  he  was 
105  years  old  ( Gen.  5:6),  it  is,  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  capable  of  meaning  that  Euosh 
was  descended  from  the  branch  of  Seth's  line  which  set  off  at  the  105th  year,  with  auy 
number  of  intermediate  links  omitted."  The  appearance  of  completeness  in  the  text 
may  be  due  to  alteration  of  the  text  in  the  course  of  centuries ;  see  Bib.  Com.,  1:30. 
In  the  phrase  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham"  (Mat.  1:1)  thirty-eight  to  forty 
generations  are  omitted.  It  may  be  so  in  some  of  the  Old  Testament  genealogies. 
There  is  room  for  a  hundred  thousand  years,  if  necessary  (Conant).  W.  K.  Green,  in 
Bib.  Sac,  April,  1890  :  308,  and  in  Independent,  June  18,  1891  —  "  The  Scriptures  furnish 
us  with  no  data  for  a  chronological  computation  prior  to  the  life  of  Abraham.  The 
Mosaic  records  do  not  fix,  and  were  not  intended  to  fix,  the  precise  date  of  the  Flood 
or  of  the  Creation  .  .  .  They  give  a  series  of  specimen  lives,  with  appropriate  numbers 
attached,  to  show  by  selected  examples  what  was  the  original  term  of  human  life.  To 
make  them  a  complete  and  continuous  record,  aud  to  deduce  from  them  the  antiquity 
of  the  race,  is  to  put  them  to  a  use  they  were  never  intended  to  serve." 

Comparison  with  secular  history  also  shows  that  no  such  length  of  time  as  100.000 
years  for  man's  existence  upon  earth  seems  necessary.  Rawlinson,  in  Jour.  Christ. 
Philosophy,  1883  :  3:i9-364,  dates  the  beginning  of  the  Chaldean  monarchy  at  2400  B.  C. 
Lenormant  puts  the  entrance  of  the  Sanskritic  Indians  into  Hindustan  at  2500  B.C. 
The  earliest  Vedas  are  between  1200  and  1000  B.  C.  ( Max  Miiller).  Call  of  Abraham, 
probably  1945  B.  C.  Chinese  history  possibly  began  as  early  as  2356  B.  C.  (Legge). 
The  old  Empire  in  Egypt  possibly  began  as  early  as  2)>50  B.  C.  Rawlinson  puts  the  flood 
at  3600  B.  C,  and  adds  2oo0  years  between  the  deluge  and  the  creation,  making  the  age 
of  the  world  1886  +  3600  +  2000  =  7486.  S.  R.  Patf  ison,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  3  :  no.  13, 
concludes  that  "atermof  about  8000  years  is  warranted  by  deductions  from  htatory, 
geology,  and  Scripture.''  See  also  Duke  of  Argyll,  Primeval  Man,  76-128;  Cowles  on 
Genesis,  49-80 ;  Dawson,  Fossil  Men,  246;  Hicks,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  July,  1884  (15000  years* ; 
Zi'iekler,  Urgeschielite  fler  Erde  und  des  Mensehen,  137-163.  On  the  critical  side,  see 
Crooker,  The  New  Bible  and  its  Uses,  80-102. 

Evidence  of  a  geological  nature  seems  to  be  accumulating,  which  tends  to  prove 
man's  advent  upon  earth  at  least  ten  thousand  years  ago.  An  arrowhead  of  tempered 
copper  and  a  number  of  human  bones  were  found  in  the  Rocky  Point  mines,  near  Gil- 
man,  Colorado,  460  feet  beneath  the  surface  of  the  earth,  embedded  in  a  vein  of  silver- 
bearing  ore.  More  than  a  hundred  dollars  worth  of  ore  clung  to  the  bones  when  they 
were  removed  from  the  mine.  On  the  age  of  the  earth  and  the  antirpuity  of  man,  see 
G.  F.  Wright,  Man  and  the  Glacial  Epoch,  lectures  iv  and  x,  and  in  McClure's  Maga- 
zine, June,  1901,  and  Bib.  Sac,  1903  :  31 —  "  Charles  Darwin  first  talked  about  300  million 
years  as  a  mere  trifle  of  geologic  time.  His  son  George  limits  it  to  50  or  100  million  ; 
Croll  and  Young  to  60  or  70  million;  Wallace  to  28  million;  Lord  Kelvin  to  24 
million;  Thompson  and  Newcomb  to  only  10  million."  Sir  Archibald  Geikie,  at  the 
British  Association  at  Dover  in  1899,  said  that  100  million  years  sufficed  for  that  small 
portion  of  the  earth's  history  which  is  registered  in  the  stratified  rocks  of  the  crust. 

Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  122,  considers  vegetable  life  to  have  existed  on  the 
planet  for  at  least  100  million  years.  Warren  Upham,  in  Pop.  Science  Monthly,  Dec. 
1893  :  153  —  "  How  old  is  the  earth  ?  100  million  years."  D.  G.  Brinton,  in  Forum,  Dec. 
1893 :  454,  puts  the  minimum  limit  of  man's  existence  on  earth  at  50,000  years.  G.  F. 
Wright  does  not  doubt  that  man's  presence  on  this  continent  was  preglacial,  say  eleven 
or  twelve  thousand  years  ago.  He  asserts  that  there  has  been  a  subsidence  of  Central 
Asia  and  Southern  Russia  since  man's  advent,  and  that  Arctic  seiJs  are  still  found  in 
Lake  Baikal  in  Siberia.  While  he  grants  that  Egyptian  civilization  may  go  back  to 
5000  B.  C,  he  holds  that  no  more  than  6000  or  7000  years  before  this  are  needed  as  prepara- 
tion for  history.  Le  Conte,  Elements  of  Geology,  613  —  "  Men  saw  the  great  glaciers  of 
the  second  glacial  epoch,  but  there  is  no  reliable  evidence  of  their  existence  before  the 
first  glacial  epoch.  Deltas,  implements,  lake  shores,  waterfalls,  indicate  only  7000  to 
15 


220  THE   SCItlPTUKES   A    REVELATION   PROM   GOD. 

10,000  years."  Keccut  calculations  of  Prof.  Prestwich.  the  most  eminent  living  geolo- 
gist of  Great  Britain,  tend  to  bring  the  close  of  the  glacial  epoch  down  to  within  10,000 
or  15,000  years. 

(  d)  Even  if  error  in  matters  of  science  were  found  in  Scripture,  it  would 
not  disprove  inspiration,  since  inspiration  concerns  itself  with  science  only 
so  far  as  correct  scientific  views  are  necessary  to  morals  and  religion. 

Great  harm  results  from  identifying  Christian  doctrine  with  specific  theories  of  the 
universe.  The  Roman  church  held  that  the  revolution  of  the  sun  around  the  earth 
was  taught  in  Scripture,  and  that  Christian  faith  required  the  condemnation  of  Gali- 
leo ;  John  "Wesley  thought  Christianity  to  be  inseparable  from  a  belief  in  witchcraft ; 
opposers  of  the  higher  criticism  regard  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  as 
"articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesise."  "We  mistake  greatly  when  we  link  inspi- 
ration with  scientific  doctrine.  The  purpose  of  Scripture  is  not  to  teach  science,  but  to 
teach  religion,  and,  with  the  exception  of  God's  creatorship  and  preserving  agency  in 
the  universe,  no  scientific  truth  is  essential  to  the  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  Inspi- 
ration might  leave  the  Scripture  writers  in  possession  of  the  scientific  ideas  of  their 
time,  while  yet  they  were  empowered  correctly  to  declare  both  ethical  and  religious 
truth.  A  right  spirit  indeed  gains  some  insight  into  the  meaning  of  nature,  and  so  the 
Scripture  writers  seem  to  be  preserved  from  incorporating  into  their  productions 
iruch  of  the  scientific  error  of  their  day.  But  entire  freedom  from  such  error  must 
pot  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  accompaniment  of  inspiration. 

2.     Errors  in  matters  of  History. 

To  this  objection  we  reply  : 

(a)  What  are  charged  as  such  are  often  mere  mistakes  in  transcription, 
and  have  no  force  as  arguments  against  inspiration,  unless  it  can  first  be 
shown  that  inspired  documents  are  by  the  very  fact  of  their  inspiration 
exempt  from  the  operation  of  those  laws  which  affect  the  transmission  of 
other  ancient  documents. 

We  have  no  right  to  expect  that  the  inspiration  of  the  original  writer  will  be  followed 
'z'j  a  miracle  in  the  case  of  every  copyist.  Why  believe  in  infallible  copyists,  more  than 
in  infallible  printers  ?  God  educates  us  to  care  for  his  word,  pnd  for  its  correct  trans- 
mission. Reverence  has  kept  the  Scriptures  more  free  from  various  readings  than 
are  other  ancient  manuscripts.  None  of  the  existing  variations  endanger  any  impor- 
tant article  of  faith.  Yet  some  mistakes  in  transcription  there  probably  are.  In  1  Chron. 
22  :  14,  instead  of  100,000  talents  of  gold  and  1,000,000  talents  of  silver  (  =  $3,750,000,000), 
Josephus  divides  the  sum  by  ten.  Dr.  Howard  Osgood  :  "A  French  writer,  Revillout, 
has  accounted  for  the  differing  numbers  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  just  as  he  accounts 
lor  the  same  differences  in  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  later  accounts,  by  the  change  in  the 
value  of  money  and  debasement  of  issues.  He  shows  the  change  all  over  Western 
Asia."    Per  contra,  see  Bacon,  Genesis  of  Genesis,  45. 

In  2  Chron.  13 : 3, 17,  where  the  numbers  of  men  in  the  armies  of  little  Palestine  are 
stated  as  400,000  and  800,000,  and  500,000  are  said  to  have  been  slain  in  a  single  battle, 
"  some  ancient  copies  of  the  Vulgate  and  Latin  translations  of  Josephus  have  40,000, 
80,000,  and  50,000  "  ;  see  Annotated  Paragraph  Bible,  in  loco.  In  2  Chron.  17  :  14-19,  Jehosha- 
phafs  army  aggregates  1,160,000,  besides  the  garrisons  of  his  fortresses.  It  is 
possible  that  by  errors  in  transcription  these  numbers  have  been  multiplied  by  ten. 
Another  explanation  however,  and  perhaps  a  more  probable  one,  is  given  under  (d) 
below.  Similarly,  compare  1  Sam.  6  :  19,  where  50,070  are  slain,  with  the  70  of  Josephus; 
2  Sam.  8:4  —  "  1,700  horsemen,"  with  1  Chron.  18  :  4  —  "7,000  horsemen";  Esther  9:16  —  75,000  slain  by  the 
Jews,  with  LXX  — 15,000.  In  Mat.  27  :  9,  we  have  "Jeremiah"  for  " Zechariah  "  —  this  Calvin 
allows  to  be  a  mistake ;  and,  if  a  mistake,  then  one  made  by  the  first  copyist,  for  it 
appears  in  all  the  uncials,  all  the  manuscripts  and  all  the  versions  except  the  Syriac 
Peshito  where  it  is  omitted,  evidently  on  the  authority  of  the  individual  transcriber 
and  translator.  In  Acts  7  :  16 —  "  the  tomb  that  Abraham  bought "  —  Hackett  regards  "  Abraham  "  as 
a  clerical  error  for  "Jacob"  (compare  Gen.  33  :  18,  19).  See  Bible  Com.,  3  :  165,  249,  251, 
817. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION.  2'27 

(6)  Other  so-called  errors  are  to  be  explained  as  a  permissible  use  of 
round  numbers,  which  cannot  be  denied  to  the  sacred  writers  except  ixpon 
the  principle  that  mathematical  accuracy  was  more  important  than  the 
general  impression  to  be  secured  by  the  narrative. 

In  Numbers  25 : 9,  we  read  that  there  fell  in  the  plague  24,000 ;  1  Cor.  10 : 8  says  23,000.  The 
actual  number  was  possibly  somewhere  between  the  two.  Upon  a  similar  principle,  we 
do  not  scruple  to  celebrate  the  Landing  of  the  Pilgrims  on  December  22nd  and  the 
birth  of  Christ  on  December  25th.  We  speak  of  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  although  at 
Bunker  Hill  no  battle  was  really  fought.  In  Ei.  12 :  40,  41,  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt  is  declared  to  be  430  years.  Yet  Paul,  in  Gal.  3 :  17,  says  that  the  giving  of  the  law 
through  Moses  was  430  years  after  the  call  of  Abraham,  whereas  the  call  of  Abraham 
took  place  215  yea  re  before  Jacob  and  his  sons  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  Paul  should 
have  said  645  years  instead  of  430.  Franz  Delitzsch  :  "  The  Hebrew  Bible  counts  four 
centuries  of  Egyptian  sojourn  ( Gen.  15 :  13-16 ),  more  accurately,  430  years  (  Ex.  12 :  40  ) ;  but 
according  to  the  LXX  ( Ex.  12 :  40  )  this  number  comprehends  the  sojourn  in  Canaan  and 
Egypt,  so  that  215  years  come  to  the  pilgrimage  in  Canaan,  and  215  to  the  servitude  in 
Eg5-pt.  This  kind  of  calculation  is  not  exclusively  Hellenistic  ;  it  is  also  found  in  the 
oldest  Palestinian  Midrash.  Paul  stands  on  this  side  in  Gal.  3  :  17,  making,  not  the  immi- 
gration into  Egypt,  but  the  covenant  with  Abraham  thefo  rminua  a  quo  of  the  430  years 
which  end  in  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  and  in  the  legislation  " ;  see  also  Hovey,  Com.  on 
Gal.  3:17.  It  was  not  Paul's  purpose  to  write  chronology, —  so  he  may  follow  the  LXX, 
and  call  the  time  between  the  promise  to  Abraham  and  the  giving  of  the  law  to  Moses 
430  years,  rather  than  the  actual  600.  If  he  had  given  the  larger  number,  it  might  have 
led  to  perplexity  and  discussion  about  a  matter  which  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  vital 
question  in  hand.  Inspiration  may  have  employed  current  though  inaccurate  state- 
ments as  to  matters  of  history,  because  they  were  the  best  available  means  of  impress- 
ing  upon  men's  minds  truth  of  a  more  important  sort.  In  Gen.  15: 13  the  430  years  is 
called  in  round  numbers  400  years,  and  so  in  Acts  7 : 6. 

(  c  )  Diversities  of  statement  in  accounts  of  the  same  event,  so  long  as 
they  touch  no  substantial  truth,  may  be  due  to  the  meagreness  of  the 
narrative,  and  might  be  fully  explained  if  some  single  fact,  now  unrecorded, 
were  only  known.  To  explain  these  apparent  discrepancies  would  not  only 
be  beside  the  purpose  of  the  record,  but  would  destroy  one  valuable 
evidence  of  the  independence  of  the  several  writers  or  witnesses. 

On  the  Stokes  trial,  the  judge  spoke  of  two  apparently  conflicting  testimonies  as 
neither  of  them  necessarily  false.  On  the  difference  between  Matthew  and  Luke  as 
to  the  scene  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Mat.  5:1;  e/.  Luke  6: 17)  see  Stanley,  Sinai  and 
Palestine,  360.  As  to  one  blind  man  or  two  ( Mat.  20 :  30  ;  cf.  Luke  18 :  35  )  see  Bliss,  Com.  on 
Luke,  275,  and  Gardiner,  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1879 :  513, 514 ;  Jesus  may  have  healed  the  blind 
men  during  a  day's  excursion  from  Jericho,  and  it  might  be  described  as  "  when  they 
went  out,"  or  "as  they  drew  nigh  to  Jericho."  Prof.  M.  B.  Riddle :  "  Luke  18 :  35  describes 
the  general  movement  towards  Jerusalem  and  not  the  precise  detail  preceding  the  mir- 
acle ;  Mat.  20 :  30  intimates  that  the  miracle  occurred  during  an  excursion  from  the  city,— 
Luke  afterwards  telling  of  the  final  departure  "  ;  Calvin  holds  to  two  meetings ;  Godet 
to  two  cities ;  if  Jesus  healed  two  blind  men,  he  certainly  healed  one,  and  Luke  did  not 
need  to  mention  more  than  one,  even  if  he  knew  of  both ;  see  Broadus  on  Mat.  20 :  30.  In 
Mat.  8:28,  where  Matthew  has  two  demoniacs  atGadara  and  Luke  has  only  one  at  Gerasa, 
Broadus  supposes  that  the  village  of  Gerasa  belonged  to  the  territory  of  the  city  of 
Gadara,  a  few  miles  to  the  Southeast  of  the  lake,  and  he  quotes  the  case  of  Lafayette  : 
" In  the  year  1824  Lafayette  visited  the  United  States  and  was  welcomed  with  honors 
and  pageants.  Some  historians  will  mention  only  Lafayette,  but  others  will  relate  the 
same  visit  as  made  and  the  same  honors  as  enjoyed  by  two  persons,  namely,  Lafay- 
ette and  his  son.  Will  not  both  be  right?"  On  Christ's  last  Passover,  see  Robinson, 
Harmony,  212;  E.  H.  Sears,  Fourth  Gospel,  Appendix  A;  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times 
cf  the  Messiah,  2 :  507.  Augustine:  " Locutioncs  variie,  sed  non  contrarise :  diversae,  sed 
non  adversae." 

Bartlett,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.  1880:46,  47,  gives  the  following  modern  illustrations. - 
Winslow's  Journal  (of  Plymouth  Plantation )  speaks  of  a  ship  sent  out  "by  Master 
Thomas  Weston."    But  Bradford  in  his  far  briefer  narrative  of  the  matter,  mentions  it- 


228  THE   SCRIPTURES  A   REVELATION   PROM   GOD. 

as  sent  "  by  Mr.  "Weston  and  another."  John  Adams,  in  his  letters,  tells  the  story  of  the 
daughter  of  Otis  about  her  father's  destruction  of  his  own  manuscripts.  At  one  time 
he  makes  her  say :  "  In  one  of  his  unhappy  moments  he  committed  them  all  to  the 
flames  " ;  yet,  in  the  second  letter,  she  is  made  to  say  that  "  he  was  several  da ys  in  doing 
it."  One  newspaper  says:  President  Hayes  attended  the  Bennington  centennial; 
another  newspaper  says :  the  President  and  Mrs.  Hayes ;  a  third :  the  President  and  his 
Cabinet ;  a  fourth :  the  President,  Mrs.  Hayes  and  a  majority  of  his  Cabinet.  Archibald 
Forbes,  in  his  account  of  Napoleon  III  at  Sedan,  points  out  an  agreement  of  narratives 
as  to  the  sabent  points,  combined  with  "  the  hopeless  and  bewildering  discrepancies  as 
to  details,"  even  as  these  are  reported  by  eye-witnesses,  including  himself,  Bismarck, 
and  General  Sheridan  who  was  on  the  ground,  as  well  as  others. 

Thayer,  Change  of  Attitude,  53,  speaks  of  Luke's  "  plump  anachronism  in  the  matter 
of  Tlieudas  "—  Acts  5 :  36  —  "  For  before  those  days  rose  up  Theudas."  Josephus,  Antiquities,  20 :  5  : 1, 
mentions  an  insurrectionary  Theudas,  but  the  date  and  other  incidents  do  not  agree  with 
those  of  Luke.  Josephus  however  may  have  mistaken  the  date  as  easily  as  Luke,  or  he 
may  refer  to  another  man  of  the  same  name.  The  inscription  on  the  Cross  is  given  in 
Mark  15 :  26,  as  "  The  King  of  the  Jews  "  ;  in  Luke  23  :  38,  as  "  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews  "  ;  in  Mat.  27 :  37,  as 
"This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews" ;  and  in  John  19 :  19,  as  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  King  of  the  Jews."  The 
entire  superscription,  in  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin,  may  have  contained  every  word 
given  by  the  several  evangelists  combined,  and  may  have  read  "  This  is  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, the  King  of  the  Jews,"  and  each  separate  report  may  be  entirely  correct  so  far  as 
it  goes.  See,  on  the  general  subject,  Haley,  Alleged  Discrepancies ;  Fisher,  Beginnings 
of  Christianity,  406-412. 

{d)  While  historical  and  archaeological  discovery  in  many  important 
particulars  goes  to  sustain  the  general  correctness  of  the  Scripture  narra- 
tives, and  no  statement  essential  to  the  moral  and  religious  teaching  of 
Scripture  has  been  invalidated,  inspiration  is  still  consistent  with  much 
imperfection  in  historical  detail  and  its  narratives  "do  not  seem  to  be 
exempted  from  possibilities  of  error." 

Tho  words  last  quoted  are  those  of  Sanday.  In  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  Inspiration, 
400,  he  remarks  that  "  Inspiration  belongs  to  the  historical  boi  >ks  rather  as  conveying  a 
religious  lesson,  than  as  histories ;  rather  as  interpreting,  than  as  narrating  plain  matter 
of  fact.  The  crucial  issue  is  that  in  these  last  respects  they  do  not  seem  to  be  exempted 
from  possibilities  of  error."  R.  V.  Foster,  Systematic  Theology,  (Cumberland  Presby- 
terian):  The  Scripture  writers  "were  not  inspired  to  do  otherwise  than  to  take  these 
Statements  as  they  found  them."  Inerrancy  is  not  freedom  from  misstatements,  but 
from  error  defined  as  "that  which  misleads  in  any  serious  or  important  sense."  When 
we  compare  the  accounts  of  1  and  2  Chronicles  with  those  of  1  and  2  Kings  we  find  in  the  for- 
mer an  exaggeration  of  numbers,  a  suppression  of  material  unfavorable  to  the  writer's 
purpose,  and  an  emphasis  upon  that  which  is  favorable,  that  contrasts  strongly  with 
the  method  of  the  latter.  These  characteristics  are  so  continuous  that  the  theory  of 
mistakes  in  transcription  does  not  seem  sufficient  to  account  for  the  facts.  The 
author's  aim  was  to  draw  out  the  religious  lessons  of  the  story,  and  historical  details 
are  to  him  of  comparative  unimportance. 

H.  P.  Smith,  Bib.  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  108  — "Inspiration  did  not  correct  the 
Chronicler's  historical  point  of  view,  more  than  it  corrected  his  scientific  point  of  view, 
which  no  doubt  made  the  earth  the  centre  of  the  solar  system.  It  therefore  left  him 
open  to  receive  documents,  and  to  use  them,  which  idealized  the  history  of  the  past, 
and  described  David  and  Solomon  according  to  the  ideas  of  later  times  and  the  priestly 
class.  David's  sins  are  omitted,  and  numbers  are  multiplied,  to  give  greater  dignity  to 
the  earlier  kingdom."  As  Tennyson's  Idylls  of  the  King  give  a  nobler  picture  of  King 
Arthur,  and  a  more  definite  aspect  to  his  history,  than  actual  records  justify,  yet  the 
picture  teaches  great  moral  and  religious  lessons,  so  the  Chronicler  seems  to  have  man- 
ipulated his  material  in  the  interest  of  religion.  Matters  of  arithmetic  were  minor 
matters.    "  Majoribus  intentus  est." 

E.  G.  Robinson :  "  The  numbers  of  the  Bible  are  characteristic  of  a  semi-barbarous 
age.  The  writers  took  care  to  guess  enough.  The  tendency  of  such  an  age  is  always 
to  exaggerate."  Two  Formosan  savages  divide  five  pieces  between  them  by  taking  two 
apiece  and  throwing  one  away.  The  lowest  tribes  can  count  only  with  the  fingers  of 
their  hands ;  when  they  use  their  toes  as  well,  it  marks  an  advance  in  civilization.    TO' 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION.  229 

the  modern  child  a  hundred  is  just  as  great  a  number  as  a  million.  So  the  early  Script- 
ures seem  to  use  numbers  with  a  childlike  ignorance  as  to  their  meaning-.  Hundreds 
of  thousands  can  be  substituted  for  tens  of  thousands,  and  the  substitution  seems 
only  a  proper  tribute  to  the  dignity  of  the  subject.  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  333  — "This 
was  not  conscious  perversion,  but  unconscious  idealizing- of  history,  tlie  reading- back 
into  past  records  of  a  ritual  development  which  was  really  later.  Inspiration  excludes 
conscious  deception,  but  it  appears  to  be  quite  consistent  with  this  sort  of  idealizing  ; 
always  supposing  that  the  result  read  back  into  the  earlier  history  does  represent  the 
real  purpose  of  God  and  only  anticipates  the  realization." 

There  are  some  who  contend  that  these  historical  imperfections  are  due  to  transcrip- 
tion and  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  original  documents.  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  71, 
111,  when  asked  what  is  gained  by  contending  for  infallible  original  autographs  if  they 
have  been  since  corrupted,  replies :  "  Just  what  we  gain  by  contending  for  the  original 
perfection  of  human  nature,  though  man  has  since  corrupted  it.  We  must  believe 
God's  own  testimony  about  his  own  work.  God  may  permit  others  to  do  what,  as  a 
holy  righteous  Ciod,  he  cannot  do  hinis.lt."  When  the  objector  declares  it  a  matter  of 
little  consequence  whether  a  pair  of  trousers  were  or  were  not  originally  perfect,  so 
long  as  they  are  badly  rent  just  now,  "Watts  replies:  "The  tailor  who  made  them 
would  probably  prefer  to  have  it  understood  that  the  trousers  did  not  leave  his  shop  in 
their  present  forlorn  condition.  God  drops  no  stitches  and  sends  out  no  imperfect 
work."  Watts  however  seems  dominated  by  an  a  priori  theory  of  inspiration,  which 
blinds  him  to  the  actual  facts  of  the  Bible. 

Evans,  Bib.  Scholarship  ami  Inspiration,  40  —  "Docs  the  present  error  destroy  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  we  have  it?  No.  Then  why  should  the  original  error  destroy 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  as  it  was  first  given  V  There  are  spots  on  yonder  sun  ;  do 
they  stop  its  being  the  sun  ?  Why,  the  sun  is  all  tin;  more  a  sun  for  the  spots.  So  the 
Bible."  Inspiration  seems  to  have  permitted  the  gathering  of  such  material  as  was  at 
hand,  very  much  asa  modern  editor  might  construct  his  account  of  an  army  move- 
ment from  the  reports  of  a  number  of  observers ;  or  asa  modern  historian  might  com- 
bine the  records  of  a  pasl  age  with  all  their  Imperfections  of  detail.  In  the  case  of  the 
Scripture  writers,  however,  we  maintain  that  inspiral  ion  has  permitted  no  sacrifice  of 
moral  and  religious  truth  in  the  completed  Scripture,  but  has  woven  its  historical 
material  together  into  an  organic  whole  which  teaches  all  the  facts  essential  to  the 
knowledge  of  Christ  and  of  salvation. 

When  we  come  to  examine  in  detail  what  purport  to  be  historical  narratives,  we 
must  be  neither  credulous  nor  sceptical,  but  simply  candid  and  open-minded.  With 
regard  for  example  to  the  great  age  of  the  old  Testament  patriarchs,  we  are  no  more 
warranted  in  rejecting  the-  Scripture  accounts  upon  the  ground  that  life  in  later  times 
is  so  much  shorter,  than  we  are  to  reject  the  testimony  Of  botanists  as  to  trees  of  the 
Sequoia  family  between  four  and  five  hundred  feet  high,  or  the  testimony  <>f  geolo- 
gists as  to  Saurians  a  hundred  feet  long,  upon  the  ground  that  the  trees  and  reptiles 
wit  h  which  we  are  acquainted  a  re  so  much  smaller.  Every  species  at  its  introduction 
seems  to  exhibit  the  maximum  of  size  and  vitality.  Weismann,  Heredity,  f>,  30 — 
"  Whales  live  some  hundreds  of  years;  elephants  t  wo  hundred  — their  gestation  taking 
two  years.  Giants  prove  thai  the  plan  upon  which  man  is  constructed  can  also  be 
carried  out  on  a  scale  far  larger  than  the  normal  one."  E.  Kay  Lahkester,  Adv.  of 
Science, 205-337, 2  6— agrees  with  Weismann  in  his  general  theory.  Sir  George  Cor ne- 
wali  Lewis  long  denied  centenarism,  but  at  last  had  to  admit  it. 

Charles  Dudley  Warner,  in  Harper's  Magazine,  Jan.  189a,  gives  instances  Of  men  137, 
140,  and  192  years  old.  The  German  Haller  asserts  that  "the  ultimate;  limit  of  human 
life  does  not  exceed  two  centuries:  to  fix  the  exact  number  of  years  is  exceedingly 
difficult."  J.  Norman  Loekyer,  in  Nature,  regards  the  years  of  the  patriarchs  as  lunar 
years.  In  Egypt,  the  sun  being  used,  the  unit  of  time  was  a  year  ;  but  in  Chaldca,  the 
unit  of  time  was  a  mouth,  for  the  reason  that  the  standard  of  time  was  the  moon. 
Divide  the  numbers  by  twelve,  and  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  come  out  very  much  the 
same  length  with  lives  at  the  present  day.  We  may  ask,  however,  how  this  theory 
would  work  in  shortening  the  lives  between  Noah  and  Moses.  On  the  genealogies  in 
Matthew  and  Luke,  see  Lord  Harvey,  Genealogies  of  our  Lord,  and  his  art.  in  Smith's 
Bible  Dictionary ;  per  contra,  see  Andrews,  Life  of  Christ,  55  sg.  On  Quirinius  and  the 
enrollment  for  taxation  ( Luke  2:2),  see  Pres.  Woolsey,  in  New  Euglauder,  1809.  On  the 
general  subject,  see  Rawlinson,  Historical  Evidences,  and  essay  in  Modern  Scepticism, 
published  by  Christian  Evidence  Society,  1 :  305 ;  Crooker,  New  Bible  and  New  Uses, 
102-126. 


230  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM   GOD. 

3.     Errors  in  Morality. 

( a  )  What  are  charged  as  such  are  sometimes  evil  acts  and  words  of  good 
men  —  words  and  acts  not  sanctioned  by  God.  These  are  narrated  by  the 
inspired  writers  as  simple  matter  of  history,  and  subsequent  results,  or  the 
story  itself,  is  left  to  point  the  moral  of  the  tale. 

Instances  of  this  sort  are  Noah's  drur  kenness  (  Gen.  9 :  20-27 ) ;  Lot's  incest  ( Gen.  19 :  30-38 ) ; 
Jacob's  falsehood  ( Gen.  27 :  19-24) ;  David's  adultery  ( 2  Sam.  U:  1-4)';  Peter's  denial  ( Mat.  26 : 
69-75 ).  See  Lee,  Inspiration,  265,  note.  Esther's  vindictiveuess  is  not  commended,  nor 
are  the  characters  of  the  Book  of  Esther  said  to  have  acted  in  obedience  to  a  divine 
command.  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  241  —  "  In  law  and  psalm  and  prophecy  we 
behold  the  influence  of  Jehovah  working  as  leaven  among-  a  primitive  and  barbarous 
people.  Contemplating  the  Old  Scriptures  in  this  light,  they  become  luminous  with 
divinity,  and  we  are  furnished  with  the  principle  by  which  to  discriminate  between  the 
divine  and  the  human  in  the  book.  Particularly  in  David  do  we  see  a  rugged,  hall- 
civilized,  kingly  man,  full  of  gross  errors,  fleshly  and  impetuous,  yet  permeated  with  a 
divine  Spirit  that  lifts  him,  struggling,  weeping,  and  warring,  up  to  some  of  the  lofti- 
est conceptions  of  Deity  which  the  mind  of  man  has  conceived.  As  an  angelic  being, 
David  is  a  caricature ;  as  a  man  of  God,  as  an  example  of  God  moving  upon  and  raising 
up  a  most  human  man,  he  is  a  splendid  example.  The  proof  that  the  church  is  of  God, 
is  not  its  impeccability,  but  its  progress." 

(  b  )  Where  evil  acts  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  sanctioned,  it  is  frequently 
some  right  intent  or  accompanying  virtue,  rather  than  the  act  itself,  upon 
which  commendation  is  bestowed. 

As  Kahab's  faith,  not  her  duplicity  (Josh.  2:  1-24:  cf.  Heb.  11:  31  and  James  2:  25);  Jael's 
patriotism,  not  her  treachery  ( Judges  4  :  17  -22 ;  cf.  5  :  24  ).  Or  did  they  cast  in  their  lot 
with  Israel  and  use  the  common  stratagems  of  war  (see  next  paragraph )  ?  Herder: 
"The  limitations  of  the  ptrpilare  also  limitations  of  the  teacher."  While  Dean  Stanley 
praises  Solomon  for  tolerating  idolatry,  James  Martineau,  Study,  2:  137,  remarks:  "It 
would  be  a  ridiculous  pedantry  to  apply  the  Protestant  pleas  of  private  judgment  to 
such  communities  as  ancient  Egypt  and  Assyria.  ...  It  is  the  survival  of  coercion, 
after  conscience  has  been  born  to  supersede  it,  that  shocks  and  revolts  us  in  persecu- 
tion." 

(  c  )  Certain  commands  and  deeds  are  sanctioned  as  relatively  just  — 
expressions  of  jixstice  such  as  the  age  could  comprehend,  and  are  to  be 
judged  as  parts  of  a  progressively  unfolding  system  of  morality  whose  key 
and  culmination  we  have  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Ei.  20:25  —  "I  gave  them  statutes  that  were  not  good  "  — as  Moses'  permission  of  divorce  and 
retaliate .n  (  Deut.  24  : 1 ;  cf.  Mat.  5 :  31,  32;  19  :  7-9.  Ex.  21 :  24  ;  cf.  Mat.  5  :  38,  39 ).  Compare  Elijah's 
calling  down  fire  from  heaven  (2  K.  1:10-12)  with  Jesus'  refusal  to  do  the  same,  and 
his  intimation  that  the  spirit  of  Elijah  was  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  ( Luko  9  :  52-56 ) ;  cf. 
Mattheson,  Moments  on  the  Mount,  253-255,  on  Mat.  17:  8— "Jesus  only":  "The  strength 
of  Elias  paled  before  him.  To  shed  the  blood  of  enemies  requires  less  strength  than  to 
shed  one's  own  blood,  and  to  conquer  by  fire  iseasier  than  to  conquer  by  love."  Hovey  : 
"In  divine  revelation,  it  is  first  starlight,  then  dawn,  finally  day."  George  Washing- 
ton once  gave  directions  for  the  transportation  to  the  West  Indies  and  the  sale  there  of 
a  refractory  negro  who  had  given  him  trouble.  This  was  not  at  variance  with  the 
best  morality  of  his  time,  but  it  would  not  suit  the  improved  ethical  standards  of  to- 
day. The  use  of  force  rather  than  moral  suasion  is  sometimes  needed  by  children  and 
by  barbarians.  We  may  illustrate  by  the  Sunday  School  scholar's  unruliness  which 
was  cured  by  his  classmates  during  the  week.  "  What  did  you  say  to  him  ?  "  asked  the 
teacher.  "  We  did  n't  say  nothing  ;  we  just  punched  his  head  for  him."  This  was  Old 
Testament  righteousness.  The  appeal  in  the  O.  T.  to  the  hope  of  earthly  rewards  was 
suitable  to  a  stage  of  development  not  yet  instructed  as  to  heaven  and  hell  by  the  com- 
ing and  work  of  Christ;  compare  Ex.  20:  12  with  Mat.  5:  10;  25:  46.  The  Old  Testament 
aimed  to  fix  in  the  mind  of  a  selected  people  the  idea  of  the  unity  and  holiness  of  flod  ; 
in  order  to  exterminate  idolatry,  much  oilier  teaching  was  postponed.     See  Pcabody, 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION.  231 

Religion  of  Nature,  45;  Mozley,  Ruling-  Ideas  of  Early  Ages;  Green,  in  Presb.  Quar., 
April,  1877 :  221-352  ;  Mcllvaiue,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  328-368;  Brit,  and  For. 
Evang.  Rev.,  Jan.  1878:  1-32;  Martineaii,  Study,  2:  137. 

When  therefore  we  find  in  the  inspires  song-  of  Deborah,  the  prophetess  (Judges  5 :  30 ), 
an  allusion  to  the  common  spoils  of  war  —  "a  damsel,  two  damsels  to  every  man "  or  in  Prov.  31 : 
6,  7  —  "  Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish,  and  wine  unto  the  bitter  in  soul.  Let  him  drink,  and 
forget  his  poverty,  and  remember  his  misery  no  more"  —  we  do  not  need  to  maintain  that  these  pas- 
sages furnish  standards  for  our  modern  conduct.  Dr.  Fisher  calls  the  latter  "the  worst 
advice  to  a  person  in  affliction,  or  dispirited  by  the  loss  of  property."  They  mark  past 
stages  in  God's  providential  leading  of  mankind.  A  higher  stage  indeed  is  already  inti- 
mated in  Prov.  31 :  4 —  "  it  is  not  for  kings  to  drink  wine,  Nor  for  princes  to  say,  Where  is  strong  drink  ?  "  We 
see  that  God  could  use  very  imperfect  instruments  and  could  inspire  very  imperfect 
men.  Many  things  were  permitted  for  men's  "hardness  of  heart"  (Mat,  19:  8).  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  is  a  great  ad\  ance  on  the  law  of  Moses  (Mat.  5:21  —  i(  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was^said 
to  them  of  old  time"  ;  cf.  22 —  "But  I  say  unto  you"  i. 

Robert  (J.  thgersoll  would  have  lost  his  stock  in  trade  if  Christians  had  generally  ree 
ognized  that  revelation  is  gradual,  and  is  completed  only  in  Christ.  This  gradualness 
of  revelation  is  conceded  in  the  common  phrase:  "  the  new  dispensation."  Abraham 
Lincoln  showed  his  wisdom  by  never  going  far  ahead  of  the  common  sense  of  the  peo- 
ple. God  similarly  adapted  his  legislation  to  the  capacities  of  each  successive  age.  The 
command  to  Abraham  to  sacrifice  his  son  (Gen.  22:  1-19)  wiis  a  proper  test  of  Abraham's 
faith  in  a  day  when  human  sacrifice  violated  no  common  ethical  standard  because  the 
Hebrew,  like  the  Roman,"  patria  potestas  "  did  not  regard  the  child  as  having  a  separate 
individuality,  but  included  the  child  in  t  he  parent  and  made  the  child  equally  respons- 
ible for  the  parent's  sin.  But  that  very  command  was  given  only  as  a  test  of  faith,  and 
with  the  intent  to  make  the  intended  obedience  the  occasion  of  revealing  God's  pro- 
vision of  a  substitute  and  so  of  doing  away  with  human  sacrifice  for  all  future  time. 
We  may  well  imitate  the  gradualness  of  divine  revelation  in  our  treatment  of  dancing 
and  of  the  liquor  traffic. 

(  d  )  God's  righteous  sovereignty  affords  the  key  to  other  events.  He  has 
the  right  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own,  and  to  punish  the  transgressor 
when  and  where  he  will  ;  and  he  may  justly  make  men  the  foretellers  or 
executors  of  his  purposes. 

Foretellers,  as  in  the  imprecatory  Psalms  (137:  9;  cf.  Is.  13:  16-18  and  Jer.  50:  16,29)  ; 
executors,  as  in  the  destruction  of  the  Canaanites  (Deut.7:  2,16).  In  the  former  case  the 
Psalm  was  not  the  ebullition  of  personal  anger,  but  the  expression  of  judicial  indigna- 
tion against  the  enemies  of  God.  We  must  distinguish  the  substance  from  the  form. 
The  substiuee  was  the  denunciation  of  God's  righteous  judgments;  the  form  was 
taken  from  the  ordinary  customs  of  war  in  the  Psalmist's  time.  See  Park,  in  Bill.  Sac, 
1802:  165;  Cowles,  Com.  on  Ps.  137;  Perowne  on  Psalms,  Introd.,  61;  Presb.  and  Kef. 
Rev.,  1897:  490-505;  cf.  2  Tim.  4:  14  —  -'the  Lord  will  render  to  him  according  to  his  works "=a  proph- 
ecy, not  a  curse,  aKoSuxrti.,  not  an-oScoi),  as  in  A.  V.  In  the  latter  case,  an  exterminating 
war  was  only  the  benevolent  surgery  that  amputated  the  putrid  limb,  and  so  saved  the 
religious  life  of  the  Hebrew  nation  aud  of  the  after-world.  See  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold, 
Essay  on  the  Bight  Interpretation  of  Scripture;  Fisher,  Beginnings  of  Christianity, 
11-24. 

Another  interpretation  of  these  events  has  been  proposed,  which  would  make  them 
illustrations  of  the  principle  indicated  in  ( <  )  above  :  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theol- 
ogy, 45  —  "  St  was  not  the  imprecations  of  the  Psalm  that  were  inspired  of  God,  but  his 
purposes  and  ideas  of  which  these  were  by  the  times  the  necessary  vehicle ;  just  as  the 
adultery  of  David  was  not  by  divine  command,  though  through  it  the  purpose  of  God 
as  to  Christ's  descent  was  accomplished."  John  Watson  ( Ian  Maclaren  ),  Cure  of  Souls, 
143  —  "  When  the  massacre  of  the  Canaanites  and  certain  proceedings  of  David  are  flung 
in  the  face  of  Christians,  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  fall  back  on  evasions  or  special 
pleading.  It  can  now  be  frankly  admitted  that,  from  our  standpoint  in  this  year  of 
grace,  such  deeds  were  atrocious,  and  that  they  never  could  have  been  according  to  the 
mind  of  God,  but  that  they  must  be  judged  by  their  date,  and  considered  the  defects  of 
elementary  moral  processes.  The  Bible  is  vindicated,  because  it  is,  on  the  whole,  a 
steady  ascent,  and  because  it  culminates  in  Christ." 

Lyman  Abbott,  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  56  — "Abraham  mistook  the  voice  of 
conscience,  calling  on  him  to  consecrate  his  only  son  to  God,  and  interpreted  it  as  a 


232  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

command  to  slay  bis  son  as  a  burnt  offering:.  Israel  misinterpreted  bis  rigbteous  indig- 
nation at  the  cruel  and  lustful  rites  of  tbe  Canaanitisb  religion  as  a  divine  summons  to 
destroy  the  worship  by  putting  the  worshipers  to  death ;  a  people  undeveloped  in  moral 
judgment  could  not  distinguish  between  formal  regulations  respecting  camp-life  and 
eternal  principles  of  righteousness,  such  as,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself, 
but  embodied  them  in  the  same  code,  and  seemed  to  regard  them  as  of  equal  authority." 
Wilkinson,  Epic  of  Paul,  281  — "If  so  be  such  man,  so  placed  .  .  .  did  in  some  part 
That  utterance  make  his  own,  profaning  it,  To  be  his  vehicle  for  sense  not  meant  By 
the  august  supreme  inspiring  Will"—  i.  c,  putting  some  of  his  own  sinful  anger  into 
God's  calm  predictions  of  judgment.  Compare  the  stern  last  words  of  "  Zechariah,  the  son  of 
Jehoiada,  the  priest"  when  stoned  to  death  in  the  temple  court:  "Jehovah  look  upon  it  and  require  it" 
( 2  Chron.  24  :  20-22),  with  the  last  words  of  Jesus :  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do" 
( Luke  23 :  34 )  and  of  Stephen  :  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge ' '  ( Acts  7  :  60  ). 

{  e  )  Other  apparent  immoralities  are  due  to  unwarranted  interpretations. 
Symbol  is  sometimes  taken  for  literal  fact ;  the  language  of  irony  is  under- 
stood as  sober  affirmation  ;  the  glow  and  freedom  of  Oriental  description 
are  judged  by  the  unimpassioned  style  of  Western  literature ;  appeal  to 
lower  motives  is  taken  to  exclude,  instead  of  preparing  for,  the  higher. 

In  Hosea  1 :  2,  3,  the  command  to  the  prophet  to  marry  a  harlot  was  probably  received 
and  executed  in  vision,  and  was  intende'd  only  as  symbolic :  compare  Jer.  25  :  15-18  —  "  Take 
this  cup  ...  .  and  cause  all  the  nations  ....  to  drink."  Literal  obedience  would  have  made  the 
prophet  contemptible  to  those  whom  be  would  instruct,  and  would  require  so  long  a 
time  as  to  weaken,  if  not  destroy,  the  designed  effect ;  see  Ann.  Par.  Bible,  in  loco.  In 
2K.  6:19,  Elisha's  deception,  so  called,  was  probably  only  ironical  and  benevolent;  the 
enemy  dared  not  resist,  because  they  were  completely  in  his  power.  In  the  Song  of  Solomon, 
we  have,  as  Jewish  writers  have  always  held,  a  highly-wrought  dramatic  description  of 
the  union  between  Jehovah  and  his  people,  which  we  must  judge  by  Eastern  and  not  by 
Western  literary  standards. 

Francis  W.  Newman,  in  his  Phases  of  Faith,  accused  even  the  New  Testament  of 
presenting  low  motives  for  human  obedience.  It  is  true  that  all  right  motives  are 
appealed  to,  and  some  of  these  motives  are  of  a  higher  sort  than  are  others.  Hope  of 
heaven  and  fear  of  hell  are  not  the  highest  motives,  but  they  may  be  employed  as 
preliminary  incitements  to  action,  even  though  only  love  for  God  and  for  holiness  will 
ensure  salvation.  Such  motives  are  urged  both  by  Christ  and  by  his  apostles  :  Mat.  6 :  20 
—  "  lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven  ";  10  :  28  —  "  fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell  "; 
Jude  23 — "some  save  with  fear,  snatching  them  out  of  the  fire."  In  this  respect  the  N.  T.  does  not 
differ  from  the  O.  T.  George  Adam  Smith  has  pointed  out  that  the  royalists  got  their 
texts,  "the  powers  that  be "  ( Rom.  13 : 1 )  and  "the  king  as  supreme"  (1  Pot.  2:13),  from  the  N.  T., 
while  the  O.  T.  furnished  texts  for  the  defenders  of  liberty.  While  the  O.  T.  deals  with 
national  life,  and  the  discharge  of  social  and  political  functions,  the  N.  T.  deals  in  the 
main  with  individuals  and  with  their  relations  to  God.  On  the  whole  subject,  see 
Hessey,  Moral  Difficulties  of  the  Bible;  Jellett,  Moral  Difficulties  of  the  O.  T. ;  Faith 
and  Free  Thought  ( Lect.  by  Christ.  Ev.  Soc),  3 :  173 ;  Rogers,  Eclipse  of  Faith  ;  Butlei, 
Analogy,  part  ii,  chap,  iii ;  Orr,  Problem  of  the  O.  T.,  405-483. 

4.     Errors  of  Reasoning. 

{a)  What  are  charged  as  such  are  generally  to  be  explained  as  valid 
argument  expressed  in  highly  condensed  form.  The  appearance  of  error 
may  be  due  to  the  suppression  of  one  or  more  links  in  the  reasoning. 

In  Mat.  22 :  32,  Christ's  argument  for  the  resurrection,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  God  is 
the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  is  perfectly  and  obviously  valid,  the  moment 
we  put  in  the  suppressed  premise  that  the  living  relation  to  God  which  is  here  implied 
cannot  properly  be  conceived  as  something  merely  spiritual,  but  necessarily  requires  a 
new  and  restored  life  of  the  body.  If  God  is  the  God  of  the  living,  then  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  shall  rise  from  the  dead.  See  more  full  exposition,  under  Eschatology. 
Some  of  the  Scripture  arguments  are  enthymemes,  and  an  enthymeme,  according  to 
Axbuthnot  and  Pope,  is  "a  syllogism  in  which  the  major  is  married  to  the  minor,  anu 
the  marriage  is  kept  secret." 


OBJECTIONS   TO    THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION.  233 

( h )  Where  we  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  the  conclusions  drawn  from 
given  premises,  there  is  greater  reason  to  attribute  our  failure  to  ignorance 
of  divine  logic  on  our  part,  than  to  accommodation  or  ad  hominem  argu- 
ments on  the  part  of  the  Scripture  writers. 

By  divine  logic  we  mean  simply  a  logic  whose  elements  and  processes  are  correct, 
though  not  understood  by  us.  In  Heb.  7 : 9, 10  ( Levi's  paying-  tithes  in  Abraham ),  there  is 
probably  a  recognition  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  family,  which  in  miniature  i!lu~- 
t  rates  the  organic  unity  of  the  race.  In  Cal.  3  :  20  —  "a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one ;  bat  God  is 
one"—  the  law,  with  its  two  contracting-  parties,  is  contrasted  with  the  promise,  which 
proceeds  from  the  sole  fiat  of  God  and  is  therefore  unchangeable.  Paul's  argument 
here  rests  on  Christ's  divinity  as  its  foundation  —  otherwise  Christ  would  have  been  a 
mediator  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Moses  was  a  mediator  (see  Lig-htfoot,  in  loco).  In 
Gal.  4:21-31,  Hagar  and  tehmael  on  the  one  hand,  and  Sarah  and  Isaac  on  the  other,  illus- 
trate the  exclusion  of  the  bondmen  of  the  law  from  the  privileges  of  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham.  Abraham's  two  wives,  and  the  two  classes  of  people  in  the  two  sons, 
represent  the  two  covenatits  (so  Calvin).  In  John  10:34  —  "I  said,  Ye  are  gods,"  the  implica- 
tion is  that  Judaism  was  not  a  system  of  mere  monot  heism,  but  of  theism  tending  to 
theanthropism,  a  real  union  of  God  and  man  (Westcott,  Rib.  Com.,  inloco).  (lodet 
well  remarks  that  he  who  doubts  Paul's  logic  will  do  well  first  to  suspect  his  own. 

(<■)  The  adoption  of  Jewish  methods  of  reasoning,  where  it  could  be 
proved,  would  not  indicate  error  on  the  part  of  the  Scripture  writers,  but 
rather  an  inspired  sanction  of  the  method  as  applied  to  that  particular  case. 

In  Gal.  3 :  16  —  "He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ."  Here 
it  is  intimated  that  the  very  form  of  t  he  expression  in  Gen.  22: 18,  which  denotes  unity, 
was  selected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  significant  of  that  one  person,  Christ,  who  was  the 
true  seed  of  Abraham  and  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed.  Argument  from  the 
form  of  a  single  word  is  in  this  case  correct,  although  the  Rabbins  often  made  more  of 
single  words  than  the  Holy  Spirit  ever  intended.  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  69  —  "  F.  W. 
Farrar  asserts  that  the  plural  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  terms  for  '  seed '  is  never  used 
by  Hebrew  or  Greek  writers  as  a  designation  of  human  offspring-.    But  see  Sophocles, 

(EdipUS  at  ColoilUS,  698,600  —  7>js  «Ju-»>s  an"q\a.&r)v  Trpb?  tC>v  e/uai/Tou  crirfp/naTcot'  —  'I  was  driven 

away  from  my  own  country  by  my  own  offspring.'  "  In  1  Cor.  10:1-6— "and  the  rock  was  Christ" 
—  the  Rabbinic  tradition  that  the  smitten  rock  followed  the  Israelites  in  their  wander- 
ings is  declared  to  be  only  the  absurd  litcralixing  of  a  spiritual  fact  — the  continual 
presence  of  Christ,  as  preexistent  Logos,  with  his  ancient  people.  Per  contra,  see  Row, 
Rev.  and  Mod.  Theories,  98-128. 

(d)  If  it  should  appear  however  upon  further  investigation  that  Rab- 
binical methods  have  been  wrongly  employed  by  the  apostles  in  their  argu- 
mentation, we  might  still  distinguish  between  the  truth  they  are  seeking 
to  convey  and  the  arguments  by  which  they  support  it.  Inspiration  may 
conceivably  make  known  the  truth,  yet  leave  the  expression  of  the  truth  to 
human  dialectic  as  well  as  to  human  rhetoric. 

Johnson,  Quotations  of  the  N.  T.  from  the  0.  T.,  137, 138—  "  In  the  utter  absence  of 
all  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  ought  to  suppose  that  the  allegories  of  the  N.  T.  are 
like  the  allegories  of  literature  in  general,  merely  luminous  embodiments  of  the  truth. 
....  If  these  allegories  are  not  presented  by  their  writers  as  evidences,  they  are  none 
the  less  precious,  since  they  illuminate  the  truth  otherwise  evinced,  and  thus  render  it 
at  once  clear  to  the  apprehension  and  attractive  to  the  taste."  If  however  the  pur- 
pose of  the  writers  was  to  use  these  allegories  for  proof,  we  may  still  see  shining 
through  the  rifts  of  their  traditional  logic  the  truth  which  they  were  striving  to  set 
torth.  Inspiration  may  have  put  them  in  possession  of  this  truth  without  altering  their 
ordinary  scholastic  methods  of  demonstration  and  expression.  Horton,  Inspiration, 
108  —  "  Discrepancies  and  illogical  reasonings  were  but  inequalities  or  cracks  in  the 
mirrors,  which  did  not  materially  distort  or  hide  the  Person"  whose  glory  they  sought 
to  reflect.  Luther  went  even  further  than  this  when  he  said  that  a  certain  argument 
in  the  epistle  was  "  good  enough  for  the  Galatians." 


234  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

5.     Errors  in  quoting  or  interpreting  the  Old  Testament, 
(a)     What  are  charged  as  such  are  commonly  interpretations  of  the 
meaning  of  the  original  Scripture  by  the  same  Spirit  who  first  inspired  it. 

In  Eph.  5:14,  "arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee"  is  an  inspired  interpretation  of 
Is.  60:1  —  "Arise,  shine;  for  thy  light  is  come."  Ps.  68:18 — "Thou  hast  received  gifts  among  men" — is  quoted 
in  Eph.  4:8  as  "  gave  gifts  to  men."  The  words  in  Hebrew  are  probably  a  concise  expression 
for  "thou  hast  taken  spoil  which  thou  mayest  distribute  as  gifts  to  men."  Eph.  4:8 
agrees  exactly  with  the  sense,  though  not  with  the  words,  of  the  Psalm.  In  Heb.  11 ;  21, 
'•Jacob  ....  worshiped,  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his  staff"  (LXX);  Gen.  47:31  has  "bowed  himself  upon  the 
bed's  head."  The  meaning  is  the  same,  for  the  staff  of  the  chief  and  the  spear  of  the  war- 
rior were  set  at  the  bed's  head.  Jacob,  too  feeble  to  rise,  prayed  in  his  bed.  Here  Cal- 
vin says  that  "  the  apostle  does  not  hesitate  to  accommodate  to  his  own  purpose  what 
was  commonly  received,  —  they  were  not  so  scrupulous"  as  to  details.  Even  Gordon, 
Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  177,  speaks  of  "  a  reshaping  of  his  own  words  by  the  Author  of 
them."  We  prefer,  with  Calvin,  to  see  in  these  quotations  evidence  that  the  sacred 
writers  were  insistent  upon  the  substance  of  the  truth  rather  than  upon  the  form,  the 
spirit  rather  than  the  letter. 

(  b )  Where  an  apparently  false  translation  is  quoted  from  the  Septuagint, 
the  sanction  of  inspiration  is  given  to  it,  as  expressing  a  part  at  least  of  the 
fulness  of  meaning  contained  in  the  divine  original — a  fulness  of  meaning 
which  two  varying  translations  do  not  in  some  cases  exhaust. 

Ps.  4 : 4  —  Heb.:  "  Tremble,  and  sin  not "  (=  no  longer ) ;  LXX :  "  Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not."  Eph.  4 :  26 
quotes  the  LXX.  The  words  may  originally  have  been  addressed  to  David's  comrades, 
exhorting  them  to  keep  their  anger  within  bounds.  Both  translations  together  are 
needed  to  bring  out  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Ps.  40 : 6-8  —  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened  "  is 
translated  in  Heb.  10 : 5-7 —  "  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me."  Here  the  Epistle  quotes  from  the 
LXX.  But  the  Hebrew  means  literally  :  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  bored  "—  an  allusion  to  the  cus- 
tom of  pinning  a  slave  to  the  doorpost  of  his  master  by  an  awl  driven  through  his  ear, 
in  token  of  his  complete  subjection.  The  sense  of  the  verse  is  therefore  given  in  the 
Epistle:  "Thou  hast  made  me  thine  in  body  and  soul  —  lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will." 
A.  C.  Kendrick :  "  David,  just  entering  upon  his  kingdom  after  persecution,  is  a  type  of 
Christ  entering  on  his  earthly  mission.  Hence  David's  words  are  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Christ.  For  '  ears,'  the  organs  with  which  we  hear  and  obey  and  which  David  con- 
ceived to  be  hollowed  out  for  him  by  God,  the  author  of  the  Hebrews  substitutes  the 
word  'body,'  as  the  (yeHerafinstrument  of  doing  God's  will"  (Com.  on  Heb.  10:5-7). 

(  c  )  The  freedom  of  these  inspired  interpretations,  however,  does  not 
warrant  us  in  like  freedom  of  interpretation  in  the  case  of  other  passages 
whose  meaning  has  not  been  authoritatively  made  known. 

We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  scarlet  thread  of  Rahab  (Josh.  2:18)  was  a 
designed  prefiguration  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  nor  that  the  three  measures  of  meal  in 
which  the  woman  hid  her  leaven  (Mat.  13:33)  symbolized  Shem,  Ham  and  Japheth,  the 
three  divisions  of  the  human  race.  C.  H.  M.,  in  his  notes  on  the  tabernacle  in  Exodus, 
tells  us  that  "the  loops  of  blue  =  heavenly  grace;  the  taches  of  gold  =  the  divine 
energy  of  Christ;  the  rams' skins  dyed  red  =  Christ's  consecration  and  devoted ness  ; 
the  badgers'  skins  =  t:s  holy  vigilance  against  temptation"!  The  tabernacle  was 
indeed  a  type  of  Christ  ( John  1 :  14  —  eo-Kiji-uxrei'.  2 :  19, 21  —  "  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  ...  .  but 
he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body  ") ;  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  every  detail  of  the  structure 
was  significant.  So  each  parable  teaches  some  one  main  lesson,—  the  particulars  may 
be  mere  drapery ;  and  while  we  may  use  the  parables  for  illustration,  we  should  never 
ascribe  divine  authority  to  our  private  impressions  of  their  meaning. 

Mat.  25 : 1-13  — the  parable  of  the  five  wise  and  the  five  foolish  \  irgins  — has  been  made 
to  teach  that  the  number  of  the  saved  precisely  equals  the  number  of  the  lost.  Augus- 
tine defended  persecution  from  the  words  in  Luke  14:  23 — "  constrain  them  to  come  in."  The 
Inquisition  was  justified  by  Mat.  13:30  —  "bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them."  Innocent  III 
denied  the  Scriptures  to  the  laity,  quoting  Heb.  12  :  20  —  "  If  even  a  beast  touch  the  mountain,  it  shal. 
be  stoned."  A  Plymouth  Brother  held  that  he  would  be  safe  on  an  evangelizing  journey 
because  he  read  in  John  19 :  36—"  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken."    Mat.  17 : 8—"  they  saw  no  one,  save  Jesus 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION.  235 

my"-  has  been  held  to  mean  that  we  should  trust  only  Jesus.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
discovered  in  Abraham's  318  servants  a  prediction  of  the  crucified  Jesus,  aud  others 
have  seen  in  Abraham's  three  days'  journey  to  Mount  Moriah  tho  three  stages  iu  the 
development  of  the  soul.  Clement  of  Alexandria  finds  the  four  natural  elements  in 
the  four  colors  of  the  Jewish  Tabernacle.  All  this  is  to  make  a  parable  "run  on  all 
fours."  While  we  call  a  hero  a  lion,  we  do  not  need  to  find  in  the  man  something  to 
correspond  to  the  lion's  mane  and  claws.  See  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  N.  T. ;  Franklin 
Johnson,  Quotations  of  the  N.  T.  from  the  O.  T. ;  Crooker,  The  New  Bible  and  its  New 
Uses,  136-136. 

(d)  While  we  do  not  grant  that  the  New  Testament  writers  in  any 
proper  sense  misquoted  or  misinterpreted  the  Old  Testament,  we  do  not 
regard  absolute  correctness  in  these  respects  as  essential  to  their  inspira- 
tion. The  inspiring  Spirit  may  have  communicated  truth,  and  may  have 
secured  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole  a  record  of  that  truth  sufficient  for 
men's  moral  and  religions  needs,  without  imparting  perfect  gifts  of  scholar- 
ship or  exegesis. 

In  answer  to  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  N.  T.,  who  takes  a  generally  unfavorable 
view  of  the  correctness  of  the  N.  T.  writers,  Johnson.  Quotations  of  the  N.  T.  from  the 
O.  T„  maintains  their  correctness.  On  pages  x,  xi,  of  his  Introduction,  Johnson 
remarks :  "  I  think  It  just  to  regard  the  writers  of  the  Bible  as  the  creators  of  a  great 
literature,  and  to  judge  and  interpret  them  by  the  laws  of  literature.  They  have  pro- 
duced all  the  chief  forms  of  literature,  as  history,  biography,  anecdote,  proverb,  ora- 
tory, allegory,  poetry,  fiction.  They  have  needed  therefore  all  the  resources  of  human 
speech,  its  sobriety  and  scientific  precision  on  one  page,  its  rainbow  hues  of  fancy  and 
imagination  on  another,  its  fires  of  passion  on  yet  another.  They  could  not  have 
moved  and  guided  men  in  the  best  manner  had  they  denied  themselves  the  utmost 
force  and  freedom  of  language ;  had  they  refused  to  employ  its  wide  range  of  expres- 
sions, whether  exact  or  poetic;  had  they  not  borrowed  without  stint  its  many  forms 
of  reason,  of  terror,  of  rapture,  of  hope,  of  joy,  of  peace.  So  also,  they  have  needed  the 
usual  freedom  of  literary  allusion  and  citation,  in  order  to  commend  the  gospel  to  the 
judgment,  the  tastes,  and  the  feelings  of  their  readers." 

6.     Errors  in  Prophecy. 

(a)  What  are  charged  as  such  may  frequently  be  explained  by  remem- 
bering that  much  of  prophecy  is  yet  unfulfilled. 

It  is  sometimes  taken  for  granted  that  the  book  of  Revelation,  for  example,  refers 
entirely  to  events  already  past.  Moses  Stuart,  in  his  Commentary,  and  Warren's  Par- 
oitsia,  represent  this  preterist  interpretation.  Thus  judged,  however,  many  of  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  book  might  seem  to  have  failed. 

(  b  )  The  personal  surmises  of  the  prophets  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
prophecies  they  recorded  may  have  been  incorrect,  while  yet  the  prophe- 
cies themselves  are  inspired. 

In  1  Pet.  1 :  10, 11,  the  apostle  declares  that  the  prophets  searched  "  what  iime  or  what  manner 
of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  point  unto,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and 
the  glories  that  should  follow  them."  So  Paul,  although  he  does  not  announce  it  ascertain, 
seems  to  have  had  some  hope  that  he  might  live  to  witness  Christ's  Gecond  coming. 
See  2  Cor.  5:4  —  "not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  that  we  would  be  clothed  upon  "  ( inevSvcratrdai. — 
put  on  the  spiritual  body,  as  over  the  present  one,  without  the  intervention  of  death ) ; 
1  Huh,  4  :  15, 17  —  "  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord."  So  Mat.  2 :  15  quotes  from 
Hosea  11 : 1  —  "  Out  of  Egypt  did  I  call  my  son,"  and  applies  the  prophecy  to  Christ,  although  Hosea 
was  doubtless  thinking  only  of  the  exodus  of  the  people  of  Israel. 

(c)  The  prophet's  earlier  utterances  are  not  to  be  severed  from  the  later 
utterances  which  elucidate  them,  nor  from  the  whole  revelation  of  which 
they  form  a  part.  It  is  unjust  to  forbid  the  prophet  to  explain  his  own 
meaning. 


236  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION    FROM    GOD. 

2  Thessalonians  was  written  expressly  to  correct  wrong  inf  eren  ces  as  to  the  apostle's  teach, 
ing  drawn  from  his  peculiar  mode  of  speaking  in  the  first  epistle.  In  2  Thess.2:2-5  he 
removes  the  impression  "that  the  day  oftho  Lord  is  now  present"  or  "just  at  hand  ";  declares  that  "it 
will  not  be,  except  the  falling  away  come  first,  and  the  man  of  sin  be  revealed  "  ;  reminds  the  Thessalonians : 
"  when  I  was  yet  with  you,  I  told  you  these  things."  Yet  still,  in  verse  1,  he  speaks  of  "  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  our  gathering  together  unto  him." 

These  passages,  taken  together,  show :  ( 1 )  that  the  two  epistles  are  one  in  their  teach- 
ing ;  ( 2)  that  in  neither  epistle  is  there  any  prediction  of  the  immediate  coming  of  the 
Lord;  (3)  that  in  the  second  epistle  great  events  are  foretold  as  intervening  before 
that  coming ;  ( 4 )  that  while  Pau]  never  taught  that  Christ  would  come  during  his  own 
lifetime,  he  hoped  at  least  during  the  earlier  part  of  his  life  that  it  might  be  so  — a  hope 
that  seems  to  have  been  dissipated  in  his  later  years.  (  See  2  Tim.  4 : 6  — "  I  am  already  being  offered, 
and  the  time  of  my  departure  is  come." )  We  must  remember,  however,  that  there  was  a  "coming 
of  the  Lord  "  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  within  three  or  four  years  of  Paul's  death. 
Henry  Van  Dyke :  "  The  point  of  Paul's  teaching  in  1  and  2  Thess.  is  not  that  Christ  is 
coming  to-morrow,  but  that  he  is  surely  coming."  The  absence  of  perspective  in 
prophecy  may  explain  Paul's  not  at  first  denning  the  precise  time  of  the  end,  and  so 
leaving  it  to  be  misunderstood. 

The  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  therefore,  only  makes  more  plain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  first,  and  adds  new  items  of  prediction.  It  is  important  to  recognize  in  Paul's 
epistles  a  progress  in  prophecy,  in  doctrine,  in  church  polity.  The  full  statement  of  the 
truth  was  gradually  drawn  out,  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  upon  occasion  of 
successive  outward  demands  and  inward  experiences.  Much  is  to  be  learned  by  study- 
ing the  chronological  order  of  Paul's  epistles,  as  well  as  of  the  other  N.  T.  books.  For 
evidence  of  similar  progress  in  the  epistles  of  Peter,  compare  1  Pet.  4 : 7  with  2  Pet.  3 : 4  sq. 

(d)  The  character  of  prophecy  as  a  rough  general  sketch  of  the  future, 
in  highly  figurative  language,  and  without  historical  perspective,  renders 
it  peculiarly  probable  that  what  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  errors  are  due 
to  a  misinterpretation  on  our  part,  which  confounds  the  drapery  with  the 
substance,  or  applies  its  language  to  events  to  which  it  had  no  reference. 

James  5 : 9  and  Phil  4 : 5  are  instances  of  that  large  prophetic  speech  which  regards  the 
distant  future  as  near  at  hand,  because  so  certain  to  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  church. 
Sanday,  Inspiration,  376-378  —  "  No  doubt  the  Christians  of  the  Apostolic  age  did  live  in 
immediate  expectation  of  the  Second  Coming,  and  that  expectation  culminated  at  the 
crisis  in  which  the  Apocalypse  was  written.  In  the  Apocalypse,  as  in  every  predictive 
prophecy,  there  is  a  double  element,  one  part  derived  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
present  and  another  pointing  forwards  to  the  future.  .  .  .  All  these  things,  in  an 
exact  and  literal  sense  have  fallen  through  with  the  postponement  of  that  great  event 
in  which  they  centre.  From  the  first  they  were  but  meant  as  the  imaginative  pictorial 
and  symbolical  clothing  of  that  event.  What  measure  of  real  fulfilment  the  Apoca- 
lypse may  yet  be  destined  to  receive  we  cannot  tell.  But  in  predictive  prophecy, 
even  when  most  closely  verified,  the  essence  lies  less  in  the  prediction  than  in  the  eter- 
nal laws  of  moral  and  religious  truth  which  the  fact  predicted  reveals  or  exemplifies." 
Thus  we  recognize  both  the  diving  and  the  freedom  of  prophecy,  and  reject  the 
rationalistic  theory  which  would  relate  the  fall  of  the  Beaconsfield  government  in 
Matthew's  way :  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  Cromwell,  saying : 
'  Get  you  gone,  and  make  room  for  honest  men  ! '  "  Seethe  more  full  statement  of  the 
nature  of  prophecy,  on  pages  132-141.    Also  Bernard,  Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  N.  T. 

7.     Certain  books  unworthy  of  a  place  in  inspired  Scripture. 

(a)  This  charge  may  be  shown,  in  each  single  case,  to  rest  upon  a  mis- 
apprehension of  the  aim  and  method  of  the  book,  and  its  connection  with 
the  remainder  of  the  Bible,  together  with  a  narrowness  of  nature  or  of 
doctrinal  view,  which  prevents  the  critic  from  appreciating  the  wants  of  the 
peculiar  class  of  men  to  which  the  book  is  especially  serviceable. 

Luther  called  James  "  a  right  strawy  epistle."  His  constant  pondering  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  alone  made  it  difficult  for  him  to  grasp  the  complementary 
truth  that  we  are  justified  only  by  such  faith  as  brings  forth  good  works,  or  to  per- 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION.  237 

reive  the  essential  agreement  of  James  and  Paul.  Prof.  It.  E.  Thompson,  in  S.  S.  Times, 
Dec.  3,  1S95 :  803,  804  —  "  Luther  refused  canonical  authority  to  books  not  actually  writ- 
ten by  apostles  or  composed  ( as  Mark  and  Luke )  under  their  direction.  So  he  rejected 
from  the  rank  of  canonical  authority  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  2  Peter,  Revelation. 
Even  Calvin  doubted  the  Petrine  authorship  of  2  Peter,  excluded  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion from  the  Scripture  on  which  he  wrote  Commentaries,  and  also  thus  ignored 2  and  3 
John.'1  G.  P.  Fisher  in  S.  S.  Times,  Aug.  29,  1891  —  "  Luther,  in  his  preface  to  the  N.  T. 
(  Edition  of  1522),  gives  a  list  of  what  he  considers  as  the  principal  books  of  the  N.  T. 
These  are  John's  Gospel  and  First  Epistle,  Paul's  Epistles,  especially  Romans  and  Gala- 
tians,  and  Peter's  First  Epistle.  Then  he  adds  that  'St.  James'  Epistle  is  a  right 
strawy  Epistle  compared  with  them  '— 'ei«  reeht  strohern  Epistel  gegen  sie,'  thus  charac- 
terizing it  not  absolutely  but  only  relatively."  Zwingle  even  said  of  the  Apocalypse : 
"It  is  not  a  Biblical  book."  So  Thomas  Arnold,  with  his  exaggerated  love  for  historical 
accuracy  and  definite  outline,  found  the  Oriental  imagery  and  sweeping  visions  of  the 
book  of  Revelation  so  bizarre  and  distasteful  that  he  doubted  their  divine  authority. 

[b)  The  testimony  of  church  history  and  general  Christian  experience 
to  the  profitableness  and  divinity  of  the  disputed  books  is  of  greater  weight 
than  the  personal  impressions  of  the  few  who  criticize  them. 

Instance  the  testimonies  of  the  ages  of  persecution  to  the  worth  of  the  prophecies, 
which  assure  God's  people  that  his  cause  shall  surely  triumph.  Denney,  Studies  in  The- 
ology, 226—  "It  is  at  least  as  likely  that  the  individual  should  be  insensible  to  the  divine 
message  in  a  book,  as  that  the  church  should  have  judged  it  to  contain  such  a  message 
if  it  did  not  do  so."  Milton,  Areopagitica :  "  The  Bible  brings  in  holiest  men  passion- 
ately murmuring  against  Providence  through  all  the  arguments  of  Epicurus."  Bruce, 
Apologetics,  329  — "O.  T.  religion  was  querulous,  vindictive,  philolevitical,  hostile 
toward  foreigners,  morbidly  self-conscious,  and  tending  to  sell-righteousness.  Ecclesi- 
astes  shows  us  how  we  ought  tmt  to  feel.  To  go  about  crying  Vanitas!  is  to  miss  the 
lesson  it  was  meant  to  teach,  namely,  that  the  Old  Covenant  was  vanity— proved  to  be 
vanity  by  allowing  a  sou  of  the  Covenant  to  get  into  so  despairing  a  mood."  Cbadwlck 
says  that  Ecclesiastes  got  into  the  Canon  only  after  it  had  received  an  orthodox  post- 
script. 

Pfleidcrer,  Philos.  Religion,  1: 193  — "Slavish  fear  and  self-righteous  reckoning  with 
God  are  the  unlovely  features  of  this  Jewish  religion  of  law  to  which  the  ethical  ideal- 
ism of  the  prophets  had  degenerated,  and  these  traits  strike  us  most  visibly  in  Pharsia- 
ism.  .  .  .  It  was  this  side  of  the  O.  T.  religion  to  which  Christianity  took  a  critical  and 
destroying  attitude,  while  it  revealed  a  new  and  higher  knowledge  of  God.  For,  says 
Paul,  '  ye  received  not  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  unto  fear ;  but  ye  received  the  spirit  of  adoption '  ( Rom.  8  :  15 ). 
In  unity  with  God  man  does  not  lose  his  soul  but  preserves  it.  God  not  only  commands 
but  gives."  Ian  Maclaren  (John  Watson),  Cure  of  Souls,  144  —  "When  the  book  of 
Ecclesiastes  is  referred  to  the  days  of  the  third  century  B.  C,  then  its  note  is  caught, 
and  any  man  who  has  been  wronged  and  embittered  by  political  tyranny  and  social 
corruption  has  his  bitter  cry  included  in  the  book  of  God." 

( c  "*  Such  testimony  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  the  value  of  each  one  of 
the  books  to  which  exception  is  taken,  such  as  Esther,  Job,  Song  of  Solo- 
mon, Ecclesiastes,  Jonah,  James,  Revelation. 

Esther  is  the  book,  next  to  the  Pentateuch,  held  in  highest  reverence  by  the  Jews. 
"Job  was  the  discoverer  of  infinity,  and  the  first  to  sec  the  bearing  of  infinity  on 
righteousness.  It  was  the  return  of  religion  to  nature.  Job  heard  the  voice  beyond 
the  Sinai-voice  "  (Shadow-Cross,  S'.i).  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  43  — "As  to  the  Song 
of  Solomon,  its  influence  upon  Christian  Mysticism  has  been  simply  deplorable.  A 
graceful  romance  in  honor  of  true  love  has  been  distorted  into  a  precedent  and  sanc- 
tion for  giving  way  to  hysterical  emotions  in  which  sexual  imagery  has  been  freely 
used  to  symbolize  the  relation  between  the  soul  and  its  Lord."  Chadwick  says  that 
the  Song  of  Solomon  got  into  the  Canon  only  after  it  had  received  an  allegorical  inter- 
pretation. Gladden,  Seven  Puzzling  ISible  Books,  165,  thinks  it  impossible  that  "the 
addition  of  one  more  inmate  to  the  harem  of  that  royal  rake,  King  Solomon,  should 
have  been  made  the  type  of  the  spiritual  affection  between  Christ  and  his  church. 
Instead  of  this,  the  book  is  a  glorification  of  pure  love.  The  Shulamite,  transported  to 
the  court  of  Solomon,  remains  faithful  to  her  shepherd  lover,  and  is  restored  to  him." 


238  THE   SCRIPTURES   A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

Bruce,  Apologetics,  321  —  "The  Song  of  Solomon,  literally  interpreted  as  a  story  of 
true  love,  proof  against  the  blandishments  of  the  royal  harem,  is  rightfully  in  the 
Canon  as  a  buttress  to  the  true  religion ;  for  whatever  made  for  purity  in  the  relations 
of  the  sexes  made  for  the  worship  of  Jehovah  —  Baal  worship  and  impurity  being 
closely  associated."  Rutherford,  McCheyne,  and  Spurgeon  have  taken  more  tests 
from  the  Song  of  Solomon  than  from  any  other  portion  of  Scripture  of  like  extent. 
Charles'G.  Finney,  Autobiography,  378  —  "At  this  time  it  seemed  as  if  my  soul  was 
wedded  to  Christ  in  a  sense  which  I  never  had  any  thought  or  conception  of  before. 
The  language  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  as  natural  to  me  as  my  breath.  I  thought  I 
could  understand  well  the  state  he  was  in  when  he  wrote  that  Song,  and  concluded  then, 
as  I  have  ever  thought  since,  that  that  Song  was  written  by  him  after  he  had  been 
reclaimed  from  his  great  backsliding.  I  not  only  had  all  the  fulness  of  my  first  love, 
but  a  vast  accession  to  it.  Indeed,  the  Lord  lifted  me  up  so  much  above  anything  that 
I  had  experienced  before,  and  taught  me  so  much  of  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  of 
Christ's  relations  and  power  and  willingness,  that  I  found  mysc ~f  saying  to  him  :  I  had 
not  known  or  conceived  that  any  such  thing  was  true."  On  Jonah,  see  R.  W.  Dale,  in 
Expositor,  July,  1892,  advocating  the  non-historical  and  allegorical  character  of  the 
book.  Bib.  Sac,  10 :  737-764  —  "  Jonah  represents  the  nation  of  Israel  as  emerging 
through  a  miracle  from  the  exile,  in  order  to  carry  out  its  mission  to  the  world  at 
large.  It  teaches  that  God  is  the  God  of  the  whole  earth ;  that  the  Ninevites  as  well  as 
the  Israelites  are  dear  to  him  ;  that  his  threatcnings  of  penalty  are  conditional." 

8.  Portions  of  the  Scripture  books  written  by  others  than  the  i)crsons 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed. 

The  objection  rests  upon  a  misunderstanding  of  tlie  nature  and  object  of 
inspiration.     It  may  be  removed  by  considering  that 

(a)  In  the  case  of  books  made  up  from  preexisting  documents,  inspira- 
tion siruply  preserved  the  compilers  of  them  from  selecting  inadequate  or 
improper  material.  The  fact  of  such  compilation  does  not  impugn  their 
value  as  records  of  a  divine  revelation,  since  these  books  supplement  each 
other's  deficiencies  and  together  are  sufficient  for  man's  religious  needs. 

Luke  distinctly  informs  us  that  he  secured  the  materials  for  his  gospel  from  the 
reports  of  others  who  were  eye-Avitnesses  of  the  events  he  recorded  (Luke  1:1-4).  The 
book  of  Genesis  bears  marks  of  having  incorporated  documents  of  earlier  times.  The 
account  of  creation  which  begins  with  Gen.  2:  4  is  evidently  written  by  a  different  hand 
from  that  which  penned  1 : 1-31  and  2  : 1-3.  Instances  of  the  same  sort  may  be  found  in 
the  books  of  Chronicles.  In  like  manner,  Marshall's  Life  of  Washington  incorporates 
documents  by  other  writers.  By  thus  incorporating  them,  Marshall  vouches  for  their 
truth.    See  Bible  Com.,  1  :  2,  22. 

Dorner,  Hist.  Prot.  Theology,  1 :  243 — "Luther  ascribes  to  faith  critical  authority  with 
reference  to  the  Canon.  He  denies  the  canonicity  of  James,  without  regarding  it  as 
spurious.  So  of  Hebrews  and  Revelation,  though  later,  in  1545,  he  passed  a  more  favor- 
able judgment  upon  the  latter.  He  even  says  of  a  proof  adduced  by  Paul  in  Galatians 
that  it  is  too  weak  to  hold.  He  allows  that  in  external  matters  not  only  Stephen  but 
even  the  sacred  authors  contain  inaccuracies.  The  authority  of  the  O.  T.  does  not  seem 
to  him  invalidated  by  the  admission  that  several  of  its  writings  have  passed  through 
revising  hands.  What  would  it  matter,  he  asks,  if  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch? 
The  prophets  studied  Moses  and  one  another.  If  they  built  in  much  wood,  hay  and 
stubble  along  with  the  rest,  still  the  foundation  abides ;  the  lire  of  the  great  day  shall 
consume  the  former;  for  in  this  manner  do  we  treat  the  writings  of  Augustine  and 
others.  Kings  is  far  more  to  be  believed  than  Chronicles.  Ecclesiastes  is  forged  and 
cannot  come  from  Solomon.  Esther  is  not  canonical.  The  church  may  have  erred  in 
adopting  a  book  into  the  Canon.  Faith  first  requires  proof.  Hence  he  ejects  the  Apoc- 
ryphal books  of  the  O.  T.  from  the  Canon.  So  some  parts  of  the  N.  T.  receive  only  a 
secondary,  douterocanonical  position.  There  is  a  difference  between  the  word  of  God 
and  the  holy  Scriptures,  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  torsi,  but  also  in  reference  to 
the  subject  matter.*' 

H.  P.  Smith,  Bib.  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  94  —  "  The  Editor  of  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets united  in  one  roll  the  prophetic  fragments  which  were  in  circulation  in  his  time. 


OBJECTIONS   TO    THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION.  239 

Finding  a  fragment  without  an  author's  name  he  inserted  it  in  the  series.  It  would  not 
have  been  distinguished  from  the  work  of  the  author  immediately  preceding.  So  Zech. 
9:1-4  came  to  go  under  the  name  of  Zeehariab,  and  Is.  40-66  under  the  name  of  Isaiah. 
Reuss  called  these  '  anatomical  studies.'  "v,  On  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  see 
W.  C.  Wilkinson,  in  Homiletical  Review,  March,  1903  :  208,  and  Oct.  1902  :  305 ;  on  Paul, 
see  Horn.  Rev.,  June,  1902 :  501 ;  on  lloth  Psalm,  Horn.  Rev.,  April,  1902  :  309. 

( b )  In  the  case  of  additions  to  Scripture  books  by  later  writers,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  additions,  as  well  as  the  originals,  were  made 
by  inspiration,  and  no  essential  truth  is  sacrificed  by  allowing  the  whole  to 
go  under  the  name  of  the  chief  author. 

Mark  16 : 9-20  appears  to  have  been  added  by  a  later  hand  ( see  English  Revised  Version ). 
The  Eng.  Rev.  Vers,  also  brackets  or  segregates  a  part  of  verse  3  and  the  whole  of  verse  4  in 
John  5  ( the  moving  of  the  water  by  the  angel),  and  the  whole  passage  John  7:53  — 8:11  (the 
woman  taken  in  adultery  ).  Westcott  and  Hort  regard  the  latter  passage  as  an  interpo- 
lation, probably  "  Western  "  in  its  origin  ( so  also  Mark  16 : 9-20 ).  Others  regard  it  as  authen- 
tic, though  not  written  by  John.  The  closing  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  was  appar- 
ently added  after  Moses'  death— perhaps  by  Joshua.  If  criticism  should  prove  other 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch  to  have  been  composed  after  Moses'  time,  the  inspiration 
of  the  Pentateuch  would  not.  be  invalidated,  so  long  as  Moses  was  its  chief  author 
or  even  the  original  source  and  founder  of  its  legislation  (John  5:46  —  "he  wrote  of  me"). 
Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  395  — "  Deuteronomy  may  be  a  republication  of  the  law,  in  tlto 
spirit  and  power  of  Moses,  and  put  dramatically  into  his  mouth.'' 

At  a  spot  near  the  Pool  of  Siloain,  Manasseh  is  said  to  have  ordered  that  Isaiah  should 
be  sawn  asunder  with  a  wooden  saw.  The  prophet  is  again  sawn  asunder  by  the  recent 
criticism.  But  his  prophecy  opens  (Is.  1 : 1 )  with  the  statement  that  it  was  composed 
during  a  period  which  covered  the  reigns  of  four  kings  — Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahazand 
Hezekiah  —  nearly  forty  years.  In  so  longatime  the  style  of  a  writer  greatly  changes. 
Chapters  40-66  may  have  been  written  in  Isaiah's  later  age,  after  he  had  retired  from  public 
life.  Compare  the  change  in  the  style  of  Zechariah,  John  and  Paul,  with  that  in 
Thomas  Carlyle  and  George  William  Curtis.  On  Isaiah,  see  Smyth,  Prophecy  a  Prepar- 
ation for  Christ;  Bib.  Sac,  Apr.  1 881 :  230-253 ;  also  July,  1881;  Stanley,  Jewish  Ch.,  2 : 
046,647  ;  Nagelsbach,  Int.  to  Lange's  Isaiah. 

For  the  view  that  there  were  two  Isaiahs,  see  George  Adam  Smith,  Com.  on  Isaiah, 
2:1-25:  Isaiah  flourished  B.  C.  740-700.  The  last  27  chapters  deal  with  the  captivity 
(598-538)  and  with  Cyrus  (550),  whom  they  name.  The  book  is  not  one  continuous 
prophecy,  but  a  number  of  separate  orations.  Some  of  these  claim  to  be  Isaiah's  own, 
and  have  titles,  such  as  "  The  vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  "  (1:1);  "The  word  that  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz 
saw"  (2:1).  But  such  titles  describe  only  the  individual  prophecies  they  head.  Other 
portions  of  the  book,  on  other  subjects  and  in  different  styles,  have  no  titles  at  all. 
Chapters  40-66  do  not  claim  to  be  his.  There  are  nine  citations  in  the  N.  T.  from  the  dis- 
puted chapters,  but  none  by  our  Lord.  None  of  these  citations  were  given  in  answer 
to  the  question :  Did  Isaiah  write  chapters  44-66  ?  Isaiah's  name  is  mentioned  only  for  the 
sake  of  reference.  Chapters  44-66  set  forth  the  exile  and  captivity  as  already  having 
taken  place.  Israel  is  addressed  as  ready  for  deliverance.  Cyrus  is  named  as  deliverer. 
There  is  no  grammar  of  the  future  like  Jeremiah's.  Cyrus  is  pointed  out  as  proof  that 
former  prophecies  of  deliverance  are  at  last  coming  to  pass.  He  is  not  presented  as  a 
prediction,  but  as  a  proof  that  prediction  is  being  fulfilled.  The  prophet  could  not 
have  referred  the  heathen  to  Cyrus  as  proof  that  prophecy  had  been  fulfilled,  had  he 
not  been  visible  to  them  in  all  his  weight  of  war.  Babylon  has  still  to  fall  before  the 
exiles  can  go  free.  But  chapters  40-66  speak  of  the  coming  of  Cyrus  as  past,  and  of  the 
fall  of  Babylon  as  yet  to  come.  Why  not  use  the  prophetic  perfect  of  both,  if  both 
were  yet  future?  Local  color,  language  and  thought  are  all  consistent  with  exilic 
authorship.  AR  suitg  the  exile,  but  all  is  foreign  to  the  subjects  and  methods  of  Isaiah, 
for  example,  the  use  of  the  terms  righteous  and  righteousness.  Calvin  admits  exilic 
authorship  ( on  Is.  55 : 3 ).  The  passage  56  :  9-57,  however,  is  an  exception  and  is  preexihe. 
40-48  are  certainly  by  one  hand,  and  may  be  dated  555-538.  2nd  Isaiah  is  not  a  unity, 
but  consists  of  a  number  of  pieces  written  before,  during,  and  after  the  exile,  to  com- 
fort the  people  of  God. 


340  THE    SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION"    FROM    GOD. 

(c)  It  is  unjust  to  deny  to  inspired  Scripture  the  right  exercised  by 
all  historians  of  introducing  certain  documents  and  sayings  as  simply  his- 
torical, while  their  complete  truthfulness  is  neither  vouched  for  nor  denied. 

An  instance  in  point  is  the  letter  of  Claudius  Lysias  in  Acts  23 :  26-30— a  letter  which  rep- 
resents his  conduct  in  a  more  favorable  light  than  the  facts  would  justify —for  he  had 
not  learned  that  Paul  was  a  Roman  when  he  rescued  him  in  the  temple  ( Acts  21 :  31-33 ;  22:26- 
29  ).  An  incorrect  statement  may  be  correctly  reported.  A  set  of  pamphlets  printed  in 
the  time  of  the  French  Revolution  might  be  made  an  appendix  to  some  history  of 
France  without  implying-  that  the  historian  vouched  for  their  truth.  The  sacred  his- 
torians may  similarly  have  been  inspired  to  use  only  the  material  within  their  reach, 
leaving  their  readers  by  comparison  with  other  Scriptures  to  judge  of  its  truthful- 
ness and  value.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  method  adopted  by  the  compiler  of  1  and  2 
Chronicles.  The  moral  and  religious  lessons  of  the  history  are  patent,  even  though  there 
is  inaccuracy  in  reporting  some  of  the  facts.  So  the  assertions  of  the  authoi-s  of  the 
Psalms  cannot  be  taken  for  absolute  truth.  The  authors  were  not  sinless  models  for  the 
Christian,—  only  Christ  is  that.  But  the  Psalms  present  us  with  a  record  of  the  actual 
experience  of  believers  in  the  past.  It  lias  its  human  weakness,  but  we  can  profit  by 
it,  even  though  it  expresses  itself  at  times  in  imprecations.  Jeremiah  20 : 7  —  "  0  Lord,  thou 
hast  deceived  me"— may  possibly  be  thus  explained. 

9.     Sceptical  or  fictitious  Narratives. 

(a)  Descriptions  of  human  experience  may  be  embraced  in  Scripture, 
not  as  models  for  imitation,  but  as  illustrations  of  the  doubts,  struggles,  and 
needs  of  the  soid.  In  these  cases  inspiration  may  vouch,  not  for  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  views  expressed  by  those  who  thus  describe  their  mental 
history,  but  only  for  the  correspondence  of  the  description  with  actual  fact, 
and  for  its  usefulness  as  indirectly  teaching  important  moral  lessons. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  for  example,  is  the  record  of  the  mental  struggles  of  a  soul 
seeking  satisfaction  without  God.  If  written  by  Solomon  during  the  time  of  his  relig- 
ious declension,  or  near  the  close  of  it,  it  would  constitute  a  most  valuable  commentary 
upon  the  inspired  history.  Yet  it  might  be  equally  valuable,  though  composed  by  some 
later  writer  under  divine  direction  and  inspiration.  H.  P.  Smith,  Bib.  Scholarship  and 
Inspiration,  97  —  "To  suppose  Solomon  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes  is  like  supposing 
Spenser  to  have  written  In  Memoriam."  Luther,  Keil,  Delitzsch,  Ginsburg,  Hengsten- 
berg  all  declare  it  to  be  a  production  of  later  times  (330  B.  C).  The  book  shows  experi- 
ence of  misgovernment.  An  earlier  writer  cannot  write  in  the  style  of  a  later  one, 
though  the  later  can  imitate  the  earlier.  The  early  Latin  and  Greek  Fathers  quoted 
the  Apocryphal  Wisdom  of  Solomon  as  by  Solomon ;  see  Plumptre,  Introd.  to  Ecclesi- 
astes, in  Cambridge  Bible.  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  355  —  "  Ecclesiastes,  though  like  the 
book  of  Wisdom  purporting  to  be  by  Solomon,  may  be  by  another  author.  .  .  .  '  A 
pious  fraud '  cannot  be  inspired ;  an  idealizing  personification,  as  a  norma)  type  of  liter- 
ature, can  be  inspired."  Yet  Bernhard  Schafer,  Das  Buch  Koheleth,  ably  maintains 
the  Solomonic  authorship. 

(  b  )  Moral  truth  may  be  put  by  Scripture  writers  into  parabolic  or  dra- 
matic form,  and  the  sayings  of  Satan  and  of  perverse  men  may  form  parts 
of  such  a  production.  In  such  cases,  inspiration  may  vouch,  not  for  the 
historical  truth,  much  less  for  the  moral  truth  of  each  separate  statement, 
but  only  for  the  correspondence  of  the  whole  with  ideal  fact ;  in  other 
words,  inspiration  may  guarantee  that  the  story  is  true  to  nature,  and  is 
valuable  as  conveying  divine  instruction. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  poetical  speeches  of  Job's  friends  were  actually 
delivered  in  the  words  that  have  come  down  to  us.  Though  Job  never  had  had  a  his- 
torical existence,  the  book  would  still  be  of  the  utmost  value,  and  would  convey  to  us 
a  vast  amount  of  true  teaching  with  regard  to  the  dealings  of  God  and  the  problem  of 
evil.    Fact  is  local;  truth  is  universal.    Some  novels  contain  more  truth  than  can  be 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTKINE   OF    INSPIRATION.  241 

found  in  some  histories.  Other  books  of  Scripture,  however,  assure  us  that  Job  was  an 
actual  historical  character  (  Ez.  14:14  ;  James  5  :  11 ).  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  our 
Lord,  in  telling  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Sou  (  Luke  15:11-32)  or  that  of  the  Unjust 
Steward  (16:1-8),  had  in  mind  actual  persons  of  whom  each  parable  was  an  exact 
description. 

Fiction  is  not  an  Unworthy  vehicle  of  spiritual  truth.  Parable,  ami  even  fable,  may 
convey  valuable  lessons.  In  Judges  9: 14, 15,  the  trees,  the  vine,  the  bramble,  all  talk.  If 
tint li  can  be  transmitted  in  myth  and  legend,  surely  God  may  make  use  of  these 
methods  of  eommunieat  Ing  it,  and  even  though  Gen.  1-3  were  mythical  it  might  still  be 
inspired.  Aristotle  said  that  poetry  is  truer  than  history.  The  latter  only  tells  us  that 
certain  things  happened.  Poetry  presents  to  us  the  permanent  passions,  aspirations 
and  deeds  of  men  which  are  behind  all  history  and  which  make  it  what  it  is;  see  Dewey, 
Psychology,  197.  Though  Job  were  a  drama  and  Jonah  an  apologue,  both  might  be 
inspired.  David  Copperfield,  the  Apology  of  Socrates,  Fra  Lippo  Lippi,  were  not  the 
authors  of  the  productions  which  bear  their  names,  but  Dickens,  Plato  and  Browning, 
rather.  Impersonation  is  a  proper  method  in  literature.  The  speeches  of  Herodotus 
and  Thucydides  might  be  analogues  to  those  in  Deuteronomy  and  in  the  Acts,  and 
yet  these  last  might  be  inspired. 

Tha  book  of  Job  could  not  have  been  written  in  patriarchal  times.  Walled  cities, 
kings,  courts,  lawsuits,  prisons,  stocks,  mining  enterprises,  are  found  in  it.  Judges 
are  bribedby  the  rich  todecide  against  the  poor.  All  this  belongs  to  the  latter  years 
of  the  Jewish  Kingdom.  Is  then  the  book  of  Job  all  a  lie?  No  more  than  Bunyan's 
Pilgrim's  Progress  and  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  are  all  a  lie.  The  book  of 
Job  is  a  dramatic  poem.  Like  Macbeth  or  the  King  and  the  Book,  it  is  founded  in  fact. 
II.  P.  Smith,  Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  101  —  "The  \  alue  of  the  book  of  Job 
lies  in  the  spectacle  of  a  human  soul  in  its  direst  affliction  working  through  its  doubts, 
and  at  last  humbly  confessing  its  weakness  and  sinfulness  in  the  presence  of  its 
Maker.  The  inerrancy  is  not  in  Job's  words  or  in  those  of  his  friends,  but  in  the  truth 
of  the  picture  presented.  If  Jehovah's  words  at  the  end  of  the  book  are  true,  then  the 
first  thirty-five  chapters  are  not  infallible  teaching." 

Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  355,  suggests  in  a  similar  manner  that  the  books  of  Jonah  and  of 
Daniel  may  be  dramatic  compositions  worked  up  upon  a  basis  of  history.  George 
Adam  Smith,  In  the  Expositors'  Bible,  tells  us  that  Jonah  flourished 780 B.  C, in  the 
reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  Nineveh  fell  in  60ti.  The  book  implies  that  it  was  written  after 
this  (3:3  —  "Nineveh  ivas  an  exceeding  great  city  "  ).  The  book  docs  not  claim  to  be  written  by 
Jonah,  by  an  eye-witness,  or  by  a  contemporary.  The  language  has  Aramaic  forms. 
The  date  is  probably  3C0  B.  C.  There  is  an  absence  of  precise  data,  such  as  the  sin  of 
Nineveh,  the  journey  of  the  prophet  thither,  the  place  where  he  was  cast  out  on  land,  the 
name  of  the  Assyrian  king.  The  book  illustrates  God's  mission  of  prophecy  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, his  care  for  them,  their  susceptibility  to  his  word.  Israel  flies  from  duty,  but  is 
delivered  to  carry  salvation  to  the  heathen.  Jeremiah  had  represented  Israel  as  swal- 
lowed up  and  cast  out  (Jer.  51 :  34,  44  tq.—" Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon  hath  devoured  me 

he  hath,  like  a  monster,  swallowed  me  up,  he  hath  filled  his  maw  with  my  delicacies;  he  hath  cast  me  out.  ...  I  will 
bring  forth  out  of  his  mouth  that  which  he  hath  swallowed  up."  Some  tradition  of  Jonah's  proclaiming 
doom  to  Nineveh  may  have  furnished  the  basis  of  the  apologue.  Our  Lord  uses  the 
story  as  a  mere  illustration,  like  the  homiletic  useof  Shakespeare's  dramas.  "As  Mac- 
beth did,"  "  As  Hamlet  said."  do  not  commit  us  to  the  historical  reality  of  Macbeth  or 
of  Hamlet.  Jesus  may  say  as  to  questions  of  criticism  :  "  Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider 
ovoryou?"  "Icamenotto  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world  "  (Luke  12:14;  John  12:47).  He  had  no 
thought  of  confirming,  or  of  not  confirming,  the  historic  character  of  the  story.  It  is 
hard  to  conceive  the  compilation  of  a  psalm  by  a  man  in  Jonah's  position.  It  is  not 
t  he  prayer  of  one  inside  the  Ash,  but  of  one  already  saved.  More  than  forty  years  ago 
President  Woolsey  of  Yale  conceded  that  the  book  of  Jonah  was  probably  an  apologue. 

(c)  In  none  of  these  cases  ought  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  man's 
words  from  God's  words,  or  ideal  truth  from  actual  truth,  to  prevent  our 
acceptance  of  the  fact  of  inspiration  ;  for  in  this  very  variety  of  the  Bible, 
combined  with  the  stimulus  it  gives  to  inquiry  and  the  general  plainness  of 
its  lessons,  we  have  the  very  characteristics  we  should  expect  in  a  book 
whose  authorship  was  divine. 

16 


242  THE   SCRIPTURES    A    REVELATION"   FROM    GOD. 

The  Scripture  is  a  stream  in  which  "  the  lamb  may  wade  and  the  elephant  may  swim." 
There  is  need  both  of  literary  sense  and  of  spiritual  insight  to  interpret  it.  This  sense 
and  this  insight  can  be  given  only  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  inspired 
the  various  writings  to  witness  of  him  in  various  ways,  and  who  is  present  in  the  world 
to  take  of  the  things  of  Christ  and  show  them  to  us  (  Mat.  28 :  20 ;  John  16 :  13, 14 ).  In  a  subor- 
dinate sense  the  Holy  Spirit  inspires  us  to  recognize  inspiration  in  the  Bible.  In  the 
sense  here  suggested  we  may  assent  to  the  words  of  Dr.  Charles  II.  Parkhurst  at  the 
inauguration  of  William  Adams  Brown  as  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  November  1, 1898—  "  Unfortunately  we  have  condemned 
the  word  '  inspiration '  to  a  particular  and  isolated  licld  of  divine  operation,  and  it  is  a 
trespass  upon  current  usage  to  employ  it  in  the  full  urgency  of  its  Scriptural  intent  in 
connection  with  work  like  your  own  or  mine.  But  the  word  voices  a  reality  that  lies  so 
close  to  the  heart  of  the  entire  Christian  matter  that  we  can  ill  afford  to  relegate  it  to 
any  single  or  technical  function.  Just  as  much  to-day  as  back  at  the  first  beginnings 
of  Christianity,  those  who  would  declare  the  truths  of  God  must  be  inspired  to  behold 
the  truths  of  God.  .  .  .  The  only  irresistible  persuasiveness  is  that  which  is  born  of  vis- 
ion, and  it  is  not  vision  to  be  able  merely  to  describe  what  some  seer  has  seen,  though 
it  were  Moses  or  Paul  that  was  the  seer." 

10.  Acknowledgment  of  the  non-inspiration  of  Scripture  teachers 
and  their  writings. 

This  charge  rests  mainly  upon  the  misinterpretation  of  two  particular 
passages  : 

{a)  Acts  23  : 5  ("I  wist  not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the  high  priest"  ) 
may  be  explained  either  as  the  language  of  indignant  irony  :  "  I  would  not 
recognize  such  a  man  as  high  priest"  ;  or,  more  naturally,  an  actual  con- 
fession of  personal  ignorance  and  fallibility,  which  does  not  affect  the  inspi- 
ration of  any  of  Paul's  final  teachings  or  writings. 

Of  a  more  reprehensible  sort  was  Peter's  dissimulation  at  Autioch,  or  practical  dis- 
avowal of  his  convictions  by  separating  or  withdrawing  himself  from  the  Gentile 
Christians  ( Gal.  2 :  11-13 ).  Here  was  no  public  teaching,  but  the  influence  of  private 
example.  But  neither  in  this  case,  nor  in  that  mentioned  above,  did  God  suffer  the 
error  to  be  a  final  one.  Through  the  agency  of  Paul,  the  Holy  Spirit  set  the  matter 
right. 

(  b  )  1  Cor.  7  :  12, 10  ("I,  not  the  Lord"  ;  "not  I,  but  the  Lord").  Here 
the  contrast  is  not  between  the  apostle  inspired  and  the  apostle  uninspired, 
but  between  the  apostle's  words  and  an  actual  saying  of  our  Lord,  as  in 
Mat.  5  :  32  ;  19  : 3-10 ;  Mark  10  :  11 ;  Luke  16  :  18  (Stanley  on  Corinthians). 
The  expressions  may  be  paraphrased  : — "With  regard  to  this  matter  no 
express  command  was  given  by  Christ  before  his  ascension.  As  one  inspired 
by  Christ,  however,  I  give  you  my  command. " 

Meyer  on  1  Cor.  7 :  10  —  "  Paul  distinguishes,  therefore,  here  and  in  verses  13,  25,  not 
between  his  own  and  inspired  commands,  but  between  those  which  proceeded  from  his 
own  ( God-inspired )  subjectivity  and  those  which  Christ  himself  supplied  by  his  objec- 
tive word."  "  Paul  knew  from  the  living  voice  of  tradition  what  commands  Christ  had 
given  concerning  divorce.''  Or  if  it  should  be  maintained  that  Paul  here  disclaims 
inspiration,—  a  supposition  contradicted  by  the  following  Jokw  —  "  I  think  that  I  also  have  the 
Spirit  of  God''  (  verse  40), —  it  only  proves  a  single  exception  to  his  inspiration,  and  since  it  is 
expressly  mentioned,  and  mentioned  only  once,  it  implies  the  inspiration  of  all  the  rest 
of  his  writings.  We  might  illustrate  Paul's  method,  if  this  were  the  case,  by  the  course 
of  the  New  York  Herald  when  it  was  first  published.  Other  journals  had  stood  by 
their  own  mistakes  and  had  never  been  willing  to  acknowledge  error.  The  Herald 
gained  the  confidence  of  the  public  by  correcting  every  mistake  of  its  reporters.  The 
result  was  that,  when  there  was  noconfession  of  error,  the  paper  was  regarded  as  abso- 
lutely trustworthy.  So  Paul's  one  acknowledgment  of  non-inspiration  might  imply 
that  in  all  other  cases  his  words  had  divine  authority.  On  Authority  in  Religion,  see 
Wilfred  Ward,  in  Hibbert  Journal,  July,  1903 :  6T7-092. 


PAET   IY. 

THE  NATUEE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 


CHAPTP]R  I. 


THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

In  contemplating  the  words  and  acts  of  God,  as  in  contemplating  the 
words  and  acts  of  individual  men,  we  are  compelled  to  assign  uniform  and 
permanent  effects  to  uniform  and  permanent  causes.  Holy  acts  and  words, 
we  argue,  must  have  their  source  in  a  principle  of  holiness ;  truthful  acts 
and  words,  in  a  settled  proclivity  to  truth  ;  benevolent  acto  and  words,  in  a 
benevolent  disposition. 

Moreover,  these  permanent  and  uniform  sources  of  expression  and  action 
to  which  we  have  applied  the  terms  principle,  proclivity,  disposition,  since 
they  exist  harmoniously  in  the  same  person,  must  themselves  inhere,  and 
find  their  unity,  in  an  underlying  spiritual  substance  or  reality  of  which 
they  are  the  inseparable  characteristics  and  partial  manifestations. 

Thus  we  are  led  naturally  from  the  works  to  the  attributes,  and  from  the 
attributes  to  the  essence,  of  God. 

For  all  practical  purposes  we  may  use  t  lie  words  essence,  substance,  being,  nature,  as 
synonymous  with  each  other.  So,  too,  we  may  speak  of  attribute,  quality,  character- 
istic, principle,  proclivity,  disposition,  as  practically  one.  As,  in  cognizing  matter,  we 
pass  from  its  effects  in  sensation  to  the  qualities  which  produce  the  sensations,  and 
then  to  the  material  substance  to  which  the  qualities  belong- ;  and  as,  in  cognizing  mind, 
we  pass  from  its  phenomena  in  thought  and  action  to  the  faculties  and  dispositions 
which  give  rise  to  these  phenomena,  and  then  to  the  mental  substance  to  wh'ch  these 
faculties  and  dispositions  belong ;  so,  in  cognizing  God,  we  pass  from  his  words  and 
acts  to  his  qualities  or  attributes,  and  then  to  the  substance  or  essence  to  which  these 
qualities  or  attributes  belong. 

The  teacher  in  a  Young  Ladies'  Seminary  described  substance  as  a  cushion,  into  which 
the  attributes  as  pins  are  stuck.  But  pins  and  cushion  alike  are  substance,— neither 
one  is  quality.  The  opposite  error  is  illustrated  from  the  experience  of  Abraham  Lin- 
coln on  the  Ohio  River.  "What  is  this  transcendentalism  that  we  hear  so  much  about?" 
asked  Mr,  Lincoln.  The  answer  came:  "You  see  those  swallows  digging  holes  in 
yonder  bank?  Well,  takeaway  the  bank  from  around  those  holes,  and  what  is  left  is 
transcendentalism."  Substance  is  often  represented  as  being  thus  transcendental.  If 
such  representations  were  correct,  metaphysics  would  indeed  be  "  that,  of  which  those 
who  listen  understand  nothing,  and  which  he  who  speaks  does  not  himself  understand," 
and  the  metaphysician  would  be  the  fox  who  ran  into  the  hole  and  then  pulled  in  the 
hole  after  him.  Substance  and  attributes  are  correlates,—  neither  one  is  possible  with- 
out the  other.  There  is  no  quality  that  does  not  qualify  something ;  and  there  is  no 
thing,  either  material  or  spiritual,  that  can  be  known  or  can  exist  without  qualities  to 
differentiate  it  from  other  things.  In  applying  the  categories  of  substance  and  attri- 
bute to  God,  we  indulge  in  no  merely  curious  speculation,  but  rather  yield  to  the  neces- 
sities of  rational  thought  and  aliow  how  we  must  think  of  God  if  we  think  at  all.  Se« 
Shedd,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 : 2t0 ;  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3  :  172-188. 

243 


244  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

I.  Definition  of  the  term  Attributes. 

The  attributes  of  God  are  those  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the 
divine  nature  which  are  inseparable  from  the  idea  of  God  and  which  con- 
stitute the  basis  and  ground  for  his  various  manifestations  to  his  creatures. 

We  call  them  attributes,  because  we  are  compelled  to  attribute  them  to 
God  as  fundamental  qualities  or  powers  of  his  being,  in  order  to  give 
rational  account  of  certain  constant  facts  in  God's  self-revelations. 

II.  Relation  of  the  divine  Attributes  to  the  divine  Essence. 

1.  The  attributes  have  an  objective  existence.  They  are  not  mere 
names  for  human  conceptions  of  God — conceptions  which  have  their  only 
ground  in  the  imperfection  of  the  finite  mind.  They  are  qualities  objec- 
tively distinguishable  from  the  divine  essence  and  from  each  other. 

The  nominalistic  notion  that  God  is  a  being  of  absolute  simplicity,  and 
that  in  his  nature  there  is  no  internal  distinction  of  qualities  or  powers, 
tends  directly  to  pantheism  ;  denies  all  reality  of  the  divine  perfections  ; 
or,  if  these  in  any  sense  still  exist,  precludes  all  knowledge  of  them  on  the 
part  of  finite  beings.  To  say  that  knowledge  and  power,  eternity  and  holi- 
ness, are  identical  with  the  essence  of  God  and  with  each  other,  is  to  deny 
that  we  know  God  at  all. 

The  Scripture  declarations  of  the  possibility  of  knowing  God,  together 
with  the  manifestation  of  the  distinct  attributes  of  his  nature,  are  conclu- 
sive against  this  false  notion  of  the  divine  simplicity. 

Aristotle  says  well  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  science  of  the  unique,  of  that 
which  has  no  analogies  or  relations.  Knowing-  is  distinguishing- ;  what  we  cannot  dis- 
ting-uish  from  other  thing-s  we  cannot  know.  Yet  a  false  tendency  to  regard  God  as  a 
being  of  absolute  simplicity  has  come  down  from  mediaeval  scholasticism,  has  infected 
much  of  the  post-reformation  theology,  and  is  found  even  so  recently  as  in  Schleier- 
macher,  Rothe,  Olshausen,  and  Ritschl.  E.  G.  Robinson  defines  the  attributes  as  "  our 
methods  of  conceiving  of  God."  But  this  definition  is  influenced  by  the  Kantian  doc- 
trine of  relativity  and  implies  that  we  cannot  know  God's  essence,  that  is,  the  thing- 
in-itself,  God's  real  being.  Bowne,  Philosophy  of  Theism,  111  — "This  notion  of  the 
divine  simplicity  reduces  God  to  a  rigid  and  lifeless  stare.  .  .  .  The  One  is  manifold 
without  being  many." 

The  divine  simplicity  is  the  starting-point  of  Philo :  God  is  a  being  absolutely  bare 
of  quality.  All  quality  in  finite  beings  has  limitation,  and  no  limitation  can  be  predi- 
cated of  God  who  is  eternal,  unchangeable,  simple  substance,  free,  self-sufficient,  better 
than  the  good  and  the  beautiful.  To  predicate  any  quality  of  God  would  reduce  him  to 
the  sphere  of  finite  existence.  Of  him  we  can  only  say  that  he  is,  not  what  he  is;  see 
art.  by  Schiirer,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  18:761. 

Illustrations  of  this  tendency  are  found  in  Scotus  Erigena :  "  Deus  nescit  se  quid  est, 
quia  nou  est  quid  ";  and  in  Occam:  The  divine  attributes  are  distinguished  neither 
substantially  nor  logically  from  each  other  or  from  the  divine  essence;  the  only  dis- 
tinction is  that  of  names;  so  Gerhard  and  Quenstedt.  Charnock,  the  Puritan  writer, 
identifies  both  knowledge  and  will  with  the  simple  essence  of  God.  Schleiennacher 
makes  all  the  attributes  to  be  modifications  of  power  or  causality ;  in  his  system  God 
and  world  =  the  "uatura  naturans"aud  "  natura  naturata"  of  Spinoza.  There  is  no 
distinction  of  attributes  and  no  succession  of  acts  in  God,  and  therefore  no  real  per- 
sonality or  even  spiritual  being ;  see  Pfleiderer,  Prot.  Theol.  seit  Kant,  110.  Schleier- 
machersaid:  "  My  God  is  the  Universe."  God  is  causative  force.  Eternity,  omnis- 
cience and  holiness  are  simply  aspects  of  causality.  Rothe,  on  the  other  hand,  makes 
omniscience  to  be  the  all-comprehending  principle  of  the  divine  nature;  and  Olshau- 
sen, on  Ma  1 : 1,  in  a  similar  manner  attempts  to  prove  that  the  Word  of  God  must  have 
objective  and  substantial  being,  by  assuming  that  knowing  =  willing;  whence  it 
would  seem  to  follow  that,  since  God  wills  all  that  he  k'nows,  he  must  will  moral  evil. 


RELATION"   OF   THE   ATTRIBUTES   TO   THE    ESSENCE    OF   GOD.    245 

Bushnell  and  others  identify  righteousness  in  God  with  benevolence,  and  therefore 
cannot  see  that  any  atonement  ni«ds  to  be  made  to  God.  Ritschl  also  holds  that  love 
is  the  fundamental  divine  attribute,  and  that  omnipotence  and  even  personality  aie 
simply  modifications  of  love;  see  Mead*  Ritschl's  Place  in  the  History  of  Doctrine,  8. 
Herbert  Spencer  only  carries  the  principle  further  when  he  concludes  God  to  be  simple 
unknowable  force. 

But  to  call  God  everything  is  the  same  as  to  call  him  nothing.  With  Dorner,  we  say 
that  "definition  is  no  limitation."  As  we  rise  in  the  scale  of  creation  from  the  mere 
jelly-sac  to  man,  the  homogeneous  becomes  the  heterogeneous,  there  is  differentiation 
of  functions,  complexity  increases.  We  infer  that  God,  the  highest  of  all,  instead  of 
being  simple  force,  is  infinitely  complex,  that  he  has  an  infinite  variety  of  attributes 
and  powers.  Tennyson,  Palace  of  Art  (lines  omitted  in  the  later  editions):  "All 
nature  widens  upward :  evermore  The  simpler  essence  lower  lies :  More  complex  is 
more  perfect,  owning  move  Discourse,  more  widely  wise." 

Jer.  10:10  —  God  is  "the  living  Sod";  John  5:26 — he  "hath  life  in  himself"  —  unsearchable  riches  of 
positive  attributes;  John  17:23— "thou  lovedstme"  —  nianifoldness  in  unity.  This  complexity 
in  fiod  is  the  ground  of  blessedness  for  him  and  of  progress  for  us  :  1  Tim.  1:11  —  "the  blessed 
God";  Jer.9:23,24  —  "let  him  glory  in  this,  that  he  knoweth  me."  The  complex  nature  of  God  per- 
mits anger  at  the  sinner  and  compassion  for  him  at  the  same  moment:  Ps.  7:11— "a  God 
that  hath  indignation  every  day  "  ;  John  3:16  — "  God  so  loved  the  world  "  ;  Ps.  85 :  10, 11  — "  mercy  and  truth  are  met 
together."  See  Julius  Midler,  Doct.  Sin,  2  :  110  .si/. ;  Schweizer,  Glaubcnslehre,  I  :9S9^S85; 
Thomasius,  Christi  Person  nnd  Werk,  1 :  43,  50;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  91 —  "If  Sod 
were  the  simple  One,  to  an-Aws  *V,  the  mystic  abyss  In  which  every  form  of  determination 
were  extinguished,  there  would  be  nothing  in  the  Unity  to  be  known."  Hence  "  nomi- 
nalism is  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  revelation.  We  teach,  with  realism,  that  the 
attributes  of  God  are  objective  determinations  in  his  revelation  ami  as  such  are  rooted 
in  his  iumost  essence." 

2.  Tin  attHbute8  inh<  re  hi  the  divine  >  ssence.  They  are  not  separate 
existences.     They  are  attributes  of  God. 

While  we  oppose  the  nominalistic  view  which  holds  them  to  be  mere 
names  with  which,  by  the  necessity  of  our  thinking,  we  clothe  the  one  sim- 
ple divine  essence,  we  need  equally  to  avoid  the  opposite  realistic  extreme 
of  making  them  separate  parts  of  a  composite  God. 

We  cannot  conceive  of  attributes  except  as  belonging  to  an  underlying 
essence  which  furnishes  their  ground  of  unity.  In  representing  God  as  a 
compound  of  attributes,  realism  endangers  the  living  unity  of  the  Godhead. 

Notice  the  analogous  necessity  of  attributing  the  properties  of  matter  to  an  under- 
lying substance,  and  the  phenomena  of  thought  to  an  underlying  spiritual  essence; 
else  matter  is  reduced  to  mere  force,  and  mind,  to  mere  sensation, —  in  short,  all  things 
are  swallowed  up  in  a  vast  idealism.  The  purely  realistic  explanation  of  the  attributes 
tends  to  low  and  polytheistic  conceptions  of  God.  The  mythology  of  Greece  was  the 
result  of  personifying  the  divine  attributes.  The  nomina  were  turned  into  numitia, 
as  Max  M tiller  says;  see  Taylor,  Nature  on  the  Basis  of  Realism,  293.  Distance  also 
Christmas  Evans's  sermon  describing  a  Council  in  the  Godhead,  in  which  the  attributes 
of  Justice,  Mercy,  Wisdom,  and  Power  argue  with  one  another.  Robert  Hall  called 
Christmas  Evans  "  the  one-eyed  orator  of  Anglesey,"  but  added  that  his  one  eye  could 
"  light  an  army  through  a  wilderness  ";  see  Joseph  Cross,  Life  and  Sermons  of  Christmas 
Evans,  112-11(1 ;  David  Rhys  Stephen,  Memoirs  of  Christmas  Evans,  168-1 76.  We  must 
remember  that "  Realism  may  so  exalt  the  attributes  that  no  personal  subject  is  left  to 
constitute  the  ground  of  unity.  Looking  upon  Personality  as  anthropomorphism,  it 
falls  into  a  worse  personification,  that  of  omnipotence,  holiness,  benevolence,  which 
are  mere  blind  thoughts,  unless  there  is  one  who  is  the  Omnipotent,  the  Holy,  the 
Good."    See  Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogmatik,  70. 

3.  The  attributes  belong  to  the  divine  essence  as  such.  They  are  to  be 
distinguished  from  those  other  powers  or  relations  which  do  not  appertain 
to  the  divine  essence  universally. 


24G  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

The  personal  distinctions  (proprietates')  in  the  nature  of  the  one  God 
are  not  to  be  denominated  attributes ;  for  each  of  these  personal  distinctions 
belongs  not  to  the  divine  essence  as  such  and  universally,  but  only  to  the 
particular  person  of  the  Trinity  "who  bears  its  name,  while  on  the  contrary 
all  of  the  attributes  belong  to  each  of  the  persons. 

The  relations  which  God  sustains  to  the  world  (predicata ),  moreover, 
such  as  creation,  preservation,  government,  are  not  to  be  denominated 
attributes ;  for  these  are  accidental,  not  necessary  or  inseparable  from  the 
idea  of  God.     God  would  be  God,  if  he  had  never  created. 

To  make  creation  eternal  and  necessary  is  to  dethrone  God  and  to  enthrone  a  fatalis- 
tic development.  It  follows  that  the  nature  of  the  attributes  is  to  be  illustrated,  not 
alone  or  chiefly  from  wisdom  and  holiness  in  man,  which  are  not  inseparable  from  man's 
nature,  but  rather  from  intellect  and  will  in  man,  without  which  he  would  cease  to  be 
man  altogether.  Only  that  is  an  attribute,  of  which  it  can  be  safely  said  that  he  who 
possesses  it  would,  if  deprived  of  it,  cease  to  be  God.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1:335— 
"  The  attribute  is  the  whole  essence  acting  in  a  certain  way.  The  centre  of  unity  is  not 
in  any  one  attribute,  but  in  the  essence.  .  .  .  The  difference  between  the  divine  attri- 
bute and  the  divine  person  is,  that  the  person  is  a  mode  of  the  existence  of  the  essence, 
while  the  attribute  is  a  mode  either  of  the  relation,  or  of  the  operation,  of  the  essence." 

4.  The  attributes  manifest  the  divine  essence.  The  essence  is  revealed 
only  through  the  attributes.  Apart  from  its  attributes  it  is  unknown  and 
unknowable. 

But  though  we  can  know  God  only  as  he  reveals  to  us  his  attributes,  we 
do,  notwithstanding,  in  knowing  these  attributes,  know  the  being  to  whom 
these  attributes  belong.  That  this  knowledge  is  partial  does  not  prevent 
its  corresponding,  so  far  as  it  goes,  to  objective  reality  in  the  nature  of  God. 

All  God's  revelations  are,  therefore,  revelations  of  himself  in  and  through 
his  attributes.  Our  aim  must  be  to  determine  from  God's  works  and  words 
what  qualities,  dispositions,  determinations,  powers  of  his  otherwise  unseen 
and  unsearchable  essence  he  has  actually  made  known  to  us ;  or  in  other 
words,  what  are  the  revealed  attributes  of  God. 

John  1  :  18 — "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
he  hath  declared  him  "  ;  1  Tim.  6:16  —  "  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see  "  ;  Mat.  5:8  —  "  Blessed  are  the  pure 
in  heart:  for  they  shall  see  God"  ;  11 :  27  —  "neither  doth  any  man  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him."  C.  A.  Strong :  "  Kant,  not  content  with  knowing  the  reality 
in  the  phenomena,  was  trying  to  know  the  reality  apart  from  the  phenomena ;  he  was 
seeking  to  know,  without  fulfilling  the  conditions  of  knowledge ;  in  short,  he  wished 
to  know  without  knowing."  So  Agnosticism  perversely  regards  God  as  concealed  by 
his  own  manifestation.  On  the  contrary,  in  knowing  the  phenomena  we  know  the 
object  itself.  J.  C.  C.  Clarke,  Self  and  the  Father,  6  —  "  In  language,  as  in  nature,  there 
are  no  verbs  without  subjects,  but  we  are  always  hunting  for  the  noun  that  has  no 
adjective,  and  the  verb  that  has  no  subject,  and  the  subject  that  has  no  verb.  Con- 
sciousness is  necessarily  a  consciousness  of  self.  Idealism  and  monism  would  like  to  see 
all  verbs  solid  with  their  subjects,  and  to  write '  I  do '  or  '  I  feel '  in  the  maze3  of  a  mono- 
gram, but  consciousness  refuses,  and  before  it  says  'Do'  or  'Feel,'  it  finishes  saying 
'I.'"  J.  G.  Holland's  Katrina,  to  her  lover :  " God  is  not  worshiped  in  his  attributes. 
I  do  not  love  your  attributes,  but  you.  Your  attributes  all  meet  me  otherwhere,  Blen- 
ded in  other  personalities,  Nor  do  I  love  nor  do  I  worship  them,  Nor  those  who  bear 
them.  E'en  the  spotted  pard  Will  dare  a  danger  which  will  make  you  pale ;  But  shall 
his  courage  steal  my  heart  from  you  ?  You  cheat  your  conscience,  for  you  know  That 
I  may  like  your  attributes,  Yet  love  not  you." 

III.     Methods  of  determining  the  divine  Attributes. 
We  have  seen  that  the  existence  of  God  is  a  first  truth.     It  is  presup- 
posed in  all  human  thinking,  and  is  more  or  less  consciously  recognized  by 


CLASSIFICATION   OF  THE    ATTRIBUTES.  247 

all  men.  This  intuitive  knowledge  of  God  we  have  seen  to  be  corroborated 
and  explicated  by  arguments  drawn  from  nature  and  from  mind.  Reason 
leads  us  to  a  causative  and  persqpaJ  Intelligence  upon  whom  we  depend. 
This  Being  of  indefinite  greatness  we  clothe,  by  a  necessity  of  our  thinking, 
with  all  the  attibutes  of  perfection.  The  two  great  methods  of  determining 
what  these  attributes  are,  are  the  Rational  and  the  Biblical. 

1.  The  Rational  mi  thud.  This  is  threefold  :  —  {a  )  the  via  negationia, 
or  the  way  of  negation,  which  consists  in  denying  to  God  all  imperfections 
observed  in  created  beings ;  (  b  )  the  via  eminent 'ice,  or  the  way  of  climax, 
which  consists  in  attributing  to  God  in  infinite  degree  all  the  perfections 
found  in  creatures ;  and  (c)  the  via  causalitatis,  or  the  way  of  causality, 
which  consists  in  predicating  of  God  those  attributes  which  are  required  in 
him  to  explain  the  world  of  nature  and  of  mind. 

Tl lis  rational  method  explains  God's  nature  from  that  of  his  creation, 
whereas  the  creation  itself  can  be  fully  explained  only  from  the  nature  of 
God.  Though  the  method  is  valuable,  it  has  insuperable  limitations,  and 
its  place  is  a  subordinate  one.  While  we  use  it  continually  to  confirm  and 
supplement  results  otherwise  obtained,  our  chief  means  of  determining  the 
divine  attributes  must  be 

2.  The  Biblical  method.  This  is  simply  the  inductive  method,  applied 
to  the  facts  with  regard  to  God  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  Now  that  we 
have  proved  the  Scriptures  to  be  a  revelation  from  God,  inspired  in  every 
part,  we  may  properly  look  to  them  as  decisive  authority  with  regard  to 
God's  attributes. 

The  rational  method  of  determining  the  attributes  <>f  God  is  sometimes  said  to  have 
been  originated  l>y  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  reputed  to  have  been  a  judge  at  Athens 
at  the  time  of  Paul  and  to  have  died  A.  D.  95.  It  is  more  probably  eclectic,  combining 
the  results  attained  by  many  theologians,  and  applying  the  intuitions  of  perfection  and 
causality  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  all  religious  thinking.  It  is  evident  from  our  previous 
study  of  the  arguments  for  God's  existence,  that  from  nature  we  cannot  learn  either 
the  Trinity  or  the  mercy  of  Cm],  and  that  these  deficiencies  in  our  rational  conclusions 
with  respect  to  God  musl  be  supplied,  if  at  all,  by  revelation.  Spurgeon,  Autobiogra- 
phy, ICC— "The  old  saying  is '(Jo  from  Nature  up  to  .Nature's  God.'  But  it  is  hard 
work  going  up  hill.  The  best  thing  is  to  go  from  Nature's  God  down  to  Nature  ;  and. 
If  you  once  get  to  Nature's  God  and  believe  him  and  love  him,  it  is  surprising  how 
easy  it  is  to  hear  music  in  the  waves,  and  songs  in  the  wild  whisperings  of  the  winds, 
and  to  see  God  everywhere."    See  also  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3  :  181. 

IV.     Classification  of  the  Attributes. 

The  attributes  may  be  divided  into  two  great  classes  :  Absolute  or  Imma- 
nent, and  Relative  or  Transitive. 

By  Absolute  or  Immanent  Attributes,  we  mean  attributes  which  respect 
the  inner  being  of  God,  which  are  involved  in  God's  relations  to  himself, 
and  which  belong  to  his  nature  independently  of  his  connection  with  the 
universe. 

By  Relative  or  Transitive  Attributes,  we  mean  attributes  which  resj^ect 
the  outward  revelation  of  God's  being,  which  are  involved  in  God's  relations 
to  the  creation,  and  which  are  exercised  in  consequence  of  the  existence  of 
the  universe  and  its  dependence  upon  him. 


248 


NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OP  GOD. 


Under  the  head  of  Absolute  or  Immanent  Attributes,  we  make  a  three-fold 
division  into  Spirituality,  with  the  attributes  therein  involved,  namely,  Life 
and  Personality ;  Infinity,  with  the  attributes  therein  involved,  namely, 
Self-existence,  Immutability,  and  Unity ;  and  Perfection,  with  the  attri- 
butes therein  involved,  namely,  Truth,  Love,  aud  Holiness. 

Under  the  head  of  Relative  or  Transitive  Attributes,  we  make  a  three- 
fold division,  according  to  the  order  of  their  revelation,  into  Attributes 
having  relation  to  Time  and  Space,  as  Eternity  and  Immensity  ;  Attributes 
having  relation  to  Creation,  as  Omnipresence,  Omniscience,  and  Omnipo- 
tence ;  and  Attributes  having  relation  to  Moral  Beings,  as  Veracity  and 
Faithfulness,  or  Transitive  Truth  ;  Mercy  and  Goodness,  or  Transitive 
Love  ;  and  Justice  and  Righteousness,  or  Transitive  Holiness. 

This  classification  may  be  better  understood  from  the  following  schedule  : 

1.     Absolute  or  Immanent  Attributes  : 


A.  Spirituality,  involving 


(  (  a  )  Life, 

\  (  h  )  Personality. 


CO 


B.  Infinity,  involving 


C.   Perfection,  involving 


(a)  Self -existence, 
( b  )  Immutability, 
(c)  Unity. 

(a)  Truth, 
( b  )  Love, 
(  c )  Holiness. 


2.     Relative  or  Transitive  Attributes  : 

a     t.  n  i.   t  x    m-  to  S(a)  Eternity, 

A.  Related  to  Time  and  Space—  <  ;  .  (  T  ' 

(  (  b  )  Immensity. 


B.  Related  to  Creation - 


C.  Related  to  Moral  Beings  ■ 


( a  )  Omnipresence, 

(  b  )  Omniscience,  > 

(e)  Omnipotence.  ) 

( a )  Veracity  and  Faithfulness,  ^ 
or  Transitive  Truth. 

(  b  )  Mercy  and  Goodness, 
or  Transitive  Love. 

(c)  Justice  and  Righteousness,  | 
or  Transitive  Holiness.        J 


p 


B 


p4 

CO 

o         P1 


CO 

I 

o 
3- 

B 

& 

H 

p 
Pi 
o 


p" 


It  will  be  observed,  upon  examination  of  the  preceding  schedule,  that  our  classification 
presents  God  first  as  Spirit,  then  as  the  infinite  Spirit,  and  finally  as  the  perfect  Spirit. 
This  accords  with  our  definition  of  the  term  G  od  ( see  page  52 ).  It  also  corresponds 
with  the  order  in  which  the  attributes  commonly  present  themselves  to  the  human 
mind.  Our  first  thought  of  God  is  that  of  mere  Spirit,  mysterious  and  undefined,  over 
against  our  own  spirits.  Our  next  thought  is  that  of  God's  greatness ;  the  quantita- 
tive element  suggests  itself ;  his  natural  attributes  rise  before  us ;  we  recognize  him  as 


ABSOLUTE   OR    IMMAXENT   ATTRIBUTES.  249 

the  infinite  One.  Finally  comes  the  qualitative  element ;  our  moral  natures  recognize 
a  moral  God  ;  over  against  our  error,  selfishness  and  impurity,  we  perceive  his  absolute 
perfection. 

Tt  should  also  be  observed  that  this  moral  perfection,  as  it  is  an  immanent  attribute, 
involves  relation  of  God  to  himself.  Truth,  love  and  holiness,  as  they  respectively 
imply  an  exercise  in  God  of  intellect,  affection  and  will,  may  be  conceived  of  as  God's 
self-knowing,  God's  self-loving,  and  God's  self-willing.  The  significance  of  this  will 
appear  more  fully  in  the  discussion  of  the  separate  attributes. 

Notice  the  distinction  between  absolute  and  relative,  between  immanent  and  transi- 
tive, attributes.  Absolute  =  existing  in  no  necessary  relation  to  things  outside  of  God. 
Relative  —  existing  in  such  relation.  Immanent  ■=  "  remaining  within,  limited  to,  God's 
own  nature  in  their  activity  and  effect,  inherent  and  indwelling,  internal  and  subjective 

—  opposed  to  emanent  or  transitive."  Transitive  =  having  an  object  outside  of  God 
himself.  Wespeak  of  transitive  verbs,  and  we  mean  verbs  that  are  followed  by  an 
object.  God's  transitive  attributes  are  so  called,  because  they  respect  and  affect  things 
and  beings  outside  of  God. 

The  aim  of  this  classification  into  Absolute  and  Relative  Attributes  is  to  make  plain 
the  divine  self-sufficiency.  Creation  is  not  a  necessity,  for  there  is  a  wAij/xo^a  in  God 
( Col.  1 :  19 ),  even  before  he  makes  the  world  or  becomes  incarnate.  And  7rA>jpu>/u.a  is  not 
"the  filling  material,"  nor  "the  vessel  filled,"  but  "that  which  is  complete  in  itself," 
or,  in  other  words,  "plenitude,"  "fulness,"  "totality,"  "abundance."  The  whole  uni- 
verse is  but  a  drop  of  dew  upon  the  fringe  of  God's  garment,  or  a  breath  exhaled  from 
his  mouth.  He  could  create  a  universe  a  hundred  times  as  great.  Nature  is  but  the 
symbolofGod.  The  tides  of  life  that  ebb  a  ad  How  on  the  far  shores  of  the  universe 
are  only  faint  expressions  of  his  life.  The  Immanent  Attributes  show  us  how  com- 
pletely matters  of  grace  are  Creation  and  Redemption,  and  how  unspeakable  is  the 
condescension  of  him  who  took  our  humanity  and  humbled  himself  to  the  death  of  the 
( Jr<  >ss.     Ps.  8 : 3,  4  —  "  When  I  consider  thy  heavens  ....  what  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ?  "    113 : 5,  fi 

—  "Who  is  like  unto  Jehovah  our  God,  that  hath  his  seat  on  high,  that  humbleth  himself?"  Phil.  2  :  6,  7  — "Who, 
existing  in  the  form  of  God,  ....  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant." 

Ladd,  Theory  of  Reality,  69— "I  know  that  I  am,  because,  as  the  basis  of  all  discrim- 
inations as  to  what  I  am,  and  as  the  core  of  all  such  self-knowledge,  I  Immediately  know 
myself  as  will.'"  So  as  to  the  non-ego,  "that  things  actually  are  is  a  factor  in  my  knowl- 
edge of  them  which  springs  from  the  root  of  an  experience  with  myself  as  a  Will,  al 
once  active  and  inhibited,  as  an  agent  ami  yet  opposed  by  another."  The  ego  and 
the  non-ego  as  well  are  fundamentally  and  essentially  wUl.  "  Matter  must  be,  perse, 
Force.  But  this  is  .  .  .  to  be  a  Will"  (439).  We  know  nothing  of  the  atom  apart  from 
its  force  ( 442 ).  Ladd  quotes  from  <  1 .  E.  Bailey:  "The  life-principle,  varying  only  in 
degree,  is  omnipresent.  There  is  but  one  indivisible  and  absolute  Omniscience  and 
Intelligence,  and  this  thrills  through  every  atom  of  the  whole  Cosmos  "  ( 446).  "  Science 
has  only  made  the  Substrate  of  material  things  more  and  more  completely  self-like  " 
( 449 ).  Spirit  is  the  true  and  essential  Being  of  what  is  called  Nature  (  172 ).  "  The  ulti- 
mate Being  of  the  world  is  a  self-conscious  Mind  and  Will,  which  is  the  Ground  of  all 
objects  made  known  in  human  experience  "  (550). 

On  classification  of  attributes,  see  Luthardt,  Compendium,  71 ;  Rothe,  Dogmatik,  71  ; 
Kalmis,  Dogmatik,  o  :  162;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1  :  47,  52,  KM.  On  the 
general  subject,  see  Charnock,  Attributes ;  Bruce,  Eigeuschaf  tslehre. 

V.     Absolute  ok  Immanent  Attributes. 

First  division. — Spirituality,  and  attributes  therein  involved. 

Lu  calling  spirituality  an  attribute  of  God,  we  mean,  not  that  we  are  jus- 
tified in  applying  to  the  divine  nature  the  adjective  "spiritual,"  but  that 
the  substantive  "  Spirit  "  describes  that  nature  ( John  4  :  24,  marg. — "God 
is  spirit";  Rom.  1  :20  —  "the  invisible  things  of  him";  1  Tim.  1  :17 — 
"incorruptible,  invisible";  Col.  1:15 — "the  invisible  God").  This 
implies,  negatively,  that  (a)  God  is  not  matter.  Spirit  is  not  a  refined 
form  of  matter  but  an  immaterial  substance,  invisible,  uncompounded, 
indestructible.  ( b )  God  is  not  dependent  upon  matter.  It  cannot  be 
shown  that  the  human  mind,  in  any  other  state  than  the  present,  is  depen- 


250  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

dent  for  consciousness  upon  its  connection  -with  a  physical   organism 
Much  less  is  it  true  that  God  is  dependent  upon  the  material  universe  as 
his  sensorium.     God  is  not  only  spirit,  but  he  is  pure  spirit.     He  is  not 
only  not  matter,  but  he  has  no  necessary  connection  with  matter  ( Luke 
24  :  39 —  "A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having  "  ). 

John  gives  us  the  three  characteristic  attributes  of  God  when  he  says  that  God  is 
"spirit,"  "light,"  "love"  (John  4: 24;  1  John  1:5;  4:8), — not  a  spirit,  a  light,  a  love.  LeConte,  in 
Koyce's  Conception  of  God,  45  —  "  God  is  spirit,  for  spirit  is  essential  Life  and  essential 
Energy,  and  essential  Love,  and  essential  Thought ;  in  a  word,  essential  Person."  Bie- 
dermann,  Dogmatik,  631 —  "  Das  Wesen  des  Geistes  als  des  reinen  Gegensatzes  zur  Mat- 
erie,  ist  das  reiiie  Sein,  das  in  sich  ist,  aber  nicht  da  tet."    Martineau,  Study,  2:366 — 

"  The  subjective  Ego  is  always  here,  as  opposed  to  all  else,  which  is  variously  the/re 

Without  local  relations,  therefore,  the  soul  is  inaccessible."  But,  Martineau  continues, 
"if  matter  be  but  centres  of  force,  all  the  soul  needs  may  be  centres  from  which  to 
act."  Romanes,  Mind  and  Motion,  34 — "Because  within  the  limits  of  human  experi- 
ence mind  is  only  known  as  associated  with  brain,  it  does  not  follow  that  mind  cannot 
exist  in  any  other  mode."  La  Place  swept  the  heavens  with  his  telescope,  but  could 
not  find  anywhere  a  God.  "  He  might  just  as  well,-'  says  President  Sawyer,  "  have 
swept  his  kitchen  with  a  broom."  Since  God  is  not  a  material  being,  he  cannot  be 
apprehended  by  any  physical  means. 

Those  passages  of  Scripture  which  seem  to  ascribe  to  God  the  posses- 
sion of  bodily  parts  and  organs,  as  eyes  and  hands,  are  to  be  regarded  as 
anthropomorphic  and  symbolic.  When  God  is  spoken  of  as  appearing  to 
the  patriarchs  and  walking  with  them,  the  passages  are  to  be  explained  as 
referring  to  God's  temporary  manifestations  of  himself  in  human  form  — 
manifestations  which  prefigured  the  final  tabernacling  of  the  Son  of  God 
in  human  flesh.  Side  by  side  with  these  anthropomorphic  expressions 
and  manifestations,  moreover,  are  specific  declarations  which  repress  any 
materializing  conceptions  of  God  ;  as,  for  example,  that  heaven  is  his  throne 
and  the  earth  his  footstool  (Is.  66  : 1),  and  that  the  heaven  of  heavens  can- 
not contain  him  ( 1  K  8  :  27). 

Ei.  33 :  18-20  declares  that  man  cannot  see  God  and  live ;  1  Cor.  2 : 7-16  intimates  that  with- 
out the  teaching  of  God's  Spirit  we  cannot  know  God;  all  this  teaches  that  God  is 
above  sensuous  perception,  in  other  words,  that  he  is  not  a  material  being.  The  second 
command  of  the  decalogue  does  not  condemn  sculpture  and  painting,  but  only  the 
making  of  images  of  God.  It  forbids  our  conceiving  God  after  the  likeness  of  a  thing, 
but  it  does  not  forbid  our  conceiving  God  after  the  likeness  of  our  inward  self,  i.  e.,  as 
personal.  This  again  shows  that  God  is  a  spiritual  being.  Imagination  can  be  used  in 
religion,  and  great  help  can  be  derived  from  it.  Yet  we  do  not  know  God  by  imagina- 
tion,—imagination  only  helps  us  vividly  to  realize  the  presence  of  the  God  whom  we 
already  know.  We  may  almost  say  that  some  men  have  not  imagination  enough  to  be 
religious.  Hut  imagination  must  not  lose  its  wings.  In  its  representations  of  God, 
it  must  not  be  confined  to  a  picture,  or  a  form,  or  a  place.  Humanity  tends  too  much 
to  rest  in  the  material  and  the  sensuous,  and  we  must  avoid  all  representations  of  God 
which  would  identify  the  Being  who  is  worshiped  with  the  helps  used  in  order  to  real- 
ize his  presence ;  John  4  :  24  —  "  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  in  spirit  and  truth." 

An  Egyptian  Hymn  to  the  Nile,  dating  from  the  19th  dynasty  ( 14th  century  B.  C), 
contains  these  words :  "  His  abode  is  not  known ;  no  shrine  is  found  with  painted  fig- 
ures :  there  is  no  building  that  can  contain  him  "  ( Cheyne,  Isaiah,  2 :  120 ).  The  repudi 
ation  of  images  among  the  ancient  Persians  ( Herod.  1 :131 ),  as  among  the  Japanese 
Shintos,  indicates  the  remains  of  a  primitive  spiritual  religion.  The  representation  of 
Jehovah  with  body  or  form  degrades  him  to  the  level  of  heathen  gods.  Pictures  of  the 
Almighty  over  the  chancels  of  Romanist  cathedrals  confine  the  mind  and  degrade  the 
conception  of  the  worshiper.  We  may  use  imagination  in  prayer,  picturing  God  as  a 
benignant  form  holding  out  arms  of  mercy,  but  we  should  regard  such  pictures  only 
as  scaffolding  for  the  building  of  our  edifice  of  worship,  while  we  recognize,  with  the 
Scripture,  that  the  reality  worshiped  is  immaterial  and  spiritual.    Otherwise  our  idea  of 


ABSOLUTE   OR    IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  251 

God  is  brought  down  to  the  low  level  of  man's  material  being.  Even  man's  spiritual 
nature  may  be  misrepresented  by  physical  images,  as  when  mediaeval  artists  pictured 
death,  by  painting  a  doll-like  figure  leaving  the  body  at  the  mouth  of  the  person  dying. 
The  longing  for  a  tangible,  incarnate  Hod  meets  its  satisfaction  in  Jesus  Christ.  Yet 
even  pictures  of  Christ  soon  lose  their  power.  Luther  said :  "  If  I  have  a  picture  of 
Christ  in  my  heart,  why  not  one  upon  canvas?"  We  answer:  Because  the  picture  iu 
the  heart  is  capable  of  change  and  improvement,  as  we  ourselves  change  and  improve; 
the  picture  upon  canvas  is  fixed,  and  holds  to  old  conceptions  which  we  should  out- 
grow. Thomas  Carlyle :  "Men  never  think  of  painting  the  face  of  Christ,  till  they  lose 
the  impression  of  him  upon  their  hearts."  Swedenborg,  in  modern  times,  represents 
the  view  that  God  exists  in  the  shape  of  a  man—  an  anthropomorphism  of  which  the 
making  of  idols  is  only  a  grosser  and  more  barbarous  form ;  see  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of 
Theology,  9, 10.  This  is  also  the  doctrine  of  Mormonism;  see  Spencer,  Catechism  of 
Latter  Day  Saints.  The  Mormons  teach  that  God  is  a  man ;  that  he  has  numerous  wives 
by  whom  he  peoples  space  withan  infinite  number  of  spirits.  Christ  was  a  favorite  son 
by  a  favorite  wife,  but  birth  as  man  was  the  only  way  he  could  come  into  the  enjoy- 
nent  of  real  life.  These  spirits  are  all  the  suns  of  God,  but  they  can  realize  and  enjoy 
their  sonship  only  through  birth,  'liny  arc  about  every  one  of  us  pleading  to  be  born. 
Hence,  polygamy. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  positive  import  of  the  term  Spirit.  The 
spirituality  of  God  involves  the  two  attributes  of  Life  and  Personality. 

1.     Life. 

The  Scriptures  represent  God  as  the  living  God. 

Jt.  10:10  —  "He  is  the  living  God";  1  Thess.  1  :9  —  "turned  unto  God  from  idols,  to  serve  a  living  and  true 
God  ";  John  5  :  26  —  "hath  life  in  himself  "  ;  r/.  14:6 — "lam  .  .  .  the  life,"  and  H'h.  7:16 — "  the  power  of  an 
endless  life  "  ;  Rev.  11 :  11  —  "  the  Spirit  of  life." 

Life  is  a  simple  idea,  and  is  incapable  of  real  definition.  We  know  it, 
however,  in  ourselves,  and  we  can  perceive  tbe  insufficiency  or  inconsist- 
ency of  certain  current  definitions  of  it.     We  cannot  regard  life  in  God  as 

(a)  Mere  process,  without  a  subject;  for  we  cannot  conceive  of  a 
divine  life  without  a  God  to  live  it. 

Fergus  Lewes,  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,  1:10—  "Life  and  mind  are  processes; 
neither  is  a  substance ;  neither  is  a  force ;  .  .  .  the  name  given  to  the  whole  group  ot 
phenomena  becomes  the  personification  of  the  phenomena,  and  the  product  is  supposed 
to  have  been  the  producer."  Here  we  have  a  product  without  any  producer — a  series 
of  phenomena  without  any  substance  of  which  they  are  manifestations.  In  a  similar 
manner  we  read  in  Dewey,  Psychology,  347-  "  Self  is  an  activity.  It  is  not  something 
which  acts;  it  is  activity.  .  .  .  It  is  constituted  by  activities.  .  .  .  Through  its  activity 
the  soul  is."  Here  it  dors  not  appear  how  there  can  be  activity,  without  any  subject 
or  being  that  is  active.  The  inconsistency  of  this  view  is  manifest  when  l)eweygoes 
on  to  say:  "The  activity  may  further  or  develop  the  self,'' and  when  he  speaks  of 
"  the  organic  activity  of  the  self."  Sc  Dr.  Burdi  >n  Sanderson  :  "  Life  is  a  state  of  cease- 
less change, —  a  state  of  change  with  permanence  ;  living  matter  ever  chaises  while  it 
is  ever  the  same."  "  Plus  ca  change,  plusc'  est  la  meme  chose."  But  this  permanent 
thing  in  the  midst  of  change  is  the  subject,  the  self,  the  being,  that  has  life. 

Nor  can  we  regard  life  as 

(  b  )  Mere  correspondence  with  outward  condition  and  environment ; 
for  this  would  render  impossible  a  life  of  God  before  the  existence  of  the 
universe. 

Versus  Herbert  Spencer,  Biology,  1:59-71 — "Life  is  the  definite  combination  of 
heterogeneous  changes,  both  simultaneous  and  successive,  in  correspondence  with 
external  coexistences  and  sequences."  Here  we  have,  at  best,  a  definition  of  physical 
and  finite  life ;  and  even  this  is  insufficient,  because  the  definition  recognizes  no  origi- 
nal source  of  activity  within,  but  only  a  power  of  reaction  in  response  to  stimulus 
from  without.    We  might  as  well  say  that  the  boiling  tea-kettle  is  alive  (Mark  Hop- 


252  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

kins  ).  We  find  this  defect  also  in  Robert  Browning's  lines  in  The  Ring  and  the  Book 
(The  Pope,  1307) :  "  O  Thou— as  represented  here  to  me  In  such  conception  as  my 
soul  allows— Under  thy  measureless,  my  atom-width !  —  Man's  mind,  what  is  it  but  a 
convex  glass  Wherein  are  gathered  all  the  scattered  points  Picked  out  of  the  immen- 
sity of  sky,  To  reunite  there,  be  our  heaven  for  earth,  Our  known  Unknown,  our  God 
revealed  to  man  ?  "    Life  is  something  more  than  a  passive  receptivity. 

(  c  )  Life  is  rather  mental  energy,  or  energy  of  intellect,  affection,  and 
will.  God  is  tbe  living  God,  as  having  in  his  own  being  a  source  of  being 
and  activity,  both  for  himself  and  others. 

Life  means  energy,  activity,  movement.  Aristotle:  "Life  is  energy  of  mind." 
Wordsworth,  Excursion,  book  5:602—  "  Life  is  love  and  immortality,  The  Being  one, 
and  one  the  element.  .  .  .  Life,  I  repeat,  is  energy  of  love  Divine  or  human."  Prof. 
C.  L.  Herrick,  on  Critics  of  Ethical  Monism,  in  Denison  Quarterly,  Dec.  1896:  248  — 
"  Force  is  energy  under  resistance,  or  self-limited  energy,  for  all  parts  of  the  universe 
are  derived  from  the  energy.  Energy  manifesting  itself  under  self-conditioning  or 
differential  forms  is  force.  The  change  of  pure  energy  into  force  is  creation."  Prof. 
Herrick  quotes  from  S.  T.  Coleridge,  Anima  Poeta?  :  "  Space  is  the  name  for  God  ;  it  is 
the  most  perfect  image  of  soul — pure  soul  being  to  us  nothing  but  unresisted  action. 
Whenever  action  is  resisted,  limitation  begins  — and  limitation  is  the  first  constituent 
of  body ;  the  more  omnipresent  it  is  in  a  given  space,  the  more  that  space  is  body  or 
matter;  and  thus  all  body  presupposes  soul,  inasmuch  as  all  resistance  presupposes 
action."    Schelling :  "  Life  is  the  tendency  to  individualism." 

If  spirit  in  man  implies  life,  spirit  in  God  implies  endless  and  inexhaustible  life.  The 
total  life  of  the  universe  is  only  a  faint  image  of  that  moving  energy  which  we  call  the 
life  of  God.  Dewey,  Psychology,  253—  "  The  sense  of  being  alive  is  much  more  vivid 
in  childhood  than  afterwards.  Leigh  Hunt  says  that,  when  he  was  a  child,  the  sight  of 
certain  palings  painted  red  gave  him  keener  pleasure  than  any  experienceof  manhood." 
Matthew  Arnold  :  "Bliss  was  it  in  that  dawn  to  be  alive,  But  to  be  young  was  very 
heaven."  The  child's  delight  in  country  scenes,  and  our  intensified  perceptions  in  brain 
fever,  show  us  by  contrast  how  shallow  and  turbid  is  the  stream  of  our  ordinary  life. 
Tennyson,.Two  Voices :  "  'T  is  life,  whereof  our  nerves  are  scant,  Oh  life,  not  death,  for 
which  we  pant ;  More  life,  and  fuller,  that  we  want."  That  life  the  needy  human  spirit 
finds  only  in  the  infinite  God.  Instead  of  Tyndall's :  "  Matter  has  in  it  the  promise  and 
potency  of  every  form  of  life,"  we  accept  Sir  "William  Crookes's  dictum  :  "  Life  has  in 
it  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of  matter."  See  A.  H.  Strong,  on  The  Living 
God,  in  Philos.  and  Religion,  180-187. 

2.     Personality. 

The  Scriptures  represent  God  as  a  personal  being.  By  personality  we 
mean  the  power  of  self-consciousness  and  of  self-determination.  By  way 
of  further  explanation  we  remark  : 

(  a  )  Self-consciousness  is  more  than  consciousness.  This  last  the  brute 
may  be  supposed  to  possess,  since  the  brute  is  not  an  automaton.  Man  is 
distinguished  from  the  brute  by  his  power  to  objectify  self.  Man  is  not 
only  conscious  of  his  own  acts  and  states,  but  by  abstraction  and  reflection 
he  recognizes  the  self  which  is  the  subject  of  these  acts  and  states.  (  b ) 
Self-determination  is  more  than  determination.  The  brute  shows  determi- 
nation, but  his  determination  is  the  result  of  influences  from  without;  there 
is  no  inner  spontaneity.  Man,  by  virtue  of  his  free-will,  determines  his 
action  from  within.  He  determines  self  in  view  of  motives,  but  his  deter- 
mination is  not  caused  by  motives  ;  he  himself  is  the  cause. 

God,  as  personal,  is  in  the  highest  degree  self-conscious  and  self-deter- 
miuing.  The  rise  in  our  own  minds  of  the  idea  of  God,  as  persoual, 
depends  largely  upon  our  recognition  of  personality  in  ourselves.  Those 
who  deny  spirit  in  man  place  a  bar  in  the  way  of  the  recognition  of  this 
attribute  of  God. 


ABSOLUTE    OR    IMMANENT    ATTRIBUTES.  253 

Ei.  3 :  14— "And  God  said  unto  Moses,  I  AM  THAT  I  AM  :  and  he  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  God  is  not  the  everlasting  "  It  is,"  or  "  I  was,"  but  the 
everlasting  "  I  am  "  ( Morris,  Philosophy  and  Christianity,  128) ;  "  I  am  "  implies  both 
personality  and  presence.  1  Cor.  2:11  —  "  tin  things  of  God  none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God  "  ;  Eph.  1 : 9 
— "  good  pleasure  which  he  purposed  "  ;  11  — "  the  counsel  of  his  will."  Definitions  of  personality  are  the 
following:  Boethius — "Persona  est  animne  rationalis  individua  substantia "( quoted 
in  Dorner,  Glaubcnslehrc,  2  :  415).  p.  W.  Robertson,  Genesis  3  —  "  Personality  =  self- 
consciousness,  will,  character."  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  626—  "  Distinct  subsistence, 
either  actually  or  latently  self-conscious  and  self -determining."  Harris,  Philos.  Basis 
of  Theism:  Person  =  "  being,  conscious  of  self,  subsisting  in  individuality  and  identity, 
and  endowed  with  intuitive  reason,  rational  sensibility,  and  free-will."  See  Harris,  98, 
99,  quotation  from  Mansel  —  "The  freedom  of  the  will  is  so  far  from  being,  as  it  is 
generally  considered,  a  controvertible  question  in  philosophy,  that  it  is  the  fundamen- 
tal postulate  without  which  allaction  and  all  speculation,  philosophy  in  all  its  branches 
and  human  consciousness  itself,  would  be  impossible." 

One  of  the  most  astounding  announcements  in  all  literature  is  that  of  Matthew 
Arnold,  in  his  "  Literature  and  Dogma,"  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  recognize  in  God 
only  "the  power,  not  ourselves,  that  makes  for  righteousness  "  =  the  God  of  pantheism. 
The  "I  am"  of  Ei.  3:14  could  hardly  have  been  s<>  misunderstood,  If  Matthew  Arnold  had 
not  lost  the  sense  of  his  own  personality  and  responsibility.  Prom  free-will  in  man  we 
rise  to  freedom  in  God  —  "  That  living  Will  that  shall  endure.  When  all  that  seems  shall 
suffer  shock."  Observe  that  personality  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  life  — the  power 
of  self-consciousness  and  self-determination  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  activity  —  in 
order  to  make  up  our  total  idea  of  God  as  Spirit.  Only  this  personality  of  God  gives 
proper  meaning  to  his  punishments  or  to  his  forgiveness.  See  Bib.  Sac,  April,  1884: 
217-233;  Eichhorn,  die  Persiinlichkeit  Gottes. 

Illingworth,  Divine  and  Human  Personality,  1 :  25,  shows  that  the  sense  of  personal- 
ity has  had  a  gradual  growt  h  ;  that  its  pre-Christian  recognition  was  imperfect ;  that  its 
final  definition  has  been  due  to  Christianity.  I  n  29-53,  he  notes  the  characteristics  of 
personality  as  reason,  love,  will.  The  brute  petce&vee  ;  only  the  man  apperceives,  i.  e., 
recognizes  his  perception  as  belonging  to  himself.  In  the  German  story,  Hrciiiuglein, 
the  three-eyed  child,  had  besides  her  natural  pair  of  eyes  one  other  to  see  what  the  pair 
did,  and  besides  her  natural  will  had  an  additional  will  to  set  the  first  to  going  right. 
On  consciousness  andsell'-consciousness,  see  Shcdd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :179-189—  "  In  con- 
sciousness the  object  is  another  substance  than  the  subject;  but.  in  scl ('-consciousness 
the  object  is  the  same  substance  as  the  subject."  Tennyson,  in  his  Palace  of  Art, speaks 
of  "the  abysmal  depths  of  personality."  We  do  not  fully  know  ourselves,  nor  yd  our 
relation  to  God.  Hut  the  divine  consciousness  embraces  the  whole  divine  content  of 
being :  "the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God  "  (1  Cor.  2: 10 ). 

We  are  not  fully  masters  of  ourselves.  Our  self-determination  is  as  limited  as  is 
our  self-consciousness.  But  the  divine  will  is  absolutely  without  hindrance;  God's 
activity  is  constant,  intense,  infinite ;  Job  23 :  13  — "  What  his  soul  desireth,  even  that  he  doeth  " ;  John  5 : 
17 — "My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work."  Self-knowledge  and  self-mastery  are  the 
dignity  of  man ;  they  are  also  the  dignity  of  God;  Tennyson:  "Self-reverence,  self- 
knowledge,  self-control,  These  three  lead  life  to  sovereign  power."  liobert  Browning, 
The  Last  Ride  Together :  "  What  act  proved  all  its  thought  had  been  ?  What  will  but 
felt  the  fleshly  screen  ?  "  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  6,  161,  216-255—  "  Per- 
haps the  root  of  personality  is  capacity  for  affection."  ....  Our  personality  is  incom- 
plete; we  reason  truly  only  with  God  helpiug;  our  love  in  higher  Love  endures;  we 
will  rightly,  only  as  God  works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do;  to  make  us  truly  ourselves  we 
need  an  infinite  Personality  to  supplement  and  energize  our  own ;  we  are  complete  only 
in  Christ  (Col.  2  :  9,  10  —  "In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  and  in  him  ye  are  made  full. ' 

Webb,  on  the  Idea  of  Personality  as  applied  to  God,  in  Jour.  Theol.  Studies,  2:50  — 
"  Self  knows  itself  and  what  is  not  itself  as  two,  just  because  both  alike  are  embraced 
within  the  unity  of  its  experience,  stand  out  against  this  background,  the  apprehen- 
sion of  which  is  the  very  essence  of  that  rationality  or  personality  which  distin- 
guishes us  from  the  lower  animals.  We  find  that  background,  God,  present  in  us,  or 
rather,  we  find  ourselves  preseut  in  it.  But  if  I  find  myself  present  in  it,  then  it,  as  more 
complete,  is  simply  more  personal  than  I.  Our  not-self  is  outside  of  us,  so  that  we  are 
finite  and  lonely,  but  God's  not-self  is  within  him,  so  that  there  is  a  mutual  inwardness 
of  love  and  insight  of  which  the  most  perfect  communion  among  men  is  only  a  faint 
symbol.  We  are  '  hermit-spirits,'  as  Keble  says,  and  we  come  to  union  with  others 
only  by  l-ealizing  our  union  with  God.    Personality  is  not  impenetrable  in  man,  for 


254  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

'in  Mm  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being'  (  ids  17:28  ),  and  'that  which  hath  been  made  is  life  in  him' 
( John  1 : 3,  i )."  Palmer,  Theologic  Definition,  39  — "That  which  hap  its  cause  without 
itself  is  a  thing,  while  that  which  has  its  cause  within  itself  is  a  person." 

Second  Division. — Infinity,  and  attributes  therein  involved. 

By  infinity  we  mean,  not  that  the  divine  nature  has  no  known  limits 
or  bounds,  but  that  it  has  no  limits  or  bounds.  That  which  has  simply  no 
known  limits  is  the  indefinite.  The  infinity  of  God  implies  that  he  is  in 
no  way  limited  by  the  universe  or  confined  to  the  universe  ;  he  is  tran- 
scendent as  well  as  immanent.  Transcendence,  however,  must  not  be  con- 
ceived as  freedom  from  merely  spatial  restrictions,  but  rather  as  unlimited 
resource,  of  which  God's  glory  is  the  expression. 

Ps.  145:3 — "his  greatness  is  unsearchable";  Job  11:7-9 — "  high  as  heaven  .  .  .  deeper  than  Sheol ";  Is.  66  : 1— 
"  Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  footstool "  ;  1 K.  8:27  —  "Heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain 
thee";  Rom.  11:33  —  "how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out. "  There  can  be  no 
infinite  number,  since  to  any  assignable  number  a  unit  can  be  added,  which  shows  that 
this  number  was  not  infinite  before.  There  can  be  no  infinite  universe,  because  an 
infinite  universe  is  conceivable  only  as  an  infinite  number  of  worlds  or  of  minds.  God 
himself  is  the  only  real  Infinite,  and  the  universe  is  but  the  finite  expression  or  symbol 
of  his  greatness. 

We  therefore  object  to  the  statement  of  Lotze,  Microcosm,  1:446  — "The  complete 
system,  grasped  in  its  totality,  offers  an  expression  of  the  whole  nature  of  the  One. 
....  The  Cause  makes  actual  existence  its  complete  manifestation."  In  a  similar  way 
Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  26,  173-178,  grants  infinity,  but  denies  transcendence :  "The 
infinite  Spirit  may  include  the  finite,  as  the  idea  of  a  single  organism  embraces  within  a 
single  life  a  plurality  of  members  and  functions.  .  .  .  The  world  is  the  expression  of 
an  ever  active  and  inexhaustible  will.  That  the  external  manifestation  is  as  boundless 
as  the  life  it  expresses,  science  makes  exceedingly  probable.  In  any  event,  we  have 
not  the  slightest  reason  to  contrast  the  finitude  of  the  world  with  the  infinity  of  God. 
....  If  the  natural  order  is  eternal  and  infinite,  as  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt,  it 
will  be  difficult  to  find  a  meaning  for  'beyond'  or  'before.'  Of  this  illimitable,  ever- 
existing  universe,  God  is  the  inner  ground  or  substance.  There  is  no  evidence,  neither 
does  any  religious  need  require  us  to  believe,  that  the  divine  Being  manifest  in  the 
universe  has  any  actual  or  possible  existence  elsewhere,  in  some  transcendent  sphere. 
....  The  divine  will  can  express  itself  only  as  it  docs,  because  no  other  expression 
would  reveal  what  it  is.    Of  such  a  will,  the  universe  is  the  eternal  expression." 

In  explanation  of  the  term  infinity,  we  may  notice  : 

( a  )  That  infinity  can  belong  to  but  one  Being,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
shared  with  the  universe.  Infinity  is  not  a  negative  but  a  positive  idea. 
It  does  not  take  its  rise  from  an  impotence  of  thought,  but  is  an  intuitive 
conviction  which  constitutes  the  basis  of  all  other  knowledge. 

See  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  651, 652,  and  this  Compendium,  pages  59-62.  Versus  Man- 
sel,  Proleg.  Logica,  chap.  1  —  "  Such  negative  notions  .  .  .  imply  at  once  an  attempt  to 
think,  and  a  failure  in  that  attempt."  On  the  contrary,  the  conception  of  the  Infinite 
is  perfectly  distinguishable  from  that  of  the  finite,  and  is  both  necessary  and  logically 
prior  to  that  of  the  finite.  This  is  not  true  of  our  idea  of  the  universe,  of  which  all  we 
know  is  finite  and  dependent.  We  therefore  regard  such  utterances  as  those  of  Lotze 
and  Schurman  above,  and  those  of  Chamberbn  and  Caird  below,  as  pantheistic  in  ten- 
dency, although  the  belief  of  these  writers  in  divine  and  human  personality  saves 
them  from  falling  into  other  errors  of  pantheism. 

Prof.  T.  C.  Chamberlin,  of  the  University  of  Chicago  :  "  It  is  not  sufficient  to  the 
modern  scientific  thought  to  think  of  a  Ruler  outside  of  the  universe,  nor  of  a  universe 
with  the  Ruler  outside.  A  supreme  Being  who  does  not  embrace  all  the  activities  and 
possibilities  and  potencies  of  the  universe  seems  something  less  than  the  supremest 
Being,  and  a  universe  with  a  Ruler  outside  seems  something  less  than  a  universe. 
And  therefore  the  thought  is  growing  on  the  minds  of  scientific  thinkers  that  the 
supreme  Being  is  the  universal  Being,  embracing  and  comprehending  all  things." 


ABSOLUTE   OR  IMMANENT    ATTRIBUTES.  255 

Caird,  Evolution  n.  Religion,  2 : 63  — " Religion,  if  it  would  continue  to  exist,  must 
combine  the  monotheistic  idea  with  that  which  it  has  often  regarded  as  iis  greatest 
enemy,  the  spirit  of  pantheism."  We  grant  in  reply  that  religion  must  appropriate 
the  element  of  truth  in  pantheism,  namely,  that  God  is  the  only  substance,  ground 
and  principle  of  being,  but  we  regard  it  as  fatal  to  religion  to  side  with  pantheism  in 
its  denials  of  God's  transcendence  and  of  God's  personality. 

(  b  )  That  the  infinity  of  God  does  not  involve  his  identity  with  'the  all, ' 
or  the  sum  of  existence,  nor  prevent  the  coexistence  of  derived  and  finite 
beings  to  which  he  bears  relation.  Infinity  implies  simply  that  God  exists 
in  no  necessary  relation  to  finite  things  or  beings,  and  that  whatever  limita- 
tion of  the  divine  nature  results  from  their  existence  is,  on  the  part  of  God, 
a  self-limitation. 

Ps.  113 :  5,  6  —  "  that,  humbleth  himself  to  behold  the  things  that  are  in  heaven  and  in  the  earth.' '  It  is 
involved  in  God's  infinity  that  there  should  be  no  barriers  to  his  self-limitation  in  crea- 
tion and  redemption  C  see  page 9,  P.).  Jacob  Boehme  said:  "  Cod  is  infinite,  for  God  is 
all."  But  this  is  to  make  God  all  imperfection,  as  well  as  all  perfection.  Harris, 
Philos.  Basis  Theism  :  "The  relation  of  the  absolute  to  the  finite  is  not  the  mathematical 
relation  of  a  total  to  its  parts,  but  it  is  a  dynamical  and  rational  relation."  Shedd, 
Dogin.  TheoL,  1  :  189-191  —  "  The  inliuite  is  not  the  total ;  '  the  all '  is  a  pseudo-infinite, 
and  to  assert  that  it  is  greater  than  the  simple  infinite  is  the  same  error  that  is  com- 
mitted in  mathematics  when  it  is  asserted  that  an  infinite  number  plus  a  vast  finite 
number  is  greater  than  the  simple  infinite."  Fullerton,  Conception  of  the  Infinite,  90  — 
"The  Infinite,  though  it  involves  unlimited  possibility  of  quantity,  is  not  itself  a  quan- 
titative but  rather  a  qualitative  conception."  Hovey,  Studies  of  Ethics  and  Religion, 
39-47  —  "  Any  number  of  finite  beings,  minds,  loves,  wills,  cannot  reveal  fully  an  infinite 
Being,  Mind,  Love,  Will.  God  must  be  transcendent  as  well  as  immanent  in  the  uni- 
verse, or  he  is  neither  infinite  nor  an  object  of  Bupreme  worship." 

Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  117—  "  Great  as  the  universe  is,  God  is  not  limited  to  it, 
wholly  absorbed  by  what  he  is  doing  in  it,  and  capable  of  doing  nothing  more.  God  in 
the  universe  is  not  like  the  life  of  the  tree  in  the  tree,  which  does  all  that  it  is  capable 
of  in  making  the  tree  what  it  is.  Cod  in  the  universe  is  rather  like  the  spirit  of  a  man 
in  his  body,  which  is  greater  than  his  body,  able  to  direct  his  body,  and  capable  of 
activities  in  which  his  body  has  no  share.  God  is  a  free  spirit,  personal,  self-directing, 
unexhausted  by  his  present  activities."  The  Persian  poet  said  truly:  "  The  world  is  a 
bud  from  his  bower  of  beauty;  the  sun  is  a  spark  from  the  light  of  hs  wisdom  ;  the 
sky  is  a  bubble  on  the  sea  of  his  power."  Faber:  "For  greatness  which  is  infinite 
makes  room  For  all  things  in  its  lap  to  lie.  We  should  be  crushed  by  a  magnificence 
Short  of  infinity.  We  share  in  what  is  infinite  ;  '  tis  ours,  For  we  and  it  alike  are  Thine. 
What  I  enjoy,  great  God,  by  right  of  Thee,  Is  more  than  doubly  mine." 

(e)  That  the  infinity  of  God  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  intensive,  rather 
than  as  extensive.  We  do  not  attribute  to  God  infinite  extension,  but 
rather  infinite  energy  of  spiritual  life.  That  which  acts  up  to  the  measure 
of  its  power  is  simply  natural  and  physical  force.  Man  rises  above  nature 
by  virtue  of  his  reserves  of  power.  But  in  God  the  reserve  is  infinite. 
There  is  a  transcendent  element  in  him,  which  no  self- revelation  exhausts, 
whether  creation  or  redemption,  whether  law  or  promise. 

Transcendence  is  not  mere  outsideness,—  it  is  rather  boundless  supply  within.  God  is 
not  infinite  by  virtue  of  existing  "extra  flammantia  moenia  mundi"  (Lucretius)  or 
of  filling  a  space  outside  of  space,  —  he  is  rather  infinite  by  being  the  pure  and  perfect 
Mind  that  passes  b  yond  all  phenomena  and  constitutes  the  ground  of  them.  The  for- 
mer conception  of  infinity  is  simply  supra-cosmic,  the  latter  alone  is  properly  tran- 
scendent ;  see  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  244.  "God  is  the  living  God,  and  has  not  yet 
spoken  his  last  word  on  any  subject "  ( G.  W.  Xorthrup ).  God's  life  "  operates  unspent." 
There  is  "ever  more  to  follow."  The  legend  stamped  with  the  Pillars  of  Hercules 
upon  th?  old  coins  of  Spain  was  Ne  plus  ultra  —  "Nothing  beyond,"  but  when  Colum- 
bus discovered  America  the  legend  was  fitly  changed  to  Plus  ultra  —  "  More  beyond. " 
So  the  motto  of  the  University  of  Rochester  is  Meliora  —  "  Better  things." 


356  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

Since  God's  infinite  resources  are  pledged  to  aid  us,  we  may,  as  Emerson  bids  us, 
"hitch  our  wagon  to  a  star,"  and  believe  in  progress.  Tennyson,  Locksley  Hall: 
"  Men,  my  brothers,  men  the  workers,  ever  reaping  something  new,  That  which  they 
have  done  but  earnest  of  the  things  that  they  shall  do."  Millet's  L'Angelus  is  a  wit- 
ness to  man's  need  of  God's  transcendence.  Millet's  aim  was  to  paint,  not  air  but 
prayer.  We  need  a  God  who  iz  not  confined  to  nature.  As  Moses  at  the  beginning  of 
his  ministry  cried,  "Show  me,  I  pray  thee,  thy  glory  "  ( Ex.  33 :  IS ),  so  we  need  marked  experiences 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life,  in  order  that  we  may  be  living  witnesses  to  the 
supernatural.  And  our  Lord  promises  such  manifestations  of  himself:  John  14:21  — "I 
will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  unto  him." 

Ps.  71 :  15  —  "  My  mouth  shall  tell  of  thy  righteousness,  And  of  thy  salvation  all  the  day ;  For  I  know  not  the  numbers 
thereof  "  =  it  is  infinite.  Ps.  89 : 2  —  "  Mercy  shall  be  built  up  forever"  =  evergrowing  manifestations 
and  cycles  of  fulfilment  — first  literal,  then  spiritual.  Ps.  113 :  4-6  —  "  Jehovah  is  high  above  all 
nations,  And  his  glory  above  the  heavens.  Who  is  like  unto  Jehovah  our  God,  That  hath  his  seat  on  high,  That 
humbleth  himself  [stoopeth  down]  to  behold  The  things  that  are  in  heaven  and  in  the  earth  ?  "  Mai.  2 :  15  — 
"did  he  not  make  one,  although  he  had  the  residue  of  the  Spirit?"  =  he  might  have  created  many  wives 
for  Adam,  though  he  did  actually  create  but  one.  In  this  "residue  of  the  Spirit,"  says  Cald- 
well, Cities  of  our  Faith,  3*0,  "there  yet  lies  latent— as  winds  lie  calm  in  the  air  of  a 
summer  noon,  as  heat  immense  lies  cold  and  hidden  in  the  mountains  of  coal— the 
blessing  and  the  life  of  nations,  the  infinite  enlargement  of  Zion." 

Is.  52  :  10  — "Jehovah  hath  made  bare  his  holy  arm  "  =  nature  does  not  exhaust  or  entomb  God  ; 
nature  is  the  mantle  in  which  he  commonly  reveals  himself ;  but  he  is  not  fettered  by 
the  robe  he  wears  — he  can  thrust  it  aside,  and  make  bare  his  arm  in  providential  inter- 
positions for  earthly  deliverance,  and  in  mighty  movements  of  history  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  sinner  and  for  the  setting  up  of  his  own  kingdom.  See  also  John  1 :  16  —  "  of 
his  fulness  we  all  received,  and  grace  for  grace"  =  "  Each  blessing  appropriated  became  the  foun- 
dation of  a  greater  blessing.  To  have  realized  and  used  one  measure  of  grace  was  to 
have  gained  a  larger  measure  in  exchange  for  it  xapiv  avrX  x°-p<-™<;  " ;  so  Westcott,  in 
Bib.  Com.,  in  loco.  Christ  can  ever  say  to  the  believer,  as  he  said  to  Nathanael  (John 
1 :  50  ) :  "  thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these." 

Because  God  Is  infinite,  he  can  love  each  believer  as  much  as  if  that  single  soul  were 
the  only  one  for  whom  he  had  to  care.  Both  in  providence  and  in  redemption  the 
whole  heart  of  God  is  busy  with  plans  for  the  interest  and  happiness  of  the  single 
Christian.  Threatenings  do  not  half  reveal  God,  nor  his  promises  half  express  the 
"eternal  weight  of  glory  "  (  2  Cor.  4  :  17).  Dante,  Paradiso,  19  :  40-63—  God  "  Could  not  upon  the 
universe  so  write  The  impress  of  his  power,  but  that  his  word  Must  still  be  left  in  dis- 
tance  in  Unite."    To  "  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Israel"  (Ps.  78:41  — marg.)  is  falsehood  as  well  as  sin. 

This  attribute  of  infinity,  or  of  transcendence,  qualities'  all  the  other  attributes,  and 
so  is  the  foundation  for  the  representations  of  majesty  and  glory  as  belonging  to  God 
(see  Ex.  33:18;  Ps.  19:1;  Is.  6:3;  Mat.  6:13;  Acts  7:  2;  Rom.  1:23;  9:23;  Heb.  1:3;  1  Pet.  4:14  ;  Rev.  21:23). 
Glory  is  not  itself  a  divine  attribute  ;  it  is  rather  a  result  — an  objective  result— of  the 
exercise  of  the  divine  attributes.  This  glory  exists  irrespective  of  the  revelation  and 
recognition  of  it  in  the  creation  (John  17  :  5).  Only  God  can  worthily  perceive  and  rev- 
erence his  own  glory.  He  does  all  for  his  own  glory.  All  religion  is  founded  on  the 
glory  of  God.  All  worship  is  the  result  of  this  immanent  quality  of  the  divine  nature. 
Kedney,  Christian  Doctrine,  1:300-373,  2:351,  apparently  conceives  of  the  divine 
glory  as  an  eternal  material  environment  of  God,  from  which  the  universe  is  fash- 
ioned. This  seems  to  contradict  both  the  spirituality  and  the  infinity  of  God.  God's 
infinity  implies  absolute  completeness  apart  from  anything  external  to  himself.  We 
proceed  therefore  to  consider  the  attributes  involved  in  infinity. 

Of  the  attributes  involved  in  Infinity,  we  mention  : 

1.    Self -existence. 

By  self-existence  we  mean 

(a)  That  God  is  "causa  sui,"  having  the  ground  of  his  existence  in  him- 
self. Every  being  must  have  the  ground  of  its  existence  either  in  or  out 
of  itself.  We  have  the  ground  of  our  existence  outside  of  us.  God  is  not 
thus  dependent.     He  is  a  se  ;  hence  we  speak  of  the  aseity  of  God. 


ABSOLUTE   OR   IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  257 

God's  self-existence  is  implied  in  the  name  "Jehovah"  (Ei.  6:3)  and  in  the  declaration 
"  I  am  that  I  am  "  v  Ei.  3:14 1,  both  of  which  signify  that  it  is  God's  nature  to  be.  Self- 
existence  is  certainly  incomprehensible  to  us,  yet  a  self-existent  person  is  no  greater 
mystery  than  a  self-existent  thing-,  suel^,  as  Herbert  Spencer  supposes  the  universe  to 
be ;  indeed  it  is  not  so  great  a  mystery,  for  it  is  easier  to  derive  matter  from  mind  than 
to  derive  mind  from  matter.  See  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  661.  Joh.  Angelus  Silesius : 
"  Gott  ist  das  was  Er  ist ;  Ich  was  Ich  durch  Ilui  bin ;  Doeh  keunst  du  Eiuen  wohl,  So 
kennst  du  mich  mid  Ihn."  Martineau,  Types,  1:302 — "A  cause  may  be  eternal,  but 
nothing  that  is  caused  can  be  so."  He  protests  against  the  phrase  "  causa  sui."  So 
Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  338,  objects  to  the  phrase  "  God  is  his  own  cause,"  because  God 
is  the  uncaused  Being.  But  when  we  speak  of  God  as  "causa  .ski,"  we  do  not  attribute 
to  him  beginning  of  existence.  The  phrase  means  rather  that  the  ground  of  his  exist- 
ence is  not  outside  of  himself,  but  that  he  himself  is  the  living  spring  of  all  energy 
and  of  all  being. 

But  lest  this  should  be  be  misconstrued,  we  add 

(  b )  That  G(  >d  exists  by  the  necessity  of  his  own  being.  It  is  his  nature 
to  be.  Hence  the  existence  of  God  is  not  a  contingent  but  a  necessary 
existeuce.     It  is  grounded,  not  in  his  volitions,  but  in  his  nature. 

Julius  Mtiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2:126,  130,170,  seems  to  hold  that  God  is  primarily 
will,  so  that  the  essence  of  God  is  his  act:  "  God'sessenee  does  not  precede  his  free- 
dom "  ;  "  if  the  essence  of  God  were  for  him  something  given,  something  already  pres- 
ent, the  question  'from  whence  it  was  given?'  could  not  be  evaded  ;  God'sessenee 
must  in  this  ease  have  its  origin  in  something  apart  from  him,  and  thus  the  true  con- 
ception of  God  would  be  entirely  swept  away."  But  this  implies  that  truth,  reason, 
love,  holiness,  equally  with  God's  essence,  are  all  products  of  will.  If  God's  essence, 
moreover,  were  Ins  act,  it  would  be  in  the  power  of  God  to  annihilate  himself.  Act 
presupposes  essence  ;  else  there  is  no  God  to  act.  The  will  by  which  God  exists,  and  in 
virtue  of  which  he  is  causa  sui,  is  there!  ore  not  will  in  the  sense  of  volition,  but  will  in 
the  sense  of  the  whole  movemort  of  his  active  lieing.  With  Midler's  view  Thoma- 
sius  and  Delitzsch  are  agreed.    For  refutation  of  it,  see  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  63. 

God's  essence  is  not  his  act,  not  only  because  this  would  imply  that  he  could  destroy 
himself,  but  also  because  before  willing  there  must  be  being.  Those  who  hold  God's 
essence  to  lie  simple  activity  are  Impelled  to  this  view  by  the  tear  of  postulating  some 
dead  thing  in  God  which  precedes  all  exercise  of  faculty.  So  Miller,  Evolution  of 
Love,  43  — "Perfect  action,  conscious  and  volitional,  is  the  highest  generalization, 
the  ultimate  unit,  the  unconditioned  nature,  of  infinite  Being";  i.  e.,  God's  nature 
is  subjective  action,  while  external  nature  is  his  objective  action.  A  better  statement, 
however,  is  that  of  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  170—  "  While  there  is  a  necessity  in  the 
soul,  it  becomes  controlling  only  through  freedom;  and  we  may  say  that  everyone 
must  constitute  himself  a  rational  soul.  .  .  .  This  is  absolutely  true  of  God." 

2.     Immutability. 

By  this  we  mean  that  the  nature,  attributes,  and  will  of  God  are  exempt 
from  all  chauge.  Season  teaches  us  that  no  change  is  possible  in  God, 
whether  of  increase  or  decrease,  progress  or  deterioration,  contraction  or 
development.  All  change  must  be  to  better  or  to  worse.  But  God  is 
absolute  perfection,  and  no  chauge  to  better  is  possible.  Change  to  worse 
would  be  equally  inconsistent  with  perfection.  No  cause  for  such  change 
exists,  either  outside  of  God  or  in  God  himself. 

Psalm  102  :  27  —  "  thou  art  the  same "  ;  Mai.  3:6  —  "I,  Jehovah,  change  not "  ;  James  1 :  17  —  "  with  whom  can  be 
no  variation,  neither  shadow  that  is  cast  by  turning."  Spenser,  Faerie  Queen,  Cantos  of  Mutability, 
8:2  —  "  Then  'gin  I  think  on  that  which  nature  sayde,  Of  that  same  time  when  no  more 
change  shall  be,  But  steadfast  rest  of  all  things,  firmly  stayed  Upon  the  pillours  of 
eternity ;  For  all  that  moveth  doth  in  change  delight,  But  henceforth  all  shall  rest 
eternally  With  him  that  is  the  God  of  Sabaoth  hight;  Oh  thou  great  Sabaoth  God, 
grant  me  that  Sabbath's  sight!  "  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  140,  defines  immutability 
as  "  the  constancy  and  continuity  of  the  divine  nature  which  exists  through  all  the 
divine  acts  as  their  law  and  source." 

17 


258         NATURE,  DECREES,  AN"I)  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

The  parages  of  Scripture  which  seem  at  first  sight  to  ascribe  change  to 
God  are  to  be  explained  in  one  of  three  ways  : 

(  a  )  As  illustrations  of  the  varied  methods  in  which  God  manifests  his 
immutable  truth  and  wisdom  in  creation. 

Mathematical  principles  receive  new  application  with  each  successive  stage  of  crea- 
tion. The  law  of  cohesion  gives  place  to  chemical  law,  and  chemistry  yields  to  vital 
forces,  but  through  all  these  changes  there  is  a  divine  truth  and  wisdom  which  is 
unchanging,  and  which  reduces  all  to  rational  order.  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christ- 
ianity, 2  :  140  —  "Immutability  is  not  stereotyped  sameness,  but  impossibility  of  devia- 
tion by  one  hair's  breadth  from  the  course  which  is  best.  A  man  of  great  force  of 
character  is  continuaDy  finding  new  occasions  for  the  manifestation  and  application 
of  moral  principle.  In  God  infinite  consistency  is  united  with  infinite  flexibility. 
There  is  no  iron-bound  impassibility,  but  i-athe<r  an  infinite  originality  in  him." 

(  b )  As  anthropomorphic  representations  of  the  revelation  of  God's 
unchanging  attributes  in  the  changing  circumstances  and  varying  moral 
conditions  of  creatures. 

Gen.  6 :  6  —  "it  repented  Jehovah  that  he  had  made  man "  —  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  5am. 
23  :  19  —  "  God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie  :  neither  the  son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent."  So  cf.  1  Sam.  15 ;  11 
with  15:  29.  God's  unchanging  holiness  requires  him  to  treat  the  wicked  differently 
from  the  righteous.  When  the  righteous  become  wicked,  his  treatment  of  them  must 
change.  The  sun  is  not  fickle  or  partial  because  it  melts  the  wax  but  hardens  the  clay, 
—  the  change  is  not  in  the  sun  but  in  the  objects  it  shines  upon.  The  change  in  God's 
treatment  of  men  is  described  anthropomorphically,  as  if  it  were  a  change  in  God  him- 
self,— other  passages  in  close  conjunction  with  the  first  being  given  to  correct  any  pos- 
sible misapprehension.  Threats  not  fulfilled,  as  in  Jonah  3:4, 10,  are  to  be  explained  by 
their  conditional  nature.  Hence  God's  immutability  itself  renders  it  certain  that  hia 
love  will  adapt  itself  to  every  varying  mood  and  condition  of  his  children,  so  as  to 
guide  their  steps,  sympathize  with  their  sorrows,  answer  their  prayers.  God  responds 
to  us  more  quickly  than  the  mother's  face  to  the  changing  moods  of  her  babe.  Godet,  in 
'J  he  Atonement,  338 — "  God  is  of  all  beings  the  most  delicately  and  infinitely  sensitive." 

God's  immutability  is  not  that  of  the  stone,  that  has  no  internal  experience,  but 
rather  that  of  the  column  of  mercury,  that  rises  and  falls  with  every  change  in  the 
temperature  of  the  surrounding  atmosphere.  When  a  man  bicycling  against  the  wind 
turns  about  ami  goes  with  the  wind  instead  of  going  against  it,  the  wind  seems  to 
change,  though  it  is  blowing  just  as  it  was  before.  The  sinner  struggles  against  the 
wind  of  prevenient  grace  until  he  seems  to  strike  against  a  stone  wall.  Regenera- 
tion is  God's  conquest  of  our  wills  by  his  power,  and  conversion  is  our  beginning  to 
turn  round  and  to  work  with  God  rather  than  against  God.  Now  we  move  without 
effort,  because  we  have  God  at  our  back;  Phil.  2:12, 13  — "work  out  your  own  salvation  ...  for 
it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you."  God  has  not  changed,  but  we  have  changed ;  John  3 : 8—  "  The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  will  ...  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Jacob's  first  wrestling  with  the 
Angel  was  the  picture  of  his  lifelong  self-will,  opposing  God ;  his  subsequent  wrest- 
ling in  prayer  was  the  picture  of  a  consecrated  will,  working  with  God  (Gen.  32:24-28). 
We  seem  to  conquer  God,  but  he  really  conquers  us.  He  seems  to  change,  but  it  is  we 
who  change  after  all. 

(  c )  As  describing  executions,  in  time,  of  purposes  eternally  existing  in 
the  mind  of  God.  Immutability  must  not  be  confounded  with  immobility. 
This  wotdd  deny  all  those  imperative  volitions  of  God  by  which  he  enters 
into  history,  The  Scriptures  assure  us  that  creation,  miracles,  incarnation, 
regeneration,  are  immediate  acts  of  God.  Immutability  is  consistent  with 
constant  activity  and  perfect  freedom. 

The  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  indicates  no  change  in  God's  plan;  it  is 
'•ather  the  execution  of  his  plan.  Christ's  coming  and  work  were  no  sudden  makesh:**, 
to  remedy  unforeseen  defects  in  the  Old  Testament  scheme :  Christ  came  rather  in  "  the 

fulness  of  the  time  "  ( Gal.  4 : 4 ),  to  fulfill  the  "  counsel "  of  God  (  Acts  2 :  23  ).    Gen.  8 : 1  —  "  God  remem- 
bered Noah  "=  interposed  by  special  act  for  Noah's  deliverance,  showed  that  he  remtm- 


ABSOLUTE   Oil    IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  259 

bered  Noah.  While  wo  change,  God  does  not.  There  is  no  fickleness  or  inconstancy  in 
hirn.  Where  we  once  found  him,  there  we  may  find  him  still,  as  Jacob  did  at  Bethel 
( Gen.  35  : 1,  6,  9 ).  Immutability  is  a  consolation  to  the  faithful,  1  >nt  a  terror  to  God's  ene- 
mies (  Mai.  3:6  —  "I,  Jehovah,  change  not ;  therefore*^,  0  sons  of  Jacob,  are  not  consumed  "  ;  Ps.  7  :  11  —  "a  God  that 
hath  indignation  every  day"  ).  It  is  consistent  with  constant  activity  in  nature  and  in  grace 
(John5':17 —  "My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work"  ;  Job  23:13, 14 — "heis  in  one  mind,  and  who  can 
turn  him?  ...  For  he  performeth  that  which  is  appointed  for  me:  and  many  such  things  are  with  him").  If 
God's  immutability  were  immobility,  we  could  not  worship  him,  any  more  than  the 
ancient  Greeks  were  able  to  worship  Fate.  Arthur  Hugh  Clough:  "  It  fortifies  my 
soul  to  know,  That,  though  I  perish,  Truth  is  so:  That,  howsoe'er  I  stray  and  range; 
Whate'er  I  do,  Thou  dost  not  change.  I  steadier  step  when  I  recall  That,  if  I  slip,  Thou 
dost  not  fall."  On  this  attribute  see  Charnock,  Attributes,  1 :  310-362 ;  Dorner,  Gesam- 
melte  Schriften,  188-377  ;  translated  in  Bib.  Sac,  1879 : 28-59,  309-883. 

3.     Unity. 

By  this  we  mean  (  a)  that  the  divine  nature  is  undivided  and  indivisible 
(  anus)  ;  and  (f>)  that  there  is  but  one  infinite  and  perfect  Spirit  (unicus). 

Deut.  6:4  —  "  Hear,  0  Israel :  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah  "  ;  Is.  44  :  6  —  "  besides  me  there  is  no  God  "  ; 
John  5:44  — "the  only  God";  17 : 3  —  "  the  only  true  God";  1  Cor.8:4—  "no  God  but  one";  1  Tim.  1: 17  — "the  only 
God  "  ;  6  :  15  — "  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate  " ;  Eph.  4 : 5,  6  —  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all."  When  we  read  in  Mason,  Faith  of  the 
Gospel,  25  —  "The  unity  of  God  is  not  numerical,  denying  the  existence  of  asecond  ;  it 
is  integral,  denying  the  possibility  of  division,"  we  reply  that  the  unity  of  God  is 
both, —  it  includes  both  the  numerical  and  the  integral  elements. 

Humboldt,  in  his  Cosmos,  has  pointed  out  that  the  unity  and  creative  agency  of  the 
heavenly  Father  have  Riven  unity  to  the  order  of  nature,  and  so  have  furnished  the 
impulse  to  modern  physical  science.  Our  faith  in  a  "  universe  "  rests  historically  upon 
the  demonstration  of  God's  unity  which  has  been  given  by  the  incarnal  ion  and  death 
of  Christ.  Tennyson,  In  Memoriam  :  "That  God  who  ever  lives  and  loves,  One  God,  one 
law,  one  element,  And  one  far  off  divine  (-vent  To  winch  the  whole  creation  moves." 
See  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  184-187.  Alexander  McLaren:  "The  heathen 
have  many  gods  because  they  have  no  one  that  satisfies  hungry  hearts  or  corresponds 
to  their  unconscious  ideals.  Completeness  is  not  reached  by  piecing  together  many 
fragments.  The  wise  merchantman  will  gladly  barter  a  sack  fall  of  *  goodly  pearls ' 
for  the  one  of  great  price.  Happy  they  who  turn  away  from  the  many  to  embrace 
the  one!" 

Against  polytheism,  tritheism,  or  dualism,  we  may  urge  that  the  notion 
of  two  or  more  Gods  is  self-contradictory  ;  since  each  limits  the  other  and 
destroys  his  godhood.  In  the  nature  of  things,  infinity  and  absolute  per- 
fection are  possible  only  to  one.  It  is  unphilosophical,  moreover,  to 
assume  the  existence  of  two  or  more  Gods,  when  one  will  explain  all  the 
facts.  The  unity  of  God  is,  however,  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  ;  for,  while  this  doctrine  holds  to  the  existence  of 
hypostatical,  or  personal,  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature,  it  also  holds 
that  this  divine  nature  is  numerically  and  eternally  one. 

Polytheism  is  man's  attempt  to  rid  himself  of  the  notion  of  responsibility  to  one 
moral  Lawgiver  and  Judge  by  dividing  up  his  manifestations,  and  attributing  them 
to  separate  wills.  So  Force,  in  the  terminology  of  some  modern  theorizers,  is  only- 
God  with  his  moral  attributes  left  out.  "  Henotheism"  (says  Max  Midler,  Origin  and 
Growth  of  Religion,  285)  "conceives  of  each  individual  god  as  unlimited  by  the  power 
of  other  gods.  Each  is  felt,  at  the  time,  as  supreme  and  absolute,  notwithstanding  the 
limitations  which  to  our  minds  must  arise  from  his  power  being  conditioned  by  the 
power  of  all  the  gods." 

Even  polytheism  cannot  rest  in  the  doctrine  of  many  gods,  as  an  exclusive  and  all- 
comprehending  explanation  of  the  universe.  The  Greeks  believed  in  one  supreme 
Fate  that  ruled  both  gods  and  men.  Aristotle  :  "  God,  though  he  is  one,  has  many 
names,  because  he  is  called  according  to  states  into  which  he  is  ever  entering  anew.'' 
The  doctrine  of  God's  unity  should  teach  men  to  give  up  hope  of  any  other  God,  to 


260  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF  GOD. 

reveal  himself  to  them  or  to  save  them.  They  are  In  the  hands  of  the  one  and  only 
God,  and  therefore  there  is  hut  one  law,  one  gospel,  one  salvation ;  one  doctrine,  one 
duty,  one  destiny.  We  cannot  rid  ourselves  of  responsibility  by  calling  ourselves 
mere  congeries  of  impressions  or  mere  victims  of  circumstance.  As  God  is  one,  so 
the  soul  made  in  God's  image  is  one  also.  On  the  origin  of  polytheism,  see  articles  by 
Tholuck,  in  Bib.  Repos.,  2:84,  246,  441,  and  Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Religion,  124. 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  83  — "The  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning 
and  end  and  sum  and  meaning  of  Being,  is  but  One.  We  who  believe  in  a  personal 
God  do  not  believe  in  a  limited  God.  We  do  not  mean  one  more,  a  bigger  specimen  of 
existences,  amongst  existences.  Rather,  we  mean  that  the  reality  of  existence  itself 
is  personal:  that  Power,  that  Law,  that  Life,  that  Thought,  that  Love,  are  ultimately, 
in  their  very  reality,  identified  in  one  supreme,  and  that  necessarily  a  personal  Exist- 
ence. Now  such  supreme  Being  cannot  be  multiplied  :  it  is  incapable  of  a  plural :  it 
cannot  be  a  generic  term.  There  cannot  be  more  than  one  all-inclusive,  more  than 
one  ultimate,  more  than  one  God.  Nor  has  Christian  thought,  at  any  point,  for  any 
moment,  dared  or  endured  the  least  approach  to  such  a  thought  or  phrase  as  'two 
Gods.'  If  the  Father  is  God,  and  the  Son  God,  they  are  both  the  same  God  wholly, 
unreservedly.  God  is  a  particular,  an  unique,  not  a  general,  term.  Each  is  not  only 
God,  but  is  the  very  same  'singularis  unicus  et  totus  Deus.'  They  are  not  both  gener- 
ically  God,  as  though  'God'  could  be  an  attribute  or  predicate;  but  both  identically 
God,  the  God,  the  one  all-inclusive,  indivisible,  God.  ...  If  the  thought  that  wishes 
to  be  orthodox  had  less  tendency  to  become  tritheistic,  the  thought  that  claims  to  be 
free  would  be  less  Unitarian." 

Third  Division.  —  Perfection,  and  attributes  therein  involved. 

By  perfection  we  mean,  not  mere  quantitative  completeness,  but  qualita- 
tive excellence.  The  attributes  involved  in  perfection  are  moral  attributes. 
Right  action  among  men  presupposes  a  perfect  moral  organization,  a  nor- 
mal state  of  intellect,  affection  and  will.  So  God's  activity  presupposes  a 
principle  of  intelligence,  of  affection,  of  volition,  in  bis  inmost  being,  and 
the  existence  of  a  worthy  object  for  each  of  these  powers  of  his  nature. 
But  in  eternity  past  there  is  nothing  existing  outside  or  apart  from  God. 
He  must  find,  and  he  does  find,  the  sufficient  object  of  intellect,  affection, 
and  will,  in  himself.  There  is  a  self-knowing,  a  self-loving,  a  self-willing, 
which  constitute  his  absolute  perfection.  The  consideration  of  the  imma- 
nent attributes  is,  therefore,  properly  concluded  with  an  account  of  that 
truth,  love,  and  holiness,  which  render  God  entirely  sufficient  to  himself. 

Mat.  5:48  — "Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect";  Rom.  12:2 — "perfect  will 
»fGod";  Col.  1 :  28  —  "  perfect  in  Christ";  cf.  Deut.  32:4  — "The  Rock,  his  work  is  perfect";  Ps.  18:30  — "As 
for  God,  his  way  is  perfect." 

1.     Truth. 

By  truth  we  mean  that  attribute  of  the  divine  nature  in  virtue  of  which 
God's  being  and  God's  knowledge  eternally  conform  to  each  other. 

In  further  explanation  we  remark  : 

A.     Negatively  : 

(a)  The  immanent  truth  of  God  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  that 
veracity  and  faithfulness  which  partially  manifest  it  to  creatures.  These 
are  transitive  truth,  and  the^  presuppose  the  absolute  and  immanent 
attribute. 

Deut.  32:4 —  "A  God  of  faithfulness  and  without  iniquity,  Just  and  right  is  he  "  ;  John  17:3  —  "the  only  true  God" 
(aAi)&iv6v);    1  John  5  :  20  —  "we  know  him  that  is  true"  ( ibv  a\r)&iv6v).    In  both  these  passages 
iArj^ii/ds  describes  God  as  the  genuine,  the  real,  as  distinguished  from  dA.T)#rjs,  the  vera- 
cious (compare  John6:32 — "the  true  bread";  Heb.  8:2 — "the  true  tabernacle  "  ).    John  14:6  —  "I  am 
.  .  .  the  truth."    As  "I  am  ...  the  life"  signifies,  not  "I  am  the  living  one,"  but  rather  "1 


ABSOLUTE   OR   IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  261 

am  he  who  is  life  and  the  source  of  life,"  so  "  I  am  .  .  .  the  truth  "  signifies,  not  "  I  am  the 
truthful  one,"  but  "I  am  he  who  is  truth  and  the  source  of  truth"  —  in  other  words, 
truth  of  being,  not  merely  truth  of  expression.  So  1  John  5:7  —  "the  Spirit  is  the  truth.'' 
('/.  1  Esdras  1 :  38 — "The  truth  abideth  Vlnd  is  forever  strong-,  and  it  Wveth  and  ruleth 
forever  "  =  personal  truth  ?    See  Godet  on  John  1:18;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  181. 

Truth  is  God  perfectly  revealed  and  known.  It  may  be  likened  to  the  electric  cur- 
rent which  manifests  and  measures  the  power  of  the  dynamo.  There  is  no  realm  of 
truth  apart  from  the  world-ground,  just  as  there  is  no  law  of  nature  that  is  independent 
of  the  Author  of  nature.  While  we  know  ourselves  only  partially,  God  knows  himself 
fully.  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1  :l!i2 —  "In  the  life  of  God  there  are 
no  unrealized  possibilities.  The  presupposition  of  all  our  knowledge  and  activity  is 
that  absolute  and  eternal  unity  of  knowing  and  being  which  is  only  another  expression 
for  the  nature  of  God.  In  one  sense,  he  is  all  reality,  and  the  only  reality,  whilst  all 
finite  existence  is  but  a  becoming,  which  never  la."  Lowrie,  Doctrine  of  St.  John, 
57-63  —  "Truth  is  reality  revealed.  Jesus  is  the  Truth,  l>ecause  in  him  the  sum  of  the 
qualities  hidden  in  God  is  presented  and  revealed  to  the  world,  God's  nature  in  terms 
of  an  active  force  and  in  relation  to  his  rational  creation."  This  definition  ho wc\  er 
ignores  the  fact  that  God  is  truth,  apart  from  and  before  all  creation.  As  an  imma- 
nent attribute,  truth  implies  a  conformity  of  God's  knowledge  to  God's  being,  which 
antedates  the  universe ;  see  B.  ( h )  below. 

(  b  )  Truth  in  God  is  not  a  merely  active  attribute  of  the  divine  nature. 
God  is  truth,  not  only  in  the  sense  that  he  is  the  being  who  truly  knows, 
but  also  in  the  sense  that  he  is  the  truth  that  is  known.  The  passive  ore- 
cedes  the  active  ;  truth  of  being  precedes  truth  of  knowing. 

Plato:  "  Truth  is  his  I  (iod's)  bo<ly.  and  light  his  shadow."  Holla/.  (  u noted  in  Thoma- 
sius,  (  hristi  Person  unci  Werk,  1:137)  says  that  "  truth  is  the  conformity  of  .the  divine 
essence  with  the  divine  intellect."  See  Gerhard,  loc.  ii:152;  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  2 :  272, 
879;  3:193 —  "Distinguish  In  God  the  personal  self-consciousness  [spirituality, person- 
ality—see  pages  352, 253  J  iron  i  the  unfolding  of  this  in  the  divine  knowledge,  which  can 
have  no  other  object  but  God  himself.  So  far,  now,  as  self -knowing  in  God  is  abso- 
lutely identical  with  his  being  is  he  the  absolutely  true.  For  truth  is  the  knowledge 
which  answers  to  the  being,  and  the  being  which  answers  to  the  knowledge." 

Koyee,  World  and  Individual,  1  :270 — "Truth  either  may  mean  that  about  which 
we  judge,  or  it  may  mean  the  correspondence  between  our  ideas  and  their  objects." 
God's  truth  is  both  object  of  his  knowledge  and  knowledge  of  his  object.  Miss  Clara 
French,  The  Dramatic  Action  and  Motive  of  King  John:  "You  spell  Truth  with  a 
capital,  and  make  it  an  independent  existence  to  be  sought  for  and  absorbed;  but, 
unless  truth  is  God,  what  can  it  do  for  man  ?  It  is  only  a  personality  rhat  can  touch  a 
personality."  So  we  assent  to  the  poet's  declaration  that  "Truth,  crushed  to  earth, 
shall  rise  again,"  only  because  Truth  is  personal.  Christ,  the  Kevealer  of  God,  is  the 
Truth.  He  is  not  simply  the  medium  but  also  the  object  of  all  knowledge ;  Eph.  4:20  — 
"ye  did  not  so  learn  Christ"  =  ye  knew  more  than  the  doctrine  about  Christ, —  ye  knew  Christ 
himself ;  John  17:3  —  "  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou 
d.dst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ." 

B.      Positively : 

(a)  All  truth  among  men,  whether  mathematical,  logical,  moral,  or 
religious,  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  its  foundation  in  this  immanent  truth 
of  the  divine  nature  and  as  disclosing  facts  in  the  being  of  God. 

There  is  a  higher  Mind  than  our  mind.  No  apostle  can  say  "  I  am  the  truth,"  though 
each  of  them  can  say  "I  speak  the  truth."  Truth  is  not  a  scientific  or  moral,  but  a 
substantial,  thing  —  "  nicht  Schulsache,  sondcrn  Lebenssache."  Here  is  the  dignity  of 
education,  that  knowledge  of  truth  is  knowledge  of  God.  The  lawsof  mathematics  are 
disclosures  to  us,  not  of  the  divine  reason  merely,  for  this  would  imply  truth  outside 
of  and  before  God,  but  of  the  divine  nature.  J.  W.  A.  Stewart :  "Science  is  possible 
because  God  is  scientific."  Plato:  "God  geometrizes."  Bowne:  "The  heavens  are 
erystalized  mathematics."  The  statement  that  two  and  two  make  four,  or  that  virtue 
is  commendable  and  vice  condemnable,  expresses  an  everlasting  principle  in  the  being 
of  God.  Separate  statements  of  truth  are  inexplicable  apart  from  the  total  revelation 
of  truth,  and  this  total  revelation  is  inexplicable  apart  from  One  who  is  truth  and  who 


2G2  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS    OF   GOD. 

is  thus  revealed.  The  separate  electric  lights  in  our  streets  are  inexplicable  apart 
from  the  electric  current  which  throbs  through  the  wires,  and  this  electric  current  is 
itself  inexplicable  apart  from  the  hidden  dynamo  whose  power  it  exactly  expresses 
and  measures.  The  separate  lights  of  truth  are  due  to  the  realizing  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  the  one  unifying  current  which  they  partially  reveal  is  the  outgoing 
work  of  Christ,  the  divine  Logos ;  Christ  is  the  one  and  only  Uevealer  of  him  who 
dwells  "  in  light  unapproachable  ;  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see  "  (1  Tim.  6  :  16 ). 

Prof.  H.  E.  Webster  began  his  lectures  "  by  assuming  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
multiplication-table."  But  this  was  tautology,  because  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Truth, 
the  only  revealer  of  God,  includes  the  multiplication-table.  So  Weudt,  Teaching  of 
Jesus,  1:257;  2:202,  unduly  narrows  the  scope  of  Christ's  revelation  when  he  main- 
tains that  with  Jesus  truth  is  not  the  truth  which  corresponds  to  reality  but  rather  the 
right  conduct  which  corresponds  to  the  duty  prescribed  by  God.  "Grace  and  truth"  (John 
1:17)  then  means  the  favor  of  God  and  the  righteousness  which  God  approves.  To 
understand  Jesus  is  impossible  without  being  ethically  like  him.  He  is  king  of  truth, 
in  that  he  reveals  this  righteousness,  and  finds  obedience  for  it  among  men.  This 
ethical  aspect  of  the  truth,  we  would  reply,  important  as  it  is,  does  not  exclude  but 
rather  requires  for  Its  complement  and  presupposition  that  other  aspect  of  the  truth 
as  the  reality  to  which  all  being  must  conform  and  the  conformity  of  all  being  to  that 
reality.  Since  Christ  is  the  truth  of  God,  we  are  successful  in  our  search  for  truth 
only  as  we  recognize  him.  Whether  all  roads  lead  to  Rome  depends  upon  which  way 
your  face  is  turned.  Follow  a  point,  of  land  out  into  the  sea,  and  you  find  only  ocean. 
With  the  back  turned  upon  Jesus  Christ  all  following  after  truth  leads  only  into  mist 
and  darkness.  Aristotle's  ideal  man  was  "a  hunter  after  truth."  But  truth  can 
never  be  found  disjoined  from  love,  nor  can  the  loveless  seeker  discern  it.  "  For  the 
loving  worm  within  its  clod  Were  diviner  than  a  loveless  God  "  (  Robert  Browning). 
Hence  Christ  can  say  :    John  18 .-  37 —  "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice." 

(6)  This  attribute  therefore  constitutes  the  principle  and  guarantee  of 
all  revelation,  while  it  shows  the  possibility  of  an  eternal  divine  self- 
contemplation  apart  from  and  before  all  creation.  It  is  to  be  understood 
only  in  the  light  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

To  all  this  doctrine,  however,  a  great  school  of  philosophers  have  opposed  them- 
selves. Duns  Scotus  held  that  God's  will  made  truth  as  well  as  right.  Descartes  said 
that  God  could  have  made  it  untrue  that  the  radii  of  a  circle  are  all  equal.  Lord  Bacon 
said  that  Adam's  sin  consisted  in  seeking  a  good  in  itself,  instead  of  being  content  with 
the  merely  empirical  good.  Whedon,  On  the  Will,  316 — "  Infinite  wisdom  and  infinite 
holiness  consist  in,  and  result  from,  God's  volitions  eternally."  We  reply  that,  to  make 
truth  and  good  matters  of  mere  will,  instead  of  regarding  them  as  characteristics  of 
God's  being,  is  to  deny  that  anything  is  true  or  good  in  itself.  If  God  can  make  truth 
to  be  falsehood,  and  injustice  to  be  justice,  then  God  is  indifferent  to  truth  or  false- 
hood, to  good  or  evil,  and  he  ceases  thereby  to  be  God.  Truth  is  not  arbitrary, —  it  is 
matter  of  being  — the  being  of  God.  There  are  no  regulative  principles  of  knowl- 
edge, which  are  not  transcendental  also.  God  knows  and  wills  truth,  because  he  is 
truth.  Robert  Browning,  A  Soul's  Tragedy,  2H  —  "  Were  't  not  for  God,  I  mean,  what 
hope  of  truth  —  Speaking  truth,  hearing  truth  —  would  stay  with  Man?"  God's  will 
does  not  make  truth,  but  truth  rather  makes  God's  will.  God's  perfect  knowledge  in 
eternity  past  has  an  object.  That  object  must  be  himself.  He  is  the  truth  Known,  as 
well  as  the  truthful  Knower.  But  a  perfect  objective  must  be  personal.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  the  necessary  complement  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Attributes.  Shedd, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  183 —  "  The  pillar  of  cloud  becomes  a  pillar  of  fire."  See  A.  H.  Strong, 
Christ  in  Creation,  102-113. 

On  the  question  whether  it  is  ever  right  to  deceive,  see  Paine,  Ethnic  Trinities,  300-330. 
Plato  said  that  the  use  of  such  medicines  should  be  restricted  to  physicians.  The 
rulers  of  the  state  may  lie  for  the  public  good,  but  private  people  not :  "  officiosum 
mendacium."  It  is  better  to  say  that  deception  is  justifiable  only  where  the  person 
deceived  has,  like  a  wild  beast  or  a  criminal  or  an  enemy  in  war,  put  himself  out  of 
human  society  and  deprived  himself  of  the  right  to  truth.  Even  then  deception  is  a 
sad  necessity  which  witnesses  to  an  abnormal  condition  of  human  affairs.  With  Jame3 
Martineau,  when  asked  what  answer  he  would  give  to  an  intending  murderer  when 
truth  would  mean  death,  we  may  say  :  "I  suppose  I  should  tell  an  untruth,  and  then 
should  be  sorry  for  it  forever  after."  On  truth  as  an  attribute  of  God,  see  Bib.  Sac, 
Oct.  1877  :  735 ;    Finney,  Syst.  Theol.,  6C1  ;  Janet,  Final  (  au  3es,  OS, 


ABSOLUTE    OR    IMMAXENT   ATTRIBUTES.  263 

2.     Love. 

By  love  we  mean  that  attribute  of  the  divine  nature  in  virtue  of  which 
God  is  eternally  moved  to  self-conimunication. 

1  Johns  4:8  —  "God  is  love";  3:36 — "hereby  know  we  lore,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us";  John 
17 :  24  —  "  thou  lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  ;  Rom.  15 :  30  —  "  the  love  of  the  Spirit." 

In  further  explanation  we  remark  : 

A.     Negatively  : 

(  a )  The  immanent  love  of  God  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  mercy  and 
goodness  toward  creatures.  These  are  its  manifestations,  and  are  to  be 
denominated  transitive  love. 

Thomasius,  Christ]  Person  mill  Werk,  l ;  138,  139—"  Cud's  regard  for  the  happiness  of 
his  creatures  flows  from  this  self -communicating  attribute  of  his  nature.  Love,  in  the 
ferae  sense  of  the  word,  is  living  good-will,  with  impulses  to  importation  and  union ; 
self-communication  (bonumcommunicativumsui)  j  devotion,  merging  of  the  ego  in 
another.  In  Older  to  penetrate,  till,  bless  this  other  with  Itself,  and  in  this  other,  as  in 
another  self,  to  possess  Itself,  without  giving  up  itself  or  losing- itself.  Love  is  there- 
fore possible  only  between  persons,  and  always  presupposes  personality.  Only  as 
Trinity  has  God  love,  absolute  love ;  because  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  (J host  he  stands 
in  perfect  self-impartation,  self-devotion,  and  communion  with  himself."  Julius 
Miiller,  Doet.  Sin,  2  :  13<J  —  "  God  has  in  himself  the  eternal  and  wholly  adequate  object 
of  his  love,  independently  of  his  relation  to  the  world." 

In  i  he  Greek  mythology,  Eros  was  one  of  the  oldest  and  yet  one  of  the  youngest  of 
the  gods.  So  Dante  makes  the  oldest  angel  to  be  the  youngest,  because  nearest  to  God 
the  fountain  of  life.  In  1  John  2:7,  8,  "the  old  commandmont"  of  love  is  evermore  "a  new  command- 
ment," because  it  reflects  this  eternal  attribute  of  God.  "There  is  a  love  unstained  by 
selfishness,  Th'  outpouring-  tide  of  self-abandonment,  That  loves  to  love,  and  deems  its 
preciousness  Repaid  in  loving,  though  no  sentiment  Of  love  returned  reward  Its  sacra- 
ment;  Nor  stays  to  question  what  the  loved  one  will.  But  hymns  its  overture  with 
blessings  immanent;  Rapt  and  sublimed  by  love's  exalting  thrill.  Loves  on,  through 
frown  or  smile,  divine,  immortal  still."  Clara  Elizabeth  Ward:  "If  I  could  gather 
every  look  of  love.  That  ever  any  human  creature  wore,  And  all  the  looks  that  joy  is 
mother  of,  All  looks  of  grief  that  mortals  ever  bore,  And  mingle  all  with  God-begot- 
ten grace,  Methinks  that  I  should  see  the  Savior's  face." 

(b)    Love  is  not  the  all-inclusive  ethical  attribute  of  God.     It  does  nut 

include  truth,  nor  does  it  include  holiness. 

Liidd,  Philosophy  of  Conduct,  33%  very  properly  denies  that  benevolence  is  the  all- 
inclusive  virtue.  Justness  and  Truth,  he  remarks,  are  not  reducible  to  benevolence. 
In  a  review  of  Ladd's  work  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1903:  185,  C.  M.  Mead  adds:  "  He  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  is  impossible  to  resolve  all  the  virtues  into  the  generic  one  of 
lo\  e  or  benevolence  without  either  giving  a  definition  of  benevolence  which  is  unwar- 
ranted and  virtually  nullifies  the  end  aimed  at,  or  failing  to  recognize  certain  virtues 
which  are  as  genuinely  virtues  as  benevolence  itself.  Particularly  is  it  argued  that  the 
virtues  of  the  will  (courage,  constancy,  temperance),  and  the  virtues  of  judgment 
(wisdom,  justness,  trueness),  get  no  recognition  in  this  attempt  to  subsume  all  vir- 
tues under  the  one  virtue  of  love.  '  The  unity  of  the  virtues  is  due  to  the  unity  of  a 
personality,  in  active  and  varied  relations  with  other  persons'  (361).  If  benevolence 
means  wishing  happiness  to  all  men,  then  happiness  is  made  the  ultimate  good,  and 
euda-monism  is  accepted  as  the  true  ethical  philosophy.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
order  to  avoid  this  conclusion,  benevolence  is  made  to  mean  wishing  the  highest 
welfare  to  all  men,  and  the  highest  welfare  is  conceived  as  a  life  of  virtue,  then  we 
come  to  the  rather  inane  conclusion  that  the  essence  of  virtue  is  to  wish  that  men 
may  be  virtuous."    See  also  art.  by  Vos,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1892:  1-37. 

(  e )  Nor  is  God's  love  a  mere  regard  for  being  in  general,  irrespective 

of  its  moral  quality. 

Jonathan  Edwards,  in  his  treatise  On  the  Nature  of  Virtue,  defines  virtue  as  regard 
for  being  in  general.  He  considers  that  God's  love  is  first  of  all  directed  toward  him- 
self as  having  the  greatest  quantity  of  being,  and  only  secondarily  directed  toward 


264         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

his  creatures  whose  quantity  of  being  is  infinitesimal  as  compared  with  his.  But  we 
reply  that  being-  in  general  is  far  too  abstract  a  thing;  to  elicit  or  justify  love.  Charles 
Hodge  said  truly  that,  if  obligation  is  primarily  due  to  being-  in  g-eneral,  then  there 
is  no  more  virtue  in  loving  God  than  there  is  in  loving  Satan.  Virtue,  we  hold,  must 
consist,  not  in  love  for  being  in  general,  but  in  love  for  good  being,  that  is,  in  love  for 
God  as  holy.  Love  has  no  moral  value  except  as  it  is  placed  upon  a  right  object  and  is 
proportioned  to  the  worth  of  that  object.  "  Love  of  being  in  general"  makes  virtue 
an  irrational  thing,  because  it  has  no  standard  of  conduct.  Virtue  is  rather  the  love 
of  God  as  right  and  as  the  source  of  right. 

G.  S.  Lee,  The  Shadow-cross,  38 —  "  God  is  love,  and  law  is  the  way  he  loves  us.  But 
it  is  also  true  that  God  is  law,  and  love  is  the  way  he  rules  us."  Clarke,  Christian 
Theology,  88  —  "Love  is  God's  desire  to  impart  himself,  and  so  all  good,  to  other  per- 
sons, and  to  possess  them  for  his  own  spiritual  fellowship."  The  intent  to  communi- 
cate himself  is  the  intent  to  communicate  holiness,  and  this  is  the  "  terminus  ad 
quem  "  of  God's  administration.  Drummond,  in  his  Ascent  of  Man,  shows  that  Love 
began  with  the  first  cell  of  life.  Evolution  is  not  a  tale  of  battle,  but  a  love-story. 
We  gradually  pass  from  selflsm  to  otherism.  '  Evolution  is  the  object  of  nature,  and 
altruism  is  the  object  of  evolution.  Man  =- nutrition,  looking  to  his  own  things; 
Woman  —  reproduction,  looking  to  the  things  of  others.  But  the  greatest  of  these  is 
love.  The  mammalia  =  the  mothers,  last  and  highest,  care  for  others.  As  the  mother 
gives  love,  so  the  father  gives  righteousness.  Law,  once  a  latent  thing,  now  becomes 
active.  The  father  makes  a  sort  of  conscience  for  those  beneath  him.  Nature,  like 
Raphael,  is  producing  a  Holy  Family." 

Jacob  Boehme :  "  Throw  open  and  throw  out  thy  heart.  For  unless  thou  dost 
exercise  thy  heart,  and  the  love  of  thy  heart,  upon  every  man  in  the  world,  thy  self- 
love,  thy  pride,  thy  envy,  thy  distaste,  thy  dislike,  will  still  have  dominion  over  thee. 
....  In  the  name  and  in  the  strength  of  God,  love  all  men.  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self, and  do  to  thy  neighbor  as  thou  doest  to  thyself.  And  do  it  now.  For  now  is  Un- 
accepted time,  and  now  is  the  day  of  salvation."  These  expressions  are  scriptural  and 
valuable,  if  they  are  interpreted  ethically,  and  are  understood  to  inculcate  the  supreme 
duty  of  loving  the  Holy  One,  of  being  holy  as  he  is  holy,  and  of  seeking  to  bring  all 
intelligent  beings  into  conformity  with  his  holiness. 

(d)  God's  love  is  not  a  merely  emotional  affection,  proceeding  from 
sense  or  inipidse,  nor  is  it  prompted  by  utilitarian  considerations. 

Of  the  two  words  for  love  in  the  N.  T.,  <£iAe'a>  designates  an  emotional  affection, 
which  is  not  and  cannot  be  commanded  (John  11: 36 — "Behold  how  he  loved  him !"  ),  while  ayairdui 
expresses  a  rational  and  benevolent  affection  which  springs  from  deliberate  choice 
(John3:16 — "God  so  loved  the  world  "  ;  Mat.l9:19  —  "  Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  "  ;  5:44 — "Love 
your  enemies " ).  Thayer,  N.  T.  Lex.,  653  —  'Ayairav  "properly  denotes  a  love  founded  in 
admiration,  veneration,  esteem,  like  the  Lat.  diligere,  to  be  kindly  disposed  to  one, 
to  wish  one  well ;  but  <f>t\dv  denotes  an  inclination  prompted  by  sense  and  emotion, 
Lat.  amare.  .  .  .  Hence  men  are  said  ayairav  God,  not  fatelv."  In  this  word  0.7(17717, 
when  used  of  God,  it  is  already  implied  that  God  loves,  not  for  what  he  can  get,  but 
for  what  he  can  give.  The  rationality  of  his  love  involves  moreover  a  subordination 
of  the  emotional  element  to  a  higher  law  than  itself,  namely,  that  of  holiness.  Even 
God's  self-love  must  have  a  reason  and  norm  in  the  perfections  of  his  own  being. 

B.     Positively : 

( a )  The  immanent  love  of  God  is  a  rational  and  voluntary  affection, 
grounded  in  perfect  reason  and  deliberate  choice. 

Uitschl,  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  3  :  277 —  "  Love  is  will,  aiming  either  at  the 
appropriation  of  an  object,  or  at  the  enrichment  of  its  existence,  because  moved  by  a 
feeling  of  its  worth.  . . .  Love  is  to  persons;  it  is  a  constant  will ;  it  aims  at  the  promotion 
of  the  other's  personal  end,  whether  known  or  conjectured ;  it  takes  up  the  other's 
personal  end  and  makes  it  part  of  his  own.  Will,  as  love,  does  not  give  itself  up  for 
the  other's  sake ;  it  aims  at  closest  fellowship  with  the  other  for  a  common  end."  A.  H. 
Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  388-405  —  "Love  is  not  rightfully  independent  of  the  other 
faculties,  but  is  subject  to  regulation  and  control.  .  .  .  We  sometimes  say  that  religion 
consists  in  love.  ...  It  would  be  more  strictly  true  to  say  that  religion  consists  in  ;i 
new  direction  of  our  love,  a  turning  of  the  current  toward  God  which  once  flowed 


ABSOLUTE    OR    IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  265 

toward  self Christianity  rectifies  the  affections,  before  excessive,  impulsive,  law- 
less, gives  them  worthy  and  immortal  objects,  regulates  their  intensity  in  some  due 
proportion  to  the  1  alue  of  the  things  they  rest  upon,  and  teaches  the  true  methods  of 
their  manifestation.  In  true  religion  tove  forms  a  copartnership  with  reason.  .  .  . 
God's  love  is  no  arbitrary,  wild,  passionate  torrent  of  emotion.  .  .  .  and  we  become 
like  God  by  bringing  our  emotions,  sympathies,  affections,  under  the  dominion  of  rea- 
son and  conscience." 

(  b )  Since  God's  love  is  rational,  it  involves  a  subordination  of  the 
emotional  element  to  a  higher  law  than  itst  J,  namely,  that  of  truth  and 
holiness. 

Phil.  1:9  —  "  ind  this  I  pray,  that  jour  love  may  abound  yet  more  and  more  in  knowledge  and  all  discernment." 
True  love  among  men  illustrates  God's  love.  It  merges  self  in  another  instead  of 
making  that  other  an  appendage  to  self.  Itsceks  the  other's  true  good,  not  merely  his 
present  enjoyment  or  advantage.  Its  aim  is  to  realize  the  divine  idea  in  that  other.and 
therefore  it  is  exercised  for  God's  sake  and  in  the  strength  which  God  supplies.  Hence 
it  is  a  love  for  holiness,  and  is  under  law  to  holiness.  So  God's  love  takes  into  account 
the  highest  interests,  and  makes  infinite  sacrifice  to  secure  them.  For  the  sake  of  sav- 
ing a  world  of  sinners,  God  "  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  deliverered  him  up  for  us  all "  ( Rom.  8 :  32  >,  and 
"Jehovah  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all"  (Is.  53:6).  Love  requires  a  rule  or  standard  for  its 
regulation.  This  rule  or  standard  is  the  holiness  of  God.  So  once  more  we  see  that 
love  cannot  include  holiness,  because  it  is  subject  to  the  law  of  holiness.  Love  desires 
only  the  best  for  its  object,  and  the  best  is  Ood.  The  golden  rule  does  not  bid  us  give 
what  others  desire,  but  what  they  need  :  Rom.  15:2  —  "Let  each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbor  for  that 
which  is  good,  unto  edifying." 

( e )  The  immanent  love  of  God  therefore  requires  and  finds  a  perfect 
standard  in  his  own  holiness,  and  a  personal  object  in  the  image  of  his  own 
infinite  perfections.  It  is  to  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity. 

As  there  is  a  higher  Mind  than  our  mind,  so  there  is  a  greater  Heart  than  our  heart. 
God  is  not  simply  the  loving  One  —  he  is  also  the  Love  that  is  loved.  There  is  an  infin- 
ite life  of  sensibility  and  affection  in  God.  God  has  feeling,  and  in  an  infinite  degree. 
But  feeling  alone  is  not  love.  Love  implies  not  merely  receiving  but  giving,  not  merely 
emotion  but  impaitation.  So  the  love  of  God  is  shown  in  his  eternal  giving.  James  1:5 
—  "  God,  who  giveth,"  or  "  the  giving  God  "  (  tou  SiSorros  @eov  )  =  giving  is  not  an  episode  in  his 
being  —  it  is  his  nature  to  give.  And  not  only  to  glue,  but  to  give  himself.  This  he 
<lors  eternally  in  the  self -communications  of  the  Trinity;  this  he  does  transitively  and 
temporally  in  his  giving  of  himself  for  us  in  (  hrist,  and  to  us  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Jonathan  Edwards,  Essay  on  Trinity  (ed.  G.  P.  Fisher),  79 — "That  in  John  God  is 
love  shows  that  there  are  more  persons  than  one  in  the  Deity,  for  it  shows  love  to  be 
essential  and  necessary  to  the  Deity,  so  that  his  nature  consists  in  it,  and  this  supposes 
that  there  is  an  eternal  ami  necessary  object,  because  all  love  respects  another  that  is 
the  beloved.  By  love  here  the  apostle  certainly  means  something  beside  that  which  is 
commonly  called  self-love :  that  is  very  improperly  called  love,  and  is  a  thing  of  an 
exceeding  diverse  nature  from  the  affection  or  virtue  of  love  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of."  When  Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics,  226-239,  makes  the  first  characteristic  of 
love  to  be  self -affirmation,  and  when  Dorner,  Christian  Ethics,  73,  makes  self-assertion 
an  essential  part  of  love,  they  violate  linguistic  usage  by  including  under  love  what 
properly  belongs  to  holiness. 

( d )  The  immanent  love  of  God  constitutes  a  ground  of  the  divine  bless- 
edness. Since  there  is  an  infinite  and  perfect  object  of  love,  as  well  as  of 
knowledge  and  will,  in  God's  own  nature,  the  existence  of  the  universe  is 
not  necessary  to  his  serenity  and  joy. 

Blessedness  is  not  itself  a  divine  attribute ;  it  is  rather  a  result  of  the  exercise  of  the 
divine  attributes.  It  is  a  subjective  result  of  this  exercise,  as  glory  is  an  objective 
result.  Perfect  faculties,  with  perfect  objects  for  their  exercise,  ensure  God's  blessed- 
ness. But  love  is  especially  its  source.  Acts  20 -.35  —  "It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive." 
Happiness  ( hap,  happen )  is  grounded  in  circumstances ;  blessedness,  in  character. 


2GG  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Love  precedes  creation  and  is  the  ground  of  creation.  Its  object  therefore  cannot  be 
the  universe,  for  that  does  not  exist,  and,  if  it  did  exist,  could  not  be  a  proper  object 
of  love  for  the  infinite  God.  The  only  sufficient  object  of  his  love  is  the  image  of  his 
own  perfections,  for  that  alone  is  equal  to  himself.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  264  — 
"  Man  most  truly  realizes  his  own  nature,  when  he  is  ruled  by  rational,  self-forgetful 
love.  He  cannot  help  inferring  that  the  highest  thing  in  the  individual  consciousness 
is  the  dominant  thing  in  the  universe  at  large."  Here  we  may  assent,  if  we  remember 
that  not  the  love  itself  but  that  which  is  loved  must  be  the  dominant  thing,  and  we 
shall  see  that  to  be  not  love  but  holiness. 

Jones,  Robert  Browning,  219-i  .'Love  is  for  Browning  the  highest,  richest  concep- 
tion man  can  form.  It  is  our  idea  of  that  which  is  perfect;  we  cannot  even  imagine 
anything  better.  And  the  idea  of  evolution  necessarily  explains  the  world  as  the  return 
of  the  highest  to  itself.  The  universe  is  homewai'd  bound.  .  .  .  All  things  ai-e  poten- 
tially spirit,  and  all  the  phenomena  of  the  world  are  manifestations  of  love.  .  .  .  Man's 
reason  is  not,  but  man's  love  is,  a  direct  emanation  from  the  inmost  being  of  God" 
(345).  Browning  should  have  applied  to  truth  and  holiness  the  same  principle  which 
he  recognized  with  regard  to  love.  But  we  gratefully  accept  his  dicta :  "  He  that  cre- 
ated love,  shall  not  he  love?  .  .  .  God  !  thou  art  Love  !  I  build  my  faith  on  that." 

(e)  The  love  of  God  involves  also  the  possibility  of  divine  suffering, 
and  the  suffering  on  account  of  sin  which  holiness  necessitates  on  the  part 
of  God  is  itself  the  atonement. 

Christ  is  "  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  ( Rev.  13:8);  1  Pet.  1 :  19,  20  — 
"precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Christ :  who  was  foreknown  indeed 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  While  holiness  requires  atonement,  love  provides  it.  The 
blessedness  of  God  is  consistent  with  sorrow  for  human  misery  and  sin.  God  is  passi- 
ble, or  capable  of  suffering.  The  permission  of  moral  evil  in  the  decree  of  creation  was 
at  cost  to  God.  Scripture  attributes  to  him  emotions  of  grief  and  anger  at  human  sin 
( Sen.  6  : 6  —  "  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart "  ;  Rpm.  1 :  18  —  "  wrath  of  God  "  ;  Eph.  4 :  30  —  "  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God  "  ) ;  painful  sacrifice  in  the  gift  of  Christ  ( Rom.  8 :  32  —  "  spared  not  his  own  son  "  ;  cf.  Gen.  22 : 
16—" hast  not  withheld  thy  son  "  )  and  participation  in  the  suffering  of  his  people  (Is.  63 : 9  —  " in 
all  their  affliction  he  was  afflicted  ") ;  Jesus  Christ  in  his  sorrow  aud  sympathy,  his  tears  and 
agony,  is  the  revealer  of  God's  feelings  toward  the  race,  and  we  are  urged  to  follow  in 
his  steps,  that  we  may  be  perfect,  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect.  We  cannot, 
indeed,  conceive  of  love  without  self-sacrifice,  nor  of  self-sacrifice  without  suffering. 
It  would  seem,  then,  that  as  immutability  is  consistent  with  imperative  volitions  in 
human  history,  so  the  blessedness  of  God  may  be  consistent  with  emotions  of  sorrow. 

But  does  God  feel  in  proportion  to  his  greatness,  as  the  mother  suffers  more  than  the 
sick  child  whom  she  tends?  Does  God  suffer  infinitely  in  every  suffering  of  his  crea- 
tures? We  must  remember  that  God  is  infinitely  greater  than  his  creation,  and  that 
he  sees  all  human  sin  and  woe  as  part  of  his  great  plan.  We  are  entitled  to  attribute  to 
him  only  such  passibleness  as  is  consistent  with  infinite  perfection.  In  combining  pas- 
sibleness  with  blessedness,  then,  we  must  allow  blessedness  to  be  the  controlling  ele- 
ment, for  our  fundamental  idea  of  God  is  that  of  absolute  perfection.  Martensen, 
Dogmatics,  101  —  "  This  limitation  is  swallowed  up  iu  the  inner  life  of  pei'fection  which 
God  lives,  in  total  independence  of  his  creation,  and  in  triumphant  prospect  of  the 
fulfilment  of  his  great  designs.  We  may  therefore  say  with  the  old  theosophic  writers : 
'  In  the  outer  chambers  is  sadness,  but  in  the  inner  ones  is  unmixed  joy.' "  Christ  was 
"anointed  .  .  .  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows,"  and  "  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  endured  tb.9 
cross "  ( Heb.  1 : 9 ;  12 : 2 ).  Love  rejoices  even  in  pain,  when  this  brings  good  to  those  beloved. 
"  Though  round  its  base  the  rolling  clouds  are  spread,  Eternal  sunshine  settles  on  its 
head." 

In  George  Adam  Smith's  Life  of  Henry  Drummond,  11,  Drummond  cries  out  after 
hearing  the  confessions  of  men  who  came  to  him :  "  I  am  sick  of  the  sins  of  these  men  ! 
How  can  God  bear  it  ?  "  Simon,  Reconciliation,  338-343,  shows  that  before  the  incarna- 
tion, the  Logos  was  a  sufferer  from  the  sins  of  men.  This  suffering  however  was  kept  in 
check  and  counterbalanced  by  his  consciousness  as  a  factor  in  the  Godhead,  and  by  the 
clear  knowledge  that  men  were  themselves  the  causes  of  this  suffering.  After  he 
became  incarnate  he  suffered  without  knowing  whence  all  the  suffering  came.  He 
had  a  subconscious  life  into  which  were  interwoven  elements  due  to  the  sinful  con- 
duct of  the  race  whose  energy  was  drawn  from  himself  and  with  which  in  addition  he 
had  organically  united  himself.    If  this  is  limitation,  it  is  also  self-limitation  which 


ABSOLUTE    OK    IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  2C7 

Christ  could  have  avoided  by  oot  creating,  preserving,  and  redeeming  mankind.  We 
rejoice  in  giving  away  a  daughter  in  marriage,  even  though  it  costs  pain.  The  highest 
blesa  dness  in  the  Christian  is  coincident  with  agony  for  the  souls  of  others.  We  par- 
take of  Christ's  joy  only  when  we  kivnv  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings.  Joy  and 
sorrow  can  coexist,  like  Greek  lire,  that  burns  under  water. 

Abbe  Gratry,  La  Morale  et  la  Loi  de  I'Histoire,  105,  166  — "What!  Do  you  really 
suppose  that  the  personal  God,  free  and  intelligent,  loving  and  good,  who  knows  every 
detail  of  human  torture,  and  hears  every  sigh  —  this  God  who  sees,  who  loves  as  we  do, 
and  more  than  we  do  —  do  you  believe  that  he  is  present  and  looks  pitilessly  on  what 
breaks  your  heart,  and  what  to  him  must  be  the  spectacle  of  Satan  reveling  in  the 
blood  of  humanity  V  History  teaches  us  that  men  so  feel  for  sufferers  that  they 
have  been  drawn  to  die  with  them,  so  that  their  own  executioners  have  become  the 
next  martyrs.  And  yet  you  represent  God,  the  absolute  goodness,  as  alone  impassi- 
ble? It  is  here  that  our  evangelical  faith  comes  in.  Our  God  was  made  man  to  Buffer 
and  to  die  !  Yes,  here;  is  the  true  God.  He  has  suffered  from  the  beginning  in  all  who 
have  suffered.  He  has  been  hungry  in  all  who  have  hungered.  He  has  been  immolated 
in  all  and  with  all  who  have  offered  up  their  lives.  He  is  the  Lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world."  Similarly  Alexander  Yinet,  Vital  Christianity,  240,  remarks 
that  "  The  suffering  God  is  not  simply  the  teaching  of  modern  divines.  It  is  a  New 
Testament  thought,  and  it  is  one  that  answers  all  the  doubts  that  arise  at  the  sight  of 
human  suffering.  To  know  that  God  is  suffering  with  it  makes  that  suffering  more 
awful,  but  it  gives  strength  and  life  and  hope,  tor  we  know  that,  if  Cod  is  in  it,  suffer- 
ing is  the  road  to  victory.  If  he  shares  our  suffering  we  shall  share  his  crown,"  and 
we  can  say  with  the  Psalmist,  68:19  —  "Blessed  be  God,  who  daily  beareth  our  burden,  even  the  God  who  is 
our  salvation,1'  and  with  Isaiah  63  : 9  —  "In  all  their  affliction  he  was  afflicted,  and  the  angel  of  his  presence  saved 
them.'' 

Borden  P.  Bowne,  Atonement:  •'Something  like  this  work  of  grace  was  a  moral 
necessity  with  Cod.  It  was  an  awful  responsibility  thai  was  taken  when  our  human 
race  was  launched  with  its  fearful  possibilities  of  good  and  evil.  God  thereby  put 
himself  under  infinite  obligation  to  care  for  his  "human  family ;  and  reflections  on  his 
position  as  Creator  and  Ruler,  instead  of  removing,  only  make  more  manifest  this 
obligation.  So  long  as  we  conceive  God  as  sitting  apart  in  supreme  ease  and  self- 
satisfaction,  he  is  not  love  at  all,  but  only  a  reflection  of  our  selfishness  and  vulgarity. 
So  long  as  we  conceive  him  as  bestowing  blessing  upon  us  out  of  his  infinite  fulness, 
but  at  no  real  cost  to  himself,  he  sinks  below  the  moral  heroes  of  our  race.  There  is 
ever  a  higher  thought,  possible,  until  we  sec  God  taking  the  world  upon  his  heart, 
entering  into  the  fellowship  of  our  sorrow,  and  becoming  the  supreme  burden  bearer 
and  leader  in  sell -sacrifice.  Then  only  are'  the  possibllitii  8  "t'  grace  and  condescension 
and  love  and  moral  heroism  til  I'd  up,  so  that  nothing  higher  remains.  And  the  work 
of  Christ,  so  far  as  it  was  a  historical  event,  must  be  viewed  not  merely  as  a  piece  of 
history,  but  also  as  a  manifestation  of  thai  cross  which  was  hidden  in  the  divine  love 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  which  is  involved  in  the  existence  of  the  human 
world  at  all." 

Boyce,  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  264  — "The  eternal  resolution  that,  if  the  world 
niil  he  tragic,  it  sludl  still,  in  Satan's  despite,  be  spiritual,  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
eternal  joy  of  that  World-Spirit  of  whose  wisdom  ours  is  but  a  fragmentary  reflection. 
....  When  you  suffer,  your  sufferings  are  God's  sufferings, —  not  his  external  work  nor 
His  external  penalty,  nor  the  fruit  of  his  neglect,  but  identically  his  own  personal  woe. 
In  you  God  himself  suffers,  precisely  as  you  do,  and  has  all  your  reason  for  overcoming 
this  grief."  Henry  N.  Dodge,  Christus  Victor:  "O  Thou,  that  from  eternity  Upon  thy 
wounded  heart  hast  borne  Each  pang  and  cry  of  misery  Wherewith  our  human  hearts 
are  torn,  Thy  love  upon  the  grievous  cross  Doth  glow,  the  beacon-light  of  time,  For- 
ever sharing  pain  and  loss  With  every  man  in  every  clime.  How  vast,  how  vast  Thy 
sacrifice,  As  ages  come  and  ages  go,  Still  waiting  till  it  shaB  suffice  To  draw  the  last 
cold  heart  and  slow  !  " 

On  the  question,  Is  God  passible  ?  see  Bennett  Tyler,  Sufferings  of  Christ ;  A  Layman, 
Sufferings  of  Christ ;  Woods,  Works,  1  :  299-317  ;  Bib.  Sac,  11:744;  17 :  422-424;  Emmons, 
Works,  4:201-208;  Fairbairn,  Place  of  Christ,  483-487;  Bushnell,  Vic.  Sacrifice,  59-93; 
Kedney,  Christ.  Doctrine  Harmonized,  1:185-245;  Edward  Beecher,  Concord  of  Ajres, 
81-201;  Young,  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  20-43,  147-150;  Schaff,  Hist.  Christ.  Church, 
2  :191;  CrawTford,  Fatherhood  of  God,  43,  44;  Ansehn,  Prosiogion,  cap.  8;  Upton,  Hib- 
bert  Lectures,  268;  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2:117,  118,137-142.    1'tr 


268  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

contra,  see  Shedd,  Essays  and  Addresses,  277,  279  note;  Woods,  in  Lit.  and  TLeol.  Rev., 
1834  :  43-61;  Harris,  God  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  Ail,  1 :20L  On  the  Biblical  concep- 
tion of  Love  in  general,  sec  article  by  James  Orr,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

3.     Holiness. 

Holiness  is  self-affirming  purity.  In  virtue  of  this  attribute  of  his  nature, 
God  eternally  wills  and  maintains  his  own  moral  excellence.  In  this  defi- 
nition are  contained  three  elements  :  first,  purity  ;  secondly,  purity  will- 
ing ;  thirdly,  purity  willing  itself. 

Ex.  15:11—  "glorious  in  holiness";  19:1046  — the  people  of  Israel  must  purify  themselves 
before  they  come  into  the  presence  of  God ;  Is.  6:3  —  "Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jehovah  of  hosts"  — 
notice  the  contrast  with  the  unclean  lips,  that  must  be  purged  with  a  coal  from  the 
altar  ( verses  5-7 ) ;  2  Cor.  7:1  —  "  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defilement  of  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the 
fear  of  God  "  ) ;  1  Thess.  3:13  —  "  unblamable  in  holiness "  ;  4:7  —  "God  called  us  not  for  uncleanness,  but  in  sanctifi- 
cation "  ;  Heb.  12 : 29 — "our  God  is  a  consuming  fire"  — to  all  iniquity.  These  passages  show  that 
holiness  is  the  opposite  to  impurity,  that  it  is  itself  purity. 

The  development  of  the  conception  of  holiness  in  Hebrew  history  was  doubtless  a 
gradual  one.  At  first  it  may  have  included  little  more  than  the  idea  of  separation  from 
all  that  is  common,  small  and  mean.  Physical  cleanliness  and  hatred  of  moral  evil 
were  additional  elements  which  in  time  became  dominant.  We  must  remember  how- 
everthat  the  proper  meaning  of  a  term  is  to  be  determined  not  by  the  earliest  but  by 
the  latest  usage.  Human  nature  is  ethical  from  the  start,  and  seeks  to  express  the 
thought  of  a  rule  or  standard  of  obligation,  and  of  a  righteous  Being  who  imposes 
that  rule  or  standard.  With  the  very  first  conceptions  of  majesty  and  separation  which 
attach  to  the  apprehension  of  divinity  in  the  childhood  of  the  race  there  mingles  at 
least  some  sense  of  the  contrast  between  God's  purity  and  human  sin.  The  least 
developed  man  has  a  conscience  which  condemns  some  forms  of  wrong  doing,  and 
causes  a  feeling  of  separation  from  the  power  or  powers  above.  Physical  defilement 
becomes  the  natural  symbol  of  moral  evil.  Places  and  vessels  and  rites  are  invested 
with  dignity  as  associated  with  or  consecrated  to  the  Deity. 

That  the  conception  of  holiness  clears  itself  of  extraneous  and  unessential  elements 
only  gradually,  and  receives  its  full  expression  only  in  the  New  Testament  revelation 
and  especially  in  the  life  and  work  of  Christ,  should  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that 
the  germs  of  the  idea  lie  far  back  in  the  very  beginnings  of  man's  existence  upon 
earth.  Even  then  the  sense  of  wrong  within  had  for  its  correlate  a  dimly  recog- 
nized righteousness  without.  So  soon  as  man  knows  himself  as  a  sinner  he  knows 
something  of  the  holiness  of  that  God  whom  he  hp.s  offended.  We  must  take  excep- 
tion therefore  to  the  remark  of  Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  231 — "The  first  gods  were 
probably  non-moral  beings,"  for  Schurman  himself  had  just  said :  "A  God  without 
moral  character  is  no  God  at  all."  Dillmaun,  iu  his  O.  T.  Theology,  very  properly 
makes  the  fundamental  thought  of  O.  T.  religion,  not  the  unity  or  the  majesty  of  God, 
hut  his  holiness.  This  alone  forms  the  ethical  basis  for  freedom  and  law.  E.  (!.  Robin- 
son, Christian  Theology —  "The  one  aim  of  Christianity  is  personal  holiness.  But 
personal  holiness  will  be  the  one  absorbing  and  attainable  aim  of  man,  only  as  he 
recognizes  it  to  be  the  one  preeminent  attribute  of  God.  Hence  everything  divine  is 
holy  — the  temple,  the  Scriptures,  the  Spirit."  See  articles  on  Holiness  in  O.  T.,  by  J. 
Skinner,  and  on  Holiness  in  N.  T.,  by  G.  B.  Stevens,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

The  development  of  the  idea  of  holiness  as  well  as  the  idea  of  love  was  prepared  for 
before  the  advent  of  man.  A.  H.  Strong,  Education  and  Optimism:  "There  was  a 
time  when  the  past  history  of  life  upon  the  planet  seemed  one  of  heartless  and  cruel 
slaughter.  The  survival  of  the  fittest  had  for  its  obverse  side  the  destruction  of 
myriads.  Nature  was  '  red  in  tooth  and  claw  with  ravine.'  But  further  thought  has 
shown  that  this  gloomy  view  results  from  a  partial  induction  of  facts.  Paleontologieal 
life  was  marked  not  only  by  a  struggle  for  life,  but  by  a  struggle  for  the  life  of  others. 
The  beginnings  of  altruism  are  to  be  seen  in  the  instinct  of  reproduction,  and  in  the 
care  of  offspring.  In  every  lion's  den  and  tiger's  lair,  in  every  mother  eagle's  feeding  of 
her  young,  there  is  a  self-sacriice  which  faintly  shadows  forth  man's  subordination  of 
persi  >nal  interests  to  the  interests  of  others.  But  in  the  ages  before  man  can  be  found 
incipient  justice  as  well  as  incipient  love.  The  struggle  for  one's  own  life  has  its  moral 
side  as  well  as  the  struggle  for  the  life  of  others.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation  is 
the  beginning  of  right,  righteousness,  justice,  and  law,  on  earth.    Every  creature  owes 


ABSOLUTE   OR   IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  260 

it  to  God  to  preserve  its  own  being.  So  we  can  find  an  adumbration  of  morality  even 
in  the  predatory  and  internecine  warfare  of  the  geologic  ages.  The  immanent  God 
was  even  then  preparing  the  way  for  the  rights,  the  dignity,  the  freedom  of  humanity.' ' 
And,  we  may  add,  was  preparing  the  Way  for  the  understanding  by  men  of  his  own 
fundamental  attribute  of  holiness.  See  Henry  Drummond,  Ascent  of  Man;  Griffith- 
Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ. 

In  further  explanation  we  remark  : 

A.     Negatively,  that  holiness  is  not 

(«)  Justice,  or  purity  demanding  purity  from  creatures.  Justice,  the 
relative  or  transitive  attribute,  is  indeed  the  manifestation  and  expression 
of  the  immanent  attribute  of  holiness,  but  it  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  it. 

Quenstedt,  Theol.,  8 : 1 :34,  defines  holiness  as  "summa  omnisque  labia  expers  in  Deo 
puritas,  puritatem  debitam  exigens  a  creaturis" — a  definition  of  transitive  holiness,  or 
justice,  rather  than  of  t  he  immanent  attribute.  Is.  5:16  —  "Jehovah  of  hosts  is  exalted  in  justice, 
and  God  the  Holy  One  is  sanctified  in  righteousness  "  =  Justice  is  simply  God'a  holiness  in  its  judicial 
activity.  Though  holiness  is  commonly  a  term  of  separation  and  expresses  fche  inher- 
ent opposition  of  God  to  all  that  is  sinful,  it  is  also  used  as  a  term  of  union,  as  in  Lev. 
II :  44  —  "be  ye  holy;  for  I  am  holy."  When  Jesus  turned  from  the  young  ruler  (Mark  10:23)  he 
illustrated  the  first;  John8:29  illustrates  the  second:  "  he  that  sent  me  is  with  me."  Lowrie, 
Doct  tine  of  Bt.  John,  51-57 — "  'God  is  light'  (1  John  1:5)  indicates  the  character  of  God,  moral 
parity  as  revealed,  as  producing  Joy  and  life,  as  contrasted  with  doing  ill,  walking  in 
darkness,  being  in  a  state  of  perdition." 

Universal  human  conscience  is  itself  a  revelation  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and  the 
joining"  everywhere  of  suffering  with  sin  is  the  revelation  of  God's  justice.  The  wrath, 
anger,  jealousy  of  God  show  that  this  reaction  of  God's  nature  is  necessary.  God's 
nature  is  itself  holy,  just,  and  good.  Holiness  is  not  replaced  by  love,  as  llitschl  holds, 
since  there  is  no  self-  impartatiou  without  self-allirniation.  Holiness  not  simply 
<li  mauds  in  law,  but  imparts  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  see  Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  79— versus 
Kitschl's  doctrine  that  holiness  is  God's  exaltation,  and  that  it  includes  love;  see  also 
Pfleiderer,  Hie  Bitschl'scheTheologie,63  tv>.  Santayana,  Sense  of  Beauty,  69 — "If  perfec- 
tion is  the  ultimate  justification  of  being,  we  may  understand  the  ground  of  the  moral 
dignity  of  beauty.  Beauty  isa  pledge  of  the  possible  conformity  between  the  3oul  and 
nature,  and  consequently  a  ground  of  faith  in  the  supremacy  of  the  good."  We  would 
regard  nature  however  as  merely  the  symbol  and  expression  of  God,  and  so  would  regard 
beauty  as  a  ground  of  faith  in  his  supremacy.  What  Santayana  says  of  beauty  is  even 
more  true  of  holiness.  Wherever  we  see  it,  we  recognize  in  it  a  pledge  of  the  possible 
conformity  between  the  soul  and  God,  and  consequently  a  ground  of  faith  in  the 
supremacy  of  God. 

( b )  Holiness  is  not  a  complex  term  designating  the  aggregate  of  the 
divine  perfections.  On  the  other  hand,  the  notion  of  holiness  is,  both  in 
Scripture  and  in  Christian  experience,  perfectly  simple,  and  perfectly  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  other  attributes. 

Dick,  Theol.,  1 :  275  —  Holiness  =  venerableuess,  i.  c,  "  no  particular  attribute,  but  the 
general  character  of  God  as  resulting  from  his  moral  attributes."  Wardlaw  calls 
holiness  the  union  of  all  the  attributes,  as  pure  white  light  is  the  union  of  all  the  col- 
ored rays  of  the  spectrum  ( Theology,  1 :  618-634).  So  Nitzsch,  System  of  Christ.  Doct., 
166;  H.  W.  Beecher:  "Holiness  =  wholeness."  Approaching  this  conception  is  the 
definition  of  W.  N.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  83  —  "Holiness  is  the  glorious  ful- 
ness of  the  goodness  of  God,  consistently  held  as  the  principle  of  his  own  action,  and 
the  standard  for  his  creatures."  This  implies,  according  to  Dr.  Clarke,  1.  An  inward 
character  of  perfect  goodness;  2.  That  character  as  the  consistent  principle  of  his 
own  action  ;  3.  The  jroodness  which  is  the  principle  of  bis  own  action  is  also  the  stand- 
ard for  theirs."  In  other  words,  holiness  is  1.  character ;  ~.  self-consistency ;  3.  require- 
ment. We  object  to  this  definition  that  it  fails  to  define.  We  are  not  told  what  is  essen- 
tial to  this  character  ;  the  definition  includes  in  holiness  that  which  properly  belongs 
to  love  ;  it  omits  all  mention  of  the  most  important  elements  in  holiness,  namely  purity 
and  right. 


270  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

A  similar  lack  of  clear  definition  appears  in  the  statement  of  Mark  Hopkins,  Law  of 
Love,  105— "It  is  this  double  aspect  of  love,  revealing:  the  .whole  moral  nature,  and 
turning  every  way  like  the  flaming-  sword  that  kept  the  way  of  the  tree  f  life,  that  is 
termed  holiness."  As  has  been  shown  above,  holiness  is  contrasted  in  Scripture,  not 
with  mere  fiuiteness  or  littleness  or  misfortune  or  poverty  or  even  unreality,  but  only 
with  uncleanness  and  sinfulness.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ.  Theology,  80  —  "  Holiness  in 
man  is  the  image  of  God's.  But  it  is  clear  that  holiness  in  man  is  not  in  proportion  to 
the  other  perfections  of  his  being  —  to  his  power,  his  knowledge,  his  wisdom,  though  it 
is  in  proportion  to  his  rectitude  of  will  — and  therefore  cannot  be  the  sum  of  all  per- 
fections. .  .  .  To  identify  holiness  with  the  sum  of  all  perfections  is  to  make  it  mean 
mere  completeness  of  character.'' 

(  c  )  Holiness  is  not  God's  self-love,  in  the  sense  of  supreme  regard  for 
his  own  interest  and  happiness.    There  is  no  utilitarian  element  in  holiness. 

Buddeus,  Theol.  Dogmat.,  2 :  1 :  36,  defines  holiness  as  God's  self-love.  But  God  loves 
and  affirms  self,  not  as  self,  but  as  the  holiest.  There  is  no  self-seeking  in  God.  Not  the 
seeking  of  God's  interests,  but  love  for  God  as  holy,  is  the  principle  and  source  of 
holiness  in  man.  To  call  holiness  God's  self-love  is  to  say  that  God  is  holy  because  of 
what  he  can  make  by  it,  i.  e.,  to  deny  that  holiness  has  any  independent  existence.  See 
Tliomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  155. 

We  would  not  deny,  but  would  rather  maintain,  that  there  is  a  proper  self-love 
which  is  not  selfishness.  This  proper  self-love,  however,  is  not  love  at  all.  It  is  rather 
self-respect,  self-preservation,  self-vindication,  and  it  constitutes  an  important  char- 
acteristic of  holiness.  But  to  define  holiness  as  merely  God's  love  for  himseif,  is  to 
leave  out  of  the  definition  the  reason  for  this  love  in  the  purity  and  righteousness  of 
the  divine  nature.  God's  self-respect  implies  that  God  respects  himself  for  something 
in  his  own  being.  What  is  that  something?  Is  holiness  God's  "'moral  excellence" 
(  Hopkins ),  or  God's  "  perfect  goodness  "  ( Clarke )  ?  But  what  is  this  moral  excellence 
or  perfect  goodness  ?  We  have  here  the  method  and  the  end  described,  but  not  the 
motive  and  ground.  God  does  not  love  himself  for  his  love,  but  he  loves  himself  for 
his  holiness.  Those  who  maintain  that  love  is  self-affirming  as  well  as  self-communi- 
cating, and  therefore  that  holiness  is  God's  love  for  himself,  must  still  admit  that  this 
self-affirming  love  which  is  holiness  conditions  and  furnishes  the  standard  for  the  self- 
communicating  love  which  is  benevolence. 

G.  B.  Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  384,  tells  us  that  "God's  righteousness  is  the  self- 
respect  of  perfect  love."  Miller,  Evolution  of  Love,  53  —  "  Self-love  is  that  kind  of 
action  which  in  a  perfect  being  actualizes,  in  a  finite  being  seeks  to  actualize,  a  perfect 
or  ideal  self."  In  other  words,  love  is  self-affirmation.  But  we  object  that  self-love 
is  not  love  at  all,  because  there  is  in  it  no  self-communicating.  If  holiness  is  in  any 
sense  a  form  or  manifestation  of  love  — a  question  which  we  have  yet  to  consider— it 
is  certainly  not  a  unitarian  and  utilitarian  self-love,  which  would  be  identical  with 
selfishness,  but  rather  an  affection  which  implies  trinitarian  otherness  and  the  main- 
tenance of  self  as  an  ideal  object.  This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  Jonathan 
Edwards,  in  his  Essay  on  the  Trinity  ( ed.  Fisher ),  79—  "  All  love  respects  another  that 
is  the  beloved.  By  love  the  apostle  certainly  means  something  beside  that  which  is 
commonly  called  self-love :  that  is  very  improperly  called  love,  and  is  a  thing  of  an 
exceeding  diverse  nature  from  the  affection  or  virtue  of  love  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of."  Yet  we  shall  see  that  while  Jonathan  Edwards  denies  holiness  to  be  a  unitarian 
and  utilitarian  self-love,  he  regards  its  very  essence  to  be  God's  trinitarian  love  for 
himself  as  a  being  of  perfect  moral  excellence. 

Ritschl's  lack  of  trinitarian  conviction  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  furnish  any 
proper  ground  for  either  love  or  holiness  in  the  nature  of  God.  Ritschl  holds  that 
Christ  as  a  person  is  an  end  in  himself ;  he  realized  his  own  ideal ;  he  developed  his  own 
personality ;  he  reached  his  own  perfection  in  his  work  for  man ;  he  is  not  merely  a 
means  toward  the  end  of  man's  salvation.  But  when  Ritschl  comes  to  his  doctrine  of 
God,  he  is  strangely  inconsistent  with  all  this,  for  he  fails  to  represent  God  as  having 
any  end  in  himself,  and  deals  with  him  simply  as  a  means  toward  the  kingdom  of  God 
as  an  end.  Garvie,  Ritschlian  Theology,  25(5,  278,  279,  well  points  out  that  personality 
means  self-possession  as  well  as  self-communication,  distinction  from  others  as  well  as 
union  with  others.    Ritschl  does  not  see  that  God's  love  is  primarily  directed  towards 


ABSOLUTE   OR    IMMANENT    ATTRIBUTES.  271 

his  Son,  and  only  secondarily  directed  toward  the  Christian  community.  So  he  ignores 
the  immanent  Trinity.  Before  self-communication  there  must  be  self-maintenance. 
Otherwise  God  gives  up  his  independence  and  makes  created  existence  necessary. 

V 

( d )  Holiness  is  not  identical  with,  ox-  a  manifestation  of,  love.     Since 

self-maintenance  must  precede  self-impartation,  and  since  benevolence  has 
its  object,  motive,  standard  and  limit  in  righteousness,  holiness  the  self- 
affirming  attribute  can  in  no  way  be  resolved  into  love  the  self-communi- 
cating. 

That  holiness  is  a  form  of  love  is  the  doctrine  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  Essay  on  the 
Trinity  (ed.  Fisher),  97  — " 'T  is  in  God's  infinite  love  to  himself  that  his  holiness  con- 
sists. As  all  creature  holiness  is  to  be  resolved  into  love,  as  the  Scripture  teaches  us, 
so  doth  the  holiness  of  God  himself  consist  in  infinite  love  to  himself .  God's  holiness 
is  the  infinite  beauty  and  excellence  of  his  nature,  and  God's  excellency  consists  in  his 
love  to  himself."  In  his  treatise  on  The  Mature  of  Virtue,  Jonathan  Edwards  defines 
virtue  as  regard  for  being  in  general.  He  considers  that  find's  love  is  first  of  all 
directed  toward  himself  as  having  the  greatest  quantity  of  being,  and  only  secondar- 
ily directed  towards  his  creatures  whose  quantity  of  being  is  infinitesimal  as  compared 
with  his.  God  therefore  finds  bis  chief  end  in  himself,  and  God's  self-love  is  his  holiness. 
This  principle  has  permeated  and  dominated  subsequent  New  England  theology,  from 
Samuel  Hopkins,  Works,  2 : 9-86,  who  maintains  that  holiness  =  love  of  being  in  general, 
to  Horace  Bushnell,  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  who  declares:  "Righteousness,  transferred 
into  a  word  of  the  affections,  is  love;  and  love,  translated  back  into  a  word  of  the  con- 
science, is  righteousness ;  the  eternal  law  of  right  is  only  another  conception  of  the  law 
of  love;  the  two  principles,  right  and  love,  appear  exactly  to  measure  each  other." 
So  Park,  Discourses,  155-180. 

Similar  doctrine  is  taught  by  Horner,  Christian  Ethics,  73,  o:s,  184  — "Love  unites 
existence  for  self  with  existence  for  others,  self-assertion  and  self-impartation.  .  .  . 
Self-love  in  God  is  not  selfishness,  because  he  Is  the  original  and  necessary  seat  of  good 
in  general,  universal  good.  God  guards  his  honor  even  in  giving  himself  to  others.  .  .  . 
Love  is  the  power  and  desire  to  be  one's  self  while  in  another,  and  while  one's  self  to  be 
in  another  who  is  taken  into  t  lie  heart  as  an  end.  ...  I  am  to  love  my  neighbor  only 
as  myself.  .  .  .  Virtue  however  requires  not  only  good  will,  but  the  willing  of  the  right 
thing."  So  Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics,  :.'T,  239,  holds  that  1.  Love  is  self-affirm- 
ation. Hence  he  maintains  that  holiness  or  self -resped  is  Involved  in  love.  Righteous- 
ness is  not  an  independent  excellence  to  be  cent  rusted  with  or  put  in  opposition  to 
benevolence;  it  is  an  essential  part  Of  love.  2.  Love  is  self-impartation.  The  only 
limit  is  ethical.  Here  is  an  ever  deepening  immanence,  yet  always  some  transcendence 
of  God,  for  God  cannot  deny  himself.  3.  Love  is  self-finding  in  another.  Vicarious- 
ness  belongs  to  love.  We  reply  to  both  Horner  and  Smyth  that  their  acknowledgment 
that  love  has  its  condition,  limit,  motive,  object  and  standard,  shows  that  there  is  a 
principle  higher  than  love,  and  which  regulates  love.  This  principle  is  recognized  as 
ethical.  It  is  identical  with  the  right.  God  cannot  deny  himself  because  he  is  funda- 
mentally the  right.  This  self-affirmation  is  holiness,  and  holiness  cannot  be  a  part  of 
love,  or  a  form  of  love,  because  it  conditions  and  dominates  love.  To  call  it  benevi  >- 
lenceis  to  ignore  its  majestic  distinctness  and  to  imperil  its  legitimate  supremacy. 

God  must  first  maintain  his  own  being  before  he  can  give  to  another,  and  this  self- 
maintenance  must  have  its  reason  and  motive  in  the  worth  of  that  which  is  main- 
tained. Holiness  cannot  be  love,  because  love  is  irrational  and  capricious  except  as  it 
has  a  standard  by  which  it  is  regulated,  and  this  standard  cannot  be  itself  love,  but 
must  be  holiness.  We  agree  with  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  92,  that  "love  is  the 
desire  to  impart  holiness."  Love  is  a  means  to  holiness,  and  holiness  is  therefore  the 
supreme  good  and  something  higher  than  mere  love.  It  is  not  true,  vice  versa,  that 
holiness  is  the  desire  to  impart  love,  or  that  holiness  is  a  means  to  love.  Instead  then 
of  saying,  with  Clarke,  that  "  holiness  is  central  in  God,  but  love  is  central  in  holiness," 
we  should  prefer  to  say :  "  Love  is  central  in  God,  but  holiness  is  central  in  love," 
though  in  this  case  we  should  use  the  term  love  as  including  self-love.  It  is  still  better 
not  to  use  the  word  love  at  all  as  referring  to  God's  regard  for  himself.  In  ordinary 
usage,  love  means  only  regard  for  another  and  self -communication  to  that  other.  To 
embrace  in  it  God's  self-affirmation  is  to  misinterpret  holiness  and  to  regard  it  as  a 
means  to  an  end,  instead  of  making  it  what  it  really  is,  the  superior  object,  and  the 
regulative  principle,  of  love. 


272  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

That  which  lays  down  the  norm  or  standard  for  love  must  be  the  superior  of  love. 
When  we  forget  that  " Righteousness  and  justice  are  the  foundation  of  his  throne"  (Ps.  97:2),  we  lose 
one  of  the  chief  landmarks  of  Christian  doctrine  and  involve  ourselves  in  a  mist  of 
error.  Rev.  4:3  —  "  there  was  a  rainbow  round  about  the  throne"  =  in  the  midst  of  the  rainbow  of 
pardon  and  peace  there  is  a  throne  of  holiness  and  judgment.  In  Mat.  6 : 9, 10,  "  Thy  kingdom 
come "  is  not  the  first  petition,  but  rather,  "  Hallowed  be  thy  name."  It  is  a  false  idea  of  the  divine 
simplicity  which  would  reduce  the  attributes  to  one.  Self-assertion  is  not  a  form  of 
self-impartation.  Not  sentiency,  a  state  of  the  sensibility,  even  though  it  be  the  purest 
benevolence,  is  the  fundamental  thing,  but  rather  activity  of  will  and  a  right  direc- 
tion of  that  will.  Hodge,  Essays,  133-136,  262-273,  6hows  well  that  holy  love  is  a  love 
controlled  by  holiness.  Holiness  is  not  a  mere  means  to  happiness.  To  be  happy  is  not 
the  ultimate  reason  for  being  holy.  Right  and  wrong  are  not  matters  of  profit  and 
loss.  To  be  told  that  God  is  only  benevolence,  and  that  he  punishes  only  when  the 
happiness  of  the  universe  requires  it,  destroys  our  whole  allegiance  to  God  and  does 
violence  to  the  constitution  of  our  nature. 

That  God  is  only  love  has  been  called  "  the  doctrine  of  the  papahood  of  God."  God  is 
"a  summer  ocean  of  kindliness,  never  agitated  by  storms"  (Dale,  Ephesians,  59). 
But  Jesus  gives  us  the  best  idea  of  God,  and  in  him  we  find,  not  only  pity,  but  at  times 
moral  indignation.  John  17 :  11  —  "  Holy  Father  "  =  more  than  love.  Love  can  be  exercised 
by  God  only  when  it  is  right  love.  Holiness  is  the  track  on  which  the  engine  of  love 
must  run.  The  track  cannot  be  the  engine.  If  either  includes  the  other,  then  it  is 
holiness  that  includes  love,  since  holiness  is  the  maintenance  of  God's  perfection,  and 
perfection  involves  love.  He  that  is  holy  affirms  himself  also  as  the  perfect  love.  If 
love  were  fundamental,  there  would  be  nothing  to  give,  and  so  love  wou»d  be  vain  and 
worthless.  There  can  be  no  giving  of  self,  without  a  previous  self-affirming.  God  is 
not  holy  because  he  loves,  but  he  loves  because  he  is  holy.  Love  cannot  direct  itself  ; 
it  is  under  bonds  to  holiness.  Justice  is  not  dependent  on  love  for  its  right  to  be. 
Stephen  G.  Barnes :  "  Mere  good  will  is  not  the  sole  content  of  the  law ;  it  is  insuffi- 
cient in  times  of  fiery  trial ;  it  is  inadequate  as  a  basis  for  retribution.  Love  needs  ju3= 
tice,  and  justice  needs  love;  both  are  commanded  in  God's  law  and  are  perfectly 
revealed  in  God's  character." 

There  may  be  friction  between  a  man's  two  hands,  and  there  maybe  a  conflict 
between  a  man's  conscience  and  his  will,  between  his  intellect  and  his  affection.  Force 
is  God's  energy  under  resistance,  the  resistance  as  well  as  the  energy  being  his.  So, 
upon  occasion  of  man's  sin,  holiness  and  love  in  God  become  opposite  poles  or  forces. 
The  first  and  most  serious  effect  of  sin  is  not  its  effect  upon  man,  but  its  effect  upon 
God.  Holiness  necessarily  requires  ..uffering,  and  love  endures  it.  This  eternal  suffering 
of  God  on  account  of  sin  is  the  atonement,  and  the  incarnate  Christ  only  shows  what  has 
been  in  the  heart  of  God  from  the  beginning.  To  make  holiness  a  form  of  love  is 
really  to  deny  its  existence,  and  with  this  to  deny  that  any  atonement  is  necessary  for 
man's  salvation.  If  holiness  is  the  same  as  love,  how  is  it  that  the  classic  wor^a,  that 
knew  of  God's  holiness,  did  not  also  know  of  his  love?  The  ethics  here  reminds  one  of 
Abraham  Lincoln's  meat  broth  that  was  made  of  the  shadow  of  a  pigeon  that  died  of 
starvation.  Holiness  that  is  only  good  will  is  not  holiness  at  all,  for  it  lacks  the  essen- 
tial elements  of  purity  and  righteousness. 

At  the  railway  switching  grounds  east  of  Rochester,  there  is  a  man  whose  duty  it  is 
to  move  a  bar  of  iron  two  or  three  inches  to  the  left  or  to  the  right.  So  he  determines 
whether  a  train  shall  go  toward  New  York  or  toward  Washington,  toward  New  Orleans 
or  San  Francisco.  Our  conclusion  at  this  point  in  our  theology  will  similarly  deter- 
mine what  our  future  system  will  be.  The  principle  that  holiness  is  a  manifestation  of 
love,  or  a  form  of  benevolence,  leads  to  the  conclusions  that  happiness  is  the  only  good, 
and  the  only  end ;  that  law  is  a  mere  expedient  for  the  securing  of  happiness ;  that  pen- 
alty is  simply  deterrent  or  reformatory  in  its  aim ;  that  no  atonement  needs  to  be  offered 
to  God  for  human  sin  ;  that  eternal  retribution  cannot  be  vindicated,  since  there  is  no 
hope  of  reform.  This  view  ignores  the  testimony  of  conscience  and  of  Scripture  that 
sin  is  intrinsically  ill-deserving,  and  must  be  punished  on  that  account,  not  because 
punishment  will  work  good  to  the  universe,— indeed,  it  could  not  work  good  to  the 
universe,  unless  it  were  just  and  right  in  itself.  It  ignores  the  fact  that  mercy  is 
optional  with  God,  while  holiness  is  invariable;  that  punishment  is  many  times 
traced  to  God's  holiness,  but  never  to  God's  love;  that  God  is  not  simply  love  but 
light— moral  light  — and  therefore  is  " a  consuming  fire "  (Heb.  12:29)  to  all  iniquity.  Love 
chastens  (Heb.  12:  6),  but  only  holiness  punishes  (Jer.  10  :  24  —  "correct  me,  but  in  measure;  not  in 
thine  anger";  Ez.  28  :  22— "I  shall  have  executed  judgments  in  her,  and  shall  be  sanctified  in  hor";  36:21,  22  — 


ABSOLUTE   OR   IMMANENT   ATTRIBUTES.  273 

in  judgment  "  I  do  not  this  for  your  sake,  but  for  my  holy  name "  ;  1  John  1  :  5  —  "God  is  light,  and  in  him  is 
no  darkness  "  —  moral  darkness ;  Rev.  15  : 1,  4  —  "  the  wrath  of  God  . .  .  thou  only  art  holy  ...  thy  righteous 
acts  have  been  made  manifest "  ;  16:5 — "  righteous  art  thou  ....  because  thou  didst  thus  judge  "  ;  19:2  —  "true 
and  righteous  are  his  judgments;  for  he  hath  judged  the  great  harlot").  See  Hovey,  God  with  Us,  187- 
221;  Philippi,  Glaubcnslehre,  2:80-82;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  154,  155, 
346-353;  Lange,  Pos.  Dogmatik,  20:;. 

B.     Positively,  that  holiness  is 

(«)  Purity  of  substance. — In  God's  moral  nature,  as  necessarily  acting, 
there  are  indeed  the  two  elements  of  willing  and  being.  But  the  passive 
logically  precedes  the  active ;  being  comes  before  willing  ;  God  is  pure 
before  he  wiM8  purity.  Since  purity,  however,  in  ordinary  usage  is  a 
negative  term  and  means  only  freedom  from  stain  or  wrong,  we  must 
include  in  it  also  the  positive  idea  of  moral  tightness.  God  is  holy  in  that 
he  is  the  source  and  standard  of  the  right. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  80 — "Holiness  is  moral  purity,  not  only  in  the 
sense  of  absence  of  all  moral  stain,  but  of  complacency  in  all  moral  good."  Shedd, 
Dogm. Theology,  1:362 — "Holiness  in  God  is  conformity  to  bis  own  perfect  nature. 
The  only  rule  for  the  divine  will  is  the  divine  reason;  and  the  divine  reason  prescribes 
everything  that  is  befitting-  an  Infinite  Being  to  do.    God  is  not  under  law,  nor  above 

law.    He  Is  law.    He  is  righteous  by  nature  and  necessity God  is  the  source  and 

author  of  law  for  all  moral  beings.'1  We  may  better  Shedd's  definition  by  saying  thai 
holiness  is  that  attribute  in  virtue  of  which  God's  being  and  God's  \.ill  eternally  con- 
form to  each  other.  In  thus  maintaining  that  holy  being  logically  precedes  holy 
willing-,  we  differ  from  the  view  of  Lotze,  PhilOB.  of  Religion.  139 —  "Such  will  of  God 
no  more  follows  from  his  nature  as  secondary  to  it,  or  precedes  it  as  primaryto  it  than, 
in  motion,  direction  can  be  antecedent  or  subsequent  to  velocity."    Bowne,  Philos.  of 

Theism,  16  — "God's  nature  =a  Bled  law  of  actn  ity  Or  mode  of  manifestation But 

laws  of  thought  are  no  .;  oitatlon,  because  t  hey  are  simply  modes  of  thought-activity. 
They  do  not  rule  intelle  ri,  but  only  express  what  intellect  is." 

In  spite  of  these  uttei  'noes  of  Lotze  and  of  Bowne,  we  must  maintain  that,  as  trul  h 
of  being  logically  precedes  truth  of  knowing,  and  as  a  loving  nature  precedes  loving 
emotions,  so  purity  of  substance  precedes  purity  of  will.  The  opposite  doctrine  leads 
to  such  utterances  as  that  of  Whedon  (On  the  Will,  :il<i)  j  "God  is  holy,  in  that  he  freely 
chooses  to  make  his  own  happiness  in  eternal  right.  Whether  he  could  not  make  him- 
self equally  happy  in  wrong  is  more  than  we  can  say.  ...  Infinite  wisdom  and  infinite 
holiness  consist  in,  and  result  from,  God's  volitions  eternally."  Whedon  therefore 
believes,  not  in  God's  unchangi  afoli  ness,  but  in  God's  unchangingncss.  He  cannot  say 
whether  motives  may  not  at  some  time  prove  strongest  for  divine  apostasy  to  evil. 
The  essential  holiness  of  God  affords  no  basis  for  certainty.  Here  we  have  to  rely  on 
our  faith,  more  than  on  the  object  of  faith;  see  H.  B.  Smith,  Review  of  Whedon,  in 
Faith  and  Philosophy,  335-399.  As  we  said  with  regard  to  truth,  so  here  we  say  with 
regard  to  holiness,  that  to  make  holiness  a  matter  of  mere  will,  instead  of  regarding  it 
as  a  characteristic  of  God's  being,  is  to  deny  that  anything  is  holy  in  itself.  If  God 
can  make  impurity  to  be  purity,  then  God  in  himself  is  indifferent  to  purity  or  impur- 
ity, and  he  ceases  therefore  to  be  God.  Robert  Browning,  A  Soul's  Tragedy,  223 — "I 
trust  in  God  —  the  Right  shall  be  the  Right  And  other  than  the  Wrong,  while  He 
endures."  P.  B.  Moxomi  "Revelation  is  a  disclosure  of  the  divine  righteousness.  We 
do  not  add  to  the  thought  when  we  say  that  it  is  also  a  disclosure  of  the  divine  love, 
for  love  is  a  manifestation  or  realization  of  that  Tightness  of  relations  which  righteous- 
ness is."  H.  15.  Smith,  System,  233-231 — "  Virtue  =  love  for  both  happiness  and  holi- 
ness, yet  holiness  as  ultimate,  —  love  to  the  highest  Person  and  to  his  ends  and  objects." 

(6)  Energy  of  will. — This  purity  is  not  simply  a  passive  and  dead  qual- 
ity ;  it  is  the  attribute  of  a  personal  being ;  it  is  penetrated  and  pervaded 
by  will.     Holiness  is  the  free  moral  movement  of  the  Godhead. 

As  there  is  a  higher  Mind  than  our  mind,  and  a  greater  Heart  than  our  heart,  so  there 
is  a  grander  Will  than  our  will.  Holiness  contains  this  element  of  will,  although  it  is  a 
will  which  expresses  nature,  instead  of  causing  nature.  It  is  not  a  still  and  moveless 
purity,  like  the  whiteness  of  the  new-fallen  snow,  or  the  stainless  blue  of  the  summer 

18 


274  NATURE,    DECREES/ AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

sky.  It  is  the  most  tremendous  of  energies,  in  unsleeping  movement.  It  is  "a  glassy  sea  " 
(  Rev.  15:2),  but  "a  glassy  sea  mingled  with  fire.''  A.  J.  Gordon  :  "  Holiness  is  not  a  dead-white 
purity,  the  perfection  of  the  faultless  marble  statue.  Life,  as  well  as  purity,  enters 
into  the  idea  of  holiness.  They  who  are  'without  fault  before  the  throne'  are  they 
who  '  follow  the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth '  —  holy  activity  attending  and  express- 
ing their  holy  state."  Martensen,  Christian  Ethics,  62, 63  — "God  is  the  perfect  unity 
of  the  ethically  necessary  and  the  ethically  free"  ;  "  God  cannotdo  otherwise  than  will 
his  own  essential  nature."  See  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  141 ;  and  on  the 
Holiness  of  Christ,  see  Godet,  Defence  of  the  Christian  Eaith,  203-241. 

The  centre  of  personality  is  will.  Knowing  has  its  end  in  feeling,  and  feeling  has  its 
end  in  willing.  Hence  1  must  make  feeling  subordinate  to  willing,  and  happiness  to 
righteousness.  I  must  will  with  God  and  for  God,  and  must  use  all  my  influence  over 
others  to  make  them  like  God  in  holiness.  William  James,  Will  to  Believe,  123—  "  Mind 
must  first  get  its  impression  from  the  object ;  then  define  what  that  object  is  and  what 
active  measures  its  presence  demands;  and  finally  react All  faiths  and  philoso- 
phies, moods  and  systems,  subserve  and  pass  into  a  third  stage,  the  stage  of  action." 
What  is  true  of  man  is  even  more  true  of  God.  All  the  wills  of  men  combined,  aye, 
even  the  whole  moving  energy  of  humanity  in  all  climes  and  ages,  is  as  nothing  com- 
pared with  the  extent  and  intensity  of  God's  willing.  The  whole  moment  um  of  God's 
being  is  behind  moral  law.  That  law  is  his  self-expression.  His  beneficent  yet  also 
his  terrible  arm  is  ever  defending  and  enforcing  it.  God  must  maintain  his  holiness, 
for  this  is  his  very  Godhead.  If  he  did  not  maintain  it,  love  would  have  nothing  to 
give  away,  or  to  make  others  partakers  of. 

Does  God  will  the  good  because  it  is  the  good,  or  is  the  good  good  because  God  wills 
it  ?  In  the  former  case,  there  would  seem  to  be  a  good  above  God ;  in  the  latter  case, 
good  is  something  arbitrary  and  changeable.  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  186, 187,  says  that 
neither  of  these  is  true ;  he  holds  that  there  is  no  a  priori  good  before  the  willing  of  it, 
and  he  also  holds  that  wiL  without  direction  is  not  will ;  the  good  is  good  for  God,  not 
before,  but  in,  his  self-determination.  Dorner,  System  Doctrine,  1 :  432,  holds  on  the 
contrary  that  both  these  are  true,  because  God  has  no  mere  simple  form  of  being, 
whether  necessary  or  free,  but  rather  a  manifoldly  diverse  being,  absolutely  correlated 
however,  and  reciprocally  conditioning  itself,  —  that  is,  a  trinit,  "ian  being,  both  neces- 
sary and  free.  We  side  with  Dorner  here,  and  claim  that  the  belief  that  God's  will  is 
the  executive  of  God's  being  is  necessary  to  a  correct  ethics  and  to  a  correct  theology. 
Celsus  justified  polytheism  by  holding  that  whatever  is  a  part  of  God  reveals  God, 
serves  God,  and  therefore  may  rationally  be  worshiped.  Christianity  he  excepted 
from  this  wide  toleration,  because  it  worshiped  a  jealous  God  who  was  not  content 
to  be  one  of  many.  But  this  jealousy  really  signifies  that  God  is  a  Being  to  whom 
moral  distinctions  are  real.  The  God  of  Celsus,  the  God  of  pantheism,  is  not  jealous, 
because  he  is  not  the  Holy  One,  but  simply  the  Absolute.  The  category  of  the  ethical  is 
merged  in  the  category  of  being ;  see  Bruce,  Apologetics,  16.  The  great  lack  of  modern 
theology  is  precisely  this  ethical  lack ;  holinesss  is  merged  in  benevolence ;  there  is  no 
proper  recognition  of  God's  righteousness.  John  17 :  25  — "  0  righteous  Father,  the  world  knew  thee 
not"—  is  a  text  as  true  to-day  as  in  Jesus'  time.  See  Issel,  Begriff  der  Heiligkeit  in  N.  T., 
41,84,  who  defines  holiness  in  God  as  "the  ethical  perfection  of  God  in  its  exaltation 
above  all  that  is  sinful,"  and  holiness  in  men  as  "the  condition  corresponding  to  that 
of  God,  in  which  man  keeps  himself  pure  from  sin." 

(  e)  Self-affirmation. — Holiness  is  God's  self -willing.  His  own  purity  is 
the  supreme  object  of  his  regard  and  maintenance.  God  is  holy,  in  that 
his  infinite  moral  excellence  affirms  and  asserts  itself  as  the  highest  possi- 
ble motive  and  end.  Like  truth  and  love,  this  attribute  can  be  under- 
stood only  in  the  light  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Holiness  is  purity  willing  itself.  We  have  an  analogy  in  man's  duty  of  self-preserva- 
tion, self-respect,  self-assertiou.  Virtue  is  bound  to  maintain  and  defend  itself,  as  in 
the  case  of  Job.  In  his  best  moments,  the  Christian  feels  that  purity  is  not  simply  the 
negation  of  sin,  but  the  affirmation  of  an  inward  and  divine  principle  of  righteousness. 
Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1;  137— "  Holiness  is  the  perfect  agreement  of 
the  divine  willing  with  the  divine  being;  for  as  the  personal  creature  is  holy  when  it 
wills  and  determines  itself  as  God  wills,  so  is  God  the  holy  one  because  he  wills  himself 
a«  what  he  is  (or,  to  be  what  he  is).  In  virtue  of  this  attribute,  God  excludes  from 
himself  everything  that  contradicts  his  nature,  and  affirms  himself  in  his  absolutely 


RELATIVE    OR  TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  275 

pood  being  — Lis  being  like  himself."  Tholuck  on  Romans,  5th  ed.,  151— "The  term 
holiness  should  be  used  to  indicate  a  relation  of  God  to  himself.  That  is  holy  which, 
undisturbed  from  without,  is  wholly  like  itself."  Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine,  1 :  456  — 
"It  is  the  part  of  goodness  to  protect  godliness."  We  shall  see,  when  we  consider  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  that  that  doctrine  has  close  relations  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
immanent  attributes.  It  is  in  the  Son  that  God  has  a  perfect  object  of  will,  as  well  as 
of  knowledge  and  love. 

The  object  of  God's  willing  in  eternity  past  can  be  nothing  outside  of  himself.  It 
must  be  the  highest  of  all  things.  We  see  what  it  must  be,  only  when  we  remember 
that  the  right  is  the  unconditional  imperative  of  our  moral  nature.  Since  we  are  made 
in  his  image  we  must  conclude  that  God  eternally  wills  righteousness.  Not  all  God's 
acts  are  acts  of  love,  but  all  are  acts  of  holiness.  The  self-respect,  self-preservation, 
self-affirmation,  self-assertion,  self-vindication,  which  we  call  God's  holiness,  is  only 
faintly  reflected  in  such  utterances  as  Job  27 : 5,  6  —  "  Till  I  die  I  will  not  put  away  mine  integrity  from 
me.  My  righteousness  I  hold  fast,  and  will  not  let  it  go  "  ;  31 :  37  — "  I  would  declare  unto  him  the  number  of  my  steps ; 
as  a  prince  would  I  go  near  unto  him."  The  fact  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  denominated  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  teach  us  what  is  God's  essential  nature,  and  the  requisition  that  we 
should  be  holy  as  he  is  holy  should  teach  us  what  is  the  true  standard  of  human  duty 
and  object  of  human  ambition.  God's  holiness  moreover  since  it  is  self-affirmation, 
furnishes  the  guarantee  that  God's  love  will  not  fail  to  secure  its  end,  and  that  all 
things  will  serve  his  purpose.  Rom.  11:36— "For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  unto  him,  are  all  things. 
To  him  be  the  glory  for  ever.  Amen."  On  the  whole  Subject  of  Holiness,  as  an  attribute  of  (iod, 
see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  188-200,  and  Christ  In  Creation,  388-405;  Del- 
itzsch,  art.  Heilig-keit,  in  Herzog,  Realencyclop. ;  Baudissin,  Hep-riff  der  Heiligkeit  im 
A.  T., — synopsis  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1880:169;  Robertson  Smith,  Prophets  of 
Israel,  224-234 ;  E.  B.  Coe,  in  Prcsb.  and  Kef.  Rev.,  Jan.  1890 :  42-47 ;  and  articles  on  Holi- 
ness in  O.  T.,  and  Holiness  in  N.  T.,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

VI.     Belative  or  Transitive  Attributes. 

First  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Time  and  Space. 

1.     Eternity. 

By  this  -we  mean  that  God's  nature  (  a)  is  without  beginning  or  end  ;  (  h) 
is  free  from  all  succession  of  time  ;  and  (  <•)  contains  in  itself  the  cause  of 
time. 

Deut.  32 :  40  — "  For  I  lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven,  And  say,  As  I  live  forever  ....";  Ps.  90 :  2  — "  Before  the  moun- 
tains ....  from  everlasting  ....  thou  art  God"  ;  102:27  —  "thy  years  shall  have  no  end"  ;  Is.  41 : 4 —  "I  Jehovah, 
the  first,  and  with  the  last"  ;  lCor.2:7  —  npb  ru>v  aiuivtov—"  before  the  worlds"  or  "ages"=7rpb  KaTa/3oA»js 
(cdcrnov — "before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (  Eph.  1  -4  ).  1  Tim.  1:17  —  B&o-iAei  tuk  aiiavtav  —  "King  of  the 
ages"  (so  also  Rev.  15:8).  1  Tim.  6:16  —  "who  only  hath  immortally."  Rev.  1:8  —  "the  Alpha  and  the 
Omega."  Dorner :  "  We  must  not  make  Kronos  ( time )  and  Uranos  ( space )  earlier  divin- 
ities before  God."  They  are  among- the  "all  things"  that  were  "made by  him"  (John  1:3).  Yet 
time  and  space  are  not  substances,'  neither  are  they  attributes  (  qualities  of  substance) ; 
they  are  rather  relations  of  finite  existence.  (  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  568,  prefers  to 
call  time  and  space  "correlates  to  beings  and  events.")  With  finite  existence  they 
come  into  being;  they  are  not  mere  regulative  conceptions  of  our  minds;  they  exist 
objectively,  whether  we  perceive  them  or  not.  Ladd  :  "  Time  is  the  mental  presuppo- 
sition of  the  duration  of  events  and  of  objects.  Time  is  not  an  entity,  or  it  would  be 
necessary  to  suppose  some  other  time  in  which  it  endures.  We  think  of  space  and 
time  as  unconditional,  because  they  furnish  the  conditions  of  our  knowledge.  The  age 
of  a  son  is  conditioned  on  the  age  of  his  father.  The  conditions  themselves  cannot  be 
conditioned.  Space  and  time  are  mental  forms,  but  not  only  that.  There  is  an  extra- 
mental  something  in  the  case  of  space  and  time,  as  in  the  case  of  sound." 

Ex.  3:14— "I  am"— involves  eternity.    Ps.  102:12-14— "But  thou,  0  Jehovah,  wilt  abide  forever  .... 

Thou  wilt  arise,  and  have  mercy  upon  Zion ;  for  it  is  time  to  have  pity  upon  her  ... .  For  thy  servants have 

pity  upon  her  dust "=  because  God  is  eternal,  he  will  have  compassion  upon  Zion:  he  will 
do  this,  for  even  we,  her  children,  love  her  very  dust.  Jude  25  — "glory,  majesty,  dominion  and 
power,  before  all  time,  and  now,  and  for  evermore."  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1 :  165'—"  God  is  '  Kir/ 
ofthe  aeons'  (1  Tim.  1:17),  because  he  distinguishes,  in  his  thinking,  his  eternal  inner  essenc-t 
from  his  changeable  working  in  the  world.    He  is  not  merged  in  the  process."    Edwards 


276         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

the  younger  describes  timelessness  as  "the  immediate  and  invariable  possession  of 
the  whole  unlimited  life  together  and  at  on«  e."  Tyler,  Greek  Poets,  148— "The 
heathen  gods  had  only  existence  without  end.  Tbe  Greeks  seem  never  to  have  con- 
ceived of  existence  without  beginning.''  On  precognition  as  connected  with  the  so- 
called  future  already  existing,  and  on  apparent  time  progression  as  a  subjective  human 
sensation  and  not  inherent  in  the  universe  as  it  exists  in  an  infinite  Mind,  see  Myers, 
Human  Personality,  2:262 sq.  Tennyson,  Life,  1 : 322—  "For  was  and  is  and  will  be  are 
but  is :  And  all  creation  is  one  act  at  once,  The  birth  of  light ;  but  we  that  are  not  all. 
As  parts,  can  see  but  parts,  now  this,  now  that;  And  live  perforce  from  thought  to 
thought,  and  make  The  act  a  phantom  of  succession :  there  Our  weakness  somehow 
shapes  the  shadow,  Time." 

Augustine:  "Mundusnon  in  tempore,  sed  cum  tempore,  factus  est."  There  is  no 
meaning  to  the  question :  Why  did  creation  take  place  when  it  did  rather  than  earlier  ? 
or  the  question  :  What  was  God  doing  before  creation?  These  questions  presuppose 
an  independent  time  in  which  God  created  —  a  time  before  time.  On  the  other  hand, 
creation  did  not  take  place  at  any  time,  but  God  gave  both  the  world  and  time  their 
existence.  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2: 111-115  — "Time  is  the  form  of  the  will, 
as  space  is  the  form  of  the  intellect  (cf.  124, 133).  Time  runs  only  in  one  direction 
( unlike  space ),  toward  fulfilment  of  striving- or  exp  ctation.  In  pursuing  its  goals, 
the  self  lives  in  time.  Every  now  is  also  a  sue  ssion,  as  is  illustrated  in  any 
melody.  To  God  the  universe  is  'totum  simul',  as  to  us  any  succession  is  one  whole. 
233 — Death  is  a  change  in  the  time-span  —  the  minimum  of  time  in  which  a  succession 
can  appear  as  a  completed  whole.  To  God  "a  thousand  years"  are  "as  one  day"  (2  Pet.  3:8). 
419—  God,  in  his  totality  as  the  Absolute  Being,  is  conscious  not,  in  time,  but  of  time, 
and  of  all  that  inlinite  time  contains.    In  time  there  follow,  in  their  sequence,  the 

chords  of  his  endless  symphony.    For  him  is  this  whole  symphony  of  life  at  once 

You  unite  present,  past  and  future  in  a  single  consciousness  whenever  you  hear  any 
three  successive  words,  for  one  is  past,  another  is  present,  at  the  same  time  that  a 
third  is  future.  So  God  unites  in  timeless  perception  the  whole  succession  of  finite 
events.  .  .  .  The  single  notes  are  not  lost  in  the  melody.  You  are  in  God,  but  you  are 
notlostin  God."  Mozart,  quotedinWm.  James,  Principles  of  Psychology,  1:255  —  "All 
the  inventing  and  making  goes  on  in  me  as  in  a  beautiful  strong  dream.  But  the  best 
of  all  is  the  hearing  of  it  all  at  once." 

Eternity  is  infinity  in  its  relation  to  time.  It  implies  that  God's  nature 
is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  time.  God  is  not  in  time.  It  is  more  correct 
to  say  that  time  is  in  God.  Although  there  is  logical  succession  in  God's 
thoughts,  there  is  no  chronological  succession. 

Time  is  duration  measured  by  successions.  Duration  without  succession  would  still 
be  duration,  though  it  would  be  immeasurable.  Reid,  Intellectual  Powers,  essay  3, 
chap.  5 —  "  We  may  measure  duration  by  the  succession  of  thoughts  in  the  mind,  as  we 
measure  length  by  inches  or  feet,  but  the  notion  or  idea  of  duration  must  be  antece- 
dent to  the  mensuration  of  it,  as  the  notion  of  length  is  antecedent  to  its  being  meas- 
ured." God  is  not  under  the  law  of  time.  Solly,  The  Will,  254— "God  looks  through 
time  as  we  look  through  space."  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases,  90— "  Eternity  is  not,  as 
men  believe,  Before  and  after  us,  an  endless  line.  No,  't  is  a  circle,  infinitely  great  — All 
the  circumference  with  creations  thronged :  God  at  the  centre  dwells,  beholding  all. 
And  as  we  move  in  this  eternal  round,  The  finite  portion  which  alone  we  see  Behind  us, 
is  the  past;  what  lies  before  We  call  the  future.  But  to  him  who  dwells  Far  at  the 
centre,  equally  remote  From  every  point  of  the  circumference,  Both  are  alike,  the 
future  and  the  past."  Vaughan  ( 1655 ) :  "  I  saw  Eternity  the  other  night,  Like  a  great 
ring  of  pure  and  endless  light,  And  calm  as  it  was  bright ;  and  round  beneath  it  Time 
in  hours,  days,  years,  Driven  by  the  spheres,  Like  a  vast  shadow  moved,  in  which  the 
world  And  all  her  train  were  hurled." 

We  cannot  have  derived  from  experience  our  idea  of  eternal  duration  in  the  past, 
for  experience  gives  us  only  duration  that  has  had  beginning.  The  idea  of  duration  as 
without  beginning  must  therefore  be  given  us  by  intuition.  Case,  Physical  Realism, 
379,  380— "Time  is  the  continuance,  or  continual  duration,  of  the  universe."  Bradley, 
Appearance  and  Reality,  39— Consider  time  as  a  stream  — under  a  spatial  form:  "If 
you  take  time  as  a  relation  between  units  without  duration,  then  the  whole  time  has 
■no  duration,  and  is  not  time  at  all.  But  if  you  give  duration  to  the  whole  time,  then  at 
once  the  units  themselves  are  found  to  possess  it,  and  they  cease  to  be  units."    The 


RELATIVE   OR   TRANSITIVE   ATTRIBUTES.  277 

now  is  not  tame,  unless  it  turns  past  into  future,  and  this  is  a  process.  The  now  then 
consists  of  uows,  and  these  news  are  undiseoverable.  The  unit  is  nothing  but  its  own 
relation  to  something  beyond,  something-  not  discoverable.  Time  therefore  is  not  real, 
but  is  appearance.  u 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas,  1 :  185—  "  That  which  grasps  and  correlates  objects  in  space 
cannot  itself  be  one  of  the  things  of  space ;  that  which  apprehends  and  connects  events 
as  succeeding  each  other  in  time  must  itself  stand  above  the  succession  or  stream  of 
events.  In  being  able  to  measure  them,  it  cannot  be  tlowing  with  them.  There  could 
not  be  for  self-consciousness  any  such  thing  as  time,  if  it  were  not,  in  one  aspect  of  it, 
above  time,  if  it  did  not  belong- to  an  order  which  is  or  has  in  it  an  element  which  is 

eternal As  taken  up  into  thought,  succession  is  not  successive."    A.  H.  Strong, 

Historical  Discourse,  May  9,  1900  — "God  is  above  space  and  time,  and  we  are  in  God. 
We  mark  the  passage  of  time,  and  we  write  our  histories.  But  we  can  do  this,  only 
because  in  our  highest  being  we  do  not  belong  to  space  and  time,  but  have  iu  us  .a  bit 
of  eternity.  John  Caird  tells  us  that  we  could  nut  perceive  the  flowing  of  the  stream 
if  we  were  ourselves  a  part  of  the  current ;  only  as  we  have  our  feet  planted  on  solid 
rock,  can  we  observe  that  the  water  rushes  by.  We  belong  to  God;  we  are  akiu  to 
God;  and  while  the  world  passes  away  ami  the  lust  thereof,  he  that  doeth  the  will  of 
God  atiideth  forever."  .1.  Bstlin  Carpenter  and  1'.  II.  Wicksteed,  Studies  in  Theology, 
10  —  "  Dante  speaks  of  God  as  him  in  whom  'every  where  and  every  when  are  focused 
in  a  point',  that  is,  to  whom  every  season  is  now  and  e\  ery  place  is  here." 

Amiel's  Journal:  "  Time  is  the  supreme  illusion.  It  is  the  inner  prism  by  which  we 
decompose  being  and  life,  the  mode  by  which  we  perceive  successively  what  is  simul- 
taneous in  idea Time  is  the  successive  dispersion  of  being-,  just  as  speech  is  the 

successive  analysis  of  an  intuition,  or  of  an  act  of  the  will.  In  itself  it  is  relative  and 
negative,  and  it  disappears  within  the  absolute  Being Time  and  space  are  frag- 
ments of  the  Infinite  for  the  use  of  finite  creatures.  God  permits  them  that  he  may 
not  be  alone.    They  are  the  mode  under  which  creatures  are  possible  and  conceivable. 

If  the  universe  subsists,  it  is  because  the  eternal  Mind  loves  to  perceive  its  own 

content,  in  all  its  wealth  and  expression,  especially  in  its  stages  of  preparation 

The  radiations  of  our  mind  are  imperfect  reflections  from  the  great  show  of  fireworks 
set  in  motion  by  lirahma,  and  great  art  is  great  only  because  of  its  conformities  with 
the  divine  order—  wit  h  that  which  is." 

Yet  we  are  far  from  saving  that  time,  now  that  it  exists,  has  no  objective 
reality  to  God.  To  him,  past,  present,  ami  future  an;  "one  eternal  now," 
not  in  the  sense  that  there  is  no  distinction  between  them,  hut  only  in  the 
sense  that  he  sees  past  ami  future  as  vividly  as  lie  sees  the  present.  With 
creation  time  began,  and  since  the  successions  of  history  are  veritable  suc- 
cessions,.he  who  sees  according  to  truth  must  recognize  them. 

Thomas  Carlyle  calls  God  "(he  Eternal  Now."  Mason.  Faith  of  the  (iospel,30—  "God 
is  not  contemptuous  of  time.  .  .  .  One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years. 
He  values  the  infinitesimal  in  time,  even  as  he  does  in  space.  Hence  the  patience, 
the  long-suffering,  the  expectation,  of  God."  We  are  reminded  of  the  inscription 
on  the  sun-dial,  in  which  it  is  said  of  the  hours:  "  Pereunt  et  imputantur"  —  "They 
pass  by,  and  tiny  are  charged  to  our  account."  A  certain  preacher  remarked  on  the 
wisdom  of  God  which  has  so  arranged  that  the  moments  of  time  come  successively  and 
not  simultaneously,  and  thus  prevent  infinite  confusion  !  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,1 :344, 
illustrates  God's  eternity  by  the  two  ways  in  which  a  person  may  see  a  procession  :  first 
from  a  doorway  in  the  street  through  which  the  procession  is  passing;  and  secondly, 
from  the  top  of  a  steeple  which  commands  a  view  of  the  whole  procession  at  the 
same  instant. 

S.  E.  Meze,  quoted  in  Royce,  Conception  of  God,  40  —  "  As  if  all  of  us  were  cylinders, 
with  their  ends  removed,  moving  through  the  waters  of  some  placid  lake.  To  the  cyl- 
inders the  waters  seem  to  move.  What  has  passed  is  a  memory,  what  is  to  come 
is  doubtful.  But  the  lake  knows  that  all  the  water  is  equally  real,  and  that  it  is  quiet, 
immovable,  unruffled.  Speaking  technically,  time  is  no  reality.  Things  seem  past  and 
future,  and,  in  a  sense,  non-existent  to  us,  but,  in  fact,  they  are  just  as  genuinely  real 
as  the  present  is."  Yet  even  here  there  is  an  order.  You  cannot  play  a  symphony 
backward  and  have  music.  This  qualification  at  least  must  be  put  upon  the  words 
of  Berkeley;  "A  succession  of  ideas  I  take  to  constitute  time,  and  not  to  be  only 
the  sensible  measure  thereof,  as  Mr.  Locke  and  others  think." 


278  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OP    GOD. 

Finney,  quoted  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1877:722  — "Eternity  to  us  means  all  past,  present, 
and  future  duration.  But  to  God  it  means  only  now.  Duration  and  space,  as  they 
respect  his  existence,  mean  infinitely  different  things  from  what  they  do  when  they 
respect  our  existence.  God's  existence  and  his  acts,  as  they  respect  finite  existence, 
have  relation  to  time  and  space.  But  as  they  respect  his  own  existence,  everything-  is 
here  and  now.  With  respect  to  all  finite  existences,  God  can  say  :  I  was,  I  am,  I  shall  be, 
I  will  do ;  but  with  respect  to  his  own  existence,  all  that  he  can  say  is :  I  am,  I  do." 

Edwards  the  younger,  Works,  1 :  386,  387—"  There  is  no  succession  in  the  divine  mind ; 
therefore  no  new  operations  take  place.  All  the  divine  acts  are  from  eternity,  nor  is 
there  any  time  with  God.  The  effects  of  these  divine  acts  do  indeed  all  take  place  in 
time  and  in  a  succession.  If  it  should  be  said  that  on  this  supposition  the  effects  take 
place  not  till  long-  after  the  acts  by  which  they  are  produced,  I  answer  that  they  do  so 
in  our  view,  but  not  in  the  view  of  God.  With  him  there  is  no  time ;  no  before  or  after 
with  respect  to  time  :  nor  has  time  any  existence  in  the  divine  mind,  or  in  the  nature  of 
things  independently  of  the  minds  and  perceptions  of  creatures ;  but  it  depends  on  the 
succession  of  those  perceptions."  We  must  qualify  this  statement  of  the  younger 
Edwards  by  the  following  from  Julius  Mii  Her :  "If  God's  working  can  have  no  relation 
to  time,  then  all  bouds  of  union  between  God  and  the  world  are  snapped  asunder." 

It  is  an  interesting  question  whether  the  human  spirit  is  capable  of  timeless  exist- 
ence, and  whether  the  conception  of  time  is  purely  physical.  In  dreams  wo  seem  to  lose 
sight  of  succession  ;  in  extreme  pain  an  age  is  compressed  into  a  minute.  Does  this 
throw  light  upon  the  nature  of  prophecy  ?  Is  the  soul  of  the  prophet  rapt  into  God's 
timeless  existence  and  vision?  It  is  doubtful  whether  Rev.  10 :  6 —  "  there  shall  be  time  no 
longer''  can  be  relied  upon  to  prove  the  affirmative;  for  the  Rev.  Vers.  marg.  and  the 
American  Revisers  translate  "there  shall  be  delay  no  longer."  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2: 147 
—  "All  self-consciousness  is  a  victory  over  time."  So  with  memory  ;  see  Dorner,  Glaub- 
enslehre,  1  :  471.  On  "the  death-vision  of  one's  whole  existence,"  see  Fiances  Kemble 
Butler's  experience  in  Shedd,  Dogm.  Tlieol.,  1 : 351—"  Here  there  is  succession  and  scries, 
only  so  exceedingly  rapid  as  to  seem  simultaneous."  This  rapidity  however  is  so  great 
as  to  show  that  each  man  can  at  the  last  be  judged  in  an  instant.  On  space  and  time  as 
uulimited,  see  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect,  564-566.  On  the  conception  of  eternity,  see  Man- 
sel,  Lectures,  Essays  and  Reviews',  111-126,  and  Modern  Spiritualism,  255-292;  New 
Englander,  April,  1875 :  art.  on  the  Metaphysical  Idea  of  Eternity.  For  practical  les- 
sons from  the  Eternity  of  God,  see  Park,  Discourses,  137-151: ;  Westcott,  Some  Lessons 
of  the  Rev.  Vers.,  (Pott,  N.  Y.,  1897),  187  — with  comments  on  cUwyes  in  Eph.  3 :  21,  Heb. 
11 : 3,  Rev.  4 ;  10, 11  —  "  the  universe  under  the  aspect  of  time." 

2.     Immensity. 

By  this  we  mean  that  God's  nature  ( a )  is  without  extension  ;  (  b  )  is  sub- 
ject to  no  limitations  of  space  ;  and  (c)  contains  in  itself  the  cause  of  space. 

1  Kings  8  :  27 —  "  behold,  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee."  Space  is  a  creation  of 
God  ;  Rom.  8 :  39  — "  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature."  Zahn,  Bib.  Dogmatik,  149  —  "  Script- 
ure does  not  teach  the  immanence  of  God  in  the  world,  but  the  immanence  of  the  world 
in  God."  Dante  does  not  put  God,  but  Satan  at  the  centre;  and  Satan,  being  at  the 
centre,  is  crushed  with  the  whole  weight  of  the  universe.  God  is  the  Being  who 
encompasses  all.  All  things  exist  in  him.  E.  G.  Robinson:  "  Space  is  a  relation ;  God  is 
the  author  of  relations  and  of  our  modes  of  thought;  therefore  God  is  the  author  of 
space.    Space  conditions  our  thought,  but  it  does  not  condition  God's  thought." 

Jonathan  Edwards :  "  Place  itself  is  mental,  and  within  and  without  are  mental  con- 
ceptions. .  .  .  When  I  say  the  material  universe  exists  only  in  the  mind,  I  mean  that  it 
is  absolutely  dependent  on  the  conception  of  the  mind  for  ils  existence,  and  does  not 
exist  as  spirits  do,  whose  existence  does  not  consist  in,  nor  in  dependence  on,  the  con- 
ception of  other  minds."  H.  M.  Stanley,  on  Space  and  Science,  in  Philosophical 
Rev.,  Nov.  1898 :615  —  "  Space  is  not  full  of  things,  but  things  are  spaceful.  .  .  .  Space 
is  a  form  of  dynamic  appearance."  Bradley  carries  the  ideality  of  space  to  an  extreme, 
when,  in  his  Appearance  and  Reality,  35-38,  he  tells  us :  Space  is  not  a  mere  rela- 
tion, for  it  has  parts,  and  what  can  be  the  parts  of  a  relation?  But  space  is  notning  but 
a  relation,  for  it  is  lengths  of  lengths  of —  nothing  that  we  can  find.  We  can  find  no 
terms  either  inside  or  outside.  Space,  to  be  space,  must  have  space  outside  itself. 
Bradley  therefore  concludes  that  space  is  not  reality  but  only  appearance. 


RELATIVE    OR   TRANSITIVE   ATTRIBUTES.  279 

Immensity  is  infinity  in  its  relation  to  space.  God's  nature  is  not  subject 
to  the  law  of  space.  God  is  not  in  space.  It  is  more  correct  to  say  that 
space  is  in  God.  Yet  space  lias  ail  objective  reality  to  God.  With  creation 
space  began  to  be,  and  since  God  sees  according  to  truth,  he  recognizes 
relations  of  space  in  his  creation. 

Many  of  the  remarks  made  in  explanation  of  time  apply  equally  to  space.  Space  is 
not  a  substance  nor  an  attribute,  but  a  relation.  It  exists  so  soon  as  extended  matter 
exists,  and  exists  as  its  necessary  condition,  whether  our  minds  perceive  it  or  not.  Reid, 
Intellectual  Powers,  essay  2,  chap.  9  —  "  Space  is  not  so  properly  an  object  of  sense,  as 
a  necessary  concomitant  of  the  objects  of  sight  and  touch."  When  we  see  or  touch 
body,  we  get  the  idea  of  space  in  which  the  body  exists,  but  the  idea  of  space  is  not  fur- 
nished by  the  sense  ;  it  is  an  a  priori  cognition  of  the  reason.  Experience  furnishes 
the  occasion  of  its  evolution,  but  the  mind  evolves  the  conception  by  its  own  native 
energy. 

Anselm,  Proslogion,  19 — "Nothing  contains  thee,  but  thou  containest  all  things." 
Yet  it  is  not  precisely  accurate  to  say  that  space  is  in  Cod,  for  this  expression  seems  to 
intimate  that  God  is  a  greater  space  which  somehow  includes  the  less.  God  is  rather 
unspatial  and  is  the  Lord  of  space.  The  notion  that  space  and  the  divine  immensity 
are  identical  leads  to  a  materialistic  conception  of  God.  Space  is  not  an  attribute  of 
God,  as  Clarke  maintained,  and  no  argument  for  the  divine  existence  can  be  constructed 
from  this  premise  (see  pages  85,  80).  Martineau,  Types,  1  :  138,  139, 170— "Malebranche 
said  that  God  is  the  place  of  all  spirits,  as  space  is  the  place  of  all  bodies.  .  .  .  Des- 
cartes held  that  there  is  do  such  thing  as  empty  space.  Nothing  cannot  possibly  have 
extension.  Wherever  extension  is,  there  must  be  something  extended.  Hence  the  doc- 
trine of  a  plenum,  A  vacuum  is  inconceivable."  Lotze,  Outlines  of  Metaphysics,  87 — 
"According  to  the  ordinary  view  .  .  .  space  exists,  and  things  exist  in  it;  according 
to  our  view,  only  things  exist,  and  between  them  nothing  exists,  but  space  exists  in  them." 

Case,  Physical  Realism,  379,  380—  "  Space  is  the  continuity,  or  continuous  extension, 
of  the  universe  as  one  substance."  Ladd :  "Is  space  extended?  Then  it  must  be 
extended  in  some  other  space.  That  other  space  is  the  space  we  are  talking  about. 
Space  then  is  not  an  entity,  but  a  mental  presupposition  of  the  existence  of  extended 
substance.  Space  and  time  are  neither  finite  nor  infinite.  Space  has  neither  circumfer- 
ence nor  centre,— its  centre  would  be  everywhere.  We  cannot  Imagine  space  at  all. 
It  is  simply  a  precondition  of  mind  enabling  us  to  perceive  things."  In  Bib.  Sac,  1890 : 
115-444,  art.:  Is  Space  a  Reality?  Prof.  Mead  opposes  the  doctrine  that  space  is  purely 
subjective,  as  taught  by  Bowne ;  also  the  doctrine-  that  space  is  a  certain  order  of  rela- 
tions among  realities;  that  space  is  nothing  apart  from  things;  but  that  things,  when 
they  exist,  exist  in  certain  relations,  and  that  the  sum,  or  system,  of  these  relations 
constitutes  space. 

We  prefer  the  view  of  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  127, 137,  14.J,  that  "  Space  is  the  form  of 
objective  experience,  and  is  nothing  in  abstraction  from  that  experience.  .  .  .  It  is  a 
form  of  intuition,  and  not  a  mode  of  existence.  According  to  this  view,  things  are 
not  in  space  and  space-relations,  but  appear  to  be.  I n  themselves  they  are  essentially 
non-spatial;  but  by  their  interactions  with  one  another,  and  with  the  mind,  they  give 
rise  to  the  appearance  of  a  world  of  extended  things  in  a  common  space.  Space-predi- 
cates, then,  belong  to  phenomena  only,  and  not  to  things-in-themselves.  .  .  .  Apparent 
reality  exists  spatially;  but  proper  ontological  reality  exists  spacelessly  and  without 
spatial  predicates."  For  the  view  that  space  is  relative,  see  also  Cocker,  Theistic  Con- 
ception of  the  World,  66-96 ;  Calderwood,  Philos.  of  the  Infinite,  331-335.  Per  contra,  see 
Porter,  Human  Intellect,  662;  Hazard,  Letters  on  Causation  in  Willing,  appendix ;  Bib. 
Sac,  Oct.  1877:  723;  Gear,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  July,  1880:434;  Lowndes,  Philos.  of  Primary 
Beliefs,  144-161. 

Second  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Creation. 
1.     Omnipresence. 

By  this  we  mean  that  Cod,  in  the  totality  of  his  essence,  without  diffu- 
sion or  expansion,  multiplication  or  division,  penetrates  and  fills  the 
universe  in  all  its  parts. 


280  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Ps.  139  :  7  »/. — "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?  Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence?"  Jer.  23 :  23, 
24  —  "  Am  I  a  God  at  hand,  saith  Jehovah,  and  not  a  God  afar  off  ?  ....  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth  ?  "  Acts 
17:27,28 — "he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us :  for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being."  Faber: 
"  For  God  is  never  so  far  off  As  oven  to  be  near.  He  is  within.  Our  spirit  is  The 
home  he  holds  most  dear.  To  thinlr  of  him  as  by  our  side  Is  almost  as  untrue  As  to 
remove  his  shrine  beyond  Those  skies  of  starry  blue.  So  all  the  while  I  thought  myself 
Homeless,  foi-lorn  and  weary,  Missing  my  joy,  I  walked  the  earth  Myself  God's  sanc- 
tuary." Henri  Amiel :  "  From  every  point  on  earth  we  are  equally  near  to  heaven 
and  the  infinite."  Tennyson,  The  Higher  Pantheism  :  "Speak  to  him  then,  for  he 
hears,  and  spirit  with  spirit  can  meet ;  Closer  is  he  than  breathing,  and  nearer  than 
hands  and  feet."    "As  full,  as  perfect,  in  a  hair  as  heart." 

The  atheist  wrote :  "  God  is  nowhere,"  but  his  little  daughter  read  it :  "  God  is 
now  here,"  and  it  converted  him.  The  child  however  sometimes  asks:  "if  God  is 
everywhere,  how  is  there  any  room  for  us?  "  and  the  only  answer  is  that  God  is  not  a 
material  but  a  spiritual  being,  whose  presence  does  not  exclude  finite  existence  but 
rather  makes  such  existence  possible.  This  universal  presence  of  God  had  to  be 
learned  gradually.  It  required  great  faith  in  Abraham  to  go  out  from  TTr  of  the  Chal- 
dees,  and  yet  to  hold  that  God  would  be  with  him  in  a  distant  land  (Heb.  11:8).  Jacob 
learned  that  the  heavenly  ladder  followed  him  wherever  he  went  (Gen. 28:15).  Jesus 
taught  that  " neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  in  Jerusalem,  shall  ye  worship  the  Father"  (John  4:21).  Our 
Lord's  mysterious  comings  and  goings  after  his  resurrection  were  intended  to  teach  his 
disciples  that  he  was  with  them  "  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  "  ( Mat.  28  :  20  ).  The  omni- 
presence of  Jesus  demonstrates,  a  fortiori,  the  omnipresence  of  God. 

In  explanation  of  this  attribute  we  may  say  : 

(a)  God's  omnipresence  is  not  potential  but  essential. — We  reject  the 
Socinian  representation  that  God's  essence  is  in  heaven,  only  his  power  on 
earth.  When  God  is  said  to  "  dwell  in  the  heavens,"  we  are  to  understand 
the  language  either  as  a  symbolic  expression  of  exaltation  above  earthly 
things,  or  as  a  declaration  that  his  most  special  and  glorious  self-manifesta- 
tions are  to  the  spirits  of  heaven. 

Ps.  123 : 1  —  " 0  thou  that  sittest  in  the  heavens"  ;  113  :  5  —  "  That  hath  his  seat  on  high  "  ;  Is.  57 :  15 —  "  the  high 
and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity."  Mere  potential  omnipresence  is  Dcistie  as  well  as  Socin- 
ian. Like  birds  in  the  air  or  fish  in  the  sea,  "at  home,  abroad,  We  are  surrounded 
still  with  God."  We  do  not  need  to  go  up  to  heaven  to  call  him  down,  or  into  the  aby^s 
to  call  him  up  (  Rom.  10 :  6, 7 ).  The  best  illustration  is  found  in  the  presence  of  the  soul 
in  every  part  of  the  body.  Mind  seems  not  confined  to  the  brain.  Natural  realism  in 
philosophy,  as  distinguished  from  idealism,  requires  that  the  mind  should  be  at  the 
point  of  contact  with  the  outer  world,  instead  of  having  reports  and  ideas  brought  to 
it  in  the  brain  ;  see  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  149.  All  believers  in  a  soul  regard  the 
soul  as  at  least  present  in  all  parts  of  the  brain,  and  this  is  a  relative  omnipresence  no 
less  difficult  in  principle  than  its  presence  in  all  parts  of  the  body.  An  animal's  brain 
may  be  frozen  into  a  piece  solid  as  ice,  yet,  after  thawing,  it  will  act  as  before: 
although  freezing  of  the  whole  body  will  cause  death.  If  /the  immaterial  principle 
were  confined  to  the  brain  we  should  expect  freezing  of  the  brain  to  cause  death. 
But  if  the  soul  may  be  omnipresent  in  the  body  or  even  in  the  brain,  the  divine  Spirit 
maybe  omnipresent  in  the  universe.  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  136  —  "  If  finite  things  are 
modes  of  the  infinite,  each  thing  must  be  a  mode  of  the  entire  infinite ;  and  the  infinite 
must  be  present  in  its  unity  and  completeness  in  every  finite  thing,  just  as  the  entire 
soul  is  present  in  all  its  acts."  This  idealistic  conception  of  the  entire  mind  as  present 
iu  all  Its  thoughts  must  be  regarded  as  the  best  analogue  to  God's  omnipresence  in  the 
universe.  We  object  to  the  view  that  this  omnipresence  is  merely  potential,  as  we 
find  it  in  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  74— "We  know,  and  only  know,  that  God  is  able 
to  put  forth  all  his  power  of  action,  without  regard  to  place.  .  .  .  Omnipresence  is  an 
element  in  the  immanence  of  God.  ...  A  local  God  would  be  no  real  God.  If  he  is  not 
everywhere,  he  is  not  true  God  anywhere.  Omnipresence  is  implied  in  all  providence, 
in  all  prayer,  in  all  communion  with  God  and  reliance  on  God." 

So  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  consciousness  is  not  confined  to  a  single  point  in  the 
brain,  the  question  whether  other  portions  of  the  brain  or  of  the  body  are  also  the  seat 
of  consciousness  may  be  regarded  as  a  purely  academic  one,  and  the  answer  need  not 


RELATIVE   OR  TRANSITIVE   ATTRIBUTES.  281 

affect  our  present  argument.  The  principle  of  omnipresence  is  granted  when  once  we 
hold  that  the  soul  is  conscious  at  more  than  one  point  of  the  physical  organism.  Yet 
the  question  suggested  above  is  an  interesting  one  and  with  regard  to  it  psychologists 
are  divided.  Paulsen,  Einleitung  in  dVe  Philosophic  (1892),  1^3-159,  holds  that  con- 
sciousness is  correlated  with  the  sum-total  of  bodily  processes,  and  with  him  agree 
Fechner  and  Wundt.  "Pfliiger  and  Lewes  say  that  as  the  hemispheres  of  the  brain 
owe  their  intelligence  to  the  consciousness  which  we  know  to  be  there,  so  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  spinal  cord's  acts  must  really  be  due  to  the  invisible  presence  of  a  con- 
sciousness lower  in  degree."  Professor  Brewer's  rattlesnake,  after  several  hours  of 
decapitation,  still  struck  at  him  with  its  bloody  neck,  when  he  attempted  to  seize  it  by 
the  tail.  From  the  reaction  of  the  frog's  leg  after  decapitation  may  we  not  infer  a 
certain  consciousness?  "Robin,  on  tickling  the  breast  of  a  criminal  an  hour  after 
decapitation,  saw  the  arm  and  hand  move  toward  the  spot."  Hudson,  Demonstration 
of  a  Future  Life,  239-219,  quotes  from  Hammond,  Treatise  on  Insanity,  chapter  2,  to 
prove  that  the  brain  is  not  the  sole  organ  of  the  mind.  Instinct  does  not  reside  exclu- 
sively in  the  brain;  it  is  seated  in  the  medulla  oblongata,  or  in  the  spinal  cord,  or  in 
both  these  organs.  Objective  mind,  as  Hudson  thinks,  is  the  function  of  the  physical 
brain,  and  it  ceases  when  the  brain  loses  its  vitality.  Instinctive  acts  are  performed  by 
animals  after  excision  of  the  brain,  and  by  human  beings  born  without  brain.  John- 
son, in  Andover  Rev.,  April,  1890:421  —  "The  brain  is  not  the  only  seat  of  consciousness. 
The  same  evidence  that  points  to  the  brain  as  the  principal  scat  of  consciousness 
points  to  the  nerve-centres  situated  in  the  spinal  cord  or  elsewhere  as  the  seatof  a 
more  or  less  subordinate  consciousness  or  intelligence."  Ireland,  Blot  on  the  Brain, 
26— "I  do  not  take  it  for  proved  that  consciousness  is  entirely  confined  to  the  brain.1' 

In  spite  of  these  opinions,  however,  wemust  grant  that  the  general  consensus  among 
psychologists  is  upon  the  other  side.  Dewey,  Psychology,  849— "The  sensory  and 
motor  nerves  have  points  of  meeting  in  the  spinal  cord.  When  a  stimulus  is  trans- 
ferred from  a  sensory  nerve  to  a  motor  without  the  conscious  intervention  of  the 
mind,  we  have  reflex  action.  .  .  .  If  something  approaches  the  eye,  the  stimulus  is 
transferred  t<>  the  spinal  cord,  and  Instead  of  being  continued  to  the  brain  and  giving 
rise  to  a  sensation,  it  is  discharged  into  a  motor  nerve  and  the  eye  is  immediately 
closed.  .  .  .  The  rellex  action  in  itself  involves  no  consciousness."  William  James, 
Psychology,  1:16,66,  134,  2U  —  "The  cortex  Of  the  brain  is  the  sole  organ  of  conscious- 
ness in  man.  ...  If  there  be  any  consciousness  pertaining  to  the  lower  centres,  it  is  a 
consciousness  of  which  the  self  knows  nothing.  ...  In  lower  animals  this  may  not  be 
so  much  the  case.  .  .  .  The  seat  of  the  mind,  so  far  as  its  dynamical  relations  are 
concerned,  is  somewhere  in  the  cortex  of  the  brain."  See  also  C.  A.  Stroug,  Why  the 
Mind  has  a  Body,  40-50. 

(  b )  God's  omnipresence  is  not  the  presence  of  a  part  but  of  the  whole  of 
God  in  every  place. — This  follows  from  the  conception  of  God  as  incor- 
poreal. We  reject  the  materialistic  representation  that  God  is  composed  of 
material  elements  which  can  be  divided  or  sundered.  There  is  no  multi- 
plication or  diffusion  of  his  substance  to  correspond  with  the  parts  of  his 
dominions.     The  one  essence  of  God  is  present  at  the  same  moment  in  all. 

1  Kings  8;  27  —  " the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  (circumscribe  )  thee."  God  must 
be  present  in  all  his  essenceand  all  his  attributes  in  every  place.  He  is  "totus  in  omni 
parte."  Alger,  Poetry  of  the  Orient:  "Though  God  extends  beyond  Creation's  rim, 
Each  smallest  atom  holds  the  whole  of  him."  From  this  it  follows  that  the  whole 
Logos  can  be  united  to  and  be  present  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  Alls  and  governs  the  whole  universe  ;  and  so  the  whole  Christ  can  be  united  to,  and 
can  be  present  in,  the  single  believer,  as  fully  as  if  that  believer  were  the  only  one  to 
receive  of  his  fulness. 

A.  J.  Gordon:  "In  mathematics  the  whole  is  equal  to  the  sum  of  its  parts.  But 
we  know  of  the  Spirit  that  every  part  is  equal  to  the  whole.  Every  church,  every 
true  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  has  just  as  much  of  Christ  as  every  other,  and  each  has  the 
whole  Christ."  Mat.  13 :  20  —  "  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst 
of  them."  "-The  parish  priest  of  austerity  Climbed  up  in  a  high  church  steeple,  To  be 
nearer  God  so  that  he  might  Hand  his  word  down  to  the  people.  And  in  sermon 
script  he  daily  wrote  What  he  thought  was  sent  from  heaven,  And  he  dropt  it  down  on 
the  people's  heads  Two  times  one  day  in  seven.  In  his  age  God  said, '  Come  down  and 
die,'  And  he  cried  out  from  the  steeple,  'Where  art  thou,  Lord?'  And  the  Lord 
replied,  'Down  here  among  my  people.'  " 


2S2  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS    OF    GOD. 

(c  )  God's  omnipresence  is  not  necessary  but  free.— We  reject  the  pan- 
theistic notion  that  God  is  bound  to  the  universe  as  the  universe  is  bound 
to  God.  God  is  immanent  in  the  universe,  not  by  compulsion,  but  by 
the  free  act  of  his  own  will,  and  this  immanence  is  qualified  by  his  tran- 
scendence. 

God  might  at  will  cease  to  be  omnipresent,  for  he  could  destroy  the  universe  ;  but 
while  the  universe  exists,  he  is  and  must  he  in  all  its  parts.  God  is  the  life  and  law  of 
the  universe,— this  is  the  truth  in  pantheism.  But  he  is  also  personal  and  free, —  this 
pantheism  denies.  Christianity  holds  to  a  free,  as  well  as  to  an  essential,  omnipresence  — 
qualified  and  supplemented,  however,  by  God's  transcendence.  The  boasted  truth  in 
pantheism  is  an  elementary  principle  of  Christianity,  and  is  only  the  stepping-stone  to  a 
nobler  truth  — God's  personal  presence  with  his  church.  The  Talmud  contrasts  the 
worship  of  an  idol  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah  :  "  The  idol  seems  so  near,  but  is  so  far, 
Jehovah  seems  so  far,  but  is  so  near  ! "  God's  omnipresence  assures  us  that  he  is  pres- 
ent with  us  to  hear,  and  present  in  every  heart  and  in  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  answer, 
prayer.  See  Rogers,  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  10;  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  130 ; 
Charnoek,  Attributes,  1 :  363-405. 

The  Puritan  turned  from  the  moss-rose  bud,  saying :  "I  have  learned  to  call  nothing 
on  earth  lovely."  But  this  is  to  despise  not  only  the  workmanship  but  the  presence 
of  the  Almighty.  The  least  thing  in  nature  is  worthy  of  study  because  it  is  the  revela- 
tion of  a  present  God.  The  uniformity  of  nature  and  the  reign  of  law  are  nothing  but 
the  steady  will  of  the  omnipresent  God.  Gravitation  is  God's  omnipresence  in  space, 
a-;  < 'volution  is  God's  omnipresence  in  time.  Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine,  1 :  73—  "  God 
being  omnipresent,  contact  with  him  may  be  sought  at  any  moment  in  prayer  and 
contemplation;  indeed,  it  will  always  be  true  that  we  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being  in  him,  as  the  perennial  and  omnipresent  source  of  our  existence."  Rom.  10  j  6-8  — 
"  Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  ( that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down : )  or,  Who  shall  descend  into  the 
abyss?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up  from  the  dead.)  Bat  what  saith  it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth, 
and  in  thy  heart."  Lotze,  Metaphysics,  §  256,  quoted  in  Illingworth,  Divine  Immanence, 
135,  136.  Sunday-school  scholar:  "Is  God  in  my  pocket?"  "Certainly."  "No,  he 
is  n't,  for  I  have  n't  any  pocket."  God  is  omnipresent  so  long  as  there  is  a  universe, 
but  he  ceases  to  be  omnipresent  when  the  universe  ceases  to  be. 

2.     Omniscience. 

By  this  we  mean  God's  perfect  and  eternal  knowledge  of  all  things  which 
are  objects  of  knowledge,  whether  they  be  actual  or  possible,  past,  present, 
or  future. 

God  knows  his  inanimate  creation  :  Ps.  147 : 4  — "countoth  the  number  of  the  stars ;  He  calleth  them  all 
by  their  names."  He  has  knowledge  of  brute  creatures :  Mat.  10  :29 — sparrows — "not  one  of  them 
shall  fall  on  the  ground  without  your  Father."  Of  men  and  their  works :  Ps.  33 :  13-15  — "  boholdeth  all  the 
sonsofmen  ....  consideroth  all  their  works."  Of  hearts  of  men  and  their  thoughts:  Acts  15 :  8  — • 
'  God,  who  knoweth  the  heart;"  Ps.  139:2 — " understandest  my  thought  afar  off."  Of  our  wants:  Mat.  6:8  — 
"  knoweth  what  things  ye  have  need  of."  Of  the  least  things :  Mat.  10  :  30  — "  the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are 
all  numbered."  Of  the  past:  Mai.  3:16  —  "book  of  remembrance."  Of  the  future:  Is.  46:9,  10  —  "declar- 
ing the  end  from  the  beginning."  Of  men's  future  free  acts :  Is.  44 :  28  —  "  that  saith  of  Cyrus,  He  is  my 
shepherd  and  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure,' '  Of  men's  future  evil  acts :  Acts  2 :  23  —  "  him,  being  delivered 
up  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God."  Of  the  ideally  possible:  1  Sam.  23:12 — "Will 
the  men  of  Keilah  deliver  up  me  and  my  men  into  the  hands  of  Saul?  And  Jehovah  said,  They  will  deliver  thee  up" 
( sc.  if  thou  remainest ) ;  Mat.  11 :  23  —  "  if  the  mighty  works  had  been  done  in  Sodom  which  were  dono  in  thee, 
it  would  have  remained."  From  eternity :  Acts  15:18  —  "the  Lord,  who  maketh  these  things  known  from  of 
old."  Incomprehensible:  Ps.  139:6  —  "Such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  me";  Rom.  11:33 — "Othe 
depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  God."  Related  to  wisdom:,  Ps.  104:  24  —  "In 
wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all  "  ;  Eph.  3:10  —  "  manifold  wisdom  of  God. ' ' 

Job  7:20  —  "0  thou  watcher  of  men";  Ps.  56:  8  —  "Thou  numberest  my  wanderings"  =  ray  whole  life  has 
been  one  continuous  exile ;  "  Put  thou  my  tears  into  thy  bottle "  =  the  skin  bottle  of  the  east, — 
there  are  tears  enoug-h  to  fill  one;  "Are  they  not  in  thy  book?"=no  tear  has  fallen  to  the 
ground  unnoted,— God  has  gathered  them  all.  Paul  Gerhardt:  "Du  zahlst  wie  oft 
ein  Christe  wein',  Und  was  sein  Kuminer  sei ;  Kein  stilles  Thranlein  ist  so  klein, 
Du  hebst  und  legst  es  bei."    Heb.  4  :  13  —  "there  is  no  creature  that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight :  but  all 


RELATIVE   OK   TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  283 

things  are  naked  and  laid  open  before  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do"  —  TerpaxijAio-meVa —  with 
head  beut  back  and  nock  laid  bare,  as  animals  slaughtered  in  sacrifice,  or  seized  by  the 
throat  and  thrown  on  the  back,  so  that  the  priest  might  discover  whether  there  was 
any  blemish.    Japanese  proverb :  "  God  has  forgotten  to  forget." 

(  a )  The  omniscience  of  God  may  be  argued  from  his  omnipresence,  as 
well  as  from  his  truth  or  self-knowledge,  in  which  the  plan  of  creation  has 
its  eternal  ground,  and  from  jirophecy,  which  expresses  God's  omniscience. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  omniscience,  as  the  designation  of  a  relative  and  transi- 
tive attribute,  does  not  include  God's  self-knowledge.  The  term  is  used  in  the  technic- 
al sense  of  God's  knowledge  of  all  things  that  pertain  to  the  universe  of  his  creation. 
H.  A.  Gordon  :  "  Light  travels  faster  than  sound.  You  can  see  the  flash  of  fire  from 
the  cannon's  mouth,  a  mileaway,  considerably  before  the  noise  of  the  discharge  reaches 
the  ear.  God  flashed  the  light  of  prediction  upon  the  pages  of  his  word,  and  we  see  it. 
Wait  a  little  and  we  see  the  event  itself." 

Koyce,  The  Conception  of  God,  it— "An  omniscient  being  would  be  one  who  simply 
found  presented  to  him,  not  by  virtue  of  fragmentary  and  gradually  completed  pro- 
cesses of  inquiry,  but  by  virtue  of  an  all-embracing,  direct  and  transparent  insight  into 
his  own  truth  — who  found  thus  presented  to  him,  I  say,  the  complete,  the  fulfilled 
answer  to  every  genuinely  rational  question." 

Browning,  Ferishtah's  Fancies,  Plot-culture  :  "  How  will  it  fare  ehouldst  thou 
impress  on  me  That  certainly  an  Eye  is  over  all  And  each,  to  make  the  minute's  deed, 
word,  thought  As  worthy  of  reward  and  punishment  V  Shall  I  permit  my  sense  an  Eye- 
viewed  shame,  Broad  daylight  perpetration,— so  to  speak,—  I  had  not  dared  to  breathe 
within  the  Ear,  With  black  night's  help  around  me  V  " 

(  b)  Since  it  is  free  from  all  imperfection,  God's  knowledge  is  immediate, 
as  distinguished  from  the  knowledge  that  comes  through  sense  or  imagina- 
tion ;  .simultaneous,  as  not  acquired  by  successive  observations,  or  built 
up  by  processes  of  reasoning  ;  distinct,  as  free  from  all  vagueness  or  con- 
fusion ;  true,  as  perfectly  corresponding  to  the  reality  of  things;  eternal, 
as  comprehended  in  one  timeless  act  of  the  divine  mind. 

An  infinite  mind  must  always  act,  and  must  always  act  in  an  absolutely  perfect 
maimer.  There  is  in  God  no  sense,  symbol,  memory,  abstraction,  growth,  reflection, 
reasoning,— his  knowledge  is  all  direct  and  without  Intermediaries.  God  was  properly 
represented  by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  not  as  having  eye,  hut  as  being  eye.  His 
thoughts  toward  us  are  "  more  than  can  be  numbered  "  (  Ps.  40 : 5 ),  not  because  there  is  succession 
in  them,  now  a  remembering  and  now  a  forgetting,  but  because  there  is  never  a 
moment  of  our  existence  in  which  we  arc  out  of  his  mind;  he  is  always  thinking  of 
us.  See  Charnock,  Attributes,  1:406-497.  Gen.  16:13—  "Thou  art  a  God  that  sceth."  Mivart,  Les- 
sons from  Nature,  374 —"  Every  creature  of  every  order  of  existence,  while  its  exist- 
ence is  sustained,  is  so  complacently  contemplated  by  God,  that  the  intense  and  con- 
centrated attention  of  all  men  of  science  together  upon  it  could  but  form  an  utterly 
inadequate  symbol  of  such  divine  contemplation."  So  God's  scrutiny  of  every  deed  of 
darkness  is  more  searching  than  the  gaze  of  a  whole  Coliseum  of  spectators,  and  his  eye 
is  more  watchful  over  the  good  than  would  be  the  united  care  of  all  his  hosts  in  heaven 
and  earth. 

Armstrong,  God  and  the  Soul:  "God's  energy  is  concentrated  attention,  attention 
concentrated  everywhere.  We  can  attend  to  two  or  three  things  at  once;  the  pianist 
plays  and  talks  at  the  same  time;  the  magician  does  one  thing  while  he  seems  to  do 
another.  God  attends  to  all  things,  does  all  things,  at  once."  Marie  Corelli,  Master 
Christian,  104—  "  The  biograph  is  a  hint  that  every  scene  of  human  life  is  reflected  in  a 
ceaseless  moving  panorama  some  Where,  for  the  beholding  of  some  one."  Wireless 
telegraphy  is  a  stupendous  warning  that  from  God  no  secrets  are  hid,  that "  there  is  nothing 
covered  that  shall  not  be  revealed  ;  and  hid,  that  shall  not  be  known  "  (.Mat.  10 ;  26 ).  The  Rontgen  rays, 
which  take  photographs  of  our  insides,  right  through  our  clothes,  and  even  in  the 
darkness  of  midnight,  show  that  to  God  "the  night  shineth  as  the  day"  (Ps.  139:12). 

Professor  Mitchel's  equatorial  telescope,  slowly  moving  by  clockwork,  toward  sun- 
get,  suddenly  touched  the  horizon  and  disclosed  a  boy  in  a  tree  stealing  apples,  but  the 
boy  was  all  unconscious  that  he  was  under  the  gaze  of  the  astronomer.    Nothing  was 


284  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

so  fearful  to  the  prisoner  in  the  French  cachot  as  the  eye  of  the  guard  that  never 
ceased  to  watch  him  in  perfect  silence  through  the  loophole  in  the  door.  As  in  the 
Roman  empire  the  whole  world  was  to  a  malefactor  one  great  prison,  and  in  his  flight 
to  the  most  distant  lands  the  emperor  could  track  him,  so  under  the  government  of 
God  no  sinner  can  escape  the  eye  of  his  Judge.  But  omnipresence  is  protective  as  well 
as  detective.  The  text  Gen.  16 :  13  —  "  Thou,  God,  seest  me "  —  has  been  used  as  a  restraint  from 
evil  more  than  as  a  stimulus  to  good.  To  tbe  child  of  the  devil  it  should  certainly  be 
the  former.  But  to  the  child  of  God  it  should  as  certainly  be  Ohe  latter.  God  should 
not  be  regarded  as  an  exacting  overseer  or  a  standing  threat,  but  rather  as  one  who 
understands  us,  loves  us,  and  helps  us.  Ps.  139: 17, 18  —  "How  precious  also  are  thy  thoughts  unto  me, 
0  God  !  How  great  is  the  sum  of  them  !  If  I  should  count  them,  they  are  more  in  number  than  the  sand :  When  I 
awake,  I  am  still  with  thee." 

( c )  Since  God  knows  things  as  they  are,  he  knows  the  necessary 
sequences  of  his  creation  as  necessary,  the  free  acts  of  his  creatures  as  free, 
the  ideally  possible  as  ideally  possible. 

God  knows  what  would  have  taken  place  under  circumstances  not  now  present; 
knows  what  the  universe  would  have  been,  had  he  chosen  a  different  plan  of  creation ; 
knows  what  our  lives  would  have  been,  had  we  made  different  decisions  in  the  past 
( Is.  48 :  18  —  "Oh  that  thou  hadst  hearkened  ....  then  had  thy  peace  been  as  a  river  "  ).  Clarke,  Christian 
Theology,  77  —  "  God  has  a  double  knowledge  of  his  universe.  He  knows  it  as  it  exists 
eternally  in  his  mind,  as  his  own  idea ;  and  he  knows  it  as  actually  existing  in  time  and 
space,  a  moving,  changing,  growing  universe,  with  perpetual  process  of  succession. 
In  his  own  idea,  he  knows  it  all  at  once  ;  but  he  is  al30  aware  of  its  perpetual  becoming, 
and  with  reference  to  events  as  they  occur  he  has  foreknowledge,  present  knowledge, 
and  knowledge  afterwards.  .  .  .  He  conceives  of  all  things  simultaneously,  but  observes 
all  things  in  their  succession." 

Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2:374 — holds  that  God  does  not  temporally  foreknow 
anything  except  as  he  is  expressed  in  finite  beings,  but  yet  that  the  Absolute  possesses 
a  perfect  knowledge  at  one  glance  of  the  whole  of  the  temporal  order,  present,  past 
and  future.  This,  he  says,  is  not  foreknowledge,  but  eternal  knowledge.  Priestley 
denied  that  any  contingent  event  could  be  an  object  of  knowledge.  But  Reid  says  the 
denial  that  any  free  action  can  be  foreseen  involves  the  denial  of  God's  own  free 
agency,  since  God's  future  actions  can  be  foreseen  by  men ;  also  that  while  God  fore- 
sees his  own  free  actions,  this  does  not  determine  those  actions  necessarily.  Tennyson, 
In  Menioriam,  26 — "And  if  that  eye  which  watches  guilt  And  goodness,  and  hath  power 
to  see  Within  the  green  the  mouldered  tree,  Aud  towers  fallen  as  soon  as  built  — Oh, 
if  indeed  that  eye  foresee  Or  see  ( in  Him  is  no  before )  In  more  of  life  true  life  no  more 
And  Love  the  indifference  to  be,  Then  might  I  find,  ere  yet  the  morn  Breaks  hither 
over  Indian  seas.  That  Shadow  waiting  with  the  keys,  To  shroud  me  from  my  proper 
scorn." 

( d  )  The  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  present  condition  of  things 
from  which  the  future  actions  of  free  creatures  necessarily  follow  by  nat- 
ural law  does  not  prevent  God  from  foreseeing  such  actions,  since  his 
knowledge  is  not  mediate,  but  immediate.  He  not  only  foreknows  the 
motives  which  will  occasion  men's  acts,  but  he  directly  foreknows  the  acts 
themselves.  The  possibility  of  such  direct  knowledge  without  assignable 
grounds  of  knowledge  is  apparent  if  we  admit  that  time  is  a  form  of  finite 
thought  to  which  the  divine  mind  is  not  subject. 

Aristotle  maintained  that  there  is  no  certain  knowledge  of  contingent  future  events. 
Socinus,  in  like  manner,  while  he  admitted  that  God  knows  all  things  that  are  know- 
able,  abridged  the  objects  of  the  divine  knowledge  by  withdrawing  from  the  number 
those  objects  whose  future  existence  he  considered  as  uncertain,  such  as  the  determina- 
tions of  free  agents.  These,  he  held,  cannot  be  certainly  foreknown,  because  there  is 
nothing  in  the  present  condition  of  things  from  which  they  will  necessarily  follow  by 
natural  law.  The  man  who  makes  a  clock  can  tell  when  it  will  strike.  But  free-will, 
not  being  subject  to  mechanical  laws,  cannot  have  its  acts  predicted  or  foreknown. 
God  knows  things  only  in  their  causes —  future  events  only  in  their  antecedents.  John. 
Milton  seems  also  to  deny  God's  foreknowledge  of  free  acts :  "  So,  without  laast  impulse 
or  shadow  of  fate,  Or  aught  by  me  immutably  foreseen,  They  trespass." 


RELATIVE   OR   TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  285 

With  thisSocinian  doctrine  some  Arminians  agree,  as  MoCabe,  in  his  Foreknowledge 
of  God,  and  in  his  Divine  Nescience  of  Future  Contingencies  a  Necessity.  McCabe, 
however,  sacrifices  the  principle  of  free  will,  in  defence  of  which  he  makes  this  surren- 
der of  God's  foreknowledge,  by  saying  that  in  cases  of  fulfilled  prophecy,  like  Peter's 
denial  and  Judas's  betrayal,  God  brought  special  influences  to  bear  to  secure  the  result, 
—  so  that  Peter's  and  Judas's  wills  acted  irresponsibly  under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect. 
He  quotes  Dr.  Daniel  Curry  as  declaring  that  "the  denial  of  absolute  divine  fore- 
knowledge is  the  essential  complement  of  the  Methodist  theology,  without  which  its 
philosophical  incompleteness  is  defenceless  against  the  logical  consistency  of  Calvin- 
ism." See  also  article  by  McCabe  in  Methodist  Review,  Sept.  1892 : 7(30-773.  Also  Simon, 
Reconciliation,  287  —  "God  has  constituted  a  creature,  the  actions  of  which  he  can  only 
know  as  such  when  they  are  performed.  In  presence  of  man,  to  a  certain  extent,  even 
the  great  God  condescends  to  wait ;  nay  more,  has  himself  so  ordained  things  that  he 
must  wait,  inquiring,  'What  will  he  do?  '  " 

So  Dugald  Stewart :  "  Shall  we  venture  to  affirm  that  it  exceeds  the  power  of  God  to 
permit  such  a  train  of  contingent  events  to  take  place  as  his  own  foreknowledge  shall 
not  extend  to?"  Martenseu  holds  this  view,  and  Rothe,  Theologische  Ethik,  1 :  212- 
234,  who  declares  that  the  free  choices  of  men  are  continually  increasing  the  knowledge 
of  God.  So  also  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  2  :27'.l  — "  The  belief  in  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge of  our  future  has  no  basis  in  philosophy.  We  no  longer  deem  it  true  that 
even  God  knows  the  moment  of  my  moral  life  that  is  coming-  next.  Even  he  does  not 
know  whether  I  shall  yield  to  the  secret  temptation  at  midday.  To  him  life  is  a  drama 
of  which  he  knows  not  the  conclusion."  Then,  snj-s  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon,  there  is  nothing 
so  dreary  and  dreadful  as  to  be  living  under  the  direction  of  such  a  God.  The  universe 
is  rushing  on  like  an  express-train  in  the  darkness  without  headlight  or  engineer  ;  at 
any  moment  we  may  be  plunged  into  the  abyss.  Lotze  does  not  deny  God's  foreknowl- 
edge of  free  human  actions,  but  he  regards  as  insoluble  by  the  intellect  the  problem 
of  the  relation  of  time  to  God,  and  such  foreknowledge  as  "one  of  those  postulates  as 
to  which  we  know  not  how  they  can  be  fulfilled."  Bowne,  Philosophy  of  Theism,  159  — 
"  Foreknowledge  of  a  free  act  is  a  knowledge  without  assignable  grounds  of  knowing. 
On  the  assumption  of  a  real  time,  it  is  hard  to  find  a  way  out  "f  this  difficulty.  .  .  .  The 
doctrine  of  the  ideality  of  time  helps  us  by  suggesting  the  possibility  of  an  all-embracing 
present,  or  an  eternal  now,  for  God.  In  that  case  the  problem  vanishes  with  time,  Its 
condition." 

Against  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  nescience  we  urge  not  only  our  fundamental  COn- 
vietii  m  of  God's  perfection,  but  the  constant  testimony  of  Scripture.  In  Is.  41 :  21, 22,  God 
makes  his  foreknowledge  the  test  of  his  Godhead  in  the  controversy  with  idols.  If  God 
cannot  foreknow  free  human  acts,  then  "the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world"  (Rev.  13:8)  was  only  a  sacrifice  to  be  offered  in  case  Adam  should  fall,  God  not 
knowing  whether  he  would  or  not,  and  in  case  Judas  should  betray  Christ,  God  not 
knowing  whether  he  would  or  not.  Indeed,  since  the  course  of  nature  is  changed  by 
man's  will  when  he  burns  towns  and  fells  forests,  God  cannot  on  this  theory  predict 
even  the  course  of  nature.    All  prophecy  is  therefore  a  protest  against  this  view. 

How  God  foreknows  free  human  decisions  we  may  not  be  able  to  say,  but  then  the 
method  of  God's  knowledge  in  many  other  respects  is  unknown  to  us.  The  following 
explanations  have  been  proposed.    God  may  foreknow  free  acts  : — 

1.  Mediately,  by  foreknowing  the  motives  of  these  acts,  and  this  either  because  these 
motives  induce  the  acts,  ( 1 )  necessarily,  or  ( 2 )  certainly.  This  last  "  certainly ''  is  to  be 
accepted,  if  either ;  since  motives  are  never  causes,  but  are  only  occasions,  of  action. 
The  cause  is  the  will,  or  the  man  himself.  But  it  may  be  said  that  foreknowing  acts 
through  their  motives  is  not  foreknowing  at  all,  but  is  reasoning  or  inference  rather. 
Moreover,  although  intelligent  beings  commonly  act  according  to  motives  previously 
dominant,  they  also  at  critical  epochs,  as  at  the  fall  of  Satan  and  of  Adam,  choose 
between  motives,  and  in  such  cases  knowledge  of  the  motives  which  have  hitherto 
actuated  them  gives  no  clue  to  their  next  decisions.  Another  statement  is  therefore 
proposed  to  meet  these  difficulties,  namely,  tfiat  God  may  foreknow  free  acts : — 

2.  Immediately,  by  pure  intuition,  inexplicable  to  us.  Julius  Midler,  Doctrine  of  Sin, 
2 :  203,  225 —  "  If  God  can  know  a  future  event  as  certain  only  by  a  calculation  of  causes, 
it  must  be  allowed  that  he  cannot  with  certainty  foreknow  any  free  act  of  man ;  for 
his  foreknowledge  would  then  be  proof  that  the  act  in  question  was  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  certain  causes,  and  was  not  in  itself  free.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  divine 
knowledge  be  regarded  as  intuitive,  we  see  that  it  stands  in  the  same  immediate  rela- 
tion to  the  act  itself  as  to  its  antecedents,  and  thus  the  difficulty  is  removed."    Even 


2S6  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS  OF   GOD. 

upon  this  view  there  still  remains  the  difficulty  of  perceiving- how  there  can  be  in  God's 
mind  a  subjective  certitude  with  regard  to  acts  in  respect  to  which  there  is  no  assign- 
able objective  ground  of  certainty.  Yet,  in  spite  of  this  difficulty,  we  feel  bound  both 
by  Scripture  and  by  our  fundamental  idea  of  God's  perfection  to  maintain  God's  per- 
fect knowledge  of  the  future  free  acts  of  his  creatures.  With  President  Pepper  we  say : 
"  Knowledge  of  contingency  is  not  necessarily  contingent  knowledge."  With  Whedon  : 
"  It  is  not  calculation,  but  pure  knowledge."  See  Dorner,  System  of  Doct.,  1 :  332-3117 ; 
2:58-0:2;  Jahrbuch  f  iir  deutsche  Theologie,  1858: 601-005;  Charnock,  Attributes.  1 :  429- 
446 ;  Solly,  The  Will,  240-254.  For  a  valuable  article  on  the  whole  subject,  though  advo- 
cating the  view  that  God  foreknows  acts  by  foreknowing  motives,  see  Bib.  Sac,  Oct. 
1883  :  655-604.    See  also  Hill,  Divinity,  517. 

( e )  Prescience  is  not  itself  causative.  It  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
the  predetermining  will  of  God.  Free  actions  do  not  take  place  because 
they  are  foreseen,  but  they  are  foreseen  because  they  are  to  take  place. 

Seeing  a  thing  in  the  future  does  not  cause  it  to  be,  more  than  seeing  a  thing  in  the 
past  causes  it  to  be.  As  to  future  events,  we  may  say  with  Whedon  :  "  Knowledge 
takes  them,  not  makes  them."  Foreknowledge  may,  and  does,  presuppose  predeter- 
mination, but  it  is  not  itself  predetermination.  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  his  Summa,  1 :  38  : 
1 : 1,  says  that  "  the  knowledge  of  God  is  the  cause  of  things  ";  but  he  is  obliged  to  add  : 
"  God  is  not  the  cause  of  all  things  that  are  known  by  God,  since  evil  things  that  are 
known  by  God  are  not  from  him."  John  Milton,  Paradise  "Lost,  book  3  —  "  Foreknowl- 
edge had  no  influence  on  their  fault,  Which  had  no  less  proved  certain  unforeknown." 

(/)  Omniscience  embraces  the  actual  and  the  possible,  but  it  does  not 
embrace  the  self-contradictory  and  the  impossible,  because  these  are  not 
objects  of  knowledge. 

God  does  not  know  what  the  result  would  be  if  two  and  two  made  five,  nor  does  he 
know  "  whether  a  chimera  ruminating  in  a  vacuum  devoureth  second  intentions"; 
and  that,  simply  for  the  reason  that  he  cannot  know  self-contradiction  and  nonsense. 
These  things  are  not  objects  of  knowledge.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  80  —  "  Can  God 
make  an  old  man  in  a  minute  *?  Could  he  make  it  well  with  the  wicked  while  they 
remained  wicked?  Could  he  create  a  world  in  which  2 +  2  =  5?"  Royce,  Spirit  of 
Modern  Philosophy,  360  —  "  Does  God  know  the  whole  number  that  is  the  square  root 
cf  65?  or  what  adjacent  hills  there  are  that  have  no  valleys  between  them  ?  Does  God 
know  round  squares,  and  sugar  salt-lumps,  and  Snarks  and  Boojums  and  Abracada- 
bras ? " 

( g )  Omniscience,  as  qualified  by  holy  will,  is  in  Scripture  denominated 
"wisdom."  In  virtue  of  his  wisdom  God  chooses  the  highest  ends  and 
uses  the  fittest  means  to  accomplish  them. 

Wisdom  is  not  simply  "estimating  all  things  at  their  proper  value"  (  Olmstead) ;  it 
has  in  it  also  the  element  of  counsel  and  purpose.  It  has  been  defined  as  "  the  talent  of 
using  one's  talents."  It  implies  two  things:  first,  choice  of  the  highest  end;  secondly, 
choice  of  the  best  means  to  secure  this  end.  J.  C.  C.  Clarke,  Self  and  the  Father,  39  — 
"  Wisdom  is  not  invented  conceptions,  or  harmony  of  theories  with  theories;  but  is 
humble  obedience  of  mind  to  the  reception  of  facts  that  are  found  in  things."  Thus 
man's  wisdom,  obedience,  faith,  are  all  names  for  different  aspects  of  the  same  thing. 
And  wisdom  in  God  is  the  moral  choice  which  makes  truth  and  holiness  supreme.  Bowue, 
Principles  of  Ethics,  261  —  "  Socialism  pursues  a  laudable  end  by  unwise  or  destructive 
means.  It  is  not  enough  to  mean  well.  Our  methods  must  take  some  account  of  the 
nature  of  things,  if  they  are  to  succeed.  We  cannot  produce  well-being  by  law.  No 
legislation  can  remove  inequalities  of  nature  and  constitution.  Society  cannot  produce 
equality,  any  more  than  it  can  enable  a  rhinoceros  to  sing,  or  legislate  a  cat  into  a  lion." 

3.     Omnipotence. 

By  this  we  mean  the  power  of  God  to  do  all  things  which  are  objects  of 
power,  whether  with  or  without  the  use  of  means. 

Gen.  17 : 1  —  "  I  am  God  Almighty."  He  performs  natural  wonders  :  Gen.  1 : 1-3 — "Let  there  be  Ight "  ; 
Is.  44:24  —  "  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  alone";  Heb.  1 :  3  —  "  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power." 
Spiritual  wonders  :  2  Cor.  4:6  —  "  God,  that  said,  Light  shall  shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shined  in  our  hearts  "  ; 


RELATIVE    OR  TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  28? 

Eph.  t :  19  —  "exceeding  greatness  of  his  power  to  lis- ward  who  believe"  ;  Eph.  3:20  —  "able  to  do  exceeding  abund- 
antly." Power  to  create  new  things  :  Mat.  3:9— "able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham"; 
Rom.4:17  — "giveth  life  to  the  dead,  and  calleth  the  things  that  are  not,  as  though  they  were."  After  his  own 
pleasure  :  Ps.  115 : 3  —  "  He  hath  done  whatsoeverUie  hath  pleased ' ' ;  Eph.  1:11  —  "  worketh  all  things  after  the 
counsel  of  his  will."  Nothing  impossible  :  Gen.  18:14  —  "Is  anything  too  hard  for  Jehovah?"  Mat.  19:26 
—  "  with  God  all  things  are  possible."  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  7;?  —  "If  all  power 
in  the  universe  is  dependent  on  his  creative  will  for  its  existence,  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive any  limit  to  his  power  except  that  laid  on  it  by  his  own  will.  But  this  is  only 
negative  proof;  absolute  omnipotence  is  not  logically  demonstrable,  though  readily 
enough  recognized  as  a  just  conception  of  the  infinite  God,  when  propounded  on  the 
authority  of  a  positive  revelation." 

The  omnipotence  of  God  is  illustrated  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  in  Script- 
ure is  compared  to  wind,  water  and  fire.  The  ordinary  manifestations  of  these  ele- 
ments afford  no  criterion  of  the  effects  they  are  able  to  produce.  The  rushing  mighty 
wind  at  Pentecost  was  the  analogue  of  the  wind-Spirit  who  bore  everything  before 
him  on  the  first  day  of  creation  (Gen.  1:2;  John  3:8;  Acts 2: 2).  The  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit  is  likened  to  the  flood  of  Noah  when  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened  and 
there  was  not  room  enough  to  receive  that  which  fell  (Mai.  3:10).  And  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  like  tine  Bre  that  shall  destroy  all  impurity  at  the  end  of  the  world 
( Mat.  3 :  11 ;  2  Pet.  3 : 7-13  ).    See  A.  H .  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  307-310. 

(  a  )  Omnipotence  does  not  imply  power  to  do  that  which  is  not  an  object 
of  power  ;  as,  for  example,  that  which  is  self -contradictory  or  contradictory 
to  the  nature  of  God. 

Self-contradictory  things :  "  facere  factum  infectum  "—  die  making  of  a  past  event  to 
have  not  occurred  ( hence  the  uselessness  of  praying :  "  May  it  be  that  much  good  was 
done");  drawing  a  shorter  than  a  straight  line  between  two  given  points;  putting  two 
separate  mountains  together  without  a  valley  between  them.  Things  contradictory  to 
the  nature  of  God :  for  God  to  lie,  to  sin,  to  die.  To  do  such  things  would  not  imply 
power,  but  impotence.  God  has  all  the  power  that  is  consistent  with  infinite  per- 
fection—all  power  to  do  what  is  worthy  of  himself.  So  no  greater  thing  can  be  said 
by  man  than  this:  "I  dare  do  all  that  may  become  a  man;  Who  dares  do  more  is 
none."  Even  God  cannot  make  wrong  to  be  right,  nor  hatred  of  himself  to  be  blessed. 
Some  have  held  that  the  prevention  of  sin  in  a  moral  system  is  not  an  object  of  power, 
and  therefore  that  Cod  cannot  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system.  We  hold  the  contrary ; 
see  this  Compendium  :  objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees. 

Dryden,  Imitation  of  Horace,  :!•:  :.".i  :71  —"Over  the  past  not  heaven  itself  has  power; 
What  has  been  has,  and  I  have  had  my  hour  "—  words  applied  by  Lord  John  Russell  to 
his  own  career.  Emerson,  The  Past  :  "All  is  now  secure  and  fast.  Not  the  gods  can 
shake  the  Past."  Sunday-school  scholar:  "  Say,  teacher,  can  God  make  a  rock  so  big 
that  he  can't  lift  it?  "  Seminary  Professor  :  "  Can  God  tell  a  lie?  "  Seminary  student : 
"  With  God  all  things  are  possible." 

(  b  )  Omnipotence  does  not  imply  the  exercise  of  all  his  power  on  the 
part  of  God.  He  has  power  over  his  power  ;  in  other  words,  his  power  is 
under  the  control  of  wise  and  holy  will.  God  can  do  all  he  will,  but  he 
will  not  do  all  he  can.  Else  his  power  is  mere  force  acting  necessarily, 
and  God  is  the  slave  of  his  own  omnipotence. 

Schleiermacher  held  that  nature  not  only  is  grounded  in  the  divine  causality,  but 
fully  expresses  that  causality ;  there  is  no  causative  power  in  God  for  anything  that  is 
not  real  and  actual.  This  doctrine  does  not  essentially  differ  from  Spinoza's  natura 
naturctns  and  tiatura  natuntln.  See  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  62-66.  But  omnipo- 
tence is  not  instinctive;  it  is  a  power  used  according  to  God's  pleasure.  God  is  by 
no  means  encompassed  by  the  laws  of  nature,  or  shut  up  to  a  necessary  evolution  of 
his  own  being,  as  pantheism  suppose-.  As  Rothe  has  shown,  God  has  a  will-power 
over  his  nature-power,  and  is  not  compelled  to  do  all  that  he  can  do.  He  is  able  from 
the  stones  of  the  street  to  "  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham,"  but  he  has  not  done  it. 
In  God  are  unopened  treasures,  an  inexhaustible  fountain  of  new  beginnings,  new 
creations,  new  revelations.  To  suppose  that  in  creation  he  has  expended  all  the  inner 
possibilities  of  his  being  is  to  deny  his  omnipotence.    So  Job  26:14— "Lo,  these  are  but  the  out- 


288  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

skirts  of  Ms  ways :  And  how  small  a  whisper  do  we  hear  of  him !  But  the  thunder  of  his  power  who  can  understand  ?  " 
See  Rogers,  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  10 ;  Hodgson,  Time  and  Space,  579,  580. 
1  Pet.  5  :  6— "Humble  yourselves  therefore  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God"— his  mighty  hand  of  provi- 
dence, salvation,  blessing  — "  that  he  may  exalt  you  in  due  time ;  casting  all  your  aniiety  upon  him,  because 
he  careth  for  you."  "  The  mighty  powers  held  under  mighty  control "  —  this  is  the  greatest 
exhibition  of  power.  Unrestraint  is  not  the  highest  freedom.  Young  men  must  learn 
that  self-restraint  is  the  true  power.  Prov.  16 :  32— "  He  that  is  slow  to  anger  is  better  than  the  mighty ; 
And  he  that  ruleth  his  spirit,  than  he  that  taketh'a  city."  Shakespeare,  Coriolanus,  2:3  —  "We  have 
power  in  ourselves  to  do  it,  but  it  is  a  power  that  we  have  no  power  to  do."  When 
dynamite  goes  off,  it  all  goes  off :  there  is  no  reserve.  God  uses  as  much  of  his  power 
as  he  pleases:  the  remainder  of  wrath  in  himself,  as  well  as  in  others.be  restrains. 

( c  )  Omnipotence  in  God  does  not  exclude,  but  implies,  the  power  of  self- 
limitation.  Since  all  such  self-limitation  is  free,  proceeding  from  neither 
external  nor  internal  compulsion,  it  is  the  act  and  manifestation  of  God's 
power.  Human  freedom  is  not  rendered  impossible  by  the  divine  omnipo- 
tence, but  exists  by  virtue  of  it.  It  is  an  act  of  omnipotence  when  God 
hunibles  himself  to  the  taking  of  human  flesh  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Thomasius:  "If  God  is  to  be  over  all  and  in  all,  he  cannot  himself  be  all."  Ps.  113:  5,6 
■— "  Who  is  like  unto  Jehovah  our  God  ....  That  humbleth  himself  to  behold  The  things  that  are  in  heaven  and  in 
the  earth?"  Phil.  2  :  7,  8— "emptied  himself  ....  humbled  himself."  See  Charnock,  Attributes,  2- 
5-107.  President  Woolsey  showed  true  power  when  he  controlled  his  indignation  and  let 
an  offending  student  go  free.  Of  Christ  on  the  cross,  says  Moberly,  Atonement  and 
Personality,  11G-"  It  was  the  power  [to  retain  his  life,  to  escape  suffering],  with  the 
will  to  hold  it  unused,  which  proved  him  to  be  what  he  was,  the  obedient  and  perfect 
man."  We  are  likest  the  omnipotent  One  when  we  limit  ourselves  for  love's  sake. 
The  attribute  of  omnipotence  is  the  ground  of  trust,  as  well  as  of  fear,  on  the  part  of 
God's  creatures.  Isaac  Watts :  "His  every  word  of  grace  is  strong  As  that  whidh  built 
the  skies ;  The  voice  that  rolls  the  stars  along  Speaks  all  the  promises.1' 

Third  Division. — Attributes  having  relation  to  Moral  Beings. 

1.     Veracity  and  Faithfulness,  or  Transitive  Truth. 

By  veracity  and  faithfulness  we  mean  the  transitive  truth  of  God,  in  its 
twofold  relation  to  his  creatures  in  general  and  to  his  redeemed  people  in 
particular. 

Ps.  138 : 2  —  "  I  will  ....  give  thanks  unto  thy  name  for  thy  lovingkmdness  and  for  thy  truth :  For  thou  hast 
magnified  thy  word  above  all  thy  name ' ' ;  John  3  :  33  —  "  hath  set  his  seal  to  this,  that  God  is  true  "  ;  Rom.  3:4  — 
"let  God  be  found  true,  but  every  man  a  liar",  Rom.  1 :  25  — "  the  truth  of  God"  ;  John  14 :  17  — "  the  Spirit  of  truth  "  ; 
1  John  5:  7  — "the  Spirit  is  the  truth";  1  Cor.  1 :  9  —  "God  islaUhful"  :  1  Thess.  5  :  24  —  "  faithful  is  he  that  calleth 
you"  ;  1  Pet.  4  :  19 — "a  faithful  Creator"  ;  2  Cor.  1  :  20 — "how  many  soever  be  the  promises  of  God,  in  him  is  the 
yea";  Num.  23:19 — "God  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie";  Tit.  1:2 — "God,  who  cannot  lie,  promised";  Heb. 
6: 18  —  "in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie." 

(  a )  In  virtue  of  his  veracity,  all  his  revelations  to  creatures  consist  with 
his  essential  being  and  with  each  other. 

In  God's  veracity  we  have  the  guarantee  that  our  faculties  in  their  normal  exercise 
do  not  deceive  us ;  that  the  laws  of  thought  are  also  laws  of  things ;  that  the  external 
world,  and  second  causes  in  it,  have  objective  existence ;  that  the  same  causes  will 
always  produce  the  same  effects ;  that  the  threats  of  the  moral  nature  will  be  executed 
upon  theninrepentant  transgressor;  that  man's  moral  nature  is  made  in  the  image  of 
God's ;  and  that  we  may  draw  just  conclusions  from  what  conscience  is  in  us  to  what 
holiness  is  in  him.  We  may  therefore  expect  that  all  past  revelations,  whether  in  nature 
or  in  his  word,  will  not  only  not  be  contradicted  by  our  future  knowledge,  but  will  rather 
prove  to  have  in  them  more  of  truth  than  we  ever  dreamed.  Man's  word  may  pass 
away,  but  God's  word  abides  forever  ( Mat.  5 :  18  — "  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from 
the  law  "  ;  Is.  40  . 8  — "  the  word  of  God  shall  stand  forever  " ). 

Mat.  6: 16— "be  not  as  the  hypocrites."  In  God  the  outer  expression  and  the  inward  reality 
always  correspond.  Assyrian  wills  were  written  on  a  small  tablet  encased  in  another 
upon  which  the  same  thing  was  written  over  again.    Breakage,  or  falsification,  of  the 


RELATIVE   OR   TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  289 

outer  envelope  could  be  corrected  by  reference  to  the  inner.  So  our  outer  life  should 
conform  to  the  heart  within,  and  the  heart  within  to  the  outer  life.  On  the  duty  of 
speaking  the  truth,  and  the  limitations  of  the  duty,  see  Newman  Smyth,  Christian 
Ethics,  386-403  — "  Give  the  truth  always  to  those  who  in  the  bonds  of  humanity  have 
a  right  to  the  truth  ;  conceal  it,  or  falsify  it,  only  when  the  human  right  to  the  truth 
has  been  forfeited,  or  i3  held  in  abeyance,  by  sickness,  weakness,  or  some  criminal 
intent." 

(6)  In  virtue  of  Iris  faithfulness,  he  fulfills  all  his  promises  to  his  people, 

whether  expressed  in  words  or  implied  in  the  constitution  he  has  given 

them." 

In  God's  faithfulness  we  have  the  sure  ground  of  confidence  that  he  will  perform 
what  his  love  has  led  him  to  promise  to  those  who  obey  the  gospel.  Since  his  promisee 
are  based,  not  upon  what  we  are  or  have  done,  but  upon  what  Christ  Is  and  hasdone,  our 
defects  and  errors  do  not  invalidate  them,  so  long  as  we  are  truly  penitent  and  beiiei  - 
ing  :  1  John  1 :  9  — "  faithful  and  rightsous  to  forgive  us  our  sins"=  faithful  to  his  promise,  and  right- 
eous to  Christ.  God's  faithfulness  also  ensures  a  supply  for  all  the  real  wants  of  our 
being,  both  here  and  hereafter,  since  these  wants  are  implicit  promises  of  him  who 
made  us :  Ps.  84  :  11—"  No  good  thing  will  he  withold  from  them  that  walk  uprightly  "  ;  91 :  4  — "His  truth  is  a 
shield  and  a  buckler"  ;  Mat.  6:  33 — "all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you";  1  Cor.  2:9 — "Things  which  eye  saw 
not,  and  ear  heard  not,  And  which  entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man,  Whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them  that  love 
him." 

Uegulus  goes  back  to  Carthage  to  die  rather  than  break  hisprotnise  to  his  enemies. 
George  William  Curtis  economizes  for  years,  and  gives  up  all  hope  of  being  himself 
a  rich  man,  in  order  that  he  may  pay  the  debts  of  his  deceased  father.  When  General 
Grant  sold  all  the  presents  made  to  him  by  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe,  and  paid  the 
obligations  in  which  his  insolvent  son  had  involved  him,  he  said  :  "  Better  poverty  and 
honor,  than  wealth  and  disgrace."  Many  a  business  man  would  rather  die  than  fail  to 
fulfil  his  promise  and  let  his  note  go  to  protest.  "  Max  we)  ton  braes  are  bonnie,  Where 
early  falls  the  dew,  And  'twas  there  that  Annie  Laurie  Gave  me  her  promise  true; 
Which  ne'er  forget  will  I ;  And  for  bonnie  Annie  Laurie  I'd  lay  me  down  and  dee." 
Ret  ray  the  man  she  loves?  Not  "Till  a' the  seas  gang  dry,  my  dear,  And  the  rocks 
melt  wi'  the  sun."  Cod's  truth  will  not  be  less  than  that  of  mortal  man.  God's  vera- 
city is  the  natural  correlate  to  our  faith. 

2.     Mercy  and  Goodness,  or  Transitive  Love. 

By  mercy  and  goodness  we  mean  the  transitive  love  of  God  in  its  two- 
fold relation  to  the  disobedient  and  to  the  obedient  portions  of  bis 
creatures. 

Titus  3  :  4  — "  his  love  toward  man  "  ;  Rom.  2:4—"  goodness  of  God  "  ;  Mat.  5  :  44,  45  — "  love  your  enemies  .  .  . 
that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father"  ;  Johu3  :  16 — "God  so  loved  the  world"  ;  2  Pet.  1 :  3— "granted  unto  us  ali 
things  that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness";  Rom.  8  :  32 — "freely  give  us  all  things "  ;  John  4:  10  —  "Herein  is 
love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." 

(  a  )  Mercy  is  that  eternal  principle  of  God's  nature  which  leads  him  to 
seek  the  temporal  good  and  eternal  salvation  of  those  who  have  opposed 
themselves  to  his  will,  even  at  the  cost  of  infinite  self-sacrifice. 

Martensen  :  "  Viewed  in  relation  to  sin,  eternal  love  is  compassionate  grace."  God's 
continued  impartation  of  natural  life  is  a  foreshadowing,  in  a  lower  sphere,  of  what  he 
desires  to  do  for  his  creatures  in  the  higher  sphere  — the  communication  of  spiritual 
and  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ.  When  he  bids  us  love  our  enemies,  he  only  bids 
us  follow  his  own  example.  Shakespeare,  Titus  Androuicus,  2  :2  —  "  Wilt  thou  draw 
near  the  nature  of  the  gods  ?  Draw  near  them,  then,  in  being  merciful."  Twelfth 
Night,  3:4-"  In  nature  there's  no  blemish  but  the  mind ;  None  can  be  called  deformed 
but  the  unkind.    Virtue  is  beauty." 

( h )  Goodness  is  the  eternal  principle  of  God's  nature  which  leads  him  to 
coinnmnicate  of  his  own  life  and  blessedness  to  those  who  are  like  him  in 
moral  character.     Goodness,  therefore,  is  nearly  identical  with  the  love  of 
complacency  ;  mercy,  with  the  love  of  benevolence. 
19 


290         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

Notice,  however,  that  transitive  love  is  but  an  outward  manifestation  of  immanent 
love.  The  eternal  and  perfect  object  of  God's  love  is  in  his  own  nature.  Men  become 
subordinate  objects  of  that  love  only  as  they  become  connected  and  identified  with  its 
principal  object,  the  image  of  God's  perfections  in  Christ.  Only  in  the  Son  do  men 
become  sons  of  God.  To  this  is  requisite  an  acceptance  of  Christ  on  the  part  of  man. 
Thus  it  can  he  said  that  God  imparts  himself  to  men  just  so  far  as  men  are  willing  to 
receive  him.  And  as  God  gives  himself  to  men,  in  all  his  moral  attributes,  to  answer 
for  them  and  to  renew  them  in  character,  there  is  truth  in  the  statement  of  Nordell 
(  Examiner,  Jan.  17, 1884 )  that  "  the  maintenance  of  holiness  is  the  function  of  divine 
justice;  the  diffusion  of  holiness  is  the  function  of  divine  love."  We  may  grant  this 
as  substantially  true,  while  yet  we  deny  that  love  is  a  mere  form  or  manifestation  of 
holiness.  Self-impartation  is  different  from  self-affirmation.  The  attribute  which  moves 
God  to  pour  out  is  not  identical  with  the  attribute  which  moves  him  to  maintain. 
The  two  ideas  of  holiness  and  of  love  are  as  distinct  as  the  idea  of  integrity  on  the  one 
hand  and  of  generosity  on  the  other.  Park :  "  God  loves  Satan,  in  a  certain  sense,  and 
we  ought  to."  Shedd  :  "  This  same  love  of  compassion  God  feels  toward  the  non-elect ; 
but  the  expression  of  that  compassion  is  forbidden  for  reasons  which  are  sufficient  for 
God,  but  are  entirely  unknown  to  the  creature."  The  goodness  of  God  is  the  basis  of 
reward,  under  God's  government.  Faithfulness  leads  God  to  keep  his  promises ;  good- 
ness leads  him  to  make  them. 

Edwards,  Nature  of  Virtue,  in  Works,  2:263  —  Love  of  benevolence  does  not  presup- 
pose beauty  in  its  object.  Love  of  complacence  does  presuppose  beauty.  Virtue  is 
not  love  to  an  object  for  its  beauty.  The  beauty  of  intelligent  beings  does  not  consist 
in  love  for  beauty,  or  virtue  in  love  for  virtue.  Virtue  is  love  for  being  in  general, 
exercised  in  a  general  good  will.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Edwards.  We  prefer  to  say 
that  virtue  is  love,  not  for  being  in  general,  but  for  good  being,  and  so  for  God,  the 
holy  One.  The  love  of  compassion  is  perfectly  compatible  with  hatred  of  evil  and 
with  indignation  against  one  who  commits  it.  Love  does  not  necessarily  imply  appro- 
val, but  it  does  imply  desire  that  all  creatures  should  fulfil  the  purpose  of  their  exist- 
ence by  being  morally  conformed  to  the  holy  One ;  see  Godet,  in  The  Atonement,  389. 

Rom.  5:8  —  "God  comniendeth  his  own  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us." 
We  ought  to  love  our  enemies,  and  Satan  is  our  worst  enemy.  We  ought  to  will  the 
good  of  Satan,  or  cherish  toward  him  the  love  of  benevolence,  though  not  the  love  of 
complacence.  This  does  not  involve  a  condoniug  of  his  sin,  or  an  ignoring  of  his  moral 
depravity,  as  seems  implied  in  the  verses  of  Wm.  C.  Gannett :  "  The  poem  hangs  on  the 
berry-bush  When  comes  the  poet's  eye;  The  street  begins  to  masquerade  When 
Shakespeare  passes  by.  The  Christ  sees  white  in  Judas'  heart  A-nd  loves  his  traitor 
well ;  The  God,  to  angel  his  new  heaven,  Explores  his  deepest  hell." 

3.     Justice  and  Righteousness,  or  Transitive  Holiness. 

By  justice  and  righteousness  we  mean  the  transitive  holiness  of  God,  in 
virtue  of  which  his  treatment  of  his  creatures  conforms  to  the  purity  of  his 
nature, —  righteousness  demanding  from  all  moral  beings  conformity  to  the 
moral  perfection  of  God,  and  justice  visiting  non-conformity  to  that  perfec- 
tion with  penal  loss  or  suffering. 

Gen.  18:25 — "shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  "  Deut.  32  :  4 — "  All  his  ways  are  justice ;  A  God  of 
faithfulness  and  without  iniquity,  Just  and  right  is  he  "  ;  Ps.  5  :  5  — "  Thou  hatest  all  workers  of  iniquity  "  ;  7 : 9-12 
— "  the  righteous  God  trieth  the  hearts  ....  saveth  the  upright  ....  is  a  righteous  judge,  Yea,  a  God  that  hath 
indignation  every  day";  18:24-26 — "Jehovah  recompensed  me  according  to  my  righteousness  ....  With  the 
merciful,  thou  wilt  show  thyself  merciful  ....  with  the  perverse  thou  wilt  show  thyself  froward  ";  Mat.5:48 — "Ye 
therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect " ;  Rom.  2:6  —  "will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
works";  1  Pet.  1 :  16  — "  Ye  shall  be  holy ;  for  I  am  holy."  These  passages  show  that  God  loves  the 
same  persons  whom  he  hates.  It  is  not  true  that  he  hates  the  sin,  but  loves  the  sinner ; 
he  both  hates  and  loves  the  sinner  himself,  hates  him  as  he  is  a  living  and  wilful  antago- 
nist of  truth  and  holiness,  loves  him  as  he  is  a  creature  capable  of  good  and  ruined  by 
his  transgression. 

There  is  no  abstract  sin  that  can  be  hated  apart  from  the  persons  in  whom  that  sin 
is  represented  and  embodied.  Thomas  Fuller  found  it  difficult  to  starve  the  profaue- 
ness  but  to  feed  the  person  of  the  impudent  beggar  who  applied  to  him  for  food.    Mr. 


RELATIVE    OU   TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  291 

Finney  declared  that  lie  would  kill  the  slave-catcher,  but  would  love  bim  with  all  his 
heart.  In  our  civil  war  Dr.  Kirk  said  :  "  God  knows  that  we  love  the  rebels,  but  God 
also  knows  that  we  will  kill  them  if  they  do  not  lay  down  their  arms."  The  complex 
nature  of  God  not  only  permits  but  necessitates  this  same  double  treatment  of  the 
sinner,  and  the  earthly  father  experiences  the  same  conflict  of  emotions  when  his 
heart  yearns  over  the  corrupt  son  whom  he  is  compelled  to  banish  from  the  household. 
Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  7 — "Itis  the  sinner  who  is  punished,  not  the  sin." 

(a)  Since  justice  and  righteousness  are  simply  transitive  holiness — 
righteousness  designating  this  holiness  chiefly  in  its  mandatory,  justice 
chiefly  in  its  punitive,  aspect, — they  are  not  mere  manifestations  of  benev- 
olence, or  of  God's  disposition  to  secure  the  highest  happiness  of  his 
creatures,  nor  are  they  grounded  in  the  nature  of  things  as  something 
apart  from  or  above  God. 

Cremer,  N.  T.  Lexicon:  6oc<uos  =  "the  perfect  coincidence  existing  between  Cud's 
nature,  which  is  the  standard  for  all,  and  his  acts."  Justice  and  righteousness  are 
simply  holiness  exercised  toward  creatures.  Thesame  holiness  which  exists  in  God  in 
eternity  past  manifests  itself  as  justice  and  righteousness,  so  soon  as  intelligent  crea- 
tures come  into  being.  Much  that  was  saia  under  Holiness  as  an  immanent  attribute 
of  God  is  equally  applicable  here.  The  modern  tendency  to  confound  holiness  with 
love  shows  itself  in  the  merging  of  justice  and  righteousness  in  mere  benevolence. 
Instances  of  this  tendency  are  the  following :  Ritschl,  Dnterricht,  'i  16 — "  The  righteous- 
ness of  God  denotes  the  manner  in  which  God  carries  out  his  loving  will  in  the  redemp- 
tion alike  of  humanity  as  a  whole  and  of  individual  men ;  hence  his  righteousness  is 
indistinguishable  from  his  grace  ";  see  also  Ritschl,  Rechtf.  und  Versdhnung,  2:  113; 
3  :  29t>.  Prof.  George  M.  Forbes :  "  Only  right  makes  love  moral :  only  love  makes  li^;  hi. 
moral."  Jones,  Robert  Browning,  70  — "Is  it  not  beneficence  that  places  death  at  the 
heart  of  sin?  Carry le  forgot  this.  God  is  not  simply  a  great  taskmaster.  The  power 
that  imposes  law  is  not  an  alien  power."  D'Arcy,  Idealism  and  Theology,  237-240— 
"  How  can  self-realization  be  the  realization  of  others?  Why  must  the  true  good  be 
always  the  common  good ?  Why  is  the  end  of  each  the  end  of  all?  ....  We  need  a 
concrete  universal  which  will  unify  all  persons.'' 

So  also,  Harris,  Kingdom  of  Christ  on  Earth,  39-42;  God  the  Creator,  287,  299,  302  — 
"  Love,  as  required  and  regulated  by  reason,  may  be  called  righteousness.  Love  Is  uni- 
versal good  will  or  benevolence,  regulated  in  its  exercise  by  righteousness.  Love  is 
the  choice  of  God  and  man  as  the  objects  of  trust  and  service.  This  choice  involves 
the  determination  of  the  will  to  seek  universal  well-being,  and  in  this  aspect  it  is 
benevolence.  It  also  involves  the  consent  of  the  will  to  the  reason,  and  the  determina- 
tion to  regulate  all  action  in  seeking  well-being  by  its  truths,  laws,  and  ideals ;  and  in 
this  aspect  itis  righteousness.  .  .  .  Justice  is  the  consent  of  the  will  to  the  law  of  love, 
in  its  authority,  its  requirements,  and  its  sanctions.  God's  wrath  is  the  necessary 
reaction  of  this  law  of  love  in  the  constitution  and  order  of  the  universe  against  the 
wilful  violator  of  it,  and  Christ's  sufferings  atone  for  sin  by  asserting  and  maintaining 
the  authority,  universality,  and  inviolability  of  God's  law  of  love  in  his  redemption  of 

men  and  his  forgiveness  of  their  sins Righteousness  cannot  be  the  whole  of 

love,  for  this  would  shut  us  up  to  the  merely  formal  principle  of  the  law  without  tell- 
ing us  what  the  law  requires.  Benevolence  cannot  be  the  whole  of  love,  for  this 
would  shut  us  up  to  hedonism,  in  the  form  of  utilitarianism,  excluding  righteousness 
from  the  character  of  God  and  man." 

Newman  Smyth  also,  in  his  Christian  Ethics,  227-231,  tells  us  that li  love,  as  self-affirm- 
ing, is  righteousness;  as  self-imparting,  is  benevolence;  as  self-finding  in  others,  is 
sympathy.  Righteousness,  as  subjective  regard  for  our  own  moral  being,  is  holiness ; 
as  objective  regard  for  the  persons  of  others,  is  justice.  Holiness  is  involved  in  love 
as  its  essential  respect  to  itself;  the  heavenly  Father  is  the  holy  Father  ( John  17  :  11 ) . 
Love  contains  in  its  unity  a  trinity  of  virtue.  Love  affirms  its  own  worthiness,  imparts 
to  others  its  good,  and  finds  its  life  again  in  the  well-being  of  others.  The  ethical  limit 
of  self-impartatiou  is  found  in  self-affirmation.  Love  in  self-bestowal  cannot  become 
suicidal.  The  benevolence  of  love  has  its  moral  bounds  in  the  holiness  of  love.  True 
love  in  God  maintains  its  transcendence,  and  excludes  pantheism." 


292  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    O*'    GOD. 

The  above  doctrine,  quoted  for  substance  from  Newman  Smyth,  seems  to  us  unwar- 
rantably to  include  in  love  what  properly  belongs  to  holiness.  It  virtually  denies  that 
holiness  has  any  independent  existc  nee  as  an  attribute  of  God.  To  make  holiness  a 
manifestation  of  love  seems  to  us  as  irrational  as  to  say  that  self-affirmation  is  a  form 
of  self-impartation.  The  concession  that  holiness  regulates  and  limits  love  shows  that 
holiness  cannot  itself  be  love,  but  must  be  an  independent  and  superior  attribute. 
Right  furnishes  the  rule  and  law  for  love,  but  it  is  not  true  that  love  furnishes  the  rule 
and  law  for  right.  There  is  no  such  double  sovereignty  as  this  theory  would  imply. 
The  one  attribute  that  is  independent  and  supreme  is  holiness,  and  love  is  simply  the 
impulse  to  communicate  this  holiness. 

William  Ashmore:  "Dr.  Clarke  lays  great  emphasis  on  the  character  of  'a  good  God.' 
.  .  .  But  he  is  more  than  a  merely  good  God  ;  he  is  a  just  God,  and  a  righteous  God,  and 
a  holy  God  — a  God  who  is  '  angry  with  the  wicked,'  even  while  ready  to  forgive  them, 
if  they  are  willing  to  repent  in  his  way,  and  not  in  their  own.  He  is  the  God  who 
brought  in  a  flood  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly;  who  rained  down  fire  and  brim- 
stone from  heaven  ;  and  who  is  to  come  in  '  flaming  fire,  taking  vengence  on  them  that 

know  not  God '  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  his  sou Paul  reasoned  about  both 

the  'goodness '  and  the  'severity '  of  God." 

(b)  Transitive  holiness,  as  righteousness,  imposes  law  in  conscience  and 
Scripture,  and  may  be  called  legislative  holiness.  As  justice,  it  executes 
the  penalties  of  law,  and  may  be  called  distributive  or  judicial  holiness. 
In  righteousness  God  reveals  chiefly  his  love  of  holiness  ;  in  justice,  chiefly 
his  hatred  of  sin. 

The  self-affirming  purity  of  God  demands  a  like  purity  in  those  who  have  been  made 
in  his  image.  As  God  wills  and  maintains  his  own  moral  excellence,  so  all  creatures 
must  will  and  maintain  the  moral  excellence  of  God.  There  can  be  only  one  centre  in 
the  solar  system,  —  the  sun  is  its  own  centre  and  the  centre  for  all  the  planets  also.  So 
God's  purity  is  the  object  of  his  own  will,— it  must  be  the  object  of  all  the  wills  of  all 
his  creatures  also.  Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  282—"  It  is  not  rational  or  safe  for  the 
hand  to  separate  itself  from  the  heart.  This  is  a  universe,  and  God  is  the  heart  of  the 
great  system.  Altruism  is  not  the  result  of  Society,  but  society  is  the  result  of  altruism. 
It  begins  in  creatures  far  below  man.  The  animals  which  know  how  to  combine  hav* 
the  greatest,  chance  of  survival.  The  unsociable  animal  dies  out.  The  most  perfect 
organism  is  the  most  sociable.  Right  is  the  debt  which  the  part  owes  to  the  whole." 
This  seems  to  us  but  a  partial  expression  of  the  truth.  Right  is  more  than  a  debt,  to 
others,— it  is  a  debt  to  one's  self,  and  the  self-affirming,  self-preserving,  self-respect- 
ing element  constitutes  the  limit  and  standard  of  all  outgoing  activity.  The  sentiment 
of  loyalty  is  largely  a  reverence  for  this  principle  of  order  and  stability  in  govern- 
ment. Ps.  145 :  5  —  "  Of  the  glorious  majesty  of  thine  honor,  And  of  thy  wondrous  works,  will  I  meditate  "  ;  97 :  2 
—  "Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him :  Righteousness  and  justice  are  the  foundation  of  his  throne." 

John  Milton,  Eikonoklastes :  "Truth  and  justice  are  all  one;  for  truth  is  but  jus- 
tice in  our  knowledge,  and  justice  is  but  truth  in  our  practice For  truth  is 

properly  no  more  than  contemplation,  and  her  utmost  efficiency  is  but  teaching ;  but 
justice  in  her  very  essence  is  all  strength  and  activity,  and  hath  a  sword  put  into  her 
hand  to  use  against  all  violence  and  oppression  on  the  earth.  She  it  is  who  accepts  no 
person,  and  exempts  none  from  the  severity  of  her  stroke."  A.  J.  Balfour,  Founda- 
tions of  Belief,  320— "Even  the  poet  has  not  dared  to  represent  Jupiter  torturing 
Prometheus  without  the  dim  figure  of  Avenging  Fate  waiting  silently  in  the  back- 
ground. .  .  .  Evolution  working  out  a  nobler  and  nobler  justice  is  proof  that  God  is 
just.  Here  is  'preferential  action'.  "  S.  S.  Times,  June  9,  1900—"  The  natural  man  is 
born  with  a  wrong  personal  astronomy.  Man  should  give  up  the  conceit  of  being  the 
centre  of  all  tilings.  He  should  accept  the  Copernican  theory,  and  content  himself 
with  a  place  on  the  edge  of  things—  the  place  he  has  always  really  had.  We  all  laugh 
at  John  Jasper  and  his  thesis  that '  the  sun  do  move.'  The  Copernican  theory  is  leak- 
ing down  into  human  relations,  as  appears  from  the  current  phrase :  '  There  are 
others'." 

(  c  )  Neither  justice  nor  righteousness,  therefore,  is  a  matter  of  arbitrary 
will.  They  are  revelations  of  the  inmost  nature  of  God,  the  one  in  the 
form  of  moral  requirement,  the  other  in  the  form  of  judicial  sanction.     As 


RELATIVE   OR   TRANSITIVE    ATTRIBUTES.  29c 

God  cannot  but  demand  of  bis  creatures  tbat  tbey  be  like  hint  iu  moral 
character,  so  lie  cannot  but  enforce  the  law  which  he  imposes  upon  them. 
Justice  just  as  much  binds  God  to  punish  as  it  binds  tin'  sinner  to  be 
punished. 

All  arbitrariness  is  excluded  here.  God  is  what  he  is  — infinite  purity.  He  cannot 
change.  It'  creatures  are  to  attain  the  end  of  their  being,  they  must  belike  God  in 
moral  purity.  Justice  is  nothing-  but  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  this  natural 
necessity.  Law  is  only  the  transcript  of  God's  nature  Justice  docs  not  make  law,— it 
only  reveals  law.  Penalty  is  only  the  reaction  of  God's  holiness  against  that  which  is 
its  opposite.  Since  righteousness  and  justice  are  only  legislative  and  retributive  holi- 
ness, God  can  cease  to  demand  purity  and  to  punish  sin  onlj  when  he  ceases  to  be  holy, 
that  is,  only  when  he  ceases  to  be  God.    "Judex  damnatur  cum  nocens  absolvitor." 

Simon,  Reconciliation,  Ul — "To  claim  the  performance  of  duty  is  as  truly  obligatory 
as  it  is  obligatory  to  perform  the  duty  which  is  prescribed."  EL  H.  Johnson,  System- 
atic Theology,  84—"  Henc\  Olence  intends  what  is  well  lor  the  creature  ;  justice  insists 
on  what  is  lit.  I  hit  the  well-for-ua  and  the  fit-for-us  precisely  coincide.  The  only  thing 
that  is  well  for  us  is  our  normal  employment  ami  development;  but  to  provide  for 
this  is  precisely  what  is  fitting  and  therefore  due  to  us.  In  the  divine  nature  the  dis- 
tinction between  justice  and  beuevolence  is  one  of  form."  We  criticize  this  utterance 
as  not  sufficiently  taking1  into  account  the  nature  of  the  right.  The  right  is  not 
merely  the  fit.  Fitness  is  only  general  adaptation  which  may  have  in  it  no  ethical  ele- 
ment* whereas  right  is  solely  and  exclusively  ethical.  The  right  therefore  regulates 
the  fit  and  constitutes  its  standard.  The  well-fOF-US  is  to  be  determined  by  the  right  - 
for-us,  but  not,  rirf  versa.  George  W.  Northrup  :  "Godlsnoi  bound  to  bestow  the  same 
endowments  upon  creatures,  nor  to  keep  all  in  a  state  of  holiness  Eorever,  nor  to 
redeem  the  fallen,  nor  to  secure  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  universe.  Hut  he  is 
bound  to  purpose  arid  to  do  what  his  absolute  holiness  requires.  lie  has  no  at  tribute, 
ao  will, no  sovereignty,  a j'ove  this  law  of  his  being.  He  cannot  lie,  he  cannot  deny 
himself,  lie  cannot  look  upon  sin  with  complacency,  he  cannot  acquit  the  guilty  with- 
out an  atonement." 

(d)  Neither  justice  nor  righteousness  bestows  rewards.  This  follows 
from  the  fact  that  obedience  is  due  to  God,  instead  of  being  optional  or  a 
gratuity.  No  creature  can  claim  anything  for  his  obedience.  If  God 
rewards,  he  rewards  in  virtue  of  his  goodness  and  faithfulness,  not  in  virtue 
of  his  justice  or  his  righteousness.  "What  the  creature  cannot  claim,  bow- 
ever,  Christ  can  claim,  and  the  rewards  which  are  goodness  to  the  creature 
are  righteousness  to  Christ.     God  rewards  Christ's  work  for  us  and  in  us. 

Hruch,  Eigenschaftslehre,  280-882,  and  John  Austin,  Province  of  Jurisprudence,  1: 
88  93,  220-228,  both  deny,  and  rightly  deny,  that  justice  bestows  rewards.  Justice  simply 
punishes  infractions  of  law.  In  Mat.  25:34  —  "inherit  the  kingdom  "  —  inheritance  implies  no 
m  Tit ;  46  —  the  wicked  are  adjudged  to  eternal  punishment;  the  righteous, not  to  eter- 
nal reward,  but  to  eternal  lite.  Luke  17:7-10  —  " when  ye  shall  have  done  all  the  things  that  are  com- 
ra  mded  yon,  say,  We  are  unprofitable  servants  ;  we  have  done  that  which  it  was  our  duty  to  do."  Rom.  6  :  23  — 
punishment  is  the  "wages  of  sin":  but  salvation  is  "  the  gift of  God  "  ;  2:6  — God  rewards,  not 
on  aecowtti  of  man's  work  but  "according  to  his  works."  Reward  is  thus  seen  to  be  in  Script- 
ure a  matter  of  grace  to  the  creature ;  only  to  the  Christ  who  works  for  us  in  atone- 
ment, ami  in  us  in  regeneration  and  sanctiftcation,  is  reward  a  matter  of  debt  (see  also 
John 6: 27 and  2  John  8;.  Martineau,  Types,  2:86, 244, 219— "Merit  is  toward  man;  virtue 
toward  God." 

All  mere  service  is  unprofitable,  because  it  furnishes  only  an  equivalent  to  duty,  ami 
there  is  no  margin.  Works  of  supererogation  are  impossible,  because  our  all  is  due  to 
God.  He  would  have  us  rise  into  the  region  of  friendship,  realize  that  he  has  been 
treating  us  not  as  Master  but  as  Father,  enter  into  a  relation  of  unealculating  love. 
With  this  proviso  that  rewards  are  matters  of  grace,  not  of  debt,  we  may  assent  to  the 
maxim  of  Solon  :  "  A  republic  walks  upon  two  feet  — just  punishment  for  the  unwor- 
thy and  due  reward  for  the  worthy."    George  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  139  — "Love 


291  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

seeks  righteousness,  and  is  satisfied  with  nothing-  other  than  that."  But  when  Harris 
adopts  the  words  of  the  poet:  "The  very  wrath  from  pity  grew,  From  love  of  men  the 
hate  of  wrong,"  he  seems  to  us  virtually  to  deny  that  God  hates  evil  for  any  other 
reason  than  because  of  its  utilitarian  disadvantages,  and  to  imply  that  good  has  no 
independent  existence  in  his  nature.  Bowne,  Ethics,  171  —  "  Merit  is  desert  of  reward, 
or  better,  desert  of  moral  approval."  Tennyson  :  "  For  merit  lives  from  man  to  man, 
And  not  from  man,  0  Lord,  to  thee."  Baxter :  "  Desert  is  written  over  the  gate  of  hell ; 
but  over  the  gate  of  heaven  only,  The  Gift  of  Godt." 

(  e )  Justice  in  God,  as  the  revelation  of  his  holiness,  is  devoid  of  all  pas- 
sion or  caprice.  There  is  in  God  no  selfish  anger.  The  penalties  he 
inflicts  upon  transgression  are  not  vindictive  but  vindicative.  They  express 
the  revulsion  of  God's  nature  from  moral  evil,  the  judicial  indignation  of 
purity  against  impurity,  the  self-assertion  of  infinite  holiness  agaiust  its 
antagonist  and  would-be  destroyer.  But  because  its  decisions  are  calm, 
they  are  irreversible. 

Anger,  within  certain  limits,  is  a  duty  of  man.  Ps.  97 :  10  —  "  ye  that  love  Jehovah,  hate  evil "  ; 
Eph.  4  : 26  —  "Be  ye  angry,  and  sin.  not."  The  calm  indignation  of  the  judge,  who  pronounces 
sentence  with  tears,  is  the  true  image  of  the  holy  anger  of  God  against  sin.  Weber, 
Zoru  Gottes,  28,  makes  wrath  only  the  jealousy  of  love.  It  is  more  truly  the  jealousy 
of  holiness.  Prof.  W.  A.  Stevens,  Com.  on  1  Thess.  2:10  —  "Holily  and  righteously  are  terms 
that  describe  the  same  conduct  in  two  aspects ;  the  former,  as  conformed  to  God's  char- 
acter in  itself;  the  latter,  as  conformed  to  his  law;  both  are  positive."  Lillie,  on  2 
Thess.  1:6  —  "  Judgment  is 'a  righteous  thing  with  God.'  Divine  justice  requires  it  for  its  own 
satisfaction."  Sec  Miedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  175-178,  365-385  ;  Trench,  Syn.  N.  T.,  1 :  180, 181. 

Of  Gaston  de  Foix,  the  old  chronicler  admirably  wrote:  "He  loved  what  ought  to 
beloved,  and  hated  what  ought  to  be  hated,  and  never  had  miscreant  with  him." 
Compare  Ps.  101 : 5,  6  —  "  Him  that  hath  a  high  look  and  a  proud  heart  will  I  not  suffer.  Mine  eyes  shall  be  upon 
the  faithful  of  the  land,  that  they  may  dwell  with  me."  Even  Horace  Bushnell  spoke  of  the  "  wrath- 
principle"  in  God.  IK. 11:9  —  "  And  Jehovah  was  angry  with  Solomon"  because  of  his  polygamy. 
Jesus'  anger  was  no  less  noble  than  his  love.  The  love  of  the  right  involved  hatred  cf 
the  wrong.  Those  may  hate  who  hate  evil  for  its  hatefulness  and  for  the  sake  of  God. 
Hate  sin  in  yourself  first,  and  then  you  may  hate  it  in  itself  and  in  the  world.  Be 
angry  only  in  Christ  and  with  the  wrath  of  God.  W.  C.  Wilkinson,  Epic  of  Paul,  264  — 
"But  we  must  purge  ourselves  of  self-regard,  Or  we  are  sinful  in  abhorring  sin." 
Instance  Judge  Harris's  pity,  as  he  sentenced  the  murderer;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philos- 
ophy and  Religion,  K>2, 193. 

Horace's  "  Ira  furor  brevis  est "—  "  Anger  is  a  temporary  madness  "  —  is  true  only  of 
selfish  and  sinful  anger.  Hence  the  man  who  is  angry  is  popularly  called  "mad." 
But  anger,  though  apt  to  become  sinful,  is  not  necessarily  so.  Just  anger  is  neither 
madness,  nor  is  it  brief.  Instance  the  judicial  anger  of  the  church  of  Corinth  in  inllict- 
ing  excommunication  :  2  Cor.  7: 11  —  "  what  indignation,  yea  what  fear,  yea  what  longing,  yea  what  zeal, 
yea  what  avenging  !  "  The  only  revenge  permissible  to  the  Christian  church  is  that  in  which 
it  pursues  and  exterminates  sin.  To  be  incapable  of  moral  indignation  against  wrong 
is  to  lack  real  love  for  the  right.  Dr.  Arnold  of  Rugby  was  never  sure  of  a  boy  who 
only  loved  good ;  till  the  boy  also  began  to  hate  evil,  Dr.  Arnold  did  not  feel  that  he 
was  safe.  Herbert  Spencer  said  that  good  nature  with  Americans  became  a  crime. 
Lecky,  Democracy  and  Liberty  :  "  There  is  one  thing  worse  than  corruption,  and  that 
is  acquiescence  in  corruption." 

Colestock,  Changing  Viewpoint,  139  — "Xenophon  intends  to  say  a  very  commend- 
able thing  of  Cyrus  the  Younger,  when  he  writes  of  him  that  no  one  had  done  more 
good  to  his  friends  or  more  harm  to  his  enemies."  Luther  said  to  a  monkish  antago- 
nist: "I  will  break  in  pieces  your  heart  of  brass  and  pulverize  your  iron  brains."  Shedd, 
Dogmatic  Theology,  1  :  175-178  — "  Human  character  is  worthless  in  proportion  as 
abhorrence  of  sin  is  lacking  in  it.  It  is  related  of  Charles  II  that '  he  felt  no  gratitude 
for  benefits,  and  no  resentment  for  wrongs ;  he  did  not  love  anyone,  and  he  did  not  hate 
any  one.'  He  was  indifferent  toward  right  and  wrong,  and  the  only  feeling  he  had  was 
contempt."  But  see  the  death-bed  scene  of  the  "  merry  monarch,"  as  portrayed  in  Bp. 
Burnet,  Evelyn's  Memoirs,  or  the  Life  of  Bp.  Ken.  Truly  "The  end  of  mirth  is  heaviness"  (  Prov. 
14:13), 


RANK   AND    RELATIONS   OF  THE    ATTRIBUTES.  295 

Stout,  Manual  of  Psychology,  -~  —  "Charles  Lamb  tells  us  that  his  friend  George 
Dyer  could  never  be  brought  to  say  anything  in  condemnation  of  the  most  atrocious 
crimes,  except  that  the  criminal  must  Lave  been  very  eccentric.''  Prof essor  Seeley : 
"  No  heart  is  pure  that  is  not  passionate."  D.  W.  Simon,  Redemption  of  Man,  249,  SoO, 
says  that  God's  resentment  "is  a  resentment  of  an  essentially  altruistic  character." 
If  this  means  that  it  is  perfect ly  consistent  with  love  for  the  sinner,  we  can  accept 
the  statement ;  if  it  means  that  love  is  the  only  ource  of  the  resentment,  we  regard 
the  statement  as  a  misinterpretation  of  God's  justice,  which  is  but  the  manifestation  of 
his  holiness  and  Is  nut  an  mere  expression  of  his  love.  See  a  similar  statement  of  Lid- 
gett,  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  251 — "  Because  God  is  love,  his  love  coexists 
with  his  wrath  against  sinners,  is  the  very  life  of  that  wrath,  and  is  so  persistent  that 
ii  usee  wrath  as  its  instrument,  while  at  the  same  time  it  seeks  and  supplies  a  propitia- 
tion.'' This  statement  ignores  the  tact  that  punishment  is  never  in  Scripture  regarded 
as  an  expression  of  God's  love,  I  mi  always  of  God's  holiness.  When  we  say  that  we  love 
God, let  us  make  sure  that  it  is  the  true  God,  tin:  (I ml  of  holiness,  that  we  love,  for  only 
this  love  will  make  us  like  him. 

The  moral  Indignation  of  a  whole  um'verseof  holy  beings  against  moral  evil,  added  to 
the  agonizing  self-condemnations  of  awakened  conscience  in  all  the  Unholy,  is  only  a 
faint  and  small' reflection  of  the  awful  revulsion  of  God's  infinite  justice  from  the 
impurity  and  selfishness  of  his  creatures,  and  of  the  intense,  organic, necessary,  and 
eternal  reaction  of  his  moral  being  in  self- vindication  and  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  see 
Jer.  44 : 4  —  "  Oh,  do  not  this  abominable  thing  that  I  hate !  "  Nam.  32 :  23  —  "be  sure  your  sin  will  find  you  out "  ; 
Heb.  10:30,  31  —  "  For  we  know  him  that  said,  Vengeanco  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recompense.  And  again,  The  Lord 
shall  judge  his  psople.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God."  On  justice  as  an  attri- 
bute of  amoral  governor,  see  X.  W.  Taylor,  Moral  Government,  2:253-898;  Owen,  Dis- 
sertation on  Divine  Justice,  in  Works,  10:  W3-GJ54. 

YIl.     Rank  and  Relations  ok  thf,  several  Attkibutes. 

The  attributes  have  relations  to  each  other.  Like  intellect,  affection  and 
will  in  man,  no  one  of  them  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  exercised  separately 
from  the  rest.  Each  of  the  attributes  is  qualified  by  all  the  others.  God's 
love  is  immutable,  wise,  holy.  Infinity  belongs  to  God's  knowledge,  power, 
justice.  Yet  this  is  not  to  say  that  one  attribute  is  of  as  high  rank  as 
another.  The  moral  attributes  of  truth,  love,  holiness,  are  worthy  of 
higher  reverence  from  men,  and  they  are  more  jealously  guarded  by  God, 
than  the  natural  attributes  of  omnipresence,  omniscience  and  oninipo- 
tence.  And  yet  even  among  the  moral  attributes  one  stands  as  supreme. 
Of  this  and  of  its  supremacy  we  now  proceed  to  speak. 

Water  is  not  water  unless  composed  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen.  Oxygen  cannot  be 
resolved  into  hydrogen,  nor  hydrogen  into  oxygen.  Oxygen  has  its  own  character, 
though  only  in  combination  with  hydrogen  does  it  appear  in  water.  Will  in  man 
never  acts  without  intellect  am1,  sensibility,  yet  will,  more  than  intellect  or  sensibility, 
is  the  manifestation  of  the  man.  So  when  God  acts,  he  manifests  not  one  attribute 
alone,. but  his  total  moral  excellence.  Yet  holiness,  as  an  attribute  of  God,  has  rights 
peculiar  to  itself ;  it  determines  the  attitude  of  the  affections ;  it  more  than  any  other 
faculty  constitutes  God's  moral  being. 

Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  83,  02  —  "  God  would  not  be  holy  if  he  were  not  love,  and 
could  not  be  love  if  he  were  not  holy.  Love  is  an  element  in  holiness.  If  this  were 
lacking,  there  would  be  no  perfect  character  as  principle  of  his  own  action  or  as  standard 
for  us.  On  the  other  hand  only  the  perfect  being  can  be  love.  God  must  be  free  from 
all  taint  of  selfishness  in  order  to  be  love.  Holiness  requires  God  to  act  as  love,  for 
holiness  is  God's  self-consistency.  Love  is  the  desire  to  impart  holiness.  Holiness 
makes  God's  character  the  standard  for  his  creatures  ;  but  love,  desiring  to  impart  the 
best  good,  does  the  same.  All  work  of  love  is  work  of  holiness,  and  all  work  of  holi- 
ness is  work  of  love.  Conflict  of  attributes  is  impossible,  because  holiness  always 
includes  love,  and  love  always  expresses  holiness.  They  never  need  reconciliation  with 
each  other." 

The  general  correctness  of  the  foregoing  statement  is  impaired  by  the  vagueness  of 
its  conception  of  holiness.  The  Scriptures  do  not  rejrard  holiness  as  including  love,  or 
make  all  the  acts  of  holiness  to  be  acts  of  love.    Self-affirmation  does  not  include  self- 


296  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

impartation,  and  sin  necessitates  an  exercise  of  holiness  which  is  not  also  an  exercise 
of  love.  But  for  the  Cross,  and  God's  suffering-  for  sin  of  which  the  Cross  is  the  expres- 
sion, there  would  be  conflict  between  holiness  and  love.  The  wisdom  of  God  is  most 
shown,  not  in  reconciling'  man  and  God,  but  in  reconciling  the  holy  God  with  the 
loving  God. 

1.     Holiness  the  fundamental  attribute  in  God. 

That  holiness  is  the  fundamental  attribute  in  God,  is  evident: 

(a)  From  Scripture, —  in  which  God's  holiness  is  not  only  most  con- 
stantly and  powerfully  impressed  upon  the  attention  of  man,  hut  is  declared 
to  be  the  chief  subject  of  rejoicing  and  adoration  in  heaven. 

It  is  God's  attribute  of  holiness  that  first  ami  most  prominently  presents  itself  to  the 
mind  of  the  sinner,  and  conscience  only  follows  the  method  of  Scripture  :  1  Pet.  1 :  10  — 
"  Ye  shall  be  holy;  for  I  am  holy"  ;  Hob.  12:14  —  "the  sanctifieation  without  which  no  man  shall  seethe  Lord"  ;  cf. 
Luke  5 : 8 — "Depart  from  me ;  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord."  Yet  this  constant  insistence  upon  holi- 
ness cannot  be  due  simply  to  man's  present  state  of  sin,  for  in  heaven,  where  there  is  no 
sin,  there  is  the  same  reiteration  :  Is.  6  :  3  — "Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jehovah  of  hosts"  ;  Rev.  4:8— "Holy, 
holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  God,  the  Almighty."  Of  no  other  attribute  is  it  said  that  God's  throne 
rests  upon  it :  Ps.  97 : 2  —  "  Righteousness  and  justice  are  the  foundation  of  his  throne"  ;  99 : 4,  5,  9  — "  The  king's 
strength  also  loveth  justice.  .  .  .  Exalt  ye  Jehovah  our  God.  .  .  .  holy  is  he."  We  would  substitute  the 
word  holiness  for  the  word  love  in  the  statement  of  Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics, 
45  —  "  We  assume  that  love  is  lord  in  the  divine  will,  not  that  the  will  of  God  is  sovereign 
over  his  love.    God's  omnipotence,  as  Dorner  would  say,  exists  for  his  love." 

(6)  From  our  own  moral  constitution, —  in  which  conscience  asserts'its 
supremacy  over  every  other  impulse  and  affection  of  our  nature.  As  we 
may  be  kind,  but  must  be  righteous,  so  God,  in  whose  image  we  are  made, 
may  be  mercif id,  but  must  be  holy. 

See  Bishop  Butler's  Sermons  upon  Human  Nature,  Bonn's ed.,  385-414,  showing-  "  the 
supremacy  of  conscience  in  the  moral  constitution  of  man."  W^e  must  be  just,  before 
we  are  generous.  So  with  God,  justice  must  be  done  always ;  mercy  is  optional  with 
him.  He  was  not  under  obligation  to  provide  a  redemption  for  sinners  :  2  Pet.  2 : 4— "  God 
spared  not  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell."  Salvation  is  a  matter  of  grace,  not  of 
debt.  Shcdd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  277-298— "The  quality  of  justice  is  necessary  exac- 
tion ;  but '  the  quality  of  mercy  is  not  ( con )  strained ' "  [  cf.  Denham  :  "  His  mirth  is 
forced  and  strained  "  ].  God  can  apply  the  salvation,  after  he  has  wrought  it  out,  to 
whomsoever  he  will :  Rom.  9:18  —  "he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will."  Young,  Night-Thoughts, 
4:233  — "A  God  all  mercy  is  a  God  unjust."  Emerson:  "Your  goodness  must  have 
some  edge  to  it;  else  it  is  none."  Martineau,  Study,  2:100  —  "No  one  can  be  just 
without  subordinating  Pity  to  the  sense  of  Right.'' 

We  may  learn  of  God's  holiness  a  priori.  Even  the  heathen  could  say  "  Fiat  justitia, 
ruat  ccelum,"  or  "  pereat  mundus."  But,  for  our  knowledge  of  God's  mercy,  we  are 
dependent  upon  special  revelation.  Mercy,  like  omnipotence,  may  exist  in  God  with- 
out being  exercised.  Mercy  is  not  grace  but  debt,  if  God  owes  the  exercise  of  it  either 
to  the  sinner  or  to  himself ;  versus  G.  B.  Stevens,  in  New  Eng.,  1888 :  421-443.  "  But  justice 
is  an  attribute  which  not  only  exists  of  necessity,  but  must  be  exercised  of  necessity  ; 
because  not  to  exercise  it  would  be  injustice"  ;  see  Shedd,  Dogm.Theol.,  1 :218,  219,  389, 
390 ;  2 :  402,  and  Sermons  to  Nat.  Man,  366.  If  it  be  said  that,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  for 
God  not  to  exercise  mercy  is  to  show  himself  unmerciful,  — we  reply  that  this  is  not 
true  so  long  as  higher  interests  require  that  exercise  to  be  withheld.  I  am  not  unmerci- 
ful when  1  refuse  to  give  the  poor  the  money  needed  to  pay  an  honest  debt ;  nor  is  the 
Governor  unmerciful  when  he  refuses  to  pardon  the  condemned  and  unrepentant 
criminal.  Mercy  has  its  conditions,  as  we  proceed  to  show,  and  it  does  not  cease  to  be 
when  these  conditions  do  not  permit  it  to  be  exercised.  Not  so  with  justice :  justice- 
must  always  be  exercised ;  when  it  ceases  to  be  exercised,  it  also  ceases  to  be. 

The  story  of  the  prodigal  shows  a  love  that  ever  reaches  out  after  the  son  in  the  far 
country,  but  which  is  ever  conditioned  by  the  father's  holiness  and  restrained  from 
ncting  until  the  son  has  voluntarily  forsaken  his  riotous  living.  A  just  father  may 
banish  a  corrupt  son  from  the  household,  yet  may  love  him  so  tenderly  that  his  banish- 


KAXK    AND    RELATIONS    OF    THE    ATTRIBUTES.  297 

mont  causes  exquisite  pain.  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  God,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  have  a 
conscience,  that  is,  they  distinguish  between  rig-ht  aud  wrong-."  E.  H.  Johnson,  Syst. 
Theology,  85,86 — "Holiness  is  primary  as  respects  benevolence;  for(«)  Holiness  is 
itself  moral  excellence,  while  the  moral  excellence  of  benevolence  can  be  explained. 
( h )  Holiness  is  an  attribute  of  being,  while  benevolence  is  an  attribute  of  action ;  but 
action  presupposes  and  is  controlled  by  being.  (  c )  Benevolence  must  take  counsel  of 
holiness,  since  for  a  being  to  desire  aught  contrary  to  holiness  would  be  to  wish  him  harm , 
while  that  which  holiness  leads  God  to  seek,  benevolence  finds  best  for  the  creature, 
(d)  The  Mosaic  dispensation  elaborately  symbolized,  and  the  Christian  dispensation 
makes  provision  to  meet,  the  requirements  of  holiness  as  supreme  ;  James 3  :17 — 'First  pure, 
then  [by  consequence  ]  peaceable.'  " 

"We  are  "  to  do  justly,"  as  well  as  "  to  love  kindness,  and  to  walk  humbly  with "  our  God  ( Micah  6:8). 
Dr.  Samuel  Johnson :  "  It  is  surprising  to  find  how  much  more  kindness  than  justice 
society  contains."  There  is  a  sinful  mercy.  A  School  Commissioner  finds  ii  terrible 
work  to  listen  to  the  pleas  of  incompetent  teachers  begging  that  they  may  not  be  dis- 
missed, and  he  can  nerve  himself  for  it  only  by  remembering  the  children  whose  educa- 
tion may  be  affected  by  his  refusal  to  do  justice.  Love  and  pity  are  not  the  whole  of 
Christian  duty,  nor  are  they  the  ruling  attributes  of  God. 

(c)  From  the  actual  dealings  of  God, — in  which  holiness  conditions 
and  limits  the.  exercise  of  other  attributes.  Thus,  for  example,  in  Christ's 
redeeming  work,  though  love  makes  the  atonement,  it  is  violated  holiness 
that  requires  it  ;  and  in  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked,  the  demand 
of  holiness  for  self-vindication  overbears  the  pleading  of  love  for  the  suf- 
ferers. 

Love  cannot  be  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  because  love  always  requires  a  norm 
or  standard,  and  I  his  norm  or  standard  is  found  only  in  holiness;  Phil.  1 : 9 —  "  And  this  I 
pray,  that  your  love  may  abound  yet  more  in  knowledge  and  all  discernment  "  ;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in 
Creation,  388-405.  That  which  conditions  all  is  highest  of  all.  Holiness  shows  itself  higher 
than  love,  in  that  it  conditions  love.  Hence  God's  mercy  does  not  consist  in  outraging 
his  own  law  of  holiness,  but  in  enduring  the  penal  affliction  by  which  that  law  of  holi- 
ness is  satisfied.  Conscience  in  man  is  but  the  reflex  of  holiness  in  Cod.  Conscience 
demands  either  retribution  or  atonement.  This  demand  Christ  meets  by  hissub-n- 
tuted  suffering.  His  sacrifice  assuages  the  thirst  of  conscience  in  man,  as  well  as  the 
demand  of  holiness  in  God:  John  6: 55  —  "For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.'' 
See  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  380,  801,  892  :  Dogmatic  Theology,  1  : 377, 378— "The 
sovereignty  and  freedom  of  God  in  respect  to  justice  relates  not  to  the  abolition,  nor  to 
the  refund  in  ji,  but  to  the  substitution,  of  punishment.  It  'Iocs  not  consist  in  any  power 
to  violate  or  waive  legal  claims.  The  exercise  of  the  other  attributes  of  Cod  is  regu- 
lated and  conditioned  by  that  of  justice.  .  .  .  Where  then  is  the  mercy  of  Cod,  in  Case 
justice  is  strictly  satisfied  by  a  vicarious  person?  There  is  mercy  in  permUtitno  another 
person  to  do  for  the  sinner  what  the  sinner  is  bound  to  do  for  himself;  and  greater 
mercy  in  providing  thai  person  ;  and  still  greater  mercy  in  becoming  that  person." 

Enthusiasm,  like  lire,  must  not  only  burn,  but  must  be  controlled.  Man  invented 
chimneys  to  keep  in  the  heat  but  to  let  out  the  smoke.  We  need  the  walls  of  discret  ion 
and  self-control  to  guide  the  flaming  of  our  love.  The  holiness  of  God  is  the  regulating 
principle  of  his  nature.  The  ocean  of  his  mercy  is  bounded  by  the  shores  of  his  justice. 
Even  if  holiness  be  God's  self-love,  in  the  sense  of  God's  self-respect  or  self-preserva- 
tion, still  this  self-love  must  condition  love  to  creatures.  Only  as  God  maintains  him- 
self in  his  holiness,  can  he  have  anything  of  worth  to  give  ;  love  indeed  is  nothing  but 
the  self-communication  of  holiness.  And  if  we  say,  with  J.  M.  Whiton,  that  self-affirm- 
ation in  a  universe  in  which  God  is  immanent  is  itself  a  form  of  self-impartation,  still 
this  form  of  self-impartation  must  condition  and  limit  that  other  form  of  self-imparta- 
tion which  we  call  love  to  creatures.  See  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  137- 
1")5,  346-353;  Patton,  art.  on  Retribution  and  the  Divine  Goodness,  in  Princeton  Kev., 
Jan.  1878:8-16;  Owen,  Dissertation  on  the  Divine  Justice,  in  Works,  10:483-624. 

(d)  From  God's  eternal  purpose  of  salvation, — in  which  justice  and 
mercy  are  reconciled  only  through  the  foreseen  and  jiredetermined  sacri- 
fice of  Christ.     The  declaration  that  Christ  is  ' '  the  Lamb  .  .  .  slain  from 


298  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    OF    GOD. 

the  foundation  of  the  world  "  implies  the  existence  of  a  principle  in  the 
divine  nature  which  requires  satisfaction,  before  God  can  enter  upon  the 
work  of  redemption.     That  principle  can  be  none  other  than  holiness. 

Since  both  mercy  and  justice  are  exercised  toward  sinners  of  the  human  race,  the 
otherwise  inevitable  antagonism  between  them  is  removed  only  by  the  atoning  death 
of  the  God-man.  Their  opposing  claims  do  not  impair  the  divine  blessedness,  because 
the  reconciliation  exists  in  the  eternal  counsels  of  God.  This  is  intimated  in  Rev.  13 : 8 
—  "the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  This  same  reconciliation  is  alluded 
to  in  Ps.  85:10  —  "  Mercy  and  truth  are  met  together ;  Righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other  "  ;  and  in 
Rom.  3 :  26  —  "  that  he  might  himself  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus."  The  atonement, 
then,  if  man  was  to  be  saved,  was  necessary,  not  primarily  on  man's  account,  but  on 
God's  account.  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  279  —  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  an 
"atonement  ah  intra,  a  self-oblation  on  the  part  of  Deity  himself,  by  which  to  satisfy 
those  immanent  and  eternal  imperatives  of  the  divine  nature  which  without  it  must 
find  their  satisfaction  in  the  punishment  of  the  transgressor,  or  else  be  outraged." 
Thus  God's  word  of  redemption,  as  well  as  his  word  of  creation,  is  forever  "settled  in 
heaven"  (Ps.  119:89).  Its  execution  on  the  cross  was  "according  to  the  pattern"  on  high.  The 
Mosaic  sacrifice  prefigured  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  but  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  but 
the  temporal  disclosure  of  an  eternal  fact  in  the  nature  of  God.  See  Kreibig,  Versohn- 
ung,  155, 156. 

God  requires  satisfaction  because  he  is  holiness,  but  he  makes  satisfaction  because  he 
is  love.  The  Judge  himself,  with  all  his  hatred  of  transgression,  still  loves  the  trans- 
gressor, and  comes  down  from  the  bench  to  take  the  criminal's  place  and  bear  his  pen- 
alty. But  this  is  an  eternal  provision  and  an  eternal  sacrifice.  Heb.  9 :  14 —  "the  blood  of  Christ, 
who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God."  Matheson,  Voices  of  the  Spirit, 
215,  210  —  "  Christ's  sacrifice  was  offered  through  the  Spirit.  It  was  not  wrung  from  a 
reluctant  soul  through  obedience  to  outward  law  ;  it  came  from  the  inner  heart,  from 
the  impulse  of  undying  love.  It  was  a  completed  offering  before  Calvary  began ;  it 
was  seen  by  the  Father  before  it  was  seen  by  the  world.  It  was  finished  in  the  Spirit, 
ere  it  began  in  the  flesh,  finished  in  the  hour  when  Christ  exclaimed  :  'not  as  I  will,  but  as 
thou  wilt'  (  Mat.  26 :  39 )." 

Lang,  Homer,  506— "Apollo  is  the  bringer  of  pestilence  and  the  averter  of  pesti- 
lence, in  accordance  with  the  well-known  rule  that  the  two  opposite  attributes  should 
be  combined  in  the  same  deity."  Lord  Bacon,  Confession  of  Faith  :  "  Neither  angel, 
man  nor  world,  could  stand  or  can  stand  one  momeut  in  God's  sight  without  beholding 
the  same  in  the  face  of  a  Mediator ;  and  therefore  before  him,  with  whom  all  things 
are  present,  the  Lamb  of  God  was  slain  before  all  worlds ;  without  which  eternal  coun- 
sel of  his,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have  descended  to  any  work  of  creation."  Orr, 
Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  319  —  "  Creation  is  built  on  redemption  lines"— 
which  is  to  say  that  incarnation  and  atonement  were  included  in  God's  original  design 
of  the  world. 

2.     The  holiness  of  God  lh<  ground  of  moral  obligation. 

A.     Erroneous  Views.     The  ground  of  moral  obligation  is  not 

(  a )  In  power,  —  whether  of  civil  law  (  Hobbes,  Gassendi ),  or  of  divine 
will  (Occam,  Descartes).  We  are  not  bound  to  obey  either  of  these, 
except  tipon  the  ground  that  they  are  right.  This  theory  assumes  that 
nothing  is  good  or  right  in  itself,  and  that  morality  is  mere  prudence. 

Civil  law:  See  Hobbes,  Leviathan,  part  i,  chap.  6  and  13 ;  part  ii,  chap.  30  ;  Gassendi, 
Opera,  6  :  120.  Upon  this  view,  might  makes  right ;  the  laws  of  Nero  are  always  bind- 
ing ;  a  man  may  break  his  promise  when  civil  law  permits  ;  there  is  no  obligation  to 
obey  a  father,  a  civil  governor,  or  God  himself,  when  once  it  is  certain  that  the  disobe- 
dience will  be  hidden,  or  when  the  offender  is  willing  to  incur  the  punishment.  Marti- 
neau,  Seat  of  Authority,  67  —  "  Mere  magnitude  of  scale  carries  no  moral  quality ;  nor 
could  a  whole  population  of  devils  by  unanimous  ballot  confer  righteousness  upon 
their  will,  or  make  it  binding  upon  a  single  Abdiel."  Robert  Browning,  Christmas  Eve, 
xvii  —  "  Justice,  good,  and  truth  were  still  Divine  if,  by  some  demon's  will,  Hatred  and 
wrong  had  been  proclaimed  Law  through  the  world,  and  right  misnamed." 


RANK    AND    RELATIONS    OF   THE    ATTRIBUTES.  299 

Divine  nil!:  See  Occam,  lib.  0,  quaes.  i!>  (quoted  in  Porter,  Moral  Science,  1~.">);  Des- 
cartes  (referred  to  in  lli<k>>k,  Moral  Science,  27,28  > ;  Martineau,  Types,  lis—"  Descartes 
held  that  the  will  of  God  is  not  the  revealer  but  the  inventor  of  moral  distinctions. 
God  cOuld  have  made  Euclid  a  farrag*of  lies,  and  Satan  a  model  of  moral  perfection." 
Upon  this  view,  right  and  wrong  are  variable  quantities.  Duns  Scotus  held  that  God's 
will  msffces  not  only  truth  but  right.  God  can  make  lying  to  be  virtuous  and  purity  to 
be  wrong.  If  Satan  were  God,  we  should  be  bound  to  obey  him.  God  is  essentially 
indifferent  to  right  and  wrong,  good  and  evil.  VTe  reply  that  behind  the  divine  will  is 
the  divine  nature,  and  that  in  the  moral  perfection  of  that  nature  lies  the  only  ground 
of  moral  obligation.  God  pours  forth  his  love  and  exerts  his  power  in  accordance  with 
some  determining  principle  in  his  own  nature.  That  principle  is  not  happiness.  Finney, 
Syst.  Theology,  936,  937 —"  Could  God's  command  make  it  obligatory  upon  us  to  will 
evil  to  him?  If  not,  then  his  will  is  not  the  ground  of  moral  obligation.  The  thing 
that  is  most  valuable,  namely,  the  highest  good  of  God  and  of  the  universe  must  be 
both  the  end  and  the  ground.  It  is  the  divine  reason  and  not  the  divine  will  that  per- 
ceives and  affirmjfrthe  law  of  conduct.  The  divine  will  publishes,  but  does  not  originate, 
the  ruie.    God's  will  could  not  make  vice  to  be  virtuous." 

As  between  power  or  utility  on  the  one  hand,  and  right  on  the  other  hand,  we  must 
regard  right  as  the  more  fundamental.  We  do  not,  however,  as  will  be  seen  further  on, 
place  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  even  in  right,  considered  as  an  abstract  principle  ; 
but  place  it,  rather  in  the  moral  excellence  of  him  who  is  the  personal  Right  and  there- 
fore the  source  of  right.  Character  obliges,  and  the  master  often  bows  in  his  heart  to 
the  servant,  when  this  latter  is  the  nobler  man. 

(  b  )  Nor  in  utility,  —  whether  our  own  happiness  or  advantage  present 
or  eternal  (  Paley ),  for  supreme  regard  for  our  own  interest  is  nut  virtu- 
ous ;  or  the  greatest  happiness  or  advantage  to  being  in  general  (  Edwards ), 
for  we  judge  conduct  to  he  useful  because  it  is  right,  not  right  because  it  is 
useful  This  theory  would  compel  us  to  believe  that  in  eternity  past  God 
wns  holy  only  because  of  the  good  he  got  from  it, — that  is,  there;  was  no 
such  thing  as  holiness  in  itself,  and  no  such  thing  as  moral  character  in  God. 

Our  own  happiness:  Paley,  Mor;  and  Pol.  Philos.,  book  i,  chap,  vii—  "Virtue  is  the 
doing  good  to  mankind,  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and  for  the  sake  of  everlasting 
happiness*"  This  unites  (<i)  and  (ft).  John  Stuart  Mill  and  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  held 
that  our  own  happiness  Is  the  supreme  end.  These  writers  indeed  regard  the  highest 
happiness  as  attained,  only  by  living  for  others  (Mill's  altruism ),  but  they  can  assign 
no  reason  why  one  who  knows  no  other  happiness  t  ban  the  pleasures  of  sense  should 
not  adopt  the  maxim  of  Epicurus,  who,  according  to  Lucretius,  taught  thafducit 
quemque  roluptas."  This  theory  lenders  virtue  impossible :  for  a  virtue  which  is  mere 
regard  to  our  own  interest  is  not  virt  ue  but  prudence.  "  We  have  a  sense  of  right  and 
wrong  independently  of  all  considerations  of  happiness  or  its  loss."  James  Mill  held 
that  the  utility  is  not  the  criterion  of  the  morality  but  itself  constitutes  the  morality. 
G.  B.  Foster  well  replies  that  virtue  is  not  mere  egoistic  sagacity, and  the  moral  act  is 
not  simply  a  clever  business  enterprise.  All  languages  distinguish  between  virtue  and 
prudence.  To  say  that  the  virtues  are  great  utilities  is  to  confound  the  effect  with  the 
cause.  Carlyle  says  that  a  man  can  do  without  happiness.  Browning,  Red  Cotton 
Nightcap  Country:  "Thick  heads  ought  to  recognize  The  devil,  that  old  stager,  at  his 
trick  Of  general  utility,  who  leads  Downward  perhaps,  but  fiddles  all  the  way."  This 
is  the  morality  of  Mother  Goose :  "  He  put  in  his  thumb,  And  pulled  out  a  plum,  And 
said,  '  What  a  good  boy  am  I !  "* 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality,  160  —  "  Utility  has  nothing  ulti- 
mate in  itself,  and  therefore  can  furnish  no  ground  of  obligation.  Utility  is  mere  fit- 
ness of  one  thing  to  minister  to  something  else."  To  say  that  things  are  right  because 
they  are  useful,  is  like  saying  that  things  are  beautiful  because  they  are  pleasing. 
Martineau,  Types  of  Ethical  Theory,  2  :  170,  511,  ;V>»i  — "The  moment  the  appetites  pass 
into  the  self-conscious  state,  and  become  ends  instead  of  impulses,  they  draw  to  them- 
selves terms  of  censure.  .  .  .  So  intellectual  conscientiousness,  or  strict  submission  of 
the  mind  to  evidence,  has  its  inspiration  in  pure  love  of  truth,  and  would  not  survive  an 
hour  if  entrusted  to  the  keeping  either  of  providence  or  of  social  affection.  .  .  . 
Instincts,  which  provide  for  they  know  not  what,  are  proof  that  want  is  the  original 


300  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

impulse  to  action,  instead  of  pleasure  being  the  end."  On  the  happiness  theory,  appeals 
to  self-interest  on  behalf  of  religion  ought  to  be  effective,  —  as  a  matter  of  fact  few  are 
moved  by  them. 

Dewey,  Psychology,  30<),  363—-''  Emotion  turned  inward  eats  up  itself.  Live  on  feel- 
ings rather  than  on  the  things  to  which  feelings  belong,  and  you  defeat  your  own  end, 
exhaust  your  power  of  feeling,  commit  emotional  suicide.  Hence  arise  cynicism,  the 
nil  admirari  spirit,  restless  searching  for  the  latest  sensation.  The  only  remedy  is  to  get 
outside  of  self,  to  devote  self  to  some  worthy  object,  not  for  feeling's  sake  but  for  the 
sake  of  the  object.  .  .  .  We  do  not  desire  an  object  because  it  gives  us  pleasure,  but  it 
gives  us  pleasure  because  it  satisfies  the  impulse  which,  in  connection  with  the  idea  of 
the  object,  constitutes  the  desii-e.  .  .  .  Pleasure  is  the  accompaniment  of  the  activity  or 
development  of  the  self." 

Salter,  First  Steps  in  Philosophy,  150  —  "  It  is  right  to  aim  at  happiness.  Happiness  is 
an  end.  Utilitarianism  errs  in  making  happiness  the  only  and  the  highest  end.  It 
exalts  a  state  of  feeling  into  the  supremely  desirable  thing.  Intuitionalism  gives  the 
same  place  to  a  state  of  will.  The  truth  includes  both.  The  true  end  is  the  highest 
development  of  being,  self  and  others,  the  realization  of  the  divine  idea,  God  in  man." 
Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  90  —  "  The  standard  of  appeal  is  not  the  actual  happiness 
of  the  actual  man  but  the  normal  happiness  of  the  normal  man.  .  .  .  Happiness  must 
have  a  law.  But  then  also  the  law  must  lead  to  happiness.  .  .  .  The  true  ethical  aim 
is  to  realize  the  good.  But  then  the  contents  of  this  good  have  to  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  an  inborn  ideal  of  human  worth  and  dignity.  .  .  .  Not  all  good,  but 
the  true  good,  not  the  things  which  please,  but  the  things  which  should  please,  are  to 
be  the  aim  of  action." 

Bixby,  Crisis  of  Morals,  223— "The  Utilitarian  is  really  asking  about  the  wisest 
method  of  embodying  the  ideal.  He  belongs  to  that  second  stage  in  which  the  moral 
artist  considers  through  what  material  and  in  what  form  and  color  he  may  best  realize 
his  thought.  What  the  ideal  is,  and  why  it  is  the  highest,  lie  does  not  tell  us.  Morality 
begins,  not  in  feeling,  but  in  i*cason.  And  reason  is  impersonal.  It  discerns  the  moral 
equality  of  personalities."  Genung,  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life,  20  — Job  speaks  out  his 
character  like  one  of  Robert  Browning's  heroes.  He  teaches  that  "  there  is  a  service  of 
God  which  is  not  work  for  reward  :  it  is  a  heart-loyalty,  a  hunger  after  God's  presence, 
which  survives  loss  and  chastisement ;  which  in  spite  of  contradictory  seeming  cleaves 
to  what  is  godlike  as  the  needle  seeks  the  pole ;  and  which  reaches  up  out  of  the  dark- 
ness and  hardness  of  this  life  into  the  light  and  love  beyond." 

Greatest  good  of  being :  Not  only  Edwards,  but  Priestley,  Beutham,  Dwight,  Finney, 
Hopkins,  Fairchild,  hold  this  view.  See  Edwards,  Works,  2 :  201-301  —  "  Virtue  is  benevo- 
lence toward  being  in  general";  Dwight,  Theology,  3  :  150-102— "Utility  the  founda- 
tion of  Virtue  "  ;  Hopkins,  Law  of  Love,  7-28  ;  Fairchild,  Moral  Philosophy  ;  Finney, 
Syst.  Theol.,  42-135.  This  theory  regards  good  as  a  mere  state  of  the  sensibility,  instead 
of  consisting  in  purity  of  being.  It  forgets  that  in  eternity  past  "love  for  being  in 
general"=  simply  God's  self-love,  or  God's  regard  for  his  own  happiness.  This  implies 
that  God  is  holy  only  for  a  purpose;  he  is  bound  to  be  unholy,  if  greater  good  would 
result;  that  is,  holiness  has  no  independent  existence  in  his  nature.  We  grant  that  a 
thing  is  often  known  to  be  right  by  the  fact  that  it  is  useful ;  but  this  is  very  different 
from  saying  that  its  usefulness  makes  it  right.  "  Utility  is  only  the  setting  of  the  dia- 
mond, which  marks,  but  does  not  malte,  its  value."  "  If  utility  be  a  criterion  of  red  i- 
tude,  it  is  only  because  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  divine  nature."  See  British  Quarterly, 
July,  1877,  on  Matthew  Arnold  and  Bishop  Butler.  Bp.  Butler,  Nature  of  Virtue,  in 
Works,  Bonn's ed.,  334—  "Benevolence  is  the  true  self-love."  Love  and  holiness  are 
obligatory  in  themselves,  and  not  because  they  promote  the  general  good.  Cicero  well 
said  that  they  who  confounded  thehone&tum  with  the  utile  deserved  to  be  banished 
from  society.  See  criticism  on  Porter's  Moral  Science,  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Apr. 
1885 :  325-331 ;  also  F.  L.  Patton,  on  Metaphysics  of  Oughtuess,  in  Presb..Rev.,  1886 :  127-150. 

Encyc.  Britanuica,  7 :  090,  on  Jonathan  Edwards  —  "  Being  in  general,  being  without 
any  qualities,  is  too  abstract  a  thing  to  be  the  primary  cause  of  love.  The  feeling 
which  Edwards  refers  to  is  not  love,  but  awe  or  reverence,  and  moreover  necessarily 
a  blind  awe.  Properly  stated  therefore,  true  virtue,  according  to  Edwards,  would  con- 
sist in  a  blind  awe  of  being  in  general,  —  only  this  would  be  inconsistent  with  his  defini- 
tion of  virtue  as  existing  in  God.  In  reality,  as  he  makes  virtue  merely  the  second 
object  of  love,  his  theory  becomes  identical  with  that  utilitarian  theory  with  which  the 
names  of  Hume,  Bentham  and  Mill  are  associated."  Hodge,  Essays,  275  —  "  If  obligation 
is  due  primarily  to  being  in   general,  then  there  is  no  more  virtue  in  loving  God  — 


RANK    AND    RELATIONS    OF   THE   ATTRIBUTES.  301 

willing  his  good  —  than  there  is  in  loving  Satan.  Rut  love  to  Christ  differs  in  its  nature 
from  benevolence  toward  the  devil."  Plainly  virtue  consists,  not  in  love  for  mere 
b  ing,  but  in  love  for  good  being,  or  in  other  words,  in  love  for  the  holy  God.  Not  the 
greatest  good  of  being,  but  the  holiness  of  God,  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation. 

Dr.  E.  A.  Park  interprets  the  Edwardean  theory  as  holding  that  virtue  is  love  to  all 
beings  according  to  their  value,  love  of  the  greater  therefore  more  than  t  lie  less,  "love 
to  particular  beings  in  a  proportion  compounded  of  the  degree  of  being  and  the  degree 
of  virtue  or  benevolence  to  being  which  they  have."  Love  is  choice.  Happiness,  Bays 
Park,  is  not  the  sole  good,  much  less  the  happiness  of  creatures.  The  greatest  good  is 
holiness  though  the  last  good  aimed  at  is  happiness.  Holiness  is  disinterested  love  — 
free  choice  of  the  general  above  the  private  good.  But  we  reply  that  this  gives  us  no 
reason  or  standard  for  virtue.  It  does  not  tell  us  what  is  good  nor  why  we  should 
choose  it.  Martineau,  Types,  2:  70,77,  471,  484—  "  Why  should  I  promote  the  general 
well-being?  Why  should  I  sacrifice  myself  for  others?  Only  because  this  is  godlike. 
It  would  never  have  been  prudent  to  do  right,  had  it  not  been  something  infinitely 
more.  ...  It  is  not  fitness  that  makes  an  act  moral,  but  it  is  its  morality  that  makes 
it  fit." 

Herbert  Spencer  must  be  classed  as  a  utilitarian.  He  says  that  justice  requires  that 
"  every  man  be  free  to  do  as  he  wills  provided  he  infringes  noi  the  equal  freedom  of 
every  other  man."  But,  since  this  would  permit  injury  to  another  by  one  willing  to 
submit  to  injury  in  return,  Mr.  Spencer  limits  the  freedom  to  "such  actions  as  subserve 
life."  This  is  practically  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  greatest  sum  of  happiness  is  the 
Ultimate  end.  On  .Jonathan  Edwards,  see  Robert  Mall,  Works,  l:43sq.;  Alexander, 
Moral  Science,  194-198;  Bib.  Repertory  (Princeton  Review),  25:22;  Bib.  Sacra, 9:  l7f>, 
1!»7;  10;403,  70.",. 

(c)  Nor  in  the  nature  of  things  (Price), — whether  by  this  we  mean  their 
fitness  (Clarke),  truth  (Wollaston),  order  ( Joun'roy),  relations  (Wayland), 
worthiness  (Hickok),  sympathy  (Adam  Smith),  or  abstract  right  (Haven 
and  Alexander  );  for  this  nature  of  things  is  not  ultimate,  but  has  its  ground 
in  the  nature  of  God.  We  are  bound  to  worship  the  highest;  if  anything 
exists  beyond  and  above  God,  we  are  bound  to  worship  that, — that  indeed 
is  God. 

See  Wayland,  Moral  Science,  3;j-48 ;  Hickok,  Moral  Science,  27-34;  Haven,  Moral  Phi- 
losophy, 27-50;  Alexander,  Moral  Science,  159-198.  In  opposition  to  all  the  forms  of  this 
theory,  we  urge  that  nothing  exists  independently  of  or  above  God.  "If  the  ground  of 
morals  exist  independently  of  God,  either  it  has  ultimately  no  authority,  or  it  usurps 
the  throne  of  the  Almighty.  Any  rational  being  who  kept  the  law  would  be  perfect 
without  God,  and  the  moral  centre  of  all  intelligences  would  be  outside  of  God  " 
(Talbot).  God  is  not  a  Jupiter  controlled  by  Fate.  He  is  subject  to  no  law  but  the  law 
of  his  own  nature.  Noblesse  oblige,  —  character  rules,  —  purity  is  the  highest.  And 
therefore  to  holiness  all  creatures,  voluntarily  or  involuntarily,  are  constrained  to 
bow.  Hopkins,  Law  of  Love,  77  —  "  Right  and  wrong  have  nothing  to  do  with  things, 
but  only  with  actions;  nothing  to  do  with  any  nature  of  things  existing  necessarily, 
but  only  with  the  nature  of  persons."  Another  has  said  :  "The  idea  of  right  cannot 
be  original,  since  right  means  conformity  to  some  standard  or  rule."  This  standard  or 
rule  is  not  an  abstraction,  but  an  existing  being  — the  infinitely  perfect  God. 

Faber:  "For  right  is  right,  since  God  is  God;  And  right  the  day  must  win;  To  doubt 
would  be  disloyalty,  To  falter  would  be  sin."  Tennyson  :  "And  because  right  is  right, 
to  follow  right  Were  wisdom  in  the  scorn  of  consequence."  Right  is  right,  and  I 
should  will  the  right,  not  because  God  trill*  it,  but  because  God  is  it.  E.  G.  Kobinson, 
Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality,  17S-180  —  "  Utility  and  relations  simply  reveal  the 
constitution  of  things  and  so  represent  God.  Moral  law  was  not  made  for  purposes  of 
utility,  nor  do  relations  constitute  the  reason  for  obligation.  They  only  show  what  the 
nature  of  God  is  who  made  the  universe  and  revealed  himself  in  it.  In  his  nature  is 
found  the  reason  for  morality."  S.  S.  Times,  Oct.  17, 1891 —"Only  that  is  level  which 
conforms  to  the  curvature  of  the  earth's  surface.  A  straight  line  tangent  to  the 
earth's  curve  would  at  its  ends  be  much  further  from  the  earth's  centre  than  at  its 
middle.  Now  equity  means  lcvelness.  The  standard  of  equity  is  not  an  impersonal 
thing, a  'nature  of  things'  outside  of  God.  Equity  or  righteousness  is  no  more  to  be 
conceived  independently  of  the  divine  centre  of  the  moral  world  than  is  leveluess  com- 
prehensible apart  from  the  earth's  centre." 


302  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Since  God  fluds  the  rule  and  limitation  of  his  action  solely  in  his  own  being,  and  his 
love  is  conditioned  by  his  holiness,  we  must  differ  from  suc-h  views  as  that  of  Moxom  : 
"■Whether  we  define  God's  nature  as  perfect  holiness  or  perfect  love  is  immaterial, 
since  his  nature  is  manifested  only  through  his  action,  that  is,  through  his  relation  to 
other  beings.  Most  of  our  reasoning' on  the  divine  standard  of  righteousness,  or  the 
ultimate  ground  of  moral  obligation,  is  reasoning  in  a  circle,  since  we  must  always  go 
back  to  God  for  the  principle  of  his  action;  which  principle  we  can  know  only 
by  means  of  his  action.  God,  the  perfectly  righteous  Being,  is  the  ideal  standard  of 
human  righteousness.  Righteousness  in  man  therefore  is  conformity  to  the  nature  of 
God.  God,  in  agreement  with  his  perfect  nature,  always  wills  the  perfectly  good 
toward  man.  His  righteousness  is  an  expression  of  his  love  ;  his  love  is  a  manifesta- 
tion of  his  righteousness." 

So  Newman  Smyth :  "  Righteousness  is  the  eternal  genuineness  of  the  divine  love.  It 
is  not  therefore  an  independent  excellence,  to  be  contrasted  with,  or  even  put  in  oppo- 
sition to,  benevolence  ;  it  is  an  essential  part  of  love."  In  reply  to  which  we  urge  as 
before  that  that  which  is  the  object  of  love,  that  which  limits  and  conditions  love,  that 
which  furnishes  the  norm  and  reason  for  love,  cannot  itself  be  love,  nor  hold  merely 
equal  rank  with  love.  A  double  standard  is  as  irrational  in  ethics  as  in  commerce,  and 
it  leads  in  ethics  to  the  same  debasement  of  the  higher  values,  and  the  same  unsettling 
of  relations,  as  has  resulted  in  our  currency  from  the  attempt  to  make  silver  regulate 
gold  at  the  same  time  that  gold  regulates  silver. 

B.  The  Scriptural  View. — According  to  the  Scriptures,  the  ground  of 
moral  obligation  is  the  holiness  of  God,  or  the  moral  perfection  of  the 
divine  nature,  conformity  to  which  is  the  law  of  our  moral  being  (Robin- 
son, Chalmers,  Calderwood,  Gregory,  Wuttke).     "We  show  this  : 

(a)  From  the  commands:  ''Ye  shall  be  holy,"  where  the  ground  of 
obligation  assigned  is  simply  and  only  :  "for  I  am  holy"  (1  Pet.  1  : 1(5)  ; 
and  "Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,"  where  the  standard  laid  down  is  :  "as 
your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect"  (Mat.  5  :  48).  Here  wc  have  an  ultimate 
reason  and  ground  for  being  and  doing  right,  namely,  that  God  is  right,  or, 
in  other  words,  that  holiness  is  his  nature. 

( b  )  From  the  nature  of  the  love  in  which  the  whole  law  is  summed  up 
(  Mat.  22  :  37  — "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  " ;  Rom.  13:10  —  "  love 
therefore  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  law").  This  love  is  not  regard  for 
abstract  right  or  for  the  happiness  of  being,  much  less  for  one's  own 
interest,  but  it  is  regard  for  God  as  the  fountain  and  standard  of  moral 
excellence,  or  in  other  words,  love  for  God  as  holy.  Hence  this  love  is 
the  principle  and  source  of  holiness  in  man. 

(  e )  From  the  example  of  Christ,  Avhose  life  was  essentially  an  exhibi- 
tion of  supreme  regard  for  God,  and  of  supreme  devotion  to  his  holy  will. 
As  Christ  saw  nothing  good  but  what  was  in  God  (Mark  10  :  18 — "none 
is  good  save  one,  even  God"),  and  did  only  what  he  saw  the  Father  do 
(  John  5  :  19  ;  see  also  30  — "I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me  "  ),  so  for  us,  to  be  like  God  is  the  sum  of  all  duty,  and  God's 
infinite  moral  excellence  is  the  supreme  reason  why  we  should  be  like  him. 

For  statements  of  the  correct  view  of  the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  see  E.  G. 
Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality,  138-180;  Chalmers,  Moral  Philosophy, 
412-120;  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy;  Gregory,  Christian  Ethics,  112-122;  Wuttke, 
Christian  Ethics,  2 :  80-107;  Talbot,  Ethical  Prolegomena,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  July,  1877  :  887- 
271  — "  The  ground  of  all  moral  law  is  the  nature  of  God,  or  the  ethical  nature  of  God  in 
relation  to  the  like  nature  in  man,  or  the  imperativeness  of  the  divine  nature."  Plato  : 
"  The  divine  will  is  the  fountain  of  all  efficiency  ;  the  divine  reason  is  the  fountain  of 
all  law  ;  the  divine  nature  is  the  fountain  of  all  virtue."    If  it  be  said  that  God  is  love 


RANK    AND    RELATIONS   OF   THE    ATTRIBUTE?.  303 

as  well  as  holiness,  we  ask:  Love  to  what?  And  the  only  answer  is  :  Love  to  the  right, 
or  to  holiness.  To  ask  why  right  is  a  good,  is  no  more  sensible  than  to  ask  why  happi- 
ness is  a  good.  There  must  be  something  ultimate.  Schiller  said  there  are  people  who 
want  to  know  why  ten  is  not  twelve.  We  cannot  study  character  apart  from  conduct, 
nor  conduct  apart  from  character.  But  this  does  not  prevent  us  from  recognizing 
that  character  is  the  fundamental  thing  and  that  conduct  is  only  the  expression  of  it. 

The  moral  perfection  of  the  divine  nature  includes  truth  and  love,  but  since  it  is 
holiness  that  conditions  I  he  exercise  of  every  other  attribute,  we  must  conclude  that 
holiness  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation.  Infinity  also  unites  with  holiness  to  make 
it  the  perfect  ground,  but  since  the  determining  element  is  holiness,  we  call  this,  and 
not  infinity,  the  ground  of  obligation.  J.  H.  Harris,  Baccalaureate  Sermon,  Bucknell 
University,  1890  —  "  As  holiness  is  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  so  holiness  is  the 
supreme  good  of  man.  Aristotle  perceived  this  when  he  declared  the  chief  good  of 
man  to  be  energizing  according  to  virtue.  Christianity  supplies  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
makes  this  energizing  possible."  Holiness  is  the  goal  of  man's  spiritual  career;  see 
1  Thess.  3 :  13  —  "to  the  end  he  may  establish  your  hearts  unblamable  in  holiness  before  our  God  and  Father." 

Arthur  H.  Hallam,  in  John  lirown's  Kab  and  his  Friends,  272—"  Holiness  and  happi- 
ness are  two  notions  of  one  thing Unless  therefore  the  heart  of,  a  created  being 

is  at  one  with  the  heart  of  God,  it  cannot  but  be  miserable."  It  is  more  true  to  say 
that  holiness  and  happiness  are,  as  cause  ami  effect,  inseparably  bound  together. 
Mart  ineau,  Types,  1  :xvi ;  2:70-77— "Two  classes  of  facts  it  is  indispensable  for  us  to 
know:  what  are  the  springs  of  voluntary  conduct,  and  what  are  its  effects"  ;  Study, 
1 : 26— "Ethics  must  either  perfect  themselves  in  Religion,  or  disintegrate  themselves 
into  Hedonism."  William  Law  remarks:  "  Ethics  are  not  external  bul  internal.  The 
essence  of  a  moral  act  does  not  lie  in  its  result,  but  in  the  mot  i\  o  from  which  it  springs. 
And  that  again  is  good  or  bad,  according  as  it  emit  onus  to  the  character  of  God."  For 
further  discussion  of  the  subject  see  our  chapter  on  The  Law  of  God.  See  also  Thorn- 
well,  Theology,  1 :  36:5-37." ;  Hinton,  Art  of  Thinking,  47  62 ;  Gold  win  Smith,  in  Contem- 
porary Review,  March,  1882,  and  Jan.  1881;  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  W5-231, 
esp.  223. 


CHAPTER  II. 

DOCTRINE   OF  THE   TRINITY. 

In  the  nature  of  the  one  God  there  are  three  eternal  distinctions  which 
are  represented  to  us  under  the  figure  of  persons,  and  these  three  are 
equal.  This  tripersonality  of  the  Godhead  is  exclusively  a  truth  of  revela- 
tion. It  is  clearly,  though  not  formally,  made  known  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  intimations  of  it  may  be  found  in  the  Old. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  may  be  expressed  in  the  six  following 
statements  :  1.  In  Scripture  there  are  three  who  are  recognized  as  God. 
2.  These  three  are  so  described  in  Scripture  that  we  are  compelled  to  con- 
ceive of  them  as  distinct  persons.  3.  This  tripersonality  of  the  divine 
nature  is  not  merely  economic  and  temporal,  but  is  immanent  and  eternal. 
4.  This  tripersonality  is  not  tritheism  ;  for  while  there  are  three  persons, 
there  is  but  one  essence.  5.  The  three  persons,  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  are  equal.  6.  Inscrutable  yet  not  self-contradictory,  this  doctrine 
furnishes  the  key  to  all  other  doctrines. — These  statements  we  proceed  now 
to  prove  and  to  elucidate. 

Reason  shows  us  the  Unity  of  God  ;  only  revelation  shows  us  the  Trinity  of  God, 
thus  lilling  out  the  indefinite  outlines  of  this  Unity  and  vivifying  it.  The  term 
'  Trinity '  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  although  the  conception  it  expresses  is  Scriptural. 
The  invention  of  the  term  is  ascribed  to  Tertullian.  The  Montanists  first  defined  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  and  first  formulated  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  term 
'Trinity'  is  not  a  metaphysical  one.  It  is  only  a  designation  of  four  facts:  (1)  the 
Father  is  God ;  ( 2 )  the  Son  is  God  ;  ( 3 )  the  Spirit  is  God  ;   ( 4 )  there  is  but  one  God. 

Park :  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  does  not  on  the  one  hand  assert  that  three  per- 
sons are  united  in  one  person,  or  three  beings  in  one  being,  or  three  Gods  in  one  God 
( tritheism ) ;  nor  on  the  other  hand  that  God  merely  manifests  himself  in  three  differ- 
ent ways  (modal  trinity,  or  trinity  of  manifestations) ;  but  rather  that  there  are  three 
eternal  distinctions  in  the  substance  of  God."  Smyth,  preface  to  Edwards,  Observa- 
tions on  the  Trinity :  "The  church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  affirms  that  there  are  in 
the  Godhead  three  distinct  hypostases  or  subsistences  — the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  —  each  possessing  one  and  the  same  divine  nature,  though  in  a  different 
manner.  The  essential  points  are  ( 1 )  the  unity  of  essence;  (2)  the  reality  of  imma- 
nent or  ontological  distinctions."  See  Park  on  Edwards's  View  of  the  Trinity,  in  Bib. 
Sac,  April,  1881 :  333.  Princeton  Essays,  1:28— "There  is  one  God;  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  are  this  one  God;  there  is  such  a  distinction  between  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit  as  to  lay  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  reciprocal  use  of  the  personal  pro- 
nouns." Joseph  Cook:  "(1)  The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God; 
(2)  each  has  a  peculiarity  incommunicable  to  the  others  ;  (3)  neither  is  God  without 
the  others ;  (4 )  each,  with  the  others,  is  God." 

We  regard  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  implicitly  held  by  the  apostles  and  as 
in  v<  lived  in  the  New  Testament  declarations  with  regard  to  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, 
while  we  concede  that  the  doctrine  had  not  by  the  New  Testament  writers  been  formu- 
lated. They  held  it,  as  it  were  in  solution  ;  only  time,  reflection,  and  the  shock  of  con- 
troversy and  opposition,  caused  it  to  crystalize  into  definite  and  dogmatic  form. 
Chadwick,  Old  and  New  Unitarianism,  59,  60,  claims  that  the  Jewish  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity shows  that  the  Jewish  Messiah  could  not  originally  have  been  conceived  of  as 
divine.  If  Jesus  had  claimed  this,  he  would  not  have  been  taken  before  Pilate,— the 
Jews  would  have  dispatched  him.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  says  Chadwick, was  not 
developed  until  the  Council  of  Nice,  325.    E.  G.  Robinson  :  "There  was  no  doctrine  of 

304 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE    AS    GOD.  305 

the  Trinity  in  the  Patristic  period,  as  there  was  no  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  before 
Anselm."  The  Outlook,  Notes  and  Queries,  March  30,  1901— "The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  cannot  be  said  to  have  taken  final  shape  before  the  appearance  of  the  so-called 
Athanasian  Creed  in  the  8th  or  9th  century.  The  Nicene  Creed,  formulated  in  the  4th 
century,  is  termed  by  Dr.  Schaff,  from  the  orthodox  point  of  view,  'semi-trinitarian.' 
The  earliest  time  known  at  which  Jesus  was  deilied  was,  after  the  New  Testament 
writers,  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century." 

Gore,  Incarnation,  179— "The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  so  much  heard,  as  over- 
heard, in  the  statements  of  Scripture."  Geonge  P.  Fisher  quotes  some  able  and  pious 
friend  of  his  as  saying :  "What  meets  us  in  the  New  Testament  is  the  (Mijetota  membm 
of  the  Trinity."  G.B.Foster:  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the  Christian  attempt 
to  make  intelligible  the  personality  of  God  without  dependence  upon  the  world." 
Charles  Kingsley  said  that,  whether,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  in  the  Bible  or  no,  it 
ought  to  be  there,  because  our  spiritual  nature  cries  out  lor  it.  She  dd,  Dogmatic 
Theology,  1 : 259 — "Though  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  discoverable  by  human 
reason,  it  is  susceptible  of  a  rational  defense,  when  revealed."  On  New  England  Trin- 
itarianism,  see  New  World,  June,  1896-  272-295— art.  by  Levi  L.  Paine.  He  says  that 
the  last  phase  of  it  is  represented  by  Phillips  Brooks,  James  M.  Whiton  ami  George  A. 
Gordon.  These  hold  to  the  essential  divineness  <>f  humanity  and  pn  eminently  of 
Christ,  the  unique  representative  of  mankind,  who  was,  in  this  sense,  a  true  incarna- 
tion of  Deity.    See  also,  Ii.  L.  Paine,  Evolution  of  Trinitarianism,  141,287. 

Neander  declared  thai  theTrinitj  Is  not  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  .Christianity.  Ho 
was  speaking  however  of  the  speculative,  metaphysical  form  which  the  doctrine  has 
assumed  in  theology.  But  he  speaks  very  differently  of  the  devotional  and  practical 
form  in  which  the  Scriptures  present  it,  as  in  the  baptismal  formula  and  in  the  apos- 
tolic benediction.  In  regard  to  this  he  says  :  ••  \\v  recognize  t  herein  the  essential  con- 
tents of  Christianity  summed  up  In  brief."  Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  10,11,55,91,92  — 
"God  transcendent,  the  Father,  is  revealed  by  (iod  immanent,  the  Son.  This  one 
nature  belongs  equally  to  God,  to  Christ,  and  to  mankind,  and  in  this  fact  is  grounded 

the  immutableness  of  moral  distinctions  and  the  possibility  of  moral  progTesfl 

The  immanent  life  of  the  universe  is  one  with  the  transcendent  Power;  the  filial 
stream  is  one  with  its  paternal  Fount.  To  Christ  supremely  belongs  the  name  of  Son, 
which  includes  all  that  life  that  is  begotten  of  God,  In  <  luist  the  before  unconscious 
Sonship  of  the  world  awakes  to  consciousness  of  the  Father.  The  Father  is  the  Life 
transcendent,  above  all ;  the  Son  is  Life  immanent,  through  all ;  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
Life  individualized,  in  all.  In  Christ  we  have  collectivism  ;  in  the  Holy  Spirit  we  have 
individualism ;  as  Buuscn  says :  '  The  chief  power  in  the  world  is  personality.'  " 

For  treatment  of  the  whole  doctrine,  see  Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine,  1 :  344-465 ; 
Twesten,  Dogmatik,  and  translation  in  Bib.  Sac,  3 :  502 ;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 :  145-199  ; 
Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1:57-135;  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3 : 203-229 ;  Shedd,, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  248-333,  and  History  of  Doctrine,  1 :  246-385 ;  Farrar,  Science  and  Theol- 
ogy, 138  ;  Schaff,  Nicene  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  in  Theol.  Eclectic,  4  :209.  For 
the  Unitarian  view,  see  Norton,  Statement  of  Reasons,  and  J.  F.  Clarke,  Truths  and 
Errors  of  Orthodoxy. 

I.     In  Scripture  there  are  Three  who  are  recognized  as  God. 
1.     Proofs  from  the  New  Testament 

A.  The  Father  is  recognized  as  God, — and  that  in  so  great  a  number  of 
passages  ( such  as  John  6  :  27  —  "  him  the  Father,  even  God,  hath  sealed," 
and  1  Pet.  1:2  —  "foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father")  that  we  need  not 
delay  to  adduce  extended  proof. 

B.  Jesus  Christ  is  recognized  as  God. 

(  a  )     He  is  expressly  called  God. 

In  John  1:1  —  Geoc  f)v  6  loyoq — the  absence  of  the  article  shows  Oedc  to  be 
the  predicate  (  of.  4  :  24  —  nvev/xa  6  Qeor ).  This  predicate  precedes  the  verb 
by  way  of  emphasis,  to  indicate  progress  in  the  thought  =  '  the  Logos  was 

20 


306  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

not  only  with  God,  but  was  God '  ( see  Meyer  and  Luthardt,  Coinm.  in  loco). 
"  Only  6Uyoc  can  be  the  subject,  for  in  the  whole  Introduction  the  ques- 
tion is,  not  who  God  is,  but  who  the  Logos  is  "  (Godet). 

Westcottin  Bible  Commentary,  inh>co  —  u The  predicate  stands  emphatically  first. 
It  is  necessarily  without  the  article,  inasmuch  as  it  describes  the  nature  of  the  Word 
and  does  not  identify  his  person.  It  would  be  pure  Sabellianism  to  say  :  '  The  Word 
was  o  ©eds.'  Thus  in  verse  1  we  have  set  forth  the  Word  in  his  absolute  eternal  being, 
(a)  his  existence :  beyond  time;  (/>)  his  personal  existence :  in  active  communion  with 
God ;  ( c)  his  nature :  God  in  essence."  Marcus  Dods,  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament, 
in  Inco:  "The  Word  is  distinguishable  from  God,  yet  ©ebs  Ijv  6  Adyos  —  the  word  was  God, 
of  divine  nature ;  not '  a  God,'  which  to  a  Jewish  ear  would  have  been  abominable,  nor 
yet  identical  with  all  that  can  be  called  God,  for  then  the  article  would  have  been 
inserted  (  cf.  1  John  3 : 4 )." 

In  John  1  :  18,  irnvnyevijc  Qeoc — 'the  only  begotten  God ' — must  be  regarded 
as  the  correct  reading,  and  as  a  plain  ascription  of  absolute  Deity  to  Christ. 
He  is  not  siruply  the  only  revealer  of  God,  but  he  is  himself  God  revealed. 

John  1 :  18  — "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only  begotten  God,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath 
declared  him."  In  this  passage,  although  Tischendorf  (8th  ed. )  has  novoyev't)*;  vi.65,  West- 
cott and  Hort  ( with  N*BC*L  Pesh.  Syr.)  read  Hoi'oyei-ijs  ©<rds,  and  the  Rev.  Vers,  puts 
"the  only  begotten  God"  in  the  margin,  though  it  retains  "tbeonly  begotten  Son"  in  the  text. 
Harnack  says  the  reading  novoyev'ris  ©eds  is  " established  beyond  contradiction";  see 
Westcott,  Bib.  Com.  on  John,  pages  32,  33.  Here  then  we  have  a  new  and  unmistakable 
assertion  of  the  deity  of  Christ.  Meyer  says  that  the  apostles  actually  call  Christ  God 
only  in  John  1 : 1  and  20  :  28,  and  that  Paul  never  so  recognizes  him.  But  Meyer  is  able  to 
maintain  his  position  only  by  calling  the  doxologies  to  Christ,  in  2  Tim.  4 :  18,  Heb.  13  :  21  and 
2  Pet.  3  :  18,  post-apostolic.    See  Thayer,  N.  T.  Lexicon,  on  ©eds,  and  on  mo^y*1")?. 

In  John  20  :  28,  the  address  of  Thomas  '0  livpidg  pay  ml  6  6s6g  /jmv,  —  '  My 
Lord  and  my  God ' — since  it  was  unrebuked  by  Christ,  is  equivalent  to  an 
assertion  on  his  own  part  of  his  claim  to  Deity. 

John  20  :  28  —  "Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him,  My  Lord  and  my  God."  This  address  cannot  be 
interpreted  as  a  sudden  appeal  to  God  in  surprise  and  admiration,  without  charging 
the  apostle  with  profanity.  Nor  can  it  be  considered  a  mere  exhibition  of  overwrought 
enthusiasm,  since  it  was  accepted  by  Christ.  Contrast  the  conduct  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas when  the  heathen  at  Lystra  were  bringing  sacrifice  to  them  as  Jupiter  and  Mer- 
cury ( Acts  14 :  11-18 ).  The  words  of  Thomas,  as  addressed  directly  to  Christ  and  as  accepted 
by  Christ,  can  be  regarded  only  as  a  just  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  Thomas  that 
Christ  was  his  Lord  and  his  God.  Alford,  Commentary,  in  loco :  "  The  Sociuian  view 
that  these  words  are  merely  au  exclamation  is  refuted  ( 1 )  by  the  fact  that  no  such 
exclamations  were  in  use  among  the  Jews;  (2)  by  the  elirev  clvtu> ;  (3)  by  the  impossi- 
bility of  referring  the  d  xupid;  nov  to  another  than  Jesus  :  see  verse  13;  (4)  by  the  N.  T. 
usage  of  expressing  the  vocative  by  the  nominative  with  au  article ;  ( 5 )  by  the  psycho- 
logical absurdity  of  such  a  supposition  :  that  one  just  convinced  of  the  presence  of  him 
whom  he  dearly  loved  should,  instead  of  addressing  him,  break  out  into  an  irrelevant 
cry;  (6)  by  the  further  absurdity  of  supposing  that,  if  such  were  the  case,  the  Apostle 
John,  who  of  all  the  sacred  writers  most  constantly  keeps  in  mind  the  object  for 
which  he  is  writing,  should  have  recorded  anything  so  beside  that  object;  (7)  by  the 
intimate  conjunction  of  ne-nLtTTcvKas."  Cf.  Mat.  5  :  34  —  "  Swear  not  .  .  .  by  the  heaven" — swear- 
ing by  Jehovah  is  not  mentioned,  because  no  Jew  did  so  swear.  This  exclamation  of 
Thomas,  the  greatest  doubter  among  the  twelve,  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  John's 
gospel.  The  thesis  "the  Word  was  God"  (John  1:1)  has  now  become  part  of  the  life  and  con- 
sciousness of  the  apostles.  Chapter  21  is  only  an  Epilogue,  or  Appendix,  written  later  by 
John,  to  correct  the  error  that  he  was  not  to  die;  see  Westcott,  Bible  Com.,  in  loco. 
The  Deity  of  Christ  is  the  subject  of  the  apostle  who  best  understood  his  Master. 
Lyman  Beecher :  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  acting  Deity  of  the  universe." 

In  Rom.  9  :  5,  the  clause  6  bv  inl  iravruv  Bsbc  EvhoyrjToc  cannot  be  translated 
'  blessed  be  the  God  over  all, '  for  <jv  is  superfluous  if  the  clause  is  a  dox- 
ology  ;  "  cv^oyrjToc  j>recedes  the  name  of  God  in  a  doxology,  but  follows  it, 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE    AS   GOD.  307 

as  here,  in  a  description"  (Hovey).  The  clause  can  therefore  justly  be 
interpreted  only  as  a  description  of  the  higher  nature  of  the  Christ  who 
had  just  been  said,  -o  koto  capita,  or: according  to  his  lower  nature,  to  have 
had  his  origin  from  Israel  (see  Tholuck,  Com.  in  loco  ). 

Sanday,  Com.  on  Rom.  9  :  5 —  **  The  ■words  would  naturally  refer  to  Christ,  unless  '  God  ' 
is  so  definitely  a  proper  name  that  it  would  imply  a  contrast  in  itself .  We  have  seen 
that  this  is  not  so."  Hence  Sanday  translates  :  "of  whom  is  the  Christ  as  concerning  the  flesh,  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  forever."  Sec  President  T.  Dwight,  in  Jour.  Soc.  Bib.  Exegesis,  188]  :  22-55  ; 
j/.  r  contra,  Ezra  Abbot,  in  the  same  journal,  1881:  L— 19,  and  Denney,  in  Expositor's  Gk. 
Test.,  in  loeo. 

In  Titus  2  :  13,  EirMpavEiav  rf/r  ddgifg  rov  UEyh\nv  Qeov  ml  cudrfipoq  r'/iiuv  'I r/im~< 
XpioTov  we  regard  (with  Ellicott)  as  "a  direct,  definite,  and  even  studied 
declaration  of  Christ's  divinity  "  =  "  the  .  .  .  appearing  of  the  glory  of 
our  great  God  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ"  (so  English  Revised  Version ). 
'ETTHpavEta  is  a  term  applied  specially  to  the  Son  and  never  to  the  Father, 
and  peyaXov  is  uncalled  for  if  used  of  the  Father,  but  peculiarly  appropriate 
if  used  of  Clirist.  Upon  the  same  principles  we  must  interpret  the  similar 
text  2  Pet.  1:1  (see  Huther,  in  Meyer's  Com.:  "The  close  juxtaposition 
indicates  the  author's  certainty  of  the  oneness  of  God  and  Jesus  Christ  "). 

Titns  2  :  13  —  "  Looking  for  the  blessed  hope  and  appearing  of  the  glory  of  our  great  God  and  Savior,  Jesos  Christ " — 
ao  the  English  Revised  Version.  The  American  Revisers  however  translate:  "theglory 
of  the  great  God  and  Savior  "  ;  and  West  cot  t  and  Hort  bracket  the  word  iinuv.  These  consider- 
ations somewhat  lessen  the  cogency  of  this  passage  as  a  proof-text,  yel  upon  the  whole 
the  balance  of  argument  seems  to  us  still  to  incline  in  favor  of  Ellicott 's  interpretation 
as  given  above. 

In  Heb.  1  :  8,  irpb(  ik  riiv  vlov  •  6  dpomc  am,  !>  Beds,  elq  rbv  alava  is  quoted  as 
an  address  to  Christ,  and  verse  10  which  follows — "Thou,  Lord,  in  the 
beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth  " —  by  applying  to  Christ 
an  Old  Testament  ascription  to  Jehovah,  shows  that  o  Qeoc,  in  verse  8,  is 
used  in  the  sense  of  absolute  Godhead. 

It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  ascription  of  t  lie  name  God  to  Christ  proves  noth- 
ing as  to  his  absolute  deity,  since  angels  and  even  human  judges  are  called  gods,  as 
representing  God's  authority  and  executing  his  will.  But  we  reply  that,  while  it  is 
true  that  the  name  is  sometimes  so  applied,  it  is  always  with  adjuncts  and  in  connec- 
tions which  leave  no  doubt  of  its  figurative  and  secondary  meaning.  When,  however, 
the  name  is  applied  to  Christ,  it  is.  on  the  eontrary,  with  adjuncts  and  in  connections 
which  leave  no  doubt  that  it  signifies  absolute  Godhead.  See  Ex.  4  :  16  —  "  thou  shalt  be  to 
him  as  God  "  ;  7-1  — " See,  I  have  made  thee  as  God  to  Pharaoh  "  ;  22  :  28  —  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  God,  [.inarg.,  the 
judges],  nor  curse  a  ruler  of  thy  people"  ;  Ps.  82  :  1  —  "God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  God;  He  judgeth 
among  the  gods  "  [  among-  the  mighty];  6  —  "I  said,  Ye  are  gods,  And  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High  "  ;  7 
—  "  Nevertheless  ye  shall  die  like  men,  And  fall  like  one  of  the  princes."  Cf.  John  10  :  34-36  —  "  If  he  called  them 
gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came "  (  who  were  God's  commissioned  and  appointed  represent- 
atives), how  much  more  proper  for  him  who  is  one  with  the  Father  to  call  himself  God. 

As  in  Ps.  82  •  7  those  who  had  been  called  gods  are  represented  as  dying,  so  in  Ps.  97  :  7  — 
"Worship  him,  all  ye  gods''  — they  are  bidden  to  fall  down  before  Jehovah.  Ann.  Par.  Bible  : 
''Although  the  deities  of  the  heathen  have  no  positive  existence,  they  are  often 
described  in  Scripture  as  if  they  had,  and  are  represented  as  bowing-  down  before  the 
majesty  of  Jehovah."  This  verse  is  quoted  in  Heb.  1  :  6  — "let  all  ths  angels  of  God  worship  him" — 
i.  c,  Christ.  Here  Christ  is  identified  with  Jehovah.  The  quotation  is  made  from  the 
Septuagint,  which  has  "angels"  for  "gods."  "  Its  use  here  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Hebrew  word,  which  includes  all  that  human  error  might  regard  as  objects  of 
worship."  Those  who  are  figuratively  and  rhetorically  called  "gods"  are  bidden  to  fall 
down  in  worship  before  him  who  is  the  true  God,  Jesus  Christ.  See  Dick,  Lectures  on 
Theology,  1 :  314;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  10. 


308  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

In  1  John  5  :  20 — ea/xev  ev  ™  alrj^ivCi,  iv  tu>  v'mJ  avrov  'Ir/aoii  Xpiorti.  ovrdg 
koTiv  6  ahi&ivbg  Qe6g —  "  it  would  be  a  flat  repetition,  after  the  Father  had 
been  twice  called  6  aX^jivog,  to  say  now  again  :  'this  is  6  alr/divbg  0?6g.'  Our 
being  iu  God  has  its  basis  in  Christ  his  Son,  and  this  also  makes  it  more 
natural  that  ovrog  should  be  referred  to  vlu.  Bat  ought  not  b  aA/fin>6g  then 
to  be  without  the  article  ( as  in  John  1:1  —  Qtbg  f/v  6  loyog )  ?  No,  for  it  is 
John's  purpose  in  1  John  5  :  20  to  say,  not  what  Christ  is,  but  who  he 
is.  In  declaring  what  one  is,  the  predicate  must  have  no  article  ;  in 
declaring  ivho  one  is,  the  predicate  must  have  the  article.  St.  John  here 
says  that  this  Son,  on  whom  our  being  in  the  true  God  rests,  is  this  true 
God  himself  "  (  see  Ebrard,  Com.  iu  loco  ). 

Other  passages  might  be  here  adduced,  as  Col.  2  :  9  —  "in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily";  Phil.  2  :  6 — "  existing  in  the  form  of  God  "  ;  but  we  ureter  to  consider  these  under  other 
heads  as  indirectly  proving  Christ's  divinity.  Still  other  passages  ouce  relied  upon  as 
direct  statements  of  the  doctrine  must  be  given  up  for  textual  reasons.  Such  are  Acts 
20  :  28,  where  the  correct  reading  is  in  all  probability  not  e/cKA-ijcriocv  toO  ©eoG,  but  iKKKrioiav 
tov  Kvpi'ou  (so  ACDE  Tregelles  and  Teschendorf;  Band  X,  however,  have  toO  ©eoO.  The 
Rev,  Vers,  continues  to  read  "  church  of  God " ;  Amer.  Revisers,  however,  read  "church  of  the 
Lord"  —  see  Ezra  Abbot's  investigation  in  Bib.  Sac.,  1876  :  313-352  ) ;  and  1  Tim.  3  :  16,  where 
bs  is  unquestionably  to  be  substituted  for  0e6s,  though  even  here  <f'|>arepwi>r)  intimates 
preexistence. 

Rev.  George  E.  Ellis,  D.  D.,  before  the  Unitarian  Club,  Boston,  November,  1882  — 
"  Fifty  years  of  study,  thought  and  reading  given  largely  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  liter- 
ature which  peculiarly  relates  to  it,  have  brought  me  to  this  conclusion,  that  the  book 
—  taken  with  the  especial  divine  quality  and  character  claimed  for  it,  and  so  exten- 
sively assigned  to  it,  as  inspired  and  infallible  as  a  whole,  and  in  all  its  contents— is 
an  Orthodox  book.  It  yields  what  is  called  the  Orthodox  creed.  The  vast  majority  of 
its  readers,  following  its  letter,  its  obvious  sense,  its  natural  meaning,  and  yielding  to 
the  impression  which  some  of  its  emphatic  texts  make  upon  them,  find  in  it  Orthodoxy. 
Only  that  kind  of  ingenious,  special,  discriminative,  and  iu  candor  I  must  add,  forced 
treatment,  which  it  receives  from  us  liberals  can  make  the  book  teach  anything  but 
Orthodoxy.  The  evangelical  sects,  so  called,  aie  clearly  right  in  maintaining  that 
their  view  of  Scripture  and  of  its  doctrines  draws  a  deep  and  wide  division  of  orecd 
between  them  and  ourselves.  In  that  earnest  controversy  by  pamphlet  warfare 
between  Drs.  Chanuing  and  Ware  on  the  one  side,  and  Drs.  Worcester  and  Woods  and 
Professor  Stuart  on  the  other  —  a  controversy  which  wrought  up  the  people  of  our  com- 
munity sixty  years  ago  more  than  did  our  recent  political  campaign  —  I  am  fully  con- 
vinced that  the  liberal  contestants  were  worsted.  Scripture  exegesis,  logic  and  argu- 
ment were  clearly  on  the  side  of  the  Orthodox  contestants.  And  this  was  so,  mainly 
because  the  liberal  party  put  themselves  on  the  same  plane  with  the  Orthodox  in  their 
way  of  regarding  and  dealing  with  Scripture  texts  in  their  bearing  upon  the  con- 
troversy. Liberalism  cannot  vanquish  Orthodoxy,  if  it  yields  to  the  latter  in  its  own 
way  of  regarding  and  treating  the  whole  Bible.  Martin  Luther  said  that  the  Papistfi 
burned  the  Bible  because  it  was  not  on  their  side.  Now  I  am  not  about  to  attack  the 
Bible  because  it  is  not  on  my  side  ;  but  I  am  about  to  object  as  emphatically  as  I  can 
against  a  character  and  quality  assigned  to  the  Bible,  which  it  does  not  claim  for  itself, 
which  cannot  be  certified  for  it ;  and  the  origin  and  growth  and  intensity  of  the  fond 
and  superstitious  influences  resulting  in  that  view  we  can  trace  distinctly  to  agencies 
accounting  for,  but  not  warranting,  the  current  belief.  Orthodoxy  cannot  readjust 
its  creeds  till  it  readjusts  its  estimate  of  the  Scriptures.  The  only  relief  which  one  who 
professes  the  Orthodox  creed  can  find  is  either  by  forcing  his  ingenuity  into  the  proof- 
texts  or  indulging  his  liberty  outside  of  them." 

With  this  confession  of  a  noted  Unitarian  it  is  interesting  to  compare  the  opinion  of 
the  so-called  Trinitarian,  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  who  says  that  the  New  Testament 
nowhere  calls  Christ  God,  but  everywhere  calls  him  man,  as  in  1  Tim.  2:5  —  "  For  there  is  one 
God,  one  mediator  also  between  God  and  men,  himself  man,  Christ  Jesus."  On  this  passage  Prof.  L.  L.  Paine 
remarks  in  the  New  World,  Dec.  1894  —  "  That  Paul  ever  confounded  Christ  with  God 
himself,  or  regarded  him  as  in  any  way  the  Supreme  Divinity,  is  a  position  invalid- 
ated not  only  by  direct  statements,  but  also  by  the  whole  drift  of  his  epistles." 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE   AS    GOD.  309 

( b )  Old  Testament  descriptions  of  God  are  applied  to  him. 

This  application  to  Christ  of  titles  and  names  exclusively  appropriated 
to  God  is  inexplicable,  if  Christ  was  not  regarded  as  being  himself  God. 
The  peculiar  awe  with  which  the  term  '  Jehovah '  was  set  apart  by  a  nation 
of  stremious  monotheists  as  the  sacred  and  incommunicable  name  of  the 
one  self-existent  and  covenant-keeping  God  forbids  the  belief  that  the 
Scripture  writers  could  have  used  it  as  the  designation  of  a  subordinate 
and  created  being. 

Mat.3:3— "Make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord"  — isa  quotation  froni  Is.  40:3— "Prepare  ye  .  .  .  .  the 
way  of  Jehovah."  John  12 :  41  — "  These  things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw  his  glory  ;  and  he  spake  of  him  "  [i.  e., 
Christ]  —  refers  to  Is.  6:  1  — "In  theyoar  that  King  Uzziah  died  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne."  So  in 
Eph.  4:7,  8— ''measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ .  .  .  .  led  captivity  captive" — is  an  application  to  Christ  of 
what  is  sui<l  of  Jehovah  in  Ps.  68:18.  I n  1  Pet.  3 :  15,  moreover,  we  read,  with  all  the  great 
uncials,  several  of  the  Fathers,  and  all  I  he  best  versions  :  "sanctify  in  your  hearts  Christ  as  Lord"  ; 
here  the  apostle  borrows  his  language  from  Is.  8:13,  where  we  read  :  "  Jehovah  of  hosts,  him 
shall  ye  sanctify."  When  we  remember  that,  with  the  Jews,  God's  covenant-title  was  so 
sacred  that  for  the  Kethib  (  =s"  writtten  "  )  Jehovah  there  was  always  substituted  the 
Keri  (="  read  "—  imperative )  Adonai,iB  order  to  avoid  pronunciation  of  the  great 
Name,  it  seems  the  more  remarkable  that  the  Greek  equivalent  of  'Jehovah' should 
have  been  so  constantly  used  of  Christ.  fV. Rom.  10:9 — "confess  .  .  .  .  Jesus  as  Lord  "  ;  lCor,12:3 
— "no  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  We  must  remember  also  the  Indignation 
of  the  Jews  at  Christ's  assertion  of  his  equality  and  oneness  with  the  Father.  Com- 
pare Goethe's,  "  Wer  darf  Urn  nenncn  if"  with  Carlyle's,  "  the  awful  Unnameable  of  this 
Universe."  The  Jews,  it  has  been  said,  have  always  vibrated  between  monotheism  and 
moneytheism.  Yet  James,  the  strongest  of  Hebrews,  in  his  Epistle  uses  the  word  '  Lord ' 
freely  and  alternately  of  God  the  Father  and  of  Christ  the  Son.  This  would  have  been 
impossible  if  James  had  not  believed  in  the  community  of  essence  between  the  Son 
and  the  Father. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  1  Maccabees  does  not  once  use  the  word  ©cds,  or  Ku'pto?,, 
or  any  other  direct  designation  of  God  unless  it  be  ovpai-d?  (<•/.  "swear  .  ...  by  the  heaven' 
—  Mat.  5  :  34).  So  the  book  of  Esther  contains  no  mention  of  the  name  of  God,  though 
the  apocryphal  additions  to  Esther,  which  are  found  only  in  Greek,  contain  the  name 
of  God  in  the  first  verse,  and  mention  it  in  all  eight  times.  See  Bissell,  Apocrypha,  in 
Langefa  Commentary;  Liddon,  Out  Lord's  Divinity,  93;  Max  Mtlller  on  Semitic  Mono- 
theism, in  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  1  :'.\37. 

{(■)  He  possesses  the  attributes  of  God. 

Among  these  are  life,  self-existence,  immutability,  truth,  love,  holiness, 
eternity,  omnipresence,  omniscience,  omniiiotence.  All  these  attributes  are 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  connections  which  show  that  the  terms  are  used  in  no 
secondary  sense,  nor  in  any  sense  predicable  of  a  creature. 

Life :  John  1 : 4  —  '■  In  him  was  life "  ;  14 : 6  — "  I  am  .  .  .  .  the  life."  Si  If -existence :  John  5 :  26  — "  have 
life  in  himself";  Heb.  7 :  16  — "  power  of  an  endless  life."  Immutability:  Heb.  13 : 8  — "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same 
yesterday  and  to-day,  yea  and  forever."  Truth:  John  14:6 — "lam  ....  the  truth";  Rev.3:7 — "  h)  that  is 
true."  Love  :  1  John  3 :  16  — "  Hereby  know  we  love  "  (  ti)v  ayanyv  =  the  personal  Love,  as  the  per- 
sonal Truth)  "because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us."  Holiness:  Luke  1 : 35  —  " that  which  is  to  be  born  shall 
be  called  holy,  the  Son  of  God  ";  John  6 :  69—"  thou  art  the  Holy  Ono  of  God  "  ;  Heb.  7 :  26  — "  holy,  guileless,  imdenled, 
separated  from  sinners." 

Etcrnitii:  John  1 : 1  — "  In  tho  beginning  was  the  Word."  Godet  says  £v  apxri  =  not  'in  eternity,' 
but 'in  the  beginning  of  the  creation';  the  eternity  of  the  Word  being  an  inference 
fn  >m  the  5*  —  the  Word  was,  when  the  world  was  created:  rf.  Gen.  1:1  —  "In  the  beginning  God 
created."  But  Meyer  says,  ev  apxv  here  rises  above  the  historical  conception  of  "in  the 
beginning"  in  Genesis  (which  includes  the  beginning  of  time  itself)  to  the  absolute  con- 
ception of  anteriority  to  time ;  the  creation  is  something  subsequent.  He  finds  a  par- 
allel in  Prov.  8:23 — if  apxy  nP°  r°v  rip  yw  n-oiijo-ai.  The  interpretation  'in  the  beginning  of 
the  gospel '  is  entirely  unexegetical ;  so  Meyer.  So  John  17 :  5  — "  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was  "  ;  Eph.  1:4 — "  choss  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Dorner  also  says 
that  ef  apxfi  in  John  1:1  is  not  'the  beginning  of  the  world,'    but  designates  the  point 


310  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF  GOD. 

back  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  go,  i.  e.,  eternity ;  the  world  is  first  spoken  of  in  verse  3. 
John  8 :  58  — "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am  "  ;  cf.  1 :  15 ;  Col.  1 :  17  — "  he  is  before  all  things  "  ;  Heb.  1 :  11  —  the 
heavens  "  shall  perish ;  but  thou  continuest ";  Rev.  21 : 6  — "  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end." 

Omnipresence :  Mat.  28 :  20  — '*  I  am  with  you  always  "  ;  Eph.  1 :  23  — "  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in 
all."  Omniscience:  Mat.  9:  4  —  "Jesus  knowing  their  thoughts"  ;  John2:24,25 — "knew  all  men.  .  .  .knew 
what  was  in  man  "  ;  16 :  30  — "knowest  all  things  "  ;  Acts  1 :  24  — "  Thou,  Lord,  who  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men  " — 
a  prayer  offered  before  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  showing-  the  attitude  of  the  disciples 
toward  their  Master ;  1  Cor.  4:5  —  "  until  the  Lord  come,  who  will  both  bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of 
darkness,  and  make  manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts  "  ;  Col.  2 :  3  — "  in  whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge  hidden."  Omnipotence:  Mat.  27:18 — "  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  "  ;  Rev.  1 : 8  — "  the  Lord  God,  which  is  and  which  was  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty." 

Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theology,  1 :  249-2U0,  holds  that  Jesus'  preexistence  is  simply  the 
concrete  form  given  to  an  ideal  conception.  Jesus  traces  himself  back,  as  everything 
else  holy  and  divine  was  traced  back  in  the  conceptions  of  his  time,  to  a  heavenly 
original  in  which  it  preexisted  before  its  earthly  appearance ;  e.  g. :  the  tabernacle,  in 
Eeb.  8:5;  Jerusalem,  in  Gal.  4:25  and  Rev.  21:10;  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  Mat.  13:24;  much 
more  the  Messiah,  in  John  6 :  62 — "  ascending  where  he  was  before  "  ;  8  :  58  —  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I 
am  "  ;  17 :  4,  5  —  "  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was  "  17 :  24  —  "  thou  lovedst  me  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world."  This  view  that  Jesus  existed  before  creation  only  ideally  in  the  divine 
mind,  means  simply  that  God  foreknew  him  and  his  coming.  The  view  is  refuted  by 
the  multiplied  intimations  of  a  personal,  in  distinction  from  an  ideal,  preexistence. 

Lowrie,  Doctrine  of  St.  John,  116  —  "  The  words  '  In  the  beginning '  ( John  1:1)  suggest  that 
the  author  is  about  to  write  a  second  book  of  Genesis,  an  account  of  a  new  creation." 
As  creation  presupposes  a  Creator,  the  preexistence  of  the  personal  Word  is  assigned 
as  the  explanation  of  the  being  of  the  universe.  The  fy  indicates  absolute  existence, 
which  is  a  loftier  idea  than  that  of  mere  preexistence,  although  it  includes  this.  While 
John  the  Baptist  and  Abraham  are  said  to  have  arisen,  appeared,  come  into  being,  it 
is  said  that  the  Logos  was,  and  that  the  Logos  was  God.  This  implies  coeternity  with 
the  Father.  But,  if  the  view  we  are  combating  were  correct,  John  the  Baptist  a*nd 
Abraham  preexisted,  equally  with  Christ.  This  is  certainly  not  the  meaning  of  Jesus 
in  John  8-58  —  " Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am";  cf.  Col.  1:17  —  "he  is  before  all  things"  —  "aiiros  em- 
phasizes the  personality.while  ian.v  declares  that  the  preexistence  is  absolute  existence" 
(  Lightfoot) ;  John  1 :  15 —  "He  that  cometh  after  me  is  become  before  me  •  for  he  was  before  me "  =  not  that 
Jesus  was  bora  earlier  than  John  the  Baptist,  for  he  was  born  six  months  later,  but 
that  he  existed  earlier.  He  stands  before  John  in  rank,  because  he  existed  long 
before  John  in  time;  6:62  —  "  the  Son  of  man  ascending  where  he  was  before";  16:28  —  "  I  camo  out  from 
the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world."  So  Is.  9  :  6,  7,  calls  Christ  "  Everlasting  Father  "  =  eternity  is 
an  attribute  of  the  Messiah.    T.  W.  Chambers,  in  Jour.  Soc.  Bib.  Exegesis,  1881  :*169-171 

—  "  Christ  is  the  Everlasting  One,  '  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  even  from  the  days  of  eter- 
nity '  ( Micah  5:2).     'Of  the  increase  of  his  government there  shall  be  no  end,'  just  because  of  his 

existence  there  has  been  no  beginning." 

(d)   The  works  of  God  are  ascribed  to  him. 

We  do  not  here  speak  of  miracles,  which  may  be  wrought  by  communi- 
cated power,  but  of  such  w<  >rks  as  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  upholding 
of  all  things,  the  final  raising  of  the  dead,  and  the  judging  of  all  men. 
Power  to  perform  these  works  cannot  be  delegated,  for  they  are  character- 
istic of  omnipotence. 

Creation :  John  1:3—"  All  things  were  made  through  him  "  ;  1  Cor.  8:6—"  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through 
whom  are  all  things  "  ;  Col.  1:16 — "all  things  have  been  created  through  him,  and  unto  him";  Heb.  1  :  10  —  "Thou, 
Lord,  in  the  beginning  didst  lay  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  And  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy  hands  "  ;  3:3,4 

—  "he  that  built  all  things  is  God  "  =  Christ,  the  builder  of  the  house  of  Israel,  is  the  God  who 
made  all  things;  Rev.  3:14  —  "the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God"  (cf.  Plato:  "  Mind  is  the  dpxy 
of  motion  ").     Upholding :    Col.  1 :  17  —  "  in  him  all  things  consist "  (  marg.  "  hold  together  "  ) ;  Heb.  1  i  3 

—  "upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power."  Raising  the  dead  and  judging  the  world:  John  5: 
27-29  —  "  authority  to  execute  judgment  ....  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  "  ; 
Mat.  25 :  31,  32  —  "  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory ;  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations."  If  our  argu- 
ment were  addressed  wholly  to  believers,  we  might  also  urge  Christ's  work  in  the  world 
as  Revealer  of  God  and  Redeemer  from  sin,  as  a  proof  of  his  deity.  On  the  works  of 
Christ,  see  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  153;  per  contra,  see  Examination  of  Liddon's 
Bampton  Lectures,  72. 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE    AS   GOB.  311 

Statements  of  Christ's  creative  and  of  his  upholding-  activity  are  combined  in  John 

1:3,  4  —  llai'Ta  <5c*  ainov  c'yert-TO,  Ka\  \wpis  avrov  t-yereTo  ovSk  cV.  o  •ye'yoi'ei'  iv  avrut  £ioiq  rjv —  "All 
things  were  made  through  him  ;  and  without  hirn  was  not  anything  made.  That  which  hath  been  made  was  life  in  him  " 
(mars'.).  Westcott:  "It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  more  complete  consent  of  ancient 
authorities  in  favor  of  any  reading  titan  t hat  which  supports  this  punctuation." 
Westcott  therefore  adopts  it.  The  passage  shows  that  the  universe  1.  exists  within 
the  bounds  of  Christ's  being- ;  2.  is  not  dead,  but  living ;  3.  derives  its  life  from  him  ; 
see  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  4t>.  Creation  requires  the  divine  presence,  as  well  as 
the  divine  agency.  God  creates  through  Christ.  All  things  were  made,  not  vnb  avrov  — 
"  by  him,"  but  6V  avrov  — "  tLrough  him.''  Christian  believers  "  Behind  creation's  throbbing 
screen  Catch  movements  id'  the  great  Unseen." 

Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  Iv,  hi  — "That  which  many  a  philosopher 
dimly  conjectured,  namely,  that  Cod  did  not  produce  the  world  in  an  absolute,  immedi- 
ate manner,  but  in  some  way  or  other,  mediately,  here  presents'  itself  to  us  with  the 
lustre  of  revelation,  and  exalte  so  much  the  more  the  claim  of  the  Son  of  God  to  our 
deep  and  reverential  homage."  Would  that  such  scientific  men  as  Tyndall  and  Hux- 
ley might  see  <  'hrist  in  nature,  and,  doing  his  will,  might  learn  of  the  doctrine  and  be 
led  to  the  Father  !  The  humblest  <  'hristian  who  sees  Christ's  hand  in  the  physical  uni- 
verse and  in  human  history  knows  more  of  the  secret  of  the  universe  than  all  the  mere 
scientists  put  together. 

Col.  1 :  17  —  "  In  him  all  things  consist,"  or  "  hold  together,"  means  nothing  less  than  that  Christ  is  the 
principle  of  cohesion  in  the  universe,  making  it  a  cosmos  instead  of  a  chaos.  Tyndall 
said  that  the  attraction  of  the  sun  upon  the  earth  was  as  inconceivable  as  if  a  horse 
should  draw  a  cart  without  traces.  Sir  Isaac  N'cwton  :  "Gravitation  must  be  caused  by 
an  agent  acting  constantly  according  to  certain  laws."  Lightfoot :  "  Gravitation  is  an 
expression  of  the  mind  of  Christ."  Evolution  also  is  a  method  of  his  operation.  The 
laws  of  nature  are  the  habits  of  Christ,  and  nature  itself  is  but  his  steady  and  constant 
will.  Ho  binds  together  man  and  nature  in  one  organic  whole,  so  that  we  can  speak 
of  a  '  universe.'  Without  him  there  would  be  no  intellectual  bond,  no  uniformity 
of  law,  no  unity  of  truth.  He  is  the  principle  of  induction,  that  enables  us  to  argue 
from  one  thing  to  another.  The  medium  of  interaction  between  things  is  also  the 
medium  of  intercommunication  between  minds.  It  is  tit  ting  that  he  who  draws  and 
holds  together  the  physical  and  intellectual,  should  also  draw  and  hold  together  the 
moral  universe,  drawing  all  men  to  himself  ( John  12 :  32  )  and  so  to  God,  and  reconciling 
all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  ( Col.  1 :  20  ).  In  Christ  "the  law  appears,  Drawn  out  in 
living  characters,"  because  he  is  the  ground  and  source  of  till  law,  both  in  nature  and 
in  humanity.    See  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  6-12. 

(  e)  He  receives  honor  and  worship  due  only  to  God. 

In  addition  to  the  address  of  Thomas,  in  John  20:28,  which  we  have 
already  cited  among  the  proof s  that  Jesus  is  expressly  called  God,  and  in 
which  divine  honor  is  paid  to  him,  we  may  refer  t<>  the  prayer  and  worship 
offered  by  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic  church. 

John  5  :  23  —  "  that  all  may  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father  "  ;  14  :  14  —  "  If  ye  shall  ask  me  [a )  KB 
and  Tiseh.  st  h  ed.  ]  anything  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do  "  ;  Acts  7  :  59  — "  Stephen,  ailing  upon  the  Lord,  and  say- 
ing, Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit"  (  cf.  Luke  23  :  46  —  Jesus'  words  :  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit "  )  ;  Rom.  10  r  9  — "  confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord  "  ;  13  —  "  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  saved  "  (  cf.  Gen.  4  .  26  —  "  Then  began  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah  "  j ;  1  Cor.  11:24,  25  —  "this  do 
in  remembrance  of  me  "  =  worship  of  Christ ;  Heb.  1:6  —  "let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  "  ;  Phil.  2 :  10, 
11  —  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  ....  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord"  ;  Rev. 
5 :  12-14  —  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  to  receive  the  power  ...,";  2  Pet.  3 :  18  —  "  Lord  and  Savior 
Jesus  Christ.  To  him  be  the  glory  "  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  18  and  Eeb.  13 :  21  —  "  to  whom  be  the  glory  for  ever  and  ever  "  — 
these  ascriptions  of  eternal  glory  to  Christ  imply  his  deity.  See  also  1  Pet  3:15  —  "Sanc- 
tify in  your  hearts  Christ  as  Lord,'  and  Eph.  5:21  —  "subjecting  yourselves  one  to  another  in  the  fear  of  Christ." 
Here  is  enjoined  an  attitude  of  mind  towards  Christ  which  would  be  idolatrous  if 
Christ  were  not  God.    See  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  266,  366. 

Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  154—  "  In  the  eucharistic  liturgy  of  the  'Teach- 
ing '  we  read  :  '  Hosanna  to  the  God  of  David ' ;  Ignatius  styles  him  repeatedly  God 
'begotten  and  unbegotten,  come  in  the  liesh  ' ;  speaking  once  of  '  the  blood  of  God ',  in 
evident  allusion  to  Acts  20  :  28 ;  the  epistle  to  Diognetus  takes  up  the  Pauline  words  and 
calls  him  the  '  architect  and  world-builder  by  whom  [  God]  created  the  heavens',  and 


312  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OP   GOD. 

names  him  God  ( chap,  vii ) :  Hennas  speaks  of  him  as  '  the  holy  preSxistent  Spirit,  that 
created  every  creature',  which  style  of  expression  is  followed  by  Justin,  who  calls  him 
God,  as  also  all  the  later  great  writers.  In  the  second  epistle  of  Clement  ( 130-100,  Har- 
nack  ),  we  read :  '  Brethren,  it  is  litt  iny  that  you  should  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God 

—  as  the  Judg-e  of  the  living'  and  the  dead.'  And  Ignatius  describes  him  as  'begotten 
and  unbegotten,  passible  and  impassible,  .  .  .  who  was  before  the  eternities  with  the 
Father.'  " 

These  testimonies  only  give  evidence  that  the  Church  Fathers  saw  in  Scripture 
divine  honor  ascribed  to  Christ.  They  were  but  the  precursors  of  a  host  of  later  inter- 
preters. In  a  lull  of  the  awful  massacre  of  Armenian  Christians  at  Sassouan,  one  of 
the  Kurdish  savages  was  heard  to  ask :  "  Who  was  that  '  Lord  Jesus '  that  they  were 
calling  to  ?  "  In  their  death  agonies,  the  Christians,  like  Stephen  of  old,  called  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  Robert  Browning  quoted,  in  a  letter  to  a  lady  in  her  last  illness, 
the  words  of  Charles  Lamb,  when  "  in  a  gay  fancy  with  some  friends  as  to  how  he  and 
they  would  feel  if  the  greatest  of  the  dead  were  to  appear  suddenly  in  flesh  and  blood 
once  more — on  the  first  suggestion,  'And  if  Christ  entered  this  room?'  changed  his 
tone  at  once  and  stuttered  out  as  his  manner  was  when  moved-:  'You  see  —  if  Shake- 
spere  entered,  we  should  all  rise;  if  He  appealed,  we  must  kneel.'"  On  prayer  to 
Jesus,  see  Liddi  in,  Ba  nipt  on  Lectures,  note  F;  Bernard,  in  Hastings' Bib.  Diet.,  4:44; 
Zahn,  Skizzen  aus  dem  Leben  der  alten  Kirche, !),  288, 

(/)     His  name  is  associated  with  that  of  God  upon  a  footing  of  equality. 

We  do  not  here  allude  to  1  John  5  :  7  ( the  three  heavenly  witnesses  ),  for 
the  latter  part  of  this  verse  is  unquestionably  spurious  ;  hut  to  the  formula 
of  baptism,  to  the  apostolic  benedictions,  and  to  those  passages  in  which 
sternal  life  is  said  to  be  dependent  equally  upon  Christ  and  upon  God,  or 
rn  which  spiritual  gifts  are  attributed  to  Christ  equally  with  the  Father. 

The  formula  of  bapt  ism  :  Mat.  28 :  19  —  "  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ."  ;  ef.  Ants  2:  38  — "be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Rom.  6:  3 — "baptized 
i  Uo  Christ  Jesus."  "  In  the  common  baptismal  formula  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  coordi- 
nated with  the  Father,  and  eis  oi-o^a  has  religious  significance."  It  would  be  both 
absurd  and  profane  to  speak  of  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  Moses. 

The  apmt'Hiv '.benedictions  :  1  Cor.  1 :  3  —  "  Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  ;  2  Cor.  13:14— "The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  be  with  you  all."  "  In  the  benedictions  grace  is  something  divine,  and  Christ  has 
jiower  to  impart  it.  But  why  do  we  find  '  God,'  instead  of  simply  'the  Father,'  as  in  the  bap- 
tismal formula ?  Because  it  is  only  the  Father  who  does  not  become  man  or  have  a 
historical  existence.  Elsewhere  he  is  specially  called  'God  the  Father,'  to  distinguish  him 
from  God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit  (  Gal.  1:3;  Eph.  3 :  14  ;  6:23)." 

Other  Vdssag'cs  :  John  5  :  23  --  "that  all  may  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father"  ;  John  14  : 1 

—  "  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  ma"  —  double  imperative  (so  Westcott,  Bible  Com.,  in  loco); 
17  :  3  —  "  this  is  lifo  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  tho  only  true  God,  and  hnn  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus 
Christ "  ;  Mat.  11 :  27 — "  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and 

he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him"  ;  1  Cor.  12 : 4-6  — "  the  same  Spirit the  same  Lord  [  Christ  ] . . .  . 

the  same  God  "  [  the  Father "]  bestow  spiritual  gifts,  c.  g.,  faith  :  Rom.  10 :  17—  "  belief  cometh  of  hear- 
ing, and  hearing  by  the  word  of  Christ"  ;  peace :  Col.  3 :  15  — "  let  the  peace  of  Christ  rule  in  your  hearts."  2  Thess. 
2:16,  17  —  "  now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  God  our  Father  ....  comfort  your  hearts  "  —  two  names 
with  a  verb  in  the  singular  intimate  the  oneness  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  (Lillie).  Eph. 
5:5—"  kingdom  of  Christ  and  God  "  ;  Col.  3:1  —  "  Christ  ....  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God  "=  participa- 
tion in  the  sovereignty  of  the  universe,  —  the  Eastern  divan  held  not  only  the  monarch 
but  his  son  ;  Rev  20  : 6  —  "  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ "  ;  22 : 3  —  "the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  "  ;  16  — 
"  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David  "=  both  the  Lord  of  David  and  his  son.  Hackctt :  "As  the 
•lying  Savior  said  to  the  Father,  '  Into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit'  (  Luke  23  :  46 ),  so  the  dying 
Stephen  said  to  the  Savior,  '  receive  my  spirit '  ( Acts  7 :  59 )." 

( g)  Equality  with  God  is  expressly  claimed. 

Here  we  may  refer  to  Jesus'  testimony  to  himself,  already  treated  of 
among  the  proofs  of  the  supernatural  character  of  the  Scripture  teaching 
( see  pages  189, 190 ).  Equality  with  God  is  not  only  claimed  for  himself  by 
Jesus,  but  it  is  claimed  for  him  by  his  apostles. 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE    AS   GOD.  313 

John  5 :  18  —  "  called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself  oqnal  with  God  "  ;  Phil.  2 :  6  — "  who,  existing  in  the  form 
of  God,  counted  not  the  being  on  an  equality  with  Gud  a  thing  to  be  grasped  "  =  collated  not  bis  equality 
with;  Qod  a  thing-  to  be  forcibly  retained  Christ  made  and  left  Upon  his  <■<  intern  pora- 
ries  the  impression  that  he  claimed  to  be  God.  The  New  Testament  has  left,  upon  the 
great  mass  of  those  who  have  read  it,  the  impression  that  Jesus  Christ  claims  to  be  God. 
If  he  is  not  God,  he  is  a  deceiver  or  is  self-deceived,  and,  in  either  case,  Chrtsbus,  si  mm 
Deus,  non  bonus.    See  Nicoll,  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  187. 

(A)  Further  proof  of  Christ's  deity  may  be  found  iu  the  application  to 
him  of  the  phrases:  'Son  of  God,'  'Image  of  God'  ;  in  the  declarations 
of  his  oneness  with  God  ;  in  the  attribution  to  him  of  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead. 

Mat.  26 :  63,  64  —  "I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
Je;us  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  sa.d"  —  it  is  for  this  testimony  that  Christ  dies.  Col.  1:15  —  "the 
image  of  the  invisible  God  ";  Heb.  1 :  3  —  "  the  effulgence  of  his  [the  Father's]  glory,  and  the  very  image  of 
his  substance  ";  John  10  :  30  — "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  "  ;  14 :  9  — "  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  ";  17 :  11, 
22  —  "  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  "  —  <V,  not  ets;  union,  not  Units;  one  substance,  not 
one  person.  "  Unum  is  antidote  to  the  Arian,  sumus  to  theSabellian  heresy."  Col.  2:9 
—  "in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily";  cf.  1:19 — "  for  it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  Father 
that  in  him  should  all  the  fulness  dwell ;  "  or  (marg.)  "  for  the  whole  fulness  of  God  was  pleased  to  dwell  in  him." 
John  16  :  15  —  "  all  things  whatsoever  the  Father  hath  are  mine  "  ;  17 :  10  —  "  all  things  that  are  mine  are  thine,  and 
thine  are  mine." 

Meyer  on  John  10:30  —  "I  and  the  Father  are  one"  —  "  Here  t  lie  Arian  understanding  of  a  mere 
ethical  harmony  as  taught  in  the  words  'are  one'  Is  unsatisfactory,  because  irrelevant  to 
the  exercise  of  power.  Oneness  of  essence,  though  not  contained  in  the  words  them- 
selves, is,  by  the  necessities  of  the  argument,  presupposed  In  them."  Dal  man,  The 
Words  of  Jesus :  "  Nowhere  do  we  til  k  i  thai  Jesus  called  himself  the  Son  of  God  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  suggesl  ;i  merely  celigious  and  ethical  relation  to  God-  -  a  relation  which 
others  also  possessed  and  which  they  were  capable  of  attaining  or  were  destined  to 
acquire."  Wc  may  add  that  while  in  the  lower  sense  there  are  many  'sons  of  God,'  there 
is  but  one  'only  begotten  Son.' 

(  i )  These  proofs  of  Christ's  deity  from  the  New  Testament  are  corrobo- 
rated by  Christian  experience. 

Christian  experience  recognizes  Christ  as  an  absolutely  perfect  Savior, 
perfectly  revealing  the  Godhead  and  worthy  of  unlimited  worship  and 
adoration  ;  that  is,  it  practically  recognizes  him  as  Deity.  But  Christian 
experience  also  recognizes  that  through  Christ  it  litis  introduction  and 
reconciliation  to  God  as  one  distinct  from  Jesus  Christ,  its  one  who  was 
alienated  from  the  sold  by  its  sin,  but  who  is  now  reconciled  through 
Jesus's  death.  In  other  words,  while  recognizing  Jesus  as  God,  wo  are 
also  compelled  to  recognize  a  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
through  whom  we  come  to  the  Father. 

Although  this  experience  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  iudependent  witness 
to  Jesus' claims,  since  it  only  tests  the  truth  already  made  known  in  the 
Bible,  still  the  irresistible  impulse  of  every  person  whom  Christ  has  saved 
to  lift  his  Redeemer  to  the  highest  place,  and  bow  before  him  in  the  lowliest 
worship,  is  strong  evidence  that  only  that  interpretation  of  Scripture  can 
be  true  which  recognizes  Christ's  absolute  Godhead  It  is  the  church's 
consciousness  of  her  Lord's  divinity,  indeed,  and  not  mere  speculation 
upon  the  relations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  that  has  compelled  the 
formulation  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

In  the  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan,  it  is  said  of  the  early  Christians  "  quod  essent  soliti 
carmen  Christo  quasi  Deo  dicere  invicem.''  The  prayers  and  hymns  of  the  church 
show  what  the  church  has  believed  Scripture  to  teach.    Dwight  Moody  is  said  to  have 


314  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

received  his  first  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  from  hearing  the  concluding 
words  of  a  prayer,  "  For  Christ's  sake,  Amen,"  when  awakened  from  physical  slumber 
in  Dr.  Kirk's  church,  Boston.  These  words,  wherever  uttered,  imply  man's  dependence 
and  Christ's  deity.  See  New  Englander,  1878  :  432.  In  Bph.  4 :  32,  the  Revised  Version  sub- 
stitutes "in  Christ"  for  "  for  Christ's  sake."  The  exact  phrase  "for  Christ's  sake"  is  not 
found  in  the  N.  T.  in  connection  with  prayer,  although  the  O.  T.  phrase  "  for  my  name's 
sake  "  (  Ps.  25 :  11 )  passes  into  the  N.  T.  phrase  "  in  the  name  of  Jesus "  ( Phil.  2 :  10 ) ;  cf.  Ps.  72 :  15  — 
"  men  shall  pray  for  him  continually  "  =  the  words  of  the  hymn  :  "  For  him  shall  endless  prayer 
be  made,  And  endless  blessings  crown  his  head."  All  this  is  proof  that  the  idea  of 
prayer  for  Christ's  sake  is  in  Scripture,  though  the  phrase  is  absent. 

A  caricature  scratched  on  the  wall  of  the  Palatine  palace  in  Rome,  and  dating  back 
to  the  third  century,  represents  a  human  figure  with  an  ass's  head,  hanging  upon  a 
cross,  while  a  man  stands  before  it  in  the  attitude  of  worship.  Under  the  effigy  is  this 
ill-spelled  inscription  :  "  Alexamenos  adores  his  Coil." 

This  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Christian  consciousness  was  first  made  by  Schleier- 
rnachcr.  "William  E.  Gladstone :  "  All  I  write,  and  all  I  think,  and  all  1  hope,  is  based 
upon  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  the  one  central  hope  of  our  poor,  wayward  race."  E.  G. 
Robinson:  "  When  you  preach  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ,  you  preach  the  Trinity." 
W.  G.  T.  Shedd  :  "  The  construction  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  started,  not  from  the 
consideration  of  the  three  persons,  but  from  belief  in  the  deity  of  one  of  them."  On 
the  worship  of  Christ  in  the  authoiized  services  of  the  Anglican  church,  see  Stanley, 
Church  and  State,  333-335;  Liddon,  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  514. 

In  contemplating  passages  apparently  inconsistent  with  those  now  cited, 
in  that  they  impute  to  Christ  weakness  anil  ignorance,  limitation  and  sub- 
jection, we  are  to  remember,  first,  that  our  Lord  was  truly  man,  as  well  as 
truly  God,  and  that  this  ignorance  and  weakness  may  be  predicated  of  him 
as  the  God-man  in  whom  deity  and  humanity  are  united  ;  secondly,  that 
the  divine  nature  itself  was  in  some  way  limited  and  humbled  during  our 
Savior's  earthly  life,  and  that  these  passages  may  describe  him  as  he  was 
in  his  estate  of  humiliation,  rather  than  in  his  original  and  present  glory  ; 
and,  thirdly,  that  there  is  an  order  of  office  and  operation  which  is  consist- 
ent with  essential  oneness  and  equality,  but  which  permits  the  Father  to  be 
spoken  of  as  first  and  the  Son  as  second.  These  statements  will  be  further 
elucidated  in  the  treatment  of  the  present  doctrine  and  in  subsequent 
examination  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 

There  are  certain  things  of  which  Christ  was  ignorant :  Mark  13:32  — "of  that  day  or  that 
hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  lie  was  subject  to 
physical  fatigue  :  John  4:6  —  "Jesus  therefore,  being  wearied  with  his  journey,  sat  thus  by  the  well."  There 
was  a  limitation  Connected  with  Christ's  taking  of  human  flesh  :  PhD.  2:7  —  "emptied  himself, 
taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men";  John  14:28  —  "the  Father  is  greater  than  I." 
There  is  a  subjection,  as  respects  order  of  office  and  operation,  which  is  yet  consistent 
with  equality  of  essence  and  oneness  with  God;  i  Cor.  15:28  —  "then  shall  the  Son  also  himself 
be  subjected  to  him  that  did  subject  all  things  tuto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  This  must  be  interpreted 
consistent  ly  with  John  17 :  5  —  "glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  beforo 
the  world  was,"  and  with  Phil.  2  :  6,  where  this  glory  is  described  as  being  "the  form  of  God"  and 
"  equality  with  God." 

Even  in  his  humiliation,  Christ  was  the  Essential  Truth,  and  ignorance  in  him  never 
involved  error  or  false  teaching.  Ignorance  on  his  part  might  make  his  teaching  at 
times  incomplete,  —  it  never  in  the  smallest  particular  made  his  teaching  false.  Yet 
here  we  must  distinguish  between  what  he  intended  to  teach  and  what  was  merely 
incidental  to  his  teaching.  Whenhesaid:  Moses  "  wrote  of  me  "( John  5 :  46  )  and  "David  in  the 
Spirit  called  him  Lord  "  ( Mat.  22 :  43 ),  if  his  purpose  was  to  teach  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  of  the  110th  Psalm,  we  should  regard  his  words  as  absolutely  authoritative. 
But  it  is  possible  that  he  intended  only  to  locate  the  passages  referred  to,  and  if  so,  his 
words  cannot  be  used  to  exclude  critical  conclusions  as  to  their  authorship.  Adamson, 
The  Mind  in  Christ,  136  —  "  If  he  spoke  of  Moses  or  David,  it  was  only  to  identify  the 
passage.  The  authority  of  the  earlier  dispensation  did  not  rest  upon  its  record  being  due 
to  Moses,  nor  did  the  appropriateness  of  the  Psalm  lie  iu  its  being  uttered  by  David. 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE    AS   GOD.  315 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  question  of  authorship  ever  came  before  him."  Adam- 
son  rather  more  precariously  suggests  that  "  there  may  have  been  a  lapse  of  memory 
in  Jesus'  mention  of  'Zachariah,  son  of  Baracjuah'  (Mat.  23:35;,  since  this  was  a  matter  of  no 
spiritual  import." 

For  assertions  of  Jesus'  knowledge,  see  Jokn  2 :  24,  25  - —  "he  knew  all  men  ...  he  needed  not 
that  any  one  should  bear  witness  concerning  man  ;  for  he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man ;  "  6 :  64  —  "  Jesus  knew  from 
the  beginning  who  they  were  that  believed  not,  and  who  it  was  that  should  betray  him  "  ;  12 :  33  —  "  this  he  said,  signi- 
fying by  what  manner  of  death  he  should  die  "  ;  21 :  19  —  "  Now  this  he  spake,  signifying  by  what  manner  of  death  he 
L  Peter  ]  should  glo'ify  God  "  ;  13 : 1  —  "  knowing  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  "  ;  Mat.  25 :  31  — 
"  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory"  =  he  knew  that  he  was  to  act  as  final  judge  of  the  human  race.  Other  instances 
are  mentioned  by  Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ,  24-49:  1.  Jesus'  knowledge  of  Peter 
(John  1:42);  2.  his  finding  Philip  (1:43);  3.  his  recognition  of  Xathanael  (1:47-50);  4.  of 
the  woman  of  Samaria  (  4:17-19,39)  ;  5.  miraculous  draughts  of  fishes  (Luke5:6-9;  John 
21:6);  6.  death  of  Lazarus  ( John  11 :  14 ) ;  7.  the  ass's  colt  (  Mat.  21 :  2 ) ;  8.  of  the  upper  room 
(Mark  14:15);  9.  of  Peter's  denial  (Mat.  26:34);  10.  of  the  manner  of  his  own  death  (John 
12  -  33 ;  18 :  32 ) ;  11.  of  t  he  manner  of  Peter's  death  (John  21 :  19 ) ;  12.  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
(  Mat.  24  :  2  ) . 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  assertions  and  implications  of  Jesus'  ignorance  :  he  did 
not  know  the  day  of  t  lie  end  (  Mark  13 :  32 ),  though  even  here  he  intimates  his  superiority 
to  angels;  5 : 30-34  —  " Who  touched  my  garments?  '  though  even  here  power  had  gone  forth 
from  him  to  heal;  John  11 : 34  —  " Where  have  ye  laid  him?"  though  here  he  is  about  to  raise 
Lazarus  from  the  dead  ;  Mark  11 :  13  —  "seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  off  having  leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might 
find  anything  thereon  "  =.  he  did  not  know  that,  it  had  no  fruit,  yet  lie  had  power  to  curse  it. 
With  these  evidences  of  the  limitations  of  Jesus'  knowledge,  we1  must  assent  to  the 
judgment  of  Bacon,  Genesis  of  <  lenesis,  33  -  "  We  must  decline  to  stake  the  authority 
of  Jesus  on  a  question  of  literary  criticism";  and  of  Gore,  Incarnation,  195  —  "That 
the  use  by  our  Lord  of  such  a  phrase  as  'Moses  wrote  of  me'  binds  us  to  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  I  do  not  think  wc  need  to  yield."  See  our  section  on 
The  Person  of  Christ ;  also  Rush  Ethees,  bile  of  Jesus,  243,  244.  J'i  r  contra,  see  Swayne, 
Our  Lord's  Knowledge  as  Man  ;  and  Crooker,  The  New  Bible,  who  very  unwisely  claims 
that  belief  in  a  Kenosis  involves  the  surrender  of  Christ's  authority  and  atonement. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  any  mere  en nt  ure  should  say,  "God  is  greater  than  I  am," 
or  should  be  spoken  of  as  ultimately  and  in  a  mysterious  way  becoming  "subject  to 
God.''  In  his  state  of  humiliation  Christ  was  subject  to  the  Spirit  (  Acts  1 : 2  —  "  after  that  he 
had  given  commandment  through  the  Holy  Spirit ";  10 :  38  —  "God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit  ....  for  God 
was  with  him  "  ;  Heb.  9:14  —  "  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God  "  ) ,  but  in  his 
state  of  exaltation  Christ  is  Lord  of  the  Spirit  (xvptov  -nvev^aTos  —  2  Cor.  3  :  18— Meyer), 
giving  the  Spirit  arid  working  through  the  Spirit.  Heb.  2  :  7,  marg.— "Thou  madest  him  for  a  little 
while  lower  than  the  angels."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  #52,  351;  Tho- 
masius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1:61-64;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  127,  207,  458; 
per  contra,  see  Examination  of  Liddon,  252,  294;  Professors  of  Andover  Seminary, 
Divinity  of  Christ. 

C.    The  Holy  Spirit  is  recognized  as  God. 

(  a  )  He  is  spoken  of  as  God  ;  (  b  )  the  attributes  of  God  are  ascribed  to 
him,  such  as  life,  truth,  love,  holiness,  eternity,  omnipresence,  omniscience, 
omnipotence  ;  (c)  he  does  the  works  of  God,  such  as  creation,  regenera- 
tion, resurrection  ;  ( d  )  he  receives  honor  due  only  to  God  ;  (  c )  he  is  asso- 
ciated with  G<  >d  on  a  footing  of  equality,  both  in  the  formula  of  baptism 
and  in  the  apostolic  benedictions. 

(a)  Spoken  of  as  God.  Acts  5  :  3,  4 —  "lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ....  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God"  ; 
1  Cor.  3 :  16  —  "  ye  are  a  temple  of  God  ...  .  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  "  ;  6 :  19  —  "  your  body  is  a  temple  of  the 
Holy  Spirit "  ;  12 : 4-6  "same  Spirit  ....  same  Lord  ....  same  God,  who  worketh  all  things  in  all "  —  "  The 
divine  Trinity  is  here  indicated  in  an  ascending  climax,  in  such  a  way  that  we  pass 
from  the  Spirit  who  bestows  the  gifts  to  the  Lord  [  Christ  ]  who  is  served  by  means  of 
them,  and  finally  to  God,  who  as  the  absolute  first  cause  and  possessor  of  all  Christian 
powers  works  the  entire  sum  of  all  charismatic  gift6  in  all  who  are  gifted  "  (  Meyer  in 
loco ) . 


316  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

(b)  Attribute*  of  God.  Life:  Rom.  8:2  — "Spirit  of  life."  Truth:  John  16: 13  "Spirit  of  truth."  Love: 
Rom.  15:30—  "love  of  the  Spirit."  Holiness:  Eph.  4:30— "the  Holy  Spirit  of  God."  Eternity:  Heb.  9:  14  — 
"  the  eternal  Spirit."  Omnipresence:  Ps.  139:7  —  "Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?"  Omniscience: 
1  Cor.  12:11 — "all  these  [  including'  gifts  of  healing's  and  miracles  ]  worketh  the  one  and  the  same 
Spirit,  dividing  to  each  one  severally  even  as  he  will." 

(  C  )  Works  of  God.  Creation  :  Gen.  1 : 2,  marg. — "Spirit  of  God  was  brooding  upon  the  face  of  the  waters." 
Casting  out  of  demons  :  Mat.  12  :  28  —  "  But  if  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  demons."  Conviction  of 
sin:Johnl6:8 — "  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin."  Regeneration:  John3:8  —  "born  of  the  Spirit";  Tit. 
3.5  —  "renewing  of  the  floly  Spirit."  Resurrection  :  Rom.  8  :  11  — "give  life  also  to  your  mortal  bodies  through 
his  Spirit "  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  45  —  "  The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit." 

(  d  )  Honor  due  to  God.  1  Cor.  3: 16— "ye  are  a  temple  of  God  ...  .  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you" — he 
who  inhabits  the  temple  is  the  object  of  worship  there.    See  also  the  next  item. 

(  e  )  Associated  ivitli  God.  Formula  of  baptism  :  Mat.  28 :  19  —  "  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  If  the  baptismal  formula  is  worship,  then  we  have  here 
worship  paid  to  the  Spirit.  Apostolic  benedictions:  2  Cor.  13  :  14  —  "The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communiun  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  ail."  If  the  apostolic  benedic- 
tii his  arc  prayers,  then  we  have  here  a  prayer  to  the  Spirit.  1  Pet.  1:2  —  "foreknowledge  of 
God  the  Father  .  .  .  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  .  .  .  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 

On  Heb.  9:14,  Kendrick,  Com.  in  loco,  interprets:  "Offers  himself  by  virtue  of  an 
eternal  spirit  which  dwells  within  him  and  imparts  to  his  sacrifice  a  spiritual  and  an 
eternal  efficacy.  The  '  spirit '  here  spoken  of  was  not,  then,  the  '  Holy  Spirit ' ;  it  was  not 
his  purely  divine  nature  ;  it  was  that  blending  of  his  divine  nature  with  his  human  per- 
sonality which  forms  the  mystery  of  his  being,  that  'spirit  ofhcliness'  by  virtue  of  which 
he  was  declared  '  the  Son  of  God  with  power,'  on  account  of  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead."  Hovey  adds  a  note  to  Kenelrick's  Commentary,  in  loco,  as  follows:  "This 
adjective  'eternal'  naturally  suggests  that  the  word  'Spirit'  refers  to  the  higher  and 
divine  nature  of  Christ.  His  truly  human  nature,  on  its  spiritual  side,  was  indeed 
eternal  as  to  the  future,  but  so  also  is  the  spirit  of  every  man.  The  unique  and  super- 
lative value  of  Christ's  self-sacrifice  seems  to  have  been  due  to  the  impulse  of  the 
divine  side  of  his  nature."  The  phrase  'eternal  spirit'  would  then  mean  his  divinity.  To 
both  these  interpretations  we  prefer  that  which  makes  the  passage  refer  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  we  cite  in  support  of  this  view  Acts  1:2  —  "he  had  given  commandment  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  unto  the  apostles  "  ;  10 :  38  —  "  God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  On  1  Cor.  2 :  10,  Mason,  Faith  of 
the  Gospel,  63,  remarks:  "The  Spirit  of  God  finds  nothing  even  in  God  which  baffles 
his  scrutiny.  His  'search'  is  not  a  seeking  for  knowledge  yet  beyond  him.  .  .  .  Nothing 
but  God  could  search  the  depths  of  God." 

As  spirit  is  nothing  less  than  the  inmost  principle  of  life,  and  the  spirit 
of  man  is  man  himself,  so  the  spirit  of  God  must  be  God  ( see  1  Cor.   2  :  11 

—  Meyer).  Christian  experience,  moreover,  expressed  as  it  is  in  the 
prayers  and  hymns  of  the  church,  furnishes  an  argument  for  the  deity  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  similar  to  that  for  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  our 
eyes  are  opened  to  see  Christ  as  a  Savior,  we  are  compelled  to  recognize 
the  work  in  us  of  a  divine  Spirit  who  has  taken  of  the  things  of  Christ  and 
has  shown  them  to  us  ;  and  this  divine  Spirit  Ave  necessarily  distinguish 
both  from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son.  Christian  experience,  however, 
is  not  an  original  and  independent  witness  to  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit : 
it  simply  shows  what  the  church  has  held  to  be  the  natural  and  unforced 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  so  confirms  the  Scripture  argument 
already  adduced. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  God  himself  personally  present  in  the  believer.  E.  G.  Robinson  : 
"If  'Spirit  of  God'  no  more  implies  deity  than  does  'angel  of  God,'  why  is  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  called  simply  the  angel  or  messenger,  of  God?  "  Walker,  The  Spirit  and 
the  Incarnation,  337  —  "The Holy  Spirit  is  God  in  his  innermost  being  or  essence, 
the  principle  of  life  of  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  that  in  which  God,  both  as  Father 
and  Son,  does  everything,  and  in  which  he  comes  to  us  and  is  in  us  increasingly 
through  his  manifestations.  Through  the  working  and  indwelling  of  this  Holy  Spirit, 
God  in  his  person  of  Son  was  fully  incarnate  in  Christ."  Gould,  Am.  Com.  on  1  Cor.  2:11 

—  "  For  who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  the  man,  which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the  things  of 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE   AS   GOJ).  317 

Got!  none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God"  —  "The  analogy  must  not  be  pushed  too  far,  as  if  the 
Spirit  of  God  and  God  were  coextensive  terms,  as  the  corresponding  terms  are,  sub- 
stantially, in  man.  The  point  of  the  analogy  is  evidently  self -knowledge,  and  in  both 
cases  the  contrast  is  between  the  spirit  within  and  anything  outside."  Andrew  Mur- 
ray, Spirit  of  Christ,  140—  "  We  must  not  expect  always  to  feel  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
when  it  works.  Scripture  links  power  and  weakness  in  a  wonderful  way,  not  as  suc- 
ceeding each  other  but  as  existing  together.  'I  was  with  you  in  weakness  ...  my  preaching  was  in 
power'  ( i  Cor.  2:3  ) ;  'when  I  am  weak  then  am  I  strong'  (  2  Cor.  12:10  ).  The  power  is  the  power  of  Cod 
given  to  faith,  and  faith  grows  strong  in  the  dark.  .  .  .  He  who  would  command  nature 
must  first  and  most  absolutely  obey  her.  .  .  .  We  want  to  get  possession  of  the  Power, 
and  use  it.    God  wants  the  Power  to  get  possession  of  us,  and  use  us." 

This  proof  of  the  deity  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  is  not  invalidated  by  the  limita- 
tions of  his  work  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  John  7  :  39  — 
"  for  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet" — means  simply  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
could  not  fulfill  his  peculiar  office  as  Revealer  of  Christ  until  the  atoning 
work  of  Christ  should  be  accomplished. 

John7:39  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  other  Scriptures  which  assert  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  under  the  old  dispensation  (  Ps.  51 :  11  —  "take  not  thy  holy  Spirit  from  me  "  ) 
and  which  describe  his  peculiar  office  under  the  new  dispensation  (John  16:14,  15  —  "he 
shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you"  ).  Limitation  in  the  manner  at  the  Spirit's  work 
in  the  O.  T.  involved  a  limitation  in  the  extent  and  power  of  it  also.  Pentecost  was  the 
flowing  forth  of  a  tide  of  spiritual  influence  which  had  hitherto  been  dammed  up. 
Henceforth  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  taking  of  the  tilings  of  Christ 
and  showing  them,  applying  his  finished  work  to  human  hearts,  and  rendering  the 
hitherto  localized  Savior  omnipresent  with  his  scattered  followers  to  the  end  of  time. 

Under  the  conditions  of  his  humiliation,  Christ  was  a  servant.  All  authority  in 
heaven  and  earth  was  given  him  only  after  his  resurrection.  Hence  he  could  not  send 
the  Holy  Spirit  until  he  ascended.  The  mother  can  showoff  her  sun  only  when  he  is 
fully  grown.  The  Holy  Spirit  could  reveal  Christ  only  when  there  was  a  complete 
Christ  to  reveal.  The  Holy  Spirit  could  fully  sanctify,  only  after  the  example  and 
motive  of  holiness  were  furnished  in  Christ's  life  and  death.  Archer  Butler:  "The 
divine  Artist  could  not  fitly  descend  to  make  the  copy,  before  the  original  had  been 
provided." 

And  yel  the  Holy  Spiritis  "tho  eternal  Spirit"  (Heb.  9: 14  ),  and  he  not  only  existed,  bid  also 
wrought,  in  Old  Testament  limes.  2  Pet.  1 : 21  —  " men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit" 
—seems to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "the  ll<>ly  Spirit,"  where  it  appears  in  the 
O.T.  Before  Christ  "the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet"  (John  7:39),  just  as  before  Edison  electricity 
was  not  yet.  There  was  just  as  much  electricity  in  the  world  before  Edison  as  there  is 
now.  Edison  has  only  taught  us  its  existence  and  how  to  use  it.  Still  we  can  say  that, 
before  Edison,  electricity,  as  a  means  of  lighting,  warming  and  transporting  people,  had 
no  existence.  So  until  Pentecost,  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  revealer  of  Christ,  "  was  not  yet.' 
Augustine  calls  Pentecost  the  flies  natalia,  or  birthday,  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  call  the  day  when  Mary  brought  forth  her  firstborn  son  the  birthday 
of  Jesus  Christ,  though  before  Abraham  was  born,  Christ  was.  The  Holy  Spirit  had  been 
engaged  in  the  creation,  and  had  inspired  the  prophets,  but  officially,  as  Mediator 
between  men  and  Christ,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet."  He  could  not  show  the  things  of  Christ 
until  the  things  of  Christ  were  ready  to  be  shown.  See  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit, 
19-25;  Prof.  J.  S.  Gubelmann.  Person  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  O.  T.  Times. 
For  proofs  of  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  see  Walker,  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
Hare,  Mission  of  the  Comforter ;  Parker,  The  Paraclete ;  Cardinal  Manning,  Temporal 
Mission  of  the  Holy  G  host ;  Dick,  Lectures  on  Theology,  1 :  341-350.  Further  references 
will  be  given  in  connection  with  the  proof  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  personality. 

2.     Intimations  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  passages  which  seem  to  show  that  even  in  the  Old  Testament  there 
are  three  who  are  implicitly  recognized  as  God  may  be  classed  under  four 
heads : 

A.     Passages  which  seem  to  teach  plurality  of  some  sort  in  the  Godhead. 


318         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

(a)  The  plural  noun  D"tl7X  is  employed,  and  that  with  a  plural  verb  —  a 
use  remarkable,  when  we  consider  that  the  singular  ^K  was  also  in  exist- 
ence ;  ( b )  God  uses  plural  pronouns  in  speaking  of  himself  ;  ( c  )  Jehovah 
distinguishes  himself  from  Jehovah  ;  ( d )  a  Son  is  ascribed  to  Jehovah  ; 
(  e  )  the  Spirit  of  God  is  distinguished  from  God  ;  (/)  there  are  a  three- 
fold ascription  and  a  threefold  benediction. 

( a )  Gen.  20  :  13  —  "  God  caused  [  plural  ]  me  to  wander  from  my  father's  house  "  ;  35  :  7  — "  built  there  an  altar, 
and  called  the  place  El-Beth-el ;  because  there  God  was  revealed  [  plural  ]  unto  him."  ( h  )  Gen.  1 : 26  —  "  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness "  ;  3  :  22  —  "  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us  "  ;  11  :  7  —  "  Come,  let  us  go 
down,  and  there  confound  their  language  "  ;  Is.  6  :  8  — "  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  "  ( e )  Gen.  19 :  24 
—  "  Then  Jehovah  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah  out  of  heaven  "  ;  los.  1:7  — 
" I  will  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Judah,  and  will  save  them  by  Jehovah,  their  God "  ;  cf.  2  Tim.  1  :  18  —  "The  Lord 
grant  unto  him  to  find  mercy  of  the  Lord  in  that  day  "  —  though  Ellicott  here  decides  adversely  to  the 
Trinitarian  reference,  (d)  Ps.  2  :  7  —  "Thou  art  my  son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee "  ;  Prov.  30  :  4  — 
"  Who  hath  established  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ?  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  son's  name,  if  thou  knowest  ?  " 
( c)  Gen.  1:1  and  2,  marg.  —  "God  created  ....  the  Spirit  of  God  was  brooding  "  ;  Ps.  33  :  6  —  ''By  the  word  of 
Jehovah  were  the  heavens  made,  And  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  [spirit]  of  his  mouth  "  ;  Is.  48  :  16  —  "the 
Lord  Jehovah  hath  sent  me,  and  his  Spirit "  ;  63:7,10 — "  loving  kindnesses  of  Jehovah  ....  grieved  his  holy  Spirit." 
(  / )  Is.  6  :  3  —  the  trisagion  :  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  ' ' ;  Num.  6 :  24-26  —  "  Jehovah  bless  thee,  and  keep  thee :  Jehovah 
make  his  face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee :  Jehovah  lift  up  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give  thee  peace." 

It  has  been  suggested  that  as  Baal  was  worshiped  iu  different  places  and  under  differ- 
ent names,  as  Baal-Rerith,  Baal-hanan,  Baal-peor,  Baal-zeebub,  and  his  priests  could 
call  upon  any  one  of  these  as  possessing  certain  personified  attributes  of  Baal,  while 
yet  the  whole  was  called  by  the  plural  term  'Baalim,'  and  Elijah  could  say:  "  Call  ye 
upon  your  Gods,"  so  '  Elohim'  may  be  the  collective  designation  of  the  God  who  was 
worshiped  in  different  localities ;  see  Robertson  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  229.  But  this  ignores  the  fact  that  Baal  is  always  addressed  in  the  singular,  never 
in  the  plural,  while  the  plural '  Elohim  '  is  the  term  commonly  used  in  addresses  to  God. 
This  seems  to  show  that '  Baalim '  is  a  collective  term,  while  '  Elohim  '  is  not.  So  when 
Ewald,  Lehre  von  Gott,  2  :  333,  distinguishes  five  names  of  God,  corresponding  to  five 
great  periods  of  the  history  of  Israel,  viz.,  the  "Almighty"  of  the  Patriarchs,  the 
"Jehovah  "  of  the  Covenant,  the  "  God  of  Hosts  "  of  the  Monarchy,  the  "  Holy  One  " 
of  the  Deuteronomist  and  the  later  prophetic  age,  and  the  "  Our  Lord  "  of  Judaism,  he 
ignores  the  fact  that  these  designations  are  none  of  them  confined  to  the  times  to  which 
they  are  attributed,  though  they  may  have  been  predominantly  used  in  those  times. 

The  fact  that  D'rih.N  is  sometimes  used  in  a  narrower  sense,  as  applicable 
to  the  Son  (Ps.  45  :6  ;  cf.  Heb.  1:8),  need  not  prevent  us  from  believing 
that  the  term  was  originally  chosen  as  containing  an  allusion  to  a  certain 
plurality  in  the  divine  nature.  Nor  is  it  sufficient  to  call  this  plural  a 
simple  pluralis  majestaticus;  since  it  is  easier  to  derive  this  common 
figure  from  divine  usage  than  to  derive  the  divine  usage  from  this  common 
figure  —  especially  when  we  consider  the  constant  tendency  of  Israel  to 
polytheism. 

Ps.  45  : 6  ;  cf.  Heb.  1:8  —  "of  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."  Here  it  is  God  who 
calls  Christ "  God  "  or  "  Elohim."  The  term  Elohim  has  here  acquired  the  significance  of  a 
singular.  It  was  once  thought  that  the  royal  style  of  speech  was  a  custom  of  a  later 
date  than  the  time  of  Moses.  Pharaoh  does  not  use  it.  In  Gen.  41 :  41  44,  he  says :  "  I  have 
set  thee  over  all  the  land  of  Egypt.  .  .  .  I  am  Pharaoh."  But  later  investigations  seem  to  prove  that 
the  plural  for  God  was  used  by  the  Canaanites  before  the  Hebrew  occupation.  The 
one  Pharaoh  is  called  'my  gods'  or  'my  god,'  indifferently.  The  word  'master'  is 
usually  found  in  the  plural  in  the  O.  T.  (  cf.  Gen.  24  :  9, 51 ;  39  :  19 ;  40  : 1 ).  The  plural  gives 
utterance  to  the  sense  of  awe.  It  signifies  magnitude  or  completeness.  (  See  The  Bible 
Student,  Aug.  1900:67.) 

This  ancient  Hebrew  application  of  the  plural  to  God  is  often  explained  as  a  mere 
plural  of  dignity,  =  one  who  combines  in  himself  many  reasons  for  adoration  (  DTI  7X 
from  PPX  to  fear,  to  adore).  Oehler,  O.  T.  Theology,  1 :  128-130,.  calls  it  a  "  quantitative 
plural,"  signifying  unlimited  greatness.     The  Hebrews  had  many  plural  forms,  where 


SCRIPTURE   RECOGNIZES  THREE   AS   GOD.  319 

we  should  use  the  singular,  as  '  heavens '  instead  of  '  heaven,'  '  waters '  instead  of 
'  water.'  We  too  speak  of  '  news,'  '  wages,'  and  say  '  you '  instead  of  '  thou  ' ;  see  F.  W. 
Robertson,  on  Genesis,  12.  But  the  Church  Fathers, such  as  Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr, 
trenseus,  Theophilus,  Epiphanius,  and  Iheodoret,  saw  in  this  plural  an  allusion  to  the 
Trinity,  and  we  are  inclined  to  follow  them.  Winn  Unite  things  were  pluralized  to 
express  man's  reverence,  it  would  be  far  more  natural  to  pluralize  the  name  of  God. 
And  God's  purpose  in  securing  this  pluralization  may  have  been  more  far-reaching 
and  intelligent  than  man's.  The  Holy  Spirit  who  presided  over  the  development  of 
revelation  may  well  have  directed  the  use  of  the  plural  in  general,  and  even  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plural  name  Elohim  in  particular,  with  a  view  to  the  future  unfolding  of 
truth  with  regard  to  the  Trinity. 

We  therefore  dissent  from  the  view  of  Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  323.  330  — "The 
Hebrew  religion,  even  much  later  than  the  time  of  Moses,  as  it  existed  in  the  popular 
mind,  was,  according  to  the  prophetic  writings,  far  removed  from  a  real  monotheism, 
and  consisted  in  the  wavering  acceptance  of  the  preeminence  of  a  tribal  God,  with  a 
strong  inclination  towards  a  general  polytheism.  It  is  impossible  therefore  to  suppose 
that  anything  approaching  the  philosophical  monotheism  of  modern  theology  could 
have  been  elaborated  or  even  entertained  by  primitive  man.  .  .  .  '  Thou  sh&lt  have  no  other 
gods  before  me '  (  Ex.  20:  3  ),  the  first  precept  of  Hebrew  monotheism,  was  not  understood  at 
first  as  a  denial  of  the  hereditary  polytheistic  faith,  but  merely  as  an  exclusive  claim 
to  worship  and  obedience."  E.  G.  Robinson  says,  in  a  similar  strain,  that  "  we  can 
explain  the  idolatrous  tendencies  of  the  Jews  only  on  the  supposition  that  they  had 
lurking  notions  that  their  God  was  a  merely  national  god.  Moses  seems  to  have  under- 
stood the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity,  but  the  Jews  did  not." 

To  the  views  of  both  Bill  and  ltobinson  we  reply  that  the  primitive  intuition  of  God 
is  not  that  of  many,  but  that  of  One.  Paul  tells  us  that  polytheism  is  a  later  and  retro- 
gressive stage  of  development,  due  to  man's  sin  ( Rom.  1 :  19-25 ).  We  prefer  the  statement 
of  McLaren :  "  The  plural  Elohim  is  not  a  survival  from  a  polytheistic  stage,  but 
expresses  the  divine  nature  in  the  manif oldness of  its  fulnesses  and  perfections,  rather 
than  in  the  abstract  unity  of  its  being  "—and,  we  may  add,  expresses  the  divine  nature 
in  its  essential  fulness,  as  a  complex  of  personalities.  See  Conant,  Gesenius'  Hebrew 
Grammar,  198;  Green,  Hebrew  Grammar,  306;  Girdlestone,  O.  T.  Synonyms,  38,  53; 
Alexander  on  Psalm  11:7;  29  : 1 ;  58  :  11. 

B.     Passages  relating  to  the  Angel  of  Jehovah. 

( a )  The  angel  of  Jehovah  identifies  himself  with  Jehovah  ;  ( b )  he  is 
identified  with  Jehovah  Ivy  others ;  ( c )  he  accepts  worship  due  only  to 
God.  Though  the  phrase  'angel  of  Jehovah'  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
later  Scriptures  to  denote  a  merely  human  messenger  or  created  angel,  it 
seems  in  the  Old  Testament,  with  hardly  more  than  a  single  exception,  to 
designate  the  pre-incarnate  Logos,  whose  manifestations  in  angelic  or 
human  form  foreshadowed  his  final  coming  in  the  flesh. 

( a )  Gen.  22  :  11, 16  —  "  the  angel  of  Jehovah  called  unto  him  [  Abraham,  when  about  to  sacrifice  Isaac] 
....  By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  Jehovah  "  ;  31 :  11, 13—  "the  angel  of  God  said  unto  me  L  Jacob]  ....  lam  the 
God  of  Beth-el."  ( h  )  Gen.  16  :  9, 13  —  "  angel  of  Jehovah  said  unto  her  ...  .  and  she  called  the  name  of  Jehovah  that 
spake  unto  her,  Thou  art  a  God  that  seeth  "  ;  48:15,16 — "the  God  who  hath  fed  me  ...  .  the  angel  who  hath  redeemed 
me."  (c)  Ei.  3:2,  A,  5 — "the  angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  unto  him  ....  God  called  unto  him  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
bush  ....  put  off  thy  shoes  from  off  thy  feet";  Judges  13  :  20-22  —  "  angel  of  Jehovah  ascended.  .  .  .  Manoahandhis 
wife  ....  fell  on  their  faces  ....  Manoahsaid  ....  We  shall  surely  die,  because  we  have  seen  God." 

The  "  angel  of  the  Lord  "  appears  to  be  a  human  messenger  in  Haggai  1 :  13  — "  Haggai,  Jehovah's  mes- 
senger"; a  created  angel  in  Mat.  1:20  —  "an  angel  of  the  Lord  [called  Gabriel  1  appeared  unto  "  Joseph  ; 
in  Acts  8  :  26  —  "  an  angel  of  the  Lord  spake  unto  Philip  "  ;  and  in  12 :  7  —  "  an  angel  of  the  Lord  stood  by  him  " 
(Peter).  But  commonly,  in  the  O.  T.,  the  "angel  of  Jehovah"  isa  theophany,  a  self-manifest- 
ation of  God.  The  only  distinction  is  that  between  Jehovah  in  himself  and  Jehovah 
in  manifestation.  The  appearances  of  "the  angel  of  Jehovah"  seem  to  be  preliminary  mani- 
festations of  the  divine  Logos,  as  in  Gen.  18  :  2, 13  — "three  men  stood  over  against  him  [Abraham] 
...  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Abraham"  ;  Dan.  3  :  25, 28—  "  the  aspect  of  the  fourth  is  like  a  son  of  the  gods.  .  .  .  Blessed  be 
*be  God  ...  .  who  hath  sent  his  angeL"  The  N.  T.  "angel  of  the  Lord"  does  not  permit,  the  O.  T.  "angel 
oftheLord"  requires,  worship  (Rev.  22:  8,  9  — "See  thou  do  it  not"  ;  c/.Ex.3:5—  "putoff  thy  shoes"  ).  As 
supporting  this  interpretation,  see  Hengstenberg,  Christology,  1:107-123;  J.PyeSmith, 


320  HATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS  OF  GOD. 

Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah.  As  opposing  it,  see  Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  1 : 
3~9,  378 ;  Kurtz,  History  of  Old  Covenant,  1 :  181.  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Bib.  Sac, 
1879  :  593-615. 

C.     Descriptions  of  the  divine  Wisdom  and  Word. 

(  a )  Wisdom  is  represented  as  distinct  from  God,  and  as  eternally  exist- 
ing with  God  ;  (6)  the  Word  of  God  is  distinguished  from  God,  as  execu- 
tor of  his  will  from  everlasting. 

( a  )  Prov.  8:1  —  "  Doth  not  wisdom  cry  ?  "  Cf.  Mat.  11 :  19  —  "  -wisdom  is  justified  by  her  works  "  ;  Luke  7 :  35  — 
"  wisdom  is  justified  of  all  her  children"  ;  11 :  49  —  "  Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God,  I  will  send  unto  them  prophets 
and  apostles  "  ;  Prov.  8  :  22,  30,  31  —  "Jehovah  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  Before  his  works  of  old.  ...  I 
was  by  him,  as  a  master  workman  :  And  I  was  daily  his  delight.  .  .  .  And  my  delight  was  with  the  sons  of  men  "  ;  cf.  3  : 
19  — "Jehovah  by  wisdom  founded  the  earth,"  and  Heb.  1 : 2 — "his  Son  ...  .  through  whom  ....  he  made  the 
worlds."  (  h  )  Ps.  107 :  20  —  "  He  sendeth  his  word,  and  healeth  them  " ;  119  :  89  —  "  For  ever,  0  Jehovah,  Thy  word  is 
settled  in  heaven  "  ;  147 :  15-18  —  "  He  sendeth  out  his  commandment.  ...  He  sendeth  out  his  word." 

In  the  Apocryphal  book  entitled  Wisdom,  7  :  26,  28,  wisdom  is  described  as  "the 
brightness  of  the  eternal  light,"  "the  unspotted  mirror  of  God's  majesty,"  and  "the 
image  of  his  goodness  "  —  reminding  us  of  Heb.  1:3 —  "the  effulgence  of  his  glory,  and  the  very  image  of 
his  substance."  In  Wisdom,  9:  9, 10,  wisdom  is  represented  as  being  present  with  God  when 
he  made  the  world,  and  the  author  of  the  book  prays  that  wisdom  may  be  sent  to  him 
out  of  God's  holy  heavens  and  from  the  throne  of  his  glory.  In  1  Esdras  4 :  35-38,  Truth 
in  a  similar  way  is  spoken  of  as  personal :  "  Great  is  the  Truth  and  stronger  than  all 
things.  All  the  earth  calleth  upon  the  Truth,  and  the  heaven  blessethit;  all  works 
shake  and  tremble  at  it,  and  with  it  is  no  unrighteous  thing.  As  for  the  Truth,  it 
endureth  and  is  always  strong;  it  liveth  and  conquereth  forevermore." 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  in  none  of  these  descriptions  is  the  idea  of 
personality  clearly  developed.  Still  less  is  it  true  that  John  the  apostle 
derived  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos  from  the  interpretations  of  these  descrip- 
tions in  Philo  Judseus.  John's  doctrine  (John  1  :  1-18  )  is  radically  differ- 
ent from  the  Alexandrian  Logos-idea  of  Philo.  This  last  is  a  Platonizing 
speculation  upon  the  mediating  principle  between  God  and  the  world. 
Philo  seems  at  times  to  verge  towards  a  recognition  of  personality  in  the 
Logos,  though  his  monotheistic  scruples  lead  him  at  other  times  to  take 
back  what  he  has  given,  and  to  describe  the  Logos  either  as  the  thought  of 
God  or  as  its  expression  in  the  world.  But  John  is  the  first  to  present 
to  us  a  consistent  Adew  of  this  personality,  to  identify  the  Logos  with  the 
Messiah,  and  to  distinguish  the  Word  from  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Dorner,  in  his  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  1  :  13-45,  and  in  his 
System  of  Doctrine,  1  :  348,  349,  gives  the  best  account  of  Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Logos. 
He  says  that  Philo  calls  the  Logos  apxayyeAos,  apxt-epevs,  Sevrepos  i?eos.  Whether  this  is 
anything  more  than  personification  is  doubtful,  for  Philo  also  calls  the  Logos  the  /coo-jios 
i/ojjtos.  Certainly,  so  far  as  he  makes  the  Logos  a  distinct  personality,  he  makes  him 
also  a  subordinate  being.  It  is  charged  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  owes  its  origin 
to  the  Platonic  philosophy  in  its  Alexandrian  union  with  Jewish  theology.  But  Pla- 
tonism  had  no  Trinity.  The  truth  is  that  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  Christianity 
secured  itself  against  false  heathen  ideas  of  God's  multiplicity  and  immanence,  as 
well  as  against  false  Jewish  ideas  of  God's  unity  and  transcendence.  It  owes  nothing 
to  foreign  sources. 

We  need  not  assign  to  John's  gospel  a  later  origin,  in  order  to  account  for  its  doctrine 
of  the  Logos,  any  more  than  we  need  to  assign  a  later  origin  to  the  Synoptics  in  order  to 
account  for  their  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah.  Both  doctrines  were  equally 
unknown  to  Philo.  Philo's  Logos  does  not  and  cannot  become  mau.  So  says  Dorner. 
Westcott,  in  Bible  Commentary  on  John,  Introd.,  xv-xviii,  and  on  Johnl :  1  —  "  The  theo- 
logical use  of  the  term  [in  John's  gospel]  appears  to  be  derived  directly  from  the 
Palestinian  Memra,  and  not  from  the  Alexandrian  Logos."  Instead  of  Philo's  doctrine 
being  a  stepping-stone  from  Judaism  to  Christianity,  it  was  a  stumbling-stone.    It  had 


SCRIPTURE    RECOGNIZES   THREE   AS    GOD.  321 

no  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  or  of  the  atonement.  Bennett  and  Adeny,  Bib.  Introd.,  340 
— "  The  difference  between  Philo  and  John  may  be  stated  thus :  Philo's  Logos  is  Reason, 
while  John's  is  AVord ;  Philo's  is  impersonal,  while  John's  is  personal ;  Philo's  is  not 
incarnate,  while  John's  is  incarnate ;  Khilo's  is  not  the  Messiah,  while  John's  is  the 
Messiah." 

Philo  livred  from  B.  C.  10  or  20  to  certainly  A.  D.  40,  when  he  went  at  the  head  of  a 
Jewish  embassy  to  Rome,  to  persuade  the  Emperor  to  abstain  from  claiming'  divine 
honor  from  the  Jews.  In  his  I)e  Opifice  Mundi  he  says :  "  The  Word  is  nothing  else  but 
the  intelligible  world."  He  calls  the  Word  the  "  chainband,"  "  pilot,"  "  steersman,"  of 
all  things.  Gore,  Incarnation,  69  — "  Logos  in  Philo  must  be  translated  '  Reason.' 
But  in  the  Targums,  or  early  Jewish  paraphrases  of  the  O.  T.,  the  '  Word  '  of  Jehovah 
(Mcmra,  Devra)  is  constantly  spoken  of  as  the  efficient  instrumeut  of  the  divine 
action,  in  cases  where  the  O.  T.  speaks  of  Jehovah  himself.  '  The  Word  of  God  '  had 
come  to  be  used  personally,  as  almost  equivalent  to  God  manifesting  himself,  or  God 
in  action."  Georg-e  H.  Gilbert,  in  Biblical  World,  Jan.  1899  :  44 —  "  John's  use  of  the 
term  Logos  was  suggested  by  Greek  philosophy,  while  at  the  same  time  the  content  of 
the  word  is  Jewish." 

Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  174-208  —  "The  Stoics  invested  the  Logos  with  personality. 
They  were  Monists  and  they  made  Adyo?  and  vAtj  the  active  and  the  passive  forms  of  the 
one  principle.  Borne  made  God  a  mode  of  matter — natwra  naturata;  others  made  mat- 
ter a  mode  of  God — natwra  n  iturans=  the  world  a  self -evolution  of  God.  The  Platonic 
forms,  as  manifold  expressions  of  a  single  Aoyos,  were  expressed  by  a  singular  term, 
Logos,  rather  than  the  Logo!,  of  God.  From  this  Logos  proceed  all  forms  of  mind  or 
reason.  So  held  Philo:  'The  mind  is  an  offshoot  from  the  divine  and  happy  soul  ( of 
God),  an  offshoot  not  separated  from  him,  for  nothing  divine  is  cut  off  and  disjoined, 
but  only  extended.'  Philo's  Logos  is  not  only  form  but  force  —  God's  creative  energy — 
the  eldest-born  of  the  '  I  am,'  which  robes  itself  with  the  world  as  with  a  vesture,  the 
high  priest's  robe,  embroidered  with  all  the  forces  of  the  seen  and  unseen  worlds." 

Wendt,  Touching  of  Jesus,  1  :  53 --"Philo  carries  the  transcendence  of  God  to  its 
logical  conclusions.  The  Jewish  doctriue  of  angels  is  expanded  in  his  doctrine  of  the 
Logos.  The  Alexandrian  philosophers  afterwards  represented  Christianity  as  a  spirit- 
ualized Judaism.  But  a  philosophical  system  dominated  by  the  idea  of  the  divine  tran- 
scendence never  could  have  furnished  a  motive  for  missionary  labors  like  those  of  Paul. 
Philo's  belief  in  transcendence  abated  his  redemptive  hopes.  But,  conversely,  the 
redemptive  hopes  of  orthodox  Judaism  saved  it  from  some  of  the  errors  of  exclusive 
transcendence''  See  a  quotation  from  Siegfried,  in  Schtirer's  History  of  the  Jewish 
People,  article  on  Philo  :  "  Philo's  doctrine  grew  out  of  God's  distinction  and  distance 
from  the  world.  It  was  dualistic.  Hence  the  need  of  mediating  principles,  some 
being  less  than  God  and  more  than  creature.  The  cosmical  significance  of  Christ 
bridged  the  gulf  between  Christianity  and  contemporary  Greek  thought.  Christian- 
ity stands  for  a  God  who  is  revealed.  But  a  Logos-doctrine  like  that  of  Philo  may 
reveal  less  than  it  conceals.  Instead  of  God  incarnate  for  our  salvation,  we  may 
have  merely  a  mediating  principle  between  God  and  the  world,  as  in  Arianism." 

The  preceding  statement  is  furnished  in  substance  by  Prof.  William  Adams  Brown. 
With  it  we  agree,  adding  only  the  remark  that  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  gave  to 
Christianity,  not  the  substance  of  its  doctrine,  but  only  the  terminology  for  its  expres- 
sion. The  truth  which  Philo  groped  after,  the  Apostle  John  seized  and  published,  as 
only  he  could,  who  had  heard,  seen,  and  handled  "  the  Word  of  life  "  ( 1  John  1:1).  "  The  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  the  Logos  was  perhaps  before  anything  else  an  effort  to  express  how 
Jesus  Christ  was  God  ( Qeds ),  and  yet  in  another  sense  was  not  God  ( 6  #eo« ) ;  that  is  to 
say,  was  not  the  whole  Godhead  "  ( quoted  in  Marcus  Dods,  Expositors'  Bible,  on  John  1:1). 
See  also  Kendrick,  in  Christian  Review,  26 :  369-399 ;  Gloag,  in  Prcsb.  and  Ref.  Rev., 
1891:45-57;  Reville,  Doctrine  of  the  Logos  m  John  and  Philo;  Godet  on  John,  Germ, 
transl.,  13,  135 ;  Cudworth,  Intellectual  System,  2  :  320-333 ;  Pressense,  Life  of  Jesus 
Christ,  83 ;  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  1 :  114-117 ;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  59-71 ; 
Conant  on  Proverbs,  53. 

D.     Descriptions  of  the  Messiah. 

( a )  He  is  one  with  Jehovah ;  ( b  )  yet  he  is  in  some  sense  distinct  from 
Jehovah. 

21 


322  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

(a)  Is.  9:6  —  "  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given  ...  and  his  name  shall  bo  called  Wonderful  Counselor, 
Mighty  God,  Everlasting  father,  Prince  of  Peace  "  ;  Micah  5  : 2  —  "  thou  Bethlehem  .  .  ,  which  art  little  .  .  .  oat  of  thee 
shall  one  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ;  whose  goings  forth  are  from  of  old,  from  everlasting."  ( b  )  Ps.  45  . 
6,  7  —  "  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.  .  .  .  Therefore  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee "  ;  Mai.  3  : 1  —  "I  send  my 
messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me  :  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  will  suddenly  come  to  his  temple ;  and  the 
messenger  of  the  covenant,  whom  ye  desire."  Henderson,  in  his  Commentary  on  this  passage,  points 
out  that  the  Messiah  is  here  called  "the  Lord"  or  "the  Sovereign  "—a  title  nowhere  given  in 
this  form  ( with  the  article)  to  any  but  Jehovah ;  that  he  is  predicted  as  coming  to  the 
temple  as  its  proprietor ;  and  that  he  is  identified  with  the  angel  of  the  cc  venaut,  else- 
where shown  to  be  one  with  Jehovah  himself. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  in  considering  this,  as  "well  as  other  classes  of 
passages  previously  cited,  that  no  Jewish  "writer  before  Christ's  coming  had 
succeeded  in  constructing  from  them  a  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Only  to 
those  who  bring  to  them  the  light  of  New  Testament  revelation  do  they 
show  their  real  meaning. 

Our  general  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  intimations 
must  therefore  be  that,  while  they  do  not  by  themselves  furnish  a  sufficient 
basis  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  they  contain  the  germ  of  it,  and  may 
be  used  in  confirmation  of  it  when  its  truth  is  substantially  proved  from 
the  New  Testament. 

That  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  plainly  taught  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  Jews  unite  with  Mohammedans  in  accusing  trinitarians  of 
polytheism.  It  should  not  surprise  us  that  the  Old  Testament  teaching  on  this  subject 
is  undeveloped  and  obscure.  The  first  necessity  was  that  the  Unity  of  God  should  be 
insisted  on.  Until  the  danger  of  idolatry  was  past,  a  clear  revelation  of  the  Trinity 
might  have  been  a  hindrance  to  religious  progress.  The  child  now,  like  the  race  then, 
must  learn  the  unity  of  God  before  it  can  profitably  be  taught  the  Trinity,— else  it  will 
fall  into  tritheism  ;  see  Gardiner,  O.  T.  and  N.  T.,  49.  We  should  not  therefore  begin 
our  proof  of  the  Trinity  with  a  reference  to  passages  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  should 
speak  of  these  passages,  indeed,  as  furnishing  intimations  of  the  doctrine  rather  than 
proof  of  it.  Yet,  after  having  found  proof  of  the  doctrine  in  the  New  Testament,  we 
may  expect  to  find  traces  of  it  in  the  Old  which  will  corroborate  our  conclusions.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  we  shall  see  that  traces  of  the  idea  of  a  Trinity  are  found  not  only  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  but  in  some  of  the  heathen  religions  as  well.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "The 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  underlay  the  O.  T.,  unperceived  by  its  writers,  was  first  recog- 
nized in  the  economic  revelation  of  Christianity,  and  was  first  clearly  enunciated  in  the 
necessary  evolution  of  Christian  doctrine." 

II.  These  Three  are  so  described  in  Scripture  that  we  abb  com- 
pelled TO  CONCEIVE  OF  THEM  AS  DISTINCT  PERSONS. 

1.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  persons  distinct  from  each  other. 

(  a )  Christ  distinguishes  the  Father  from  himself  as  '  another '  ;  (  b  )  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  distinguished  as  the  begetter  and  the  begotten  ; 
(  c  )  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  distinguished  as  the  sender  and  the  sent. 

(  a  )  John  5  :  32,  37  —  "  It  is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me  .  .  .  the  Father  that  sent  me,  he  hath  borne  witness 
ofme."  (h)  Ps.  2 : 7  —  "  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  theo  "  ;  John  1 :  14  —  "  the  only  begotten  from  the 
Father";  18  —  "  the  only  begotten  Son  "  ;  3:16  —  "gave.his  only  begotten  Son."  (c)  John  10  :  36 —"say  ye  of  him, 
whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest ;  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  "  Gal.  4:4  — 
"when  the  fulness  of  the  time  came,  God  sent  forth  his  Son."  In  these  passages  the  Father  is  represented 
as  objective  to  the  Son,  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  both  the  Father  and  Son  to  the  Spirit. 

2.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  persons  distinct  from  the  Spirit. 

( J, )  Jesus  distinguishes  the  Spirit  from  himself  and  from  the  Father  ; 
(  6 )  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  ;  ( c  )  the  Spirit  is  sent  by  the 
Father  and  by  the  Son. 


SCRIPTURE   DESCRIBES  THE  THRER   AS    PEKSONS.  323 

( a  )  John  14  :  16, 17 —  "I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  bo  with  you  for 
ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  "—or  "Spirit  of  the  truth,"  =  he  whose  work  it  is  to  reveal  and  apply  the 
truth,  and  especially  to  make  manifest  him  who  is  the  truth.  Jesus  had  been  their 
Comforter:  he  now  promises  them  another  Comforter.  If  he  himself  wasa  person, 
then  the  Spirit  is  a  person.  (  h )  John  15  :  26^—  "the  Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father."  (  c  ) 
Johnl4:26 — "the  Comforter,  even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name";  15:26 — "when  the  Com- 
forter is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father  "  ;  Gal.  4:6  —  "  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our 
hearts."  The  Greek  church  holds  that  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  only;  the 
Latin  church,  that  the  Spirit  proceeds  both  from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son.  The 
true  formula  is:  The  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  through  or  by  (not  'and' )  the 
Son.  See  Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 :  262,  263.  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Per- 
sonality, 195— "The  Ft7tYi</»e  is  a  valuable  defence  of  the  truth  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
not  simply  the  abstract  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  but  rather  the  Spirit  of  the 
incarnate  Christ,  reproducing  Christ  in  human  hearts,  and  revealing  in  them  the  mean- 
ing of  true  manhood." 

3.     The  Holy  Spirit  ia  a  ■permn. 

A.  Designations  proper  to  personality  are  given  him. 

(  a )  The  masculine  pronoun  ««f ivog,  though  vvqbpa  is  neuter  ;  (  b  )  the 
name  wapdid^rog^  which  cannot  be  translated  by  'comfort',  or  be  taken  as 
the  name  of  any  abstract  influence.  The  Comforter,  Instructor,  Patron, 
Guide,  Advocate,  whom  this  term  brings  before  us,  must  be  a  person.  This 
is  evident  from  its  application  to  Christ  in  1  John  2  :  1  —  "we  have  an 
Advocate  —  Trapdn?.T/rov —  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous." 

( a  )  John  16 :  14  —  "He  (  cxe^o?  )  shall  glorify  me  "  ;  in  Eph.  1 :  14  also,  some  of  the  best  authorities, 
including  Tischendorf  (8th  ed. ),  read  bs,  the  masculine  pronoun:  "whoisan  earnestofour 
inheritance."  But  in  John  14  :  16-18, 7ropaicA>)Tos  is  followed  by  the  neuters  6  and  avro,  because 
irvevfta  had  intervened.  Grammatical  and  not  theological  considerations  controlled  the 
writer.  See  G.  B.  Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  189-317,  especially  on  the  distinction 
between  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  another  person  than  Christ,  in 
spite  of  Christ's  saying  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  "  I  come  unto  you."  (  h  )  John  16 : 7 
—  "if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you."  The  word  n-apa/cAijros,  as  appears  from  1  John 
2:1,  quoted  above,  is  a  term  of  broader  meaning  than  merely  "Comforter."  The  Holy 
Spirit  is,  indeed,  as  has  been  said,  "the  mother-principle  In  the  Godhead,"  and  "as  one 
whom  his  mother  comforteth  "  so  <J  <  >d  by  his  Spirit  comforts  his  children  ( Is.  66  :  13  ).  But  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  also  an  Advocate  of  God's  claims  in  the  soul,  and  of  the  soul's  interests  in 
prayer  ( Rom.  8 :  26  —  "  maketh  intercession  for  us  " ).  He  com  forts  not  onl  y  by  being  our  ad  vocate, 
but  by  being  our  instructor,  patron,  and  guide ;  and  all  these  ideas  are  found  attaching 
to  theword  7rapa<cA7)To?  in  good  Greek  usage.  The  word  indeed  is  a  verbal  adjective, 
signifying '  called  to  one's  aid,'  hence  a '  helper ' ;  the  idea  of  encouragement  is  included 
in  it,  as  well  as  those  of  comfort  and  of  advocacy.  See  Westcott,  Bible  Com.,  on 
John  14 :  16;  Cremer,  Lexicon  of  N.  T.  Greek,  in  voce. 

T.  Dwight,  in  S.  S.  Times,  on  John  14 :  16  —  "  The  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word 
7rapaKArjTos,  which  is  a  verbal  adjective,  is  '  called  to  one's  aid,'  and  thus,  when  used  as 
a  noun,  it  conveys  the  idea  of  '.helper.'  This  more  general  sense  probably  attaches 
to  its  use  in  John's  Gospel,  while  in  the  Epistle  ( 1  John  2 : 1, 2 )  it  conveys  the  idea  of  Jesus 
acting  as  advocate  on  our  behalf  before  God  as  a  Judge."  So  the  Latin  adcoeatus sig- 
nifies one  '  called  to  '—  i".  <■..,  called  in  to  aid,  counsel,  plead.  In  this  connection  Jesus 
says:  "I  will  not  leave  you  orphans  "  (John  14 :  18 ).  Camming,  Through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  228  — 
"  As  the  orphaned  family,  in  the  day  of  the  parent's  death,  need  some  friend  who  shall 
lighten  their  sense  of  loss  by  his  own  presence  with  them,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  '  called  in  ' 
to  supply  the  present  love  and  help  which  the  Twelve  are  losing  in  the  death  of  Jesus." 
A.  A.  Hodge,  Pop.  Lectures,  237  —  "  The  Roman  '  client,'  the  poor  and  dependent  man, 
called  in  his  '  patron  '  to  help  him  in  all  his  needs.  The  patron  thought  for,  advised, 
directed,  supported,  defended,  supplied,  restored,  comforted  his  client  in  all  his  com- 
plications. The  client,  though  weak,  with  a  powerful  patron,  was  socially  and  polit- 
ically secure  forever." 

B.  His  name  is  mentioned  in  immediate  connection  with  other  per- 
sons, and  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  his  own  personality. 


324  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OE   GOD. 

(  a  )  In  connection  with  Christians  ;  (  b  )  in  connection  with.  Christ ;  (  c ) 
in  connection  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  the  Father  anil  the  Son  are 
persons,  the  Spirit  must  be  a  person  also. 

(  a  )  Acts  15 :  28  —  "  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  us."  ( 7» )  John  16 :  14  —  "  He  shall  glorify  me :  for  he 
shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you  "  ;  cf.  17  : 4  —  "I  glorified  thee  on  the  earth."  ( c  )  Mat.  28  :  29  — "  baptiz- 
ing them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  ;  2  Cor.  13:14  —  "the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all"  ;  Jude  21  —  "praying  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God,  looking  for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  1  Pet.  1  : 1,  2  —  "  elect  .  .  . 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Yet  it  is  noticeable  in  all  these  passages  that  there  is  no  obtrusion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit's  personality,  as  if  he  desired  to  draw  attention  to  himself.  The  Holy 
Spirit  shows,  not  himself,  but  Christ.  Like  John  the  Baptist,  he  is  a  mere  voice,  and 
so  is  an  example  to  Christian  preachers,  who  are  themselves  "made  .  .  .  sufficient  as  ministers 
...  of  the  Spirit "  ( 2  Cor.  3:6).  His  leading-  is  therefore  often  unperceived  ;  he  so  joins  him- 
self to  us  that  we  infer  his  presence  only  from  the  new  and  holy  exercises  of  our  own 
minds ;  he  continues  to  work  in  us  even  when  his  presence  is  ignored  and  his  purity  is 
outraged  by  our  sins. 

C.  He  performs  acts  proper  to  personality. 

That  which  searches,  knows,  speaks,  testifies,  reveals,  convinces,  com- 
mands, strives,  moves,  helps,  guides,  creates,  recreates,  sanctifies,  inspires, 
makes  intercession,  orders  the  affairs  of  the  church,  performs  miracles, 
raises  the  dead  —  cannot  be  a  mere  power,  influence,  efflux,  or  attribute  of 
God,  but  must  be  a  person. 

Gen.  1 : 2,  marg. — "  the  Spirit  of  God  was  brooding  upon  the  face  of  the  waters  ";  6:3  — "  My  Spirit  shalt  not  strive 
with  man  for  ever  "  ;  Luke  12  :  12 —  "  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  very  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say  "  ;  John  3  : 
8  —  "  born  of  the  Spirit "  —  here  Bengel  translates  :  "  the  Spirit  breathes  where  he  wills,  and  thou  hearest  his 
voice" — see  also  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  106;  16:8 — "  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin, 
and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment "  ;  Acts  2:4  —  "the  Spirit  gave  them  uttsrance  "  ;  8  :  29  —  "the  Spirit  said 
unto  Philip,  Go  near  "  ;  10  :  19,  20  —  "the  Spirit  said  unto  him  [  Peter  ]  ,  Behold,  three  men  seek  thee  ...  go  with 
them  ...  for  I  have  sent  them  "  ;  13  :  2  —  "the  Holy  Spirit  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Sail "  ;  16  :  6,  7 — "for- 
bidden of  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  .  Spirit  of  Jesus  suffered  them  not  "  ;  Rom.  8  :  11  —  "give  life  also  to  your  mortal  bodies 
through  his  Spirit  ";  26 — "the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmity  .  .  .  maketh  intercession  for  us  "  ;  15  :  19  — 
"  in  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  ;  1  Cor,  2  :  10, 11 —  "the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things 
.  .  .  things  of  God  none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God"  ;  12  :  8-11  — distributes  spiritual  gifts  "to  each  one 
severally  even  as  he  will  "  —  here  Meyer  calls  attention  to  the  words  "as  he  will,"  as  proving  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit ;  2  Pet.  1 :  21  —  "men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  ;  1  Pet.  1  :  2 
—  "sanctification  of  the  Spirit."  How  can  a  person  be  given  in  various  measures  ?  We  answer, 
by  being  permitted  to  work  in  our  behalf  with  various  degrees  of  power.  Dorner : 
"To  be  power  does  not  belong  to  the  impersonal." 

D.  He  is  affected  as  a  person  by  the  acts  of  others. 

That  which  can  be  resisted,  grieved,  vexed,  blasphemed,  must  be  a  per- 
son ;  for  only  a  person  can  perceive  insult  and  be  offended.  The  blas- 
phemy against  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be  merely  blasphemy  against  a 
power  or  attribute  of  God,  since  in  that  case  blasphemy  against  God  would 
be  a  less  crime  than  blasphemy  against  his  power.  That  against  which 
the  unpardonable  sin  can  be  committed  must  be  a  person. 

Is.  63  :  10  —  "  they  rebelled  and  grieved  his  holy  Spirit "  ;  Mat.  12  :  31  —  "Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven 
unto  men;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall  not  be  forgiven  "  ;  Acts  5:  3,  4,  9  —  "lie  to  the  Holy 'Ghost  .  .  . 
t  bou  hast  not  lied  unto  men  but  unto  God  .  .  .  agreed  together  to  try  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  " ;  7 :  51  —  "  ye  do  always 
resist  the  Holy  Spirit";  Eph.  4:30  — "grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God."  Satan  cannot  be 'grieved.' 
Selfishness  can  be  angered,  but  only  love  can  be  grieved.  Blaspheming  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  like  blaspheming  one's  own  mother.  The  passages  just  quoted  show  the  Spirit's  pos- 
session of  an  emotional  nature.  Hence  we  read  of  "  the  love  of  the  Spirit "  ( Rom.  15  :  30  ).  The 
unutterable  sighings  of  the  Christian  in  intercessory  prayer  (Rom.  8  :  26, 27)  reveal  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  and  show  the  infinite  depths  of  feeling  which  are  awakened  in  God's 


SCRIPTURE    DESCRIBES   THE   THREE   AS    PERSONS.  325 

heart  by  the  sins  and  needs  of  men.  These  deep  desires  and  emotions  which  are  only 
partially  communicated  to  us,  and  which  only  God  can  understand,  are  conclusive 
proof  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person.  They  are  only  the  overflow  into  us  of  the 
infinite  fountain  of  divine  love  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  unites  us. 

As  Christ  in  the  garden  "began  to  be  sorrowful  and  sore  troubled  "  ( Mat.  26  :  37  ),  so  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  sorrowful  and  sore  troubled  at  the  ignoring-,  despising,  resisting  of  his  work,  on  the 
part  of  those  whom  he  is  trying  to  rescue  from  sin  and  to  lead  out  into  the  freedom 
and  joy  of  the  Christian  life.  Luthardt,  in  S.  S.  Times,  May  26, 1888  — "  Every  sin  can 
be  forgiven — even  the  sin  against  the  Son  of  man  — except  the  sin  agaiust  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  sin  against  the  Son  of  man  can  be  forgiven  because  he  cau  be  misconceived. 
For  he  did  not  appear  as  that  which  he  really  was.  Essence  and  appearance,  truth  and 
reality,  contradicted  each  other."  Hence  Jesus  could  pray :  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do  "  (  Luke  23  :  34  ).  The  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  however,  is  to  show  to  men 
the  nature  of  their  conduct,  and  to  sin  against  him  is  to  sin  against  light  and  without 
excuse.  See  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  297-313.  Salmond,  in  Expositor's  Greek 
Testament,  on  Eph.  4  :  30—"  What  love  is  in  us  points  truly,  though  tremulously,  to  what 
love  is  in  God.  But  in  us  love,  in  proportion  as  it  is  true  and  sovereign,  has  both  its 
wrath-side  and  its  yricf-skle ;  and  so  must  it  be  with  God,  however  difficult  for  us  to 
think  it  out." 

E.  He  manifests  himself  in  visible  form  as  distinct  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  yet  in  direct  connection  with  personal  acts  performed  by  them. 

Mat.  3  :  16, 17  —  "  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  from  the  water :  and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened 
unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  de.-cending  asa  dove,  and  coming  upon  him ;  and  lo,  a  voice  out  of  the  heavens,  saying, 
This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  "  ;  Luke  3  :  21,  22  —  "  Jesus  also  having  been  baptized,  and  praying,  the 
heaven  was  opened,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  in  a  bodily  form,  as  a  dove,  upon  him,  and  a  voice  came  out  of  heaven,  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son  ;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased."  Here  are  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  the  approving  voice 
of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  in  visible  form  to  anoint  the  Son  of  God 
for  his  work.    "  I  ad  Jordauem,  et  videbis  Triuitatem." 

F.  This  ascription  to  the  Spirit  of  a  personal  subsistence  distinct  from 
that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  cannot  be  explained  as  personification ; 
for  : 

(  a )  This  would  be  to  interpret  sober  prose  by  the  canons  of  poetry. 
Such  sustained  personification  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  even  Hebrew 
poetry,  in  which  Wisdom  itself  is  most  naturally  interpreted  as  designating 
a  personal  existence.  (  h  )  Such  an  interpretation  Avould  render  a  multitude 
of  passages  either  tautological,  meaningless,  or  absurd,  —  as  can  be  easily 
seen  by  substituting  for  the  name  Holy  Spirit  the  terms  which  are  wrongly 
held  to  be  its  equivalents  ;  such  as  the  power,  or  influence,  or  efflux,  or 
attribute  of  God.  (e)  It  is  contradicted,  moreover,  by  all  those  passages 
in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  his  own  gifts. 

( a )  The  Bible  is  not  primarily  a  book  of  poetry,  although  there  is  poetry  in  it.  It  is 
more  properly  a  book  of  history  and  law.  Even  if  the  methods  of  allegory  were  used 
by  the  Psalmists  and  the  Prophets,  we  should  not  expect  them  largely  to  characterize 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles;  1  Cor.  13:4  —  "  Love  suffereth  long,  and  is  kind" — is  a  rare  instance  in 
which  IJaul's  style  takes  on  the  form  of  poetry.  Yet  it  is  the  Gospels  and  Epistles 
which  most  constantly  represent  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person.  ( h )  Acts  10 :  38 —  "  God  anointed 
him  [  Jesus  ]  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power  "= anointed  him  with  power  and  with  power  ?  Rom . 
15  :  13  —  "  abound  in  hope,  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit "  =  in  the  power  of  the  power  of  God  ?  19  — "in 
the  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit "  =  in  the  power  of  the  power  of  God  ?  1  Cor. 
2  :  4  —  "demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power  "  =  demonstration  of  power  and  of  yx>wer?  (c) 
Luke  1 :  35  —  "  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee  "  ;  4 :  14  —  "  Jesus 
returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Galilee"  ;  1  Cor.  12 :  4,  8, 11  —  after  mention  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  such  as  wisdom,  knowledge,  faith,  healings,  miracles,  prophecy,  discerning  of 
spirits,  tongues,  interpretation  of  tongues,  all  these  are  traced  to  the  Spirit  who 
bestows  them  :  "  all  these  worketh  the  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  each  one  severally  even  as  he  will." 
Here  is  not  only  giving,  but  giving  discreetly,  in  the  exercise  of  an  independent  will 
such  as  belongs  only  to  a  person.  Rom.  8 :  26  —  "  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us  "  —  must 
be  interpreted,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father,  as  meaning 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  intercedes  wit  h  himself. 


326  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    "WORKS   OF    GOD. 

"  The  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  virtually  rejected  by  the  Arians,  as  it  has 
since  been  by  Schleiermacher,  and  it  has  been  positively  denied  by  the  Socinians" 
( E.  G.  Robinson ).  Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  83,  96—"  The  Twelve  represent  the  Spirit 
as  sent  by  the  Son,  who  has  been  exalted  that  he  may  send  this  new  power  out  of  the 
heavens.  Paul  represents  the  Spirit  as  bringing  to  us  the  Christ.  In  the  Spirit  Christ 
dwells  in  us.  The  Spirit  is  the  historic  Jesus  translated  into  terms  of  universal  Spirit. 
Through  the  Spirit  we  are  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  us.  The  divine  Indweller  is  to  Paul 
alternately  Christ  and  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is  the  divine  principle  incarnate  in  Jesus 
and  explaining  his  preexistence  ( 2  Cor.  3  :  17, 18 ).  Jesus  was  an  incarnation  of  the  Spirit 
of  God." 

This  seeming  identification  of  the  Spirit  with  Christ  is  to  be  explained  upon  the 
ground  that  the  divine  essence  is  common  to  both  and  permits  the  Father  to  dwell  in 
and  to  work  through  the  Son,  and  the  Son  to  dwell  in  and  to  work  through  the  Spirit. 
It  should  not  blind  us  to  the  equally  patent  Scriptural  fact  that  there  are  personal 
relations  between  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  work  done  by  the  latter  in  which 
Christ  is  the  object  and  not  the  subject ;  John  16  :  14  —  "  He  shall  glorify  mo  :  for  he  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  shall  declare  it  unto  yon."  The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  some  thing,  but  some  one;  not  avro,  but 
Autos;  Christ's  alter  eij<>,  or  other  self.  We  should  therefore  make  vivid  our  belief  in 
the  personality  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  addressing  each  of  them  frequently 
in  the  prayers  we  offer  and  in  such  hymns  as  "  Jesus,  lover  of  my  soul,"  and  "  Come, 
Holy  Spirit,  heavenly  Dove  !  "  On  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  see  John  Owen, 
in  Works,  3  :  64-92 ;  Dick,  Lectures  on  Theology,  1 :  341-350. 

III.     This    Trtpersonality  of  the  Divine  Nature  is  not  merely 

ECONOMIC  AND   TEMPORAL,    BUT   IS   IMMANENT   AND    ETERNAL. 

1.     Scripture  proof  that  these  distinctions  of  •personality  are  eternal. 

We  prove  this  ( a )  from  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  existence  of 
the  Word  from  eternity  with  the  Father  ;  (  b  )  from  passages  asserting  or 
implying  Christ's  preexistence ;  (  c )  from  passages  implying  intercourse 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ; 
( d  )  from  passages  asserting  the  creation  of  the  world  by  Christ ;  ( e )  from 
passages  asserting  or  implying  the  eternity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(  a )  John  1 : 1, 2  —  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God  "  ;  cf.  Gen. 
1:1  —  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth ' ' ;  Phil.  2:6  —  "  existing  in  the  form  of  God  ...  on  an 
equality  with  God."  ( h )  John  8  :  58  —  " before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am  "  ;  1 :  18  —  "the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father"  (  R.  V.) ;  Col.  1 :  15-17 —"  firstborn  of  all  creation"  or  "  before  every  creature  ...  he  is 
before  all  things."  In  these  passages  "am"  and  "is"  indicate  an  eternal  fact;  the  present 
tense  expresses  permanent  being.  Rev.  22:13, 14— "1  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last,  the 
beginning  and  the  end."  ( c )  John  17  :  5 — "Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  th'ne  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was "  ;  24  —  "  Thou  lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.' '  ( d )  John  1:3  —  "All 
things  were  made  through  him  "  ;  1  Cor.  8  :  6  —  "  one  lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things  "  ;  Col.  1  :  16  — 
"all  things  have  been  created  through  him  and  unto  him"  ;  Heb.  1  :  2 — "through  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds"  ; 
10 —  "Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  didst  lay  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  axe  the  works  of  thy  hands." 
( e )  Gen.  1 :2  — "  the  Spirit  of  God  was  brooding  "  —  existed  there  tore  before  creation  ;  Ps.  33 : 6  —  "  by  the 
word  of  Jehovah  were  the  heavens  made ;  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  [  Spirit  ]  of  his  mouth  "  ;  Heb.  9 :  14 
—  "through  the  eternal  Spirit."  # 

With  these  passages  before  us,  we  must  dissent  from  the  statement  of  Dr.  E.  G.  Rob- 
inson :  "  About  the  outologic  Trinity  we  know  absolutely  nothing.  The  Trinity  we  can 
contemplate  is  simply  a  revealed  one,  one  of  economic  manifestations.  We  may  suppose 
that  the  ontologic  underlies  the  economic."  Scripture  compels  us,  in  our  judgment, 
to  go  further  than  this,  and  to  maintain  that  there  are  personal  relations  between  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  independently  of  creation  and  of  time;  in  other 
words  we  maintain  that  Scripture  reveals  to  us  a  social  Trinity  and  an  intercourse  of 
love  apart  from  and  before  the  existence  of  the  universe.  Love  before  time  implies 
destinctions  of  personality  before  time.  There  are  three  eternal  consciousnesses  and 
three  eternal  wills  in  the  divine  nature.  We  here  state  only  the  fact,  —  the  explanation 
of  it,  and  its  reconciliation  with  the  fundamental  unity  of  God  is  treated  ia  our  next 
section.  We  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  two  varying  systems  which  ignore  this  tri- 
personality  are  unscriptural  and  at  the  same  time  exposed  to  philosophical  objection. 


THIS  TKI  PERSONALITY   IMMANENT  AN"D   ETERNAL.  327 

2.     Errors  refuted  by  the  foregoing  passages. 

A.    The  Sabellian. 

Sabellius  (  of  Ptolemais  in  Pentapolis,  250  )  held  that  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  are  mere  developments  or  revelations  to  creatures,  in  time, 
of  the  otherwise  concealed  Godhead  —  developments  which,  since  creatures 
will  always  exist,  are  not  transitory,  but  which  at  the  same  time  are  not 
eternal  a  parte  ante.  God  as  united  to  the  creation  is  Father ;  God  as  united 
to  Jesus  Christ  is  Sun  ;  God  as  united  to  the  church  is  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Trinity  of  Sabellius  is  therefore  an  economic  and  not  au  immanent  Trinity 
—  a  Trinity  of  forms  or  manifestations,  but  not  a  necessary  and  eternal 
Trinity  in  the  divine  nature. 

Some  have  interpreted  Sabellius  as  denying  that  the  Trinity  is  eternal  a 
parte  pout,  as  well  as  a  parte  ante,  and  as  holding  that,  when  the  purpose 
of  these  temporary  manifestations  is  accomplished,  the  Triad  is  resolved 
into  the  Monad.  This  view  easily  merges  in  another,  which  makes  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity  mere  names  for  the  ever  shifting  phases  of  the 
divine  activity. 

The  best  statement  of  the  Sabellian  doctrine,  according  to  the  interpretation  first 
mentioned,  is  that  of  Sebieiermacher,  translated  with  comments  by  Moses  Stuart,  in 
Biblical  Bepoaitory,  6  :  1-16.    The  one  unchanging  God  Is  differently  reflected  from  the 

world  on  account  of  the  world's  different  receptivities.  Praxeas  of  Rome  (300) 
Noetus  of  Smyrna  (280),  and  Beryl  of  Arabia  (~">0)  advocated  substantially  the  same 
views.  They  were  called  Mouarchiaus  (/idi-jj  <ipx>/ ),  because  tiny  believed  not  in  the 
'1'riau,  but  only  in  the  Monad.  They  were  called  Patripassians,  because  they  held  that, 
as  Christ  is  only  God  in  human  form,  and  this  GodsulTVrs,  t  hen-lore  the  Fat  Iter  suffers. 
Knight,  Coiloquia  Peripatetica,  xlii,  suggests  a  connection  between  Sabellianism  and 
Emanationism.    See  this  Compendium,  on  Theories  which  oppose  Creation. 

A  view  similar  to  that  of  Sabellius  was  held  by  Horace  Bushnell,  in  hi*  God  in  Christ, 
11:3-115,  130 *</.,  17~,-17r>,  and  Christ  in  Theology,  119,  120— "Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, 
being-  incidental  to  the  revelation  of  God,  may  be  and  probably  are  from  eternity  to 
eternity,  inasmuch  as  God  may  have  revealed  himself  from  eternity,  and  certainly  will 
reveal  himself  so  long-  as  there  are  minds  to  know  him.  It  may  be,  in  fact,  the  nature 
of  God  to  reveal  himself,  as  truly  as  it  is  of  the  sun  to  shine  or  of  living-  mind  to  think." 
He  does  not  deny  the  immanent  Trinity,  but  simply  says  we  know  nothing-  about  it. 
Yet  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  divine  essence  itself  he  called  plain  tritheism.  He  prefers 
"  instrumental  Trinity  "  to  "  modal  Trinity  "  as  a  designation  of  his  doctrine.  The  dif- 
ference between  Bushnell  on  the  one  hand,  and  Sabellius  and  Sebieiermacher  on  the 
other,  seems  then  to  lie  tin- following-:  Sabellius  and  Schleiermacher  hold  that  the  One 
becomes  three  in  the  process  of  revelation,  and  the  three  are  only  media  or  modes  of 
revelation.  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  mere  names  applied  to  these  modes  of  the  divine 
action,  there  being-  no  internal  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature.  This  is  modalism,  or  a 
modal  Trinity.  Bushnell  stands  by  the  Trinity  of  revelation  alone,  and  protests  ag-ainst 
any  constructive  reasonings  with  regard  to  the  immanent  Trinity.  Yet  in  his  later 
writings  he  reverts  to  Athanasius  and  speaks  of  God  as  eternally  "  threeing  himself  "  ; 
see  Fisher,  Edwards  on  the  Trinity,  73. 

Lyman  Abbott,  in  The  Outlook,  proposes  as  illustration  of  the  Trinity,  1.  the  artist 
working  on  his  pictures ;  2.  the  same  man  teaching  pupils  how  to  paint;  3.  the  same 
man  entertaining  his  friends  at  home.  He  has  not  taken  on  these  types  of  conduct. 
They  are  not  masks  {persona ),  nor  offices,  which  he  takes  up  and  lays  down.  There  is 
a  threefold  nature  in  him :  he  is  artist,  teacher,  friend.  God  is  complex,  and  not  simple. 
I  do  not  know  him,  till  I  know  him  in  all  these  relations.  Yet  it  is  evident  that  Dr. 
Abbott's  view  provides  no  basis  for  love  or  for  society  within  the  divine  nature.  The 
three  persons  are  but  three  successive  aspects  or  activities  of  the  one  God.  General 
Grant,  when  in  office,  was  but  one  person,  even  though  he  was  a  father,  a  President, 
and  a  commander  in  chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States. 


328  NATUEE,    DECEEES,    AND   WOEKS   OF   GOD. 

It  is  evident  that  this  theory,  in  whatever  form  it  may  be  held,  is  far 
from  satisfying  the  demands  of  Scripture.  Scripture  speaks  of  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity  as  existing  and  acting  before  the  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  existing  and  acting  before  the  formation 
of  the  church.  Both  have  a  personal  existence,  eternal  in  the  past  as  well 
as  in  the  future —  which  this  theory  expressly  denies. 

A  revelation  that  is  not  a  self -revelation  of  God  is  not  honest.  Stuart :  Since  God 
is  revealed  as  three,  he  must  be  essentially  or  immanently  three,  back  of  revelation ; 
else  the  revelation  would  not  be  true.  Dorner :  A  Trinity  of  revelation  is  a  misrepre- 
sentation, if  there  is  not  behind  it  a  Trinity  of  natu  "e.  Twesten  properly  arrives  at  the 
threeness  by  considering-,  not  so  much  what  is  involved  in  the  revelation  of  God  to  us,  as 
what  is  involved  in  the  revelation  of  God  to  himself.  The  unscripturalness  of  the  Sabel- 
lian  doctrine  is  plain,  if  we  remember  that  upon  this  view  the  Three  cannot  exist  at 
once  :  when  the  Father  says  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  "  ( Luke  3  :  22 ),  he  is  simply  speaking  to 
himself  ;  when  Christ  sends  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  only  sends  himself.  John  1:1  —  "In  the  begin- 
ning -was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  Sod  "  —  "  sets  aside  the  false  notion  that 
the  Word  become  personal  first  at  the  time  of  creation,  or  at  the  incarnation  "  (  West- 
cott,  Bib.  Com.  in  loco ). 

Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  50,  51  —  "  Sabellius  claimed  that  the  Unity  became  a  Trin- 
ny  by  expansion.  Fatherhood  began  with  the  world.  God  is  not  eternally  Father,  nor 
does  he  love  eternally.  We  have  only  an  impersonal,  unintelligible  God,  who  has 
played  upon  us  and  confused  our  understanding  by  showing  himself  to  us  under  three 
disguises.    Before  creation  there  is  no  Fatherhood,  even  in  germ." 

According  to  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Eeligion,  2 :269,  Origen  held  that  the  Godhead  might 
be  represented  by  three  concentric  circles;  the  widest,  embracing  the  whole  being,  is 
that  of  the  Father ;  the  next,  that  of  the  Son,  which  extends  to  the  rational  creation  ; 
and  the  narrowest  is  that  of  the  Spirit,  who  rules  in  the  holy  men  of  the  church.  King:, 
Eeconstruction  of  Theology,  193, 194  —  "  To  affirm  social  relations  in  the  Godhead  is  to 
assert  absolute  Tritheism.  .  .  .  Unitarianism  emphasizes  the  humanity  of  Christ,  to 
preserve  the  unity  of  God ;  the  true  view  emphasizes  the  divinity  of  Christ,  to  preserve 
the  unity." 

L.  L.  Paine,  Evolution  of  Trinitarianism,  141,  287,  says  that  New  England  Trinitarian- 
ism  is  characterized  by  three  things :  1.  Sabellian  Patripassiauism  ;  Christ  is  all  the 
Father  there  is,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  Christ's  continued  life  ;  2.  Consubstantiality,  or 
community  of  essence,  of  God  and  man ;  unlike  the  essential  difference  between  the 
created  and  the  uncreated  which  Platonic  dualism  maintained,  this  theory  turns  moral 
likeness  into  essential  likeness;  3.  Philosophical  monism,  matter  itself  being  but  an 
evolution  of  Spirit.  ...  In  the  next  form  of  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution,  the 
divineuess  of  man  becomes  a  vital  truth,  and  out  of  it  arises  a  Christology  that  removes 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  indeed  out  of  the  order  of  absolute  Deity,  but  at  the  same  time  exalts 
him  to  a  place  of  moral  eminence  that  is  secure  and  supreme." 

Against  this  danger  of  regarding  Christ  as  a  merely  economic  and  temporary  mani- 
festation of  God  we  can  guard  only  by  maintaining  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  an  imma- 
nent Trinity.  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  86,  165— "We  cannot  incur  any 
Sabellian  peril  while  we  maintain— what  is  fatal  to  Sabellianism  — that  that  which  is 
revealed  within  the  divine  Unity  is  not  only  a  distinction  of  aspects  or  of  names,  but  a 
real  reciprocity  of  mutual  relation.  One  '  aspect '  cannot  contemplate,  or  be  loved  by, 
another.  .  .  .  Sabellianism  degrades  the  persons  of  Deity  into  aspects.  But  there 
can  be  no  mutual  relation  between  aspects.  The  heat  and  the  light  of  flame  cannot 
severally  contemplate  and  be  in  love  with  one  another."  See  Bushnell's  doctrine 
reviewed  by  Hodge,  Essays  and  Reviews,  433-473.  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Dorner, 
Hist.  Doct.  Person  of  Christ,  2  :  152-169 ;  Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  1  :  259  ;  Baur,  Lehre  von 
der  Dreieinigkeit,  1 :  256-305;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk  1  :  83. 

B.     The  Arian. 

Arms  ( of  Alexandria ;  condemned  by  Council  of  Nice,  325  )  held  that 
the  Father  is  the  only  divine  being  absolutely  without  beginning  ;  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  whom  God  creates  and  recreates,  baring  been 


THIS   TRI PERSONALITY    IMMANENT    AND    ETERNAL.  339 

themselves  created  out  of  nothing  before  the  world  was  ;  and  Christ  being 
called  God,  because  he  is  next  in  rank  to  God,  and  is  endowed  by  God 
with  divine  power  to  create.  « 

The  followers  of  Arius  have  differed  as  to  the  precise  rank  and  claims  of 
Christ.  While  Socinna  held  with  Arius  that  worship  of  Christ  was  obliga- 
tory, the  later  Unitarians  have  perceived  the  impropriety  of  worshiping 
even  the  highest  of  created  beings,  and  have  constantly  tended  to  a  view  of 
the  Redeemer  which  regards  him  as  a  mere  man,  standing  in  a  peculiarly 
intimate  relation  to  God. 

For  statement  of  the  Arian  doctrine,  see  J.  Freeman  Clarke,  Orthodoxy,  Its  Truths 
and  Errors.  Pi  r  contra,  see  Schsffer,  in  Kb.  Sac.,  21 : 1,  article  on  Athanasius  and  the 
Arian  controversy.  The  so-called  Athanasian  Creed,  which  Athanasius  never  wrote, 
is  more  properly  designated  as  the  Symbolum  Qutcurnque.  It  has  also  been  called, 
though  facetiously,  'the  Anathemasian  Creed.'  \'<t  no  error  in  doctrine  can  be  more 
perilous  or  worthy  of  condemnation  than  the  error  of  Arius  (1  Cor.  16:22  —  "If  any  man 
loveth  not  the  Lord,  let  him  be  anathema  " ;  1  John  2 :  23  — "  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father  " ; 
4:3  — "every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  Jesus  is  not  of  God:  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  the  antichrist").  It  regards 
( 'hrist  as  called  God  ouly  by  courtesy,  much  as  we  give  to  a  Lieutenant  Governor  the 
title  of  Governor.  Before  the  creation  of  the  Son,  the  love  of  God,  if  there  could  be 
love,  was  expended  on  himself.  Gwatkin,  Studies  of  Arianism  :  "The  Arian  Christ  is 
nothing  but  a  heathen  idol,  invented  to  maintain  a  heathenish  Supreme  in  heathen  iso- 
lation from  the  world.  The  nearer  the  Son  is  pulled  down  towards  man  by  the  atten- 
uation of  his  Godhead,  the  more  remote  from  man  becomes  the  unshared  Godhead  of 
the  Father.  Vou  have  an  Ittre  Supreme  who  is  practically  unapproachable,  a  mere  One- 
and-all,  destitute  of  personality." 

Gore,  Incarnation,  90,  91, 110,  shows  the  immense  importance  of  the  controversy 
with  regard  to  6)j.oov<ti.ov  and  6/xoioOo-ioi'.  Carlyle  once  sneered  that  "  the  Christian  world 
was  torn  in  pieces  over  a  diphthong."  But  Carlyle  afterwards  came  to  see  that  Chris- 
tianity itself  was  at  stake,  and  that  it  would  have  dwindled  away  to  a  legend,  if  the 
Arians  had  won.  Arius  appealed  chiefly  to  logic,  not  to  Scripture.  He  claimed  that  a 
Son  must  be  younger  than  his  Father.  But  he  was  asserting  the  principle  of  heathenism 
and  idolatry,  in  demanding  worship  for  a  creature.  The  Goths  were  easily  converted 
to  Arianism.  Christ  was  to  them  a  hero-god,  a  demigod,  and  the  later  Goths  could 
worship  Christ  and  heathen  idols  impartially. 

It  is  evident  that  the  theory  of  Arius  does  not  satisfy  the  demands  of 
Scripture.  A  created  God,  a  God  whose  existence  had  a  beginning  and 
therefore  may  come  to  an  end,  a  God  made  of  a  substance  which  once  was 
not,  and  therefore  a  substance  different  from  that  of  the  Father,  is  not  God, 
but  a  finite  creature.  But  the  Scripture  speaks  of  Christ  as  being  in  the 
beginning  God,  with  God,  and  equal  with  God. 

Luther,  alluding  to  John  1:1,  says  :  "'The  Word  was  God '  is  against  Arius;  'the  Word  was  with 
God'  is  against  Sabellius."  The  Racovian  Catechism,  Quaes.  183, 184,  211,  236,  237,  245,  246, 
teaches  that  Christ  is  to  be  truly  worshiped,  and  they  are  denied  to  be  Christians  who 
refuse  to  adore  him.  Davidis  was  persecuted  and  died  in  prison  for  refusing  to  worship 
Christ ;  and  Socinus  was  charged,  though  probably  unjustly,  with  having  caused  his 
imprisonment.  Bartholemew  Legate,  an  Essexman  and  an  Arian,  was  burned  to  death 
at  Smithfield,  March  13,  1613.  King  James  I  asked  him  whether  he  did  not  pray  to 
Christ.  Legate's  answer  was  that  "indeed  he  had  prayed  to  Christ  in  the  days  of  his 
ignorance,  but  not  for  these  last  seven  years";  which  so  shocked  James  that  "he 
spurned  at  him  with  his  foot."  At  the  stake  Legate  still  refused  to  recant,  and  so  was 
burned  to  ashes  amid  a  vast  conflux  of  people.  The  very  next  month  another  Arian 
named  Whiteman  was  burned  at  Burton-on-Trent. 

It  required  courage,  even  a  generation  later,  for  John  Milton,  in  his  Christian  Doc- 
trine, to  declare  himself  a  high  Arian.  In  that  treatise  he  teaches  that  "  the  Son  of  God 
did  not  exist  from  all  eternity,  is  not  coeval  or  coessential  or  coequal  with  the  Father, 
but  came  into  existence  by  the  will  of  God  to  be  the  next  being  to  himself,  the  first-borr. 
und  best  beloved,  the  Logos  or  Word  through  whom  all  creation  should  take  its  begin- 


330         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

nings."  So  Milton  regards  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  created  being,  inferior  to  the  Son  and 
possibly  confined  to  our  heavens  and  earth.  Milton's  Arianisra,  however,  is  character- 
istic of  his  later,  rather  than  his  earlier,  writings ;  compare  the  Ode  on  Christ's  Nativit  y 
with  Paradise  Lost,  3  :  383-391 ;  and  see  Masson's  Life  of  Milton,  1 :  39  ;  6  :  823,  824 ;  A.  H. 
Strong,  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  260-2(12. 

Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  when  asked  whether  the  Father  who  had  ci-eated  could  not  also 
destroy  the  Son,  said  that  he  had  not  considered  the  question.  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson 
broke  with  his  church  and  left  the  ministry  because  he  could  not  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supjjer,  —  it  implied  a  profounder  reverence  for  Jesus  than  he  could  give  him.  He 
wrote:  "It  seemed  to  me  at  church  to-day,  that  the  Communion  Service,  as  it  is  now 
and  here  celebrated,  is  a  document  of  the  dullness  of  the  race.  How  these,  my  good 
neighbors,  the  bending  deacons,  with  their  cups  and  plates,  would  have  straightened 
themselves  to  sturdiness,  if  the  proposition  came  before  them  to  honor  thus  a  fellow- 
man";  see  Cabot's  Memoir,  314.  Yet  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  said  of  the  Unitarians  that 
"it  seemed  as  if  their  exclusive  contemplation  of  Jesus  Christ  in  his  human  character 
as  the  example  for  our  imitation  had  wrought  in  them  an  exceptional  beauty  and 
Christlikeness  of  living." 

Chadwick,  Old  and  New  Unitarian  Belief,  20,  speaks  of  Arianism  as  exalting  Christ  to 
a  degree  of  inappreciable  difference  from  God,  while  Socinus  looked  upon  him  only  as 
a  miraculously  endowed  man,  and  believed  in  an  infallible  book.  The  term  "  Uni- 
tarians," he  claims,  is  derived  from  the  "  Uniti,"  a  society  in  Transylvania,  in  support 
of  mutual  toleration  between  Calvinists,  Romanists,  and  Socinians.  The  name  stuck 
to  the  advocates  of  the  divine  Unity,  because  they  were  its  most  active  members. 
B.  W.  Lockhart:  "  Trinity  guarantees  God's  knowableness.  Arius  taught  that  Jesus 
was  neither  human  nor  divine,  but  created  in  some  grade  of  being  between  the  two, 
essentially  unknown  to  man.  An  absentee  God  made  Jesus  his  messenger,  God  himself 
not  touching  the  world  directly  at  any  point,  and  unknown  and  unknowable  to  it. 
Athanasius  on  the  contrary  asserted  that  God  did  not  send  a  messenger  in  Christ,  but 
came  himself,  so  that  to  know  Christ  is  really  to  know  God  who  is  essentially  revealed 
in  him.  This  gave  the  Church  the  doctrine  of  God  immanent,  or  Immanuel,  God  kuow- 
able  and  actually  known  by  men,  because  actually  present."  Chapman,  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Present  Age,  14  —  "  The  world  was  never  further  from  Unitarianism  than  it  is 
to-day ;  we  may  add  that  Unitarianism  wTas  never  further  from  itself."  On  the  doc- 
trines of  the  early  Socinians,  see  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  195.  On  the  whole  subject,  see 
Blunt,  Diet,  of  Heretical  Sects,  art. :  Arius;  Guericke,  Hist.  Doctrine,  1 :  313,  319.  See 
also  a  further  account  of  Arianism  in  the  chapter  of  this  Compendium  on  the  Person  of 
Christ. 

IV.  This  Tripersonamty  is  not  Tritiieism  ;  for,  while  there  are 
three  Persons,  there  is  but  one  Essence. 

(a)  The  term  'person'  only  approximately  represents  the  truth. 
Although  this  word,  more  nearly  than  any  other  single  word,  expresses 
the  conception  which  the  Scriptures  give  ns  of  tho  relation  between  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  not  itself  used  in  this  connection 
in  Scripture,  and  we  employ  it  in  a  qualified  sense,  not  in  the  ordinary 
sense  in  which  we  apply  the  word  '  person '  to  Peter,  Paid,  and  John. 

The  word  '  person  '  is  only  the  imperfect  and  inadequate  expression  of  a  fact  that 
transcends  our  experience  and  comprehension.  Bunyan  :  "  My  dark  and  cloudy  words, 
they  do  but  bold  The  truth,  as  cabinets  encase  the  gold."  Three  Gods,  limiting  each 
other,  would  deprive  each  other  of  Deity.  While  we  show  that  the  unity  is  articulated 
by  the  persons,  it  is  equally  important  to  remember  that  the  persons  arc  limited  by  the 
unity.  With  us  personality  implies  entire  separation  from  all  others  —  distinct  indi- 
viduality. But  in  the  one  God  there  can  be  no  such  separation.  The  personal  distinc- 
tions in  him  must  be  such  as  are  consistent  with  essential  unity.  This  is  the  merit  of 
the  statement  in  the  Symholum  Quicumqac  (  or  Athanasian  Creed,  wrongly  so  called) : 
"  The  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God  ;  and  yet  there  are  not  three 
Gods  but  one  God.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  is  Lcrd,  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
Lord;  yet  there  are  not  three  Lords  but  one  Lord.  For  as^sve  are  compelled  by 
Christian  truth  to  acknowledge  each  person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord,  so  we  are 
forbidden  by  the  same  truth  to  say  that  there  are  three  Gods  or  three   Lords."  See 


THE   THREE    PERSONS    HAVE   ONE   ESSENCE.  331 

Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 : 270.  We  add  that  the  personality  of  the  Godhead 
as  a  whole  is  separ.it"  ami  distinct  from  all  others,  and  in  this  respect  is  more  fully  anal- 
ogous to  man's  personality  than  is  the  personality  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son. 

The  church  of  Alexandria  in  the  segpnd  century  chanted  tog-ether:  "One  only  is 
holy,  the  Father;  One  only  is  holy,  the  Son;  One  only  is  holy,  the  Spirit."  Moberly, 
Atonement  and  Personality,  154, 167, 168  — "The  three  persons  are  neither  three  Gods, 
nor  three  parts  of  God.  Rather  are  they  God  threefoldly,  tri-personally.  .  .  .  The  per- 
sonal distinction  in  Godhead  is  a  distinction  within,  and  of,  Unity:  not  a  distinction 
which  qualifies  Unity,  or  usurps  the  place  of  it,  or  destroys  it.  It  is  not  a  relation  of 
mutual  exclusiveness,  but  of  mutual  inclusiveness.  No  one  person  is  or  can  be  with- 
out the  others.  .  .  .  The  personality  of  the  supreme  or  absolute  Being  cannot  be  with- 
out self-contained  mutuality  of  relations  such  as  Will  and  Love.  Rut  the  mutuality 
would  not  be  real,  unless  the  subject  which  becomes  object,  and  the  object  which 
becomes  subject,  were  on  each  side  alike  and  equally  Personal The  Unity  of  all- 
comprehending  inclusiveness  is  a  higher  mode  of  unity  than  the  unity  of  singular 
distinctiveness.  .  .  .  The  disciples  are  not  to  have  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  instead  of 
the  Son,  but  to  have  the  Spirit  is  to  have  the  Son.  We  mean  by  the  Personal  God  not 
a  limited  alternative  to  unlimited  abstracts,  such  as  Law,  Holiness,  Love,  but  the  tran- 
scendent and  inclusive  completeness  of  them  all.  The  terms  Father  and  Son  are  cer- 
tainly terms  which  rise  more  immediately  out  of  the  temporal  facts  of  the  incarnation 
than  out  of  the  eternal  relations  of  the  divine  Being.  They  are  metaphors,  however, 
which  mean  far  more  in  the  spiritual  than  they  do  in  the  material  sphere.  Spiritual 
hunger  is  more  intense  than  physical  hunger.  So  sin,  judgment,  grace,  are  metaphors. 
But  in  John  1 : 1-18  '  Son '  is  not  used,  but '  Word.' " 

(  b )  The  necessary  qualification  is  that,  while  three  persons  among  men 
have  only  a  specific  unity  of  nature  or  essence  —  that  is,  have  the  same 
sp<  ciesoi  nature  or  essence, —  the  persons  of  tlio  Godhead  have  a  numeri- 
cal unity  of  nature  or  essence  —  that  is,  have  the  same  nature  or  essence. 
The  undivided  essence  of  the  Godhead  belongs  equally  to  each  of  the  per- 
sons ;  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  each  possesses  all  the  substance  and 
all  the  attributes  of  Deity.  The  plurality  of  the  Godhead  is  therefore  not 
a  plurality  of  essence,  but  a  plurality  of  hypostatics!,  or  personal,  distinc- 
tions. God  is  not  three  and  one,  but  three  in  one.  The  one  indivisible 
essence  has  three  modes  of  subsistence. 

The  Trinity  is  not  simply  a  partnership,  in  which  each  member  can  sign  the  name  of 
the  firm;  for  this  is  unity  of  council  and  operation  only,  not  of  essence.  God's  nature 
is  not  an  abstract  but  an  organic  unity.  God,  as  living,  cannot  be  a  mere  Monad.  Trin- 
ity is  the  organism  of  the  Deity.  The  one  divine  Being  exists  in  three  modes.  The  life 
of  the  vine  makes  itself  known  in  the  life  of  the  branches,  and  this  union  between  vine 
and  branches  Christ  uses  to  illustrate  the  union  between  the  Father  and  himself.  ( See 
J  /hn  15 :  10  —  "  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love ;  even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  command- 
ments, and  abide  in  his  love  "  ;  cf.  verse  5  —  "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches ;  he  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him, 
the  same  beareth  much  fruit"  ;  17 :  22, 23  —  "That  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one ;  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me.") 
So,  in  the  organism  of  the  body,  the  arm  has  its  own  life,  a  different  life  from  that  of 
the  head  or  the  foot,  yet  has  this  only  by  partaking  of  the  life  of  the  whole.  See  Dorner, 
System  of  Doctrine,  1 :  450-453  —  "  The  one  divine  personality  is  so  present  in  each  of  the 
distinctions,  that  these,  which  singly  and  by  themselves  would  not  be  personal,  yet  do 
participate  in  the  one  divine  personality,  each  in  its  own  manner.  This  one  divine  per- 
sonality is  the  unity  of  the  three  modes  of  subsistence  which  participate  in  itself. 
Neither  is  personal  without  the  others.    In  each,  in  its  manner,  is  the  whole  Godhead." 

The  human  body  is  a  complex  rather  than  a  simple  organism,  a  unity  which  embraces 
an  indefinite  number  of  subsidiary  and  dependent  organisms.  The  one  life  of  the  body 
manifests  itself  in  the  life  of  the  nervous  system,  the  life  of  the  circulatory  system, 
and  the  life  of  the  digestive  system.  The  complete  destruction  of  either  one  of  these 
systems  destroys  the  other  two.  Psychology  as  well  as  physiology  reveals  to  us  the 
possibility  of  a  three-fold  life  within  the  bounds  of  a  single  being.  In  the  individual 
man  there  is  sometimes  a  double  and  even  a  triple  consciousness.  Herbert  Spencer, 
Autobiography,  1 :  459 ;  2 :  304  — "  Most  active  minds  have,  I  presume,  more  or  less  fre- 
quent experiences  of  double  consciousness  — one  consciousness  seeming  to  take  note 


332         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OP  GOD. 

of  what  the  other  is  about,  and  to  applaud  or  blame."  He  mentions  an  instance  in 
his  own  experience.  "  May  there  not  be  possible  a  bi-cerebral  thinking,  as  there  is  a 
binocular  vision  ?  .  .  .  In  these  cases  it  seetnsas  though  there  were  going  on,  quite  apart 
from  the  consciousness  which  seemed  to  constitute  myself,  some  process  of  elaborating 
coherent  thoughts  —as  though  one  part  of  myself  was  an  independent  originator  over 
whose  sayings  and  doings  I  had  no  control,  and  which  were  nevertheless  in  great 
measure  consistent;  while  the  other  part  of  myself  was  a  passive  spectator  or  listener, 
quite  unprepared  for  many  of  the  things  that  the  first  part  said,  and  which  were 
nevertheless,  though  unexpected,  not  illogical."  This  fact  that  there  can  be  more 
than  one  consciousness  in  the  same  personality  among  men  should  make  us  slow  to 
deny  that  there  can  be  three  consciousnesses  in  the  one  God. 

Humanity  at  large  is  also  an  organism,  and  this  fact  lends  new  confirmation  to  the 
Pauline  statement  of  organic  interdependence.  Modern  sociology  is  the  doctrine  of 
one  life  constituted  by  the  union  of  many.  "  Unus  homo,  nullus  homo"  is  a  principle 
of  ethics  as  well  as  of  sociology.  No  man  can  have  a  conscience  to  himself.  The  moral 
life  of  one  results  from  and  is  interpenetrated  by  the  moral  life  of  all.  All  men 
moreover  live,  move  and  have  their  being  in  God.  Within  the  bounds  of  the  one  uni- 
versal and  divine  consciousness  there  are  multitudinous  finite  consciousnesses.  Why 
then  should  it  be  thought  incredible  that  in  the  nature  of  this  one  God  there  should 
be  three  infinite  consciousnesses?  Baldwin,  Psychology,  53,  54— "The  integration  of 
finite  consciousnesses  in  an  all-embracing  divine  consciousness  may  find  a  valid  analogy 
in  the  integration  of  subordinate  consciousnesses  in  the  unit -personality  of  man.  In  the 
hypnotic  state,  multiple  consciousnesses  may  be  induced  in  the  same  nervous  organism. 
In  insanity  there  is  a  secondary  consciousness  at  war  with  that  which  normally  domi- 
nates." Sehurman,  Belief  in  God,  26, 161  —  "  The  infinite  Spirit  may  include  the  finite, 
as  the  idea  of  a  single  organism  embraces  within  a  single  life  a  plurality  of  members 
and  functions.  .  .  .  All  souls  are  parts  or  functions  of  the  eternal  life  of  God,  who  is 
above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all,  and  in  whom  we  live,  aud  move,  and  have  our 
being."  We  would  draw  the  conclusion  that,  as  in  the  body  and  soul  of  man,  both  as 
an  individual  and  as  a  race,  there  is  diversity  in  unity,  so  in  the  God  in  whose  image 
man  is  made,  there  is  diversity  in  unity,  and  a  triple  consciousness  and  will  are  con- 
sistent with,  and  even  find  their  perfection  in,  a  single  essence. 

By  the  personality  of  God  we  meau  more  than  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Son  and  the  personality  of  the  Spirit.  The  personality  of  the  Godhead 
is  distinct  and  separate  from  all  others,  and  is,  in  this  respect,  like  that  of  man.  Hence 
Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1  J94,  says  "it  is  preferable  to  speak  of  the  personality  of  the 
essence  rather  than  of  the  person  of  the  essence ;  because  the  essence  is  not  one  person, 
but  three  persons.  .  .  .  The  divine  essence  cannot  be  at  once  three  persons  and  one  per- 
son, if  '  person '  is  employed  in  one  signification ;  but  it  can  be  at  once  three  persons  and 
one  personal  Being."  While  we  speak  of  the  one  God  as  having  a  personality  in  which 
there  are  three  persons,  we  would  not  call  this  personality  a  superpersonality,  if  this 
latter  term  is  intended  to  intimate  that  God's  personality  is  less  than  the  personality 
of  man.    The  personality  of  the  Godhead  is  inclusive  rather  than  exclusive. 

With  this  qualification  we  may  assent  to  the  words  of  D'Arcy,  Idealism  and  Theology, 
93,  94,  218,  230,  236,  251  — "The  innermost  truth  of  things,  God,  must  be  conceived  as 
personal ;  but  the  ultimate  Unity,  which  is  his,  must  be  believed  to  be  superpersoual. 
It  is  a  unity  of  persons,  not  a  personal  unity.  Por  us  personality  is  the  ultimate  form 
of  unity.  It  is  not  so  in  him.  For  in  him  all  persons  live  and  move  and  have  their 
being.  .  .  .  God  is  personal  and  also  superpersonal.  In  him  there  is  a  transcendent 
unity  that  can  embrace  a  personal  multiplicity.  .  .  .  There  is  in  God  an  ultimate 
superpersonal  unity  in  which  all  persons  are  one—  [all  human  persons  and  the  three 
divine  persons].  .  .  .  Substance  is  more  real  than  quality,  and  subject  is  more  real 
than  substance.  The  most  real  of  all  is  the  concrete  totality,  the  all-inclusive  Univer- 
sal. .  .  .  What  human  love  strives  to  accomplish  — the  overcoming  of  the  opposition  of 
person  to  person —is  perfectly  attained  in  the  divine  Unity.  .  .  .  The  presupposition 
on  which  philosophy  is  driven  back  — [that  persons  have  an  underlying  ground  of 
unity]  is  identical  with  that  which  underlies  Christian  theology."  See  Pfleiderer  and 
Lotze  on  personality,  in  this  Compendium,  p.  104. 

(  c  )  This  oneness  of  essence  explains  the  fact  that,  while  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  as  respects  their  personality,  are  distinct  subsistences,  there  is 
an  intercommunion  of  persons  and  an  immanence  of  one  divine  person  in 


THE   THREE    PERSONS    HAVE   ONE    ESSENCE.  333 

another  which  permits  the  peculiar  work  of  one  to  be  ascribed,  with  a  sin- 
gle limitation,  to  either  of  the  others,  and  the  manifestation  of  one  to  be 
recognized  in  the  manifestation  oi/another.  The  limitation  is  simply  this, 
that  although  the  Son  was  sent  by  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  by  the  Father 
and  the  Sou,  it  cannot  be  said  vice  versa  that  the  Father  is  sent  either  by 
the  Son,  or  by  the  Spirit.  The  Scripture  representations  of  this  intercom- 
munion prevent  us  from  conceiving  of  the  distinctions  called  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit  as  involving  separation  between  them. 

Dorner  adds  that  "  in  one  is  each  of  the  others."  This  is  true  with  the  limitation 
mentioned  in  the  text  above.  Whatever  Christ  does,  God  the  Father  can  be  said  to  do ; 
for  God  acts  only  in  and  through  Christ  the  Revealer.  Whatever  the  Holy  Spirit  does, 
Christ  can  be  said  to  do  ;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  The  Spirit  is  the 
omnipresent  Jesus,  and  Rengel's  dictum  is  true :  "  Chi  Spiritus,  ibi  Christus."  Passages 
illustrating  this  Intercommunion  are  the  following:  Gen.  1:1  —  "God  created";  cf.  Heb.  1:2  — 
"  through  whom  [  the  Son  ]  also  he  made  the  worlds"  ;  John  5:17,  19  —  "My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I 
work.  ...  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeththe  Father  doing;  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth, 
these  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner  " ;  14  :  9  —  "  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  ;  11  —  "  i  am  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  me  "  ;  18  —  "I  will  not  leave  you  desolate :  I  nme  unto  you  "  (  by  the  Holy  Spirit ) ; 
15  :  26  —  "  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  "  ;  17 :  21 
—  "  that  they  may  all  be  ono ;  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee  "  ;  2  Cor.  5 :  19  —  "  God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling";  Titus  2: 10—  "God  our  Savior";  Hob.  12  :  23  —  "God  the  Judge  of  all"  ;  cf.  John  5 :  22  —  "  neither 
doth  the  Father  judge  any  man,  but  he  hath  given  all  judgment  unto  the  Son  " ;  Acts  17 :  31  —  "judge  the  world  in 
righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath  ordained." 

It  is  this  intercommunion,  together  with  the  order  of  personality  and  operation  /-  be 
mentioned  hereafter,  which  explains  the  occasional  use  of  the  term  'Father'  ior  tlie 
whole  Godhead  ;  as  in  Eph.  4  :  6— "one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all  and  through  all  [in  Christ], 
and  in  you  all"  [by  the  Spirit].  This  intercommunion  also  explains  the  designation  of 
Christ  as  "the  Spirit,"  and  of  the  Spirit  as  ''the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  as  in  1  Cor.  15:45 —  "the  last  Adam  became 
a  lift-giving  Spirit "  ;  2  Cor.  3:17—  "Now  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit"  ;  Gal.  4:6 —"sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  "  ;  Phil. 
1 :  19— "supply  of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ "  (see  Alford  and  Lange  on  2  Cor.  3 :17, 18 ).  So  the  Lamb, 
in  Rev.  5:6,  has  "seven  horns  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God,  sent  forth  into  all  the  earth  "=  the 
Holy  Spirit,  with  his  manifold  powers,  is  the  Spirit  of  the  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and 
omnipresent  Christ.  Theologians  have  designated  this  intercommunion  by  the  terms 
?repixiop77<ns,  oirctcmincegsio,  intercomrnunicatio,  circulatdo,  in<  ristcntia.  The  word  ovaia 
was  used  to  denote  essence,  substance,  nature,  being  ;  and  the  words  npoawirov  and 
uttoo-too-is  for  person,  distinction,  mode  of  subsistence.  On  the  changing  uses  of  the 
words  irpdcr u>uov  and  vTro'o-Tacris,  see  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2: 321,  note  2.  On  the  meaning 
of  the  word 'person' in  connection  with  the  Trinity,  see  John  Howe,  Calm  Discourse 
of  the  Trinity ;  Jonathan  Edwards,  Observations  on  the  Trinity ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
1 :  194,  267-275,  299,  300. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  Christ's  alter  rgo,  or  other  self.  WTien  Jesus  went  away,  it  was  an 
exchange  of  his  presence  for  his  omnipresence;  an  exchange  of  limited  for  unlimited 
power ;  an  exchange  of  companionship  for  indwelling.  Since  Christ  comes  to  men  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  speaks  through  the  apostles  as  authoritatively  as  if  his  own  lips 
uttered  the  words.  Each  believer,  in  having  the  Holy  Spirit,  has  the  whole  Christ  for 
his  own  ;  see  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit.  Gore,  Incarnation,  218  —  "  The  per- 
sons of  the  Holy  Trinity  are  not  separable  individuals.  Each  involves  the  others ;  the 
coming  of  each  is  the  coming  of  the  others.  Thus  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  must  have 
involved  the  coming  of  the  Son.  Rut  the  specialty  of  the  Pentecostal  gift  appears  to 
be  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  out  of  the  uplifted  and  glorified  manhood  of  the 
incarnate  Son.  The  Spirit  is  the  life-giver,  but  the  life  with  which  he  works  in  the 
church  is  the  life  of  the  Incarnate,  the  life  of  Jesus." 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  85—  "  For  centuries  upon  centuries,  the  essen- 
tial unity  of  God  had  been  burnt  and  branded  in  upon  the  consciousness  of  Israel.  It 
had  to  be  completely  established  first,  as  a  basal  element  of  thoug-ht,  indispensable, 
unalterable,  before  there  could  begin  the  disclosure  to  man  of  the  reality  of  the  eter- 
nal relations  within  the  one  indivisible  being  of  God.  And  when  the  disclosure  came, 
it  came  not  as  modifying,  but  as  further  interpreting  and  illumining,  that  unity  which 


334         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

it  absolutely  presupposed."  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  238  — "  There  is  extreme 
difficulty  in  giving  any  statement  of  a  triunity  that  shall  not  verge  upon  tritheism  on 
the  one  hand,  or  upon  mere  modalism  on  the  other.  It  was  very  natural  that  Calvin 
should  be  charged  with  Sabellianism,  and  John  Howe  with  tritheism." 

V.    The  Three  Persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  equal. 

In  explanation,  notice  that : 

1.     These  titles  belong  to  the  Persons. 

(  a  )  The  Father  is  not  God  as  such  ;  for  God  is  not  only  Father,  but 
also  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  The  term  '  Father '  designates  that  hypostat- 
ical  distinction  in  the  divine  nature  in  virtue  of  which  God  is  related  to  the 
Son,  and  through  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  to  the  church  and  the  world.  As 
author  of  the  believer's  spiritual  as  well  as  natural  life,  God  is  doubly  his 
Father  ;  but  this  relation  which  God  sustains  to  creatures  is  not  the  ground 
of  the  title.  God  is  Father  primarily  in  virtue  of  the  relation  which  he 
sustains  to  the  eternal  Son ;  only  as  we  are  spiritually  united  to  Jesus 
Christ  do  we  become  children  of  God. 

( b  )  The  Son  is  not  God  as  such ;  for  God  is  not  only  Son,  but  also 
Father  and  Holy  Spirit.  '  The  Son '  designates  that  distinction  in  virtue 
of  which  God  is  related  to  the  Father,  is  sent  by  the  Father  to  redeem  the 
woridj  and  with  the  Father  sends  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(  c )  The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  God  as  such  ;  for  God  is  not  only  Holy  Spirit, 
but  also  Father  and  Son.  '  The  Holy  Spirit '  designates  that  distinction  in 
virtue  of  which  God  is  related  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  is  sent  by 
them  to  accomplish  the  work  of  renewing  the  ungodly  and  of  sanctifying 
the  church. 

Neither  of  these  names  designates  the  Monad  as  such.  Each  designates  rather  that 
personal  distinction  which  forms  the  eternal  basis  and  ground  for  a  particular  self- 
revelation.  In  the  sense  of  being  the  Author  and  Provider  of  men's  natural  life,  God 
is  the  Father  of  all.  But  even  this  natural  sonship  is  mediated  by  Jesus  Christ ;  see 
1  Cor.  8:6  —  "one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through  him."  The  phrase  "  Oar  Father," 
however,  can  be  used  with  the  highest  truth  only  by  the  regenerate,  who  have  been 
newly  born  of  God  by  being  united  to  Christ  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
See  Gal.  3  :  26  —  "  For  ye  are  all  sons  of  God,  through  faith,  in  Jesus  Christ "  ;  4:4-6  —  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son  ...  . 
that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  .  .  .  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father  "  ;  Eph. 
1:5  —  "  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as  sons  through  Jesns  Christ."  God's  love  for  Christ  is  the  measure 
of  his  love  for  those  who  are  one  with  Christ.  Human  nature  in  Christ  is  lifted  up  into 
the  life  and  communion  of  the  eternal  Trinity.    Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  306-310. 

Human  fatherhood  is  a  reflection  of  the  divine,  not,  vice  versa,  the  divine  a  reflection 
of  the  hu  man  ;  cf.  Eph.  3  :  14, 15  —  "  the  Father,  from  whom  every  fatherhood  ( Trarpia. )  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is 
named."  Chadwick,  Unitarianism,  77-83,  makes  the  name  '  Father '  only  a  symbol  for 
the  great  Cause  of  organic  evolution,  the  Author  of  all  being.  But  we  may  reply  with 
Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  177  — "to  know  God  outside  of  the  sphere 
of  redemption  is  not  to  know  him  in  the  deeper  meaning  of  the  term  '  Father '.  It  is 
only  through  the  Son  that  we  know  the  Father:  Mat.  11 :  27 —'Neither  doth  any  know  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.'  " 

AVhiton,  Gloria  Patri,  38 — "The  Unseen  can  be  known  only  by  the  seen  which  comes 
forth  from  it.  The  all-generating  or  Paternal  Life  which  is  hidden  from  us  can  be 
known  only  by  the  generated  or  Filial  Life  in  which  it  reveals  itself.  The  goodness 
and  righteousness  which  inhabits  eternity  can  be  known  only  by  the  goodness  and 
righteousness  which  issues  from  it  in  the  successive  births  of  time.  God  above  the 
world  is  made  known  only  by  God  in  the  world.  God  transcendent,  the  Father,  is 
revealed  by  God  immanent,  the  Son."  Faber :  "  O  marvellous,  O  worshipful !  No  song 
or  sound  is  heard,  But  everywhei-e  and  every  hour,  In  love,  in  wisdom  and  in  power, 


THE   THREE   PERSON'S    ARE    EQUAL.  335 

the  Father  speaks  his  dear  eternal  Word."  We  may  interpret  this  as  meaning  that  self- 
expression  is  a  necessity  of  nature  to  an  infinite  Mind.  The  Word  is  therefore  eternal. 
Christ  is  the  mirror  from  which  are  Hashed  upon  us  the  rays  of  the  hidden  Luminary. 
So  Principal  Fairbairn  says:  "  Theolc^y  must  be  on  its  historical  side  Christocentric, 
but  on  its  doctrinal  side  Theoeentrie." 

Salmoud,  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  on  Eph.  1 : 5  —  "  By  '  adoption  '  Paul  does  not  mean 
the  bestowal  of  the  full  privileges  of  the  family  on  those  who  are  sons  by  nature,  but 
the  acceptance  into  the  family  of  those  who  are  not  sons  originally  and  by  right  in  the 
relation  proper  of  those  who  are  sons  by  birth.  Hence  uiodeo-i'a  is  never  affirmed  of 
Christ,  for  he  alone  is  Son  of  God  by  nature.  So  Paul  regards  our  sonship,  not  as  lying- 
in  the  natural  relation  in  which  men  stand  to  God  as  his  children,  but  as  implying  a 
new  relation  of  grace,  founded  on  a  covenant  relation  of  God  and  on  the  work  of  Christ 
(GaL4:5«y. )." 

2.     Qualified  sense  of  these  titles. 

Like  the  word  '  person  ',  the  names  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  not 
to  be  confined  within  the  precise  limitations  of  meaning  which  would  be 
required  if  they  were  applied  to  men. 

(a)  The  Scriptures  enlarge  our  conceptions  of  Christ's  Sonship  by 
giving  to  him  in  his  preexistent  state  the  names  of  the  Logos,  the  Image, 
and  the  Effulgence  of  God. — The  term  'Logos  '  combines  in  itself  the  two 
ideas  of  thought  and  word,  of  reason  and  expression.  While  the  Logos  as 
divine  thought  or  reason  is  one  with  God,  the  Logos  as  divine  word  or 
expression  is  distinguishable  from  God.  Words  are  the  means  by  which 
personal  beings  express  or  reveal  themselves.  Since  Jesus  Christ  was  "the 
Word  "  before  there  were  any  creatures  to  whom  revelations  coidd  be  made, 
it  would  seem  to  be  only  a  necessary  inference  from  this  title  that  in  Christ 
God  must  be  from  eternity  expressed  or  revealed  to  himself;  in  other 
words,  that  the  Logos  is  the  principle  of  truth,  or  self-consciousness,  in 
God.— The  term  'Image'  suggests  the  ideas  of  copy  or  counterpart.  Man 
is  the  image  of  God  only  relatively  and  derivatively.  Christ  is  the  Image 
of  God  absolutely  and  archetypally.  As  the  perfect  representation  of  the 
Father's  perfections,  the  Son  would  seem  to  be  the  object  and  principle  of 
love  in  the  Godhead. —  The  term  '  Effulgence,'  finally,  is  an  allusion  to  the 
sun  and  its  radiance.  As  the  effulgence  of  the  sun  manifests  the  sun's 
nature,  which  otherwise  would  be  unrevealed,  yet  is  inseparable  from 
the  sun  and  ever  one  with  it,  so  Christ  reveals  God,  but  is  eternally  one 
with  God.  Here  is  a  principle  of  movement,  of  will,  which  seems  to  con- 
nect itself  with  the  holiness,  or  self-asserting  purity,  of  the  divine  nature. 

Smyth,  Introd.  to  Edwards'  Observations  on  the  Trinity :  "  The  ontological  relations 
of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  are  not  a  mere  blank  to  human  thought."  John  1 : 1  — "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word  " —  means  more  than  "  in  the  beginning  was  the  .r,  or  the  zero."  Godet 
indeed  says  that  Logos  =  '  reason '  only  in  philosophical  writings,  but  never  in  the 
Scriptures.  He  calls  this  a  Hegelian  notion.  But  both  Plato  and  Philo  had  made  this 
signification  a  common  one.  On  Adyos  as  =  reason  +  speech,  see  Lightfoot  on  Colos- 
sians,  143, 144.  Meyer  interprets  it  as  "  personal  subsistence,  the  self-revelation  of  the 
divine  essence,  before  all  time  immanent  in  God."  Neander,  Planting  and  Training, 
369  —  Logos  =  "the  eternal  Revealer  of  the  divine  essence."  Bushnell:  "Mirror  of 
creative  imagination  "  ;  "  form  of  God." 

Word  =  l.  Expression;  2.  Definite  expression ;  3.  Ordered  expression  ;  4.  Complete 
expression.  We  make  thought  definite  by  putting  it  into  language.  So  God's  wealth 
of  ideas  is  in  the  Word  formed  into  an  ordered  Kingdom,  a  true  Cosmos;  see  Mason, 
Faith  of  the  Gospel,  76.  Max  Miiller :  "A  word  is  simply  a  spoken  thought  made  audible 
as  sound.    Take  away  from  a  word  the  sound,  and  what  is  left  is  simply  the  thought  of 


336  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

it."  Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  73,  73— "The  Greek  saw  io  the  word  the  abiding  thought 
behind  the  passing1  form.  The  Word  was  God  and  yet  finite-  finite  only  as  to  form, 
infinite  as  to  what  the  form  suggests  or  expresses.  By  Word  some  form  must  be  meant, 
and  any  form  is  finite.  The  Word  is  the  form  taken  by  the  infinite  Intelligence  which 
transcends  all  forms."  We  regard  this  identification  of  the  Word  with  the  finite  man- 
ifestation of  the  Word  as  contradicted  by  John  1 : 1,  where  the  Word  is  represented  as 
being  with  God  before  creation,  and  by  Phil.  2 : 6,  where  the  Word  is  represented  as  exist- 
ing in  the  form  of  God  before  his  self-limitation  in  human  nature.  Scripture  requires 
us  to  believe  in  an  objectification  of  God  to  himself  in  the  person  of  the  Word  prior  to 
any  finite  manifestation  of  God  to  men.  Christ  existed  as  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  before  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  before  the  world  came  into  being  ;  in 
other  words,  the  Logos  was  the  eternal  principle  of  truth  or  self -consciousness  in  the 
nature  of  God. 

Passages  representing  Christ  as  the  Image  of  God  are  Col.  1 :  15  —  "  who  is  tho  image  of  the  invis- 
ible God  "  ;  2  Cor.  4:4  —  "  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God  "  (  ei/ccov  ) ;  Heb.  1:3—  "the  very  image  of  his  substance  ' ' 
(  xapoucTTjp  r>}s  u7ro(TTa(re(os  avTov ) ;  here  xapa/cr>}p  means  '  impress,'  '  counterpart.'  Christ  is 
the  perfect  image  of  God,  as  men  are  not.  He  therefore  has  consciousness  and  will. 
He  possesses  all  the  attributes  and  powers  of  God.  The  word  '  Image '  suggests  the  per- 
fect equality  with  God  which  the  title  '  Son '  might  at  first  seem  to  deny.  The  living 
Image  of  God  which  is  equal  to  himself  and  is  the  object  of  his  infinite  love  can  be 
nothing  less  than  personal.  As  the  bachelor  can  never  satisfy  his  longing  for  compan- 
ionship by  lining  his  room  with  mirrors  which  furnish  only  a  lifeless  reflection  of  him- 
self, so  God  requires  for  his  love  a  personal  as  well  as  an  infinite  object.  The  Image  is 
not  precisely  the  repetition  of  the  original.  The  stamp  from  the  seal  is  not  precisely 
the  reproduction  of  the  seal.  The  letters  on  the  seal  run  backwards  and  can  be  easily 
read  only  when  the  impression  is  before  us.  So  Christ  is  the  only  interpretation  and 
revelation  of  the  hidden  Godhead.  As  only  in  love  do  we  come  to  know  the  depths 
of  our  own  being,  so  it  is  only  in  the  Son  that  "  God  is  love "  ( 1  John  4:8). 

Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the  Effulgence  of  God  in  Heb.  1:3  —  "  who  being  the  effulgence  of  his  glory  " 
( d7raii-ya<7p.a  rrjs  Sof  rj?  )  ;  cf.  2  Cor.  4:6  —  "  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  Notice  that  the  radiance  of  the  sun  is  as  old  as  the  sun 
itself,  and  without  it  the  sun  would  not  be  sun.  So  Christ  is  coequal  and  coe'terual 
with  the  Father.  Ps.  84 :  11  —  "  Jehovah  God  is  a  sun."  But  we  cannot  see  the  sun  except  by 
the  sunlight.  Christ  is  the  sunlight  which  streams  forth  from  the  Sun  and  which  makes 
the  Sun  visible.  If  there  be  an  eternal  Sun,  there  must  be  also  an  eternal  Sunlight, 
and  Christ  must  be  eternal.  Westcott  on  Hebrews  1 : 3  — "  The  use  of  the  absolute  timeless 
term  wv, 'being',  guards  against  the  thought  that  the  Lord's  sonship  was  by  adoption, 
and  not  by  nature,  anavyaa^a  does  not  express  personality,  and  xaPaKTVP  does  not 
express  coessentiality.  The  two  words  are  related  exactly  as  ojaoouo-io?  and  |uo>*oye><7js, 
and  like  those  must  be  combined  to  give  the  fulness  of  the  truth.  The  truth  expressed 
thus  antithetically  holds  good  absolutely.  ...  In  Christ  the  essence  of  God  is  made  dis- 
tinct ;  in  Christ  the  revelation  of  God's  character  is  seen."  On  Edwards's  view  of  the 
Trinity,  together  with  his  quotations  from  Ramsey's  Philosophical  Principles,  from 
which  he  seems  to  have  derived  important  suggestions,  see  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards, 
338-376 ;  G.  P.  Fisher,  Edwards's  Essay  on  the  Trinity,  110-116. 

(  b  )  The  names  thus  given  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  if  they 
have  any  significance,  bring  him  before  our  minds  in  the  general  aspect 
of  Eevealer,  and  suggest  a  relation  of  the  doctrine  of  t!ie  Trinity  to  God's 
immanent  attributes  of  truth,  love,  and  holiness.  The  prepositions  used  to 
describe  the  internal  relations  of  the  second  person  to  the  first  are  not  pre- 
positions of  rest,  but  prepositions  of  direction  and  movement.  The  Trinity, 
as  the  organism  of  Deity,  secures  a  life-movement  of  the  Godhead,  a  pro- 
cess in  which  God  evermore  objectifies  himself  and  in  the  Son  gives  forth 
of  his  fulness.  Christ  represents  the  centrifugal  action  of  the  deity.  But 
there  must  be  centripetal  action  also.  In  the  Holy  Spirit  the  movement  is 
completed,  and  the  divine  activity  and  thought  returns  into  itself.  True 
religion,  in  reuniting  us  to  God,  reproduces  in  us,  in  our  limited  measure, 
this  eternal  process  of  the  divine  mind.  Christian  experience  witnesses  that 


THE   THREE    PERSONS   ARE    EQUAL.  337 

God  in  himself  is  unknown ;  Christ  is  the  organ  of  external  revelation  ;  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  organ  of  internal  revelation  —  only  he  can  give  us  an 
inward  apprehension  or  realization,  of  the  truth.  It  is  "  through  the  eter- 
nal Spirit "  that  Christ  " offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God,"  and 
it  is  only  through  the  Holy  Spirit  that  the  church  has  access  to  the  Father, 
or  fallen  creatures  can  return  to  G<  >d. 

Hero  we  see  that  God  is  Life,  self-sufficient  Life,  infinite  Life,  of  which  the  life  of  the 
universe  is  but  a  faint  reflection,  a  rill  from  the  fountain,  a  drop  from  the  ocean. 
Since  Christ  is  the  only  Revealer,  the  only  outgoing-  principle  in  the  Godhead,  it  is  he 
in  whom  the  whole  creation  comes  to  be  and  holds  tog-ether.  He  is  the  Life  of  nature  : 
all  natural  beauty  and  grandeur,  all  forces  molecular  and  molar,  all  laws  of  gravitation 
and  evolution,  are  the  work  ami  manifestation  of  the  omnipresent  Christ.  He  is  the  Life 
of  humanity :  the  intellectual  and  moral  impulses  of  man,  so  far  as  they  are  normal 
and  uplifting,  are  due  to  Christ;  he  is  the  principle  of  progress  and  improvement  in 
history.  He  is  the  Life  of  the  church  :  the  one  ami  only  Redeemer  and  spiritual  Head 
of  the  race  is  also  its  Teacher  and  Lord. 

All  objective  revelation  of  God  is  the  work  of  Christ.  Hut  all  subjective  manifesta- 
tion of  God  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .\s  Christ  is  the  principle  of  outgoing,  so 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  principle  of  return  to  Cod.  God  would  take  up  finite  crea- 
tures into  himself,  would  breath  into  them  his  breath,  would  teach  them  to  launch 
their  little  boats  upon  the  infinite  current  of  his  life.  <  >ur  electric  cars  oan  go  up  hill 
at  great  speed  so  long  as  they  grip  the  cable.  Faith  is  tin-  grip  which  connects  us  with 
the  moving  energy  of  God.  "The  universe  is  homeward  bound,"  because  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  ever  turning  objective  revelation  into  subjective  revelation,  and  is  leading 
men  consciously  or  unconsciously  to  appropriate  the  thought  and  love  and  purpose  of 
Him  in  whom  all  things  find  their  object  and  end;  "  for  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  unto  him,  are 
all  things"  (Rom.  11:36  ),— here  there  is  allusion  to  the  Father  as  the  source,  the  Son  as  the 
medium,  and  the  Spirit  as  the  perfecting  and  completing  agent,  in  God's  operations. 
Hut  all  these  external  processes  are  only  signs  and  finite  reflections  of  a  life-process 
internal  to  the  nature  of  God. 

Meyer  on  Johnl  :1  —  "the  Word  was  with  God":  "irp'o<;  rbv  dede  does  not  =  rapi  tu  W,  but 
expresses  the  existence  of  the  Logos  in  God  in  respect  of  intercourse.  The  moral 
essence  of  this  essential  fellowship  is  love,  which  excludes  any  merely  modalistic  con- 
ception." Marcus  Dods,  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  in  loco:  "This  preposition 
implies  intercourse  and  therefore  separate  personality.'' 

Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  iS'i  — "  And  the  Word  was  toward  God  "=  his  face  is  not  outwards, 
as  if  he  were  merely  revealing,  or  waiting  to  reveal,  God  to  the  creation.  His  face  is 
turned  inwards.  His  whole  Person  is  directed  toward  God,  motion  corresponding  to 
motion,  thought  to  thought.  ...  In  him  God  stands  revealed  to  himself.  Contrast 
the  attitude  of  fallen  Adam,  with  his  face  averted  from  God.    Godet,  on  John  1:1  — 

"  ilpbs  tok  #eoe  intimates  not  only  personality  but  movement The  tendency  of  the 

Logos  ad  exl ra  rests  upon  an  anterior  and  essential  relation  ad  intra.  To  reveal  God, 
one  must  know  him ;  to  project  him  outwardly,  one  must  have  pluuged  into  his 
bosom."  Compare  John  1:18  —  "the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father"  (R.Y.)  where 
we  find,  not  iv  rw  KdAn-w,  but  eis  toi*  koXtiov.  As  r\v  «is  rifv  irokiv  means  '  went  into  the  city 
and  was  there,' so  the  use  of  these  prepositions  indicates  in  the  Godhead  movement 
as  well  as  rest.  Horner,  System  of  Doctrine,  3: 193,  translates  n-pos  by  '  hingewandt  zu,' 
or  '  turned  toward.'  The  preposition  would  then  imply  that  the  Revealer,  who  existed 
in  the  beginning,  was  ever  over  against  God,  in  the  life-process  of  the  Trinity,  as  the 
perfect  objectiiieation  of  himself.  "Das  Aussichselbstseiu  kraft  des  Durchsichselbstseiu 
mit  dem  Fursichselbstsein  zusammenschliesst."  Dorner  speaks  of  "das  Aussensichc  ider- 
ineinemandernsein ;  Sichgeltendmachen  des  Ausgeschlossenen ;  Sichnichtsogesetzt- 
haben ;  Stehenbleibenwollen." 

There  is  in  all  human  intelligence  a  threefoldness  which  points  toward  a  trinitarian 
life  in  God.  We  can  distinguish  a  Wissen,  a  Bewusstsein,  a  Stihxtl>>  wusstsein.  In  com- 
plete self -consciousness  there  are  the  three  elements :  1.  We  are  ourselves ;  2.  We 
form  a  picture  of  ourselves ;  3.  We  recognize  this  picture  as  the  picture  of  ourselves. 
The  little  child  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person:  "Baby  did  it."  The  objective 
comes  before  the  subject ;  "me  "  comes  first,  and  "  I "  is  a  later  development ;  "  him- 
self "  still  holds  its  place,  rather  than  "  heself."  But  this  duality  belongs  only  to  unde- 
veloped intelligence ;  it  is  characteristic  of  the  animal  creation ;  we  revert  to  it  in  our 

22 


338  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

dreams;  the  insane  are  permanent  victims  of  it;  and  since  sin  is  moral  insanity,  the 
sinner  has  no  hope  until,  like  the  prodigal,  he  "comes  to  himself"  ( Luke  15 :  17 ).  The  insane 
person  is  mcnte  alienatm,  and  we  call  physicians  for  the  insane  by  the  name  of  alienists. 
Mere  duality  gives  us  only  the  notion  of  separation.  Perfect  self -consciousness  whether 
in  man  or  in  God  requires  a  third  unifying-  element.  And  in  God  mediation  between 
the  "I"  and  the  "Thou  "  must  be  the  work  of  a  Person  also,  and  the  Person  who  medi- 
ates between  the  two  must  be  in  all  respects  the  equal  of  either,  or  he  could  not  ade- 
quately interpret  the  one  to  the  other  ;  see  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  57-59. 

Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  179-189,  270-283  — "  It  is  one  of  the  effects  of  conviction  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  convert  consciousness  into  self-consciousness.  .  .  .  Conviction  of  sin  is 
the  consciousness  of  self  as  the  guilty  author  of  sin.  Self-consciousness  is  trinal,  while 
mere  consciousness  is  dual.  .  . .  One  and  the  same  human  spirit  subsists  in  two  modes  or 
distinctions  —  subject  and  object.  .  . .  The  three  hypostatical  consciousnesses  in  their 
combination  and  unity  constitute  the  one  consciousness  of  God . . .  .as  the  three  persons 
make  one  essence." 

Dorner  considers  the  internal  relations  of  the  Trinity  (  System,  1 :  412  sq.)  in  three 
aspects  :  1.  Physical.  God  is  cavxa  sui.  But  effect  that  equals  cause  must  itself  be 
causative.  Here  would  he  duality,  were  it  not  for  a  third  principle  of  unity.  Trinitas 
dualitatem  ad  unitatem  reducit.  2.  Logical.  Self-consciousness  sets  self  over  against 
self.  Yet  the  thinker  must  not  regard  self  as  one  of  many,  and  call  himself  'he,'  as 
children  do;  for  the  thinker  would  then  be,  not  self-conscious,  but  mentc  dlienatus, 
'  beside  himself.'  He  therefore  '  comes  to  himself '  in  a  third,  as  the  brute  cannot. 
3.  Ethical.  God  =  self-willing  right.  But  right  based  on  arbitrary  will  is  not  right. 
Right  based  on  passive  nature  is  not  right  either.  Right  as  being=±  Father.  Right  as 
willing  =  Son.  Without  the  latter  principle  of  freedom,  we  have  a  dead  ethic,  a  dead 
God,  an  enthroned  necessity.  The  unity  of  necessity  and  freedom  is  found  by  God,  as 
by  the  Christian,  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father=I;  the  Son  =  Me;  the  Spirit  the 
unity  of  the  two ;  see  C.  C.  Everett,  Essays,  Theological  and  Literary,  32.  There  must 
be  not  only  Sun  and  Sunlight,  but  an  Eye  to  behold  the  Light.  William  James,  in  his 
Psychology,  distinguishes  the  Me,  the  self  as  known,  from  the  7,  the  self  as  knower. 

But  we  need  still  further  to  distinguish  a  third  principle,  a  subject-object,  from 
both  subject  and  object.  The  subject  cannot  recognize  the  object  as  one  with  itself 
except  through  a  unifying  principle  which  can  be  distinguished  from  both.  We  may 
therefore  regard  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  principle  of  self-consciousness  in  man  as  well 
as  in  God.  As  there  was  a  natural  union  of  Christ  with  humanity  prior  to  his  redeeming 
work,  so  there  is  a  natural  union  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  all  men  prior  to  his  regenerat- 
ing work  :  Job  32: 18 —  "there  is  a  spirit  in  man,  And  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding." 
Kuyper,  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  constitutes  the  principle 
of  life  in  all  living  things,  and  animates  all  rational  beings,  as  well  as  regenerates  and 
sanctifies  the  elect  of  God.  Matheson,  Voices  of  the  Spirit,  75,  remarks  ou  Job  34  :  14, 15 
—  "  If  he  gather  unto  himself  his  Spirit  and  his  breath ;  all  flesh  shall  perish  together  "  —  that  the  Spirit  is  not 
only  necessary  to  man's  salvation,  but  also  to  keep  up  even  man's  natural  life. 

Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 :  172,  speaks  of  the  Son  as  the  centrifugal,  while  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  centripetal  movement  of  the  Godhead.  God  apart  from  Christ  is  unrevealed 
(John  1 :  18 — "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time"  J;  Christ  is  the  organ  of  external  revelation  (18  — 
"the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him");  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
organ  of  internal  revelation  ( 1  Cor.  2 :  10 —  "unto  us  Christ  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit"  ) .  That 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  principle  of  all  movement  towards  God  appears  from  Heb.  9:14  — 
Christ  "  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God  "  ;  Eph.  2  :  28 —  "  access  in  one  Spirit 
unto  the  Father  "  ;  Rom.  8: 26 —  "the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmity ....  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for 
us";  John  4:24— "God  is  a  Spirit:  and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  inspirit"  ;  16:8-11 — "  convict  the  world 
in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  See  Twesten,  Dogmatik,  on  the  Trinity  ;  also 
Thomasius,  Christ!  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  111.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  68  — "It  is 
the  joy  of  the  Son  to  receive,  his  gladness  to  welcome  most  those  wishes  of  the  Father 
which  will  cost  most  to  himself.  The  Spirit  also  has  his  joy  in  making  known,  —  in 
perfecting  fellowship  and  keeping  the  eternal  love  alive  by  that  incessant  sounding  of 
the  deeps  which  makes  the  heart  of  the  Father  known  to  the  Son,  and  the  heart  of  the 
Son  known  to  the  Father."  We  may  add  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  organ  of  internal 
revelation  even  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son. 

(  c )  In  the  liglit  of  what  has  been  said,  we  may  understand  somewhat 
more  fully  the  characteristic  differences  between  the  work  of  Christ  and 
that  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     We  may  sum  them  up  in  the  four  statements  that, 


THE  THREE  PERSONS  ARE  EQUAL.  339 

first,  all  outgoing  seems  to  be  the  work  of  Christ,  all  return  to  God  the 
work  of  the  Spirit;  secondly,  Christ  is  the  organ  of  external  revelation, 
the  Holy  Spirit  the  organ  of  internal  revelation  ;  thirdly,  Christ  is  our 
advocate  in  heaven,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  our  advocate  in  the  soul ;  fourthly,  in 
the  work  of  Christ  we  are  passive,  in  the  work  of  the  Spirit  we  are  active. 
Of  the  work  of  Christ  we  shall  treat  more  fully  hereafter,  in  speaking  of 
his  Offices  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  be  treated  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  Application  of  Redemption  in 
Regeneration  and  Sanctification.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  author  of  life  —  in  creation, 
in  the  conception  of  Christ,  in  regeneration,  in  resurrection  ;  and  as  the 
giver  of  light  — in  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  writers,  iu  the  conviction  of 
sinners,  in  the  illumination  and  sanctification  of  Christians. 

Gen.  1:2  — "The  Spirit  of  God  was  brooding"  ;  Luko  1 :  35  —  t « >  Mary:  "The  Holy  Spirit  shall  conio  upon  thee"  , 
John  3  : 8  — "born  of  the  Spirit";  Ez.  37:9,  H  — "Come  from  the  four  winds,  0  breath  .  .  .  .  I  will  put  my  Spirit  in 
you,  and  ye  shall  live"  ;  Rom.  8:11  —"give  life  also  to  your  mortal  bodies  through  his  Spirit."  Uohn2:l — "an  advo- 
cate (  napoiK\T)Tov )  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous";  John  14:16, 17 — "another  Comforter  ( n-apaKArjToi' ), 
that  he  may  be  with  you  for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  "  ;  Rom.  8  :  26  —  "  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for 
us."  2  Pet.  1 :  21  — "men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit " ;  John  16:8  — "  convict  the  world  in  respect 
of  sin"  ;  13 — "when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth  "  ;  Rom.  8  :  14  — "as  many  as 
are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God." 

MeCosh :  The  works  of  the  Spirit  are  Conviction,  Conversion,  Sanctification,  Com- 
fort. Donovan:  The  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  conviction,  enlightenment,  quickening,  in 
the  sinner ;  and  of  revelation,  remembrance,  witness,  sanctification,  consolation,  to 
the  saint.  The  Spirit  enlightens  the  sinner,  as  the  flash  of  lightning  lights  the  traveler 
stumbling  on  the  edge  of  a  precipice  at  night ;  enlightens  the  Christian,  as  the  rising 
sun  reveals  a  landscape  which  was  all  there  before,  but  which  was  hidden  from  sight 
until  the  great  luminary  made  it  visible.  "  The  morning  light  did  not  create  The  lovely 
prospect  it  revealed ;  It  only  showed  the  real  state  Of  what  the  darkness  had  concealed." 
Christ's  advocacy  before  the  throne  is  like  that  of  legal  counsel  pleading  in  our  stead  ; 
the  Holy  Spirit's  advocacy  in  the  heart  is  like  the  mother  s  teaching  her  child  to  pray 
for  himself. 

J.  W.  A.  Stewart :  "  Without  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  redemption  would  have 
been  impossible,  as  impossible  as  that  fuel  should  warm  without  being  lighted,  or  that 
bread  should  nourish  without  being  eaten.  Christ  is  God  entering  into  human  history, 
but  without  the  Spirit  Christianity  would  be  only  history.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  God 
entering  into  human  hearts.  The  Holy  Spirit  turns  creed  into  life.  Christ  is  the  physi- 
cian who  leaves  the  remedy  and  then  departs.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  nurse  who 
applies  and  administers  the  remedy,  and  who  remains  with  the  patient  until  the  cure 
is  completed."  Matheson,  Voices  of  the  Spirit,  78  —  "  It  is  in  vain  that  the  mirror  exists 
in  the  room,  if  it  is  lying  on  its  face;  the  sunbeams  cannot  reach  it  till  its  face  is 
upturned  to  them.  Heaven  lies  about  thee  not  only  in  thine  infancy  but  at  all  times, 
nut  it  is  not  enough  that  a  place  is  prepared  for  thee ;  thou  must  be  prepared  for  the 
place.  It  is  not  enough  that  thy  light  has  come ;  thou  thyself  must  arise  and  shine. 
No  outward  shining  can  reveal,  unless  thou  art  thyself  a  reflector  of  its  glorj-.  The 
Spirit  must  set  thee  on  thy  feet,  that  thou  mayest  hear  him  that  speaks  to  thee 
(Ez.  2:2)." 

The  Holy  Spirit  reveals  not  himself  but  Christ.  John  16 :  14  —  "He  shall  glorify  me:  for  he  shall 
take  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you."  So  should  the  servants  of  the  Spirit  hide  themselves 
while  they  make  known  Christ.  E.  H.  Johnson,  The  Holy  Spirit,  40—  "  Some  years  ago 
a  large  steam  engine  all  of  glass  was  exhibited  about  the  country.  When  it  was  at 
work  one  would  see  the  piston  and  the  valves  go  ;  but  no  one  could  see  what  mad( 
them  go.  When  steam  is  hot  enough  to  be  a  continuous  elastic  vapor,  it  is  invisible." 
So  we  perceive  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  by  visions  or  voices,  but  by  the 
effect  he  produces  within  us  in  the  shape  of  new  knowledge,  new  love,  and  new  energy 
of  our  own  powers.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  161  —  "  No  man  can  bear  witness  to 
Christ  and  to  himself  at  the  same  time.  Esprit  is  fatal  to  unction;  no  man  can  give 
the  impression  that  he  himself  is  clever  and  also  that  Christ  is  mighty  to  save.    The 


340  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  felt  only  when  the  witness  is  unconscious  of  self,  and  when 
others  remain  unconscious  of  him."  Moule,  Veni  Creator,  8  —  "The  Holy  Spirit,  as 
Tertullian  says,  is  the  vicar  of  Christ.  The  night  before  the  Cross,  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
present  to  the  mind  of  Christ  as  a  person." 

Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  318 —  "  It  was  a  point  in  the  charge  against  Origen  that  his  lan- 
guage seemed  to  involve  an  exclusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  nature,  and  a  limitation 
of  his  activity  to  the  church.  The  whole  of  life  is  certainly  his.  And  yet,  because  his 
special  attribute  is  holiness,  it  is  in  rational  natures,  which  alone  are  capable  of  holi- 
ness, that  he  exerts  his  special  influence.  A  special  inbreathing  of  the  divine  Spirit 
gave  to  man  his  proper  being."  See  Gen.  2:  7 —  "Jehovah  God  .  .  .  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life ;  and  man  become  a  living  soul"  ;  John  3  : 8  — "The  Spirit  breatheth  wheie  it  will  ...  so  is  every  one  that  is 
born  of  the  Spirit."  E.  H.  Johnson,  on  The  Offices  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1892: 
301-382  — "Why  is  he  specially  called  the  Holy,  when  Father  and  Son  are  also  holy, 
unless  because  he  produces  holiness,  I.  c,  makes  the  holiness  of  God  to  be  ours  individ- 
ually ?  Christ  is  the  principle  of  collectivism,  the  Holy  Spirit  the  principle  of  individ- 
ualism. The  Holy  Spirit  shows  man  the  Christ  in  him.  God  above  all=  Father  ;  God 
through  all  =  Son ;  God  in  all  =  Holy  Spirit  (  Eph.  4:6)." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  never  yet  been  scientifically  unfolded.  No  treatise 
on  it  has  appeared  comparable  to  Julius  Miiller's Doctrine  of  Sin,  or  to  I.  A.  Dorner's 
History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  progress  of  doctrine  in  the  past 
has  been  marked  by  successive  stages.  Athanasius  treated  of  the  Trinity ;  Augustine 
of  sin;  Anselm  of  the  atonement;  Luther  of  justification;  Wesley  of  regeneration; 
and  each  of  these  utifolilings  of  doctrine  has  been  accompanied  by  religious  awaken- 
ing. We  still  wait  for  a  complete  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
believe  that  widespread  revivals  will  follow  the  recognition  of  the  omnipotent  Agent 
in  revivals.  On  the  relations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Christ,  see  Owen,  in  Works,  3 :  152- 
159;  on  the  Holy  Spirit's  nature  and  work,  see  works  by  Faber,  Smeaton,  Tophel,  G. 
Campbell  Morgan,  J.  D.  Robertson,  Biedcrwolf ;  also  C.  E.  Smith,  The  Baptism  of  Fire; 
J.  D.  Thompson,  The  Holy  Comforter ;  Bushnell,  Forgiveness  and  Law,  last  chapter ; 
Bp.  Andrews,  Works,  3: 107-400;  James  S.  Candlish,  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  Redford, 
Vox  Dei;  Andrew  Murray,  The  Spirit  of  Christ ;  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit ; 
Kuyper,  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  J.  E.  Cumming,  Through  the  Eternal  Spirit ;  Lech- 
ler,  Letwe  vom  Heiligen  Geiste ;  Arthur,  Tongue  of  Fire  ;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and 
Religion,  250-258,  and  Christ  in  Creation,  297-313. 

3.     Generation  and  procession  consistent  xuith  equality. 

That  the  Sonship  of  Christ  is  eternal,  is  intimated  in  Psalm  2:7.  "  This 
day  have  I  begotten  thee  "  is  most  naturally  interpreted  as  the  declar- 
ation of  an  eternal  fact  in  the  divine  nature.  Neither  the  incarnation,  the 
baptism,  the  transfiguration,  nor  the  resurrection  marks  the  beginning  of 
Christ's  Sonship,  or  constitutes  him  Son  of  God.  These  are  but  recogni- 
tions or  manifestations  of  a  preexisting  Sonship,  inseparable  from  his  God- 
hood.  He  is  "born  before  every  creature"  (while  yet  no  created  thing 
existed  —  see  Meyer  on  Col.  1  :  15)  and  "by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead" 
is  not  made  to  be,  but  only  '■'■declared  to  be,"  "  according  to  the  Spirit  of 
holiness"  (=  according  to  his  divine  nature)  "the  Son  of  God  with 
power"  (see  Philippi  and  Alford  on  Rom.  1:3,  4).  This  Sonship  is  unique 
—  not  predicable  of,  or  shared  with,  any  creature.  The  Scriptures  inti- 
mate, not  only  an  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  but  an  eternal  procession 
of  the  Spirit. 

Psalm  2:7  —  "I  will  tell  of  the  decree  :  Jehovah  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  This  day  I  have  begotten  thee  " ; 
see  Alexander,  Com.  in  loco ;  also  Com.  on  Actsl3 :33 —  "  'To-day  '  refers  to  the  date  of  the 
decree  itself ;  but  this,  as  a  divine  act,  was  eternal, —  and  so  must  be  the  Sonship  which 
it  affirms."  Philo  says  that  "  to-day  "  with  God  means  "  forever."  This  begetting  of 
which  the  Psalm  speaks  is  not  the  resurrection,  for  while  Paul  in  Acts  13 :  33  refers  to  this 
Psalm  to  establish  the  fact  of  Jesus'  Sonship,  he  refers  in  Acts  13  :  34,  35  to  another  Psalm, 
the  sixteenth,  to  establish  the  fact  that  this  Son  of  God  was  to  rise  from  the  dead.  Christ 
is  shown  to  be  Son  of  God  by  his  incarnation  ( Heb.  1 : 5, 6  —  "  when  he  again  bringeth  iu  the  firstborn 


THE  THREE  PERSONS  ARE  EQUAL.  341 

into  the  world  he  sailk.  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  "  ),  his  baptism  (  Mat.  3  :  17  —  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Son"  ),  his  transfiguration  I  Mat.  17:5  —  •' This  is  my  Moved  Son  "  ),  his  resurrection  (  Acts  13  :34,  35  — 
"  as  concerning  that  he  ra'sed  him  up  from  the  dead  ...  he  saith  also  in  another  psalm,  Thou  wilt  not  give  thy  Holy  One 
to  see  corruption  "  ).  Col.  1 :  15  —  "  the  firstborn  of  al^,  creation  "  —  7tpcototokos  irao-ijs  xTt'o-eus  =  "  begotten 
first  before  all  creation  "  ( Julius  Miiller,  Proof-texts,  14 ) ;  or  "  first-born  before  every 
creature,  i.  c,  begotten,  and  that  antecedently  to  everything  that  was  created"  ( Elli- 
cott,  Com.  in  loco).  "Herein"  (says  Luthardt,  Compend.  Dogmatik,  81,  onCoLl.-15)  "  is 
indicated  an  antemundane  origin  from  God— a  relation  internal  to  the  divine  nature." 
Lightfoot,  on  Col.  1:15,  says  that  in  Rabbi  Bechai  God  is  called  the  "  primogenitus  mundi." 

On  Rom.l:4  ( 6pnr«)eVTo?  =  "manifested  to  be  the  mighty  Son  of  God")  see  Lange's 
Com.,  notes  by  Schaff  on  pages  56  and  61.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  404  —  "  The  resurrection 
was  the  actual  introduction  of  Christ  into  the  full  possession  of  divine  Sonshipso  far  as 
thereto  belonged,  not  only  the  inner  of  a  holy  spiritual  essence,  but  also  the  outer  of  an 
existence  in  power  and  heavenly  glory."  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  353,  354  —  "  Calvin 
waves  aside  eternal  generation  as  an  'absurd  fiction.'  But  to  maintain  the  deity  of 
Christ  merely  on  the  ground  that  it  is  essential  to  his  making  an  adequate  atonement  - 
for  sin,  is  to  involve  the  rejection  of  his  deity  if  ever  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
becomes  obnoxious.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  process  by  which,  in  the  mind  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  undermined.  Not  to  ground  the  distinctions  of 
the  divine  essence  by  some  immanent  eternal  necessity  was  to  make  easy  the  denial  of 
what  has  been  called  the  outological  Trinity,  and  then  the  rejection  of  the  economical 
Trinity  was  not  difficult  or  far  away." 

If  Westcott  and  Hort's  reading  6  novoyevrp  0ed?,"the  only  begotten  God,"  in  John  1:18,  is  correct, 
we  have  a  new  proof  of  Christ's  eternal  Sonship.  Meyer  explains  iavrov  in  Rom.  8 : 3  — 
"God,  sending  his  own  Son, "  as  an  allusion  to  the  metaphysical  Sonship.  That  this  Sonship  is 
unique,  is  plain  from  John  1 .14, 18 — "the  only  begotten  from  the  Father  .  .  .  the  only  begotten  Son  who  is  in 
the  besom  of  the  Father";  Rom.  8  :  32  —  "  his  own  Son  "  ;  GaL  4- 4— "sent  forth  his  Son  "  ;  cf.  Prov.  8  :  22-31  — "  When 
he  marked  out  the  foundations  of  the  earth  ;  Then  I  was  by  him  as  a  master  workman  "  ;  3C :  4 — "  Who  hath  established  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth  ?  What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  son's  name,  if  thou  knowest  ?  "  The  eternal  procession 
of  the  Spirit  seems  to  be  implied  in  Johnl5:26  —  "  the  Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father  " 
—  see  Westcott,  Bib.  Coin.,  in  loco;  Heb.9:14  —  "the  eternal  Spirit."  Westcott  here  says  that 
n-apa  ( not  e'f )  shows  that  the  reference  is  to  the  temporal  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not 
to  the  eternal  procession.  At  the  same  time  he  maintains  that  the  temporal  corres- 
ponds to  the  eternal. 

The  Scripture  terms  '  generation '  and  '  procession, '  as  applied  to  the 
Son  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  but  approximate  expressions  of  the  truth, 
and  we  are  to  correct  by  other  declarations  of  Scripture  any  imperfect 
impressions  which  we  might  derive  solely  from  them.  We  use  these  terms 
in  a  special  sense,  which  we  explicitly  state  and  define  as  excluding  all 
notion  of  inequality  between  the  persons  of  the  Trinity.  The  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  to  which  we  hold  is 

(  a  )  Not  creation,  but  the  Father's  communication  of  himself  to  the 
Son.  Since  the  names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  not  applicable  to 
the  divine  essence,  but  are  only  applicable  to  its  hypostatics!  distinctions, 
they  imply  no  derivation  of  the  essence  of  the  Son  from  the  essence  of 
the  Father. 

The  error  of  the  Nicene  Fathers  was  that  of  explaining  Sonship  as  derivation  of 
essence.  The  Father  cannot  impart  his  essence  to  the  Son  and  yet  retain  it.  The 
Father  is  fons  trinitat  is,  notfow  ''<  itatis.  See  Shedd,  Hist.  Doct.,  1:308-311,  and  Dogm. 
Theol.,  1:287,-299  ;  per  contra,  see  Rib.  Sac,  41 :69.:S-760. 

( b  )  Not  a  commencement  of  existence,  but  an  eternal  relation  to  the 
Father, —  there  never  having  been  a  time  when  the  Son  began  to  be,  or 
when  the  Son  did  not  exist  as  God  with  the  Father. 

If  there  had  been  an  eternal  sun,  it  is  evident  that  there  must  have  been  an  eternal 
sunlight  also.    Yet  an  eternal  sunlight  must  have  evermore  proceeded  from  the  sun. 


342  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

When  Cyril  was  asked  whether  the  Son  existed  before  generation,  he  answered  :  "The 
generation  of  the  Son  did  not  precede  his  existence,  but  ht  always  existed,  and  that  by 
generation." 

( e )  Not  an  act  of  the  Father's  will,  but  an  internal  necessity  of  the 
divine  nature, — so  that  the  Son  is  no  more  dependent  upon  the  Father  than 
the  Father  is  dependent  upon  the  Son,  and  so  that,  if  it  be  consistent  with 
deity  to  be  Father,  it  is  equally  consistent  with  deity  to  be  Son. 

The  sun  is  as  dependent  upon  the  sunlight  as  the  sunlight  is  upon  the  sun  ;  for  with- 
out sunlight  the  sun  is  no  true  sun.  So  God  the  Father  is  as  dependent  upon  God  the 
Son,  as  God  the  Son  is  dependent  upon  God  the  Father;  for  without  Sou  the  Father 
would  be  no  true  Father.  To  say  that  aseity  belongs  only  to  the  Father  is  logically  Arian- 
ism  and  Subordinationism  proper,  for  it  implies  a  subordination  of  the  essence  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father.  Essential  subordination  would  be  inconsistent  with  equality.  See 
Thomasius,  Christi  Person  uud  Werfc,  1 :  115.  Palmer,  Theol.  Definitions,  66,  67,  says 
that  Father —  independent  life;  Sun  begotten  ==  independent  life  voluntarily  bi-ought 
under  limitations ;  Spirit  =  necessary  consequence  of  existence  of  the  other  two.  .  .  . 
The  words  and  actions  whereby  we  desigu  to  affect  others  are  "  begotten."  The  atmos- 
phere of  unconscious  inlluence  is  not  "  begotten,"  but  "  proceeding." 

(  d )  Not  a  relation  in  any  way  analogous  to  physical  derivation,  but  a  life- 
niovemenfc  of  the  divine  nature,  in  virtue  of  which  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  while  equal  in  essence  and  dignity,  stand  to  each  other  in  an  order 
of  personality,  office,  and  operation,  and  in  virtue  of  which  the  Father 
works  through  the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  the  Son  through  the  Spirit. 

The  subordination  of  the  person  of  the  Son  to  the  person,  of  the  Father,  or  in  other 
words  an  order  of  personality,  office,  and  operation  which  permits  the  Father  to  be 
officially  first,  the  Son  second,  and  the  Spirit  third,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  equality. 
Priority  is  not  necessarily  superiority.  The  possibility  of  an  order,  which  yet  involves 
no  inequality,  may  be  illustrated  by  the  relation  between  man  and  woman.  In  office 
man  is  first  and  woman  second,  but  woman's  soul  is  worth  as  much  as  man's ;  see  1  Cor. 
11 : 3  —  "  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ ;  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man :  and  the  head  of  Christ  is  God."  On 
John  14:  28  —  "the  Father  is  greater  than  I"  —see  Westcott,  Bib.  Com.,  inlpco. 

Edwards,  Observations  on  the  Trinity  ( edited  by  Smyth  ),  22—"  In  the  Son  the  whole 
deity  and  glory  of  the  Father  is  as  it  were  repeated  or  duplicated.  Everything  in  the 
Father  is  repeated  or  expressed  again,  and  that  fully,  so  that  there  is  properly  no 
inferiority."  Edwards,  Essay  on  the  Trinity  ( edited  by  Fisher ),  110-116—  "  The  Father 
is  the  Deity  subsisting  in  the  prime,  unoriginated,  and  most  absolute  manner,  or  the 
Deity  in  its  direct  existence.  The  Son  is  the  Deity  generated  by  God's  understanding, 
or  having  an  Idea  of  himself  and  subsisting  in  that  Idea.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Deity 
subsisting  in  act,  or  the  divine  essence  flowing  out  and  breathed  forth  in  God's  infinite 
love  to  and  delight  in  himself.  And  I  believe  the  whole  divine  essence  does  truly  and 
distinctly  subsist  both  in  the  divine  Idea  and  in  the  divine  Love,  and  each  of  them  are 
properly  distinct  persons.  .  .  .  We  find  no  other  attributes  of  which  it  is  said  in  Script- 
ure that  they  are  God,  or  that  God  is  they,  but  Ariyos  and  iy^ri,  the  Reason  and  the 
Love  of  God,  Light  not  being  different  from  Reason.  .  .  .  Understanding  may  be  pred- 
icated of  this  Love.  ...  It  is  not  a  blind  Love.  .  .  .  The  Father  has  Wisdom  or  Reason 
by  the  Son's  being  in  him.  .  .  .  Understanding  is  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  the  Son  is 
in  him."  Yet  Dr.  Edwards  A.  Park  declared  eternal  generation  to  be  "  eternal  non- 
sense," and  is  thought  to  have  hid  Edwards's  unpublished  Essay  on  the  Trinity  for 
many  years  because  it  taught  this  doctrine. 

The  New  Testament  calls  Christ  0e6?,  but  not  6  0e6«.  We  frankly  recognize  an  eternal 
subordination  of  Christ  to  the  Father,  but  we  maintain  at  the  same  time  tlyit  this  sub- 
ordination is  a  subordination  of  order,  office,  and  operation,  not  a  subordination  of 
essence.  "  Non  de  essentia  dicitur,  sed  de  ministeriis."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "An  eternal 
generation  is  necessarily  an  eternal  subordination  and  dependence.  This  seems  to  be 
fully  admitted  even  by  the  most  orthodox  of  the  Anglican  writers,  such  as  Pearson 
and  Hooker.  Christ's  subordination  to  the  Father  is  merely  official,  not  essential." 
Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  42,  96— "The  early  Trinitarians  by  eternal  Sonship  meant, 
first,  that  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  Deity  to  issue  forth  into  visible  expression.    Thus 


THE   THREE    PERSONS   ARE    EQUAL.  343 

next,  that  this  outward  expression  of  God  is  not  something' other  than  God,  but  God 
himself,  in  a  self-expression  as  divine  as  (  he  hidden  Deity.  Thus  they  answered  Philip's 
cry,  '  show  us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us  '  (  John  14  :  8  t,  and  thus  t  hey  affirmed  Jesus'  declaration, 
they  secured  Paul's  faith  that  God  has  never  left  himself  without  witness.  They  meant, 
'  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  soen  the  Father'  (John  14:9  ).  .  .  .  The  Father  is  the  Life  transcendent,  the 
divine  Source, 'above all' ;  the  Son  is  the  Life  immanent,  the  divine  Stream,  'through all ' ; 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Life  individualized,  'in all'  (Eph. 4:  6  ).  The  Holy  Spirit  has  been 
called  '  the  executive  of  the  Godhead.'  "  Whiton  is  here  speaking1  of  the  economic  Trin- 
ity ;  but  all  this  is  even  more  true  of  the  immanent  Trinity.  On  the  Eternal  Sonship, 
see  Weiss,  Bib,  Theol.  N.  T.,  424,  note;  Treffrey,  Eternal  Sonship  of  our  Lord  ;  Prince- 
ton Essays,  1 :  30-50;  Watson,  Institutes,  1  :  530-577  ;  Bib.  Sae.,  27  :  268.  On  the  proces- 
sion of  the  Spirit,  see  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  300-304,  and  History  of  Doctrine,  1  :  387  ; 
Dick,  Lectures  on  Theology,  1  :  347-350. 

The  same  principles  upon  which  we  interpret  the  declaration  of  Christ's 
eternal  Sonship  apply  to  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father 
through  the  Son,  and  show  this  to  be  not  inconsistent  with  the  Spirit's 
equal  dignity  and  glory. 

We  therefore  only  formulate  truth  which  is  concretely  expressed  in 
Scripture,  and  wrhich  is  recognized  by  all  ages  of  the  church  in  hymns  and 
prayers  addressed  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  when  we  assert  that  in 
the  nature  of  the  one  God  there  are  three  eternal  distinctions,  which  are 
best  described  as  persons,  and  each  of  which  is  the  proper  and  equal  object 
of  Christian  worship. 

We  are  also  warranted  in  declaring  that,  in  virtue  of  these  personal 
distinctions  or  modes  of  subsistence,  God  exists  in  the  relations,  respect- 
ively, first,  of  Source,  Origin,  Authority,  and  in  this  relation  is  the  Father; 
secondly,  of  Expression,  Medium,  Revelation,  and  in  this  relation  is  the 
Son ;  thirdly,  of  Apprehension,  Accomplishment,  Realization,  and  in  this 
relation  is  the  Holy  Spirit. 

John  Owen,  Works,  3  :  (14-92  — "The  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  that  of  concluding, 
completing,  perfecting1.  To  the  Father  we  assign  opera  natura  :  to  the  Son,  opera 
grattas  procwatce ;  to  the  Spirit,  opera  gratioe  appUcabcBj"  All  God's  revelations  are 
through  the  Son  or  the  Spirit,  and  the  latter  includes  the  former.  Kuypcr,  Work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  designates  the  three  offices  respectively  as  those  of  Causation,  Con- 
struction, Consummation;  the  Father  brings  forth,  the  Son  arranges,  the  Spirit  per- 
fects. Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  365-373—  "  God  is  Life,  Light,  Love.  As  the  Fathers 
regarded  Reason  both  in  God  and  man  as  the  personal,  omnipresent  second  Person  of 
t  he  Trinity,  so  Jonathan  Edwards  regarded  Love  both  in  God  and  in  man  as  the  per- 
sonal, omnipresent  t  bird  Person  of  the  Trinity.  Hence  the  Father  is  never  said  to  love 
the  Spirit  as  he  is  said  to  love  the  Son  —  for  this  love  is  the  Spirit.  The  Father  and  the 
Son  are  said  to  love  men,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  is  never  said  to  love  them,  for  love  is  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  why  could  not  Edwards  also  hold  that  the  Logos  or  divine  Reason 
also  dwelt  in  humanity,  so  that  manhood  was  constituted  in  Christ  and  shared  with 
him  in  the  consubstantial  image  of  the  Father?  Outward  nature  reflects  God's  light 
and  has  Christ  in  it, —  why  not  universal  humanity  ?  " 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  136,  2U2,  speaks  of  "1.  God,  the  Eternal,  the 
Infinite,  in  his  infinity,  as  himself;  2.  God,  as  self -ex  pressed  within  the  nature  and 
faculties  of  man  —  body,  soul,  and  spirit — the  consummation  and  interpretation  and 
revelation  of  what  true  manhood  means  and  is,  in  its  very  truth,  in  its  relation  to  God  ; 
3.  God,  as  Spirit  of  Beauty  and  Holiness,  which  are  himself  present  in  things  created, 
animate  and  inanimate,  and  constituting  in  them  their  divine  response  to  God ;  con- 
stituting above  all  in  created  personalities  the  full  reality  of  their  personal  response. 
Or  again  :  1.  What  a  man  is  invisibly  in  himself ;  2.  his  outward  material  projection  or 
expression  as  body ;  and  3.  the  response  which  that  which  he  is  through  his  bodily 
utterance  or  operation  makes  to  him,  as  the  true  echo  or  expression  of  himself."  Mob- 
erly seeks  thus  to  find  in  man's  nature  an  analogy  to  the  inner  processes  of  the  divine. 


344  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

VI.  Inscrutable,  yet  not  self-contradictory,  this  Doctrine  fur- 
nishes the  Key  to  all  other  Doctrines. 

1.     The  mode  of  this  triune  existence  is  inscrutable. 

It  is  inscrutable  because  there  are  no  analogies  to  it  in  our  finite  experi- 
ence.    For  this  reason  all  attempts  are  vain  adequately  to  represent  it  : 

( a  )  From  inanimate  things  —  as  the  fountain,  the  stream,  and  the  rivulet 
trickling  from  it  ( Athanasius ) ;  the  cloud,  the  rain,  and  the  rising  mist 
(  Boardman  ) ;  color,  shape,  and  size  ( F.  W.  Robertson )  ;  the  actinic,  luini- 
niferous,  and  calorific  principles  in  the  ray  of  light  ( Solar  Hieroglyphics, 
34). 

Luther :  "  "When  logic  objects  to  this  doctrine  that  it  does  not  square  with  her  rules, 
we  must  say :  '  Mulier  taceat  in  ecclesia.' "  Luther  called  the  Trinity  a  flower,  in  which 
might  be  distinguished  its  form,  its  fragrance,  and  its  medicinal  efficacy  ;  see  Dorner, 
Gesch.  prot.  Theol.,  189.  In  Bap.  Rev.,  July,  1880:434,  Geer  finds  an  illustration  of  the 
Trinity  in  infinite  space  with  its  three  dimensions.  For  analogy  of  the  cloud,  rain, 
mist,  see  W.  E.  Boardman,  Higher  Christian  Life.  Solar  Hieroglyphics,  34  (reviewed 
in  New  Englander,  Oct.  1874  :  789)  — "The  Godhead  is  a  tripersonal  unity,  and  the  light 
is  a  trinity.  Being  immaterial  and  homogeneous,  and  thus  essentially  one  in  its  nature, 
the  light  includes  a  plurality  of  constituents,  or  in  other  words  is  essentially  three  in 
its  constitution,  its  constituent  principles  being  the  actinic,  the  luminiferous,  and  the 
calorific;  and  in  glorious  manifestation  the  light  is  one,  and  is  the  created,  cousti  tilted, 
and  ordained  emblem  of  the  tripersonal  God  "  —  of  whom  it  is  said  that  "God  is  light,  and 
in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all "  (1  John  1:5).  The  actinic  rays  are  in  themselves  invisible ;  only  as 
the  luminiferous  manifest  them,  are  they  seen  ;  only  as  the  calorific  accompany  them, 
are  they  felt. 

Joseph  Cook:"  Sunlight,  rainbow,  heat  —  one  solar  radiance  ;  Father,  Son,  Holy  Spirit, 
one  God.  As  the  rainbow  shows  what  light  is  when  unfolded,  so  Christ  reveals  the 
nature  of  God.  As  the  rainbow  is  unraveled  light,  so  Christ  is  unraveled  God,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  figured  by  heat,  is  Christ's  continued  life."  Ruder  illustrations  are  those 
of  Oom  Paul  Kriiger :  the  fat,  the  wick,  the  flame,  in  the  candle;  and  of  Augustine: 
the  root,  trunk,  brauches,  all  of  one  wood,  in  the  tree.  In  Geer's  illustration,  mentioned 
above,  from  the  three  dimensions  of  space,  we  cannot  demonstrate  that  there  is  not  a 
fourth,  but  besides  length,  breadth,  and  thickness,  we  cannot  conceive  of  its  existence. 
As  these  three  exhaust,  so  far  as  we  know,  all  possible  modes  of  material  being,  so  we 
cannot  conceive  of  any  fourth  person  in  the  Godhead. 

( b )  From  the  constitution  or  processes  of  our  own  minds  —  as  the 
psychological  unity  of  intellect,  affection,  and  will  ( substantially  held  by 
Augustine  )  ;  the  logical  unity  of  thesis,  antithesis,  and  synthesis  (  Hegel )  ; 
the  metaphysical  unity  of  subject,  object,  and  subject-object  ( Melanchthon, 
Olshausen,  Shedd  ). 

Augustine:  "Mens  meminit  sui,  intelligit  se,  diligit  se ;  si  hoc  cernimus,  Trinitatem 
cernimus."  ...  I  exist,  I  am  conscious,  I  will ;  I  exist  as  conscious  and  willing,  1  am 
conscious  of  existing  and  willing,  I  will  to  exist  and  be  conscious;  and  these  three 
functions,  though  distinct,  are  inseparable  and  form  one  life,  one  mind,  one  essence. 
.  .  .  "Amor  autem  alicujus  amantis  est,  et  amore  aliquid  amatur.  Eece  tria  sunt, 
amans,  et  quod  amatur,  et  amor.  Quid  est  ergo  amor,  nisi  quaedam  vita  duo  aliqua 
copulans,  vel  copulare  appetans,  amantem  scilicet  et  quod  amatur."  Calvin  speaks  of 
Augustine's  view  as  "  a  speculation  far  from  solid."  But  Augustine  himself  had  said  : 
"  If  asked  to  define  the  Trinity,  we  can  only  say  that  it  is  not  this  or  that."  John  of 
Damascus  :  "  All  we  know  of  the  divine  nature  is  that  it  is  not  to  be  known."  By  this, 
however,  both  Augustine  and  John  of  Damascus  meant  only  that  the  precise  mode  of 
God's  triune  existence  is  unrevealed  and  inscrutable. 

Hegel,  Philos.  Relig.,  transl.,  3:99, 100— "God  is,  but  is  at  the  same  time  the  Other, 
the  self-differentiating,  the  Other  in  the  sense  that  this  Other  is  God  himself  and  has 
potentially  the  Divine  nature  in  it,  and  that  the  abolishing  of  this  difference,  of  this 


INSCRUTABLE,    YET   NOT   SELF-CONTRADICTORY.  345 

otherness,  this  return;  this  love,  is  Spirit."  Hegel  calls  God  "the  absolute  Idea,  the 
unity  of  Life  and  Cognition,  the  Universal  that  thinks  itself  and  thiukingly  recognizes 
itself  in  an  infinite  Actuality,  from  which,  as  its  Immediacy,  it  no  less  distinguishes 
itself  again  "  ;  see  Schwegler,  History  of  Philosophy,  331,  331.  Hegel's  general  doctrine 
is  that  the  highest  unity  is  to  be  reached  only  through  the  fullest  development  and 
reconcilation  of  the  deepest  and  widest  antagonism.  Pure  being  is  pure  nothing;  we 
must  die  to  live.  Light  is  thesis,  Darkness  is  antithesis,  Shadow  is  synthesis,  or  union 
of  both.  Faith  is  thesis,  Unbelief  is  antithesis.  Doubt  is  synthesis,  or  union  of  both. 
Zwcifcl  comes  from  Zwei,  as  doubt  from  &uo.  Hegel  called  Napoleon  "  ein  Weltgeist  zu 
Pferde"  — "a  world-spirit  on  horseback."  Ladd,  Introd.  to  Philosophy,  20:.',  speaks  of 
"the  monotonous  tit-tat-too  of  the  Hegelian  logic."  Ruskin  speaks  of  it  as  "pure, 
definite,  and  highly  finished  nonsense."  On  the  Hegelian  principle  good  and  evil  can- 
not be  contradictory  to  each  other  ;  without  evil  there  could  be  no  good.  Stirling  well 
entitled  his  exposition  of  the  Hegelian  Philosophy  "The  Secret  of  Hegel,"  and  his 
readers  have  often  remarked  that,  if  Stirling  discovered  the  secret,  he  never  made 
it  known.  . 

Lord  Coleridge  told  Robert  Browning  that  he  could  not  understand  all  his  poetry. 
"Ah,  well,"  replied  the  poet,  "if  a  reader  of  your  calibre  understands  ten  per  cent,  of 
what  I  write,  he  ought  to  be  content."  When  Wordsworth  was  told  that  Mr.  Browning 
had  married  Miss  Barrett,  he  said  :  "  It  is  a  good  thing  that  these  two  understand  each 
other,  for  no  one  else  understands  them."  A  pupil  once  brought  to  Hegel  a  passage  in 
the  hitter's  writings  and  asked  for  an  interpretation.  The  philosopher  examined  it  and 
replied:  "When  that  passage  was  written,  there  were  two  who  knew  its  meaning  — 
God  and  myself.  Now, alas!  there  is  but  one,  and  that  is  God."  Heinrich  Heine, speak- 
ing of  the  effect  of  Hegelianism  upon  the  religious  life  of  Berlin,  says:  "I  could 
accommodate  myself  to  the  very  enlightened  Christianity,  nitrated  from  all  supersti- 
tion, which  could  then  be  had  in  the  churches,  and  which  was  lice  from  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  like  turtle  soup  without  turtle."  When  German  systems  of  philosophy  die, 
their  ghosts  take  up  their  abode  in  Oxford.  Hut  it  I  see  a  ghost  sitting  in  a  chair  and 
then  sit  down  boldly  in  the  chair,  the  ghost  will  lake  offence  and  go  away.  Hegel's 
doctrine  of  God  as  the  only  begotten  Son  is  translated  in  the  Journ.  Spec.  Philos., 
15 :  395-104. 

The  most  satisfactory  exposition  of  the  analogy  i  >f  subject,  object,  and  subject-object 
is  to  be  found  in  Shedd,  History  of  Doctrine,  1:365,  note  2.  See  also  Olshausen  on 
John  1:1;  H.N.  Day,  Doctrine  of  Trinity  in  Light  of  I  tec -cut  Psychology,  in  Princeton  Key., 
Sept.  1882: 156-179;  Morris,  Philosophy  and  Christianity,  132-163.  Moberly,  Atonement 
and  Personality,  174,  has  a  similar  analogy:  1.  A  man's  invisible  self;  2.  the  visible 
expression  of  himself  in  a  picture  or  poem  ;  3.  the  response  of  this  picture  or  poem  to 
himself.  The  analogy  of  the  family  is  held  to  be  even  better,  because  no  man's  per- 
sonality is  complete  in  itself;  husband,  wife,  and  child  are  all  needed  to  make  perfect 
unity.  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  372,  says  that  in  the  early  church  the  Trinity  was  a 
doctrine  of  reason;  in  the  Middle  Ages  it  was  a  mystery;  in  the  18th  century  it  was 
a  meaningless  or  irrational  dogma;  again  in  the  19th  century  it  becomes  a  doctrine  of 
the  reason,  a  truth  essential  to  the  nature  of  God.  To  Allen's  characterization  of  the 
stages  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  we  would  add  that  even  in  our  day  we  cannot  say 
that  a  complete  exposition  of  the  Trinity  is  possible.  Trinity  is  a  unique  fact,  differ- 
ent aspects  of  which  may  be  illustrated,  while,  as  a  whole,  it  has  no  analogies.  The 
most  we  can  say  is  that  human  nature,  in  its  processes  and  powers,  points  towards 
something  higher  than  itself,  and  that  Trinity  in  God  is  needed  in  order  to  constitute 
that  perfection  of  being  which  man  seeks  as  an  object  of  love,  worship  and  service. 

No  one  of  these  furnishes  any  proper  analogue  of  the  Trinity,  since  in 
no  one  of  them  is  there  found  the  essential  element  of  tripersonality.  Such 
illustrations  may  sometimes  be  used  to  disarm  objection,  but  they  furnish 
no  positive  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  and,  unless  carefully 
guarded,  may  lead  to  grievous  error. 

2.     The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  self-contradictory. 

This  it  would  be,  only  if  it  declared  God  to  be  three  in  the  same  numerical 
sense  in  which  he  is  said  to  be  one.  This  we  do  not  assert.  We  assert 
simply  that  the  same  God  who  is  one  with  respect  to  his  essence  is  three 


346  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

with  respect  to  the  internal  distinctions  of  that  essence,  or  with  respect  to 
the  modes  of  his  being.  The  possibility  of  this  cannot  be  denied,  except 
by  assuming  that  the  human  mind  is  in  all  respects  the  measure  of  the 
divine. 

The  fact  that  the  ascending  scale  of  life  is  marked  by  increasing  differen- 
tiation of  faculty  and  function  should  rather  lead  us  to  expect  in  the  highest 
of  all  beings  a  nature  more  complex  than  our  own.  In  man  many  faculties 
are  united  in  one  intelligent  being,  and  the  more  intelligent  man  is,  the 
more  distinct  from  each  other  these  faculties  become  ;  until  intellect  and 
affection,  conscience  and  will  assume  a  relative  independence,  and  there 
arises  even  the  possibility  of  conflict  between  them.  There  is  nothing  irra- 
tional or  self-contradictory  in  the  doctrine  that  in  God  the  leading  functions 
are  yet  more  markedly  differentiated,  so  that  they  become  personal,  while 
at  the  same  time  these  personalities  are  united  by  the  fact  that  they  each 
and  equally  manifest  the  one  indivisible  essence. 

Unity  is  as  essential  to  the  Godhead  as  threeuess.  The  same  God  who  in  one  respect 
is  three,  in  another  respect  is  one.  "We  do  not  say  that  one  God  is  three  Gods,  nor  that 
one  person  is  three  persons,  nor  that  three  Gods  are  one  God,  but  only  that  there  is  one 
God  with  three  distinctions  in  his  being.  We  do  not  refer  to  the  faculties  of  man  as 
furnishing- any  proper  analogy  to  the  persons  of  the  Godhead;  we  rather  deny  that 
man's  nature  furnishes  any  such  analogy.  Intellect,  affection,  and  will  in  man  are  not 
distinct  personalities.  If  they  were  personalized,  they  might  furnish  such  an  analogy. 
F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermons,  3  :  58,  speaks  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  as  best 
conceived  under  the  figure  of  personalized  intellect,  affection  and  will.  With  this 
agrees  the  saying  of  Socrates,  who  called  thought  the  soul's  conversation  with  itself. 
See  D.  W.  Simon,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1887. 

Ps.  86 :  11  —  "  Unite  my  heart  to  fear  thy  name  "  —  intimates  a  complexity  of  powers  in  man,  and 
a  possible  disorganization  due  to  sin.  Only  the  fear  and  love  of  God  can  reduce  our 
faculties  to  order  and  give  us  peace,  purity,  and  power.  When  William  after  along 
courtship  at  length  proposed  marriage,  Mary  said  that  she  "  unanimously  consented." 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy 
mind"  ( Luke  10  :  27 ).  Man  must  not  lead  a  dual  life,  a  double  life,  like  that  of  Dr.  Jekyll 
and  Mr.  Hyde.  The  good  life  is  the  unified  life.  H.  H.  Bawden :  "  Theoretically,  sym- 
metrical development  is  the  complete  criterion.  This  is  the  old  Greek  conception  of 
the  perfect  life.  The  term  which  we  translate  '  temperance '  or  '  self-control '  is  better 
expressed  by  '  whole-mindedness.'  " 

Illingworth,  Personality  Divine  and  Human,  51-80  —  "  Our  sense  of  divine  personality 
culminates  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Man's  personality  is  essentially  triune, 
because  it  consists  of  a  subject,  an  object,  and  their  relation.  What  is  potential  and 
unrealized  triunity  in  man  is  complete  in  God.  .  .  .  Our  own  personality  is  triune,  but 
it  is  a  potential  unrealized  triunity,  which  is  incomplete  in  itself  and  must  go  beyond 
itself  for  completion,  as  for  example  in  the  family.  .  .  .  But  God's  personality  has 
nothing  potential  or  unrealized  about  it.  .  .  .  Trinity  is  the  most  intelligible  mode  of 
conceiving  of  God  as  personal." 

John  Caird,  Fundamental  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1:59,  80 — "The  parts  of  a  stone  are 
all  precisely  alike ;  the  parts  of  a  skilful  mechanism  are  all  different  from  one  another. 
In  which  of  the  two  cases  is  the  unity  more  real  —  in  that  in  which  there  is  an  absence 
of  distinction,  or  in  that  in  which  there  is  essential  difference  of  form  and  function, 
each  separate  part  having  an  individuality  and  activity  of  its  own  ?  The  highest 
unities  are  not  simple  but  complex."  Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  106  —  "All.  things  and 
persons  are  modes  of  one  infinite  consciousness.  Then  it  is  not  incredible  that  there 
should  be  three  consciousnesses  in  God.  Over  against  the  multitudinous  finite  per- 
sonalities are  three  infinite  personalities.  This  socialism  in  Deity  may  be  the  ground 
of  human  society." 

The  phenomena  of  double  and  even  of  triple  consciousness  in  one  and  the  same  indi- 
vidual confirm  this  view.  This  fact  of  more  than  one  consciousness  in  a  finite  creature 
points  towards  the  possibility  of  a  threefold  consciousness  in  the  nature  of  God. 
Romanes,  Mind  and  Motion,  102,  intimates  that  the  social  organism,  if  it  attained  the 


INSCRUTABLE,    YET   NOT    SELF-CONTRADICTORY.  347 

highest  level  of  psychical  perfection,  might  be  endowed  with  personality,  and  that  it 
now  has  something  resembling  it — phenomena  of  thought  and  conduct  which  com- 
pel us  to  conceive  of  families  and  communities  and  nations  as  having  a  sort  of  moral 
personality  which  implies  responsibility  and  accountability.  "The  Zeitgeist,"  he 
says,  "  is  the  product  of  a  kind  of  collective  psychology,  which  is  something  other  than 
the  sum  of  all  the  individual  minds  of  a  generation."  "We  do  not  maintain  that  any- 
one of  these  fragmentary  or  collective  consciousnesses  attains  personality  in  man,  at 
least  in  the  present  life.  We  only  maintain  that  they  indicate  that  a  larger  and  more 
complex  life  is  possible  than  that  of  which  we  have  common  experience,  and  that 
there  is  no  necessary  contradiction  in  the  doctrine  that  in  the  nature  of  the  one  and 
perfect  God  there  are  three  personal  distinctions.  R.  H.  Hutton :  "  A  voluntary  self- 
revelation  of  the  divine  mind  may  be  expected  to  reveal  even  deeper  complexities  of 
spiritual  relations  in  his  eternal  nature  and  essence  ihan  are  found  to  exist  in  our 
humanity  — the  simplicity  of  a  harmonized  complexity,  not  the  simplicity  of  absolute 
unity." 

3.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  important  relations  to  other  doc- 
trims. 

A.     It  is  essential  to  any  proper  theism. 

Neither  God's  independence  nor  God's  blessedness  can  be  maintained 
upon  grounds  of  absolute  unity.  Anti-trinitarianism  almost  necessarily 
makes  creation  indispensable  to  God's  perfection,  tends  to  a  belief  in  the 
eternity  of  matter,  and  ultimately  leads,  as  in  Mohammedanism,  and  in 
modern  Judaism  and  Unitarianism,  to  Pantheism,  "  Love  is  an  impossible 
exercise  to  a  solitary  being."  Without  Trinity  we  cannot  hold  to  a  living 
Unity  in  the  Godhead. 

Brit,  and  For.  Evang.  Rev.,  Jan.  IH8":  35-63  —  "The  problem  is  to  lind  a  perfect  objec- 
tive, congruous  and  fitting,  for  a  perfect  intelligence,  and  the  answer  is:  'a  perfect 
iittclliuence.'"  The  author  of  this  article  quotes  James  Martineau,  the  Unitarian  phi- 
losopher, as  follows:  "There  is  only  one  resource  left  for  completing  the  needful 
objectivity  for  God,  viz.,  to  admit  in  some  form  the  coeval  existenceof  matter,  as  the 
condition  or  medium  of  t lie  divine  agency  or  manifestation.  Failing  the  proof  [  of  the 
absolute  origination  of  matter  ]  we  are  left  with  the  divine  cause,  and  the  material  con- 
dition of  all  nature,  in  eternal  co-presence  and  relation,  as  supreme  object  and  rudi- 
mentar3r  object."  See  also  Martineau,  Study,  1  :  -105 —  "  In  denying  that  a  plurality  of 
self -existences  is  possible,  I  mean  to  speak  only  of  self-existent  causes.  A  self-existence 
which  is  not  a  cause  is  by  no  means  excluded,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  by  a  self-existence 
which  is  a  cause ;  nay,  is  even  required  for  the  exercise  of  its  causality."  Here  we  see 
that  Martineau's  Unitarianism  logically  drove  him  into  Dualism.  But  God's  blessed- 
ness, upon  this  principle,  requires  not  merely  an  eternal  universe  but  an  infinite  uni- 
verse, for  nothing  less  will  afford  fit  object  for  au  infinite  mind.  Yet  a  God  who  is 
necessarily  bound  to  the  universe,  or  by  whose  side  a  universe,  which  is  not  himself, 
eternally  exists,  is  not  infinite,  independent,  or  free.  The  only  exit  from  this  difficulty 
is  in  denying  God's  self-consciousness  and  self-determination,  or  in  other  words, 
exchanging  our  theism  for  dualism,  and  our  dualism  for  pantheism. 

E.  H.  Johnson,  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1892:379,  quotes  from  Oxenham's  Catholic  Doctrine 
of  the  Atonement,  108, 109  — "  Forty  years  ago  James  Martineau  wrote  to  George  Macdon- 
ald  :  '  Neither  my  intellectual  preference  nor  my  moral  admiration  goes  heartily  with 
the  Unitarian  heroes,  sects  or  productions,  of  any  age.  Ebionites,  Arians,  Socinians, 
all  seem  to  me  to  contrast  unfavorably  with  their  opponents,  and  to  exhibit  a  type  of 
thought  far  less  worthy,  on  the  whole,  of  the  true  genius  of  Christianity.'  In  his  paper 
entitled  A  Way  out  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy,  Martineau  says  that  the  Unitarian 
worships  the  Father  ;  the  Trinitarian  worships  the  Son :  '  But  he  who  is  the  Son  in  one 
creed  is  the  Father  in  the  other.  .  .  .  The  two  creeds  are  agreed  in  that  which  constitutes 
the  pith  and  kernel  of  both.  The  Father  is  God  in  his  primeval  essence.  But  God,  as 
manifested,  is  the  Son.' "  Dr.  Johnson  adds :  "  So  Martineau,  after  a  lifelong  service  in 
a  Unitarian  pulpit  and  professorship,  at  length  publicly  accepts  for  truth  thesubstance 
of  that  doctrine  which,  in  common  with  the  church,  he  has  found  so  profitable,  and 
tells  Unitarians  that  they  and  we  alike  worship  the  Son,  because  all  that  we  know  of 


348         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

God  was  revealed  by  act  of  the  Son."  After  he  had  reached  his  eightieth  year,  Martl- 
neau  withdrew  from  the  Unitarian  body,  though  he  never  formally  united  with  any 
Trinitarian  church. 

H.  C.  Minton,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  1903  :  655-659,  has  quoted  some  of  Martineau's  most 
significant  utterances,  such  as  the  following:  "The  great  strength  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  lies,  no  doubt,  in  the  appeal  it  makes  to  the  inward  'sense  of  sin,'  — that  sad 
weight  whose  burden  oppresses  every  serious  soul.  And  the  great  weakness  of  Uui- 
tarianism  has  been  its  insensibility  to  this  abiding  sorrow  of  the  human  consciousness. 
Hut  the  orthodox  remedy  is  surely  the  most  terrible  of  all  mistakes,  viz.,  to  get  rid  of 
the  burden,  by  throwing  it  on  Christ  or  permitting  him  to  take  it.  .  .  .  For  myself  I 
own  that  the  literature  to  which  I  turn  for  the  nurture  and  inspiration  of  Faith,  Hope 
and  Love  is  almost  exclusively  the  product  of  orthodox  versions  of  the  Christian 
religion.  The  Hymns  of  the  Wesleys,  the  Prayers  of  the  Friends,  the  Meditations  of 
Law  and  Tauler,  have  a  quickening  and  elevating  power  which  I  rarely  feel  in  the 
books  on  our  Unitarian  shelves.  .  .  .  Yet  I  can  less  than  ever  appropriate,  or  even 
intellectually  excuse,  any  distinctive  article  of  the  Trinitarian  scheme  of  salvation." 

Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  23-26,  seeks  to  reconcile  the  two  forms  of  belief  by  asserting 
that  "both  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  are  coming  to  regard  human  nature  as  essen- 
tially one  with  the  divine.  The  Nicene  Fathers  builded  better  than  they  knew,  when 
they  declared  Christ  homoousios  with  the  Father.  We  assert  the  same  of  mankind." 
Hut  here  Whiton  goes  beyond  the  warrant  of  Scripture.  Of  none  but  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  can  it  be  said  that  before  Abraham  was  born  he  was,  and  that  in  him  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  (John  8: 57;  Col.  2:9). 

Unitarianism  has  repeatedly  demonstrated  its  logical  insufficiency  by  this  "  facilis 
descensus  Averno,"  this  lapse  from  theism  into  pantheism.  In  New  England  the  high 
Arianism  of  Channing  degenerated  into  the  half-Hedged  pantheism  of  Theodore  Parker, 
and  the  full-fledged  pantheism  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson.  Modern  Judaism  is  pan- 
theistic in  its  philosophy,  and  such  also  was  the  later  Arabic  philosophy  of  Mohamme- 
danism. Single  personality  is  felt  to  be  insufficient  to  the  mind's  conception  of  Abso- 
lute Perfection.  We  shrink  from  the  thought  of  an  eternally  lonely  God.  "We  take 
refuge  in  the  term  'Godhead.'  The  literati  find  relief  in  speaking  of  'the  gods.'" 
Twesten  ( translated  in  Bib.  Sac,  3 :  502 )  —  "  There  may  be  in  polytheism  an  element  of 
truth,  though  disfigured  and  misunderstood.  John  of  Damascus  boasted  that  the 
Christian  Trinity  stood  midway  between  the  abstract  monotheism  of  the  Jews  and  the 
idolatrous  polytheism  of  the  Greeks."  Twesten,  quoted  in  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology, 
1 :  255  —  *"  There  is  a  n-Aripw^a  in  God.  Trinity  does  not  contradict  Unity,  but  only  that 
solitariness  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  living  plenitude  and  blessedness  ascribed  to 
God  in  Scripture,  and  which  God  possesses  in  himself  and  independently  of  the  finite." 
Shedd  himself  remarks :  "  The  attempt  of  the  Deist  and  the  Socinian  to  construct  the 
doctrine  of  divine  Unity  is  a  failure,  because  it  fails  to  construct  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  Personality.  It  contends  by  implication  that  God  can  be  self-knowing  as  a 
Single  subject  merely,  without  an  object ;  without  the  distinctions  involved  in  the  sub- 
ject contemplating,  the  object  contemplated,  and  the  perception  of  the  identity  of  both." 

Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  75  —  "  God  is  no  sterile  and  motionless  unit."  Bp.  Phil- 
lips Brooks :  "  Unitarianism  has  got  the  notion  of  God  as  tight  and  individual  as  it  is 
possible  to  make  it,  and  is  dying  of  its  meagre  Deity."  Unitarianism  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  one  God  — for  the  Trinitarian  holds  to  this  ;  it  is  rather  theunipersonality  of  this  one 
God.  The  divine  nature  demands  either  an  eternal  Christ  or  an  eternal  creation.  Dr. 
Calthorp,  the  Unitarian,  of  Syracuse,  therefore  consistently  declares  that  "  Nature  and 
God  are  the  same."  It  is  the  old  worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtaroth  — the  deification  of 
power  and  pleasure.  For  "Nature"  includes  everything  — all  bad  impulses  as  well  as 
good.  When  a  man  discovers  gravity,  he  has  not  discovered  God,  but  only  one  of  the 
manifestations  of  God. 

Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  112  —  "  The  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  is  but  the 
sovereign  expression  in  human  history  of  the  great  law  of  difference  in  identity  that 
runs  through  the  entire  universe  and  that  has  its  home  in  the  heart  of  the  Godhead." 
Even  James  Freeman  Clarke,  in  his  Orthodoxy,  its  Truths  and  Errors,  436,  admits  that 
"  there  is  an  essential  truth  hidden  in  the  idea  of  the  Trinity.  While  the  church  doc- 
trine, in  every  form  which  it  has  taken,  has  failed  to  satisfy  the  human  intellect,  the 
human  heart  has  clung  to  the  substance  contained  in  them  all."  William  Adams 
Brown  :  "  If  God  is  by  nature  love,  he  must  be  by  nature  social.  Fatherhood  ami  Son- 
ship  must  be  immanent  in  him.  In  hiin  the  limitations  of  finite  personality  are 
removed."    But  Dr.  Brown  wrongly  adds :  "  Not  the  mysteries  of  God's  being,  as  he  is 


INSCRUTABLE,    YET   NOT   S  ELF-CO  NT  RAD  I  < !  TOfc  V  .  340 

hi  himself,  Unit  as  he to  revealed,  are  opened  to  us  in  this  doctrine"  Similarly  P.  S. 
Moxom :  "  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  possible  to  predicate  any  moral  quality  of  a  person 
who  is  absolutely  out  of  relation  to  other  persons.  If  God  were  conceived  of  as  solitary 
in  the  universe,  he  could  not  be  characterized  as  righteous."  Imt  Dr.  Moxom  erron- 
eously thinks  that  these  other  moral  personalities  must  be  outside  of  God.  We  main- 
tain that  righteousness,  like  love,  requires  only  plurality  of  persons  within  the 
God-head.  See  Thoniasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1  :  105,  156.  For  the  pantheistic 
view,  see  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  462-524. 

W.  L.  Walker,  Christian  Theism,  317,  quotes  Dr.  Paul  Cams,  Primer  of  Philosophy, 
101  —  "  We  cannot  even  conceive  of  God  without  attributing  trinity  to  him.  An  abso- 
lute unity  would  be  non-existence.  God,  if  thought  of  as  real  and  active,  involves 
an  antithesis,  which  ma y  be  formulated  as  God  and  World,  or  natwra  natwram  and 
natura  naturata,  or  in  some  other  way.  This  antithesis  implies  already  the  trinity-con- 
ception. When  we  think  of  God,  not  only  as  that  which  is  eternal  and  immutable  in 
existence,  but  also  as  that  which  changes,  grows,  and  evolves, we  cannot  escape  the  result 
and  we  must  progress  to  a  triune  God-idea.  The  conception  of  a  God-man,  of  a  Savior, 
of  God  revealed  in  evolution,  brings  out  the  antithesis  of  God  Father  and  God  Son,  and 
the  very  conception  of  this  relation  implies  God  the  Spirit  that  proceeds  from  both." 
This  confession  of  an  economic  Trinity  is  a  rational  one  only  as  it  implies  a  Trinity 
immanent  and  eternal. 

B.     It  is  essential  to  any  proper  revelation. 

If  there  be  no  Trinity,  Christ  is  not  God,  and  cannot  perfectly  know  or 
reveal  God.  Christianity  is  no  longer  the  one,  all-inclusive,  and  final  reve- 
lation, but  only  one  of  many  conflicting  and  competing  systems,  each  of 
which  has  its  portion  of  truth,  but  also  its  portion  of  error.  So  too  -with 
the  Holy  Spirit.  "As  God  can  be  revealed  only  through  God,  so  also  can 
he  be  appropriated  only  through  God.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  not  God, 
then  the  love  and  self-communication  of  God  to  the  human  soul  are  not  a 
reality."  In  other  words,  without  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  we  go  back 
to  mere  natural  religion  and  the  far-off  God  of  deism,  —  and  this  is  idti- 
mately  exchanged  for  pantheism  in  the  way  already  mentioned. 

Murtensen, Dogmatics,  104;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  156.  If  Christ  be 
not  God,  he  cannot  perfectly  know  himself,  and  his  testimony  t<>  himself  has  no  inde- 
pendent authority.  In  prayer  the  Christian  has  practical  evidence  of  the  Trinity,  and 
can  see  the  value  of  the  doctrine ;  for  he  comes  to  God  the  Father,  pleading  the  name 
of  Christ,  and  taught  how  to  pray  aright  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  impossible  to  iden- 
tify the  Father  wit  h  either  the  Son  or  the  Spirit.  See  Rom.  8  :  27  —  "  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
[  i.  e.,  ( iod  ]  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of 
God."  See  also  Godet  on  John  1 :  18  —  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him  "  ;  notice  here  the  relation  between  6  dv  and  efrp/rjo-aTo. 
Napoleon  I :  "  Christianity  says  with  simplicity, '  Ho  man  hath  seen  God,  except  God.'  " 
John  16  :  15  —  "All  things  whatsoever  the  Father  hath  are  mine :  therefore  said  I,  that  he  taketh  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it 
onto  you";  here  Christ  claims  for  himself  all  that  belongs  to  God,  and  then  declares  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  shall  reveal  him.  Only  a  divine  Spirit  can  do  this,  even  as  only  a  divine 
Christ  can  put  out  an  unpresumptuous  hand  to  t;ike  all  that  belongs  to  the  Father. 
See  also  Westcott,  on  John  14  : 9  —  "he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father ;  how  sayest  thou,  Show  us  the 
Father?" 

The  agnostic  is  perfectly  correct  in  his  conclusions,  if  there  be  no  Christ,  no  medium 
of  communication,  no  principle  of  revelation  in  the  Godhead.  Only  the  Sou  has  revealed 
the  Father.  Even  Koyce,  in  his  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  speaks  of  the  existence 
of  an  infinite  Self,  or  Logos,  or  World-mind,  of  which  all  individual  minds  are  parts  or 
bits,  and  of  whose  timeless  choice  we  partake.  Some  such  principle  in  the  divine 
nature  must  be  assumed,  if  Christianity  is  the  complete  and  sufficient  revelation  of 
God's  will  to  men.  The  Unitarian  view  regards  the  religion  of  Christ  as  only  "  one  of 
the  day's  works  of  humanity" — an  evanescent  moment  in  the  ceaseless  advance  of  the 
race.  The  Christian  on  the  other  hand  regards  Christ  as  the  only  Revealer  of  God,  the 
only  God  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  the  final  authority  in  religion,  the  source  of  all 
truth  and  the  judge  of  all  mankind.     "Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass 


350  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   WORKS   OP   GOD. 

away  "  ( Mat.  24 :  35 ).  The  resurrection  of  just  and  unjust  shall  be  his  work  ( John  5 :  28 ),  and 
future  retribution  shall  be  "the  wrath  of  the  lamb"  (Rev.  6:16).  Since  God  never  thinks,  says, 
or  does  any  thing,  except  through  Christ,  and  since  Christ  does  his  work  in  human 
hearts  only  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  may  conclude  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
is  essential  to  any  proper  revelation. 

H    C.     It  is  essential  to  any  proper  redemption. 

If  God  be  absolutely  and  simply  one,  tliere  can  be  no  mediation  or  atone- 
ment, since  between  God  and  tlie  most  exalted  creature  the  gulf  is  infinite. 
Christ  cannot  bring  us  nearer  to  God  than  he  is  himself.  Only  one  who  is 
God  can  reconcile  us  to  God.  So,  too,  only  one  who  is  God  can  purify  our 
souls.  A  God  who  is  only  unity,  but  in  whom  is  no  plurality,  may  be  our 
Judge,  but,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  cannot  be  our  Savior  or  our  Sanctifier. 

"  God  is  the  way  to  himself."  "  Nothing  human  holds  good  before  God,  and  nothing 
but  God  himself  can  satisfy  God."  The  best  method  of  arguing  with  Unitarians,  there- 
fore, is  to  rouse  the  sense  of  sin ;  for  the  soul  that  has  any  proper  conviction  of  its  sins 
feels  that  only  an  infinite  Redeemer  can  ever  save  it.  On  the  other  hand,  a  slight  esti- 
mate of  sin  is  logically  connected  with  a  low  view  of  the  dignity  of  Christ.  Twesten, 
translated  in  Bib.  Sac,  3 :  510  —  "  It  would  seem  to  be  not  a  mere  accident  that  Pelagi- 
anism,  when  logically  carried  out,  as  for  example  among  the  Socinians,  has  also  always 
led  to  Unitarianism."  In  the  reverse  order,  too,  it  is  manifest  that  rejection  of  the 
deity  of  Christ  must  tend  to  render  more  superficial  men's  views  of  the  sin  and  guilt 
and  punishment  from  which  Christ  came  to  save  them,  and  with  this  to  deaden  religious 
feeling  and  to  cut  the  sinews  of  all  evangelistic  and  missionary  effort  ( John  12 :  44 ;  Heb. 
10 :  26 ).  See  Arthur,  on  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  in  relation  to  his  work  of  Atonement, 
in  Present  Day  Tracts,  6  :  no.  35;  Ellis,  quoted  by  Watson,  Theol.  Inst.,  23;  Gunsaulus, 
Transfig.  of  Christ,  13  —  "  We  have  tried  to  see  God  in  the  light  of  nature,  while  he  said : 
'In  thy  light  shall  we  see  light '  ( Ps.  36 : 9 )."  We  should  see  nature  in  the  light  of  Christ.  Eter- 
nal life  is  attained  only  through  the  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ  (John  16: 9).  Hence  to 
accept  Christ  is  to  accept  God;  to  reject  Christ  is  to  turn  one's  back  on  God :  John  12: 44 
—  "He  that believeth  on  me,  believeth  not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent  me  "  :  Heb.  10  :  26,  29 —  "there  remaineth  no 
more  a  sacrifice  for  sin  ....  [  for  him  ]  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God." 

In  The  Heart  of  Midlothian,  Jeanie  Deans  goes  to  London  to  secure  pardon  for  her 
sister.  She  cannot  in  her  pepsant  attire  go  direct  to  the  King,  for  he  will  not  receive 
her.  She  goes  to  a  Scotch  housekeeper  in  London ;  through  him  to  the  Duke  of  Argyle ; 
through  him  to  the  Queen  ;  through  the  Queen  she  gets  pardon  from  the  King,  whom 
she  never  sees.  This  was  mediaeval  mediatorship.  But  now  we  come  directly  to  Christ, 
and  this  suffices  us,  because  he  is  himself  God  (  The  Outlook  ).  A  man  once  went  into 
the  cell  of  a  convicted  murderer,  at  the  request  of  the  murderer's  wife  and  pleaded 
with  him  to  confess  his  crime  and  accept  Christ,  but  the  murderer  refused.  The  seem- 
ing clergyjnan  was  the  Governor,  with  a  pardon  which  he  had  designed  to  bestow  in 
case  he  found  the  murderer  penitent.  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  86—  "I  have 
heard  that,  during  our  Civil  War,  a  swaggering,  drunken,  blaspheming  officer  insulted 
and  almost  drove  from  the  dock  at  Alexandria,  a  plain  unoffending  man  in  citizen's 
dress ;  but  I  have  also  heard  that  that  same  officer  turned  pale,  fell  on  his  knees,  and 
begged  for  mercy,  when  the  plain  man  demanded  his  sword,  put  him  under  arrest  and 
made  himself  known  as  General  Grant.  So  we  may  abuse  and  reject  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  fancy  that  we  can  ignore  his  claims  and  disobey  his  commands  with 
impunity ;  but  it  will  seem  a  more  serious  thing  when  we  find  at  the  last  that  he  whom 
we  have  abused  and  rejected  is  none  other  than  the  living  God  before  whose  judgment 
bar  we  are  to  stand." 

Henry  B.  Smith  began  life  under  Unitarian  influences,  and  had  strong  prejudices 
against  evangelical  doctrine,  especially  the  doctrines  of  human  depravity  and  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  In  his  Senior  year  in  College  he  was  converted.  Cyrus  Hamlin 
says:  "I  regard  Smith's  conversion  as  the  most  remarkable  event  in  College  in  my 
day."  Doubts  of  depravity  vanished  with  one  glimpse  into  his  own  heart ;  and  doubts 
about  Christ's  divinity  could  not  hold  their  own  against  the  confession  :  "  Of  one  thing 
I  feel  assured :  I  need  an  infinite  Savior."  Here  is  the  ultimate  strength  of  Trinitarian 
doctrine.  When  the  Holy  Spirit  convinces  a  man  of  his  sin,  and  brings  him  face  to 
face  with  the  outraged  holiness  and  love  of  God,  he  is  moved  to  cry  from  the  depths  of 
his  soul :    "  None  but  an  infinite  Savior  can  ever  save  me  I "    Only  in  a  divine  Christ  — 


INSCRUTABLE,    YET   NOT   SELF-CONTRADICTORY.  351 

Christ  for  us upon  the  Cross,  and  Christ  in  us  by  his  Spirit  — can  the  convicted  soul  find 
peace  mid  rest.  And  so  every  revival  of  true  religion  gives  a  new  impulse  to  the  Trini- 
tarian doctrine.  Henry  B.  Smith  wrote  io  his  later  life:  "When  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  abandoned,  other  articles  oftthe  faith,  such  as  the  atonement  and  regener- 
ation, have  almost  always  followed,  by  logical  necessity,  as,  when  one  draws  the  wire 
from  a  necklace  of  gems,  the  gems  all  fall  asunder." 

D.     It  is  essential  to  any  proper  model  for  human  life. 

If  there  be  no  Trinity  immanent  in  the  divine  nature,  then  Fatherhood 
in  God  has  had  a  beginning  and  it  may  have  an  end  ;  Sonship,  moreover, 
is  no  longer  a  perfection,  but  an  imperfection,  ordained  for  a  temporary 
purpose.  But  if  fatherly  giving  and  filial  receiving  are  eterual  in  God, 
then  the  law  of  love  requires  of  us  conformity  to  God  in  both  these  respects 
as  the  highest  dignity  of  our  being. 

See  Hutton,  Essays,  1 :  232—"  The  Trinity  tells  us  something  of  God's  absolute  and 
essential  nature ;  not  simply  what  he  is  to  us,  but  what  he  is  in  himself.  If  Christ  is  the 
eternal  Son  of  the  Father,  God  is  indeed  and  in  essence  a  Father ;  the  social  nature,  the 
spring  of  love  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  eternal  Being ;  the  communication  of  life, 
the  reciprocation  of  affection  dates  from  beyond  time,  belongs  to  the  very  being  of  God. 
The  Unitarian  idea  of  a  solitary  God  profoundly  affects  our  conception  of  God,  reduces 
it  to  mere  power,  identifies  God  with  abstract  cause  and  thought.  Love  is  grounded 
in  power,  not  power  in  love.  The  Father  is  merged  in  the  omniscient  and  omnipotent 
genius  of  the  universe.''  Hence  lJohn2:23  —  "  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father." 
D'Arcy,  Idealism  and  Theology,  204  —  "If  God  be  simply  one  great  person,  then  we 
have  to  think  of  him  as  waiting  until  the  whole  process  of  creation  has  been  accom- 
plished before  his  love  can  find  an  object  upon  which  to  bestow  itself.  His  love  belongs, 
in  that  case,  not  to  his  inmost  essence,  but  to  his  relation  to  some  of  his  creatures.  The 
words  '  God  is  love '  ( 1  John  4:8)  become  a  rhetorical  exaggeration,  rather  than  the  expres- 
sion of  a  truth  about  the  divine  nature." 

Hutton,  Essays,  1  :  239  —  "  We  need  also  the  inspiration  and  help  of  a  perfect  filial 
will.  We  cannot  conceive  of  the  Father  as  sharing  in  that  dependent  attitude  of  spirit 
which  is  our  chief  spiritual  want.  It  is  a  Father's  perfection  to  originate  —  a  Son's  to 
receive.  We  need  sympathy  and  aid  in  this  receptive  life ;  hence,  the  help  of  the  true 
Son.  Humility,  self-sacrifice,  submission,  are  heavenly,  eternal,  divine.  Christ's  filial 
life  is  the  root  of  all  filial  life  in  us.  See  Gal.  2  :  19,  20  —  "it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me :  and  that  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  I  live  in  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave 
himself  up  for  me."  Thomas  Erskine  of  Linlathen,  The  Spiritual  Order,  2.33 — "There  is 
nothing  degrading  in  this  dependence,  for  we  share  it  with  the  eternal  Son."  Gore, 
Incarnation,  162  — "God  can  limit  himself  by  the  conditions  of  manhood,  because  the 
Godhead  contains  in  itself  eternally  the  prototype  of  human  self-sacrifice  and  self- 
limitation,  for  God  is  love."  On  the  practical  lessons  and  uses  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  see  Presb.  and  Kef.  Rev.,  Oct.  1902:  524-550— art.  by  R.  M.  Edgar;  also  sermon 
by  Ganse,  in  South  Church  Lectures,  300-310.  On  the  doctrine  in  general,  see  Robie,  in 
Bib.  Sac,  27 :262-2S9 ;  Pease,  Philosophy  of  Trinitarian  Doctrine ;  N.  W.  Taylor,  Revealed 
Theology,  1 :  133 ;  Schultz,  Lehre  von  der  Gottheit  Christi. 

On  heathen  trinities,  see  Bib.  Repos.,  6:116;  Christlieb,  Mod.  Doubt  and  Christian 
Belief,  2tJ6, 2iJT  — "  Lao-tse  says,  600  B.  C,  'Tao,  the  intelligent  principle  of  all  being,  is 
by  nature  one  ;  the  first  begat  the  second ;  both  together  begat  the  third  ;  these  three 
made  all  things.' "  The  Egyptian  triad  of  Abydos  was  Osiris,  Isis  his  wife,  and  Horus 
their  Son.  But  these  were  no  true  persons ;  for  not  only  did  the  Son  proceed  from  the 
Father,  but  the  Father  proceeded  from  the  Son ;  the  Egyptian  trinity  was  pantheistic 
in  its  meaning.  See  Renouf ,  Hibbert  Lectures,  29 ;  Rawlinson,  Religions  of  the  Ancient 
World,  46,  47.  The  Trinity  of  the  Vedas  was  Dyaus,  India,  Agni.  Derived  from  the 
three  dimensions  of  space  ?  Or  from  the  family  —  father,  mother,  son  ?  Man  creates 
God  in  his  own  image,  and  sees  family  life  in  the  Godhead  ? 

The  Brahman  Trimurti  or  Trinity,  to  the  members  of  which  are  given  the  names 
Brahma,  Vishnu,  Siva  — source,  supporter,  end  — is  a  personification  of  the  pantheistic 
All,  which  dwells  equally  in  good  and  evil,  in  god  and  man.  The  three  are  represented 
in  the  three  mystic  letters  of  the  syllable  Om,  or  Aum,  and  by  the  image  at  Elephanta 
of  three  heads  and  one  body;  see  Hardwick,  Christ  and  Other  Masters,  1:276.    The 


352         NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

places  of  the  three  are  interchangeable.  Williams :  "  In  the  three  persons  tbe  one  God 
is  shown  ;  Each  first  in  place,  each  last,  not  one  alone ;  Of  Siva,  Vishnu,  Brahma,  each 
may  be,  First,  second,  third,  among-  the  blessed  three."  There  are  ten  incarnations  of 
Vishnu  for  men's  salvation  in  various  times  of  need  ;  and  the  one  Spirit  which  tempo- 
rarily invests  itself  with  the  qualities  of  matter  is  reduced  to  its  original  essence  at  the 
end  of  the  aeon  (  Kalpa ).  This  is  only  a  grosser  form  of  Sabellianism,  or  of  a  modal 
Trinity.  According-  to  Renouf  it  is  not  older  than  A.  D.  1400.  Buddhism  in  later  times 
had  its  triad.  Buddha,  or  Intelligence,  the  first  principle,  associated  with  Dharma, 
or  Law,  the  principle  of  matter,  through  the  combining  influence  of  Sangha,  or  Order, 
the  mediating  principle.  See  Kellogg,  The  Light  of  Asia  and  the  Light  of  the  World, 
184,  355.    It  is  probably  from  a  Christian  source. 

The  Greek  trinity  was  composed  of  Zeus,  Athena,  and  Apollo.  Apollo  or  Loxias 
( Ao-yos )  utters  the  decisions  of  Zeus,  "  These  three  surpass  all  the  other  g-ods  in  moral 
character  and  in  providential  care  over  the  universe.  They  sustain  such  intimate  and 
endearing  relations  to  each  other,  that  they  may  be  said  to  '  agree  in  one '"  ;  see  Tyler, 
Theol.  of  Greek  Poets,  170,  171 ;  Gladstone,  Studies  of  Homer,  vol.  2,  sec.  2.  Yet  the 
Greek  trinity,  while  it  gives  us  three  persons,  does  not  g-ive  us  oneness  of  essence.  It 
is  a  system  of  tritheism.    Plotinus,  300  A.  D.,  gives  us  a  philosophical  Trinity  in  his  to 

eV,  6  voC;,  r)  i|/vx>}. 

Watts,  New  Apologetic,  195  —  The  heathen  trinities  are  "residuary  fragments  of  the 
lost  knowledge  of  God,  not  different  stages  in  a  process  of  theological  evolution,  but 
evidence  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  degradation."  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christian- 
ity, 92 — "  In  the  Vedas  the  various  individual  divinities  are  separated  by  no  hard  and 
fast  distinction  from  each  other.  They  are  only  names  for  one  indivisible  whole,  of 
which  the  particular  divinity  invoked  at  any  one  time  is  the  type  or  representative. 
There  is  a  latent  recognition  of  a  unity  beneath  all  the  multiplicity  of  the  objects  of 
adoration.  The  personal  or  anthropomorphic  element  is  never  employed  as  it  is  in  the 
Greek  and  Roman  mythology.  The  personality  ascribed  to  Mitra  or  Varuna  or  Indra 
or  Agni  is  scarcely  more  real  than  our  modern  smiling  heaven  or  whispering  breeze  or 
sullen  moaning  restless  sea.  '  There  is  but  one,'  they  say,  '  though  the  poets  call  him  by 
different  names.'  The  all-embracing  heaven,  mighty  nature,  is  the  reality  behind  each  of 
these  partial  manifestations.  The  pantheistic  element  which  was  implicit  in  the  Vedic 
phase  of  Indian  religion  becomes  explicit  in  Brahmanism,  and  in  particular  in  the  so- 
called  Indian  systems  of  philosophy  and  in  the  great  Indian  epic  poems.  They  seek 
to  find  in  the  flux  and  variety  of  things  the  permanent  underlying  essence.  That  is 
Brahma.  So  Spinoza  sought  rest  in  the  one  eternal  substance,  and  he  wished  to  lcok  at 
all  things  '  under  the  form  of  eternity.'  All  things  and  beings  are  forms  of  one  whole, 
of  the  infinite  substance  which  we  call  God."    See  also  L.  L.  Paine,  Ethnic  Trinities. 

The  gropings  of  the  heathen  religions  after  a  trinity  in  God,  together  with  their 
inability  to  construct  a  consistent  scheme  of  it,  are  evidence  of  a  rational  want  in 
human  nature  which  only  the  Christian  doctrine  is  able  to  supply.  This  power  to  sat- 
isfy the  inmost  needs  of  the  believer  is  proof  of  its  truth.  We  close  our  treatment  with 
the  words  of  Jeremy  Taylor:  "He  who  goes  about  to  speak  of  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity,  and  does  it  by  words  and  names  of  man's  invention,  talking  of  essence  and 
existences,  hypostases  and  personalities,  priority  in  coequality,  and  unity  in  plurali- 
ties, may  amuse  himself  and  build  a  tabernacle  in  his  head,  and  talk  something  — he 
knows  not  what ;  but  the  renewed  man,  that  feels  the  power  of  the  Father,  to  whom 
the  Son  is  become  wisdom,  sanctification,  and  redemption,  in  whose  heart  the  love  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  shed  abroad  — this  man,  though  he  understand  nothing  of  what  is 
unintelligible,  yet  he  alone  truly  understands  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity." 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    DECREES   OF   GOD. 

I.  Definition  of  Decrees. 

By  the  decrees  of  God  we  mean  that  eternal  plan  by  which  God  has 
rendered  certain  all  the  events  of  the  universe,  past,  present,  and  future. 
Notice  in  explanation  that : 

( a  )  The  decrees  are  many  only  to  our  finite  comprehension  ;  in  their 
own  nature  they  are  but  one  plan,  which  embraces  not  only  effects  but  also 
causes,  not  only  the  ends  to  be  secured  but  also  the  means  needful  to 
secure  them. 

In  Rom.  8  :  28  —  "  called  according  to  his  purpose "  —  the  many  decrees  for  the  salvation  of  many 
individuals  are  represented  as  forming- but  one  purpose  of  God.  Eph.  1:11  —  "foreordained 
according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  will "  —  notice  again  the  word 
"  purpose,"  in  the  singular.  Eph.  3 :  11  —  "  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord."  This  one  purpose  or  plan  of  God  includes  both  means  and  ends,  prayer  and  its 
answer,  labor  and  its  fruit.  Tyrolese  proverb:  "God  has  his  plan  for  every  man." 
Every  man,  as  well  as  Jean  Paul,  is  " d< x  Einzige  "  —  the  unique.  There  is  a  single  plan 
which  embraces  all  things ;  "  we  use  t  he  word  '  decree '  when  we  think  of  it  partitively  " 
(Pepper).  See  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  1st  ed.,  165;  2d  ed.,200  —  "In  fact,  no  event 
is  isolated  —  to  determine  one  involves  determination  of  the  whole  concatenation  of 
causes  and  effects  which  constitutes  the  universe."  The  word  "plan"  is  preferable  to 
the  word  "decrees,"  because  "  plan"  excludes  the  ideas  of  ( 1 )  plurality,  ( 2 )  short-sight- 
edness, ( 3 )  arbitrariness,  (4)  compulsion. 

(6)  The  decrees,  as  the  eternal  act  of  an  infinitely  perfect  will,  though 
they  have  logical  relations  to  each  other,  have  no  chronological  relation. 
They  are  not  therefore  the  result  of  deliberation,  in  any  sense  that  implies 
short-sightedness  or  hesitancy. 

Logically,  in  God's  decree  the  sun  precedes  the  sunlight,  and  the  decree  to  bring  into 
b  'ing  a  father  precedes  the  decree  that  there  shall  be  a  son.  God  decrees  man  before 
he  decrees  man's  act ;  he  decrees  the  creation  of  man  before  he  decrees  man's  existence. 
But  there  is  no  chronological  succession.  "Counsel"  in  Eph.  1:11  —  "the  counsel  of  his  will" — 
means,  not  deliberation,  but  wisdom. 

( c )  Since  the  will  in  which  the  decrees  have  their  origin  is  a  free  will, 
the  decrees  are  not  a  merely  instinctive  or  necessary  exercise  of  the  divine 
intelligence  or  volition,  such  as  pantheism  supposes. 

It  belongs  to  the  perfection  of  God  that  he  have  a  plan,  and  the  best  possible  plan. 
Here  is  no  necessity,  but  only  the  certainty  that  infinite  wisdem  will  act  wisely.  God's 
decrees  are  not  God ;  they  are  not  identical  with  his  essence  ;  they  do  not  flow  from 
his  being  in  the  satne  necessary  way  in  which  the  eternal  Son  proceeds  from  the  eternal 
Father.  There  is  free  will  in  God,  which  acts  with  infinite  certainty,  yet  without  neces- 
sity. To  call  even  the  decree  of  salvation  necessary  is  to  deny  grace,  and  to  make  an 
unfree  God.    See  Dick,  Lectures  on  Theology,  1 :  355 ;  lect.  34. 

(  d )  The  decrees  have  reference  to  things  outside  of  God.  God  does  not 
decree  to  be  holy,  nor  to  exist  as  three  persons  in  one  essence. 

Decrees  are  the  preparation  for  external  events  —  the  embracing  of  certain  things 
and  acts  in  a  plan.  They  do  not  include  those  processes  and  operations  within  the  God- 
head which  have  no  reference  to  the  universe. 

23  353 


354  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

(  e )  The  decrees  primarily  respect  the  acts  of  God  himself,  in  Creation, 
Providence,  and  Grace  ;  secondarily,  the  acts  of  free  creatures,  which  he 
foresees  will  result  therefrom. 

While  we  deny  the  assertion  of  Whedon,  that  "  the  divine  plan  embraces  only  divine 
actions,"  we  grant  that  God's  plan  has  reference  priiriarily  to  his  own  actions,  and  that 
the  sinful  acts  of  men,  in  particular,  are  the  objects,  not  of  a  decree  that  God  will 
efficiently  produce  them,  but  of  a  decree  that  God  will  permit  men,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  own  free  will,  to  produce  them. 

(/)  The  decree  to  act  is  not  the  act.  The  decrees  are  an  internal  exer- 
cise and  manifestation  of  the  divine  attributes,  and  are  not  to  be  confounded 
with  Creation,  Providence,  and  Redemption,  which  are  the  execution  of  the 
decrees. 

The  decrees  are  the  first  operation  of  the  attributes,  and  the  first  manifestation  of 
personality  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  within  the  Godhead.  They  presuppose 
those  essential  acts  or  movements  within  the  divine  nature  which  we  call  generation 
and  procession.  They  involve  by  way  of  consequence  that  execution  of  the  decrees 
which  we  call  Creation,  Providence,  and  Redemption,  but  they  are  not  to  be  confounded 
with  either  of  these. 

(  g  )  The  decrees  are  therefore  not  addressed  to  creatures  ;  are  not  of  the 
nature  of  statute  law  ;  and  lay  neither  compidsion  nor  obligation  upon  the 
wills  of  men. 

So  ordering  the  universe  that  men  wHl  pursue  a  given  course  of  action  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  declaiming,  ordering,  or  commanding  that  they  shall.  "Our  acts 
are  in  accordance  with  the  decrees,  but  not  necessarily  so  —  we  can  do  otherwise  and 
often  should"  (Park).  The  Frenchman  who  fell  into  the  water  and  cried:  "I  will 
drown,  —no  one  shall  help  me  !"  was  very  naturally  permitted  to  drown;  if  he  had 
said  :  "  I  shall  drown,  — no  one  will  help  me !  "  he  might  perchance  have  called  some 
friendly  person  to  his  aid. 

(  h )  All  human  acts,  whether  evil  or  good,  enter  into  the  divine  plan  and 
so  are  objects  of  God's  decrees,  although  God's  actual  agency  with  regard 
to  the  evil  is  only  a  permissive  agency. 

No  decree  of  God  reads :  "  You  shall  sin."  For  (l)no  decree  is  addressed  to  you; 
( 2  )  no  decree  with  respect  to  you  says  shall ;  (3)  God  cannot  cause  sin,  or  decree  to 
cause  it.  He  simply  decrees  to  create,  and  himself  to  act,  in  such  a  way  that  you  will, 
of  your  own  free  choice,  commit  sin.  God  determines  upon  his  own  acts,  foreseeing 
what  the  results  will  be  in  the  free  acts  of  his  creatures,  and  so  he  determines  those 
results.  This  permissive  decree  is  the  only  decree  of  God  with  respect  to  sin.  Man  of 
himself  is  capable  of  producing  sin.  Of  himself  he  is  not  capable  of  producing  holiness. 
In  the  production  of  holiness  two  powers  must  concur.  God's  will  and  man's  will,  and 
God's  will  must  act  first.  The  decree  of  good,  therefore,  is  not  simply  a  permissive 
decree,  as  in  the  case  of  evil.  God's  decree,  in  the  former  case,  is  a  decree  to  bring  to 
bear  positive  agencies  for  its  production,  such  as  circumstances,  motives,  influences  of 
his  Spirit.  But,  in  the  case  of  evil,  God's  decrees  are  simply  his  arrangement  that  man 
may  do  as  he  pleases,  God  ali  the  while  foreseeing  the  result. 

Permissive  agency  should  not  be  confounded  with  conditional  agency,  nor  permissive 
decree  with  conditional  decree.  God  foreordained  sin  only  indirectly.  The  machine 
is  constructed  not  for  the  sake  of  the  friction,  but  in  spite  of  it.  In  the  parable  Mat. 
13 :  24-30,  the  question  "  Whence  then  hath  it  tares  ?  "  is  answered,  not  by  saying,  "  I  decreed  the 
tares,"  but  by  saying  :  "An  enemy  hath  done  this."  Yet  we  must  take  exception  to  Principal 
Fairbairn,  Place  of  Christ  in  Theology,  456,  when  he  says :  "  God  did  not  permit  sin  to 
be ;  it  is,  in  its  essence,  the  transgression  of  his  law,  and  so  his  only  attitude  toward  it 
is  one  of  opposition.  It  is,  because  man  has  contradicted  and  resisted  his  will."  Here 
the  truth  of  God's  opposition  to  sin  is  stated  so  sharply  as  almost  to  deny  the  decree  of 
sin  in  any  sense.  We  maintain  that  God  does  decree  sin  in  the  sense  of  embracing  in 
his  plan  the  foreseen  transgressions  of  men,  while  at  the  same  time  we  maintain  that 
these  foreseen  transgressions  are  chargeable  wholly  to  men  and  not  at  all  to  God. 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DECREES.  355 

(  *  )  While  God's  total  plan  with  regard  to  creatures  is  called  predesti- 
nation, or  foreordination,  his  purpose  so  to  act  that  certain  will  believe  and 
be  saved  is  called  election,  aud  hiapurpose  so  to  act  that  certain  will  refuse 
to  believe  and  be  lost  is  called  reprobation.  We  discuss  election  and  repro- 
bation, in  a  later  chapter,  as  a  part  of  the  Application  of  Redemption. 

God's  decrees  may  be  ilivi<k'<l  into  decrees  with  respect  to  nature,  and  decrees  with 
respect  to  moral  beings.  These  last  we  call  foreordination,  or  predestination  ;  and  of 
these  decrees  with  respect  to  moral  beings  there  are  two  kinds,  the  decree  of  election, 
and  the  decree  of  reprobation  ;  see  our  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  Election.  George 
Herbert :  "  We  all  acknowledge  both  thy  power  and  love  To  be  exact,  transcendent, 
and  divine ;  Who  dost  so  strongly  and  so  sweetly  move,  While  all  things  have  their  will 

—  yet  none  but  thine.  For  either  thy  command  or  thy  permission  Lays  hands  on  all; 
they  are  thy  right  and  left.  The  first  puts  on  with  speed  and  expedition;  The  other 
curbs  sin's  stealing  pace  and  theft.  Nothing  escapes  them  both  ;  all  must  appear  And 
be  disposed  and  dressed  and  tuned  by  thee  Who  sweetly  temperest  all.  If  we  could 
hear  Thy  skill  and  art,  what  music  it  would  be !  "  On  the  whole  doctrine,  see  Shedd, 
Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1890  : 1-25. 

II.     Proof  of  the  doctrine  of  Decrees. 

1.     From  Scripture. 

A.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  all  things  are  included  in  the  divine 
decrees.  B.  They  declare  that  special  things  and  events  are  decreed  ;  as, 
for  example,  (  a  )  the  stability  of  the  physical  universe  ;  (  b  )  the  outward 
circumstances  of  nations  ;  ( e )  the  length  of  human  life  ;  ( d )  the  mode  of 
our  death  ;  (  c )  the  free  acts  of  men,  both  good  acts  and  evil  acts.  C. 
They  declare  that  God  has  decreed  (a)  the  salvation  of  believers  ;  (  b  )  the 
establishment  of  Christ's  kingdom  ;  ( c )  the  work  of  Christ  and  of  his 
people  in  establishing  it. 

A.  Is.  14 :  26,  27  — "  This  is  the  purpose  that  is  purposed  upon  the  whole  earth ;  and  this  is  the  hand  that  is  stretched 
out  upon  all  the  nations;  for  Jehovah  of  hosts  hath  purposed  .  .  .  and  his  hand  is  stretched  out,  and  who  shall  turn  it  back  ?  " 
46  :  10, 11 —  "declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying, 
My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure  .  .  .  yea,  I  have  spoken,  I  will  also  bring  it  to  pass ;  I  have  pur- 
posed, I  will  also  do  it."  Dan.  4 :  35  —  "  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants 
of  the  earth  ;  and  none  can  stay  his  hand,  or  say  unto  him,  What  doest  thou?  "  Eph.  1:11  —  "the  purpose  of  him  who 
workethall  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  will." 

B.  (  a )  Ps.  119 :  89-91  —  "  For  ever,  0  Jehovah,  thy  word  is  settled  in  heaven.  Thy  faithfulness  is  unto  ali  genera- 
tions :  Thou  hast  established  the  earth  and  it  abideth.  They  abide  this  day  according  to  thine  ordinances ;  For  all  things 
are  thy  servants."  (  h  )  Acts  17:  26 —  "ho  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  having 
determined  their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  th?ir  habitation  "  ;  vf.  Zech.  5:1  —  "  came  four  chariots  out  from 
between  two  mountains ;  and  the  mountains  were  mountains  of  brass  "=  the  fixed  decrees  from  which  pro- 
ceed God's  providential  dealings  ?  (  c  )  Job  14  :  5  —  "  Seeing  his  days  are  determined,  The  number  of  his 
months  is  with  thee,  And  thou  hast  determined  his  bounds  that  he  cannot  pass."  (  d  )  John  21  :  19 — "this  he  spake, 
signifying  by  what  manner  of  death  he  should  glorify  God."  (e  )  Good  acts  :  Is.  44:  28  —  "that  saith  of  Cyrus, 
He  is  my  shepherd  and  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure,  even  saying  of  Jerusalem,  She  shall  be  built ;  and  of  the  temple,  Thy 
foundation  shall  be  laid"  ;  Eph.  2: 10 —  "For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God 
afore  prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them."  Evil  acts :  Gen.  50  :  20  — "  as  for  you,  ye  meant  evil  against  me ;  but 
God  meant  it  for  good,  to  bring  to  pass,  as  it  is  this  day,  to  save  much  people  alive  " ;  IK.  12 :  IS —  "  So  the  king 
hearkened  not  unto  the  people,  for  it  was  a  thing  brought  about  of  Jehovah  "  ;  24  —  "for  this  thing  is  of  me"  ;  Luke  22: 22 

—  "  For  the  Son  of  man  indeed  goeth,  as  it  hath  been  determined  :  but  woe  unto  that  man  through  whom  he  is  betrayed ' '  ; 
Acts  2 :  23  —  "  him,  being  delivered  up  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  by  the  hand  of  lawless 
men  did  crucify  and  slay  "  ;  4  :  27,  28  —  "  of  a  truth  in  this  city  against  thy  holy  Servant  Jesus,  whom  thou  didst  anoint, 
both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  to  do  whatsoever  thy 
hand  and  thy  counsel  foreordained  to  come  to  pass  "  ;  Rom.  9 :  17  —  "For  the  scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  For  this  very 
purpose  did  I  raise  thee  up,  that  I  might  show  in  thea  my  power  "  ;  1  Pet.  2:8—  "They  stumble  at  the  word,  being  dis- 
obedient :  whereunto  also  they  were  appointed  "  ;  Rev.  17 :  17  — "  For  God  did  put  in  their  hearts  to  do  his  mind,  and  to  come 
to  ono  mind,  and  to  give  their  kingdom  unto  the  beast,  until  the  words  of  God  should  be  accomplished." 


356  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

C.  ( (()  1  Cor.  2:7 —  "the  wisdom  which  hath  been  hidden,  which  God  foreordained  before  the  worlds  unto  our 
glory  "  ;  Eph.  3 :  10,  11  —  "manifold  wisdom  of  God,  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."  Ephesians  1  is  a  ptean  in  praise  of  God's  decrees.  ( h  )  The  greatest  decree  of  all 
is  the  decree  to  give  the  world  to  Christ.  Ps.  2:7,  8  — "I  will  tell  of  the  decree:  ...  I  will  give  thee 
the  nations  for  thine  inheritance  "  ;  cf.  verse  6 — "I  have  set  my  king  Upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion  "  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  25  —  "he 
must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet."  (  c )  This  decree  we  are  to  convert  into  our 
decree;  God's  will  is  to  be  executed  through  our  wills.  Phil.  2  :  12, 13— "work  out  your  own 
salvation  with  fear  and  trembling;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure."  Rev. 
5  : 1,  7  —  "I  saw  in  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  on  the  throne  a  book  written  within  and  on  the  back,  close  sealed 
with  seven  seals.  .  .  .  And  he  [  the  Lamb  ]  came,  and  he  taketh  it  out  of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  on  the 
throne ";  verse  9  —  "  Worthy  art  thou  to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  theseals  thereof"  =  Christ  alone  has  the 
omniscience  to  know,  and  the  omnipotence  to  execute,  the  divine  decrees.  When  John 
weeps  because  there  is  none  in  heaven  or  earth  to  loose  the  seals  and  to  read  the  book 
of  God's  decrees,  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  prevails  to  open  it.  Only  Christ  con- 
ducts the  course  of  history  to  its  appointed  end.  See  A.  H.  Strong-,  Christ  in  Creation, 
268-283,  on  The  Decree  of  God  as  the  Great  Encouragement  to  Missions. 

2.     From  Reason. 

(  a  )  From  the  divine  foreknowledge. 

Foreknowledge  implies  fixity,  and  fixity  implies  decree.  —  From  eternity 
God  foresaw  all  tlie  events  of  the  universe  as  fixed  and  certain.  This  fixity 
and  certainty  could  not  have  had  its  ground  either  in  blind  fate  or  in  the 
variable  wills  of  men,  since  neither  of  these  had  an  existence.  It  could 
have  had  its  ground  in  nothing  outside  the  divine  mind,  for  in  eternity 
nothing  existed  besides  the  divine  mind.  But  for  this  fixity  there  must 
have  been  a  cause  ;  if  anything  in  the  future  was  fixed,  something  must 
have  fixed  it.  This  fixity  could  have  had  its  ground  only  in  the  plan  and 
purpose  of  God.  In  fine,  if  God  foresaw  the  future  as  certain,  it  must  have 
been  because  there  was  something  in  himself  which  made  it  certain  ;  or,  in 
other  words,  because  he  had  decreed  it. 

We  object  therefore  to  the  statemeut  of  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  74  — 
"God's  knowledge  and  God's  purposes  both  being-  eternal,  one  cannot  be  conceived  as 
the  ground  of  the  other,  nor  can  either  be  predicated  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  as 
the  cause  of  thing's,  but,  correlative  and  eternal,  they  must  be  coequal  quantities  in 
thoug-ht."  We  reply  that  while  decree  does  not  chronologically  precede,  it  does 
logically  precede,  foreknowledge.  Foreknowledge  is  not  of  possible  events,  but  of  what 
is  certain  to  be.  The  certainty  of  future  events  which  God  foreknew  could  have  had 
its  ground  only  in  his  decree,  since  he  alone  existed  to  be  the  ground  and  explanation 
of  this  certainty.  Events  were  fixed  only  because  God  had  fixed  them.  Shedd,  Dogm. 
Theol.,  1  :  397  —  "An  event  must  be  made  certain,  before  it  can  be  known  as  a  certain 
event."  Turretin,  Inst.  Theol.,  loc.  3,  quaes.  12,  18  — "  Pnecipuum  f  undamentum  scien- 
tial divina3  circa  futura  contingentia  est  decretum  solum." 

Decreeing  creation  implies  decreeing  the  foreseen  results  of  creation.  — 
To  meet  the  objection  that  God  might  have  foreseen  the  events  of  the  uni- 
verse, not  because  he  had  decreed  each  one,  but  only  because  he  had 
decreed  to  create  the  universe  and  institute  its  laws,  we  may  put  the  argu- 
ment in  another  form.  In  eternity  there  could  have  been  no  cause  of  the 
future  existence  of  the  universe,  outside  of  God  himself,  since  no  being 
existed  but  God  himself.  In  eternity  God  foresaw  that  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  the  institution  of  its  laws  would  make  certain  its  actual  history 
even  to  the  most  insignificant  details.  But  God  decreed  to  create  and  to 
institute  these  laws.  In  so  decreeing  he  necessarily  decreed  all  that  was 
to  come.  In  fine,  God  foresaw  the  future  events  of  the  universe  as  certain, 
because  he  had  decreed  to  create  ;  but  this  determination  to  create  involved 
also  a  determination  of  all  the  actual  results  of  that  creation  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  God  decreed  those  results. 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DECREES.  357 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  84— "The  existence  of  divine  decrees  maybe 
inferred  from  the  existence  of  natural  law."  Law  =  certainty  =  God's  will.  Positivists 
express  great  contempt  for  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  yet  they  con- 
sign us  to  the  iron  necessity  of  physical  forces  and  natural  laws.  Dr.  Robinson  also 
points  out  that  decrees  are  "implied  in  the  prophecies.  We  cannot  conceive  that  all 
events  should  have  converged  toward  the  one  great  event  —  the  death  of  Christ  —  with- 
out the  intervention  of  an  eternal  purpose."  E.  H.  Johnson,  Outline  Syst.  Theol.,  2d 
ed.,  251,  note—"  Reason  is  confronted  by  the  paradox  that  the  divine  decrees  are  at  once 
absolute  and  conditional ;  the  resolution  of  the  paradox  is  that  God  absolutely  decreed 
a  conditional  system  —  a  system,  however,  the  workings  of  which  he  thoroughly  fore- 
knows." The  rough  unhewn  stone  and  the  statue  into  which  it  will  be  transformed 
are  both  and  equally  included  in  the  plan  of  the  sculptor. 

No  undecreed  event  can  be  foreseen. —  We  grant  that  God  decrees  pri- 
marily and  directly  his  own  acts  of  creation,  providence,  and  grace  ;  but 
we  claim  that  this  involves  also  a  secondary  and  indirect  decreeing  of  the 
acts  of  free  creatures  which  he  foresees  will  result  therefrom.  There  is 
therefore  no  such  thing  in  God  as  scientia  media,  or  knowledge  of  an 
event  that  is  to  be,  though  it  does  not  enter  into  the  divine  plan  ;  for  to  say 
that- God  foresees  an  undecreed  event,  is  to  say  that  he  views  as  future  an 
event  that  is  inertly  possible  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  views  an  event 
not  as  it  is. 

We  recognize  only  two  kindsof  knowledge:  ( 1 )  Knowledge  of  undecreed  possibles, 
and  (2)  foreknowledge  of  decreed  actuals.  Scientia  media  la  a  supposed  intermediate 
knowledge  between  those  two,  namely  (:i)  foreknowledge  of  undecreed  actuals.  See 
further  explanations  below.  We  deny  the  existence  of  tliis  third  sort  of  knowledge. 
We  hold  that  sin  is  decreed  in  the  sense  of  being  rendered  certain  by  God's  determin- 
ing upon  a  system  in  which  it  was  foreseen  that  sin  would  exist.  The  sin  of  man  can 
be  foreknown,  while  yet  God  is  not  the  immediate  cause  of  it.  God  knows  possibilities, 
without  having  decreed  them  at  all.  But  God  cannot  foreknow  actualities  unless  he 
has  by  his  decree  made  them  to  be  certainties  of  the  future.  He  cannot  foreknow  that 
which  is  not  there  to  be  foreknown.  Royee,  World  and  Individual, :.':  :;74,  maintains 
that  God  has,  not  .foreknowledge,  but  only  eternal  knowledge,  of  temporal  things.  But 
we  reply  that  to  foreknow  how  a  moral  being  will  act  is  no  more  impossible  than  to 
know  how  a  moral  being  in  given  circumstances  would  act. 

Only  knowledge  of  that  which  is  decreed  is  foreknowledge. —  Knowledge 
of  a  plan  as  ideal  or  possible  may  precede  decree  ;  but  knowledge  of  a  plan 
as  actual  or  fixed  must  follow  decree.  Only  the  latter  knowledge  is 
properly  fort  knowledge.  God  therefore  foresees  creation,  causes,  laws, 
events,  consequences,  because  he  has  decreed  creation,  causes,  laws,  events, 
consequences  ;  that  is,  because  he  has  embraced  all  these  in  his  plan.  The 
denial  of  decrees  logically  involves  the  denial  of  God's  foreknowledge  of 
free  human  actions  ;  and  to  this  Socinians,  and  some  Arrninians,  are 
actually  led. 

An  Armiuian  example  of  this  denial  is  found  in  MeCabe,  Foreknowledge  of  God,  and 
Divine  Nescience  of  Future  Contingencies  a  Necessity.  /'<  r  contra,  see  notes  on  God's 
foreknowledge,  in  this  Compendium,  pages  283-286.  Pepper:  "Divine  volition  stands 
logically  between  two  divisions  and  kinds  of  divine  knowledge."  God  knew  free 
human  actions  as  possible,  before  he  decreed  them;  he  knew  them  as  future,  because 
he  decreed  them.  Logically,  though  not  chronologically,  decree  comes  before  fore- 
knowledge. When  I  say,  "  I  know  what  I  will  do,"  it  is  evident  that  I  have  determined 
already,  and  that  my  knowledge  does  not  precede  determination,  but  follows  it  and  is 
based  upon  it.  It  is  therefore  not  correct  to  say  that  God  foreknows  his  decrees.  It 
is  more  true  to  say  that  he  decrees  his  foreknowledge.  He  foreknows  the  future  which 
he  has  decreed,  and  he  foreknows  it  because  he  has  decreed  it.  His  decrees  are  eternal, 
and  nothing  that  is  eternal  can  be  the  object  of  foreknowledge.    G.  F.  Wright,  in  Bib. 


358  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   AVORKS    OF   GOD. 

Sac,  1877  :  723  — "  The  knowledge  of  God  comprehended  the  details  and  incidents  of 
every  possible  plan.  The  choice  of  a  plan  made  his  knowledge  determinate  as  /ore- 
knowledge." 

There  are  therefore  two  kinds  of  divine  knowledge :  ( 1 )  knowledge  of  what  may  be 
—  of  the  possible  ( scientia  simplicis  intelligentia' ) ;  and  ( 2 )  knowledge  of  what  is,  and  is 
to  be,  because  God  has  decreed  it  (scientia  visionis).  Between  these  two  Molina,  the 
Spanish  Jesuit,  wrongly  conceived  that  there  was  ( 3 )  a  middle  knowledge  of  things 
which  were  to  be,  although  God  had  not  decreed  them  ( scientia  media ).  This  would  of 
course  be  a  knowledge  which  God  derived,  not  from  himself,  but  from  his  creatures ! 
See  Dick,  Theology,  1 :  351.  A.  S.  Carman  :  "  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  God's  knowledge 
can  be  caused  from  eternity  by  something  that  has  no  existence  until  a  definite  point 
of  time."  If  it  be  said  that  what  is  to  be  will  be  "  in  the  nature  of  things,"  we  reply 
that  there  is  no  "  nature  of  things  "  apart  from  God,  and  that  the  ground  of  the  objec- 
tive certainty,  as  well  as  of  the  subjective  certitude  corresponding  to  it,  is  to  be  found 
only  in  God  himself. 

But  God's  decreeing  to  create,  when  he  foresees  that  certain  free  acts  of  men  will 
follow,  is  a  decreeing  of  those  free  acts,  in  the  only  sense  in  which  we  use  the  word 
decreeing,  viz.,  a  rendering  certain,  or  embracing  in  his  plan.  No  Arminian  who 
believes  in  God's  foi-eknowledge  of  free  human  acts  has  good  reason  for  denying  God's 
decrees  as  thus  explained.  Surely  God  did  not  foreknow  that  Adam  would  exist  and 
sin,  whether  God  determined  to  create  him  or  not.  Omniscience,  then,  becomes /ore- 
knowledge  only  on  condition  of  God's  decree.  That  God's  foreknowledge  of  free  acts  is 
Intuitive  does  not  affect  this  conclusion.  We  grant  that,  while  man  can  predict  free 
action  only  so  far  as  it  is  rational  ( i.  e.,  in  the  line  of  previously  dominant  motive ),  God 
can  predict  free  action  whether  it  is  rational  or  not.  But  even  God  cannot  predict 
what  is  not  certain  to  be.  God  can  have  intuitive  foreknowledge  of  free  human  acts 
only  upon  condition  of  his  own  decree  to  create ;  and  this  decree  to  create,  in  foresight 
of  all  that  will  follow,  is  a  decree  of  what  follows.  For  the  Arminian  view,  see  Watson, 
Institutes,  2  :  375-398,  422-448.  Per  contra,  see  Hill,  Divinity,  512-532;  Fiske,  in  Bib.  Sac, 
April,  1862 ;  Bennett  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  214-254 ;  Edwards  the  younger,  1 :  398- 
420 ;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  98-101. 

(  b  )  From  the  divine  wisdom. 

It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  proceed  in  every  undertaking  according  to  a 
plan.  The  greater  the  undertaking,  the  more  needful  a  plan.  Wisdom, 
moreover,  shows  itself  in  a  careful  provision  for  all  possible  circumstances 
and  emergencies  that  can  arise  in  the  execution  of  its  plan.  That  many 
such  circumstances  and  emergencies  are  uncontemplated  and  unprovided 
for  in  the  plans  of  men,  is  due  only  to  the  limitations  of  human  wisdom. 
It  belongs  to  infinite  wisdom,  therefore,  not  only  to  have  a  plan,  but  to 
embrace  all,  even  the  minutest  details,  in  the  plan  of  the  universe. 

No  architect  would  attempt  to  build  a  Cologne  cathedral  without  a  plan ;  he  would 
rather,  if  possible,  have  a  design  for  every  stone.  The  great  painter  does  not  study 
out  his  picture  as  he  goes  along ;  the  plan  is  in  his  mind  from  the  start ;  preparations 
for  the  last  effects  have  to  be  made  from  the  beginning.  So  in  God's  work  every  detail 
is  foreseen  and  provided  for ;  sin  and  Christ  entered  into  the  original  plan  of  the  uni- 
verse. Raymond,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  ;  156,  says  this  implies  that  God  cannot  govern  the 
world  unless  all  things  be  reduced  to  the  condition  of  machinery ;  and  that  it  cannot 
be  true,  for  the  reason  that  God's  government  is  a  government  of  persons  and  not  of 
t  hings.  But  we  reply  that  the  wise  statesman  governs  persons  and  not  things,  yet  just 
in  proportion  to  his  wisdom  he  conducts  his  administration  according  to  a  precon- 
ceived plan.  God's  power  might,  but  God's  wisdom  would  not,  govern  the  universe 
without  embracing  all  things,  even  the  least  human  action,  in  his  plan. 

(  c  )     From  the  divine  immutability. 

What  God  does,  he  always  purposed  to  do.  Since  with  liim  there  is  no 
increase  of  knowledge  or  power,  such  as  characterizes  finite  beings,  it  fol- 
lows that  what  under  any  given  circumstances  he  permits  or  does,  he  nuist 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    DECREES.  359 

have  eternally  decreed  to  permit  or  do.  To  suppose  that  God  has  a  multi- 
tude of  plans,  and  that  he  changes  his  plan  with  the  exigencies  of  the  situ- 
ation, is  to  make  him  infinitely  dependent  upon  the  varying  wills  of  his 
creatures,  and  to  deny  to  him  one  necessary  element  of  perfection,  namely, 
immutability. 

God  has  been  very  unworthily  compared  to  a  chess-player,  who  will  checkmate  his 
opponent  whatever  mm  es  he  may  make  (George  Harris).  So  Napoleon  is  said  to  ha\  e 
had  a  number  of  plans  before  each  battle,  and  to  have  betaken  himself  from  one  to 
another  as  fortune  demanded.  Not  so  with  God.  Job  23  :  13  —  "  he  is  in  one  mind,  and  who  can  turn 
him?"  James  1 :  17  —  "the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  can  be  no  variation,  neither  shadow  that  is  cast  by  turning." 
Contrast  with  this  Scripture  McCabe's  statement  in  his  Foreknowledge  of  God,  62— 
"This  new  factor,  the  godlike  liberty  of  the  human  will,  is  capable  of  thwarting,  and 
In  uncounted  Instances  does  thwart,  the  divine  will,  and  compel  the  great  I  Am  to 
modify  his  actions,  his  purposes,  and  his  plans,  in  the  treatment  of  individuals  and  of 
communities." 

((f)     From  the  divine  benevolence. 

The  events  of  the  universe,  if  not  determined  by  the  divine  decrees,  must 
be  determined  either  by  chance  or  by  the  wills  of  creatures.  It  is  contrary 
to  any  proper  conception  of  the  divine  benevolence  to  suppose  that  God 
permits  the  course  of  nature  and  of  history,  and  the  ends  to  which  both 
these  are  moving,  to  be  determined  for  myriads  of  sentient  beings  by  any 
other  force  or  will  than  his  own.  Both  reason  and  revelation,  therefore, 
compel  us  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  that  "  God 
did  from  all  eternity,  by  the  most  just  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

It  would  not  be  benevolent  for  God  to  put  out  of  his  own  power  that  which  was  so 
essential  to  the  happiness  of  the  universe.  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  231-243—"  The 
denial  of  decrees  involves  denial  of  the  essential  attributes  of  God,  such  as  omnipo- 
tence, omniscience,  benevolence ;  exhibits  him  as  a  disappointed  and  unhappy  being ; 
implies  denial  of  his  universal  providence  :  leads  to  a  denial  of  the  greater  part  of  our 
own  duty  of  submission;  weakens  the  obligations  of  gratitude."  We  give  thanks  to 
God  for  blessings  which  come  to  us  through  t  he  free  acts  of  others;  but  unless  God 
has  purposed  these  blessings,  we  owe  our  t  hanks  to  these  others  and  not  to  God.  Dr. 
A.  J.  Gordon  said  well  that,  a  universe  without  decrees  would  be  as  irrational  and 
appalling  as  would  be  an  express-train  driving  on  in  the  darkness  without  headlight  or 
engineer,  and  with  no  certainty  that  the  next  moment  it  might  not  plunge  into  the 
abyss.  And  even  Martineau,  Study,  2  :  108,  in  spite  of  his  denial  of  God's  foreknowl- 
edge of  man's  free  acts,  is  compelled  to  say:  "It  cannot  be  left  to  mere  created 
natures  to  play  unconditionally  with  the  helm  of  even  a  single  world  and  steer  it 
uncontrolled  into  the  haven  or  on  to  the  reefs  ;  and  some  security  must  be  taken  for 
keeping  the  deflectii ins  within  tolerable  bounds."  See  also  Emmons,  Works,  4  :  273-401 ; 
ami  Princeton  Essays,  1 :57-73. 

III.     Objections  to  the  doctrine  of  Decrees. 

1.     That  they  arc  inconsistent  ivith  the  free  agency  of  man. 

To  this  we  reply  that : 

A.  The  objection  confounds  the  decrees  with  the  execution  of  the 
decrees.  The  decrees  are,  like  foreknowledge,  an  act  eternal  to  the  divine 
nature,  and  are  no  more  inconsistent  with  free  agency  than  foreknowledge 
is.  Even  foreknowledge  of  events  implies  that  those  events  are  fixed.  If 
this  absolute  fixity  and  foreknowledge  is  not  inconsistent  with  free  agency, 
much  less  can  that  which  is  more  remote  from  man's  action,  namely,  the 


360  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

hidden  cause  of  this  fixity  and  foreknowledge  —  God's  decrees  — be  incon- 
sistent with  free  agency.  If  anything  be  inconsistent  with  man's  free 
agency,  it  must  be,  not  the  decrees  themselves,  but  the  execution  of  the 
decrees  in  creation  and  providence. 

On  this  objection,  see  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  244-249 ;  Forbes,  Predestination  and 
Free  Will,  3  —  "All  things  are  predestinated  by  God,  both  good  and  evil,  but  not  prcne- 
cessitated,  that  is,  causally  preordained  by  him  —  unless  we  would  make  God  the  author 
of  sin.  Predestination  is  thus  an  indifferent  word,  in  so  far  as  the  orig inating  author  of 
anything  is  concerned;  God  being  the  originator  of  good,  but  the  creature,  of  evil. 
Predestination  therefore  means  that  God  included  in  his  plan  of  the  world  every  act  of 
every  creature,  good  or  bad.  Some  acts  he  predestined  causally,  others  permissively. 
The  certainty  of  the  fulfilment  of  all  God's  purposes  ought  to  be  distinguished  from 
their  necessity."  This  means  simply  that  God's  decree  is  not  the  cause  of  any  actor 
event.  God's  decrees  may  be  executed  by  the  causal  efficiency  of  his  creatures,  or 
they  may  be  executed  by  his  own  efficiency.  In  either  case  it  is,  if  anything,  the  exe- 
cution, and  not  the  decree,  that  is  inconsistent  with  human  freedom. 

B.  The  objection  rests  upon  a  false  theory  of  free  agency — namely,  that 
free  agency  implies  indeterminateness  or  uncertainty  ;  in  other  words,  that 
free  agency  cannot  coexist  with  certainty  as  to  the  results  of  its  exercise. 
But  it  is  necessity,  not  certainty,  with  which  free  agency  is  inconsistent. 
Free  agency  is  the  power  of  self-determination  in  view  of  motives,  or  man's 
power  (a)  to  chose  between  motives,  and  (6)  to  direct  his  subsequent 
activity  according  to  the  motive  thus  chosen.  Motives  are  never  a  cause, 
but  only  an  occasion  ;  they  influence,  but  never  compel ;  the  man  is  the 
cause,  aud  herein  is  his  freedom.  But  it  is  also  true  that  man  is  never  iu  a 
state  of  indeterminateness  ;  never  acts  without  motive,  or  contrary  to  all 
motives  ;  there  is  always  a  reason  why  he  acts,  and  herein  is  his  rationality. 
Now,  so  far  as  man  acts  according  to  previously  dominant  motive — see  (b ) 
above  —  we  may  by  knowing  his  motive  predict  his  action,  and  our  certainty 
what  that  action  will  be  in  no  way  affects  his  freedom.  "We  may  even  bring 
motives  to  bear  upon  otbers,  the  influence  of  which  we  foresee,  yet  those 
who  act  upon  them  may  act  in  perfect  freedom.  But  if  man,  influenced  by 
man,  may  still  be  free,  then  man,  influenced  by  divinely  foreseen  motives, 
may  still  be  free,  and  the  divine  decrees,  which  simply  render  certain 
man's  actions,  may  also  be  perfectly  consistent  with  man's  freedom. 

We  must  not  assume  that  decreed  ends  can  be  secured  only  by  compulsion.  Eternal 
purposes  do  not  necessitate  efficient  causation  on  the  part  of  the  purposer.  Freedom 
may  be  the  very  means  of  fulfilling  the  purpose.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology, 
74  —  "  Absolute  certainty  of  events,  which  is  ail  that  omniscience  determines  respecting 
them,  is  not  identical  with  their  necessitatiou."  John  Milton,  Christian  Doctrine: 
"  Future  events  which  God  has  foreseen  will  happen  certainly,  but  not  of  necessity. 
They  will  happen  certainly,  because  the  divine  prescience  will  not  be  deceived;  but 
they  will  not  happen  necessarily,  because  prescience  can  have  no  influence  on  the 
object  foreknown,  inasmuch  as  it  is  only  an  intransitive  action." 

There  is,  however,  a  smaller  class  of  human  actions  by  which  character 
is  changed,  rather  than  expressed,  and  in  which  the  man  acts  according  to 
a  motive  different  from  that  which  has  previously  been  dominant  —  see  (  a ) 
above.  These  actions  also  are  foreknown  by  God,  although  they  cannot 
be  predicted  by  man.  Man's  freedom  in  them  would  be  inconsistent  with 
God's  decrees,  if  the  previous  certainty  of  their  occurrence  were,  not  cer- 
tainty, but  necessity  ;  or,  in  other  words,  if  God's  decrees  were  in  all  cases 
decrees  efficiently  to  produce  the  acts  of  his  creatures.     But  this  is  not  the 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    DECREES.  361 

case.  God's  decrees  may  be  executed  by  man's  free  causation,  as  easily  as 
by  God's  ;  and  God's  decreeing  this  free  causation,  in  decreeing  to  create  a 
universe  of  which  he  foresees  that  *his  causation  will  be  a  part,  in  no  way 
interferes  with  the  freedom  of  such  causation,  but  rather  secures  and  estab- 
lishes it.  Both  consciousness  and  conscience  witness  that  God's  decrees 
are  not  executed  by  laying  compulsion  upon  the  free  wills  of  men. 

The  farmer  who,  after  hearing-  a  sermon  on  Ood's  decrees,  took  the  break-neck  road 
instead  of  the  safe  one  to  his  home  and  broke  his  wagon  in  consequence,  concluded 
before  the  end  of  his  j<  luraey  that  he  at  any  rate  bad  been  predestinated  to  be  a  fool,  and 
that  he  had  made  his  calling  and  election  sure.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Conduct,  146,  187, 
shows  that  the  will  is  free,  first,  by  man's  consciousness  of  ability,  and,  secondly,  by 
man's  consciousness  of  imputability.  By  nature,  he  is  potentially  self-determining  ;  as 
matter  of  fact,  he  often  becomes  self-determining. 

Allen,  Religious  Progress,  111)  — "The  coming  church  must  embrace  the  sovereignty 
of  God  and  the  freedom  of  the  will ;  total  depravity  and  the  divinity  of  human  nature  ; 
the  unit}-  of  God  and  the  triune  distinctions  in  the  Godhead  ;  gnosticism  and  agnosti- 
cism; the  humanity  of  Christ  and  his  incarnate  deity;  the  freedom  of  the  Christian 
man  and  the  authority  of  the  church  ;  individualism  and  solidarity;  reason  and  faith  ; 
>c  it  nee  and  theology  ;  miracle  and  uniformity  of  law ;  culture  and  piety;  the  author- 
ity of  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God  with  absolute  freedom  of  Biblical  criticism  ;  the 
gift  of  administration  as  in  the  historic  episcopate  and  the  gift  of  prophecy  as  the 
highest  sanction  of  the  ministerial  commission ;  the  apostolic  succession  but  also  the 
direct  and  immediate  call  which  knows  only  the  succession  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Wit  h- 
out  assenting  to  these  latter  clauses  we  may  commend  the  comprehensive  spirit  of  this 
utterance,  especially  with  reference  to  the  vexed  question  of  the  relation  of  divine 
sovereignty  to  human  freedom. 

It  may  aid  us,  in  estimating  the  force  of  this  objection,  to  note  the  four 
senses  in  which  the  term  '  freedom '  may  be  used.  It  may  be  used  as 
equivalent  to  (1 )  physical  freedom,  or  absence  of  outward  constraint ;  (2) 
formal  freedom,  or  a  state  of  moral  indeterminateness ;  (3)  moral  free- 
dom, or  self-determinateiiess  in  view  of  motives ;  (4)  real  freedom,  or  abil- 
ity to  conform  to  the  divine  standard.  With  the  first  of  these  we  are  not  now 
concerned,  since  all  agree* that  the  decrees  lay  no  outward  constraint  upon 
men.  Freedom  in  the  second  sense  has  no  existence,  since  all  men  have 
character.  Free  agency,  or  freedom  in  the  third  sense,  has  just  been  shown 
to  be  consistent  with  the  decrees.  Freedom  in  the  fourth  sense,  or  real 
freedom,  is  the  special  gift  of  God,  and  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  free 
agency.  The  objection  mentioned  above  rests  wholly  upon  the  second  of 
these  definitions  of  free  agency.  This  we  have  shown  to  be  false,  and  with 
this  the  objection  itself  falls  to  the  ground. 

Ritschl,  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  133-188,  gives  a  good  definition  of  this 
fourth  kind  of  freedom :  "  Freedom  is  self-determination  by  universal  ideals.  Limit- 
ing our  ends  to  those  of  family  or  country  is  a  refined  or  idealized  selfishness.  Free- 
dom is  self-determination  by  universal  love  for  man  or  by  the  kingdom  of  God.  But 
the  free  man  must  then  be  dependent  on  God  in  everything,  because  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  a  revelation  of  God."  John  Caird,  Fundamental  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1 :  133  — 
"  In  being  determined  by  God  we  are  self-determined;  i.  e.,  determined  by  nothing 
alien  to  us,  but  by  our  noblest,  truest  self.  The  universal  life  lives  in  us.  The  eternal 
consciousness  becomes  our  own  ;  for  '  he  that  abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God  and  God  abideth  in  him  '  " 
(1  John  4: 16). 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality.  226—"  Free  will  is  not  the  independence  of  the 
creature,  but  is  rather  his  self-realization  in  perfect  dependence.  Freedom  is  self- 
identity  with  gooducss.  Both  goodness  and  freedom  are,  in  their  perfeetness,  in  God. 
Goodness  in  a  creature  is  not  distinction  from,  but  correspondence  with,  the  good- 
ness of  God.  Freedom  in  a  creature  is  correspondence  with  God's  own  self -identity 
with  goodness.    It  is  to  realize  and  to  find  himself,  his  true  self,  in  Christ,  so  that  God's 


362  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

love  in  us  has  become  a  divine  response,  adequate  to,  because  truly  mirroring,  God." 
G.  S.  Lee,  The  Shadow  Christ,  33— "The  ten  commandments  could  not  be  chanted. 
The  Israelites  sang-  about  Jehovah  and  what  he  had  done,  but  they  did  not  sing-  about 
what  he  told  them  to  do,  and  that  is  why  they  never  did  it.  The  conception  of  duty 
that  cannot  sing  must  weep  until  it  learns  to  sing.    This  is  Hebrew  history." 

"  There  is  a  liberty,  unsung  By  poets  and  by  senators  unpraised,  Which  monarchs 
cannot  grant  nor  all  the  powers  Of  earth  and  hell  confederate  take  away;  A  liberty 
which  persecution,  fraud.  Oppressions,  prisons,  have  no  power  to  bind ;  Which  whoso 
tastes  can  be  enslaved  no  more.  'T  is  liberty  of  heart,  derived  from  heaven,  Bought 
with  his  blood  who  gave  it  to  mankind,  And  sealed  with  the  same  token."  Robert 
Herrick:  " Stone  walls  do  not  a  prison  make,  Nor  iron  bars  a  cage;  Minds  innocent 
and  quiet  take  That  for  a  hermitage.  If  I  have  freedom  in  my  love,  And  in  my  soul 
am  free,  Angels  alone  that  soar  above  Enjoy  such  liberty." 

A  more  full  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Will  is  given  under  Anthropology,  Vol. 
II.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  the  Arminian  objections  to  the  decrees  arise  almost 
wholly  from  erroneously  conceiving  of  freedom  as  the  will's  power  to  decide,  in  any 
given  case,  against  its  own  character  and  all  the  motives  brought  to  bear  upon  it.  As 
we  shall  hereafter  see,  this  is  practically  to  deny  that  man  has  character,  or  that  the 
will  by  its  right  or  wrong  moral  action  gives  to  itself,  as  well  as  to  the  intellect  and 
affections,  a  permanent  bent  or  predisposition  to  good  or  evil.  It  is  to  extend  the 
power  of  contrary  choice,  a  power  which  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  transient  volition, 
over  all  those  permanent  states  of  intellect,  affection,  and  will  which  we  call  the  moral 
character,  and  to  say  that  we  can  change  directly  by  a  single  volition  that  which,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  we  can  change  only  indirectly  through  process  and  means.  Yet  even 
this  exaggerated  view  of  freedom  would  seem  not  to  exclude  God's  decrees,  or  prevent 
a  practical  reconciliation  of  the  Arminian  and  Calvinistic  views,  so  long  as  the 
Arminian  grants  God's  foreknowledge  of  free  human  acts,  and  the  Calvinist  grants 
that  God's  decree  of  these  acts  is  not  necessarily  a  decree  that  God  will  efficiently 
produce  them.  For  a  close  approximation  of  the  two  views,  see  articles  by  Raymond 
and  by  A.  A.  Hodge,  respectively,  on  the  Arminian  and  the  Calvinistic  Doctrines  of 
the  Will,  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia,  10 :  989,  992. 

We  therefore  hold  to  the  certainty  of  human  action,  and  so  part  company  with  the 
Arminian.  We  cannot  with  Whedon  (  On  the  Will ),  and  Hazard  ( Man  a  Creative  First 
Cause ),  attribute  to  the  will  the  freedom  of  indifference,  or  the  power  to  act  without 
motive.  We  hold  with  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  183,  that  action  without  motive, 
or  an  act  of  pure  will,  is  unknown  in  consciousness  (see,  however,  an  inconsistent 
statement  of  Calderwood  on  page  188  of  the  same  work ).  Every  future  human  act 
will  not  only  be  performed  with  a  motive,  but  will  certainly  be  one  thing  rather  than 
another ;  and  God  knows  what  it  will  be.  Whatever  may  be  the  method  of  God's  fore- 
knowledge, and  whether  it  be  derived  from  motives  or  be  intuitive,  that  foreknowledge 
presupposes  God's  decree  to  create,  and  so  presupposes  the  making  certain  of  the  free 
acts  that  follow  creation. 

But  this  certainty  is  not  necessity.  In  reconciling  God's  decrees  with  human  free- 
dom, we  must  not  go  to  the  other  extreme,  and  reduce  human  freedom  to  mere  deter- 
minism, or  the  power  of  the  agent  to  act  out  his  character  in  the  circumstances  which 
environ  him.  Human  action  is  not  simply  the  expression  of  previously  dominant 
affections ;  else  neither  Satan  nor  Adam  could  have  fallen,  nor  could  the  Christian  ever 
sin.  We  therefore  part  company  with  Jonathan  Edwards  and  his  Treatise  on  the 
Freedom  of  the  Will,  as  well  as  with  the  younger  Edwards  (  Works,  1 :  420),  Alexander 
( Moral  Science,  107 ),  and  Charles  Hodge  ( Syst.  Theology,  2 :  278 ),  all  of  whom  foliow 
Jonathan  Edwards  in  identifying  sensibility  with  the  will,  in  regarding  affections  as 
the  causes  of  volitions,  and  in  speaking  of  the  connection  between  motive  and  action 
as  a  necessary  one.  We  hold,  on  the  contrary,  that  sensibility  and  will  are  two  distinct 
powers,  that  affections  are  occasions  but  never  causes  of  volitions,  and  that,  while 
motives  may  infallibly  persuade,  they  never  compel  the  will.  The  power  to  make  the 
decision  other  than  it  is  resides  in  the  will,  though  it  may  never  be  exercised.  With 
Charnock,  the  Puritan  ( Attributes,  1 :  448-450),  we  say  that  "man  hath  a  power  to  do 
otherwise  than  that  which  God  foreknows  h/  will  do."  Since,  then,  God's  decrees  are 
not  executed  by  laying  compulsion  upon  human  wills,  they  are  not  inconsistent  with 
man's  freedom.  See  Martineau,  Study,  2 :  237,  249, 258,  261 ;  also  article  by  A.  H.  Strong, 
on  Modified  Calvinism,  or  Remainders  of  Freedom  in  Man,  in  Baptist  Review,  1883:219- 
243  ;  reprinted  in  the  author's  Philosophy  and  Religion,  114-128. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    DECREES.  3G3 

2.     That  they  take  away  all  motive  for  human  exertion. 

To  this  we  reply  that : 

(  a  )  They  cannot  thus  influence*  men,  since  they  are  not  addressed  to 
men,  are  not  the  rule  of  human  action,  and  become  known  only  after  the 
event.  This  objection  is  therefore  the  mere  excuse  of  indolence  and 
disobedience. 

Men  rarely  make  this  excuse  in  any  enterprise  in  which  their  hopes  and  their  inter- 
ests are  enlisted.  It  is  mainly  in  matters  of  religion  that  men  use  the  divine  decrees  as 
an  apology  for  their  sloth  and  inaction.  The  passengers  on  an  ocean  steamer  do  not 
deny  their  ability  to  walk  to  starboard  or  to  larboard,  upon  the  plea  that  they  are  being 
carried  to  their  destination  by  forces  beyond  their  control.  Such  a  plea  would  be  still 
more  irrational  in  a  case  where  the  passengers'  inaction,  as  in  case  of  fire,  might 
result  in  destruction  to  the  ship. 

(6)  The  objection  confounds  the  decrees  of  God  with  fate.  But  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  fate  is  unintelligent,  while  the  decrees  are  framed  by  a 
personal  God  in  infinite  wisdom  ;  fate  is  indistinguishable  from  material 
causation  and  leaves  no  room  for  human  freedom,  while  the  decrees  exclude 
all  notion  of  physical  necessity  ;  fate  embraces  no  moral  ideas  or  ends, 
while  the  decrees  make  these  controlling  in  the  universe. 

North  British  Rev.,  April,  1870—"  Determinism  and  predestination  spring  from  prem- 
ises which  lie  in  quite  separate  regions  of  thought.  The  predestinarian  is  obliged  by 
his  theology  to  admit  the  existence  of  a  free  will  in  God,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
does  admit  it  in  the  devil.  But  the  final  consideration  which  puts  a  great  gulf  between 
the  determinist  and  the  predestinarian  is  this,  that  the  hitter  asserts  the  reality  of  the 
vulgar  notion  of  mora]  desert.  Even  if  he  were  not  obliged  by  his  interpretation  of 
Scripture  to  assert  this,  he  would  be  obliged  to  assert  it  in  order  to  help  out  his  doctrine 
of  eternal  reprobation." 

Hawthorne  expressed  his  belief  in  human  freedom  when  he  said  that  destiny  itself 
had  often  been  worsted  in  the  attempt  to  gel  him  out  to  dinner.  Benjamin  Franklin, 
in  his  Autobiography,  quotes  the  Indian's  excuse  for  getting  drunk:  "The  Great 
Spirit  made  all  things  for  some  use,  and  whatsoever  use  they  were  made  for,  to  that 
use  they  must  be  put.  The  Great  Spirit  made  rum  for  Indians  to  get  drunk  with,  and 
so  it  must  be."  Martha,  in  Isabel  Carnaby,  excuses  her  breaking  of  dishes  by  saying  : 
"  It  seems  as  if  it  was  to  be.  It  is  the  thin  edge;  of  the  wedge  that  in  time  will  turn 
again  and  rend  you."  Seminary  professor:  "Did  a  man  ever  die  before  his  time?" 
Seminary  student :  "1  never  knew  of  such  a  ease"  The  decrees  of  God,  considered 
as  God's  all-embracing  plan,  leave  room  for  human  freedom. 

(c)  The  objection  ignores  the  logical  relation  between  the  decree  of 
the  end  and  the  decree  of  the  means  to  secure  it.  The  decrees  of  God  not 
only  §nsure  the  end  to  be  obtained,  but  they  ensure  free  human  action 
as  logically  prior  thereto.  All  conflict  between  the  decrees  and  human 
exertion  must  therefore  be  apparent  and  not  real.  Since  consciousness 
and  Scripture  assure  us  that  free  agency  exists,  it  must  exist  by  divine 
decree ;  and  though  we  may  be  ignorant  of  the  method  in  which  the 
decrees  are  executed,  we  have  no  right  to  doubt  either  the  decrees  or  the 
freedom.  They  must  be  held  to  be  consistent,  until  one  of  them  is  proved 
to  be  a  delusion. 

The  man  who  carries  a  vase  of  gold-fish  does  not  prevent  the  fish  from  moving 
unrestrainedly  within  the  vase.  The  double  track  of  a  railway  enables  a  formidable 
approaching  train  to  slip  by  without  colliding  with  our  own.  Our  globe  takes  us  with 
it,  as  it  rushes  around  the  sun,  yet  we  do  our  ordinary  work  without  interruption. 
The  two  movements  which  at  first  sight  seem  inconsistent  with  each  other  are  really 
parts  of  one  whole.  God's  plan  and  man's  effort  are  equally  in  harmony.  Myers, 
Human  Personality,  2 :  272,  speaks  of  "  molecular  motion  amid  molar  calm." 


364  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND   "WORKS   OS   GOD. 

Dr.  Duryca :  "  The  way  of  life  has  two  fences.  There  is  an  Arminian  fence  to  keep 
us  out  of  Fatalism ;  and  there  is  a  Calvinistic  fence  to  keep  us  out  of  Pelagianism. 
Some  good  bretln-en  like  to  walk  on  the  fences.  But  it  is  hard  in  that  way  to  keep 
one's  balance.  And  it  is  needless,  for  there  is  plenty  of  room  between  the  fences.  For 
my  part  I  prefer  to  walk  in  the  road."  Archibald  Alexander's  statement  is  yet  better : 
"Calvinism  is  the  broadest  of  systems.  It  regards  the  divine  sovereignty  and  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will  as  the  two  sides  of  a  roof  which  come  together  at  a  ridge- 
pole above  the  clouds.  Calvinism  accepts  both  truths.  A  system  which  denies  either 
one  of  the  two  has  only  half  a  roof  over  its  head." 

Spurgeon,  Autobiography,  1 :  176,  and  The  Best  Bread,  109—"  The  system  of  truth 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures  is  not  simply  one  straight  line  but  two,  and  no  man  will 
ever  get  aright  view  of  the  gospel  until  he  knows  how  to  look  at  the  two  lines  at  once. 
....  These  two  facts  [of  divine  sovereignty  and  of  human  freedom]  are  parallel  lines; 
I  cannot  make  them  unite,  but  you  cannot  make  them  cross  each  other."  John  A. 
Broadus  :  "  You  can  see  only  two  sides  of  a  building  at  once ;  if  you  go  around  it,  you 
see  two  different  sides,  but  the  first  two  are  hidden.  This  is  true  if  you  are  on  the 
ground.  But  if  you  get  up  upon  the  roof  or  in  a  balloon,  you  can  see  that  there  are 
four  sides,  and  you  can  see  them  all  together.  So  our  finite  minds  can  take  in  sover- 
eignty and  freedom  alternately,  but  not  simultaneously.  God  from  above  can  see 
them  both,  and  from  heaven  we  too  may  be  able  to  look  down  and  see." 

(d)  Since  the  decrees  connect  means  and  ends  together,  and  ends  are 
decreed  only  as  the  result  of  means,  they  encourage  effort  instead  of  dis- 
couraging it.  Belief  in  God's  plan  that  success  shall  reward  toil,  incites 
to  courageous  and  persevering  effort.  Upon  the  very  ground  of  God's 
decree,  the  Scripture  urges  us  to  the  diligent  use  of  means. 

God  has  decreed  the  harvest  only  as  the  result  of  man's  labor  in  sowing  and  reaping ; 
God  decrees  wealth  to  the  man  who  works  and  saves ;  so  answers  are  decreed  to  prayer, 
and  salvation  to  faith.  Compare  Paul's  declaration  of  God's  purpose  ( Acts 27 :  22,  24 -"there 
shall  be  no  loss  of  life  among  yon  ....  God  hath  granted  thee  all  them  that  sail  with  thee  ")  with  his  warning  to 
the  centurion  and  sailors  to  use  the  means  of  safety  ( verse  31—"  Except  these  abide  in  the  ship,  ye 
cannot  be  saved").  See  also  Phil.  2 :  12, 13  —  "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  Sod  who 
worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  "  ;  Eph.  2 :  10  — "  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore  prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them";  Deut.  29 : 29— "the  secret  things 
belong  unto  Jehovah  our  God :  but  the  things  that  are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  children  for  ever,  that  we  may 
do  all  the  words  of  this  law."    See  Beunet  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  252-254. 

Ps.  59:10(A.V.)— "  The  God  of  my  mercy  shall  prevent  me  "  —  shall  anticipate,  or  go  before,  me;  Is.  65: 24 
— "  before  they  call,  I  will  answer  ;  and  while  they  are  yet  speaking,  I  will  hear  "  ;  Ps.  23 : 2  —  "He  leadeth  me  "  ;  John 
10  :  3  — "calleth  his  own  sheep  by  name,  and  leadeth  them  out."  These  texts  describe  prevenient  grace 
in  prayer,  in  conversion,  and  in  Christian  work.  Plato  called  reason  and  sensibility 
a  mismatched  pair,  one  of  which  was  always  getting  ahead  of  the  other.  Decrees  and 
freedom  seem,  to  be  mismatched,  but  they  are  not  so.  Even  Jonathan  Edwards,  with 
his  deterministic  theory  of  the  will,  could,  in  his  sermon  on  Pressing  into  the  King- 
dom, insist  on  the  use  of  means,  and  could  appeal  to  men  as  if  they  had  the  power- 
to  choose  between  the  motives  of  self  and  of  God.  God's  sovereignty  and  human 
freedom  are  like  the  positive  and  the  negative  poles  of  the  magnet,— they  are  insepar- 
able from  one  another,  and  are  both  indispensable  elements  in  the  attraction  of  the 
gospel. 

Peter  Damiani,  the  great  monk-cardinal,  said  that  the  sin  he  found  it  hardest  to 
uproot  was  his  disposition  to  laughter.  The  homage  paid  to  asceticism  is  the  homage 
paid  to  the  conqueror.  But  not  all  conquests  are  worthy  of  homage.  Better  the  words 
of  Luthar :  "  If  our  God  may  make  excellent  large  pike  and  good  Rhenish  wine,  I  may 
very  well  venture  to  eat  and  drink.  Thou  mayest  enjoy  every  pleasure  in  the  world 
that  is  not  sinful ;  thy  God  forbids  thee  not,  but  rather  wills  it.  And  it  is  pleasing  to 
the  dear  God  whenever  thou  rejoicest  or  laughest  from  the  bottom  of  thy  heart." 
But  our  freedom  has  its  limits.  Martha  Baker  Dunn  :  "  A  man  Ashing  for  pickerel 
baits  his  hook  with  a  live  minnow  and  throws  him  into  the  water.  The  little  minnow 
seems  to  be  swimming  gaily  at  his  own  free  will,  but  just  the  moment  he  attempts 
to  move  out  of  his  appointed  course  he  begins  to  realize  that  there  is  a  hook  in  his  back. 
That  is  what  we  find  out  when  we  try  to  swim  against  the  stream  of  God's  decrees." 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   DOCTEINE   OF    DECREES.  365 

3.      That  they  make  God  the  author  of  sin. 
To  this  we  reply  : 

(  a )  They  make  God,  not  the  author  of  sin,  but  the  author  of  free  beings 
who  are  themselves  the  authors  of  sin.  God  does  not  decree  efficiently  to 
•work  evil  desires  or  choices  in  men.  He  decrees  sin  only  in  the  sense  of 
decreeing  to  create  and  preserve  those  who  will  sin;  in  other  words,  he 
decrees  to  create  and  preserve  human  wills  which,  in  their  own  self-chosen 
courses,  will  he  and  do  evil.  In  all  this,  man  attributes  sin  to  himself  and 
not  to  God,  aud  God  hates,  denounces,  and  punishes  sin. 

Joseph's  brethren  were  none  the  less  wicked  for  the  fact  that  God  meant  their  con- 
duct to  result  in  good  (Gen.  50:20).  Pope  Leo  X  and  his  indulgences  brought  on  the 
Reformation,  but  he  was  none  the  less  guilty.  Slaveholders  would  have  been  no  more 
excusable,  even  if  they  had  been  able  to  prove  that  the  negro  race  was  cursed  in  the 
curse  of  Canaan  (Gen.  9:  25  —"Cursed  be  Canaan  ;  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren").  Fitch  , 
in  Christian  Spectator,  3:601— "There  can  be  and  is  a  purpose  of  God  which  is  not 
an  efficient  purpose.  It  embraces  the  voluntary  acts  of  moral  beings,  without  creating 
those  acts  by  divine  efficiency."    Sec  Martineau,  Study, 2:  107,  136. 

Mat.  26  :  24  "The  Son  of  man  goeth  even  as  it  is  written  of  him  ;  hut  woo  unto  that  man  through  whom  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed!  good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born."  It  was  appointed  that  Christ  should 
suffer,  but  that  did  not  make  men  less  tree  agents,  nor  diminish  the  guilt  of  their 
treachery  and  injustice.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  asked  :  "  Why  did  God  create  the  devil?  " 
Wercply  that  God  did  not  create  the  devil,— It  was  the  devil  who  made  the  devil.  God 
made  a  holy  and  free  spirit  who  abused  his  liberty,  himself  created  sin,  and  so  made 
himself  a  devil. 

Pfieiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1:299— "Evil  has  been  referred  to  1.  an  extra-divine 
principle  — to  one  or  many  evil  spirits,  or  to  fate,  or  to  matter  — atall  events  to  a 
principle  limiting  the  divine  power;  2.  a  want  or  defect  in  the  Deity  himself,  either  his 
imperfect  wisdom  or  his  imperfect  goodness;  3.  human  culpability,  either  a  universal 
imperfection  of  human  nature,  or  particular  transgressions  of  the  first  men."  The 
third  of  these  explanations  is  the  true  one:  the  first  is  irrational;  the  second  is  blas- 
phemous. Yet  this  second  is  the  explanation  of  Omar  Khayyam,  Rub&lyat,  stanzas  80, 
81 — "Oh  Thou,  who  didst  with  pitfall  and  with  gin  Beset  the  road  I  was  to  wander  in, 
Thou  wilt  not  with  predestined  evil  round  Enmesh,  and  then  impute  my  fall  to  sin. 
Oh  Thou,  who  man  of  baser  earth  didst  make.  And  cv'n  with  Paradise  devise  the  snake  : 
For  all  the  sin  wherewith  the  face  of  man  Is  blackened  —  man's  forgiveness  give  —  and 
take!"  And  David  Harum  similarly  says:  "If  I've  done  anything  to  be  sorry  for, 
I'm  willing  to  be  forgiven." 

( b  )  The  decree  to  permit  sin  is  therefore  not  an  efficient  but  a  permis- 
sive decree,  or  a  decree  to  permit,  in  distinction  from  a  decree  to  produce 
by  his  own  efficiency.  No  difficulty  attaches  to  such  a  decree  to  permit  sin, 
which  does  not  attach  to  the  actual  permission  of  it.  But  God  does  actually 
permit  sin,  and  it  must  be  right  for  him  to  permit  it.  It  must  therefore 
be  right  for  him  to  decree  to  permit  it.  If  God's  holiness  and  wisdom  and 
power  are  not  impugned  by  the  actual  existence  of  moral  evil,  they  are  not 
impugned  by  the  original  decree  that  it  should  exist. 

Jonathan  Edwards,  Works,  2:100 — "The sun  is  not  the  cause  of  the  darkness  that 
follows  its  setting,  but  only  the  occasion  "  ;  251—"  If  by  the  author  of  sin  be  meant  the 
sinner,  the  agent,  or  the  actor  of  sin,  or  the  doer  of  a  wicked  thing  — so  it  would  be  a 

reproach  and  blasphemy  to  suppose  God  to  be  the  author  of  sin But  if  by  author 

of  sin  is  meant  the  permitter  or  non-hinderer  of  sin,  and  at  the  same  time  a  disposer  of 
the  state  of  events  in  such  a  manner,  for  wise,  holy,  and  most  excellent  ends  and  pur- 
poses, that  sin.  If  it  be  permitted  and  not  hindered,  will  most  certainly  follow,  I  do  not 
deny  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin :  it  is  no  reproach  to  the  Most  High  to  be  thus  the 
author  of  sin."  On  the  objection  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees  imputes  to  God  two  wills, 
and  that  he  has  foreordained  what  he  has  forbidden,  see  Bennet  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lec- 
tures, 250-252 — "A  ruler  may  forbid  treason  ;  but  his  command  docs  not  oblige  him  to 


366  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  disobedience  to  it.  It  may  promote  the  good  of  his  king- 
dom to  suffer  the  treason  to  be  committed,  and  the  traitor  to  be  punished  according-  to 
law.  That  in  view  of  this  resulting-  good  he  chooses  not  to  prevent  the  treason,  does 
not  imply  any  contradiction  or  opposition  of  will  in  the  monarch." 

An  ungodly  editor  excused  his  vicious  journalism  by  saying  that  he  was  not  ashamed 
to  describe  anything  which  Providence  had  permitted  to  happen.  But  "permitted" 
here  had  an  implication  of  causation.  He  laid  the  blame  of  the  evil  upon  Providence. 
He  was  ashamed  to  describe  many  things  that  were  good  and  which  God  actually 
caused,  while  he  was  not  ashamed  to  describe  the  immoral  tilings  which  God  did  not 
cause,  but  only  permitted  men  to  cause.  In  this  sense  we  may  assent  to  Jonathan 
Edwards's  words :  "  The  divine  Being  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  but  only  disposes  things 
in  such  a  manner  that  sin  will  certainly  ensue."  These  words  are  found  in  his  treatise 
on  Original  Sin.  In  his  Essay  on  Freedom  of  the  Will,  he  adds  a  doctrine  of  causation 
which  we  must  repudiate:  "  The  essence  of  virtue  and  vice,  as  they  exist  in  the  dis- 
position of  the  heart,  and  are  manifested  in  the  acts  of  the  will,  lies  not  in  their  Cause 
but  in  their  Nature."  We  reply  that  sin  could  not  be  coudemuable  in  its  nature,  if  God 
and  not  man  were  its  cause. 

Robert  Browning,  Mihrab  Shah :  "  Wherefore  should  any  evil  hap  to  man  —  From 
ache  of  flesh  to  agony  of  soul  —  Since  God's  All-mercy  mates  All-potency  ?  Nay,  why 
permits  he  evil  to  himself  man's  sin,  accounted  such  ?  Suppose  a  world  purged  of  all 
pain,  with  fit  inhabitant  —  Man  pure  of  evil  in  thought,  word  and  deed— were  it  not  well? 
Then,  wherefore  otherwise?  "  Fairbairu  answers  the  question,  as  follows,  in  his  Christ 
in  Modern  Theology,  456  —  "  Evil  once  intended  may  be  vanquished  by  being  allowed  ; 
but  were  it  hindered  by  an  act  of  annihilation,  then  the  victory  would  rest  with  the  evil 
which  had  compelled  the  Creator  to  retrace  his  steps.  And,  to  carry  the  prevention 
backward  another  stage,  if  the  possibility  of  evil  had  hindered  the  creative  action  of 
God,  then  he  would  have  been,  as  it  were,  overcome  by  its  very  shadow.  But  why  did 
he  create  a  being  capable  of  sinning  ?  Only  so  could  he  create  a  being  capable  of  obey- 
ing. The  ability  to  do  good  implies  the  capability  of  doing  evil.  The  engine  can  neither 
obey  nor  disobey,  and  the  creature  who  was  without  this  double  ability  might  be  a 
machine,  but  could  be  no  child.  Moral  perfection  can  be  attained,  but  cannot  be  cre- 
ated ;  God  can  make  a  being  capable  of  moral  action,  but  not  a  being  with  all  the  fruits 
of  moral  action  garnered  within  him." 

(  c  )  The  difficulty  is  therefore  one  which  in  substance  clings  to  all  theis- 
tic  systems  alike  —  the  question  why  moral  evil  is  permitted  under  the 
government  of  a  God  infinitely  holy,  wise,  powerful,  and  good.  This 
problem  is,  to  our  finite  powers,  incapable  of  full  solution,  and  must  remain 
to  a  great  degree  shrouded  in  mystery.    With  regard  to  it  we  can  only  say  : 

Negatively,  —  that  God  does  not  permit  moral  evil  because  he  is  not  unal- 
terably opposed  to  sin  ;  nor  because  moral  evil  was  unforeseen  and  inde- 
pendent of  his  will ;  nor  because  he  could  not  have  prevented  it  in  a  moral 
system.  Both  observation  and  experience,  which  testify  to  multiplied 
instances  of  deliverance  from  sin  without  violation  of  the  laws  of  man's 
being,  forbid  us  to  limit  the  power  of  God. 

Positively,  —  we  seem  constrained  to  say  that  God  permits  moral  evil 
because  moral  evil,  though  in  itself  abhorrent  to  his  nature,  is  yet  the  inci- 
dent of  a  system  adapted  to  his  purpose  of  self-revelation ;  and  further, 
because  it  is  his  wise  and  sovereign  will  to  institute  and  maintain  this  sys- 
tem of  which  moral  evil  is  an  incident,  rather  than  to  withhold  his  self- 
revelation  or  to  reveal  himself  through  another  system  in  which  moral  evil 
should  be  continually  prevented  by  the  exercise  of  divine  power. 

There  are  four  questions  which  neither  Scripture  nor  reason  enables  us  completely 
to  solve  and  to  which  we  may  safely  say  that  only  the  higher  knowledge  of  the  future 
state  will  furnish  the  answers.  These  questions  are,  first,  how  can  a  holy  God  permit 
moral  evil  ?  secondly,  how  could  a  being  created  pure  ever  fall  ?  thirdly,  how  can  we 
be  responsible  for  inborn  depravity?  fourthly,  how  could  Christ  justly  suffer  ?    The 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    DECREES.  367 

first  of  these  questions  now  confronts  us.  A  complete  theodicy  (  0eo?,  God,  and  Sikij, 
justice)  would  be  a  vindication  of  the  justice  of  God  in  permitting  the  natural  and 
moral  evil  that  exists  under  his  government.  While  a  complete  theodicy  is  beyond 
our  powers,  we  throw  some  tight  upon  food's  permission  of  moral  evil  by  considering 
(1)  that  freedom  of  will  is  necessary  t<>  virtue;  (2)  that  God  suffers  from  sin  more  than 
does  the  sinner ;  (J!)  that,  with  the  permission  of  sin,  God  provided  a  redemption;  and, 
( 4)  that  God  will  eventually  overrule  all  evil  for  good. 

It  is  possible  that  the  elect  angels  belong  to  a  moral  system  in  which  sin  is  prevented 
by  constraining  motives.  We  cannot  deny  that  God  could  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  sys- 
tem. Hut  it  is  very  doubtful  whet  her  <  i < >< l  could  prevent  sin  in  the  l><st  moral  system. 
The  most  perfect  freedom  is  indispensable  to  the  attainment  of  the  highest  virtue. 
Spurgeon:  "There  could  have  been  no  moral  government  without  permission  to  sin. 
God  could  have  created  blameless  puppets,  but  they  could  have  had  no  virtue." 
Behrends :  "  If  moral  beings  were  incapable  of  perversion,  man  would  have  had  all  the 
virtue  of  a  planet,  —  that  is,  no  virtue  at  all."  Sin  was  permitted,  then,  only  because 
it  could  be  overruled  for  the  greatest  good.  This  greatest  good,  we  may  add,  is  not 
simply  the  highest  nobility  and  virtue  of  the  creature,  but  also  the  revelation  of  the 
Creator.  Butfor  sin,  God's  justice  and  God's  meroy  alike  would  have  been  unintelli- 
gible to  the  universe.  B.  G.  Robinson  :  "  God  could  not  have  revealed  his  character  so 
well  without  moral  evil  as  wit  li  m<  iral  evil." 

Robert  Browning,  Christmas  Eve,  tells  us  that  it  was  God's  plan  to  make  man  in  his 
own  image:  "To  create  man,  and  then  leave  him  Able,  his  own  word  saith,  to  grieve 
him  ;  Hut  able  to  glorify  him  too.  As  a  mere  machine  could  never  do,  That  prayed  or 
praised,  all  unaware  Of  its  fitness  for  aught  but  praise  or  prayer,  Made  perfect  as  a 
thing  of  course."  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures.  268-270,  334,  holds  that  sin  and  wickedness 
is  an  absolute  evil,  but  an  evil  permitted  to  exist  because  the  effacement  of  it  would 
mean  the  effacement  at  the  same  time  both  for  God  and  man,  of  the  possibility  of  reach- 
ing the  highest  spiritual  good.  See  also  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion,  2 :  108 ;  Momerie, 
Origin  of  Evil ;  St.  Clair,  Evil  Physical  and  Moral;  Voysev,  Mystery  of  Pain,  Death 
and  Sin. 

C.  G.  Finney,  Skeletons  of  a  Course  of  Theological  Studies,  26,  27  —  "  Infinite  good- 
ness, knowledge  and  power  imply  only  that,  if  a  universe  were  made,  it  would  be 
the  best  that  was  naturally  possible."  To  say  that  Cod  could  not  be  the  author  of  a 
universe  in  which  there  is  so  much  of  evil,  he  says,  "assumes  that  a  better  universe, 
upon  the  whole,  was  a  natural  possibility.  It  assumes  that  a  universe  of  moral  beings 
could,  under  a  moral  government  administered  in  the  wisest  and  best  manner,  be 
wholly  restrained  from  sin  ;  but  this  needs  proof,  and  never  can  be  proved.  .  .  .  The 
best  possible  universe  may  not  be  the  best  conceivable  universe.  Apply  the  legal 
maxim,  'The  defendant  is  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  and  that  in  proportion  to 
the  established  character  of  his  reputation.1  There  is  so  much  clearly  indicating  the 
benevolence  of  God,  that  we  may  In  Hire  in  his  benevolence,  where  we  cannot  see  it." 

For  advocacy  of  the  view  that  God  cannot  prevent  evil  in  a  moral  system,  see  Birks, 
Difficulties  of  Belief,  17 ;  Young,  The  Mystery,  or  Evil  not  from  God  ;  Bledsoe,  Theodicy ; 
N.W.Taylor,  Moral  Government,  1 :  288-349;  2:327-:S56.  According  to  Dr.  Taylor's  view, 
God  has  not  a  complete  control  over  the  moral  universe  ;  moral  agents  can  do  wrong 
under  every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it ;  God  prefers,  all  things  considered,  that  all 
his  creatures  should  be  holy  and  happy,  and  does  all  in  his  power  to  make  them  so;  the 
existence  of  sin  is  not  on  the  whole  for  the  best ;  sin  exists  because  God  cannot  prevent 
it  in  a  moral  system  ;  the  blessedness  of  God  is  actually  impaired  by  the  disobedience 
of  his  creatures.  For  criticism  of  these  views,  see  Tyler,  Letters  on  the  New  Haven 
Theology,  120,  219.  Tyler  argues  that  election  and  non-election  imply  power  in  God  to 
preventsin;  that  permitting  is  not  mere  submitting  to  something  which  he  could  not 
possibly  prevent.  We  would  add  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  God  has  preserved  holy 
angels,  and  that  there  are  "just  men"  who  have  been  "made  perfect"  (Eeb.  12:23)  without 
violating  the  laws  of  moral  agency.  We  infer  that  God  could  have  so  preserved  Adam. 
The  history  of  the  church  leads  us  to  believe  that  there  is  no  sinner  so  stubborn  that 
God  cannot  renew  his  heart,  —  even  a  Saul  can  be  turned  into  a  Paul.  We  hesitate 
therefore  to  ascribe  limits  to  God's  power.  While  Dr.  Taylor  held  that  God  could  not 
prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system,  that  is,  in  any  moral  system.  Dr.  Park  is  understood  to 
hold  the  greatly  preferable  view  that  God  cannot  preventsin  in  the  best  moral  system. 
Flint,  Christ's  Kingdom  upon  Earth,  59 —  "The  alternative  is,  not  evil  or  no  evil,  but 
evil  or  the  miraculous  prevention  of  evil."    See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  400-122. 


368  NATURE,  DECREES,  AND  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

But  even  granting-  that  the  present  is  the  best  moral  system,  and  that  in  such  a  system 
evil  cannot  be  prevented  consistently  with  God's  wisdom  and  goodness,  the  question 
still  remains  how  the  decree  to  initiate  such  a  system  can  consist  with  God's  funda- 
mental attribute  of  holiness.  Of  this  insoluble  mystery  we  must  say  as  Dr.  John 
Brown,  in  Spare  Hours,  273,  says  of  Arthur  H.  Hallam's  Theodicsea  Novissima :  "As 
was  to  be  expected,  the  tremendous  subject  remains  where  he  found  it.  His  glowing- 
love  and  genius  cast  a  gleam  here  and  there  across  its  gloom,  but  it  is  as  brief  as  the 
lightning  iu  the  collied  night  — the  jaws  of  darkness  do  devour  it  up— this  secret 
belongs  to  God.  Across  its  deep  and  dazzling  darkness,  and  from  out  its  abyss  of  thick 
cloud,  '  all  dark,  dark,  irrecoverably  dark,'  no  steady  ray  has  ever  or  will  ever  come  ; 
over  its  face  its  own  darkness  must  brood,  till  he  to  whom  alone  the  darkness  and 
the  light  are  both  alike,  to  whom  the  night  shineth  as  the  day,  says  '  Let  there  be  light ! '" 

We  must  remember,  however,  that  the  decree  of  redemption  is  as  old  as  the  decree  of 
the  apostasy.  The  provision  of  salvation  in  Christ  shows  at  how  great  a  cost  to  God  was 
permitted  the  fall  of  the  race  in  Adam.  He  who  ordained  sin  ordained  also  an  atone- 
ment for  sin  and  a  way  of  escape  from  it.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  388 —  "  The  permis- 
sion of  sin  has  cost  God  more  than  it  has  man.  No  sacrifice  and  suffei-ing  on  account  of 
sin  has  been  undergone  by  any  man,  equal  to  that  which  has  been  endured  by  an  incar- 
nate God.  This  shows  that  God  is  not  acting  selfishly  in  permitting  it."  On  the  per- 
mission of  moral  evil,  see  Butler,  Analogy,  Bohn's  ed.,  177,  233  —  "The  Government  of 
God,  and  Christianity,  as  Schemes  imperfectly  Comprehended  "  ;  Hill,  System  of  Divin- 
ity, 528-559;  Ulrici,  art.:  Theodicee,  in Herzog's Encyclopedic ;  Cunningham, Historical 
Theology,  2 :  416-489 ;  Patton,  on  Retribution  and  the  Divine  Purpose,  in  Princeton  Rev., 
1878 :  16-23  ;  Bib.  Sac,  20 :  471-488  ;  Wood,  The  Witness  of  Sin. 

IV.     Concluding  Remarks. 

1.     Practical  uses  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees. 

( a )  It  inspires  humility  by  its  representation  of  God's  unsearchable 
counsels  and  absolute  sovereignty.  (  b  )  It  teaches  confidence  in  him  who 
has  wisely  ordered  our  birth,  our  death,  and  our  surroundings,  even  to  the 
minutest  particulars,  and  has  made  all  things  work  together  for  the  triumph 
of  his  kingdom  and  the  good  of  those  who  love  him;  (c)  It  shows  the 
enemies  of  God  that,  as  their  sins  have  been  foreseen  and  provided  for  in 
God's  plan,  so  they  can  never,  while  remaining  in  their  sins,  hope  to  escape 
their  decreed  and  threatened  penalty.  (  d )  It  urges  the  sinner  to  avail 
himself  of  the  appointed  means  of  grace,  if  he  would  be  counted  among  the 
number  of  those  for  whom  God  has  decreed  salvation. 

This  doctrine  is  one  of  those  advanced  teachings  of  Scripture  which  requires  for  its 
understanding  a  matured  mind  and  a  deep  experience.  The  beginner  in  the  Christian 
life  may  not  see  its  value  or  even  its  truth,  but  with  increasing  years  it  will  become  a 
staff  to  lean  upon.  In  times  of  affliction,  obloquy,  and  persecution,  the  church  has 
found  in  the  decrees  of  God,  and  in  the  prophecies  in  which  these  decrees  are  published, 
her  strong  consolation.  It  is  only  upon  the  basis  of  the  decrees  that  we  can  believe 
that  "all  things  work  together  for  good"  (Rom.  8:28  )  or  pray  "  Thy  will  be  done  "  (Mat.  6:10). 

It  is  a  striking  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  that  even  Arminians  pray  and 
sing  like  Calvinists.  Charles  Wesley,  the  Arminian,  can  write  :  "  He  wills  that  I  should 
holy  be  —  What  can  withstand  his  will  ?  The  counsel  of  his  grace  in  me  He  surely  will 
fulfill."  On  the  Arminian  theory,  prayer  that  God  will  soften  hard  hearts  is  out  of 
place,  —the  prayer  should  be  offered  to  the  sinner ;  for  it  is  his  will,  not  God's,  that  is 
in  the  way  of  his  salvation.  And  yet  this  doctrine  of  Decrees,  which  at  first  sight  might 
seem  to  discourage  effort,  is  the  greatest,  in  fact  is  the  only  effectual,  incentive  to  effort. 
For  this  reason  Calvinists  have  been  the  most  strenuous  advocates  of  civil  liberty. 
Those  who  submit  themselves  most  unreservedly  to  the  sovereignty  of  God  are  most 
delivered  from  the  fear  of  man.  Whitefleld  the  Calvinist,  and  not  Wesley  the  Arminian, 
originated  the  great  religious  movement  in  which  the  Methodist  church  was  born  ( see 
McFetridge,  Calvinism  in  History,  153 ),  and  Spurgeon's  ministry  has  been  as  fruitful  in 
conversions  as  Finney's.  See  Froude,  Essay  on  Calvinism ;  Andrew  Fuller,  Calvinism 
and  Socinianism  compared  in  their  Practical  Effects;  Atwater,  Calvinism  iu  Doctrine 
and  Life,  in  Princeton  Review,  1876:73:  J.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Lectures. 


CONCLUDING    REMARKS   ON    DECREES.  369 

Calvinism  logically  requires  the  separation  of  Church  and  State:  though  Calvin  did 
not  see  this,  the  Calvinist  Roger  Williams  did.  Calvinism  logically  requires  a  republi- 
can form  of  government :  Calvin  introduced  laymen  into  the  government  of  the  church, 
and  the  same  principle  requires  civil  liberty  as  its  correlate.  Calvinism  holds  to  indi- 
vidualism and  thedirect  responsibility  of  the  individual  to  God.  In  the  Netherlands, 
in  Scotland,  in  England,  in  America,  Calvinism  has  powerfully  influenced  the  develop- 
ment of  civil  liberty.  Ranke:  ".John  Calvin  was  virtually  tin-  founder  of  America." 
Motley:  "  To  the  Calvinists  more  than  to  any  other  class  of  men,  the  political  liberties 
of  Holland,  England  and  America  are  due."  John  Fiske,  The  Beginnings  of  New  Eng- 
land :  "  Perhaps  not  one  of  the  mediaeval  popes  was  more  despotic  than  Calvin  ;  but  it 
is  not  the  less  true  that  the  promulgation  of  his  theology  was  one  of  the  longest  steps 
that  mankind  have  taken  towards  personal  freedom.  .  .  .  It  was  a  religion  fit  to  inspire 
nan  who  were  to  be  called  to  light  for  freedom,  whether  in  the  marshes  of  the  Nether- 
lands or  on  the  moors  of  Scotland.'' 

/Esop,  when  asked  what  was  the  occupat  ii  >n  of  Zeus,  replied  :  "  To  humble  the  exalted 
and  to  exalt  the  humble."  "I  accept  the  universe,"  said  Margaret  Fuller.  Some 
one  reported  this  remark  to  Thomas  Carlyle.  "Gadlshe'd  better!"  he  replied.  Dr.  John 
Watson  (Ian  McLaren):  "The  greatest  reinforcement  religion  could  have  in  our 
time  would  be  a  return  to  the  ancient  belief  in  the  sovereignty  of  God."  Whittier: 
"All  is  of  God  that  is  and  is  to  be,  And  God  is  good.  Let  this  su  Nice  us  still  1  Jesting  in 
childlike  trust  upon  his  will  Who  moves  to  his  great  ends  unth  waited  by  the  ill."  Every 
true  minister  preaches  Arminianism  and  prays  Calvinism.  Thismeanssimply  thai  t  here 
is  more,  in  God's  love  and  In  God's  purposes,  than  man  can  state  or  comprehend. 
Beecher called  Bpurgeona  camel  with  one  hump  Calvinism.  Spurgeon  called  Beecher 
a  camel  without  any  hump  :  "  He  does  not  know  what  he  believes,  and  you  never  know 
where  to  find  him." 

Arminians  sing  :  "  Other  refuge  have  I  none  ;  Hangs  my  helpless  soul  on  thee  "  ;  yet 
John  Wesley  wrote  to  the  Calvinist  Toplady.  t  he  author  id'  the  hymn:  "  Vour  God  is 
my  devil."  Calvinists  replied  that  it  was  better  to  have  the  throne  of  the  universe 
vacant  than  to  have  it  filled  by  such  a  pitiful  nonentity  as  the  Arminians  worshiped.  It 
was  said  of  Lord  Byron  that  all  his  life  he  believed  in  Calvinism,  and  hated  it.  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes  similarly,  in  all  his  novels  except  Elsie  Venner,  makes  the  orthodox 
thinblooded  and  weakkneed,  while  his  heretics  are  all  strong  in  body.  Dale,  Ephesians, 
52  — "Of  the  two  extremes,  the  suppression  of  man  which  was  the  offence  of  Calvinism, 
and  the  suppression  of  God  which  was  t  he  offen<  e  against  which  Calvinism  so  fiercely 
protested,  the  fault  and  error  of  Calvinism  was  the  nobler  and  grander.  .  .  .  The  most 
heroic  forms  of  human  courage,  strength  and  righteousness  have  been  found  in  men 
who  in  their  theology  seemed  to  deny  the  possibility  of  human  virtue  and  made  the 
will  of  God  the  only  real  force  in  the  universe." 

2.     True  method  of  preaching  the  doctriru  . 

( a )  We  should  most  carefully  av<  id  exaggeration  or  unnecessarily  obnox- 
ious statement.  (  b  )  We  should  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  decrees  are  not 
grounded  in  arbitrary  will,  but  in  infinite  wisdom.  (  c  )  We  should  make 
it  plain  that  whatever  God  does  or  will  do,  he  must  from  eternity  have  pur- 
posed to  do.  (d)  We  should  illustrate  the  doctrine  so  far  as  possible  by 
instances  of  completeness  and  far-sightedness  in  human  plans  of  great 
enterprises,  (e)  We  may  then  make  extended  application  of  the  truth  to 
the  encouragement  of  the  Christian  and  the  admonition  of  the  unbeliever. 

For  illustrations  of  foresight,  instance  Louis  Napoleon's  planning  the  Suez  Canal, 
and  declaring  his  policy  as  Emperor,  long  before  he  ascended  the  throne  of  France. 
For  instances  of  practical  treatment  of  the  theme  inpreaching.seeBushnell,  Sermon  on 
Every  Man's  Life  a  Plan  of  God,  in  Sermons  for  the  New  Life  ;  Nehemiah  Adams,  Even- 
ings with  the  Doctrines,  243 ;  Spurgeon's  Sermon  on  Ps.  44 : 3  —  "  Because  thou  hadst  a  favor  unto 
them."  Robert  Browning,  Rabbi  Ben  Ezra :  "  Grow  old  along  with  me !  The  best  is  yet 
to  be,  The  last  of  life,  for  which  the  first  was  made :  Our  times  are  in  his  hand  Who 
saith  'A  whole  I  planned,  Youth  shows  but  half ;  trust  God :  See  all  nor  be  afraid ! '  " 

Shakespeare,  King  Lear,  1:2  —  "  This  is  the  excellent  foppery  of  the  world  that  when 
we  are  sick  in  fortune  ( often  the  surfeit  of  our  own  behavior)  we  make  guilty  of  our 
disasters  the  sun,  the  moon  and  the  stars,  as  if  we  were  villains  by  necessity,  foots  by 

24 


370  NATURE,    DECREES,    AND    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

heavenly  compulsion,  and  all  that  we  are  evil  in  by  a  divine  thrusting  on ;  an  admir- 
able evasion  of  man  to  lay  his  disposition  to  the  charge  of  a  star ! "  All's  Well : 
"  Our  remedies  oft  in  ourselves  do  lie  Which  we  ascribe  to  heaven :  the  fated  sky  Gives 
us  free  scope;  only  doth  backward  pull  Our  slow  designs,  when  we  ourselves  are 
dull."  Julius  Caesar,  1:2 —  "  Men  at  some  time  are  masters  of  their  fates  :  The  fault, 
dear  Brutus,  is  not  in  our  stars,  But  in  ourselves,  that  we  are  underlings." 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

VOLUME   II. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  WORKS  OF  GOD  ;  OR  THE  EXECUTION  OF  THE  DECREES. 


SECTION  I. — CREATION. 

I.  Definition  of  Ckeation. 

By  creation  we  mean  that  free  net  of  the  triune  God  by  which  in  the 
beginning  for  his  own  glory  he  made,  without  the  use  of  preexisting  mate- 
rials, the  whole  visible  and  invisible  universe. 

Creation  is  designed  origination,  by  a  transcendent  and  personal  God, 
of  that  which  itself  is  not  God.  The  universe  is  related  to  God  as  our  own 
volitions  are  related  to  ourselves.  They  are  not  ourselves,  aud  we  are 
greater  than  they.  Creation  is  not  simply  the  idea  of  God,  or  even  the 
plan  of  God,  but  it  is  the  idea  externalized,  the  plan  executed  ;  in  other 
words,  it  implies  an  exercise,  not  only  of  intellect,  but  also  of  will,  and  this 
will  is  not  an  instinctive  and  unconscious  will,  but  a  will  that  is  personal 
and  free.  Such  exercise  of  will  seems  to  involve,  not  self-development,  but 
self-limitation,  on  the  part  of  God  ;  the  transformation  of  energy  into 
force,  and  so  a  beginning  of  time,  with  its  finite  successions.  But,  what- 
ever the  relation  of  creation  to  time,  creation  makes  the  universe  wholly 
dependent  upon  God,  as  its  originator. 

F.  H.  Johnson,  in  Andover  Rev.,  March,  1891 :  280,  and  What  is  Reality,  285—"  Creation 
is  designed  origination.  .  .  .  Men  never  could  have  thought  of  God  as  the  Creator  of 
the  world,  were  it  not  that  they  had  first  known  themselves  as  creators."  We  agree 
with  the  doctrine  of  Hazard,  Man  a  Creative  First  Cause.  Man  creates  ideas  and  voli- 
tions, without  use  of  preexisting-  material.  He  also  indirectly,  through  these  ideas 
aud  volitions,  creates  brain-modifications.  This  creation,  as  Johnson  has  shown,  is 
without  hands,  yet  elaborate,  selective,  progressive.  Schopenhauer :  "  Matter  is  noth- 
ing more  than  causation ;  its  true  being  is  its  action." 

Prof.  C.  L.  Herrick,  Denison  Quarterly,  1596:248,  and  Psychological  Review,  March, 
1899,  advocates  what  he  calls  dynamism,  which  he  regards  as  the  only  alternative  to  a 
materialistic  dualism  which  posits  matter,  and  a  God  above  and  distinct  from  matter. 
He  claims  that  the  predicate  of  reality  can  apply  only  to  energy.  To  speak  of  energy  as 
residing  in  something  is  to  introduce  anentirely  incongruous  concept,  for  it  continues 
our  guest  ad  infinitum.  "Force,"  he  says,  "is  energy  under  resistance,  or  self-limited 
energy,  for  all  pai-ts  of  the  universe  are  derived  from  the  energy.  Energy  manifesting 
itself  under  self-conditioning  or  differential  forms  is  force.  The  change  of  pure  energy 
into  force  is  creation  —  the  introduction  of  resistance.  The  progressive  complication  of 
this  interference  is  evolution — a  form  of  orderly  resolution  of  energy.  Substance  is 
pure  spontaneous  energy.  God's  substance  is  his  energy — the  infinite  and  inexhaust- 
ible store  of  spontaneity  which  makes  up  his  being.    The  form  which  self -limitation 

371 


372  THE    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

impresses  upon  substance,  in  revealing  it  in  force,  is  not  God,  because  it  no  longer 
possesses  the  attributes  of  spontaneity  and  universality,  though  it  emanates  from  him. 
When  we  speak  of  energy  as  self-limited,  we  simply  imply  that  spontaneity  is  intelli- 
gent. The  sum  of  God's  acts  is  his  being.  There  is  no  causa  posterior  or  extranea,  which 
spurs  him  on.  We  must  recognize  in  the  source  what  appears  in  the  outcome.  We 
can  speak  of  ahsolute,  but  not  of  infinite  or  immutahle,  substance.  The  Universe  is  but 
the  partial  expression  of  an  infinite  God." 

Our  view  of  creation  is  so  nearly  that  of  Lotze,  that  we  here  condense  Ten  Brooke's 
statement  of  his  philosophy  :  "  Things  are  concreted  laws  of  action.  If  the  idea  of  being 
must  include  permanence  as  well  as  activity,  we  must  say  that  only  the  personal  truly 
is.  All  else  is  ilow  and  process.  We  can  interpret  ontology  only  from  the  side  of  per- 
sonality. Possibility  of  interaction  requires  the  dependence  of  the  mutually  related 
many  of  the  system  upon  an  all-embracing,  coordinating  One.  The  finite  is  a  mode  or 
phenomenon  of  the  One  Being.  Mere  things  are  only  modes  of  energizing  of  the  One. 
Self-conscious  personalities  are  created,  posited,  and  depend  on  the  One  in  a  different 
way.  Interaction  of  things  is  immanent  action  of  the  One,  which  the  perceiving  mind 
interprets  as  causal.  Real  interaction  is  possible  only  between  the  Infinite  and  the 
created  finite,  i.  c,  self-conscious  persons.  The  finite  is  not  a  part  of  the  Infinite,  nor 
does  it  partly  exhaust  the  stuff  of  the  Infinite.  The  One,  by  an  act  of  freedom,  posits 
the  many,  and  the  many  have  their  ground  and  unity  in  the  Will  and  Thought  of  the 
One.    Both  the  finite  and  the  Infinite  are  free  and  intelligent. 

"  Space  is  not  an  extra-mental  reality,  sui  generis,  nor  an  order  of  relations  among 
realities,  but  a  form  of  dynamic  appearance,  the  ground  of  which  is  the  fixed  orderly 
changes  in  reality.  So  time  is  the  form  of  change,  the  subjective  interpretation  of 
timeless  yet  successive  changes  in  reality.  So  far  as  God  is  the  ground  of  the  world- 
process,  he  is  in  time.  So  far  as  he  transcends  the  world-process  in  his  self-conscious 
personality,  he  is  not  in  time.  Motion  too  is  the  subjective  interpretation  of  changes 
in  tilings,  which  changes  are  determined  by  the  demands  of  the  world-system  and  the 
purpose  being  realized  in  it.  Not  atomism,  but  dynamism,  is  the  truth.  Physical 
phenomena  are  referable  to  the  activity  of  the  Infinite,  which  activity  is  given  a 
substantive  character  because  we  think  under  the  form  of  substance  and  attribute. 
Mechanism  is  compatible  with  teleology.  Mechanism  is  universal  and  is  necessary  to  all 
system.  But  it  is  limited  by  purpose,  and  by  the  possible  appearance  of  any  new  law, 
force,  or  act  of  freedom. 

"  The  soul  is  not  a  function  of  material  activities,  but  is  a  true  reality.  The  system 
is  such  that  it  can  admit  new  factors,  and  the  soul  is  one  of  these  possible  new  factors. 
The  soul  is  created  as  substantial  reality,  in  contrast  with  other  elements  of  the  sys- 
tem, which  are  only  phenomenal  manifestations  of  the  One  Reality.  The  relation 
between  soul  and  body  is  that  of  interaction  between  the  soul  and  the  universe,  the 
body  being  that  part  of  the  universe  which  stands  in  closest  relation  with  the  soul 
(versus  Bradley,  who  holds  that  'body  and  soul  alike  are  phenomenal  arrangements, 
neither  one  of  which  has  any  title  to  fact  which  is  not  owned  by  the  other ' ).  Thousbt 
is  a  knowledge  of  reality.  We  must  assume  an  adjustment  between  subject  and  object. 
This  assumption  is  founded  on  the  postulate  of  a  morally  perfect  God."  To  Lotze, 
then,  the  only  real  creatiou  is  that  of  finite  personalities,  —  matter  being  only  a  mode 
of  the  divine  activity.  See  Lotze,  Microcosmos,  and  Philosophy  of  Religion.  Bowne, 
in  his  Metaphysics  and  his  Philosophy  of  Theism,  is  the  best  expositor  of  Lotze's  system. 

In  further  explanation  of  our  definition  we  remark  that 

(  a  )  Creation  is  not  "production  out  of  nothing,"  as  if  "  nothing  "  were 
a  substance  out  of  which  "something "  could  he  formed. 

We  do  not  regard  the  doctrine  of  Creation  as  bound  to  the  use  of  the  phrase  "creation 
out  of  nothing,"  and  as  standing  or  falling  with  it.  The  phrase  is  a  philosophical  one, 
for  which  we  have  no  Scriptural  warrant,  and  it  is  objectionable  as  intimating  that 
"  nothing  "  can  itself  be  an  object  of  thought  and  a  source  of  being.  The  germ  of  truth 
intended  to  be  conveyed  in  it  can  better  be  expressed  in  the  phrase  "  without  use  of 
preexisting  materials." 

(  b  )  Creation  is  not  a  fashioning  of  preexisting  materials,  nor  an  emana- 
tion from  the  substance  of  Deity,  but  is  a  making  of  that  to  exist  which 
oace  did  not  exist,  either  in  form  or  substance. 


DEFINITION"   OF   CREATION.  373 

There  is  nothing  divine  in  creation  but  the  origination  of  substance.  Fashioning'  is 
competent  to  the  creature  also.  Gassendi  said  to  Descartes  that  God's  creation,  if  he 
is  the  author  of  forms  but  not  of  substances,  is  only  that  of  the  tailor  who  clothes  a 
mau  with  his  apparel.  But  substanca»is  not  necessarily  material.  We  are  to  conceive 
of  it  rather  after  the  analogy  of  our  own  ideas  and  volitions,  and  as  a  manifestation  of 
spirit.  Creation  is  not  simply  the  thought  of  God,  nor  even  the  plan  of  God,  but  rather 
the  extermination  of  that  thought  and  the  execution  of  that  plan.  Nature  is  "  agreat 
sheet  let  down  from  God  out  of  heaven,"  and  containing  "  nothing  that  is  common  or 
unclean  ;  "  but  nature  is  not  God  nor  a  part  of  God,  any  more  than  our  ideas  and  voli- 
tions are  ourselves  or  a  part  of  ourselves.  Nature  is  a  partial  manifestation  of  God, 
but  it  does  not  exhaust  God. 

(c)  Creation  is  not  an  instinctive  or  necessary  process  of  the  divine 
nature,  but  is  the  free  act  of  a  rational  will,  put  forth  for  a  definite  and 
sufficient  end. 

Creation  is  different  in  kind  from  that  eternal  process  of  tin;  divine  nature  in  virtue 
of  which  we  speak  of  generation  and  procession.  The  Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father, 
and  is  of  the  same  essence  ;  the  world  is  created  without  preexisting  material,  is  differ- 
ent from  God,  and  is  made  by  God.  Begetting  is  a  necessary  act ;  creation  is  the  act  of 
God's  free  grace.    Begetting  is  eternal,  out  of  time;  creation  is  in  time,  or  with  time. 

Studia  Biblica,  4:148— "  Creation  is  the  voluntary  limitation  which  God  has  imposed 
on  himself.  ...  It  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  creation  of  free  spirits.  ...  It  is  a  form  of 
almighty  power  to  submit  to  limitation.  Creation  is  not  a  development  of  God,  but 
a  circumscription  of  God.  .  .  .  The  world  is  not  the  expression  of  God,  or  an  ema- 
nation from  God,  but  rather  his  self-limitation." 

( d )  Creation  is  the  act  of  the  triune  God,  in  the  sense  that  all  the  persons 
of  the  Trinity,  themselves  uncreated,  have  a  part  in  it  —  the  Father  as  the 
originating,  the  Son  as  the  mediating,  the  Spirit  as  the  realizing  cause. 

That  all  of  God's  creative  activity  is  exercised  through  Christ  has  been  sufficiently 
proved  in  our  treatment  of  the  Trinity  and  of  Christ's  deity  as  an  element  of  that 
doctrine  (see  pages:;  in,  :;il ).  We  may  here  refer  to  the  texts  which  have  been  previously 

considered,  namely,  John  1 :  3.  4  —  "All  things  were  made  through  him,  and  without  him  was  not  anything 
made.  That  which  hath  been  made  was  life  in  him";  1  Cor.  8:6 — "one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all 
things";  CoL  1 :  16 — "all  things  have  been  created  through  him,  and  unto  him  "  ;  Eeb.  1:10 — "Thou,  Lord,  in  the 
beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  tho  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy  hands." 

The  work  of  the  Holy  spirit  seems  to  be  that  of  completing,  bringing  to  perfection. 
Wc  can  understand  this  only  by  remembering  that  our  Christian  knowledge  ami  love 
are  brought  to  their  consummation  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  he  is  also  the  principle 
of  our  natural  self-consciousness,  uniting  subject  and  object  in  a  subject-object.  If 
matter  is  conceived  of  as  a  manifestation  of  spirit,  after  the  idealistic  philosophy,  then 
the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  regarded  as  the  perfecting  and  realizing  agent  in  the  external- 
izat  ion  of  the  divine  ideas.  While  it  was  the  Word  though  whom  all  things  were  made, 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  author  of  life,  order,  and  adornment.  Creation  is  not  a  mere 
manufacturing,— it  is  a  spiritual  act. 

John  Caird,  Fundamental  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1:120—  "The  creation  of  the  world 
cannot  be  by  a  Being  who  is  external.  Power  presupposes  an  object  on  which  it  is 
exerted.  129  —  There  is  in  the  very  nature  of  God  a  reason  why  he  should  reveal  him- 
self in,  and  communicate  himself  to,  a  world  of  finite  existences,  or  fulfil  and  realize 
himself  in  the  being  and  life  of  nature  and  man.  His  nature  would  not  be  what 
it  is  if  such  a  world  did  not  exist ;  something  would  be  lacking  to  the  completeness  of 
the  divine  being  without  it.  144 —  Even  with  respect  to  human  thought  or  intelligence, 
it  is  mind  or  spirit  which  creates  the  world.  It  is  not  a  ready-ma'de  world  on  which 
we  look  ;  in  perceiving  our  world  we  make  it.  152-154  —  We  make  progress  as  we  cease 
to  think  our  own  thoughts  and  become  media  of  the  universal  Intelligence."  While 
we  accept  Caird's  idealistic  interpretation  of  creation,  we  dissent  from  his  intimation 
that  creation  is  a  necessity  to  God.  The  trinitarian  being  of  God  renders  him  sufficient 
to  himself,  even  without  creation.  Yet  those  very  trinitarian  relations  throw  light 
upon  the  method  of  creation,  since  they  disclose  to  us  the  order  of  all  the  divine  activ- 
ity.   On  the  definition  of  Creation,  see  Shedd,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 :  11. 


374  THE   WORKS    OF   GOD. 

II.     Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Creation. 

Creation  is  a  truth  of  which  mere  science  or  reason  cannot  fully  assure 
us.  Physical  science  can  observe  and  record  changes,  but  it  knows  nothing 
of  origins.  Reason  cannot  absolutely  disprove  the  eternity  of  matter. 
For  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  Creation,  therefore,  we  rely  wholly  upon 
Scripture.  Scripture  supplements  science,  and  renders  its  explanation  of 
the  universe  complete. 

Drummond,  in  his  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  claims  that  atoms,  as  "  manu- 
factured articles,"  and  the  dissipation  of  energy,  prove  the  creation  of  the  visible  from 
the  invisible.  See  the  same  doctrine  propounded  in  "  The  Unseen  Universe."  But  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  tells  us :  "  Geology  is  the  autobiography  of  the  earth,—  but  like  all  auto- 
biographies, it  does  not  go  back  to  the  beginning."  Hopkins,  Yale  Lectures  on  the 
Scriptural  View  of  Man:  "  There  is  nothing  a  priori  against  the  eternity  of  matter." 
Wardlaw,  Syst.  Theol.,  2:65  — "  We  cannot  form  any  distinct  conception  of  creation 
out  of  nothing.  The  very  idea  of  it  might  never  have  occurred  to  the  mind  of  man, 
had  it  not  been  traditionally  handed  down  as  a  part  of  the  original  revelation  to  the 
parents  of  the  race." 

Hartmann,  the  German  philosopher,  goes  back  to  the  original  elements  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  then  says  that  science  stands  petrified  before  the  question  of  their  origin,  as 
before  a  Medusa's  head.  But  in  the  presence  of  problems,  says  Dorner,  the  duty  of 
science  is  not  petrifaction,  but  solution.  This  is  peculiarly  true,  if  science  is,  as 
Hartmann  thinks,  a  complete  explanation  of  the  universe.  Since  science,  by  her  own 
acknowledgment,  furnishes  no  such  explanation  of  the  origin  of  things,  the  Scripture 
revelation  with  regard  to  creation  meets  a  demand  of  human  reason,  by  adding  the 
one  fact  without  which  science  must  forever  be  devoid  of  the  highest  unity  and  ration- 
ality.   For  advocacy  of  the  eternity  of  matter,  see  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  157-169. 

E.  H.  Johnson,  in  Andover  Review,  Nov.  1891 :  505  sq„  and  Dec.  1891:592  sq.,  remarks 
that  evolution  can  be  traced  backward  to  more  and  more  simple  elements,  to  matter 
without  motion  and  with  no  quality  but  being.  Now  make  it  still  more  simple  by 
divesting  it  of  existence,  and  you  get  back  to  the  necessity  of  a  Creator.  An  infinite 
number  of  past  stages  is  impossible.  There  is  no  infinite  number.  Somewhere  there 
must  be  a  beginning.  We  grant  to  Dr.  Johnson  that  the  oniy  alternative  to  crea- 
tion is  a  materialistic  dualism,  or  an  eternal  matter  which  is  the  product  of  the  divine 
mind  and  will.  The  theories  of  dualism  and  of  creation  from  eternity  we  shall  discuss 
hereafter. 

1.     Direct  Scripture  Statements. 

A.  Genesis  1  : 1  — "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heave n  and  the 
earth. "  To  this  it  has  been  objected  that  the  verb  fcOS  does  not  necessarily 
denote  production  without  the  use  of  preexisting  materials  ( see  Gen.  1  :  27 
— "  God  created  man  in  his  own  image  "  ;  cf.  2  : 7 — "the  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  "  ;  also  Ps.  51  :  10 — "  Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart"). 

"  In  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis  J03  is  used  ( 1 )  of  the  creation  of  the  universe 
( 1 : 1 ) ;  ( 2 )  of  the  creation  of  the  great  sea  monsters  ( 1 :  21 ) ;  ( 3 )  of  the  creation  of  man 
(1:27).  Everywhere  else  we  read  of  God's  malting,  as  from  an  already  created  substance, 
the  firmament  (1:7),  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  (1:16),  the  brute  creation  ( 1 :  25 ) ;  or  of  his 
forming  the  beasts  of  the  field  out  of  the  ground  (2:19);  or,  lastly,  of  his  building  up 
into  a  woman  the  rib  he  had  taken  from  man  ( 2 :  22,  margin )"—  quoted  from  Bible  Com., 
1 :  31.  Guyot,  Creation,  30  —  "  Bara  is  thus  reserved  for  marking  the  first  introduction 
of  each  of  the  three  great  spheres  of  existence  —  the  world  of  matter,  the  world  of  life, 
and  the  spiritual  world  represented  by  man." 

We  grant,  in  reply,  that  the  argument  for  absolute  creation  derived  from 
the  mere  word  fcOS  is  not  entirely  conclusive.  Other  considerations  in 
connection  with  the  use  of  this  word,  however,  seem  to  render  this  inter- 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CREATION.  375 

pretation  of  Gen.  1  : 1  the  most  plausible.      Some  of  these  considerations 
we  proceed  to  mention. 

(a)  While  we  acknowledge  thai:  the  verb  N13  "does  not  necessarily  or 
invariably  denote  production  without  the  use  of  preexisting  materials,  we 
still  maintain  that  it  signifies  the  production  of  an  effect  for  which  no  nat- 
ural antecedent  existed  before,  and  which  can  be  only  the  result  of  divine 
agency."  For  this  reason,  in  the  Kal  species  it  is  used  only  of  God,  and  is 
never  accompanied  by  any  accusative  denoting  material. 

No  accusative  denoting  material  follows  bora,  in  the  passages  indicated,  for  the  reason 
that  ail  thought  of  material  was  absent.  See  Dillmann,  Genesis,  18;  Oehler,  Theol. 
0.  T.,  1 :  177.  The  quotation  in  the  text  above  is  from  Green,  Hebrew  Chrestomathy, 
57.  But  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  88,  remarks :  "  Whether  the  Scriptures 
teach  the  absolute  origination  of  matter  — its  creation  out  of  nothintr  —  is  an  open 
question.  .  .  .  No  decisive  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  Hebrew  word  bara." 

A  moderate  and  scholarly  statement  of  the  facts  is  furnished  by  Professor  W.  J. 
Beecher,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Dec.  23,  1893:807  —  "  To  create  is  to  originate  divinely.  .  .  .  Cre- 
ation, in  the  sense  in  which  the  Bible  uses  the  word,  does  not  exclude  the  use  of  mate- 
rials previously  existing;  for  man  was  taken  from  the  ground  (Gen.  2:7),  and  woman 
was  builded  from  the  rib  of  a  man  ( 2 :  22 ) .  Ordinarily  God  brings  things  into  existence 
through  the  operation  of  second  causes.  But  it  is  possible,  in  our  thinking,  to  with- 
draw attention  from  the  second  causes,  and  to  think  of  anything  as  originating  simply 
from  God,  apart  from  second  causes.  To  think  of  a  thing  thus  is  to  think  of  it  as 
created.  The  Bible  speaks  of  Israel  as  created,  of  the  promised  prosperity  of  Jerusalem 
as  created,  of  the  Ammonite  people  and  the  king  of  Tyre  as  created,  of  persons  of  any 
date  in  history  as  created  ( Is.  43  : 1-15 ;  65  :  18 ;  Ez.  21 :  30 ;  28  :  13,  15 ;  Ps.  102 :  18 ;  Eccl.  12 : 1 ;  Mai.  2 :  10  ). 
Miracles  and  the  ultimate  beginnings  of  second  causes  arc  necessarily  thought  of  as 
creative  acts ;  all  other  originating  of  things  may  be  thought  of,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose we  have  in  mind,  either  as  creation  or  as  effected  by  second  causes." 

( b)  In  the  account  of  the  creation,  NT3  seems  to  he  distinguished  from 
nty.T,  "  to  make  "  either  with  or  without  the  use  of  already  existing  material 
(JWjn  >03,  "created  in  making"  or  "made  by  creation,"  in  2  : 3  ;  and 
^i'-lj  of  the  firmament,  in  1:7),  and  from  "VST,  "  to  form  "  out  of  such  mate- 
rial. ( See  N?-3*1'  of  man  regarded  as  a  spiritual  being,  in  1  :  27  ;  but  "^'l, 
of  man  regarded  as  a  physical  being,  in  2:7.) 

See  Conant,  Genesis,  1 ;  Bible  Com.,  1:37  —  '"created  to  make  '  (in  Gen.  2: 3)  =  created 
out  of  nothing,  in  order  that  he  might  make  out  of  it  all  the  works  recorded  in  the  six 
days."  Over  against  these  texts,  however,  we  must  set  others  in  which  there  appears 
no  accurate  distinguishing  of  these  words  from  one  another.  Bara  is  used  in  Gen.  1 : 1, 
asah  in  Gen.  2: 4,  of  the  creation  of  the  heaven  and  earth.  Of  earth,  both  yatzar  and 
asdh  are  used  in  Is.  45 ;  18.  In  regard  to  man,  in  Gen.  1 :  27  we  find  bara  ;  in  Gen.  1 :  26  and  9 : 
6,  asah ;  and  in  Gen.  2  :  7,  yatzar.  In  Is.  43  ;  7,  all  three  are  found  in  the  same  verse :  "whom 
I  haye  bara  for  my  glory,  I  have  yatzar,  yea,  I  have  asah  him."  In  Is.  45  :  12,  "  asah  the  earth,  and  bara 
man  upon  it " ;  but  in  Gen.  1 ;  1  we  read:  "God  bara  the  earth,"  and  in  9  :  6  "asah  man."  Is.  44  :  2  — 
"the  Lord  that  asah  thee  ( i.  c,  man)  and  yatzar  thee"  ;  but  in  Gen.l  :27,  God  "bara  man."  Gen.  5  :2 
—  "male  and  female  bara  he  them."  Gen.2:22 —  "the  rib  asah  he  a  woman  "  ;  Gen.2:7  —  "  he  yatzar  man  " ; 
i.  e.,  oaramale  and  female,  yet  asah  the  woman  and  yatzar  the  man.  Asah  is  not 
always  used  for  transform  :  Is.  41:20  —  "fir-tree,  pine,  box-tree  "  in  nature  —  bara;  Ps. 51:10 — 
"  bara  in  me  a  clean  heart"  ;  Is.  65  :18  —  God  "bara  Jerusalem  into  a  rejoicing." 

(  c )  The  context  shows  that  the  meaning  here  is  a  making  without  the 
use  of  preexisting  materials.  Since  the  earth  in  its  rude,  unformed,  chaotic 
condition  is  still  called  "the  earth"  in  verse  2,  the  word  NT3  in  verse  1 
cannot  refer  to  any  shaping  or  fashioning  of  the  elements,  but  must  signify 
the  calling  of  them  into  being. 


376  THE   WORKS  OF  GOD. 

Oehler,  Theology  of  O.  T.,  1:177  — "By  the  absolute  berashith,  'in  the  beginning,'  the 
divine  creation  is  fixed  as  an  absolute  beginning,  not  as  a  working  on  something  that 
already  existed."  Verse  2  cannot  be  the  beginning  of  a  history,  for  it.  begins  with  'and.' 
Delitzsch  says  of  the  expression  'the  earth  was  without  form  and  void ' :  "  From  this  it  is  evident 
that  the  void  and  formless  state  of  the  earth  was  not  uncreated  or  without  a  beginning. 
.  .  ,  It  is  evident  that '  the  heaven  and  oarth  as  God  created  them  in  the  beginning  were  not 
the  well-ordered  universe,  but  the  world  in  its  elementary  form." 

(  d  )  The  fact  that  ^  n  3  may  have  had  an  original  signification  of  '  'cutting, " 
"forming,"  and  that  it  retains  this  meaning  in  the  Piel  conjugation,  need 
not  prejudice  the  conclusion  thus  reached,  since  terms  expressive  of  the 
most  spiritual  processes  are  derived  from  sensuous  roots.  If  iOS  does  not 
signify  absolute  creation,  no  word  exists  in  the  Hebrew  language  that  can 
express  this  idea. 

(  e )  But  this  idea  of  production  Avithout  the  use  of  preexisting  materials 
unquestionably  existed  among  the  Hebrews.  The  later  Scriptures  show 
that  it  had  become  natural  to  the  Hebrew  mind.  The  possession  of  this 
idea  by  the  Hebrews,  while  it  is  either  not  found  at  all  or  is  very  dimly 
and  ambiguously  expressed  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  heathen,  can  be 
best  explained  by  supposing  that  it  was  derived  from  this  early  revelation 
in  Genesis. 

E.  H.  Johnson,  Outline  of  Syst.  Theol.,  94—  "Rom.  4 :  17  tells  us  that  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham, to  whom  God  had  promised  a  son,  grasped  the  fact  that  God  calls  into  existence 
'  the  things  that  are  not.'  This  may  be  accepted  as  Paul's  interpretation  of  the  first  verse  of 
the  Bible."  It  is  possible  that  the  heathen  had  occasional  glimpses  of  this  truth, 
though  with  no  such  clearness  as  that  with  which  it  was  held  in  Israel.  Perhaps  we 
may  say  that  through  the  perversions  of  later  nature-worship  something  of  the  origi- 
nal revelation  of  absolute  creation  shines,  as  the  first  writing  of  a  palimpsest  appears 
faintly  through  the  subsequent  script  with  which  it  has  been  overlaid.  If  the  doctrine 
of  absolute  creation  is  found  at  all  among  the  heathen,  it  is  greatly  blurred  and 
obscured.  No  one  of  the  heathen  books  teaches  it  as  do  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the 
Hebrews.  Yet  it  seems  as  if  this  "  One  accent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  The  heedless  world 
has  never  lost." 

Bib.  Com.,  1  :  31  — "Perhaps  no  other  ancient  language,  however  refined  and  philo- 
sophical, could  have  so  clearly  distinguished  the  different  acts  of  the  Maker  of  all  things 
[as  the  Hebrew  did  with  its  four  different  words],  and  that  because  all  heathen  philos- 
ophy esteemed  matter  to  be  eternal  and  uncreated."  Prof.  E.  D.  Burton :  "  Brah- 
manism,  and  the  original  religion  of  which  Zoroastrianism  was  a  reformation,  were 
Eastern  and  Western  divisions  of  a  primitive  Aryan,  and  probably  monotheistic, 
religion.  The  Vedas,  which  represented  the  Brahmanism,  leave  it  a  question  whence  the 
world  came,  whether  from  God  by  emanation,  or  by  the  shaping  of  material  eternally 
existent.  Later  Brahmanism  is  pantheistic,  and  Buddhism,  the  Reformation  of  Brah- 
manism, is  atheistic."  See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1:471,  and  Mosheim's  references  in 
Cudworth's  Intellectual  System,  3  :  140. 

We  are  inclined  still  to  hold  that  the  doctrine  of  absolute  creation  was  known  to  no 
other  ancient  nation  besides  the  Hebrews.  Recent  investigations,  however,  render 
this  somewhat  more  doubtful  than  it  once  seemed  to  be.  Sayce,  Hibbert  Lectures,  143, 
143,  finds  ci-eation  among  the  early  Babylonians.  In  his  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt 
and  Babylonia,  372-397,  he  says :  "  The  elements  of  Hebrew  cosmology  are  all  Babylon- 
ian ;  even  the  creative  word  itself  was  a  Babylonian  conception  ;  but  the  spirit  which 
insj lives  the  cosmology  is  the  antithesis  to  that  which  inspired  the  cosmology  of  Baby- 
lonia. Between  the  polytheism  of  Babylonia  and  the  monotheism  of  Israel  a  gulf  is 
fixed  which  cannot  be  spanned.  So  soon  as  we  have  a  clear  monotheism,  absolute 
creation  is  a  corollary.  As  the  monotheistic  idea  is  corrupted,  creation  gives  place  to 
pantheistic  transformation." 

It  is  now  claimed  by  others  that  Zoroastrianism,  the  Vedas,  and  the  religion  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  had  the  idea  of  absolute  creation.  On  creation  in  the  Zoroastrian 
system,  see  our  treatment  of  Dualism,  page  332.  Vedic  hymn  in  Rig  Veda,  10 : 9, 
quoted  by  J.  F.  Clarke,  Ten  Great  Religious,  2  :  205  —  "Originally  this  universe  was  soul 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CREATION.  377 

only ;  nothing  else  whatsoever  existed,  active  or  inactive.  He  thought :  '  I  will  create 
worlds';  thus  he  created  these  various  worlds:  earth,  light,  mortal  being,  and  the 
waters."  Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  210-223,  speaks  of  a  papyrus  on  the  staircase  of  the 
British  Museum,  which  reads:  ''The  gVeat  God,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  who 
made  all  things  which  are  .  .  .  the  almighty  God,  self-existent,  who  made  heaven  and 
earth ;  .  .  .  the  heaven  was  yet  uncreated,  uncreated  was  the  earth ;  thou  hast  put 
together  the  earth  ;  .  .  .  who  made  all  things,  but  was  not  made.'' 

But  the  Egyptian  religion  in  its  later  development,  as  well  as  Brahmanism,  was  pan- 
theistic, and  it  is  possible  that  all  the  expressions  we  have  quoted  are  to  be  interpreted, 
not  as  indicating  a  belief  in  creation  out  of  nothing,  but  as  asserting  emanation,  or  the 
taking  on  by  deity  of  new  forms  and  modes  of  existence.  On  creation  in  heathen  sys- 
tems, see  Pierret",  Mythologie,  and  answer  to  it  by  Maspero ;  Hymn  to  Amen-Rha,  in 
"  Records  of  the  Past "  ;  G.  C.  Miiller,  Literature  of  Greece,  87, 88 ;  George  Smith,  Chal- 
dean Genesis,  chapters  1,  3,  5  and  6;  Dillmann,  Com.  on  Genesis,  6th  edition,  Introd.,  5- 
10:  LeNormant,  Hist.  Ancienne  de  1'  Orient,  1  :  17-26 ;  5  :  238 ;  Otto  Zoekler,  art. :  Scho'p- 
fung,  in  Herzogand  Plitt,  Encyclop.;  S.  H.  Gould,  Origin  and  Devel.  of  Relig.  Beliefs, 
281-292. 

B.  Hebrews  11  : 3  — "  By  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  have  been 
framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  what  is  seen  hath  not  been  made  out 
of  things  which  appear"  =  the  world  was  not  made  out  of  sensible  and 
preexisting  material,  but  by  the  direct  fiat  of  omnipotence  ( see  Alford,  and 
Liinemann,  Meyer's  Com.  in  loco). 

Compare  2  Maccabees  7  :  28  —  eij  ovk  oitwp  inoiria-fv  aiiri  o  ©eds.  This  the  Vulgate  trans- 
lated by  "quia ex  nihilo  fecit  ilia  Deus,"  and  from  the  Vulgate  the  phrase  "'creation 
out  of  nothing"  is  derived.  Hedge,  Ways  of  I  lie  Spirit,  points  out  that  Wisdom  11 :  17 
has  e'f  aix6p<f>ov  vAtj?,  interprets  by  this  the  e$  ovkovtuiv  in  2  Maccabees,  and  denies  chat 
tlds  last  refers  to  creation  out  of  nothing.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  later 
Apocryphal  writings  were  composed  under  the  Influence  of  the  Platonic  philosophy; 
that  the  passage  in  Wisdom  may  be  a  rationalist  ic  interpretation  of  that  in  Maccabees  ; 
and  that  even  if  it  were  independent,  we  are  not  to  assume  a  harmony  of  view  in  the 
Apocrypha.  2  Maccabees  7  : 28  must  stand  by  itself  as  a  testimony  to  Jewish  belief  in 
creation  without  use  of  preexisting-  material,  —  belief  which  can  be  traced  to  no  other 
source  than  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Compare  Ex.  34:10— "I  will  do  marvels  such  as  have 
not  been  wrought  [  marg.  'created']  in  all  the  earth  "  ;  Num.  1G  :  30  —  "if  Jehovah  make  a  new  thing"  [  marg. 
'create  a  creation"];  Is.  4:5 — "Jehovah  will  create  ...  a  cloud  and  smoke"  ;  41 :20 — "the  Holy  One  of  Israel  hath 
created  it"  ;  45:7,  8 — "I  form  the  light,  and  create  darkness"  ;  57:  19  —  "I  create  the  fruit  of  the  lips  "  ;  65:17  — 
"  I  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth ' ' ;  Jer.  31 :  22  — "  Jehovah  hath  created  a  new  thing." 

Rom.  4  :  17 —  "  God,  who  giveth  life  to  the  dead,  and  calleth  the  things  that  are  not,  as  though  they  were  "  ;  1  Cor. 
1:28  —  "  thhgs  that  are  not "  [did  God  choose]  "that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the  things  that  are";  2  Cor. 
4:6  — "God,  that  said,  Light  shall  shine  out  of  darkness"  =  created  light  without  preexisting  mate- 
rial,—for  darkness  is  no  material;  Col.  1 :  16,  17  —  "in  him  were  all  things  created  ....  and  he  is 
before  all  things"  ;  so  also  Ps.  33  : 9 —  "he  spako,  and  it  was  done"  ;  148  :  5  —  "he  commanded,  and  they  were 
created."  See  Philo,  Creation  of  the  World,  chap.  1-7,  and  Life  of  Moses,  book  3,  chap. 
36  — "He  produced  the  most  perfect  work,  the  Cosmos,  out  of  non-existence  (rod  nn 
oi-to?)  into  being  («s  to  etvai)."  E.  H.Johnson,  Syst.  Theol.,  94— "We  have  no  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Hebrew  mind  had  the  idea  of  creation  out  of  invisible  materials. 
But  creation  out  of  visible  materials  is  in  Hebrews  11 :  3  expressly  denied.  This  text  is 
therefore  equivalent  to  an  assertion  that  the  universe  was  made  without  the  use  of  any 
preexisting  materials." 

2.     Indirect  evidence  from  Scripture. 

( a )  The  past  duration  of  the  world  is  limited ;  ( b )  before  the  world 
began  to  be,  each  of  the  persons  of  the  Godhead  already  existed  ;  (  c  )  the 
origin  of  the  universe  is  ascribed  to  God,  and  to  each  of  the  persons  of  the 
Godhead.  These  representations  of  Scripture  are  not  only  most  consistent 
with  the  view  that  the  universe  was  created  by  God  without  use  of  preex- 
isting material,  but  they  are  inexplicable  upon  any  other  hypothesis. 


378  THE    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

(a)  Mark  13:19  —  "  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation  which  God  created  until  now";  John  17 : 5  —  "  before  the 
world  was"  ;  Eph.  1 :4  —  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  (b  )  Ps.  90:2 — "Before  the  mountains  were  brought 
forth,  Or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  Even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting  thou  art  God"  ;  Prov. 
8 :  23  —  "I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  Before  the  earth  was ' ' ;  John  1:1  — "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word  "  ;  Col.  1:17— "he  is  before  all  things"  ;  Heb.  9:14  —  "  the  eternal  Spirit "  (see  Tholuek,  Com. 
in  loco),  (c)  Eph.  3:9 — " God  who  created  all  things "  ;  Rom.  11:36  —  "of  him  ....  are  all  things "  ;  1  Cor. 
8:6  —  "one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things  ...  one  lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things "  ;  John 
1  :  3  —  " aD  things  were  made  through  him  "  ;  Col.  1  :  16  —  "in  him  were  all  things  created  ...  all  things  have  been 
created  through  him,  and  unto  him  "  ;  Heb.  1:2 —  "through  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds "  ;  Gen.  1 : 2  — "  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  moved  [uiarg.  '  was  brooding ']  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  From  these  passages  we  may 
also  Infer  that  ( 1 )  all  things  are  absolutely  dependent  upon  God;  (2)  God  exercises 
supreme  control  over  all  things;  (3)  God  is  the  only  infinite  Being;  (4)  God  alone  is 
eternal ;  ( 5 )  there  is  no  substance  out  of  which  G  od  creates ;  ( 6 )  things  do  not  proceed 
from  God  by  necessary  emanation ;  the  universe  has  its  source  and  originator  in  God's 
transcendent  and  personal  will.  See,  on  this  indirect  proof  of  creation,  Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre,  2  :  231.  Since  other  views,  however,  have  been  held  to  be  more  rational, 
we  proceed  to  the  examination  of 

III.     Theories  which  oppose  Creation. 

1.     Dualism. 

Of  dualism  there  are  two  forms  : 

A.  That  which  holds  to  two  self-existent  principles,  God  and  matter. 
These  are  distinct  from  and  coeternal  with  each  other.  Matter,  however, 
is  an  unconscious,  negative,  and  imperfect  substance,  which  is  subordinate 
to  God  and  is  made  the  instrument  of  his  will.  This  was  the  underlying 
principle  of  the  Alexandrian  Gnostics.  It  was  essentially  an  attempt  to 
combine  with  Christianity  the  Platonic  or  Aristoteliau  conception  of  the 
vlr).  In  this  way  it  was  thought  to  account  for  the  existeuce  of  evil,  and 
to  escape  the  difficulty  of  imagining  a  production  without  use  of  preexist- 
ing material.  Basilides  (  floiirished  125  )  and  Valentinus  ( died  160 ),  the 
representatives  of  this  view,  were  influenced  also  by  Hindu  philosophy, 
and  their  dualism  is  almost  indistinguishable  from  pan  theism.  A  similar 
view  has  been  held  in  modern  times  by  John  Stuart  Mill  and  apparently  by 
Frederick  W.  Robertson. 

Dualism  seeks  to  show  how  the  One  becomes  the  many,  how  the  Absolute  gives  birth 
to  the  relative,  how  the  Good  can  consist  with  evil.  The  SAij  of  Plato  seems  to  have 
meant  nothing  but  empty  space,  whose  not-being,  or  merely  negative  existence,  pre- 
vented the  full  realization  of  the  divine  ideas.  Aristotle  regarded  the  i'A.yj  as  a  more 
positive  cause  of  imperfection,— it  was  like  the  hard  material  which  hampers  the 
sculptor  in  expressing  his  thought.  The  real  problem  for  both  Plato  and  Aristotle  was 
to  explain  the  passage  from  pure  spiritual  existence  to  that  which  is  phenomenal  and 
imperfect,  from  the  absolute  and  unlimited  to  that  which  exists  in  space  and  time. 
Finiteness,  instead  of  being  created,  was  regarded  as  having  eternal  existence  and  as 
limiting  all  divine  manifestations.  The  i>A»j,  from  being  a  mere  abstraction,  became 
either  a  negative  or  a  positive  source  of  evil.  The  Alexandrian  Jews,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Hellenic  culture,  sought  to  make  this  dualism  explain  the  doctrine  of  creation. 

Basilides  and  Valentinus,  however,  were  also  under  the  influence  of  a  pantheistic 
philosophy  brought  in  from  the  remote  East  —  the  philosophy  of  Buddhism,  which 
taught  that  the  original  Source  of  all  was  a  nameless  Being,  devoid  of  all  qualities,  and 
so,  indistinguishable  from  Nothing.  From  this  Being,  which  is  Not-being,  all  existing 
things  proceed.  Aristotle  and  Hegel  similarly  taught  that  pure  Being  =  Nothing.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  object  of  the  Alexandrian  philosophers  was  to  show  how  something 
could  be  originated,  they  were  obliged  to  conceive  of  the  primitive  Nothing  as  capable 
of  such  originating.  They,  morover,  in  the  absence  of  any  conception  of  absolute 
creation,  were  compelled  to  conceive  of  a  material  which  could  be  fashioned.  Hence 
the  Void,  the  Abyss,  is  made  to  take  the  place  of  matter.    If  it  be  said  that  they  did 


THEORIES   WHICH    OPPOSE    CREATION".  379 

not  conceive  of  the  Void  or  the  Abyss  as  substance,  we  reply  that  they  gave  it  just  as 
substantial  existence  as  they  gave  to  the  first  Cause  of  things,  which,  in  spite  of  their 
negative  descriptions  of  it,  involved  Will  and  Design.  And  although  they  do  not 
attribute  to  this  secondary  substance  a  positive  influence  for  evil,  they  notwithstand- 
ing see  in  it  the  unconscious  hinderer  of  all  good. 

Principal  Tulloch,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  10 :  TOt  —  "In  the  Alexandrian  Gnosis the 

stream  of  being  in  its  ever  outward  flow  at  length  comes  in  contact  with  dead  matter 
which  thus  receives  animation  and  becomes  a  living  source  of  evil."  Windelband, 
Hist.  Philosophy,  129, 144,  239  —  "  With  Valentinus,  side  by  side  with  the  Deity  poured 
forth  into  the  Pleroma  or  Fulness  of  spiritual  forms,  appears  the  Void,  likewise  original 
and  from  eternity;  beside  Form  appeal's  matter;  beside  the  good  appears  the  evil." 
Mangel,  Gnostic  Heresies,  139 — "The  Platonic  theory  of  an  inert,  semi-existent  matter, 

was  adopted  by  the  Gnosis  of  Egypt 187  —  Valentinus  does  not  content 

himself,  like  Plato with  assuming  as  the  germ  of  the  natural  world  an  unformed 

matter  existing  from  all  eternity The  whole  theory  may  be  described  as  a 

development,  in  allegorical  language,  of  the  pantheistic  hypothesis  which  in  its  outline 
bad  been  previously  adopted  by  Basilides."  A.  H.  Newman,  Ch.  History,  1  :  181-192, 
calls  the  philosophy  of  Basilides  "  fundamentally  pantheistic."  "  Valentinus,"  he  says, 
"  was  not  so  careful  to  insist  on  the  original  non-existence  of  God  and  everything."  We 
reply  that  even  to  Basilides  the  Non-existent  One  is  endued  with  power ;  and  this  power 
accomplishes  nothing  until  it  comes  in  contact  with  things  non-existent,  and  out  of 
them  fashions  the  seed  of  the  world.  The  things  non-existent  are  as  substantial  as  is 
the  Fashioner,  and  they  imply  both  objectivity  and  limitation. 

Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Colossians,  76-113,  esp.  82,  has  traced  a  connection  between  the 
Gnostic  doctrine,  the  earlier  Colossian  heresy,  and  the  still  earlier  teaching  of  the 
Essenes  of  Palestine.  All  these  were  characterized  by  ( 1 )  the  spirit  of  caste  or  intel- 
lectual exclusiveness ;  (2)  peculiar  tenets  as  to  creation  and  as  to  evil;  (3)  practical 
asceticism.  Matter  is  evil  and  separates  man  from  God;  hence  intermediate  beings 
between  man  and  God  as  objects  of  worship  ;  heme  also  mortification  of  the  body  as  a 
means  of  purifying  man  from  sin.  Paul's  antidote  for  both  errors  was  simply  the 
person  of  Christ,  the  true  and  only  Mediator  and  Sanctiner.  See  Guericke,  Church 
History,  1 :  161. 

Harnack,  Hist.  Dogma,  1:128  — "The  majority  of  Gnostic  undertakings  may  be 
viewed  as  attempts  to  transform  Christianity  into  a  theosophy.  ...  In  Gnosticism  the 
Hellenic  spirit  desired  to  make  itself  master  of  Christianity,  or  more  correctly,  of  the 
Christian  communities."  .  .  .  232— Harnack  represents  one  of  the  fundamental  philo- 
sophic doctrines  of  Gnosticism  to  be  that  of  the  Cosmos  as  a  mixture  of  matter  with 
divine  sparks,  which  has  arisen  from  a  descent  of  the  latter  into  the  former  [  Alex- 
andrian Gnosticism],  or,  as  some  say,  from  the  perverse,  or  at  least  merely  permitted 
u  ndertaking  of  a  subordinate  spirit  [  Syrian  Gnosticism  ].  We  may  compare  the  Hebrew 
Sadducee  with  the  Greek  Epicurean;  the  Pharisee  with  the  Stoic;  the  Essene  with  the 
Pythagorean.  The  Pharisees  overdid  the  idea  of  God's  transcendence.  Angels  must 
come  in  between  God  and  the  world.  Gnostic  intermediaries  were  the  logical  out- 
come. External  works  of  obedience  were  alone  valid.  Christ  preached,  instead  of 
this,  a  religion  of  the  heart.  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  1:52  — "The  rejection  of 
animal  sacrifices  and  consequent  abstaining  from  temple-worship  on  the  part  of  the 
Essenes,  which  seems  out  of  harmony  with  the  rest  of  their  legal  obedience,  is  most 
simply  explained  as  the  consequence  of  their  idea  that  to  bring  to  God  a  bloody  animal 
offering  was  derogatory  to  his  transcendental  character.  Therefore  they  interpreted 
the  O.  T.  command  in  an  allegorizing  way." 

Lyman  Abbott:  "The  Oriental  dreams;  the  Greek  defines:  the  Hebrew  acts.  All 
these  influences  met  and  intermingled  at  Alexandria.  Emanations  were  mediations 
between  the  absolute,  unknowable,  all-containing  God,  and  the  personal,  revealed  and 
holy  God  of  Scripture.  Asceticism  was  one  result :  matter  is  undivine,  therefore  get 
rid  of  it.  License  was  another  result :  matter  is  undivine,  therefore  disregard  it- 
there  is  no  disease  and  there  is  no  sin  —  the  modern  doctrine  of  Christian  Science." 
Kedney,  Christian  Doctrine,  1 :  360-373 ;  2 :  354,  conceives  of  the  divine  glory  as  an  eternal 
material  environment  of  God,  out  of  which  the  universe  is  fashioned. 

The  author  of  "  The  Unseen  Universe  "  ( page  17)  wrongly  calls  John  Stuart  Mill  a 
Manichaean.  But  Mill  disclaims  belief  in  the  personality  of  this  principle  that  resists  and 
limits  God,— see  his  posthumous  Essays  on  Religion,  176-195.  F.  W.  Robertson,  Lectures 
on  Genesis,  4-16 — "Before  the  creation  of  the  world  all  was  chaos  .  .  .  but  with  the 
creation,  order  began.  .  .  .  God  did  not  cease  from  creation,  for  creation  is  going  on 


380  THE    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

every  day.    Nature  is  God  at  work,    Only  after  surprising  changes,  as  in  spring-time, 
do  we  say  figuratively, '  God  rests.'  "    See  also  Frothingham,  Christian  Philosophy. 

With  regard  to  this  view  we  remark  : 

(  a  )  The  maxim  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit,  upon  which  it  rests,  is  true  only  in 
so  far  as  it  asserts  that  no  event  takes  place  without  a  cause.  It  is  false,  if 
it  mean  that  nothing  can  ever  be  made  except  out  of  material  previously 
existing.  The  maxim  is  therefore  applicable  only  to  the  realm  of  second 
causes,  and  does  not  bar  the  creative  power  of  the  great  first  Cause.  The 
doctrine  of  creation  does  not  dispense  with  a  cause  ;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  assigns  to  the  universe  a  sufficient  cause  in  God. 

Lucretius  :  "  Nihil  posse  creari  De  nihilo,  neque  quod  genitum  est  ad  nihil  revocari." 
Persius  :  "  Gigni  De  nihilo  nihil,  in  nihilum  nil  posse  reverti."  Martensen,  Dogmatics, 
lir>  —  "  The  nothing,  out  of  which  God  creates  the  world,  is  the  eternal  possibilities  of 
his  will,  which  are  the  sources  of  all  the  actualities  of  the  world."  Lewes,  Problems  of 
Life  and  Mind,  2 :  292  —  "  When  therefore  it  is  argued  that  the  creation  of  something 
from  nothing  is  unthinkable  and  is  therefore  peremptorily  to  be  rejected,  the  argu- 
ment seems  to  me  to  be  defective.  The  process  is  thinkable,  but  not  imaginable, 
conceivable  but  not  probable."  See  Cudworth,  Intellectual  System,  3 :  81  sq.  Lipsius, 
Dogmatik,'288,  remarks  that  the  theory  of  dualism  is  quite  as  difficult  as  that  of  abso- 
lute creation.  It  holds  to  a  point  of  time  when  God  began  to  fashion  preexisting  mate- 
rial, and  can  give  no  reason  why  God  did  not  do  it  before,  since  there  must  always 
have  been  in  him  an  impulse  toward  this  fashioning. 

(  b  )  Although  creation  without  the  use  of  preexisting  material  is  incon- 
ceivable, in  the  sense  of  being  unpicturable  to  the  imagination,  yet  the 
eternity  of  matter  is  equally  inconceivable.  For  creation  without  pre- 
existing material,  moreover,  we  find  remote  analogies  in  our  own  creation 
of  ideas  and  volitions,  a  fact  as  inexplicable  as  God's  bringing  of  new  sub- 
stances into  being. 

Mivart,  Lessons  from  Nature,  371,  372  — "We  have  to  a  certain  extent  an  aid  to  the 
thought  of  absolute  creation  in  our  own  free  volition,  which,  as  absolutely  originating 
and  determining,  may  be  taken  as  the  type  to  us  of  the  creative  act."  We  speak  of  '  the 
creative  faculty '  of  the  artist  or  poet.  We  cannot  give  reality  to  the  products  of  our 
imaginations,  as  God  can  to  his.  But  if  thought  were  only  substance,  the  analogy 
would  be  complete.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1:467  — "Our  thoughts  and  volitions  are 
created  cxnihilo,  in  the  sense  that  one  thought  is  not  made  out  of  another  thought,  nor 
one  volition  out  of  another  volition."  So  created  substance  may  be  only  the  mind  and 
will  of  God  in  exercise,  automatically  in  matter,  freely  in  the  case  of  free  beings  (see 
pages  90, 105-110,  383,  and  in  our  treatment  of  Preservation. 

Beddoes :  "  I  have  a  bit  of  Fiat  in  my  soul,  And  can  myself  create  my  little  world." 
Mark  Hopkins  :  "  Man  is  an  image  of  God  as  a  creator.  .  .  .  He  can  purposely  create, 
or  cause  to  be,  a  future  that,  but  for  him,  would  not  have  been."  E.  C.  Stedman, 
Nature  of  Poetry,  223 —  "  So  far  as  the  Poet,  the  artist,  is  creative,  he  becomes  a  sharer 
of  the  divine  imagination  and  power,  and  even  of  the  divine  responsibility."  Words- 
worth calls  the  poet  a  "serene  creator  of  immortal  things."  Imagination,  he  says,  is 
but  another  name  for  "  clearest  insight,  amplitude  of  mind,  And  reason  in  her  most 
exalted  mood."  "If  we  are  'gods'  (Ps.  82:6),  that  part  of  the  Infinite  which  is  embodied 
in  us  must  partake  to  a  limited  extent  of  his  power  to  create."  Veitch,  Knowing  and 
Being,  289  —  "  Will,  the  expression  of  personality,  both  as  originating  resolutions  and 
moulding  existing  materia]  into  form,  is  the  nearest  approach  in  thought  which  we 
can  make  to  divine  creation." 

Creation  is  not  simply  the  thought  of  God,  —  it  is  also  the  will  of  God  —  thought  in 
expression,  reason  externalized.  Will  is  creation  out  of  nothing,  in  the  sense  that  there 
is  no  use  of  preexisting  material.  In  man's  exercise  of  the  creative  imagination  there 
is  will,  as  well  as  intellect.  Royce,  Studies  of  Good  and  Evil,  256,  points  out  that  we 
can  be  original  in  ( 1 )  the  style  or  form  of  our  work  ;  ( 2 )  in  the  selection  of  the  objects 
we  imitate  ;  (3)  in  the  invention  of  relatively  novel  combinations  of  material.  Style, 
e abject,  combination,  then,  comprise  the  methods  of  our  originaiity.    Our  new  con- 


THEORIES    WHICH   OPPOSE   CREATION".  381 

ceptious  of  nature  as  the  expression  of  the  divine  mind  and  will  bring  creation  more 
within  our  comprehension  than  did  the  old  conception  of  the  world  as  substance  capa- 
ble of  existing  apart  from  God.  Hudson,  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena,  294,  thinks  that 
we  have  power  to  create  visible  phantasivs,  or  embodied  thoughts,  that  can  be  subject- 
ively perceived  by  others.  See  also  Hudson's  Scientific  Demonstration  of  Future  Life, 
153.  He  defines  genius  as  the  result  of  the  synchronous  action  of  the  objective  and 
subjective  faculties.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  his  judgment,  was  a  wonderful  psychic. 
Intuitive  perception  and  objective  reason  were  with  him  always  in  the  ascendant. 
His  miracles  were  misinterpreted  psychic  phenomena.  Jesus  never  claimed  that  his 
works  were  outside  of  natural  law.  All  men  have  the  same  intuitional  power,  though 
in  differing  degrees. 

We  may  add  that  the  begetting  of  a  child  by  man  is  the  giving  of  substantial  exist- 
ence to  another.  Christ's  creation  of  man  may  be  like  his  own  begetting  by  the  Father. 
Behrends :  "  The  relation  between  God  and  the  universe  is  more  intimate  and  organic 
than  that  between  an  artist  and  his  work.  The  marble  figure  is  independent  of  tho 
sculptor  the  moment  it  is  completed.  It  remains,  though  he  die.  But  the  universe 
would  vanish  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  divine  presence  and  indwelling.  If  I  were  to 
use  any  figure,  it  would  be  that  of  generation.  The  immanence  of  God  is  the  secret  of 
natural  permanence  and  uniformity.  Creation  is  primarily  a  spiritual  act.  The  uni- 
verse is  not  what  we  see  and  handle.  The  real  universe  is  an  empire  of  energies,  a  hier- 
archy of  correlated  forces,  whose  reality  and  unity  are  rooted  in  the  rational  will  of 
Cod  perpetually  active  in  preservation.  But  there  is  no  identity  of  substance,  nor  is 
there  any  division  of  the  divine  substance." 

Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  3(5— "A  mind  is  conceivable  which  should 
create  its  objects  outright  by  pure  self-activity  and  without  dependence  on  anything 
beyond  itself.  Such  is  our  conception  of  the  Creator's  relation  to  his  objects.  But 
this  is  not  the  case  with  us  except  to  a  very  slight  extent.  Our  mental  life  itself 
begins,  and  we  come  only  gradually  to  a  knowledge  of  things  and  of  ourselves.  In 
some  sense  our  objects  are  given  ;  that  is,  we  cannot  have  objects  at  will  or  vary  their 
properties  at  our  pleasure.  In  this  sense  we  are  passive  in  knowledge,  and  no  ideal- 
ism can  remove  this  fact.  But  in  some  sense  also  our  objects  are  our  own  products  ; 
for  an  existing  object  becomes  an  object  for  us  only  as  we  think  it,  and  thus  make  it 
our  object.  In  this  sense,  knowledge  is  an  active  process,  and  not  a  passive  reception 
Of  ready  made  information  from  without."  Clarke,  Self  and  the  Father,  38  — "Arc  we 
humiliated  by  having  data  for  our  imaginations  to  work  upon?  by  l>eing  unable  to 
create  material?  Not  unless  it  be  a  shame  to  lie  second  to  the  Creator."  Causation  is 
as  mysterious  as  Creation.  Balzac  lived  with  his  characters  as  actual  beings.  On  the 
Creative  Principle,  see  N.  It.  Wood,  The  Witness  of  Sin,  114-135. 

(e)  It  is  unphilosophical  to  postulate  two  eternal  sul istances,  when  one 
self-existent  Cause  of  all  things  will  account  for  the  facts.  (  d  )  It  contra- 
dicts our  fundamental  notion  of  God  as  absolute  sovereign  to  suppose  the 
existence  of  any  other  substance  to  be  independent  of  his  will.  (  e  )  This 
second  substance  with  which  God  must  of  necessity  work,  since  it  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory,  inherently  evil  and  the  source  of  evil,  not  only  limits 
God's  power,  but  destroys  his  blessedness.  (/)  This  theory  does  not 
answer  its  purpose  of  accounting  for  moral  evil,  unless  it  be  also  assumed 
that  spirit  is  material,  —  in  which  case  dualism  gives  place  to  materialism. 

Martensen,  Dogmatics,  121  — "  God  becomes  a  mere  demiurge,  if  nature  existed  before 
spirit.  That  spirit  only  who  in  a  perfect  sense  is  able  to  commence  his  work  of  crea- 
tion can  have  power  to  complete  it."  If  God  does  not  create,  he  must  use  what  mate- 
rial he  finds,  and  this  working  with  intractable  material  must  be  his  perpetual  sorrow. 
Such  limitation  in  the  power  of  the  deity  seemed  to  John  Stuart  Mill  the  best  explana- 
tion of  the  existing  imperfections  of  the  universe. 

The  other  form  of  dualism  is  : 

B.  That  which  holds  to  the  eternal  existence  of  two  antagonistic  spirits, 
one  evil  and  the  other  good.     In  this  view,  matter  is  not  a  negative  and 


382  THE   WORKS  OF   GOD. 

imperfect  substance  which  nevertheless  has  self-existence,  but  is  either  the 
work  or  the  instrument  of  a  personal  and  positively  malignant  intelligence, 
who  wages  war  against  all  good.  This  was  the  view  of  the  Manichaeans. 
Manichseanism  is  a  compound  of  Christianity  and  the  Persian  doctrine  of 
two  eternal  and  opposite  intelligences.  Zoroaster,  however,  held  matter  to 
be  pure,  and  to  be  the  creation  of  the  good  Being.  Mani  apparently 
regarded  matter  as  captive  to  the  evil  spirit,  if  not  absolutely  his  creation. 

The  old  story  of  Mani's  travels  in  Greece  is  wholly  a  mistake.  Guericke,  Church 
History,  1 :  185-187,  maintains  that  Manichaaanism  contains  no  mixture  of  Platonic 
philosophy,  has  no  connection  with  Judaism,  and  as  a  sect  came  into  no  direct  relations 
with  the  Catholic  church.  Harnoch,  Wegweiser,  22,  calls  Manichaeanism  a  compound 
of  Gnosticism  and  Parseeism.  Herzog,  Encyclopiidie,  art. :  Mani  und  die  Manichaer, 
regards  Manichyeanism  as  the  fruit,  acme,  and  completion  of  Gnosticism.  Gnosticism 
was  a  heresy  in  the  church ;  Manichaeanism,  like  New  Platonism,  was  an  anti-church. 
J.  P.  Lange :  "  These  opposing  theories  represent  various  pagan  conceptions  of  the 
world,  which,  after  the  manner  of  palimpsests,  show  through  Christianity."  Isaac 
Taylor  speaks  of  "the  creator  of  the  carnivora"  ;  and  some  modern  Christians  practi- 
cally regard  Satan  as  a  second  and  equal  God. 

On  the  Religion  of  Zoroaster,  see  Haug,  Essays  on  Parsees,  139-101,  302-309 ;  also  our 
quotations  on  pp.  347-349;  Monier  Williams,  in  19th  Century,  Jan.  1881  :  155-177  —  Ahura 
Mazda  was  the  creator  of  the  universe.  Matter  was  created  by  him,  and  was  neither 
identified  with  him  nor  an  emanation  from  him.  In  the  divine  nature  there  were  two 
opposite,  but  not  opposing,  principles  or  forces,  called  "twins"  — the  one  constructive, 
the  other  destructive ;  the  one  beneficent,  the  other  maleficent.  Zoroaster  called  these 
"twins"  also  by  the  name  of  "spirits,"  and  declared  that  "these  two  spirits  created,  the 
one  the  reality,  the  other  the  non-reality."  Williams  says  that  these  two  principles 
were  conflicting  only  in  name.  The  only  antagonism  was  between  the  resulting  good 
and  evil  brought  about  by  the  free  agent,  man.    See  Jackson,  Zoroaster. 

We  may  add  that  in  later  times  this  personification  of  principles  in  the  deity  seems  to 
have  become  a  definite  belief  in  two  opposing  personal  spirits,  and  that  Mani,  Manes, 
or  Manichscus  adopted  this  feature  of  Parseeism,  with  the  addition  of  certain  Christian 
elements.  Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 :  470  —  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Manichseans 
was  that  creation  was  the  work  of  Satan."  See  also  Gieseler,  Church  History,  1 :203 ; 
Neander,  Church  History,  1 :  478-505 ;  Blunt,  Diet.  Doct.  and  Hist.  Theology,  art. :  Dual- 
ism ;  and  especially  Baur,  Das  manichiiisehe  Religionssystem.  A.  H.  Newman,  Ch.  His- 
tory, 1 :  194  —  "  Manichaeism  is  Gnosticism,  with  its  Christian  elements  reduced  to  a 
minimum,  and  the  Zoroastrian,  old  Bab3'lonian,  and  other  Oriental  elements  raised 
to  the  maximum.  Manichagism  is  Oriental  dualism  under  Christian  names,  the  Chris- 
tian names  employed  retaining  scarcely  a  trace  of  their  proper  meaning.  The  most 
fundamental  thing  in  Manichajism  is  its  absolute  dualism.  The  kingdom  of  light  and 
the  kingdom  of  darkuess  with  their  rulers  stand  eternally  opposed  to  each  other." 

Of  this  view  we  need  only  say  that  it  is  refuted  (  a )  by  all  the  arguments 
for  the  unity,  omnipotence,  sovereignty,  and  blessedness  of  God  ;  (  b  )  by 
the  Scripture  representations  of  the  prince  of  evil  as  the  creature  of  God 
and  as  subject  to  God's  control. 

Scripture  passages  showing  that  Satan  is  God's  creature  or  subject  are  the  following : 

Col.  1 :  16  —  "  for  in  him  were  all  things  created,  in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and  things  invisible, 
whether  thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities  or  powers  "  ;  cf.  Eph.  6  :  12  —  "  our  wrestling  is  not  against  flesh  and 
blood,  but  against  the  principalities,  against  the  powers,  against  the  world-rulers  of  this  darkness,  against  the  spiritual 
hosts  of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places  "  ;  2  Pet.  2:4  —  "God  spared  not  the  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them 
down  to  hell,  and  committed  them  to  pits  of  darkness,  to  be  res;rved  unto  judgment "  ;  Rev.  20  :  2  —  "  laid  hold  on  the 
dragon,  the  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil  and  Satan  "  ;  10  —  "and  the  devil  that  deceived  them  was  cast  into  the  lake 
of  fire  and  brimstone." 

The  closest  analogy  to  Manichasan  dualism  is  found  in  the  popular  conception  of  the 
devil  held  by  the  mediasval  Roman  church.  It  is  a  question  whether  he  was  regarded 
as  a  rival  or  as  a  servant  of  God.  Matheson,  Messages  of  Old  Religions,  says  that 
Parseeism  recognizes  an  obstructive  element  in  the  nature  of  God  himself.  Moral  evil 
is  reality,  and  there  is  that  element  of  truth  in  Parseeism.    But  there  is  no  reconcilia* 


THEORIES    WHICn    OPPOSE    CREATION".  383 

tion,  nor  is  it  shown  that  all  things  work  tog-ether  for  good.  E.  H.  Johnson :  "  This 
theory  sets  up  matter  as  a  sort  of  deity,  a  senseless  idol  endowed  with  the  truly  divine 
attribute  of  self -existence.  But  we  ean  acknowledge  but  one  God.  To  erect  matter 
into  an  eternal  Thing,  independent  of  tb>  Almighty  but  forever  beside  him,  is  the  most 
revolting  of  all  theories."  Tennyson,  Unpublished  Poem  (  Life,  1 :  311 )  —  "  Oh  me  !  for 
why  is  all  around  us  here  As  if  some  lesser  God  had  made  the  world,  But  had  not  force 
to  shape  it  as  he  would  Till  the  high  God  behold  it  from  beyond,  And  enter  it  and  make 
it  beautif  ul  ?  " 

E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Evil  is  not  eternal ;  if  it  were,  we  should  be  paying  our  respects  to 
it.  .  .  .  There  is  much  Manichteism  in  modern  piety.  We  would  influence  soul  through 
the  body.  Hence  sacramentarianism  and  penance.  Puritanism  is  theological  Mani- 
chseanism.  Christ  recommended  fasting  because  it  belonged  to  his  age.  Christianity 
came  from  Judaism.  Churchism  comes  largely  from  reproducing  what  Christ  did. 
Christianity  is  not  perfunctory  in  its  practices.  We  are  to  fast  only  when  there  is  good 
reason  for  it."  L.  H.  Mills,  New  World,  March,  1895 :  51,  suggests  that  Phariseeism  may 
lie  the  same  with  Farseeism,  which  is  but  another  name  for  Parseeism.  He  thinks  that 
Resurrection,  Immortality,  Paradise,  Satan,  Judgment,  Hell,  came  from  Persian 
sources,  and  gradually  drove  out  the  old  Sadduceean  simplicity.  Pfleiderer,  Philos. 
Religion,  1  :  206  —  "According  to  the  Persian  legend,  the  first  human  pair  was  a  good 
creation  of  the  all-wise  Spirit,  Ahura,  who  had  breathed  into  them  his  own  breath. 
But  soon  the  primeval  men  allowed  themselves  to  be  seduced  by  the  hostile  Spirit 
Angromainyu  into  lying  and  idolatry,  whereby  the  evil  spirits  obtained  power  over 
them  and  the  earth  and  spoiled  the  good  creation." 

Disselhoff,  Die  klassische  Poesie  und  die  go'ttliche  Offenbarung,  13-35— "The  Gathas 
of  Zoroaster  are  the  first  poems  of  humanity.  In  them  man  rouses  himself  to  assert 
his  superiority  to  nature  and  the  spirituality  of  God.  God  is  not  identified  with 
nature.  The  impersonal  nature-gods  are  vain  idols  and  are  causes  of  corruption. 
Their  worshipers  are  servants  of  falsehood.  Ahura- Mazda  ( living-wise )  is  a  moral  and 
spiritual  personality.  Ahrimau  is  equally  eternal  but  not  equally  powerful.  Good 
has  not  complete  victory  over  evil.  Dualism  is  admitted  and  unity  is  lost.  The  con- 
flict of  faiths  leads  to  separation.  While  one  portion  of  the  race  remains  in  the  Iranian 
highlands  to  maintain  man's  freedom  and  independence  of  nature,  another  portion  goes 
South-East  to  the  luxuriant  banks  of  the  Ganges  to  serve  the  deified  forces  of  nature. 
The  East  stands  for  unity,  as  the  West  for  duality.  Yet  Zoroaster  in  the  Gathas  is 
almost  deitied;  anil  his  religion,  which  begins  by  giving  predominance  to  the  good 
Spirit,  ends  by  being  honey-combed  with  nature-worship." 

2.     Emanation. 

This  theory  holds  that  the  universe  is  of  the  same  s  ubstance  with  God, 
and  is  the  product  of  successive  evolutions  from  his  being.  This  was  the 
view  of  the  Syrian  Gnostics.  Their  system  was  an  attempt  to  interpret 
Christianity  in  the  forms  of  Oriental  theosophy.  A  similar  doctrine  was 
taught,  in  the  last  century,  by  Swedenborg. 

We  object  to  it  on  the  following  grounds  :  ( a )  It  virtually  denies  the 
infinity  and  transcendence  of  God, — by  applying  to  him  a  principle  of 
evolution,  growth,  and  progress  which  belongs  only  to  the  finite  and  imper- 
fect. ( b  )  It  contradicts  the  divine  holiness,  —  since  man,  wh  o  by  the 
theory  is  of  the  substance  of  God,  is  nevertheless  morally  evil,  (c)  It 
leads  logically  to  pantheism, —  since  the  claim  that  human  personality  is 
illusory  cannot  be  maintained  without  also  surrendering  belief  in  the  per- 
sonality of  God. 

Saturninus  of  Antioch,  Bardesanes  of  Edessa,  Tatian  of  Assyria,  Marcion  of  Sinope, 
all  of  the  second  century,  were  representatives  of  this  view.  Blunt,  Diet,  of  Doct.  and 
Hist.  Theology,  art. :  Emanation :  "  The  divine  operation  was  symbolized  by  the  image 
of  the  rays  of  light  proceeding  from  the  sun,  which  were  most  intense  when  nearest  to 
the  luminous  substance  of  the  body  of  which  they  formed  a  part,  but  which  decreased 
in  intensity  as  they  receded  from  their  source,  until  at  last  they  disappeared  altogether 
in  darkness.    So  the  spiritual  effulgence  of  the  Supreme  Mind  formed  a  world  of  spirit, 


884  THE    WORKS   OF    GOD. 

the  intensity  of  which  varied  inversely  with  its  distance  from  its  source,  until  at 
length  it  vanished  in  matter.  Hence  there  is  a  chain  of  ever  expanding  yEons  which 
are  increasing-  attenuations  of  his  substance  and  the  sum  of  which  constitutes  his  ful- 
ness, i.  e.,  the  complete  revelation  of  his  hidden  being."  Emanation,  from  e,  and  manare, 
to  flow  forth.  Guericke,  Church  History,  1 : 1(50  —  "  many  flames  from  one  light  .... 
the  direct  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  creation  from  nothing."  Neander,  Church  His- 
tory, 1 :  372-374.  The  doctrine  of  emanation  is  distinctly  materialistic.  We  hold,  on  the 
contrary,  that  the  universe  is  an  expression  of  God,  but  not  an  emanation  from  God. 

On  the  difference  between  Oriental  emanation  and  eternal  generation,  see  Shcdd, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  470,  and  History  Doctrine,  1 :  11-13,  318,  note  —  "  1.  That  which  is  eter- 
nally generated  is  infinite,  not  finite  ;  it  is  a  divine  and  eternal  person  who  is  not  the 
world  or  any  portion  of  it.  In  the  Oriental  schemes,  emanation  is  a  mode  of  account- 
ing for  the  origin  of  the  finite.  But  eternal  generation  still  leaves  the  finite  to  be 
originated.  The  begetting  of  the  Son  is  the  generation  of  an  infinite  person  who  after- 
wards creates  the  finite  universe  de  n  ihilo.  2.  Eternal  generation  has  for  its  result  a 
subsistence  or  personal  hypostasis  totally  distinct  from  the  world  ;  but  emanation  in 
relation  to  the  deity  yields  only  an  impersonal  or  at  most  a  personified  energy  or  efflu- 
ence which  is  one  of  the  powers  or  principles  of  nature —  a  mere  animamundi."  The 
truths  of  which  emanation  was  the  perversion  and  caricature  were  therefore  the  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  and  the  procession  of  the  Spirit. 

Principal  Tulloch,  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  10 :  704  —  "  All  the  Gnostics  agree  in  regarding  this 
world  as  not  proceeding  immediately  from  the  Supreme  Being.  .  .  .  The  Supreme 
Being  is  regarded  as  wholly  inconceivable  and  indescribable  —  as  the  unfathomable 
Abyss  ( Valentinus )  —  the  Unnameable  (Basilides).  From  this  transcendent  source 
existence  springs  by  emanation  in  a  series  of  spiritual  powers.  .  .  .  The  passage  from 
the  higher  spiritual  world  to  the  lower  material  one  is,  on  the  one  hand,  apprehended 
as  a  mere  continued  degeneracy  from  the  Source  of  Life,  at  length  terminating  in  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  and  death — the  bordering  chaos  surrounding  the  kingdom  of 
light.  On  the  other  hand  the  passage  is  apprehended  in  a  more  precisely  dualistic  form, 
as  a  positive  invasion  of  the  kingdom  of  light  by  a  self-existent  kingdom  of  darkness. 
According  as  Gnosticism  adopted  one  or  other  of  these  modes  of  explaining  the  exist- 
ence of  the  present  world,  it  fell  into  the  two  great  divisions  which,  from  their  places 
of  origin,  have  received  the  respective  names  of  the  Alexandrian  and  Syrian  Gnosis. 
The  one,  as  we  have  seen,  presents  more  a  Western,  the  other  more  an  Eastern  type  of 
speculation.  The  dualistic  element  in  the  one  case  scarcely  appears  beneath  the  panthe- 
istic, and  bears  resemblance  to  the  Platonic  notion  of  the  v^n,  a  mere  blank  necessity,  a 
limitless  void.  In  the  other  case,  the  dualistic  element  is  clear  and  prominent,  corres- 
ponding to  the  Zarathustrian  doctrine  of  an  active  principle  of  evil  as  well  as  of  good 
—  of  a  kingdom  of  Ahriman,  as  well  as  a  kingdom  of  Ortnuzd.  In  the  Syrian  Gnosis 
.  .  .  there  appears  from  the  first  a  hostile  principle  of  evil  in  collision  with  the  good." 

We  must  remember  that  dualism  is  an  attempt  to  substitute  for  the  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute creation,  a  theory  that  matter  and  evil  are  due  to  something  negative  or  positive 
outside  of  God.  Dualism  is  a  theory  of  origins,  not  of  results.  Keeping  this  in  mind, 
we  may  call  the  Alexandrian  Gnostics  dualists,  while  we  regard  emanation  as  the  char- 
acteristic teaching  of  the  Syrian  Gnostics.  These  latter  made  matter  to  be  only  an 
efflux  from  God  and  evil  only  a  degenerate  form  of  good.  If  the  Syrians  held  the  world 
to  be  independent  of  God,  this  independence  was  conceived  of  only  as  a  later  result  or 
product,  not  as  an  original  fact.  Some  like  Saturninus  and  Bardesaues  verged  toward 
Manicha^an  doctrine ;  others  like  Tatian  and  Marcion  toward  Egyptian  dualism;  but 
all  held  to  emanation  as  the  philosophical  explanation  of  what  the  Scriptures  call  crea- 
tion. These  remarks  will  serve  as  qualification  and  criticism  of  the  opinions  which  we 
proceed  to  quote. 

Sheldon,  Ch.  Hist.,  1:206— "The  Syrians  were  in  general  more  dualistic  than  the 
Alexandrians.  Some,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Hindu  pantheists,  regarded  the  material 
realm  as  the  region  of  emptiness  and  illusion,  the  void  opposite  of  the  Pleroma,  that 
world  of  spiritual  reality  and  fulness;  others  assigned  a  more  positive  nature  to  the 
material,  and  regarded  it  as  capable  of  an  evil  aggressiveness  even  apart  from  any 
quickening  by  the  incoming  of  life  from  above."  Mansel,  Gnostic  Heresies,  139— "Like 
Saturninus,  Bardesaues  is  said  to  have  combined  the  doctrine  of  the  malignity  of  mat- 
ter with  that  of  an  active  principle  of  evil ;  and  he  connected  together  these  two  usu- 
ally antagonistic  theories  by  maintaining  that  the  inert  matter  was  co-eternal  with 
God,  while  Satan  as  the  active  principle  of  evil  was  produced  from  matter  ( or,  accord- 
ing to  another  statement,  co-eternal  with  it ),  and  acted  in  conjunction  with  it.    142  — 


THEORIES   WHICH   OPPOSE   CREATION".  385 

The  feature  which  is  usually  selected  as  characteristic  of  the  Syrian  Gnosis  is  the  doc- 
trine of  dualism.;  that  is  to  say,  the  assumption  of  the  existence  of  two  active  and 
independent  principles,  the  one  of  {rood,  the  other  of  evil.  This  assumption  was  dis- 
tinctly held  by  Saturninus  and  Bardesanes  ...  in  contradistinction  to  the  Platonic 
theory  of  an  inert  semi-existent  matter,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Gnosis  of  Egypt. 
The  former  principle  found  its  logical  development  in  the  next  century  in  Mani- 
cheism ;  the  latter  leads  with  almost  equal  certainty  to  Pantheism." 

A.  H.  Newman,  Ch.  History,  1 :  192--"  Marcion  did  not  speculate  as  to  the  origin  of 
evil.  The  Demiurge  and  his  kingdom  are  apparently  regarded  as  existing  from  eter- 
nity. Matter  he  regarded  as  intrinsically  evil,  and  he  practised  a  rigid  asceticism." 
Mansel,  Gnostic  Heresies,  210  —  "  Marcion  did  not,  with  the  majority  of  the  Gnostics, 
regard  the  Demiurge  as  a  derived  and  dependent  being,  whose  imperfection  is  due  to 
his  remoteness  from  the  highest  Cause ;  nor  yet,  according-  to  the  Persian  doctrine,  did 
he  assume  an  eternal  principle  of  pure  malignity.  His  second  principle  is  independent 
of  and  co-eternal  with,  the  first;  opposed  to  it  however,  not  as  evil  to  good,  but  as 
imperfection  to  perfection,  or,  as  Marcion  expressed  it,  as  a  just  to  a  good  being.  218 
—  Non-recognition  of  any  principle  of  pure  evil.  Three  principles  only  :  the  Supreme 
God,  the  Demiurge,  and  the  eternal  Blatter,  the  two  latter  being  imperfect  but  not 
necessarily  evil.  Some  of  the  Marcionites  seem  t<>  have  added  an  evil  spirit  as  a  fourth 
principle.  .  .  .  Man-ion  is  the  least  Gnostic  of  all  the  Gnostics.  .  .  .  31  —  The  Indian 
influence  may  be  seen  in  Egypt,  the  Persian  in  Syria.  .  .  .  32  —  To  Platonism,  modified 
by  Judaism,  Gnosticism  owed  much  of  its  philosophical  form  and  tendencies.  To  the 
dualism  of  the  Persian  religion  it  owed  one  form  at  least  of  its  speculations  on  the 
origin  and  remedy  of  evil,  and  many  of  the  details  of  its  doctrine  of  emanations.  To 
the  Buddhism  of  India,  modified  again  probably  by  Platonism,  it  was  indebted  for 
the  doctrines  of  the  antagonism  between  spirit  and  matter  and  the  unreality  of  derived 
existence  ( the  germ  of  the  Gnostic  Docetism  ),  and  in  part  at  least  for  the  theory  which 
regards  the  universe  as  a  series  of  successive  emanations  from  the  absolute  Unity.'' 

Emanation  holds  that  some  stuff  has  proceeded  from  the  nature  of  God,  and  that 
God  has  formed  this  stuff  into  the  universe.  But  matter  is  not  composed  of  stuff  at 
all.  It  is  merely  an  activity  of  God.  Urigen  held  that  </>v\>j  etymologically  denotes  a 
being  which,  struck  off  from  God  the  central  source  of  light  and  warmth,  has  cooled 
in  its  love  for  the  good,  but  still  has  the  possibility  of  returning  to  its  spiritual  origin. 
Pfleiderer,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  2 :  271,  thus  describes  Origen's  view  :  "As  our  body., 
while  consisting  of  many  members,  is  yet  an  organism  which  is  held  together  by  cue 
soul,  so  the  universe  is  to  be  thought  of  as  an  immense  living  being,  which  is  held 
together  by  one  soul,  the  power  and  the  Logos  of  God."  Palmer,  Theol.  Definition,  63, 
note — "  The  evil  of  Emanationism  is  seen  in  the  history  of  Gnosticism.  An  emanation 
is  a  portion  of  the  divine  essence  regarded  as  separated  from  it  and  sent  forth  as  inde- 
pendent. Having-  no  perpetual  bond  of  connection  with  the  divine,  it  either  sinks  into 
degradation,  as  Basilides  taught,  or  becomes  actively  hostile  to  the  divine,  as  the 

Ophites  believed In  like  manner  the  Deists  of  a  later  time  came  to  regard  the 

laws  of  nature  as  having  an  independent  existence,  i.  e.,  as  emanations." 

John  Milton,  Christian  Doctrine,  holds  this  view.  Matter  is  an  efflux  from  God  him- 
self, not  intrinsically  bad,  and  incapable  of  annihilation.  Finite  existence  is  an  emana- 
tion from  God's  substance,  and  God  has  loosened  his  hold  on  those  living  portions  or 
centres  of  finite  existence  which  he  has  endowed  with  free  will,  so  that  these  independ- 
ent beings  may  originate  actions  not  morally  referable  to  himself.  This  doctrine  of 
free  will  relieves  Milton  from  the  charge  of  pantheism;  see  Masson,  Life  of  Milton, 
6:824-826.  Lotze,  Philos.  Religion,  xlviii,  li,  distinguishes  creation  from  emanation  by 
saying  that  creation  necessitates  a  divine  Will,  while  emanation  flows  by  natural  conse- 
quence from  the  being  of  God.  God's  motive  in  creation  is  love,  which  urges  him  to 
communicate  his  holiness  to  other  beings.  God  creates  individual  finite  spirits,  and 
then  permits  the  thought,  which  at  first  was  only  his,  to  become  the  thought  of  these 
other  spirits.  This  transference  of  his  thought  by  will  is  the  creation  of  the  world. 
F.  W.  Farrar,  on  Heb.  1:2  —  "  The  word  JEati  was  used  by  the  Gnostics  to  describe  the 
various  emanations  by  which  they  tried  at  once  to  widen  and  to  bridge  over  the  gulf 
between  the  human  and  the  divine.  Over  that  imaginary  chasm  John  threw  the  arch 
of  the  Incarnation,  when  he  wrote :  '  The  Word  became  flesh '  ( John  i :  14 )." 

Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  chap.  2  —  "  In  the  very  making  of  souls  of  his  own  essence 

and  substance,  and  in  the  vacating  of  his  own  causality  in  order  that  men  may  be  free, 

God  already  dies  in  order  that  they  may  live.    God  withdraws  himself  from  our  wills, 

so  as  to  make  possible  free  choice  and  even  possible  opposition  to  himself.    Individual- 

25 


386  THE  WORKS  OF   GOD. 

ism  admits  dualism  but  not  complete  division.  Our  dualism  holds  still  to  underground 
connections  of  life  between  man  and  man,  man  and  nature,  man  and  God.  Even  the 
physical  creation  is  ethical  at  heart:  each  thing'  is  dependent  on  other  things,  and  must 
serve  them,  or  lose  its  own  life  and  beauty.  The  branch  must  abide  in  the  vine,  or  it 
withers  and  is  cut  off  and  burned  "  (275 ). 

Swedenborg  held  to  emanation,  —see  Divine  Love  and  Wisdom, 283,  303, 305  —  "Every 
one  who  thinks  from  clear  reason  sees  that  the  universe  is  not  created  from  nothing. 

....  All  things  were  created  out  of  a  substance As  God  alone  is  substance  in 

itself  and  therefore  the  real  esse,  it  is  evidence  that  the  existence  of  things  is  from  no 
other  source.  .  .  .  Yet  the  created  universe  is  not  God,  because  God  is  not  in  time  and 
space.  .  .  .  There  is  a  creation  of  the  universe,  and  of  all  things  therein,  by  continual 

mediations  from  the  First In  the  substances  and  matters  of  which  the  earths 

consist,  there  is  nothing  of  the  Divine  in  itself,  but  they  are  deprived  of  all  that  is 

divine  in  itself Still  they  have  brought  with  them  by  continuation  from  the 

substance  of  the  spiritual  sum  that  which  was  there  from  the '  Divine."  Swedenborg- 
ianism  is  "materialism  driven  deep  and  clinched  on  the  inside."  This  system  reverses 
the  Lord's  prayer ;  it  should  read:  "As  on  earth,  so  in  heaven."  He  disliked  certain 
sects,  and  he  found  that  all  who  belonged  to  those  sects  were  in  the  hells,  condemned 
to  everlasting  punishment.  The  truth  is  not  materialistic  emanation,  as  Swedenborg 
imagined,  but  rather  divine  energizing  in  space  and  time.  The  universe  is  God's  system 
of  graded  self-limitation,  from  matter  up  to  mind.  It  has  had  a  beginning,  and  God 
has  instituted  it.  It  is  a  finite  and  partial  manifestation  of  the  infinite  Spirit.  Matter 
is  an  expression  of  spirit,  but  not  an  emanation  from  spirit,  any  more  than  our 
thoughts  and  volitions  are.  Finite  spirits,  on  the  other  hand,  are  differentiations  within 
the  being  of  God  himself,  and  so  are  not  emanations  from  him. 

Napoleon  asked  Goethe  what  mattter  was.  "Esprit  gele  —  frozen  spirit"  was  the 
answer  Schelling  wished  Goethe  had  given  him.  But  neither  is  matter  spirit,  nor  are 
matter  and  spirit  together  mere  natural  effluxes  from  God's  substance.  A  divine  insti- 
tution of  them  is  requisite  ( quoted  substantially  from  Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine, 
2:40).  Schlegel  in  a  similar  manner  called  architecture  "frozen  music,"  and  another 
writer  calls  music  "dissolved  architecture."  There  is  a  " psychical  automatism,"  as 
Ladd  says,  in  his  Philosophy  of  Mind,  109 ;  and  Hegel  calls  nature  "the  corpse  of  the 
understanding — spirit  in  alienation  from  itself."  But  spirit  is  the  Adam,  of  which 
nature  is  the  Eve ;  and  man  says  to  nature  :  "  This  is  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh,"  as 
Adam  did  in  Gen.  2:23. 

3.     Creation  from  eternity. 

This  theory  regards  creation  as  an  act  of  God  in  eternity  past.  It  "was 
propounded  by  Origen,  and  has  been  held  in  recent  times  by  Martensen, 
Martineau,  John  Caird,  Knight,  and  Pfleiderer.  The  necessity  of  suppos- 
ing such  creation  from  eternity  has  been  argued  from  God's  omnipotence, 
God's  timelessness,  God's  immutability,  and  God's  love.  "We  consider 
each  of  these  arg^^ments  in  their  order. 

Origen  held  that  God  was  from  eternity  the  creator  of  the  world  of  spirits.  Marten- 
sen,  in  his  Dogmatics,  114,  shows  favor  to  the  maxims :  "  Without  the  world  God  is  not 

God God  created  the  world  to  satisfy  a  want  in  himself He  cannot  but 

constitute  himself  the  Father  of  spirits."  Schiller,  Die  Freundschaft,  last  stanza,  gives 
the  following  popular  expression  to  this  \new:  "Freundlos  war  der  grosse  Welten- 
meister ;  Ftihlte  Mangel,  darum  schuf  er  Geister,  Sel'ge  Spiegel  seiner  Seligkeit.  Fand 
das  hochste  Wesen  schon  keiu  Gleiches;  Aus  dem  Kelch  des  ganzen  Geisterreiches 
SchSumt  ihm  die  Unendlichkeit."  The  poet's  thought  was  perhaps  suggested  by 
Goethe's  Sorrows  of  Werther :  "  The  flight  of  a  bird  above  my  head  inspired  me  with 
the  desire  of  being  transported  to  the  shores  of  the  immeasurable  waters,  there  to 
quaff  the  pleasures  of  life  from  the  foaming  goblet  of  the  infinite."  Robert  Browning, 
Rabbi  Ben  Ezra,  31  —  "But  I  need  now  as  then,  Thee,  God,  who  mouldest  men.  And 
since,  not  even  when  the  whirl  was  worst,  Did  I  —  to  the  wheel  of  life  With  shapes  and 
colors  rife,  Bound  dizzily  —  mistake  my  end,  To  slake  thy  thirst."  But  this  regards  the 
Creator  as  dependent  upon,  and  in  bondage  to,  his  own  world. 

Pythagoras  held  that  nature's  substances  and  laws  are  eternal.  Martineau,  Study  of 
Religion,  1 :  144 ;  2 :  250,  seems  to  make  the  creation  of  the  world  an  eternal  process, 


THEORIES    WHICH    OPPOSE   CREATION.  387 

conceiving-  of  it  ;is  a  self -sundering-  of  the  Deity,  in  whom  in  some  way  the  world  was 
always  contained  (  Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  140  ).  Knight,  Studies  in  Philos.  and  Lit., 
04,  quotes  from  Byron's  Cain,  1:1  —  "Let  him  Sit  on  his  vast  and  solitary  throne, 
Creating  worlds,  to  make  eternity  Less  burdensome  to  his  immense  existence  And 
unpartieipated  solitude He,  so  wretched  in  his  height,  So  restless  in  his  wretched- 
ness, must  still  Create  and  recreate."  Byron  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of 
Lucifer.  Yet  Knig-ht,  in  his  Essays  in  Philosophy,  143,  247,  regards  the  universe  as  the 
everlasting-  effect  of  an  eternal  Cause.  •Dualism,  he  thinks,  is  involved  in  the  very 
notion  of  a  .search  for  *  !od. 

W.  N.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  117  —  "God  is  thesourceof  the  universe.  Whether 
by  immediate  production  at  some  point  of  time,  so  that  alter  he  had  existed  alone 
there  came  by  his  act  to  be  a  universe,  or  by  perpetual  production  from  his  own  spirit- 
ual being,  so  that  his  eternal  existence  was  always  accompanied  by  a  universe  in  some 

stage  of  being,  God  has  brought  the  universe  into  existence Any  method  in 

which  the  independent  God  could  produce  a  universe  which  without  him  could  have 
had  no  existence,  is  accordant  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  Many  find  it  easier 
philosophically  to  hold  that  God  hits  eternally  broug-ht  forth  creation  from  himself,  so 
that  there  has  never  been  a  time  when  there  was  not  a  universe  in  some  stage  of  exist- 
ence, than  to  think  of  an  instantaneous  creation  of  all  existing  things  when  there  had 
been  nothing-  but  Cod  before.  Between  these  two  views  theology  is  not  compelled  to 
decide,  provided  we  believe  that  God  is  a  tree  Spirit  greater  than  the  universe.'1  We 
dissent  from  this  conclusion  of  Dr.  Clarke,  and  hold  that  Scripture  requires  us  to  trace 
the  universe  back  to  a  beginning,  while  reason  itself  is  better  satisfied  with  this  view 
than  it  can  be  with  the  theory  of  creation  from  eternity. 

( a )  Creation  from  eternity  is  not  necessitated  by  God's  omnipotence. 
Omnipotence  does  not  necessarily  imply  actual  creation  ;  it  implies  only 
i  )i  >wer  to  create.  Creation,  moreover,  is  in  the  nahu-e  of  the  case  a  thing 
begun.  Creation  from  eternity  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  that  which 
is  self-contradictory  is  not  an  object  of  power. 

The  argument  rests  upon  a  misconception  of  eternity,  regarding  it  as  a  prolongation 
of  time  into  the  endless  past.  We  have  seen  in  our  discussion  of  eternity  as  an  attribute 
of  God,  that  eternity  is  not  endless  time,  or  time  without  beginning,  but  rather  superi- 
ority to  the  law  of  time.  Since  eternity  is  no  more  past  than  it  is  present,  the  idea  of 
creation  from  eternity  is  an  Irrational  one.  Wemust  distinguish  (Tuition  in  eternity 
past  ( =  God  and  the  world  coe*ternaL,  yet  God  the  cause  of  the  world,  sis  he  is  the 
begetter  of  the  Son )  from,  continuous  creation  (which  is  an  explanation  of  preserva- 
tion, but  not  of  creation  at  all ).  It  is  this  latter,  not  the  former,  to  which  Rothe  holds 
(see  under  the  doctrine  of  Preservation,  pages  415,  41tl).  Birks,  Difficulties  of  Belief, 
81,  82— "Creation  is  not  from  eternity,  since  past  eternity  cannot  be  actually  traversed 
any  more  than  we  can  reach  the  bound  of  an  eternity  to  come.  There  was  no  time 
before  creation,  because  there  was  no  succession.'" 

Birks,  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Creation,  78-105 — "The  first  verse  of  Genesis  excludes 
five  speculative  falsehoods:  1.  that  there  is  nothing  but  uncreated  matter;  2.  that 
there  is  no  God  distinct  from  liis  creatures ;  3.  that  creation  is  a  series  of  acts  without 
a  beginning:  4.  that  there  is  no  real  universe;  5.  that  nothing  can  be  known  of 
God  or  the  origin  of  things."  Veitch,  Knowing  and  Being,  22  — "  The  ideas  of  creation 
and  creative  energy  are  emptied  of  meaning,  and  for  them  is  substituted  the  conception 
or  fiction  of  an  eternally  related  or  double-sided  world,  not  of  what  has  been,  but  of 
what  always  is.  It  is  another  form  of  the  see-saw  philosophy.  The  eternal  Self  only  is, 
if  the  eternal  manifold  is;  the  eternal  manifold  is,  if  the  eternal  Self  is.  The  one,  in 
being  the  other,  is  or  makes  itself  the  one;  the  other,  in  being  the  one,  is  or  makes 
itself  the  other.  This  may  be  called  a  unity;  it  is  rather,  if  We  might  invent  a  term 
suited  to  the  new  and  marvellous  conception,  an  unparalleled  and  unbegotten  twinity." 

(6)  Creation  from  eternity  is  not  necessitated  by  God's  timelessness. 
Because  God  is  free  from  the  law  of  time  it  does  not  follow  that  creation  is 
free  from  that  law.  Rather  is  it  true  that  no  eternal  creation  is  conceiv- 
able, since  this  involves  an  infinite  number.  Time  must  have  had  a  begin- 
ning, and  since  the  universe  and  time  are  coexistent,  creation  could  not 
have  been  from  eternity. 


388  THE   WORKS   OF  GOD. 

Jude  25  — " Before  all  time "  —  implies  that  time  had  a  beginning,  and  Eph.  1:4  —  "before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  " —  implies  that  creation  itself  had  a  beginning-.  Is  creation  infinite? 
No,  saj's  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  459,  because  to  a  perfect  creation  unity  is  as  neces- 
sary as  multiplicity.  The  universe  is  an  organism,  and  there  can  be  no  organism  with- 
out a  definite  number  of  parts.  For  a  similar  reason  Dorner,  System  Doctrine,  2  :  28, 
denies  that  the  universe  can  be  eternal.  Granting  on  the  one  hand  that  the  world 
though  eternal  might  be  dependent  upon  God  and  as  soon  as  the  plan  was  evolved 
there  might  be  no  reason  why  the  execution  should  be  delayed,  yet  on  the  other  hand 
the  absolutely  limitless  is  the  imperfect  and  no  universe  with  an  infinite  number  of 
parts  is  conceivable  or  possible.  So  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1 :  220-225—"  What 
has  a  goal  or  end  must  have  a  beginning  ;  history,  as  teleological,  implies  creation." 

Lotze,  Philos.  Religion,  74 — "  The  world,  with  respect  to  its  existence  as  well  as  its 
content,  is  completely  dependent  on  the  will  of  God,  and  not  as  a  mere  involuntary 
development  of  his  nature.  .  .  .  The  word  'creation'  ought  not  to  be  used  to  designate 
a  deed  of  God  so  much  as  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  world  on  his  will."  So  Schur- 
man,  Belief  in  God,  140, 158,  225—  "  Creation  is  the  eternal  dependence  of  the  world  on 

God Nature  is  the  externalization  of  spirit Material  things  exist  simply  as 

modes  of  the  divine  activity ;  they  have  no  existence  for  themselves."  On  this  view 
that  God  is  the  Ground  but  not  the  Creator  of  the  world,  see  Hovey,  Studies  in  Ethics 
and  Religion,  23-50 —  "  Creation  is  no  more  of  a  mystery  than  is  the  causal  action  "  in 
which  botn  Lotze  and  Schurman  believe.  "  To  deny  that  divine  power  can  originate 
real  being  —  can  add  to  the  sum  total  of  existence  — is  much  like  saying  that  such 
power  is  finite."  No  one  can  prove  that  "  it  is  of  the  essence  of  spirit  to  reveal  itself," 
or  if  so,  that  it  must  do  this  by  means  of  an  organism  or  externalization.  Eternal 
succession  of  changes  in  nature  is  no  more  comprehensible  than  are  a  creating  God 
and  a  universe  originating  in  time." 

(c)  Creation  from  eternity  is  not  necessitated  by  God's  immutability. 
His  immutability  requires,  not  an  eternal  creation,  but  only  an  eternal  plan 
of  creation.  The  opposite  principle  would  compel  us  to  deny  the  possibility 
of  miracles,  incarnation,  and  regeneration.  Like  creation,  these  too  •would 
need  to  be  eternal. 

We  distinguish  between  idea  and  plan,  between  plan  and  execution.  Much  of  God's 
plan  is  not  yet  executed.  The  beginning  of  its  execution  is  as  easy  to  conceive  as  is 
the  continuation  of  its  execution.  But  the  beginning  of  the  execution  of  God's  plan 
is  creation.  Active  will  is  an  element  in  creation.  God's  will  is  not  always  active. 
He  waits  for  "the  fulness  of  the  time"  (Gal.  4:4)  before  he  sends  forth  his  Son.  As  we  can 
trace  back  Christ's  earthly  life  to  a  beginning,  so  we  can  trace  back  the  life  of  the 
universe  to  a  beginning.  Those  who  hold  to  creation  from  eternity  usually  interpret 
Gen.  1 : 1  —  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  and  John  1:1  —  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,"  as  both  and  alike  meaning  "in  eternity."  But  neither  of  these  texts  has  this 
meaning.  In  each  we  are  simply  carried  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  and  it 
is  asserted  that  God  was  its  author  and  that  the  AVord  already  was. 

(  d  )  Creation  from  eternity  is  not  necessitated  by  God's  love.  Creation 
is  finite  and  cannot  furnish  perfect  satisfaction  to  the  infinite  love  of  God. 
God  has  moreover  from  eternity  an  object  of  love  infinitely  superior  to  any 
possible  creation,  in  the  person  of  his  Sou. 

Since  all  things  are  created  in  Christ,  the  eternal  Word,  Reason,  and  Power  of  God, 
God  can  "reconcile  all  things  to  himself"  in  Christ  (  Col.  1  :  20 ).  Athanasius  called  God  ktuttjjs,  ov 
Tex^TTis  —  Creator,  not  Artisan.  By  this  he  meant  that  God  is  immanent,  and  not  the 
God  of  deism.  But  the  moment  we  conceive  of  God  as  revealing  himself  in  Christ,  the 
idea  of  creation  as  an  eternal  satisfaction  of  his  love  vanishes.  God  can  have  a  plan 
without  executing  his  plan.  Decree  can  precede  creation.  Ideas  of  the  universe  may 
exist  in  the  divine  mind  before  they  are  realized  by  the  divine  will.  There  are  purposes 
of  salvation  in  Christ  which  antedate  the  world  ( Eph.  1:4).  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
once  firmly  grasped,  enables  us  to  see  the  fallacy  of  such  views  as  that  of  Pfleiderer, 
Philos.  Religion,  1  :  280  —  "  A  beginning  and  ending  in  time  of  the  creating  of  God  are 
not  thinkable.  That  would  be  to  suppose  a  change  of  creating  and  resting  in  God, 
which  would  equalize  God's  being  with  the  changeable  course  of  human  life.    Nor 


THEORIES    WHICH   OPPOSE   CREATION".  389 

could  it  be  conceived  what  should  have  hindered  God  from  creating  the  world  up  to  the 
beginning- of  his  creating.  .  .  .  We  say  rather,  with  Scotus  Erigena,  that  the  divine 
creating  is  equally  eternal  with  God's  being." 

k 

( r )  Creation  from  eternity,  moreover,  is  inconsistent  with  fcie  divine 
independence  and  personality.  Since  God's  power  and  love  are  infinite,  a 
creation  that  satisfied  them  must  be  infinite  in  extent  as  well  as  eternal  in 
past  duration  —  in  other  words,  a  creation  equal  to  God.  But  a  God  thus 
dependent  upon  external  creation  is  neither  free  nor  sovereign.  A-  God 
existing  in  necessary  relations  to  the  universe,  if  different  in  substance  from 
the  universe,  must  be  the  God  of  dualism  ;  if  of  the  same  substance  with  the 
universe,  must  be  the  God  of  pantheism. 

Gore,  Incarnation,  136,  137—"  Christian  theology  is  the  harmony  of  pantheism  and 
deism.  ...  It  enjoys  all  the  riches  of  pantheism  without  its  inherent  weakness  on  the 
moral  side,  without  making  God  dependent  on  the  world,  as  t  he  world  is  dependent  on 
God.  On  the  other  hand,  Christianity  converts  an  unintelligible  deism  into  a  rational 
theism.  It  can  explain  how  God  became  a  creator  in  time,  because  it  knows  how  crea- 
tion has  its  eternal  analogue  in  the  uncreated  nature  ;  it  was  God's  nature  eternally  to 
produce,  to  communicate  itself,  to  live."  In  other  words,  it  can  explain  how  God  can 
be  eternall y  ali\e.  independent,  self-sufficient,  since  he  is  Trinity.  Creation  from  eter- 
nity is  a  natural  and  logical  outgrowth  of  Unitarian  tendencies  in  theology.  It  is  of  a 
piece  with  the  Stoic  monism  of  which  we  read  in  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  177  —  "  Stoic 
monism  conceived  of  the  world  asa  self-evolution  of  God.  Into  such  a  conception  the 
idea  of  a  beginning  eloes  not  necessarily  enter.  It  is  consistent  with  the  idea  of  an 
eternal  process  of  differentiation.  That  which  is  always  has  been  under  changed  and 
changing  forms.  The  theory  is  cosmologies!  rather  than  eosmogonical.  It  rather 
explains  the  world  as  it  is,  than  gives  an  account  of  its  origin.'' 

4.  Spontaneous  generation. 

This  theory  holds  that  creation  is  but  the  name  for  a  natural  process  still 
going  on,  —  matter  itself  having  in  it  the  power,  under  proper  conditions, 
of  taking  on  new  functions,  and  of  developing  into  organic  forms.  This 
view  is  held  by  Owen  and  Bastian.     We  object  that 

(a)  It  is  a  pure  hypothesis,  not  only  unverified,  but  contrary  to  all  known 
facts.  No  credible  instance  of  the  production  of  living  forms  from  inor- 
ganic material  has  yet  been  adduced.  So  far  as  science  can  at  present  teach 
us,  the  law  of  nature  is  "  omne  vivuni  e  vivo,"  or  "ex  ovo. " 

Owen,  Comparative  Anatomy  of  the  Vertebrates,  3 :  814-818  —  on  Monogeny  or  Thau- 
matogeny  ;  quoted  in  Argyle,  Reign  of  Law,  281—"  We  discern  no  evidence  of  a  pause 
or  intromission  in  the  creation  or  coming-to-be  of  new  plants  and  animals."  So  Bastian, 
Modes  of  Origin  of  Lowest  Organisms,  Beginnings  of  Life,  and  articles  on  Heteroge- 
neous Evolution  of  Living  Things,  iu  Nature,  2:  170,  193,  219,  410,  431.  See  Huxley's 
Address  before  the  British  Association,  and  Beply  to  Bastian,  in  Nature,  2:400,  473; 
also  Origin  of  Species,  69-79,  and  Physical  Basis  of  Life,  in  Lay  Sermons,  14:.'.  Answers 
to  this  last  by  Stirling,  in  Half-hours  with  Modern  Scientists,  and  by  Bcale,  Protoplasm 
or  Life,  Matter,  and  Mind,  73-75. 

In  l'ave)r  of  Kcdi's  maxim,  "omne  vivuni  e  vivo,"  see  Huxley,  in  Encyc.  Britannica, 
art.:  Biology,  689 — "At  the  present  moment  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  trustworthy  direct 
evidence  that  abiogenesis  does  take  place  or  has  taken  place  within  the  period  during 
which  the  existence  of  the  earth  is  recorded  "  ;  Flint,  Physiology  of  Man,  1 :  263-265  — 
"As  the  only  true  philosophic  view  to  take  of  the  question,  we  shall  assume  in  common 
with  nearly  all  the  modern  writers  on  physiology  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  spon- 
taneous generation,  —  admitting  that  the  exact  mode  of  production  of  the  infusoria 
lowest  in  the  scale  of  life  is  not  understood."  On  the  Philosophy  of  Evolution,  see 
A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion.  39-57. 


390  THE   "WORKS   OF   GOD. 

(  b  )  If  such  instances  could  be  authenticated,  they  would  prove  nothing 
as  against  a  proper  doctrine  of  creation,  —  for  there  would  still  exist  an 
impossibility  of  accounting  for  these  vivific  properties  of  matter,  except 
upon  the  Scriptural  view  of  an  intelligent  Contriver  and  Originator  of 
matter  and  its  laws.  In  short,  evolution  implies  previous  involution, — if 
anything  comes  out  of  matter,  it  must  first  have  been  put  in. 

Sully :  "  Every  doctrine  of  evolution  must  assume  some  definite  initial  arrangement 
which  is  supposed  to  contain  the  possibilities  of  the  order  which  we  find  to  be  evolved 
and  no  other  possibility."  Bixby,  Crisis  of  Morals,  258  — "If  no  creative  fiat  can  be 
believed  to  create  something'  out  of  nothing-,  still  less  is  evolution  able  to  perform  such 
a  contradiction."  As  we  can  get  morality  only  out  of  a  moral  germ,  so  we  can  get 
vitality  only  out  of  a  vital  germ.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  14  —  "By  brooding 
long  enough  on  an  egg  that  is  next  to  nothing,  you  can  in  this  way  hatch  any  universe 
actual  or  possible.  Is  it  not  evident  that  this  is  a  mere  trick  of  imagination,  concealing 
its  thefts  of  causation  by  committing  them  little  by  little,  and  taking  the  heap  from  the 
divine  storehouse  grain  by  grain  ?  " 

Hens  come  before  eggs.  Perfect  organic  forms  are  antecedent  to  all  life-cells, 
whether  animal  or  vegetable.  "  Omnis  cellula  e  cellula,  sed  primaria  cellula  ex  organ- 
ismo."  God  created  first  the  tree,  and  its  seed  was  in  it  when  created  ( Gen.  1 :  12  ).  Proto- 
plasm is  not  proton,  but  dcuteron  ;  th3  elements  are  antecedent  to  it.  It  is  not  true  that 
man  was  never  made  at  all  but  only  "  growed  "  like  Topsy ;  see  Watts,  New  Apologetic, 
xvi,  312.  Royce,  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy,  273  —  "  Evolution  is  the  attempt  to  com- 
prehend the  world  of  experience  in  terms  <>f  the  fundamental  idealistic  postulates :  ( 1 ) 
without  ideas,  there  is  no  reality ;  ( 2 )  rational  order  requires  a  rational  Being  to  intro- 
duce it ;  ( 1 )  beneath  our  conscious  self  there  must  be  an  infinite  Self.  The  question  is : 
Has  the  world  a  meaning  ?  It  is  not  enough  to  refer  ideas  to  mechanism.  Evolution, 
from  the  nebula  to  man,  is  only  the  unfolding  of  the  life  of  a  divine  Self." 

(c)  This  theory,  therefore,  if  true,  only  supplements  the  doctrine  of 
original,  absolute,  immediate  creation,  with  another  doctrine  of  mediate 
and  derivative  creation,  or  the  development  of  the  materials  and  forces 
originated  at  the  beginning.  This  development,  however,  cannot  proceed  to 
any  valuable  end  without  guidance  of  the  same  intelligence  which  initiated 
it.  The  Scriptures,  although  they  do  not  sanction  the  doctrine  of  sponta- 
neous generation,  do  recognize  processes  of  development  as  sujDplementing 
the  divine  fiat  which  first  called  the  elements  into  being. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  free  will,  and  free  will  does  not,  like  the  deterministic  will, 
run  in  a  groove.  If  there  be  free  will  in  man,  then  much  more  is  there  free  will  in 
God,  and  God's  will  does  not  run  in  a  groove.  God  is  not  bound  by  law  or  to  law.  Wis- 
dom does  not  imply  monotony  or  uniformity.  God  can  do  a  thing:  once  that  is  never 
done  again.  Circumstances  are  never  twice  alike.  Here  is  the  basis  not  only  of  crea- 
tion but  of  new  creation,  including  miracle,  incarnation,  resurrection,  regeneration, 
redemption.  Though  will  both  in  God  and  in  man  is  for  the  most  part  automatic  and 
acts  according  to  law,  yet  the  power  of  new  beginnings,  of  creative  action,  resides  in 
will,  wherever  it  is  free,  and  this  free  will  chiefly  makes  God  to  be  God  and  man  to  be 
man.  Without  it  life  would  be  hardly  worth  the  living,  for  it  would  be  only  the  life  of 
the  brute.  All  schemes  of  evolution  which  ignore  this  freedom  of  God  are  pantheistic  in 
their  tendencies,  for  they  practically  deny  both  God's  transcendence  and  his  personality. 

Leibnitz  declined  to  accept  the  Newtonian  theory  of  gravitation  because  it  seemed 
to  him  to  substitute  natural  forces  for  God.  In  our  own  day  many  still  refuse 
to  accept  the  Darwinian  theory  of  evolution  because  it  seems  to  them  to  substitute 
natural  forces  for  God ;  see  John  Fiske,  Idea  of  God,  97-102.  But  law  is  only  a  method  ; 
it  presupposes  a  lawgiver  and  requires  an  agent.  Gravitation  and  evolution  are  but 
the  habitual  operations  of  God.  If  spontaneous  generation  should  be  proved  true,  it 
would  be  only  God's  way  of  originating  life.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  91  — 
"Spontaneous  generation  does  not  preclude  the  idea  of  a  creative  will  working  by 
uatural  law  and  secondary  Causes.  ...  Of  beginnings  of  life  physical  science  knows 
rothing.  .  .  .  Of  the  processes  of  nature  science  Is  competent  to  speak  and  against  its 


THE   MOSAIC    ACCOUNT   OF   CREATION.  391 

teachings  respecting  these  there  is  no  need  that  theology  should  set  itself  in  hostility. 
.  .  .  Even  if  man  were  derived  from  the  lower  animals,  it  would  not  prove  that  God 
did  not  create  and  order  the  forces  employed.    It  may  be  that  God  bestowed  upon  ani- 
mal life  a  plastic  power."  Xi 
Ward,  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  1 :  180  —  "  It  is  far  truer  to  say  that  the  universe 

is  a  life,  than  to  say  that  it  is  a  mechanism We  can  never  get  to  God  through  a 

mere  mechanism.  .  .  .  With  Leibnitz  I  would  argue  that  absolute  passivity  or  inertness 
is  not  a  reality  but  a  limit.  209  —  Mr.  Spencer  grants  that  to  interpret  spirit  in  terms  of 
matter  is  impossible.  302  —  Natural  selection  without  teleological  factors  is  not  adequate 
to  account  for  biological  evolution,  and  such  teleological  factors  imply  a  psychical 
something  endowed  with  feelings  and  will,  i.  e.,  Life  and  Mind.  2 :  130-135— Conation  is 
more  fundamental  than  cognition.  149-151  —  Things  and  events  precede  space  and  time. 
There  is  no  empty  apace  or  time.  252-257  —  Our  assimilation  of  nature  is  the  greeting  of 
spirit  by  spirit.  259-267  —  Either  nature  is  itself  intelligent,  or  there  is  intelligence  beyond 
it.  274-276— Appearances  do  not  veil  reality.  271  — The  truth  is  not  God  and  mech- 
anism, but  God  mtly  and  no  mechanism.  283—  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  in  spite  of 
themselves,  lead  us  to  a  world  of  Spiritualistic  Monism."  Newman  Smyth,  Christian 
Ethics,  36—  "Spontaneous  generation  Is  a  Action  in  ethics,  as  It  is  in  psychology  and 
biology.  The  moral  cannot  be  derived  from  the  non-moral,  any  more  than  conscious- 
ness can  be  derived  from  the  unconscious,  or  life  from  the  azoic  rocks." 

IV.     The  Mosaic  Account  of  Creation. 

1.  Its  twofold  nature,  —  as  uniting  the  ideas  of  creatiou  ami  of  develop- 
ment. 

(  a)  Creation  is  asserted.  —  The  Mosaic  narrative  avoids  the  error  of  mak- 
ing the  universe  eternal  or  the  result  of  an  eternal  process.  The  cosmogony 
of  Genesis,    unlike  the  cosmogonies  of  the  heathen,  is  prefaced  by  the 

originating  act  of  God,  and  is  supplemented  by  successive  manifestations 
of  creative  power  in  the  introduction  of  brute  and  of  human  life. 

All  nature- worship,  whether  it  take  the  form  of  ancient  polytheism  or  modern  mate- 
rialism, looks  upon  the  universe  only  as  a  birth  or  growth.  This  view  has  a  basis  of 
truth,  inasmuch  as  it  regards  natural  forces  as  having  a  real  existence.  It  is  false  in 
regarding  these  forces  as  needing  no  originator  or  upholder.  Hesiod  taught  that  in  the 
beginning  was  formless  matter.  Genesis  does  not  begin  thus.  God  is  not  a  demiurge, 
wouking  on  eternal  matter.  God  antedates  matter.  He  is  the  creator  of  matter  at  the 
first  (Gen.  1 : 1  —  bara)  and  he  subsequently  created  animal  life  (  Gen.  1:21  —  "and  God  created  " 
—  bara)  and  the  life  of  man  (Gen.  1:27  —  "and  God  created  man"  —bara  again  ). 

Many  statements  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  err  by  regarding  it  as  an  eternal  or 
self-originated  process.  But  the  process  requires  an  originator,  and  the  forces  require 
an  upholder.  Each  forward  step  implies  increment  of  energy,  and  progress  toward  a 
rational  end  implies  intelligence  and  foresight  in  the  governing  power.  Schurman  says 
well  that  Darwinism  explains  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  but  cannot  explain  the  arrival  of 
the  fittest.  Schurman,  Agnosticism  and  Religion,  34  —  "A  primitive  chaos  of  star-dust 
which  held  in  its  womb  not  only  the  cosmos  that  fills  space,  not  only  the  living  crea- 
tures that  teem  upon  it,  but  also  the  intellect  that  interprets  it,  the  will  that  confronts 
it,  and  the  conscience  that  transfigures  it,  must  as  certainly  have  God  at  the  centre, 
as  a  universe  mechanically  arranged  and  periodically  adjusted  must  have  him  at  the 
circumference.  .  .  .  There  is  no  real  antagonism  between  creation  and  evolution.  59  — 
Natural  causation  is  the  expression  of  a  supernatural  Mind  in  nature,  and  man  —  a 
being  at  once  of  sensibility  and  of  rational  and  moral  self-activity —  is  a  signal  and 
ever-present  example  of  the  interfusion  of  the  natural  with  the  supernatural  in  that 
part  of  universal  existence  nearest  and  best  known  to  us." 

Seebohm,  quoted  in  J.  J.  Murphy,  Nat.  Selection  and  Spir.  Freedom,  76—  "  When  we 
admit  that  Darwin's  argument  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  evolution  proves  its  truth,  we 
doubt  whether  natural  selection  can  be  in  any  sense  the  cause  of  the  origin  of  spe- 
cies. It  has  probably  played  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  evolution  ;  its  role  has 
been  that  of  increasing  the  rapidity  with  which  the  process  of  development  has  pro- 
ceeded. Of  itself  it  has  probably  been  powerless  to  originate  a  species  ;  the  machinery 
by  which  species  have  been  evolved  has  been  completely  independent  of  natural  selec- 


392  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

tion  and  could  have  produced  all  the  results  which  we  call  the  evolution  of  species 
without  its  aid ;  though  the  process  would  have  been  slow  had  there  been  no  struggle 
of  life  to  increase  its  pace."  New  World,  June,  1896:237-262,  art.  by  Howison  on  the 
Limits  of  Evolution,  finds  limits  in  (1 )  the  noumenal  Reality ;  ( 2 )  the  break  between 
the  organic  and  the  inorganic ;  ( 3 )  break  between  physiological  and  logical  genesis  ; 
(i)  inability  to  explain  the  great  fact  on  which  its  own  movement  rests;  (5)  the  a 
priori  self-consciousness  which  is  the  essential  being  and  true  person  of  the  mind. 

Evolution,  according  to  Herbert  Spencer,  is  "an  integration  of  matter  and  concomi- 
tant dissipation  of  motion,  during  which  the  matter  passes  from  an  indefinite  inco- 
herent homogeneity  to  a  definite  coherent  heterogeneity,  and  during  which  the  retained 
motion  goes  through  a  parallel  transformation."  D.  AV.  Simon  criticizes  this  definition 
as  defective  "  because  ( 1 )  it  omits  all  mention  both  of  energy  and  its  differentia- 
tions; and  (2)  because  it  introduces  into  the  definition  of  the  process  one  of  the  phe- 
nomena thereof,  namely,  motion.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  both  energy  or  force,  and  law, 
are  subsequently  and  illicitly  introduced  as  distinct  factors  of  the  process  :  they  ought 
therefore  to  have  found  recognition  in  the  definition  or  description."  Mark  Hopkins, 
Life,  189— "God:  what  need  of  him?  Have  we  not  force,  uniform  force,  and  do  not 
all  things  continue  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  if  it  ever  had  a 
beginning  ?  Have  we  not  the  to  vav,  the  universal  All,  the  Soul  of  the  universe,  work- 
ing itself  up  from  unconsciousness  through  molecules  and  maggots  and  mice  and  mar- 
mots and  monkeys  to  its  highest  culmination  in  man  ?  " 

(  b  )  Development  is  recognized. — The  Mosaic  account  represents  the 
present  order  of  things  as  the  result,  not  simply  of  original  creation,  but 
also  of  subsequent  arrangement  and  development.  A  fashioning  of  inor- 
ganic materials  is  described,  and  also  a  use  of  these  materials  in  providing 
the  conditions  of  organized  existence.  Life  is  described  as  reproducing 
itself,  after  its  first  introduction,  according  to  its  own  laws  and  by  virtue  of 
its  own  inner  energy. 

Martensen  wrongly  asserts  that  "  Judaism  represented  the  world  exclusively  as  crea- 
tura,  not  natura ;  as  «tiVis,  not  Averts."  This  is  not  true.  Creation  is  represented  as  the 
bringing  forth,  not  of  something  dead,  but  of  something  living  and  capable  of  self- 
development.  Creation  lays  the  foundation  for  cosmogony.  Not  only  is  there  a  fash- 
ioning and  arrangement  of  the  material  which  the  original  creative  act  has  brought 
into  being  ( see  Gen.  1 : 2, 4,  6,  7,  9, 16, 17 ;  2 : 2,  6, 7,  8  —  Spirit  brooding ;  dividing  light  from  dark- 
ness, and  waters  from  waters ;  dry  land  appearing ;  setting  apart  of  sun,  moon,  and 
stars ;  mist  watering ;  forming  man's  body;  planting  garden)  but  there  is  also  an 
imparting  and  using  of  the  productive  powers  of  the  things  and  beings  created  (Gea.  1 :  12, 
22,  24,  28  — earth  brought  forth  grass;  trees  yielding  fruit  whose  seed  was  in  itself; 
earth  brought  forth  the  living  creatures ;  man  commanded  to  be  fruitful  and  multiply). 

The  tendency  at  present  among  men  of  science  is  to  regard  the  whole  history  of  life 
upon  the  planet  as  the  result  of  evolution,  thus  excluding  creation,  both  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  history  and  along  its  course.  On  the  progress  from  the  Orohippus,  the 
lowest  member  of  the  equine  series,  an  animal  with  four  toes,  to  Anchitheriuui  with 
three,  then  to  Hipparion,  and  finally  to  our  common  horse,  see  Huxley,  in  Nature  for 
May  11, 1873 :  33,  34.  He  argues  that,  if  a  complicated  animal  like  the  horse  has  arisen  by 
gradual  modification  of  a  lower  and  less  specialized  form,  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  other  animals  have  arisen  in  a  different  way.  Clarence  King,  Address  at  Yale  Col- 
lege, 1877,  regards  American  geology  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of  sudden  yet  natural 
modification  of  species.  "When  catastrophic  change  burst  in  upon  the  ages  of  uni- 
formity and  sounded  in  the  ear  of  every  living  thing  the  words:  'Change  or  die!' 
plasticity  became  the  sole  principle  of  action."  Nature  proceeded  then  by  leaps,  and 
corresponding  to  the  leaps  of  geology  we  find  leaps  of  biology. 

We  grant  the  probability  that  the  great  majority  of  what  we  call  species  were  pro- 
duced in  some  such  ways.  If  science  should  render  it  certain  that  all  the  present  species 
of  living  creatures  were  derived  by  natural  descent  from  a  few  original  germs,  and 
that  these  germs  were  themselves  an  evolution  of  inorganic  forces  and  materials,  we 
should  not  therefore  regard  the  Mosaic  account  as  proved  untrue.  We  should  only  be 
required  to  revise  our  interpretation  of  the  word  hara  in  Gen.  1 :  21, 27,  and  to  give  it  there 
Cie  meaning  of  mediate  creation,  or  creation  by  law.  Such  a  meaning  might  almost 
seem  to  be  favored  by  Gen.  1:11  —  "  let  the  earth  put  forth  grass  "  ;  20  —  "  let  the  waters  bring  forth  abun- 


THE    MOSAIC    ACCOUNT   OF    CREATION.  393 

dantly  the  moving  creature  that  hath  life "  ;  2:7  —  "  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  tha  dust "  ;  9  —  "  out  of  the  ground 
made  the  Lord  God  tu  grow  every  tree  "  ;  cf.  Kark  4:23  —  avToixdrri  >j  yi)  Kapncxpoptl —  "  the  earth  brings  forth 
fruit  automatically."  Goethe,  Spriiche  in  Reimen  :  "  Was  war  ein  Gott  der  nur  von  aussen 
Stiesae,  Im  Kreis  das  All  am  Finger  lautfen  liesse?  Ihm  zieuit's  die  Welt  ira  Innern  zu 
bewegen,  Sich  in  Natur.  Natur  iu  sich  zu  hegeu,  So  dass,  was  in  Ihm  lebt  und  webt  und 
ist,*Nie  seine  Kraft,  nle  seinenGeist  vermisst"— "No,  such  a  God  my  worship  may  not 
win,  Who  lets  the  world  about  his  finger  spin,  A  tiling-  eternal ;  God  must  dwell  within." 

All  the  growth  of  a  tree  takes  place  in  from  four  to  six  weeks  in  May,  June  and  July. 
The  audition  of  woody  fibre  between  the  bark  and  the  trunk  results,  not  by  imparta- 
tion  into  it  of  a  new  force  from  without,  but  by  the  awakening-  of  the  life  within. 
Environment  changes  and  growth  begins.  We  may  even  speak  of  an  immanent  tran- 
scendence of  G<>d— an  unexhausted  vitality  which  at  times  makes  great  movements 
forward.  This  is  what  the- ancients  were  trying  to-express  when  they  said  that  trees  were 
inhabited  by  dryads  and  so  groaned  and  bled  when  wounded.  God's  life  is  in  all.  In 
evolution  we  cannot  say,  with  LeConte,  that  the  higher  form  of  energy  is  "derived 
from  the  lower."  Rather  let  us  say  that  both  the  higher  and  the  lower  are  constantly 
dependent  for  their  being  on  the  will  of  God.  The  lower  is  only  God's  preparation  for 
his  higher  self-manifestation  ;  see  Upton,  Hibbcrt  Lectures,  105, 106. 

Even  Haeckel,  Hist.  Creation,  1  :  38,  can  say  that  in  the  Mosaic  narrative  "  two  great. 
and  fundamental  ideas  meet  us  — the  idea  of  separation  or  differentiation,  and  the  idea 
of  progressive  dfevelopmcnl  or  perfecting.  We  can  bestow  our  just  and  sincere  ad  mi  r- 
ation  on  the  Jewish  lawgiver's  grand  insight  Into  nature,  and  his  simple  and  natural 
hypothesis  of  creation,  without  discovering  in  it  a  divine  revelation."  Henry  Drum- 
mond,  whose  first  book,  Natural  haw  in  the  Spiritual  World,  he  himself  in  his  later  days 
regretted  as  tending  in  a  deterministic  and  materialistic  direction,  came  to  believe 
rather  in  "  spiritual  law  in  the  natural  world."  His  Ascent  of  Man  regards  evolution 
and  law  as  only  the  methods  of  a  present  Deity.  Darwinism  seemed  at  first  to  show 
that  the  past  history  of  life  upon  the  planet  was  a  history  of  bear!  less  and  cruel  slaugh- 
ter. The  survival  of  the  fittest  had  For  its  obverse  side  the  destruction  of  myriads. 
Nature  was  "  red  in  tooth  and  claw  with  ravine."  Hut  further-thought  has  shown  that 
this  gloomy  view  results  from  a  partial  induction  of  facts.  Palseontoiogieal  life  was 
not  only  a  struggle  for  life,  but  a  struggle  for  the  life  of  others.  The  beginnings  of 
altruism  are  to  be  seen  in  the  instinct  of  reprodud  ion  and  in  the  care  of  offspring.  In 
every  lion's  den  and  tiger's  lair,  in  every  mother-eagle's  feeding  of  her  young,  there 
is  a  Belf -sacrifice  which  faintly  shadows  forth  man's  subordination  of  personal  interests 
to  the  interests  of  others. 

Dr.  George  Harris,  in  his  Moral  Evolution,  has  added  to  Drummord's  doctrine  the 
further  consideration  that  the  struggle  for  one's  own  life  has  its  moral  side  as  well  as 
the  struggle  for  the  life  of  others.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  the  beginning 
of  right,  righteousness,  justice  and  law  upon  earth.  Every  creature  owes  it  to  God  to 
preserve  its  own  being.  So  we  can  find  an  adumbration  of  morality  even  in  the  preda- 
tory  and  internecine  warfare  of  the  geologic  ages.  The  immanent  God  was  even  then 
preparing  the  way  for  the  rights,  the  dignity,  the  freedom  of  humanity.  B.  P.  howne, 
in  the  Independent,  April  19, 1000 — "  The  Copernican  system  made  men  dizzy  for  a  time, 
and  they  held  on  to  t  he  Ptolemaic  system  to  escape  vertigo.  In  like  manner  the  con- 
ception of  God,  as  revealing  himself  in  a  great  historic  movement  and  process,  in  the 
consciences  and  lives  of  holy  men,  in  the  unfolding  life  of  the  church,  makes  dizzy  the 
believer  in  a  dictated  book,  and  he  longs  for  some  fixed  word  that  shall  be  sure  and 
stedfast."  God  is  not  limited  to  creating  from  without :  he  can  also  create  from  within ; 
and  development  is  as  much  a  part  of  creation  as  is  the  origination  of  the  elements. 
For  further  discussion  of  man's  origin,  see  section  on  Man  a  Creation  of  God,  in  our 
treatment  of  Anthropology. 

2.     Its  proper  interpretation. 

We  adt>2)t  neither  (  a  )  the  allegorical,  or  mythical,  (  h  )  the  hyperliteral, 
nor  (c)  the  hy pel-scientific  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  narrative;  but 
rather  (d)  the  pictorial-summary  interpretation, — which  holds  that  the 
account  is  a  rough  sketch  of  the  history  of  creation,  true  in  all  its  essential 
features,  but  presented  in  a  graphic  form  suited  to  the  common  mind  and 
to  earlier  as  well  as  to  later  ages.  While  conveying  to  primitive  man  as 
accurate  an  idea  of  God's  work  as  man  was  able  to  comprehend,  the  revela- 


394  THE    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

tion  was  yet  given  in  pregnant  language,  so  that  it  could  expand  to  all  the 
ascertained  residts  of  subsequent  physical  research.  This  general  corres- 
pondence of  the  narrative  with  the  teachings  of  science,  and  its  power  to 
adapt  itself  to  every  advance  in  human  knowledge,  differences  it  from  every 
other  cosmogony  current  among  men. 

( a )  The  allegorical,  or  mythical  interpretation  represents  the  Mosaic  account  as 
embodying,  like  the  Indian  and  Greek  cosmogonies,  the  poetic  speculations  of  an  early 
race  as  to  the  origin  of  the  present  system.  We  object  to  this  interpretation  upon  the 
ground  that  the  narrative  of  creation  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  succeeding 
history,  and  is  therefore  most  naturally  regarded  as  itself  historical.  This  connection 
of  the  narrative  of  creation  with  the  subsequent  history,  moreover,  prevents  us  from 
believing  it  to  be  the  description  of  a  vision  granted  to  Moses.  It  is  more  probably  the 
record  of  an  original  revelation  to  the  first  man,  handed  down  to  Moses'  time,  and  used 
by  Moses  as  a  proper  introduction  to  his  history. 

We  object  also  to  the  view  of  some  higher  critics  that  the  book  of  Genesis  contains 
two  inconsistent  stories.  Marcus  Dods,  Book  of  Genesis,  2 — "The  compiler  of  this 
book  . . .  lays  side  by  side  two  accounts  of  man's  creation  which  no  ingenuity  can  recon- 
cile." Charles  A.  Briggs:  "The  doctrine  of  creation  in  Genesis  1  is  altogether  differ- 
ent from  that  taught  in  Genesis  2."  W.  N.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  199-201  —  "  It  has 
been  commonly  assumed  that  the  two  are  parallel,  and  tell  one  and  the  same  story  ; 
but  examination  shows  that  this  is  not  the  case.  .  .  .  We  have  here  the  record  of  a 
tradition,  rather  than  a  revelation.  ...  It  cannot  be  taken  as  literal  history,  and  it 
does  not  tell  by  divine  authority  how  man  was  created."  To  these  utterances  we  reply 
that  the  two  accounts  are  not  inconsistent  but  complementary,  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  describing  man's  creation  as  the  crown  of  God's  general  work,  the  second 
describing  man's  creation  with  greater  particularity  as  the  beginning  of  human 
history. 

Canon  Rawlinson,  in  Aids  to  Faith,  275,  compares  the  Mosaic  account  with  the  cos- 
mogony of  Berosus,  the  Chaldean.  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  of  Religion,  1 :  267--72,  gives  an 
account  of  heathen  theories  of  the  origin  of  the  universe.  Anaxagoras  was  the  first 
who  represented  the  chaotic  first  matter  as  formed  through  the  ordering  understand- 
ing ( yoOs )  of  God,  and  Aristotle  for  that  reason  called  him  "  the  first  sober  one  among 
many  drunken."  Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  138  —  "  In  these  cosmogonies  the  world  and 
the  gods  grow  up  together ;  cosmogony  is,  at  the  same  time,  theogony."  Dr.  E.  G. 
Robinson :  "  The  Bible  writers  believed  and  intended  to  state  that  the  world  was  made 
in  three  literal  days.  But,  on  the  principle  that  God  may  have  meant  more  than  they 
did,  the  doctrine  of  periods  may  not  be  inconsistent  with  their  account."  For  com- 
parison of  the  Biblical  with  heathen  cosmogonies,  see  Blackie  in  Theol.  Eclectic,  1 :  77- 
87;  Guyot,  Creation,  58-63;  Pope,  Theology,  1:401,  402;  Bible  Commentary,  1:36,48; 
Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  1-54;  J.  F.  Clarke,  Ten  Great  Religious,  2  :  193- 
221.  For  the  theory  of  'prophetic  vision,'  see  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  Old  Covenant,  Introd., 
i-xxxvii,  civ-exxx  ;  and  Hugh  Miller,  Testimony  of  the  Rocks,  179-210 ;  Hastings,  Diet. 
Bible,  art.:  Cosmogony;  Sayce,  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  372-397. 

( b )  The  hyperliteral  interpretation  would  withdraw  the  narrative  from  all  compar- 
ison with  the  conclusions  of  science,  by  putting  the  ages  of  geological  history  between 
the  first  and  second  verses  of  Gen.  1,  and  by  making  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  an 
account  of  the  fitting  up  of  the  earth,  or  of  some  limited  portion  of  it,  in  six  days  of 
twenty-four  hours  each.  Among  the  advocates  of  this  view,  now  generally  discarded, 
are  Chalmers,  Natural  Theology,  Works,  1 :  228-258,  and  John  Pye  Smith,  Mosaic  Account 
of  Creation,  and  Scripture  and  Geology.  To  this  view  we  object  that  there  is  no  indica- 
tion, in  the  Mosaic  narrative,  of  so  vast  an  interval  between  the  first  and  the  second 
verses ;  that  there  is  no  indication,  in  the  geological  history,  of  any  such  break  between 
the  ages  of  preparation  and  the  present  time  (see  Hugh  Miller,  Testimony  of  the 
Rocks,  141-178) ;  and  that  there  are  indications  in  the  Mosaic  record  itself  that  the  word 
"  day"  is  not  used  in  its  literal  sense ;  while  the  other  Scriptures  unquestionably  employ 
it  to  designate  a  period  of  indefinite  duration  (Gen.  1 :  5— "God  called  the  light  Day  "  —  a  day 
before  there  was  a  sun;  8— "there  was  evening  and  there  was  morning,  a  second  day  "  ;  2  :  2  —  God 
"  rested  on  the  seventh  day  "  ;  cf.  Heb.  4  : 3-10  —  where  God's  day  of  rest  seems  to  continue,  and 
his  people  are  exhorted  to  enter  into  it;  Gen.2:4  —  "the  day  that  Jehovah  made  earth  and  heaven  " 
—  "day"  here  covers  all  the  seven  days ;  cf.  Is.  2:12  —  "a  day  of  Jehovah  of  hosts"  ;  Zech.  14  : 7  —  "it 
shall  be  one  day  which  is  known  unto  Jehovah  ;  not  day,  and  not  night "  ;  2  Pet.  3:8  —  "  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as 


THE   MOSAIC    ACCCr.VT    OF    CREATION".  395 

a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day  " ).  Guyot,  Creation,  34,  objects  also  to  this  inter- 
pretation, that  the  narrative  purports  to  give  a  history1  of  the  making  of  the  heavens 
as  well  as  Of  the  earth  (  Gen.  2 : 4  —  "  these  are  the  generations  of  the  heaven  and  of  the  earth"  ),  whereas 
this  interpretation  confines  the  history  to  the  earth.  On  the  meaning' of  the  word  "day," 
as  a  period  of  indefinite  duration,  see  Dana,  Manual  of  Geology,  744;  LeConte,  Religion 
and  Science,  262. 

( c)  The  hypersdentific  interpretation  would  find  in  the  narrative  a  minute  and  pre- 
cise correspondence  with  the  geological  record.  This  is  not  to  be  expected,  since  it  is 
foreign  to  the  purpose  of  revelation  to  teach  science.  Although  a  general  concord 
bel  ween  the  Mosaic  and  geological  histories  may  be  pointed  out,  it  is  a  needless  embar- 
rassment to  compel  ourselves  to  find  in  every  detail  of  the  former  an  accurate  state- 
ment of  some  scientilic  fact.    Far  more  probable  we  hold  to  be 

( d)  The  pictorial-summary  Interpretation.  Before  explaining  this  in  detail,  we  would 
premise  that  we  do  not  hold  this  or  any  future  scheme  of  reconciling  Genesis  and  geol- 
ogy to  be  a  finality.  Such  a  settlement  of  all  the  questions  involved  would  presuppose 
not  only  a  perfected  science  of  the  physical  universe,  but  also  a  perfected  science  of 
hermeneuties.  It  is  enough  if  we  can  offer  tentative  solutions  which  represent  the 
present  state  of  thought  upon  the  subject.  Remembering,  then,  that  any  such  scheme 
of  reconciliation  may  speedily  be  outgrown  without  prejudice  to  the  truth  of  the 
Scripture  narrative,  we  present  the  following  as  an  approximate  account  of  the  coin- 
cidences between  the  Mosaic  and  the  geological  records.  The  scheme  here  given  is  a 
combination  of  the  conclusions  of  Dana  and  Guyot,  and  assumes  the  substantial  truth 
of  the  nebular  hypothesis.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Augustine,  who  knew 
nothing  of  modern  science,  should  have  reached,  by  simple  study  of  t  he  text,  some  of 
the  same  results.  See  his  Confessions,  12 : 8  — "First  God  created  a  chaotic  matter, 
which  was  nest  to  nothing.  This  chaotic  matter  was  made  from  nothing,  before  all 
days.  Then  this  chaotic,  amorphous  matter  was  subsequent^'  arranged,  in  the  suc- 
ceeding six  days";  De  Genes,  ad  Lit.,  4:27  —  "The  length  of  these  days  is  not  to  be 
determined  by  the  length  of  our  week-days.  There  is  a  series  iu  both  cases,  and  that 
is  all."    We  proceed  now  to  the  scheme  : 

1.  The  earth,  if  originally  in  the  condition  of  a  gaseous  fluid,  must  have  been  void 
and  formless  as  described  in  Genesis  1:2.  Here  the  earth  is  not  yet  separated  from  the 
condensing  nebula,  and  its  fluid  com  lit  ion  is  indicated  by  the  term  "waters." 

2.  The  beginning  of  activity  in  matter  would  manifest  itself  by  the  production  of 
light,  since  light  is  a  resultant  of  molecular  activity.  This  corresponds  to  the  state- 
ment in  verse  3.  As  the  result  of  condensation,  the  nebula  becomes  luminous,  and  this 
process  from  darkness  to  light  is  described  as  foil'  iws  :  "there  was  evening  and  there  was  morning, 
one  day."  Here  we  have  a  day  without  a  Sun— a  teat  lire  in  the  narrative  quite  consist  cut 
with  two  facts  of  science:  first,  that  the  nebula  would  naturally  be  self-luminous, and, 
secondly,  that  the  earth  proper,  which  reached  its  present  form  before  t  he  sun,  would, 
when  it  was  thrown  off,  be  itself  a  self-luminous  and  molten  mass.  The  day  was  there- 
fi  ii  e  continuous  —  day  without  night. 

;s.  The  development  of  the  earl  h  into  an  independent  sphere  and  its  separation  from 
the  fluid  around  it  answers  to  the  dividing  of  "the  waters  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters  above," 
in  verse 7.  Here  the  word  "waters"  is  used  to  designate  the  "primordial  cosmic  material" 
( Guyot,  Creation,  :>">-:;7 ),  or  the  molten  mass  of  earth  and  sun  united,  from  which  the 
earth  is  thrown  off.  The  term  "waters"  is  the  best  which  the  Hebrew  language  affords  to 
express  this  idea  of  a  fluid  mass.  Ps.  148  seems  to  have  this  meaning,  where  it  speaks  of 
the  "waters  that  are  above  the  heavens"  (verse  4)  —  waters  which  are  distinguished  from  the 
" deeps  "  below  ( verse  7  ),  and  the  "  vapor  "  above  ( verse  8  ). 

4.  The  production  of  the  earth's  physical  features  by  the  partial  condensation  of  the 
vapors  which  enveloped  the  igneous  sphere,  and  by  the  consequent  outlining  of  the 
continents  and  oceans,  is  next  described  in  verse  9  as  the  gathering  of  the  waters  into  one 
place  and  the  appearing  of  the  dry  land. 

5.  The  expression  of  the  idea  of  life  in  the  lowest  plants,  since  it  was  in  type  and 
effect  the  creation  of  the  vegetable  kingdom,  is  next  described  in  verse  11  as  a  bringing 
into  existence  of  the  characteristic  forms  of  that  kingdom.  This  precedes  all  mention 
of  animal  life,  since  the  vegetable  kingdom  is  the  natural  basis  of  the  animal.  If  it  be 
said  that  our  earliest  fossils  are  animal,  we  reply  that  the  earliest  vegetable  forms,  the 
algrVy  were  easily  dissolved,  and  might  as  easily  disappear;  that  graphite  and  bog-iron 
ore,  appearing  lower  down  than  any  animal  remains,  are  the  result  of  preceding  vege- 
tation; that  animal  forms,  whenever  and  wherever  existing,  must  subsist  upon  and 
presuppose  the  vegetable.    The  Eozoon  is  of  necessity  preceded  by  the  Eophyte.     If  it 


396  THE   WORKS   OP   GOD. 

be  said  that  fruit-trees  could  not  have  been  created  on  the  third  day,  we  reply  that 
sinee  the  creation  of  the  vegetable  kingdom  was  to  be  described  at  one  stroke  and  no 
mention  of  it  was  to  be  made  subsequently,  this  is  the  proper  place  to  introduce  it  and 
to  mention  its  main  characteristic  forins.  See  Bible  Commentary,  1:36;  LeConte, 
Elements  of  Geology,  136,  285. 

6.  The  vapors  which  have  hitherto  shrouded  the  planet  are  now  cleared  away  as  pre- 
liminary to  the  introduction  of  life  in  its  higher  animal  forins.  The  consequent 
appearance  of  solar  light  is  described  in  ver.es  16  and  17  as  a  making  of  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  and  a  giving  of  them  as  luminaries  to  the  earth.  Compare  Gen.  9 :  13  — "I  do  set  my 
bow  in  the  cloud."  As  the  rainbow  had  existed  in  nature  before,  but  was  now  appointed  to 
serve  a  peculiar  purpose,  so  in  the  record  of  creation  sun,  moon  and  stars,  which  existed 
before,  were  appointed  as  visible  lights  for  the  earth,  —  and  that  for  the  reason  that  the 
earth  was  no  longer  self-luminous,  and  the  light  of  the  sun  struggling  through  the 
earth's  encompassing  clouds  was  not  sufficient  for  the  higher  forms  of  life  which  were 
to  come. 

7.  The  exhibition  of  the  four  grand  types  of  the  animal  kingdom  ( radiate,  molluscan, 
articulate,  vertebrate),  which  characterizes  the  next  stage  of  geological  progress,  is 
represented  in  verses  20  and  21  as  a  creation  of  the  lower  animals  —  those  that  swarm  in 
the  waters,  and  the  creeping  and  flying  species  of  the  land.  Huxley,  in  his  American 
Addresses,  objects  to  this  assigning  of  the  origin  of  birds  to  the  fifth  day,  and  declares 
that  terrestrial  animals  exist  in  lower  strata  than  any  form  of  bird, —  birds  appearing 
only  in  the  Oolitic,  or  New  Red  Sandstone.  But  we  reply  that  the  lifth  day  is  devoted 
to  sea-productions,  while  land-productions  belong  to  the  sixth.  Birds,  according  to  the 
latest  science,  are  sea-productions,  not  land-productions.  They  originated  from  Sauri- 
aus,  and  were,  at  the  first,  flying  lizards.  There  being  but  one  meution  of  sea-produc- 
tions, all  these,  birds  included,  are  crowded  into  the  fifth  day.  Thus  Genesis  antici- 
pates the  latest  science.  On  the  ancestry  of  birds,  see  Pop.  Science  Monthly,  March, 
1884  :  606  ;  Baptist  Magazine,  1877  :  505. 

8.  The  introduction  of  mammals  —  viviparous  species,  which  are  eminent  above  all 
other  vertebrates  for  a  quality  prophetic  of  a  high  moral  purpose,  that  of  suckling  their 
young  —  is  indicated  in  verses  24  and  25  by  the  creation,  on  the  sixth  day,  of  cattle  and 
beasts  of  prey. 

9.  Man,  the  first  being  of  moral  and  intellectual  qualities,  and  the  first  in  whom  the 
unity  of  the  great  design  has  full  expression,  forms  in  both  the  Mosaic  aud  geologic- 
record  the  last  step  of  progress  in  creation  ( see  verses  2G-31 ).  With  Prof.  Dana,  we  may 
say  that  "  in  this  succession  we  observe  not  merely  an  order  of  events  like  that  deduced 
from  science ;  there  is  a  system  in  the  arrangement,  and  a  far-reaching  prophecy,  to 
which  philosophy  could  not  have  attained,  however  instructed."  See  Dana,  Manual 
of  Geology,  741-746,  and  Bib.  Sac.,  April,  1885  :  201-224.  Richard  Owen  :  "  Man  from  the 
begiuning  of  organisms  was  ideally  present  upon  the  earth  ";  see  Owen,  Anatomy  of 
Vertebrates,  3 : 796 ;  Louis  Agassiz :  "Man  is  the  purpose  toward  which  the  whole 
animal  creation  tends  from  the  first  appearance  of  the  first  palaeozoic  fish." 

Prof.  John  M.  Taylor :  "  Man  is  not  merely  a  mortal  but  a  moral  being.  If  he  sinks 
below  this  plane  of  life  he  misses  the  path  marked  out  for  him  by  all  his  past  develop- 
ment. In  order  to  progress,  the  higher  vertebrate  had  to  subordinate  everything  to 
mental  development.  In  order  to  become  human  it  had  to  develop  the  rational  intelli- 
gence. In  order  to  become  higher  man,  present  man  must  subordinate  everything  to 
moral  development.  This  is  the  great  law  of  animal  and  human  development  clearly 
revealed  in  the  sequence  of  physical  and  psychical  functions."  W.  E.  Gladstone  in  S. 
S.  Times,  April  36, 1890,  calls  the  Mosaic  days  "  chapters  in  the  history  of  creation."  He 
objects  to  calling  them  epochs  or  periods,  because  they  are  not  of  equal  length,  and 
they  sometimes  overlap.  But  he  defends  the  general  correspondence  of  the  Mosaic 
narrative  with  the  latest  conclusions  of  science,  and  remarks :  "Any  man  whose  labor 
and  duty  for  several  scores  of  years  has  included  as  their  central  point  the  study  of  the 
means  of  making  himself  intelligible  to  the  mass  of  men,  is  in  a  far  better  position  to 
judge  what  would  be  the  forms  and  methods  of  speech  proper  for  the  Mosaic  writer  to 
adopt,  than  the  most  perfect  Hebraist  as  such,  or  the  most  consummate  votary  of 
physical  science  as  such." 

On  the  whole  subject,  see  Guyot,  Creation  ;  Review  of  Guyot,  in  N.  Eug.,  July,  1884 : 
591-594 ;  Tayler  Lewis,  Six  Days  of  Creation  ;  Thompson,  Man  in  Genesis  and  in  Geology ; 
Agassiz,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  Jan.  1874 ;  Dawson,  Story  of  the  Earth  aud  Man,  32,  and 
in  Expositor,  Apl.  1886 ;  LeConte,  Science  and  Religion,  264 ;  Hill,  in  Bib.  Sac,  April, 
1875 ;  Peirce,  Ideality  in  the  Physical  Sciences,  38-72 ;  Boardman,  The  Creative  Week ; 


GOD'S    END    IX   CREATION.  397 

Godet,  Bib.  Studies  of  O.  T.,  65-138 ;  Bell,  in  Nature,  Nov.  34  and  Dec.  1,  1883 ;  W.  E 
Gladstone,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Nov.  18S5 :  685-707,  Jan.  1886 : 1, 176 ;  reply  by  Huxley, 
in  Nineteenth  Century,  Dec.  1885,  and  Feb.  1886;  Schmid,  Theories  of  Darwin;  Bart- 
lett,  Sources  of  History  in  the  Pentateuch,  1-35 ;  Cotterill,  Does  Science  Aid  Faith  in 
Regard  to  Creation  ?  Cox,  Miracles,  1-39  — chapter  i,  on  the  Original  Miracle  —  that  of 
Creation  ;  Zoekler,  Theologie  und  Naturwissenschaft,  and  Urgeschichte,  1-77;  Reusch, 
Bib.  Schopf  ungsgeschiehtc.  On  difficulties  of  the  nebular  hj^pothesis,  see  Stallo,  Mod- 
ern Physics,  277-293. 

V.     God's  End  in  Cueation. 

Infinite  wisdom  must,  in  creating,  propose  to  itself  the  most  comprehen- 
sive and  the  most  valuable  of  ends, — the  end  most  worthy  of  God,  and  the 
end  most  fruitful  iu  good.  Only  in  the  light  of  the  end  proposed  can  we 
properly  judge  of  God's  work,  or  of  God's  character  as  revealed  therein. 

It  would  seem  that  Scripture  should  give  us  an  answer  to  the  question :  Why  did 
God  create  ?  The  great  Architect  can  best  tell  his  own  design.  Ambrose :  "  To  whom 
shall  I  give  greater  credit  concerning  God  than  to  God  himself?  "  George  A.  Gordon, 
New  Epoch  for  Faith,  IS  —  "  <  '•<  »1  is  necessarily  a  being  of  ends.  Teleology  is  the  warp 
and  woof  of  humanity;  it  must  be  in  the  warp  and  woof  of  Deity.  Evolutionary 
science  has  but  strengthened  this  view.  Natural  science  is  but  a  mean  disguise  for 
ignorance  if  it  does  not  imply  cosmical  purpose.  The  movement  of  life  from  lower  to 
higher  is  a  movement  upon  ends.  Will  is  the  last  account  of  the  universe,  and  will  is 
the  faculty  for  ends.  The  moment  one  concludes  that  God  is,  it  appeal's  certain  that 
he  is  a  being  of  ends.  The  universe  is  alive  with  desire  and  movement.  Fundamentally 
it  is  throughout  an  expression  of  will.  And  it  follows,  that  the  ultimate  end  of  God  in 
human  history  must  be  worthy  of  himself." 

In  determining  this  end,  we  turn  first  to  : 
1.     The  testimony  of  Scripture. 

This  may  be  summed  up  in  four  statements.  God  finds  his  end  (  a  )  in 
himself  ;  (  b  )  in  his  own  will  and  pleasure  ;  ( c  )  in  his  own  glory  ;  (  d)  in 
the  making  known  of  his  power,  his  wisdom,  his  holy  name.  All  these 
statements  may  be  combined  in  the  following,  namely,  that  God's  supreme 
end  in  creation  is  nothing  outside  of  himself,  but  is  his  own  glory  —  in  the 
revelation,  in  and  through  creatures,  of  the  infinite  perfection  of  his  own 
being. 

(a)  Rom.  11 :  36  - -"  unto  him  are  all  things";  Col.  1:16 — "all  things  have  been  created  ....  unto  him" 
(  Christ ) ;  compare  Is.  48 :  11  —  "  for  mine  own  sake,  for  mine  own  sake,  will  I  do  it  ....  and  my  glory  will  I 
not  give  to  another  "  ;  and  1  Cor.  15 :  28  —  "  subject  all  things  unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all"  Proverbs  16 : 4 
■=  not  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself  "  (  A.  V. )  but  "  Jehovah  hath  made  every- 
thing for  its  own  end  "  (  Rev.  Vers.). 

(?>)  Eph.  1:5,  6,  9— "having  foreordained  us  ...  .  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praiso  of 
the  glory  of  his  grace  ....  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to  his  good  pleasure  which  he  purposed  in  him  "  ;  Rev. 
4 :  11  —  "  thou  didst  creata  all  things,  and  because  of  thy  will  they  were,  and  were  created." 

( c )  Is.  43 : 7  —  "  whom  I  have  created  for  my  glory  "  ;  60 :  21  and  61 : 3  —  the  righteousness  and  bless- 
edness of  the  redeemed  are  secured,  that  "  he  may  be  glorified  " ;  Luke2:14  —  the  angels'  song 
at  the  birth  of  Christ  expressed  the  design  of  the  work  of  salvation  :  "Glory  to  God  in  the 
highest,"  and  only  through,  and  for  its  sake,  "  on  earth  peace  among  men  in  whom  he  is  well  pleased." 

(d)  Ps.  143:11  —"In  thy  righteousness  bring  my  soul  out  of  trouble";  Ez.  36:21,  22 — "I  do  not  this  for  your 
sake  ....  but  for  mine  holy  name  "  ;  39  : 7  — "  my  holy  name  will  I  make  known";  Rom. 9:17  —  to  Pharaoh  : 
"  For  this  very  purpose  did  I  raise  thee  up,  that  I  might  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  might  be  published 
abroad  in  all  the  earth  "  ;  22,  23 — "riches  of  his  glory"  made  known  in  vessels  of  wrath,  and  in 
vessels  of  mercy  ;  Eph.  3 : 9, 10  —  "  created  all  things ;  to  the  intent  that  now  unto  the  principalities  and  the 
powers  in  the  heavenly  places  might  be  made  known  through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God."  See  Godet, 
on  Ultimate  Design  of  Man ;  "  God  in  man  and  man  in  God,"  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Nov. 
1880 ;  H  odge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  436,  535, 565, 568.  Per  contra,  see  Miller,  Fetich  in  Theology, 
19,39-45,  88-98,  113-146. 


398  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Since  holiness  is  the  fundamental  attribute  in  God,  to  make  himself,  his 
own  pleasure,  his  own  glory,  his  own  manifestation,  to  be  his  end  in  crea- 
tion, is  to  find  his  chief  end  in  his  own  holiness,  its  maintenance,  expres- 
sion, and  communication.  To  make  this  his  chief  end,  however,  is  not  to 
exclude  certain  subordinate  ends,  such  as  the  revelation  of  his  wisdom, 
power,  and  love,  and  the  consequent  happiness  of  innumerable  creatures  to 
whom  this  revelation  is  made. 

God's  glory  is  that  which  makes  him  glorious.  It  is  not  something  without,  like  the 
praise  and  esteem  of  men,  but  something  within,  like  the  dignity  and  value  of  his  own 
attributes.  To  a  noble  man,  praise  is  very  distasteful  unless  he  is  conscious  of  some- 
thing in  himself  that  justifies  it.  We  must  be  like  God  to  be  self-respecting.  Pythag- 
oras said  well :  "  Man's  end  is  to  be  like  God."  And  so  God  must  look  within,  and 
find  his  honor  and  his  end  in  himself.  Robert  Browning,  Hohenstiel-Schwangau : 
•'  This  is  the  glory,  that  in  all  conceived  Or  felt  or  known,  I  recognize  a  Mind,  Not 
mine  but  like  mine,— for  the  double  joy  Making  all  things  for  me,  and  me  for  Him." 
Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  214-216  —  "  God  glorifies  himself  in  communicating  himself." 
The  object  of  his  love  is  the  exercise  of  his  holiness.  Self-affirmation  conditions  self- 
communication. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  94, 196  —  "  Law  and  gospel  are  only  two  sides  of 
the  one  object,  the  highest  glory  of  God  in  the  highest  good  of  man  ....  Nor  is  it 
unworthy  of  God  to  make  himself  his  own  end :  (a)  It  is  both  unworthy  and  criminal 
for  a  finite  being  to  make  himself  his  own  end,  because  it  is  an  end  that  can  be  reached 
only  by  degrading  self  and  wronging  others  ;  but  (b)  For  an  infinite  Creator  not  to 
make  himself  his  own  end  would  be  to  dishonor  himself  and  wrong  his  creatures ;  since, 
thereby,  Cfi)  he  musteither  act  without  an  end,  which  is  irrational,  or  from  an  end  which 
is  impossible  without  wronging  his  creatures ;  because  ( d )  the  highest  welfare  of  his 
creatures,  aud  consequently  their  happiness,  is  impossible  except  through  the  subor- 
dination and  conformity  of  their  wills  to  that  of  their  infinitely  perfect  Ruler;  and 
(  e  )  without  this  highest  welfare  and  happiness  of  his  creatures  God's  own  end  itself 
becomes  impossible,  for  he  is  glorified  only  as  his  character  is  reflected  in,  and  recog- 
nized by,  his  intelligent  creatures."  Creation  can  add  nothing  to  the  essential  wealth 
or  worthiness  of  God.  If  the  end  were  outside  himself,  it  would  make  him  depend- 
ent and  a  servant.  The  old  theologians  therefore  spoke  of  God's  "  declarative  glory," 
rather  than  God's  "essential  glory,"  as  resulting  from  man's  obedience  and  salvation. 

2.     The  testimony  of  reason. 

That  bis  own  glory,  in  the  sense  just  mentioned,  is  God's  supreme  end 
in  creation,  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 

( a )  God's  own  glory  is  the  only  end  actually  and  perfectly  attained  in 
the  universe.  "Wisdom  and  omnipotence  cannot  choose  an  end  which  is 
destined  to  be  forever  unattained  ;  for  "what  his  soul  desireth,  even  that 
he  doeth"  (Job  23  :13).  God's  supreme  end  cannot  be  the  happiness  of 
creatures,  since  many  are  miserable  here  and  will  be  miserable  forever. 
God's  supreme  end  cannot  be  the  holiness  of  creatures,  for  many  are 
unholy  here  and  will  be  unholy  forever.  But  while  neither  the  holiness 
nor  the  happiness  of  creatures  is  actually  and  perfectly  attained,  God's 
glory  is  made  known  and  will  be  made  known  in  both  the  saved  and  the 
lost.     This  then  must  be  God's  supreme  end  in  creation. 

This  doctrine  teaches  us  that  none  can  frustrate  G  od's  plan.  God  will  get  glory  out 
of  every  human  life.  Man  may  glorify  God  voluntarily  by  love  and  obedience,  but  if 
he  will  not  do  this  he  will  be  compelled  to  glorify  God  by  his  rejection  and  punishment. 
Better  be  the  molten  iron  that  runs  freely  into  the  mold  prepared  by  the  great 
Designer,  than  be  the  hard  and  cold  iron  that  must  be  hammered  into  shape.  Cleanthes, 
quoted  by  Seneca :  "  Ducunt  volentem  fata,  nolentem  trahunt."  W.  C.  Wilkinson, 
Epic  of  Saul,  271  —  "But  some  are  tools,  and  others  ministers,  Of  God,  who  works  his 
holy  will  with  all."    Christ  baptizes  "in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire''   (Mat.  3:11).    Alexander 


god's  end  in  creation.  399 

Mc  Laren :  "  There  are  two  fires,  to  one  or  other  of  which  we  must  be  delivered.  Either 
we  shall  gladly  accept  the  purifying  fire  of  the  Spirit  which  burns  sin  out  of  us,  or  we 
shall  have  to  meet  the  punitive  fire  which  burns  up  us  and  our  sins  together.  To  be 
cleansed  by  the  one  or  to  be  consumed  by  the  other  is  the  choice  before  each  one  of 
us."  Hare,  Mission  of  the  Comforter.^on  John  16:8,  shows  that  the  Holy  Spirit  either 
convinces  those  who  yield  to  his  influence,  or  convicts  those  who  resist  —  the  word  eAeyx<° 
having  this  double  significance. 

(  b  )  God's  glory  is  the  end  intrinsically  most  valuable.  The  good  of 
creatures  is  of  insignificant  importance  compared  with  this.  Wisdom  dic- 
tates that  the  greater  interest  should  have  precedence  of  the  less.  Because 
God  can  choose  no  greater  end,  he  must  choose  for  his  end  himself.  But 
this  is  to  choose  his  holiness,  and  his  glory  in  the  manifestation  of  that 
holiness. 

Is.  40 :  15, 16 —  "Behold,  the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  a  bucket,  and  are  counted  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance  " 
—  like  the  drop  that  falls  unobserved  from  the  bucket,  like  the  fine  dust  of  the  scales 
which  the  tradesman  takes  no  notice  of  in  weighing,  so  are  all  the  combined  millions  i  > I 
earth  and  heaven  before  God.  He  created,  and  he  can  in  an  instant  destroy.  The  uni- 
verse is  but  a  drop  of  dew  upon  the  fringe  of  his  garment.  It  is  more  important  that 
God  should  be  glorified  than  that  the  universe  should  be  happy.  As  we  read  in  Heb.  6 :  13 
— "since  he  could  swear  by  none  greater,  ho  sware  by  himself" — so  here  we  may  say  :  Because  he  could 
choose  no  greater  end  in  creating,  he  chose  himself.  Hut  to  swear  by  himself  is  to  swear 
by  his  holiness  ( Ps.  89 :  35  ).  We  infer  that  to  find  his  end  in  himself  is  to  find  that  end  in 
his  holiness.    See  Martineau  on  Malebranche,  in  Types,  177. 

The  stick  or  the  stone  does  not  exist  for  itself,  but  for  some  consciousness.  The  soul 
of  man  exists  in  part  for  itself.  But  it  is  conscious  that  in  a  more  important  sense  it 
exists  for  God.  "  Modern  thought,''  it  is  said,  "  worships  and  serves  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator  ;  indeed,  the  chief  end  of  the  Creator  seems  to  be  to  glorify  man  and 
to  enjoy  him  forever."  So  the  small  boy  said  his  Catechism:  "Man's  chief  end  is  to 
glorify  God  and  to  annoy  him  forever."  Prof.  Clifford:  "The  kingdom  of  God  is 
obsolete ;  the  kingdom  of  man  has  now  come."  All  this  is  the  insanity  of  sin.  Per 
contra,  see  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  329,  330  —  "Two  things  are  plain  in  Edwards's 
doctrine:  first,  that  God  cannot  love  anything  other  than  himself:  lie  is  so  great,  6o 
preponderating  an  amount  of  being,  that  what  is  left  is  hardly  worth  considering ; 
secondly,  so  far  as  God  has  any  love  for  the  creature,  it  is  because  he  is  himself  diffused 
therein  :  the  fulness  of  his  own  essence  has  overflowed  into  an  outer  world,  and  that 
which  he  loves  in  created  beings  is  his  essence  imparted  to  them."  But  we  would  add 
that  Edwards  does  not  say  they  are  themselves  of  the  essence  of  God ;  see  his  Works, 
2 :  210,  211. 

(  c )  His  own  glory  is  the  only  end  which  consists  with  God's  independ- 
ence and  sovereignty.  Every  being  is  dependent  upon  whomsoever  or 
whatsoever  he  makes  his  ultimate  end.  If  anything  in  the  creature  is  the 
last  end  of  God,  God  is  dependent  upon  the  creature.  But  since  God  is 
dependent  only  on  himself,  he  must  find  in  himself  his  end. 

To  create  is  not  to  increase  his  blessedness,  but  only  to  reveal  it.  There  is  no  need 
or  deficiency  which  creation  supplies.  The  creatures  who  derive  all  from  him  can  add 
nothing  to  him.  All  our  worship  is  only  the  rendering  back  to  him  of  that  which  is  his 
own.  He  notices  us  only  for  his  own  sake  and  not  because  our  little  rivulets  of  praise 
add  anything  to  the  ocean-like  fulness  of  his  joy.  For  his  own  sake,  and  not  because 
of  our  misery  or  our  prayers,  he  redeems  and  exalts  us.  To  make  our  pleasure  and 
welfare  his  ultimate  end  would  be  to  abdicate  his  throne.  He  creates,  therefore,  only 
for  his  own  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  his  glory.  To  this  reasoning  the  London  Spectator 
replies:  "The  glory  of  God  is  the  splendor  of  a  manifestation,  not  the  intrinsic  splendor 
manifested.  The  splendor  of  a  manifestation,  however,  consists  in  the  effect  of  the 
manifestation  on  those  to  whom  it  is  given.  Precisely  because  the  manifestation  of 
Got 's  goodness  can  be  useful  to  us  and  cannot  be  useful  to  him,  must  its  manifestation 
be  intended  for  our  sake  and  not  for  his  sake.  We  gain  everything  by  it  —  he  nothing, 
except  so  far  as  it  is  his  own  will  that  we  should  gain  what  he  desires  to  bestow  upon 


400  THE    WOEKS   OF   GOD. 

us."  In  this  last  clause  we  find  the  acknowledgment  of  weakness  in  the  theory  that 
God's  supreme  end  is  the  good  of  his  creatures.  God  does  gain  the  fulfilment  of  his 
plan,  the  doing  of  his  will,  the  manifestation  of  himself.  The  great  painter  loves  his 
picture  less  than  he  loves  his  ideal.  He  paints  iu  order  to  express  himself.  God  loves 
each  soul  which  he  creates,  but  he  loves  yet  more  the  expression  of  his  own  perfections 
in  it.  And  this  self-expression  is  his  end.  Robert  Browning,  Paracelsus,  54—  "  God  is 
the  perfect  Poet,  Who  in  creation  acts  his  own  conceptions."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
1 :  357,  358 ;  Shairp,  Province  of  Poetry,  11, 12. 

God's  love  makes  him  a  self-expressing  being.  Self-expression  is  an  inborn  impulse 
in  his  creatures.  All  genius  partakes  of  this  characteristic  of  God.  Sin  substitutes 
concealment  for  outflow,  and  stops  this  self-communication  which  would  make  the 
good  of  each  the  good  of  all.  Yet  even  sin  cannot  completely  prevent  it.  The  wicked 
man  is  impelled  to  confess.  By  natural  law  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  will  be  made  mani- 
fest at  the  judgment.  Regeneration  restores  the  freedom  and  joy  of  self-manifesta- 
tion. Christianity  and  confession  of  Christ  are  inseparable.  The  preacher  is  simply  a 
Christian  further  advanced  in  this  divine  privilege.  We  need  utterance.  Prayer  is  the 
most  complete  self-expression,  and  God's  presence  is  the  only  land  of  perfectly  free 
speech. 

The  great  poet  comes  nearest,  in  the  realm  of  secular  things,  to  realizing  this  privi- 
lege of  the  Christian.  No  great  poet  ever  wrote  his  best  work  for  money,  or  for  fame, 
or  even  for  the  sake  of  doing  good.  Hawthorne  was  half-humorous  and  only  partially 
sincere,  when  he  said  he  would  never  have  written  a  page  except  for  pay.  The  hope 
of  pay  may  have  set  his  pen  a-going,  but  only  love  for  his  work  could  have  made  that 
work  what  it  is.  Motley  more  truly  declared  that  it  was  all  up  with  a  writer  when  he 
began  to  consider  the  money  he  was  to  receive.  But  Haw  Miorne  needed  the  money  to 
live  on,  while  Motley  had  a  rich  father  and  uncle  to  back  him.  The  great  writer  cer- 
tainly absorbs  himself  in  his  work.  With  him  necessity  and  freedom  combine.  He 
sings  as  the  bird  sings,  without  dogmatic  intent.  Yet  he  is  great  in  proportion  as  he  is 
moral  and  religious  at  heart.  "  Anna  virumque  cano  "  is  the  only  first  person  singular 
in  the  ^3neid  in  which  the  author  himself  speaks,  yet  the  whole  iEneid  is  a  revelation 
of  Virgil.    So  we  know  little  of  Shakespeare's  life,  but  much  of  Shakespeare's  genius. 

Nothing  is  added  to  the  tree  when  it  blossoms  and  bears  fruit ;  it  only  reveals  its  own 
inner  nature.  But  we  must  distinguish  in  man  his  true  nature  from  his  false  nature. 
Not  his  private  peculiarities,  but  that  in  him  which  is  permanent  and  universal,  is  the 
real  treasure  upon  which  the  great  poet  draws.  Longfellow :  "  He  is  the  greatest  artist 
then,  Whether  of  pencil  or  of  pen,  Who  follows  nature.  Never  man,  as  artist  or  as 
artizan,  Pursuing  his  own  fantasies,  Can  touch  the  human  heart  or  please,  Or  satisfy  our 
nobler  needs."  Tennyson,  after  observing  the  subaqueous  life  of  a  brook,  exclaimed  : 
"  What  an  imagination  God  has !  "  Caird,  Philos.  Religion,  215— "The  world  of  finite 
intelligences,  though  distinct  from  God,  is  still  in  its  ideal  nature  one  with  him.  That 
which  God  creates,  and  by  which  he  reveals  the  hidden  treasures  of  his  wisdom  and 
love,  is  still  not  foreign  to  his  own  infinite  life,  but  one  with  it.  In  the  knowledge  of 
the  minds  that  know  him,  in  the  self-surrender  of  the  hearts  that  love  him,  it  is  no 
paradox  to  affirm  that  he  knows  and  loves  himself." 

(  d  )  His  own  glory  is  an  end  which  comprehends  and  secures,  as  a  sub- 
ordinate end,  every  interest  of  the  universe.  The  interests  of  the  universe 
are  bound  up  in  the  interests  of  God.  There  is  no  holiness  or  happiness 
for  creatures  except  as  God  is  absolute  sovereign,  aud  is  recognized  as 
such.  It  is  therefore  not  selfishness,  but  benevolence,  for  God  to  make 
his  own  glory  the  supreme  object  of  creation.  Glory  is  not  vain-glory,  and 
in  expressing  his  ideal,  that  is,  in  expressing  himself,  in  his  creation,  he 
communicates  to  his  creatures  the  utmost  possible  good. 

This  self-expression  is  not  selfishness  but  benevolence.  As  the  true  poet  forgets 
himself  in  his  work,  so  God  does  not  manifest  himself  for  the  sake  of  what  he  can  make 
by  it.  Self-manifestation  is  an  end  in  itself.  But  God's  self-manifestation  comprises 
all  good  to  his  creatures.  We  are  bound  to  love  ourselves  and  our  own  interests  just 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  those  interests.  The  monarch  of  a  realm  or  the  general 
of  an  army  must  be  careful  of  his  life,  because  the  sacrifice  of  it  may  involve  the  loss 
of  thousands  of  lives  of  soldiers  or  subjects.  So  God  is  the  heart  of  the  great  system. 
Only  by  being  tributary  to  the  heart  can  the  members  be  supplied  with  streams  of 


GOD'S   END   IX    CREATION.  401 

holiness  and  happiness.  And  so  for  only  one  Being  in  the  universe  is  it  safe  to  live  for 
himself.  Man  should  not  live  for  himself,  because  there  is  a  higher  end.  But  there  is 
no  higher  end  for  God.  "  <  mly  one  being  in  the  universe  is  excepted  from  the  duty  of 
subordination.  Man  must  be  subject  to  the  'higher  powers'  (Rom.  13:1).  But  there  are  no 
hig-her  powers  to  <iod."    See  Park,  Discourses,  181--09. 

Bismarck's  motto :  "  Ohne  Kaiser,  kein  Reich  "—  "  Without  an  emperor,  there  can  bo 
no  empire  "—applies  to  God,  as  Von  Moltke's  motto:  "Erst  wSgen,  dann  wagen"  — 
"First  weigh,  then  dare"  —  applies  to  man.  Edwards,  Works,  2:215 — "  Selfishness  is 
no  otherwise  vicious  or  unbecoming-  than  as  one  is  less  than  a  multitude.  The  public 
weal  is  of  greater  value  than  his  particular  interest.  It  is  lit  and  suitable  that  God  should 
value  himself  infinitely  more  than  his  creatures."  Shakespeare,  Hamlet,  3:3— "The 
single  and  peculiar  life  is  bound  With  all  the  strength  and  armor  of  the  mind  To  keep 
itself  from  noyance;  but  much  more  That  spirit  upon  whose  weal  depends  and  rests 
The  lives  of  many.  The  cease  of  majesty  Dies  not  alone,  but  like  a  gulf  doth  draw 
What 's  near  it  with  it :  it  is  a  massy  wheel  Fixed  on  the  summit  of  the  highest  mount, 
To  whose  huge  spokes  ten  thousand  lesser  things  Are  mortis'd  and  adjoined;  which 
when  it  falls,  Each  small  annexment,  petty  consequence,  Attends  the  boisterous  ruin. 
Never  alone  did  the  king  sigh,  But  with  a  general  groan." 

( e  )  God's  glory  is  the  end  •which  iu  a  right  moral  system  is  proposed  to 
creatures.  This  must  therefore  be  the  end  which  he  iu  whose  image  they 
are  made  proposes  to  himself.  He  who  constitutes  the  ceutre  and  end  of 
all  his  creatures  must  hud  his  centre  and  end  in  himself.  This  principle 
of  moral  philosophy,  and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it,  are  both  explicitly 
and  implicitly  taught  in  Scripture. 

The  beginning  of  all  religion  is  the  choosing  of  God's  end  as  our  end  —  the  giving  up 
of  our  preference  of  happiness,  and  the  entrance  upon  a  life  devoted  to  God.  That 
happiness  is  not  the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
happiness  in  seeking  happiness.  That  the  holiness  of  God  is  the  ground  of  moral  obli- 
gation, is  plain  from  the  foot  that  the  search  alter  holiness  is  not  only  successful  in 
itself,  but  brings  happiness  also  in  its  train.  Archbishop  Leighton,  Works,  695— "It  is 
a  wonderful  instance  of  wisdom  and  goodness  that  God  has  so  connected  his  own  glory 
with  our  happiness,  that  we  cannot  properly  intend  the  one,  but  that  the  other  must 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  our  own  felicity  Is  at  last  resolved  into  his  eternal 
glory."  That  God  will  certainly  secure  the  end  for  which  he  created,  his  own  glory, 
and  that  his  end  is  our  end,  is  the  true  source  of  comfort  in  affliction,  of  strength  in 
labor,  of  encouragement  in  prayer.  See  Psalm  25: 11 — "  For  thy  name's  sake.. . .  Pardon  mine  iniquity, 
for  it  is  great"  ;  115: 1 — "Not  unto  us,  0  Jehovah,  not  unto  us,  Bat  unto  thy  name  give  glory";  Mat.  6  :33 — "S^ok  ye 
first  his  kingdom,  and  his  righteousness ;  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you  "  ;  1  Cor.  10 :  31  —  "  Whether 
therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  tha  glory  of  God  "  ;  1  Pet.  2:9  —  "ye  are  an  elect  race  .... 
that  ye  may  show  forth  the  excellencies  of  him  who  called  you  o_*  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light  "  ;  4 :  11  — 
speaking,  ministering,  "that  in  all  things  Sod  may  be  glorified  through  Jesus  Christ,  whose  is  the  glory  and  the 
dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Edwards,  Works, :.' :  193-257;  Janet, 
Final  Causes,  443-455 ;  Princeton  Theol.  Essays,  2 :  15-32  ;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of 
Faith,  358-362. 

It  is  a  duty  to  make  the  most  of  ourselves,  but  only  for  Clod's  sake.  Jer.  45 : 5  —  "  seekost 
thou  great  things  for  thyself?  seek  them  not!''  But  it  is  nowhere  forbidden  us  to  seek  great 
things  for  God.  Bather  we  are  to  "  desire  earnestly  the  greater  gifts  "  (1  Cor.  12:31 ).  Self-realization 
as  well  as  self-expression  is  native  to  humanity.  Kant:  "Man,  and  with  him  every 
rational  creature,  is  an  end  in  himself."  But  tiiis  seeking  of  his  own  good  is  to  be  sub- 
ordinated to  the  higher  motive  of  God's  glory.  The  difference  between  the  regenerate 
and  the  unregenerate  may  consist  wholly  in  motive.  The  latter  lives  for  self,  the  for- 
mer for  God.  Illustrate  by  the  young  man  in  Yale  College  who  began  to  learn  his 
lessons  for  God  instead  of  for  self,  leaving  his  salvation  iu  Christ's  hands.  God  requires 
self-renunciation,  taking  up  the  cross,  and  following  Christ,  because  the  first  need  of 
the  sinner  is  to  change  his  centre.  To  be  self-centered  is  to  be  a  savage.  The  struggle 
for  the  life  of  others  is  better.  But  there  is  something  higher  still.  Life  has  dignity 
according  to  the  worth  of  the  object  we  install  in  place  of  self.  Follow  Christ, 
make  God  the  center  of  your  life,— so  shall  you  achieve  the  best;  see  Colestock, 
Changing  Viewpoint,  113-123. 
26 


402  THE    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

George  A.  Gordon,  The  New  Epoch  for  Faith,  11-13—"  The  ultimate  view  of  the  uni- 
verse is  the  religious  view.  Its  worth  is  ultimately  worth  for  the  supreme  Being. 
Here  is  the  note  of  permanent  value  in  Edwards's  great  essay  on  The  End  of  Creation. 

The  final  value  of  creation  is  its  value  for  God Men  are  men  in  and  through 

society — here  is  the  truth  which  Aristotle  teaches  —  but  Aristotle  fails  to  see  that 
society  attains  its  end  only  in  and  through  God."  Hovey,  Studies,  65  —  "To  manifest 
the  glory  or  perfection  of  God  is  therefore  the  chief  end  of  our  existence.  To  live  in 
such  a  manner  that  his  life  is  reflected  in  ours ;  that  his  character  shall  reappear,  at 
least  faintly,  in  ours  ;  that  his  holiness  and  love  shall  he  recognized  and  declared  by  us, 
is  to  do  that  for  which  we  are  made.  And  so,  in  requiring  us  to  glorify  himself,  God 
simply  requires  us  to  do  what  is  absolutely  right,  and  what  is  at  the  same  time  indis- 
pensable to  our  highest  welfare.  Any  lower  aim  could  not  have  been  placed  before 
us,  without  making  us  content  with  a  character  unlike  that  of  the  First  Good  and 
the  First  Fair."  See  statement  and  criticism  of  Edwards's  view  in  Allen,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  227-238. 

VI.     Relation  op  the  Doctrine  of  Creation  to   other  Doctrines. 

1.     To  the  holiness  and  benevolence  of  God. 

Creation,  as  the  work  of  God,  manifests  of  necessity  God's  moral  attri- 
butes. But  the  existence  of  physical  and  moral  evil  in  the  universe  a]:>pears, 
at  first  sight,  to  impugn  these  attributes,  and  to  contradict  the  Scripture 
declaration  that  the  work  of  God's  hand  was  "very  good"  (Gen.  1  :31). 
This  difficulty  may  be  in  great  part  removed  by  considering  that : 

(  a )  At  its  first  creation,  the  world  was  good  in  two  senses  :  first,  as  free 
from  moral  evil,  —  sin  being  a  later  addition,  the  work,  not  of  God,  but  of 
created  spirits  ;  secondly,  as  adapted  to  beneficent  ends,  —  for  example, 
the  revelation  of  God's  perfection,  and  the  probation  and  happiness  of 
intelligent  and  obedient  creatures. 

(  b )  Physical  pain  and  irnperf ection,  so  far  as  they  existed  before  the 
introduction  of  moral  evil,  are  to  be  regarded  :  first,  as  congruous  parts  of 
a  system  of  which  sin  was  foreseen  to  be  an  incident ;  and  secondly,  as 
constituting,  in  part,  the  means  of  future  discipline  and  redemption  for  the 
fallen. 

The  coprolites  of  Saurians  contain  the  scales  and  bones  of  fish  which  they  have 
devoured.  Rom.  8 :  20-22  —  "  For  the  creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  by  reason  of  him 
who  subjected  it,  in  hope  that  the  creation  itself  alsu  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of 
the  glory  of  the  children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  [  the  irrational  creation  ]  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now  "  ;  23  — our  mortal  body,  as  a  part  of  nature,  participates  in 
the  same  groaning.  2  Cor.  4 :  17 — "  our  iight  affliction,  which  is  for  the  moment,  worketh  for  us  more  and  more 
exceedingly  an  eternal  weight  of  glory."  Bowne,  Philosophy  of  Theism,  224-210  — "  How  explain 
our  rather  shabby  universe?  Pessimism  assumes  that  perfect  wisdom  is  compatible 
only  with  a  perfect  work,  and  that  we  know  the  universe  to  be  truly  worthless  and 
insignificant."  John  Stuart  Mill,  Essays  on  Religion,  29,  brings  in  a  fearful  indictment 
of  nature,  her  storms,  lightnings,  earthquakes,  blight,  decay,  and  death.  Christianity 
however  regards  these  as  due  to  man,  not  to  God  ;  as  incidents  of  sin ;  as  the  groans  of 
creation,  crying  out  for  relief  and  liberty.  Man's  body,  as  a  part  of  nature,  waits  for 
the  adoption,  and  resurrection  of  the  body  is  to  accompany  the  renewal  of  the  world. 

It  was  Darwin's  judgment  that  in  the  world  of  nature  and  of  man,  on  the  whole, 
" happiness  decidedly  prevails."  Wallace,  Darwinism,  3G-40  — "Animals  enjoy  all  the 
happiness  of  which  they  are  capable."  Drummond,  Ascent  of  Man,  203  sq.  —  "In  the 
struggle  for  life  there  is  no  hate  — only  hunger."  Martineau,  Study,  1:330  — "Waste 
of  life  is  simply  nature's  exuberance."  Newman  Smyth,  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution, 
44-56  — "Death  simply  buries  the  useless  waste.  Death  has  entered  for  life's  sake." 
These  utterances,  however,  come  far  short  of  a  proper  estimate  of  the  evils  of  the 
world,  and  they  ignore  the  Scriptural  teaching  with  regard  to  the  connection  between 


RELATIONS   OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    CREATION.  *03 

death  and  sin.  A  future  world  into  which  sin  and  death  do  not  enter  shows  that  the 
present  world  is  abnormal,  and  that  morality  is  the  only  cure  for  mortality.  Nor  can 
the  imperfections  of  the  universe  be  explained  by  saying  that  they  furnish  opportunity 
for  struggle  and  for  virtue.  Robert  Browning,  Ring  and  Book,  Pope,  1375— "I  can 
believe  this  dread  machinery  Of  sin  and  sorrow,  would  confound  me  else,  Devised, — 
all  pain,  at  most  expenditure  Of  pain  by  Who  devised  pain, —  to  evolve,  By  new  machin- 
ery in  counterpart,  The  moral  qualities  of  man  — how  else  V  — To  make  him  love  in 
turn  and  be  beloved,  Creative  and  self-sacrificing  too,  And  thus  eventually  godlike." 
This  seems  like  doing  evil  that  good  may  come.  We  can  explain  mortality  only  by 
immorality,  and  that  not  in  God  but  in  man.  Fairbairu  :  "Suffering  is  God's  protest 
against  sin." 

Wallace's  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  was  suggested  by  the  prodigal  destruc- 
tiveness  of  nature.  Tennyson  :  "  Finding  that  of  fifty  seeds  She  often  brings  but  one 
to  bear."  William  James  :  "  Our  dogs  are  In  our  human  life,  but  not  of  it.  The  dog, 
under  the  knife  of  vivisection,  cannot  understand  the  purpose  of  his  suffering.  For 
him  it  is  only  pain.  So  we  may  lie  soaking  in  a  spiritual  atmosphere,  a  dimension  of 
Being  which  we  have  at  present  no  organ  for  apprehending.  If  we  knew  the  purpose 
of  our  life,  all  that  is  heroic  in  us  would  religiously  acquiesce."  Mason,  Faith  of  the 
Gospel,  72  —  "Love  is  prepared  to  take  deeper  and  sterner  measures  than  benevolence, 
which  is  by  itself  a  shallow  thing."  The  bakes  of  KUlarny  in  Ireland  show  what  a 
paradise  this  world  might  be  if  war  had  not  desolated  it,  and  if  man  had  properly  cared 
for  it.  Our  moral  sense  cannot  justify  the  evil  in  creation  except  upon  the  hypothesis 
that  this  has  some  cause  and  reason  in  the  misconduct  of  man. 

This  is  not  a  perfect  world.  It  was  not  perfect  even  when  originally  constituted. 
Its  imperfection  is  due  to  sin.  God  made  it  with  reference  to  the  Fall, —  the  stage  was 
arranged  for  the  great  drama  of  sin  and  redemption  which  was  to  be  enacted  thereon. 
We  accept  BushneU's  idea  of  "anticipative  consequences,"  and  would  Illustrate  it  by 
the  building  of  a  hospital-room  while  yet  no  member  of  the  family  is  sick,  and  by  the 
salvation  of  the  patriarchs  through  a  Christ  yet  to  come.  If  the  earliest  vertebrates  of 
geological  history  were  types  of  man  and  preparations  for  his  coming,  then  pain  and 
death  among  those  same  vertebrates  may  equally  have  been  a  type  of  man's  sin  and  its 
results  of  misery.  If  sin  had  not  been  an  incident,  foreseen  and  provided  for,  the  world 
might  have  been  a  paradise.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  will  become  a  paradise  only  at  the 
completion  of  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ.  Kreibig,  Versohuung,  369—  "  The  death 
of  Christ  was  accompanied  by  startling  occurrences  in  the  outward  world,  to  show  that 
the  effects  of  his  sacrifice  reached  even  into  nature."  Perowne  refers  Ps.  96  :  10  —  "The 
world  also  is  established  that  it  cannot  ha  moved  "  —  to  the  restoration  of  the  inanimate  creation  ;  cf , 
Heb.  12 :  27  —  "  And  this  word,  Tet  once  more,  signifieth  the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things  that 
have  been  made,  that  those  things  which  are  not  shaken  may  remain ' ' ;  Rev.  21 : 1,  5  — "a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth 
.  .  .  Bahold,  I  make  all  things  new." 

Much  sport  has  been  made  of  this  doctrine  of  anticipative  consequences.  James  D. 
Dana:  "  It  is  funny  that  the  sin  of  Adam  should  have  killed  those  old  trilobites !  The 
blunderbuss  must  have  kicked  back  into  time  at  a  tremendous  rate  to  have  hit  those 
poor  innocents  !  "  Yet  every  insurance  policy,  every  taking  out  of  an  umbrella,  every 
buying  of  a  wedding  ring,  is  an  anticipative  consequence.  To  deny  that  God  made  the 
world  what  it  is  in  view  of  the  events  that  were  to  take  place  in  it,  is  to  concede  to  him 
less  wisdom  than  we  attribute  to  our  fellow-man.  The  most  rational  explanation  of 
physical  evil  in  the  universe  is  that  of  Rom.  8 :  20,  21—  "the  creation  was  subjected  to  vanity  ....  by 
reason  of  him  who  subjected  it"  —  i.  e.,  by  reason  of  the  first  man's  sin  — "in  hope  that  the  creation 
itself  also  shall  be  delivered." 

Martineau,  Types,  2:151  —"What  meaning  could  Pity  have  in  a  world  where  suffer- 
ing was  not  meant  to  be?"  Hicks,  Critique  of  Design  Arguments,  386— "The  very 
badness  of  the  world  convinces  us  that  God  is  good."  And  Sir  Henry  Taylor's  words  : 
"  Pain  in  man  Bears  the  high  mission  of  the  flail  and  fan ;  In  brutes  't  is  surely  piteous  " 
—  receive  their  answer:  The  brute  is  but  an  appendage  to  man,  and  like  inanimate 
nature  it  suffers  from  man's  fall  — suffers  not  wholly  in  vain,  for  even  pain  in  brutes 
serves  to  illustrate  the  malign  influence  of  sin  and  to  suggest  motives  for  resisting  it. 
Pascal :  "  Whatever  virtue  can  be  bought  with  pain  is  cheaply  bought."  The  pain  and 
imperfection  of  the  world  are  God's  frown  upon  sin  and  his  warning  against  it.  See 
Bushnell,  chapter  on  Anticipative  Consequences,  in  Nature  and  the  Supernatural, 
194-219.  Also  McCosh,  Divine  Government,  26-35,  219-201 ;  Farrar,  Science  and  Theology, 
£2-105;  Johnson,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  6  :  141-154 ;  Fairbairn,  Philos.  Christ  Religion,  94-168. 


404  THE   WORKS   OF    GOD. 

2.     To  the  ivisdom  and  free-will  of  God. 

No  plan  whatever  of  a  finite  creation  can  fully  express  the  infinite  per- 
fection of  God.  Since  God,  however,  is  immutable,  he  must  always  have 
had  a  plan  of  the  universe  ;  since  he  is  perfect,  be  must  have  had  the  best 
possible  plan.  As  wise,  God  cannot  choose  a  plan  less  good,  instead  of  one 
more  good.  As  rational,  he  cannot  between  plans  equally  good  make  a 
merely  arbitrary  choice.  Here  is  no  necessity,  but  only  the  certainty  that 
infinite  wisdom  will  act  wisely.  As  no  compulsion  from  without,  so  no 
necessity  from  within,  moves  God  to  create  the  actual  universe.  Creation 
is  both  wise  and  free. 

As  God  is  both  rational  and  wise,  his  having-  a  plan  of  the  universe  must  be  better  than 
his  not  having  a  plan  would  be.  But  the  universe  once  was  not ;  yet  without  a  uni- 
verse God  was  blessed  and  sufficient  to  himself.  God's  perfection  therefore  requires, 
not  that  he  have  a  universe,  but  that  he  have  a  plan  of  the  universe.  Again,  since  God 
is  both  rational  and  wise,  his  actual  creation  cannot  be  the  worst  possible,  nor  one 
arbitrarily  chosen  from  two  or  more  equally  good.  It  must  be,  all  things  considered, 
the  best  possible.    We  are  optimists  rather  than  pessimists. 

But  we  reject  that  form  of  optimism  which  regards  evil  as  the  indispensable  condition 
of  the  good,  and  sin  as  the  direct  product  of  God's  will.  We  hold  that  other  form  of 
optimism  which  regards  sin  as  naturally  destructive,  but  as  made,  in  spite  of  itself,  by 
an  overruling  providence,  to  contribute  to  the  highest  good.  For  the  optimism  which 
makes  evil  the  necessary  condition  of  finite  being,  see  Leibnitz,  Opera  Philosophica, 
468,  624 ;  Hedge,  Ways  of  the  Spirit,  241 ;  and  Pope's  Essay  on  Man.  For  the  better  form 
of  optimism,  see  Herzog,  Encyclopiidie,  art. :  Schopf  ung,  13  :  651-653 ;  Chalmers,  Works, 
2:286;  Mark  Hopkins,  in  Andover  Rev.,  March,  1885:197-210;  Luthardt,  Lehre  des 
freien  Willens,  9,  10—"  Calvin's  Quia  voluit  is  not  the  last  answer.  We  could  have  no 
heart  for  such  a  God,  for  he  would  himself  have  no  heart.  Formal  will  alone  has  no 
heart.    In  God  real  freedom  controls  formal,  as  in  fallen  man,  formal  controls  real." 

Janet,  in  his  Final  Causes,  429  sq.  and  490-503,  claims  that  optimism  subjects  God  to 
fate.  We  have  shown  that  this  objection  mistakes  the  certainty  which  is  consistent 
with  freedom  for  the  necessity  which  is  inconsistent  with  freedom.  The  opposite  doc- 
trine attributes  an  irrational  arbitrariness  to  God.  We  are  warranted  in  saying  that 
'the  universe  at  present  existing,  considered  as  a  partial  realization  of  God's  develop- 
ing plan,  is  the  best  possible  for  this  particular  point  of  time,—  in  short,  that  all  is  for 
the  best,—  see  Rom.  8 :  28  — "to  them  that  love  God  all  things  work  together  for  good  "  ;  1  Cor.  3  :  21  — "  all  things 
are  yours." 

For  denial  of  optimism  in  any  form,  see  Watson,  Theol.  Institutes,  1 :  419 ;  Hovey,  God 
with  Us,  206-208  ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  419,  432, 566,  and  2  :  145 ;  Lipsius,  Dogmatik,  234- 
255;  Flint,  Theism,  227-256  ;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  397-409,  and  esp.  405—  "A  wisdom 
the  resources  of  which  have  been  so  expended  that  it  cannot  equal  its  past  achieve- 
ments is  a  finite  capacity,  and  not  the  boundless  depth  of  the  infinite  God."  But  we 
reply  that  a  wisdom  which  does  not  do  that  which  is  best  is  not  wisdom.  The  limit  is 
not  in  God's  abstract  power,  but  in  his  other  attributes  of  truth,  love,  and  holiness. 
Hence  G  od  can  say  in  Is.  5  :  4  — "  what  could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?  " 

The  perfect  antithesis  to  an  ethical  and  theistic  optimism  is  found  in  the  non-moral 
and  atheistic  pessimism  of  Schopenhauer  ("Die  Welt  als  Wille  uud  VorsteKung)  and 
Hartmann  (  Philosophic  des  Unbewussten ).  "All  life  is  summed  up  in  effort,  and  effort 
is  painful ;  therefore  life  is  pain."  But  we  might  retort :  "  Life  is  active,  and  action  is 
always  accompanied  with  pleasure;  therefore  life  is  pleasure."  See  Frances  Power 
Cobbe,  Peak  in  Darien,  95-134,  for  a  graphic  account  of  Schopenhauer's  heartlessness, 
cowardice  and  arrogance.  Pessimism  is  natural  to  a  mind  soured  by  disappointment 
and  forgetful  of  God  :  Eccl.  2  :  11  —  "all  was  vanity  and  a  striving  after  wind."  Homer  :  "  There  is 
nothing  whatever  more  wretched  than  man."  Seneca  praises  death  as  the  best  inven- 
tion of  nature.  Byron :  "  Count  o'er  the  joys  thine  hours  have  seen,  Count  o'er  thy  days 
from  anguish  free,  And  know,  whatever  thou  hast  been,  'T  is  something  better  not  to 
be."  But  it  has  been  left  to  Schopenhauer  and  Hartmann  to  define  will  as  unsatisfied 
yearning,  to  regard  life  itself  as  a  huge  blunder,  and  to  urge  upon  the  human  race,  as 
the  only  measure  of  permanent  relief,  a  united  and  universal  act  of  suicide. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CREATION.       405 

G.  II.  Beard,  in  Andover  Bev.,  March,  1892—"  Schopenhauer  utters  one  New  Testament 
truth:  the  utter  delusiveness  of  self-indulgence.  Lite  which  is  dominated  by  the 
desires,  and  devoted  to -mere  getting,  is  a  pendulum  swinging- hit  ween  pain  and  ennui." 
Bowne,  l'hilos.  of  Theism,  1-4  —  "For  Schopenhauer  the  world-ground  is  pure  will, 
without  intellect  or  personality.  But  pure  will  is  nothing.  Will  itself,  except  as  a 
function  of  a  conscious  and  intelligent  spirit,  is  nothing."  Royce,  Spirit  of  Mod. 
Philos.,  233-260  — "  Schopenhauer  united  Kant's  thought,  '  The  inmost  life  of  all  things  is 
one,'  with  the  Hindoo  insight, '  The  life  of  all  these  things,  That  art  Thou.'  To  him  music 
shows  best  what  the  will  is  :  passionate,  struggling,  wandering,  restless,  ever  returning 
to  itself,  full  of  longing,  vigor,  majesty,  caprice.  Schopenhauer  condemns  individual 
suicide,  and  counsels  resignation.  That  I  must  ever  desire  yet  never  fully  attain,  leads 
Hegel  to  the  conception  of  the  absolutely  active  and  triumphant  spirit.  Schopenhauer 
finds  in  it  proof  of  the  totally  evil  nature  of  things.  Thus  while  Hegel  is  an  optimist, 
Schopenhauer  is  a  pessimist." 

Winwood  Reade,  in  the  title  of  his  book,  The  Martyrdom  of  Man,  intends  to  describe 
human  history.  O.  \V.  Holmes  says  i  hat  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Progress  "  represents  the 
universe  as  a  trap  which  cat  dies  most  of  the  human  vermin  that  have  its  bait  dangled 
before  them."  Strauss:  "If  the  prophets  of  pessimism  prove  that  man  had  better 
never  have  lived,  they  thereby  prove  that  themselves  had  better  never  have  prophesied." 
Hawthorne,  Note-book. :  "  Curious  to  imagine  what  mournings  and  discontent  would 
be  excited,  if  any  of  the  great  so-called  calamities  of  human  beings  were  to  be  abol- 
ished,—as,  for  instance,  death." 

On  both  the  optimism  of  Leibnitz  and  the  pessimism  of  Schopenhauer,  see  Bowcn, 
Modern  Philosophy ;  Tulloch,  Modern  Theories,  169-221 ;  Thompson,  on  Modern  Pessim- 
ism, in  Present  Day  Tracts,  6  :  no.  34  ;  Wright,  on  Ecclesiastes,  141-216 ;  Barlow,  Ulti- 
matum of  Pessimism  :  Culture  tends  to  misery;  God  is  the  most  miserable  of  beings ; 
creation  is  a  plaster  for  the  sore.  See  also  Mark  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Review,  Sept, 
1882  :  197  — "Disorder  and  misery  are  so  mingled  with  order  and  beneficence,  that  both 
optimism  and  pessimism  are  possible."  Yet  it  is  evident  that  there  must  be  more  con- 
struction than  destruction,  or  the  world  would  not  be  existing.  Buddhism,  with  its 
Nirvana-refuge,  is  essentially  pessimistic. 

3.     To  Christ  as  the  Revealcr  of  God. 

Since  Christ  is  the  Revealer  of  God  in  creation  as  well  as  in  redemption, 
the  remedy  for  pessimism  is  (  1 )  the  recognition  of  God's  transcendence  — 
the  universe  at  present  not  fully  expressing  his  power,  his  holiness  or  his 
love,  and  nature  being  a  scheme  of  progressive  evolution  which  we  imper- 
fectly comprehend  and  in  which  there  is  much  to  follow ;  (  2  )  the  recog- 
nition of  sin  as  the  free  act  of  the  creature,  by  which  all  sorrow  and  pain 
have  been  caused,  so  that  God  is  in  no  proper  sense  its  author;  (3)  the 
recognition  of  Christ /<>/■  us  on  the  Cross  and  Christ  in  us  by  his  Spirit,  as 
revealing  the  age-long  sorrow  and  suffering  of  God's  heart  on  account  of 
human  transgression,  and  as  manifested,  in  self-sacrificing  love,  to  deliver 
men  from  the  manifold  evils  in  which  their  sins  have  involved  them  ;  and 
( 4 )  the  recognition  of  present  probation  and  future  judgment,  so  that  pro- 
vision is  made  for  removing  the  scandal  now  restiug  upon  the  divine 
government  and  for  justifying  the  ways  of  God  to  men. 

Christ's  Cross  is  the  proof  that  God  suffers  more  than  man  from  human  sin,  and  Christ's 
judgment  will  show  that  the  wicked  cannot  always  prosper.  In  Christ  alone  we  find 
the  key  to  the  dark  problems  of  history  and  the  guarantee  of  human  progress.  Rom.  3 
25  —  "  whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  his  blood,  to  show  his  righteousn"ss  because  of  the  pass- 
ing over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime  in  the  forbearance  of  God  "  ;  8 :  32  —"Hi  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  d  silvered 
him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  also  with  him  freely  give  us  all  thir.gs  ?  "  Heb.  2  :  8,  9  — "  we  see  not  yet  all 
things  s  '.bject:d  to  him.  But  we  behoid  ....  Jesus  ....  crowned  with  glory  and  honor ' ' ;  Acts  17  :  31  —  "he  hath 
appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  earth  in  righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath  ordained."  See  Hill, 
Psychology,  2S3 ;  Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  240,  241 ;  Bruce,  Provi- 
dential Order,  71-8S:  J.  M.  Whiton,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  April,  1901 :  318. 

G.  A.  Gordon,  New  Epoch  of  Faith,  199  — "The  book  of  Job  is  called  by  Huxley  the 
classic  of  pessimism."    Dean  Swift,  on  the  successive  anniversaries  of  his  own  birth, 


406  THE   WORKS  OP  GOD. 

was  accustomed  to  read  the  third  chapter  of  Job,  which  begins  with  the  terrible 
" Let  the  day  perish  wherein  I  was  born "  (3:3).  But  predestination  and  election  are  not  arbi- 
trary. Wisdom  has  chosen  the  best  possible  plan,  has  ordained  the  salvation  of  all 
who  could  wisely  have  been  saved,  has  permitted  the  least  evil  that  it  was  wise  to 
permit.  Rev.  4  :  11 — "  Thou  didst  create  all  things,  and  because  of  thy  will  they  were,  and  were  created."  Mason, 
Faith  of  the  Gospel,  79  —  "  All  things  were  present  to  God's  mind  because  of  his  will, 
and  then,  when  it  pleased  him,  had  being  given  to  them."  Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  36, 
advocates  a  realistic  idealism.  Christianity,  he  says,  is  not  abstract  optimism,  for  it 
recognizes  the  evil  of  the  actual  and  regards  conflict  with  it  as  the  task  of  the  world's 
history  ;  it  is  not  pessimism,  for  it  regards  the  evil  as  not  unconquerable,  but  regards 
the  good  as  the  end  and  the  power  of  the  world. 

Jones,  Robert  Browning,  109,  311  —  "  Pantheistic  optimism  asserts  that  all  things  are 
good  ;  Christian  optimism  asserts  that  all  things  are  working  together  for  good.  Reverie 
in  Asolando  :  '  From  the  first  Power  was  —  I  knew.  Life  has  made  clear  to  me  That, 
strive  but  for  closer  view,  Love  were  as  plain  to  see.'  Balaustion's  Adventure  :  '  Glad- 
ness be  with  thee,  Helper  of  the  world  !  T  think  this  is  the  authentic  sign  and  seal  Of 
Godship,  that  it  ever  waxes  glad,  And  more  glad,  until  gladness  blossoms,  bursts  Into  a 
rage  to  suffer  for  mankind  And  recommence  at  sorrow.'  Browning  endeavored  to 
find  God  in  man,  and  still  to  leave  man  free.  His  optimistic  faith  sought  reconcilia- 
tion with  morality.  He  abhorred  the  doctrine  that  the  evils  of  the  world  are  due  to 
merely  arbitrary  sovereignty,  and  this  doctrine  he  has  satirized  in  the  monologue  of 
Caliban  on  Petebos :  '  Loving  not,  hating  not,  just  choosing  so.'  Pippa  Passes :  '  God  's 
in  his  heaven — All 's  right  with  the  world.'  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  the  guilt  of 
the  sinner?  Browning  does  not  say.  He  leaves  the  antinomy  unsolved,  only  striving 
to  hold  both  truths  in  their  fulness.  Love  demands  distinction  between  God  and  man, 
yet  love  unites  God  and  man.  Saul :  "All 's  love,  but  all 's  law.'  Carlyle  forms  a  strik- 
ing contrast  to  Browning.  Carlyle  was  a  pessimist.  He  would  renounce  happiness  for 
duty,  and  as  a  means  to  this  end  would  suppress,  not  idle  speech  alone,  but  thought 
itself.  The  battle  is  fought  moreover  in  a  foreign  cause.  God's  cause  is  not  ours. 
Duty  is  a  menace,  like  the  duty  of  a  slave.  The  moral  law  is  not  a  beneficent  revela- 
tion, reconciling  God  and  man.  All  is  fear,  and  there  is  no  love."  Carlyle  took  Emer- 
son through  the  London  slums  at  midnight  and  asked  him :  "  Do  you  believe  in  a  devil 
now  ?  "  But  Emerson  replied  :  "  I  am  more  and  more  convinced  of  the  greatness  and 
goodness  of  the  English  people."  On  Browning  and  Carlyle,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Great 
Poets  and  their  Theology,  373-447. 

Henry  Ward  Beecher,  when  asked  whether  life  was  worth  living,  replied  that  that 
depended  very  much  upon  the  liver.  Optimism  and  pessimism  are  largely  matters  of 
digestion.  President  Mark  Hopkins  asked  a  bright  student  if  he  did  not  believe  this  the 
best  possible  system.  When  the  student  replied  in  the  negative,  the  President  asked  him 
how  he  could  improve  upon  it.  He  answered  :  "  I  would  kill  off  all  the  bed-bugs,  mos- 
quitoes and  fleas,  and  make  oranges  and  bananas  grow  further  north."  The  lady  who 
was  bitten  by  a  mosquito  asked  whether  it  would  be  proper  to  speak  of  the  creature  as 
"  a  depraved  little  insect."  She  was  told  that  this  would  be  improper,  because  depravity 
always  implies  a  previous  state  of  innocence,  whereas  the  mosquito  has  always  been  as 
bad  as  he  now  is.  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  however,  seems  to  have  held  the  contrary  view. 
When  he  had  captured  the  mosquito  who  had  bitten  him,  he  crushed  the  insect,  saying  : 
"  There !  I  '11  show  you  that  there  is  a  God  in  Israel !  "  He  identified  the  mosquito  with 
all  the  corporate  evil  of  the  world.  Allen,  Religious  Progress,  22 — "  Wordsworth 
hoped  still,  although  the  French  Revolution  depressed  him  ;  Macaulay,  after  reading 
Ranke's  History  of  the  Popes,  denied  all  religious  progress."  On  Huxley's  account  of 
evil,  see  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  265  sq. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1 :  301,  302—"  The  Greeks  of  Homer's  time  had  a  naive  and 
youthful  optimism.  But  they  changed  from  an  optimistic  to  a  pessimistic  view.  This 
change  resulted  from  their  increasing  contemplation  of  the  moral  disorder  of  the 
world.  "  On  the  melancholy  of  the  Greeks,  see  Butcher,  Aspects  of  Greek  Genius,  130- 
165.  Butcher  holds  that  the  great  diffei'enee  between  Greeks  and  Hebrews  was  that 
the  former  had  no  hope  or  ideal  of  progress.  A.  H.  Bradford,  Age  of  Faith,  74-102  — 
"  The  voluptuous  poets  are  pessimistic,  because  sensual  pleasure  quickly  passes,  and 
leaves  lassitude  and  enervation  behind.  Pessimism  is  the  basis  of  Stoicism  also.  It 
is  inevitable  where  there  is  no  faith  in  God  and  in  a  future  life.  The  life  of  a  seed  under- 
ground is  not  inspiring,  except  in  prospect  of  sun  and  flowers  and  fruit."  Bradley, 
Appearance  and  Reality,  xiv,  sums  up  the  optimistic  view  as  follows:  "The  world  is 
the  best  of  all  possible  worlds,  and  everything  in  it  is  a  necessary  evil."    He  should 


RELATIONS   OP  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   CREATION".  407 

have  added  that  pain  is  the  exception  in  the  world,  and  finite  free  will  is  the  cause  of 
the  trouble.  Pain  is  made  the  means  of  developing  character,  and,  when  it  has  accom- 
plished its  purpose,  pain  will  pass  away. 

Jackson,  James  Maitincau,  380  —  "  Al^is  well,  says  an  American  preacher,  forif  there 
is  anything  that  is  not  well,  it  is  well  that  it  is  not  well.  It  is  well  that  falsity  and  hate 
are  not  well,  that  malice  and  envy  and  cruelty  are  not  well.  What  hope  for  the  world 
or  what  trust  in  God,  if  they  were  well?"  Live  spells  Evil,  only  when  we  read  it  the 
wrong  way.  James  Russell  Lowell,  Letters,  2:51  —  "The  more  I  learn  ....  the  more 
my  confidence  in  the  general  good  sense  and  honest  intentions  of  mankind  increases. 
....  The  signs  of  the  times  cease  t<>  alarm  me,  and  seem  as  natural  as  to  a  mother  the 
teething  of  her  seventh  baby.  I  take  great  comfort  in  God.  I  think  that  he  is  con- 
siderably amused  with  us  sometimes,  and  that  he  likes  us  on  the  whole,  and  would  not 
let  us  get  at  the  matchbox  so  carelessly  as  he  does,  unless  he  knew  that  the  frame  of 
his  universe  was  fireproof." 

Compare  with  all  this  the  hopeless  pessimism  of  Omar  Khayyam,  Rubaiyat,  stanza  09  — 
"Ah  Love  I  could  you  and  I  with  Him  couspire  To  grasp  this  sorry  scheme  of  tilings 
entire,  Would  not  we  shatter  it  to  bits  — and  then  Remould  it  nearer  to  the  heart's 
desire  ? "  Royce,  Studies  of  Good  aud  Evil,  14,  in  discussing  the  Problem  of  Job,  sug- 
gests the  following  solution  :  "  When  you  suffer,  your  sufferings  are  God's  sufferings, 
not  his  external  work,  not  his  external  penalty,  not  the  fruit  of  his  neglect,  but 
identically  his  own  personal  woe.  In  you  God  himself  suffers,  precisely  as  you  do,  and 
has  all  your  concern  in  overcoming  this  grief."  P.H.Johnson,  What  is  Reality,  349, 
50.5  —  "The  Christian  ideal  is  not  maintainable,  if  we  assume  that  God  could  as  easily 

develop  his  creation  without  conliict Happiness  is  only  one  of  his  ends;  the 

evolution  of  moral  character  is  another."  A.  E.  Waffle,  Uses  of  Moral  Evil:  "(1)  It 
aids  development  of  holy  character  by  opposition;  (2)  affords  opportunity  for  minister- 
ing; (3)  makes  known  to  us  some  of  the  chief  attributes  of  God;  (4)  enhances  the 
blessedness  of  heaven. " 

4.     To  Providence  and  Redemption. 

Christianity  is  essentially  a.scheme  of  supernatural  love  and  power.  It 
conceives  of  God  as  above  the  world,  as  well  as  in  it,  —  able  to  manifest 
himself,  and  actually  manifesting  himself,  in  ways  unknown  to  mere  nature. 

But  this  absolute  sovereignty  and  transcendence,  which  are  manifested 
in  providence  and  redemption,  are  inseparable  from  creatorship.  If  the 
world  be  eternal,  like  God,  it  must  be  an  efflux  from  the  substance  of  God 
and  must  be  absolutely  equal  with  God.  Only  a  proper  doctrine  of  creation 
can  secure  God's  absolute  distinctness  from  the  world  and  his  sovereignty 
over  it. 

The  logical  alternative  of  creation  is  therefore  a  system  of  pantheism,  in 
which  God  is  an  impersonal  and  necessary  force.  Hence  the  pantheistic 
dicta  of  Fichte  :  "  The  assumption  of  a  creation  is  the  fundamental  error 
of  all  false  metaphysics  and  false  theology  "  ;  of  Hegel  :  "  God  evolves  the 
world  out  of  himself,  in  order  to  take  it  back  into  himself  again  in  the 
Spirit"  ;  and  of  Strauss  :  "Trinity  and  creation,  speculatively  viewed,  are 
one  and  the  same,  —  only  the  one  is  viewed  absolutely,  the  other 
empirically." 

Sterrett,  Studies,  155,  150—  "Hegel  held  that  it  belongs  to  God's  nature  to  create. 
Creation  is  G oil's  positing  an  other  which  is  not  an  other.  The  creation  is  his,  belongs  to 
his  being  or  essence.  This  involves  the  finite  as  his  own  self-posited  object  and  self- 
revelation.  It  is  necessary  for  God  to  create.  Love,  Hegel  says,  is  only  another  ex- 
pression of  the  eternally  Triune  God.  Love  must  create  and  love  another.  But  in  loving 
this  other,  God  is  only  loving  himself.  "  We  have  already,  in  our  discussion  of  the  theory 
of  creation  from  eternity,  shown  the  insufficiency  of  creation  to  satisfy  either  the  love 
or  the  power  of  God.  A  proper  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  renders  the  hypothesis  of  an 
eternal  creation  unnecessary  and  irrational.  That  hypothesis  is  pantheistic  in  tendency 


408  THE   WORKS   OP   GOD. 

Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogmatik,  97  —  "  Dualism  might  be  called  a  logical  alterna- 
tive of  creation,  but  for  the  fact  that  its  notion  of  two  gods  in  self-contradictory,  and 
leads  to  the  lowering  of  the  idea  of  the  Godhead,  so  that  the  impersonal  god  of 
pantheism  takes  its  place.  "    Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine,  2:11  —  "  The  world  cannot  be 

necessitated  in  order  to  satisfy  either  want  or  over-fulness  in  God The  doctrine 

of  absolute  creation  prevents  the  confoundina  of  God  with  the  world.  The  declaration 
that  the  Spirit  brooded  over  the  formless  elements,  and  that  life  was  developed  under  the 
continuous  operation  of  God's  laws  and  presence,  prevents  the  separation  of  God  from 
the  world.  Thus  pantheism  and  deism  are  both  avoided."  See  Kant  and  Spinoza  con- 
trasted in  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  468,  469.  The  unusually  full  treatment  of  the 
doctrine  of  creation  in  this  chapter  is  due  to  a  conviction  that  the  doctrine  constitutes 
an  antidote  to  most  of  the  false  philosophy  of  our  time. 

5,     To  the  Observance  of  the  Sabbath. 

We  perceive  from  this  point  of  view,  moreover,  the  importance  and  value 
of  the  Sabbath,  as  commemorating  God's  act  of  creation,  and  thus  God's 
personality,  sovereignty,  and  transcendence. 

(a)  The  Sabbath  is  of  perpetual  obligation  as  God's  appointed  memorial 
of  his  creating  activity.  The  Sabbath  requisition  antedates  the  decalogue 
and  forms  a  part  of  the  moral  law.  Made  at  the  creation,  it  applies  to  man 
as  man,  everywhere  and  always,  in  his  present  state  of  being. 

Gen.  2  :  3  —  "  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  hallowed  it ;  because  that  in  it  he  rested  from  all  his  work  which 
God  had  created  and  mad;.  "  Our  rest  is  to  be  a  miniature  representation  of  God's  rest.  As 
God  worked  six  divine  days  and  rested  one  divine  day,  so  are  we  in  imitation  of  him 
to  work  six  human  days  and  to  rest  one  human  day.  In  the  Old  Testament  there  are 
indications  of  an  observance  of  the  Sabbath  day  before  the  Mosaic  legislation :  Gen.  4  :  3 
—  "  And  in  process  of  time  [  lit.  '  at  the  end  of  days '  ]  it  came  to  pa?s  that  Cain  brought  of  the  fruit,  of  the  ground  an 
offering  unto  Jehovah  "  ;  Gen.  8  :  10, 12  —  Noah  twice  waited  seven  days  before  sending  forth  the 
dove  from  the  ark  ;  Gen.  29 :  27, 28  — "  fulfil  the  week  "  ;  c/.  Judges  14  :  i2  —  "  the  seven  days  of  the  feast "  ; 
Ex.  16:  5— double  portion  of  manna  promised  on  the  sixth  day,  that  none  be  gathered 
on  the  Sabbath  ( cf.  verses  20,  30  ).  This  division  of  days  into  weeks  is  best  explained  by 
the  original  institution  of  the  Sabbath  at  man's  creation.  Moses  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment therefore  speaks  of  it  as  already  known  and  observed:  Ex.  20:8  — 
"  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  ke;p  it  holy." 

The  Sabbath  is  recognized  in  Assyrian  accounts  of  the  Creation  ;  see  Trans.  Soc.  Bib. 
Arch.,  5  :  427, 428  ;  Schrader,  Keilinschrif ten,  ed.  1883  :  18-22.  Professor  Sayce  :  "  Seven 
was  a  sacred  number  descended  to  the  Semites  from  their  Accadian  predecessors.  Seven 
by  seven  bad  the  magic  knots  to  be  tied  by  the  witch ;  seven  times  had  the  body  of  the 
sick  man  to  be  anointed  by  the  purifying  oil.  As  the  Sabbath  of  rest  fell  on  each 
seventh  day  of  the  w  eek,  so  the  planets,  like  the  demon-messengers  of  Auu,  were  seven 
in  number,  and  the  gods  pf  the  number  seven  received  a  particular  honor."  But  now 
the  discovery  of  a  calendar  tablet  in  Mesopotamia  sho^s  us  the  week  of  seven  days 
and  the  Sabbath  in  full  sway  in  ancient  Babylon  long  before  the  days  of  Moses.  In  this 
tablet  the  seventh,  the  fourteenth,  the  twenty- first  aad  the  twenty-eighth  days  are  called 
Sabbaths,  the  very  word  used  by  Moses,  and  following  it  are  the  words:  'A  day  of 
rest.  '  The  restrictions  are  quite  as  rigiu  in  this  tablet  as  those  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
This  institution  must  have  gone  back  to  the  Accadian  period,  before  the  days  of 
Abraham.  In  one  of  the  recent  discoveries  this  day  Ls  called  '  the  day  of  rest  for  the 
heart,'  but  of  the  gods,  on  account  of  the  propitiation  offered  on  that  day,  their  heart 
being  put  at  rest.    See  Jastrow,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  April,  1898. 

S.  S.  Times,  Jan.  1893,  art.  by  Dr.  Jensen  of  the  University  of  Strassburg  on  the  Bibli- 
cal and  Babylonian  Week :  Subattu  in  Babylonia  means  day  of  propitiation,  implying 
a  religious  purpose.  A  week  of  seven  days  is  implied  in  the  Babylonian  Flood-Story, 
the  rain  continuing  six  days  and  ceasing  on  the  seventh,  and  another  period  of  seven 
days  intervening  between  the  cessation  of  the  storm  and  the  disembarking  of  Noah, 
the  dove,  swallow  and  raven  being  sent  out  again  on  the  seventh  day.  Sabbaths  are 
called  days  of  rest  for  the  heart,  days  of  the  completion  of  labor."  Huttou,  Essays, 
2  :  229  —  "  Because  there  is  in  God's  mind  a  spring  of  eternal  rest  as  well  as  of  creative 
energy,  we  are  enjoined  to  respect  the  law  of  rest  as  well  as  the  law  of  labor."    We 


RELATIONS   OF  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   CREATION.  409 

may  question,  indeed,  -whether  this  doctrine  of  God's  rest  does  not  of  itself  refute  the 
theory  of  eternal,  continuous,  and  necessary  creation. 

(  6 )  Neither  our  Lord  nor  hie  apostles  abrogated  the  Sabbath  of  the  deca- 
logue. The  new  dispensation  does  away  with  the  Mosaic  prescriptions  as 
to  the  method  of  keeping  the  Sabbath,  but  at  the  same  time  declares  its 
observance  to  be  of  divine  origin  and  to  be  a  necessity  of  human  nature. 

Not  everything  in  the  Mosaic  law  is  abrogated  in  Christ.  Worship  and  reverence, 
regard  for  life  and  puritj  and  property,  are  binding  still.  Christ  did  not  nail  to  his 
cross  every  commandment  of  the  decalogue.  Jesus  does  not  defend  himself  from  the 
charge  of  Sabbath- breaking-  by  saying  that  the  Sabbath  is  abrogated,  but  by  asserting 
the  true  idea  of  the  Sabbath  as  fulfilling-  a  fundamental  human  need.  Mark  2:27 —  "The 
Sabbath  was  made  [  by  God  ]  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  The  Puritan  restrictions  are  not 
essential  to  the  Sabbath,  nor  do  they  correspond  even  with  the  methods  of  later  Old 
Testament  observance.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  mure  like  the  New  England  Thanks- 
giving than  like  the  New  England  Fast-day.  Nehemiah  8  :  12,  18  —  "  And  all  the  people  went  their 
way  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  to  send  portions,  and  to  make  great  mirth.  .  .  .  And  they  kept  the  feast  seven  days;  and 
on  the  eighth  day  was  a  solemn  assembly,  according  unto  the  ordinance" — seems  to  include  the  Sabbath 
day  as  a  day  of  gladness. 

Origen,  in  Homily  23  on  Numbers  (  Migne,  II :  358 ) :  "Leaving  therefore  the  Jewish 
observances  of  the  Sabbath,  let  us  see  what  ought  to  be  for  a  Christian  the  observance 
of  the;  Sabbath.  On  the  Sabbath  day  nothing  of  all  the  actions  of  the  world  ought  to 
be  done."  Christ -walks  through  the  cornfield,  heals  a  paralytic,  and  dines  with  a  Phari- 
see, all  on  the  Sabbath  day.  John  Milton,  in  his  Christian  Doctrine,  isan  extreme anti- 
sabbatarian,  maintaining  that  the  decalogue  was  abolished  with  the  Mosaic  law.  He 
thinks  it  uncertain  whether  "the  Lord's  dav"  was  weekly  or  annual.  The  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  to  his  mind,  is  a  matter  not  of  authority,  but  of  convenience.  Arch- 
bishop Paley :  "  In  my  opinion  St.  Paul  considered  the  Sabbath  a  sort  of  Jewish  ritual, 
and  not  obligatory  on  Christians.  -\  cessation  on  thai  day  from  labor  beyond  the  time 
of  attending  public  worship  is  not  intimated  in  any  part  Of  the  New  Testament.  The 
notion  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  meant  to  retain  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  only  shifting 
the  day  from  the  seventh  to  the  first,  prevails  without  sufficient  reason." 

According  to  Guizot,  Calvin  was  so  pleased  with  a  play  to  be  acted  in  Geneva  on 
Sunday,  that  he  not  only  attended  but  deferred  his  sermon  so  that  Ins  congregation 
might  attend.  "When  John  Knox  visited  Calvin,  he  found  him  playing  a  game  of 
bowls  on  Sunday.  Martin  Luther  said  :  "  Keep  the  day  holy  for  its  use's  sake,  both  to 
body  and  soul.  But  if  anywhere  the  day  is  made  holy  for  the  mere  day's  sake,  if  any 
one  set  up  its  observance  on  a  Jewish  foundation,  then  I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to 
ride  on  it,  to  dance  on  it,  to  do  anything  that  shall  reprove  this  encroachment  on  the 
.Christian  spirit  and  liberty."  But  the  most  liberal  and  even  radical  writers  of  our  time 
recognize  the  economic  and  patriotic  uses  of  the  Sabbath.  R.  W.  Emerson  said  that 
its  observance  is  "the  core  of  our  civilization."  Charles  Sumner:  "  If  we  would  per- 
petuate our  Republic,  we  must  sanctify  it  as  well  as  fortify  it,  and  make  it  at  once  a 
temple  and  a  citadel."  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes:  "He  who  ordained  the  Sabbath 
loved  the  poor."  In  Pennsylvania  they  bring  up  from  the  mines  every  Sunday  the 
mules  that  have  been  working  the  whole  week  in  darkness,— otherwise  they  would 
become  blind.  So  men's  spiritual  sight  will  fail  them  if  they  do  not  weekly  come  up 
into  God's  light. 

(c)  The  Sabbath  law  binds  us  to  set  apart  a  seventh  portion  of  our  time 
for  rest  and  worship.  It  does  not  enjoin  the  simultaneous  observance  by 
all  the  world  of  a  fixed  portion  of  absolute  time,  nor  is  such  ol  tservance 
possible.  Christ's  example  and  apostolic  sanction  have  transferred  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first,  for  the  reason  that  this  last  is 
the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  so  the  day  when  God's  spiritual  cre- 
ation became  in  Christ  complete. 

No  exact  portion  of  absolute  time  can  be  simultaneously  observed  by  men  in  differ- 
ent longitudes.  The  day  in  Berlin  begins  six  hours  before  the  day  in  New  York,  sc  that 
a  whole  quarter  of  what  is  Sunday  in  Berlin  is  still  Saturday  in  New  York.  Crossing 
the  180th  degree  of  longitude  from   West  to  East  we  gain  a  day,  and  a  seventh-day 


410  THE    WORKS    OF    GOD. 

Sabbatarian  who  circumnavigated  the  globe  might  thus  return  to  his  starting  point 
observing  the  same  Sabbath  with  his  fellow  Christians.  A.  S.  Carman,  in  the  Examiner, 
Jan.  4, 1894,  asserts  that  Heb.  4:5-9  alludes  to  the  change  of  day  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first,  in  the  references  to  "a  Sabbath  rest"  that  "remaineth,"  and  to  "another  day  "  taking  the 
place  of  the  original  promised  day  of  rest.  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles :  "  On  the 
Lord's  Day  assemble  ye  together,  and  give  thanks,  and  break  bread." 

The  change  from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first  seems  to  have  been  due  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  upon  "the  first  day  of  the  week"  (Mat.  28:1),  to  his  meeting  with  the  disciples 
upon  that  day  and  upon  the  succeeding  Sunday  ( John  20: 26),  and  to  the  pouring  out  of 
the  Spirit  upon  the  Pentecostal  Sunday  seven  weeks  after  (Acts2:l  —  see  Bap.  Quar. 
Rev.,  185 :  229-232).  Thus  by  Christ's  own  example  and  by  apostolic  sanction  the  first 
day  became  "  the  Lord's  day  "  (  Rev.  1 :  10  ),  on  which  believers  met  regularly  each  week  with 
their  Lord  ( Acts  20 : 7  —  "  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break  bread  "  )  and 
brought  together  their  benevolent  contril mtions  ( 1  Cor.  16: L 2  — " Now  concerning  the  collection  for 
the  saints  .  .  .  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  let  each  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  he  may  prosper,  that  no  col- 
lections be  made  when  I  come  ").  Eusebius,  Com.  on  Ps.  92  (  Migne,  V  :  1 191,  C ) :  "  Wherefore  those 
things  [  the  Levitical  regulations]  having  been  already  rejected,  the  Logos  through  the 
new  Covenant  transferred  and  changed  the  festival  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  rising  of  the 
sun  .  .  .  the  Lord's  day  .  .  .  holy  and  spiritual  Sabbaths." 

Justin  Martyr,  First  Apology:  "On  the  day  called  Sunday  all  who  live  in  city  or 
country  gather  together  in  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  or  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  are  read.  .  .  .  Sunday  is  the  day  on  which  we  all  hold  our  common 
assembly,  because  it  is  the  first  day  on  which  God  made  the  world  and  Jesus  our  Savior 
on  the  same  day  rose  from  the  dead.  For  he  was  crucified  on  the  day  before,  that  of 
Saturn  f  Saturday) ;  and  on  the  day  after  that  of  Saturn,  which  is  the  day  of  the  Sun 
( Sunday  ),  having  appeared  to  his  apostles  and  disciples  he  taught  them  these  things 
which  we  have  submitted  to  you  for  your  consideration."  This  seems  to  intimate  that 
Jesus  between  his  resurrection  and  ascension  gave  command  respecting  the  obser- 
vance of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  was  "received up"  only  after  "he  had  given  commandment 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  unto  the  apostles  whom  he  had  chosen  "  (  Acts  1:2). 

The  Christian  Sabbath,  then,  is  the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection.  The  Jewish  Sabbath 
commemorated  only  the  beginning  of  the  world  ;  the  Christian  Sabbath  commemor- 
ates also  the  new  creation  of  the  world  in  Christ,  in  which  God's  work  in  humanity 
first  becomes  complete.  C.  H.  M.  on  Gen.  2:  "  If  I  celebrate  the  seventh  day  it  marks  me 
as  an  earthly  man,  inasmuch  as  that  day  is  clearly  the  rest  of  earth  —  creation-rest ;  if  I 
intelligently  celebrate  the  first  day  of  the  week,  I  am  marked  as  a  heavenly  man,  believ- 
ing in  the  new  creation  in  Christ."  (  Gal.  4  :  10, 11  —  "  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  seasons,  and 
years.  I  am  afraid  of  you,  least  by  any  means  I  have  bestowed  labor  upon  you  in  vain  "  ;  Col.  2 :  16, 17 —  "Let  no 
man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  feast  day  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sabbath  day  :  which  are 
a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come ;  but  the  body  is  Christ's.')  See  George  S.  Gray,  Eight  Studies  on  the 
Lord's  Day  ;  Hessey,  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Sunday ;  Gilfillan,  The  Sabbath ;  Wood, 
Sabbath  Essays ;  Bacon,  Sabbath  Observance ;  Hadley,  Essays  Philological  and  Criti- 
cal, 325-345;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  3  :  321-348;  Lotz,  Qua?stiones  de  Historia  Sabbati ; 
Maurice,  Sermons  on  the  Sabbath ;  Prize  Essays  on  the  Sabbath  ;  Crafts,  The  Sabbath 
for  Man  ;  A.  E.  Waffle,  The  Lord's  Day ;  Alvah  Hovey,  Studies  in  Ethics  and  Religion, 
271-320;  Guirey,  The  Hallowed  Day;  Gamble,  Sunday  and  the  Sabbath;  Driver,  art.: 
Sabbath,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary;  Broadus,  Am.  Com.  on  Mat.  12:3.  For  the 
seventh-day  view,  sec  T.  B.  Brown,  The  Sabbath  ;  J.  N.  Andrews,  History  of  the  Sab- 
bath.   Per  contra,  see  Prof.  A.  Rauschenbusch,  Saturday  or  Sunday  ? 


SECTION    II. —  PRESERVATION. 


1.     Definition  of  Preservation. 


Preservation  is  that  continuous  agency  of  God  by  which  he  maintains 
in  existence  the  things  he  has  created,  together  with  the  properties  and 
powers  with  which  he  has  endowed  them.     As  the  doctrine  of  creation  is 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PRESERVATION".        411 

our  attempt  to  explain  the  existence  of  the  universe,  so  the  doctrine  of 
Preservation  is  our  attempt  to  explain  its  continuance. 

In  explanation  we  remark  : 

(  a )  Preservation  is  not  creation,  for  preservation  presupposes  creation. 
That  which  is  preserved  must  already  exist,  and  must  have  come  into  exist- 
ence by  the  creative  act  of  God. 

( b  )  Preservation  is  not  a  mere  negation  of  action,  or  a  refraining  to 
destroy,  on  the  part  of  God.  It  is  a  positive  agency  by  which,  at  every 
moment,  he  sustains  the  persons  and  the  forces  of  the  universe. 

( c )  Preservation  implies  a  natural  concurrence  of  God  in  all  operations 
of  matter  and  of  mind.  Though  personal  beings  exist  and  God's  will  is  not 
the  sole  force,  it  is  still  true  that,  without  his  concurrence,  no  person  or 
force  can  continue  to  exist  or  to  act. 

Dorner,  System  of  Doctrine,  2:40-42  —  "Creation  and  preservation  cannot  be  the 
same  thing,  for  then  man  would  be  only  the  product  of  natural  forces  supervised  by 
God,  —  whereas,  man  is  above  nature  and  is  inexplicable  from  nature.  Nature  is  not 
the  whole  of  the  universe,  but  only  the  preliminary  basis  of  it.  .  .  .  The  rest  of  Cod  is  not 
cessation  of  activity,  but  Is  a  new  exercise  of  power."  Nor  is  (bid  "the  soul  of  the 
universe."    This  phrase  is  pantheistic,  and  implies  that  (bid  is  the  only  agent. 

It  is  a  wonder  that  physical  lite  continues.  The  pumping  of  blood  through  the 
heart,  whether  we  sleep  or  wake,  requires  an  expenditure  of  energy  far  beyond  our 
ordinary  estimates.  The  muscle  of  the  heart  never  rests  except  between  the  be, its. 
All  the  blood  in  the  body  passes  through  the  heart  in  each  half-minute.  The  grip  oi 
the  heart  is  greater  than  that  of  the  fist.  The  two  ventricles  of  the  heart  hold  on  the 
average  ten  ounces  or  five-eighths  Of  a  pound,  and  this  amount  is  pumped  out  at  each 
beat.  At  72  per  minute,  this  is  45  pounds  per  minute,  2,700  pounds  per  hour,  and  G4,80C 
pounds  or  32  and  four  tenths  tons  per  day.  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  11:554 — "The 
heart  does  about  one-fifth  of  the  whole  mechanical  work  of  the  body  — a  work 
equivalent  to  raising  its  own  weight  over  V-':, OH)  feet  an  hour.  It  takes  its  rest  only  in 
short  snatches,  as  it  were,  its  action  as  a  whole  being  continuous.  It  must  necessarily 
be  the  earliest  sufferer  from  any  improvidence  as  regards  nutrition,  mental  emotion 
being  in  this  respect  quite  as  potential  a  cause  of  constitutional  bankruptcy  as  the  most 
violent  muscular  exertion." 

Before  the  days  of  the  guillotine  in  France,  when  the  criminal  to  be  executed  sat  in  a 
chair  and  was  decapitated  by  one  blow  of  the  sharp  sword,  an  observer  declared  that 
the  blood  spouted  up  several  feet  into  the  air.  Yet  this  great  force  is  exerted  by  the 
heart  so  noiselessly  that  we  are  for  the  most  part  unconscious  of  it.  The  power  at 
work  is  the  power  of  God,  and  we  call  that  exercise  of  power  by  the  name  of  preserva- 
tion. Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  130  — "  We  do  not  get  bread  because  God 
instituted  certain  laws  of  growing  wheat  or  of  baking  dough,  he  leaving  these  laws  to 
run  of  themselves.  But  God,  personally  present  in  the  wheat,  makes  it  grow,  and  in 
the  dough  turns  it  into  bread.  He  does  not  make  gravitation  or  cohesion,  but  these  are 
phases  of  his  present  action.  Spirit  is  the  reality,  matter  and  law  are  the  modes  of  its 
expression.  So  in  redemption  it  is  not  by  the  working  of  some  perfect  plan  that  God 
saves.  He  is  the  immanent  God,  and  all  of  his  benefits  are  but  phases  of  his  person 
and  immediate  influence." 

PI.    Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Preservation. 

1.     From  Scripture. 

In  a  number  of  Scripture  passages,  preservation  is  expressly  distin- 
guished from  creation.  Though  God  rested  from  his  work  of  creation 
and  established  an  order  of  natural  forces,  a  special  and  continuous  divine 
activity  is  declared  to  be  put  forth  in  the  upholding  of  the  universe  and  its 


412  THE   WOKKS    OP    GOD. 

powers.  This  divine  activity,  moreover,  is  declared  to  be  the  activity  of 
Christ  ;  as  he  is  the  mediating  agent  in  creation,  so  he  is  the  mediating 
agent  in  preservation. 

Nehemiah  9:6  —  "  Thou  art  Jehovah,  even  thou  alone ;  thou  hast  made  heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  with  all 
their  host,  the  earth  and  all  things  that  are  thereon,  the  seas  and  all  that  is  in  them,  and  thou  preservest  them  all "  ;  Job 
7 :  20  —  "0  thou  watcher  [  marg.  '  preserver '  ]  of  men  !  "  Ps.  36 :  6  —  "  thou  pressrvest  man  and  beast "  ;  104 :  29,  30 

—  "  Thou  takest  away  their  breath,  they  die,  And  return  to  their  dust.  Thou  sendest  forth  thy  Spirit,  they  are  created, 
And  thou  renewest  the  face  of  the  ground."  See  Perowne  on  Ps.  104  —  "A  psalm  to  the  God  who  is  in 
and  with  nature  for  good.  "  Humboldt,  Cosmos,  2 :  413—  "  Psalm  104  presents  an  image 
of  the  whole  Cosmos."  Acts  17  :  28 — "in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being  "  ;  Col.  1 :  17 — "in  him 
all  things  consist "  ;  Heb,  1 :  2,  3 —  "upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power.  "  John  5  :  17 —  "My  Father 
worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work  "  —  refers  most  naturally  to  preservation,  since  creation  is  a 
work  completed ;  compare  Gen.  2:2  —  "on  the  seventh  day  God  finished  his  work  which  he  had  made ;  and 
he  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made.  "  God  is  the  upholder  of  physical  life  ; 
see  Ps.  66  :  8,  9  — "  0  bless  our  God  ... .  who  holdeth  our  soul  in  life."  God  is  also  the  upholder  of  spirit- 
ual life  ;  see  1  Tim.  6 :  13  —"I  charge  thee  in  the  sight  of  God  who  preserveth  all  things  alive  "  (  ^cuoyoi-oOi'Tos  to. 
TiavTa.  )  =  the  great  Preserver  enables  us  to  persist  in  our  Christian  course.  Mat.  4  :  4  — 
"  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God ' ' —  though  originall y 
referring  to  physical  nourishment  is  equally  true  of  spiritual  sustentation.    In  Ps.  104 :  26 

—  "There  go  the  ships,"  Dawson,  Mod.  Ideas  of  Evolution,  thinks  the  reference  is  not  to 
man's  works  but  to  God's,  as  the  parallelism  :  "There  is  leviathan"  would  indicate,  and  that 
by  "ships"  are  meant  "floaters"  like  the  nautilus,  which  is  a  "little  ship."  The  104th  Psalm 
is  a  long  hymn  to  the  preserving  power  of  God,  who  keeps  alive  all  the  creatures  of  the 
deep,  both  small  and  great. 

2.     From  Reason. 

We  may  argue  the  joreserving  agency  of  God  from  the  following 
considerations  : 

( a )  Matter  and  mind  are  not  self-existent.  Since  they  have  not  the 
cause  of  their  being  in  themselves,  their  continuance  as  well  as  their  origin 
must  be  due  to  a  superior  power. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre  :  "  AVere  the  world  self -existent,  it  would  be  God,  not  world, 
and  no  religion  would  be  possible.  .  .  .  The  world  has  receptivity  for  new  creations ; 
but  these,  once  introduced,  are  subject,  like  the  rest,  to  the  law  of  preservation  "  —  i.  e., 
are  dependent  for  their  continued  existence  upon  God. 

( b  )  Force  implies  a  will  of  which  it  is  the  direct  or  indirect  expression. 
We  know  of  force  only  through  the  exercise  of  our  own  wills.  Since  will 
is  the  only  cause  of  which  we  have  direct  knowledge,  second  causes  in 
nature  may  be  regarded  as  only  secondary,  regular,  and  automatic  workings 
of  the  great  first  Cause. 

For  modern  theories  identifying  force  with  divine  will,  see  Herschel,  Popular 
Lectures  on  Scientific  Subjects,  400;  Murphy,  Scientific  Pases,  13-15,  29-36,42-52;  Duke  of 
Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  121-127;  Wallace,  Natural  Selection,  363-371 ;  Bowen,  Metaphysics 
and  Ethics,  146-162 ;  Martineau,  Essays,  1 :  63,  265,  and  Study,  1 :  244  —  "  Second  causes  in 
nature  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  First  Cause  as  the  automatic  movement  of  the 
muscles  in  walking  bears  to  the  first  decision  of  the  will  that  initiated  the  walk.  "  It  is 
often  objected  that  we  cannot  thus  identify  force  with  will,  because  in  many  eases  the 
effort  of  our  will  is  fruitless  for  the  reason  that  nervous  and  muscular  force  is  lacking-. 
Rut  this  proves  only  that  force  cannot  be  identified  with  human  will,  not  that  it  cannot 
be  identified  with  the  divin6  will.  To  the  divine  will  no  force  is  lacking  ;  in  God  will 
and  force  are  one. 

We  therefore  adopt  the  view  of  Maine  de  Biran,  that  causation  pertains  only  to  spirit. 
Porter,  Human  Intellect,  582-588,  objects  to  this  view  as  follows:  "This  implies,  first, 
that  the  conception  of  a  material  cause  is  self-contradictory.  But  the  mind  recognizes 
in  itself  spiritual  energies  that  are  not  voluntary;  because  we  derive  our  notion  of 
cause  from  will,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  causal  relation  always  involves  will ;  it 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PRESERVATION.        413 

would  follow  that  the  universe,  so  far  as  it  is  not  intelligent,  is  impossible.  It  implies, 
secondly,  that  there  is  but  one  agent  in  the  universe,  and  that  the  phenomena  of  matter 
and  mind  are  but  manifestations  of  one  single  force  —  the  Creator's."  We  reply  to 
this  reasoning  by  asserting  that  no  dead  thing  can  act,  and  that  what  we  call  involuntary 
spiritual  energies  are  really  unconscious  or  uuremembered  ai  tivities  of  the  will. 

From  our  present  point  of  view  we  would  also  criticize  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology, 
1 :  596  —  "  Because  we  get  our  idea  of  force  from  mind,  it  does  not  follow  that  mind  is 
the  only  force.  That  mind  is  a  cause  is  no  proof  that  electricity  may  not  be  a  cause.  If 
matter  is  force  and  nothing  but  force,  then  matter  is  nothing,  and  the  external  world 
is  simply  God.  In  spite  of  such  argument,  men  will  believe  that  the  external  world  is 
a  reality*— that  matter  is,  and  that  it  is  the  cause  of  the  effects  we  attribute  to  its 
agency."  New  Englander,  Sept.  1883 :  552  — "Man  in  early  time  used  second  causes, 
1. 1 .,  machines,  very  little  to  accomplish  his  purposes.  His  usual  mode  of  action  was  by 
the  direct  use  of  his  hands,  or  his  voice,  and  he  naturally  ascribed  to  the  gods  the  same 
method  as  his  own.  II is  own  use  of  second  causes  has  led  man  to  higher  conceptions  of 
the  divine  action. "  Dorner :  "  If  the  world  had  no  independence,  it  would  not  reflect 
Cod,  nor  would  creation  mean  anything."  Rut  this  independence  is  not  absolute. 
Even  man  lives,  moves  and  has  his  being  in  God  (Acts  17  :28  ),  and  whatever  has  come  into 
being,  whether  material  or  spiritual,  has  life  only  in  Christ  ( Johnl :  3, 4,  marginal  reading). 

Preservation  is  God's  continuous  willing.  Bowne,  Introd.  to  Psych,  [Theory,  305, 
speaks  of  "a  kind  of  wholesale  willing.''  Augustine:  "  Dei  voluntas  est  rerum  natura." 
Principal  Fairbairn  :  "  Nature  is  spirit."  Tennyson,  The  Ancient  Sage  :  "  Force  is  fri  an 
the  heights."  Lord  Clifford,  quoted  in  Max  Mtiller,  Anthropological  Religion,  382  — 
"  The  human  soul  is  neither  self-derived  nor  self -subsisting.  It  would  vanish  if  it  had 
not  a  substance,  and  its  substance  is  God."  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  284,  285  —  "  Mat- 
tor  is  simply  spirit  in  its  lowest  form  of  manifestation.  The  absolute  Cause  must  be 
that  deeper  Self  which  we  find  at  the  heart  of  our  own  self -consciousness.  By  self- 
differentiation  God  creates  both  matter  and  mind." 

(c)  God's  sovereignty  requires  a  belief  in  his  special  reserving  agency  ; 
since  this  sovereignty  would  not  be  absolute,  if  anything  occurred  or 
existed  independent  of  his  will. 

James  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  29,  30— "All  cosmic  folic  is  will.  .  .  .  This  iden- 
tification of  nature  with  God's  will  would  be  pantheistic  only  if  we  turned  the  propo- 
sition round  anil  idenl  ifled  God  with  no  more  than  t  he  lite  of  tin-  universe.  But  we  do 
not  deny  transcendency.  Natural  forces  are  God's  will,  but  God's  will  is  more  than 
vhey.  He  is  not  the  equivalent  of  the  All,  but  its  directing  Mind.  God  is  not  the  rage 
of  the  wild  beast,  nor  the  sin  of  man.  There  are  things  and  beings  objective  to  him.  .  .  . 
He  puts  his  power  into  that  which  is  other  limit  hinm  If,  and  he  parts  with  other  use  of  it 
by  preengagement  to  an  end.  Yet  he  is  the  continuous  source  and  supply  of  power  to 
the  system." 

Natural  forces  are  generic  volitions  of  God.  Rut  human  wills,  with  their  power  of 
alternative,  are  the  product  of  God's  self-limitation,  even  more  than  nature  is,  for 
human  wills  do  not  always  obey  the  divine  will,  —  they  may  even  oppose  it.  Nothing 
finite  isouly  finite.  In  it  is  the  Infinite,  not  only  as  immanent,  but  also  as  transcend- 
ent, and  in  the  case  of  sin,  as  opposing  the  sinner  and  as  punishing  him.  This  continu- 
ous willing  of  God  has  its  analogy  in  our  own  subconscious  willing.  J.  M.  Whiton,  in 
Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  Apl.  1901 :  320—  "Our  own  will,  when  we  walk,  does  not  put  forth  a  sep- 
arate volition  for  every  step,  but  depends  on  the  automatic  action  of  the  lower  nerve- 
centres,  which  it  both  sets  in  mot  [on  and  keeps  to  their  work.  So  the  divine  Will  does 
not  work  in  innumerable  separate  acts  of  volition."  A.  R.  Wallace  :  "The  whole  uni- 
verse is  not  merely  dependent  on,  but  actually  is,  the  will  of  higher  intelligences  or  of 
one  supreme  Intelligence.  .  .  .  Man's  free  will  is  only  a  larger  artery  for  the  controlling 
current  of  the  universal  Will,  whose  time-long  evolutionary  How  constitutes  the  self- 
revelation  of  the  Infinite  One."  This  latter  statement  of  Wallace  merges  the  finite  will 
far  too  completely  in  the  will  of  God.  It  is  true  of  nature  and  of  all  holy  beings,  but 
it  is  untrue  of  the  wicked.  These  are  indeed  upheld  by  God  in  their  being,  but  opposed 
by  God  in  their  conduct.  Preservation  leaves  room  for  human  freedom,  responsibility, 
sin,  and  guilt. 

All  natural  forces  and  all  personal  beings  therefore  give  testimony  to  the  will  of  God 
which  originated  them  and  which  continually  sustains  them.  The  physical  universe, 
indeed,  is  in  no  sense  independent  of  God,  for  its  forces  are  only  the  constant  willing 


414  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

of  God,  and  its  laws  arc  only  the  habits  of  God.  Only  in  the  free  will  of  intelligent, 
beings  has  God  disjoined  from  himself  any  portion  of  force  and  made  it  capable  of  con- 
tradicting his  holy  will.  But  even  in  free  agents  God  does  not  cease  to  uphold.  The 
being  that  sins  can  maintain  its  existence  only  through  the  preserving  agency  of  God. 
The  doctrine  of  preservation  therefore  holds  a  middle  ground  between  two  extremes. 
It  holds  that  finite  personal  beings  have  a  real  existence  and  a  relative  independence. 
On  the  other  hand  it  holds  that  these  persons  retain  their  being  and  their  powers 
only  as  they  are  upheld  by  God. 

God  is  the  soul,  but  not  the  sum,  of  thiugs.  Christianity  holds  to  God's  transcendence 
as  well  as  to  God's  immanence.  Immanence  alone  is  God  imprisoned,  as  transcendence 
alone  is  God  banished.  Gore,  Incarnation,  136  s</. — "  Christian  theology  is  the  harmony 
of  pantheism  and  deism."  It  maintains  transcendence,  and  so  has  all  the  good  of  pan- 
theism without  its  limitations.  It  maintains  immanence,  and  so  has  all  the  good  of 
deism  without  its  inability  to  show  how  God  could  be  blessed  without  creation.  Diman, 
Theistic  Argument,  367  —  "The  dynamical  theory  of  nature  as  a  plastic  organism,  per- 
vaded by  a  system  of  forces  uniting  at  last  in  one  supreme  Force,  is  altogether  more  in 
hai'mony  with  the  spirit  and  teaching  of  the  Gospel  than  the  mechanical  conceptions 
which  prevailed  a  century  ago,  which  insisted  on  viewing  nature  as  an  intricate 
machine,  fashioned  by  a  great  Artificer  who  stood  wholly  apart  from  it."  On  the 
persistency  of  force,  super  cuncta,  suhter  cuncta,  see  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1881 : 1-24 ;  Cocker, 
Theistic  Conception  of  the  "World,  172-243,  esp.  236.  The  doctrine  of  preservation  there- 
fore holds  to  a  God  both  in  nature  and  beyond  nature.  According  as  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  elements  is  exclusively  regarded,  we  have  the  error  of  Deism,  or  the 
error  of  Continuous  Creation  —  theories  which  we  now  proceed  to  consider. 

III.     Theories  which  vtrttja:l:lt  dent  the  doctrine  of  Preservation. 

1.     Deism. 

This  view  represents  the  universe  as  a  self-sustained  mechanism,  from 
which  God  withdrew  as  soon  as  he  had  created  it,  and  which  he  left  to  a 
process  of  self-development.  It  was  held  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries  by  the  English  Herbert,  Collins,  Tindal,  and  Bolingbroke. 

Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury  was  one  of  the  first  who  formed  deism  into  a  system.  His 
book  De  I 'eritate  was  published  in  1624.  He  argues  against  the  probability  of  God's 
revealing  his  will  to  only  a  portion  of  the  earth.  This  he  calls  "particular  religion." 
Yet  he  sought,  and  according  to  his  own  account  he  received,  a  revelation  from  heaven 
to  encourage  the  publication  of  his  work  in  disproof  of  revelation.  He  "asked  for  a 
sign,"  and  was  answered  by  a  "loud  though  gentle  noise  from  the  heavens."  He  had 
the  vanity  to  think  his  book  of  such  importance  to  the  cause  of  truth  as  to  extort  a 
declaration  of  the  divine  will,  when  the  interests  of  half  mankind  could  not  secure  any 
revelation  at  all ;  what  God  would  not  do  for  a  nation,  he  would  do  for  an  individual. 
See  Leslie  and  Leland,  Method  with  the  Deists.  Deism  is  the  exaggeration  of  the  truth 
of  God's  transcendence.  See  Christlieb,  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,  190-209. 
Melanchthon  illustrates  by  the  shipbuilder :  "  Ut  faber  discedit  a  navi  exstructa  et 
relinquit  earn  nautis."  God  is  the  maker,  not  the  keeper,  of  the  watch.  In  Sartor 
Resartus,  Carlyle  makes  Teufelsdrockh  speak  of  "An  absentee  God,  sitting  idle  ever 
since  the  first  Sabbath  at  the  outside  of  the  universe,  and  seeing  it  go."  Blunt,  Diet. 
Doct.  and  Hist.  Theology,  art. :  Deism. 

"  Deism  emphasized  the  inviolability  of  natural  law,  and  held  to  a  mechanical  view  of 
the  world  "  ( Ten  Broeke ).  Its  God  is  a  sort  of  Hindu  Brahma,  "  as  idle  as  a  painted 
ship  upon  a  painted  ocean"— mere  being,  without  content  or  movement.  Bruce, 
Apologetics,  115-131  — "  God  made  the  world  so  good  at  the  first  that  the  best  he  can  do 
is  to  let  it  alone.  Prayer  is  inadmissible.  Deism  implies  a  Pelagian  view  of  human 
nature.  Death  redeems  us  by  separating  us  from  the  body.  There  is  natural  immor- 
tality, but  no  resurrection.  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  the  brother  of  the  poet  George 
Herbert  of  Bemerton,  represents  the  rise  of  Deism;  Lord  Bolingbroke  its  decline. 
Blount  assailed  the  divine  Person  of  the  founder  of  the  faith;  Collins  its  foundation 
in  prophecy;  Woolston  its  miraculous  attestation;  Toland  its  canonical  literature. 
Tindal  took  more  general  ground,  and  sought  to  show  that  a  special  revelation  was 
unnecessary,  impossible,  unveriflable,  the  religion  of  nature  being  sufficient  and  super- 
ior to  all  religions  of  positive  institution." 


THEORIES   WHICH   DENY   PRESERVATION".  415 

We  object  to  this  view  that  : 

(  a )  It  rests  upon  a  false  analogy.  —  Man  is  able  to  construct  a  self-mov- 
ing watch  only  because  he  empjoys  preexisting  forces,  such  as  gravity, 
elasticity,  cohesion.  But  in  a  theory  which  likens  the  universe  to  a  machine, 
these  forces  are  the  very  things  to  be  accounted  for. 

Deism  regards  the  universe  as  a  "  perpetual  motion."  Modern  views  of  the  dissipa- 
tion of  energy  have  served  to  discredit  it.  Will  is  the  only  explanation  of  the  forces  in 
nature.  But  according  to  deism,  God  builds  a  house,  shuts  himself  out,  locks  the 
door,  and  then  ties  his  own  bands  in  order  to  make  sure  of  never  using  the  key.  John 
Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  114-138  —  "  A  made  mind,  a  spiritual  nature  created 
by  an  external  omnipotence,  is  an  impossible  and  self -contradictory  notion.  .  .  .  The 
human  contriver  or  artist  deals  with  materials  prepared  to  his  hand.  Deism  reduces 
God  to  a  finite  anthropomorphic  personality,  as  pantheism  annuls  the  finite  world  or 
absorbs  it  in  the  Infinite."  Hence  Spinoza,  the  pantheist,  was  the  great  antagonist  of 
10th  century  deism.    See  Woods,  Works,  2 :  40. 

(  b  )  It  is  a  system  of  anthropomorphism,  while  it  professes  to  exclude 
anthropomorphism.  —  Because  the  upholding  of  all  things  would  involve  a 
multiplicity  of  minute  cares  if  man  were  the  agent,  it  conceives  of  the 
upholding  of  the  universe  as  involving  such  burdens  in  the  case  of  God. 
Thus  it  saves  the  dignity  of  God  by  virtually  denying  his  omnipresence, 
omniscience,  and  omnipotence. 

The  infinity  of  God  turns  into  sources  of  delight  all  that  would  seem  care  to  man.  To 
God's  inexhaustible  fulness  of  life  there  are  no  burdens  in volved  in  the  upholding  of 
the  universe  he  has  created.  Since  God,  moreover,  is  a  perpetual  observer,  we  may 
alter  the  poet's  verse  and  say  :  "  There  's  not  a  flower  that  \s  born  to  blush  unseen  And 
waste  its  sweetness  on  the  desert  air."  God  does  not  expose  his  children  as  soon  as 
they  are  born.  They  are  not  only  his  offspring;  they  also  live,  move  and  have  their 
being  in  him,  and  are  partakers  of  his  divine  oat  ure.  Gordon,  Christ  of  To  day,  200  — 
"The  worst  person  in  all  history  is  something  to  Cod,  if  he  be  nothing  to  the  world." 
See  Chalmers,  Astronomical  Discourses,  in  Works,  7: 68.  Kurtz,  The  Mible  and  Astron- 
omy, in  Introd.  to  History  of  Old  Covenant,  lxxxii  —  xcviii. 

(r)  It  cannot  be  maintained  without  denying  all  providential  interfer- 
ence, in  the  history  of  creation  and  the  subsequent  history  of  the  world. — 
But  the  introduction  of  life,  the  creation  of  man,  incarnation,  regeneration, 
the  communion  of  intelligent  creatures  with  a  present  God,  and  interposi- 
tions of  God  in  secidar  history,  are  matters  of  fact. 

Deism  therefore  continually  tends  to  atheism.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  287  —  "  The 
defect  of  deism  is  that,  on  the  human  side,  it  treats  all  men  as  isolated  individuals,  for- 
getful of  the  immanent  divine  nature  which  interrelates  them  and  in  a  measure  uni- 
fies them;  and  that,  on  the  divine  side,  it  separates  men  from  God  and  makes  the 
relation  between  them  a  purely  external  one."  Ruskin:  "The  divine  mind  is  as  visible 
in  its  full  energy  of  operation  on  every  lowly  bank  and  mouldering  stone  as  in  the  lift- 
ing of  the  pillars  of  heaven  and  settling  the  foundations  of  the  earth  ;  and  to  the  rightly 
perceiving  mind  there  is  the  same  majesty,  the  same  power,  the  same  unity,  and  the 
same  perfection  manifested  in  the  casting  of  the  clay  as  in  the  scattering  of  the  cloud, 
in  the  mouldering  of  dust  as  in  the  kindling  of  the  day-star."  See  Pearson,  Infidelity, 
87 ;  Hanne,  Idee  der  absoluten  Persb'nlichkeit,  76. 

2.     Continuous  Creation. 

This  view  regards  the  universe  as  from  moment  to  moment  the  result  of 
a  new  creation.  It  was  held  by  the  New  England  theologians  Edwards, 
Hopkins,  and  Emmons,  and  more  recently  in  Germany  by  Bothe. 


416  THE  WORKS  OF   GOD. 

Edwards,  Works,  3 :  486-490,  quotes  and  defends  Dr.  Taylor's  utterance :  "  God  is  the 
original  of  all  being-,  and  the  only  cause  of  all  natural  effects."  Edwards  himself  says : 
' '  God's  upholding  created  substance,  or  causing  its  existence  in  each  successive  moment, 
is  altogether  equivalent  to  an  immediate  production  out  of  nothing  at  each  moment." 
He  argues  that  the  past  existence  of  a  thing  cannot  be  the  cause  of  its  present  existence, 
because  a  thing  cannot  act  at  a  time  and  place  where  it  is  not.  "  This  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  God  cannot  produce  an  effect  which  shall  last  for  one  moment  beyond  the 
direct  exercise  of  his  creative  power.  What  man  can  do,  God,  it  seems,  cannot "  (A.  S. 
Carman).  Hopkins,  Works,  1 :  161-107  —  Preservation  " is  really  continued  creation." 
Emmons,  Works,  4  :  363-389,  esp.  381  —  "  Since  all  men  are  dependent  agents,  all  their 
motions,  exercises,  or  actions  must  originate  in  a  divine  efliciency."  2 :  683  —  "  There  is 
but  one  true  and  satisfactory  answer  to  the  question  which  has  been  agitated  for  cen- 
turies :  '  Whence  came  evil  ?  '  and  that  is  :  It  came  from  the  first  great  Cause  of  all 
things.  .  .  .  It  is  as  consistent  with  the  moral  rectitude  of  the  Deity  to  produce  sinful 
as  holy  exercises  in  the  minds  of  men.  He  puts  forth  a  positive  influence  to  make 
moral  agents  act,  in  every  instance  of  their  conduct,  as  he  pleases."  God  therefore 
creates  all  the  volitions  of  the  soul,  as  he  effects  by  his  almighty  power  all  the  changes 
of  the  material  world.  Itothe  also  held  this  view.  To  his  mind  external  expression  is 
necessary  to  God.  His  maxim  was:  "Kein  Gott  ohne  Welt" — "There  can  be  no  God 
without  an  accompanying  world."  See  Rothe,  Dogmatik,  1 :  126-160,  esp.  150,  and  Theol. 
Ethik,  1 :  186-190 ;  also  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1875 :  144.  See  also  Lotze,  Philos.  of  Religion, 
81-94. 

The  element  of  truth  in  Continuous  Creation  is  its  assumption  that  all  force  is  will. 
Its  error  is  in  maintaining  that  all  force  is  divine  will,  and  divine  will  in  direct  exercise. 
But  the  human  will  is  a  force  as  well  as  the  divine  will,  and  the  forces  of  nature  are 
secondary  and  automatic,  not  primary  and  immediate,  workings  of  God.  These 
remarks  may  enable  us  to  estimate  the  grain  of  truth  in  the  following  utterances 
which  need  important  qualification  and  limitation.  Bowne,  Philosophy  of  Theism, 
~0i,  likens  the  universe  to  the  musical  note,  which  exists  only  on  condition  of  being 
incessantly  reproduced.  Herbert  Spencer  says  that  "  ideas  are  like  the  successive 
chords  and  cadences  brought  out  from  a  piano,  which  successively  die  away  as  others 
are  produced."  Maudsley,  Physiology  of  Mind,  quotes  this  passage,  but  asks  quite  per- 
tinently :  "  What  about  the  performer,  in  the  case  of  the  piano  and  in  the  case  of  the 
brain,  respectively  ?  Where  in  the  brain  is  the  equivalent  of  the  harmonic  conceptions 
in  the  performer's  mind?"  Professc  >r  Fitzgerald  :  ''AH  nature  is  living  thought  — the 
language  of  One  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being."  Dr.  Oliver  Lodge, 
to  the  British  Association  in  1891 :  "  The  barrier  between  matter  and  mind  may  melt 
away,  as  so  many  others  have  done." 

To  this  we  object,  upon  the  following  grounds  : 

(  a )  It  contradicts  the  testimony  of  consciousness  that  regular  and 
executive  activity  is  not  the  mere  repetition  of  an  initial  decision,  but  is  an 
exercise  of  the  will  entirely  different  in  kind. 

Ladd,  in  his  Philosophy  of  Mind,  144,  indicates  the  error  in  Continuous  Creation  as 
follows  :  "The  whole  world  of  things  is  momently  quenched  and  then  replaced  by  a 
similar  world  of  actually  new  realities."  The  words  of  the  poet  would  then  be  literally 
true :  "  Every  fresh  and  new  creation,  A  divine  improvisation,  From  the  heart  of  God 
proceeds."  Ovid,  Metaph.,  1 :  16  —  "  Instabilis  tellus,  innabilis  unda."  Seth,  Hegelian- 
isin  and  Personality,  60,  says  that,  to  Fichte,  "the  world  was  thus  perpetually  created 
anew  in  each  finite  spirit,  —  revelation  to  intelligence  being  the  only  admissible  mean- 
ing of  that  much  abused  term,  creation."  A.  L.  Moore,  Science  and  the  Faith,  184,  185 
—  "A  theory  of  occasional  intervention  implies,  as  its  correlate,  a  theory  of  ordinary 
absence.  .  .  .  For  Christians  the  facts  of  nature  are  the  acts  of  God.  Religion  relates 
these  facts  to  God  as  their  author;  science  relates  them  to  one  another, as  parts  of  a 
visible  order.  Religion  does  not  tell  of  this  interrelation ;  science  cannot  tell  of  their 
relation  to  God." 

Continuous  creation  is  an  erroneous  theory  because  it  applies  to  human  wills  a  prin- 
ciple which  is  true  only  of  irrational  nature  and  which  is  only  partially  true  of  that.  I 
know  that  I  am  not  God  acting.  My  will  is  proof  that  not  all  force  is  divine  will.  Even 
on  the  monistic  view,  moreover,  we  may  speak  of  second  causes  in  nature,  since  God's 
regular  and  habitual  action  is  a  second  and  subsequent  thing,  while  his  act  of  initiation 


THEORIES   WHICH   DENY  PRESERVATION.  417 

and  organization  is  the  first.  Neither  the  universe  nor  any  part  of  it  is  to  be  identified 
with  God,  any  more  than  my  thoughts  and  acts  are  to  be  identified  with  me.  Martineau, 
in  Nineteenth  Century,  April,  1895  :  559—  "  What  is  nature,  but  the  promise  of  God's 
pledged  and  habitual  causality  ?  And  what  is  trpirtt,  but  the  province  of  his  free  caus- 
ality responding  to  needs  and  affections  of  his  free  children?  .  .  .  God  is  not  a  retired 
architect  who  may  now  and  then  be  called  in  for  repairs.  Nature  is  not  self-active, 
and  God's  agency  is  not  intrusive."  William  Watson,  Poems,  88— "If  nature  be  a 
phantasm,  as  thou  say'st,  A  splendid  fiction  and  prodigious  dream,  To  reach  the  real 
and  true  I'll  make  no  haste,  More  than  content  with  worlds  that  only  seem." 

(  b  )  It  exaggerates  God's  power  only  by  sacrificing  his  truth,  love,  and 
holiness;  —  for  if  finite  personalities  are  not  what  they  seem  —  namely, 
objective  existences  —  God's  veracity  is  impugned  ;  if  the  human  soul  has 
no  real  freedom  and  life,  God's  love  has  made  no  self-communication  to 
creatures;  if  God's  will  is  the  only  force  in  the  universe,  God's  holiness 
can  no  longer  be  asserted,  for  the  divine  will  must  in  that  case  be  regarded 
as  the  author  of  human  sin. 

Upon  this  view  personal  identity  is  inexplicable.  Edwards  bases  identity  upon  the 
arbitrary  decree  of  God.  God  (  an  therefore,  by  so  decreeing,  make  Adam's  posterity 
one  with  their  lirst  father  and  responsible  for  his  sin.  Edwards's  theory  of  continuous 
creation,  indeed,  was  devised  as  an  explanation  of  the  problem  of  original  sin.  The 
divinely  appointed  union  of  acts  and  exercises  with  Adam  was  held  sufficient,  without 
union  of  substance,  or  natural  generation  from  him,  to  explain  our  being  burn  corrupt 
and  guilty.  This  view  would  have  been  impossible,  if  Edwards  had  nol  been  an  idealist, 
making  far  too  much  of  acts  and  exercises  and  far  too  little  of  substance. 

Itis  difficult  to  explain  the  origin  of  Jonathan  Edwards's  idealism.  It  has  sometimes 
been  attributed  to  the  reading  of  Berkeley.  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  afterwards  President 
Of  King's  College  in  New  York  City,  a  personal  friend  of  Bishop  Berkeley  and  an  ardent 
follower  of  his  teaching,  was  a  tutor  in  Vale  College  while  Edwards  was  a  student. 
Hut  Edwards  was  in  Weathersfield  while  Johnson  remained  in  New  Baven, and  was 
among  those  disaffected  towards  Johnson  as  a  tutor.  Yet  Edwards,  Original  Sin, 
479,  seems  to  allude  to  the  Berkeleyan  philosophy  when  he  says:  "The  course  of 
nature  is  demonstrated  by  recent  improvements  in  philosophy  to  be  indeed  .... 
nothing  but  the  established  order  and  operation  of  the  Author  of  nature"  (see  Allen, 
Jonathan  Edwards,  18,808,  309).  President  McCracken,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Jan.  1898  :  28  t~', 
holds  that  Arthur  Collier's  Clavis  Universalis  is  the  source  of  Edwards's  idealism.  It  is 
more  probable  that  his  idealism  was  the  result  of  his  own  independent  thinking, 
occasioned  perhaps  by  mere  hints  from  Locke,  Newton,  Cudworth,  and  Norris,  with 
whose  writings  he  certainly  was  acquainted.  See  E.  C.  Smyth,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theol., 
Oct.  1897  :  95U;  Prof.  Gardiner,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Nov.  1900  :  573-696. 

How  thorough-going  this  idealism  of  Edwards  was  may  be  learned  from  Noah  Por- 
ter's Discourse  on  Bishop  George  Berkeley,  71,  and  quotations  from  Edwards,  in  Journ. 
Spe,-.  Philos.,  Oct.  1883  :  401-420 — "Nothing  else  has  a  proper  being  but  spirits,  and 
bodies  are  but  the  shadow  of  being.  .  .  .  Seeing  the  brain  exists  only  mentally,  I  there- 
fore acknowledge  that  I  speak  improperly  when  I  say  that  the  soul  is  in  the  brain  only, 
as  to  its  operations.  For,  to  speak  yet  more  strictly  and  abstractedly,  't  is  nothing  but 
the  connection  of  the  soul  with  these  and  those  modes  of  its  own  ideas,  or  those  men- 
tal acts  of  the  Deity,  seeing  the  brain  exists  only  in  idea.  .  .  .  That  which  truly  is  the 
substance  of  all  bodies  is  the  infinitely  exact  and  precise  and  perfectly  stable  idea  in 
God's  mind,  together  with  his  stable  will  that  the  same  shall  be  gradually  communi- 
cated to  us  and  to  other  minds  according  to  certain  fixed  and  established  methods  and 
laws  ;  or,  in  somewhat  different  language,  the  infinitely  exact  and  precise  divine  idea, 
together  with  an  answerable,  perfectly  exact,  precise,  and  stable  will,  with  respect  to 
BOrrespondent  communications  to  created  minds  and  effects  on  those  minds."  It  is  easy 
to  see  how,  from  this  view  of  Edwards,  the  "  Exercise-system  "  of  Hopkins  and  Emmonfl 
naturally  developed  itself.  On  Edwards's  Idealism,  see  Frazer's  Berkeley  (  Blackwood's 
Philos.  Classics),  139,  140.  On  personal  identity,  see  Bp.  Butler,  Works  ( Bonn's  ed.), 
307-331. 

(  c )  As  deism  tends  to  atheism,  so  the  doctrine  of  continuous  creation 
tends  to  pantheism. — Arguing  that,  because  we  get  our  notion  of  force 
27 


418  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

from  the  action  of  our  own  wills,  therefore  all  force  must  be  will,  and  divine 
will,  it  is  compelled  to  merge  the  human  will  in  this  all-comprehending 
will  of  God.  Mind  and  matter  alike  become  phenomena  of  one  force, 
which  has  the  attributes  of  both  ;  and,  with  the  distinct  existence  and  per- 
sonality of  the  human  soul,  we  lose  the  distinct  existence  and  personality 
of  God,  as  well  as  the  freedom  and  accountability  of  man. 

Lotze  tries  to  escape  from  material  causes  and  yet  hold  to  second  causes,  by  intimat- 
ing that  these  second  causes  may  be  spirits.  But  though  we  can  see  how  there  can  be 
a  sort  of  spirit  in  the  brute  and  in  the  vegetable,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  what  we  call 
insensate  matter  can  have  spirit  in  it.  It  must  be  a  very  peculiar  sort  of  spirit — a 
deaf  and  dumb  spirit,  if  any  —  and  such  a  one  does  not  help  our  thinking.  On  this 
theory  the  body  of  a  dog  would  need  to  be  much  more  highly  endowed  than  its  soul. 
James  Seth,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Jan.  1894  :73—  "  This  principle  of  unity  is  a  veritable  lion's 
den, —  all  the  footprints  are  in  one  direction.  Either  it  is  a  bare  unity  —  the  One  annuls 
the  many  ;  or  it  is  simply  the  All,  —  the  ununified  totality  of  existence."  Dorner  well 
remarks  that  "  Preservation  is  empowering  of  the  creature  and  maintenance  of  its 
activity,  not  new  bringing  it  into  being."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Julius  Miiller, 
Doctrine  of  Sin,  1 :  220-225 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  258-272 ;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed, 
50;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  577-581,  595;  Dabney,  Theology,  &38,  339. 

IV.     Remakes  upon  the  Divine  Concukrence. 

(  a  )  The  divine  efficiency  interpenetrates  that  of  man  without  destroying 
or  absorbing  it.  The  influx  of  God's  sustaining  energy  is  such  that  men 
retain  their  natural  faculties  and  powers.  God  does  not  work  all,  but  all 
in  all. 

Preservation,  then,  is  midway  between  the  two  errors  of  denying  the  first  cause 
( deism  or  atheism )  and  denying  the  second  causes  ( continuous  creation  <  >r  pantheism ). 
1  Cor.  12:  6  —  "there  are  diversities  of  v/orkings,  but  the  same  God,  who  worketh  all  things  in  all"  ;  of.  Eph.  1:23  — 
the  church,  "which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all."  God's  action  is  no  acUo  in 
distant,  or  action  where  he  is  not.  It  is  rather  action  in  and  through  free  agents,  in  the 
case  of  intelligent  and  moral  beings,  while  it  is  his  own  continuous  willing  in  the  case 
of  nature.  Men  are  second  causes  in  a  sense  in  which  nature  is  not.  God  works 
through  these  human  second  causes,  but  he  does  not  supersede  them.  We  cannot  see 
the  line  between  t  he  t  wo  —  the  action  of  the  first  cause  and  the  action  of  second  causes ; 
yet  both  are  real,  and  each  is  distinct  from  the  other,  though  the  method  of  God's  con- 
currence is  inscrutable.  As  the  peu  and  the  hand  together  produce  the  writing, 
so  God's  working  causes  natural  powers  to  work  with  him.  The  natural  growth  indi- 
cated by  the  words  "wherein  is  the  seed  thereof"  (Gen.  1:11)  has  its  counterpart  in  the  spiritual 
growth  described  in  the  words  "  his  seed  abideth  in  him  "  ( 1  John  3:9).  Paul  considers  himself 
a  reproductive  agency  in  the  hands  of  God :  he  begets  children  in  the  gospel  (1  Cor.  4 :  15 ) ; 
yet  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  this  begetting  as  the  work  of  God  ( 1  Pet.  1:3).  We  are 
bidden  to  work  out  our  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  upon  the  very  ground 
that  it  is  God  who  works  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  work  ( Phil.  2 :  12, 13 ). 

( b )  Thoitgh  God  preserves  mind  and  body  in  then-  working,  we  are 
ever  to  remember  that  God  concurs  with  the  evil  acts  of  his  creatures  only 
as  they  are  natural  acts,  and  not  as  they  are  evil; 

In  holy  action  God  gives  the  natural  powers,  and  by  his  word  and  Spirit  influences 
the  soul  to  use  these  powers  aright.  But  in  evil  action  God  gives  only  the  natural 
powers ;  the  evil  direction  of  these  powers  is  caused  only  by  man.  Jer.  44 : 4  —  "  Oh,  do  not  this 
abominable  thing  that  I  hate  "  ;  Hab.  1 :  13  —  "Thou  that  art  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil,  and  that  canst  not 
look  on  perverseness,  wherefore  lookest  thou  upon  them  that  deal  treacherously,  and  boldest  thy  peace  when  the  wicked 
swalloweth  up  the  man  that  is  more  righteous  than  he  ?  "  James  1 :  13, 14  —  "Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I 
am  tempted  of  God  ;  for  God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  and  he  himself  tempteth  no  man :  but  each  man  is  tempted, 
when  he  is  drawn  away  by  his  own  lust,  and  enticed."  Aaron  excused  himself  for  making  an  Egypt- 
ian idol  by  saying  that  the  fire  did  it ;  he  asked  the  people  for  gold ;  "so  they  gave  it  me ;  and 
I  cast  it  isto  the  fire,  and  there  came  out  this  calf"  ( Ex.  32 :  24 ).    Aaron  leaves  out  one  important  point 


DEFINITION"   OF   PROVIDENCE.  419 

—  his  own  personal  agency  in  it  all.  In  like  manner  we  lay  the  blame  of  our  sins  upon 
nature  and  upon  God.  Pym  said  of  Strafford  that  Clod  had  given  him  great  talents,  of 
which  the  devil  had  given  the  application.  But  it  is  more  true  to  say  of  the  wicked 
man  that  he  himself  gives  the  application  of  his  God-given  powers.  We  are  electric 
cars  for  which  God  furnishes  the  motive-power,  but  to  which  we  the  conductors  give 
the  direction.  We  are  organs  ;  the  wind  or  breath  of  the  organ  is  God's ;  hut  the  finger- 
ing of  the  keys  is  ours.  Since  the  maker  of  the  organ  is  also  present  at  every  moment 
as  its  preserver,  the  shameful  abuse  of  his  instrument  and  the  dreadful  music  that  is 
played  are  a  continual  grief  and  suffering  to  his  soul.  Since  it  is  Christ  who  upholds  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  presen  at  ion  Involves  the  suffering  of  Christ,  and  this 
suffering  is  his  atonement,  of  which  the  culmination  and  demonstration  are  seen  in  the 
cross  of  Calvary  (Heb.  1:3).  On  the  importance  of  the  idea  of  pi'eservation  in  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  see  Calvin,  Institutes,  1 :  182  ( chapter  16). 


SECTION    III. — PROVIDENCE. 
I.     Definition  of  Providence. 

Providence  is  that  continuous  agency  of  God  by  which  he  makes  all  the 
events  of  the  physical  and  moral  universe  fulfill  the  original  design  with 
wuich  he  created  it. 

As  Creation  explains  the  existence  of  the  universe,  and  as  Preservation 
explains  its  continuance,  so  Providence  explains  its  evolution  and  progress. 

In  explanation  notice  : 

(  a )  Providence  is  not  to  be  taken  merely  in  its  etymological  sense  of 
/oreseeing.  It  is /orseeing  also,  or  a  positive  agency  in  connection  with 
all  the  events  of  history. 

(b  )  Providence  is  to  be  distinguished  from  preservation.  While  preser- 
vation is  a  maintenance  of  the  existence  and  powers  of  created  things, 
providence  is  an  actual  care  and  control  of  them. 

(c)  Since  the  original  plan  of  God  is  all-comprehending,  the  providence 
which  executes  the  plan  is  all-comprehending  also,  embracing  within  its 
scope  things  small  and  great,  and  exercising  care  over  individuals  as  well 
as  over  classes. 

( d )  In  respect  to  the  good  acts  of  men,  providence  embraces  all  those 
natural  influences  of  birth  and  surroundings  which  prepare  men  for  the 
operation  of  God's  word  and  Spirit,  and  which  constitute  motives  to  obe- 
dience. 

( e)  In  respect  to  the  evil  acts  of  men,  providence  is  never  the  efficient 
cause  of  sin,  but  is  by  turns  preventive,  permissive,  directive,  and  deter- 
minative. 

(/)  Since  Christ  is  the  only  revealer  of  God,  and  he  is  the  medium  of 
every  divine  activity,  providence  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  Christ ; 
see  1  Cor.  8:6  —  "  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things  "  ; 
cf.  John  5  :  17 —  "  My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work." 

The  Germans  have  the  word  Ftbrgehung,  forseeing,  looking  out  for,  as  well  as  the 
word  Vorsehung,  foreseeing,  seeing  beforehand.  Our  word  '  providence '  embraces  the 
meanings  of  both  these  words.    On  the  general  subject  of  providence,  see  Philippi, 


420  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Glaubenslehre,  2:273-284;  Calvin,  Institutes,  1:183-219;  Dick,  Theology,  1:41(5-446; 
Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1 :  581-616 ;  Bib,  Sac,  12 :  179 ;  21 :  584 ;  26  :  315 ;  30 :  593 ;  N.  W.  Taylor, 
Moral  Government,  2 :  294-326. 

Providence  is  God's  attention  concentrated  everywhere.  His  care  is  microscopic  as 
well  as  telescopic.  Robert  Browning,  Pippa  Passes,  ad  fuiem  :  "  All  service  is  the  same 
with  God  —  With  God,  whose  puppets,  best  and  worst,  Are  we:  there  is  no  last  nor 
first."  Canon  Farrar :  "  In  one  chapter  of  the  Koran  is  the  story  how  Gabriel,  as  he 
waited  by  the  gates  of  gold,  was  sent  by  God  to  earth  to  do  two  things.  One  was  to 
prevent  king  Solomon  from  the  sin  of  forgetting  the  hour  of  prayer  in  exultation 
over  his  royal  steeds ;  the  other  to  help  a  little  yellow  ant  on  the  slope  of  Ararat,  which 
had  grown  weary  In  getting  food  for  its  nest,  and  which  would  otherwise  perish  in  the 
rain.  To  Gabriel  the  one  behest  seemed  just  as  kingly  as  the  other,  since  God  had 
ordered  it.  '  Silently  he  left  The  Presence,  and  prevented  the  king's  sin,  And  holp  the 
little  ant  at  entering  in.'  'Nothing  is  too  high  or  low.  Too  mean  or  mighty,  if  God 
wills  it  so.'  "  Yet  a  preacher  began  his  sermon  on  Mat.  10 :  30  —  "  The  very  hairs  of  your  head  are 
p.re  all  numbered  "  —  by  saying  :  "  Why,  some  of  you,  my  hearers,  do  not  believe  that  even 
your  heads  are  all  numbered  ! " 

A  modern  prophet  of  unbelief  in  God's  providence  is  "William  Watson.  In  his  poem 
entitled  The  Unknown  God,  we  read:  "When  overarched  by  gorgeous  night,  I  wave 
my  trivial  self  away  ;  When  all  I  was  to  all  men's  sight  Shares  the  erasure  of  the  day  ; 
Then  do  I  cast  my  cumbering  load,  Then  do  I  gain  a  sense  of  God."  Then  he  likens 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  to  Odin  and  Zeus,  and  continues  :  "  O  streaming  worlds, 

0  crowded  sky,  O  life,  and  mine  own  soul's  abyss,  Myself  am  scarce  so  small  that  I 
Should  bow  to  Deity  like  this !  This  my  Begetter?  This  was  what  Man  in  his  violent 
youth  begot.  The  God  I  know  of  I  shall  ne'er  Know,  though  he  dwells  exceeding  nigh. 
Raise  thou  the  stone  and  find  me  there,  Cleave  thou  the  wood  and  there  am  I.  Yea,  in 
my  flesh  his  Spirit  doth  flow,  Too  near,  too  far,  for  me  to  know.    Whate'er  my  deeds, 

1  am  not  sure  That  I  can  pleasure  him  or  vex :  I,  that  must  use  a  speech  so  poor  It 
narrows  the  Supreme  with  sex.  Notes  he  the  good  or  ill  in  man  ?  To  hope  he  cares  is 
all  I  can.  I  hope  with  fear.  For  did  I  trust  This  vision  granted  me  at  birth,  The  sire 
of  heaven  would  seem  less  just  Than  many  a  faulty  son  of  earth.  And  so  he  seems 
indeed  !  But  then,  I  trust  it  not,  this  bounded  ken.  And  dreaming  much,  I  never  dare 
To  dream  that  in  my  prisoned  soul  The  flutter  of  a  trembling  prayer  Can  move  the 
Mind  that  is  the  Whole.  Though  kneeling  nations  watch  and  yearn,  Does  the  primeval 
Purpose  turn?  Best  by  remembering  God,  say  some,  We  keep  our  high  imperial  lot. 
Fortune,  I  fear,  hath  oftencst  come  When  we  forgot— when  we  forgot !  A  lovelier  faith 
their  happier  crown,  But  history  laughs  and  weeps  it  down :  Know  they  not  well  how 
seven  times  seven,  Wronging  our  mighty  arms  with  rust,  We  dared  not  do  the  work 
of  heaven,  Lest  heaven  should  hurl  us  in  the  dust?  The  work  of  heaven  1  'T  is  waiting 
still  The  sanction  of  the  heavenly  will.  Unmeet  to  be  profaned  by  praise  Is  he  whose 
coils  the  world  enfold  ;  The  God  on  whom  1  ever  gaze,  The  God  I  never  once  behold : 
Above  the  cloud,  above  the  clod,  The  unknown  God,  the  unknown  God." 

In  pleasing  contrast  to  William  Watson's  Unknown  God,  is  the  God  of  Rudyard  Kip- 
ling's Recessional :  "  God  of  our  fathers,  known  of  old  —  Lord  of  our  far-flung  battle- 
line —  Beneath  whose  awful  hand  we  hold  Dominion  over  palm  and  pine  —  Lord  God  of 
hosts,  be  with  us  yet,  Lest  we  forget  —  lest  we  forget!  The  tumult  and  the  shouting 
dies  —  The  captains  and  the  kings  depart  — Still  stands  thine  ancient  Sacrifice,  An 
humble  and  a  contrite  heart.  Lord  God  of  hosts,  be  with  us  yet,  Lest  we  forget  — lest 
we  forget  I  Far-called  our  navies  melt  away  —  On  dune  and  headland  sinks  the  lire  — 
So,  all  our  pomp  of  yesterday  Is  one  with  Nineveh  and  Tyre !  Judge  of  the  nations, 
spare  us  yet,  Lest  we  forget  —  lest  we  forget !  If,  drunk  with  sight  of  power,  we  loose 
Wild  tongues  that  have  not  thee  in  awe  — Such  boasting  as  the  Gentiles  use,  Or  lesser 
breeds  without  the  Law  —  Lord  God  of  hosts,  be  with  us  yet,  Lest  we  forget  —  lest  we 
forget  1  For  heathen  heart  that  puts  her  trust  In  reeking  tube  and  iron  shard  —  All 
valiant  dust  that  builds  on  dust,  And  guarding  calls  not  thee  to  guard  — For  frantic 
boast  and  foolish  word,  Thy  mercy  on  thy  people,  Lord ! " 

These  problems  of  God's  providential  dealings  are  intelligible  only  when  we  consider 
that  Christ  is  the  revealer  of  God,  and  that  his  suffering  for  sin  opens  to  us  the  heart  of 
God.  All  history  is  the  progressive  manifestation  of  Christ's  holiness  and  love,  and  in 
the  cross  we  have  the  key  that  unlocks  the  secret  of  the  universe.  With  the  cross  in 
view,  we  can  believe  that  Love  rules  over  all,  and  that  "all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them 
that  love  God"  (Rom.  8:28). 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PROVIDENCE.         421 

H.     Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Providence. 

1.     Scriptural  Proof. 

The  Scripture  witnesses  to 

A.  A  general  providential  government  and  control  (a)  over  the  uni- 
verse at  large  ;  (  b  )  over  the  physical  world  ;  (  c  )  over  the  brute  creation  ; 
(  d )  over  the  affairs  of  nations ;  ( c )  over  man's  birth  and  lot  in  life  ; 
(/)  over  the  outward  successes  and  failures  of  men's  lives  ;  (//)  over  things 
seemingly  accidental  or  insignificant ;  ( h  )  in  the  protection  of  the 
righteous  ;  ( i )  in  the  supply  of  the  wants  of  God's  people  ;  (j  )  in  the 
arrangement  of  answers  to  prayer  ;  (  /; )  in  the  exposure  and  punishment 
of  the  wicked. 

(a)  Ps.  103  :  19  —  "his  kingdom  ruleth  over  all "  ;  Dan.  4:35  —  "  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven, 
and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  "  ;  Eph.  1:11  —  "  worketh  all  things  after  the  connsel  of  his  will." 

( // )  Job  37  :  5,  10  —  "  God  thnndereth  ....  By  the  brea'h  of  Gol  ice  is  given  "  ;  Ps.  104  :  14  —  "causeth  the  grass 
to  grow  for  the  cattle  "  ;  135  :  6,  7  —  "  Whatsoever  Jehovah  p'eased,  that  hath  he  done,  In  heaven  and  in  earth,  in  the  seas 
and  in  all  deeps  ....  vapors  ....  lightnings  ....  wind  "  ;  Mat.  5  :  45  —  "maketh  his  sun  to  rise  ....  sendeth 
rain"  ;  Ps.  104:16 — "The  trees  of  Jehovah  are  filled"^  are  planted  and  tended  by  God  as  care- 
fully as  those  which  come  uuder  human  cultivation;  cf.  Mat.  6 :  30  —  " if  God  so  clothe  the 
grass  of  the  field."  ' 

(c)  Ps.  104:21,  28  —  "  young  lions  roar  ....  seek  their  food  from  God  ....  that  thou  givest  them  they  gather  " 
Mat.  6 :  26  —  "  birds  of  the  heaven  ....  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth  them  "  ;  10  :  29  —  "  two  sparrows  ....  not  one 
of  them  shall  fall  on  the  ground  without  your  Father." 

(d)  Job  12  :  23  —  "He  increaseth  the  nat  ons,  and  he  destroyeth  them  :  He  enlargeth  the  nations,  and  he  leadeth  them 
captive  "  ;  Ps.  22 :  £8  —  "the  k  ngdom  is  Jehovah's ;  And  he  Is  the  ruler  over  the  nations  "  ;  66  :  7  —  "He  ruleth  by  his 
might  for  ever ;  His  eyes  observe  the  nations  ' ;  Acts  17  :  26  —  "  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
of  the  earth,  having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  "  ( instance  Palestine, 
Greece,  England ). 

(  e  )  1  Sam.  16  ;  1 —  "  fill  thy  horn  with  oil,  and  go :  I  will  send  thee  to  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite ;  for  I  have  pro- 
vided me  a  king  among  his  sons  "  j  Ps.  139  :  16  — "  Thine  eyes  did  see  mine  unformed  substance,  And  in  thy  book 
were  all  my  members  written  "  ;  Is.  45  :  5  —  "I  will  gird  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me  "  ;  Jer.  1  :  5  —  "  Before 
I  formed  thee  in  the  belly  I  knew  thee  ....  sanctified  thee  ....  appointed  thee"  ;  Gal.  1:15,  16 — "God,  who 
separated  me,  even  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  through  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I  might 
preach  him  amo:  g  the  Gentiles." 

(  f )  Ps.  75  :  6,  7 —  "neither  from  the  east,  nor  from  the  west,  Nor  yet  from  the  south  cometh  lifting  up.  But  God  is  the 
judge  ,  He  putteth  down  one,  and  lifteth  up  another "  ;  Luke  1 :  52  —  "He  hath  put  down  princes  from  their  thrones, 
And  hath  eialted  them  of  low  degree.  " 

( (/)  Prov.  16:  33 — "The  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap;  But  the  whole  disposing  thereof  is  of  Jehovah"  ;  Mat.  10:30 — "the 
very  hairs  of  your  head  a-e  all  numbered." 

(  h  )  Ps.  4  :  8  —  "In  peace  will  I  both  lay  me  down  and  sleep ;  For  thou,  Jehovah,  alone  makest  me  dwell  in  safety  "  ; 
5  :  12  —  "  thou  wilt  compass  him  with  favor  as  with  a  shield "  ;  63  :  8  —  "Thy  right  hand  upholdeth  me  "  ;  121 :  3  — - 
" He  that  keepeth  thee  will  not  slumber  "  ;  Rom.  8  :  28  —  "to  them  that  love  God  all  things  work  together  for  good." 

(  i  )  Gen.  22  :  8.  li  —  "God  will  provide  himself  the  lamb  ....  Jehovah-jireh  "  f  marg.:  that  is,  'Jehovah  will 
see, '  or  '  provide ' ) ;  Deut.  8:3  —  "man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only,  but  by  every  thing  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  Jehovah  doth  man  live"  ;  Phil.  4  :  !9  —  "my  God  shall  supply  every  need  of  yours." 

( j  )  Ps.  68  :  10  —  "  Thou,  0  God,  didst  prepare  of  thy  goodness  for  the  poor  "  ;  Is.  64  :  4  —  "  neither  hath  the  eye  seen 
a  God  besides  th"e,  who  worketh  for  hm  that  waiteth  for  him  "  ;  Mat.  6:8 —  "your  Father  knoweth  what  things  ye 
have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  him  "  ;  32,  33  —  "  all  these  th  ngs  shall  be  added  unto  you." 

(  k  >  Ps.  7  :  12,  13  —  "  If  a  man  turn  not,  he  will  whet  his  sword ;  He  hath  bent  his  bow  and  made  it  ready  ;  He  hath 
also  prepared  for  him  the  instruments  of  death  ;  He  maketh  his  arrows  fiery  shafts  "  ;  11 :  6  —  "  Upon  the  wicked  he  will 
rain  snares ;  Fire  and  br.mstone  and  burning  wind  shall  be  the  portion  of  their  cup." 

The  statements  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  God's  providence  are  strikingly  con- 
firmed by  recent  studies  in  physiography.  In  the  early  stages  of  human  development 
man  was  almost  wholly  subject  to  nature,  and  environment  was  a  determining  factor 
in  his  progress.  This  is  the  element  of  truth  in  Buckle's  view.  But  Buckle  ignored  the 
fact  that,  as  civilization  advanced,  ideas,  at  least  at  times,  played  a  greater  part  than 
environment.  Thermopylae  cannot  be  explained  by  climate.  In  the  later  stages  of 
human  development,  nature  is  largely  subject  to  man,  and  environment  counts  for 
comparatively  little.    "There  shall  be  no  Alps!  "says  Napoleon.    Charles  Kingsley  : 


422  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

*'  The  spirit  of  ancient  tragedy  was  man  conquered  by  circumstance ;  the  spirit  of 
modern  tragedy  is  man  conquering  circumstance.  "  Yet  many  national  characteristics 
can  be  attributed  to  physical  surroundings,  and  so  far  as  this  is  the  case  they  are  due  to 
the  ordering  of  God's  providence.  Man's  need  of  fresh  water  leads  him  to  rivers, — 
hence  the  original  location  of  London.  Commerce  requires  seaports, — hence  New 
York.  The  need  of  defense  leads  man  to  bluffs  and  hills,  —  hence  Jerusalem,  Athens, 
Rome,  Edinburgh.  These  places  of  defense  became  also  places  of  worship  and  of  appeal 
to  God. 

Goldwin  Smith,  in  his  Lectures  and  Essays,  maintains  that  national  characteristics 
are  not  congenital,  but  are  the  result  of  environment.  The  greatness  of  Rome  and 
the  greatness  of  England  have  been  due  to  position.  The  Romans  owed  their  successes 
to  being  at  first  less  warlike  than  their  neighbors.  They  were  traders  in  the  centre  of 
the  Italian  seacoast,  and  had  to  depend  on  discipline  to  make  headway  against 
marauders  on  the  surrounding  hills.  Only  when  drawn  into  foreign  conquest  did 
the  ascendency  of  the  military  spirit  become  complete,  and  then  the  military  spirit 
brought  despotism  as  its  natural  penalty.  Brought  into  contact  with  varied  races, 
Rome  was  led  to  the  founding  of  colonies.  She  adopted  and  assimilated  the  nations 
which  she  conquered,  and  in  governing  them  learned  organization  and  law.  Parcere 
gubjectis  was  her  rule,  as  well  as  debellare  supcrbos.  In  a  siniiliar  manner  Goldwin 
Smith  maintains  that  the  greatness  of  England  is  due  to  position.  Britain  being  an 
island,  only  a  bold  and  enterprising  race  could  settle  it.  Maritime  migration  strength- 
ened freedom.  Insular  position  gave  freedom  from  invasion.  Isolation  however  gave 
rise  to  arrogance  and  self-assertion.  The  island  became  a  natural  centre  of  commerce. 
There  is  a  steadiness  of  political  progress  which  would  have  been  impossible  upon  the 
continent.  Yet  consolidation  was  tardy,  owing  to  the  fact  that  Great  Britain  consists 
of  several  islands.    Scotland  was  always  liberal,  and  Ireland  foredoomed  to  subjection. 

Isaac  Taylor,  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  has  a  valuable  chapter  on  Palestine  as  the 
providential  theatre  of  divine  revelation.  A  little  land,  yet  a  sample-land  of  all  lauds, 
and  a  thoroughfare  between  the  greatest  lauds  of  antiquity,  it  was  fitted  b3'  God  to 
receive  and  to  communicate  his  truth.  George  Adam  Smith's  Historical  Geography  of 
the  Holy  Land  is  a  repertory  of  information  on  this  subject.  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters, 
1 :  209-271,  treats  of  Greek  landscape  and  history.  Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature, 
sees  such  difference  between  Greek  curiosity  and  search  for  causes  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Roman  indifference  to  scientific  explanation  of  facts  on  the  other,  that  he  cannot 
think  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans  as  cognate  peoples.  He  believes  that  Italy  was  first 
peopled  by  Etrurians,  a  Semitic  race  from  Africa,  and  that  from  them  the  Romans 
descended.  The  Romans  had  as  little  of  the  spirit  of  the  naturalist  as  had  the  Hebrews. 
The  Jews  and  the  Romans  originated  and  propagated  Christianity,  but  they  had  no 
interest  in  science. 

On  God's  pre-arrangement  of  the  physical  conditions  of  national  life,  striking  sug- 
gestions may  be  found  in  Shaler,  Nature  and  Man  in  America.  Instance  the  settlement 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  between  1029  and  1039,  the  only  decade  in  which  such  men  as 
John  Winthrop  could  be  found  and  the  only  one  in  which  they  actually  emigrated 
from  England.  After  1039  there  was  too  much  to  do  at  home,  and  with  Charles  II  the 
spirit  which  animated  the  Pilgrims  no  longer  existed  in  England.  The  colonists 
builded  better  than  they  knew,  for  though  they  sought  a  place  to  worship  God  them- 
selves, they  had  no  idea  of  giving  this  same  religious  liberty  to  others.  R.  E.  Thompson, 
The  Hand  of  God  in  American  History,  holds  that  the  American  Republic  would 
long  since  have  broken  in  pieces  by  its  own  weight  and  bulk,  if  the  invention  of  steam- 
boat in  1807,  railroad  locomotive  in  1829,  telegraph  in  1837,  and  telephone  in  1877,  had 
not  bound  the  remote  parts  of  the  country  together.  A  woman  invented  the  reaper  by 
combining  the  action  of  a  row  of  scissors  in  cutting.  This  was  as  early  as  1835.  Only 
in  1855  the  competition  on  the  Emperor's  farm  at  Compiegne  gave  supremacy  to  the 
reaper.  Without  it  farming  would  have  been  impossible  during  our  civil  war,  when 
our  men  were  in  the  field  and  women  and  boys  had  to  gather  in  the  crops. 

B.  A  government  and  control  extending  to  the  free  actions  of  men  — 
(  a)  to  men's  free  acts  in  general ;  (  b  )  to  the  sinful  acts  of  men  also. 

(a)  Ex.  12 :  36  —  "  Jehovah  gave  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they  let  them  have  what  they 
asked.  And  they  despoiled  the  Egyptians "  ;  1  Sam.  24  :  18  —  "Jehovah  had  delivered  me  up  into  thy  hand  (  Saul  to 
David  ) ;  Ps.  33  :  14,  15  —  "  He  looketh  forth  Upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  He  that  fashioneth  the  hearts  of  them 
all "  ( i.  e.,  equally,  one  as  well  as  another ) ;  Prov.  16  : 1  —  "  The  plans  of  the  heart  belong  to  man ;  But  the 
answer  of  the  tongue  is  from  Jehovah"  ;  19  :  21  —  "There  are  many  devices  in  a  man's  heart;  But  the  counsel  of  Jehovah, 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PROVIDENCE.         423 

that  shall  stand  "  ;  20 :  24  — "A.  man's  goings  are  of  Jehovah ;  How  then  can  man  understand  his  way  ?  "  21 :  1  — "  The 
king's  heart  is  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah  as  the  watercourses:  He  turneth  it  whithersoever  he  w.ll  "  (  i.  e.,  as  easily  as 
the  rivulets  of  the  eastern  fields  are  turned  by  the  slightest  motion  of  the  hand  or  the 
foot  of  the  husbandman  ) ;  Jer.  10 :  23  —  "0  Jehovah,  I  know  that  the  way  of  man  is  not  in  himself;  it  is  not 
in  man  that  walketh  to  d  rect  his  sU-ps  "  ;  Phil.  2 :  K  —  "it  is  God  who  worketh  in  yon  both  to  will  and  to  work, 
for  his  good  pleasure  "  ;  Eph.  2 :  10  —  "we  are  h's  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God 
afore  prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them  "  ;  James  4 :  13-15  —  "If  the  Lord  will,  we  shall  both  live,  and  do  this  or 
that," 

( Ii )  2  Sam.  16  :  10  —  "  because  Jehovah  hath  said  unto  him  [  Shimei  ] :  Curse  David  "  ;  24 : 1  —  "  the  anger  of 
Jehovah  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  moved  David  against  them,  saying,  Go,  number  Israel  and  Judah  "  ;  Rom. 
11 :  32  —  "God  hath  shut  up  all  unto  d  sobedience,  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all "  ;  2  Thess.  2  :  11,  12  —  " God 
s;ndeth  them  a  working  of  error,  that  they  should  believe  a  lie  :  that  they  all  might  be  judged  who  believed  not  the 
truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness." 

Henry  Ward  Beecher  :  "  There  seems  to  he  no  order  in  the  movements  of  the  bees  of 
a  hive,  but  the  honey-comb  shows  that  there  was  a  plan  in  them  all. "  John  Hunter 
compared  his  own  brain  to  a  hive  in  which  there  was  a  great  deal  of  buzzing  ami 
apparent  disorder,  while  jet  a  real  order  underlay  it  all.  "  As  lues  g&l  her  their  stores 
of  sweets  against  a  time  of  need,  hut  are  colonized  by  man's  superior  Intelligence  for 
his  own  purposes,  so  men  plan  and  work  yet  are  overruled  by  infinite  Wisdom  for  his 
own  g-lory."  Dr.  Deems:  "  The  world  is  wide  In  Time  and  Tide,  And  God  i.--  guide: 
Then  do  not  hurry.  That  man  is  blest  Who  does  his  best  And  leaves  the  rest :  Then  do 
not  worry."  See  Bruce,  Providential  Order,  183  »/. ;  Providence  in  the  Individual 
Life,  231  8'/. 

God's  providence  with  respect  to  men's  evil  acts  is  described  in  Scripture 
as  of  four  sorts  : 

(a)  Preventive, —  God  by  his  providence  prevents  sin  which  would 
otherwise  be  committed.  That  he  thus  prevents  sin  is  to  be  regarded  as 
matter,  not  of  obligt.aon,  but  of  grace. 

Gen.  20  :  6  —  Of  A bimelech  :  "  I  also  withheld  thee  from  sinning  against  me  "  ;  31 :  24  — "And  God  came  to 
laban  the  Syrian  in  a  dream  of  the  night,  and  said  unto  him,  Take  heed  to  thyself  that  thou  speak  not  to  Jacob  either 
good  or  bad"  ;  Psalm  19  :  13 — "leep  back  thy  servant  also  from  presumptuous  sins ;  Let  them  not  have  dominion  over 
me  "  ;  Hosea  2:6  —  "Behold,  I  will  hedge  up  thy  way  with  thorns,  and  I  will  build  a  wall  against  her,  that  she  shall 
not  find  her  paths"  —  here  the  "thorns"  and  the  'wail  "  may  represent  1  lie  restraints  and  suffer- 
ings by  which  (I  oil  mercifully  cheeks  the  fatal  pursuit  of  sin  (see  Annotated  Par.  Bible 
in  hxi)  ).  Parents,  government,  church,  traditions,  customs,  laws,  age,  disease,  death, 
are  all  of  them  preventive  influences.  Man  sometimes  linds  himself  on  the  brink  ol 
a  precipice  of  sin,  and  strong  temptation  hurries  him  on  to  make  the  fatal  leap.  Sud- 
denly e\  ery  nen  e  relaxes,  all  desire  for  the  evil  thing  is  gone,  and  he  recoils  from  the 
fearful  brink  over  which  he  was  just  now  going  to  plunge,  'bid  has  interfered  by  the 
voice  of  conscience  and  the  Spirit.  This  ton  is  a  part  of  his  preventive  providence. 
Men  at  sixty  years  of  age  are  eighl  times  less  likely  to  commit  crime  than  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five.  Passion  has  subsided;  fear  of  punishment  has  increased.  The  manager 
of  a  great  department  store,  when  asked  what  could  prevent  its  absorbing  all  the 
trade  of  the  city,  replied  :  "  Death  ! "  Death  certainly  limits  aggregal  ions  of  property, 
and  so  constitutes  a  means  of  God's  preventive  providence.  In  the  life  of  John  G. 
Paton,  the  rain  sent  by  God  prevented  the  natives  from  murdering'  him  and  taking  his 
goods. 

(  6  )  Permissive, — God  permits  men  to  cherish  and  to  manifest  the  evil 
dispositions  of  their  hearts.  God's  permissive  providence  is  simply  the 
negative  act  of  withholding  impediments  from  the  path  of  the  sinner, 
instead  of  preventing  his  sin  by  the  exercise  of  divine  power.  It  implies 
no  ignorance,  passivity,  or  indulgence,  but  consists  with  hatred  of  the  sin 
and  determination  to  punish  it. 

2  Chron.  32  :  31  — "  God  left  him  [  Hezekiah  ],  to  try  him,  that  he  might  know  all  that  was  in  his  heart"  ;  c/. 
Deut.  8  :  2  —  "that  he  might  humble  thee,  to  prove  thee,  to  know  what  was  in  thine  heart."  Ps.  17  :  13, 14 — "Deliver 
my  soul  from  the  wicked,  who  is  thy  sword,  from  men  who  are  thy  hand,  0  Jehovah"  ;  Ps.  81  :  12,  13 —  "Sol  let  them 
go  after  the  stubbornness  of  their  heart,  That  they  might  walk  in  their  own  counsels.  Oh  that  my  people  would  hearken 
unto  me  ! "    Is.  53  :  4,  '0  —  "Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs.    ...   Yet  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  brtuse  him."     Hosea  4 


424  THE    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

17  —  "  Ephraim  is  joined  to  idols ;  let  him  alone  "  ;  Acts  14  :  16  —  "  who  in  the  generations  gone  by  suffered  all  the 
nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways  "  ;  Rom.  1  :  24,  28 —  "  God  gave  them  up  in  the  lusts  of  their  hearts  unto  uncleanness. 
.  .  .  God  gave  them  up  unto  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those  things  which  are  not  fitting";  3:25  —  "to  show  his  right- 
eousness, because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God."  To  this  head  of  per- 
missive providence  is  possibly  to  be  referred  i  Sam.  18  :  10  —  "  an  evD  spirit  from  God  came  mightily 
upon  Saul."  As  the  Hebrew  writers  saw  in  second  causes  the  operation  of  the  great  first 
Cause,  and  said:  "The  God  of  glory  thundereth"  (  Ps.  29  :  3),  so,  because  even  the  acts  of  the 
wicked  entered  into  God's  plan,  the  Hebrew  writers  sometimes  represented  God  as 
doing  what  he  merely  permitted  finite  spirits  to  do.  In  2  Sam.  24 : 1,  God  moves  David  to 
number  Israel,  but  in  1  Chron.  21 : 1  the  same  thing-  is  referred  to  Satan.  God's  providence 
in  these  cases,  however,  may  be  directive  as  well  as  permissive. 

Tennyson,  The  Higher  Pantheism :  "  God  is  law,  say  the  wise ;  O  Soul,  and  let  us 
rejoice,  For  if  he  thunder  by  law  the  thunder  is  yet  his  voice."  Fisber,  Nature  and 
Method  of  Revelation,  56 — "The  clear  separation  of  God's  efficiency  from  God's  per- 
missive act  was  reserved  to  a  later  day.  All  emphasis  was  in  the  Old  Testament  laid 
upon  the  sovereign  power  of  God."  Coleridge,  in  his  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring 
Spirit,  letter  II,  speaks  of  "the  habit,  universal  with  the  Hebrew  doctors,  of  referring 
all  excellent  or  extraordinary  things  to  the  great  first  Cause,  without  mention  of  the 
proximate  and  instrumental  causes  — a  striking  illustration  of  which  may  be  found  by 
comparing  the  narratives  of  the  same  events  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  historical  books. 
.  .  .  The  distinction  between  the  providential  and  the  miraculous  did  not  enter  into 
their  forms  of  thinking — at  any  rate,  not  into  their  mode  of  conveying  their  thoughts." 
The  woman  who  had  been  slandered  rebelled  when  told  that  God  had  permitted  it  for 
her  good  ;  she  maintained  that  Satan  had  inspired  her  accuser ;  she  needed  to  learn 
that  God  had  permitted  the  work  of  Satan. 

(  e  )  Directive, —  God  directs  the  evil  acts  of  men  to  ends  unforeseen  and 
unintended  by  the  agents.  When  evil  is  in  the  heart  and  will  certainly 
coine  out,  God  orders  its  flow  in  one  direction  rather  than  in  another,  so 
that  its  course  can  be  best  controlled  and  least  harm  may  result.  This  is 
sometimes  called  overruling  providence. 

Gen.  50  :  20  —  "as  for  you,  ye  meant  evil  against  me ;  but  God  meant  it  for  good,  to  bring  to  pass,  as  it  is  this  day,  to 
save  much  people  alive  "  ;  Ps,  76  :  10  —  "  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee :  The  res.dua  of  wrath  shalt  thou  gird  upon 
thee  "  =  put  oil  as  an  ornament  —  clothe  thyself  with  it  for  thine  own  glory  ;  Is.  10  :  5 — "Ho 
Assyrian,  the  rod  of  mine  anger,  and  the  staff  in  whose  hand  is  mine  indignation  "  ;  John  13  :  27  —  "  What  thou  doest, 
do  quickly"  =  do  in  a  particular  way  what  is  actually  being  done  (  Westcott,  Bib.  Com  , 
in  loco  ;  Acts  4  :  27,  28  —  "  against  thy  holy  Servant  Jesus,  whom  thou  didst  anoint,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pi'ate, 
with  the  Gentiles  and  the  peoples  of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  fore- 
ordained to  come  to  pass." 

'  To  this  head  of  directive  providence  should  probably  be  referred  the  passages  with 
regard  to  Pharaoh  in  Ex.  4  :  21  —  "I  will  harden  his  heart,  and  he  will  not  let  the  people  go "  ;  7  :  13  —  "and 
Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  " ;  8  :15  —  "  he  hardened  his  heart " — i.  c,  Pharaoh  hardened  his  own  heart. 
Here  the  controlling  agency  of  God  did  not  interfere  with  the  liberty  of  Pharaoh  or 
oblige  him  to  sin  ;  but  in  judgment  for  his  previous  cruelty  and  impiety  God  withdrew 
the  external  restraints  which  had  hitherto  kept  his  sin  within  bounds,  and  placed  him 
in  circumstances  which  would  have  influenced  to  right  action  a  well-disposed  mind,  but 
which  God  foresaw  would  lead  a  disposition  like  Pharaoh's  to  the  peculiar  course  of 
wickedness  which  he  actually  pursued. 

God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  then,  first,  by  permitting  him  to  harden  his  own  heart, 
God  being  the  author  of  his  sin  only  in  the  sense  that  he  is  the  author  of  a  free  being  who 
is  himself  the  direct  author  of  his  sin  ;  secondly,  by  giving  to  him  the  means  of  enlight- 
enment, Pharaoh's  very  opportunities  being  perverted  by  him  into  occasions  of  more 
virulent  wickedness,  and  good  resisted  being  thus  made  to  result  in  greater  evil ;  thirdly, 
by  judicially  forsaking  Pharaoh,  when  it  became  manifest  that  he  would  not  do  God's 
will,  and  thus  making  it  morally  certain,  though  not  necessary,  that  he  would  do  evil ; 
and  fourthly,  by  so  directing  Pharaoh's  surroundings  that  his  sin  would  manifest  itself 
in  one  way  rather  than  in  another.  Sin  is  like  the  lava  of  the  volcano,  which  will  cer- 
tainly come  out,  but  which  God  directs  in  its  course  down  the  mountain-side  so  that  it 
will  do  least  harm.  The  gravitation  downward  is  due  to  man's  evil  will ;  the  direction 
to  this  side  or  to  that  is  due  to  God's  providence.  See  Rom.  9  :  17, 18  —  "  For  this  very  purpose  di ! 
I  raise  thee  up,  that  I  might  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  nam?  might  be  published  abroad  in  all  the  earth.  So 
then  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth,"      Thus  the  very  passions  Avhich 


PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PROVIDENCE.        425 

excite  men  to  rebel  against  God  are  made  completely  subservient  to  his  purposes; 
sec  Annotated  Paragraph  Bible,  on  Ps.  76  :  10. 

God  hardens  Pharaoh's  heart  only  after  all  the  earlier  plagues  have  been  sent.  Phar- 
aoh had  hardened  his  own  heart  before.  God  hardens  no  man's  heart  who  has  not  first 
hardened  it  himself.  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  140 — "Jehovah  is  never  said  to 
harden  the  heart  of  a  good  man,  or  of  one  who  is  set  to  do  righteousness.  It  is  always 
those  who  are  bent  on  evil  whom  God  hardens.  Pharaoh  hardens  his  own  heart  beiore 
the  Lord  is  said  to  harden  it.  Nature  is  God,  and  it  is  the  nature  of  human  beings  to 
harden  when  they  resist  softening  influences,"  The  Watchman,  Dec.  5,  1901 :  11  —"God 
decreed  to  Pharaoh  what  Pharaoh  had  chosen  for  himself.  Persistence  in  certain  incli- 
nations and  volitions  awakens  within  the  body  and  soul  forces  which  are  not  under  the 
control  of  the  will,  and  which  drive  the  man  on  in  the  way  he  has  chosen.  After  a 
time  nature  hardens  the  hearts  of  men  to  do  evil." 

(cl)  Determinative, —  God  determines  the  bounds  reached  by  the  evil 
passions  of  his  creatures,  and  the  measure  of  their  effects.  Since  moral 
evil  is  a  germ  capable  of  indefinite  expansion,  God's  determining  the 
measure  of  its  growth  docs  not  alter  its  character  or  involve  God's  com- 
plicity with  the  perverse  wills  which  cherish  it. 

Job  1  :  12  —  "  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Satan,  Behold,  all  that  he  hath  is  in  thy  power ;  only  upon  himself  put  not  forth 
thy  hand  "  ;  2:6  — "  Behold,  he  is  in  thy  hand  ;  only  spare  his  lif; "  ;  Ps.  124  :  2  —  "  If  it  had  not  been  Jehovah  who 
was  on  our  side,  when  men  rose  up  against  us ;  Then  had  they  swallowed  ns  up  alive  "  ;  1  Cor.  10  :  13  — "  will  not  suffer 
you  to  be  tempted  above  that  ye  are  abl) ;  bit  will  with  the  temptation  make  also  the  way  of  escape,  that  ye  may  be  able 
to  enduro  it  "  ;  2  Thcss.  2  :  7  —  "For  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  doth  already  work ;  only  there  is  one  that  restranrth 
now,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way  " ;  Rev.  20  : 2,  3  —  "  And  he  laid  hold  on  the  dragon,  the  old  serpent,  which  is  the 
Devil  and  Satan,  and  bound  him  for  a  thousand  years." 

Pepper,  Outlines  of  Syst.  TheoL,  7ti  —  The  union  of  God's  will  and  man's  will  is  "such 
that,  while  in  one  view  all  can  be  ascribed  to  God,  in  another  all  can  be  ascribed  to  the 
creature.  But  how  God  and  the  creature  are  united  in  operation  is  doubtless  known 
and  knowable  only  to  Cod.  A  very  dim  analogy  is  furnished  in  t  lie  union  of  the  soul 
and  body  in  men.  The  hand  retains  its  own  physical  laws,  yel  is  obedient  to  the  human 
will.  This  theory  recognizes  the  veracityof  consciousness  in  its  witness  to  persona] 
freedom,  and  yet  the  completeness  of  Cod's  control  of  both  the  bad  and  the  good.  Free 
beings  are  ruled,  but  are  ruled  as  free  and  in  their  freedom.  The  freedom  is  not  saerif 
deed  to  the  control.  The  two  coexist,  each  in  its  integrity.  Any  doctrine  which  does 
not  allow  this  is  false  to  Scripture  anil  deal  ructive  of  religion." 

2.    Rational  proof. 

A.  Arguments  a  priori  from  the  divine  attributes.  («)  From  the 
immutability  of  God.  This  makes  it  certain  that  he  will  execute  his  eter- 
nal plan  of  the  universe  and  its  history.  But  the  execution  of  this  plan 
involves  not  only  creation  and  preservation,  but  also  providence.  ( 6 )  From 
the  benevolence  of  God.  Tins  renders  it  certain  that  he  will  care  for  the 
intelligent  universe  he  has  created.  What  it  was  worth  his  while  to  create, 
it  is  worth  his  while  to  care  for.  But  this  care  is  providence.  (  c )  From 
the  justice  of  God.  As  the  source  of  moral  law,  God  must  assure  the  vin- 
dication of  law  by  administering  justice  in  the  universe  and  punishing 
the  rebellious.     But  this  administration  of  justice  is  providence. 

For  heathen  ideas  of  providence,  see  Cicero,  De  Natura  Deorum,  11  :  30,  where  Bal- 
bus  speaks  of  the  existence  of  the  gods  as  that,  "  quo  concesso,  confitendum  est  eorum 
consilifl  mundum  administrari."  Epictetus,  sec.  41 — "The  principal  and  most  important 
duty  in  religion  is  to  possess  y<  >ur  mind  with  just  and  becoming  notions  of  the  gods  —  to 
believe  that  there  are  such  supreme  beings,  and  that  they  govern  and  dispose  of  all  the 
affairs  of  the  world  with  a; just  and  good  providence."  Marcus  Antoninus:  "If  there 
are  no  gods,  or  if  they  have  no  regard  for  human  affairs,  why  should  I  desire  to  live  in 
a  world  without  gods  and  without  a  providence  ?  But  gods  undoubtedly  there  are,  and 
they  regard  human  affairs.''  See  also  Bib.  Sac,  16  :  374.  As  we  shall  see,  however,  many 
of  the  heathen  writers  believed  in  a  general,  rather  than  in  a  particular,  providence. 


426  THE    WORKS    OF   GOD. 

On  the  argument  for  providence  derived  from  God's  benevolence,  see  Appleton, 
"Works,  1 :  140 — "  Is  indolence  more  consistent  with  God's  majesty  than  action  would  be? 
The  happiness  of  creatures  is  a  good.  Does  it  honor  God  to  say  that  he  is  indifferent  to 
that  which  he  knows  to  be  good  and  valuable  ?  Even  if  the  world  had  come  into  exist- 
ence without  his  agency,  it  would  become  God's  moral  character  to  pay  some  attention 
to  creatures  so  numerous  and  so  susceptible  to  pleasure  and  pain,  especially  when  he 
might  have  so  great  and  favorable  an  influence  on  their  moral  condition."  John5:  17  — 
"  My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work  " —  is  as  applicable  to  providence  as  to  preservation. 

The  complexity  of  God's  providential  arrangements  may  be  illustrated  by  Tyndall's 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  heartsease  does  not  grow  in  the  neighborhood  of  English 
villages:  1.  In  English  villages  dogs  run  loose.  2.  Where  dogs  run  loose,  cats  must 
stay  at  home.  3.  Where  cats  stay  at  home,  field  mice  abound.  4.  Where  field  mice 
abound,  the  nests  of  bumble-bees  are  destroyed.  5.  Where  bumble-bees'  nests  are 
destroyed,  there  is  no  fertilization  of  pollen.  Therefore,  where  dogs  go  loose,  no  hearts- 
ease grows. 

B.  Arguments  a  posteriori  from  the  facts  of  nature  and  of  history, 
(a)  The  outward  lot  of  individuals  and  nations  is  not  wholly  in  their  own 
hands,  but  is  in  many  acknowledged  respects  subject  to  the  disposal  of  a 
higher  power.  (  b )  The  observed  moral  order  of  the  world,  although 
imperfect,  cannot  be  accounted  for  without  recognition  of  a  divine  provi- 
dence. Vice  is  discouraged  and  virtue  rewarded,  in  ways  which  are  beyond 
the  power  of  mere  nature.  There  must  be  a  governing  mind  and  will,  and 
this  mind  and  will  must  be  the  mind  and  will  of  God. 

The  birthplace  of  individuals  and  of  nations,  the  natural  powers  with  which  they  are 
endowed,  the  opportunities  and  immunities  they  enjoy,  are  beyond  their  own  control. 
A  man's  destiny  for  time  and  for  eternity  may  be  practically  decided  for  him  by  his 
birth  in  a  Christian  home,  rather  than  in  a  tenement-house  at  the  Five  Points,  or  in  a 
kraal  of  the  Hottentots.  Progress  largely  depends  upon  "variety  of  environment" 
(  H .  Spencer ).  But  this  variety  of  environment  is  in  great  part  independent  of  our  own 
efforts. 

"  There  's  a  Divinity  that  shapes  our  ends,  Rough  hew  them  how  we  will."  Shakes- 
peare here  expounds  human  consciousness.  "Man  proposes  and  God  disposes  "  has 
become  a  proverb.  Experience  teaches  that  success  and  failure  are  not  wholly  due  to 
us.  Men  of  ten  labor  and  lose  ;  they  consult  and  nothing  ensues;  they  "  embattle  and 
are  broken."  Providence  is  not  always  on  the  side  of  the  heaviest  batallions.  Not  arms 
but  ideas  have  decided  the  fate  of  the  world  —  as  Xerxes  found  at  Thermopylae,. and 
Napoleon  at  Waterloo.  Great  movements  are  generally  begun  without  consciousness 
of  their  greatness.  Cf.  Is.  42  :  16  —  "I  will  bring  the  blind  by  a  way  th:»t  they  know  not  "  ;  1  Cor.  5  :  37,  38 
—  "thou  sowest  ...  a  bare  grain  .  .  .  but  God  giveth  it  a  body  even  as  it  pleased  hiUi.'' 

The  deed  returns  to  the  doer,  and  character  shapes  destiny.  This  is  true  in  the  long 
run.  Eternity  will  show  the  truth  of  the  maxim.  But  here  in  time  a  sufficient  number 
of  apparent  exceptions  are  permitted  to  render  possible  amoral  probation.  If  evil 
were  always  immediately  followed  by  penalty,  righteousness  would  have  a  compelling 
power  upon  the  will  and  the  highest  virtue  would  be  impossible.  Job's  friends  accuse 
Job  of  acting  upon  this  principle.  The  Hebrew  children  deny  its  truth,  when  they  say : 
"But  if  not" —even  if  God  does  not  deliver  us  —  "  we  will  not  serve  thy  gods,  nor  worship  the  golden 
image  which  thou  hast  set  up  "  ( Ban.  3  :  18 ). 

Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  298  —  "  Through  some  misdirection  or  infirmity,  most 
of  the  larger  agencies  in  history  have  failed  to  reach  their  own  ideal,  yet  have  accom- 
plished revolutions  greater  and  more  beneficent ;  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  the 
empire  of  Rome,  the  Crusades,  the  ecclesiastical  persecutions,  the  monastic  asceti- 
cisms, the  missionary  zeal  of  Christendom,  have  all  played  a  momentous  part  in  the 
drama  of  the  world,  yet  a  part  which  is  a  surprise  to  each.  All  this  shows  the  control- 
ling presence  of  a  Reason  and  a  Will  transcendent  and  divine."  Kidd,  Social  Evolution, 
99,  declares  that  the  progress  of  the  race  has  taken  place  only  under  conditions  which 
have  had  no  sanction  from  the  reason  of  the  great  proportion  of  the  individuals  who 
submit  to  them.  He  concludes  that  a  rational  religion  is  a  scientific  impossibility,  and 
that  the  function  of  religion  is  to  provide  a  super-rational  sanction  for  social  progress. 
We  prefer  to  say  that  Providence  pushes  the  race  forward  even  against  its  will. 

James  Russell  Lowell,  Letters,  2  :  51,  suggests  that  God's  calm  control  of  the  forces 


THEORIES  OPPOSING  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   PROVIDENCE.         42? 

of  the  universe,  both  physical  and  meutal,  should  give  us  confidence  when  evil 
seems  impending :  "How  many  times  have  I  seen  the  firerengines  of  church  and  state 
Clanging  and  lumbering  along  to  put  out —  a  false  alarm!  And  when  the  heavens 
are  cloudy,  what  a  glare  can  be  cast  by  a  burning  shanty  !  "  See  Sermon  on  Provi- 
dence in  Political  Revolutions,  in  Farrar's  Science  and  Theology,  228.  On  the  moral 
order  of  the  world,  notwithstanding  its  imperfections,  see  Butler,  Analogy,  Bonn's 
ed.,  98 ;  King,  in  Baptist  Review,  1884  :  202-282. 

III.     Theories  opposing  the  Doctrine  of  Providence,    r 

1.  Fatalism. 

Fatalism  maintains  the  certainty,  but  denies  the  freedom,  of  human  self- 
determination,  —  thus  substituting  fate  for  providence. 

To  this  view  we  object  that  I  a  )  it  contradicts  consciousness,  which  testi- 
fies that  we  are  free;  (6)  it  exalts  the  divine  power  at  the  expense  of 
God's  truth,  wisdom,  holiness,  love;  (c)  it  destroys  all  evidence  of  the 
personality  and  freedom  of  God  ;  (  <7 )  it  practically  makes  necessity  the 
only  God,  and  leaves  the  imperatives  of  our  moral  nature  without  present 
validity  or  future  vindication. 

The  Mohammedans  have  frequently  been  called  fatalists,  and  the  praetica]  effect  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Koran  upon  the  masses  is  to  make  them  so.  The  ordinary  Moham- 
medan will  have  no  physician  or  medicine,  because  everything  happens  as  God  has 
before  appointed.  Smith,  however,  in  his  Mohammed  and  Mohammedanism,  denies 
that  fatalism  is  essential  to  the  system.  Islam  =  "submission,"  and  the  participle  Moa- 
b  hi  ="  submitted,"  i.e.,  to  God.  Turkish  proverb:  "A  man  cannot  escape  what  is 
written  on  his  forehead."  The  Mohammedan  thinks  of  God's  dominant  attribute  as 
being  greatness  rather  than  righteousness,  power  rather  than  purity.  Cod  is  the  per- 
sonification of  arbitrary  will,  not  the  (iod  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But 
there  is  in  the  system  an  absence  Of  sacerdotalism,  a  jealousy  for  the  honor  of  Cod,  a 
brotherhood  of  believers,  a  reverence  for  what  Is  considered  the  word  of  Cod,  and  a 
bold  and  habitual  devotion  of  its  adherents  to  their  faith. 

Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  1 :489,  refers  to  the  Mussulman  tradition  existing  in  Egypt 
that  the  fate  of  Islam  requires  that  it  should  at  last  be  superseded  by  Christianity. 
F.  W.Sanders  "denies  that  the  Koran  i-  peculiarly  S<  usual.  The  Christian  and  Jewish 
religions,"  he  says,  "have  their  paradise  also.  The  Koran  makes  this  the  reward,  but 
not  the  ideal,  of  conduct ;  '  Grace  from  thy  Lord  —  that  is  tin-  grand  bliss.'  The  empha- 
sis of  the  Koran  is  upon  right  living.  The  Koran  does  not  teach  the  propagation  of 
religion  by /orce.  It  declares  that  there  shall  be  no  compulsion  in  religion.  The  prac- 
tice of  converting  by  the  sword  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  teaching  of  Mohammed, 
just  as  the  Inquisition  a  i  id  the  slave-trade  in  Christendom  do  not  prove  that  Jesus  taught 
them.  The  Koran  did  not  institute  polygamy.  It  found  unlimited  polygamy,  divorce, 
and  infanticide.  The  last  it  prohibited  ;  t he  t  wo  former  it.  restricted  and  ameliorated, 
just  as  Moses  found  polygamy,  but  brought  it  wit  Inn  bounds.  The  Koran  is  not  hostile 
to  secular  learning.  Learning  nourished  under  the  Bagdad  and  Spanish  Caliphates. 
When  Moslems  oppose  learning,  tliey  do  so  without  authority  from  the  Koran.  The 
Roman  Catholic  church  has  opposed  schools,  but  we  do  not  attribute  this  to  the  gospel." 
See  Zwemer,  Moslem  Doctrine  of  God. 

Calvinists  can  assert  freedom,  since  man's  will  finds  its  highest  freedom  only  in  sub- 
mission to  God.  Islam  also  cultivates  submission,  but  it  is  the  submission  not  of  love, 
but  of  fear.  The  essential  difference  between  Mohammedanism  and  Christianity  is 
found  in  the  revelation  which  the  hitter  gives  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  — a  revelation 
which  secures  from  free  moral  agents  the  submission  of  love ;  see  page  ISC.  On  fatalism, 
see  McCosh,  Intuitions, 3566 ;  Kant,  Metaphysic  of  Ethies,52-74,  93-108;  Mill,  Autobiog- 
raphy, 168-170,  and  System  of  Logic,  521-526;  Hamilton,  Metaphysics,  692;  Stewart, 
Active  and  Moral  Powers  of  Man,  ed.  Walker,  268-324. 

2.  Casualism. 

Casualism  transfers  the  freedom  of  mind  to  nature,  as  fatalism  transfers 
the  fixity  of  nature  to  mind.     It  thus  exchanges  providence  for  chance. 


428  THE   WOKKS  OF  GOD. 

Upon  this  view  we  remark  : 

(  a  )  If  chance  be  only  another  name  for  human  ignorance,  a  name  for 
the  fact  that  there  are  trivial  occurrences  in  life  which  have  no  meaning  or 
relation  to  us,  —  we  may  acknowledge  this,  and  still  hold  that  providence 
arranges  every  so-called  chance,  for  purposes  beyond  our  knowledge. 
Chance,  in  this  sense,  is  providential  coincidence  which  we  caunot  under- 
stand, and  do  not  need  to  trouble  ourselves  about. 

Not  all  chances  are  of  equal  importance.  The  casual  meeting-  of  a  stranger  in  the 
street  need  not  bring-  God's  providence  before  me,  although  I  know  that  God  arranges 
it.  Yet  I  can  conceive  of  that  meeting  as  leading  to  religious  conversation  and  to  the 
stranger's  conversion.  When  we  are  prepared  for  them,  v  e  shall  see  many  opportuni- 
ties which  are  now  as  unmeaning  to  us  as  the  gold  in  the  river-beds  was  to  the  early 
Indians  in  California.  I  should  be  an  ingrate,  if  I  escaped  a  lightning-stroke,  and  did 
not  thank  God;  yet  Dr.  Arnold's  saying  that  every  school  boy  should  put  on  his  hat 
for  God's  glory,  and  with  a  high  moral  purpose,  seems  morbid.  There  is  a  certain  room 
for  the  play  of  arbitrariness.  We  must  not  afflict  ourselves  or  the  church  of  God  by 
requiring  a  Pharisaic  punctiliousness  in  minutiae.  Life  is  too  short  to  debate  the  ques- 
tion which  shoe  we  shall  put  on  first.  "  Love  God  and  do  what  you  will,"  said  Augus- 
tine ;  that  is,  Love  God,  and  act  out  that  love  in  a  simple  and  natural  way.  Be  free  in 
your  service,  yet  be  always  on  the  watch  for  indications  of  God's  will. 

(  b  )  If  chance  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  utter  absence  of  all  causal  con- 
nections in  the  phenomena  of  matter  and  mind,  —  we  oppose  to  this  notion 
the  fact  that  the  causal  judgment  is  formed  in  accordance  with  a  funda- 
mental and  necessary  law  of  human  thought,  and  that  no  science  or  knowl- 
edge is  possible  without  the  assumption  of  its  validity. 

In  Luke  10:31,  our  Savior  says:  "By  chance  a  certain  priest  was  going  down  that  way."  Janet: 
"  Chance  is  not  a  cause,  but  a  coincidence  of  causes."  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and 
Knowledge,  197  —  "  By  chance  is  not  meant  lack  of  causation,  but  the  coincidence  in  an 
event  of  mutually  independent  series  of  causation.  Thus  the  unpurposed  meeting  of 
two  persons  is  spoken  of  as  a  chance  one,  when  the  movement  of  neither  implies  that 
of  the  other.    Here  the  antithesis  of  chance  is  purpose." 

(  c )  If  chance  be  used  in  the  sense  of  undesigning  cause,  —  it  is  evi- 
dently insufficient  to  explain  the  regular  and  uniform  sequences  of  nature, 
or  the  moral  progress  of  the  human  race.  These  things  argue  a  superin- 
tending and  designing  mind  —  in  other  words,  a  providence.  Since  reus,  th 
demands  not  ouly  a  cause,  but  a  sufficient  cause,  for  the  order  of  the  phys- 
ical and  moral  world,  casualism  must  be  ruled  out. 

The  observer  at  the  signal  station  was  asked  what  was  the  climate  of  Rochester. 
"Climate?  "  he  replied;  "  Rochester  has  no  climate,  — only  weather!  "  So  Chauncey 
Wright  spoke  of  the  ups  and  downs  of  human  affairs  as  simply  "cosmical  weather.'' 
But  our  intuition  of  design  compels  us  to  see  mind  and  purpose  in  individual  and 
national  history,  as  well  as  in  the  physical  universe.  The  same  argument  which  proves 
the  existence  of  God  proves  also  the  existence  of  a  pre  ridence.  See  Farrar,  Life  of 
Christ,  1 :  155,  note. 

3.     Theory  of  a  merely  general  providence. 

Many  who  acknowledge  God's  control  over  the  movements  of  planets 
and  the  destinies  of  nations  deny  any  divine  arrangement  of  particular 
events.  Most  of  the  arguments  against  deism  are  equally  valid  against  the 
theory  of  a  merely  general  providence.  This  view  is  indeed  only  a  form  of 
deism,  which  holds  that  God  has  not  wholly  withdrawn  himself  from  the 
universe,  but  that  his  activity  within  it  is  limited  to  the  maintenance  of 
general  laws. 


THEORIES   OPPOSING   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    PROVIDENCE.         429 

This  appears  to  have  been  the  view  of  most  of  the  heathen  philosophers.  Cicero  : 
"Magna  dii  curant ;  parva  negligunt."  "Even  in  kingdoms  among  men,"  he  says, 
"  kin^s  do  not  trouble  themselves  with  insignilicant  affairs."  Fullerton,  Conceptions 
of  the  Infinite,  9  —  "  Plutarch  though*  there  could  not  be  an  infinity  of  worlds,  —  Provi- 
dence could  not  possibly  take  charge  of  so  many.  '  Troublesome  and  boundless  infinity  ' 
could  be  grasped  by  no  consciousness."  The  ancient  Cretans  made  an  image  of 
Jove  withoutears,  for  they  said  :  "  It  is  a  shame  to  believe  that  Cod  would  hear  the 
talk  of  men."  So  Jerome,  the  church  Father,  thought  it  absurd  that  God  should  know 
just  how  many  gnats  and  cockroaches  there  were  in  the  world.  David  Datum  is  wiser 
when  he  expresses  the  belief  that  there  is  nothing  wholly  bad  or  useless  in  the  world  : 

"A  reasonable  amount  of  fleas  Is  g 1  for  a  dog, —  they  keep  him  from  broodin'  on 

bein'  a  dog."    This  has  been  paraphrased  :    "A  reasonable  number  of  beaux  are  good 
for  a  girl,  —  they  keep  her  from  brooding  over  her  being  a  girl." 

In  addition  to  the  arguments  above  alluded  to,  we  may  urge  against  this 
theory  that  : 

(  a  )  General  control  over  the  course  of  nature  and  of  history  is  impossi- 
ble without  control  over  the  smallest  particulars  which  affect  the  course  of 
nature  and  of  history.  Incidents  so  slight  as  well-nigh  to  escape  observa- 
tion at  the  time  of  their  occurrence  are  frequently  found  to  determine  the 
whole  future  of  a  human  life,  and  through  that  life  the  fortunes  of  a  whole 
empire  and  of  a  whole  age. 

"  Nothing  great  has  great  beginnings."  "  Take  care  of  the  pence,  and  the  pounds  will 
take  care  of  themselves."  "Care  for  the  chain  is  care  for  the  links  of  the  chain." 
Instances  in  point  are  the  sleeplessness  of  Bang  Ahaauerus  (Esther  6:1),  and  the  seeming 
chance  that  led  to  the  reading  of  the  record  of  Mordecai's  service  and  to  the  salvation 
of  the  Jews  in  Persia;  the  spider's  wel.  spun  across  the  entrance  to  the  cave  in  which 
Mohammed  had  taken  refuge,  which  so  deceived  his  pursuers  that  they  passed  on 
in  a  bootless  chase,  leaving  to  the  world  the  religion  and  the  empire  of  the  Moslems  ; 
the  preaching  of  Peter  the  Hermit,  which  occasioned  the  first  Crusade ;  the  chance  shot 
of  an  archer,  which  pierced  the  right  eye  of  Harold,  the  last  of  the  purely  English  kin^s, 
gained  the  battle  of  Hastingsfor  William  the  Conqueror,  and  secured  the  throne  of 
England  for  the  Normans  ;  the  flight  of  pigeons  to  the  south-west,  which  changed  the 
course  of  Columbus,  hitherto  directed  towards  Virginia,  to  the  West  Indies,  and  so 
prevented  the  dominion  of  Spain  over  North  America  ;  the  storm  that  dispersed  the 
Spanish  Armada  and  saved  England  from  the  Papacy,  and  the  storm  thai  dispersed 
the  French  fleet  gathered  for  the  conquest  of  New  England— the  latter  on  a  day  of 
fasting  and  prayer  appointed  by  the  Puritans  to  avert  the  calamity;  the  settling  of 
New  England  by  the  Puritans,  rather  than  by  French  Jesuits;  the  order  of  Council 
restraining  Cromwell  and  his  friends  from  sailing  to  America  ;  Major  Andre's  lack  of 
self-possession  in  presence  of  his  captors,  which  led  him  to  ask  an  improper  question 
instead  of  showing  his  passport,  and  which  saved  the  American  cause ;  the  unusually 
early  commencement  of  cold  weather,  which  frustrated  the  plans  of  Napoleon  and 
destroyed  his  army  in  Russia;  the  fatal  shot  at  Fort  Sumter,  which  precipitated  the 
war  of  secession  and  resulted  in  the  abolition  of  American  slavery.  Nature  is  linked  to 
history  ;  the  breeze  warps  the  course  of  the  bullet ;  the  worm  perforates  the  plank  of 
the  ship.    God  must  care  for  the  least,  or  he  cannot  care  forthe  greatest. 

"Large  doors  swing  on  small  hinges."  The  barking  of  a  dog  determined  F.  W. 
Robertson  to  be  a  preacher  rather  than  a  soldier.  Robert  Browning,  Mr.  Sludge  the 
Medium  :  "  We  find  great  things  are  made  of  little  things.  And  little  things  go  lessen- 
ing till  at  last  Comes  God  behind  them."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  We  cannot  suppose  only  a 
general  outline  to  have  been  in  the  mind  of  God,  while  the  filling-up  is  left  to  be  done 
in  some  other  way.  The  general  includes  the  special."  Dr.  Lloyd,  one  of  the  Oxford 
Professors,  said  to  Pusey,  "  I  wish  you  would  learn  something  about  those  German 
critics."  "  In  the  obedient  spirit  of  those  times,"  writes  Pusey,  "I  set  myself  at  once 
to  learn  German,  and  I  went  to  Gottingen,  to  study  at  once  the  language  and  the 
theology.    My  life  turned  on  that  hint  of  Dr.  Lloyd's." 

Goldwin  Smith  :  "  Had  a  bullet  entered  the  brain  of  Cromwell  or  of  William  III  in  his 
first  battle,  or  had  Gustavus  not  fallen  at  Liitzen,  the  course  of  history  apparently 
would  have  been  changed.  The  course  even  of  science  would  have  been  changed,  if 
there  had  not  been  a  Newton  and  a  Darwin."    The  annexation  of  Corsica  to  France 


430  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

gave  to  Frailce  a  Napoleon,  and  to  Europe  a  conqueror.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority, 
101  —  "  Had  the  monastery  at  Erfurt  deputed  another  than  young  Luther  on  its  errand 
to  paganized  Rome,  or  had  Leo  X  sent  a  less  scandalous  agent  than  Tetzel  ou  his  busi- 
ness to  Germany,  the  seeds  of  the  Reformation  might  have  fallen  by  the  wayside  where 
tin\  ttad  ao  deepness  of  earth,  and  the  Western  revolt  of  the  human  mind  might  have 
taken  another  date  ami  another  form."  See  Appleton,  Works,  1 :  149  sq. ;  Leeky,  Eng- 
land in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  chap.  I. 

( b  )  The  iOve  of  God  which  prompts  a  general  care  for  the  universe  must 
also  prompt  a  particular  care  for  the  smallest  events  which  affect  the  happi- 
ness of  his  creatures.  It  belongs  to  love  to  regard  nothing  as  trifling  or 
beneath  its  notice  which  has  to  do  with  the  interests  of  the  object  of  its 
affection.  Infinite  love  may  therefore  be  expected  to  provide  for  all,  even 
the  minutest  things  in  the  creation.  Without  belief  in  this  particular  care, 
men  cannot  long  believe  in  God's  general  care.  Faith  in  a  particular  provi- 
dence is  indispensable  to  the  very  existence  of  practical  religion  ;  for  men 
will  not  worship  or  recognize  a  God  who  has  no  direct  relation  to  them. 

Man's  can'  for  his  own  body  involves  care  for  t  he  least  important  members  of  it.  A 
lover's  devotion  is  known  by  bis  interest  in  the  minutest  concerns  of  his  beloved. 
So  all  our  affairs  are  matters  of  interest  to  God.  Pope's  Essay  on  Man  :  "All  nature  is 
but  art  unknown  to  thee ;  All  chance,  direction  which  thou  canst  not  see ;  All  discord, 
harmony  not  understood;  All  partial  evil,  universal  K<»>d."  If  harvests  may  belabored 
for  and  lost  without  any  agency  of  God;  if  rain  or  sun  may  act  like  fate,  sweeping 
away  the  results  of  years,  and  God  have  no  hand  in  it  all ;  if  wind  and  storm  may  wreck 
the  ship  and  drown  our  dearest  friends,  and  God  not  care  for  us  orfor  our  loss,  then  all 
possibility  of  general  trust  in  God  will  disappear  also. 

God's  care  is  shown  in  the  least  things  as  well  as  in  the  greatest.  In  Gethsemane 
Christ  says  :  "  Lot  these  go  their  way  :  that  the  word  might  be  fulfilled  which  he  spake,  Of  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me  I  lost  not  one"  ( John  18 : 8,  9 ).  It  is  the  same  spirit  as  that  of  his  intercessory  prayer : 
"  I  guarded  them,  and  not  one  of  them  perished,  but  the  son  of  perdition  "  ( John  17 :  12  ) .  Christ  gives  hi mself 
as  a  prisoner  that  his  disciples  may  go  free,  even  as  he  redeems  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us  (Gal.  3: 13).  The  dewdrop  is  moulded  by  the  same  law 
that  rounds  the  planets  into  spheres.  Gen.  Grant  said  he  had  never  but  once  sought  a 
place  for  himself,  and  in  that  place  he  was  a  comparative  failure;  he  had  bejn  an 
instrument  in  God's  hand  for  the  accomplishing  of  God's  purposes,  apart  from  any 
plan  or  thought  or  hope  of  his  own. 

Of  his  journey  through  the  dark  continent  in  search  of  David  Livingston,  Henry  M. 
Stanley  wrote  in  Scribner's  Monthly  for  June,  18'JU :  "  Constrained  at  the  darkest  hour 
humbly  to  confess  that  without  God's  help  I  was  helpless,  I  vowed  a  vow  in  the  forest 
solitudes  that  I  would  confess  his  aid  before  men.  Silence  as  of  death  was  around  me ; 
it  was  midnight ;  I  was  weakened  by  illness,  prostrated  with  fatigue,  and  wan  with 
anxiety  for  my  white  and  black  companions,  whose  fate  was  a  mystery.  In  this  physi- 
cal and  mental  distress  I  besought  God  to  give  me  back  my  people.  Nine  hours  later 
we  were  exulting  with  a  rapturous  joy.    In  full  view  of  all  was  the  crimson  flag  with 

the  crescent,  and  beneath  its  waving  folds  was  the  long-lost  rear  column My 

own  designs  were  frustrated  constantly  by  unhappy  circumstances.  I  endeavored  to 
steer  my  course  as  direct  as  possible,  but  there  was  an  unaccountable  influence  at  the 

helm I  have  been  conscious  that  the  issues  of  every  effort  were  in  other  hands. 

....  Divinity  seems  to  have  hedged  us  while  we  journeyed,  impelling  us  whither  it 
would,  effecting  its  own  will,  but  constantly  guiding  and  protecting  us."  He  refuses 
to  believe  that  it  is  all  the  result  of  'luck',  and  he  closes  with  a  doxology  which  we 
should  expect  from  Livingston  but  not  from  him:  "Thanks  be  to  God,  forever  and 
ever ! " 

(  c )  In  times  of  personal  danger,  and  in  remarkable  conjunctures  of  pub- 
he  affairs,  men  instinctively  attribute  to  God  a  control  of  the  events  which 
take  place  around  them.  The  prayers  which  such  startling  emergencies 
force  from  men's  lips  are  proof  that  God  is  present  and  active  in  human 
affairs.  This  testimony  of  our  mental  constitution  must  be  regarded  as 
virtually  the  testimony  of  him  who  framed  this  constitution. 


RELATIONS   OF   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    PROVIDENCE.  431 

No  advance  of  science  can  rid  us  of  this  conviction,  since  it  conies  from  a  deeper 
source  than  mere  reasoning-.  The  intuition  of  design  is  awakened  by  the  connection  of 
events  in  our  daily  life,  as  much  as  by  the  useful  adaptations  which  we  see  in  nature. 

Ps.  107 :  23-28  —  "  They  that  go  down  to  the  sea  in  qhips mount  up  to  the  heavens,  they  go  down  again  to  the 

depths  ....  And  are  at  their  wits'  end.  Then  they  cry  unto  Jehovah  in  their  trouble."  A  narrow  escape 
from  death  shows  us  a  present  God  and  Deliverer.  Instance  the  general  feeling 
throughout  the  land,  expressed  by  the  press  as  well  as  by  the  pulpit,  at  the  breaking 
out  of  our  rebellion  and  at  the  President's  subsequent  Proclamation  of  Emancipation. 

"  Est  deus  in  nobis;  agitantecalescimua  illo."  For  contrast  between  Hansen's  ignoring 
of  God  in  his  polar  journey  and  Dr.  Jacob  Chamberlain's  calling-  upon  God  in  his  strait 
in  India,  see  Missionary  Review,  May,  1898.  Sunday  School  Times,  March  4, 1893—  "Ben- 
jamin Franklin  became  a  deist  at  the  age  of  fifteen.  Before  the  Revolutionary  War 
he  was  merely  a  shrewd  and  pushing  business  man.  He  had  public  spirit,  and  he  made 
one  happy  discovery  in  science.  But  'Poor  Richard's'  sayings  express  his  mind  at  that 
time.  The  perils  and  anxieties  of  the  great  war  gave  him  a  deeper  insight.  He  and 
others  entered  upon  it  'with  a  rope  around  their  necks.'  Ashe  told  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1787,  when  lie  proposed  that  its  daily  sessions  be  opened  with  prayer,  the 
experiences  of  that  war  showed  him  that  'God  verily  rules  iu  the  affairs  of  men.'  And 
when  the  designs  for  an  American  coinage  were  under  discussion,  Franklin  proposed 
to  stamp  on  them,  not  'A  Penny  Saved  is  a  Penny  Earned,*  or  any  other  piece  of 
worldly  prudence,  bul  'The  Fear  of  the  Lord  Is  the  Beginning  of  Wisdom.'  " 

(d)  Christian  experience  confirms  the  declarations  of  Scripture  that 
particular  events  are  brought  about  by  God -with  special  reference  to  the 

good  or  ill  of  the  individual.  Such  events  occur  at  times  in  such  direct 
connection  with  the  Christian's  prayers  that  no  doubt  remains  with  regard 
to  the  providential  arrangement  of  them.  The  possibility  of  such  divine 
agency  in  natural  events  cannot  be  questioned  by  one  who,  like  the  Chris- 
tian, has  had  experience  of  the  greater  wonders  of  regeneration  and  daily 
intercourse  with  God,  and  who  believes  in  the  reality  of  creation,  incarna- 
tion, and  miracles. 

Providence  prepares  the  way  for  men's  conversion,  sometimes  by  their  own  partial 
reformation,  sometimes  by  the  sudden  death  of  others  near  them.  Instance  Luther 
and  Judson.  The  Christian  learns  that  the  same  Providence  that  led  him  before  his 
conversion  is  busy  after  his  conversion  in  directing  his  steps  and  In  supplying  his 

wants.  Daniel  Defoe:  "I  have  been  fed  more  by  miracle  than  Elijah  when  the  angels 
were  his  purveyors."  In  Psalm  32,  David  celebrates  not  only  Cod's  pardoning  mercy  but 
his  subsequent  providential  leading:  "I  will  counsel  thee  with  mine  eye  upon  thee "  (verse  8).  It 
may  be  objected  thai  we  often  mistake  the  meaning-  of  events.  We  answer  that,  as  in 
nature,  so  in  providence,  we  are  compelled  to  believe,  not  that  we  know  the  design,  but 
that  there  is  a  design.  Instance  Shelley's  drowning,  and  .Jacob  Knapp's  prayer  that 
his  opponent  might  be  stricken  dumb.  Lyman  Beechcr's  attributing  the  burning  of 
the  Unitarian  church  to  God's  judgment  upon  false  doctrine  was  invalidated  a  little 
later  by  the  burning  of  his  own  church. 

Job  23 :  10  —  "He  knoweth  the  way  that  is  mine,"  or  "  the  way  that  is  with  me,"  i.  c,  my  inmost  way,  life, 
character;  "When  he  hath  tried  me,  I  shall  come  forth  as  gold."  1  Cor.  19:4 — "and  the  rock  was  Christ  "= 
Christ  was  the  ever  present  source  of  their  refreshment  and  life,  both  physical  and 
spiritual.  God's  providence  is  all  exercised  through  Christ.  2  Cor.  2:14  —  "But  thanks  be 
unto  God,  who  always  leadeth  us  in  triumph  in  Christ"  ;  not,  as  in  A.  V.,  "causeth  us  to  triumph."  Paul 
glories,  not  in  conquering,  but  in  being  conquered.  Let  Christ  triumph,  not  Paul. 
"Great  King  of  grace,  my  heart  subdue;  I  would  be  led  in  triumph  too,  A  willing 
captive  to  my  Lord,  To  own  the  conquests  of  his  word."  Therefore  Paul  can  call 
himself  "  the  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesrs  "  (  Eph.  3:1).  It  was  Christ  who  had  shut  him  up  two  years 
in  Caesarea,  and  then  two  succeeding  years  in  Rome. 

IV.     Relations  of  the  Doctrine  of  Providence. 
1.     To  miracles,  and  works  of  grace. 

Particular  providence  is  the  agency  of  God  in  what  seem  to  us  the  minor 
affairs  of  nature  and  human  life.     Special  providence  is  only  an  instance 


432  THE   WOEKS   OF    GOD. 

of  God's  particular  providence  which  has  special  relation  to  us  or  makes 
peculiar  impression  upon  us.  It  is  special,  not  as  respects  the  means 
which  God  makes  use  of,  but  as  respects  the  effect  produced  upon  tis.  In 
special  providence  we  have  only  a  more  impressive  manifestation  of  God's 
universal  control. 

Miracles  and  works  of  grace  like  regeneration  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
belonging  to  a  different  order  of  things  from  God's  special  providences. 
They  too,  like  special  providences,  may  have  their  natural  connections  and 
antecedents,  although  they  more  readily  suggest  their  divine  authorship. 
Nature  and  God  are  not  mutually  exclusive, — nature  is  rather  God's 
method  of  working.  Since  nature  is  only  the  manifestation  of  God,  special 
providence,  miracle,  and  regeneration  are  simply  different  degrees  of 
extraordinary  nature.  Certain  of  the  Wonders  of  Scripture,  such  as  the 
destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  and  the  dividing  of  the  Red  Sea,  the 
plagues  of  Egypt,  the  flight  of  quails,  and  the  draught  of  fishes,  can  be 
counted  as  exaggerations  of  natural  forces,  whde  at  the  same  time  they  are 
operations  of  the  wonder-working  God. 

The  falling-  of  snow  from  a  roof  is  an  example  of  ordinary  ( or  particular )  providence. 
But  if  a  man  is  killed  by  it,  it  becomes  a  special  providence  to  him  and  to  others  who 
are  thereby  taught  the  insecurity  of  life.  So  the  providing-  of  coal  for  fuel  in  the 
g-eolog-ic  ages  may  be  regarded  by  different  persons  in  the  light  either  of  a  general  or 
of  a  special  providence.  In  all  the  operations  of  nature  and  all  the  events  of  life  God's 
providence  is  exhibited.  That  providence  becomes  special,  when  it  manifestly  sug- 
gests some  care  of  God  for  us  or  some  duty  of  ours  to  God.  Savage,  Life  beyond 
Death,  285  —  "  Mary  A.  Livermore's  life  was  saved  during  her  travels  in  the  West  by  her 
hearing  and  instantly  obeying  what  seemed  to  her  a  voice.  She  did  not  know  where  it 
came  from  ;  but  she  leaped,  as  the  voice  ordered,  from  one  side  of  a  car  to  the  other, 
and  instantly  the  side  where  she  had  been  sitting  was  crushed  in  and  utterly  demolished." 
In  a  similiar  way,  the  life  of  Dr.  Oncken  was  saved  in  the  railroad  disaster  at  Norwaik. 

Trench  gives  the  name  of  "  providential  miracles  "  to  those  Scripture  wonders  which 
may  be  explained  as  wrought  through  the  agency  of  natural  laws  ( see  Trench,  Miracles, 
19).  Mozley  also  (  Miracles,  117-120)  calls  these  wonders  miracles,  because  of  the  pre- 
dictive word  of  God  which  accompanied  them.  lie  says  that  the  difference  in  effect 
between  miracles  and  special  providences  is  that  the  latter  givesome  warrant,  while 
the  former  give  full  warrant,  for  believing  that  they  are  wrought  by  God.  He  calls 
special  providences  "  invisible  miracles. "  Bp.  of  Southampton,  Place  of  Miracles,  12, 
13  —  "  The  art  of  Bezaleel  in  constructing  the  tabernacle,  and  the  plans  of  generals  like 
Moses  and  Joshua,  Gideon,  Barak,  and  David,  are  in  the  Old  Testament  ascribed  to  the 
direct  inspiration  of  God.  A  less  religious  writer  would  have  ascribed  them  to  the 
instinct  of  military  skill.  No  miracle  is  necessarily  involved,  when,  in  devising  the 
system  of  ceremonial  law  it  is  said:  'Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses'  (Num.  5:1).  God  is  every- 
where present  in  the  history  of  Israel,  but  miracles  are  strikingly  rare. "  We  prefer  to 
Bay  that  the  line  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  between  special  providence 
and  miracle,  is  an  arbitrary  one,  and  that  the  same  event  may  often  be  regarded  either 
as  special  providence  or  as  miracle,  according  as  we  look  at  it  from  the  point  of  view 
of  its  relation  to  other  events  or  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  relation  to  God. 

E.  G.  Robinson :  "  If  Vesuvius  should  send  up  ashes  and  lava,  and  a  strong  wind 
should  scatter  them,  it  could  be  said  to  rain  fire  and  brimstone,  as  at  Sodom  and 
Gom<  irrha.''  There  is  abundant  evident  of  volcanic  action  at  the  Dead  Sea.  See  article 
on  the  Physical  Preparation  for  Israel  in  Palestine,  by  G.  Frederick  Wright,  in  Bib. 
Sac,  April,  1901:361.  The  three  great  miracles  — the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha,  the  parting  of  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  the  falling  down  of  the  walls  of 
Jericho  —  are  described  as  effect  of  volcanic  eruption,  elevation  of  the  bed  of  the  river 
by  a  landslide,  and  earthquake-shock  overthrowing  the  walls.  Salt  slime  thrown  up 
may  have  enveloped  Lot's  wife  and  turned  her  into  "a  moui.d  of  salt "  (.  Gen.  19  :  26 ) .  In  like 
manner,  some  of  Jesus'  works  of  healing,  as  for  instance  those  wrought  upon  para- 
lytics and  epileptics,  may  be  susceptible  of  natural  explanation,  while  yet  they  show 


RELATIONS   OF   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    PROVIDENCE.  433 

that  Christ  is  absolute  Lord  of  nature.  For  the  naturalistic  view,  see  Tyndall  on 
Miracles  and  Special  Providences,  in  Fragments  of  Science,  45,  4IS.  Per  contra,  see 
Farrar,  on  Divine  Providence  and  General  Laws,  in  Science  and  Theology,  54r8€ ;  Row, 
Bampton  Lect.  on  Christian  Evidences,  109-115 ;  Godet,  Defence  of  Christian  Faith, 
Chap.  2;  Bowne,  The  Immanence  of  God,  56-65. 

2.      To  prayer  and  its  answt  r. 

What  lias  been  said  with  regard  to  God's  connection  "with  nature  suggests 
the  question,  how  God  can  answer  prayer  consistently  with  the  fixity  of 
natural  law. 

Tyudall(see  reference  above),  while  repelling  the  charge  of  denying  that  God  can 
answer  prayer  at  all,  yet  does  deny  that  he  can  answer  it  without  a  miracle.  He  says 
expressly  "that  without  a  disturbance  of  natural  law  quite  as  serious  as  the  stoppage 
of  an  eclipse,  or  the  rolling  of  the  St.  Lawrence  up  the  falls  of  Niagara,  no  act  of 

hutnilation,  individual  or  national,  could  call  one  shower  from  heaven  Or  deflect 
toward  us  a  single  beam  of  the  sun.  "    In  reply  we  would  remark  : 

A.     Negatively,  that  the  true  solution  is  not  to  be  reached  : 

(a)  By  making  the  sole  effect  of  prayer  to  beitsreflex  influence  upon 
the  petitioner. — Prayer  presupposes  a  God  who  hears  and  answers.  It 
will  not  be  offered,  unless  it  is  believed  to  accomplish  objective  as  well  as 
subjective  results. 

According  to  the  first  view  mentioned  above,  prayer  is  a  mere  spiritual  gymnastics— 
an  effort  to  lift  ourselves  from  the  ground  by  tugging  at  our  own  boot-straps.  David 
Hume  said  well,  after  hearings  sermon  by  Dr.  Leechman:  "We  can  make  use  of  no 

expression  or  even  thought  in  prayers  and  entreaties  which  does  not  imply  I  hat  these 
prayers  have  an  influence."  See  Tyndall  on  Prayer  and  .Natural  Law,  in  Fragments  of 
Science,  35.  Will  men  pray  to  a  God  who  is  both  deal  'and  dumb  ?  Will  t  lie  sailor  on 
the  bowsprit  whistle  to  the  wind  for  the  sake  of  improving  his  voice?  Horace  Busb- 
ncll  called  this  perversion  of  prayer  a  "  mere  dumb-bell  exercise.  "  Baron  Munchausen 
pulled  himself  out  of  the  bog  in  China  by  t  Ugging  away  at  his  own  pigtail. 

Hyde,  God's  Education  of  Man,  154,  155  —  "  Prayer  is  not  the  reflex  action  of  my  will 
upon  itself,  but  rather  the  communion  of  two  wills,  in  which  the  finite  comes  into 
connection  with  the  Infinite,  and,  like  the  trolley,  appropriates  its  purpose  and  power." 
Harnack,  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  4:.',  apparently  follows  Schleierniacher  in  unduly 
limiting  prayer  to  general  petitions  which  receive  only  a  subject  ive  answer.  lie  tells 
us  that  "Jesus  taught  his  disciples  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  response  to  a  request  for 
directions  how  to  pray.  Yet  we  look  in  vain  therein  lor  requests  for  special  gifts  of 
grace,  or  for  particular  good  things,  even  though  they  are  spiritual.  The  name,  the 
will,  the  kingdom  of  God  — these  are  thethings  which  are  the  objects  of  petition." 
Harnack  forgets  that  the  same  Christ  said  also:  "All  things  whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for,  believe 
that  ye  receive  them,  and  ye  shall  have  them  "  (  Mark  11 :  24  ) . 

(  b )  Nor  by  holding  that  God  answers  prayer  simply  by  spiritual  means, 
such  as  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  spirit  of  man.  — The  realm 
of  spirit  is  no  less  subject  to  law  than  the  realm  of  matter.  Scripture  and 
experience,  moreover,  alike  testify  that  in  answer  to  prayer  events  take 
place  in  the  outward  world  which  would  not  have  taken  place  if  prayer  had 
not  gone  before. 

According  to  this  second  theory,  God  feeds  the  starving  Elijah,  not  by  a  distinct 
message  from  heaven  but  by  giving  a  compassionate  disposition  to  the  widow  of 
Zarephath  so  that  she  is  moved  to  help  the  prophet.  1  E.  17 : 9  —  "behold,  I  have  commanded* 
widow  there  to  sustain  thee."  But  God  could  also  feed  Elijah  by  the  ravens  and  the  ang-el 
(1117:4,19:15),  and  the  pouring  rain  that  followed  Elijah's  prayer  (15.18:42-45) 
cannot  be  explained  as  a  subjective  spiritual  phenomenon.  Diman,  Theistic  Argument, 
268 — "  Our  charts  map  out  not  only  the  solid  shore  but  the  windings  of  the  ocean  cur- 
rents, and  we  look  into  the  morning  papers  to  ascertain  the  gathering  of  storms  on  the 

28 


434  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

slopes  of  the  Rocky  Mountains."  But  law  rules  in  the  realm  of  spirit  as  well  as  in  the 
realm  of  nature.  See  Baden  Powell,  in  Essays  and  Reviews,  106-162;  Knight,  Studies  in 
Philosophy  and  literature,  340-404 ;  George  I.  Chace,  discourse  before  the  Porter  Rhet. 
Soc.  of  Andover,  August,  1854.  Governor  Rice  in  Washington  is  moved  to  send  money 
to  a  starving  family  in  New  York,  and  to  secure  employment  for  them.  Though  he 
has  had  no  information  with  regard  to  their  need,  they  have  knelt  in  prayer  for  help 
just  before  the  coming  of  the  aid. 

( c  )  Nor  by  maintaining  that  God  suspends  or  breaks  in  upon  the  order 
of  nature,  in  answering  every  prayer  that  is  offered.  —  This  view  does  not 
take  account  of  natural  laws  as  having  objective  existence,  and  as  revealing 
the  order  of  God's  being.  Omnipotence  might  thus  suspend  natural  law, 
but  wisdom,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  would  not. 

This  third  theory  might  well  be  held  by  those  who  see  in  nature  no  force  but  the  all- 
working  will  of  God.  But  the  properties  and  powers  of  matter  are  revelations  of  the 
divine  will,  and  the  human  will  has  only  a  relative  independence  in  the  universe. 
To  desire  thai  God  would  answer  all  our  prayers  is  to  desire  omnipotence  without 
omniscience.  All  true  prayer  is  therefore  an  expression  of  the  one  petition  :  "Thy  will 
be  done  "  (  Mat.  6  :  10 ).  E.  G.  Robiuson  :  "  It  takes  much  common  sense  to  pray,  and  many 
prayers  are  destitute  of  this  quality.  Man  needs  to  pray  audibly  even  in  his  private 
prayers,  to  get  the  full  benefit  of  them.  One  of  the  chief  benefits  of  the  English 
liturgy  is  that  the  individual  minister  is  lost  sight  of.  Protestantism  makes  you  work  ; 
in  Romanism  the  church  will  do  it  all  for  you.  " 

( d  )  Nor  by  considering  prayer  as  a  physical  force,  linked  in  each  case  to 
its  answer,  as  physical  cause  is  linked  to  physical  effect. —  Prayer  is  not  a 
force  acting  directly  upon' nature  ;  else  there  would  be  no  discretion  as  to 
its  answer.     It  can  accomplish  results  in  nature,  only  as  it  influences  God. 

We  educate  our  children  in  two  ways :  first,  by  training  them  to  do  for  themselves 
what  they  can  do;  and,  secondly,  by  encouraging  them  to  seek  our  help  in  matters 
beyond  their  power.  So  God  educates  us,  first,  by  impersonal  law,  and,  secondly,  by 
personal  dependence.  He  teaches  us  both  to  work  and  to  ask.  Notice  the  "perfect 
unwisdom  of  modern  scientists  who  place  themselves  under  the  training  of  impersonal 
law,  to  the  exclusion  of  that  higher  and  better  training  which  is  under  personality" 
(Hopkins,  Sermon  on  Prayer-gauge,  16). 

It  seems  more  in  accordance  with  both  Scripture  and  reason  to  say  that: 

B.  God  may  answer  prayer,  even  when  that  answer  involves  changes  in 
the  sequences  of  nature, — 

(  a )  By  new  combinations  of  natural  forces,  in  regions  withdrawn  from 
our  observation,  so  that  effects  are  produced  which  these  same  forces  left 
to  themselves  would  never  have  accomplished.  As  man  combines  the  laws 
of  chemical  attraction  and  of  combustion,  to  fire  the  gunpowder  and  split 
the  rock  asunder,  so  God  may  combine  the  laws  of  nature  to  bring  about 
answers  to  prayer.  In  all  this  there  may  be  no  suspension  or  violation  of 
law,  but  a  use  of  law  unknown  to  us. 

Hopkins,  Sermon  on  the  Prayer-gauge :  "  Nature  is  uniform  in  her  processes  but  not 
in  her  results.  Do  you  say  that  water  cannot  run  uphill  ?  Yes,  it  can  and  does.  When- 
ever man  constructs  a  milldam  the  water  runs  up  the  environing  hills  till  it  reaches 
the  top  of  the  milldam.  Man  can  make  a  spark  of  electricity  do  his  bidding ;  why  can- 
not God  use  a  bolt  of  electricity?  Laws  are  not  our  masters,  but  our  servants.  They 
do  our  bidding  all  the  better  because  they  are  uniform.  And  our  servants  are  not 
God's  masters."  Kendall  Brooks:  "The  master  of  a  musical  instrument  can  vary 
without  limit  the  combination  of  sounds  and  the  melodies  which  these  combinations 
can  produce.  The  laws  of  the  instrument  are  not  changed,  but  in  their  unchanging 
steadfastness  produce  an  infinite  variety  of  tunes.    It  is  necessary  that  they  should  be 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PROVIDENCE.      435 

unchanging-  in  order  to  secure  a  desired  result.  So  nature,  which  exercises  the  infinite 
skill  of  the  divine  Master,  is  governed  by  unvarying-  laws;  but  he,  by  these  laws,  pro- 
duces an  infinite  variety  <>f  results." 

Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  45,  9'J  — '"Hie  system  of  natural  laws  is  far  more  flexible 
in  God's  hands  than  it  is  in  ours.  We  act  on  second  causes  externally;  God  acts  on 
them  internally.  We  act  upon  them  at  only  a  lew  isolated  points;  God  acts  upon  every 
point  of  the  system  at  the  same  time.  The  whole  of  nature  may  be  as  plastic  to  his 
will  as  the  air  iu  the  organs  of  the  great  singer  who  art  iculates  it  into  a  tit  expression 
of  every  thought  and  passion  of  his  snaring  soul."  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  155—"  If 
all  the  chemical  elements  of  our  solar  system  preexisted  in  t  lie  fiery  cosmic  mist,  there 
must  have  been  a  time  when  quite  suddenly  the  attractions  between  these  elements 
overcame  the  degree  of  caloric  force  which  held  them  apart,  and  the  rush  of  elements 
into  chemical  union  must  have  been  consummated  with  inconceivable  rapidity.  Uui- 
formitariauism  is  not  universal." 

Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  chap.  2  —  "  By  a  little  increase  of  centrifugal  force 
the  elliptical  orbit  is  changed  into  a  parabola,  and  the  planet  becomes  a  comet.  By  a 
little  reduction  in  temperature  water  becomes  solid  and  loses  many  of  its  powers.  So 
unexpected  results  are  brought  about  and  surprises  as  revolutionary  as  if  a  Supreme 
Power  immediately  intervened."  William  .lames,  Address  before  Soo.  for  Psych. 
Research:  "Thought-transference  may  involve  a  critical  point,  its  the  physicists  call 
it,  which  is  passed  only  when  certain  psychic  conditions  are  realized,  and  otherwise  not 
reached  at  all  —  .just  as  a  big-  conflagration  will  break  out  at  a  certain  temperature, 
below  which  no  conflagration  whatever,  whether  big  or  little,  can  occur."  Tennyson, 
Life,  1 :324  — "  Prayer  is  like  opening  a  sluice  between  the  greal  ocean  and  our  little 
channels,  when  the  great  sea  gathers  itself  together  and  Hows  in  at  full  tide." 

Since  prayer  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  appeal  to  a  personal  and 
present  God,  whose  granting  or  withholding  of  the  requested  blessing  is 
believed  to  be  determined  by  the  prayer  itself,  Ave  must  conclude  that 
prayer  moves  God,  or,  in  other  words,  induces  the  putting  forth  on  his 
part  of  an  imperative  volition. 

The  view  that  in  answering  prayer  God  combines  natural  forces  is  elaborated  by 
Chalmers.  Works,  2 :  314,  and  7 : 334.  BeeDiman,  Theistic  Argument,  111 — "When  laws 
are  conceived  of,  not  as  single,  but  as  combined,  instead  of  being  Immutable  in  their 
operation,  they  are  the  agencies  of  ceaseless  change.  Phenomena  are  governed,  not  by 
invariable  forces,  but  by  endlessly  varying  combinations  of  invariable  forces."  Diman 
seems  to  have  followed  Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  100. 

Janet,  Final  Causes,  219—  "  I  kindle  a  fire  in  my  grate.  I  only  intervene  to  produce 
and  combine  together  the  different  agents  whose  natural  action  behooves  to  produce 
the  effect  I  have  need  of ;  but  the  first  step  once  taken,  all  the  phem  >mena  constituting 
combustion  engender  each  other,  conformably  to  their  laws,  without  a  new  interven- 
tion of  the  agent ;  so  that  an  observer  who  should  study  theseriesof  these  phenomena, 
without  perceiving  the  first  hand  that  had  prepared  all,  could  not  seize  that  hand  inany 
especial  act,  and  yet  there  is  a  preconceived  plan  and  combination." 

Hopkins,  Sermon  on  Prayer-gauge:  Man,  by  sprinkling  plaster  on  his  field,  may 
cause  the  corn  to  grow  more  luxuriantly;  by  kindling  great  fires  and  by  firing  cannon, 
he  may  cause  rain ;  and  God  can  surely,  in  answer  to  prayer,  do  as  much  as  man  can. 
Lewes  says  that  the  fundamental  character  of  all  theological  philosophy  is  conceiving 
of  phenomena  as  subject  to  supernatural  volition,  and  consequently  as  eminently  and 
irregularly  variable.  This  notion,  he  says,  is  refuted,  first,  by  exact  and  rational 
prevision  of  pheuomena,  and,  secondly,  by  the  possibility  of  our  modifying  these  phe- 
nomena so  as  to  promote  our  own  advantage.  But  we  ask  in  reply  :  If  we  can  modify 
them,  cannot  God?  But,  lest  this  should  seem  to  imply  mutability  in  God  or  incon- 
sistency in  nature,  we  remark,  iu  addition,  that : 

(  6 )  God  may  have  so  prearranged  the  laws  of  the  material  universe  and 
the  events  of  history  that,  while  the  answer  to  prayer  is  an  expression  of 
his  will,  it  is  granted  through  the  working  of  natural  agencies,  and  in  per- 
fect accordance  with  the  general  principle  that  results,  both  temporal  and 
spiritual,  are  to  be  attained  by  intelligent  creatures  through  the  use  of  the 
appropriate  and  appointed  means. 


436  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

J.  P.  Cooke,  Credential's  of  Science,  194— "The  Jacquard  loom  of  itself  would  weave  a 
perfectly  uniform  plain  fabric ;  the  perforated  cards  determine  a  selection  of  the 
threads,  and  through  a  combination  of  these  variable  conditions,  so  complex  that  the 
observer  cannot  follow  their  intricate  workings,  the  predesigned  pattern  appears." 
E.  G.  Robinson :  "The  most  formidable  objection  to  this  theory  is  the  apparent  coun- 
tenance it  lends  to  the  doctrine  of  necessitarianism.  But  if  it  presupposes  that  free 
actions  have  been  taken  into  account,  it  cannot  easily  be  shown  to  be  false."  The 
bishop  who  was  asked  by  his  curate  to  sanction  prayers  for  rain  was  unduly  sceptical 
when  he  replied  :  "  First  consult  the  barometer."  Phillips  Brooks :  "  Prayer  is  not  the 
conquering  of  God's  reluctance,  but  the  taking  hold  of  God's  willingness." 

The  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  somewhere  about  1628,  prayed  for  rain.  They  met  at 
9  A.  M.,  and  continued  in  prayer  for  eight  or  nine  hours.  While  they  were  assembled 
clouds  gathered,  and  the  next  morning  began  rains  which,  with  some  intervals,  lasted 
fourteen  days.  John  Easter  was  many  years  ago  an  evangelist  in  Virginia.  A  large 
out-door  meeting  was  being  held.  Many  thousands  had  assembled,  when  heavy  storm 
clouds  began  to  gather.  There  was  no  shelter  to  which  the  multitudes  could  retreat. 
The  rain  had  already  reached  the  adjoining  fields  when  John  Easter  cried :  "  Brethren, 
be  still,  while  I  call  upon  God  to  stay  the  storm  till  the  gospel  ispreached  to  this  multi, 
tude  !  "  Then  he  knelt  and  prayed  that  the  audience  might  be  spared  the  rain,  and 
that  after  they  had  gone  to  their  homes  there  might  be  refreshing  showers.  Behold, 
the  clouds  parted  as  they  came  near,  and  passed  to  either  side  of  the  crowd  and  then 
closed  again,  leaving  the  place  dry  where  the  audience  had  assembled,  and  the  next 
day  the  postponed  showers  came  down  upon  the  ground  that  had  been  the  day  before 
omitted. 

Since  God  is  immanent  in  nature,  an  answer  to  prayer,  coming  about 
through  the  intervention  of  natural  law,  may  be  as  real  a  revelation  of 
God's  personal  care  as  if  the  laws  of  nature  were  suspended,  and  God  inter- 
posed by  an  exercise  of  his  creative  power.  Prayer  and  its  answer,  though 
having  God's  immediate  volition  as  their  connecting  bond,  may  yet  be 
provided  for  in  the  original  plan  of  the  universe. 

The  universe  does  not  exist  for  itself,  but  for  moral  ends  and  moral  beings,  to  reveal 
God  and  to  furnish  facilities  of  intercourse  between  God  and  intelligent  creatures. 
Bishop  Berkeley  :  "  The  universe  is  God's  ceaseless  conversation  with  his  creatures." 
The  universe  certainly  subserves  moral  ends  —  the  discouragement  of  vice  and  the 
reward  of  virtue ;  why  not  spiritual  ends  also?  When  we  remember  that  there  is  no 
true  pra3'er  which  God  does  not  inspire  ;  that  every  true  prayer  is  part  of  the  plan  of 
the  universe  linked  in  with  all  the  rest  and  provided  for  at  the  beginning ;  that  God  is 
in  nature  and  in  mind,  supervising  all  their  movements  and  making  all  fulfill  his  will 
and  reveal  his  personal  care;  that  God  can  adjust  the  forces  of  nature  to  each  other 
far  more  skilfully  than  can  man  when  mau  produces  effects  which  nature  of  herself 
could  never  accomplish  ;  that  God  is  not  confined  to  nature  or  her  forces,  but  can  work 
by  his  creative  and  omnipotent  will  where  other  means  are  not  sufficient, —  we  need 
have  no  fear,  either  that  natural  law  will  bar  God's  answers  to  prayer,  or  that  these 
answers  will  cause  a  shock  or  jar  in  the  system  of  the  universe. 

Matheson,  Messages  of  the  Old  Religions,  321,  323—"  Hebrew  poetry  never  deals  with 
outward  nature  for  its  own  sake.  The  eye  never  rests  on  beauty  for  itself  alone.  The 
heavens  are  the  work  of  God's  hands,  the  earth  is  God's  footstool,  the  winds  are  God's 
ministers,  the  stars  are  God's  host,  the  thunder  is  God's  voice.  What  we  call  Nature 
the  Jew  called  God."  Miss  Heloise  E.  Hersey :  "  Plato  in  the  Phasdrus  sets  forth  in  a 
splendid  myth  the  means  by  which  the  gods  refresh  themselves.  Once  a  year,  in  a 
mighty  host,  they  drive  their  chariots  up  the  steep  to  the  topmost  vault  of  heaven. 
Thence  they  may  behold  all  the  wonders  and  the  secrets  of  the  universe ;  and,  quick- 
ened by  the  sight  of  the  great  plain  of  truth,  they  return  home  replenished  and  made 
glad  by  the  celestial  vision."  Abp.  Trench,  Poems,  134  —  "  Lord,  what  a  change  within 
us  one  short  hour  Spent  in  thy  presence  will  prevail  to  make  — What  heavy  burdens 
from  our  bosoms  take,  What  parched  grounds  ref resn  as  with  a  shower !  We  kneel, 
and  all  around  us  seems  to  lower;  We  rise,  and  all,  the  distant  and  the  near,  Stands 
forth  in  sunny  outline,  brave  and  clear ;  We  kneel  how  weak,  we  rise  how  full  of 
power!  Why,  therefore,  should  we  do  ourselves  this  wrong,  Or  others  —  that  we  are 
not  always  strong ;  That  we  are  ever  overborne  with  care ;  That  we  should  ever  weak 


RELATIONS   OF   THE    DOCTRINE   OP    PROVIDENCE.  43) 

or  heartless  be,  Anxious  or  troubled,  when  with  us  is  prayer,  Ami  joy  aud  strength  and 
courage  are  with  thee.'"  See  Culderwood,  Science  and  Religion,  299-309;  McCosh, 
Divine  Government,  215 ;  Liddon,  Elements  of  Religion,  178-203;  Hamilton,  Autology, 
690-ti'J4.  See  also  Jellett,  Donnellan  Lectures  on  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer;  Butterworth, 
Story  of  Notable  Prayers ;  Patton,  Pr&yer  aud  its  Answers  ;  Monrad,  World  of  Prayer ; 
Prime,  Power  of  Prayer;  Phelps,  The  Still  Hour;  Haven,  and  Bickersteth,  on  Prayer; 
Prayer  for  Colleges ;  Cox,  in  Expositor,  1877  :  chap.  3 ;  Faunce,  Prayer  as  a  Theory  and 
a  Fact ;  Trumbull,  Prayer,  Its  Nature  and  Scope. 

C.  If  asked  whether  this  relation  between  prayer  and  its  providential 
answer  can  he  scientifically  tested,  we  reply  that  it  may  be  tested  just  as  a 
father's  love  may  be  tested  by  a  dutiful  son. 

( a  )  There  is  a  general  proof  of  it  in  the  past  experience  of  the  Chris- 
tian and  in  the  past  history  of  the  church. 

Ps.  116  : 1-8 — " I  love  Jehovah  because  he  heareth  my  voice  and  my  supplications."  Luther  prays  for  the 
dying  Melanchthon,  and  he  recovers.  George  Mtlller  trusts  to  prayer,  and  builds  his 
great  orphan-houses.  For  a  multitude  of  instances,  see  Prime,  Answers  to  Prayer. 
( 'ha lies  H.  Spurgeon  :  "If  there  is  any  fact  that  is  proved,  it  is  t  hat  God  hears  prayer. 
If  there  is  any  scientific  statement  that  is  capable  of  mathematical  proof ,  this  is."  Mr. 
Spurgeon's  language  is  rhetorical:  he  means  simply  that  God's  answers  to  prayer 
remove  aU  reasonable  doubt.  Adooiram  Judson:  "I  never  was  deeply  interested  in 
any  object,  I  never  prayed  sincerely  and  earnestly  for  anything,  but  it  came ;  at  some 
time  —  no  matter  at  how  distant  a  day —somehow,  in  some  shape,  probably  the  last. 
I  should  have  devised  —  it  came.  And  yet  I  have  always  had  so  little  faith  !  May  <  tod 
forgive  me,  and  while  he  condescends  to  use  me  as  his  instrument,  wipe  the  sin  of 
unbelief  from  my  heart !  " 

(  b  )  In  condescension  to  human  blindness,  God  may  sometimes  submit 
to  a  formal  test  of  his  faithfulness  and  power, — as  in  the  case  of  Elijah 
and  the  priests  of  Biial. 

Is.  7  :  10-13—  A haz  is  rebuked  for  not  asking  a  sign, —  in  him  it  indicated  unbelief.  1  K. 
18  :  36-38  —  Elijah  said,  "  let  it  be  known  this  day  that  thou  art  God  in  Israel.  .  .  .  Then  the  fire  of  Jehovah  fell, 
and  consumed  the  burnt  offering."  Romaine  speaks  of  "  a  year  famous  for  believing."  Mat  21 ;  21, 
22  —  "  even  if  ye  shall  say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  taken  up  and  cast  into  the  sea.  it  shall  bs  done.  And  all  things, 
whatsoever  ye  shail  ask  ri  prayer,  believing,  ye  shall  receive."  "Impossible?"  said  Napoleon ;  "then  it, 
shall  be  done !  "  Arthur  Hallam,  quoted  in  Tennyson's  Life,  1 :  41  —  "  With  respect  t" 
prayer,  you  ask  how  I  am  to  distinguish  1  he  operations  of  God  in  me  from  the  mo.tions 
of  my  own  heart.  Why  should  you  distinguish  them,  or  how  do  you  know  that  there 
is  any  distinction  ?  Is  God  less  God  because  he  acts  by  general  laws  when  ha  deals 
with  the  common  elements  of  nature?"  "Watch  in  prayer  ti>  see  what  eoineth. 
Foolish  boys  that  knock  at  a  door  in  wantonness,  will  not  stay  till  somebody  open  to 
them;  but  a  man  that  hath  business  will  knock,  and  knock  again,  till  he  gets  his 
answer." 

M art ineau,  Seat  Of  Authority,  102,  103—  "God  is  not  beyond  nature  simply,— he  is 
within  it.  In  nature  anil  in  mind  we  must  find  the  action  of  his  power.  There  is  no 
need  of  his  being  a  third  factor  over  aud  above  the  life  of  nature  and  the  life  of  man." 
Hartley  Coleridge  :  "  Be  not  afraid  to  pray,—  to  pray  is  right.  Pray  if  thou  canst  with 
hope,  but  ever  pray,  Though  hope  be  weak,  or  sick  with  long-  delay ;  Pray  in  the  dark- 
ness, if  there  be  no  light.  Far  is  the  time,  remote  from  human  sight,  When  war  and 
discord  on  the  earth  shall  cease;  Yet  every  prayer  for  universal  peace  Avails  the 
blessed  time  to  expedite.  Whate'er  is  good  to  wish,  ask  that  of  heaven,  Though  it  be 
what  thou  canst  not  hope  to  see;  Pray  to  be  perfect,  though  the  material  leaven 
Forbid  the  spirit  so  on  earth  to  be ;  But  if  for  any  wish  thou  dar'st  not  pray,  Then  pray 
to  God  to  cast  that  wish  away." 

(  c )  When  proof  sufficient  to  convince  the  candid  inquirer  has  been 
already  given,  it  may  not  consist  with  the  divine  majesty  to  abide  a  test 
imposed  by  mere  curiosity  or  scepticism, —  as  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  who 
sought  a  sign  from  heaven. 


438  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Mat.  12  :  39  — "An  evil  and  adulierous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign ;  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the 
sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet."  Tyndall's  prayer-gauge  would  ensure  a  conflict  of  prayers.  Since 
our  present  life  is  a  moral  probation,  delay  in  the  answer  to  our  prayers,  and  even  the 
denial  of  specific  things  for  which  we  pray,  may  be  only  signs  of  God's  faithfulness 
and  love.  George  Miiller  :  "  I  myself  have  been  bringing  certain  requests  before  God 
now  for  seventeen  years  and  six  months,  and  never  a  day  has  passed  without  my  pray- 
ing concerning  them  all  this  time  ;  yet  the  full  answer  has  not  come  up  to  the  present. 
But  I  look  for  it ;  I  confidently  expect  it."  Christ's  prayer,  "  let  this  cup  pass  away  from  me  " 
(Mat.  26  :  39),  and  Paul's  prayer  that  the  "thorn  in  the  flesh"  might  depart  from  him  (2  Cor.  12:7, 
8),  were  not  answered  in  the  precise  way  requested.  No  more  are  our  prayers  always 
answered  in  the  way  we  expect.  Christ's  prayer  was  not  answered  by  the  literal 
removing  of  the  cup,  because  the  drinking  of  the  cup  was  really  his  glory ;  and  Paul's 
prayer  was  not  answered  by  the  literal  removal  of  the  thorn,  because  the  thorn  was 
needful  for  his  own  perfecting.  In  the  case  of  both  Jesus  and  Paul,  there  were  larger 
interests  to  be  consulted  than  their  own  freedom  from  suffering. 

(d)  Since  God's  will  is  the  link  between  prayer  and  its  answer,  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  physical  demonstration  of  its  efficacy  in  any  pro- 
posed case.  Physical  tests  have  no  application  to  things  into  which  free 
will  enters  as  a  constitutive  element.  But  there  are  moral  tests,  and  moral 
tests  are  as  scientific  as  physical  tests  can  be. 

Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  576,  alludes  to  Goldwin  Smith's  denial  that  any  scientific 
method  can  be  applied  to  history  because  it  would  make  man  a  necessary  link  in  a  chain 
of  cause  and  effect  and  so  would  deny  his  free  will.  But  Diman  says  this  is  no  more 
impossible  than  the  development  of  the  individual  according  to  a  fixed  law  of  growth, 
while  yet  free  will  is  sedulously  respected.  Fronde  says  history  is  not  a  science,  because 
no  science  could  foretell  Mohammedanism  or  Buddhism  ;  and  Goldwin  Smith  says  that 
"prediction  is  the  crown  of  all  science."  But,  as  Diman  remarks :  "geometry,  geol- 
ogy, physiology,  are  sciences,  yet  they  do  not  predict."  Buckle  brought  history  into 
contempt  by  asserting  that  it  could  be  analyzed  and  referred  solely  to  intellectual  laws 
and  forces.  To  all  this  we  reply  that  there  may  be  scientific  tests  which  are  not  physical, 
or  even  intellectual,  but  only  moral.  Such  a  test  God  urges  his  people  to  use,  in  Mai.  3 : 
10  — "  Bring  ye  the  whole  tithe  into  the  storehouse  ....  and  prove  me  now  herewith,  if  I  will  not  open  you  the 
windows  of  heaven,  and  pour  you  out  a  blessing,  that  there  shall  not  be  room  enough  to  receive  it."  All  such 
prayer  is  a  reflection  of  Christ's  words— some  fragment  of  his  teaching  transformed 
into  a  supplication  ( John  15  :  7 ;  see  Westcott,  Bib.  Com.,  in  loco ) ;  all  such  prayer  is  more- 
over the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ( Rom.  8  :  26,  27 ).    It  is  therefore  sure  of  an  answer. 

But  the  test  of  prayer  proposed  by  Tyndall  is  not  applicable  to  the  thing  to  be  tested 
by  it.    Hopkins,  Prayer  and  the  Prayer-gauge,  22  sq. — "  We  cannot  measure  wheat  by 

the  yard,  or  the  weight  of  a  discourse  with  a  pair  of  scales God's  wisdom  might 

see  that  it  was  not  best  for  the  petitioners,  nor  for  the  objects  of  their  petition,  to  grant 
their  request.  Christians  therefore  could  not,  without  special  divine  authorization,  rest 
their  faith  upon  the  results  of  such  a  test.  .  .  .  Why  may  we  not  ask  for  great  changes 
in  nature  ?  For  the  same  reason  that  a  well-informed  child  does  not  ask  for  the  moon 
as  a  plaything.  .  .  .  There  are  two  limitations  upon  prayer.  First,  except  by  special 
direction  of  God,  we  cannot  ask  for  a  miracle,  for  the  same  reason  that  a  child  could 
not  ask  his  father  to  burn  the  house  down.  Nature  is  the  house  we  live  in.  Secondly, 
we  cannot  ask  for  anything  under  the  laws  of  nature  which  would  contravene  the 
object  of  those  laws.  Whatever  we  can  do  for  ourselves  under  these  laws,  God  expects 
us  to  do.    If  the  child  is  cold,  let  him  go  near  the  fire,—  not  beg  his  father  to  carry  him." 

Herbert  Spencer's  Sociology  is  only  social  physics.  He  denies  freedom,  and  declares 
anyone  who  will  affix  D.  V.  to  the  announcement  of  the  Mildmay  Conference  to  be 
incapable  of  understanding  sociology.  Prevision  excludes  divine  or  human  will.  But 
Mr.  Spencer  intimates  that  the  evils  of  natural  selection  may  be  modified  by  artificial 
selection.  What  is  this  but  the  interference  of  will  ?  And  if  man  can  interfere,  cannot 
God  do  the  same  ?  Yet  the  wise  child  will  not  expect  the  father  to  give  everything  he 
asks  for.  Nor  will  the  father  who  loves  his  child  give  him  the  razor  to  play  with,  or 
stuff  him  with  unwholesome  sweets,  simply  because  the  child  asks  these  things.  If  the 
engineer  of  the  ocean  steamer  should  give  me  permission  to  press  the  lever  that 
sets  all  the  machinery  in  motion,  I  should  decline  to  use  my  power  and  should 
prefer  to  leave  such  matters  to  him,  unless  he  first  suggested  it  and  showed  me  how. 
So  the  Holy  Spirit  "  helpeth  our  infirmity ;  for  we  know  not  how  to  pray  as  we  ought ;  but  the  Spirit  himself 


RELATIONS   OP   TUB    DOCTRINE   OF   PROVIDENCE.  439 

maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered"  (Roa.  8:26).  And  we  ought  not  to 
talk  of  "submitting"  to  perfect  Wisdom,  op  of  "being  resigned"  to  perfect  Love. 
Shakespeare,  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  2  :  1  — "  What  they  [the  gods]  do  delay,  they  do 
not  deny.  .  .  .  We,  ignorant  of  ourselves,  Beg  often  our  own  harms,  which  the  wise 
powers  Deny  us  for  our  good ;  so  find  we  profit  By  losing-  of  our  prayers."  See 
Thornton,  ( >ld-Pashioned  Ethics,  28G-297.  Per  contra,  see  Galton,  Inquiries  into  Human 
Faculty,  277-294. 

3.     To  Christian  activity. 

Here  the  truth  lies  between  the  two  extremes  of  quietism  and  naturalism. 

(a)  In  opposition  to  the  false  abnegation  of  human  reason  and  will  which 
quietism  demands,  we  hold  that  God  guides  us,  not  by  continual  miracle, 
but  by  his  natural  pr<  >vidence  aud  the  energizing  of  our  faculties  by  his 
Spirit,  so  that  we  rationally  and  freely  do  our  own  work,  and  work  out 
our  own  salvation. 

Upbam,  Interior  Life,  ,'!50,  defines  quietism  as  "cessation  of  wandering  thoughts  and 
discursive  imaginations,  rest  from  irregular  desires  and  affections,  and  perfect  submis- 
sion of  the  wilL"    Its  advocates,  however,  have  often  spoken  of  il  as  a  giving  up  of  our 

will  and  reason,  and  a  swallowing  up  of  these  in  the  wisdom  and  will  of  God.  This 
phraseology  is  misleading,  and  savors  of  a  pantheistic  merging  of  man  in  God.  Dor- 
ner:  "Quietism  makes  God  a  monarch  without  living  subjects."  Certain  English 
quietists,  like  the  Mohammedans,  will  not  employ  physicians  in  sickness.  They  quote 
2  Chron.  16  :  12,  13  — Asa  "sought  not  to  Jehovah,  but  to  the  physicians.  And  Asa  slept  with  his  fathers."  They 
forget  that  the  "  phys'.cians "  alluded  to  in  Chronicles  were  probably  heathen  necro- 
mancers.   Cromwell  to  his  Ironsides  :  "Trust  God,  and  keep  your  powder  dry  ! '' 

Providence  does  not  exclude,  but  rather  implies  the  operation  of  natural  law,  by 
which  we  mean  God's  regular  way  of  working.  It  leaves  no  excuse  for  the  sarcasm 
of  Robert  Browning's  Mr.  Sludge  the  Medium,  223  — "  Saved  your  precious  self  from  what 
befell  The  thirty-three  whom  Providence  forgot."  Schurman,  Belief  in  God,  213  — 
"The  temples  were  hung  with  the  votive  offerings  of  those  only  who  had  escaped 
drowning."  "So  like  Provvy !  "  Bentham  used  to  say,  when  anything  particularly 
unseemly  occurred  in  the  way  of  natural  catastrophe.  God  reveals  himself  in  natural 
law.  Physicians  and  medicine  are  his  methods,  as  well  as  the  importation  of  faith  and 
courage  to  the  patient.  The  advocates  of  faith-cure  should  provide  by  faith  that  no 
believing  Christian  should  die.  With  the  apostolic  miracles  should  go  inspiration,  as 
Edward  Irving  declared.  "Everyman  is  as  lazy  as  circumstances  will  admit."  We 
throw  upon  the  shoulders  of  Providence  the  burdens  which  belong  to  us  to  bear. 
"  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work, 
for  his  good  pleasure  "  (  Phil.  2 :  12,  13 ). 

Prayer  without  the  use  of  means  is  an  insult  to  God.  "  If  God  has  decreed  that  you 
should  live,  what  is  the  use  of  your  eating  or  drinking?"  Can  a  drowning  man  refuse 
to  swim,  or  even  to  lay  hold  of  the  rope  t  hat  is  thrown  to  him,  and  yet  ask  God  to  save 
him  on  account  of  his  faith  V  "  Tie  your  camel,"  said  Mohammed,  "  and  commit  it  to 
God."  Frederick  Douglas  used  to  say  that  when  in  slavery  he  often  prayed  for  free- 
dom, but  his  prayer  was  never  answered  till  he  prayed  with  his  feet  — and  ran  away. 
Whitney,  Integrity  of  Christian  Science,  68  —  "  The  existence  of  the  dynamo  at  the 
power-house  does  not  make  unnecessary  the  trolley  line,  nor  the  secondary  motor,  nor 
the  conductor's  application  of  the  power.  True  quietism  is  a  resting  in  the  Lord  after 
we  have  done  our  part."  Ps.  37  :  7  — " Rest  in  Jehovah,  and  wait  patiently  for  him"  ;  Is.  57 : 2  — " He  enter- 
eth  into  peace;  they  rest  in  their  beds,  each  one  that  walketh  in  his  uprightness."  Ian  Maclaren,  Cure  of 
Souls,  147— "Religion  has  three  places  of  abode:  in  the  reason,  which  is  theology;  in 
the  conscience,  which  is  ethics ;  and  in  the  heart,  which  is  quietism."  On  the  self-guid- 
ance of  Christ,  see  Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ,  202-232. 

George  Miiller,  writing  about  ascertaining  the  will  of  God,  says:  "I  seek  at  the 
beginning  to  get  my  heart  into  such  a  state  that  it  has  no  will  of  its  own  in  regard  to  a 
given  matter.  Nine  tenths  of  the  difficulties  are  overcome  when  our  hearts  are 
ready  to  do  the  Lord's  will,  whatever  it  may  be.  Having  done  this,  I  do  not  leave  the 
i-esult  to  feeling  or  simple  impression.  If  I  do  so,  I  make  myself  liable  to  a  great  delu- 
sion. I  seek  the  will  of  the  Spirit  of  God  through,  or  in  connection  with,  the  Word  of 
God.    The  Spirit  and  the  Word  must  be  combined.    If  I  look  to  the  Spirit  alone,  with. 


440  THE   WORKS   OF  GOD. 

out  the  Word,  I  lay  myself  open  to  great  delusions  also.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  guides  us 
at  all,  he  will  do  it  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  never  contrary  to  them.  Next  I 
take  into  account  providential  circumstances.  These  often  plainly  indicate  God's  will 
In  connection  with  his  Word  and  his  Spirit.  I  ask  God  in  prayer  to  reveal  to  me  hia 
will  aright.  Thus  through  prayer  to  God,  the  study  of  the  Word,  and  reflection,  I 
come  to  a  deliberate  judgment  according  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  ability, 
and,  if  my  mind  is  thus  at  peace,  I  proceed  accordingly." 

We  must  not  confound  rational  piety  with  false  enthusiasm.  See  Isaac  Taylor» 
Natural  History  of  Enthusiasm.  "  Not  quiescence,  but  acquiescence,  is  demanded  of 
us."  As  God  feeds  "the  birds  of  the  heaven"  (Mat.  6:26),  not  by  dropping  food  from  heaven 
into  their  mouths,  but  by  stimulating  them  to  seek  food  for  themselves,  so  God  provides 
for  his  rational  creatures  by  giving  them  a  sanctified  common  sense  and  by  leading  them 
to  use  it.  In  a  true  sense  Christianity  gives  us  more  will  than  ever.  The  Holy  Spirit 
emancipates  the  will,  sets  it  upon  proper  objects,  and  fills  it  with  new  energy.  We  are 
therefore  not  to  surrender  ourselves  passively  to  whatever  professes  to  be  a  divine  sug- 
gestion ;  1  John  4  : 1  —  "believe  not  every  spirit,  but  prove  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God."  The  test  is 
the  revealed  word  of  God  :  Is.  8  :  20  —  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  !  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
word,  surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them."    See  remarks  on  false  Mysticism,  pages  32,  33. 

(  b )  In  opposition  to  naturalism,  we  hold  that  God  is  continually  near 
the  human  spirit  by  his  providential  working,  and  that  this  providential 
working  is  so  adjusted  to  the  Christian's  nature  and  necessities  as  to  fur- 
nish instruction  with  regard  to  duty,  discipline  of  religious  character,  and 
needed  help  and  comfort  in  trial. 

In  interpreting  God's  providences,  as  in  interpreting  Scripture,  we  are 
dependent  upon  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  is,  indeed,  in 
great  part  an  application  of  Scripture  truth  to  present  circumstances. 
While  Ave  never  allow  ourselves  to  act  blindly  and  irrationally,  but  accus- 
tom ourselves  to  weigh  evidence  with  regard  to  duty,  we  are  to  expect,  as 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  an  understanding  of  circumstances — a  fine  sense  of 
God's  providential  purposes  with  regard  to  us,  which  will  make  our  true 
course  plain  to  ourselves,  although  we  may  not  always  be  able  to  explain  it 
to  others. 

The  Christian  may  have  a  continual  divine  guidance.  Unlike  the  unfaithful  and  unbe- 
lieving, of  whom  it  is  said,  in  Ps.  106  :  13,  "  They  waited  not  for  his  counsel,"  the  true  believer  has 
wisdom  given  him  from  above.  Ps.  32:  8 —  "I  will  instruct  thee  and  teach  thee  in  the  way  which  thou 
shalt  go";  Prov.  3 : 6  —  "  In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  him,  And  he  will  direct  thy  paths";  Phil.  1 :  9  — "And  this  I 
pray,  that  your  love  may  abound  yet  more  and  more  in  knowledge  and  all  discernment  "  (  aicn>>j<x<ri  =  spiritual 
discernment);  James  1  :5  —  "if  any  of  you  lacketh  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  who  giveth  (  tou  SiMi-tos 
©eou  )  to  all  liberally  and  upbraideth  not'  ;  John  15 :  15  —  "No  longer  do  I  call  you  servants;  for  the  servant  know- 
eth  not  what  his  lord  doeth  :  but  I  have  called  you  friends "  ;  Col.  1 : 9,  10  —  "  that  ye  may  be  filled  with  the  knowledge 
of  his  will  in  all  spiritual  wisdom  and  understanding,  to  walk  worthily  of  the  Lord  unto  all  pleasing." 

God's  Spirit  makes  Providence  as  well  as  the  Bible  personal  to  us.  From  every  page 
of  nature,  as  well  as  of  the  Bible, the  living  God  speaks  to  us.  Tholuck:  "The  more  we 
recognize  in  every  daily  occurrence  God's  secret  inspiration,  guiding  and  controlling 
us,  the  more  will  all  which  to  others  wears  a  common  and  every-day  aspect  prove  to  us 
a  sign  and  a  wondrous  work."  Hutton,  Essays:  "Animals  that  are  blind  slaves  of 
impulse,  driven  about  by  forces  from  within,  have  so  to  say  fewer  valves  in  their 
moral  constitution  for  the  entrance  of  divine  guidance.  But  minds  alive  to  every  word 
of  God  give  constant  opportunity  for  his  interference  with  suggestions  that  may  alter 
the  course  of  their  lives.  The  higher  the  mind,  the  more  it  glides  into  the  region  of 
providential  control.  God  turns  the  good  by  the  slightest  breath  of  thought."  So  the 
Christian  hymn,  "Guide  me,  O  thou  great  Jehovah!"  likens  God's  leading  of  the 
believer  to  that  of  Israel  by  the  pillar  of  fire  and  cloud  ;  and  Paul  in  his  dungeon  calls 
himself  "  the  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus  "  ( Eph.  3:1).  Affliction  is  the  discipline  of  God's  providence. 
Greek  proverb  :  "  He  who  docs  not  get  thrashed,  does  not  get  educated."  On  God's 
Leadings,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  560-562. 


RELATIONS   OF   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    PROVIDENCE.  441 

Abraham  "went out,  not  knowing  whither  he  went"  ( Heb.  U :  8  ).  Not  till  he  reached  Cauaan  did 
he  know  the  place  of  his  destination.  Like  a  child  he  placed  his  hand  in  1  he  hand  of  his 
unseen  Father,  to  be  led  whither  he  himself  know  not.  We  often  hare  guidance  with- 
out discernment  of  that  guidance^  Is.  42:16  —  "I  will  bring  the  bLnd  by  a  way  that  they  know 
not;  in  paths  that  they  know  not  will  I  lead  them."  So  wc  act  more  wisely  than  we  ourselves  under- 
stand, and  afterwards  look  back  with  astonishment  to  see  what  we  have  been  able  to 
accomplish.  Emerson  :  "  Himself  from  God  he  could  not  free ;  He  builded  bel  ter  than 
he  knew."  Disappointments?  Ah,  you  make  a  mistake  in  the  spelling- ;  the  D  should 
bean  II:  His  appointments.  Melanehthon:  "Quem  poetae  fort  imam,  nos  Deum  appell- 
amus."  Chinese  proverb  :  "  The  good  God  never  smites  with  both  hands."  "Tact  is  a 
sort  of  psychical  automatism"  (  Ladd ).  There  is  a  Christian  tact  which  is  rarely  at 
fault,  because  its  possessor  is  "led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  "  (Rom.  8:  H  i.  Vet  we  must  always  make 
allowance,  as  Oliver  Cromwell  used  to  say,  "for  the  possibility  of  being  mistaken." 

"When  Luther's  friends  wrote  despairingly  of  the  negotiations  at  the  Diet  of  Worms, 
he  replied  from  Coburg  that  he  had  been  looking  up  at  the  night  sky,  spangled  and 
Studded  with  Stars,  and  had  found  no  pillars  to  hold  them  up.  And  yet  they  <  lid  not  fall. 
God  needs  no  props  for  his  stars  and  planets.  He  hangs  them  on  nothing.  So,  in  the 
working  of  God's  providence,  the  unseen  is  prop  enough  for  the  seen.  Henry  Drum- 
mond,  Life,  127  — "To  find  out  God's  will :  1.  Pray.  2.  Think.  3.  Talk  to  wise  people, 
but  do  not  regard  their  decision  as  final.  4.  Beware  of  the  bias  of  your  own  will,  but 
do  not  be  too  much  afraid  of  it(  God  never  unnecessarily  thwarts  a  man's  nature  and 
likings,  and  it  is  a  mistake  to  think  that  his  will  is  always  in  the  line  of  the  disagree- 
able ).  5.  Meantime,  do  the  next  thing  (  For  doing  Cod's  will  in  small  thing.--  is  the  best 
preparation  for  knowing  it  in  great  things).  6.  Winn  decision  and  action  are 
necessary,  go  ahead,  ■;.  Never  reconsider  the  decision  when  it  is  finally  acted  on ;  and 
8.  Tou  will  probably  not  find  out  until  afterwards,  perhaps  long  afterwards,  that  you 
have  been  led  at  all." 

Amiel  lamented  that  everything  was  lefi  to  his  own  responsibility  and  declared:  "It 
is  this  thought  that  disgusts  me  with  the  government  of  my  own  life.  To  win  true 
peace,  a  man  needs  to  fee]  himself  directed,  pardoned  and  sustained  by  a  supreme 
Power,  to  feel  himself  in  the  right  road,  at  the  point  where  God  would  have  him  be, — 
in  harmony  with  God  and  the  universe,  This  faith  gives  strength  and  calm,  1  have 
not  got  it.  Ali  that  is  seems  tome  arbitrary  and  fortuitous."  How  much  better  is 
Wordsworth's  faith,  Excursion,  book  1:581  "  One  adequate  support  For  the  calamities 
of  mortal  life  Exists,  oue  only:  an  assured  belief  That  the  procession  of  our  fate, 
howe'er  Sad  or  disturbed,  is  ordered  by  a  Being  Of  infinite  benevolence  and  power, 
Whose  everlasting  purposes  embrace  All  accidents,  converting  them  to  good."  Mrs. 
Browning,  De  Profundus,  stanza  xxiii  —  "I  praise  thee  while  my  days  go  on;  I  love 
thee  while  my  days  go  on!  Through  dark  and  dearth,  through  fire  and  frost,  With 
emptied  arms  and  treasure  lost,  I  thank  thee  while  my  days  go  on  !  " 

4.     To  tin  i  rii  acta  of  free  agents. 

(a)  Here  we  must  distinguish  between  the  natural  agency  and  the 
moral  agency  of  God,  or  between  acts  of  permissive  providence  and  acts 
of  efficient  causation.  We  are  ever  to  remember  that  God  neither  works 
evil,  nor  causes  his  creatures  to  work  evil.  All  sin  is  chargeable  to  the  self- 
will  and  perversity  of  the  creature  ;  to  declare  God  the  author  of  it  is 
the  greatest  of  blasphemies. 

Bp.  Wordsworth  :  "  God  foresees  evil  deeds,  but  never  forces  them."  "Cod  docs  not 
cause  sin,  any  more  than  the  rider  of  a  limping-  horse  causes  the  limping."  Nor  can  it 
be  said  that  Satan  is  the  author  of  man's  sin.  Man's  powers  are  his  own.  Not  Satan, 
but  the  man  himself,  gives  the  wrong-  application  to  these  powers.  Not  the  cause, 
but  the  occasion,  of  sin  is  in  the  tempter ;  the  cause  is  in  the  evil  will  which  yields  to 
his  persuasions. 

(6)  But  while  man  makes  up  his  evil  decision  independently  of  God, 
God  does,  by  his  natural  agency,  order  the  method  in  which  this  inward 
evil  shall  express  itself,  by  limiting  it  in  time,  place,  and  measure,  or  by 
guiding  it  to  the  end  which  his  wisdom  and  love,  and  not  man's  intent,  has 


442  THE   WORKS   OF    GOD. 

set.  In  all  this,  however,  God  only  allows  sin  to  develop  itself  after  its 
own  nature,  so  that  it  may  be  known,  abhorred,  and  if  vjossible  overcome 
and  forsaken. 

Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  273-281  —  "  Judas's  treachery  works  the  reconciliation  of 

the  world,  and  Israel's  apostasy  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles God  smooths  the 

path  of  the  sinner,  and  gives  him  chance  for  the  outbreak  of  the  evil,  like  a  wise 
physician  who  draws  to  the  surface  of  the  body  the  disease  that  has  been  raging- within, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  cured,  if  possible,  by  mild  means,  or,  if  not,  may  be  removed  by 
the  knife." 

Christianity  rises  in  spite  of,  nay,  in  consequence  of  opposition,  like  a  kite  against 
the  wind.  When  Christ  has  used  the  sword  with  which  be  has  girded  himself,  as  he 
used  Cyrus  and  the  Assyrian,  he  breaks  it  and  throws  it  away.  He  turns  the  world 
upside  down  that  he  may  get  it  right  side  up.  He  makes  use  of  every  member  of 
society,  as  the  locomotive  uses  every  cog.  The  sufferings  of  the  martyrs  add  to  the 
number  of  the  church  ;  the  worship  of  relics  stimulates  the  Crusades;  the  worship  of 
the  saints  leads  to  miracle  plays  and  to  the  modern  drama ;  the  worship  of  images  helps 
modern  art;  mouasticism,  scholasticism,  the  Papacy,  even  sceptical  and  destructive 
criticism  stir  up  defenders  of  the  faith.  Shakespeare,  Richard  III,  5:1  —  "  Thus  doth 
he  force  the  swords  of  wicked  men  To  turn  their  own  points  on  their  masters' 
bosoms"  ;  Hamlet,  1:2  —  "  Foul  deeds  will  rise,  though  all  the  earth  o'erwhelm  them, 
to  men's  eyes  " ;  Macbeth,  1:7  —  "  Even  handed  justice  Commends  the  ingredients  of 
the  poisoned  chalice  To  our  own  lips. " 

The  Emperor  of  Germany  went  to  Paris  incognito  and  returned,  thinking  that  no 
one  had  known  of  his  absence.  But  at  every  step,  going  and  coining,  he  was  sur- 
rounded by  detectives  who  saw  that  no  harm  came  to  him.  The  swallow  drove  again 
and  again  at  the  little  struggling  moth,  but  there  was  a  plate  glass  window  between 
them  which  neither  one  of  them  knew.  Charles  Darwin  put  his  cheek  against  the 
plate  glass  of  the  cobra's  cage,  but  could  not  keep  himself  from  starting  when  the 
cobra  struck.  Tacitus,  Annales,  14:5  — "Noctem  sideribus  illustrem,  quasi  convin- 
cendum  ad  scelus,  dii  prsebuere  "  —  "  a  night  brilliant  with  stars,  as  if  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  the  crime,  was  granted  by  the  gods. "  See  P.  A.  Noble,  Our  Redemption, 
59-76,  on  the  self-registry  and  self-disclosure  of  sin,  with  quotation  from  Daniel 
Webster's  speech  in  the  case  of  Kuapp  at  Salem  :  "  It  must  be  confessed.  It  will  be 
confessed.    There  is  no  refuge  from  confession  but  suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession. " 

( c )  In  cases  of  persistent  iniquity,  God's  providence  still  compels  the 
sinner  to  accomplish  the  design  with  which  he  and  all  things  have  been 
created,  namely,  the  manifestation  of  God's  holiness.  Even  though  he 
struggle  against  God's  plan,  yet  he  must  by  his  very  resistance  serve  it. 
His  sin  is  made  its  own  detector,  judge,  and  tormentor.  His  character  and 
doom  are  made  a  Avarning  to  others.  Refusing  to  glorify  God  in  his  salva- 
tion, he  is  made  to  glorify  God  in  his  destruction. 

Is.  10 :  5,  7  —  "  Ho  Assyrian,  the  rod  of  mine  anger,  the  staff  in  whose  hand  is  mine  indignation !  .  .  .  Howbeit,  he 
meaneth  not  so."  Charles  Kingsley,  Two  Years  Ago:  "  He  [Treluddra]  is  one  of  those 
base  natures,  whom  fact  only  lashes  into  greater  fury, — a  Pharaoh,  whose  heart  the 
Lord  himself  can  only  harden"  — here  we  would  add  the  qualification :  'consistently 
with  the  limits  which  he  has  set  to  the  operations  of  his  grace.'  Pharaoh's  ordering 
the  destruction  of  the  Israelitish  children  (Ei.  1:16)  was  made  the  means  of  putting 
Moses  under  royal  protection,  of  training  him  for  his  future  work,  and  finally  of 
rescuing  the  whole  nation  whose  sons  Pharaoh  sought  to  destroy.  So  God  brings  good 
out  of  evil ;  see  Tyler,  Theology  of  Greek  Poets,  28-35.  Emerson:  "My  will  fulfilled 
shall  be,  For  in  daylight  as  in  dark  My  thunderbolt  has  eyes  to  see  His  way  home  to 
the  mark."    See  also  Edwards,  Works,  4 :  300-312. 

Col.  2 :  15  —  "having  stripped  off  from  himself  the  principalities  and  the  powers  "  —  the  hosts  of  evil  spirits 
that  swarmed  upon  him  in  their  final  onset—  "he  made  a  show  of  them  openly,  triumphing  over  them 
in  it,"  i.  e.,  in  the  cross,  thus  turning  their  evil  into  a  means  of  good.  Royce,  Spirit  of 
Modern  Philosophy,  443,  —  "Love,  seeking  for  absolute  evil,  is  like  an  electric  tight 
engaged  in  searching  for  a  shadow,  —  when  Love  gets  there,  the  shadow  has  iia- 
appeared. "    But  this  means,  not  that  all  things  arc  good,  but  that  "all  tags  work  together 


GOOD    AND    EVIL   ANGELS.  443 

or  good"  (Rom.  8:  28)  — God  overruling-  for  good  that  which  in  itself  is  only  evil.  John 
Wesley  :  "  God  buries  his  workmen,  but  carries  on  his  work.  "  Sermon  on  "  The  Devil's 
Mistakes":  Satan  thought  he  could  overcome  Christ  in  the  wilderness,  iu  the  garden, 
on  the  cross.  He  triumphed  when  he«ast  Paul  into  prison.  But  the  cross  was  to  Christ 
a  lifting-  up,  that  should  draw  all  men  to  him  ( John  12 :  32 ),  and  Paul's  imprisonment  fur- 
nished his  epistles  to  the  New  Testament. 

"It  is  one  of  the  wonders  of  divine  love  that  even  our  blemishes  and  sins  God  will 
take  when  we  truly  repent  of  them  and  give  them  into  his  hands,  and  will  in  some  way 
make  them  to  be  blessings.  A  friend  once  showed  Ruskin  a  costly  handkerchief  on 
which  a  blot  of  ink  had  been  made.  'Nothing  can  be  done  with  that,'  the  friend 
said,  thinking  the  handkerchief  worthless  and  ruined  now.  Kuskin  carried  it  away 
with  him,  and  after  a  time  sent  it  back  to  his  friend.  In  a  most  skilful  and  artistic  way, 
he  had  made  a  fine  design  in  India  ink,  using  the  blot  as  its  basis.  Instead  of  being 
ruined,  the  handkerchief  was  made  far  more  beautiful  and  valuable.  So  God  takes  the 
blots  and  stains  upon  our  lives,  the  disfiguring-  blemishes,  when  we  commit  them  to 
him,  and  by  his  marvellous  grace  changes  them  into  marks  of  beauty.  David's 
grievous  sin  was  not  only  forgiven,  but  was  made  a  transforming  power  in  his  life. 
Peter's  pitiful  fall  became  a  step  upward  through  his  Lord's  forgiveness  and  gentle 
dealing.  "  So  "men  may  rise  on  stepping  Stones  <  If  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things  " 
(Tennyson,  In  Memoriam,  I). 


SECTION    IV. — GOOD    AND    EVIL    ANGELS. 

As  ministers  of  divine  providence  there  is  a  class  of  liuite  beings,  greater 
in  intelligence  and  power  than  man  in  his  present  state,  some  of  whom 
positively  serve  God's  purpose  by  holiness  and  voluntary  execution  of  his 
will,  some  negatively,  by  giving  examples  to  the  universe  of  defeated  and 
punished  rebellion,  and  by  illustrating  God's  distinguishing  grace  in  man's 
salvation. 

The  scholastic  subtleties  which  encumbered  this  doctrine  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  the  exaggerated  representations  of  the  power  of  evil  spirits 
which  then  prevailed,  have  led,  by  a  natural  reaction,  to  an  undue  depre- 
ciation of  it  in  more  recent  times. 

For  scholastic  discussions,  see  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa  ( ed.  Migne ),  1 :  8133-993.  The 
scholastics  debated  the  questions,  how-  many  angels  could  stand  at  once  on  the  point  of 
a  needle  (  relation  of  angels  to  space ) ;  whether  an  angel  could  be  in  two  places  at  the 
same  time;  how  great  was  the  interval  between  the  creation  of  angels  and  their  fall ; 
whether  the  sin  of  the  first  angel  caused  the  sin  of  the  rest ;  whether  as  many  retained 
their  integrity  as  fell ;  whether  our  atmosphere  is  the  place  of  punishment  for  fallen 
angels;  whether  guardian-angels  have  charge  of  children  from  baptism,  from  birth, 
or  while  the  infant  is  yet  in  the  womb  of  the  mother ;  even  the  excrements  of  angels 
were  subjects  of  discussion,  for  if  there  was  "angels'  food"  (  Ps.  78:25),  and  if  angels  ate 
(Gen.  18: 8),  it  was  argued  that  we  must  take  the  logical  consequences. 

Dante  makes  the  creation  of  angels  simultaneous  with  that  of  the  universe  at  large. 
"  The  fall  of  the  rebel  angels  he  considers  to  have  taken  place  within  twenty  seconds  of 
their  creation,  and  to  have  originated  in  the  pride  which  made  Lucifer  unwilling  to 
await  the  time  prefixed  by  his  Maker  for  enlightening  him  with  perfect  knowledge  "  — 
see  Rossetti,  Shadow  of  Dante,  14, 15.  Milton,  unlike  Dante,  puts  the  creation  of  angels 
ages  before  the  creation  of  man.  He  tells  us  that  Satan's  first  name  in  heaven  is  now 
lost.  The  sublime  associations  with  which  Milton  surrounds  the  adversary  diminish 
our  abhorrence  of  the  evil  one.  Satan  has  been  called  the  hero  of  the  Paradise  Lost. 
Dante's  representation  is  much  more  true  to  Scripture.  But  we  must  not  go  to  the 
extreme  of  giving  ludicrous  designations  to  the  devil.  This  indicates  and  causes 
scepticism  as  to  his  existence. 

In  mediaeval  times  men's  minds  were  weighed  down  by  the  terror  of  the  spirit  of 
evil.    It  was  thought  possible  to  sell  one's  soul  to  Satan,  and  such    compacts  were 


444  THE    WORKS    OF    GOD. 

written  with  blood.  Goethe  represents  Mephistopheles  as  saying  to  Faust :  "  I  to  thy 
service  here  agree  to  bind  me,  To  run  and  never  rest  at  call  of  thee ;  When  over  yonder 
thou  shalt  find  me,  Then  thou  shalt  do  as  much  for  me."  The  cathedrals  cultivated 
and  perpetuated  this  superstition,  by  the  figures  of  malignant  demons  which  grinned 
from  the  gargoyles  of  their  roofs  and  the  capitals  of  their  columns,  and  popular  preach- 
ing exalted  Satan  to  the  rank  of  a  rival  god  —  a  god  more  feared  than  was  the  true  and 
living  God.  Satan  was  pictured  as  having  horns  and  hoofs  —  an  image  of  the  sensual 
and  bestial  —  which  led  Cuvier  to  remark  that  the  adversary  could  not  devour,  because 
horns  and  hoofs  indicated  not  a  carnivorous  but  a  ruminant  quadruped. 

But  there  is  certainly  a  possibility  that  the  ascending  scale  of  created 
intelligences  does  not  reach  its  topmost  point  in  man.  As  the  distance 
between  man  and  the  lowest  forms  of  life  is  filled  in  with  numberless  gra- 
dations of  being,  so  it  is  possible  that  between  man  and  God  there  exist 
creatures  of  higher  than  human  intelligence.  This  possibility  is  turned  to 
certainty  by  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture.  The  doctrine  is  inter- 
woven with  the  later  as  well  as  with  the  earlier  books  of  revelation. 

Quenstedt  (Theol.,  1:629)  regards  the  existence  of  angels  as  antecedently  probable, 
because  there  are  no  gaps  in  creation ;  nature  docs  not  proceed  per  saltum.  As  we 
have  ( 1 )  beings  purely  corporeal,  as  stones;  (2)  beings  partly  corporeal  and  partly 
spiritual,  as  men:  so  we  should  expect  in  creation  (3)  beings  wholly  spiritual,  as  angels. 
Godet,  in  his  Biblical  Studies  of  the  O.  T.,  1-29,  suggests  another  series  of  gradations. 
As  we  have  (1)  vegetables  =  species  without  individuality;  (2)  animals  =  individuality 
in  bondage  to  species ;  and  ( U )  men  =  species  overpowered  by  individuality :  so  we  may 
expect  (  4)  angels  =  individuality  without  species. 

If  souls  live  after  death,  there  is  certainly  a  class  of  disembodied  spirits.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  God  may  have  created,  spirits  without  bodies.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Chris- 
tian Theology,  110— "The  existence  of  lesser  deities  in  all  heathen  mythologies,  and 
the  disposition  of  man  everywhere  to  believe  in  beings  superior  to  himself  and  inferior 
to  the  supreme  God,  is  a  presumptive  argument  in  favor  of  their  existence."  Locke : 
"That  there  should  be  more  species  of  intelligent  creatures  above  us  than  there  are  of 
sensible  and  material  below  us,  is  probable  to  me  from  hence,  that  in  all  the  visible 
and  corporeal  world  we  see  no  chasms  and  gaps.''  Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology, 
193  —  "  A  man  may  certainly  believe  in  the  existence  of  angels  upon  the  testimony  of 
one  who  claims  to  have  come  from  the  heavenly  world,  if  he  can  believe  in  the  Ornith- 
orhyncus upon  the  testimony  of  travelers."  Tennyson,  Two  Voices:  "This  truth 
within  thy  mind  rehearse,  That  in  a  boundless  universe  Is  boundless  better,  boundless 
worse.  Think  you  this  world  of  hopes  and  fears  Could  find  no  statelier  than  his  peers 
In  yonder  hundred  million  spheres  ?  " 

The  doctrine  of  angels  affords  a  barrier  against  the  false  conception  of  this  world  as 
including  the  whole  spiritual  universe.  Earth  is  only  part  of  a  larger  organism.  As 
Christianity  has  united  Jew  and  Gentile,  so  hereafter  will  it  blend  our  own  and  other 
orders  of  creation  :  Col.  2:10  —  "  who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power  "  =  Christ  is  the  head  of 
angels  as  well  as  of  men  ;  Eph.  1 :  10  — "  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  the  heavens,  and  the  things 
upon  the  earth."  On  Christ  and  Angels,  see  Robertson  Smith  in  The  Expositor,  second 
series,  vols.  1,  2,  3.  On  the  general  subject  of  angels,  see  also  Whately,  Good  and  Evil 
Angels;  Twesten,  transl.  in  Bib.  Sac,  1:768,  and  2: 108;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2:282- 
337,  and  3 : 251-354 ;  Birks,  Difficulties  of  Belief,  78  sq-. ;  Scott,  Existence  of  Evil  Spirits ; 
Herzog,  Encyclopadie,  arts.:  Engel,  Teufel;  Jewett,  Diabolology,— the  Person  and 
Kingdom  of  Satan  ;  Alexander,  Demonic  Possession. 

I.  Scripture  Statements  and  Intimations. 
1.  As  to  the  nature  and  attributes  of  angels, 
(a)  They  are  created  beings. 

Ps.  148 :  2-5  —  "  Praise  ye  him,  all  his  angels  ...  .  For  he  commanded,  and  they  were  created  "  ;  Col.  1 :  16  —  "  for 
in  him  were  all  things  created  ....  whether  thrones  or  dominions  or  princ  palities  or  powers"  ;  cf.  1  Pet.  3  :  32  — 
"angels  and  authorities  and  powers."  God  alone  is  uncreated  and  eternal.  This  is  implied  in 
1  Tim.  3 :  16  —  "  who  only  hath  immortality." 


SCRIPTURE   STATEMENTS    AND    INTIMATIONS.  445 

(b)  They  are  incorporeal  beings. 

In  Heb.  1 :  14,  where  a  single  word  is  used  to  designate  angels,  they  are  described  as 
"  spirits  "  —  "  are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits  ?  "^  Men,  with  their  twofold  nature,  material  as 
well  as  immaterial,  could  not  well  be  designated  as  "  spirits."  That  their  being  character- 
istically "spirits"  forbids  us  to  regard  angels  as  having  a  bodily  organism,  seems  implied 
in  Eph.  6 :  12  —  "  for  our  wrestling  is  not  against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against  ....  the  spiritual  hosts  [or  '  things '  ] 
of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places  " ;  cf.  Eph.  1:3;  2:6.  In  Gen.  6:2,  "sons  of  God"=,  not  angels,  but 
descendants  of  Seth  and  worshipers  of  the  true  God  (see  Murphy,  Com.,  in  loco).  In 
Ps.  78:25  (A.  V.),  "angels'  food"  =  manna  coming  from  heaven  where  angels  dwell;  better, 
however,  read  with  Rev.  Vers.:  "  bread  of  the  mighty  "—  probably  meaning  angels,  though 
the  word  "mighty"  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  them;  possibly  =  " bread  of  princes  or 
nobles,"  i.  e.,  the  finest,  most  delicate  bread.  Mat.  22:30  — "neither  marry,  nor  are  given  In  marriage, 
but  are  as  angels  in  heaven"  — and  Luke  20:36  —  "neither  can  they  die  any  more:  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  " 

—  imply  only  that  angels  are  without  distinctions  of  sex.  Saints  are  to  be  like  angels, 
not  as  being  incorporeal,  but  as  not  having  the  same  sexual  relations  which  they  have 
here. 

There  are  no  "souls  of  angels,"  as  there  are  "souls  of  men"  (Rev.  18:13),  and  we  may  infer 
that  angels  have  nobodies  for  souls  to  inhabit ;  see  under  Essential  Elements  of  Human 
Nature.  Nevius,  Demon-Possession,  :.'">8,  attributes  to  evil  spirits  an  instinct  or  longing 
for  a  body  to  possess,  even  though  it  be  the  body  of  an  interior  animal :  "So  in  Script- 
ure we  have  spirits  represented  as  wandering  about  to  seek  resi  in  bodies,  and  asking 
permission  to  enter  into  swine  "  ( Mat.  12 :43 ;  8 :  31 ).  Angels  therefore,  since  they  have  no 
bodies,  know  nothing  of  growth,  age,  or  death.  Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  133  — 
"  It  is  precisely  because  the  angels  are  only  spirits,  but  not  souls,  that  the.*'  cannot 
possess  the  same  rich  existence  as  man,  whose  soul  is  the  point  of  union  in  which  spirit 
and  nature  meet." 

(c)  They  are  personal  —  that  is,  intelligent  and  voluntary  —  agents. 

2  Sam.  14 :  20  — "  wise,  according  to  the  wisdom  of  an  angel  of  God  "  ;  Luke  4 :  34  —  "I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the 
Holy  One  of  God  "  ;  2  Tim.  2  :  26  —  "  snare  of  the  devil  ....  taken  captive  by  him  unto  his  will "  ;  Rev.  22  :  9  — 
" See  thou  do  it  not"  =  exercise  of  will;  Rev.  12: 12 —  "The  devil  is  gone  down  unto  you,  having  great  wrath" 
=  set  purpose  of  evil. 

(d)  They are  possessed  of  superhuman  intelligence  and  power,  yet  an 
intelligence  and  power  that  has  its  fixed  limits. 

Mat.  24:36 — "of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  of  heaven "=  their  knowledge, 
though  Superhuman,  is  yet  finite.     1  Pet.  1  :  12  —"which  things  angels  desire  to  look  into"  ;  Ps.  103  :  20 

—  "  angels  ....  mighty  in  strength  "  ;  2  Thess.  1:7  —  "  the  angels  of  his  power  "  ;  2  Pet.  2:11  —  "  angels,  though 
greater  [than  men]  in  might  and  power"  ;  Rev.  20:2, 10  —  "laid  hold  on  the  dragon  ....  and  bound  him  .  .  . 
.  .  cast  into  the  like  of  Are."  Compare  Ps.  72:18 — "God  ....  Who  only  doeth  wondrous  things"  =only 
God  can  perform  miracles.  Angels  are  imperfect  compared  with  God  (Job  4:18;  15:15; 
25:5). 

Power,  rather  than  beauty  or  intelligence,  is  their  striking  characteristic.  They  are 
'principalities  and  powers  "  (  Col.  1  :  16  ).  They  terrify  those  who  behold  them  (  Mat.  28  :  4 ).  The 
rolling  away  of  the  stone  from  the  sepulchre  took  strength.  A  wheel  of  granite,  eight 
feet  in  diameter  and  one  foot  thick,  rolling  in  a  groove,  would  weigh  more  than  four 
tons.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  86—"  The  spiritual  might  and  burning  indignation  in 
the  face  of  Stephen  reminded  the  guilty  Sanhedrin  of  an  angelic  vision."  Even  in  their 
tenderest  ministrations  they  strengthen  ( Luke  22  :  43 ;  cf.  Dan.  10  :  19 ).  In  1  Tim.  6  :  15  —  "  King 
of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords " — the  words  "kings"  and  "lords"  (  0a<riAev6frwp  and  Kvp<.ev6vTu>v)  may 
refer  to  angels.  In  the  case  of  evil  spirits  especially,  power  seems  the  chief  thing  in 
mind,  e.  y.,  "the  prince  of  this  world,"  "the  strong  man  armed,"  "the  power  of  darkness,"  "rulers  of  the  darkness 
of  this  world,"  "the  great  dragon,"  "all  the  power  of  the  enemy,"  "all  these  things  will  I  give  thee,"  "deliver  us 
from  the  evil  one." 

( e  )  They  are  an  order  of  intelligences  distinct  from  man  and  older 
than  man. 

Angels  are  distinct  from  man.  1  Cor.  6  : 3  —  "  we  shall  judge  angels  "  ;  Heb.  1 :  14  —  "Are  they  not  all 
ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  do  service  for  the  sake  of  them  that  shall  inherit  salvation  ?  "  They  are  not 
glorified  human  spirits  ;  see  Heb.  2  :  16  —  "  for  verily  not  to  angels  doth  he  give  help,  but  he  giveth  help  to 


446  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

the  seed  of  Abraham  "  ;  also  12  :  22,  23,  where  "the  innumerable  hosts  of  angils  "  are  distinguished  from 
"  the  church  of  the  firstbora  "  and  "the  spirits  of  just  men  made  p3rfect."  In  Rev.22:9 —  "  1  am  a  fellow-servant 
with  thee"  —  "fellow-servant"  intimates  likeness  to  men,  not  in  nature,  but  in  service  and 
subordination  to  God,  the  proper  object  of  worship.  Sunday  School  Times,  Mch.  15, 
1902  :  146  — "Angels  are  spoken  of  as  greater  in  power  and  might  than  man,  but  that 
could  be  said  of  many  a  lower  animal,  or  even  of  whirlwind  and  Are.  Angels  are  never 
spoken  of  as  a  superior  order  of  spiritual  beings.  We  are  to  'judge  angels'  (1  Cor.  6:3),  and 
inferiors  are  not  to  judge  superiors." 

Angels  are  an  order  of  intelligences  older  than  man.  The  Fathers  made  the  creation 
of  angels  simultaneous  with  the  original  calling  into  being  of  the  elements,  perhaps 
basing-  their  opinion  on  the  apocryphal  Ecclesiasticus,  18 : 1  —  "  he  that  liveth  eternally 
created  all  things  together."  In  Job  38:  7,  the  Hebrews  parallelism  makes  "morning stars "= 
"sons  of  God,"  so  that  angels  are  spoken  of  as  present  at  eertain  stages  of  God's  creative 
work.  The  mention  of  "the  serpent"  in  Gen.  3: 1  implies  the  fall  of  Satan  before  the  fall  of 
man.  We  may  infer  that  the  creation  of  angels  took  place  before  the  creation  of  man 
—  the  lower  before  the  higher.  In  Gen.  2:1,"  all  the  host  of  them,"  whieh  God  had  created,  may 
be  intended  to  include  angels.  Man  was  the  crowning  work  of  creation,  created  after 
angels  were  created.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  81  —  "  Angels  were  perhaps  created 
before  the  material  heavens  and  earth  —  a  spiritual  substratum  in  which  the  material 
things  were  planted,  a  preparatory  creation  to  receive  what  was  to  follow.  In  the  vis- 
ion of  Jacob  they  ascend  first  and  descend  after ;  their  natural  place  is  in  the  world 
below." 

The  constant  representation  of  angels  as  personal  beings  in  Scripture 
cannot  be  explained  as  a  personification  of  abstract  good  and  evil,  in  accom- 
modation to  Jewish  superstitions,  without  wresting  many  narrative  passages 
from  their  obvious  sense  ;  implying  on  the  part  of  Christ  either  dissimu- 
lation or  ignorance  as  to  an  important  point  of  doctrine  ;  and  surrendering 
belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  from  which  these  Jewish 
views  of  angelic  beings  were  derived. 

Jesus  accommodated  himself  to  the  popular  belief  in  respectat  least  to  "Abraham's  bosom  " 
(  Luke  16  :  22 ),  and  he  confessed  ignorance  with  regard  to  the  time  of  the  end  ( Mark  13  :  32 ) ; 
see  Rush  Ithees,  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  345-248.  But  in  the  former  case  his  hearers 
probably  understood  him  to  speak  figuratively  and  rhetorically,  while  in  the  latter  case 
there  was  no  teaching  of  the  false  but  only  limitation  of  knowledge  with  regard  to  the 
true.  Our  Lord  did  not  hesitate  to  contradict  Pharisaic  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  cere- 
monies, and  Sadducean  denial  of  resurrection  and  future  life.  The  doctrine  of  angels 
had  even  stronger  hold  upon  the  popular  mind  than  had  these  errors  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees.  That  Jesus  did  not  correct  or  deny  the  general  belief,  but  rather  him- 
self expressed  and  confirmed  it,  implies  that  the  belief  was  rational  and  Scriptural. 
For  one  of  the  best  statements  of  the  argument  for  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  see 
Broadus,  Com.  on  Mat.  8  :  28. 

Eph.  3 :  10  — "to  the  intent  that  now  unto  the  principalities  and  the  powers  in  the  heavenly  places  might  be  made  known 
through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  "— excludes  the  hypothesis  that  angels  are  simply 
abstract  conceptions  of  good  or  evil.  We  speak  of  "moon-struck"  people  (lunatics), 
only  when  we  know  that  nobody  supposes  us  to  believe  in  the  power  of  the  moon  to 
cause  madness.  But  Christ's  contemporaries  did  suppose  him  to  believe  in  angelic 
spirits,  good  and  evil.  If  this  belief  was  an  error,  it  was  by  no  means  a  harmless  one, 
and  the  benevolence  as  well  as  the  veracity  of  Christ  would  have  led  him  to  correct  it. 
So  too,  if  Paul  had  known  that  there  were  no  such  beings  as  angels,  he  could  not  hon- 
estly have  contented  himself  with  forbidding  the  Colossians  to  worship  them  ( Col.  2 :  18 ), 
but  would  have  denied  their  existence,  as  he  denied  the  existence  of  heathen  gods 
(1  Cor.  8:4). 

Theodore  Parker  said  it  was  very  evident  that  Jesus  Christ  believed  in  a  personal 
devil.  Harnack,  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  35  —  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus 
shared  with  his  contemporaries  the  representation  of  two  kingdoms,  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  kingdom  of  the  devil."  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  1 :  164  —  Jesus  "  makes 
it  appear  as  if  Satan  was  the  immediate  tempter.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that  he  does 
so  in  a  merely  figurative  way.  Beyond  all  doubt  Jesus  accepted  the  contemporary 
ideas  as  to  the  real  existence  of  Satan,  and  accordingly,  in  the  particular  cases  of  dis- 
ease referred  to,  he  supposes  a  real  Satanic  temptation."    Maurice,  Theological  Essays, 


SCRIPTURE   STATEMENTS   AND   INTIMATIONS.  447 

32,  34  — "  The  acknowledgment  of  an  evil  spirit  is  characteristic  of  Christianity."  H.  B. 
Smith,  System,  261— "It  would  appear  that  the  power  of  Satan  in  the  world  reached 
its  culminating  point  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  has  been  less  ever  since." 

The  same  remark  applies  to  the  view  which  regards  Satan  as  but  a  col- 
lective term  for  all  evil  beings,  human  or  superhuman.  The  Scripture 
representations  of  the  progressive  rage  of  the  great  adversary,  from  his  first 
assault  on  human  virtue  in  Genesis  to  his  final  overthrow  in  Revelation, 
join  with  the  testimony  of  Christ  just  mentioned,  to  forbid  any  other  con- 
clusion than  this,  that  there  is  a  personal  being  of  great  power,  who  carries 
on  organized  opposition  to  the  divine  government. 

Crane.  The  Religion  of  To-morrow,  299  aq.—  "  We  well  say  'personal  devil,'  for  there 
is  no  devil  but  personality.''  We  oannot  deny  the  personality  of  Satan  except  upon 
principles  which  would  compel  us  t<>  deny  tin  existence  of  good  angels,  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  personality  of  Cod  the  Father,  —  we  may  add,  even  the  per- 
sonality of  the  human  soul.  Says  Nigel  Penruddock  inLord  Beacon8fleld's"Endym- 
ion":  "Give  me  a  single  argument  against  his  [Satan's]  personality,  which  is  not 
applicable  to  the  personality  of  the  Deity."  one  of  the  most  ingenious  devices  of 
Satan  is  that  of  persuading  men  that  he  has  no  existence.  Next  to  this  is  the  device  of 
substituting  for  belief  in  a  personal  devil  the  belief  in  a  merely  ini personal  spirit  of  evil. 
Such  a  substitution  we  find  in  Pfieiderer,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  1  :  311  —"The  idea  of 
the  devil  was  a  welcome  expedient  for  the  need  of  advanced  religious  rellection,  to 
put  God  out  of  relation  to  the  evil  and  badness  of  the  world."  Pfieiderer  tells  us  that 
the  early  optimism  of  the  Hebrews,  like  that  of  the  Greeks,  gave  place  in  later  times 
to  pessimism  and  despair.  But  the  Hebrews  still  had  hope  of  deliverance  by  the 
Messiah  and  an  apocalyptic  reign  of  good. 

For  the  view  that  Satan  is  merely  a  collective  term  for  all  evil  beings,  see  Bushnell, 
Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  131-137.  Bushnell,  holding  mural  evil  to  be  a  necessary 
"  coudition  privative  "  of  all  finite  beings  ae  such,  believes  that  "  good  angels  have  all 
been  passed  through  and  helped  up  out  of  a  tall,  as  the  redeemed  of  mankind  will  be." 
'Elect  angels"  (ITim.  5  :21)  theu  would  mean  those  saved  after  falling,  not.  those  saved/ran 
falling  ;  and  "Satan"  would  be,  not  the  name  of  a  particular  person,  but  the  all  or  total 
of  all  bad  minds  and  powers.  Per  contra, see  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  arts. :  Angels, 
Demons,  Demoniacs,  Satan;  Trench,  Studies  in  the  Gospels,  16-26.  For  a  comparison 
of  Satan  in  the  Book  of  Job,  with  Milton's  Satan  in  "  Paradise  Lost,"  and  Goethe's 
Hephistopheles  in  "Faust,"  see  Masson,  The  Three  Devils.  We  may  add  to  this  list 
Dante's  Satan  (or  Dis)  in  the  "Divine  Comedy,"  Byron's  Lucifer  in  "Cain,"  and  Mrs. 
Browning's  Lucifer  in  her  "  Drama  of  Exile  "  ;  see  Gregory,  Christian  Ethics,  219. 

2.     As  to  their  number  and  organization. 

(a)     They  are  of  great  multitude. 

Deut.  33  :  2  —  "  Jehovah  ....  came  from  the  ten  thousands  of  holy  ones  "  ;  Ps.  63  :  17  —  "  The  chariots  of  God  are 
twenty  thousand,  even  thousands  upon  thousands  "  ;  Dan.  7 :  10  —  "  thousands  of  thousands  ministered  unto  him,  and  tin 
thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood b.-fore  him  "  ;  Rev.  5  :  11  —  "  I  heard  a  voice  of  many  angels  ....  and  the  number 
of  them  was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands."  Anselm  thought  that  the 
number  of  lost  angels  was  filled  up  by  the  number  of  elect  men.  Savage,  Life  after 
Death,  61— The  Pharisees  held  very  exaggerated  notions  of  the  number  of  angelic 
spirits.  They  "said that  a  man,  if  he  threw  a  stone  over  his  shoulder  or  cast  away  a 
broken  piece  of  pottery,  asked  pardon  of  any  spirit  that  he  might  possibly  have  hit  in  so 
doing."  So  in  W.  H.  II.  Murray's  time  it  was  said  to  be  dangerous  in  the  Adirondack 
to  fire  a  gun,  — you  might  hit  a  man. 

(  6 )     They  constitute  a  company,  as  distinguished  from  a  race. 

Mat.  22  :  30  —  "they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  angels  in  heaven  "  ;  Luke  20  :  36  — 
"  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels ;  and  are  sons  of  God."  We  are  called  "  sons 
ofmen,"  but  angels  are  never  called  "sons  of  angels,"  but  only  "sons  of  God."  They  are  not 
developed  from  one  original  stock,  and  no  such  common  nature  binds  them  together  as 
binds  together  the  race  of  man.  They  have  no  common  character  and  history.  Each 
was  created  separately,  and  each  apostate  angel  fell  by  himself.    Humanity  fell  all  at 


448  THE    WORKS   OF   GOD. 

once  in  its  first  father.  Cut  down  a  tree,  and  you  cut  down  its  branches.  But  angels 
were  so  many  separate  trees.  Some  lapsed  into  sin,  but  some  remained  holy.  See  Godet, 
Rib.  Studies  O.  T.,  1-29.  This  may  be  one  reason  why  salvation  was  provided  for  fallen 
man,  but  not  for  fallen  angels.  Christ  could  join  himself  to  humanity  by  taking-  the 
common  nature  of  all.  There  was  no  common  nature  of  angels  which  he  could  take. 
See  leb.  2 :  16 — "  not  to  angels  doth  he  give  help."  The  angels  are  "  sons  of  Sod,"  as  having  no  earthly 
parentage  and  no  parentage  at  all  except  the  divine.  Eph.  3:14, 15  —  "  the  Father,  of  whom  every 
fatherhood  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named," — not  "every  family,"  as  in  R.  V.,  for  there  ai'e  no  families 
among  the  angels.  The  marginal  rendering  "fatherhood"  is  better  than  "family,"  —all  the 
n-arpiai  are  named  from  the  Trainp.  Dodge,  Christian  Theology,  172  — "  The  bond  between 
angels  is  simply  a  mental  and  moral  one.  They  can  gain  nothing  by  inheritance,  noth- 
ing through  domestic  and  family  life,  nothing  through  a  society  held  together  by  a  bond 
of  blood.  .  .  .  Belonging  to  two  worlds  and  not  simply  to  one,  the  human  soul  has  in  it 
the  springs  of  a  deeper  and  wider  experience  than  angels  can  have.  .  .  .  God  comes 
nearer  to  man  than  to  his  angels."  Newman  Smyth,  Through  Science  to  Faith,  191  — 
"In  the  resurrection  life  of  man,  the  species  has  died ;  man  the  individual  lives  on.  Sex 
shall  be  no  more  needed  for  the  sake  of  life ;  they  shall  no  more  marry,  but  men  and 
women,  the  children  of  marriage,  shall  be  as  the  angels.  Through  the  death  of  the 
human  species  shall  be  gained,  as  the  consummation  of  all,  the  immortality  of  the 
individuals." 

(  c  )    Tliey  are  of  various  ranks  and  endowments. 

Col.  1  :  16  —  "thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities  or  powers";  1  Thess.  4  :  16  —  "the  voice  of  the  archangel"; 
Jude9 — "  Michael  the  archangel."  Michael  (  =who  is  like  God?)  is  the  only  one  expressly  called 
an  archangel  in  Scripture,  although  Gabriel  (=  God's  hero )  has  been  called  anarch- 
angel  by  Milton.  In  Scripture,  Michael  seems  the  messenger  of  law  and  judgment ; 
Gabriel,  the  messenger  of  mercy  and  promise.  The  fact  that  Scripture  has  but  one 
archangel  is  proof  that  its  doctrine  of  angels  was  not,  as  has  sometimes  been  charged, 
derived  from  Babylonian  and  Persian  sources;  for  there  we  find  seven  archangels 
instead  of  one.  There,  moreover,  we  find  the  evil  spirit  enthroned  as  a  god,  while  in 
Scripture  he  is  represented  as  a  trembling  slave. 

Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  1 :  51  — "  The  devout  and  trustful  consciousness  of  the 
immediate  nearness  of  God,  which  is  expressed  in  so  many  beautiful  utterances  of  the 
Psalmist,  appears  to  be  supplanted  in  later  Judaism  by  a  belief  in  angels,  which  is 
closely  analogous  to  the  superstitious  belief  in  the  saints  on  the  part  of  the  Romish 
church.  It  is  very  significant  that  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Jesus  could  no  longer  con- 
ceive of  the  promulgation  of  the  law  on  Sinai,  which  was  to  them  the  foundation  of 
their  whole  religion,  as  an  immediate  revelation  of  Jehovah  to  Moses,  except  as  insti- 
tuted through  the  mediation  of  angels  (Acts  7  :  38,  53  ;  Gal.  3  ;  19;  leb.  2  :  2  ;  Josephus,  Ant.' 
15  :  5,  3  ). 

(d)    They  have  an  organization. 

1  Sam.  1:11  —  "  Jehovah  of  hosts  "  ;  1  I.  22  :  19  — "  Jehovah  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing 
by  Lim  on  h^s  right  hand  and  on  his  left ";  Mat.  26  :  53  —  "twelve  legions  of  angels" —suggests  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Roman  army ;  25  :  41  —  " the  devil  and  his  angels  "  ;  Eph.  2:2  —  "the  prince  of  the  powers 
in  the  air";  Rev.  2  :  13  — "Satan's  throne"  (not  "seat");  16  :  10 —  "throne  of  the  beast"  —  "a  hellish  par- 
ody of  the  heavenly  kingdom  "  (Trench).  The  phrase  "host  of  heaven,"  in  Deut.  4  :  19;  17:3; 
Acts  7  :  42,  probably  =  the  stars ;  but  in  Gen.  32  :  2,  "  God's  host "  =  angels,  for  when  Jacob  saw 
the  angels  he  said  "This  is  God's  host."  In  general  the  phrases  "God  of  hosts",  "Lord  of  hosts"  seem 
to  mean  "God  of  angels",  "Lord  of  angels":  compare  2  Chron.  18  :  18 ;  Luke2:13;  Rev.  19:14 
—  "  the  armies  which  are  in  heaven."  Yet  in  Neh.  9  :  6  and  Ps.  33:6  the  word  "host"  seems  to  include 
both  angels  and  stars. 

Satan  is  "the  ape  of  God."  He  has  a  throne.  He  is  "the  prince  ofthe  world"  (John  14  :  30; 
16:11),  "  the  prince  of  the  powers  of  the  air "  (  Eph.  2  :  2).  There  is  a  cosmos  and  order  of  evil,  as 
well  as  a  cosmos  and  order  of  good,  though  Christ  is  stronger  than  the  strong  man 
armed  (Luke  11 :  21 )  and  rules  even  over  Satan.  On  Satan  in  the  Old  Testament,  see  art. 
by  T.  W.  Chambers,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1892  :  22-34.  The  first  mention  of  Satan 
is  in  the  account  of  the  Fall  in  Gen.  3  : 1-15 ;  the  second  in  Lev.  16  :  8,  where  one  of  the  two 
goats  on  the  day  of  atonement  is  said  to  be  "for  Azazel,"  or  Satan ;  the  third  where  Satan 
moved  David  to  number  Israel  (1  Chron.  21 : 1 ) ;  the  fourth  in  the  book  of  Job  1 :  6-12 ;  the 
fifth  in  Zech.  3  : 1-3,  where  Satan  stands  as  the  adversary  of  Joshua  the  high  priest,  but 
Jehovah  addresses  Satan  and  rebukes  him.    Cheyne,  Com.  on  Isaiah,  vol.  1,  p.  11,  thinks 


SCRIPTURE    STATEMENTS    AXD    INTIMATION'S.  449 

that  the  stars  were  first  railed  the  hosts  of  God,  with  the  notion  that  they  weir  ani- 
mated creatures.  In  later  times  the  belief  in  angels  threw  into  the  background  the 
belief  in  the  stare  as  animated  beings ;  the  angels  however  were  connected  very  closely 
with  the  stars.  Marlowe,  in  his  Tamtourlaine,  says :  "The  moon,  the  planets,  and  the 
meteors  light,  These  angels  in  their  crystal  armor  fight  A  doubtful  battle." 

With  regard  to  the  '  cherubim '  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Ezekiel,  —  with 
which  the  'seraphim'  of  Isaiah  and  the  'living  creatures'  of  the  book  of 
Ilevelation  are  to  be  identified,  —  the  most  probable  interpretation  is  .that 
which  regards  them,  not  as  actual  beings  of  higher  rank  than  man,  but  as 
symbolic  appearances,  intended  to  represent  redeemed  humanity,  endowed 
with  all  the  creature  perfections  lost  by  the  Fall,  and  made  to  be  the 
dwelling-place  of  God. 

Some  have  held  that  the  cherubim  are  symbols  of  the  divine  attributes,  or  of  God's 
government  over  nature  ;  see  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  art. :  Cherub;  Alford,  Coin,  on  Rev,  4: 
6-8,  and  Hulsean  Lectures,  1841 :  vol.  1,  Lett,  2 ;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 :  2781  Rut  whatever 
of  truth  belongs  to  this  \  i<\v  may  be  included  in  the  doctrine  stated  above.  The 
cherubim  are  indeed  symbols  of  nature  pervaded  by  the  divine  energy  and  subordinated 
to  the  divine  purposes,  but  they  are  symbols  of  nature  only  because  they  are  symbols 
of  man  in  his  twofold  capacity  of  image  of  God  and  priest  of  nature.  Man,  as  having  a 
body,  is  a  part  of  nature ;  as  having  a  soul,  he  emerges  from  nature  and  gives  to  nature 
a  voice.  Through  man,  nature,  otherwise  blind  and  dead,  is  able  to  appreciate  and  to 
express  the  Creator's  glory. 

The  doctrine  of  the  cherubim  embraces  the  following  points :  1.  The  cherubim  are 
not  personal  beings,  but  are  artificial,  temporary,  symbolic  figures.  2.  While  they  are 
not  themselves  personal  existences,  t  hey  are  symbols  of  personal  existence  — symbols 
not  of  divine  or  angelic  perfections  bill  of  human  nature  (Ex.  1 :  5  —  "they  had  the  likeness  of  a 
man ';Rev.5:9 —  A.  V. —  "  thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood  "  —  so  read  K,  B,  and  Tregelles  ; 
the  Eng.  and  Am.  Rev.  Vers.,  however,  follow  A  and  TischendOrf,  and  omit  the  word 
"us").  3.  They  are  emblems  of  human  nal  ure,  not  in  its  present  stage  of  dp\  elopment, 
but  possessed  of  all  its  original  perfections;  for  this  reason  the  mosl  perfect  animal 
forms— the  kinglike  courage  of  the  lion,  the  patient  service  of  the  ox,  the  soaring 
insight  of  the  eagle —are  combined  with  that  of  man  |  fa.  l  and  10;  Rev.  4  :  6-8).  4.  These 
cherubic  forms  represent,  not  merely  material  or  earthiy  perfections,  but  human 
nature  spiritualized  and  sanctified.  They  are  "living  creatures "  and  their  life  is  a  holy  life 
of  obedience  to  the  divine  will  ( Ez.  1 :  12 —"  whither  the  spirit  was  to  go,  they  went").  5.  They 
symbolize  a  human  nature  exalted  to  be  the  dwelling-place  of  God.  Hence  the  inner 
curtains  of  the  tabernacle  were  inwoven  with  cherubic  figures,  and  God's  glory  was 
manifested  on  the  mercy-seat  between  the  cherubim  (Ei.  37:6-9).  While  the  flaming 
sword  at  the  gates  of  Eden  was  the  symbol  of  justice,  the  cherubim  were  symbols  of 
mercy  — keeping  the  "way  of  the  tree  of  life"  for  man,  until  by  sacrifice  and  renewal 
Taradise  should  be  regained  (Gen.  3:24). 

In  corroboration  of  this  general  view,  note  that  angels  and  cherubim  never  go 
together;  and  that  in  the  closing  visions  of  the  book  of  Revelation  these  symbolic  forms 
are  seen  no  longer.  When  redeemed  humanity  has  entered  heaven,  the  figures  which 
typified  that  humanity,  having  served  their  purpose,  finally  disappear.  For  fuller 
elaboration,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  The  Nature  and  Purpose  of  the  Cherubim,  in  Philosophy 
and  Religion,  391-399  •.  Fairl  (aim,  Typology,  1 :  185-208 ;  Elliott,  Horse  Apocalypticae,  1 :  87  ; 
Bib.  Sac,  1876  :  32-51 ;  Bib.  Com.,  1 :  49-52— "  The  winged  lions,  eagles,  and  bulls,  that 
guard  the  entrances  of  the  palace  of  Nineveh,  are  worshipers  rather  than  divinities." 
It  has  lately  been  shown  that  the  winged  bull  of  Assyria  was  called  "  Kerub  "  almost  as 
far  back  as  the  time  of  Moses.  The  word  appears  in  its  Hebrew  form  500  years  before 
the  Jews  had  any  contact  with  the  Persian  dominion.  The  Jews  did  not  derive  it  from 
any  Aryan  race.    It  belonged  to  their  own  language. 

The  variable  form  of  the  cherubim  seems  to  prove  that  they  are  symbolic  appearances 
rather  than  real  beings.  A  parallel  may  be  found  in  classical  literature.  In  Horace, 
Carmina,  E:  11.  15,  Cerberus  has  three  heads;  in  2:13,  34,  he  has  a  hundred.  Breal, 
Semantics  suggests  that  the  three  heads  may  be  dog-heads,  while  the  hundred  heads 
may  be  snake-heads.  But  Cerberus  is  also  represented  in  Greece  as  having  only  one 
head.  Cerberus  must  therefore  be  a  symbol  rather  than  an  actually  existing  creature. 
H.  W  Congdou  of  Wyoming,  N.  Y.,  held,  however,  that  the  cherubim  are  symbols  of 

29 


450  THE    WORKS   OP    GOD. 

God's  life  in  the  universe  as  a  whole.  Ez.  28: 14-19  —  "the  anointed  cherub  that  covereth"  =  the 
power  of  the  King  of  Tyre  was  so  all-pervading-  throughout  his  dominion,  his 
sovereignty  so  absolute,  and  his  decrees  so  instantly  obeyed,  that  his  rule  resembled 
the  divine  government  over  the  world.  Mr.  Congdon  regarded  the  cherubim  as  a  proof 
of  monism.  See  Margoliouth,  The  Lord's  Prayer,  159-180.  On  animal  characteristics 
in  man,  see  Hopkins,  Scriptural  Idea  of  Man,  105. 

3.     As  to  their  moral  character. 

(a)     They  were  all  created,  holy. 

Gen.  1 :  31  —  "  God  saw  everything  that  he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good  "  ;  Jude  6  —  "angels  that  kept 
not  their  own  beginning  "  —  apxyv  seems  here  to  mean  their  beginning  in  holy  character,  rather 
than  their  original  lordship  and  dominion. 

( b  )     They  had  a  probation. 

This  we  infer  from  1  Tim.  5  :  21  —  "the  elect  angels";  c.f.  1  Pet.  1:1,  2  —  "elect ....  unto  obedience."  If 
certain  angels,  like  certain  men,  are  "elect  ....  unto  obedience, "  it  would  seem  to  follow 
that  there  was  a  period  of  probation,  during  which  their  obedience  or  disobedience 
determined  their  future  destiny ;  see  Ellicott  on  1  Tim.  5 :  21.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel, 
10G-108  —  "  Gen.  3:14  —  '  Because  thou  hast  done  this,  cursed  art  thou '  —  in  the  sentence  on  the  serpent, 
seems  to  imply  that  Satan's  day  of  grace  was  ended  when  he  seduced  man.  Thence- 
forth he  was  driven  to  live  on  dust,  to  triumph  only  in  sin,  to  pick  up  a  living  out  of 
man,  to  possess  man's  body  or  soul,  to  tempt  from  the  good." 

( c  )     Some  preserved  their  integrity. 

Ps.  89 :  7 — "  the  council  of  the  holy  ones" — a  designation  of  angels;  Mark8:38 — "the  holy  angels." 
Shakespeare,  Macbeth,  4 :  3—  "  Angels  are  bright  still,  though  the  brightest  fell." 

(  d  )     Some  fell  from  their  state  of  innocence. 

John  8 :  44  —  "He  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  standeth  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in 
him  "  ;  2  Pet.  2 :  4  —  "angels  when  they  sinned  "  ;  Jude  6  —  " angels  who  kept  not  their  own  beginning,  but  left  their 
proper  habitation."  Shakespeare,  Henry  VIII,  3:2 — "Cromwell,  1  charge  thee,  fling 
away  ambition;  By  that  sin  fell  the  angels;  how  can  man  then,  The  image  of  his  Maker, 
hope  to  win  by  it?  ...  .  How  wretched  Is  that  poor  man  that  hangs  on  princes' 
favors  !  .  .  .  .  When  he  falls,  he  falls  like  Lucifer,  Never  to  hope  again." 

(  e  )     The  good  are  confirmed  in  good. 

Mat.  6  :  10  —  "  Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth  "  ;  18 :  10  —  "in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the 
face  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven  "  ;  2  Cor.  11 :  14  —  "  an  angel  of  light." 

(/)     The  evil  are  confirmed  in  evil. 

Mat.  13 :  19  —  "  the  evil  one  "  ;  1  John  5 :  18,  19  —  "  the  evil  one  toucheth  him  not  ...  .  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the 
evil  one  " ;  cf.  John  8 :  44  —  "Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil  ....  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own : 
for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  thereof" ;  Mat.  6 :  13  —  "  deliver  us  from  the  evil  one." 

From  these  Scriptural  statements  we  infer  that  all  free  creatures  pass  through  a 
period  of  probation ;  that  probation  does  not  necessarily  involve  a  fall ;  that  there  is 
possible  a  sinless  development  of  moral  beings.  Other  Scriptures  seem  to  intimate  that 
the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ  is  an  object  of  interest  and  wonder  to  other  orders  of 
intelligence  than  our  own  ;  that  they  are  drawn  in  Christ  more  closely  to  God  and  to  us  ; 
in  short,  that  they  are  confirmed  in  their  integrity  by  the  cross.  See  1  Pet.  1:12  — "which 
things  angels  desire  to  look  into"  ;  Eph.  3 :  10  —  "that  now  unto  the  principalities  and  the  powors  in  the  heavenly  places 
might  be  made  known  through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  "  ;  Col.  1 :  20  —  "through  him  to  reconcile  all 
things  unto  himself  .  .  .  .  whether  things  upon  the  earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens  ";  Eph.  1 :  10 — "to  sum  up  ail  things 
in  Christ,  the  things  in  the  heavens,  and  the  things  upon  the  earth  ''="  thouniiicatiouof  the  whole  universe 

in  Christ  as  the  divine  centre The  great  system  is  a  harp  all  whose  strings  are  in 

tune  but  one,  and  that  one  jarring  string  makes  discord  throughout  the  whole.  The 
whole  universe  shall  feel  the  influence,  and  shall  be  reduced  to  harmony,  when  that 
one  string,  the  world  in  which  we  live,  shall  be  put  in  tune  by  the  hand  of  love  and 
mercy  "  —freely  quoted  from  Leitch,  God's  Glory  in  the  Heavens,  327-330. 

It  is  not  impossible  that  God  is  using  this  earth  as  a  breeding-ground  from  which  to 
populate  the  universe.    Mark  Hopkins,  Life,  317—  "  While  there  shall  be  gathered  at 


SCRIPTURE   STATEMENTS  AND  INTIMATION'S.  451 

last  and  preserved,  as  Paul  says,  a  holy  church,  and  every  man  shall  be  perfect  and  the 
church  shall  be  spotless,  ....  there  will  be  other  forms  of  perfection  in  other  depart- 
ments of  the  universe.  And  when  the  great  day  of  restitution  shall  come  and  God 
shall  vindicate  his  government,  there  may  be  seen  to  be  coming  in  from  other  depart- 
ments of  the  universe  a  long  procession  of  angelic  forms,  great  white  legions  from 
Sirius,  from  Arcturus  and  the  chambers  of  the  South,  gathering  around  the  throne 
of  God  and  that  centre  around  which  the  universe  revolves." 

4.     As  to  their  employments. 

A.     The  employments  of  good  angels. 

(  a  )     They  stand  in  the  presence  of  God  and  worship  him. 

Ps.  29 : 1,  2  —  "  Ascribe  unto  Jehovah,  0  ye  sons  of  the  mighty,  Ascribe  unto  Jehovah  glory  and  strength.  Ascribe  unto 
Jehovah  the  glory  due  unto  his  name.  Worship  Jehovah  in  holy  array"  —  Perowne:  "  Heaven  being 
thought  of  as  one  great  temple,  and  all  the  worshipers  therein  as  clothed  in  priestly 
vestments."  Ps.  89:  7 —  "a  God  very  terrible  in  the  council  of  the  holy  ones,  "  i.  e.,  angels  —  Perowne  : 
"Angels  are  called  an  assembly  or  congregation,  as  the  church  above,  which  like  the 
church  below  worships  and  pralse8  God."  Mat.  18:10  —  "in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold 
the  face  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven."  In  apparent  allusion  to  this  text,  Dante  represents  the 
saints  as  dwelling-  in  the  presence  of  God  yet  at  the  same  time  rendering-  humble  service 
to  their  fellow  men  here  upon  the  earth.  Just  in  proportion  to  their  nearness  to  God 
and  the  light  they  receive  from  him,  is  the  influence  they  are  able  to  exert  over 
others. 

(  b )     They  rejoice  in  God's  works. 

Job  38  :  7  —  "  all  the  sous  of  God  shouted  for  joy  "  ;  Luke  15  :  10  —  "  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth";  cf.  2  Tim.  2:25  —  "if  peradventure  God  may  give  them  repentance."  Dante 
represents  the  angels  that  are  nearest  to  God,  the  infinite  source  of  life,  as  ever 
advancing  toward  the  spring-time  of  youth,  so  that  the  oldest  angels  are  the  youngest. 

( e  )  They  execute  God's  will,  —  by  working  in  nature  ; 

Ps.  103 :  20  —  "  Ye  his  angels  .  .  .  that  fulfil  his  word,  Hearkening  unto  the  voice  of  his  word ;  "  104  ■  4  marg-  — 
"  Who  maketh  his  angels  winds;  His  ministers  a  flaming  fire,"  i.  c,  lightnings.  See  A 1  ford  on  Heb.  1:7  — 
"The  order  of  the  Hebrew  words  here  [  in  Ps.  104:4]  is  not  the  same  as  in  the  former 
verses  (  see  especially  v.  3  ),  where  we  have : '  Who  maketh  the  clouds  his  chariot.'  For  i his  t  ihiis- 
position,  those  who  insist  that  the  passage  means  'he  maketh  winds  his  messeng-ers' 
can  give  no  reason." 

Farrar  on  Heb.  1 : 7  —  "  He  maketh  his  angels  winds " :  "  The  Rabbis  often  refer  to  the  fact  that 
God  makes  his  angels  assume  any  form  he  pleases,  whether  man  (  Gen.  18 : 2  )  or  woman 
(Zech5:9  —  "two  women,  and  the  wind  was  in  their  wings"),  or  wind  or  flame  (Ei.  3:2 — "angel  .  .  .  in  a 
flame  of  fire";  2K  6:17).  But  that  untenable  and  fleeting  form  of  existence  which  is  the 
glory  of  the  ang-els  would  bean  inferiority  in  the  Son.  He  could  not  be  clot  lied, 
as  they  are  at  God's  will,  in  the  fleeting  robes  of  material  phenomena."  John  Henry 
Newman,  in  his  Apologia,  sees  an  angel  in  every  flower.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel, 
82  —  "  Origen  thought  not  a  blade  of  grass  nor  a  fly  was  without  its  angel.  Rev.  14: 18  — 
an  angel '  that  hath  power  over  fire ' ;  John  5  :  4  —  intermittent  spring  under  charge  of  an  angel; 
Mat.  28:2  —  descent  of  an  angel  caused  earthquake  on  the  morning  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion ;  Luke  13 :  11  —  control  of  diseases  is  ascribed  to  angels." 

(  d  )  by  guiding  the  affairs  of  nations  ; 

Ban.  10  :  12,  13,  21  —  "I  come  for  thy  words'  sake.  But  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia  withstood  me  .  .  . 
Michael,  one  of  the  chief  princes,  came  to  help  me  .  .  .  Michael  your  prince  "  ;  11 : 1  —  "  And  as  for  me,  in  the  first  year 
of  Darius  the  Mede,  I  stood  up  to  confirm  and  strengthen  him  "  ;  12: 1  —  "at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  np,  the 
groat  prince  who  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people."  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  87,  suggests 
the  question  whether  "  the  spirit  of  the  age  "  or  "  the  national  character  "  in  any  par- 
ticular case  may  not  be  due  to  the  unseen  "  principalities  "  under  which  men  live. 
Paul  certainly  recognizes,  in  Eph.  2:2.  "the  prince  of  the  powers  of  the  air,  ...  the  spirit  that  now  worketh 
in  the  sons  of  disobedience."  May  not  good  angels  be  entrusted  with  influence  over  nation*^ 
affairs  to  counteract  *,h^  ftvjiand  help  tv>e  <wd? 


452  THE  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

(  e  )  by  watching  over  the  interests  of  particular  churches  ; 

1  Cor.  11 :  10  —  "  for  this  cause  ought  the  women  to  have  a  sign  of  authority  [  i.  e.,  a  veil  ]  on  her  head,  because  of 
the  angels  "  — who  watch  over  the  church  and  have  care  for  its  order.  Matheson,  Spirit- 
ual Development  of  St.  Paul,  2-12—"  Man's  covering  is  woman's  power.  Ministration  in 
her  power  and  it  allies  her  with  a  greater  than  man  —  the  angel.  Christianity  is  a  fem- 
inine strength.  Judaism  had  made  woman  only  a  means  to  an  end  — the  multiplica- 
tion of  the  race.  So  it  had  degraded  her.  Paul  will  restore  woman  to  her  original  and 
equal  dignity."  Col.  2:18  — "Let  no  man  rob  you  of  your  prize  by  a  voluntary  humility  and  worshiping  of 
the  angels"— a  false  worship  which  would  be  very  natural  if  angels  were  present  to 
guard  the  meetings  of  the  saints.  1  Tim.  5  :  21  —  "  I  charge  thee  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  Christ  Jesus, 
and  the  elect  angels,  that  thou  observe  these  things"  —  the  public  duties  of  the  Christian  minister. 

All'ord  regards  "  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  "  ( Rev.  1 :  20 )  as  superhuman  beings  appointed 
to  represent  and  guard  the  churches,  and  that  upon  the  grounds :  ( 1 )  that  the  word 
is  used  elsewhere  In  the  book  of  Revelation  only  in  this  sense;  and  (2)  that  nothing 
in  the  book  is  addressed  to  a  teacher  individually,  but  all  to  some  one  who  reflects  the 
complexion  and  fortunes  of  the  church  as  no  human  person  could.  We  prefer,  how- 
ever, to  regard  "the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  '  as  meaning  simply  the  pastors  of  the  seven 
churches.  The  word  "angel"  means  simply  "messenger,"  and  may  be  used  of  human  as 
well  as  of  superhuman  beings—  see  Hag.  1 :13  —  "Haggai,  Jehovah's  messenger  "  —  literally,  "the 
angel  of  Jehovah."  The  use  of  the  word  in  this  figurative  sense  would  uot  be  incon- 
gruous with  the  mystical  character  of  the  book  of  Revelation  ( see  Bib.  Sac.  12  :  339 ).. 
John  Lightfoot,  Heb.  and  Talmud.  Exerc,  2:90,  says  that  "angel"  was  a  term  desig- 
nating officer  or  elder  of  a  synagogue.  See  also  Bp.  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Philippians, 
187,  18C;  Jacobs,  Eccl.  Polity,  100  and  note.  In  the  Irvingite  church,  accordingly, 
"  angels  "  constitute  an  official  class. 

(/)  by  assisting  and  jirotecting  individual  believers  ; 

1  K.  19  :  5  —  "an  angel  touched  him  [Elijah],  and  said  unto  him,  Arise  and  eat"  ;  Ps.  91:11  —  "he  will  give  his 
angels  charge  over  thee,  To  keep  thee  in  all  thy  ways.  They  shall  bear  thee  up  in  their  hands,  Lest  thou  dash  thy  foot 
against  a  stone "  ;  Dan.  6  : 22  —  "My  God  hath  sent  his  angel,  and  hath  shut  the  lions'  mouths,  and  they  have  not  hurt 
me  "  ;  Mat.  4:11  — "  angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him  " —  Jesus  was  the  type  of  all  believers ;  18 :  10  — 
"  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones,  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my 
Father"  ;  compare  verse  6  —  "one  of  these  little  ones  that  believe  on  me"  ;  see  Meyer,  Com.  in  loco,  who 
regards  these  passages  as  proving  the  doctrine  of  guardian  angels.  Luke  16 :  22  —  "  the  beg- 
gar died,  and  ....  was  carried  away  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom ' ' ;  Heb.  1 :  14  —  "Are  they  not  all  minister- 
ing spirits,  sent  forth  to  do  service  for  the  sake  of  them  that  shall  inherit  salvation  ?  "  Compare  Acts  12 :  15  —  "  And 
they  said,  It  is  his  angel"  —  of  Peter  standing  knocking  ;  sec  Hackctt,  Com.  in  loco:  the  utter- 
ance "expresses  a  popular  belief  prevalent  among  the  Jews,  which  is  neither  affirmed 
nor  denied. "  Shakespeare,  Henry  IV,  2nd  part,  2:2— "  For  the  boy  —  there  is  a  good 
angel  about  him."  Per  contra,  see  Broadus,  Com.  on  Mat.  18  :  10 —  "  It  is  simply  said  of 
believers  as  a  class  that  there  are  angels  which  are  '  their  angels ' ;  but  there  is  nothing  here 
or  elsewhere  to  show  that  one  angel  has  special  charge  of  one  believer. " 

iff)    by  punishing  God's  enemies. 

2  K.  19 :  35  —  "  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the  angel  of  Jehovah  went  forth,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians 
an  hundred  fourscore  and  five  thousand  "  ;  Acts  12  :  23  — "  And  immediately  an  angel  of  the  Lord  smote  him,  because  he 
gave  not  God  the  glory :  and  he  was  eaten  of  worms,  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  " 

A  general  survey  of  this  Scripture  testimony  as  to  the  employments  of 
good  angels  leads  us  to  the  following  conclusions  : 

First,  —  that  good  angels  are  not  to  be  considered  as  the  mediating 
agents  of  God's  regular  and  common  providence,  but  as  the  ministers  of 
his  special  providence  in  the  affairs  of  his  church.  He  '  maketh  his  angels 
winds  '  and  '  a  flaming  fire, '  not  in  his  ordinary  jarocedure,  but  in  connec- 
tion with  special  displays  of  his  power  for  moral  ends  (  Deut.  33  : 2  ;  Acts 
7  :  53  ;  Gal.  3  :  19  ;  Heb.  2:2).  Their  intervention  is  apparently  occasional 
and  exceptional  —  not  at  their  own  option,  but  only  as  it  is  permitted  or 
commanded  by  God.     Hence  we  are  not  to  conceive  of  angels  as  coming 


SCRIPTURE    STATEMENTS   AND   INTIMATIONS.  453 

between  ns  and  God,  nor  are  we,  without  special  revelation  of  the  fact,  to 
attribute  to  them  iu  any  particular  case  the  effects  which  the  Scriptures 
generally  ascribe  to  divine  providence.  Like  miracles,  therefore,  angelic 
appearances  generally  mark  God's  entrance  upon  new  epochs  in  the  unfold- 
ing of  his  plans.  Hence  we  read  of  angels  at  the  completion  of  creation 
(Job  38  : 7 ) ;  at  the  giving  of  the  law  (  Gal.  3  :  19 )  ;  at  the  birth  of  Christ 
(  Luke  2  :  13) ;  at  the  two  temptations  in  the  wilderness  and  in  Gethsemano 
( Mat.  4  :  11,  Luke  22  :43 ) ;  at  the  resurrection  (Mat.  28  : 2 ) ;  at  the  ascen- 
sion (  Acts  1  :10)  ;  at  the  final  judgment  ( Mat.  25  :31 ). 

The  substance  of  these  remarks  may  be  found  in  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  1 :637- 
645.  Milton  tells  us  that  "  Millions  of  spiritual  creatures  walk  the  earth  Unseen,  both 
when  we  wake  and  when  we  sleep."  Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  it  is  a  question  of 
interest  why  such  angelic  beings  as  have  to  do  with  human  affairs  are  not  at  present 
seen  by  men.  Paul's  admonition  against  the  "  worshiping  of  the  angels  "  (Col.  2: 18)  seems  to 
suggest  the  reason.  If  men  have  not  abstained  from  worshiping  their  fellow-men, 
when  these  latter  have  been  priests  or  media  of  divine  communications,  the  danger  of 
idolatry  would  be  much  greater  if  we  came  into  close  and  constant  contact  with  angels  ; 
see  Rev.  22  :  8,  9— "I  fell  down  to  worship  before  the  feet  of  the  angel  which  showed  me  these  things.  And  he  saith 
unto  me,  See  thou  do  it  not." 

The  fact  that  we  do  not  in  our  day  see  angels  should  not  make  us  sceptical  as  to  their 
existence  any  more  than  the  fact  that  we  do  not  in  our  day  see  miracles  should  make 
us  doubt  the  reality  of  the  New  Testament  miracles.  As  evil  spirits  were  permitted  to 
work  most  actively  when  Christ  lanity  1  legan  its  appeal  to  men,  so  good  angels  were  then 
most  frequently  recognized  us  executing  the  divine  purposes.  Nevhis,  Demon-Posses- 
sion, 278,  thinks  that  evil  spirits  are  still  at  work  where  Christianity  comes  in  conflict 
with  heathenism,  and  that  they  retire  into  the  background  as  Christianity  triumphs. 
This  may  be  true  also  of  good  angels.  Otherwise  we  might  be  in  danger  of  overestimat- 
ing their  greatness  and  authority.  Father  Taylor  was  right  when  he  said :  "  Folks  are 
better  than  angels."  It  is  vain  to  sing  :  "  I  want  to  be  an  angel."  We  never  shall  bo 
angels.  Victor  Hugo  is  wrong  when  he  says:  "I  am  the  tadpole  of  an  archangel." 
John  Smith  is  not  an  angel,  and  he  never  will  be.  But  he  may  be  far  greater  than  an 
angel,  because  Christ  took,  not  the  nature  of  angels,  but  the  nature  of  man  (Heb.  2  :16). 

As  intimated  above,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  even  the  invisible'  presence  of 
angels  is  a  constant  one.  Doddridge's  dream  of  accident  prevented  by  angelic  interpo- 
sition seems  to  embody  the  essential  truth.  We  append  the  passages  referred  to  in  tin- 
text.  Job  38 : 7 — "  When  the  morning  stars  sang  together,  And  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy  "  ;  Deut.  33 : 2  — 
"  Jehovah  came  from  Sinai  ....  he  came  from  the  ten  thousands  of  holy  ones :  At  his  right  hand  was  a  fiery  law 
for  them"  ;  Gal. 3  :  19  — "it  [the  law]  was  ordained  through  angels  by  the  hand  of  a  mediator";  Heb.  2  :  2  — 
"  the  word  spoken  through  angels ' ' ;  Acts  7 :  53  — "  who  received  the  law  as  it  was  ordained  by  angels  "  ;  Luke  2 :  13  — 
"  suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel  a  multitude  of  thd  heavenly  host "  ;  Mat.  4:11  —  "  Then  the  devil  leaveth  him ;  and 
behold,  angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him  "  ;  Luke  22 :  43  —  "  And  there  appeared  unto  him  an  angel  from  heaven, 
strengthening  him"  ;  Mat.  28:2  —  "an  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven,  and  came  and  rolled  away  the  stone, 
and  sat  upon  it" ;  Acts  1 :  10  —  "And  while  they  were  looking  steadfastly  into  heaven  as  he  went,  behold,  two  men 
stood  by  them  in  white  apparel ' ' ;  Mat.  25 :  31  —  "  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with 
him,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory. " 

Secondly,  — that  their  power,  as  being  in  its  nature  dependent  and  derived, 
is  exercised  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  spiritual  and  natural  world. 
They  cannot,  like  God,  create,  perf<  >rm  miracles,  act  without  means,  search 
the  heart.  Unlike  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  can  influence  the  human  mind 
directly,  they  can  influence  men  only  in  ways  analogous  to  those  by  which 
men  influence  each  other.  As  evil  angels  may  ternpt  men  to  sin,  so  it  is 
probable  that  good  angels  may  attract  men  to  holiness. 

Recent  psychical  researches  disclose  almost  unlimited  possibilities  of  influencing 
other  minds  by  suggestion.  Slight  physical  phenomena,  as  the  odor  of  a  violet  or  the 
sight  in  a  book  of  a  crumpled  roseleaf,  may  start  trains  of  thought  which  change  the 
whole  course  of  a  life.  A  word  or  a  look  may  have  great  power  over  us.  Fisher,  Nature 


454  THE  WORKS  OF   GOD. 

and  Method  of  Revelation,  276— "The  facts  of  hypnotism  illustrate  the  possibility  of 
one  mind  falling  into  a  strange  thraldom  under  another."  If  other  men  can  so  power- 
fully influence  us,  it  is  quite  possible  that  spirits  which  are  not  subject  to  limitations 
of  the  flesh  may  influence  us  yet  more. 

Binet,  in  his  Alterations  of  Personality,  says  that  experiments  on  hysterical  patients 
have  produced  in  his  mind  the  conviction  that,  in  them  at  least,  "  a  plurality  of  persons 
exists. . . .  We  have  established  almost  with  certainty  that  in  such  patients,  side  by  side 
with  the  principal  personality,  there  is  a  secondary  personality,  which  is  unknown  by 
the  first,  which  sees,  hears,  reflects,  reasons  and  acts  ";  see  Andover  Review,  April, 
1890 :  422.  Hudson,  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena,  81-143,  claims  that  we  have  two  minds, 
the  objective  and  conscious,  and  the  subjective  and  unconscious.  The  latter  works 
automatically  upon  suggestion  from  the  objective  or  from  other  minds.  In  view  of 
the  facts  referred  to  by  Binet  and  Hudson,  we  claim  that  the  influence  of  angelic  spirits 
is  no  more  incredible  than  is  the  influence  of  suggestion  from  living  men.  There  is  no 
need  of  attributing  the  phenomena  of  hypnotism  to  spirits  of  the  dead.  Our  human 
nature  i3  larger  and  more  susceptible  to  spiritual  influence  than  we  have  commonly 
believed.  These  psychical  phenomena  indeed  furnish  us  with  a  corroboration  of  our 
Ethical  Monism,  for  if  in  one  human  being  there  may  be  two  or  more  consciousnesses, 
then  in  the  one  God  there  may  be  not  only  three  infinite  personalities  but  also  multi- 
tudinous finite  personalities.    See  T.  H.  Wright,  The  Finger  of  God,  124-133. 

B.     The  employments  of  evil  angels. 

(  a )  They  oppose  God  and  strive  to  defeat  his  will.  This  is  indicated 
in  the  names  applied  to  their  chief.  The  word  "Satan"  means  "adver- 
sary"—  primarily  to  God,  secondarily  to  men  ;  the  term  "  devil"  signifies 
"  slanderer  "  —  of  God  to  men,  and  of  men  to  God.  It  is  indicated  also  in 
the  description  of  the  "man  of  sin  "as  "he  that  opposeth  and  exalteth 
himself  against  all  that  is  called  God." 

Job  1 :6  —  Satan  appears  among  "the  sons  of  God"  ;  Zech.  3  :1  — " Joshua  the  high  priest ....  and  Satan 
standing  at  his  right  hand  to  he  his  adversary  "  ;  Mat.  13 :  39  —  "  the  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil "  ;  1  Pet.  5 : 8 
—  "your  adversary  the  devil."  Satan  slanders  God  to  men,  in  Gen.  3:1,  4—  "Tea,  hath  God  said?  .... 
Ye  shall  not  surely  die  "  ;  men  to  God,  in  Job  1 : 9, 11  —  "Doth  Job  fear  God  for  naught?  ....  put  forth  thy 
hand  now,  and  touch  all  that  he  hath,  and  he  will  renounce  thee  to  thy  face  "  ;  2 : 4,  5  —  "  Skin  for  skin,  yea,  all  that  a 
man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.  But  put  forth  thine  hand  now,  and  touch  his  bone  and  his  flesh,  and  he  will  renounce 
thee  to  thy  face  "  ;  Rev.  12 :  10  —  "  the  accuser  of  our  brethren  is  cast  down,  who  accuseth  them  before  our  God  night 
and  day." 

Notice  how,  over  against  the  evil  spirit  who  thus  accuses  God  to  man  and  man  to 
God,  stands  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Advocate,  who  pleads  God's  cause  with  man  and  man's 
cause  with  God  :  John  16  : 8  —  "  he,  when  he  is  come,  will  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteous- 
ness, and  of  judgment"  ;  Rom.  8:26  —  "the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmity :  for  we  know  not  how  to  pray  as  we 
ought ;  but  the  Spirit  himsolf  maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered."  Hence  Balaai  1 1 
can  say:  Num.  23  :  21,  "  He  hath  not  beheld  iniquity  in  Jacob,  Neither  hath  he  seen  perverseness  in  Israel";  and 
the  Lord  can  say  to  Satan  as  he  resists  Joshua :  "  Jehovah  rebuke  thee,  0  Satan ;  yea,  Jehovah  that 
hath  chosen  Jerusalem  rebuke  thee "( Zech.  3 : 2 ).  "Thus  he  puts  himself  between  his  people  and 
every  tongue  that  would  accuse  them  "  (  C.  H.  M.).  For  the  description  of  the  "man  of 
sin,"  see  2  Thess.  2:3,  4  —  "  he  that  opposeth  "  ;  c/.  verse  9  —  "whose  coming  is  according  to  the  working  of  Satan." 

On  the  "man  of  sin,"  see  Wm.  Arnold  Stevens,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  July,  1889 :  328-360.  As 
in  Daniel  11 :  36,  the  great  enemy  of  the  faith,  he  who  "shall  exalt  himself,  and  magnify  himself  above 
every  God",  is  the  Syrian  King,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  so  the  man  of  lawlessness  described 
by  Paul  in  2 Thess.  2 : 3,  4  was  "the  corrupt  and  impious  Judaism  of  the  apostolic  age." 
This  only  had  its  seat  in  the  temple  of  God.  It  was  doomed  to  destruction  when  the 
Lord  should  come  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  f  ullilmeut  does  not  preclude  a 
future  and  final  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy. 

Contrasts  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  spirit  of  evil :  1.  .The  dove,  and  the  serpent ; 
2.  the  father  of  lies,  and  the  Spirit  of  truth ;  3.  men  possessed  by  dumb  spirits,  and  men 
given  wonderful  utterance  in  diverse  tongues;  4.  the  murderer  from  the  beginning, 
and  the  life-giving  Spirit,  who  regenerates  the  soul  and  quickens  our  mortal  bodies ; 
5.  the  adversary,  and  the  Helper ;  6.  the  slanderer,  and  the  Advocate ;  7.  Satan's  si  1  tiny, 
and  the  Master's  winnowing ;  8.  the  organizing  intelligence  and  malignity  of  the  evil 
one,  and  the  Holy  Spirit's  combination  of  all  the  forces  of  matter  and  mind  to  build  up 


SCRIPTURE   STATEMENTS   AND    INTIMATIONS.  455 

the  kingdom  of  God ;  9.  the  strong-  man  fully  armed,  and  a  stronger  than  he  ;  10.  the 
evil  one  who  works  only  evil,  and  the  holy  One  who  is  the  author  of  holiness  in  the 
hearts  of  men.  The  opposition  of  evil  angels,  at  first  and  ever  since  their  fall,  may  be 
a  reason  why  they  are  incapable  of  redemption. 

( b )  They  hinder  man's  temporal  and  eternal  welfare,  —  sometimes  by- 
exercising  a  certain  control  over  natural  phenomena,  but  more  commonly 
by  subjecting  man's  soul  to  temptation.  Possession  of  man's  being,  either 
physical  or  Spiritual,  by  demons,  is  also  recognized  in  Scripture. 

Control  of  natural  phenomena  is  ascribed  to  evil  spirits  in  Job  1:12, 16, 19  and 2: 7— "all 
that  he  hath  is  in  thy  power" —  and  Satan  0866  lightning,  whirlwind,  disease,  for  his  purposes; 
Luke  13 :  11, 16  — "  a  woman  that  had  a  spirit  of  infirmity  ....  whom  Satan  had  bonnd,  lo,  these  eighteen  years  "  ; 
Acts  10: 38 — "  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil";  2  Cor.  12:7  —  "a  thorn  in  the  flesh,  a  messenger  of 
Satan  to  buffet  me  "  ;  1  Thess.  2  :  18  —  "we  would  fain  have  come  unto  you,  I  Paul  once  and  again ;  and  Satan  hindered 
us";  Heb.2:14  —  "  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil."  Temptation  is  ascribed  to  evil 
spirits  in  Gen.  3 : 1 sjj, —  "  Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  "  ;  cf.  Rev.  20 : 2  —  "  the  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil- 
and  Satan  "  ;  Mat.  4:3  —  "  the  tempter  came  "  ;  John  13  :  27  —  "  after  the  sop,  then  entered  Satan  into  him  "  ;  Acts  5 : 3 
—  ''why  hath  Satan  filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit?"  Eph.  2:2 —  "the  sprit  that  now  worketh  in  the  sons 
of  disobedience  "  ;  1  Thess.  3:5  —  "  lest  by  any  means  the  tempter  had  tempted  you '  ;  1  Pet.  5:8  —  "  your  adversary 
the  devil,  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about,  seeking  whom  he  may  devour." 

At  the  time  of  Christ,  popular  belief  undoubtedly  exaggerated  the  influence  of  evil 
spirits.  Savage,  Life  after  Death,  113  —  "  While  God  was  at  a  distance,  the  demons  were 
very,  very  near.  The  air  about  the  earth  was  full  of  these  evil  tempting  spirits.  They 
caused  shipwreck  at  sea,  and  sudden  death  on  land;  they  blighted  the  crops;  they 
smote  and  blasted  in  the  tempests;  they  took  possession  of  the  bodies  and  the  souls  of 
men.  They  entered  into  compacts,  and  took  mortgages  on  men's  souls."  If  some 
good  end  has  been  attained  in  spite  of  them  they  feel  that  "Their  labor  must  be  to 
pervert  that  end,  And  out  of  good  still  to  lind  means  of  evil."  In  Goethe's  Faust,  Mar- 
garet detects  the  evil  in  Mephistopheles :    "  You  see  that  he  with  no  soul  sympathizes. 

'T  is  written  on  his  face  — he  never  loved Whenever  he  comes  near,  I  cannot 

pray."  Mephistopheles  describes  himself  as  "  Kin  Theil  von  jener  Kraft  Die  stilts  das 
Bose  will  Uud  stats  das  Gute  schaff t "  —  "  Part  of  that  power  not  understood,  which 
always  wills  the  bad,  and  always  works  the  good  "—  through  the  overruling  Providence 
of  God.  "The  devil  says  his  prayers  backwards."  "He  tried  to  learn  the  Basque 
language,  but  had  to  give  it  up,  having  learned  only  three  words  in  two  years."  Walter 
Scott  tells  us  that  a  certain  sulphur  spring  in  Scotland  was  reputed  to  owe  its  quality 
to  an  ancient  compulsory  immersion  of  Satan  in  it. 

Satan's  temptations  are  represented  as  both  negative  and  positive, —  he 
takes  away  the  seed  sown,  and  he  sows  tares.  He  controls  many  subordi- 
nate evil  spirits  ;  there  is  only  one  devil,  but  there  are  many  angels  or 
demons,  and  through  their  agency  Satan  may  accomplish  his  purposes. 

Satan's  negative  agency  is  shown  in  Mark  4  :  15 —  "when  they  have  hoard,  straightway  cometh  Satan, 
and  taketh  away  the  word  which  hath  been  suwn  in  them  "  ;  his  positive  agency  in  Mat.  13  :  38,  39  —  "  the  tares 
are  the  sons  of  the  evil  one  ;  and  the  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil."  One  devil,  but  many  angels  :  see 
Mat.  25  :  41  —  "  the  devil  and  his  angels "  ;  Mark  5:9  —  "My  name  is  Legion,  for  we  are  many  "  ;  Eph.  2:2  —  "the 
prince  of  the  powers  of  the  air"  ;  6  :  12  —  "principalities  ....  powers  ....  world-rulers  of  this  darkness  .... 
spiritual  hosts  of  wickedness."  The  mode  of  Satan's  access  to  the  human  mind  we  do  not  know. 
It  may  be  that  by  moving  upon  our  physical  organism  he  produces  subtle  signs  of 
thought  and  so  reaches  the  understanding  and  desires.  He  certainly  has  the  power  to 
present  in  captivating  forms  the  objects  of  appetite  and  selfish  ambition,  as  he  did  to 
Christ  in  the  wilderness  (Mat.  4  :  3,  6,  9  ),  and  to  appeal  to  our  love  for  independence  by 
saying  to  us,  as  he  did  to  our  first  parents —  "ye  shall  be  as  God"  (Gen.  3:5). 

C.  C.  Everett,  Essays  Theol.  and  Lit.,  186-218,  on  The  Devil :  "  If  the  supernatural 
powers  would  only  hold  themselves  aloof  and  not  interfere  with  the  natural  processes 

of  the  world,  there  would  be  no  sickness,  no  death,  no  sorrow This  shows  a  real, 

though  perhaps  unconscious,  faith  in  the  goodness  and  trustworthiness  of  nature. 
The  world  in  itself  is  a  source  only  of  good.  Here  is  the  germ  of  a  positive  religion, 
though  this  religion  when  it  appears,  may  adopt  the  form  of  supernaturalism."  If 
there  was  no  Satan,  then  Christ's  temptations  came  from  within,  and  showed  a  predis- 
position to  evil  on  his  own  part. 


456  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Possession  is  distinguished  from  bodily  or  mental  disease,  though  such 
disease  often  accompanies  possession  or  results  from  it.  —  The  demons 
speak  in  their  own  persons,  with  supernatural  knowledge,  and  they  are 
directly  addressed  by  Christ.  Jesus  recognizes  Satanic  agency  in  these 
cases  of  possession,  and  he  rejoices  in  the  casting  out  of  demons,  as  a  sign 
of  Satan's  downfall.  These  facts  render  it  impossible  to  interpret  the 
narratives  of  demoniac  possession  as  popular  descriptions  of  abnormal 
physical  or  mental  conditions. 

Possession  may  apparently  be  either  physical,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Gerasene  demon- 
iacs (Mark  5: 2-4),  or  spiritual,  as  in  the  case  of  the  "maid  having  a  spirit  of  divination  "  (Act  16:16), 
where  the  body  does  not  seem  to  have  been  affected.  It  is  distinguished  from  bodily 
disease  :  see  Mat.  17 :  15, 18  — "epileptic  ....  the  demon  went  out  from  him :  and  the  boy  was  cured "  ;  Mark  9 : 25 
—  "Thou  dumb  and  deaf  spirit";  3:11,  12  —  "the  unclean  spirits  ....  cried,  saying,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God. 
And  he  charged  them  much  that  they  should  not  make  him  known  "  ;  Luke  8 :  30,  31  —  "  And  Jesus  asked  him,  What  is 
thy  name  ?  And  he  said,  Legion  ;  for  many  demons  were  entered  unto  him.  And  they  entreated  him  that  he  would  not 
command  them  to  depart  into  the  abyss";  10 :  17, 18  —  "  And  the  seventy  returned  with  joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the 
demons  are  subject  unto  us  in  thy  name.    And  he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  Satan  fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven." 

These  descriptions  of  personal  intercourse  between  Christ  and  the  demons  cannot  be 
Interpreted  as  metaphorical.  "  In  the  temptation  of  Christ  and  in  the  possession  of  the 
swine,  imagination  could  have  no  place.  Christ  was  above  its  delusions;  the  brutes 
vrerebeloiv  them."  Farrax  (Life  of  Christ,  1:337-341,  and 2:  excursus  vii),  while  he 
admits  the  existence  and  agency  of  good  angels,  very  inconsistently  gives  a  metaphor- 
ical interpretation  to  the  Scriptural  accounts  of  evil  angels.  We  find  corroborative 
evidence  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  in  the  domination  which  one  wicked  man  frequently 
exercises  over  others;  in  the  opinion  of  some  modern  physicians  in  charge  of  the 
insane,  that  certain  phenomena  in  their  patients'  experience  are  best  explained  by  sup- 
posing an  actual  subjection  of  the  will  to  a  foreign  power  ;  and,  finally,  in  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  human  heart.  See  Trench,  Miracles,  12.5-136; 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  1:586  —  "Possession  is  distinguished  from  mere  temptation 
by  the  complete  or  incomplete  loss  of  the  sufferer's  reason  or  power  of  will ;  his  actions, 
words,  and  almost  his  thoughts,  are  mastered  by  the  evil  spirit,  till  his  personality 
seems  to  be  destroyed,  or  at  least  so  overborne  as  to  produce  the  consciousness  of  a 
twofold  will  within  him  like  that  in  a  dream.  In  the  ordinary  assaults  and  temptations 
of  Satan,  the  will  itself  yields  consciously,  and  by  yielding  gradually  assumes,  without 
Losing  its  apparent  freedom  of  action,  the  characteristics  of  the  Satanic  nature.  It  is 
solicited,  urged,  and  persuaded  against  the  strivings  of  grace,  but  it  is  not  overborne." 

T.  H.  Wright,  The  Finger  of  God,  argues  that  Jesus,  in  his  mention  of  demoniacs, 
accommodated  himself  to  the  beliefs  of  his  time.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Reve- 
lation, 274,  with  reference  to  Weiss'sMeyeifbn  Mat.  4:24,  gives  Meyer's  arguments  against 
demoniacal  possession  as  follows :  1.  the  absence  of  references  to  demoniacal  possession 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  fact  that  so-called  demoniacs  were  cured  by  exorcists; 
2.  that  no  clear  case  of  possession  occurs  at  present ;  3.  that  there  is  no  notice  of  demon- 
iacal possession  in  John's  Gospel,  though  the  overcoming  of  Satan  is  there  made  a  part 
of  the  Messiah's  work  and  Satan  is  said  to  enter  into  a  man's  mind  and  take  control 
there  ( John  13 :  27 ) ;  4.  and  t  hat  the  so-called  demoniacs  are  not,  as  would  be  expected,  of 
a  diabolic  temper  and  filled  with  malignant  feelings  toward  Christ.  Harnack,  Wesen 
des  Christenthums,  38  —  "  The  popular  belief  in  demon-possession  gave  form  to  the 
conceptions  of  those  who  had  nervous  diseases,  so  that  they  expressed  themselves  in 
language  proper  only  to  those  who  were  actually  possessed.  Jesus  is  no  believer  in 
Christian  Science:  he  calls  sickness  sickness  and  health  health;  but  he  regards  all 
disease  as  a  proof  and  effect  of  the  working  of  the  evil  one." 

On  Mark  1 :  21-34,  see  Maclaren  in  S.  S.  Times,  Jan.  23,  1904  —  "  We  are  told  by  some  that 
this  demoniac  was  an  epileptic.  Possibly ;  but,  if  the  epilepsy  was  not  the  result  of 
possession,  why  should  it  take  the  shape  of  violent  hatred  of  Jesus  ?  And  what  is  there 
in  epilepsy  to  give  discernment  of  his  character  and  the  purpose  of  his  mission  ?  "  Not 
Jesus'  exorcism  of  demons  as  a  fact,  bvit  his  casting  them  out  by  a  word,  was  our  Lord's 
wonderful  characteristic.  Nevius,  Demon-Possession,  240 — "May  not  demon-posses- 
sion be  only  a  different,  a  more  advanced,  form  of  hypnotism?  ....  It  is  possible  that 
these  evil  spirits  are  familiar  with  the  organism  of  the  nervous  system,  and  are  capable 


SCRIPTURE  STATEMENTS  AND   INTIMATIONS.  457 

of  acting  upon  and  influencing;  mankind  in  accordance  with  physical  and  psychological 

laws The  hypnotic  trance  may  be  effected,  without  the  use  of  physical  organs, 

by  the  mere  force  of  will-power,  spirit  acting  upon  spirit."  Nevius  quotes  F.  W.  A. 
Myers,  Fortnightly  Rev.,  Now  188&— -£One  such  discovery,  that  of  telepathy,  or  the 
transference  of  thought  and  sensation  from  mind  to  mind  without  the  agency  of  the 
recognized  organs  of  sense,  has,  as  I  hold,  been  already  achieved."  See  Bennet,  Diseases 
of  the  Bible;  Kedney,  Diaholology;  and  references  in  Poole's  Synopsis,  1:343;  also 
Bramwell,  Hypnotism,  358-396. 

(c)  Yet,  in  spite  of  themselves,  they  execute  God's  plans  of  punishing 
the  ungodly,  of  chastening  the  good,  and  of  illustrating  the  nature  and 
fate  of  moral  evil. 

Punishing  the  ungodly  :  Ps.  78  :  49  — "  He  cast  upon  them  the  fierceness  of  his  anger,  Wrath  and  indignation, 
and  trouble,  a  band  of  angels  of  evil "  ;  1  K.  22 :  23  —  "  Jehovah  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  thy 
prophets;  and  Jehovah  hath  spoken  evil  concerning  thee."  In  Luke  22  :  31,  Satan's  sifting  accomplishes  the 
opposite  of  the  sifter's  intent  ion,  and  the  same  as  the  Master's  winnowing  ( Maclaren ). 

Chastening  the  good  :  see  Job,  chapters  1  and  2  ;  1  Cor.  5  :  5  —  "deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the 
destn  tion  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  ;  cf.  1  Tim.  1 :  20  —  "  Hymenaeus 
and  Alexander ;  whom  I  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  might  be  taught  not  to  blaspheme."  This  delivering  to 
Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh  seems  to  have  involved  four  things:  (l)excom- 
munieation  from  the  church ;  (2)  authoritative  infliction  of  bodily  disease  or  death; 
(3  )  loss  of  all  protection  from  good  angels,  who  minister  only  to  saints ;  (4)  subjection 
tothebuffetingsand  tormentingsof  the  great  accuser.  Gould,  in  Am.  Com.  on  1  Cor.  5:5, 
regards  "delivering  to  Satan"  as  merely  putting  a  man  out  of  the  church  by  excom- 
munication. This  <  >f  itself  was  equivalent  to  banishing  him  into  "  the  world,'1  of  which 
Satan  was  the  ruler. 

Evil  spirits  illustrate  the  nature  and  fate  of  moral  evil:  see  Mat.  8  :  29— "art  thou  come 
hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ?  "  25  :  41  —  "  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  "  ;  2  Thess. 
2:8  —  "  then  shall  be  revealed  the  lawless  one  "  ;  James  2  :  19  —  "the  demons  also  believe,  and  shudder "  ;  Rev.  12  :  9, 
12  —  "  the  Devil  and  Satan,  the  deceiver  of  the  whole  world  ....  the  devil  is  gone  down  unto  you,  having  great  wrath, 
knowing  that  he  hath  but  a  short  time  "  ;  20  :  10  —  "  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  ....  tormented  day  and  night  for  ever 
and  ever." 

It  is  an  interesting  question  whether  Scripture  recognizes  any  special  connection  of 
evil  spirits  with  the  systems  of  idolatry,  witchcraft,  and  spiritualism  which  burden  the 
world.  1  Cor.  10  :  20  —  "  the  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  demons,  and  not  to  God  "  ;  2  Thess. 
2:  9  —  "  the  working  of  Satan  with  all  power  and  signs  of  lying  wonders"  —  would  seem  to  favor  an 
affirmal  ive  answer.  But  1  Cor.  8  :  4  —  "concerning  therefore  the  eating  of  things  sacrificed  to  idols,  we  know 
that  no  idol  is  anything  in  the  world"  —  seems  to  favor  a  negative  answer.  This  last  may.  how- 
ever, mean  that  "  the  beings  whom  the  idols  are  designed  to  reprea  nt  have  no  exist- 
ence, although  it  is  afterwards  shown  (10:20)  that  there  are  ullur  beings  connected 
with  false  worship  "  (  Ann.  Par.  Bible,  in  loco  ).  "  Heathenism  is  the  reign  of  the  devil  " 
(  Meyer),  and  while  the  heathen  think  themselves  to  be  sacrificing  to  Jupiter  or  Venus, 
they  are  really  "  sacrificing  to  demons,"  and  are  thus  furthering  the  plans  of  a  malignant  spirit 
who  uses  theseforms  Of  Ealse  religion  as  a  means  of  enslaving  their  souls.  Tn  like  man- 
ner, the  network  of  influences  which  support  the  papacy,  spiritualism,  modern  unbe- 
lief, is  difficult  of  explanation,  unless  we  believe  in  a  superhuman  intelligence  which 
organizes  these  forces  against  God.  In  these,  as  well  as  in  heathen  religions,  there  are 
facts  inexplicable  upon  merely  natural  principles  of  disease  and  delusion. 

Nevius,  Demon-Possession,  394  —  "  Paul  teaches  that  the  gods  mentioned  under  differ- 
ent names  are  imaginary  and  non-existent;  but  that,  behind  and  in  connection  with 
these  gods,  there  are  demons  who  make  use  of  idolatry  to  draw  men  away  from  God  ; 
and  it  is  to  these  that  the  heathen  are  unconsciously  rendering  obedience  and  service. 
.  .  .  It  is  most  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  sufferings  of  people  bewitched  were  caused 
by  the  devil,  not  by  the  so-called  witches.  Let  us  substitute  '  devilcraft '  for  '  witch- 
craft.' .  .  .  Had  the  courts  in  Salem  proceeded  on  the  Scriptural  presumption  that  the 
best  imony  of  those  under  the  control  of  evil  spirits  would,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be 
false,  such  a  thing  as  the  Salem  tragedy  would  never  have  been  known." 

A  survey  of  the  Scripture  testimony  with  regard  to  the  employments  of 
evil  spirits  leads  to  the  following  general  conclusions  : 

First,  — the  power  of  evil  spirits  over  men  is  not  independent  of  th  e 
human  will.     This  power  cannot  be  exercised  without  at  least  the  original 


458  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

consent  of  the  human  will,  and  may  be  resisted  and  shaken  off  through 
prayer  and  faith  in  God. 

Like  22  :  31,  40  —  "  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat  ....  Pray  that  ye  enter  not  into 
temptation  "  ;  Eph.  6  :  11  —  "  Put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the 
devil "  ;  16  —  "  tho  shield  of  faith,  wherewith  ye  shall  be  able  to  quench  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  evil  one  "  ;  James  4  :  7 
—  "resist  the  devil,  and  he  will  flee  from  you"  ;  1  Pet.  5:9—  "whom  withstand  stedfast  in  your  faith."  The 
coals  are  already  in  the  human  heart,  in  the  shape  of  corrupt  inclinations ;  Satan  only 
blows  them  into  flame.  The  double  source  of  sin  is  illustrated  in  Acts  5  :  3,  4  —  "  Why  hath 
Satan  filled  thy  heart  ?  .  .  .  How  is  it  that  thou  hast  conceived  this  thing  in  thine  heart  ? ' '  The  Satanic  impulse 
could  have  been  resisted,  and  "after  it  was"  suggested,  it  was  still  "in  his  own  power,"  as  was 
the  land  that  he  had  sold  ( Maclaren ). 

The  soul  is  a  castle  into  which  even  the  king  of  evil  spirits  cannot  enter  without 
receiving  permission  from  within.  Bp.  Wordsworth  :  "  The  devil  may  tempt  us  to  fall, 
but  he  cannot  make  us  fall ;  he  may  persuade  us  to  cast  ourselves  down,  but  he  cannot 
cast  us  down."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  It  is  left  to  us  whether  the  devil  shall  get  control  of 
us.  We  pack  off  on  the  devil's  shoulders  much  of  our  own  wrong  doing-,  just  as  Adam 
had  the  impertinence  to  tell  God  that  the  woman  did  the  mischief."  Both  God  and 
Satan  stand  at  the  door  and  knock,  but  neither  heaven  nor  hell  can  come  in  unless  we 
will.  "  We  cannot  prevent  the  birds  from  flying  over  our  heads,  but  we  can  prevent 
them  from  making  their  nests  in  our  hair."  Mat.  12:43-45  —  "  The  unclean  spirit,  when  he  is  gone 
out  of  a  man"  —suggests  that  the  man  who  gets  rid  of  one  vice  but  does  not  occupy  his 
mind  with  better  things  is  ready  to  be  repossessed.  "Seven  other  spirits  more  evil  than  himself" 
implies  that  some  demons  are  more  wicked  than  others  and  so  are  harder  to  cast  out 
( Mark  9  :  29 ).  The  Jews  had  cast  out  idolatry,  but  other  and  worse  sins  had  taken  pos- 
session of  them. 

Hudson,  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena,  129  —  "  The  hypnotic  subject  cannot  be  con- 
trolled so  far  as  to  make  him  do  what  he  knows  to  be  wrong,  unless  he  himself  vol- 
untarily assents."  A.  S.  Hart:  "Unless  one  is  willing  to  be  hypnotized,  no  one  can 
put  him  under  the  influence.  The  more  intelligent  one  is,  the  more  susceptible.  Hyp- 
notism requires  the  subject  to  do  two-thirds  of  the  work,  while  the  instructor  does 
only  one-third  —  that  of  telling  the  subject  what  to  do.  It  is  not  an  inherent  influence, 
nor  a  gift,  but  can  be  learned  by  any  one  who  can  read.  It  is  impossible  to  compel  a 
person  to  do  wrong  while  under  the  influence,  for  the  subject  retains  a  consciousness 
of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong." 

Hoflding,  Outlines  of  Psychology,  330-335—  "  Some  persons  have  the  power  of  inten- 
tionally calling  up  hallucinations ;  but  it  often  happens  to  them  as  to  Goethe's  Zauber- 
lehrling,  or  apprentice-magician,  that  the  phantoms  gain  power  over  them  and  will  not 
be  again  dispersed.  Goethe's  Fischer  — '  Half  she  drew  him  down  and  half  he  sank  '  — 
repeats  the  duality  in  the  second  term ;  for  to  sink  is  to  let  one's  self  sink."  Manton, 
the  Puritan :  "  A  stranger  cannot  call  off  a  dog  from  the  flock,  but  the  Shepherd  can  do 
so  with  a  word ;  so  the  Lord  can  easily  rebuke  Salan  when  he  finds  him  most  violent." 
Spurgeon,  the  modern  Puritan,  remarks  on  the  above :  "  O  Lord,  when  I  am  worried  by 
my  great  enemy,  call'  him  off,  I  pray  thee  !  Let  me  hear  a  voice  saying :  'Jehovah  rebuke 
thee,  0  Satan ;  even  Jehovah  that  hath  chosen  Jerusalem  rebuke  thee ! '  (  Zech.  3:2).  By  thine  election  of  me, 
rebuke  him,  I  pray  thee,  and  deliver  me  from '  the  power  of  the  dog '  1  ( Ps.  22 :  20 )." 

Secondly, —  their  power  is  limited,  both  in  time  and  in  extent,  by  the 
permissive  will  of  God.  Evil  spirits  are  neither  omnipotent,  omniscient, 
nor  omnipresent.  We  are  to  attribute  disease  and  natural  calamity  to  their 
agency,  only  when  this  is  matter  of  special  revelation.  Opposed  to  God  as 
evil  spirits  are,  God  compels  them  to  serve  his  purposes.  Their  power  for 
harm  lasts  but  for  a  season,  and  ultimate  judgment  and  punishment  will 
vindicate  God's  permission  of  their  evil  agency. 

1  Cor.  10  :  13  —  "  God  is  faithful,  who  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above  that  ye  are  able  ;  but  will  with  the 
temptation  make  also  the  way  of  escape,  that  you  may  be  able  to  endure  it "  ;  Ju.de  6  —  "  angels  which  kept  not  their  own 
beginning,  but  left  their  proper  habitation,  he  hath  kept  in  everlasting  bonds  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day." 

Luther  saw  Satan  nearer  to  man  than  his  coat,  or  his  shirt,  or  even  his  skin.  In  all 
misfortune  he  saw  the  devil's  work.  Was  there  a  conflagration  in  the  town  ?  By  look- 
ing closely  you  might  see  a  demon  blowing  upon  the  flame.    Pestilence  and  storm  he 


OBJECTIONS  TO   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    ANGELS.  459 

attributed  fe>  Satan.  All  this  was  a  relic  of  the  mediaeval  exaggerations  of  Satan's 
power.  It  was  then  supposed  thai  men  might  make  covenants  with  the  evil  one,  in 
which  supernatural  power  was  purchased  at  the  price  of  final  perdition  (see  Goethe's 

Faust ). 

Scripture  furnishes  no  warrant  for  such  representations.  There  seems  to  have  been 
permitted  aspecial  activity  of  Satan  in  temptation  ami  possession  during  our  Savior's 
ministry,  in  order  that  Christ's  power  might  be  demonstrated.  By  his  death  Jesus 
brought  "to  naught  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil"  (  Heb.  2  :  14  )  and  "having  despoiled  the 
principalities  and  the  powers,  he  made  a  show  of  them  openly,  triumphing  over  them  in  it,"  i.  e.,  in  the  Cross  ( Col. 
2: 15  ).  1  John  3:8 —  "To  this  end  was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil."  Evil 
spirits  now  exist  and  act  only  upon  sufferance.  MpLeod,  Temptation  of  our  Lord,  24 
—"Satan's  power  is  limited,  ( 1 )  by  the  fact  that  he  is  a  creature;  (2)  by  the  fact  of 
God's  providence  ;  (  3  )  by  t  he  fact  of  his  own  wickedness." 

Geoung,  Epic  of  the  Inner  life,  186— "Having  neither  fixed  principle  in  himself 
nor  connection  with  the  source  of  order  outside,  Satan  has  not  prophetic  ability,  lie 
can  appeal  to  chance,  but  he  cannot  lon-scc.  So  Goethe's  Afepbistopheles insolently 
boasts  that  he  can  lead  Faust  astray:  'What  will  you  bet?  There's  still  a  chance  to 
gaiu  him.  If  unto  me  full  leave  you  give  Gently  upon  my  road  to  train  him!'  And  in 
Job  1  :  11 ;  2 :  5,  Satan  wagers:  'He  will  renounce  thee  to  tny  face.'  "  William  Ashmore  :  "  Is  Satan 
omnipresent?  No,  but  he  is  very  spry,  is  he  bound?  Yes,  but  with  a  rather  louse 
rope."  In  the  Persian  story,  God  scattered  seed.  The  devil  buried  it,  and  sent  the 
rain  to  rot  it.    But  soon  it  sprang  up,  and  the  wilderness  blossomed  as  the  rose. 

II.     Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Angels. 

1.      To  the  dot- trine  of  anycla  in  general.     It  is  objected: 

(a)  That  it  is  opposed  to  the  modern  scientific  view  of  the  world,  as  a 
system  of  definite  forces  and  laws. — We  reply  that,  whatever  truth  there 
may  be  in  this  modern  view,  it  does  not  exclude  the  play  of  divine  or 
human  free  agency.  It  does  not,  therefore,  exclude  the  possibility  of  angelic 
agency. 

Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Knowledge,  332  — "  It  is  easier  to  believe  in  angels  than  in  ether; 
in  God  rather  than  atoms;  and  in  the  history  of  his  kingdom  as  a  divine  self-reve- 
lation rather  than  in  the  physicist's  or  the  biologist's  purely  mechanical  process  of 
evolution." 

(?>)  That  it  is  opposed  to  the  modern  doctrine  of  infinite  space  above 
and  beneath  us  —  a  space  peopled  with  worlds.  With  the  surrender  of  the 
old  conception  of  the  firmament,  as  a  boundary  separating  this  world  from 
the  regions  beyond,  it  is  claimed  that  we  must  give'  up  all  belief  in  a  heaven 
of  the  angels. — We  reply  that  the  notions  of  an  infinite  universe,  of  heaven 
as  a  definite  place,  and  of  spirits  as  confined  to  fixed  locality,  are  without 
certain  warrant  either  in  reason  or  in  Scripture.  We  know  nothing  of  the 
modes  of  existence  of  pure  spirits. 

What  we  know  of  the  universe  is  certainly  finite.  Angels  ai-e  apparently  incorporeal 
beings,  and  as  such  are  free  from  all  laws  of  matter  and  space.  Heaven  and  hell  are 
essentially  conditions,  corresponding  to  character  — conditions  in  which  the  body  and 
the  surroundings  of  the  soul  express  and  reflect  its  inward  state.  The  main  thing  to  he 
insisted  on  is  therefore  the  state;  place  is  merely  incidental.  The  fact  that  Christ 
ascended  to  heaven  with  a  human  body,  and  that  the  saints  are  to  possess  glorified 
bodies,  would  seem  to  imply  that  heaven  is  a  place.  Christ's  declaration  with  regard 
to  him  who  is  "  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell"  (Mat.  10: 28)  affords  some  reason  for 
believing  that  hell  is  also  a  place. 

Where  heaven  and  hell  are,  is  not  revealed  to  us.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  they  are  in  some  remote  part  of  the  universe;  for  aught  we  know,  they  may  be 
right  about  us,  so  that  if  our  eyes  were  opened,  like  those  of  the  prophet's  servant 
( 2  lings  6  :  17 ),  we  ourselves  should  behold  them.    Upon  ground  of  Eph.  2  : 2  —  "  prince  of  the 


460  THE   WORKS   OF    GOD. 

powers  of  the  air"  —  and  3:10  — "the  principalities  and  the  powers  in  the  heavenly  places"  —  some  have 
assigned  the  atmosphere  of  the  earth  as  the  abode  of  angelic  spirits,  both  good  add 
evil.  But  the  expressions  "air"  and  "  heavenly  places"  may  be  merely  metaphorical  desig- 
nations of  their  spiritual  method  of  existence. 

The  idealistic  philosophy,  which  regards  time  and  space  as  merely  subjective  forms 
of  our  human  thinking  and  as  not  conditioning  the  thought  of  God,  may  possibly 
afford  some  additional  aid  in  the  consideration  of  this  problem.  If  matter  be  only  the 
expression  of  God's  mind  and  will,  having  no  existence  apart  from  his  intelligence  and 
volition,  the  question  of  place  ceases  to  have  significance.  Heaven  is  in  that  case 
simply  the  state  in  which  God  manifests  himself  in  his  grace,  and  hell  is  the  state  in 
which  a  moral  being  finds  himself  in  opposition  to  God,  and  God  in  opposition  to  him. 
Christ  can  manifest  himself  to  his  followers  in  all  parts  of  the  earth  and'toallthe 
inhabitants  of  heaven  at  one  and  the  same  time  ( John  14  :  21 ;  Mat.  28  :  20 ;  Rev.  1:7).  Angels 
in  like  manner,  being  purely  spiritual  beings,  may  be  free  from  the  laws  of  space  and 
time,  and  may  not  be  limited  to  any  fixed  locality. 

We  prefer  therefore  to  leave  the  question  of  place  undecided,  and  to  accept  the  exist- 
ence and  working  of  angels  both  good  and  evil  as  a  matter  of  faith,  without  professing 
to  understand  their  relations  to  space.  For  the  rationalistic  view,  see  Strauss,  Glau- 
benslehre,  1 :  070-675.  Per  contra,  see  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  1  :  308-317- 
Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  127-13ij. 

2.     To  the  doctrine  of  evil  angels  in  particular.     It  is  objected  that : 

(a)  The  idea  of  the  fall  of  angels  is  self -contradictory,  since  a  fall  deter- 
mined by  pride  presupjioses  pride  — that  is,  a  fall  before  the  fall. — We 
reply  that  the  objection  confounds  the  occasion  of  sin  with  the  sin  itself. 
The  outward  motive  to  disobedience  is  not  disobedience.  The  fall  took 
place  only  when  that  outward  motive  was  chosen  by  free  will.  When  the 
motive  of  independence  was  selfishly  adopted,  only  then  did  the  innocent 
desire  for  knowledge  and  power  become  pride  and  sin.  How  an  evil  voli- 
tion could  originate  in  spirits  created  pure  is  an  insoluble  problem.  Our 
faith  in  God's  holiness,  however,  compels  us  to  attribute  the  origin  of  this 
evil  volition,  not  to  the  Creator,  but  to  the  creature. 

There  can  be  no  sinful  propensity  before  there  is  sin.  The  reason  of  the^rsf  sin  can 
not  be  sin  itself.  This  would  be  to  make  sin  a  necessary  development ;  to  deny  the 
li<  >liness  of  ( J  od  the  Creator ;  to  leave  the  ground  of  theism  for  pantheism. 

(  b )  It  is  irrational  to  suppose  that  Satan  should  have  been  able  to 
change  his  whole  nature  by  a  single  act,  so  that  he  thenceforth  willed  only 
evil.  —  But  we  reply  that  the  circumstances  of  that  decision  are  unknown 
to  us ;  while  the  power  of  single  acts  permaneutly  to  change  character  is 
matter  of  observation  among  men. 

Instance  the  effect,  upon  character  and  life,  of  a  single  act  of  falsehood  or  embezzle- 
ment. The  first  glass  of  intoxicating  drink,  and  the  first  yielding  to  impure  suggestion, 
often  establish  nerve-tracts  in  the  brain  and  associations  in  the  mind  which  are  not 
reversed  and  overcome  for  a  whole  lifetime.  "Sow  an  act,  and  you  reap  a  habit;  sow 
a  habit,  and  you  reap  a  character ;  sow  a  character,  and  you  reap  a  destiny."  And  what 
is  true  of  men,  may  be  also  true  of  angels. 

( c  )  It  is  impossible  that  so  wise  a  being  should  enter  ttpon  a  hopeless 
rebellion. — We  answer  that  ao  amount  of  mere  knowledge  ensures  right 
moral  action.  If  men  gratify  present  passion,  in  spite  of  their  knowledge 
that  the  sin  involves  present  misery  and  future  perdition,  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble that  Satan  may  have  done  the  same. 

Scherer,  Essays  on  English  Literature,  139,  puts  this  objection  as  follows :  "  The  idea 
of  Satan  is  a  contradictory  idea  :  for  it  is  contradictory  to  know  God  and  yet  attempt 
rivalry  with  him."    But  we  must  remember  that  understanding  is  the  servant  of  will. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   ANGELS.  461 

and  is  darkened  by  will.  Many  clever  men  fail  to  see  what  belongs  to  their  peace.  It 
is  the  very  madness  of  sin,  that  it  persists  in  iniquity,  even  when  it  sees  and  fears  the 
approaching  judgment  of  God.  Jonathan  Edwards  :  "  Although  the  devil  be  exceed- 
ingly crafty  and  subtle,  yet  he  is  one  rtf  the  greatest  fools  and  blockheads  in  the  world, 
as  the  subtlest  of  wicked  men  are.  Sin  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  strangely  infatuates 
and  stultifies  the  mind."  One  of  Hon  Jonson's  plays  has  for  its  title:  "The  Devil  is 
an  Ass." 

Schleiermacher,  Die  Christllche  Glaube,  1  :210,  urges  that  continual  wickedness  must 
have  weakened  Satan's  understanding,  so  that  he  could  be  no  longer  feared,  and  he 
adds:  "Nothing  is  easier  than  to  contend  against  emotional  evil."  On  the  other 
band,  there  seems  evidence  in  Scripture  of  a  progressive  rage  and  devastating  activity 
in  the  case  of  the  evil  one,  beginning  in  Genesis  and  culminating  in  tlie  Revelation. 
With  this  increasing  malignity  there  is  also  abundant  evidence  of  his  unwisdom.  We 
may  instance  the  devil's  mistakes  in  misrepresenting  1.  God  to  man  (Gen.  3:1 — "hath 
Godsaid?").  2.  Man  to  himself  (Gen.  3  :  4  —  "Ye  shall  not  surely  die"  >.  S.  Man  to  God(Jobl:9  — 
"  Both  Job  fear  God  for  naught  ?  " ).  4.  G  od  to  himself  ( Mat,  4  :  3  —  "  If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  "  ).  5.  Him- 
self to  man  (2  Cor.  11 :  14  —  "Satan  fashioneth  himself  into  an  angel  of  l'ght"  ).  6.  Himself  to  himself 
(  Rev.  12 :  12  —  "the  devil  is  gone  down  unto  you,  having  great  wrath  "  —  thinking  he  could  successfully 
oppose  God  or  destroy  man  I, 

(  d)  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  benevolence  of  God  to  create  and  uphold 
spirits,  who  he  knows  will  be  and  do  evil. —  We  reply  that  this  is  no  more 
inconsistent  with  God's  benevolence  than  the  creation  and  preservation  of 
men,  whose  action  God  overrules  for  the  furtherance  of  his  purposes,  and 
whose  iniquity  he  finally  brings  to  light  and  punishes. 

Seduction  of  the  pure  by  the  impure,  piracy,  slavery,  and  war,  have  all  been  permit- 
ted among  men.  It  is  no  more  inconsistent  with  God's  benevolence  to  permit  them 
among  angelic  spirits.  Caroline  Fox  tells  of  Emerson  and  Carlylethat  the  latter  once 
led  his  friend,  the  serene  philosopher,  through  the  abominations  of  the  streets  of 
London  at  midnight,  asking  him  with  grim  humor  at  every  few  steps:  "Do  you  believe 
in  the  devil  now?"  Emerson  replied  that  t  lie  more  lie  saw  of  the  English  people,  the 
greater  and  better  he  thought  them.  It  must  have  been  because  with  such  depths 
beneath  them  they  could  notwithstanding  reach  such  heights  of  Civilization.  Even 
vice  and  misery  can  be  overruled  for  good,  and  the  fate  of  evil  angels  may  be  made  a 
warning  to  the  universe. 

(e)  The  notion  of  organization  among  evil  spirits  is  self-contradictory, 
since  the  nature  of  evil  is  to  sunder  and  divide. —  We  reply  that  such 
organization  of  evil  spirits  is  no  more  impossible  than  the  organization  of 
wicked  men,  for  the  purpose  of  furthering  their  selfish  ends.  Common 
hatred  to  God  may  constitute  a  principle  of  union  among  them,  as  among 
men. 

Wicked  men  succeed  in  their  plans  only  by  adhering  in  some  way  to  the  good.  Even 
a  robber-horde  must  have  laws,  and  there  is  a  sort  of  "  honor  among  thieves."  Else  the 
world  would  be  a  pandemonium,  and  society  would  be  what  Hobbes called  it :  "  helium 
omnium  contra  omnes.''  See  art.  on  Satan,  by  Whitehouse,  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible:  "  Some  personalities  are  ganglionic  centres  of  a  nervous  system,  incarna- 
tions of  evil  influence.    The  Bible  teaches  that  Satan  is  such  a  centre." 

But  the  organizing  power  of  Satan  has  its  limitations.  Nevius,  Demon-Possession, 
279  —  "  Satan  is  not  omniscient,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  all  demons  are  perfectly  sub- 
ject to  his  control.  Want  of  vigilance  on  his  part,  and  personal  ambition  in  them, 
may  obstruct  and  delay  the  execution  of  his  plaus,  as  among  men."  An  English  par- 
liamentarian comforted  himself  by  saying:  "If  the  fleas  were  all  of  one  mind,  they 
would  have  us  out  of  bed."  Plato,  Lysis,  214  —  "The  good  are  like  one  another,  and 
friends  to  one  another,  and  the  bad  are  never  at  unity  with  one  another  or  with  them- 
selves; for  they  are  passionate  and  restless,  and  anything  which  is  at  variance  and 
enmity  with  itself  is  not  likely  to  be  in  union  or  harmony  with  any  other  thing." 

(/)  The  doctrine  is  morally  pernicious,  as  transferring  the  blame  of 
human  sin  to  the  being  or  beings  who  tempt  men  thereto. — We  reply  that 


462  THE    AVORKS   OF   GOD. 

neither  conscience  nor  Scripture  allows  temptation  to  be  an  excuse  for  sin, 
or  regards  Satan  as  having  power  to  compel  the  human  will.  The  objection, 
moreover,  contradicts  our  observation, — for  only  where  the  jjersonal  exist- 
ence of  Satan  is  recognized,  do  we  find  sin  recognized  in  its  trne  nature. 

The  diabolic  character  of  sin  makes  it  more  guilty  and  abhorred.  The  immorality 
lies,  not  in  the  maintenance,  but  in  the  denial,  of  the  doctrine.  Giving-  up  the  doctrine 
of  Satan  is  connected  with  laxity  in  the  administration  of  criminal  justice.  Penalty 
comes  to  be  regarded  as  only  deterrent  or  reformatory. 

(g )  The  doctrine  degrades  man,  by  representing  him  as  the  tool  and 
slave  of  Satan.  —  We  reply  that  it  does  indeed  show  his  actual  state  to  be 
degraded,  but  only  with  the  result  of  exalting  our  idea  of  his  original 
dignity,  and  of  his  possible  glory  in  Christ.  The  fact  that  man's  sin  was 
suggested  from  without,  and  not  from  within,  may  be  the  one  mitigating 
circumstance  which  renders  possible  his  redemption. 

It  rather  puts  a  stigma  upon  human  nature  to  say  that  it  is  nut  fallen  —  that  its  pres- 
ent condition  is  its  original  and  normal  state.  Nor  is  it  worth  while  to  attribute  to  man 
a  dignity  he  does  not  possess,  if  thereby  we  deprive  him  of  the  dignity  that  may  be  his. 
Satan's  sin  was,  in  its  essence,  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  which  there  can  be  no 
' '  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  th=y  do  "  ( Luke  23  :  34 ).  since  it  was  choosing  evil  with 
the  mala  gaucKa  mentis,  or  the  clearest  intuition  that  it  was  evil.  If  there  be  no  devil, 
then  man  himself  is  devil.  It  has  been  said  of  Voltaire,  that  without  believing  in  a 
devil,  he  saw  him  everywhere  —  even  where  he  was  not.  Christian,  in  Bunyan's  Pil- 
grim's Progress,  takes  comfort  when  he  tinds  that  the  blasphemous  suggestions  which 
came  to  him  in  the  dark  valley  were  suggestions  from  the  fiend  that  pursued  him.  If 
all  temptation  is  from  within,  our  case  would  seem  hopeless.  But  if  "an  enemy  hath  done 
this"  (Mat.  13:28),  then  there  is  hope.  And  so  we  may  accept  the  maxim  :  "  Nullusdiabolus, 
nullus  Redemptor."  Unitarians  have  no  Captain  of  their  Salvation,  and  so  have  no 
Adversary  against  whom  to  contend.  See  Trench,  Studies  in  the  Gospels,  17  ;  Birks, 
Difficulties  of  Belief,  78  100;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1  :  291-203.  Many  of  the  objections  and 
answers  mentioned  above  have  been  taken  from  Philippi,  Glaubenslehrc,  8:351-384, 
where  a  fuller  statement  of  them  may  be  found. 

III.     Practical  uses  of  the  Docteine  of  Angels. 

A.      Uses  of  the  doctrine  of  good  angels. 

(a)  It  gives  us  a  new  sense  of  the  greatness  of  the  divine  resources,  and 
of  God's  grace  in  our  creation,  to  think  of  the  multitude  of  unfallen  intel- 
ligences who  executed  the  divine  purposes  before  man  appeared. 

( 6 )  It  strengthens  our  faith  in  God's  providential  care,  to  know  that 
spirits  of  so  high  rank  are  deputed  to  minister  to  creatures  who  are 
environed  with  temptations  and  are  conscious  of  sin. 

(  e  )  It  teaches  us  humility,  that  beings  of  so  much  greater  knowledge 
and  power  than  ours  should  gladly  perform  these  tmnoticed  services,  in 
behalf  of  those  whose  only  claim  upon  them  is  that  they  are  children  of 
the  same  common  Father. 

( d  )  It  helps  us  in  the  struggle  against  sin,  to  learn  that  these  messen- 
gers of  God  are  near,  to  mark  our  wrong  doing  if  we  fall,  and  to  sustain  us 
if  we  resist  temptation. 

(  e )  It  enlarges  our  conceptions  of  the  dignity  of  our  own  being,  and  of 
the  boundless  possibilities  of  our  future  existence,  to  remember  these 
forms  of  typical  innocence  and  love,  that  praise  and  serve  God  unceasingly 
in  heaven. 


PRACTICAL   USES   OF   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ANGELS.  463 

Instance  the  appearance  of  angels  in  Jacob's  life  at  Bethel  (Gan.  28  :  12  — Jacob's  con- 
version ? )  and  at  Mahanaira  ( Gen.  32 : 1,  2  —  two  camps,  of  angels,  on  the  right  hand  and 
on  the  left;  cf.  Ps.  34  :  7  —  "The  angel  of  Jehovah  encampeth  round  about  them  that  fear  him,  And  delivereth 
them  " ) ;  so  too  the  Angel  at  Penuel  tlia,t  struggled  with  Jacob  at  his  entering  the  prom- 
ised land  (  Gen.  32  :  24 ;  cf.  Hos.  12  :  3,  4  —  "  in  his  manhood  he  had  power  with  God :  yea,  he  had  power  over  the 
angel,  and  prevailed  "  ),  and  "the  angel  who  hath  redeemed  me  from  all  evil"  (Gen.  48  :  16  )  to  whom  Jacob 
refers  on  his  dying  bed.  Edmund  Spenser,  The  Faerie  Queene :  "And  is  there  care  in 
heaven?  and  is  there  love  In  heavenly  spirits  to  these  creatures  base  That  may  com- 
passion of  their  evils  move  ?  There  is ;  else  much  ni<  ire  wretched  were  the  case  Of  men 
than  beasts.  But  O,  th*  exceeding  grace  Of  highest  God  that  loves  his  creatures  so, 
And  all  his  works  with  mercy  doth  embrace,  That  blessed  angels  he  sends  to  and  fro 
To  serve  to  wicked  man,  to  serve  his  wicked  foe !  How  oft  do  they  their  silver 
bowers  leave  And  come  to  succor  us  who  succor  want !  How  oft  do  they  with  golden 
pinions  cleave  The  flitting  skies  like  flying  pursuivant,  Against  foul  fiends  to  aid  us 
militant !  They  for  us  fight ;  they  watch  and  duly  ward,  And  their  bright  squadrons 
round  about  us  plant ;  And  all  for  love,  and  nothing  for  reward.  Oh,  why  should 
heavenly  God  for  men  have  such  regard  !  " 

It  shows  us  that  sin  is  not  mere  flniteness,  to  sec  these  finite  intelligences  that  main- 
tained their  integrity.  Shakespeare,  Henry  vin,  2  :  2  —  "lie  counsels  a  divorce— a 
loss  of  her  That,  like  a  jewel,  has  hung  twenty  years  About  his  neck,  yet  never  lost  her 
lustre:  Of  her  that  loves  him  with  that  excellence  That  angels  k>ve  good  nun  with; 
even  of  her  That,  when  the  greatest  stroke  of  fortune  falls,  Will  bless  the  king." 
Measure  for  Measure,  3:2  — "Man,  proud  man,  Plays  such  fantastic  tricks  before 
high  heaven,  As  makes  the  angels  weep." 

B.      Uses  of  the  doctrine  of  evil  angels. 

(a)  It  illustrates  the  real  nature  of  sin,  and  the  depth  of  the  ruin  to 
which  it  may  bring  the  soul,  to  reflect  upon  the  present  moral  condition 
and  eternal  wretchedness  to  which  these  spirits,  so  highly  endowed,  have 
brought  themselves  by  their  rebellion  against  God. 

(  b  )  It  inspires  a  salutary  fear  and  hatred  of  the  first  subtle  approaches 
of  evil  from  within  or  from  without,  to  remember  that  these  maybe  the 
covert  advances  of  a  personal  and  malignant  being,  who  seeks  to  overcome 
our  virtue  and  to  involve  us  in  his  own  apostasy  and  destruction. 

(  c  )  It  shuts  us  up  to  Christ,  as  the  only  Being  who  is  able  to  deliver 
us  or  others  from  the  enemy  of  all  good. 

( d )  It  teaches  us  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace,  since  for  such 
multitudes  of  rebellious  spirits  no  atonement  and  no  renewal  were  provided 
—  simple  justice  having  its  way,  with  no  mercy  to  interpose  or  save. 

Philippi,  in  his  Glaubenslehre,  3 :  151-284,  suggests  the  following  relations  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Satan  to  the  doctrine  of  sin :  1.  Since  Satan  is  a  fallen  anyel,  who  once  was 
pure,  evil  is  not  self-existent  or  necessary.  Sin  does  not  belong  to  the  substance 
which  God  created,  but  is  a  later  addition.  2.  Since  Satan  is  a  purely  spiritual  creature, 
sin  cannot  have  its  origin  in  mere  sensuousness,  or  in  the  mere  possession  of  a  physical 
nature.  3.  Since  Satan  is  not  a  weak  and  poorly  endowed  creature,  sin  is  not  a  necessary 
result  of  weakness  and  limitation.  4.  Since  Satan  is  confirmed  in  evil,  sin  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  transient  or  remediable  act  of  will.  5.  Since  in  Satan  sin  does  not  come  to  an  end, 
sin  is  not  a  step  of  creaturely  development,  or  a  stage  of  progress  to  something  higher 
and  better.  On  the  uses  of  the  doctrine,  see  also  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics, 
1 :  316 ;  Robert  Hall,  Works,  3 :  35-51 ;  Brooks,  Satan  and  his  Devices. 

"  They  never  sank  so  low,  They  are  not  raised  so  high ;  They  never  knew  such 
depths  of  woe,  Such  heights  of  majesty.  The  Savior  did  not  join  Their  nature  to  his 
own  ;  For  them  he  shed  no  blood  divine.  Nor  heaved  a  single  groan."  If  no  redemp- 
tion has  been  provided  for  them,  it  may  be  because  :  1.  sin  originated  with  them  ;  2. 
the  sin  which  they  committed  was  "an  eternal  sin"  (  cf.  Mark  3:29);  3.  they  sinned  with 
clearer  intellect  and  fuller  knowledge  than  ours  (cf:  Luke  23:34);  4.  their  incorporeal 
being  aggravated  their  sin  and  made  it  analogous  to  our  sinning  against  the  Holy 


464  THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 

Spirit  (cf.  Mat.  12:31,  32) ;  5.  this  incorporeal  being  gave  no  opportunity  for  Christ  to 
objectify  his  grace  and  visibly  to  join  himself  to  them  (  cf.  Heb.  2 :  16 ) ;  6.  their  persistence 
in  evil,  in  spite  of  their  growing  knowledge  of  the  character  of  God  as  exhibited  in 
human  history,  has  resulted  in  a  hardening  of  heart  which  is  not  susceptible  of 
salvation. 

Yet  angels  were  created  in  Christ  ( Col.  1:16) ;  they  consist  in  him  ( Col.  1 :  17  > ;  he  must 
suffer  in  their  sin ;  God  would  save  them,  if  he  consistently  could.  Dr.  G.  W.  Samson 
held  that  the  Logos  became  an  angel  before  he  became  man,  and  that  this  explains  his 
appearances  as  "  the  angel  of  Jehovah  "  in  the  Old  Testament  (  Gen.  22 :  11 ).  It  is  not  asserted 
that  all  fallen  angels  shall  be  eternally  tormented  ( Rev.  14 :  10 ) .  In  terms  equally  strong 
( Mat.  25 :  41 ;  Rev.  20 :  10  )  the  existence  of  a  place  of  eternal  punishment  for  wicked  men  is 
declared,  but  nevertheless  we  do  not  believe  that  all  men  will  go  there,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  all  men  are  wicked.  The  silence  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  a  provision  of 
salvation  for  fallen  angels  does  not  prove  that  there  is  no  such  provision.  2  Pet. 2:4 
shows  that  evil  angels  have  not  received  final  judgment,  but  are  in  a  temporary  state 
of  existence,  and  their  final  state  is  yet  to  be  revealed.  If  God  has  not  already  pro- 
vided, may  he  not  yet  provide  redemption  for  them,  and  the  "elect  angels"  (1  Tim.  5 :  21 )  be 
those  whom  God  has  predestinated  to  stand  this  future  probation  and  be  saved,  while 
only  those  who  persist  in  their  rebellion  will  be  consigned  to  the  lake  of  Are  and  brim- 
stone (Rev.  20: 10)? 

The  keeper  of  a  young  tigress  patted  her  head  and  she  licked  his  hand.  But 
when  she  grew  older  she  seized  his  hand  with  her  teeth  and  began  to  craunch  it.  He 
pulled  away  his  hand  in  shreds.  He  learned  not  to  fondle  a  tigress.  Let  us  learn  not 
to  fondle  Satan.  Let  us  not  be  "  ignorant  of  his  devices  "  (2  Cor.  2:11).  It  is  not  well  to  keep 
loaded  firearms  in  the  chimney  corner.  "  They  who  fear  the  adder's  sting  will  not  come 
near  her  hissing."  Talmage:  "O  Lord,  help  us  to  hear  the  serpent's  rattle  before  we 
feel  its  fangs."  Ian  Maclaren,  Cure  of  Souls,  215  —  The  pastor  trembles  for  a  soul, 
"  when  he  sees  the  destroyer  hovering  over  it  like  a  hawk  poised  in  midair,  and  would 
have  it  gathered  beneath  Christ's  wing." 

Thomas  K.  Beecher :  "  Suppose  I  lived  on  Broadway  where  the  crowd  was  sui-ging 
past  in  both  directions  all  the  time.  Would  I  leave  my  doors  and  windows  open,  say- 
ing to  the  crowd  of  strangers :  '  Enter  my  door,  pass  through  my  hall,  come  into  my 
parlor,  make  yourselves  at  home  in  my  dining-room,  go  up  into  my  bedchambers '? 
No  !  I  would  have  my  windows  and  doors  barred  and  locked  against  intruders,  to  be 
opened  only  to  me  and  mine  and  those  I  would  have  as  companions.  Yet  here  we  see 
foolish  men  and  women  stretching  out  their  arms  and  saying  to  the  spirits  of  the  vasty 
deep :  '  Come  in,  and  take  possession  of  me.  Write  with  my  hands,  think  with  my 
brain,  speak  with  my  lips,  walk  with  my  feet,  use  me  as  a  medium  for  whatever  you 
will.'  God  respects  the  sanctity  of  man's  spirit.  Even  Christ  stands  at  the  door  and 
knocks.  Holy  Spirit,  fill  me,  so  that  there  shall  be  room  for  no  other!"  (Rev. 3:20; 
Eph.  5 :  18.) 


PAET    V. 

ANTHKOPOLOGY,  OE  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

1.     Man  a  Creation  of  God  and  a  Child  of  God. 

The  factof  man's  creation  is  declared  in  Gen.  1  :  27 —  "And  God  created 
man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him"  ;  2  :7 —  "And 
Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul." 

(a)  The  Scriptures,  on  the  one  hand,  negative  the  idea  that  man  is  the 
mere  product  of  unreasoning  natural  forces.  They  refer  his  existence  to  a 
cause  different  from  mere  nature,  namely,  the  creative  act  of  God. 

Compare  Hebrews  12  :  9  —  "  the  Father  of  spirits  "  ;  Num.  16 :  22  —  "  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  "  ; 27 :  16  — 
"Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  "  ;  Rev.  22  :  6  — "the  God  of  the  spirits  of  the  prophets."  Bruce,  The 
Providential  Order,  25  —  "Faith  in  God  may  remain  intact,  though  we  concede  that 
man  in  all  his  characteristics,  physical  and  psychical,  is  no  exception  to  the  universal 
law  of  growth,  no  breach  in  the  continuity  of  the  evolutionary  process."  By"mere 
nature"  we  mean  nature  apart  from  God.  Our  previous  treatmenl  of  the  doctrine  of 
creation  in  general  has  shown  that  the  laws  of  nature  arc  only  the  regular  methods  of 
God,  and  that  the  conception  of  a  nature  apart  from  God  is  an  irrational  one.  If  the 
evolution  of  the  lower  creation  cannot  be  explained  without  taking  into  account  the 
originating  agency  of  God,  much  less  can  the  coming  into  being  of  man,  the  crown  of 
all  created  things.  Hudson,  Divine  Pedigree  of  Man:  "  Spirit  in  man  is  linked  with, 
because  derived  from,  God,  who  is  spirit." 

(  b  )  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Scriptures  do  not  disclose  the  method 
of  man's  creation.  Whether  man's  physical  system  is  or  is  not  derived, 
by  natural  descent,  from  the  lower  animals,  the  record  of  creation  does  not 
inform  us.  As  the  command  "Let  the  earth  bring  forth  living  creatures  " 
( Gen.  1  :  24 )  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  mediate  creation,  through 
natural  generation,  so  the  forming  of  man  "of  the  dust  of  the  ground" 
( Gen.  2:7)  does  not  in  itself  determine  whether  the  creation  of  man's  body 
was  mediate  or  immediate. 

We  may  believe  that  man  sustained  to  the  highest  preceding  brute  the  same  relation 
which  the  multiplied  bread  and  fish  sustained  to  the  five  loaves  and  two  fishes 
(  Mat.  14:19),  or  which  the  wine  sustained  to  the  water  which  was  transformed  at  Cana 
( John  2 :  7-10 ),  or  which  the  multiplied  oil  sustained  to  the  original  oil  in  the  O.  T.  miracle 
(2  14:1-7 ).  The  " dust, "  before  the  breathing  of  the  spirit  into  it,  may  have  been  ani- 
mated dust.  Natural  means  may  have  been  used,  so  far  as  they  would  go.  Sterrett, 
Reason  and  Authority  in  Religion,  39  —  "  Our  heredity  is  from  God,  even  though  it  be 
from  lower  forms  of  life,  and  our  goal  is  also  God,  even  though  it  be  through  iraper- 
"ect  manhood." 

SO  465 


466  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Evolution  does  not  make  the  idea  of  a  Creator  superfluous,  because  evolution  is  only 
the  method  of  God.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  a  Scriptural  doctrine  of  Creation 
that  man  should  emerge  at  the  proper  time,  governed  by  different  laws  from  the  brute 
creation  yet  growing  out  of  the  brute,  just  as  the  foundation  of  a  house  built  of  stone 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  wooden  structure  built  upon  it.  All  depends  upon  the 
plan.  An  atheistic  and  undesigning  evolution  cannot  include  man  without  excluding 
what  Christianity  regards  as  essential  to  man;  see  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through 
Christ,  43-73,  But  a  theistic  evolution  can  recognize  the  whole  process  of  man':, 
creation  ar.  equally  the  work  of  nature  and  the  work  of  God. 

Schurman,  Agnosticism  and  Religion,  42  —  "  You  are  not  what  you  have  come  from, 
but  what  you  have  become."  Huxley  said  of  the  brutes :  "  Whether  from  them  or  not, 
man  is  assuredly  not  of  them."  Ptleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1 :  289  —  "  The  religious  dig- 
nity of  man  rests  after  all  upon  what  he  is,  not  upon  the  mode  and  manner  in  which 
he  has  become  what  he  is."  Because  he  came/rom  a  beast,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is 
a  beast.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  man's  existence  can  be  traced  back  to  a  brute  ancestry 
furnish  any  proper  reason  why  the  brute  should  become  man.  Here  is  a  teleology 
which  requires  a  divine  Creatorship. 

J.  M.  Bronson  :  "  The  theist  must  accept  evolution  if  he  would  keep  his  argument 
for  the  existence  of  God  from  the  unity  of  design  in  nature.  Unless  man  is  an  end, 
he  is  an  anomaly.  The  greatest  argument  for  God  is  the  fact  that  all  animate  nature 
is  one  vast  and  connected  unity.  Man  has  developed  not from  the  ape,  but  away  from 
the  ape.  He  was  never  anything  but  potential  man.  He  did  not,  as  man,  come  into 
being  until  he  became  a  conscious  moral  agent."  This  conscious  moral  nature,  which 
we  call  personality,  requires  a  divine  Author,  because  it  surpasses  all  the  powers  w  Inch 
can  be  found  in  the  animal  creation.  Romanes,  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals,  tells  us 
that:  1.  Mollusca  learn  by  experience;  2.  Insects  and  spiders  recognize  offspring; 
3.  Fishes  make  mental  association  of  objects  by  their  similarity  ;  4.  Reptiles  recognize 
persons ;  5.  Hymenoptera,  as  bees  and  ants,  communicate  ideas ;  6.  Birds  recognize 
pictorial  representations  and  understand  words;  7.  Rodents,  as  rats  and  foxes,  under- 
stand mechanisms ;  8.  Monkeys  and  elephants  learn  to  use  tools ;  9.  Anthropoid  apes 
and  dogs  have  indefinite  morality. 

But  it  is  definite  and  not  indefinite  morality  which  differences  man  from  the  brute. 
Drummond,  in  his  Ascent  of  Man,  concedes  that  man  passed  through  a  period  when  he 
resembled  the  ape  more  than  any  known  animal,  but  at  the  same  time  declares  that 
no  anthropoid  ape  could  develop  into  a  man.  The  brute  can  be  defined  in  terms  of 
man,  but  man  cannot  be  defined  in  terms  of  the  brute.  It  is  significant  that  in  insan- 
ity the  higher  endowments  of  man  disappear  in  an  order  precisely  the  reverse  of  that 
in  which,  according  to  the  development  theory,  they  have  been  acquired.  The  highest 
part  of  man  totters  first.  The  last  added  is  first  to  suffer.  Man  moreover  can  transmit 
his  own  acquisitions  to  his  postei-ity,  as  the  brute  cannot.  "Weismann,  Heredity,  2:  69 
—  "  The  evolution  of  music  does  not  depend  upon  any  increase  of  the  musical  faculty 
or  any  alteration  in  the  inherent  physical  nature  of  man,  but  solely  upon  the  power  of 
transmitting  the  intellectual  achievements  of  each  generation  to  those  which  follow. 
This,  more  than  anything,  is  the  cause  of  the  superiority  of  men  over  animals  — this, 
and  not  merely  human  faculty,  although  it  may  be  admitted  that  this  latter  is  much 
higher  than  in  animals."  To  this  utterance  of  Weismann  we  would  add  that  human 
progress  depends  quite  as  much  upon  man's  power  of  reception  as  upon  man's  power 
of  transmission.  Interpretation  must  equal  expression  ;  and,  in  this  interpretation  of 
the  past,  man  has  a  guarantee  of  the  future  which  the  brute  does  not  possess. 

(c)  Psychology,  however,  comes  in  to  help  our  interpretation  of  Script- 
ure. The  radical  differences  between  man's  soul  and  the  principle  of 
intelligence  in  the  lower  animals,  especially  man's  possession  of  self-con- 
sciousness, general  ideas,  the  moral  sense,  and  the  power  of  self-determin- 
ation, show  that  that  which  chiefly  constitutes  him  man  could  not  have  been 
derived,  by  any  natural  process  of  development,  from  the  inferior  creatures. 
We  are  compelled,  then,  to  believe  that  God's  "breathing  into  man's  nos- 
trils the  breath  of  life"  (Gen.  2:7),  though  it  was  a  mediate  creation  as 
presupposing  existing  material  in  the  shape  of  animal  forms,  was  yet  an 
immediate  creation  in  the  sense  that  only  a  divine  reinforcement  of  the 


MAN"   A   CREATION"   OP   GOD    AND    A   CHILD    OF   GOD.  467 

process  of  life  turned  the  animal  into  man.  In  other  words,  man  came 
not  from  the  brute,  but  through  the  brute,  and  the  same  immanent  God 
who  had  previously  created  tht>  brute  created  also  the  man. 

Tennyson,  In  Memoriam,  XLV  — "The  baby  new  to  earth  and  sky.  What  time  his 
tender  palm  is  pressed  Against  the  circle  of  the  breast.  Has  never  thought  that  '  this  is 
I':  But  as  he  grows  he  gathers  nmcl),  And  learns  the  use  of 'I '  and  'me,'  And  finds 
'  I  am  not  what  I  see.  And  other  than  the  things  I  touch.'  So  rounds  he  to  a  separate 
mind  From  whence  clear  memory  may  begin,  As  thro'  the  frame  that  binds  him  in  His* 
isolation  grows  defined."  Fichte  called  that  the  birthday  of  his  child,  when  the  child 
awoke  to  self-consciousness  and  said  "  I."  Memory  goes  back  no  further  than  language. 
Knowledge  of  the  ego  is  objective,  before  it  is  subjective.  The  child  at  first  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  third  person  :  "  Henry  did  so  and  so."  Hence  most  men  do  not  remem- 
ber what  happened  before  their  third  year,  though  Samuel  Miles  Hopkins,  Memoir,  20, 
remembered  what  must  have  happened  when  he  was  only  23  months  old.  Only  a 
conscious  person  remembers,  and  he  remembers  only  as  his  will  exerts  itself  in 
attention. 

Jean  Paul  Richter,  quoted  in  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  110— "Never  shall  I  forget 
the  phenomenon  iu  myself,  ne\er  till  now  recited,  when  I  stood  by  the  birth  of  my 
own  self-consciousness,  the  place  an  1  time  of  which  are  distinct  in  my  memory.  On  a 
certain  forenoon,  I  stood,  a  very  young  child,  within  the  house-door,  and  was  looking 
out  toward  the  wood-pile,  as  in  an  instant  t  he  inner  revelation  '  I  am  I,'  like  lightniog 
from  heaven.  Hashed  and  stood  brightly  before  me  ;  in  that  moment  I  had  seen  myself 
as  I,  for  the  first  time  and  forever." 

Hoffding,  Outliues  of  Psychology,  3  —  "The  beginning  of  conscious  life  is  to  be 
placed  probably  before  birth.  .  .  .  Sensations  only  faintly  and  dimly  distinguished 
from  the  general  feeling  of  vegetative  comfort  and  discomfort.  Still  the  experiences 
undergone  before  birth  perhaps  suffice  to  form  the  foundation  of  the  consciousness  of 
an  external  world."  Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  283,  suggests  that  tins  early  state,  in 
which  the  child  speaks  of  self  in  the  third  person  and  is  devoid  of  ge?/-consciousDi  38, 
corresponds  to  the  brute  condition  of  the  race,  before  it  had  reached  self-consciousness, 
attained  language,  and  become  man.  Iu  the  race,  however,  there  was  no  heredity  to 
predetermine  self-consciousness  — it  was  a  new  acquisition,  marking  transition  to  a 
superior  order  of  being. 

Connecting  these  remarks  with  our  present  subject,  we  assert  that  no  brute  ever  yet 
said,  or  thought,  "  I."  With  this,  then,  we  may  begin  a  series  of  simple  distinctions 
between  man  and  the  brute,  so  far  as  the  immaterial  principle  in  each  is  concerned. 
These  are  mainly  compiled  from  writers  hereafter  mentioned. 

1.  The  brute  is  conscious,  but  man  is  self-conscious.  The  brute  does  not  objectify 
self.  "If  the  pig  could  once  say, '  I  am  a  pig,'  it  would  at  once  and  thereby  cease  to  be 
a  pig.''  The  brute  does  not  distiuguishitself  from  its  sensations.  The  brute  has  per- 
ception, but  only  the  man  has  apperception,  i.  c,  perception  accompanied  by  reference 
of  it  to  the  self  to  which  it  belongs. 

2.  The  brute  has  only  percepts;  man  has  also  concepts.  The  brute  knows  white 
things,  but  not  whiteness.  It  remembers  things,  but  not  thoughts.  Man  alone  has  the 
power  of  abstraction,  i.  c,  the  power  of  deriving  abstract  ideas  from  particular  things 
or  experiences. 

3.  Hence  the  brute  has  no  language.  "  Language  is  the  expression  of  general  notions 
by  symbols  "  ( Harris  ).  Words  are  the  symbols  of  concepts.  Where  there  are  no 
concepts  there  can  be  no  words.  The  parrot  utters  cries ;  but "  no  parrot  ever  yet 
spoke  a  true  word."  Since  language  is  a  sign,  it  presupposes  the  existence  of  an  intel- 
lect capable  of  understanding  the  sign, — iu  short,  language  is  the  effect  of  mind,  not 
the  cause  of  mind.  See  Mivart,  in  Brit.  Quar.,  Oct.  1881:151-172.  "The  ape's  tongue 
is  eloquent  in  his  own  dispraise."  James,  Psychology,  2 :  356  —  "The  notion  of  a  sign 
as  such,  and  the  general  purpose  to  apply  it  to  everything,  is  the  distinctive  character- 
istic of  man."  Why  do  not  animals  speak  ?  Because  they  have  nothing  to  say,  i.  e., 
have  no  general  ideas  which  words  might  express. 

4.  The  brute  forms  no  judgments,  e.  g.,  that  this  is  like  that,  accompanied  with  belief. 
Hence  there  is  no  sense  of  the  ridiculous,  and  no  laughter.  James,  Psychology,  2 :3(>0 
—  "  The  brute  does  not  associate  ideas  by  similarity  ....  Genius  in  man  is  the  pos- 
session of  this  power  of  association  in  an  extreme  degree." 

5.  The  brute  has  no  reasoning  — no  sense  that  th is  follows  from  that,  accompanied  by 
a  feeling  that  the  sequence  is  necessary.    Association  of  ideas  without  judgment  is  the 


468  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

typical  process  of  the  brute  mind,  though  not  that  of  the  mind  of  man.  See  Miud, 
5:403-409,575-581.  Man's  dream-life  is  the  best  analogue  to  the  mental  life  of  the 
brute. 

6.  The  brute  has  no  general  ideas  or  intuitions,  as  of  space,  time,  substance,  cause, 
right.  Hence  there  is  no  generalizing,  and  no  proper  experience  or  progress.  There 
is  no  capacity  for  improvement  in  animals.  The  brute  cannot  be  trained,  except  in 
certain  inferior  matters  of  association,  where  independent  judgment  is  not  required. 
No  animal  makes  tools,  uses  clothes,  cooks  food,  breeds  other  animals  for  food.    No 

•hunter's  dog,  however  long  its  observation  of  its  master,  ever  learned  to  put  wood  on 
a  fire  to  keep  itself  from  freezing.  Even  the  rudest  stone  implements  show  a  break  in 
continuity  and  mark  the  introduction  of  man  ;  see  J.  P.  Cook,  Credentials  of  Science, 
14.  "The  dog  can  see  the  printed  page  as  well  as  a  man  can,  but  no  dog  was  ever 
taught  to  read  a  book.  The  animal  cannot  create  in  its  own  mind  the  thoughts  of  the 
writer.  The  physical  in  man,  on  the  contrary,  is  only  an  aid  to  the  spiritual.  Educa- 
tion is  a  trained  capacity  to  discern  the  inner  meaning  and  deeper  relations  of  things. 
So  the  universe  is  but  a  symbol  and  expression  of  spirit,  a  garment  in  which  an  invisi- 
ble Power  has  robed  his  majesty  and  glory";  see  S.  S.  Times,  April  7,  1900.  In  man, 
mind  first  became  supreme. 

7.  The  brute  has  determination,  but  not  self-determination.  There  is  no  freedom  of 
choice,  no  conscious  forming  of  a  purpose,  and  no  self-movement  toward  a  predeter- 
mined end.  The  donkey  is  determined,  but  not  self-determined ;  he  is  the  victim  of 
heredity  and  environment ;  he  acts  only  as  he  is  acted  upon.  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of 
Theism,  537-554  —  "  Man,  though  implicated  in  nature  through  his  bodily  organization, 
is  in  his  personality  supernatural;  the  brute  is  wholly  submerged  in  nature.  .  .  .  Man  is 
like  a  ship  in  the  sea  —  in  it,  yet  above  it — guiding  his  course,  by  observing  the  heav- 
ens, even  against  wind  and  current.  A  brute  has  no  such  power;  it  is  in  nature  like  a 
balloon,  wholly  immersed  in  air,  and  driven  about  by  its  currents,  with  no  power  of 
steering."  Calderwood,  Philosophy  of  Evolution,  chapter  on  Right  and  Wrong- :  "The 
grand  distinction  of  human  life  is  self-control  in  the  field  of  action  —  control  over  all 
the  animal  impulses,  so  that  these  do  not  spontaneously  and  of  themselves  determine 
activity"  [as  they  do  in  the  brute].  By  what  Mivart  calls  a  process  of  "inverse 
anthropomorphism,"  we  clothe  the  brute  with  the  attributes  of  freedom ;  but  it  does 
not  really  possess  them.  Just  as  we  do  not  transfer  to  God  all  our  human  imperfec- 
tions, so  we  ought  not  to  transfer  all  our  human  perfections  to  the  brute,  "reading 
our  full  selves  in  life  of  lower  forms."  The  brute  has  no  power  to  choose  between 
motives ;  it  simply  obeys  motive.  The  necessitarian  philosophy,  therefore,  is  a  correct 
and  excellent  philosophy  for  the  brute.  But  man's  power  of  initiative  — in  short,  man's 
free  will  — renders  it  impossible  to  explain  his  higher  nature  as  a  mere  natural  devel- 
opment from  the  inferior  creatures.  Even  Huxley  has  said  that,  taking  mind  into 
the  account,  there  is  between  man  and  the  highest  beasts  an  "enormous  gulf,"  a 
"  divergence  immeasurable  "  and  "  practically  infinite." 

8.  The  brute  has  no  conscience  and  no  religious  nature.  No  dog  ever  brought  back 
to  the  butcher  the  meat  it  had  stolen.  "  The  aspen  trembles  without  fear,  and  dogs 
skulk  without  guilt."  The  dog  mentioned  by  Darwin,  whose  behavior  in  presence  of  a 
newspaper  moved  by  the  wind  seemed  to  testify  to  'a  sense  of  the  supernatural,'  was 
merely  exhibiting  the  irritation  due  to  the  sense  of  an  unknown  future ;  see  James,  Will 
to  Believe,  79.  The  bearing  of  flogged  curs  does  not  throw  light  upon  the  nature  of 
conscience.  If  ethics  is  not  hedonism,  if  moral  obligation  is  not  a  refined  utilitarianism, 
if  the  right  is  something  distinct  from  the  good  we  get  out  of  it,  then  there  must  be  a 
flaw  in  the  theory  that  man's  conscience  is  simply  a  development  of  brute  instincts; 
and  a  reinforcement  of  brute  life  from  the  divine  source  of  life  must  be  postulated  in 
order  to  account  for  the  appearance  of  man.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  105-107 — "Is 
the  spirit  of  man  derived  from  the  soul  of  the  animal?  No,  for  neither  one  of  these 
has  self-existence.  Both  are  self -differentiations  of  God.  The  latter  is  simply  God's 
preparation  for  the  former."  Calderwood,  Evolution  and  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  337, 
ipeaks  of  "  the  impossibility  of  tracing  the  origin  of  man's  rational  life  to  evolution 

fj"~\n  a  lower  life There  are  no  physical  forces  discoverable  in  nature  sufficient 

i4  account  for  the  appearance  of  this  life."  Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  186  — 
"  Man's  place  has  been  won  by  an  entire  change  in  the  limitations  of  his  psychic  devel- 
opment  The  old  bondage  of  the  mind  to  the  body  is  swept  away In  this 

new  freedom  we  find  the  one  dominant  characteristic  of  man,  the  feature  which 
entitles  us  to  class  him  as  an  entirely  new  class  of  animal." 


MAN  A   CREATION   OF  GOD   AND  A   CHILD   OF  GOD.  469 

John  Burroughs,  Ways  of  Nature  :  "  Animal  life  parallels  human  life  at  many  points, 
but  it  is  in  another  plane.  Something  guides  the  lower  animals,  but  it  is  not  thought ; 
something  restrains  them,  but  it  is  not  judgment;  they  are  provident  without 
prudence;  they  are  active  without  industry  ;  they  are  skilful  without  practice  ;  they  are 
wise  without  knowledge  ;  they  are  rational  without  reason  ;  they  are  deceptive  without 

guile When  they  are  joyful,  they  sing  or  they  play ;  when  they  are  distressed, 

they  moan  or  they  cry ;  .  .  .  .  and  yet  I  do  not  suppose  they  experience  the  emotion 
of  joy  or  sorrow,  or  anger  or  love,  as  we  do,  because  these  feelings  in  them  do  not 
involve  reflection,  memory,  and  what  we  call  the  higher  nature,  as  with  us."  Their 
instinct  is  intelligence  directed  outward,  never  inward,  as  in  man.  They  share  with 
man  the  emotions  of  his  animal  nature,  but  not  of  his  moral  or  aesthetic  nature;  they 
know  no  altruism,  no  moral  code."  Mr.  Burroughs  maintains  that  we  have  no  proof 
that  animals  in  a  state  of  nature  can  reflect,  form  abstract  ideas,  associate  cause  and 
effect.  Animals,  for  instance,  that  store  up  food  for  the  winter  simply  follow  a  provi- 
dent instinct  but  do  not  take  thought  for  the  future,  any  more  than  does  the  tree  that 
forms  new  buds  for  the  coming  season,  lie  sums  up  his  position  as  follows:  "To 
attribute  human  motives  and  faculties  to  the  animals  is  to  caricature  them;  but  to 
put  us  in  BUCb  relation  to  them  that  we  feel  their  kinship,  that  we  see  their  lives 
embosomed  in  the  same  iron  necessity  as  our  own,  that  we  see  in  their  minds  a 
humbler  manifestation  of  the  same  psychic  power  and  intelligence  that  culminates  ami 
is  conscious  of  itself  in  man  —  that,  I  take  it,  is  the  true  humanization."  We  assent  to 
all  this  except  the  ascription  to  human  life  of  the  same  iron  necessity  that  rules  the 
animal  creation.  Man  is  man,  because  his  free  will  transcends  the  limitations  of  the 
brute. 

While  we  grant,  then,  that  man  is  the  last  stage  in  the  development  of  life  and  that 
he  has  a  brute  ancestry,  we  regard  him  also  as  the  offspring  of  God.  The  same  God 
who  was  the  author  of  the  brute  became  in  due  time  the  creator  of  man.  Though  man 
came  tlirough  the  brute,  he  did  not  come  from  the  brute,  but  from  God,  the  Father  of 
spirits  and  the  author  of  all  life.  CEdipus'  territic  oracle:  "  Mayst  thou  ne'er  know 
the  truth  of  what  thou  art !  "  might  well  be  uttered  to  those  who  believe  only  in  the 
brute  origin  of  man.  Pascal  says  it  is  dangerous  to  let  man  see  too  clearly  that  ho  is 
on  a  level  with  the  animals  unless  at  the  same  time  we  show  him  his  greatness.  The 
doctrine  that  the  brute  is  Imperfect  man  is  logically  connected  with  the  doctrine  that 
man  is  a  perfect  brute.  Thomas  Carlyle  :  "II  this  brute  philosophy  is  true,  then  man 
should  go  on  all  fours,  and  not  lay  claim  to  the  dignity  of  being  moral."  (i.  F.  Wright, 
Ant.  and  Origin  of  Human  Race,  lecture  IX  —  "  One  or  other  of  the  lower  animals  may 
exhibit  all  the  faculties  used  by  a  child  of  fifteen  months.  The  difference  may  seem 
very  little,  but  what  there  is  is  very  important.    It  is  like  the  difference  in  direction  in 

the  early  stages  of  two  separating  curves,  which  go  on  forever  diverging The 

probability  is  that  both  in  his  bodily  and  in  his  mental  development  man  appeared  as  a 
sport  io  nature,  and  leaped  at  once  in  some  single  pair  from  the  plane  of  irrational 
being  to  the  possession  of  the  higher  powers  thai  have  ever  since  characterized  him 
and  dominated  both  his  development  and  his  history-" 

Scripture  seems  to  teach  the  doctrine  that  man's  nature  is  the  creation  of  God.  Gen. 
2:7 —  "Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  tho  breath  of  life ;  and  man 
became  a  living  soul "  — appears,  says  Hovey  (State  of  the  Impen.  Dead,  If),  "  to  distinguish 
the  vital  informing  principle  of  human  nature  from  its  material  part,  pronouncing  the 
former  to  be  more  directly  from  God,  and  more  akin  to  him,  than  the  latter."  So  in 
Zech.  12 . i  —  "Jehovah,  who  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens,  and  lajeth  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  formeth  the 
spirit  of  man  within  him"  —  the  soul  is  recognized  as  distinct  in  nature  from  the  body,  and  of 
a  dignity  and  value  far  beyond  those  of  any  material  organism.  Job  32: 8 — "there  is  a 
spirit  in  man,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding  "  ;  Eccl.  12 : 7  —  "  the  dust  returneth  to  the 
earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  returneth  unto  God  who  gave  it."  A  sober  view  of  the  similarities  and 
differences  between  man  and  the  lower  animals  may  be  found  in  Lloyd  Morgan,  Animal 
Lib'  and  Intelligence.  See  also  Martincau,  Types,  2  :  65,  140,  and  Study,  1 :  180 ;  2  :  9,  13, 
184,350;  Hopkins,  Outline  Study  of  Man,  8:23;  Chadbourne,  Instinct,  187-211;  Porter, 
Hum.  Intellect,  384,  386,  397;  Bascom,  Science  of  Mind,  295-305;  Mansel,  Metaphysics,  49, 
50 ;  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.  1881 :  104-128 ;  Heuslow,  in  Nature,  May  1,  1879  :  21,  23 ;  Ferrier, 
Remains,  2 :  39 ;  Argyll,  Unity  of  Nature,  117-119;  Bib.  Sac,  29:275-282;  Max  Muller, 
Lectures  on  Philos.  of  Language,  no.  1,  2,  3 ;  F.  W.  Robertson,  Lectures  on  Genesis,  21  ; 
LeConte,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  May,  1884:  236-201;  Lindsay,  Mind  in  Lower  Animals; 
Romanes,  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals ;  Fiske,  The  Destiny  of  Man. 


470  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 

(d)  Comparative  physiology,  moreover,  lias,  up  to  the  present  time, 
done  nothing  to  forbid  the  extension  of  this  doctrine  to  man's  body.  No 
single  instance  has  yet  been  adduced  of  the  transformation  of  one  animal 
species  into  another,  either  by  natural  or  artificial  selection  ;  much  less  has 
it  been  demonstrated  that  the  body  of  the  brute  has  ever  been  developed 
into  that  of  man.  All  evolution  implies  progress  and  reinforcement  of  life, 
and  is  unintelligible  except  as  the  immanent  God  gives  new  impulses  to  the 
process.  Apart  from  the  direct  agency  of  God,  the  view  that  man's 
physical  system  is  descended  by  natural  generation  from  some  ancestral 
simian  form  can  be  regarded  only  as  an  irrational  hypothesis.  Since  the 
soul,  then,  is  an  immediate  creation  of  God,  and  the  forming  of  man's  body 
is  mentioned  by  the  Scripture  writer  in  direct  connection  with  this  creation 
of  the  spirit,  man's  body  was  in  this  sense  an  immediate  creation  also. 

For  the  theory  of  natural  selection,  see  Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  398-424,  and  Descent 
of  Man,  2 :  368-387 ;  Huxley,  Critiques  aud  Addresses,  241-209,  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  71- 
138,  Lay  Sermons,  323,  and  art.':  Biology,  in  Encyc.  Britannica,  9th  ed. ;  Romanes, 
Scientific  Evidences  of  Organic  Evolution.  The  theory  holds  that,  in  the  struggle  for 
existence,  the  varieties  best  adapted  to  their  surroundings  succeed  in  maintaining  and 
reproducing  themselves,  while  the  rest  die  out.  Thus,  by  gradual  change  and  improve- 
ment of  lower  into  higher  forms  of  life,  man  has  been  evolved.  We  grant  that  Darwin 
has  disclosed  one  of  the  important  features  of  God's  method.  We  concede  the  partial 
truth  of  his  theory.  We  find  it  supported  by  the  vertebrate  structure  and  nervous 
organization  which  man  has  in  common  with  the  lower  animals;  by  the  facts  of  embry- 
onic development ;  of  rudimentary  organs ;  of  common  diseases  and  remedies ;  and  of 
reversion  to  former  types.  But  we  refuse  to  regard  natural  selection  as  a  complete 
explanation  of  the  history  of  life,  and  that  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  It  gives  no  account  of  the  origin  of  substance,  nor  of  the  origin  of  variations. 
Darwinism  simply  says  that  "  round  stones  will  roll  down  hill  further  than  flat  ones" 
( Gray,  Natural  Science  and  Religion ).  It  accounts  for  the  selection,  not  for  the 
creation,  of  forms.  "  Natural  selection  originates  nothing.  It  is  a  destructive,  not  a 
creative,  principle.  If  we  must  idealize  it  as  a  positive  force,  we  must  think  of  it,  not 
as  the  preserver  of  the  fittest,  but  as  the  destroyer,  that  follows  ever  in  the  wake  of 
creation  and  devours  the  failures ;  the  scavenger  of  creation,  that  takes  out  of  the  way 
forms  which  are  not  fit  to  live  and  reproduce  themselves"  ( Johnson,  on  Theistic 
Evolution,  in  Andover  Review,  April,  1SS4  :  303-381 ).  Natural  selection  is  only  unin- 
telligent repression.  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species  is  in  fact  "not  the  Genesis,  but  the 
Exodus,  of  living  forms."  Sehurman :  "The  survival  of  the  fittest  does  nothing  to 
explain  the  arrival  of  the  fittest";  see  also  DeVries,  Species  and  Varieties,  ad  fine  m. 
Darwin  himself  acknowledged  that  "  Our  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  variation  is  pro- 
found. .  .  .  The  cause  of  each  slight  variation  and  of  each  monstrosity  lies  much  more 
in  the  nature  or  constitution  of  the  organism  than  in  the  nature  of  the  surrounding 
conditions"  (quoted  by  Mivart,  Lessons  from  Nature,  280-301).  Weismann  has  there- 
fore modified  the  Darwinian  theory  by  asserting  that  there  would  be  no  development 
unless  there  were  a  spontaneous,  innate  tendency  to  variation.  In  this  innate  tendency 
we  see,  not  mere  nature,  but  the  work  of  an  originating  and  superintending  God. 
E.  M.  Caillard,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1^93  :  873-881 — "Spirit  was  the  moulding  power, 
from  the  beginning,  of  those  lower  forms  which  would  ultimately  become  man.  Instead 
of  the  physical  derivation  of  the  soul,  we  propose  the  spiritual  derivation  of  the  body." 

2.  Some  of  the  most  important  forms  appear  suddenly  in  the  geological  record,  with- 
out connecting  links  to  unite  them  with  the  past.  The  first  fishes  are  the  Ganoid,  large 
in  size  and  advanced  in  type.  There  are  no  intermediate  gradations  between  the  ape 
and  man.  Huxley,  in  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  94,  tells  us  that  the  lowest  gorilla  has  a 
skull  capacity  of  24  cubic  inches,  whereas  the  highest  gorilla  has  34£.  Over  against  this, 
the  lowest  man  has  a  skull  capacity  of  02 ;  though  men  with  less  than  65  are  invariably 
idiotic;  the  highest  man  has  114.  Professor  Burt  G.  Wilder  of  Cornell  University : 
"  The  largest  ape-brain  is  only  half  as  large  as  the  smallest  normal  human."  Wallace, 
Darwinism,  458—"  The  average  human  brain  weighs  48  or  49  ounces ;  the  average  ape's 
brain  is  only  18  ounces."    The  brain  of  Daniel  Webster  weighed  53  ounces;  but  Dr 


MAN    A    CiiEATION    OF   GOD   AND    A   CHILD   OF    GOD.  471 

Bastian  tells  of  an  imbecile  whose  intellectual  deficiency  was  congenital,  yet  whose 
brain  weighed  55  ounces.  Large  heads  do  not  always  indicate  great  intellect.  Profes- 
sor Virchow  points  out  that  the  Greeks,  one  of  the  most  intellectual  of  nations,  arc 
also  one  of  the  smallest-headed  of  all.  Bain  :  "  While  the  size  of  the  brain  increases  in 
arithmetical    proportion,    intellect tittl    range  increases  in    geometrical  proportion." 

Respecting  the  Enghis  and  Neanderthal  crania,  Huxley  says:  "The  fossil  remains 
of  man  hitherto  discovered  do  not  seem  to  me  to  take  us  appreciably  nearer  to  that 
lower  pithecoid  form  by  the  modification  of  which  he  has  probably  become  what  he  is. 
...  In  vain  have  the  links  which  should  bind  man  to  the  monkey  been  sought :  not  a 
single  one  is  there  to  show.  The  so-called  Protanthropos  who  should  exhibit  this  link 
has  not  been  found.  .  .  .  None  have  been  found  that  stood  nearer  the  monkey  than  the 
men  of  to-day."  Huxley  argues  that  the  difference  between  man  and  the  gorilla  is 
smaller  than  that  between  the  gorilla  and  some  apes ;  if  the  gorilla  and  the  apes  con- 
stitute one  family  and  have  a  common  origin,  may  not  man  and  the  gorilla  have  a 
common  ancestry  also?  We  reply  that  the  Bpace  between  the  lowest  ape  and  the 
highest  gorilla  is  tilled  inwith  numberless  intermediate  gradations.  The  space  bet  ween 
the  lowest  man  and  the  highest  man  is  also  filled  in  witli  many  types  that  shade  off 
one  into  the  other.  But  the  space  between  the  highest  gorilla  and  the  lowest  man  is 
absolutely  vacant;  there  are  no  intermediate  types;  no  connecting  links  between 
the  ape  and  man  have  yet  been  found. 

Professor  Virchow  has  also  very  recently  expressed  his  belief  that  no  relics  of  any 
predecessor  of  man  have  yet  been  discovered.  He  said:  "In  my  judgment,  no  skull 
hitherto  discovered  can  be  regarded  as  that  of  a  predecessor  of  man.  In  the  course 
of  the  last  fifteen  years  we  have  had  opportunities  of  examining  skulls  of  all  the 
various  races  of  mankind  — even  of  the  most  savage  tribes;  and  among  them  all  no 
group  has  been  observed  differing  in  its  essential  Characters  from  the  general  human 
type.  .  .  .  Out  of  nil  thi'  skulls  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  there  is  not  one  that  lies 
outside  the  boundaries  of  our  present  population."  Dr.  Eugene  Dubois  has  discovered 
in  the  Post-pliocene  deposits  of  the  island  of  Java  the  remains  of  a  preeminently 
hominine  anthropoid  which  he  calls  Pithecanthropus  ereetus.  Its  cranial  capacity 
approaches  the  physiological  minimum  in  man,  and  is  double  that  of  the  gorilla.  The 
thigh  bone  is  in  form  ami  dimensions  the  absolute  analogue  of  that  of  man,  and  gives 
evidence  of  having  supported  a  habitually  erect  body.  Dr.  Dubois  unhesitatingly 
places  this  extinct  Javan  ape  as  the  intermediate  form  between  man  and  the  true 
anthropoid  apes.  Haeckel  (  in  The  Nation,  Sept.  15,  180*  )  and  Keane  (  in  Man  Past 
and  Present,  3  ),  regard  the  Pithecanthropus  as  a  "■missing  link."  Hut  ''.Nature" 
regards  it  as  the  remains  of  a  human  microcephalous  idiot.  In  addition  to  all  tins,  it 
deserves  to  be  noticed  that  man  does  not  degenerate  ae  we  travel  back  in  time.  "  The 
Enghis  Skull,  the  contemporary  of  the  mammoth  and  t  he  cave-bear,  is  as  large  as  the 
average  of  to-day,  and  might  have  belonged  to  a  philosopher."  The  monkey  nearest 
to  man  in  physical  f(  irm  is  no  more  intelligent  than  t  he  elephant  or  the  bee. 

;s.  There  are  certain  facts  which  mere  heredity  cannot  explain,  such  for  example  as 
the  origin  of  the  working-bee  from  thequeen  and  the  drone,  neither  of  which  produces 
honey.  The  working-bee,  moreover,  does  not  transmit  the  honey-making  instinct  to 
its  posterity;  for  it  is  sterile  and  childless,  [f  man  had  descended  from  the  conscience- 
less brute,  we  should  expect  him,  when  degraded,  to  revert  to  his  primitive  type.  On 
the  contrary,  he  does  not  revert  to  the  brute,  but  dies  out  instead.  The  theory  can 
give  no  explanation  of  beauty  in  the  lowest  forms  of  life,  such  as  molluscs  and  diatoms. 
Darwin  grants  that  this  beauty  must  be  of  use  to  its  possessor,  in  order  to  be  consist- 
ent with  its  origination  through  natural  selection.  But  no  such  use  has  yet  been 
shown ;  for  the  creatures  which  possess  the  beauty  often  live  in  the  dark,  or  have  no 
eyes  to  see.  So,  too,  the  large  brain  of  the  savage  is  beyond  his  needs,  and  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  principle  of  natural  selection  which  teaches  that  no  organ  can  perma- 
nently attain  a  size  unrequired  by  its  needs  and  its  environment.  See  Wallace,  Natural 
Selection,  338-360.  G.  F.  Wright,  Man  and  the  Glacial  Epoch,  242-301  — "  That  man's 
bodily  organization  is  in  some  way  a  development  from  some  extinct  member  of  the 
animal  kingdom  allied  to  the  anthropoid  apes  is  scarcely  any  longer  susceptible  of 
doubt.  .  .  .  But  he  is  certainly  not  descended  from  any  existing  species  of  anthro- 
poid apes.  .  .  .  When  once  mind  became  supreme,  the  bodily  adjustment  must  have 
been  rapid,  if  indeed  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  bodily  preparation  for 
the  highest  mental  faculties  was  instantaneous,  or  by  what  is  called  in  nature  a  sport.''' 
With  this  statement  of  Dr.  Wright  we  substantially  agree,  and  therefore  differ  from 


472  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Shedd  when  he  says  that  there  is  just  as  much  reason  for  supposing-  that  monkeys  are 
degenerate  men,  as  that  men  are  improved  monkeys.  Shakespeare,  Timon  of  Athens, 
1:1:  249,  seems  to  have  hinted  the  view  of  Dr.  Shedd :  "  The  strain  of  man 's  bred  out 
into  baboon  and  monkey."  Bishop  Wilberforce  asked  Huxley  whether  he  was  related 
to  an  ape  on  his  grandfather's  or  grandmother's  side.  Huxley  replied  that  he  should 
prefer  such  a  relationship  to  having-  for  an  ancestor  a  man  who  used  his  position  as  a 
minister  of  religion  to  ridicule  truth  which  he  did  not  comprehend.  "  Mamma,  am  I 
descended  from  a  monkey?"  "I  do  not  know,  William,  I  never  met  any  of  your 
father's  people." 

4.  No  species  is  yet  known  to  have  been  produced  either  by  artificial  or  by  natural 
selection.  Huxley,  Lay  Sermons,  323 —  "  It  is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a  group  of 
animals  having  all  the  characters  exhibited  by  species  in  nature  has  ever  been  origi- 
nated by  selection,  whether  artificial  or  natural  "  ;  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  107  —  "  Our 
acceptance  of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  must  be  provisional,  so  long  as  one  link  in  the 
chain  of  evidence  is  wanting ;  and  so  long  as  all  the  animals  and  plants  certainly  pro- 
duced by  selective  breeding  from  a  common  stock  are  fertile  with  one  another,  that 
link  will  be  wanting."  Huxley  has  more  recently  declared  that  the  missing  proof  has 
been  found  in  the  descent  of  the  modern  horse  with  one  toe,  from  Hipparion  with  two 
toes,  Anchitheriuni  with  three,  and  Orohippus  with  four.  Even  if  this  were  demon- 
strated, we  should  still  maintain  that  the  only  proper  analogue  was  to  be  found  in  that 
artificial  selection  by  which  man  produces  new  varieties,  and  that  natural  selection  can 
bring  about  no  useful  results  and  show  no  progress,  unless  it  be  the  method  and  revela- 
tion of  a  wise  and  designing  mind.  In  other  words,  selection  implies  intelligence  and 
will,  and  therefore  cannot  be  exclusively  natural.  Mivart,  Man  and  Apes,  192  —  "If  it 
is  inconceivable  and  impossible  for  man's  body  to  be  developed  or  to  exist  without 
his  informing  soul,  we  conclude  that,  as  no  natural  process  accounts  for  the  different 
kind  of  soul  — one  capable  of  articulately  expressing  general  conceptions,  —  so  no 
merely  natural  process  can  account  for  the  origin  of  the  body  informed  by  it  — a  body 
to  which  such  an  intellectual  faculty  was  so  essentially  and  intimately  related."  Thus 
Mivart,  who  once  considered  that  evolution  could,  account  for  man's  body,  now  holds 
instead  that  it  can  account  neither  for  man's  body  nor  for  his  soul,  and  calls  natural 
selection  "a  puerile  hypothesis"  (Lessons  from  Nature,  300;  Essays  and  Criticisms, 
2  :  289-314 ). 

( e )  While  we  concede,  then,  that  man  has  a  brute  ancestry,  we  make 
two  claims  by  way  of  qualification  and  explanation  :  first,  that  the  laws 
of  organic  development  which  have  been  followed  in  man's  origin  are  only 
the  methods  of  God  and  proofs  of  his  creatorship ;  secondly,  that  man, 
when  he  appears  upon  the  scene,  is  no  longer  brute,  but  a  self-conscious 
and  self-determining  being,  made  in  the  image  of  his  Creator  and  capable 
of  free  moral  decision  between  good  and  evil. 

Both  man's  original  creation  and  his  new  creation  in  regeneration  are  creations  from 
within,  rather  than  from  without.  In  both  cases,  God  builds  the  new  upon  the  basis 
of  the  old.  Man  is  not  a  product  of  blind  forces,  but  is  rather  an  emanation  from  that 
same  divine  life  of  which  the  brute  was  a  lower  manifestation.  The  fact  that  God 
used  preexisting  material  does  not  prevent  his  authorship  of  the  result.  The  wine  in 
the  miracle  was  not  water  because  water  had  been  used  in  the  making  of  it,  nor  is  man 
a  brute  because  the  brute  has  made  some  contributions  to  his  creation.  Professor  John 
H.  Strong:  "Some  who  freely  allow  the  presence  and  power  of  God  in  the  age-long 
process  seem  nevertheless  not  clearly  to  see  that,  in  the  final  result  of  finished  man, 
God  successfully  revealed  himself.  God's  work  was  never  really  or  fully  done  ;  man 
was  a  compound  of  brute  and  man  ;  and  a  compound  of  two  such  elements  could  not 
be  said  to  possess  the  qualities  of  either.  God  did  not  really  succeed  in  bringing  moral 
personality  to  birth.  The  evolution  was  incomplete  ;  man  is  still  on  all  fours ;  he  cannot 
sin,  because  he  was  begotten  of  the  brute  ;  no  fall,  and  no  regeneration,  is  conceivable. 
We  assert,  on  the  contrary,  that,  though  man  came  through  the  brute,  he  did  not  come 
from  the  brute.  He  came  from  God,  Avhose  immanent  life  he  reveals,  whose  image  he 
reflects  in  a  finished  moral  personality.  Because  God  succeeded,  a  fall  was  possible. 
We  can  believe  in  the  age-long  creation  of  evolution,  provided  only  that  this  evolution 
completed  itself.  With  that  proviso,  sin  remains  and  the  fall."  See  also  A.  H.  Strong, 
Christ  in  Creation,  163-180. 


MAN    A   CREATION    OF   GOD   AND   A   CHILD   OF    GOD.  473 

Au  atheistic  and  unteleological  evolution  is  a  reversion  to  the  savage  view  of  animals 
as  brethren,  and  to  the  heathen  idea  of  a  sphynx-man  growing  out  of  the  brute. 
Darwin  himself  did  not  deny  God's  authorship.  He  closes  his  first  great  book  with  the 
declaration  that  life,  with  all  its  potaucies,  was  originally  breathed  '•  by  the  Creator  " 
into  the  first  forms  of  organic  being.  And  in  his  letters  he  refers  with  evident  satisfac- 
tion to  Charles  Kingsley's  finding  nothing  in  the  theory  which  was  inconsistent  with 
an  earnest  Christian  faith.  It  was  not  Darwin,  but  disciples  like  Haeckel,  who  put  for- 
ward the  theory  as  making  the  hypothesis  of  a  Creator  superfluous.  We  grant  the 
principle  of  evolution,  but  we  regard  it  as  only  the  method  of  the  divine  intelligence, 
and  must  moreover  consider  it  as  preceded  by  an  original  creative  act,  introducing  veg- 
etable and  animal  life,  and  as  supplemented  by  other  creative  acts,  at  the  introduction 
of  man  and  at  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  Chadwick,  Old  and  New  Unitarianism,  33 — 
"What  seemed  to  wreck  our  faith  in  human  nature  [its  origin  from  the  brute]  has 
been  its  grandest  confirmation.  For  nothing  argues  the  essential  dignity  of  man  more 
clearly  than  his  triumph  over  the  limitations  of  his  brute  Inheritance,  while  the  long 
way  that  he  has  come  is  prophecy  of  the  moral  heights  undreamed  of  that  await  his 
tireless  feet."  All  this  is  true  if  we  regard  human  nature,  not  as  an  undesigned  result 
of  atheistic  evolution,  but  as  the  efflux  and  reflection  of  the  divine  personality. 
K.  E.  Thompson,  in  S.  s.  Times,  Dec.  89,  1906  -"the  greatest  fact  In  heredity  is  our 
descent  from  God,  and  the  greatest  fact  in  environment  is  his  presence  in  human  life 
at  every  point." 

The  atheistic  conception  of  evolution  is  well  satirized  in  the  verse :  "  There  was  an  ape 
in  days  that  were  earlier ;  Centuries  passed  and  his  bait-  became  curlier;  <  lenturies  more 
and  his  thumb  gave  a  twist,  And  he  was  a  man  and  a  Positivist."  That  this  concep- 
tion is  not  a  in  i-i  gsarj  conclusion  of  modern  science,  is  clear  from  the  statements  of 
Wallace,  the  author  with  Darwin  of  the  theory  of  natural  selection.  Wallace  believes 
that  man's  body  was  developed  from  the  brute,  but  he  thinks  there  have  been  three 
breaks  in  continuity  :  1.  the  appearance  of  life;  2.  the  appearance  of  sensation  and 
consciousness ;  and  3.  the  appearance  of  spirit.  These  seem  to  correspond  to  L  vege- 
table; 2.  animal;  and  3.  human  life.  He  thinks  natural  selection  may  account  for 
man's  place  in  nature,  but  not  for  man's  place  above  nature,  as  a  spiritual  being.  See 
Wallace,  Darwinism,  445-478  —  "  1  fully  accept  Mr.  Darwin's  conclusion  as  to  t  lie  essen- 
tial identity  of  man's  bodily  structure  with  that  of  the  higher  mammalia,  and  his 
descent  from  some  ancestral  form  common  to  man  and  t  he  ant  hropoid  apes."  But  tin- 
conclusion  that  man's  high"r  faculi  ies  bavealso  been  derived  from  the  lower  animals 
"appears  to  me  not  to  be  supported  by  adequate  evidence,  and  to  be  directly  opposed 
to  many  well-ascertained  facts  "  U«l).  .  .  .  The  mathematical,  the  artistic  and  musical 
faculties,  are  results,  not  causes,  of  advancement, — they  do  not  help  in  the  struggle 
for  existence  and  could  not  have  been  developed  by  natural  selection.  The  intro- 
duction of  life  (vegetable),  of  consciousness  (animal),  of  higher  faculty  (human), 
point  clearly  to  a  world  of  spirit,  to  which  the  world  of  matter  is  subordinate  (  474-470 ). 
.  .  .  Man's  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  could  not  have  been  developed  from  the 
animal,  but  must  have  had  another  origin  ;  and  for  this  origin  we  can  find  an  adequate 
cause  only  in  the  world  of  spirit." 

Wallace,  Natural  Selection,  338—  "The  average  cranial  capacity  of  the  lowest  savage 
is  probably  not  less  than  five-sixths  of  that  of  the  highest  civilized  races,  while  the  brain 
of  the  anthropoid  apes  scarcely  amounts  to  one-third  of  that  of  man,  in  both  cases 
taking  the  average ;  or  the  proportions  may  be  represented  by  the  following  figures : 
anthropoid  apes,  10  ;  savages,  26 ;  civilized  man,  32."  Il>i<l.,  300 — "  The  inference  I  would 
draw  from  this  class  of  phenomena  is,  that  a  superior  intelligence  has  guided  the  devel- 
opment of  man  in  a  definite  direction  and  for  a  special  purpose,  just  as  man  guides  I  he 
development  of  many  animal  and  vegetable  forms.  .  .  .  The  controlling  action  of  a 
higher  intelligence  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  laws  of  nature,  just  as  the  action  of  all 
surrounding  organisms  is  one  of  the  agencies  in  organic  development,  — else  the  laws 
which  govern  the  material  universe  are  insufficient  for  the  production  of  man."  Sir 
Wm.  Thompson;  "  That  man  could  be  evolved  out  of  inferior  animals  is  the  wildest 
dream  of  materialism,  a  pure  assumption  which  offends  me  alike  by  its  folly  and  by  its 
arrogance."  Hartmann,  in  bis  Anthropoid  Apes,  302-300,  while  not  despairing  of  "  the 
possibility  of  discovering  the  true  link  between  the  world  of  man  and  mammals," 
declares  that  "  that  purely  hypothetical  being,  the  common  ancestor  of  man  and  apes, 
is  still  to  be  found,"  and  that  "  man  cannot  have  descended  from  any  of  the  fossil 
species  which  have  hitherto  come  to  our  notice,  nor  yet  from  any  of  the  species  of  apes 
now  extant."    See  Dana,  Amer.  Journ.  Science  and  Arts,  1876:  251,  and  Geology,  603, 


474  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    MAN. 

604;  Lotze,  Mikrokosmos,  vol.  I,  bk.  3,  chap.  1 ;  Mivart,  Genesis  of  Species,  202-233,  259- 
307,  Man  and  Apes,  88, 1-19-193,  Lessons  from  Nature,  138-342,  280-301,  The  Cat,  and  Ency- 
clop.  Britannica,  art. :  Apes ;  Quatrefages,  Natural  History  of  Man,  64-87 ;  Bp.  Temple, 
Bampton  Lect.,  1884 :  161-189  ;  Dawson,  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man,  331-339 ;  Duke  of 
Argyll,  Primeval  Man,  38-75;  Asa  Gray,  Natural  Science  and  Religion;  Sch  mid,  Theo- 
ries of  Darwin,  115-140 ;  Carpenter,  Mental  Physiology,  59 ;  Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy 
Scripture,  55-86 ;  Bible  Commentary,  1:43;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  136;  Le  Conte,  in 
Princeton  Rev.,  Nov.  1878 :  776-803 ;  Z5ckler  Urgeschichte,  81-105 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
1 :  499-515.    Also,  see  this  Compendium,  pages  392,  393. 

(/)  The  truth  that  man  is  the  offspring  of  God  implies  the  correlative 
truth  of  a  common  divine  Fatherhood.  God  is  Father  of  all  men,  in  that 
he  originates  and  sustains  them  as  personal  beings  like  in  nature  to  him- 
self. Even  toward  sinners  God  holds  this  natural  relation  of  Father.  It 
is  his  fatherly  love,  indeed,  which  provides  the  atonement.  Thus  the 
demands  of  holiness  are  met  and  the  prodigal  is  restored  to  the  privileges 
of  sonship  which  have  been  forfeited  by  transgression.  This  natural 
Fatherhood,  therefore,  does  not  exclude,  but  prepares  the  way  for,  God's 
special  Fatherhood  toward  those  who  have  been  regenerated  by  his  Spirit 
and  who  have  believed  on  his  Son  ;  indeed,  since  all  God's  creations  take 
place  in  and  through  Christ,  there  is  a  natural  and  physical  sonship  of  all 
men,  by  virtue  of  their  relation  to  Christ,  the  eternal  Son,  which  antedates 
and  prepares  the  way  for  the  spiritual  sonship  of  those  who  join  themselves 
to  him  by  faith.  Man's  natural  sonship  underlies  the  history  of  the  fall, 
and  qualifies  the  doctrine  of  Sin. 

Texts  referring  to  God's  natural  and  common  Fatherhood  are  :  Mai.  2  :  10  —  "  Have  we  not 
all  one  father  [  A  braham]  ?  hath  not  one  Sod  created  us  ?  "  Luke  3  :  38  —  "Adam,  the  son  of  God  "  ;  15  :  11-32  — 
the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  in  which  the  father  is  father  even  before  the  prodigal 
returns;  John  3:16  —  "God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  "  ;  John  15  :  6— "If  a  man 
abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered ;  and  they  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and 
they  are  burned  "  ;  —  these  words  imply  a  natural  union  of  all  men  with  Christ,  —  otherwise 
they  would  teach  that  those  who  are  spiritually  united  to  him  can  perish  everlastingly. 
Acts  17  :  28 —  "  For  we  are  also  his  offspring  "—  words  addressed  by  Paul  to  a  heathen  audience  ;  Col. 
1:16, 17— "in  him  were  all  things  created  ....  and  in  him  all  things  consist;"  Heb.  12  :  9— "the  Father  of 
spirits."  Fatherhood,  in  this  larger  sense,  implies :  1.  Origination ;  2.  Impartation  of 
life;  3.  Sustentation ;  4.  Likeness  in  faculties  and  powers;  5.  Government;  6.  Care; 
7.  Love.  In  all  these  respects  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  and  his  fatherly  love  is 
both  preserving  and  atoning.  God's  natural  fatherhood  is  mediated  by  Christ,  through 
whom  all  things  were  made,  and  in  whom  all  things,  even  humanity,  consist.  We  are 
naturally  children  of  God,  as  we  were  created  iu  Christ ;  we  are  spiritually  sons  of  God, 
as  we  have  been  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus.  G.  W.  Northrop :  "  God  never  beeomes 
Father  to  any  men  or  class  of  men;  he  only  becomes  a  reconciled  and  complacent 
Feather  to  those  who  become  ethically  like  him.  Men  are  not  sons  in  the  full  ideal 
sense  until  they  comport  themselves  as  sons  of  God."  Chapman,  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Present  Age,  39—  "  While  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  all  men  arc  not  the  children  of 
God ;  in  other  words,  God  always  realizes  completely  the  idea  of  Father  to  every  man  ; 
but  the  majority  of  men  realize  only  partially  the  idea  of  sonship." 

Texts  referring  to  the  special  Fatherhood  of  grace  are :  John  1 :  12, 13  —  "as  many  as  received 
him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name ;  who  were  born,  not  of 
blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  "  ;  Rom.  8:14  —  "  for  as  many  as  are  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God  "  ;  15  —  "ye  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father  " ;  2  Cor. 
6  :  17  —  "  Come  ye  out  from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  no  unclean  thing,  and  I  will 
receive  you,  and  will  be  to  you  a  Father,  and  ye  shall  be  to  me  sons  and  daughters,  saith  the  Lord  Almighty  "  ;  Eph.  1  :  5, 
6  —  "having  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as  sons  through  Jesus  Christ  unto  himself"  ;  3 :  14, 15  —  "the  Father,  from 
whom  every  family  [  marg.  '  fatherhood '  ]  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named  "  (  =  every  race  among  angels 
or  men  —  so  Meyer,  Romans,  158, 159  ) ;  Gal.  3  :  26  —  "  for  ye  are  all  sons  of  God,  through  faith,  in  Christ 
Jesus";  4 :  6  —  "  And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  h's  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father"; 
1  John  3  : 1,  2  —  "Behold  what  manner  of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  w:  should  be  called  children  of  God; 


MAN   A    CREATION    OF   GOD   AND   A    CHILD    OF    GOD.  475 

and  such  we  are.  .  .  .  Beloved,  now  are  we  children  of  God."  The  sonship  of  the  race  is  only  rudiment- 
ary. The  actual  realization  of  sonship  is  possible  only  through  Christ.  Gal.  4  : 1-7  inti- 
mates a  universal  sonship,  but  a  sonship  in  which  the  child  "  differeth  noth.ng  from  a  bondservant 
though  hi  is  lord  of  all,"  and  needs  still  to  "receive  the  adoption  of  sons."  Simon,  Reconciliation,  81  — 
"  It  is  one  thing  to  be  a  father ;  another  to  discharge  all  the  fatherly  functions.  Human 
fathers  sometimes  fail  to  behave  like  fathers  for  reasons  lying  solely  in  themselves; 
sometimes  because  of  hindrances  in  the  conduct  or  character  of  their  children.  No 
father  can  normally  discharge  his  fatherly  functions  toward  children  who  are  unchild- 
like.  So  even  the  rebellious  son  is  a  son,  but  he  does  not  act  like  a  son."  Because  all 
meu  are  naturally  sons  of  God,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  men  will  be  saved.  Many 
who  are  naturally  sons  of  God  are  not  spiritually  sons  of  God  ;  they  are  only  "servants" 
who  "abide  not  in  the  house  forever"  (John  8:35).  God  is  their  Father,  but  they  have  yet  to 
"become"  his  children  (  Mat.  5  :  45). 

The  controversy  between  those  who  maintain  and  those  who  deny  that  God  is  the 
Father  of  all  men  is  a  mere  logomachy.  God  is  physically  and  naturally  the  Father  of 
all  men  ;  he  is  morally  and  spiritually  the  Father  only  of  those  who  have  been  renewed 
by  his  Spirit.  All  men  are  sons  of  God  in  a  lower  sense  by  virtue  of  their  natural  union 
with  Christ;  only  those  are  sons  of  God  in  the  higher  sense  who  have  joined  themselves 
by  faith  to  Christ  in  a  spiritual  union.  We  can  therefore  assent  to  much  that  is  said  by 
those  who  deny  tin-  universal  divine  fatherhood,  as,  for  example,  <".  M.  Mead,  in  Am. 
Jour.  Theology,  July,  1897 : 677-600;  who  maintains  that  sonship  consists  in  spiritual 
kinship  with  (iod.  and  who  quotes,  in  support  of  this  view,  John  8  :  41-44— "If  God  were  your 
Father,  ye  would  love  me.  .  .  .  Te  are  of  your  father,  the  devil  "  =  the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  not  uni- 
versal ;  Mat.  5  :  44,  45  —  "  Love  your  enemies  ...  in  order  that  ye  may  become  sons  of  your  Father  who  is  in 
heaven  "  ;  John  1  :  12 —  "as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them 
that  believe  on  his  name."  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  103  —  "That  (iod  has  created  all 
men  does  not  constitute  them  his  sons  in  the  evangelical  sense  ot  the  word.  The 
sonship  on  which  the  N.  T.  dwells  so  constantly  is  based  solely  on  the  experience  of  t  he 
new  birth,  while  the  doctrine  of  universal  sonship  rests  either  on  a  daring  denial  or  a 
daring  assumption  —  the  denial  of  the  universal  fall  of  man  through  sin,  or  tlieassump- 
tion  of  the  universal  regeneration  of  man  through  the  Spirit.  In  either  ease  the 
teaching  belongs  to  '  another  gospel '  ( Gal.  1:7),  the  recompense  of  whose  preaching  is  not  a 
beatitude,  but  an   anathema '  (  Gal.  1  :  8  )." 

But  we  can  also  agree  with  much  that  is  urged  by  the  opposite  party,  as  for  example, 
Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  1  :  193— "  God  does  not  beeonu  the  Father,  but  is  the  heavenly 
Father,  even  of  those  who  become  his  sons.  .  .  .  This  Fatherhood  of  God,  instead  of 
the  kingship  which  was  the  dominant  idea  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  made  the  primary  doc- 
trine.   The  relation  is  ethical,  not  the  Fatherhood  of  mer igination,  and  t  here  lore 

only  those  who  live  aright  are  true  sons  of  God.  .  .  .  309— Mere  kingship,  or  exalta- 
tion above  the  world,  led  to  Pharisaic  legal  servitude  and  external  ceremony  and  to 
Alexandrian  philosophical  speculation.  The  Fatherhood  apprehended  and  announced 
by  Jesus  was  essentially  a  relation  of  love  and  holiness."  A.  H.  Bradford,  Age  of 
Faith,  116-120— "  There  is  something  sacred  in  humanity.  But  systems  of  theology 
once  began  with  the  essential  and  natural  worthlessuess  of  man.  .  .  .  If  there  is  no 
Fatherhood,  then  selfishness  is  logical.  But  Fatherhood  carries  with  it  identity  of 
nature  between  the  parent  and  the  child.  Therefore  every  laborer  is  ( >f  t  he  nature  of 
God,  and  he  who  has  the  nature  of  God  cannot  be  treated  like  the  product-  of  factory 
and  field.  .  .  .  All  the  children  of  God  are  by  nature  partakers  of  the  life  of  God.  They 
are  called  'children  of  wrath  '  (  Eph.  2  •  3  ),  or  '  of  perdition '  (John  17  :  12  ),  only  to  indicate  that  their 
proper  relations  and  duties  have  been  violated.  .  .  .  Love  for  man  is  dependent  on 
something  worthy  of  love,  and  that  is  found  in  man's  essential  divinity."  We  object 
to  this  last  statement,  as  attributing  to  man  at  the  beginning  what  can  come  to  him 
only  through  grace.  Man  was  indeed  created  in  Christ  (  Col.  1 :  16 )  and  was  a  son  of  God 
1  >y  virtue  of  his  union  with  Christ  (  Luke  3  :  38 ;  John  15  :  6 ).  But  since  man  has  sinned  and 
has  renounced  his  sonship,  it  can  be  restored  and  realized,  in  a  moral  and  spiritual 
sense,  only  through  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  and  the  regenerating  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Eph.  2: 10  —  "created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works  "  ;  2  Fet.  1 :  4  —  "his  precious  and  exceeding  great  prom- 
ises ;  that  through  these  ye  may  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature  "  ). 

Many  who  deny  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God  refuse  to  carry  their  doctrine  to  its 
logical  extreme.  To  be  consistent  they  should  forbid  the  unconverted  to  offer  the 
Lord's  Prayer  or  even  to  pray  at  all.  A  mother  who  did  not  believe  God  to  be  the 
Father  of  all  actually  said :  "  My  children  are  not  converted,  and  if  I  were  to  teach 
them  the  Lord's  Prayer,  I  must  teach  them  to  say :    '  Our  father  who  art  in  hell ' ;  for 


476  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

they  are  only  children  of  the  devil."  Papers  on  the  question :  Is  God  the  Father 
of  all  Men?  are  to  be  found  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Baptist  Congress,  1896:106-136. 
Among  these  the  essay  of  F.  H.  Rowley  asserts  God's  universal  Fatherhood  upon  the 
grounds:  1.  Man  is  created  in  the  image  of  God  ;  2.  God's  fatherly  treatment  of  man, 
especially  in  the  life  of  Christ  among  men  ;  3.  God's  universal  claim  on  man  for  his 
filial  love  and  trust;  4.  Only  God's  Fatherhood  makes  incarnation  possible,  for  this 
implies  oneness  of  nature  between  God  and  man.  To  these  we  may  add :  5.  The  aton- 
ing death  of  Christ  could  be  efficacious  only  upon  the  ground  of  a  common  nature  in 
Christ  and  in  humanity ;  and  6.  The  regenerating  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intelligi- 
ble only  as  the  restoration  of  a  filial  relation  which  was  native  to  man,  but  which  his 
sin  had  put  into  abeyance.  For  denial  that  God  is  Father  to  any  but  the  regenerate, 
see  Candlish,  Fatherhood  of  God;  Wright,  Fatherhood  of  God.  For  advocacy  of  the 
universal  Fatherhood,  see  Crawford,  Fatherhood  of  God;  Lidgett,  Fatherhood  of  God. 

II.     Unity  of  the  Human  Race. 

( a  )  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  whole  human  race  is  descended  from 
a  single  j^air. 

Gen.  1 :  27,  28  —  "  And  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him ;  male  and  female 
created  he  them.  And  God  blessed  them :  and  God  said  unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth, 
and  subdue  it "  ;  2:7  —  "And  Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul "  ;  22  —  "  and  the  rib,  which  Jehovah  God  had  taken  from  the  man,  made 
he  a  woman,  and  brought  her  unto  the  man  "  ;  3 :  20  —  "  And  the  man  called  his  wife's  name  Eve ;  because  she  was  the 
mother  of  all  living  "  =  even  Eve  is  traced  back  to  Adam  ;  9 :  19  —  "  These  three  were  the  sons  of  Noah ; 
and  of  these  was  the  whole  earth  overspread."  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel.  110 — "Logically,  it 
seems  easier  to  account  for  the  divergence  of  what  was  at  first  one,  than  for  the  union 
of  what  was  at  first  heterogeneous." 

( h )  This  truth  lies  at  the  foundation  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  organic 
unity  of  mankind  in  the  first  transgression,  and  of  the  provision  of  salva- 
tion for  the  race  in  Christ. 

Rom.  5  :  12  —  "  Therefore,  as  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin ;  and  so  death  passed 
unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned  "  ;  19  —  "  For  as  through  the  one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made  sinners,  even 
so  through  the  obedience  of  the  one  shall  the  many  be  made  righteous"  ;  1  Cor.  15:  21,  22  —  ;'For  since  by  man  came 
death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive  "  j 
Heb.  2 :  16  —  "  For  verily  not  of  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he  taketh  hold  of  the  seed  of  Abraham."  One  of  the 
most  eminent  ethnologists  and  anthropologists,  Prof.  D.  G.  Brinton,  said  not  long 
before  his  death  that  all  scientific  research  and  teaching  tended  to  the  conviction  that 
mankind  has  descended  from  one  pair. 

(c)  This  descent  of  humanity  from  a  single  pair  also  constitutes  the 
ground  of  man's  obligation  of  natural  brotherhood  to  every  member  of 
the  race. 

Acts  17:26—  "he  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth"  —  here  the  Rev. 
Vers,  omits  the  word  "  blood"  (  "made  of  one  blood" —  Auth.Vers.).  The  word  to  be  supplied  is 
possibly  "father,"  but  more  probably  "body";  cf.  Heb.  2 :  11  —  "  for  both  he  that  sanctifieth  and 
they  that  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one  [  father  or  body  ]  :  for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren, 
saving,  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren,  In  the  midst  of  the  congregation  will  I  sing  thy  praise." 

Winchell,  in  his  Pieadamites,  has  recently  revived  the  theory  broached  in  1655  by 
Peyrerius,  that  there  were  men  before  Adam  :  "  Adam  is  descended  from  a  black  race 
—  not  the  black  races  from  Adam."  Adam  is  simply  "the  remotest  ancestor  to  whom 
the  Jews  could  trace  their  lineage.  .  .  .  The  derivation  of  Adam  from  an  older  human 
stock  is  essentially  the  creation  of  Adam."  Winchell  does  not  deny  the  unity  of  the 
race,  nor  the  retroactive  effect  of  the  atonement  upon  those  who  lived  before  Adam ; 
he  simply  denies  that  Adam  was  the  first  man.  297  —  He  "  regards  the  Adamic  stock  as 
derived  from  an  older  and  humbler  human  type,"  originally  as  low  in  the  scale  as  the 
present  Australian  savages. 

Although  this  theory  furnishes  a  plausible  explanation  of  certain  Biblical  facts,  such 
as  the  marriage  of  Cain  ( Gen.  4  :  17 ),  Cain's  fear  that  men  would  slay  him  ( Gen.  4:14),  and 
the  distinction  between  "the  sons  of  God"  and  "the  daughters  of  men"  (Gen.  6:1,  2),  it  treats  the 


UNITY    OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  477 

Mosaic  narrative  as  legendary  rather  than  historical.  Sbem,  Ham,  and  Japheth,  it  is 
intimated,  may  have  lived  hundreds  of  years  apart  from  one  another  ( 409 ).  Upon  this 
view,  Eve  could  not  be  "the  mother  of  all  living"  (Gen.  3:20),  nor  could  the  transgression  of 
Adam  be  the  cause  and  beginning-  of  condemnation  to  the  whole  race  ( Rom.  5 :  12, 19 ).  As 
to  Cain's  fear  of  other  families  who  might  take  vengeance  upon  him,  we  must  remember 
that  we  do  not  know  how  many  children  were  born  to  Adam  between  Cain  and  Abel, 
nor  what  the  age  of  Cain  and  Abel  was,  nor  whether  Cain  feared  only  those  that  were 
then  living.  As  to  Cain's  marriage,  we  must  remember  that  even  if  Pain  married  into 
another  family,  his  wife,  upon  any  hypothesis  of  the  unity  of  the  race,  must  have  been 
descended  from  some  other  original  Cain  that  married  his  sister. 

See  Keil  and  Delitzsch,  Com.  on  Pentateuch,  1:116— "The  marriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters  was  inevitable  in  the  case  of  children  of  the  first  man,  in  ease  the  human  race 
was  actually  to  descend  from  a  single  pair,  and  may  therefore  be  justified,  in  the  face 
of  the  Mosaic  prohibition  of  such  marriages,  on  the  ground  that  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  Adam  represented  not  merely  the  family  but  the  genus,  and  that  it  was  not  till  after 
the  rise  of  several  families  that  the  bonds  of  fraternal  and  conjugal  love  became  distinct 
from  one  another  and  assumed  fixed  and  mutually  exclusive  forms,  the  violation  of 
which  issin."  Prof.  W.  H.  Green:  "  Gen.  20:12  shows  that  Sarah  was  Abraham's  hall- 
sister;  ....  the  regulations  subsecpiently  ordained  in  the  Mosaic  law  were  not  then  in 
force."  G.  H.  Darwin,  son  of  Charles  Darwin,  has  shown  thai  marriage  between  cous- 
ins is  harmless  where  there  is  difference  of  temperament  between  the  parties.  Modern 
palaeontology  makes  it  probable  that  at  the  beginning  of.  the  race  there  was  greater 
differentiation  of  brothers  and  sisters  in  the  same  family  than  obtains  in  later  times. 
See  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 :  275.  For  criticism  of  the  doctrine  that  t  here  were  men  before 
Adam,  see  Methodist  Quar.  Rev.,  April,  1881 :  205-231 ;  Presb.  Rev.,  1*81 :  440-444. 

The  Scripture  statements  are  corroborated  by  considerations  drawn  from 
history  and  science.     Four  arguments  may  be  briefly  mentioned  : 

1.     The  argument  from  history. 

So  far  as  the  history  cf  nations  and  tribes  in  both  hemispheres  can  be 
traced,  the  evidence  points  to  a  common  origin  and  ancestry  in  central  Asia. 

The  European  nations  are  acknowledged  to  have  come,  in  successive  waves  of  migra- 
tion, from  Asia.  Modern  ethnologists  generally  agree  that  the  Indian  races  of  America 
are  derived  from  Mongoloid  soiirees  in  Eastern  Asia,  either  through  Polynesia  or  by 
way  of  the  Aleutian  Islands.  Hunsen,  PhilOS.  of  Universal  History,  :.' :  [IS—  the  Asiatic 
origin  of  all  the  North  American  Indians  "is  as  fully  proved  as  the  unity  of  family 
among  themselves."  Mason,  Origins  of  invention,  :m;i  -  "  Before  the  time  of  Colum- 
bus* the  Polynesians  made  canoe  voyages  from  Tahiti  to  Hawaii,  a  distance  of  2300 
miles."  Keane,  Man  Past  and  Present,  1-15,  349-440,  treats  of  the  American  Abori- 
gines under  two  primitive  types  :  Longheads  from  Europe  and  Roundheads  from  Asia. 
The  human  race,  he  claims,  originated  in  Indomalaysia  and  spread  thence  by  migration 
over  the  globe.  The  world  was  peopled  from  one  center  by  Pleistocene  man.  The 
primary  groups  were  evolved  each  in  its  special  habitat,  but  all  sprang  from  aPleiocene 
precursor  100,000  years  ago.  W.  T.  Lopp,  missionary  to  the  Eskimos,  at  Port  Clarence, 
Alaska,  on  the  American  side  of  Bering  Strait,  writes  under  date  of  August  31, 1892: 
"  No  thaws  during  the  winter,  and  ice  blocked  in  the  Strait.  This  has  always  been 
doubted  by  whalers.  Eskimos  have  told  them  that  they  sometimes  crossed  the  Strait 
on  ice,  but  they  have  never  believed  them.  Last  February  and  March  our  Eskimos  had 
a  tobacco  famine.  Two  parties  (five  men)  went  with  dogsleds  to  East  Cape,  on  the 
Siberian  coast,  and  traded  some  beaver,  otter  and  marten  skins  for  Russian  tobacco, 
and  returned  safely.  It  is  only  during  an  occasional  winter  that  they  can  do  this.  But 
every  summer  they  make  several  trips  in  their  big  wolf-skin  boats  — forty  feet  long. 
These  observations  may  throw  some  light  upon  the  origin  of  the  prehistoric  races  of 
America." 

Tylor,  Primitive  Culture,  1:48 — "The  semi-civilized  nations  of  Java  and  Sumatra 
are  found  in  possession  of  a  civilization  which  at  first  glance  shows  itself  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  Hindu  and  Moslem  sources."  See  also  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  quoted  in 
Burgess,  Antiquity  and  Unity  of  the  Race,  156,157;  Smyth,  Unity  of  Human  Races, 
223-236;  Pickering,  Races  of  Man,  Introd.,  synopsis,  and  page  316;  Guyot,  Earth  and 
Man,  298-334  ;  Quatrefages,  Natural  History  of  Man,  and  Unite  de  l'Espece  Humaine  ; 


478  ANTHROPOLOGY,    Oil   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN". 

Godron,  Unite  de  1'Espece  Humaine,  2:412sc/,  Per  contra,  however,  see  Prof.  A.  H. 
Sayce:  "The  evidence  is  now  all  tending- to  show  that  the  districts  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  Baltic  were  those  from  which  the  Aryan  languages  first  radiated,  and  where  the 
race  or  races  who  spoke  them  originally  dwelt.  The  Aryan  invaders  of  Northwestern 
India  could  only  have  been  a  late  and  distant  offshoot  of  the  primitive  stock,  speedily 
absorbed  into  the  earlier  population  of  the  country  as  they  advanced  southward ;  and 
to  speak  of  '  our  Indian  brethren '  is  as  absurd  and  false  as  to  claim  relationship  with 
the  negroes  of  the  United  States  because  they  now  use  an  Aryan  language."  Scribner, 
Where  Did  Life  Begin  ?  has  lately  adduced  arguments  to  prove  that  life  on  the  earth 
originated  at  the  North  Pole,  and  Prof.  Asa  Gray  favors  this  view ;  see  his  Darwiniana, 
205,  and  Scientific  Papers,  2 :  152 ;  so  also  Warren,  Paradise  Found ;  and  Wieland,  in 
Am.  Journal  of  Science,  Dec.  1903  :  401-430.  Dr.  J.  L.  Wortman,  in  Yale  Alumni  Weekly, 
Jan.  14, 1903  :  129  —  "  The  appearance  of  all  these  primates  in  North  America  was  very 
abrupt  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  stage  of  the  Eocene.  And  it  is  a  striking  coinci- 
dence that  approximately  the  same  forms  appear  in  beds  of  exactly  corresponding  age 
in  Europe.  Nor  does  this  synchronism  stop  with  the  apes.  It  applies  to  nearly  all  the 
other  types  of  Eocene  mammalia  in  the  Northern  Hemisphere,  and  to  the  accompany- 
ing flora  as  well.  These  facts  can  be  explained  only  on  the  hypothesis  that  there  was  a 
common  centre  from  which  these  plants  and  animals  were  distributed.  Considering 
further  that  the  present  continental  masses  were  essentially  the  same  in  the  Eocene 
time  as  now,  and  that  the  North  Polar  region  then  enjoyed  a  subtropical  climate,  as  is 
abundantly  proved  by  fossil  plants,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  this  common 

centre  of  dispersion  lay  approximately  within  the  Arctic  Circle The  origin  of 

the  human  species  "did  not  take  place  on  the  Western  Hemisphere." 

2.     The  argument  from  language. 

Comparative  j^hilology  points  to  a  common  origin  of  all  the  more  impor- 
tant languages,  and  furnishes  no  evidence  that  the  less  important  are  not 
also  so  derived. 

On  Sanskrit  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  Indo-Germanic  languages,  see  Max 
Miiller,  Science  of  Language,  1 :  140-165,  3\.'ti-342,  who  claims  that  all  languages  pass 
through  the  three  stages  :  monosyllabic,  agglutinative,  inflectional;  and  that  nothing 
necessitates  the  admission  of  different  independent  beginnings  for  either  the  material 
or  the  formal  elements  of  the  Turanian,  Semitic,  and  Aryan  branches  of  speech.  The 
changes  of  language  are  often  rapid.  Latin  becomes  the  Romance  languages,  and 
Saxon  and  Norman  are  united  into  English,  in  three  centuries.  The  Chinese  may  have 
departed  from  their  primitive  abodes  while  their  language  was  yet  monosyllabic. 

G.  J.  Romanes,  Life  and  Letters,  195 —  "  Children  are  the  constructors  of  all  languages, 
as  distinguished  from  language."  Instance  Helen  Keller's  sudden  acquisition  of 
language,  uttering  publicly  a  long  piece  only  three  weeks  after  she  first  began  to 
imitate  the  motions  of  the  lips.  G.  F.  Wright,  Man  and  the  Glacial  Period,  242-301  — 
"  Recent  investigations  show  that  children,  when  from  any  cause  isolated  at  an  early 
age,  will  often  produce  at  once  a  language  de  novo.  Thus  it  would  appear  by  no  means 
improbable  that  various  languages  in  America,  and  perhaps  the  earliest  languages  of 
the  world,  may  have  arisen  in  a  short  time  where  conditions  were  such  that  a  family 
of  small  children  could  have  maintained  existence  when  for  any  cause  deprived  of 

parental  and  other  fostering  care Two  or  three  thousand  years  of  prehistoric 

time  is  perhaps  all  that  would  be  required  to  produce  the  diversification  of  languages 
which  appears  at  the  dawn  of  history.  .  .  .  The  prehistoric  stage  of  Europe  ended 
less  than  a  thousand  years  before  the  Christian  Era."  In  a  people  whose  speech  has 
not  been  fixed  by  being  committed  to  writing,  baby-talk  is  a  great  source  of  linguistic 
corruption,  and  the  changes  are  exceedingly  rapid.  Humboldt  took  down  the  vocabu- 
lary of  a  South  American  tribe,  and  after  fifteen  years  of  absence  found  their  speech 
so  changed  as  to  seem  a  different  language. 

Zockler,  in  Jahrbuch  f  iir  deutsche  Theologie,  8 :  68  sq.,  denies  the  progress  from  lower 
methods  of  speech  to  higher,  and  declares  the  most  highly  developed  inflectional 
languages  to  be  the  oldest  and  most  widespread.  Inferior  languages  are  a  degenera- 
tion from  a  higher  state  of  culture.  In  the  development  of  the  Indo-Germanic  lan- 
guages ( such  as  the  French  and  the  English  ),  we  have  instances  of  change  from  more  full 
and  luxuriant  expression  to  that  which  is  monosyllabic  or  agglutinative.  The  theory 
of  Max  Miiller  is  also  opposed  by  Pott,  Die  Verschiedenheiten  der  menschlichen  Rasseu. 


UNITY    OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  479 


iag-e  as  a  connecting-  link  between  the  Indo-European  and 
lseu,  Egypt^s  Place,  1 :  preface,  10 ;  also  sec  Farrar,  Origin 


202,  242.  Pott  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Australian  languages  show  unmistak- 
able similarity  to  the  languages  of  Eastern  and  Southern  Asia,  although  the  physical 
characteristics  of  these  tribes  are  far  different  from  the  Asiatic. 

On  the  old  Egyptian  lang  u;i 
the  Semitic  tongues,  see  Bunsen, 
of  Language,  213.  Like  the  old  Egyptian,  the  Berber  and  the  Touareg  are  Semitic  in 
parts  of  their  vocabulary,  while  yet  they  are  Aryan  in  grammar.  So  the  Tibetan  and 
Burmese  stand  between  the  Indo-European  languages,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  mono- 
syllabic languages,  as  of  China,  on  the  other.  A  French  philologist  claims  now  to  have 
interpreted  the  Yh-Khiy,  theoldest  and  most  unintelligible  monumental  writing  of  the 
Chinese,  by  regarding  it  as  a  corruption  of  the  old  Assyrian  or  Accadiau  cuneiform 
characters,  and  as  resembling  the  syllabaries,  vocabularies,  and  bilingual  tablets  in  the 
ruined  libraries  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  ;  see  Terrien  de  Lacouperie,  The  Oldest  Book 
of  the  Chinese  and  its  Authors,  and  The  Languages  of  China  before  the  Chinese,  11, 
note;  he  holds  to  "the  non-indigenousness  of  the  Chinese  civilization  and  its  deriva- 
tion from  the  old  ChaldaBO- Babylonian  focus  of  culture  by  the  medium  of  Susiana." 
See  also  Sayce,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Jan.  1884  :  934-0:50 ;  also,  The  Monist,  Oct.  1906:562- 
506,  on  The  Ideograms  of  the  Chinese  and  the  Central  American  Calendars.  Theevidence 
goes  to  show  that  the  Chinese  came  into  China  from  Susiana  in  the  23d  century  before 
Christ.  Initial  G  wears  down  in  time  into  a  Y sound.  Many  words  whioh  begin  with 
Y  in  Chinese  are  found  in  Accadian  beginning  with  G,  as  Chinese  Ye,  'night,' is  in 
Accadiau  tie,  'night.'  The  order  of  development  seems  to  be:  1.  picture  writing;  2. 
syllabic  writing;  3.  alphabetic  writing. 

In  a  similar  manner,  there  is  evidence  that  thePharaonic  Egyptians  were  immigrants 
from  auother  land,  namely,  Babylonia.  Hommel  derives  the  hieroglyphs  of  the  Egypt- 
ians from  the  pictures  out  of  which  the  cuneiform  characters  developed,  and  he  shows 
that  the  elements  of  the  Egyptian  language  itself  are  contained  in  that  mixed  speech 
of  Babylonia  which  originated  in  the  fusion  of  Sumerians  and  Semites.  The  Osiris  of 
Egypt  is  the  Asari  of  the  Sumerians.  Burial  in  brick  tombs  in  the  first  two  Egyptian 
dynasties  is  a  survival  from  Babylonia,  as  are  also  the  seal -cylinders  impressed  on  clay. 
( >n  the  relations  between  Aryan  and  Semitic  languages,  see  Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
55-61;  Murray,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalms,  7;  Bib.  Sac,  1870:162;  1876 :  352-380 ; 
1879:  674-706.  See  also  Pe/./i,  Aryan  Philology,  125;  Sayce,  Principles  of  Comp.  Philology, 
132-171;  Whitney,  art.  on  Comp.  Philology  in  Encyc.  Britannica,  also  Life  and  Growth 
of  Language,  200,  and  Study  of  Language,  307,  308  —  "  Language  affords  certain  Indica- 
tions of  doubtful  value,  which,  taken  along  with  certain  other  ethnological  considera- 
tions, also  of  Questionable  pertinency,  furnish  ground  for  suspecting  an  ultimate 
relationship.  .  .  .  That  more  thorough  comprehension  of  the  history  of  Semitic  speech 
will  enable  us  to  determine  this  ultimate  relationship,  may  perhaps  be  looked  for  with 
hope,  though  it  is  not  to  be  expected  with  confidence."  See  also  Smyth,  Unity  of  Human 
Races,  199-222 ;  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  art. :  Confusion  of  Tongues. 

We  regard  the  facts  as,  on  the  whole,  favoring  an  opposite  conclusion  from  that  in 
Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  art.:  Flood:  "The  diversity  of  the  human  race  and  of 
language  alike  makes  it  improbable  that  men  were  derived  from  a  single  pair."  E.  G. 
Robinson  :  "  The  only  trustworthy  argument  for  the  unity  of  the  race  is  derived  from 
comparative  philology.  If  it  should  be  established  that  one  of  the  three  families  of 
speech  was  more  ancient  than  the  others,  and  the  source  of  the  others,  the  argument 
would  be  unanswerable.  Coloration  of  the  skin  seems  to  lie  back  of  climatic  influences. 
We  believe  in  the  unity  of  the  race  because  in  this  there  are  the  fewest  difficulties.  We 
would  not  know  how  else  to  interpret  Paul  in  Romans  5."  Max  Miiller  has  said  that 
the  fountain  head  of  modern  philology  as  of  modern  freedom  and  international  law  is 
the  change  wrought  by  Christianity,  superseding  the  narrow  national  conception  of 
patriotism  by  the  recognition  of  all  the  nations  and  races  as  members  of  one  great 
human  family. 

3.     Tlie  argument  from  psychology. 

The  existence,  among  all  families  of  mankind,  of  common  mental  and 
moral  characteristics,  as  evinced  in  common  maxims,  tendencies  and  capaci- 
ties, in  the  prevalence  of  similar  traditions,  and  in  the  universal  applicability 
of  one  philosophy  and  religion,  is  most  easily  explained  upon  the  theory 
of  a  common  origin. 


480  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Among-  the  widely  prevalent  traditions  may  be  mentioned  the  tradition  of  the  fash- 
ioning of  the  world  and  man,  of  a  primeval  garden,  of  an  original  innocence  and  happi- 
ness, of  a  tree  of  knowledge,  of  a  serpent,  of  a  temptation  and  fall,  of  a  division  of 
time  into  weeks,  of  a  flood,  of  sacrifice.  It  is  possible,  if  not  probable,  that  certain 
myths,  common  to  many  nations,  may  have  been  handed  down  from  a  time  when  the 
families  of  the  race  had  not  yet  separated.  See  Zockler,  in  Jahrbuch  fur  deutsche 
Theologie,  8 :  71-90 ;  Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Language,  2 :  444-455 ;  Prichard,  Nat.  Hist,  of 
Man,  2 :  657-714 ;  Smyth,  Unity  of  Human  Races,  236-240;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2:77-91; 
Gladstone,  Juventus  Mundi. 

4.     The  argument  from  physiology. 

A.  It  is  the  common  judgment  of  comparative  physiologists  that  man 
constitutes  but  a  single  species.  The  differences  which  exist  between  the 
various  families  of  mankind  are  to  be  regarded  as  varieties  of  this  species. 
In  proof  of  these  statements  we  urge  :  (  a  )  The  numberless  intermediate 
gradations  which  connect  the  so-called  races  with  each  other.  ( b  )  The 
essential  identity  of  all  races  in  cranial,  osteological,  and  dental  character- 
istics. (  e  )  The  fertility  of  unions  between  individuals  of  the  most  diverse 
types,  and  tho  continuous  fertility  of  the  offspring  of  such  unions. 

Huxley,  Critiques  and  Addresses,  163— "It  may  be  safely  affirmed  that,  even  if  the 
differences  between  men  are  specific,  they  are  so  small  that  the  assumption  of  more  than 
one  primitive  stock  for  all  is  altogether  superfluous.  We  may  admit  that  Negroes  and 
Australians  are  distinct  species,  yet  be  the  strictest  monogenists,  and  even  believe  in 
Adam  and  Eve  as  the  primeval  parents  of  mankind,  i.  e.,  on  Darwin's  hypothesis  "  ; 
Origin  of  Species,  113 — "I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  at  present  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever  for  saying  that  mankind  sprang  originally  from  more  than  a  single 
pair ;  I  must  say  that  I  cannot  see  any  good  ground  whatever,  or  any  tenable  evidence, 
for  believing  that  there  is  more  than  one  species  of  man."  Owen,  quoted  by  Burgess, 
Ant.  and  Unity  of  Race,  185  —  "Man  forms  but  one  species,  and  differences  are  but 
indications  of  varieties.  These  variations  merge  into  each  other  by  easy  gradations." 
Alex,  von  Humboldt :  "  The  different  races  of  men  are  forms  of  one  sole  species,  —  they 
are  not  different  species  of  a  genus." 

Quatrefages,  in  Revue  d.  deux  Mondes,  Dec.  1860:814  —  "If  one  places  himself  exclu- 
sively upon  the  plane  of  the  natural  sciences,  it  is  impossible  not  to  conclude  iu  favor 
of  the  monogenist  doctrine."  Wagner,  quoted  in  Bib.  Sac,  19 :  607  —  "  Species  =  the 
collective  total  of  individuals  which  are  capable  of  producing  one  with  another  an 
uninterruptedly  fertile  progeny."  Pickering,  Races  of  Man,  316  —  "  There  is  no  middle 
ground  between  the  admission  of  eleven  distinct  species  in  the  human  family  and  their 
reduction  to  one.    The  latter  opinion  implies  a  central  point  of  origin." 

There  is  an  impossibility  of  deciding  how  many  races  there  are,  if  we  once  allow 
that  there  are  more  than  one.  While  Pickering  would  say  eleven,  Agassiz  says  eight, 
Morton  twenty-two,  and  Burke  sixty-five.  Modern  science  all  tends  to  the  derivation 
of  each  family  from  a  single  germ.  Other  common  characteristics  of  all  races  of  men, 
in  addition  to  those  mentioned  in  the  text,  are  the  duration  of  pregnancy,  the  normal 
temperature  of  the  body,  the  mean  frequency  of  the  pulse,  the  liability  to  the  same 
diseases.  Meehan,  State  Botanist  of  Pennsylvania,  maintains  that  h5'brid  vegetable 
products  are  no  more  sterile  than  are  ordinary  plants  ( Independent,  Aug.  21, 1884 ) . 

E.  B.  Tylor,  art.:  Anthropology,  iu  Eucyc.  Britannica :  "  On  the  whole  it  may  be 
asserted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  mankind  now  stands  on  a  firmer  basis  than  in 
previous  ages."  Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  1 :  39  —  "  From  the 
resemblance  in  several  countries  of  the  half-domesticated  dogs  to  the  wild  species  still 
living  there,  from  the  facility  with  which  they  can  be  crossed  together,  from  even  half 
tamed  animals  being  so  much  valued  by  savages,  and  from  the  other  circumstances 
previously  remarked  on  which  favor  domestication,  it  is  highly  probable  that  the 
domestic  dogs  of  the  world  have  descended  from  two  good  species  of  wolf  ( viz.,  Ganis 
Ztipiisand  Cam's  latrans),  and  from  two  or  three  other  doubtful  species  of  wolves 
( namely,  the  European,  Indian  and  North  American  forms) ;  from  at  least  one  or  two 
South  American  canine  species ;  from  several  races  or  species  of  the  jackal ;  and  perhaps 


UNITY   OP  THE   HUMAN   RACE!.  481 

from  one  or  more  extinct  species."  Dr.  E.  M.  Moore  tried  unsuccessfully  to  produce 
offspring'  by  pairing-  a  Newfoundland  dog-  and  a  wolf-like  dog-  from  Canada.  He  only 
proved  anew  the  repugnance  of  even  slightly  separated  species  toward  one  another. 

B.  Unity  of  species  is  presiiniptive  evidence  of  unity  of  origin.  One- 
ness of  origin  furnishes  the  simplest  explanation  of  specific  uniformity,  if 
indeed  the  very  conception  of  species  does  not  imply  the  repetition  and 
reproduction  of  a  primordial  type-idea  impressed  at  its  creation  upon  an 
individual  empowered  to  transmit  this  type-idea  to  its  successors. 

Dana,  quoted  in  Burgess,  Antiq.  and  Unity  of  Race,  185,  186  —  "In  the  ascending- 
scale  of  animals,  the  number  of  species  in  any  genus  diminishes  as  we  rise,  and  should 
by  analogy  be  smallest  at  the  head  of  the  series.  Among  mammals,  the  higher  genera 
have  lew  species,  and  the  highest  group  next  to  man,  the  orang-outang,  has  only  eight, 
and  these  constitute  but  two  genera.  Analogy  requires  that  man  should  have  preemi- 
nence and  should  constitute  only  one."    194  —  "A  species  corresponds  to  a  specific 

amount  or  condition  of  concentrated  force  defined  in  the  act  or  law  of  creation 

The  species  in  any  particular  case  began  its  existence  when  the  first  germ-cell  or  indi- 
vidual was  created.    When  individuals  multiply  from  generation  to  generation,  it  is  but 

:i  repetition  of  the  primordial  type-idea The  specific  is  based  on  a  numerical 

unity,  the  species  being  nothing  else  than  an  enlargement  of  the  individual."  For 
full  statement  of  Dana's  view,  see  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1857  :  802-800.  On  the  idea  of  species, 
see  also  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  63-71. 

( a)  To  this  view  is  opposed  the  theory,  propounded  by  Agassiz,  of 
different  centres  of  creation,  and  of  different  types  of  humanity  correspond- 
ing to  the  varying  fauna  and  flora  of  each.  But  this  theory  makes  the 
plural  origin  of  inah  an  exception  in  creation.  Science  points  rather  to 
a  single  origin  of  each  species,  whether  vegetable  or  animal.  If  man  be, 
as  this  theory  grants,  a  single  species,  he  should  be,  by  the  same  rule, 
restricted  to  one  continent  in  his  origin.  This  theory,  moreover,  applies  an 
unproved  hypothesis  with  regard  to  the  distribution  of  organized  beings  in 
general  to  the  very  being  whose  whole  nature  and  history  show  conclusively 
that  he  is  an  exception  to  such  a  general  rule,  if  one  exists.  Since  man  can 
adapt  himself  to  all  climes  and  conditions,  the  theory  of  separate  centres  of 
creation  is,  in  his  case,  gratuitous  and  unnecessary. 

Agassiz's  view  was  first  published  in  an  essay  on  the  Provinces  of  the  Animal  World, 
in  Nott  and  Gliddon's  Types  of  Mankind,  a  book  gotten  up  in  the  interest  of  slavery. 
Agassiz  held  to  eight  distinct  centres  of  creation,  and  to  eight  corresponding  types  of 
humanity  —  the  Arctic,  the  Mongolian,  the  European,  the  American,  the  Negro,  the 
Hottentot,  the  Malay,  the  Australian.  Agassiz  regarded  Adam  as  the  ancestor  only  of 
the  white  race,  yet  like  Peyrerius  and  Winchell  be  held  that  man  in  all  his  various  races 
constitutes  but  one  species. 

The  whole  tendency  of  recent  science,  however,  has  been  adverse  to  the  doctrine  of 
separate  centres  of  creation,  even  in  the  case  of  animal  and  vegetable  life.  In  temperate 
North  America  there  are  two  hundred  and  seven  species  of  quadrupeds,  of  which  only 
eight,  and  these  polar  animals,  are  found  in  the  north  of  Europe  or  Asia.  If  North 
America  be  an  instance  of  a  separate  centre  of  creation  for  its  peculiar  species,  why 
should  God  create  the  same  species  of  man  in  eight  different  localities?  This  would 
make  man  an  exception  in  creation.  There  is,  moreover,  no  need  of  creating  man  in 
many  separate  localities;  for,  unlike  the  polar  bears  and  the  Norwegian  firs,  which 
cannot  live  at  the  equator,  man  can  adapt  himself  to  the  most  varied  climates  and  con- 
ditions.   Por  replies  to  Agassiz,  see  Bib.  Sac,  19  :  607-032 ;  Princeton  Rev.,  1802  :  435-464. 

(6)     It  is  objected,  moreover,  that  the  diversities  of  size,  color,  and 
physical  conformation,  among  the  various  families  of  mankind,  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  theory  of  a  common  origin.      But  we  reply  that  these 
diversities  are  of  a  superficial  character,  and  can  be  accounted  for  by  cor- 
31 


482  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

responding  diversities  of  condition  and  environment.  Changes  which  have 
been  observed  and  recorded  within  historic  times  show  that  the  differences 
alluded  to  may  be  the  result  of  slowly  accumulated  divergences  from  one 
and  the  same  original  and  ancestral  type.  The  difficulty  in  the  case,  more- 
over, is  greatly  relieved  when  we  remember  (  1 )  that  the  period  during 
which  these  divergences  have  arisen  is  by  no  means  limited  to  six  thousand 
years  ( see  note  on  the  antiquity  of  the  race,  pages  224-226 )  ;  and  (2)  that, 
since  species  in  general  exhibit  their  greatest  power  of  divergence  into 
varieties  immediately  after  their  first  introduction,  all  the  varieties  of  the 
human  species  may  have  presented  themselves  in  man's  earliest  history. 

Instances  of  physiological  change  as  the  result  of  new  conditions :  The  Irish  driven 
by  the  English  two  centuries  ago  from  Armagh  and  the  south  of  Down,  have  become 
prognathous  like  the  Australians.  The  inhabitants  of  New  England  have  descended 
from  the  English,  yet  they  have  already  a  physical  type  of  their  own.  The  Indians  of 
North  America,  or  at  least  certain  tribes  of  them,  have  permanently  altered  the  shape 
of  the  skull  by  bandaging  the  head  in  infancy.  The  Sikhs  of  India,  since  the  establish- 
ment of  Baba  N;inak's  religion  ( 1500  A.  D. )  and  their  consequent  advance  in  civili- 
zation, have  changed  to  a  longer  head  and  more  regular  features,  so  that  they  are  now 
distinguished  greatly  from  their  neighbors,  the  Afghans,  Tibetans,  Hindus.  The  Ostiak 
savages  have  become  the  Magyar  nobility  of  Hungary.  The  Turks  in  Europe  are, 
in  cranial  shape,  greatly  in  advance  of  the  Turks  in  Asia  from  whom  they  descended. 
The  Jews  are  confessedly  of  one  ancestry;  yet  we  have  among  them  the  light-haired 
Jews  of  Poland,  the  dark  Jews  of  Spain,  and  the  Ethiopian  Jews  of  the  Nile  Valley. 
The  Portuguese  who  settled  in  the  East  Indies  in  the  16th  century  are  now  as  dark  in 
complexion  as  the  Hindus  themselves.  Africans  become  lighter  in  complexion  as  they 
go  up  from  the  alluvial  river-banks  to  higher  land,  or  from  the  coast ;  and  on  the  con- 
t  vary  the  coast  tribes  which  drive  out  the  negroes  of  the  interior  and  take  their  territory 
end  by  becoming  negroes  themselves.  See,  for  many  of  the  above  facts,  Burgess, 
Antiquityand  Unity  of  the  Race,  195-3)3. 

The  law  of  originally  greater  plasticity,  mentioned  in  the  text,  was  first  hinted  by 
Hall,  the  palaeontologist  of  New  York.  It  is  accepted  and  defined  by  Dawson,  Story  of 
the  Earth  and  Man,  3U0— "  A  new  law  is  coming  into  view :  that  species  when  first  intro- 
duced have  an  innate  power  of  expansion,  which  enables  them  rapidly  to  extend  them- 
selves to  the  limit  of  their  geographical  range,  and  also  to  reach  the  limit  of  their 
divergence  into  races.  This  limit  once  reached,  these  races  run  on  in  parallel  lines 
until  they  one  by  one  run  out  and  disappear.  According  to  this  law  the  most  aberrant 
races  of  men  might  be  developed  in  a  few  centuries,  after  which  divergence  would 
cease,  and  the  several  lines  of  variation  would  remain  permanent,  at  least  so  long  as 
the  conditions  under  which  they  originated  remained."  See  the  similar  view  of  Von 
Baer  in  Schmid,  Theories  of  Darwin,  55,  note.  Joseph  Cook  :  Variability  is  a  lessening 
quantity ;  the  tendency  to  change  is  greatest  at  the  first,  but,  like  the  rate  of  motion  of 
a  stone  thrown  upward,  it  lessens  every  moment  after.  Ruskin,  Seven  Lamps,  125  — 
**  The  life  of  a  nation  is  usually,  like  the  flow  of  a  lava-stream,  first  bright  and  fierce, 
then  languid  and  covered,  at  last  advancing  only  by  the  tumbling  over  and  over  of  its 
frozen  blocks."  Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  54—  "The  further  back  we  go  into 
antiquity,  the  more  closely  does  the  Egyptian  type  approach  the  European."  Rawlin- 
son  says  that  negroes  are  not  represented  in  the  Egyptian  monuments  before  1500  B.  C. 
The  influence  of  climate  is  very  great,  especially  in  the  savage  state. 

In  May,  1891,  there  died  in  San  Francisco  the  son  of  an  interpreter  at  the  Merchants' 
Exchange.  He  was  21  years  of  age.  Three  years  before  his  death  his  clear  skin  was  his 
chief  claim  to  manly  beauty.  He  was  attacked  by  "Addison's  disease, "  a  gradual 
darkening  of  the  color  of  the  surface  of  the  body.  At  the  time  of  his  death  his  skin 
was  as  dark  as  that  of  a  full-blooded  negro.  His  name  was  George  L.  Sturtevant. 
Ratzel,  History  of  Mankind,  1 : 9, 10 —As  th  ;re  is  only  one  species  of  man,  "  the  reunion 
into  one  real  whole  of  the  parts  which  hav6  diverged  after  the  fashion  of  sports  "  is  said 
to  be  "  the  unconscious  ultimate  aim  of  all  the  movements  "  which  have  taken  place 
since  man  began  his  wanderings.  "  With  Humboldt  we  can  only  hold  fast  to  the  exter- 
nal unity  of  the  race."  See  Sir  Wm.  Hunter,  The  Indian  Empire,  223,  410;  Encyc.  Britan- 
nica,  12:808;  20:110;  Zockler,  Urgeschichte,  109-132,  and   in  Jahrbuch  fur  deutsche 


Essential  elements  of  human  nature,  483 

Theologie,  8  :  51-71 ;  Priohard,  Researches,  5  :  547-552,  and  Nat.  Hist,  of  Man, :_' :  644  656  : 
Duke  of  Argyll,  Primeval  Man,  96-108;  Smith,  Unity  of  Human  Races,  255-3.-3;  Morris, 
Conflict  of  Science  and  Religion,  325-385 ;  Rawlinson,  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philosophy, 
April,  1883  :  359.  u 

III.     Essential  Elements  of  Human  Nature. 

I.     The  Dichotomous  Tlieory. 

Man  lias  a  two-fold  nature,  —  on  the  one  hand  material,  on  the  other  hand 
immaterial.  He  consists  of  body,  and  of  spirit,  or  soul.  That  there  are 
two,  and  only  two,  elements  in  man's  being,  is  a  fact  to  which  consciousness 
testifies.  This  testimony  is  confirmed  by  Scripture,  in  which  the  prevailing 
representation  of  man's  constitution  is  that  of  dichotomy. 

Dichotomous,  from  fii'x«.  '  in  two,'  and  tAjlvw,  '  to  cut,'  =  composed  of  two  parts.  Man 
is  as  conscious  thathis  immaterial  part  is  a  unity,  as  that  his  body  is  a  unity.  He  knows 
two,  ami  only  two,  parts  of  his  being— body  and  soul.  So  mania  the  true  Janus  (Mar- 
tensen  ),  Mr.  Facing-both-ways  (  Bunyan).  That  the  Scriptures  favor  dichotomy  will 
appear  by  considering : 

(a)  The  record  of  man's  creation  ( Gen.  2:7),  in  which,  as  a  result  of 
the  inbreathing  of  the  divine  Spirit,  the  body  becomes  possessed  and 
vitalized  by  a  single  principle  —  the  living  soul. 

Gen.  2:7  —  "And  Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and 
man  became  a  living  soul"  —  here  it  is  not  said  thai  man  was  first  a  living  soul,  and.  that  then 
God  breathed  into  him  a  spirit  ;  but  that  God  inbreathed  spirit,  and  man  became  a 
living  soul  =  (bid's  life  took  possession  of  clay,  and  as  a  result,  man  had  a  soul.  Cf.  Job 
27:3 — "For  my  life  is  yet  whole  in  me,  And  the  spirit  of  God  is  in  my  nostrils"  ;  32:8 — "there  is  a  spirit  in  man,  And 
the  breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding  "  ;  33  :4  --  "The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me,  And  the  breath  of  the 
Almighty  giveth  me  life." 

(b)  Passages  in  which  the  human  soul,  or  spirit,  is  distinguished,  both 
from  the  divine  Spirit  from  whom  it  proceeded,  and  from  the  body  which 
it  inhabits. 

Num.  16  :  22  —  "0  God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh"  ;  Zech.  12: 1  —  "Jehovah,  who  ....  formeth  the  spirit  of 
man  within  h. in"  ;  1  Cor.  2:11  —  "the  spirit  of  the  man  which  is  in  hiw  ....  the  Spirit  of  God  "  ;  Heb.  12 :  9  —  "  the 
Father  of  spirits."  The  passages  just,  mentioned  distinguish  tin- spirit  of  man  from  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  following  distinguish  the  soul,  or  spirit,  of  man  from  the  body 
which  it  inhabits  :  Gen.  35:18  —  "  it  came  to  pass,  as  her  soul  was  departing  (for  she  died)  "  ;  1  K.  17:  21 — "0 
Jehovah  my  God,  I  pray  thee,  let  this  ch.ld's  soul  come  into  him  again "  ;  Eccl.  12  :  7  —  "the  dust  returneth  to  the  earth 
as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  returneth  unto  God  who  gave  it ";  James  2 .  26  —  "the  body  apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead." 
The  first  class  of  passages  refutes  pantheism  ;  the  second  refutes  materialism. 

(e)  The  interchangeable  use  of  the  terms  'soul '  and  'spirit.' 

Gen.  41 :8  —  "his  spirit  was  troubled"  ;  cf.  Ps.  42:6  —  "my  soul  is  cast  down  within  me."  John  12  :27  —  "Now 
is  my  soul  troubled  "  ;  cf.  13 :  21  —  "  he  was  troubled  in  the  sp  rit."  Mat.  20  :  28  —  "  to  give  his  life  (  tyvxnv )  a  ran- 
som for  many  "  ;  cf.  27:50 —  "yielded  up  his  spirit  (  K^ev/na)."  Heb.12:  23  —  :' spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect"  ;  cf. 
Ki\.  6:  9 — "I  saw  underneath  the  altar  the  souls  of  them  that  had  bwn  sia'n  for  the  word  of  God."  In  these 
passages  "spirit"  and  "soul"  seem  to  be  used  interchangeably. 

( d )  The  mention  of  body  and  soul  (  or  spirit )  as  together  constituting 
the  whole  man. 

Mat.  10:28  —  "able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  h;ll";  1  Cor.  5:3  —  "absmt  in  body  but  present  in  spirit"  ; 
3  John  2  —  "I  pray  that  thou  maye^t  prosper  and  ba  in  health,  even  as  thy  soul  prospereth."  These  texts  imply 
that  body  and  soul  ( or  spirit )  together  constitute  the  whole  man. 

For  advocacy  of  the  dichotomous  theory,  see  Goodwin,  in  Journ.  Society  Bib.  Exe- 
gesis, 1881:  73-86;  Godot,  Bib.  Studies  of  the  O.  T.,  33;  Oehler,  Theology  of  the  (J.  T., 
1:219;  Hahn,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  390  »•/.;  Sehmid,  Bib.  Theology  N.  T..5U3;  Weiss,  Bib. 
Theology  N.  T.,  214 ;  Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogmatik,  112, 113 ;  Hof maun,  Schrif t- 


484  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OK  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

beweis,  1 :  294-298 ;  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  1:549;  3:249;  Harless,  Com.  on  Epta.,  4:23,  and 
Christian  Ethics,  22;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  104-168 ;  Hodge,  in  Prince- 
ton Review,  1865:116,  and  Systematic  Theol.,  2:47-51;  Ebrard,  Pogmatik,  1:261-263; 
Wm.  H.  Hodge,  in  Presb.  and  Ref .  Rev.,  Apl.  1897. 

2.     The   Trichotomous   Theory. 

Hide  by  side  with,  this  common  representation  of  hnman  nature  as  con- 
sisting of  two  parts,  are  found  passages  which  at  first  sight  appear  to  favor 
trichotomy.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  in/Afia  (spirit)  and  V'V.T'/  (soul), 
although  often  used  interchangeably,  and  always  designating  the  same 
indivisible  substance,  are  sometimes  employed  as  contrasted  terms. 

In  this  more  accurate  use,  tyvxv  denotes  man's  immaterial  part  in  its  infe- 
rior powers  and  activities ;  —  as  i>vx>i,  man  is  a  conscious  individual,  and,  in 
common  with  the  brute  creation,  has  an  animal  life,  together  with  appetite, 
imagination,  memory,  understanding.  Uvrv/m,  on  the  other  hand,  denotes 
man's  immaterial  part  in  its  higher  capacities  and  faculties; — as  nvcvjua, 
man  is  a  being  related  to  God,  and  possessing  powers  of  reason,  conscience, 
and  free  will,  which  difference  him  from  the  brute  creation  and  constitute 
him  resrjonsible  and  immortal. 

In  the  following  texts,  spirit  and  soul  are  distinguished  from  each  other :  1  Thess.  1:88— 
"  ind  the  God  of  peace  himself  sanctify  you  wholly ;  and  may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire,  without 
blame  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Heb.  4 :  12  —  "  For  the  word  of  God  is  living,  and  active,  and  sharper  than 
any  two  -edged  sword,  and  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and  marrow,  and  quick  to  discern  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  Compare  1  Cor.  2:14  —  "Now  the  natural  [  Gr.  'psychical'  ]  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God"  ;  15:  44  —  "It  is  sown  a  natural  [  Gr.  'psychical'  ]  body  ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
If  there  is  a  natural  [  Gr.  '  psychical '  ]  body,  there  is  also  a  spiritual  body  "  ;  Eph.  4  :  23  —  "  that  ye  be  renewed  in  the 
spirit  of  your  mind"  ;  Jude  19 —  "sensual  [Gr.  'psychical'  ],  having  not  the  Spirit." 

For  th"3  proper  interpretation  of  these  texts,  see  note  on  the  next  page.  Among 
those  who  cite  them  as  proofs  of  the  trichotomous  theory  ( trichotomous,  from  rpi\a, 
'in  three  parts,' and  tc'mi'w,  '  to  cut,' =  composed  of  three  parts,  i.e.,  spirit,  soul,  and 
body)  may  be  mentioned  Olshausen,  Opuscula,  134,  and  Com.  on  1  Thess.,  5 :  23 ;  Beck, 
Biblische  Seelenlehre,  31 ;  Delitzsch,  Biblical  Psychology,  117, 118 ;  Goschel,  in  Herzog, 
RealencyclopSdie,  art. :  Seele ;  also,  art.  by  Auberlen :  Geist  des  Menschen  ;  Cremer,  N. 
T.  Lexicon,  on  irvevna.  and  ^vx^i !  Usteri,  Paulin.  Lehrbegriff,  384  sq. ;  Neander,  Planting 
and  Training,  394 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  365,  366;  Boardman,  in  Bap. 
Quarterly,  1 :  177,  325,  428;  Heard,  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man,  62-114;  Ellicott,  Destiny 
of  the  Creature,  106-125. 

The  element  of  truth  in  trichotomy  is  simply  this,  that  man  has  a  triplic- 
ity  of  endowment,  in  virtue  of  which  the  single  soul  has  relations  to  matter, 
to  self,  and  to  God.  The  trichotomous  theory,  however,  as  it  is  ordinarily 
defined,  endangers  the  unity  and  immateriality  of  our  higher  nature,  by 
holding  that  man  consists  of  three  substances,  or  three  component  parte — 
body,  soul,  and  spirit — and  th&t  soul  and  spirit  are  as  distinct  from  each 
other  as  are  soul  and  body. 

The  advocates  of  this  view  differ  among  themselves  as  to  the  nature  of  the  <>i>x>i  and 
its  relation  to  the  other  elements  of  our  being  ;  some  ( as  Delitzsch )  holding  that  the 
*pv\ri  is  an  efflux  of  the  n-ieO^a,  distinct  in  substance,  but  not  in  essence,  even  as  the 
divine  Word  is  distinct  from  God,  while  jet  he  is  God  ;  others  ( as  Goschel )  regarding 
the  'I'vx'n,  uot  as  a  distinct  substance,  but  as  a  resultant  of  the  union  of  the  wvev^a  and 
the  ai>ji.a.  Still  others  ( as  Cremer )  hold  the  tyvxn  to  be  the  subject  of  the  personal  life 
whose  principle  is  the  Tn-cO^xa.      Heard,  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man,  103  — "God  is  the 

Creator  ex  traduce  of  the  animal  and  intellectual  part  of  every  man Not  so  with 

the  spirit.  ...  It  ^exjeeds  from  God,  not  by  creation,  but  by  emanation." 


ESSENTIAL   ELEMENTS   OF    HUMAN    NATUEE.  485 

We  regard  the  trichotomous theory  as  untenable,  not  only  for  the  reasons 
already  urged  in  proof  of  the  dichotomons  theory,  but  from  the  following 

additional  considerations : 

■ 

(  a)    Uvevua,  as  well  as  fvxv,  is  used  of  the  brute  creation. 

EccL  3  :  21  —  "  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man,  whether  it  goeth  [  marg.  '  that  goeth '  ]  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
beast,  whether  it  goeth  [  marg.  'that  goeth '  ]  downward  to  the  earth  ?  "  Rev.  16  :  3  — "  And  the  second  poured  out  his 
bowl  into  the  sea ;  and  it  became  blood,  as  of  a  dead  man ;  and  every  living  soul  died,  even  the  things  that  were  in  the 
sea"  =  the  fish. 

( b  )    "fvxv  is  ascribed  to  Jehovah. 

Amos  6:8  —  "The  Lord  Jehovah  hath  sworn  by  himself"  ( lit.  'by  his  soul,'  LX3C  eavrov ) ;  Is.  42  : 1  —  "my  chosen, 
in  whom  my  soul  delighteth  "  ;  Jer.  9  :  9  —  "Shall  I  not  visit  them  for  these  things  ?  saith  Jehovah ;  shall  not  my  soul  be 
avenged  ?  "  Heb.  10  :  38  —  "  my  righteous  one  shall  live  by  faith :  And  if  he  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  no  pleasure  in 
him." 

(  c  )     The  disembodied  dead  are  called  ^xni- 

Rev.  6:9 —  "I  saw  underneath  the  altar  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  slain  for  the  word  of  God  "  ;  rf.  20  : 4  — 
14  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded." 

(rf)    The  highest  exercises  of  religion  are  attributed  to  the  V"'.K. 

Mark  12 :  30  —  "thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  ...  .  with  all  thy  soul "  ;  Luke  1 :  46  —  "My  soul  doth  magnify 
the  Lord  "  ;  Heb.  6 :  18, 19  —  "  the  hope  set  before  us :  which  we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul "  ;  James  1 :  21  -  "  the 
implanted  word,  which  is  able  to  save  your  souls." 

(e)    To  lose  this  i/,,,.i'/  is  to  lose alL 

Mark  8 :  36,  37  —  " For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man,  to  gain  the  whole  world,  and  forfeit  his  life  [  or  '  soil,'  i^uxt  ]  ? 
For  what  should  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life  [  or  'soul,'  <//ux>»  ]  ?  " 

(/)  The  passages  chiefly  relied  upon  as  supporting  trichotomy  may 
be  better  explained  upon  the  view  already  indicated,  that  soul  and  spirit 
are  not  two  distinct  substances  or  parts,  but  that  they  designate  the 
immaterial  principle  from  different  points  of  view. 

1  Thess.  5  :  23  —  "  may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire "  =  not  a  scientific  enumeration 
of  the  constituent  parts  of  human  nature,  but  a  comprehensive  sketch  of  that  nature  in 
its  chief  relations ;  compare  Mark  12 :  30  —  "  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thymnd,and  with  all  thy  strength  " — where  none  would  think  of  finding 
proof  of  a  fourfold  division  of  human  nature.  On  1  Thess.  5: 23,  see  Riggenbaeh  (in 
Lange's  Com.),  and  Commentary  of  Prof.  W.A.Stevens.  leb.  4  :  12  —  "  piercing  even  to  the 
dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joins  and  marrow  "  =  not  the  dividing  of  soul  from  spirit,  or  of 
joints  from  marrow,  but  rather  the  piercing  of  the  soul  and  of  the  spirit,  even  to  their 
very  joints  and  marrow ;  t.  c,  to  the  very  depths  of  the  spiritual  nature.  On  Heb.  4  :  12,  see 
Ebrard  ( in  Olshausen's  Com. ),  and  Liiuemann  ( in  Meyer's  Com. ) ;  also  Tholuck,  Com. 
in  loco.  Jude  19 — "  sensual,  having  not  the  Spirit "  (i/>uxi«oi,  nveuij.afj.ri  ^optes)  —  even  though  m-evixa 
=  the  human  spirit,  need  not  mean  that  there  is  no  spirit  existing,  but  only  that  the 
spirit  is  torpid  and  inoperative—  as  we  say  of  a  weak  man :  '  he  has  no  mind,'  or  of  an 
unprincipled  man  : '  he  has  no  conscience ' ;  so  Alford ;  see  Nitzseh,  Christian  Doctrine, 
202.  But  wvaifia  here  probably  =  the  divine  Tn-eviJ.a.  Meyer  takes  this  view,  and  the 
Revised  Version  capitalizes  the  word  "Spirit."  See  Goodwin,  Soc.  Bib.  Exegesis,  1881 :  85 
—  "The  distinction  between  tyvxn  and  nvivixaia  a  functional,  and  not  a  substantial,  dis- 
tinction." Moule,  Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine,  161, 162  — "Soul  =  spirit  organized, 
inseparably  linked  with  the  body ;  spirit  =  man's  inner  being  considered  as  God's  gift. 
Soul  =  man's  inner  being  viewed  as  his  own ;  spirit  =  man's  inner  being  viewed  as  from 
God.  They  are  not  separate  elements."  See  Lightfoot,  Essay  on  St.  Paul  and  Seneca, 
appended  to  his  Com.  on  Philippians,  on  the  influence  of  the  ethical  language  of  Stoi- 
cism on  the  N.  T.  writers.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  39—  "  The  difference  between 
man  and  his  companion  creatures  on  this  earth  is  not  that  his  instinctive  life  is  less 
than  theirs,  for  in  truth  it  goes  far  beyond  them;  but  that  in  him  it  acts  in  the  pres- 
ence and  under  the  eye  of  other  powers  which  transform  it,  and  by  giving  to  it  vision 
as  well  as  light  take  its  blindness  away.    He  is  let  into  his  own  secrets." 


486  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

We  conclude  that  the  immaterial  part  of  man,  viewed  as  an  individual 
and  conscious  life,  capable  of  possessing  and  animating  a  physical  organism, 
is  called  i'^xv  ',  viewed  as  a  rational  and  moral  agent,  susceptible  of  divine 
influence  and  indwelling,  this  same  immaterial  part  is  called  web/ia.  The 
nvevfia,  then,  is  man's  nature  looking  Godward,  and  capable  of  receiving 
and  manifesting  the  Tlvev/ia  aymv  ;  the  ipvxv  is  man's  nature  looking  earth- 
ward, and  touching  the  world  of  sense.  The  irvevpa  is  man's  higher  part, 
as  related  to  spiritual  realities  or  as  capable  of  such  relation  ;  the  Vwl'/  is 
man's  higher  part,  as  related  to  the  body,  or  as  capable  of  such  relation. 
Man's  being  is  therefore  not  trichotomous  but  dichotomous,  and  his 
immaterial  part,  while  possessing  duality  of  powers,  Las  unity  of  substance. 

Man's  nature  is  not  a  three-storied  house,  but  a  two-storied  house,  with  windows  in 
the  upper  story  looking  in  two  directions—  toward  earth  and  toward  heaven.  The 
lower  story  is  the  physical  part  of  us  —  the  body.  But  man's  "  upper  story  "  has  two 
aspects ;  there  is  an  outlook  toward  things  below,  and  a  skylight  through  which  to  see 
the  stars.  "  Soul,"  says  Hovey,  "is  spirit  as  modified  by  union  with  the  body."  Is  man 
then  the  same  in  kind  with  the  brute,  but  different  in  degree  ?  No,  man  is  different  in 
kind,  though  possessed  of  certain  powers  which  the  brute  has.  The  frog  is  not  a  mag- 
nified sensitive-plant,  though  his  nerves  automatically  respond  to  irritation.  The 
animal  is  different  in  kind  from  the  vegetable,  though  he  has  some  of  the  same  powers 
which  the  vegetable  has.  God's  powers  include  man's;  but  man  is  not  of  the  same 
substance  with  God,  nor  could  man  be  enlarged  or  developed  into  God.  So  man's 
powers  include  those  of  the  brute,  but  the  brute  is  not  of  the  same  substance  with  man, 
nor  could  he  be  enlarged  or  developed  into  man. 

Porter,  Human  Intellect,  39  —  "  The  spirit  of  man,  in  addition  to  its  higher  endow- 
ments, may  also  possess  the  lower  powers  which  vitalize  dead  matter  into  a  human 
body."  It  does  not  follow  that  the  soul  of  the  animal  or  plant  is  capable  of  man's 
higher  functions  or  developments,  or  that  the  subjection  of  man's  spirit  to  body,  in  the 
present  life,  disproves  his  immortality.  Porter  continues:  "That  the  soul  begins  to 
exist  as  a  vital  force,  does  not  require  that  it  should  always  exist  as  such  a  force  or  in 
connection  with  a  material  body.  Should  it  require  another  such  body,  it  may  have 
the  power  to  create  it  for  itself,  as  it  has  formed  the  one  it  first  inhabited  ;  or  it  may 
have  already  formed  it,  and  may  hold  it  ready  for  occupation  and  use  as  soon  as  it 
sloughs  off  the  one  which  connects  it  with  the  earth." 

Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  547  —  "Brute's  may  have  organic  life  and  sensitivity, 
and  yet  remain  submerged  in  nature.  It  is  not  life  and  sensitivity  that  liftman  above 
nature,  but  it  is  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  personality."  Parkhurst,  The  Pattern 
in  the  Mount,  17-30,  on  Prov.20:27  —  "  The  spirit  of  man  is  the  lamp  of  Jehovah  " — not  necessarily 
lighted,  but  capable  of  being  lighted,  and  intended  to  be  lighted,  by  the  touch  of  the 
divine  flame.  Cf.  Mat.  6  :  22, 23  —  "  The  lamp  of  the  body  ....  If  therefore  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be  darkness, 
how  great  is  the  darkness." 

Schleiermacher,  Christliche  Glaube,  2:487— "We  think  of  the  spirit  as  soul,  only 
when  in  the  body,  so  that  we  cannot  speak  of  an  immortality  of  the  soul,  in  the  proper 
sense,  without  bodily  life."  The  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  body  is  therefore  the  comple- 
ment to  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Pop.  Lectures,  221 
—  "By  soul  we  mean  only  one  thing,  i.  c,  an  incarnate  spirit,  a  spirit  with  a  body. 
Thus  we  never  speak  of  the  souls  of  angels.  They  are  pure  spirits,  having  no  bodies." 
Lisle,  Evolution  of  Spiritual  Man,  72—  "  The  animal  is  the  foundation  of  the  spiritual; 
it  is  what  the  cellar  is  to  the  house ;  it  is  the  base  of  supplies."  Ladd,  Philosophy  of 
Mind,  371-378— "Trichotomy  is  absolutely  untenable  on  grounds  of  psychological 
science.  Man's  reason,  or  the  spirit  that  is  in  man,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of 
Mansard  roof,  built  on  to  one  building  in  a  block,  all  the  dwellings  in  which  are  other- 
wise substantially  alike.  .  .  .  On  the  contrary,  in  every  set  of  characteristics,  from 
those  called  lowest  to  those  pronounced  highest,  the  soul  of  man  differences  itself  from 
the  soul  of  any  species  of  animals.  .  .  .  The  highest  has  also  the  lowest.  All  must  be 
assigned  to  one  subject." 

This  view  of  the  soul  and  spirit  as  different  aspects  of  the  same  spiritual 
principle  furnishes  a  refutation  of  six  important  errors  : 


ESSENTIAL    ELEMENTS    OF    HUMAN    NATURE.  487 

( «)  That  of  the  Gnostics,  who  held  that  the  tcvevpa  is  part  of  the  divine 
essence,  and  therefore  incapable  of  sin. 

( 6 )  That  of  the  Apollinarians,  who  taught  that  Christ's  humanity 
embraced  only  auua  and  fvxv,  while  his  divine  nature  furnished  the  vn-ev/ua. 

(  c )  That  of  the  Semi-Pelagians,  who  excepted  the  human  nvevfia  from 
the  dominion  of  original  sin. 

(  d  )  That  of  Placeus,  who  held  that  only  the  nvev/ia  was  directly  created 
by  God  (see  our  section  on  Theories  of  Imputation). 

( e )  That  of  Julius  Midler,  who  held  that  the  i>»x>'/  comes  to  us  from 
Adam,  but  that  our  irvev/m  was  corrupted  in  a  previous  state  of  being 
(  see  page  490  ). 

(/)  That  of  the  Annihilationists,  who  hold  that  man  at  his  creation  had 
a  divine  element  breathed  into  him,  which  he  lost  by  sin,  and  which  he 
recovers  only  in  regeneration  ;  so  that  only  when  he  has  this  irvevpa  restored 
by  virtue  of  his  union  with  Christ  does  man  become  immortal,  death  being 
to  the  sinner  a  complete  extinction  of  being. 

Tacitus  might  almost  he  understood  to  he  a  trichotomist  when  he  writes:  "Si  ut 
sapientibus  placuit,  non  extinguuntur  cum  corpora  magnce  anlmae."     Trichotomy 

allies  itself  readily  with  materialism.  Many  trlchotomists  hold  that  man  can  exist 
without  a  irvew/ao,  bu<  that  the  cwna  and  the  ''jr\'i  by  themselves  arc  mere  matter,  and 
arc  incapable  of  eternal  existence.  Trichotomy,  however,  when  it  speaks  of  the  wevjia 
as  the  divine  principle  in  man,  seems  to  savor  of  emanation  or  of  pantheism.  A  modern 
i'.nniisli  poet  describes  (he  glad  and  winsome  child  as  "A  silver  stream.  Breaking  with 
laughter  from  the  lake  divine.  Whence  all  things  flow."  Another  poet,  Robert  Brown- 
ing, in  his  Death  in  the  Desert,  107,  describes  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  ad  "What  docs, 
what  knows,  what  is  —  three  souls,  one  man." 

The  Eastern  church  generally  held  to  trichotomy,  and  is  best  represented  by  John  of 
Damascus  (ii:  12)  who  speaks  of  the  soul  as  the  sensuous  life-principle  which  takes  up 
the  spirit  —  the  spirit  being  an  efflux  from  God.  The  Western  church,  on  the  other 
hand,  generally  held  to  dichotomy,  and  is  best  represented  by  Anselm:  "Constat  homo 
ex  duabus  naturis,  ex  natura  animaeet  ex  natura  earn  is." 

Luther  has  been  quoted  upon  both  sides  of  the  controversy:  by  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psych., 
460-463,  as  fcrichotomous,  and  as  making  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  with  its  three  divisions 
an  image  of  the  tripartite  man.  "  The  tlrst  division,''  he  says,  "  was  called  the  holy  of 
holies,  since  God  dwelt  there,  and  there  was  no  light  therein.  The  next  was  denomi- 
nated the  holy  place,  for  within  it  stood  a  candlestick  with  seven  branches  and  lamps. 
The  third  was  called  the  atrium  or  court;  this  was  under  the  broad  heaven,  and  was 
open  to  the  light  of  the  sun.  A  regenerate  man  is  depicted  in  this  figure.  His  spirit  is 
the  hoi j'  of  holies,  God's  dwelling-place,  in  the  darkness  of  faith,  without  a  light,  for  he 
believes  what  he  neither  sees,  nor  feels,  nor  comprehends.  The  psyche  of  that  man  is 
the  holy  place,  whose  seven  lights  represent  ihe  various  powers  of  understanding,  the 
perception  and  knowledge  of  material  and  visible  things.  His  body  is  the  atrium  or 
court,  which  is  open  to  everybody,  so  that  all  can  see  how  he  acts  and  lives." 

Thomasius,  however,  in  his  Christi  Person  und  Wcrk,  1 :  101-168,  quotes  from  Luther 
the  following  statement,  which  is  clearly  dichotomous:  "The  first  part,  the  spirit,  is 
the  highest,  deepest,  noblest  part  of  man.  By  it  he  is  fitted  to  comprehend  eternal 
things,  and  it  is,  in  short,  the  house  in  which  dwell  faith  and  the  word  of  God.  The 
other,  the  soul,  is  this  same  spirit,  according  to  nature,  but  yet  in  another  sort  of  activ- 
ity, namely,  in  this,  that  it  animates  the  body  and  works  through  it;  audit  is  its  method 
not  to  grasp  things  incomprehensible,  but  only  what  reason  can  search  out,  know,  and 
measure."  Thomasius  himself  says:  "Trichotomy,  I  hold  with  Meyer,  is  not  Script- 
urally  sustained."  Neander,  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a  trichotomist,  savs  that  spirit  is 
soul  in  its  elevated  aud  normal  relation  to  God  and  divine  things;  ^v\ri  is  that  same 
soul  in  its  relation  to  the  sensuous  and  perhaps  sinful  things  of  this  world.  Godet,  Bib. 
Studies  of  O.  T.,  32— "Spirit  =  the  breath  of  God,  considered  as  independent  of  the 
body ;  soul  =  that  same  breath,  in  so  far  as  it  gives  life  to  the  body." 


488  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

The  doctrine  we  have  advocated,  moreover,  in  contrast  with  the  heathen  view,  puts 
honor  upon  man's  body,  as  proceeding  from  the  hand  of  God  and  as  therefore  origin- 
ally pure  (  Gen.  1 :31  —  "  And  God  saw  everything  that  he  had  mads,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good  "  ) ;  as  intended 
to  be  the  dwelling  place  of  the  divine  Spirit  (lCor.6: 19  — "know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  a  temple  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God  ?  "  ) ;  and  as  containing  the  germ  of  the  heavenly 
body  ( 1  Cor.  15  :  44  —  "  it  is  sown  a  natural  body  ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body  "  ;  Rom.  8  :  11  —  "  shall  give  life  also 
to  your  mortal  bodies  through  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you" — here  many  ancient  authorities  read 
"because  of  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you"  —  Sta.  to  evoLKovv  avrov  ir>'eO/u.a).  Birks,  in  his  Diffi- 
culties of  Belief,  suggests  that  man,  unlike  angels,  may  have  been  provided  with  a 
fleshly  body,  ( 1 )  to  objectify  sin,  and  ( 2 )  to  enable  Christ  to  unite  himself  to  the 
race,  in  order  to  save  it. 

IV.     Okigin  of  the  Sotjij. 

Three  theories  with  regard  to  this  subject  have  divided  opinion : 

1.     Hie  Theory  of  Preexistence. 

This  view  was  held  by  Plato,  Philo,  and  Origen  ;  by  the  first,  in  order 
to  explain  the  soul's  possession  of  ideas  not  derived  from  sense ;  by  the 
second,  to  account  for  its  imprisonment  in  the  body  ;  by  the  third,  to  jus- 
tify the  disparity  of  conditions  in  which  men  enter  the  world.  We  concern 
ourselves,  however,  only  with  the  forms  which  the  view  has  assumed  in 
modern  times.  Kant  and  Julius  Miiller  in  Germany,  and  Edward  Beecher 
in  America,  have  advocated  it,  upon  the  ground  that  the  inborn  depravity 
of  the  human  will  can  be  explained  only  by  supposing  a  personal  act  of 
self-determination  in  a  previous,  or  timeless,  state  of  being. 

The  truth  at  the  basis  of  the  theory  of  preexistence  is  simply  the  ideal  existence  of 
the  soul,  before  birth,  in  the  mind  of  God  — that  is,  God's  foreknowledge  of  it.  The 
intuitive  ideas  of  which  the  soul  finds  itself  in  possession,  such  as  space,  time,  cause, 
substance,  right,  God,  are  evolved  from  itself;  in  other  words,  man  is  so  constituted 
that  he  perceives  these  truths  upon  proper  occasions  or  conditions.  The  apparent 
recollection  that  we  have  seen  at  some  past  time  a  landscape  which  we  know  to  be  now 
for  the  first  time  before  us,  is  an  illusory  putting  together  of  fragmentary  concepts  or 
a  mistaking  of  a  part  for  the  whole ;  we  have  seen  something  like  a  part  of  the  land- 
scape,—  we  fancy  that  we  have  seen  this  landscape,  and  the  whole  of  it.  Our  recollec- 
tion of  a  past  event  or  scene  is  one  whole,  but  this  one  idea  may  have  an  indefinite 
number  of  subordinate  ideas  existing  within  it.  The  sight  of  something  which  is  similar 
to  one  of  these  parts  suggests  the  past  whole.  Coleridge :  "  The  great  law  of  the  imagi- 
nation that  likeness  in  part  tends  to  become  likeness  of  the  whole."  Augustine  hinted 
that  this  illusion  of  memory  may  have  played  an  important  part  in  developing  the 
belief  in  metempsychosis. 

Other  explanations  are  those  of  William  James,  in  his  Psychology :  The  brain 
tracts  excited  by  the  event  proper,  and  those  excited  in  its  recall,  are  different;  Bald- 
win, Psychology,  203,  264 :  We  may  remember  what  we  have  seen  in  a  dream,  or  there 
may  be  a  revival  of  ancestral  or  race  experiences.  Still  others  suggest  that  the  two 
hemispheres  of  the  brain  act  asynchronously;  self -consciousness  or  apperception  is 
distinguished  from  perception ;  divorce,  from  fatigue,  of  the  processes  of  sensation  and 
perception,  causes  paramnesia.  Sully,  Illusions,  280,  speaks  of  an  organic  or  atavistic 
memory :  "  May  it  not  happen  that  by  the  law  of  hereditary  transmission  .  .  .  ancient 
experiences  will  now  and  then  reflect  themselves  in  our  mental  life,  and  so  give  rise  to 
apparently  personal  recollections?  "  Letson,  The  Crowd,  believes  that  the  mob  is  ata- 
vistic and  that  it  bases  its  action  upon  inherited  impulses :  "  The  inherited  reflexes 
are  atavistic  memories"  ( quoted  in  Colegrove,  Memory,  204). 

Plato  heid  that  intuitive  ideas  are  reminiscences  of  things  learned  in  a  previous  state 
of  being ;  he  regarded  the  body  as  the  grave  of  the  soul ;  and  urged  the  fact  that  the 
soul  had  knowledge  before  it  entered  the  body,  as  proof  that  the  soul  would  have  know- 
ledge after  it  left  the  body,  that  is,  would  be  immortal.  See  Plato,  Meno,  82-85,  Phredo, 
72-75,  Phnedrus,  245-250,  Republic,  5  :  460  and  10  :  614.  Alexander,  Theories  of  the  Will, 
36, 37  —  "  Plato  represents  preexistent  souls  as  having  set  before  them  a  choice  of  virtue. 
The  choice  is  free,  but  it  will  determine  the  destiny  of  each  soul.    Not  God,  but  he  who 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   SOUL.  489 

chooses,  is  responsible  for  his  choice.  After  making  their  choice,  the  souls  go  to  the 
Sates,  who  spin  the  threads  of  their  destiny,  and  it  is  thenceforth  irreversible.  As 
Christian  theology  teaches  that  man  was  free  but  lost  his  freedom  by  the  fall  of  Adam, 
so  Pluto  affirms  that  the  preexistent  $pul  is  free  until  it  has  chosen  its  lot  in  life."  See 
Introductions  to  the  above  mentioned  works  of  Plato  in  Jowett's  translation.  Philo 
held  that  all  souls  are  emanations  from  God,  and  that  those  who  allowed  themselves, 
unlike  the  angels,  to  be  attracted  by  matter,  are  punished  for  this  fall  by  imprison- 
ment in  the  body,  which  corrupts  them,  and  from  which  they  must  break  loose.  See 
Philo,  De  Giguntibus,  Pfeiffer's  ed.,  2  :  360-3(31.  Origen  accounted  for  disparity  of  con- 
ditions at  birth  by  the  differences  in  the  conduct  of  these  same  souls  in  a  previous  state. 
God's  justice  at  the  first  made  all  souls  equal ;  condition  here  corresponds  to  the  degree 
of  previous  guilt ;  Mat.  20 : 3  —  "others  standing  in  the  market  place  idle  "  =  soulsnot  yet  brought  into 
the  world.  The  Talmudists  regarded  all  souls  as  created  at  once  in  the  beginning,  and 
as  kept  like  grains  of  corn  in  God's  granary,  until  the  time  should  come  for  joining 
each  to  its  appointed  body.  See  Origen,  De  Anima,  7;  wepl  dpx"",  ii:9:6;  c/.i:l:2,4, 
18 ;  4 :  36.  Origen's  view  was  condemned  at  the  Synod  of  Constantinople,  538.  Many  of 
the  preceding  facts  and  references  are  taken  from  Bruch,  Lehre  der  PrHexistenz,  trans- 
lated in  Bib.  Sac.,  20  :  681-733. 

For  modern  advocates  of  the  theory,  see  Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  sec.  15 ; 
Religion  in.  d.  Grcnzen  d.  bl.  Vernunft,  26, 27  ;  Julius  Midler,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2 :  357-401 ; 
Edward  Beecher,  Conflict  i  ft  Ag<  s.  The  idea  of  preexistence  has  appeared  to  a  notable 
extent  in  modern  poetry.  See  Vuughan,  The  Retreate  (1621);  Wordsworth,  Intima- 
tions of  Immortality  in  Early  Childhood  ;  Tennyson,  Two  Voices,  stanzas  105-119,  and 
Early  Sonnets,  25  — 4>  As  when  with  downcast  eyes  we  muse  and  brood,  And  ebb  into  a 
former  life,  or  seem  To  lapse  far  back  in  some  confused  dream  To  states  of  mystical 
similitude;  If  one  but  speaks  or  hems  or  stirs  his  chair,  Ever  the  wonder  waxcth  more 
and  more,  So  that  we  say  'AH  this  hath  been  before.  All  this  hath  been,  I  know  not 
when  or  where.'  So,  friend,  when  first  I  looked  upon  your  face,  Our  thought  gave 
answer  each  to  each,  so  true  — Opposed  mirrors  each  reflecting  each  — That  though  I 
knew  not  in  what  time  or  place,  Methought  that  I  had  often  met  with  you,  And  either 
lived  in  either's  heart  and  speech."  Robert  Browning,  La  Saisiaz,  and  Christina : 
"  Ages  past  the  soul  existed ;  Here  an  age  'tis  resting  merely,  And  hence  fleets  again 
for  ages."  Rossetti,  House  of  Life  :  "  I  have  been  here  before.  But  when  or  how  I  can- 
not tell ;  I  know  the  glass  beyond  the  door.  The  sweet,  keen  smell,  The  sighing  sound, 
the  lights  along  the  shore.  You  have  been  mine  before,  How  long  ago  I  may  not  know; 
But  just  when,  at  that  swallow's  soar,  Your  neck  turned  so,  Some  veil  did  fall  —  1  knew 
it  all  of  yore";  quoted  in  Colegrrove,  Memory,  103-106,  who  holds  the  phenomenon  due 
to  false  induction  and  interpretation. 

Briggs,  School,  College  am!  Character,  05  —  "  Some  of  us  remember  the  days  when  we 
were  on  earth  for  the  first  time;'' — which  reminds  us  of  the  boy  who  remembered 
sitting  in  a  corner  before  he  was  born  ami  crying  for  fear  he  would  be  a  girl.  A  more 
notable  illustration  is  that  found  in  the  Life  of  Sir  Walter  Scott,  by  Lockhart,  his  son- 
in-law,  8:274  —  "  Featerday,  at  dinner  time,  I  was  strangely  haunted  by  what  I  would 
call  the  sense  of  preexistence —  viz.,  a  confused  idea  that  nothing  that  passed  was  said 
for  the  first  time  —  that  the  same  topics  had  been  discussed  and  the  same  persons  had 
started  the  same  opinions  on  them.  It  is  true  there  might  have  been  some  ground  for 
recollections,  considering  that  three  at  least  of  the  company  were  old  friends  and  had 

kept  much  company  together But  the  sensation  was  so  strong  as  to  resemble 

what  is  called  a  mirage  in  the  desert,  or  a  calenture  on  board  of  ship,  when  lakes  are 
seen  in  the  desert  and  sylvan  landscapes  in  the  sea.  It  was  very  distressing  yesterday 
and  brought  to  mind  the  fancies  of  Bishop  Berkeley  about  an  ideal  world.    There  was 

a  vile  sense  of  want  of  reality  in  all  I  did  and  said I  drank  several  glasses  of 

wine,  but  these  only  aggravated  the  disorder.  I  did  not  find  the  in  vino  Veritas  of  the 
philosophers." 

To  the  theory  of  preexistence  we  urge  the  following  objections  : 

(a )  It  is  not  only  wholly  without  support  from  Scripture,  but  it  directly 
contradicts  the  Mosaic  account  of  man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
Paul's  description  of  all  evil  and  death  in  the  human  race  as  the  result  of 
Adam's  sin. 


490  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Gen.  1 :  27  —  "  And  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him  "  ;  31  —  "  And  God  saw 
every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good."  Rom.  5 :  12  — "  Therefore,  as  through  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin;  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned."  The  theory  of 
preSxisten.ee  would  still  leave  it  doubtful  whether  all  men  are  sinners,  or  whether  God 
assembles  only  sinners  upon  the  earth. 

(  b  )  If  the  soul  in  this  preexistent  state  was  conscious  and  personal,  it  is 
inexplicable  that  we  should  have  no  remembrance  of  such  preexistence,  and 
of  so  important  a  decision  in  that  previous  condition  of  being  ; —  if  the  soul 
was  yet  unconscious  and  impersonal,  the  theory  fails  to  show  how  a  moral 
act  involving  consequences  so  vast  could  have  been  performed  at  all. 

Christ  remembered  his  preexistent  state ;  why  should  not  we  ?  There  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  in  the  future  state  we  shall  remember  our  present  existence ;  why  should 
we  not  now  remember  the  past  state  from  which  we  came  ?  It  may  be  objected  that 
Augustiuians  hold  to  a  sin  of  the  race  in  Adam  —  a  sin  which  none  of  Adam's  descend- 
ants can  remember.  But  we  reply  that  no  Augustinian  holds  to  a  personal  existence  of 
each  member  of  the  race  in  Adam,  and  therefore  no  Augustinian  needs  to  account  for 
lack  of  memory  of  Adam's  sin.  The  advocate  of  preexistence,  however,  does  hold  to 
a  personal  existence  of  each  soul  in  a  previous  state,  and  therefore  needs  to  account 
for  our  lack  of  memory  of  it. 

(  c  )  The  view  sheds  no  light  either  upon  the  origin  of  sin,  or  upon  God's 
jixstice  in  dealing  with  it,  since  it  throws  back  the  first  transgression  to  a 
state  of  being  in  which  there  was  no  flesh  to  tempt,  and  then  represents 
God  as  putting  the  fallen  into  sensuous  conditions  in  the  highest  degree 
unfavorable  to  their  restoration. 

This  theory  only  increases  the  difficulty  of  explaining-  the  origin  of  sin,  by  pushing- 
back  its  beginning  to  a  state  of  which  we  know  less  than  we  do  of  the  present.  To  say 
that  the  soul  in  that  previous  state  was  only  potentially  conscious  and  personal,  is  to 
deny  any  real  probation,  and  to  throw  the  blame  of  sin  on  God  the  Creator.  Pfieiderer, 
Philos.  of  Religion,  1:228  — "In  modern  times,  the  philosophers  Kant,  Schelling  and 
Schopenhauer  have  explained  the  bad  from  an  intelligible  act  of  freedom,  which 
( according  to  Schelling  and  Schopenhauer )  also  at  the  same  time  effectuates  the  tempo- 
ral existence  and  condition  of  the  individual  soul.  But  what  are  we  to  think  of  as 
meant  by  such  a  mystical  deed  or  act  through  which  the  subject  of  it  first  comes  into 
existence?  Is  it  not  this,  that  perhaps  under  this  singular  disguise  there  La  concealed 
the  simple  thought  that  the  origin  of  the  bad  lies  not  so  much  in  a  doing  of  the  individ- 
ual freedom  as  rather  in  the  rf.se  of  it,— that  is  to  say,  in  the  process  of  development 
through  which  the  natural  man  becomes  a  moral  man,  and  the  merely  potentially 
rational  man  becomes  an  actually  rational  man  ?  " 

(  d )  While  this  theory  accounts  for  inborn  spiritual  sin,  such  as  pride 
and  enmity  to  God,  it  gives  no  explanation  of  inherited  sensual  sin,  which 
it  holds  to  have  come  from  Adam,  and  the  guilt  of  which  must  logically  be 
denied. 

While  certain  forms  of  the  preexistence  theory  are  exposed  to  the  last  objection  indi- 
cated in  the  text,  Julius  Miiller  claims  that  his  own  view  escapes  it ;  see  Doctrine  of 
Sin,  2 :  393.  His  theory,  he  says,  "  would  contradict  holy  Scripture  if  it  derived  inborn 
sinfulness  solely  from  this  extra-temporal  act  of  the  individual,  without  recognizing  in 
this  sinfulness  the  element  of  hereditary  depravity  in  the  sphere  of  the  natural  life,  and 
its  connection  with  the  sin  of  our  first  parents."  Miiller,  whose  trichotomy  here  deter- 
mines his  whole  subsequent  scheme,  holds  only  the  nvev/j-a  to  have  thus  fallen  in  a  pre- 
existent state.  The  ^vxv  comes,  with  the  body,  from  Adam.  The  tempter  only  brought 
man's  latent  perversity  of  will  into  open  transgression.  Sinfulness,  as  hereditary,  does 
not  involve  guilt,  but  the  hereditary  principle  is  the  "  medium  through  which  the  tran- 
scendent self-perversion  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  is  transmitted  to  his  whole  tem- 
poral mode  of  being."  While  man  is  born  guilty  as  to  his  irvevna,  for  the  reasou  that 
this  nveOixa  sinned  in  a  prefe'xistent  state,  he  is  also  born  guilty  as  to  his  ^vx>7,  because 
this  was  one  with  the  first  man  in  his  transgression. 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   SOUL.  491 

Even  upon  the  most  favorable  statement  of  Midler's  view,  we  fail  to  see  how  it  can 
consist  with  the  organic  unity  of  the  race;  for  in  that  which  chiefly  constitutes  us  men 
—  the  TTvcvixa.  —  we  are  as  distinct  and  separate  creations  as  are  the  angels.  We  also  fail 
to  sci'  how,  upon  this  view,  Christ  can  be  said  to  take  our  nature;  or,  if  he  takes  it,  how 
it  can  be  without  sin.  See  Ernests,  Ursprung  der  Siimle,  2:1-217;  Frohschammer, 
Ursprungder  Seele,  11-17:  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3:92-122;  Brueh,  Lehre  der  Praex- 
istenz,  translated  in  Bib.  Sac.,  20: 681-738.  Also  Bib.  Sac.,  11 :  186-191  ;  12:156;  17:419-427; 
20:417;  Kahuis,  Dogmatik,  3:250— "This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  indisput- 
able fact  that  the  souls  of  children  are  like  those  of  the  pareuts;  and  it  ignores  the 
connection  of  the  individual  with  the  race." 

2.     The  Creatian  Theory. 

This  view  was  held  by  Aristotle,  Jerome,  and  Pelagius,  and  in  modem 
times  has  been  advocated  by  most  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Reformed 
theologians.  It  regards  the  soul  of  each  human  being  as  immediately 
created  by  God  and  joined  to  the  body  either  at  conception,  at  birth,  or  at 
some  time  between  these  two.  The  advocates  of  the  theory  urge  in  its 
favor  certain  texts  of  Scripture,  referring  to  God  as  the  Creator  of  the 
human  spirit,  together  with  the  fact  that  there  is  a  marked  individuality 
in  the  child,  which  cannot  be  explained  as  a  mere  reproduction  of  the 
qualities  existing  in  the  parents. 

Creatianism,  as  ordinarily  held,  regards  only  the  body  as  propagated  from  past  gene- 
rations. Creatianists  who  hold  to  trichotomy  would  Bay,  however,  that  the  animal  soul, 
the  4/vxv,  is  propagated  with  the  body,  while  the  highest  part  of  man,  the  irreviMa,  is  in 
each  case  a  direct  creation  of  God, —  the  jrveu/no  not  being  created,  as  the  advocates  of 
prefe'xistence  believe,  ages  before  the  body,  but  rather  at  the  time  that  the  body 
assumes  its  distinct  individuality. 

Aristotle  (  De  Anima )  first  gives  definite  expression  to  this  view.  Jerome  speaks  of 
God  as  "making  souls  daily."  The  scholastics  followed  Aristotle,  and  through  the 
inlluence  of  the  Reformed  church,  creatianism  lias  been  i  he  pre^  ailing  opinion  for  tin- 
last  two  hundred  years.  Among  its  best  representatives  are  Turretin,  Inst.,  5:13  (vol. 
1:425);  Hodge,  Syst.  TheoL,2; 65-76;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  141-148 ;  Liddon, Elements 
of  Religion,  99-100.  Certain  Reformed  theologians  have  defined  vers  exactly  God's 
method  of  creation.  Polanus  (5:31:1  )  says  that  God  breathes  the  soul  into  boys, 
forty  days,  and  into  girls,  eighty  days,  after  concept  ion.  Gdschel  (in  Herzog,  Bncyclop., 
art.:  Seele)  holds  that  while  dichotomy  leads  to  traducianism,  trichotomy  allies  itself 
to  that  form  of  creatianism  which  regards  the  nrevfia  as  a  direct  creation  of  God,  but 
the  i//vx>i  as  propagated  with  the  body.  To  the  latter  answers  the  family  name;  to  the 
former  the  Christian  name.  Shall  wc  count  George  Blacdonald  as  a  believer  in  Preex- 
istence  or  in  Creatianism,  when  he  writes  in  his  Baby's  Catechism:  "  Where  did  you 
come  from,  baby  dear?  Out  of  the  everywhere  into  here.  Where  did  you  get  your  eyes 
so  blue?  Out  of  the  sky,  as  1  came  through.  Where  did  you  get  that  little  tear?  I 
found  it  waiting  when  I  got  here.  Where  did  you  get  that  pearly  ear?  God  spoke, 
and  it  came  out  to  hear.  How  did  they  all  just  come  to  be  you  ?  God  thought  about 
me,  and  so  I  grew." 

Creatianism  is  untenable  for  the  following  reasons  : 

(  a )  The  passages  adduced  in  its  support  may  with  equal  propriety  be 
regarded  as  expressing  God's  mediate  agency  in  the  origination  of  human 
souls  ;  while  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  its  representations 
of  God  as  the  author  of  man's  body,  favor  this  latter  interpretation. 

Passages  commonly  relied  upon  by  creatianists  are  the  following:  Eccl.  12:7 — "the  spirit 
returneth  unto  God  -who  gave  it "  ;  Is.  57 :  16  —  "  the  souls  that  I  have  made  "  ;  Zech.  12 : 1  —  "  Jehovah  ....  who  form- 
eth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him"  ;  Heb.l2:9 — "  the  Father  of  spirits."  But  God  is  with  equal  clearness 
declared  to  be  the  former  of  man's  body  :  see  Ps.  139 :  13, 14  —  "  thou  didst  form  my  inward  parts: 
Thou  didst  cover  me  [  marg.  'knit  nie  together'  ]  in  my  mother's  womb.  I  will  give  thanks  unto  thee  ;  for  I  am  fear- 
fully and  wonderfully  made :  Wondsrful are  thy  works "  ;  Jer.  1:5  —  ''I  formed  thee  in  tha  belly."  Yet  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  interpret  these  latter  passages  as  expressive  of  mediate,  not  immediate. 


492  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

creatorship,—  God  works  through  natural  laws  of  generation  and  development  so  far 
as  the  production  of  man's  body  is  concerned.  None  of  the  passages  first  mentioned 
forbid  us  to  suppose  that  he  works  through  these  same  natural  laws  in  the  production ' 
of  the  soul.  The  truth  in  creatianism  is  the  presence  and  operation  of  God  in  all  natural 
processes.  A  transcendent  God  manifests  himself  in  all  physical  begetting.  Shakes- 
peare: "There's  a  divinity  that  shapes  our  ends,  Rough  hew  them  how  we  will." 
Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  113  —  "  Creatianism,  which  emphasizes  the  divine  origin  of  man, 
is  entirely  compatible  with  Traducianism,  which  emphasizes  the  mediation  of  natural 
agencies.  So  for  the  race  as  a  whole,  its  origin  in  a  creative  activity  of  God  is  quite 
consistent  with  its  being  a  product  of  natural  evolution." 

( 6 )  Creatianism  regards  the  earthly  father  as  begetting  only  the  body 
of  his  child — certainly  as  not  the  father  of  the  child's  highest  part.  This 
makes  the  beast  to  possess  nobler  powers  of  propagation  than  man  ;  for  the 
beast  multiplies  himself  after  his  own  image. 

The  new  physiology  properly  views  soul,  not  as  something  added  from  without,  but 
as  the  animating  principle  of  the  body  from  the  beginning  and  as  having  a  determining 
influence  upon  its  whole  development.  That  children  are  like  their  parents,  in  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  as  well  as  in  physical  respects,  is  a  fact  of  which  the  ereatian 
theory  gives  no  proper  explanation.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  115  —  "  The  love  of 
parents  to  children  and  of  children  to  parents  protests  against  the  doctrine  that  only 
the  body  is  propagated."  Aubrey  Moore,  Science  and  the  Faith,  207,  — quoted  in  Con- 
lemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1893 :  876—  "  Instead  of  the  physical  derivation  of  the  soul,  we  stand 
lor  the  spiritual  derivation  of  the  body."  We  would  amend  this  statement  by  saying 
that  we  stand  for  the  spiritual  derivation  of  both  soul  and  body,  natural  law  being  only 
i,he  operation  of  spirit,  human  and  divine. 

(  c  )  The  individuality  of  the  child,  even  in  the  most  extreme  cases,  as  in 
the  sudden  rise  from  obscure  families  and  surroundings  of  marked  men  like 
Luther,  may  be  better  explained  by  supposing  a  law  of  variation  impressed 
upon  the  species  at  its  beginning  —  a  law  whose  operation  is  foreseen  and 
supervised  by  God. 

The  differences  of  the  child  from  the  parent  are  often  exaggerated ;  men  are  generally 
more  the  product  of  their  ancestry  and  of  their  time  than  we  are  accustomed  to  think. 
Dickens  made  angelic  children  to  be  born  of  depraved  parents,  and  to  grow  up  in  the 
slums.  But  this  writing  belongs  to  a  past  generation,  when  the  facts  of  heredity  were 
unrecognized.  George  Eliot's  school  is  nearer  the  truth  ;  although  she  exaggerates  the 
doctrine  of  heredity  in  turn,  until  all  idea  of  free  will  and  all  hope  of  escaping  our  fate 
vanish.  Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  78,  90  — "Separate  motives,  handed  down 
from  generation  to  generation,  sometimes  remaining  latent  for  great  periods,  to  become 

suddenly  manifested  under  conditions  the  nature  of  which  is  not  discernible 

Conflict  of  inheritances  [  from  different  ancestors  ]  may  lead  to  the  institution  of 
variety." 

Sometimes,  in  spite  of  George  Eliot,  a  lily  grows  out  of  a  stagnant  pool  —  how  shall 
we  explain  the  fact  ?  We  must  remember  that  the  paternal  and  the  maternal  elements 
are  themselves  unlike ;  the  union  of  the  two  may  well  produce  a  third  in  some  respects 
unlike  either  ;  as,  when  two  chemical  elements  unite,  the  product  differs  from  either  of 
the  constituents.  We  must  remember  also  that  nature  is  one  factor ;  nurture  is  another ; 
and  that  the  latter  is  often  as  potent  as  the  former  ( see  Galton,  Inquiries  into  Human 
Faculty,  77-81).  Environment  determines  to  a  large  extent  both  the  fact  and  the 
degree  of  development.  Genius  is  often  another  name  for  Providence.  Yet  before  all 
and  beyond  all  we  must  recognize  a  manifold  wisdom  of  God,  which  in  the  very  organi- 
zation of  species  impresses  upon  it  a  law  of  variation,  so  that  at  proper  times  and  under 
proper  conditions  the  old  is  modified  in  the  line  of  progress  and  advance  to  something 
higher.  Dante,  Purgatory,  canto  vii  —  "Rarely  into  the  branches  of  the  tree  Doth 
human  worth  mount  up  ;  and  so  ordains  He  that  bestows  it,  that  as  his  free  gift  It  may 
be  called."  Pompilia,  the  noblest  character  in  Robert  Browning's  Ring  and  the  Book, 
came  of  "a  bad  lot."  Geo.  A.  Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  123-136  — "It  is  mockery  to 
account  for  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Robert  Burns  and  William  Shakespeare  upon  naked 
principles  of  heredity  and  environment All  intelligence  and  all  high  character  are 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   SOUL.  493 

transcendent,  and  have  their  source  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  God.  It  is  in  the  range  of 
Christ's  transcendence  of  his  earthly  conditions  that  we  note  the  complete  uniqueness 
of  his  person." 

(d)  This  theory,  if  it  allow.'?'  that  the  soul  is  originally  possessed  of 
depraved  tendencies,  makes  God  the  direct  author  of  moral  evil ;  if  it  holds 
the  soul  to  have  been  created  pure,  it  makes  God  indirectly  the  author  of 
moral  evil,  by  teaching  that  he  puts  this  pure  soul  into  a  body  which 
will  inevitably  corrupt  it. 

The  decisive  argument  againt  creatianism  is  this  one,  that  it  makes  God  the  author 
of  moral  evil.  See  Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3:250  —  "Creatianism  rests  upon  a  justly  anti- 
quated dualism  between  soul  and  body,  and  is  irreconcilable  with  the  sinful  condition 
of  the  human  soul.  The  truth  in  the  doctrine  is  just  this  only,  that  generation  can 
bring  forth  an  immortal  human  life  only  according  to  the  power  imparted  by  God's 
word,  and  with  the  special  cooperation  of  God  himself."  The  difficulty  of  supposing 
that  God  immediately  creates  a  pure  soul,  only  to  put  it  into  a  body  that  will  infallibly 
corrupt  it— "sicut  vinum  in  vase  acetoso"  —  has  led  many  of  the  most  thoughtful 
Reformed  theologians  to  modify  the  creatian  doctrine  by  combining  it  with 
traducianism. 

Rothe,  Dogmatik,  1  : 349-251,  holds  to  creatianism  in  a  wider  sense—  a  union  of  the 
paternal  and  maternal  elements  under  the  express  and  determining  efficiency  of  God. 
Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1:327-832,  regards  the  soul  as  new-created,  yet  by  a  process  of 
mediate  creation  according  to  law,  which  he  calls  '  metaphysical  generation.'  Dorner, 
System  of  Doctrine,  3:56,  says  that  the  individual  is  not  simply  a  manifestation  of  the 
species ;  God  applies  to  the  origination  of  every  single  man  a  special  creative  thought 
and  act  of  will ;  yet  he  does  this  through  the  species,  so  that  it  is  creation  by  law,  —  else 
the  child  would  be,  not  a  continuation  of  the  old  species,  lint  the  establishment  of  anew 
one.  So  in  speaking  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ,  Dorner  says  (3:340-349)  that  the  soul 
itself  does  not  owe  its  origin  to  Mary  nor  to  the  species,  but  to  the  creative  act  of  God. 
This  soul  appropriates  to  itself  from  Mary's  body  the  elements  of  a  human  form, 
purifying  them  in  the  process  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  beginning  of  a  life  yet 
subject  to  development  and  human  weakness. 

Bowne,  Metaphysics,  500  —  "The  laws  of  heredity  must  be  viewed  simply  as  descrip- 
tions of  a  fact  and  never  as  its  explanation.  Not  as  if  ancestors  passed  on  something 
to  posterity,  but  solely  because  of  the  inner  consistency  of  the  divine  action  "  are 
children  like  their  parents.  We  cannot  regard  either  of  these  mediating  views  as  self- 
consistent  or  intelligible.  We  pass  on  therefore  to  consider  the  traducian  theory  which 
we  believe  more  fully  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Scripture  and  of  reason.  For  fur- 
ther discussion  of  creatianism,  see  Frohschammer,  Ursprung  der  Seele,  18-58;  Alger, 
Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life,  1-17. 

3.     The  Traducian  Theory. 

This  view  was  propounded  by  Tertullian,  and  was  implicitly  held  by 
Augustine.  In  modern  times  it  has  been  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  It  holds  that  the  human  race  was  immediately  created 
in  Adam,  and,  as  respects  both  body  and  soul,  was  propagated  from  him 
by  natural  generation  —  all  souls  since  Adam  being  only  mediately  created 
by  God,  as  the  upholder  of  the  laws  of  propagation  which  were  originally 
established  by  him. 

Tertullian,  De  Anima:  "Tradux  peccati,  tradux  animae."  Gregory  of  Nyssa  :  "  Man 
being  one,  consisting  of  soul  and  body,  the  common  beginning  of  his  constitution  must 
be  supposed  also  one;  so  that  he  may  not  be  both  older  and  younger  than  himself  —  that 
in  him  which  is  bodily  being  first,  and  the  other  coming  after  "  (  quoted  in  Crippcn,  Hist, 
of  Christ.  Doct.,  80 ).  Augustine,  De  Pec.  Mer.  et  Rem.,  3  :  T  —  "  In  Adam  all  sinned,  at 
the  time  when  in  his  nature  all  were  still  that  one  man  "  ;  De  Civ.  Dei,  13: 14 — "  For  we 

all  were  in  that  one  man,  when  we  all  were  that  one  man The  form  in  which  we 

each  should  live  was  not  as  yet  individually  created  and  distributed  to  us,  but  there 
already  existed  the  seminal  nature  from  which  we  were  propagated," 


494  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

Augustine,  indeed,  wavered  in  his  statements  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  soul, 
apparently  fearing  that  an  explicit  and  pronounced  traducianism  might  involve  mate- 
rialistic consequences ;  yet,  as  logically  lying  at  the  basis  of  his  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
traducianism  came  to  be  the  ruling  view  of  the  Lutheran  reformers.  In  his  Table  Talk, 
Luther  says  :  "  The  reproduction  of  mankind  is  a  great  marvel  and  mystery.  Had  <  1 1  id 
consulted  me  in  the  matter,  I  should  have  advised  him  to  continue  the  generation  of 
the  species  by  fashioning  them  out  of  clay,  in  the  way  Adam  was  fashioned  ;  as  I  should 
have  counseled  him  also  to  let  the  sun  remain  always  suspended  over  the  earth,  like  a 
great  lamp,  maintaining  perpetual  light  and  heat." 

Traducianism  holds  that  man,  as  a  species,  was  created  in  Adam.  In  Adam,  the  sub- 
stance of  humanity  was  yet  undistributed.  We  derive  our  immaterial  as  well  as  our 
material  being,  by  natural  laws  of  propagation,  from  Adam,  —  each  individual  man 
after  Adam  possessing  a  part  of  the  substance  that  was  originated  in  him.  Sexual 
reproduction  has  for  its  purpose  the  keeping  of  variations  within  limit.  Every  mar- 
riage tends  to  bring  back  the  individual  type  to  that  of  the  species.  The  offspring 
represents  not  one  of  the  parents  but  both.  And,  as  each  of  these  parents  represents 
two  grandparents,  the  offspring  really  represents  the  whole  race.  Without  this  conju- 
gation the  individual  peculiarities  would  reproduce  themselves  in  divergent  lines  like 
the  shot  from  a  shot-gun.  Fission  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  conjugation.  The  use 
of  sexual  reproduction  is  to  preserve  the  average  individual  in  the  face  of  a  progressive 
tendency  to  variation.  In  asexual  reproduction  the  offspring  start  on  deviating  lines 
and  never  mix  their  qualities  with  those  of  their  mates.  Sexual  reproduction  makes 
the  individual  the  type  of  the  species  and  gives  solidarity  to  the  race.  See  Maupas, 
quoted  by  Newman  Smith,  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  19-22. 

John  Milton,  in  his  Christian  Doctrine,  is  a  Traducian.  He  has  no  faith  in  the  notion 
of  a  soul  separate  from  and  inhabiting  the  body.  He  believes  in  a  certain  corporeity  of 
the  soul.  Mind  and  thought  are  rooted  in  the  bodily  organism.  Soul  was  not  inbreathed 
after  the  body  was  formed.  The  breathing  of  God  into  man's  nostrils  was  only  the 
quickening  impulse  to  that  which  already  had  life.  God  does  not  create  souls  every 
day.  Man  is  a  body-and-soul,  or  a  soul-body,  and  he  transmits  himself  as  such.  Harris, 
Moral  Evolution,  171  —  The  individual  man  has  a  great  number  of  ancestors  as  well  as  a 
great  number  of  descendants.  He  is  the  central  point  of  an  hour-glass,  or  a  strait 
between  two  seas  which  widen  out  behind  and  before.  How  then  shall  we  escape  the 
conclusion  that  the  human  race  was  most  numerous  at  the  beginning?  We  must 
remember  that  other  children  have  the  same  great-grandparents  with  ourselves ;  that 
there  have  been  inter-marriages  ;  and  that,  after  all,  the  generations  run  on  in  parallel 
lines,  that  the  lines  spread  a  little  in  some  countries  and  periods,  and  narrow  a  little  in 
other  countries  and  periods.  It  is  like  a  wall  covered  with  paper  in  diamond  pattern. 
The  lines  diverge  and  converge,  but  the  figures  are  parallel.  See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
2:7-94,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2:1-26,  Discourses  aud  Essays,  259;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed, 
137-151,335-384;  Edwards,  Works,  2 :  483 ;  Hopkins,  Works,  1:289;  Birks,  Difficulties  of 
Belief,  161;  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psych.,  128-142;  Frohschammer,  Ursprung  der  Seele,  59-224. 

With  regard  to  this  view  we  remark  : 

(a)  It  seems  best  to  accord  with  Scripture,  which  represents  God  as 
creating  the  species  in  Adam  (  Gen.  1  :  27  ),  and  as  increasing  aud  perpetu- 
ating it  through  secondary  agencies  (1  :  28  ;  cf.  22  ).  Only  once  is  breathed 
into  man's  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  (2:7,  cf,  22  ;  1  Cor.  11 : 8.  Gen.  4:1; 
5  : 3  ;  46  :  26  ;  cf.  Acts  17  :  21-26  ;  Heb.  7  :  10 ),  and  after  man's  formation 
God  ceases  from  his  work  of  creation  (  Gen.  2:2). 

Gen.  1  :  27  —  "  And  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him :  male  and  female  created 
he  them  "  ;  28  —  "  And  God  blessed  them :  and  God  said  unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth  "  ; 
cf.  22  —  of  the  brute  creation  :  "And  God  blessed  them,  saying,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters 
in  the  seas,  and  let  birds  multiply  on  the  earth."  Gen.  2:7  —  "  And  Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul "  ;  cf.  22  —  "  and  the  rib  which  Jehovah 
God  had  taken  from  the  man,  made  he  a  woman,  and  brought  her  unto  the  man  "  ;  1  Cor.  11 : 8  —  "  For  the  man  is  not  of 
the  woman ;  but  the  woman  of  the  man  "  ( e|  av&pos  ).  Gen.  4 : 1  — "  Eve  ....  bare  Cain  "  ;  5:3  — "Adam  .... 
bigat  a  son  ... .  Seth  "  ;  46  :  26  — "  All  the  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  that  came  out  of  his  loins  "  ;  Acts  17  :  26 
—  "  he  made  of  one  [  '  father '  or  '  body  '  ]  every  nation  of  men  "  ;  H.b.  7 :  10  —  Levi  "  was  yet  in  the  lo^ns  of 
his  father,  when  Melchisedek  met  him"  ;  Gen.  2. -2  — "And  on  the  seventh  day  God  finished  his  work  which  he  had  made; 


ORIGIN    OF  THE»SOUL.  495 

and  he  rested  oa  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made."  Sliedd,  Dogin.  Theol.,  2  :  19-29, 
adduces  also  John  1 :  13 ;  3:6;  Rom.  1 :  13  ;  5 :  12 ;  1  Cor.  15 :  22 ;  Eph.  2:3;  Heb.  12 :  9 ;  Ps.  139  :  15,  16.  Only 
Adam  had  the  right  to  be  a  ereatianist.  Westcott,  Com.  oa  Hebrews,  111  —  "  Levi  pay- 
ing tithes  in  Abraham  implies  that  descendants  are  included  in  the  ancestor  so  far  that 
his  acts  have  force  for  them.  Physically,  at  least,  the  dead  so  rule  the  living.  The  indi- 
vidual is  not  a  completely  self-centred  being.  He  is  member  in  a  body,  So  far  tradu 
cianism  is  t  rue.  But,  if  this  were  all,  man  would  be  a  mere  result  of  the  past,  and  would 
have  no  individual  responsibility.  There  is  an  element  not  derived  from  birth,  though 
it  may  follow  upon  it.  Recognition  of  individuality  is  the  truth  in  ereatianism.  Power 
of  vision  follows  upon  preparation  of  an  organ  of  vision,  modified  by  the  latter  but  not 
created  by  it.  So  we  have  the  social  unity  of  the  race,  plus  the  personal  responsibility 
of  the  individual,  the  influence  of  common  thoughts  phis  the  power  of  great  men,  the 
foundation  of  hope  plus  the  condition  of  judgment." 

(  b  )  It  is  favored  by  the  analogy  of  vegetable  arid  animal  life,  in  which 
increase  of  numbers  is  secured,  nut  by  a  multiplicity  of  immediate  creations, 
but  by  the  natural  derivation  of  new  individuals  from  a  parent  stock.  A 
derivation  of  the  human  soul  from  its  parents  no  more  implies  a  materialis- 
tic view  of  the  soul  and  its  endless  division  and  subdivision,  than  the  simi- 
lar derivation  of  the  brute  proves  the  principle  of  intelligence  in  the  lower 
animals  to  be  wholly  material. 

God's  method  is  not  the  method  of  endless  miracle.  God  works  in  nature  through 
second  causes.  God  does  not  create  a  mw  vital  principle  at  the  beginning  of  exist- 
ence of  each  separate  apple,  and  of  each  separate  dog.    Each  of  these  Is  the  result  of  a 

self-multiplying  force,  implanted  once  for  all  in  the  first  of  its  race.  To  say,  with 
Moxom  ( Baptist  Review,  1881:278),  that  God  is  the  immediate  author  of  each  new 
individual,  is  to  deny  second  causes,  and  to  merge  nature  in  <;od.  The  whole  tendency 
of  modern  science  is  in  the  opposite  direction.  Nor  Is  there  any  good  reason  for  making 
the  origin  of  the  individual  human  soul  an  except  ion  to  the  general  rule.  Augustine 
wavered  in  his  traducianism  because  he  feared  the  Inference  that  the  soul  is  divided 
and  subdivided, —  that  is,  that  it  is  composed  of  parts,  and  is  therefore  material  in  its 
nature.  But  it  does  not  follow  thai  all  separation  is  material  separation.  We  do  not, 
indeed,  know  how  the  soul  is  propagated.  But  we  know  that  animal  life  is  propagated, 
and  still  that  it  is  not  material,  nor  composed  of  parts.  The  fact  that  the  soul  is  not 
material,  nor  composed  of  parts,  is  no  reason  why  it  may  not  be  propagated  also. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  substance  does  not  necessarily  imply  either  extension  or 
figure.  Substantia  is  simply  that  which  stands  under,  underlies,  supports,  or  in  other 
words  that  which  is  the  ground  of  phenomena.  The  propagation  of  mind  therefore 
does  not  involve  any  dividing  up,  or  splitting  off,  as  if  the  mind  were  a  material  mass. 
Flame  is  propagated,  but  not  by  divisii  m  and  subdivision.  Professor  Ladd  is  a  creatian- 
ist,  together  with  Lotze,  whom  he  quotes,  but  he  repudiates  the  idea  that  the  mind  is 
susceptible  of  division ;  see  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  206,  :io9-3(j6  —  "  The  mind  comes 
from  nowhere,  for  it  never  was",  as  mind,  in  space,  is  not  now  in  space,  and  cannot  be 

conceived  of  as  coming  and  going  in  space Mind  is  a  growth Parents  do 

not  transmit  their  minds  to  their  offspring.  The  child's  mind  does  not  exist  before  it 
acts.  Its  activities  are  its  existence."  So  we  might  say  that  flame  has  no  existence 
before  it  acts.  Yet  it  may  owe  its  existence  to  a  preceding  flame.  The  Indian  proverb 
is:  "No  lotus  without  a  stem."  Hall  Caine,  in  his  novel  The  Manxman,  tells  us  that 
the  Deemster  of  the  Isle  of  Man  had  two  sons.  These  two  sons  were  as  unlike  each 
other  as  are  the  inside  and  the  outside  of  a  bowl.  But  the  bowl  was  old  Deemster  himself. 
Hartley  Coleridge  inherited  his  father's  imperious  desire  for  stimulants  and  with  it 
his  inability  to  resist  their  temptation. 

(  c )  The  observed  transmission  not  merely  of  physical,  but  of  mental  and 
spiritual,  characteristics  in  families  and  races,  and  especially  the  uniformly 
evd  moral  tendencies  and  dispositions  which  all  men  possess  from  their 
birth,  are  proof  that  in  soul,  as  well  as  in  body,  we  derive  our  being  from 
our  human  ancestry. 

Galton,  in  his  Hereditary  Genius,  and  Incpiiries  into  Human  Faculty,  furnishes 
abundant  proof  of  the  transmission  of  mental  and  spiritual  characteristics  from  father 


496  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

to  son.  Illustrations,  in  the  case  of  families,  are  the  American  Adamses,  the  English 
Georges,  the  French  Bourbons,  the  German  Bachs.  Illustrations,  in  the  case  of  races, 
are  the  Indians,  the  Negroes,  the  Chinese,  the  Jews.  Hawthorne  represented  the  intro- 
spection and  the  conscience  of  Puritan  New  England.  Emerson  had  a  minister  among 
his  ancestry,  either  on  the  paternal  or  the  maternal  side,  for  eight  generations  back. 
Every  man  is  "  a  chip  of  the  old  block."  "  A  man  is  an  omnibus,  in  which  all  his  ances- 
tors are  seated  "  ( O.  W.  Holmes ).    Variation  is  one  of  the  properties  of  living  things, 

—  the  other  is  transmission.  "  On  a  dissecting  table,  in  the  membranes  of  a  new-born 
infant's  body,  can  be  seen  'the  drunkard's  tinge.'  The  blotches  on  his  grand-child's 
cheeks  furnish  a  mirror  to  the  old  debauchee.  Heredity  is  God's  visiting  of  sin  to  the 
third  and  fourth  generations."  On  heredity  aiid  depravity,  see  Phelps,  in  Bib.  Sac, 
Apr.  18S4  :  254— "When  every  molecule  in  the  paternal  brain  bears  the  shape  of  a  point 
of  interrogation,  it  would  border  on  the  miraculous  if  we  should  find  the  exclamation- 
sign  of  faith  in  the  brain-cells  of  the  child." 

Robert  G.  Ingersoll  said  that  most  great  men  have  great  mothers,  and  that  most 
great  women  have  great  fathers.  Most  of  the  great  are  like  mountains,  with  the 
valley  of  ancestors  on  one  side  and  the  depression  of  posterity  on  the  other.  Haw- 
thorne's House  of  the  Seven  Gables  illustrates  the  principle  of  heredity.  But  in  his 
Marble  Faun  and  Transformation,  Hawthorne  unwisely  intimates  that  sin  is  a  necessity 
to  virtue,  a  background  or  condition  of  good.    Dryden,  Absalom  and  Ahithophel,  1 :  156 

—  "Great  wits  are  sure  to  madness  near  allied,  And  thin  partititions  do  their  bounds 
divide."  Lombroso,  The  Man  of  Genius,  maintains  that  genius  Is  a  mental  disease 
allied  to  epileptiform  mania  or  the  dementia  of  cranks.  If  this  were  so,  we  should 
infer  that  civilization  is  the  result  of  insanity,  and  that,  so  soon  as  Napoleons,  Dantes 
and  Newtons  manifest  themselves,  they  should  be  confined  in  Genius  Asylums.  Robert 
Browning,  Hohenstiel-Schwangau,  comes  nearer  the  truth:  "A  solitary  great  man's 
worth  the  world.    God  takes  the  business  into  his  own  hands  At  such  time:  Who 

creates  the  novel  flower  Contrives  to  guard  and  give  it  breathing-room 'Tis 

the  great  Gardener  grafts  the  excellence  On  wildlings,  where  he  will." 

(  d  )  The  traducian  doctrine  embraces  and  acknowledges  the  element  of 
truth  which  gives  plausibility  to  the  creatian  view.  Traducianism,  properly 
defined,  admits  a  divine  concurrence  throughout  the  whole  development  of 
the  human  species,  and  allows,  under  the  guidance  of  a  superintending 
Providence,  special  improvements  in  type  at  the  birth  of  marked  men, 
similar  to  those  which  we  may  suppose  to  have  occurred  in  the  introduction 
of  new  varieties  in  the  animal  creation. 

Page-Roberts,  Oxford  University  Sermons:  "It  is  no  more  unjust  that  man  should 
inherit  evil  tendencies,  than  that  he  should  inherit  good.  To  make  the  former  impos- 
sible is  to  make  the  latter  impossible.  To  object  to  the  law  of  heredity,  is  to  object  to 
God's  ordinance  of  society,  and  to  say  that  God  should  have  made  men,  like  the  angels, 
a  company,  and  not  a  race."  The  common  moral  characteristics  of  the  race  can  only 
be  accounted  for  upon  the  Scriptural  view  that  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  "  ( John  3:6). 
Since  propagation  is  a  propagation  of  soul,  as  well  as  body,  we  see  that  to  beget  children 
under  improper  conditions  is  a  crime,  and  that  foeticide  is  murder.  Haeckel,  Evolu- 
tion of  Man,  2:3  — "The  human  embryo  passes  through  the  whole  course  of  its  devel- 
opment in  forty  weeks.  Each  man  is  really  older  by  this  period  than  is  usually 
assumed.  When,  for  example,  a  child  is  said  to  be  nine  and  a  quarter  years  old,  he  is 
really  ten  years  old."  Is  this  the  reason  why  Hebrews  call  a  child  a  year  old  at  birth  ? 
President  Edwards  prayed  for  his  children  and  his  children's  children  to  the  end  of 
time,  and  President  Woolsey  congratulated  himself  that  he  was  one  of  the  inheritors 
of  those  prayers.  R.  W.  Emerson :  "  How  can  a  man  get  away  from  his  ancestors  ?  " 
Men  of  genius  should  select  their  ancestors  with  great  care.  When  begin  the  instruc- 
tion of  a  child?  A  hundred  years  before  he  is  born.  A  lady  whose  children  were 
noisy  and  troublesome  said  to  a  Quaker  relative  that  she  wished  she  could  get  a  good 
Quaker  governess  for  them,  to  teach  them  the  quiet  ways  of  the  Society  of  Friends. 
"  It  would  not  do  them  that  service,"  was  the  reply ;  "  they  should  have  been  rocked 
in  a  Quaker  cradle,  if  they  were  to  learn  Quakerly  ways." 

Galton,  Natural  Inheritance,  104— "The  child  inherits  partly  from  his  parents,  partly 
f^Mn  his  ancestry.  In  every  population  that  intermarries  freely,  when  the  genealogy 
of  any  man  is  traced  far  backwards,  his  ancestry  will  be  found  to  consist  of  such  varied. 


THE    MORAL    NATURE   OF   MAN".  49? 

elements  that  they  are  indistinguishable  from  the  sample  taken  at  haphazard  from  the 
general  population.  Gallon  speaks  of  the  tendency  of  peculiarities  to  revert  to  the 
general  type,  and  says  that  a  man's  brother  is  twice  as  nearly  related  to  him  as  his  father 
is,  and  nine  times  as  nearly  as  his  cousin.  The  mean  stature  of  any  particular  class  of 
men  will  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  race ;  in  other  words,  it  will  be  mediocre.  This  tells 
heavily  against  the  full  hereditary  transmission  of  any  rare  and  valuable  gift,  as  only 
a  few  of  the  many  children  would  resemble  their  parents."  We  may  add  to  these 
thoughts  of  Galton  that  Christ  himself,  as  respects  his  merely  human  ancestry,  was  not 
so  much  son  of  Mary,  as  he  was  Son  of  man. 

Brooks,  Foundations  of  Zoology,  144-1<;7  — In  an  investigated  case,  "in  seven  and  a 
half  generations  the  maximum  ancestry  for  one  person  is  382,  or  for  three  persons  1146. 
The  names  of  452  of  them,  or  nearly  half,  are  recorded,  and  these  452  named  ancestors 
are  not  452  distinct  persons,  but  only  149,  many  of  them,  in  the  remote  generations, 
being  common  ancestors  of  all  three  in  many  lines.  If  the  lines  of  descent  from  the 
unrecorded  ancestors  were  interrelated  in  the  same  way,  as  they  would  surely  be  in  an 
old  and  stable  community,  the  total  ancestry  of  these  three  persons  for  seven  and  a 
half  generations  would  be  378  persona  instead  of  1146.  The  descendants  of  many  die 
out.  All  the  members  of  a  species  descend  from  a  few  ancestors  in  a  remote  genera- 
tion, and  these  few  are  the  common  ancestors  of  all.  Extinction  of  family  names  is 
very  common.  We  must  seek  in  the  modern  world  and  not  in  the  remote  past  for  an 
explanation  of  that  diversity  among  individuals  which  passes  under  the  name  of  varia- 
tion. The  genealogy  of  a  species  is  not  a  tree,  but  a  slender  thread  of  >  erj  few  strands, 
a  little  frayed  at  the  near  end,  but  of  immeasurable  length.  A  fringe  of  loose  ends  all 
along  the  thread  may  represent  the  animals  which  having  no  descendants  are  now  as 
if  they  had  never  been.  Each  of  the  strands  at  the  near  end  is  important  as  a  possible 
line  of  union  between  the  thread  of  the  past  and  that  of  the  distant  future." 

Weismann,  Heredity,  270,  272,  380,  384,  denies  Brooks's  theory  that  the  male  element 
represents  the  principle  of  variation.  He  finds  the  cause  of  variation  in  the  union  of 
elements  from  the  two  parents.  Each  child  unites  the  hereditary  tendencies  of  two 
parents,  and  so  must  be  different  from  either.  The  third  generation  is  a  compromise 
between  four  different  hereditary  tendencies.  Brooks  finds  the  cause  of  variation  in 
sexual  reproduction,  but  he  bases  his  theory  upon  the  transmission  of  acquired  char- 
acters. This  transmission  is  denied  by  Weismann,  who  says  that  the  male  germ-cell 
docs  not  play  a  different  part  from  that  of  the  female  in  the  construction  of  the  embryo. 
Children  inherit  quite  as  much  from  the  father  as  from  the  mother.  Like  twins  are 
derived  from  the  same  egtr-cell.  No  t  wo  germ-cells  contain  exact  ly  the  same  combina- 
tions of  hereditary  tendencies.  Changes  in  environment  and  organism  affeel  posterity, 
not  directly,  but  only  through  other  changes  produced  in  its  germinal  matter.  Hence 
efforts  to  reach  high  food  cannot  directly  produce  the  giraffe.  See  Dawson,  Modern 
Ideasof  Evolution,  235-239;  Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems;  Ribot,  Hered- 
ity ;  Woods,  Heredity  in  Royalty.  On  organic  unity  in  connection  with  realism,  see 
Hodge,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.  1865:125-135;  Dabney,  Theology,  317-321. 

V.     The  Moral  Nature  of  Man. 

By  the  moral  nature  of  man  we  mean  those  powers  which  fit  him  for 
right  or  wrong  action.  These  powers  are  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will, 
together  with  that  pectiliar  power  of  discrimination  and  impulsion,  which 
we  call  conscience.  In  order  to  moral  action,  man  has  intellect  or  reason, 
to  discern  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong ;  sensibility,  to  be  moved 
by  each  of  these  ;  free  will,  to  do  the  one  or  the  other.  Intellect,  sensibil- 
ity, and  will,  are  man's  three  faculties.  But  in  connection  with  these  facul- 
ties there  is  a  sort  of  activity  which  involves  them  all,  and  without  which 
there  can  be  no  moral  action,  namely,  the  activity  of  conscience.  Con- 
science applies  the  moral  law  to  particular  cases  in  our  personal  experience, 
and  proclaims  that  law  as  binding  upon  us.  Only  a  rational  and  sentient 
being  can  be  truly  moral ;  yet  it  does  not  come  within  our  province  to  treat 
of  man's  intellect  or  sensibility  in  general.  We  speak  here  only  of  Con- 
science and  of  Will. 
32 


498  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

1.     Conscience. 

A.  Conscience  an  accompanying  knowledge.  —  As  already  intimated, 
conscience  is  not  a  separate  faculty,  like  intellect,  sensibility,  and  will,  but 
rather  a  mode  in  which,  these  faculties  act.  Like  consciousness,  conscience 
is  an  accompanying  knowledge.  Conscience  is  a  knowing  of  self  ( includ- 
ing our  acts  and  states )  in  connection  with  a  moral  standard,  or  law.  Add- 
ing now  the  element  of  feeling,  we  may  say  that  conscience  is  man's 
consciousness  of  his  own  moral  relations,  together  with  a  peculiar  feeling  in 
view  of  them.  It  thus  involves  the  combined  action  of  the  intellect  and 
of  the  sensibility,  and  that  in  view  of  a  certain  class  of  objects,  viz. :  right 
and  wrong. 

There  is  no  separate  ethical  faculty  any  more  than  there  is  a  separate  a?stbetic  fac- 
ulty. Conscience  is  like  taste :  it  has  to  do  with  moral  being:  and  relations,  as  taste 
has  to  do  with  aesthetic  being-  and  relations.  But  the  ethical  judgment  and  impulse  are, 
like  the  aesthetic  judgment  and  impulse,  the  mode  in  which  intellect,  sensibility  and 
will  act  with  reference  to  a  certain  class  of  objects.  Conscience  deals  with  the  right, 
as  taste  deals  with  the  beautiful.  As  consciousness  (  eon  and  acio )  is  a  con-knowing,  a 
knowing-  of  our  thoughts,  desires  and  volitions  in  connection  with  a  knowing  of  the 
self  that  has  these  thoug-hts,  desires  and  volitions  ;  so  conscience  is  a  con-knowing,  a 
knowing  of  our  moral  acts  and  states  in  connection  with  a  knowing  of  some  moral 
standard  or  law  which  is  conceived  of  as  our  true  self,  and  therefore  as  having  author- 
ity over  us.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  183-185  —  "  The  condemnation  of  self  involves 
self-diremption,  double  consciousness.  Without  it  Kant's  categorical  imperative  is 
impossible.  The  one  self  lays  down  the  law  to  the  other  self,  judges  it,  threatens  it. 
This  is  what  is  meant,  when  the  apostle  says  :  'It  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me ' 
(Rom.  7:17)." 

B.  Conscience  discriminative  and  impulsive.  —  But  Ave  need  to  define 
more  narrowly  both  the  intellectual  and  the  emotional  elements  in  con- 
science. As  respects  the  intellectual  element,  we  may  say  that  conscience 
is  a  power  of  judgment, — it  declares  our  acts  or  states  to  conform,  or  not  to 
conform,  to  law ;  it  dec. ares  the  acts  or  states  which  conform  to  be  obliga- 
tory, —  those  which  do  not  conform,  to  be  forbidden.  In  other  words, 
conscience  judges  :  ( 1 )  This  is  right  (  or,  wrong  )  ;  (  2  )  I  ought  ( or,  I 
ought  not ).  In  connection  with  this  latter  judgment,  there  comes  into  view 
the  emotional  element  of  conscience, —  we  feel  the  claim  of  duty;  there 
is  an  inner  sense  that  the  wrong  must  not  be  done.  Thus  conscience  is  ( 1  ) 
discriminative,  and  (  2  )  impulsive. 

Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality,  173  —  "  The  one  distinctive  function 
of  conscience  is  that  of  authoritative  self-judg-ments  in  the  conscious  presence  of 
a  supreme  Personality  to  whom  we  as  persons  feel  ourselves  accountable.  It  is  this 
twofold  personal  element  in  every  judgment  of  conscience,  viz.,  the  conscious  self- 
judgment  in  the  presence  of  the  all-judging  Deity,  which  has  led  such  writers  as  Bain 
and  Spencer  and  Stephen  to  attempt  the  explanation  of  the  origin  and  authority  of 
conscience  as  the  product  of  parental  training  and  social  environment.  .  .  .  Conscience 
is  not  prudential  nor  advisory  nor  executive,  but  solely  judicial.  Conscience  is  the 
moral  reason,  pronouncing  upon  moral  actions.  Consciousness  furnishes  law;  con- 
science pronounces  judgments  ;  it  says  :  Thou  shalt,  Thou  shalt  not.  Every  man  must 
obey  his  conscience ;  if  it  is  not  enlightened,  that  is  his  look-out.  The  callousing  of 
conscience  in  this  life  is  already  a  penal  infliction."  S.  S.  Times,  Apl.  5,  1902:185  — 
"  Doing  as  well  as  we  know  how  is  not  enough,  unless  we  know  just  what  is  right  and 
then  do  that.  God  never  tells  us  merely  to  do  our  best,  or  according  to  our  knowledge, 
It  is  our  duty  to  know  what  is  right,  and  then  to  do  it.  Ignorantia  legis  neminem 
excusat.    We  have  responsibility  for  knowing  preliminary  to  doing." 


THE   MORAL   NATURE   OF    MAN,  499 

C.  Conscience  distinguished  from  other  mental  processes. — The  nature 
and  office  of  conscience  will  be  still  more  clearly  perceived  if  we  distinguish 
it  from  other  processes  and  operations  with  which  it  is  ton  often  confounded. 
The  term  conscience  has  been  used  by  vari<  >us  writers  to  designate  either 
one  or  all  of  the  following  :  1.  Moral  in/ //if ion  — the  intuitive  perception 
of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  as  opposite  moral  categories. 
2.  Accepted  law  —  the  application  of  the  intuitive  idea  to  general  classes 
of  actions,  and  the  declaration  that  these  classes  of  actions  are  right  or 
wrong,  apart  from  our  individual  relation  to  them.  This  accepted  law  is 
the  complex  product  of  (  a)  the  intuitive  idea,  (  b  )  the  logical  intelligence, 
(c)  experiences  of  utility,  (d)  influences  of  society  and  education,  and  (e) 
positive  divine  revelation.  3.  Judgment  —  applying  this  accepted  law  to 
individual  and  concrete  cases  in  our  own  experience,  and  pronouncing  our 
own  acts  or  states  either  past,  present,  or  prospective,  to  be  right  or  wrong. 
4.  Command — authoritative  declaration  of  obligation  to  do  the  right,  or 
forbear  the  wrong,  together  with  an  impulse  of  the  sensibility  away  from 
the  one,  and  toward  the  other.  5.  "Remorse  or  approval — moral  senti- 
ments either  of  approbation  or  disapprobation,  in  view  of  past  acts  or  states, 
regarded  as  wrong  or  right.  6.  Fear  or  hope  —  instinctive  disposition  of 
disobedience  to  expect  punishment,  and  of  obedience  to  expect  reward. 

Ladd,  Philos.  of  Conduct,  70—"  The  feeling  of  the  ought  is  primary,  essential,  unique ; 
the  judgments  as  to  what  one  ought  are  the  results  of  environment,  education  and 
reflection."  The  sentiment  of  justice  is  not  an  Inheritance  of  civilized  man  alone.  No 
Indian  was  ever  robbed  of  his  lands  or  had  his  government  allowance  stolen  from  him 
who  was  not  as  keenly  conscious  of  the  wrong  as  in  like  circumstances  we  could  con- 
ceive that  a  philosopher  would  be.  The  ouglltneaa  of  the  ought  is  certainly  intuitive; 
the  whyness  of  the  ought  (conformity  to  God)  is  possibly  intuitive  also  ;  the  Whatne88  of 
the  ought  is  less  certainly  intuitive.  Cutler,  Beginnings  of  Ethics,  163, 164 —  "Intuition 
tells  us  that  we  are  obliged ;  why  we  are  obliged,  and  what  we  are  obliged  to,  we  must 
learn  elsewhere."  Obligation  =■  that  which  is  binding  on  a  man;  ought  is  something 
owed ;  duty  is  something  due.  The  intuitive  uotion  of  duty  ( intellect )  is  matched  by 
the  sense  of  obligation  (  feeling ). 

Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  203,  270  — "All  men  have  a  sense  of  right,— of  right  to  life, 
and  contemporaneously  perhaps,  but  certainly  afterwards,  of  right  to  personal 
property.  And  my  right  implies  duty  in  my  neighbor  to  respect  it.  Then  the  sense  of 
right  becomes  objective  and  impersonal.  My  neighbor's  duty  to  me  implies  my  duty 
to  him.  I  put  myself  in  his  place."  Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  156, 188— "First,  the 
feeling  of  obligation,  the  idea  of  a  right  and  a  wrong  with  corresponding  duties,  is  uni- 
versal. .  .  .  Secondly,  there  is  a  very  general  agreement  in  the  formal  principles  oi 

action,  and  largely  in  the  virtues  also,  such  as  benevolence,  justice,  gratitude 

Whether  we  owe  anything  to  our  neighbor  has  never  been  a  real  question.  The  prac- 
tical trouble  has  always  lain  in  the  other  question  :  Who  is  my  neighbor  ?  Thirdly,  the 
specific  contents  of  the  moral  ideal  are  not  fixed,  but  the  direction  in  which  the  ideal 
lies  is  generally  discernible.  .  .  .  We  have  in  ethics  the  same  fact  as  in  intellect  —  a 
potentially  infallible  standard,  with  manifold  errors  in  its  apprehension  and  appli- 
cation. Lucretius  held  that  degradation  and  paralysis  of  the  moral  nature  result  from 
religion.  Many  claim  on  the  other  hand  that  without  religion  morals  would  disappear 
from  the  earth." 

Robinson,  Princ.  and  Prac.  of  Morality,  173  —  "  Fear  of  an  omnipotent  will  is  very 
different  from  remorse  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  supreme  Being  whose  law  we  have 
violated."  A  duty  is  to  be  settled  in  accordance  with  the  standard  of  absolute  right, 
not  as  public  sentiment  would  dictate.  A  man  must  be  ready  to  do  right  in  spite  of 
what  everybody  thinks.  Just  as  the  decisions  of  a  judge  are  for  the  time  binding  on  all 
good  citizens,  so  the  decisions  of  conscience,  as  relatively  binding,  must  always  be 
obeyed.  They  are  presumptively  right  and  they  are  the  only  present  guide  of  action. 
Yet  man's  present  state  of  sin  makes  it  quite  possible  that  the  decisions  which  are  rel- 


500  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

atively  right  may  bo  absolutely  wrong.  It  is  not  enough  to  take  one's  time  from  the 
watch;  the  watch  may  go  wrong;  there  is  a  prior  duty  of  regulating  the  watch  by 
astronomical  standards.  Bishop  Gore :  "  Man's  first  duty  is,  not  to  follow  his  con- 
science, but  to  enlighten  his  conscience."  Lowell  says  that  the  Scythians  used  to  eat 
their  grandfathers  out  of  humanity.  Paine,  Ethnic  Trinities,  300  — "  Nothing  is  so  stub- 
born or  so  fanatical  as  a  wrongly  instructed  conscience,  as  Paul  showed  in  his  own  case 
by  his  own  confession  "  (  Acts  26 :  9  —  "  I  Yerily  thought  with  myself  that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary 
to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  ). 

D.  Conscience  the  moral  judiciary  of  the  soiil. — From  what  has  been 
previously  said,  it  is  evident  that  only  3.  and  4.  are  properly  inchided 
under  the  term  conscience.     Conscience  is  the  moral  judiciary  of  the  soul 

—  the  power  within  of  judgment  and  command.  Conscience  must  judge 
according  to  the  law  given  to  it,  and  therefore,  since  the  moral  standard 
accepted  by  the  reason  may  be  imperfect,  its  decisions,  while  relatively 
just,  may  be  absolutely  unjust.  —  1.  and  2.  belong  to  the  moral  reason, 
but  not  to  conscience  proper.  Hence  the  duty  of  enlightening  and  culti- 
vating the  moral  reason,  so  that  conscience  may  have  a  proper  standard  of 
judgment. —  5.  and  6.  belong  to  the  sphere  of  moral  sentiment,  and  not  to 
conscience  proper.  The  office  of  conscience  is  to  "bear  witness"  (Rom. 
2  :  15). 

In  Rom.  2  :  15 —  "  they  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith, 
and  the.r  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them  "  —  we  have  conscience  clearly  distin- 
guished both  from  the  law  and  the  perception  of  la>v  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the 
moral  sentiments  of  approbation  and  disapprobation  on  the  other.  Conscience  does  not 
furnish  the  law,  but  it  bears  witness  with  the  law  which  is  furnished  by  other  sources. 
It  is  not  "that  power  of  mind  by  which  moral  law  is  discovered  to  each  individual " 
(Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  77),  nor  can  we  speak  of  "Conscience,  the  Law"  (as 
Whewell  does  in  his  Elements  of  Morality,  1  :  250-266 ).  Conscience  is  not  the  law-book, 
in  the  court  room,  but  it  is  the  judge,  —  whose  business  is,  not  to  make  law,  but  to 
decide  cases  according  to  the  law  given  to  him. 

As  conscience  is  not  legislative,  so  it  is  not  retributive ;  as  it  is  not  the  law-book,  so 
it  is  not  the  sheriff.  We  say,  indeed,  in  popular  language,  that  conscience  scourges  or 
chastises,  but  it  is  only  in  the  sense  in  which  we  say  that  the  judge  punishes,  —  !,  c, 
through  the  sheriff.  The  moral  sentiments  are  the  sheriff ,  —  they  carry  out  the 
decisions  of  conscience,  the  judge ;  but  they  are  not  themselves  conscience,  any  more 
than  the  sheriff  is  the  judge. 

Only  this  doctrine,  that  conscience  does  not  discover  law,  can  explain  on  the  one 
hand  the  fact  that  men  are  bound  to  follow  their  consciences,  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  fact  that  their  consciences  so  greatly  differ  as  to  what  is  right  or  wrong  in  partic- 
ular cases.  The  truth  is,  that  conscience  i3  uniform  and  infallible,  in  the  sense  that  it 
always  decides  rightly  according  to  the  law  given  it.  Men's  decisions  vary,  only  because 
the  moral  reason  has  presented  to  the  conscience  different  standards  by  which  to  judge. 

Conscience  can  be  educated  only  in  the  sense  of  acquiring  greater  facility  and  quick- 
ness in  making  its  decisions.  Education  has  its  chief  effect,  not  upon  the  conscience, 
but  upon  the  moral  reason,  in  rectifying  its  erroneous  or  imperfect  standards  of  judg- 
ment. Give  conscience  a  right  law  by  which  to  judge,  and  its  decisions  will  be  uniform, 
and  absolutely  as  well  as  relatively  just.  We  are  bound,  not  only  to  "follow  our  con- 
science," but  to  have  a  right  conscience  to  follow,  —  and  to  follow  it,  not  as  one  follows 
the  beast  he  drives,  but  as  the  soldier  follows  his  commander.  Robert  J.  Burdette  : 
"  Following  conscience  as  a  guide  is  like  following  one's  nose.  It  is  important  to  get 
the  nose  pointed  right  before  it  is  safe  to  follow  it.  A  man  can  keep  the  approval  of 
his  own  conscience  in  very  much  the  same  way  that  he  can  keep  directly  behind  his 
nose,  and  go  wrong  all  the  time." 

Conscience  is  the  con-knowing  of  a  particular  act  or  state,  as  comiug  under  the  law 
accepted  by  the  reason  as  to  right  and  wrong ;  and  the  judgment  of  conscience  sub- 
sumes this  act  or  state  under  that  general  standard.    Conscience  cannot  include  the  law 

—  cannot  itself  he  the  law,— because  reason  only  knows,  never  coH-knows.  Reason 
says  scio ;  only  judgment  says  conscio. 


THE   MORAL  HATURE   OF   MAN.  501 

This  view  enable*,  us  to  reconcile  the  intuitional  and  the  empirical  theories  of  morals. 
Each  has  its  element  of  truth.  The  original  sense  of  right  and  wrong-  is  intuitive,  — no 
education  could  ever  impart  the  idea  of  the  difference  between  rightand  wrong  to  one 
who  had  it  not.  But  what  classes  of  things  cure  right  or  wrong',  we  learn  by  the  exer- 
cise of  our  logical  intelligence,  in  connection  with  experiences  of  utility,  influences  of 
society  and  tradition,  and  positive  divine  revelation.  Thus  our  moral  reason,  through 
a  combination  of  intuition  and  education,  of  internal  and  external  information  as  to 
general  principles  of  right  and  wrong,  furnishes  the  standard  according  to  which  con- 
science may  judge  the  particular  cases  which  come  before  it. 

This  moral  reason  may  become  depraved  by  sin,  so  that  the  light  becomes  darkness 
(Mat.  6:22,  23)  and  conscience  has  only  a  perverse  standard  by  which  to  judge.  The 
"weak"  conscience  (1  Cor. 8 :  12 >  is  one  whose  standard  of  judgment  is  yet  imperfect;  the 
conscience  "branded"  (Rev.  Vers.)  or  "seared"  (A.  V.)  "  as  with  a  hot  iron  "  (lTim.4:2)  is  one 
whose  standard  has  been  wholly  perverted  by  practical  disobedience.  The  word  and 
the  Spirit  of  God  are  the  chief  agencies  in  rectifying  our  standards  of  judgment,  and  so 
of  enabling  conscience  to  make  absolutely  right  decisions.  God  can  so  unite  the  soul 
to  Christ,  that  it  becomes  partaker  on  the  one  hand  of  his  satisfaction  to  justice  and  is 
thus  "  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  "  (Heb.  10:22),  and  on  the  other  hand  of  his  sanctifying 
power  and  is  thus  enabled  in  certain  respects  to  obey  God's  command  and  to  speak  of  a 
"good  conscience"  (1  Pot.  3:16  —  of  single  act;  3:21  —  of  state)  instead  of  an  "evil  conscience" 
( Heb.  10 : 22 )  or  a  conscience  "defiled"  (Tit.  1:15)  by  sin.  Here  the  " good  conscience "  is  the  con- 
science which  has  been  obeyed  by  the  will,  and  the  "evil  conscience"  the  conscience  which 
has  been  disobeyed  ;  with  the  result,  in  the  first  case,  of  approval  from  the  moral  senti- 
ments, and,  in  the  second  case,  of  disapproval. 

E.  Conscience  in  its  relation  to  God  as  law-giver. —  Since  conscience,  in 
the  proper  sense,  gives  uniform  and  infallible  judgment  that  the  right  is 
supremely  obligatory,  and  that  the  wrong  must  be  forborne  at  every  cost, 
it  can  be  called  an  echo  of  God's  voice,  and  an  indication  in  man  of  that 
which  his  own  true  being  requires. 

Conscience  has  sometimes  been  described  as  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  or  as  the 
personal  presence  and  influence  of  God  himself.  But  we  must  not  identify  conscience 
with  God.  D.  W.  Faunce :  "  Conscience  is  not  God,  —  it  is  only  a  part  of  one's  self.  To 
build  up  a  religion  about  one's  own  conscience,  as  if  it  were  God,  is  only  a  relined  self- 
ishness—  a  worship  of  one  part  of  one's  self  by  another  part  of  one's  self."  In  The 
Excursion,  Wordsworth  speaks  of  conscience  as  "  God's  most  intimate  presence  in  the 
soul  And  his  most  perfect  image  in  the  world."  But  in  his  Ode  to  Duty  he  more  dis- 
creetly writes :  "Stern  daughter  of  the  voice  of  God  !  O  Duty  !  if  that  name  thou  love, 
Who  art  alight  to  guide,  a  rod  To  check  the  erring,  and  reprove.  Thou  who  art  victory 
and  law  When  empty  terrors  overawe.  From  vain  temptations  dost  set  free  And 
calmst  the  weary  strife  of  frail  humanity  !  "  Here  is  an  allusion  to  the  Hebrew  Bath 
Kol.  "The  Jews  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  spoke  during  the  Tabernacle  by  Urim  and 
Thummim,  under  the  first  Temple  by  the  Prophets,  and  under  the  second  Temple  by 
the  Bath  Kol  — a  divine  intimation  as  inferior  to  the  oracular  voice  proceeding  from 
the  mercy  seat  as  a  daughter  is  supposed  to  be  inferior  to  her  mother.  It  is  a  ls<  >  used  m 
the  sense  of  an  approving  conscience.  In  this  case  it  is  the  echo  of  the  voice  of  God  in 
those  who  by  obeying  hear"  (  Hershon's  Talmudic  Miscellany,  2,  note).  This  phi  use, 
"the  echo  of  God's  voice,  "  is  a  correct  description  of  conscience,  and  Wordsworth 
probably  had  it  in  mind  when  he  spoke  of  duty  as  "the  daughter  of  the  voice  of  God." 

Robert  Browning  describes  conscience  as  "the  great  beacon-light  God  sets  in  all 

The  worst  man  upon  earth  ....  knows  in  his  conscience  more  Of  what  right  is,  than 
arrives  at  birth  In  the  best  man's  acts  that  we  bow  before."  Jackson,  James  Martineau, 
154  —  The  sense  of  obligation  is  "  a  piercing  ray  of  the  great  Orb  of  souls."  On  Words- 
worth's conception  of  conscience,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Great  Poets,  365-368. 

Since  the  activity  of  the  immanent  God  reveals  itself  in  the  normal  operations  of  out- 
own  faculties,  conscience  might  be  also  regarded  as  man's  true  self  over  against  the 
false  self  which  we  have  set  up  against  it.  Theodore  Parker  defines  conscience  as  "  our 
consciousness  of  the  conscience  of  God."  In  his  fourth  year,  says  Chadwick,  his  bio- 
grapher (  pages  12, 13, 185 ),  young  Theodore  saw  a  little  spotted  tortoise  and  lifted  his 
hand  to  strike.  All  at  once  something  checked  his  arm,  and  a  voice  within  said  clear 
and  loud :  "  It  is  wrong."    He  asked  his  mother  what  it  was  that  told  him  it  was  wrong. 


502  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

She  wiped  a  tear  from  her  eye  with  her  apron,  and  taking  him  in  her  arms  said  :  "  Some 
men  call  it  conscience,  but  I  prefer  to  call  it  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man.  If 
you  listen  and  obey  it,  then  it  will  speak  clearer  and  clearer,  and  will  always  guide  you 
right;  but  if  you  turn  a  deaf  ear  and  disobey,  then  it  will  fade  out  little  by  little,  and 
will  leave  you  all  in  the  dark  and  without  a  guide.  Four  life  depends  on  your  hearing 
this  little  voice."  R.  T.  Smith,  Man's  Knowledge  of  Man  and  of  God,  87, 171— "Man 
has  conscience,  as  he  has  talents.    Conscience,  no  more  than  talent,  makes  him  good. 

He  is  good,  only  as  he  follows  conscience  and  uses  talent The  relation  between 

the  terms  consciousness  and  conscience,  which  are  in  fact  but  forms  of  the  same  word, 
testifies  to  the  fact  that  it  is  in  the  action  of  conscience  that  man's  consciousness  of  him- 
self is  chiefly  experienced." 

The  conscience  of  the  regenerate  man  may  have  such  right  standards,  and  its  decisions 
may  be  followed  by  such  uniformly  right  action,  that  its  voice,  though  it  is  not  itself 
God's  voice,  is  yet  the  very  echo  of  God's  voice.  The  renewed  conscience  may  take  up 
into  itself,  and  may  express,  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ( Rom.  9 : 1  —  " I  say  the  truth  in 
Christ,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience  bearing  witness  with  me  in  the  Holy  Spirit "  ;  cf.  8  :  16  — "  the  Spirit  himself  beareth 
witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God").  But  even  when  conscience  judges  according 
to  imperfect  standards,  and  is  imperfectly  obeyed  by  the  will,  there  is  a  spontaneity  in 
its  utterances  and  a  sovereignty  in  its  commands.  It  declares  that  whatever  is  right 
must  be  done.  The  imperative  of  conscience  is  a  "categorical  imperative"  (Kant). 
It  is  independent  of  the  human  will.  Even  when  disobeyed,  it  still  asserts  its  authority. 
Before  conscience,  every  other  impulse  and  affection  of  man's  nature  is  called  to  bow. 

F.  Conscience  in  its  relation  to  God  as  holy. —  Conscience  is  not  an 
original  authority.  It  points  to  something  higher  than  itself.  The 
"authority  of  conscience"  is  simply  the  authority  of  the  moral  law,  or 
rather,  the  authority  of  the  personal  God,  of  whose  nature  the  law  is  hut  a 
transcript.  Conscience,  therefore,  with  its  continual  and  supreme  demand 
that  the  right  should  be  done,  furnishes  the  best  witness  to  man  of  the 
existence  of  a  personal  God,  and  of  the  supremacy  of  holiness  in  him  in 
whose  image  we  are  made. 

In  knowing  self  in  connection  with  moral  law,  man  not  only  gets  his  best  knowledge 
of  self,  but  his  best  knowledge  of  that  other  self  opposite  to  him,  namely,  God.  Gor- 
don, Christ  of  To-day,  236  —  "The  conscience  is  the  true  Jacob's  ladder,  set  in  the  heart 
of  the  individual  and  reaching  unto  heaven;  and  upon  it  the  angels  of  self-reproach 
and  self-approval  ascend  and  descend."  This  is  of  course  true  if  we  confine  our 
thoughts  to  the  mandatory  element  in  revelation.  There  is  a  higher  knowledge  of  God 
which  is  given  only  in  grace.  Jacob's  ladder  symbolizes  the  Christ  who  publishes  not 
only  the  gospel  but  the  law,  and  not  only  the  law  but  the  gospel.  Dewey,  Psychology, 
'Mi  —  "Conscience  is  intuitive,  not  in  the  sense  that  it  enunciates  universal  laws  and 
principles,  for  it  lays  down  no  laws.  Conscience  is  a  name  for  the  experience  of 
personality  that  an3r  given  act  is  in  harmony  or  in  discord  with  a  truly  realized  person- 
ality." Because  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  is  always  relatively  right, 
Kant  could  say  that  "an  erring  conscience  is  a  chimiera."  But  because  the  law 
accepted  by  conscience  may  be  absolutely  wrong,  conscience  may  in  its  decisions 
greatly  err  from  the  truth.  S.  S.  Times  :  "  Saul  before  his  conversion  was  a  conscien- 
tious wrong  doer.  His  spirit  and  character  was  commendable,  while  his  conduct  was 
reprehensible."  We  prefer  to  say  that  Saul's  zeal  for  the  law  was  a  zeal  to  make  the  law 
subservient  to  his  own  pride  and  honor. 

Horace  Bushnell  said  that  the  first  requirement  of  a  great  ministry  is  a  great  con- 
science. He  did  not  mean  the  punitive,  inhibitory  conscience  merely,  but  rather  the 
discovering,  arousing,  inspiring  conscience,  that  sees  at  once  the  great  things  to  be 
done,  and  moves  toward  them  with  a  shout  and  a  song.  This  unbiased  and  pure  con- 
science is  inseparable  from  the  sense  of  its  relation  to  God  and  to  God's  holiness. 
Shakespeare,  Henry  VI,  2d  Part,  3:2  —  "  What  stronger  breastplate  than  a  heart 
untainted?  Thrice  is  he  armed  that  hath  his  quarrel  just ;  And  he  but  naked,  though 
locked  up  in  steel,  Whose  conscience  with  injustice  is  corrupted."  Huxley,  in  his  lec- 
ture at  Oxford  in  1893,  admits  and  even  insists  that  ethical  practice  must  be  and  should 
be  in  opposition  to  evolution ;  that  the  methods  of  evolution  do  not  account  for  ethical 
man  and  his  ethical  progress.    Morality  is  not  a  product  of  the  same  methods  by  which 


THE   MORAL   NATURE    OP   MAN.  503 

lower  orders  have  advanced  in  perfection  of  organization,  namely,  by  the  struggle  for 
existence  and  survival  of  the  fittest.  Human  progress  is  moral,  is  in  freedom,  is  under 
the  law  of  love,  is  different  in  kind  from  physical  evolution.  James  Russell  Lowell:  "  In 
vain  we  call  old  notions  fudge,  And  bend  our  conscience  to  our  dealing:  The  ten  com- 
mandments will  not  budge,  And  stealing  will  continue  stealing." 

I!.  T.  Smith,  Man's  Knowledge  of  Man  and  of  God,  161—  "  Conscience  lives  in  human 
nature  like  a  rightful  king,  whose  claim  can  never  be  forgotten  by  his  people,  even 
though  they  dethrone  and  misuse  him,  and  whose  presence  on  the  seat  of  judgment 
can  alone  make  the?  nation  to  be  at  peace  with  itself."  Seth,  Ethical  Principles,  424  — 
"The  Kantian  theory  of  autonomy  does  not  tell  the  whole  story  of  the  moral  life.  Its 
unyielding  Ought,  its  categorical  Imperative,  issues  not  merely  from  the  depths  of 
our  own  nature,  but  from  the  heart  of  the  universe  itself.  We  are  self-legislative; 
but  we  reehact  the  law  already  enacted  by  God;  we  recognize,  rather  than  constitute, 
the  law  of  our  own  being.  The  moral  law  is  an  echo,  within  our  own  souls,  of  the 
voice  of  the  Eternal, 'whose  offspring  we  are'  ( Acts  17 : 28 )." 

Schenkel,  Christliche  Dogmatik,  1 :  135-155 —  "  The  conscience  is  the  organ  by  which 
the  human  spirit  finds  God  in  itself  and  so  becomes  aware  of  itself  in  him.  Only 
in  conscience  is  man  conscious  of  himself  as  eternal,  as  distinct  from  God,  yet  as  nor- 
mally bound  to  be  determined  wholly  by  God.  When  we  subject  ourselves  wholly 
to  God,  conscience  gives  us  peace.  When  we  surrender  to  the  world  the  allegiance 
due  only  to  God,  conscience  brings  remorse.  In  this  latter  ease  we  become  aware 
that  while  God  is  in  us,  we  are  no  longer  in  God.  Religion  is  exchanged  for  ethics, 
the  relation  of  communion  for  the  relation  of  separation.  In  conscience  alone  man 
distinguishes  himself  absolutely  from  the  brute.  Man  does  not  make  conscience,  but 
conscience  makes  man.  Conscience  feels  every  separation  from  God  as  an  injury  to 
self.  Faith  is  the  relating  of  the  self-consciousness  to  the  God-consciousness,  the 
becoming  sure  of  our  own  personality,  in  the  absolute  personality  of  God.  Only  in 
faith  does  conscience  come  to  itself.  But  by  sin  this  faith-consciousness  may  be 
turned  into  law-consciousness.  Faith  affirms  God  in  us;  Law  affirms  God  outaidt  of 
us."  Schenkel  differs  from  Schleiermacher  in  holding  that  religion  is  not  feeling  but 
conscience,  and  that  it  is  not  a  sense  of  dependence  on  the  world,  but  aseiiseof  depend- 
ence on  God.  Conscience  recognizes  a  God  distinct  from  the  universe,  a  moral  God, 
and  so  makes  an  unmoral  religion  impossible. 

Hopkins,  Outline  Study  of  Man,  283-286,  Moral  Science,  49,  Law  of  Love,  41  — "Con- 
science is  the  moral  consciousness  of  man  in  view  of  his  own  actions  as  related  to  moral 
law.  It  is  a  double  knowledge  of  self  and  of  the  law.  Conscience  is  not  the  whole  of 
the  moral  nature.  It  presupposes  the  moral  reason,  which  recognizes  the  moral  law 
and  affirms  its  universal  obligation  for  all  moral  beings.  It  is  the  office  of  conscience 
to  bring  man  into  personal  relation  to  this  law.  It  sets  up  a  tribunal  within  him  by 
which  his  own  actions  are  judged.  Not  conscience,  but  the  moral  reason,  judges  of  the 
conduct  of  others.    This  last  is  science,  but  not  conacii  na  ." 

Peabody,  Moral  Philos.,  41-60—  "  Conscience  not  a  source,  buta  means,  of  knowledge. 
Analogous  to  consciousness.  A  judicial  faculty.  Judges  according  to  the  law  before 
it.  Verdict  (  verum  dictum)  always  relatively  right,  although,  by  the  absolute  standard 
of  right,  it  may  be  wrong.  Like  aU  perceptive  faculties,  educated  by  use  ( not  by 
increase  of  knowledge  only,  for  man  may  act  worse,  the  more  knowledge  he  has ).  For 
absolutely  right  decisions,  conscience  is  dependent  upon  knowledge.  To  recognize 
conscience  as  U  gtslator  ( as  well  as  judge  ),  is  to  fad  to  recognize  any  objective  standard 
of  right."  The  Two  Consciences,  46, 47  — "  Conscience  the  Law,  and  Conscience  the  Wit- 
ness.   The  latter  is  the  true  and  proper  Conscience." 

H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christ.  Theology,  178-191  —  "  The  unity  of  conscience  is  not  in 
its  being  one  faculty  or  in  its  performing  one  function,  but  in  its  having  one  object,  its 
relation  to  one  idea,  viz.,  right.  .  . .  The  term  'conscience'  no  more  designates  a  special 
faculty  than  the  term  '  religion '  does  (  or  than  the  '  aesthetic  sense ' ) The  exist- 
ence of  conscience  proves  a  moral  law  above  us ;  it  leads  logically  to  a  Moral  Governor ; 
....  it  implies  an  essential  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  an  immutable 
morality;  ....  yet  needs  to  be  enlightened;  .  .  .  men  may  be  conscientious  in 
iniquity;  .  .  .  conscience  is  not  righteousness  ;  .  .  .  this  may  only  show  the  greatness 
of  the  depravity,  having  conscience,  and  yet  ever  disobeying  it." 

On  the  New  Testament  passages  with  regard  to  conscience,  see  Hof  mann,  Lehre  von 
dem  Gewissen,  HO-38;  Kahler,  Das  Gewissen,  225-293.  For  the  view  that  conscience  is 
primarily  the  cognitive  or  intuitional  power  of  the  soul,  see  Calderwood,  Moral  Philos- 
ophy, 77 ;  Alexander,  Moral  Science,  2C ;  McCosh,  Div.  Govt.,  297-312  ;  Talbot,  Ethical 


504  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Prolegomena,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  July,  1877:257-274;  Park,  Discourses,  260-296;  Whewell, 
Elements  of  Morality,  1 :  259-266.  On  the  whole  subject  of  conscience,  see  Mansel,  Meta- 
physics, 158-170 ;  Martineau,  Religion  and  Materialism,  45  — "  The  discovery  of  duty  is 
as  distinctly  relative  to  an  objective  Righteousness  as  the  perception  of  form  to  an 
external  space  "  ;  also  Types,  2  :  27-30  —  "  We  first  judge  ourselves ;  then  others  "  ;  53, 54, 
74, 103  —  "  Subjective  morals  are  as  absurd  as  subjective  mathematics."  The  best  brief 
treatment  of  the  whole  subject  is  that  of  E.  G.  Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of 
Morality,  26-78.  See  also  Wayland,  Moral  Science,  49  ;  Harless,  Christian  Ethics,  45,  60 ; 
II.  N.  Day,  Science  of  Ethics,  17 ;  Janet,  Theory  of  Morals,  264,  348 ;  Kant,  Metaphysic 
of  Ethics,  62;  cf.  Schwegler,  Hist.  Philosophy,  233;  Haven,  Mor.  Philcs.,  41;  Fairchild, 
Mor.  Philos.,  75 ;  Gregory,  Christian  Ethics,  71 ;  Passavant,  Das  Gewissen ;  Wm.  Schmid, 
Das  Gewissen. 

2.      Will. 

A.  Will  defined. — Will  is  the  soul's  power  to  choose  between  motives 
and  to  direct  its  subsequent  activity  according  to  the  motive  thus  chosen, — 
in  other  words,  the  soul's  power  to  choose  both  an  end  and  the  means  to 
attain  it.  The  choice  of  an  ultimate  end  we  call  immanent  pref  erence ;  the 
choice  of  means  we  call  executive  volition. 

In  this  definition  we  part  company  with  Jonathan  Edwards,  Freedom  of  the  "Will,  in 
Works,  vol.  2.  He  regards  the  will  as  the  soul's  power  to  act  according  to  motive,  i.  e., 
to  act  out  its  nature,  but  he  denies  the  soul's  power  to  choose  between  motives,  i.  e.,  to 
initiate  a  course  of  action  contrary  to  the  motive  which  has  been  previously  dominant. 
Hence  he  is  unable  to  explain  how  a  holy  being,  like  Satan  or  Adam,  could  ever  fall. 
If  man  has  no  power  to  change  motives,  to  break  with  the  past,  to  begin  a  new  course 
of  action,  he  has  no  more  freedom  than  the  brute.  The  younger  Edwards  (  Works,  1 : 
483 )  shows  what  his  father's  doctrine  of  the  will  implies,  when  he  says :  "  Beasts  there- 
fore, according  to  the  measure  of  their  intelligence,  are  as  free  as  men.  Intelligence, 
and  not  liberty,  is  the  only  thing  wanting  to  constitute  them  moral  agents."  Yet  Jona- 
than Edwards,  determinist  as  he  was,  in  his  sermon  on  Pressing  into  the  Kingdom  of 
God  ( Works,  4 :  381 ),  urges  the  use  of  means,  and  appeals  to  the  sinner  as  if  he  had  the 
power  of  choosing  between  the  motives  of  self  and  of  God.  He  was  unconsciously 
making  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  will,  and  the  human  will  responded  in  prolonged 
and  mighty  efforts ;  see  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  109. 

For  references,  and  additional  statements  with  regard  to  the  will  and  its  freedom,  see 
chapter  on  Decrees,  pages  361,  362,  and  article  by  A.  H.  Strong,  in  Baptist  Review,  1883 : 
219-242,  and  reprinted  in  Philosophy  and  Religion,  114-128.  In  the  remarks  upon  the 
Decrees,  we  have  intimated  our  rejection  of  the  Arminian  liberty  of  indifference,  or 
the  doctrine  that  the  will  can  act  without  motive.  See  this  doctrine  advocated  in 
Peabody,  Moral  Philosophy,  1-9.  But  we  also  reject  the  theory  of  determinism  pro- 
pounded by  Jonathan  Edwards  ( Freedom  of  the  Will,  in  Works,  vol.  2 ),  which,  as  we 
have  before  remarked,  identifies  sensibility  with  the  will,  regards  affections  as  the  effi- 
cient causes  of  volitions,  and  speaks  of  the  connection  between  motive  and  action  as  a 
necessary  one.  Hazard,  Man  a  Creative  First  Cause,  and  The  Will,  407  — "Edwards 
gives  to  the  controlling  caiise  of  volition  in  the  past  the  name  of  motive.  He  treats 
the  inclination  as  a  motive,  but  he  also  makes  inclination  synonymous  with  choice  and 
will,  which  would  make  will  to  be  only  the  soul  willing  —  and  therefore  the  cause  of 
its  own  act."  For  objections  to  the  Arminian  theory,  see  H.  B.  Smith,  Review  of 
Whedon,  in  Faith  and  Philosophy,  359-399 ;  McCosh,  Divine  Government,  263-318,  esp. 
312 ;  E.  G.  Robinson,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Morality,  109-137  ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
2:115-147. 

James,  Psychology,  1 :  139  —  "  Consciousness  is  primarily  a  selecting  agency."  2  :  393 
— "  Man  possesses  all  the  instincts  of  animals,  and  a  great  many  more  besides.  Reason, 
per  se,  can  inhibit  no  impulses;  the  only  thing  that  can  neutralize  an  impulse  is  an 
impulse  the  other  way.  Reason  may  however  make  an  inference  which  will  excite 
the  imagination  to  let  loose  the  impulse  the  other  way."  549  —  "  Ideal  or  moral  action 
is  action  in  the  line  of  the  greatest  resistance."  562  —  "  Effort  of  attention  is  the  essen- 
tial phenomenon  of  will."  567  —  "  The  terminus  of  the  psychological  process  is  voli- 
tion ;  the  point  to  which  the  will  is  directly  applied  is  always  an  idea."  568  —  "  Though 
attention  is  the  first  thing  in  volition,  express  consent  to  the  reality  of  what  is 
attended  to  is  an  additional  and  distinct  phenomenon.    We  say  not  only :    It  is  a  real- 


THE    MORAL   NATURE    OF    MAN.  505 

ity  ;  but  we  also  say :  '  Let  it  be  a  reality.'  "  571  —  "  Are  the  duration  and  intensity 
of  this  effort  fixed  functions  of  the  object,  or  are  they  not?  We  answer,  Ao,  and  so 
we  maintain  freedom  of  the  will."  584  —  "  The  soul  presents  nothing-,  creates  not  bing, 
is  at  the  mercy  of  material  forces  foj  all  possibilities,  and,  by  reinforcing-  one  and 
checking-  others,  it  figures  not  as  an  epipherwmt  rum,  but  as  something  from  which  the 
play  gets  moral  support."  Alexander,  Theories  of  the  "Will,  201  214,  finds  in  Reid's 
Active  Powers  of  the  Human  Mind  the  most  adequate  empirical  defense  of  inde- 
terminism. 

B.  Will  and  other  faculties. —  (  <i )  We  accept  the  threefold  division  of 
human  faculties  into  intellect,  sensibility,  aud  will.  ( b  )  Intellect  is  the 
sotd  knowing  ;  sensibility  is  the  soul  feeling  (  desires,  affections )  ;  will  is 
the  soul  choosing  (end  or  means),  (c )  In  every  act  of  the  soul,  all  the 
faculties  act.  Knowing  involves  feeling  aud  willing  ;  feeling  involves 
knowing  and  willing;  willing  involves  knowing  and  feeling,  (d)  Logi- 
cally, each  latter  faculty  involves  the  preceding  action  of  the  former  ;  the 
the  soul  must  know  before  feeling;  must  know  and  feel  before  willing. 
(<*)  Yet  since  knowing  and  feeling  are  activities,  neither  of  these  is 
possible  without  willing. 

Socrates  to  Theaetetua  :  "  It  would  be  a  singular  thing,  my  lad,  if  each  of  us  was,  as 
it  were,  a  wooden  horse,  and  within  us  were  seated  many- separate  senses.  For  mani- 
festly these  senses  unite  into  one  nature,  call  it  the  soul  or  what  you  will.  Audit  is 
with  this  central  form,  through  the  organs  of  sense,  that  we  perceive  sensible  objects." 
Dewey,  Psychology,  21— "Knowledge  and  feeling  are  partial  aspects  of  the  self,  and 
hence  more  or  less  abstract,  while  will  is  complete,  comprehending  both  aspects.  .  .  . 
While  the  universal  element  is  knowledge,  the  individual  element  is  feeling,  and  the 
relation  which  connects  them  ini<>  one  concrete  content  is  will."  :>'14 —  "  There  is  con- 
flict of  desires  or  motives.  Deliberation  is  the  comparison  of  desires;  choice  is  the 
decision  in  favor  of  one.  This  desire  is  then  the  strongest  because  the  whole  force  of  the 
self  is  thrown  into  it."  411  — "The  man  determines  himself  by  setting  up  either  good 
or  evil  as  a  motive  to  himself,  and  besets  up  either, as  he  will  have  himself  be.  There  is 
no  thought  without  will,  for  thought  implies  inhibition."  Itibot,  Diseases  of  the  Will, 
73,  cites  the  case  of  Coleridge,  and  his  lack  of  power  to  inhibit  scattering  and  useless 
ideas  \  114  —  "  Volition  plunges  its  roots  into  the  profoundest  depths  of  the  individual, 
and  beyond  the  individual,  into  the  species  and  into  all  species." 

As  God  is  not  mere  nature  but  originating  force,  so  man  is  chiefly  will.  Every  other 
act  of  the  soul  has  will  asan  element.  Wundt :  "  Jedes  Denken  ist  ein  Wollen."  There 
is  no  perception,  and  there  is  no  thought,  without  attention,  and  attention  is  an  act  of 
the  will.  Hegelians  and  absolute  idealists  like  Bradley,  (see  Mind,  July,  L886),  deny 
that  attention  is  an  active  function  of  the  self.  They  regard  it  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  more  interesting  character  of  preceding  ideas.  Thus  all  power  to  alter 
character  is  denied  to  the  agent.  This  is  an  exact  reversal  of  the  facts  of  conscious- 
ness, and  it  would  leave  no  will  in  God  or  man.  T.  II.  Green  says  t  hat  t  he  self  makes 
the  motives  by  identifying  itself  with  one  solicitation  of  desire  rather  than  another, 
but  that  the  self  has  no  power  of  alternative  choice  in  thus  identifying  itself  with  one 
solicitation  of  desire  rather  than  another;  see  Dpton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  310.  James 
Seth,  Freedom  of  Ethical  Postulate:  "The  only  hope  of  finding  a  place  for  real  free 
will  is  in  another  than  the  Humian,  empirical  or  psychological  account  of  the  moral 
person  or  self .  Hegel  and  Green  bring  will  again  under  the  law  of  necessity.  Hut  per- 
sonality is  ultimate.  Absolute  uniformity  is  entirely  unproved.  We  contend  for  a 
power  of  free  aud  incalculable  initiation  in  the  self,  and  this  it  is  necessary  to  maintain 
in  the  interests  of  morality."  Without  will  to  attend  to  pertinent  material  and  to  reject 
the  impertinent,  we  can  have  no  science  ;  -without  will  to  select  and  combine  the  ele- 
ments of  imagination,  we  can  have  no  ait;  without  will  to  choose  between  evil  and 
good,  we  can  have  no  morality.  -Ell'ric,  A.  D.  900:  "The  verb  'to  will '  has  no  impera- 
tive, for  that  the  will  must  be  always  free." 

C.  Will  and  permanent  states.  —  ( a )  Though  every  act  of  the  soul 
involves  the  action  of  all  the  faculties,  yet  in  any  particular  action  one 
faculty  may  be  more  prominent  than  the  others.     So  we  speak  of  acts  of 


506  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

intellect,  of  affection,  of  will.  (  b )  This  predominant  action  of  any  single 
facility  produces  effects  upon  the  other  faculties  associated  with  it.  The 
action  of  will  gives  a  direction  to  the  intellect  and  to  the  affections,  as  well 
as  a  permanent  bent  to  the  will  itself.  ( c )  Each  faculty,  therefore,  has  its 
permanent  states  as  well  as  its  transient  acts,  and  the  will  may  originate 
these  states.  Hence  we  speak  of  voluntary  affections,  and  may  with  equal 
propriety  speak  of  voluntary  opinions.  These  permanent  voluntary  states 
we  denominate  character. 

I  "make  up  "my  mind.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Conduct,  152  — "I  will  the  influential 
ideas,  feelings  and  desires,  rather  than  allow  these  ideas,  feelings  and  desires  to  influence 
—  not  to  say,  determine  me."  All  men  can  say  with  Robert  Browning's  Paracelsus :  " I 
have  subdued  my  life  to  the  one  purpose  Whereto  I  ordained  it."  "  Sow  an  act,  and 
you  reap  a  habit ;  sow  a  habit,  and  you  reap  a  character  ;  sow  a  character,  and  you  reap 
a  destiny."  Tito,  in  George  Eliot's  Roinola,  and  Markheim  in  R.  L.  Stevenson's  story 
of  that  name,  are  instances  of  the  gradual  and  almost  imperceptible  fixation  in  evil 
ways  which  results  from  seemingly  slight  original  decisions  of  the  will ;  see  art.  on  Tito 
Melema,  by  Julia  H.  Gulliver,  in  New  World,  Dec.  1895  :  088  —  "  Sin  lies  in  the  choice  of 
the  ideas  that  shall  frequent  the  moral  life,  rather  than  of  the  actions  that  shall 

form  the  outward  life The  pivotal  point  of  the  moral  life  is  the  intent  involved 

in  attention Sin  consists,  not  only  in  the  motive,  but  in  the  making  of  the 

motive."  By  every  decision  of  the  will  in  which  we  turn  our  thought  either  toward  or 
away  from  an  object  of  desire,  we  set  nerve-tracts  in  operation,  upon  which  thought 
may  hereafter  more  or  less  easily  travel.  "  Nothing  makes  an  inroad,  without  making 
a  road."  By  slight  efforts  of  attention  to  truth  which  we  know  ought  to  influence  us, 
we  may  "  make  leval  in  tho  desert  a  highway  for  our  God  "  ( Is.  40  : 3  ),  or  render  the  soul  a  hard  trodden 
ground  impervious  to  "  the  word  of  the  kingdom  "  ( Mat.  13 :  19 ). 

The  word  "character"  meant  originally  the  mark  of  the  engraver's  tool  upon  the 
metal  or  the  stone.  It  came  then  to  signify  the  collective  result  of  the  engraver's  work. 
The  use  of  the  word  in  morals  implies  that  every  thought  and  act  is  chiseling  itself 
into  the  imperishable  substance  of  the  soul.  J.  S.  Mill :  "  A  character  is  a  completely 
fashioned  will."  We  may  talk  therefore  of  a  "generic  volition"  (Dewey).  There  is 
a  permanent  bent  of  the  will  toward  good  or  toward  evil.  Reputation  is  man's  shadow, 
sometimes  longer,  sometimes  shorter,  than  himself.  Character,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
the  man's  true  self  — "what  a  man  is  in  the  dark"  (DwightL.  Moody).  In  this  sense, 
"  purpose  is  the  autograph  of  mind."  Duke  of  Wellington  :  "  Habit  a  second  nature  ? 
Habit  is  ten  times  nature ! "  When  Macbeth  says :  "  If  't  were  done  when  't  is  done.  Then 
't  were  well 't  were  done  quickly,"  the  trouble  is  that  when  't  is  done,  it  is  only  begun. 
Robert  Dale  Owen  gives  us  the  fundamental  principle  of  socialism  in  the  maxim  :  "  A 
man's  character  is  made  for  him,  not  by  him."  Hence  he  would  change  man's  diet  or 
his  environment,  as  a  means  of  forming  man's  character.  But  Jesus  teaches  that  what 
defiles  comes  not  from  without  but  from  within  (  Mat.  15 :  18  ).  Because  character  is  the 
result  of  will,  the  maxim  of  Heraclitus  is  true:  ^os  di-Apci™  Sai>wc  =  man's  character 
is  his  destiny.    On  habit,  see  James,  Psychology,  1  :  123-127. 

D.  Will  and  motives.  —  (a)  The  permanent  states  just  mentioned,  when 
they  have  been  once  determined,  also  influence  the  will.  Internal  views  and 
dispositions,  and  not  simply  external  presentations,  constitute  the  strength 
of  motives.  (  6 )  These  motives  often  conflict,  and  though  the  soul  never 
acts  without  motive,  it  does  notwithstanding  choose  between  motives,  and 
so  determines  the  end  toward  which  it  will  direct  its  activities.  ( c ) 
Motives  are  not  causes,  which  compel  the  will,  but  influences,  which  per- 
suade it.  The  power  of  these  motives,  however,  is  proportioned  to  the 
strength  of  will  which  has  entered  into  them  and  has  made  them  what 
they  are. 

"  Incentives  comes  from  the  soul's  self :  the  rest  avail  not."  The  same  wind  may 
drive  two  ships  in  opposite  directions,  according  as  they  set  their  sails.  The  same 
external  presentation  may  result  in  George  Washington's  refusing,  and  Benedict 


THE    MORAL   NATURE   OF   MAN.  507 

Arnold's  accepting,  the  bribe  to  betray  his  country.  Richard  Lovelace  of  Canterbury : 
"  Stone  walls  do  not  a  prison  make,  Nor  iron  bars  a  cage ;  Minds  innocent  and  quiet  take 
That  for  a  hermitage."  Jonathan  Edwards  made  motives  to  be  efficient  causes,  when 
they  are  only  final  causes.  We  must  n$t  interpret  motive  as  if  it  were  locomotive.  It 
is  always  a  man's  fault  when  he  becomes  a  drunkard:  drink  never  takes  to  a  man; 
the  man  takes  to  drink.  Men  who  deny  demerit  are  ready  enough  to  claim  merit. 
They  hold  others  responsible,  if  not  themselves.  Bowne:  "  Pure  arbitrariness  and  pure 
necessity  are  alike  incompatible  with  reason.  There  must  be  a  law  of  reason  in  the 
mind  with  which  volition  cannot  tamper,  and  there  must  also  be  the  power  to  deter- 
mine ourselves  accordingly."  Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  135—"  If  necessity  is  a  uni- 
versal thing,  then  the  belief  in  freedom  is  also  necessary.  All  grant  freedom  of  thought, 
so  that  it  is  only  executive  freedom  that  is  denied."  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and 
Knowledge,  339-244  — "  Every  system  of  philosophy  must  invoke  freedom  for  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  error,  or  make  shipwreck  of  reason  itself.  .  .  .  Our  faculties 
are  made  for  truth,  but  they  may  be  carelessly  used,  or  wilfully  misused,  and  thus  error 

is  born We  need  not  only  laws  of  thought,  but  self-control  in  accordance  with 

them." 

The  will,  in  choosing  between  motives,  chooses  with  a  motive,  namely,  the  motive 
chosen.  Fairbairn,  Philos.  Christian  Religion,  76  —  "  While  motives  may  be  necessary, 
they  need  not  necessitate.  The  will  selects  motives;  motives  do  not  select  the  will. 
Heredity  and  environment  do  not  cancel  freedom,  they  only  condition  it.  Thought  is 
transcendence  as  regards  the  phenomena  oi  space;  will  is  transcendence  as  regards  the 
phenomena  of  time;  this  double  transcendence  involves  the  complete  supernatural 
character  of  man."  New  World,  1892:152— "It  is  not  the  character,  but  the  self  that 
lias  the  character,  to  which  the  ultimate  moral  decision  is  due."  William  Ernest  Henly, 
Poems,  119  —  "  It  matters  not  how  strait  the  gate,  How  charged  with  punishments  the 
scroll,  I  am  the  master  of  my  fate,  I  am  the  captain  of  my  sold." 

Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2 :  54  —  "  A  being  is  free,  in  so  far  as  the  inner  centre  of 
its  life,  from  which  it  acts,  is  conditioned  by  self-determination.  It  is  not  enough  that 
the  deciding  agent  in  an  act  be  the  man  himself,  his  own  nature,  his  distinctive 
character.  In  order  to  accountability,  we  must  have  more  than  this  ;  we  must  prove 
that  this,  his  distinctive  nature  and  character,  springs  from  his  own  volition,  and  that 
it  is  itself  the  product  of  freedom  in  moral  development.  Matt.  12-33 — "make  tho  tree  good,  and 
its  fruit  good"  — combines  both.  Acts  depend  upon  nature  ;  but  nature  again  depends  upon 
the  primary  decisions  of  the  will  ( "make  the  tree  good" ).  Some  determinism  is  not  denied  ; 
but  it  is  partly  limited  [by  the  will's  remaining  power  of  choice]  and  partly  traced 
back  to  a  former  self-determining."  Ibid.,  67  — "If  freedom  be  the  self-determining  of 
the  will  from  that  which  is  undetermined,  Determinism  is  found  wanting,  —  because  In 
its  most  spiritual  form,  though  it  grants  a  self-determination  of  the  will,  it  is  only  such 
a  one  as  springs  from  a  detemiinateness  already  present ;  and  Indifferentism  is  found 
wanting  too,  because  while  it  maintains  indeterminateness  as  presupposed  in  every  act 
of  will,  it  does  not  recognize  an  actual  self-determining  on  the  part  of  the  will,  which, 

though  it  be  a  self-determining,  yet  begets  determinateness  of  character We 

must,  therefore,  hold  the  doctrine  of  a  conditional  and  limited  freedom." 

E.  Will  and  contrary  choice.  —  (  a  )  Though  no  act  of  pure  will  is  pos- 
sible, the  soul  may  put  forth  single  volitions  in  a  direction  opposed  to  its 
previous  ruling  purpose,  and  thus  far  man  has  the  power  of  a  contrary 
choice  (  Kom.  7  :  18 —  "to  will  is  present  with  me  "  ).  ( f> )  But  in  so  far  as 
will  has  entered  into  and  revealed  itself  in  permanent  states  of  intellect 
and  sensibility  and  in  a  settled  bent  of  the  will  itself,  man  cannot  by  a 
single  act  reverse  his  moral  state,  and  in  this  respect  has  not  the  power  of 
a  contrary  choice.  ( c  )  In  this  latter  case  he  can  change  his  character  only 
indirectly,  by  turning  his  attention  to  considerations  fitted  to  awaken 
opposite  dispositions,  and  by  thus  summoning  up  motives  to  an  opposite 
course. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  an  act  of  pure  will.  Peters,  Willenswelt,  126  — "  Jedes  Wol- 
len  ist  em  Etwas  wollen  "  —  "  all  willing  is  a  willing  of  some  thing";  it  has  an  object 
which  the  mind  conceives,  which  awakens  the.  sensibility,  and  which  the  will  strives 


508  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    MAN". 

to  realize.  Cause  without  alternative  is  not  true  cause.  J.  F.  Watts :  "  We  know  caus- 
ality only  as  we  know  will,  i.  c,  where  of  two  possibles  it  makes  one  actual.  A  cause 
may  therefore  have  more  than  one  certain  effect.  In  the  external  material  world  we 
cannot  find  cause,  but  only  antecedent.  To  construct  a  theory  of  the  will  from  a  study 
of  the  material  universe  is  to  seek  the  living-  among-  the  dead.  Will  is  power  to  make  a 
decision,  not  to  he  made  by  decisions,  to  decide  between  motives,  and  not  to  be  deter- 
mined by  motives.  Who  conducts  the  trial  between  motives  ?  Only  the  self."  While 
we  agree  with  the  above  in  its  assertion  of  the  certainty  of  nature's  sequences,  we 
object  to  its  attribution  even  to  nature  of  anything-  like  necessity.  Since  nature's  laws 
are  merely  the  habits  of  God,  God's  causality  in  nature  is  the  regularity,  not  of  neces- 
sity, but  of  freedom.  We  too  are  free  at  the  strategic  points.  Automatic  as  most  of 
our  action  is,  there  are  times  when  we  know  ourselves  to  have  power  of  initiative  ; 
when  we  put  under  our  feet  the  motives  which  have  dominated  us  in  the  past ;  when 
we  mark  out  new  courses  of  action.  In  these  critical  times  we  assert  our  manhood  ; 
but  for  them  we  would  be  no  better  than  the  beasts  that  perish.  "  Unless  above  him- 
self he  can  erect  himself,  How  mean  a  thing  is  man  !  " 

Will,  with  no  remaining  power  of  contrary  choice,  may  be  brute  will,  but  it  is  not 
free  will.  We  therefore  deny  the  relevancy  of  Herbert  Spencer's  argument,  in  his 
Data  of  Ethics,  and  in  his  Psychology,  2:503— "Psychical  changes  either  conform  to 
law,  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do  not  conform  to  law,  no  science  of  Psychology  is  pos- 
sible. If  they  do  conform  to  law,  there  cannot  be  any  such  thing  as  free  will."  Spinoza 
also,  in  his  Ethics,  holds  that  the  stone,  as  it  falls,  would  if  it  were  conscious  think  it- 
self free,  and  with  as  much  justice  as  man  ;  for  it  is  doing  that  to  which  its  constitution 
leads  it ;  but  no  more  can  be  said  for  him.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation, 
xiii  —  "  To  try  to  collect  the  '  data  of  ethics '  when  there  is  no  recognition  of  man  as  a 
personal  agent,  capable  of  freely  originating  the  conduct  and  the  states  of  will  for 
which  he  is  morally  responsible,  is  labor  lost."  Fisher,  chapter  on  the  Personality  of 
God,  in  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Relief —  "Self-determination,  as  the  very 
term  signifies,  is  attended  with  an  irresistible  conviction  that  the  direction  of  the  will  is 

self-imparted That  the  will  is  free,  that  is,  not  constrained  by  causes  exterior, 

which  is  fatalism  —  and  not  a  mere  spontaneity,  confined  to  one  path  by  a  force  acting 
from  within,  which  is  determinism— is  immediately  evident  to  every  unsophisticated 
mind.  We  can  initiate  action  by  an  efficiency  which  is  neither  irresistibly  controlled 
by  motives,  nor  determined,  without  any  capacity  of  alternative  action,  by  a  proneness 
inherent  in  its  nature Motives  have  an  influence,  but  influence  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  causal  efficiency." 

Talbot,  on  Will  and  Free  Will,  Bap.  Rev.,  July,  1882— "Will  is  neither  a  power  of 
unconditioned  self -determination  —  which  is  not  freedom,  but  an  aimless,  irrational, 
fatalistic  power  ;  nor  pure  spontaneity— which  excludes  from  will  all  law  but  its  own  ; 
but  it  is  rather  a  power  of  originating  action  — a  power  which  is  limited  however  by 
inborn  dispositions,  by  acquired  habits  and  convictions,  by  feelings  and  social  relations. " 
Ernest  Naviile,  in  Rev.  Chretienne,  Jan.  1878 :  7  —  "  Our  liberty  does  not  consist  in  pro- 
ducing an  action  of  which  it  is  the  only  source.  It  consists  in  choosing  between  two 
preexistent  impulses.  It  is  choice,  not  creation,  that  is  our  destiny —  a  drop  of  water 
that  can  choose  whether  it  will  go  into  the  Rhine  or  the  Rhone.  Gravity  carries  it 
down,  _  it  chooses  only  its  direction.  Impulses  do  not  come  from  the  will,  but  from  the 
sensibility ;  but  free  will  chooses  between  these  impulses."  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  169  — 
"  Freedom  is  not  a  power  of  acting  without,  or  apart  from,  motives,  but  simply  a  power 
of  choosing  an  end  or  law,  and  of  governing  one's  self  accordingly."  Porter,  Moral 
Science,  77-111  —  Will  is  "  not  a  power  to  choose  without  motive."  It  "  does  not  exclude 
motives  to  the  contrary."  Volition  "supposes  two  or  more  objects  between  which 
election  is  made.    It  is  an  act  of  preference,  and  to  prefer  implies  that  one  motive  is 

chosen  to  the  exclusion  of  another To  the  conception  and  the  act  two  motives  at 

least  are  required."  Lyall,  Iuiellect,  Emotions,  and  Moral  Nature,  581,  592—  "  The  will 
follows  reasons,  inducements  —  but  it  is  not  caused.  It  obeys  or  acts  under  inducement, 
but  it  does  so  sovereignly.  It  exhibits  the  phenomena  of  activity,  in  relation  to  the 
very  motive  it  obeys.  It  obeys  it,  rather  than  another.  It  determines,  in  reference  to 
it,  that  this  is  the  very  motive  it  will  obey.  There  is  undoubtedly  this  phenomenon 
exhibited  :  the  will  obeying  — but  elective,  active,  in  its  obedience.  If  it  be  asked  how 
this  is  possible  —  how  the  will  can  be  under  the  influence  of  motive,  and  yet  possess  an 
intellectual  activity  — we  reply  that  this  is  one  of  those  ultimate  phenomena  which 
must  be  admitted,  while  they  cannot  be  explained," 


THE   MORAL  NATURE   OF   MAN".  509 

F.  Will  and  responsibility. —  (a)  By  repeated  acts  of  will  pat  forth  in 
a  given  moral  direction,  the  affections  may  become  so  confirmed  in  evd  or 
in  good  as  to  make  i:>reviously  certain,  though  not  necessary,  the  future 
good  or  evil  action  of  the  man.  Thus,  while  the  will  is  free,  the  man  may 
be  the  "bondservant  of  sin"  (John  8  :  31-36)  or  the  "servant  of  right- 
eousness" (Rom.  6:15-23;  cf.  Heb.  12-23  —  "spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect ").  ( b  )  Man  is  responsible  for  all  effects  of  will,  as  well  as  for  will 
itself ;  for  voluntary  affections,  as  well  as  for  voluntary  acts  ;  for  the 
intellectual  views  into  which  will  has  entered,  as  well  as  for  the  acts  of  will 
1  >y  which  these  views  have  been  formed  in  the  past  or  are  maintained  in 
the  present  (  2  Pet.  3  : 5  — "  wilfully  forget "). 

Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Knowledge,  415  — "The  self  stands  between  the  two  laws  of 
Nature  and  of  Conscience,  and,  under  perpetual  limitations  from  both,  exercises  its 
choice.  Thus  it  becomes  moreaod  more  enslaved  by  the  one,  or  more  and  more  free 
by  habitually  choosing  to  follow  the  other.  Our  conception  of  causality  according  to 
the  laws  of  nature,  and  our  conception  of  the  other  causality  of  freedom,  are  both 
derived  from  one  and  the  same  experience  of  the  self.  There  arises  a  seeming 
antinomy  only  when  we  hypostati2e  each  severally  and  apart  from  the  other." 
R.  T.  Smith,  Man's  Knowledge  of  Man  and  of  God,  69—"  Making  a  will  is  significant. 
Here  the  action  of  will  is  limited  by  conditions:  the  amount  of  the  testator's  property, 
the  number  of  his  relatives,  the  nature  of  the  objects  of  bounty  within  his  knowl- 
edge." 

Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  349-407—  "Action  without  motives,  or  contrary  to  all 
motives,  would  be  irrational  action.  Instead  of  being  free,  it  would  lie  like  the  con- 
vulsions of  epilepsy.  Motives  =  sensibilities.  Motive  is  not  cause ;  does  not  determine ; 
is  only  influence.  Yet  determination  is  always  made  under  the  influence  of  motives. 
Uniformity  of  action  is  not  to  be  explained  by  any  law  of  uniform  influence  of 
motives,  but  by  character  in  the  will.  By  its  choice,  will  forms  in  itself  a  character;  by 
action  in  accordance  with  this  choice,  it  confirms  and  develops  the  character.  Choice 
modifies  sensibilities,  and  so  modifies  motives.  Volitional  action  expresses  character, 
but  also  forms  and  modifies  it.  Man  may  change  his  choice;  yet  intellect,  sensibility, 
motive,  habit,  remain.  Evil  choice,  having  formed  intellect  and  sensibility  into  accord 
with  itself,  must  be  a  powerful  hindrance  to  fundamental  change  by  new  and  contrary 
choice;  and  gives  small  ground  to  expect  that  man  left  to  himself  ever  will  make  the 
change.  After  will  has  acquired  character  by  choices,  its  determinations  are  not  tran- 
sitions from  complete  indeterminateneas  or  indifference,  but  are  more  or  less  expres- 
sions of  character  already  formed.  The  theory  t  hat  indifl'erenee  is  essential  to  freedom 
implies  that  will  never  acquires  character;  that  voluntary  action  is  atomistic;  that 
every  act  is  disintegrated  from  every  other;  that  character,  if  acquired,  would  be 
incompatible  with  freedom.  Character  is  a  choice,  yet  a  choice  which  persists,  which 
modifies  sensibility  and  intellect,  and  which  influences  subsequent  determinations." 

My  freedom  then  is  freedom  within  limitations.  Heredity  and  environment,  and 
above  all  the  settled  dispositions  which  are  the  product  of  past  acts  of  will,  render  a 
large  part  of  human  action  practically  automatic.  The  deterministic  theory  is  valid 
for  perhaps  nine-tenths  of  human  activity.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  118, 119  —  "  We 
naturally  will  with  a  bias  toward  evil.  To  act  according  to  the  perfection  of  nature 
would  be  true  freedom.  And  this  man  has  lost.  He  recognizes  that  he  is  not  his  true- 
self.  It  is  only  with  difficulty  that  he  works  toward  his  true  self  again.  By  the  fall  of 
Adam,  the  will,  which  before  was  conditioned  but  free,  is  now  not  only  conditioned  but 
enslaved.  Nothing  but  the  action  of  grace  can  free  it."  Tennyson,  In  Memoriam, 
Introduction:  "  Our  wills  are  ours,  we  know  not  how;  Our  wills  are  ours,  to  make 
them  thine."  Studying  the  action  of  the  sinful  will  alone,  one  might  conclude  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom.  Christian  ethics,  in  distinction  from  naturalistic 
et hies,  reveals  most  clearly  the  degradation  of  our  nature,  at  the  same  time  that  it 
discloses  the  remedy  in  Christ :  "If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed  "  ( John 
8  :36). 

Mind,  Oct.  1882  :  567  —  "  Kant  seems  to  be  in  quest  of  the  phantasmal  freedom  which 
is  supposed  to  consist  in  the  absence  of  determination  by  motives.  The  error  of  the 
determinists  from  which  this  idea  is  the  recoil,  involves  an  equal  abstraction  of  the 


510  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OP   MAN. 

man  from  his  thoughts,  and  interprets  the  relation  between  the  two  as  an  instance  of 
the  mechanical  causality  which  exists  between  two  thing's  in  nature.  The  point  to  be 
grasped  in  the  controversy  is  that  a  man  and  his  motives  are  one,  and  that  consequently 

he  is  in  every  instance  self-determined Indeterminism  is  tenable  only  if  an  ego 

can  be  found  which  is  not  an  ego  already  determinate  ;  but  such  an  ego,  though  it  may 
be  logically  distinguished  and  vex-bally  expressed,  is  not  a  factor  in  psychology."  Mor- 
ell,  Mental  Philosophy,  390— "Motives  determine  the  will,  and  so  far  the  will  is  not 
free ;  but  the  man  governs  the  motives,  allowing  them  a  less  or  a  greater  power  of 
influencing-  his  life,  and  so  far  the  man  is  a  f ree  agent."  Santayana :  "  A  free  man, 
because  he  is  free,  may  make  himself  a  slave ;  but  once  a  slave,  because  he  is  a  slave, 
he  cannot  make  himself  free."  Sidgwick,  Method  of  Ethics,  51,  65 — "  This  almost  over- 
whelming cumulative  px-oof  [of  necessity]  seems,  however,  mox-e  than  balanced  by  a 
single  argument  on  the  other  side :  the  immediate  affirmation  of  consciousness  in  the 
moment  of  delibex-ate  volition.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  think,  at  each  moxnent,  that 
my  volition  is  completely  determined  by  my  formed  character  and  the  motives  acting 
upon  it.  The  opposite  conviction  is  so  strong  as  to  be  absolutely  unshaken  by  the 
evidence  brought  against  it.    I  cannot  believe  it  to  be  illxisory." 

G.  Inferences  from  this  view  of  the  will.  —  (  a  )  We  can  be  responsible 
for  the  voluntary  evil  affections  with  which  we  are  born,  and  for  the  will's 
inherited  preference  of  selfishness,  only  upon  the  hypothesis  that  we 
originated  these  states  of  the  affections  and  will,  or  had  a  part  in  originat- 
ing thenx.  Scripture  furnishes  this  explanation,  in  its  doctrine  of  Original 
Sin,  or  the  doctrine  of  a  common  apostasy  of  the  race  in  its  first  father, 
and  our  derivation  of  a  corrupted  nature  by  natural  generation  from  him. 
(  b )  "While  there  remains  to  man,  even  in  his  present  condition,  a  natural 
power  of  will  by  which  he  may  put  forth  transient  volitions  externally 
conformed  to  the  divine  law  and  so  may  to  a  limited  extent  modify  his 
character,  it  still  remains  true  that  the  sinful  bent  of  his  affections  is  not 
directly  under  his  control ;  and  this  bent  constitutes  a  motive  to  evil  so 
constant,  inveterate,  and  powerful,  that  it  actually  influences  every  member 
of  the  race  to  reaffirm  his  evil  choice,  and  renders  necessary  a  special 
working  of  God's  Spirit  upon  his  heart  to  ensure  his  salvation.  Hence  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  Regeneration. 

Thei'e  is  sxich  a  thing  as  "  psychical  automatism  "  ( Ladd,  Philos.  Mind,  169 ).  Mother  : 
"Oscar,  why  can't  you  be  good?  "  "  Mamma,  it  makes  me  so  tired  !  "  The  wayward 
f oxu--year-old  is  a  type  of  univex-sal  humanity.  Men  ax-e  born  mox-ally  tix-ed,  though 
they  have  energy  enoxigh  of  other  sorts.  The  man  who  sins  may  lose  all  freedom,  so 
that  his  soxil  becomes  a  seething  mass  of  eructant  evil.  T.  C.  Chambei'lain :  "Condi- 
tions may  make  choices  run  rigidly  in  one  direction  and  give  as  fixed  xiniformity  as  in 
physical  phenomena.  Put  befox'e  a  million  typical  Americans  the  choice  between  a 
quarter  and  a  dime,  and  rigid  uniformity  of  x-esults  can  be  safely  px-edicted."  Yet  Dr. 
Chambex-lain  not  only  gx-ants  but  claims  liberty  of  choice.  Romanes,  Mind  and  Motion, 
155-160 — "Though  volitions  are  largely  determined  by  other  and  external  causes,  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  are  determined  necessarily,  and  this  makes  all  the  difference 
between  the  theoi-ies  of  will  as  bond  or  free.  Their  intrinsic  chai-acter  as  first  causes 
protects  them  fx-om  being  coerced  by  these  caxxses  and  therefore  from  becoming  only 
the  mere  effects  of  them.  The  condition  to  the  effective  opex-ation  of  a  motive — as 
distinguished  fx-om  a  motor  —  is  the  acquiescence  of  the  first  cause  xipou  whom  that 
motive  is  operating."  Fichte  :  "If  anyone  adopting  the  dogma  of  necessity  should 
x-emain  virtuous,  we  mxist  seek  the  cause  of  his  goodness  elsewhere  than  in  the  imxoc- 
uousness  of  his  doctrine.  Upon  the  sxippositiou  of  fx-ee  will  alone  can  dxity,  virtue, 
and  morality  have  any  existence."  Lessing :  "  Kein  Mensch  muss  mlissen."  Delitzsch  : 
"  Der  Mensch,  wie  er  jetzt  ist,  ist  wahlfx-ei,  aber  nicht  machtfrei." 

Kant  x-egax-ded  freedom  as  an  exception  to  the  law  of  natural  causality.  But  this 
freedom  is  not  phenomenal  but  nouixxenal,  for  causality  is  not  a  category  of  noumena. 
From  this  freedom  we  get  our  whole  idea  of  personality,  for  pex-sonality  is  f reedom  of 
the  whole  soul  from  the  mechanism  of  natux-e.    Kant  treated  scornfully  the  determiu- 


THE   MORAL    NATURE   OF   MAN".  511 

ism  of  Leibnitz,  ITe  said  it  was  the  freedom  of  a  turnspit,  which  when  once  wound 
up  directed  its  own  movements,  i.  e.,  was  merely  automatic.  Compare  with  this  the 
view  of  Baldwin,  Psychology,  Feeling  and  Will,  373  — "Free  choice  is  a  synthesis,  the 
outcome  of  which  is  in  every  case  .conditioned  upon  its  elements,  but  in  no  case 
caused  by  them.  A  logical  inference  is  conditioned  upon  its  premises,  but  it  is  not 
caused  by  them.  Both  inference  and  choice  express  the  nature  of  the  conscious 
principle  and  the  unique  method  of  its  life.  .  .  ,  The  motives  do  not  grow  into  voli- 
tions, nor  does  the  volition  stand  apart  from  the  motives.    The  motives  are  partial 

expressions,  the  volition  is  a  total  expression,  of  the  same  existence Freedom  is 

the  expression  of  one's  self  conditioned  by  past  choices  and  present  environment." 
Shakespeare,  Hamlet,  3  :  4— "Refrain  to-night,  And  that  shall  lend  a  kind  of  easiness 
To  the  next  abstinence :  the  next  more  easy :  For  use  can  almost  change  the  stamp  of 
nature,  And  either  curb  the  devil  or  throw  him  out  With  woudrous  potency."  3:2  — 
"Purpose  is  but  the  slave  to  memory;  Of  violent  birth  but  poor  validity."  4:7  — 
"  That  we  would  do,  We  should  do  when  we  would ;  for  this  would  changes  And  hath 
abatements  and  delays  as  many  As  there  are  tongues,  arc  hands,  are  accidents." 
(iuethe:  "Von  der  Gewalt  die  alio  Wesen  bindet,  Befreit  der  Mensch  sich  der  sich 
iiberwindet." 

Scotus  Novanticus  (Prof.  Laurie  of  Edinburgh),  Ethica,  287  — "The  chief  good  is 
fulness  of  life  achieved  through  law  by  the  action  of  will  as  reason  on  sensibility.  .  .  . 
Immorality  is  the  letting  loose  of  feeling,  in  opposition  to  the  idea  and  the  law  in  it; 

it  i8  individuality  in  opposition  to  personality In  immorality,  will  is  defeated, 

the  personality  overcome,  and  the  subject  volitionizes  just  as  a  dog  volitionizes.  The 
subject  takes  possession  of  the  personality  and  uses  it  for  its  natural  desires."  Muudsley, 
Physiology  of  Mind,  456,  quotes  Ribot,  Diseases  of  the  Will,  133—"  Will  is  not  the 
cause  of  anything.  It  is  like  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  which  is  an  effect,  without  being  a 
cause.  It  is  the  highest  force  which  nature  has  yet  developed  —  the  last  consummate 
blossom  of  all  her  marvellous  works."  Yet  Maudsley  argues  that  the  mind  itself  has 
power  to  prevent  insanity.  This  implies  that  there  is  an  owner  of  the  instrument 
endowed  with  power  and  responsibility  to  keep  it  in  order.  Man  can  do  much,  but 
Goil  can  do  mare. 

H.  Special  objections  to  the  deterministic  theory  of  the  will. —  Deter- 
minism holds  that  man's  actions  are  uniformly  determined  by  motives 
acting  upon  his  character,  and  that  he  Las  no  power  to  change  these 
motives  or  to  act  contrary  to  them.  This  denial  that  the  will  is  free  has 
serious  and  pernicious  consequences  in  theology.  On  the  one  hand,  it 
weakens  even  if  it  does  not  destroy  man's  conviction  with  regard  to  respon- 
sibility, sin,  guilt  and  retribution,  and  so  obscures  the  need  of  atonement ; 
on  the  other  hand,  it  weakens  if  it  does  not  destroy  man's  faith  in  his  own 
power  as  well  as  in  God's  power  of  initiating  action,  and  so  obscures  the 
possibility  of  atonement. 

Determinism  is  exemplified  in  Omar  Khayyam's  Rubaiyat :  "With  earth's  first  clay 
they  did  the  last  man  knead,  And  there  of  the  last  harvest  sowed  the  seed;  And 
the  first  morning  of  creation  wrote  What  the  last  dawn  of  reckoning  shall  read." 
William  .lames.  Will  to  Believe,  14:5-183,  shows  that  determinism  involves  pessimism  or 
subjectivism  —  good  and  evil  are  merely  means  of  increasing  knowledge.  The  result 
of  subjectivism  is  in  theology  antinomianism  ;  in  literature  romanticism;  in  practical 
life  sensuality  or  sensualism,  as  in  Rousseau,  Renan  and  Zola.  Hutton,  review  of 
Clifford  in  Contemp.  Thoughts  and  Thinkers,  1:254  —  "The  deterininist  says  there 
would  be  no  moral  quality  in  actions  that  did  not  express  previous  tendency,  i.  e.,  a 
man  is  responsible  only  for  what  he  cannot  help  doing.  No  effort  against  the  grain 
will  be  made  by  him  who  believes  that  his  interior  mechanism  settles  for  him  whether 
he  shall  make  it  or  no."  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2 :  342—"  Your  unique  voices  in 
the  divine  symphony  are  no  more  the  voices  of  moral  agents  than  are  the  stones  of  a 
mosaic."  The  French  monarch  announced  that  all  his  subjects  should  be  free  to  choose 
their  own  religion,  but  he  added  that  nobody  should  choose  a  different  religion  from 
the  king's.  "Johnny,  did  you  give  your  little  sister  the  choice  between  those  two 
apples?"  "Yes,  Mamma;  I  told  her  she  could  have  the  little  one  or  none,  and  she 
chose  the  little  one."    Hobson's  choice  was  always  the  choice  of  the  last  horse  in  the 


512  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

row.  The  bartender  with  revolver  in  hand  met  all  criticisms  upon  the  quality  of  his 
liquor  with  the  remark :  "  You  '11  drink  that  whisky,  and  you  '11  like  it  too  !  " 

Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  22  —  "  There  must  be  implicitly  present  to  primitive 
man  the  sense  of  freedom,  since  his  fetiehism  largely  consists  in  attributing  to  inani- 
mate objects  the  spontaneity  which  he  finds  in  himself."  Freedom  does  not  contradict 
conservation  of  energy.  Professor  Lodge,  in  Nature,  March  26,  1891— "Although 
expenditure  of  energy  is  needed  to  increase  the  speed  of  matter,  none  is  needed  to  alter 
its  direction.  .  .  .  The  rails  that  guide  a  train  do  not  propel  it,  nor  do  they  retard  it: 
they  have  no  essential  effect  upon  its  energy  but  a  guiding  effect."  J.  J.  Murphy,  Nat. 
Selection  and  Spir.  Freedom,  170-203  —  "  Will  does  not  create  force  but  directs  it.  A 
very  small  force  is  able  to  guide  the  action  of  a  great  one,  as  in  the  steering  of  a 
modern  steamship."  James  Seth,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  3  :  285,  286  —  "  As  life  is  not  energy 
but  a  determiner  of  the  paths  of  energy,  so  the  will  is  a  cause,  in  the  sense  that  it  con- 
trols and  directs  the  channels  which  activity  shall  take."  See  also  James  Seth,  Ethical 
Principles,  345-388,  and  Freedom  as  Ethical  Postulate,  9  —  "  The  philosophical  proof  of 
freedom  must  be  the  demonstration  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  categories  of  science :  its 
philosophical  disproof  must  be  the  demonstration  of  the  adequacy  of  such  scientific 
categories."  Shadworth  Hodgson  :  "  Either  liberty  is  true,  and  then  the  categories  are 
insufficient,  or  the  categories  are  sufficient,  and  then  liberty  is  a  delusion."  Wagner  is 
the  composer  of  determinism;  there  is  no  freedom  or  guilt;  action  is  the  result  of 
influence  and  environment ;  a  mysterious  fate  rules  all.  Life :  "  The  views  upon  hered- 
ity Of  scientists  remind  one  That,  shape  one's  conduct  as  one  may,  One's  future  is 
behind  one." 

We  trace  willing  in  God  back,  not  to  motives  and  antecedents,  but  to  his  infinite 
personality.  If  man  is  made  in  God's  image,  why  we  may  not  trace  man's  willing  also 
back,  not  to  motives  and  antecedents,  but  to  his  finite  personality  ?  We  speak  of 
God's  fiat,  but  we  may  speak  of  man's  fiat  also.  Napoleon :  "  There  shall  be  no  Alps !  " 
Dutch  William  III :  "  I  may  fall,  but  shall  fight  every  ditch,  and  die  in  the  last  one  !  " 
When  God  energizes  the  will,  it  becomes  indomitable.  Phil.  4:13 — "I  can  do  all  things  in  him 
that  strengthened  me."  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  was  theoretically  a  determinist,  and  wrongly 
held  that  the  highest  conceivable  freedom  is  to  act  out  one's  own  nature.  He  regarded 
the  will  as  only  the  nature  in  movement.  Will  is  self-determining,  not  in  the  sense  that 
will  determines  the  self,  but  in  the  sense  that  self  determines  the  will.  The  will  cannot 
be  compelled,  for  unless  self-determined  it  is  no  longer  will.  Observation,  history  and 
logic,  he  thought,  lead  to  necessitarianism.  But  consciousness,  he  conceded,  testifies 
to  freedom.  Consciousness  must  be  trusted,  though  we  cannot  reconcile  the  two. 
The  will  is  as  great  a  mystery  as  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Single  volitions,  he  says, 
are  often  directly  iu  the  face  of  the  current  of  a  man's  life.  Yet  he  held  that  we  have 
no  consciousness  of  the  power  of  a  contrary  choice.  Consciousness  can  testify  only  to 
what  springs  out  of  the  moral  nature,  not  to  the  moral  nature  itself. 

Lotze,  Religiousphilosophie,  section  61— "An  indeterminate  choice  is  of  course  incom- 
prehensible and  inexplicable,  for  if  it  were  comprehensible  and  explicable  by  the 
human  intellect,  if,  that  is,  it  could  be  seen  to  follow  necessarily  from  the  preexisting 
conditions,  it  from  the  nature  of  the  case  could  not  be  a  morally  free  choice  at  all.  .  .  . 
But  we  cannot  comprehend  any  more  how  the  mind  can  move  the  muscles,  nor  how  a 
moving  stone  can  set  another  stone  in  motion,  nor  how  the  Absolute  calls  into  exist- 
ence our  individual  selves."  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  308-327,  gives  an  able  expose  of 
the  deterministic  fallacies.  He  cites  Martineau  and  Balfour  in  England,  Renouvier  and 
Fonsegrive  in  France,  Edward  Zeller,  Kuno  Fischer  and  Saarschmidt  in  Germany,  and 
William  James  in  America,  as  recent  advocates  of  free  will. 

Martineau,  Study,  2  :  227  —  "  Is  there  not  a  Causal  Self,  over  and  above  the  Caused 
Self,  or  rather  the  Caused  State  and  contents  of  the  self  left  as  a  deposit  from  previous 
behavior?  Absolute  idealism,  like  Green's,  will  not  recognize  the  existence  of  this 
Causal  Self  "  ;  Study  of  Religion,  2  :  195-324,  and  especially  240  —  "  Where  two  or  more 
rival  preconceptions  enter  the  field  together,  they  cannot  compare  themselves  inter  se : 
they  need  and  meet  a  superior :  it  rests  with  the  miud  itself  to  decide.  The  decision 
will  not  be  unmotlvccl,  for  it  will  have  its  reasons.  It  will  not  be  unconformable  to  the 
characteristics  of  the  mind,  for  it  will  express  its  preferences.  But  none  the  less  is  it 
issued  by  a  free  cause  that  elects  among  the  conditions,  and  is  not  elected  by  them." 
241 —  "  So  far  from  admitting  that  different  effects  cannot  come  from  the  same  cause. 
I  even  venture  on  the  paradox  that  nothing  is  a  proper  cause  which  is  limited  to  one 
effect."  309 — "Freedom,  in  the  sense  of  option,  and  will,  as  the  power  of  deciding  an 
alternative,  have  no  place  in  the  doctrines  of  the  German  schools."    311  —  "  The  whole 


THE   MORAL   NATURE   OF   MAN.  5l3 

illusion  of  Necessity  springs  from  the  attempt  to  fling  out,  for  contemplation  in  the 
field  of  Nature,  the  creative  new  beginnings  centered  in  personal  subjects  that  tran- 
scend it." 

See  also  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christ.  Theol.,  236-251 ;  Mansel,  Proleg.  Log.,  113-155, 
270-278,  and  Metaphysics,  360  ;  Gregory,  Christian  Ethics,  60 ;  Abp.  Manning,  in  Contem. 
Rev.,  Jan.  1871 :  468  ;  Ward,  Philos.  of  Theism,  1 :  287-352 ;  2  : 1-79,  274-349  ;  Bp.  Temple, 
Bampton  Lect.,  1884  :  69-96  ;  Row,  Man  not  a  Machine,  in  Present  Day  Tracts,  5  :  no.  30  ; 
Richards,  Lectures  on  Theology,  97-153 ;  Solly,  The  Will,  167-203 ;  William  James,  The 
Dilemma  of  Determinism,  in  Unitarian  Review,  Sept.  1884,  and  in  The  Will  to  Believe, 
145-183;  T.  H.  Green,  Prolegomena  to  Ethics,  90-159;  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  310 ; 
Bradley,  in  Mind,  July,  1886 ;  Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  70-101 ;  Illing- 
worth,  Divine  immanence,  229-254  ;  Ladd,  Philos.  of  Conduct,  133-188.  For  Lotze's  view 
of  the  Will,  see  his  Philos.  of  Religion,  95-106,  and  his  Practical  Philosophy,  35-50. 


33 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   ORIGINAL   STATE   OF   MAN. 

In  determining  man's  original  state,  we  are  wholly  dependent  upon 
Scripture.  This  represents  human  nature  as  coming  from  God's  hand, 
and  therefore  "  very  good  "  ( Gen.  1  :  31 ).  It  moreover  draws  a  paraUel 
between  man's  first  state  and  that  of  his  restoration  (  Col.  3:10;  Eph.  4  : 
24).  In  interpreting  these  passages,  however,  we  are  to  remember  the 
twofold  danger,  on  the  one  hand  of  putting  man  so  high  that  no  progress 
is  conceivable,  on  the  other  hand  of  putting  him  so  low  that  he  could  not 
fall.  We  shall  the  more  easily  avoid  these  dangers  by  distinguishing 
between  the  essentials  and  the  incidents  of  man's  original  state. 

Gen.  1  :  31  —  "  And  God  saw  everything  that  he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good  "  ;  Col.  3  :  10  —  "  the  new 
man,  that  is  being  renewed  unto  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him  "  ;  Eph.  4  :  24  —  "  the  new  man  that 
after  God  hath  been  created  in  righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth." 

Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  337-399  —  "  The  original  state  must  be  (1)  a  contrast  to 
sin  ;  ( 2 )  a  parallel  to  the  state  of  restoration.  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  understanding 
it :  ( 1 )  What  lives  in  regeneration  is  something  foreign  to  our  present  nature  (  "it  is  no 
longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  "  —  Gal.  2  :  20  ) ;  but  the  original  state  was  something  native. 
( 2)  It  was  a  state  of  childhood.  We  cannot  fully  enter  into  childhood,  though  we  see 
it  about  us,  and  have  ourselves  been  through  it.  The  original  state  is  yet  more  difficult 
to  reproduce  to  reason.  ( 3 )  Man's  external  circumstances  and  his  organization  have 
suffered  great  changes,  so  that  the  present  is  no  sign  of  the  past.  We  must  recur  to  the 
Scriptures,  therefore,  as  well-nigh  our  only  guide.''  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Chris- 
tianity, 1 :  164-195,  points  out  that  ideal  perfection  is  to  be  looked  for,  not  at  the  outset, 
but  at  the  final  stage  of  the  spiritual  life.  If  man  were  wholly  finite,  he  would  not  know 
his  finitude. 

Lord  Bacon :  "The  sparkle  of  the  purity  of  man's  first  estate."  Calvin:  "It  was 
monstrous  impiety  that  a  son  of  the  earth  should  not  be  satisfied  with  being  made  after 
the  similitude  of  God,  unless  he  could  also  be  equal  with  him."  Prof.  Hastings  :  "  The 
truly  natural  is  not  the  real,  but  the  ideal.  Made  in  the  image  of  God  —  between  that 
beginning  and  the  end  stands  God  made  in  the  image  of  man."  On  the  general  sub- 
ject of  man's  original  state,  see  Ziickler,  3  :  283-290 ;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und 
Werk,  1 :  215-243 ;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  1 :  267-276 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  374-375 ; 
Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  92-116. 

I.     Essentials  of  Man's  Original  State. 

These  are  summed  up  in  the  phrase  "the  image  of  God."  In  God's 
image  man  is  said  to  have  been  created  (  Gen.  1  :  26,  27 ).  In  what  did 
this  image  of  God  consist  ?  We  reply  that  it  consisted  in  1.  Natural  like- 
ness to  God,  or  personality  ;  2.  Moral  likeness  to  God,  or  holiness. 

Gen.  1 :  26,  27  —  "  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness And  God  created  man  in 

his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him."  It  is  of  great  importance  to  distinguish  clearly 
between  the  two  elements  embraced  in  this  image  of  God,  the  natural  and  the  moral. 
By  virtue  of  the  first,  man  possessed  certain  faculties  (intellect,  affection,  will);  by 
virtue  of  the  second,  he  had  right  tendencies  (bent,  proclivity,  disposition ).  By  virtue 
of  the  first,  he  was  invested  with  certain  powers ;  by  virtue  of  the  second,  a  certain 
direction  was  imparted  to  these  powers.  As  created  in  the  natural  image  of  God,  man 
had  a  moral  nature  ;  as  created  in  the  moral  image  of  God,  man  had  a  holy  character. 
The  first  gave  him  natural  ability;  the  second  gave  him  moral  ability.    The  Greek 

614 


ESSENTIALS   OF   MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  515 

Fathers  emphasized  the  first  element,  or  personality ;  the  Latin  Fathers  emphasized 
the  second  element,  or  holiness.    See  Orr,  God's  Image  in  Man. 

As  the  Logos,  or  divine  Reason,  Christ  Jesus,  dwells  in  humanity  and  constitutes  the 
principle  of  its  being,  humanity  shares  with  Christ  in  the  image  of  God.  That  image 
is  never  wholly  lost.  It  is  completel y  restored  in  sinners  when  the  Spirit  of  Christ  gains 
control  of  their  wills  and  they  merge  their  life  in  his.  To  those  who  accused  Jesus  of 
blasphemy,  he  replied  by  quoting  the  words  of  Psalm  82  :  6  — "I  said,  Ye  are  gods"— words 
spoken  of  imperfect  earthly  rulers.  Thus,  in  John  10  :  34-36,  Jesus,  who  constitutes  the 
very  essence  of  humanity,  justifies  his  own  claim  to  divinity  by  showing  that  even  men 
who  represent  God  arc  also  in  a  minor  sense  "  partakers  of  the  divine  nature  "  ( 2  Pet.  1:4).  Hence 
the  many  legends,  in  heathen  religions,  of  the  divine  descent  of  man.  1  Cor.  11 : 3  —"the  head 
of  every  man  is  Christ."  In  every  man,  even  the  most  degraded,  there  is  an  image  of  God  to 
be  brought  out,  as  Michael  Angelo  saw  the  angel  in  the  rough  block  of  marble.  This 
natural  worth  does  not  imply  worthiness;  it  implies  only  capacity  for  redemption. 
"The  abysmal  dapths  of  personality,"  which  Tennyson  speaks  of.  are  sounded,  as  man 
goes  down  in  thought  successively  from  individual  sins  to  sin  of  the  heart  and  to  race- 
sin.  But  "  the  deeper  depth  is  out  of  reach  To  all,  O  Cod,  but  thee."  From  this  deeper 
depth,  where  man  is  rooted  and  grounded  in  (bid,  rise  aspirations  for  a  better  life. 
These  are  not  due  to  the  man  himself,  but  to  Christ,  the  immanent  God,  who  ever 
works  within  him.  Fanny  J.  Crosby  :  "  Rescue  the  perishing,  Can-  tor  the  dying.  .  .  . 
Down  in  the  human  heart,  crushed  by  the  tempter.  Feelings  lie  buried  that  grace  can 
restore ;  Touched  by  a  loving  heart,  wakened  by  kindness,  Chords  that  were  broken 
will  vibrate  once  more." 

1.     Natural  likeness  to  God,  or  personality. 

Man  was  created  a  personal  being,  and  was  by  this  personality  distin- 
guished from  the  brute.  By  personality  we  mean  the  twofold  power  to 
know  self  as  related  to  the  world  and  to  God,  and  to  determine  self  in 
view  of  moral  ends.  By  virtue  of  this  personality,  man  could  at  his  crea- 
tion choose  which  of  the  objects  of  his  knowledge — self,  the  world,  or  <  kid 
— should  be  the  norm  and  centre  of  his  development.  This  natural  like- 
ness to  God  is  inalienable,  and  as  constituting  a  capacity  for  redemption 
gives  value  to  the  life  even  of  the  unregenerate  ( Gen.  9  :  G  ;  1  Cor.  11:7; 
James  3:9). 

For  definitions  of  personality,  see  notes  on  the  Anthropological  Argument,  page  82 ; 
on  Pantheism,  pages  lul,  105;  on  the  Attributes,  pages  ^'52-254;  and  on  the  Person  of 
Christ,  in  Part  VI.  Here  we  may  content  ourselves  with  the  formula:  Personality  = 
self-consciousness  +  self-determination.  Self  -consciousness  and  .^.//-determination,  as 
distinguished  from  the  consciousness  and  determination  of  the  brute,  involve  all  the 
higher  mental  and  moral  powers  which  constitute  us  men.  Conscience  is  but  a  mode 
of  their  activity.  Notice  that  the  term  'image'  does  not,  in  man,  imply  perfect  repre- 
sentation. Only  Christ  is  the  "very  image"  of  God  (Heb.  1:3),  the  "image  of  the  invisible  God" 
(Col.  1:15  — on  which  see  Lightfoot).  Christ  is  the  image  of  God  absolutely  aud  arche- 
typal^ ;  man,  only  relatively  and  derivatively.  But  notice  also  that,  since  God  is  Spirit, 
man  made  in  God's  image  cannot  be  a  material  thing.  By  virtue  of  his  possession  of 
this  first  element  of  the  image  of  God,  namely,  personality,  materialism  is  excluded. 

This  first  element  of  the  divine  image  man  can  never  lose  until  he  ceases  to  be  man. 
Even  insanity  can  only  obscure  this  natural  image,— it  cannot  destroy  it.  St.  Bernard 
well  said  that  it  could  not  be  burned  out,  even  in  hell.  The  lost  piece  of  money  ( Luke 
15:8)  still  bore  the  image  aud  superscription  of  the  king,  even  though  it  did  not  know 
it,  and  did  not  even  know  that  it  was  lost.  Human  nature  is  therefore  to  be  reverenced, 
and  he  who  destroys  human  life  is  to  be  put  to  death  :  Gen.  9  :  6  —  "  for  in  the  image  of  God  made 
he  man "  ;  1  Cor.  11 :  7 —  "a  man  indeed  ought  not  to  have  his  head  veiled,  forasmuch  as  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of 
God  " ;  James  3:9  —  even  men  whom  we  curse  "  are  made  after  the  likeness  of  God  "  ;  ef.  Ps.  8 : 5  —  "  thou 
hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God  "  ;  1  Pet.  2 :  17 —  "  Honor  all  men."  In  the  being  of  every  man  are^ 
continents  which  no  Columbus  has  ever  yet  discovered,  depths  of  possible  J03'  or  sorrow 
which  no  plummet  has  ever  yet  sounded.  A  whole  heaven,  a  whole  hell,  may  lie  within 
the  compass  of  his  single  soul.  If  we  could  see  the  meanest  real  Christian  as  he  will 
be  in  the  great  hereafter,  we  should  bow  before  him  as  John  bowed  before  the  angel 
in  the  Apocalypse,  for  we  should  not  be  able  to  distinguish  him  from  God  (Rev.  22  :  8,  9), 


516  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Sir  William  Hamilton :  "  On  earth  there  is  nothing  great  but  man ;  In  man  there  ia 
nothing  great  but  mind."  We  accept  this  dictum  only  if  "mind"  can  be  understood 
to  include  man's  moral  powers  together  with  the  right  direction  of  those  powers. 
Shakespeare,  Hamlet,  2:2  —  "  What  a  piece  of  work  is  man !  how  noble  in  reason !  how 
infinite  in  faculty  !  in  form  and  moving  how  express  and  admirable !  in  action  how  like 
an  angel !  in  apprehension  how  like  a  god ! "  Pascal :  "  Man  is  greater  than  the  uni- 
verse; the  universe  may  crush  him,  but  it  does  not  kuow  that  it  crushes  him." 
Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  94  —  "  God  is  not  only  the  Giver  but  the  Sharer  of  my  life.  My 
natural  powers  are  that  part  of  God's  power  which  is  lodged  with  me  in  trust  to  keep 
and  use."  Man  can  be  an  instrument  of  God,  without  being  an  agent  of  God.  "  Each 
man  has  his  place  and  value  as  a  reflection  of  God  and  of  Christ.  Like  a  letter  in  a 
word,  or  a  word  in  a  sentence,  he  gets  his  meaning  from  his  context ;  but  the  sentence 
is  meaningless  without  him ;  rays  from  the  whole  universe  converge  in  him."  John 
Howe's  Living  Temple  shows  the  greatness  of  human  nature  in  its  first  construction 
and  even  in  its  ruin.  Only  a  noble  ship  could  make  so  great  a  wreck.  Aristotle,  Prob- 
lem, sec.  30 —  "  No  excellent  soul  is  exempt  from  a  mixture  of  madness."  Seneca,  De 
Tranquillitate  Animi,  15  — "There  is  no  great  genius  without  a  tincture  of  madness." 

Kant :  "So  act  as  to  treat  humanity,  whether  in  thine  own  person  or  in  that  of  any 
other,  in  every  case  as  an  end,  and  never  as  a  means  only."  If  there  is  a  divine  element 
in  every  man,  then  we  have  no  right  to  use  a  human  being  merely  for  our  own  pleas- 
ure or  profit.  In  receiving  him  we  receive  Christ,  and  in  receiving  Christ  we  receive 
him  who  sent  Christ  ( Mat.  10 :  40 ).  Christ  is  the  vine  and  all  men  are  his  natural  branches, 
cutting  themselves  off  only  when  they  refuse  to  bear  fruit,  and  condemning  them- 
selves to  the  burning  only  because  they  destroy,  so  far  as  they  can  destroy,  God's 
image  in  them,  all  that  makes  them  worth  preserving  (Joha  15:1-6).  Cicero:  "Homo 
mortalis  deus."  This  possession  of  natural  likeness  to  God,  or  personality,  involves 
boundless  possibilities  of  good  or  ill,  and  it  constitutes  the  natural  foundation  of  the 
love  for  man  which  is  required  of  us  by  the  law.  Indeed  it  constitutes  the  reason  why 
Christ  should  die.  Man  was  worth  redeeming.  The  woman  whose  ring  slipped  from 
her  finger  and  fell  into  the  heap  of  mud  in  the  gutter,  bared  her  white  arm  and  thrust 
her  hand  into  the  slimy  mass  until  she  found  her  ring ;  but  she  would  not  have  done 
this  if  the  ring  had  not  contained  a  costly  diamond.  The  lost  piece  of  money,  the  lost 
sheep,  the  lost  son,  were  worth  effort  to  seek  and  to  save  ( Luko  15 ).  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  folly  when  man,  made  in  the  image  of  God,  "  blinds  himself  with  clay."  The 
man  on  shipboard,  who  playfully  tossed  up  the  diamond  ring  which  contained  his 
whole  fortune,  at  last  to  his  distress  tossed  it  overboard.  There  is  a  "merchandise  of  souls" 
(Rev.  18 :  13)  and  we  must  not  juggle  with  them. 

Christ's  death  for  man,  by  showing  the  worth  of  humanity,  has  recreated  ethics. 
"Plato  defended  infanticide  as  under  certain  circumstances  permissible.  Aristotle 
viewed  slavery  as  founded  in  the  nature  of  things.  The  reason  assigned  was  the  essen- 
tial inferiority  of  nature  on  the  part  of  the  enslaved."  But  the  divine  image  in  man 
makes  these  barbarities  no  longer  possible  to  us.  Christ  sometimes  looked  upon  men 
with  anger,  but  he  never  looked  upon  them  with  contempt.  He  taught  the  woman, 
he  blessed  the  child,  he  cleansed  the  leper,  he  raised  the  dead.  His  own  death  revealed 
the  infinite  worth  of  the  meanest  human  soul,  and  taught  us  to  count  all  men  as  breth- 
ren for  whose  salvation  we  may  well  lay  down  our  lives.  George  Washington  answered 
the  salute  of  his  slave.  Abraham  Lincoln  took  off  his  hat  to  a  negro  who  gave  him  his 
blessing  as  he  entered  Richmond  ;  but  a  lady  who  had  been  brought  up  under  the  old 
regime  looked  from  a  window  upon  the  scene  with  unspeakable  horror.  Robert  Burns, 
walking  with  a  nobleman  in  Edinburgh,  met  an  old  townsfellow  from  Ayr  and  stopped 
to  talk  with  him.  The  nobleman,  kept  waiting,  grew  restive,  and  afterward  reproved 
Buru6  for  talking  to  a  man  with  so  bad  a  coat.  Bu  rns  replied :  "  I  was  not  talking  to  the 
coat,— I  was  talking  to  the  man."  Jean  Ingelow :  "  The  street  and  market  place  Grow 
holy  ground :  each  face  —  Pale  faces  marked  with  care,  Dark,  toilworn  brows  —  grows 
fair.  King's  children  are  all  these,  though  want  and  sin  Have  marred  their  beauty, 
glorious  within.  We  may  not  pass  them  but  with  reverent  eye."  See  Porter,  Human 
Intellect,  393,  394,  401 ;  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  2  :  42;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  343. 

2.     Moral  likeness  to  God,  or  holiness. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  of  self-consciousness  and  self-determination 
just  mentioned,  man  was  created  with  such  a  direction  of  the  affections  and 


ESSENTIALS   OF    MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  517 

the  will,  as  constituted  God  the  supreme  end  of  man's  being,  and  cousti- 
tuted  man  a  finite  reflection  of  God's  moral  attributes.  Since  holiness  is 
the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  this  must  of  necessity  be  the  chief  attri- 
bute of  his  image  in  the  moral  beings  whom  he  creates.  That  original 
righteousness  was  essential  to  this  image,  is  also  distinctly  taught  in  Script- 
ure (  Eccl.  7  :29  ;  Eph.  4  :  24  ;  Col.  3  :  10). 

Besides  the  possession  of  natural  powers,  the  image  of  God  involves  the  possession  of 
riii  lit  moral  tendencies.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  man  was  created  in  a  state  of 
innocence.  The  Scripture  asserts  that  man  had  a  righteousness  like  God*s:  EccL7:29  — 
" God  made  man  upright ' ' ;  Eph.  4  :  24  —  "the  new  man,  that  after  God  hath  been  created  in  righteousness  and  holiness 
of  truth"  —  here  Meyer  says  :  "«("■»  ©tor,  'after  God,'  i.  e.,  ad  >  n  milium  I)ci,  after  the  pattern 
of  God  (Gal.  4:28— /card  'Io-aaK,  'after  Isaac'  =  as  Isaac  was  L  This  phrase  makes  the 
creation  of  the  new  man  a  parallel  to  that  of  our  first  parents,  who  were  created  after 
God's  image  ;  they  too,  before  sin  came  into  existence  through  Adam,  were  sinless —  'in 
righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth."'  On  N.  T.  "  truth  "  =  rectitude,  see  Wendt,  Teaching  of 
Jesus,  1 :  257-260. 

Meyer  refers  also,  as  a  parallel  passage,  to  CoL  3  :  10  —  "the  new  man,  that  is  being  renewed  unto 
knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him."  Here  the  "knowledge  "  referred  to  is  that  knowledge 
of  God  which  is  the  source  of  all  virtue,  and  which  is  inseparable  from  holiness  of  heart. 
"  Holiness  has  two  sides  or  phases:  ( 1 )  it  is  perception  and  knowledge  ;  (  2)  it  is  inclina- 
tion and  feeling"  (  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  97).  On  Eph.  4:24  and  Col.  3 :  10,  the  classical 
passages  with  regard  to  man's  original  state,  see  also  the  Commentaries  of  DeWette, 
BUckert,  Ellicott,  and  com  pare  G^n.  5:3—  "And  Adam  lived  an  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son 
in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image,"  i.e.,  in  his  own  sinful  likeness,  which  is  evident  |y  contrasted 
with  the  "likeness  of  God"  (versel)  in  which  he  himself  had  been  created  (An.  Par.  Bible  ). 
2Cor.4:4  —  "  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God  "  —  where  the  phrase  "image  of  God"  is  not  Simply  the 
natural,  but  also  the  moral,  image.  Since  Christ  is  the  image  of  God  primarily  in  his 
holiness,  man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God  must  have  involved  a  holiness  like  Christ's, 
so  far  as  such  holiness  could  belong  to  a  being  yet  untried,  that  is,  so  far  as  respects 
man's  tastes  and  dispositions  prior  to  moral  action. 

"  Couldst  thou  in  vision  see  Thyself  the  man  God  meant.  Thou  nevermore  couldst  be 
The  man  thou  art  —  content."  Newly  created  man  had  right  moral  tendencies,  as  well 
as  freedom  from  actual  fault.  Otherwise  the  communion  with  God  described  in  Genesis 
Would  not  have  been  possible.  Goethe:  "Unless  the  eye  were  simlike,  how  could  it 
see  the  sun?"  Because  a  holy  disposition  accompanied  man's  innocence,  he  was 
capable  of  obedience,  and  was  guilty  when  he  sinned.  The  loss  of  this  moral  likeness 
to  God  was  the  chief  calamity  of  the  Fall.  Man  is  now  "  the  glory  and  the  scandal  of 
the  universe."  He  has  defaced  the  image  of  God  in  his  nature,  even  though  that  image, 
in  its  natural  aspect,  is  ineffaceable  (  E.  H.  Johnson). 

The  dignity  of  human  nature  consists,  not  so  much  in  what  man  is,  as  in  what  God 
meant  him  to  be,  and  in  what  God  means  him  yet  to  become,  when  the  lost  image  of 
God  is  restored  by  the  union  of  man's  soul  with  Christ.  Because  of  his  future  possi- 
bilities, the  meanest  of  mankind  is  sacred.  The  great  sin  of  the  second  table  .of  the  deca- 
logue is  the  sin  of  despising  our  fellow  man.  To  cherish  contempt  for  others  can  have 
its  root  only  in  idolatry  of  self  and  rebellion  against  God.  Abraham  Lincoln  said  well 
that  "God  must  have  liked  common  people,— else  he  would  not  have  made  so  many  of 
them."  Regard  for  the  image  of  God  in  man  leads  also  to  kind  and  reverent  treatment 
even  of  those  lower  animals  in  which  so  many  human  characteristics  are  foreshadowed. 
Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  166 — "The  current  philosophy  says  :  The 
fittest  will  survive;  let  the  rest  die.  The  religion  of  Christ  says :  That  maxim  as  applied 
to  men  is  just,  only  as  regards  their  characteristics,  of  which  indeed  only  the  fittest 
should  survive.  It  does  not  and  cannot  apply  to  the  men  themselves,  since  all  men, 
being  children  of  God,  are  supremely  fit.  The  very  fact  that  a  human  being  is  sick, 
weak,  poor,  an  outcast,  and  a  vagabond,  is  the  strongest  possible  appeal  for  effort 
toward  his  salvation.  Let  individuals  look  upon  humanity  from  the  point  of  view  of 
Christ,  and  they  will  not  be  long  in  finding  ways  in  which  environment  can  be  caused 
to  work  for  righteousness." 

This  original  righteousness,  in  which  the  image  of  God  chiefly  consisted, 
is  to  be  viewed  : 


518  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    MAN. 

(  a  )  Not  as  constituting  the  substance  or  essence  of  human  nature,  —  for 
in  this  case  human  nature  would  have  ceased  to  exist  as  soon  as  man  sinned. 

Men  every  day  change  their  tastes  and  loves,  without  changing  the  essence  or  sub- 
stance of  their  being.  When  sin  is  called  a  "nature,"  therefore  (as  by  Shedd,  in  his 
Essay  on  "  Sin  a  Nature,  and  that  Nature  Guilt "  ),  it  is  only  in  the  sense  of  being  some- 
thing inborn  ( natura,  f  rom  nascor).  Hereditary  tastes  may  just  as  properly  be  denomi- 
nated a  "  nature  "  as  may  the  substance  of  one's  being.  Moehler,  the  greatest  modern 
Roman  Catholic  critic  of  Protestant  doctrine,  in  his  Symbolism,  58,  59,  absurdly  holds 
Luther  to  have  taught  that  by  the  Pall  man  lost  his  essential  nature,  and  that  another 
essence  was  substituted  in  its  room.  Lut  her,  however,  is  only  rhetorical  when  he  says : 
"  It  is  the  nature  of  man  to  sin  ;  sin  constitutes  the  essence  of  man  ;  the  nature  of  man 
since  the  Fall  has  become  quite  changed  ;  original  sin  is  that  very  thing-  which  is  born 
of  father  and  mother ;  the  clay  out  of  which  we  are  formed  is  damnable ;  the  foetus  in 
the  maternal  womb  is  sin;  man  as  born  of  his  father  and  mother,  together  with  his 
whole  essence  and  nature,  is  not  only  a  sinner  but  sin  itself." 

(  b  )  Nor  as  a  gift  from  without,  foreign  to  human  nature,  and  added  to 
it  after  man's  creatiou, — for  man  is  said  to  have  jwssessed  the  divine  image 
by  the  fact  of  creation,  and  not  by  subsequent  bestowal. 

As  men,  since  Adam,  are  born  with  a  sinful  nature,  that  is,  with  tendencies  away 
from  God,  so  Adam  was  created  with  a  holy  nature,  that  is,  with  tendencies  toward 
God.  Moehler  says :  "  God  cannot  give  a  man  actions."  We  reply :  "  No,  but  G od  can 
give  man  dispositions;  and  he  does  this  at  the  first  creation,  as  well  as  at  the  new 
creation  ( regeneration )." 

(  c )  But  rather,  as  an  original  direction  or  tendency  of  man's  affections 
and  will,  still  accompanied  by  the  power  of  evil  choice,  and  so,  differing 
from  the  perfected  holiness  of  the  saints,  as  instinctive  affection  and  child- 
like innocence  differ  from  the  holiness  that  lias  been  developed  and  con- 
firmed by  experience  of  temptation. 

Man's  original  righteousness  was  not  immutable  or  indefectible ;  there  was  still  the 
possibility  of  sinning.  Though  the  first  man  was  fundamentally  good,  he  still  had  the 
power  of  choosing  evil.  There  was  a  bent  of  the  affections  and  will  toward  God,  but 
man  was  not  yet  confirmed  in  holiness.  Man's  love  for  God  was  like  the  germinal  filial 
affection  in  the  child,  not  developed,  yet  sincere—  "  caritas  puerilis,  non  virilis." 

(  d  )  As  a  moral  disposition,  moreover,  which  was  propagable  to  Adam's 
descendants,  if  it  continued,  and  which,  though  lost  to  him  and  to  them, 
if  Adam  sinned,  would  still  leave  man  possessed  of  a  natural  likeness  to 
God  which  made  him  susceptible  of  God's  redeeming  grace. 

Hooker  (Works,  ed.  Keble,  2:683)  distinguishes  between  aptness  and  ableness.  The 
latter,  men  have  lost ;  the  former,  they  retain, —  else  grace  could  not  work  in  us,  more 
than  in  the  brutes.  Hase  :  "  Only  enough  likeness  to  God  remained  to  remind  man  of 
what  he  had  lost,  and  enable  him  to  feel  the  hell  of  God's  forsaking."  The  moral  like- 
ness to  God  can  be  restored,  but  only  by  God  himself.    God  secures  this  to  men  by 

making  "  the  light  of  the  gospel  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God dawn  upon  them  "  ( 2  Cor.  4:4). 

Pusey  made  Ps.  72  : 6  —  "He  will  come  clown  like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass  " —  the  image  of  a  world  hope- 
lessly dead,  but  with  a  hidden  capacity  for  receiving  life.  Dr.  Daggett :  "  Man  is  a  'son 
of  the  morning '  (Is.  14:12),  fallen,  yet  arrested  midway  between  heaven  and  hell,  a  prize 
between  the  powers  of  light  and  darkness."  See  Edwards,  Works,  2:19,20,381-390; 
Hopkins,  Works,  1:162;  Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2:50-66;  Augustine,  De  Civitate  Dei, 
14  :  11. 

In  the  light  of  the  preceding  investigation,  we  may  properly  estimate 
two  theories  of  man's  original  state  which  claim  to  be  more  Scripttiral  and 
reasonable  : 


A.     The  image  of  God  as  including  only  personality. 


ESSENTIALS    OF   MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  519 

This  theory  denies  that  any  positive  determination  to  virtue  inhered 
originally  in  man's  nature,  and  regards  man  at  the  beginning  as  simply 
pi  isstssL'd  of  spiritual  powers,  perfectly  adjusted  to  each  other.  This  is  the 
view  of  Schleiermacher,  who  is  followed  by  Nitzsch,  Julius  Muller,  and 
Hofmann. 

For  the  view  here  combated,  see  Sehleiermacher,  Christl.  Glaube,  sec.  60 ;  Nitzsch, 
System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  201 :  Julius  Muller,  Doct.  of  Sin,  2 :  113-133,  350-357 ;  Hof- 
mann, Schriftbeweis,  1 :  287-291 ;  Bib.  Sac,  7 :  109-425.  Julius  Miiller's  theory  of  the  Fall 
in  a  preexistent  state  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  hold  here  that  Adam  was  possessed 
of  moral  likeness  to  God.  The  origin  of  his  view  of  the  Image  of  God  renders  it  liable 
to  suspicion.  Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  113—"  The  original  state  of  man  was  that  of  child- 
like innocence  or  morally  indifferent  naturalness,  which  had  in  itself  indeed  the  possi- 
bility  (Anlage )  of  ideal  development,  hut  in  such  a  way  that  its  realization  could  be 
reached  only  by  struggle  with  its  natural  opposite.  The  image  of  God  was  already 
present  in  the  original  Btate,  but  only  as  the  possibility  (Anlage)  of  real  likeness  to 
God  —  the  endowment  of  reason  which  belonged  to  human  personality.  The  reality  of 
a  spirit  like  that  of  God  has  appeared  first  in  the  second  Adam,  and  has  become  the 
principle  of  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Raymond  (Theology,  2:43,  132)  is  an  American  representative  of  the  view  that  the 
image  of  God  consists  in  mere  personality:  "The  image  of  God  in  which  man  was 
created  did  not  consist  in  an  inclination  and  determination  of  the  will  to  holiness." 
This  is  maintained  upon  the  ground  that  such  a  moral  likeness  to  God  would  have 
rendered  it  Impossible  foi-  man  to  fall,  —  to  which  we  reply  that  Adam's  righteousness 
was  not  immutable,  and  the  bias  of  his  will  toward  God  did  not  render  it  impossible  for 
him  to  sin.  Motives  do  not  compel  the  will,  and  Adam  at  least  had  a  certain  power  of 
contrary  choice.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ.  Theology,  119-123,  also  maintains  that  the 
image  of  God  signified  only  that  personality  which  distinguished  man  from  the  brute. 
Christ,  he  says,  carries  forward  human  nature  to  a  higher  point,  instead  of  merely 
restoring-  what  is  lost.  "Very  good"  (Gen.  1:31)  does  not  imply  moral  perfection, —  this 
cannot  be  the  result  of  creation,  but  only  of  discipline  and  will.  Man's  original  state 
was  only  one  of  untried  innocence.  Dr.  Robinson  is  corn  bating-  the  view  that  the  first 
man  was  at  his  creation  possessed  of  a  develoi>ed  character.  He  distinguishes  between 
character  and  the  germs  of  character.  These  germs  he  grants  that  man  possessed. 
And  so  he  defines  the  image  of  God  as  a  constitutional  predisposition  toward  a  course 
of  right  conduct.  This  is  all  the  perfection  which  we  claim  for  the  first  man.  We  hold 
that  this  predisposition  toward  the  good  can  properly  be  called  character,  since  it  is 
the  germ  from  which  all  holy  action  springs. 

In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  said  in  support  of  the  opposite 
view,  we  may  urge  against  this  theory  the  following  objections  : 

( a )  It  is  contrary  to  analogy,  in  making  man  the  author  of  his  own 
holiness ;  our  sinful  condition  is  not  the  product  of  our  individual  wills, 
nor  is  our  subsequent  condition  of  holiness  the  product  of  anything  but 
God's  regenerating  power. 

To  hold  that  Adam  was  created  undecided,  would  make  man,  as  Philippi  says,  in  the 
highest  sense  his  own  creator.  But  morally,  as  well  as  physically,  man  is  God's  crea- 
ture. In  regeneration  it  is  not  sufficient  for  God  to  give  power  to  decide  for  good  ;  God 
must  give  new  lore  also.  If  this  be  so  in  the  new  creation,  God  could  give  love 
in  the  first  creation  also.  Holiness  therefore  is  creatable.  "  Underived  holiness  is  pos- 
sible only  in  God ;  in  its  origin,  it  is  given  both  to  angels  and  men."  Therefore  we  pray : 
"  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart "  ( Ps.  51 :  10 ) ;  "Incline  my  heart  onto  thy  testimonies"  (Ps.ll9:36).  See  Edwards, 
Eff.  Grace,  sec.  43-51 ;  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  290  —  "  If  Adam's  perfection  was  not  a  moral 
perfection,  then  his  sin  was  no  real  moral  corruption."  The  animus  of  the  theory  we 
are  combating  seems  to  be  an  unwillingness  to  grant  that  man,  either  in  his  first  crea- 
tion or  in  his  new  creation,  owes  his  holiness  to  God. 

(  b )  The  knowledge  of  God  in  which  man  was  originally  created  logically 
presupposes  a  direction  toward  God  of  man's  affections  and  will,  since  only 
the  holy  heart  can  have  any  proper  understanding  of  the  God  of  holiness. 


520  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

"  Ubi  caritas,  ibi  claritas."  Man's  heart  was  originally  filled  with  divine  love,  and  out 
of  this  came  the  knowledge  of  God.  We  know  God  only  as  we  love  him,  and  this  love 
comes  not  from  our  own  single  volition.  No  one  loves  by  command,  because  no  one 
can  give  himself  love.  In  Adam  love  was  an  inborn  impulse,  which  he  could  affirm  or 
deny.  Compare  1  Cor.  8:3  —  "if  any  man  loveth  God,  the  same  [  God  ]  is  known  by  him  "  ;  1  John 4:8  —  "He 
that  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God."    See  other  Scripture  references  on  pages  3,  4. 

(  c  )  A  likeness  to  God  in  mere  personality,  such  as  Satan  also  possesses, 
comes  far  short,  of  answering  the  demands  of  the  Scripture,  in  which  the 
ethical  conception  of  the  divine  nature  so  overshadows  the  merely  natural. 
The  image  of  God  must  be,  not  simply  ability  to  be  like  God,  but  actual 
likeness. 

God  could  never  create  an  intelligent  being  evenly  balanced  between  good  and  evil— 
"on  the  razor's  edge" — "on  the  fence."  The  preacher  who  took  for  his  text  "Adam, 
where  art  thou?"  had  for  his  first  head:  "It  is  every  man's  business  to  be  somewhere;" 
for  his  second :  "Some  of  you  are  where  you  ought  not  to  be;"  and  for  his  third: 
"  Get  where  you  ought  to  be,  as  soon  as  possible."  A  simple  capacity  for  good  or  evil 
is,  as  Augustine  says,  already  sinful.  A  man  who  is  neutral  between  good  and  evil  is 
already  a  violator  of  that  law,  which  requires  likeness  to  God  in  the  bent  of  his  nature. 
Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psychol.,  45-84—  "Personality  is  only  the  basis  of  the  divine  image,— 
it  is  not  the  image  itself."  Bledsoe  says  there  can  be  no  created  virtue  or  viciousness. 
Whedon  (  On  the  Will,  388 )  objects  to  this,  and  says  rather :  "  There  can  be  no  created 
moral  desert,  good  or  evil.  Adam's  nature  as  created  was  pure  and  excellent,  but  there 
was  nothing  meritorious  until  he  had  freely  and  rightly  exercised  his  will  with  full 
power  to  the  contrary."  We  add:  There  was  nothing  meritorious  even  then.  For 
substance  of  these  objections,  see  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  346.  Lessing  said  that  the 
character  of  the  Germans  was  to  have  no  character.  Goethe  partook  of  this  cosmo- 
politan characterlessness  ( Prof.  Seely ).  Tennyson  had  Goethe  in  view  when  he  wrote 
in  The  Palace  of  Art :  "  I  sit  apart,  holding  no  form  of  creed,  but  contemplating  all." 
And  Goethe  is  probably  still  alluded  to  in  the  words :  "  A  glorious  devil,  large  in  heart 
and  brain,  That  did  love  beauty  only,  Or  if  good,  good  only  for  its  beauty" ;  see  A.  H. 
Strong,  The  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  331;  Robert  Browning,  Christmas  Eve: 
"  The  truth  in  God's  breast  Lies  trace  for  trace  upon  ours  impressed:  Though  he  is  so 
bright,  and  we  so  dim.  We  are  made  in  his  image  to  witness  him." 

B.  The  image  of  God  as  consisting  simply  in  man's  natural  capacity  for 
religion. 

This  view,  first  elaborated  by  the  scholastics,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  It  distinguishes  between  the  image  and  the  likeness  of 
God.  The  former  (  D^V —  Gen.  1  :  2G  )  alone  belonged  to  man's  nature  at 
its  creation.  The  latter  (JWDT)  was  the  product  of  his  own  acts  of  obedi- 
ence. In  order  that  this  obedience  might  be  made  easier  and  the  conse- 
quent likeness  to  God  more  sure,  a  third  element  was  added  —  an  element 
not  belonging  to  man's  nature  —  namely,  a  supernatural  gift  of  special 
grace,  which  acted  as  a  curb  upon  the  sensuous  impulses,  and  brought 
them  under  the  control  of  reason.  Original  righteousness  was  therefore 
not  a  natural  endowment,  but  a  joint  product  of  man's  obedience  and  of 
God's  supernatural  grace. 

Roman  Catholicism  holds  that  the  white  paper  of  man's  soul  received  two  impres- 
sions instead  of  one.  Protestantism  sees  no  reason  why  both  impressions  should  not 
have  been  given  at  the  beginning.  Kaftan,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  4 :  708,  gives  a  good 
statement  of  the  Roman  Catholic  view.  It  holds  that  the  supreme  good  transcends  the 
finite  mind  and  its  powers  of  comprehension.  Even  at  the  first  it  was  beyond  man's 
created  nature.  The  donum  superculditum  did  not  inwardly  and  personally  belong  to 
him.  Now  that  he  has  lost  it,  he  is  entirely  dependent  on  the  church  for  truth  and 
grace.  He  does  not  receive  the  truth  because  it  is  this  and  no  other,  but  because  the 
church  tells  him  that  it  is  the  truth. 


ESSENTIALS    OF    MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  521 

The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  may  be  roughly  and  pictorially  stated  as  follows:  As 
created,  man  was  morally  naked,  or  devoid  of  positive  righteousness  (pura  naturalia, 
or  in  puii*  naturalibus).  By  obedience  he  obtained  as  a  reward  from  God  (donum 
siipernat  urate,  or  superadditium)  a  surtof  clothes  or  robe  of  righteousness  to  protect 
him,  so  that  he  became  clothed  ( vest  it  us).  This  suit  of  clothes,  however,  was  a  sort  of 
magic  spell  of  which  he  could  be  divested.  The  adversary  attacked  him  and  stripped 
him  of  his  suit.  After  his  sin  he  was  one  despoiled  ( spoliatus ).  But  his  condition 
after  differed  from  his  condition  before  this  attack,  only  as  a  stripped  man  differs  from 
anaked  man  (  ^oliatus  a  nudo  ).  He  was  now  only  iu  the  same  state  in  which  he  was 
created,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  weakness  he  might  feel  as  the  result  of  losing 
his  customary  clothing.  He  could  still  earn  himself  another  suit,— in  fact,  he  could 
earn  two  or  more,  so  as  to  sell,  or  give  away,  what  he  did  not  need  for  himself.  The 
phrase  fri  puris  naturalibus  describes  the  original  state,  as  the  phrase  spoliatus  a  nudo 
describes  the  difference  resulting  from  man's  sin. 

Many  of  the  considerations  already  adduced  apply  equally  as  arguments 
against  this  view.  We  may  say,  however,  with  reference  to  certain  features 
peculiar  to  the  theory  : 

(  a)  No  such  distinction  can  justly  be  drawn  between  the  words  Oj?  and 
nm.  The  addition  of  the  synonym  simply  strengthens  the  expression, 
and  both  together  signify  "the  very  image." 

(  b  )  "Whatever  is  denoted  by  either  or  both  of  these  words  was  bestowed 
upon  man  in  and  by  the  fact  of  creation,  and  the  additional  hypothesis  of 
a  supernatural  gift  not  originally  belonging  to  man's  nature,  but  subse- 
quently conferred,  has  no  foundation  either  here  or  elsewhere  in  Scripture. 
Man  is  said  to  have  been  created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  not  to 
have  been  afterwards  endowed  with  either  of  them. 

(')  The  concreated  opposition  between  sense  and  reason  which  this 
theory  supposes  is  inconsistent  with  the  Scripture  declaration  that  the 
work  of  God's  hands  "was  very  good"  (Gen.  1:31),  and  transfers  the 
blame  of  temptation  and  sin  from  man  to  God.  To  hold  to  a  merely  nega- 
tive innocence,  in  which  evil  desire  was  only  slumbering,  is  to  make  God 
author  of  sin  by  making  him  author  of  the  constitution  which  rendered  sin 
inevitable. 

( d )  This  theory  directly  contradicts  Scripture  by  making  the  effect  of 
the  first  sin  to  have  been  a  weakening  but  not  a  perversion  of  human 
nature,  and  the  work  of  regeneration  to  be  not  a  renewal  of  the  affections 
but  merely  a  strengthening  of  the  natural  powers.  The  theory  regards 
that  first  sin  as  simply  despoiling  man  of  a  special  gift  of  grace  and  as 
putting  him  where  he  was  when  first  created  —  still  able  to  obey  God  and 
to  cooperate  with  God  for  his  own  salvation, —  whereas  the  Scripture 
represents  man  since  the  fall  as  "dead  through  .  .  .  trespasses  and  sins" 
(Eph.  2  :  1 ),  as  incapable  of  true  obedience  ( Rom.  8  :  7 —  "not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  it  be " ),  and  as  needing  to  be  "created 
in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works  "  ( Eph.  2  :  10  ). 

At  few  points  in  Christian  doctrine  do  we  see  more  clearly  than  here  the  large  results 
of  error  which  may  ultimately  spring  from  what  might  at  first  sijrht  seem  to  be  only  a 
slight  divergence  from  the  truth.  Augustine  had  rightly  taught  that  in  Adam  the 
posse  nun  peeeare  was  accompanied  by  a  posse  peecare,  and  that  for  this  reason  man's 
holy  disposition  needed  the  help  of  divine  grace  to  preserve  its  integrity.  But  the  scho- 
lastics wrongly  added  that  this  original  disposition  to  righteousness  was  not  the  outflow 
of  man's  nature  as  originally  created,  but  was  the  gift  of  grace.  As  this  later  teaching, 
however,  was  by  some  disputed,  the  Council  of  Trent  (sess.  5,  cap.  1)  left  the  matter 


522  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OK  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  MAN. 

more  indefinite,  simply  declaring  man  :  "  Sanctitatem  et  justitiam  in  qua  constitutui 
fuerat,  amisisse."  The  Roman  Catechism,  however  (1:2:19),  explained  the  phrase 
"  coustitutus  fuerat "  by  the  words :  "  Turn  originalis  justitue  admirabile  donum  addi- 
dit."  And  Bellarmine  (  De  Gratia,  2 )  says  plainly :  "  Imago,  qua?  est  ipsa  natura  mentis 
et  voluntatis,  a  solo  Deo  fieri  potuit;  similitudo  autem,  quse  in  virtute  et  probitate 
consistit,  a  nobis  quoquc  Deo  adjuvante  perficitur."  .  .  .  .  (  5)  "  Integritas  ilia  .  .  .  non 

fuit  naturalis  ejus  conditio,  sed  supernaturalis  evectio Addidissehominl  donum 

quoddam  insigne,  justitiam  videlicet  origiualem,  qua  veluti  aureo  quodam  frasno  pars 
inferior  parti  superiori  subjecta  contineretur." 

Moehler  ( Symbolism,  21-35 )  holds  that  the  religious  faculty  =  the  "  image  of  God  "  ; 
the  pious  exertion  of  this  faculty  =  the  "likeness  of  God."  He  seems  to  favor  the  view 
that  Adam  received  "  this  supernatural  gift  of  a  holy  and  blessed  communion  with  God 
at  a  later  period  than  his  creation,  i.  e.,  only  when  he  had  prepared  himself  for  its 
reception  and  by  his  own  efforts  had  rendered  himself  worthy  of  it."  He  was  created 
"just"  and  acceptable  to  God,  even  without  communion  with  God  or  help  from  God. 
He  became  "  holy  "  and  enjoyed  communion  with  God,  only  when  God  rewarded  his 
obedience  and  bestowed  the  supernaturale,  donum.  Although  Moehler  favors  this  view 
and  claims  that  it  is  permitted  by  the  standards,  he  also  says  that  it  is  not  definitely 
taught.  The  quotations  from  Bellarmine  and  the  Roman  Catechism  above  make  it  clear 
that  it  is  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church. 

So,  to  quote  the  words  of  Shedd,  "  the  Tridentine  theology  starts  with  Pelagianism 
and  ends  with  Augustinianism.    Created  without  character,  God  subsequently  endows 

man  with  character The  Papal  idea  of  creation  differs  from  the  Augustinian  in 

that  it  involves  imperfection.  There  is  a  disease  and  languor  which  require  a  subse- 
quent and  supernatural  act  to  remedy."  The  Augustinian  and  Protestant  conception  of 
man's  original  state  is  far  nobler  than  this.  The  ethical  element  is  not  a  later  addition, 
but  is  man's  true  nature— essential  to  God's  idea  of  him.  The  normal  and  original  con- 
dition of  man  (pura  naturaiuo)  is  one  of  grace  and  of  the  Spirit's  indwelling  — hence, 
of  direction  toward  God. 

From  this  original  difference  between  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  doctrine  with 
regard  to  man's  original  state  result  diverging  views  as  to  sin  and  as  to  regeneration. 
The  Protestant  holds  that,  as  man  was  possessed  by  creation  of  moral  likeness  to  God, 
or  holiness,  so  his  sin  robbed  his  nature  of  its  integrity,  deprived  it  of  essential  and 
concreated  advantages  and  powers,  and  substituted  for  these  a  positive  corruption  and 
tendency  to  evil.  Unpremeditated  evil  desire,  or  concupiscence,  is  original  sin;  as 
concreated  love  for  God  constituted  man's  original  righteousness.  No  man  since  the 
fall  has  original  righteousness,  and  it  is  man's  sin  that  he  has  it  not.  Since  without  love 
to  God  no  act,  emotion,  or  thought  of  man  can  answer  the  demands  of  God's  law,  the 
Scripture  denies  to  fallen  man  all  power  of  himself  to  know,  think,  feel,  or  do  aright. 
His  nature  therefore  needs  a  new-creation,  a  resurrection  from  death,  such  as  God 
only,  by  his  mighty  Spirit,  can  work ;  and  to  this  work  of  God  man  can  contribute 
nothing,  except  as  power  is  first  given  him  by  God  himself. 

According  to  the  Roman  Catholic  view,  however,  since  the  image  of  God  in  which 
man  was  created  included  only  man's  religious  faculty,  his  sin  can  rob  him  only  of 
what  became  subsequently  and  adventitiously  his.  Fallen  man  differs  from  unfallen 
only  as  spoliatus  a  mtdo.  He  loses  only  a  sort  of  magic  spell,  which  leaves  him  still  in 
possession  of  all  his  essential  powers.  Unpremeditated  evil  desire,  or  concupiscence,  is 
not  sin  ;  for  this  belonged  to  his  nature  even  before  he  fell.  His  sin  has  therefore  only 
put  him  back  into  the  natural  state  of  conflict  and  concupiscence,  ordered  by  God  in  the 
concreated  opposition  of  sense  and  reason.  The  sole  qualification  is  this,  that,  having 
made  an  evil  decision,  his  will  is  weakened.  "  Man  does  not  need  resurrection  from 
death,  but  rather  a  crutch  to  help  his  lameness,  a  tonic  to  reinforce  his  feebleness,  a 
medicine  to  cure  his  sickness."  He  is  still  able  to  turn  to  God ;  and  in  regeneration  the 
Holy  Spirit  simply  awakens  and  strengthens  the  natural  ability  slumberi  ng  in  the  nat- 
ural man.  But  even  here,  man  must  yield  to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
regeneration  is  effected  by  uniting  his  power  to  the  divine.  In  baptism  the  guilt  of 
original  sin  is  remitted,  and  everything  called  sin  is  taken  away.  No  baptized  person 
has  any  further  process  of  regeneration  to  undergo.  Man  has  not  only  strength  to 
cooperate  with  God  for  his  own  salvation,  but  he  may  even  go  beyond  the  demands  of 
the  law  and  perform  works  of  supererogation.  And  the  whole  sacramental  system  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  with  its  salvation  by  works,  its  purgatorial  fires,  and  its 
invocation  of  the  saints,  connects  itself  logically  with  this  erroneous  theory  of  man's 
original  state. 


INCIDENTS    OF    MAN'S    ORrGINAL   STATE.  523 

See  Dorner's  Augustiuus,  116;  Perrone,  Praelectiones  Theologicae,  1  :  737-748;  Winer, 
Confessions,  79,  80;  Dorner,  History  Protestant  Tbeology,  38, 39,  and  Glaubeuslehre,  I  . 

6 1 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  376 ;  Cunningham,  Historical  Theology,  1 :  516-586 ;  Shedd, 
Hist.  Doctrine,  2  :  140-149.  x, 

II.     Incidents  of  Man's   Original  State. 

1.     Results  of  man's  possession  of  tl«:  divine  image. 

(  a)  Reflection  of  this  divine  image  in  man's  physical  form. —  Even  in 
man's  body  were  typified  those  higher  attributes  which  chiefly  constituted 
his  likeness  to  God.  A  gross  perversion  of  this  truth,  however,  is  the  view 
which  holds,  upon  the  ground  of  Gen.  2  : 7,  and  3  : 8,  that  the  image  of  God 
C(  insists  in  bodily  resemblance  to  the  Creator.  In  the  first  <  >f  tin  sse  passages, 
it  is  not  the  divine  image,  but  the  body,  that  is  formed  of  dust,  and  iuto 
this  body  the  soul  that  possesses  the  divine  image  is  breathed.  The  second 
of  these  passages  is  to  be  interpreted  by  those  other  portions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  which  God  is  represented  as  free  from  all  limitations  of  matter 
(Gen.  11  :5;  18  :  15). 

The  spirit  presents  the  divine  image  immediately :  the  body,  mediately.  The  scholas- 
tics called  the  soul  the  image  t>f  God  propria;  the  body  they  called  the  image  of  God 
significative.  Soul  is  the  direct  reflection  of  God ;  body  is  the  reflection  of  thai  reflec- 
tion. The  os  sublime  manifests  the  dignity  of  1  he  endowments  within.  Hence  the  word 
'upright,'  as  applied  to  moral  condition;  one  of  the  firsi  impulses  of  the  renewed  man 
is  to  physical  purity.  Compare  Ovid,  Metaph.,  bk.  1,  Dryden's  transl. :  "Thus  while  the 
unite  creation  downward  bend  Their  sight,  and  to  their  earthly  mother  tend,  Man  looks 
aloft,  and  with  erected  eyes  Beholds  Ins  own  hereditary  skies."  fAvtywiro?,  from  ov<£, 
axu,  suffix  tra,  and  ii/i,  with  reference  to  the  upright  posture.)  Milton  speaks  of  "  the 
human  face  divine."  S.  S.  Times,  July  28,  1900—"  Man  is  the  only  erect  being  among 
living  creatures.  He  alone  looks  up  naturally  and  without  effort.  He  foregoes  his 
birthright  when  he  looks  only  at  what  is  on  a  level  with  his  eyes  and  occupies  himself 
only  with  what  lies  in  the  plane  of  his  own  existence." 

Bretscbneider  (Dogmatik,  1 :682)  regards  the  Scripture  as  teaching  that  the  image  of 
c.d  consists  in  bodily  resemblance  to  the  Creator,  but  considers  this  as  only  the  imper- 
fecl  method  of  representation  belonging  to  an  early  age.  So  Strauss,  Glaubenslebre, 
1  :  687.  They  refer  to  Gen.  2  :  7— "And  Jehu  vah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground";  3:8 — "Jehovah 
God  walking  in  the  garden."  But  st  :i !  Gen.  11  :  5 — "And  Jehovah  came  down  to  see  the  city  and  the  tower,  which  the 
children  of  men  boilded"  ;  Is.  66:1— "Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  footstool "  ;  1 1.  8  :27 — "behold,  heaven 
and  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee."  On  the  Anthropomorphites,  see  Hagenbach,  Hist. 
Doc  t.,  1 :  103,308,  491.  For  answers  to  Bretscbneider aud  Strauss, see  Philippi,  ( J laubens- 
lehre,  2  :  364. 

(  b  )  Subjection  of  the  sensuous  impulses  to  the  control  of  the  spirit. — 
Here  we  are  to  hold  a  middle  ground  between  two  extremes.  On  the  one 
baud,  the  first  man  possessed  a  body  and  a  spirit  so  fitted  to  each  other  that 
no  conflict  was  felt  between  their  several  claims.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
physical  perfection  was  not  final  aud  absolute,  but  relative  and  provisional. 
There  was  still  room  for  progress  to  a  higher  state  of  being  (  Gen.  3  :  22  ). 

Sir  Henry  Watton's  Happy  Life:  "  That  man  was  free  from  servile  bands  Of  hope  to 
rise  or  fear  to  fall,  Lord  of  himself  if  not  of  lands,  And  having  nothing  yet  had  all." 
Here  we  hold  to  the  cequale  temperamentum.  There  was  no  disease,  but  rather  the  joy 
of  abounding  health.  Labor  was  only  a  happy  activity.  God's  infinite  creatorship  and 
fountainhead  of  being  was  typified  in  man's  powers  of  generation.  But  there  was  no 
concreated  opposition  of  sense  and  reason,  nor  an  imperfect  physical  nature  with  whose 
impulses  reason  was  at  war.  With  this  moderate  Scriptural  doctrine,  contrast  the  exag- 
gerations of  the  Fathers  and  of  the  scholastics.  Augustine  says  that  Adam's  reason  was 
to  ours  what  the  bird's  is  to  that  of  the  tortoise;  propagation  in  the  un fallen  state 
would  have  been  without  concupiscence,  and  the  new-born  child  would  have  attained 


524  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OP   MAN". 

perfection  at  birth.  Albertus  Magnus  thought  the  first  man  would  have  felt  no  pain, 
even  though  he  had  been  stoned  with  heavy  stones.  Seotus  Erigena  held  that  the  male 
and  female  elements  were  yet  undistinguished.  Others  called  sexuality  the  first  sin. 
Jacob  Boehme  regarded  the  intestinal  canal,  and  all  connected  with  it,  as  the  conse- 
quence of  the  Fall ;  he  had  the  fancy  that  the  earth  was  transparent  at  the  first  and  cast 
no  shadow,—  sin,  he  thought,  had  made  it  opaque  and  dark ;  redemption  would  restore 
it  to  its  first  estate  and  make  night  a  thing  of  the  past.    South,  Sermons,  1 :  24,  25  — 

"  Man  came  into  the  world  a  philosopher Aristotle  was  but  the  rubbish  of  an 

Adam."  Lyman  Abbott  tells  us  of  a  minister  who  assured  his  congregation  that  Adam 
was  acquainted  with  the  telephone.  But  God  educates  his  children,  as  chemists  educate 
their  pupils,  by  putting  them  into  the  laboratory  and  letting  them  work.  Scripture 
does  not  represent  Adam  as  a  walking  encyclopaedia,  but  as  a  being  yet  inexperi- 
enced; see  Gen.  3  :  22 — " Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil  "  ;  i  Cor.  15  :  46  —  "that 
is  not  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural ;  then  that  which  is  spiritual."  On  this  last  text,  see 
Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 

(  c  )  Dominion  over  the  lower  creation. — Adam  possessed  an  insight  into 
nature  analogous  to  that  of  sitsceptible  childhood,  and  therefore  was  able 
to  name  and  to  rule  the  brute  creation  ( Gen.  2:19).  Yet  this  native 
insight  was  capable  of  development  into  the  higher  knowledge  of  culture 
and  science.  From  Gen.  1  :  2G  (  cf.  Ps.  8  :  5-8  ),  it  has  been  erroneously 
inferred  that  the  image  of  God  in  man  consists  in  dominion  over  the  brute 
creation  and  the  natural  world.  But,  in  this  verse,  the  words  "let  them 
have  dominion  "  do  not  define  the  image  of  God,  but  indicate  the  result 
of  possessing  that  image.  To  make  the  image  of  God  consist  in  this 
dominion,  would  imply  that  only  the  divine  omnipotence  was  shadowed 
forth  in  man. 

Gen.  2 :  19 — "Jehovah  God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  bird  of  the  heavens ;  and  brought  them  unto  the 
man  to  see  what  he  would  call  them"  ;  20 — "And  the  man  gave  names  to  all  cattle"  ;  Gen.  1  :  26  —  "Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image,  after  our  likeness :  and  let  thorn  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  birds  of  the  heavens, 
and  over  the  cattle  "  ;  cf.  Ps.  8:5-8  —  "  thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God,  And  crownest  him  with  glory  and 
honor.  Thou  makest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands  ;  Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet :  All  sheep 
and  oxen,  Yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the  field."  Adam's  naming  the  animals  implied  insight  into  their 
nature ;  see  Porter,  Hum.  Intellect,  393,  394,  401.  On  man's  original  dominion  over 
(1)  self,  (2)  nature,  (3)  fellow-man,  see  Hopkins,  Scriptural  Idea  of  Man,  105. 

Courage  and  a  good  conscience  have  a  power  over  the  brute  creation,  and  unfallen 
man  can  well  be  supposed  to  have  dominated  creatures  which  had  no  experience  of 
human  cruelty.  Ran >y  tamed  the  wildest  horses  by  his  steadfast  and  fearless  eye.  In 
Paris  a  young  woman  was  hypnotized  and  put  into  a  den  of  lions.  She  had  no  fear  of 
the  lions  and  the  lions  paid  not  the  slightest  attention  to  her.  The  little  daughter  of 
an  English  officer  in  South  Africa  wandered  away  from  camp  and  spent  the  night  among 
lions.  "Katrina,"  her  father  said  when  he  found  her,  "  were  you  not  afraid  to  be  alone 
here?"  "No,  papa,"  she  replied,  "the  big  dogs  played  with  me  and  one  of  them  lay 
here  and  kept  me  warm."  MacLaren,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Dec.  23, 1893  — "The  dominion 
over  all  creatures  results  from  likeness  to  God.  It  is  not  then  a  mere  right  to  use  them 
for  one's  own  material  advantage,  but  a  viceroy's  authority,  which  the  holder  is  bound 
to  employ  for  the  honor  of  the  true  King."  This  principle  gives  the  warrant  and  the 
limit  to  vivisection  and  to  the  killing  of  the  lower  animals  for  food  ('Gen.  9  : 2  3). 

Socinian  writers  generally  hold  the  view  that  the  image  of  God  consisted  simply  in 
this  dominion.  Holding  a  low  view  of  the  nature  of  sin,  they  are  naturally  disinclined 
to  believe  that  the  fall  has  wrought  any  profound  change  in  human  nature.  See  their 
view  stated  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  21.  It  is  held  also  by  the  Arminiau  Limborch, 
Theol.  Christ.,  ii,  24  :  2,  3, 11.  Upon  the  basis  of  this  interpretation  of  Scripture,  the 
Encratites  held,  with  Peter  Martyr,  that  women  do  not  possess  the  divine  image  at  all. 

(  d  )  Communion  with  God. —  Our  first  parents  enjoyed  the  divine  pres- 
ence and  teaching  (Gen.  2  :  16).  It  would  seem  that  God  manifested  him- 
self to  them  in  visible  form  (  Gen.  3:8).  This  companionship  was  both 
in  kind  and  degree  suited  to  their  spiritual  capacity,  and  by  no  means 


INCIDENTS   OF    MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  525 

necessarily  involved     that  perfected  vision  of  God  which  is  possible  to 
beings  of  confirmed  and  unchangeable  holiness  ( Mat.  5  :  8  ;  1  John  3:2). 

Gen.  2  :  16  —  "  And  Jehovah  God  commanded  the  man  " ;  3:8  —  "  And  they  heard  the  voice  of  Jehovah  God  walking  in 
the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day  '  ;  Mat.  5:8—"  Blfcsed  are  the  pure  in  heart :  for  they  shall  see  God  "  ;  1  John  3:2  — 
"  We  know  that,  if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him ;  for  we  shall  see  him  even  as  he  is  "  ;  Rev.  22  :  4  — "  and 
they  shall  see  his  face." 

2.     Concomitants  of  man's  possession  of  the  divine  image. 

(  a )  Surroundings  and  society  fitted  to  yield  happiness  and  to  assist  a 
holy  development  of  human  nature  (  Eden  and  Eve  ).  We  append  some 
recent  theories  with  regard  to  the  creation  of  Eve  and  the  nature  of  Eden. 

Eden  =  pleasure,  delight.  Tennyson  :  "  When  high  in  Paradise  By  the  four  rivers  the 
first  roses  blew."  Streams  were  necessary  to  the  very  existence  of  an  oriental  garden. 
Hopkins,  Script.  Idea  of  Man,  107  —  "  Man  includes  woman.  Creation  of  a  man  without 
a  woman  would  not  have  been  the  creation  of  man.  Adam  called  her  name  Eve  but 
God  called  their  name  Adam."  Mat.  Henry  :  "  Not  out  of  his  head  to  top  him,  nor  out 
of  his  feet  to  be  trampled  on  by  him ;  but  out  of  his  side  to  be  equal  with  him,  under 
his  arm  to  be  protected  by  him,  and  near  his  heart  to  be  beloved."  Robert  Burns  says 
of  nature  :  "  Her  'prentice  hand  she  tried  on  man,  And  then  she  made  the  lasses,  O  !  " 
Stevens,  Pauline  Theology,  329— "In  the  natural  relations  of  the  sexes  there  is  a  certain 
reciprocal  dependence,  since  it  is  not  only  true  that  woman  was  made  from  man,  but 
that  man  is  born  of  woman  ( 1  Cor.  11 :  11, 12 )."  Of  the  Elgin  marbles  Boswell  asked: 
"Don't  you  think  them  indecent?"  Dr.  Johnson  replied:  "No,  sir;  but  your  ques- 
tion is."  Man,  who  in  the  adult  state  possesses  twelve  pairs  of  ribs,  is  found  in  the 
embryonic  state  to  have  thirteen  or  fourteen.  Dawson,  Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution, 
148  —  "  Why  does  not  the  male  man  lack  one  rib  ?  Because  only  the  individual  skeleton 
of  Adam  was  affected  by  the  taking  of  the  rib.  .  .  .  The  unfinished  vertebral  arches  of 
the  skin-fibrous  layer  may  have  produced  a  new  individual  by  a  process  of  budding  or 
gemmation." 

H.  H.  Bawden  suggests  that  the  account  of  Eve's  creation  maybe  the  "pictorial  sum- 
mary "  of  an  actual  phylogenetic  evolutionary  process  by  which  1  lie  sexes  were  separ- 
ated or  isolated  from  a  common  hermaphroditic  ancestor  or  ancestry.  The  mesodermic 
portion  of  the  organism  in  which  the  urinogenltal  system  has  its  origin  develops  later 
than  the  ectodermic  or  the  endodermic  portions.  The  word  "  rib  "  may  designate 
this  mesodermic  portion.  Bayard  Taylor,  John  Godfrey's  Fortunes,  392,  suggests  that 
a  genius  is  hermaphroditic,  adding  a  male  element  to  the  woman,  and  a  female  element 
to  the  man.  Professor  Loeb,  Am.  Journ.  Physiology,  Vol.  Ill,  no.  3,  has  found  that  in 
certain  chemical  solutions  prepared  in  the  laboratory,  approximately  the  concentra- 
tion of  sea- water,  the  unfertilized  eggs  of  the  sea-urchin  will  mature  without  the 
intervention  of  the  spermatozoon.  Perfect  embryos  and  normal  individuals  are  pro- 
duced under  these  conditions.  He  thinks  it  probable  that  similar  parthenogenesis  may 
be  produced  in  higher  types  of  being.  In  1900  he  achieved  successful  results  on  Anne- 
lids, though  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  produced  anything  more  than  normal  larvae. 
These  results  have  been  criticized  by  a  European  investigator  who  is  also  a  Roman 
priest.  Prof.  Loeb  wrote  a  rejoinder  in  which  he  expressed  surprise  that  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Roman  church  did  not  heartily  endorse  his  conclusions,  since  they  afford 
a  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception. 

H.  H.  Bawden  has  reviewed  Prof.  Loeb's  work  in  the  Psychological  Review,  Jan. 
1900.  Janosik  has  found  segmentation  in  the  unfertilized  eggs  of  mammalians.  Prof. 
Loeb  considers  it  possible  that  only  the  ions  of  the  blood  prevent  the  parthenogenetic 
origin  of  embryos  in  mammals,  and  thinks  it  not  improbable  that  by  a  transitory 
change  in  these  ions  it  will  be  possible  to  produce  complete  parthenogenesis  in  these 
higher  types.  Dr.  Bawden  goes  on  to  say  that  "  both  parent  and  child  are  dependent 
upon  a  common  source  of  energy.  The  universe  is  one  great  organism,  and  there  is  no 
inorganic  or  non-organic  matter,  but  differences  only  in  degrees  of  organization.  Sex 
is  designed  only  secondarily  for  the  perpetuation  of  species ;  primarily  it  is  the  bond  or 
medium  for  the  connection  and  interaction  of  the  various  parts  of  this  great  organism, 
for  maintaining  that  degree  of  heterogeneity  which  is  the  prerequisite  of  a  high  degree 
of  organization.  By  means  of  the  growth  of  a  lifetime  I  have  become  an  essential 
part  in  a  great  organic  system.    What  I  call  my  individual  personality  reijrese.nts 


526  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

simply  the  focusing,  the  flowering  of  the  universe  at  one  finite  concrete  point  or 
centre.  Must  not  then  my  personality  continue  as  long  as  that  universal  system  con- 
tinues ?  And  is  immortality  conceivable  if  the  soul  is  something  shut  up  within  itself, 
unshareable  and  unique?  Are  not  the  many  foci  mutually  interdependent,  instead  of 
mutually  exclusive?  We  must  not  then  conceive  of  an  immortality  which  means  the 
continued  existence  of  an  individual  cut  off  from  that  social  context  which  is  really 
essential  to  his  very  nature." 

J.  H.  Richardson  suggests  in  the  Standard,  Sept.  10,  1901,  that  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  describes  the  creation  of  the  spiritual  part  of  man  only  — that  part  which 
was  made  in  the  image  of  God  —  while  the  second  chapter  describes  the  creation  of 
man's  body,  the  animal  part,  which  may  have  been  originated  by  a  process  of  evolu- 
tion. S.  W.  Howland,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1903: 121-128,  supposes  Adam  and  Eve  to  have 
been  twins,  joined  by  the  ensiform  cartilage  or  breast-bone,  as  were  the  Siamese  Chang 
and  Eng.  By  violence  or  accident  this  cartilage  was  broken  before  it  hardened  into 
bone,  and  the  two  were  separated  until  puberty.  Then  Adam  saw  Eve  coming  to  him 
with  a  bone  projecting  from  her  side  corresponding  to  the  hollow  in  his  own  side,  and 
said:  "She  is  boue  of  my  bone;  she  must  have  been  taken  from  my  side  when  I 
slept."  This  tradition  was  handed  down  to  his  posterity.  The  Jews  have  a  tradition 
that  Adam  was  created  double-sexed,  and  that  the  two  sexes  were  afterwards  sep- 
arated. The  Hindus  say  that  man  was  at  first  of  both  sexes  and  divided  himself  in 
order  to  people  the  earth.  In  the  Zodiac  of  Dendera,  Castor  and  Pollux  appear  as 
man  and  woman,  and  these  twins,  some  say,  were  called  Adam  and  Eve.  The  Coptic 
name  for  this  sign  is  Pi  Mahi,  "  the  United."  Darwin,  in  the  postscript  to  a  letter  to 
Lyell,  written  as  early  as  July,  1850,  tells  his  friend  that  he  has  "a  pleasant  genealogy 
for  mankind,"  and  describes  our  remotest  ancestor  as  "an  animal  which  breathed 
water,  had  a  swim-bladder,  a  great  swimming  tail,  an  imperfect  skull,  and  was 
undoubtedly  a  hermaphrodite." 

Matthew  Arnold  speaks  of  "  the  freshness  of  the  early  world."  Novalis  says  that  "  all 
philosophy  begins  in  homesickness."  Shelley,  Skylark :  "We  look  before  and  after, 
And  pine  for  what  is  not ;  Our  sincerest  laughter  With  some  pain  is  fraught ;  Our  sweet- 
est songs  are  those  That  tell  of  saddest  thought."  —  "  The  golden  conception  of  a  Para- 
dise is  the  poet's  guiding  thought."  There  is  a  universal  feeling  that  we  are  not  now 
in  our  natural  state ;  that  we  are  far  away  from  home ;  that  we  are  exiles  from  our  true 
habitation.  Keble,  Groans  of  Nature :  "  Such  thoughts,  the  wreck  of  Paradise,  Through 
many  a  dreary  age.  Upbore  whate'er  of  good  or  wise  Yet  lived  in  bard  or  sage." 
Poetry  and  music  echo  the  longing  for  some  possession  lost.  Jessica  in  Shakespeai-e's 
Merchant  of  Venice :  "  I  am  never  merry  when  I  hear  sweet  music."  All  true  poetry  is 
forward-looking  or  backward-looking  prophecy,  as  sculpture  sets  before  us  the 
original  or  the  resurrection  body.  See  Isaac  Taylor,  Hebi-ew  Poetry,  94-101;  Tyler, 
Theoi.  of  Greek  Poets,  225,  226. 

Wellhausen,  on  the  legend  of  a  golden  age,  says :  "  It  is  the  yearning  song  which  goes 
through  all  the  peoples :  having  attained  the  historical  civilization,  they  feel  the  worth 
of  the  goods  which  they  have  sacrificed  for  it."  He  regards  the  golden  age  as  only  an 
ideal  image,  like  the  millennial  kingdom  at  the  end.  Man  differs  from  the  beast  in  this 
power  to  form  ideals.  His  destination  to  God  shows  his  descent  from  God.  Hegel  in  a 
similar  manner  claimed  that  the  Paradisaic  condition  is  only  an  ideal  conception  under- 
lying human  development.  But  may  not  the  traditions  of  the  gardens  of  Brahma  and 
of  the  Hespei-ides  embody  the  world's  recollection  of  an  historical  lact,  when  man  was 
free  from  external  evil  and  possessed  all  that  could  minister  to  innocent  joy?  The 
"  golden  age  "  of  the  heathen  was  connected  with  the  hope  of  restoration.  So  the  use 
of  the  doctrine  of  man's  original  state  is  to  convince  men  of  the  high  ideal  once  realized, 
properly  belonging  to  man,  now  lost,  and  recoverable,  not  by  man's  own  powers,  but 
only  through  God's  provision  in  Christ.  For  references  in  classic  writers  to  a  golden 
age,  see  Luthardt,  Compendium,  115.  He  mentions  the  following  :  Hesiod,  Works  and 
Days,  109-208;  Aratus,  Phenom.,  100-184;  Plato,  Tim.,  233;  Vergil,  Ec.,  4,  Georgics, 
1 :  135,  ^Eueid,  8 :  314. 

(6)  Provisions  for  the  trying  of  man's  virtue.  —  Since  man  was  not  yet 
in  a  state  of  confirmed  holiness,  but  rather  of  simple  childlike  innocence, 
he  could  be  made  perfect  only  through  temptation.  Hence  the  "tree  of 
the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil "  (  Gen.  2:9).  The  one  slight  command 
best  tested  the  spirit  of  obedience.     Temptation  did  not  necessitate  a  fall. 


INCIDENTS   OF    MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  527 

If  resisted,  it  would  strengthen  virtue.   In  that  case,  the  posse  11011  pcecare 
would  have  become  the  non  posse  peccare. 

Thomasius:  "That  evil  is  a  necessary  transition-point  to  good,  is  Satan's  doctrine  and 
philosophy."  The  tree  was  mainly  a  tree  of  probation.  It  is  right  for  a  father  to  make 
his  son's  title  to  his  estate  depend  upon  the  performance  of  some  filial  duty,  as  Thad- 
deus  Stevens  made  his  son's  possession  of  property  conditional  upon  his  keeping  the 
temperance-pledge.  Whether,  besides  this,  the  tree  of  knowledge  was  naturally  hurt- 
ful or  poisonous,  we  do  not  know. 

(c)  Opportunity  of  securing  physical  immortality. — The  body  of  the 
first  man  was  in  itself  menial  ( 1  Cor.  15  :  45).  Science  shows  that  physical 
life  involves  decay  and  loss.  But  means  were  apparently  provided  for 
checking  this  decay  and  preserving  the  body's  youth.  This  means  was  the 
"tree  of  life"  (Gen.  2:9).  If  Adam  had  maintained  his  integrity,  the 
body  might  have  been  developed  and  transfigured,  without  intervention  of 
death.  In  other  words,  the  posse  non  mori  might  have  become  a  non 
•posse  mori. 

The  tree  of  life  was  symbolic  of  communion  with  God  and  of  man's  dependence  upon 
him.  But  this,  only  because  it  had  a  physical  efficacy.  It  was  sacramental  and 
memorial  to  the  soul,  because  it  sustained  I  he  life  of  the  body.  Natural  immortality 
without  holiness  would  have  been  unending  misery.  Sinful  man  was  therefore  shut, 
out  from  the  tree  of  life,  till  he  could  be  pr<  pared  for  it  by  God's  righteousness. 
Redemption  and  resurrection  not  only  restore  that  which  was  lost,  but  give  what  man 
was  originally  created  to  attain  :  ICor.  15:  45  —  "The  first  man  Adam  became  a  living  soul.  The  last  man 
Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit " ;  Rev.  22  :  14 —  "  Blessed  are  they  that  wash  their  robes,  that  they  may  have  the 
right  to  come  to  the  tree  of  life." 

The  conchxsions  we  have  thus  reached  with  regard  to  the  incidents  of 
man's  original  state  are  combated  upon  two  distinct  grounds : 

1st.  The  facts  bearing  upon  man's  prehistoric  condition  point  to  a 
development  from  primitive  savagely  to  civilization.  Among  these  facts 
may  be  mentioned  the  succession  of  implements  and  weaj urns  from  stone 
to  bronze  and  iron;  the  polyandry  and  communal  marriage  systems  of  the 
lowest  tribes ;  the  relics  of  barbarous  customs  still  prevailing  among  the 
most  civilized. 

For  the  theory  of  an  originally  savage  condition  of  man,  see  Sir  John  Lubbock, 
Prehistoric  Times,  and  Origin  of  Civilization:  "The  primitive  condition  of  mankind 
was  one  of  utter  barbarism";  but  especially  L.  H.  Morgan,  Ancient  Society,  who 
divides  human  progress  into  three  great  periods,  the  savage,  the  barbarian,  and  the 
civilized.  Each  of  the  two  former  has  three  states,  as  follows:  I.  Savage:  1.  Lowest 
state,  marked  by  attainment  of  speech  and  subsistence  upon  roots.  2.  Middle  state, 
marked  by  fish-food  and  Are.  3.  Upper  state,  marked  by  use  of  the  bow  and  hunting. 
II.  Barbarian:  1.  Lower  state,  marked  by  invention  and  use  of  pottery.  2.  Middle 
state,  marked  by  use  of  domestic  animals,  maize,  and  building  stone.  3.  Upper  state, 
marked  by  invention  and  use  of  iron  tools.  III.  Civilized  man  next  appears,  with  the 
introduction  of  the  phonetic  alphabet  and  writing.  J.  S.  Stuart-Glennie,  Contemp. 
Rev.,  Dec.  1893  :  844,  defines  civilization  as  "enforced  social  organization,  with  written 
records,  and  hence  intellectual  development  and  social  progress." 

With  regard  to  this  view  we  remark  : 

( a  )  It  is  based  upon  an  insufficient  induction  of  facts.  —  History  shows  a 
law  of  degeneration  supplementing  and  often  counteracting  the  tendency 
to  development.  In  the  earliest  times  of  which  we  have  any  record,  we 
find  nations  in  a  high  state  of  civilization  ;  but  in  the  case  of  every  nation 
whose  history  runs  back  of  the  Christian  era  —  as  for  .example,  the  Komans, 


528  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

the  Greeks,  the  Egyptians  —  the  subsequent  progress  has  been  downward, 
and  no  nation  is  known  to  have  recovered  from  barbarism  except  as  the 
result  of  influence  from  without. 

Lubbock  seems  to  admit  that  cannibalism  was  not  primeval ;  yet  he  shows  a  general 
tendency  to  take  every  brutal  custom  as  a  sample  of  man's  first  state.  And  this,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  many  such  customs  have  been  the  result  of  corruption.  Bride-catching, 
for  example,  could  not  possibly  have  been  primeval,  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term. 
Tylor,  Primitive  Culture,  1 :  48,  presents  a  far  more  moderate  view.  He  favors  a  theory 
of  development,  but  with  degeneration  "as  a  secondary  action  largely  and  deeply 
affecting  the  development  of  civilization."  So  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  Unity  of  Nature : 
"  Civilization  and  savagery  are  both  the  results  of  evolutionary  development ;  but  the 
one  is  a  development  in  the  upward,  the  latter  in  the  downward  direction ;  and  for  this 
reason,  neither  civilization  nor  savagery  can  rationally  be  looked  upon  as  the  primitive 
condition  of  man."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  467— "As  plausible  an  argument  might 
be  constructed  out  of  the  deterioration  and  degradation  of  some  of  the  human  family 
to  prove  that  man  may  have  evolved  downward  into  an  anthropoid  ape,  as  that  which 
has  been  constructed  to  prove  that  he  has  been  evolved  upward  from  one." 

Modern  nations  fall  far  short  of  the  old  Greek  perception  and  expression  of  beauty. 
Modern  Egyptians,  Bushmen,  Australians,  are  unquestionably  degenerate  races.  See 
Lankester,  Degeneration.  The  same  is  true  of  Italians  and  Spaniards,  as  well  as  of 
Turks.  Abyssinians  are  now  polygamists,  though  their  ancestors  were  Christians  and 
monogamists.  The  physical  degeneration  of  portions  of  the  population  of  Ireland  is 
well  known.  See  Mivart,  Lessons  from  Nature,  140-160,  who  applies  to  the  savage- 
theory  the  tests  of  language,  morals,  and  religion,  and  who  quotes  Herbert  Spencer  as 
saying :  "  Probably  most  of  them  [savages],  if  not  all  of  them,  had  ancestors  in  higher 
states,  and  among  their  beliefs  remain  some  which  were  evolved  during  those  higher 
states  ....  It  is  quite  possible,  and  I  believe  highly  probable,  that  retrogression  has 
been  as  frequent  as  progression."  Spencer,  however,  denies  that  savagery  is  always 
caused  by  lapse  from  civilization. 

Bib.  Sac,  6 :  715 ;  29 :  282  —  "  Man  as  a  moral  being  does  not  tend  to  rise  but  to  fall,  and 
that  with  a  geometric  progress,  except  he  be  elevated  and  sustained  by  some  force  from 
without  and  above  himself.  While  man  once  civilized  may  advance,  yet  moral  ideas  are 
apparently  never  developed  from  within."  Had  savagery  been  man's  primitive  con- 
dition, he  never  could  have  emerged.  See  Whately,  Origin  of  Civilization,  who  main- 
tains that  man  needed  not  only  a  divine  Creator,  but  a  divine  Instructor.  Seelye, 
Introd,  to  A  Century  of  Dishonor,  3 — "The  first  missionaries  to  the  Indians  in  Canada 
took  with  tbem  skilled  laborers  to  teach  the  savages  how  to  till  their  fields,  to  provide 
them  with  comfortable  homes,  clothing,  and  food.  But  the  Indians  preferred  their 
wigwams,  skins,  raw  flesh,  and  filth.  Only  as  Christian  influences  taught  the  Indian 
his  inner  need,  and  how  this  was  to  be  supplied,  was  he  led  to  wish  and  work  for  the 
improvement  of  his  outward  condition  and  habits.  Civilization  does  not  reproduce 
itself.  It  must  first  be  kindled,  and  it  can  then  be  kept  alive  only  by  a  power  genuinely 
Christian."    So  Wallace,  in  Nature,  Sept.  7, 1876,  vol.  14 :  408-412. 

Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  149-168,  shows  that  evolution  does  not  neces- 
sarily involve  development  as  reganls  particular  races.  There  is  degeneration  in  all 
the  organic  orders.  As  regards  man,  he  may  be  evolving  in  some  directions,  while  in 
others  he  has  degenerated.  Lidgett,  Spir.  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  245,  speaks  of 
"  Prof.  Clifford  as  pointing  to  the  history  of  human  progress  and  declaring  that  man- 
kind is  a  risen  and  not  a  fallen  race.  There  is  no  real  contradiction  between  these 
two  views.  God  has  not  let  man  go  because  man  has  rebelled  against  him.  Where 
siu  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound."  The  humanity  which  was  created  in 
Christ  and  which  is  upheld  by  his  power  has  ever  received  reinforcements  of  its  physi- 
cal and  mental  life,  in  spite  of  its  moral  and  spiritual  deterioration.  "Some  shrimps, 
by  the  adjustment  of  their  bodily  parts,  go  onward  to  the  higher  structure  of  the 
lobsters  and  crabs ;  while  others,  taking  up  the  habit  of  dwelling  in  the  gills  of  fishes, 
sink  downward  into  a  state  closely  resembling  that  of  the  worms."  Drummond, 
Ascent  of  Man  :  "  When  a  boy's  kite  comes  down  in  our  garden,  we  do  not  hold  that 
it  originally  came  from  the  clouds.  So  nations  went  up,  before  they  came  down. 
There  is  a  national  gravitation.  The  stick  age  preceded  the  stone  age,  but  has  been 
lost."  Tennyson :  "  Evolution  ever  climbing  after  some  ideal  good,  And  Reversion 
ever  dragging  Evolution  in  the  mud."    Evolution  often  becomes  devolution,  if  not 


INCIDENTS   OF   MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  529 

devilution.  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  104  — "  The  Jordan  is  the  fitting 
symbol  of  our  natural  life,  rising-  in  a  lofty  elevation,  and  from  pure  springs,  but 
plunging  steadily  down  till  it  pours  itself  into  that  Dead  Sea  from  which  there  is  no 
outlet." 

(&)  Later  investigations  have  rendered  it  probable  that  the  stone  age 
of  some  localities  was  contemporaneous  with  the  bronze  and  iron  ages  of 
others,  while  certain  tribes  and  nations,  instead  of  making  progress  from 
one  to  the  other,  were  never,  so  far  back  as  we  can  trace  them,  without 
the  knowledge  and  use  of  the  metals.  It  is  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that 
even  without  such  knowledge  and  use  man  is  not  necessarily  a  barbarian, 
though  he  may  be  a  child. 

On  the  question  whether  the  arts  of  civilization  can  be  lost,  see  Arthur  Mitchell,  Past 
in  the  Present,  219 :  Rude  art  is  often  the  debasement  of  a  higher,  instead  of  being  the 
earlier ;  the  rudest  art  in  a  nation  may  cofe'xist  with  the  highest ;  cave-life  may  accom- 
pany high  civilization.  Illustrations  from  modern  Scotland,  where  burial  of  a  cock 
for  epilepsy,  and  sacrifice  of  a  bull,  were  until  very  recently  extant.  Certain  arts 
have  unquestionably  been  lost,  as  glass-making  and  iron-working  in  Assyria  (see 
Mivart,  referred  to  above ).  The  most  ancient  men  do  not  appear  to  have  been  inferior 
to  the  latest,  either  physically  or  intellectually.  Rawlinson :  "  The  explorers  who  have 
dug  deep  into  the  Mesopotamian  mounds,  and  have  ransacked  the  tombs  of  Egypt, 
have  come  upon  no  certain  traces  of  savage  man  in  those  regions  which  a  wide-spread 
tradition  makes  the  cradle  of  the  human  race."  The  Tyrolese  peasants  show  that  a 
rude  people  may  be  moral,  and  a  very  simple  people  may  be  highly  intelligent.  See 
Southall,  Recent  Origin  of  Man,  386-449 ;  Schliemann,  Troy  and  her  Remains,  274. 

Mason,  Origins  of  Invention,  110, 124,  128  — "There  is  no  evidence  that  a  stone  age 
ever  existed  in  some  regions.  In  Africa,  Canada,  and  perhaps  Michigan,  the  metal  age 
was  as  old  as  the  stone  age."  An  illustration  of  the  mathematical  powers  of  the  savage 
is  given  by  Rev.  A.  E.  Hunt  in  an  account  of  the  native  arithmetic  of  Murray  Islands, 
Torres  Straits.  "Netat"  (one)  and  "neis"  (two)  are  the  only  numerals,  higher 
numbers  being  described  by  combinations  of  these,  as  "  neis-netat "  for  three,  "  neis-i- 
neis  "  for  four,  etc.,  or  by  reference  to  one  of  the  fingers,  elbows  or  other  parts  of  the 
body.  A  total  of  thirty-one  could  be  counted  by  the  latter  method.  Beyond  this  all 
numbers  were  "  many,"  as  this  was  the  limit  reached  in  counting  before  the  introduc- 
tion of  English  numerals,  now  in  general  use  in  the  islands. 

Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  171 —  "  It  is  commonly  supposed  that  the  direction 
of  the  movement  [in  the  variation  of  species]  is  ever  upward.  The  fact  is  on  the 
contrary  that  in  a  large  number  of  cases,  perhaps  in  the  aggregate  in  more  than  half, 
the  change  gives  rise  to  a  form  which,  by  all  the  canons  by  which  Ave  determine 

relative  rank,  is  to  be  regarded  as  regressive  or  degradational Species,  genera, 

families,  and  orders  have  all,  like  the  individuals  of  which  they  are  composed,  a  period 
of  decay  in  which  the  gain  won  by  infinite  toil  and  pains  is  altogether  lost  in  the  old 
age  of  the  group."  Shaler  goes  on  to  say  that  in  the  matter  of  variation  successes  are 
to  failures  as  1  to  100,000,  and  if  man  be  counted  the  solitary  distinguished  success, 
then  the  proportion  is  something  like  1  to  100,000,000.  No  species  that  passes  away  is 
ever  reinstated.  If  man  were  now  to  disappear,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  by 
any  process  of  change  a  similar  creature  would  be  evolved,  however  long  the  animal 
kingdom  continued  to  exist.  The  use  of  these  successive  chances  to  produce  man  is 
inexplicable  except  upon  the  hypothesis  of  an  infinite  designing  Wisdom. 

( c  )  The  barbarous  customs  to  which  this  view  looks  for  support  may 
better  be  explained  as  marks  of  broken-down  civilization  than  as  relics  of 
a  primitive  and  universal  savagery.  Even  if  they  indicated  a  former  state 
of  barbarism,  that  state  might  have  been  itself  preceded  by  a  condition  of 
comparative  culture. 

Mark  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Rev.  Sept.,  1882 :  194  —  "  There  is  no  cruel  treatment  of 

females  among  animals.    If  man  came  from  the  lower  animals,  then  he  cannot  have 

been  originally  savage ;  for  you  find  the  most  of  this  cruel  treatment  among  savages." 

Tylor  instances  "  street  Arabs."    He  compares  street  Arabs  to  a  ruined  house,  but 

34 


530  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

savage  tribes  to  a  builder's  yard.  See  Duke  of  Argyll,  Primeval  Man,  129,  133 ;  Bush- 
nell,  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  ~'23 :  McLennan,  Studies  in  Ancient  History.  Gulick, 
in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1892  :  517  — "  Cannibalism  and  infanticide  are  unknown  among  the 
anthropoid  apes.  These  must  be  the  results  of  degradation.  Pirates  and  slavetraders 
are  not  men  of  low  and  abortive  intelligence,  but  men  of  education  who  deliberately 
throw  off  all  restraint,  and  who  use  their  powers  for  the  destruction  of  society." 

Keane,  Man,  Past  and  Present,  40,  quotes  Sir  H.  H.  Johnston,  an  administrator  who 
has  had  a  wider  experience  of  the  natives  of  Africa  than  any  man  living,  as  saying  that 
"  the  tendency  of  the  negro  for  several  centuries  past  has  been  an  actual  retrograde 
one —  return  toward  the  savage  and  even  the  brute.  If  he  had  been  cut  off  from  the 
immigration  of  the  Arab  and  the  European,  the  purely  Negroid  races,  left  to  them- 
selves, so  far  from  advancing  towards  a  higher  type  of  humanity,  might  have  actually 
reverted  by  degrees  to  a  type  no  longer  human."  Ratzel's  History  of  Mankind :  "  We 
assign  no  great  antiquity  to  Polynesian  civilization.  In  New  Zealand  it  is  a  matter  of 
only  some  centuries  back.  In  newly  occupied  territories,  the  development  of  the 
population  began  upon  a  higher  level  and  then  fell  off.  The  Maoris'  decadence  resulted 
in  the  rapid  impoverishment  of  culture,  and  the  character  of  the  people  became  more 
savage  and  cruel.  Captain  Cook  found  objects  of  art  worshiped  by  the  descendants  of 
those  who  produced  them." 

Recent  researches  have  entirely  discredited  L.  H.  Morgan's  theory  of  an  original 
brutal  promiscuity  of  the  human  race.  Ritchie,  Darwin  and  Hegel,  6,  note  — "The 
theory  of  an  original  promiscuity  is  rendered  extremely  doubtful  by  the  habits  of  many 
of  the  higher  animals."  E.  B.  Tylor,  in  19th  Century,  July,  1906—  "A  sort  of  family  life, 
lasting  for  the  sake  of  the  young,  beyond  a  single  pairing  season,  exists  among  the 
higher  manlike  apes.  The  male  gorilla  keeps  watch  and  ward  over  his  progeny.  He  is 
the  antctype  of  the  house-father.  The  matriarchal  system  is  a  later  device  for  politi- 
cal reasons,  to  bind  together  in  peace  and  alliance  tribes  that  would  otherwise  be  hos- 
tile. But  it  is  an  artificial  system  introduced  as  a  substitute  for  and  in  opposition  to 
the  natural  paternal  system.  When  the  social  pressure  is  removed,  the  maternalized 
husband  emancipates  himself,  and  paternalism  begins."  Westermarck,  History  of 
Human  Marriage  :  "  Marriage  and  the  family  are  thus  intimately  connected  with  one 
another ;  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  young  that  male  and  female  continue  to  li  ve  together. 

Marriage  is  therefore  rooted  in  the  family,  rather  than  the  family  in  marriage 

There  i3  not  a  shred  of  genuine  evidence  for  the  notion  that  promiscuity  ever  formed 
a  general  stage  in  the  social  history  of  mankind.  The  hypothesis  of  promiscuity, 
instead  of  belonging  to  the  class  of  hypotheses  which  are  scientifically  permissible,  has 
no  real  foundation,  and  is  essentially  unscientific."  Howard,  History  of  Matrimonial 
Institutions:  "Marriage  or  pairing  between  one  man  and  one  woman,  though  the 
union  be  often  transitory  and  the  rule  often  violated,  is  t'-ia  typical  form  of  sexual 
union  from  the  infancy  of  the  human  race." 

(  d )  The  well-nigh  universal  tradition  of  a  golden  age  of  virtue  and 
happiness  may  be  most  easily  explained  upon  the  Scripture  view  of  an 
actual  creation  of  the  race  in  holiness  and  its  subsequent  apostasy. 

For  references  in  classic  writers  to  a  golden  age,  see  Luthardt,  Compendium  der 
Dogmatik,  115;  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1 :205—  "In  Hesiod  we  have  the  legend  of 
a  golden  age  under  the  lordship  of  Chronos,  when  man  was  free  from  cares  and  toils, 
in  untroubled  youth  and  cheerfulness,  with  a  superabundance  of  the  gifts  which  the 
earth  furnished  of  itself ;  the  race  was  indeed  not  immortal,  but  it  experienced  death 
even  as  a  soft  sleep."  We  may  add  that  capacity  for  religious  truth  depends  upon 
moral  conditions.  Very  early  races  therefore  have  a  purer  faith  than  the  later  ones. 
Increasing  depravity  makes  it  harder  for  the  later  generations  to  exercise  faith. 
The  wisdom-literature  may  have  been  very  early  instead  of  very  late,  just  as  monothe- 
istic ideas  are  clearer  the  further  we  go  back.  Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  171—"  Precisely 
because  such  tribes  [Australian  and  African  savages]  have  been  deficient  in  average 
moral  quality,  have  they  failed  to  march  upward  on  the  road  of  civilization  with  the 
rest  of  mankind,  and  have  fallen  into  these  bog  holes  of  savage  degradation."  On 
petrified  civilizations,  see  Henry  George,  Progress  and  Poverty,  433-439  —  "  The  law  of 
human  progress,  what  is  it  but  the  moral  law?"  On  retrogressive  development  in 
nature,  see  Weismann,  Heredity,  2 : 1-30.  But  see  also  Mary  E.  Case,  "  Did  the  Romans 
Degenerate?"  in  Internat.  Journ.  Ethics,  Jan.  1893  :  165-183,  in  which  it  is  maintained 
that  the  Romans  made  constant  advances  rather.    Henry  Sumner  Maine  calls  the  Bible 


INCIDENTS   OF   MAN'S   ORIGINAL   STATE.  531 

the  most  important  single  document  in  the  history  of  sociology,  because  it  exhibits 

authentically  the  early  development  of  society  from  the  family,  through  the  tribe, 

into  the  nation,— a  progress  learned  only  by  glimpses,  intervals,  and  survivals  of  old 

usages  in  the  literature  of  other  nations. 

\i 

2nd.  That  the  religious  history  of  mankind  warrants  us  in  inferring  a 
necessary  and  universal  law  of  progress,  in  accordance  with  which  man 
passes  from  fetichism  to  polytheism  and  monotheism,  —  this  lirst  theologi- 
cal stage,  of  which  fetichism,  polytheism,  and  monotheism  are  parts,  being 
succeeded  by  the  metaphysical  stage,  and  that  in  turn  by  the  positive. 

This  theory  is  propounded  by  Comte,  in  his  Positive  Philosophy,  English  transl.,  25, 
26,  515-636 —  "  Each  branch  of  our  knowledge  passes  successively  through  three  different 
theoretical  conditions:  the  Theological,  or  fictitious;  the  Metaphysical,  or  abstract; 

and  the  Scientific,  or  positive The  first  is  the  necessary  point  of  departure  of  the 

human  understanding ;  and  the  third  is  its  fixed  and  definite  state.  The  second  is  merely 
a  state  of  transition.  In  the  theological  state,  the  human  mind,  seeking  the  essential 
nature  of  beings,  the  first  ami  final  causes,  the  origin  and  purpose,  of  all  effects  —  in 
short,  absolute  knowledge  —  supposes  all  phenomena  to  be  produced  by  the  immediate 
action  of  supernatural  beings.  In  the  metaphysical  state,  which  is  only  a  modification 
of  the  first,  the  mind  supposes,  instead  of  supernatural  beings,  abstract  forces,  verit- 
able entities,  that  is,  personified  abstractions,  inherent  in  all  beings, and  capable  of  pro- 
ducing all  phenomena.  What  is  called  the  explanation  of  phenomena  is,  in  this  Stage, 
amere  reference  of  each  to  its  proper  entity.  In  the  final,  the  positive  state,  the  mind 
has  given  over  the  vain  search  after  absolute  notions,  the  origin  and  destination  of  the 
universe,  and  the  causes  of  phenomena,  and  applies  itself  to  the  study  of  their  laws— 

that  is,  their  invariable  relations  of  succession  ami  resemblance The  t  heological 

system  arrived  at  its  highest  perfection  when  it  substituted  the  providential  action  of 
a  siugle  Being  for  the  varied  operations  of  numerous  divinities.  In  the  last  stage  of 
the  metaphysical  system,  men  substituted  one  great  entity,  Nature,  as  the  cause  of  all 
phenomena,  instead  of  the  multitude  of  entities  at  lirst  supposed.  In  the  same  way  the 
ultimate  perfection  of  the  positive  system  would  be  to  represent  all  phenomena  as  par- 
ticular aspects  of  a  single  general  fact  — such  as  Gravitation,  for  instance." 

This  assumed  law  of  progress,  however,  is  contradicted  by  the  following 
facts : 

(a)  Not  only  did  the  monotheism  of  the  Hebrews  precede  the  great 
polytheistic  systems  of  antiquity,  but  even  these  heathen  religions  are 
purer  from  polytheistic  elements,  the  further  back  we  trace  them  ;  so  that 
the  facts  point  to  an  original  monotheistic  basis  for  them  alL 

The  gradual  deterioration  of  all  religions,  apart  from  special  revelation  and  influence 
from  God,  is  proof  that  the  purely  evolutionary  theory  is  defective.  The  most  nat  ural 
supposition  is  that  of  a  primitive  revelation,  which  little  by  little  receded  from  human 
memory.  In  Japan,  Shinto  was  originally  the  worship  of  Heaven.  The  worship  of  the 
dead,  the  deification  of  the  Mikado,  etc.,  were  a  corruption  and  aftergrowth.  The 
Mikado's  ancestors,  instead  of  coming  from  heaven,  came  from  Korea.  Shinto  was 
originally  a  form  of  monotheism.  Not  one  of  the  first  emperors  was  deified  after 
death.  Apotheosis  of  the  Mikados  dated  from  the  corruption  of  Shinto  through  the 
importation  of  Buddhism.  Andrew  Lang,  in  his  Making  of  Religion,  advocates  primi- 
tive monotheism.  T.  G.  Pinches,  of  the  British  Museum,  1894,  declares  that,  as  in  the 
earliest  Egyptian,  so  in  the  early  Babylonian  records,  there  is  evidence  of  a  primitive 
monotheism.  Nevins,  Demon-Possession,  170-173,  quotes  W.  A.  P.  Martin,  President  of 
the  Peking  University,  as  foUows :  "  China,  India,  Egypt  and  Greece  all  agree  in  the 
monotheistic  type  of  their  early  religion.  The  Orphic  Hymns,  long  before  the  advent  of 
the  popular  divinities,  celebrated  the  Panfheos,  the  universal  God.  The  odes  compiled 
by  Confucius  testify  to  the  early  worship  of  Shangte,  the  Supreme  Ruler.  The  Vedas 
speak  of 'one  unknown  true  Being,  all-present,  all-powerful,  the  Creator,  Preserver 
and  Destroyer  of  the  Universe.'  And  in  Egypt,  as  late  as  the  time  of  Plutarch,  there 
were  still  vestiges  of  a  monotheistic  worship." 

On  the  evidences  of  an  original  monotheism,  see  Max  Miiller,  Chips,  1 :  337  ;  Rawlinson, 
in  Present  Day  Tracts,  2:  no.  11;  Legge,  Religions  of  China,  8, 11 ;  Diestel,  in  Jahrbuch 


532  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

fur  deutsche  Theologie,  1860,  and  vol.  5  :  669 ;  Philip  Smith,  Anc.  Hist,  of  East,  65, 195; 
Warren,  on  the  Earliest  Creed  of  Mankind,  in  the  Meth.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1884. 

(6)  "There  is  no  proof  that  the  Indo-Germanic  or  Semitic  stocks  ever 
practiced  fetich  worship,  or  were  ever  enslaved  by  the  lowest  types  of  myth- 
ological religion,  or  ascended  from  them  to  somewhat  higher  "  (  Fisher  ). 

See  Fisher,  Essays  on  Supernat.  Origin  of  Christianity,  545 ;  Bartlett,  Sources  of  His- 
tory in  the  Pentateuch,  36-115.  Herbert  Spencer  once  held  that  fetichisrn  was  primor- 
dial. But  he  afterwards  changed  his  mind,  and  said  that  the  facts  proved  to  be 
exactly  the  opposite  when  he  had  become  better  acquainted  with  the  ideas  of  savages ; 
see  his  Principles  of  Sociology,  1 :  343.  Mr.  Spencer  finally  traced  the  beginnings  of 
religion  to  the  worship  of  ancestors.  But  in  China  no  ancestor  has  ever  become  a  god ; 
see  Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  304-313.  And  unless  man  had  an  inborn  sense  of  divinity, 
he  could  deify  neither  ancestors  nor  ghosts.  Professor  Hilprecht  of  Philadelphia  says: 
"As  the  attempt  has  recently  been  made  to  trace  the  pure  monotheism  of  Israel  to 
Babylonian  sources,  I  am  bound  to  declare  this  an  absolute  impossibility,  on  the  basis 
of  my  fourteen  years'  researches  in  Babylonian  cuneiform  inscriptions.  The  faith  of 
Israel's  chosen  people  is :  '  Hear,  O  Israel :  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord.'  And  this 
faith  could  never  have  proceeded  from  the  Babylonian  mountain  of  gods,  that  charnel- 
house  full  of  corruption  and  dead  men's  bones." 

(  c  )  Some  of  the  earliest  remains  of  man  yet  found  show,  by  the  burial 
of  food  and  weapons  with  the  dead,  that  there  already  existed  the  idea  of 
spiritual  beings  and  of  a  future  state,  and  therefore  a  religion  of  a  higher 
sort  than  fetichisrn. 

Idolatry  proper  regards  the  idol  as  the  symbol  and  representative  of  a  spiritual  being 
who  exists  apart  from  the  material  object,  though  he  manifests  himself  through  it. 
Fetichisrn,  however,  identifies  the  divinity  with  the  material  thing,  and  worships  the 
stock  or  stone ;  spirit  is  not  conceived  of  as  existing  apart  from  body.  Belief  in  spirit- 
ual beings  and  a  future  state  is  therefore  proof  of  a  religion  higher  in  kind  than  fetich- 
isrn. See  Lyell,  Antiquity  of  Man,  quoted  in  Dawson,  Story  of  Earth  and  Man,  384 ; 
see  also  368,  372,  386 — "Man's  capacities  for  degradation  are  commensurate  with  his 
capacities  for  improvement"  (Dawson).  Lyell,  in  his  last  edition,  however,  admits 
the  evidence  from  the  Aurignac  cave  to  be  doubtful.  See  art.  by  Dawkins,  in  Nature, 
4:208. 

(d)  The  theory  in  question,  in  making  theological  thought  a  merely 
transient  stage  of  mental  evolution,  ignores  the  fact  that  religion  has  its  root 
in  the  intuitions  and  yearnings  of  the  human  soul,  and  that  therefore  no 
philosophical  or  scientific  progress  can  ever  abolish  it.  While  the  terms 
theological,  metaphysical,  and  positive  may  properly  mark  the  order  in 
which  the  ideas  of  the  individual  and  the  race  are  acquired,  positivism  errs 
in  holding  that  these  three  phases  of  thought  are  mutually  exclusive,  and 
that  upon  the  rise  of  the  later  the  earlier  must  of  necessity  become  extinct. 

John  Stuart  Mill  suggests  that  "  personifying  "  would  be  a  much  better  term  than 
"  theological  "  to  designate  the  earliest  efforts  to  explain  physical  phenomena.  On  the 
fundamental  principles  of  Positivism,  see  New  Englander,  1873:323-380;  Diman,  The- 
istic  Argument,  338 —  "  Three  coexistent  states  are  here  confounded  with  three  succes- 
sive stages  of  human  thought;  three  aspects  of  things  with  three  epochs  of  time. 
Theology,  metaphysics,  and  science  must  always  exist  side  by  side,  for  all  positive 
science  rests  on  metaphysical  principles,  and  theology  lies  behind  both.  All  are  as  per- 
manent as  human  reason  itself."  Martineau,  Types,  1 :  487  —  "  Comte  sets  up  mediasval 
Christianity  as  the  typical  example  of  evolved  monotheism,  and  develops  it  out  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  polytheism  which  it  overthrew  and  dissipated.  But  the  religion  of 
modern  Europe  notoriously  does  not  descend  from  the  same  source  as  its  civilization 
and  is  no  continuation  of  the  ancient  culture,"  —  it  comes  rather  from  Hebrew  sources ; 
Essays,  Philos.  and  Theol.,  1 :  24, 62 — "  The  Jews  were  always  a  disobliging  people ;  what 
business  had  they  to  be  up  so  early  in  the  morning,  disturbing  the  house  ever  so  long 
before  M.  Com  te's  bell  rang  to  prayers?"  See  also  Gillett,  God  in  Human  Thought, 
1:17-23;  Rawlinson,  in  Journ.  Christ.  Philos.,  April,  1883:353;  Nineteenth  Century, 
Oct.  1886:473-490. 


CHAPTER  III. 
SIN,  OB  MAN'S  STATE  OF  APOSTASY. 


SECTION    I. —  THE    LAW    OF   GOD. 

As  preliminary  to  a  treatment  of  man's  state  of  apostasy,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  consider  the  nature  of  that  law  of  God,  the  transgression  of 
which  is  sin.  We  may  best  approach  the  subject  by  inquiring  what  is  the 
true  conception  of 

I.     Law  in  General. 

1.     Law  is  an  expression  of  will. 

The  essential  idea  of  law  is  that  of  a  general  expression  of  will  enforced 
by  power.  It  implies  :  (  a  ;  A  lawgiver,  or  authoritative  will,  (b)  Sub- 
jects, or  beings  upon  whom  this  will  terminates.  (  c  )  A  general  command, 
or  expression  of  this  will.     ( d)  A  power,  enforcing  the  command. 

These  elements  are  found  even  in  what  we  call  natural  law.  The  phrase 
'  law  of  nature '  involves  a  self-contradiction,  w  hen  used  to  denote  a  mode 
of  action  or  an  order  of  sequence  behind  which  there  is  conceived  to  be  no 
intelligent  and  ordaining  will.  Physics  derives  the  term  '  law  '  from  juris- 
prudence, instead  of  jurisprudence  deriving  it  from  physics.  It  is  first 
used  of  the  relations  of  voluntary  agents.  Causation  in  our  own  wills 
enables  us  to  see  something  besides  mere  antecedence  and  consequence  in 
the  world  about  us.  Physical  science,  in  her  very  use  of  the  word  'law,' 
implicitly  confesses  that  a  supreme  Will  has  set  general  rides  which  control 
the  processes  of  the  universe. 

"Way land.  Moral  Science,  1,  unwisely  defines  law  as  "  a  mode  of  existence  or  order  of 
sequence,"  thus  leaving  out  of  his  definition  all  reference  to  an  ordaining-  will.  He 
subsequently  says  that  law  presupposes  an  establisher,  but  in  his  deiinition  there  is 
nothing-  to  indicate  this.  We  insist,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  term  'law'  itself 
includes  the  idea  of  force  and  cause,  The  word  '  law '  is  from  '  lay '  ( German  legen ),  = 
something  laid  down ;  German  Gesetz,  from  setzen,  =  something  set  or  established  ; 
Greek  vonos,  from  fc>w,  =  something  assigned  or  apportioned ;  Latin  lex,  from  leyu,  = 
something  said  or  spoken. 

All  these  derivations  show  that  man's  original  conception  of  law  is  that  of  something 
proceeding  from  volition.  Lewes,  in  his  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,  says  that  the  term 
1  iaw  '  is  so  suggestive  of  a  giver  and  impresser  of  law,  that  it  ought  to  be  dropped,  and 
the  word  '  method '  substituted.  The  merit  of  Austin's  treatment  of  the  subject  is  that 
he  "  rigorously  limits  the  term  '  law  '  to  the  commands  of  a  superior  "  ;  see  John  Austin, 
Province  of  Jurisprudence,  1 :  88-93, 230-233.  The  defects  of  his  treatment  we  shall  note 
further  on. 

J.  S.  Mill :  "  It  is  the  custom,  wherever  they  [  scientific  men  ]  can  trace  regularity  of 
any  kind,  to  call  the  general  proposition  which  expresses  the  nature  of  that  regularity, 
a  law ;  as  when  in  mathematics  we  speak  of  the  law  of  the  successive  terms  of  a  con- 
verging series.  But  the  expression  '  law  of  nature '  is  generally  employed  by  scientific 
men  with  a  sort  of  tacit  reference  to  the  original  sense  of  the  word  'law,'  namely,  the 
expression  of  the  will  of  a  superior  —  the  superior  in  this  case  being  the  Ruler  of  the 

533 


534  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

universe."  Paley,  Nat.  Theology,  chap.  1  — "It  is  a  perversion  of  language  to  assign 
any  law  as  the  efficient  operative  cause'of  anything.  A  law  presupposes  an  agent ;  this 
is  only  the  mode  according  to  which  an  agent  proceeds ;  it  implies  a  power,  for  it  is  the 
order  according  to  which  that  power  acts.  Without  this  agent,  without  this  power, 
which  are  both  distinct  from  itself,  the  law  does  nothing."  "  Quis  custodiet  ipsos  cus- 
todes?  "  "  Rules  do  not  fulfill  themselves,  any  more  than  a  statute-book  can  quell  a 
riot "  ( Martineau,  Types,  1 :  367 ). 

Charles  Darwin  got  the  suggestion  of  natural  selection,  not  from  the  study  of  lower 
plants  and  animals,  but  from  Malthus  on  Population ;  see  his  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  I, 
autobiographical  chapter.  Ward,  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  2 :  248-252  —  "  The  con- 
ception of  natural  law  rests  upon  the  analogy  of  civil  law."  Ladd,  Philosophy  of 
Knowledge,  33:3  —  "Laws  are  only  the  more  or  less  frequently  repeated  and  uniform 
modes  of  the  behavior  of  things"  ;  Philosophy  of  Mind,  122  — "To  be,  to  stand  in  rela- 
tion, to  be  self-active,  to  act  upon  other  being,  to  obey  law,  to  be  a  cause,  to  be  a  per- 
manent subject  of  states,  to  be  the  same  to-day  as  yesterday,  to  be  identical,  to  be  one, 
—  all  these  and  all  similar  conceptions,  together  with  the  proofs  that  they  are  valid  for 
real  beings,  are  affirmed  of  physical  realities,  or  projected  into  them,  only  on  a  basis  of 
self-knowledge,  envisaging  and  affirming  the  reality  of  mind.  Without  psychological 
insight  and  philosophical  training,  such  terms  or  their  equivalents  are  meaningless  in 
physics.  And  because  writers  on  physics  do  not  in  general  have  this  insight  and  this 
training,  in  spite  of  their  utmost  endeavors  to  treat  physics  as  an  empirical  science 
without  metaphysics,  they  flounder  and  blunder  and  contradict  themselves  hopelessly 
whenever  they  touch  upon  fundamental  matters."  See  President  McGarvey's  Criticism 
on  James  Lane  Allen's  Reign  of  Law:  "It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  law  to  reign.  To 
reign  is  an  act  which  can  be  literally  affirmed  only  of  persons.  A  man  may  reign ;  a 
God  may  reign ;  a  devil  may  reign ;  but  a  law  cannot  reigu.  If  a  law  could  reign,  we 
should  have  no  gambling  iD  New  York  and  no  open  saloons  on  Sunday.  There  would 
be  no  false  swearing  in  courts  of  justice,  and  no  dishonesty  in  politics.  It  is  men  who 
reign  in  these  matters — the  judges,  the  grand  jury,  the  sheriff  and  the  police.  They 
may  reign  according  to  law.  Law  cannot  reign  even  over  those  who  are  appointed  to 
execute  the  law." 

2.  Law  is  a  general  expression  of  will. 

The  characteristic  of  law  is  generality.  It  is  addressed  to  substances  or 
persons  in  classes.  Special  legislation  is  contrary  to  the  true  theory  of 
law. 

When  the  Sultan  of  Zanzibar  orders  his  barber  to  be  oeheaded  because  the  latter  has 
cut  his  master,  this  order  is  not  properly  a  law.  To  be  a  law  it  must  read:  "Every 
barber  who  cuts  his  majesty  shall  thereupon  be  decapitated."  Einmal  ist  keinmal  -= 
"Once  is  no  custom."  Dr.  Schurman  suggests  that  the  word  meal  (Mahl)  means 
originally  time  (mal  in  einmal).  The  measurement  of  time  among  ourselves  is  astro- 
nomical; among  our  earliest  ancestors  it  was  gastronomical,  and  the  reduplication 
merit  ime  =  the  ding-dong  of  the  dinner  beU.  The  Shah  of  Persia  once  asked  the  Prince 
of  Wales  to  have  a  man  put  to  death  in  order  that  he  might  see  the  English  method  of 
execution.  When  the  Prince  told  him  that  this  was  beyond  his  power,  the  Shah  wished 
to  know  what  was  the  use  of  being  a  king  if  he  could  not  kill  people  at  his  pleasure. 
Peter  the  Great  suggested  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  He  desired  to  see  keelhauling. 
When  informed  that  there  was  no  sailor  liable  to  that  penalty,  he  replied :  "  That  does 
not  matter, —  take  one  of  my  suite."  Amos,  Science  of  Law,  33,  34—  "  Law  eminently 
deals  in  general  rules."  It  knows  not  persons  or  personality.  It  must  apply  to  more 
than  one  case.  "  The  characteristic  of  law  is  generality,  as  that  of  morality  is  individual 
application."  Special  legislation  is  the  bane  of  good  government ;  it  does  not  properly 
fall  within  the  province  of  the  law-making  power ;  it  savors  of  the  caprice  of  despot- 
ism, which  gives  commands  to  each  subject  at  will.  Hence  our  more  advanced  politi- 
cal constitutions  check  lobby  influence  and  bribery,  by  prohibiting  special  legislation 
in  all  cases  where  general  laws  already  exist. 

3.     Law  implies  power  to  enforce. 

It  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  law,  that  there  be  power  to  enforce. 
Otherwise  law  becomes  the  expression  of  mere  wish  or  advice.  Since 
physical  substances  and  forces  have  no  intelligence  and  no  power  to  resist, 


LAW    IN-    GENERAL.  535 

the  four  elements  already  mentioned  exhaust  the  implications  of  the  term 
'law  '  as  applied  to  nature.  In  the  case  of  rational  and  free  agents,  how- 
ever,  law  implies  in  addition:  £e)  Duty  or  obligation  to  obey;  and  (/) 
Sanctions,  or  pains  and  penalties  for  disobedience. 

"  Law  that  has  no  penalty  is  not  law  but  advice,  and  the  government  in  which  inflic- 
tion does  not  follow  transgression  is  the  reign  of  rogues  or  demons."  On  the  question 
whether  any  of  the  punishments  of  civil  law  are  legal  sanctions,  except  the  punish- 
ment of  death,  see  X.  W.  Taylor,  Moral  Govt.,  2:367-387.  Rewards  are  motives,  but 
they  are  not  sanctions.  Since  public  opinion  may  be  conceived  of  as  inflicting  penal- 
ties for  violation  of  her  will,  we  speak  figuratively  of  the  laws  of  society,  of  fashion, 
of  etiquette,  of  honor.  Only  so  far  as  the  community  of  nations  can  and  does  by 
sanctions  compel  obedience,  can  we  with  propriety  assert  the  existence  of  interna- 
tional law.  Even  among  nations,  however,  there  may  be  moral  as  well  as  physical 
sanctions.  The  decision  of  an  international  tribunal  has  the  same  sanction  as  a  treaty, 
and  if  the  former  is  impotent,  the  latter  also  is.  Fines  and  imprisonment  do  not 
deter  decent  people  from  violations  of  law  half  so  effectively  as  do  the  social  penalties 
of  ostracism  and  disgrace,  ami  it  will  be  the  same  with  the  findings  of  an  interna- 
tional tribunal.  Diplomacy  without  ships  and  armies  has  been  said  to  be  law  without 
penalty.  But  exclusion  from  civilized  society  is  penalty.  "In  the  unquestioning 
obedience  to  fashion's  decrees,  to  which  we  till  quietly  submit,  we  are  simply  yielding 
to  the  pressure  of  the  persons  about  us.  No  one  adopts  a  style  of  dress  because  it  is 
reasonable,  for  the  styles  are  often  most  unreasonable;  but  we  meekly  yield  to  the 
most  absurd  of  them  rather  than  resist  this  force  and  be  called  eccentric.  So  what  we 
call  public  opinion  is  the  most  mighty  power  to-day  known,  whether  in  society  or  in 
politics." 

4.     Law  expresses  and  demands  nature. 

The  will  wliich  thus  binds  its  subjects  by  commands  and  penalties  is  an 
expression  of  the  nature  <  >f  the  governing  power,  and  reveals  the  normal 
relations  of  the  subjects  to  that  power.  Finally,  therefore,  law  (//  )  Ts  an 
expression  of  the  nature  of  the  lawgiver  ;  and  (  A  )  Sets  forth  the  condition 
or  conduct  in  the  subjects  which  is  requisite  for  harmony  with  that  nature. 
Any  so-called  law  which  fails  to  represent  the  nature  of  the  governing 
power  soon  becomes  obsolete.  All  law  that  is  permanent  is  a  transcript  of 
the  facts  of  being,  a  disc*  rvery  of  what  is  and  must  be,  in  order  to  harmony 
between  the  governing  and  the  governed  ;  in  short,  positive  law  is  just  and 
lasting  only  as  it  is  an  expression  and  republication  of  the  law  of  nature. 

Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  106,  M7  :  John  Austin,  although  he  "  rigorously  limited 
the  term  law  tot  he  commands  of  a  superior,"  yet  *'  rejected  Oipian's  explanation  of  tin- 
law  of  nature,  and  ridiculed  as  fustian  the  celebrated  description  in  Hooker."  This  we 
conceive  to  be  the  radical  defect  of  Austin's  conception.  The  Will  from  which  natural 
law  proceeds  is  conceived  of  after  a  deistic  fashion,  instead  of  being  immanent  in  the 
universe.  Lightwood,  in  his  Natureof  Positive  Law,  78-90,  criticizes  Austin's  definition 
of  law  as  command,  and  substitutes  the  idea  of  law  as  custom.  Sir  Henry  Maine's 
Ancient  Law  has  shown  us  that  the  early  village  communities  had  customs  which  only 
gradually  took  form  as  definite  laws.  But  we  reply  that  custom  is  not  the  ultimate 
source  of  anything.  Repeated  acts  of  will  are  necessary  to  constitute  custom.  The 
first  customs  are  due  to  the  commanding  will  of  the  father  in  the  patriarchal  family. 
So  Austin's  definition  is  justified.  Collective  morals  (in<tres)  come  from  individual 
duty  ( due ) ;  law  originates  in  will ;  Martineau,  Types,  2 :  18,  19.  Behind  this  will,  how- 
ever, is  something  which  Austin  does  nottake  accountof,  namely,  the  natureof  things 
as  constituted  by  God,  as  revealing  the  universal  Reason,  and  as  furnishing  the  stand- 
ard to  which  all  positive  law,  if  it  would  be  permanent,  must  conform. 

See  Montesquieu,  Spirit  of  Laws,  book  1,  sec.  11  —  "Laws  are  the  necessary  relations 

arising  from  the  nature  of  things There  is  a  primitive  Reason,  and  laws  are  the 

relations  subsisting  between  it  and  different  beings,  and  the  relations  of  these  to  one 
another.  .  .  .  These  rules  are  a  fixed  and  invariable  relation.  .  .  .  Particular  intelligent 
beings  may  have  laws  of  their  own  making,  but  they  have  some  likewise  that  they 


536  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    MAN. 

never  made To  say  that  there  is  nothing-  just  or  unjust  but  what  is  commanded 

or  forbidden  by  positive  laws,  is  the  same  as  saying-  that  before  the  describing  of  a 
circle  all  the  radii  were  not  equal.  We  must  therefore  acknowledge  relations  antece- 
dent to  the  positive  law  by  which  they  were  established."  Kant,  Metaphysic  of  Ethics, 
169-172 — "  By  the  science  of  law  is  meant  systematic  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  the 
law  of  nature  — from  which  positive  law  takes  its  rise  —  which  is  forever  the  same,  and 
carries  its  sure  and  unchanging  obligations  over  all  nations  and  throughout  all  ages." 

It  is  true  even  of  a  despot's  law,  that  it  reveals  his  nature,  and  shows  what  is  requisite 
in  the  subject  to  constitute  him  in  harmony  with  that  nature.  A  law  which  docs  not 
represent  the  nature  of  things,  or  the  real  relations  of  the  governor  and  the  governed, 
has  only  a  nominal  existence,  and  cannot  be  permanent.  On  the  definition  and  nature 
of  law,  see  also  Pomeroy,  in  Johnson's  Encyclopaedia,  art.:  Law;  Ahrens,  Cours  dc 
Droit  Naturel,  book  1,  sec.  14 ;  Lorimer,  Institutes  of  Law,  256,  who  quotes  from  Burke : 
"  All  human  laws  are,  properly  speaking,  only  declaratory.  They  may  alter  the  mode 
and  application,  but  have  no  power  over  the  substance  of  original  justice  " ;  Lord 
Bacon:  "  Regula  enim  legem  ( ut acus nautica polos)  indicat,  non  statuit."  Duke  of 
Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  64 ;  H.  C.  Carey,  Unity  of  Law. 

Fairbairn,  in  Contemn.  Rev.,  Apl.  1895:473 — "The  Roman  jurists  draw  a  distinction 
between  jus  imturale  and  jus  civile,  and  theyused  the  former  to  affect  the  latter.  The 
jus  civile  was  statutory,  established  and  fixed  law,  as  it  were,  the  actual  legal  environ- 
ment ;  the  jus  naturale  was  ideal,  the  principle  of  justice  and  equit3r  immanent  in  man, 
yet  with  the  progress  of  his  ethical  culture  growing  ever  more  articulate."  We  add 
the  fact  that  jus  in  Latin  and  Recht  in  German  have  ceased  to  mean  merely  abstract 
right,  and  have  come  to  denote  the  legal  system  in  which  that  abstract  right  is  embod- 
ied and  expressed.  Here  we  have  a  proof  that  Christ  is  gradually  moralizing  the  world 
and  translating  law  into  life.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "Never  a  government  on  earth  made 
its  own  laws.  Even  constitutions  simply  declare  laws  already  and  actually  existing. 
Where  society  falls  into  anarchy,  the  lex  taltimis  becomes  the  prevailing  principle." 

II.     The  Law  of  God  in  Paettctj^ar. 

The  law  of  God  is  a  general  exju-ession  of  tlie  divine  will  enforced  by 
power.     It  has  two  forms  :  Elemental  Law  and  Positive  Enactment. 

1.  Elemental  Laiu,  or  law  inwrought  into  the  elements,  substances, 
and  forces  of  the  rational  and  irrational  creation.     This  is  twofold : 

A.  The  expression  of  the  divine  will  in  the  constitution  of  the  material 
universe ;  —  this  we  call  physical,  or  natural  law.  Physical  law  is  not 
necessary.  Another  order  of  things  is  conceivable.  Physical  order  is  not 
an  end  in  itself  ;  it  exists  for  the  sake  of  moral  order.  Physical  order  has 
therefore  only  a  relative  constancy,  and  God  supplements  it  at  times  by 
miracle. 

Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  210  — "The  laws  of  nature  represent  no 
necessity,  but  are  only  the  orderly  forms  of  procedure  of  some  Being  back  of  them. 
....  Cosmic  uniformities  are  God's  methods  in  freedom."  Philos.  of  Theism,  73 — "Any 
of  the  cosmic  laws,  from  gravitation  on,  might  conceivably  have  been  lacking  or  alto- 
gether different No  trace  of  necessity  can  be  found  in  the  Cosmos  or  in  its  laws." 

Seth,  Hegelianism  and  Personality :  "  Nature  is  not  necessary.  Why  put  an  island 
where  it  is,  and  not  a  mile  east  or  west  ?  Why  connect  the  smell  and  shape  of  the  rose, 
or  the  taste  and  color  of  the  orange?  Why  do  H20  form  water ?  No  one  knows." 
William  James!  "  The  parts  seem  shot  at  us  out  of  a  pistol."  Rather,  we  would  say,  out 
of  a  shotgun.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  33— "Why  undulations  in  one  medium 
should  produce  sound,  and  in  another  light ;  why  one  speed  of  vibration  should  give 
red  color,  and  another  blue,  can  be  explained  by  no  reason  of  necessity.  Here  is  select- 
ing will." 

Brooks,  Foundations  of  Zoology,  126  — "  So  far  as  the  philosophy  of  evolution  involves 
belief  that  nature  is  determinate,  or  due  to  a  necessary  law  of  universal  progress  or 
evolution,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  utterly  unsupported  by  evidence  and  totally  unscien- 
tific." There  is  no  power  to  deduce  anything  whatever  from  homogeneity.  Press  the 
button  and  law  does  the  rest?    Yes,  but  what  presses  the  button  ?    The  solution  crys- 


THE    LAW    OF   GOD    IK    PARTICULAE.  537 

talizeswhen  shaken?  Yes,  but  what  shakes  it?  Ladd,  Philos.  of  Knowledge,  310  — 
"The  directions  and  velocities  of  the  stars  fall  under  no  common  principles  that 
astronomy  can  discover.  One  of  the  stars— '  1S30  Groombridge'  —  is  flying  through 
space  at  a  rate  many  times  as  great  as  it  could  attain  if  it  had  fallen  through  infinite 

space  through  all  eternity  toward  the  efitire  physical  universe Fluids  contract 

when  cooled  and  expand  when  heated,— yet  there  is  the  well  known  exception  of 
water  at  the  degree  of  freezing."  263  —  "  Things  do  not  appear  to  be  mathematical  all 
the  way  through.  The  system  of  things  may  be  a  Life,  changing  its  modes  of  manifes- 
tation according  to  immanent  ideas,  rather  than  a  collection  of  rigid  entities,  blindly 
subject  in  a  mechanical  way  to  unchanging  laws." 

Augustine :  "  Dei  voluntas  rerum  natura  est."  Joseph  Cook :  "  The  laws  of  nature 
are  the  habits  of  God."  But  Campbell,  Atonement,  Introd.,  xxvi,  says  there  is  this 
difference  between  the  laws  of  the  moral  universe  and  those  of  the  physical,  namely, 
that  we  do  not  trace  the  existence  of  the  former  to  an  act  of  will,  as  we  do  the  lat  ter. 
"  To  say  that  God  has  given  existence  to  goodness,  as  he  has  to  the  laws  of  nat  ure,  would 
be  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  has  given  existence  to  himself."  Pepper,  Outlines  of 
Syst.  Theol.,  91  —  "  Moral  law,  unlike  natural  law,  is  a  standard  of  action  to  be  adopted 
or  rejected  in  the  exercise  of  rational  freedom,  i.  e.,  of  moral  agency."  See  also  Shedd, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  1 :  531. 

Mark  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Sept.  1882 :  190—"  In  moral  law  there  is  enforcement 
by  punishment  only  —  never  by  power,  for  this  would  confound  moral  law  with  physi- 
cal, and  obedience  can  never  be  produced  or  secured  by  power.  In  physical  law,  on  the 
contrary,  enforcement  is  wholly  by  power,  and  punishment  is  impossible.  So  far  as  man 
is  free,  he  is  not  subject  to  law  at  all,  in  its  physical  sense,  our  wills  are  tree  from  law, 
as  enforced  by  power;  but  are  free  under  law,  as  enforced  by  puniahmi  ni.  Where  law 
prevails  in  the  same  sense  as  in  the  material  world,  there  can  be  no  freedom.  Law  does 
not  prevail  when  we  reach  the  region  of  choice.  We  hold  to  a  power  in  the  mind  of 
man  originating  a  free  choice.  Two  objects  or  courses  of  action,  between  which  choice 
is  to  be  made,  are  presupposed:  ( 1 )  A  uniformity  or  set  of  uniformities  implying  a 
force  by  which  the  uniformity  is  produced  [  physical  or  natural  law  ] ;  (2)  A  command, 
addressed  to  free  and  intelligent  beings,  that  can  be  obeyed  or  disobeyed,  and  that  has 
connected  with  it  rewards  or  punishments  "  [moral  law].  See  also  Wra.  Arthur,  Differ- 
ence between  Physical  and  Moral  Law. 

B.  The  expression  of  the  divine  will  in  the  constitution  of  rational  and 
free  agents  ;  —  this  we  call  moral  law.  This  elemental  law  of  our  moral 
nature,  with  which  only  we  are  now  concerned,  has  all  the  characteristics 
mentioned  as  belonging  to  law  in  general.  It  implies  :  (a  )  A  divine  Law- 
giver, or  ordaining  Will.  (  h  )  Subjects,  or  moral  beings  upon  whom  the 
law  terminates,  (c)  General  command,  or  expression  of  this  will  in  the 
moral  constitution  of  the  subjects,  (rf)  Power,  enforcing  the  command, 
(e)  Duty,  or  obligation  to  obey.  (/)  Sanctions,  or  pains  and  penalties 
for  disobedience. 

All  these  are  of  a  loftier  sort  than  are  found  in  human  law.  But  we  need 
especially  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  this  law  ((/)  Is  an  expression  of  the 
moral  nature  of  God,  and  therefore  of  God's  holiness,  the  fundamental 
attribute  of  that  nature  ;  and  that  it  (/*)  Sets  forth  absolute  conformity  to 
that  holiness,  as  the  normal  condition  of  man.  This  law  is  inwrought  into 
man's  rational  and  moral  being.  Man  fulfills  it,  only  when  in  his  moral  as 
well  as  his  rational  being  he  is  the  image  of  God. 

Although  the  will  from  which  the  moral  law  springs  is  an  expression  of  the  nature 
of  God,  and  a  necessary  expression  of  that  nature  in  view  of  the  existence  of  moral 
beings,  it  is  nonetheless  a  personal  will.  We  should  be  careful  not  to  attribute  to  law 
a  personality  of  its  own.  When  Plutarch  says:  "Law  is  king  both  of  mortal  and 
immortal  beings,"  and  when  we  say  :  "The  law  will  take  hold  of  you,"  "  The  criminal 
isin  danger  of  the  law,"  we  are  simply  substituting  the  name  of  the  agent  for  that  of 
the  principal.  God  is  not  subject  to  law  ;  God  is  the  source  of  law ;  and  we  may  say  : 
"If  Jehovah  be  God,  worship  him;  but  if  Law,  worship  it." 


538  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Since  moral  law  merely  reflects  God,  it  is  not  a  thing  made.  Men  discover  laws,  but 
they  do  not  make  them,  any  more  than  the  chemist  makes  the  laws  by  which  the  ele- 
ments combine.  Instance  the  Solidification  of  hydrogen  at  Geneva.  Utility  does  not 
constitute  law,  although  we  test  law  by  utility ;  sec  Murphy,  Scientific  Rases  of  Faith, 
53-71.  The  true  nature  of  the  moral  law  is  set  forth  in  the  noble  though  rhetorical 
description  of  Hooker  (Eccl.  Pol.,  1 :  194 )— "  Of  law  there  can  be  no  less  acknowledged 
than  that  her  seat  is  in  the  bosom  of  God  ;  her  voice  the  harmony  of  the  world;  all 
things  in  heaven  and  earth  do  her  homage,  the  very  least  as  feeling  her  care,  and  the 
greatest  as  not  exempted  from  her  power ;  both  angels  and  men,  and  creatures  of  what 
condition  soever,  though  each  in  a  different  sort  and  manner,  yet  all  with  uniform 
consent  admiring  her  as  the  mother  of  their  peace  and  joy."  See  also  Martineau,  Types, 
2:  119,  and  Study,  1:35. 

Curtis,  Primitive  Semitic  Religions,  60, 101  — "The  Oriental  believes  that  God  makes 
right  by  edict.  Saladin  demonstrated  to  Henry  of  Champagne  the  loyalty  of  his  Assas- 
sins, by  commanding  two  of  them  to  throw  themselves  down  from  a  lofty  tower  to 
certain  and  violent  death."  H.  15.  Smith,  System,  193  —  "  Will  implies  personality,  and 
personality  adds  to  abstract  truth  and  duty  the  element  of  authority.  Law  therefore 
has  the  force  that  a  person  has  over  and  above  that  of  an  idea."  Human  law  forbids 
only  those  offences  which  constitute  a  breach  of  public  order  or  of  private  right.  God's 
law  forbids  all  that  is  an  offence  against  the  divine  order,  that  is,  all  that  is  unlike  God. 
The  whole  law  may  be  summed  up  in  the  words :  "  Be  like  God."  Salter,  First  Steps  in 
Philosophy,  101-126— "The  realization  of  the  nature  of  each  being  is  the  end  to  be 
striven  for.  Self-realization  is  an  ideal  end,  not  of  one  being,  but  of  each  being,  with 
due  regard  to  the  value  of  each  in  the  proper  scale  of  worth.  The  beast  can  be  sacri- 
ficed for  man.  All  men  are  sacred  as  capable  of  unlimited  progress.  It  is  our  duty  to 
realize  the  capacities  of  our  nature  so  far  as  they  are  consistent  with  one  another  and 
go  to  make  up  one  whole."  This  means  that  man  fulfills  the  law  only  as  he  realizes  the 
divine  idea  in  his  character  and  life,  or,  in  other  words,  as  he  becomes  a  finite  image  of 
God's  infinite  perfections. 

Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  191,  201,  285,  286  —  "  Morality  is  rooted  in  the  nature  of  things. 
There  is  a  universe.  We  are  all  parts  of  an  infinite  organism.  Man  is  inseparably 
bound  to  man  [  and  to  God  ] .  All  rights  and  duties  arise  out  of  this  common  life.  In 
the  solidarity  of  social  life  lies  the  ground  of  Kant's  law:  So  will,  that  the  maxim  of 
thy  conduct  may  apply  to  all.  The  planet  cannot  safely  fly  away  from  the  sun,  and 
the  hand  cannot  safely  separate  itself  from  the  heart.  It  is  from  the  fundamental 
unity  of  life  that  our  duties  flow.  .  .  .  The  infinite  world-organism  is  the  body  and 
manifestation  of  God.  And  when  we  recognize  the  solidarity  of  our  vital  being  with 
this  divine  life  and  embodiment,  we  begin  to  see  into  the  heart  of  the  mystery,  the 
unquestionable  authority  and  supreme  sanction  of  duty.  Our  moral  intuitions  are 
simply  the  unchanging  laws  of  the  universe  that  have  emerged  to  consciousness  in  the 
human  heart.  .  .  .  The  inherent  principles  of  the  universal  Reason  reflect  themselves 
in  the  mirror  of  the  moral  nature.  .  .  .  The  enlightened  conscience  is  the  expression  in 
the  human  soul  of  the  divine  Consciousness.  .  .  .  Morality  is  the  victory  of  the  divine 
Life  in  us.  .  .  .  Solidarity  of  our  life  with  the  universal  Life  gives  it  unconditional 

sacredness  and  transcendental  authority The  microcosm  must  bring  itself  en 

rapport  with  the  Macrocosm.  Man  must  bring  his  spirit  into  resemblance  to  the  World- 
essence,  and  into  union  with  it." 

The  law  of  God,  then,  is  simply  an  expression  of  the  nature  of  God  in  the 
form  of  moral  requirement,  and  a  necessary  expression  of  that  nature  in 
view  of  the  existence  of  moral  beings  (  Ps.  19  : 7  ;  cf.  1 ).  To  the  existence 
of  this  law  all  men  bear  witness.  The  consciences  even  of  the  heathen  tes- 
tify to  it  ( Eom.  2  :  14, 15 ).  Those  who  have  the  written  law  recognize  this 
elemental  law  as  of  greater  compass  and  penetration  ( Rom.  7  :  1-1 ;  8  :  4  ). 
The  perfect  embodiment  and  fulfillment  of  this  law  is  seen  only  in  Christ 
(  Rom.  10  :  4  ;  Phil.  3  :  8,  9  ). 

Ps.  19  : 7  — "The  law  of  Jehovah  is  perfect,  restoring  the  soul "  ;  cf.  verse  1  — "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God  " 
=  two  revelations  of  God —  one  in  nature,  the  other  in  the  moral  law.  Rom.  2  :  14, 15— "for 
when  Gentiles  that  have  not  the  law  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  not  having  the  law,  are  the  law  unto  them- 
selves; in  that  they  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith,  and 
their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them  "  —  here  the  "  work  of  the  law  "  =,  not  the  ten 


THE    LAW   OF   GOD   IN   PARTICULAR.  539 

commandments,  for  of  these  the  heathen  were  ignorant,  but  rather  the  work  corres- 
ponding to  them,  i.  c,  the  sub-tance  of  them.  Rom.  7 :  14  —  "For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual" 
—  this,  says  Meyer,  is  equivalent  to  saying  "its  essence  is  divine,  of  like  nature  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  gave  it,  a  holy  Belf-revejation  of  God."  Rom.  8:4—  "that  the  ordinance  of  the  law 
might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit "  ;  10 :  4  —  "For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
unto  righteousness  to  every  one  that  be'ieveth  "  ;  Phil.  3  :  8,  9 —  "that  I  may  gain  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not 
having  a  righteousness  of  mine  own,  even  that  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  right- 
eousness which  is  from  God  by  faith  "  ;  Heb.  10  :  9  —  "Lo,  lam  come  to  do  thy  will."  In  Christ  "the  law 
appears  Drawn  out  in  living  characters."  Just  such  as  he  was  and  is,  we  feel  that  we 
ought  to  be.  Hence  the  character  of  Christ  convicts  us  of  sin,  as  does  no  other  mani- 
festation of  God.    See,  on  the  passages  from  Romans,  the  Commentary  of  Philippi. 

Fleming,  Vocab.  Philos.,  286  —  "  Moral  laws  are  derived  from  the  nature  and  will  of 
God,  and  the  character  and  condition  of  man."  God's  nature  is  reflected  in  the  laws  of 
our  nature.  Since  law  is  inwrought  into  man's  nature,  man  is  a  law  unto  himself.  To 
conform  to  his  own  nature,  in  which  conscience  is  supreme,  is  to  conform  to  the  nature 
of  God.  The  law  is  only  the  revelation  of  the  constitutive  principles  of  being,  t  hedecla- 
ratii  >n  of  what  must  be,  so  long  as  man  is  man  and  God  is  God.  It  says  in  effect, :  "  Be 
like  God,  or  you  cannot  be  truly  man."  So  moral  law  is  not  simply  a  test  of  obedience, 
but  is  also  a  revelation  of  eternal  reality.  Man  cannot  be  lost  to  God,  without  being 
lost  to  himself.  "  The '  hands  of  the  living  Cod '  (  Heb.  10 :  31 )  into  which  we  fall,  are  the  laws  of 
nature."  In  the  spiritual  world  "the  same  wheels  revolve,  only  there  is  no  iron" 
( Drummond,  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritural  World,  27).  Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  2: 
8:2-92  —  "The  totality  of  created  being  is  to  be  in  harmony  with  God  and  with  itself. 
The  idea  of  this  harmony,  as  active  in  God  under  the  form  of  will,  is  God's  law."  A 
manuscript  of  the  T.  S.  Constitution  was  so  written  that  when  held  at  a  little  distance 
the  shading  of  the  letters  and  their  position  showed  the  countenance  of  George  Wash- 
ington.   So  the  law  of  God  is  only  God's  face  disclosed  to  human  sight. 

R.  W.  Emerson,  Woodnotes,  57—  "  Conscious  Law  is  King  of  kings."  Two  centuries 
ago  John  Norton  wrote  a  book  entitled  The  Orthodox  Evangelist,  "designed  for  the 
begetting  and  establishing  of  the  faitli  which  is  in  Jesus,"  in  which  we  find  the  follow- 
ing: "God  doth  not  will  things  because  they  are  just,  but  things  are  therefore  just 
because  God  so  willeth  them.  What  reasonable  man  but  will  yield  that  the  being  of 
the  moral  law  hath  no  necessary  connection  with  the  being  of  God?  That  the  actions 
of  men  not  conformable  to  this  lawshould  be  sin,  that  death  should  be  the  punishment 
of  sin,  these  are  the  constitutions  of  God,  proceeding  from  him  not  by  way  of  necessity 
of  nature,  but  freely,  as  effects  and  products  of  his  eternal  good  pleasure."  This  is  to 
make  God  an  arbitrary  despot.  We  should  not  say  that  God  maltfs  law,  nor  on  the 
other  hand  that  God  is  SUbji  ct  to  law,  but  rather  that  God  i.s-  law  and  the  source,  of  law. 

Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  101— "God's  law  is  organic  —  inwrought  into  the  const  i- 
tution  of  men  and  things.  The  chart  however  does  not  make  the  channel.  ...  A  law 
of  nature  is  never  tbe  antecedent  but  the  consequence  of  reality.  What  right  has  this 
consequence  of  reality  to  be  personalized  and  made  the  ruler  and  source  of  reality? 
Law  is  only  the  fixed  mode  in  which  reality  works.  Law  therefore  can  explain  noth- 
ing. Only  God,  from  whom  reality  springs,  can  explain  reality."  In  other  words,  law 
is  never  an  agent  but  always  a  method—  the  method  of  God,  or  rather  of  Christ  who  is 
the  only  Revcaler  of  God.  Christ's  life  in  the  flesh  is  the  clearest  manifestation  of  him 
who  is  the  principle  of  law  in  the  physical  and  moral  universe.  Christ  is  the  Reason 
of  God  in  expression.  It  was  he  who  gave  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai  at  well  as  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  For  fuller  treatment  of  the  subject,  see  Bowen,  Metaph. 
and  Ethics,  321-344;  Talbot,  Ethical  Prolegomena,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  July,  1877  :2.">7-~74; 
Whewell,  Elements  of  Morality,  2 : 3-5;  and  especially  E.  G.  Robinson,  Principles  and 
Practice  of  Morality,  79-108. 

Each  of  the  two  last-mentioned  characteristics  of  God's  law  is  important 
in  its  implications.     We  treat  of  these  in  their  order. 

First,  the  law  of  God  as  a  transcript  of  the  divine  nature. — If  this  be  the 
nature  of  the  Taw,  then  certain  common  misconceptions  of  it  are  excluded. 
The  law  of  God  is 

(  a )  Not  arbitrary,  or  the  product  of  arbitrary  will.  Since  the  will  from 
which  the  law  springs  is  a  revelation  of  God's  nature,  there  can  be  no 
rashness  or  unwisdom  in  the  law  itself. 


540  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    MAN. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ.  Theology,  193  — "No  law  of  God  seems  ever  to  have  been 
arbitrarily  enacted,  or  simply  with  a  view  to  certain  ends  to  be  accomplished  ;  it  always 
represented  some  reality  of  life  which  it  was  inexorably  necessary  that  those  who  were 
to  be  regulated  should  carefully  observe."  The  theory  that  law  originates  in  arbitrary 
will  results  in  an  effeminate  type  of  piety,  just  aa  the  theory  that  legislation  has  for  its 
sole  end  the  greatest  happiness  results  in  all  manner  of  compromises  of  justice.  Jones, 
Robert  Browning,  43—  "  He  who  cheats  his  neighbor  believes  in  tortuosity,  and,  as 
Carlyle  says,  has  the  supreme  Quack  for  his  god." 

(  b )  Not  temporary,  or  ordained  simply  to  meet  an  exigency.  The  law 
is  a  manifestation,  not  of  temporary  moods  or  desires,  but  of  the  essential 
nature  of  God. 

The  great  speech  of  Sophocles'  Antigone  gives  us  this  conception  of  law :  "  The  ordi- 
nances of  the  gods  are  unwritten,  but  sure.  Not  one  of  them  is  for  to-day  or  for 
yesterday  alone,  but  they  live  forever."  Moses  might  break  the  tables  of  stone  upon 
which  the  law  was  inscribed,  and  Jehoiakim  might  cut  up  the  scroll  and  cast  it  into  the 
fire  ( Si.  32 :  19 ;  Jer.  36 :  23 ),  but  the  law  remained  eternal  as  before  in  the  nature  of  God 
and  in  the  constitution  of  man.  Prof.  Walter  Rauschenbusch  :  "  The  moral  laws  are 
just  as  stable  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  Every  fuzzy  human  chicken  that  is  hatched 
into  this  world  tries  to  fool  with  those  laws.  Some  grow  wiser  in  the  process  and  some 
do  not.  We  talk  about  breaking  God's  laws.  But  after  those  laws  have  been  broken 
several  billion  times  since  Adam  first  tried  to  play  with  them,  those  laws  are  still  intact 
and  no  seam  or  fracture  is  visible  in  them,  —  not  even  a  scratch  on  the  enamel.  But 
the  lawbreakers  —  that  is  another  story.  If  you  want  to  find  their  fragments,  go  to  the 
ruins  of  Egypt,  of  Babylon,  of  Jerusalem  ;  study  statistics ;  l'ead  faces ;  keep  your  eyes 
open;  visit  Blaekwoll's  Island;  walk  through  the  graveyard  and  read  the  invisible 
inscriptions  left  by  the  Angel  of  Judgment,  for  instance :  '  Here  lie  the  fragments  of 
John  Smith,  who  contradicted  his  Maker,  played  football  with  the  ten  commandments, 
and  departed  this  life  at  the  age  of  thirty-five.  His  mother  and  wife  weep  for  him. 
Nobody  else  does.    May  he  rest  in  peace ! ' " 

(  c  )     Not  merely  negative,  or  a  law  of  mere  prohibition,  —  since  positive 

conformity  to  God  is  the  inmost  requisition  of  law. 

The  negative  form  of  the  commandments  in  the  decalogue  merely  takes  for  granted 
the  evil  inclination  in  men's  hearts  and  practically  opposes  its  gratification.  In  the 
case  of  each  commandment  a  whole  province  of  the  moral  life  is  taken  into  the 
account,  although  the  act  expressly  forbidden  is  the  acme  of  evil  in  that  one  province. 
So  the  decalogue  makes  itself  intelligible:  it  crosses  man's  path  just  where  he  most 
feels  inclined  to  wander.  But  back  of  the  negative  and  specific  expression  in  each 
case  lies  the  whole  mass  of  moral  requirement:  the  thin  edge  of  the  wedge  has  the 
positive  demand  of  holiness  behind  it,  without  obedience  to  which  even  the  prohibition 
cannot  inspirit  be  obeyed.  Thus  "the  law  is  spiritual"  (Rom.  7:14),  and  requires  likeness  in 
character  and  life  to  the  spiritual  God  ;  John  4:24  — "God  is  spirit,  and  they  that  worship  him  must 
worship  in  spirit  and  truth." 

( d )  Not  partial,  or  addressed  to  one  part  only  of  man's  being,  —  since 
likeness  to  God  requires  purity  of  substance  in  man's  soul  and  body,  as 
well  as  purity  in  all  the  thoughts  and  acts  that  proceed  therefrom.  As  law 
proceeds  from  the  nature  of  God,  so  it  requires  conformity  to  that  nature 
in  the  nature  of  man. 

Whatever  God  gave  to  man  at  the  beginning  he  requires  of  man  with  interest ;  cf.  Mat. 
25 :  27  —  "  thou  oughtest  therefore  to  have  put  my  money  to  the  bankers,  and  at  my  coming  I  should  have  received  back 
mine  own  with  interest."  Whatever  comes  short  of  perfect  purity  in  soul  or  perfect  health 
in  body  is  non-conformity  to  God  and  contradicts  his  law,  it  being  understood  that 
only  that  perfection  is  demanded  which  answers  to  the  creature's  stage  of  growth  and 
progress,  so  that  of  the  child  there  is  required  only  the  perfection  of  the  child,  of  the 
youth  only  the  perfection  of  the  youth,  of  the  man  only  the  perfection  of  the  man. 
See  Julius  Muller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  chapter  1. 

(  e  )  Not  outwardly  published,  —  since  all  positive  enactment  is  only  the 
imperfect  expression  of  this  underlying  and  unwritten  law  of  being. 


THE   LAW   OP   GOD   IN   PARTICULAR.  541 

Much  misunderstanding  of  God's  law  results  from  confounding'  it  with  published 
enactment.  Paul  takes  the  larger  view  that  the  law  is  independent  of  such  expression  ; 
see  Rom.  2 :  14, 15  —  "  for  when  Gentiles  that  have  not  the  law  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  not  having  the 
law,  are  the  law  unto  themselves  ;  in  that  they  show  thevwork  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  bearing 
witness  therewith,  and  their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them :  "  see  Expositor's  Greek 
Testament,  in  loco  :  "'written  on  their  hearts,'  when  contrasted  with  the  law  written  on  the 
tables  of  stone,  is  equal  to  'unwritten ' ;  the  Apostle  refers  to  what  the  Greeks  called 

aypa.<j>o<;  yo/oios." 

(/)  Not  inwardly  conscious,  or  limited  in  its  scope  by  men's  conscious- 
ness of  it.  Like  the  laws  of  our  physical  being,  the  moral  law  exists 
whether  we  recognize  it  or  not. 

Overeating-  brings  its  penalty  in  dyspepsia,  whether  we  are  conscious  of  our  fault  or 
not.  We  cannot  by  iguorauce  or  by  vote  repeal  the  laws  of  our  physical  system.  Self- 
will  does  not  secure  independence,  any  more  than  the  stars  can  by  combinat  ion  abolish 
gravitation.  Man  cannot  get  rid  of  Cod's  dominion  by  denying  its  existence,  nor  by 
refusing  submission  to  it.  Psalm  2: 1-4  —  "Why  do  the  nations  rage  ....  against  Jehovah  ....  saying, 
Let  us  break  their  bonds  asunder  ....  He  that  sitteth  in  the  heavens  will  laugh."  Salter,  First  Steps  in 
Philosophy,  94  —  "The  fact  that  one  is  not  aware  of  obligation  no  more  affects  its  real- 
ity than  ignorance  of  what  is  at  the  centre  of  the  earth  affects  the  nature  of  what  is 
really  disco verable  there.  We  discover  obligation,  and  do  not  create  it  by  thinking  of 
it,  any  more  than  we  create  the  sensible  world  by  thinking  of  it." 

(g )  Not  local,  or  confined  to  place,  —  since  no  moral  creature  can  escape 
from  God,  from  his  own  being,  or  from  the  natural  necessity  that  unlike- 
ness  to  God  should  involve  misery  and  ruin. 

"  The  Dutch  auction"  was  the  public  offer  of  property  at  a  price  beyond  its  value, 
followed  by  the  lowering  of  the  price  until  some  one  accepted  it  as  a  purchaser. 
There  is  no  such  local  exception  to  the  full  validity  of  God's  demands.  The  moral  law 
has  even  more  necessary  and  universal  sway  than  the  law  of  gravitation  in  the  physical 
universe.  It  is  inwrought  into  the  very  constitution  of  man,  and  of  every  other  moral 
being.    The  man  who  offended  the  Roman  Emperor  found  the  whole  empire  a  prison. 

(h)  Not  changeable,  or  capable  of  modification.  Since  law  represents 
the  unchangeable  nature  of  God,  it  is  not  a  sliding  scale  of  requirements 
which  adtipts  itself  to  the  ability  of  the  subjects.  God  himself  cannot 
change  it  without  ceasing  to  be  God. 

The  law,  then,  has  a  deeper  foundation  than  that  God  merely  "said  so."  Cod's  word 
and  God's  will  are  revelations  of  his  inmost  being;  every  transgression  of  the  law  is  a 
stab  at  the  heart  of  God.  Simon,  Reconciliation,  141,  142— "God  continues  to  demand 
loyalty  even  after  man  has  proved  disloyal.  Sin  changes  man,  and  man's  change 
involves  a  change  in  Cod.  Man  now  regards  God  as  a  ruler  and  exactor, and  God  must 
regard  man  as  a  defaulter  and  a  rebel."  God's  requirement  is  not  lessened  because 
man  is  unable  to  meet  it.  This  inability  is  itself  non-conformity  to  law,  and  is  no 
excuse  for  sin  ;  see  Dr.  Bushnell's  sermon  on  "Duty  not  measured  by  Ability."  The 
man  with  the  withered  hand  would  not  have  been  justified  in  refusing  to  stretch  it 
forth  at  Jesus'  command  ( Mat.  12 :  10-13 ). 

The  obligation  to  obey  this  law  and  to  be  conformed  to  God's  perfect  moral  character 
is  based  upon  man's  original  ability  and  the  gifts  which  God  bestowed  upon  him  at  the 
beginning.  Created  in  the  image  of  God,  it  is  man's  duty  to  render  back  to  God  that 
which  God  first  gave,  enlarged  and  improved  by  growth  and  culture  (Luke  19: 23  —  "where- 
fore gavest  thou  not  my  money  into  the  bank,  and  I  at  my  coming  should  have  required  it  with  interest "  ).  This 
obligation  is  not  impaired  by  sin  and  the  weakening  of  man's  powers.  To  let  down  the 
standard  would  be  to  misrepresent  God.  Adolphe  Monod  would  not  save  himself  from 
shame  and  remorse  by  lowering  the  claims  of  the  law :  "  Save  first  the  holy  law  of  my 
God,"  he  says,  "  after  that  you  shall  save  me ! " 

Even  salvation  is  not  through  violation  of  law.  The  moral  law  is  immutable,  because 
it  is  a  transcript  of  the  nature  of  the  immutable  God.  Shall  nature  conform  to  me,  or 
I  to  nature?  If  I  attempt  to  resist  even  physical  laws,  I  am  crushed.  I  can  use  nature 
only  by  obeying  her  laws.    Lord  Bacon :  "  Natura  enim  non  nisi  parendo  vincitur."   So 


542  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

in  the  moral  realm.  We  cannot  buy  off  nor  escape  the  moral  law  of  God.  God  will  not, 
and  God  can  not,  change  his  law  by  one  hair's  breadth,  even  to  save  a  universe  of  sinners. 
Omar  Khayyam,  in  his  Rubalyat,  begs  his  god  to  "reconcile  the  law  to  my  desires." 
Marie  Corelli  says  well :  "As  if  a  gnat  should  seek  to  build  a  cathedral,  and  should  ask 
to  have  the  laws  of  architecture  altered  to  suit  its  gnat-like  capacity."  See  Martineau, 
Types,  2 :  120. 

Secondly,  the  law  of  God  as  the  ideal  of  human  nature. — A  law  thus 
identical  with  the  eternal  and  necessary  relations  of  the  creature  to  the 
Creator,  and  demanding  of  the  creature  nothing  less  than  perfect  holiness, 
as  the  condition  of  harmony  with  the  infinite  holiness  of  God,  is  adapted 
to  man's  finite  nature,  as  needing  law  ;  to  man's  free  nature,  as  needing 
moral  law  ;  and  to  man's  progressive  nature,  as  needing  ideal  law. 

Man,  as  finite,  needs  law,  just  as  railway  cars  need  a  track  to  guide  them  —  to  leap 
the  track  is  to  find,  not  freedom,  but  ruin.  Railway  President :  "  Our  rules  are  written 
in  blood."  Goethe,  Was  Wir  Bringeu,  19  Auf  tritt :  "  In  vain  shall  spirits  that  are  all 
unbound  To  the  pure  heights  of  perfectness  aspire;  In  limitation  first  the  Master 
shines,  And  law  alone  can  give  us  liberty." — Man,  as  a  free  being,  needs  moral  law. 
He  is  not  an  automaton,  a  creature  of  necessity,  governed  only  by  physical  influences. 
With  conscience  to  command  the  right,  and  will  to  choose  or  reject  it,  his  true  dignity 
and  calling  are  that  he  should  freely  realize  the  right. —  Man,  as  a  progressive  being, 
needs  nothing  less  than  an  ideal  and  infinite  standard  of  attainment,  a  goal  which  he 
can  never  overpass,  an  end  which  shall  ever  attract  and  urge  him  forward.  This  he 
finds  in  the  holiness  of  God. 

The  law  is  a  fence,  not  only  for  ownership,  but  for  care.  God  not  only  demands,  but 
he  protects.  Law  is  the  transcript  of  love  as  well  as  of  holiness.  We  may  reverse  the 
well-known  couplet  and  say  :  "  I  slept,  and  dreamed  that  life  was  Duty ;  I  woke  and 
found  that  life  was  Beauty."  "  Cui  servire  regnare  est."  Butcher,  Aspects  of  Greek 
Genius,  56  —  "  In  Plato's  Crito,  the  Laws  are  made  to  present  themselves  in  person  to 
Socrates  in  prison,  not  only  as  the  guardians  of  his  liberty,  but  as  his  lifelong  friends, 
his  well-wishers,  his  equals,  with  whom  he  had  of  his  own  free  will  entered  into  biuding 
compact."  It  does  not  harm  the  scholar  to  have  before  him  the  ideal  of  perfect  scholar- 
ship ;  nor  the  teacher  to  have  before  him  the  ideal  of  a  perfect  school ;  nor  the  legisla- 
tor to  have  before  him  the  ideal  of  perfect  law.  Gordon,  The  Christ  of  To-day,  134  — 
"  The  moral  goal  must  be  a  flying  goal ;  the  standard  to  which  we  are  to  grow  must 
be  ever  rising ;  the  type  to  which  we  are  to  be  conformed  must  have  in  it  inexhaust- 
ible fulness." 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2 :  119  —  "  It  is  just  the  best,  purest,  noblest 
human  souls,  who  are  least  satisfied  with  themselves  and  their  own  spiritual  attain- 
ments ;  and  the  reason  is  that  the  human  is  not  a  nature  essentially  different  from  the 
divine,  but  a  nature  which,  just  because  it  is  in  essential  affinity  with  God,  can  be  satis- 
fied with  nothing  less  than  a  divine  perfection."  J.  M.  Whiton,  The  Divine  Satisfac- 
tion :  "  Law  requires  being,  character,  likeness  to  God.  It  is  automatic,  self-operating. 
Penalty  is  untransferable.  It  cannot  admit  of  any  other  satisfaction  than  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  the  normal  relation  which  it  requires.  Punishment  proclaims  that  the 
law  has  not  been  satisfied.  There  is  no  cancelling  of  the  curse  except  through  the 
growing  up  of  the  normal  relation.  Blessing  and  curse  ensue  upon  what  we  are,  not 
upon  what  we  were.  Reparation  is  within  the  spirit  itself.  The  atonement  is  edu- 
cational, not  governmental."  We  reply  that  the  atonement  is  both  governmental 
and  educational,  and  that  reparation  must  first  be  made  to  the  holiness  of  God  before 
conscience,  the  mirror  of  God's  holiness,  can  reflect  that  reparation  and  be  at  peace. 

The  law  of  God  is  therefore  characterized  by  : 

(a)  All-comprehensiveness. — It  is  over  us  at  all  times;  it  respects  our 
past,  our  present,  our  future.  It  forbids  every  conceivable  sin ;  it  requires 
every  conceivable  virtue  ;  omissions  as  well  as  commissions  are  condemned 
by  it. 

Ps.  119:96  —  "I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  perfection  ....  thy  commandment  is  exceeding  broad";  Rom.  3:23  — 
"all  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God  "  ;  James  4  :  17  —  'To  him  therefore  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and 


THE   LAW  OF   GOD   Itf   PARTICULAR.  543 

doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin."  Gravitation  holds  tho  mote  as  well  as  the  world.  God's  law 
detects  aud  denounces  the  least  sin,  so  that  without  atonement  it  cannot  be  pardoned. 
The  law  of  gravitation  may  be  suspended  or  abrogated,  for  it  has  no  necessary  ground 
in  God's  being ;  but  God's  moral  law  cannot  be  suspended  or  abrogated,  for  that  would 
contradict  God's  holiness.  "  About  right"  is  not  "all  right."  "The  giant  hexagonal 
pillars  of  basalt  in  the  Scottish  Staffa  are  identical  in  form  with  the  microscopic  crys- 
tals of  the  same  mineral."    So  God  is  our  pattern,  and  goodness  is  our  likeness  to  him. 

(b)  Spirituality. —  It  demands  not  only  right  acts  and  words,  but  also 
right  dispositions  and  states.  Perfect  obedience  requires  not  only  the 
intense  and  unremitting  reign  of  love  toward  God  and  man,  but  conformity 
of  the  whole  inward  and  outward  nature  of  man  to  the  holiness  of  God. 

Mat.  5:  22,  28  —  the  angry  word  is  murder;  the  sinful  look  is  adultery.  Mark  12 :  30, 31  — "  thou 
shait  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  With  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength 
....  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself"  ;  2  Cor.  10 : 5  —  "bringing  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience 
of  Christ ' ' ;  Eph.  5  : 1  —  "  Be  ye  therefore  imitators  of  God,  as  beloved  children  "  ;  1  Pet.  1  : 1 6  —  "Ye  shall  be  holy ;  for 
I  am  holy."  As  the  brightest  electric  light,  seen  through  a  6moked  glass  against  the  sun, 
appears  like  a  black  spot,  so  the  brightest  uuregeuerate  character  is  dark,  when  com- 
pared with  the  holiness  of  God.  Matheson,  Moments  on  the  Mount,  235,  remarks  on 
Gal.  6:4  —  "let  each  man  prove  his  own  work,  and  then  shall  he  have  his  glorying  in  regard  of  himself  alone,  and  not 
of"  his  neighbor  "  —  "I  have  a  small  candle  and  I  compare  it  with  my  brother's  taper  and 
come  away  rejoicing.  Why  not  compare  it  with  the  sun  ?  Then  I  shall  lose  my  pride 
and  uncharitableness."  The  distance  to  the  sun  from  the  top  of  an  ant-hill  and  from 
the  top  of  Mount  Everest  is  nearly  the  same.  The  African  princess  praised  for  her 
beauty  had  no  way  to  verify  the  compliments  paid  her  but  by  looking  in  the  glassy 
surface  of  the  pool.  But  the  trader  came  and  sold  her  a  mirror.  Then  she  was  so 
shocked  at  her  own  ugliness  that  she  broke  the  mirror  in  pieces.  So  we  look  into  the 
mirror  of  God's  law,  compare  ourselves  with  the  Christ  who  is  reflected  there,  and  hate 
the  mirror  which  reveals  us  to  ourselves  ( James  1 :  23,  24  j. 

(c)  Solidarity. —  It  exhibits  in  all  its  parts  the  nature  of  the  one 
Lawgiver,  and  it  expresses,  in  its  least  command,  the  one  requirement  of 
harmony  with  him. 

Mat.  5  :  48  —  "  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect "  ;  Mark  12 :  29,  30  —  "The  Lord  our 
God,  the  Lord  is  one :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  "  ;  James  2  :  10 —  "  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law, 
and  yet  stumble  iu  one  point,  he  is  become  guilty  of  all  "  ;  4  :  12  —  "One  only  is  the  lawgiver  and  judge."  Even 
little  rattlesnakes  are  snakes.  One  link  broken  in  the  chain,  and  the  bucket  falls  into 
the  well.  The  least  sin  separates  us  from  God.  The  least  sin  renders  us  guilty  of  the 
whole  law,  because  it  shows  us  to  lack  the  love  which  is  required  in  all  the  command- 
ments. Those  who  send  us  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  for  salvation  send  us  to  a 
tribunal  that  damns  us.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  but  a  republication  of  the  law 
given  on  Sinai,  but  now  in  more  spiritual  and  penetrating  form.  Thunders  and  light- 
nings proceed  from  the  N.  T.,  as  from  the  O.  T.,  mount.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is 
only  the  introductory  lecture  of  Jesus'  theological  course,  as  John  14-17  is  the  closing 
lecture.  In  it  is  announced  the  law,  which  prepares  the  way  for  the  gospel.  Those 
who  would  degrade  doctrine  by  exalting  precept  will  find  that  they  have  left  men 
without  the  motive  or  the  power  to  keep  the  precept.  ^Eschylus,  Agamemnon :  "  For 
there's  no  bulwark  in  man's  wealth  to  him  Who,  through  a  surfeit,  kicks  —  into  the 
dim  And  disappearing—  Right's  great  altar." 

Only  to  the  first  man,  then,  was  the  law  proposed  as  a  method  of  salva- 
tion. With  the  first  sin,  all  hope  of  obtaining  the  divine  favor  by  perfect 
ol  >edience  is  lost.  To  sinners  the  law  remains  as  a  means  of  discovering 
and  developing  sin  in  its  true  nature,  and  of  compelling  a  recourse  to  the 
mercy  provided  in  Jesus  Christ. 

2  Chron.  34  :  19  —  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  king  had  heard  the  words  of  the  law,  that  he  rent  Ms  clothes  " ;  Jab 
42  :  5,  6  —  "I  had  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear ;  But  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee ;  Wherefore  I  abhor  myself,  And 
repent  in  dust  and  ashes."  The  revelation  of  God  in  Is.  0  :  3, 5  —  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jehovah  of  hosts  "  — 
en  uses  the  prophet  to  cry  like  the  leper:  "Woe  is  me!  for  I  am  undone;  because  I  am  a  man  of  unclean 
lips."    Rom.  3  :  20  —  "by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight ;  for  through  the  law  cometh  the 


544  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OP   MAN. 

knowledge  of  sin  "  ;  5  :  20  —  "  the  law  came  in  besides,  that  the  trespass  might  abound  "  ;  7 :  7,  8  —  "  I  had  not  known 
sin,  except  through  the  law :  for  I  had  not  known  coveting,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet :  but  sin,  finding 
occasion,  wrought  in  me  through  the  commandment  all  manner  of  coveting :  for  apart  from  the  law  sin  is  dead"  ;  GaL 
3  :  24  —  "So  that  the  law  is  become  our  tutor,"  or  attendant-slave,  "  to  bnng  us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be 
justified  by  faith  "  =  the  law  trains  our  wayward  boyhood  and  leads  it  to  Christ  the  Master, 
as  in  old  times  the  slave  accompanied  children  to  school.  Stevens,  Pauline  Theology, 
177, 178  —  "  The  law  increases  sin  by  increasing-  the  knowledge  of  sin  and  by  increasing 
the  activity  of  sin.  The  law  does  not  add  to  the  inherent  energy  of  the  sinful  principle 
which  pervades  human  nature,  but  it  does  cause  this  principle  to  reveal  itself  more 
energetically  in  sinful  act."  The  law  inspires  fear,  but  it  leads  to  love.  The  Rabbins 
said  that,  if  Israel  repented  but  for  one  day,  the  Messiah  would  appear. 

No  man  ever  yet  drew  a  straight  line  or  a  perfect  curve ;  yet  he  would  be  a  poor  archi- 
tect who  contented  himself  with  anything  less.  Since  men  never  come  up  to  their 
ideals,  he  who  aims  to  live  only  an  average  moral  life  wiU  inevitably  fall  below  the 
average.  The  law,  then,  leads  to  Christ.  He  who  is  the  ideal  is  also  the  way  to  attain 
the  ideal.  He  who  is  himself  the  Word  and  the  Law  embodied,  is  also  the  Spirit  of  life 
that  makes  obedience  possible  to  us  ( John  14  :  6  —  "  I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life  " ;  Rom. 
8:2  — "For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death  "  ).  Mrs.  Brown- 
ing, Aurora  Leigh  :  "The  Christ  himself  had  been  no  Lawgiver,  Unless  he  had  given 
the  Life  too  with  the  Law."  Christ  for  us  upon  the  Cross,  and  Christ  in  us  by  his 
Spirit,  is  the  only  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law  ;  Gal.  3 :  13  —  "Christ  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  having  become  a  curse  for  us."  We  must  see  the  claims  of  the  law  satisfied  and 
the  law  itself  written  on  our  hearts.  We  are  "reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of  his  Son,"  but 
we  are  also  "  saved  by  his  life  "  (  Rom.  5  :  10  ). 

Robert  Browning,  in  The  Ring  and  the  Book,  represents  Caponsacchi  as  comparing 
himself  at  his  best  with  the  new  ideal  of  "  perfect  as  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect "  sug- 
gested by  Pompilia's  purity,  and  as  breaking  out  into  the  cry :  "  O  great,  just,  good  God ! 
Miserable  trie!"  In  the  Interpreter's  House  of  Pilgrim's  Progress,  Law  only  stirred 
up  the  dust  in  the  foul  room, —  the  Gospel  had  to  sprinkle  water  on  the  floor  before 
it  could  be  cleansed.  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  It  is  necessary  to  smoke  a  man  out,  before  you 
can  bring  a  higher  motive  to  bear  upon  him."  Barnabas  said  that  Christ  was  the 
answer  to  the  riddle  of  the  law.  Rom.  10  : 4 — "Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  unto  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  behVeth."  The  railroad  track  opposite  Detroit  on  the  St.  Clair  River  runs  to  the  edge 
of  the  dock  and  seems  intended  to  plunge  the  train  into  the  abyss.  But  when  the  ferry 
boat  comes  up,  rails  are  seen  upon  its  deck,  and  the  boat  is  the  end  of  the  track,  to  carry 
passengers  over  to  Detroit.  So  the  law,  which  by  itself  would  bring  only  destruction, 
finds  its  end  in  Christ  who  ensures  our  passage  to  the  celestial  city. 

Law,  then,  with  its  picture  of  spotless  innocence,  simply  reminds  man  of  the  heights 
from  which  he  has  fallen.  "  It  is  a  mirror  which  reveals  derangement,  but  does  not 
create  or  remove  it."  With  its  demand  of  absolute  perfection,  up  to  the  measure  of 
man's  original  endowments  and  possibilities,  it  drives  us,  in  despair  of  ourselves,  to 
Christ  as  our  only  righteousness  and  our  only  Savior  ( Rom.  8  :  3,  4  —  "For  what  the  law  could  not 
do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Son  iu  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin,  condemned 
sin  in  the  flesh :  that  the  ordinance  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit "  ; 
Phil.  3  :  8,  9  —  "  that  I  may  ga:n  Christ,  and  be  found  iu  him,  not  having  a  righteousness  of  mine  own,  even  that  which 
is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  from  God  by  faith  " ).  Thus  law 
must  prepare  the  way  for  gi  ace,  and  John  the  Baptist  must  precede  Christ. 

When  Sarah  Bernhardt  was  solicited  to  add  an  eleventh  commandment,  she  declined 
upon  the  ground  there  were  already  ten  too  many.  It  was  an  expression  of  pagan  con- 
tempt of  law.  In  heathendom,  sin  and  insensibility  to  sin  increased  together.  In  J  uda- 
ism  and  Christianity,  on  the  contrary,  there  has  been  a  growing  sense  of  sin's  guilt 
and  condemnableness.  McLaren,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Sept.  23, 1893:600— "Among  the  Jews 
there  was  a  far  profounder  sense  of  sin  than  in  any  other  ancient  nation.  The  law 
written  on  men's  hearts  evoked  a  lower  consciousness  of  sin,  and  there  are  prayers  on 
the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  tablets  which  may  almost  stand  beside  the  51st  Psalm. 
But,  on  the  whole,  the  deep  sense  of  sin  was  the  product  of  the  revealed  law."  See 
Fairbairn,  Revelation  of  Law  and  Scripture  ;  Buird,  Elohim  Revealed,  187-242 ;  Hovey, 
God  with  Us,  187-210  ;  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1 :  45-50 ;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases 
of  Faith,  53-71 ;  Martineau,  Types,  2  :  120-125. 

2.  Positive  Enactment,  or  the  expression  of  the  will  of  God  in  pub- 
lished ordinances.     This  is  also  two-fold  : 


THE   LAW  OF   GOD   Itf   PARTICULAR.  545 

A.  General  moral  precepts. —  These  are  written  summaries  of  the  ele- 
mental law  ( Mat.  5  :  48 ;  22  :  37-40  ),  or  authorized  applications  of  it  to 
special  human  conditions  (Ex.  20^:  1-17  ;  Mat.  chap.  5-8). 

Mat.  5  :  48 — "  Te  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect"  ;  22  :  37-40 — "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  ....  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thys  >lf.  On  these  two  commandments  the  whole  law  hangeth  and  the 
prophets  "  ;  Ei.  20  : 1-17  —  the  Ten  Commandments  ;  Mat.,  chap.  5-8  —  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
i '/.  Augustine,  on  Ps.  57  : 1. 

Solly,  On  the  Will,  16:.',  gives  two  illustrations  of  the  fact  that  positive  precepts  are 
merely  applications  of  elemental  law  or  the  law  of  nature:  "'Thoushatt  not  steal,'  is  a 
moral  law  which  may  be  stated  thus:  thou  shalt  not  take  that  for  thy  own  property,  which 
is  the  property  of  another.  Thecont  radictory  of  this  proposition  would  be :  thou  mayi  s( 
take  that  for  thy  own  property  which  is  tin-  prop*  rty  of  another.  But  this  is  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms;  for  it  is  the  very  conception  of  property,  that  the  owner  stands  in  a 
peculiar  relation  to  its  subject  matter;  and  what  is  every  man's  property  is  no  man's 
property,  as  it  is  proper  to  no  man.  Hence  the  contradictory  of  the  commandment 
contains  a  simple  contradiction  directly  it  is  made  a  rule  universal ;  and  the  command- 
ment itself  is  established  as  one  of  the  principles  for  the  harmony  of  individual  wills. 

ni'Thou  shalt  not  till  n  lie,*  as  a  rule  of  morality,  may  be  expressed  generally:  thou 
shalt  not  tin  thy  out/ward  act  maki  anotherto  believe  thy  thought  to  '»  other  than  it  is. 
The  contradictory  made  universal  is:  et><  ry  man  may  by  hi*  nut  nan  i  act  make  anotherto 
//.  IU  oe  his  thought  to  be  other  than  it  (8.  Now  this  maxim  also  contains  a  contradiction, 
and  is  self-destructive.  It  conveys  a  permission  to  do  that  which  is  rendered  impossi- 
ble by  the  permission  itself.  Absolute  and  universal  Indifference  to  truth,  ortheentire 
mutual  independence  of  the  thought  and  symbol,  makes  the  symbol  cease  to  be  a  sym- 
bol,and  the  conveyance  of  thought  by  its  means,  an  impossibility." 

Kant,  Metaphysic  of  Ethics,  48, 90 — "  Fundamental  law  of  reason:  So  act,  that  thy 
maxims  of  will  might  become  laws  in  a  system  of  universal  moral  legislation."  This  is 
Kant's  categorical  imperative.  1  lc  expresses  it  in  yet  another  form:  "Act  from  maxims 
tit  to  be  regarded  asuniversal  lawsof  nature."  For  expositions  of  the  Decalogue  which 
bring  out  its  spiritual  meaning,  see  Kurt/.,  Eteligionslehre,  9-72;  Dick,  Theology,  2:513- 
554  ;  Dwight,  Theology,  3  :  163-560  ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol..  3  :  259-465. 

B.  Ceremonial  or  special  injunctions. —  These  are  illustrations  of  the 
elemental  law,  or  approximate  revelations  of  it,  suited  to  lower  degrees  of 
capacity  and  to  earlier  stages  of  spiritual  training  (  Ez.  20  :  25  ;  Mat.  19  :  8  ; 
Mark  10  :  5  ).  Though  temporary,  only  God  can  say  when  they  cease  to 
he  binding  upon  us  in  their  outward  form. 

All  positive  enactments,  therefore,  whether  they  be  moral  or  ceremonial, 
are  republications  of  elemental  law.  Their  forms  may  change,  but  the  sub- 
stance is  eternal.  Certain  modes  of  expression,  like  the  Mosaic  system, 
may  be  abolished,  but  the  essential  demands  are  unchanging  (  Mat.  5:17, 
18  ;  of.  Eph.  2  :  15  ).  From  the  imperfection  of  human  language,  no  posi- 
tive enactments  are  able  to  express  in  themselves  the  whole  content  and 
meaning  of  the  elemental  law.  "It  is  not  the  purpose  of  revelation  to 
disclose  the  whole  of  our  duties. "  Scripture  is  not  a'complete  code  of  rules 
for  practical  action,  but  an  enunciation  of  principles,  with  occasional  pre- 
cepts by  way  of  illustration.  Hence  we  must  supplement  the  positive 
enactment  by  the  law  of  being  —  the  moral  ideal  found  in  the  nature  of  God. 

Ez.  20  :  25  —  "  Moreover  also  I  gave  them  statutes  that  were  not  good,  and  ordinances  wherein  they  should  not  live  "  ; 
Mat.  19  : 8  —  "  Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives  "  ;  Mark  10  :  5  —  "  For  your  hard- 
ness of  heart  he  wrote  you  this  commandment "  ;  Mat.  5 :  17,  18  — "  Th!nk  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  proph- 
ets: I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  on) 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be  accomplished  "  ;  cf.  Eph.  2 :  15  —  "having  abol.shed  in 
his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments  conta.ned  in  ordinances  "  ;  Heb.  8:7  —  "  if  that  first  covenant  had 
been  faultless,  then  would  no  place  have  been  sought  for  a  second."  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  lievcla- 
lation,  90  —  "  After  the  coming  of  the  new  covenant,  the  keeping  up  of  the  old  was  as 
35 


546  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

needless  a  burden  as  winter  garments  in  the  mild  air  of  summer,  or  as  the  attempt  of 
an  adult  to  wear  the  clothes  of  a  child." 

Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2:5-35  —  "Jesus  repudiates  for  himself  and  for  his  disciples 
absolute  subjection  to  O.  T.  Sabbath  law  ( Mark  2 :  27  eq. ) ;  to  O.  T.  law  as  to  external  defile- 
ments ( Mark  7 :  15 ) ;  to  O.  T.  divorce  law  (  Mark  10 : 2  sq.).  He  would  '  fulfil '  law  and  prophets 
by  complete  practical  performance  of  the  revealed  will  of  God.  He  would  bring  out 
their  inner  meaning,  not  by  literal  and  slavish  obedience  to  every  minute  requirement 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  by  r-evealing  in  himself  the  perfect  life  and  work  toward  which 
they  tended.  He  would  perfect  the  O.  T.  conceptions  of  God  — not  keep  them  intact 
in  their  literal  form,  but  in  their  essential  spirit.  Not  by  quantitative  extension,  but  by 
qualitative  renewal,  he  would  fulfil  the  law  and  the  prophets.  He  would  bring  the 
imperfect  expression  in  the  O.  T.  to  perfection,  not  by  servile  letter-worship  or  allegor- 
izing, but  through  grasp  of  the  divine  idea." 

Scripture  is  not  a  series  of  minute  injunctions  and  prohibitions  such  as  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Jesuits  laid  down.  The  Koran  showed  its  immeasurable  inferiority  to  the 
Bible  by  establishing  the  letter  instead  of  the  spirit,  by  giving  permanent,  definite,  and 
specific  rules  of  conduct,  instead  of  leaving  room  for  the  growth  of  the  free  spirit  and 
for  the  education  of  conscience.  This  is  not  true  either  of  O.  T.  or  of  N.  T.  law.  In 
Miss  Fowler's  novel  The  Farringdons,  Mrs.  Herbert  wishes  "  that  the  Bible  had  been 
written  on  the  principle  of  that  dreadful  little  book  called  '  Don't,'  which  gives  a  list 
of  the  solecisms  you  should  avoid;  she  would  have  understood  it  so  much  better  than 
the  present  system."  Our  Savior's  words  about  giving  to  him  that  asketh,  and  turn- 
ing the  cheek  to  the  smiter  ( Mat.  5 :  39-42 )  must  be  interpreted  by  the  principle  of  love 
that  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  law.  Giving  to  every  tramp  and  yielding  to  every 
marauder  is  not  pleasing  our  neighbor  "  for  that  which  is  good  unto  edifying  "  ( Rom.  15 : 2 ).  Only 
by  confounding  the  divine  law  with  Scripture  prohibition  could  one  write  as  in  N. 
Amer.  Rev.,  Feb.  1890 :  275—  "  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  a  divine  law ;  but  there  is  no 
divine  law  against  suicide ;  therefore  suicide  is  not  sin." 

The  written  law  was  imperfect  because  God  could,  at  the  time,  give  no  higher  to  an 
unenlightened  people.  "  But  to  say  that  the  scope  and  design  were  imperfectly  moral, 
is  contradicted  by  the  whole  course  of  the  history.  We  must  ask  what  is  the  moral 
standard  in  which  this  course  of  education  issues."  And  this  we  find  in  the  life  and 
precepts  of  Christ.  Even  the  law  of  repentance  and  faith  does  not  take  the  place  of 
the  old  law  of  being,  but  applies  the  latter  to  the  special  conditions  of  sin.  Under  the 
Levitical  law,  the  prohibition  of  the  touching  of  the  dry  bone  (Num.  19 :  16 ),  equally  with 
the  purifications  and  sacrifices,  the  separations  and  penalties  of  the  Mosaic  code, 
expressed  God's  holiness  and  his  repelling  from  him  all  that  savored  of  sin  or  death. 
The  laws  with  regard  to  leprosy  were  symbolic,  as  well  as  sanitary.  So  church  polity 
and  the  ordinances  are  not  arbitrary  requirements,  but  they  publish  to  dull  sense- 
environed  consciences,  better  than  abstract  propositions  could  have  done,  the  funda- 
mental truths  of  the  Christian  scheme.  Hence  they  are  not  to  be  abrogated  "  till  he  come " 
( 1  Cor.  11 :  26  ). 

The  Puritans,  however,  in  ree'nacting  the  Mosaic  code,  made  the  mistake  of  confound- 
ing the  eternal  law  of  God  with  a  partial,  temporary,  and  obsolete  expression  of  it. 
So  we  are  not  to  rest  in  external  precepts  respecting  woman's  hair  and  dress  and  speech, 
but  to  find  the  underlying  principle  of  modesty  and  subordination  which  alone  is  of 
universal  and  eternal  validity.  Robert  Browning,  The  Ring  and  the  Book,  1 :  255  — "  God 
breathes,  not  speaks,  his  verdicts,  felt  not  heard  —  Passed  on  successively  to  each  court, 
I  call  Man's  conscience,  custom,  manners,  all  that  make  More  and  more  effort  to  pro- 
mulgate, mark  God's  verdict  in  determinable  words,  Till  last  come  human  jurists- 
solidify  Fluid  results,—  what's  fixable  lies  forged,  Statute,—  the  residue  escapes  in  fume, 
Yet  hangs  aloft  a  cloud,  as  palpable  To  the  finer  sense  as  word  the  legist  welds.  Justin- 
ian's Pandects  only  make  precise  What  simply  sparkled  in  men's  eyes  before,  Twitched 
in  their  brow  or  quivered  on  their  lip,  Waited  the  speech  they  called,  but  would  not 
come."  See  Mozley,  Ruling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages,  104 ;  Tulloch,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  141-144; 
Finney,  Syst.  Theol.,  1-40,  135-319;  Mansel,  Metaphysics,  378,  379 ;  H.B.Smith,  System 
of  Theology,  191-195. 

Paul's  injunction  to  women  to  keep  silence  in  the  churches  (1  Cor.  14 :  35 ;  1  Tim.  2 :  11, 12 )  is 
to  be  interpreted  by  the  larger  law  of  gospel  equality  and  privilege  ( CoL  3 :  11 ).  Modesty 
and  subordination  once  required  a  seclusion  of  the  female  sex  which  is  no  longer  oblig- 
atory. Christianity  has  emancipated  woman  and  has  restored  her  to  the  dignity  which 
belonged  to  her  at  the  beginning.  "In  the  old  dispensation  Miriam  and  Deborah  and 
Huldah  were  recognized  as  leaders  of  God's  people,  and  Anna  was  a  notable  prophetess 


RELATION"  OF  THE  LAW  TO  THE  GRACE  OF  GOD.      5-17 

in  the  temple  courts  at  the  time  of  the  coming1  of  Christ.  Elizabeth  and  Mary  spoke 
songs  of  praise  for  all  generations.  A  prophecy  of  Joel  2 :  23  was  that  the  daughters  of 
the  Lord's  people  should  prophesy,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  new  dispen- 
sation. Philip  the  evangelist  had  'fouj  virgin  daughters,  who  prophesied'  (Acts21 :  9),  and  Paul 
cautioned  Christian  women  to  have  their  heads  covered  when  they  prayed  or  prophe- 
sied in  public  ( 1  Cor.  11 : 5  ),  but  had  no  words  against  the  work  of  such  women.  He 
brought  Priscilla  with  him  to  Ephesus,  where  she  aided  in  training  Apollos  into  better 
preaching  power  (Acts  18:26).  He  welcomed  and  was  grateful  for  the  work  of  those 
women  who  labored  with  him  in  the  gospel  at  Philippi  (Phil. 4:3).  And  it  is  certainly 
an  inference  from  the  spirit  and  teachings  of  Paul  that  we  should  rejoice  in  the  efficient 
service  and  sound  words  of  Christian  women  to-day  in  the  Sunday  School  and  in  the 
missionary  field."  The  command  "  And  he  that  heareth  let  him  say,  Come  "  (  Rev.  22 :  17)  is  addressed 
to  women  also.  See  Ellen  Batelle  Dietrick,  Women  in  the  Early  Christian  Ministry ; 
per  contra,  see  G.  F.  Wilkin,  Prophesying  of  Women,  183-193. 

III.     Relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Grace  of  God. 

In  human  government,  while  law  is  an  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
governing  power,  and  so  of  the  nature  lying  behind  the  will,  it  is  by  no 
means  an  exhaustive  expression  of  that  will  and  nature,  since  it  consists 
only  of  general  ordinances,  and  leaves  room  for  particular  acts  of  command 
through  the  executive,  as  well  as  for  "the  institution  of  equity,  the  faculty 
of  discretionary  punishment,  and  the  prerogative  of  pardon. " 

Amos,  Science  of  Law,  29-46,  shows  how  "the  institution  of  equity,  the  faculty  of 
discretionary  punishment,  and  the  prerogative  of  pardon"  all  involve  expressions  of 
will  above  and  beyond  what  is  contained  in  mere  statute.  Century  Dictionary,  on 
Equity  :  "  English  law  had  once  to  do  only  with  property  in  goods,  houses  and  lands. 
A  man  who  had  none  of  these  might  have  an  interest  in  a  salary,  a  patent,  a  contract, 
a  copyright,  a  security,  but  a  creditor  could  not  at  common  lavv  levy  upon  these. 
When  the  creditor  applied  to  the  crown  for  redress,  a  chancellor  or  keeper  of  the 
king's  conscience  was  appointed,  who  determined  what  and  how  the  debtor  should 
pay.  Often  the  debtor  was  required  to  put  his  intangible  property  into  the  hands  of  a 
receiver  and  could  regain  possession  of  it  only  when  the  claim  against  it  was  satisfied. 
These  chancellors'  courts  were  called  courts  of  equity,  and  redressed  wrongs  which  the 
common  law  did  not  provide  for.  In  later  times  law  and  equity  are  administered  for 
the  most  part  by  the  same  courts.  The  same  court  sits  at  one  time  as  a  court  of  law, 
and  at  another  time  as  a  court  of  equity."  "Summalex,  summa  injuria,"  is  sometimes 
true. 

Applying  now  to  the  divine  law  this  illustration  drawn  from  human  law, 
we  remark  : 

(  a  )  The  law  of  God  is  a  general  expression  of  God's  will,  applicable  to 
all  moral  beings.  It  therefore  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  special 
injunctions  to  individuals,  and  special  acts  of  wisdom  and  power  in  creation 
and  providence.  The  very  specialty  of  these  latter  expressions  of  will 
preA^ents  us  from  classing  them  under  the  category  of  law.      » 

Lord  Bacon,  Confession  of  Faith  :  "  The  soul  of  man  was  not  produced  by  heaven  or 
earth,  but  was  breathed  immediately  from  God ;  so  the  ways  and  dealings  of  God  with 
spirits  are  not  included  in  nature,  that  is,  in  the  laws  of  heaven  and  earth,  but  are 
reserved  to  the  law  of  his  secret  will  and  grace." 

(6)  The  law  of  God,  accordingly,  is  a  partial,  not  an  exhaustive, 
expression  of  God's  nature.  It  constitutes,  indeed,  a  manifestation  of  that 
attribute  of  holiness  which  is  fundamental  in  God,  and  which  man  must 
possess  in  order  to  be  in  harmony  with  God.  But  it  does  not  fully  express 
God's  nature  in  its  aspects  of  personality,  sovereignty,  helpfulness,  mercy. 

The  chief  error  of  all  pantheistic  theology  is  the  assumption  that  law  is  an  exhaustive 
expression  of  God :  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre,  1 : 31 — "If  nature,  as  the  self-realization  of 


548  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  MAN. 

the  divine  essence,  is  equal  to  this  divine  essence,  then  it  is  infinite,  and  there  can  be 
nothing1  above  and  beyond  it."  This  is  a  denial  of  the  transcendence  of  God  (  see  notes 
on  Pantheism,  pages  100- 1U5 ).  Mere  law  is  illustrated  by  the  Buddhist  proverb :  "  As 
the  cartwheel  follows  the  tread  of  the  ox,  so  punishment  follows  sin."  Denovan: 
"  Apart  from  Christ,  even  if  we  have  never  yet  broken  the  law,  it  is  only  by  steady  and 
perfect  obedience  for  the  entire  future  that  Ave  can  remain  justified.  If  we  have 
sinned,  we  can  be  justified  [without  Christ]  only  by  suffering  and  exhausting  the 
whole  penalty  of  the  law." 

(c)  Mere  law,  therefore,  leaves  God's  nature  in  these  aspects  of  person- 
ality, sovereignty,  helpfulness,  mercy,  to  be  expressed  toward  sinners  in 
another  way,  namely,  through  the  atoning,  regenerating,  j:>ardoning,  sancti- 
fying work  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  As  creation  does  not  exclude  miracles, 
so  law  does  not  exclude  grace  ( Rom.  8  :  3  —  "  what  the  law  could  not  do 
God"  did). 

Murphy,  Scientific  Bases,  303-327,  esp.  315 — "  To  impersonal  law,  it  is  indifferent  whether 
its  subjects  obey  or  not.  But  God  desires,  not  the  punishment,  but  the  destruction,  of 
sin."  Campbell,  Atonement,  Introd.,  28  —  "There  are  two  regions  of  the  divine  self- 
manifestation,  one  the  reign  of  law,  the  other  the  kingdom  of  God."  C.  H.  M. :  "  Law 
is  the  transcript  of  the  mind  of  God  as  to  what  man  ought  to  be.  But  God  is  not 
merely  law,  but  love.  There  is  more  in  his  heart  than  could  be  wrapped  up  in  the  '  ton 
words.'  Not  the  law,  but  only  Christ,  is  the  perfect  image  of  God  "  ( John  1 :  17  —  "  For  fee 
law  was  given  through  Mosos;  grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus  Christ").  So  there  is  more  in  man's  heart 
toward  God  than  exact  fulfilment  of  requirement.  The  mother  who  sacrifices  herself 
for  her  sick  child  does  it,  not  because  she  must,  but  because  she  loves.  To  say  that  we 
are  saved  by  grace,  is  to  say  that  we  are  saved  both  without  merit  on  our  own  part, 
and  without  necessity  on  the  part  of  God.  Grace  is  made  known  in  proclamation, 
offer,  command  ;  but  in  all  these  it  is  gospel,  or  glad-tidings. 

(  d )  Grace  is  to  be  regarded,  however,  not  as  abrogating  law,  but  as 
republishing  and  enforcing  it  ( Rom.  3  : 31 — "we  establish  the  law " ).  By 
removing  obstacles  to  pardon  in  the  mind  of  God,  and  by  enabling  man  to 
obey,  grace  secures  the  perfect  fulfilment  of  law  (Rom.  8  :  4  —  "that  the 
ordinance  of  the  law  might  bo  fulfilled  in  us  "  ).  Even  grace  has  its  law 
(Rom.  8  :2  —  "the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life")  ;  another  higher  law  of 
grace,  the  operation  of  individualizing  mercy,  overbears  the  "law  of  sin 
and  of  death,"  —  this  last,  as  in  the  case  of  the  miracle,  not  being  sus- 
pended, annulled,  or  violated,  but  being  merged  in,  while  it  is  transcended 
by,  the  exertion  of  personal  divine  will. 

Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,  1 :  155, 185, 194  —  "  Man,  having  utterly  disabled  his  nature  unto 
those  [  natural  ]  means,  hath  had  other  revealed  by  God,  and  hath  received  from  heaven 
a  law  to  teach  him  how  that  which  is  desired  naturally,  must  now  be  supernaturally 
attained.  Finally,  we  see  that,  because  those  latter  exclude  not  the  former  as  unneces- 
sary, therefore  the  law  of  grace  teaches  and  includes  natural  duties  also,  such  as  are 
hard  to  ascertain  by  the  law  of  nature."  The  truth  is  midway  between  the  Pelagian 
view,  that  there  is  no  obstacle  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  modern  rationalistic 
view,  that  since  law  fully  expresses  God,  there  can  be  no  forgiveness  of  sins  at  all. 
Greg,  Creed  of  Christendom,  2  :  217-228  — "God  is  the  only  being  who  cannot  forgive 
sins.  .  .  .  Punishment  is  not  the  execution  of  a  sentence,  but  the  occurrence  of  an 
effect."  Robertson,  Lect.  on  Genesis,  100  — "Deeds  are  irrevocable,— their  consequences 
are  knit  up  with  them  irrevocably."  So  Baden  Powell,  Law  and  Gospel,  in  Noyes' 
Theological  Essays,  27.  All  this  is  true  if  God  be  regarded  as  merely  the  source  of  law. 
But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  grace,  and  grace  is  more  than  law.  There  is  no  forgiveness 
in  nature,  but  grace  is  above  and  beyond  nature. 

Bradford,  Heredity,  233,  quotes  from  Huxley  the  terrible  utterance :  "  Nature  always 
checkmates,  without  haste  and  without  remorse,  never  overlooking  a  mistake,  or 
naking  the  slightest  allowance  for  ignorance."  Bradford  then  remarks:  "This  is 
Calvinism  with  God  left  out.  Christianity  does  not  deny  or  minimize  the  law  of  retri- 
bution, but  it  discloses  a  Person  who  is  able  to  deliver  in  spite  of  it.    There  is  grace, 


DEFINITION   OF   SIN.  54S 

but  grace  brings  salvation  to  those  who  accept  the  terms  of  salvation  —  terms  strictly 
in  accord  with  the  laws  revealed  by  science."  God  revealed  himself,  we  add,  not  only 
in  law  but  in  life  ;  see  Deut.  1 :  6,  7 — "Ye  have  dwelt  long  enough  in  this  mountain  " — the  mountain  of 
the  law ;  "  turn  you  and  take  your  journey  "  — ^.  e.,  see  how  God's  law  is  to  be  applied  to  life. 

(  e  )  Thus  the  revelation  of  grace,  while  it  takes  up  and  includes  in  itself 
the  revelation  of  law,  adds  something  different  in  kind,  namely,  the  mani- 
festation of  the  personal  love  of  the  Lawgiver.  Without  grace,  law  has 
only  a  demanding  aspect.  Only  in  connection  with  grace  does  it  become 
"  the  perfect  law,  the  law  of  liberty"  (James  1  :25).  In  fine,  grace  is 
that  larger  and  completer  manifestation  of  the  divine  nature,  of  which  law 
constitutes  the  necessary  but  preparatory  stage. 

Law  reveals  God's  love  and  mercy,  but  only  in  their  mandatory  aspect ;  it  requires 
in  men  conformity  to  the  love  and  mercy  of  God  ;  and  as  love  and  mercy  in  God  are 
conditioned  by  holiness,  so  law  requires  that  love  and  mercy  should  be  conditioned  by 
holiness  in  men.  Law  is  therefore  chietly  a  revrlat  ion  of  holiness:  it  is  in  grace  that 
we  find  the  chief  revelation  of  love  ;  though  even  love  does  not  save  by  ignoring  holi- 
ness, but  rather  by  vicariously  satisfying  its  demands.  Robert  Browning,  Saul :  "  I 
spoke  as  I  saw.    I  report  as  man  may  of  God's  work  —  All 's  Love,  yet  all 's  Law." 

Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  1 :  64,  78  —  "  The  law  was  a  word  ( Adyos ),  but  it  was  not  a 
Adyos  Te'Acios,  a  plastic  word,  like  the  words  of  God  that  brought  forth  the  world,  for  it 
was  only  imperative,  and  there  was  no  reality  nor  willing  corresponding  to  the  com- 
mand ( tlim  SollenfehUe das  Si  yn,  das  WoUen).  The  Christian  Adyos  is  Adyos  dAjjtJeias  — 
vo/jlos  Te'Acco?  T>js  i\evAepias — an  operative  and  effective  word,  as  that  of  creation." 
Chaucer,  The  Persones  Tale :  "For  sothly  the  la  we  of  God  is  the  love  of  God."  S.  S. 
Times,  Sept.  14, 1901:595— "Until  a  man  ceases  to  be  an  outsider  to  the  kingdom  and 
knows  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God,  he  is  apt  to  think  of  God  as  the  great  Exacter,  the 
great  Forbidder,  who  reaps  where  he  has  not  sown  and  gathers  where  he  has  not  strewn." 
IJurton,  in  Rap.  Rev.,  July,  lsT'.i :  361-278,  art.:  Law  and  Divine  Intervention;  Farrar, 
Science  and  Theology,  184 ;  Salmon,  Reign  of  Law  ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  31. 


SECTION    II. — NATURE    OF   SIN. 
I.     Definition  of  Sin. 

Sin  is  lack  of  conformity  to  the  moral  law  of  God,  either  in  act,  disposi- 
tion, or  state. 

In  explanation,  we  remark  that  (a)  This  definition  regards  sin  as  jured- 
icable  only  of  rational  and  voluntary  agents.  ( b  )  It  assumes,  however, 
that  man  has  a  rational  nature  below  consciousness,  and  a  voluntary  nature 
apart  from  actual  volition.  (  c  )  It  holds  that  the  divine  law  requires  moral 
likeness  to  God  in  the  affections  and  tendencies  of  the  nature,  as  well  as  in 
its  outward  activities,  (d)  It  therefore  considers  lack  of  conformity  to  the 
divine  holiness  in  disposition  or  state  as  a  violation  of  law,  equally  with  the 
outward  act  of  transgression. 

In  our  discussion  of  the  Will  (pages  504-513),  we  noticed  that  there  are  permanent 
states  of  the  will,  as  well  as  of  the  intellect  and  of  the  sensibilities.  It  is  evident,  more- 
over, that  these  permanent  states,  unlike  man's  deliberate  acts,  are  always  very  imper- 
fectly conscious,  and  in  many  cases  are  not  conscious  at  all.  Yet  it  is  in  these  very 
states  that  man  is  most  unlike  God,  and  so,  as  law  only  reflects  God  ( see  pages  537-544 ), 
most  lacking  in  conformity  to  God's  law. 

One  main  difference  between  Old  School  and  New  School  views  of  sin  is  that  the  latter 
constantly  tends  to  limit  sin  to  mere  act,  while  the  former  finds  sin  in  the  states  of  the 
soul.    We  propose  what  we  think  to  be  a  valid  and  proper  compromise  between  the  two. 


550  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN". 

We  make  sin  coextensive,  not  with  act,  but  with  activity.  The  Old  School  and  the  New 
School  are  not  so  far  apart,  when  we  remember  that  the  New  School  "  choice ' '  is  elective 
preference,  exercised  so  soon  as  the  child  is  born  (  Park )  and  reasserting  itself  in  all 
the  subordinate  choices  of  life ;  while  the  Old  School  "  state  "  is  not  a  dead,  passive, 
mechanical  thing,  but  is  a  state  of  active  movement,  or  of  tendency  to  move,  toward 
evil.  As  God's  holiness  is  not  passive  purity  but  purity  willing-  ( pages  268-275 ),  so  the 
opposite  to  this,  sin,  is  not  passive  impurity  but  is  impurity  willing. 

The  soul  may  not  always  be  conscious,  but  it  may  always  be  active.  At  his  creation 
man  "becamea  living  soul"  (6en.2:7),  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  human  spirit  ever 
ceases  its  activity,  any  more  than  the  divine  Spirit  in  whose  image  it  is  made.  There  is 
some  reason  to  believe  that  even  in  the  deepest  sleep  the  body  rests  rather  than  the 
mind.  And  when  we  consider  how  large  a  portion  of  our  activity  is  automatic  and 
continuous,  we  see  the  impossibility  of  limiting  the  term  '  sin '  to  the  sphere  of  momeu- 
ary  act,  whether  conscious  or  unconscious. 

E.G.Robinson:  "  Sin  is  not  mere  act— something  foreign  to  the  being.  It  is  a  quality 
of  being.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  sin  apart  from  a  sinner,  or  an  act  apart  from  an 
actor.  God  punishes  sinners,  not  sins.  Sin  is  a  mode  of  being ;  as  an  entity  by  itself  it 
never  existed.  God  punishes  sin  as  a  state,  not  as  an  act.  Man  is  not  responsible  for 
the  consequences  of  his  crimes,  nor  for  the  acts  themselves,  except  as  they  are  symp- 
tomatic of  his  personal  states."  Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  Christ,  5:162— "The 
knowledge  of  sin  has  justly  been  termed  the  /3  and  <|/  of  philosophy." 

Our  treatment  of  Holiness,  as  belonging  to  the  nature  of  God  ( pages  268- 
275)  ;  of  Will,  as  not  only  the  faculty  of  volitions,  but  also  a  permanent  state 
of  the  soul  ( pages  504-513 ) ;  and  of  Law  as  requiring  the  conformity  of 
man's  nature  to  God's  holiness  ( pages  537-544 )  ;  has  prepared  us  for  the 
definition  of  sin  as  a  state.  The  chief  psychological  defect  of  New  School 
theology,  next  to  its  making  holiness  to  be  a  mere  form  of  love,  is  its  ignor- 
ing of  the  unconscious  and  subconscious  elements  in  human  character.  To 
help  our  understanding  of  sin  as  an  underlying  and  permanent  state  of  the 
soul,  we  subjoin  references  to  recent  writers  of  note  upon  psychology  and 
its  relations  to  theology. 

We  may  preface  our  quotations  by  remarking  that  mind  is  always  greater  than  its 
conscious  operations.  The  man  is  more  than  his  acts.  Only  the  smallest  part  of  the 
self  is  manifested  in  the  thoughts,  feelings,  and  volitions.  In  counting,  to  put  myself  to 
sleep,  I  find,  when  my  attention  has  been  diverted  by  other  thoughts,  that  the  count- 
ing has  gone  on  all  the  same.  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  170,  speaks  of  the  "  dramatic 
sundering  of  the  ego."  There  are  dream-conversations.  Dr.  Johnson  was  once  greatly 
vexed  at  being  worsted  by  his  opponent  in  an  argument  in  a  dream.  M.  Maury  in  a 
dream  corrected  the  bad  English  of  his  real  self  by  the  good  English  of  his  other  unreal 
self.  Spurgeon  preached  a  sermon  in  his  sleep  after  vainly  trying  to  excogitate  one 
when  awake,  and  his  wife  gave  him  the  substance  of  it  after  he  woke.  Hegel  said  that 
"  Life  is  divided  into  two  realms  —  a  night-life  of  genius,  and  a  day-life  of  consciousness." 

Du  Prel,  Philosophy  of  Mysticism,  propounds  the  thesis:  "The  ego  is  not  wholly 
embraced  in  self-consciousness,"  and  claims  that  there  is  much  of  psychical  activity 
within  us  of  which  our  common  waking  conception  of  ourselves  takes  no  account. 
Thus  when  '  dream  dramatizes '  —  when  we  engage  in  a  dream-conversation  in  which 
our  interlocutor's  answer  comes  to  us  with  a  shock  of  surprise  — if  our  own  mind  is 
assumed  to  have  furnished  that  answer,  it  has  done  so  by  a  process  of  unconscious 
activity.  Dwinell,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  July,  1890  :  369-389  —  " The  soul  is  only  imperfectly  in 
possession  of  its  organs,  and  is  able  to  report  only  a  small  part  of  its  activities  in 
consciousness."  Thoughts  come  to  us  like  foundlings  laid  at  our  door.  We  slip  in  a 
question  to  the  librarian,  Memory,  and  after  leaving  it  there  awhile  the  answer  appears 
on  the  bulletin  board.  Delboeuf,  Le  Sommeil  et  les  Roves,  91  — "The  dreamer  is  a 
momentary  and  involuntary  dupe  of  his  own  imagination,  as  the  poet  is  the  momentary 
and  voluntary  dupe,  and  the  insane  man  is  the  permanent  and  involuntary  dupe."  If 
we  are  the  organs  not  only  of  our  own  past  thinking,  but,  as  Herbert  Spencer  suggests, 
also  the  organs  of  the  past  thinking  of  the  race,  his  doctrine  may  give  additional,  though 
unintended,  confirmation  to  a  Scriptural  view  of  sin. 


DEFINITION   OF   SIN.  551 

William  James,  Will  to  Believe,  316,  quotes  from  F.  W.  H.  Myers,  in  Jour.  Psych. 
Research,  who  likens  our  ordinary  consciousness  to  the  visible  part  of  the  solar  spec- 
trum ;  the  total  consciousness  is  like  that  spectrum  prolonged  by  the  inclusion  of  the 
ultra-red  and  the  ultra-violet  rays  =  1  tc^lS  and  96.  "  Each  of  us,"  he  says,  "  is  an  abid- 
ing psychical  entity  far  more  extensive  than  he  knows  —  an  individuality  which  can 
never  express  itself  completely  through  any  corporeal  manifestation.  The  self  mani- 
fests itself  through  the  organism  ;  but  there  is  always  some  part  of  the  self  unmanifes- 
ted,  and  always,  as  it  seems,  some  power  of  organic  expression  in  abeyance  or  reserve." 
William  James  himself,  in  Scribner's  Monthly,  March,  1890  :  361-373,  sketches  the  hyp- 
notic investigations  of  Janet  and  Binet.  There  is  a  secondary,  subconscious  self. 
Hysteria  is  the  lack  of  synthetising  power,  and  consequent  disintegration  of  the  field  of 
consciousness  into  mutually  exclusive  parts.  According  to  Janet,  the  secondary  and  the 
primary  consciousnesses,  added  together,  can  never  exceed  the  normally  total  con- 
sciousness of  the  individual.  But  Prof.  James  says :  "  There  are  trances  which  obey 
another  type.  I  know  a  non-hysterical  woman,  who  in  her  trances  knows  facts  which 
altogether  transcend  her  possible  normal  consciousness,  facts  about  the  lives  of  people 
whom  she  never  saw  or  heard  of  before." 

Our  affections  are  deeper  and  stronger  than  we  know.  We  learn  how  deep  and  strong 
they  are,  when  their  current  is  resisted  by  affliction  or  dammed  up  by  death.  We  know 
how  powerful  evil  passions  are,  only  when  we  try  to  subdue  them.  Our  dreams  show 
us  our  naked  selves.  On  the  morality  of  dreams,  the  London  Spectator  remarks :  "  Our 
conscience  and  power  of  self-control  act  as  a  sort  of  watchdog  over  our  worse  selves 
during  the  day,  but  when  the  watchdog  is  off  duty,  the  primitive  or  natural  man  is  at 
liberty  to  act  as  he  pleases ;  our  '  soul '  has  left  us  at  the  merey  of  our  own  evil  nature, 
and  In  our  dreams  we  become  what,  except  for  the  gTaoe  <>f  <  i<>d,  we  would  always  be." 

Both  in  conscience  and  in  will  there  is  a  sclf-diremption.  Kant's  categorical  imper- 
ative is  only  one  self  laying  down  the  law  to  the  other  self.  The  whole  Kant  Ian  system 
of  ethics  is  based  on  this  doctrine  of  double  consciousness.  Ladd,  in  his  Philosophy  of 
Mind,  lii'.i  w/.,  speaks  of  "  psychical  automatism."  Set  this  automatism  is  possible  only 
to  self-conscious  and  cognitively  remembering  minds.  It  is  always  the  "  I  "  1  hat  puts 
itself  into  "that  other."  We  could  not  conceive  of  the  other  self  except  under  the 
figure  of  the  "I."  All  our  mental  opt  rat  inns  are  ours,  and  we  are  responsible  for  them, 
because  the  subconscious  and  even  the  unconscious  self  is  the  product  of  past  self- 
conscious  thoughts  and  volitions.  The  present  settled  state  of  our  wills  is  the  result  of 
former  decisions.  The  will  is  a  storage  battery,  charged  by  past  acts,  full  of  Intent 
power,  ready  to  manifest  its  energy  so  soon  as  the  force  which  confines  it  is  withdrawn. 
On  unconscious  mental  action,  see  Carpenter,  Mental  Physiology,  139,  515-543,  and  criti- 
cism of  Carpenter,  in  Ireland,  Blot  on  the  Brain,  2:.'i>-2:;8;  Bramwell,  Hypnotism,  its 
History,  Practice  and  Theory,  358-398;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  333,  334;  versus  Bir 
Wm.  Hamilton,  who  adopts  the  maxim:  "Non  sent  imus,  nisi  sentiamus  nos  sent  ire  " 
(  Philosophy,  ed.  Wight,  171 ).  Observe  also  that  sin  may  infect  the  body,  as  well  as  the 
soul,  and  may  bring  it  into  a  state  of  non-conformity  to  God's  law  (see  H.  B.  Smit  h, 
Syst.  Theol.,  267). 

In  adducing  our  Scriptural  and  rational  proof  of  the  definition  of  sin  as 
a  state,  we  desire  to  obviate  the  objection  that  this  view  leaves  the  soul 
wholly  given  over  to  the  power  of  evil.  While  we  maintain  that  this  is 
true  of  man  apart  from  God,  we  also  insist  that  side  by  side  with  the  evil 
bent  of  the  human  will  there  is  always  an  immanent  divine  power  which 
greatly  counteracts  the  force  of  evil,  and  if  not  resisted  leads  the  individ- 
ual sold —  even  when  resisted  leads  the  race  at  large — toward  truth  and 
salvation.  This  immanent  divine  power  is  none  other  than  Christ,  the 
eternal  Word,  the  Light  which  lighteth  every  man  ;  see  John  1 : 4,  9. 

John  1  :  4, 9  —  "In  him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.  .  .  .  There  was  the  true  light,  even  the  light  which 
lighteth  every  man."  See  a  further  statement  in  A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Sermon,  May,  1904, 
with  regard  to  the  old  and  the  new  view  as  to  sin  :  —  "  Our  fathers  believed  in  total 
depravity,  and  we  agree  with  them  that  man  naturally  is  devoid  of  love  to  God  and 
that  every  faculty  is  weakened,  disordered,  and  corrupted  by  the  selfish  bent  of  his  will. 
They  held  to  original  sin.  The  selfish  bent  of  man's  will  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
apostacy  of  our  first  parents ;  and,  on  account  of  that  departure  of  the  race  from  God, 


552  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

all  men  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath.  And  all  this  is  true,  if  it  is  regarded  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  facts,  apart  from  their  relation  to  Christ.  But  our  fathers  did  not  see,  as 
we  do,  that  man's  relation  to  Christ  antedated  the  Fall  and  constituted  an  underlying 
and  modifying  condition  of  man's  life.  Humanity  was  naturally  in  Christ,  in  whom  all 
things  were  created  and  in  whom  they  all  consist.  Even  man's  sin  did  not  prevent 
Christ  from  still  working  in  him  to  counteract  the  evil  and  to  suggest  the  good.  There 
was  an  internal,  as  well  as  an  external,  preparation  for  man's  redemption.  In  this  sense, 
of  a  divine  principle  in  man  striving  against  the  selfish  and  godless  will,  there  was  a 
total  redemption,  over  against  man's  total  depravity ;  and  an  original  grace,  that  was 
even  more  powerful  than  original  sin. 

"  We  have  become  conscious  that  total  depravity  alone  is  not  a  sufficient  or  proper 
expression  of  the  truth  ;  and  the  phrase  has  been  outgrown.  It  has  been  felt  that  the 
old  view  of  sin  did  not  take  account  of  the  generous  and  noble  aspirations,  the  unself- 
ish efforts,  the  strivings  after  God,  of  even  unregenerate  men.  For  this  reason  there 
has  been  less  preaching  about  sin,  and  less  conviction  as  to  its  guilt  and  condemnation. 
The  good  impulses  of  men  outside  the  Christian  pale  have  been  often  credited  to  human 
nature,  when  they  should  have  been  credited  to  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  Christ.  I  make 
no  doubt  that  one  of  our  radical  weaknesses  at  this  present  time  is  our  more  superfi- 
cial view  of  sin.  Without  some  sense  of  sin's  guilt  and  condemnation,  we  cannot  feel 
our  need  of  redemption.  John  the  Baptist  must  go  before  Christ;  the  law  must  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  gospel. 

■'  My  belief  is  that  the  new  apprehension  of  Christ's  relation  to  the  race  will  enable 
us  to  declare,  as  never  before,  the  lost  condition  of  the  sinner;  while  at  the  same  time 
we  show  him  that  Christ  is  with  him  and  in  him  to  save.  This  presence  in  every  man 
of  a  power  not  his  own  that  works  for  righteousness  is  a  very  different  doctrine  from 
that '  divinity  of  man  '  which  is  so  often  preached.  The  divinity  is  not  the  divinity  of 
man,  but  the  divinity  of  Christ.  And  the  power  that  works  for  righteousness  is  not 
the  power  of  man,  but  the  power  of  Christ.  It  is  a  power  whose  warning,  inviting, 
persuading  influence  renders  only  more  marked  and  dreadful  the  evil  will  which  ham- 
pers and  resists  it.  Depravity  is  all  the  worse,  when  we  recognize  in  it  the  constant 
antagonist  of  an  ever-present,  all-holy,  and  all-loving  Redeemer." 

1.     Proof. 

As  it  is  readily  admitted  that  the  outward  act  of  transgression  is  properly 
denominated  sin,  we  here  attempt  to  show  only  that  lack  of  conformity  to 
the  law  of  God  in  disposition  or  state  is  also  and  equally  to  be  so  denomi- 
nated. 

A.     From  Scripture. 

( a  )  The  words  ordinarily  translated  '  sin, '  or  used  as  synonyms  for  it, 
are  as  applicable  to  dispositions  and  states  as  to  acts  (  HXton  and  afiapria  = 
a  missing,  failure,  coming  short  [  sc.  of  God's  will  ]  ). 

See  Num.  15  :  28  —  "  sinneth  unwittingly  "  ;  Ps.  51  : 2  —  "  cleanse  me  from  my  sin  "  ;  5  —  "  Behold,  I  was  brought 
forth  in  iniquity ;  And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  " ;  Rom.  7  :  17  —  "sin  which  dwelleth  in  me "  ;  compare 
Judges  20  :  16,  where  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  appears  :  "  sling  stones  at  a  hair-breadth,  and  not 
miss"  (  Xton  )•  In  a  similar  manner,  yi&B  [i.xx  a<re'/3eia]  =  separation  from,  rebellion 
against  [  sc.  God  ]  ;  see  lev.  16 :  16,  21 ;  cf.  Delitzsch  on  Ps.  32 : 1.  p_p  [  lxx  aSmta.  ]  =  bending, 
perversion  [sc.  of  what  is  right],  iniquity;  see  Lev.  5:17;  cf.  John  7 :  18.  See  also  the 
Hebrew  J7*\  ^tSH,  L=ruin,  confusion],  and  the  Greek  d7rocrTacn.'a,  iirifrvnia,  ex&Pa<  ««««<*, 
irovqpLa.,  <rdpg.  None  of  these  designations  of  sin  limits  it  to  mere  act,—  most  of  them 
more  naturally  suggest  disposition  or  state.  'Ap-apria  implies  that  man  in  sin  does  not 
reach  what  he  seeks  therein;  sin  is  a  state  of  delusion  and  deception  (Julius  Miiller). 
On  the  words  mentioned,  see  Girdlestone,  O.  T.  Synonyms;  Cremer,  Lexicon  N.  T. 
Greek ;  Present  Day  Tracts,  5 :  no.  28,  pp.  43-47 ;  Trench,  N.  T.  Synonyms,  part  2  :  61,  73. 

(  b  )  The  New  Testament  descriptions  of  sin  bring  more  distinctly  to 
view  the  states  and  dispositions  than  the  outward  acts  of  the  soul  (  1  John 
3  :4  —  fj dfiapria  earlv  rj  avofiia,  where  avofxla  = ,  not  "transgression  of  the 
law,"  but,  as  both  context  and  etymology  show,  "lack  of  conformity  to 
law  "  or  "lawlessness" — Rev.  Yers.). 


DEFINITION   OF  SIN.  553 

See  1  John  5  :  17 —  "All  unrighteousness  is  sin"  ;  Rom.  14  :  23 —  "whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin  "  ;  James  4: 17 

—  "To  him  therefore  that  knoweth  to  Jo  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  himitiss'n."  Where  the  sin  is  that  of 
not  doing,  sin  cannot  be  said  to  consist  in  act.    It  must  then  at  least  be  a  state. 

(  c  )  Moral  evil  is  ascribed  not  c'nly  to  the  thoughts  and  affections,  but 
to  the  heart  from  which  they  spring  (  we  read  of  the  "  evil  thoughts  "  and 
of  the  "evil  heart  "—  Mat.  15  :  19  and  Heb.  3  :  12  ). 

Sec  also  Mat.  5  :  22  —  anger  in  the  heart  is  murder ;  28  —  impure  desire  is  adultery.  Luke 
6  :  45  —  "theevil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure  [  of  his  heart  ]  brmgeth  forth  that  which  isevil."  Heb.  3  :  12  — 
"an  evil  heart  of  unbelief"  ;  r/.  Is.  1 :  5  —  "  the  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint";  Jer.  17  :  9 — "The 
heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  it  is  exceedingly  corrupt :  who  can  know  it?"—  here  the  sin  that  cannot 
be  known  is  not  sin  of  act,  but  sin  of  the  heart.  "  Below  the  surface  stream,  shallow 
and  light,  Of  what  we  say  we  feel;  below  the  stream.  As  light,  of  what  we  think  we 
feel,  there  flows.  With  silent  current,  strong,  obscure  and  deep,  The  central  stream  of 
what  we  feel  indeed." 

(  d )  The  state  or  condition  of  the  soul  which  gives  rise  to  wrong  desires 
and  acts  is  expressly  called  sin  (  Rom.  7  :  8 — "Sin  .  .  .  wrought  in  me  .  .  . 
all  manner  of  coveting  "  ). 

John  8  :  34  —  " Every  one  that  committeth  sin  is  the  bondservant  of  sin "  ;  Rom.  7  :  11, 13,  14, 17,  20 —  "sin  .  .  .  . 
beguiled  me  ...  .  working  death  to  me  ....  I  am  carnal,  soldundersin  ....  sin  which  dwelleth  in  me."  These 
representations  of  sin  as  a  principle  <>r  State  of  the  soul  are  incompatible  with  the  defi- 
nition of  it  as  a  mere  act.  John  IJyiom,  1691-170:5 :  "  Think  and  be  careful  what  thou  art 
within,  For  there  is  sin  in  the  desire  of  sin.  Think  and  be  thankful  in  a  different  case, 
For  there  is  grace  in  the  desire  of  grace." 

Alexander,  Theories  of  the  Will,  85  —  "  In  the  person  of  Paul  is  represented  the  man 
who  has  been  already  justified  by  faith  and  who  is  at  peace  with  God.  In  the  6th  chap- 
ter of  Romans,  the  question  is  discussed  whether  such  a  man  is  obliged  to  keep  the 
moral  law.  But  in  the  7th  chapter  the  question  is  not,  must  man  keep  the  moral  law? 
but  why  is  he  so  incapdbh  of  keeping  the  moral  law?  The  struggle  is  thus,  not  in  the 
soul  of  the  unregenerate  man  who  is  dead  in  sin,  but  in  the  soul  of  the  regenerate  man 
who  has  been  pardoned  and  is  endeavoring  to  keep  the  law.  .  .  .  In  a  state  of  sin  the 
will  is  determined  toward  the  bad;  in  a. state  of  grace  the  will  is  determined  toward 
righteousness;  but  not  wholly  so,  for  the  flesh  is  not  at  once  subdued,  and  there  is  a 
war  between  the  good  and  bad  principles  of  action  in  the  soul  of  him  who  has  been 
pardoned." 

(e)  Sin  is  represented  as  existing  in  the  soul,  prior  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  it,  and  as  only  discovered  and  awakened  by  the  law  (Rom.  7:9,  10 

—  "when  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died" — if  sin 
"revived,"  it  must  have  had  previous  existence  and  life,  even  though  it 
did  not  manifest  itself  in  acts  of  conscious  transgression  ). 

Rom.  7:8  —  " apart  from  the  law  sin  is  dead "  —  here  is  sin  which  is  not  yet  sin  of  act.  Dead  i  >r 
unconscious  sin  is  still  sin.  The  fire  in  a  cave  discovers  reptiles  and  stirs  them,  but  they 
were  there  before  ;  the  light  and  heat  do  not  create  them.  Let  a  beam  of  light,  says 
Jean  Paul  Kichter,  through  your  window-shutter  into  a  darkened  room,  and  you  reveal 
a  thousand  motes  floating  in  the  air  whose  existence  was  before  unsuspected.  So  the 
law  of  God  reveals  our  "hidden  faults "  (  Ps.  19  :  12 )  —  infirmities,  imperfections,  evil  tenden- 
cies and  desires—  which  also  cannot  all  be  classed  as  acts  of  transgression. 

(/)  The  allusions  to  sin  as  a  permanent  power  or  reigning  principle,  not 
only  in  the  individual  but  in  humanity  at  large,  fori  rid  us  to  define  it  as  a 
momentary  act,  and  compel  us  to  regard  it  as  being  primarily  a  settled 
depravity  of  nature,  of  which  individual  sins  or  acts  of  transgression  are 
the  workings  and  fruits  (  Rom.  5  :  21  —  "  sin  reigned  in  death  "  ;  6  :  12  — 
"  let  not  therefore  sin  reign  in  your  mortal  body  "  ). 

In  Rom.  5  :  21,  the  reign  of  sin  is  compared  to  the  reign  of  grace.  As  grace  is  not  an  act 
but  a  principle,  so  sin  is  not  an  act  but  a  principle.    As  the  poisonous  exhalations  from 


554  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

a  well  indicate  that  there  is  corruption  and  death  at  the  bottom,  so  the  ever-recm  ring 
thoughts  and  acts  of  sin  are  evidence  that  there  is  a  principle  of  sin  in  the  heart,— in 
other  words,  that  sin  exists  as  a  permanent  disposition  or  state.  A  momentary  act 
cannot  "reign  "  nor  "dwell"  ;  a  disposition  or  state  can.  Maudsley,  Sleep,  its  Psychology, 
makes  the  damaging  confession :  "  If  we  were  held  responsible  for  our  dreams,  there  is 
no  living  man  who  would  not  deserve  to  be  hanged." 

(g)  The  Mosaic  sacrifices  for  sins  of  ignorance  and  of  omission,  and 
especially  for  general  sinfulness,  are  evidence  that  sin  is  not  to  be  limited 
to  mere  act,  but  that  it  includes  something  deeper  and  more  permanent  in 
the  heart  and  the  life  (Lev.  1  :  3  ;  5  :  11  ;  12  :  8  ;  cf.  Luke  2  :  24  ). 

The  sin-offering  for  sins  of  ignorance  (Lev.  4 :  14, 20,  31 ),  the  trespass-offering  for  sins  of 
omission  ( Lev.  5  :  5, 6  ),  and  the  burnt  offering  to  expiate  general  sinfulness  (Lev.  1 : 3;  cf. 
Luke  2  :  22-24 ),  all  witness  that  sin  is  not  confined  to  mere  act.  John  1 :  29  —  "the  Lamb  of  God,  who 
taketh  away  the  sin,"  not  the  sins,  "  of  the  world."  See  Oehler,  O.  T.  Theology,  1 :  233 ;  Schmid, 
Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  194,  381,  442,  448,  492,  604;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3  :  210-217;  Julius 
MOller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2  :  259-306 ;  Edwards,  Works,  3  :  16-18.  For  the  New  School 
definition  of  sin,  see  Fitch,  Nature  of  Sin,  and  Park,  in  Bib.  Sac,  7  :  551. 

B.     From  the  common  judgment  of  mankind. 

(  a )  Men  universally  attribute  vice  as  "well  as  virtue  not  only  to  con- 
scious and  deliberate  acts,  but  also  to  dispositions  and  states.  Belief  in 
something  more  permanently  evil  than  acts  of  transgression  is  indicated  in 
the  common  phrases,  "hateful  temper,"  "  wicked  pride, "  "bad  character." 

As  the  beatitudes  (Mat.  5  : 1-12)  are  pronounced,  not  upon  acts,  but  upon  dispositions 
of  the  soul,  so  the  curses  of  the  law  are  uttered  not  so  much  against  single  acts  of  trans- 
gression as  against  the  evil  affections  from  which  they  spring.  Compare  the  "works of 
the  flesh"  ( GaL  5 :  19 )  with  the  "fruit  of  the  Spirit "  (  5  :  22 ).  In  both,  dispositions  and  states  pre- 
dominate. 

( b )  Outward  acts,  indeed,  are  condemned  only  when  they  are  regarded 
as  originating  in,  and  as  symptomatic  of,  evil  dispositions.  Civil  law  pro- 
ceeds upon  this  principle  in  holding  crime  to  consist,  not  alone  in  the 
external  act,  but  also  in  the  evil  motive  or  intent  with  which  it  is  per- 
formed. 

The  mens  rea  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  crime.  The  "idle  word"  (Mat.  12 :  36)  shall  be 
brought  into  the  judgment,  not  because  it  is  so  important  in  itself,  but  because  it  is  a 
floating  straw  that  indicates  the  direction  of  the  whole  current  of  the  heart  and  life. 
Murder  differs  from  homicide,  not  in  any  outward  respect,  but  simply  because  of  the 
motive  that  prompts  it,— and  that  motive  is  always,  in  the  last  analysis,  an  evil  dispo- 
sition or  state. 

(  c  )  The  stronger  an  evil  disposition,  or  in  other  words,  the  more  it 
connects  itself  with,  or  resolves  itself  into,  a  settled  state  or  condition  of 
the  sold,  the  more  blameworthy  is  it  felt  to  be.  This  is  shown  by  the 
distinction  drawn  between  crimes  of  passion  and  crimes  of  debberation. 

Edwards :  "  Guilt  consists  in  having  one's  heart  wrong,  and  in  doing  wrong  from  the 
heart."  There  is  guilt  in  evil  desires,  even  when  the  will  combats  them.  But  there  is 
greater  guilt  when  the  will  consents.  The  outward  act  may  be  in  each  case  the  same, 
but  the  guilt  of  it  is  proportioned  to  the  extent  to  which  the  evil  disposition  is  settled 
and  strong. 

(d)  This  condemning  sentence  remains  the  same,  even  although  the 
origin  of  the  evil  disposition  or  state  cannot  be  traced  back  to  any  conscious 
act  of  the  individual.  Neither  the  general  sense  of  mankind,  nor  the  civil 
law  in  which  this  general  sense  is  expressed,  goes  behind  the  fact  of  an 


DEFINITION   OF   SIN.  555 

existing  evil  wilL  Whether  this  evil  will  is  the  result  of  personal  trans- 
gression or  is  a  hereditary  bias  derived  from  generations  passed,  this  eviJ 
will  is  the  man  himself,  r.nd  upon  him  terminates  the  blame.  We  do  not 
excuse  arrogance  or  sensuality  up*bn  the  ground  that  they  are  family  traits. 

The  young  murderer  in  Boston  was  not  excused  upon  the  ground  of  a  congenitally 
cruel  disposition.  We  repent  iu  later  years  of  sins  of  boyhood,  which  we  only  now  see 
to  be  sins ;  and  converted  cannibals  repent,  after  becoming  Christians,  of  the  sins  of 
heathendom  which  they  once  committed  without  a  thought  of  their  wickedness.  The 
peacock  cannot  escape  from  his  feet  by  flying,  nor  can  we  absolve  ourselves  from  blame 
for  an  evil  state  of  will  by  tracing  its  origin  to  a  remote  ancestry.  We  are  responsible 
for  what  we  are.  How  this  can  be,  when  we  have  not  personally  and  consciously  origi- 
nated it,  is  the  problem  of  original  sin,  which  we  have  yet  to  discuss. 

(  e  )  When  any  evil  disposition  has  such  strength  in  itself,  or  is  so  com- 
bined with  others,  as  to  indicate  a  settled  moral  corruption  in  which  no 
power  to  do  good  remains,  this  state  is  regarded  with  the  deepest  disappro- 
bation of  all.  Bin  weakens  man's  power  of  obedience,  but  the  can-not  is  a 
will-not,  and  is  therefore  condemnable.  The  opposite  principle  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that,  the  more  a  man  weakened  his  powers  by  trans- 
gression, the  less  guilty  he  would  be,  until  absolute  depravity  became 
absolute  innocence. 

The  boy  who  hates  his  father  cannot  change  his  hatred  into  love  by  a  single  act  of 
will;  but  he  is  not  therefore  innocent.  Spontaneous  and  uncontrollable  profanity  is 
the  worst  profanity  of  all.  It  is  a  sign  that  the  whole  will,  like  a  subterranean  Ken- 
tucky river,  is  moving  away  from  God,  and  that  no  recuperative  power  is  left  in  the 
soul  which  can  reach  into  the  depths  to  reverse  its  course.  See  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre, 
2 :  110-114;  Shedd,  Hist,  Doct.,  2 :  W-flB,  152-157  ;  Richards,  Lectures  on  Theology,  856-801 ; 
Edwards,  Works,  3  :  134  ;  I  laird,  ElohiniKevealed,  248-263  ;  Princeton  Essays,  2  :  224-239; 
Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  394. 

C.     From  the  experience  of  the  Christian. 

Christian  experience  is  a  testing  of  Scripture  truth,  and  therefore  is  not 
an  independent  source  of  knowledge.  It  may,  however,  corroborate  con- 
clusi<  ins  drawn  fr<  >m  the  w<  >rd  of  God.  Since  the  judgment  of  the  Christian 
is  formed  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  may  trust  this  more 
implicitly  than  the  general  sense  of  the  world.  We  affirm,  then,  that  just 
in  proportion  to  his  spiritual  enlightenment  and  self-knowledge,  the  Chris- 
tian 

(  a  )  Regards  his  outward  deviations  from  God's  law,  and  his  evil  incli- 
nations and  desires,  as  outgrowths  and  revelations  of  a  depravity  of  nature 
which  lies  below  his  consciousness  ;  and 

(  b  )  Eepents  more  deeply  for  this  depravity  of  nature,  which  constitutes 
his  inmost  character  and  is  inseparable  from  himself,  than  for  what  he 
merely  feels  or  does. 

In  proof  of  these  statements  we  appeal  to  the  biographies  and  writings 
of  those  in  all  ages  who  have  been  by  general  consent  regarded  as  most 
advanced  in  spiritual  culture  and  discernment. 

"  Inteliigentia  prima  est,  ut  te  noris  peccatorem."  Compare  David's  experience,  Ps. 
51 : 6  —  "  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts:  And  in  the  hidden  part  thou  wilt  make  me  to  know  wisdom" 
—  with  Paul's  experience  in  Rom.  7:24  —  "  Wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver  me  out  of  the  body  of 
this  death  ?"  —  with  Isaiah's  experience  (6:5),  when  in  the  presence  of  God's  glory  he  uses 
the  words  of  the  leper  ( Lev.  13 :  45 )  and  calls  himself  "  unclean,"  and  with  Peter's  experience 
( Luke  5.8)  when  at  the  manifestation  of  Christ's  miraculous  power  he  "  fell  down  at  Jesus' 


556  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

knees,  saying,  Depart  from  me ;  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord."  So  the  publican  cries  :  "  God,  be  thou  merciful 
to  me  tke  sinner"  (Luke  18;  13  J,  and  Paul  calls  himself  the  "chief"  of  sinners  (1  Tim.  1 :  15).  It  is 
evident  that  in  none  of  these  cases  were  there  merely  single  acts  of  transgression  in 
view ;  the  humiliation  and  self-abhorrence  were  in  view  of  permanent  states  of 
depravity.  Van  Oosterzee :  "  What  we  do  outwardly  is  only  the  revelation  of  our  inner 
nature.''  The  outcropping-  and  visible  rock  is  but  small  in  extent  compared  with  the 
rock  that  is  underlying  and  invisible.  The  iceberg  has  eight-ninths  of  its  mass  below 
the  surface  of  the  sea,  yet  icebergs  have  been  seen  near  Cape  Horn  from  700  to  800  feet 
high  above  the  water. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  repentance  is  genuine  which  is  not  repentance  for 
sin  rather  than  for  sins ;  compare  John  16 :  8  —  the  Holy  Spirit  "  will  convict  the  world  in  respect  of 
sin."  On  the  difference  between  conviction  of  sins  and  conviction  of  sin,  see  Hare, 
Mission  of  the  Comforter.  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon,  just  before  his  death,  desired  to  be  left 
alone.  He  was  then  overheard  confessing  his  sins  in  such  seemingly  extravagant  terms 
as  to  excite  fear  that  he  was  in  delirium.  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  389  —  Luther  during 
his  early  experience  "often  wrote  to  Staupitz :  '  Oh,  my  sins,  my  sins! '  and  yet  in  the 
confessional  he  could  name  no  sins  in  particular  which  he  had  to  confess  ;  so  that  it 
was  clearly  a  sense  of  the  general  depravity  of  his  nature  which  filled  h  is  soul  with  deep 
sorrow  and  pain."  Luther's  conscience  would  not  accept  the  comfort  that  he  wished 
to  be  without  sin,  and  therefore  had  no  real  sin.  When  he  thought  himself  too  great  a 
sinner  to  be  saved,  Staupitz  replied  :  "  Would  you  have  the  semblance  of  a  sinner  and 
the  semblance  of  a  Savior?  " 

After  twenty  years  of  religious  experience,  Jonathan  Edwards  wrote  ( Works  1 :  22, 
23;  also  3:16-18):  "Often  since  I  have  lived  in  this  town  I  have  had  very  affecting 
views  of  my  own  sinfulness  and  vileness,  very  frequently  to  such  a  degree  as  to  hold 
me  in  a  kind  of  loud  weeping,  sometimes  for  a  considerable  time  together,  so  that  I 
have  been  often  obliged  to  shut  myself  up.  I  have  had  a  vastly  greater  sense  of  my 
own  wickedness  and  the  badness  of  my  heart  than  ever  I  had  before  my  conversion. 
It  has  often  appeared  to  me  that  if  God  should  mark  iniquity  against  me,  I  should 
appear  the  very  worst  of  all  mankind,  of  all  that  have  been  since  the  beginning  of  the 
world  to  this  time ;  and  that  I  should  have  by  far  the  lowest  place  in  hell.  When  others 
that  have  come  to  talk  with  me  about  their  soul's  concerns  have  expressed  the  sense 
they  have  had  of  their  own  wickedness,  by  saying  that  it  seemed  to  them  they  were  as 
bad  as  the  devil  himself ;  I  thought  their  expressions  seemed  exceeding  faintand  feeble 
to  represent  my  wickedness." 

Edwards  continues :  "  My  wickedness,  as  I  am  in  myself,  has  long  appeared  to  me 
perfectly  ineffable  and  swallowing  up  all  thought  and  imagination— like  an  infinite 
deluge,  or  mountains  over  my  head.  I  know  not  how  to  express  better  what  my  sins 
appear  to  me  to  be,  than  by  heaping  infinite  on  infinite  and  multiplying  infinite  by 
infinite.  Very  often  for  these  many  years,  these  expressions  are  in  my  mind  and  in  my 
mouth:  'Infinite  upon  infinite  — infinite  upon  infinite  1'  When  I  look  into  my  heart 
and  take  a  view  of  my  wickedness,  it  looks  like  an  abyss  infinitely  deeper  than  hell. 
Audit  appears  to  me  that  were  it  not  for  free  grace,  exalted  and  raised  up  to  the 
infinite  height  of  all  the  fulness  and  glory  of  the  great  Jehovah,  and  the  arm  of  his  power 
and  grace  stretched  forth  in  all  the  majesty  of  his  power  and  in  all  the  glory  of  his 
sovereignty,  I  should  appear  sunk  down  in  my  sins  below  hell  itself,  far  beyond  the 
sight  of  everything  but  the  eye  of  sovereign  grace  that  can  pierce  even  down  to  such 
a  depth.  And  yet  it  seems  to  me  that  my  conviction  of  sin  is  exceeding  small  and 
faint ;  it  is  enough  to  amaze  me  that  I  have  no  more  sense  of  my  sin.  I  know  certainly 
that  I  have  very  little  sense  of  my  sinfulness.  When  I  have  had  turns  of  weeping  for 
my  sins,  I  thought  I  knew  at  the  time  that  my  repentance  was  nothing  to  my  sin. 
.  .  .  .  It  is  affecting  to  think  how  ignorant  I  was,  when  a  young  Christian,  of  the 
bottomless,  infinite  depths  of  wickedness,  pride,  hypocrisy,  and  deceit  left  in  my  heart." 

Jonathan  Edwards  was  not  an  ungodly  man,  but  the  holiest  man  of  his  time.  He  was 
not  an  enthusiast,  but  a  man  of  acute,  philosophic  mind.  He  was  not  a  man  who 
indulged  in  exaggerated  or  random  statements,  for  with  his  power  of  introspection  and 
analysis  he  combined  a  faculty  and  habit  of  exact  expression  unsurpassed  among  the 
sons  of  men.  If  the  maxim  "  cuique  in  arte  sua  credendum  est "  is  of  any  value, 
Edwards's  statements  in  a  matter  of  religious  experience  are  to  be  taken  as  correct 
interpretations  of  the  facts.  H.  B.  Smith  (System.  Theol.,  275)  quotes  Thomasius  as 
saying :  "  It  is  a  striking  fact  in  Scripture  that  statements  of  the  depth  and  power  of  sin 
are  chiefly  from  the  regenerate."  Another  has  said  that  "  a  serpent  is  never  seen  at  its 
whole  length  until  it  is  dead."    Thomas  &  Kempis  ( ed.  Gould  and  Lincoln,  142 )— "  Do 


DEFINITION   OF   SIN".  557 

not  think  that  thou  hast  made  any  progress  toward  perfection,  till  thou  feelest  that 
thou  artless  than  the  least  of  all  human  beings."  Young's  Night  Thoughts  :  "  Heaven's 
Sovereign  saves  all  beings  but  himself  That  hideous  sight  —  a  naked  human  heart." 

Law's  Serious  Call  to  a  Devout  and  Holy  Life  :  "  You  may  justly  condemn  yourself 
for  being  the  greatest  sinner  that  you  know,  1.  Because  you  know  more  of  the  folly 
of  your  own  heart  than  of  other  people's,  and  can  charge  yourself  with  various  sins 
which  you  know  only  of  yourself  and  cannot  be  sure  that  others  are  guilty  of  them. 
2.  The  greatness  of  our  guilt  arises  from  the  greatness  of  God's  goodness  to  US.  You 
know  more  of  t  hese  aggravations  of  your  sins  than  you  do  of  the  sins  of  other  people. 
Hence  the  greatest  saints  have  in  all  ages  condemned  themselves  as  the  greatest  sin- 
ners." We  may  add  :  3.  That,  since  each  man  is  a  peculiar  being,  each  man  is  guilty  of 
peculiar  sins,  and  in  certain  particulars  and  aspects  may  constitute  an  example  of  the 
enormity  and  hatefulness  of  sin,  such  as  neither  earth  nor  hell  can  elsewhere  show. 

Of  Cromwell,  as  a  representative  of  the  Puritans,  Green  says  (Short  History  of  the 
English  People,  454) :  "  The  vivid  sense  of  the  divine  Purity  close  to  such  men,  made 
the  life  of  common  men  seem  sin."  Dr.  Arnold  of  Rugby  (Life  and  Corresp.,  App.D. ) : 
"In  a  deep  sense  of  moral  evil,  more  perhaps  than  anything  else,  abides  a  saving 
knowledge  of  God."  Augustine,  on  his  death-bed,  had  the  82d  Psalm  written  over 
against  him  on  the  wall.  For  his  expressions  with  regard  to  sin,  see  his  Confessions, 
book  10.    See  also  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  2*4,  note. 

2.     Inferences. 

In  the  light  of  the  preceding  discussion,  we  may  properly  estimate  the 
elements  of  truth  and  of  error  in  the  common  delinition  of  sin  as  '  the 
voluntary  transgression  of  known  law. ' 

(  a)  Not  all  sin  is  voluntary  as  being  a  distinct  and  conscious  volition  ; 
for  evil  disposition  and  state  often  precede  and  occasion  evil  volition,  and 
evil  disposition  and  statu  arc  themselves  sin.  All  sin,  however,  is  voluntary 
as  springing  either  directly  from  will,  or  indirectly  from  those  perverse 
affections  and  desires  which  have  themselves  originated  in  will.  'Volun- 
tary' is  a  term  broader  than  '  volitional,'  and  includes  all  those  permanent 
states  of  intellect  and  affection  which  the  will  has  made  what  they  are.  Will, 
moreover,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  simply  the  faculty  of  volitions,  but  as 
primarily  the  underlying  determination  of  the  being  to  a  supreme  end. 

Will,  as  we  have  seen,  includes  preference  ( ddkiqua,  voluntas,  WiUr  )  as  well  as  volition 
(/SouAtj,  arbttriwm,  WWcUr).  We  do  not,  with  Edwards  and  Hodge,  regard  the  sensi- 
bilities as  states  of  the  will.  They  are,  however,  in  their  character  and  their  objects 
determined  by  the  will,  and  so  they  may  be  called  voluntary.  The  permanent  state  of 
the  will  (New  School  "elective  preference")  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  permanent 
state  of  the  sensibilities  (dispositions,  or  desires).  But  both  are  voluntary  because  both 
are  due  to  past  decisions  of  the  will,  and  "whatever  springs  from  will  we  are  respon- 
sible for"  (Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  243 ).  Julius  Mtiller,  2:51  — "We  speak  of 
self-consciousness  and  reason  as  something  which  the  ego  has,  but  we  identify  the  will 
with  the  ego.  No  one  would  say, '  my  will  has  decided  this  or  that,'  although  we  do  say, 
'my  reason,  my  conscience  teaches  me  this  or  that.'  The  will  is  the  very  man  himself, 
as  Augustine  says :  '  Voluntas  est  in  omnibus ;  imo  omnes  nihil  aliud  quam  voluntates 
sunt.' " 

For  other  statements  of  the  relation  of  disposition  to  will,  see  Alexander,  Moral 
Science,  151  — "In  regard  to  dispositions,  we  say  that  they  are  in  a  sense  voluntary. 
They  properly  belong  to  the  will,  taking  the  word  in  a  large  sense.  In  judging  of  the 
morality  of  voluntary  acts,  the  principle  from  which  they  proceed  is  always  included 
in  our  view  and  comes  in  for  a  large  part  of  the  blame  " ;  see  also  pages  201,  207,  208. 
Edwards  on  the  Affections,  3  : 1-22  ;  on  the  Will,  3 : 4  —  "  The  affections  are  only  certain 
modes  of  the  exercise  of  the  will."  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  234  —  "All  sin 
is  voluntary,  in  the  sense  that  all  sin  has  its  root  in  the  perverted  dispositions,  desires, 
and  affections  which  constitute  the  depraved  state  of  the  will."  But  to  Alexander, 
Edwards,  and  Hodge,  we  reply  that  the  first  sin  was  not  voluntary  in  this  sense,  for 
there  was  no  such  depraved  state  of  the  will  from  which  it  could  spring.    We  are 


558  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

responsible  for  dispositions,  not  upon  the  ground  that  they  are  a  part  of  the  will,  but 
upon  the  ground  that  they  are  effects  of  will,  in  other  words,  that  past  decisions  of  the 
will  have  made  them  what  they  are.    See  pages  504-513. 

(  6  )  Deliberate  intention  to  sin  is  an  aggravation  of  transgression,  but  it 
is  not  essential  to  constitute  any  given  act  or  feeling  a  sin.  Those  evil 
inclinations  and  impulses  which,  rise  unbidden  and  master  the  soul  before 
it  is  well  aware  of  their  nature,  are  themselves  violations  of  the  divine  law, 
and  indications  of  an  inward  depravity  which  in  the  case  of  each  descen- 
dant of  Adam  is  the  chief  and  fontal  transgression. 

Joseph  Cook :  "  Only  the  surface-water  of  the  sea  is  penetrated  with  light.  Beneath 
is  a  half-lit  region.  Still  further  down  is  absolute  darkness.  We  are  greater  than  we 
know."  Weismann,  Heredity,  2:8—  "At  the  depth  of  170  meters,  or  552  feet,  there  is 
about  as  much  light  as  that  of  a  starlight  night  when  there  is  no  moon.  Light  pene- 
trates as  far  as  400  meters,  or  1,300  feet,  but  animal  life  exists  at  a  depth  of  4,000  meters, 
or  13,000  feet.     Below  1,300  feet,  all  animals  are  blind."    Cf.  Ps.  51 : 6 ;  19 :  12  —  "  the  inward  parts 

.  .  .  the  hidden  parts  ....  hidden  faults  "  —  hidden  not  only  from  others,  but  even  from  our- 
selves. The  light  of  consciousness  plays  only  on  the  surface  of  the  waters  of  man's 
soul. 

( c  )  Knowledge  of  the  sinfulness  of  an  act  or  feeling  is  also  an  aggrava- 
tion of  transgression,  but  it  is  not  essential  to  constitute  it  a  sin.  Moral 
blindness  is  the  effect  of  transgi'ession,  and,  as  inseparable  from  corrupt 
affections  and  desires,  is  itself  condemned  by  the  divine  law. 

It  is  our  duty  to  do  better  than  we  know.  Our  duty  of  knowing  is  as  real  as  our  duty 
of  doing.  Sin  is  an  opiate.  Some  of  the  most  deadly  diseases  do  not  reveal  themselves 
in  the  patient's  countenance,  nor  has  the  patient  any  adequate  understanding  of  his 
malady.  There  is  an  ignorance  which  is  indolence.  Men  are  often  unwilling  to  take  the 
trouble  of  rectifying  their  standards  of  judgment.  There  is  also  an  ignorance  which  is 
intention.    Instance  many  students'  ignorance  of  College  laws. 

We  cannot  excuse  disobedience  by  saying:  "I  forgot."  God's  commandment  is: 
"Remember"  —as  in  Ei.  20:8;  cf.2  Pet.  3:5  —  "  For  this  they  wilfully  forget."  "  Ignorantia  legis  ncmi- 
nern  excusat."  Rom.  2:12—  "as  many  as  have  sinned  without  the  law  shall  also  perish  without  the  law"; 
Luke  12:48  —  "he  that  kn;w  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of  strip3s,  shall  be  beatsn  [  though]  with  few  stripes." 
The  aim  of  revelation  and  of  preaching  is  to  bring  man  "to  himself"  ( cf.  Luke  15  :  17 )  —  to 
show  him  what  he  has  been  doing  and  what  he  is.  Goethe :  "  We  are  never  deceived :  we 
deceive  ourselves."  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2:359  —  "The  sole  possible  free 
moral  action  is  then  a  freedom  that  relates  to  the  present  fixing  of  attention  upon  the 
ideas  of  the  Ought  which  are  already  present.  To  sin  is  consciously  to  choose  to  forget, 
through  a  narrowing  of  the  field  of  attention,  an  Ought  that  one  already  recognizes." 

(  d  )  Ability  to  fulfill  the  law  is  not  essential  to  constitute  the  non-fulfil- 
ment sin.  Inability  to  fulfill  the  law  is  a  result  of  transgression,  and,  as 
consisting  not  in  an  original  deficiency  of  faculty  but  in  a  settled  state  of 
the  affections  and  will,  it  is  itself  condemnable.  Since  the  law  presents 
the  holiness  of  God  as  the  only  standard  for  the  creature,  ability  to  obey 
can  never  be  the  measure  of  obligation  or  the  test  of  sin. 

Not  power  to  the  contrary,  in  the  sense  of  ability  to  change  all  our  permanent  states 
by  mere  volition,  is  the  basis  of  obligation  and  responsibility ;  for  surely  Satan's  respon- 
sibility does  not  depend  upon  his  power  at  any  moment  to  turn  to  God  and  be  holy. 

Definitions  of  sfn  —  Melanchthon  :  Defectus  vel  inclinatio  vel  actio  pugnans  cum  lege 
Dei.  Calvin :  Illegalitas,  seu  difformitas  a  lege.  Hollaz:  Aberratioa  legedivina.  Hol- 
laz  adds :  "  Voluntariness  does  not  enter  into  the  definition  of  sin,  generically  con- 
sidered. Sin  may  be  called  voluntary,  either  in  respect  to  its  cause,  as  it  inheres  in  the 
will,  or  in  respect  to  the  act,  as  it  precedes  from  deliberate  volition.  Here  is  the 
antithesis  to  the  Roman  Catholics  and  to  the  Socinians,  the  latter  of  whom  define  sin  as 
a  voluntary  [i.  e.,  a  volitional]  transgression  of  law"  — a  view,  says  Hase  ( Hutterus 
Redivivus,  11th  ed.,  162-164),  "which  is  derived  from  the  necessary  methods  of  civil 
tribunals,  and  which  is  incompatible  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  original  sin." 


THE    ESSENTIAL   PRINCIPLE   OF   SIN.  559 

On  the  New  School  definition  of  sin,  see  Fairehild,  Nature  of  Sin,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  25 :  30- 
48 ;  Whedon,  in  Bib.  Sac,  19  :  251,  and  On  the  Will,  328.  Per  contra,  see  Hodge,  Syst. 
Theol.,  2:1S0-190;  Lawrence,  Old  School  in  N.  E.  Theol.,  in  Bib.  Sac,  20:317-328;  Julius 
Miiller,  Doc.  Sin,  1:40-72;  Nitzsch,  Christ.  Doct.,  216;  Luthardt,  Compendium  der 
Dogmatik,  124-126.  * 

II.     The  Essential  Principle  of  Sin. 

The  definition  of  sin  as  lack  of  conformity  to  the  divine  law  does  not 
exclude,  but  rather  necessitates,  an  inquiry  into  the  characterizing  motive 
or  impelling  power  which  explains  its  existence  and  constitutes  its  guilt. 
Only  three  views  require  extended  examination.  Of  these  the  first  two 
constitute  the  most  common  excuses  for  sin,  although  not  propounded  for 
this  purpose  by  their  authors  :  Sin  is  due  ( 1 )  to  the  human  body,  or  (  2  ) 
to  finite  weakness.  The  third,  which  we  regard  as  the  Scriptural  view, 
considers  sin  as  ( 3  )  the  supreme  choice  of  self,  or  selfishness. 

In  the  preceding  section  on  the  Definition  of  Sin,  we  showed  that  sin  is 
a  state,  and  a  state  of  the  will.  We  now  ask  :  What  is  the  nature  of  this 
state  ?  and  we  expect  to  show  that  it  is  essentially  a  selfish  state  of  the  will. 

1.     Sin  as  Scnsuonsness. 

This  view  regards  sin  as  the  necessary  product  of  man's  sensuous  nature 
— a  result  of  the  soul's  connection  with  a  jnrysical  organism.  This  is  the 
view  of  Schleiermacher  and  of  Rothe.  More  recent  writers,  with  John 
Fiske,  regard  moral  evil  as  man's  inheritance  from  a  brute  ancestry. 

For  statement  of  the  view  here  opposed,  see  Schleiermacher,  Der  Christliche  Glaube, 
1 : 361-361  —  "Sin  is  a  prevention  of  the  determining  power  of  the  spirit,  caused  by  the 
independence  ( SelbstSndigkeit )  of  the  sensuous  functions."  The  child  lives  at  Bret  it 
life  of  sense,  in  which  the  bodily  appetites  are  supreme.  The  senses  are  the  avenues  i  if 
all  temptation,  the  physical  domineers  over  the  spiritual,  and  the  soul  never  Bhakes  off 
the  body.  Sin  is,  therefore,  a  malarious  exhalation  from  the  low  grounds  of  human 
nature,  or,  to  use  the  words  of  Schleiermacher,  "  a  positive  opposition  of  the  llcsli  to  the 
spirit."  Pfleiderer,  Prot.  Theol.  seit  Kant,  113,—  says  that  Schleiermacher  here  repeats 
Spinoza's  "  inability  of  the  spirit  to  control  the  sensuous  affections."  Pfleiderer,  Philos. 
Religion,  1 :  230 — "  In  the  development  of  man  out  of  naturality,  the  lower  impulses 
have  already  won  a  power  of  self-assertion  and  resistance,  before  the  reason  could  yet 
come  to  its  valid  position  and  authority.  As  this  propensity  of  the  self-will  is  grounded 
in  the  specific  nature  of  man,  it  may  be  designated  as  inborn,  hereditary,  or  original 
sinfulness." 

Rothe's  view  of  sin  may  be  found  in  his  Dogmatik,  1 :  300-302 ;  notice  the  connection 
of  Rothe's  view  of  sin  with  his  doctrine  of  continuous  creation  (see  page  416  of  this 
Compendium).  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  21 :  2 — "  Rothe  was  a  thorough  going  evolu- 
tionist who  regarded  the  natural  man  as  the  consummation  of  the  development  of 
physical  nature,  and  regarded  spirit  as  the  personal  attainment,  with  divine  help,  of 
those  beings  in  whom  the  further  creative  process  of  moral  development  is  carried  on. 
This  process  of  development  necessarily  takes  an  abnormal  form  and  passes  through 
the  phase  of  sin.  This  abnormal  condition  necessitates  a  fresh  creative  act,  that  of 
salvation,  which  was  however  from  the  very  first  a  part  of  the  divine  plan  of  develop- 
ment. Rothe,  notwithstanding  his  evolutionary  doctrine,  bebeved  in  the  supernatural 
birth  of  Christ." 

John  Fiske,  Destiny  of  Man,  103  — "  Original  sin  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  brute 
inheritance  which  every  man  carries  with  him,  and  the  process  of  evolution  is  an 
advance  toward  true  salvation."  Thus  man  is  a  sphynx  in  whom  the  human  has  not 
yet  escaped  from  the  animal.  So  Bowne,  Atonement,  69,  declares  that  sin  is  "  a  relic  of 
the  animal  not  yet  outgrown,  a  resultant  of  the  mechanism  of  appetite  and  impulse  and 
retlex  action  for  which  the  proper  inhibitions  are  not  yet  developed.    Only  slowly  does 

it  grow  into  a  consciousness  of  itself  as  evil It  would  be  hysteria  to  regard  the 

common  life  of  men  as  rooting  in  a  conscious  choice  of  unrighteousness." 


560  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

In  refutation  of  this  view,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  urge  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

(  a  )  It  involves  an  assumption  of  the  inherent  evil  of  matter,  at  least  so 
far  as  regards  the  substance  of  man's  body.  But  this  is  either  a  form  of 
dualism,  and  may  be  met  with  the  objections  already  brought  against  that 
system,  or  it  implies  that  God,  in  being  the  author  of  man's  physical 
organism,  is  also  the  responsible  originator  of  human  sin. 

This  has  been  called  the  "caged-eagle  theory"  of  man's  existence;  it  holds  that  the 
body  is  a  prison  only,  or,  as  Plato  expressed  it,  "  the  tomb  of  the  soul,"  so  that  the  soul 
can  be  pure  only  by  escaping  from  the  body.  But  matter  is  not  eternal.  God  made  it, 
and  made  it  pure.  The  body  was  made  to  be  the  servant  of  the  spirit.  "We  must  not 
throw  the  blame  of  sin  upon  the  senses,  but  upon  the  spirit  that  used  the  senses  so 
wickedly.  To  attribute  sin  to  the  body  is  to  make  God,  the  author  of  the  body,  to  be 
also  the  author  of  sin, — which  is  the  greatest  of  blasphemies.  Men  cannot  "justly 
accuse  Their  Maker,  or  their  making:,  or  their  fate  "  ( Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  3 :  112).  Sin 
is  a  contradiction  within  the  spirit  itself,  and  not  simply  between  the  spirit  and  the 
flesh.  Sensuous  activities  are  not  themselves  sinful — this  is  essential  Maniuhseanism. 
Robert  Burns  was  wrong-  when  he  laid  the  blame  for  his  delinquencies  upon  "the  pas- 
sions wild  and  strong."  And  Samuel  Johnson  was  wrong  when  he  said  that  "Every 
man  is  a  rascal  so  soon  as  he  is  sick."  The  normal  soul  has  power  to  rise  above  both 
passion  and  sickness  and  to  make  them  serve  its  moral  development.  On  the  develop- 
ment of  the  body,  as  the  organ  of  sin,  see  Straffen's  Hulsean  Lectures  on  Sin,  33-50. 
The  essential  error  of  this  view  is  its  identification  of  the  moral  with  the  physical.  If 
it  were  true,  then  Jesus,  who  came  in  human  flesh,  must  needs  be  a  sinner. 

(b)  In  explaining  sin  as  an  inheritance  from  the  brute,  this  theory 
ignores  the  fact  that  man,  even  though  derived  from  a  brute  ancestry,  is  no 
longer  brute,  but  man,  with  power  to  recognize  and  to  realize  moral  ideals, 
and  under  no  necessity  to  violate  the  law  of  his  being. 

See  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  163-180,  on  The  Fall  and  the  Redemption  of  Man, 
in  the  Light  of  Evolution :  "  Evolution  has  been  thought  to  be  incompatible  with  any 
proper  doctrine  of  a  fall.  It  has  been  assumed  by  many  that  mau's  immoral  course 
and  conduct  are  simply  survivals  of  his  brute  inheritance,  inevitable  remnants  of  his 
old  animal  propensities,  yieldings  of  the  weak  will  to  fleshly  appetites  and  passions. 

This  is  to  deny  that  sin  is  truly  sin,  but  it  is  also  to  deny  that  man  is  truly  man 

Sin  must  be  referred  to  freedom,  or  it  is  not  sin.  To  explain  it  as  the  natural  result  of 
weak  will  overmastered  by  lower  impulses  is  to  make  the  animal  nature,  and  not  the 
will,  the  cause  of  transgression.  And  that  is  to  say  that  man  at  the  beginning  is  not 
man,  but  brute."  See  also  D.  W.  Simon,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1897 : 1-20  —  "  The  key  to  the 
strange  and  dark  contrast  between  man  and  his  animal  ancestry  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  of  the  Fall.  Other  species  live  normally.  No  remnant  of  the  reptile  hinders  the 
bird.  The  bird  is  a  true  bird.  Only  man  fails  to  live  normally  and  is  a  true  man  only 
after  ages  of  sin  and  misery."  Marlowe  very  properly  makes  his  Faustus  to  be  tempted 
by  sensual  baits  only  after  he  has  sold  himself  to  Satan  for  power. 

To  regard  vanity,  deceitfulness,  malice,  and  revenge  as  inherited  from  brute  ancestors 
is  to  deny  man's  original  innocence  aud  the  creatorship  of  God.  B.  W.  Lockhart :  "  The 
animal  mind  knows  not  God,  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be,  just 

because  it  is  animal,  and  as  such  is  incapable  of  right  or  wrong If  man  were  an 

animal  and  nothing  more,  he  could  not  sin.  It  is  by  virtue  of  being  something  more, 
that  he  becomes  capable  of  sin.  Sin  is  the  yielding  of  the  known  higher  to  the  known 
lower.  It  is  the  soul's  abdication  of  its  being  to  the  brute.  .  .  .  Hence  the  need  of 
spiritual  forces  from  the  spiritual  world  of  divine  revelation,  to  heal  and  build  and 
discipline  the  soul  within  itself,  giving  it  the  victory  over  the  animal  passions  which 
■Constitute  the  body  and  over  the  kingdom  of  blind  desire  which  constitutes  the  world. 
J'he  final  purpose  of  man  is  growth  of  the  soul  into  liberty,  truth,  love,  likeness  to 
God.  Education  is  the  word  that  covers  the  movement,  and  probation  is  incident  to 
education."  We  add  that  reparation  for  past  sin  and  renewing  power  from  above  must- 
follow  probation,  in  order  to  make  education  possible. 


THE   ESSENTIAL   PRINCIPLE   OF  SIN.  561 

Some  recent  writers  hold  to  a  real  fall  of  man,  and  yet  regard  that  fall  as  necessary 
to  his  moral  development.  Emma  Marie  Caiilard,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1893 :  879  — 
"  Man  passed  out  of  a  state  of  innocence  —  unconscious  of  his  own  imperfection  —  into 
a  state  of  consciousness  of  it.  The  will  became  slave  instead  of  master.  The  result 
would  have  been  the  complete  stoppage  of  his  evolution  but  for  redemption,  which 
restored  his  will  aud  made  the  continuance  of  his  evolution  possible.  Incarnation  was 
the  method  of  redemption.  But  even  apart  from  the  fall,  this  incarnation  would  have 
been  necessary  to  reveal  to  man  the  goal  of  his  evolution  and  so  to  secure  his  coopera- 
tion in  it."  Lisle,  Evolution  of  Spiritual  Man,  39,  and  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1892 :  431-452  — 
"  Evolution  by  catastrophe  in  the  natural  world  has  a  striking-  analogue  in  the  spiritual 

world Sin  is  primarily  not  so  much  a  fall  from  a  higher  to.a  lower,  as  a  failure 

to  rise  from  a  lower  to  a  higher ;  not  so  much  eating  of  the  forbidden  tree,  as  failure  to 
partake  of  the  tree  of  life.  The  latter  represented  communion  and  correspondence 
with  God,  and  had  innocent  man  continued  to  reach  out  for  this,  he  would  not  have 
fallen.  Man's  refusal  to  choose  the  higher  preceded  and  conditioned  his  fail  to  the 
lower,  and  the  essence  of  sin  is  therefore  in  this  refusal,  whatever  may  cause  the  will  to 
make  it.  . . .  Man  chose  the  lower  of  his  own  free  will.  Then  his  centripetal  force  was 
gone.  His  development  was  swiftly  and  endlessly  away  from  God.  He  reverted  to  his 
original  type  of  savage  animalism  ;  and  yet,  as  a  self-conscious  and  free-acting  being, 
he  retained  a  sense  of  responsibility  that  filled  him  with  fear  aud  suffering." 

On  the  development-theory  of  sin,  see  W.  W.  McLanc,  in  New  Englanuer,  1891 :  180-188; 
A.  B.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  60-62;  Lyman  Abbott,  Evolution  of  Christianity,  203-206; 
Le  Coute,  Evolution,  330, 305-375 :  Henry  Druuunond,  Ascent  of  Man,  1-13, 329, 342 ;  Salem 
Wilder,  Life,  its  Nature,  200-273 ;  Wm.  Graham,  Creed  of  Science,  38-44 ;  Frank  H.  Foster, 
Evolution  and  the  Evangelical  System ;  Chandler,  The  Spirit  of  Man,  45-47. 

( c)  It  rests  upon  an  incomplete  induction  of  facts,  taking  account  of  sin 
solely  in  its  aspect  of  self -degradation,  but  ignoring  the  worst  aspect  of  it  as 
self-exaltation.  Avarice,  envy,  pride,  ambition,  malice,  cruelty,  revenge, 
self-righteousness,  unbelief,  enmity  to  God,  are  none  of  them  fleshly  sins, 
and  upon  this  principle  are  incapable  of  explanation. 

Two  historical  examples  may  suffice  to  show  the  insufficiency  of  the  sensuous  theory 
of  sin.  Goethe  was  not  a  markedly  sensual  man;  yet  the  spiritual  vivisection  which 
he  practised  on  Friederike  Brion,  his  perfidious  misrepresentation  of  his  relations  with 
Kestner's  wife  in  the  "Sorrows  of  Werther,"  and  his  flattery  of  Napo/eon,  when  a 
patriot  would  have  scorned  the  advances  of  the  invader  of  his  country,  show  Goethe  to 
have  been  a  very  incarnation  of  heartlessness  and  selfishness.  The  patriot  Boerne  said 
of  him :  "  Not  once  has  he  ever  advanced  a  poor  solitary  word  in  his  country's  cause  — 
he  who  from  the  lofty  height  he  has  attained  might  speak  out  what  none  other  but 
himself  would  dare  pronounce."  It  has  been  said  that  Goethe's  first  commandment  to 
genius  was :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  and  thy  neighbor's  wife."  His  biographers 
count  up  sixteen  women  to  whom  he  made  love  and  who  reciprocated  his  affection, 
though  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  contented  himself  with  the  doctrine  of  10  to  1.  As 
Sainte-Beuve  said  of  Chateaubriand's  attachments :  "  They  are  like  the  stars  in  the  sky, 
—  the  longer  you  look,  the  more  of  them  you  discover."  Christiane  Vulpius,  after 
being  for  seventeen  years  his  mistress,  became  at  last  his  wife.  But  the  wife  was  so 
slighted  that  she  was  driven  to  intemperance,  and  Goethe's  only  son  inherited  her 
passion  and  died  of  drink.  Goethe  was  the  great  heathen  of  modern  Christendom, 
deriding  self-denial,  extolling  self-confidence,  attention  to  the  present,  the  seeking  of 
enjoyment,  and  the  subiri  ission  of  one's  self  to  the  decrees  of  fate.  Huttou  calls  Goethe 
"a  Narcissus  in  love  w<Th  himself."  Like  George  Eliot's  "Dinah,"  in  Adam  Bede, 
Goethe's  "  Confessions  of  a  Beautiful  Soul,"  in  Wilhelm  Meister,  are  the  purely  artistic 
delineation  of  a  character  with  which  he  had  no  inner  sympathy.  On  Goethe,  see  Hut- 
tou, Essays,  2 : 1-79 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  1 :  490;  A.  H.  Strong,  Great  Poets,  279-:;:;i ; 
Principal  Shairp,  Culture  and  Religion,  10  —  "  Goethe,  the  high  priest  of  culture,  loathes 
Luther,  the  preacher  of  righteousness  " ;  S.  Law  Wilson,  Theology  of  Modern  Litera- 
ture, 149-150. 

Napoleon  was  not  a  markedly  sensual  man,  but  "  his  self-sufficiency  surpassed  the 
self-sufficiency  of  common  men  as  the  great  Sahara  desert  surpasses  an  ordinary  sand 
patch."  He  wantonly  divulged  his  amours  to  Josephine,  with  all  the  details  of  his  ill- 
conduct,  and  when  she  revolted  from  them,  he  only  replied :  "  I  have  the  right  to  meet 
all  vour  complaints  with  an  eternal  I,"  When  his  wars  had  left  almost  no  arle-bodied 
36 


562  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

men  in  France,  he  called  for  the  boys,  saying :  "  A  boy  can  stop  a  bullet  as  well  as  a 
man,"  and  so  the  French  nation  lost  two  inches  of  stature.  Before  the  battle  of  Leipzig, 
when  there  was  prospect  of  unexampled  slaughter,  he  exclaimed :  "  What  are  the  lives 
of  a  million  of  men,  to  carry  out  the  will  of  a  man  like  me  ?  "  His  most  truthful  epitaph 
was  :  "  The  little  butchers  of  Ghent  to  Napoleon  the  Great "  [  butcher  ].  Heine  repre- 
sents Napoleon  as  saying  to  the  world :  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me." 
Memoirs  of  Madame  de  Remusat,  1 :225  —  "  At  a  fete  given  by  the  city  of  Paris  to  the 
Emperor,  the  repertory  of  inscriptions  being  exhausted,  a  brilliant  device  was  resorted 
to.  Over  the  throne  which  he  was  to  occupy,  were  placed,  in  letters  of  gold,  the  follow- 
ing words  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  '  I  am  the  I  am.'  And  no  one  seemed  to  be  scan- 
dalized." Iago,  in  Shakespeare's  Othello,  is  the  greatest  villain  of  all  literature ;  but 
Coleridge,  Works,  4 :  180,  calls  attention  to  his  passionless  character.  His  sin  is,  like 
that  of  Goethe  and  of  Napoleon,  sin  not  of  the  flesh  but  of  the  intellect  and  will. 

{d)  It  leads  to  absurd  conclusions, — as,  for  example,  that  asceticism,  by- 
weakening  the  power  of  sense,  must  weaken  the  power  of  sin  ;  that  man 
becomes  less  sinful  as  his  senses  fail  with  age  ;  that  disembodied  spirits  are 
necessarily  holy  ;  that  death  is  the  only  Redeemer. 

Asceticism  only  turns  the  current  of  sin  in  other  directions.  Spiritual  pride  and 
tyranny  take  the  place  of  fleshly  desires.  The  miser  clutches  his  gold  more  closely  as 
ho  nears  death.  Satan  has  no  physical  organism,  yet  he  is  the  prince  of  evil.  Not  our 
own  death,  but  Christ's  death,  saves  us.  But  when  Rousseau's  Emile  comes  to  die,  he 
calmly  declares:  "I  am  delivered  from  the  trammels  of  the  body,  and  am  myself 
without  contradiction."  At  the  age  of  seventy-five  Goethe  wrote  to  Eckermann :  "I 
have  ever  been  esteemed  one  of  fortune's  favorites,  nor  can  I  complain  of  the  course 
my  life  has  taken.  Yet  truly  there  has  been  nothing  but  care  and  toil,  and  I  may 
say  that  I  have  never  had  four  weeks  of  genuine  pleasure."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology, 
2:  743—  "  When  the  authoritative  demand  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  confess  sin  and  beg  remis- 
sion through  atoning  blood,  is  made  to  David  Hume,  or  David  Strauss,  or  John  Stuart 
Mill,  none  of  whom  were  sensualists,  it  wakens  intense  mental  hostility." 

(e)  It  interprets  Scripture  erroneously.  In  passages  like  Eom.  7  :  18  — 
ova  oIke'c  ev  £/J.oi,  tovt'  hanv  ev  Ty  caput  f/ovt  ayaftdv  —  oap!- ,  or  flesh,  signifies,  not 
man's  body,  but  man's  whole  being  when  destitute  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
The  Scriptures  distinctly  recognize  the  seat  of  sin  as  being  in  the  soul 
itself,  not  in  its  physical  organism.  God  does  not  tempt  man,  nor  has  he 
made  man's  nature  to  tempt  him  (James  1 :  13,  14). 

In  the  use  of  the  term  "flesh,"  Scripture  puts  a  stigma  upon  sin,  and  intimates  that 
human  nature  without  God  is  as  corruptible  and  perishable  as  the  body  would  be  with- 
out the  soul  to  inhabit  it.  The  "carnal  mind,"  or  "mind  of  the  flesh"  (Rom.  8:7),  accordingly 
means,  not  the  sensual  mind,  but  the  mind  which  is  not  under  the  control  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  its  true  life.  See  Meyer,  on  1  Cor.  1 :  26  —  <rdp£  =  "  the  purely  human  element  in 
man,  as  opposed  to  the  divine  principle";  Pope,  Theology,  2 : 65  —  <rdpf  =  "  the  whole 
being  of  man,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  separated  from  God  and  subjected  to  the  creature  " ; 
Julius  Muller,  Proof-texts,  19  —  <™pf  =  "  human  nature  as  living  in  and  for  ftself,  sun- 
dered from  God  and  opposed  to  him."  The  earliest  and  best  statement  of  this  view  of 
the  term  <rapf  is  that  of  Julius  Muller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1:295-333,  especially  321.  See 
also  Dickson,  St.  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit,  270-271  —  <rdp£  =  "human 
nature  without  the  nveiixa  ....  man  standing  by  himself,  or  left  to  himself,  over 
against  God  ....  the  natural  man,  conceived  as  not  having  yet  received  grace,  or  as 
not  yet  wholly  under  its  influence." 

James  1:14,  15 — "desire,  when  it  hath  conceived,  beareth  sin"  =  innocent  desire  — for  it  comes  in 
before  the  sin  —  innocent  constitutional  propensity,  not  yet  of  the  nature  of  depravity, 
is  only  the  occasion  of  sin.  The  love  of  freedom  is  a  part  of  our  nature ;  sin  arises  only 
when  the  will  determines  to  indulge  this  impulse  without  regard  to  the  restraints  of 
the  divine  law.  Luther,  Preface  to  Ep.  to  Romans :  "  Thou  must  not  understand  '  flesh  ' 
as  though  that  only  were  'flesh'  which  is  connected  with  unchastity.  St.  Paul  uses 
1  flesh  '  of  the  whole  man,  body  and  soul,  reason  and  all  his  faculties  included,  because 
all  that  is  in  him  longs  and  strives  after  the  '  flesh' ."  Melanchthon  :  "  Note  that  'flesh' 
Signifies  the  entire  nature  of  man,  sense  and  reason,  without  the  Holy  Spirit."    Gould, 


THE   ESSENTIAL    PRINCIPLE    OF   SIN.  563 

Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  76  — "The  cropf  of  Paul  corresponds  to  the  k6<tho<;  of  John.  Paul 
sees  the  divineeconouiy ;  John  the  divine  nature.  That  Paul  did  not  hold  sin  to  consist 
in  the  possession  of  a  body  appears  from  his  doctrine  of  a  bodily  resurrection  (1  Cor. 
15:38-49).  This  resurrection  of  the  body^s  an  integral  part  of  immortality."  On  <rapf, 
see  Thayer,  N.  T.  Lexicon,  571 ;  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  319. 

(/)  Instead  of  explaining  sin,  this  theory  virtually  denies  its  existence, 
—  for  if  sin  arises  from  the  original  constitution  of  our  being,  reason  may 
recognize  it  as  misfortune,  but  conscience  cannot  attribute  to  it  guilt. 

Sin  which  in  its  ultimate  origin  is  a  necessary  thing  is  no  longer  sin.  On  the  whole 
theory  of  the  sensuous  origin  of  sin,  see  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  386,  428; 
Ernesti,  Ursprung  der  Stinde,  1:20-274;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2:132-147;  Tulloch, 
Doctrine  of  Sin,  144—  "That  which  is  an  inherent  and  necessary  power  in  the  creation 
cannot  be  a  contradiction  of  its  highest  law."  This  theory  confounds  sin  with  the 
mere  consciousness  of  sin.  On  Schleiermacher,  see  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin, 
1  :  341-349.  On  the  sense-theory  of  sin  in  general,  see  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Chris- 
tianity, 2  :  26-52;  N.  K.  Wood,  The  Witness  of  Bin,  7'.»-87. 

2.     Sin  as  Finiteness. 

This  view  explains  sin  as  a  necessary  residt  of  the  limitations  of  man's 
finite  being.  As  an  incident  of  imperfect  development,  the  fruit  of  igno- 
rance and  impotence,  sin  is  not  absolutely  but  only  relatively  evil  —  an 
element  in  human  education  and  a  means  of  progress.  This  is  the  view  of 
Leibnitz  and  of  Spinoza.  Modern  writers,  as  Sehurman  and  Royce,  have 
maintained  that  moral  evil  is  the  necessary  background  and  condition  of 
moral  good. 

The  theory  of  Leibnitz  may  be  found  in  his  Tbeodicee,  pari  1,  sections  20  and  31;  that 
of  Spinoza  in  his  Ethics,  part  4,  proposition  20.  Upon  this  view  sin  is  the  blundering  of 
inexperience,  the  thoughtlessness  that  takes  evil  for  good,  the  ignorance  that  puts  its 
fingers  into  the  fire,  the  stumbling  without  which  one  cannot  learn  to  walk.  It  is  a 
fruit  which  is  sour  and  bitter  simply  because  it  is  immature.  It  is  a  means  of  disci- 
pline and  training  for  something  better, —it  is  holiness  in  the  germ,  good  in  the  making 
— "Erhebung  des  Menschen  zur  freien  Vermin  ft."  The  Fall  was  a  fall  up,  and  not  down. 

John  Fiske,  in  addition  to  his  sense-theory  of  sin  already  mentioned,  seems  to  hold  t  his 
theory  also.  In  his  Mystery  of  Evil,  he  says :  "  Its  impress  upon  the  human  soul  is  the 
indispensable  background  against  which  shall  be  set  hereafter  the  eternal  joys  of 
heaven  " ;  in  other  words,  sin  is  necessary  to  holiness,  as  darkness  is  the  indispensable 
contrast  and  background  to  light ;  without  black,  we  should  never  be  able  to  know  white. 
Sehurman,  Relief  in  G-od,  251  sq. —  "  The  possibility  of  sin  is  the  correlative  of  the  free 
initiative  God  has  •vacated  on  man's  behalf.  .  .  .  The  essence  of  sin  is  the  enthrone- 
ment of  self.  .  .  .  Yet,  without  such  self-absorption,  there  could  be  no  sense  of  union 
with  God.  For  consciousness  is  possible  only  through  opposition.  To  know  A,  we 
must  know  it  through  not-A.  Alienation  from  God  is  the  necessary  condition  of  com- 
munion with  God.  And  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Scripture  that  'where  sin  abounded, 
grace  shall  much  more  abound.'  ....  Modern  culture  protests  against  the  Puritan 
enthronement  of  goodness  above  truth.  .  .  .  For  the  decalogue  it  would  substitute  the 
wider  new  commandment  of  Goethe :  'Live  resolutely  in  the  Whole,  in  the  Good,  in 
the  Beautiful.'  The  highest  religion  can  be  content  with  nothing  short  of  the  syn- 
thesis demanded  by  Goethe.  .  .  .  God  is  the  universal  life  in  which  individual  activities 
are  included  as  movements  of  a  single  organism." 

Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2  :  361-384—  "  Evil  is  a  discord  necessary  to  perfect  har- 
mony. In  itself  it  is  evil,  but  in  relation  to  the  whole  it  has  value  by  showing  us  its 
own  finiteness  and  imperfection.  It  is  a  sorrow  to  God  as  much  as  to  us ;  indeed,  all 
our  sorrow  is  his  sorrow.  The  evil  serves  the  good  only  by  being  overcome,  thwarted, 
overruled.  Every  evil  deed  must  somewhere  and  at  some  time  be  atoned  for,  by  some 
other  than  the  agent,  if  not  by  the  agent  himself.  .  .  .  All  finite  life  is  a  struggle  with 
evil.  Yet  from  the  final  point  of  view  the  Whole  is  good.  The  temporal  order  con- 
tains at  no  moment  anything  that  can  satisfy.  Yet  the  eternal  order  is  perfect.  We 
have  all  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.    Yet  in  just  our  life,  viewed  in  its 


564  ANTHROFOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

entirety,  the  glory  of  God  is  completely  manifest.  These  hard  sayings  are  the  deepest 
expressions  of  the  essence  of  true  religion.  They  are  also  the  most  inevitable  outcome 
of  philosophy.  .  .  .  Were  there  no  longing  in  time,  there  would  be  no  peace  in  eternity. 
The  prayer  that  God's  will  may  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven  is  identical  with  what 
philosophy  regards  as  simple  fact." 

We  object  to  this  theory  that 

( a  )  It  rests  upon  a  pantheistic  basis,  as  the  sense-theory  rests  upon 
dualism.  The  moral  is  confounded  with  the  physical ;  might  is  identified 
with  right.  Since  sin  is  a  necessary  incident  of  finiteness,  and  creatures 
can  never  be  infinite,  it  follows  that  sin  must  be  everlasting,  not  only  in 
the  universe,  but  in  each  individual  soul. 

Goethe,  Carlyle,  and  Emerson  are  representatives  of  this  view  in  literature.  Goethe 
spoke  of  the  "idleness  of  wishing  to  jump  off  from  one's  own  shadow."  He  was  a 
disciple  of  Spinoza,  who  believed  in  one  substance  with  contradictory  attributes  of 
thought  and  extension.  Goethe  took  the  pantheistic  view  of  God  with  the  personal  view 
of  man.  He  ignored  the  fact  of  sin.  Hutton  calls  him  "  the  wisest  man  the  world  has 
seen  who  was  without  humility  and  faith,  and  who  lacked  the  wisdom  of  a  child." 
Speaking  of  Goethe's  Faust,  Hutton  says:  "The  great  drama  is  radically  false  in  its 
fundamental  philosophy.  Its  primary  notion  is  that  even  a  spirit  of  pure  evil  is  an 
exceedingly  useful  being,  because  he  stirs  into  activity  those  whom  he  leads  into  sin, 
and  so  prevents  them  from  rusting  away  in  pure  indolence.  There  are  other  and  better 
means  of  stimulating  the  positive  affections  of  men  than  by  tempting  them  to  sin."  On 
Goethe,  see  Hutton,  Essays,  2  :l-79;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1  :  490;  A.  H.  Strong,  Great 
Poets  and  their  Theology,  279-331. 

Carlyle  was  a  Scotch  Presbyterian  minus  Christianity.  At  the  age  of  twenty-five,  he 
rejected  miraculous  and  historical  religion,  and  thenceforth  had  no  God  but  natural 
Law.  His  worship  of  objective  truth  became  a  worship  of  subjective  sincerity,  and  his 
worship  of  personal  will  became  a  worship  of  impersonal  force.  He  preached  truth, 
service,  sacrifice,  but  all  in  a  mandatory  and  pessimistic  way.  He  saw  in  England  and 
Wales  "twenty-nine  millions  — mostly  fools."  He  had  no  love,  no  remedy,  no  hope.  In 
our  civil  war,  he  was  upon  the  side  of  the  slaveholder.  He  claimed  that  his  philosophy 
made  right  to  be  might,  but  in  practice  he  made  might  to  be  right.  Confounding  all 
moral  distinctions,  as  he  did  in  his  later  writings,  he  was  tit  to  wear  the  title  which  he  in- 
vented for  another :  "President  of  the  Heaven-and-Hell- Amalgamation  Society."  Froude 
calls  him  "a  Calvinist  without  the  theology  "—a  believer  in  predestination  without  grace. 
On  Carlyle,  see  S.  Law  Wilson,  Theology  of  Modern  Literature,  131-178. 

Emerson  also  is  the  worshiper  of  successful  force.  His  pantheism  is  most  manifest  in 
his  poems  "  Cupido  "  and  "Brahma,"  and  in  his  Essays  on  "Spirit"  and  on  "The  Over- 
soul."  Cupido:  "The  solid,  solid  universe  Is  pervious  to  Love ;  With  bandaged  eyes  he 
never  errs,  Around,  below,  above.  His  blinding  light  He  flingeth  white  On  God's  and 
Satan's  brood,  And  reconciles  by  mystic  wiles  The  evil  and  the  good."  Brahma:  "If  the 
red  slayer  thinks  he  slays,  Or  if  the  slain  think  he  is  slain,  They  know  not  well,  the 
subtle  ways  I  keep,  and  pass,  and  turn  again.  Far  or  forgot  to  me  is  near ;  Shadow 
and  sunlight  are  the  same;  The  vanished  gods  to  me  appear:  And  one  to  me  are  shame 
or  fame.  They  reckon  ill  who  leave  me  out;  When  me  they  fly,  I  am  the  wings;  I  am 
the  doubter  and  the  doubt.  And  I  the  hymn  the  Brahmin  sings.  The  strong  gods  pine 
for  my  abode,  And  pine  in  vain  the  sacred  Seven  ;  But  thou,  meek  lover  of  the  good, 
Find  me,  and  turn  thy  back  on  heaven." 

Emerson  taught  that  man's  imperfection  is  not  sin,  and  that  the  cure  for  it  lies  in 
education.  "He  lets  God  evaporate  into  abstract  Ideality.  Not  a  Deity  in  the  con- 
crete, nor  a  superhuman  Person,  but  rather  the  immanent  divinity  in  things,  the  essen- 
tially spiritual  structure  of  the  universe,  is  the  object  of  the  transcendental  cult."  His 
view  of  Jesus  is  found  in  his  Essays,  2  :  263— "Jesus  would  absorb  the  race;  but  Tom 
Paine,  or  the  coarsest  blasphemer,  helps  humanity  by  resisting  this  exuberance  of 
power."  In  his  Divinity  School  Address,  he  banished  the  person  of  Jesus  from  genuine 
religion.  He  thought  "one  could  not  be  a  man  if  lie  must  subordinate  his  nature  to 
Christ's  nature."  He  failed  to  see  that  Jesus  not  only  absorbs  but  transforms,  and 
that  we  grow  only  by  the  impact  of  nobler  souls  than  our  own.  Emerson's  essay 
style  is  devoid  of  clear  and  precise  theological  statement,  and  in  this  vagueness  lies  its 
harmfulness.     Fisher,   Nature  and   Method  of  Revelation,  xii— "  Emerson's  pantheism 


THE   ESSENTIAL  PRINCIPLE   OF  SIN.  565 

is  m  >t  hardened  into  a  consistent  creed,  for  to  the  end  he  clung  to  the  belief  in  personal 
immortality,  and  he  pronounced  the  acceptance  of  this  belief 'the  test  of  mental 
sanity.'  "    On  Emerson,  sec  8.  L.  Wilson,  Theology  of  Modern  Literature,  97-128. 

We  may  call  this  theory  the  "green-apple  theory"  of  sin.  Sin  is  a  green  apple, 
which  needs  only  time  and  sunshine  and  growth  to  bring  it  to  ripeness  and  beauty  and 
usefulness.  But  we  answer  that  sin  is  not  a  green  apple,  but  an  apple  with  a  worm  at 
its  heart.  The  evil  of  it  can  never  be  cured  by  growth.  The  fall  can  never  be  anything 
else  than  downward.  Upon  this  theory,  sin  is  an  inseparable  factor  in  the  nature  of 
finite  things.  The  highest  archangel  cannot  be  without  it.  Man  in  moral  character  is 
"  the  asymptote  of  God,  "—  forever  learning,  but  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  The  throne  of  iniquity  is  set  up  forever  in  the  universe.  If  this  theory 
we're  true,  Jesus,  in  virtue  of  his  partaking  of  our  finite  humanity,  must  needs  be  a 
sinner.  His  perfect  development,  without  sin,  shows  that  sin  was  not  a  necessity  of 
finite  progress.  Matthews,  in  Christianity  and  Evolution,  1j7  —  "  It  was  not  necessary 
for  the  prodigal  to  go  into  the  far  country  and  become  a  swineherd,  in  order  to  find 
out  the  father's  love."  E.  II.  Johnson,  Syst.  Theol.,  141— "It  is  not  the  privilege  of 
the  Infinite  alone  to  be  good."  Dorner,  System,  1 :  119,  speaks  of  the  moral  career 
which  this  theory  describes,  as  "a  progr earns  in  infinitum,  where  the  constant  approach 
to  the  goal  has  as  its  reverse  side  an  eternal  separation  from  the  goal."  In  his  "Trans- 
formation," Hawthorne  hints,  though  rather  hesitatingly,  that  without  sin  the  higher 
humanity  of  man  could  not  be  taken  up  at  ail,  and  that  sin  maybe  essential  to  the 
first  conscious  awakening  of  moral  freedom  and  to  the  possibility  of  progress;  sec 
Hutton,  Essays,  2 :  381. 

(  J>  )  So  far  as  this  theory  regards  moral  evil  as  a  necessary  presupposition 
and  condition  of  moral  good,  it  commits  the  serious  error  of  confounding 
the  possible  with  the  actual.  What  is  necessary  to  goodness  is  not  the 
actuality  of  evil,  but  only  the  possibility  of  evil. 

Since  we  cannot  know  white  except  in  contrast  to  black,  it  is  claimed  that  without 
knowing  actual  evil  we  could  never  know  actual  good.  George  A.  Gordon,  New 
Epoch  for  Faith,  40,  50,  has  well  shown  that  in  that  case  the  elimination  of  evil  would 
imply  the  elimination  of  good.  Sin  would  need  to  have  place  in  God's  being  in  order 
that  he  might  be  holy,  and  thus  he  would  be  divinity  and  devil  in  one  person.  Jesus 
too  must  needs  be  evil  as  well  as  good.  Not  only  would  it  be  true,  as  intimated  above, 
that  Christ,  since  his  humanity  is  finite,  must  be  a  sinner,  but  also  that  we  ourselves, 
who  must  always  be  finite,  must  always  be  sinners.  We  grant  that  holiness,  in  either 
God  or  man,  must  involve  the  abstract  possibility  of  its  opposite.  But  we  maintain 
that,  as  this  possibility  in  God  is  only  abstract  and  never  realized,  so  in  man  it  should  be 
only  abstract  and  never  realized.  Man  lias  power  to  reject  this  possible  eviL  His  sin 
is  a  turning  of  the  merely  possible  evil,  by  t  he  decision  of  his  will,  into  actual  evil. 
Robert  Browning  is  not  free  from  the  error  above  mentioned ;  see  S.  Law  Wilson,  The- 
ology of  Modern  Literature,  207-310 ;  A.  H.  Strong,  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology, 
433-444. 

This  theory  of  sin  dates- back  to  Hegel.  To  him  there  is  no  real  sin  and  cannot  be. 
Imperfection  there  is  and  must  always  be,  because  the  relative  can  never  become  the 
absolute.  Redemption  is  only  an  evolutionary  process,  indefinitely  prolonged,  and  evil 
must  remain  an  eternal  condition.  All  finite  thought  is  an  element  in  the  infinite 
thought,  and  all  finite  will  an  element  in  the  infinite  will.  As  good  cannot  exist  wit  h- 
out  evil  as  its  antithesis,  infinite  righteousness  should  have  for  its  counterpart  an 
infinite  wickedness.  Hegel's  guiding  principle  was  that  "  What  is  rational  is  real,  and 
what  is  real  is  rational."  Seth,  Hegclianism  and  Personality,  remarks  that  this  princi- 
ple ignores  "the  riddle  of  the  painful  earth."  The  disciples  of  Hegel  thought  that 
nothing  remained  for  history  to  accomplish,  now  that  the  World-spirit  had  come  to 
know  himself  in  Hegel's  philosophy. 

Biedermann's  Dogmatik  is  based  upon  the  Hegelian  plulosophy.  At  page  649  we  read  : 
"Evil  is  the  finiteness  of  the  world-being  which  clings  to  all  individual  existences  by 
virtue  of  their  belonging  to  the  immanent  world-order.  Evil  is  therefore  a  necessary 
element  in  the  divinely  willed  being  of  the  world."  Bradley  follows  Hegel  in  making 
sin  to  be  no  reality,  but  only  a  relative  appearance.  There  is  no  free  will,  and  no  antag- 
onism between  the  will  of  God  and  the  will  of  man.  Darkness  is  an  evil,  a  destroying 
agent.  But  it  is  not  a  positive  force,  as  light  is.  It  cannot  be  attacked  and  overcome 
as  an  entity.    Bring  light,  and  darkness  disappears.    So  evil  is  not  a  positive  force,  as 


§66  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

good  is.  Bring  good,  and  evil  disappears.  Herbert  Spencer's  Evolutionary  Ethics  fits 
in  with  such  a  system,  for  he  says :  "  A  perfect  man  in  an  imperfect  race  is  impossi- 
ble." On  Hegel's  view  of  sin,  a  view  which  denies  holiness  even  to  Christ,  see  J.  Miiller, 
Doct,  Sin,  1 :  390-407 ;  Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  of  Christ,  B.  3  :  131-162 ;  Stearns,  Evi- 
dence of  Christ.  Experience,  92-96 ;  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas,  2  :  1-25 ;  Forrest,  Author- 
ity of  Christ,  13-16. 

(e)  It  is  inconsistent  with  known  facts, —  as  for  example,  the  follow- 
ing :  Not  all  sins  are  negative  sins  of  ignorance  and  infirmity  ;  there  are  acts 
of  positive  malignity,  conscious  transgressions,  wilful  and  presumptuous 
choices  of  evil.  Increased  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  sin  does  not  of  itself 
give  strength  to  overcome  it ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  repeated  acts  of  con- 
scious transgression  harden  the  heart  in  evil.  Men  of  greatest  mental 
powers  are  not  of  necessity  the  greatest  saints,  nor  are  the  greatest  sinners 
men  of  least  strength  of  will  and  understanding. 

Not  the  weak  but  the  strong  are  the  greatest  sinners.  We  do  not  pity  Nero  and  Caesar 
Borgia  for  their  weakness ;  we  abhor  them  for  their  crimes.  Judas  was  an  able  man,  a 
practical  administrator ;  and  Satan  is  a  being  of  groat  natural  endowments.  Sin  is  not 
simply  a  weakness,— it  is  also  a  power.  A  pantheistic  philosophy  should  worship  Satan 
most  of  all ;  for  he  is  the  truest  type  of  godless  intellect  and  selfish  strength. 

John  12  :  6  —  Judas,  "  having  the  bag,  made  away  with  what  was  put  therein."  Judas  was  set  by  Christ 
to  do  the  work  he  was  best  fitted  for,  and  that  was  best  fitted  to  interest  and  save  him. 
Some  men  may  be  put  into  the  ministry,  because  that  is  the  only  work  that  will  prevent 
their  destruction.  Pastors  should  find  for  their  members  work  suited  to  the  aptitudes 
of  each.  Judas  was  tempted,  or  tried,  as  all  men  are,  according  to  his  native  propen- 
sity. While  his  motive  in  objecting  to  Mary's  generosity  was  really  avarice,  his  pretext 
was  charity,  or  regard  for  the  poor.  Each  one  of  the  apostles  had  his  own  peculiar  gift, 
and  was  chosen  because  of  it.  The  sin  of  Judas  was  not  a  sin  of  weakness,  or  ignorance, 
or  infirmity.  It  was  a  sin  of  disappointed  ambition,  of  malice,  of  hatred  for  Christ's 
self-sacrificing  purity. 

E.  H.  Johnson :  "  Sins  are  not  men's  limitations,  but  the  active  expressions  of  a  pei-- 
verse  nature."  M.  F.  H.  Round,  Sec.  of  Nat.  Prison  Association,  on  examining  the 
record  of  a  thousand  criminals,  found  that  one  quarter  of  them  had  an  exceptionally 
fine  basis  of  physical  life  and  strength,  while  the  other  three  quarters  fell  only  a  little 
below  the  average  of  ordinary  humanity  ;  see  The  Forum,  Sept.  1893.  The  theory  that 
sin  is  only  holiness  in  the  making  reminds  us  of  the  view  that  the  most  objectionable 
refuse  can  by  ingenious  processes  be  converted  into  butter  or  at  least  into  oleomar- 
garine. It  is  not  true  that  "  tout  comprendre  est  tout  pardonner."  Such  doctrine  oblit- 
ei'ates  all  moral  distinctions.  Gilbert,  Bab  Ballads,  "  My  Dream":  "I  dreamt  that 
somehow  I  had  come  To  dwell  in  Topsy-Turvydom,  Where  vice  is  virtue,  virtue  vice ; 
Where  nice  is  nasty,  nasty  nice ;  Where  right  is  wrong,  and  wrong  is  right ;  Where 
white  is  black  and  black  is  white." 

(d)  Like  the  sense-theory  of  sin,  it  contradicts  hoth  conscience  and 
Scripture  by  denying  human  responsibility  and  by  transferring  the  blame 
of  sin  from  the  creature  to  the  Creator.  This  is  to  explain  sin,  again,  by 
denying  its  existence. 

OSdipus  said  that  his  evil  deeds  had  been  suffered,  not  done.  Agamemnon,  in  the 
Iliad,  says  theblame  belongs,  not  to  himself,  but  to  Jupiter  and  to  fate.  So  sin  blames 
everything  and  everybody  but  self.  Gen.  3  :  12  —  "  The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she  gave 
me  of  the  tree,  and  I  did  eat."  But  self-vindicating  is  God-accusing.  Made  imperfect  at  the 
start,  man  cannot  help  his  sin.  By  the  very  fact  of  his  ci-eation  he  is  cut  loose  from  God. 
That  cannot  be  sin  which  is  a  necessary  outgrowth  of  human  nature,  which  is  not  our 
act  but  our  fate.  To  all  this,  the  one  answer  is  found  in  Conscience.  Conscience  testi- 
fies thatsin  is  not  "  das  Gewordene,"  but  "das  Gemachte,"  and  that  it  was  his  own  act 
when  man  by  transgression  fell.  The  Scriptures  refer  man's  sin,  not  to  the  limitations 
of  his  being,  but  to  the  free  will  of  man  himself.  On  the  theory  here  combated,  see 
MUller,  Doct.  Sin,  1 :  271-295 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3  :  123-131 ;  N.  R.  Wood,  The  Wit- 
ness of  Sin,  20-42. 


THE   ESSENTIAL  PRINCIPLE   OF  SIN.  507 

3.     Shi  as  Selfishness. 

We  hold  the  essential  principle  of  sin  to  be  selfishness.  By  selfishness 
we  mean  not  simply  the  exaggerated  self-love  which  constitutes  the  antith- 
esis of  benevolence,  but  that  choice  of  self  as  the  supreme  end  which 
constitutes  the  antithesis  of  supreme  love  to  God.  That  selfishness  is  the 
essence  of  sin  may  be  shown  as  follows  : 

A.  Love  to  God  is  the  essence  of  all  virtue.  The  opposite  to  this,  the 
choice  of  self  as  the  supreme  end,  must  therefore  be  the  essence  of  sin. 

We  are  to  remember,  however,  that  the  love  to  God  in  which  virtue  con- 
sists is  love  for  that  which  is  most  characteristic  and  fundamental  in  God, 
namely,  his  holiness.  It  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  supreme  regard  for 
God's  interests  or  for  the  good  of  being  in  general.  Not  mere  benevolence, 
but  love  for  God  as  holy,  is  the  principle  and  source  of  holiness  in  man. 
Since  the  love  of  God  required  by  the  law  is  of  this  sort,  it  not  only  does 
not  imply  that  love,  in  the  sense  of  benevolence,  is  the  essence  of  holiness 
in  God, —  it  implies  rather  that  holiness,  or  self-loving  and  self-affirming 
purity,  is  fundamental  in  the  divine  nature.  From  this  self-loving  and 
self-affirming  purity,  love  properly  so-called,  or  the  self-communicating 
attribute,  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  ( see  vol.  1,  pages  271-275). 

Bossuet,  describing  heathendom,  says :  "  Every  thing  was  God  but  God  himself."  Sin 
goes  further  than  this,  and  says :  "I  am  myself  all  things,"— not  simply  as  Louis  XVI : 
"  I  am  the  state,"  but :  "  I  am  the  world,  the  universe,  God."  Heinrich  Heine  :  "  I  am 
no  child.  I  do  not  want  a  heavenly  Father  any  more."  A  French  critic  of  Fichte's 
philosophy  said  that  it  was  a  flight  toward  the  infinite  which  began  with  the  ego,  and 
never  got  beyond  it.  Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  75—  "  In  Calderon's  tragic  story,  the 
unknown  figure,  which  throughout  life  is  everywhere  in  conflict  with  the  individual 
whom  it  haunts,  lifts  the  mask  at  last  to  disclose  to  the  opponent  his  own  features." 
Caird,  Evolution  of  Religion,  1:  78  — "  Every  self,  ouce  awakened,  is  naturally  a  despot, 
and  '  bears,  like  the  Turk,  no  brother  near  the  throne.'"  Every  one  has,  as  Hobbi  >a 
said,  "an  infinite  desire  for  gain  or  glory,"  and  can  be  satisfied  with  nothing  but  a 
whole  universe  for  himself.  Selfishness  =  "  homo  homini  lupus."  James  Martineau  : 
"  We  ask  Comte  tc  lift  the  veil  from  the  holy  of  holies  and  show  us  the  all-perfect 
object  of  worship, —  he  produces  a  lookhiK-fdass  and  shows  us  ourselves."  Comte's 
religion  is  a  "synthetic  idealization  of  our  existence"  — a  worship,  not  of  God,  but  of 
humanity;  and  "the  festival  of  humanity"  among  Positivists  =  Walt  Whitman's  "I 
celebrate  myself."  On  Comte,  see  Martineau,  Types,  1 :  4!I9.  The  most  thorough  dis- 
cussion of  the  essential  principle  of  siu  is  that  of  Julius  Milller,  Doct.  Sin,  1 :  147-18:.:. 
He  defines  sin  as  "  a  turning  away  from  the  love  of  God  to  self-seeking." 

N.  W.  Taylor  holds  that  self-love  is  the  primary  cause  of  all  moral  action ;  that  self- 
ishness is  a  different  thing,  and  consists  not  in  making  our  own  happiness  our  ultimate 
eud,  which  we  must  do  if  we  are  moral  beings,  but  in  love  of  the  world,  and  in  prefer- 
ring the  world  to  God  as  our  portion  or  chief  good  (see  N.  W.  Taylor,  Moral  Govt.,  1  : 
24-26 ;  2 :  20-24,  and  Rev.  Theol.,  134-162 ;  Tyler,  Letters  on  the  New  Haven  Theology, 
72 ).  We  claim,  on  the  contrary,  that  to  make  our  own  happiness  our  ultimate  aim  is 
itself  sin,  and  the  essence  of  sin.  AsGod  makes  his  holiness  the  central  thing,  so  we  are 
to  live  for  that,  loving  self  only  in  God  and  for  God's  sake.  This  love  for  God  as  holy 
is  the  essence  of  virtue.  The  opposite  to  this,  or  supreme  love  for  self,  is  sin.  As 
Richard  Lovelace  writes :  "  I  could  not  love  thee,  dear,  so  much,  Loved  I  not  honor 
more,"  so  Christian  friends  can  say  :  "  Our  loves  in  higher  love  endure."  The  sinner 
raises  some  lower  object  of  instinct  or  desire  to  supremacy,  regardless  of  God  and  his 
law,  and  this  he  does  for  no  other  reason  than  to  gratify  self.  On  the  distinction 
between  mere  benevolence  and  the  love  required  by  God's  law,  see  Hovey,  God  With 
Us,  187-200 ;  Hopkins,  Works,  1 :  235 ;  F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermon  I.  Emerson :  "  Your 
goodness  must  have  some  edge  to  it,  else  it  is  none."  See  Newman  Smyth,  Christian 
Ethics,  327-370,  on  duties  toward  self  as  a  moral  end. 

Love  to  God  is  the  essence  of  all  virtue.  We  are  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart.  But 
what  God?    Surely,  not  the  false  God,  the  God  who  is  indifferent  to  moral  distinctions. 


568  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

and  who  treats  the  wicked  as  lie  treats  the  righteous.  The  love  which  the  law  requires 
is  love  for  the  true  God,  the  God  of  holiness.  Such  love  aims  at  the  reproduction  of 
God's  holiness  in  ourselves  and  in  others.  We  are  to  love  ourselves  only  for  God's  sake 
and  for  the  sake  of  realizing- the  divine  idea  in  us.  We  are  to  love  others  only  for 
God's  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  realizing-  the  divine  idea  in  them.  In  our  moral  progress 
we,  first,  love  self  for  our  own  sake  ;  secondly,  God  for  our  own  sake ;  thirdly,  God  for 
his  own  sake ;  fourthly,  ourselves  for  God's  sake.  The  first  is  our  state  by  nature ;  the 
second  requires  prevenient  grace  ;  the  third,  regenerating  grace ;  and  the  fourth,  sanc- 
tifying grace.  Only  the  last  is  reasonable  self-love.  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  27  — 
"  Reasonable  self-love  is  a  virtue  wholly  incompatible  with  what  is  commonly  called 
selfishness.  Society  suffers,  not  from  having  too  much  of  it,  but  from  having  too 
little."  Altruism  is  not  the  whole  of  duty.  Self-realization  is  equally  important.  But 
to  care  only  for  self,  like  Goethe,  is  to  miss  the  true  self-realization,  which  love  to  God 
ensures. 

Love  desires  only  the  best  for  its  object,  and  the  best  is  God.  The  golden  rule  bids  us 
give,  not  what  others  desire,  but  what  they  need.  Rom.  15  :  2  — "Lot  each  one  of  us  please  his  neigh- 
bor for  that  which  is  good,  unto  edifying."  Deutsche  Liebe  :  "  Nicht  Liebe  die  fragt:  Willst  du 
meinsein?  Soudern  Liebe  die  sagt:  Ieh  muss  dein  sein."  Sin  consists  in  taking  for 
one's  self  alone  and  apart  from  God  that  in  one's  self  and  in  others  to  which  one  has  a 
right  only  in  God  and  for  God's  sake.  Mrs.  Humphrey  Ward,  David  Grieve,  403  — 
"  How  dare  a  man  pluck  from  the  Lord's  hand,  for  his  wild  and  reckless  use,  a  soul  and 
body  for  which  he  died  ?  How  dare  he,  the  Lord's  bondsman,  steal  his  joy,  carrying  it 
off  by  himself  into  the  wilderness,  like  an  animal  his  prey,  instead  of  asking  it  at  the 
hands  and  under  the  blessing  of  the  Master?  How  dare  he,  a  member  of  the  Lord's 
body,  forget  the  whole,  in  his  greed  for  the  one  —  eternity  in  his  thirst  for  the  pres- 
ent?" Wordsworth,  Prelude,  546  —  "  Delight  how  pitiable,  Unless  this  love  by  a  still 
higher  love  Be  hallo  wed,  love  that  breathes  not  without  awe;  Love  that  adores,  but 

on  the  knees  of  prayer,  By  heaven  inspired This  spiritual  love  acts  not  nor  can 

exist  Without  imagination,  which  in  truth  Is  but  another  name  for  absolute  power, 
And  clearest  insight,  amplitude  of  mind,  And  reason  in  her  most  exalted  mood." 

Aristotle  says  that  the  wicked  have  no  right  to  love  themselves,  but  that  the  good 
may.  So,  from  a  Christian  point  of  view,  we  may  say :  No  unregenerate  man  can 
properly  respect  himself.  Self-respect  belongs  only  to  the  man  who  lives  in  God  and 
who  has  God's  image  restored  to  him  thereby.  True  self-love  is  not  love  for  the  hap- 
piness of  the  self,  but  for  the  worth  of  the  self  in  God's  sight,  and  this  self-love  is  the 
condition  of  all  genuine  and  worthy  love  for  others.  But  true  self-love  is  in  turn 
conditioned  by  love  to  God  as  holy,  and  it  seeks  primarily,  not  the  happiness,  but  the 
holiness,  of  others.  Asquith,  Christian  Conception  of  Holiness,  98, 14.5, 154, 207 — "  Benev- 
olence or  lose  is  not  the  same  with  altruism.  Altruism  is  instinctive,  and  has  not  its 
origin  in  the  moral  reason.  It  has  utility,  and  it  may  even  furnish  material  for  reflec- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  moral  reason.  But  so  far  as  it  is  not  deliberate,  not  indulged  for 
the  sake  of  the  end,  but  only  for  the  gratification  of  the  instinct  of  the  moment,  it  is 
not  moral.  .  .  .  Holiness  is  dedication  to  God,  the  Good,  not  as  an  external  Ruler,  but 
as  an  internal  couti'ollerand  transformer  of  character. .  .  .  God  is  a  being  whose  every 
thought  is  love,  of  whose  thoughts  not  one  is  for  himself,  save  so  far  as  himself  is  not 
himself,  that  is,  so  far  as  there  is  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Creation  is 
one  great  unselfish  thought  —  the  bringing  into  being  of  creatures  who  can  know  the 
happiness  that  God  knows.  .  .  .  To  the  spiritual  man  holiness  and  love  are  one.  Sal- 
vation is  deliverance  from  selfishness."  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  319,  320,  regards  the  essence 
of  sin  as  consisting,  not  in  selfishness,  but  in  turning  away  from  God  and  so  from  the 
love  which  would  cause  man  to  grow  in  knowledge  and  likeness  to  God.  But  this 
seems  to  be  nothing  else  than  choosing  self  instead  of  God  as  our  object  and  end. 

B.  All  the  different  forms  of  sin  can  be  shown  to  have  their  root  in 
selfishness,  while  selfishness  itself,  considered  as  the  choice  of  self  as  a 
supreme  end,  cannot  be  resolved  into  any  simpler  elements. 

(  a )  Selfishness  may  reveal  itself  in  the  elevation  to  supreme  dominion 
of  any  one  of  man's  natural  appetites,  desires,  or  affections.  Sensuality  is 
selfishness  in  the  form  of  inordinate  appetite.  Selfish  desire  takes  the  forms 
respectively  of  avarice,  ambition,  vanity,  pride,  according  as  it  is  set  upon 
property,  power,  esteem,  independence.     Selfish  affection  is  falsehood  or 


THE    ESSENTIAL   PRINCIPLE   OF    SIN.  569 

malice,  according  as  it  hopes  to  make  others  its  voluntary  servants,  or 
regards  them  as  standing  in  its  way  ;  it  is  unbelief  or  enmity  to  God,  accord- 
ing as  it  simply  turns  away  from  the  truth  and  love  of  God,  or  conceives 
of  God's  holiness  as  positively  resisting  and  punishing  it. 

Augustine  and  Aquinas  held  the  essence  of  sin  to  be  pride;  Luther  and  Calvin 
regarded  its  essence  to  be  unbelief.  Kreibig  ( Versohnungslehre )  regards  it  as  "  world- 
love"  ;  still  others  consider  it,  as  enmity  to  God.  In  opposing  the  view  that  sensuality 
is  the  essence  of  sin,  Julius  Muller  says  :  "  Wherever  we  find  sensuality,  there  we  find 
selfishness,  but  we  do  not  find  that,  where  there  is  selfishness,  there  is  always  sensuality. 
Selfishness  may  embody  itself  in  fleshly  lust  or  inordinate  desire  for  the  creature,  but 
this  last  cannot  bring  forth  spiritual  sins  which  have  no  element  of  sensuality  in  them." 

Covetousness  or  avarice  makes,  not  sensual  gratification  itself,  but  the  things  that 
may  minister  thereto,  the  object  of  pursuit,  and  in  this  last  chase  often  loses  sight  of 
its  original  aim.  Ambition  is  selfish  love  of  power ;  vanity  is  selfish  love  of  esteem. 
Pride  is  but  the  self-complacency,  self-sufficiency,  and  self- isolation  of  a  selfish  spirit 
that  desires  nothing  so  much  as  unrestrained  independence.  Falsehood  originates  iu 
selfishness,  first  as  self-deception,  and  t  hen,  since  man  by  sin  isolates  himself  and  yet  in 
a  thousand  ways  needs  the  fellowship  of  his  brethren,  as  deception  of  others.  Malice, 
the  perversion  of  natural  resentment  ( together  with  hatred  and  revenge),  is  the  reac- 
tion of  selfishness  against  those  who  stand,  or  are  imagined  to  stand,  in  its  way. 
Unbelief  and  enmity  to  God  are  effects  of  sin,  rather  than  its  essence;  selfishness  leads 
us  first  to  doubt,  and  then  to  hate,  the  Lawgiver  and  Judge.  Tacitus:  "Humani 
generis  proprium  est  odisse  quem  heseris."  In  sin,  self-allirmation  and  self-surrender 
are  not  coordinate  elements,  as  Dorner  holds,  but  the  former  conditions  the  latter. 

As  love  to  God  is  love  to  God's  holiness,  so  love  to  man  is  love  for  holiness  iu  man  and 
desire  to  impart  it.  In  other  words,  true  love  for  man  is  the  longing  to  make  man  like 
God-  Over  against  this  normal  desire  which  should  till  the  heart  and  inspire  the  life, 
there  stands  a  hierarchy  of  lower  desires  which  may  lie  utilized  and  sanctified  by  the 
higher  love,  but  which  may  assert  their  independence  and  may  thus  be  the  occasions 
of  sin.  Physical  gratification,  money,  esteem,  power,  knowledge,  family,  virtue,  arc 
proper  objects  of  regard,  so  long  as  these  are  sought  for  God's  sake  and  within  the  lim- 
itations of  his  will.  Sin  consists  iu  turning  our  backs  on  God  and  in  seeking  any  one  of 
these  objects  for  its  own  sake;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  for  our  own  sake.  Appetite 
gratified  without  regard  to  (iod's  law  is  lust;  the  love  of  money  becomes  avarice;  the 
desire  for  esteem  becomes  vanity;  the  longing  for  power  becomes  ambition ;  the  love 
for  knowledge  becomes  a  selfish  thirst  for  intellectual  satisfaction  ,  parental  affection 
degenerates  into  indulgence  and  nepotism;  the  seeking  of  virtue  becomes  self -right- 
eousness and  self-sufficiency.  Kaftan,  Doguiatik,  333 —  "Jesus  grants  that  even  the 
heat  hen  and  sinners  love  those  who  love  f  hem.  But  family  love  becomes  family  pride; 
patriotism  comes  to  stand  for  country  right  or  wrong ;  happiness  in  one's  calling  leads 
to  class  distinctions." 

Dante,  in  his  Divine  Comedy,  divides  the  Inferno  into  three  great  sections:  those  in 
which  are  punished,  respectively,  incontinence,  bestiality,  ami  malice.  Incontiuence  = 
sin  of  the  heart,  the  emotions,  the  affections.  Lower  down  is  found  bestiality  =  sin  of 
the  head,  the  thoughts,  the  mind, as  infidelity  and  heresy.  Lowest  of  all  is  malice  =sin 
of  the  will,  deliberate  rebellion,  fraud  and  treachery.  So  we  are  taught  that  the  heart 
carries  the  intellect  with  it,  and  that  the  sin  of  unbelief  gradually  deepens  into  the 
intensity  of  malice.  See  A.  H.  Strong,  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  133 — "Dante 
teaches  us  that  sin  is  the  self-perversion  of  the  will.  If  there  is  any  thought  fundamental 
to  his  system,  it  is  the  thought  of  freedom.  Man  is  not  a  waif  swept  irresistibly  down- 
ward on  the  current ;  he  is  a  being  endowed  with  power  to  resist,  and  therefore  guilty 
if  he  yields.  Sin  is  not  misfortune,  or  disease,  or  natural  necessity;  it  is  wilfulness,  and 
crime,  and  self-destruction.  The  Divine  Comedy  is,  beyond  all  other  poems,  the  poem 
of  conscience  ;  and  this  could  not  be,  if  it  did  not  recognize  man  as  a  free  agent,  the 
responsible  cause  of  his  own  evil  actsaud  his  own  evil  state."  See  also  Harris,  in  Jour. 
Spec.  Philos.,  21 :  350-151 ;  Dinsmore,  Atonement  in  Literature  and  Life,  69-86. 

In  Greek  tragedy,  says  Prof.  Wm.  Arnold  Stevens,  the  one  sin  which  the  gods  hated 
and  would  not  pardon  was  ££p«.s  —  obstinate  self-assertion  of  mind  or  will,  absence  of 
reverence  and  humility — of  which  we  have  an  illustration  in  Ajax.  George 
MacDonald :  "  A  man  may  be  possessed  of  himself,  as  of  a  devil."  Shakespeare  depicts 
this  insolence  of  infatuation  in  Shylock,  Macbeth,  and  Richard  III.    Troilus  and  Creo- 


570  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OE   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN". 

sida,  4:4  —  "  Something  may  be  done  that  we  will  not ;  And  sometimes  we  are  devils  to 
ourselves,  When  we  will  tempt  the  frailty  of  our  powers,  Presuming-  on  their  change- 
ful potency."  Yet  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  said  that  Shakespeare  holds  crime  to  be  the 
mistake  of  ignorance !  N.  P.  Willis,  Parrhasius :  "  How  like  a  mounting  devil  in  the 
heart  Rules  unrestrained  ambition  !  " 

(  6  )  Even  in  the  nobler  forms  of  unregenerate  life,  the  principle  of  self- 
ishness is  to  be  regarded  as  manifesting  itself  in  the  preference  of  lower 
ends  to  that  of  God's  proposing.  Others  are  loved  with  idolatrous  affection 
because  these  others  are  regarded  as  a  part  of  self.  That  the  selfish  ele- 
ment is  present  even  here,  is  evident  ivpou  considering  that  such  affection 
does  not  seek  the  highest  interest  of  its  object,  that  it  often  ceases  when 
unreturned,  and  that  it  sacrifices  to  its  own  gratification  the  claims  of  God 
and  his  law. 

Even  in  the  mother's  idolatry  of  her  child,  the  explorer's  devotion  to  science,  the 
sailor's  risk  of  his  life  to  save  another's,  the  gratification  sought  may  be  that  of  a  lower 
instinct  or  desire,  and  any  substitution  of  a  lower  for  the  highest  object  is  non-con- 
formity to  law,  and  therefore  sin.  H.  B.  Smith,  System  Theology,  277  —  "  Some  lower 
affection  is  supreme."  And  the  underlying  motive  which  leads  to  this  substitution  is 
self-gratification.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  disinterested  sin,  for  "  every  one  that  loveth  is 
begotten  of  God  "  (1  John  4:7).  Thomas  Hughes,  The  Manliness  of  Christ :  Much  of  the  heroism 
of  battle  is  simply  "  resolution  in  the  actors  to  have  their  way,  contempt  for  esise, 
animal  courage  which  we  share  with  the  bulldog  and  the  weasel,  intense  assertion  of 
individual  will  and  force,  avowal  of  the  rough-handed  man  that  he  has  that  in  him 
which  enables  him  to  defy  pain  and  danger  and  death." 

Mozley  on  Blanco  White,  in  Essays,  3 :  143 :  Truth  may  be  sought  in  order  to  absorb 
truth  in  self,  not  for  the  sake  of  absorbing  self  in  truth.  So  Blanco  White,  in  spite  of 
the  pain  of  separating  from  old  views  and  friends,  lived  for  the  selfish  pleasure  of 
new  discovery,  till  all  his  early  faith  vanished,  and  even  immortality  seemed  a  dream. 
He  falsely  thought  that  the  pain  he  suffered  in  giving  up  old  beliefs  was  evidence  of 
self-sacrifice  with  which  God  must  be  pleased,  whereas  it  was  the  inevitable  pain  which 
attends  the  victory  of  selfishness.  Robert  Browning,  Paracelsus,  81  — "I  still  must 
hoard,  and  heap,  and  class  all  truths  With  one  ulterior  purpose  :  I  must  know  !  Would 
God  translate  me  to  his  throne,  believe  That  I  should  only  listen  to  his  words  To  further 
my  own  ends."  F.  W.  Robertson  on  Genesis,  57  —  "  He  who  sacrifices  his  sense  of  right, 
his  conscience,  for  another,  sacrifices  the  God  within  him;  he  is  not  sacrificing  self. 
....  He  who  prefers  his  dearest  friend  or  his  beloved  child  to  the  call  of  duty,  will  soon 
show  that  he  prefers  himself  to  his  dearest  friend,  and  would  not  sacrifice  himself  for 
his  child."    Tl>.,  91  — "In  those  who  love  little,  love  [.for  finite  beings]  is  a  primary 

affection,  — a  secondary,  in  those  who  love  much The  only  true  affection  is  that 

which  is  subordinate  to  a  higher."  True  love  is  love  for  the  soul  and  its  highest,  its 
eternal,  interests ;  love  that  seeks  to  make  it  holy ;  love  for  the  sake  of  God  and  for  the 
accomplishment  of  God's  idea  in  his  creation. 

Although  we  cannot,  with  Augustine,  call  the  virtues  of  the  heathen  "splendid 
vices"  — for  they  were  relatively  good  and  useful, —  they  still,  except  in  possible 
instances  where  God's  Spirit  wrought  upon  the  heart,  were  illustrations  of  a  morality 
divorced  from  love  to  God,  were  lacking  in  the  most  essential  element  demanded  by  the 
law,  were  therefore  infected  with  sin.  Since  the  law  judges  all  action  by  the  heart  from 
which  it  springs,  no  action  of  the  unregenerate  can  be  other  than  sin.  The  ebony-tree 
is  white  in  its  outer  circles  of  woody  fibre ;  at  heart  it  is  black  as  ink.  There  is  no 
unselfishness  in  the  unregenerate  heart,  apart  from  the  divine  enlightenment  and 
energizing.  Self-sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  self  is  selfishness  after  all.  Professional  burg- 
lars and  bank-robbers  are  often  carefully  abstemious  in  their  personal  habits,  and  they 
deny  themselves  the  use  of  liquor  and  tobacco  while  in  the  active  practice  of  their 
trade.  Herron,  The  Larger  Christ,  47  —  "  It  is  as  truly  immoral  to  seek  truth  out  of 
mere  love  of  knowing  it,  as  it  is  to  seek  money  out  of  love  to  gain.  Truth  sought  for 
truth's  sake  is  an  intellectual  vice  ;  it  is  spiritual  covetousness.  It  is  an  idolatry,  set- 
ting up  the  worship  of  abstractions  and  generalities  in  place  of  the  living  God." 

(  c  )  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  side  by  side  with  the  selfish 
■will,  and  striving  against  it,  is  the  power  of  Christ,  the  immanent  God, 


THE    ESSENTIAL   PRINCIPLE   OF   SIN.  571 

imparting  aspirations  and  impulses  foreign  to  unregenerate  humanity,  and 
preparing  the  way  for  the  soul's  surrender  to  truth  and  righteousness. 

Rom.  8:7  —  "  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  againafc  God  "  ;  Acts  17 :  27,  28  —  "  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us : 
for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  onr  being";  Rom.  2:4  —  "the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance  "  ; 
John  1 :  9—  "the  light  which  lighteth  every  man."  Many  generous  traits  and  acts  of  self-sacrifice 
in  the  unregenerate  must  be  ascribed  to  the  prevenient  grace  of  God  and  to  the 
enlightening  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  A  mother,  during  the  Russian  famine, 
gave  to  her  children  all  the  little  supply  of  food  that  came  to  her  in  the  distribution, 
and  died  that  they  might  live.  In  her  decision  to  sacrifice  herself  for  her  offspring  she 
may  have  found  her  probation  and  may  have  surrendered  herself  to  God.  The  impulse 
to  make  the*  sacrifice  may  have  been  due  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  her  yielding  may  have 
been  essentially  an  act  of  saving  faith.  In  Mark  10  :21,  22  —  "And  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him 
...  he  went  away  sorrowful "  —  our  Lord  apparently  loved  the  young  man,  not  only  for  his 
gifts,  his  efforts,  and  his  possibilities,  but  also  for  the  manifest  working  in  him  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  even  while  in  his  natural  character  he  was  without  God  and  withoutlove, 
self-ignorant,  self-righteous,  and  self-seeking. 

Paul,  in  like  manner,  before  his  conversion,  loved  and  desired  righteousness,  provided 
only  that  this  righteousness  might  be  the  product  and  achievement  of  his  own  will  iu-<l 
might  reflect  honor  on  himself ;  in  short,  provided  only  that  self  might  still  be  upper- 
most. To  be  dependent  for  righteousness  upon  another  was  abhorrent  to  him.  And 
yet  this  very  Impulse  toward  righteousness  may  have  been  due  to  the  divine  Spirit 
within  him.  On  Paul's  experience  before  conversion,  see  E.  D.  Burton,  Rib.  World, 
Jan.  1893.  Peter  objected  to  the  washing  of  his  feet  by  Jesus  (John  13: 8),  not  because  it 
humbled  the  Master  too  much  in  the  eyes  of  the  disciple,  but  because  it  humbled  the 
disciple  too  much  in  his  own  eyes.  Ptleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1  :  2IS  —  "Sin  is  the 
violation  of  the  (■  oil-willed  moral  order  of  the  world  by  the  sell -will  of  the  individual." 
Tophel  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  17— "You  would  deeply  wound  him  [the  average  sinner] 
if  you  told  him  that  his  heart,  full  of  sin,  Is  an  object  of  horror  to  the  holiness  of  God." 
The  impulse  to  repentance,  as  well  as  the  impulse  to  righteousness,  is  the  product,  not 
of  man's  own  nature,  but  of  the  Christ  within  him  who  is  moving  bim  to  seek 
salvation. 

Elizabeth  Barrett  wrote  to  Robert  Browning  after  she  had  accepted  his  proposal  of 
marriage:  "Henceforth  I  am  yours  for  everything  but  to  do  you  harm."  George 
Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  138  —  "  Love  seeks  the  true  good  of  t  lie  person  loved.  It  will 
not  minister  in  an  unworthy  way  to  afford  a  temporary  pleasure.  It  will  not  approve 
or  tolerate  that  which  is  wrong.  It  will  not  encourage  the  coarse,  base  passions  of  the 
one  loved.  It  condemns  impurity,  falsehood,  selfishness.  A  parent  does  not  really 
love  his  child  if  he  tolerates  the  self-indulgence,  and  does  not  correct  or  punish  the 
faults,  of  the  child."  Hutton  :  "  You  might  as  well  say  that  it  is  a  fit  subject  for  art 
to  paint  the  morbid  exstasy  of  cannibals  over  their  horrid  feasts,  as  to  paint  lust  with- 
out love.  If  you  are  to  delineate  man  at  all,  you  must  delineate  him  with  his  human 
nature,  and  therefore  you  can  never  omit  from  any  worthy  picture  that  conscience 
which  is  its  crown." 

Tennyson,  in  In  Memoriam,  speaks  of  "  Fantastic  beauty  such  as  lurks  In  some  wild 
poet  when  he  works  Without  a  conscience  or  an  aim."  Such  work  may  be  due  to  mere 
human  nature.  But  the  lofty  work  of  true  creative  genius,  and  the  still  loftier  acts  of 
men  still  unregenerate  but  conscientious  and  self-sacrificing,  must  be  explained  by  the 
working  in  them  of  the  immanent  Christ,  the  life  and  light  of  men.  James  Martineau, 
Study,  1:20—  "Conscience  may  act  as  human,  before  it  is  discovered  to  be  divine.'' 
See  J.  D.  Stoops,  in  Jour.  Philos.,  Psych.,  and  Sci.  Meth.,  2 :  512—  "  If  there  is  a  divine 
life  over  and  above  the  separate  streams  of  individual  lives,  the  welling  up  of  this  larger 
life  in  the  experience  of  the  individual  is  precisely  the  point  of  contact  between  the 
individual  person  and  God."  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2:122  — "It  is  this 
divine  element  in  man,  this  relationship  to  God,  which  gives  to  sin  its  darkest  and 
direst  complexion.  For  such  a  life  is  the  turning  of  alight  brighter  than  the  sun  into 
darkness,  the  squandering  or  bartering  away  of  a  boundless  wealth,  the  suicidal  abase- 
ment, to  the  things  that  perish,  of  a  nature  destined  by  its  very  constitution  and 
structure  for  participation  in  the  very  being  and  blessedness  of  God." 

On  the  various  forms  of  sin  as  manifestations  of  selfishness,  see  Julius  Muller,  Doct. 
Sin,  1 :  147-182;  Jonathan  Edwards,  Works,  2  :  268,  269;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3  :  5,  6 ; 
Baird,  Flohim  Revealed,  243-262 ;  Stewart,  Active  and  Moral  Powers,  11-91 ;  Hopkins, 
Moral  Science,  86-156.    On  the  Roman  Catholic  "Seven  Deadly  Sins"  (Pride,  Envy, 


572  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    MAN. 

Anger,  Sloth,  Avarice,  Gluttony,  Lust ),  see  Wetzer  und  Welte,  Kirchenlexikon,  and 
Orby  Shipley,  Theory  about  Sin,  preface,  xvi-xviii. 

G.     This  view  accords  best  with  Scripture. 

(  a  )  The  law  requires  love  to  God  as  its  all-embracing  requirement.  (  6 ) 
The  holiness  of  Christ  consisted  in  this,  that  he  sought  not  his  own  will  or 
glory,  but  made  God  his  supreme  end.  (  c )  The  Christian  is  one  who  has 
ceased  to  live  for  self,  (d)  The  tempter's  promise  is  a  promise  of  selfish 
independence,  (e)  The  prodigal  separates  himself  from  his  father,  and 
seeks  his  own  interest  and  pleasure.  (/)  The  "man  of  sin",  illustrates 
the  nature  of  sin,  in  "opposing  and  exalting  himself  against  all  that  is 
called  God." 

( a )  Mat.  22 :  37-39  —  the  command  of  love  to  God  and  man  ;  Rom.  13 : 8-10  —  "  love  therefore  is  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law"  ;  Gal.  5  :  14  —  "the  whole  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word,  even  in  this:  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself "  ;  James  2 : 8  —  "  the  royal  law."  ( h )  John  5 :  30  —  "my  judgmentis  righteous ;  because  I  seek  not  mine 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  "  ;  7 :  18  —  "  He  that  speaketh  from  himself  seeketh  his  own  glory :  but  he 
that  seeketh  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  him,  the  same  is  true,  and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him ' ' ;  Rom.  15 :  3  —  "  Christ 
also  pleased  not  himself."  (c)  Rom.l4:7 — "none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  none  dieth  to  himself"  ;  2  Cor.  5:15  — 
"  he  died  for  all,  that  they  that  live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and 
rose  again  "  ;  Gal.  2 :  20—  "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." 
Contrast  2  Tim.  3:2—"  lovers  of  self."  ( d  )  Gen.  3 : 5  — "  ye  shall  be  as  God,  knowing  good  and  evil."  (  e  )  Luke 
15 :  12, 13  —  "give  me  the  portion  of  thy  substance ....  gathered  all  together  and  took  his  journey  into  a  far  country." 

(/ )  2  Thess.  2 :  3,  4  —  "  the  man  of  sin the  son  of  perdition,  he  that  opposeth  and  eialteth  himself  against  all  that 

is  called  God  or  that  is  worshipped  ;  so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  setting  himself  forth  as  God." 

Contrast  "  the  man  of  sin"  who  "eialteth  himself"  (2  Thess.  2:  3,  4)  with  the  Son  of  God  who  "emp- 
tied himself "  (Phil.  2  :7>.  On  "the  man  of  sin",  see  Win.  Arnold  Stevens,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev., 
July,  1889 : 328-360.  Ritchie,  Darwin,  and  Hegel,  24  —  "  We  are  conscious  of  sin,  because 
we  know  that  our  true  self  is  God,  from  whom  we  are  severed.  No  ethics  is  possible 
unless  we  recognize  an  ideal  for  all  human  effort  in  the  presence  of  the  eternal  Self  which 
any  account  of  conduct  presupposes."  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2 :  53-73 
—  "  Here,  as  in  all  organic  life,  the  individual  member  or  organ  has  no  independent  or 
exclusive  life,  and  the  attempt  to  attain  to  it  is  fatal  to  itself."  Milton  describes  man 
as  "  affecting  Godhead,  and  so  losing  all."  Of  the  sinner,  we  may  say  with  Shakespeare, 
Coriolauus,  5:4  —  "  He  wants  nothing  of  a  god  but  eternity  and  a  heaven  to  throne  in. 
....  There  is  no  more  mercy  in  him  than  there  is  milk  in  a  male  tiger,"  No  one  of  us, 
then,  can  sign  too  early  "  the  declaration  of  dependence."  Both  Old  School  and  New 
School  theologians  agree  that  sin  is  selfishness ;  see  Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Emmons,  the 
younger  Edwards,  Finney,  Taylor.    See  also  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  287-292. 

Sin,  therefore,  is  not  merely  a  negative  thing,  or  an  absence  of  love  to 
God.  It  is  a  fundamental  and  positive  choice  or  preference  of  self  instead 
of  God,  as  the  object  of  affection  and  the  supreme  end  of  being.  Instead 
of  making  God  the  centre  of  his  life,  surrendering  himself  unconditionally 
to  God  and  possessing  himself  only  in  subordination  to  God's  will,  the  sin- 
ner makes  self  the  centre  of  his  life,  sets  himself  directly  against  God,  and 
constitutes  his  own  interest  the  supreme  motive  and  his  own  will  the 
supreme  rule. 

We  may  follow  Dr.  E.  G.  Eobinson  in  saying  that,  while  sin  as  a  state 
is  unlikeness  to  God,  as  a  principle  is  opposition  to  God,  and  as  an  act  is 
transgression  of  God's  law,  the  essence  of  it  always  and  everywhere  is 
selfishness.  It  is  therefore  not  something  external,  or  the  result  of  compul- 
sion from  without ;  it  is  a  depravity  of  the  affections  and  a  perversion  of  the 
will,  which  constitutes  man's  inmost  character. 

See  Harris,  in  Bib.  Sac,  18  :  148  — "  Sin  is  essentially  egoism  or  selfism,  putting  self 
in  God's  place.  It  has  four  principal  characteristics  or  manifestations :  ( 1 )  self-suffi- 
ciency, instead  of  faith ;  ( 2 )  self-will,  instead  of  submission ;  (3 )  self-seeking,  instead  of 


THE   UNIVERSALITY   OF  SIN.  573 

benevolence;  ( 4 )  self-righteousness,  instead  of  humility  and  reverence."  All  sin  is 
either  explicit  or  implicit  "enmity  against  God"  (Rom.8:7).  All  true  confessions  are  like 
David's  ( Ps.  51 : 4 )  —  "  Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  And  done  that  which  is  evil  in  thy  sight."  Of  all 
sinners  it  might  be  said  that  they  "Fight  neither  with  small  nor  great,  save  only  with  the  king  of  Israel " 
(11.22:31). 

Not  every  sinner  is  conscious  of  this  enmity.  Sin  is  a  principle  in  course  of  develop- 
ment. It  is  not  yet  "  full-grown  "  (Jamesl:!5  —  "  the  sin,  when  it  is  full-grown,  hringeth  forth  death"). 
Even  now,  as  James  Martineau  has  said :  "  If  it  could  be  known  that  God  was  dead,  the 
news  would  cause  but  little  excitement  in  the  streets  of  London  and  Paris."  Bui  this 
indifference  easily  grows,  in  the  presence  of  threatening  and  penalty,  into  violent  hatred 
to  God  and  positive  defiance  of  his  law.  If  the  sin  which  is  now  hidden  in  the  sinner's 
heart  were  but  permitted  to  develop  itself  according  to  its  own  nature,  it  would  hurl 
the  Almighty  from  his  throne,  and  would  set  up  its  own  kingdom  upon  the  ruins  of 
the  moral  universe.  Sin  is  world-destroying,  as  well  as  God-destroying,  for  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  conditions  which  make  being  as  a  whole  possible;  see  Royce,  World 
and  Individual,  li :  366 ;  Dwight,  Works,  sermon  80. 


SECTION   III.  —  UNIVERSALITY   OF   SIN. 

We  have  shown  that  sin  is  a  state,  a  state  of  the  will,  a  selfish  state  of 
the  will.  We  now  proceed  to  show  that  this  selfish  state  of  the  will  is 
universal.  We  divide  our  proof  iuto  two  parts.  In  the  first,  we  regard 
sin  in  its  aspect  as  conscious  violation  of  law  ;  in  the  second,  in  its  aspect 
as  a  bias  of  the  nature  to  evil,  prior  to  or  underlying  consciousness. 

I.     Every  human  being  who  has  arrived  at  moral  consciousness 

HAS    COMMITTED    ACTS,      OR     CHERISHED     DISPOSITIONS,     CONTRARY     TO     THE 

DIVINE    LAW. 

1.     Proof  from  Scripture. 

The  universality  of  transgression  is  : 

(a)  Set  forth  in  direct  statements  of  Scripture. 

1  K.  8  :  46  —  "  there  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not "  ;  Ps.  143  :  2  —  "  enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant ;  For  in 
thy  sight  no  man  living  is  righteous  "  ;  Prov.  20 :  9  —  '"  Who  can  say,  I  have  made  my  heart  clean,  I  am  pure  from  my 
sin  ?  "  Eccl.  7 :  20  — "Surely  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  upon  earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not "  ;  Luke  11 :  13  — 
"  If  ye,  then,  being  evil "  ;  Rom  3  :  10,  12  —  "  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one  .  .  .  .  There  is  none  that  dceth  good, 
no,  not  so  much  as  one  "  ;  19,  20  —  "  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  be  brought  under  the  judg- 
ment of  God  :  because  by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  bis  sight ;  for  through  the  law  cometh  the 
knowledge  of  sin"  ;  23  —  "for  all  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God"  ;  Gal.  3  :22  —  "the  scripture  shut  up 
all  things  under  sin  "  ;  James  3:2  — "For  in  many  things  we  all  stumble  "  ;  1  John  1  :  8 — "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no 
sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  Compare  Mat.  6:12 — "forgive  us  our  debts" — given  as  a 
prayer  for  all  men ;  14  — "  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses  "—the  condition  of  our  own  forgiveness. 

(  b )  Implied  in  declarations  of  the  universal  need  of  atonement,  regen- 
eration, and  repentance. 

Universal  need  of  atonement :  Mark  16 :  16  —  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  "  (  Mark 
It; :  9-20,  though  probably  not  written  by  Mark,  is  nevertheless  of  canonical  authority ) ; 
John  3  :  16  —  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not 
perish  "  ;  6 :  50  —  "  This  is  the  bread  whicn  cometh  down  out  of  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not  die  "  ; 
12 :  47  —  "I  came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world  "  ;  Acts  4 :  12  —  "in  none  other  is  there  salvation :  for 
neither  is  there  any  other  name  under  heaven,  that  is  given  among  men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved."  Universal 
need  of  regeneration  :  John  3  : 3,  5  —  "Eicept  one  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  .... 
Eicept  one  De  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Universal  need  of  repen- 
tance  :  Acts  17  :  30 — "  commandeth  men  that  they  should  all  every  where  repent."  Yet  Mrs.  Mary  Baker 
G.  Eddy,  in  her  "  Unity  of  Good,"  speaks  of  "the  illusion  which  calls  sin  real  and  man 
a  sinner  needing  a  Savior." 


574  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

( c )  Shown  from  the  condemnation  resting  upon  all  who  do  not  accept 
Christ. 

John  3  :  18 —  "he  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God  " ;  36  —  "  he  that  obeyeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  " ; 
Compare  1  John  5 :  19  —"the  whole  world  lieth  in  [  i.  e.,  in  union  with  ]  the  evil  one" ;  see  Annotated 
Paragraph  Bible,  in  loco.  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  318  — "Law  requires  love  to  God.  This 
implies  love  to  our  neighbor,  not  only  abstaining  from  all  injury  to  him,  but  righteous- 
ness in  all  our  relations,  forgiving  instead  of  requiting,  help  to  enemies  as  well  as 
friends  in  all  salutary  ways,  self-discipline,  avoidance  of  all  sensuous  immoderation, 
subjection  of  all  sensuous  activity  as  means  for  spiritual  ends  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  all  this,  not  as  a  matter  of  outward  conduct  merely,  but  from  the  heart  and  as  the 
satisfaction  of  one's  own  will  and  desire.  This  is  the  will  of  God  respecting  us,  which 
Jesus  has  revealed  and  of  which  he  is  the  example  in  his  life.  Instead  of  this,  man 
universally  seeks  to  promote  his  own  life,  pleasure,  and  honor." 

(d)  Consistent  with  those  passages  which  at  first  sight  seem  to  ascribe 
to  certain  men  a  goodness  which  renders  them  acceptable  to  God,  where  a 
closer  examination  will  show  that  in  each  case  the  goodness  supposed  is  a 
merely  imperfect  and  fancied  goodness,  a  goodness  of  mere  aspiration  and 
impulse  due  to  preliminary  workings  of  God's  Spirit,  or  a  goodness  result- 
ing from  the  trust  of  a  conscious  sinner  in  God's  method  of  salvation. 

In  Mat.  9  :  12  —  "They  that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick  " —  Jesus  means 
those  who  in  their  own  esteem  are  whole ;  cf.  13  —  "I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners ' '  = 
"  if  any  were  truly  righteous,  they  would  not  need  my  salvation  ;  if  they  think  them- 
selves so,  they  will  not  care  to  seek  it "  (An.  Par.  Bib. ).  In  Luke  10 :  30-37  —  the  parable  of 
the  good  Samaritan  — Jesus  intimates,  not  that  the  good  Samaritan  was  not  a  sinner, 
but  that  there  were  saved  sinneis  outside  of  the  bounds  of  Israel.  In  Acts  10 :  35  —  "  in  every 
nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him"  —  Peter  declares,  not  that  Cor- 
nelius was  not  a  sinner,  but  that  God  had  accepted  him  through  Christ ;  Cornelius  was 
already  justified,  but  he  needed  to  know  (1)  that  he  was  saved,  and  (2)  how  he  was 
saved  ;  and  Peter  was  sent  to  tell  him  of  the  fact,  and  of  the  method,  of  his  salvation 
in  Christ.  In  Rom.  2 :  14  —  "  for  when  Gentiles  that  have  not  the  law  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  not 
having  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves"  —  it  is  only  said  that  in  certain  respects  the  obedience 
of  these  Gentiles  shows  that  they  have  an  unwritten  law  in  their  hearts ;  it  is  not  said 
that  they  perfectly  obey  the  law  and  therefore  have  no  sin  —  for  Paul  says  immediately 
after  (  Rom.  3:9)  —  "we  before  laid  to  the  charge  both  of  Jews  and  Greeks,  that  they  are  all  under  sin." 

So  with  regard  to  the  words  "  perfect  "  and  "  upright, "  as  applied  to  godly  men.  We  shall 
see,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  Sanetification,  that  the  word  "perfect,"  as 
applied  to  spiritual  conditions  already  attained,  signifies  only  a  relative  perfection, 
equivalent  to  sincere  piety  or  maturity  of  Christiau  judgment,  in  other  words,  the  per- 
fection of  a  sinner  who  has  long  trusted  in  Christ,  and  in  whom  Christ  has  overcome 
his  chief  defects  of  character.  See  1  Cor.  2:6  —  "we  speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect "  (  Am.  Rev.: 
"among  them  that  are  full-grown") ;  Phil.  3:15  —  "Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  are  perfect,  be  thus  minded"  —  i.e., 
to  press  toward  the  goal  —  a  goal  expressly  said  by  the  apostles  to  be  not  yet  attained 
(v.  12-14). 

"  Est  deus  in  nobis ;  agitante  calescimus  illo."  God  is  the  "spark  that  fires  our  clay." 
S.  S.  Times,  Sept.  21, 1901 :  609  — "  Humanity  is  better  and  worse  than  men  have  painted  it. 
There  has  been  a  kind  of  theological  pessimism  in  denouncing  human  sinfulness,  which 
has  been  blind  to  the  abounding  love  and  patience  and  courage  and  fidelity  to  duty 
among  men."  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  287-290  —  "There  is  a  natural  life  of 
Christ,  and  that  life  pulses  and  throbs  in  all  men  everywhere.  All  men  are  created  in 
Christ,  before  they  are  recreated  in  him.  The  whole  race  lives,  moves,  and  has  its  being 
in  him,  for  he  is  the  soul  of  its  soul  and  the  life  of  its  life."  To  Christ  then,  and  not  to 
unaided  human  nature,  we  attribute  the  noble  impulses  of  unregenerate  men.  These 
impulses  are  drawings  of  his  Spirit,  moving  men  to  repentance.  But  they  are  influ- 
ences of  his  grace  which,  if  resisted,  leave  the  soul  in  more  than  its  original  darkness. 

2.  Proof  from  history,  observation,  and  the  common  judgment  of 
mankind. 

(  a  )  History  witnesses  to  the  universality  of  sin,  in  its  accounts  of  the 
universal  prevalence  of  £>riesthood  and  sacrifice. 


THE    UNIVERSALITY   OF   SIN".  575 

See  references  in  Luthardt,  Fund.  Truths,  161-172,  335-339.  Baptist  Review,  1882: 343  — 
"  Plutarch  speaks  of  the  tear-stained  eyes,  the  pallid  and  woe-begone  countenances 
which  he  sees  at  the  public  altars,  men  rolling-  themselves  in  the  mire  and  confessing 
their  sins.  Among  the  common  people^the  dull  feeling  of  guilt  was  too  real  to  be 
shaken  off  or  laughed  away." 

(6)  Every  man  knows  himself  to  have  come  short  of  moral  perfection, 
and,  in  proportion  to  his  experience  of  the  world,  recognizes  the  fact  that 
every  other  man  has  come  short  of  it  also. 

Chinese  proverb  :  "  There  are  but  two  good  men  ;  one  is  dead,  and  the  other  is  not  yet 
bom."  Idaho  proverb:  "The  only  good  Indian  is  a  dead  Indian."  But  the  proverb 
applies  to  the  white  man  also.  Dr.  Jacob  Chamberlain,  the  missionary,  said  :  "  I  never 
but  once  in  India  heard  a  man  deny  that  he  was  a  sinner.  But  once  a  Brahmin  inter- 
rupted me  and  said  :  '  I  deny  your  premisses.  I  am  not  a  sinner.  I  do  not  need  to  do 
better. '  For  a  moment  I  was  abashed.  Then  I  said :  '.  But  what  do  your  neighbors 
say?'  Thereupon  one  cried  out:  'He  cheated  me  in  trading-  horses';  another:  'He 
defrauded  a  widow  of  her  inheritance.'  The  Brahmin  went  out  of  the  house,  and  I 
never  saw  him  again."  A  great  nephew  of  Richard  Brinsley  Sheridan,  Joseph  Sheridan 
Le  Fanu,  when  a  child,  wrote  in  a  few  lines  an  "  Easay  on  the  Life  of  Man,"  which  ran 
as  follows:  "A  man's  life  naturally  divides  itself  into  three  distinct  parts:  the  first 
when  he  is  contriving  and  planning  all  kinds  of  villainy  and  rascality, — that  is  the 
period  of  youth  and  innocence.  In  the  second,  he  is  found  putting-  in  practice  all  the 
villainy  and  rascality  he  has  contrived,—  that  is  the  flower  of  mankind  and  prime  of 
life.  The  third  and  last  period  is  that  when  he  is  making  his  soul  and  preparing  for 
another  world,—  that  is  the  period  of  dotage." 

( c  )  The  common  judgment  of  mankind  declares  that  there  is  an  element 
of  selfishness  in  every  human  heart,  and  that  every  man  is  prone  to  some 
form  of  sin.  This  common  judgment  is  expressed  in  the  maxims:  "No 
man  is  perfect";  "Every  man  has  his  weak  side",  or  "his  price";  and 
every  great  name  in  literature  has  attested  its  truth. 

Seneca,  De  Ira,  3 :26—  "  We  are  all  wicked.  What  one  blames  in  another  he  will  find 
in  his  own  bosom.  We  live  among  the  wicked,  ourselves  being  wicked";  Kp.,22  — "No 
one  lias  strength  of  himself  to  emerge  [  from  this  wickedness]  ;  some  one  must  needs 
hold  forth  a  hand  ;  some  one  must  draw  us  out."  Ovid,  Met.,  7  :  l'.t  —  "  1  see  the  1  bings 
that  an-  better  and  1  approve  them,  yet  I  follow  the  worse  ....  We  strive  even  after 
that  which  is  forbidden,  and  we  di  sire  the  tilings  that  are  denied."  Cicero:  "Nature 
has  given  us  faint  sparks  of  knowledge  ;  we  extinguish  them  by  our  immoralities." 

Shakespeare,  Othello,  3:3  —  "  Where's  that  palace  whereinto  foul  things  Sometimes 
intrude  not?  Who  has  a  breast  so  pure,  But  some  uncleanly  apprehensions  keep  leets 
[meetings  in  court]  and  law-days,  and  in  sessions  sit  With  meditations  lawful?" 
Henry  VI.,  II :  3  :  3—  "  Forbear  to  judge,  for  we  are  sinners  all."  Hamlet,  2  :  2,  com- 
pares God's  influence  to  the  sun  which  "breeds  maggots  in  a  dead  dog,  Kissing  car- 
rion,"— that  is,  God  is  no  more  responsible  for  the  corruption  in  man's  heart  and  the 
evil  that  comes  from  it,  than  the  sun  is  responsible  for  the  maggots  which  its  heat 
breeds  in  a  dead  dog ;  3  : 1  —  "  We  are  arrant  knaves  all."  Timon  of  Athens,  1 :  2 — 
''  Who  lives  that 's  not  depraved  or  depraves  ?  " 

Goethe :  "  I  see  no  fault  committed  which  I  too  might  not  have  committed."  Dr. 
Johnson :  "  Every  man  knows  that  of  himself  which  he  dare  not  tell  to  his  dearest 
friend."  Thackeray  showed  himself  a  master  in  fiction  by  haviug  no  heroes ;  the  para- 
gons of  virtue  belonged  to  a  cruder  age  of  romance.  So  George  Eliot  represents  life 
correctly  by  setting  before  us  no  perfect  characters;  all  act  from  mixed  motives. 
Carlyle,  hero-worshiper  as  he  was  inclined  to  be,  is  said  to  have  become  disgusted  with 
each  of  his  heroes  before  he  finished  his  biography,  Emerson  said  that  to  understand 
any  crime,  he  hod  only  to  look  into  his  own  heart.  Robert  Burns :  "  God  knows  I  'm 
no  thing  I  would  be,  Nor  am  I  even  the  thing  I  could  be."  Huxley :  "  The  best  men  of 
the  best  epochs  are  simply  those  who  make  the  fewest  blunders  and  commit  the  fewest 
sins."  And  he  speaks  of  "the  infinite  wickedness"  which  has  attended  the  course  of 
human  history.  Matthew  Arnold :  "What  mortal,  when  he  saw,  Life's  voyage  done, 
his  heavenly  Friend,  Could  ever  yet  dare  tell  him  fearlessly :—  I  have  kept  uninfringed 


576  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

my  nature's  law :  The  inly  written  chart  thou  gavest  me,  to  guide  me,  I  have  kept  by 
to  the  end?  "  Walter  Besant,  Children  of  Gibeon  :  "  The  men  of  ability  do  not  desire  a 
system  in  which  they  shall  not  be  able  to  do  good  to  themselves  first."  M  Ready  to 
offer  praise  and  prayer  on  Sunday,  if  on  Monday  they  may  go  into  the  market  place  to 
skin  their  fellows  and  sell  their  hides."  Yet  Confucius  declares  that  "  man  is  born 
good."  He  confounds  conscience  with  will  —  the  sense  of  right  with  the  love  of  right. 
Dean  Swift's  worthy  sought  many  years  for  a  method  of  extracting  sunbeams  from 
cucumbers.    Human  nature  of  itself  is  as  little  able  to  bear  the  fruits  of  God. 

Every  man  will  grant  ( 1 )  that  he  is  not  perfect  in  moral  character ;  ( 3 )  that  love  to 
God  has  not  been  the  constant  motive  of  his  actions,  i.  e.,  that  he  has  been  to  some 
degree  selfish;  (3)  that  he  has  committed  at  least  one  known  violation  of  conscience. 
Siiedd,  Sermons  to  the  Natural  Man,  86, 87— "Those  theorists  who  reject  revealed  relig- 
ion, and  remand  man  to  the  first  principles  of  ethics  and  morality  as  the  only  religion 
that  he  needs,  send  him  to  a  tribunal  that  damns  him  "  ;  for  it  is  simple  fact  that  "  no 
human  creature,  in  any  country  or  grade  of  civilization,  has  ever  glorified  God  to  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge  of  God." 

3.     Proof  from  Christian  experience. 

(  a )  In  proportion  to  liis  spiritual  progress  does  the  Christian  recognize 
evil  dispositions  within  him,  which  but  for  divine  grace  might  germinate 
and  bring  forth  the  most  various  forms  of  outward  transgression. 

See  Goodwin's  experience,  in  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  409;  Goodwin,  member  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  speaking  of  his  conversion,  says:  "An  abundant 
discovery  was  made  to  me  of  my  inward  lusts  and  concupiscence,  and  I  was  amazed  to 
see  with  what  greediness  I  had  sought  the  gratification  of  every  sin."  Tollner's  expe- 
rience, in  Martensen's  Dogmatics:  Tollner,  though  inclined  to  Pelagianism,  says:  "I 
look  into  my  own  heart  and  I  see  with  penitent  sorrow  that  I  must  in  God's  sight  accuse 
myself  of  all  the  offences  I  have  named,"— and  he  had  named  only  deliberate  transgres- 
sions ;  —  "  he  who  does  not  allow  that  he  is  similarly  guilty,  let  him  look  deep  into  his 
own  heart."  John  Newton  sees  the  murderer  led  to  execution,  and  says :  "  There,  but 
for  the  grace  of  God,  goes  John  Newton."  Count  de  Maistre:  "I  do  not  know  what 
the  heart  of  a  villain  may  be  —  I  only  know  that  of  a  virtuous  man,  and  that  is  fright- 
ful." Tholuck,  on  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  his  professorship  at  Halle,  said  to  his 
students :  "Tn  review  of  God's  manifold  blessings,  the  thing  I  seem  most  to  thank  him 
for  is  the  conviction  of  sin." 

Roger  Ascham  :  "  By  experience  we  find  out  a  short  way,  by  a  long  wandering."  Luke 
15 :  25-32  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  indicating  that  there  are  some  of  God's  children  who 
never  wander  from  the  Father's  house.  But  there  were  two  prodigals  in  that  family. 
The  elder  was  a  servant  in  spirit  as  well  as  the  younger.  J.  J.  Murphy,  Nat.  Selection 
and  Spir.  Freedom,  41,  42  —  "  In  the  wish  of  the  elder  son  that  he  might  sometimes  feast 
with  his  own  friends  apart  from  his  father,  was  contained  the  germ  of  that  desire  to 
escape  the  wholesome  restraints  of  home  which,  in  its  full  development,  had  brought 
his  brother  first  to  riotous  living,  and  afterwards  to  the  service  of  the  stranger  and  the 
herding  of  swine.  This  root  of  sin  is  in  us  all,  but  in  him  it  was  not  so  full-grown  as 
to  bring  death.  Yet  he  says  :  'Lo,  these  many  years  do  I  serve  thee'  (Sov\e\iu>  —  as  a  bondservant), 
'  and  I  never  transgressed  a  commandment  of  thine.'  Are  the  father's  commandments  grievous?  Is 
service  true  and  sincere,  without  love  from  the  heart  ?  The  elder  brother  was  calcula- 
ting toward  his  father  and  unsympathetic  toward  his  brothei-."  Sir  J.  R.  Seelye,  Ecce 
Homo :  "  No  virtue  can  be  safe,  unless  it  is  enthusiastic."  Wordsworth :  "  Heaven 
rejects  the  love  Of  nicely  calculated  less  or  more." 

(6)  Since  those  most  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit  recognize  them- 
selves as  guilty  of  unnumbered  violations  of  the  divine  law,  the  absence 
of  any  consciousness  of  sin  on  the  part  of  unregenerate  men  must  be 
regarded  as  proof  that  they  are  blinded  by  persistent  transgression. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that,  while  those  who  are  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
who  are  actually  overcoming  their  sins  see  more  and  more  of  the  evil  of  their  hearts 
and  lives,  those  who  are  the  slaves  of  sin  see  less  and  less  of  that  evil,  and  often  deny 
that  they  are  sinners  at  all.  Rousseau,  in  his  Confessions,  confesses  sin  in  a  spirit  which 
itself  needs  to  be  confessed.    He  glosses  over  his  vices,  and  magnifies  his  virtues.    "  No 


THE   UNIVERSALITY   OF   SIN".  577 

man,"  he  says,  "can  come  to  the  throne  of  God  and  say:  'I  am  a  better  man  than 
Rousseau.' ....  Let  the  trumpet  of  t  he  last judgment  sound  when  it  will:  I  will  present 
myself  before  the  Sovereign  Judge  with  this  book  in  my  hand,  and  I  will  say  aloud: 
1  Here  is  what  I  did,  what  I  thought,  a»d  what  I  was.'  "  "  Ah,"  said  he,  just  before  he- 
expired,  "  how  happy  a  thing  it  is  to  die,  when  one  has  no  reason  for  remorse  or  self- 
reproach  !  "  And  then,  addressing  himself  to  the  Almighty,  he  said :  "  Eternal  Being, 
the  soul  that  I  am  going  to  give  thee  back  is  as  pure  at  this  moment  as  it  was  when  it 
proceeded  from  thee ;  render  it  a  partaker  of  thy  felicity  !  "  Yet,  in  his  boyhood,  Rous- 
seau was  a  petty  thief.  In  his  writings,  he  advocated  adultery  and  suicide.  He  lived 
for  more  than  twenty  years  in  practical  licentiousness.  His  children,  most  of  whom, 
if  not  all,  were  illegitimate,  he  sent  off  to  the  foundling  hospital  as  soon  as  they  were 
he  in,  thus  casting  them  upon  the  charity  of  strangers,  yet  he  inflamed  the  mothers  of 
France  with  his  eloquent  appeals  to  them  to  nurse  their  own  babies.  He  was  mean, 
vacillating,  treacherous,  hypocritical,  and  blasphemous.  And  in  his  Confessions,  he 
rehearses  the  exciting  sceues  of  his  life  in  the  spirit  of  the  bold  adventurer.  See  N.  M. 
Williams,  in  Bap.  Review,  art. :  Rousseau,  from  which  the  substance  of  the  above  is 
taken. 

Edwin  Forrest,  when  accused  of  being  converted  in  a  religious  revival,  wrote  an 
indignant  denial  to  the  public  press,  saying  that  he  had  nothing  to  regret ;  his  sins  were 
those  of  omission  rather  than  commission;  he  had  always  acted  upon  the  principle 
of  loving  his  friends  and  hating  his  enemies  ;  and  trusting  in  the  justice  as  well  as  the 
mercy  of  God,  he  hoped,  when  he  left  this  earthly  sphere,  to  '  wrap  the  drapery  of  his 
couch  about  him,  and  lie  down  to  pleasant  dreams.'  And  yet  no  man  of  his  time  was 
more  arrogant,  self-sufficient,  licentious,  revengeful.  John  Y.  McCane,  when  sentenced 
to  Sing  Sing  prison  for  six  years  f  ■  >r  violating  the  election  laws  by  the  most  highhanded 
bribery  and  ballot-stuffing,  declared  that  he  had  never  done  anything  wrong  in  his  life. 
He  was  a  Sunday  School  Superintendent,  moreover.  A  lady  who  lived  to  the  age  of  92, 
protested  that,  if  she  had  her  whole  life  to  live  over  again,  she  would  not  alter  a  single 
thing.  Lord  Nelson,  after  he  had  received  his  death  wound  at  Trafalgar,  said  :  "  I  have 
never  been  a  great  sinner."  Yet  at.  that  very  time  he  was  living  in  open  adultery. 
Tennyson,  Sea  Dreams  :  "  With  all  his  conscience  and  one  eye  askew,  So  false,  he  partly 
took  himself  for  true."  Contrast  the  utterance  of  the  apostle  Paul :  1  Tim.  1 :  15  —  " Christ 
Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners ;  of  whom  lam  chief."  It  has  been  well  said  that  "  the  greatest 
of  sins  is  to  be  conscious  of  none."  Rowland  Hill :  "The  devil  makes  little  of  sin,  that 
he  may  retain  the  sinner." 

The  following  reasons  may  be  suggested  lor  men's  unconsciousness  of  their  sins: 
1.  We  never  know  the  force  of  any  evil  passion  or  principle  within  us,  until  we  begin 
to  resist  it.  2.  God's  providential  restraints  upon  sin  have  hitherto  prevented  its  full 
development.  3.  God's  judgments  against  sin  have  not  yet  been  made  manifest.  4.  Sin 
itself  has  a  blinding  influence  upon  the  mind.  5.  Only  he  who  has  been  saved  from  the 
penalty  of  sin  is  willing  to  look  into  the  abyss  from  which  he  has  been  rescued. —  That 
a  man  is  unconscious  of  any  sin  is  therefore  ouly  proof  that  he  is  a  great  and  hardened 
transgressor.  This  is  also  the  most  hopeless  feature  of  his  ease,  since  for  one  who  never 
realizes  his  sin  there  is  no  salvation.  In  the  light  of  this  truth,  we  see  the  amazing  grace 
of  God,  not  only  in  the  gift  of  Christ  to  die  for  sinners,  but  in  thegiftof  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  convince  men  of  their  sins  and  to  lead  them  to  accept  the  Savior.  Ps.  90 : 8  —  "Thou  hast 
set  .  .  .  Our  secret  sins  in  the  light  of  thy  countenance  "  =  man's  inner  sinfulness  is  hidden  from  him- 
self, until  it  is  contrasted  with  the  holiness  of  God.  Light  =  a  luminary  or  sun,  which 
shines  down  into  the  depths  of  the  heart  and  brings  out  its  hidden  evil  into  painful 
relief.  See  Julius  Muller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2  :  248-259 ;  Edwards,  Works,  2  :  326 ;  John 
Caird,  Reasons  for  Men's  Unconsciousness  of  their  Sins,  in  Sermons,  33. 

II.  Every  member  of  the  bxman  race,  without  exception,  posses- 
ses a  corrupted  nature,  which  is  a  source  of  actual  sin,  and  is  itself 

SIN. 

1.     Proof  from  Scripture. 

A.  The  sinful  acts  and  dispositions  of  men  are  referred  to,  and  explained 
by,  a  corrupt  nature. 

By  '  nature '  we  mean  that  which  is  born  in  a  man,  that  which  he  has  by  birth.  That 
there  is  an  inborn  corrupt  state,  from  which  sinful  acts  and  dispositions  flow,  is  evident 

m 


573  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  MAN. 

from  Luke  6 :  43-45 —  "  there  is  no  good  tree  that  bringeth  forth  corrupt  fruit the  evil  man  out  of  the  evil 

treasure[of  his  heart  ]  bringeth  forth  that  which  is  evil "  ;  Mat.  12:34 — "Yeofispring  of  vipers,  how  can  ye, 
being  evil,  speak  good  things  ?  "  Ps.  58  :  3  —  "  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb ;  They  go  astray  as  soon  as 
they  are  born,  speaking  lies." 

This  corrupt  nature  (  a )  belongs  to  man  from  the  first  moment  of  his 
being  ;  ( b )  underlies  man's  consciousness  ;  (  c  )  cannot  be  changed  by 
man's  own  power  ;  (d)  first  constitutes  him  a  sinner  before  God  ;  (e)  is 
the  common  heritage  of  the  race. 

(a)  Ps.  51 :  5  —  "  Behold,  T  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity;  And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me" — here 
David  is  confessing-,  not  his  mother's  sin,  hut  his  own  sin  ;  and  he  declares  that  this  sin 
goes  back  to  the  very  moment  of  his  conception.  Tholuck,  quoted  by  H.  B.  Smith, 
System,  281  —  "  David  confesses  that  sin  begins  with  the  life  of  man ;  that  not  only  his 
works,  but  the  man  himself,  is  guilty  before  God."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2:94  — 
"  David  mentions  the  fact  that  he  was  born  sinful,  as  an  aggravation  of  his  particu- 
lar act  of  adultery,  and  not  as  an  excuse  for  it."  (b)  Ps.  19  :  12  —  "Who  can  discern  his  errors? 
Clear  thou  me  from  hidden  faults  "  ;  51  :  6,  7  — "  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts ;  And  in  the  hidden  part 
thou  wilt  make  me  to  know  wisdom.  Purify  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean :  "Wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than 
snow."  ( c  )  Jer.  13  :  23  —  "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots  ?  then  may  ye  also  do  good, 
that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil " ;  Rom.  7  :  24 —  "  Wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  out  of  the  body  of 
this  death  ?  "  ( rt )  Ps.  51 :  6  — "  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts  "  ;  Jer.  17 : 9  — "  The  heart  is  deceitful 
above  ad  things  and  it  is  exceedingly  corrupt :  who  can  know  it  ?  I,  Jehovah,  search  the  mind,  I  try  the  heart,"= 
only  God  can  fully  know  the  native  and  incurable  depravity  of  the  human  heart;  see 
Annotated  Paragraph  Bible,  in  loco,  (c)  Job  14  :  4  —  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ? 
not  one  "  ;  John  3  :  6  — "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  i.  e.,  human  nature  sundered  from  God. 
Pope,  Theology,  2  :  53  —  "  Christ,  who  knew  what  was  in  man,  says :  '  If  ye  then,  being  evil ' 
(  Mat.  7: 11 ),  and  '  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  '  (John  3:  6),  that  is  — putting  the  two  together 
— '  men  are  evil,  because  they  are  born  evil.'  " 

Nathaniel  Hawthorne's  story  of  The  Minister's  Black  Veil  portrays  the  isolation  of 
every  man's  deepest  life,  and  the  awe  which  any  visible  assertion  of  that  isolation 
inspires.  C.  P.  Cranch :  "  We  are  spirits  clad  in  veils ;  Man  by  man  was  never  seen ; 
All  our  deep  communing  fails  To  remove  the  shadowy  screen."  In  the  heart  of  every 
one  of  us  is  that  fearful  "black  drop,"  which  the  Koran  says  the  angel  showed  to 
Mohammed.  Sin  is  like  the  taint  of  scrofula  in  the  blood,  which  shows  itself  in  tumors, 
in  consumption,  in  cancer,  in  manifold  forms,  but  is  everywhere  the  same  organic 
evil.  Byron  spoke  truly  of  "  This  ineradicable  taint  of  sin,  this  boundless  Upas,  this 
all-blasting  tree." 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ.  Theol.,  161,  162  —  "  The  objection  that  conscience  brings  no 
charge  of  guilt  against  inborn  depravity,  however  true  it  may  be  of  the  nature  in  its 
passive  state,  is  seen,  when  the  nature  is  roused  to  activity,  to  be  unfounded.  This 
faculty,  on  the  contrary,  lends  support  to  the  doctrine  it  is  supposed  to  overthrow. 
When  the  conscience  holds  intelligent  inquisition  upon  single  acts,  it  soon  discovers 
that  these  are  mere  accessories  to  crime,  while  the  principal  is  hidden  away  beyond 
the  reach  of  consciousness.  In  following  up  its  inquisition,  it  in  due  time  extorts  the 
exclamation  of  David  :  Ps.  51 : 5  —  'Behold,  I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity  ;  And  in  sin  did  my  mother  con- 
ceive me.'    Conscience  traces  guilt  to  its  seat  in  the  inherited  nature." 

B.  All  men  are  declared  to  be  by  nature  children  of  wrath  ( Eph.  2:3). 
Here  '  nature '  signifies  something  inborn  and  original,  as  distinguished 
from  that  which  is  subsequently  acquired.  The  text  implies  that :  (  a  )  Sin 
is  a  nature,  in  the  sense  of  a  congenital  depravity  of  the  will.  (  b  )  This 
nature  is  guilty  and  condemuable, —  since  God's  wrath  rests  only  upon  that 
which  deserves  it.  (  c )  All  men  participate  in  this  nature  and  in  this  con- 
sequent guilt  and  condemnation. 

Eph.  2  :  3 — "  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as  the  rest."  Shedd:  "Nature  here  is  not  sub- 
Stance  created  by  God,  but  corruption  of  that  substance,  which  corruption  is  created  by 
man."  'Nature'  ( f rom  nascor )  may  denote  anything  inborn,  and  the  term  may  just 
as  properly  designate  inborn  evil  tendencies  and  state,  as  inborn  faculties  or  substance. 
"By  nature"  therefore  =" by  birth";  compare  Sal.  2:15 — " Jews  by  nature."  E.  G.  Robinson: 
•' Nature  =  not  ovo-i'a,  or  essence,  but  only  qualification  of  essence,  as  something  born 


THE   UNIVERSALITY   OF   SIN".  579 

in  us.  There  is  just  as  much  difference  in  babes,  from  the  beginning  of  their  existence, 
as  there  is  in  adults.  If  sin  is  defined  as  'voluntary  transgression  of  known  law,'  the 
definition  of  course  disposes  of  original  3in."  But  if  sin  is  a  selfish  state  of  the  will,  such 
a  state  is  demonstrably  inborn.  AristoWe  speaks  of  some  men  as  born  to  be  savages 
(<£u<rei  /3ap/3apoi),  and  of  others  as  destined  by  nature  to  be  slaves  (</>vo-ei  SoOAoi ).  Here 
evidently  is  a  congenital  aptitude  and  disposition.  Similarily  we  can  interpret  Paul's 
words  as  declaring  nothing  less  than  that  men  are  possessed  at  birth  of  an  aptitude  and 
disposition  which  is  the  object  of  God's  just  displeasure. 

The  opposite  view  can  be  found  in  Stevens,  Pauline  Theology,  152-157.  Principal  Fair- 
bairn  also  says  that  inherited  sinfulness  "  is  not  transgression,  and  is  Without  guilt." 
Ritschl,  Just,  and  Recon.,  344— "The  predicate  'children  of  wrath*  refers  to  the  former 
actual  transgression  of  those  who  now  as  Christians  have  the  right  to  apply  to  them- 
selves that  divine  purpose  of  grace  which  is  the  antithesis  of  wrath."  Meyer  interprets 
the  verse:  "  We  become  children  of  wrath  by  following  a  natural  propensity."  He 
claims  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  to  be,  that  man  incurs  the  divine  wrath  by  his  actual 
sin,  when  he  submits  his  will  to  the  inborn  sin  principle.  So  N.  W.  Taylor,  Concio  ad 
( 'lerum,  quoted  in  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  281  —""We  were  by  nature  such  that  we  became 
through  our  own  act  children  of  wrath."  "But,"  says  Smith,  "if  the  apostle  had 
meant  this,  he  could  have  said  so ;  there  is  a  proper  Greek  word  f or  •  ijecame ' ;  the 
word  which  is  used  can  only  be  rendered  'were.'"  SolCor.7:14  —  "  else  were  tout  children 
unclean" — implies  that,  apart  from  the  operations  of  grace,  all  men  are  defiled  in  virtue 
of  their  very  birth  from  a  corrupt  stock.  Cloth  is  first  died  in  the  wool,  and  then  dyed 
again  after  the  weaving.  Man  is  a  "  double-dyed  villain."  He  is  corrupted  by  nature 
and  afterwards  hy  practice.  The  colored  physician  in  New  Orleans  advertised  that  his 
method  was  "  first  to  remove  the  disease,  and  then  to  eradicate  the  system."  The  New 
School  method  of  treating  this  text  is  of  a  similar  sort.  Beginning  with  a  definition  of 
sin  which  excludes  from  that  category  all  in  horn  states  of  the  will,  it  proceeds  to  vacate 
of  their  meaning  the  positive  statements  of  Scripture. 

For  the  proper  interpretation  of  Eph.  2 : 3,  see  Julius  MUller,  Doct.  of  Sin,  2 :  278,  and 
Commentaries  of  Harless  and  Olshausen.  See  also  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3 :  212  sq.  ; 
Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Weik,  1 :2«9;  and  an  excellent  note  in  the  Expositor's 
Greek  N.  T.,  in  loco.  Per  contra,  see  Reuss,  Christ.  Theol.  in  Apost.  Age,  2 :29,  79-84 ; 
Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  239. 

C.  Death,  the  penalty  of  sin,  is  visited  even  upon  those  who  have  never 
exercised  a  personal  and  conscious  choice  (  Kom.  5  :  12-14  ).  This  text 
implies  that  (a  )  Sin  exists  in  the  case  of  infants  prior  to  moral  conscious- 
ness, and  therefore  in  the  nature,  as  distinguished  from  the  personal 
activity.  (  b )  Since  infants  die,  this  visitation  of  the  penalty  of  sin  upon 
them  marks  the  ill-desert  of  that  nature  which  contains  in  itself,  though 
undeveloped,  the  germs  of  actual  transgression.  (  c )  It  is  therefore  certain 
that  a  sinful,  guilty,  and  condemnable  nature  belongs  to  all  mankind. 

Rom.  5 :  12-14  —  "  Therefore,  as  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin ;  and  so  death 
passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned :  —  for  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is 
no  law.  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  until  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of 
Adam's  transgression"  — that  is,  over  those  who,  like  infants,  had  never  personally  and  con- 
sciously sinned.  See  a  more  full  treatment  of  these  last  words  in  connection  with  an 
exegesis  of  the  whole  passage  —  Rom.  5: 12-19  —  under  Imputation  of  Sin,  pages  625-627. 

N.  W.  Taylor  maintained  that  infants,  prior  to  moral  agency,  are  not  subjects  of  the 
moral  government  of  God,  any  more  than  are  animals.  In  this  he  disagreed  with 
Edwards,  Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Dwight,  SmaUey,  Griffin.  See  Tyler,  Letters  on  N.  E. 
Theol.,  8,  132-142—  "  To  say  that  animals  die,  and  therefore  death  can  be  no  proof  of  sin 
in  infants,  is  to  take  infidel  ground.  The  infidel  has  Just  as  good  a  right  to  say :  Because 
animals  die  without  being  sinners,  therefore  adults  may.  If  death  may  reign  to  such  an 
alarming  extent  over  the  human  race  and  yet  be  no  proof  of  siu,  then  you  adopt  the 
principle  that  death  may  reign  to  any  extent  over  the  universe,  yet  never  can  be  made 
a  proof  of  sin  in  any  case."  We  reserve  our  full  proof  that  physical  death  is  the  penalty 
of  sin  to  the  section  on  Penalty  as  one  of  the  Consequences  of  Sin. 

2.     Proof  from  Reason. 

Three  facts  demand  explanation  :     ( a  )  The  universal  existence  of  sinful 


580  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE  OF   MAN. 

dispositions  in  every  mind,  and  of  sinful  acts  in  every  life.  ( b )  The  pre- 
ponderating tendencies  to  evil,  which  necessitate  the  constant  education  of 
good  impulses,  wlide  the  bad  grow  of  themselves.  (  c )  The  yielding  of  the 
will  to  temptation,  and  the  actual  violation  of  the  divine  law,  in  the  case  of 
every  human  being  so  soon  as  he  reaches  moral  consciousness. 

The  fundamental  selfishness  of  man  is  seen  in  childhood,  when  human  nature  acts  itself 
out  spontaneously.  It  is  difficult  to  develop  courtesy  in  children.  There  can  be  no 
true  courtesy  without  regard  for  man  as  man  and  willingness  to  accord  to  each  man 
his  place  and  right  as  a  son  of  God  equal  with  ourselves.  But  children  wish  to  please 
themselves  without  regard  to  others.  The  mother  asks  the  child :  "  Why  don't  you  do 
right  instead  of  doing  wrong?"  and  the  child  answers:  "Because  it  makes  me  so 
tired,"  or  "  Because  I  do  wrong  without  trying."  Nothing  runs  itself,  unless  it  is  going 
down  hill.  "  No  other  animal  does  things  habitually  that  will  injure  and  destroy  it,  and 
does  them  from  the  love  of  it.  But  man  does  this,  and  he  is  born  to  do  it,  he  does  it 
from  birth.  As  the  seedlings  of  the  peach-tree  are  all  peaches,  not  apples,  and  those 
of  thorns  are  all  thorns,  not  grapes,  so  all  the  descendants  of  man  are  born  with  evil 
in  their  natures.  That  sin  continually  comes  back  to  us,  like  a  dog  or  cat  that  has 
been  driven  away,  proves  that  our  hearts  are  its  home." 

Mrs.  Humphrey  Ward's  novel,  Robert  Elsmere,  represents  the  milk-and-water  school 
of  philanthropists.  "Give  man  a  chance,"  they  say;  "give  him  good  example  and 
favorable  environment  and  he  will  turn  out  well.  He  is  more  sinned  against  than  sin- 
ning. It  is  the  outward  presence  of  evil  that  drives  men  to  evil  courses."  But  God's 
indictment  is  found  in  Rom.  8:7— "the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God."  G.  P.Fisher:  "Of  the 
ideas  of  natural  religion,  Plato,  Plutarch  and  Cicero  found  in  the  fact  that  they  are  in 
man's  reason,  but  not  obeyed  and  realized  in  man's  will,  the  most  convincing  evidence 
that  humanity  is  at  scnism  with  itself,  and  therefore  depraved,  fallen,  and  unable  to 
deliver  itself.  The  reason  why  many  moralists  fail  and  grow  bitter  and  hateful  is  that 
they  do  not  take  account  of  this  state  of  sin." 

Reason  seeks  an  underlying  principle  which  will  reduce  these  multitudi- 
nous phenomena  to  unity.  As  we  are  compelled  to  refer  common  physical 
and  intellectual  phenomena  to  a  common  physical  and  intellectual  nature, 
so  we  are  compelled  to  refer  these  common  moral  phenomena  to  a  common 
moral  nature,  and  to  find  in  it  the  cause  of  this  universal,  spontaneous,  and 
all -controlling  opposition  to  God  and  his  law.  The  only  possible  solution 
of  the  problem  is  this,  that  the  common  nature  of  mankind  is  corrupt,  or, 
in  other  words,  that  the  human  will,  prior  to  the  single  volitions  of  the 
individual,  is  turned  away  from  God  and  supremely  set  upon  self-gratifi- 
cation. This  unconscious  and  fundamental  direction  of  the  will,  as  the 
source  of  actual  sin,  must  itself  be  sin ;  and  of  this  sin  all  mankind  are 
partakers. 

The  greatest  thinkers  of  the  world  have  certified  to  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion. 
See  Aristotle's  doctrine  of  "  the  slope,"  described  in  Chase's  Introduction  to  Aristotle's 
Ethics,  xxxv  and  32 —  "  In  regard  to  moral  virtue,  man  stands  on  a  slope.  His  appe- 
tites and  passions  gravitate  downward;  his  reason  attracts  him  upward.  Conflict 
occurs.  A  step  upward,  and  reason  gains  what  passion  has  lost ;  but  the  reverse  is  the 
case  if  he  steps  downward.  The  tendency  in  the  former  case  is  to  the  entire  subjection  of 
passion ;  in  the  latter  case,  to  the  entire  suppression  of  reason.  The  slope  will  termi- 
nate upwards  in  a  level  summit  where  men's  steps  will  be  secure,  or  downwards  in  an 
irretrievable  plunge  over  the  precipice.  Continual  self-control  leads  to  absolute  self- 
mastery;  continual  failure,  to  the  utter  absence  of  self-control.  But  all  we  can  see  is 
the  slope.  No  man  is  ever  at  the  r]pe/xia  of  the  summit,  nor  can  we  say  that  a  man  has 
irretrievably  fallen  into  the  abyss.  How  it  is  that  men  constantly  act  against  their 
own  convictions  of  what  is  right,  and  their  previous  determinations  to  follow  right,  is 
a  mystery  which  Aristotle  discusses,  but  leaves  unexplained. 

"  Compare  the  passage  in  the  Ethics,  1 :  11  — '  Clearly  there  is  in  them  [  men  ],  besides 
the  Reason,  some  other  Inborn  principle  ( ne<f>vK6'; )  which  fights  with  and  strains  against 
the  Reason  ....  There  is  in  tne  soul  also  somewhat  besides  the  Reason  which  is 


THE    UNIVERSALITY   OF   SIN".  581 

opposed  to  this  and  goes  against  it.' — Compare  this  passage  with  Paul,  in  Rom.  7: 23 —  '1 
see  a  different  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  under  the  law 
of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.'  But  as  Aristotle  does  not  explain  the  cause,  so  he  suggests  no 
cure.    Revelation  alone  can  account  fqr  the  disease,  or  point  out  the  remedy." 

Wuttke,  Christian  Ethics,  1 :  102— "Aristotle  makes  the  significant  and  almost  surpris- 
ing observation,  that  the  character  which  has  become  evil  by  guilt  can  just  as  little  be 
thrown  off  again  at  mere  volition,  as  the  person  who  has  made  himself  sick  by  his  own 
fault  can  become  well  again  at  mere  volition ;  once  become  evil  or  sick,  it  stands  no 
longer  within  his  discretion  to  cease  to  be  so :  a  stone,  when  once  cast,  cannot  be  caught 
back  from  its  flight ;  and  so  is  it  with  the  character  that  has  become  evil."  He  does  not 
tell  "how  a  reformation  in  character  is  possible,— moreover,  he  does  not  concede  to 
evil  any  other  than  an  individual  effect,  —  knows  nothing  of  any  natural  solidarity  of 
evil  in  self-propagating,  morally  degenerated  races  "  ( Nic.  Eth.,  3 : 6,  7 ;  5 :  12 ;  7  : 2,  3 ; 
10 :  10 ).  The  good  nature,  he  says,  "  is  evidently  not  within  our  power,  but  is  by  some 
kind  of  divine  causality  conferred  upon  the  truly  happy." 

Plato  speaks  of  "that  blind,  many-headed  wild  beast  of  all  that  is  evil  within  thee." 
He  repudiates  the  idea  that  men  are  naturally  good,  and  says  that,  if  this  were  true,  all 
that  would  be  needed  to  make  them  holy  would  be  to  shut  them  up,  from  their  earliest 
years,  so  that  they  might  not  be  corrupted  by  others.  Republic,  4  ( Jowett's  trans- 
lation, 11:276)  — "There  is  a  rising  up  of  part  of  the  soul  against  the  whole  of  the  soul." 
Meno,  89  —  "  The  cause  of  corruption  is  from  our  parents,  so  that  we  never  relinquish 
their  evil  way,  or  escape  the  blemish  of  their  evil  habit."  Horace,  Ep.,  1 :10 — "  Naturam 
expellas  furca,  tamen  usque  recurret."  Latin  proverb:  "Nemo  repente  fuit  turpissi- 
mus."  Pascal :  "  We  are  born  unrighteous ;  for  each  one  tends  to  himself,  and  the  bent 
toward  self  is  the  beginning  of  all  disorder."  Kant,  in  his  Metaphysical  Principles  of 
Human  Morals,  speaks  of  "the  indwelling  of  an  evil  principle  side  by  side  with  the 
good  one,  or  the  radical  evil  of  human  nature,"  and  of  "  the  contest  between  the  good 
and  the  evil  principles  for  the  control  of  man."  "  Hegel,  pantheist  as  he  was,  declared 
that  original  sin  is  the  nature  of  every  man, —  every  man  begins  with  it"  (H.  B. 
Smith). 

Shakespeare,  Timon  of  Athens,  4  : 3  — "All  is  oblique :  There's  nothing  level  in  our 
cursed  natures.  But  direct  villainy."  All's  Well,  4  :3—  "  As  we  are  in  ourselves,  how 
weak  we  are!  Merely  our  own  traitors."  Measure  for  Measure,  1 :2 — "Our  natures 
do  pursue,  Like  rats  that  ravin  down  their  proper  bane,  A  thirsty  evil,  and  when  we 
drink,  we  die."  Hamlet,  3  : 1—"  Virtue  cannot  so  inoculate  our  old  stock,  but  we  shall 
relish  of  it."  Love's  Labor  Lost,  1 : 1  — "Every  man  with  his  affects  is  born.  Not  by 
might  mastered,  but  by  special  grace."  Winter's  Tale,  1:2—"  We  should  have 
answered  Heaven  boldly,  Not  guilty;  the  imposition  cleared  Hereditary  ours"  — that 
is,  provided  our  hereditary  connection  with  Adam  had  not  made  us  guilty.  On  the 
theology  of  Shakespeare,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Great  Poets,  195-211  —  "  If  any  think  it  irra- 
tional to  believe  in  man's  depravity,  guilt,  and  need  of  supernatural  redemption,  they 
must  also  be  prepared  to  say  that  Shakespeare  did  not  understand  human  nature." 

S.  T.  Coleridge,  Omniana,  at  the  end :  "  It  is  a  fundamental  article  of  Christianity 
that  I  am  a  fallen  creature  ....  that  an  evil  ground  existed  in  my  will,  previously  to 
any  act  or  assignable  moment  of  time  in  my  consciousness ;  I  am  born  a  child  of 
wrath.  This  fearful  mystery  I  pretend  not  to  understand.  I  cannot  even  conceive  the 
possibility  of  it ;  but  I  know  that  it  is  so,  ...  .  and  what  is  real  must  be  possible."  A 
sceptic  who  gave  his  children  no  religious  training,  with  the  view  of  letting  them  each 
in  mature  years  choose  a  faith  for  himself,  reproved  Coleridge  for  letting  his  garden 
run  to  weeds  ;  but  Coleridge  replied,  that  he  did  not  think  it  right  to  prejudice  the 
soil  in  favor  of  roses  and  strawberries.  Van  Oosterzee  :  Rain  and  sunshine  make  weeds 
grow  more  quickly,  but  could  not  draw  them  out  of  the  soil  if  the  seeds  did  not  lie  there 
already  ;  so  evil  education  and  example  draw  out  sin,  but  do  not  implant  it.  Tennyson, 
Two  Voices:  "He  finds  a  baseness  in  his  blood,  At  such  strange  war  with  what  is  good, 
He  cannot  do  the  thing  he  would."  Robert  Browning,  Gold  Hair :  a  Legend  of  Pornic  : 
"  The  faith  that  launched  point-blank  her  dart  At  the  head  of  a  lie  —  taught  Original 
Sin,  The  corruption  of  Man's  Heart."  Taine,  Aucien  Regime:  "  Savage,  brigand  and 
madman  each  of  us  harbors,  in  repose  or  manacled,  but  always  living,  in  the  recesses 
of  his  own  heart."  Alexander  Maclaren  :  "  A  great  mass  of  knotted  weeds  growing  in 
a  stagnant  pool  is  dragged  toward  you  as  you  drag  one  filament."  Draw  out  one  sin, 
and  it  brings  with  it  the  whole  matted  nature  of  sin. 

Chief  Justice  Thompson,  of  Pennsylvania :  "  If  those  who  preach  had  been  lawyers 
previous  to  entering  the  ministry,  they  would  know  and  say  far  more  about  the  deprav- 


582  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

ity  of  the  human  heart  than  they  do.  The  old  doctrine  of  total  depravity  is  the  only 
thing1  that  can  explain  the  falsehoods,  the  dishonesties,  the  licentiousness,  and  the 
murders  which  are  so  rife  in  the  world.  Education,  refinement,  and  even  a  high 
order  of  talent,  cannot  overcome  the  inclination  to  evil  which  exists  in  the  heart,  and 
has  taken  possession  of  the  very  fibres  of  our  nature."  See  Edwards,  Original  Sin,  in 
Works,  2 :  309-510 ;  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2:259-307;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  231-238; 
Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  226-236. 


SECTION  IV.— ORIGIN   OF  SIN   IN  THE   PERSONAL  ACT  OF  ADAM. 

With  regard  to  the  origin  of  this  sinful  nature  which  is  common  to  the 
race,  and  which  is  the  occasion  of  all  actual  trangressions,  reason  affords 
no  light.  The  Scriptures,  however,  refer  the  origin  of  this  nature  to  that 
free  act  of  our  first  parents  by  which  they  turned  away  from  God,  cor- 
rupted themselves,  and  brought  themselves  under  the  penalties  of  the  law. 

Chandler,  Spirit  of  Man,  76 —  "  It  is  vain  to  attempt  to  sever  the  moral  life  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  historical  fact  in  which  it  is  rooted.  We  may  cordially  assent  to  the 
assertion  that  the  whole  value  of  historical  events  is  in  their  ideal  significance.  But  in 
many  cases,  part  of  that  which  the  idea  signifies  is  the  fact  that  it  has  been  exhibited  in 
history.  The  value  and  interest  of  the  conquest  of  Greece  over  Persia  lie  in  the  sig- 
nificant idea  of  freedom  and  intelligence  triumphing  over  despotic  force ;  but  surely  a 
part,  and  a  very  important  part,  of  the  idea,  is  the  fact  that  this  triumph  was  won  in  a 
historical  past,  and  the  encouragement  for  the  present  which  rests  upon  that  fact.  So 
too,  the  value  of  Christ's  resurrection  lies  in  its  immense  moral  significance  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  life ;  but  an  essential  part  of  that  very  significance  is  the  fact  that  the  princi- 
ple was  actually  realized  by  One  in  whom  mankind  was  summed  up  and  expressed,  and 
by  whom,  therefore,  the  power  of  realizing  it  is  conferred  on  all  who  receive  him." 

As  it  is  important  for  us  to  know  that  redemption  is  not  only  ideal  but  actual, 
so  it  is  important  for  us  to  know  that  sin  is  not  an  inevitable  accompaniment  of 
human  nature,  but  that  it  had  a  historical  beginning.  Yet  no  a  priori  theory  should 
prejudice  our  examination  of  the  facts.  We  would  preface  our  consideration  of  the 
Scriptural  account,  therefore,  by  stating  that  our  view  of  inspiration  would  permit  us 
to  regard  that  account  as  inspired,  even  if  it  were  mythical  or  allegorical.  As  God  can 
use  all  methods  of  literary  composition,  so  he  can  use  all  methods  of  instructing  man- 
kind that  are  consistent  with  essential  truth.  George  Adam  Smith  observes  that  the 
myths  and  legends  of  primitive  folk-lore  are  the  intellectual  equivalents  of  later  phi- 
losophies and  theories  of  the  universe,  and  that  "  at  no  time  has  revelation  refused  to 
employ  such  human  conceptions  for  the  investiture  and  conveyance  of  the  higher 
spiritual  truths."  Sylvester  Burnham :  "Fiction  and  myth  have  not  yet  lost  their 
value  for  the  moral  and  religious  teacher.  .What  a  knowledge  of  his  own  nature  has 
sin  >wn  man  to  be  g-ood  for  his  own  use,  God  surely  may  also  have  found  to  be  good  for  his 
use.  Nor  would  it  of  necessity  affect  the  value  of  the  Bible  if  the  writer,  in  using  for 
his  purpose  myth  or  fiction,  supposed  that  he  was  using  history.  Only  when  the  value 
of  the  truth  of  the  teaching  depends  upon  the  historicity  of  the  alleged  fact,  does  it 
become  impossible  to  use  myth  or  fiction  for  the  purpose  of  teaching."  See  vol.  1, 
page  241  of  this  work,  with  quotations  from  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  218,  and 
Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  356.  Euripides :  "  Thou  God  of  all !  infuse  light  into  the  souls  of 
men.  whereby  they  may  be  enabled  to  know  what  is  the  root  from  which  all  their  evils 
spring,  and  by  what  means  they  may  avoid  them !  " 

I.  The  Scriptural  Account  op  the  Temptation  and  Fall  in  Gen- 
esis 3  :  1-7. 

1.     Its  general  character  not  mythical  or  allegorical,  but  historical. 
"We  adopt  this  view  for  the  following  reasons  :  —  (  a  )  There  is  no  inti- 
mation in  the  account  itself  that  it  is  not  historical.     (  b )  As  a  part  of  a 


SCRIPTURAL   ACCOUNT   OF   THE   TEMPTATION   AND   FALL.       583 

historical  book,  the  presumption  is  that  it  is  itself  historical.  (c)  The 
later  Scripture  writers  refer  to  it  as  a  veritable  history  even  in  its  details. 
( d )  Particular  features  of  the  narrative,  such  as  the  placing  of  our  first 
parents  in  a  garden  and  the  speaking  of  the  tempter  through  a  serpent- 
form,  are  incidents  suitable  to  man's  condition  of  innocent  but  untried 
childhood.  (  e )  This  view  that  the  narrative  is  historical  does  not  forbid 
our  assuming  that  the  trees  of  life  and  of  knowledge  were  symbols  of 
spiritual  truths,  while  at  the  same  time  they  were  outward  realities. 

See  John  8  :  44  — "Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  it  is  yonr  will  to  do.  He  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning,  and  standeth  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he 
speaketh  of  his  own :  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the  father  thereof"  ;  2  Cor.  11:3  — "  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  in  his  craftiness  "  ; 
Rev.  20  :  2— "the  dragon,  the  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil  and  Satan."  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  2Gi  —  "  If 
Christ's  temptation  and  victory  over  Satan  were  historical  events,  there  seems  to  be  no 
ground  for  supposing  that  the  (iisi  temptation  was  not  a  historical  event.*'  We  believe 
in  the  unity  and  sufficiency  of  Scripture.  We  moreover  regard  the  testimony  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  as  conclusive  with  regard  to  the  historicity  of  the  account  in  Genesis. 
We  assume  a  divine  superintendence  in  the  choice  of  material  by  its  author,  and  the 
fujfllmentto  the  apostles  of  Christ's  promise  that  they  should  beguidedinto  the  truth. 
Paul's  doctrine  of  sin  is  so  manifestly  based  upon  the  historical  character  of  the  Gene- 
sis story,  that  the  denial  of  the  one  must  naturally  lead  to  the  denial  of  the  other. 
John  Milton  writes,  in  his  Areopagitica:  "It  was  from  out  of  the  rind  of  one  apple 
tasted  that  the  knowledge  of  frond  and  evil,  as  two  twins  cleaving  together,  leaped 
forth  into  the  world.  And  perhaps  this  is  that  doom  which  Adam  fell  into,  that  is  to 
say,  of  knowing  good  by  evil."  He  should  have  learned  to  know  evil  as  Cod  knows  it 
—as  a  thing  possible,  hateful,  and  forever  rejected.  He  actually  learned  to  know  evil 
as  Satan  kuows  it  —  by  making  it  actual  and  matter  of  bitter  experience. 

Infantile  and  innocent  man  found  his  fit  place  and  work  in  a  garden.  The  language 
of  appearances  is  doubtless  used.  Satan  might  enter  into  a  brute-form,  and  might 
appear  to  speak  through  it.  In  all  languages,  the  stories  of  brutes  speaking  show  t  hat 
such  a  temptation  is  congruous  with  the  condition  of  early  man.  Asiatic  myths  agree 
in  representing  the  serpent  as  the  emblem  of  the  spirit  of  evil.  The  tree  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil  was  the  symbol  of  God's  right  of  eminent  domain,  and  indicated 
that  all  belonged  to  him.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  it  was  known  by  this  name 
before  the  Fall.  By  means  of  it  man  came  to  know  good,  by  the  loss  of  it;  to  know 
evil,  by  bitter  experience;  C.  II.  M. :  "To  know  good,  without  the  power  to  do  it;  to 
know  evil,  without  the  power  to  avoid  it."  Bible  Com.,  1  :40  —  The  tree  of  life  was 
symbol  of  the  fact  that  "  life  is  to  be  sought,  not  from  within,  from  himself,  in  his  own 
powers  or  faculties;  but  from  that  which  is  without  him,  even  from  him  who  hath  life 
in  himself." 

As  the  water  of  baptism  and  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  supper,  though  themselves  com- 
mon things,  are  symbolic  of  the  greatest  truths,  so  the  tree  of  knowledge  and  the  tree 
of  life  were  sacramental.  Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  99-141  — "The  two 
trees  represented  good  and  evil.  The  prohibition  of  the  latter  was  a  declaration  that 
man  of  himself  could  not  distinguish  between  good  and  evil,  and  must  trust  divine 
guidance.  Satan  urged  man  to  discern  between  good  and  evil  by  his  own  wisdom,  and 
so  become  independent  of  God.  Sin  is  the  attempt  of  the  creature  to  exercise  God's 
attribute  of  discerning  and  choosing  between  good  and  evil  by  his  own  wisdom.  It  is 
therefore  self-conceit,  self -trust,  self-assertion,  the  preference  of  his  own  wisdom  and 
will  to  the  wisdom  and  will  of  God."  Mcllvaine  refers  to  Lord  Bacon,  Works,  1 :  82, 
l«i.    See  also  Pope,  Theology,  2  :  10, 1 1 ;  Boston  Lectures  for  1871 :  80,  81. 

Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  142,  on  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil—"  When  for  the  first  time  man  stood  face  to  face  with  definite  conscious  tempta- 
tion to  do  that  which  he  knew  to  be  wrong,  he  held  in  his  hand  the  fruit  of  that  tree, 
and  his  destiny  as  a  moral  being  hung  trembling  in  the  balance.  And  when  for  the 
first  time  he  succumbed  to  temptation  and  faint  dawnings  of  remorse  visited  his  heart, 
at  that  moment  he  was  banished  from  the  Eden  of  innocence,  in  which  his  nature  had 
hitherto  dwelt,  and  he  was  driven  forth  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord."  With  the  first 
sin,  was  started  another  and  a  downward  course  of  development.  For  the  mythical  or 
allegorical  explanation  of  the  narrative,  see  also  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  164, 165, 
and  Nitzsch,  Christian  Doctrine,  218. 


584  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

2.  The  course  of  the  temptation,  and  the  resulting  fall. 
The  stages  of  the  temptation  appear  to  have  been  as  follows : 
(  a )  An  appeal  on  the  part  of  Satan  to  innocent  appetites,  together  with 
an  implied  suggestion  that  God  was  arbitrarily  withholding  the  means  of 
their  gratification  (  Gen.  3:1).  The  first  sin  was  in  Eve's  isolating  herself 
and  choosing  to  seek  her  own  pleasure  without  regard  to  God's  will.  This 
initial  selfishness  it  was,  which  led  her  to  listen  to  the  tempter  instead  of 
rebuking  him  or  flying  from  him,  and  to  exaggerate  the  divine  command 
in  her  response  (  Gen.  3:3). 

Hen.  3  : 1  —  "Yea,  hath  God  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  any  tree  of  the  garden?  "  Satan  emphasizes  the  limi- 
tation, but  is  silent  with  regard  to  the  generous  perm  ission  —  "  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  [but 
one  ]  thou  mayest  freely  eat "  ( 2  :  16  ).  C.  H.  M.,  in  loco :  "  To  admit  the  question  '  hath  God  said  ? ' 
is  already  positive  infidelity.  To  add  to  God's  word  is  as  bad  as  to  take  from  it.  'Hath 
God  said?'  is  quickly  followed  by 'Ye  shall  not  surely  die.'  Questioning  whether  God  has 
spoken,  results  in  open  contradiction  of  what  God  has  said.  Eve  suffered  God's  word 
to  be  contradicted  by  a  creature,  only  because  she  had  abjured  its  authority  over  her 
#  conscience  and  heart."  The  command  was  simply  :  "thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it "  (  Gen.  2  :  17  ).  In 
her  rising  dislike  to  the  authority  she  had  renounced,  she  exaggerates  the  command 
into  :  "  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it "  ( Gen.  3:3).  Here  is  already  self-isolation, 
instead  of  love.  Matheson,  Messages  of  the  Old  Religions,  318 — "  Ere  ever  the  human 
soul  disobeyed,  it  had  learned  to  distrust.  .  .  .  Before  it  violated  the  existing  law,  it 
had  come  to  think  of  the  Lawgiver  as  one  who  was  jealous  of  his  creatures."  Dr. 
C.  H.  Parkhurst:  "The  first  question  ever  asked  in  human  history  was  asked  by  the 
devil,  and  the  interrogation  point  still  has  in  it  the  trail  of  the  serpent." 

(  b  )  A  denial  of  the  veracity  of  God,  on  the  part  of  the  tempter,  with  a 
charge  against  the  Almighty  of  jealousy  and  fraud  in  keeping  his  creatures 
in  a  position  of  ignorance  and  dependence  (  Gen.  3  :  4,  5 ).  This  was  fol- 
lowed, on  the  part  of  the  woman,  by  positive  unbelief,  and  by  a  conscious 
and  presumptuous  cherishing  of  desire  for  the  forbidden  fruit,  as  a  means 
of  independence  and  knowledge.  Thus  unbelief,  pride,  and  lust  all  sprang 
from  the  self-isolating,  self-seeking  spirit,  and  fastened  upon  the  means 
of  gratifying  it  (  Gen.  3:6). 

Gen.  3  :  i,  5  —  "And  the  serpent  said  unto  the  woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely  die :  for  God  doth  know  that  in  the  day  ye 
eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as  God,  knowing  good  and  evil "  ;  3:6  —  "And  when  the 
woman  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  a  delight  to  the  eyes,  and  that  the  tree  was  to  be  desired  to 
make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat ;  and  she  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  did  eat " 
—  so  "  taking  the  word  of  a  Professor  of  Lying,  that  he  does  not  lie"  (John  Henry 
Newman ).  Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,  book  I  —  "  To  live  by  one  man's  will  became  the 
cause  of  all  men's  misery."  Godet  on  John  1:4  — "In  the  words  'life'  and  'light'  it  is 
natural  to  see  an  allusion  to  the  tree  of  life  and  to  that  of  knowledge.  After  having 
eaten  of  the  former,  man  would  have  been  called  to  feed  on  the  second.  John  initiates 
us  into  the  real  essence  of  these  primordial  and  mysterious  facts  and  gives  us  in  this 
verse,  as  it  were,  the  philosophy  of  Paradise."  Obedience  is  the  way  to  knowledge,  and 
the  sin  of  Paradise  was  the  seeking  of  light  without  life ;  c/.  John  7  :  17  —  "If  any  man  willeth 
to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  from  myself." 

(  c  )  The  tempter  needed  no  longer  to  urge  his  suit.  Having  poisoned 
the  fountain,  the  stream  would  naturally  be  evil.  Since  the  heart  and  its 
desires  had  become  corrupt,  the  inward  dispositition  manifested  itself  in  act 
( Gen.  3:6  —  '  did  eat ;  and  she  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her  '=  who 
had  been  with  her,  and  had  shared  her  choice  and  longing  ).  Thus  man 
fell  inwardly,  before  the  outward  act  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit, — fell  in 
that  one  fundamental  determination  whereby  he  made  supreme  choice  of 
self  instead  of  God.     This  sin  of  the  inmost  nature  gave  rise  to  sins  of  the 


DIFFICULTIES   CONNECTED    WITH   THE    FALL.  585 

desires,    and  sins  of  the  desires  led  to  the  outward  act  of  transgression 
(James  1  :  15  ). 

James  1 :  15 — "  Then  the  lust,  when  it  hath  conoeijed,  beareth  sin."  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  388  — 
"  The  law  of  God  had  already  been  violated;  man  was  fallen  before  the  fruit  had  been 
plucked,  or  the  rebellion  had  been  thus  signalized.  The  law  required  not  only  outward 
obedience  but  fealty  of  the  heart,  and  this  was  withdrawn  before  any  outward  token 
Indicated  the  change."  Would  he  part  company  with  God,  or  with  his  wife?  When 
the  Indian  asked  the  missionary  where  his  ancestors  were,  and  was  told  that  they  were 
in  hell,  he  replied  that  he  would  go  with  his  ancestors.  He  preferred  hell  with  his  tribe 
to  heaven  with  God.  Sapphira,  in  like  manner,  had  opportunity  given  her  to  part 
company  with  her  husband,  but  she  preferred  him  to  God  ;  Acts  5  : 7-11. 

Philippl,  Glaubenslehre:  "So  man  became  like  God,  a  setter  of  law  to  himself. 
Man's  self-elevation  to  godhood  was  his  fall.  God's  self-humiliation  to  manhood  was 
man's  restoration  and  elevation.  .  .  .  Gen.  3  :  22 — 'The  man  has  become  as  one  of  us' in  his  condi- 
tion of  self -centered  activity, —  thereby  losing  all  real  likeness  to  God,  which  consists  in 
having  the  same  aim  with  God  himself.  De  tefabula  narra&ur;  it  is  the  condition,  not 
of  one  alone,  but  of  all  the  race."  Sin  once  brought  into  being  is  self-propagating ; 
its  seed  is  in  itself :  the  centuries  of  misery  and  crime  that  have  followed  have  only 
shown  what  endless  possibilities  of  evil  were  wrapped  up  in  that  single  sin.  Keble  : 
"  'T  was  but  a  little  drop  of  sin  We  saw  this  morning  enter  in.  And  lo,  at  eventide  a 
world  is  drowned  ! "  Farrar,  Fall  of  Man  :  "  The  guilty  wish  of  one  woman  has  swol- 
len into  the  irremediable  corruption  of  a  world."  See  Oehler,  O.  T.  Theology,  1 :  231 ; 
Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2  :  381-385 ;  Edwards,  on  Original  Sin,  part  4,  chap.  2;  Shedd,  Dogm. 
Theol.,  2 :  168-180. 

II.  Difficulties  connected  with  the  Fall  considered  as  the  per- 
sonal Act  of  Adam. 

1.     How  could  a  holy  being  fall  ? 

Here  we  must  acknowledge  that  we  cannot  understand  how  the  first 
unholy  emotion  could  have  found  lodgment  in  a  mind  that  was  set 
supremely  upon  God,  nor  how  ti  mptation  could  have  overcome  a  soul  in 
which  there  were  no  unholy  propensities  to  which  it  coidd  appeal.  The 
mere  power  of  choice  does  not  explain  the  fact  of  an  unholy  choice.  The 
fact  of  natural  desire  for  sensuous  and  intellectual  gratification  does  not 
explain  how  this  desire  came  to  be  inordinate.  Nor  does  it  throw  light 
upon  the  matter,  to  resolve  this  fall  into  a  deception  of  our  first  parents  by 
Satan.  Their  yielding  to  such  deceptiou  presupposes  distrust  of  God  and 
alienation  from  him.  Satan's  fall,  moreover,  since  it  must  have  been 
uncaused  by  temptation  from  without,  is  more  difficult  to  explain  than 
Adam's  fall. 

We  may  distinguish  six  incorrect  explanations  of  the  origin  of  sin  :  1.  Emmons  :  Sin 
is  due  to  God's  efficiency  —  God  wrought  the  sin  in  man's  heart.  This  is  the  "exercise 
system,"  and  is  essentially  pantheistic.  2.  Edwards:  Sin  is  due  to  God's  providence  — 
God  caused  the  sin  indirectly  by  presenting  motives.  This  explanation  has  all  the 
difficulties  of  determinism.  3.  Augustine :  Sin  is  the  result  of  God's  withdrawal  from 
man's  soul.  But  inevitable  sin  is  not  sin,  and  the  blame  of  it  rests  on  God  who  with- 
drew the  grace  needed  for  obedience.  4.  Pfleiderer :  The  fall  results  from  man's  already 
existing  sinfulness.  The  fault  then  belongs,  not  to  man,  but  to  God  who  made  man 
sinful.  5.  Hadley:  Sin  is  due  to  man's  moral  insanity.  But  such  concreated  ethical 
defect  would  render  sin  impossible.  Insanity  is  the  effect  of  sin,  but  not  its  cause.  6. 
Newman :  Sin  is  due  to  man's  weakness.  It  is  a  negative,  not  a  positive,  thing,  an 
incident  of  finiteness.  But  conscience  and  Scripture  test  if  3'  that  it  is  positive  as  well  as 
negative,  opposition  to  God  as  well  as  non-conformity  to  God. 

Emmons  was  really  a  pantheist:  "Since  God,"  he  says,  "works  in  all  men  both  to 
will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure,  it  is  as  easy  to  account  for  the  first  offence  of  Adam 
as  for  any  other  sin There  is  no  difficulty  respecting  the  fall  of  Adam  from  his 


58G  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OH   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

original  state  of  perfection  and  pm-ity  into  a  state  of  sin  and  guilt,  which  is  in  any  way 

pecidiar It  is  as  consistent  with  the  moral  rectitude  of  the  Deity  to  produce 

sinful  as  holy  exercises  in  the  minds  of  men.    He  puts  forth  a  positive  influence  to 

make  moral  agents  act,  in  every  instance  of  their  conduct,  as  he  pleases There 

is  but  one  satisfactory  answer  to  the  question  Whence  came  evil  f  and  that  is :  It  came 
from  the  great  first  Cause  of  all  things"  ;  see  Nathaniel  Emmons,  Works,  2 :683. 

Jonathan  Edwards  also  denied  power  to  the  contrary  even  in  Adam's  first  sin.  God 
did  not  immediately  cause  that  sin.  But  God  was  active  in  the  region  of  motives 
though  his  action  was  not  seen.  Freedom  of  the  Will,  161— "It  was  fitting  that  the 
transaction  should  so  take  place  that  it  might  not  appear  to  be  from  God  as  the  apparent 
fountain."  Yet  "  God  may  actually  in  his  providence  so  dispose  and  permit  things  that 
the  event  may  be  certainly  and  infallibly  connected  with  such  disposal  and  permission  "; 
see  Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  304.  Encyc.  Britannica,  7  :690— "  According  to  Edwards, 
Adam  had  two  principles,—  natural  and  supernatural.  When  Adam  sinned,  the  super- 
natural or  divine  principle  was  withdrawn  from  him,  and  thus  his  nature  became  cor- 
rupt without  God  infusing  any  evil  thing  into  it.  His  posterity  came  into  being 
entirely  under  the  government  of  natural  and  inferior  principles.  But  this  solves 
the  difficulty  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin  only  at  the  expense  of  denying  to  sin 
any  real  existence,  and  also  destroys  Edwards's  essential  distinction  between  natural 
and  moral  ability."  Edwards  on  Trinity,  Fisher's  edition,  44  — "The  sun  does  not 
cause  darkness  and  cold,  when  these  follow  infallibly  upon  the  withdrawal  of  his  beams. 
God's  disposing  the  result  is  not  a  positive  exertion  on  his  part."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
2 :  50  — "  God  did  not  withdraw  the  common  supporting  grace  of  his  Spirit  from  Adam 
until  after  transgression."  To  us  Adam's  act  was  irrational,  but  not  impossible ;  to  a 
determinist  like  Edwards,  who  held  that  men  simply  act  out  their  characters,  Adam's 
act  should  have  been  not  only  irrational,  but  impossible.  Edwards  nowhere  shows 
how,  according  to  his  principles,  a  holy  being  could  possibly  fall. 

Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  123—  "The  account  of  the  fall  is  the  first  appearance  of  an 
already  existing  sinfulness,  and  a  typical  example  of  the  way  in  which  every  individual 
becomes  sinful.  Original  sin  is  simply  the  universality  and  originality  of  sin.  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  indeterminism.  The  will  can  lift  itself  from  natural  unf reedom,  the 
unfreedom  of  the  natural  impulses,  to  real  spiritual  freedom,  only  by  distinguishing 
itself  from  the  law  which  sets  before  it  its  true  end  of  being.  The  opposition  of  nature 
to  the  law  reveals  an  original  nature  power  which  precedes  all  free  self-determination. 
Sin  is  the  evil  bent  of  lawless  self-willed  selfishness."  Pfleiderer  appears  to  make  this 
sinfulness  concreated,  and  guiltless,  because  proceeding  from  God.  Hill,  Genetic 
Philosophy,  288  —  "  The  wide  discrepancy  between  pi'ecept  and  practice  gives  rise  to  the 
theological  conception  of  sin,  which,  in  low  types  of  religion,  is  as  often  a  violation  of 
some  trivial  prescription  as  it  is  of  an  ethical  principle.  The  presence  of  sin,  contrasted 
with  a  state  of  innocence,  occasions  the  idea  of  a  fall,  or  lapse  from  a  sinless  condition. 
This  is  not  incompatible  with  man's  derivation  from  an  animal  ancestry,  which  prior 
to  the  rise  of  self-consciousness  may  be  regarded  as  having  been  in  a  state  of  moral 
innocence,  the  sense  and  reality  of  sin  being  impossible  to  the  animal The  exist- 
ence of  sin,  both  as  an  inherent  disposition,  and  as  a  perverted  form  of  action,  may  be 

explained  as  a  survival  of  animal  propensity  inhuman  life gin  is  the  disturbance 

of  higher  life  by  the  intrusion  of  lower." 

Professor  James  Hadley:  "Every  man  is  more  or  less  insane."  We  prefer  to  say : 
Every  man,  so  far  as  he  is  apart  from  God,  is  morally  insane.  But  we  must  not  make 
sin  the  result  of  insanity.  Insanity  is  the  result  of  sin.  Insanity,  moreover,  is  a  physical 
disease,— sin  is  a  perversion  of  the  will.  John  Henry  Newman,  Idea  of  a  University, 
60  —  "  Evil  has  no  substance  of  its  own,  but  is  only  the  defect,  excess,  perversion  or 
corruption  of  that  which  has  substance."  Augustine  seems  at  times  to  favor  this  view. 
He  maintains  that  evil  has  no  origin,  inasmuch  as  it  is  negative,  not  positive ;  that  it  is 
merely  defect  or  failure.  He  illustrates  it  by  the  damaged  state  of  a  discordant  harp ; 
see  Moule,  Outlines  of  Theology,  171.  So  too  A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  190,  tells 
us  that  Adam's  'will  was  like  a  violin  in  tune,  which  through  mere  inattention  and 
neglect  got  out  of  tune  at  last.  But  here,  too,  we  must  say  with  E.  G.  Robinson,  Chi-ist. 
Theology,  124  —  "  Sin  explained  is  sin  defended."  All  these  explanations  fail  to  explain, 
and  throw  the  blame  of  sin  upon  God,  as  directly  or  indirectly  its  cause. 

But  sin  is  an  existing  fact.  God  cannot  be  its  author,  either  by  creating 
man's  nature  so  that  sin  was  a  necessary  incident  of  its  development,  or  by 
withdrawing  a  supernatural  grace  which  was  necessary  to  keep  man  holy. 


DIFFlriLTlF.S    CONNECTED    WITH   THE   FALL.  587 

Reason,  therefore,  lias  no  other  recourse  than  to  accept  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine that  sin  originated  in  man's  free  act  of  revolt  fruin  God  —  the  act  of 
a  will  which,  though  inclined  toward  God,  was  not  yet  confirmed  in  virtue 
and  was  still  capable  of  a  contrary  choice.  The  original  possession  of  such 
power  to  the  contrary  seems  to  be  the  necessary  condition  of  probation 
and  moral  development.  Yet  the  exercise  of  this  power  in  a  sinf id  direction 
can  never  be  explained  upon  grounds  of  reason,  since  sin  is  essentially 
unreason.  It  is  an  act  of  wicked  arbitrariness,  the  only  motive  of  which 
is  the  desire  to  depart  from  God  and  to  render  self  supreme. 

Sin  is  a  "mystery  of  lawlessness "  ( 2  Thess.  2:7),  at  the  beginning-,  as  well  as  at  the  end.  Nean- 
der,  Planting-  and  Training-,  3HS  —  "  Whoever  explains  sin  nullifies  it."  Man's  power  at 
the  beginning-  to  choose  evil  does  not  prove  that,  now  that  he  has  fallen,  he  has  equal 
power  of  himself  permanently  to  choose  good.  Because  man  has  power  to  cast  him- 
self from  the  top  of  a  precipice  to  the  bottom,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  has  equal 
power  to  transport  himself  from  the  bottom  to  the  top. 

Man  fell  by  wilful  resistance  to  the  in  working-  God.  Christ  is  in  all  men  as  he  was  in 
Adam,  and  all  good  impulses  are  due  to  him.  Since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Christ  within, 
all  men  are  the  subjects  of  his  striving.  Hedoes  not  withdraw  from  them  except  upon, 
and  in  consequence  of,  their  withdrawing- from  him.  John  Milton  makes  the  Almighty 
say  of  Adam's  sin :  "  Whose  fault  ?  Whose  but  his  own  ?  Ingrate,  he  had  of  me  All  he 
could  have;  I  made  him  just  and  right,  Sufficient  to  have  stood,  though  free  to  fall. 
Such  I  created  all  the  Etherial  Powers,  And  Spirits,  both  them  who  stood  and  them 
who  failed ;  Freely  they  stood  who  stood,  and  fell  who  failed."  The  word  "  cusseduess  " 
has  become  an  apt  word  here.  The  Standard  Dictionary  defines  it  as  "1.  Cursedness, 
meanness,  perverseuess ;  2.  resolute  courage,  endurance:  'Jim  Bludsoe's  voice  was 
heard,  And  they  all  had  trust  in  his  cusseduess  And  knowed  he  would  keep  his  word.'  " 
(John  Hay,  Jim  Bludsoe,  stanza  6  ).  Not  the  last,  but  the  first,  of  these  definitions  best 
describes  the  first  sin.  The  most  thorough  and  satisfactory  treatment  of  the  fall  of 
man  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  found  in  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent 
through  Christ,  73-240. 

Hodge,  Essays  and  Reviews,  30—"  There  is  a  broad  difference  between  the  commence- 
ment of  holiness  and  the  commencement  of  sin,  and  more  is  necessary  for  the  former 
than  for  the  latter.  An  act  of  obedience,  if  it  is  performed  under  I  he  mere  impulse  of 
self-love,  is  virtually  no  act  of  obedience.  It  is  not  performed  with  any  intention  to 
obey,  for  that  is  holy,  and  cannot,  according  to  the  theory,  precede  the  act.  But  an  act 
of  disobedience,  performed  from  the  desire  of  happiness,  is  rebellion.  The  cases  are 
surely  different.  If,  to  please  myself,  I  do  what  God  commands,  it  is  not  holiness;  but 
if,  to  please  myself,  I  do  what  he  forbids,  it  is  sin.  Besides,  no  creature  is  immutable. 
Though  created  holy,  the  taste  for  holy  enjoyments  may  be  overcome  by  a  temptation 
sufficiently  insidious  and  powerful,  and  a  selfish  motive  or  feeling  excited  in  the  mind. 
Neither  is  a  sinful  character  immutable.  By  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  truth 
may  be  clearly  presented  and  so  effectually  applied  as  to  produce  that  change  which  is 
called  regeneration ;  that  is,  to  call  into  existence  a  taste  for  holiness,  so  that  it  is 
chosen  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  as  a  means  of  happiness." 

H.  B.  Smith,  System,  2G2 —  "  The  state  of  the  case,  as  far  as  we  can  enter  into  Adam's 
experience,  is  this:  Before  the  command,  there  was  the  state  of  love  without  the 
thought  of  the  opposite  :  a  knowledge  of  good  only,  a  yet  unconscious  goodness :  there 
was  also  the  knowledge  that  the  eating  of  the  fruit  was  against  the  divine  command. 
The  temptation  aroused  pride ;  the  yielding  to  that  was  the  sin.  The  change  was  there. 
The  change  was  not  in  the  choice  as  an  executive  act,  nor  in  the  result  of  that  act — the 
eating ;  but  in  the  choice  of  supreme  love  to  the  world  and  self,  rather  than  supreme 
devotion  to  God.  It  was  an  immanent  preference  of  the  world, —  not  a  love  of  the 
world  following  the  choice,  but  a  love  of  the  world  which  is  the  choice  itself." 

363 — "  We  cannot  account  for  Adam's  fall,  psychologically.  In  saying  this  we  mean  : 
It  is  inexplicable  by  an3Tthing  outside  itself.  We  must  receive  the  fact  ;is  ultimate,  and 
rest  there.  Of  course  we  do  not  mean  that  it  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
moral  agency  —  that  it  was  a  violation  of  those  laws :  but  only  that  we  do  not  see  the 
mode,  that  we  cannot  construct  it  for  ourselves  in  a  rational  way.  It  differs  from  all 
other  similar  cases  of  ultimate  preference  which  we  know;  viz.,  the  sinner's  immanent 
preference  of  the  world,  where  we  know  there  is  an  antecedent  ground  in  the  bias  to 


588  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  MAN. 

sin,  and  the  Christian's  regeneration,  or  immanent  preference  of  God,  where  we  know 
there  is  an  influence  from  without,  the  working-  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  264—  "We  must 
leave  the  whole  question  with  the  immanent  preference  standing-  forth  as  the  ultimate 
fact  in  the  case,  which  is  not  to  be  constructed  philosophically,  as  far  as  the  processes 
of  Adam's  soul  are  concerned :  we  must  regard  that  immanent  preference  as  both  a 
choice  and  an  affection,  not  an  affection  the  result  of  a  choice,  not  a  choice  which  is  the 
consequence  of  an  affection,  but  both  together." 

In  one  particular,  however,  we  must  differ  with  H.  B.  Smith :  Since  the  power  of 
voluntary  internal  movement  is  the  power  of  the  will,  we  must  regard  the  change  from 
good  to  evil  as  primarily  a  choice,  and  only  secondarily  a  state  of  affection  caused  there- 
by. Only  by  postulating  a  free  and  conscious  act  of  transgression  on  the  part  of  Adam, 
an  act  which  bears  to  evil  affection  the  relation  not  of  effect  but  of  cause,  do  we  reach, 
at  the  beginning  of  human  development,  a  proper  basis  for  the  responsibility  and  guilt 
of  Adam  and  the  race.    See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  148-167. 

2.     How  could  God  justly  permit  Satanic  temptation  f 

We  see  in  this  permission  not  justice  but  benevolence. 

(a)  Since  Satan  fell  without  external  temptation,  it  is  probable  that 
man's  trial  would  have  been  substantially  the  same,  even  though  there  had 
been  no  Satan  to  tempt  him. 

Angels  had  no  animal  nature  to  obscure  the  vision ;  they  could  not  be  influenced 
through  sense ;  yet  they  were  tempted  and  they  fell.  As  Satan  and  Adam  sinned  under 
the  best  possible  circumstances,  we  may  conclude  that  the  human  race  would  have 
sinned  with  equal  certainty.  The  only  question  at  the  time  of  their  creation,  therefore, 
was  how  to  modify  the  conditions  so  as  best  to  pave  the  way  for  repentance  and  pardon. 
These  conditions  are  :  1.  a  material  body — which  means  confinement,  limitation,  need 
of  self-restraint;  2.  infancy  — which  means  development,  deliberation,  with  no  memory 
of  the  first  sin  ;  3.  the  parental  relation  — repressing  the  wilfulness  of  the  child,  and 
teaching  submission  to  authority. 

(  b  )  In  this  case,  however,  man's  fall  would  perhaps  have  been  without 
what  now  constitutes  its  single  mitigating  circumstance.  Self-originated 
sin  would  have  made  man  himself  a  Satan. 

Mat.  13 :  28—  "  An  enemy  hath  done  this."  "  God  permitted  Satan  to  divide  the  guilt  with  man, 
so  that  man  might  be  saved  from  despair."  See  Trench,  Studies  in  the  Gospels,  16-29. 
Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  103—  "  Why  was  not  the  tree  made  outwardly  repulsive  ? 
Because  only  the  abuse  of  that  winch  was  positively  good  and  desirable  could  have 
attractiveness  for  Adam  or  could  constitute  a  real  temptation." 

(c)  As,  in  the  conflict  with  temptation,  it  is  an  advantage  to  objectify 
evil  under  the  image  of  corruptible  flesh,  so  it  is  an  advantage  to  meet  it 
as  embodied  in  a  personal  and  seducing  spirit. 

Man's  body,  corruptible  and  perishable  as  it  is,  furnishes  him  with  an  illustration  and 
reminder  of  the  condition  of  soul  to  which  sin  has  reduced  him.  The  flesh,  with  its 
burdens  and  pains,  is  thus,  under  God,  a  help  to  the  distinct  recognition  and  overcom- 
ing of  sin.  So  it  was  an  advantage  to  man  to  have  temptation  confined  to  a  single 
external  voice.  We  may  say  of  the  influence  of  the  tempter,  as  Birks,  in  his  Difficulties 
of  Belief,  101,  says  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil :  "  Temptation  did 
not  depend  upon  the  tree.  Temptation  was  certain  in  any  event.  The  tree  was  a  type 
into  which  God  contracted  the  possibilities  of  evil,  so  as  to  strip  them  of  delusive  vast- 
ness,  and  connect  them  with  definite  and  palpable  warning, —  to  show  man  that  it  was 
only  one  of  the  many  possible  activities  of  his  spirit  which  was  forbidden,  that  God  had 
right  to  all  and  could  forbid  all."  The  originality  of  sin  was  the  most  fascinating 
element  in  it.  It  afforded  boundless  range  for  the  imagination.  Luther  did  well  to 
throw  his  inkstand  at  the  devil.  It  was  an  advantage  to  localize  him.  The  concentra- 
tion of  the  human  powers  upon  a  definite  offer  of  evil  helps  our  understanding  of  the 
evil  and  increases  our  disposition  to  resist  it. 

(  b  )  Such  temptation  has  in  itself  no  tendency  to  lead  the  soul  astray.    If 


DIFFICULTIES   CONNECTED    WITH   THE    FALL.  589 

the  soul  be  holy,  temptation  may  only  confirm  it  in  virtue.  Only  the  evil  will, 
self-determined  against  God,  can  turn  temptation  into  an  occasion  of  ruin. 

As  the  sun's  heat  has  no  tendency  to^wither  the  plant  rooted  in  deep  and  moist  soil, 
hut  only  causes  it  to  send  down  its  roots  the  deeper  and  to  fasten  itself  the  more 
strongly,  so  temptation  has  in  itself  no  tendency  to  pervert  the  soul.  It  was  only  the 
seeds  that  "fell  upon  the  rocky  places,  where  they  had  not  much  earth  "  ( Mat.  13 : 5,  6 ),  that  "were  scorched  " 
when  "the  sun  was  risen  " ;  and  our  Lord  attributes  their  failure,  not  to  the  sun,  but  to  their 
lack  of  root  and  of  soil :  "  because  they  had  no  root,''  "  because  they  had  no  deepness  of  earth."  The  same 
temptation  which  occasions  the  ruin  of  the  false  disciple  stimulates  to  sturdy  growth 
the  virtue  of  the  true  Christian.  Contrast  with  the  temptation  of  Adam  the  tempta- 
tion of  Christ.  Adam  had  everything  to  plead  for  God,  the  garden  and  its  delights, 
while  Christ  had  everything  to  plead  against  him,  the  wilderness  and  its  privations. 
But  Adam  had  confidence  in  Satan,  while  Christ  had  confidence  in  God ;  and  the  result 
was  in  the  former  case  defeat,  in  the  latter  victory.  See  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  385-396. 

C.  H.  Spurgeon :  "  AC  the  sea  outside  a  ship  can  do  it  no  damage  till  the  water  enters 
and  fills  the  hold.  Hence,  it  is  clear,  our  greatest  danger  is  within.  All  the  devils  in 
hell  and  tempters  on  earth  could  do  us  no  injury,  if  there  were  no  corruption  in  our  own 
natures.  The  sparks  wlD  fly  harmlessly,  if  there  is  no  tinder.  Alas,  our  heart  is  our 
greatest  enemy ;  this  is  the  little  home-born  thief.  Lord,  save  me  from  that  evil  man, 
myself ! " 

Lyman  Abbott :  "  The  scorn  of  goody-goody  is  justified  ;  for  goody-goody  is  innocent «, 
not  virtue;  and  the  boy  who  never  does  anything  wrong  because  he  never  does  any- 
thing at  all  is  of  no  use  in  the  world Sin  is  not  a  help  in  development ;  it  is  a 

hindrance.  But  temptation  is  a  help;  it  is  an  indispensable  means."  E.  G.  Robinson, 
Christ.  Theology,  123— "Temptation  in  the  bad  sense  and  a  fall  from  innocence  were 
no  more  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  lirst  man,  than  a  marring  of  any  one's  char- 
acter is  now  necessary  to  Its  completeness."  John  Milton,  Areopagitica  :  "Many  there 
be  that  complain  of  divine  providence  for  suffering  Adam  to  transgress.  F*oolish 
tongues !  When  God  gave  him  reason,  he  gave  him  freedom  to  choose,  for  reason  is  but 
choosing;  he  had  been  else  a  mere  artificial  Adam,  such  an  Adam  as  he  is  in  the 
motions"  (puppet  shows).  Robert  Browning,  Ring  and  the  Book,  201  (Pope,  1183)  — 
"  Temptation  sharp  ?  Thank  God  a  second  time !  Why  comes  temptation  but  for  man 
to  meet  And  master  and  make  crouch  beneath  his  foot,  And  so  be  pedestaled  in 
triumph?  Pray  'Lead  us  into  no  such  temptations,  Lord'?  Yea,  but,  O  thou  whose 
servants  are  the  bold,  Lead  such  temptations  by  the  head  and  hair,  Reluctant  drag*  ins, 
up  to  who  dares  fight,  That  so  he  may  do  battle  and  have  praise ! " 

3.  How  could  a  penalty  so  great  be  justly  connected  with  disobedi- 
ence to  so  slight  a  command  f 

To  this  question  we  may  reply : 

(a)  So  slight  a  command  presented  the  best  test  of  the  spirit  of 
obedience. 

Cicero :  "  Parva  res  est,  at  magna  culpa."  The  child's  persistent  disobedience  in  one 
single  respect  to  the  mother's  command  shows  that  in  all  his  other  acts  of  seeming 
obedience  he  does  nothing  for  his  mother's  sake,  but  all  for  his  own,  —shows,  in  other 
words,  that  he  does  not  possess  the  spirit  of  of  obedience  in  a  single  act.  S.  S.  Times : 
"  Trifles  are  trifles  only  to  trifiers.  Awake  to  the  significance  of  the  insignificant !  for 
you  are  in  a  world  that  belongs  not  alone  to  the  God  of  the  infinite,  but  also  to  the  God 
of  the  infinitesimal." 

(  b )  The  external  command  was  not  arbitrary  or  insignificant  in  its  sub- 
stance. It  was  a  concrete  presentation  to  the  hiunan  will  of  God's  claim 
to  eminent  domain  or  absolute  ownership. 

John  Hall,  Lectures  on  the  Religious  Use  of  Property,  10—  "  It  sometimes  happens 
that  owners  of  land,  meaning  to  give  the  use  of  it  to  others,  without  alienating  it, 
impose  a  nominal  rent  —  a  quit-rent,  the  passing  of  which  acknowledges  the  recipient 
as  owner  and  the  occupier  as  tenant.  This  is  understood  in  all  lands.  In  many  an  old 
English  deed,  'three  barley-corns,'  'a  fat  capon,*  or 'a  shilling,' is  the  consideration 


590  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  MAN". 

which  permanently  recognizes  the  rights  of  lordship.  God  taught  men  by  the  forbid- 
den tree  that  he  was  owner,  that  man  was  occupier.  He  selected  the  matter  of  prop- 
erty to  be  the  test  of  man's  obedience,  the  outward  and  sensible  sign  of  a  right  state  of 
heart  toward  God;  and  when  man  put  forth  his  hand  and  did  eat,  he  denied  God's 
ownership  and  asserted- his  own.    Nothing  remained  but  to  eject  him." 

( e  )  The  sanction  attached  to  the  command  shows  that  man  was  not  left 
ignorant  of  its  meaning  or  importance. 

Gen.  2 :  17  —  "in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Cf.  Gen.  3:3  —  "the  tree  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden"  ;  and  see  Dodge,  Christian  Theology,  206,  207—"  The  tree  was  central,  as 
the  commandment  was  central.  The  choice  was  between  the  tree  of  life  and  the  tree 
of  death,  —  between  self  and  God.    Taking  the  one  was  rejecting  the  other." 

(  d)  The  act  of  disobedience  was  therefore  the  revelation  of  a  will  thor- 
oughly corrupted  and  alienated  from  God  —  a  will  given  over  to  ingratitude, 
unbelief,  ambition,  and  rebellion. 

The  motive  to  disobedience  was  not  appetite,  but  the  ambition  to  be  as  God.  The 
outward  act  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  was  only  the  thin  edge  of  the  wedge,  behind 
which  lay  the  whole  mass  — the  fundamental  determination  to  isolate  self  and  to  seek 
personal  pleasure  regardless  of  God  and  his  law.  So  the  man  under  conviction  for  sin 
commonly  clings  to  some  single  passion  or  plan,  only  half-conscious  of  the  fact  that 
opposition  to  God  in  one  thing  is  opposition  in  all. 

m.     Consequences  op  the  Fall,  so  far  as  eespects  Adam. 

1.     Death.  —  This  death  was  twofold.     It  was  partly  : 

A.  Physical  death,  or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body.  —  The 
seeds  of  death,  naturally  implanted  in  man's  constitution,  began  to  develop 
themselves  the  moment  that  access  to  the  tree  of  life  was  denied  him.  Man 
from  that  moment  was  a  dying  creature. 

In  a  true  sense  death  began  at  once.  To  it  belonged  the  pains  which  both  man  and 
woman  should  suffer  in  their  appointed  callings.  The  fact  that  man's  earthly  existence 
did  not  at  once  end,  was  due  to  God's  counsel  of  redemption.  "The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life" 
(Rom.  8:2)  began  to  work  even  then,  and  grace  began  to  counteract  the  effects  of  the 
Fall.  Christ  has  now  "  abolished  death  "  ( 2  Tim.  1 :  10 )  by  taking  its  terrors  away,  and  by  turn- 
ing it  into  the  portal  of  heaven.  He  will  destroy  it  utterly  ( 1  Cor.  15 :  26 )  when  by  insur- 
rection from  the  dead,  the  bodies  of  the  saints  shall  be  made  immortal.  Dr.  William  A. 
Hammond,  following  a  French  scientist,  declares  that  there  is  no  reason  in  a  normal 
physical  system  why  man  should  not  live  forever. 

That  death  is  not  a  physical  necessity  is  evident  if  we  once  remember  that  life  is,  not 
fuel,  but  fire.  "Weismann,  Heredity,  8,  24,  72,  159  —  "The  organism  must  not  be  looked 
upon  as  a  heap  of  combustible  material,  which  is  completely  reduced  to  ashes  in  a 
certain  time,  the  length  of  which  is  determined  by  its  size  and  by  the  rate  at  which  it 
burns;  but  it  should  be  compared  to  a  fire,  to  which  fresh  fuel  can  be  continually 
added,  and  which,  whether  it  burns  quickly  or  slowly,  can  be  kept  burning  as  long  as 

necessity  demands Death  is  not  a  primary  necessity,  but  it  has  been  acquired 

secondarily,  as  an  adaptation Unicellular  organisms,  increasing  by  means  of 

fission,  in  a  certain  sense  possess  immortality.    No  Amoeba  has  ever  lost  an  ancestor 

by  death Each  individual  now  living  is  far  older  than  mankind,  and  is  almost  as 

old  as  life  itself Death  is  not  an  essential  attribute  of  living  matter." 

If  we  regard  man  as  primarily  spirit,  the  possibility  of  life  without  death  is  plain. 
God  lives  on  eternally,  and  the  future  physical  organism  of  the  righteous  will  have  in 
it  no  seed  of  death.  Man  might  have  been  created  without  being  mortal.  That  he  is 
mortal  is  due  to  anticipated  sin.  Regard  oody  as  simply  the  constant  energizing  of  God, 
and  we  see  that  there  is  no  inherent  necessity  of  death.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology, 
98  —  "  Man,  it  is  said,  must  die  because  he  is  a  natural  being,  and  what  belongs  to  nature 
belongs  to  him.  But  we  assert,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  was  created  a  supernatural 
being,  with  a  primacy  over  nature,  so  related  to  God  as  to  be  immortal.  Death  is  an 
intrusion,  and  it  is  flnallv  to  be  abolished."    Chandler.  The  Spirit  of  Man,  45-47  —  "  The 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE    FALL.  59-1 

first  stage  in  the  fall  was  the  disintegration  of  spirit  into  body  and  mind  ;  and  the  sec- 
ond was  the  enslavement  of  mind  to  body." 

Some  recent  writers,  however,  deny  that  death  is  a  consequence  of  the  Fall,  except 
in  the  sense  that  man's  fear  of  death  results  from  his  sin.  Newman  Smyth,  Place  of 
Death  in  Evolution,  19-22,  indeed,  asserts  the  value  and  propriety  of  death  as  an  element 
of  the  normal  universe.  He  would  oppose  to  the  doctrine  of  Weismann  the  conclusions 
of  Maupas,  the  French  biologist,  who  has  followed  infusoria  through  000  generations. 
Fission,  says  Maupas,  reproduces  for  many  generations,  but  the  unicellular  germ  ulti- 
mately weakens  and  dies  out.  The  asexual  reproduction  must  be  supplemented  by  a 
higher  conjugation,  the  meeting  and  partial  blending  of  the  contents  of  two  cells.  This 
is  only  occasional,  but  it  is  necessary  to  the  permanence  of  the  species.  Isolation  is 
ultimate  death.  Newman  Smyth  adds  that  death  and  sex  appear  together.  When  sex 
enters  to  enrich  and  diversify  life,  all  that  will  not  take  advantage  of  it  dies  out. 
Survival  of  the  fittest  is  accompanied  by  death  of  that  winch  will  not  improve.  Death 
is  a  secondary  thing  — a  consequence  of  life.  A  living-  form  acquired  the  power  of 
giving  up  its  life  for  another.  It  died  in  order  that  its  offspring  might  survive  in  a 
higher  form.  Deat  h  helps  life  on  and  up.  it  does  not  put  a  stop  to  life.  It  became  an 
advantage  to  life  as  a  whole  that  certain  primitive  forms  should  be  left  by  the  way  to 
perish.  We  owe  our  human  birth  to  death  in  nature.  The  earth  before  us  has  died 
that  we  might  live.  We  are  the  living  children  of  a  world  that  has  died  for  us.  Death 
is  a  means  of  life,  of  increasing  specialization  of  function.  Some  cells  are  born  to  give 
up  their  life  saoriflcially  tor  the  organism  to  which  they  belong. 

While  we  regard  Newman  Smyth's  view  as  an  ingenious  and  valuable  explanation  of 
the  incidental  results  of  death,  we  do  not  regard  it  as  an  explanation  of  death's  origin. 
God  has  overruled  death  for  good,  and  we  can  assent  to  much  of  Dr.  Smyth'sexposition. 
But  that  this  good  could  be  gained  only  by  death  seems  to  us  wholly  unproved  and 
unprovable.  Biology  shows  us  that  other  methods  of  reproduction  are  possible,  and 
that  death  is  an  incident  and  not  a  primary  requisite  to  development.  We  regard  Dr. 
Smyth's  theory  as  incompatible  with  the  Scripture  representations  of  death  as  the  con- 
sequence of  sin,  as  the  sign  of  God's  displeasure,  as  a  means  of  discipline  for  the  fallen, 
as  destined  to  complete  abolition  when  sin  Itself  has  been  done  away.  We  reserve,  how- 
ever, the  full  proof  that  physical  death  is  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin  until  we  discuss  the 
Consequences  of  Sin  to  Adam's  Posterity. 

But  this  death  was  also,  and  chiefly, 

B.  Spiritual  death,  or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  God.  —  In  tins 
are  included  :  ( a )  Negatively,  the  loss  of  mau's  moral  likeness  to  God,  or 
that  underlying  tendency  of  his  whole  nature  toward  God  which  constituted 
his  original  righteousness.  (6)  Positively,  the  depraving  of  all  those 
powers  which,  in  their  united  action  with  reference  to  moral  and  religious 
truth,  we  call  man's  moral  and  religious  nature  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the 
blinding  of  his  intellect,  the  corruption  of  his  affections,  and  the  enslave- 
ment of  his  will. 

Seeking  to  be  a  god,  man  became  a  slave ;  seeking  independence,  he  ceased  to  be 
master  of  himself.  Once  his  intellect  was  pure,  —  ho  was  supremely  conscious  of  God, 
and  saw  all  things  else  in  God's  light.  Now  he  was  supremely  conscious  of  self,  and  saw 
all  things  as  they  affected  self.  This  self-consciousness  —  how  unlike  the  objective  life 
of  the  first  apostles,  of  Christ,  and  of  every  loving  soul  I  Once  man's  affections  were 
pure,  —  he  loved  God  supremely,  and  other  things  in  subordination  to  God's  will.  Now 
he  loved  self  supremely,  and  was  ruled  by  inordinate  affections  toward  the  creatures 
which  could  minister  to  his  selfish  gratification.  Now  man  could  do  nothing  pleasing 
to  God,  because  he  lacked  the  love  which  is  necessary  to  all  true  obedience. 

G.  F.  Wilkin,  Control  in  Evolution,  shows  that  the  will  may  initiate  a  counter-evolu- 
tion which  shall  reverse  the  normal  course  of  man's  development.  First  comes  an  act, 
then  a  habit,  of  surrender  to  animalism  ;  then  subversion  of  faith  in  the  true  and  the 
good ;  then  active  championship  of  evil ;  then  transmission  of  evil  disposition  and 
tendencies  to  posterity.  This  subversion  of  the  rational  will  by  an  evil  choice  took 
place  very  early,  indeed  in  the  first  man.  All  human  history  has  been  a  conflict 
between  these  two  antagonistic  evolutions,  the  upward  and  the  downward.  Biologi- 
cal rather  than  moral  phenomena  predominate.    No  human  being  escapes  transgress- 


592  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 

ing  the  law  of  his  evolutionary  nature.  There  is  a  moral  deaduess  and  torpor  resulting. 
The  rational  will  must  be  restored  before  man  can  go  right  again.  Man  must  commit 
himself  to  a  true  life  ;  then  to  the  restoration  of  other  men  to  that  same  life ;  then  there 
must  be  cooperation  of  society ;  this  work  must  extend  to  the  limits  of  the  human 
species.  But  this  will  be  practicable  and  rational  only  as  it  is  shown  that  the  unfolding 
plan  of  the  universe  has  destined  the  righteous  to  a  future  incomparab  ly  more  desirable 
than  that  of  the  wicked ;  in  other  words,  immortality  is  necessary  to  evolution. 

"If  immortality  be  necessary  to  evolution,  then  immortality  becomes  scientific. 
Jesus  has  the  authority  and  omnipresence  of  the  power  behind  evolution.  He  imposes 
upon  his  followers  the  same  normal  evolutionary  mission  that  sent  him  into  the 
world.  He  organizes  them  into  churches.  He  teaches  a  moral  evolution  of  society 
through  the  united  voluntary  efforts  of  his  followers.  They  are  'the  good  seed  ....  the  sons 
of  the  kingdom '  (  Mat.  13 :  38 ).  Theism  makes  a  definite  attempt  to  counteract  the  evil  of  the 
counter-evolution,  and  the  attempt  justifies  itself  by  its  results.  Christianity  is  scien- 
tific (1)  in  that  it  satisfies  the  conditions  of  knowledge:  the  persisting  and  compre- 
hensive harmony  of  phenomena,  and  the  interpretation  of  all  the  facts ;  (2)  in  its  aim, 
the  moral  regeneration  of  the  world ;  ( 3 )  in  its  methods,  adapting  itself  to  man  as  an 
ethical  being,  capable  of  endless  progress ;  ( 4 )  in  its  conception  of  normal  society,  as 
of  sinners  uniting  together  to  help  one  another  to  depend  on  God  and  conquer  self,  so 
recognizing  the  ethical  bond  as  the  most  essential.  This  doctrine  harmonizes  science 
and  religion,  revealing  the  new  species  of  control  which  marks  the  highest  stage  of 
evolution ;  shows  that  the  religion  of  the  N.  T.  is  essentially  scientific  and  its  truths 
capable  of  practical  verification ;  that  Christianity  is  not  any  particular  church,  but 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible ;  that  Christianity  is  the  true  system  of  ethics,  and  should  be 
taught  in  public  institutions;  that  cosmic  evolution  comes  at  last  to  depend  on  the 
wisdom  and  will  of  man,  the  immanent  God  working  in  finite  and  redeemed  humanity." 

In  fine,  man  no  longer  made  God  the  end  of  his  life,  but  chose  self 
instead.  "While  he  retained  the  power  of  self-determination  in  subordinate 
things,  he  lost  that  freedom  which  consisted  in  the  power  of  choosing  God 
as  his  ultimate  aim,  and  became  fettered  by  a  fundamental  inclination  of 
his  will  toward  evil.  The  intuitions  of  the  reason  were  abnormally 
obscured,  since  these  intuitions,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned  with  moral  and 
religious  truth,  are  conditioned  upon  a  right  state  of  the  affections ;  and  — 
as  a  necessary  result  of  this  obscuring  of  reason  —  conscience,  which,  as 
the  normal  judiciary  of  the  soul,  decides  upon  the  basis  of  the  law  given  to 
it  by  reason,  became  perverse  in  its  deliverances.  Yet  this  inability  to  judge 
or  act  aright,  since  it  was  a  moral  inability  springing  ultimately  from  will, 
was  itself  hateful  and  condemnable. 

See  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3 :  61-73 ;  Shedd,  Sermons  to  the  Natural  Man,  202-230, 
esp.  205  —  "  Whatsoever  springs  from  will  we  are  responsible  for.  Man's  inability  to 
love  God  supremely  results  from  his  intense  self-will  and  self-love,  and  therefore  his 
impotence  is  a  part  and  element  of  his  sin,  and  not  an  excuse  for  it."  And  yet  the 
question  "Adam,  where  art  thou  ?  "  ( Gen.  3:9),  says  C.  J.  Baldwin,  "  was,  (Da  question,  not  as 
to  Adam's  physical  locality,  but  as  to  his  moral  condition  ;  ( 2)  a  question,  not  of  justice 
threatening,  but  of  love  inviting  to  repentance  and  return ;  ( 3 )  a  question,  not  to  Adam 
as  an  individual  only,  but  to  the  whole  humanity  of  which  he  was  the  representative." 

Dale,  Ephesians,  40  —  "  Christ  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God  ;  and  it  was  the  first,  the  prim- 
eval purpose  of  the  divine  grace  that  his  life  and  sonship  should  be  shared  by  all  man- 
kind ;  that  through  Christ  all  men  should  rise  to  a  loftier  rank  than  that  which  belonged 
to  them  by  their  creation ;  should  be  'partakers  of  the  divine  nature '  (  2  Pet.  1:4),  and  share  the 
divine  righteousness  and  joy.  Or  rather,  the  race  was  actually  created  in  Christ;  and 
it  was  created  that  the  whole  race  might  in  Christ  inherit  the  life  and  glory  of  God. 
The  divine  purpose  has  been  thwarted  and  obstructed  and  partially  defeated  by  human 
sin.    But  it  is  being  fulfilled  in  all  who  are  '  in  Christ'    ( Eph.  1:3)." 

2.  Positive  and  formal  exclusion  from  God 's  presence.  —  This  included  : 
(  a  )     The  cessation  of  man's  former  familiar  intercourse  with  God,  and 


imputation  of  adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.  593 

the  setting  up  of  outward  barriers  between  man  and  his  Maker  (  cherubim 
and  sacrifice ). 

"  In  die  Welt  hinausgestossen,  Stehtder  Mensch  verlassen  da."  Though  God  punished 
Adam  and  Eve,  he  did  not  curse  them  as  he  did  the  serpent.  Their  exclusion  from  the 
tree  of  life  was  a  matter  of  benevolence  as  well  as  of  justice,  for  it  prevented  the 
immortality  of  sin. 

(  b  )  Banishment  from  the  garden,  where  God  had  specially  manifested 
his  presence. — Eden  was  perhaps  a  spot  reserved,  as  Adam's  body  had 
been,  to  show  what  a  sinless  world  would  be.  This  positive  exclusion  from 
God's  presence,  with  the  sorrow  and  pain  which  it  involved,  may  have  been 
iuteuded  to  illustrate  to  man  the  nature  of  that  eternal  death  from  which 
he  now  needed  to  seek  deliverance. 

At  the  gates  of  Eden,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  manifestation  of  God's  presence,  in 
the  cherubim,  which  constituted  the  place  a  sanctuary.  Both  Cain  and  Alu'l  brought 
offerings  "unto  the  Lord"  (Gen.  4  :3,  4),  and  when  Cain  fled,  he  is  said  to  have  gone  out  "from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  "(  Gen.  4 :  16 ).  On  the  consequences  of  the  Fall  to  Adam,  see  Edwards, 
Works,  2:300-405;  Hopkins,  Works,  1:206-246;  Dwight,  Theology,  1 :  383-434 ;  Watson, 
Institutes,  2 :  19-42 ;  Marteusen,  Dogmatics,  155-173 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  402  412. 


SECTION   V.  — IMPUTATION    OF    ADAMS    SIN   TO    HIS    POSTERITY. 

We  have  seen  that  all  mankind  are  sinners  ;  that  all  men  are  by  nature 
depraved,  guilty,  and  condemnable  ;  and  that  the  transgression  of  our  first 
parents,  so  far  as  respects  the  human  race,  was  the  first  sin.  We  have  still 
to  consider  the  connection  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  depravity,  guilt, 
and  condemnation  of  the  race. 

(a)  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  transgression  of  our  first  parents  con- 
stituted their  posterity  sinners  (Kom.  5:19 — "through  the  one  man's 
disobedience  the  many  were  made  sinners  "),  so  that  Adam's  sin  is  imputed, 
reckoned,  or  charged  to  every  member  of  the  race  of  which  he  was  the  germ 
m  and  head  ( Eom.  5  :  16 —  "the  judgment  came  of  one  [  offence  ]  unto  con- 
demnation "  ).  It  is.  because  of  Adam's  sin  that  we  are  born  depraved  and 
subject  to  God's  penal  inflictions  (Eom.  5  :  12 —  "through  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin  "  ;  Eph.  2:3 — "by  nature 
children  of  wrath  ").  Two  questions  demand  answer,  —first,  how  we  can 
be  responsible  for  a  depraved  nature  which  we  did  not  personally  and  con- 
sciously originate  ;  and,  secondly,  how  God  can  justly  charge  to  our 
account  the  sin  of  the  first  father  of  the  race.  These  questions  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  and  the  Scriptures  intimate  the  true  answer  to  the 
problem  when  they  declare  that  "in  Adam  all  die"  (1  Cor.  15:22)  and 
"  that  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned  "  when  "through  one 
man  sin  entered  into  the  world  "  (  Bom.  5  :  12).  In  other  words,  Adam's 
sin  is  the  cause  and  ground  of  the  depravity,  guilt,  and  condemnation 
of  all  his  posterity,  simply  because  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  one,  and,  by 
virtue  of  their  organic  unity,  the  sin  of  Adam  is  the  sin  of  the  race. 

Amielsaya  that "  the  best  measure  of  the  profundity  of  any  religious  doctrine  is  given 
by  its  conception  of  sin  and  of  the  cure  of  sin."  We  have  seen  that  sin  is  a  state  ;  a 
state  of  the  will ;  a  selfish  state  of  the  will ;  a  selfish  state  of  the  will  inborn  and  uni- 
versal ;  a  selfish  state  of  the  will  inborn  and  universal  by  reason  of  man's  free  act. 

38 


594  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Connecting'  the  present  discussion  with  the  preceding-  doctrines  of  theology,  the  steps  of 
our  treatment  thus  far  are  as  follows :  1.  God's  holiness  is  purity  of  nature.  2.  God's 
law  demands  purity  of  nature.  3.  Sin  is  impure  nature.  4.  All  men  have  this  impure 
nature.  5.  Adam  originated  this  impure  nature.  In  the  present  section  we  expect  to 
add :  6.  Adam  and  we  are  one ;  and,  in  the  succeeding  section,  to  complete  the  doc- 
trine with :    7.    The  guilt  and  penalty  of  Adam's  sin  are  ours. 

(  b  )  According  as  we  regard  this  twofold  problem  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  abnormal  human  condition,  or  of  the  divine  treatment  of  it,  we  may 
call  it  the  problem  of  original  sin,  or  the  problem  of  imputation.  Neither 
of  these  terms  is  objectionable  when  its  meaning  is  defined.  By  imputa- 
tion of  sin  we  mean,  not  the  arbitrary  and  mechanical  charging  to  a  man 
of  that  for  which  he  is  not  naturally  responsible,  but  the  reckoning  to  a 
man  of  a  guilt  which  is  properly  his  own,  whether  by  virtue  of  his  individ- 
ual acts,  or  by  virtue  of  his  connection  with  the  race.  By  original  sin  we 
mean  that  participation  in  the  common  sin  of  the  race  with  which  God 
charges  us,  in  virtue  of  our  descent  from  Adam,  its  first  father  and  head. 

We  should  not  permit  our  use  of  the  term  '  imputation '  to  be  hindered  or  prejudiced 
by  t  he  fact  that  certain  schools  of  theology,  notably  the  Federal  school,  have  attached  to 
it  an  arbitrary,  external,  and  mechanical  meaning-  —  holding  that  God  imputes  sin  to 
men,  not  because  they  are  sinners,  but  upon  the  ground  of  a  legal  fiction  whereby 
Adam,  without  their  consent,  was  made  their  representative.  We  shall  see,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  (1)  in  the  case  of  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  us,  (2)  in  the  case  of  our  sins 
imputed  to  Christ,  and  ( 3 )  in  the  case  of  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  the  believer, 
there  is  always  a  realistic  basis  for  the  imputation,  namely,  a  real  union,  (1)  between 
Adam  and  his  descendants,  (2)  between  Christ  and  the  race,  and  (3)  between  believers 
and  Christ,  such  as  gives  in  each  case  community  of  life,  and  enables  us  to  say  that  God 
imputes  to  no  man  what  does  not  properly  belong  to  him. 

Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  used  to  say  that  "  imputed  righteousness  and  imputed  sin  are  as 
absurd  as  any  notion  that  ever  took  possession  of  human  nature."  He  had  in  mind, 
however,  only  that  constructive  guilt  and  merit  which  was  advocated  by  Princeton 
theologians.  He  did  not  mean  to  deny  the  imputation  to  men  of  that  which  is  their  own. 
He  recognized  the  fact  that  all  men  are  sinners  by  inheritance  as  well  as  by  voluntary 
act,  and  he  found  this  taught  in  Scripture,  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  N.  T.  ;  e.  g., 
Neh.  1 :6  —  "I  confess  the  sins  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  we  have  sinned  against  thee.  Yea,  land  my  father's  house 
have  sinned  " ;  Jer.  3 :  25  —  "  Let  us  lie  down  in  our  shame,  and  let  our  confusion  cover  us ;  for  we  have  sinned  against 
Jehovah  our  God,  we  and  our  fathers  "  ;  14  :  20  — "  We  acknowledge,  0  Jehovah,  our  wickedness,  and  the  iniquity  of  our 
fathers  ;  for  we  have  sinned  against  thee."  The  word  "imputed  "  is  itself  found  in  the  N.  T. ;  e.  g., 
2  Tim.  4  :  16  —  "At  my  first  defence  no  one  took  my  part :  may  it  not  be  laid  to  their  account,"  or  "imputed  to  them  " 
—  H-r;  auToi;  KoyiaOeir).    Rom.  5:  13  —  "sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law  "  —  ouk  eAAoydrai. 

Not  only  the  saints  of  Scripture  times,  but  modern  saints  also,  have  imputed  to 
themselves  the  sins  of  others,  of  their  people,  of  their  times,  of  the  whole  world.  Jona- 
than Edwards,  Resolutions,  quoted  by  Allen,  28  — "I  will  take  it  for  granted  that  do 
one  is  so  evil  as  myself ;  I  will  identify  myself  with  all  men  and  act  as  if  their  evil  were 
my  own,  as  if  I  had  committed  the  same  sins  and  had  the  same  infirmities,  so  that  the 
knowledge  of  their  failings  will  promote  in  me  nothing  but  a  sense  of  shame."  Fred- 
erick Denison  Maurice  :  "  I  wish  to  confess  the  sins  of  the  time  as  my  own."  Moberly, 
Atonement  and  Personality,  87— "The  phrase  'solidarity  of  humanity 'is  growing 
every  day  in  depth  and  significance.  Whatever  we  do,  we  do  not  for  ourselves  alone. 
It  is  not  as  an  individual  alone  that  I  can  be  measured  or  juds-ed."  Royce,  World  and 
Individual,  2 :  404  —  "  The  problem  of  evil  indeed  demands  the  presence  of  free  will  in 
the  world  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  true  that  no  moral  world  whatever 
can  be  made  consistent  with  the  realistic  thesis  according  to  which  free  will  agents  are, 
in  fortune  and  in  penalty,  independent  of  the  deeds  of  other  moral  agents.  It  follows 
that,  in  our  moral  world,  the  righteous  can  suffer  without  individually  deserving  their 
suffering,  just  because  their  lives  have  no  independent  being,  but  are  linked  with  all 
life  — God  himself  also  sharing  in  their  suffering." 

The  above  quotations  illustrate  the  belief  in  a  human  responsibility  that  goes  beyond 
the  bounds  of  personal  sins.  What  this  responsibility  is,  and  what  its  limits  are,  we 
have  yet  to  define.    The  problem  isstated,  but  not  solved,  by  A.  H.  Bradford,  Heredity, 


IMPUTATION"   OF   ADAM'S   SIN   TO   HIS    POSTERITY.  595 

198,  and  The  Age  of  Faith,  235  — "  Stephen  prays  :  '  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge '  ( Acts  7 :  60 ). 
To  whose  charge  then  ?  We  all  have  a  share  in  one  another's  sins.  We  too  stood  by 
and  consented,  as  Paul  did.  '  My  sins  gave  sharpness  to  the  nails,  And  pointed  every 
thorn '  that  pierced  the  brow  of  Jesus.  ....  Yet  in  England  and  Wales  the  severer 
forms  of  this  teaching  [with  regard  to  sin]  have  almost  disappeared ;  not  because  of 
more  thorough  study  of  the  Scripture,  but  because  the  awful  congestion  of  population, 
with  its  attendant  miseries,  has  convinced  the  majority  of  Christian  thinkers  that  the 
old  Interpretations  were  too  small  for  the  near  and  terrible  facts  of  human  life,  such  as 
women  with  babies  in  their  arms  at  the  London  gin-shops  giving  the  infants  sips  of 
liquor  out  of  their  glasses,  and  a  tavern  keeper  setting  his  four  or  five  year  old  boy 
upon  the  counter  to  drink  and  swear  and  fight  in  imitation  of  his  elders." 

( c  )  There  are  two  f undarnental  principles  which  the  Scriptures  already 
cited  seem  clearly  to  substantiate,  and  which  other  Scriptures  corroborate. 
The  first  is  that  man's  relations  to  moral  law  extend  beyond  the  sphere  of 
conscious  and  actual  transgression,  and  embrace  those  moral  tendencies 
and  qualities  of  his  being  which  he  has  in  common  with  every  other  member 
of  the  race.  The  second  is,  that  God's  moral  government  is  a  government 
which  not  only  takes  account  of  persons  and  personal  acts,  but  also  recog- 
nizes race  responsibilities  and  inflicts  race-penalties ;  or,  in  other  words, 
judges  mankind,  not  simply  as  a  collection  of  separate  individuals,  but  also 
as  an  organic  whole,  which  can  collectively  revolt  from  God  and  incur  the 
curse  of  the  violated  law. 

On  race-responsibility,  see  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  288-302 — "No  one  can 
apprehend  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  nor  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  who  insists  that 
the  whole  moral  government  of  God  has  respect  only  to  individual  desert,  who  does  not 
allow  that  the  moral  government  of  God,  a&  moral,  has  a  wider  scope  and  larger  rela- 
tions, so  that  God  may  dispense  suffering  and  happiness  ( in  his  all-wise  and  inscrutable 
providence )  on  other  grounds  than  that  of  personal  merit  and  demerit.  The  dilemma 
here  is:  the  facts  connected  with  native  depravity  and  with  the  redemption  through 
Christ  either  belong  to  the  moral  government  of  God,  or  not.  If  they  do,  then  that 
government  has  to  do  with  other  considerations  than  those  of  personal  merit  and 
demerit  ( since  our  disabilities  in  consequence  of  sin  and  the  grace  offered  in  Christ  are 
not  in  any  sense  the  result  of  our  personal  choice,  though  we  do  choose  in  our  relations 
to  both ).  If  they  do  not  belong  to  the  moral  government  of  God,  where  shall  we  assign 
them?  To  the  physical  ?  That  certainly  can  not  be.  To  the  divine  sovereignty?  But 
that  does  not  relieve  any  difficulty ;  for  the  question  still  remains.  Is  that  sovereignty, 
as  thus  exercised,  just  or  unjust?  We  must  take  one  or  the  other  of  these.  The  whole 
(of  sin  and  grace)  is  either  a  mystery  of  sovereignty  —  of  mere  omnipotence  — or  a 
proceeding  of  moral  government.  The  question  will  arise  with  respect  to  grace  as  well 
as  to  sin  :  How  can  the  theory  that  all  moral  government  has  respect  only  to  the  merit 
or  demerit  of  personal  acts  be  applied  to  our  justification?  If  all  sin  is  in  sinning,  with 
a  personal  desert  of  everlasting  death,  by  parity  of  reasoning  all  holiness  must  consist 
in  a  holy  choice  with  personal  merit  of  eternal  life.  We  say  then,  generally,  that  all 
definitions  of  sin  which  mean  a  sin  are  irrelevant  here."  Dr.  Smith  quotes  Edwards, 
2:309  —  "Original  sin,  the  innate  sinful  depravity  of  the  heart,  includes  not  only  the 
depravity  of  nature  but  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin,  or,  in  other  words,  theliable- 
ness  or  exposedness  of  Adam's  posterity,  in  the  divine  judgment,  to  partake  of  the 
punishment  of  that  sin." 

The  watchword  of  a  large  class  of  theologians  —  popularly  called  "  New  School  "  —  is 
that  "  all  sin  consists  in  sinning,"  —  that  is,  all  sin  is  sin  of  act.  But  we  have  seen  that 
the  dispositions  and  states  in  which  a  man  is  unlike  God  and  his  purity  are  also  sin 
according  to  the  meaning  of  the  law.  We  have  now  to  add  that  each  man  is  responsible 
also  for  that  sin  of  our  first  father  in  which  the  human  race  apostatized  from  God.  In 
other  words,  we  recognize  the  guilt  of  race-sin  as  well  as  of  personal  sin.  We  desire  to 
say  at  the  outset,  however,  that  our  view,  and,  as  we  believe,  the  Scriptural  view, 
requires  us  also  to  hold  to  certain  qualifications  of  the  doctrine  which  to  some  extent 
alleviate  its  harshness  and  furnish  its  proper  explanation.  These  qualifications  we  now 
proceed  to  mention. 


596  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

( d)  In  recognizing  the  guilt  of  race-sin,  we  are  to  bear  in  mind  :  ( 1 )  that 
actual  sin,  in  which  the  personal  agent  reaffirms  the  underlying  determina- 
tion of  his  will,  is  more  guilty  than  original  sin  alone ;  (  2  )  that  no  human 
being  is  finally  condemned  solely  on  account  of  original  sin  ;  but  that  all 
who,  like  infants,  do  not  commit  personal  transgressions,  are  saved  through 
the  application  of  Christ's  atonement ;  ( 3 )  that  our  responsibility  for 
inborn  evil  dispositions,  or  for  the  depravity  common  to  the  race,  can  be 
maintained  only  upon  the  ground  that  this  depravity  was  caused  by  an 
original  and  conscious  act  of  free  will,  when  the  race  revolted  from  God  in 
Adam  ;  (  4  )  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  only  the  ethical  interpreta- 
tion of  biological  facts  —  the  facts  of  heredity  and  of  universal  congenital 
ills,  which  demand  an  ethical  ground  and  explanation  ;  and  ( 5  )  that  the 
idea  of  original  sin  has  for  its  correlate  the  idea  of  original  grace,  or  the 
abiding  presence  and  operation  of  Christ,  the  immanent  God,  in  every 
member  of  the  race,  in  spite  of  his  sin,  to  counteract  the  evil  and  to  prepare 
the  way,  so  far  as  man  will  permit,  for  individual  and  collective  salvation. 

Over  against  the  maxim:  "All  sin  consists  in  sinning-,"  we  put  the  more  correct 
statement :  Personal  sin  consists  in  sinning,  but  in  Adam's  first  sinning  the  race  also 
sinned,  so  that  "in  Adam  all  die "(1  Cor.  15:22).  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  86  —  "  Sin  is  not 
only  personal  but  social ;  not  only  social  but  organic ;  character  and  all  that  is  involved 
in  character  are  capable  of  being  attributed  not  only  to  individuals  but  to  societies,  and 
eventually  to  the  human  race  itself;  in  short,  there  are  not  only  isolated  sins  and  indi- 
vidual sinners,  but  what  has  been  called  a  kingdom  of  sin  upon  earth."  Leslie  Stephen : 
"  Man  not  dependent  on  a  race  is  as  meaningless  a  phrase  as  an  apple  that  does  not  grow 
on  a  tree."  "  Yet  Aaron  Burr  and  Abraham  Lincoln  show  how  a  man  may  throw  away 
every  advantage  of  the  best  heredity  and  environment,  while  another  can  triumph  over 
the  worst.  Man  does  not  take  his  character  from  external  causes,  but  shapes  it  by  his 
own  willing  submission  to  influences  from  beneath  or  from  above." 

Wm.  Adams  Brown :  "The  idea  of  inherited  guilt  can  be  accepted  only  if  paralleled 
by  the  idea  of  inherited  good.  The  consequences  of  sin  have  often  been  regarded  as 
social,  while  the  consequences  of  good  have  been  regarded  as  only  individual.  But 
heredity  transmits  both  good  and  evil."  Mrs.  Lydia  Avery  Coonley  Ward:  "Why 
bowest  thou,  O  soul  of  mine,  Crushed  by  ancestral  sin  ?  Thou  hast  a  noble  heritage. 
That  bids  thee  victory  win.  The  tainted  past  may  bring  forth  flowers,  As  blossomed 
Aaron's  rod:  No  legacy  of  sin  annuls  Heredity  from  God."  For  further  statements 
with  regard  to  race-responsibility,  see  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2:29-39  (System 
Doctrine,  2 :  324-333 ).  For  the  modern  view  of  the  Fall,  and  its  reconciliation  with  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  see  J.  H.  Bernard,  art. :  The  Fall,  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible ; 
A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  163-180 ;  Grifnth-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ. 

( e )  There  is  a  race-sin,  therefore,  as  well  as  a  personal  sin ;  and  that 
race-sin  was  committed  by  the  first  father  of  the  race,  when  he  comprised 
the  whole  race  in  himself.  All  mankind  since  that  time  have  been  born  in 
the  state  into  which  he  fell — a  state  of  depravity,  guilt,  and  condemnation. 
To  vindicate  God's  justice  in  imputing  to  us  the  sin  of  our  first  father, 
many  theories  have  been  devised,  a  part  of  which  must  be  regarded  as  only 
attempts  to  evade  the  problem  by  denying  the  facts  set  before  us  in  the 
Scriptures.  Among  these  attempted  explanations  of  the  Scripture  state- 
ments, we  proceed  to  examine  the  six  theories  which  seem  most  worthy  of 
attention. 

The  first  three  of  the  theories  which  we  discuss  may  be  said  to  be  evasions  of  the 
problem  of  original  sin ;  all,  in  one  form  or  another,  deny  that  God  imputes  to  all  men 
Adam's  sin,  in  such  a  sense  that  all  are  guilty  for  it.  These  theories  are  the  Pelagian, 
the  Arminian,  and  the  New  School.  The  last  three  of  the  theories  which  we  are  about 
to  treat,  namely,  the  Federal  theory,  the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation,  and  the  theory 


PELAGIAN  THEORY   OF   IMPUTATION-.  597 

Of  Adam's  Natural  Headship,  arc  all  Old  School  theories,  and  have  for  their  common 
characteristic  that  they- assert  the  guilt  of  inborn  depravity.  All  three,  moreover,  hold 
that  we  are  in  some  way  responsible  for  Adam's  sin,  though  they  differ  as  to  the  precise 
way  in  which  we  are  related  to  Adam.  We  must  grant  that  no  one,  even  of  these  latter 
theories,  is  wholly  satisfactory.  We  hope,  however,  to  show  that  the  last  of  them  — 
the  Augustinian  theory,  the  theory  of  Adam's  natural  headship,  the  theory  that  Adam 
and  his  descendants  are  naturally  and  organically  one  —  explains  the  largest  number  of 
facts,  is  least  open  to  objection,  and  is  most  accordant  with  Scripture. 

I.     Theories  of  Imputation. 

1.     The  Pelagian  Theory,  or  Theory  of  Alan's  natural  Innocence. 

Pelagins,  a  British  monk,  propounded  his  doctrines  at  Rome,  409.  They 
■were  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Carthage,  418.  Pelagianism,  however, 
as  opposed  to  Augustinianism,  designates  a  complete  scheme  of  doctrine 
with  regard  to  sin,  of  which  Pelagius  was  the  most  thorough  representative, 
although  every  feature  of  it  cannot  be  ascribed  to  his  authorship.  Socinians 
and  Unitarians  are  the  more  modern  advocates  of  this  general  scheme. 

According  to  this  theory,  every  human  sold  is  immediately  created  by 
God,  and  created  as  innocent,  as  free  from  depraved  tendencies,  and  as 
perfectly  able  to  obey  God,  as  Adam  was  at  his  creation.  The  only  effect 
of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity  is  the  effect  of  evd  example  ;  it  has  in  no 
way  corrupted  human  nature  ;  the  only  corruption  of  human  nature  is  that 
habit  of  sinning  which  each  individual  contracts  by  persistent  transgression 
of  kno  wn  law. 

Adam's  sin  therefore  injured  only  himself  ;  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed 
only  to  Adam, — it  is  imputed  in  no  sense  to  his  descendants  ;  God  imputes 
to  each  of  Adam's  descendants  only  those  acts  of  sin  which  he  has  person- 
ally and  consciously  committed.  Men  can  be  saved  by  the  law  as  well  as 
by  the  gospel ;  and  some  have  actually  obeyed  God  perfectly,  and  have 
thus  been  saved.  Physical  death  is  therefore  not  the  penalty  of  sin,  but 
an  original  lawT  of  nature  ;  Adam  woidd  have  died  whether  he  had  sinned 
or  not ;  in  Rom.  5  :  12,  "death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned," 
signifies:  "  all  incurred  eternal  death  by  sinning  after  Adam's  example." 

Wiggers,  Augustinism  and  Pelagianism,  59,  states  the  seven  points  of  the  Pelagian 
doctrine  as  follows  :  ( 1 )  Adam  was  created  mortal,  so  that  he  would  have  died  even  if 
he  had  not  sinned  ;  (2)  Adam's  sin  injured,  not  the  human  race,  but  only  himself;  (3) 
new-born  infants  are  in  the  same  condition  as  Adam  before  the  Fall;  (4)  the  whole 
human  race  neither  dies  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  nor  rises  on  account  of  Christ's 
resurrection ;  ( 5 )  infants,  even  though  not  baptized,  attain  eternal  life ;  ( 6 )  the  law  is 
as  good  a  means  of  salvation  as  the  gospel ;  ( 7 )  even  before  Christ  some  men  lived  who 
did  not  commit  sin. 

In  Pelagius'  Com.  on  Rom.  5 :  12,  published  in  Jerome's  Works,  vol.  xi,  we  learn  who 
these  sinless  men  were,  namely,  Abel,  Enoch,  Joseph,  Job,  and,  among  the  heathen, 
Socrates,  Aristides,  Numa.  The  virtues  of  the  heathen  entitle  them  to  reward.  Their 
worthies  were  not  indeed  Avithout  evil  thoughts  and  inebnations ;  but,  on  the  view  of 
Pelagius  that  all  sin  consists  in  act,  these  evil  thoughts  and  inebnations  were  not  sin. 
"  Non  pleni  nascimur  " :  we  are  born,  not  full,  but  vacant,  of  character.  Holiness, 
Pelagius  thought,  could  not  be  concreated.  Adam's  descendants  are  not  weaker,  but 
stronger,  than  he ;  since  they  have  fulfilled  many  commands,  while  he  did  not  fulfil  so 
much  as  one.  In  every  man  there  is  a  natural  conscience ;  he  has  an  ideal  of  lif  e ;  he 
forms  right  resolves ;  he  recognizes  the  claims  of  law  ;  he  accuses  himself  when  he  sins, 
—  all  these  things  Pelagius  regards  as  indications  of  a  certain  holiness  in  all  men,  and 
misinterpretation  of  these  facts  gives  rise  to  his  system ;  he  ought  to  have  seen  in  them 
evidences  of  a  divine  influence  opposing  man's  bent  to  evil  and  leading  him  to  repent- 


598  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

ance.  Grace,  on  the  Pelagian  theory,  is  simply  the  grace  of  creation— God's  originally 
endowing  man  with  his  high  powers  of  reason  and  will.  While  Augustinianism  regards 
human  nature  as  dead,  and  Semi-Pelagianism  regards  it  as  sick,  Pelagianism  proper 
declares  it  to  be  wttt. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2:  43  (Syst.  Doct.,  2  :  338)  — "Neither  the  body,  man's  sur- 
roundings, nor  the  inward  operation  of  God,  have  any  determining  influence  upon  the 
will.  God  reaches  man  only  through  external  means,  such  as  Christ's  doctrine,  exam- 
ple, and  promise.  This  clears  God  of  the  charge  of  evil,  but  also  takes  from  him  the 
authorship  of  good.  It  is  Deism,  applied  to  man's  nature.  God  cannot  enter  man's 
being  if  he  would,  and  he  would  not  if  he  could.  Free  will  is  everything."  lb.,  1 :  626 
;  Syst.  Doct.,  2  :  188,  189  )  —  "  Pelagianism  at  one  time  counts  it  too  great  an  honor  that 
man  should  be  directly  moved  upon  by  God,  and  at  another,  too  great  a  dishonor  that 
man  should  not  be  able  to  do  without  God.  In  this  inconsistent  reasoning,  it  shows  its 
desire  to  be  rid  of  God  as  much  as  possible.  The  true  conception  of  God  requires  a 
living  relation  to  man,  as  well  as  to  the  external  universe.  The  true  conception  of  man 
requires  satisfaction  of  his  longings  and  powers  by  reception  of  impulses  and  strength 
from  God.  Pelagianism,  in  seeking  for  man  a  development  only  like  that  of  nature, 
shows  that  its  high  estimate  of  man  is  only  a  delusive  one ;  it  really  degrades  him,  by 
ignoring  his  true  dignity  and  destiny."  See  lb.,  1 :  124,  125  (Syst.  Doct.,  1 :  136, 137) ; 
2  :  43-45  ( Syst.  Doct.,  2  :  338,  339 ) ;  2  :  148  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  44 ).  Also  Schaff ,  Church  His- 
tory, 2 :  783-856 ;  Doctrines  of  the  Early  Socinians,  in  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  194-211 ; 
Worter,  Pelagianismus.  For  substantially  Pelagian  statements,  see  Sheldon,  Sin  and 
Redemption ;  Ellis,  Half  Century  of  Unitarian  Controversy,  76. 

Of  the  Pelagian  theory  of  sin,  we  may  say  : 

A.  It  has  never  been  recognized  as  Scriptural,  nor  has  it  been  formu- 
lated in  confessions,  by  any  branch  of  the  Christian  church.  Held  only 
sporadically  and  by  individuals,  it  has  ever  been  regarded  by  the  church  at 
large  as  heresy.     This  constitutes  at  least  a  presumption  against  its  truth. 

As  slavery  was  "  the  sum  of  all  villainy,"  so  the  Pelagian  doctrine  may  be  called  the 
sum  of  all  false  doctrine.  Pelagianism  is  a  survival  of  paganism,  in  its  majestic 
egoism  and  self-complacency.  "  Cicero,  in  his  Natura  Deorum,  says  that  men  thank 
the  gods  for  external  advantages,  but  no  man  ever  thanks  the  gods  for  his  virtues  — 
that  he  is  honest  or  pure  or  merciful.  Pelagius  was  first  roused  to  opposition  by 
hearing  a  bishop  in  the  public  services  of  the  church  quote  Augustine's  prayer :  '  Da 
quod  jubes,  et  jube  quod  vis '— '  Give  what  thou  commaudest,  and  command  what  thou 
wilt.'  From  this  he  was  led  to  formulate  the  gospel  according  to  St.  Cicero,  so  per- 
fectly does  the  Pelagian  doctrine  reproduce  the  Pagan  teaching."  The  impulse  of  the 
Christian,  on  the  other  hand,  is  to  refer  all  gifts  and  graces  to  a  divine  source  in  Christ 
and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Eph.  2  :  10  —  "  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works, 
which  God  afore  prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them";  John  15: 16 — "Ye  did  not  choose  me,  but  J  chose  you"  ;  1 :  13 
—  "  who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  H.  Auber : 
"  And  every  virtue  we  possess,  And  every  victory  won,  And  every  thought  of  holiness, 
Are  his  alone." 

Augustine  had  said  that  "Man  is  most  free  when  controlled  by  God  alone"  — 
"  [  Deo  ]  solo  dominante,  liberrimus  "  ( De  Mor.  Eccl.,  xxi ).  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  320— 
"  In  Christ  humanity  is  perfect,  because  in  him  it  retains  no  part  of  that  false  independ- 
ence which,  in  all  its  manifold  forms,  is  the  secret  of  sin."  Pelagianism,  on  the 
contrary,  is  man's  declaration  of  independence.  Harnack,  Hist.  Dogma,  5  :  200 —  "  The 
essence  of  Pelagianism,  the  key  to  its  whole  mode  of  thought,  lies  in  this  proposition  of 
Julian  :  '  Homo  libero  arbitrio  emancipatus  a  Deo '  —  man,  created  free,  is  in  his  whole 
being  independent  of  God.  He  has  no  longer  to  do  with  God,  but  with  himself  alone. 
God  reenters  man's  life  only  at  the  end,  at  the  judgment,— a  doctrine  of  the  orphanage 
of  humanity." 

B.  It  contradicts  Scripture  in  denying :  (  a  )  that  evil  disposition  and 
state,  as  well  as  evil  acts,  are  sin  ;  ( 6  )  that  such  evil  disposition  and  state 
are  inborn  in  all  mankind  ;  (  c )  that  men  universally  are  guilty  of  overt 
transgression  so  soon  as  they  come  to  moral  consciousness  ;  (d  )  that  no 
man  is  able  without  divine  help  to  fulfil  the  law ;   ( e )  that  all  men,  with- 


PELAGIAN"   THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION".  599 

out  exception,  are  dependent  for  salvation  upon  God's  atoning,  regenerat- 
ing, sanctifying  grace;  (/)  that  man's  present  state  of  corruption, 
condemnation,  and  death,  is  the  direct  effect  of  Adam's  transgression, 

u 

The  Westminster  Confession,  on.  vi,  j>  4,  declares  that  "we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  To  Pelagius, 
on  the  contrary,  sin  is  a  mere  incident.  Hi-  knows  only  of  si'ils,  not  of  sin.  He  holds 
the  atomic,  or  atomistic,  theory  of  Bin,  which  regards  it  as  consisting  in  isolated  voli- 
tions. Pelegianism,  holding,  as  it  docs,  that  virtue  and  vice  consist  onlyin  single  decis- 
ions, does  not  account  for  character  at  all.  There  is  no  such  tiling  as  a  state  of  sin,  or 
a  sel  f-propagating  power  of  sin.  And  yet  upon  these  the  Scriptures  lay  greater  emphasis 
than  upon  mere  acts  of  transgression.  John  3:6  —  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  "="  that 
which  comes  of  a  sinful  and  guilty  stock  is  itself,  from  the  very  beginning,  sinful  and 
guilty  "  (  Dorner ).    Witness  t  he  tendency  to  degradation  in  families  and  nations. 

Amiel  says  that  the  great  detect  of  liberal  Christianity  is  its  superficial  conception  of 
sin.  The  tendency  dates  far  back :  Tertullian  spoke  of  the  soul  as  naturally  Christian  — 
"  auima  naturaliter  Christiana."  The  tendency  has  come  down  to  modern  times :  Crane, 
The  Religion  of  To-morrow,  346  —  "  It  is  only  when  children  grow  up,  and  begin  to 
absorb  their  en vironment,  that  they  lose  their  artless  loveliness."  A  Rochester  Unitar- 
ian preacher  publicly  declared  it  to  be  as  much  a  duty  to  believe  in  the  natural  purity 
ol  man,  as  to  believe  in  the  natural  purity  of  God.  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  speaks  of  "  the 
shadow  which  the  Manicha  an  theology  of  Augustine,  borrowed  by  Calvin,  cast  upon 
all  children,  in  declaring  them  born  to  an  inheritance  of  wrath  as  a  viper's  brood."  Dr. 
Abbott  forgets  that  Augustine  was  the  greatest  opponent  of  Maniclneanism,  and  that 
his  doctrine  of  inherited  guilt  may  be  supplemented  by  a  doctrine  of  inherited  divine 
influences  tending  to  salvation. 

Prof.  G.  A.  Coe  tells  us  that  "all  children  are  within  the  household  of  God";  that 
"they  are  already  members  of  his  kingdom  "  ;  that  "the  adolescenl  change"  is  "a  step 
not  (ntothe  Christian  life,  but  niihin  the  Christian  life."  We  arc  taught  that  salvation 
is  by  education.  But  education  is  only  a  way  of  presenting  truth.  It  still  remains 
needful  that  the  soul  should  accept  the  truth,  l'elagianism  ignores  or  denies  the  pres- 
ence in  every  child  of  a  congenital  selfishness  which  hinders  acceptance  of  the  truth, 
and  which,  without  the  working  of  the  divine  Spirit,  will  absolutely  counteract  the 
influence  of  the  truth.  Augustine  was  taught  his  guilt  and  helplessness  by  transgres- 
sion, while  Pelagius  remained  ignorant  of  the  evil  of  his  own  heart.  Pelagius  might 
have  said  with  Wordsworth,  Prelude,  534—  "  I  had  approached,  like  other  youths,  the 
shield  Of  human  nature  from  the  golden  side ;  And  would  have  fought,  even  unto  the 
death,  to  attest  The  quality  of  the  metal  which  I  saw." 

Schaff,  on  the  Pelagian  controversy,  in  Rib.  Sac,  5 :  305-243  —  The  controversy 
"  ii  solves  itself  into  the  question  whether  redemption  ami  sauctiflcation  are  the  work 
of  man  or  of  God.  Pelagianism  in  its  whole  mode  of  thinking  starts  from  man  and 
seeks  to  work  itself  upward  gradually,  by  means  of  an  imaginary  good-will,  to  holiness 
and  communion  with  G od.  August  iniaiiisin  pursues  the  opposite  way,  deriving  from 
God's  unconditioned  and  all- working  grace  a  new  life  and  all  power  of  working  good. 
The  lirst  is  led  from  freedom  into  a  legal,  self-righteous  piety;  the  other  rises  from  the 
slavery  of  siu  to  the  glorious  liberty  ol  tin-children  of  God.  For  the  first,  revelation  is 
of  force  only  as  an  outward  help,  or  the  power  of  a  high  example ;  for  the  last,  it  is  the 
inmost  life,  the  very  marrow  and  blood  of  the  new  man.  The  first  involves  an  Ebion- 
itic  view  of  Christ,  as  noble  man,  not  high-priest  or  king;  the  second  finds  in  him  one 
in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.  The  first  makes  conversion  a 
process  of  gradual  moral  purification  on  the  ground  of  original  nature ;  with  the  last, 
it  is  a  total  change,  in  which  the  old  passes  away  and  all  becomes  new.  .  .  .  Rationalism 
is  simply  the  form  in  which  Pelagianism  becomes  theoretically  complete.  The  high 
opinion  which  the  Pelagian  holds  of  the  natural  will  is  transferred  with  equal  right 
by  the  Rationalist  to  the  natural  reason.  The  one  does  without  grace,  as  the  other 
does  without  revelation.  Pelagian  divinity  is  rationalistic.  Rationalistic  morality  is 
Pelagian."    See  this  Compendium,  page  89. 

Allen,  Religious  Progress,  98-100—  ".Most  of  the  mischief  of  religious  controversy 
springs  from  the  desire  and  determination  to  impute  to  one's  opponent  positions  whieh 
he  does  not  hold,  or  to  draw  inferences  from  his  principles,  insisting  that  he  shall 
be  held  responsible  for  them,  even  though  he  declares  that  he  does  not  teach  them. 
We  say  that  he  ought  to  accept  them ;  that  he  is  bound  logically  to  do  so ;  that  they  are 
necessary  deductions  from  his  system ;  that  the  tendency  of  his  teaching  is  in  these 


600  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

directions ;  and  then  we  denounce  and  condemn  him  for  what  he  disowns.  It  was  in 
this  way  that  Augustine  filled  ou  t  for  Pelagius  the  gaps  in  his  scheme,  which  he  thought 
it  necessary  to  do,  in  order  to  make  Pelagius's  teaching  consistent  and  complete  ;  aiK1 
Pclagius,  in  his  turn,  drew  inferences  from  the  Augustinian  theology,  about  which 
Augustine  would  have  preferred  to  maintain  a  discreet  silence.  Neither  Augustine 
nor  Calvin  was  anxious  to  make  prominent  the  doctrine  of  the  reprobation  of  the 
wicked  to  damnation,  but  preferred  to  dwell  on  the  more  attractive,  more  rational 
tenet  of  the  elect  to  salvation,  as  subjects  of  the  divine  choice  and  approbation ;  sub- 
stituting for  the  obnoxious  word  reprobation  the  milder,  euphemistic  word  preter- 
ition.  It  was  their  opponents  who  were  beut  on  forcing  them  out  of  their  reserve, 
pushing  them,  into  what  seemed  the  consistent  sequence  of  their  attitude,  and  then 
holding  it  up  before  the  world  for  execration.  And  the  same  remark  would  apply  to 
almost  every  theological  contention  that  has  embittered  the  church's  experience." 

C.  It  rests  upon  false  philosophical  principles  ;  as,  for  example  :  (  a ) 
that  the  human  will  is  simply  the  facility  of  volitions  ;  whereas  it  is  also, 
and  chiefly,  the  faculty  of  self-determination  to  an  ultimate  end  ;  (6)  that 
the  power  of  a  contrary  choice  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  will  ;  whereas 
the  will  fundamentally  determined  to  self-gratification  has  this  power  only 
with  respect  to  subordinate  choices,  and  cannot  by  a  single  volition  reverse 
its  moral  state  ;  (c)  that  ability  is  the  measure  of  obligation, — a  principle 
which  would  diminish  the  sinner's  responsibility,  just  in  proportion  to  his 
progress  in  sin  ;  (  d  )  that  law  consists  only  in  positive  enactment ;  whereas  it 
is  the  demand  of  perfect  harmony  Avith  God,  inwrought  into  man's  moral 
nature ;  (  e )  that  each  human  soul  is  immediately  created  by  God,  and 
holds  no  other  relations  to  moral  law  than  those  which  are  individual ; 
whereas  all  human  souls  are  organically  connected  with  each  other,  and 
together  have  a  corporate  relation  to  God's  law,  by  virtue  of  their  deriva- 
tion from  one  common  stock. 

( a )  Neander,  Church  History,  2  :  564-625,  holds  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Pelagianism  to  be  "  the  ability  to  choose,  equally  and  at  any  moment,  between  good 
and  evil."  There  is  no  recognition  of  the  law  by  which  acts  produce  states ;  the  power 
which  repeated  acts  of  evil  possess  to  give  a  definite  character  and  tendency  to  the  will 
itself.— "  Volition  is  an  everlasting 'tick," tick,' and  swinging  of  the  pendulum,  but 
no  moving  forward  of  the  hands  of  the  clock  follows."  "There  is  no  continuity  of 
moral lif e— no  character,  in  man,  angel,  devil,  or  God."  — (6)  See  art.  on  Power  of 
Contrary  Choice,  in  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  212-233 :  Pelagianism  holds  that  no  confirma- 
tion in  holiness  is  possible.  Thornwell,  Theology  :  "  The  sinner  is  as  free  as  the  saint : 
the  devil  as  the  angel."  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism,  399—  "  The  theory  that  indif- 
ference is  essential  to  freedom  implies  that  will  never  acquires  character ;  that  volun- 
tary action  is  atomistic,  every  act  disintegrated  from  every  other ;  that  character,  if 
acquired,  would  be  incompatible  with  freedom."  "  By  mere  volition  the  soul  now  a 
plenum  can  become  a  vacuum,  or  now  a  vacuum  can  become  a  plenum."  On  the  Pela- 
gian view  of  freedom,  see  Julius  M  tiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  37-44. 

(  e )  Ps.  79  :  8  —  "  Remember  not  against  us  the  iniquities  of  our  forefathers  "  ;  106 : 6  —  "We  have  sinned  with  our 
fathers."  Notice  the  analogy  of  individuals  who  suffer  from  the  effects  of  parental  mis- 
takes or  of  national  transgression.  Julius  Midler,  Doct.  Sin,  2  :  316,  317  — "Neither  the 
atomistic  nor  the  organic  view  of  human  nature  is  the  complete  truth."  Each  must 
be  complemented  by  the  other.  For  statement  of  race-responsibility,  see  Dorner, 
Glaubenslehre,  2  :  30-39,  51-64, 161, 162  (  System  of  Doctrine,  2  :  324-334,  345-359 ;  3  :  50-54 ) 
—  "  Among  the  Scripture  proof  s  of  the  moral  connection  of  the  individual  with  the 
race  are  the  visiting  of  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children ;  the  obligation  of  the 
people  to  punish  the  sin  of  the  individual,  that  the  whole  land  may  not  incur  guilt ;  the 
offering  of  sacrifice  for  a  murder,  the  perpetrator  of  which  is  unknown.  Achan's  crime 
is  charged  to  the  whole  people.  The  Jewish  race  is  the  better  for  its  parentage,  and 
other  nations  are  the  worse  for  theirs.    The  Hebrew  people  become  a  legal  personality. 

"  Is  it  said  that  none  are  punished  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers  unless  they  are  like 
their  fathers  ?    But  to  be  unlike  their  fathers  requires  a  new  heart.    They  who  are  not 


ARMINLAN"   THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION".  601 

held  accountable  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers  are  those  who  have  recognized  their 
responsibility  for  them,  and  have  repented  for  their  likeness  to  their  ancestors.  Only 
the  self-isolating-  spirit  says:  'Am  I  my  brother's  keeper?'  (Gen.  4:9),  and  thinks  to  construct  a 
constant  equation  between  individual  misfortune  and  individual  sin.  The  calamities 
of  the  righteous  led  to  an  ethical  conception  of  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the 
community.  Such  sufferings  show  that  men  can  love  God  disinterestedly,  that  the  good 
has  unselfish  friends.  These  sufferings  are  substitutionary,  when  borne  as  belonging 
to  the  sufferer,  not  foreign  to  him,  the  guilt  of  others  attaching- to  him  by  virtue  of  his 
national  or  race-relation  to  them.  So  Moses  in  Ei.  34 : 9,  David  in  Ps.  51 : 6,  Isaiah  in  Is.  59 : 9-16, 
recognize  the  connection  between  personal  sin  and  race-sin. 

"  Christ  restores  the  bond  between  man  and  his  fellows,  turns  the  hearts  of  the  fathers 
to  the  children.  He  is  the  creator  of  a  new  race-consciousness.  In  him  as  the  head  we 
see  ourselves  bound  to,  and  responsible  for,  others.  Love  finds  it  morally  impossible 
to  isolate  itself.  It  restores  the  consciousness  of  unity  and  the  recognition  of  common 
guilt.  Does  every  man  stand  for  himself  in  the  N.  T.  ?  This  would  be  so,  only  if  each 
man  became  a  sinner  solely  by  free  and  conscious  personal  decision,  either  in  the  pres- 
ent, or  in  a  past  state  of  existence.  But  this  is  not  Scriptural.  Something  comes  before 
personal  transgression:  'That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh '(John  3:6).  Personality  is  the 
stronger  for  recognizing  the  race-sin.  We  have  common  joy  in  the  victories  of  the 
good  ;  so  in  shameful  lapses  we  have  sorrow.  These  are  not  our  worst  moments,  but 
our  best, —  there  is  something  great  in  them.  Original  sin  must  be  displeasing  to  God  ; 
for  it  perverts  the  reason,  destroys  likeness  to  God,  excludes  from  communion  with 
God,  makes  redemption  necessary,  leads  to  actual  sin,  influences  future  generations. 
But  to  complain  of  God  for  permitting  its  propagation  is  to  complain  of  his  not  destroy- 
ing the  race, —  that  is,  to  complain  of  one's  own  existence."  Set;  Bhedd,  Hist.  Doctrine, 
2:93-110;  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doctrine,  1:287,  296-310;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  354-362; 
Princeton  Essays,  1  :  74-97  ;  Dabney,  Theology,  386-308,  314,  315. 

2.  The  Arminian  Theory,  or  Theory  of  voluntarily  appropriated 
Depravity, 

Arminius  (1560-1609),  professor  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  in  South 
Holland,  while  formally  accepting  the  doctrine  of  the  Adamic  unity  of  the 
race  propounded  both  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  gave  a  very  different  inter- 
pretation to  it — an  interpretation  which  verged  toward  Semi-Pelagianism 
and  the  anthropology  of  the  Greek  Church.  The  Methodist  body  is  the 
modern  representative  of  this  view. 

According  to  this  theory,  all  men,  as  a  divinely  appointed  sequence  of 
Adam's  transgression,  are  naturally  destitute  of  original  righteousness,  and 
are  exposed  to  misery  and  death.  By  virtue  of  the  infirmity  propagated 
from  Adam  to  all  his  descendants,  mankind  are  wholly  unable  without 
divine  help  perfectly  to  obey  God  or  to  attain  eternal  life.  This  inability, 
however,  is  physical  and  intellectual,  but  not  voluntary.  As  matter  of  jus- 
tice, therefore,  God  bestows  upon  each  individual  from  the  first  dawn  of 
consciousness  a  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  sufficient  to 
counteract  the  effect  of  the  inherited  depravity  and  to  make  obedience 
possible,  provided  the  human  will  cooperates,  which  it  still  has  power  to  do. 

The  evil  tendency  and  state  may  be  called  sin  ;  but  they  do  not  in  them- 
selves involve  guilt  or  punishment ;  still  less  are  mankind  accounted  guilty 
of  Adam's  sin.  God  imputes  to  each  man  his  inborn  tendencies  to  evil, 
only  when  he  consciously  and  voluntarily  appropriates  and  ratifies  these  in 
spite  of  the  power  to  the  contrary,  which,  in  justice  to  man,  God  has 
specially  communicated.  In  Rom.  5  :  12,  "  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for 
that  a31  sinned,"  signifies  that  physical  and  spiritual  death  is  inflicted  upon 
all  men,  not  as  the  penalty  of  a  common  sin  in  Adam,  but  because,  by 


602  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

divine  decree,  all  suffer  the  consequences  of  that  sin,  and  because  all 
personally  consent  to  their  inborn  sinfulness  by  acts  of  transgression. 

See  Arminius,  Works,  1 :  253-254,  317-324,  325-327,  523-531, 575-583.  The  description  given 
above  is  a  description  of  Arminianism  proper.  The  expressions  of  Arminius  himself 
are  so  guarded  that  Moses  Stuart  ( Bib.  Repos.,  1831 )  found  it  possible  to  construct  an 
argument  to  prove  that  Arminius  was  not  an  Arminian.  But  it  is  plain  that  by  inheri- 
ted sin  Arminius  meant  only  inherited  evil,  and  that  it  was  not  of  a  sort  to  justify  God's 
condemnation.  He  denied  any  inbeing  in  Adam,  such  as  made  us  justly  chargeable  with 
Adam's  sin,  except  in  the  sense  that  we  are  obliged  to  endure  certain  consequences  of 
it.  This  Shedd  has  shown  in  his  History  of  Doctrine,  3 :  178-196.  The  system  of  Armin- 
ius was  more  fully  expounded  by  Limborch  and  EptecopiuB.  See  Limborch,  Theol. 
Christ.,  3  :  4  :  0  (p.  189).  The  sin  with  which  we  arc  horn  "docs  not  inhere  iu  the  soul, 
for  this  [soul]  is  immediately  created  by  God,  and  therefore,  if  it  were  infected  with  sin, 
that  sin  would  be  from  God."  Many  so-called  Arminians,  such  as  Whitby  and  John 
Taylor,  were  rather  Pelagians. 

John  Wesley,  however,  greatly  modified  and  improved  the  Arminian  doctrine.  Hoi  in't  •, 
Syst.  Theol.,  2 :  329, 330  — "  Wesleyanism  ( 1 )  admits  entire  moral  depi-avity ;  ( 2 )  denies  that 
men  in  this  state  have  any  power  to  cooperate  with  the  grace  of  God ;  (3)  asserts  that 
the  guilt  of  all  through  Adam  was  removed  by  the  justification  of  all  through  Christ; 
( 4 )  ability  to  cooperate  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  universal  influence  of  the 
redemption  of  Christ.  The  order  of  the  decrees  is  ( 1 )  to  permit  the  fall  of  man ;  ( 2 )  to 
send  the  Son  to  be  a  full  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;  ( 3 )  on  that  ground 
to  remit  all  original  sin,  and  to  give  such  grace  as  would  enable  all  to  attain  eternal  life ; 
(i)  those  who  improve  that  grace  and  persevere  to  the  end  are  ordained  to  be  saved." 
We  may  add  that  Wesley  made  the  bestowal  upon  our  depraved  nature  of  ability  to 
cooperate  with  God  to  be  a  matter  of  grace,  while  Arminius  regarded  it  as  a  matter  of 
justice,  man  without  it  not  being  accountable. 

Wesleyanism  was  systematized  by  Watson,  who,  in  his  Institutes,  2 :  53-55,  59,  77, 
although  denying  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  in  any  proper  sense,  yet  declares  that 
"Limborch  and  others  materially  departed  from  the  tenets  of  Arminius  iu  denying 
inward  lusts  and  tendencies  to  be  sinful  till  complied  with  and  augmented  by  the  will. 
But  men  universally  choose  to  ratify  these  tendencies;  therefore  they  are  corrupt  in 
heart.  If  there  be  a  universal  depravity  of  will  previous  to  the  actual  choice,  then  it 
inevitably  follows  that  though  infants  do  not  commit  actual  sin,  yet  that  theirs  is  a  sinful 

nature As  to  infants,  they  are  not  indeed  born  justified  and  regenerate;  so  that 

to  say  original  sin  is  taken  away,  as  to  infants,  by  Christ,  is  not  the  correct  view  of  the 
case,  for  the  reasons  before  given  ;  but  they  are  all  born  under  'the  free  gift,'  the 
effects  of  the  '  righteousness '  of  one,  which  is  extended  to  all  men ;  and  this  free  gift  is 
bestowed  on  them  in  order  to  justification  of  life,  the  adjudging  of  the  condemned  to 

live Justification  in  adults  is  connected  with  repentance  and  faith;  in  infants,  we 

do  not  know  how.  The  Holy  Spirit  may  be  given  to  children.  Divine  and  effectual 
influence  may  be  exerted  on  them,  to  cure  the  spiritual  death  and  corrupt  tendency  of 
their  nature." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Watson's  Wesleyanism  is  much  more  near  to  Scripture  than 
what  we  have  described,  and  properly  described,  as  Arminianism  proper.  Pope,  in  his 
Theology,  follows  Wesley  and  Watson,  and  (2 :  70-86)  gives  a  valuable  synopsis  of  the 
differences  between  Arminius  and  Wesley.  Whedon  and  Raymond,  in  America,  better 
represent  original  Arminianism.  They  hold  that  God  was  under  obligation  to  restore 
man's  ability,  and  yet  they  inconsistently  speak  of  this  ability  as  a  gracious  ability. 
Two  passages  from  Raymond's  Theology  show  the  inconsistency  of  calling  that "  grace," 
which  God  is  bound  in  justice  to  bestow,  iu  order  to  make  man  responsible:  2  :  84-86  — 
"  The  race  came  into  existence  under  grace.  Existence  and  justification  are  secured 
for  it  only  through  Christ ;  for,  apart  from  Christ,  punishment  and  destruction  would 
have  followed  the  first  sin.  So  all  gifts  of  the  Spirit  necessary  to  qualify  him  for  the 
putting  forth  of  free  moral  choices  are  secured  for  him  through  Christ.  The  Spirit  of 
God  is  not  a  bystander,  but  a  quickening  power.  So  man  is  by  grace,  not  by  his  fallen 
nature,  a  moral  being  capable  of  knowing,  loving,  obeying,  and  enjoying  God.  Such 
he  ever  will  be,  if  he  does  not  frustrate  the  grace  of  God.  Not  till  the  Spirit  takes  his 
final  flight  is  he  in  a  condition  of  total  depravity." 

Compare  with  this  the  following  passage  of  the  same  work  in  which  this  "grace  "  is 
called  a  debt:  2:317  — "The  relations  of  the  posterity  of  Adam  to  God  are  substan- 
tially those  of  newly  created  beings.    Each  individual  person  is  obligated  to  God,  and 


ARMINIAN   THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION.  603 

God  to  him,  precisely  the  same  as  if  God  had  created  him  such  as  he  is.  Ability  must 
equal  obligation.  God  was  not  obligated  to  provide  a  Redeemer  for  the  first  transgres- 
sors, but  having  provided  Redemption  for  them,  and  through  it  having  permitted  them 
to  propagate  a  degenerate  race,  an  adequate  compensation  is  due.  The  gracious  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit  are  then  a  debt  dueYo  man  —  a  compensation  for  the  disabilities  of 
inherited  depravity."  McClintock  and  Strong  (Cyclopaedia,  art.:  Armiuius)  endorse 
Whedon's  art.  in  the  Bib.  Sac,  19  :  241,  as  an  exhibition  of  Arminiauism,  and  Whedon 
himself  claims  it  to  be  such.    See  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  2  :  214-216. 

Witli  regard  to  the  Arminian  theory  we  remark  : 

A.  We  grant  that  there  is  a  universal  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  meant  the  natural  light  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  the 
manifold  impulses  to  good  which  struggle  against  the  evil  of  man's  nature. 
But  we  regard  as  wholly  unscriptural  the  assumptions  :  (a)  that  this  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  itself  removes  the  depravity  or  condemnation  derived 
from  Adam's  fall ;  (  b  )  that  without  this  gift  man  wottld  not  be  responsible 
for  being  morally  imperf ect ;  and  (c)  that  at  the  beginning  of  moral  life 
men  consciously  appropriate  their  inborn  tendencies  to  eviL 

John  Wesley  adduced  in  proof  of  universal  grace  the  text :  John  1:9  —  "the  light  which  Ught- 
eth  every  man" — which  refers  to  the  natural  light  of  reason  and  conscience  which  the 
preincarnate  Logos  bestowed  on  all  men,  though  to  different  degrees,  he  lore  his  coming 
in  the  flesh.  This  light  can  be  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  it  was  "the  Spirit  of  Christ" 
(1  Pet.  1 :  11 ).  The  Armiuian  view  has  a  large  element  of  truth  in  its  recognition  of  an 
influence  of  Christ,  the  immanent  God,  which  mitigates  the  effects  of  the  Fall  and 
strives  to  prepare  men  for  salvation.  But  Arminiauism  docs  not  fully  recognize  the 
evil  to  be  removed,  and  it  therefore  exaggerates  the  effect  of  this  divine  working. 
Universal  grace  does  not  remove  loan's  depravity  or  man's  condemnation  ;  as  is  evident 
from  a  proper  interpretation  of  Rom.  5: 12-19  and  of  Eph.  2:3  ;  it  only  puts  side  by  side  with 
that  depravity  and  condemnation  influences  and  impulses  which  counteract  the  evil 
and  urge  the  sinner  to  repentance :  John  1:5  —  'the  light  shineta  in  the  darkness ;  and  the  darkness 
apprehended  it  not."  John  Wesley  also  referred  to  Rom.  5 :  18  —  "through  one  act  of  righteousness  the  free 
gift  came  unto  all  men  to  justification  of  life  "  —  but  here  the  "all  men  "  is  conterminous  with  "  the  many  " 
who  are  "made  righteous"  in  verse  19,  and  with  the  "all"  who  are  " made  alive"  in  1  Cor.  ]5  :  22;  in 
other  words,  the  "all  "  iu  this  case  is  "all  believers"  :  else  the  passage  teaches,  not  uni- 
versal gift  of  the  Spirit,  but  universal  salvation. 

Arminiauism  holds  to  inherited  sin,  in  the  sense  of  infirmity  and  evil  tendency,  but 
not  to  inherited  guilt.  John  Wesley,  however,  by  holding  also  that  thegivingof  ability 
is  a  matter  of  grace  and  not  of  justice,  seems  to  imply  that  there  is  a  common  guilt  as  well 
asa  common  sin,  before  consciousness.  American  Arminians  are  more  logical,  but  less 
Scriptural.  Sheldon,  Syst.  Christian  Doctrine,  321,  tells  us  that  "guilt  cannot  possibly 
be  a  matter  of  inheritance,  and  consequently  original  sin  can  be  affirmed  of  the  poster- 
ity of  Adam  only  in  the  sense  of  hereditary  corruption,  which  first  becomes  an  occasion 
of  guilt  when  it  is  embraced  by  the  will  of  the  individual."  How  little  the  Arminian 
means  by  "sin,"  can  be  inferred  from  the  saying  of  Bishop  Simpson  that  "  Christ  inher- 
ited sin."  He  meant  of  course  only  physical  and  intellectual  infirmity,  without  a  tinge 
of  guilt.  "  A  child  inherits  its  parent's  nature,"  it  is  said,  "not  as  a  punishment,  but 
by  natural  law."  But  we  reply  that  this  natural  law  is  itself  an  expression  of  God's 
moral  nature,  and  the  inheritance  of  evil  can  be  justified  only  upon  the  ground  of  a 
common  non-conformity  to  God  in  both  the  parent  and  the  child,  or  a  participation  of 
each  member  in  the  common  guilt  of  the  race. 

In  the  light  of  our  preceding  treatment,  we  can  estimate  the  element  of  good  and  the 
element  of  evil  in  Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1 :  232— "  It  is  an  exaggeration  when 
original  sin  is  considered  as  personally  imputable  guilt ;  and  it  is  going  too  far  when  it 
is  held  to  be  the  whole  state  of  the  natural  man,  and  yet  the  actually  present  good,  the 
'  original  grace,'  is  overlooked.  .  .  .  We  may  say,  with  Schleiermacher,  that  original  sin 
is  the  common  deed  and  common  guilt  of  the  human  race.  But  the  individual  always 
participates  in  this  collective  guilt  in  the  measure  in  which  he  takes  part  with  his  per- 
sonal doing  in  the  collective  act  that  is  directed  to  the  furtherance  of  the  bad."  Dabney, 
Theology,  315,  316  —  "  Arminiauism  is  orthodox  as  to  the  legal  consequences  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  posterity ;  but  what  it  gives  with  one  hand,  it  takes  back  with  the  other, 


604  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OE   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

attributing  to  grace  the  restoration  of  this  natural  ability  lost  by  the  Fall.  If  the  effects 
of  Adam's  Fall  on  his  posterity  are  such  that  they  would  have  been  unjust  if  not 
repaired  by  a  redeeming  plan  that  was  to  follow  it,  then  God's  act  in  providing  a 
Redeemer  was  not  an  act  of  pure  grace.  He  was  under  obligation  to  do  some  such 
thing, —  salvation  is  not  grace,  but  debt."  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  187  sq., 
denies  the  universal  gift  of  the  Spirit,  quoting  John  14  :  17  —  "  whom  the  world  cannot  receive ;  for  it 
beholdeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him  "  ;  16  :  7  —  "  if  I  go,  I  will  send  him  unto  you  "  ;  i.  c,  Christ's  disciples 
were  to  be  the  recipients  and  distributers  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  church  the  mediator 
between  the  Spirit  and  the  world.  Therefore  Mark  16  :  15  —  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach," 
implies  that  the  Spirit  shall  go  only  with  them.  Conviction  of  the  Spirit  does  not  go 
beyond  the  church's  evangelizing.  But  we  reply  that  Gen.  6  :  3  implies  a  wider  striving 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

B.  It  contradicts  Scripture  in  maintaining :  {a)  that  inherited  moral 
evil  does  not  involve  guilt ;  (  b  )  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  regen- 
eration of  infants,  are  matters  of  justice;  (c)  that  the  effect  of  grace  is 
simply  to  restore  man's  natural  ability,  instead  of  disposing  him  to  use  that 
ability  aright ;  (  d )  that  election  is  God's  choice  of  certain  men  to  be  saved 
upon  the  ground  of  their  foreseen  faith,  instead  of  being  God's  choice  to 
make  certain  men  believers  ;  ( e  )  that  physical  death  is  not  the  just  pen- 
alty of  sin,  but  is  a  matter  of  arbitrary  decree. 

( a )  See  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  58  (  System  of  Doctrine,  2 :  352-359 )  — "  With  Armin- 
ius,  original  sin  is  original  evil  only,  not  guilt.  He  explained  the  problem  of  original  sin 
by  denying  the  fact,  and  turning  the  native  sinfulness  into  a  morally  indifferent  thing. 
No  sin  without  consent ;  no  consent  at  the  beginning  of  human  development ;  there- 
fore, no  guilt  in  evil  desire.  This  is  the  same  as  the  Romanist  doctrine  of  concupis- 
cence, and  like  that  leads  to  blaming  God  for  an  originally  bad  constitution  of  our 
nature.  .  .  .  Original  sin  is  merely  an  enticement  to  evil  addressed  to  the  free  will. 
All  internal  disorder  and  vitiosity  is  morally  indifferent,  and  becomes  sin  only  through 
appropriation  by  free  will.  But  involuntary,  loveless,  proud  thoughts  are  recognized 
in  Scripture  as  sin ;  yet  they  spring  from  the  heart  without  our  conscious  consent. 
Undeliberate  and  deliberate  sins  run  into  each  other,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  draw  a 
line  between  them.  The  doctrine  that  there  is  no  sin  without  consent  implies  power 
to  withhold  consent.  But  this  contradicts  the  universal  need  of  redemption  and  our 
observation  that  none  have  ever  thus  entirely  withheld  consent  from  sin." 

( b )  H.  B.  Smith's  Review  of  Whedcn  on  the  Will,  in  Fai^h  and  Philosophy,  359-399  — 
"A  child,  upon  the  old  view,  needs  only  growth  to  make  him  guilty  of  actual  sin; 
whereas,  upon  this  view,  he  needs  growth  and  grace  too."  See  Bib.  Sac,  20  :  327,  328. 
According  to  Whedon,  Com.  on  Rom.  5 :  12,  "  the  condition  of  an  infant  apart  from 
Christ  is  that  of  a  sinner,  as  one  sure  to  sin,  yet  never  actually  condemned  before  per- 
sonal apostasy.  This  would  he  its  condition,  rather,  for  in  Christ  the  infant  is  regenerate 
and  justified  and  endowed  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  all  actual  sinners  are  apostates 
from  a  state  of  grace."  But  we  ask :  1.  Why  then  do  infants  die  before  they  have  com- 
mitted actual  sin  ?  Surely  not  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  for  they  are  delivered  from 
all  the  evils  of  that,  through  Christ.  It  must  be  because  they  are  still  somehow  sinners. 
2.  How  can  we  account  for  all  infants  sinning  so  soon  as  they  begin  morally  to  act,  if, 
before  they  sin,  they  are  in  a  state  of  grace  and  sanctification  ?  It  must  be  because  they 
were  still  somehow  sinners.  In  other  words,  the  universal  regeneration  and  justifica- 
tion of  infants  contradict  Scripture  and  observation. 

(c)  Notice  that  this  " gracious  "  ability  does  not  involve  saving  grace  to  the  recip- 
ient, because  it  is  given  equally  to  all  men.  Nor  is  it  more  than  a  restoring  to  man  of 
his  natural  ability  lost  by  Adam's  sin.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  why  one  man  who 
has  the  gracious  ability  chooses  God,  while  another  who  has  the  same  gracious  ability 
chooses  self.  1  Cor.  4:7  —  "  who  maketh  thee  to  differ  ? "  Not  God,  but  thyself.  Over  against 
this  doctrine  of  Arminians,  who  hold  to  universal,  resistible  grace,  restoring  natural 
ability,  Calvinists  and  Augustinians  hold  to  particular,  irresistible  grace,  giving  moral 
ability,  or,  in  other  words,  bestowing  the  disposition  to  use  natural  ability  aright. 
"Grace"  is  a  word  much  used  by Armininians.  Methodist  Doctrine  and  Discipline, 
Articles  of  Religion,  viii  — "  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such  that  he 
cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith,  and 
calling  upon  God ;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  goofi  works,  pleasant  and  accept- 


ARMINIAN   THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION.  605 

able  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a 
good  will,  and  working-  with  us,  when  we  have  that  good  will."  It  is  important  to 
understand  that,  in  Arminian  usage,  grace  is  simply  the  restoration  of  man's  natural 
ability  to  act  for  himself;  it  never  actually  saves  him,  but  only  enables  him  to  save 
himself  —  if  he  will.  Arminian  grace  is  evenly  bestowed  grace  of  spiritual  endowment, 
as  Pelagian  grace  is  evenly  bestowed  grace  of  creation.  It  regards  redemption  as  a 
compensation  for  innate  and  consequently  irresponsible  depravity. 

(d)  In  the  Arminian  system,  the  order  of  salvation  is,  (1)  faith — by  an  unrenewed 
but  convicted  man  ;  ( 2 )  justification  ;  ( 3 )  regeneration,  or  a  holy  heart.  God  decrees 
not  to  originate  faith,  but  to  reward  it.  Hence  Wesleyaus  make  faith  a  work,  and 
regard  election  as  God's  ordaining  those  who,  he  foresees,  will  of  their  own  accord 
believe.  The  Augustinian  order,  on  the  contrary,  is  (1)  regeneration;  (2)  faith;  (3) 
justification.  Memoir  of  Adolph  Saphir,  255 —  "  My  objection  to  the  Arminian  or  semi- 
Arminian  is  not  that  they  make  the  entrance  very  wide ;  but  that  they  do  not  give  you 
anything  definite,  safe  and  real,  when  you  have  entered.  .  .  .  Do  not  believe  the  devil's 
gospel,  which  is  a  chance  of  salvation:  chance  of  salvation  is  chance  of  damnation." 
Grace  is  not  a  reward  for  good  deeds  done,  but  a  power  enabling  us  to  do  them.  Francis 
Rous  of  Truro,  in  the  Parliament  of  1029,  spoke  as  a  man  nearly  frantic  with  horror  at 
the  increase  of  that  "  error  of  Arminianism  which  makes  the  grace  of  God  lackey  it 
after  the  will  of  man  " ;  see  Massou,  Life  of  Milton,  1 :  277.  Arminian  converts  say :  "  I 
gave  my  heart  to  the  Lord";  Augustinian  converts  say:  "The  Holy  Spirit  convicted 
me  of  sin  and  renewed  my  heart."  Arminianism  tends  to  self-sufficiency;  Augustin- 
ianism  promotes  dependence  upon  God. 

C.  It  rests  upon  false  philosophical  principles,  as  for  example  :  (  a)  That 
the  "will  is  simply  the  faculty  of  volitions.  (  6 )  That  the  power  of  contrary 
choice,  in  the  sense  of  power  by  a  single  act  to  reverse  one's  moral  state,  is 
essential  to  will.  ( c  )  That  previous  certainty  of  any  given  moral  act  is 
incompatible  with  its  freedom.  (  d  )  That  ability  is  the  measure  of  obli- 
gation, (e)  That  law  condemns  only  volitional  transgression.  (/)  That 
man  has  no  organic  moral  connection  with  the  race. 

( b )  Raymond  says :  "  Man  is  responsible  for  character,  but  only  so  far  as  that  char- 
acter is  self-imposed.  We  are  not  responsible  for  character  irrespective  of  its  origin. 
Freedom  from  an  act  is  as  essential  to  responsibility  as  freedom  to  it.    If  power  to  the 

contrary  is  impossible,  then  freedom  does  not  exist  in  God  or  man.  Sin  was  a  necessity, 
and  God  was  the  author  of  it."  But  this  is  a  denial  that  there  is  any  such  thiugas  char- 
acter ;  that  the  will  can  give  itself  a  bent  which  no  single  volition  can  change ;  that  t!ie 
wicked  man  can  become  the  slave  of  sin  ;  that  Satan,  though  without  power  now  in 
himself  to  turn  to  God,  is  yet  responsible  for  his  sin.  The  power  of  contrary  choice 
which  Adam  had  exists  no  longer  in  its  entirety ;  it  is  narrowed  down  to  a  power  to  the 
contrary  in  temporary  and  subordinate  choices;  it  no  longer  is  equal  to  the  work  of 
changing-  the  fundamental  determination  of  the  being-  to  selfishness  as  an  ultimate  end. 
Yet  for  this  very  inabilil  y,  because  originated  by  will,  man  is  responsible. 

Julius  Mtiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2  :  28  —  "  Formal  freedom  leads  the  way  to  real  free- 
dom. The  starting-point  is  a  freedom  which  does  not  yet  involve  an  inner  necessity, 
but  the  possibility  of  something  else ;  the  goal  is  the  freedom  which  is  identical  with 
necessity.  The  first  is  a  means  to  the  last.  When  the  will  has  fully  and  truly  chosen,  the 
power  of  acting  otherwise  may  still  be  said  to  exist  in  a  metaphysical  sense ;  but 
morally,  i.  c,  with  reference  to  the  contrast  of  good  and  evil,  it  is  entirely  done  away. 
Formal  freedom  is  freedom  of  choice,  in  the  sense  of  volition  with  the  express  conscious- 
ness of  other  possibilities."  Real  freedom  is  freedom  to  choose  the  good  only,  with 
no  remaining  possibility  that  evil  will  exert  a  counter  attraction.  Rut  as  the  will  can 
reach  a  "  moral  necessity  "  of  good,  so  it  can  through  sin  reach  a  "moral  necessity  " 
of  evil. 

( c )  Park :  "  The  great  philosophical  objection  to  Arminianism  is  its  denial  of  the 
certainty  of  human  action  —  the  idea  that  a  man  may  act  either  way  without  certainty 
how  he  will  act  —  power  of  a  contrary  choice  in  the  sense  of  a  moral  indifference  which 
can  choose  without  motive,  or  contrary  to  the  strongest  motive.  The  New  School  view 
is  better  than  this,  for  that  holds  to  the  certainty  of  wrong  choice,  while  yet  the  soul 
has  power  to  make  a  right  one.  . .  .  The  Arminians  believe  that  it  is  objectively  uncer- 
tain whether  a  man  shall  act  in  this  way  or  in  that,  right  or  wrong.    There  is  nothing, 


606  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OE  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  MAN. 

antecedently  to  choice,  to  decide  the  choice.  It  was  the  whole  aim  of  Edwards  to 
refute  the  idea  that  man  would  not  certainly  sin.  The  old  Calvinists  believe  that  ante- 
cedently to  the  Fall  Adam  was  in  this  state  of  objective  uncertainty,  but  that  after  the 
Fall  it  was  certain  he  would  sin,  and  his  probation  therefore  was  closed.  Edwards 
affirms  that  no  such  objective  uncertainty  or  power  to  the  contrary  ever  existed,  and 
that  man  now  has  all  the  liberty  he  ever  had  or  could  have.  The  truth  in  '  power  to  the 
contrary '  is  simply  the  power  of  the  will  to  act  contrary  to  the  way  it  does  act.  Pres- 
ident Edwards  believed  in  this,  though  he  is  commonly  understood  as  reasoning  to  the 
contrary.  The  false  '  power  to  the  contrary '  is  unccrtaintii  how  one  will  act,  or  a 
willingness  to  act  otherwise  than  one  does  act.  This  is  the  Arminian  power  to  the  con- 
trary, and  it  is  this  that  Edwards  opposes." 

(  e )  Whedon,  On  the  Will,  338-360, 388-395—"  Prior  to  free  volition,  man  may  be  uncon- 
formed  to  law,  yet  not  a  subject  of  retribution.  The  law  has  two  offices,  one  judica- 
tory and  critical,  the  other  retributive  and  penal.  Hereditary  evil  may  not  be  visited 
with  retribution,  as  Adam's  concreated  purity  was  not  meritorious.  Passive,  prevoli- 
tional  holiness  is  moral  rectitude,  but  not  moral  desert.  Passive,  prevolitional  impurity 
needs  concurrence  of  active  will  to  make  it  condemnable." 

D.  It  renders  uncertain  either  the  universality  of  sin  or  man's  responsi- 
bility for  it.  If  man  has  full  power  to  refuse  consent  to  inborn  depravity, 
then  the  universality  of  sin  and  the  universal  need  of  a  Savior  are  merely 
hypothetical.  If  sin,  however,  be  universal,  there  must  have  been  an  absence 
of  free  consent ;  and  the  objective  certainty  of  man's  sinning,  according  to 
the  theory,  destroys  his  responsibility. 

Raymond,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  86-89,  holds  it  "  theoretically  possible  that  a  child  may  be 
so  trained  and  educated  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  as  that  he  will  never 
knowingly  and  willingly  transgress  the  law  of  God ;  in  which  case  he  will  certainly 
grow  up  into  regeneration  and  final  salvation.  But  it  is  grace  that  preserves  him  from 
sin  —  [  common  grace  ?  ].  We  do  not  know,  either  from  experience  or  Scripture,  that 
none  have  been  free  from  known  and  wilful  transgressions."  J.  J.  Murphy,  Nat. 
Selection  and  Spir.  Freedom,  26-33— "It  is  possible  to  walk  from  the  cradle  to  the 
grave,  not  indeed  altogether  without  sin,  but  without  any  period  of  alienation  from 
(iod,  and  with  the  heavenly  life  developing  along  with  the  earthly,  as  it  did  in  Christ, 
from  the  first."  But,  since  grace  merely  restores  ability  without  giving  the  disposition 
to  use  that  ability  aright,  Arminiauism  does  not  logically  provide  for  the  certain  salva- 
tion of  any  infant.  Calvinism  can  provide  for  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in  infancy,  for 
it  knows  of  a  divine  power  to  renew  the  will,  but  Arminianism  knows  of  no  such  power, 
and  so  is  furthest  from  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  infant  salvation.  See  Julius 
Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2 :  320-326 :  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  479-494 ;  Bib.  Sac,  23  :  206 ;  28  :  279 ; 
Philippi,  Glaubeuslehre,  3  :  56  sq. 

3.     The  Neiv  ScJiool  Theory,  or  Theory  of  uncondemnable  Vitiosity. 

This  theory  is  called  New  School,  because  of  its  recession  from  the  old 
Puritan  anthropology  of  which  Edwards  and  Bellamy  in  the  last  century 
were  the  expounders.  The  New  School  theory  is  a  general  scheme  built 
up  by  the  successive  labors  of  Hopkins,  Emmons,  Dwight,  Taylor,  and 
Finney.  It  is  held  at  present  by  New  School  Presbyterians,  and  by  the 
larger  part  of  the  Congregational  body. 

According  to  this  theory,  all  men  are  born  with  a  physical  and  moral  con- 
stitution which  predisposes  them  to  sin,  and  all  men  do  actually  sin  so  soon 
as  they  come  to  moral  consciousness.  This  vitiosity  of  nature  may  be 
called  sinful,  because  it  uniformly  leads  to  sin  ;  but  it  is  not  itself  sin,  since 
nothing  is  to  be  properly  denominated  sin  bnt  the  voluntary  act  of  trans- 
gressing known  law. 

God  imputes  to  men  only  their  own  acts  of  personal  transgression  ;  he 
does  not  impute  to  them  Adam's  sin  ;  neither  original  vitiosity  nor  physi- 


NEW    SCHOOL   THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION".  607 

cal  death  are  penal  inflictions ;  they  are  simply  consequences  which  God 
has  in  his  sovereignty  ordained  to  mark  his  displeasure  at  Adam's  trans- 
gression, and  subject  to  which  evils  God  immediately  creates  each  human 
suul.  In  Rom.  5  :  12,  "death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned," 
signifies  :  "  spiritual  death  passed  on  all  men,  because  all  men  have  actu- 
ally and  personally  sinned." 

Edwards  held  that  God  imputes  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  by  arbitrarily  identifying 
them  with  him, —  identity,  on  the  theory  of  continuous  creation  ( see  pages  415-418), 
being  only  what  God  appoints.  Since  this  did  not  furnish  sufficient  ground  for  impu- 
tation, Edwards  joined  the  Plaoean  doctrine  to  the  other,  and  showed  the  justice  of  the 
condemnation  by  the  fact  that  man  is  depraved.  He  adds,  moreover,  the  considera- 
tion that  man  ratifies  this  depravity  by  his  own  act.  So  Edwards  tried  to  combine 
three  views.  But  all  were  vitiated  by  his  doctrine  of  continuous  creation,  which  logi- 
cally made  God  the  only  cause  in  the  universe,  and  left  no  freedom,  guilt,  or  responsi- 
bility to  man.  He  held  that  preservation  is  a  continuous  series  of  new  divine  volitions, 
personal  identity  consisting-  in  consciousness  or  rather  memory,  with  no  necessity  for 
identity  of  substance.  He  maintained  that  God  could  give  to  an  absolutely  new  cre- 
ation the  consciousness  of  one  just  annihilated,  and  thereby  the  two  would  be  identi- 
cal. He  maintained  this  not  only  as  a  possibility,  but  us  the  actual  fact.  See  Lutheran 
Quarterly,  April,  1901 :  149-109;  and  H.  N.  Gardiner,  in  Philos.  Rev.,  Nov.  1900  :  573-596. 

The  idealistic  philosophy  of  Edwards  enables  us  to  understand  his  conception  of  the 
relation  of  the  race  to  Adam.  He  believed  in  "a  real  union  between  the  root  and  the 
branches  of  the  world  of  mankind,  established  by  the  author  of  the  whole  system  of 
the  universe  ....  the  full  consent  of  the  hearts  of  Adam's  posterity  to  the  first  apos- 
tasy ....  and  therefore  the  sin  of  the  apostasy  is  not  theirs  merely  because  God 
imputes  it  to  them,  but  it  is  truly  and  properly  theirs,  and  on  thai  ground  God  imputes 
it  to  them."  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  2  :  435-448,  esp.  436,  quotes  from  Edwards :  "  The 
guilt  a  man  has  upon  his  soul  at  his  first  existence  is  one  and  simple,  v'n. :  the  guilt  of 
t  he  original  apostasy,  the  guilt  of  the  sin  by  which  the  species  first  rebelled  against  Clod." 
Interpret  this  by  other  words  of  Kdwards:  "The  child  and  the  acorn,  which  come  into 
existence  in  the  course  of  nature,  are  truly  immediately  created  by  Sod" — i.  e.,  con- 
tinuously created  (quoted  by  Dodge,  Christian  Theology,  188).  Allen,  Jonathan 
Kdwards,  310  —  "It  required  but  a  step  from  the  principle  thai  each  individual  has  an 
identity  of  consciousness  with  Adam,  to  reach  the  conclusion  that  each  individual  Is 
Adam  and  repeats  his  experience,  or  every  man  it  might  be  said  that  like  Adam  he 
comes  into  the  world  attended  by  the  divine  nature,  and  like  him  sinsand  falls.  In 
this  sense  the  sin  of  every  man  becomes  original  sin."  Adam  becomes  not  the  head  of 
humanity  but  its  generic  type.  Hence  arises  the  New  School  doctrine  of  exclusively 
individual  sin  and  guilt. 

Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2  :  25,  claims  Edwards  as  a  Traducianist.  But  Fisher,  Discus- 
sions, 240,  shows  that  he  was  not.  As  we  have  seen  ( Prolegomena,  pages  48, 49 ),  Edwards 
thought  too  little  of  nature.  He  tended  to  Berkeleyanism  as  applied  to  mind.  Hence 
the  chief  g-ood  was  in  happiness  — a  form  of  sensibility.  Virtue  is  voluntary  choice  of 
this  good.  Hence  union  of  cuts  and  exercises  with  Adam  was  sufficient.  This  God's  will 
might  make  identity  of  heiny  with  him.  Haird,  Elohim  Revealed,  250  sq.,  says  well,  that 
"  Edwards's  idea  that  the  character  of  an  act  was  to  be  sought  somewhere  else  than  in 
its  cause  involves  the  fallacious  assumption  that  acts  have  a  subsistence  and  moral 
agency  of  their  own  apart  from  that  of  the  actor."  This  divergence  from  the  truth  led 
to  the  Exercise-system  of  Hopkins  and  Emmons,  who  not  only  denied  moral  character 
prior  to  individual  choices  ( i.  e.,  denied  sin  of  nature),  but  attributed  all  human  acts 
and  exercises  to  the  direct  efficiency  of  God.  Hopkins  declared  that  Adam's  act,  in 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  was  not  the  act  of  his  posterity ;  therefore  they  did  not  sin 
at  the  same  time  that  he  did.  The  sinfulness  of  that  act  could  not  be  transferred  to 
them  afterwards ;  because  the  sinfulness  of  an  act  can  no  more  be  transferred  from 
one  person  to  another  than  an  act  itself.  Therefore,  though  men  became  sinners  by 
Adam,  according  to  divine  constitution,  yet  they  have,  and  are  accountable  for,  no  sins 
but  personal.  See  Woods,  History  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  33.  So  the  doc- 
trine of  continuous  creation  led  to  the  Exercise-system,  and  the  Exercise-system  led  to 
the  theology  of  acts.  On  Emmons,  see  Works,  4  :  502-507,  and  Bib.  Sac,  7  :  479 ;  20  :  317 ; 
also  H.  B.  Smith,  in  Faith  and  Philosophy,  215-263. 

N.  W.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  agreed  with  Hopkins  and  Emmons  that  there  is  no 


608  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

imputation  of  Adam's  sin  or  of  inborn  depravity.  He  called  that  depravity  physical, 
not  moral.  But  he  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency  in  the  production  of 
man's  acts  and  exercises,  and  made  all  sin  to  be  personal.  He  held  to  the  power  of 
contrary  choice.  Adam  had  it,  and  contrary  to  the  belief  of  Augustinians,  he  never 
lost  it.  Man  "  not  only  can  if  he  will,  but  he  can  if  he  won't."  He  can,  but,  without 
the  Spirit,  will  not.  He  said:  "Man  can,  whatever  the  Holy  Spirit  does  or  does  not 
do";  but  also:  "Man  will  not,  unless  the  Holy  Spirit  helps";  "If  I  were  as  eloquent 
as  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  could  convert  sinners  as  fast  as  he."  Yet  he  did  not  hold  to  the 
Arminian  liberty  of  indifference  or  contingence.  He  believed  in  the  certainty  of 
wrong  action,  yet  in  power  to  the  contrary.  See  Moral  Government,  2  :  132 — "The 
error  of  Pelagius  was  not  in  asserting  that  man  can  obey  God  without  grace,  but  in 
saying  that  man  does  actually  obey  God  without  grace."  There  is  a  part  of  the  sinner's 
nature  to  which  the  motives  of  the  gospel  may  appeal  —  a  part  of  his  nature  which  is 
neither  holy  nor  unholy,  viz.,  self-love,  or  innocent  desire  for  happiness.  Greatest 
happiness  is  the  ground  of  obligation.  Under  the  influence  of  motives  appealing  to 
happiness,  the  sinner  can  suspend  his  choice  of  the  world  as  his  chief  good,  and  can 
give  his  heart  to  God.  He  can  do  this,  whatever  the  Holy  Spirit  does,  or  does  not  do  ; 
but  the  moral  inability  can  be  overcome  only  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  moves  the  soul, 
without  coercing,  by  means  of  the  truth.  On  Dr.  Tas'lor's  system,  and  its  connection 
with  prior  New  England  theology,  see  Fisher,  Discussions,  285-354. 

This  form  of  New  School  doctrine  suggests  the  following  questions:  1.  Can  the  sinner 
suspend  his  selfishness  before  he  is  subdued  by  divine  grace  ?  2.  Can  his  choice  of  God 
from  mere  self-love  be  a  holy  choice  ?  3.  Since  God  demands  love  in  every  choice,  must 
it  not  be  a  positively  unholy  choice  ?  4.  If  it  is  not  itself  a  holy  choice,  how  can  it  be  a 
beginning  of  holiness?  5.  If  the  sinner  can  become  regenerate  by  preferring  God  on 
the  ground  of  self-interest,  where  is  the  necessity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  the  heart  ? 
6.  Does  not  this  asserted  ability  of  the  sinner  to  turn  to  God  contradict  consciousness 
and  Scripture  ?  For  Taylor's  views,  see  his  Revealed  Theology,  134-309.  For  criticism 
of  them,  see  Hodge,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Jan.  1868  :  63  sq„  and  368-398 ;  also,  Tyler,  Letters 
on  the  New  Haven  Theology.  Neither  Hopkins  and  Emmons  on  the  one  hand,  nor 
Taylor  on  the  other,  represent  most  fully  the  general  course  of  New  England  theology. 
Smalley,  Dwight,  Woods,  all  held  to  more  conservative  views  than  Taylor,  or  than 
Pi  1 1 1 1<  y,  whose  system  had  much  resemblance  to  Taylor's.  All  three  of  these  denied  the 
power  of  contrary  choice  which  Dr.  Taylor  so  strenuously  maintained,  although  all 
agreed  with  him  in  denying  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  or  of  our  hereditary  depravity. 
These  are  not  sinful,  except  in  the  sense  of  being  occasions  of  actual  sin. 

Dr.  Park,  of  Andover,  was  understood  to  teach  that  the  disordered  state  of  the  sensi- 
bilities and  faculties  with  which  we  are  born  is  the  immediate  occasion  of  sin,  while 
Adam's  transgression  is  the  remote  occasion  of  sin.  The  will,  though  influenced  by  an 
evil  tendency,  is  still  free ;  the  evil  tendency  itself  is  not  free,  and  therefore  is  not  sin. 
The  statement  of  New  School  doctrine  given  in  the  text  is  intended  to  represent  the 
common  New  England  doctrine,  as  taught  by  Smalley,  Dwight,  Woods  and  Park ; 
although  the  historical  tendency,  even  among  these  theologians,  has  been  to  emphasize 
less  and  less  the  depraved  tendencies  prior  to  actual  sin,  and  to  maintain  that  moral 
character  begins  only  with  individual  choice,  most  of  them,  however,  holding  that  this 
individual  choice  begins  at  birth.  See  Bib.  Sac,  7  :  552,  567  ;  8  :  607-647 ;  20  :  462-471,  576- 
593;  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  407-412;  Foster,  Hist.  N.  E.  Theology. 

Both  Ritschl  and  Pfleiderer  lean  toward  the  New  School  interpretation  of  sin. 
Ritschl,  Unterricht,  25  —  "  Universal  death  was  the  consequence  of  the  sin  of  the  first 
man,  and  the  death  of  his  posterity  proved  that  they  too  had  sinned."  Thus  death  is 
universal,  not  because  of  natural  generation  from  Adam,  but  because  of  the  individual 
sins  of  Adam's  posterity.  Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  122— "Sin  is  a  direction  of  the  will 
which  contradicts  the  moral  Idea.  As  pi-eceding  personal  acts  of  the  will,  it  is  not 
personal  guilt  but  imperfection  or  evil.  When  it  persists  in  spite  of  awaking  moral 
consciousness,  and  by  indulgence  become  habit,  it  is  guilty  abnormity." 

To  the  New  School  theory  we  object  as  follows  : 

A.  It  contradicts  Scripture  in  maintaining  or  implying  :  (a)  That  sin 
consists  solely  in  acts,  and  in  the  dispositions  caused  in  each  case  by  man's 
individual  acts,  and  that  the  state  which  predisposes  to  acts  of  sin  is  not 
itself  sin.  ( b  )  That  the  vitiosity  which  predisposes  to  sin  is  a  part  of  each 
man's  nature  as  it  proceeds  from  the  creative  hand  of  God,     ( c  )   That 


NEW"   SCHOOL   THEORY   OF   IMPUTATION.  G09 

physical  death  in  the  human  race  is  not  a  penal  consequence  of  Adam's 
transgression,  (d)  That  infants,  before  moral  consciousness,  do  not  need 
Christ's  sacrifice  to  save  them.  Since  they  are  innocent,  no  penalty  rests 
upon  them,  and  none  needs  to  Y>e  removed.  (e)  That  we  are  neither 
condemned  upon  the  ground  of  actual  inbeing  in  Adam,  nor  justified  upon 
the  ground  of  actual  inbeing  in  Christ. 

If  a  child  may  not  be  unholy  before  he  voluntarily  transgresses,  then,  by  parity  of 
reasoning,  Adam  could  not  have  been  holy  before  he  obeyed  the  law,  nor  can  a  change 
of  heart  precede  Christian  action.  New  School  principles  would  compel  us  to  assert 
that  right  action  precedes  change  of  heart,  and  that  obedience  in  Adam  must  have 
preceded  his  holiness.  Emmons  held  that,  if  children  die  before  they  become  moral 
agents,  it  is  most  rational  to  conclude  that  they  are  annihilated.  They  are  mere 
animals.  The  common  New  School  doctrine  would  regard  them  as  saved  either  on 
account  of  their  innocence,  or  because  the  atonement  of  Christ  avails  to  remove  the 
consequences  as  well  as  the  penalty  of  sin. 

But  to  say  that  infants  are  pure  contradicts  Rom.5:12 — "  all  sinned  "  ;  1  Cor.  7 :  14  —  "else  were 
your  children  andean  "  ;  Eph.  'I  :  3  —  "by  nature  children  of  wrath."  That  Christ's  atonement  removes 
natural  consequences  of  sin  is  nowhere  asserted  or  implied  in  Scripture.  See,  pi r 
contra,  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  271,  where,  however,  it  is  only  maintained  that  Christsaves 
from  all  the  just  consequences  of  sin.  Hut  all  just  c<  msequences  are  penalty,  and  should 
lie  sw  called.  The  exigencies  of  New  School  doctrine  compel  it  to  put  the  beginning  of 
sin  in  the  infant  at  the  very  first  moment  of  its  separate  existence,— in  order  not  to 
contradict  those  Scriptures  which  speak  of  sin  as  being  universal,  and  of  the  atonement 
as  being  needed  by  all.  Dr.  Park  held  that  infants  sin  so  soon  as  they  are  born.  He 
was  obliged  to  hold  this,  or  else  to  say  that  some  members  of  the  human  race  existwho 
are  not  sinners.  But  by  putting  sin  thus  early  in  human  experience,  all  meaning  is 
taken  out  of  the  New  School  definition  of  sin  as  the  "voluntary  transgression  of  known 
law."  It  is  difficult  to  say,  upon  this  theory,  what  sort  of  a  choice  the  infant  makes  of 
sin,  or  what  sort  of  a  known  law  it  violates. 

The  first  need  in  a  theory  of  sin  is  that  of  satisfying  the  statements  of  Scripture. 
The  second  need  is  that  it  should  point  out  an  act  of  man  which  will  justify  the  inflic- 
tion of  pain,  suffering,  and  death  upon  the  whole  human  race.  Our  moral  sense  refuses 
to  accept  the  conclusion  that  all  this  is  a  mat  ter  of  arbit  raiy  sovereignty.  We  cannot 
find  the  act  in  each  man's  conscious  transgression,  nor  in  sin  commit  ted  at  birth.  We 
do  find  such  a  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law  in  Adam;  and  we  claim  thai  the 
New  School  definition  of  sin  is  much  more  consistent  with  this  last  explanation  of  sin's 
origin  than  is  the  theory  of  a  multitude  of  individual  transgressions. 

The  final  test  of  every  theory,  however,  is  its  conformity  to  Scripture.  "We  claim  that 
a  false  philosophy  prevents  the  advocates  of  New  School  doctrine  from  understanding 
the  utterances  of  Paul.  Their  philosophy  is  a  modified  survival  of  atomistic  Pelagian- 
ism.  They  ignore  nature  in  both  God  and  man,  and  resolve  character  into  transient 
acts.  The  unconscious  or  subconscious  state  of  the  will  they  take  little  or  no  account 
of,  and  the  possibility  of  another  and  higher  life  interpenetrating  and  transforming 
our  own  life  is  seldom  present  to  their  minds.  They  have  no  proper  idea  of  the  union 
of  the  believer  with  Christ,  and  so  they  have  no  proper  idea  of  the  union  of  the  race 
with  Adam.  They  need  to  learn  that,  as  all  the  spiritual  life  of  the  race  was  in  Christ, 
the  second  Adam,  so  all  the  natural  life  of  the  race  was  in  the  first  Adam ;  as  we  derive 
righteousness  from  the  former,  so  we  derive  corruption  from  the  latter.  Because 
Christ's  bfe  is  in  them,  Paul  can  say  that  all  believers  rose  in  Christ's  resurrection  ; 
because  Adam's  life  is  in  them,  he  can  say  that  in  Adam  all  die.  We  should  prefer  to 
say  with  Plleiderer  that  Paul  teaches  this  doctrine  but  that  Paul  is  no  authority  for  us, 
rather  than  to  profess  acceptance  of  Paul's  teaching  while  we  ingeniously  evade  the 
force  of  his  argument.  We  agree  with  Stevens,  Pauline  Theology,  135,  13tj,  that  all  men 
"sinned  in  the  same  sense  in  which  believers  were  crucified  to  the  world  and  died 
unto  sin  when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross."  But  we  protest  that  to  make  Christ's 
death  the  mere  occasion  of  the  death  of  the  believer,  and  Adam's  sin  the  mere  occasion 
of  the  sins  of  men,  is  to  ignore  the  central  truths  of  Paul's  teaching  —  the  vital  union  of 
the  believer  with  Christ,  and  the  vital  union  of  the  race  with  Adam. 

B.    It  rests  upon  false  philosophical  principles,  as  for  example :  (  a  )  That 
the  soul  is  immediately  created  by  God.     (  b  )  That  the  law  of  God  consists 
39 


610  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 

wholly  in  outward  command.  (  c  )  That  present  natural  ability  to  obey  the 
law  is  the  measure  of  obligation.  ( d  )  That  man's  relations  to  moral  law 
are  exclusively  individual.  ( e  )  That  the  will  is  merely  the  faculty  of  indi- 
vidual and  personal  choices.  (/)  That  the  will,  at  man's  birth,  has  no 
moral  state  or  character. 

See  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  250  .?</.—  "  Personality  is  inseparable  from  nature.  The 
one  duty  is  love.  Unless  any  given  duty  is  performed  through  the  activity  of  a  princi- 
ple of  love  springing-  up  in  the  nature,  it  is  not  performed  at  all.  The  law  addresses  the 
nature.  The  efficient  cause  of  moral  action  is  the  proper  subject  of  moral  law.  It  is 
only  in  the  perversity  of  unscriptural  theology  that  we  find  the  absurdity  of  separating 
the  moral  character  from  the  substance  of  the  soul,  and  tying  it  to  the  vanishing  deeds 
of  life.  The  idea  that  responsibility  and  sin  are  predieable  of  actions  merely  is  only 
consistent  with  an  utter  denial  that  man's  nature  as  such  owes  anything  to  God,  or 
has  an  office  to  perform  in  showing  forth  his  glory.  It  ignores  the  fact  that  actions  are 
empty  phenomena,  which  in  themselves  have  no  possible  value.  It  is  the  heart,  soul, 
might,  mind,  strength,  with  which  we  are  to  love.  Christ  conformed  to  the  law,  by 
being  '  that  holy  thing '  ( Luke  1 :  35,  marg.)." 

Erroneous  philosophical  principles  lie  at  the  basis  of  New  School  interpretations  of 
Scripture.  The  solidarity  of  the  race  is  ignored,  and  all  moral  action  is  held  to  be  indi- 
vidual. In  our  discussion  of  the  Augustinian  theory  of  sin,  we  shall  hope  to  show  that 
underlying  Paul's  doctrine  there  is  quite  another  philosophy.  Such  a  philosophy 
together  with  a  deeper  Christian  experience  would  have  corrected  the  following  state- 
ment of  Paul's  view  of  sin,  by  Orello  Cone,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  April,  1898  :  241-267. 
On  the  phrase  Rom.  5 :  12 —  "for  that  all  sinned,"  he  remarks :  "  If  under  the  new  order  men  do 
not  become  righteous  simply  because  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  without  their 
choice,  neither  under  the  old  order  did  Paul  think  them  to  be  subject  to  death  without 
their  own  acts  of  sin.  Each  representative  head  is  conceived  only  as  the  occasion  of  the 
results  of  his  work,  on  the  one  hand  in  the  tragic  order  of  death,  and  on  the  other  hand  in 
the  blessed  order  of  life  — the  occasion  indispensable  to  all  that  follows  in  either  order. 
...  It  may  be  questioned  whether  Pfleiderer  docs  not  state  the  case  too  strongly  when 
he  says  that  the  sin  of  Adam's  posterity  is  regarded  as  '  the  necessary  consequence'  of 
the  sin  of  Adam.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  employment  of  the  aorist  rj/aaprov  that  the 
sinning  of  all  is  contained  in  that  of  Adam,  although  this  sense  must  be  considered  as 
grammatically  possible.  It  is  not  however  the  only  grammatically  defensible  sense.  In 
Rom.  3 :  23,  iqnaprou  certainly  does  not  denote  such  a  definite  past  act  filling  only  one  point 
of  time."  But  we  reply  that  the  context  determines  that  in  Rom,  5 :  12,  r/txaprov  does  denote 
such  a  definite  past  act ;  see  our  interpretation  of  the  whole  passage,  under  the  Augus- 
tinian Theory,  pages  625-627. 

C.     It  impugns  the  justice  of  God  : 

(  a  )  By  regarding  him  as  the  direct  creator  of  a  vicious  nature  which 
infallibly  leads  every  human  being  into  actual  transgression.  To  maintain 
that,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  act,  God  brings  it  about  that  all  men 
become  sinners,  and  this,  not  by  virtue  of  inherent  laws  of  rjropagation, 
but  by  the  direct  creation  in  each  case  of  a  vicious  nature,  is  to  make  God 
indirectly  the  author  of  sin. 

(h)  By  representing  him  as  the  inflicter  of  suffering  and  death  upon 
millions  of  human  beings  who  in  the  present  life  do  not  come  to  moral 
consciousness,  and  who  are  therefore,  according  to  the  theory,  perfectly 
innocent.  This  is  to  make  him  visit  Adam's  sin  on  his  posterity,  while  at 
the  same  time  it  denies  that  moral  connection  between  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity which  alone  could  make  such  visitation  just. 

(  e )  By  holding  that  the  probation  which  God  appoints  to  men  is  a  sepa- 
rate probation  of  each  soul,  when  it  first  comes  to  moral  consciousness  and 
is  least  qualified  to  decide  aright.  It  is  much  more  consonant  with  our 
ideas  of  the  divine  justice  that  the  decision  should  have  been  made  by  tne 


NEW   SCHOOL  THEORY    OF    IMPUTATION".  611 

whole  race,  in  one  whose  nature  was  pure  and  who  perfectly  understood 
God's  law,  than  that  heaven  and  hell  should  have  been  determined  for  each 
of  us  by  a  decision  made  in  our  own  inexperienced  childhood,  under  the 
influence  of  a  vitiated  nature.      v 

Ou  this  theory,  God  determines,  in  his  mere  sovereignty,  that  because  one  man  sinned, 
all  men  should  be  called  into  existence  depraved,  under  a  constitution  which  secures 
the  certainty  of  their  sinning.  But  we  claim  that  it  is  unjust  that  any  should  suffer 
without  ill-desert.  To  say  that  God  thus  marks  his  sense  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin 
is  to  contradict  the  main  principle  of  the  theory,  namely,  that  nan  are  held  responsible 
only  for  their  own  sins.  We  prefer  to  justify  God  by  holding  that  there  is  a  reason  for 
this  infliction,  and  that  this  reason  is  the  connection  of  the  infant  with  Adam.  If  mere 
tendency  to  sin  is  innocent,  then  Christ  might  have  taken  it,  when  he  took  our  nature. 
But  if  he  had  taken  it,  it  would  not  explain  the  fact  of  the  atonement,  for  upon,  this 
theory  it  would  not  need  to  be  atoned  for.  To  say  that  the  child  inherits  a  sinful 
nature,  not  as  penalty,  but  by  natural  law,  is  to  ignore  the  fact  that  this  natural  law  is 
simply  the  regular  action  of  God,  the  expression  of  his  moral  nature,  and  so  is  itself 
penalty. 

"  Man  kills  a  snake,"  says  Raymond,  "  because  it  is  a  snake,  and  not  because  it  is  to 
blame  for  being  a  snake,"  —  which  seems  to  us  a  new  proof  that  the  advocates  of  inno- 
cent depravity  regard  infants,  not  as  moral  beings,  but  as  mere  animals.  "  We  must 
distinguish  automat  ic  excellence  or  badness,"  says  Raymond  again,  "  from  moral  desert, 
whether  good  or  ill."  This  seems  to  us  a  doctrine  of  punishment  without  guilt.  Prince- 
ton Essays,  1 :  138,  quote  Coleridge  :  "  It  is  an  outrage  on  common  sense  to  aOQrm  that 
it  is  no  evil  for  men  to  be  placed  ou  their  probation  under  such  circumstances  that  not 
one  of  ten  thousand  millions  ever  escapes  sin  and  condemnation  to  eternal  death. 
There  is  evil  inflicted  on  us,  as  a  consequence  of  Adam'ssin,  antecedent  to  our  personal 
transgressions.  It  matters  not  what  this  evil  is,  whether  temporal  death,  corruption  of 
nature,  certainty  of  sin,  or  death  in  its  more  extended  sense  ;  if  the  ground  of  the  evil's 
coming  ou  us  is  Adam's  sin,  the  principle  is  the  same."  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  488— 
So,  it  seems,  "if  a  creature  is  punished,  it  implies  that  some  one  has  sinned,  but  does 
not  necessarily  intimate  the  sufferer  to  be  the  sinner  !  Hut  this  is  wholly  contrary  to 
the  argument  of  the  apostle  in  Rom.  5  :  12-19,  which  is  based  upon  the  Opposite  doctrine, 
and  it  is  also  contrary  to  I  he  jusl  ice  of  Cod,  who  punishes  only  those  who  deserve  it." 
See  Julius  M  idler,  Doct.  Sin,  2  :  67-74. 

D.     Its  limitation  of  responsibility  to  the  evil  choices  of  the  individual 

and  the  dispositions  caused  thereby  is  inconsistent  with  the  following  facts : 
(a)  The  first  moral  choice  of  each  individual  is  so  undeliberate  as  not 
to  be  remembered.  Put  forth  at  birth,  as  the  chief  advocates  of  the  New 
School  theory  maintain,  it  does  not  answer  to  their  definition  of  sin  as  a 
voluntary  transgression  of  known  law.  Responsibility  for  such  choice  does 
not  differ  from  responsibility  for  the  inborn  evil  state  of  the  will  which 
manifests  itself  in  that  choice. 

( b  )  The  uniformity  of  sinful  action  among  men  cannot  be  explained 
by  the  existence  of  a  mere  faculty  of  choices.  That  men  should  uniformly 
choose  may  be  thus  explained  ;  but  that  men  should  uniformly  choose  evil 
requires  us  to  postulate  an  evil  tendency  or  state  of  the  will  itself,  prior  to 
these  separate  acts  of  choice.  This  evil  tendency  or  inborn  determination 
to  evil,  since  it  is  the  real  cause  of  actual  sins,  must  itself  be  sin,  and  as 
such  must  be  guilty  and  condemnable. 

( c  )  Power  in  the  will  to  prevent  the  inborn  vitiosity  from  developing 
itself  is  upon  this  theory  a  necessary  condition  of  responsibility  for  actual 
sins.  But  the  absolute  uniformity  of  actual  transgression  is  evidence  that  the 
will  is  practically  impotent.  If  responsibility  diminishes  as  the  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  free  decision  increase,  the  fact  that  these  difficulties  are  insu- 


612  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

perable  shows  that  there  can  be  no  responsibility  at  all.  To  deny  the  guilt 
of  inborn  sin  is  therefore  virtually  to  deny  the  guilt  of  the  actual  sin  which 
springs  therefrom. 

The  aim  of  all  the  theories  is  to  find  a  decision  of  the  will  which  will  justify  God  in 
condemning  men.  Where  shall  we  find  such  a  decision  ?  At  the  age  of  fifteen,  ten,  five  ? 
Then  all  who  die  before  this  age  are  not  sinners,  cannot  justly  be  punished  with  death, 
do  not  need  a  Savior.  Is  it  at  birth  ?  But  decision  at  sucli  a  time  is  not  such  a  conscious 
decision  against  God  as,  according  to  this  theory,  would  make  it  the  proper  deter- 
miner of  our  future  destiny.  We  claim  that  the  theory  of  Augustine  —  that  of  a  sin  of 
the  race  in  Adam  —  is  the  only  one  that  shows  a  conscious  transgression  fit  to  be  the 
cause  and  ground  of  man's  guilt  and  condemnation. 

Wm.  Adams  Brown  :  "  Who  can  tell  ho  w  far  his  own  acts  are  caused  by  his  own  will, 
and  how  far  by  the  nature  he  has  inherited  ?  Men  do  feel  guilty  for  acts  which  are 
largely  due  to  their  inherited  natures,  which  inherited  corruption  is  guilt,  deserving 
of  punishment  and  certain  to  receive  it."  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  350,  note— "It  has 
been  said,  in  the  way  of  a  taunt  against  the  older  theology,  that  men  are  very  willing 
to  speculate  about  sinning  in  Adam,  so  as  to  have  their  attention  diverted  from  the 
sense  of  personal  guilt.  But  the  whole  history  of  theology  bears  witness  that  those 
who  have  believed  most  fully  in  our  native  and  strictly  moral  corruption  — as 
Atigustine,  Calvin,  and  Edwards  — have  ever  had  the  deepest  sense  of  their  personal 
demerit.    We  know  the  full  evil  of  sin  only  when  we  know  its  roots  as  well  as  its  fruits." 

"  Causa  causae  est  causa  causati."  Inborn  depravity  is  the  cause  of  the  first  actual 
sin.  The  cause  of  inborn  depravity  is  the  sin  of  Adam.  If  there  be  no  guilt  in  original 
sin,  then  the  actual  sin  that  springs  therefrom  cannot  be  guilty.  There  are  subsequent 
presumptuous  sins  in  which  the  personal  element  overbears  the  element  of  race  and 
heredity.  But  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  first  acts  which  make  man  a  sinner.  These  are 
so  naturally  and  uniformly  the  result  of  the  inborn  determination  of  the  will,  that  they 
cannot  be  guilty,  unless  that  inborn  determination  is  also  guilty.  In  short,  not  all  sin  is 
personal.  There  must  be  a  sin  of  nature  — a  race-sin  — or  the  beginnings  of  actual  sin 
cannot  be  accounted  for  or  regarded  as  objects  of  God's  condemnation.  Julius  Mliller, 
Doctrine  of  Sin,  2 :  320-328,  341  — "  If  the  deep-rooted  depravity  which  we  bring  with  us 
into  the  world  be  not  our  sin,  it  at  once  becomes  an  excuse  for  our  actual  sins."  Prince- 
ton Essays,  1 :  138, 139  — Alternative:  1.  Maya  man  by  his  own  powerprevent  the  devel- 
opment of  this  hereditary  depravity?  Then  we  do  not  know  that  all  men  are  sinners, 
or  that  Christ's  salvation  is  needed  by  all.  2.  Is  actual  sin  a  necessary  consequence  of 
hereditary  depravity  ?  Then  it  is,  on  this  theory,  a  free  act  no  longer,  and  is  not  guilty, 
since  guilt  is  predicable  only  of  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law.  See  Baird, 
Elohim  Revealed,  256  sq. ;  Hodge,  Essays,  571-633 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  61-73; 
Edwards  on  the  Will,  part  iii,  sec.  4 ;  Bib.  Sac,  20  :  317-320. 

4.     The  Federal  Theory,  or  Theory  of  Condemnation  by  Covenant. 

The  Federal  theory,  or  theory  of  the  Covenants,  had  its  origin  with 
Cocceius  (1603-1669),  professor  at  Leyden,  but  was  more  fully  elaborated 
by  Turretin  (1623-1687).  It  has  become  a  tenet  of  the  Reformed  as 
distinguished  from  the  Lutheran  church,  and  in  this  country  it  has  its  main 
advocates  in  the  Princeton  school  of  theologians,  of  whom  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  was  the  representative. 

According  to  this  view,  Adam  was  constituted  by  God's  sovereign  apjioint- 
ment  the  representative  of  the  whole  human  race.  With  Adam  as  their 
representative,  God  entered  into  covenant,  agreeing  to  bestow  upon  them 
eternal  life  on  condition  of  his  obedience,  but  making  the  penalty  of  his 
disobedience  to  be  the  corruption  and  death  of  all  his  posterity.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  this  covenant,  since  Adam  sinned,  God  accounts  all 
his  descendants  as  sinners,  and  condemns  them  because  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression. 

In  execution  of  this  sentence  of  condemnation,  God  immediately  creates 
each  soul  of  Adam's  posterity  with  a  corrupt  and  depraved  nature,  which 


FEDERAL   THEORY    OF   IMPUTATION".  613 

infallibly  leads  to  sin,  and  which  is  itself  sin.  The  theory  is  therefore  a 
theory  of  the  immediate  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  their 
corruption  of  nature  not  being  t^ie  cause  of  that  imputation,  but  the  effect 
of  it.  In  Eom.  5  :  12,  "  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned," 
signifies:  "physical,  spiritual,  and  eternal  death  came  to  all,  because  all 
were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners." 

Fisher,  Discussions,  355-409,  compares  the  Augustinian  and  Federal  theories  of  Origi- 
nal  Sin.  His  account  of  the  Federal  theory  and  its  origin  is  substantially  as  follows  : 
The  Federal  theory  is  a  theory  of  the  covenants  (focdus,  a  covenant).  1.  The  covenant 
is  a  sovereign  constitution  imposed  by  God.  2.  Federal  union  is  the  legal  ground  of 
imputation,  though  kinship  to  Adam  is  the  reason  why  Adam  and  not  another  was 
selected  as  our  representative.  3.  Our  guilt  for  Adam's  sin  is  simply  a  legal  responsi- 
bility. 4.  That  imputed  sin  is  punished  by  inborn  depravity,  and  that  inborn  depravity 
by  eternal  death.  Augustine  could  not  reconcile  inherent  depravity  with  the  justice 
of  God  ;  hence  he  held  that  we  sinned  in  Adam. 

So  Anselm  says :  "  Because  the  whole  human  nature  was  in  them  ( Adam  and  Eve), 
and  outside  of  them  there  was  nothing  of  it,  the  whole  was  weakened  and  corrupted." 
After  the  first  sin  "this  nature  was  propagated  just  as  it  had  made  itself  by  sinning." 
All  sin  belongs  to  the  will ;  but  this  is  a  part  of  our  inheritance.  The  descendants  of 
Adam  were  not  in  him  as  individuals ;  yet  what  he  did  as  a  person,  he  did  not  do  sine 
ntitura,  and  this  nature  is  ours  as  well  as  his.  So  Peter  Lombard.  Sins  of  our  immedi- 
ate ancestors,  because  they  are  qualities  which  are  purely  personal,  are  not  propagated. 
After  Adam's  first  sin,  the  actual  qualities  of  the  first  parent  or  of  other  later  parents 
do  not  corrupt  the  nature  as  concerns  its  qualities,  but  only  as  concerns  the  qualities 
of  the  person. 

Calvin  maintained  two  propositions :  1.  We  are  not  condemned  for  Adam's  sin  apart 
from  our  own  inherent  depravity  which  is  derived  from  him.  The  sin  for  which  we 
are  condemned  is  our  own  sin.  •?.  This  sin  is  ours,  lor  the  reason  that  our  nature  is 
vitiated  in  Adam,  and  we  receive  it  in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  put  by  the  first 
transgression.  Melanchthon  also  held  to  an  imputation  of  the  first  sin  conditioned  upon 
our  innate  depravity.  The  impulse  to  Federalism  was  given  by  the  difficulty,  on  the 
pure  Augustinian  theory,  of  accounting  for  the  non-imputation  of  Adam's  subsequent 
sins,  and  those  of  his  posterity. 

Cocceius  ( Dutch,  Coch :  English,  Cook ),  the  author  of  the  covenant-theory,  con- 
ceived that  he  had  solved  this  difficulty  by  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  us 
upon  the  ground  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  Adam,  according  to  which  Adam  was 
to  stand  as  the  representative  of  his  posterity.  In  Cocceius's  use  of  the  term,  however, 
the  only  difference  between  covenant  and  command  is  found  in  the  promise  attached 
to  the  keeping  of  it.  Fisher  remarks  on  the  mistake,  in  modern  defenders  of  impu- 
tation, of  ignoring  the  capital  fact  of  a  true  and  real  participation  in  Adam's  sin. 
The  great  body  of  Calvinistic  theologians  in  the  17th  century  were  Augustinians  as 
well  as  Federalists.  So  Owen  and  the  Westminster  Confession.  Turretin,  however, 
almost  merged  the  natural  relation  to  Adam  in  the  federal. 

Edwards  fell  back  on  the  old  doctrine  of  Aquinas  and  Augustine.  He  tried  to  make 
out  a  real  participation  in  the  first  sin.  The  first  rising  of  sinful  inclination,  by  a 
divinely  constituted  identity,  is  this  participation.  But  Hopkins  and  Emmons  regarded 
the  sinful  inclination,  not  as  a  real  participation,  but  only  as  a  constructive  consent  to 
Adam's  first  sin.  Hence  the  New  School  theology,  in  which  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  was  given  up.  On  the  contrary,  Calvinists  of  the  Princeton  school  planted  them- 
selves on  the  Federal  theory,  and  taking  Turretin  as  their  text  book,  waged  war  on 
New  England  views,  not  wholly  sparing  Edwards  himself.  After  this  review  of  the 
origin  of  the  theory,  for  which  we  are  mainly  indebted  to  Fisher,  it  can  be  easily  seen 
how  little  show  of  truth  there  is  in  the  assumption  of  the  Princeton  theologians  that 
the  Federal  theory  is  "  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  the  church  of  God." 

Statements  of  the  theory  are  found  in  Cocceius,  Summa  Doctrinae  de  Fcedere,  cap. 
1,  5;  Turretin,  Inst.,  loc.  9,  quaes.  9;  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  98-185,  esp.  120  —  "  In  imputa- 
tion there  is,  first,  an  ascription  of  something  to  those  concerned  ;  secondly,  a  determi- 
nation to  deal  with  them  accordingly."  The  ground  for  this  imputation  is  "  the  union 
between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  which  is  twofold,—  a  natural  union,  as  between  father 
and  children,  and  the  union  of  representation,  which  is  the  main  idea  here  insisted  on.n 
123  —"As  in  Christ  we  are  constituted  righteous  by  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  so 


G14  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    MAN. 

in  Adam  we  are  made  sinners  by  the  imputation  of  his  sin Guilt  is  liability  or 

exposedness  to  punishment ;  it  does  not  in  theological  usage  imply  moral  turpitude 
or  criminality."  163  —  Turretin  is  quoted :  "The  foundation,  therefore,  of  imputation 
is  not  merely  the  natural  connection  which  exists  between  us  and  Adam  —  for,  were 
this  the  case,  all  his  sins  would  be  imputed  to  us,  but  principally  the  moral  and  federal, 
on  the  ground  of  which  God  entered  into  covenant  with  him  as  our  head.  Hence  in 
that  sin  Adam  acted  not  as  a  private  but  a  public  person  and  representative."  The 
oneness  results  from  contract ;  the  natural  union  is  frequently  not  mentioned  at  all. 
Marck :  All  men  sinned  in  Adam,  "  eos  represemtante."  The  acts  of  Adam  and  of  Christ 
are  ours  "jure  representation/Is." 

G.  W.  Northrup  makes  the  order  of  the  Federal  theory  to  be :  "  ( 1 )  imputation  of 
Adam's  guilt;  (2)  condemnation  on  the  ground  of  this  imputed  guilt ;  (3)  corruption 
of  nature  consequent  upon  treatment  as  condemned.      So  judicial  imputation  of 

Adam's  sin  is  the  cause  and  ground  of  innate  corruption All  the  acts,  with  the 

single  exception  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  are  divine  acts :  the  appointment  of  Adam,  the 
creation  of  his  descendants,  the  imputation  of  his  guilt,  the  condemnation  of  his  pos- 
terity, their  consequent  corruption.  Here  we  have  guilt  without  sin,  exposure  to 
divine  wrath  without  i!l-desert,  God  regarding  men  as  being  what  they  are  not,  pun- 
ishing them  on  the  ground  of  a  sin  committed  before  they  existed,  and  visiting  them 
with  gratuitous  condemnation  and  gratuitous  reprobation.  Here  are  arbitrary  repre- 
sentation, fictitious  imputation,  constructive  guilt,  limited  atonement."  The  Presb. 
Rev.,  Jan.  1882  :  30,  claims  that  Kloppenburg  ( 1642 )  preceded  Cocceius  ( 1648 )  in  holding 
to  the  theory  of  the  Covenants,  as  did  also  the  Canons  of  Dort.  For  additional  state- 
ments of  Federalism,  see  Hodge,  Essays,  49-86,  and  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  192-304 ;  Bib.  Sac, 
21 :  95-10" ;  Cunningham,  Historical  Theology. 

To  the  Federal  theory  we  object : 

A.  It  is  extra-Scriptural,  there  being  no  mention  of  such  a  covenant 
with  Adam  in  the  account  of  man's  trial.  The  assumed  allusion  to  Adam's 
apostasy  iu  Hosea  6  :  7,  where  the  word  "  covenant"  is  used,  is  too  preca- 
rious and  too  obviously  metaphorical  to  afford  the  basis  for  a  scheme  of 
imputation  (see  Henderson,  Com.  on  Minor  Prophets,  in  loco).  In  Heb. 
8  :8 — "new  covenant" — there  is  suggested  a  contrast,  not  with  an 
Adamic,  but  with  the  Mosaic,  covenant  (c/.  verse  9 ). 

In  Hosea  6:7  —  "  they  like  Adam  [  marg. '  men '  ]  have  trangressed  the  covenant "  ( Rev.  Ver. )  —  the 
correct  translation  is  given  by  Henderson,  Minor  Prophets :  "But  they,  like  men  that  break  a 

covenant,    there  they    proved    false   to   me."     L2X  ;  aiirol    Si   titjiv  <ii?  avdpunros   napafiaiviov  Siadr)Kr)i>. 

De  Wette :  "Aber  sie  ubertreten  den  Bund  uach  Menschenart ;  daselbst  sind  sie  mir 
treulos."  Here  "he  word  adam,  translated  "  man,"  either  means  "  a  man,"  or  "  man," 
i.  e.,  generic  man.  "  Israel  had  as  little  regard  to  their  covenants  with  God  as  men  of 
unprincipled  character  have  for  ordinary  contracts."  "  Like  a  man  "=  as  men  do. 
Compare  Ps.  82  :  7  —  "ye  shall  die  like  men  "  ;  Hosea  8:1,2—"  they  have  transgressed  my  covenant "  —  an 
allusion  to  the  Abrahamic  or  Mosaic  covenant.  Heb.  8  :  9— "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  Not  according  to  the  covenant 
that  I  made  with  their  fathers  In  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 

B.  It  contradicts  Scripture,  in  making  the  first  residt  of  Adam's  sin  to 
be  God's  regarding  and  treating  the  Tace  as  sinners.  The  Scripture,  on 
the  contrary,  declares  that  Adam's  offense  constituted  us  sinners  ( Rom.  5  : 
19 ).  We  are  not  sinners  simply  because  God  regards  and  treats  us  as 
such,  but  God  regards  us  as  sinners  because  we  are  sinners.  Death  is  said 
to  have  "  passed  unto  all  men,"  not  because  all  were  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners,  but  "because  all  sinned  "  (  Rom.  5  :  12  ). 

For  a  full  exegesis  of  the  passage  Rom.  5  :  12-19,  see  note  to  the  discussion  of  the  Theory 
of  Adam's  Natural  Headship,  pages  625-637.  Dr.  Park  gave  great  offence  by  saying 
that  the  so-called  "  covenants  "  of  law  and  of  grace,  referred  in  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion as  made  by  God  with  Adam  and  Christ  respectively,  were  really  "  made  in  Holland." 
The  word  fcedlis,  in  such  a  connection,  could  properly  mjan  nothing  more  than  "ordi- 


FEDERAL  THEORY  OF  IMPUTATION".  615 

nance";  see  Vergil,  Georgics,  1 :  60-63—  "  eterna  foedera."  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christ. 
Theol.,  185  —  "God's  'covenant'  with  men  is  simply  his  method  of  dealing  with  them 
according  to  their  knowledge  and  opportunities." 

C.     It  impugns  the  justice  of  God  by  implying : 

(a)  That  God  holds  men  responsible  for  the  violation  of  a  covenant 
which  they  had  no  part  in  establishing.  The  assumed  covenant  is  only  a 
sovereign  decree  ;  the  assumed  justice,  only  arbitrary  will. 

We  not  only  never  authorized  Adam  to  make  such  a  covenant,  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  he  ever  made  one  at  all.  It  is  not  even  certain  that  Adam  knew  he  should 
have  posterity.  In  the  case  of  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  Christ  covenanted 
voluntarily  to  bear  them,  and  joined  himself  to  our  nature  that  he  might  bear  them. 
In  the  case  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us,  we  first  become  one  with 
Christ,  and  upon  the  ground  of  our  union  with  him  are  justified.  Hut  upon  the  Federal 
theory,  we  are  condemned  upon  the  ground  of  a  covenant  which  we  neither  instituted, 
nor  participated  in,  nor  assented  to. 

(  b )  That  upon  the  basis  of  this  covenant  God  accounts  men  as  sinners 
who  are  not  sinners.  But  God  judges  according  to  truth.  His  condemna- 
tions do  not  proceed  upon  a  basis  of  legal  fiction.  He  can  regard  as 
responsible  for  Adam's  transgression  only  those  who  in  some  real  sense 
have  been  concerned,  and  have  had  part,  in  that  transgression. 

See  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  541—"  Here  is  a  sin,  which  is  no  crime,  but  a  mere  condi- 
tion of  being  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;  and  a  guilt,  which  is  devoid  of  sinful- 
ness^ and  which  does  not  imply  moral  demerit  or  turpitude,"— thai  is,  a  sin  which  is  no 

sin,  and  a  guilt  which  is  no  guilt.  Why  might  not  God  as  justly  reckon  Adam's  sin  to 
the  account  of  the  fallen  angels,  and  punish  them  for  it?  Dorner,  System  Doct.,  ~ :  351 ; 
3:53,54 — "Hollaz  held  that  God  treats  men  in  accordance  with  what  he  foresaw  all 
would  do,  if  they  were  in  Adam's  place  "  (scientia  media  and  imputatio  metaphysial  I, 

Uirks,  Difficulties  of  Relief,  111  — " Immediate  imputation  is  as  unjust  as  imputatio 
metaphu&iea,  i.  c,  God's  condemning  us  for  what  he  knew  we  would  have  done  in  Adam's 
place.  On  such  a  theory  there  is  no  need  of  a  trial  at  all.  God  might  condemn  half 
the  race  at  once  to  hell  without  probation,  on  the  ground  that  they  would  ultimately 
sin  and  come  thither  at  any  rate."  Justification  can  be  gratuitous,  but  not  condem- 
nation. "  Like  the  social-compact  theory  of  government,  the  coveuant-theory  of  sin  is 
a  mere  legal  fiction.  It  explains,  only  to  belittle.  The  theory  of  New  England  theol- 
ogy, which  attributes  to  mere  sovereignty  God's  making  us  sinners  in  consequence  of 
Adam's  sin,  is  more  reasonable  than  the  Federal  theory  "  (  Fisher  ). 

Professor  Moses  Stuart  characterized  this  theory  as  one  of  "fictitious  guilt,  but  veri- 
table damnation."  Tin-  divine  economy  admits  Of  no  fictitious  substitutions  nor  foren- 
sic evasions.  No  legal  quibbles  can  modify  eternal  justice.  Federalism  reverses  the 
proper  order,  and  puts  the  effect  before  the  cause,  as  is  the  case  with  the  social-com- 
pact theory  of  government.  Ritchie,  Darwin  and  Hegel,  27  — "It  is  illogical  to  say 
that  society  originated  in  a  contract ;  for  contract  presupposes  society."  Uuus  homo, 
uullus  homo=  without  society,  no  persons.  T.  H.  Green,  Prolegomena  to  Ethics,  351— 
"  No  individual  can  make  a  conscience  for  himself.  He  always  needs  a  society  to  make 
it  for  him.  .  .  .  200— Only  through  society  is  personality  actualized."  Royce,  Spirit  of 
Modern  Philosophy,  209,  note— "Organic  interrelationship  of  individuals  is  the  condi- 
tion even  of  their  relatively  independent  selfhood."  We  are  "members  one  of  another"  (  Rom, 
12  :  15).  Schurman,  Agnosticism,  176— "The  individual  could  never  have  developed  into 
a  personality  but  for  his  training  through  society  and  under  law."  Imagine  a  theory 
that  the  family  originated  in  a  compact !  We  must  not  define  the  state  by  its  first 
crude  beginnings,  any  more  than  we  define  the  oak  by  the  acorn.  On  the  theory  of  a 
social-compact,  see  Lowell,  Essays  on  Government,  136-188. 

(c)  That,  after  accounting  men  to  be  sinners  who  are  not  sinners,  God 
makes  them  sinners  by  immediately  creating  each  human  soul  with  a  cor- 
rupt nature  stich  as  will  correspond  to  his  decree.  This  is  not  only  to 
assume  a  false  view  of  the  origin  of  the  soul,  but  also  to  make  God  directly 


616  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

the  author  of  sin.  Imputation  of  sin  cannot  precede  and  account  for  cor- 
ruption ;  on  the  contrary,  corruption  must  precede  and  account  for  impu- 
tation. 

By  God's  act  we  became  depraved,  as  a  penal  consequence  of  Adam's  act  imputed  to 
us  solely  as  pcccatum  alienum.  Dabney,  Theology,  343,  says  the  theory  regards  the  soul 
as  originally  pure  until  imputation.  See  Hodge  on  Rom.  5 :  13 ;  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  203,  210 ; 
Thorn  well,  Theology,  1 :  346-349 ;  Chalmers,  Institutes,  1 :  485,  487.  The  Federal  theory 
"  makes  sin  in  us  to  be  the  penalty  of  another's  sin,  instead  of  being  the  penalty  of  our 
own  sin,  as  on  the  Augustinian  scheme,  which  regards  depravity  in  us  as  the  punish- 
ment of  our  own  sin  in  Adam.  ...  It  holds  to  a  sin  which  does  not  bring  eternal  pun- 
ishment, but  for  which  we  are  legally  responsible  as  truly  as  Adam."  It  only  remains 
to  say  that  Dr.  Hodge  always  persistently  refused  to  admit  the  one  added  element 
which  might  have  made  his  view  less  arbitrary  and  mechanical,  namely,  the  traducian 
theory  of  the  origin  of  the  soul.  He  was  a  creatiauist,  and  to  the  end  maintained  that 
God  immediately  created  the  soul,  and  created  it  depraved.  Acceptance  of  the  tradu- 
cian theory  would  have  compelled  him  to  exchange  his  Federalism  for  Augustinianism. 
Creatianism  was  the  one  remaining  element  of  Pelagian  atomism  in  an  otherwise 
Scriptural  theory.  Yet  Dr.  Hodge  regarded  this  as  an  essential  part  of  Biblical  teach- 
ing. His  unwavering  confidence  was  like  that  of  Fichte,  whom  Caroline  Schelling 
represented  as  saying:  "Zweifle  an  der  Sonne  Klarheit,  Zweifle  an  der  Sterne  Licht, 
Leser,  nur  an  meiner  Wahrheit  Und  an  deiner  Dummheit,  nicht." 

As  a  corrective  to  the  atomistic  spirit  of  Federalism  we  may  quote  a  view  which 
seems  to  us  far  more  tenable,  though  it  perhaps  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Dr. 
H.  H.  Bawden  writes:  "The  self  is  the  product  of  a  social  environment.  An  ascetic 
self  is  so  far  forth  not  a  self.  Selfhood  and  consciousness  are  essentially  social.  We  are 
members  one  of  another.  The  biological  view  of  selfhood  regards  it  as  a  function, 
activity,  process,  inseparable  from  the  social  matrix  out  of  which  it  has  arisen.  Con- 
sciousness is  simply  the  name  for  the  functioning  of  an  organism.  Not  that  the  soul  is 
a  secretion  of  the  brain,  as  bile  is  a  secretion  of  the  liver ;  not  that  the  mind  is  a  func- 
tion of  the  body  in  any  such  materialistic  sense.  But  that  mind  or  consciousness  is 
only  the  growing  of  an  organism,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  organism  is  just  that 
which  grows.  The  psychical  is  not  a  second,  subtle,  parallel  form  of  energy  causally 
interactive  with  the  physical;  much  less  is  it  a  concomitant  series,  as  the  parallelists 
hold.  Consciousness  is  not  an  order  of  existence  or  a  thing,  but  rather  a  function.  It 
is  the  organization  of  reality,  the  universe  coming  to  a  focus,  flowering,  so  to  speak,  in 
a  finite  centre.  Society  is  an  organism  in  the  same  sense  as  the  human  body.  The  sep- 
aration of  the  units  of  society  is  no  greater  than  the  separation  of  the  unit  factors  of 
the  body, —  in  the  microscope  the  molecules  are  far  apart.  Society  is  a  great  sphere 
with  many  smaller  spheres  within  it. 

"  Each  self  is  not  impervious  to  other  selves.  Selves  are  not  water-tight  compart- 
ments, each  one  of  which  might  remain  complete  in  itself,  even  if  all  the  others  were 
destroyed.  But  there  are  open  sluiceways  between  all  the  compartments.  Society  is  a 
vast  plexus  of  interweaving  personalities.  We  are  members  one  of  another.  What 
affects  my  neighbor  affects  me,  and  what  affects  me  ultimately  affects  my  neighbor. 
The  individual  is  not  an  impenetrable  atomic  unit.  .  .  .  The  self  is  simply  the  social 
whole  coming  to  consciousness  at  some  particular  point.  Every  self  is  rooted  in  the 
social  organism  of  which  it  is  but  a  local  and  individual  expression.  A  self  is  a  mere 
cipher  apart  from  its  social  relations.  As  the  old  Greek  adage  has  it :  '  He  who  lives 
quite  alone  is  either  a  beast  or  a  god.' "  While  we  regard  this  exposition  of  Dr.  Baw- 
den as  throwing  light  upon  the  origin  of  consciousness  and  so  helping  our  contention 
against  the  Federal  theory  of  sin,  we  do  not  regard  it  as  proving  that  consciousness, 
once  developed,  may  not  become  relatively  independent  and  immortal.  Back  of 
society,  as  well  as  back  of  the  individual,  lies  the  consciousness  and  will  of  God,  in 
whom  alone  is  the  guarantee  of  persistence.  For  objections  to  the  Federal  theory,  see 
Fisher,  Discussions,  401  sq. ;  Bib.  Sac,  20  :  455-46-,',  577  ;  New  Englander,  1868  :  55b603 ; 
Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  305-334,  435-450;  Julius  Mulier,  Doct.  Sin,  2:336;  Dabney, 
Theology,  341-351. 

5.  Theory  of  Mediate  Imputation,  or  Theory  of  Condemnation  for 
Depravity. 

This  theory  was  first  maintained  by  Placeus  (1606-1655),  professor  of 


THEORY    OF   MEDIATE    IMPUTATION.  617 

Theology  at  Saumur  in  France.  Placeus  originally  denied  that  Adam's  sin 
was  in  any  sense  imputed  to  his  posterity,  but  after  his  doctrine  was  con- 
demned by  the  Synod  of  the  French  Reformed  Church  at  Charenton  in 
1G44,  he  published  the  view  which  now  bears  his  name. 

According  to  this  view,  all  men  are  born  physically  and  morally  depraved  ; 
this  native  depravity  is  the  source  of  all  actual  sin,  and  is  itself  sin  ;  in 
strictness  of  speech,  it  is  this  native  depravity,  and  this  only,  which  God 
imputes  to  men.  So  far  as  man's  physical  nature  is  concerned,  this  inborn 
sinfulness  has  descended  by  natural  laws  of  propagation  from  Adam  to  all 
his  posterity.  The  soul  is  immediately  created  by  God,  but  it  becomes 
actively  corrupt  so  soon  as  it  is  united  to  the  body.  Inborn  sinfulness  is 
the  consequence,  though  not  the  penalty,  of  Adam's  transgression. 

There  is  a  sense,  therefore,  in  which  Adam's  sin  may  be  said  to  be  im- 
puted to  his  descendants, — it  is  imputed,  not  immediately,  as  if  they  had 
been  in  Adam  or  were  so  represented  in  him  that  it  could  be  charged 
directly  to  them,  corruption  not  intervening, —  but  it  is  imputed  mediately, 
through  and  on  account  of  the  intervening  corruption  which  resulted  from 
Adam's  sin.  As  on  the  Federal  theory  imputation  is  the  cause  of  depravity, 
so  on  this  theory  depravity  is  the  cause  of  imputation.  In  Rom.  5  :  12, 
"  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned,"  signifies :  "death  physi- 
cal, spiritual,  and  eternal  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  sinned  by  pos- 
sessing a  depraved  nature." 

See  Placeus,  De  Imputation©  Primi  Peccati  Adami,  in  Opera,  1  :  709  — "The  sensitive 
soul  is  produced  from  the  parent;  the  intellectual  or  rational  soul  is  directly  created. 
The  soul,  on  entering  the  corrupted  physical  nature,  is  not  passively  corrupted,  but 
becomes  corrupt  actively,  accommodating  itself  to  the  other  part  of  human  nature  in 
character."  710—  So  this  soul  "  contracts  from  the  vitiosity  of  the  dispositions  of  t  he 
body  a  corresponding  vitiosity,  not  so  much  by  the  action  of  the  body  upon  the  soul,  as 
by  that  essential  appetite  of  the  soul  by  which  it  unites  itself  to  the  body  in  a  way 
accommodated  to  the  dispositions  of  the  body,  as  liquid  put  into  a  bowl  accommodates 
itself  to  the  figure  of  a  bowl  —  sicut  vinum  in  vase  acetoso.  God  was  therefore 
neither  the  author  of  Adam's  fall,  nor  of  the  propagation  of  sin." 

Herzog,  Encyclopaedic,  art.:  Placeus  —  "In  the  title  of  his  works  we  read  'Placaeus'; 
he  himself,  however,  wrote  '  Placeus,'  which  is  the  more  correct  Latin  form  [of  the 
French 'de  la  Place'].  In  Adam's  first  sin,  Placeus  distinguished  between  the  actual 
sinning  and  the  first  habitual  sin  (corrupted  disposition!.  The  former  was  transient; 
the  latter  clung  to  his  person,  and  was  propagated  to  all.  It  is  truly  sin,  and  it  is  impu- 
ted to  all,  since  it  makes  all  condemnable.  Placeus  believes  in  the  imputation  of  this 
corrupted  disposition,  but  not  in  the  imputation  of  the  first  act  of  Adam,  except  medi- 
ately, through  the  imputation  of  the  inherited  depravity."  Fisher,  Discussions,  389— 
"  Mere  native  corruption  is  the  whole  of  original  sin.  Placeus  justifies  his  use  of  the 
term  '  imputation  '  by  Rom.  2  :  26  —  'If  therefore  the  uncircumcision  keep  the  ordinances  of  the  law,  shall  not 
his  uncircamcision  be  reckoned  [imputed]  for  circumcision?'  Our  own  depravity  is  the  necessary 
condition  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  just  as  our  own  faith  is  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness. " 

Advocates  of  Mediate  Imputation  are,  in  Great  Britain,  G.  Payne,  in  his  book 
entitled :  Original  Sin  ;  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1  :  196-232 ;  and  James 
S.  Candlish,  Biblical  Doctrine  of  Sin,  111-122;  in  America,  H.  B.  Smith,  in  his  System  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  169,  284,  285,  314-323;  and  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology.  The 
editor  of  Dr.  Smith's  work  says:  "On  the  whole,  he  favored  the  theory  of  Mediate 
Imputation.  There  is  a  note  which  reads  thus  :  '  Neither  Mediate  nor  Immediate  Impu- 
tation is  wholly  satisfactory.'  Understand  by  '  Mediate  Imputation '  a  full  statement 
of  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  the  author  accepted  it ;  undei'stand  by  it  a  theory  profess- 
ing to  give  the  final  explanation  of  the  facts,  and  it  was  'not  wholly  satisfactory.'" 
Dr.  Smith  himself  says,  316—"  Original  sin  is  a  doctrine  respecting  the  moral  conditions 
of  human  nature  as  from  Adam  —  generic :  and  it  is  not  a  doctrine  respecting  personal 


618  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

liabilities  and  desert.  For  the  latter,  we  need  more  and  other  circumstances.  Strictly 
speaking,  it  is  not  sin,  which  is  ill-deserving,  but  only  the  sinner.  The  ultimate  distinc- 
tion is  here  :  There  is  a  well-grounded  difference  to  be  made  between  personal  desert, 
strictly  personal  character  and  liabilities  (of  each  individual  under  the  divine  law,  as 
applied  specifically,  e.  g.,  in  the  last  adjudication),  and  a  generic  moral  condition  —  the 
antecedent  ground  of  such  personal  character. 

"  The  distinction,  however,  is  not  between  what  has  moral  quality  and  what  has  not, 
but  between  the  moral  state  of  each  as  a  member  of  the  race,  and  his  personal  liabili- 
ties and  desert  as  an  individual.  This  original  sin  would  wear  to  us  only  the  character 
of  evil,  and  not  of  sinfulness,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  we  feel  guilty  in  view  of  our 
corruption  when  it  becomes  known  to  us  in  our  own  acts.  Then  there  is  involved  in  it 
not  merely  a  sense  of  evil  and  misery,  but  also  a  sense  of  guilt ;  moreover,  redemption 
is  also  necessary  to  remove  it,  which  shows  that  it  is  a  moral  state.  Here  is  the  point 
of  junction  between  the  two  extreme  positions,  that  we  sinned  in  Adam,  and  that  all 
sin  consists  in  sinning.  The  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  — this  exposure,  this  liability  on 
account  of  such  native  corruption,  our  having  the  same  nature  in  the  same  moral  bias. 
The  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  to  be  separated  from  the  existence  of  this  evil  disposition. 
And  this  guilt  is  what  is  imputed  to  us."  See  art.  on  H.  B.  Smith,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1881 : 
"  He  did  not  fully  acquiesce  in  Placeus's  view,  which  makes  the  corrupt  nature  by 
descent  the  only  ground  of  imputation." 

The  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation  is  exposed  to  the  following  objections  : 

A.  It  gives  no  explanation  of  man's  responsibility  for  his  inborn 
depravity.  No  explanation  of  this  is  possible,  which  does  not  regard  man's 
depravity  as  having  had  its  origin  in  a  free  personal  act,  either  of  the 
individual,  or  of  collective  human  nature  in  its  first  father  and  head.  But 
this  participation  of  all  men  in  Adam's  sin  the  theory  expressly  denies. 

The  theory  holds  that  we  are  responsible  for  the  effect,  but  not  for  the  cause  — "  post 
Adamum,  non  propter  Adamum."  But,  says  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2 :  209,  331  — 
"If  this  sinful  tendency  be  in  us  solely  through  the  act  of  others,  and  not  through 
our  own  deed,  they,  and  not  we,  are  responsible  for  it,  —  it  is  not  our  guilt,  but  our 
misfortune.  And  even  as  to  actual  sins  which  spring  from  this  inherent  sinful  tendency, 
these  are  not  strictly  our  own,  but  the  acts  of  our  first  parents  through  us.  Why 
impute  them  to  us  as  actual  sins,  for  which  we  are  to  be  condemned?  Thus,  if  we  deny 
the  existence  of  guilt,  we  destroy  the  reality  of  sin,  and  vice  versa."  Thornwell, 
Theology,  1:  348,  349  —  This  theory  "does  not  explain  the  sense  of  guilt,  as  connected 
with  depravity  of  nature,—  how  the  feeling  of  ill-desert  can  arise  in  relation  to  a  state 
of  mind  of  which  we  have  been  only  passive  recipients.  The  child  does  not  reproach 
himself  for  the  afflictions  which  a  father's  follies  have  brought  upon  him.  But  our 
inward  corruption  we  do  feel  to  be  our  own  fault,—  it  is  our  crime  as  well  as  our  shame." 

B.  Since  the  origination  of  this  corrupt  nature  cannot  be  charged  to  the 
account  of  man,  man's  inheritance  of  it  must  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an 
arbitrary  divine  infliction — a  conclusion  which  reflects  upon  the  justice  of 
God.  Man  is  not  only  condemned  for  a  sinfulness  of  which  God  is  the 
author,  but  is  condemned  without  any  real  probation,  either  individual  or 
collective. 

Dr.  Hovey,  Outlines  of  Theology,  objects  to  the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation, 
because :  "  1.  It  casts  so  faint  a  light  on  the  justice  of  God  in  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  adults  who  do  as  he  did.  2.  It  casts  no  light  on  the  justice  of  God  in 
bringing  into  existence  a  race  inclined  to  sin  by  the  fall  of  Adam.  The  inherited  bias  is 
still  unexplained,  and  the  imputation  of  it  is  a  riddle,  or  a  wrong,  to  the  natural  under- 
standing." It  is  unjust  to  hold  us  guilty  of  the  effect,  if  we  be  not  first  guilty  of  the 
cause. 

C.  It  contradicts  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  refer  the  origin  of 
human  condemnation,  as  well  as  of  human  depravity,  to  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents,  and  which  represent  universal  death,  not  as  a  matter  of  divine 
sovereignty,  but  as  a  judicial  infliction  of  penalty  upon  all  men  for  the  sin 


AUGUSTINIAN"   THEORY    Or'    IMPUTATION.  619 

of  the  race  in  Adam  ( Eoni.  5  :  16,  18).  It  moreover  does  violence  to  the 
Scripture  in  its  unnatural  interpretation  of  "all  sinned,"  in  Rom.  5  :  12 — ■ 
words  which  imply  the  oneness  of  the  race  with  Adam,  and  the  causative 
relation  of  Adam's  sin  to  our  guilt. 

Certain  passages  which  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  317,  quotes  from  Edwards,  as  favor- 
ing- the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation,  seem  to  us  to  favor  quite  a  different  view.  See 
Edwards,  2  :  482  si/.— "  The  first  existing-  of  a  corrupt  disposition  in  their  hearts  is  not 
to  be  looked  upon  as  sin  belonging  to  them  distinct  from  their  participation  in  Adam's 
first  sin  ;  it  is,  as  it  were,  the  extended  pollution  of  that  sin  through  the  whole  tree,  by 

virtue  of  the  constituted  union  of  the  branches  with  the  root I  am  humbly  of 

the  opinion  that,  if  any  have  supposed  the  children  of  Adam  to  come  into  the  world 
with  a  doable  guilt,  one  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  another  the  guilt  arising  from  their 
having  a  corrupt  heart,  they  have  notso  well  considered  the  matter."  And  afterwards: 
"Derivation  of  evil  disposition  (Or  rather  co-existence  )  is  in  consequence  of  the  union," 
—  but  "not  properly  a  consequence  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin;  nay,  rather  antecedent 
to  it,  as  it  was  in  Adam  himself.  The  first  depravity  of  heart,  and  the  imputation  of 
that  sin,  are  both  the  consequences  of  that  established  union;  but  yet  in  such  order, 
that  the  evil  disposition  is  first,  and  the  charge  of  guilt  consequent,  as  it  was  in  the 
case  oi  Adam  himself.'' 

Edwards  quotes  Stapler :  "  The  Reformed  divines  do  not  hold  immediate  and  mediate 
imputation  separately,  but  always  together."  And  still  further,  2  :  498— "And  there- 
fore the  sin  of  the  apostasy  is  not  theirs,  merely  because  God  imputes  it  to  them;  but 
it  is  truly  and  properly  l  heirs,  and  on  that  ground  God  imputes  it  to  them."  It  seen  is  to 
us  that  Dr.  Smith  mistakes  the  drift  of  these  passages  from  Edwards,  and  that  in  mak- 
ing the  identification  with  Adam  primary,  and  imputation  of  his  sin  secondary,  they 
favor  the  theory  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship  rather  than  the  theory  of  Mediate  Impu- 
tation. Edwards  regards  the  order  as  (1)  apostasy;  (2)  depravity:  (3J  guilt;  — but  in 
all  three,  Adam  and  we  are,  by  divine  constitution,  one.  To  be  guilty  of  the  depravity, 
therefore,  we  must  first  be  guilty  of  the  apostasy. 

For  the  reasons  above  mentioned  we  regard  the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation  as  a 
hall-way  house  where  there  is  no  permanent  lodgment.  The  logical  mind  can  hud  no 
satisfaction  therein,  but  is  driven  either  forward,  to  the  Augustinian  doctrine  which 
we  are  next  to  consider,  or  backward,  to  the  New  School  doctrine  with  its  atomistic 
conception  of  man  and  its  arbitrary  sovereignty  of  Cod.  On  the  theory  of  Mediate 
Imputation,  see  Cunningham,  Historical  Theology,  1  :  496-639;  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  129, 
154,  168;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theology,  2:205-214;  Shedd,  History  of  Doctrine, 2 :  158 ;  Baird, 
Elohim  Revealed,  46, 47,  474-479,  504-507. 

6.   The  Augustinian  Theory,  or  Theory  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship. 

This  theory  was  first  elaborated  by  Augustine  (354-430),  the  great 
opponent  Of  Pelagius  ;  although  its  central  feature  appears  in  the  writings 
of  Tertullian  (  died  about  220),  Hilary  (350),  and  Ambrose  (  374).  It  is 
frequently  designated  as  the  Augustinian  view  of  sin.  It  was  the  view  held 
by  the  Reformers,  Zwingle  excepted.  Its  principal  advocates  iu  this 
country  are  Dr.  Shedd  and  Dr.  Baird. 

It  holds  that  God  imputes  the  sin  of  Adam  immediately  to  all  his  poster- 
ity, in  virtue  of  that  organic  unity  of  mankind  by  which  the  whole  race  at 
the  time  of  Adam's  transgression  existed,  not  individually,  but  seminally, 
in  him  as  its  head.  The  total  life  of  humanity  was  then  in  Adam  ;  the  race 
as  yet  had  its  being  only  in  him.  Its  essence  was  not  yet  individualized  ; 
its  forces  were  not  yet  distributed  ;  the  powers  which  now  exist  in  sepa- 
rate men  were  then  unified  and  localized  in  Adam  ;  Adam's  will  was  yet  the 
will  of  the  species.  In  Adam's  free  act,  the  will  of  the  race  revolted  from 
God  and  the  nature  of  the  race  corrupted  itself.  The  nature  which  we  now 
possess  is  the  same  nature  that  corrupted  itself  in  Adam —  "  not  the  same 
in  kind  merely,  but  the  same  as  flowing  to  us  continuously  from  him. " 


620  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us  immediately,  therefore,  not  a,s  something 
foreign  to  us,  but  because  it  is  ours  —  we  and  ail  other  men  having  existed 
as  one  moral  person  or  one  moral  whole,  in  him,  and,  as  the  result  of  that 
transgression,  possessing  a  nature  destitute  of  love  to  God  and  prone  to 
evil.  In  Rom.  5  :  12  —  "  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned," 
signifies :  "  death  physical,  spiritual,  and  eternal  passed  unto  all  men, 
because  all  sinned  in  Adam  their  natural  head. " 

Milton,  Par.  Lost,  9 :  414  —  "  Where  likeliest  he  [Satan]  might  find  The  only  two  of 
mankind,  but  in  them  The  whole  included  race,  his  purpos'd  prey."  Augustine,  De  Pec. 
Mer.  ct  Rem.,  3:7  —  "In  Adamo  omnes  tunc  peccaverunt,  quando  in  ejus  natura  adhuc 
omnes  ille  unus  fuerunt";  De  Civ.  Dei,  13,  14  — "Omnes  enim  fuimus  in  illo  uno, 

quando  omnes  fuimus  ille  unus Nondum  erat  nobis  singillatim  creata  et  distrib- 

uta  forma  in  qua  singuli  viveremus,  sed  jam  natura  erat  seminalis  ex  qua  propagare- 
mur."  On  Augustine's  view,  see  Dorner,  G laubenslehre,  2 ;  43-45  (  System  Doct.,  2 :  338t 
33!))— In  opposition  to  Pelagius  who  made  sin  to  consist  in  single  acts,  "Augustine 
emphasized  the  sin  ful  state.  This  was  a  deprivation  of  original  righteousness  +  inordi- 
nate love.  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Hilarius,  Ambrose  had  advocated  traducianism,  accord- 
ing to  which,  without  their  personal  participation,  the  sinfulness  of  all  is  grounded  in 
Adam's  free  act.  They  incur  its  consequences  as  an  evil  which  is,  at  the  same  time, 
punishment  of  the  inherited  fault.  But  Irenneus,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  say 
Adam  was  not  simply  a  single  individual,  but  the  universal  man.  We  were  comprehended 
in  him,  so  that  in  him  we  sinned.  On  the  first  view,  the  posterity  were  passive ;  on  the 
second,  they  were  active,  in  Adam's  sin.  Augustine  represents  both  views,  desiring  to 
unite  the  universal  sinfulness  involved  in  traducianism  with  the  universal  will  and  guilt 
involved  in  cooperation  with  Adam's  sin.  Adam,  therefore,  to  him,  is  a  double  concep- 
tion, and  =  individual  +  race." 

Mozley  on  Predestination,  402 —  "  In  Augustine,  some  passages  refer  all  wickedness  to 
original  sin  ;  some  account  for  different  degrees  of  evil  by  different  degrees  of  original 
sin  (Op.  imp.  cont.  Julianum,  4:128 — '  Malitia  naturalis  ....  in  aliis  minor,  in  aliis 
major  est ') ;  in  some,  the  individual  seems  to  add  to  original  sin  (  De  Correp.  et  Gratia, 
e.  13 — '  Perliberum  arbitrium  alia  iusuper  addiderunt,  alii  majus,  alii  minus,  sed  omnes 
mali.'  De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  2  : 1 — 'Added  tothesin  of  their  birth  sins  of  their  own 
commission ' ;  2:4-'  Neither  denies  our  liberty  of  will,  whether  to  choose  an  evil  or  a 
good  life,  nor  attributes  to  it  so  much  power  that  it  can  avail  anything  without  God's 
grace,  or  that  it  can  change  itself  from  evil  to  good ')."  These  passages  seem  to  show 
that,  side  by  side  with  the  race-sin  and  its  development,  Augustine  recognized  adomain 
of  free  personal  decision,  by  which  each  man  could  to  some  extent  modify  his  character, 
and  make  himself  more  or  less  depraved. 

The  theory  of  Augustine  was  not  the  mere  result  of  Augustine's  temperament  or  of 
Augustine's  sins.  Many  men  have  sinned  like  Augustine,  but  their  intellects  have  only 
been  benumbed  and  have  been  led  into  all  manner  of  unbelief.  It  was  the  Holy  Spirit 
ivho  took  possession  of  the  temperament,  and  so  overruled  the  sin  as  to  make  it  a  glass 
through  which  Augustine  saw  the  depths  of  his  nature.  Nor  was  his  doctrine  one  of 
exclusive  divine  transcendence,  which  left  man  a  helpless  worm  at  enmity  with  infinite 
justice.  He  was  also  a  passionate  believer  in  the  immanence  of  God.  He  writes:  "I 
could  not  be,  O  my  God,  could  not  be  at  all,  wert  not  thou  in  me  ;  rather,  were  not  I  in 
thee,  of  whom  are  all  things,  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  whom  are  are  all  things.  . . .  O 
God,  thou  hast  made  us  for  thyself,  and  our  heart  is  restless,  till  it  find  rest  in  thee. 
....  The  will  of  God  is  the  very  nature  of  things  — Dei  voluntas  rerum  natura  est." 

Allen,  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  Introduction,  very  erroneously  declares  that 
"  the  Augustinian  theology  rests  upon  the  transcendence  of  Deity  as  its  controlling 
principle,  and  at  every  point  appears  as  an  inferior  rendering  of  the  earlier  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Christian  faith."  On  the  other  hand,  L.  L.  Paine,  Evolution  of  Trinitarian- 
ism,  69,  368-397,  shows  that,  while  Athanasius  held  to  a  dualistic  transcendence,  Augus- 
tine held  to  a  theistic  immauence :  "Thus  the  Stoic,  Neo-Platonic  immanence,  with 
Augustine,  supplants  the  Platonico-Aristotelian  and  Athanasian  transcendence."  Alex- 
ander, Theories  of  the  Will,  90—  "  The  theories  of  the  early  Fathers  were  indetermiuis- 
tic,  and  the  pronounced  Augustinianism  of  Augustine  was  the  result  of  the  rise  into 
prominence  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  . . .  The  early  Fathers  thought  of  the  origin 
of  sin  in  angels  and  in  Adam  as  due  to  free  will.    Augustine  thought  of  the  origin  of 


AUGUSTINIAN  THEORY   OF   IMPUTATION".  621 

sin  in  Adam's  posterity  as  due  to  inherited  evil  will."  Harnaek,  Wesen  des  Christen- 
thums,  161  — "To  this  day  in  Catholicism  inward  and  living  piety  and  the  expression  of 
it  is  in  essence  wholly  Augustinian." 

Calvin  was  essentially  Augustinian  and  realistic ;  see  his  Institutes,  book2,  chap.  1-3 ; 
Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  1 :  505,  506,  with  the  quotations  and  references.  Zwingle  was 
not  an  Augustinian.  He  held  that  native  vitiosity,  although  it  is  the  uniform  occasion 
of  sin,  is  Dot  itself  sin :  "  It  is  not  a  crime,  but  a  condition  and  a  disease."  See  Hagen- 
bach,  Hist.  Doct.  2  :  2.56,  with  references.  Zwingle  taught  that  every  new-born  child  — 
thanks  to  Christ's  making  alive  of  all  those  who  had  died  in  Adam  — is  as  free  from  any 
taint  of  sin  as  Adam  was  before  the  fall.  The  Reformers,  however,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Zwingle,  were  Augustinians,  and  accounted  for  the  hereditary  guilt  of 
mankind,  not  by  the  fact  that  all  men  were  represented  in  Adam,  but  that  all  men  par- 
ticipated in  Adam's  sin.    This  is  still  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  church. 

The  theory  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship  regards  humanity  at  large  as  the  outgrowth 
of  one  germ.  Though  the  leaves  of  a  tree  appear  as  disconnected  units  when  we  look 
down  upon  them  from  above,  a  view  from  beneath  will  discern  the  common  connection 
with  the  twigs,  branches,  trunk,  and  will  finally  trace  their  life  to  the  root,  and  to  the 
seed  from  which  it  originally  sprang.  The  race  of  man  is  one  because  it  sprang  from 
one  head.  Its  members  are  not  to  be  regarded  atomistically,  as  segregated  individuals  ; 
the  deeper  truth  is  the  truth  of  organic  unity.  Yet  we  are  not  philosophical  realists  ; 
we  do  not  believe  in  the  separate  existence  of  universals.  We  hold,  not  to  uiiin  rsalia 
ante  rem,  which  is  extreme  realism  ;  nor  to  uniot  rsalia  post  rem,  which  is  nominalism  ; 
but  to  universalia  in  re,  which  is  moderate  realism.  Extreme  realism  cannot  sec  the 
trees  for  the  wood;  nominalism  cannot  see  the  wood  for  the  trees;  moderate  realism 
sees  the  wood  in  the  trees.  We  hold  to  "  universalia  in  re,  but  insist  that  the  universals 
must  be  recognized  as  realities,  as  truly  as  the  individuals  are  "  (  H.  B.  Smith,  System , 
319,  note).  Three  acorns  have  a  common  life,  as  three  spools  have  not.  Moderate  realism 
is  true  of  organic  things;  nominalism  is  true  only  of  proper  names.  God  has  not  created 
any  new  tree  nature  since  he  created  the  first  tree  ;  nor  has  he  created  any  new  human 
nature  since  he  created  the  first  man.  I  am  but  a  branch  and  outgrowth  of  the  tree  of 
humanity. 

Our  realism  then  only  asserts  the  real  historical  connection  of  each  member  of  the 
race  with  its  first  father  and  head,  and  such  a  derivation  of  each  from  him  as  makes  us 
partakers  of  the  character  which  he  formed.  Adam  was  once  the  race  ;  and  when  he 
fell,  the  race  fell.  Shedd:  "We  all  existed  in  Adam  in  our  elementary  invisible  substance. 
The  Seijn  of  all  was  there,  though  the  Bus,  yn  was  not;  the  noumemon,  though  not  the 
phenomenon,  was  in  existence."  On  realism,  see  Koehler,  Realismusund  N'ominalismus  ; 
Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  4:356;  Domer,  Person  Christ,  2:377;  Hase,  Anselm,  2:77;  P.  E. 
Abbott,  Scientific  Theism,  Introd.,  1-29,  and  in  Mind,  Oct.  1882:476,  477;  Raymond, 
Theology,  2:30-33;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2:69  74;  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and 
Knowledge,  129-132  ;Teu  Broeke,  in  Baptist  Quar.  Rev..  Jan.  1892: 1-26 ;  Baldwin,  Psychol- 
ogy, 280,  281 ;  D.  J.  Hill,  Genetic  Philosophy,  1S6 ;  Hours  with  the  Mystics,  1 :  213 ;  Case, 
Physical  Realism,  17-19;  Fullertou,  Samenesss  and  Identity,  88,  89,  and  Concept  of  the 
Infinite,  95-114. 

The  new  conceptions  of  the  reign  of  law  and  of  the  principle  of  heredity  which  pre- 
vail in  modern  science  are  working  to  the  advantage  of  Christian  theology.  The  d<  ><•- 
trine  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship  is  only  a  doctrine  of  the  hereditary  transmission  of 
character  from  the  first  father  of  the  race  to  his  descendants.  Hence  we  use  the  word 
"  imputation  "  in  its  proper  sense  —  that  of  a  reckoning  or  charging  to  us  of  that  which 
is  truly  and  properly  ours.  See  Julius  Muller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2:259-357,  esp.  328  — 
"The  problem  is:  We  must  allow  that  the  depravity,  which  all  Adam's  descendants 
inherit  by  natural  generation,  nevertheless  involves  personal  guilt;  and  yet  this 
depravity,  so  far  as  it  is  natural,  wants  the  very  conditions  on  which  guilt  depends. 
The  only  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  original 
sin.  Here  alone,  if  its  inner  possibility  can  be  maintained,  can  the  apparently  contra- 
dictory principles  be  harmonized,  viz. :  the  universal  and  deep-seated  depravity  of 
human  nature,  as  the  source  of  actual  sin,  and  individual  responsibility  and  guilt." 
These  words,  though  written  by  one  who  advocates  a  different  theory,  are  nevertheless 
a  valuable  argument  in  corroboration  of  the  theory  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship. 

Thornwell,  Theology,  1 :  343— "We  must  contradict  every  Scripture  text  and  every 
Scripture  doctrine  which  makes  hereditary  impurity  hateful  to  God  and  punishable  in 
his  sight,  or  we  must  maintain  that  we  sinned  in  Adam  in  his  first  transgression."  Sec- 
retin, in  his  Work  on  Liberty,  held  to  a  collective  life  of  the  race  in  Adam.    He  was 


622  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

answered  by  Naville,  Problem  of  Evil :  "  We  existed  in  Adam,  not  individually,  but 
seminally.  Each  of  us,  as  an  individual,  is  responsible  only  for  his  personal  acts,  or,  to 
speak  more  exactly,  for  the  personal  part  of  his  acts.  But  each  of  us,  as  he  is  man,  is 
jointly  and  severally  (soltilairement )  responsible  for  the  fall  of  the  human  race."  Ber- 
sier,  The  Oneness  of  the  Race,  in  its  Fall  and  in  its  Future :  "  If  we  are  commanded  to 
love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  it  is  because  our  neighbor  is  ourself." 

See  Edwards,  Original  Sin,  part  4,  cbap.  3;  Sliedd,  on  Original  Sin,  in  Discourses  and 
Essays,  218-271,  and  references,  261-263.  also  Dogm.  Theol.,  2:181-195;  Baird,  Elohim 
Revealed,  410-435,  451-460,  494 ;  Schaff,  in  Bib.  Sac,  5  :  220,  and  in  Lange's  Com.,  on  Rom. 
5:12;  Auberlen,  Div.  Revelation,  175-180;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  3:28-38,  204-236;  Tho- 
masius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  269-400;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  173-183;  Murphy, 
Scientific  Bases,  262  sq.,  cf.  101 ;  Birks,  Difficulties  of  Belief,  135 ;  Bp.  Reynolds,  Sinfulness 
of  Sin,  in  Works,  1 :  102-350;  Mozley  on  Original  Sin,  in  Lectures,  136-152;  Kendall,  on 
Natural  Heirship,  or  All  the  World  Akin,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  Oct.  1885  :  614-626. 
Per  contra,  see  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  157-164,  227-257  ;  Haven,  in  Bib.  Sac,  20  :  451-455 ; 
Criticism  of  Baird's  doctrine,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Apr.  1860 :  335-376 ;  of  Schaff' s  doctrine, 
in  Princeton  Rev.,  Apr.  1870  :  239-262. 

We  regard  this  theory  of  the  Natural  Headship  of  Adam  as  the  most  sat- 
isfactory of  the  theories  mentioned,  and  as  f  urnishing  the  most  important 
help  towards  the  understanding  of  the  great  problem  of  original  sin.  In 
its  favor  may  be  urged  the  full  owing  considerations  : 

A.  It  puts  the  most  natural  interpretation  upon  Rom.  5  :  12-21.  In 
verse  12  of  this  passage —  "  death  jmssed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned" 
—  the  great  majority  of  commentators  regard  the  word  ' '  sinned  "  as  describ- 
ing a  common  transgression  of  the  race  in  Adam.  The  death  spoken  of 
is,  as  the  whole  context  shows,  mainly  though  not  exclusively  physical. 
It  Las  passed  upon  all  —  even  upon  those  who  have  committed  no  conscious 
and  personal  transgression  whereby  to  explain  its  infliction  (verse  14). 
The  legal  phraseology  of  the  passage  shows  that  this  infliction  is  not  a 
matter  of  sovereign  decree,  but  of  judicial  penalty  (verses  13,  14,  15,  16, 
18 — "law,"  "transgression,"  "trespass,"  "judgment  ....  of  one  unto 
condemnation,"  "act  of  righteousness,"  "justification  ").  As  the  expla- 
nation of  this  universal  subjection  to  penalty,  we  are  referred  to  Adam's 
sin.  By  that  one  act  (  "so,"  verse  12 )  —  the  "  trespass  of  the  one  "  man 
(v.  15,  17 ),  the  "  one  trespass"  (v.  18 )  — death  came  to  all  men,  because 
all  [  not  '  have  sinned ',  but  ]  sinned  ( navvec  jj/iapruv  —  aorist  of  instantaneous 
past  action )  — that  is,  all  sinned  in  "  the  one  trespass  "  of  "the  one  "  man. 
Compare  1  Cor.  15  :  22  —  "As  in  Adam  all  die  "  —  where  the  contrast  with 
physical  resurrection  shows  that  physical  death  is  meant ;  2  Cor.  5  :  14  — 
"one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died."  See  Commentaries  of  Meyer, 
Bengel,  Olshausen,  Philippi,  Wordsworth,  Lange,  Godet,  Shedd.  This  is 
also  recognized  as  the  correct  interpretation  of  Paul's  words  by  Beyschlag, 
Ritschl,  and  Pfleiderer,  although  no  one  of  these  three  accepts  Paul's  doc- 
trine as  authoritative. 

Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theology,  2 :  58-60  —  "  To  understand  the  apostle's  view,  we  must 
follow  the  exposition  of  Bengel  (which  is  favored  also  by  Meyer  and  Pfleiderer): 
' Because  they  —  viz.,  in  Adam  —  all  ha?e  sinned ' ;  they  all,  namely,  who  were  included  in  Adam 
according  to  the  O.  T.  view  which  sees  the  whole  race  in  its  founder,  acted  in  his 
action."  Ritschl :  "  Certainly  Paul  treated  the  universal  destiny  of  death  as  due  to  the 
sin  of  Adam.  Nevertheless  it  is  not  yet  suited  for  a  theological  rule  just  for  the  reason 
that  the  apostle  has  formed  this  idea ;"  in  other  words,  Paul's  teaching-  it  does  not  make 
it  binding  upon  our  faith.  Philippi,  Com.  on  Rom.,  168  —  Interpret  Rom.  5:12  — "one 
sinned  for  all,  therefore  all  sinned,"  by  2  Cor.  5  :  15  —  "  one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died."  Evans, 
in  Presb.  Rev.,  1883 :  294  —  "  by  the  trespass  of  the  one  the  many  died,"  "  by  the  trespass  of  the  one,  death  reigned 


AUGUSTINIAN   THEORY   OF   IMPUTATION-.  623 

through  the  one,"  "through  the  one  man's  disobedience" — all  these  phrases,  and  the  phrases  with 
respect  to  salvation  which  correspond  to  them,  indicate  that  the  fallen  race  and  the 
redeemed  race  are  each  regarded  as  a  multitude,  a  totality.  So  oi  -navres  in  2  Cor.  5 :  14 
indicates  a  corresponding  conception  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race. 

Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  Pauline  T&cology,  32-40, 1-9-139,  denies  that  Paul  taught  the 
sinning  of  all  men  in  Adam :  "  They  sinned  in  the  same  sense  in  which  believers  were 
crucified  to  the  world  and  died  unto  sin  when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross.  The  believer's 
renewal  is  conceived  as  wrought  in  advance  by  those  acts  and  experiences  of  Christ  in 
which  it  has  its  ground.  As  the  consequences  of  his  vicarious  sufferings  are  traced 
back  to  their  cause,  so  are  the  consequences  which  flowed  from  the  beginning  of  sin  in 
Adam  traced  back  to  that  original  fount  of  evil  and  identified  with  it;  but  the  latter 
statement  should  no  more  be  treated  as  a  rigid  logical  formula  than  the  former,  its 

counterpart There  is  a  mystical  identification  of  the  procuring  cause  with  its 

effect,  —  both  in  the  case  of  Adam  and  of  Christ." 

In  our  treatment  of  the  New  School  theory  of  sin  we  have  pointed  out  that  the 
inability  to  understand  the  vital  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ  incapacitates  Ibo 
New  School  theologian  from  understanding  the  organic  union  of  the  race  with  Adam. 
Paul's  phrase  "inChrist"  meant  more  than  that  Christ  is  the  type  and  beginner  of  sal- 
vation, and  sinning  in  Adam  meant  more  to  Paul  than  following  the  example  or  acting  in 
the  spirit  of  our  first  Father.  In  2  Cor,  5:M  the  argument  is  that  since  Christ  died,  all 
believers  died  to  sin  and  death  in  him.  Their  resurrection-life  is  t  lie  same  life  t  hat  died 
and  rose  again  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  So  Adam's  sin  is  ours  because  the  same 
life  which  transgressed  and  became  corrupt  in  him  has  come  down  to  us  and  is  our 
possession.  In  Rom.  5:14,  the  individual  and  conscious  sins  to  which  the  New  School 
theory  attaches  the  condemning  sentence  are  expressly  excluded,  and  in  verses  15-19  the 
judgment  is  declared  to  be  "of  one  trespass."  Prof.  Win.  Arnold  Stevens,  <>l  Rochester,  says 
well:  "Paul  teaches  that  Adam's  sin  is  ours,  not  potentially,  but  actually.'*  Of 
rjnapToc,  he  says  :  "  This  might  conceivably  lie  :  ( 1 )  the  historical  aorist  proper,  used  in 
its  momentary  sense;  (2)  the  comprehensive  or  collective  aorist,  as  in  Str)*dm>  in  the 
same  verse;  (3)  the  aorist  used  in  the  sense  of  the  English  perfect,  as  in  Rom.  3:23  — 
iroLVTts  yip  rj/iapToi'  «ai  vaTepovvrai.  In  5 :  12,  the  context  determines  with  great  probability 
that  the  aorist  is  used  in  the  first  of  these  senses."  We  mas  add  thai  interpreters  are 
not  wanting  who  so  take  irinaprov  in  3:23;  see  also  margin  of  Rev.  Version.  lint  since 
the  passage  Rom.  5 :  12-19  is  so  important,  we  reserve  to  the  close  of  this  section  a  treat- 
ment of  it  in  greater  detail. 

B.  It  permits  whatever  of  truth  there  may  be  iu  the  Federal  theory  ami 
in  the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation  to  be  combined  with  it,  while  neither 
of  these  latter  theories  can  be  justified  to  reason  unless  they  are  regarded 
as  corollaries  or  accessories  of  the  truth  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship.  Only 
on  this  supposition  of  Natural  Headship  could  God  justly  constitute  Adam 
our  representative,  or  hold  us  responsible  for  the  depraved  nature  we  have 
received  from  him.  It  moreover  justifies  God's  ways,  in  postulating  a  real 
and  a  fair  probation  of  our  common  nature  as  preliminary  to  imputation  of 
sin  —  a  truth  which  the  theories  just  mentioned,  in  common  with  that  of 
the  New  School,  virtually  deny, — while  it  rests  upon  correct  philosophical 
principles  with  regard  to  will,  ability,  law,  and  accepts  the  Scriptural 
representations  of  the  nature  of  sin,  the  penal  character  of  death,  the 
origin  of  the  sold,  and  the  oneness  of  the  race  in  the  transgression. 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1:196-232,  favors  the  view  that  sin  consists 
simply  in  an  inherited  bias  of  our  nature  to  evil,  and  that  we  are  guilty  from  birth 
because  we  are  sinful  from  birth.  But  he  recognizes  in  Augustinianism  the  truth  of 
the  organic  unity  of  the  race  and  the  implication  of  every  member  in  its  past  history. 
He  tells  us  that  we  must  not  regard  man  simply  as  an  abstract  or  isolated  individual. 
The  atomistic  theory  regards  society  as  having  no  existence  other  than  that  of  the 
individuals  who  compose  it.  But  it  is  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  it  is  society  which 
creates  the  individual,  rather  than  that  the  individual  creates  society.  Man  does  not 
come  into  existence  a  blank  tablet  on  which  external  agencies  may  write  whatever 
record  they  will.    The  individual  is  steeped  in  influences  which  are  due  to  the  past  his- 


624  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

tory  of  his  kind.  The  individualistic  theory  runs  counter  to  the  most  obvious  facts  of 
observation  and  experience.  As  a  philosophy  of  life,  Augustinianism  has  a  depth  and 
significance  which  the  individualistic  theory  cannot  claim." 

Alvah  Hovey,  Manual  of  Christian  Theology,  175  ( 2d  ed. )  —  "  Every  child  of  Adam  is 
accountable  for  the  degree  of  sympathy  which  he  has  for  the  whole  system  of  evil  in 
the  world,  and  with  the  primal  act  of  disobedience  among  men.  If  that  sympathy  is 
full,  whether  expressed  by  deed  or  thought,  if  the  whole  force  of  his  being  is  arrayed 
against  heaven  and  on  the  side  of  hell,  it  is  difficult  to  limit  his  responsibility." 
Schleiermacher  held  that  the  guilt  of  original  sin  attached,  not  to  the  individual  as  an 
i  ndividual,  but  as  a  member  of  the  race,  so  that  the  consciousness  of  race-union  carried 
with  it  the  consciousness  of  race-guilt.  He  held  all  men  to  be  equally  sinful  and  to 
differ  only  in  their  different  reception  of  or  attitude  toward  grace,  sin  being  the 
universal  malum  metaphysicum  of  Spinoza;  see  Pfleiderer,  Prot.  Theol.  seit  Kant,  113. 

C.  While  its  fundamental  presupposition  — a  determination  of  the  will 
of  each  member  of  the  race  prior  to  his  individual  consciousness  —  is  an 
hypothesis  difficult  in  itself,  it  is  an  hypothesis  which  furnishes  the  key  to 
many  more  difficulties  than  it  suggests.  Once  allow  that  the  race  was  one 
in  its  first  ancestor  and  fell  in  him,  and  light  is  thrown  on  a  problem 
otherwise  insoluble  —  the  problem,  of  our  accountability  for  a  sinful  nature 
which  we  have  not  personally  and  consciously  originated.  Since  we  can- 
not, with  the  three  theories  first  mentioned,  deny  either  of  the  terms  of 
this  problem  —  inborn  depravity  or  accountability  for  it, —  we  accept  this 
solution  as  the  best  attainable. 

Sterrett,  Reason  and  Authority  in  Religion,  20—"  The  whole  swing  of  the  pendulum 
of  thought  of  to-day  is  away  from  the  individual  and  towards  the  social  point  of  view. 
Theories  of  society  are  supplementing  theories  of  the  individual.  The  solidarity  of  man 
is  the  regnant  thought  in  both  the  scientific  and  the  historical  study  of  man.  It  is  even 
runninginto  the  extreme  of  a  determinism  that  annihilates  the  individual."  Chapman, 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Present  Age,  43—  "  It  was  never  less  possible  to  deny  the  truth  to 
which  theology  gives  expression  in  its  doctrine  of  original  sin  than  in  the  present  age. 
It  is  only  one  form  of  the  universally  recognized  fact  of  heredity.  There  is  a  collective 
evil,  for  which  the  responsibility  rests  on  the  whole  race  of  man.  Of  this  common  evil 
each  man  inherits  his  share ;  it  is  organized  in  his  nature ;  it  is  established  in  his  envi- 
ronment." E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The  tendency  of  modern  theology  [in  the  last  generation] 
was  to  individualization,  to  make  each  man  '  a  little  Almighty.'  But  the  human  race 
is  one  in  kind,  and  in  a  sense  is  numerically  one.  The  race  lay  potentially  in  Adam. 
The  entire  developing  force  of  the  race  was  in  him.  There  is  no  carrying  the  race  up, 
except  from  the  starting-point  of  a  fallen  and  guilty  humanity."  Goethe  said  that 
while  humanity  ever  advances,  individual  man  remains  the  same. 

The  true  test  of  a  theory  is,  not  that  it  can  itself  be  explained,  but  that  it  is  capable 
of  explaining.  The  atomic  theory  in  chemistry,  the  theory  of  the  ether  in  physics,  the 
theoi-y  of  gravitation,  the  theory  of  evolution,  are  all  in  themselves  indemonstrable 
hypotheses,  provisionally  accepted  simply  because,  if  granted,  they  unify  great  aggre- 
gations of  facts.  Coleridge  said  that  original  sin  is  the  one  mystery  that  makes  all 
other  things  clear.  In  this  mystery,  however,  there  is  nothing  self-contradictory  or 
arbitrary.  Gladden,  What  is  Left  ?  131—"  Heredity  is  God  working  in  us,  and  environ- 
ment is  God  working  around  us."  Whether  we  adopt  the  theory  of  Augustine  or  not, 
the  facts  of  universal  moral  obliquity  and  universal  human  suffering  confront  us. 
We  are  compelled  to  reconcile  these  facts  with  our  faith  in  the  righteousness  and  good- 
ness of  God.  Augustine  gives  us  a  unifying  principle  which,  better  than  any  other, 
explains  these  facts  and  justifies  them.  On  the  solidarity  of  the  race,  see  Bruce,  The 
Providential  Order,  280-310,  and  art.  on  Sin,  by  Bernard,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

D.  This  theory  finds  support  in  the  conclusions  of  modern  science : 
with  regard  to  the  moral  law,  as  requiring  right  states  as  well  as  right  acts ; 
with  regard  to  the  human  will,  as  including  subconscious  and  unconscious 
bent  and  determination  ;  with  regard  to  heredity,  and  the  transmission  of 
evil  character  ;  with  regard  to  the  unitv  an  J  solidarity  of  the  human  race- 


AUGUSTINIAN   THEORY   OF    IMPUTATION.  625 

The  Augustinian  theory  may  therefore  be  called  an  ethical  or  theological 
interpretation  of  certain  incontestable  and  acknowledged  biological  facts. 

Ribot,  Heredity,  1  — "  Heredity  is  that  biological  law  by  which  all  beings  endowed  with 
life  tend  to  repeat  themselves  in  their  Descendants  ;  it  is  for  the  species  what  personal 
identity  Is  for  the  individual.  By  it  a  groundwork  remains  unchanged  amid  incessant 
variations.  By  it  nature  ever  copies  and  imitates  herself;"  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent 
through  Christ,  203-218— "In  man's  moral  condition  we  find  arrested  development; 
reversion  to  a  savage  type;  hypocritical  and  self-protective  mimicry  of  virtue;  para- 
sitism; physical  and  moral  abnormality;  deep-seated  pervereion  of  faculty."  Simon, 
Reconciliation,  154  s</. — "The  organism  was  affected  before  the  individuals  which  are 

its  successive  differentiations  and  products  were  affected Humanity  as  an 

organism  received  an  injury  from  sin.  It  received  that  injury  at  the  very  beginning. 
....  At  the  moment  when  the  seed  began  to  germinate  disease  entered  and  it  was 
smitten  with  death  on  account  of  sin." 

Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  134—  "A  general  notion  has  no  actual  or 
possible  metaphysical  existence.  All  real  existence  is  necessarily  singular  and  individ- 
ual. The  only  way  to  give  the  notion  any  metaphysical  significance  is  to  turn  it  into  a 
law  inherent  in  reality,  and  this  attempt  will  fail  unless  we  liually  conceive  this  law  as 
a  rule  according  to  which  a  basal  intelligence  proceeds  in  positing  individuals."  Sheldon, 
in  the  Methodist  Review,  March,  1901  :  214-227,  applies  this  explanation  to  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin.  Men  have  a  common  nature,  he  says,  only  in  the  sense  that  they  arc 
resembling  personalities.  If  we  literally  died  in  Adam,  we  also  literally  died  in  Christ. 
There  is  no  all-inclusive  Christ,  any  more  than  there  is  an  all-inclusive  Adam.  Wc 
regard  this  argument  as  proving  the  precise  Opposite  of  its  Intended  conclusion.  There 
is  an  all-inclusive  Christ,  and  the  fundamental  error  of  most  of  those  who  oppose 
Augustinianism  is  that  they  misconceive  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ.  "A 
basal  intelligence"  here  "posits  individuals."  And  so  with  the  relation  of  men  to 
Adam.  Here  too  there  is  "a  law  inherent  in  reality"  -the  regular  working  of  the 
divine  will,  according  to  which  like  produces  like,  and  a  sinful  germ  reproduces  itself. 

E.  We  are  to  remember,  however,  that  while  this  theory  of  the  method 
of  our  union  with  Adam  is  merely  a  valuable  hypothesis,  the  problem 
wliich  it  seeks  to  explain  is,  in  both  its  terms,  presented  to  us  both  by 
conscience  and  by  Scriptme.  In  connection  with  this  problem  a  central 
fact  is  announced  in  Scripture,  which  we  feel  compelled  to  believe  upon 
divine  testimony,  even  though  every  attempted  explanation  should  prove 
unsatisfactory.  That  central  fact,  which  constitutes  the  substance  of  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  original  sin,  is  simply  this  :  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is 
the  immediate  cause  and  ground  of  inborn  depravity,  guilt  and  condemna- 
tion to  the  whole  human  race. 

Three  things  must  be  received  on  Scripture  testimony :  ( 1 )  inborn  depravity ;  ( 2 )  guilt 
and  condemnation  therefor  ;  (3)  Adam's  sin  the  cause  and  ground  of  both.  From  these 
three  positions  of  Scripture  it  seems  not  only  natural,  but  inevitable,  to  draw  the  infer- 
ence that  we  "all  sinned"  in  Adam.  The  Augustinian  theory  simply  puts  in  a  link  of 
connection  between  two  sets  of  facts  which  otherwise  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile. 
But,  in  putting  in  that  link  of  connection,  it  claims  that  it  is  merely  bringing  out  into 
clear  light  an  underlying  but  implicit  assumption  of  Paul's  reasoning,  and  this  it  seeks 
to  prove  by  showing  that  upon  no  other  assumption  can  Paul's  reasoning  be  understood 
at  all.  Since  the  passage  in  Rom.  5:12-19  is  so  important,  we  proceed  to  examine  it  in 
greater  detail.  Our  treatment  is  mainly  a  reproduction  of  the  substance  of  Shedd's 
Commentary,  although  we  have  combined  with  it  remarks  from  Meyer,  Schaff,  Moule, 
and  others. 

Exposition  of  Rom.  5  :  12-19.—  Parallel  between  the  salvation  in  Christ  and  the  ruin 
that  has  come  through  Adam,  in  each  case  through  no  personal  act  of  our  own,  neither 
by  our  earning  salvation  in  the  case  of  the  life  received  through  Christ,  nor  by  our 
individually  sinning  in  the  case  of  the  death  received  through  Adam.  The  statement 
of  the  parallel  is  begun  in 

Verse  12  :  "  as  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin,  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men, 
for  that  all  sinned,"  so  (as  we  may  complete  the  interrupted  sentence)  by  one  man  right- 

40 


626  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

eousness  entered  into  the  world,  and  life  by  righteousness,  and  so  life  passed  upon  all 
men,  because  all  became  partakers  of  this  righteousness.  Both  physical  and  spiritual 
death  is  meant.  That  it  is  physical,  is  shown  ( 1 )  from  verse  14 ;  ( 2 )  from  the  allusion  to 
Gen.  3:19;  (3)  from  the  universal  Jewish  and  Christian  assumption  that  physical  death 
was  the  result  of  Adam's  sin.  See  Wisdom  2  :  23, 24 ;  Siraeh  25 :  24 ;  2  Esdras  3 : 7,  21 ;  7 :  11, 
46,  48,  118;  9  :  19;  John  8  :  44;  1  Cor.  15  :  21.  That  it  is  spiritual,  is  evident  from  Rom.  5  :  18,  21, 
where  iu>rj  is  the  opposite  of  iWaros,  and  from  2  Tim.  1 ;  10,  where  the  same  contrast  occurs. 
The  outws  in  verse  12  shows  the  nuxle  in  which  historically  death  has  come  to  all,  namely, 
that  the  one  sinned,  and  thereby  brought  death  to  all ;  in  other  words,  death  is  the 
effect,  of  which  the  sin  of  the  one  is  the  cause.  By  Adam's  act,  physical  and  spiritual 
death  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  sinned,  dip'  <J  =  because,  on  the  ground  of  the 
fact  that,  for  the  reason  that,  all  sinned.  Traces  =  all,  without  exception,  infants 
included,  as  verse  14  teaches. 

*'  HjuapTOK  mentions  the  particular  reason  why  all  men  died,  viz.,  because  all  men  sinned. 
It  is  the  aorist  of  momentary  past  action  —  sinned  when,  through  the  one,  sin  entered 
into  the  world.  It  is  as  much  as  to  say,  "  because,  when  Adam  sinned,  all  men  sinned 
in  and  with  him."  This  is  proved  by  the  succeeding  explanatory  context  ( verses  15-19 ),  in 
which  it  is  reiterated  live  times  in  succession  that  one  and  only  one  sin  is  the  cause  of 
the  death  that  befalls  all  men.    Compare  1  Cor.  15:22.    The  senses  "all  were  sinful,"  "all 

became  Sinful,"  are  inadmissible,  for  aixaprdreiv  is  not  ajuapTwAbc  yiyvta&ai.  or  €ti>ai.     The 

sense  "death  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  have  consciously  aud  personally  sinned," 
is  contradicted  ( 1 )  by  vorse  14,  in  which  it  is  asserted  that  certain  persons  who  are  a  part 
of  Trai'Tes,  the  subject  of  r)p.*prov,  and  who  suffer  the  death  which  is  the  penalty  of  sin, 
did  not  commit  sins  resembling  Adam's  first  sin,  i.  c,  individual  and  conscious  trans- 
gressions ;  and  ( 2 )  by  verses  15-19,  in  which  it  is  asserted  repeatedly  that  only  one  sin,  and 
not  millions  of  transgressions,  is  the  cause  of  the  death  of  all  men.  This  sense  would 
seem  to  require  i<t>'  <?  wa^res  aiJiaprdvovaiv.  Neither  can  riixapTov  have  the  sense  "  were 
accounted  and  treated  as  sinners";  for  (1)  there  is  no  other  instance  in  Scripture 
where  this  active  verb  has  a  passive  signification  ;  and  ( 2 )  the  passive  makes  rjiuapTo^  to 
denote  God's  action,  and  not  man's.  This  would  not  furnish  the  justification  of  the 
infliction  of  death,  which  Paul  is  seeking. 

Verse  13  begins  a  demonstration  of  the  proposition,  in  verse  12,  that  death  comes  to  all, 
because  all  men  sinned  the  one  sin  of  the  one  man.  The  argument  is  as  follows :  Before 
the  law  sin  existed ;  for  there  was  death,  the  penalty  of  sin.  But  this  sin  was  not  sin 
committed  against  the  Mosaic  law,  because  that  law  was  not  yet  in  existence.  The 
death  in  the  world  prior  to  that  law  proves  that  there  must  have  been  some  other  law, 
against  which  sin  had  been  committed. 

Verse  14.  Nor  could  it  have  been  personal  and  conscious  violation  of  an  unwritten  law, 
for  which  death  was  inflicted ;  for  death  passed  upon  multitudes,  such  as  infants  and 
idiots,  who  did  not  sin  in  their  own  persons,  as  Adam  did,  by  violating  some  known 
commandment.  Infants  are  not  specifically  named  here,  because  the  intention  is  to 
include  others  who,  though  mature  in  years,  have  not  reached  moral  consciousness. 
But  since  death  is  everywhere  and  always  the  penalty  of  sin,  the  death  of  all  must  have 
been  the  penalty  of  the  common  sin  of  the  race,  when  iravre^  rj/xaprov  in  Adam.  The  law 
which  they  violated  was  the  Eden  statute,  Gen.  2 :  17.  The  relation  between  their  sin  and 
Adam's  is  not  that  of  resemblance,  but  of  identity.  Had  the  sin  by  which  death  came 
upon  them  been  one  like  Adam's,  there  would  have  been  as  many  sins,  to  be  the  cause 
of  death  and  to  account  for  it,  as  there  were  individuals.  Death  would  have  come  into 
the  world  through  millions  of  men,  and  not  "through  one  man"  (verse  12),  and  judgment 
would  have  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  through  millions  of  trespasses,  and  not 
"through  one  trespass "  ( v.  18 ).  The  object,  then,  of  the  parenthetical  digression  in  verses  13  and 
14  is  to  prevent  the  reader  from  supposing,  from  the  statement  that  "all  men  sinned," 
that  the  individual  transgressions  of  all  men  are  meant,  and  to  make  it  clear  that  only 
the  one  first  sin  of  the  one  first  man  is  intended.  Those  who  died  before  Moses  must 
have  violated  some  law.  The  Mosaic  law,  and  the  law  of  conscience,  have  been  ruled 
out  of  the  case.  These  persons  must,  therefore,  have  sinned  against  the  commandment 
in  Eden,  the  probationary  statute;  and  their  sin  was  not  similar  ( 6p.oiw? )  to  Adain's, 
but  Adam's  identical  sin,  the  very  same  sin  numerically  of  the  "one  man."  They  did  not, 
in  their  own  persons  and  consciously,  sin  as  Adam  did ;  yet  in  Adam,  and  in  the  nature 
common  to  him  and  them,  they  sinned  and  fell  (  versus  Current  Discussions  in  Theology, 
5:277,  278).  They  did  not  sin  like  Adam,  but  they  "sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in 
that  first  transgression  "  (  Westminster  Larger  Catechism,  22 ). 

Verses  15-17  show  how  the  work  of  grace  differs  from,  and  surpasses,  the  work  of  sin. 


AUGUSTINIAN   THEORY   OF    IMPUTATION".  627 

Over  against  God's  exact  justice  in  punishing;  all  for  the  first  sin  which  all  committed 
in  Adam,  is  set  the  gratuitous  justification  of  all  who  are  in  Christ.  Adam's  sin  is  the 
act  of  Adam  and  his  posterity  together ;  hence  the  imputation  to  the  posterity  is  just, 
and  merited.  Christ's  obedience  is  tli£  work  of  Christ  alone  ;  hence  the  imputation  of 
it  to  the  elect  is  gracious  and  unmerited.  Here  toO?  n-oAAou?  is  not  of  equal  extent  with 
oi  n-oAAot  in  the  first  clause,  because  other  passages  teach  that  "the  many"  who  die  in  Adam 
are  not  conterminous  with  "the  many"  who  live  in  Christ ;  see  1  Cor.  15:22;  Mat.  25:  46;  also, 
see  note  on  verse  18,  below.  Tous  7nAAovs  here  refers  to  the  same  persons  who,  in  verse  17, 
are  said  to  "receive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness."  Verse  16  notices  a  numerical 
difference  between  the  condemnation  and  the  justification.  Condemnation  results  from 
one  offense;  justification  delivers  from  many  offences.  Verse  17  enforces  and  explains 
verse  16.  If  the  union  with  Adam  in  his  sin  was  certain  to  bring  destruction,  the  union 
with  Christ  in  his  righteousness  is  yet  more  certain  to  bring  salvation. 

Verse  18  resumes  the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  which  was  commenced  in  verse  12, 
but  was  interrupted  by  the  explanatory  parenthesis  in  verses  13-17.  "As  through  one  trespass  .  . 
.  .  .  unto  all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  through  one  act  of  righteousness  ....  unto  all  men  unto  justification  of 
[  necessary  to  ]  life."  Here  the  "all  men  to  condemnation  "  =  the  »i  jroAAoi  in  verse  15  ;  and  the  "all 
men  unto  justification  of  life"  =  the  Tot/?  n-oAAou?  in  verso  15.  There  18  a  totality  in  each  case;  but, 
in  the  former  case,  it  is  the  "all  men"  who  derive  their  physical  lite  From  Adam,—  in  the 
latter  case,  it  is  t lie  "all  men"  who  derive  their  spiritual  life  from  Christ  (  compare  1  Cor, 
15:22  —  "  For  as  in  Adim  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive" — in  which  last  clause  Paul  is 
speaking,  as  the  context  shows,  not  of  the  resurrection  of  all  men,  both  saints  and 
sinners,  but  only  ol  t  he  blessed  resurrection  of  the  righteous;  in  Other  words,  of  the 
resurrection  of  those  who  are  one  with  Christ  ). 

Verse  19.  "  For  as  through  the  one  man's  disobedience  tho  many  were  constituted  sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  one  shall  the  many  be  constituted  righteous."  The  many  were  constituted  sinners  because, 
according  to  vers-?  12,  they  sinned  in  and  with  Adam  in  his  fall.  The  vert)  presupposes 
the  fact  of  natural  union  between  those  to  whom  it  relates.  Ail  men  are  declared  to 
be  sinners  on  the  ground  of  that  "one  trespass,"  because,  when  that  one  trespass  was  com- 
mitted, all  men  were  one  man —  that  is,  weri'  one  common  nature  in  the  first  human 
pair.  Sin  is  imputed,  because  it  is  commit  feci.  All  men  are  punished  with  death, 
because  they  literally  sinned  in  Adam,  and  not  because  they  are  metaphorically  reputed 
to  have  done  so,  but  in  factdidnot.  Oi  n-oAAcu is  used  in  contrast  with  the  one  forefather, 
and  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  designated  as  vnaxorj,  in  order  to  contrast  it  with  tho 

■napaxorj  of  Adam. 

Karao-Ta^Tjaoi'Tat  has  the  same  signification  as  in  the  first  pari  of  the  verse,  AiVaiot 
icaTao-Ta^rjo-oi/Tat  means  si m]>ly  "shall  be  justified,"  and  is  used  instead  of  SiKaitoArjaofTai, 
in  order  to  make  the  antithesis  of  <l/uapT<oAoi  K<xTeo-TddT)o-av  more  perfect.  This  being  "con- 
stituted righteous"  presupposes  the  fact  of  a  union  between  6  els  and  oi  n-oAAoi,  i.  e.,  between 
Christ  and  believers,  just  as  the  being  "constituted  sinners"  presupposed  the  fact  of  a  union 
between  6  eU  and  oi  ttoAAoi,  i.  e.,  between  all  men  and  Adam.  The  future  KaTaaTaQ-qo-ovrai. 
refers  to  the  succession  of  believers;  the  justification  of  all  was,  ideally,  complete; 
already,  but  actually,  it  would  await  the  times  of  individual  believing.  "The  many"  who 
shall  be  "constituted  righteous"  =  not  all  mankind,  but  only  "the  many"  to  whom,  in  versel.5, 
grace  abounded,  and  who  are  described,  in  verse  17,  as  "they  that  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of 
the  gift  of  righteousness." 

"  But  this  union  differs  in  several  important  particulars  from  that  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity.  It  is  not  natural  and  substantial,  but  moral  and  spiritual;  not  generic 
and  universal,  but  individual  and  by  election  ;  not  caused  by  the  creative  act  of  God, 
but  by  his  regenerating  act.  All  men,  without  exception,  are  one  with  Adam:  only 
believing  men  are  one  with  Christ.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  an  arbitrary 
act  in  the  sense  that,  if  God  so  pleased,  he  could  reckon  it  to  the  account  of  any  beings 
in  the  universe,  by  a  volition.  The  sin  of  Adam  could  not  be  imputed  to  the  fallen 
angels,  for  example,  and  punished  in  them,  because  they  never  were  one  with  Adam 
by  unity  of  substance  and  nature.  The  fact  that  they  have  committed  actual  trans- 
gression of  their  own  will  not  justify  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  them,  any  more 
than  the  fact  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  have  committed  actual  transgressions  of  their 
own  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  imputing  the  first  sin  of  Adam  to  them.  Nothing 
but  a  real  union  of  nature  and  being  can  justify  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin;  and, 
similarly,  the  obedience  of  Christ  could  no  more  be  imputed  to  an  unbelieving  man  than 
to  a  lost  angel,  because  neither  of  these  is  morally  and  spiritually  one  with  Christ" 
(Shedd).  For  a  different  interpretation  (rmapTov=  sinned  personally  and  individually), 
see  Kendrick,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1885  ;  48-73. 


628 


ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 


~ 

•3 

j 

43     g 

5  a 
•^  » 

. 

3 

43 

a 

o 

'p 

a 

3 

5 

a"    . 
'5  •£ 

&  a 

d 

■3 

4<r  . 

c 

3 

0)      * 

a  '8 

a 

1 

o 
d 

CD 

o 

d 

a 

=   <d 

K      d 

as 
2  s 

j  5  » 

a    .  d 

be  a  S 

•S  4  a 

532 

3  <w    ° 

°   1 

8  a 

ft 

1  a 

m     CD 
to    * 

>EH      CD 

a  & 

■  O    g 

«i 

(V 

55  1 

0  a" 
s  ° 

1    B 
•B    .2 

_C0    0 

g  -a 

"3 

'8    d 

Q 

■3 

a -S 

0  -a 

B    S 

d   S 
•a  B 

>>  a 

jg 

v   a 
«  o 

fi   a 
O  a 

0    8 
w  2 

£s 

>>  2 

03  ^ 

a. 

CD 

•3 

a 

0  4j 

0) 

■d 

•3 

a 

a 

a 

^      CO 

0  'Z 

O 

h-t 

H 

! 

o 
d 

0 

•3 

1 
a 
a    . 

■gl 
>  a 
d  S 

a    to 

•2  3 

cd  « 
a  d 

0  a 
0  -^ 

•a  &~ 

h   >■    d 

d 

SiO 

•1  g 

1  2 

k   d 

0  a 

^  3 

.   d 
CJ   to 

d      r- 

■a   § 

d     . 

C  I 
^   8 

g  1 

CD    ^° 

a  a 
d 

"d 

a 
a 

d 

'8    d 
>,  a 

to   43 

iz 

to  h 
c  3 

'fi    d 

a  a 
0   > 

fe 

1 

a  -a 

S  g  •a 
it  5,?, 
£   &  g 

0 

a  3 

■*>  a 

43  a 

55 

O 

M 
•< 

3 

fi 

«  | 

^| 

0  '8 
0   0 

3  a 

O  a 

■fi  fe 

Oh    2 

>>  d 

CO  <u 

o 
o 

•0  S 

— 

a 

d 

0 

3 

S  1?  » 

.2  9  •a 

S 

•3 

S    0 
0    d 

a 

d 

CD   .3 

H 
P 

s 
§ 

M 

ft 
O 

CO 

| 

M 
O 

i 
n 
H 

CO 

p 
o 

o 

£ 

a 

0 

3 

CD 

■2 
•a 

a 

*» 

3 

d 

a 
=>  £ 

M 

a  ts 
5   a 

0  insure  condemna 
his  fellows  in  cover 
d  their  creation  a: 
j.ved. 

•a 

a  .S 
a    <n 
O    tn 

a  3 

-  a 
43  ■** 

V    ■ 

CD     <D 

-  d 

S  a 

a  a 

a  a 

0    8 

to    S 

"a 
d  a 

S  fi 
fi   d 

a" 
'8  a 

to    °    m 

s  '■§.  ^ 

1  |  ■ 

■arc 

■3 
3 

a 

d 
'8    d 

k  a 

•fi  fe 
a.  2 

3    H 

8  ft 

d   0 

43       . 
SD  **     » 
fi     CO     S 
'53     3    43 
43     O    O 
I*   q-i 
!».S    ° 

Q   o 

E*  <"    c    S 

m  v 

O  0 

<   0   * 

0  d  a 

a 

a 

0  0 

CD 

C    d 

0 

a 
o 

3 

9 

a 

■0 

11 

0 

V  g 

■u    d 
'8   « 

«  5 

a 
43 

3    tn 

0 

d 

d 

3 

d 

CD 
0» 

•3 

3  S  a 
SS  1 

0          43 

M 

I 

b  « 
s  i 
•5  ° 

«  .2 

ta  S 

a    . 

a 

to  S  " 

g 
W 
H 

d 

3 

0 

.3 

•3 

d    tn 

•a  o 

d  .2 

fc  -fi 
a  « 

O  a 
43 

a  * 

a  « 

u  0 

0  *• 

H   £ 

a"! 

CD     CD 

»a  *a 
a   a 
g  2 

fi  -a 
P  > 

■5  a 
•a  '8 

3  s 

-a  1 
d   a 

d 
_  >> 

%  3 
2  0 

'£  2 
a  "5 

GO     0) 

a 

Sal 

3  5  g 
««   a 

|3h 

H 

O 

3 

B 
iS 

IS 

o 

EH 

«4 

a 

c 
d 

0) 
9 

2 

a 

£ 

a>    co 
d 

3  S 
«  * 

S  » 

•a  §3 

ipt  his  posterity 
f  and  intellectu- 
guilt  of  Adam's 
ed. 

Mi  2 

g  a 

2  ■a*  -a 

a  ■  *  j« 

.2  s  -C 

a 
a 

44       . 

0  a 
a  00 

fa 

•a 
«  g 

co    3 

a  3 

El 

"a  0 

3 
n 

CD 

11 

d     CD 

•a 

43 

a  1 
'■§  c 

5>  £ 
a  '5 

p 

g 

< 

If 

a  o  •" 
<d       .a 
Q   o   a 

e  = 0  s 

1  0  a 

d    t>c 

H   >> 

'     3f 

P 

§-s     a 

H  -a  s  .5 

a   «  co 

0   a   0 

J^     CO     4_, 

M     ^     1-1 

<       O 

0 

."     CD 

(-  -a 
w  1 

a  a 
>>  'S. 
a  a 

0  1 

.2    43 

"•  2 
43  3 

Oh    CD 

8  'a 
M   2 

O 

■3   03 

Odd 

■a 

3 

o 

BB 

a 

CO 

o 
o 

a 

o 

cd 
3 

?' 

1 

3 

3 

a 
a 

d 

£3 
43 
O 

to 

a 

!S 

a 

d 
g 

d 

•a 

a 

C5 

a  -a' 

<D     O 

gC5 

1 

3 

< 

a 

d 
43 

0 

CD 
•3 

a 

£ 

3s 

■3 

a 
0 
a 
a 

1 

0    . 

-2  a 

> 

CD       . 

""     % 

0   3 

a 

d 

a 

d 

d 

3 

% 
0    . 

«     CD 

2,  & 

a 

■?   d 

g 

a   .>. 

a   ^ 

a 

^  a 

^   d 

=  ■§ 

CD 

a 

H 

w    43 
O 

O 

-     X 

O   d 

H 

00 

M    X 

d 

•a 

<! 

0  -5 

a 

43   3 

o 

0) 

d 

3 

to    fi 

to  .9 

a 

a  _; 

'5d  a 
S   8 

d  43 

W    d 

■3 
0  "8 

■S  ft 

1  B 

'"   -3 

5   a 

""  43  - 

«S      CD      « 

43   _j    t. 

o     - 

r3 

W 

W 

& 

^ 

^ 

K 

1-1 

tn 

S 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  AUGUSTINIAN-  THEORY.  629 

II. —  Objections  to  the  Augustinian  Doctrine  of  Imputation. 

The  doctrine  of  Imputation,  to  which  we  have  thus  arrived,  is  met  by 
its  opponents  with  the  following  objections.  In  discussing  them,  we  are 
to  remember  that  a  truth  revealed  in  Scripture  may  have  claims  to  our 
belief,  in  spite  of  difficulties  to  us  insoluble.  Yet  it  is  hoped  that  examina- 
tion will  show  the  objections  in  question  to  rest  either  upon  false  phil- 
osophical principles  or  upon  misconception  of  the  doctrine  assailed. 

A.  That  there  can  be  no  sin  apart  troiri  and  prior  to  consciousness. 

This  we  deny.  The  larger  part  of  men's  evil  dispositions  and  acts  are 
imperfectly  conscious,  and  of  many  such  dispositions  and  acts  the  evil 
quality  is  not  discerned  at  all.  The  objection  rests  upon  the  assumption 
that  law  is  confined  to  published  statutes  or  to  standards  formally  recog- 
nized by  its  subjects.  A  profounder  view  of  law  as  identical  with  the 
constituent  principles  of  being,  as  binding  the  nature  to  conformity  with 
the  nature  of  (iod,  as  demanding  right  volitions  only  because  these  are 
manifestations  of  a  right  state,  as  having  claims  upon  men  in  their  cor- 
porate capacity,  deprives  this  objection  of  all  its  force. 

If  our  aim  is  to  find  a  conscious  ad  of  transgression  upon  which  to  base  God's 
charge  of  guilt  and  man's  condemnation,  we  can  find  tliis  more  easily  in  Adam's 
sin  than  at  the  beginning  of  each  man's  personal  history:  for  no  human  being  can 
remember  his  first  sin.  The  main  question  at  issue  is  therefore  this  ;  is  all  sin 
personal?  We  claim  thai  both  Scripture  and  reason  answer  this  question  in  the 
negative.    There  is  such  a  thing  as  race-sin  and  race-responsibility. 

B.  That  man  cannot  be  responsible  for  a  sinful  nature  which  he  did 
not  personally  originate. 

We  reply  that  the  objection  ignores  the  testimony  of  conscience  and  of 
Scripture.  These  assert  that  we  are  responsible  for  what  we  are.  The 
sinful  nature  is  not  something  external  to  us,  but  is  our  inmost  selves.  If 
man's  original  righteousness  and  the  new  affection  implanted  in  regenera- 
tion have  moral  character,  then  the  inborn  tendency  to  evil  has  moral 
character;  as  the  former  are  commendable,  so  the  latter  is  condemnable. 

If  it  he  said  that  sin  is  the  act  of  a  person,  and  not  of  a  nature,  we  reply  that  in  Adam 
the  whole  human  nature  once  subsisted  m  the  form  of  a  single  personality,  and  the 
act  of  the  person  could  be  at  the  same  time  the  act  of  the  nature.  That  which  could 
not  be  at  any  subsequent  point  of  time,  could  be  and  was,  at  that  time.  Human  nature 
could  fall  i/i  Adam,  though  that  fall  could  not  be  repeated  in  the  case  of  any  one  of  his 
descendants.  Hovey,  Outlines,  129 — "Shall  we  say  that  uill  is  the  cause  of  sin  in  holy 
beings,  while  wrong  desire  is  the  cause  of  sin  in  unholy  beings?  Augustine  held  this." 
Pepper,  Outlines,  112  —  "  We  do  not  fall  each  one  by  himself.  We  were  so  on  probation 
in  Adam,  that  his  fall  was  our  fall." 

C.  That  Adam's  sin  cannot  be  imputed  to  us,  since  we  cannot  repent 
of  it. 

The  objection  has  plausibility  only  so  long  as  we  fail  to  distinguish 
between  Adam's  sin  as  the  inward  apostasy  of  the  nature  from  God,  and 
Adam's  sin  as  the  outward  act  of  transgression  which  followed  and  mani- 
fested that  apostasy.  We  cannot  indeed  repent  of  Adam's  sin  as  our  per- 
sonal act  or  as  Adam's  personal  act,  but  regarding  his  sin  as  the  apostasy 
of  our  common  nature — an  apostasy  which  manifests  itself  in  our  personal 
transgressions  as  it  did  in  his,  we  can  repent  of  it  and  do  repent  of  it.     In 


630  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OB    THE   DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

truth  it  is  thin  nature,  as  self-corrupted  and  averse  to  God,  for  which  the 
Christian  most  deeply  repents. 

God,  we  know,  has  not  made  our  nature  as  wc  find  it.  We  are  conscious  of  our 
depravity  and  apostasy  from  God.  We  know  tbat  God  cannot  be  responsible  for  this ; 
we  know  that  our  nature  is  responsible.  But  this  it  could  not  be,  unless  Its  corruption 
were  self-corruption.  For  this  self-corrupted  nature  we  should  repent,  and  do  repent. 
Anselm,  De  Concep.  Virg.,  23— "Adam  sinned  in  one  point  of  view  as  a  person,  in 
another  as  man  ( L  e.,  as  human  nature  which  at  that  time  existed  in  him  alone).  But 
since  Adam  and  humanity  could  not  be  separated,  the  sin  of  the  person  necessarily 
affected  the  nature.  This  nature  is  what  Adam  transmitted  to  his  posterity,  and 
transmitted  it  such  as  his  sin  had  made  it,  bm-dened  with  a  debt  which  it  could  not  pay, 
robbed  of  the  righteousness  with  which  God  had  originally  invested  it ;  and  in  every 
one  of  his  descendants  this  impaired  nature  makes  the  persons  sinners.  Yet  not  in  the 
same  degree  sinners  as  Adam  was,  for  the  latter  sinned  both  as  human  nature  and  as 
a  person,  while  new-born  infants  sin  only  as  they  possess  the  nature,"—  more  briefly,  in 
Adam  a  person  made  nature  sinful ;  in  his  posterity,  nature  makes  persons  sinful. 

D.  That,  if  we  be  responsible  for  Adam's  first  sin,  we  must  also  be 
responsible  not  only  for  every  other  sin  of  Adam,  but  for  the  sins  of  our 
immediate  ancestors. 

We  reply  that  the  apostasy  of  human  nature  could  occur  but  once.  It 
occurred  in  Adam  before  the  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  revealed 
itself  in  that  eating.  The  subsequent  sins  of  Adam  and  of  our  immediate 
ancestors  are  no  longer  acts  which  determine  or  change  the  nature,  — they 
only  show  what  the  nature  is.  Here  is  the  truth  and  the  limitation  of  the 
Scripture  declaration  that  "the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father  " 
(  Ez.  18  :  20  ;  cf.  Luke  13  :  2,  3  ;  John  9  :  2,  3  ).  Man  is  not  responsible 
for  the  specifically  evil  tendencies  communicated  to  him  from  his  immedi- 
ate ancestors,  as  distinct  from  the  nature  he  possesses  ;  nor  is  he  respons- 
ible for  the  sins  of  those  ancestors  which  originated  these  tendencies.  But 
he  is  responsible  for  that  original  apostasy  which  constituted  the  one  and 
final  revolt  of  the  race  from  God,  and  for  the  personal  depravity  and  dis- 
obedience which  in  his  own  case  has  resulted  therefrom. 

Augustine,  Encheiridion,  46,  47,  leans  toward  an  imputing  of  the  sins  of  immediate 
ancestors,  but  Intimates  that,  as  a  matter  of  grace,  this  may  be  limited  to  "the  third  and 
fourth  generation  "  ( Ex.  20 : 5 ).  Aquinas  thinks  this  last  is  .said  1  iy  <  i c >d,  because  fathers  live  to 
see  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  their  descendants,  and  influence  them  by  their 
example  to  become  voluntarily  like  themselves.  Burgesse,  Original  Sin,  397,  adds  the 
covenant-idea  to  that  of  natural  generation,  in  order  to  prevent  imputation  of  the 
sins  of  immediate  ancestors  as  well  as  those  of  Adam.  So  also  Shedd.  But  Baird,  Elo- 
him  Revealed,  508,  gives  a  better  explanation,  when  he  distinguishes  between  the  first 
sin  of  nature  when  it  apostatized,  and  those  subsequent  personal  actions  which  merely 
manifest  the  nature  but  do  not  change  it.  Imagine  Adam  to  have  remained  inno- 
cent, but  one  of  his  posterity  to  have  fallen.  Then  the  descendants  of  that  one  would 
have  been  guilty  for  the  change  of  nature  in  him,  but  not  guilty  for  the  sins  of 
ancestors  intervening  between  him  and  them. 

We  add  that  man  may  direct  the  course  of  a  lava-stream,  already  flowing  downward, 
into  some  particular  channel,  and  may  even  dig  a  new  channel  for  it  down  the  moun- 
tain. But  the  stream  is  constant  in  its  quantity  and  quality,  and  is  under  the  same  influ- 
ence of  gravitation  in  all  stages  of  its  progress.  I  am  responsible  for  the  downward 
tendency  which  my  nature  gave  itself  at  the  beginning;  but  I  am  not  responsible  for 
inherited  and  specifically  evil  tendencies  as  something  apart  from  the  nature, —  for  they 
are  not  apart  from  it,— they  are  forms  or  manifestations  of  it.  These  tendencies  run 
out  after  a  time,—  not  so  with  sin  of  nature.  The  declaration  of  Ezekiel  ( 18 :  20 ),  "  the  son 
shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  lather,"  like  Christ's  denial  that  blindness  was  due  to  the  blind 
man's  individual  sins  or  those  of  his  parents  ( John  9  :  2,  3  ),  simply  shows  that  God  does 
not  impute  to  us  the  sins  of  our  immediate  ancestors ;  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   AUOUSTINIAN"   THEORY.  631 

trine  that  all  the  physical  and  moral  evil  of  the  world  is  the  result  of  a  sin  of  Adam  with 
which  tin'  whole  race  is  chargeable. 

1'eeuiiar  tendencies  to  avarice  or  sensuality  inherited  from  one's  immediate  ancestry 
am  merely  wrinkles  in  native  depravity  which  add  nothing- to  its  amount  or  its  guilt. 
Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  g  :  88-94—  "To  inherit  a  temperament  is  to  inherit  a  secondary 
trait."  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  296  — '  Ezekiel  18  does  not  deny  that  descendants  are  involved 
in  the  eril  results  of  ancestral  sins,  under  Cod's  moral  government:  but  simply  shows 
that  there  is  opportunity  for  extrication,  in  persona!  repentance  and  obedience."  Moz- 
ley  on  Predestination,  179— "Augustine  says  that  Ezekiel's  declarations  that  the  son 
shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father  are  not  a  universal  law  of  the  divine  dealings, 
but  only  a  special  prophetical  one,  as  alluding  to  the  divine  mercy  under  the  gospel 
dispensation  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  under  which  the  effect  of  original  sin  and  the 
punishment  of  mankind  for  the  sin  of  their  first  parent  was  removed."  See  also  Dor- 
ner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  31  ( Syst.  Doct.,  2  :  326,  327  ),  where  God's  visiting  the  sins  of  the 
lathers  upon  the  children  (Ei.  20  :5)  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  children  repeat  the 
sins  of  the  parents.    ( ierman  proverb  :  "  The  apple  does  not  fall  far  from  the  tree." 

E.  That  if  Adam's  sin  and  condemnation  can  be  ours  by  propagation, 
the  righteousness  and  faith  of  the  believer  should  be  propagal  >le  also. 

We  reply  that  no  merely  personal  qualities,  whether  of  sin  or  righteous- 
ness, are  communicated  by  propagation.  Ordinary  generation  does  not 
transmit  personal  guilt,  but  only  that  guilt  which  belongs  to  the  whole 
species.  So  personal  faith  and  righteousness  are  not  propagable.  "Origi- 
nal sin  is  the  consequent  of  man's  nature,  whereas  the  parents'  grace  is  a 
personal  excellence,  and  cannot  be  transmitted  "  ( Burgesse). 

Thornwell,  Selected  Writing's,  1  :  543,  says  the  Augustinian  doctrine  would  imply  that 
Adam,  penitent  and  believing,  must  have  begotten  penitent  and  believing  children, 
seeing-  that  the  nature  as  it  is  in  the  parent  always  Hows  from  parent  to  child.  But  see 
Fisher,  Discussions,  370,  where  Aquinas  holds  that  no  quality  or  guilt  that  is  personal 
is  propagated  (Thomas  Aquinas,  2 :  829 ).  Anselm  (  De  Concept.  Virg.  et  Origin.  Pec 
cato,  98)  will  not  decide  the  question.  "The  original  nature  of  the  tree  is  propagated 
—  not  the  nature  of  the  graft"  —  when  seed  from  the  graft  is  planted.  Burgesse: 
"  Learned  parents  do  not  convey  learning  to  their  children,  but  they  are  born  in  ignor- 
ance as  others."  Augustine:  "A.lewthat  was  circumcised  begat  children  not  circum- 
cised, but  uncireumcised  ;  and  the  seed  that  was  sown  without  husks,  yet  produced 
corn  with  husks." 

Therecent  modification  of  Darwinism  by  Weismann  has  confirmed  the  doctrine  of  the 
text.  Lamarck's  view  was  that  development  of  each  race  has  taken  place  through 
the  effort  of  the  individuals, — the  giraffe  lias  a  long  neck  because  successive  giraffes 
have  reached  for  food  on  high  trees.  Darwin  held  that  development  has  taken  place 
not  because  of  effort,  but  because  of  environment,  which  kills  the  unfit  and  permits 
the  fit  to  survive,  —  the  giraffe  has  a  long  neck  because  among  the  children  of  giraffes 
only  the  long-necked  ones  could  reach  the  fruit,  and  of  successive  generations  of 
giraffes  only  the  long-necked  ones  lived  to  propagate.  But  Weismann  now  tells  us  that 
even  then  there  would  be  no  development  unless  there  were  a  spontaneous  Innate 
tendency  in  giraffes  to  become  long-necked,— nothing-  is  of  avail  after  the  giraffe  is 
born  ;  all  depends  upon  the  germs  in  the  parents.  Darwin  held  to  the  transmission  of 
aiipiir  d  characters,  so  that  individual  men  are  affluent?  of  the  stream  of  humanity; 
Weismann  holds,  on  the  contrary,  that  acquired  characters  are  not  transmitted,  and 
that  individual  men  arc  only  effluents  of  the  stream  of  humanity:  the  stream  gives  its 
characteristics  to  the  individuals,  but  the  individuals  do  not  give  their  characteristics 
to  the  stream :  see  Howard  Ernest  Cushman,  in  The  Outlook,  Jan.  10,  1897. 

Weismann,  Heredity,  2  :  14,  26G-270,  482  —  "  Characters  only  acquired  by  the  operation 
of  external  circumstances,  acting  during  the  life  of  the  individual,  cannot  be  transmit- 
ted. .  .  .  The  loss  of  a  finger  is  not  inherited ;  increase  of  an  organ  by  exercise  is  a 
purely  personal  acquirement  and  is  not  transmitted ;  no  child  of  reading  parents  ever 
read  without  being  taught ;  children  do  not  even  learn  to  speak  untaught."  Horses 
with  docked  tails,  Chinese  women  with  cramped  feet,  do  not  transmit  their  peculiari- 
ties. The  rupture  of  the  hymen  in  women  is  not  transmitted.  Weismann  cut  off  the 
tails  of  66  white  mice  in  five  successive  generations,  but  of  901  offspring  none  were 
tailless.    G.  J.  Romanes,  Life  and  Letters,  300  —  "  Three  additional  cases  of  cats  which 


632  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

have  lost  their  tails  having-  tailless  kittens  afterwards."  In  his  Weismannism,  Romanes 
writes :  "  The  truly  scientific  attitude  of  mind  with  regard  to  the  problem  of  heredity 
is  to  say  with  Galton  ■  '  We  might  almost  reserve  our  belief  that  the  structural  cells 
can  react  on  the  sexual  elements  at  all,  and  we  may  be  confident  that  at  most  they  do 
so  in  a  very  faint  degree  ;  in  other  words,  that  acquired  modifications  are  barely  if  at 
all  inherited,  in  the  correct  sense  of  that  word.'  "  This  seems  to  class  both  Romanes 
and  Galton  on  the  side  of  Weismann  in  the  controversy.  Burbank,  however,  says  that 
"  acquired  characters  are  transmitted,  or  I  know  nothing  of  plant  life." 

A.  H.  Bradford,  Heredity,  19,  20,  illustrates  the  opposing  views :  "  Human  life  is  not 
a  clear  stream  flowing  from  the  mountains,  receiving  in  Its  varied  course  something 
from  a  thousand  rills  and  rivulets  on  the  surface  and  in  the  soil,  so  that  it  is  no  longer 
pure  as  at  the  first.  To  this  view  of  Darwin  and  Spencer,  Weismann  and  Haeckel  oppose 
the  view  that  human  life  is  rather  a  stream  flowing  underground  from  the  mountains 
to  the  sea,  and  rising  now  and  then  in  fountains,  some  of  which  are  saline,  some  sul- 
phuric, and  some  tincturc-d  with  iron  ;  and  that  the  differences  are  due  entirely  to  the 
soil  passed  through  in  breaking  forth  to  the  surface,  the  mother-stream  down  and 
beneath  all  the  salt,  sulphur  and  iron,  flowing  on  toward  the  sea  substantially 
unchanged.  If  Darwin  is  correct,  then  we  must  change  individuals  in  order  to  change 
their  posterity.  If  Weismann  is  correct,  then  we  must  change  environment  in  order 
that  better  individuals  may  be  born.  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit ;  but 
that  which  is  born  of  spirit  tainted  by  corruptions  of  the  flesh  is  still  tainted." 

The  conclusion  best  warranted  by  science  seems  to  be  that  of  Wallace,  in  the  Forum, 
August,  1890,  namely,  that  there  is  always  a  tendency  to  transmit  acquired  characters, 
but  that  only  those  which  affect  the  blood  and  nervous  system,  like  drunkenness  and 
syphilis,  overcome  the  fixed  habit  of  the  organism  and  make  themselves  permanent. 
Applying  this  principle  now  to  the  connection  of  Adam  with  the  race,  we  regard  the 
sin  of  Adam  as  a  radical  one,  comparable  only  to  the  act  of  faith  which  merges  the  soul 
in  Christ.  It  was  a  turning  away  of  the  whole  being  from  the  light  and  love  of  God, 
and  a  setting  of  the  face  toward  darkness  and  death.  Every  subsequent  act  was  an  act 
in  the  same  direction,  but  an  act  which  manifested,  not  altered,  the  nature.  This  first 
act  of  siu  deprived  the  nature  of  all  moral  sustenance  and  growth,  except  so  far  as  the 
still  immanent  God  counteracted  the  inherent  tendencies  to  evil.  Adam's  posterity 
inherited  his  corrupt  nature,  but  they  do  not  inherit  any  subsequently  acquired  char- 
acters, either  those  of  their  first  father  or  of  their  immediate  ancestors. 

Bascom,  Comparative  Psychology,  chap.  VII  —  "  Modifications,  however  great,  like 
artificial  disablement,  that  do  not  work  into  physiological  structure,  do  not  transmit 
themselves.  The  more  conscious  and  voluntary  our  acquisitions  are,  the  less  are  they 
transmitted  by  inheritance."  Snaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  88  — "Heredity  and 
individual  action  may  combine  their  forces  and  so  intensify  one  or  more  of  the 
inherited  motives  that  the  form  is  affected  by  it  and  the  effect  may  be  transmitted  to 
the  offspring.  So  conflict  of  inheritances  may  lead  to  the  institution  of  variety. 
Accumulation  of  impulses  may  lead  to  sudden  revolution,  and  the  species  may  be 
changed,  not  by  environment,  but  by  contest  between  the  host  of  inheritances." 
Visiting  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  was  thought  to  be  outrageous  doc- 
trine, so  long  as  it  was  taught  only  in  Scripture.  It  is  now  vigorously  applauded,  since 
it  takes  the  name  of  heredity.  Dale,  Ephesians,  189  — "When  we  were  young,  we 
fought  with  certain  sins  and  killed  them;  they  trouble  us  no  more;  but  their  ghosts 
seem  to  rise  from  their  graves  in  the  distant  years  and  to  clothe  themselves  in  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  our  children."  See  A.  M.  Marshall,  Biological  Lectures,  273;  Mivart,  in 
Harper's  Magazine,  March,  1895 :  682 ;  Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  176. 

F.  That,  if  all  moral  consequences  are  properly  penalties,  sin,  considered 
as  a  sinful  nature,  must  be  the  punishment  of  sin,  considered  as  the  act  of 
our  first  parents. 

But  we  reply  that  the  impropriety  of  punishing  sin  with  sin  vanishes 
when  we  consider  that  the  sin  which  is  punished  is  our  own,  equally  with 
the  sin  with  which  we  are  punished.  The  objection  is  valid  as  against  the 
Federal  theory  or  the  theory  of  Mediate  Imputation,  but  not  as  against  the 
theory  of  Adam's  Natural  Headship.  To  deny  that  God,  through  the  opera- 
tion of  second  causes,  may  punish  the  act  of  transgression  by  the  habit  and 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   AUGUSTINIAN   THEORY.  633 

tendency  which  result  from  it,  is  to  ignore  the  facts  of  every-day  life,  as  well 
as  the  statements  of  Scripture  in  which  sin  is  represented  as  ever  repro- 
ducing itself,  and  with  each  reproduction  increasing  its  guilt  and  punish- 
ment (Bom.  6  :  19  ;  James  1 :  15. ) 

Rom.  6:19—  "as  ye  presented  your  members  as  servants  to  unoleanness  and  to  iniquity  unto  iniquity,  even  so 
now  present  your  members  as  servants  to  righteousness  niiln  sanctification"  \  Eph.  4.- 22 — "waxetn  corrupt 
after  the  lusts  of  deceit"  ;  James  1 :  15  —  "  Then  the  lust,  when  it  hath  conceived,  bearefh  sin:  and  the  sin,  when  it  is 
full-grown,  bringeth  forth  death  "  ;  2  Tim.  3 :  13 —  "evil  men  and  impostors  shall  wax  worse  and  worse,  deceiving  and 
being  deceived."  See  Meyer  on  Rom.  1 :24  —  "'Wherefore  God  gave  them  up  in  the  lusts  of  their  hearts  unto 
uncleanness."  All  effects  become  in  their  turn  causes.  Schiller :  "  This  is  the  very  curse  of 
evil  deed,  That  of  new  evil  it  becomes  the  seed."  Tennyson,  Vision  of  Sin :  "  Behold  it 
was  a  crime  Of  sense,  avenged  by  sense  that  wore  .with  time.  Another  said :  The  crime 
of  sense  became  The  crime  of  malice,  and  is  equal  blame."  Whiton,  Is  Eternal  Punish- 
ment Endless,  52  — "The  punishment  of  sin  essentially  consists  in  the  wider  spread  and 
stronger  hold  of  the  malady  of  the  soul.  Prov.  5:22  —  'His  own  iniquities  shall  take  the  wicked.' 
The  habit  of  sinning  holds  the  wicked  'with  the  cords  of  his  sin.'  Sin  is  self- perpetuating. 
The  sinner  gravitates  from  worse  to  worse,  in  an  ever-deepening  fall."  The  leastof  our 
sins  has  in  it  a  power  of  infinite  expansion,— left  to  itself  it  would  flood  a  world  with 
misery  and  destruction. 

Wisdom,  11 :  16—"  Wherewithal  a  man  sinneth,  by  the  same  also  he  shall  be  punished." 
Shakespeare,  Richard  II,  5 : 5  —  "  I  wasted  time,  and  now  doth  time  waste  me  "  ;  Richard 
III,  4:2 — "  I  am  in  so  far  in  blood,  that  sin  will  pluck  on  sin  "  ;  Pericles,  1: 1 — "  One  sin 
I  know  another  doth  provoke;  Murder's  as  near  to  lust  as  flame  to  smoke;"  King- 
Lear,  5:3 — "The  gods  are  just,  and  of  our  pleasant  vices  Make  instruments  to  scourge 
us."  "Marlowe's  Faustus  typifies  the  continuous  degradation  of  a  soul  that  has 
renounced  Its  ideal,  and  the  drawing  on  of  one  vice  by  another,  for  they  go  hand  in 
hand  like  the  Hours"  (James  Russell  Lowell).  Mrs.  Humphrey  "Ward,  David  Grieve, 
410  — "After  all,  there  's  not  much  hope  when  tin-  craving  returns  on  a  man  of  his  age, 
especially  after  some  years'  interval." 

G.  That  the  doctrine  excludes  all  separate  pn  >1  >ation  of  individuals  since 
Adam,  by  making  their  nioral  life  a  mere  manifestation  of  tendencies 
received  from  him. 

We  reply  that  the  objection  takes  into  view  only  our  connection  with  the 
race,  and  iguores  the  complementary  and  equally  important  fact  of  each 
man's  personal  will.  That  personal  will  does  more  than  simply  express  the 
nature  ;  it  may  to  a  certain  extent  curb  the  nature,  or  it  may,  on  the  other 
hand,  add  a  sinful  character  and  influence  of  its  own.  There  is,  in  other 
words,  a  remainder  of  freedom,  which  leaves  room  for  personal  probation, 
in  addition  to  the  race-probation  in  Adam. 

Kreibig,  Yersohnungslehre,  objects  to  the  Augustianian  view  that  if  personal  sin  pro- 
ceeds from  original,  the  only  thing  men  are  guilty  for  is  Adam's  sin  j  all  subsequent  sin 
is  a  spontaneous  development ;  the  individual  will  can  only  manifest  its  inborn  charac- 
ter. But  we  reply  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation  of  Augustine.  He  does  not  thus  lose 
sight  of  the  remainders  of  freedom  in  man  ( see  references  on  page  620,  in  the  statement 
of  Augustine's  view,  and  in  the  section  following  this,  on  Ability,  640-644).  He  says 
that  the  corrupt  tree  may  produce  the  wild  fruit  of  morality,  though  not  the  divine 
fruit  of  grace.  It  is  not  true  that  the  will  is  absolutely  as  the  character.  Though 
character  is  the  surest  index  as  to  what  the  decisions  of  the  will  may  be,  it  is  not  an 
infallible  one.  Adam's  first  sin,  and  the  sins  of  men  after  regeneration,  prove  this. 
Irregular,  spontaneous,  exceptional  though  these  decisions  are,  they  are  still  acts  of  the 
will,  and  they  show  that  the  agent  is  not  bound  by  motives  nor  by  character. 

Here  is  our  answer  to  the  question  whether  it  lie  not  a  sin  to  propagate  the  race  and 
produce  offspring.  Each  child  has  a  personal  will  which  may  have  a  probation  of  its 
own  and  a  chance  for  deliverance.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  87-99  — "What  we 
inherit  may  be  said  to  fix  our  trial,  but  not  our  fate.  We  belong  to  God  as  well  as  to 
the  past."  "  All  souls  are  mine  "  (  Ez.  18  :  4  ) ;  "Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice  "  (John  18  :  37  ). 
Thomas  Fuller :  "  1.  Roboam  begat  Abia ;  that  is,  a  bad  father  begat  a  bad  son ;  2.  Abia 


634  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

begat  Asa ;  that  is,  a  bad  father  begat  a  good  sou ;  3.  Asa  begat  Josaphat ;  that  is,  a 
good  father  a  good  son  ;  4.  Josaphat  begat  Joram ;  that  is,  a  good  father  a  bad  son.  I 
see,  Lord,  from  hence,  that  my  father's  piety  cannot  be  entailed;  that  is  bad  news  for 
me.  But  I  see  that  actual  impiety  is  not  always  hereditary  ;  that  is  good  news  for  my 
son."  Butcher,  Aspects  of  Greek  Genius,  121  —  Among  the  Gi-eeks,  "  The  popular  view 
was  that  guilt  is  inherited ;  that  is,  that  the  children  are  punished  for  their  fathers' 
sins.  The  view  of  iEschylus,  and  of  Sophocles  also,  was  that  a  tendency  towards  guilt 
was  inherited,  but  that  this  tendency  does  not  annihilate  man's  free  will.  If  therefore 
the  children  are  punished,  they  are  punished  for  their  own  sins.  But  Sophocles  saw  the 
further  truth  that  innocent  children  may  suffer  for  their  fathers'  sins." 

Julius  M  tiller,  Doc.  Sin,  2 :  316  —  "  The  merely  organic  theory  of  sin  leads  to  natural- 
ism, which  endangers  not  only  the  doctrine  of  a  final  judgment,  but  that  of  personal 
immortality  generally."  In  preaching,  therefore,  we  should  begin  with  the  known  and 
acknowledged  sins  of  men.  We  should  lay  the  same  stress  upon  our  connection  with 
Adam  that  the  Scripture  does,  to  explain  the  problem  of  universal  and  inveterate  sin- 
ful tendencies,  to  enforce  our  need  of  salvation  from  this  common  ruin,  and  to  illus- 
trate our  connection  with  Christ.  Scripture  docs  not,  and  we  need  not,  make  our 
responsibility  for  Adam's  sin  the  great  theme  of  preaching.  See  A.  H.  Strong,  on 
Christian  Individualism,  and  on  The  New  Theology,  in  Philosophy  and  Religion,  156- 
163, 164-179. 

H.  That  the  organic  unity  of  the  race  in  the  transgression  is  a  thing  so 
remote  from  common  experience  that  the  preaching  of  it  neutralizes  all 
appeals  to  the  conscience. 

But  whatever  of  truth  there  is  in  this  objection  is  due  to  the  self-isolating 
nature  of  win.  Men  feel  the  unity  of  the  fumily,  ilw  profession,  th*  nation 
to  which  they  belong,  and,  just  in  proportion  to  the  breadth  of  their  sym- 
pathies and  their  experience  of  divine  grace,  do  they  enter  into  Christ's 
feeling  of  unity  with  the  race  ( ef.  Is.  6  :  5  ;  Lam.  3  :  39-45 ;  Ezra  9:6; 
Neh.  1:6).  The  fact  that  the  self-contained  and  self-seeking  recognize 
themselves  as  responsible  only  for  their  personal  acts  should  not  prevent 
our  pressing  upon  men's  attention  the  more  searching  standards  of  the 
Scriptures.  Only  thus  can  the  Christian  find  a  solution  for  the  dark  prob- 
lem of  a  corruption  which  is  inborn  yet  condemnable  ;  only  thus  can  the 
unregenerate  man  be  led  to  a  full  knowledge  of  the  depth  of  his  ruin  and 
of  his  absolute  dependence  upon  God  for  salvation. 

Identification  of  the  individual  with  the  nation  or  the  race :  Is.  6:5  —  "  Woe  is  me !  for  I  am 
undone;  because  I  am  a  man  of  andean  lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  unclean  lips"  ;  Lam.  3:42  —  "We 
have  transgressed  and  have  rebelled  "  ;  Ezra  9:6  —  "  I  am  ashamed  and  blush  to  lift  up  my  face  to  thee,  my  God  ;  for 
our  iniquities  are  increased  over  our  head  "  ;  Neh.l:6 — "Iconfess  the  sins  of  the  children  of  Israel  ....  Yea,  I  and 
my  father's  house  have  sinned."  So  God  punishes  all  Israel  for  David's  sin  of  pride  ;  so  the  sins 
of  Reuben,  Canaan,  Achan,  Gehazi,  are  visited  on  their  children  or  descendants. 

H.  B.  Smith,  System,  296,  297  —  "  Under  the  moral  government  of  God  one  man  may 
justly  suffer  on  account  of  the  sins  of  another.  An  organic  relation  of  men  is  regarded 
in  the  great  judgment  of  God  in  history There  is  evil  which  comes  upon  indi- 
viduals, not  as  punishment  for  their  personal  sins,  but  still  as  suffering  which  comes 
under  a  moral  government Jer.  32 :  18  reasserts  the  declaration  of  the  second  com- 
mandment, that  God  visits  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children.  It  may  be 
said  that  all  these  are  merely  '  consequences '  of  family  or  tribal  or  national  or  race 
relations,  — '  Evil  becomes  cosmical  by  reason  of  fastening  on  relations  which  were 
originally  adapted  to  making  good  cosmical : '  but  then  God's  plan,  must  be  in  the  con- 
sequences—  a  plan  administered  by  a  moral  being,  over  moral  beings,  according  to 
moral  considerations,  and  for  moral  ends ;  and,  if  that  be  fully  taken  into  view,  the 
dispute  as  to  '  consequences '  or  '  punishment '  becomes  a  merely  verbal  one." 

There  is  a  common  conscience  over  and  above  the  private  conscience,  and  it  controls 
individuals,  as  appears  in  great  ci-ises  like  those  at  which  the  fall  of  Fort  Sumter  sum- 
moned men  to  defend  the  Union  and  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  sounded  the 
death-knell  of  slavery.    Coleridge  said  that  original  sin  is  the  one  mystery  that  makes 


OBJECTION'S   TO   THE    AUGUSTINIAN   THEORY.  G35 

all  things  clear;  see  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  151-157.  Bradford, 
Heredity,  34,  quotes  from  Klam,  A  Physician's  Problems,  5 — "An  acquired  and  habitual 
vice  will  rarely  fail  to  leave  its  trace  upon  one  or  more  of  the  offspring-,  either  in  its 
original  form,  or  one  closely  allied.  The  habit  of  the  parent  becomes  the  all  but  irre- 
sistible impulse  of  the  child ;  .  .  .  .  the  organic  tendency  is  excited  to  the  uttermost, 

and  the  power  of  will  and  of  conscience  is  proportionally  weakened So  the  sins 

of  the  parents  arc  visited  upon  the  children." 

Pascal :  "  It  is  astonishing  that  the  mystery  which  is  furthest  removed  from  our 
knowledge— I  mean  the  transmission  of  original  sin  — should  be  that  without  which 
we  have  no  true  knowledge  of  ourselves.  It  is  in  this  abyss  that  the  clue  to  our  condi- 
tion takes  its  turnings  and  windings,  insomuch  that  man  is  more  incomprehensible 
without  the  mystery  than  this  mystery  is  incomprehensible  to  man."  Yet  Pascal's 
perplexity  was  largely  due  to  his  holding  the  Augustinian  position  that  inherited  sin 
is  damning  and  brings  eternal  death,  while  not  holding'  to  the  coordinate  Aumistinian 
position  of  a  primary  existence  and  act  of  the  species  in  Adam  ;  see  Shedd,  Dogm, 
Tbeol.,  2:18.  Atomism  is  egotistic.  The  purest  and  noblest  feel  most  strongly  that 
humanity  is  not  like  a  heap  Of  sand-grains  or  a  row  of  bricks  set  on  end,  but  that  it  is 
an  organic  unity.  So  the  Christian  feels  lor  the  family  and  for  the  church.  So  Christ,  in 
(Jethsernaue,  felt  for  the  race.  11  it  be  said  that  the  tendency  of  the  Augustinian  view 
is  to  diminish  the  sense  of  guilt  tor  personal  sins,  we  reply  that  only  those  who  recognize 
Sins  as  rooted  in  sin  can  properly  recognize  the  evil  of  them.  To  such  they  arestpivptomfl 
of  an  .apostasy  from  Cod  so  deep-seated  and  universal  that  nothing  but  infinite  grace 
can  deliver  us  from  it. 

I.  That  a  constitution  by  which  the  sin  of  one  individual  involves  in 
guilt  and  condemnation  the  nature  of  all  men  who  descend  from  him  is 
contrary  to  <  bid's  justice. 

We  acknowledge  that  no  human  theory  can  fully  solve  the  mystery  of 
imputation.  But  we  prefer  to  attribute  God's  dealings  to  justice  rather 
than  to  sovereignty.  The  following  considerations,  though  partly  hypo- 
thetical, may  throw  light  upon  the  subject :  (a)  A  probation  of  our  com- 
mon nature  in  Adam,  sinless  as  he  was  and  with  full  knowledge  of  God's 
law,  is  more  consistent  with  divine  justice  than  a  separate  probation  of  each 
individual,  with  inexperience,  inborn  depravity,  and  evil  example,  all  favor- 
ing a  decision  against  God.  (  b )  A  constitution  which  made  a  common 
fall  possible  may  have  been  indispensable  to  any  provision  of  a  common  sal- 
vation, (c)  Our  chance  for  salvation  as  sinners  under  grace  may  be  better 
than  it  would  have  been  as  sinless  Adams  under  law.  (  d )  A  constitution 
which  permitted  oneness  with  the  first  Adam  in  the  transgression  cannot 
be  unjust,  since  a  like  principle  of  oneness  with  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
secures  our  salvation,  (c)  There  is  also  a  physical  and  natural  union 
with  Christ  which  antedates  the  fall  and  which  is  incident  to  man's  creation. 
The  immanence  of  Christ  in  humanity  guarantees  a  continuous  divine 
effort  to  remedy  the  disaster  caused  by  man's  free  will,  and  to  restore  the 
moral  union  with  God  which  the  race  has  lost  by  the  fall. 

Thus  our  ruin  and  our  redemption  were  alike  wrought  out  without  per- 
sonal act  of  ours.  As  all  the  natural  life  of  humanity  was  in  Adam,  so  all 
the  spiritual  life  of  humanity  was  in  Christ.  As  our  old  nature  was  cor- 
rupted in  Adam  and  propagated  to  us  by  physical  generation,  so  our  new 
nature  was  restored  in  Christ  and  communicated  to  us  by  the  regenerating 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  then  we  are  justified  upon  the  ground  of  our 
inbeing  in  Christ,  we  may  in  like  manner  be  condemned  on  the  ground  of 
our  inbeing  in  Adam. 

Stearns,  in  N.  Eng.,  Jan.  1882  :  95— "The  silence  of  Scripture  respecting  the  precise 
connection  between  the  first  great  sin  and  th°  sins  of  the  millions  of  individuals  who 


636  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    MAN. 

have  lived  since  then  is  a  silence  that  neither  science  nor  philosophy  has  been,  or  is, 
able  to  break  with  a  satisfactory  explanation.  Separate  the  twofold  nature  of  man. 
corporate  and  individual.  Recognize  in  the  one  the  region  of  necessity ;  in  the  other 
the  region  of  freedom.  The  scientific  law  of  heredity  has  brought  into  new  currency 
the  doctrine  which  the  old  theologians  sought  to  express  under  the  name  of  original 
sin,— a  term  which  had  a  meaning  as  it  was  at  first  used  by  Augustine,  but  which  is  an 
awkward  misnomer  if  we  accept  any  other  theory  but  his." 

Dr.  Hovey  claims  that  the  Augustinian  view  breaks  down  when  applied  to  the  con- 
nection between  the  justification  of  believers  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  for 
believers  were  not  in  Christ,  as  to  the  substance  of  their  souls,  when  he  wrought  out 
redemption  for  them.  But  we  reply  that  the  life  of  Christ  which  makes  us  Christians 
is  the  same  life  which  made  atonement  upon  the  cross  and  which  rose  from  the  grave 
for  our  justification.  The  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  is  of  the  nature  of  analogy, 
not  of  identity.  With  Adam,  we  have  a  connection  of  physical  life;  with  Christ,  a 
connection  of  spiritual  life. 

Stahl,  Philosophie  des  Rechts,  quoted  in  Olshausen's  Com.  on  Rom.  5:12-21—  "Adam  is 
the  original  matter  of  humanity ;  Christ  is  its  original  idea  in  God ;  both  personally 
living.  Mankind  is  one  in  them.  Therefore  Adam's  sin  became  the  sin  of  all ;  Christ's 
sacrifice  the  atonement  for  all.  Every  leaf  of  a  tree  may  be  green  or  wither  by  itself ; 
but  each  suffers  by  the  disease  of  the  root,  and  recovers  only  by  its  healing.  The  shal- 
lower the  man,  so  much  more  isolated  will  everything  appear  to  him;  for  upon  the 
surface  all  lies  apart.  He  will  see  in  mankind,  in  the  nation,  nay,  even  in  the  family, 
mere  individuals,  where  the  act  of  the  one  has  no  connection  with  that  of  the  other. 
The  profounder  the  man,  the  more  do  these  inward  relations  of  unity,  proceeding  from 
the  very  centre,  force  themselves  upon  him.  Yea,  the  love  of  our  neighbor  is  itself 
nothing  but  the  deep  feeling  of  this  unity;  for  we  love  him  only,  with  whom  we  feel 
and  acknowledge  ourselves  to  be  one.  What  the  Christian  love  of  our  neighbor  is  for 
the  heart,  that  unity  of  race  is  for  the  understanding.  If  sin  through  one,  and  redemp- 
tion through  one,  is  not  possible,  the  command  to  love  our  neighbor  is  also  unintelli- 
gible. Christian  ethics  and  Christian  faith  are  therefore  in  truth  indissolubly  united. 
Christianity  effects  in  history  an  advance  like  that  from  the  animal  kingdom  to  man, 
by  its  revealing  the  essential  unity  of  men,  the  consciousness  of  which  in  the  ancient 
world  had  vanished  when  the  nations  were  separated." 

If  the  sins  of  the  parents  were  not  visited  upon  the  children,  neither  could  their 
virtues  be ;  the  possibility  of  the  one  involves  the  possibility  of  the  other.  If  the  guilt 
of  our  first  father  could  not  be  transmitted  to  all  who  derive  their  life  from  him,  then 
the  justification  of  Christ  could  not  be  transmitted  to  all  who  derive  their  life  from  hhn. 
We  do  not,  however,  see  any  Scripture  warrant  for  the  theory  that  all  men  are  justified 
from  original  sin  by  virtue  of  their  natural  connection  with  Christ.  He  who  is  the  life 
of  all  men  bestows  manifold  temporal  blessings  upon  the  ground  of  his  atonement. 
But  justification  from  sin  is  conditioned  upon  conscious  surrender  of  the  human  will 
and  trust  in  the  divine  mercy.  The  immanent  Christ  is  ever  urging  man  individually 
and  collectively  toward  such  decision.  But  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  offered 
grace  is  left  to  man's  free  will.  This  principle  enables  us  properly  to  estimate  the  view 
of  Dr.  Henry  E.  Robins  which  follows. 

H.  E.  Robins,  Harmony  of  Ethics  with  Theology,  51  — "  All  men  born  of  Adam  stand 
in  such  a  relation  to  Christ  that  salvation  is  their  birthright  under  promise  —  a  birth- 
right which  can  only  be  forfeited  by  their  intelligent,  personal,  moral  action,  as  was 
Esau's."  Dr.  Robins  holds  to  an  inchoate  justification  of  all  — a  justification  which 
becomes  actual  and  complete  only  when  the  soul  closes  with  Christ's  offer  to  the  sinner. 
We  prefer  to  say  that  humanity  in  Christ  is  ideally  instilled  because  Christ  himself  is 
justified,  but  that  individual  men  are  justified  only  when  they  consciously  appropriate 
his  offered  grace  or  surrender  themselves  to  his  renewing  Spirit.  Allen,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  312 — "  The  grace  of  God  is  as  organic  in  its  relation  to  man  as  is  the  evil  in  his 
nature.  Grace  also  reigns  wherever  justice  reigns."  William  Ashmorc,  on  the  New 
Trial  of  the  Sinner,  in  Christian  Review,  26 :  245-204—"  There  is  a  gospel  of  nature  com- 
mensurate with  the  law  of  nature  ;  Rom.  3 :  22  —  '  unto  all,  and  upon  all  them  that  believe ' ;  the  first '  all ' 
is  unlimited ;  the  second  'all '  is  limited  to  those  who  believe." 

R.  W.  Dale,  Ephesians,  ISO  — "  Our  fortunes  were  identified  with  the  fortunes  of  Christ ; 
in  the  divine  thought  and  purpose  we  were  inseparable  from  him.  Had  we  been  true 
and  loyal  to  the  divine  idea,  the  energy  of  Christ's  righteousness  would  have  drawn  us 
upward  to  height  after  height  of  goodness  and  joy,  until  we  ascended  from  this  earthly 
life  to  the  larger  powers  and  loftier  services  and  richer  delights  of  other  and  diviner 


CONSEQUENCES   OF  SIN   TO   ADAH'S   POSTERITY.  637 

svorids ;  and  still,  through  one  golden  age  of  intellectual  and  ethical  and  spiritual 
JTowth  after  another,  we  should  have  continued  to  rise  towards  Christ's  transcendent 
and  infinite  perfection.  But  we  sinned ;  and  as  the  union  between  Christ  and  us  could 
not  be  broken  without  the  final  and  irrevocable  defeat  of  the  divine  purpose,  Christ 
was  drawn  down  from  the  serene  heavens  to  the  confused  and  troubled  life  of  our  race, 
to  pain,  to  temptation,  to  anguish,  to  the  cross  and  to  the  grave,  and  so  the  mystery  of 
his  atonement  for  our  sin  was  consummated." 

For  replies  to  the  foregoing  and  other  objections,  see  Schaff ,  in  Bib.  Sac,  5 :  230 ;  Shedd, 
Sermons  to  the  Nat.  Man,  366-281;  Baird,  Eloliim  Revealed,  507-309,  529-541;  Birks, 
Difficulties  of  Belief,  134-188;  Edwards,  Original  Sin,  in  Works,  2  :  473-510;  Atwater,  on 
Calvinism  in  Doctrine  and  Life,  in  Princeton  Review,  1875:73;  Stearns,  Evidence  of 
Christian  Experience,  96-100.  Per  contra,  see  Moxom,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1881 :  273-287 ;  Park, 
Discourses,  210-233 ;  Bradford,  Heredity,  237. 


SECTION   VI. —CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO    ADAMS    POSTERITY. 

As  the  result  of  Adam's  transgression,  all  his  posterity  are  bom  in  the 
same  state  into  which  he  fell.  But  since  law  is  the  all-comprehending 
demand  of  harmony  with  God,  all  moral  consequences  flowing  from  trans- 
gression are  to  be  regarded  as  sanctions  of  law,  or  expressions  of  the  divine 
displeasure  through  the  constitution  of  things  which  he  has  established. 
Certain  of  these  consequences,  however,  are  earlier  recognized  than  others 
and  are  of  minor  scope  ;  it  will  therefore  be  useful  to  consider  them  under 
the  three  aspects  of  depravity,  guilt,  and  penalty. 

I.     Depravtty. 

By  this  we  mean,  on  the  one  hand,  the  lack  of  original  righteousness  or 
of  holy  affection  toward  God,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  corruption  of  the 
moral  nature,  or  bias  toward  evil.  That  such  depravity  exists  has  been 
abundantly  shown,  both  from  Scripture  and  from  reason,  in  our  considera- 
tion of  the  universality  of  sin. 

Salvation  is  twofold:  deliverance  from  the  evil  — the  penalty  and  the  power  of  sin  ; 
and  accomplishment  of  the  good  —  likeness  to  God  and  realization  of  the  true  idea  of 
humanity.  It  includes  all  these  for  the  race  as  well  as  for  the  individual :  removal  of 
the  barriers  that  keep  men  from  each  other ;  and  the  perfecting  of  society  in  commun- 
ion with  God ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  It  was  the  nature  of 
man,  when  he  first  came  from  the  hand  of  God,  to  fear,  love,  and  trust  God  above  all 
things.  This  tendency  toward  God  has  been  lost ;  sin  has  altered  and  corrupted  man's 
innermost  nature.  In  place  of  this  bent  toward  God  there  is  a  fearful  bent  toward 
evil.  Depravity  is  both  negative  — absence  of  love  and  of  moral  likeness  to  God  — and 
positive  —  presence  of  manifold  tendencies  to  evil.   Two  questions  only  need  detain  us : 

1.     Depravity  partial   or   total? 

The  Scriptures  represent  human  nature  as  totally  depraved.  The  phrase 
"total  depravity,"  however,  is  liable  to  misinterpretation,  and  should  not 
be  used  without  explanation.  By  the  total  depravity  of  universal  humanity 
we  mean : 

A.  Negatively, —  not  that  every  sinner  is :  ( a  )  Destitute  of  conscience, 
—  for  the  existence  of  strong  impulses  to  right,  and  of  remorse  for  wrong- 
doing, show  that  conscience  is  often  keen ;  ( b )  devoid  of  all  qualities 
pleasing  to  men,  and  usefuJ  when  judged  by  a  human  standard, —  for  the 


038  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

existence  of  such  qualities  is  recognized  by  Christ ;  ( c )  prone  to  every 
form  of  sin,  — for  certain  forms  of  sin  exclude  certain  others  ;  (  d)  intense 
as  he  can  be  in  his  selfishness  and  opposition  to  God, —  for  he  becomes 
worse  every  day. 

(a)  John 8  :9 — "And  they,  when  they  heard  it,  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning  from  the  eldest,  even  unto  the 
last "  ( John  7 :  53 — 8 :  11,  though  not  written  by  John,  is  a  perfectly  true  narrative,  descended 
from  the  apostolic  age ).  The  muscles  of  a  dead  frog's  leg  will  contract  when  a  current 
of  electricity  is  sent  into  them.  So  the  dead  soul  will  thrill  at  touch  of  the  divine  law. 
Natural  conscience,  combined  with  the  principle  of  self-love,  may  even  prompt  choice 
of  the  good,  though  no  love  for  God  is  in  the  choice.  Bengel :  "  We  have  lost  our  like- 
ness to  God ;  but  there  remains  notwithstanding  an  indelible  nobility  which  we  ought 
to  revere  both  in  ourselves  and  in  others.  We  still  have  remained  men,  to  be  con- 
formed to  that  likeness,  through  the  divine  blessing  to  which  man's  will  should  sub- 
scribe. This  they  forget  who  speak  evil  of  human  nature.  Absalom  fell  out  of  his 
father's  favor ;  but  the  people,  for  all  that,  recognized  in  him  the  son  of  the  king." 

( I) )  Mark  10  :  21  —  "  And  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him."  These  very  qualities,  however,  may 
show  that  their  possessors  are  sinning  against  great  iigh+  and  are  the  more  guilty;  cf. 
Mai.  1 :  6  —  "  A  son  honoreth  his  father,  and  a  servant  his  master :  if  ther.  I  am  a  father,  where  is  mine  honor  ?  and  if  I 
am  a  master,  where  is  my  fear?"  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2  :  75 — "The  assertor 
of  the  total  depravity  of  human  nature,  of  its  absolute  blindness  and  incapacity,  pre- 
supposes in  himself  and  in  others  the  presence  of  a  criterion  or  principle  of  good,  in 
virtue  of  which  he  discerns  himself  to  be  wholly  evil;  yet  the  very  proposition  that 
human  nature  is  wholly  evil  would  be  unintelligible  unless  it  were  false.  . .  .  Conscious- 
ness of  sin  is  a  negative  sign  of  the  possibility  of  restoration.  But  it  is  not  in  itself 
proof  that  the  possibility  will  become  actuality."  A  ruined  temple  may  have  beautiful 
fragments  of  fluted  columns,  but  it  is  no  proper  habitation  for  the  god  for  whose 
worship  it  was  built. 

( c )  Mat.  23 :  23  —  "ye  tithe  mint  and  anise  and  cummin,  and  have  left  undone  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law, 
justice  aid  mercy,  and  faith  :  but  these  ye  ought  to  have  done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  other  undone"  ;  Rom.  .2  :  14 
—  '  when  Gentiles  that  have  not  the  law  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  not  having  the  law,  are  the  law  unto 
themselves ;  in  that  they  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith." 
Tlic  sin  of  miserliness  may  exclude  the  sin  of  luxury ;  the  sin  of  pride  may  exclude  the 
sin  of  sensuality.  Shakespeare,  Othello,  2  :  3  —  "  It  hath  pleased  the  devil  Drunkenness 
to  give  place  to  the  devil  Wrath."  Franklin  Carter,  Life  of  Mark  Hopkins,  321-323  — 
Dr.  Hopkins  did  not  think  that  the  sons  of  God  should  describe  themselves  as  once 
worms  or  swine  or  vipers.  Yet  he  held  that  man  could  sink  to  a  degradation  below 
the  brute:  "  No  brute  is  any  more  capable  of  rebelling  against  God  than  of  serving 
him  ;  is  any  more  capable  of  sinking  below  the  level  of  its  own  nature  than  of  rising  to 
the  level  of  man.  No  brute  can  be  either  a  fool  or  a  fiend.  ...  In  the  way  that  sin  and 
corruption  came  into  the  spiritual  realm  we  find  one  of  those  analogies  to  what  takes 
place  in  the  lower  forms  of  being  that  show  the  unity  of  the  system  throughout.  All 
disintegration  and  corruption  of  matter  is  from  the  domination  of  a  lower  over  a  higher 
law.  The  body  begins  to  return  to  its  original  elements  as  the  lower  chemical  and 
physical  forces  begin  to  gain  ascendency  over  the  higher  force  of  life.  In  the  same 
way  all  sin  and  corruption  in  man  is  from  his  yielding  to  a  lower  law  or  principle  of 
action  in  opposition  to  the  demands  of  one  that  is  higher." 

( d )  Gen.  15 :  16  —  "  the  iniquity  of  the  Amonte  is  not  yet  full  "  ;  2  Tim.  3 :  13  —  "evil  men  and  impostors  shall  wax 
worse  and  worse."  Depravity  is  not  simply  being  deprived  of  good.  Depravation  (  de,  and 
pravus,  crooked,  perverse )  is  more  than  deprivation.  Left  to  himself  man  tends  down- 
ward, and  his  sin  increases  day  by  day.  But  there  is  a  divine  influence  within  which 
quickens  conscience  and  kindles  aspiration  for  better  things.    The  immanent  Christ  is 

'  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man  "  ( John  1:9).  Prof.  Wm.  Adams  Brown  :  "  In  so  far  as  God's 
Spirit  is  at  work  among  men  and  they  receive  'the  Light  whxh  lighteth  every  man,' we  must 
qualify  our  statement  of  total  depravity.  Depravity  is  not  so  much  a  state  as  a  tendency. 
With  growing  complexity  of  life,  sin  becomes  more  complex.  Adam's  sin  was  not  the 
worst.    '  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee '  (  Mat.  11 :  24  )." 

Men  are  not  yet  in  the  condition  of  demons.  Only  here  and  there  have  they  attained 
to  "  a  disinterested  love  of  evil."  Such  men  are  few,  and  they  were  not  born  so. 
There  are  degrees  in  depravity.  E.  G.  Robinson:  "There  is  a  good  streak  left  in  the 
devil  yet."  Even  Satan  will  become  worge  than  he  now  is.  The  phrase  "  total  deprav- 
ity "  has  respect  only  to  relations  to  God,  and  it  means  incapability  of  doing  anything" 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO    ADAM'S    POSTERITY.  639 

which  in  the  sight  of  God  is  ;i  good  aet.  No  act  is  perfectly  good  t  bat  does  not  proceed 
from  a  true  heart  and  constitute  an  expression  of  that  heart.  Eel  we  have  no  right  to 
say  that  every  act  of  an  unrcgenerate  man  is  displeasing  to  God.  Eight  acts  from 
right  motives  are  good,  whether  performed  by  a  Christian  or  by  one  who  is  unrenewed 
in  heart.  Such  acts,  however,  are  always  prompted  by  God,  and  thanks  for  them  are 
due  to  God  and  not  to  him  who  performed  them. 

B.  Positively, —  that  every  sinner  is :  (a)  totally  destitute  of  that  love 
to  God  which  constitutes  the  fundamental  and  all-inclusive  demand  of  the 
law  ;  (  b )  chargeable  with  elevating  some  lower  affection  or  desire  above 
regard  for  God  and  his  law  ;  ( c.)  supremely  determined,  in  his  whole 
inward  and  outward  life,  by  a  preference  of  self  to  God  ;  (  d)  possessed  of 
an  aversion  to  God  which,  though  sometimes  latent,  becomes  active  enmity, 
so  soon  as  God's  will  comes  into  manifest  conflict  with  his  own  ;  (e  )  dis- 
ordered and  corrupted  in  every  faculty,  through  this  substitution  of  self- 
ishness for  supreme  affection  toward  God;  (/)  credited  with  no  thougl it, 
emotion,  or  act  of  which  divine  holiness  can  fully  approve ;  ( y  )  subject 
to  a  law  of  constant  progress  in  depravity,  which  he  has  no  recuperative 
energy  to  enable  him  successfully  to  resist. 

( ft )  John  5  :  42  —  "  But  I  know  you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  yourselves."  ( h )  2  Tim.  3:4  —  "  lovers  of 
pleasure  rather  than  lovers  of  God  "  ;  cf.  Mai.  1:6  —  "  A  son  hoaoreth  his  father,  and  a  servant  his  master :  if  then  I 
am  a  father,  where  is  mine  honor  ?  and  if  I  am  a  master,  where  is  my  fear  ?  "  (  c  )  2  Tim.  3:2  —  "  lovers  of  self ' ' ; 
(  d )  Rom.  8:7  —  "the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God."  ( c  )  Eph.  4 :  18  —  "  darkened  in  their  understand- 
ing ...  .  hardening  of  their  heart "  ;  Tit.  1 :  15  —  "  both  their  mind  and  their  conscience  are  defiled  "  ;  2  Cor.  7:1  — 
"defilement  of  flesh  and  spirit "  ;  leb.  3 :  12  — "an  evil  heart  of  unbelief"  ;  ( / )  Rom.  3:9—"  they  are  all  under  sin  " ; 
7 :  18  —  " in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flssh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  ( g )  Rom.  7 :  18  —  "  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to 
do  that  which  is  good  is  not "  ;  23  —  "  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into 
captivity  under  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members." 

Every  sinner  would  prefer  a  milder  law  and  a  different  administration.  But  whoever 
docs  not  love  God's  law  does  not  truly  love  God.  The  sinner  seeks  to  secure  his  own 
interests  r:i(  her  than  God's.  Even  so-called  religious  acts  he  performs  with  preference 
of  his  own  good  to  God's  glory,  lie  disobeys,  and  always  has  disobeyed,  the  fundamen- 
tal law  of  love.  He  is  like  a  railway  train  on  a  down  grade,  and  the  brakes  must  be 
applied  by  God  or  destruction  is  sure.  There  are  latent  passions  In  every  heart  which 
if  let  loose  would  curse  the  world.  Many  a  man  who  escaped  from  the  burning  Iroquois 
Theatre  in  Chicago,  proved  himself  a  brute  and  a  demon,  by  trampling  down  fugitives 
who  cried  for  mercy.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  83—  "  The  depravity  which  sin  has 
produced  in  human  nature  extends  to  the  whole  of  it.  There  is  no  part  of  man's  nature 
which  is  unaffected  by  it.  Man's  nature  is  all  of  a  piece,  and  what  affects  it  at  all 
affects  it  altogether.  When  the  conscience  is  violated  by  disobedience  to  the  will  of 
God,  the  moral  understanding  is  darkened,  and  the  will  is  enfeebled.  We  are  not 
constructed  in  water-tight  compartments,  one  of  which  might  be  ruined  while  the 
others  remained  intact."  Yet  over  against  total  depravity,  we  must  set  total  redemp- 
tion ;  over  against  original  siu,  original  grace.  Christ  is  in  every  human  heart  mitiga- 
ting the  affects  of  sin,  urging  to  repentance,  and  "able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  them  that  draw  near 
unto  God  through  him  "  ( Heb.  7 :  25 ).    Even  the  uuiegenerate  heathen  may  "  put  away ....  the  old  man  " 

and  "put  on  the  new  man"  (Eph.  4:22,  24),  being  delivered  "out  of  the  body  of  this  death through  Jesus 

Christ  our  Lord  "  ( Rom.  7 :  24,  25 ). 

H.  B.  Smith,  System,  277—"  By  total  depravity  is  never  meant  that  men  are  as  bad 
as  they  can  be;  nor  that  they  have  not,  in  their  natural  condition,  certain  amiable 
qualities;  nor  that  they  may  not  have  virtues  in  a  limited  sense  (justitiavivilis).  But 
it  is  meant  ( 1 )  that  depravity,  or  the  sinful  condition  of  man,  infects  the  whole 
man :  intellect,  feeling,  heart  and  will ;  (2)  that  in  each  unrenewed  person  some  lower 
affection  is  supreme;  aud  (3)  that  each  such  is  destitute  of  love  to  God.  On  these 
positions :  as  to  ( 1 )  the  power  of  depravity  over  the  whole  man,  we  have  given  proof 
from  Scripture ;  as  to  ( 2 )  the  fact  that  in  every  unrenewed  man  some  lower  affection 
is  supreme,  experience  may  be  always  appealed  to ;  men  know  that  their  supreme 
affection  is  fixed  on  some  lower  good  —  intellect,  heart,  and  will  going  together  in  it ; 
or  that  some  form  of  selfishness  is  predominant  — using  selfish  in  a  general  sense  — 


640  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  MAN. 

self  seeks  its  happiness  in  some  inferior  object,  giving  to  that  its  supreme  affection  :  aa 
to  (3)  that  every  unrenewed  person  is  without  supreme  love  to  God,  it  is  the  point 
which  is  of  greatest  force,  and  is  to  be  urjred  with  the  strongest  effect,  in  setting  forth 
the  depth  and  '  totality '  of  man's  sinfulness :  unrenewed  men  have  not  that  supreme 
love  of  God  which  is  the  substance  of  the  first  and  great  command."  See  also  Shedd, 
Discourses  and  Essays,  248;  Baird,  Blohim  Revealed,  510-522;  Chalmers,  Institutes, 
1 :  519-543  ;  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theology,  1 :  516-531 ;  Princeton  Review,  1877 :  470. 

2.     Ability  or  inability  f 

In  opposition  to  the  plenary  ability  taught  by  the  Pelagians,  the  gracious 
ability  of  the  Arminians,  and  the  natural  ability  of  the  New  School  theolo- 
gians, the  Scriptures  declare  the  total  inability  of  the  sinner  to  turn  him- 
self to  God  or  to  do  that  which  is  truly  good  in  God's  sight  (  see  Scripture 
proof  below ).  A  proper  conception  also  of  the  law,  as  reflecting  the  holi- 
ness of  God  and  as  expressing  the  ideal  of  human  nature,  leads  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  no  man  whose  powers  are  weakened  by  either  original  or 
actual  sin  can  of  himself  come  up  to  that  perfect  standard.  Yet  there  is  a 
certain  remnant  of  freedom  left  to  man.  The  sinner  can  ( a  )  avoid  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  ( 6  )  choose  the  less  sin  rather  than  the  greater  ; 
(  c  )  refuse  altogether  to  yield  to  certain  temptations  ;  (  d )  do  outwardly 
good  acts,  though  with  irnperf ect  motives ;  ( e  )  seek  God  from  motives  of 
self-interest. 

But  on  the  other  hand  the  sinner  cannot  (a)  by  a  single  volition  bring 
his  character  and  life  into  complete  conformity  to  God's  law  ;  (  b  )  change 
his  fundamental  preference  for  self  and  sin  to  supreme  love  for  God  ;  nor 
(  e )  do  any  act,  however  insignificant,  which  shall  meet  with  God's  approval 
or  answer  fully  to  the  demands  of  law. 

So  long,  then,  as  there  are  states  of  intellect,  affection  and  will  which  man  cannot, 
by  any  power  of  volition  or  of  contrary  choice  remaining  to  him,  bring  into  subjection 
to  God,  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  possesses  any  sufficient  ability  of  himself  to  do  God's 
will ;  and  if  a  basis  for  man's  responsibility  and  guilt  besought,  it  must  be  found,  if  at 
all,  not  in  his  plenary  ability,  his  gracious  ability,  or  his  natural  ability,  but  in  his  orig- 
inal ability,  when  he  came,  in  Adam,  from  the  hands  of  his  Maker. 

Man's  present  inability  is  natural,  in  the  sense  of  being  inborn, —  it  is  not  acquired  by 
our  personal  act,  but  is  congenital.  It  is  not  natural,  however,  as  resulting  from  the 
original  limitations  of  human  nature,  or  from  the  subsequent  loss  of  any  essential 
faculty  of  that  nature.  Human  nature,  at  its  first  creation,  was  endowed  with  ability 
perfectly  to  keep  the  law  of  God.  Man  has  not,  even  by  his  sin,  lost  his  essential  facul- 
ties of  intellect,  affection,  or  will.  He  has  weakened  those  faculties,  however,  so  that 
they  are  now  unable  to  work  up  to  the  normal  measure  of  their  powers.  But  more 
especially  has  man  given  to  every  faculty  a  bent  away  from  God  which  renders  him 
morally  unable  to  render  spiritual  obedience.  The  inability  to  good  which  now  char- 
acterizes human  nature  is  an  inability  that  results  from  sin,  and  is  itself  sin. 

We  hold,  therefore,  to  an  inability  which  is  both  natural  and  moral, —  moral,  as  having 
its  source  in  the  self-corruption  of  man's  moral  nature  and  the  fundamental  aversion 
of  Ins  will  to  God;— natural,  as  being  inborn,  and  as  affecting  with  partial  paralysis  all 
tiis  natural  powers  of  intellect,  affection,  conscience,  and  will.  For  his  inability,  in  both 
these  aspects  of  it,  man  is  responsible. 

The  sinner  can  do  one  very  important  thing,  viz.:  give  attention  to  divine  truth.  Ps. 
119:59  —  "I  thought  on  my  ways,  And  turned  my  feet  unto  thy  testimonies."  G.  W.  Northrup:  "The 
sinner  can  seek  God  from:  ( a )  self-love,  regard  for  his  own  interest;  (b)  feeling  of 
duty,  sense  of  obligation,  awakened  conscience;  (c)  gratitude  for  blessings  already 
received ;  ( d )  aspiration  after  the  infinite  and  satisfying."  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology, 
8">  —  "A  witty  French  moralist  has  said  that  God  does  not  need  to  grudge  to  his  enemies 
even  what  they  call  their  virtues ;  and  neither  do  God's  ministers.  .  .  .  But  there  is  one 
thing  which  man  cannot  do  alone,  —  he  cannot  bring  his  state  into  harmony  with  his 
nature.    When  a  man  has  been  discovered  who  has  been  able,  without  Christ,  to  recon- 


CONSEQUENCES   OP   SIN   TO    ADAll's    POSTERITY.  641 

eile  himself  to  God  and  to  obtain  dominion  over  the  world  and  over  sin,  then  the 
doctrine  of  inability,  or  of  the  bondage  due  to  sin,  may  be  denied;  then,  but  not  till 
then.'"  The  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  Declaratory  Act  of  1892,  says  "that,  in 
holding  and  teaching1,  according:  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  corruption  of  man's 
whole  nature  as  fallen,  this  church  also  maintains  that  there  remain  tokens  of  his  great- 
ness as  created  in  the  image  of  God ;  that  he  possesses  a  knowledge  of  God  and  of  duty ; 
that  he  is  responsible  for  compliance  with  the  moral  law  and  with  the  gospel ;  and  that, 
although  unable  without  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  return  to  God,  he  is  yet  capable 
of  affections  and  actions  which  in  themselves  are  virtuous  and  praiseworthy." 

To  the  use  of  the  term  "natural  ability  "  to  designate  merely  the  sinner's 
possession  of  all  the  constituent  facilities  of  human  nature,  we  object  upon 
the  following  grounds  : 

A.  Quantitative  lack. —  The  phrase  "natural  ability"  is  misleading, 
since  it  seems  to  imply  that  the  existence  of  the  mere  powers  of  intellect, 
affection,  and  will  is  a  sufficient  quantitative  qualification  for  obedience  to 
God's  law,  whereas  these  powers  have  been  weakened  by  sin,  and  are  nat- 
urally unable,  instead  of  naturally  able,  to  render  back  to  God  with  interest 
the  talent  first  bestowed.  Even  if  the  moral  direction  of  man's  faculties 
were  a  normal  one,  the  effect  of  hereditary  and  of  personal  sin  would 
render  naturally  impossible  that  large  likeness  to  God  which  the  law  of 
absolute  perfection  demands.  Man  has  not  therefore  the  natural  ability 
perfectly  to  obey  God.     He  had  it  once,  but  he  lost  it  with  the  first  sin. 

When  Jean  Paul  Iiiehter  says  of  himself :  "  I  have  made  of  myself  all  that  could  be 
made  out  of  the  stuff,"  he  evinces  a  self-complacency  which  is  due  to  self -ignorance  and 

lack  of  moral  insight.  When  a  man  realizes  the  extent  of  the  law's  demands,  he  sees 
that  without  divine  help  obedience  is  impossible.  John  B.  (lough  represented  the  con- 
firmed drunkard's  efforts  at  reformation  as  a  man's  walking  up  Mount  Etna  knee-deep 
in  burning  lava,  or  as  one's  rowing  ajrainst  the  rapids  of  Niagara. 

B.  Qualitative  lack. — Since  the  law  of  God  requires  of  men  not  so  much 
right  single  volitions  as  conformity  to  God  in  the  whole  inward  state  of  the 
affections  and  will,  the  power  of  contrary  choice  in  single  volitions  does 
not  constitute  a  natural  ability  to  obey  God,  unless  man  can  by  those  single 
vohtions  change  the  underlying  state  of  the  affections  and  will.  But  this 
power  man  does  not  possess.  Since  God  judges  all  moral  action  in  connec- 
tion with  the  general  state  of  the  heart  and  life,  natural  ability  to  good 
involves  not  only  a  full  complement  of  faculties  but  also  a  bias  of  the  affec- 
tions and  will  toward  God.  Without  this  bias  there  is  no  possibility  of  right 
moral  action,  and  where  there  is  no  such  possibility,  there  can  be  no  ability 
either  natural  or  ruoral. 

Wilkinson,  Epic  of  Paul,  21  — "Hatred  is  like  love  Herein,  that  it,  by  only  being, 
grows,  Until  at  last  usurping  quite  the  man.  It  overgrows  him  like  a  polypus."  John 
Caird,  Fund.  Ideas,  1 :  53 —  "  The  ideal  is  the  revelation  in  me  of  a  power  that  is  mightier 
than  my  own.  The  supreme  command  '  Thou  oughtest '  is  the  utterance,  only  different 
in  form,  of  the  same  voice  in  my  spirit  which  says  'Thou  canst' ;  and  my  highest 
spiritual  attainments  are  achieved,  not  by  self-assertion,  but  by  self-renunciation  and 
self-surrender  to  the  infinite  life  of  truth  and  righteousness  that  is  living  and  reigning 
within  me."  This  conscious  inability  in  one's  self,  together  with  reception  of  "the  strength 
■which  God  supplieth  "  ( 1  Pet.  4:11),  is  the  secret  of  Paul's  courage  ;  2  Cor.  12 :  10  —  "  when  I  am  weak, 
».hen  am  I  strong '  ;  Phil.  2 :  12, 13  — "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh 
in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure." 

C.  No  such  ability  known.  —  In  addition  to  the  psychological  argu- 
ment just  mentioned,  we  may  urge  another  from  experience  and  observa- 

41 


642  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

tion.  These  testify  that  man  is  cognizant  of  no  such  ability.  Since  no 
man  has  ever  yet,  by  the  exercise  of  his  natural  powers,  turned  himself  to 
God  or  done  an  act  truly  good  in  God's  sight,  the  existence  of  a  natural 
abdity  to  do  good  is  a  pure  assumption.  There  is  no  scientific  warrant 
for  inferring  the  existence  of  an  ability  which  has  never  manifested  itself 
in  a  single  instance  since  history  began. 

"  Solomon  could  not  keep  the  Proverbs,  —  so  he  wrote  them."  The  book  of  Proverbs 
needs  for  its  complement  the  New  Testament  explanation  of  helplessness  and  offer  of 
help:  John  15:  5  —  "apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing";  6:37  —  "him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast 
put."  The  palsied  man's  inability  to  walk  is  very  different  from  his  indisposition  to 
accept  a  remedy.  The  paralytic  cannot  climb  the  cliff,  but  by  a  rope  let  down  to  him 
he  may  be  lilted  up,  provided  he  will  permit  himself  to  be  tied  to  it.  Darling-,  in  Presb. 
and  Ref .  Rev.,  July,  1901 :  505 — "  If  bidden,  we  can  stretch  out  a  withered  arm ;  but  God 
does  not  require  this  of  one  born  armless.  We  may  'hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God'  and 
'  live '  ( John  5  :  25 ),  but  we  shall  not  bring-  out  of  the  tomb  faculties  not  possessed  before 
death." 

D.  Practical  evil  of  the  belief. —  The  practical  evil  attending  the  preach- 
ing of  natural  ability  furnishes  a  strong  argument  against  it.  The  Script- 
ures, in  their  declarations  of  the  sinner's  inability  and  helplessness,  aim  to 
shut  him  up  to  sole  dependence  upon  God  for  salvation.  The  doctrine  of 
natural  ability,  assuring  him  that  he  is  able  at  once  to  repent  and  turn  to 
God,  encourages  delay  by  putting  salvation  at  all  times  within  his  reach. 
If  a  single  volition  will  secure  it,  he  may  be  saved  as  easily  to-morrow  as 
to-day.  The  doctrine  of  inability  presses  men  to  immediate  acceptance  of 
God's  offers,  lest  the  day  of  grace  for  them  pass  by. 

Those  who  care  most  for  self  are  those  in  whom  self  becomes  thoroug-hly  subjected 
and  enslaved  to  external  influences.  Mat.  16 :  25  — "  whosoever  would  save  his  life  shall  lose  it."  The 
selfish  man  is  a  straw  on  the  surface  of  a  rushing-  stream.  He  becomes  more  and  more 
a  victim  of  circumstance,  until  at  last  he  has  no  more  freedom  than  the  brute.  Ps.  49 ;  20 
— "  Man  that  is  in  honor,  and  understandeth  not,  Is  like  the  beasts  that  perish ; "  see  R.  T.  Smith,  Man's 
Knowledge  of  Man  and  of  God,  121.  Robert  Browning,  unpublished  poem  :  "  '  Woulu  a 
man  'scape  the  rod? '  Rabbi  Ben  Karshook  saith,  '  See  that  he  turn  to  God  The  day 
before  his  death.'  'Aye,  could  a  man  inquire  When  it  shall  come?'  I  say.  The  Rabbi's 
eye  shoots  fire  — '  Then  let  him  turn  to-day.'  " 

Let  us  repeat,  however,  that  the  denial  to  man  of  all  abdity,  whether 
natural  or  moral,  to  turn  himself  to  God  or  to  do  that  which  is  truly  good 
in  God's  sight,  does  not  imply  a  denial  of  man's  power  to  order  his 
external  life  in  many  particulars  conformably  to  moral  rules,  or  even  to 
attain  the  praise  of  men  for  virtue.  Man  has  still  a  range  of  freedom  in 
acting  out  his  nature,  and  he  may  to  a  certain  limited  extent  act  down  upon 
that  nature,  and  modify  it,  by  isolated  volitions  externally  conformed  to 
God's  law.  He  may  choose  higher  or  lower  forms  of  selfish  action,  and 
may  pursue  these  chosen  courses  with  various  degrees  of  selfish  energy. 
Freedom  of  choice,  within  this  limit,  is  by  no  means  incompatible  with 
complete  bondage  of  the  will  in  spiritual  things* 

John  1 :  13  —  "  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  "  ;  3:5  —  "  Except 
one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ;  6  :  44  —  "No  man  can  come  to  me, 
except  the  Father  that  sent  me  draw  him"  ;  8:34 — "Every  one  that  committeth  sin  is  the  bondservant  of  sin"  ;  15  :4,  5 
—  "  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  ....  apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing  "  ;  Rom.  7:18  —  "in  me,  that  is,  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing ;  for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  do  that  which  is  good  is  not "  ;  24  —  "  Wretched 
man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  out  of  the  body  of  this  death  ?  "  8:7,  8—  "the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity 
against  God ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  it  be :  and  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  ploaso 
God  "  ;  1  Cor.  2: 14  —  "the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God:  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ; 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO   ADAM'S    POSTERITY.  643 

and  he  cannot  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged  " ;  2  Cor.  3:5  —  "not  that  we  are  sufficient  of  ourselves, 
to  account  anything  as  from  ourselves"  ;  Eph.  2:1  —  "dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins";  8-10 — "by  ^race 
have  ye  been  saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God ;  not  of  works,  that  no  man  should 
glory.  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Chri^  Jesus  for  good  works  "  ;  Heb.  11 : 6  —  "  without  faith  it  is  impos- 
sible to  be  well-pleasing  unto  him." 

Kant's  "  I  ought,  therefore  I  can  "  is  the  relic  of  man's  original  consciousness  of  free- 
dom —  the  freedom  with  which  man  was  endowed  at  his  creation— a  freedom,  now, 
alas !  destroyed  by  sin.  Or  it  may  be  the  courage  of  the  soul  in  which  God  is  working1 
anew  by  his  Spirit.  For  Kant's  "Ich  soil,  also  Ic-li  kann,"  Julius  Mtiller  would  substi- 
tute: "Ich  sollte  freilich  konnen,  aber  Ich  kann  nlcht"  —  "I  ought  indeed  to  be 
able,  but  I  am  not  able."  Man  truly  repents  ooly  when  he  learns  that  his  sin  has  made 
him  unable  to  repent  without  the  renewing  grace  of  God.  Emerson,  in  his  poem 
entitled  tt  Voluntariness,"  says:  "So  near  is  grandeur  to  our  dust.  So  near  is  God  to 
man,  When  duty  whispers  low,  Thou  must,  The  youth  replies,  7  can.'"  But,  apart  from 
special  grace,  all  the  ability  which  man  at  present  possesses  comes  far  short  of  fulfilling 
the  spiritual  demands  of  God's  law.  Parental  and  civil  law  implies  a  certain  kind  of 
power.  Puritan  theology  called  man  "free  among  the  dead"  ( Ps.  88  :  5,  A.  V. ).  There  was  a 
range  of  freedom  inside  of  slavery,  — the  will  was  "a  drop  of  water  imprisoned  in  a 
solid  crystal "  (  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes ).  The  man  who  kills  himself  is  as  dead  as  if  he 
ha<  1  been  killed  by  anot  her  (  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  106 ). 

Westminster  Confession,  9  :  3  —  "  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,  he  is  not  able  by  his  own 
strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto."  Hopkins,  Works,  1  :  :.'33 
-235  — "So  long  as  the  sinner's  opposition  of  heart  and  will  continues,  he  cannot  come 
to  Christ.  It  is  impossible,  and  will  continue  so,  until  his  unwillingness  and  opposition 
be  removed  by  a  change  and  renovation  of  his  heart  by  divine  grace,  and  he  be  made 
willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power."  Hopkins  speaks  of  "  utter  inability  to  obey  the 
law  of  God,  yea,  utter  impossibility.'' 

Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  3:287-877—"  Inability  consists,  not  in  the  loss  of  any  faculty  of 
the  soul,  nor  in  the  loss  of  free  agency,  for  the  sinner  determines  his  own  acts,  nor  in 
mere  disinclination  to  what  is  good.  It  arises  from  want  of  spirit  ual  discernment,  and 
hence  want  of  proper  affections.  Inability  belongs  only  to  the  things  of  the  Spirit. 
Whatman  cannot  do  is  to  repent,  believe,  regenerate  himself.  He  cannot  put  forth 
any  act  which  merits  the  approbation  of  God.  Sin  cleaves  to  all  he  does,  and  From  its 
dominion  he  cannot  free  himself.  The  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability  is 
of  no  value.  Shall  we  say  that  the  uneducated  man  can  understand  and  appreciate  the 
Iliad,  because  he  has  all  the  faculties  that  the  scholar  has?  Shall  we  say  that  man  can 
love  (iod,  if  he  will?  This  is  false,  if  will  means  volition.  It  is  a  truism,  if  will  means 
affection.  The  Scriptures  never  thus  address  men  and  tell  them  that  they  have  power 
to  do  all  that  God  requires.  It  is  dangerous  to  teach  a  man  this,  for  until  a  man  feels 
that  he  can  do  nothing,  God  never  saves  him.  Inability  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  ;  in  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit's  influence  in  regeneration.  Inability  is  con- 
sistent with  obligation,  when  inability  arises  from  sin  and  is  removed  by  the  removal 
of  sin." 

Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 : 213-257,  and  in  South  Church  Sermons,  33-59  —  "The  origin  of 
this  helplessness  lies,  not  in  creation,  but  in  sin.  God  can  command  the  ten  talents  or 
the  five  which  he  originally  committed  to  us,  together  with  a  diligent  and  faithful 
improvement  of  them.  Because  the  servant  has  lost  the  talents,  is  he  discharged  from 
obligation  to  return  them  with  interest?  Sin  contains  in  itself  the  element  of  servi- 
tude. In  the  very  act  of  transgressing  the  law  of  God,  there  is  a  reflex  action  of  the 
human  will  upon  itself,  whereby  it  becomes  less  able  than  before  to  keep  that  law. 
Sin  is  the  suicidal  action  of  the  human  will.  To  do  wrong  destroys  the  power  to  do 
right.  Total  depravity  carries  with  it  total  impotence.  The  voluntary  faculty  may  be 
ruined  from  within ;  may  be  made  impotent  to  holiness,  by  its  own  action ;  may  sur- 
render itself  to  appetite  and  selfishness  with  such  an  intensity  and  earnestness,  that  it 
becomes  unable  to  convert  itself  and  overcome  its  wrong  inclination."  See  Stevenson, 
Dr.  Jekyll  and  Mr.  Hyde, —noticed  in  Andover  Kev.,  June,  1886  :  664.  We  can  merge 
ourselves  in  the  fife  of  another— either  bad  or  good;  can  almost  transform  ourselves 
into  Satan  or  into  Christ,  so  as  to  say  with  Paul,  in  Gal.  2  :  20  —  "it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me  "  ;  or  be  minions  of  "  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  sons  of  disobedience  "  (  Eph.  2:2). 
But  if  we  yield  ourselves  to  the  influence  of  Satan,  the  recovery  of  our  true  personality 
becomes  increasingly  difficult,  and  at  last  impossible. 


644  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

There  is  nothing  in  literature  sadder  or  more  significant  than  the  self-bewailing-  of 
Charles  Lamb,  the  gentle  Elia,  who  writes  in  his  Last  Essays,  214  —  "  Could  the  youth  to 
whom  the  flavor  of  the  first  wine  is  delicious  as  the  opening-  scenes  of  life  or  the  enter- 
ing- of  some  newly  discovered  paradise,  look  into  my  desolation,  and  be  made  to  under- 
stand what  a  dreary  thing  it  is  when  he  shall  feel  himself  going  down  a  precipice  with 
open  eyes  and  a  passive  will ;  to  see  his  destruction,  and  have  no  power  to  stop  it ;  to 
see  all  goodness  emptied  out  of  him,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  forget  a  time  when  it  was 
otherwise ;  to  bear  about  the  piteous  spectacle  of  his  own  ruin,  —  could  he  see  my 
fevered  eye,  fevered  with  the  last  night's  drinking,  and  feverishly  looking  for  to-night's' 
repetition  of  the  folly ;  could  he  but  feel  the  body  of  this  death  out  of  which  I  cry  hourly, 
with  feebler  outcry,  to  be  delivered,  it  were  enough  to  make  him  dash  the  sparkling 
beverage  to  the  earth,  in  all  the  pride  of  its  mantling  temptation." 

For  the  Arminian  '  gracious  ability,'  see  Raymond,  Syst.  TheoL,  2 :  130 ;  McClintock  & 
Strong,  Cyclopaedia,  10 :  990.  Per  contra,  see  Calvin,  Institutes,  bk.  2,  chap.  2  (1 :  282 ) ; 
Edwards,  Works,  2:464  (Orig.  Sin,  3:1);  Bennet  Tyler,  Works,  73;  Baird,  Elohini 
Revealed,  523-528;  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theology,  1:567-639;  Turretin,  10:4:19;  A.  A. 
Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  260-269;  Thorn weU,  Theology,  1:394-399;  Alexander, 
Moral  Science,  89-208 ;  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  224-239 ;  Richards,  Lectures  on  Theology. 
On  real  as  distinguished  from  formal  freedom,  see  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  2  : 1-225. 
On  Augustine's  Uneamenta  c.vtrema(ot  the  divine  image  in  man ),  see  Wiggers,  Augus- 
tinism  and  Pelagianism,  119,  note.  See  also  art.  by  A.  H.  Strong,  on  Modified  Calvinism, 
or  Remainders  of  Freedom  in  Man,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1883:219-242;  and  reprinted  in  the 
author's  Philosophy  and  Religion,  114-128. 

II.    Guilt. 

1.    Mature  of  guilt. 

By  guilt  we  mean  desert  of  punishment,  or  obligation  to  render  satis- 
faction to  God's  justice  for  self-determined  violation  of  law.  There  is  a 
reaction  of  holiness  against  sin,  which  the  Scripture  denominates  "the 
wrath  of  God  "  (  Eom.  1  :  18  ).  Sin  is  in  us,  either  as  act  or  state  ;  God's 
punitive  righteousness  is  over  against  the  sinner,  as  something  to  be  feared; 
guilt  is  a  relation  of  the  sinner  to  that  righteousness,  namely,  the  sinner's 
desert  of  punishment. 

Guilt  is  related  to  sin  as  the  burnt  spot  to  the  blaze.  Schiller,  Die  Braut  von  Messina : 
"Das  Leben  ist  der  Giiter  hochstes  nicht;  Der  Uebel  grosstes  afoer  ist  die  Schuld  " 
—  "Life  is  not  the  highest  of  possessions;  the  greatest  of  ills,  however,  is  guilt.'' 
Delitzsch :  "  Die  Schamrtithe  ist  die  Abendriithe  der  untergegangenen  Sonne  der 
ursprunglichen  Gerechtigkeit "— "  The  blush  of  shame  is  the  evening  red  after  the  sun 
of  original  righteousness  has  gone  down."  E.  G.  Robinson :  '*  Pangs  of  conscience  do 
not  arise  from  the  fear  of  penalty,  —  they  are  the  penalty  itself."  See  chapter  on  Fig- 
leaves,  in  Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  142-154  —  "  Spiritual  shame  for  sin 
sought  an  outward  symbol,  and  found  it  in  the  nakedness  of  the  lower  parts  of  the 
body." 

The  following  remarks  may  serve  both  for  proof  and  for  explanation  : 
A.  Guilt  is  incurred  only  through  self-determined  transgression  either 
on  the  part  of  man's  nature  or  person.  We  are  guilty  only  of  that  sin 
which  we  have  originated  or  have  had  part  in  originating.  Guilt  is  not, 
therefore,  mere  liability  to  punishment,  without  participation  in  the  trans- 
gression for  wldch  the  punishment  is  inflicted, —  in  other  words,  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  constructive  guilt  under  the  divine  government.  We  are 
accounted  guilty  only  for  what  we  have  done,  either  personally  or  in  our 
first  parents,  and  for  what  we  are,  in  consequence  of  such  doing, 

Ez.  18  :  20  —  "  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father  "  ==,  as  Calvin  says  ( Com.  in  loco ) :  "  The 
son  shall  not  bear  the  father's  iniquity,  since  he  shall  receive  the  reward  due  to  himself, 
and  shall  bear  his  own  burden.  .  .  .  All  are  guilty  through  their  own  fault.  .  .  .  Every 
one  perishes  through  his  own  iniquity."    In  other  words,  the  whole  race  fell  in  Adam, 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  SIN  TO  ADAM'S   POSTERITY.  645 

and  is  punished  for  its  own  sin  in  him,  not  for  the  sins  of  Immediate  ancestors,  nor  for 
the  sin  of  Adam  as  a  person  foreign  to  us.  John  9:3  —  "  Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor  his  parents  " 
( that  he  should  be  born  blind )  =  Do  not  attribute  to  any  special  later  sin  what  is  a  con- 
sequence of  the  sin  of  the  race—  the  iy-st  sin  which  "  brought  death  into  the  world,  and 
all  our  woe."    Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  195-213. 

B.  Guilt  is  an  objective  result  of  siu,  and  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
subjective  pollution,  or  depravity.  Every  sin,  whether  of  nature  or  per- 
son, is  an  offense  against  God  (Ps.  51  :  4-6),  an  act  or  state  of  opposition 
to  his  will,  which  has  fur  its  effect  God's  personal  wrath  (  Ps.  7:11;  John 
3  :  18,  3G  ),  and  which  must  be  exjnated  either  by  punishment  or  by  atone- 
ment (  Heb.  9  :  22 ).  Not  only  does  sin,  as  unlikeness  to  the  divine  purity, 
involve  liollution, —  it  also,  as  antagonism  to  God's  holy  will,  involves  guilt. 
This  guilt,  or  obligation  to  satisfy  the  outraged  holiness  of  God,  is  explained 
in  the  New  Testament  by  the  terms  "debtor"  and  "debt "  (  Mat.  6  :  VI  ; 
Lake  13  : 4  ;  Mat.  5  :  21 ;  Rom.  3  :  19 ;  6  :  23  ;  Eph.  2:3).  Since  guilt, 
the  objective  result  of  sin,  is  entirely  distinct  from  depravity,  the  subjective 
result,  human  nature  may,  as  in  Christ,  have  the  guilt  without  the  deprav- 
ity (  2  Cor.  5  :  21 ),  or  may,  as  in  the  Christian,  have  the  depravity  without 
the  guilt  ( 1  John  1  :  7,  8). 

Ps.  51 :  4-6  —  "  Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  And  dono  that  'which  is  evil  in  thy  sight ;  That  thon  mayest  be 
j  astified  when  thou  speakest,  And  be  dear  when  thou  judgest  "  ;  7:11  —  "  God  is  a  righteous  judge,  Yea,  a  God  that  hath 
indignation  every  day  "  ;  John  3  :  IS  "he  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already  "  ;  36  —  "  he  that  obcyeth  not 
the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  "  ;  Heb.  9  :  22  — "  apart  from  shedding  of  blood  there  is 
no  remission";  Mat.  6  :  12  —  "debts";  Luke  13  :  4  —  "offenders"  (marg.  "debtors");  Mat. 5  :  21  — "shall  be  in 
danger  of  [  exposed  to  ]  the  judgment "  ;  Rom.  3  :  19  —  "  that  ....  all  the  world  may  be  brought  under  the 
judgment  of  God  "  ;  6  :  23  —  "the  wages  of  sin  is  death  "  =  death  is  sin's  desert ;  Eph.  2  :  3  —  "  by  nature 
children  of  wrath"  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  21  —  "Him  who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf"  ;  1  John  1 :  7,  8  —  "the 
blood  of  Jesus  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.  [  Yet  ]  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  us." 

Sin  brings  in  its  train  not  on]  j-  depravity  but  guilt,  not  only  macula  but  reattm.  Script- 
ure sets  forth  the  pollution  of  sin  by  its  similies  of  "a  cage  of  unclean  birds"  and  of 
"  wounds,  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores  "  ;  by  leprosy  and  Levitical  uncleanness,  under 
the  old  dispensation ;  by  death  and  the  corruption  of  the  grave,  under  both  the  old  and 
the  uew.  But  Scripture  sets  forth  the  guUt  of  sin,  with  equal  vividness,  in  the  fear  of 
Cain  and  in  the  remorse  of  Judas.  The  revulsion  of  God's  holiness  from  sin,  and  its 
demand  for  satisfaction,  are  reflected  in  the  shame  and  remorse  of  every  awakened 
conscience.  There  is  an  instinctive  feeling  in  the  sinner's  heart  that  sin  will  be  pun- 
ished, and  ought  to  be  punished.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  t'.iis  need  of  reparation  so 
deeply  felt  that  the  soul  has  no  rest  until  its  debt  is  paid.  The  offending  church  me» 
ber  who  is  truly  penitent  loves  the  law  and  the  church  which  excludes  him,  and  would 
not  thiuk  it  faithful  if  it  did  not.  So  Jesus,  when  laden  with  the  guilt  of  the  race, 
pressed  forward  to  the  cross,  saying:  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with;  and  how  am  I  straitened  tiil 
it  be  accomplished ! "  ( Luke  12  :  50  ;  Mark  10  :  32 ). 

All  sin  involves  guilt,  and  the  sinful  soul  itself  demands  penalty,  so  that  all  will  ulti- 
mately go  where  they  most  desire  to  be.  All  the  great  masters  in  literature  have  recog- 
nized this.  The  inextinguishable  thirst  for  reparation  constitutes  the  very  essence  of 
tragedy.  The  Greek  tragedians  are  full  of  it,  and  Shakespeare  is  its  most  impressive 
teacher :  Measure  for  Measure,  5:1  —  "I  am  sorry  that  such  sorrow  I  procure,  And  so 
deep  sticks  it  in  my  penitent  heart  That  I  crave  death  more  willingly  than  mercy ;  'T  is 
my  deserving,  and  I  do  entreat  it "  ;  Cymbeline,  5:4  —  "  and  so,  great  Powers,  If  you 
will  take  this  audit,  take  this  life,  And  cancel  these  cold  bonds!  ....  Desired,  more 
than  constrained,  to  satisfy,  ....  take  No  stricter  render  of  me  than  my  all  "  ;  that  is, 
settle  the  account  with  me  by  taking  my  life,  for  nothing  less  than  that  will  pay  my 
debt.  And  later  writers  follow  Shakespeare.  Marguerite,  in  Goethe's  Faust,  fainting 
in  the  great  cathedral  under  the  solemn  reverberations  of  the  Dies  Ira? ;  Dimmesdale, 
in  Hawthorne's  Scarlet  Letter,  putting  himself  side  by  side  with  Hester  Prynne,  his 
victim,  in  her  place  of  obloquy;  Bulwer's  Eugene  Aram,  coming  forward,  though 
unsuspected,  to  confess  the  murder  he  had  committed,  all  these  are  illustrations  of  the 


646  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

inner  impulse  that  moves  even  a  sinful  soul  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  justice  upon  it. 
See  A.  H.  Strong-,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  215,  216.  On  Hawthorne,  see  Hutton, 
Essays,  2  :  370-416  —  "  In  the  Scarlet  Letter,  the  minister  gains  fresh  reverence  and  pop- 
ularity as  the  very  fruit  of  the  passionate  anguish  with  which  his  heart  is  consumed. 
Frantic  with  the  stings  of  unacknowledged  guilt,  he  is  yet  taught  by  these  very  stings 
to  understand  the  hearts  and  stir  the  consciences  of  others."  See  also  Dinsmore, 
Atonement  in  Literature  and  Life. 

Nor  are  such  scenes  confined  to  the  pages  of  romance.  In  a  recent  trial  at  Syracuse, 
Earl,  the  wife-murderer,  thanked  the  jury  that  had  convicted  him ;  declared  the  verdict 
just ;  begged  that  no  one  would  interfere  to  stay  the  course  of  justice ;  said  that  the 
greatest  blessing  that  could  be  conferred  on  him  would  be  to  let  him  suffer  the  penalty 
of  his  crime.  In  Plattsburg,  at  the  close  of  another  trial  in  which  the  accused  was  a 
life-convict  who  had  struck  down  a  fellow-convict  with  an  axe,  the  jury,  after  being 
on  1 1  wo  hours,  came  in  to  ask  the  Judge  to  explain  the  difference  between  murder  in  the 
first  and  second  degree.  Suddenly  the  prisoner  rose  and  said  :  "  This  was  not  a  murder 
in  the  second  degree.  It  was  a  deliberate  and  premeditated  murder.  I  know  that  I 
have  done  wrong,  that  I  ought  to  confess  the  truth,  and  that  I  ought  to  be  hanged." 
This  left  the  jury  nothing  to  do  but  render  their  verdict,  and  the  Judge  sentenced  the 
murderer  to  be  hanged,  as  he  confessed  he  deserved  to  be.  In  1891,  Lars  Ostendahl,  the 
most  famous  preacher  of  Norway,  startled  his  hearers  by  publicly  confessing  that  he 
had  been  guilty  of  immorality,  and  that  he  could  no  longer  retain  his  pastorate.  He 
begged  his  people  for  the  sake  of  Christ  to  forgive  him  and  not  to  desert  the  poor  in  his 
asylums.    He  was  not  only  preacher,  but  also  head  of  a  great  philanthropic  work. 

Such  is  the  movement  and  demand  of  the  enlightened  conscience.  The  lack  of  con- 
viction that  crime  ought  to  be  punished  is  one  of  the  most  certain  signs  of  moral  decay 
in  either  the  individual  or  the  nation  ( Ps.  97  :  10  —  "  Ye  that  love  the  Lord,  hate  evil "  ;  149  :  6  —  "  Let 
the  high  praises  of  God  be  in  their  mouth,  And  a  two-edged  sword  in  their  hand  "  — to  execute  God's  judg- 
ment upon  iniquity ). 

This  relation  of  sin  to  God  shows  us  how  Christ  is  "made  sin  on  our  behalf"  (2  Cor.  5:21). 
Since  Christ  is  the  immanent  God,  he  is  also  essential  humanity,  the  universal  man,  the 
life  of  the  race.  All  the  nerves  and  sensibilities  of  humanity  meet  in  him.  He  is  the 
central  brain  to  which  and  through  which  all  ideas  must  pass.  He  is  the  central  heart 
to  which  and  through  which  all  pains  must  be  communicated.  You  cannot  telephone 
to  your  friend  across  the  town  without  first  ringing  up  the  central  office.  You  cannot 
injure  your  neighbor  without  first  injuring  Christ.  Each  one  of  us  can  say  of  him  : 
"Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned"  (Ps.  51:4).  Because  of  his  central  and  all-inclusive 
humanity,  Christ  can  feel  all  the  pangs'  of  shame  and  suffering  which  rightfully 
belong  to  sinners,  but  which  they  cannot  feel,  because  their  sin  has  stupefied  and  dead- 
ened them.  The  Messiah,  if  he  be  truly  man,  must  be  a  suffering  Messiah.  For  the 
very  reason  of  his  humanity  he  must  bear  in  his  own  person  all  the  guilt  of  humanity 
and  must  be  "iheLamb  of  God  who"  takes,  and  so  "takesaway,  the  sin  of  the  world  "  (Johnl :  29). 

Guilt  and  depravity  are  not  only  distinguishable  in  thought,— they  are  also  separable 
in  fact.  The  convicted  murderer  might  repent  and  become  pure,  yet  he  might  still  be 
ljnder  obligation  to  suffer  the  punishment  of  bis  crime.  The  Christian  is  freed  from 
guilt  ( Rom.  8:1),  but  he  is  not  yet  freed  from  depravity  ( Rom.  7 :  23 ).  Christ,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  under  obligation  to  suffer  (Luke  24:  26;  Acts 3: 18;  26:23),  while  yet  he  was 
without  sin  (fleb.  7:26).  In  the  book  entitled  Modern  Religious  Thought,  3-29,  R.  J. 
Campbell  has  an  essay  on  The  Atonement,  with  which,  apart  from  its  view  as  to  the 
origin  of  moral  evil  in  God,  we  are  in  substantial  agreement.  He  holds  that  "  to  relieve 
men  from  their  sense  of  guilt,  objective  atonement  is  necessary,"  —  we  would  say :  to 
relieve  men  from  guilt  itself —  the  obligation  to  suffer.  "  If  Christ  be  the  eternal  Son 
of  God,  that  side  of  the  divine  nature  which  has  gone  forth  in  creation,  if  he  contains 
humanity  and  is  present  in  every  article  and  act  of  human  experience,  then  he  is  asso- 
ciated with  the  existence  of  the  primordial  evil.  ...  He  and  only  he  can  sever  the 
entail  between  man  and  his  responsibility  for  personal  sin.  Christ  has  not  sinned  in 
man,  but  he  takes  responsibility  for  that  experience  of  evil  into  which  humanity  is 
born,  and  the  yielding  to  which  constitutes  sin.  He  goes  forth  to  suffer,  and  actually 
does  suffer,  in  man.  The  eternal  Son  in  whom  humanity  is  contained  is  therefore  a  suf- 
ferer since  creation  began.  This  mysterious  passion  of  Deity  must  continue  until 
redemption  is  consummated  and  humanity  restored  to  God.  Thus  every  consequence 
of  human  ill  is  felt  in  the  experience  of  Christ.  Thus  Christ  not  only  assumes  the  guilt 
but  bears  the  punishment  of  every  human  soul."  We  claim  however  that  the  neces- 
sity of  this  suffering  lies,  not  in  the  needs  of  man,  but  in  the  holiness  of  God. 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO   ADAM'S    POSTERITY.  647 

C.  Guilt,  moreover,  as  an  objective  result  of  sin,  is  uot  to  be  confounded 
with  the  subjective  consciousness  of  gtiilt  (  Lev.  5:17).  In  the  condem- 
nation of  conscience,  God's  condemnation  partially  and  prophetically  mani- 
fests itself  ( 1  John  3  :  20  ).  Buf^ guilt  is  primarily  a  relation  to  God,  and 
only  secondarily  a  relation  to  conscience.  Progress  in  sin  is  marked  by 
diminished  sensitiveness  of  moral  insight  and  feeling.  As  "  the  greatest  of 
sins  is  to  be  conscious  of  none, "  so  guilt  may  be  great,  just  in  proportion 
to  the  absence  of  consciousness  of  it  ( Ps.  19  :  12  ;  51  :  G  ;  Eph.  4  :  18,  19 
—  a-r/lyjiiidTEt;  ).  There  is  no  evidence,  however,  that  the  voice  of  conscience 
can  be  completely  or  finally  silenced.  The  time  for  repentance  may  pass, 
but  not  the  time  for  remorse.  Progress  in  holiness,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
marked  by  increasing  apprehension  of  the  depth  and  extent  of  our  sinful- 
ness, while  with  this  apprehension  is  combined,  in  a  normal  Christian  exjje- 
rience,  the  assurance  that  the  guilt  of  our  sin  has  been  taken,  and  taken 
away,  by  Christ  (John  1  :  29  ). 

Lev.  5  :  17 — "  And  if  any  one  sin,  and  do  any  of  the  things  which  Jehovah  hath  commanded  not  to  be  done ;  though  he 
knew  it  not,  yet  is  he  gnilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity  "  ;  1  John  3  :  20  —  "  because  if  our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is 
greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things  "  ;  Ps.  19  :  12  —  "  Who  can  discern  his  errors  ?  Clear  thou  me  from  hid- 
den faults  "  ;  51 :  6  —  "  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts ;  And  in  the  hidden  part  thou  wilt  make  me  to 
know  wisdom  ";  Eph.  4  :  18, 19  —  "darkened  in  their  understanding  ....  being  past  feeling ";  John  1 :  29  — 
"  Behold,  tho  Lamb  of  God,  that  takcth  away  [  marg.  'beareth  '  ]  the  sin  of  the  world." 

Plato,  Republic,  1 : 330— "When  death  approaches,  cares  aud  alarms  awake,  espe- 
cially the  tear  of  hell  and  its  punishments."  Cicero,  I)e  Divio.,  1  :30— "Then  comes 
remorse  for  evil  deeds."  Persius,  Satire 3— "His  vice  benumbs  him;  his  fibre  has 
become  fat;  he  is  conscious  of  no  fault;  he  knows  uot  the  loss  he  sutlers;  he  is  so  far 
sunk,  that  there  is  uot  even  a  bubble  ou  the  surface  of  the  deep."  Shakespeare,  Ham- 
let, 3  : 1  —  "Thus  conscience  doth  make  cowards  of  us  all"  ;  4:5 — "To  my  sick  soul,  as 
sin's  true  nature  is,  Each  toy  seems  prologue  to  some  great  amiss;  So  full  of  artless 
jealousy  is  guilt,  It  spills  itself  in  fearing  to  be  spilt "  ;  Richard  III,  5  :  3  —  "  O  coward 
conscience,  how  thou  dost  afflict  me  I  .  .  .  My  conscience  hath  a  thousand  several 
tongues,  and  every  tongue  brings  in  a  several  tale,  And  every  tale  condemns  me  ft  »r  a 
villain";  Tempest,  3:3  — "All  three  of  them  are  desperate;  their  great  guilt,  Like 
poison  given  to  work  a  great  time  after,  Now  'gins  to  bite  t  he  spirits  "  ;  Ant.  and  Cleop., 
3  :  9  —  "  When  we  in  our  viciousness  grow  hard  i  <  >  misery  on  't  !  )  the  wise  gods  Seei 
our  eyes;  In  our  own  flltli  drop  our  clear  judgments;  make  us  Adore  our  errors  ;  laugh 
at  us,  while  we  strut  To  our  confusion." 

Dr.  Shedd  said  once  to  a  graduating  class  of  young  theologians :  "  Would  that  upon 
the  naked,  palpitating  heart  of  each  one  of  you  might  be  laid  one  redhot  coal  of  God 
Almighty's  wrath !  "  Yes,  we  add,  if  only  that  redhot  coal  might  be  quenched  by  one  red 
drop  of  Christ's  atoning  blood.  Dr.  II.  E.  Robins  :  "To  the  convicted  sinner  a  merely 
external  hell  would  be  a  cooling  flame,  compared  with  the  agony  of  his  remorse." 
John  Milton  represents  Satan  as  saying:  "Which  way  I  fly  is  hell;  myself  am  hell." 
James  Martineau,  Life  by  Jackson,  190  —  "It  is  of  the  essence  of  guilty  declension  to 
administer  its  own  aniesthetics."  But  this  deadening  of  conscience  cannot  last  always. 
Conscience  is  a  mirror  of  God's  holiness.  We  may  co%Ter  the  mirror  with  the  veil  of 
this  world's  diversions  and  deceits.  Wrhen  the  veil  is  removed,  and  conscience  again 
reflects  the  sunlike  purity  of  God's  demands,  we  are  visited  with  self-loathing  and  self- 
contempt.  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas,  2  :  25 —  "  Though  it  may  cast  off  every  other  ves- 
tige of  its  divine  origin,  our  nature  retains  at  least  this  one  terrible  prerogative  of  it, 
the  capacity  of  preying  on  itself."  Lyttelton  in  Lux  Mundi,  277  — "The  common  fal- 
lacy that  a  self-indulgent  sinner  is  no  one's  enemy  but  his  own  would,  were  it  true, 
involve  the  further  inference  that  such  a  sinner  would  not  feel  himself  guilty."  If 
any  dislike  the  doctrine  of  guilt,  let  them  remember  that  without  wrath  there  is  no 
pardon,  without  guilt  no  forgiveness.  See,  on  the  nature  of  guilt,  Julius  Mtiller,  Doct. 
Sin,  1 :  193-267 ;  Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  203-209 ;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und 
Werk,  1:346;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  461-473;  Delltzsch,  Bib.  Psychologic  121-148; 
Thornwell,  Theology,  1  :  400-424. 


648  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

2.     Degrees  of  guilt. 

The  Scriptures  recognize  different  degrees  of  guilt  as  attaching  to  differ- 
ent kinds  of  sin.  The  variety  of  sacrifices  under  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the 
variety  of  awards  in  the  judgment,  are  to  be  explained  upon  this  principle. 

Luke  12  :  47,  48  —  "shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes  .  .  .  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes"  ;  Rom.  2:6 —  "  who 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works."  See  also  John  19 :  11  —  "  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee  hath 
greater  sin" ;  Heb.  2  :  2,  3  —  if  "every  transgression  ....  received  a  just  recompense  of  reward;  how  shall  we 
escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  a  salvation  ?  "  10  :  28,  29  —  "A  man  that  hath  set  at  nought  Moses'  law  dieth  without  com- 
passion on  the  word  of  two  or  three  witnesses :  of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  think  ye,  shall  he  be  judged  worthy,  who 
hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  ?  " 

Casuistry,  however,  has  drawn  many  distinctions  which  lack  Scriptural 
foundation.  Such  is  the  distinction  between  venial  sins  and  mortal  sins  in 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church, —  every  sin  unpardoned  being  mortal,  and  all 
sins  being  venial,  since  Christ  has  died  for  all.  Nor  is  the  common  distinc- 
tion between  sins  of  omission  and  sins  of  commission  more  valid,  since  the 
very  omission  is  an  act  of  commission. 

Mat.  25  :  45  —  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  unto  one  of  these  least "  ;  James  4  :  17  —  "To  him  therefore  that  knoweth 
to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin."  John  Ruskin  :  "  The  condemnation  given  from  the 
Judgment  Throne  — most  solemnly  described  — is  for  all  the'undones'  and  not  the 
4  dones.'  People  are  perpetually  afraid  of  doing-  wrong ;  but  unless  they  are  doing  its 
reverse  energetically,  they  do  it  all  day  limy,  and  the  degree  does  not  matter."  The 
Rinnan  Catholic  Church  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that,  she  can  determine  the  pre- 
cise malignity  of  every  offence,  and  assign  its  proper  penance  at  the  confessional. 
Thornwell,  Theology,  1 :  434-441,  says  that  "  all  sins  are  venial  but  one— for  there  is  a 
sin  against  the  Holy  Gbost,"  yet  "  not  one  is  venial  in  itself — for  the  least  proceeds 
from  an  apostate  state  and  nature."  We  shall  see,  however,  that  the  hindrance  to  par- 
don, in  the  case  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  subjective  rather  than  objective. 

J.  Spencer  Kennard :  "  Roman  Catholicism  in  Italy  presents  the  spectacle  of  the 
authoritative  representatives  and  teachers  of  morals  and  religion  themselves  living  in 
all  forms  of  deceit,  corruption,  and  tyranny ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  discriminating 
between  venial  and  mortal  sin,  classing  as  venial  sins  lying,  fraud,  f ornication,  marital 
infidelity,  and  even  murder,  all  of  which  may  be  atoned  for  and  forgiven  or  even  per- 
mitted by  the  mere  payment  of  money ;  and  at  the  same  time  classing  as  mortal  sins 
disrespect  and  disobedience  to  the  church." 

The  following  distinctions  are  indicated  in  Scripture  as  involving  differ- 
ent degrees  of  guilt : 

A.     Sin  of  nature,  and  personal  transgression. 

Sin  of  nature  involves  guilt,  yet  there  is  greater  guilt  when  this  sin  of 
nature  reasserts  itself  in  personal  transgression ;  for,  while  this  latter 
includes  in  itself  the  former,  it  also  adds  to  the  former  a  new  element, 
namely,  the  conscious  exercise  of  the  individual  and  personal  will,  by  virtue 
of  which  a  new  decision  is  made  against  God,  special  evil  habit  is  induced, 
and  the  total  condition  of  the  soul  is  made  more  depraved.  Although  we 
have  emphasized  the  guilt  of  inborn  sin,  because  this  truth  is  most  con- 
tested, it  is  to  be  remembered  that  men  reach  a  conviction  of  their  native 
depravity  only  through  a  conviction  of  then-  personal  transgressions.  For 
this  reason,  by  far  the  larger  part  of  our  preaching  upon  sin  should  con- 
sist in  applications  of  the  law  of  God  to  the  acts  and  dispositions  of  men's 
lives. 

Mat.  19 :  14  — "  to  such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "=  relative  innocence  of  childhood ;  23  :  32  — 
"Fill  ye  up  then  the  measure  of  your  fathers  "  =  personal  transgression  added  to  inherited  depravity. 
In  preaching,  we  should  first  treat  individual  transgressions,  and  thence  proceed  to 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SlN  TO   ADAMS   POSTERITY.  049 

heart-sin,  and  raeo-sin.  Man  is  not  wholly  a  spontaneous  development  of  inborn  ten- 
dencies, a  manifestation  of  original  sin.  Motives  do  not  determine  but  they  persuade 
the  will,  and  every  man  is  guilty  of  conscious  personal  transgressions  which  may,  with 
the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  brough^inder  the  condemning  judgment  of  conscience. 
Birks,  Difficulties  of  Belief,  109-174  — "  Original  sin  does  not  do  away  with  the  signifi- 
cance of  personal  transgression.  Adam  was  pardoned ;  but  some  of  his  descendants  are 
unpardonable.  The  second  death  is  referred,  in  Scripture,  to  our  own  personal  guilt." 
This  is  not  to  say  that  original  sin  does  not  involve  as  great  sin  as  that  of  Adam  in 
the  first  transgression,  for  original  sin  is  the  sin  of  the  first  transgression ;  it  is  only  to 
say  that  personal  transgression  is  original  sin  plus  the  conscious  ratification  of  Adam's 
act  by  the  individual.  "  We  are  guilty  for  what  we  arc,  as  much  as  for  what  we  do. 
Our  St  n  is  not  simply  the  sura  total  of  all  our  sins.  There  iB  a  sinfulness  which  is  the 
common  denominator  of  all  our  sins."  It  is  customary  to  speak  lightly  of  original  sin, 
as  if  personal  sins  were  all  for  which  man  is  accountable.  But  it  is  only  in  the  light  of 
original  sin  that  personal  sins  can  be  explained.  Prov.  14  : 9,  niarg.  — "Fools  make  a  mock  at  sin." 
BimoiL,  Reconciliation,  122 — " The  sinfulness  of  individual  men  varies;  the  sinfulness 
of  humanity  is  a  constant  quantity."  Robert  Browning,  Ferishtah's  Fancies:  "Man 
lumps  his  kind  i'  the  mass.  God  -ingles  thence  unit  by  unit.  Thou  and  God  exist  — 
So  think!  for  certain:  Think  the  mass  — mankind  — Disparts,  disperses,  leaves  thyself 
alone!  Ask  thy  lone  soul  what  laws  are  plain  to  thee,— Thou  and  no  other,  stand  or 
fall  by  them !  That  is  the  part  for  thee." 

B.  Sins  of  ignorance,  anil  sins  of  knowledge. 

Here  guilt  is  measured  by  the  degree  of  light  possessed,  or  in  other  words, 
by  the  opportunities  of  knowledge  men  have  enjoyed,  and  the  powers  with 
■which  they  have  been  naturally  endowed.  Genius  and  privilege  increase 
responsibility.  The  heathen  are  guilty,  but  those  to  whom  the  oracles  of 
God  have  been  committed  are  more  guilty  than  they. 

Mat.  10 :  15  —  "  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city  "  ;  Luke 
12:  47,  48  —  "that  servant,  who  knew  his  Lord's  will  ....  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes;  but  he  that  kn3w  not 
....  shall  be  beaten  with  few  str.pss  "  ;  23 :  34  —  "  Father,  forgive  them ;  for  they  know  not  what  they  do  "  =  i  ■<  >m- 
plete  knowledge  would  put  them  beyond  the  reach  of  forgiveness.  John  19:11  —  "hethat 
delivered  me  unto  thee  hath  greater  sin  "  ;  Acts  17  :30  —  "  The  times  of  ignorance  therefore  God  overlooked  "  ;  Rom.  1 :32 

—  "  who,  knowing  the  ordinance  of  God,  that  they  that  practise  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  the  same, 
bit  also  consent  with  them  that  practise  them  " ;  2:12  —  "  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  the  law  shall  also  perish 
without  the  law :  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  under  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law  "  ;  1  Tim.  1  :  13,  15,  16  —  "I 
obtained  mercy,  because  I  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbelief." 

Is.  42 :  19  — "  Who  is  blind  ....  as  Jehovah's  servant?  "  It  was  the  Pharisees  whom  Jesus  warned 
of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  guilt  of  the  crucifixion  rested  on  .lews  rather 
than  on  Gentiles.  Apostate  Israel  was  more  guilty  than  the  pagans.  The  greatest 
sinners  of  the  present  day  may  be  in  Christendom,  not  in  heathendom.  Satan  was  an 
archangel;  Judas  was  an  apostle;  Alexander  Borgia  was  a  pope.  Jackson,  James 
Martineau,  302  —  "  Corruptio  optimi  pessima  est,  as  seen  in  a  drunken  Webster,  a  treach- 
erous Paeon,  a  licentious  Goethe."  Sir  Roger  de  Goverley  observed  that  none  but  men 
of  fine  parts  deserve  to  be  hanged.  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  317  —  "The  greater  sin  often 
involves  the  lesser  guilt;  the  lesser  sin  the  greater  guilt."  Robert  Browning,  The 
Ring  and  the  Book,  227  ( Pope,  1975 )  — "  There 's  a  new  tribunal  now  Higher  than  God's, 

—  the  educated  man's  !  Nice  sense  of  honor  in  the  human  breast  Supersedes  here  the 
old  coarse  oracle  ! "  Dr.  H.  E.  Robins  holds  that  "  palliation  of  guilt  according  to  light 
is  not  possible  under  a  system  of  pure  law,  and  is  possible  only  because  the  probation  of 
the  sinner  is  a  probation  of  grace." 

C.  Sins  of  infirmity,  and  sins  of  presumption. 

Here  the  guilt  is  measured  by  the  energy  of  the  evil  will.  Sin  may  be 
known  to  be  sin,  yet  may  be  committed  in  haste  or  weakness.  Though 
haste  and  weakness  constitute  a  palliation  of  the  offence  which  springs 
therefrom,  yet  they  are  themselves  sins,  as  revealing  an  unbelieving  and 
disordered  heart.  But  of  far  greater  guilt  are  those  presumptuous  choices 
of  evil  in  which  not  weakness,  but  strength  of  will,  is  manifest. 


650  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

Ps.  19 :  12,  13  — "  Clear  thou  me  from  hidden  faults.  Keep  back  thy  servant  also  from  presumptuous  sins  "  ;  Is.  5  :  18 
— "  Woe  unto  them  that  draw  iniquity  with  cords  of  falsehood,  and  sin  as  it  were  with  a  cart-rope "  =  not  led  away 
insensibly  by  sin,  but  earnestly,  perseveringly,  and  wilf  uliy  working'  away  at  it ;  Gal. 
6:1  — "  overtaken  in  any  trespass "  ;  1  Tim.  5 :  24  —  "Some  men's  sins  are  evident,  going  before  unto  judgment ;  and 
some  men  also  they  follow  after  "  =  some  men's  sins  are  so  open,  that  they  act  as  officers  to  bring 
to  justice  those  who  commit  them  ;  whilst  others  require  after-proof  (An.  Par.  Bible). 
Luther  represents  one  of  the  former  class  as  saying-  to  himself:  "Esto  peccator,  et 
pecca  fortiter."  On  sins  of  passion  and  of  reflection,  see  Bittinger,  in  Princeton  Rev., 
1873 :  219. 

Micah  7  :  3,  marg.  — "Both  hands  are  put  forth  for  evil,  to  do  it  diligently."  So  we  ought  to  do  good. 
"  My  art  is  my  life,"  said  Grisi,  the  prima  donna  of  the  opera, "  I  save  myself  all  day  for 
that  one  bound  upon  the  stage."  H.  Bonar:  "  Sin  worketh, —  Let  me  work  too.  Busy 
as  sin,  my  work  I  ply,  Till  I  rest  in  the  rest  of  eternity."  German  criminal  law  distin- 
guishes between  intentional  homicide  without  deliberation,  and  intentional  homicide 
with  deliberation.  There  are  three  grades  of  sin :  1.  Sins  of  ignorance,  like  Paul's  per- 
secuting ;  2.  sins  of  infirmity,  like  Peter's  denial ;  3.  sins  of  presumption,  like  David's 
murder  of  Uriah.  Sins  of  presumption  were  unpardonable  under  the  Jewish  law ;  they 
are  not  unpardonable  under  Christ. 

D.     Sin  of  incomplete,  and  sin  of  final,  obduracy. 

Here  the  guilt  is  measured,  not  by  the  objective  sufficiency  or  insuf- 
ficiency of  divine  grace,  but  by  the  degree  of  uureceptiveness  into  -which 
sin  has  brought  the  soul.  As  the  only  sin  unto  death  "which  is  described 
in  Scripture  is  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  here  consider  the  nature 
of  that  sin. 

Mat.  12 :  31  —  "Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men  ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall  not 
be  forgiven  "  ;  32 — "  And  whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him ;  but  whosoever 
shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  that  whxh  is  to  come  "  ; 
Mark  3 :  29  — "  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal 
sin  "  ;  1  John  5 :  16, 17  —  "  If  any  man  see  his  brother  sinning  a  sin  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  God  will  give  him 
life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto  death.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death  :  not  concerning  this  do  I  say  that  he  should  make 
request.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin  :  and  there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death "  ;  Heb.  10  :  26  —  "if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that 
we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  expectation 
of  judgment,  and  a  fierceness  of  fire  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries." 

Ritschl  holds  all  sin  that  comes  short  of  definitive  rejection  of  Christ  to  be  ignorance 
rather  than  sin,  and  to  be  the  object  of  no  condemning  sentence.  This  is  to  make  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  the  only  real  sin.  Conscience  and  Scripture  alike  contradict 
this  view.  There  is  much  incipient  hardening  of  the  heart  that  precedes  the  sin  of  final 
ol  iduracy.  See  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  80.  The  composure  of  the  criminal  is  not 
akvvays  a  sign  of  innocence.  S.  S.  Times,  April  12, 1902 :  200 — "  Sensitiveness  of  conscience 
and  of  feeling,  and  responsiveness  of  countenance  and  bearing,  are  to  be  retained  by 
purity  of  life  and  freedom  from  transgression.  On  the  other  hand  composure  of  coun- 
tenance and  calmness  under  suspicion  and  accusation  are  likely  to  be  a  result  of  con- 
tinuance in  wrong  doing,  with  consequent  hardening  of  the  whole  moral  nature." 

Weismann,  Heredity,  2 : 8 — "  As  soon  as  any  organ  falls  into  disuse,  it  degenerates, 
and  finally  is  lost  altogether In  parasites  the  organs  of  sense  degenerate."  Mar- 
coni's wireless  telegraphy  requires  an  attuned  "  receiver."  The  "  transmitter  "  sends 
out  countless  rays  into  space :  only  one  capable  of  corresponding  vibrations  can  under- 
stand them.  The  sinner  may  so  destroy  his  receptivity,  that  the  whole  universe  may 
be  uttering  God's  truth,  yet  he  be  unable  to  hear  a  word  of  it.  The  Outlook :  "  If  a 
man  should  put  out  his  eyes,  he  could  not  see  — nothing  could  make  him  see.  So  if  a 
man  should  by  obstinate  wickedness  destroy  his  power  to  believe  in  God's  forgiveness, 
he  would  be  in  a  hopeless  state.  Though  God  would  still  be  gracious,  the  man  could 
not  see  it,  and  so  could  not  take  God's  forgiveness  to  himself." 

The  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  to  be  regarded  simply  as  an  isolated 
act,  but  also  as  the  external  symptom  of  a  heart  so  radically  and  finally  set 
against  God  that  no  power  which  God  can  consistently  use  will  ever  save 
it.  This  sin,  therefore,  can  be  only  the  culmination  of  a  long  course  of 
self-hardening  and  self-depraving.      He  who  has  committed  it  must  be 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO   ADAM'S    POSTERITY.  651 

either  profoundly  indifferent  to  his  own  condition,  or  actively  and  bitterly 
hostile  to  God  ;  so  that  anxiety  or  fear  on  account  of  one's  condition  is 
evidence  that  it  has  not  been  committed.  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit, 
cannot  be  forgiven,  simply  because  the  soul  that  has  committed  it  has 
ceased  to  be  receptive  of  divine  influences,  even  when  those  influences  are 
exerted  in  the  utmost  strength  which  God  has  seen  fit  to  employ  in  his 
spiritual  administration. 

The  commission  of  this  sin  is  marked  by  a  loss  of  spiritual  sight ;  the  blind  fish  of  the 
Mammoth  Cave  left  light  for  darkness,  and  so  in  time  lost  their  eyes.  It  is  marked  by 
a  loss  of  religious  sensibility ;  the  sensitive-plant  loses  its  sensitiveness,  in  proportion  to 
the  frequency  with  which  it  is  touched.  It  is  marked  by  a  loss  of  power  to  will  the 
good;  "the  lava  hardens  after  it  has  broken  from  the  crater,  and  in  that  state  cannot 
return  to  its  source"  (Van  Oosterzee  I.  The  same  writer  also  remarks  (  Dogmatics, 
2:428) :  "  Hen  id  Antipas,  after  earlier  doubt  and  slavishness,  reached  such  deadnees  as 
to  be  able  to  mock  the  Savior,  at  the  mention  of  whose  name  lie  had  not  long  before 
trembled."  Julius  MtUler,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2:425 — "It  is  not  that  divine  grace  is  abso- 
lutely refused  to  any  one  who  in  true  penitence  asks  forgiveness  of  this  sin;  but  he  who 
commits  it  never  fulfills  the  subjective  conditions  upon  which  forgiveness  is  possible, 
because  the  aggravation  of  sin  to  this  ultimatum  destroys  in  him  all  susceptibility  of 
repentance.  The  way  of  return  to  God  is  closed  against  no  one  who  does  not  close  it, 
against  himself."  Drummond,  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  97-120,  illustrates 
the  downward  progress  of  the  sinner  by  the  law  of  degeneration  in  the  vegetable  and 
animal  world  :  pigeons,  roses,  strawberries,  all  tend  to  revert  to  the  primitivo  and  wild 
type.    "How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  a  salvation  ?  "  ( Heb.  2:3). 

Shakespeare,  Macbeth,  3:5—"  You  all  know  security  Is  mortals'  chiefest  enemy." 
Moulton,  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist,  S>0-121  —  "  Richard  III  is  the  ideal  villain. 
Villainy  has  become  an  end  in  itself.  Richard  is  an  artist  in  villainy.  He  lacks  the 
emotions  naturally  attending  crime.  He  regards  villainy  with  the  intellectual  enthu- 
siasm of  the  artist.    His  villainy  is  ideal  in  its  success.    There  is  a  fascination  of  ii  resii  - 

tibility  in  him.    He  is  imperi  urbable  in  his  crime.    There  is  no  effort,  but  rather  hu r, 

in  it;  a  recklessness  which  suggests  boundless  resources;  an  inspiration  which  excludes 
calculation.  Shakespeare  relieves  the  representation  from  the  charge  of  monstrosity 
by  turning  all  this  villainous  history  into  the  unconscious  development  of  Nemesis." 
See  also  A.  H.  strong,  Great  Poets,  188-193.  Robert  Browning's  Guido,  in  The  Ring 
and  the  Book,  is  an  example  of  pure  hatred  of  the  good.  Guido  hates  Pompilia  for  her 
goodness,  and  declares  that,  if  he  catches  her  in  the  next  world,  he  will  murder  her 
there,  as  he  murdered  her  here. 

Alexander  Yf,  the  father  of  Caesar  and  Luerezia  Borgia,  the  pope  of  cruelty  and 
lust,  wore  yet  to  the  day  of  his  death  the  look  of  unfailing  joyousness  and  geniality, 
yes,  of  even  retiring  sensitiveness  and  modesty.  No  fear  or  reproach  of  conscience 
Seemed  to  throw  gloom  over  his  life,  as  in  the  cases  of  Tiberius  and  Louis  XI.  He 
believed  himself  under  the  special  protection  of  the  Virgin,  although  he  had  her 
painted  with  the  features  of  his  paramour,  Julia  Farnese.  He  never  scrupled  at  false 
witness,  adultery,  or  murder.  See  Gregorovius,  Luerezia  Borgia,  294,  295.  Jeremy 
Taylor  thus  describes  the  progress  of  sin  in  the  sinner  :  "First  it  startles  him,  then  it 
becomes  pleasing,  then  delightful,  then  frequent,  then  habitual,  then  confirmed  ;  then 
the  man  is  impenitent,  then  obstinate,  then  resolved  never  to  repent,  then  damned." 

There  is  a  state  of  utter  insensibility  to  emotions  of  love  or  fear,  and  man  by  his  sin 
may  reach  that  state.  The  act  of  blasphemy  is  only  the  expression  of  a  hardened  or  a 
hateful  heart.    B.  H.  Payne :  "  The  calcium  flame  will  char  the  steel  wire  so  tba  tit  is 

no  longer  affected  by  the  magnet As  the  blazing  cinders  and  black  curling 

smoke  which  the  volcano  spews  from  its  rumbling  throat  are  the  accumulation  of 
months  and  years,  so  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  thoughtless  expression  in 
a  moment  of  passion  or  rage,  but  the  giving  vent  to  a  state  of  heart  and  mind  abound- 
ing in  the  accumulations  of  weeks  and  months  of  opposition  to  the  gospel." 

Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson :  "  The  unpardonable  sin  is  the  knowing,  wilful,  persistent,  con- 
temptuous, malignant  spu  ruing  of  divine  truth  and  grace,  as  manifested  to  the  soul  by 
the  convincing  and  illuminating  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Dorner  says  that "  there- 
fore this  sin  does  not  belong  to  Old  Testament  times,  or  to  the  mere  revelation  of  law. 
It  implies  the  full  revelation  of  the  grace  in  Christ,  and  the  conscious  rejection  of  it  bj 


652  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

a  soul  to  which  the  Spirit  has  made  it  manifest  (Acts  17 :  30  —  "  The  times  of  ignorance,  therefore, 
God  overlooked"  ;  Rom.  3:  25—  "the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime"  )."  But  was  it  not  under  the 
Old  Testament  that  God  said  :  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  strive  with  man  forever  "  ( Gen.  6:3),  and  "  Ephraim 
is  joined  to  idols ;  let  him  alone  "  ( Hosoa  4 :  17 )  ?  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  sin  against 
grace,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  be  limited  to  New  Testament  times. 

It  is  still  true  that  the  unpardonable  sin  is  a  sin  committed  against  the  Holy  Spirit 
rather  than  against  Christ :  Mat.  12 :  32  —  "  whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be 
forgiven  him ;  bat  whosoever  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  nor 
in  that  which  is  to  come."  Jesus  warns  the  Jews  against  it, —he  does  not  say  they  had  already 
committed  it.  They  would  seem  to  have  committed  it  when,  after  Pentecost,  they 
added  to  their  rejection  of  Christ  the  rejection  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  witness  to  Christ's 
resurrection.  See  Schaff,  Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  Lemme,  Silnde  wider  den  Heili- 
gen  Geist ;  Davis,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1882 :  317-336 ;  Nitzsch,  Christian  Doctrine,  283-289.  On 
the  general  subject  of  kinds  of  sin  and  degrees  of  guilt,  see  Kahnis,  Dogmatik, 
3:284,298. 

III.     Penalty. 

1.     Idea  of  penalty. 

By  penalty,  we  mean  that  pain  or  loss  -which  is  directly  or  indirectly 
inflicted  by  the  Lawgiver,  in  vindication  of  his  justice  outraged  by  the 
violation  of  law. 

Turretin,  1 :  213  —  "  Justice  necessarily  demands  that  all  sin  be  punished,  but  it  does 
not  equally  demand  that  it  be  punished  in  the  very  person  that  sinned,  or  in  just  such 
time  and  degree."  So  far  as  this  statement  of  the  great  Federal  theologian  is  intended 
to  explain  our  guilt  in  Adam  and  our  justification  in  Christ,  we  can  assent  to  his  words  ; 
but  we  must  add  that  the  reason,  in  each  case,  why  we  suffer  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin, 
and  Christ  suffers  the  penalty  of  our  sins,  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  covenant-relation, 
but  rather  in  the  fact  that  the  sinner  is  one  with  Adam,  and  Christ  is  one  with  the 
believer,  — in  other  words,  not  covenant-unity,  but  iife-unity.  The  word  'penalty,' 
like  '  pain,'  is  derived  from  poena,  iron/i},  and  it  implies  the  correlative  notion  of  desert. 
As  under  the  divine  government  there  can  be  no  constructive  guilt,  so  there  can  be  no 
penalty  inflicted  by  legal  fiction.  Christ's  sufferings  were  penalty,  not  arbitrarily 
inflicted,  nor  yet  borne  to  expiate  personal  guilt,  but  as  the  just  due  of  the  human 
nature  with  which  he  had  united  himself,  and  a  part  of  which  he  was.  Prof.  Win.  Adams 
Brown:  "Loss,  not  suffering,  is  the  supreme  penalty  for  Christians.  The  real  penalty 
is  separation  from  God.  If  such  separation  involves  suffering,  that  is  a  sign  of  God's 
mercy,  for  where  there  is  life,  there  is  hope.  Suffering  is  always  to  be  interpreted  as  an 
appeal  from  God  to  man." 

In  this  definition  it  is  implied  that : 

A.  The  natural  consequences  of  transgression,  although  they  constitute 
a  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin,  do  not  exhaust  that  penalty.  In  all  penalty 
there  is  a  personal  element — the  holy  wrath  of  the  Lawgiver, —  which  nat- 
ural consequences  but  partially  express. 

We  do  not  deny,  but  rather  assert,  that  the  natural  consequences  of  transgression 
are  a  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin.  Sensual  sins  are  punished,  in  the  deterioration  and 
corruption  of  the  body ;  mental  and  spiritual  sins,  in  the  deterioration  and  corruption 
of  the  soul.  Prov.  5  :  22  —  "His  own  iniquities  shall  take  the  wicked,  And  he  shall  be  holden  with  the  cords  of  his 
sin" — as  the  hunter  is  caught  in  the  toils  which  he  has  devised  for  the  wild  beast.  Sin  is 
self -detecting  and  self-tormenting.  But  this  is  only  half  the  truth.  Those  who  would 
confine  all  penalty  to  the  reaction  of  natural  laws  are  in  danger  of  forgetting  that  God 
is  not  simply  immanent  in  the  universe,  but  is  also  transcendent,  and  that  "to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  living  God  "  ( Heb.  10 :  31 )  is  to  fall  into  the  hands,  not  simply  of  the  law,  but  also  of 
the  Lawgiver.  Natural  law  is  only  the  regular  expression  of  God's  mind  and  will.  We 
abhor  a  person  who  is  foul  in  body  and  in  speech.  There  is  no  penalty  of  sin  more 
dreadful  than  its  being  an  object  of  abhorrence  to  God.  Jer.  44 :  4 — "  Oh,  do  not  this  abominable 
thing  that  I  hate  1 "  Add  to  this  the  law  of  continuity  which  makes  sin  reproduce  itself,  and 
the  law  of  conscience  which  makes  sin  its  own  detecter,  judge,  and  tormentor,  and  we 
have  sufficient  evidence  of  God's  wrath  against  it,  apart  from  any  external  inflictions. 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  SIN  TO   ADAM'S   POSTERITY.  653 

The  divine  feeling  toward  sin  is  seen  in  Jesus'  scourging-  the  traffickers  in  the  temple, 
his  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees,  his  weeping-  over  Jerusalem,  his  agony  in  Gethsemane. 
Imagine  the  feeling  of  a  father  toward  his  daughter's  betrayer,  and  God's  feeling 
toward  sin  may  be  faintly  understood 

The  deed  returns  to  the  doer,  and  character  determines  destiny  —  this  law  is  a  revela- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  God.  Penalty  will  vindicate  the  divine  character  in  the  long 
run,  though  not  always  in  time.  This  is  recognized  in  all  religions.  Buddhist  priest  in 
Japan:  "The  evil  doer  weaves  a  web  around  himself,  as  the  silkworm  weaves  its 
cocoon."  Socrates  made  Circe's  turning  of  men  into  swine  a  mere  parable  of  the  self- 
brutalizing  influence  of  sin.  In  Dante's  Inferno,  the  punishments  are  all  of  them  the 
sins  themselves ;  hence  men  are  in  hell  before  they  die.  Hegel :  "  Penalty  is  the  other 
half  of  crime."  It.  W.  Emerson  :  "  Punishment  not  follows,  but  accompanies,  crime." 
Sagebeer,  The  Bible  in  Court,  59  — "Corruption  is  destruction,  and  the  sinner  is  a 
suicide;  penalty  corresponds  with  transgression  and  is  the  outcome  of  it;  sin  is  death 
in  the  making;  death  is  6in  in  the  final  infliction."  J.  B.  Thomas,  Baptist  Congress 
1901 :  110—  "  What  matters  it  whet  her  I  wait  by  night  for  the  poacher  and  deliberately 
shoot  him,  or  whether  I  set  the  pistol  so  that  he  shall  be  shot  by  it  when  he  commits  the 
depredation?"  Tennyson,  Sea  Dreams:  "His  gain  is  loss;  for  he  that  wrongs  his 
friend  Wrongs  himself  more,  and  ever  bears  about  A  silent  court  of  justice  in  his 
breast,  Himself  t  he  judge  and  jury,  and  himself  The  prisoner  at  the  bar,  ever  con- 
demn'd :  And  that  drags  down  his  life :  then  comes  what  comes  Hereafter." 

B.  The  object  of  peualty  is  uot  the  reformation  of  the  offender  or  the 
ensuring  of  social  or  governmental  safety.  These  ends  may  be  incidentally 
secured  through  its  infliction,  but  the  great  end  of  penalty  is  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  character  of  the  Lawgiver.  Penalty  is  essentially  a  necessary 
reaction  of  the  divine  holiness  against  sin.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  wrong 
views  of  the  object  of  peualty  have  so  important  a  bearing  upon  our  future 
studies  of  doctrine,  we  make  fuller  mention  of  the  two  erroneous  theories 
which  have  greatest  currency. 

(  a  )  Penalty  is  not  essentially  reformatory. — By  this  we  mean  that  the 
reformation  of  the  offender  is  not  its  primary  design, —  as  penalty,  it  is  not 
intended  to  reform.  Penalty,  in  itself,  proceeds  not  from  the  love  aud 
mercy  of  the  Lawgiver,  but  from  his  justice.  Whatever  reforming  influ- 
ences may  in  any  given  instance  be  connected  with  it  are  not  parts  of  the 
penalty,  but  are  mitigations  of  it,  and  they  are  added  not  in  justice  but  in 
grace.  If  reformation  follows  the  infliction  of  penalty,  it  is  not  the  effect 
of  the  penalty,  but  the  effect  of  certain  benevolent  agencies  which  have 
been  provided  to  turn  into  a  means  of  good  what  naturally  would  be  to  the 
offender  only  a  source  of  harm. 

That  the  object  of  penalty  is  not  reformation  appears  from  Scripture, 
where  punishment  is  often  referred  to  God's  justice,  but  never  to  God's 
love  ;  from  the  intrinsic  ill-desert  of  sin,  to  which  penalty  is  correlative  ; 
from  the  fact  that  puuishment  must  be  vindicative,  in  order  to  be  disciplin- 
ary, and  just,  in  order  to  be  reformatory  ;  from  the  fact  that  upon  this 
theory  punishment  would  not  be  just  when  the  sinner  was  already  reformed 
or  could  not  be  reformed,  so  that  the  greater  the  sin  the  less  the  punish- 
ment must  be. 

Punishment  is  essentially  different  from  chastisement.    The  latter  proceeds  from  love 

(  Jer.  10 :  24  — "  correct  me,  but  in  measure  ;  not  in  thine  anger ' '  ;  Heb.  12 :  6  —  "  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth  "  ). 
Punishment  proceeds  not  from  love  but  from  justice  — see  Ez.  28:22—  "I  shall  have  executed 
Judgments  in  her,  and  shall  be  sanctified  in  her  "  ;  36 :  21,  22  —  in  j udgment,  "  I  do  not  this  for  your  sake,  but 
for  my  holy  name  "  ;  Heb.  12 :  29  —  "  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire  "  ;  Rev.  15 : 1,  4  —  "  wrath  of  God  ...  .  thou  only  art 
holy  ....  thy  righteous  acts  have  been  made  manifest"  ;  16:5  —  "Righteous  art  thou  ....  thou  Holy  One, 
b  ;cause  thou  didst  thus  judge  "  ;  19 : 2  —  "  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments ;  for  he  hath  judged  the  S3-eat  har- 


ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

lot."  So  untrue  is  the  saying  of  Sir  Thomas  More's  Utopia :  "  The  end  of  all  punishment 
is  the  destruction  of  vice,  and  the  saving  of  men."  Luther :  "  God  has  two  rods :  one  of 
mercy  and  goodness ;  another  of  anger  and  fury."  Chastisement  is  the  former ;  penalty 
the  latter. 

If  the  reform-theory  of  penalty  is  correct,  then  to  punish  crime,  without  asking 
about  reformation,  makes  the  state  the  transgressor ;  its  punishments  should  be  pro- 
portioned, not  to  the  greatness  of  the  crime,  but  to  the  sinner's  state ;  the  death-penalty 
should  be  abolished,  upon  the  ground  that  it  will  preclude  all  hope  of  reformation. 
But  the  same  theory  would  abolish  any  final  judgment,  or  eternal  punishment ;  for, 
when  the  soul  becomes  so  wicked  that  there  is  no  more  hope  of  reform,  there  is  no 
longer  any  justice  in  punishing  it.  The  greater  the  sin,  the  less  the  punishment ;  and 
Satan,  the  greatest  sinner,  should  have  no  punishment  at  all. 

Modern  denunciations  of  capital  punishment  are  often  based  upon  wrong  concep- 
tions of  the  object  of  penalty.  Opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  would 
give  way,  if  the  opposers  realized  what  penalty  is  ordained  to  secure.  Harris,  God  the 
Creator,  2 :  447, 451  —  "  Punishment  is  not  primarily  reformatory ;  it  educates  conscience 
and  vindicates  the  authority  of  law."  R.  W.  Dale  :  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that 
hanging  is  beneficial  to  the  person  hanged.  The  theory  that  society  has  no  right  to 
send  a  man  to  jail,  to  feed  him  on  bread  and  water,  to  make  him  pick  hemp  or  work  a 
treadmill,  except  to  reform  him,  is  utterly  rotten.  He  must  deserve  to  be  punished,  or 
else  the  law  has  no  right  to  punish  him."  A  House  of  Refuge  or  a  State  Industrial 
School  is  primarily  a  penal  institution,  for  it  deprives  persons  of  their  liberty  and  com- 
pels them  against  their  will  to  labor.  This  loss  and  deprivation  on  their  part  cannot  be 
justified  except  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  the  desert  of  their  wrong  doing.  Whatever 
gracious  and  philanthropic  influences  may  accompany  this  confinement  and  compul- 
sion, they  cannot  of  themselves  explain  the  penal  element  in  the  institution.  If  they 
could,  a  habeas  corpus  decree  could  be  sought,  and  obtained,  from  any  competent 
court. 

God's  treatment  of  men  in  this  world  also  combines  the  elements  of  penalty  and  of 
chastisement.  Suffering  is  first  of  all  deserved,  and  this  justifies  its  infliction.  But  it  is 
at  the  beginning  accompanied  with  all  manner  of  alleviating  influences  which  tend  to 
draw  men  back  to  G  od.  As  these  gracious  influences  arc  resisted,  the  punitive  element 
becomes  preponderating,  and  penalty  reflects  God's  holiness  rather  than  his  love. 
Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  1-25  —  "Pain  is  not  the  immediate  object  of 
punishment.  It  must  be  a  means  to  an  end,  a  moral  end,  namely,  penitence.  But  where 
the  depraved  man  becomes  a  human  tiger,  there  punishment  must  reach  its  culmi- 
nation. There  is  a  punishment  which  is  not  restorative.  According  to  the  spirit  in 
which  punishment  is  received,  it  may  be  internal  or  external.  All  punishment  begins 
as  discipline.  It  tends  to  repentance.  Its  triumph  would  be  the  triumph  within.  It 
becomes  retributive  only  as  the  sinner  refuses  to  repent.  Punishment  is  only  the 
development  of  sin.  The  ideal  penitent  condemns  himself,  identifies  himself  with 
righteousness  by  accepting  penalty.  In  proportion  as  penalty  fails  in  its  purpose  to 
produce  penitence,  it  acquires  more  and  more  a  retributive  character,  whose  climax  is 
not  Calvary  but  Hell." 

Alexander,  Moral  Order  and  Progress,  327-333  ( quoted  in  Ritchie,  Darwin,  and  Hegel, 
G7  )  —  "  Punishment  has  three  characters  :  It  is  retributive,  in  so  far  as  it  falls  under 
the  general  law  that  resistance  to  the  dominant  type  recoils  on  the  guilty  or  resistant 
creature ;  it  is  preventive,  in  so  far  as,  being  a  statutory  enactment,  it  aims  at  securing 
the  maintenance  of  the  law  irrespective  of  the  individual's  character.  But  this  latter 
characteristic  is  secondary,  and  the  former  is  comprehended  in  the  third  idea,  that  of 
reformation,  which  is  the  superior  form  in  which  retribution  appears  when  the  type  is 
a  mental  ideal  and  is  affected  by  conscious  persons."  Hyslop  on  Freedom,  Responsi- 
bility, and  Punishment,  in  Mind,  April,  1894 :  107-189—"  In  the  Elmira  Reformatory,  out 
of  2295  persons  paroled  between  1876  and  1889,  1907  or  83  per  cent,  represent  a  probably 
complete  reformation.  Determinists  say  that  this  class  of  persons  cannot  do  otherwise. 
Something  is  wrong  with  their  theory.  We  conclude  that  1.  Causal  responsibility 
justifies  preventive  punishment;  2.  Potential  moral  responsibility  justifies  corrective 
punishment;  3.  Actual  moral  responsibility  justifies  retributive  punishment."  Here 
we  need  only  to  point  out  the  incorrect  use  of  the  word  "  punishment,"  which  belongs 
only  to  the  last  class.  In  the  two  former  cases  the  word  "  chastisement "  should  have 
been  used.  See  Julius  Miiller,  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  1 :334 ;  Thornton,  Old  Fashioned 
Ethics,  70-73 ;  Dorner,  Glaubensiehre,  2:238,  239  (Syst.  Doct.,  3:134,135);  Robertson's 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN   TO    ADAM'S    POSTERITY.  055 

Sermons,  4th  Scries,  no.  18  (  Harper's  ed.,  7">2  > ;  see  also  this  Compendium,  references 
on  Holiness,  A.  (  d  ),  page  273. 

(6)  Penalty  is  not  essentially  deterrent  and  preventive. — By  this  we 
mean  that  its  primary  design  is  not  to  protect  society,  by  deterring  men 
from  the  commission  of  like  offences.  We  grant  that  this  end  is  often 
secured  in  connection  with  punishment,  both  in  family  and  civil  govern- 
ment and  under  the  government  of  God.  But  we  claim  that  this  is  a 
merely  incidental  result,  which  God's  wisdom  and  goodness  have  connected 
with  the  infliction  of  penalty,  —  it  cannot  be  the  reason  and  ground  for 
penalty  itself.  Some  of  the  objections  to  the  preceding  theory  apply  also 
to  this.     But  in  addition  to  what  has  been  said,  we  urge  : 

Penalty  cannot  be  primarily  designed  to  secure  social  and  governmental 
safety,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  never  right  to  punish  the  individual  simply 
for  the  good  of  society.  No  punishment,  moreover,  will  or  can  do  good  to 
others  that  is  not  just  and  right  in  itself.  Punishment  does  good,  only 
when  the  person  punished  deserves  punishment ;  and  that  desert  of  pun-' 
ishmeut,  and  not  the  good  effects  that  will  follow  it,  must  be  the  ground 
and  reason  why  it  is  inflicted.  The  contrary  theory  would  imply  that  the 
criminal  might  go  free  but  for  the  effect  of  his  punishment  on  others,  and 
that  man  might  rightly  commit  crime  if  only  he  were  willing  to  bear  the 
penalty. 

Kant,  Praktische  Vernunft,  151  (ed.  Roseukranz) —  "The  notion  of  ill-desert  and 
punishableness  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  idea  of  voluntary  transgression;  and  the 
idea  of  punishment  excludes  that  of  happiness  in  all  its  forms.  For  though  he  who 
inflicts  punishment  may,  it  is  t  rue,  also  ha\  e  a  benevolent  purpose  to  produce  by  the 
punishment  some  good  effect  upon  the  criminal,  yet  the  punishment  must  be  justified 

first  of  all  as  pure  and  simple  requital  and  retribution In  every  punishment  as 

such,  justice  is  the  very  first  thing  and  constitutes  the  essence  of  it.  A  benevolent 
purpose,  it  is  true,  may  be  conjoined  with  punishment;  but  the  criminal  cannot  claim 
this  as  his  due,  and  he  has  no  right  to  reckon  on  it"  These  utterances  of  Kant  apply 
to  the  deterrent  theory  as  well  as  to  the  reformatory  theory  of  penalty.  The  element 
of  desert  or  retribution  is  the  basis  of  the  other  elements  in  punishment.  See  James 
Seth,  Ethical  Principles,  333-338 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2  :  717 ;  Hodge,  Essays,  133. 

A  certain  English  judge,  in  sentencing  a  criminal,  said  that  he  punished  him,  not  for 
stealing  sheep,  but  that  sheep  might  not  be  stolen.  But  it  is  the  greatest  injustice  to 
punish  a  man  for  the  mere  sake  of  example.  Society  cannot  be  benefited  by  such 
injustice.  The  theory  can  give  no  reason  why  one  should  be  punished  rather  than 
another,  nor  why  a  second  offence  should  be  punished  more  heavily  than  the  first.  On 
this  theory,  moreover,  if  there  were  but  one  creature  in  the  universe,  and  none  existed 
beside  himself  to  be  affected  by  his  suffering,  he  could  not  justly  be  punished,  however 
great  might  be  his  sin.  The  only  principle  that  can  explain  punishment  is  the  princi- 
ple of  desert.    See  Martineau,  Types  of  Ethical  Theory,  2  :  348. 

"  Crime  is  most  prevented  by  the  conviction  that  crime  deserves  punishment ;  the 
greatest  deterrent  agency  is  conscience."  So  in  the  government  of  God  "there  is  no 
hint  that  future  punishment  works  good  to  the  lost  or  to  the  universe.  The  integrity 
of  the  redeemed  is  not  to  be  maintained  by  subjecting  the  lost  to  a  punishment  they  do 
not  deserve.  The  wrong  merits  punishment,  and  God  is  bound  to  punish  it,  whether 
good  comes  of  it  or  not.  Sin  is  intrinsically  ill-deserving.  Impurity  must  be  banished 
from  God.  God  must  vindicate  himself,  or  cease  to  be  holy  "  (see  art.  on  the  Philoso- 
phy of  Punishment,  by  F.  L.  Patton,  in  Brit,  and  For.  Evang.  Rev.,  Jan.  1878  :  126-139). 

Bowne,  Principles  of  Ethics,  186,  274  —  Those  who  maintain  punishment  to  be  essen- 
tially deterrent  and  preventive  "  ignore  the  metaphysics  of  responsibility  and  treat  the 
problem  '  positively  and  objectively '  on  the  basis  of  physiology,  sociology,  etc.,  and  in 
the  interests  of  public  safety.  The  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  is  as  irrelevant  as  the 
question  concerning  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  wasps  and  hornets.  An  ancient  holder 
of  this  view  set  forth  the  opinion  that  "it  was  expedient  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people" 


656  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

(John  18  :  14 ),  and  so  Jesus  was  put  to  death.  ...  A  mob  in  eastern  Europe  might  be  per- 
suaded that  a  Jew  had  slaughtered  a  Christian  child  as  a  sacrifice.  The  authorities  might 
be  perfectly  sure  of  the  man's  innocence,  and  yet  proceed  to  punish  him  because  of  the 
mob's  clamor,  and  the  danger  of  an  outbreak."  Men  high  up  in  the  French  govern- 
ment thought  it  was  better  that  Dreyfus  should  suffer  for  the  sake  of  France,  than 
that  a  scandal  affecting  the  honor  of  the  French  army  should  be  made  public.  In  per- 
fect consistency  with  this  principle,  McKim,  Heredity  and  Human  Progress,  192,  advo- 
cates infliction  of  painless  death  upon  idiots,  imbeciles,  epileptics,  habitual  drunkards, 
insane  criminals,  murderers,  nocturnal  house  breakers,  and  all  dangerous  and  incor- 
rigible persons.  He  would  change  the  place  of  slaughter  from  our  streets  and  homes 
to  our  penal  institutions ;  in  other  words,  he  would  abandon  punishment,  but  protect 
society. 

Failure  to  recognize  holiness  as  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  and  the  affirma- 
tion of  that  holiness  as  conditioning  the  exercise  of  love,  vitiates  the  discussion  of  pen- 
alty by  A.  H.  Bradford,  Age  of  Faith,  343-250  —  "  What  is  penal  suffering  designed  to 
accomplish  ?  Is  it  to  manifest  the  holiness  of  God  ?  Is  it  to  express  the  sanctity  of  the 
moral  law?  Is  it  simply  a  natural  consequence?  Does  it  manifest  the  divine  Father- 
hood ?  God  does  not  inflict  penalty  simply  to  satisfy  himself  or  to  manifest  his  holi- 
ness, any  more  than  an  earthly  father  inflicts  suffering  on  his  child  to  show  his 
.  wrath  against  the  wrongdoer  or  to  manifest  his  own  goodness.  The  idea  of  punish- 
ment is  essentially  barbaric  and  foreign  to  all  that  is  known  of  the  Deity.  Penalty 
that  is  not  reformatory  or  protective  is  barbarism.  In  the  home,  punishment  is  alwa  ys 
discipline.  Its  object  is  the  welfare  of  the  child  and  the  family.  Punishment  as  an 
expression  of  wrath  or  enmity,  with  no  remedial  purpose  beyond,  is  a  relic  of  barbar- 
ism. It  carries  with  it  the  content  of  vengeance.  It  is  the  expression  of  anger,  of  pas- 
sion, or  at  best  of  cold  justice.  Penal  suffering  is  undoubtedly  the  divine  holiness 
expressing  its  hatred  of  sin.  But,  if  it  stops  with  such  expression,  it  is  not  holiness,  but 
selfishness.  If  on  the  other  hand  that  expression  of  holiness  is  used  or  permitted  in 
order  that  the  sinner  may  be  made  to  hate  his  sin,  then  it  is  no  more  punishment,  but 
chastisement.  On  any  other  hypothesis,  penal  suffering  has  no  justification  except 
the  arbitrary  will  of  the  Almighty,  and  such  a  hypothesis  is  an  impeachment  both  of 
his  justice  and  his  love."  This  view  seems  to  us  to  ignore  the  necessary  reaction  of 
divine  holiness  against  sin ;  to  make  holiness  a  mere  form  of  love ;  a  means  to  an  end 
and  that  end  utilitarian ;  and  so  to  deny  to  holiness  any  independent,  or  even  real, 
existence  in  the  divine  nature. 

The  wrath  of  God  is  calm  and  judicial,  devoid  of  all  passion  or  caprice,  but  it  is 
the  expression  of  eternal  and  unchangeable  righteousness.  It  is  vindicative  but 
not  vindictive.  Without  it  there  could  be  no  government,  and  God  would  not  be 
God.  F.  W.  Robertson  :  "  Does  not  the  element  of  vengeance  exist  in  all  punish- 
ment, and  does  not  the  feeling  exist,  not  as  a  sinful,  but  as  an  essential,  part  of 
human  nature?  If  so,  there  must  be  wrath  in  God."  Lord  Bacon  :  "  Revenge  is  a 
wild  sort  of  justice."  Stephen  :  "  Criminal  law  provides  legitimate  satisfaction  of 
the  passions  of  revenge."  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  1 :  287.  Per  contra,  see  Bib.  Sac, 
Apr.  1881  :  286-302  ;  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  46,  47  ;  Chitty's  ed.  of  Black- 
stone's  Commentaries,  4:7;  Wharton,  Criminal  Law,  vol.  1,  bk.  1,  chap.  1, 

2.     The  actual  penalty  of  sin. 

The  one  word  in  Scripture  which  designates  the  total  penalty  of  sin  is 
•'  death. "     Death,  however,  is  twofold  : 

A.  Physical  death, —  or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body, 
including  all  those  temporal  evils  and  sufferings  which  result  from  dis- 
turbance of  the  original  harmony  between  body  and  soul,  and  which  are 
the  working  of  death  in  us.  That  physical  death  is  a  part  of  the  penalty 
of  sin,  appears : 

(  a )    From  Scripture. 

This  is  the  most  obvious  import  of  the  threatening  in  Gen.  2  :  17 — "  thou 
shalt  surely  die  "  ;  c/.  3  :  19  — "  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  Allusions  to 
this  threat  in  theO.  T.  confirm  this  interpretation  :  Num.  16  :29 — "visited 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIN  TO    ADAM'S   POSTERITY.  657 

after  the  visitation  of  all  men,"  where  tp2  =  judicial  visitation,  or  punish- 
ment ;  27  :  3  (  lxx.  —  SC  d/iaprlav  avrov  ).  The  prayer  of  Moses  in  Ps.  90  : 
7-9,  11,  and  the  prayer  of  Hezekiah  in  Is.  38  :  17,  18,  recognize  plainly  the 
penal  nature  of  death.  The  same"  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  N.  T.,  as  for 
example,  John  8  :  44 ;  Horn.  5  :  12,  14,  lfi,  17,  where  the  judicial  phrase- 
ology is  to  be  noted  (  (if.  1  :  32 )  ;  see  6  :  23  also.  In  1  Pet.  4  :  6,  physical 
death  is  spoken  of  as  God's  judgment  against  sin.  In  1  Cor.  15  :  21,  22, 
the  bodily  resurrection  of  all  believers,  in  Christ,  is  contrasted  with  the 
bodily  death  of  all  men,  in  Adam.  Rom.  4  :  24,  25 ;  6  :  9,  10  ;  8  :3,  10, 
11  ;  Gal.  3  :  13,  show  that  Christ  submitted  to  physical  death  as  the  pen- 
alty of  sin,  and  by  his  resurrection  from  the  grave  gave  proof  that  the 
penalty  of  sin  was  exhausted  and  that  humanity  in  him  was  justified.  "As 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  a  part  of  the  redemption,  so  the  death  of 
the  body  is  a  part  of  the  penalty. " 

Ps.  90  :  7,  9—  "  we  are  consumed  in  thine  anger  ....  all  our  days  are  passed  away  in  thy  wrath  "  ;  Is.  38 :  17,  18 
—  "thou  hast  in  love  to  my  soul  del.vered  it  from  the  pit  ...  .  thou  hast  cast  all  my  sins  behind  thy  back.  For 
Sheol  cannot  praise  thee  " ;  John  8 :  44  —  "  He  [  Satan  ]  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning  " ;  11  :  33  —  Jesus 
"groaned  in  the  spirit  "  =  was  moved  with  indignation  at  what  sin  had  wrought;  Rom.  5  :  12,  14, 
16, 17  —  "  death  through  sin  ...  .  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned  ....  death  reigned  ....  even  over 
them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression  ....  the  judgment  came  of  one  [  trespass]  unto 
condemnation  ....  by  the  trespass  of  the  one,  death  reigned  through  the  one  "  ;  cf.  the  legal  phraseology  in 
1  :  32  —  "  who,  knowing  the  ordinance  of  God,  that  they  that  practise  such  things  are  worthy  of  death."  Rom.  6 :  23  — 
"the  wages  of  sin  is  death"  = death  is  sin's  just  due.  1  Pet.  4  :  6  —  "that  they  might  be  judged  indeed  accord- 
ing to  men  in  the  flesh  "=  that  they  might  suffer  physical  death,  which  to  nun  in  general  is 
the  penalty  of  sin.  1  Cor.  15  :  21,22  —  "as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive";  Rom.  4:24, 
25  —  "raised  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who  was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses,  and  was  raised  for  our  justi- 
fication" ;  6  :  9, 10  —  "  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dieth  no  more ;  death  no  more  hath  dominion  over  him.  For 
the  death  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once  :  but  the  life  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  onto  God  ";  8 :  3, 10, 11  —  "  God,  send- 
ing his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  ....  the  body  is  dead  because  of 
sin"  (  =  a  corpse,  on  account  of  sin  — Meyer ;  so  Julius  Mliller,  Doct.  Sin,  2:291) ....  "he 
that  raised  up  Christ  Jesus  from  the  dead  shall  give  life  also  to  your  mortal  bodies" ;  Gal.  3 :  13 —  "  Christ  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  having  become  a  curse  for  us  ;  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree." 

On  the  relation  between  death  and  sin.  see  Griffith- Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ, 
169-185—"  They  are  not  antagonistic,  but  complementary  to  each  other — the  one  spirit- 
ual and  the  other  biological.  The  natural  fact  is  lit  ted  to  a  moral  use."  Savage,  Life 
after  Death,  33—  "  Men  did  not  at  first  believe  in  natural  death.  If  a  man  died,  it  was 
because  some  one  had  killed  him.  No  ethical  reason  was  desired  or  needed.  At  last 
however  they  sought  some  moral  explanation,  and  came  to  look  upon  death  as  a  pun- 
ishment for  human  sin."  If  this  has  been  the  course  of  human  evolution,  we  should 
conclude  that  the  later  belief  represents  the  truth  rather  than  the  earlier.  Scripture 
certainly  affirms  the  doctrine  that  death  itself,  and  not  the  mere  acompaniments  of 
death,  is  the  consequence  and  penalty  of  sin.  For  this  reason  we  cannot  accept  the 
very  attractive  and  plausible  theory  which  we  have  now  to  mention : 

Newman  Smyth,  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  holds  that  as  the  bow  in  the  cloud  was 
appointed  for  a  moral  use,  so  death,  which  before  had  been  simply  the  natural  law  of 
the  creation,  was  on  occasion  of  man'ssin  appointed  for  a  moral  use.  It  is  this  acquired 
moral  character  of  death  with  which  Biblical  Genesis  has  to  do.  Death  becomes  a  curse, 
by  being  a  fear  and  a  torment.  Animals  have  not  this  fear.  But  in  man  death  stirs  up 
conscience.  Redemption  takes  away  the  fear,  and  death  drops  back  into  its  natural 
aspect,  or  even  becomes  a  gateway  to  life.  Death  is  a  curse  to  no  animal  but  man. 
The  retributive  element  in  death  is  the  effect  of  sin.  When  man  has  become  per- 
fected, death  will  cease  to  be  of  use,  and  will,  as  the  last  enemy,  be  destroyed.  Death 
here  is  Nature's  method  of  securing  always  fresh,  young,  thrifty  life,  and  the  greatest 
possible  exuberance  and  joy  of  it.  It  is  God's  way  of  securing  the  greatest  possible 
number  and  variety  of  immortal  beings.  There  are  many  schoolrooms  for  eternity 
in  God's  universe,  and  a  ceaseless  succession  of  scholars  through  them.  There  are 
many  folds,  but  one  flock.  The  reaper  Death  keeps  making  room.  Four  or  five  gen- 
erations are  as  many  as  we  can  individually  love,  and  get  moral  stimulus  from. 

42 


658  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   MAN. 

Methuselahs  too  many  would  hold  back  the  new  generations.  Bagehot  says  that  civ- 
ilization needs  first  to  form  a  cake  of  custom,  and  secondly  to  break  it  up.  Death,  says 
Martiueau,  Study,  1 :  372-374,  is  the  provision  for  taking  us  abroad,  before  we  have 
stayed  too  long  at  home  to  lose  our  receptivity.  Death  is  the  libei-ator  of  souls.  The 
death  of  successive  generations  gives  variety  to  heaven.  Death  perfects  love,  reveals 
it  to  itself,  unites  as  life  could  not.  As  for  Christ,  so  for  us,  it  is  expedient  that  we 
should  go  away. 

While  we  welcome  this  reasoning  as  showing  how  God  has  overruled  evil  for  good, 
we  regard  the  explanation  as  unscriptural  and  unsatisfactory,  for  the  reason  that  it 
takes  no  account  of  the  ethics  of  natural  law.  The  law  of  death  is  an  expression  of  the 
nature  of  God,  and  specially  of  his  holy  wrath  againstsin.  Other  methods  of  propagat- 
ing the  race  and  reinforcing  its  life  could  have  been  adopted  than  that  which  involves 
pain  and  suffering  and  death.  These  do  not  exist  in  the  future  life,  —  they  would  not 
exist  here,  if  it  were  not  for  the  fact  of  sin.  Dr.  Smyth  shows  how  the  evil  of  death 
has  been  overruled,  —  he  has  not  shown  the  reason  for  the  original  existence  of  the  evil. 
The  Scriptures  explain  this  as  the  penalty  and  stigma  which  God  has  attached  to  sin : 
Psalm  90  :  7,  8  makes  this  plain  :  "For  we  are  consumed  in  thine  anger,  And  in  thy  wrath  are  we  troubled.  Thou 
hast  set  onr  iniquities  before  thee,  Our  secret  sins  in  the  light  of  thy  countenance."  The  whole  psalm  has  for 
its  theme :  Death  as  the  wages  of  sin.  And  this  is  the  teaching  of  Paul,  in  Rom.  5  :  12  — 
"through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin." 

(  b )     From  reason. 

The  universal  prevalence  of  suffering  and  death  among  rational  creatures 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  divine  justice,  except  upon  the  supposition 
that  it  is  a  judicial  infliction  on  account  of  a  common  sinfulness  of  nature 
belonging  even  to  those  who  have  not  reached  moral  consciousness. 

The  objection  that  death  existed  in  the  animal  creation  before  the  Fall 
may  be  answered  by  saying  that,  but  for  the  fact  of  man's  sin,  it  would  not 
have  existed.  We  may  believe  that  God  arranged  even  the  geologic  his- 
tory to  correspond  with  the  foreseen  fact  of  human  apostasy  (  cf.  Rom.  8  : 
20-23  —  where  the  creation  is  said  to  have  been  made  subject  to  vanity  by 
reason  of  man's  sin  ). 

On  Rom.  8  :  20-23  —  "the  creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will "  —  see  Meyer's  Com.,  and 
Bap.  Quar.,  1 :  143  ;  also  Gen.  3  :  17-19  —  "  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake."  See  also  note  on  the 
Relation  of  Creation  to  the  Holiness  and  Benevolence  of  God,  and  references,  pages 
402,  403.  As  the  vertebral  structure  of  the  first  fish  was  an  "  anticipative  consequence  " 
of  man,  so  the  suffering  and  death  of  fish  pursued  and  devoured  by  other  fish  were  an 
"  anticipative  consequence  "  of  man's  foreseen  war  with  God  and  with  himself. 

The  translation  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  of  the  saints  that  remain  at 
Christ's  second  coming,  seems  intended  to  teach  us  that  death  is  not  a 
necessary  law  of  organized  being,  and  to  show  what  would  have  happened 
to  Adam  if  he  had  been  obedient.  He  was  created  a  "natural,"  "  earthly  " 
body,  but  might  have  attaiued  a  higher  being,  the  "spiritual,"  "heavenly" 
body,  without  the  intervention  of  death.  Sin,  however,  has  turned  the 
normal  condition  of  things  into  the  rare  exception  (  cf.  1  Cor.  15  :  42-50). 
Since  Christ  endured  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin,  death  to  the  Christian 
becomes  the  gateway  through  which  he  enters  into  full  communion  with  his 
Lord  (  see  references  below ). 

Through  physical  death  all  Christians  will  pass,  except  those  few  who  like  Enoch  and 
Elijah  were  translated,  and  those  many  who  shall  be  alive  at  Christ's  second  coming. 
Enoch  and  Elijah  were  possible  types  of  those  surviving  saints.  On  1  Cor.  15  :  51  —  "We  shall 
not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,"  see  Edward  Irving,  Works,  5  :  135.  The  apocryphal 
Assumption  of  Moses,  verse  9,  tells  us  that  Joshua,  being  carried  in  vision  to  the  spot 
at  the  moment  of  Moses'  decease,  beheld  a  double  Moses,  one  dropped  into  the  grave  as 
belonging  to  the  earth,'  the  other  mingling  with  the  angels.    The  belief  in  Moses 


CONSEQUENCES   OF   SIX   TO   ADAM'S   POSTERITY.  659 

immortality  was  not  conditioned  upon  any  resuscitation  of  the  earthly  corpse ;  see 
Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  364.  When  Paul  was  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven,  it 
may  have  been  a  temporary  translation  of  the  disembodied  spirit.  Set  free  for  a  brief 
space  from  the  prison  house  which  confined  it,  it  may  have  passed  within  the  veil  and 
have  seen  aud  heard  what  mental  tongue  could  not  describe ;  see  Luckock,  Intermediate 
State,  4.  So  Lazarus  probably  could  not  tell  what  he  saw  :  "  He  told  it  not ;  or  some- 
thing- sealed  The  lips  of  that  Evangelist "  ;  see  Tennyson,  In  Memoriam,  xxxi. 

Nicoll,  Life  of  Christ:  "  We  have  every  one  of  us  to  facet  lie  last  enemy,  death.  Ever 
since  the  world  began,  all  who  have  entered  it  sooner  or  later  have  had  this  struggle, 
and  the  battle  has  always  ended  in  one  way.  Two  indeed  escaped,  but  they  did  not 
escape  by  meeting  and  mastering  their  foe;  they  escaped  by  being  taken  away  from 
the  battle."  But  this  physical  death,  for  the  Christian,  has  been  turned  by  Christ  into 
a  blessing.  A  pardoned  prisoner  may  be  still  kept  in  prison,  as  the  best  possible  benefit 
to  an  exhausted  body ;  so  the  external  fact  of  physical  death  may  remain,  although  it 
has  ceased  to  be  penalty.  Macaulay :  "The  aged  prisoner's  chains  are  needed  to  support 
him  ;  the  darkness  that  has  weakened  his  sight  is  necessary  to  preserve  it."  So  spiritual 
death  is  not  wholly  removed  from  the  Christian  ;  a  part  of  it,  namely,  depravity,  still 
remains  ;  yet  it  has  ceased  to  be  punishment,—  it  is  only  chasl  isement.  When  the  linger 
unties  the  ligature  that  hound  it,  the  body  which  previously  had  only  chastised  begins 
to  cure  the  trouble.  There  is  still  pain,  but  the  pain  is  no  longer  punitive,— It  is  now 
remedial.  In  the  midst  of  the  whipping,  when  the  boy  repents,  his  punishment  is 
changed  to  chastisement. 

John  14 :  3  —  "  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  ccme  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  mysolf ;  that  where  I 
am,  there  ye  may  bo  also  "  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  54-57 — "  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victoiy  ....  0  death,  where  is  thy  sting  ? 
The  sting  of  death  is  sin;  and  the  power  of  sin  is  the  law"  —  i.  c,  the  law's  condemnation,  its  p<  mil 
infliction;  2  Cor.  5: 1-9— "For  we  know  that  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabarnaele  be  dissolved  we  have  a  building 
from  God  ....  we  are  of  good  courage,  I  say,  and  are  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  at  home 
with  the  Lord  "  ;  Phil.  1 :  21,  23  —  "  to  die  is  gain  ....  having  the  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ ;  for  it  is  vory 
far  better."  In  Christ  and  his  bearing  the  penalty  of  sin,  the  Christ  ian  has  broken  thn  nigh 
the  circle  of  natural  race-connection,  and  is  saved  from  corporate  evil  SO  far  as  it  is 
punishment.  The  Christian  may  be  chastised,  but  he  is  never  punished  :  Rom. 8:1  —  ''There 
is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  At  the  house  of  Jairus  Jesus  said: 
"  Why  make  ye  a  tumult,  and  weep  ? "  and  having  reproved  the  doleful  clamorists,  "  he  put  them  all 
forth"  (Mark  5: 39,  40 ).  The  wakes  and  requiems  and  masses  and  vigils  of  the  churches  of 
Home  aud  of  Russia  are  all  heathen  relics,  cut  [rely  foreign  to  i  Christianity. 

Palmer,  Theological  Definition,  57  — "Death  feared  and  fought  against,  is  terrible; 
but  a  welcome  to  death  is  the  death  of  deat  b  and  the  way  to  life."  The  idea  that  pun- 
ishment yet  remains  for  the  Christian  is  "  the  bridge  to  the  papal  doctrine  of  purgato- 
rial fires."  Browning's  words,  in  The  Ring  and  the  Book,  2 :  60— "  In  His  face  is  light, 
but  in  his  shadow  healing  too,"  are  applicable  to  God's  fatherly  chastenings,  but  not 
to  his  penal  retributions.  On  Acts  7 :  60  —  "he  fell  asleep  "  — Arnot  remarks:  "When  death 
becomes  the  property  of  the  believer,  it  receives  a  new  name,  and  is  called  sleep." 
Another  has  said :  "  Christ  did  not  send,  but  came  himself  to  save ;  The  ransom-price 
he  did  not  lend,  but  gave;  Christ  dial,  the  shepherd  for  the  sheep;  We  only  faU  asleep." 
Per  contra,  see  Krcibig,  Versohnungslehre,  375,  and  Hengstenberg,  Ev.  K.-Z.,  1864  :  1065 
—"All  suffering  is  punishment." 

B.  Spiritual  death, —  or  the  separation  of  the  sonl  from  God,  including 
all  that  pain  of  conscience,  loss  of  peace,  and  sorrow  of  spirit,  which  result 
from  disturbance  of  the  normal  relation  between  the  sold  and  God. 

( a  )  Although  physical  death  is  a  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin,  it  is  by  no 
means  the  chief  part.  The  term  '  death '  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture 
in  a  moral  and  spiritual  sense,  as  denoting  the  absence  of  that  which  con- 
stitutes the  true  life  of  the  soul,  namely,  the  presence  and  favor  of  God. 

Mat.  8 :  22  —  "  Follow  me  ;  and  leave  the  [spiritually]  dead  to  bury  their  own  [physically]  dead  "  ;  Luke  15  : 
32  —  "  this  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  is  alive  again  "  ;  John  5 :  24  — "He  that  health  my  word,  and  believeth  him  that 
sent  m6,  hath  eternal  life,  and  enmeth  not  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life  "  ;  8:51  — "  If  a  man  keep 
my  word,  he  shall  never  see  death ' ' ;  Rom.  8 :  13 —  "if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  must  die ;  but  if  by  the  Spirit  ye  put  to 
death  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live"  ;  Eph.  2: 1  —  "  when  ye  were  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins"  ;  5: 14  — 
"Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead"  ;  1  Tim.  5  :  6—  "she  that  giveth  herself  to  pleasure  is  dead  while 


660  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN". 

she  livcth  "  ;  James  5  :  20  —  "he  who  converteth  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from  death  "  ;  1  John 
3 :  14  —  "He  that  loveth  not  abideth  in  death  "  ;  Rev.  3 : 1  —  "  thou  hast  a  name  that  thou  livest,  and  thou  art  dead." 

(  b  )  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  penalty  denounced  in  the  garden  and 
fallen  upon  the  race  is  primarily  and  mainly  that  death  of  the  soul  which 
consists  in  its  separation  from  God.  In  this  sense  only,  death  was  fully 
visited  upon  Adam  in  the  day  on  which  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit  (  Gen.  2  : 
17  ).  In  this  sense  only,  death  is  escaped  by  the  Christian  (  John  11  :  26  ). 
For  this  reason,  in  the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  (  Rom.  5  :  12-21), 
the  apostle  passes  from  the  thought  of  mere  physical  death  in  the  early 
part  of  the  passage  to  that  of  both  physical  and  spiritual  death  at  its  close 
( verse  21  —  "as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  " —  where 
"eternal  lif  e  "  is  more  than  endless  physical  existence,  and  "death"  is 
more  than  death  of  the  bod}- ). 

Gen.  2  :  17  —  "in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die"  ;  John  11: 26 —  "  whosoever  livoth  and  belioveth 
on  me  shall  never  die  "  ;  Rom.  5  ;14, 18,  21 — "justification  of  life  ....  eternal  life"  ;  contrast  these  with  "death 
reigned  ....  sin  reigned  in  death." 

(  c)  Eternal  death  may  be  regarded  as  the  culmination  and  completion  of 
spiritual  death,  and  as  essentially  consisting  in  the  correspondence  of  the 
outward  condition  with  the  inward  state  of  the  evil  soul  (  Acts  1  :  25  ).  It 
would  seem  to  be  inaugurated  by  some  peculiar  repellent  energy  of  the 
divine  holiness  (Mat.  25  :  41;  2  Thess.  1:9),  and  to  involve  positive  retri- 
bution visited  by  a  personal  God  upon  both  the  body  and  the  soul  of  the 
evil-doer  (Mat.  10  :28;  Heb.  10  :  31 ;  Eev.  14  :  11). 

Acts  1 :  25  —  "  Judas  fell  away,  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place  "  ;  Mat.  25 :  41  —  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into 
the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  "  ;  2  Thcss.  1 : 9 — "who  shall  suffer  punishment,  even 
eternal  destruction  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  might "  ;  Mat  10  :  28  —  "  fear  him  who  is  able  to 
destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell "  ;  Heb.  10  :  31  —  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God  "  ; 
Rev.  14 :  11  —  "  the  smoke  of  their  torment  goeth  up  for  ever  and  ever." 

Kurtz,  Religionslehre,  67  —  "  So  long  as  God  is  holy,  he  must  maintain  the  order  of 
the  world,  and  where  this  is  destroyed,  restore  it.  This  however  can  happen  in  no  other 
way  than  this :  the  injury  by  which  the  sinner  has  destroyed  the  order  of  the  world  falls 
back  upon  himself,—  and  this  is  penalty.  Sin  is  the  negation  of  the  law.  Penalty  is  the 
negation  of  that  negation,  that  is,  the  reestablish ment  of  the  law.  Sin  is  a  thrust  of  the 
sinner  against  the  law.  Penalty  is  the  adverse  thrust  of  the  elastic  because  living  law, 
which  encounters  the  sinner." 

Plato,  Gorgias,  472  e  ;  509  b  ;  511 A ;  515  b  —  "  Impunity  is  a  more  dreadful  curse  than 
any  punishment,  and  nothing  so  good  can  befall  the  criminal  as  his  retribution,  the 
failure  of  which  would  make  a  double  disorder  in  the  universe.  The  offender  himself 
may  spend  his  arts  in  devices  of  escape  and  think  himself  happy  if  he  is  not  found  out. 
But  all  this  plotting  is  but  part  of  the  delusion  of  his  sin ;  and  when  he  comes  to  himself 
and  sees  his  transgression  as  it  really  is,  he  will  yield  himself  up  the  prisoner  of  eternal 
justice  and  know  that  it  is  good  for  him  to  be  afflicted,  and  so  for  the  first  time  to  be 
set  at  one  with  truth." 

On  the  general  subject  of  the  penalty  of  sin,  see  Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  1:245  sq. ; 
2:286-397;  Baird ;  Elohim  Revealed,  263-279;  Bushnell,  Nature  and  the  Supernatural, 
194-219 ;  Krabbe,  Lehre  von  der  Stinde  und  vom  Tode ;  Weisse,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1836  :  371 ;  S.  R.  Mason,  Truth  Unfolded,  369-384 ;  Bartlett,  in  New  Englander,  Oct.  1871 : 
677,  678. 


SECTION   VII. — THE   SALVATION    OF   INFANTS. 

The  views  which  have  been  preserved  with  regard  to  inborn  depravity 
and  the  reaction  of  divine  holiness  against  it  suggest  the  question  whether 


THE   SALVATION  OP  INFANTS.  661 

infants  dying  before  arriving  at  moral  consciousness  are  saved,  and  if  so, 
in  what  way.     To  this  question  we  reply  as  follows  : 

( a  )  Infants  are  in  a  state  of  ski,  need  to  be  regenerated,  and  can  be 
saved  only  through  Christ. 

Job  14 : 4  — "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  not  one  "  ;  Ps.  51 : 5  — "  Behold,  I  was  brought  forth  in 
iniquity ;  And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  "  ;  John  3:6  —  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  "  ;  Rom.  5  :  14 
—  "Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  until  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's 
transgression";  Eph.  2  :  3  — "by  nature  children  of  wrath";  1  Cor.  7:  14 — "else  were  your  children  unclean"  — 
clearly  intimate  the  naturally  impure  state  of  infants ;  and  Mat.  19: 14  —"Suffer the  little  chi'dren, 
and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me"—  is  not  only  consist*  int  with  this  doctrine,  but  strongly 
confirms  it;  for  the  meaning-  is:  "  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  "  —  whom  they  need  as  a 
Savior.  "Coming- to  Christ  "  is  always  the  coming  of  a  sinner,  to  him  who  is  the  sacrifice 
for  sin  ;  cf.  Mat  11 :  28  —  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor." 

( b  )  Yet  as  compared  with  th< rae  win  >  have  personally  transgressed,  they 
are  recognized  as  possessed  of  a  relative  innocence,  and  of  a  submissiveness 
and  trustfulness,  which  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  graces  of  Christian  char- 
acter. 

Deut.  1 :  39  —  "your  little  ones  ....  and  your  children,  that  this  day  hav3  no  knowledge  of  good  or  evil "  ; 
Jonah4:ll  —  "siiscore  thousand  persons  that  cannot  discern  between  their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand";  Rom. 9: 
11  —  "for  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  anything  good  or  had  "  ;  Mat.  18  :  3,  4  —  "Except  ye 
turn,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever  therefore  shall 
humble  himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  "  See  Julius  Midler,  Doct. 
Sin,  2:265.  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2:50—"  Unpretentious  receptivity,  ....  not 
the  reception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  a  childlike  age,  but  In  a  childlike  character  .  .  . 
.  .  is  the  condition  of  entering;  ....  not  blamelessness,  but  receptivity  itself,  on  the 
part  of  those  who  do  not  regard  themselves  as  too  good  or  too  bad  for  the  oii'ercd  gift, 
but  receive  it  with  hearty  desire.  Children  have  this  unpretentious  receptivity  for 
the  kingdom  of  God  which  is  characteristic  of  them  generally,  since  they  have  not  yet 
other  possessions  on  which  they  pride  themselves." 

(<■)  Fur  this  reason,  they  are  the  objects  of  special  divine  compassion 
and  care,  and  through  the  grace  of  Christ  are  certain  of  salvation. 

Mat,  18  : 5,  6,  10, 14  —  "  whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name  receiveth  me :  but  whoso  shall  cause  one 
of  these  little  ones  that  believe  on  me  to  stumble,  it  is  profitable  for  him  that  a  great  millstone  should  be  hanged  about 
his  neck,  and  that  he  should  be  sunk  in  the  depth  of  the  sea.  ...  .  See  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  Utile  ones :  fur  I 

say  unto  you,  that  in.  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven Even  so  it  is 

not  the  will  of  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven,  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish  "  ;  19 :  14  —  "  Suffer  the  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me:  for  to  such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  —  nut  God's  king- 
dom of  nature,  but  his  kingdom  of  grace,  the  kingdom  of  saved  sinners.  "Such" 
means,  not  children  as  children,  but  childlike  believers.  Meyer,  on  Mat.  19:14,  refers  the 
passage  to  spiritual  infants  only  :  "  Not  little  children,"  he  says,  "  but  men  of  a  child- 
like disposition."  Geikie:  "Let  the  little  children  come  unto  me,  and  do  not  forbid 
them,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  given  only  to  such  iff  have  a  childlike  spirit  and 
nature  like  theirs."  The  Savior's  words  do  not  intimate  that  little  children  are  either 
( 1 )  sinless  creatures,  or  ( 2)  subjects  for  baptism  ;  but  only  that  their  ( 1 )  humble  teach- 
ableness, (2 )  intense  eagerness,  and  ( :i )  art  less  trust,  illustrate  the  traits  necessary  for 
admission  into  the  divine  kingdom.  On  the  passages  in  Matthew,  see  Commentaries  of 
Bcngel,  Ue  Wette,  Lange;  also  Neander,  Planting  and  Training  (ed.  Robinson),  40". 

We  therefore  substantially  agree  with  Dr.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  in  his  article  in  the  Sunday 
School  Times:  "To  infants  and  children,  as  such,  the  language  cannot  apply.  It  must 
be  taken,  figuratively,  and  must  refer  to  those  qualities  in  childhood,  its  dependence, 
its  trustfulness,  its  tender  affection,  its  loving  obedience,  which  are  typical  of  the 

essential  Christian  graces If  asked  after  the  logic  of  our  Savior's  words  —  how  he 

could  assign,  as  a  reason  for  allowing  literal  little  children  to  be  brought  to  him,  that 
spit -ituoi  little  children  have  a  claim  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  —  I  reply :  the  persons 
that  thus,  as  a  class,  typify  the  subjects  of  God's  spiritual  kingdom  cannot  be  in  them- 
selves objects  of  indifference  to  him,  or  be  regarded  otherwise  than  with  intense  inter- 
est  The  class  that  in  its  very  nature  thus  shadows  forth  the  brightest  features  of 

Christian  excellence  must  be  subjects  of  God's  special  concern  and  care." 


662  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   MAN. 

To  these  remarks  of  Dr.  Kendrick  we  would  add,  that  Jesus'  words  seem  to  us  to 
intimate  more  than  special  concern  and  care.  While  these  words  seem  intended  to 
exclude  all  idea  that  infants  are  saved  by  their  natural  holiness,  or  without  application 
to  them  of  the  blessings  of  his  atonement,  they  also  seem  to  us  to  include  infants 
among  the  number  of  those  who  have  the  right  to  these  blessings;  in  other  words, 
Christ's  concern  and  care  go  so  far  as  to  choose  infants  to  eternal  life,  and  to  make 
them  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Cf.  Mat.  18  :  14  —  "  it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  who  is 
in  heaven,  that  one  of  those  little  ones  should  perish  "  =  those  whom  Christ  has  received  here,  he  will 
not  reject  hereafter.  Of  course  this  is  said  to  infants,  as  infants.  To  those,  therefore, 
who  die  before  coming  to  moral  consciousness,  Christ's  words  assure  salvation.  Per- 
sonal transgression,  however,  involves  the  necessity,  before  death,  of  a  personal 
repentance  and  faith,  in  order  to  salvation. 

(d)  The  descriptions  of  God's  merciful  provision  as  coextensive  with 
the  ruin  of  the  Fall  also  lead  us  to  believe  that  those  who  die  in  infancy 
receive  salvation  through  Christ  as  certainly  as  they  inherit  sin  from  Adam. 

John  3 :  16  —  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world  "  —  includes  infants.  Rom.  5 :  14  —  "  death  reigned  from  Adam  until 
Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression,  who  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to 
come "  =  there  is  an  application  to  infants  of  the  life  in  Christ,  as  there  was  an  application 
to  them  of  the  death  in  Adam  ;  19-21  —  "  For  as  through  the  one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made 
sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedienco  of  the  one  shall  the  many  be  made  righteous.  And  the  law  came  in  besides,  that 
the  trespass  might  abound ;  but  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceedingly :  that,  as  sin  reigned  in  death, 
even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord"  =as  without 
personal  act  of  theirs  infants  inherited  corruption  from  Adam,  so  without  personal 
act  of  theirs  salvation  is  provided  for  them  in  Christ. 

Hovcy,  Hit).  Eschatology,  170, 171 — "Though  the  sacred  writers  say  nothing  in  respect 
to  the  future  condition  of  those  who  die  in  infancy,  one  can  scarcely  err  in  deriving 
from  this  silence  a  favorable  conclusion.  That  no  prophet  or  apostle,  that  no  devout 
lather  or  mot  her,  should  have  expressed  any  solicitude  as  to  those  who  die  before  they 
are  able  to  discern  good  from  evil  is  surprising,  unless  such  solicitude  was  prevented 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.  There  are  no  instances  of  prayer  for  children  taken  away  in 
infancy.  The  Savior  nowhere  teaches  that  they  are  in  danger  of  being  lost.  We  there- 
fore heartily  and  confidently  believe  that  they  are  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  so  that  when  they  enter  the  unseen  world  they  will  be 
found  with  the  saints."  David  ceased  to  fast  and  weep  when  his  child  died,  for  he  said  : 
"  I  shall  go  to  him,  but  he  will  not  return  to  me  "  ( 2  Sam.  12 :  23  ). 

(  e  )  The  condition  of  salvation  for  adults  is  personal  faith.  Infants  are 
incapable  of  fulfilling  this  condition.  Since  Christ  has  died  for  all,  we 
have  reason  to  believe  that  provision  is  made  for  their  reception  of  Christ 
in  some  other  way. 

2  Cor.  5  :  15 —  "he  died  for  all  "  ;  Mark  10  :  16  —  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  dis- 
believeth  shall  be  condemned  "  (  verses  9-20  are  of  canonical  authority,  though  probably  not  writ- 
ten by  Mark).  Dr.  G.  VV  Northrop  held  that,  as  death  to  the  Christian  has  ceased  to  be 
penalty,  so  death  In  all  infants  is  no  longer  penalty,  Christ  having  atoned  for  and 
removed  the  guilt  of  original  sin  for  all  men,  infants  included.  But  we  reply  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  there  is  any  guilt  taken  away  except  for  those  who  come  into 
vital  union  with  Christ.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  166  —  "The  curse  falls 
alike  on  every  one  by  birth,  but  may  be  alleviated  or  intensified  by  every  one  who 
comes  to  years  of  responsibility,  according  as  his  nature  which  brings  the  curse  rules, 
or  is  ruled  by,  his  reason  and  conscience.  So  the  blessings  of  salvation  are  procured 
for  all  alike,  but  may  be  lost  or  secured  according  to  the  attitude  of  everyone  toward 
Christ  who  alone  procures  them.  To  infants,  as  the  curse  comes  without  their  election, 
so  in  like  manner  comes  its  removal." 

(/)  At  the  f.nal  judgment,  personal  conduct  is  made  the  test  of  charac- 
ter. But  infar  ts  are  incapable  of  personal  transgression.  We  have  reason, 
therefore,  to  believe  that  they  will  be  among  the  saved,  since  this  rule  of 
decision  will  not  apply  to  them. 

Mat.  25 :  45,  46  —  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  unto  one  of  these  least,  ye  did  it  not  unto  me.  And  these  shall  go  away 
into  eternal  punishment "  ;  Rom.  2 :  5,  6  —  "  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ;  who 


THE  SALVATION  OF  INFANTS.  663 

will  render  to  evsry  man  according  to  his  works."  Norman  Fox,  The  Unfolding  of  Baptist  Doc- 
fcrine,  84— f."  Not  only  the  Roman  Catholics  believed  in  the  damnation  of  infants.  The 
Lutherans,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  condemn  the  Baptists  for  affirming  that 
children  are  saved  without  baptism—' dominant  Anabaptistas  qui  .  .  .  affirmant pueros 
sine  baptismo  salvos  fieri  '  —  and  the  favorite  poet  of  Presbyterian  Scotland,  in  his  Tam 
CPShanter,  names  among  objects  from  hell  'Twa  span-lang,  wee,  unchristened  bairns.' 
The  Westminster  Confession,  in  declaring  that  'elect  infants  dying  in  infancy 'are 
saved,  implies  that  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  lost.  This  was  certainly 
taught  by  some  of  the  framers  of  that  creed." 

Yet  John  Calvin  did  not  believe  in  the  damnation  of  infants,  as  he  has  been  charged 
with  believing.  In  the  Amsterdam  edition  of  his  works,  S: :582,  we  read:  "I  do  not 
doubt  that  the  infants  whom  the  Lord  gathers  together  from  this  life  are  regenerated 
by  a  secret  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  In  his  Institutes,  book  4,  chap.  16,  p.  335,  he 
speaks  of  the  exemption  of  infants  from  the  grace  of  salvation  "as  an  idea  not  free 
from  execrable  blasphemy."  The  Presb.  and  Kef.  Rev.,  Oct.  1890 :  634-651,  quotes  Calvin 
as  follows :  "  I  everywhere  teach  that  no  one  can  be  justly  condemned  and  perish 
except  on  account  of  actual  sin  ;  and  to  say  that  the  countless  mortals  taken  from  life 
while  yet  infants  are  precipitated  from  their  mothers'  arms  into  eternal  death  is  a 
blasphemy  tobe  universally  detested."  So  also  John  Owen,  Works,  8:882—  "Thereare 
two  ways  by  which  God  savetb  infants.  First,  by  interesting  them  in  the  covenant,  if 
their  immediate  or  remote  parents  have  been  believers ; .  .  .  .  Secondly,  by  his  grace  of 
election,  which  is  most  free  and  not  tied  to  any  conditions  ;  by  which  I  make  no  doubt 
but  God  taketh  unto  him  in  Christ  many  whose  parents  never  knew,  or  were  despisers 
of,  the  gospel." 

(y )  Since  there  is  no  evidence  that  children  dying  in  infancy  are  regen- 
erated prior  to  death,  either  with  or  without  the  use  of  external  means,  it 
seems  most  probable  that  the  work  of  regeneration  may  be  performed  by 
the  Spirit  in  connection  with  the  infant  soul's  first  view  of  Christ  in  the 
other  world.  As  the  remains  of  natural  depravity  in  the  Christian  are 
eradicated,  not  by  death,  but  at  death,  through  the  sight  of  Christ  and 
union  with  him,  so  the  first  moment  of  consciousness  for  the  infant  may  be 
coincident  with  a  view  of  Christ  the  Savior  which  accomplishes  the  entire 
sanctification  of  its  nature. 

2  Cor.  3 :  18  —  "But  we  all,  beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  transformed  into  the  same  image  from 
glory  to  glory,  even  as  from  the  Lord  the  Spirit "  ;  1  John  3:2  —  "  We  know  that,  if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be 
like  him;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is."  If  asked  why  more  is  not  said  upon  the  subject  in 
Scripture,  we  replj  :  It  is  according  to  the  analogy  of  God's  general  method  to  hide 
things  that  are  not  of  i  in  mediate  practical  value.  In  some  past  ages,  moreover,  knowl- 
edge of  the  fact  that  all  children  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  might  have  seemed  to  make 
infanticide  a  virtue. 

While  we  agree  with  the  following  writers  as  to  the  salvation  of  all  infants  who  die 
before  the  age  of  conscious  and  wilful  transgression,  we  dissent  from  the  seemingly 
Arminian  tendency  of  the  explanation  which  they  suggest.  H.  E.  Robins,  Harmony 
of  Ethics  with  Theology  :  "  The  judicial  declaration  of  acquittal  on  the  ground  of  the 
death  of  Christ  which  comes  upon  all  men,  into  the  benefits  of  which  they  are  intro- 
duced by  natural  birth,  is  inchoate  justification,  and  will  become  perfected  justification 
through  the  new  birth  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  unless  the  working  of  this  divine  agent  is 
resisted  by  the  personal  moral  action  of  those  who  are  lost."  So  William  Ashmore,  in 
Christian  Review,  26 :  24") -261.  F.  O.  Dickey  :  "  As  infants  are  members  of  the  race,  and 
as  they  are  justified  from  the  penalty  against  inherited  sin  by  the  mediatorial  work  of 
Christ,  so  the  race  itself  is  justified  from  the  same  penalty  and  to  the  same  extent  as 
are  they,  and  were  the  race  to  die  in  infancy  it  would  be  saved."  The  truth  in  the 
above  utterances  seems  to  us  to  be  that  Christ's  union  with  the  race  secures  the 
objective  reconciliation  of  the  race  to  God.  But  subjective  and  personal  reconciliation 
depends  upon  a  moral  union  with  Christ  which  can  be  accomplished  for  the  infant  only 
by  his  own  appropriation  of  Christ  at  death. 

While,  in  the  nature  of  things  and  by  the  express  declarations  of  Script- 
ure, we  are  precluded  from  extending  this  doctrine  of  regeneration  at  death 


664  ANTHROPOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OP   MAN. 

to  any  who  Lave  committed  personal  sins,  we  are  nevertheless  warranted  in 
the  conclusion  that,  certain  and  great  as  is  the  guilt  of  original  siu,  no 
human  soul  is  eternally  condemned  solely  for  this  sin  of  nature,  but  that, 
on  the  other  hand,  all  who  have  not  consciously  and  wilfully  transgressed 
are  made  partakers  of  Christ's  salvation. 

The  advocates  of  a  second  probation,  on  the  other  hand,  should  logically  hold  that 
infants  in  the  next  world  are  in  a  state  of  sin,  and  that  at  death  they  only  enter  upon  a 
period  of  probation  in  which  they  may,  or  may  not,  accept  Christ,  — a  doctrine  much 
less  comforting-  than  that  propounded  above.  See  Prentiss,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  July,  1883  : 
548-580—  "Lyman  Beecher  and  Charles  Hodge  first  made  current  in  this  country  the 
doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy.  If  this  doctrine  be  accepted,  then  it 
follows:  (1)  that  these  partakers  of  original  sin  must  be  saved  wholly  through  divine 
grace  and  power;  (2)  that  in  the  child  unborn  there  is  the  promise  and  potency  of 
complete  spiritual  manhood ;  ( 3 )  that  salvation  is  possible  entirely  apart  from  the 
visible  church  and  the  means  of  grace  ;  ( 4 )  that  to  a  full  half  of  the  race  this  life  is  not 
in  any  way  a  period  of  probation  ;  (5)  that  heathen  may  be  saved  who  have  never  even 
heard  of  the  gospel ;  ( 0 )  that  the  providence  of  God  includes  in  its  scope  both  infants 
and  heathen." 

"  Children  exert  a  redeeming  and  reclaiming  influence  upon  us,  their  casual  acts  and 
words  and  simple  trust  recalling  our  world-hardened  and  wayward  hearts  again  to  the 
feet  of  God.  Silas  Marner,  the  old  weaver  of  Raveloe,  so  pathetically  and  vividly  des- 
cribed in  George  Eliot's  novel,  was  a  hard,  desolate,  godless  old  miser,  but  after  little 
Eppie  strayed  into  his  miserable  cottage  that  memorable  winter  night,  he  began  again 
to  believe.  '  I  think  now,'  he  said  at  last,  '  I  can  trusten  God  until  I  die.'  An  incident 
in  a  Southern  hospital  illustrates  the  power  of  children  to  call  men  to  repentance.  A 
little  girl  was  to  undergo  a  dangerous  operation.  When  she  mounted  the  table,  and 
the  doctor  was  about  to  etherize  her,  he  said :  '  Before  we  can  make  you  well,  we  must 
put  you  to  sleep.'  '  Oh  then,  if  you  are  going  to  put  me  to  sleep,'  she  sweetly  said, '  I 
must  say  my  prayers  first.'  Then,  getting  down  on  her  knees,  and  folding  her  hands, 
she  repeated  that  lovely  prayer  learned  at  every  true  mother's  feet :  '  Now  I  lay  me 
down  to  sleep,  I  pray  the  Lord  m37  soul  to  keep.'  Just  for  a  moment  there  were  moist 
eyes  in  that  group,  for  deep  chords  were  touched,  and  the  surgeon  afterwards  said  :  '  I 
prayed  that  night  for  the  first  time  in  thirty  years.'  "  The  child  that  is  old  enough  to 
sin  against  God  is  old  enough  to  trust  in  Christ  as  the  Savior  of  sinners.  See  Van 
Dyke,  Christ  and  Little  Children ;  Whitsitt  and  Warfield,  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant 
Salvation;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  1:26,  27;  Ridgeley,  Body  of  Div.,  1:422-425;  Calvin, 
Institutes,  II,  i,  8;  "Westminster  Larger  Catechism,  x,  3;  Krauth,  Infant  Salvation  in 
the  Calvinistic  System ;  Candlish  on  Atonement,  part  ii,  chap.  1 ;  Geo.  P.  Fisher,  in  New 
Englander,  Apr.  1868 :  338 ;  J.  F.  Clarke,  Truths  and  Errors  of  Orthodoxy,  360. 


PART    YI. 

SOTEEIOLOGY,  OE  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION  THROUGH 
THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST  AND  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


CHAPTER   I. 
CHRISTOLOGY,  OR  THE  REDEMPTION  WROUGHT  BY  CHRIST. 


SECTION    I. —HISTORICAL   PREPARATION   FOR   REDEMPTION. 

Since  God  had  from  eternity  determined  to  redeem  mankind,  the  history 
of  the  race  from  the  time  of  the  Fall  to  the  coming  of  Christ  was  providen- 
tially arranged  to  prepare  the  way  for  this  redemption.  The  preparation 
was  two-fold : 

I.     Negative  Puepakation, — in  the  history  of  the  heathen  world. 

This  showed  ( 1 )  the  true  nature  of  sin,  and  the  depth  of  spiritual  igno- 
rance and  of  moral  depravity  to  which  the  race,  left  to  itself,  must  fall  ;  and 
(  2  )  the  powerlessness  of  human  nature  to  preserve  or  regain  an  adequate 
knowledge  of  God,  or  to  deliver  itself  from  sin  by  philosophy  or  art. 

Why  could  not  Eve  have  been  the  mother  of  the  chosen  seed,  as  she  doubtless  at  the 
first  supposed  that  she  was?  (Gen.  4  :1  —  "  and  she  conceived,  and  bare  Cain  [i.  c,  'gotten',  or 
'  acquired  '  ],  and  said,  I  have  gotten  a  man,  even  Jehovah  "  ).  Why  was  not  the  cross  set  up  at  the 
gates  of  Eden ?  Scripture  intimates  that  a  preparation  was  needful  ( Gal. 4:4 —  "but  when 
the  fulness  of  the  time  came,  God  sent  forth  his  Son"  ).  Of  the  two  agencies  made  use  of,  we  have 
called  heathenism  the  negative  preparation.  Rut  it  was  not  wholly  negative  ;  it  was 
partly  positive  also.  Justin  Martyr  spoke  of  a  Ao-yos  o-jrep/aartKos  among  the  heathen. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  called  Plato  a  Muio-ijs  dm/ci^coc —  a  Greek-speaking  Moses.  Notice 
the  priestly  attitude  of  Pythagoras,  Socrates,  Plato,  Pindar,  Sophocles.  The  Bible 
recognizes  Job,  Balaam,  Melehisedek,  as  instances  of  priesthood,  or  divine  communi- 
cation, outside  the  bounds  of  the  chosen  people.  Heathen  religions  either  were  not 
religions,  or  God  had  a  part  in  them.  Confucius,  Buddha,  Zoroaster,  were  at  least 
reformers,  raised  up  in  God's  providence.  Gal.  4  :  3  classes  Judaism  with  the  'rudiments  of 
the  world,' and  Rom.  5:  20  tells  us  that  'the  law  came  in  beside,'  as  a  force  cooperating  With 
other  human  factors,  primitive  revelation,  sin,  etc." 

The  positive  preparation  in  heathenism  receives  greater  attention  when  we  conceive 
of  Christ  as  the  immanent  God,  revealing  himself  in  conscience  and  in  history.  Tins 
was  the  real  meaning  of  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  1  :  46;  2: 10, 13  — "The  whole  race  of  men 
partook  of  the  Logos,  and  those  who  lived  according  to  reason  ( K6yov  ),  were  Christians, 
even  though  they  were  accounted  atheists.  Such  among  the  Greeks  were  Socrates  and 
Heracleitus,  and  those  who  resembled  them.  .  .  .  Christ  was  known  in  part  even  to 
Socrates.  .  .  .  The  teachings  of  Plato  are  not  alien  to  those  of  Christ,  though  not  in  all 
respects  similar.  For  all  the  writers  of  antiquity  were  able  to  have  a  dim  vision 
of  realities  by  means  of  the  indwelling  seed  of  the  implanted  Word  ( \6yov )."  Justin 
Martyr  claimed  inspiration  for  Socrates.    Tertullian  spoke  of  Socrates  as  "  pasne  nos- 

665 


G66  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

ter  "  —  "  almost  one  of  us."  Paul  speaks  of  the  Cretans  as  having  "  a  prophet  of  their  own  " 
(Tit.  i :  12)— probably  Epimenides  (596  B.  C.)  whom  Plato  calls  a  #eios  ivw-"amau  of 
God,"  and  whom  Cicero  couples  with  Bacis  and  the  Erythraean  Sibyl.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Stromata,  1 :  19 ;  6:5—"  The  same  God  who  furnished  both  the  covenants  was  the 
giver  of  the  Greek  philosophy  to  the  Greeks,  by  which  the  Almighty  is  glorified  among 
the  Greeks."  Augustine :  "  Plato  made  me  know  the  true  God  ;  Jesus  Christ  showed 
me  the  way  to  him." 

Bruce,  Apologetics,  207  — "  God  gave  to  the  Gentiles  at  least  the  starlight  of  religious 
knowledge.  The  Jews  were  elected  for  the  sake  of  the  Gentiles.  There  was  some  light 
even  for  pagans,  though  heathenism  on  the  whole  was  a  failure.  But  its  very  failure 
was  a  prepartion  for  receiving  the  true  religion."  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  133,  238— 
"  Neo-Platonism,  that  splendid  vision  of  incomparable  and  irrecoverable  cloudland  in 
which  the  sun  of  Greek  philosophy  set.  ...  On  its  ethical  side  Christianity  had  large 
elements  in  common  with  reformed  Stoicism  ;  on  its  theological  side  it  moved  in  har- 
mony with  the  new  movements  of  Platonism."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The  idea  that  all 
religions  but  the  Christian  are  the  direct  work  of  the  devil  is  a  Jewish  idea,  and  is  now 
abandoned.  On  the  contrary,  God  has  revealed  himself  to  the  race  just  so  far  as  they 
have  been  capable  of  knowing  him.  .  .  .  Any  religion  is  better  than  none,  for  all  relig- 
ion implies  restraint." 

John  1:9  —  "  There  was  the  true  light,  even  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man,  coming  into  the  world  "—  has  its 
Old  Testament  equivalent  in  Ps.  94  :  10  —  "  He  that  chastiseth  the  nations,  shall  not  he  correct,  Even  he  that 
teachoth  man  knowledge  ?  "  Christ  is  the  great  educator  of  the  race.  The  preinearnate  Word 
exerted  an  influence  upon  the  consciences  of  the  heathen.  He  alone  makes  it  true  that 
"anima  naturaliter  Christiana  est."  Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  138-140—  "  Religion  is 
union  between  God  and  the  soul.  That  experience  was  first  perfectly  realized  in  Christ. 
Here  are  the  ideal  fact  and  the  historical  fact  united  and  blended.  Origen's  and  Tertul- 
lian's  rationalism  and  orthodoxy  each  has  its  truth.  The  religious  consciousness  of 
Christ  is  the  fountain  head  from  which  Christianity  has  flowed.  He  was  a  beginning  of 
life  to  men.  He  had  the  spirit  of  sonship  — God  in  man,  and  man  in  God.  'Quid 
iuterius  Deo  ? '  He  showed  us  insistence  on  the  moral  ideal,  yet  the  preaching  of  mercy 
to  the  sinner.  The  gospel  was  the  acorn,  and  Christianity  is  the  oak  that  has  sprung 
from  it.  In  the  acorn,  as  in  the  tree,  are  some  Hebraic  elements  that  are  temporary. 
Paganism  is  the  materializing  of  religion ;  Judaism  is  the  legalizing  of  religion.  'In 
me,'  says  Charles  Secretan,  'lives  some  one  greater  than  I.'  " 

But  the  positive  element  in  heathenism  was  slight.  Her  altars  and  sacrifices,  her 
philosophy  and  art,  roused  cravings  which  she  was  powerless  to  satisfy.  Her  religious 
systems  became  sources  of  deeper  corruption.  There  was  no  hope,  and  no  progress. 
"  The  Sphynx's  moveless  calm  symbolizes  the  monotony  of  Egyptian  civilization." 
Classical  nations  became  more  despairing,  as  they  became  more  cultivated.  To  the  best 
minds,  truth  seemed  impossible  of  attainment,  and  all  hope  of  general  well-being 
seemed  a  dream.  The  Jews  were  the  only  f  orward-looking  people ;  and  all  our  modern 
confidence  in  destiny  and  development  comes  from  them.  They,  in  their  turn,  drew 
their  hopefulness  solely  from  prophecy.  Not  their  "genius  for  religion,"  but  special 
revelation  from  God,  made  them  what  they  were. 

Although  God  was  in  heathen  history,  yet  so  exceptional  were  the  advantages  of  the 
Jews,  that  we  can  almost  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Englander,  Sept.  1883  :  576 
— "  The  Bible  does  not  recognize  other  revelations.  It  speaks  of  the  '  face  of  the  covering  that 
covereth  all  peoples,  and  the  veil  that  is  spread  over  all  nations '  ( Is.  25  :  7 ) ;  Acts  14  :  16,  17  — '  who  in  the  generations 
gone  by  suffered  all  the  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways.  And  yet  he  left  not  himself  without  witness '  =  not  an 
i  nternal  revelation  in  the  hearts  of  sages,  but  an  external  revelation  in  nature,  'in  that  he 
did  good  and  gave  you  from  heaven  rains  and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  your  hearts  with  food  and  gladness.'  The  con- 
victions of  heathen  reformers  with  regard  to  divine  inspiration  were  dim  and  intangi- 
ble, compared  with  the  consciousness  of  prophets  and  apostles  that  God  was  speaking 
through  them  to  his  people." 

On  heathenism  as  a  preparation  for  Christ,  see  Tholuck,  Nature  and  Moral  Influence 
of  Heathenism,  in  Bib.  Repos.,  1832  :  80, 246,  441 ;  Dollinger,  Gentile  and  Jew  ;  Pressense, 
Religions  before  Christ ;  Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Religion,  1-128 ;  Cocker,  Christianity 
and  Greek  Philosophy;  Ackerman,  Christian  Element  in  Plato  ;  Farrar,  Seekers  after 
God ;  Renan,  on  Rome  and  Christianity,  in  Hibbert  Lectures  for  1880. 

II.     Positive  Preparation, —  in  the  history  of  Israel. 
A  single  people  was  separated  from  all  others,  from  the  time  of  Abraham, 
and  was  educated  in  three  great  truths  :    ( 1 )   the  majesty  of  God,  in  his 


HISTORICAL    PREPARATION   FOR   REDEMPTION.  0fi7 

unity,  omnipotence,  and  holiness ;  ( 2 )  the  sinfulness  of  man,  and  his  moral 
helplessness  ;  ( 3 )  the  certainty  of  a  coming  salvation.  This  education 
from  the  time  of  Moses  -was  conducted  by  the  use  of  three  principal 
agencies  : 

A.  Law. —  The  Mosaic  legislation,  (a)  by  its  theophanies  and  miracles, 
cultivated  faith  in  a  personal  and  almighty  God  and  Judge  ;  (  b  )  by  its 
commands  and  threatenings,  wakened  the  sense  of  sin  ;  (  e  )  by  its  priestly 
and  sacrificial  system,  inspired  hope  of  some  way  of  pardon  and  access  to 
God. 

The  education  of  the  Jews  was  first  of  all  an  education  by  Law.  In  the  history  of  the 
world,  as  in  the  history  of  the  individual,  law  must,  precede  gospel,  John  the  Baptist 
must  go  before  Christ,  knowledge  of  sin  must  prepare  a  welcome  cut  ranee  for  knowl- 
edge of  a  Savior.  While  the  heathen  were  studying  God's  works,  the  chosen  people 
were  studying  God.  Men  teach  bywords  as  well  as  by  works,  — so  does  God.  And 
w<  >rds  reveal  heart  to  heart,  as  works  never  can.  "  The  Jews  were  made  to  know,  on 
behalf  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  and  shame  of  sin.  Yet  just  when  the  disease  was  at  its 
height,  the  physicians  were  beneath  contempt."  Wrightnour :  "  As  if  to  teach  all  sub- 
sequent ages  that  no  outward  cleansing  would  furnish  a  remedy,  the  great  deluge, 
which  washed  away  the  whole  sinful  antediluvian  world  with  the  exception  of  one 
comparatively  pure  family,  had  not  cleansed  the  world  from  sin." 

With  this  gradual  growth  in  the  sense  of  sin  there  was  also  a  widening  and  deepen- 
ing faith.  Kuyper,  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  67 —  "Abel,  Abraham,  Moses  the  indi- 
vidual, the  family,  the  nation.  By  faith  Abel  obtained  witness;  liy  faith  Abraham 
received  the  son  of  the  promise;  and  by  faith  Moses  led  Israel  through  the  Bed  Sea." 
Kurtz,  ReligloDSlehre,  speaks  of  the  relation  between  law  and  gospel  as  "  Ein  fllessen- 
derGegensatz"  — "  a  flowing  antithesis  "—like  that  between  (lower  and  fruit.  A.  is. 
Davidson,  Expositor,  6:163— "The  course  of  revelation  is  like  a  river,  which  cannot 
be  out  up  into  sections."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "The  two  fundamental  Ideas  of  Judaism 
were:  1.  theological  —  the  unity  of  God;  2.  philosophical— the  distinctness  of  God 
from  the  material  world.  Judaism  went  to  seed.  Jesus,  with  the  sledge-hammer  of 
truth,  broke  up  the  dead  forms,  and  the  Jews  thought  he  was  destroying  the  Law." 
On  methods  pursued  with  humanity  by  God,  see  Simon,  Reconciliation,  232-251. 

B.  Prophecy.  — This  was  of  two  kinds  :  (a)  verbal,  — beginning  with 
the  protevangelium  in  the  garden,  and  extending  to  within  four  hundred 
years  of  the  coming  of  Christ ;  (  b)  typical,  — in  persons,  as  Adam,  Mel- 
cliisedek,  Joseph,  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  Solomon,  Jonah  ;  and  in  acts,  as 
Isaac's  sacrifice,  and  Moses'  lifting  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness. 

The  relation  of  law  to  gospel  was  like  that  of  a  sketch  to  the  finished  picture,  or  of 
David's  plan  for  the  temple  to  S<  ilomon's  execution  of  it.  When  all  other  nations  were 
sunk  in  pessimism  and  despair,  the  light  of  hope  burned  brightly  among  the  Hebrews. 
The  nation  was  forward-bound.  Faith  was  its  very  life.  The  O.  T.  saints  saw  all  the 
troubles  of  the  present  "sub  specie  etemitatis,"  and  believed  that  "Light  is  sown  for  the  right- 
eous. And  gladness  for  the  upright  in  heart "  ( Ps.  97  :  It ).  The  hope  of  Job  was  the  hope  of  the  chosen 
people :  "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  And  at  last  he  will  stand  up  upon  the  earth  "  ( Job  19  :  25  ).  Hutton, 
Essays,  2  :  237  —  "  Hebrew  supernaturalism  has  transmuted  forever  the  pure  natural- 
ism of  Greek  poetry.  And  now  no  modern  poet  can  ever  become  really  great  who 
does  not  feel  and  reproduce  in  his  writings  the  difference  between  the  natural  and  the 
supernatural." 

Christ  was  the  reality,  to  which  the  types  and  ceremonies  of  Judaism  pointed ;  and 
these  latter  disappeared  when  Christ  had  come,  just  as  the  petals  of  the  blossom  drop 
away  when  the  fruit  appears.  Many  promises  to  the  O.  T.  saints  which  seemed  to 
them  promises  of  temporal  blessing,  were  fulfilled  in  a  better,  because  a  more  spiritual, 
way  than  they  expected.  Thus  God  cultivated  in  them  a  boundless  trust — a  trust 
which  was  essentially  the  same  thing  with  the  faith  of  the  new  dispensation,  because 
it  was  the  absolute  reliance  of  a  consciously  helpless  sinner  upon  God's  method  of  sal- 
vation, and  so  was  implicitly,  though  not  explicitly,  a  faith  in  Christ. 

The  protevangelium  (Gen.3:15)  said  "  it  £  this  promised  seed]  shall  braise  thy  head."    The 


668  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION. 

"  it "  was  rendered  in  some  Latin  manuscripts  "  ipsa."  Hence  Roman  Catholic  divines 
attributed  the  victory  to  the  Virgin.  Notice  that  Satan  was  cursed,  but  not  Adam  and 
Eve  ;  for  they  were  candidates  for  restoration.  The  promise  of  the  Messiah  narrowed 
itself  down  as  the  race  grew  older,  from  Abraham  to  Judah,  David,  Bethlehem,  and  the 
Virgin.  Prophecy  spoke  of  "  the  sceptre  "  and  of  "the  seventy  weeks."  Haggai  and  Malachi 
foretold  that  the  Lord  should  suddenly  come  to  the  second  temple.  Christ  was  to  be 
true  man  and  true  God ;  prophet,  priest,  and  king ;  humbled  and  exalted.  When  proph- 
ecy had  become  complete,  a  brief  interval  elapsed,  and  then  he,  of  whom  Moses  in 
the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write,  actually  came. 

All  these  preparations  for  Christ's  coming,  however,  through  the  perversity  of  man 
became  most  formidable  obstacles  to  the  progress  of  the  gospel.  The  Roman  Empire 
put  Christ  to  death.  Philosophy  rejected  Christ  as  foolishness.  Jewish  ritualism,  the 
mere  shadow,  usurped  the  place  of  worship  and  faith,  the  substance  of  religion.  God's 
last  method  of  preparation  in  the  case  of  Israel  was  that  of 

C.  Judgment. — Repeated  divine  chastisements  for  idolatry  culminated 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  captivity  of  the  Jews.  The  exile 
had  two  principal  effects  :  (a)  religious, — in  giving  monotheism  firm  root 
in  the  heart  of  the  people,  and  in  leading  to  the  establishment  of  the  syna- 
gogue-system, by  ■which  monotheism  was  thereafter  preserved  and  propa- 
gated ;  (b)  civil, — in  converting  the  Jews  from  an  agricultural  to  a  trading 
people,  scattering  them  among  all  nations,  and  finally  imbuing  them  with 
the  spirit  of  Roman  law  and  organization. 

Thus  a  people  was  made  ready  to  receive  the  gospel  and  to  propagate 
it  throughout  the  world,  at  the  very  time  when  the  world  had  become 
conscious  of  its  needs,  and,  through  its  greatest  philosophers  and  poets, 
was  exjjressing  its  longings  for  deliverance. 

At  the  junction  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  there  lay  a  little  land  through  which 
passed  all  the  caravan-routes  from  the  East  to  the  West.  Palestine  was  "  the  eye  of 
the  world."  The  Hebrews  throughout  the  Roman  world  were  "  the  greater  Palestine 
of  the  Dispersion."  The  scattering  of  the  Jews  through  all  lands  had  prepared  a  mono- 
theistic stalling  point  for  the  gospel  in  every  heathen  city.  Jewish  synagogues  had 
prepared  places  of  assembly  for  the  hearing  of  the  gospel.  The  Greek  language  —  the 
universal  literary  language  of  the  world  —  had  prepared  a  medium  in  which  that  gospel 
could  be  spoken.  "  Caesar  had  unified  the  Latin  West,  as  Alexander  the  Greek  East "  ; 
and  universal  peace,  together  with  Roman  roads  and  Roman  law,  made  it  possible  for 
that  gospel,  when  once  it  had  got  a  foothold,  to  spread  itself  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
The  first  dawn  of  missionary  enterprise  appears  among  the  proselyting  Jews  before 
Christ's  time.  Christianity  laid  hold  of  this  proselyting  spirit,  and  sanctified  it,  to 
conquer  the  world  to  the  faith  of  Christ. 

Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theology,  2 : 9, 10—  "  In  his  great  expedition  across  the  Hellespont, 
Paul  reversed  the  course  which  Alexander  took,  and  carried  the  gospel  into  Europe  to 
the  centres  of  the  old  Greek  culture."  In  all  these  preparations  we  see  many  lines 
converging  to  one  result,  in  a  manner  inexplicable,  unless  we  take  them  as  proofs  of 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  preparing  the  way  for  the  kingdom  of  his  Son ;  and  all 
this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  "a  hardening  in  part  hath  befallen  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come 
in"  (Rom.  11:25).  James  Robertson,  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  15  —  "Israel  now  instructs 
the  world  in  the  worship  of  Mammon,  after  having  once  taught  it  the  knowledge  of 
God." 

On  Judaism,  as  a  preparation  for  Christ,  see  Dollinger,  Gentile  and  Jew,  2:291-419; 
Martensen,  Dogmatics,  224-236 ;  Hengstenberg,  Christology  of  the  O.  T. ;  Smith,  Proph- 
ecy a  Preparation  for  Christ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  458-485 ;  Fairbairn,  Typology; 
MaeWhorter,  Jahveh  Christ ;  Kurtz,  Christliche  Religionslehre,  114;  Edwards'  History 
of  Redemption,  in  Works,  1:297-395;  Walker,  Philosophy  of  the  Plan  of  Salvation; 
Conybeare  and  Howson,  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1 : 1-37 ;  Luthardt,  Fundamental 
Truths,  257-281 ;  Schaff,  Hist.  Christian  Ch.,  1 :  32-49;  Butler's  Analogy,  Bohn's  ed.,  228- 
238  ;  Bushnell,  Vicarious  Sac,  63-Cti ;  Max  Muller,  Science  of  Language,  2  :  443 ;  Thoma- 
sius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1 :  463-485 ;  Fisher,  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  47-73. 


THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST.  669 

SECTION    II.— THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST. 

The  redemption  of  mankind  from  sin  was  to  be  effected  through  a  Medi- 
ator who  should  unite  in  himself  both  the  human  nature  and  the  divine,  in 
order  that  he  might  reconcile  God  to  man  and  man  to  God.  To  facilitate 
an  understanding  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  under  consideration,  it  will  be 
desirable  at  the  outset  to  present  a  brief  historical  survey  of  views  respect- 
ing the  Person  of  Christ. 

In  the  history  of  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  beliefs  held  in  solution  at  the  beginning 
are  only  gradually  precipitated  and  crystallized  into  definite  formulas.  The  first  ques- 
tion which  Christians  naturally  asked  themselves  was  "  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ "  (  Mat.  22 :  42 ) ; 
then  his  relation  to  the  Father,  then,  in  due  succession,  the  nature  of  sin,  of  atone- 
ment, of  justification,  of  regeneration.  Connecting  these  questions  with  the  names  of 
the  great  leaders  who  sought  respectively  to  answer  them,  we  have :  1.  the  Person  of 
Christ,  treated  by  Gregory  Nazianzen  ( 828) ;  2.  the  Trinity,  by  Athanasius  ( 32">-373 ) ; 
:$.  Sin,  by  Augustine  ( 35:5- 430) ;  4.  Atonement,  by  Anselm  ( 1033-11(19) ;  B.  Justification  by 
faith,  by  Luther  (1485-1560);  6.  Regeneration,  by  John  Wesley  ( 1703-17111) ,  —  six  week- 
days of  theology,  leaving  only  a  seveut  h,  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  may 
be  the  work  of  our  age.  John  10-36  —  "  him  whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world  "  —  hints 
at  some  mysterious  process  by  which  the  Sun  was  prepared  for  bis  mission.  Athanasius: 
"  If  the  Word  of  God  is  in  the  world,  as  in  a  body,  what  is  there  strange  in  affirming 
that  he  has  also  entered  into  humanity  1 "  This  is  the  natural  end  of  evolution  from 
lower  to  higher.  See  Mcdd,  Hampton  Lectures  for  1882,  on  The  One  Mediator:  The 
Operation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  Nature  and  in  Grace ;  Orr,  God's  Image  in  Man. 

I.    Historical  Survey  of  Views  respecting  the  Person  op  Christ. 

1.  The  Ebionites  (  fV3«  =  *  poor '  ;  A.  D.  107  ? )  denied  the  reality  of 
Christ's  divine  nature,  and  held  him  to  be  merely  man,  whether  naturally 
or  supernaturally  conceived.  This  man,  however,  held  a  peculiar  relation 
to  (rod,  in  that,  from  the  time  of  his  baptism,  an  unmeasured  fulness  of  the 
divine  Spirit  rested  upon  him.  Ebionism  was  simply  Judaism  within  the 
pale  of  the  Christian  church,  and  its  denial  of  Christ's  godhood  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  apparent  incompatibility  of  this  doctrine  with  monotheism. 

Fiirst  (Hcb.  Lexicon)  derives  the  name  '  Ebionite'  from  the  word  signifying  'poor'; 
seels.  25  ■  4  —  "thou  hast  been  a  stronghold  to  the  poor"  ;  Mat.  5  :Z  —  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit"  It  means 
"  oppressed,  pious  souls."  Epiphanius  traces  them  back  to  the  Christians  who  took 
refuge,  A.  D.  60,  at  Pella,  just  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  They  lasted  down 
to  the  fourth  century.  Dorner  can  assign  no  age  for  the  formation  of  the  sect,  nor  any 
historically  ascertained  person  as  its  head.  It  was  not  Judaic  Christianity,  but  only  a 
fraction  of  this-    There  were  two  divisions  of  the  Ebionites : 

(  a  )  The  Nazarenes,  who  held  to  the  supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  while  they  would 
not  go  to  the  length  of  admitting  the  preexisting  hypostasis  of  the  Son.  They  are  said 
to  have  had  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  in  I  lei  new. 

(h  )  The  Cerinthian  Ebionites,  who  put  the  baptism  of  Christ  in  place  of  his  super- 
natural birth,  and  made  the  ethical  sonship  the  cause  of  the  physical.  It  seemed  to 
them  a  heathenish  fable  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  born  of  the  Virgin.  There  was 
no  persoual  union  between  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ.  Christ,  as  distinct  from 
Jesus,  was  not  a  merely  impersonal  power  descending  upon  Jesus,  but  a  preexisting 
hypostasis  above  the  world-creating  powers.  The  Cerinthian  Ebionites,  who  on  the 
whole  best  represent  the  spirit  of  Ebionism,  approximated  to  Pharisaic  Judaism,  and 
were  hostile  to  the  writings  of  Paul.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  fact,  is  intended 
to  counteract  an  Ebionitic  tendency  to  overstrain  law  and  to  underrate  Christ.  In  a 
complete  view,  however,  should  also  be  mentioned : 

( c )  The  Gnostic  Ebionism  of  the  pseudo-Clementines,  which  in  order  to  destroy  the 
deity  of  Christ  and  save  the  pure  monotheism,  so-called,  of  primitive  religion,  gave  up 
even  the  best  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  all  its  forms,  Ebionism  conceives  of  God 
and  man  as  external  to  each  other.    God  could  not  become  man.    Christ  was  no  more 


670  CH HISTOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

than  a  prophet  or  teacher,  who,  as  the  reward  of  his  virtue,  was  from  the  time  of  his 
baptism  specially  endowed  with  the  Spirit.  After  his  death  he  was  exalted  to  kingship. 
But  that  would  not  justify  the  worship  which  the  church  paid  him.  A  merely  crea- 
turely  mediator  would  separate  us  from  God,  instead  of  uniting  us  to  him.  See  Dor- 
ner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  305-307  (Syst.  D Oct.,  3  :  201-204),  and  Hist.  Doct.  Person  Christ, 
A.  1 :  187-217 ;  Iteuss,  Hist.  Christ.  Theol.,  1 :  100-107 ;  Schaff ,  Ch.  Hist.,  1 :  212-215. 

2.  The  Docetce  (6<mew — 'to  seem,'  'to  appear';  A.  D.  70-170  ),  like 
most  of  the  Gnostics  in  the  second  century  and  the  Manichees  in  the  third, 
denied  the  reality  of  Christ's  human  body.  This  view  was  the  logical 
sequence  of  their  assumption  of  the  inherent  evil  of  matter.  If  matter  is 
evil  and  Christ  was  pure,  then  Christ's  human  body  must  have  been  merely 
phantasmal.  Docetism  was  simply  pagan  philosophy  introduced  into  the 
church. 

The  Gnostic  Basilides  held  to  a  real  human  Christ,  with  whom  the  divine  vov<;  became 
united  at  the  baptism  ;  but  the  followers  of  Basilides  became  Docetee.  To  them,  the 
body  of  Christ  was  merely  a  seeming  one.  There  was  no  real  life  or  death.  Valentinus 
made  the  /Eon,  Christ,  with  a  body  purely  pneumatic  and  worthy  of  himself,  pass 
through  the  body  of  the  Virgin,  as  water  through  a  reed,  taking  up  into  himself  nothing 
of  the  human  nature  through  which  he  passed ;  or  as  a  ray  of  light  through  colored 
glass  which  only  imparts  to  the  light  a  portion  of  its  own  darkness.  Christ's  life  was 
simply  a  theophany.  The  Patripassians  and  Sabellians,  who  are  only  sects  of  the 
Docetas,  denied  all  real  humanity  to  Christ.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  141  — "He 
treads  the  thorns  of  death  and  shame '  like  a  triumphal  path,'  of  which  he  never  felt 
the  sharpness.  There  was  development  only  externally  and  in  appearance.  No  ignor- 
ance can  be  ascribed  to  him  amidst  the  omniscience  of  the  Godhead."  Shelley:  "A 
mortal  shape  to  him  Was  as  the  vapor  dim  Which  the  orient  planet  animates  with 
light."  The  strong  argument  against  Docetism  was  found  in  Heb.  2  :  14—  "  Since  then  the  chil- 
dren are  sharers  in  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  in  like  manner  partook  of  the  same." 

That  Docetism  appeared  so  early,  shows  that  the  impression  Christ  made  was  that  of 
a  superhuman  being.  Among  many  of  the  Gnostics,  the  philosophy  which  lay  at  the 
basis  of  their  Docetism  was  a  pantheistic  apotheosis  of  the  world.  God  did  not  need 
to  become  man,  for  man  was  essentially  divine.  This  view,  and  the  opposite  error  of 
Judaism,  already  mentioned,  both  showed  their  insufficiency  by  attempts  to  combine 
with  each  other,  as  in  the  Alexandrian  philosophy.  See  Doruer,  Hist.  Doct.  Person 
Christ,  A.  1 :  218  252,  and  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  307-310  (Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  204-206 ) ;  Neander, 
Ch.  Hist.,  1 :  387. 

3.  The  Avians  (  Arius,  condemned  at  Nice,  325)  denied  the  integrity 
of  the  divine  nature  in  Christ.  They  regarded  the  Logos  who  united  him- 
self to  humanity  in  Jesus  Christ,  not  as  possessed  of  absolute  godhood,  but 
as  the  first  and  highest  of  created  beings.  This  view  originated  in  a  mis-' 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptural  accounts  of  Christ's  state  of  humiUation, 
and  in  mistaking  temporary  subordination  for  original  and  permanent 
inequality. 

Arianism  is  called  by  Dorner  a  reaction  from  Sabellianism.  Sabellius  had  reduced 
the  incarnation  of  Christ  to  a  temporary  phenomenon.  Arius  thought  to  lay  stress  on 
the  hypostasis  of  the  Son,  and  to  give  it  fixity  and  substance.  But,  to  his  mind,  the 
reality  of  Sonship  seemed  to  require  subordination  to  the  Father.  Origen  had  taught 
the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  in  connection  with  his  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation.  Arius  held  to  the  subordination,  and  also  to  the  generation,  but  this  last, 
he  declared,  could  not  be  eternal,  but  must  be  in  time.  See  Dorner,  Person  Christ, 
A.  2  :  227-244,  and  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  307,  312,  313  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  203,  207-210) ;  Herzog, 
Encyclopadie,  art. :  Arianismus.    See  also  this  Compendium,  Vol.  1 :  328-330. 

4.  The  ApoUinarians  (  Apollinaris,  condemned  at  Constantinople,  381) 
denied  the  integrity  of  Christ's  human  nature.  According  to  this  view, 
Christ  had  no  human  vovg  or  nvev/ia,  other  than  that  which  was  furnished  by 


THE    PERSON"   OF   CHRIST.  671 

the  divine  nature.  Christ  had  only  the  human  ou/ia  and  ipvxfi  5  the  place 
of  the  human  voi/g  or  rrvevfta  was  filled  by  the  divine  Logos.  Apollinarisin 
is  an  attempt  to  construe  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person  in  the  forms  of  the 
Platonic  trichotomy. 

Lest  divinity  should  seem  a  foreign  element,  when  added  to  this  curtailed  manhood, 
Apollinaris  said  that  there  was  an  eternal  tendency  to  the  human  in  the  Logos  himself ; 
that  in  God  was  the  true  manhood  ;  that  the  Logos  is  the  eternal,  archetypal  man.  But 
here  is  no  becorfAng  man  -  only  a  manifestation  in  flesh  of  what  the  Logos  already  was. 
So  we  have  a  Christof  great  head  and  dwarfed  body.  Justin  .Martyr  preceded  Apolli- 
naris  in  this  view.  In  opposing  it,  the  church  Fathers  said  that  "  what  the  Son  of  God 
has  not  taken  to  himself,  lie  has  not  BOXlCti&eA" ---to  avpoa-Kriirrov  itai  adepan-euToi'.  See 
Dorner,  Jahrbuch  f.  d.  Theol.,  1 :  397-408  —  "  The  impossibility,  on  the  Arian  theory,  of 
making  two  finite  souls  into  one,  finally  led  to  the  [  Apollinarian]  denial  of  any  human 
soul  in  Christ";  see  also,  Dorner,  Person  Christ,  A.  a  :  352-399,  and  Glaubenslehre, 
2  :  310  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  206,  207 );  Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  1  :  394. 

Apollinaris  taught  that  the  eternal  Word  took  into  union  with  himself,  not  a  com- 
plete human  nature,  but  an  irrational  human  animal.  Simon,  Reconciliation,  329, 
comes  near  to  being  an  Apollinarian,  when  he  maintains  that  the  incarnate  Logos  was 
human,  but  was  not  a  man.  He  is  the  constitute!'  of  man,  self-limited,  in  order  that  he 
may  save  that  to  which  he  has  given  life.  Gore,  Incarnation,  93—  "Apollinaris  sug- 
gested that  the  archetype  of  manhood  exists  in  God,  who  made  man  in  his  own  image, 
so  that  man's  nature  in  some  sense  preexisted  in  God.  The  Son  of  Cod  was  eternally 
human,  and  he  could  fill  the  place  of  the  human  mind  in  Christ  without  his  ceasing  to 
be  in  some  sense  divine.  .  .  .  This  the  church  negatived, —  man  is  not  God,  nor  God 
man.  The  first  principle  of  theism  is  that  manhood  at  the  bottom  is  not  the  same  thing 
as  Godhead.  This  is  a  principle  intimately  bound  up  with  man's  responsibility  and  the 
reality  of  sin.    The  interests  of  theism  were  at  stake." 

5.  The  Nestorians  (  Nestorius,  removed  from  the  Patriarchate  of  Con- 
stantinople,  431)  denied  the  real  union  between  the  divine  and  the  human 
natures  in  Christ,  making  it  rather  a  moral  than  an  organic  one.  They 
refused  therefore  to  attribute  to  the  resultant  unity  the  attributes  of  each 
nature,  and  regarded  Christ  as  a  man  in  very  near  relation  to  God.  Thus 
they  virtually  held  to  two  natures  and  two  persons,  instead  of  two  natures 
in  one  person. 

Nestorius  disliked  the  phrase :  "  Mary,  mother  of  God."  The  Chalcedon  statement 
asserted  its  truth,  with  the  significant  addition:  "as  to  his  humanity."  Nestorius 
made  Christ  a  peculiar  temple  of  God.  He  believed  in  (7uraf«,  not  Iwuot*,—  junction 
and  indwelling,  but  not  absolute  union.  He  made  too  much  of  the  analogy  of  the 
union  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  and  separated  as  much  as  possible  the  divine  and  the 
human.  The  two  natures  were,  in  his  view,  oAAos  <cai  dAAos,  instead  of  being  dAAo  koX 
aAAo,  which  together  constitute  els  — one  personality.  The  union  which  he  accepted 
was  a  moral  union,  which  makes  Christ  simply  God  and  man,  instead  of  the  God-man. 

John  of  Damascus  compared  the  passion  of  Christ  to  the  felling  of  a  tree  on  which 
the  sun  shines.  The  axe  fells  the  tree,  but  does  no  harm  to  the  sunbeams.  So  the  blows 
which  struck  Christ's  humanity  caused  no  harm  to  his  deity ;  while  the  flesh  suffered, 
the  deity  remained  impassible.  This  leaves,  however,  no  divine  efficacy  of  the  human 
sufferings,  and  no  pers<  >nal  union  of  the  human  with  the  divine.  The  error  of  Nestorius 
arose  from  a  philosophic  nominalism,  which  refused  to  conceive  of  nature  without 
personality.  He  believed  in  nothing  more  than  a  local  or  moral  union,  like  the  mar- 
riage union,  in  which  two  become  one ;  or  like  the  state,  which  is  sometimes  called  a 
moral  person,  because  having  a  unity  composed  of  many  persons.  See  Dorner,  Person 
Christ,  B.  1:53-79,  and  Glaubenslehre,  2:315,  316  (Syst.  Doct.,  3:211-213);  Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre,  4:210;  Wilberforce,  Incarnation,  152-154. 

"There  was  no  need  here  of  the  virgin-birth,— to  secure  a  sinless  father  as  well  as 
mother  would  have  been  enough.  Nestorianism  holds  to  no  real  incarnation  —  only  to 
an  alliance  between  God  and  man.  After  the  fashion  of  the  Siamese  twins,  Chang  and 
Eng,  man  and  God  are  joined  together.  But  the  incarnation  is  not  merely  a  higher 
degree  of  the  mystical  union."    Gore,  Incarnation,  94  —  "  Nestorius  adopted  and  pop- 


672  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

ularized  the  doctrine  of  the  famous  commentator,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  But  the 
Christ  of  Nestorius  was  simply  a  deified  man,  not  Got!  incarnate,  — he  was  from  below, 
not  from  above.  If  he  was  exalted  to  union  with  the  divine  essence,  his  exaltation  was 
only  that  of  one  individual  man." 

6.  The  Eutychians  (condemned  at  Chalcedon,  451 )  denied  the  dis- 
tinction and  coexistence  of  the  two  natures,  and  held  to  a  mingling  of  both 
into  one,  which  constituted  a  tertium  quid,  or  third  nature.  Since  in  this 
case  the  divine  must  overpower  the  human,  it  follows  that  the  human  was 
really  absorbed  into  or  transmuted  into  the  divine,  although  the  divine  was 
not  in  all  respects  the  same,  after  the  union,  that  it  was  before.  Hence  the 
Eutychians  were  often  called  Monophysites,  because  they  virtually  reduced 
the  two  natures  to  one. 

They  were  an  Alexandrian  school,  which  included  monks  of  Constantinople  and 
Egypt.  They  used  the  words  avyxvcr^,  ^era^oK-q  —  confounding-,  transformation — to 
describe  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ.  Humanity  joined  to  deity  was  as  a 
drop  of  honey  mingled  with  the  ocean.  There  was  a  change  in  either  element,  but  as 
when  a  stone  attracts  the  earth,  or  a  meteorite  the  sun,  or  when  a  small  boat  pulls  a 
ship,  all  the  movement  was  virtually  on  the  part  of  the  smaller  object.  Humanity  was 
so  absorbed  in  deity,  as  to  be  altogether  lost.  The  union  was  illustrated  by  electron,  a 
metal  compounded  of  silver  and  gold.  A  more  modern  illustration  would  be  that  of  the 
chemical  union  of  an  acid  and  an  alkali,  to  form  a  salt  unlike  either  of  the  constituents. 

In  effect  this  theory  denied  the  human  element,  and,  with  this,  the  possibility  of 
atonement,  on  the  part  of  human  nature,  as  well  as  of  real  union  of  man  with  God. 
Such  a  magical  union  of  the  two  natures  as  Eutyches  described  is  inconsistent  with  any 
real  becoming  man  on  the  part  of  the  Logos,  —the  manhood  is  well-nigh  as  illusory  as 
upon  the  theory  of  the  Docetae.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  140  —  "  This  turns  not  the 
Godhead  only  but  the  manhood  also  into  something  foreign  — into  some  nameless 
nature,  betwixt  and  between  — the  fabulous  nature  of  a  semi-human  demigod,"  like 
the  Centaur. 

The  author  of  "  The  German  Theology  "  says  that "  Christ's  human  nature  was  utterly 
bereft  of  self,  and  was  nothing  else  but  a  house  and  habitation  of  God."  The  Mystics 
would  have  human  personality  so  completely  the  organ  of  the  divine  that  "  we  may 
be  to  God  what  man's  hand  is  to  a  man,"  and  that  "  I "  and  "  mine  "  may  cease  to  have 
any  meaning.  Both  these  views  savor  of  Eutychianism.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Unitarian  says  that  Christ  was  "  a  mere  man."  But  there  cannot  be  such  a  thing  as  a 
mere  man,  exclusive  of  aught  above  and  beyond  him,  self-centered  and  self-moved. 
The  Trinitarian  sometimes  declares  himself  as  believing  that  Christ  is  God  mid  man, 
thus  implying  the  existence  of  two  substances.  Better  say  that  Christ  is  the  God-man, 
who  manifests  all  the  divine  powers  and  qualities  of  which  all  men  and  all  nature  are 
partial  embodiments.  See  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  B.  1 :  83-93,  and  Glaubenslehre, 
2 :  318,  319  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3 :  214-216 ) ;  Guericke,  Ch.  History,  1 :  356-360. 

The  foregoing  survey  would  seem  to  show  that  history  had  exhausted  the 
possibilities  of  heresy,  and  that  the  f  uture  denials  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
person  must  be,  in  essence,  forms  of  the  views  already  mentioned.  All 
controversies  with  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ  must,  of  necessity,  hinge 
upon  one  of  three  points  :  first,  the  reality  of  the  two  natures  ;  secondly, 
the  integrity  of  the  two  natures ;  thirdly,  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
one  person.  Of  these  points,  Ebionism  and  Docetism  deny  the  reality  of 
the  natures ;  Arianism  and  Apollinarianism  deny  their  integrity ;  while 
Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism  deny  their  proper  union.  In  opposition 
to  all  these  errors,  the  orthodox  doctrine  held  its  ground  and  maintains  it 
to  this  day. 

We  may  apply  to  this  subject  what  Dr.  A.  P.  Peabody  said  in  a  different  connection  °. 
"  The  canon  of  infidelity  was  closed  almost  as  soon  as  that  of  the  Scriptures  "  —  modern 
unbelievers  having,  for  the  most  part,  repeated  the  objections  of  their  ancient  prede- 
cessors.   Brooks,  Foundations  of  Zoology,  126  —  "Asa  shell  which  has  failed  to  burst  is 


TIIE   TWO    NATURES   OF   CHRIST.  G73 

picked  up  on  some  old  battle-field,  by  some  one  on  whom  experience  is  thrown  away, 
and  is  exploded  by  him  in  the  bosom  of  his  approving-  family,  with  disastrous  results, 
so  one  of  these  abandoned  beliefs  may  be  dug-  up  by  the  head  of  some  intellectual 
family,  to  the  confusion  of  those  who  follow  him  as  their  leader." 

7.  The  Orthodox  doctrine  ( promulgated  at  Chalcedon,  451 )  holds  that 
in  the  one  person  Jesus  Christ  there  are  two  natures,  a  human  nature  and 
a  divine  nature,  each  in  its  completeness  and  integrity,  and  that  these  two 
natures  are  organically  aud  indissolubly  united,  yet  so  that  no  third  nature 
is  formed  thereby.  In  brief,  to  use  the  anticpiated  dictum,  orthodox  doc- 
trine forbids  us  either  to  divide  the  person  or  to  confound  the  natures. 

That  this  doctrine  is  Scriptural  aud  rational,  we  have  yet  to  show.  We 
may  most  easily  arrange  our  proofs  by  reducing  the  three  points  mentioned 
to  two,  namely  :  first,  the  reality  and  integrity  of  the  two  natures  ;  sec- 
ondly, the  ixnion  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person. 

The  formula  of  Chalcedon  is  negative,  with  the  exception  of  its  assertion  of  a  eVucn? 
v7ro<TTaT(.K>).  it  i >i'< iiw'i Is  from  the  natures,  and  regards  the  result  of  the  union  to  be  the 
person.  Each  of  the  two  natures  is  regarded  as  in  movement  toward  the  other.  The 
symbol  says  nothing  of  an  awirovTacria  of  the  human  nature,  nor  does  it  say  that  the 
Logos  furnishes  the  ego  in  the  personality.  John  of  Damascus,  however,  pushed  for- 
ward to  these  conclusions,  and  his  work,  translated  into  Latin,  was  used  by  Peter  Lom- 
bard, and  determined  the  views  of  the  Western  church  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Dorner 
regards  this  as  having'  given  rise  to  the  Mariolatry,  saint-invocation,  and  transub- 
stantiation  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  See  Phillppi,  Claubenslehre,  4 :  189  sq. ; 
Dorner,  Person  Christ,  B.  1 :  03-119,  and  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  a.'0-328  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  216- 
223),  in  which  last  passage  may  be  found  valuable  matter  with  regard  to  the  changing 

USeS  Of  the  Words  7rpdcrw7r<H',  VTr6<TTa<ri<;,  ovcrta,  lie. 

Gore,  Incarnation,  96,  MB.— "These  decisions  simply  express  in  a  new  form,  without 
substantial  addition,  the  apostolic  teaching  as  it  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament. 
They  express  it  in  a  new  form  for  protect  iv>-  purposes,  as  ;i  legal  enactment  protects  a 
moral  principle.  They  are  developments  only  in  the  sense  that  they  represent  the 
apostolic  teaching  worked  out  into  formulas  by  the  aid  of  a  terminology  which  was 

supplied  by  Greek  dialectics What  the  church  borrowed  from  Greek  thought 

was  her  terminology,  not  the  substance  of  her  creed.  Even  in  regard  to  her  termi- 
nology we  must  make  one  important  reserval  ion ;  for  Christianity  laid  all  stress  on  the 
personality  of  God  and  man,  of  which  Hellenism  had  thought  but  little." 

II.     The  two  Natcres  of  Christ,  —  their  Reality  and  Integrity. 

1.     The  Humanity  of  Christ. 

A.     Its  Reality.  —  This  may  be  shown  as  follows  : 

(  a  )  He  expressly  called  himself,  and  was  called,  "  man." 

John  8  :  40  —  "  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth  "  ;  Acts  2 :  22  —  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man 
approved  of  God  unto  you  "  ;  Rom.  5:15  —  "  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ "  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  21  —  "  by  man  came  death,  by 
man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  "  ;  1  Tim.  2 :  5  —  "  one  mediator  also  between  God  and  men,  himself  man, 
Christ  Jesus."  Compare  the  genealogies  in  Mat.  1:1-17  and  Luke  3:23-38,  the  former  of  which 
proves  Jesus  to  be  in  the  royal  line,  and  the  latter  of  which  proves  him  to  be  in  the 
natural  line,  of  succession  from  David ;  the  former  tracing  back  his  lineage  to  Abraham, 
and  the  latter  to  Adam.  Christ  is  therefore  the  son  of  David,  and  of  the  stock  of  Israel. 
Compare  also  the  phrase  "Son  of  man,"  e.  (/.,  in  Mat.  20  :  28,  which,  however  much  it  may  mean 
jn  addition,  certainly  indicates  the  veritable  humanity  of  Jesus.  Compare,  finally,  the 
term  "flesh"  (  =  human  nature ),  applied  to  him  in  John  1 :  14—  "And  the  Word  became  flesh,"  and 
in  1  John  4:2  —  "  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God." 

"  Jesus  is  the  true  Son  of  man  whom  he  proclaimed  himself  to  be.  This  implies  that 
he  is  the  representative  of  all  humanity.  Consider  for  a  moment  what  is  implied  in 
your  being  a  man.  How  many  parents  had  you?  You  answer,  Two.  How  many 
grandparents?  You  answer,  Four.  How  many  great-grandparents?  Eight.  How 
many  great-great-grandparents  ?    Sixteen.    So  the  number  of  your  ancestors  increases 

43 


C71:  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

as  you  go  further  back,  and  if  you  take  in  only  twenty  generations,  you  will  have  to 
reckon  yourself  as  the  outcome  of  more  than  a  million  progenitors.  The  name  Smith. 
or  Jones,  which  you  bear,  represents  only  one  strain  of  all  those  million ;  you  might 
almost  as  well  bear  any  other  name ;  your  existence  is  more  an  expression  of  the  race 
at  large  than  of  any  particular  family  or  line.  What  is  true  of  you,  was  true,  on  the 
human  side,  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  In  him  all  the  lines  of  our  common  humanity  con- 
verged. He  was  the  Son  of  man,  far  more  than  he  was  Son  of  Mary  " ;  see  A.  H.  Strong, 
Sermon  before  the  London  Baptist  Congress. 

(  b )  He  possessed  the  essential  elements  of  human  nature  as  at  present 
constituted  —  a  material  body  and  a  rational  soul. 

Mat.  26 :  38  —  "  My  soal  is  exceeding  sorrowful "  ;  John  11 :  33  —  "  he  groaned  in  the  spirit "  ;  Mat.  26 :  26  —  "  this 
is  my  body  "  ;  28  —  "this  is  my  blood"  ;  Luke  24:39  —  "a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having  " ; 
Heb.  2:14  —  "Since  then  the  children  are  sharers  in  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  in  like  manner  partook  of  the 
same  "  ;  1  John  1:1  —  "  that  which  we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that  which  we  beheld,  and 
our  hands  handled,  concerning  the  Word  of  life  "  ;  4:2  —  "  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  of  God." 

Yet  Christ  was  not  all  men  in  one,  and  he  did  not  illustrate  the  development  of  all 
human  powers.  Laughter,  painting,  literature,  marriage  —  these  provinces  he  did  not 
invade.  Yet  we  do  not  regard  these  as  absent  from  the  ideal  man.  The  perfection  of 
Jesus  was  the  perfection  of  self-limiting  love.  For  our  sakes  he  sanctified  himself 
( John  17 :  19 ),  or  separated  himself  from  much  that  in  an  ordinary  man  would  have  been 
excellence  and  delight.  He  became  an  example  to  us,  by  doing  God's  will  and  reflect- 
ing God's  character  in  his  particular  environment  and  in  his  particular  mission — that 
of  the  world's  Redeemer;  see  H.  E.  Robins,  Ethics  of  the  Christian  Life,  259-303. 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  86-105  —  "  Christ  was  not  a  man  only  amongst 
men.  His  relation  to  the  human  race  is  not  that  he  was  another  specimen,  differing, 
by  being  another,  from  every  one  but  himself.  His  relation  to  the  race  was  not  a 
differentiating  but  a  consummating  relation.    He  was  not  generically  but  inclusively 

man The  only  relation  that  can  at  all  directly  compare  with  it  is  that  of  Adam, 

who  in  a  real  sense  was  humanity That  complete  indwelling  and  possessing  of 

even  one  other,  which  the  yearnings  of  man  toward  man  imperfectly  approach,  is  only 
possible,  in  any  fulness  of  the  words,  to  that  spirit  of  man  which  is  the  Spirit  of  G  od :  to 

the  Spirit  of  God  become,  through  incarnation,  the  spirit  of  man If  Christ's 

humanity  were  not  the  humanity  of  Deity,  it  could  not  stand  in  the  wide,  inclusive, 
consummating  relation,  in  which  it  stands,  in  fact,  to  the  humanity  of  all  other  men. 
....  Yet  the  centre  of  Christ's  being  as  man  was  not  in  himself  but  in  God.  He  was 
the  expression,  by  willing  reflection,  of  Another." 

( c )  He  was  moved  by  the  instinctive  principles,  and  he  exercised  the 
active  powers,  which  belong  to  a  normal  and  developed  humanity  (hunger, 
thirst,  weariness,  sleep,  love,  compassion,  anger,  anxiety,  fear,  groaning, 
weeping,  prayer). 

Mat.  4:2  —  "he  afterward  hungered  "  ;  John  19 : 28  —  "I  thirst "  ;  4:6  —  "  Jesus  therefore,  being  wearied  with  his 
journey,  sat  thus  by  the  well";  Mat.  8:24  —  "the  boat  was  covered  with  the  waves:  but  he  was  asleep";  Mark 
10  :  21  —  "  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him  "  ;  Mat.  9  :  36  —  "  when  he  saw  the  multitudes,  he  was  moved  with  com- 
passion for  them  " ;  Mark  3:5  —  "looked  round  about  on  them  with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardening  of  their 
heart  "  ;  Heb.  5:7  —  "supplications  with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from  death"  ; 
John  12 :  27  —  "  Now  is  my  soul  troubled ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  "  ;  11 :  33  —  "he 
groaned  in  the  spirit";  35 — "Jesus  wept";  Mat.  14:23  —  "he  went  up  into  the  mountain  apart  to  pray."  Eeb, 
2 :  16  —  "  For  it  is  not  doubtless  angels  whom  he  rescueth,  but  he  rescueth  the  seed  of  Abraham  "  (  Kendrick ). 

Prof.  J.  P.  Silvernail,  on  The  Elocution  of  Jesus,  finds  the  following  intimations  as  to 
his  delivery.  It  was  characterized  by  1.  Naturalness  (sitting,  as  at  Capernaum) ;  2. 
Deliberation  ( cultivates  responsiveness  in  his  hearers ) ;  3.  Circumspection  ( he  looked 
at  Peter);  4.  Dramatic  action  (woman  taken  in  adultery ) ;  5.  Self-control  ( authority, 
poise,  no  vociferation,  denunciation  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees ).  All  these  are  manifes- 
tations of  truly  human  qualities  and  virtues.  The  epistle  of  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord,  with  its  exaltation  of  a  meek,  quiet  and  holy  life,  may  be  an  unconscious  reflec- 
tion of  the  character  of  Jesus,  as  it  had  appeared  to  James  during  the  early  days  at 
Nazareth.  So  John  the  Baptist's  exclamation, "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee "  ( Mat.  3 :  14 ),  may 
be  an  inference  from  his  intercourse  with  Jesus  in  childhood  and  youth. 


THE   TWO    NATURES   OF   CHRIST.  675 

(d)  He  was  subject  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  human  development,  both  in 
body  and  soul  ( grew  and  waxed  strong  in  spirit ;  asked  questions  ;  grew  iu 
wisdom  and  stature  ;  learned  obedience ;  suffered  being  tempted ;  was 
made  perfect  through  sufferings ). 

Luke  2 :  40  —  "  the  child  grew,  and  waied  strong,  filled  with  wisdom  ";  46  —  "  sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  teachers, 
both  hearing  them,  and  asking  them  questions  "  (here,  at  his  twelfth  year,  he  appears  first  to  become 
fully  conscious  that  he  is  the  Sent  of  God,  the  Son  of  God;  49  —  "  knew  ye  not  that  I  must  be  in 
my  Father's  house  ?  "  lit.  '  in  the  things  of  my  Father').;  r2 —  "  advanced  in  wisdom  and  stature ";  Hcb. 
5:8  —  " learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered  "  ;  2 :  18 —  "in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted, 
he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted  "  ;  10  —  "it  became  him  ....  to  make  the  author  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  sufferings." 

Keble :  "  Was  not  our  Lord  a  little  child,  Taught  by  degrees  to  pray ;  By  father  dear 
and  mother  mild  Instructed  day  by  day?  "  Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ :  "To  Henry 
Drummond  Christianity  was  the  crown  of  the  evolution  of  the  whole  universe.  Jesus' 
growth  in  stature  and  in  favor  with  God  and  men  is  a  picture  in  miniature  of  the  age- 
long evolutionary  process."  Forrest.  Christ  of  History  and  of  Experience,  185  —  The 
incarnation  of  the  Son  was  not  his  our  revelation  of  God,  but  the  interpretation  to 
sinful  humanity  of  all  his  other  revelations  of  God  in  nature  and  history  and  moral 

experience,  which  had  been  darkened  by  sin The  Logos,  incarnate  or  not,  is  the 

reAos  as  well  as  the  <ipx>i  of  creation." 

Andrew  Murray,  Spirit  of  Christ,  26,  27  —  "  Though  now  baptized  himself,  he  cannot 
yet  baptize  others.  He  must  first,  in  the  power  of  his  baptism,  meet  temptation  and 
overcome  it;  must  learn  obedience  and  sutler;  yea,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  offer 
himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  and  his  Will;  then  only  could  he  afresh  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  reward  of  obedience,  wit  h  the  power  to  baptize  all  who  belong  to  him  "  ; 
see  Acts  2 :  33  —  "  Being  therefore  by  the  right  hand  of  God  eialted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  hath  poured  forth  this,  which  ye  soe  and  hear." 

(  e )  He  suffered  and  died  (  bloody  sweat ;  gave  up  his  spirit ;  his  side 
pierced,  and  straightway  there  came  out  blood  and  water). 

Luke  22 :  44  —  "  being  in  an  agony  he  prayed  more  earnestly ;  and  his  sweat  became  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood 
falling  down  upon  the  ground":  John  19:30  —  "he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave  up  his  spirit";  34 — "one  of  the 
soldiers  with  a  spear  pierced  his  side,  and  straightway  there  came  out  blood  and  water"  —  held  by  Stroud, 
Physical  Cause  of  our  Lord's  Death,  to  tie  proof  thai  Jesus  died  of  a  broken  heart. 

Anselm,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  1  :9-l!i—  "The  bord  is  said  to  have  grown  In  wisdom  and 
favor  with  God,  not  because  it  was  so,  but  because  he  acted  as  If  it  were  so.  So  lie  was 
exalted  after  death,  as  if  this  exaltat  ion  were  on  account  of  death."  !(ut  we  may  reply: 
Resolve  all  signs  of  humanity  into  mere  appearance,  and  you  lose  the  divine  nature 
as  well  as  the  human  ;  for  God  is  truth  and  cannot  act  a  lie.  The  babe,  the  child,  even 
the  man,  in  certain  respects,  was  ignorant.  Jesus,  the  boy,  was  not  making  crosses,  as 
in  Overbeck's  picture,  but  rather  yokes  and  plows,  as  Justin  Martyr  relates— serving 
a  real  apprenticeship  in  Joseph's  workship  :  Mark  6:3— "Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary  ?  " 

See  Holman  Hunt's  picture,  "The  Shadow  of  the  Cross  "  —  in  which  not  Jesus,  but 
only  Mary,  sees  the  shadow  of  the  cross  upon  the  wall.  He  lived  a  life  of  faith,  as  well 
as  of  prayer  ( Heb.  12 : 2  —  "Jesus  the  author  [captain,  prince]  and  perfecter  of  our  faith "  ),  dependent 
upon  Scripture,  which  was  much  of  it,  as  Ps.  16  and  118,  and  Is.  49,  50,  61,  written  for  him, 
as  well  as  about  him.  See  Park,  Discourses,  2!i~-327;  Deutsch,  Remains,  131  — "The 
boldest  transcendental  flight  of  the  Talmud  is  its  saying:  'God  prays.'"  In  Christ's 
humanity,  united  as  it  is  to  deity,  we  have  the  fact  answering  to  this  piece  of  Talmudic 
poetry. 

B.  Its  Integrity.  We  here  use  the  term  « integrity'  to  signify,  rot 
merely  completeness,  but  pei'fection.  That  which  is  perfect  is,  a  fortiori, 
complete  in  all  its  parts.     Christ's  human  nature  was : 

(a)  Supernaturally  conceived  ;  since  the  denial  of  his  supernatural  con- 
ception involves  either  a  denial  of  the  purity  of  Mary,  his  mother,  or  a  denial 
of  the  truthfulness  of  Matthew's  and  Luke's  narratives. 

Luke  1 :  34,  35  —  "  And  Mary  said  unto  the  angel,  How  shall  this  be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man  ?  And  tho  ange! 
answered  and  said  unto  her,  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee." 


676  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OP    REDEMPTION. 

The  "  seed  of  the  woman  "  ( Gen.  3 :  15 )  was  one  who  had  no  earthly  father.  "  Ev9 "  =  life,  not  only 
as  being  the  source  of  physical  life  to  the  race,  but  also  as  bringing-  into  the  world  him 
who  was  to  be  its  spiritual  life.  Julius  Miiller,  Proof-texts,  29  — Jesus  Christ  "ha<l  no 
earthly  father;  his  birth  was  a  creative  act  of  God,  breaking  through  the  chain  of 
human  generation."  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2:44V  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3:345)  —  "The  new 
science  recognizes  manifold  methods  of  propagation,  and  that  too  even  in  one  and  the 
same  species." 

Professor  Loeb  has  found  that  the  unfertilized  egg  of  the  sea-urchin  may  be  made 
by  chemical  treatment  to  produce  thrifty  young,  and  he  thinks  it  probable  that  the 
same  effect  may  be  produced  among  the  mammalia.  Thus  parthenogenesis  in  the 
highest  order  of  life  is  placed  among  the  scientific  possibilities.  Romanes,  even  while 
he  was  an  agnostic,  affirmed  that  a  virgin-birth  even  in  the  human  race  would  be  by 
no  means  out  of  the  range  of  possibility ;  see  his  Darwin  and  After  Darwin,  119,  foot 
note  —  "  Even  if  a  virgin  has  ever  conceived  and  borne  a  son,  and  even  if  such  a  fact  in 
the  human  species  has  been  unique,  it  would  not  betoken  any  breach  of  physiological 
continuity."  Only  a  new  impulse  from  the  Creator  could  save  the  Redeemer  from  the 
long  accruing  fatalities  of  human  generation.  But  the  new  creation  of  humanity  in 
Christ  is  scientifically  quite  as  possible  as  its  first  creation  in  Adam  ;  and  in  both  cases 
there  may  have  been  no  violation  of  natural  law,  but  only  a  unique  revelation  of  its 
possibilities.  "  Birth  from  a  virgin  made  it  clear  that  a  new  thing  was  taking  place  in 
the  earth,  and  that  One  was  coming  into  the  world  who  was  not  simply  man."  A.  B. 
Bruce :  "  Thoroughgoing  naturalism  excludes  the  virgin  life  as  well  as  the  virgin  birth." 
See  Griffith- Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  254-270;  A.  II.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  176. 
Paul  Lobstein,  Incarnation  of  our  Lord,  217  —  "  That  which  is  unknown  to  the  teach- 
ings of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  St.  John  and  St.  James,  and  our  Lord  himself,  and  is 
absent  from  the  earliest  and  the  latest  gospels,  cannot  be  so  essential  as  many  people 
have  supposed."  This  argument  from  silence  is  sufficiently  met  by  the  considerations 
that  Mark  passes  over  thirty  years  of  our  Lord's  life  in  silence ;  that  John  presupposes 
the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  of  Luke ;  that  Paul  does  not  deal  with  the  story  of  Jesus' 
life.  The  facts  were  known  at  first  only  to  Mary  and  to  Joseph ;  their  very  nature 
involved  reticence  until  Jesus  was  demonstrated  to  be  "  the  Son  of  God  with  power  ....  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead"  (Rom.  1:4);  meantime  the  natural  development  of  Jesus  and  his 
refusal  to  set  up  an  earthly  kingdom  may  have  made  the  miraculous  events  of  thirl  y 
years  ago  seem  to  Mary  like  a  wonderful  dream ;  so  only  gradually  the  marvellous  tale 
of  the  mother  of  the  Lord  found  its  way  into  the  gospel  tradition  and  creeds  of  the 
church,  and  into  the  inmost  hearts  of  Christians  of  all  countries ;  see  F.  L.  Anderson,  in 
Baptist  Review  and  Expositor,  1904  :  25-44,  and  Machen,  on  the  N.  T.  Account  of  the 
^irth  of  Jesus,  in  Princeton  Theol.  Rev.,  Oct.  1905,  and  Jan.  1906. 

*  Cooke,  on  The  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord,  in  Methodist  Rev.,  Nov.  1904  :  849-857  — "  If 
there  is  a  moral  taint  in  the  human  race,  if  in  the  very  blood  and  constitution  of 
humanity  there  is  an  ineradicable  tendency  to  sin,  then  it  is  utterly  inconceivable  that 
any  one  born  in  the  race  by  natural  means  should  escape  the  taint  of  that  race.  And, 
finally,  if  the  virgin  birth  is  not  historical,  then  a  difficulty  greater  than  any  that 
destructive  criticism  has  yet  evolved  from  documents,  interpolations,  psychological 
improbabilities  and  unconscious  contradictions  confronts  the  reason  and  upsets  all  the 
long  results  of  scientific  observation,  —  that  a  sinful  and  deliberately  sinning  and 
unmarried  pair  should  have  given  life  to  the  purest  human  being  that  ever  lived  or  of 
whom  the  human  race  has  ever  dreamed,  and  that  he,  knowing  and  forgiving  the  sins 
of  others,  never  knew  the  shame  of  his  own  origin."  See  also  Gore,  Dissertations,  1-08, 
on  the  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord,  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  Some  Thoughts  on  the  Incar- 
nation, 42,  both  of  whom  show  that  without  assuming  the  reality  of  the  virgin  birth 
we  cannot  account  for  the  origin  of  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  of  Luke,  nor  for  the 
acceptance  of  the  virgin  birth  by  the  early  Christians.  Per  contra,  see  Hoben,  in  Am. 
Jour.  Theol.,  1902 :  473-506,  709-752.  For  both  sides  of  the  controversy,  see  Symposium 
by  Bacon,  Zenos,  Rhees  and  Warfield,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  Jan.  1906:1-30;  and  especi- 
ally Orr,  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ. 

(6)  Free,  both  from  hereditary  depravity,  and  from  actual  sin;  as  is 
shown  by  his  never  offering  sacrifice,  never  praying  for  forgiveness,  teach- 
ing that  all  but  he  needed  the  new  birth,  challenging  all  to  convict  him  of 
a  single  sin. 

Jesus  frequently  went  up  to  the  temple,  but  he  never  offered  sacrifice.    He  prayed : 


THE  TWO    NATURES   OF    CHRIST.  677 

"Father,  twgfw  .jem  '  ( Lake  23 :  34 ) ;  but  he  never  prayed  :  "  Father,  forgive  me."  He  said  i 
"Yemust  be  born  anew"  (John  3:7);  but  the  words  indicated  that  he  had  no  such  need.  "  At 
no  moment  in  all  that  life  could  a  single  detail  have  been  altered,  except  for  the  worse." 
He  not  only  yielded  to  God's  will  when^riade  known  to  him,  but  he  sought  it :  "I  seek  not 
mine  own  will,  but  ihe  will  of  him  that  sent  me"  (John  5: 30).  The  anger  which  he  showed  was  no 
passionate  or  selfish  or  vindictive  anger,  but  the  indignation  of  righteousness  against 
hypocrisy  and  cruelty  —  an  indignation  accompanied  with  grief:  "looked  round  about  on  them 
with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardening  of  their  heart"  (Mark3:5).  F.  W.  H.  Myers,  St.  Paul,  19,  53 
— "  Thou  with  strong  prayer  and  very  much  entreating  Wiliest  be  asked,  and  thou  wilt 
answer  then,  Show  the  hid  heart  beneath  creation  beating.  Smile  with  kind  eyes  and  be 

a  man  with  men Yea,  through  life,  death,  through  sorrow  and  through  sinning. 

He  shall  suffice  me,  for  he  hath  sufficed  :  Christ  is  the  end,  for  Christ  was  the  beginning, 
Christ  the  beginning,  for  the  end  is  Christ."  Not  personal  experience  of  sin,  but  resist- 
ance to  it,  fitted  him  to  deliver  us  from  it, 

Luke  1:35  —  "wherefore  also  the  holy  thing  which  is  begotten  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God"  ;  John  8:  46  — 
"  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin  ?  "  14 :  30  —  "  the  prince  of  the  world  cometh :  and  he  hath  nothing  in  me  "  = 
not  the  slightest  evil  inclination  upon  which  his  temptations  can  lay  hold  ;  Rom.  8:3  —  "in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  "  =  in  liesh,  but  without  the  Sin  which  in  other  men  clings  to  the 
flesh  ;  2 Cor.  5  :21  — "Him  who  kn^w  no  sin"  ;  Heb.  4  :15 — "in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin"; 
7:26 — " holy,  guileless,  undetiled,  separated  from  sinners " — by  the  fact  of  his  immaculate  concep- 
tion; 9:14  —  "through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God"  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  19 —  "precious  blood, 
as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Christ"  ;  2  :  22 —  "who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile 
found  in  his  mouth "  ;  1  John  3  : 5,  7  —  "in  him  is  no  sin  .  .  ,  .  he  is  righteous." 

Julius  Mtiller,  Proof-texts,  29  —  "  Had  Christ  been  only  human  nature,  he  could  not 
have  been  without  sin.  Hut .life  can  draw  out  of  the  putrescent  clod  materials  for  its 
own  living.  Divine  life  appropriates  the  human."  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2:440(Syst. 
Doct.,  3:344)  —  "  What  with  us  is  regeneration,  is  with  him  the  incarnation  of  God." 
In  this  origin  of  Jesus'  sinlessness  from  his  union  with  God,  we  see  the  absurdity,  both 
dcctrinally  and  practically,  of  speaking  of  an  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin, 
and  of  making  her  sinlessness  precede  that  of  her  Son.  On  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin,  sec  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  889-892;  Mason, 
Faith  of  the  Gospel,  129-131—  "It  makes  the  regeneration  of  humanity  begin,  not  with 
Christ,  but  with  the  Virgin.  It  breaks  his  con  met  ion  with  the  race.  Instead  of  spring- 
ing sinless  from  the  sinful  race,  he  derives  his  humanity  from  something  not  like  the 
re-^t  of  us."  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Liguori  both  call  Mary  the  Queen  of  Mercy,  as  Jesus 
her  Son  is  King  of  Justice ;  see  Thomas,  Pr-.ef.  in  Sept.  Cath.  Ep.,  Comment  on  Esther. 
5 : 3,  and  Liguori,  Glories  of  Mary,  1 :  80  (  Dublin  version  of  ]8';r>).  Bradford,  Heredity, 
289  —  "The  Roman  church  has  almost  apotheosized  Mary;  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  process  began  with  Jesus.  From  what  he  was,  an  inference  was  drawn  con- 
cerning what  his  mother  mnsr  have  been." 

"  Christ  took  human  nature  in  such  a  way  that  this  nature,  without  sin,  bore  the  conse- 
quences of  sin."  That  portion  of  human  nature  which  the  Logos  took  into  union  with 
himself  was,  in  the  very  instant  and  by  the  fact  of  his  taking  it,  purged  from  all  its 
inherent  depravity.  But  if  in  Christ  there  was  no  sin,  or  tendency  to  sin,  how  could  he 
be  tempted?  In  the  same  way,  we  reply,  that  Adam  was  tempted.  Christ  was  not 
omniscient  :  Mark  13  :  32 —  "of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the 
Son,  but  the  Father."  Only  at  the  close  of  the  first  temptation  does  Jesus  recognize  Satan 
as  the  adversary  of  souls:  Mat,  4:10  —  "Get  thee  hence,  Satan."  Jesus  could  be  tempted,  not 
only  because  he  was  not  omniscient,  but  also  because  he  had  the  keenest  susceptibility 
to  all  the  forms  of  innocent  desire.  To  these  desires  temptation  may  appeal.  Sin 
consists,  not  in  these  desires,  but  in  the  gratification  of  them  out  of  God's  order,  and 
contrary  to  God's  will.  Meyer:  "  Lust  is  appetite  run  wild.  There  is  no  harm  in  any 
natural  appetite,  considered  in  itself.  But  appetite  has  been  spoiled  by  the  Fall."  So 
Satan  appealed  ( Mat.  4  : 1-11 )  to  our  Lord's  desire  for  food,  for  applause,  for  power ;  to 
"  Ueberglaube,  Aberglande,  Fnglaube  "  (  Kurtz ) ;  ef.  Mat.  26 :  39 ;  27 :  42 ;  26  :  53.  All  temp- 
tation must  be  addressed  either  to  desire  or  fear ;  so  Christ  "  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we 
are "  ( Heb.  4 :  15  ).  The  first  temptation,  in  the  wilderness,  was  addressed  to  desire;  the 
second,  in  the  garden,  was  addressed  to  fear.  Satan,  after  the  first,  "  departed  from  him  for  a 
season"  (Luke  4: 13);  but  he  returned,  in  Gethsemane — "  the  prince  of  the  world  cometh :  and  he  hath 
nothing  in  me"  ( John  14 :  30 )  —  if  possible,  to  deter  Jesus  from  his  work,  by  rousing  within  him 
vast  and  agonizing  fears  of  the  suffering  and  death  that  lay  before  him.  Yet,  in  spite 
of  both  the  desire  and  the  fear  with  which  his  holy  soul  was  moved,  he  was  "without  sin" 
( Heb.  4 :  15 ).    The  tree  on  the  edge  of  the  precipice  is  fiercely  blown  by  the  winds :  the 


678  CHRISTOLOGY,    OK   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

strain  upon  the  roots  is  tremendous,  but  the  roots  hold.  Even  in  Gethsemane  and  on 
Calvary,  Christ  never  prays  for  forgiveness,  he  only  imparts  it  to  others.  See  Ullman, 
Sinlessness  of  Jesus ;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  2  : 7-17, 126-136,  esp.  135,  136; 
Schaff,  Person  of  Christ,  51-72;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  3  :  330-349. 

(  c )  Ideal  human  nature,  —  furnishing  the  moral  pattern  which  man  is 
progressively  to  realize,  although  within  limitations  of  knowledge  aud  of 
activity  required  by  his  vocation  as  the  world's  Redeemer. 

Psalm  8:4-8  — "  thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God,  And  crownest  him  with  glory  and  honor.  Thou  madest 
him  to  have  dominion  oyer  the  works  of  thy  hands ;  Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet" — a  description  <  if 
the  ideal  man,  which  finds  its  realization  only  in  Christ.  Heb.  2:6-10 — "But  now  we  see  not  yet 
all  things  subjected  to  him.  But  we  behold  him  who  hath  been  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  even  Jesus,  because 
of  the  suffering  of  death  crowned  with  glory  and  honor."  1  Cor.  15  :  45 — "The  first  ....  Adam  .  .  .  .  The  last 
Adam"— implies  that  the  second  Adam  realized  the  full  concept  of  humanity,  which  failed 
to  be  realized  in  the  first  Adam  ;  so  verse  49  —  "  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthly  [  man  ],  we 
shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly  "  [  man  ].  2  Cor.  3 :  18  —  "  the  glory  of  the  Lord  "  is  the  pattern,  into 
whose  likeness  we  are  to  be  changed.  Phil.  3 :  21  —  "  who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation, 
that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his  glory  " ;  Col.  1 :  18  —  "  that  in  all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence  "  ; 
1  Pet.  2  :  21  — "  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps  "  ;  1  John  3  :  3  —  "  every  one 
that  hath  this  hope  set  on  him  purineth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure." 

The  phrase  "  Son  of  man  "  ( John  5  :  27 ;  c/.  Dan.  7 :  13,  Com.  of  Pusey,  in  loco,  and  Westcott,  in 
Bible  Com.  on  John,  32-35)  seems  to  intimate  that  Christ  answers  to  the  perfect  idea  of 
humanity,  as  it  at  first  existed  in  the  mind  of  God.  Not  that  he  was  surpassingly 
beautiful  in  physical  form ;  for  the  only  way  to  reconcile  the  seemingly  conflicting 
intimations  is  to  suppose  that  in  all  outward  respects  he  took  our  average  humanity  — 
at  one  time  appearing  without  form  or  comeliness  ( Is.  52 :  2),  and  aged  before  his  time 
( John  8  :  57 —  "Thou  art  notyet  fifty  years  old  "  ),  at  another  time  revealing  so  much  of  his  inward 
grace  and  glory  that  men  were  attracted  aud  awed  (  Ps.  45  : 2  —  "  Thou  art  fairer  than  the  children 
of  men  "  ;  luke  4  :  22 —  "  the  words  of  grace  which  proceedtd  out  of  his  mouth  " ;  Mark  10  :  32 — "Jesus  was  going 
before  them :  and  they  were  amazed  ;  and  they  that  followed  were  afraid  "  ;  Mat.  17:1-8  —  the  account  of  the 
transfiguration  ).  Compare  the  Byzantine  pictures  of  Christ  with  those  of  the  Italian 
painters,  —  the  former  ascetic  and  emaciated,  the  latter  types  of  physical  well-being. 
Modern  pictures  make  Jesus  too  exclusively  a  Jew.  Yet  there  is  a  certain  truth  in  the 
words  of  Mozoomdar :  "  Jesus  was  an  Oriental,  and  we  Orientals  understand  him.  He 
spoke  in  figure.  We  understand  him.  He  was  a  mystic.  You  take  him  literally :  you 
make  an  Englishman  of  him."  So  Japanese  Christians  will  not  swallow  the  Western 
system  of  theology,  because  they  say  that  this  would  be  depriving  the  world  of  the 
Japanese  view  of  Christ. 

But  in  all  spiritual  respects  Christ  was  perfect.  In  him  are  united  all  the  excellences 
of  both  the  sexes,  of  all  temperaments  and  nationalities  and  characters.  He  possesses, 
not  simply  passive  innocence,  but  positive  and  absolute  holiness,  triumphant  through 
temptation.  He  includes  in  himself  all  objects  and  reasons  for  affection  aud  worship  ; 
so  that,  in  loving  him,  "  love  can  uever  love  too  much."  Christ's  human  nature,  there- 
fore, and  not  human  nature  as  it  is  in  us,  is  the  true  basis  of  ethics  and  of  theology. 
This  absence  of  narrow  individuality,  this  ideal,  universal  manhood,  could  not  have  beeu 
secured  by  merely  natural  laws  of  propagation,— it  was  secured  by  Christ's  miraculous 
conception ;  see  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  446  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  344  ).  John  G.  Whittier, 
on  the  Birmingham  philanthropist,  Joseph  Sturge :  "  Tender  as  woman,  manliness  and 
meekness  In  him  were  so  allied,  That  they  who  judged  him  by  his  strength  or  weak- 
ness Saw  but  a  single  side." 

Seth,  Ethical  Principles,  420—  "  The  secret  of  the  power  of  the  moral  Ideal  is  the  con- 
viction which  it  carries  with  it  that  it  is  no  mere  ideal,  but  the  expression  of  the 
supreme  Reality."  Bowne,  Theory  of  Thought  and  Knowledge,  364  —  "  The  a  priori 
only  outlines  a  possVole,  and  does  not  determine  what  shall  be  actual  withiu  the  limits 
of  the  possible.  If  experience  is  to  be  possible,  it  must  take  on  certain  forms,  but  those 
rorms  are  compatible  with  an  infinite  variety  of  experience."  No  a pr tori  truths  or 
ideals  can  guarantee  Christianity.  We  want  a  historical  basis,  an  actual  Christ,  a 
realization  of  the  divine  ideal.  "  Great  men,"  says  Amiel,  "are  the  true  men."  Yes, 
we  add,  but  only  Christ,  the  greatest  man,  shows  what  the  true  man  is.  The  heavenly 
perfection  of  Jesus  discloses  to  us  the  greatness  of  our  own  possible  being,  while  at  the 
same  time  it  reveals  our  infinite  shortcoming  and  the  source  from  which  all  restoration 
must  come. 


THE   TWO   NATURES    OF    CHRIST.  679 

Gore,  Incarnation,  168  — "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  catholic  man.  In  a  sense,  all  the  greatest 
men  have  overlapped  the  boundaries  of  their  time.  '  The  truly  great  Have  all  one  age, 
and  from  one  visible  space  Shed  influence.  They,  both  in  power  and  act  Are  permanent, 
and  time  is  not  with  them,  Save  as  i^worketh  for  them,  they  in  it.'  But  in  a  unique 
sense  the  manhood  of  Jesus  is  catholic ;  because  it  is  exempt,  not  from  the  limitations 
which  belong  to  mauhood,  but  from  the  limitations  which  make  our  manhood  narrow 
and  isolated,  merely  local  or  national."  Dale,  Ephesians,  42 —  "  Christ  is  a  servant  and 
something  more.  There  is  an  ease,  a  freedom,  a  grace,  about  his  doing  the  will  of  God, 
which  can  belong  only  to  a  Son.  .  .  .  There  is  nothing  constrained  ...  he  was  born  to 
it.  .  .  .  He  does  the  will  of  Cod  as  a  child  does  the  will  of  its  father,  naturally,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  almost  without  thought.  .  .  .  No  irreverent  familiarity  about  his 

communion  with  the  Father,  but  also  no  trace  of  fear,  or  even  of  wonder 

Prophets  had  fallen  to  the  ground  when  the  divine  glory  was  revealed  to  them,  but 
Christ  stands  calm  and  erect.  A  subject  may  lose  his  self-possession  in  the  presence  of 
his  prince,  but  not  a  son." 

Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  148  —  "  What  once  he  had  perceived,  he  thenceforth  knew. 
He  had  no  opinions,  no  conjectures;  we  are  never  told  that  he  forgot,  nor  even  that 
he  remembered,  which  would  imply  a  degree  of  forgetting;  Ave  are  not  told  that  he 
arrived  at  truths  by  the  process  of  reasoning-  them  out ;  but  he  reasons  them  out  for 
others.  It  is  not  recorded  that  he  took  counsel  or  formed  plans;  but  he  desired,  and 
he  purposed,  and  he  did  one  thing  with  a  view  to  another."  On  Christ,  as  the  ideal  man, 
see  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  307-336 ;  F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermon  on  The 
Glory  of  the  Divine  Son,  2nd  Series,  Sermon  XIX;  WilbCrforee,  Incarnation,  22-99; 
Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  2  :  25 ;  Moorhouse,  Nature  and  Revelation,  37 ;  Tennyson,  Introduc- 
tion to  In  Memoriam ;  Farrar,  Life  of  Christ,  1 :  148-104,  and  2  :  excursus  iv  ;  Bushnell, 
Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  276-332;  Thomas  Hughes,  The  Manliness  of  Christ ;  Hop- 
kins, Scriptural  Idea  of  Man,  121-115;  Tyler,  in  Bib.  Sue.,  22:01,  t>20;  Doruer,  Glaubens- 
lehre,  2  :  151  aq, 

(d)  A  human  nature  that  found  its  personality  only  in  union  with  the 
divine  nature, —  in  other  words,  a  human  nature  impersonal,  in  the  sense 
that  it  had  no  personality  separate  from  tho  divine  nature,  and  prior  to  its 
union  therewith. 

Ry  the  impersonality  of  Christ's  human  nature,  we  mean  only  that  it  had  no  person- 
ality before  Christ  took  it,  no  personality  before  its  union  with  the  divine.  It  was  a 
human  nature  whose  consciousness  and  will  were  developed  only  in  union  with  the 
personality  of  the  Logos.  The  Fathers  therefore  rejected  the  word  awnooTaoia.,  and 
substituted  the  word  tn>7rocrTacria, —  they  favored  not  impersonality  but  impersonality. 
In  still  plainer  terms,  the  Logos  did  not  take  into  union  with  himself  an  already  devel- 
oped human  person,  such  as  James,  Peter,  or  John,  but  human  nature  before  it  had 
become  personal  or  was  capable  of  receiving  a  name.  It  reached  its  personality  only 
in  union  with  his  own  divine  nature.  Therefore  we  see  in  Christ  not  two  persons  —  a 
human  person  and  a  divine  person  — but  one  person,  and  that  person  possessed  of  a 
human  nature  as  well  as  of  a  divine.  For  proof  of  this,  see  pages  683-700,  also  Shedd, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  289-308. 

Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  136  —  "  We  count  it  no  defect  in  our  bodies  that  they  have 
no  personal  subsistence  apart  from  ourselves,  and  that,  if  separated  from  ourselves,  they 
are  nothing-.  They  share  in  a  true  personal  life  because  we,  whose  bodies  they  are,  are 
persons.  What  happens  to  them  happens  to  us."  In  a  similar  manner  the  personality 
of  the  Logos  furnished  the  organizing  principle  of  Jesus'  two-fold  nature.  As  ho 
looked  backward  he  could  see  himself  dwelling  in  eternity  with  God,  so  far  as  his 
divine  nature  was  concerned.  But  as  respects  his  humanity  he  could  remember  that  it 
was  not  eternal,—  it  had  had  its  beginning-s  in  time.  Yet  this  humanity  had  never  had 
a  separate  personal  existence,— its  personality  had  been  developed  only  in  connection 
with  the  divine  nature.  Goschel,  quoted  in  Doruer's  Person  of  Carist,  5  :  170  —  "  Christ 
is  humanity ;  we  have  it ;  he  is  it  entirely ;  we  participate  therein.  His  personality 
precedes  and  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  personality  of  the  race  and  its  individuals.  As  idea, 
he  is  implanted  in  the  whole  of  humanity;  he  lies  at  the  basis  of  every  human  con- 
sciousness, without  however  attaining  realization  in  an  individual ;  for  this  is  only 
possible  in  the  entire  race  at  the  end  of  the  times." 

Emma  Marie  Caillard,  on  Man  in  the  Light  of  Evolution,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1893 : 
873-881  —  "  Christ  is  not  only  the  goal  of  the  race  which  is  to  be  conformed  to  him,  but 


680  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

he  is  also  the  vital  principle  which  moulds  each  individual  of  that  race  into  its  own 
similitude.  The  perfect  type  exists  potentially  through  all  the  intermediate  stages  by 
which  it  is  more  and  more  nearly  approached,  and,  if  it  did  not  exist,  neither  could 
they.  There  could  be  no  development  of  an  absent  life.  The  goal  of  man's  evolution, 
the  perfect  type  of  manhood,  is  Christ.  He  exists  and  always  has  existed  potentially 
in  the  race  and  in  the  individual,  equally  before  as  after  his  visible  incarnation,  equally 
in  the  millions  of  those  who  do  not,  as  in  the  far  fewer  millions  of  those  who  do,  bear 
his  name.  In  the  strictest  sense  of  the  words,  he  is  the  life  of  man,  and  that  in  a  far 
deeper  and  more  intimate  sense  than  he  can  be  said  to  be  the  life  of  the  universe." 
Dale,  Christian  Fellowship,  159  —  "  Christ's  incarnation  was  not  an  isolated  and  abnor- 
mal wonder.  It  was  God's  witness  to  the  true  and  ideal  relation  of  all  men  to  God." 
The  incarnation  was  no  detached  event, — it  was  the  issue  of  an  eternal  process  of  utter- 
ance on  the  part  of  the  Word  "whose  goings  forth  are  from  of  old,  from  everlasting  "  (  Micah  5:2). 

(  e )  A  human  nature  germinal,  and  capable  of  self-communication,  — 
so  constituting  him  the  spiritual  head  and  beginning  of  a  new  race,  the 
second  Adam  from  whom  fallen  man  individually  and  collectively  derives 
new  and  holy  life. 

In  Is.  9  :  6,  Christ  is  called  "Everlasting  Father."  In  Is.  53  :10,  it  is  said  that  "he shall  see  his  seed." 
In  Rev.  22  :  16,  he  calls  himself  "  the  root "  as  well  as  "  the  offspring  of  David."  See  also  John  5 :  21  — 
"  the  Son  also  giveth  life  to  whom  he  will "  ;  15  : 1  —  "I  am  the  true  vine  "  —  whose  roots  are  planted  in 
heaven,  not  on  earth  ;  the  vine-man,  from  whom  as  its  stock  the  new  life  of  humanity 
is  to  spring,  and  into  whom  the  half-withered  branches  of  the  old  humanity  are  to  be 
grafted  that  they  may  have  life  divine.  See  Trench,  Sermon  on  Christ,  the  True  Vine, 
in  Hulsean  Lectures.  John  17  :  2  —  "  thou  gavest  him  authority  over  all  flesh,  that  to  all  whom  thou  hast  given 
him,  he  should  give  eternal  life "  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  45  —  " the  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit "  — hcrfe  "spirit "  = 
not  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  Christ's  divine  nature,  but  "  the  ego  of  his  total  divine-human 
personality." 

Eph.  5  :  23 — "  Christ  also  is  the  head  of  the  church  "  =  the  head  to  which  all  the  members  are  united, 
and  from  which  they  derive  life  and  power.  Christ  calls  the  disciples  his  "little  children  " 
(John  13: 33);  when  he  leaves  them  they  are  "  orphans "  (14: 18  marg. ).  "  He  represents  him- 
self as  a  father  of  children,  no  less  than  as  a  brother  "  ( 20  :  17  —  "  my  brethren  "  ;  c/.  Heb.  2  :  11 

—  "brethren",  and  13  —  "Behold,  land  the  children  whom  God  hath  given  me"  ;  see  Westcott,  Com.  on  John 
13  :  33  ).  The  new  race  is  propagated  after  the  analogy  of  the  old  ;  the  first  Adam  is  the 
source  of  the  physical,  the  second  Adam  of  spiritual,  life;  the  first  Adam  the  source 
of  corruption,  the  second  of  holiness.  Hence  John  12  :  24  —  "  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit "  ;  Mat. 
10  :  37  and  Luke  14  :  26  — "  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me  "=  none  is  worthy 
of  me,  who  prefers  his  old  natural  ancestry  to  his  new  spiritual  descent  and  relationship. 
Thus  Christ  is  not  simply  the  noblest  embodiment  of  the  old  humanity,  but  also  the 
fountain-head  and  beginning  of  a  new  humanity,  the  new  source  of  life  for  the  race. 
C/.l  Tim. 2:15  —  "she  shall  be  saved  through  the  child-bearing "  —  which  brought  Christ  into  the 
world.  See  Wilberf orce,  Incarnation,  2_'7-341 ;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  638-664 ;  Dorner, 
Glaubenslehre,  2  :  451  sq.  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  349  8q\). 

Lightfoot  on  Col.  1 :  18  —  "  who  is  the  beginning,  the  first  fruits  from  the  dead  "  —  "  Here  ap\»j  =  1.  pri- 
ority in  time.  Christ  was  first  fruits  of  the  dead  ( 1  Cor.  15  :  20,  23 ) ;  2.  originating  power, 
not  only  principium  pri/nciplatum,  but  also  principium  principians.  As  he  is  first  with 
respect  to  the  universe,  so  he  becomes  first  with  respect  to  the  church  ;  cf.  Heb.  7  :  15,  16  — 
'another  priest,  who  hath  been  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless 
life  '."  Paul  teaches  that  "the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ "  ( 1  Cor.  11  :  3 ),  and  that  "  in  him  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  "  ( Col.  2:9).  Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  88-92,  remarks  on  Eph.  1 :  10, 
that  God's  purpose  is  "  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  the  heavens,  and  the  things  upon  the  earth  " 

—  to  bring  all  things  to  a  head  ( ai>aK<!<l>a\aiu>(ra.<T8ai ).  History  is  a  perpetually  increasing 
incarnation  of  life,  whose  climax  and  crown  is  the  divine  fulness  of  life  in  Christ.  In 
him  the  before  unconscious  sonship  of  the  world  awakes  to  consciousness  of  the  Father. 
He  is  worthiest  to  bear  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  preeminent,  but  not  exclusive 
right.  "We  agree  with  these  words  of  Whiton,  if  they  mean  that  Christ  is  the  only  giver 
of  life  to  man  as  he  is  the  only  giver  of  life  to  the  universe. 

Hence  Christ  is  the  only  ultimate  authority  in  religion.  He  reveals  himself  in  nature, 
in  man,  in  history,  in  Scripture,  but  each  of  these  is  only  a  mirror  which  reflects  htm 
to  us.  In  each  case  the  mirror  is  more  or  less  blurred  and  the  image  obscured,  yet  he 
appears  in  the  mirror  notwithstanding.  The  mirror  is  useless  unless  there  is  an  eye  to 
look  into  it,  and  an  object  to  be  seen  in  it.    The  Holy  Spirit  gives  the  eyesight,  while 


THE   TWO    NATURES   OF   CHRIST.  681 

Christ  himself,  living  and  present,  furnishes  the  object  ( James  1  ■  23-25 ;  2  Cor.  3 :  18 ;  1  Cor.  13  :  12). 

Over  against  mankind  is  Christ-kind  ;  over  against  the  fallen  and  sinful  race  is  the 
new  race  created  by  Christ's  indwelling-.  Therefore  only  when  he  ascended  with  his 
perfected  manhood  could  he  send  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  which  makes  men 
children  of  God  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  "'Christ's  humanity  now,  by  virtue  of  its  perfect 
union  with  Deity,  has  become  universally  communicable.  It  is  as  consonant  with  evo- 
'ution  to  derive  spiritual  gifts  from  the  second  Adam,  a  solitary  source,  as  it  is  to 
derive  the  natural  man  from  the  first  Adam,  a  solitary  source ;  see  George  Harris, 
Moral  Evolution,  409 ;  and  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  174. 

Simon,  Reconciliation,  308  — "Every  man  is  in  a  true  sense  essentially  of  divine 

nature— even  as  Paul  teaches, &elov  ydvos  (Acts  17: 291 At  the  centre,  as  it  were, 

enswathed  in  fold  after  fold,  after  the  manner  of  a  bulb,  we  discern  the  living  divine 
spark,  impressing  us  qualitatively  if  not  quantitatively,  with  the  absoluteness  of  the 
great  sun  to  which  it  belongs."  The  idea  of  truth,  beauty,  right,  has  in  it  an  absolute 
and  divine  quality.  It  comes  from  God,  yet  from  the  depths  of  our  own  nature.  It  is 
the  evidence  that  Christ,  "the  light  that lighteth  every  man  "  (John  1 : 9 ),  is  present  and  is  working 
within  us. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  of  Religion,  1  :  273  —  "  That  the  divine  idea  of  man  as  'the  son  of  his 
love '  ( Col.  1 :  13 ),  and  of  humanity  as  the  kingdom  of  this  Son  of  God,  is  the  immanent 
final  cause  of  all  existence  and  development  even  in  the  prior  world  of  nature,  this  has 
been  the  fundamental  thought  of  the  Christian  Gnosis  since  the  apostolic  age,  and  I 
think  that  no  philosophy  has  yet  been  able  to  shake  or  to  surpass  this  thought — the 
corner  stone  of  an  idealistic  view  of  the  world."  But  Mead,  Kitschl's  Place  in  the  His- 
tory of  Doctrine,  10,  says  of  Pfleiderer  and  Ritschl :  "  Roth  recognize  Christ  as  morally 
perfect  and  as  the  head  of  the  Christian  Church.  Both  deny  his  pre-existence  and 
his  essential  Deity.  Both  reject  the  traditional  conception  of  Christ  as  an  atoning 
Redeemer.  Ritschl  calls  Christ  God,  though  inconsistently;  Pfleiderer  declines  to  say 
one  thing  when  he  seems  to  mean  another." 

The  passages  here  alluded  to  abundantly  confute  the  Docetic  denial  of 
Christ's  veritable  human  body,  aud  the  Apollinarian  denial  of  Christ's  ver- 
itable human  soul.  More  than  this,  they  establish  the  reality  and  integrity 
of  Christ's  human  nature,  as  possessed  of  all  the  elements,  faculties,  and 
powers  essential  to  humanity. 

2.     The  Deity  of  Christ. 

The  reality  and  integrity  of  Christ's  divine  nature  have  been  sufficiently 
proved  in  a  former  chapter  (see  pages  305-315).  We  need  only  refer  to 
the  evidence  there  given,  that,  during  his  earthly  ministry,  Christ  : 

(  a  )  Possessed  a  knowledge  of  his  own  deity. 

John  3 .- 13  —  "  the  Son  of  man,  who  is  in  heaven  "  —  a  passage  with  clearly  indicates  Christ's  con- 
sciousness, at  certain  times  in  his  earthly  life  at  least,  that  he  was  not  confined  to  earth 
but  was  also  in  heaven  [  here,  however,  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  X  and  B,  omit  6  S>v  ev 
t<?  ovpavtZ ;  for  advocacy  of  the  common  reading,  see  Broadus,  in  Hovey's  Com.  on  John 
3 :  13  ] ;  8 :  58  —  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am  "  —  here  Jesus  declares  that  there  is  a  respect  in 
which  the  idea  of  birth  and  beginning  does  not  apply  to  him,  but  in  which  he  can  apply 
to  himself  the  name  "  I  am  "  of  the  eternal  God  ;  14  :  9, 10  —  "  Eave  I  bsen  so  long  time  with  you,  and 
dost  thou  not  know  me,  Philip  ?  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father ;  how  sayest  thou,  Show  ns  the  Father  ? 
Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  " 

Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ,  24-49,  gives  the  following  instances  of  Jesus'  super- 
natural knowledge:  1.  Jesus'  knowledge  of  Peter  (John  1:42);  2.  his  finding  of  Philip 
( 1 :  43 ) ;  3.  his  recognition  of  Nathanael  ( 1 :  47-50 ) ;  4.  of  the  woman  of  Samaria  ( 4 :  17-19, 39 ) ; 
5.  miraculous  draughts  of  fishes  ( Luke  5:6-9;  John  21 : 6 ) ;  6.  death  of  Lazarus  ( John  11 :  14 ) ;  7. 
of  the  ass's  colt  (Mat.  21:2);  8.  of  the  upper  room  (Mark  14: 15);  9.  of  Peter's  denial  (  Mat. 
26 :  34  ) ;  10.  of  the  manner  of  his  own  deat  h  ( John  12 :  33 ;  18 :  32 ) ;  U.  of  the  manner  of  Peter's 
death  ( John  21 :  19 ) ;  12.  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  ( Mat.  24  : 2  ). 

Jesus  does  not  say  "  our  Father  "  but  "  my  Father  "  (  John  20 :  17 ).  Rejection  of  him  is  a 
greater  sin  than  rejection  of  the  prophets,  because  he  is  the  "beloved  Son"  of  God  ( Luke 
20 :  13 ).  He  knows  God's  purposes  better  than  the  angels,  because  he  is  the  Sou  of  God 
( Mark  13 :  32 ).    As  Son  of  God,  he  alone  ki'ows,  and  he  alone  can  reveal,  the  Father  ( Mat. 


682  CHRISTOLOGY,    OH   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    REDEMPTION". 

11 : 27 ).  There  Is  clearly  something'  more  in  his  Sonship  than  in  that  of  his  disciples  ( John 
1 :  14  _  «  only  begotten  "  ;  Heb.  1:6  —  "  first  begotten  "  ).  See  Chapman,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Present 
Age,  37 ;  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  33. 

(  b )  Exercised  divine  powers  aud  prerogatives. 

John  2 :  24,  25  —  "  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew  all  men,  and  because  he  needed  not 
that  any  one  should  bear  witness  concerning  man ;  for  he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man  "  ;  18 : 4  —  "Jesus  therefore, 
knowing  all  the  things  that  were  coming  upon  him,  wont  forth  "  ;  Mark  4  : 39  —  "he  awoke,  and  rebuked  the  wind, 
and  said  unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be  still.  And  the  wind  ceased,  and  there  was  a  great  calm  "  ;  Mat.  9:6  —  "  But  that  ye 
may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  ( then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy),  Arise,  and 
take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house  "  ;  Mark  2:7  —  "  Why  doth  this  man  thus  speak  ?  he  blasphemeth :  who  can 
forgive  sins  but  one,  even  God  ?  " 

It  is  not  enough  to  keep,  like  Alexander  Severus,  a  bust  of  Christ,  in  a  private  chapel, 
along  with  Virgil,  Orpheus,  Abraham,  Apollonius,  and  other  persons  of  the  same  kind  ; 
see  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  xvi.  "  Christ  is  all  in  all.  The  prince  in  the  Arabian 
story  took  from  a  walnut-shell  a  miniature  tent,  but  that  tent  expanded  so  as  to  cover, 
first  himself,  then  his  palace,  then  his  army,  and  at  last  his  whole  kingdom.  So  Christ's 
being  and  authority  expand,  as  we  reflect  upon  them,  until  they  take  in,  not  only  our- 
selves, our  homes  and  our  country,  but  the  whole  world  of  sinning  and  suffering  men, 
aud  the  whole  universe  of  God  " ;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Address  at  the  Ecumenical  Mission- 
ary Conference,  April  23,  1900. 

Matheson,  Voices  of  the  Spirit,  39  —  "  What  is  that  law  which  I  call  gravitation,  but 
the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven?  It  is  the  gospel  of  self-surrender  in  nature. 
It  is  the  inability  of  any  world  to  be  its  own  centre,  the  necessity  of  every  world  to 
center  in  something  else. ...  In  the  firmament  as  on  the  earth,  the  many  are  made  one 
by  giving  the  one  for  the  many."  "Subtlest  thought  shall  fail  and  learning  falter; 
Churches  change,  forms  perish,  systems  go  ;  But  our  human  needs,  they  will  not  alter, 
Christ  no  after  age  will  e'er  outgrow.  Yea,  amen,  O  changeless  One,  thou  only  Art 
life's  guide  and  spiritual  goal;  Thou  the  light  across  the  dark  vale  lonely,  Thou  the 
eternal  haven  of  the  soul." 

But  this  is  to  say,  in  other  words,  that  there  were,  in  Christ,  a  knowl- 
edge and  a  power  such  as  belong  only  to  God.  The  passages  cited  furnish 
a  refutation  of  both  the  Ebionite  denial  of  the  reality,  and  the  Arian  denial 
of  the  integrity,  of  the  divine  nature  in  Christ. 

Napoleon  to  Count  Montholon  (  Bertrand's  Memoirs ) :  "  I  think  I  understand  some- 
what of  human  nature,  and  I  tell  you  all  these  [heroes  of  antiquity]  were  men,  and  I 
am  a  man ;  but  not  one  is  like  him :  Jesus  Christ  was  more  than  man."  See  other 
testimonies  in  Schaff,  Person  of  Christ.  Even  Spinoza,  Tract.  Theol.-Pol.,  cap.  1  ( vol. 
1 :  383),  says  that  "  Christ  communed  with  God,  mind  to  mind  ....  this  spiritual  close- 
ness is  unique  "  ( Martineau,  Types,  1 :  254),  and  Channing  speaks  of  Christ  as  more  than 
a  human  being,  —  as  having  exhibited  a  spotless  purity  which  is  the  highest  distinction 
of  heaven.  F.  W.  Robertson  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  phrase  "Son  of 
man"  ( John5:27;  cf.  Ban.  7  :13)  itself  implies  that  Christ  was  more  than  man  ;  it  would  have 
been  an  impertinence  for  him  to  have  proclaimed  himself  Son  of  man,  unless  he  had 
claimed  to  be  something  more;  could  not  every  human  being  call  himself  the  same  ? 
When  one  takes  this  for  his  characteristic  designation,  as  Jesus  did,  he  implies  that  there 
is  something  strange  in  his  being  Son  of  man ;  that  this  is  not  his  original  condition  and 
dignity  ;  in  other  words,  that  he  is  also  Son  of  God. 

It  corroborates  the  argument  from  Scripture,  to  find  that  Christian  experience 
instinctively  recognizes  Christ's  Godhead,  and  that  Christian  history  shows  a  new  con- 
ception of  the  dignity  of  childhood  and  of  womanhood,  of  the  sacreduess  of  human  life, 
aud  of  the  value  of  a  human  soul, —  all  arising  from  the  belief  that,  in  Christ,  the  God- 
head honored  human  nature  by  taking  it  into  perpetual  union  with  itself,  by  bearing 
its  guilt  and  punishment,  and  by  raising  it  up  from  the  dishonors  of  the  grave  to  the 
glory  of  heaven.  We  need  both  the  humanity  and  the  deity  of  Christ ;  the  humanity, 
—  for,  as  Michael  Angelo's  Last  Judgment  witnesses,  the  ages  that  neglect  Christ's 
humanity  must  have  some  human  advocate  and  Savior,  and  find  a  poor  substitute  for 
the  ever-present  Christ  in  Mariolatry,  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  and  the  'real  pres- 
ence '  of  the  wafer  and  the  mass ;  the  deity,  —  for,  unless  Christ  is  God,  he  cannot  offer 
an  infinite  atonement  for  us,  nor  bring  about  a  real  union  between  our  souls  and  the 


THE   TWO    NATURES    IK    ONE    PERSON.  G83 

Father.  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  325-327  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3 :  221-223 )  — "  Mary  and  the  saints 
took  Christ's  place  as  intercessors  in  heaven  ;  transubstantiation  furnished  a  present 
<  Ihrist  on  earth."  It  might  almost  be  said  that  Mary  was  rnade  a  fourth  person  in  the 
Godhead.  u 

Harnack,  Das  Wesen  des  Christenthums :  "  It  is  no  paradox,  and  neither  is  it  ration- 
alism, but  the  simple  expression  of  the  actual  position  as  it  lies  before  us  in  the  gospels  : 
Not  the  Son,  but  the  Father  alone,  has  a  place  in  the  gospel  as  Jesus  proclaimed  it  "  ; 
i.  c,  Jesus  has  no  place,  authority,  supremacy,  in  the  gospel, —  the  gospel  is  a  Christian- 
ity without  Christ ;  see  Nicoll,  The  Church's  One  Foundation,  18.  And  this  in  the  face 
of  Jesus'  own  words  :  "  Come  unto  me  "  ( Mat.  11 :  28 ) ;  "  the  Son  of  man  ....  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory :  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations  "  ( Mat.  25 :  31, 32  ) ;  "  he  that  hath  si-en  me  hath  seen  the  Father  " 
( John  14  :  9 ) ;  "he  that  obeyeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him "  ( John  3  :  36 ). 
Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  advocates  the  nut-theory  in  distinction  from  the 
onion-theory  of  doctrine.  Does  the  fourth  gospel  appear  a  second  century  produc- 
tion? What  of  it?  There  is  an  evolution  of  docl  fine  as  to  Christ.  "Harnack  do<  a  not 
conceive  of  Christianity  as  a  seed,  at  first  a  plant  in  potentiality,  then  a  real  plant, 
identical  from  the  beginning  of  its  evolution  to  the  final  limit,  and  from  the  root  to 
the  summit  of  the  stem.  He  conceives,  of  it  ratber  as  a  fruit  ripe,  or  over  ripe,  that. 
must  be  peeled  to  reach  the  incorruptible  kernel,  and  he  peels  his  fruit  so  thoroughly 
that  little  remains  at  the  end."  B.  W.  Gilder:  "  If  Jesus  is  a  man,  And  only  a  man,  I 
say  That  of  all  mankind  I  will  cleave  to  him.  And  will  cleave  alway.  If  Jesus  Christ  is 
a  God,  And  the  only  God,  I  swear  I  will  follow  him  through  heaven  and  hell,  The  earth, 
the  sea,  and  the  air." 

On  Christ  manifested  in  Nature,  see  Jonathan  Edwards,  Observations  on  Trinity,  ed. 
Smyth,  92-97 —  '' He  who,  by  his  immediate  influence,  gives  being  every  moment,  and 
by  his  Spirit  actuates  the  world,  because  he  inclines  to  communicate  himself  and  his 
excellencies,  doth  doubtless  communicate  his  excellency  to  bodies,  as  far  as  t  here  is  any 
consent  or  analogy.  And  the  beauty  of  face  and  sweet  airs  in  men  are  not  always  the 
effect  of  the  corresponding  excellencies  of  the  mind  ;  yet  the  beauties  of  nature  are 
really  emanations  or  shadows  of  the  excellencies  of  the  Son  of  God.  So  that,  when  we 
are  delighted  with  flowery  meadows  and  gentle  breezes  of  wind,  we  may  consider  that 
we  see  only  the  emanations  of  the  sweet  benevolence  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  we  behold 
the  fragrant  rose  and  lily,  we  see  his  love  and  purity.  So  the  green  trees  and  fields,  and 
singing  of  birds,  are  the  emanations  of  his  infinite  joy  and  benignity.  The  easiness  and 
naturalness  of  trees  and  vines  are  shadows  of  his  beauty  and  loveliness.  The  crystal 
rivers  and  murmuring  streams  are  the  fin  it  steps  of  his  favor,  grace  and  beauty.  When 
we  behold  the  light  and  brightness  of  the  sun,  the  golden  edges  of  an  evening  cloud,  or 
the  beauteous  bow,  we  behold  the  adumbrations  of  his  glory  and  goodness,  and  in  the 
blue  sky,  of  his  mildness  and  gentleness.  There  are  also  many  things  wherein  we  may 
behold  his  awful  majesty :  in  the  sun  in  his  strength,  in  comets,  in  thunder,  in  the 
hovering  thunder  clouds,  in  ragged  rocks  and  the  brows  of  mountains.  That  beau- 
teous light  wherewith  the  world  is  filled  in  a  clear  day  is  a  livel3'  shadow  of  his  spotless 
holiness,  and  happiness  and  delight  in  communicating  himself.  And  doubtless  this  is  a 
reason  why  Christ  is  compared  so  often  to  these  things,  and  called  by  their  names,  as 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  the  Morning  Star,  the  Rose  of  Sharon,  and  Lily  of  the  Valley, 
the  tii  >i  de  tree  among  trees  of  the  wood,  a  bundle  of  myrrh,  a  roe,  or  a  young  hart.  By 
this  we  may  discover  the  beauty  of  many  of  those  metaphors  and  similes  which  to  an 
unphilosophical  person  do  seem  so  uncouth.  In  like  manner,  when  we  behold  the 
beauty  of  man's  body  in  its  perfection,  we  still  see  like  emanations  of  Christ's  divine 
perfections,  although  they  do  not  always  flow  from  the  mental  excellencies  of  the  person 
that  has  them.  But  we  see  the  most  proper  image  of  the  beauty  of  Christ  when  we 
see  beauty  in  the  human  soul." 

( )n  the  deity  of  Christ,  see  Shedd,  History  of  Doctrine,  1 :262,  351 ;  Liddon,  Our  Lord's 
Divinity,  127,207,  458;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  1:61-64;  Hovey.  God  with 
Us,  17-23 ;  Bengel  on  John  10 :  30.  On  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philoso- 
phy and  Religion,  201-212. 

III.     The  Union  of  the  two  Natures  in  one  Person. 

Distinctly  as  the  Scriptures  represent  Jesus  Christ  to  have  been  possessed 
of  a  divine  nature  and  of  a  human  nature,  each  unaltered  in  essence  and 
undivested  of  its  normal  attributes  and  powers,  they  with  equal  distinctness 


684  CHRISTOLC^Yj    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

represent  Jesus  Christ  as  a  single  undivided  personality  in  whom  these  two 
natures  are  vitally  and  inse}:>arably  united,  so  that  he  is  properly,  not  God 
and  man,  but  the  God-man.  The  two  natures  are  bound  together,  not  by 
the  moral  tie  of  f  riendship,  nor  by  the  spiritual  tie  which  links  the  believer 
to  his  Lord,  but  by  a  bond  unique  and  inscrutable,  which  constitutes  them 
one  person  with  a  single  consciousness  and  will,  —  this  consciousness  and 
will  including  within  their  possible  range  both  the  human  nature  and  the 
divine. 

Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  79-81,  would  give  up  speaking  of  the  union  of  God  and  man  ; 
for  this,  he  says,  involves  the  fallacy  of  two  natures.  He  would  speak  rather  of  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  man.  The  ordinary  Unitarian  insists  that  Christ  was  "  a  mere 
man."  As  if  there  could  be  such  a  thing  as  mere  man,  exclusive  of  aught  above  him 
and  beyond  him,  self-centered  and  self-moved.  We  can  sympathize  with  Whiton's 
objection  to  the  phrase  "God  and  man,"  because  of  its  implication  of  an  imperfect 
union.  But  we  prefer  the  term  "  God-man  "  to  the  phrase  "  God  in  man,"  for  the 
reason  that  this  latter  phrase  might  equally  describe  the  union  of  Christ  with  every 
believer.  Christ  is  "  the  only  begotten,"  in  a  sense  that  every  believer  is  not.  Yet  we 
can  also  sympathize  with  Dean  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  1 :  115 —  "  Alas  that  a  Church 
that  has  so  divine  a  service  shouid  keep  its  long  list  of  Articles !  I  am  strengthened 
more  than  ever  in  my  opinion  that  there  is  only  needed,  that  there  only  should  be,  one, 
Viz.,  'I  believe  that  Christ  is  both  God  and  man.'  " 

1.     Proof  of  this   Union. 

(a)  Christ  uniformly  speaks  of  himself,  and  is  spoken  of,  as  a  single 
person.  There  is  no  interchange  of  '  I '  and  '  thou '  between  the  human 
and  the  divine  natures,  such  as  we  find  between  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
( John  17  :  23  ).  Christ  never  uses  the  plural  number  in  referring  to  him- 
self, unless  it  be  in  John  3  :  11  —  "we  speak  that  we  do  know, " —  and  even 
here  "we"  is  more  probably  used  as  inclusive  of  the  disciples.  1  John 
4  :2  —  "is  come  in  the  flesh"  —  is  supplemented  by  John  1  :  14 — "became 
flesh";  and  these  texts  together  assure  us  that  Christ  so  came  in  human 
nature  as  to  make  that  nature  an  element  in  his  single  personality. 

John  17  :  23  —  "I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one ;  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou 
iidst  send  me,  and  lovedst  them,  even  as  thou  lovedst  me  " ;  3  :  11  —  "  We  spoak  that  which  we  know,  and  bear  witness  of 
that  which  we  have  seen ;  and  ye  receive  not  our  witness  "  ;  1  John  4:2  —  "  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God  "  ;  John  1 :  14  —  "And  the  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us"  =  he  so  came  in 
human  nature  that  human  uature  and  himself  formed,  not  two  persons,  but  one  person. 

In  the  Trinity,  the  Father  is  objective  to  the  Son,  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  both  to 
the  Spirit.  But  Christ's  divinity  is  never  objective  to  his  humanity,  nor  his  humanity 
to  his  divinity.  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  97  —  "He  is  not  so  much  God 
and  man,  as  God  in,  am'  through,  and  as  man.  He  is  one  indivisible  personality  through- 
out  We  are  to  study  the  divine  in  and  through  the  human.    By  looking  for  the 

divine  side  by  side  with  the  human,  instead  of  discerning  the  divine  within  the  human, 
we  miss  the  significance  of  them  both."  We  mistake  whvn  we  say  that  certain  words 
of  Jesus  with  regard  to  his  ignorance  of  the  day  of  the  end  (Mark  13 :  32)  were  spoken  by 
his  human  nature,  while  certain  other  words  with  regard  to  his  being  in  heaven  at  the 
same  time  that  he  was  on  earth  ( John  3 :  13 )  were  spoken  by  his  divine  nature.  There  was 
never  any  separation  of  the  human  from  the  divine,  or  of  the  divine  from  the  human, 
— all  Christ's  'vords  were  spoken,  and  all  Christ's  deeds  were  done,  by  the  one  person, 
the  God-man.    See  Forrest,  The  Authority  of  Christ,  49-100. 

( b  )  The  attributes  and  powers  of  both  natures  are  ascribed  to  the  one 
Christ,  and  conversely  the  works  and  dignities  of  the  one  Christ  are 
ascribed  to  either  of  the  natures,  in  a  way  inexplicable,  except  upon  the 
principle  that  these  two  natures  are  organically  and  indissolubly  united  in 
a  single  person  ( examples  of  the  former  usage  are  Rom.  1  :  8  and  1  Pet. 


THE   TWO    NATURES   IN"   ONE    PERSON.  685 

3  :  18  ;  of  the  latter,  1  Tim.  2  :  5  and  Heb.  1  :  2,  3 ).  Hence  we  can  say, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  the  God-man  existed  before  Abraham,  yet  was  born 
in  the  reign  of  Augustus  Ctesar,^nd  that  Jesus  Christ  wept,  was  weary, 
suffered,  died,  yet  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  that  a  divine  Savior  redeemed  us  upon  the  cross,  and  that  the  human 
Christ  is  present  with  his  people  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  ( Eph.  1 :  23  ; 
4:10;  Mat.  28:20). 

Rom.  1:3  —  "his  Son,  who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  "  ;  1  Pet.  3 :  18  —  "Christ  also  suffered 
for  sins  once  ....  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  made  alive  in  the  spirit"  ;  1  Tim. 2:5  —  "one  mediator  also 
between  God  and  men,  himself  man,  Christ  Jesus "  ;  Heb.  1  :  2,  3  —  "his  Sun,  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things 
....  who  being  the  effulgence  of  his  glory  ....  when  he  had  made  purification  of  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high  "  ;  Eph.  1 :  22,  23  —  "  put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head  over 
all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all "  ;  4  :  10  —  "He  that  descended  is  the 
same  also  that  ascended  far  above  all  the  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things"  ;  Mat.  28  : 20  —  "lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

Mason,  Faith  of  tlic  Gospel,  142-115  — "Mary  was  Theotokos,  but  she  was  not  the 
mother  of  Christ's  Godhood,  tun  of  his  humanity.  We  speak  of  the  blood  of  <  lod  the 
Sun,  hut  it  is  not  as  God  that  he  has  blood.  The  hands  of  the  babe  Jesus  made  the 
worlds,  only  in  the  sense  that  he  whose  hands  they  were  was  the  Agent  Id  creation.  .  . 
.  .  Spirit  and  hotly  in  us  are  not  merely  put  side  by  side,  ami  Insulated  from  each  other. 
The  spirit  does  not  have  the  rheumatism,  and  the  reverent  body  does  not  commune 
with  God.  The  reason  why  they  affect  each  other  is  because  they  are  equally  ours.  .  . 
.  .  Let  us  avoid  sensuous,  fondling,  modes  of  addressing  Christ  —  modes  which  dishonor 

him  and  enfeeble  the  soul  of  the  worshiper Let  us  also  avoid,  on  the  other  hand, 

such  phrases  as '  the  dying  God ',  which  loses  the  manhood  in  the  Godhead."  Charles 
II.  Spurgeon  remarked  that  people  who  "dear"  everybody  reminded  him  of  the  woman 
who  said  she  had  been  reading  in  "  dear  Hebrews." 

(r)  The  constant  Scriptural  representations  of  the  infinite  value  of 
Christ's  atonement  and  of  the  union  of  the  human  race  with  God  which 
has  been  secured  iu  him  are  intelligible  only  when  Christ  is  regarded,  not 
as  a  man  of  God,  but  as  the  God-man,  in  whom  the  two  natures  are  so 
united  that  what  each  does  has  the  value  of  both. 

1  John  2:2  —  "he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world,"  —as  John 
in  his  gospel  proves  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  t  be  Word,  God,  s<>  in  bis  first  Epistle 
he  proves  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  Word,  God,  has  become  man  ;  Eph.  2: 16-18  —  "  might  recon- 
cile them  both  [Jew  and  Gentile]  in  one  body  unto  God  through  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby ;  and 
he  came  and  preached  peace  to  you  that  were  far  off,  and  peace  to  them  that  were  nigh :  for  through  him  we  both  have 
our  access  in  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father  "  ;  21,  22  —  "  in  whom  each  several  building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  into 
a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord ;  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  Sod  in  the  Spirit " ;  2  Pet.  1:4  — 
"that  through  these  [promises!  ye  may  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas 
of  Christianity,  2:107  —"We  cannot  separate  Christ's  divine  from  his  human  acts, 
without  rending  in  twain  the  unity  of  his  person  and  life." 

( d )  It  corroborates  this  view  to  remember  that  the  universal  Christian 
consciousness  recognizes  in  Christ  a  single  and  undivided  personality,  and 
expresses  this  recognition  in  its  services  of  song  and  prayer. 

The  foregoing  proof  of  the  union  of  a  perfect  human  nature  and  of  a 
perfect  divine  nature  in  the  single  person  of  Jesus  Christ  suffices  to  refute 
both  the  Nestorian  separation  of  the  natures  and  the  Eutychian  confound- 
ing of  them.  Certain  modern  forms  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  this  union, 
however  —  forms  of  statement  into  which  there  enter  some  of  the  miscon- 
ceptions already  noticed  —  need  a  brief  examination,  before  we  proceed  to 
our  own  attempt  at  elucidation. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  403-411  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3 :  300-308  )  —  "  Three  ideas  are  included 
in  incarnation  :  ( 1 )  assumption  of  human  nature  on  the  part  of  the  Logos  i  Heb.  2:14  — 


686  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

'partook  of  ...  .  flesh  and  blood ' ;  2  Cor.  5 :  19  — '  God  was  in  Christ ' ;  Col.  2 : 9  — '  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  o! 
the  Godhead  bodily' )  j  ( 2 )  new  creation  of  the  second  Adam,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  power 
of  the  Highest  ( Rom.  5 :  14  —  '  Adam's  transgression,  who  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come ' ;  1  Cor.  15 :  22  —  'as 
in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive ' ;  15 :  45  —  '  The  first  man  Adam  became  a  living  soul.  The  last 
Adam  became  a  life-giving  Sp:rit '  ;  Luke  1 :  35  — '  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  H'gh 
shall  overshadow  thee ' ;  Mat.  1 :20  —  'that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit' ) ;  (3)  becoming  flesh, 
without  contraction  of  deity  or  humanity  ( 1  Tim.  3  :  16  — '  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh ' ;  1  John 
4:2  —  '  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh ' ;  John  6  :  41,  51  —  '  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  out  of  heaven  ....  I  am 
the  living  bread ' ;  2  John  7  — '  Jesus  Christ  cometh  in  the  flesh ' ;  John  1 :  14  — '  the  Word  Decanie  flesh ').  This  last 
text  cannot  mean:  The  Logos  ceased  to  be  what  he  was,  and  began  to  be  only  man. 
Nor  can  it  be  a  mere  theophauy,  in  human  form.  The  reality  of  the  humanity  is  inti- 
mated, as  well  as  the  reality  of  the  Logos." 

The  Lutherans  hold  to  a  communion  of  the  natures,  as  well  as  to  an  impartation  of 
their  properties :  (1)  genus  idiomaticum  =  impartation  of  attributes  of  both  natures  to 
the  one  person  ;  (2)  genus  apotelesmaticum  (from  dwoTeAeoa,  'that  which  is  finished  or 
completed,'  i.  c,  Jesus'  work)  =  attributes  of  the  one  person  imparted  to  each  of  the 
constituent  natures.  Hence  Mary  may  be  called  "  the  mother  of  God,"  as  the  Chalcedon 
symbol  declares,  "  as  to  his  humanity,"  and  what  each  nature  did  has  the  value  of  both  ; 
( 3 )  genus  majestaticum  =  attributes  of  one  nature  imparted  to  the  other,  yet  so  that  the 
divine  nature  imparts  to  the  human,  not  the  human  to  the  divine.  The  Lutherans  do 
not  believe  in  a  genus  tapeinoticon,  i.  e.,  that  the  human  elements  communicated  them- 
selves to  the  divine.  The  only  communication  of  the  human  was  to  the  person,  not  to 
the  divine  nature,  of  the  God-man.  Examples  of  this  third  genus  majestaticum  are 
found  in  John  3  :  13  —  "  no  one  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  but  he  that  descended  out  of  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man 
who  is  in  heaven "  [here,  however,  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  X  and  B,  omit  6  S>v  iv  t<?  oOpa^cp] ; 
5  ;  27  —  "  he  gave  him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  a  son  of  man."  Of  the  explanation  that 
this  is  the  figure  of  speech  called  "  allaosis,"  Luther  says :  "  Allccosis  est  larva  quaedarn 
diaboli,  secundum  cuius  rationes  ego  certe  nolim  esse  Christianus." 

The  gc mis  majestaticum  is  denied  by  the  Reformed  Church,  on  the  ground  that  it  does 
not  permit  a  clear  distinction  of  the  natures.  And  this  is  one  great  difference  between 
it  and  the  Lutheran  Church.  So  Hooker,  in  commenting  upon  the  Son  of  man's 
41  ascending  up  where  he  was  before,"  says:  "By  the  'Son  of  man'  must  be  meant  the  whole 
person  of  Christ,  who,  being  man  upon  earth,  filled  heaven  with  his  glorious  presence ; 
but  not  according  to  that  nature  for  which  the  title  of  man  is  given  him."  For  the 
Lutheran  view  of  this  union  and  its  results  in  the  communion  of  natures,  see  Hase, 
Hutterus  Redivivus,  11th  ed.,  195-197 ;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  2 :  24,  25. 
For  the  Reformed  view,  see  Turretin,  loc.  13,  quiest.  8 ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2 :  387-3'.>7, 
407-418. 

2.     Modern  misrepresentations  of  this  Union. 

A.  Theory  of  an  incomplete  humanity. —  Gess  and  Beecher  hold  that 
the  immaterial  part  in  Christ's  humanity  is  only  contracted  aud  meta- 
morphosed deity. 

The  advocates  of  this  view  maintain  that  the  divine  Logos  reduced  him- 
self to  the  condition  and  limits  of  human  nature,  and  thus  literally  became 
a  human  soul.  The  theory  differs  from  Apollinarianism,  in  that  it  does  not 
necessarily  presuppose  a  trichotomous  view  of  man's  nature.  While 
Apollinarianism,  however,  denied  the  human  origin  only  of  Christ's  wvevfia, 
this  theory  extends  the  denial  to  his  entire  immaterial  being, — his  body 
alone  being  derived  from  the  Virgin.  It  is  held,  in  slightly  varying  forms, 
by  the  Germans,  Hofmann  and  Ebrard,  as  well  as  by  Gess ;  and  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  was  its  chief  representative  in  America. 

Gess  holds  that  Christ  gave  up  his  eternal  holiness  and  divine  self-consciousness,  to 
become  man,  so  that  he  never  during  his  earthly  life  thought,  spoke,  or  wrought  as  God, 
but  was  at  all  times  destitute  of  divine  attributes.  See  Gess,  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ ;  and  synopsis  of  his  view,  by  Reubelt,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1870 : 1-32 ;  Hof- 
mann, Schrif  tbeweis,  1 :  231-241,  and  2  :  20 ;  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  2 :  144-151,  and  in  Herzog, 
Encyclopadie,  art. :  Jesus  Christ,  der  Gottmensch  ;  also  Liebner,  Christliche  Dogmatik. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  chap.  3,  emphasizes  the  word 


THE   TWO    NATURES   IN   ONE    PERSON.  687 

"  flesh,"  in  John  1 :  14,  and  declares  the  passage  to  mean  that  the  divine  Spirit  enveloped 
himself  in  a  human  body,  and  in  that  condition  was  subject  to  the  indispensable  limi- 
tations of  material  laws.  All  these  advocates  of  the  view  hold  that  Deity  was  dormant, 
or  paralyzed,  in  Christ  during  his  earthly  life.  Its  essence  is  there,  but  not  its  efficiency 
at  any  time. 

Against  this  theory  we  urge  the  following  objections  : 

(a)  It  rests  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  the  passage  John  1  :  14 — 
6  Myoq  cap$  iyevero.  The  word  oap£  here  has  its  common  New  Testament 
meaning.  It  designates  neither  soul  nor  body  alone,  but  human  nature  in 
its  totality  (e/.  John  3  :  6  —  to  yEyEvvijiikvov  kn  ttjq  oapnoc  oap%  kartv  ;  Rom.  7  : 
18  —  ovk  oikeI  kv  kfioi,  tovt*  egtiv  kv  T{?  aapni  juov,  aya&ov  ).  That  iyivETo  does  not 
imply  a  transmutation  of  the  Myvq  into  human  nature,  or  into  a  human 
soul,  is  evident  from  eoktivuoev  which  follows  —  an  allusion  to  the  Shechiuah 
of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  ;  and  from  the  parallel  passage  1  John  4  :  2  —  kv 
aapKi  k^Tjkvdora — where  we  are  taught  not  only  the  oneness  of  Christ's 
person,  but  the  distinctness  of  the  constituent  natures. 

John  1  :  14  —  "  the  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  [tabernacled]  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory  "  ;  3:6  — 
" That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh "  ;  Rom.  7 :  18  —  "in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing "  ;  1  John 
4:2  —  "  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh."  Since  "  flesh,"  in  Scriptural  usage,  denotes  human  nature 
in  its  entirety,  there  is  as  little  reason  to  infer  from  these  passages  a  change  of  the 
Logos  into  a  human  body,  as  a  change  of  the  Logos  into  a  human  soul.  There  is  no 
curtailed  humanity  in  Christ.  One  advantage  of  the  monistic  doctrine  is  that  it  avoids 
this  error.  Omnipresence  is  the  presence  of  the  whole  of  God  in  every  place.  Ps.  85 : 9  — 
"Surely  his  salvation  is  nigh  them  that  fear  him,  That  glory  may  dwell  in  our  land  "  —  was  fulfilled  when 
Christ,  the  true  Shekinah,  tabernacled  in  human  flesh  and  men  "beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of 
the  only  begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of  graoe  and  truth  "  ( John  1 :  14 ).  And  Paul  can  say  in  2  Cor.  12  :  9  — 
"  Most  gladly  therefore  will  I  rather  glory  in  my  weaknesses,  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  spread  a  tabernacle  over  me." 

(b)  It  contradicts  the  two  great  classes  of  Scripture  passages  already 
referred  to,  which  assert  on  the  one  hand  the  divine  knowledge  and  power 
of  Christ  and  his  consciousness  of  oneness  with  the  Father,  and  on  the 
other  hand  the  completeness  of  his  human  nature  and  its  derivation  from 
the  stock  of  Israel  and  the  seed  of  Abraham  ( Mat.  1  : 1-16  ;  Heb.  2  :  16). 
Thus  it  denies  both  the  true  humanity,  and  the  true  deity,  of  Christ. 

See  the  Scripture  passages  cited  in  proof  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  pages  305-315.  Gess 
himself  acknowledges  that,  if  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  avers  his  divine  knowledge 
and  power  and  his  consciousness  of  oneness  with  the  Father  refer  to  his  earthly  life, 
his  theory  is  overthrown.  "  A  pollinarianism  had  a  certain  sort  of  grotesque  grandeur,  in 
giving  to  the  human  body  and  soul  of  Christ  an  infinite,  divine  7rre0/j.a.  It  maintained 
at  least  the  divine  side  of  Christ's  person.  But  the  theory  before  us  denies  both  sides." 
While  it  so  curtails  deity  that  it  is  no  proper  deity,  it  takes  away  from  humanity  all 
that  is  valuable  in  humanity  ;  for  a  manhood  that  consists  only  in  body  is  no  proper 
manhood.  Such  manhood  is  like  the  "  half  length  "  portrait  which  depicted  only  the 
lower  half  of  the  man.  Mat.  1:1-16,  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  and  Heb.  2 :  16  —  "  taketh  hold  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham  "  —  intimate  that  Christ  took  all  that  belonged  to  human  nature. 

(  c)  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  representations  of  God's  immu- 
tability, in  maintaining  that  the  Logos  gives  up  the  attributes  of  Godhead, 
and  his  place  and  office  as  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  in  order  to  contract 
himself  into  the  limits  of  humanity.  Since  attributes  and  substance  are 
correlative  terms,  it  is  impossible  to  hold  that  the  substance  of  God  is  in 
Christ,  so  long  as  he  does  not  possess  divine  attributes.  As  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  however,  the  possession  of  divine  attributes  by  Christ  does  not 
necessarily  imply  his  constant  exercise  of  them.  His  humiliation  indeed 
consisted  in  his  giving  up  their  independent  exercise. 


688,  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

See  Dorner,  Unveranderlichkeit  Gottes,  in  Jahrbuch  f Ur  deutsche  Theologie,  1 :  361 ; 
2  :  440 ;  3 :  579 ;  esp.  1 :  390-413—  "  Gess  holds  that,  during  the  thirty-three  years  of  Jesus' 
earthly  life,  the  Trinity  was  altered ;  the  Fattier  no  more  poured  his  fulness  into  the 
Son ;  the  Son  no  more,  with  the  Father,  sent  forth  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  world  was 
upheld  and  governed  by  Father  and  Spirit  alone,  without  the  mediation  of  the  Son ; 
the  Father  ceased  to  beget  the  Son.  He  says  the  Father  alone  has  aseiti) ;  he  is  the  only 
Monas.  The  Trinity  is  a  family,  whose  head  is  the  Father,  but  whose  number  and  con- 
dition is  variable.  To  Gess,  it  is  indifferent  whether  the  Trinity  consists  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit,  or  ( as  during  Jesus'  life )  of  only  one.  But  this  is  a  Trinity  in  which 
two  members  are  accidental.  A  Trinity  that  can  get  along  without  one  of  its  members 
is  not  the  Scriptural  Trinity.  The  Father  depends  on  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  depends 
on  the  Son,  as  much  as  the  Son  depends  on  the  Father.  To  take  away  the  Son  is  to  take 
away  the  Father  and  the  Spirit.  This  giving  up  of  the  actuality  of  his  attributes,  even 
of  his  holiness,  on  the  part  of  the  Logos,  is  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for  Christ  to 
sin.  But  can  we  ascribe  the  possibility  of  sin  to  a  being  who  is  really  God?  The  reality 
of  temptation  requires  us  to  postulate  a  veritable  human  soul." 

(  d  )  It  is  destructive  of  the  whole  Scriptural  scheme  of  salvation,  in  that 
it  renders  impossible  any  experience  of  human  nature  on  the  part  of  the 
divine, —  for  when  God  becomes  man  he  ceases  to  be  God  ;  in  that  it  renders 
impossible  any  sufficient  atonement  on  the  part  of  human  nature, —  for 
mere  humanity,  even  though  its  essence  be  a  contracted  and  dormant  deity, 
is  not  capable  of  a  suffering  which  shall  have  infinite  value  ;  in  that  it 
renders  impossible  any  proper  union  of  the  human  race  with  God  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ, — for  where  true  deity  and  true  humanity  are  both 
absent,  there  can  be  no  union  between  the  two. 

See  Dorner,  Jahrbuch  f .  d.  Theologie,  1 :  390  —  "  Upon  this  theory  only  an  exhibitory 
atonement  can  be  maintained.  There  is  no  real  humanity  that,  in  the  strength  of  divin- 
ity, can  bring  a  sacrifice  to  God.  Not  substitution,  therefore,  but  obedience,  on  this 
view,  reconciles  us  to  God.  Even  if  it  is  said  that  God's  Spirit  is  the  real  soul  in  all  men, 
this  will  not  help  the  matter ;  for  we  should  then  have  to  make  an  essential  distinction 
between  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  the  unregenerate,  the  regenerate,  and  Christ, 
respectively.  But  in  that  case  we  lose  the  likeness  between  Christ's  nature  and  our 
own,—  Christ's  being  prefe'xistent,  and  ours  not.  Without  this  pantheistic  doctrine, 
Christ's  unlikeness  to  us  is  yet  greater  ;  for  he  is  really  a  wandering  God,  clothed  in  a 
human  body,  and  cannot  properly  be  called  a  human  soul.  We  have  then  no  middle- 
point  between  the  body  and  the  Godhead  ;  and  in  the  state  of  exaltation,  we  have  no 
manhood  at  all,— only  the  infinite  Logos,  in  a  glorified  body  as  his  garment." 

Isaac  Watts's  theory  of  a  preexistent  humanity  in  like  manner  implies  that  humanity 
is  originally  in  deity ;  it  does  not  proceed  from  a  human  stock,  but  from  a  divine ; 
between  the  human  and  the  divine  there  is  no  proper  distinction;  hence  there  can  lie 
no  proper  redeeming  of  humanity ;  see  Bib.  Sac,  1875 :  431.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Pop.  Lectures, 
336 —  "  If  Christ  does  not  take  a  human  7ri'eC/ao,  he  cannot  be  a  high-priest  who  feels  with 
us  in  all  our  infirmities,  having  been  tempted  like  us."  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel, 
138  —  "  The  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh  would  have  only  added  one  more  man 
to  the  number  of  men — a  sinless  one,  perhaps,  among  sinners  — but  it  would  have 
effected  no  union  of  God  and  men."  On  the  theory  in  general,  see  Hovey,  God  with 
Us,  63-69;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  3:430-440;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4  :  386-408 ;  Bieder- 
mann,  Christliche  Dogmatik,  356-359;  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ,  187,  330;  Schaff, 
Christ  and  Christianity,  115-119. 

B.  Theory  of  a  gradual  incarnation.  —  Dorner  and  Rothe  hold  that  the 
union  between  the  divine  and  the  human  natures  is  not  completed  by  the 
incarnating  act. 

The  advocates  of  this  view  maintain  that  the  union  between  the  two 
natures  is  accomplished  by  a  gradual  communication  of  the  fulness  of  the 
divine  Logos  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  This  communication  is  mediated 
by  the  human  consciousness  of  Jesus.  Before  the  human  consciousness 
begins,  the  personality  of  the  Logos  is  not  yet  divine-human.      The  per- 


THE   TWO   NATURES    IN    ONE    PERSON.  689 

sonal  union  completes  itself  only  gradually,  as  the  human  consciousness  is 
sufficiently  developed  to  appropriate  the  divine. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  660  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4 :  125 )  —  "  In  order  that  Christ  might  show 
his  high-priestly  love  by  suffering  and  death,  the  different  sides  of  his  personality  yet 
stood  to  one  another  in  relative  separableuess.  The  divine-humau  union  in  him,  accord- 
ingly, was  before  his  death  not  yet  completely  actualized,  although  its  completion  was 
from  the  beginning  divinely  assured."  2  :  431  ( Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  328 )  —  "  In  spite  of  this 
becoming,  inside  of  the  Unio,  the  Logos  is  from  the  beginning  united  with  Jesus  in  the 
deepest  foundation  of  his  being,  and  Jesus' life  has  ever  been  a  divine-human  one,  in 
that  a  present  receptivity  for  the  Godhead  has  never  remained  without  its  satisfaction. 

Even  the  unconscious  humanity  of  the  babe  turns  receptively  to  the  Logos,  as 

the  plant  turns  toward  the  light.  The  iuitial  union  makes  Christ  already  the  God-man, 
but  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  a  subsequent  becoming;  for  surely  he  did  become 
omniscient  and  incapable  of  death,  as  he  was  not  at  the  beginning." 

2:464  sq.  (Syst.  Doct.,  3:363  s»/.)  —  "The  actual  life  of  God,  as  the  Logos,  reaches 
beyond  the  beginnings  of  the  divine-human  life.  For  if  the  Unto  is  to  complete  itself 
by  growth,  the  relation  of  impartation  and  reception  must  continue.  h\  his  personal 
consciousness,  there  was  a  distinction  between  duty  and  being.  The  will  bad  to  take  up 
practically,  and  turn  into  action,  each  new  revelation  or  perception  of  God's  will  on  the 
part  of  intellect  or  conscience.  He  had  to  maintain,  with  his  will,  each  revelation  of 
his  nature  and  work.  Jn  his  twelfth  year,  he  says:  'I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business,'  To 
.Satan's  temptation:  'Art  thou  God's  Son?'  he  must  reply  with  an  affirmation  that  sup- 
presses all  doubt,  though  he  will  not  prove  it  by  miracle.  This  moral  growth,  as  it  was 
the  will  of  the  Father,  was  his  task.  lie  hears  from  his  Father,  and  obeys.  In  him, 
imperfect  knowledge  was  never  the  same  with  false  conception.  In  us,  ignorance  has 
error  for  its  obverse  side.  Hut  this  was  never  the  case  with  him,  though  he  grew  in 
knowledge  unto  the  end."  Dorner's  view  of  the  Person  of  Christ  may  be  found  in  his 
Hist.  Doct.  Person  Christ,  5  :  248-261 ;  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  347-474  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3  :  2i:>-:;7.1). 

A  summary  of  his  views  is  also  given  in  Princeton  Rev.,  1873:  71-87  — Dorner  illus- 
trates the  relation  between  the  humanity  and  the  deity  of  Christ  by  the  relation 
between  God  and  man,  in  conscience,  and  in  the  witness  of  the  Spirit.  "So  far  as  the 
human  element  was  immature  or  incomplete,  so  far  the  Logos  was  not  present. 
Knowledge  advanced  to  unity  with  the  Logos,  and  the  human  will  afterwards  confirmed 
the  best  and  highest  knowledge.  A  resignation  of  both  the  Logos  and  the  human  nature 
to  the  union  is  involved  in  the  incarnation.  The  growth  continues  until  the  idea,  and 
the  reality,  of  divine  humanity  perfectly  coincide.  The  assumption  of  unity  was  grad- 
ual, in  the  life  of  Christ.  His  exaltation  began  with  the  perfection  of  this  develop- 
ment." Rothe's  statement  of  the  theory  can  be  found  in  his  Dogmatik,  2  :  49-182 ;  and 
in  Bib.  Sac,  27  :  386. 

It  is  objectionable  for  the  following  reasons  : 

(a)  The  Scripture  plainly  teaches  that  that  which  was  born  of  Mary 
was  as  completely  Son  of  God  as  Son  of  man  ( Luke  1  :  35  )  ;  and  that  in 
the  incarnating  act,  and  not  at  his  resurrection,  Jesus  Christ  became  the 
God-man  (PhiL  2:7).  But  this  theory  virtually  teaches  the  birth  of  a 
man  who  subsequently  and  gradually  became  the  God-man,  by  consciously 
appropriating  the  Logos  to  whom  he  sustained  ethical  relations  —  relations 
with  regard  to  which  the  Scripture  is  entirely  silent.  Its  radical  error  is  that 
of  mistaking  an  incomplete  consciousness  of  the  union  for  an  incomplete 
union. 

In  Luke  1 :  35  — "  the  holy  thing  which  is  begotten  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God  "—  and  Phil.  2:7—"  emptied 
himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men" — we  have  evidence  that  Christ 
was  both  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man  from  the  very  beginning  of  his  earthly  life.  But, 
according  to  Dorner,  before  there  was  any  human  consciousness,  the  personality  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  not  divine-human. 

(  b  )  Since  consciousness  and  will  belong  to  personality,  as  distinguished 
from  nature,  the  hypothesis  of  a  mutual,  conscious,  and  voluntary  appro- 
U 


690  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

priation  of  divinity  by  humanity  and  of  humanity  by  divinity,  during  the 
earthly  life  of  Christ,  is  but  a  more  subtle  form  of  the  Nestorian  doctrine 
of  a  double  personality.  It  follows,  moreover,  that  as  these  two  personal- 
ities do  not  become  absolutely  one  until  the  resurrection,  the  death  of  the 
man  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  the  Logos  has  not  yet  fuUy  united  himself, 
cannot  possess  an  infinite  atoning  efficacy. 

Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  2 :  68-70,  objects  to  Dorner's  view,  that  it 
"  leads  us  to  a  man  who  is  in  intimate  communion  with  God,— a  man  of  God,  but  not  a 
man  who  is  God."  He  maintains,  against  Dorner,  that  "  the  union  between  the  divine 
and  human  in  Christ  exists  before  the  consciousness  of  it."  193-195  — Dorner's  view 
"  makes  each  element,  the  divine  and  the  human,  long  for  the  other,  and  reach  its 
truth  and  reality  only  in  the  other.  This,  so  far  as  the  divine  is  concerned,  is  very  like 
pantheism.  Two  willing  personalities  are  presupposed,  with  ethical  relation  to  each 
other,— two  persons,  at  least  at  the  first.  Says  Dorner :  '  So  long  as  the  manhood  is  yet 
unconscious,  the  person  of  the  Logos  is  not  yet  the  central  ego  of  tins  man.  At  the 
beginning,  the  Logos  does  not  impart  himself,  so  far  as  he  is  person  or  self-conscious- 
ness. He  keeps  apart  by  himself,  just  in  proportion  as  the  manhood  fails  in  power  of 
perception.*  At  the  beginning,  then,  this  man  is  not  yet  the  God-man ;  the  Logos  only 
works  in  him,  and  on  him.  '  The  unio  personalia  grows  and  completes  itself ,  —  becomes 
ever  more  all-sided  and  complete.  Till  the  resurrection,  there  is  a  relative  separability 
still.'  Thus  Dorner.  But  the  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  an  ethical  relation  of  the 
divine  to  the  human  in  Christ's  person.  It  knows  only  of  one  divine-human  subject." 
See  also  Thomasius,  2 :  80-92. 

(  c  )  While  this  theory  asserts  a  final  complete  union  of  God  and  man  in 
Jesus  Christ,  it  renders  this  union  far  more  difficult  to  reason,  by  involving 
the  merging  of  two  persons  in  one,  rather  than  the  union  of  two  natures 
in  one  person.  We  have  seen,  moreover,  that  the  Scripture  gives  no  coun- 
tenance to  the  doctrine  of  a  double  personality  during  the  earthly  life  of 
Christ.  The  God-man  never  says  :  "I  and  the  Logos  are  one  "  ;  "he  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Logos  "  ;  "the  Logos  is  greater  than  I "  ;  "I 
go  to  the  Logos. "  In  the  absence  of  all  Scripture  evidence  in  favor  of  this 
theory,  we  must  regard  the  rational  and  dogmatic  arguments  against  it  as 
conclusive. 

Liebner,  in  Jahrbuch  f .  d.  Theologie,  3 :  349-366,  urges,  against  Dorner,  that  there  is  no 
sign  in  Scripture  of  such  communion  between  the  two  natures  of  Christ  as  exists 
between  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity.  Philippi  also  objects  to  Dorner's  view :  ( 1 ) 
that  it  implies  a  pantheistic  identity  of  essence  in  both  God  and  man ;  ( 2 )  that  it  makes 
the  resurrection,  not  the  birth,  the  time  when  the  Word  became  flesh  ;  ( 3 )  that  it  does 
not  explain  how  two  personalities  can  become  one ;  see  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4 :36t- 
380.  Philippi  quotes  Dorner  as  saying :  "  The  unity  of  essence  of  God  and  man  is  the 
great  discovery  of  this  age."  But  that  Dorner  was  no  pantheist  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  from  his  Hist.  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  II,  3  :  5,  23,  69, 115  — 
"  Protestant  philosophy  has  brought  about  the  recognition  of  the  essential  connection 

and  unity  of  the  human  and  the  divine To  the  theology  of  the  present  day,  the 

divine  and  human  are  not  mutually  exclusive  but  connected  magnitudes,  having  an 
inward  relation  to  each  other  and  reciprocally  confirming  each  other,  by  which  view 

both  separation  and  identification  are  set  aside And  now  the  common  task  of 

carrying  on  the  union  of  faculties  and  qualities  to  a  union  of  essence  was  devolved  on 

both.    The  difference  between  them  is  that  only  God  has  aseity Were  we  to  set 

our  face  against  every  view  which  represents  the  divine  and  human  as  intimately  and 
essentially  related,  we  should  be  wilfully  throwing  away  the  gains  of  centuries,  and 
returning  to  a  soil  where  a  Christology  is  an  absolute  impossibility." 

See  also  Dorner,  System,  1:123— "Faith  postulates  a  difference  between  the  world 
and  God,  between  whom  religion  seeks  a  union.  Faith  does  not  wish  to  be  a  mere 
relation  to  itself  or  to  its  own  representations  and  thoughts.  That  would  be  a  mono- 
logue; faith  desires  a  dialogue.  Therefore  it  does  not  consent  with  a  monism  which 
recognizes  only  God  or  the  world  (  with  the  ego ).    The  duality  ( not  the  dualism,  which 


THE   TWO    NATURES   IN   ONE    PERSON.  691 

is  opposed  to  such  monism,  but  which  has  no  desire  to  oppose  the  rational  demand  for 
unity )  is  in  fact  a  condition  of  true  and  vital  unity."  The  unity  is  the  foundation  of 
religiou ;  the  difference  is  tha  foundation  of  morality.  Morality  and  religion  are  but 
different  manifestations  of  the  same  pMnciple.  Man's  moral  endeavor  is  the  working 
of  God  within  him.  God  can  be  revealed  only  in  the  perfect  character  and  life  of  Jesus 
Christ.    See  Jones,  Robert  Browning,  146. 

Stalker,  Imago  Christi :  "  Christ  was  not  half  a  God  and  half  a  man,  but  he  was  per- 
fectly God  and  perfectly  man."  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  95— "The 
Incarnate  did  not  oscillate  between  being  God  and  being  man.  He  was  indeed  always 
God,  and  yet  never  otherwise  God  than  as  expressed  within  the  possibilities  of  human 
consciousness  and  character."  He  knew  that  he  was  something  more  than  he  was  as 
incarnate.  His  miracles  showed  what  humanity  might  become.  John  Caird,  Fund. 
Ideas  of  Christianity,  14  —  "The  divinity  of  Christ  was  not  that  of  a  divine  nature  in 
local  or  mechanical  juxtaposition  with  a  human,  but  of  a  divine  nature  that  suffused, 
blended,  identified  itself  with  the  thoughts,  feelings,  volitions  of  a  human  individuality. 
Whatever  of  divinity  could  not  organically  unite  itself  with  and  breathe  through  a 
human  spirit,  was  not  and  could  not  be  present  in  one  who,  whatever  else  he  was,  was 
really  and  truly  human."  See  also  Biedermanu,  Dogmatik,  351-353;  Hodge,  Syst. 
Theol.,  2  :  438-430. 

3.     The  real  nature  of  this  Union. 

(a)  Its  great  importance. — While  the  Scriptures  represent  the  person 
of  Christ  as  the  crowning  mystery  of  the  Christian  scheme  ( Matt.  11 :  27  ; 
Col.  1:27;  2:2;  1  Tim.  3 :  16  ),  they  also  incite  us  to  its  study  (  J<  >lm 
17  : 3 ;  20  :  27  ;  Luke  24  :  39  ;  Phil.  3:8,  10).  This  is  the  more  needful, 
since  Christ  is  not  only  the  central  point  of  Christianity,  but  is  Christianity 
itself  —  the  embodied  reconciliation  and  union  between  man  and  God. 
The  following  remarks  are  offered,  not  as  fully  explaining,  but  only  as  in 
some  respects  relieving,  the  difficulties  of  the  subject. 

Matt.  11 :  27 —  "  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to 
■whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.''  Here  it  seems  to  be  intimated  that  the  mystery  of  I  he 
nature  of  the  Son  is  even  greater  than  that  of  the  Father.  Sbedd,  Hist.  Dcct.,  1  :  408  — 
The  Person  of  Christ  is  in  some  respects  more  baffling  to  reason  than  the  Trinity.  Yet 
there  is  a  profane  neglect,  as  well  as  a  profane  curiosity  :  Col.  1: 27 —  "the  riches  of  the  glory  of 
this  mystery  ....  which  is  Christ  in  yon,  the  hope  of  glory  "  ;  2 : 2,  3  —  "  tho  mystery  of  God,  even  Christ,  in  whom 
are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  bidden"  ;  1  Tim.  3: 16  —  "great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness;  He  who  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh  "  —  here  the  Vulgate,  the  Latin  Fathers,  and  Buttmann  make  inv<rTr\pi.ov 
the  antecedent  of  6s,  the  relative  taking  the  natural  gender  of  its  antecedent,  and 
nvvTrjpiov  referring  to  Christ ;  Heb.  2  :11 — "both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they  that  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one 
[  not  father,  but  race,  or  substance  ]  "  (cf.  Acts  17: 26  —  "he  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men"  )  —  an 
allusion  to  the  solidarity  of  the  race  and  Christ's  participation  in  all  that  belongs  to  us. 

John  17:3  —  "  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  him  who  thou  didst  send,  ev>n 
Jesus  Christ "  ;  20 :  27  —  "  Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  see  my  hands ;  and  reach  Lther  thy  hand,  and  put  it  into  my 
side  :  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing"  ;  Luke  24  :  39  —  "See  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself:  handle  me, 
and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having  "  ;  Phi.  3:8,  10  —  "I  count  all  things  to  be  loss 
for  the  eicellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  ....  that  I  may  know  him  "  ;  1  John  1:1  —  "  tint  which 
we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that  which  we  beheld,  and  our  hands  handled,  concerning  the 
Word  of  life." 

Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  254,  255  — "Ranke  said  that  Alexander  was  one  of  the 
few  men  in  whom  biography  is  identical  with  universal  history.  The  words  apply  far 
better  to  Christ."  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  267  —  "  Religion  being  merely  the 
personality  of  God,  Christianity  the  personality  of  Christ."  Pascal:  "Jesus  Christ  is 
the  centre  of  everything  and  the  object  of  everything,  and  he  who  does  not  know  him 
knows  nothing  of  the  order  of  nature  and  nothing  of  himself."  Goethe  in  his  last  years 
wrote :  "  Humanity  cannot  take  a  retrograde  step,  and  we  may  say  that  the  Christian 
religion,  now  that  it  has  once  appeared,  can  never  again  disappear;  now  that  it  has 
once  found  a  divine  embodiment,  cannot  again  be  dissolved."  H.  B.  Smith,  that  man  of 
clear  and  devout  thought,  put  his  whole  doctrine  into  one  sentence:  "Let  us  come  to 
Jesus,  — the  person  of  Christ  is  the  centre  of  theology."    Dean  Stanley  never  tired  of 


692  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

quoting  as  his  own  Confession  of  Faith  the  words  of  John  Bunyan :  "Blest  Cross  — 
blest  Sepulchre  —  blest  rather  he  — The  man  who  there  was  put  to  shame  for  me!" 
And  Charles  Wesley  wrote  on  Catholic  Love :  "  Weary  of  all  this  wordy  strife,  These 
motions,  forms,  and  modes  and  names,  To  thee,  the  Way,  the  Truth,  the  Life,  Whose 
love  my  simple  heart  inflames—  Divinely  taught,  at  last  I  fly,  With  thee  and  thine  to 
live  and  die." 

"  We  have  two  great  lakes,  named  Erie  and  Ontario,  and  these  are  connected  by  the 
Niagara  River  through  which  Erie  pours  its  waters  into  Ontario.  The  whole  Christian 
Church  throughout  the  ages  has  been  called  the  overflow  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
infinitely  greater  than  it.  Let  Lake  Erie  be  the  symbol  of  Christ,  the  pre-existent 
Logos,  the  Eternal  Word,  God  revealed  in  the  universe.  Let  Niagara  River  be  a  pic- 
ture to  us  of  this  same  Christ  now  confined  to  the  narrow  channel  of  His  manifestation 
in  the  flesh,  but  within  those  limits  showing  the  same  eastward  current  and  downward 
gravitation  which  men  perceived  so  imperfectly  before.  The  tremendous  cataract, 
with  its  waters  plunging  into  the  abyss  and  shaking  the  very  earth,  is  the  suffering-  and 
death  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  for  the  first  time  makes  palpable  to  human  hearts  the 
forces  of  righteousness  and  love  operative  in  the  Divine  nature  from  the  beginning. 
The  law  of  universal  life  has  been  made  manifest ;  now  it  is  seen  that  justice  and  judg- 
ment are  the  foundations  of  God's  throne;  that  God's  righteousness  everywhere  and 
always  makes  penalty  to  follow  sin ;  that  the  love  which  creates  and  upholds  sinners 
must  itself  be  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  and  must  bear  their  iniquities. 
Niagara  has  demonstrated  the  gravitation  of  Lake  Erie.  And  not  in  vain.  For  from 
Niagara  there  widens  out  another  peaceful  lake.  Ontario  is  the  offspring  and  likeness 
of  Erie.  So  redeemed  humanity  is  the  overflow  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  only  of  Jesus 
Christ  after  He  has  passed  through  the  measureless  self-abandonment  of  His  earthly 
life  and  of  His  tragic  death  on  Calvary.  As  the  waters  of  Lake  Ontario  are  ever  fed  by 
Niagara,  so  the  Church  draws  its  life  from  the  cross.  And  Christ's  purpose  is,  not  that 
we  should  repeat  Calvary,  for  that  we  can  never  do,  but  that  we  should  reflect  in  our- 
selves the  same  onward  movement  and  gravitation  towards  self-sacrifice  which  He  has 
revealed  as  characterizing  the  very  life  of  God"  (A.  H.  Strong,  Sermon  before  the 
Baptist  World  Congress,  London,  July  12, 1905 ). 

(  b )  The  chief  problems.  —  These  problems  are  the  following  :  1.  one 
personality  and  two  natures  ;  2.  human  nature  without  personality  ;  3. 
relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  humanity  during  the  earthly  life  of  Christ  ;  4. 
relation  of  the  humanity  to  the  Logos  during  the  heavenly  life  of  Christ. 
We  may  throw  light  on  1,  by  the  figure  of  two  concentric  circles  ;  on  2, 
by  remembering  that  two  earthly  parents  unite  in  producing  a  single  child  ; 
on  3,  by  the  illustration  of  latent  memory,  which  contains  so  much  more 
than  present  recollection  ;  on  4,  by  the  thought  that  body  is  the  manifes- 
tation of  spirit,  and  that  Christ  in  his  heavenly  state  is  not  confined  to 
place. 

Luther  said  that  we  should  need  "  new  tongues  "  before  we  could  properly  set  forth 
this  doctrine,  —  particularly  a  new  language  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  man.  The 
further  elucidation  of  the  problems  mentioned  above  will  immediately  occupy  our 
attention.  Our  investigation  should  not  be  prejudiced  by  the  fact  that  the  divine 
element  in  Jesus  Christ  manifests  itself  within  human  limitations.  This  is  the  con- 
dition of  all  revelation.  John  14:9  —  "he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father";  Col.  2:9 — "in him 
dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodilj"  =  up  to  the  measure  of  human  capacity  to  receive 
and  to  express  the  divine.  leb.  2 :  11  and  Acts  17 :26  both  attribute  to  man  a  consubstan- 
tiality  with  Christ,  and  Christ  is  the  manifested  God.  It  is  a  law  of  hydrostatics  that 
the  smallest  column  of  water  will  balance  the  largest.  Lake  Erie  will  be  no  higher  than 
the  water  in  the  tube  connected  therewith.  So  the  person  of  Christ  reached  the  level 
of  God,  though  limited  in  extent  and  environment.    He  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

Robert  Browning,  Death  in  the  Desert :  "  I  say,  the  acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ 
Accepted  by  thy  reason,  solves  for  thee  All  questions  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it,  And 
has  so  far  advanced  thee  to  be  wise";  Epilogue  to  Dramatis  Personee :  "That  one 
Face,  far  from  vanish,  rather  grows,  Or  decomposes  but  to  recompose,  Become  my 
Universe  that  feels  and  knows."  "That  face,"  said  Browning  to  Mrs.  Orr,  as  he  fin- 
nished  reading  the  poem,  "  is  the  face  of  Christ.    That  is  how  I  feel  him."    This  is  his 


THE   TWO    NATURES   IN   ONE   PERSON.  693 

answer  to  those  victims  of  nineteenth  century  scepticism  for  whom  incarnate  Love 
has  disappeared  from  the  universe,  carrying  with  it  the  belief  in  God.  He  thus  attests 
the  continued  presence  of  God  in  Christ,  both  in  nature  and  humanity.  <  >n  Browning 
as  a  Christian  Poet,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  The  Great  Poets  and  their  Theology,  373-447; 
S.  Law  Wilson,  Theology  of  Modern  Literature,  181-226. 

(  c )  Reason  for  mystery. — The  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ's  person 
is  necessarily  inscrutable,  because  there  are  no  analogies  to  it  in  our  experi- 
ence. Attempts  to  illustrate  it  on  the  one  hand  from  the  union  and  yet 
the  distinctness  of  soul  and  body,  of  iron  and  heat,  and  on  the  other  hand 
from  the  union  and  yet  the  distinctness  of  Christ  and  the  believer,  of  the 
divine  Son  and  the  Father,  are  one-sided  and  become  utterly  misleading,  if 
they  are  regarded  as  furnishing  a  rationale  of  the  union  and  not  simply  a 
means  of  repelling  objection.  The  first  two  illustrations  mentioned  above 
lack  the  essential  element  of  two  natures  to  make  them  complete  :  sotd  and 
body  are  not  two  natures,  but  one,  nor  are  iron  and  heat  two  substances. 
The  last  two  illustrations  mentioned  above  lack  the  element  of  single  per- 
sonality :  Christ  and  the  believer  are  two  persons,  not  one,  even  as  the  Son 
and  the  Father  are  not  one  person,  but  two. 

The  two  illustrations  most  commonly  employed  are  the  union  of  soul  and  body,  and 
the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ.  Bach  of  these  illustrates  one  side  of  the  great 
doctrine,  but  each  must  be  complemented  by  the  other.  The  former,  taken  by  itself, 
would  be  Eutychian  ;  the  latter,  taken  by  itself,  would  be  Nestorian.  Like  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  the  Person  of  Christ  is  an  absolutely  unique  fact,  for  which  we  can  find 
no  complete  analogies.  But  neither  do  we  know  how  soul  and  body  are  united.  See 
Blunt,  Diet.  Doct.  and  Hist.  Theol.,  art. :  Hypostasis;  Sartorius,  Person  and  Work  of 
Christ,  27-65 ;  Wilberforce,  Incarnation,  ,;9-77  ;  Lutlmrdt,  Fund.  Truths,  281-334. 

A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  218,  ~'30  — "  Many  people  are  Unitarians,  not  because 
of  the  difficulties  of  the  Trinity,  but  because  of  the  difficulties  of  the  Person  of  (  tnist. 
.  .  .  The  union  of  the  two  natures  is  not  mechanical,  as  between  oxygen  and  nitrogen 
in  our  air;  nor  chemical,  as  between  oxygen  and  hydrogen  in  water;  nor  organic,  as 
between  our  hearts  and  our  brains ;  but  personal.  The  best  illustration  is  the  union  of 
body  and  soul  in  our  own  persons,—  how  perfectly  joined  they  are  in  the  great  orat  <  >r  ! 
Yet  here  are  not  two  natures,  but  one  human  nature.  We  need  therefore  to  add  the 
illustration  of  the  union  between  the  believer  and  Christ."  And  here  too  we  must  con- 
fess the  imperfection  of  the  analogy,  for  Christ  ami  the  believer  are  two  persons,  and 
not  one.  The  person  of  the  God-man  is  unique  and  without  adequate  parallel.  But 
this  constitutes  its  dignity  and  glory. 

(d)  Ground  of  possibility. —  The  possibility  of  the  union  of  deity  and 
humanity  in  one  person  is  grounded  in  the  original  creation  of  man  in 
the  divine  image.  Man's  kinship  to  God,  in  other  words,  his  possession  of 
a  rational  and  spiritual  nature,  is  the  condition  of  incarnation.  Brute-life 
is  incapable  of  union  with  God.  But  human  nature  is  capable  of  the  divine, 
in  the  sense  not  only  that  it  lives,  moves,  and  has  its  being  in  God,  but  that 
God  may  unite  himself  indissolubly  to  it  and  endue  it  with  divine  powers, 
while  yet  it  remains  all  the  more  truly  human.  Since  the  moral  image  of 
God  in  human  nature  has  been  lost  by  sin,  Christ,  the  perfect  image  of 
God  after  which  man  was  originally  made,  restores  that  lost  image  by 
uniting  himself  to  humanity  and  filling  it  with  his  divine  life  and  love. 

2  Pet.  1 : 4  —"partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  Creation  and  providence  do  not  furnish  the  last 
limit  of  God's  indwelling.  Beyond  these,  there  is  the  spiritual  union  between  the  believer 
and  Christ,  and  even  beyond  this,  there  is  the  unity  of  God  and  man  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  283  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3 :  180 )  —  "  Humanity  in  Christ 
is  related  to  divinity,  as  woman  to  man  in  marriage.  It  is  receptive,  but  it  is  exalted  by 
receiving.    Christ  is  the  offspring  of  the  [  marriage  ]  covenant  between  God  and  Israel." 


694  <  IIRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION. 

lh.,  2:403-411  (Syst.  Doct.,  3  : 301-308)  — "The  question  is:  How  can  Christ  be  both 
Creator  and  creature  ?  The  Logos,  as  such,  stands  over  against  the  creature  as  a  dis- 
tinct object.  How  can  he  become,  and  be,  that  which  exists  only  as  object  of  his  activ- 
ity and  inworking  ?  Can  the  cause  become  its  own  effect  ?  The  problem  is  solved,  only 
by  remembering  that  the  divine  and  human,  though  distinct  from  each  other,  are  not 
to  be  thought  of  as  foreign  to  each  other  and  mutually  exclusive.  The  very  thing  that 
distinguishes  them  binds  them  together.  Their  essential  distinction  is  that  God  has 
aseity,  while  man  has  simply  dependence.  '  Deep  calleth  unto  deep '  ( Ps.  42 : 7 )  —  the  deep  of  the 
divine  riches,  and  the  deep  of  human  poverty,  call  to  each  other.  '  From  me  a  cry,— 
from  him  reply.'  God's  infinite  resources  and  man's  infinite  need,  God's  measureless 
supply  and  man's  boundless  receptivity,  attract  each  other,  until  they  unite  in  him  in 
whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.  The  mutual  attraction  is  of  an 
ethical  sort,  but  the  divine  love  has  'first  loved '  ( 1  John  4 :  19 ). 

"  The  new  second  creation  is  therefore  not  merely,  like  the  first  creation,  one  that 
distinguishes  from  God,—  it  is  one  that  unites  with  God.  Nature  is  distinct  from  God, 
yet  God  moves  and  works  in  nature.  Much  more  does  human  nature  find  its  only 
true  reality,  or  realization,  in  union  with  God.  God's  uniting  act  does  not  violate  or 
unmake  it,  but  rather  first  causes  it  to  be  what,  in  God's  idea,  it  was  meant  to  be." 
Incarnation  is  therefore  the  very  fulfilment  of  the  idea  of  humanity.  The  supernatural 
assumption  of  humanity  is  the  most  natural  of  all  things.  Man  is  not  a  mere  tangent 
to  God,  but  an  empty  vessel  to  be  filled  from  the  infinite  fountain.  Natura  humana  in 
Christo  capax  divinae.  See  Talbot,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  1868  :  129 ;  Martensen,  Christian  Dog- 
matics, 270. 

God  could  not  have  become  an  angel,  or  a  tree,  or  a  stone.  But  he  could  become 
man,  because  man  was  made  in  his  image.  God  in  man,  as  Phillips  Brooks  held,  is  the 
absolutely  natural.  Channing  said  that  "  all  minds  are  of  one  family."  E.  B.  Andrews : 
"  Divinity  and  humanity  are  not  contradictory  predicates.  If  this  had  been  properly 
understood,  there  would  have  been  no  Unitarian  movement.  Man  is  in  a  true  sense 
divine.  This  is  also  true  of  Christ.  But  he  is  infinitely  further  along  in  the  divine 
nature  than  we  are.  If  we  say  his  divinity  is  a  new  kind,  then  the  new  kind  arises 
out  of  the  degree."  "  Were  not  the  eye  itself  a  sun,  No  light  for  it  could  ever  shine  : 
By  nothing  godlike  could  the  soul  be  won,  Were  not  the  soul  itself  divine." 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  1 :  165  — "A  smaller  circle  may  represent  a 
larger  in  respect  of  its  circularity ;  but  a  circle,  small  or  large,  cannot  be  the  image  of 
a  square."  .  .  .  .  2  :  101  —  "  God  would  not  be  God  without  union  with  man,  and  man 
would  not  be  man  without  union  with  God.  Immanent  in  the  spirits  he  has  made,  he 
shai-es  their  pains  and  sorrows. . . .  Showing  the  infinite  element  in  man,  Christ  attracts 
us  toward  his  own  moral  excellence."  Lyman  Abbott,  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  190 
—  "  Incarnation  is  the  indwelling  of  God  in  his  children,  of  which  the  type  and  pattern 
is  seen  in  him  who  is  at  once  the  manifestation  of  God  to  man,  and  the  revelation  to 
men  of  what  humanity  is  to  be  when  God's  work  in  the  world  is  done  — perfect  God  and 
perfect  man,  because  God  perfectly  dwelling  in  a  perfect  man." 

We  have  quoted  these  latter  utterances,  not  because  we  regard  them  as  admitting  the 
full  truth  with  regard  to  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ;  but  because 
they  recognize  the  essential  likeness  of  the  human  to  the  divine,  and  so  help  our  under- 
standing of  the  union  between  the  two.  We  go  further  than  the  writers  quoted,  in 
maintaining  not  merely  an  indwelling  of  God  in  Christ,  but  an  organic  and  essential 
union.  Christ  moreover  is  not  the  God-man  by  virtue  of  his  possessing  a  larger  meas- 
ure of  the  divine  than  we,  but  rather  by  being  the  original  source  of  all  life,  both 
human  and  divine.  We  hold  to  his  deity  as  well  as  to  his  divinity,  as  some  of  these 
authors  apparently  do  not.  See  Heb.  7:15, 16 — "  another  priest,  who  hath  been  made  ....  after  the 
power  of  an  endless  life ' ' ;  John  i  :  4  —  "In  him  was  life ;  aud  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.' ' 

(e)  No  double  personality. —  This  possession  of  two  natures  does  not 
involve  a  double  personality  in  the  God-man,  for  the  reason  that  the  Logos 
takes  into  union  with  himself,  not  an  individual  man  with  already  devel- 
oped personality,  but  humau  nature  which  has  had  no  separate  existence 
before  its  union  with  the  divine.  Christ's  human  nature  is  impersonal,  in 
the  sense  that  it  attains  self-consciousness  and  self-determination  only  in 
the  personality  of  the  God-man.  Here  it  is  important  to  mark  the  dis- 
tinction between  nature  and  person.     Nature  is  substance  possessed  in 


THE   TWO    NATUBES    IX    OXE    PERSOX.  095 

somrnon  ;  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  have  one  nature  ;  there  is  a  common 
nature  of  mankind.  Person  is  nature  separately  subsisting,  with  powers 
of  consciousness  and  will.  Since  the  human  nature  of  Christ  has  not  and 
never  had  a  separate  subsistence^  it  is  impersonal,  and  in  the  God-man 
the  Logos  furnishes  the  principle  of  personality.  It  is  equally  important 
to  observe  that  self -consciousness  and  self-determination  do  not  belong  to 
nature  as  such,  but  only  to  personality.  For  this  reason,  Christ  has  not 
two  consciousnesses  and  two  wills,  but  a  single  consciousness  and  a  single 
will.  This  consciousness  and  will,  moreover,  is  never  sinrply  human,  but 
is  always  theanthropic  —  an  activity  of  the  one  personality  which  unites  in 
itself  the  human  and  the  divine  (  Mark  13  :  32  ;  Luke  22  :  42  ). 

The  human  father  and  the  human  mother  are  distinct  persons,  and  they  each  {rive 
something  of  their  own  peculiar  nature  to  their  child ;  yet  the  result  is,  not  two  per- 
sons in  the  child,  but  only  one  person,  with  one  consciousness  and  one  will.  So  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  motherhood  of  Mary  produced  not  a  double  personality  in 
Christ,  but  a  single  personality.  Dorner  illustrates  the  union  of  human  and  divine  in 
Jesus  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Christian,  —  nothing  foreign,  nothing-  distinguishable 
from  the  human  life  into  which  it  enters ;  and  by  the  moral  sense,  which  is  the  very 
presence  and  power  of  God  in  the  human  soul, —  yet  conscience  does  not  break  up  the 
unity  of  the  life;  see  C.  C.  Everett,  Essays,  32.  These  illustrations  help  us  to  understand 
the  interpenetration  of  the  human  by  the  divine  in  Jesus;  but  they  are  defective  in 
suggesting  that  his  relation  to  God  was  different  from  ours  not  in  kind  but  oniy  in 
degree.  Only  Jesus  could  say  :  "  Before  Abraham  was  bora,  I  am  "  ( John  8  :  58 ) ;  "  I  and  the  Father  are 
one  ".(John  10:  30). 

The  theory  of  two  consciousnesses  and  two  wills,  first  elaborated  by  John  of  Damas- 
cus, was  an  unwarranted  addition  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  propounded  at  Chalcodon. 
Although  the  view  of  John  of  Damascus  was  sanctioned  by  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople ( 681 ),  "  this  Council  has  never  been  regarded  by  the  Greek  Church  as  (ecumeni- 
cal, and  its  composition  and  spirit  deprive  its  decisions  of  all  value  as  indicating  the 
true  sense  of  Scripture  "  ;  see  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ,  90.  Nature  has  conscious- 
ness and  will,  only  as  it  is  manifested  in  person.  The  one  person  has  a  single  con- 
seioiisness  and  will,  which  embraces  within  its  scope  at  all  times  a  human  nature,  and 
sometimes  a  divine.  Notice  that  we  do  not  say  Christ's  human  nature  had  nc  will, 
but  only  that  it  had  none  before  its  union  with  the  divine  nature,  and  none  separately 
from  the  one  will  which  was  made  up  of  the  human  and  the  divine  united  ;  versm  Cur- 
rent Discussions  in  Theology,  5  :  283. 

Sartorius  uses  the  illustration  of  two  concentric  circles:  the  one  ego  of  personality 
in  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  the  centre  of  both  circles,  the  human  nature  and  the 
divine.  Or,  still  better,  illustrate  by  a  smaller  vessel  of  air  inverted  and  sunk,  some- 
times below  its  ei-nt  re,  soniet  i mes  above,  in  a  far  larger  vessel  of  water.  See  Mark  13  :  32 
—  "  of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son  "  ;  Lake  22  :  42  —  "  Father, 
if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from  me :  nevertheless  not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done."  To  say  that, 
although  in  his  capacity  as  man  he  was  ignorant,  yet  at  that  same  moment  in  his 
capacity  as  God  he  was  omniscient,  is  to  accuse  Christ  of  unveracity.  Whenever  Christ 
spoke,  it  was  not  one  of  the  natures  that  spoke,  but  the  person  in  whom  both  natures 
were  united. 

We  subjoin  various  definitions  of  personality:  Boethius,  quoted  in  Dorner,  Glau- 
benslehre,  2 :  Ho  <  Syst.  Doct.,  3 :  313 )  — "  Persona  est  auimre  rationalis  individua  substan- 
tia"; F.  W.  Robertson,  Lect.  on  Gen.,  p.  3  — "  Personality  =  self-consciousness,  will, 
character  "  ;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  620 — "  Personality  =  distinct  subsistence,  either 
actually  or  latently  self-conscious  and  self-determining";  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of 
Theism,  408  —  "Person  =  being,  conscious  of  self,  subsisting  in  individuality  and  iden- 
tity, and  endowed  with  intuitive  reason,  rational  sensibility,  and  free-will."  Dr.  E.  G. 
Robinson  defines  "  nature  "  as  "  that  substratum  or  condition  of  being  which  deter- 
mines the  kind  and  attributes  of  the  person,  but  which  is  clearly  distinguishable  from 
the  person  itself." 

Lotze,  Metaphysics,  \  244  — "  The  identity  of  the  subject  of  inward  experience  is  all  that 
we  require.  So  far  as,  and  so  long  as,  the  soul  knows  itself  as  this  identical  subject,  it 
is  and  is  named,  simply  for  that  reason,  substance."    Illingworth,  Personabty,  Human 


696  OHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

aud  Divine,  32  — "Our  conception  of  substance  is  not  derived  from  the  physical,  but 
from  the  mental,  world.  Substance  is  first  of  all  that  which  underlies  our  mental 
affections  aud  manifestations.  Kant  declared  that  the  idea  of  freedom  is  the  source  of 
our  idea  of  personality.  Personality  consists  in  the  freedom  of  the  whole  soul  from  the 
mechanism  of  nature."  On  personality,  see  Windelband,  Hist.  Philos.,  238.  For  the 
theory  of  two  consciousnesses  and  two  wills,  see  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4  :  139,  2:34; 
Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  2:314;  Ridgeley,  Body  of  Divinity,  1:476;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol., 
2  :  378-391 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  289-308,  esp.  328.  Per  contra,  see  Hovey,  God  with 
Us,  66 ;  Schaff ,  Church  Hist.,  1 :  757,  and  3  :  751 ;  Calderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  12-14 ; 
Wilberforce,  Incarnation,  148-169 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  512-518. 

(/)  Effect  upon  the  human. — The  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human 
natures  makes  the  latter  possessed  of  the  powers  belonging  to  the  former  ; 
in  other  words,  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  are  imparted  to  the 
human  without  passing  over  into  its  essence, —  so  that  the  human  Christ 
even  on  earth  had  power  to  be,  to  know,  and  to  do,  as  God.  That  this 
power  was  latent,  or  was  only  rarely  manifested,  was  the  result  of  the  self- 
chosen  state  of  humiliation  upon  which  the  God-man  had  entered.  In 
this  state  of  humiliation,  the  communication  of  the  contents  of  his  divine 
nature  to  the  human  was  mediated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  God-man,  in 
his  servant-form,  knew  and  taught  and  performed  only  what  the  Spirit 
permitted  and  directed  (Mat.  3  :  16  ;  John  3  :  34  ;  Acts  1:2;  10  :  38  ;  Heb. 
9  :  14  ).  But  when  thus  permitted,  he  knew,  taught,  and  performed,  not, 
like  the  prophets,  by  power  communicated  from  without,  but  by  virtue  of 
his  own  inner  divine  energy  (Mat.  17  :  2  ;  Mark  5  :  41 ;  Luke  5  :  20,'  21  ; 
6  :  19  ;  John  2  :  11,  24,  25  ;  3  :  13  ;  20  :  19 ). 

Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  2d  ed.,  2  :  77  —  "  Human  nature  does  not  become  divine,  but  ( as 
Chemnitz  has  said )  only  the  medium  of  the  divine ;  as  the  moon  has  not  a  light  of  her 
own,  but  only  shines  in  the  light  of  the  sun.  So  human  nature  may  derivatively  exer- 
cise divine  attributes,  because  it  is  united  to  the  divine  in  one  person."  Mason,  Faith 
of  the  Gospel,  151  — "Our  souls  spiritualize  our  bodies,  and  will  one  day  give  us  the 
spiritual  body,  while  yet  the  body  does  not  become  spirit.  So  the  Godhead  gives  divine 
powers  to  the  humanity  in  Christ,  while  yet  the  humanity  does  not  cease  to  be 
humanity." 

Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4:131  — "The  union  exalts  the  human,  as  light  brightens  the 
air,  heat  gives  glow  to  the  iron,  spirit  exalts  the  body,  the  Holy  Spirit  hallows  the 
believer  by  union  with  his  soul.  Fire  gives  to  iron  its  own  properties  of  lighting  and 
burning ;  yet  the  iron  does  not  become  fire.  Soul  gives  to  body  its  life-energy ;  yet  the 
body  does  not  become  soul.  The  Holy  Spirit  sanctifies  the  believer,  but  the  believer 
does  not  become  divine ;  for  the  divine  principle  is  the  determining  one.  We  do  not 
speak  of  airy  light,  of  iron  heat,  or  of  a  bodily  soul.  So  human  nature  possesses  the 
divine  only  derivatively.  In  this  sense  it  is  our  destiny  to  become  ' partakers  d  the  divine 
nature'  (2  Pet.  1:4)."  Even  in  his  earthly  life,  when  he  wished  to  be,  or  more  correctly, 
when  the  Spirit  permitted,  he  was  omnipotent,  omniscient,  omnipresent,  could  walk 
the  sea,  or  pass  through  closed  doors.  But,  iu  his  state  of  humiliation,  he  was  subject 
to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  Mat,  3  :  16,  the  anointing  of  the  Spirit  at  his  baptism  was  not  the  descent  of  a  mate- 
rial dove  ("as  a  dove").  The  dove-like  appearance  was  only  the  outward  sign  of  the 
coming  forth  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  depths  of  his  being  and  pouring  itself  like  a 
flood  into  his  divine-human  consciousness.  John  3 :  34  —  "  for  he  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  "  ; 
Aetsi  :2 — "after  that  he  had  given  commandment  through  the  Holy  Spirit  unto  the  apostles"  ;  10:38 — "Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
how  God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power :  who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were 
oppressed  of  the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him" ;  Heb.  9 :  14  —  "the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit 
offered  himsolf  without  blemish  unto  God." 

When  permitted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  knew,  taught,  and  wrought  as  God :  Mat.  17  :  2 
— "  he  was  transfigured  before  them  "  ;  Mark  5  :  41  —  "  Damsel  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise  " ;  Luke  5  :  20,  21  —  "  Man,  thy 
sins  are  forgiven  thee  ....  Who  can  forgive  sins,  but  God  alone?" — Luke  6  :  19  —  "power  came  forth  from  him, 
and  healsd  them  all";  John  2  :  11  —  "This  beginning  of  his  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  his 
glory  "  ;  24,  25  — "  he  knew  all  men  ....  he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man  "  ;  3  :  13  —  "the  Son  of  man,  who  is 


THE  TWO   NATURES  IN"  ONE   PERSON".  697 

in  heaven  "  [  here,  however,  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  N  and  B,  omit  6  &v  ev  tcu  ovpavw,—  for 
advocacy  of  the  common  reading,  see  Broadus,  in  Hovey's  Com.,  on  John  3  :  13] ;  20 :  19  — 
"  when  the  doors  were  shut  ....  Jesus  came  and  stood  in  the  midst." 

Christ  is  the  "  servant  of  Jehovah  "  ( Is.  42 : 1-^f  49:1-12;  52:13;  53: 11)  and  the  meaning-  of  irals 
(  Acts  3  :  13,  26 ;  4  :  27,  30)  is  not  "child  "  or  "Son"  ;  it  is  "servant,"  as  in  the  Revised  Version. 
But,  in  the  state  of  exaltation,  Chri.st  is  the  "Lord  of  the  Spirit"  (2  Cor.  3:18  —  Meyer ),  giving 
the  Spirit  (John  16:  7— "I  will  send  him  unto  you"),  present  in  the  Spirit  ( John  14  :  18  — "  I  come  unto 
you" ;  Mat.  28 :  20— "I  am  with  you  always,  even  nnto  the  the  end  of  the  world"),  and  working  through  the 
Spirit  (1  Cor.  15:45  —  "The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit") ;  2  Cor.  3:  17—  "Now  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit "  ). 
On  Christ's  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  see  John  Owen,  Works,  282-297 ;  Robins,  in  Bib. 
Sac,  Oct.  1874  :  615;  Wilberforce,  Incarnation,  208-241. 

Delitzsch  :  "  The  conception  of  the  servant  of  Jehovah  is,  as  it  were,  a  pyramid,  of 
which  the  base  is  the  people  of  Israel  as  a  whole ;  the  central  part,  Israel  according  to 
the  Spirit ;  and  the  summit,  the  Mediator  of  Salvation  who  rises  out  of  Israel."  Cheyne 
on  Isaiah,  2 :  253,  agrees  with  this  view  of  Delitzsch,  which  is  also  the  view  of  Oehler. 
The  O.  T.  is  the  life  of  a  nation;  the  N.  T.  is  the  life  of  a  man.  The  chief  end  of  the 
nation  was  to  produce  the  man;  the  chief  end  of  the  man  was  to  save  the  world. 
Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  59  —  "  If  humanity  were  not  potentially  and  in  some  degree 
an  Immanuel,  God  with  us,  there  would  never  have  issued  from  its  bosom  he  who  bore 
and  revealed  this  blessed  name."  We  would  enlarge  and  amend  this  illustration  of  the 
pyramid,  by  making  the  base  to  be  the  Logos,  as  Creator  and  Upholder  of  all  ( Eph.  1 :  23 ; 
Col.  1 :  16 ) ;  the  stratum  which  rests  next  upon  the  Logos  is  universal  humanity  (  Ps.  8 : 5,  6 ) ; 
then  comes  Israel  as  a  whole  ( Mat.  2 :  15 ) ;  spiritual  Israel  rests  upon  Israel  after  the  flesh 
(Is.  42:1-7);  as  the  acme  and  cap  stone  of  all,  Christ  appears,  to  crown  the  pyramid,  the 
true  servant  of  Jehovah  and  Son  of  man  ( Is.  53 :  11 ;  Mat.  20 :  28 ).  We  may  go  even  further 
and  represent  Chri.st  as  forming  the  basis  of  another  inverted  pyramid  of  redeemed 
humanity  ever  growing  and  rising  to  heaven  (Is.  9:  6  — "Everlasting  Father";  Is.  53: 10  — "he 
shall  see  his  seed  "  ;  Rev.  22  :  16  — "  root  and  offspring  of  David  "  ;  Heb.2:13— "I  and  the  ohildren  whom  God  hath 
given  me." 

(g)  Effect  upon  the  divine. — This  communion  of  the  natures  was  such 
that,  although  the  divine  nature  in  itself  is  incapable  of  ignorance,  weak- 
ness, temptation,  suffering,  or  death,  the  one  person  Jesus  Christ  was 
capable  of  these  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  divine  nature  with  a  human 
nature  in  him.  As  the  human  Savior  can  exercise  divine  attributes,  not  in 
virtue  of  his  humanity  alone,  but  derivatively,  by  virtue  of  his  possession 
of  a  divine  nature,  so  the  divine  Savior  can  suffer  and  be  ignorant  as  man, 
not  in  his  divine  nature,  but  derivatively,  by  virtue  of  his  possession  of  a 
human  nature.  We  may  illustrate  this  from  the  connection  between  body 
and  soul.  The  soul  suffers  pain  from  its  union  with  the  body,  of  which 
apart  from  the  body  it  would  be  incapable.  So  the  God-man,  although  in 
his  divine  nature  impassible,  was  capable,  through  his  union  with  human- 
ity, of  absolutely  infinite  suffering. 

Just  as  my  soul  could  never  suffer  the  pains  of  fire  if  it  were  only  soul,  but  can  suffer 
those  pains  in  union  with  the  body,  so  the  otherwise  impassible  God  can  suffer  mortal 
pangs  through  his  union  with  humanity,  which  he  never  could  suffer  if  he  had  not 
joined  himself  to  my  nature.  The  union  between  the  humanity  and  the  deity  is  so 
close,  that  deity  itself  is  brought  uuder  the  curse  and  penalty  of  the  law.  Because 
Christ  was  God,  did  he  pass  unscorched  through  the  fires  of  Gethsemane  and  Calvary  ? 
Rather  let  us  say,  because  Christ  was  God,  he  underwent  a  suffering  that  was  absolutely 
infinite.  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4 :  ;i00  sq.;  Lawrence,  in  Bib.  Sac,  24  :  41 ;  Schoberlein, 
in  Jahrbuch  f  iir  deutsche  Theologie,  1871 :  459-501. 

A.  J.  F.  Behrends,  in  The  Examiner,  April  21, 1898— "Jesus  Christ  is  God  in  the  form 
of  man ;  as  completely  God  as  if  he  were  not  man ;  as  completely  man  as  if  he  were 

not  God.    He  is  always  divine  and  always  human The  inlirmities  and  pains  of 

his  body  pierced  his  divine  nature The  demand  of  the  law  was  not  laid  upon 

Christ  from  without,  but  proceeded  from  within.  It  is  the  righteousness  in  him  which 
makes  his  death  necessary." 


698  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    REDEMPTION. 

(A)  Necessity  of  the  union. — The  union  of  two  natures  in  one  person 
is  necessary  to  constitute  Jesus  Christ  a  proper  mediator  "between  man  and 
God.  His  two-fold  nature  gives  him  fellowship  with  both  parties,  since  it 
involves  an  equal  dignity  with  God,  and  at  the  same  time  a  perfect  sympathy 
with  man  ( Heb.  2  :  17,  18  ;  4  :  15,  16).  This  two-fold  nature,  moreover, 
enables  him  to  present  to  both  God  and  man  proper  terms  of  reconcilia- 
tion :  being  man,  he  can  make  atonement  for  man  ;  being  God,  his  atone- 
ment has  infinite  value  ;  while  both  his  divinity  and  his  humanity  combine 
to  move  the  hearts  of  offenders  and  constrain  theni  to  submission  and  love 
( 1  Tim.  2:5;  Heb.  7  :  25 ). 

Heb.  2  :  17, 18  —  "  Wherefore  it  behooved  him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  become  a 
merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For  in  that  he 
himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted  "  ;  4  :  15,  16  —  "  For  we  hare  not  a  high 
priest  that  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  but  one  that  hath  been  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we 
are,  yet  without  sin.  Let  us  therefore  draw  near  with  boldness  unto  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  receive  mercy,  and 
may  find  grace  to  help  us  in  time  of  need"  ;  1  Tim.  2 :  5  —  "one  God,  one  mediator  also  between  God  and  men,  himself 
man,  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  Heb.  7 :  25  —  "  Wherefore  also  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  them  that  draw  near  unto  God 
through  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them." 

Because  Christ  is  man,  he  can  make  atonement  for  man  and  can  sympathize  with  man. 
Because  Christ  is  God,  his  atonement  has  infinite  value,  and  the  union  which  he  effects 
with  God  is  complete.  A  merely  human  Savior  could  never  l'econcile  or  reunite  us  to 
God.  But  a  divine-human  Savior  meets  all  our  needs.  See  Wilberforce,  Incarnation, 
170-208.  As  the  high  priest  of  old  bore  on  his  mitre  the  name  Jehovah,  and  on  his 
breastplate  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  so  Christ  Jesus  is  God  with  us,  and  at  the 
same  time  our  propitiatory  representative  before  God.  In  Virgil's  ^Eneid,  Dido  says 
well:  "Haud  ignara  mali,  miseris  succurrere  disco  "—"Myself  not  ignorant  of  woe. 
Compassion  I  have  learned  to  show."  And  Terence  uttered  almost  a  Christian  word 
when  he  wrote :  "  Homo  sum,  et  humani  nihil  a  me  alienum  puto  " — "  I  am  a  man,  and 
I  count  nothing  human  as  foreign  to  me."  Christ's  experience  and  divinity  made  these 
words  far  more  true  of  him  than  of  any  merely  human  being. 

(  i )  The  union  eternal. — The  union  of  humanity  with  deity  in  the  person 
of  Christ  is  indissoluble  and  eternal.  Unlike  the  avatars  of  the  East,  the 
incarnation  was  a  permanent  assumption  of  human  nature  by  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity.  In  the  ascension  of  Christ,  glorified  humanity  has 
attained  the  throne  of  the  universe.  By  his  Spirit,  this  same  divine-human 
Savior  is  omnipresent  to  secure  the  progress  of  his  kingdom.  The  final 
subjection  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  alluded  to  in  1  Cor.  15  :  28,  cannot  be 
other  than  the  complete  return  of  the  Son  to  his  original  relation  to  the 
Father  ;  since,  according  to  John  17  :  5,  Christ  is  again  to  possess  tho 
glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was  (c/.  Heb.  1:8; 
7  :  24,  25  ). 

1  Cor.  15 :  28  —  "  And  when  ail  things  have  been  subjected  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subjected  to 
him  that  did  subject  all  things  unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all  "  ;  John  17 : 5  —  "  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine 
own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was  "  ;  Heb.  1:8  —  "of  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0 
God,  is  for  ever  and  ever  "  ;  7  :  24 —  "he.  because  he  abideth  forever,  hath  his  priesthood  unchangeable."  Dorner, 
Glaubenslehre,  2  :  281-283  ( Syst.  Doct.  3  :  177-179 ),  holds  that  there  is  a  present  and  rela- 
tive distinction  between  the  Son's  will,  as  Mediator,  and  that  of  the  Father  ( Mat.  26 :  39  — ■ 
"  not  asl  will,  but  as  thou  wilt")— a  distinction  which  shall  cease  when  Christ  becomes  Judge 
( John  16 :  26  —  "  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name :  and  I  say  not  unto  you,  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you ' ' ) 
If  Christ's  reign  ceased,  he  would  be  inferior  to  the  saints,  who  are  themselves  to  reign. 
But  they  are  to  reign  only  in  and  with  Christ,  their  head. 

The  best  illustration  of  the  possible  meaning  of  Christ's  giving  up  the  kingdom  is 
found  in  the  Governor  of  the  East  India  Company  giving  up  his  authority  to  the  Queen 
and  merging  it  in  that  of  the  home  government,  he  himself,  however,  at  the  samo  time 
becoming  Secretary  of  State  for  India.    So  Christ  will  give  up  his  vicegereucy,  but  not 


THE   TWO    NATURES    IN*    ONE    PERSON.  699 

his  mediatorship.  Now  he  reigns  by  delegated  authority  ;  then  he  will  reign  in  union 
with  the  Father.  So  Kendrick,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  Jan.  1890 :  68-83.  Wrightnour :  "  When  the 
great  remedy  has  wrought  its  perfect  cure,  the  physician  will  no  longer  be  looked  upon 
as  the  physician.  When  the  work  of  Redemption  is  completed,  the  mediatorial  office 
of  the  Son  will  cease."  We  may  add  that  other  offices  of  friendship  and  instruction 
will  then  begin. 

Melanchthon  :  "  Christ  will  finish  his  work  as  Mediator,  and  then  will  reign  as  God, 
immediately  revealing  to  us  the  Deity."  Quenstedt,  quoted  in  Schmid,  Dogniatik,  293, 
thinks  the  giving  up  of  the  kingdom  will  be  only  an  exchange  of  outward  administra- 
tion for  inward,—  not  a  surrender  of  all  power  and  authority,  but  only  of  one  mode  of 
exercising  it.  llaima,  on  Resurrection,  lect.  4 — "  It  is  not  a  giving  up  of  his  mediatorial 
authority,— that  throne  is  to  endure  forever, —  but  it  is  a  simple  public  recognition  of 
the  fact  thai  God  is  all  in  all,  that  Christ  is  God's  medium  of  accomplishing  all."  An. 
Par.  Bible,  on  1  Cor.  15:28  —  "Not  his  mediatorial  relation  to  his  own  people  shall  be  given 
up  ;  much  less  his  personal  relation  to  the  Godhead,  as  the  divine  Word  ;  but  only  his 
mediatorial  relation  to  the  world  at  large."  See  also  Edwards,  Observations  on  the 
Trinity,  85  si/.    Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  on  1  Cor.  15:28,  "affirms  no  other  subjection 

than  is  involved  in  Sonship This  implies  no  inferiority  of  nature,  no  extrusion 

from  power,  but  the  free  submission  of  love  ....  which  is  the  essence  of  the  filial 

spirit  which  actuated  Christ  from  first  to  last Whatsoever  glory  he  gains  is 

devoted  to  the  glory  and  power  of  the  Father,  who  glorifies  him  in  turn." 

Dorner,  G laubeuslehre,  2 :  402  ( Syst.  Dock ,  3 :  297-29!) )— "  We  are  not  to  imagine  incar- 
nations of  Christ  in  the  angel-world,  or  in  other  spheres.  This  would  make  incarnation 
only  the  change  of  a  garment,  a  passing  theophany ;  and  Christ's  relation  to  humanity 
would  be  a  merely  external  one.''  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  quoted  in  Swayne,  Our  Lord's 
Knowledge  as  Man,  XX— "Are  we  permitted  to  believe  that  there  is  something  parallel 
to  the  progress  of  our  Lord's  humanity  in  the  state  of  humiliation,  still  going  on  even 
now,  in  the  state  of  exaltation  ?  that  it  is,  in  fact,  becoming  inure  and  more  adequate 
to  the  divine  nature?  SeeCol.l:24  —  'till  up  that  which  is  lacking';  Heb.  10:12, 13 — 'expecting  1 11  his 
enemies';  1  Cor.  15  :  28 — '  when  all  things  have  been  subjected  unto  him.'"  In  our  judgment  such  a  con- 
clusion is  unwarranted,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  God-man  in  his  exaltation  has  tin; 
glory  of  his  preexistent  state  (John  17: 5);  that  all  the  heavenly  powers  are  already  sub- 
ject to  him  ( Eph.  1 : 2i,  22 ) ;  and  that  he  is  now  omnipresent  (Mat.  28  :20j. 

(j)  Infinite  and  finite  in  Christ. —  Our  investigation  of  the  Scripture 
teaching  -with  regard  to  the  Person  of  Christ  leads  us  to  three  important 
conclusions  :  1.  that  deity  and  humanity,  the  infinite  and  the  finite,  in  him 
are  not  mutually  exclusive  ;  2.  that  the  humanity  in  Christ  differs  from  his 
deity  not  merely  in  degree  but  also  in  kiud  ;  and  3.  that  this  difference 
in  kind  is  the  difference  between  the  infinite  original  and  the  finite  deriva- 
tive, so  that  Christ  is  the  source  of  life,  both  physical  and  spiritual,  for  all 
men. 

Our  doctrine  excludes  the  view  that  Christ  is  only  quantitatively  different  from  other 
men  in  whom  God's  Spirit  dwells.  He  is  qualitatively  different,  in  that  he  is  thesoureo 
of  life,  and  they  the  recipients.  Not  only  is  it  true  that  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is 
in  him  alone,— it  is  also  true  that  he  is  himself  God,  self -revealing  and  self-communi- 
cating,  as  men  are  not.  Yet  we  cannot  hold  with  E.  H.  Johnson,  Outline  of  Syst.  Theol., 
170-178,  that  Christ's  humanity  was  of  one  species  with  his  deity,  but  not  of  one  sub- 
stance. We  know  of  but  one  underlying  substance  and  ground  of  being.  This  one 
substance  is  self -limiting,  and  so  self-manifesting,  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  determining 
dementis  not  the  human  but  the  divine.  The  infinite  Source  has  a  finite  manifestation  ; 
but  in  the  finite  we  see  the  Infinite  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  19  — "God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unio  him- 
self"; Johnl4:9  —  "  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father."  We  can  therefore  agree  with  the  fol- 
lowing writers  who  regard  all  men  as  partakers  of  the  life  of  God,  while  yet  we  deny 
that  Christ  is  only  a  man,  distinguished  from  his  fellows  by  having  a  larger  share  in  that 
life  than  they  have. 

J.  M.  Whiton :  "  How  is  the  divine  spirit  which  is  manifest  in  the  life  of  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  to  be  distinguished,  qua  divine,  from  the  same  divine  spirit  as  manifested 
in  the  life  of  humanity?  I  answer,  that  in  him,  the  person  Christ,  dwelleth  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily.  I  emphasize  fulness,  and  say :  The  God-head  is  alike  in  the  race 
and  in  its  spiritual  head,  but  the  fulness  is  in  the  head  alone  —  a  fulness  of  course  not 


700  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

absolute,  since  circumscribed  by  a  human  organism,  but  a  fulness  to  the  limits  of  the 
organism.  Essential  deity  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  human  Christ,  except  as  in  com- 
mon with  the  race  created  in  the  image  of  God.  Life  is  one,  and  all  life  is  divine."  .... 
Gloria  Patri,  88, 23  —  "  Every  incarnation  of  life  is  pro  tanto  and  in  its  measure  an  incar- 
nation of  God  ....  and  God's  way  is  a  perpetually  increasing  incarnation  of  life  whose 

climax  and  crown  is  the  divine  fulness  of  life  in  Christ The  Hamoousios  of  the 

Nicene  Creed  was  a  great  victory  of  the  truth.  But  the  Nicene  Fathers  builded  better 
than  they  knew.  The  Unitarian  Dr.  Hedge  praised  them  because  they  got  at  the  truth, 
the  logical  conclusion  of  which  was  to  come  so  long  after,  that  God  and  man  are  of  one 
substance."  So  Momerie,  Inspiration,  holds  man's  nature  to  be  the  same  in  kind  with 
God's.  See  criticism  of  this  view  in  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  133, 134.  Homotoxxsim  he 
regards  as  involving  homoousios  ;  the  divine  nature  capable  of  fission  or  segmentation, 
broken  off  in  portions,  and  distributed  among  finite  moral  agents  ;  the  divine  nature 
undergoing  perpetual  curtailment ;  every  man  therefore  to  some  extent  inspired,  and 
evil  as  truly  an  inspiration  of  God  as  is  good.  Watts  seems  to  us  to  lack  the  proper 
conception  of  the  infinite  as  the  ground  of  the  finite,  and  so  not  excluding  it. 

Lyman  Abbott  affirms  that  Christ  is,  "  not  God  and  man,  but  God  in  man."  Christ 
differs  from  other  men  only  as  the  flower  differs  from  the  bulb.  As  the  true  man,  he 
is  genuinely  divine.  Deity  and  humanity  are  not  two  distinct  natures,  but  one 
nature.  The  ethico-spiritual  nature  which  is  finite  in  man  is  identical  with  the  nature 
which  is  infinite  in  God.  Christ's  distinction  from  other  men  is  therefore  in  the  degree 
in  which  he  shared  this  nature  and  possessed  a  unique  fulness  of  life—  "anointed  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  with  power "  ( Acts  10 :  38 ).  Phillips  Brooks :  "To  this  humanity  of  man  as  a  part 
of  God  —  to  this  I  cling ;  for  I  do  love  it,  and  I  will  know  nothing  else  ....  Man  is,  in 

virtue  of  his  essential  humanity,  partaker  of  the  life  of  the  essential  Word 

Into  every  soul,  just  so  far  as  it  is  possible  for  that  soul  to  receive  it,  God  beats  his 
life  and  gives  his  help."  Phillips  Brooks  believes  in  the  redemptive  indwelling  of  God 
in  man,  so  that  salvation  is  of  man,  for  man,  and  by  man.  He  does  not  scruple  to  say 
to  every  man :    "  You  are  a  part  of  G<  >d." 

While  we  shrink  from  the  expressions  which  seem  to  imply  a  partition  of  the  divine 
nature,  we  are  compelled  to  recognize  a  truth  which  these  writers  are  laboring  to 
express,  the  truth  namely  of  the  essential  oneness  of  all  life,  and  of  God  in  Christ  as  the 
source  and  giver  of  it.  "Jesus  quotes  approvingly  the  words  of  Psalm  82: 6—  'I  said,  Te  are 
Gods.'  Microscopic,  indeed,  but  divine  are  we— sparks  from  the  flame  of  deity.  God  is 
the  Creator,  but  it  is  through  Christ  as  the  mediating  and  as  the  final  Cause.  'And  we 
through  him '  (1  Cor.  8:6)  =  we  exist  for  him,  for  the  realization  of  a  divine  humanity  in 
solidarity  with  him.  Christ  is  at  once  the  end  and  the  instrumental  cause  of  the  whole 
process."  Samuel  Harris,  God  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  All,  speaks  of  "  the  essentially 
human  in  God,  and  the  essentially  divine  in  man."  The  Son,  or  Word  of  God,  "  when 
manifested  in  the  forms  of  a  finite  personality,  is  the  essential  Christ,  revealing  that  in 
God  which  is  essentially  and  eternally  human." 

Ptleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  1:196  — "The  whole  of  humanity  is  the  object  of  the 
divine  love ;  it  is  an  Immanuel  and  son  of  God ;  its  whole  history  is  a  continual  incarna- 
tion of  God;  as  indeed  it  is  said  iu  Scripture  that  we  are  a  divine  offspring,  and  that 
we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  in  God.  But  what  lies  potentially  in  the  human 
consciousness  of  God  is  not  on  that  account  also  manifestly  revealed  to  it  from  the 
beginning."  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  175-180,  on  Stoic  monism  and  Platonic  dualism, 
tells  us  that  the  Stoics  believed  in  a  personal  Aoyos  and  an  impersonal  CAij,  both  of  them 
modes  of  asingle  substance.  Some  regarded  God  as  a  mode  of  matter,  natura  nat  wrata  : 
"Jupiter  est  quodcunque  vides,  quodcunque  moveris  "  (  Lucan,  Phars.,  9 :579 ) ;  others 
conceived  of  him  as  the  natura  naturans,  —  this  became  the  governing  conception. 

....  The  products  are  all  divine,  but  not  equally  divine Nearest  of  all  to  the 

pure  essence  of  God  is  the  human  soul :  it  is  an  emanation  or  outflow  from  him,  a  sap- 
ling which  is  separate  from  and  yet  continues  the  life  of  the  parent  tree,  a  colony 
in  which  some  members  of  the  parent  state  have  settled.  Plato  followed  Anaxagoras 
in  holding  that  mind  is  separate  from  matter  and  acts  upon  it.  God  is  outside  the  world. 
He  shapes  it  as  a  carpenter  shapes  wood.  On  the  general  subject  of  the  union  of  deity 
and  humanity  in  the  person  of  Christ,  see  Herzog,  Eucyclopiidie,  art. :  Christologie ; 
Barrows,  in  Bib.  Sac,  10:765;  26  :  83;  also,  Bib.  Sac,  17  :  535;  John  Owen,  Person  of 
Christ,  in  Works,  1 :  233 ;  Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,  book  v,  chap.  51-56 :  Boyce,  in  Bap.  Quar., 
1870:385;  Shedd,  Hist.  Doct.,  1 :  403  sq. ;  Hovey,  God  with  Us,  61-88;  Plumptre,  Christ 
and  Christendom,  appendix;  E.  H.  Johnson, The  Idea  of  Law  in  Christotogy,  in  Bib. 
Sac,  Oct.  1889  :  599-625, 


the  state  of  humiliation1.  701 

section  iii. — the  two  states  of  christ. 

L    The  State  of  Humiliation. 

1.     The  nature  of  this  humiliation. 

We  may  dismiss,  as  unworthy  of  serious  notice,  the  views  that  it  consisted 
essentially  either  in  the  union  of  the  Logos  with  human  nature, — -for  this 
union  with  human  nature  continues  in  the  state  of  exaltation ;  or  in  the 
outward  trials  and  privations  of  Christ's  human  life, —  for  this  view  casts 
reproach  upon  poverty,  and  ignores  the  power  of  the  soul  to  rise  superior 
to  its  outward  circumstances. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  224—"  The  error  of  supposing  it  too  humiliating 
to  obey  law  was  derived  from  the  Roman  treasury  of  merit  and  works  of  supereroga- 
tion. Better  was  Frederick  the  Great's  sentiment  when  his  sturdy  subject  and  neigh- 
bor, the  miller,  whose  windmill  he  had  attempted  to  remove,  having  beaten  him  in  a 
lawsuit,  the  thwarted  monarch  exclaimed:  'Thank  God,  there  is  law  in  Prussia  1'" 
Palmer,  Theological  Definition,  79 — "God  reveals  himself  in  the  rock,  vegetable, 
animal,  man.  Must  not  the  process  go  on  ?  Must  there  not  appear  in  the  fulness  of 
time  a  man  who  will  reveal  God  as  perfectly  as  is  possible  in  human  conditions  — a 
man  who  is  God  under  the  limitations  of  humanity  ?  Such  incarnation  is  humiliation 
only  in  the  eyes  of  men.  To  Christ  it  is  lifting  up,  exaltation,  glory ;  John  12:  32— 'And  I, 
if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  mea  nnto  myself.'  "  George  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  409  — 
"  The  divinity  of  Christ  is  not  obscured,  but  is  more  clearly  seen,  shining  through  his 
humanity." 

"We  may  devote  more  attention  to  the 

A.  Theory  of  Thomasius,  Delitzsch,  and  Crosby,  that  the  humiliation 
consisted  in  the  surrender  of  the  relative  divine  attributes. 

This  theory  holds  that  the  Logos,  although  retaining  his  divine  self- 
consciousness  and  his  immanent  attributes  of  holiness,  love,  and  truth, 
surrendered  his  relative  attributes  of  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  omni- 
presence, in  order  to  take  to  himself  veritable  human  nature.  According 
to  this  view,  there  are,  indeed,  two  natures  in  Christ,  but  neither  of  these 
natures  is  infiuite.  Thomasius  and  Delitzsch  are  the  chief  advocates  of 
this  theory  in  Germany.  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  has  maintained  a  similar 
view  in  America. 

The  theory  of  Thomasius,  Delitzsch,  and  Crosby  has  been,  though  improperly, 
called  the  theory  of  the  Kenosis  (from  tKivuxrtv — "emptied himself"—  in  Phil.  2:7),  and  its 
advocates  are  often  called  Kenotic  theologians.  There  is  a  Kenosis  of  the  Logos,  but 
it  is  of  a  different  sort  from  that  which  this  theory  supposes.  For  statements  of  this 
theory,  see  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  2 :  233-255,  542-550;  Delitzsch,  Biblische 
Psychologie,  323-333;  Howard  Crosby,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  1870:350-363  — a  discourse  subse- 
quently published  in  a  separate  volume,  with  the  title  :  The  True  Humanity  of  Christ, 
and  reviewed  by  Shedd,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  April,  1881 :  429^31.  Crosby  emphasizes  the 
word  "became,"  in  John  1 :  14  —  "and  the  Word  became  flesh"  — and  gives  the  word  "flesh"  the  sense 
of  "man,"  or  "  human."  Crosby,  then,  should  logically  deny,  though  he  does  not  deny, 
that  Christ's  body  was  derived  from  the  Virgin. 

We  object  to  this  view  that  : 

( a  )  It  contradicts  the  Scriptures  already  referred  to,  in  which  Christ 
asserts  his  divine  knowledge  and  power.  Divinity,  it  is  said,  can  give  up 
its  world-functions,  for  it  existed  without  these  before  creation.  But  to 
give  up  divine  attributes  is  to  give  up  the  substance  of  Godhead.  Nor  is 
it  a  sufficient  reply  to  say  that  only  the  relative  attributes  are  given  up, 


702  CHRISTOLOGY,    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION. 

while  the  immanent  attributes,  which  chiefly  characterize  the  Godhead,  are 
retained  ;  for  the  immanent  necessarily  involve  the  relative,  as  the  greater 
involve  the  less. 

Liebner,  Jahrbuch  f.  d.  Theol.,  3  :  349-356—  "  Is  the  Logos  here?  But  wherein  does  he 
Show  his  presence,  that  it  may  be  known  ?  "  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  11th  ed.,  217, 
note.  John  Caifd,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2  :  125-140,  criticises  the  theory  of  the 
Kenoais,  but  grants  that,  with  all  its  self-contradictions,  as  he  regards  them,  it  is  an 
attempt  to  render  conceivable  the  profound  truth  of  a  sympathizing,  self-sacrificing 
God. 

( b  )  Since  the  Logos,  in  uniting  himself  to  a  human  soul,  reduces  him- 
self to  the  condition  and  limitations  of  a  human  soul,  the  theory  is  virtually 
a  theory  of  the  coexistence  of  two  human  souls  in  Christ.  But  the  union 
of  two  finite  souls  is  more  difficult  to  explain  than  the  union  of  a  finite  and 
an  infinite, —  since  there  can  be  in  the  former  case  no  intelligent  guidance 
and  control  of  the  human  element  by  the  divine. 

Dorner,  Jahrbuch  f.  d.  Theol.,  1 :  397-408  — "The  impossibility  of  making  two  finite 
souls  into  one  finally  drove  Arianism  to  the  denial  of  any  human  soul  in  Christ" 
( Apoilinarianism).  This  statement  of  Dorner,  which  we  have  already  quoted  in  our 
account  of  Apoilinarianism,  illustrates  the  similar  impossibility,  upon  the  theory  of 
Thomasius,  of  constructing  out  of  two  finite  souls  the  person  of  Christ.  See  also  Hovey, 
God  with  Us,  68. 

(  c)  This  theory  fails  to  secure  its  end,  that  of  making  comprehensible 
the  human  development  of  Jesus, —  for  even  though  divested  of  the  relative 
attributes  of  Godhood,  the  Logos  still  retains  his  divine  self-consciousness, 
together  with  his  immanent  attributes  of  holiness,  love,  and  truth.  This 
is  as  difficult  to  reconcile  with  a  purely  natural  human  development  as  the 
possession  of  the  relative  divine  attributes  would  be.  The  theory  logically 
leads  to  a  further  denial  of  the  possession  of  any  divine  attributes,  or  of 
any  divine  consciousness  at  all,  on  the  part  of  Christ,  and  merges  itself  in 
the  view  of  Gess  and  Beecher,  that  the  Godhead  of  the  Logos  is  actually 
transformed  into  a  human  soul. 

Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  3:343  — "The  old  theology  conceived  of  Christ  as  in  full  and 
unbroken  use  of  the  divine  self-consciousness,  the  divine  attributes,  and  the  divine 
world-functions,  from  the  conception  until  death.  Though  Jesus,  as  foetus,  child,  boy, 
was  not  almighty  and  omnipresent  according  to  his  human  nature,  yet  he  was  so,  as  to 
his  divine  nature,  which  constituted  one  eyo  with  his  human.  Thomasius,  however, 
declared  that  the  Logos  gave  up  his  relative  attributes,  during  his  sojourn  in  flesh. 
Dorner's  objection  to  this,  on  the  ground  of  the  divine  unchangeableness,  overshoots 
the  mark,  because  it  makes  any  becoming  impossible. 

"  But  some  things  in  Thomasius'  doctrine  are  still  difficult :  1st,  divinity  can  certainly 
give  up  its  world-functions,  for  it  has  existed  without  these  before  the  world  was.  In 
the  nature  of  an  absolute  personality,  however,  lies  an  absolute  knowing,  willing,  feel- 
ing, which  it  cannot  give  up.  Hence  PhiL  2  :  6-11  speaks  of  a  giving-up  of  divine  glory, 
but  not  of  a  giving-up  of  divine  attributes  or  nature.  2d,  little  is  gained  by  such  an 
assumption  of  the  giving-up  of  relative  attributes,  since  the  Logos,  even  while  divested 
of  a  part  of  his  attributes,  still  has  full  possession  of  his  divine  self-consciousness,  which 
must  make  a  purely  human  development  no  less  difficult.  3d,  the  expressions  of 
divine  self-consciousness,  the  works  of  divine  power,  the  words  of  divine  wisdom, 
prove  that  Jesus  was  in  possession  of  his  divine  self-consciousness  and  attributes. 

"  The  essential  thing  which  the  Kenotics  aim  at,  however,  stands  fast ;  namely,  that 
the  divine  personality  of  the  Logos  divested  itself  of  its  glory  (John  17  :  5),  riches  (2  Cor. 
8:6),  divine  form  ( PhiL  2:6).  This  divesting  is  the  becoming  man.  The  humiliation, 
then,  was  a  giving  up  of  the  use,  not  of  the  possession,  of  the  divine  nature  and  attri- 
butes. That  man  can  thus  give  up  self -consciousness  and  powers,  we  see  every  day  in 
risee.    But  man  does  "Qt-  *  Vr<=>by,  cease  to  be  man.    So  we  vwntain  that  the  Logos, 


THE   STATE   OF   HUMILIATION".  703 

when  he  became  man,  did  not  divest  himself  of  his  divine  person  and  nature,  which  was 
impossible;  but  only  divested  himself  of  the  use  and  exercise  of  these—  these  being 
latent  to  him  —  in  order  to  unfold  themselves  to  use  in  the  measure  to  which  his  human 
nature  developed  itself —  a  use  which  found  its  completion  in  the  condition  of  exalta- 
tion." This  statement  of  Kahnis,  although  approaching  correctness,  is  still  neither 
quite  correct  nor  quite  complete. 

B.  Theory  that  the  humiliation  consisted  in  the  surrender  of  the  inde- 
pendent exercise  of  the  divine  attributes. 

This  theory,  which  we  regard  as  the  most  satisfactory  of  all,  may  be  more 
fully  set  forth  as  follows.  The  humiliation,  as  the  Scriptures  seem  to 
show,  consisted  : 

(  a  )  In  that  act  of  the  preexistent  Logos  by  which  he  gave  up  his  divine 
glory  with  the  Father,  in  order  to  take  a  servant-form.  In  this  act,  he 
resigned  not  the  possession,  nor  yet  entirely  the  use,  but  rather  the  inde- 
pendent exercise,  of  the  divine  attributes. 

John  17  ;  5  — "  glorify  thou  me  with*  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was  "  ;  Phil. 

:  6,  7  —  "  who,  existing  in  the  form  of  God,  counted  not  the  being  on  an  equality  with  God  a  thing  to  be  grasped,  but 
emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  "  ;  2  Cor.  8  :  9  —  "  For  ye  know  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that,  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty 
might  become  rich."  Pompilia,  in  Robert  Browning's  The  Ring  aud  the  Book :  "  Now  I  see 
how  God  is  likest  God  in  being  born." 

Omniscience  gives  up  all  knowledge  but  that  of  the  child,  the  infant,  the  embryo, 
the  infinitesimal  germ  of  humanity.  Omnipotence  gives  up  all  power  but  that  of  the 
impregnated  ovum  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin.  The  Godhead  narrows  itself  down  to  a 
point  that  is  next  to  absolute  extinction.  Jesus  washing  his  disciples*  feet,  in  John  13: 
1-20,  is  the  symbol  of  his  coming  down  from  his  throne  of  glory  and  taking  the  form  of 
a  servant,  in  order  that  he  may  purify  us,  by  regeneration  and  sanctification,  for  the 
marriage-supper  of  the  Lamb. 

b  )  In  the  submission  of  the  Logos  to  the  control  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
the  limitations  of  his  Messianic  mission,  in  his  communication  of  the 
divine  fulness  of  the  human  nature  which  he  had  taken  into  union  with 
himself. 

Acts  1:2  —  Jesus,  "  after  that  he  had  given  commandment  through  the  Holy  Spirit  unto  the  apostles  whom  he  had 
chosen "  ;  10  :  38  —  "Jesus  of  Nazareth,  how  God  anointed  him  w.th  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power ' ' ;  Heb.  9:14  — 
"the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God."  A  minor  may 
have  a  great  estate  left  to  him,  yet  may  have  only  such  use  of  it  as  his  guardian  per- 
mits. In  Homer's  Iliad,  when  Andromache  brings  her  infant  son  to  part  with  Hector, 
the  boy  is  terrified  by  the  warlike  plumes  of  his  father's  helmet,  and  Hector  puts  them 
off  to  embrace  him.  So  God  lays  aside  "That  glorious  form,  that  light  unsufferable 
And  that  far-beaming  blaze  of  majesty."  Arthur  H.  Hallam,  in  John  Brown's  Itab 
and  his  Friends,  282,  28:!  —  "  Revelation  is  the  voluntary  approximation  of  the  infinite 
Being  to  the  ways  and  thoughts  of  finite  humanity." 

(  c  )  In  the  continuous  surrender,  on  the  part  of  the  God-man,  so  far  as 
his  human  nature  was  concerned,  of  the  exercise  of  those  divine  powers 
with  which  it  was  endowed  by  virtue  of  its  union  with  the  divine,  and  in 
the  voluntary  acceptance,  which  followed  upon  this,  of  temptation,  suffer- 
ing, and  death. 

Mat.  26  :  53 — "thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  beseech  my  Father,  and  he  shall  even  now  send  me  more  than  twelve  legions 
of  angels  ?  "  John  10  :  17, 18  —  "  Therefore  doth  the  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may  take  it  again. 
No  one  taketh  it  away  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take 
it  again"  ;  Phil.  2  :  8  —  "and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient  even  unto  death, 
yea,  the  death  of  the  cross."  Qf.  Shakespeare,  Merchant  of  Venice :  "Such  music  is  there  in 
immortal  souls,  That  while  this  muddy  vesture  of  decay  Doth  close  it  in,  we  cannot 
see  it." 


704  CHRLSTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

Each  of  these  elements  of  the  doctrine  has  its  own  Scriptural  support. 
We  must  therefore  regard  the  humiliation  of  Christ,  not  as  consisting  in  a 
single  act,  but  as  involving  a  continuous  self-renunciation,  which  began 
with  the  Kenosis  of  the  Logos  in  becoming  man,  and  which  culminated  in 
the  self-subjection  of  the  God-man  to  the  death  of  the  cross. 

Our  doctrine  of  Christ's  humiliation  will  be  better  understood  if  we  put  it  midway 
betwecu  two  pairs  of  erroneous  views,  making  it  the  third  of  five.  The  list  would  be  as 
follows:  (1)  Gess:  The  Logos  gave  up  all  divine  attributes;  (2)  Thomasius:  The 
Logos  gave  up  relative  attributes  only  ;  ( 3 )  True  View  :  The  Logos  gave  up  the  inde- 
pendent exercise  of  divine  attributes ;  ( 4 )  Old  Orthodoxy  :  Christ  gave  up  the  use  of 
divine  attributes ;  ( 5 )  Anselm :  Christ  acted  as  if  he  did  not  possess  divine  attributes. 
The  full  exposition  of  the  classical  passage  with  reference  to  the  humiliation,  namely, 
Phil.  2  :  5-8,  we  give  below,  under  the  next  paragraph,  pages  705,  706.  Brentius  illustrated 
Christ's  humiliation  by  the  king  who  travels  incognito.  But  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gos- 
pel, 158,  says  well  that "  to  part  in  appearance  with  only  the  fruition  of  the  divine 
attributes  would  be  to  impose  upon  us  with  a  pretence  of  self-sacrifice ;  but  to  part 
with  it  in  reality  was  to  manifest  most  perfectly  the  true  nature  of  God." 

This  same  objection  lies  against  the  explanation  given  in  the  Church  Quarterly 
Review,  Oct.  1891:1-30,  on  Our  Lord's  Knowledge  as  Man:  "If  divine  knowledge 
exists  in  a  different  form  from  human,  and  a  translation  into  a  different  form  is  neces- 
sary before  it  can  be  available  in  the  human  sphere,  our  Lord  might  know  the  day  of 
judgment  as  God,  and  yet  be  ignorant  of  it  as  man.  This  must  have  been  the  case  if 
he  did  not  choose  to  translate  it  into  the  human  form.  But  it  might  also  have  been 
incapable  of  translation.  The  processes  of  divine  knowledge  may  be  far  above  our 
finite  comprehension."  This  seems  to  us  to  be  a  virtual  denial  of  the  unity  of  Christ's 
person,  and  to  make  our  Lord  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  truth.  He  either  knew,  or 
he  did  not  know ;  and  his  denial  that  he  knew  makes  it  impossible  that  he  should 
have  known  in  any  sense. 

2.     The  stages  of  Christ's  humiliation. 

We  may  distinguish  :  (  a  )  That  act  of  the  preincarnate  Logos  by  which, 
in  becoming  man,  he  gave  up  the  independent  exercise  of  the  divine  attri- 
butes. (  b  )  His  submission  to  the  common  laws  which  regulate  the  origin 
of  souls  from  a  preexisting  sinful  stock,  in  taking  his  human  nature  from 
the  Virgin, — a  human  nature  which  only  the  miraculous  conception  ren- 
dered pure.  (  c  )  His  subjection  to  the  limitations  involved  in  a  human 
growth  and  development, — reaching  the  consciousness  of  hissonship  at  his 
twelfth  year,  and  working  no  miracles  till  after  the  baptism,  (d)  The 
subordination  of  himself,  in  state,  knowledge,  teaching,  and  acts,  to  the 
control  of  the  Holy  Spirit,— so  living,  not  independently,  but  as  a  servant. 
(e )  His  subjection,  as  connected  with  a  sinful  race,  to  temptation  and  suf- 
fering, and  finally  to  the  death  which  constituted  the  penalty  of  the  law. 

Peter  Lombard  asked  whether  God  could  know  more  than  he  was  aware  of  ?  It  is 
only  another  way  of  putting  the  question  whether,  during  the  earthly  life  of  Christ, 
the  Logos  existed  outside  of  the  flesh  of  Jesus.  We  must  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
Otherwise  the  number  of  the  persons  in  the  Trinity  would  be  variable,  and  the  universe 
could  do  without  him  who  is  ever  "upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power "  ( Heb.  1:3),  and  in 
whom  "all  things  consist"  (Col.  1:17).  Let  us  recall  the  nature  of  God's  omnipresence  (see 
pages  279-282 ).  Omnipresence  is  nothing  less  than  the  presence  of  the  whole  of  God  in 
every  place.  From  this  it  follows,  that  the  whole  Christ  can  be  present  in  every  believer 
as  fully  as  if  that  believer  were  the  only  one  to  receive  of  his  fulness,  and  that  the 
whole  Logos  can  be  united  to  and  be  present  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  while  at  the  same 
time  he  fills  and  governs  the  universe.  By  virtue  of  this  omnipresence,  therefore,  the 
whole  Logos  can  suffer  on  earth,  while  yet  the  whole  Logos  reigns  in  heaven.  The 
Logos  outside  of  Christ  has  the  perpetual  consciousness  of  his  Godhead,  while  yet  the 
Logos,  as  united  to  humanity  in  Christ ,  is  subject  to  ignorance,  weakness,  and  death. 
Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  1:153—  "Jehovah,  though  present  in  the  form  of  the  burning 


THE   STATE    OF    HUMILIATION.  705 

•^ush,  was  at  the  same  time  omnipresent  also- "  ;  2  :  265-384,  esp.  282 —  "  Because  the  sun 
is  shining1  in  and  through  a  cloud,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  cannot  at  the  same  time  be 
shining-  through  the  remainder  of  universal  space,  unobstructed  by  any  vapor  what- 
ever." Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  21  —  "  Not  with  God,  as  with  finite  man,  does 
arrival  in  one  place  necessitate  withdrawal  from  another."  John  Calvin  :  "  The  whole 
Christ  was  there ;  but  not  all  that  was  in  Christ  was  there."  See  Adamson,  The  Mind 
of  Christ. 

How  the  independent  exercise  of  the  attributes  of  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and 
omnipresence  can  be  surrendered,  even  for  a  time,  would  be  inconceivable,  if  we  were 
regarding  the  Logos  as  he  is  in  himself,  seated  upon  the  throne  of  the  universe.  The 
matter  is  somewhat  easier  when  we  remember  that  it  was  not  the  Logos  per  se,  but 
rather  the  God-man,  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  the  Logos  submitted  to  this  humiliation. 
South,  Sermons,  2  :  9 — "  lie  the  fountain  never  so  full,  yet  if  it  communicate  itself  by 
a  little  pipe,  the  stream  can  be  but  small  and  inconsiderable,  and  efpiial  to  the  measure 
of  its  conveyance."  Sartorius,  Person  and  Work  of  Christ,  39  — "The  human  eye, 
when  open,  sees  heaven  and  earth;  but  when  shut,  it  sees  little  or  nothing.  Yet  its 
inherent  capacity  does  not  change.  So  divinity  does  not  change  its  nature,  when  it 
drops  the  curtain  of  humanity  before  the  eyes  of  the  God-man." 

The  divine  in  Christ,  during  most  of  his  earthly  life,  is  latent,  or  only  now  and  then 
present  to  his  consciousness  or  manifested  to  others.  Illustrate  from  second  childhood, 
where  the  miud  itself  exists,  but  is  not  capable  of  use  ;  or  from  first  childhood,  where 
even  a  Newton  or  a  Humboldt,  if  brought  back  to  earth  and  made  to  occupy  an  infant 
body  and  brain,  would  develop  as  an  infant,  with  infantile  powers.  There  is  more  in 
memory  than  we  can  at  this  moment  recall,— memory  is  greater  than  recollection. 
There  is  more  of  us  at  all  times  than  we  know,— only  the  sudden  emergency  reveals 
the  largeness  of  our  resources  of  mind  and  heart  and  will.  The  new  nature,  in  the 
regenerate,  is  greater  than  it  appears:  "Beloved,  now  are  we  children  of  God,  and  it  is  not  yet  made 
manifest  what  we  shall  be.  We  know  that,  if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him  "  ( 1  John  3:2).  So  in 
Christ  there  was  an  ocean-like  fulness  of  resource,  of  which  only  now  and  then  the 
Spirit  permitted  the  consciousness  and  the  exercise. 

Without  denying  (with  Dorner)  the  completeness,  even  from  the  moment  of  the 
conception,  of  the  union  between  the  deity  and  the  humanity,  we  may  still  say  with 
Kahnis  :  "The  human  nature  of  Christ,  according  to  the  measure  of  its  development, 
appropriates  more  and  more  to  its  couseioi  is  use  the  latent  fulness  of  the  divine  nature." 
So  we  take  the  middle  ground  between  two  opposite  extremes.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
Kenosis  was  not  the  extinction  of  the  Logos.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  did  Christ 
hunger  and  sleep  by  miracle, —  this  is  Docetism.  We  must  not  minimize  Christ's  humil- 
iation, for  this  was  his  glory.  There  was  no  limit  to  his  descent,  except  that  arising 
from  his  sinlessness.  His  humiliation  was  not  merely  the  giving-up  of  the  appearance 
of  Godhead.  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  585—"  Should  any  one  aim  to  celebrate  the  conde- 
scension of  the  emperor  Charles  the  Fifth,  by  dwelling  on  the  fact  that  he  laid  aside  the 
robes  of  royalty  and  assumed  the  style  of  a  subject,  and  altogether  ignore  the  more 
important  matter  that  he  actually  became  a  private  person,  it  would  be  very  weak  and 
absurd."  Cf.  2  Cor.  8  :  9  —  "  though  he  was  rich,  jet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor"  =  he  beggared  him- 
self. Mat.  27  :  46  —  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  =  non-exercise  of  divine  omni- 
science. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  passage  Phil.  2 : 6-8  is  the  chief  basis  and  support  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  humiliation,  we  here  subjoin  a  more  detailed  examination  of  it. 

Exposition  of  Philippians,  2  :  6-8.  The  passage  reads :  "who,  existing  in  the  fo.m  of  God, 
counted  not  the  being  on  an  equality  with  God  a  thing  to  be  grasped,  but  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant, 
being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men ;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient  even 
unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the  cross." 

The  subject  of  the  sentence  is  at  first  ( verses  6, 7 )  Christ  Jesus,  regarded  as  the  prefe'xist- 
ent  Logos ;  subsequently  (verse  8 ),  this  same  Christ  Jesus,  regarded  as  incarnate.  This 
change  in  the  subject  is  indicated  by  the  contrast  between  ^op4>rj  deov  (verse 6)  and  ixop^v 
Sov\ov  (  verse 7),  as  well  as  by  the  participles  Aa^ior  and  yecdneeos  (verse 7)  and  eupedet's  (verso 8) 
It  is  asserted,  then,  that  the  preexisting  Logos,  "although  subsisting  in  the  form  of 
God,  did  not  regard  hisequality  with  God  as  a  thing  to  be  forcibly  retained,  but  emptied 
himself  by  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  ( that  is,)  by  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men. 
And  being  found  in  outward  condition  as  a  man,  he  (the  incarnate  son  of  God,  yet 
further )  humbled  himself,  by  becoming  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross  "  (verse  8). 

Here  notice  that  what  the  Logos  divested  himself  of,  in  becoming  man,  is  not  the 
45 


706  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    REDEMPTION. 

substance  of  liis  Godhead,  but  the  "form  of  God"  in  which  this  substance  -was  manifested. 
This  "form  of  God"  can  be  only  that  independent  exercise  of  the  powers  and  prerogatives 
of  Deity  which  constitutes  his  "equality  with  God."  This  he  surrenders,  in  the  act  of 
"  taking  the  form  of  a  servant  "—or  becoming  subordinate,  as  man.  (Here  other  Scriptures 
complete  the  view,  by  their  representations  of  the  controlling  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  earthly  life  of  Christ.)  The  phrases  "made  in  the  likeness  of  men"  and  "found  in 
fashion  as  a  man"  are  used  to  intimate,  not  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  really  man,  but  that 
he  was  God  as  well  as  man,  and  therefore  free  from  the  sin  which  clings  to  man  ( cf. 
Rom.  8 :  3  —  ee  b/xoiJifj-aTi  <rapxbs  d/iapria;  —Meyer  ).  Finally,  this  one  person,  now  God  and 
man  united,  submits  himself,  consciously  and  voluntarily,  to  the  humiliation  of  an 
ignominious  death. 

See  Lightfoot,  on  Phil.  2 : 8  — "  Christ  divested  himself,  not  of  his  divine  nature,  for  that 
was  impossible,  but  of  the  glories  and  prerogatives  of  Deity.  This  he  did  by  taking  the 
form  of  a  servant."  Evans,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1883 :  287  —  '*  Two  stages  in  Christ's  humilia- 
tion, each  represented  by  a  finite  verb  denning  the  central  act  of  the  particular  stage, 
accompanied  by  two  modal  participles.  1st  stage  indicated  in  v.  7.  Its  central  act  is  : 
1  he  emptied  himself,'  Its  two  modalities  are :  ( 1  )  ' taking  the  form  of  servant ' ;  ( 2 )  'being  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men.'  Here  we  have  the  humiliation  of  the  Kenosis,— that  by  which  Christ 
became  man.  2d  stage,  indicated  in  v.  8.  Its  central  act  is:  'he  humbled  himself,'  Its  two 
modalities  are :  ( 1 )  '  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man ' ;  ( 2 )  '  becoming  obedient  unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the 
cross.'  Here  we  have  the  humiliation  of  his  obedience  and  death,  — that  by  which,  in 
humanity,  he  became  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins." 

Meyer  refers  Eph.  5:31  exclusively  to  Christ  and  the  church,  making  the  completed 
union  future,  however,  i.  e.,  at  the  time  of  the  Parousia.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his 
father  and  mother  "  =  "  in  the  incarnation,  Christ  leaves  father  and  mother  (  his  seat  at  the 
right  hand  of  God),  and  cleaves  to  his  wife  (the  church),  and  then  the  two  (the 
descended  Christ  and  the  church )  become  one  flesh  ( one  ethical  person,  as  the  married 
pair  become  one  by  physical  union ).  The  Fathers,  however,  ( Jerome,  Theodoret, 
Chrysostom ),  referred  it  to  the  incarnation."  On  the  interpretation  of  Phil.  2 : 6—11,  see 
Comm.  of  Neander,  Meyer,  Lauge,  Ellicott. 

On  the  question  whether  Christ  would  have  become  man  had  there  been  no  sin,  theo- 
logians are  divided.  Dorner,  Martensen,  and  Westcott  answer  in  the  affirmative ; 
Robinson,  Watts,  and  Denney  in  the  negative.  See  Dorner,  Hist.  Doct.  Person  of 
Christ,  5:236;  Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  327-329;  Westcott,  Com.  on  Hebrews, 
page  8—  "  The  Incarnation  is  in  its  essence  independent  of  the  Fall,  though  conditioned 
by  it  as  to  its  circumstances."  Ptr  contra,  see  Robinson,  Christ.  Theol.,  219,  note  —  "  It 
would  be  difficult  to  show  that  a  like  method  of  argument  from  a  prwri  premisses  will 
not  equally  avail  to  prove  sin  to  have  been  a  necessary  part  of  the  scheme  of  creation." 
Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  101,  objects  to  the  doctrine  of  necessary  incarnation  irre- 
spective of  sin,  that  it  tends  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between  nature  and  grace,  to 
blur  the  definite  outlines  of  the  redemption  wrought  by  Christ,  as  the  supreme  revela- 
tion of  God  and  his  love.  See  also  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  198-202;  Julius  Muller, 
Dogmat.  Abhandlungen,  66-126 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  512-526,  543-548 ;  Forrest, 
The  Authority  of  Christ,  340-345.  On  the  general  subject  of  the  Kenosis  of  the  Logos, 
see  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ;  Robins,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1874  :  615;  Philippi,  Glaub- 
enslehre,  4:138-150,  386-475;  Pope,  Person  of  Christ,  23;  Bodemeyer,  Lehre  von  der 
Kenosis ;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  610-625. 

II.     The  State  oe  Exaltation. 

1.     The  nature  of  this  exaltation. 

It  consisted  essentially  in  :  (  a  )  A  resumption,  on  the  part  of  the  Logos, 
of  his  independent  exercise  of  divine  attributes.  (  b )  The  withdrawal,  on 
the  part  of  the  Logos,  of  aU  limitations  in  his  communication  of  the  divine 
fulness  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  ( <■)  The  corresponding  exercise, 
on  the  part  of  the  human  nature,  of  those  powers  which  belonged  to  it  by 
virtue  of  its  union  with  the  divine. 

The  eighth  Psalm,  with  its  account  of  the  glory  of  human  nature,  is  at  present  f  ul- 
fllled  only  in  Christ  (see  Heb.  2  :  9  — "but  we  behold  ....  Jesus"  ).  Heb.  2:  7  —  ijAanwas  avrov 
/5paXv  n  Trap'  ayyikovs  —  may  be  translated,  as  in  the  margin  of  the  Rev.  Vers. :  "Thouniadest 


THE   STATE   OF    EXALTATION.  707 

hi-  for  a  little  voh  He  lower  than  the  angels."  Christ's  human  body  was  not  necessarily  subject 
to  death  ;  only  by  outward  compulsion  or  voluntary  surrender  could  he  die.  Hence 
resurrection  was  a  natural  necessity  (Acts  2:  24  —  "whom  God  raised  up,  haring  loosed  the  pangs  of 
death :  because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  beholden  of  it "  ;  31  —  "  neither  was  he  left  unto  Hades,  nor  did  his 
flesh  see  corruption  "  ).  This  exaltation,  which  then  affected  humanity  only  in  its  head,  is  to 
be  the  experience  also  of  the  members.  Our  bodies  also  are  to  be  delivered  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption,  and  we  are  to  sit  with  Christ  upon  his  throne. 

2.     Tlie  stages  of  Christ's  exaltation. 

(«)     The  quickening  and  resurrection. 

Both  Lutherans  and  Komanists  distinguish  between  these  two,  making 
the  former  precede,  and  the  latter  follow,  Christ's  "preaching  to  the  spir- 
its in  prison."  These  views  rest  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  1  Pet.  3  :  1S- 
20.  Lutherans  teach  that  Christ  descended  into  hell,  to  proclaim  his 
triumph  to  evil  spirits.  But  this  is  to  give  EKtjpv^ev  the  unusual  sense  of 
proclaiming  his  triumph,  instead  of  his  gospel.  Romanists  teach  that 
Christ  entered  the  underworld  to  preach  to  Old  Testament  saints,  that  they 
might  be  saved.  But  the  passage  speaks  only  of  the  disobedient ;  it  can- 
not be  pressed  into  the  support  of  a  sacramental  theory  of  the  salvation  of 
Old  Testament  believers.  The  passage  does  not  assert  the  descent  of  Christ 
into  the  world  of  spirits,  but  only  a  work  of  the  preincarnate  Logos  in 
offering  salvation,  through  Noah,  to  the  world  then  about  to  perish. 

Augustine,  Ad  Euodiam,  ep.  99  —"The  spirits  shut  up  in  prison  are  the  unbelievers  who 
lived  in  the  time  of  Noah,  whose  spirits  or  souls  were  shut  irp  In  the  darkness  of  ignor- 
ance as  in  a  prison  ;  Christ  preached  to  them,  not  in  the  flesh,  for  he  was  not  yet  incar- 
nate, but  in  the  spirit,  that  is,  in  his  divine  nature."  Calvin  taught  t  hat,  Christ  descended 
into  the  underworld  and  suffered  the  pains  of  the  lost.  But  not  all  Calviuists  hold 
with  him  here  ;  see  Princeton  Essays,  1  :  153.    Meyer,  on  Rom.  10  :  7,  regards  t  he  quest  [on 

—  "  Who  shall  descend  into  the  abyss?  ( that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up  from  the  dead  )" — as  an  allusion  to,  and  8<  > 
indirectly  a  proof-text  for,  Christ's  descent  into  the  underworld.  Mason,  Faith  of  the 
Gospel,  211,  favors  a  preaching  to  the  dead  :  "  During  that  time  [  the  three  days]  lie 
did  not  return  to  heaven  and  his  Father."  But  though  John20:17  is  referred  to  for 
proof ,  is  not  this  statement  true  onlyof  his  body?  So  far  as  the  soul  is  concerned, 
Christ  can  say  :  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit,"  and  "To-day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  Para- 
dise" (Luke  23  :  43,  46). 

Zahn  and  Doruer  best  represent  the  Lutheran  view.  Zahn,  in  Expositor,  March,  1898 : 
216-283  —  "  If  Jesus  was  truly  man,  then  his  soul,  after  it  left  the  body,  entered  into  the 
fellowship  of  departed  spirits.  .  .  .  If  Jesus  is  he  who  lives  forcvermore  and  even  his 
dying  was  his  act,  this  tarrying;  in  the  realm  of  the  dead  cannot  be  thought  of  as  a 

purely  passive  condition,  but  must  have  been  known  to  those  who  dwelt  there 

If  Jesus  was  the  Redeemer  of  mankind,  the  generations  of  those  who  had  passed  away 
must  have  thus  been  brought  into  personal  relation  to  him,  his  work  and  his  kingdom, 
without  waiting  for  the  last  day." 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  662  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4  :  127 ),  thinks  "  Christ's  descent  into 
Hades  marks  a  new  era  of  his  pneumatic  life,  in  which  he  shows  himself  free  from  the 
limitations  of  time  and  space."  He  rejects  "Luther's  notion  of  a  merely  triumphal 
progress  and  proclamation  of  Christ.  Before  Christ,"  he  says,  "there  was  no  abode 
peopled  by  the  damned.  The  descent  was  an  application  of  the  benefit  of  the  atone- 
ment (implied  in  Krjpvao-mv ).  The  work  was  prophetic,  not  high-priestly  nor  kingly. 
Going  to  the  spirits  in  prison  is  spoken  of  as  a  spontaneous  act,  not  one  of  physical 
necessity.  No  power  of  Hades  led  him  over  into  Hades.  Deliverance  from  the 
limitations  of  a  mortal  body  is  already  an  indication  of  a  higher  stage  of  existence. 
Christ's  soul  is  bodiless  for  a  time  —  irreO^a  only  —  as  the  departed  were. 

"  The  ceasing  of  this  preaching  is  neither  recorded,  nor  reasonably  to  be  supposed, 

—  indeed  the  ancient  church  supposed  it  carried  on  through  the  apostles.  It  expresses 
the  universal  significance  of  Christ  for  former  generations  and  for  the  entire  kingdom 
of  the  dead.  No  physical  power  is  a  limit  to  him.  The  gates  of  hell,  or  Hades,  shall  not 
prevail  over  or  against  him.     The  intermediate  state  is  one  of  blessedness  for  him,  and 


708  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION". 

be  can  admit  the  penitent  thief  into  it.  Even  those  who  were  not  laid  hold  of  by 
Christ's  historic  manifestation  in  this  earthly  life  still  must,  and  may,  be  brought  into 
relation  with  him,  in  order  to  be  able  to  accept  or  to  reject  him.  And  thus  the  universal 
relation  of  Christ  to  humanity  and  the  absoluteness  of  the  Christian  religion  are  con- 
firmed."   So  Dorner,  for  substance. 

All  this  versus  Strauss,  who  thought  that  the  dying-  of  vast  masses  of  men,  before  and 
after  Christ,  who  had  not  been  brought  into  relation  to  Christ,  proves  that  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  because  not  universal.  For  advocacy  of 
Christ's  preaching  to  the  dead,  see  also  Jahrbuch  f  iir  d.  Theol.,  23 :  177-238 ;  W.  W.  Pat- 
ton,  in  N.  Eng.,  July,  1882  :  460-478 ;  John  Miller,  Problems  Suggested  by  the  Bible,  part 
1 :  93-98 ;  part  2  :  38 ;  Plumptre,  The  Spirits  in  Prison ;  Kendrick,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  Apl.  1888 ; 
Clemen,  Niedergefahren  zu  den  Toten. 

For  the  opposite  view,  see  "  No  Preaching  to  the  Dead,"  in  Princeton  Rev.,  March, 
1875  :  197 ;  1878  :  451-491 ;  Hovey,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  4  :  486  sq.,  and  Bib.  Eschatology,  97-107  ; 
Love,  Christ's  Preaching  to  the  Spirits  in  Prison  ;  Cowles,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1875 :  401 ;  Hodge, 
Syst.  Theol.,  2:616-022;  Salmond,  in  Popular  Commentary;  and  Johnstone,  Com.,  in 
loco.  So  Augustine,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Bishop  Pearson.  See  also  E.  D.  Morris,  Is 
There  Salvation  after  Death  ?  and  Wright,  Relation  of  Death  to  Probation,  22  :  28  — "  If 
Christ  preached  to  spirits  in  Hades,  it  may  have  been  to  demonstrate  the  hopelessness  of 
adding  in  the  other  world  to  the  privileges  enjoyed  in  this.  We  do  not  read  that  it  had 
any  favorable  effect  upon  the  hearers.  If  men  will  not  hear  Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
then  they  will  not  hear  one  risen  from  the  dead.  '  To-day  thou  shalt  be  w.th  me  in  Paradise '  (  Lake 
23  :  43)  was  not  comforting,  if  Christ  was  going  that  day  to  the  realm  of  lost  spirits.  The 
antediluvians,  however,  were  specially  favored  with  Noah's  preaching,  and  were  spe- 
cially wicked." 

For  full  statement  of  the  view  presented  in  the  text,  that  the  preaching  referred  to  was 
the  preaching  of  Christ  as  preexisting  Logos  to  the  spirits,  now  in  prison,  when  once 
they  were  disobedient  in  the  days  of  Noah,  see  Bartlett,  in  New  Englander,  Oct.  1872 : 
601  sq.,  and  in  Bib.  Sac,  Apr.  1883  :  333-373.  Before  giving  the  substance  of  Bartlett 's 
exposition,  we  transcribe  in  full  the  passage  in  question,  1  Pet.  3  :  18  20  —  "Because  Christ  also 
suffered  for  sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he  might  br.ng  us  to  God  ;  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh, 
but  made  alive  in  the  spirit ;  in  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison,  that  aforetime  were  dis- 
obedient, when  the  longsuffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah." 

Bartlett  expounds  as  follows:  "  'In  which'  [  Trreu/xcm,  divine  nature  ]' he  went  and  preached 
to  the  spirits  in  prison  when  once  they  disobeyed.'  a.inidrlaa.<ji.v  is  circumstantial  aorist,  indicating  the 
time  of  the  preaching  as  a  definite  past.  It  is  an  anarthrous  dative,  as  in  Luke  8 :  27 ;  Mat.  8 : 
23 ;  Acts  15 :  25 ;  22 :  17.  It  is  an  appositive,  or  predicative,  participle.  [  That  the  aorist  par- 
ticiple does  not  necessarily  describe  an  action  preliminary  to  that  of  the  principal  verb 
appears  from  its  use  in  verso  18  ( iWaTwAsis  ),  in  1  Thess.  1  :  6  (  Sefa/aevot ),  and  in  Col.  2  :  11, 13.] 
The  connection  of  thought  is :  Peter  exhorts  his  readers  to  endure  suffering  bra\  ely, 
because  Christ  did  so,— in  his  lower  nature  being  put  to  death,  in  his  higher  nature 
enduring  the  opposition  of  sinners  before  the  flood.  Sinners  of  that  time  only  are  men- 
tioned, because  this  permits  an  introduction  of  the  subsequent  reference  to  baptism. 
Cf.  Gen.  6  :  3  ;  1  Pet  1 :  10, 11 ;  2  Pet.2  :  4,  5." 

( b  )     The  ascension  and  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

As  the  resurrection  proclaimed  Christ  to  men  as  the  perfected  and  glori- 
fied man,  the  conqueror  of  sin  and  lord  of  death,  the  ascension  Tjroclainied 
him  to  the  universe  as  the  reinstated  God,  the  possessor  of  universal 
dominion,  the  omnipresent  object  of  worship  and  hearer  of  prayer.  Dex- 
tra  Dei  ubique  est. 

Mat.  28  :  18,  20  —  "All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 

even  un:o  the  end  of  the  world  "  ;  Mark  16  :  19  —  "  So  then  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he  had  spoken  unto  them,  was  received 
up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God"  ;  Acts  7  :  55  —  "But  he,  being  full  of  tho  Holy  Spirit,  looked 
up  stedfastly  into  heaven,  and  saw  the  glory  of  God,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God  "  ;  2  Cor.  13  :  4  — "  he 
was  crucified  through  weakness,  yet  he  liveth  through  the  power  of  God  "  ;  Eph.  1  :  22,  23  —  "he  put  all  things  in  sub- 
jection under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that 
filleth  all  in  all "  ;  4  :  10  —  "  le  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  far  above  all  the  heavens,  that  he  might 
fill  all  things,"     Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  4  :  184-189  —  "  Before  the  resurrection,  Christ  was 

the  God-man ;  since  the  resurrection,  he  is  the  Uod-m&n He  ate  with  his  di«ciples, 

not  to  show  the  quality,  but  the  reality,  of  his  human  body."    Nicoll,  Life  of  Christ: 


THE   STATE   OF   EXALTATION.  709 

"It  was  hard  for  Elijah  to  ascend"— it  required  chariot  and  horses  of  Are—  "but  it  was 
easier  for  Christ  to  ascend  than  to  descend,"  —  there  was  a  gravitation  upwards.  Mac- 
laren  :  "  He  has  not  left  the  world,  though  he  has  ascended  to  the  Father,  any  more  than 
he  left  the  Father  when  he  came  int&  the  world  "  ;  John  1 :  18  —  "the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father  "  ;  3  :  13  —  "the  Son  of  mac,  who  is  in  heaven." 

We  are  compelled  here  to  consider  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  the  humanity  to  the 
Logos  in  the  state  of  exaltation.  The  Lutherans  maintain  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's 
human  body,  and  they  make  it  the  basis  of  their  doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  Dorner, 
Glaubenslehre,  2 :  674-676  (  Syst.  Doct.,  4  :  138-142 ),  holds  to  "  a  presence,  not  simply  of 
the  Logos,  but  of  the  whole  God-man,  with  all  his  people,  but  not  necessarily  likewise 
a  similar  presence  in  the  world  ;  in  other  words,  his  presence  is  morally  conditioned  by 
men's  receptivity."  The  old  theologians  said  that  Christ  is  not  in  heaven,  quasi  career* . 
Calvin,  Institutes,  2:15  —  he  is  "  incarnate,  but  not  incarcerated."  He  has  gone  into 
heaven,  the  place  of  spirits,  and  he  manifests  himself  there;  but  he  has  also  gone  far 
above  all  heavens,  that  he  may  fill  all  things.  He  is  with  his  people  alway.  All  power 
is  given  into  his  hand.  The  church  is  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.  So  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  speak  constantly  of  the  Son  of  man,  of  the  man  Jesus  as  God,  ever 
present,  the  object  of  worship,  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  having  all  the  powers 
and  prerogatives  of  Deity.  See  Westeott,  Bible  Com.,  on  John  20  :  22  —  "he  breathed  on  them, 
and  saith  nnto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit" — "The  characteristic  effect  of  the  Paschal  gift  was 
shown  in  the  new  faith  by  which  the  disciples  were  gathered  into  a  living  society ;  the 
characteristic  effect  of  the  Pentecostal  gift  was  shown  in  the  exercise  of  supremacy 
potentially  universal." 

Who  and  what  is  this  Christ  who  is  present  with  his  people  when  they  pray  ?  It  is  not 
enough  to  say.  He  is  simply  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  "  Spirit  of  Christ " 
(  Rom,  8:9),  and  in  having  the  Holy  Spirit  we  have  Christ  himself  (John  16:7— "I  will  send  him 
[the  Comforter]  unto  you'  ;  14  :  18 — "I  come  unto  you").  The  Christ,  who  is  thus  present  with 
us  when  we  pray,  is  not  simply  the  Logos,  or  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,— his  humanity 
being  separated  from  the  divinity  and  being  localized  in  heaven,  This  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  his  promise,  "Lo,  lam  with  you,"  in  which  the  "I"  that  spoke  was  not  simply 
Deity,  but  Deity  and  humanity  inseparably  united;  and  it  would  deny  the  real  and 
indissoluble  union  of  the  two  natures.  The  elder  brother  and  sympathizing  Savior  win . 
is  with  us  when  we  pray  is  man,  as  well  as  God.  This  manhood  is  therefore  ubiquitous 
by  virtue  of  its  union  with  the  Godhead. 

But  this  is  not  to  say  that  Christ 's  human  body  is  everywhere  present.  It  would  seem 
that  body  must  exist  in  spatial  relations,  and  be  confined  to  place.  We  do  not  know 
that  this  is  so  with  regard  to  soul.  Heaven  would  seem  to  be  a  place,  because  Christ's 
body  is  there;  and  a  spiritual  body  is  not  a  body  which  is  spirit,  but  a  body  which  is 
suited  to  the  uses  of  the  spirit.  But  even  though  Christ  may  manifest  himself,  in  a 
glorified  human  body,  only  in  heaven,  his  human  soul,  by  virtue  of  its  union  with  the 
divine  nature,  can  at  the  same  moment  be  with  all  his  scattered  people  over  the  whole 
earth.  As,  in  the  days  of  his  tlesh,  his  humanity  was  confined  to  place,  while  as  to  his 
Deity  he  could  speak  of  the  Son  of  man  who  is  in  heaven,  so  now,  although  his  human 
body  may  be  confined  to  place,  his  human  soul  is  ubiquitous.  Humanity  can  exist 
without  body :  for  during  the  three  days  in  the  sepulchre,  Christ's  body  was  on  earth, 
but  Ins  soul  was  in  the  other  world  ;  and  in  like  manner  there  is,  during  the  interme- 
diate state,  a  separation  of  the  soul  and  the  body  of  believers.  But  humanity  cannot 
exist  without  soul ;  and  if  the  human  Savior  is  with  us,  then  his  humanity,  at  least  so 
far  as  respects  its  immaterial  part,  must  be  everywhere  present.  Per  contra,  see  Shedd, 
Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  326,  327.  Since  Christ's  human  nature  has  derivatively  become  pos- 
sessed of  divine  attributes,  there  is  no  validity  in  the  notion  of  a  progressiveness  in 
that  nature,  now  that  it  has  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God.  See  Philippi,  Glaub- 
enslehre, 4  :  131 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  558,  576. 

Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  327  —  "  Suppose  the  presence  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
in  the  soul  of  a  believer  in  London.  This  divine  nature  is  at  the  same  moment  conjoined 
with,  and  present  to,  and  mollified  by,  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  which  is  in  heaven 
and  not  in  London."  So  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.,  54,  55,  and  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "Christ  is  in 
heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  interceding  for  us,  while  he  is  present  in  the 
church  by  his  Spirit.  We  pray  to  the  thcanthropic  Jesus.  Possession  of  a  human  body 
does  not  now  constitute  a  limitation.  We  know  little  of  the  nature  of  the  present  body." 
We  add  to  this  last  excellent  remark  the  expression  of  our  own  conviction  that  the 
modern  conception  of  the  merely  relative  nature  of  space,  and  the  idealistic  view  of 
matter  as  only  the  expression  of  mind  and  will,  have  relieved  this  subject  of  many  of 


710  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION". 

its  former  difficulties.  If  Christ  is  omnipresent  and  if  his  body  is  simply  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  soul,  then  every  soul  may  feel  the  presence  of  his  humanity  even  now  and 
"every  eye"  may  "see  him"  at  his  second  coming',  even  though  believers  may  be  separated 
as  far  as  is  Boston  from  Pekin.  The  body  from  which  his  glory  flashes  forth,  may  be 
visible  in  ten  thousand  places  at  the  same  time ;  ( Mat.  28  :  20 ;  Rev,  1:7). 


SECTION   IV. — THE    OFFICES   OF     CHRIST. 

The  Scriptures  represent  Christ's  offices  as  three  in  number, — prophetic, 
priestly,  and  kingly.  Although  these  terms  are  derived  from  concrete 
human  relations,  they  express  perfectly  distinct  ideas.  The  prophet,  the 
priest,  and  the  king,  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  detached  but  designed 
prefigurations  of  him  who  should  combine  all  these  various  activities  in 
himself,  and  should  furnish  the  ideal  reality,  of  which  they  were  the 
imperfect  symbols. 

1  Cor.  1 :  30  — "  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  and  redemption."  Here  "wisdom"  seems  to  indicate  the  prophetic,  "righteousness"  (  or  "justi- 
fication" )  the  priestly,  and  "  sanctification  and  redemption  "  the  kingly  work  of  Christ.  Denovan : 
"  Three  offices  are  necessary.  Christ  must  be  a  prophet,  to  save  us  from  the  ignorance 
of  sin ;  a  priest,  to  save  us  from  its  guilt ;  a  king,  to  save  us  from  its  dominion  in  our 
flesh.  Our  faith  cannot  have  firm  basis  in  any  one  of  these  alone,  any  more  than  a  stool 
can  stand  on  less  than  three  legs."  See  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  583-586;  Archer 
Butler,  Sermons,  1 :  314. 

A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  235— "For  'office,'  there  are  two  words  in  Latin: 
nut ii ».s  =  position  (of  Mediator),  and  officio,  =  functions  (of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King). 
They  are  not  separate  offices,  as  are  those  of  President,  Chief -Justice,  and  Senator. 
They  are  not  separate  functions,  capable  of  successive  and  isolated  performance.  They 
are  rather  like  the  several  functions  of  the  one  living  human  body  —  lungs,  heart,  brain 
—  functionally  distinct,  yet  interdependent,  and  together  constituting  one  life.  So  the 
functions  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  mutually  imply  one  another :  Christ  is  always  a 
prophetical  Priest,  and  a  priestly  Prophet ;  and  he  is  always  a  royal  Priest,  and  a 
priestly  King ;  and  together  they  accomplish  one  redemption,  to  which  all  are  equaDy 
essential.    Christ  is  both  ^(tLt^  and  napanKriTos." 

I.     The  Prophetic  Office  of  Christ. 

1.     The  nature  of  Christ's  'prophetic  work. 

(a)  Here  we  must  avoid  the  narrow  interpretation  which  would  make 
the  prophet  a  mere  foreteller  of  future  events.  He  was  rather  an  inspired 
interpreter  or  revealer  of  the  divine  wiU,  a  medium  of  communication 
between  God  and  men  ( npo^r/rr/c  =  not  foreteller,  but  forteller,  or  f orth- 
teller.  Cf.  Gen.  20  :  7,— of  Abraham  ;  Ps.  105  :  15,— of  the  patriarchs  ; 
Mat.  11  :  9,— of  John  the  Baptist ;  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  Eph.  2  :  20,  and  3  :  5,— 
of  N.  T.  expounders  of  Scripture). 

Gen.  20  :  7  — "  restore  the  man's  wife ;  for  he  is  a  prophet "  —  spoken  of  Abraham  ;  Ps.  105 :  15  —  "  Touch  not 
mine  anointed  ones,  And  do  my  prophets  no  harm  " —  spoken  of  the  patriarchs ;  Mat.  11 :  9  —  "  But  wherefore 
went  ye  out  ?  to  see  a  prophet  ?  Tea,  I  say  unto  you,  and  much  more  than  a  prophet "  —  spoken  of  John  the 
Baptist,  from  whom  we  have  no  recorded  predictions,  and  whose  pointing  to  Jesus  as 
the  "Lamb  of  God"  (John  1:29)  was  apparently  but  an  echo  of  Isaiah  53.  1  Cor.  12:  28  — "first  apostles, 
secondly  prophets  "  ;  Eph.  2 :  20— "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  " ;  3:5  —  "revealed  unto  his 
holy  apostles  and  prophets  in  the  Spirit"— all  these  latter  texts  speaking  of  New  Testament 
expounders  of  Scripture. 

Any  organ  of  divine  revelation,  or  medium  of  divine  communication,  is  a  prophet. 
"  Hence,"  says  Philippi,  "the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  are  called 
'prophetce  priorcs,'  or  'the  earlier  prophets.'    Bernard's  Bespice,  Aspice,  Prospice 


THE    PROPHETIC    OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  711 

describes  the  work  of  the  prophet ;  for  the  prophet  might  see  and  might  disclose  things 
in  the  past,  things  in  the  present,  or  things  in  the  future.  Daniel  was  a  prophet,  in 
telling  Nebuchadnezzar  what  his  dream  had  been,  as  well  as  in  telling  its  interpretation 
(Dan.  2:28,36).  The  woman  of  Samaxife rightly  called  Christ  a  prophet,  when  he  told 
her  all  things  that  ever  she  did  (John  4:29)."  On  the  work  of  the  prophet,  see  Stanley, 
Jewish  Church,  1 :  491. 

(  b  )  The  prophet  commonly  united  three  methods  of  f ulfilling  his  office, 
—  those  of  teaching,  predicting,  and  miracle-working.  In  all  these  respects, 
Jesns  Christ  did  the  work  of  a  prophet  (  Dent.  18  :  15  ;  cf.  Acts  3  :  22  ; 
Mat.  13  :57;  Luke  13  :  33  ;  John  6  :14).  He  taught  (Mat.  5-7),  he 
uttered  predictions  (Mat.  24  and  25 ),  he  wrought  miracles  ( Mat.  8 and  9 ), 
while  in  his  person,  his  life,  his  work,  and  his  death,  he  revealed  the  Father 
(John  8  :26;  14  :  9  ;  17  :  8  ). 

Dent.  18  :  15  —  "  Jehovah  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet,  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto 
me;  unto  him  shall  ye  hearken  "  ;  cf.  Acts  3:  22  —  where  this  prophecy  is  said  to  tic  fulfilled  in  Christ. 
Jesus  calls  himself  a  prophet  in  Mat.  13  :57 — "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save  in  his  own  country,  and 
in  his  own  house  " ;  Luke  13  :  33  — "  Nevertheless  I  must  go  on  my  way  to-day  and  to-morrow  and  the  day  following : 
for  it  cannot  he  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem."  He  was  called  a  prophet:  John  6  :  14 — "When  there- 
fore the  people  saw  the  sign  which  he  did,  they  said,  This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet  that  cometh  into  the  world."  John  8  : 
26 — "the  things  which  I  heard  from  him  [the  Father'),  these  speak  I  unto  the  world  " ;  14  :  9 — "he  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  ;  17:8  —  "the  words  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  unto  them." 

Denovan  :  "Christ  teaches  us  by  his  word,  his  Spirit,  bis  example."  Christ's  miracles 
were  mainly  miracles  of  healing'.  "Only  sickness  is  contagious  with  us.  But  Christ, 
was  an  example  of  perfect  health,  and  his  health  was  contagious.  By  its  overflow, 
lie  healed  others.    Only  a  '  touch '(  Mat.  9:21)  was  necessary." 

Edwin  P.  Parker,  on  Horace  Husiinell :  "  The  t  wo  fundamental  elements  of  prophecy 
are  insight  and  expression.  Christian  prophecy  implies  insighl  or  discernment  of  spirit- 
ual things  by  divine  illumination,  and  expression  of  them,  by  inspiration,  in  terms  of 
Christian  truth  or  in  the  tones  and  cadences  of  <  hristian  testimony.  We  may  define  it, 
then,  as  the  publication,  under  the  impulse  of  inspiration,  and  for  edification,  of  truths 
perceived  by  divine  illumination,  apprehended  by  faith,  and  assimilated  by  experience. 
.  .  .  It  requires  a  natural  basis  and  rational  preparation  in  the  human  mind,  a  suitable 
stock  of  natural  gifts  on  which  to  graft  the  spirit  ual  gift  for  support  and  nourishment. 
These  gifts  have  had  devout  culture.  They  have  been  crowned  by  illuminations  and 
inspirations.  Because  insight  gives  foresight,  the  prophet  will  be  a  seer  of  things  as 
they  are  unfolding  and  becoming ;  will  discern  far-signalings  and  intimations  of  Provi- 
de -nee  ;  will  forerun  men  to  prepare  the  way  for  them,  and  them  for  the  way  of  God's 
coming  kingdom." 

2.     The  stages  of  Chris? 8  prophetic  work. 

These  are  four,  namely : 

(a)  The  preparatory  work  of  the  Logos,  in  enlightening  mankind  before 
the  time  of  Christ's  advent  in  the  flesh.  —  All  preliminary  religious  knowl- 
edge, whether  within  or  without  the  bounds  of  the  chosen  people,  is  from 
Christ,  the  revealer  of  God. 

Christ's  prophetic  work  began  before  he  came  in  the  flesh.  John  1:9—"  There  was  the  tme 
light,  even  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man,  coming  into  the  world  "  =  all  the  natural  light  of  con- 
science, science,  philosophy,  art,  civilization,  is  the  light  of  Christ.  Tennyson:  "Our 
little  systems  have  their  day,  They  have  their  day  and  cease  to  be ;  They  are  but  broken 
lights  of  thee,  And  thou,  O  Lord,  art  more  than  they."    Heb.  12  :  25,  26 — "See  that  ye  refuse  not 

him  that  speaketh whose  voice  then  [  at  Sinai  ]  shook  the  earth :  but  now  he  hath  promised,  saying,  Yet  once 

more  will  I  make  to  tremble  not  the  earth  only,  but  also  the  heaven"  ;  Luke  11 :  49  —  "  Therefore  said  the  wisdom  of 
God,  I  will  send  unto  them  prophets  and  apostles  "  ;  cf.  Mat.  23 :  34  —  "  behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets,  and  wise 
men,  and  scribes :  some  of  them  shall  ye  kill  and  crucify  "  — which  shows  that  Jesus  was  referring  to 
his  own  teachings,  as  well  as  to  those  of  the  earlier  prophets. 

(ft)  The  earthly  ministry  of  Christ  incarnate.  — In  his  earthly  ministry, 
Christ  showed  himself  the  prophet  par  excellence.     While  he  submitted, 


712  CHRISTOLOGY,  .OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

like  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  to  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  unlike 
them,  he  found  the  sources  of  all  knowledge  and  power  within  himself. 
The  word  of  God  did  not  come  to  him,  — he  was  himself  the  "Word. 

Luke  6  :  19  — "And  all  the  multitude  sought  to  touch  him  ;  for  power  came  forth  from  him,  and  healed  them  all " ; 
John  2:11  —  "  This  beginning  of  his  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  h  is  glory  "  ;  8  :  38,  58  —  "I 
speak  the  things  which  I  have  seen  with  my  Father  ....  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am"  ;  cf.  Jer.  2:1  —  "the 
word  of  Jehovah  came  to  me  "  :  John  1:1  —  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  Mat.  26  :  53  —  "  twelve  legions  of 
angels "  ;  John  10  :  18  —  of  his  life  :  "I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again  " ;  34  —  "Is 
it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods  ?  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came  .  .  .  , 
say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  ot 
God?"  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  295-301,  says  of  Jesus'  teaching  that  "  its  source  was  not 
inspiration,  but  incarnation."  Jesus  was  not  inspired,  —  he  was  the  Inspirer.  There- 
fore he  is  the  true  "Master  of  those  who  know."  His  disciples  act  in  his  name ;  he  acts 
in  his  own  name. 

(  c )  The  guidance  and  teaching  of  his  church  on  earth,  since  his  ascen- 
sion.—  Christ's  prophetic  activity  is  continued  through  the  preaching  of 
his  apostles  and  ministers,  and  by  the  enlightening  influences  of  his  Holy 
Spirit  (  John  16  :  12-14  ;  Acts  1:1).  The  apostles  unfolded  the  germs  of 
doctrine  put  into  their  hands  by  Christ.  The  church  is,  in  a  derivative 
sense,  a  prophetic  institution,  established  to  teach  the  world  by  its  preach- 
ing and  its  ordinances.  But  Christians  are  prophets,  only  as  being  pro- 
claimers  of  Christ's  teaching  ( Num.  11  :  29  ;  Joel  2  :  28  ). 

John  16  :  12-14  —  "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit  when  he,  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth.  ....  He  shall  glorify  me :  for  he  shall  take  of  mine  and 
shall  declare  it  unto  you  "  ;  Acts  1:1  —  "The  former  treatise  I  made,  0  Theophilus,  concerning  all  that  Jesus  began  both 
to  do  and  to  teach  "  =  Christ's  prophetic  work  was  only  begun,  during  his  earthly  ministry ; 
it  is  continued  since  his  ascension.  The  inspiration  of  the  apostles,  the  illumination  of 
all  preachers  and  Christians  to  understand  and  to  unfold  the  meaning  of  the  word  tliey 
wrote,  the  conviction  of  sinners,  and  the  sanctifi cation  of  believers, —  all  these  are  parts 
of  Christ's  prophetic  work,  performed  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 

By  virtue  of  their  union  with  Christ  and  participation  in  Christ's  Spirit,  all  Christians 
are  made  in  a  secondary  sense  prophets,  as  well  as  priests  and  kings.  Num.  11 :  29 —  "Would 
that  all  Jehovah's  people  were  prophets,  that  Jehovah  would  put  his  Spirit  upon  them  "  ;  Joel  2  :  28  —  "I  will  pour  out 
my  spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy."  All  modern  prophecy  that  is 
true,  however,  is  but  the  republication  of  Christ's  message  —  the  proclamation  and 
expounding  of  truth  already  revealed  in  Scripture.  "All  so-called  new  prophecy,  from 
Montanus  to  Swedenborg,  proves  its  own  falsity  by  its  iack  of  attesting  miracles." 

A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  242—"  Every  human  prophet  presupposes  an  infinite 
eternal  divine  Prophet  from  whom  his  knowledge  is  received,  just  as  every  stream  pre- 
supposes a  fountain  from  which  it  flows As  the  telescope  of  highest  power  takes 

into  its  field  the  narrowest  segment  of  the  sky,  so  Christ  the  prophet  sometimes  gives 
the  intensest  insight  into  the  glowing  centre  of  the  heavenly  world  to  those  whom  this 
world  regards  as  unlearned  and  foolish,  and  the  church  recognizes  as  only  babes  in 
Christ." 

(d)  Christ's  final  revelation  of  the  Father  to  his  saints  in  glory  (  John 
16 :  25  ;  17  :  24,  26  ;  cf.  Is.  64  :  4  ;  1  Cor.  13  :  12).— Thus  Christ's  prophetic 
work  will  be  an  endless  one,  as  the  Father  whom  he  reveals  is  infinite. 

John  16  :  25  —  "  the  hour  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more  speak  unto  you  in  dark  sayings,  but  shall  tell  you  plainly  of 
the  Father"  ;  17:24  —  "I  desire  that  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with  me;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory,  which 
thou  hast  given  me  " ;  26  —  "  I  made  known  unto  them  thy  name,  and  will  make  it  known."  The  revelation  of 
his  own  glory  will  be  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  in  the  Son.  Is.  64 : 4  —  "  For  from  of  old  men 
have  not  heard,  nor  perceived  by  the  ear,  neither  hath  the  eye  seen  a  God  besides  thee,  who  worketh  for  him  that  waiteth 
for  him  "  ;  1  Cor.  13 :  12  —  "  now  we  see  in  a  mirror,  darkly ;  but  then  face  to  face  :  now  I  know  in  part ;  but  then 
shall  I  know  fully  even  as  also  I  was  fully  known."  Rev.  21 :  23  — "  And  the  city  hath  no  need  of  the  sun,  neither  of 
the  moon,  to  shine  upon  it :  for  the  glory  of  God  did  lighten  it,  and  the  lamp  thereof  is  the  Lamb  "  —  not  light,  but 
lamp.    Light  is  something  generally  diffused ;  one  sees  by  it,  but  one  cannot  see  it. 


THE    PRIESTLY   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  713 

Lamp  is  the  narrowing1  down,  the  concentrating,  the  focusing-  of  light,  so  that  the  light 
becomes  definite  and  visible.  So  in  heaven  Christ  will  be  the  visible  God.  We  shall 
never  see  the  Father  separate  from  Christ.  No  man  or  angel  has  at  any  time  seen  God, 
"  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see."  "  The  only  begotten  Son  ....  he  hath  declared  him,"  and  he  will  for- 
ever declare  him  ( John  1 :  18  ;  1  Tim.  6 :  16 ).     v 

The  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  modern  times,  so  far  as  they  are  joined  to  Christ  and 
possessed  by  his  spirit,  ha ve  a  right  to  call  themselves  prophets.  The  prophet  is  one  —  1. 
sent  by  God  and  conscious  of  his  mission;  2.  with  a  message  from  God  which  he  is 
under  compulsion  to  deliver ;  3.  a  message  grounded  in  the  truth  of  the  past,  setting  it 
in  new  lights  for  the  present,  and  making  new  applications  of  it  for  the  future.  The 
word  of  the  Lord  must  come  to  him  ;  it  must  be  Ms  gospel;  there  must  be  things  new 
as  well  as  old.  All  mathematics  are  in  the  simplest  axiom  ;  but  it  needs  divine  illumi- 
nation to  discover  them.  All  truth  was  in  Jesus'  words,  nay,  in  the  first  prophecy 
uttered  after  the  Fall,  but  only  the  apostles  brought  it  out.  The  prophet's  message 
must  be  4.  a  message  for  the  place  and  time  —  primarily  for  contemporaries  aud  present 
needs ;  5.  a  message  of  eternal  significance  and  worldwide  influence.  As  the  prophet's 
word  was  for  the  whole  world,  so  our  word  may  be  for  other  worlds,  that  "unto  the  princi- 
palities and  the  powers  in  the  heavenly  places  might  be  made  known  through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  " 
(Eph.  3:10).  It  must  be  also  6.  a  message  of  the  kingdom  and  triumph  of  Christ,  which 
puts  over  against  the  distractions  and  calamities  of  the  present  time  the  glowing  ideal 
and  the  perfect  consummation  to  which  God  is  leading  his  people:  " Blessed  be  the  glory  of 
Jehovah  from  his  place  "  ;  "  Jehovah  is  in  his  holy  temple:  let  all  the  earth  keep  silence  before  him"  (  Ez.  3  :  12  ;  Hab. 
2 :  20).  On  the  whole  subject  of  Christ's  prophetic  office,  see  Philippi,  Glaubeuslehre, 
IV,  2  :  24-27 ;  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ,  320-330 ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 : 3(16-370. 

II.    The  Priestly  Office  of  Chiust. 

The  priest  was  a  person  divinely  appointed  to  transact  with  God  on 
man's  behalf.  He  fulfilled  his  office,  first  by  offering  sacrifice,  and  secondly 
by  making  intercession.     In  both  these  respects  Christ  is  priest. 

Hebrews  7 :  24-28  —  "he,  because  he  abideth  forever,  hath  his  priesthood  unchangeable.  Wherefore  also  he  is  able  to 
save  to  the  uttermost  them  that  draw  near  unto  God  through  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them. 
For  such  a  high  priest  became  us,  holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separated  from  sinners,  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens  ; 
who  needeth  not  daily,  like  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacr.fices,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  tho  sins  of  the 
people :  for  this  he  did  once  for  all,  when  he  offered  up  himself.  For  the  law  appointeth  men  high  priests,  having 
infirmity ;  but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  after  the  law,  appointeth  a  Son,  perfected  for  evermore."  The  whole 
race  was  shut  out  from  God  by  its  sin.  But  God  chose  the  Israelites  as  a  priestly 
nation,  Levi  as  a  priestly  tribe,  Aaron  as  a  priestly  family,  the  high  priest  out  of  this 
family  as  type  of  the  great  high  priest,  Jesus  Christ.  J.  S.  Candlish,  in  Bib.  World, 
Feb.  1897:87-97,  cites  the  following  facts  with  regard  to  our  Lord's  sufferings  as  proofs 
of  the  doctrine  of  atonement, :  1.  Christ  gave  up  his  life  by  a  perfectly  free  act ;  2.  out 
of  regard  to  God  his  Father  and  obedience  to  his  will;  3.  the  bitterest  element  of  his 
suffering  was  that  he  endured  it  at  the  hand  of  God;  4.  this  divine  appointment  and 
infliction  of  suffering  is  inexplicable,  except  as  Christ  endured  the  divine  judgment 
against  the  sin  of  the  race. 

1.     Christ's  Sacrificial  Work,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement. 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  obeyed  and  suffered  in  our  stead,  to 
■satisfy  an  immanent  demand  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  thus  remove  an 
obstacle  in  the  divine  mind  to  the  pardon  and  restoration  of  the  guilty. 
This  statement  may  be  expanded  and  explained  in  a  preliminary  way  as 
follows :  — 

(  a )  The  fundamental  attribute  of  God  is  holiness,  and  holiness  is  not 
self-communicating  love,  but  self-affirrning  righteousness.  Holiness  limits 
and  conditions  love,  for  love  can  will  happiness  only  as  happiness  results 
from  or  consists  with  righteousness,  that  is,  with  conformity  to  God. 

We  have  shown  in  our  discussion  of  the  divine  attributes  ( vol.  1,  pages  268-275 )  that, 
holiness  is  neither  self-love  nor  love,  but  self -affirming  purity  and  right.  Those  who 
maintain  that  love  is  self-affirming  as  well  as  self-communicating,  and  therefore  that 


714  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

holiness  is  God's  love  for  himself ,  must  still  admit  that  this  self-anirming  love  which  is 
holiness  conditions  and  furnishes  the  standard  for  the  self-communicating-  love  which 
is  benevolence.  But  we  hold  that  holiness  is  not  identical  with,  nor  a  manifestation 
of,  love.  Since  self-maintenance  must  precede  self-iiupartation  ;  and  since  benevolence 
finds  its  object,  motive,  standard,  and  limit  in  righteousness,  holiness,  the  self-affirming 
attribute,  can  in  no  way  be  resolved  into  love,  the  self-communicating.  God  must 
first  maintain  his  own  being  before  he  can  give  to  another;  and  this  self -maintenance 
must  have  its  reason  and  motive  in  the  worth  of  that  which  is  maintained.  Holiness 
cannot  be  love,  because  love  is  irrational  and  capricious  except  as  it  has  a  standard  by 
which  it  is  regulated,  and  this  standard  cannot  be  itself  love,  but  must  be  holiness.  To 
make  holiness  a  form  of  love  is  really  to  deny  its  existence,  and  with  this  to  deny  that 
any  atonement  is  necessary  for  man's  salvation. 

(  b )  The  universe  is  a  reflection  of  God,  and  Christ  the  Logos  is  its  life. 
God  has  constituted  the  universe,  and  humanity  as  a  part  of  it,  so  as  to 
exjjress  his  holiness,  positively  by  connecting  happiness  with  righteous- 
ness, negatively  by  attaching  unhappiness  or  suffering  to  sin. 

We  have  seen,  in  vol.  I,  pages  109,  309-311,  335-338,  that  since  Christ  is  the  Logos,  the 
immanent  God,  God  revealed  in  nature,  in  humanity,  and  in  redemption,  the  universe 
must  be  recognized  as  created,  upheld  and  governed  by  the  same  Being  who  in  the 
course  of  history  was  manifest  in  human  form  and  who  made  atonement  for  human 
sin  by  his  death  on  Calvary.  As  all  God's  creative  activity  has  been  exercised  through 
Christ  (  vol.  I,  page  310 ),  so  it  is  Christ  in  whom  all  things  consist  or  are  held  tog-ether 
( vol.  I,  page  311 ).  Providence,  as  well  as  preservation,  is  his  work.  He  makes  the 
universe  to  reflect  God,  and  especially  God's  ethical  nature.  That  pain  or  loss  univer- 
sally and  inevitably  follow  sin  is  the  proof  that  God  is  unalterably  opposed  to  moral 
evil ;  and  the  demands  and  reproaches  of  conscience  witness  that  holiness  is  the  funda- 
mental attribute  of  God's  being. 

(c)  Christ  the  Logos,  as  the  Revealer  of  God  in  the  universe  and  in 
humanity,  must  condemn  sin  by  visiting  upon  it  the  suffering  which  is  its 
penalty  ;  while  at  the  same  time,  as  the  Life  of  humanity,  he  must  endure 
the  reaction  of  God's  holiness  against  sin  which  constitutes  that  penalty. 

Here  is  a  double  work  of  Christ  which  Paul  distinctly  declares  in  Rom.  8 :  3  —  "  For  what 
the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and 
for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh."  The  meaning  is  that  God  did  through  Christ  what  the  law 
could  not  do,  namely,  accomplish  deliverance  for  humanity;  and  did  this  by  sending 
his  son  in  a  nature  which  in  us  is  identified  with  sin.  In  connection  with  sin  ( irtp\  ajuap- 
ria?  ),  and  as  an  offering  for  siu,  God  condemned  sin,  by  condemning  Christ.  Exposi- 
tor's Greek  Testament,  in  loco :  "  When  the  question  is  asked,  In  what  sense  did  God 
send  his  Son  '  in  connection  with  sin',  there  is  only  one  answer  possible.  He  sent  him 
to  expiate  sin  by  his  sacrificial  death.  This  is  t  he  cent  re  and  foundation  of  Paul's  gos- 
pel;  see  Rom.  3:25s<j."  But  whatever  God  did  in  condemning  sin  he  did  through  Christ; 
"  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself"  ( 2  Cor.  5 :  19 ) ;  Christ  was  the  condemner,  as  well 
as  the  condemned;  conscience  in  us,  which  unites  the  accuser  and  the  accused,  shows 
us  how  Christ  could  be  both  the  Judge  and  the  Sin-bearer. 

( d )  Our  personality  is  not  self-contained.  We  live,  move,  and  have  our 
being  naturally  in  Christ  the  Logos.  Our  reason,  affection,  conscience, 
and  will  are  complete  only  in  him.  He  is  generic  humanity,  of  which  we 
are  the  offshoots.  When  his  righteousness  condemns  sin,  and  his  love  vol- 
untarily endures  the  suffering  which  is  sin's  penalty,  humanity  ratifies  the 
judgment  of  God,  makes  full  propitiation  for  sin,  and  satisfies  the  demands 
of  holiness. 

My  personal  existence  is  grounded  in  God.  I  cannot  perceive  the  world  outside  of 
me  nor  recognize  the  existence  of  my  fellow  men,  except  as  he  bridges  the  gulf  between 
me  and  the  universe.  Complete  self-consciousness  would  be  impossible  if  we  did  not 
partake  of  the  universal  Reason.  The  smallest  child  makes  assumptions  and  uses  pro- 
cesses of  logic  which  are  all  instinctive,  but  which  indicate  the  working  in  him  of  an 


THE    PRIESTLY    OFFICE    OF    CHRIST.  715 

absolute  and  infinite  Intelligence.  True  love  is  possible  only  as  find's  love  flows  into 
us  anil  takes  possession  of  us;  so  that  the  poet  can  truly  say:  "Our  loves  in  higher 
love  endure."  No  human  will  is  truly  free,  unless  God  emancipates  it ;  only  he  w  Ik  mi 
the  Son  of  God  makes  free  is  free  ind^'d  ;  "work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for 
it  is  God  who  workoth  in  yon  both  to  will  and  to  work"  (  Phil.  2  :  12, 13 ).  Our  moral  nature,  even  more 
than  our  intellectual  nature,  witnesses  that  we  are  not  sufficient  to  ourselves,  but  are 
complete  only  in  him  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  ( Col.  2 :  10 ;  Acts  17 :  28 ). 
No  man  can  make  a  conscience  for  himself.  There  is  a  common  conscience,  over  and 
above  the  finite  and  individual  conscience.  That  common  conscience  is  one  in  all  moral 
beings.  John  Watson  :  "There  is  no  consciousness  of  self  apart  from  the  conscious- 
ness of  other  selves  and  things,  and  no  consciousness  of  the  world  apart  from  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  single  Reality  presupposed  in  both."  This  single  Reality  is  Jesus 
Christ,  the  manifested  God,  the  Light  that  lighteth  every  man,  and  the  Life  of  all  that 
lives  (John  1 : 4,  9 ).  He  can  represent  humanity  before  God,  because  his  immanent  Deity 
constitutes  the  very  essence  of  humanity. 

(  e )  While  Christ's  love  explains  his  willingness  to  endure  suffering  for 
us,  only  his  holiness  furnishes  the  reason  for  that  constitution  of  the  uni- 
verse and  of  human  nature  which  makes  this  suffering  necessary.  As 
respects  us,  his  sufferings  are  substitutionary,  since  his  divinity  and  his 
siulessness  enable  him  to  do  for  us  what  we  could  never  do  for  ourselves. 
Yet  this  substitution  is  also  a  sharing  —  not  the  work  of  one  external  to  us, 
but  of  one  who  is  the  life  of  humanity,  the  soul  of  our  soul  and  the  life  of 
our  life,  and  so  responsible  with  us  for  the  sins  of  the  race. 

Most  of  the  recent  treatises  on  the  Atonement  have  \>een  descriptions  of  the  effects 
of  the  Atonement  upon  life  and  character,  but  have  thrown  no  light  upon  the  Atone- 
ment itself,  if  indeed  they  have  not  denied  its  existence.  We  must  not  emphasize  the 
effects  by  ignoring  the  cause.  Scripture  declares  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  Atonement 
to  be  that  God  "might  himself  be  just"  ( Rom.  3 :26) ;  and  no  theory  of  the  atonement  will  meet 
the  demands  of  reason  or  conscience  that  does  not  ground  its  necessity  in  God's  right- 
eousness, rat  her  than  in  his  love.  We  acknowledge  that  our  conceptions  of  atonement 
have  suffered  some  change.  To  our  lathers  the  atonement  was  a  mere  historical  fact, 
a  sacrifice  offered  in  a  few  brief  hours  upon  the  Cross.  It  was  a  literal  substitution  of 
Christ's  suffering  for  ours,  the  payment  of  our  debt  by  another,  and  upon  the  ground 
of  that  payment  we  are  permitted  to  go  free.  Those  Bufferings  were  soon  over,  and 
the  hymn,  "  Love's  Redeeming  Work  is  Done,"  expressed  the  believer's  joy  in  a  finished 
redemption.  Ami  all  this  is  true.  But  it  is  only  a  part  of  the  truth.  The  atonement, 
like  every  other  doctrine  of  Christianity,  is  a  fact  of  life;  and  such  facts  of  life  cannot. 
be  crowded  into  our  definitions,  because  they  are  greater  than  any  definitions  that  we 
can  frame.  We  must  add  to  the  idea  of  substitution  the  idea  of  sharing.  Christ's  doing 
and  suffering  is  not  that  of  one  external  and  foreign  to  us.  He  is  hone  of  our  bone, 
and  flesh  of  our  flesh  ;  the  bearer  of  our  humanity  ;  yes,  the  very  life  of  the  race. 

(/)  The  historical  work  of  the  incarnate  Christ  is  not  itself  the  atone- 
ment,—  it  is  rather  the  revelation  of  the  atonement.  The  suffering  of  tho 
incarnate  Christ  is  the  manifestation  in  space  and  time  of  the  eternal  suf- 
fering of  God  on  account  of  human  sin.  Yet  without  the  historical 
work  which  was  finished  on  Calvary,  the  age-long  suffering  of  God  could 
never  have  been  made  comprehensible  to  men. 

The  life  that  Christ  lived  in  Palestine  and  the  death  that  he  endured  on  Calvary  were 
the  revelation  of  a  union  with  mankind  which  antedated  the  Fall.  Being  thus  joined 
to  us  from  the  beginning,  he  has  suffered  in  all  human  sin;  "  in  all  our  affliction  he  has  been 
afflicted  "  ( Is.  83  :  9  ) ;  so  that  the  Psalmist  can  say  :  "Blessed  be  the  Lord,  who  daily  beareth  our  burden, 
even  the  God  who  is  our  salvation  "  (Ps.  68  :19).  The  historical  sacrifice  was  a  burning-glass  which  | 
focused  the  diffused  rays  of  the  Sun  of  righteousness  and  made  them  effective  in  the] 
melting  of  human  hearts.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  take  deepest  hold  upon  us  only 
when  we  see  in  them  the  two  contrasted  but  complementary  truths :  that  holiness 
must  make  penalty  to  follow  sin,  and  that  love  must  share  that  penalty  with  the  trans- 
gressor.   The  Cross  was  the  concrete  exhibition  of  the  holiness  that  required,  and  of 


716  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION". 

the  love  that  provided,  man's  redemption.  Those  six  hours  of  pain  could  never  have 
procured  our  salvation  if  they  had  not  been  a  revelation  of  eternal  facts  in  the  being 
of  God.  The  heart  of  God  and  the  meaning-  of  all  previous  history  were  then  unveiled. 
The  whole  evolution  of  humanity  was  there  depicted  in  its  essential  elements,  on  the 
one  hand  the  sin  and  condemnation  of  the  race,  on  the  other  hand  the  grace  and  suffer- 
ing of  him  who  was  its  life  and  salvation.  As  he  who  hung  upon  the  cross  was  God, 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  so  the  suffering  of  the  cross  was  God's  suffering  for  sin,  manifest 
in  the  flesh.  The  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him  is  the  result  of  his  natural  union  with 
us.  He  has  been  our  substitute  from  the  beginning.  We  cannot  quarrel  with  the  doc- 
trine of  substitution  when  we  see  that  this  substitution  is  but  the  sharing  of  our  griefs 
and  sorrows  by  him  whose  very  life  pulsates  in  our  veins.  See  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in 
Creation,  78  -80, 177-180. 

(g  )  The  historical  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  is  not  only  the  final  revelation 
of  the  heart  of  God,  but  also  the  manifestation  of  the  law  of  universal  life 
—  the  law  that  sin  brings  suffering  to  all  connected  with  it,  and  that  we 
can  overcome  sin  in  ourselves  and  in  the  world  only  by  entering  into  the 
fellowship  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  Christ's  victory,  or,  in  other  words, 
only  by  union  with  him  through  faith. 

We  too  are  subject  to  the  same  law  of  life.  We  who  enter  into  fellowship  with  our 
Lord  "  fill  up  ...  .  that  which  is  lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  ....  for  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church  " 
( Col.  1 :  24 ).  The  Christian  Church  can  reign  with  Christ  only  as  it  partakes  in  his  suffer- 
ing. The  atonement  becomes  a  model  and  stimulus  to  self-sacrifice,  and  a  test  of 
Christian  character.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  subjective  effect  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
may  absorb  the  attention,  to  the  exclusion  of  its  ground  and  cause.  The  moral  inllu- 
ence  of  the  atonement  has  taken  deep  hold  upon  our  minds,  and  we  are  in  danger  of 
forgetting  that  it  is  the  holiness  of  God,  and  not  the  salvation  of  men,  that  primarily 
requires  it.  When  sharing  excludes  substitution ;  when  reconciliation  of  man  to  God 
excludes  reconciliation  of  God  to  man  ;  when  the  only  peace  secured  is  peace  in  the 
sinner's  heart  and  no  thought  is  given  to  that  peace  with  God  which  it  is  the  first 
object  of  the  atonement  to  secure ;  then  the  whole  evangelical  system  is  weakened, 
God's  righteousness  is  ignored,  and  man  is  practically  put  in  place  of  God.  We  must 
not  go  back  to  the  old  mechanical  and  arbitrary  conceptions  of  the  atonement, —  we 
must  go  forward  to  a  more  vital  apprehension  of  the  relation  of  the  race  to  Christ.  A 
larger  knowledge  of  Christ,  the  life  of  humanity,  will  enable  us  to  hold  fast  the  objec- 
tive nature  of  the  atonement,  and  its  necessity  as  grounded  in  the  holiness  of  God; 
while  at  the  same  time  we  appropriate  all  that  is  good  in  the  modern  view  of  the  atone- 
ment, as  the  final  demonstration  of  God's  constraining  love  which  moves  men  to  repent- 
ance and  submission.  See  A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Address,  1904  :  16-18 ;  Dinsmore,  The 
Atonement  in  Literature  and  in  Life,  213-250. 

A.     Scripture  Methods  of  Representing  the  Atonement. 

We  may  classify  the  Scripture  representations  according  as  they  conform 
to  moral,  commercial,  legal  or  sacrificial  analogies. 

(  a  )    Moral.  —  The  atonement  is  described  as 

A  provision  originating  in  God's  love,  and  manifesting  this  love  to  the 
universe ;  but  also  as  an  example  of  disinterested  love,  to  secure  our 
deliverance  from  selfishness.  —  In  these  latter  passages,  Christ's  death  is 
referred  to  as  a  source  of  moral  stimulus  to  men. 

A  provision  :  John  3  :16 — "For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son";  Rom.  5:8  —  "Sod 
commendeth  his  own  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us"  ;  1  John  4 :  9  —  "Herein 
was  the  love  of  God  manifested  in  us,  that  God  hath  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  that  we  might  live 
through  hkn  "  ;  Heb.  2:9  —  "  Jesus,  because  of  the  suffering  of  death  crowned  with  glory  and  honor,  that  by  the  grace 
of  God  he  should  tasto  of  death  for  every  man  "  =  redemption  originated  in  the  love  of  the  Father, 
as  well  as  in  that  of  the  Son.  —  An  example:  Luke9:22-24 —  "  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer  .  .  .  and 
be  killed.  ...  If  any  man  would  come  after  me,  let  him  ....  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow  me  ...  .  whoso- 
ever shall  loss  his  life  for  my  sake,  the  same  shall  save  it"  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  15 —  "he  died  for  all,  that  they  that  live  should  no 
longer  live  unto  themselves  "  ;  Gal.  1  : 4  —  "  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  that  he  might  deliver  us  out  of  this  present 


THE    PRIESTLY    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST.  717 

evil  world  "  ;  Eph.  5  :  25-27  —  "  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  up  for  it ;  that  he  might  sanctify  it "  ; 
CoL  1  :  22  —  "  reconciled  in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you  holy ' ' ;  Titus  2:14  —  "  gave  himself  for 
us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  "  ;  1  Pet.  2  :  21-24  —  "Christ  also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you 
an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps :  who  did*no  sin  ...  .  who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  body  upon  the 
tree,  that  we,  having  died  unto  sins,  might  live  unto  righteousness."  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  181  — 
"A  pious  cottager,  on  hearing-  the  text,  'God  so  loved  the  world,'  exclaimed  :  'Ah,  that  was 
love  !  I  could  have  given  myself,  but  I  could  never  have  given  my  son.'  "  There  was 
a  wounding  of  the  Father  through  the  heart  of  the  Sou  :  "they  shall  look  unto  me  whom  they 
have  pierced  ;  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only  son  "  ( Zech.  12  :  10  ). 

(  6  )     Commercial.  —  The  atonement  is  described  as 

A  ransom,  paid  to  free  us  from  the  bondage  of  sin  (  note  in  these  pas- 
sages the  use  of  avTit  the  preposition  of  price,  bargain,  exchange). — In 
these  passages,  Christ's  death  is  represented  as  the  price  of  our  deliverance 
from  sin  and  death. 

Mat.  20  :  28,  and  Mark  10  :  45 —  "to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  " —  Avrpov  avri  ttoAAwi'.  1  Tim.  2:6  — 
"  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all  "  —  amAvrpoi',  'Avri  (  "  for,"  in  the  sense  of  "instead  of  '' )  is 
never  confounded  with  virip  ( "for,"  in  the  sense  of  "in  behalf  of,"  "  for  the  benefit  of  "  i. 
'Ami  is  the  preposition  of  price,  bargain,  exchange  ;  and  this  sign ilicat  ion  is  traceable  in 
every  i laesage  where  it  occu rs  in  the  N .  T.  See  Mat.  2  :  22  —  "  Archelaus  was  reigning  over  Judea  in 
the  room  of  [  avri  ]  his  father  Herod  "  ;  Luke  11  :  11  —  "shall  his  son  ask  ....  a  fish,  and  he  for  [  dm'  ]  a  fish  give 
Aim  a  serpent  ?  "  Heb.  12  :  2 —  "  Jesus  the  author  and  perfecter  of  our  faith,  who  for  [  ivri  =  as  the  price  of  ] 
the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  endured  the  cross  "  ;  16  —  "  Esau,  who  for  [  avri  =  in  exchange  for  ]  one  mess 
of  meat  sold  his  own  birthright."  See  als(  >  Mat.  16 :  26  — "  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  (  6.vTak\ayp.a  )  his 
life"  =  how  shall  he  buy  it  hack,  when  onee  he  has  lust  it  ?  'AmiXvrpov — substitutionary 
ransom.  The  connection  in  ITim.  2  :6  requires  that  i/irep  should  mean  "  instead  of."  We 
should  interpret  this  uTrep  by  the  avri  in  Mat.  20  :  28.  "Something  befell  Christ,  and  by 
reason  of  that,  the  same  thing  need  not  befall  sinners"  <  E.  V.  Mulling). 

Meyer,  on  Mat.  20  :  28  —  "to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  " — "  The  ^v\v  is  conceived  of  as  \vrpof, 
a  ransom,  for,  through  the  shedding  of  the  blood,  it  becomes  the  Tifiij  (  price  )  of  redemp- 
tion." See  also  lCor.6:20;  7  :  23  —  "  ye  were  bought  with  a  price  "  ;  and  2  Pet.  2  : 1  —  "denying  even  the 
Master  that  bought  them."  The  word  "  redemption,"  indeed,  means  simply  "  repurchase,"  or 
"the  state  of  being-  repurchased  " —  i.  e.,  delivered  by  the  payment  of  a  price.  Rev.  5: 9  — 
"  thou  wast  slain,  and  didst  purchase  unto  God  with  thy  blood  men  of  every  tribe."  Winer,  N.  T.  Grammar, 
258—  "In  Greek,  avTi  is  the  preposition  of  price."  Buttmann,  N.  T.  Grammar, 321  — 
"In  the  signification  of  the  preposition  ami  (instead  of,  for),  no  deviation  occurs  from 
ordinary  usage."  See  Grimm's  Willie,  Lexicon  Gra-co-Lat. :  "  avri,  in  vi>  <  m,  tnixttitt  "  ; 
Thayer,  Lexicon  N.  T.  —  "avri,  of  that  for  which  anything  is  given,  received,  endured  ; 
....  of  the  price  of  sale  (or  purchase)  Mat.  20:28";  also  Cremer,  N.  T.  Lex.,  on 

avTaWaytxa. 

Pfleiderer,  in  New  World,  Sept.  1899,  doubts  whether  Jesus  ever  really  uttered  the 
words  "give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (  Mat.  20  :  28  ).  He  regards  them  as  essentially  Pauline, 
and  the  result  of  later  dogmatic  reflection  on  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  means  of 
redemption.  So  Paine,  Evolution  of  Trinitarianism,  377-381.  Put  these  words  occur 
not  in  Luke,  the  Pauline  gospel,  but  in  Matthew,  which  is  much  earlier.  They  repre- 
sent at  any  rate  the  apostolic  conception  of  Jesus'  teaching,  a  conception  which  Jesus 
himself  promised  should  be  formed  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  should 
bring  all  things  to  the  remembrance  of  his  apostles  and  should  guide  them  into  all  the 
truth  (John  14  :  26 ;  16  :  13  ).  As  will  be  seen  below,  Pfleiderer  declares  the  Pauline  doctrine 
to  be  that  of  substitutionary  suffering. 

(  c )     Legal.  —  The  atonement  is  described  as 

An  act  of  obedience  to  the  law  which  sinners  had  violated  ;  a  penalty, 
borne  in  order  to  rescue  the  guilty  ;  and  an  exhibition  of  God's  righteous- 
ness, necessary  to  the  vindication  of  his  procedure  in  the  pardon  and  resto- 
ration of  sinners.  —  In  these  passages  the  death  of  Christ  is  represented 
as  demanded  by  God's  law  and  government. 

Obedience :  Gal.  4  :  4,  5  —  "  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law,  that  he  might  redeem  them  that  were  under 
the  law"  ;  Mat.  3  :  15 —  "thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness  "  —  Christ's  baptism  prefiffured 


718  CHKISTOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION". 

his  death,  and  was  a  consecration  to  death  ;  cf.  Mark  10  :  38  —  "  ire  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I 
drink ?  or  to  he  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with ?"  Luke  12  : 50 —  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  bap- 
tized with ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  ! ' '  Mat.  26  :  39  — "My  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 
pass  away  from  me :  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt  "  ;  5  :  17  —  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  dostroy  the  law 
or  the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil "  ;  Phil.  2:8  —  "  becoming  obedient  even  unto  death  "  ;  Rom.  5 :  19 
—  "  through  the  obedience  of  the  ono  shall  the  many  be  made  righteous  " ;  10:4  —  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  unto 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  believcth.  "  —  PVji.aZfy:  Rom.  4  :  25 — "who was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses, 
and  was  raised  for  our  justification  "  ;  8  : 3  —  "  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin,  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh"  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  21  —  "Him  who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf "  —  here  "sin"= 
a  sinner,  an  accursed  one  ( Meyer ) ;  Gal.  1:4  —  "  gave  himself  for  our  sins  "  ;  3 :  13  —  "  Christ  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  having  become  a  curse  for  us  ;  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree "  ;  cf.  Dent.  21 :  23  —  "  he  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God."  Heb.  9  :  28  —  "  Christ  also,  having  been  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many  "  ;  cf.  Lev.  5  :  17 — "if  any  one  sin  ...  .  yet  is  he  guilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity  "  ;  Num. 
14  :  34  — "  for  every  day  a  year,  shall  ye  bear  your  iniquities,  even  forty  years "  ;  Lam.  5:7  —  "  Our  fathers  sinned 
and  are  not;  And  we  have  borne  their  iniquities."  —  Exhibition :  Rom.  3:25,  26 — "whom  God  set  forth  to 
be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  his  blood,  to  show  his  righteousness  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  afore- 
time, in  the  forbearance  of  God  "  ;  cf.  Heb.  9  :  15  —  "a  death  having  taken  place  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgres- 
sions that  were  under  the  first  covenant." 

On  these  passages,  see  an  excellent  section  in  Ptieiderer,  Die  Ritschl'sche  Theologie, 
38-53.  Pfleiderer  severely  criticizes  Ritschl's  evasion  of  their  natural  force  and  declares 
Paul's  teaching-  to  be  that  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  suffer- 
ing- as  a  substitute  the  death  threatened  by  the  law  against  sinners.  So  Orelii  Cone, 
Paul,  261.  On  the  other  hand,  L.  L.  Paine,  Evolution  of  Trinitariauism,  288-307,  chapter 
on  the  New  Christian  Atonement,  holds  that  Christ  taught  only  reconciliation  on  con- 
dition of  repentance.  Paul  added  the  idea  of  mediation  drawn  from  the  Platonic  dual- 
ism of  Philo.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  made  Christ  a  sacrificial  victim  to  propitiate 
God,  so  that  the  reconciliation  became  God  ward  instead  of  manward.  But  Professor 
Paine's  view  that  Paul  taught  an  Arian  Mediatorship  is  incorrect.  " God  was  in  Christ "( 2 
Cor.  5  :  19  )  and  God  "  manifested  in  the  flesh  "  ( 1  Tim.  3 :  16 )  are  the  keynote  of  Paul's  teaching, 
and  this  is  identical  with  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos :  "the  Word  was  God,"  and  "  the  Word 
became  flesh  "  ( John  1:1, 14  ). 

The  Outlook,  December  15, 1900,  in  criticizing  Prof.  Paine,  states  three  postulates  of 
the  New  Trinitariauism  as :  1.  The  essential  kinship  of  God  and  man,—  in  man  there  is 
an  essential  divineness,  in  God  there  is  an  essential  humauness.  2.  The  divine  imma- 
nence,— this  universal  presence  gives  nature  its  physical  unity,  and  humanity  its  moral 
unity.  This  is  not  pantheism,  any  more  than  the  presence  of  man's  spirit  in  all  he 
thinks  and  does  proves  that  man's  spirit  is  only  the  sum  of  his  experiences.  3.  God 
transcends  all  phenomena, —  though  in  all,  he  is  greater  than  all.  He  entered  perfectly 
into  one  man,  and  through  this  indwelling  in  one  man  he  is  gradually  entering  into  all 
men  and  filling  all  men  with  his  fulness,  so  that  Christ  will  be  the  first- born  among 
many  brethren.  The  defects  of  this  view,  which  contains  many  elements  of  truth, 
are :  1.  That  it  regards  Christ  as  the  product  instead  of  the  Producer,  the  divinely 
formed  man  instead  of  the  humanly  acting  God,  the  head  man  among  men  instead  of 
the  Creator  and  Life  of  humanity ;  2.  That  it  therefore  renders  impossible  any  divine 
bearing  of  the  sins  of  all  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  substitutes  for  it  such  a  histrionic 
exhibition  of  God's  feeling  and  such  a  beauty  of  example  as  are  possible  within  the 
limits  of  human  nature, —in  other  words,  there  is  no  real  Deity  of  Christ  and  no 
objective  atonement. 

(  d  )     Sacrificial.  —  The  atonement  is  described  as 

A  work  of  priestly  mediation,  which  reconciles  God  to  men,  —  notice 
here  that  the  term  '  reconciliation '  has  its  usual  sense  of  removing  enmity, 
not  from  the  offending,  but  from  the  offended  party  ;  —  &  sin-offering,  pre- 
sented on  behalf  of  transgressors ;  —  a  propitiation,  which  satisfies  the 
demands  of  violated  holiness;  —  and  a  substitution,  of  Christ's  obedience 
and  sufferings  for  ours.  —  These  passages,  taken  together,  show  that 
Christ's  death  is  demanded  by  God's  attribute  of  justice,  or  holiness,  if  sin- 
ners are  to  be  saved. 

I'ritsihi  mediation1.  Heb.  9  :  11  :  12 — "Christ  having  come  a  high  priest,  ....  nor  yet  through  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  through  his  own  blood,  en  lend  in  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redsmp- 


THE   PRIESTLY   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  719 

tion  "  ;  Rom.  5  :  10  — "  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of  his  Son  "  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  18, 
19  —  "all  things  are  of  God,  who  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ  ....  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself,  not  reckoning  unto  them  their  trespasses ' '  ;  Eph.  2  :  16  —  "  might  reconcile  them  both  in  one  body  unto 
God  through  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby  \l»;  cf.  12, 13,  19  —  "  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  the  promise 
....  far  off  ....  no  more  strangers  and  sojourners,  but  ye  are  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of 
God  "  ;  Col.  1  :  20 — "through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross." 

On  all  these  passages,  see  Meyer,  who  shows  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  to  be,  that 
"  we  were 'enemies,' not  actively,  as  hostile  to  God,  but  passively,  as  those  with  whom 
God  was  angry."  The  epistle  to  the  Romans  begins  with  the  revelation  of  wrath 
against  Gentile  and  Jew  alike  (  Rom.  1  :  18  ).  "  While  we  were  enemies"  (Rom.  5  :  10)  =  "when  God 
was  hostile  to  us."  "  Reconciliation  "  is  therefore  the  removal  of  God's  wrath  toward 
man.  Meyer,  on  this  last  passage,  says  that  Christ's  death  does  not  remove  man's 
wrath  toward  God  [  this  is  not  the  work  of  Christ,  but  of  the  Holy  Spirit].  The  offender 
reconciles  the  person  offended,  not  himself.  See  Denney,  Com.  on  Rom.  5  :  9-11,  in  Exposi- 
tor's G  k.  Test. 

Cf.  Num.  25  :  13,  where  Phinehas,  by  slaying-  Zimri,  is  said  to  have  "made  atonement  for  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel."  Surely,  the  "atonement  "  hen-  cannot  be  a  reconciliat  inn  of  JjBTCU  I.  Tin  ■  act  ion 
terminates,  not  on  tin-  subject,  but  on  the  object  —  God.  So,  1  Sam.  29  .  4 — "wherewith  should 
this  fellow  reconcile  himself  unto  his  lord  ?  should  it  not  be  w.th  the  heads  of  these  men  ?  "  Mat.  5  :  23,  24  —  "  If 
therefore  thou  art  offering  thy  gift  at  the  altar,  and  there  rememherest  that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee,  leave 
there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way,  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother  [  i.  c,  remove  his  enmity,  not 
thine  own  ],  and  then  come  aid  offer  thy  gift."     See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Thcol.,  2  :  ;WT-308. 

Ptleiderer,  Die  Ritschl'sche  Theologie,  42—  '"Exi>P01  °''T6s  (  Rom.  5  :  10  )  =  not  the  active 
disposition  of  enmity  to  God  on  our  part,  but  our  passive  condition  under  the  enmity 
or  wrath  of  God."  Paul  was  not  the  author  of  this  doctrine,— he  claims  that  he 
received  if  from  Christ  himself  (Gal.  1: 12).  Simon,  Reconciliation,  167— "The idea  thai 
only  man  needs  to  lie  reconciled  arises  from  a  false  conception  of  the  unchangeablenesa 
of  God.  But  God  would  he  unjust,  if  his  relation  toman  were  the  same  alter  his  sin  as 
it  was  before."  The  old  hymn  expressed  the  truth:  "MyGodis  reconciled;  His  par- 
doning' voice  I  hear ;  He  owns  me  for  his  child  ;  I  can  no  longer  fear  ;  With  filial  trust 
I  now  draw  nigh,  And  'Father,  Abba,  Father'  cry." 

A  Sin-off erlng :  John  1  :  29 —  "Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world"  — hero 
cupwr  means  to  take  away  by  taking  or  bearing;  to  take,  and  bo  take  away.  It  is  an 
allusion  to  the  sin-i  iffering  of  Isaiah  53  :  6-12  —  "  when  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  ...  . 
as  a  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter  ....  Jehovah  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  Mat.  26  :  28 —  "this  is 
my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many  unto  rem  ssion  of  sins"  ;  cf.  Ps.  50  :  5  —  "made  a  covenant 
with  me  by  sacrifice."  1  John  1 :  7 — "the  blood  of  Jesus  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  "  =  net  sanctification, 
but  justification;  1  Cor.5:7  —  "our  passover  also  hath  been  sacrificed,  even  Christ";  cf.  Deut.  16:2-6  — 
"  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  unto  Jehovah  thy  God."  Eph.  5:2  —  "gave  himself  up  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sac- 
rifice to  God  for  an  odor  of  a  sweet  smell"  (see  Com.  of  Salmond,  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament) ; 
Heb.  9  :  14  —  "  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God  "  ;  22,  26  — 
"  apart  from  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  rem' ssion  ....  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  ages  hath  he  been  manifested  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself "  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  18, 19  —  "  redeemed  ....  with  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  with- 
out blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Chrst."    See  Expos.  Gk.  Test.,  on  Eph.  1 :  7. 

Lowrie,  Doctrine  of  St.  John,  35,  points  out  that  John  6  :  52-59  —  "  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh 
my  blood"  —  is  Christ's  reference  to  his  death  in  terms  of  sacrifice.  So,  as  we  shall  see 
below,  it  is  a  propitiation  (1  John  2: 2),  We  therefore  strongly  object  to  the  statement 
of  Wilson,  Gospel  of  Atonement,  04—  "  Christ's  death  is  a  sacrifice,  if  sacrifice  means 
the  crowning  instance  of  that  suffering  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  which  springs 
from  the  solidarity  of  mankind  ;  but  there  is  no  thought  of  substitution  or  expiation." 
Wilson  forgets  that  this  necessity  of  suffering  arises  from  God's  righteousness ;  that 
without  this  suffering  man  cannot  be  saved  ;  that  Christ  endures  what  we,  on  account 
of  the  insensibility  of  sin,  cannot  feel  or  endure  ;  that  this  suffering  takes  the  place  of 
ours,  so  that  we  are  saved  thereby.  Wilson  holds  that  the  Incarnation  constituti  il  the 
Atonement,  and  that  all  thought  of  expiation  may  be  eliminated.  Henry  B.  Smith 
far  better  summed  up  the  gospel  in  the  words :  "  Incarnation  in  order  to  Atonement." 
We  regard  as  still  better  the  words :  "  Incarnation  in  order  to  reveal  the  Atonement." 

A.  propitiation :  Rom.  3  :  25,  26  —  "  whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  ...  in  his  blood  .  .  .  that  he 
might  himself  bejust,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus."  A  full  and  critical  exposition  of 
this  passage  will  be  found  under  the  Ethical  Theory  of  the  Atonement,  pages  750-700. 
Here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  shows:  (1)  that  Christ's  death  is  a  propitiatory  sac- 
rifice; (2)  that  its  first  and  main  effect  is  upon  God;  (3)  that  the  particular  attribute 


720  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION". 

in  God  which  demands  the  atonement  is  his  justice,  or  holiness;  (4)  that  the  satis- 
faction of  this  holiness  is  the  necessary  condition  of  God's  justifying:  the  believer. 

Compare  Luke  18 :  13,  marg.— "God,  be  thou  merciful  unto  me  the  sinner"  ;  lit. :  "God  be  propitiated  toward 
me  the  sinner "  —  by  the  sacrifice,  whose  smoke  was  ascending  before  the  publican,  even 
while  he  prayed.  Heb.  2  :  17  —  "a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  people";  lJohn2:2  —  "  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but 
also  for  the  whole  world  "  ;  4  :  10  — "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins"  ;  if.  Gen.  32  :  20,  lxx. —  "  I  will  appease  [  <=£iAa<ro(icu,  '  propitiate '  ]  him  with 
the  present  that  goeth  before  me";  Prov.  16:14,  lxx.  —  "  The  wrath  of  a  king  is  as  messengers  of  death ;  but  a  wise 
man  will  pacify  it "  [  c£iAa<r<:Tai,  l  propitiate  it '  ]. 

On  propitiation,  see  Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  216  — "  Something  was 
thereby  done  which  rendered  God  inclined  to  pardon  the  sinner.  God  is  made  inclined 
to  forgive  sinners  by  the  sacrifice,  because  his  righteousness  was  exhibited  by  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  of  sin;  but  not  because  he  needed  to  be  inclined  in  heart  to 
love  the  sinner  or  to  exercise  his  mercy.  In  fact,  it  was  he  himself  who  'set  forth' 
Jesus  as  '  a  propitiation '  (Rom.  3  :  25,  26  )."  Paul  never  merges  the  objective  atonement  in  its 
subjective  effects,  although  no  writer  of  the  New  Testament  has  more  fully  recognized 
these  subjective  effects.  With  him  Christ  for  us  upon  the  Cross  is  the  necessary  prep- 
aration for  Christ  in  us  by  his  Spirit.  Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  74,  75,  89, 172,  unwar- 
rantably contrasts  Paul's  representation  of  Christ  as  priest  with  what  he  calls  the 
representation  of  Christ  as  prophet  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews :  "  The  priest  says  : 
Man's  return  to  God  is  not  enough,—  there  must  be  an  expiation  of  man's  sin.  This  is 
Paul's  doctrine.  The  prophet  says :  There  never  was  a  divine  provision  for  sacrifice. 
Man's  return  to  God  is  the  thing  wanted.  But  this  return  must  be  completed.  Jesus 
is  the  perfect  prophet  who  gives  us  an  example  of  restored  obedience,  and  who  comes 
in  to  perfect  man's  imperfect  work.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews." 
This  recognition  of  expiation  in  Paul's  teaching,  together  with  denial  of  its  validity 
and  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  prophetic  rather  than  priestly,  is  a 
curiosity  of  modern  exegesis. 

Lyman  Abbott,  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  107-127,  goes  still  further  and  affirms : 
"  In  the  N.  T.  God  is  never  said  to  be  propitiated,  nor  is  it  ever  said  that  Jesus  Christ 
propitiates  God  or  satisfies  God's  wrath."  Yet  Dr.  Abbott  adds  that  in  the  N.  T.  God 
is  represented  as  self-propitiated  :  "  Christianity  is  distinguished  from  paganism  by 
representing  God  as  appeasing  his  own  wrath  and  satisfying  his  own  justice  by  the 
forth-putting  of  his  own  love."  This  self -propitiation  however  must  not  be  thought 
of  as  a  bearing  of  penalty :  "  Nowhere  in  the  O.  T.  is  the  idea  of  a  sacrifice  coupled 
with  the  idea  of  penalty, —  it  is  always  coupled  with  purification  — '  with  his  stripes  we  are 
healed '  ( Is.  53  :  5 ).  And  in  the  N.  T.,  '  the  Lamb  of  God  .  .  .  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world '  ( John  1 :  29 ) ; 
*  tho  blood  of  Jesus  .  .  .  oleanseth'  (1  John  1:7).  .  .  .  What  humanity  needs  is  not  the  removal  of 
the  penalty,  but  removal  of  the  sin."  This  seems  to  us  a  distinct  contradiction  of  both 
Paul  and  John,  with  whom  propitiation  is  an  essential  of  Christian  doctrine  ( see  Rom. 
3  :  25 ;  1  John  2 :  2 ),  while  we  grant  that  the  propitiation  is  made,  not  by  sinful  man,  but 
by  God  himself  in  the  person  of  his  Son.  See  George  B.  Gow,  on  The  Place  of  Expia- 
tion in  Human  Redemption,  Am.  Jour.  Theol.,  1900 :  734-756. 

A  substitution:  Luke  22:37 — "he  was  reckoned  with  transgressors":  c/.  Lev.  16:21,22  —  "and  Aaron 
shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  live  goat,  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel 
....  he  shall  put  them  upon  the  head  of  the  goat  ....  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a 
solitary  land  "  ;  Is.  53  :  5,  6  — "  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  him  ;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray ;  we  have 
turned  every  one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  Jehovah  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  John  10  :  11  —  "the  good 
shepherd  layeth  down  his  life  for  the  sheep  "  ;  Rom.  5  :  6-8  —  "  while  we  were  yet  weak,  in  due  season  Christ  died  for 
the  ungodly.  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die :  for  peradventure  for  the  good  man  some  one  would  even  dare 
to  die.  But  God  commendeth  his  own  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us  "  ;  1  Pet. 
3 :  18  —  "Christ  also  suffered  for  sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God." 

To  these  texts  we  must  add  all  those  mentioned  under  ( b )  above,  in  which  Christ's 
death  is  described  as  a  ransom.  Besides  Meyer's  comment,  there  quoted,  on  Mat.  20  :  28  — 
"  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,"  \vrpov  avri  no\\£>v  —  Meyer  also  says :  "  avri  denotes  substi- 
tution. That  which  is  given  as  a  ransom  takes  the  place  of,  is  given  instead  of,  those 
who  are  to  be  set  free  in  consideration  thereof.  'Avri  can  only  be  understood  in  the  sense 
of  substitution  in  the  act  of  which  the  ransom  is  presented  as  an  equivalent,  to  secure 
the  deliverance  of  those  on  whose  behalf  the  ransom  is  paid, —  a  view  which  is  only 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that,  in  other  parts  of  the  N.  T.,  this  ransom  is  usually  spoken  of 
as  an  expiatory  sacrifice.    That  which  they  [  those  for  whom  the  ransom  is  paid  ]  are 


THE    PRiESTLY    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST.  721 

redeemed  from,  is  the  eternal  an-uiAfiu  in  which,  as  having-  the  wrath  of  God  abiding 
upon  them,  they  would  remain  imprisoned,  as  in  a  state  of  hopeless  bondage,  unless 
the  guilt  of  their  sins  were  expiated." 

Cremer,  N.  T.  Lex.,  says  that  "  in  froth  the  N.  T.  texts,  Mat.  16  :  26  and  Mark  8  .-  37,  the 
word  di'TdAAoyna,  like  AiiTpoi-,  is  akin  to  the  conception  of  atonement:  cf.  Is.  43:3,4;  51 :  11; 
Amos  5 -.12.  This  is  a  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  satisfaction  and  substitution  essen- 
tially belong  to  the  idea  of  atonement."  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  515  (Syst.Doct., 
3  :  414 I—  "  Mat  20  :  28  contains  the  thought  of  a  substitution.  While  the  whole  world  is 
not  of  equal  worth  with  the  soul,  and  could  not  purchase  it,  Christ's  death  and  work 
are  so  valuable,  that  they  can  serve  as  a  ransom." 

The  sufferings  of  the  righteous  were  recognized  in  Rabbinical  Judaism  as  having  a 
substitutionary  significance  for  the  sins  of  others ;  see  Weber,  Altsynagog.  Palestin. 
Theologie,  314;  Sehiirer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  2  :  466  (translation,  div.  11, 
vol.  2  :  186).  But  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2  :  225-262,  says  this  idea  of  vicarious  sat- 
isfaction was  an  addition  of  Paul  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Wendt  grants  that  both 
Paul  and  John  taught  substitution,  but  he  denies  that  Jesus  did.  He  claims  that  am 
in  Mat.  20:28  means  simply  that  Jesus  gave  his  life  as  a  means  whereby  he  obtains  the 
deliverance  of  many.  Rut  this  interpretation  is  a  non-natural  one,  and  violates  linguis- 
tic usage.  It  holds  that  Paul  and  John  misunderstood  or  misrepresented  the  words  of 
our  Lord.  We  prefer  the  frank  acknowledgment  by  Pfleiderer  that  Jesus,  as  well  as 
Paul  and  John,  taught  substitution,  but  that  neither  one  of  them  was  correct.  Cole- 
stock,  on  Substitution  as  a  Stage  in  Theological  Thought,  similarly  holds  that  the  idea 
of  substitution  must  be  abandoned.  We  grant  that  the  idea  of  substitution  needs  to 
be  supplemented  by  the  idea  of  sharing,  and  so  relieved  of  its  external  and  mechanical 
implications,  but  that  to  abandon  the  conception  itself  is  to  abandon  faith  in  the  evan- 
gelists and  in  Jesus  himself. 

Dr.  W.  N.  Clarke,  in  his  Christian  Theology,  rejects  the  doctrine  of  retribution  for 
sin,  and  denies  the  possibility  of  penal  suffering  for  another.  A  proper  view  of  penalty, 
and  of  Christ's  vital  connection  with  humanity,  would  make  these;  rejected  ideas  not 
only  credible  but  inevitable.  Dr.  Alvah  I lovey  reviews  Dr.  Clarke's  Theology,  Am. 
Jour.  Theology,  Jan.  1889  :  205—  "  If  we  do  not  import  into  the  endurance  of  penalty 
some  degree  of  sinful  feeling  or  volition,  tbere  is  no  ground  for  denying  that  a  holy 
being  may  bear  it  in  place  of  a  sinner.  For  nothing  but  wrong-doing,  or  approval 
of  wrong-doing,  is  impossible  to  a  holy  being.  Indeed,  for  one  to  bear  for  another  the 
just  penalty  of  his  sin,  provided  that  other  may  thereby  be  saved  from  it  and  made  a 
friend  of  God,  is  perhaps  the  highest  conceivable  function  of  love  or  good-will."  Den- 
ney,  Studies,  126,  12",  shows  that  "substitution  means  simply  that  man  is  dependent  for 
his  acceptance  with  God  upon  something  which  Christ  has  done  for  him,  and  which  he 
could  never  have  done  and  never  needs  to  do  for  himself.  .  .  .  The  forfeiting  of  his  free 
life  has  freed  our  forfeited  lives.  This  substitution  can  be  preached,  and  it  binds 
men  to  Christ  by  making  them  forever  dependent  on  him.  The  condemnation  of  our 
sins  in  Christ  upon  his  cross  is  the  barb  on  the  hook,—  without  it  your  bait  will  be  taken, 
but  you  will  not  catch  men ;  you  will  not  annihilate  pride,  and  make  Christ  the  Alpha 
and  Omega  in  man's  redemption.''  On  the  Scripture  proofs,  see  Crawford,  Atonement, 
1:1-193;  Dale,  Atonement,  65-256;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  iv.  2  :  243-342 ;  Smeaton, 
Our  Lord's  and  the  Apostles'  Doctrine  of  Atonement. 

An  examination  of  the  passages  referred  to  shows  that,  while  the  forms 
in  which  the  atoning  work  ©f  Christ  is  described  are  in  part  derived  fr<  >m 
moral,  commercial,  and  legal  relations,  the  prevailing  language  is  that  of 
sacrifice.  A  correct  view  of  the  atonement  must  therefore  be  grounded 
upon  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  especially  as 
found  in  the  Mosaic  system. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked :  Why  is  there  so  little  in  Jesus'  own  words  about 
atonement  ?  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  replies :  Because  Christ  did  not  come  to  preach  the  gospel, 
—  he  came  that  there  might  be  a  gospel  to  preach.  The  Cross  had  to  be  endured, 
before  it  could  be  explained.  Jesus  came  to  he  the  sacrifice,  not  to  speak  about  it. 
But  his  reticence  is  just  what  he  told  us  we  should  find  in  his  words.  He  proclaimed 
their  incompleteness,  and  referred  us  to  a  subsequent  Teacher  — the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  we  have  in  the  words  of  the  apostles.  We  must  remem- 
ber that  the  gospels  were  supplementary  to  the  epistles,  not  the  epistles  to  the  gospels. 

46 


722  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

The  gospels  merely  fill  out  our  knowledge  of  Christ.  It  is  not  for  the  Redeemer  to 
magnif y  the  cost  of  salvation,  but  for  the  redeemed.  "  None  of  the  ransomed  ever 
knew."    The  doer  of  a  great  deed  has  the  least  to  say  about  it. 

Harnack:  "  There  is  an  inner  law  which  compels  the  sinner  to  look  upon  God  as  a 
wrathful  Judge.  .  .  .  Yet  no  other  feeling  is  possible."  We  regard  this  confession  as 
a  demonstration  of  the  psychological  correctness  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  C  vicarious 
atonement.  Human  nature  has  been  so  constituted  by  God  that  it  reflects  the  demand 
of  his  holiness.  That  conscience  needs  to  be  appeased  is  proof  that  God  needs  to  be 
appeased.  When  Whiton  declares  that  propitiation  is  offered  only  to  our  conscience, 
which  is  the  wrath  of  that  which  is  of  God  within  us,  and  that  Christ  bore  our  sins, 
not  in  substitution  for  us,  but  in  fellowship  with  us,  to  rouse  our  consciences  to  hatred 
of  them,  he  forgets  that  God  is  not  only  immanent  in  the  conscience  but  also  tran- 
scendent, and  that  the  verdicts  of  conscience  are  only  indications  of  the  higher  verdicts 
of  God  :  1  John  3  :  20  —  "if  our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things."  Lyman 
Abbott,  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  57—  "  A  people  half  emancipated  from  the  pagan- 
ism that  imagines  that  God  must  be  placated  by  sacrifice  before  he  can  forgive  sins 
gave  to  the  sacrificial  system  that  Israel  had  borrowed  from  paganism  the  same 
divine  authority  which  they  gave  to  those  revolutionary  elements  in  the  system  which 
were  destined  eventually  to  sweep  it  entirely  out  of  existence."  So  Bowne,  Ate  mo- 
ment, 74  —  "  The  essential  moral  fact  is  that,  if  God  is  to  f orjri ve  unrighteous  men,  si  >me 
way  must  be  found  of  making  them  righteous.  The  difficulty  is  not  forensic,  but 
moral.1'  Both  Abbott  and  Bowne  regard  righteousness  as  a  mere  form  of  benevolence, 
and  the  atonement  as  only  a  means  to  a  utilitarian  end,  namely,  the  restoration  and 
happiness  of  the  creature.  A  more  correct  view  of  God's  righteousness  as  the  funda- 
mental attribute  of  his  being,  as  inwrought  into  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  and 
as  infallibly  connecting  suffering  with  sin,  would  have  led  these  writers  to  see  a  divine 
wisdom  and  inspiration  in  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  and  a  divine  necessity  that  God 
should  suff er  if  man  is  to  go  free. 

B.  The  Institution  of  Sacrifice,  more  especially  as  found  in  the  Mosaic 
system. 

(  a )  We  may  dismiss  as  untenable,  on  the  one  hand,  the  theory  that 
sacrifice  is  essentially  the  presentation  of  a  gift  (  Hofmaim,  Baring-Gould ) 
or  a  feast  (  Spencer  )  to  the  Deity ;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  theory  that 
sacrifice  is  a  symbol  of  renewed  fellowship  (  Keil ),  or  of  the  grateful  offer- 
ing to  God  of  the  whole  life  and  being  of  the  worshiper  (  Bahr  ).  Neither 
of  these  theories  can  explain  the  fact  that  the  sacrifice  is  a  bloody  offering, 
involving  the  suffering  and  death  of  the  victim,  and  brought,  not  by  the 
simply  grateful,  but  by  the  conscience-stricken  soul. 

For  the  views  of  sacrifice  here  mentioned,  see  Hofmann,  Schrif tbeweis,  n,  1 :  214-294 ; 
Baring-Gould,  Origin  and  Devel.  of  Relig.  Belief,  368-390;  Spencer,  De  Legibus  Hebrae- 
orum  ;  Keil,  Bib.  Archaologie,  sec.  43,  47  ;  Biihr,  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,  2 : 
196,  269 ;  also  synopsis  of  Bahr's  view,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1870  :  593 ;  Jan.  1871 :  171.  Per 
contra,  see  Crawford,  Atonement,  228-240 ;  Lange,  Introd.  to  Com.  on  Exodus,  38  — "  The 
heathen  change  God's  symbols  into  myths  ( rationalism ),  as  the  Jews  change  God's  sac- 
rifices into  meritorious  service  (ritualism)."  Westcott,  Hebrews,  281-394,  seems  to 
hold  with  Spencer  that  sacrifice  is  essentially  a  feast  made  as  an  offering  to  G.od.  So 
Philo  :  "  God  receives  the  faithful  offerer  to  his  own  table,  giving  him  back  part  of  the 
sacrifice."  Compare  with  this  the  ghosts  in  Homer's  Odysses%  who  receive  strength 
from  drinking  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices.  Bahr's  view  is  only  half  of  the  truth.  Reun- 
ion presupposes  Expiation.  Lyttleton,  in  Lux  Mundi,  281 — ''The  sinner  must  first 
expiate  his  sin  by  suffering,  —  then  only  can  he  give  to  God  the  life  thus  purified  by  an 
expiatory  death."  Jalin,  Bib.  Archaeology,  sec.  373,  378—  "  It  is  of  the  very  idea  of  the 
sacrifice  that  the  victim  shall  be  presented  directly  to  God,  and  in  the  presentation 
shall  be  destroyed."  Bowne,  Philos.  of  Theism,  253,  speaks  of  the  delicate  feeling  of 
the  Biblical  critic  who,  with  his  mouth  full  of  beef  or  mutton,  professes  to  be  shocked 
at  the  cruelty  to  animals  involved  in  the  temple  sacrifices.  Lord  Bacon:  "Hiero- 
glyphics came  before  letters,  and  parables  before  arguments."  "  The  old  dispensation 
was  God's  great  parable  to  man.  The  Theocracy  was  graven  all  over  with  divine  hiero- 
glyphics.  Does  there  exist  the  Rosetta  stone  Dy  wnicn  we  can  read  these  hieroglyphics? 


THE   INSTITUTION"   OF   SACRIFICE.  723 

The-  shadows,  that  have  been  shortening  up  into  deflniteness  of  outline,  pass  away  and 
vanish  utterly  under  the  full  meridian  splendor  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness."  On  Eph- 
1 :  7— "the  blood  of  Christ,  "as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  which  secures  our  justification,  see  Sal- 
mond,  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament. u 

(6)  The  true  import  of  the  sacrifice,  as  is  abundantly  evident  from  both 
heathen  and  Jewish  sources,  embraced  three  elements,— first,  that  of  satis- 
faction to  offended  Deity,  or  propitiation  offered  to  violated  holiness ;  sec- 
ondly, that  of  substitution  of  suffering  and  death  on  the  part  of  the  innocent, 
for  the  deserved  punishment  of  the  guilty  ;  and,  thirdly,  community  of  life 
between  the  offerer  and  the  victim.  Combining  these  three  ideas,  we  have 
as  the  total  import  of  the  sacrifice:  Satisfaction  by  substitution,  and 
substitution  by  incorporation.  The  bloody  sacrifice  among  the  heat  lien 
expressed  the  consciousness  that  sin  involves  guilt ;  that  guilt  exposes  man 
to  the  righteous  wrath  of  God;  that  without  expiation  of  that  guilt  there 
is  no  forgiveness  ;  and  that  through  the  suffering  of  another  who  shares  his 
life  the  sinner  may  expiate  his  sin. 

Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogmatik,  170,  quotes  from  NSgelsbaeh,  tfaohhomerische 

Theologie,  x;8  «/.  —  "  The  essence  of  punishment  is  retribution  <  Vergi  Itung  ),  and  retri- 
bution is  a  fundamental  law  of  the  world-order.  In  retribution  lies  th<  atoning  power 
of  punishment.  This  consciousness  that  the  nature  of  6in  demands  retribution,  in 
other  words,  this  certainty  that  there  is  in  Deity  a  righteousness  that  punishes  sin, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  consciousness  of  personal  transgression,  awakens  the 
longing  for  atonement,"  —  width  is  expressed  in  the  sacrifice  of  a  slaughtered  beast. 
The  Greeks  recognized  representative  expiation,  not  only  in  the  sacrifice  of  beasts,  but 
in  human  sacrifices.  See  examples  in  Tyler,  Theol.  Gk.  Poets,  196,  197,  849-353 ;  see  also 
Virgil,  iEneid,  5  :  815  —  "  Uuum  pro  multis  dabil  ur  caput"  ;  Ovid,  Fasti,  vi— "  Cor  pro 
corde,  prccor;  pro  fibris  sumite  fibras.    Hauc  animam  vobis  pro  meliore  damus." 

Stahl,  Christliehe  Philosophic,  146  — "Every  unperverted  conscience  declares  the 
eternal  law  of  righteousness  that  punishment  shall  follow  inevitably  on  sin.  In  the 
moral  realm,  there  is  another  way  of  satisfying  righteousness— t  hat  of  atonement. 
This  differs  from  punishment  in  its  effect,  that  is,  reconciliation,  —  the  moral  authority 
asserting  itself,  not  by  the  destruction  oi'the  offender,  but  by  taking  him  up  i':to  itself 
and  uniting  itself  to  him.  But  the  offender  cannot  otter  his  own  sacrifice,  —that  must 
be  done  by  the  priest."  In  the  Prometheus  Round,  of  JSschylus,  Hermes  says  to 
Prometheus  :  "  Hope  not  for  an  end  to  such  oppression,  until  a  god  appears  as  thy 
substitute  in  torment,  ready  to  descend  for  thee  into  the  unillumined  realm  of  Hades 
and  the  dark  abyss  of  Tartarus."  And  this  is  done  by  Chiron,  the  wisest  and  most  just 
of  the  Centaurs,  the  son  of  Chronos,  sacrificing  himself  for  Prometheus,  while  Her- 
cules kills  the  eagle  at  his  breast  and  so  delivers  him  from  torment.  This  legend  of 
iEschylus  is  almost  a  prediction  of  the  true  Redeemer.  See  article  on  Sacrifice,  by 
Paterson,  in  Hastings,  Bible  Dictionary. 

Westcott,  Hebrews,  282,  maintains  that  the  idea  of  expiatory  offerings,  answering  to 
the  consciousness  of  sin,  does  not  belong  to  the  early  religion  of  Greece.  We  reply 
that  Homer's  Ihad,  in  its  first  book,  describes  just  such  an  expiatory  offering  made  to 
Phoebus  Apollo,  so  turning  away  his  wrath  and  causing  the  plague  that  wastes 
the  Greeks  to  cease.  E.  G.  Robinson  held  that  there  is  "  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  had 
any  idea  of  the  efficacy  of  sacrifice  for  the  expiation  of  moral  guilt."  But  in  approach- 
ing either  the  tabernacle  or  the  temple  the  altar  always  presented  itself  before  the 
layer.  F.  Clay  Trumbull,  S.  S.  Times,  Nov.  30,  1901 :  801  — "The  Passover  was  not  a 
passing  by  of  the  houses  of  Israelites,  but  a  passing  over  or  crossing  over  by  Jehovah 
to  enter  the  homes  of  those  who  would  welcome  him  and  who  had  entered  into  cove- 
nant with  him  by  sacrifice.  The  Oriental  sovereign  was  accompanied  by  his  execu- 
tioner, who  entered  to  smite  the  first-born  of  the  house  only  when  there  was  no 
covenanting  at  the  door."  We  regard  this  explanation  as  substituting  an  incidental 
result  and  effect  of  sacrifice  for  the  sacrifice  itself.  This  always  had  in  it  the  idea  of 
reparation  for  wrong-doing  by  substitutionary  suffering. 

Curtis.  Primitive  Semitic  Religion  of  To-day,  on  the  Significance  of  Sacrifice,  218-237, 
telid  us  that  he  went  to  Palestine  prepossessed  by  Robertson  Smith's  explanation  that 


724  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

sacrifice  was  a  feast  symbolizing  friendly  communion  between  man  and  his  God.  He 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  sacrificial  meal  was  not  the  primary  element,  but  that 
there  was  a  substitutionary  value  in  the  offering.  Gift  and  feast  are  not  excluded ;  but 
these  are  sequences  and  incidentals.  Misfortune  is  evidence  of  sin ;  sin  needs  to  be 
expiated ;  the  anger  of  God  needs  to  be  removed.  The  sacrifice  consisted  principally 
in  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  the  victim.  The  "  bursting  forth  of  the  blood  "  satis- 
fied and  bought  off  the  Deity.  George  Adam  Smith  on  Isaiah  53  (  2 :  304 )  —  "  Innocent  as 
he  is,  he  gives  his  life  as  a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  law  for  the  guilt  of  his  people. 
His  death  was  no  mere  martyrdom  or  miscarriage  of  human  justice :  in  God's  intent 
and  purpose,  but  also  by  its  own  voluntary  offering,  it  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice. 
There  is  no  exegete  but  agrees  to  this.  353  — The  substitution  of  the  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah for  the  guilty  people  and  the  redemptive  force  of  that  substitution  are  no  arbi- 
trary doctrine." 

Satisfaction  means  simply  that  there  is  a  principle  in  God's  being  which  not  simply 
refuses  sin  passively,  but  also  opposes  it  actively.  The  judge,  if  he  be  upright,  must 
repel  a  bribe  with  indignation,  and  the  pure  woman  must  flame  out  in  anger  against 
an  infamous  proposal.  R.  W.  Emerson :  "  Your  goodness  must  have  some  edge  to  it, 
—  else  it  is  none."  But  the  judge  and  the  woman  do  not  enjoy  this  repelling,  —  they 
suffer  rather.  So  God's  satisfaction  is  no  gloating  over  the  pain  or  loss  which  he  is 
compelled  to  inflict.  God  has  a  wrath  which  is  calm,  judicial,  inevitable  —  the  natural 
reaction  of  holiness  against  unholiness.  Christ  suffers  both  as  one  with  the  inflicter 
and  as  one  with  those  on  whom  punishment  is  inflicted  :  "For  Christ  also  pleased  not  himself; 
but,  as  it  is  written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  fell  on  me  "  ( Rom.  15  :  3 ;  cf.  Ps.  69  :  9 ). 

(  c  )  In  considering  the  exact  purport  and  efficacy  of  the  Mosaic  sacri- 
fices, we  must  distinguish  between  their  theocratical,  and  their  spiritual, 
offices.  They  were,  on  the  one  hand,  the  appointed  means  whereby  the 
offender  could  be  restored  to  the  outward  place  and  privileges,  as  member 
of  the  theocracy,  which  he  had  forfeited  by  neglect  or  transgression  ;  and 
they  accomplished  this  purpose  irrespectively  of  the  temper  and  spirit 
with  which  they  were  offered.  On  the  other  hand,  they  were  symbolic  of 
the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  and  obtained  forgiveness  and 
acceptance  with  God  only  as  they  were  offered  in  true  penitence,  and 
with  faith  in  God's  method  of  salvation. 

Heb.  9 :  13, 14  —  "  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and  bulls,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  them  that  have  been  defiled, 
sanctify  unto  the  cleanness  of  the  flesh :  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered 
himself  without  blemish  unto  God,  cleanse  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  "  10  : 3, 4  —  "  But 
in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance  made  of  sins  year  by  year.  For  it  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats  should  take  away  sins."  Christ's  death  also,  like  the  0.  T.  sacrifices,  works  temporal 
benefit  even  to  those  who  have  no  faith ;  see  pages  771,  772. 

Robertson,  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  441,  448,  answers  the  contention  of  the  higher 
critics  that,  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  Micah,  Hosea,  Jeremiah,  no  Levitical  code  existed; 
that  these  prophets  expressed  disapproval  of  the  whole  sacrificial  system,  as  a  thing  of 
mere  human  device  and  destitute  of  divine  sanction.  But  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
surely  existed  in  their  day,  with  its  command  :  "  An  altar  of  earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me,  and 
shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt-offerings  "  (Ex.  20 :  24 ).  Or,  if  it  is  maintained  that  Isaiah  condemned 
even  that  early  piece  of  legislation,  it  proves  too  much,  for  it  would  make  the  prophet 
also  condemn  the  Sabbath  as  a  piece  of  will-worship,  and  even  reject  prayer  as  dis- 
pleasing to  God,  since  in  the  same  connection  he  says :  "new  moon  and  Sabbath  ....  I  cannot 
away  with  ....  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you"  (Is.  1 :  13-15 ).  Isaiah 
was  condemning  simply  heartless  sacrifice ;  else  we  make  him  condemn  all  that  went 
on  at  the  temple.  Micah  6:8—"  what  doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly  ?  "  This  does  not 
exclude  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  for  Micah  anticipates  the  time  when  "the  mountain  of 
Jehovah's  house  shall  be  established  on  the  top  of  the  mountains,  ....  And  many  nations  shall  go  and  say,  Come  ye 
and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  Jehovah  "  (Micah  4:1,  2).  Hos.  6:6— "I  desire  goodness,  and  not  sacrifice,"  is 
interpreted  by  what  follows,  "and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt-offerings."  Compare  Prov. 
8  :  10 ;  17 :  12 ;  and  Samuel's  words :  "to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice  "  ( 1  Sam.  15 :  22 ).  What  was  the 
altar  from  which  Isaiah  drew  his  description  of  God's  theophany  and  from  which  was 
taken  the  live  coal  that  touched  his  lips  and  prepared  him  to  be  a  prophet  ?  ( Is.  6  : 1-8 ). 
Jer.  7 :  22 — "I spake  not  ...  .  concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices  ....  but  this  thing  ....  Hearken  unto  my 
voice."    Jeremiah  insists  only  on  the  worthlessness  of  sacrifice  where  there  is  no  heart. 


THE  INSTITUTION   OP   SACRIFICE.  725 

(  d  )  Thus  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices,  when  rightly  offered,  involved  a 
consciousness  of  sin  on  the  part  of  the  worshiper,  the  bringing  of  a  victim 
to  atone  for  the  sin,  the  laying  of  the  hand  of  the  offerer  upon  the  victim's 
head,  the  confession  of  sin  by  th&  offerer,  the  slaying  of  the  beast,  the 
sprinkling  or  pouring-out  of  the  blood  upon  the  altar,  and.  the  consequent 
forgiveness  of  the  sin  and  acceptance  of  the  worshiper,  '/he  sin-offering 
and  the  scape-goat  of  the  great  day  of  atonement  symbolized  yet  more  dis- 
tinctly the  two  elementary  ideas  of  sacrifice,  namely,  satisfaction  and  sub- 
stitution, together  with  the  consequent  removal  of  guilt  from  those  oe 
whose  behalf  the  sacrifice  was  offered. 

Lev.  1  :  4 —  "And  he  shall  lay  his  hand  npon  the  head  of  the  burnt-offering;  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him,  to 
make  atonement  for  him  "  ;  4  :  20 — "Thus  shall  he  do  with  the  bullock  ;  as  he  did  with  the  bullock  of  the  sin-offering, 
so  shall  he  do  with  this ;  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  them,  and  they  shall  be  forgiven"  ;  SO  31  and  35  — 
'and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him  as  touching  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven  "  ;  BO 
5  :  10, 16 ;  6  :  7.  Lev.  17 :  11  —  "  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood ;  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to 
make  atonement  for  your  souls:  for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  by  reason  of  the  life." 

The  patriarchal  sacrifices  were  Bin-offerings,  as  the  sacrifice  of  Job  for  his  friends 
witnesses:  Job  42:7-9  —  "My  wrath  is  kindled  against  thee  [Eliphaz]  ....  therefore,  take  unto  you 
seven  bullocks  ....  and  offer  up  for  yourselves  a  burnt-offering  "  ;  cf.  33  :  24  —  "Then  God  is  gracious  unto  him,  and 
saith,  Deliver  him  from  going  down  to  the  pit,  I  have  found  a  ransom"  ;  1:5  —  Job  offered  burnt-offerings 
for  his  sons,  for  he  said,  "It  maybe  that  my  sons  have  sinned,  and  renouncd  God  in  their  hearts"  ;  Gen.  8  :20 
—  Noah  "offered  burnt-offerings  on  the  altar"  ;  21  —  "and  Jehovah  smelled  the  sweet  savor;  and  Jehovah  said  in 
his  heart,  I  will  not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake." 

That  vicarious  Buffering  is  intended  in  all  these  sacrifices,  is  plain  from  Lev.  16:1-34  — 
t  lie  account  of  the  sin-offering  and  the  scape-goat  of  the  great  day  of  atonement,  the 
full  meaning  of  which  we  give  below  ;  also  from  Gen.  22  :  13  —  "  Abraham  went  and  took  the  ram, 
and  offered  him  up  for  a  burnt-offering  in  the  stead  of  his  son  "  ;  Ex.  32  :  30-22 — where  Moses  says:  "Yehave 
sinned  a  great  sin  :  and  now  I  w.il  go  up  unto  Jehovah ;  peradventure  I  shall  make  atonement  for  your  sin.  And  Moses 
returned  unto  Jehovah,  and  said,  Oh,  this  people  have  sinned  a  great  sin,  and  have  made  them  gods  of  gold.  Yet  now, 
if  thou  wilt  forgive  their  sin  — ;  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book  which  thou  hast  written."  See 
lUso  Deut.  21 : 1-9  —  the  expiation  of  an  uncertain  murder,  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  heifer, — 
where Oehler, O. T. Theology,  1:389, says:  "Evidently  the  punishment  of  death  in- 
curred by  the  manslayer  is  executed  symbolically  upon  the  heifer."  Inls.  53:1-12— "All  we 
like  sheep  have  gone  astray  ;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ;  and  Jehovah  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of 
nsall  .  .  .  .  stripes  ....  offering  for  sin  "  —  the  ideas  of  both  satisfaction  and  substitution  are 
still  more  plain. 

Wallace,  Representative  Responsibility :  "  The- animate,  offered  in  sacrifice  must  be 
animals  brought  into  direct  relat  ion  to  man,  subject  to  him,  his  property.  They  could 
not  be  spoils  of  the  chase.  Thej  must  bear  I  he  mark  and  impress  of  humanity.  Upon 
the  sacrifice  human  hands  must  be  laid  —  the  hands  c,t  the  offerer  and  the  hands  of  the 
priest.  The  offering  is  the  substif  ute  of  the  offerer.  The  priest  is  the  substitute  of  the 
offerer.  The  priest  and  the  sacrifice  were  om  symbol.  [Hence,  in  the  new  dispensai  ion, 
the  priest  and  the  sacrifice  are  one  —both  are  found  in  Christ.  ]  The  high  priest  must 
enter  the  holy  of  holies  with  his  own  linger  dipped  in  blood:  the  blood  must  be  in  con- 
tact with  his  own  person,  —  another  indication  of  the  identification  of  the  two.  Life  is 
nourished  and  sustained  by  life.  All  life  lower  than  man  may  be  sacrificed  for  the  good 
of  man.  The  blood  must  be  spilled  on  the  ground.  'In  the  blood  is  the  life.'  The  life  is 
reserved  by  God.  It  is  given  for  man,  but  not  to  him.  Life  for  life  is  the  law  of  the 
creation.  So  the  life  of  Christ,  also,  for  oar  life.  —  Adam  was  originally  priest  of  the 
family  and  of  the  race.  But  he  lost  his  representative  character  by  the  one  act  of 
dis<  ibedience,  and  his  redemption  was  that  of  the  individual,  not  that  of  the  race.  The 
race  ceased  to  have  a  representative.  The  subjects  of  the  divine  government  were 
henceforth  to  be,  not  the  natural  offspring  of  Adam  as  such,  but  the  redeemed.  That 
the  body  and  the  blood  are  both  required,  indicates  the  demand  that  the  death  should 
be  by  a  violence  that  sheds  blood.  The  sacrifices  6howed  forth,  not  Christ  himself  [  his 
character,  his  life],  but  Christ's  death." 

This  following  is  a  tentative  scheme  of  the  Jewish  Sacrifices.  The  general  reason 
for  sacrifice  is  expressed  in  Lev.  17:11  (  quoted  above).  I.  For  the  individual:  1.  The 
sin-offering  =  sacrifice  to  expiate  sins  of  ignorance  (thoughtlessness  and  plausible 
temptation ) :  Lev.  4 :  14,  20,  31.    2.  The  trespass-offering  =  sacrifice  to  expiate  sins  of  omis- 


726  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

sion  :  Lev.  5 : 5,  6.  3.  The  burnt-offering-  =  sacrifice  to  expiate  general  sinfulness :  Lev.  1  :S 
( the  offering-  of  Mary,  Luke  2 :  24 ).  II.  .For  the  fam ily :  The  Passover :  Ex.  12 :  27.  III.  For 
the  people:  1.  The  daily  morning  and  evening  sacrifice :  Ex.  29:38-46.  2.  The  offering  of 
the  great  clay  of  atonement :  Lev.  16:6-10.  In  this  last,  two  victims  were  employed,  one 
to  represent  the  means  —  death,  and  the  other  to  represent  the  result  —  forgiveness. 
One  victim  could  not  i-epresent  both  the  atonement  —  by  shedding  of  blood,  and  the 
justification  —  by  putting  away  sin. 

Jesus  died  for  our  sins  at  the  Passover  feast  and  at  the  hour  of  daily  sacrifice. 
McLaren,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Nov.  30, 1901:801  —  "  Shedding  of  blood  and  consequent  safety 
were  only  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Passover.  There  is  a  double  identification  of 
the  person  offering  with  his  sacrifice :  first,  in  that  he  offers  it  as  his  representative, 
laying  his  hand  on  its  head,  or  otherwise  transferring  his  personality,  as  it  were,  to  it ; 
and  secondly,  in  that,  receiving  it  back  again  from  God  to  whom  he  gave  it,  he  feeds 
on  it,  so  making  it  part  of  his  life  and  nourishing  himself  thereby :  'My  flesh  ....  which  I 
will  give  ....  for  the  life  of  the  world  ....  he  that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall  live  because  of  me '  ( John  6 :  51,  57 )." 

Chambers,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1802 :  22-34  —  On  the  great  day  of  atonement 
"the  double  offering— one  for  Jehovah  and  the  other  for  Azazel  —  typified  not  only 
the  removing  of  the  guilt  of  the  people,  but  its  transfer  to  the  odious  and  detestable 
being  who  was  the  first  cause  of  its  existence,"  i.  e.,  Satan.  Lidgett,  Spir.  Principle 
of  the  Atonement,  112, 113  — "It  was  not  the  punishment  which  the  goat  bore  away 
into  the  wilderness,  for  the  idea  of  punishment  is  not  directly  associated  with  the  scape- 
goat. It  bears  the  sin  —  the  whole  unfaithfulness  of  the  community  which  had  denied 
the  holy  places  —  out  from  them,  so  that  henceforth  they  may  be  pure The  sin- 
offering —  representing  the  sinner  by  receiving  the  burden  of  his  sin  —  makes  expiation 
by  yielding  up  and  yielding  back  its  life  to  God,  under  conditions  which  represent  at 
once  the  wrath  and  the  placability  of  God." 

On  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  see  Fairbairu,  Typology,  1:209-223;  Wiinsche,  Die  Leiden 
des  Messias;  Jukes,  O.  T.  Sacrifices;  Smeaton,  Apostle's  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  25-53 ; 
Kurt/,,  Sacrificial  Worship  of  O.  T.,  120 ;  Bible  Com.,  1 :  502-51)8,  and  Introd.  to  Leviticus ; 
Candlish  on  Atonement,  123-142;  Weber,  Vom  Zorne  Gottes,  161-180.  On  passages  in 
Leviticus,  see  Com.  of  Knobel,  in  Exeg.  Handb.  d.  Alt.  Test. 

( e )  It  is  not  essential  to  this  view  to  maintain  that  a  formal  divine  insti- 
tution of  the  rite  of  sacrifice,  at  man's  expulsion  from  Eden,  can  be  proved 
from  Scripture.  Like  the  family  and  the  state,  sacrifice  may,  without  such 
formal  inculcation,  possess  divine  sanction,  and  be  ordained  of  God.  The 
well-nigh  universal  prevalence  of  sacrifice,  however,  together  with  the  fact 
that  its  nature,  as  a  bloody  offering,  seems  to  preclude  man's  own  invention 
of  it,  combines  with  certain  Scripture  intimations  to  favor  the  view  that  it 
was  a  primitive  divine  appointment.  From  the  time  of  Moses,  there  can 
be  no  question  as  to  its  divine  authority. 

Compare  the  origin  of  prayer  and  worship,  for  which  we  find  no  formal  divine  injunc- 
tions at  the  beginnings  of  history.  Heb.  11 :  4  —  "By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice 
than  Cain,  through  which  he  had  witness  borne  to  him  that  he  was  righteous,  God  bearing  witness  in  respect  of  his 
gifts"  —  here  it  may  be  argued  that  since  Abel's  faith  was  not  presumption,  it  must  have 
had  some  injunction  and  promise  of  God  to  base  itself  upon.  Gen.  4:3,  4  —  "  Cain  brought  of 
■■,he  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto  Jehovah.  And  Abel,  ne  also  brought  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock  and  of  the  fat 
thereof.    And  Jehovah  had  respect  unto  Abel  and  to  his  offering :  but  unto  Cain  and  to  his  offering  he  had  not  respect." 

It  has  been  urged,  in  corroboration  of  this  view,  that  the  previous  existence  of  sacri- 
fice is  intimated  in  Gen.  3  :  21  —  "  And  Jehovah  God  made  for  Adam  and  for  his  wife  coats  of  skins,  and  clothed 
them."  Since  the  killing  of  animals  for  food  was  not  permitted  until  long  afterwards 
(  Gen.  9:3  —  to  Noah  :  "  Every  moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  food  for  you  "  ),  the  inference  has  been 
drawn,  that  the  skins  with  which  God  clothed  our  first  parents  were  the  skins  of 
animals  slain  for  sacrifice, — this  clothing  furnishing  a  type  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  which  secures  our  restoration  to  God's  favor,  as  the  death  of  the  victims  fur- 
nished a  type  of  the  suffering  of  Christ  which  secures  for  us  remission  of  punishment. 
We  must  regard  this,  however,  as  a  pleasing  and  possibly  correct  hypothesis,  rather 
than  as  a  demonstrated  truth  of  Scripture.  Since  the  unperverted  instincts  of  human 
nature  are  an  expression  of  God's  will,  Abel's  faith  may  have  consisted  in  trusting 
these,  rather  than  the  promptings  of  selfishness  and  self-righteousness.    The  death  of 


THE    INSTITUTION   OF   SACRIFICE.  727 

animals  in  sacrifice,  like  the  death  of  Christ  which  it  signified,  was  only  the  hastening' 
of  what  belonged  to  them  because  of  their  connection  with  human  sin.  Faith  recog- 
nized this' connection.  On  the  divine  appointment  of  sacrifice,  Bee  Park,  in  Bib.  .Sac, 
Jan.  1876 :  102-13:.'.  Westcott,  Hebrews,^8L— "There  is  n<>  reason  to  think  that  sacri- 
fice was  instituted  in  obedience  to  a  direct  revelation It  is  mentioned  in  Scripture 

at  first  as  natural  and  known.  It  was  practically  universal  in  prechrist ian  times. ...  In 
due  time  the  popular  practice  of  sacrifice  was  regulated  by  revelation  as  disciplinary, 
and  also  used  as  a  vehicle  for  typical  teaching."  We  prefer  to  say  that  sacrifice  proba- 
bly originated  in  a  fundamental  instinct  of  humanity,  and  was  therefore  a  divine 
ordinance  as  much  as  were  marriage  and  government. 

On  Gen.  4:3,  4,  see  C.  H.  M.  —  "  The  entire  difference  between  Cain  and  Abel  lay,  not  in 
their  natures,  but  in  their  sacrifices.  Cain  brought  to  Cod  the  sin-stained  fruit  of  a 
cursed  earth.  Here  was  no  recognition  of  the  fact  that  he  was  a  sinner,  condemned  to 
death.  All  his  v<  >il  could  not  satisfy  God's  holiness,  or  remove  the  penalty.  But  Abel 
recognized  his  sin,  condemnation,  helplessness,  death,  and  brought  the  bloody  sacrifice 
—  the  sacrifice  of  another  — the  sacrifice  provided  by  God,  to  meet  the  claims  of  God. 
He  found  a  substitute,  and  he  presented  it  in  faith  — the  faith  that  looks  away  from 
self  to  Christ,  or  God's  appointed  way  of  salvation.  The  difference  was  not  in  their 
persons,  but  in  their  gifts.  Of  Abel  it  is  said,  that  God  'bore  witness  in  respect  of  his  gifts' 
(Heb.  11 : 4 ).  To  Cain  it  is  said, '  if  thou  doest  well  (  lxx.  :  bpdiis  irpocrei'e'y/ojs  —  if  thou  offerest  correctly  ) 
shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ? '  But  Cain  desired  to  get  away  from  God  and  from  God's  way, 
and  to  lose  himself  in  the  w<  >rld.  This  is  'the  way  of  Cain '  ( Jude  11 )."  Per  contra,  see  Craw- 
ford, Atonement,  259—  "  Both  in  Levitical  and  patriarchal  times,  we  have  no  formal 
institution  of  sacrifice,  but  the  regulation,  of  sacrifice  already  existing.  But  Abel's 
faith  may  have  had  respect,  not  to  a  revelation  with  regard  to  sacrificial  worship,  but 
with  regard  to  the  promised  Redeemer;  and  his  sacrifice  may  have  expressed  that 
faith.  If  so,  God's  acceptance  of  it  gave  a  divine  warrant  to  future  sacrifices.  Itwas 
not  will-worship,  because  it  was  not  substituted  for  some  other  -worship  which  God 
had  previously  instituted.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  God  gave  an  expressed 
command.  Abel  may  have  been  moved  by  some  inward  divine  monition.  Thus  Adam 
said  to  Eve, 'This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones. ...' (Gen.  2:23),  before  any  divine  command  of  mar- 
riage. No  fruits  were  presented  during  the  patriarchal  dispensation.  Heathen  sacri- 
fices were  corruptions  of  primitive  sacrifice."  Von  Lasaulx,  Die  SUhnopfer  der 
Griechen  und  Rumer,  und  ihr  Yerluiltniss  zu  dem  einen  auf  Golgotha,  1  —  "The  first 
word  of  the  original  man  was  probably  a  prayer,  the  first  action  ot  fallen  man  a  sacri- 
fice " ;  see  translation  in  Bib.  Sac,  1 :  368-408.  Bishop  Butler :  "  By  the  general  preva- 
lence of  propitiatory  sacrifices  over  the  heathen  world,  the  notion  of  repentance  alone 
being  sufficient  to  expiate  guilt  appears  to  be  contrary  to  the  general  sense  of  man- 
kind." 

(/)  The  New  Testament  assumes  and  presupposes  tlie  Old  Testament 
doctrine  of  sacrifice.  The  sacrificial  language  iu  which  its  descriptions  of 
Christ's  work  are  clothed  cannot  be  explained  as  au  accommodation  to 
Jewish  methods  of  thought,  since  this  terminology  was  in  large  part  in 
common  use  among  the  heathen,  and  Paul  used  it  more  than  any  other  of 
the  apostles  in  dealing  with  the  Gentiles.  To  deny  to  it  its  Old  Testament 
meaning,  when  used  by  New  Testament  writers  to  describe  the  work  of 
Christ,  is  to  deny  any  proper  inspiration  both  in  the  Mosaic  appointment 
of  sacrifices  and  in  the  apostolic  interpretations  of  them.  We  must  there- 
fore maintain,  as  the  result  of  a  simple  induction  of  Scripture  facts,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  is  a  vicarious  offering,  provided  by  God's  love  for  the 
purpose  of  satisfying  an  internal  demand  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  of 
removing  an  obstacle  in  the  divine  mind  to  the  renewal  and  pardon  of 
sinners. 

"  The  epistle  of  James  makes  no  allusion  to  sacrifice.  But  he  would  not  have  failed 
to  allude  to  it,  if  he  had  held  the  moral  view  of  the  atonement ;  for  it  would  then  have 
been  an  obvious  help  to  his  argument  against  merely  formal  service.  Christ  protested 
against  washing  hands  and  keeping  Sabbath  days.  If  sacrifice  had  been  a  piece  of 
human  formality,  how  indignantly  would  he  have  inveighed  against  it !    But  instead 


728  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

of  this  he  received  from  John  the  Baptist,  without  rebuke,  the  words  :  '  Behold,  the  Lamb  o! 
God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world '  ( John  1  :  29 )." 

A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  247—  "The  sacrifices  of  bulls  and  goats  were  like 
token-money,  as  our  paper-promises  to  pay,  accepted  at  their  face-value  till  the  day  of 
settlement.  But  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  gold  which  absolutely  extinguished  all 
debt  by  its  intrinsic  value.  Hence,  when  Christ  died,  the  veil  that  separated  man  from 
God  was  rent  from  the  top  to  the  bottom  by  supernatural  hands.  When  the  real  expi- 
ation was  finished,  the  whole  symbolical  system  representing  it  became  functum  officio, 
and  was  abolished.  Soon  after  this,  the  temple  was  razed  to  the  ground,  and  the  ritual 
was  rendered  forever  impossible.'' 

For  denial  that  Christ's  death  is  to  be  interpreted  by  heathen  or  Jewish  sacrifices,  see 
Maurice  on  Sac,  154  —  "  The  heathen  signification  of  words,  when  applied  to  a  Christian 
use,  must  be  not  merely  modified,  but  inverted  " ;  Jowett,  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  2  :  479  — 
"  The  heathen  and  Jewish  sacrifices  rather  show  us  what  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  not, 
than  what  it  was."  Bushnell  and  Young  do  not  doubt  the  expiatory  nature  of  heathen 
sacrifices.  But  the  main  terms  which  the  N.  T.  uses  to  describe  Christ's  sacrifice  are 
borrowed  from  the  Greek  sacrificial  ritual,  e.  g.,  ■AvaCa,  n-poa^opa,  iAao-^os,  a-yia^io,  KatWpto, 
iAaa-Ko/xai.  To  deny  that  these  terms,  when  applied  to  Christ,  imply  expiation  and  sub- 
stitution, is  to  deny  the  inspiration  of  those  who  used  them.  See  Cave,  Scripture  Doc- 
trine of  Sacrifice ;  art.  on  Sacrifice,  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary. 

With  all  these  indications  of  our  dissent  from  the  modern  denial  of  expiatory  sacri- 
fice, we  deem  it  desirable  by  way  of  contrast  to  present  the  clearest  possible  statement 
of  the  view  from  which  we  dissent.  This  may  be  found  in  Pfleiderer,  Philosophy  of 
Religion,  1:238,  260,  2G1  —  "  The  gradual  distinction  of  the  moral  from  the  ceremonial, 
the  repression  and  ultimate  replacement  of  ceremonial  expiation  by  the  moral  purifica- 
tion of  the  sense  and  life,  and  consequently  the  transformation  of  the  mystical  concep- 
tion of  redemption  into  the  corresponding  ethical  conception  of  education,  may  be 
designated  as  the  kernel  and  the  teleologies!  principle  of  the  development  of  the  his- 
tory of  religion But  to  Paul  the  question  in  what  sense  the  death  of  the  Cross 

could  be  the  means  of  the  Messianic  redemption  found  its  answer  simply  from  the  pre- 
suppositions of  the  Pharisaic  theology,  which  behold  in  the  innocent  suffering,  and 
especially  in  the  martyr-death,  of  the  righteous,  an  expiatory  means  compensating 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  people.  What  would  be  more  natural  than  that  Paul  should 
contemplate  the  death  on  the  Cross  in  the  same  way,  as  an  expiatory  means  of  salvation 
for  the  redemption  of  the  sinful  world  ? 

"  We  are  thus  led  to  see  in  this  theory  the  symbolical  presentment  of  the  truth  that 
the  new  man  suffers,  as  it  were,  vicariously,  for  the  old  man ;  for  betakes  upon  himself 
the  daily  pain  of  self-subjugation,  and  bears  guiltlessly  in  patience  the  evils  which  the 
old  man  could  not  but  necessarily  impute  to  himself  as  punishment.  Therefore  as 
Christ  is  the  exemplification  of  the  moral  idea  of  man,  so  his  death  is  the  symbol  of  that 
moral  process  of  painful  self-subjugation  in  obedience  and  patience,  in  which  the  true 

inner  redemption  of  man  consists In  like  manner  Fichte  said  that  the  only  proper 

means  of  salvation  is  the  death  of  selfhood,  death  with  Jesus,  regeneration. 

"  The  defect  in  the  Kant-Fichtean  doctrine  of  redemption  consisted  in  this,  that  it 
limited  the  process  of  ethical  transformation  to  the  individual,  and  endeavored  to 
explain  it  from  his  subjective  reason  and  freedom  alone.  How  could  the  individual 
deliver  himself  from  his  powerlessness  and  become  free  ?  This  question  was  unsolved. 
The  Christian  doctrine  of  redemption  is  that  the  moral  liberation  of  the  individual  is 
not  the  effect  of  his  own  natural  power,  but  the  effect  of  the  divine  Spirit,  who,  from 
the  beginning  of  human  history,  put  forth  his  activity  as  the  power  educating  to  the 
good,  and  especially  has  created  for  himself  in  the  Christian  community  a  permanent 
organ  for  the  education  of  the  people  and  of  individuals.  It  was  the  moral iadividual- 
ism  of  Kant  which  prevented  him  from  finding  in  the  historically  realized  common 
spirit  of  the  good  the  real  force  available  for  the  individual  becoming  good." 

C.     Theories  of  tlie  Atonement. 

1st.     The  Socinian,  or  Example  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

This  theory  holds  that  subjective  sinfulness  is  the  sole  barrier  between 
man  and  God.  Not  God,  but  only  man,  needs  to  be  reconciled.  The  only 
method  of  reconciliation  is  to  better  man's  moral  condition.  This  can  be 
effected  by  man's  own  will,  through  repentance  and  reformation.     The 


SOCINIAN   THEORY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  729 

death  of  Christ  is  but  the  death  of  a  noble  martyr.  He  redeems  us,  only 
as  his  human  example  of  faithfulness  to  truth  and  duty  has  a  powerful 
influence  upon  our  moral  improvement.  This  fact  the  apostles,  either 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  clothed  in  the  language  of  the  Greek  and 
Jewish  sacrifices.  This  theory  was  fully  elaborated  by  Lselius  Socinus  aud 
Faustus  Socinus  of  Poland,  in  the  16th  century.  Its  modern  advocates 
are  found  in  the  Unitarian  body. 

The  Socinian  theory  may  be  found  stated,  and  advocated,  in  Bibliotheca  Fratrum 
Polouorum,  1 :  566-600 ;  Martineau,  Studies  of  Christianity,  83-176 ;  J.  F.  Clarke,  Ortho- 
doxy, Its  Truths  and  Errors,  23j-205;  Ellis,  Unitarianisra  and  Orthodoxy ;  Sheldon,  Sin 
and  Redemption,  146-210.  The  text  which  at  first  sight  most  seems  to  favor  this  view 
is  1  Pet.  2 :  21  —  "  Christ  also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps."  But  see 
under  ( e )  below.  When  Correggio  saw  Raphael's  picture  of  St.  Cecilia,  he  exclaimed : 
"I  too  am  a  painter."  So  Socinus  held  that  Christ's  example  roused  our  humanity 
to  imitation.  He  regarded  expiation  as  heathenish  and  impossible;  every  one  must 
receive  according  to  his  deeds ;  God  is  ready  to  grant  forgiveness  on  simple  repentance. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  277  —  "  The  theory  first  insists  on  the  inviola- 
bility of  moral  sequences  in  the  conduct  of  every  moral  agent ;  and  then  insists  that, 
on  a  given  condition,  the  consequences  of  transgression  may  be  arrested  by  almighty 

fiat Unitarianism  errs  in  giving  a  transforming  power  to  that  which  works 

beneficently  only  after  the  transformation  has  been  wrought."  In  ascribing  to  human 
nature  a  power  of  self-reformation,  it  ignores  man's  need  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spiivit.  But  even  this  renewing  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  presupposes  the  atoning  work 
of  Christ.  "  Ye  must  be  bcrn  anew  "  ( John  3:7)  necessitat es  "  Even  so  must  tho  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up " 
(John3:14).  It  is  only  the  Cross  that  satisfies  man's  instinct  of  reparation.  Harnack, 
Das  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  99— "Those  who  regarded  Christ's  death  soon  ceased  to 
bring  any  other  bloody  offering  to  God.  This  is  true  both  in  Judaism  and  in  heathen- 
ism. Christ's  death  put  an  end  to  all  bloody  offerings  in  religious  history.  The  impulse 
to  sacrifice  found  its  satisfaction  in  the  Cross  of  Christ."  We  regard  this  as  proof  that 
the  Cross  is  essentially  a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice,  and  not  a  mere  example  of 
faithfulness  to  duty.  The  Socinian  theory  is  the  first  of  six  theories  of  the  Atonement, 
which  roughly  correspond  with  our  six  previously  treated  theories  of  sin,  and  this  first 
theory  includes  most  of  the  false  doctrine  which  appears  in  mitigated  forms  in  several 
of  the  theories  following. 

To  this  theory  we  make  the  following  objections  : 

(a)  It  is  based  upon  false  philosophical  principles, — as,  for  example,  that 
will  is  merely  the  faculty  of  volitions  ;  that  the  foundation  of  virtue  is  in 
utility  ;  that  law  is  tin  expression  of  arbitrary  will ;  that  penalty  is  a  means 
of  reforming  the  offender ;  that  righteousness,  in  either  God  or  man,  is 
only  a  manifestation  of  benevolence. 

If  the  will  is  simply  the  faculty  of  volitions,  and  not  also  the  fundamental  determi- 
nation of  the  being  to  an  ultimate  end,  then  man  can,  by  a  single  volition,  effect  his 
own  reformation  and  reconciliation  to  God.  If  the  foundation  of  virtue  is  in  utility, 
then  there  is  nothing  in  the  divine  being  that  prevents  pardon,  the  good  of  the  crea- 
ture, and  not  the  demands  of  God's  holiness,  being  the  reason  for  Christ's  suffering. 
If  law  is  an  expression  of  arbitrary  will,  instead  of  being  a  transcript  of  the  divine 
nature,  it  may  at  any  time  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  sinner  may  be  pardoned  on  mere 
repentance.  If  penalty  is  merely  a  means  of  reforming  the  offender,  then  sin  does 
not  involve  objective  guilt,  or  obligation  to  suffer,  and  sin  may  be  forgiven,  at  any 
moment,  to  all  who  forsake  it,  —indeed,  must  be  forgiven,  since  punishment  is  out  of 
place  when  the  sinner  is  reformed.  If  righteousness  is  only  a  form  or  manifestation  of 
benevolence,  then  God  can  show  his  benevolence  as  easily  through  pardon  as  through 
penalty,  and  Christ's  death  is  only  intended  to  attract  us  toward  the  good  by  the  force 
of  a  noble  example. 

Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2 :  218-264,  is  essentially  Socinian  in  his  view  of  Jesus'  death. 
Yet  he  ascribes  to  Jesus  the  idea  that  suffering  is  necessary,  even  for  one  who  stands 
in  perfect  love  and  blessed  fellowship  with  God,  since  earthly  bles3cdness  is  not  the 


730  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION". 

true  blessedness,  and  since  a  true  piety  is  impossible  without  renunciation  and  stoop- 
ing- to  minister  to  others.  The  earthly  lite-sacrifice  of  the  Messiah  was  his  necessary 
and  greatest  act,  and  was  the  culminating-  point  of  his  teaching-.  Suffering  made  him 
a  perfect  example,  and  so  ensured  the  success  of  his  work.  But  why  God  should  have 
made  it  necessary  that  the  holiest  must  suffer,  Wendt  does  not  explain.  This  constitu- 
tion of  things  we  can  understand  only  as  a  revelation  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and  of 
his  punitive  relation  to  human  sin.  Simon,  Reconciliation,  357,  shows  well  that  exam- 
ple might  have  sufficed  for  a  race  that  merely  needed  leadership.  But  what  the  race 
needed  most  was  energizing,  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  of  restoration  to  God  on 
their  behalf  by  one  of  themselves,  by  one  whose  very  essence  they  shared,  who  created 
them,  in  whom  they  consisted,  and  whose  work  was  therefore  their  work.  Christ  con- 
demned with  the  divine  condemnation  the  thoughts  and  impulses  arising  from  his  sub- 
conscious life.  Before  the  sin,  which  for  the  moment  seemed  to  be  his,  could  become 
his,  he  condemned  it.  He  sympathized  with,  nay,  he  revealed,  the  very  justice  and 
sorrow  of  God.  Hebrews  2  :  16-18  —  "  For  verily  not  to  angols  doth  he  give,  help,  but  he  giveth  help  to  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  Wherefore  it  behooved  him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  become  a  merciful 
and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For  in  that  he  him- 
self hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted." 

( b )  It  is  a  natural  outgrowth  from  the  Pelagian  view  of  sin,,  and  logi- 
cally necessitates  a  curtailment  or  surrender  of  every  other  characteristic 
doctrine  of  Christianity — inspiration,  sin,  the  deity  of  Christ,  justification, 
regeneration,  and  eternal  retribution. 

The  Socinian  theory  requires  a  surrender  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration ;  for  the  idea 
of  vicarious  and  expiatory  sacrifice  is  woven  into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  the  ( )ld 
and  New  Testaments.  It  requires  an  abandonment  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  sin  ; 
for  in  it  all  idea  of  sin  as  perversion  of  nature  rendering  the  sinner  unable  to  save 
himself,  and  as  objective  guilt  demanding  satisfaction  to  the  divine  holiness,  is  denied. 
It  requires  us  to  give  up  the  deity  of  Christ ;  for  if  sin  is  a  slight  evil,  and  man  can  save 
himself  from  its  penalty  and  power,  then  there  is  no  longer  need  of  either  an  infinite 
suffering  or  an  infinite  Savior,  and  a  human  Christ  is  as  good  as  a  divine.  It  requires 
us  to  give  up  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  justification,  as  God's  act  of  declaring  the  sinner 
just  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  solely  on  account  of  the  righteousness  and  death  of  Christ 
to  whom  he  is  united  by  faith ;  for  the  Socinian  theory  cannot  permit  the  counting  to 
a  man  of  any  other  righteousness  than  his  own.  It  requires  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration ;  for  this  is  no  longer  the  work  of  God,  but  the  work  of  the  sinner ;  it  is 
no  longer  a  change  of  the  affections  below  consciousness,  but  a  self -reforming  volition 
of  the  sinner  himself.  It  requires  a  denial  of  eternal  retribution ;  for  this  is  no  longer 
appropriate  to  finite  transgression  of  arbitrary  law,  and  to  superficial  sinning  that  does 
not  involve  nature. 

(  c  )  It  contradicts  the  Scripture  teachings,  that  sin  involves  objective 
guilt  as  well  as  subjective  defilement ;  that  the  holiness  of  God  must  punish 
sin  ;  that  the  atonement  was  a  bearing  of  the  punishment  of  sin  for  men  ; 
and  that  this  vicarious  bearing  of  punishment  was  necessary,  on  the  part  of 
God,  to  make  possible  the  showing  of  favor  to  the  guilty. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  make  the  main  object  of  the  atonement  to  be  man's  subjective 
moral  improvement.  It  is  to  God  that  the  sacrifice  is  offered,  and  the  object  of  it  is  to 
satisfy  the  divine  holiness,  and  to  remove  from  the  divine  mind  an  obstacle  to  the  show- 
ing of  favor  to  the  guilty.  It  was  something  external  to  man  and  his  happiness  or 
virtue,  that  required  that  Christ  should  suffer.  What  Emerson  has  said  of  the  martyr 
is  yet  more  true  of  Christ :  "  Though  love  repine,  and  reason  chafe,  There  comes  a  voice 
without  reply,  'T  is  man's  perdition  to  be  safe,  When  for  the  truth  he  ought  to  die." 
The  truta  for  which  Christ  died  was  truth  internal  to  the  nature  of  God;  not  simply 
truth  externalized  and  published  among  men.  What  the  truth  of  God  required,  that 
Christ  rendered  —  full  satisfaction  to  violated  justice.  "  Jesus  paid  it  all "  ;  and  no  obedi- 
ence or  righteousness  of  ours  can  be  added  to  his  work,  as  a  ground  of  our  salvation. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  276  —  "  This  theory  fails  of  a  due  recognition  of 
that  deep-seated,  universal  and  innate  sense  of  ill-desert,  which  in  all  times  and  every- 
where has  prompted  men  to  aim  at  some  expiation  of  their  guilt.    For  this  sense  of 


sociisriAisr  theory  of  the  atonement.  731 

guilt  and  its  requirements  the  moral  influence  theory  makes  no  adequate  provision, 
either  in  Christ  or  in  those  whom  Christ  saves.  Supposing  Christ's  redemptive  work  to 
consist  merely  In  winning  men  to  the  practice  of  righteousness,  it  takes  no  account  of 
penalty,  either  as  the  sanction  of  the  lawyas  the  reaction  of  the  divine  holiness  against 
sin,  or  as  the  upbraiding  of  the  individual  conscience.  .  .  .  The  Socinian  theorj' over- 
looks the  fact  that  there  must  be  some  objective  manifestation  of  God's  wrath  and  dis- 
pleasure against  sin." 

(  d  )  It  furnishes  no  proper  explanation  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ.  The  unmarfcyrlike  anguish  cannot  be  accounted  for,  and  the  for- 
saking by  the  Father  cannot  be  justified,  upon  the  hypothesis  that  Christ 
died  as  a  mere  witness  to  truth.  If  Christ's  Bufferings  were  not  propitia- 
t<  >ry,  they  neither  furnish  us  with  a  perfect  example,  nor  constitute  a  mani- 
festation of  the  love  of  God. 

Compare  Jesus'  feeling,  in  view  of  death,  with  that  of  Paul :  "  having  the  desire  to  depart  " 
(Phil  1 :  23 ).  Jesus  was  filled  with  anguish :  "Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father, 
save  me  from  this  hour  "  ( John  12  :  27  ).  If  Christ  was  simply  a  martyr,  then  he  is  not  a  perfect 
example  ;  for  many  a  martyr  has  shown  greater  courage  in  prospect  of  death,  and  in 
the  final  agony  has  been  able  to  say  that  the  fire  that  consumed  him  was  "a  bed  of 
roses.''  Oethsemane,  with  its  mental  anguish,  is  apparently  recorded  in  order  to  indi- 
cate that  Christ's  sufferings  even  on  the  cross  were  not  mainly  physical  sufferings. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  unduly  emphasizes  the  physical  side  of  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion, but  loses  sight  of  its  spiritual  element.  The  Christ  of  Rome  indeed  is  either  a 
babe  or  dead,  and  the  crucifix  presents  to  us  not  a  risen  and  living  Redeemer,  but  a 
mangled  and  lifeless  body. 

Stroud,  in  his  Physical  Cause  of  our  Lord's  Death,  lias  made  it.  probable  that  Jesus 
died  of  a  broken  heart,  and  that  this  alone  explains  John  19  ;  34  —  "  one  of  the  soldiers  with  aspea, 
pierced  his  side,  and  straightway  there  came  out  blood  and  water"  —  i.  c,  the  heart  had  already  been  rup- 
tured by  grief.  That  grief  was  grief  at  the  forsaking  of  the  Father  (  Mat.  27  :  46  —  "  My 
Sod,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"),  and  the  resulting  death  shows  that  that  forsaking  was 
no  imaginary  one.  Did  God  make  the  holiest  man  of  all  to  be  the  greatest  sufferer  of 
all  the  ages  ?  This  heart  broken  by  the  forsaking  of  the  Father  means  more  than  mar- 
tyrdom. If  Christ's  death  is  not  propitiatory,  it  tills  me  with  terror  and  despair;  for 
it  presents  me  not  only  with  a  very  imperfect  example  in  Christ,  but  with  a  proof  of 
measureless  injustice  on  the  part  of  God.  Luke  23  :  28  —  "  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  yoursolves  " 
=  Jesus  rejects  all  pity  that  forgets  his  suffering  for  others. 

To  the  above  view  of  Stroud,  Westcott  objects  that  blood  does  not  readily  flow  from 
an  ordinary  corpse.  The  separation  of  the  red  corpuscles  of  the  blood  from  the  serum, 
or  water,  would  be  the  beginning  of  decomposition,  and  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  statement  in  Acts  2  :  31  —  "  neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption."  But  Dr.  \V.  W.  Keen  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  his  article  on  The  Bloody  Sweat  of  our  Lord  (  Bib.  Sac.,  July,  1897  :  409 -484) 
endorses  Stroud's  view  as  to  the  physical  cause  of  our  Lord'sdeath.  Christ's  being  for- 
saken by  the  Father  was  only  the  culmination  of  that  relative  withdrawal  which  con- 
stituted the  source  of  Christ's  loneliness  through  life.  Through  life  he  was  a  servant  of 
the  Spirit.  On  the  cross  the  Spirit  left  him  to  the  weakness  of  unassisted  humanity, 
destitute  of  conscious  divine  resources.  Compare  the  curious  reading  of  Heb.  2:9  — 
"  that  he  apart  from  God  (  xwP's  OcoO  )  should  taste  death  for  every  man." 

If  Christ  merely  supposed  himself  to  be  deserted  by  God,  "  not  only  does  Christ 
become  an  erring  man,  and,  so  far  as  the  predicate  deity  is  applicable  to  him,  an  erring 
God ;  but,  if  he  cherished  uufounded  distrust  of  God,  how  can  it  be  possible  stiil  to 
maintain  that  his  will  was  in  abiding,  perfect  agreement  and  identity  with  the  will 
of  God  ?  "  See  Kant,  Lotze,  and  Ritschl,  by  Stiihlin,  219.  Charles  C.  Everett,  Gospel  of 
Paul,  says  Jesus  was  not  crucified  because  he  was  accursed,  but  he  was  accursed 
because  he  was  crucified,  so  that,  in  wreaking  vengeance  upon  him,  Jewish  law  abro- 
gated itself.  This  interpretation  however  contradicts  2  Cor.  5  :  21—  "Km  who  knew  no  sin  he 
madj  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf"— where  the  divine  identification  of  Christ  with  the  race  of  sin- 
uei-s  antedates  and  explains  his  sufferings.  John  1 :  29  —  "the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world"  —  does  not  refer  to  Jesus  as  a  lamb  for  gentleness,  but  as  a  lamb  for  sacrifice. 
Maclaren:  "How  does  Christ's  death  prove  God's  love?  Only  on  one  supposition, 
namely,  that  Christ  is  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  sent  by  the  Father's  love  and  being 
his  express  image";  and,  we  may  add,  suffering  vicariously  for  us  and  removing  the 
obstacle  in  God's  mind  to  our  pardon. 


732  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

(e)  The  influence  of  Christ's  example  is  neither  declared  in  Scripture, 
nor  found  in  Christian  experience,  to  be  the  chief  result  secured  by  his 
death.  Mere  example  is  but  a  new  preaching  of  the  law,  which  repels  and 
condemns.  The  cross  has  power  to  lead  men  to  holiness,  only  as  it  first 
shows  a  satisfaction  made  for  their  sins.  Accordingly,  most  of  the  passages 
which  represent  Christ  as  an  example  also  contain  references  to  his  propi- 
tiatory work. 

There  is  no  virtue  in  simply  setting  an  example.  Christ  did  nothing-,  simply  for  the 
sake  of  example.  Even  his  baptism  was  the  symbol  of  his  propitiatory  death  ;  see 
pages  761,  762.  The  apostle's  exhortation  is  not  "  abstain  from  all  appearance 
of  evil  '*  ( 1  Thess.  5  :  22,  A.  Vers.),  but  "  abstain  from  every  form  of  evil "  (  Rev.  Vers. ).  Christ's 
death  is  the  payment  of  a  real  debt  due  to  God  ;  and  the  convicted  sinner  needs  first  to 
see  the  debt  which  he  owes  to  the  divine  justice  paid  by  Christ,  before  he  can  think 
hopefully  of  reforming  his  life.  The  hymns  of  the  church :  "  I  lay  my  sins  on  Jesus," 
and  "Not  all  the  blood  of  beasts,"  represent  the  view  of  Christ's  sufferings  which 
Christians  have  derived  from  the  Scriptures.  When  the  sinner  sees  that  the  mortgage 
is  cancelled,  that  the  penalty  has  been  borne,  he  can  devote  himself  freeiy  to  the  ser- 
vice of  his  Redeemer.  Rev.  12  :  11 —  "they  overcame  him  [  Satan  ]  because  of  the  blood  of  the  lamb"  = 
as  Christ  overcame  Satan  by  his  propitiatory  sacrifice,  so  we  overcome  by  appropriat. 
ing  to  ourselves  Christ's  atonement  and  his  Spirit ;  of.  1  John  5:4  —  " this  is  the  victory  that  hath 
overoome  the  world,  even  our  faith."  The  very  text  ui>on  which  Socinians  most  rely,  when  it  is 
taken  in  connection  with  the  context,  proves  their  theory  to  be  a  misrepresentation  of 
Scripture.  1  Pet.  2  :  21  —  "  Christ  also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps " 
—  is  succeeded  by  verse  24  —  "  who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  body  upon  the  tree,  that  we,  having  died 
unto  sins,  might  live  unto  righteousness ;  by  whose  stripes  ye  were  healed" —  the  latter  words  being  a  direct 
quotation  from  Isaiah's  description  of  the  substitutionary  sufferings  of  the  Messiah 
( Is.  53  :  5  ). 

When  a  deeply  convicted  sinner  was  told  that  God  could  cleanse  his  heart  and  make 
him  over  anew,  he  replied  with  righteous  impatience :  "  That  is  not  what  I  want,  — 1 
have  a  debt  to  pay  first !  "  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  28,  89  —  "  Nowhere  in 
tabernacle  or  temple  shall  we  ever  find  the  laver  placed  before  the  altar.  The  altar  is 
Calvary,  and  thelaver  is  Pentecost,  — one  stands  for  the  sacrificial  blood,  the  other  for 
the  sanctifying  Spirit.  ...  So  the  oil  which  symbolized  the  sanctifying  Spirit  was 
always  put '  upon  the  blood  of  the  trespass-offering '  ( Lev.  14 :  17 )."  The  extremity  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ing on  the  Cross  was  coincident  with  the  extremest  manifestation  of  the  guilt  of  the 
race.  The  greatness  of  this  he  theoretically  know  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry. 
His  baptism  was  not  intended  merely  to  set  an  example.  It  was  a  recognition  that  sin 
deserved  death ;  that  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors ;  that  he  was  sent  to  die 
for  the  sin  of  the  world.  He  was  not  so  much  a  teacher,  as  he  was  the  subject  of  all 
teaching.  In  him  the  great  suffering  of  the  holy  God  on  account  of  sin  is  exhibited  to 
the  universe.  The  pain  of  a  few  brief  hours  saves  a  world,  only  because  it  sets  forth 
an  eternal  fact  in  God's  being  and  opens  to  us  God's  very  heart. 

Shakespeare,  Henry  V,  1 : 1—  "There  is  some  soul  of  goodness  in  things  evil,  Would 
men  observingly  distil  it  out."  It  is  well  to  preach  on  Christ  as  an  example.  Lyman 
Abbott  says  that  Jesus'  blood  purchases  our  pardon  and  redeems  us  to  God,  just  as  a  pat- 
riot's blood  redeems  his  country  from  servitude  and  purchases  its  liberty.  But  even 
Ritschl,  Just,  and  Recon.,  2,  goes  beyond  this,  when  he  says :  "  Those  who  advocate  the 
example  theory  shoidd  remember  that  Jesus  withdraws  himself  from  imitation  when 
he  sets  himself  over  against  his  disciples  as  the  Author  of  forgiveness.  And  they 
perceive  that  pardon  must  first  be  appropriated,  before  it  is  possible  for  them  to 
imitate  his  piety  and  moral  achievement."  This  is  a  partial  recognition  of  the  truth 
that  the  removal  of  objective  guilt  by  Christ's  atonement  must  precede  the  removal 
of  subjective  defilement  by  Christ's  regenerating  and  sanctifying  Spirit.  Lidgett,  Spir. 
Princ.  of  Atonement,  2G5-280,  shows  that  there  is  a  fatherly  demand  for  satisfaction, 
which  must  be  met  by  the  filial  response  of  the  child.  Thomas  Chalmers  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ministry  urged  on  his  people  the  reformation  of  their  lives.  But  he  con- 
fesses :  "  I  never  heard  of  any  such  reformations  being  effected  amongst  them." 
Only  when  he  preached  the  alienation  of  men  from  God,  and  forgiveness  through  the 
blood  of  Christ,  did  he  hear  of  their  betterment. 

Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  129—  "  The  consciousness  of  sin  is  largely  the  creation  of 
Christ."    Men  like  Paul,  Luther,  and  Edwards  show  this  impressively.    Foster,  Chris- 


# 

BUSHNELLIAtf  TflEOftY   OF  THE   ATONEMENT.  733 

tian  life  and  Theology,  198-201 — "There  is  of  course  a  sense  in  which  the  Christian 
must  imitate  Christ's  death,  for  he  is  to  'take  up  his  cross  daily  '  ( Luke  9  :  23  )  and  follow  his 
Master ;  but  in  its  highest  meaning-  and  fullest  scope  the  death  of  Christ  is  no  more 
an  object  set  for  our  imitation  than  is  thg  creation  of  the  world.  .  .  .  Christ  does  for 
man  in  his  sacrifice  what  man  could  not  do  for  himself.  We  see  in  the  Cross :  1.  the 
magnitude  of  the  guilt  of  sin  ;  2.  our  own  self-condemnation ;  3.  the  adequate  remedy, 
—  for  the  object  of  law  is  gained  in  the  display  of  righteousness;  4.  the  objective 
ground  of  forgiveness."  Maclaren  :  "  Christianity  without  a  dying  Christ  is  a  dying 
Christianity." 

(/)  This  theory  contradicts  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
making  the  life,  and  not  the  death,  of  Christ  the  most  significant  and 
important  feature  of  his  work.  The  constant  allusions  to  the  death  of 
Christ  as  the  source  of  our  salvation,  as  well  as  the  symbolism  of  the  ordi- 
nances, cannot  be  explained  upon  a  theory  which  regards  Christ  as  a  mere 
example,  and  considers  his  sufferings  as  incidents,  rather  than  essentials, 
of  his  work. 

Dr.  H.  B.  Hackett  frequently  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  recording  in  the 
gospels  of  only  three  years  of  Jesus'  life,  and  the  prominence  given  in  the  record  to  the 
closing  scenes  of  that  life,  are  evidence  that  not  his  life,  but  his  death,  was  the  great 
work  of  our  Lord.  Christ's  death,  and  not  his  life,  is  the  central  truth  of  Christianity. 
The  cross  is  par  excellence  the  Christian  symbol.  In  both  the  ordinances — in  Baptism 
as  well  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper  —  it  is  the  death  of  Christ  that  is  primarily  set  forth. 
Neither  Christ's  example,  nor  his  teaching*,  reveals  God  as  does  his  death.  It  is  the 
death  of  Christ  that  links  tog-ether  all  Christian  doctrines.  The  mark  of  Christ's  blood 
is  upon  them  all,  as  the  scarlet  thread  running  through  every  cord  and  rope  of  the 
British  navy  gives  sign  that  it  is  the  property  of  the  crown. 

Did  Jesus'  death  have  no  other  relation  to  our  salvation  than  Paul's  death  had? 
Paul  was  a  martyr,  but  his  death  is  not  even  recorded.  Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  92 — 
"  Paul  does  not  dwell  in  any  way  upon  the  life  or  work  of  our  Lord,  except  as  they  are 
involved  in  his  death  and  resurrection."  What  did  Jesus'  words  "It  is  finished "(Johu  19:30) 
mean?  What  was  finished  on  the  Soeinian  theory?  The  Socinian  salvation  had  not 
yet  begun.  Why  did  not  Jesus  make  the  ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  be  memorials  of  his  birth,  rather  than  of  his  death  V  Why  was  not  the  veil  Of  the 
temple  rent  at  his  baptism,  or  at  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount?  It  was  because  only  his 
death  opened  the  way  to  God.  In  talking  with  Nicodemus,  Jesus  brushed  aside  the 
complimentary :  "  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God  "  (John3:2).  Recognizing  Jesus 
as  teacher  is  not  enough.  There  must  be  a  renewal  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  that  one 
recognizes  also  the  lifting  up  of  tlie  Son  of  man  as  atoning  Savior  ( John  3  :  14, 15  ).  And 
to  Peter,  Jesus  said :  "  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me  "  ( John  13 : 8 ).  One  cannot  have 
part  with  Christ  as  Teacher,  while  one  rejects  him  as  Redeemer  from  sin.  On  the 
Socinian  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  see  Crawford,  Atonement,  279-296 ;  Shedd,  History 
of  Doctrine,  2 :  376-386 ;  Doctrines  of  the  Early  Soeinians,  in  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  194-211 ; 
Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  IV,  2:156-180;  Fock,  Socinianismus. 

2nd.     The  Bushnellian,  or  Moral  Influence  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

This  holds,  like  the  Socinian,  that  there  is  no  principle  of  the  divine 
nature  which  is  propitiated  by  Christ's  death;  but  that  this  death  is  a  mani- 
festation of  the  love  of  God,  suffering  in  and  with  the  sins  of  his  creatures. 
Christ's  atonement,  therefore,  is  the  merely  natural  consequence  of  his 
taking  human  nature  upon  him  ;  and  is  a  suffering,  not  of  penalty  in  man's 
stead,  but  of  the  combined  woes  and  griefs  which  the  living  of  a  human 
life  involves.  This  atonement  has  effect,  not  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  but 
so  to  reveal  divine  love  as  to  soften  human  hearts  and  to  lead  them  to 
repentance  ;  in  other  words,  Christ's  sufferings  were  necessary,  not  in  order 
to  remove  an  obstacle  to  the  pardon  of  sinners  which  exists  in  the  mind  of 
God,  but  in  order  to  convince  sinners  that  there  exists  no  such  obsta- 
cle.    This  theory,  for  substance,  has  been  advocated  by  Bushnell,  in 


734  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION". 

America ;  by  Robertson,  Maurice,  Campbell,  and  Young,  in  Great  Britain ; 
by  Schleiermaclier  and  Ritschl,  in  Germany. 

Origen  and  Abelard  are  earlier  representatives  of  this  view.  It  may  be  found  stated 
in  Bushnell's  Vicarious  Sacrifice.  Bushnell's  later  work,  Forgiveness  and  Law,  con- 
tains a  modification  of  his  earlier  doctrine,  to  which  he  was  driven  by  the  criticisms 
upon  his  Vicarious  Sacrifice.  In  the  later  work,  he  acknowledges  what  he  had  so 
strenuously  denied  in  the  earlier,  namely,  that  Christ's  death  has  effect  upon  God  as 
well  as  upon  man,  and  that  God  cannot  forgive  without  thus  "  making  cost  to  himself." 
He  makes  open  confession  of  the  impotence  of  his  former  teaching  to  convert  sinners, 
and,  as  the  only  efficient  homiletio,  he  recommends  the  preaching  of  the  very  doctrine 
of  propitiatory  sacrifice  which  he  had  written  his  book  to  supersede.  Even  in  For- 
giveness and  Law,  however,  there  is  no  recognition  of  the  true  principle  and  ground  of 
the  Atonement  in  God's  punitive  holiness.  Since  the  original  form  of  Bushnell's  doc- 
trine is  the  only  one  which  has  met  with  wide  acceptance,  we  direct  our  objections 
mainly  to  this. 

F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermons,  1 :  163-178,  holds  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  the  neces- 
sary result  of  the  position  in  which  he  had  placed  himself  of  conflict  or  collision  with 
the  evil  that  is  in  the  world.  He  came  in  contact  with  the  whirling  wheel,  and  was 
crushed  by  it ;  he  planted  his  heel  upon  the  cockatrice's  den,  and  was  pierced  by  its 
fang.  Maurice,  on  Sacrifice,  30),  and  Theol.  Essays,  HI,  228,  regards  Christ's  sufferings 
as  an  illustration,  given  by  the  ideal  man,  of  the  self-sacrifice  due  to  God  from  the 
humanity  of  which  he  is  the  root  and  head,  all  men  being  redeemed  in  him,  irrespective 
of  their  faith,  and  needing  only  to  have  brought  to  them  the  news  of  this  redemption. 
Young,  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  holds  a  view  essentially  the  same  with  Robertson's. 
Christ's  death  is  the  necessary  result  of  his  collision  with  evil,  and  his  sufferings  extir- 
pate sin,  simply  by  manifesting  God's  self-sacrificing  love. 

Campbell,  Atonement,  129-191,  quotes  from  Edwards,  to  show  that  infinite  justice 
might  be  satisfied  in  either  one  of  two  ways :  ( 1 )  by  an  infinite  punishment ;  ( 2 )  by  an 
adequate  repentance.  This  last,  which  Edwards  passed  by  as  impracticable,  Campbell 
declares  to  have  been  the  real  atonement  offered  by  Christ,  who  stands  as  the  great 
Penitent,  confessing  the  sin  of  the  world.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  160-210,  takes 
substantially  the  view  of  Campbell,  denying  substitution,  and  emphasizing  Christ's 
oneness  with  the  race  and  his  confession  of  human  sin.  He  grants  indeed  that  our  Lord 
bore  penalty,  but  only  in  the  sense  that  he  realized  how  great  was  the  condemnation 
and  penalty  of  the  race. 

Schleiermaclier  denies  any  satisfaction  to  God  by  substitution.  He  puts  in  its  place 
an  influence  of  Christ's  personality  on  men,  so  that  they  feel  themselves  reconciled 
and  redeemed.  The  atonement  is  purely  subjective.  Yet  it  is  the  work  of  Christ,  in 
that  only  Christ's  oneness  with  God  has  taught  men  that  they  can  be  one  with  God. 
Christ's  consciousness  of  his  being  in  God  and  knowing  God,  and  his  power  to  impart 
this  consciousness  to  others,  make  him  a  Mediator  and  Savior.  The  idea  of  reparation, 
compensation,  satisfaction,  substitution,  is  wholly  Jewish.  He  regarded  it  as  possible 
only  to  a  narrow-minded  people.  He  tells  us  that  he  hates  in  religion  that  kind  of 
historic  relation.  He  had  no  such  sense  of  the  holiness  of  God,  or  of  the  guilt  of  man, 
as  would  make  necessary  any  suffering  of  punishment  or  offering' to  God  for  human 
sin.  He  desires  to  replace  external  and  historical  Christianity  by  a  Christianity  that  is 
internal  and  subjective.    See  Schleiermacher,  Der  Christliche  Glaube,  2  :  94-161. 

Ritschl  however  is  the  most  recent  and  influential  representative  of  the  Moral  Influ- 
ence theory  in  Germany.  His  view  is  to  be  found  in  his  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohn- 
ung,  or  in  English  translation,  Justification  and  Reconciliation.  Ritschl  is  anti-Hegelian 
and  libertarian,  but  like  Schleiermacher  he  does  not  treat  sin  with  seriousness ;  he 
regards  the  sense  of  guilt  as  an  illusion  which  it  is  the  part  of  Christ  to  dispel ;  there  is 
an  inadequate  conception  of  Christ's  person,  a  practical  denial  of  his  pre-existence  and 
work  of  objective  atonement ;  indeed,  the  work  of  Christ  is  hardly  put  into  any  precise 
relation  to  sin  at  all ;  see  Denney.  Studies  in  Theology,  136-151.  E.  H.  Johnson:  "  Many 
Ritschlians  deny  both  the  miraculous  conception  and  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Sin  does  not  particularly  concern  God ;  Christ  is  Savior  only  as  Buddha  was,  achieving 
lordship  over  the  world  by  indifference  to  it ;  he  is  the  Word  of  God,  only  as  he  reveals 
this  divine  indifference  to  things.  All  this  does  not  agree  with  the  N.  T.  teaching  that 
Christ  is  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  that  he  was  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
was,  that  he  made  expiation  of  sins  to  God,  and  that  sin  is  that  abominable  thing  that 
God  hates."    For  a  general  survey  of  the  Ritschlian  theology,  see  On-,  Ritschlian  The- 


THE    BUKIINELLIAN   THEORY    OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  735 

ology,  231-271 ;  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  July.  1891 :  443-458  ( art,  by  Zatan ),  and  Jan.  1892: 
1-21  (art.  by  C.  M.  Mead  ) ;  Andover  Review,  July.  1893  :  440-4(31 ;  Am.  Jour.  Theology, 
Jan.  1899  :  22-44  (  art.  1  ly  H.  R.  Mackintosh  ) ;  Lidgett,  Si>ir.  Prin.  of  Atonement,  190-207 ; 
Foster,  Christ,  Life  and  Theology ;  and  the  work  of  Garvie  on  Ritschl.  For  statement 
and  criticism  of  other  forms  of  the  Moral  Influence  theory,  see  Crawford,  Atonement, 
297-366 ;  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  210-247. 

To  this  theory  we  object  as  follows  : 

(a)  "While  it  embraces  a  valuable  element  of  truth,  namely,  the  moral 
influence  upon  men  of  the  sufferings  of  the  God-man,  it  is  false  by  defect, 
in  that  it  substitutes  a  subordinate  effect  of  the  atonement  for  its  chief  aim, 
and  yet  unfairly  appropriates  the  name  'vicarious,'  which  belongs  only  to 
the  latter.     Suffering  with  the  sinner  is  by  no  means  suffering  in  his  stead. 

Dale,  Atonement,  137,  illustrates  Bushnell's  view  by  the  loyal  wife,  who  suffers  ejtile 
or  imprisonment  with  her  husband  ;  by  the  philanthropist,  who  suffers  the  privations 
and  hardships  of  a  savage  people,  whom  he  can  civilize  only  by  enduring  the  miseries 
from  which  he  would  rescue  them;  by  the  Moravian  missionary,  who  enters  for  life 
the  lepers'  enclosure,  that  he  may  convert  its  inmates.  So  Put  win  says  that  suffering 
and  death  are  the  cost  of  the  atonement,  not  the  atonement  itself. 

But  we  reply  that  such  sufferings  as  these  do  not  make  Christ's  sacrifice  vicarious. 
The  word 'vicarious'  (from  n'a'.s)  implies  substitution,  which  this  theory  denies.  The 
vicar  of  a  parish  is  not  necessarily  one  who  performs  service  with,  and  in  sympathy 
with,  the  rector,  —  he  is  rather  one  who  stands  in  the  rector's  place.  A  vice-president 
is  one  who  acts  in  place  of  the  president ;  '  A.  B.,  appointed  consul,  vice  C.  D.,  resigned,' 
implies  that  A.  B.  is  now  to  serve  in  the  stead  of  C.  D.  If  Christ  is  a  '  vicarious  sacri- 
fice,' then  he  makes  atonement  to  God  in  the  place  and  etea&at  sinners.  Christ's  suffer- 
ing in  and  with  Sinners,  though  it  is  a  most  important  and  affecting  fact,  is  not  the 
suffering  in  their  stead  in  which  the  atonement  consists.  Though  suffering  in  and  with 
sinners  may  be  in  part  the  medium  through  which  Christ  was  enabled  to  endure  God's 
wealth  against  sin,  it  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  reason  why  God  lays  this  suffer- 
ing upon  him ;  nor  should  it  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  this  reason  is  his  standing  in  the 
sinner's  place  to  answer  for  sin  to  the  retributive  holiness  of  God. 

(It)  It  rests  upon  false  philosophical  principles,  —  as,  that  righteousness 
is  identical  with  benevolence,  instead  of  conditioning  it ;  that  God  is  sub- 
ject to  an  eternal  law  of  love,  instead  of  being  himself  the  source  of  all  law; 
that  the  aim  of  penalty  is  the  reformation  of  the  offender. 

Hovey,  God  with  Us,  181-271,  has  given  one  of  the  best  replies  to  Bushnell.  He  shows 
that  if  God  is  subject  to  an  eternal  law  of  love,  then  God  is  necessarily  a  Savior ;  that 
he  must  have  created  man  as  soon  as  he  could ;  that  he  makes  men  holy  as  fast  as  pos- 
sible; that  he  does  all  the  good  he  can  ;  that  he  is  no  better  than  he  should  be.  But 
this  is  to  deny  the  transcendence  of  God,  and  reduce  omnipotence  to  a  mere  nature- 
power.  The  conception  of  God  as  subject  to  law  imperils  God's  self-sufficiency  and 
freedom.  For  Bushnell's  statements  with  regard  to  the  identity  of  righteousness  and 
love,  and  for  criticisms  upon  them,  see  our  treatment  of  the  attribute  of  Holiness,  vol. 
I,  pages  268-275. 

Watts,  New  Apologetic,  277-280,  points  out  that,  upon  Bushnell's  principles,  there 
must  be  an  atonement  for  fallen  angels.  God  was  bound  to  assume  the  angelic  nature 
and  to  do  for  angeLs  all  that  he  has  done  for  us.  There  is  also  no  reason  for  restricting 
either  the  atonement  or  the  offer  of  salvation  to  the  present  life.  B.  B.  Warfleld,  in 
Princeton  Review,  1903:Sl-92,  shows  well  that  all  the  forms  of  the  Moral  Influence 
theory  rest  upon  the  assumption  that  God  is  only  love,  and  that  all  that  is  required  as 
ground  of  the  sinner's  forgiveness  is  penitence,  either  Christ's,  or  his  own,  or  both 
together. 

Ignoring  the  divine  holiness  and  minimizing  the  guilt  of  sin,  many  modern  writers 
make  atonement  to  be  a  mere  incident  of  Christ's  incarnation.  Phillips  Brooks,  Life, 
2:350,  351  — " Atonement  by  suffering  is  the  result  of  the  Incarnation;  atonement 
being  the  necessary,  and  suffering  the  incidental  element  of  that  result.  But  sacrifice 
is  an  essential  element,  for  sacrifice  truly  signifies  here  the  consecration  of  human 
nature  to  its  highest  use  and  utterance,  and  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  thought  of 


736  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OE    REDEMPTION. 

pain.  It  is  not  the  destruction  but  the  f  ultilrnent  of  human  life.  Inasmuch  as  the 
human  life  thus  consecrated  and  fulfilled  is  the  same  in  us  as  in  Jesus,  and  inasmuch 
as  his  consecration  and  fulfilment  makes  morally  possible  for  us  the  same  consecration 
and  fulfilment  of  it  which  he  achieved,  therefore  his  atonement  and  his  sacrifice,  and 
incidentally  his  suffering-,  become  vicarious.  It  is  not  that  they  make  unnecessary, 
but  that  they  make  possible  and  successful  in  us,  the  same  processes  which  were  per- 
fect in  him." 

( c )  The  theory  furnishes  no  proper  reason  for  Christ's  suffering.  "While 
it  shows  that  the  Savior  necessarily  suffers  from  his  contact  with  human 
sin  and  sorrow,  it  gives  no  explanation  of  that  constitution  of  the  universe 
which  makes  suffering  the  consequence  of  sin,  not  only  to  the  sinner,  but 
also  to  the  innocent  being  who  comes  into  connection  with  sin.  The  holi- 
ness of  God,  which  is  manifested  in  this  constitution  cf  things  and  which 
requires  this  atonement,  is  entirely  ignored. 

B.  W.  Lockhart,  in  a  recent  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  shows  this 
defect  of  apprehension  :  "  God  in  Christ  reconciled  the  world  to  himself ;  Christ  did 
not  reconcile  God  to  man,  but  man  to  God.  Christ  did  not  enable  God  to  save  men; 
God  enabled  Christ  to  save  men.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  were  vicarious  as  the  highest 
illustration  of  that  spiritual  law  by  which  the  good  soul  is  impelled  to  suffer  that 
others  may  not  suffer,  to  die  that  others  may  not  die.  The  vicarious  sufferings  of 
Jesus  were  also  the  great  revelation  to  man  of  the  vicarious  nature  of  God ;  a  revela- 
tion of  the  cross  as  eternal  in  his  nature ;  that  it  is  in  the  heart  of  God  to  bear  the  sin 
and  sorrow  of  his  creatures  in  his  eternal  love  and  pity ;  a  revelation  moreover  that 
the  law  which  saves  the  lost  through  the  vicarious  labors  of  godlike  souls  prevails 
wherever  the  godlike  and  the  lost  soul  can  influence  each  other." 

While  there  is  much  in  the  above  statement  with  which  we  agree,  we  charge  it  with 
misapprehending  the  reason  for  Christ's  suffering.  That  reason  is  to  be  found  only  in 
that  holiness  of  God  which  expresses  itself  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  universe. 
Not  love  but  holiness  has  made  suffering  invariably  to  follow  sin,  so  that  penalty  falls 
not  only  upon  the  transgressor  but  upon  him  who  is  the  life  and  sponsor  of  the  trans- 
gressor. God's  holiness  brings  suffering  to  God,  and  to  Christ  who  manifests  God. 
Love  beai'S  the  suffering,  but  it  is  holiness  that  necessitates  it.  The  statement  of 
Lockhart  above  gives  account  of  the  effect  —  reconciliation;  but  it  fails  to  recognize 
the  cause— propitiation.  The  words  of  E.  G.  Robinson  furnish  the  needed  comple- 
ment :  "  The  work  of  Christ  has  two  sides,  propitiatory  and  reconciling.  Christ  felt 
the  pang  of  association  with  a  guilty  race.  The  divine  displeasure  rested  on  him  as 
possessing  the  guilty  nature.  In  his  own  person  he  redeems  this  nature  by  bearing 
its  penalty.  Propitiation  must  precede  reconciliation.  The  Moral  Influence  theory 
recognizes  the  necessity  of  a  subjective  change  in  man,  but  makes  no  provision  of  an 
objective  agency  to  secure  it." 

(  d  )  It  contradicts  the  plain  teachings  of  Scripture,  that  the  atonement 
is  necessary,  not  simply  to  reveal  God's  love,  but  to  satisfy  his  justice  ; 
that  Christ's  sufferings  are  propitiatory  and  penal ;  and  that  the  human 
conscience  needs  to  be  propitiated  by  Christ's  sacrifice,  before  it  can  feel 
the  moral  influence  of  his  sufferings. 

That  the  atonement  is  primarily  an  offering  to  God,  and  not  to  the  sinner,  appears 
from  Eph.  5  :  2  — "  gave  himself  up  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  ";  Heb.  9  :  14  — "  offered  himself  without 
blemish  unto  God."  Conscience,  the  reflection  of  God's  holiness,  can  be  propitiated  only  by 
propitiating  holiness  itself.  Mere  love  and  sympathy  are  maudlin,  and  powerless  to 
move,  unless  there  is  a  background  of  righteousness.  Spear:  "An  appeal  to  man, 
without  anything  back  of  it  to  emphasize  and  enforce  the  appeal,  will  never  touch  the 
heart.  The  mere  appearance  of  an  atonement  has  no  moral  influence."  Crawford, 
Atonement,  358-367—"  Instead  of  delivering  us  from  penalty,  in  order  to  deliver  us  from 
sin,  this  theory  mades  Christ  to  deliver  us  from  sin,  in  order  that  he  may  deliver  us 
from  penalty.  But  this  reverses  the  order  of  Scripture.  And  Dr.  Bushnell  concedes,  in 
the  end,  that  the  moral  view  of  the  atonement  is  morally  powerless ;  and  that  the 
objective  view  he  condemns  is,  after  all,  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of  sinners." 


BUSHNELLIAN   THEORY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  737 

Some  men  are  quite  ready  to  forgive  those  whom  they  have  offended.  The  Eitschlian 
school  sees  no  guilt  to  be  atoned  for,  and  no  propitiation  to  be  necessary.  Only  man 
needs  to  be  reconciled.  Ritschliaus  are  quite  ready  to  forgive  God.  The  only  atone- 
ment is  an  atonement,  made  by  repentance,  to  the  human  conscience.  Shedd  says 
well :  "All  that  is  requisite  in  order  to  satisfaction  and  peace  of  conscience  in  the  sinful 
soul  is  also  requisite  in  order  to  the  satisfaction  of  God  himself."  Walter  Besant :  "It 
is  not  enough  to  be  forgiven,—  one  has  also  to  forgive  one's  self."  The  converse  prop- 
osition is  yet  more  true :  It  is  not  enough  to  forgive  one's  self,—  one  has  also  to  be  for- 
given ;  indeed,  one  cannot  rightly  forgive  one's  self,  unless  one  has  been  first  forgiven; 
1  John  3  :  20  —  "if  our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things."  A.  J.  Gordon, 
Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  ~U1 — "As  the  high  priest  carried  the  blood  into  the  Holy  of  Holies 
under  the  old  dispensation,  so  does  the  Spirit  take  the  blood  of  Christ  into  the  inner 
sanctuary  of  our  spirit  in  the  new  dispensation,  in  order  that  he  may  'cleanse  your  conscience 
from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God '  ( Heb.  9  :  14 )." 

(e  )  It  can  be  maintained,  only  by  wresting  from  their  obvious  meaning 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  Christ  as  suffering  for  our  sins  ; 
which  represent  his  blood  as  accomplishing  something  for  us  in  heaven, 
when  presented  there  by  our  intercessor  ;  which  declare  forgiveness  to  be  a 
remitting  of  past  offences  upon  the  ground  of  Christ's  death  ;  and  which 
describe  justification  as  a  pronouncing,  not  a  making,  just. 

We  have  seen  that  the  forms  in  which  the  Scriptures  describe  Christ's  death  are 
mainly  drawn  from  sacrifice.  Notice  Bushnell's  acknowledgment  that  these  "altar- 
forms"  are  the  most  vivid  and  effective  methods  of  presenting  Christ's  work,  and  that 
the  preacher  cannot  dispense  with  them.  Why  he  should  not  dispense  with  them,  if 
the  meaning  has  gone  out  of  them,  is  not  so  clear. 

In  his  later  work,  entitled  Forgiveness  and  Law,  Bushnell  appears  to  recognize  this 
inconsistency,  and  represents  Cod  as  affected  by  the  atonement,  after  all;  in  other 
words,  the  atonement  has  an  objective  as  well  as  a  subjective  influence.  God  can 
forgive,  only  by  "making  cost  to  himself."  lie  "works  down  his  resentment,  by 
suffering  for  us."  This  verges  toward  the  true  view,  but  it  does  not  recognize  the 
demand  of  divine  holiness  for  satisfaction  ;  and  it  attributes  passion,  weakness,  and 
imperfection  to  God.  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre, :.' :  591  ( Syst.  Doct.,  I  :  "lit,  t;o ),  objects  to 
this  modified  Moral  Influence  theory,  that  the  love  that  can  do  good  to  an  enemy  is 
already  forgiving  love;  so  that  the  benefit  to  the  enemy  cannot  be,  as  Bushnell  sup- 
poses, a  condition  of  theforgivem  88. 

To  Campbell's  view,  that  Christ  is  the  great  Penitent,  and  that  his  atonement  consists 
essentially  in  his  confessing  the  sins  of  the  world,  we  reply,  that  no  confession  or  peni- 
tence is  possible  without  responsibility.  If  Christ  had  no  substitutionary  ollice,  the 
ordering  of  his  sufferings  on  the  part  of  God  was  manifest  injustice.  Such  sufferings, 
moreover,  are  impossible  upon  grounds  of  mere  sympathy.  The  Scripture  explains 
them  by  declaring  that  he  bore  <  ur  curse,  and  became  a  ransom  in  our  place.  There 
was  more  therefore  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  than  "a  perfect  Amen  in  humanity  to 
the  judgment  of  God  on  the  sin  of  man."  Not  Phinehas's  zeal  for  God,  but  his  execu- 
tion of  judgment,  made  an  atonement  (Ps.  106  :  30—  "executed  judgment" — lxx.:  e£c.Aacra.To, 
"made  propitiation")  and  turned  away  the  wrath  of  God.  Observe  here  the  contrast 
between  the  priestly  atonement  of  Aaron,  who  stood  between  the  living  and  the  dead, 
and  the  judicial  atonement  of  Phinehas,  who  executed  righteous  judgment,  and  so 
turned  away  wrath.  In  neither  case  did  mere  confession  suffice  to  take  away  sin.  On 
Campbell's  view  see  further,  on  page  760. 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  98,  has  the  great  merit  of  pointing  out  that 
Christ  shares  our  sufferings  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  our  personality  has  its  ground  in 
him  ;  but  that  this  sharing  of  our  penalty  was  necessitated  by  God's  righteousness  he 
has  failed  to  indicate.  He  tells  us  that  "  Christ  sanctified  the  present  and  cancels  the 
past.  He  offers  to  God  a  living  holiness  in  human  conditions  and  character;  he  makes 
the  awful  sacrifice  in  humanity  of  a  perfect  contrition.  The  one  is  the  offering  of 
obedience,  the  other  the  offering  of  atonement ;  the  one  the  offering  of  the  life,  the 
other  the  offering  of  the  death."  This  modification  of  Campbell's  view  can  be  rationally 
maintained  only  by  connecting  with  it  a  prior  declaration  that  the  fundamental  attri- 
bute of  God  is  holiness ;  that  holiness  is  self-affirming  righteousness ;  that  this  right- 
eousness necessarily  expresses  itself  in  the  punishment  of  sin :  that  Christ's  relation  to 

47 


738  CH HISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

the  raor  os  its  upholder  and  life  made  him  the  bearer  of  its  guilt  and  justly  responsible 
for  its  sin.  Scripture  declares  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  atonement  to  be  that  God  "mien1 
himself  be  just"  ( Rom.  3  :  26),  and  no  theory  of  the  atonement  will  meet  the  demands  of 
either  reason  or  conscience  that  does  not  ground  its  necessity  in  God's  righteousness, 
rather  than  in  his  love. 

E.  T.  Mullins  :  "  If  Christ's  union  with  humanity  made  it  possible  for  him  to  be  '  the 
representative  Penitent,'  and  to  be  the  Amen  of  humanity  to  God's  just  condemnation 
of  sin,  his  union  with  God  made  it  also  possible  for  him  to  be  the  representative  of  the 
Judge,  and  to  be  the  Amen  of  the  divine  nature  to  suffering-,  as  the  expression  of  con- 
demnation." Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  102, 103  — "  The  serious  element  in  sin  is  not 
man's  dislike,  suspicion,  alienation  from  God,  nor  the  debilitating,  corrupting  effects 
of  vice  in  human  nature,  but  rather  God's  condemnation  of  man.  This  Christ  endured, 
and  died  that  the  condemnation  might  be  removed.  '  Bearing  shame  and  scoffing  rude, 
In  my  place  condemned  he  stood ;  Sealed  my  pardon  with  his  blood ;  Hallelujah ! ' " 

Bushnell  regards  Mat.  8 :  17 — "  Himself  took  our  infirmities,  and  bare  our  diseases  " — as  indicating  the 
nature  of  Christ's  atoning  work.  The  meaning  then  would  be,  that  he  sympathized  so 
fully  with  all  human  ills  that  he  made  them  his  own.  Hovey,  however,  has  given  a 
more  complete  and  correct  explanation.  The  words  mean  rather :  "  His  deep  sympathy 
with  these  effects  of  sin  so  moved  him,  that  it  typified  his  fiuai  bearing  of  the  sins  them- 
selves, or  constituted  a  preliminary  and  partial  endurance  of  the  suffering  which  was 
to  expiate  the  sins  of  men."  His  sighing  when  he  cured  the  deaf  man  ( Mark  7  :  34 )  and 
his  weeping  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ( John  11  .-35)  were  caused  by  the  anticipatory  reali- 
zation that  he  was  one  with  the  humanity  which  was  under  the  curse,  and  that  he  too 
had  "become  a  curse  for  us"  (Gal.  3  :  13).  The  great  error  of  Bushnell  is  his  denial  of  the 
objective  necessity  and  effect  of  Jesus'  death,  and  all  Scripture  which  points  to  an 
influence  of  the  atonement  outside  of  us  is  a  refutation  of  his  theory. 

(/)  This  theory  confounds  God's  method  of  saving  men  with  men's 
experience  of  being  saved.  It  makes  the  atonement  itself  consist  of  its 
effects  in  the  believer's  union  with  Christ  and  the  purifying  influence  of 
that  union  upon  the  character  and  life. 

Stevens,  in  his  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  makes  this  mistake.  He  says :  "The  old  forms 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  —  that  the  si i lie  ring  of  Christ  was  necessary  to  appease 
the  wrath  of  God  and  induce  him  to  forgive ;  or  to  satisfy  the  law  of  God  and  enable 
him  to  forgive;  or  to  move  upon  man's  heart  to  induce  him  to  accept  forgiveness; 
have  all  proved  inadequate.  Yet  to  reject  the  passion  of  Christ  is  to  reject  the  chief 
element  of  power  in  Christianity.  .  .  .  To  me  the  words 'eternal  atonement' denote  the 
dateless  passion  of  God  on  account  of  sin  ;  they  mean  that  God  is,  by  his  very  nature, 
a  sin-bearer  —  that  sin  grieves  and  wounds  his  heart,  and  that  he  sorrows  and  suffers  in 
consequence  of  it.  It  results  from  the  divine  love  — alike  from  its  holiness  and  from 
its  sympathy —  that '  in  our  affliction  he  is  afflicted.'  Atonement  on  its  '  Godward  side  ' 
is  a  name  for  the  grief  and  pain  inflicted  by  sin  upon  the  paternal  heart  of  God.  Of 
this  divine  sorrow  for  sin,  the  afflictions  of  Christ  are  a  revelation.  In  the  bitter  grief 
and  anguish  which  he  experienced  on  account  of  sin  we  see  reflected  the  pain  and 
sorrow  which  sin  brings  to  the  divine  love." 

All  this  is  well  said,  with  the  exception  that  holiness  is  regarded  as  a  form  of  love, 
and  the  primary  offence  of  sin  is  regarded  as  the  grieving  of  the  Father's  heart.  Dr. 
Stevens  fails  to  consider  that  if  love  were  supreme  there  would  be  nothing'  to  prevent 
unholy  tolerance  of  sin.  Because  holiness  is  supreme,  love  is  conditioned  thereby.  It 
is  holiness  and  not  love  that  connects  suffering  with  sin,  and  requires  that  the  Redeemer 
should  suffer.  Dr.  Stevens  asserts  that  the  theories  hitherto  current  in  Protestant 
churches  and  the  theory  for  which  he  pleads  are  "forever  irreconcilable";  they  are 
"  based  on  radically  different  conceptions  of  God."  The  British  Weekly,  Nov.  16, 1905  — 
"  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  not  the  doctrine  that  salvation  is  deliverance  from 
sin,  and  that  this  deliverance  is  the  work  of  God,  a  work  the  motive  of  which  is  God's 
love  for  men ;  these  are  truths  which  every  one  who  writes  on  the  Atonement  assumes. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  has  for  its  task  to  explain  how  this  work  is  done 

Dr.  Stevens  makes  no  contribution  whatever  to  its  fulfilment.  He  grants  that  we  have 
in  Paul '  the  theory  of  a  substitutionary  expiation.'  But  he  finds  something  else  in  Paul 
which  he  thinks  a  more  adequate  rendering  of  the  apostle's  Christian  experience  — the 
idea,  namely,  of  dying  with  Christ  and  rising  with  him ;  and  on  the  strength  of  accept- 
ing this  last  he  feels  at  liberty  to  drop  the  substitutionary  expiation  overboard  as 


BUSHNELLIAST   THEORY   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  739 

something  to  be  explained  from  Paul's  controversial  position,  or  from  his  Pharisaic 
inheritance,  something  at  all  events  which  has  no  permanent  value  lor  the  Christian 
mind.  .  .  .  The  experience  is  dependent  on  the  method.  Paul  did  not  die  with  Christ 
as  an  alternative  to  having  Christ  die  wifft  him  ;  he  died  with  Christ  wholly  and  solely 
because  Christ  died  for  him.  It  was  the  meaning  carried  by  the  last  two  words  —  the 
meaning  unfolded  in  the  theory  of  substitutionary  expiation  — which  had  the  moral 
motive  in  it  to  draw  Paid  into  union  with  his  Lord  in  life  and  death.  .  .  .  On  Dr. 
Stevens'  own  showing,  Paul  held  the  two  ideas  side  by  side ;  for  him  the  mystical  union 
with  Christ  was  taly  possible  through  the  acceptance  of  truths  with  which  Dr.  Stevens 
does  not  know  what  to  do." 

(g  )  This  theory  would  confine  the  influence  of  the  atonement  to  those 
who  have  heard  of  it, — thus  excluding  patriarchs  aud  heathen.  But  the 
Scriptures  represent  Christ  as  being  the  Savior  of  all  men,  in  the  sense  of 
securing  them  grace,  "which,  hut  for  his  atoning  work,  could  never  have 
been  bestowed  consistently  with  the  divine  holiness. 

Hovey  :  "  The  manward  influence  of  the  atonement  is  far  more  extensive  than  the 
moral  inllueuee  of  it."  Christ  is  Advocate,  not  with  the  sinner,  but  with  the  Father. 
While  the  Spirit's  work  has  moral  influence  over  the  hearts  of  nun,  the  Son  secures, 
through  the  presentation  of  his  blood,  In  heaven,  the  pardon  which  ean  come  only  from 
God  ( 1  John  2  : 1  —  "  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous :  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins  ").  Hence  1 :  9  —"If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  [  God  ]  is  faithful  and  righteous  [  faithful  to  his 
promise  and  righteous  to  Christ  ]  to  forgive  us  our  sins."  Hence  the  publican  does  not  first 
pray  for  change  of  heart,  but  for  mercy  upon  the  ground  of  sacrifice  ( Luke  18  :  13,  —  "God, 
be  thou  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  but  literally  :  "  God  be  propitiated  toward  me  the  finner  ").  See  Balfour, 
in  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Kev.,  Apr.  1884:230-354;  Martin,  Atonement,  216-337;  Theol. 
Eclectic,  4  :  364-40:). 

Gravitation  kept  the  universe  stable,  long  before  it  was  discovered  by  man.  So  the 
atonement  of  Christ  was  inuring  to  the  salvation  of  men,  long  before  they  suspected 
its  existence.  The  "Light  of  the  world"  (John  8: 12)  has  many  "X  rays,"  beyond  the  visible 
spectrum,  but  able  to  impress  the  image  of  Christ  upon  patriarchs  or  heathen.  This 
light  has  been  shining  through  all  the  ages,  but  "the  darkness  apprehended  it  not"  (Johnl:5). 
Its  rays  register  themselves  only  where  there  is  a  sensitive  heart  to  receive  them.  Let 
them  shine  through  a  man,  ami  how  much  unknown  sin,  and  unknown  possibilities  of 
good,  they  reveall  The  Moral  Influence  theorj  does  not  take  account  of  the  pre- 
e'xistent  Christ  and  of  his  atoning  work  before  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh.  It  there- 
fore leads  logically  to  belief  in  a  Becond  probation  for  the  many  imbeciles,  outcasts,  and 
heathen  who  in  this  world  do  not  hear  of  Christ's  atonement.  The  doctrine  of  Bushnell 
in  this  way  undermines  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution. 

To  Lyman  Abbott,  the  atonement  is  the  self-propitiation  of  God's  love,  and  its  influx 
ence  is  exerted  through  education.  In  his  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  118,  190,  he 
maintains  that  the  atonement  is  "a  true  reconciliation  between  God  and  man,  making 
them  at  one  through  the  incarnation  and  passion  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  lived  and  suf- 
fered, not  to  redeem  men  from  future  torment,  but  to  purify  and  perfect  them  in 
God's  likeness  by  uniting  them  to  God.  .  .  .  Sacrifice  is  not  a  penalty  borne  by  an  inno- 
cent sufferer  for  guilty  men, —  a  doctrine  for  which  there  is  no  authority  either  in 
Scripture  or  in  life  ( 1  Peter  3  :  18?)  — but  a  laying  down  of  one's  life  in  love,  that  another 
may  receive  life.  .  .  .  Redemption  is  not  restoration  to  a  lost  state  of  innocence,  impos- 
sible to  be  restored,  but  a  culmination  of  the  long  process  v.  lien  man  shall  be  presented 
before  his  Father 'not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing'  (  Epli.5  :  27 ).  .  .  .  We  believe  not  in 
the  propitiation  of  an  angry  God  by  another  suffering  to  appease  the  Father's  wrath, 
but  in  the  perpetual  self-propitiation  of  the  Father,  whose  mercy,  going  forth  to 
redeem  from  sin,  satisfies  as  nothing  else  could  the  divine  indignation  against  sin,  by 
abolishing  it.  .  .  .  Mercy  is  hate  pitying;  it  i.-,  the  pity  of  wrath.  The  pity  conquers 
the  hate  only  by  lifting  the  sinner  up  from  his  degradation  and  restoring  him  to  purity." 
And  yet  in  all  this  there  is  no  mention  of  the  divine  righteousness  as  the  source  of  the 
indignation  and  the  object  of  the  propitiation  ! 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  some  of  the  greatest  advocates  of  the  Moral  Influence 
theory  have  reverted  to  the  older  faith  when  they  came  to  die.  In  his  dying  moments, 
as  L.  W.  Munhall  tells  us,  Horace  Bushnell  said  :  "  I  fear  what  I  have  written  and  said 
upon  the  moral  idea  of  the  atonement  is  misleading  and  will  do  great  harm  ;"  and,  as 
he  thought  of  it  further,  he  cried  :  "  Oh  Lord  Jesus,  I  trust  for  mercy  only  in  the  shed 


740  CHRISTOLOGY,    OB,  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

blood  that  thou  didst  offer  on  Calvary !  "  Schleiermacher,  on  his  deathbed,  assembled 
his  family  and  a  few  friends,  and  himself  administered  the  Lord's  Supper.  After 
praying  and  blessing  the  bread,  and  after  pronouncing  the  words :  "  This  is  my  body,  broken 
for  yon,"  he  added:  "This  is  our  foundation!"  As  he  started  to  bless  the  cup,  he 
cried :  "  Quick,  quick,  bring  the  cup !  I  am  so  happy  ! "  Then  he  sank  quietly  back,  aud 
was  no  more ;  see  life  of  Rothe,  by  Nippold,  2  :  53,  54.  Ritschl,  in  his  History  of  Piet- 
ism, 2  :  G5,  had  severely  criticized  Paul  Gerhardt's  hymn :  "  O  Haupt  voll  Blut  uud 
Wunden,"  as  describing  physical  suffering ;  but  he  begged  his  son  to  repeat  the  two 
last  verses  of  that  hymn :  "  O  sacred  head  now  wounded !  "  when  he  came  to  die.  And 
in  general,  the  convicted  sinner  finds  peace  most  quickly  and  surely  when  he  is  pointed 
to  the  Redeemer  who  died  on  the  Cross  and  endured  the  penalty  of  sin  in  his  stead. 

3d.     The  Grotian,  or  Governmental  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

This  theory  holds  that  the  atonement  is  a  satisfaction,  not  to  any  inter- 
nal principle  of  the  divine  nature,  but  to  the  necessities  of  government. 
God's  government  of  the  universe  cannot  be  maintained,  nor  can  the 
divine  law  preserve  its  authority  over  its  subjects,  unless  the  pardon  of 
offenders  is  accompanied  by  some  exhibition  of  the  high  estimate  which 
God  sets  upon  his  law,  and  the  heinous  guilt  of  violating  it.  Such  an 
exhibition  of  divine  regard  for  the  law  is  furnished  in  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ.  Christ  does  not  suffer  the  precise  penalty  of  the  law,  but 
God  graciously  accepts  his  suffering  as  a  substitute  for  the  penalty.  This 
bearing  of  substituted  suffering  on  the  part  of  Christ  gives  the  divine  law 
such  hold  upon  the  consciences  and  hearts  of  men,  that  God  can  pardon 
the  guilty  upon  their  repentance,  without  detriment  to  the  interests  of  his 
government.  The  author  of  this  theory  was  Hugo  Grotius,  the  Dutch  jur- 
ist and  theologian  (  1583-1G45 ).  The  theory  is  characteristic  of  the  New 
England  theology,  and  is  generally  held  by  those  who  accept  the  New 
School  view  of  sin. 

Grotius  was  a  precocious  genius.  He  wrote  good  Latin  verses  at  nine  years  of  age; 
was  ripe  for  the  University  at  twelve;  edited  the  encyclopaedic  Avork  of  Marcianus 
Capella  at  fifteen.  Even  thus  early  he  went  with  an  embassy  to  the  court  of  France, 
where  he  spent  a  year.  Returning  home,  he  took  the  degree  of  doctor  of  laws.  In  lit- 
erature he  edited  the  remains  of  Aratus,  and  wrote  three  dramas  in  Latin.  At  twenty 
he  was  appointed  historiographer  of  the  United  Provinces;  then  advocate-general  of 
the  fise  for  Holland  and  Zealand.  He  wrote  on  international  law;  was  appointed 
deputy  to  England ;  was  imprisoned  for  his  theological  opinions ;  escaped  to  Paris ; 
became  ambassador  of  Sweden  to  France.  He  wrote  commentaries  on  Scripture,  also 
history,  theology,  and  poetry.  He  was  indifferent  to  dogma,  a  lover  of  peace,  a  compro- 
miser, an  unpartisan  believer,  dealing  with  doctrine  more  as  a  statesman  than  as  a 
theologian.  Of  Grotius,  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  used  to  say:  "It  is  ordained  of  almighty 
God  that  the  man  who  dips  into  everything  never  gets  to  the  bottom  of  anything." 

Grotius,  the  jurist,  conceived  of  law  as  a  mere  matter  of  political  expediency  —  a 
device  to  procure  practical  governmental  results.  The  text  most  frequently  quoted  in 
support  of  his  theory,  is  Is.  42  :  21  —  "  It  pleased  Jehovah,  for  his  righteousness'  sake,  to  magnify  the  law,  and 
make  it  honorable."  Strangely  enough,  the  explanation  is  added :  "  even  when  its  demands 
are  unfulfilled."  Park :  "  Christ  satisfied  the  law,  by  making  it  desirable  and  consist- 
ent for  God  not  to  come  up  to  the  demands  of  the  law.  Christ  suffers  a  divine  chastise- 
ment in  consequence  of  our  sins.  Christ  was  cursed  for  Adam's  sin,  just  as  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  were  cursed  for  Adam's  sin,  —  that  is,  he  bore  pains  and  sufferings  on 
account  of  it." 

Grotius  used  the  word  acceptilatio,  by  which  he  meant  God's  sovereign  provision  of  a 
suffering  which  was  not  itself  penalty,  but  which  he  had  determined  to  accept  as  a 
substitute  for  penalty.  Here  we  have  a  virtual  denial  that  there  is  anything  in  God's 
nature  that  requires  Christ  to  suffer ;  for  if  penalty  may  be  remitted  in  part,  it  may  be 
remitted  in  whole,  and  the  reason  why  Christ  suffers  at  all  is  to  be  found,  not  in  any 
demand  of  God's  holiness,  but  solely  in  the  beneficial  influence  of  these  sufferings  upon 


GROTIAN   THEORY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  741 

man;  so  that  in  principle  this  theory  is  allied  to  the  Example  theory  and  the  Moral 
Influence  theory,  already  mentioned. 

Notice  the  difference  between  holding  to  a  substitute  for  penalty,  as  Grotius  did,  and 
holding  to  an  equivalent  suBstitMted  penalty,  as  the  Scriptures  do.  Grotius's  own  state- 
ment fit  his  view  may  he  found  in  his  Def  ensio  Fidei  Catholic;  e  de  Satisf  actione  (Works, 
4 :  297-338 ).  More  modern  statements  of  it  are  those  of  Wardlaw,  in  his  Systematic 
Theology,  2 :  358-395,  and  of  Albert  Barnes,  on  the  Atonement.  The  history  of  New 
England  thought  upon  the  subject  is  given  in  Discourses  and  Treatises  on  the  Atone- 
ment, edited  by  Prof.  Park,  of  Andover.  President  Woolsey:  "Christ's  suffering  was 
due  to  a  deep  and  awful  sense  of  responsibility,  a  conception  of  the  supreme  importance 
to  man  of  his  standing  firm  at  this  crisis.  He  bore,  not  the  wrath  of  God,  but  suffering, 
as  the  only  way  of  redemption  so  far  as  men's  own  feeling  of  sin  was  concerned,  and  so 
far  as  the  government  of  God  was  concerned."  This  unites  the  Governmental  and  the 
Moral  Influence  theories. 

Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  226,  227  —  "Grotius  emphasized  the  idea  of  law 
rather  than  that  of  justice,  ami  made  the  Bufferings  of  Christ  a  legal  example  and  the 
occasion  of  the  relaxation  of  the  law,  and  not  the  strict  penalty  demanded  by  justice. 
But  this  view,  however  it  may  have  been  considered  and  have  served  in  the  clarifica- 
tion of  the  thinking  of  the  times,  met  with  no  general  reception,  and  left  little  trace  of 
itself  among  those  theologians  who  maintained  the  line  of  evangelical  theological 
descent." 

To  this  theory  we  urge  the  following  objections  : 

(  a  )  While  it  contains  a  valuable  element  of  truth,  namely,  that  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ  secure  the  interests  of  God's  government,  it  is 
false  by  defect,  in  substituting  for  the  chief  aim  of  the  atonement  one 
which  is  only  subordinate  and  incidental. 

In  our  discussion  of  Penalty  (  pages  055,  656),  we  have  seen  that  the  object  of  punish- 
ment is  not  primarily  the  security  of  government.  It  is  not  right  to  punish  a  man  for 
the  beneficial  elfect  on  society.  Ill-desert  must  go  before  punishment,  or  the  punish- 
ment can  have  no  beneficial  effect  on  society.  No  punishment  can  work  good  to  society, 
that  is  not  just  and  right  in  itself. 

(  b )  It  rests  upon  false  philosophical  principles,  —  as,  that  utility  is  the 
ground  of  moral  obligation  ;  that  law  is  an  expression  of  the  will,  rather 
thau  of  the  nature,  of  G<  id  ;  that  the  aim  of  penalty  is  to  deter  from  the  com- 
mission of  offences  ;  and  that  righteousness  is  resolvable  into  benevolence. 

Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  073-661 ;  3  :  188,  189  —  "For  God  to  take  that  as  satisfaction 
which  is  not  really  such,  is  to  say  that  there  is  no  truth  in  anything.  God  may  take  a 
part  for  the  whole,  error  for  truth,  wrong  for  right.  The  theory  really  denies  the 
necessity  for  the  work  of  Christ.  If  every  created  thing  offered  to  God  is  worth  just 
so  much  as  God  accepts  it  for,  then  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  might  take  away  sins, 
and  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  570,  571  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4  :  38-40)— 
"Aecepbdatio  implies  that  nothing  is  good  and  right  in  itself.  God  is  indifferent  to  good 
or  evil.  Man  is  bound  by  authority  and  force  alone.  There  is  no  necessity  of  punish- 
ment or  atonement.  The  doctrine  of  indulgences  and  of  supererogation  logically 
follows." 

(  c  )  It  ignores  and  virtually  denies  that  immanent  holiness  of  God  of 
•which  the  law  with  its  threatened  penalties,  and  the  hiunan  conscience 
with  its  demand  for  punishment,  are  only  finite  reflections.  There  is  some- 
thing back  of  government ;  if  the  atonement  satisfies  government,  it  must 
be  by  satisfying  that  justice  of  God  of  which  government  is  an  expression. 

No  deeply  convicted  sinner  feels  that  his  controversy  is  with  government.  Undone 
and  polluted,  he  feels  himself  in  antagonism  to  the  purity  of  a  personal  God.  Govern- 
ment -;s  not  greater  than  God,  but  less.  What  satisfies  God  must  satisfy  government. 
Hence  the  sinner  prays :  "  Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned  "  {  Ps.  51  :  4  > ;  "  God  be  propitiated  toward 
me  the  sinner"  (literal  translation  of  Luke  18:13  ), —  propitiated  through  God's  own  appointed 
sacrifice  whose  smoke  is  ascending  in  his  behalf  even  while  he  prays. 


742  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

In  the  divine  government  this  theory  recognizes  no  constitution,  but  only  legislative 
enactment;  even  this  legislative  enactment  is  grounded  in  no  necessity  of  God's  nature, 
but  only  in  expediency  or  in  God's  arbitrary  will ;  law  may  be  abrogated  for  merely 
economic  reasons,  if  any  incidental  good  may  be  gained  thereby.  J.  M.  Campbell, 
Atonement,  81, 114 — "  No  awakened  sinner,  into  whose  spirit  the  terrors  of  the  law 
have  entered,  ever  thinks  of  rectoral  justice,  but  of  absolute  justice,  and  of  absolute 
justice  only.  .  .  .  Rectoral  justice  so  presupposes  absolute  justice,  and  so  throws  the 
mind  back  on  that  absolute  justice,  that  the  idea  of  an  atonement  that  will  satisfy  the 
one,  though  it  might  not  the  other,  is  a  delusion." 

N.  W.  Taylor's  Theology  was  entitled :  "  Moral  Government,"  and  C.  G.  Finney's  Sys- 
tematic Theology  was  a  treatise  on  Moral  Government,  although  it  called  itself  by 
another  name.  But  because  New  England  ideas  of  government  were  not  sufficiently 
grounded  in  God's  holiness,  but  were  rather  based  upon  utility,  expediency,  or  happi- 
ness, the  very  idea  of  government  has  dropped  out  of  the  New  School  theology,  and  its 
advocates  with  well-nigh  one  accord  have  gone  over  to  the  Moral  Influence  theory  of 
the  atonement,  which  is  only  a  modified  Socinianism.  Both  the  Andover  atonement 
and  that  of  Oberlin  have  become  purely  subjective.  For  this  reason  the  Grotian  or 
Governmental  theory  has  lost  its  hold  upon  the  theological  world  and  needs  to  have  no 
large  amount  of  space  devoted  to  it. 

(  d  )  It  makes  that  to  be  an  exhibition  of  justice  which  is  not  an  exercise 
of  justice  ;  the  atonement  being,  according  to  this  theory,  not  an  execution 
of  law,  but  an  exhibition  of  regard  for  law,  which  will  make  it  safe  to  par- 
don the  violators  of  law.  Such  a  merely  scenic  representation  can  inspire 
respect  for  law,  only  so  long  as  the  essential  unreality  of  it  is  unsuspected. 

To  teach  that  sin  will  be  punished,  there  must  be  punishment.  Potwiu :  "  How  the 
exhibition  of  what  sin  deserves,  but  does  not  get,  can  satisfy  justice,  is  hard  to  see." 
The  Socinian  view  of  Christ  as  an  example  of  virtue  is  more  intelligible  than  the 
Grotian  view  of  Christ  as  an  example  of  chastisement.  Lyman  Abbott :  "  If  I  thought 
that  Jesus  suffered  and  died  to  produce  a  moral  impression  on  me,  it  would  not  pro- 
duce a  moral  impression  on  me."  William  Ashmore :  "  A  stage  tragedian  commits  a 
mock  murder  in  order  to  move  people  to  tears.  If  Christ  was  in  no  sense  a  substitute, 
or  if  he  was  not  co-responsible  with  the  sinner  he  represents,  then  God  and  Christ  are 
participants  in  a  real  tragedy  the  most  awful  that  ever  darkened  human  history,  sim- 
ply for  the  sake  of  its  effect  on  men  to  move  their  callous  sensibilities  — a  stage-trick 
for  the  same  effect." 

The  mother  pretends  to  cry  in  order  to  induce  her  child  to  obey.  But  the  child  will 
obey  only  while  it  thinks  the  mother's  grief  a  reality,  and  the  last  state  of  that  child  is 
worse  than  the  first.  Christ's  atonement  is  no  passion-play.  Hell  cannot  be  cured  by 
homoeopathy.  The  sacrifice  of  Calvary  is  no  dramatic  exhibition  of  suffering  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  a  moral  impression  on  awe-stricken  spectators.  It  is  an  object- 
lesson,  only  because  it  is  a  reality.  All  God's  justice  and  all  God's  love  are  focused  in 
the  Cross,  so  that  it  teaches  more  of  God  and  his  truth  than  all  space  and  time  beside. 

John  Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  book  5,  speaks  of  "  mist,  the  common  gloss  of  theolo- 
gians." Such  mist  is  the  legal  fiction  by  which  Christ's  suffering  is  taken  in  place  of 
legal  penalty,  while  yet  it  is  not  the  legal  penalty  itself.  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Atonement 
is  not  an  arbitrary  contrivance,  so  that  if  one  person  will  endure  a  certain  amount  of 
suffering,  a  certain  number  of  others  may  go  scot-free."  Mercy  never  cheats  justice. 
Yet  the  New  School  theory  of  atonement  admits  that  Christ  cheated  justice  by  a  trick. 
It  substituted  the  penalty  of  Christ  for  the  penalty  of  the  redeemed,  and  then  substi- 
tuted something  else  for  the  penalty  of  Christ. 

( e )  The  intensity  of  Christ's  sufferings  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross 
is  inexplicable  upon  the  theory  that  the  atonement  was  a  histrionic  exhibi- 
tion of  God's  regard  for  his  government,  and  can  be  explained  only  upon 
the  view  that  Christ  actually  endured  the  wrath  of  God  against  human  sin. 

Christ  refused  the  "wine  mingled  with  myrrh"  (Mark  15: 23),  that  he  might  to  the  last  have 
full  possession  of  his  powers  and  speak  no  words  but  words  of  truth  and  soberness. 
His  cry  of  agony  :  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  ( Mat.  27  :  46 ),  was  not  an  ejacula- 
tion of  thoughtless  or  delirious  suffering.  It  expressed  the  deepest  meaning  of  the 
crucifixion.    The  darkening  of  the  heavens  was  only  the  outward  symbol  of  the  hiding 


grotian  theory  of  the  atonement.  743 

of  the  countenance  of  God  from  him  who  was  "maile  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf"  (2  Cor.  5  :  21 ).  In 
the  ease  of  Christ,  above  1  hat  of  all  others,  Jiitis  ooronat,  and  dying  words  are  undying 
words.  "The  tongues  of  dying  men  Enforce  attention  like  deep  harmony;  When 
words  are  scarce  the3T  're  seldom  spefrfc  in  vain,  For  they  breathe  truth  that  breathe 
their  words  in  pain."     Versue  Park,  Discourses,  338-355. 

A  pure  woman  needs  to  meet  an  infamous  proposition  with  something  more  than  a 
mild  refusal.  She  must  flame  up  and  be  angry.  Ps.  97: 10  —  "0  ye  that  lore  Jehovah,  hate  evil  "  ; 
Eph.  4:26  —  "Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not."  So  it  belongs  to  the  holiness  of  God  not  to  let  sin  go 
unchallenged.  God  not  only  shows  anger,  but  he  U  angry.  It  is  the  wrath  of  God 
which  sin  must  meet,  and  which  Christ  must  meet  when  he  is  numbered  with  the 
transgressors.  Death  was  the  cup  of  which  he  was  to  drink  (Mat.  20:22;  John  18:11),  and 
which  ho  drained  to  the  dregs.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  196— "Jesus  alone  of  all 
men  truly  'tasted  death'  (Ucb.2:  9).  Some  men  arc  too  stolid  and  unimaginative  bo  taste  it. 
To  Christians  the  bitterness  of  death  is  gone,  just  because  Christ,  died  and  rose  again. 
Hut  to  Jesus  iis  terrors  were  as  yet  undiminished,  lie  resolutely  set  all  his  faculties  to 
sound  to  the  depths  tile  dreadfulness  of  dying," 

AVe  therefore  cannot  agree  with  either  Wendt  or  Johnson  in  the  following  quota- 
tions. Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2;  249,250—"  'The  forsaking  of  the  Father  was  not 
an  absolute  one,  since  Jesus  still  called  him 'My  God'  (Mat.27:46).  Jesus  fell  t  he  failing  of 
that,  energy  of  spirit  which  had  hitherto  upheld  him,  and  he  expresses  simply  his  ardent 
desire  and  prayer  that  God  would  once  more  grant  him  his  power  and  assistance." 
E.  II.  Johnson,  The  Holy  Spirit,  143,  141  —  "It  is  not  even  necessary  to  believe  that  God 
hid  his  face  from  Christ  at  the  last  moment.  It  is  necessary  only  to  admit  that  Christ 
no  longer  saw  the  Father's  face.  .  .  .  He  felt  that  it  was  so ;  but  it  was  not  so."  These 
explanations  make  Christ's  sufferings  and  Christ's  words  unreal,  and  to  our  mind  they 
are  inconsistent  with  both  his  deity  and  his  atonement. 

(/)  The  actual  power  of  the  atonement  over  the  human  conscience  and 
heart  is  due,  not  to  its  exhibiting  God's  regard  for  law,  hut  to  its  exhibit- 
ing an  actual  execution  of  law,  and  an  actual  satisfaction  of  violated 
holiness  made  by  Christ  in  the  sinner's  stead. 

Whiton,  Gloria  Patri,  143, 141,  claims  that  Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  only 
by  bringing  peace  to  the  conscience  and  s;it  is  I  >ing  the  divine  (lemaml  that  is  felt  therein. 
Whiton  regards  the  atonement  not  as  a  governmental  work  outside  of  us,  but  as  an 
educational  work  within.  Aside  from  the  objection  that  this  view  merges  Cud's  tran- 
scendence in  his  immanence,  we  urge  the  words  of  Matthew  Henry:  "Nothing  can 
satisfy  an  offended  conscience  but  that  which  satisfied  an  offended  God."  C.  J.  Baldwin : 
"The  lake  spread  out  has  no  moving  power;  it  turns  the  mill-wheel  only  when  con- 
tracted into  the  narrow  stream  and  pouring  over  the  fall.  So  the  wide  love  of  God 
moves  men,  only  when  it  is  concentrated  into  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross." 

(</)  The  theory  contradicts  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  repre- 
sent the  atonement  as  necessary ;  as  propitiating  God  himself  ;  as  being  a 
revelation  of  God's  righteousness  ;  as  being  an  execution  of  the  penalty  of 
the  law  ;  as  making  salvation  a  matter  of  debt  to  the  believer,  on  the  ground 
of  what  Christ  has  d<  me  ;  as  actually  purging  our  sins,  instead  of  making 
that  purging  possible  ;  as  not  simply  assuring  the  sinner  that  God  may 
now  pardon  him  on  account  of  what  Christ  has  done,  but  that  Christ  has 
actually  wrought  out  a  complete  salvation,  and  wall  bestow  it  upon  all  who 
come  to  him. 

John  Bunyan,  Pilgrim's  Progress,  chapter  vi  — "Upon  that  place  stood  a  Cross,  and 
a  little  below,  in  the  bottom,  a  Sepulchre.  So  I  saw  in  my  dream,  that  just  as  Christian 
came  up  with  the  Cross,  his  burden  loosed  from  off  his  shoulders,  and  fell  from  off  his 
back,  and  began  to  tumble,  and  so  continued  to  do,  till  it  came  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Sepulchre,  where  it  fell  in,  and  I  saw  it  no  more.  Then  was  Christian  glad  and  light- 
some, and  said  with  a  merry  heart,  He  hath  given  me  rest  by  his  sorrow,  and  life  by 
his  death.  Then  he  stood  still  awhile  to  look  and  wonder;  for  it  was  very  surprising 
to  him  that  the  sight  of  the  Cross  should  thus  ease  him  of  his  burden.'' 

John  Bunyan's  story  is  truer  to  Christian  experience  than  is  the  Governmental 


744  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION". 

theory.  The  sinner  finds  peace,  not  by  coming-  to  God  with  a  distant  respect  to  Christ, 
but  by  coming'  directly  to  the  "Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world "  (John  1:29). 
Christ's  words  to  every  conscious  sinner  are  simply :  "  Come  unto  me  "  (  Mat.  11 :  28  ).  Upon  the 
ground  of  what  Christ  has  done,  salvation  is  a  matter  of  debt  to  the  believer.  1  John  1 : 9 
—  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins" — faithful  to  his  promise, 
and  righteous  to  Christ.  The  Governmental  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  tends  to  dis- 
courage the  sinner's  direct  access  to  Christ,  and  to  render  the  way  to  conscious  accept- 
ance with  God  more  circuitous  and  less  certain. 

When  The  Outlook  says:  "Not  even  to  the  Sou  of  God  must  we  come  instead  of 
coming  to  God,"  we  can  see  only  plain  denial  of  the  validity  of  Christ's  demands  and 
promises,  for  he  demands  immediate  submission  when  he  bids  the  sinner  follow  him, 
and  he  promises  immediate  salvation  when  he  assures  all  who  come  to  him  that  he  will 
not  cast  them  out.  The  theory  of  Grotius  is  legal  and  speculative,  but  it  is  not  Script- 
ural, nor  does  it  answer  the  needs  of  human  nature.  For  criticism  of  Albert  Barnes's 
doctrine,  see  Watts,  New  Apologetic,  210-300.  For  criticism  of  the  Grotian  theory  in 
general,  see  Shedd,  Hist.  Doctrine,  2 :  347-369 ;  Crawford,  Atonement,  367 ;  Cunningham, 
Hist.  Theology,  2 :  355 ;  Princeton  Essays,  1 :  259-292 ;  Essay  on  Atonement,  by  Abp. 
Thomson,  in  Aids  to  Faith ;  Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Scripture,  194-196 ;  S.  H.  Tyng, 
Christian  Pastor;  Charles  Hodge,  Essays,  129-184;  Lidgett,  Spir.  Prin.  of  Atonement, 
151-154. 

4th.  The  Irvingian  Theory,  or  Theory  of  Gradually  Extirpated  De- 
pravity. 

This  holds  that,  in  his  incarnation,  Christ  took  human  nature  as  it  was 
in  Adam,  not  before  the  Fall,  but  after  the  Fall, — human  nature,  therefore, 
with  its  inborn  corruption  and  predisposition  to  moral  evil ;  that,  notwith- 
standing the  possession  of  this  tainted  and  depraved  nature,  Christ,  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  of  his  divine  nature,  not  only  kept  his 
human  nature  from  manifesting  itself  in  any  actual  or  personal  sin,  but 
gradually  purified  it,  through  struggle  and  suffering,  until  in  his  death  he 
completely  extirpated  its  original  depravity,  and  reunited  it  to  God.  This 
subjective  purification  of  human  nature  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  con- 
stitutes his  atonement,  and  men  are  saved,  not  by  any  objective  propitiation, 
but  only  by  becoming  through  faith  partakers  of  Christ's  new  humanity. 
This  theory  was  elaborated  by  Edward  Irving,  of  London  ( 1792-1834 ),  and 
it  has  been  held,  in  substance,  by  Menken  and  Dippel  in  Germany. 

Irving  was  in  this  preceded  by  Felix  of  Urgella,  in  Spain  (+818),  whom  Alcuin 
opposed.  Felix  said  that  the  Logos  united  with  human  nature,  without  sanctifying  it 
beforehand.  Edward  Irving,  in  his  early  life  colleague  of  Dr.  Chalmers,  at  Glasgow, 
was  in  his  later  years  a  preacher,  in  London,  of  the  National  Church  of  Scotland.  For 
his  own  statement  ot  his  view  of  the  Atonement,  see  his  Collected  Works,  5 : 9-398.  See 
also  Life  of  Irving,  by  Mrs.  Oliphant;  Menken,  Schrif ten,  3:279-404;  6:351sr/. ;  Gue- 
ricke,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1843:  Heft  2;  David  Brown,  in  Expositor,  Oct.  1887  :  264 
sq.,  and  letter  of  Irving  to  Marcus  Dods,  in  British  Weekly,  Mch.  25,  1887.  For  other 
references,  see  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  2 :  496-498. 

Irving's  followers  differ  in  their  representation  of  his  views.  Says  Miller,  Hist,  and 
Doct.  of  Irvingism,  1 : 85 — "If  indeed  we  made  Christ  a  sinner,  then  indeed  all  creeds 
are  at  an  end  and  we  are  worthy  to  die  the  death  of  blasphemers.  .  .  .  The  miraculous 
conception  depriveth  him  of  human  personality,  and  it  also  depriveth  him  of  original 
sin  and  guilt  needing  to  be  atoned  for  by  another,  but  it  doth  not  deprive  him  of  the 
substance  of  sinful  flesh  and  blood, —that  is,  iiesh  and  blood  the  same  with  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  his  brethren."  2  :  14  —  Freer  says:  "So  that,  despite  it  was  fallen  flesh 
he  had  assumed,  he  was,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  born  into  the  world  '  the  Holy  Thing '." 
11-15,  282-305  —  "  Unf alien  humanity  needed  not  i-edemption,  therefore,  Jesus  did  not 
take  it.  He  took  fallen  humanity,  but  purged  it  in  the  act  of  taking  it.  The  nature 
of  which  he  took  part  was  sinful  in  the  lump,  but  in  his  person  most  holy." 

So,  says  an  Irvingian  tract,  "Being  part  of  the  very  nature  that  had  incurred  the 
penalty  of  sin,  though  in  his  person  never  having  committed  or  even  thought  it,  part 


IIIVINGIAN   THEORY    OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  745 

of  the  common  humanity  could  suffer  that  penalty,  and  did  so  suffer,  to  make  atone- 
meut  for  that  nature,  though  he  who  took  it  knew  no  sin."  Dr.  Curry,  quoted  in 
McClintock  and  Strong-,  Encyclopaedia,  4:063,  604  —  "The  Godhead  came  into  vital 
union  with  humanity  fallen  and  under  #ie  law.  The  last  thoug-ht  carried,  to  living's 
realistic  mode  of  thinking-,  the  notion  of  Christ's  participation  in  the  fallen  character 
of  humanity,  which  he  designated  by  terms  that  implied  a  real  sinfulness  in  Christ. 
He  attempted  to  get  rid  of  the  odiousuess  of  that  idea,  by  saying  that  this  was  over- 
borne, and  at  length  wholly  expelled,  by  the  indwelling  Godhead." 

We  must  regard  the  later  expounders  of  Irvingian  doctrine  as  having  softened  down, 
if  they  have  not  wholly  expunged,  its  most  characteristic  feature,  as  the  following 
quotation  from  Irving's  own  words  will  show:  Works,  5:115— "That  Christ  took  our 
fallen  nature,  is  most  manifest,  because  there  was  no  other  in  existence  to  take."  123 
—  "  The  human  nature  is  thoroughly  fallen  ;  the  mere  apprehension  of  it  by  the  Son 
doth  not .make  it  holy."  138 — "  His  soul  did  mourn  and  grieve  and  pray  to  God  con- 
tinually, that  it  might  be  delivered  from  the  mortality,  corruption,  and  temptation 
which  it  felt  in  its  fleshly  tabernacle."  153  — "These  Sufferings  came  not  by  imputa- 
tion merely,  but  by  actual  participation  of  the  sinful  aim  cursed  thing."  Irving  fre- 
q  uently  quoted  Heb.  2  :  10  —  "  make  the  author  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  sufferings." 

Irving's  followers  deny  Christ's  sinfulness,  only  by  assuming  that  inborn  infirmity 
and  congenital  tendencies  to  evil  are  not  sin,  —  in  other  words,  that  not  native  deprav- 
ity, but  only  actual  traugression,  is  to  be  denominated  sin.  Irving,  in  our  judgment, 
was  rightly  charged  with  assert  ing  the  sinfulness  of  Christ's  human  nature,  and  it  was 
upon  this  charge  that  he  was  deposed  from  the  ministry  by  the  Presbytery  in  Scot  land. 

Irving  was  of  commanding  stature,  powerful  voice,  natural  and  graceful  oratory. 
He  loved  the  antique  and  the  grand.  For  a  time  in  London  he  was  the  great  popular 
sensation.  But  shortly  after  the  opening  of  his  new  church  in  Regent's  Square  in  1887, 
he  found  that  fashion  had  taken  its  departure  and  that  his  church  was  no  longer 
crowded.  He  concluded  that  the  world  was  under  the  reign  of  Satan;  he  became  a 
fanatical millennarian ;  he  gave  himself  wholly  to  the  study  of  prophecy.  In  lt-30  he 
thought  the  apostolic  gifts  were  revived,  and  he  held  to  the  hope  of  a  restoration  of 
the  primitive  church,  although  he  himself  was  relegated  to  a  comparatively  subordi- 
nate position.  He  exhausted  his  energies,  and  died  at  the  age  of  forty-two.  "  If  I  had 
married  Irving,"  said  Mrs.  Thomas  Carlyle,  "there  would  have  been  no  tongues." 

To  this  theory  we  offer  the  following  objections  : 

(  a )  While  it  embraces  an  important  element  of  truth,  namely,  the  fact 
of  a  new  humanity  in  Christ  of  which  all  believers  become  partakers,  it  is 
chargeable  with  serious  error  in  denying  the  objective  atonement  which 
makes  the  subjective  application  possible. 

Bruce,  in  his  Humiliation  of  Christ,  calls  this  a  theory  of  "  redemption  by  sample." 
It  is  a  purely  subjective  atonement  winch  Irving  has  in  mind.  Deliverance  from  sin, 
in  order  to  deliverance  from  penalty,  is  an  exact,  reversal  of  the  Scripture  order.  Yet 
this  deliverance  from  sin,  in  Irving's  view,  was  to  be  secured  in  an  external  and 
mechanical  way.  He  held  that  it  was  the  Old  Testament  economy  which  should  abide, 
while  the  New  Testament  economy  should  pass  away.  This  is  Sacramentarianism,  or 
dependence  upon  the  external  rite,  rather  than  upon  the  internal  grace,  as  essential  to 
salvation.  The  followers  of  Irving  are  Saeramentarians.  The  crucifix  and  candles, 
incense  and  gorgeous  vestments,  a  highly  complicated  and  symbolic  ritual,  they  regard 
as  a  necessary  accompaniment  of  religion.  They  feel  the  need  of  external  authority, 
visible  and  permanent,  but  one  that  rests  upon  inspiration  and  continual  supernatural 
help.  They  do  not  find  this  authority,  as  the  Romanists  do,  in  the  Pope,  —  they  find  it 
in  their  new  Apostles  and  Prophets.  The  church  can  never  be  renewed,  as  they  think, 
except  by  the  restoration  of  all  the  ministering  orders  mentioned  in  Eph.  4:11  —  "apostles 
....  prophets  ....  evangelists  ....  pastors  ....  teachers."  But  the  N.  T.  mark  of  an  apostle  is  that 
Christ  has  appeared  to  him.  Irving's  apostles  cannot  stand  this  test.  See  Luthardt, 
Errinerungen  aus  vergaugenen  Tagen,  237. 

( b  )  It  rests  upon  false  fundamental  principles, — as,  that  law  is  identical 
with  the  natural  order  of  the  universe,  and  as  such,  is  an  exhaustive  expres- 
sion of  the  will  and  nature  of  God  ;  that  sin  is  merely  a  power  of  moral  evil 
within  the  soul,  instead  of  also  involving  an  objective  guilt  and  desert  of 


74G  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

punishment  ;  that  penalty  is  the  mere  reaction  of  law  against  the  trans- 
gressor, instead  of  being  also  the  revelation  of  a  personal  wrath  against 
sin  ;  that  the  evil  taint  of  human  nature  can  be  extirpated  by  suffering  its 
natural  consequences, — penalty  in  this  way  reforming  the  transgressor. 

Dorner,  Glaubensletare,  2  :  463  ( Syst.  Doet.,  3 :  361,  362 )  -"  On  Irving's  theory,  evil 
inclinations  are  not  sinful.  Sinfulness  belongs  only  to  evil  acts.  The  loose  connection 
between  the  Logos  and  humanity  savors  of  Nestorianism.  It  is  the  work  of  the  person 
to  rid  itself  of  something  in  the  humanity  which  does  not  render  it  really  sinful.  If 
Jesus'  sinfulness  of  nature  did  not  render  his  person  sinful,  this  must  be  true  of  us,— 
which  is  a  Pelagian  element,  revealed  also  in  the  denial  that  for  our  redemption  we  need 
Christ  as  an  atoning  sacrifice.  It  is  not  necessary  to  a  complete  incarnation  for  Christ 
to  take  a  sivful  nature,  unless  sin  is  essential  to  human  nature.  In  Irving's  view,  the 
death  of  Christ's  body  works  the  regeneration  of  his  sinful  nature.  But  this  is  to  make 
sin  a  merely  physical  thing,  and  the  body  the  only  part  of  man  needing  redemption." 
Penalty  would  thus  become  a  reformer,  and  death  a  Savior. 

Irving  held  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  sin  :  1.  guiltless  sin  ;  2.  guilty  sin.  Passive 
depravity  is  not  guilty ;  it  is  a  part  of  man's  sensual  nature  ;  without  it  we  would  not 
be  human.  But  the  moment  this  fallen  nature  expresses  itself  in  action,  it  becomes 
guilty.  Irving  near  the  close  of  his  life  claimed  a  sort  of  sinless  perfection  ;  for  so  long 
as  he  could  keep  this  sinful  nature  inactive,  and  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  was 
free  from  sin  and  guilt.  Christ  took  this  passive  sin,  that  he  might  be  like  unto  his 
brethren,  and  that  he  might  be  able  to  suffer. 

( c  )  It  contradicts  the  express  and  implicit  representations  of  Scripture, 
with  regard  to  Christ's  freedom  from  all  taint  of  hereditary  depravity  ;  mis- 
represents his  life  as  a  growing  consciousness  of  the  underlying  corruption 
of  his  human  nature,  which  culminated  at  Gethsemane  and  Calvary  ;  and 
denies  the  truth  of  his  own  statements,  when  it  declares  that  he  must  have 
died  on  account  of  his  own  depravity,  even  though  none  were  to  be  saved 
thereby. 

"I  shall  maintain  until  death,"  said  Irving,  "that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  as  rebellious 
as  ours,  as  fallen  as  ours.  .  .  .  Human  nature  was  corrupt  to  the  core  and  black  as  hell, 
and  this  is  the  human  nature  the  Son  of  God  took  upon  himself  and  was  clothed  with." 
The  Rescuer  must  stand  as  deep  in  the  mire  as  the  one  he  rescues.  There  was  no  sub- 
stitution. Christ  waged  war  with  the  sin  of  his  own  flesh  and  he  expelled  it.  His  glory 
was  not  in  saving  others,  but  in  saving  himself,  and  so  demonstrating  the  power  of  man 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  to  cast  out  sin  from  his  heart  and  life.  Irving  held  that  his 
theory  was  the  only  one  taught  in  Scripture  and  held  from  the  first  by  the  church. 

Nicoll,  Life  of  Christ,  183— "All  others,  as  they  grow  in  holiness,  grow  in  their  sense 
of  sin.  But  when  Christ  is  forsaken  of  the  Father,  he  asks  '  Why  ?  '  well  knowing  that 
the  reason  is  not  in  his  sin.  He  never  makes  confession  of  sin.  In  his  longest  prayer, 
the  preface  is  an  assertion  of  righteousness :  'I  glorified  thee '  (John  17  :  4  ).  His  last  utter- 
ance from  the  cross  is  a  quotation  from  Ps.  31 : 5 — 'Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit  (  Luke 
23 :  46),  but  he  does  not  add,  as  the  Psalm  does,  'thon  hast  redeemed  me,  0  Lord  God  of  truth,'  for  he 
needed  no  redemption,  being  himself  the  Redeemer." 

( d)  It  makes  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  and  the  subjective  purifi- 
cation of  his  human  nature,  to  be  the  chief  features  of  his  work,  while  the 
Scriptures  make  his  death  and  passive  bearing  of  penalty  the  centre  of 
all,  and  ever  regard  him  as  one  who  is  personally  pure  and  who  vicariously 
bears  the  jrunishnient  of  the  guilty. 

In  Irving's  theory  there  is  no  imputation,  or  representation,  or  substitution.  His  only 
idea  of  sacrifice  is  that  sin  itself  shall  be  sacrificed,  or  annihilated.  The  many  subjective 
theories  of  the  atonement  show  that  the  offence  of  the  cross  has  not  ceased  ( Gal.  5:11  — 
"then  hath  the  stumbling-block  of  the  cross  been  done  away  "  ).  Christ  crucified  is  still  a  stumbling- 
block  to  modern  speculation.  Yet  it  is,  as  of  old,  "the  power  of  God  unto  salvation"  (Rom.  1 :  16; 
cf.  1  Cor.  1 :  23,  24  — "  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  Jews  a  stumbling-block  and  unto  Gentiles  foolishness ;  but  unto 
them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  "). 


ANSELMIC   THEOEY    OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  747 

As  the  ocean  receives  the  impurities  of  the  rivers  and  purges  them,  so  Irving-  repre- 
sented Christ  as  receiving  into  himself  the  impurities  of  humanity  and  purging  the  race 
from  its  sin.  Here  is  the  sense  of  defilement,  hut  no  sense  of  guilt ;  subjective  pollu- 
tion, but  no  objective  condemnation.  Wte  take  precisely  opposite  ground  from  that  of 
Irving,  namely,  that  Christ  had,  not  hereditary  depravity,  but  hereditary  guilt;  that  he 
was  under  obligation  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the  race  to  which  he  had  historically 
united  himself,  and  of  which  he  was  the  creator,  the  upholder,  and  the  life.  He  was 
"  made  to  be  sir.  on  our  behalf"  (2  Cor.  5  :  21 ),  not  in  the  sense  of  one  defiled,  as  Irving  thought, 
but  in  the  sense  of  one  condemned  to  bear  our  iniquities  and  to  suffer  their  penal  con- 
sequences. The  test  of  a  theory  of  the  atonement,  as  the  test  of  a  religion,  is  its  power 
to  "  cleanse  that  red  right  hand  "  of  Lady  Macbeth  ;  in  other  words,  its  power  to  satisfy 
the  divine  justice  of  which  our  condemning  conscience  is  only  the  reflection.  The 
theory  of  Irving  has  no  such  power.  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  verged  toward  Irving's  view, 
when  he  claimed  that  "  Christ  cook  human  nature  as  he  found  it." 

(e)  It  necessitates  the  surrender  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  a 
merely  declaratory  act  of  God  ;  and  requires  such  a  view  of  the  divine  holi- 
ness, expressed  only  through  the  order  of  nature,  as  can  be  maintained 
only  upon  principles  of  pantheism. 

Thomas  Aquinas  inquired  whether  Christ  was  slain  by  himself,  or  by  another.  The 
question  suggests  a  larger  one  —  whether  God  has  constituted  other  forces  than  his 
own,  personal  and  impersonal,  in  the  universe,  over  against  which  he  stands  in  his 
transcendence  ;  or  whether  all  his  activity  is  merged  in,  and  identical  with,  the  activity 
of  the  creature.  The  theory  of  a  merely  subjective  atonement  is  more  consistent  with 
the  latter  view  than  the  former.  For  criticism  of  Irvingian  doctrine,  see  Studies  und 
Kritiken,  1845:  319;  1877:351-374;  Princeton  Rev.,  April,  1863:207;  Christian  Rev.,  28  : 
234  xit.;  rilrnann,  Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  219-232. 

5th.     The  Anselmic,  or  Commercial  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

This  theory  holds  that  sin  is  a  violation  of  the  divine  honor  or  majesty, 
and,  as  committed  against  an  infinite  being,  deserves  an  infinite  punish- 
ment ;  that  the  majesty  of  God  requires  him  to  execute  punishment,  while 
the  love  of  God  pleads  for  the  sparing  of  the  guilty  ;  that  this  conflict  of 
divine  attributes  is  eternally  reconciled  by  the  voluntary  sacrifice  of  the 
G<  id-man,  who  bears  in  virtue  of  the  dignity  of  his  pet  son  the  intensively 
infinite  punishment  of  sin,  which  must  otherwise  have  been  suffered  exten- 
sively and  eternally  by  sinners  ;  that  this  suffering  of  the  God-man  presents 
to  the  divine  majesty  an  exact  equivalent  for  the  deserved  sufferings  of  the 
elect;  and  that,  as  the  result  of  tins  satisfaction  of  the  divine  claims,  the 
elect  sinners  are  pardoned  and  regenerated.  This  view  was  first  broached 
by  Anselm  of  Canterbury  (1033-110J)  as  a  substitute  for  the  earlier  patris- 
tic view  that  Christ's  death  was  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan,  to  deliver  sinners 
from  his  power.  It  is  held  by  many  Scotch  theologians,  and,  in  this 
country,  by  the  Princeton  School. 

The  old  patristic  theory,  which  the  Anselmic  view  superseded,  has  been  called  the 
Military  theory  of  the  Atonement.  Satan,  as  a  captor  in  war,  had  a  right  to  his  cap- 
tives, which  could  be  bought  oft'  only  by  ransom.  It  was  Justin  Martyr  who  first  pro- 
pounded this  view  that  Christ  paid  a  ransom  to  Satan.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  added  that 
Christ's  humanity  was  the  bait  with  which  Satan  was  attracted  to  the  hidden  hook  of 
Christ's  deity,  and  so  was  caught  by  artifice.  Peter  Lombard,  Sent.,  3  :  19—"  What  did 
the  Reedcmer  to  our  captor?  He  held  out  to  him  his  cross  as  a  mouse-trap  ;  in  it  he 
set,  as  a  bait,  his  blood."  Even  Luther  compares  Satan  to  the  crocodile  which  swallows 
the  ichneumon,  only  to  find  that  the  little  animal  eats  its  insides  out. 

These  metaphoi's  show  this,  at  least,  that  no  age  of  the  church  has  believed  in  a 
merely  subjective  atonement.  Nor  was  this  relation  to  Satan  the  only  aspect  in  which 
the  atonement  was  regarded  even  by  the  early  church.  So  early  as  the  fourth  century, 
we  find  a  great  church  Father  maintaining  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  required  by  the 


748  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

truth  and  goodness  of  God.  See  Crippen,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  129  — "  Atha- 
nasius  (325-373)  held  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  the  payment  of  a  debt  due  to  God. 
His  argument  is  briefly  this:  God,  having'  threatened  death  as  the  punishment  of  sin, 
would  be  untrue  if  he  did  not  f  ulfil  his  threatening-.  But  it  would  he  equally  unworthy 
of  the  divine  goodness  to  permit  rational  beings,  to  whom  he  had  imparted  his  own 
Spirit,  to  incur  this  death  in  consequence  of  an  imposition  practiced  on  them  by  the 
devil.  Seeing  then  that  nothing  but  death  could  solve  this  dilemma,  the  Word,  who 
could  not  die,  assumed  a  mortal  body,  and,  offering  his  human  nature  a  sacrifice  for 
all,  fulfilled  the  law  by  his  death."  Gregory  Nazianzen  (  390 )  "  retained  the  figure  of  a 
ransom,  but,  clearly  perceiving  that  the  analogy  was  incomplete,  he  explained  the 
death  of  Christ  as  an  expedient  to  reconcile  the  divine  attributes." 

But,  although  many  theologians  had  recognized  a  relation  of  atonement  to  God,  none 
before  Anselm  had  given  any  clear  account  of  the  nature  of  this  relation.  Anselm's 
acute,  brief,  and  beautiful  treatise  entitled  "  Cur  Deus  Homo  "  constitutes  the  greatest 
single  contribution  to  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine.  He  shows  that  "  whatever  man 
owes,  he  owes  to  God,  not  to  the  devil.  .  .  .  He  who  does  not  yield  due  honor  to  God, 
withholds  from  him  what  is  his,  and  dishonors  him ;  and  this  is  sin.  ...  It  is  necessary 
that  either  the  stolen  honor  be  restored,  or  that  punishment  follow. ''  Man,  because  of 
original  sin,  cannot  make  satisfaction  for  the  dishonor  done  to  God, — "  a  sinner  cannot 
justify  a  sinner."  Neither  could  an  angel  make  this  satisfaction.  None  can  make  it 
but  God.  "  If  then  none  can  make  it  but  God,  and  none  owes  it  but  man,  it  must  needs 
be  wrought  out  by  God,  made  man."  The  God-man,  to  make  satisfaction  for  the  sins 
of  all  mankind,  must  "  give  to  God,  of  his  own,  something  that  is  more  valuable  than 
all  that  is  under  God."  Such  a  gift  of  infinite  value  was  his  death.  The  reward  of  his 
sacrifice  turns  to  the  advantage  of  man,  and  thus  the  justice  and  love  of  God  are 
reconciled. 

The  foregoing  synopsis  is  mainly  taken  from  Crippen,  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  134,  135. 
The  Cur  Deus  Homo  of  Anselm  is  translated  in  Bib.  Sac.,  11 :  729 ;  12 :  52.  A  synopsis  of  it 
is  given  in  Lichtenberger's  Encyclopedic  des  Sciences  Religieuses,  vol.  1,  art.:  Anselm. 
The  treatises  on  the  Atonement  by  Symington,  Caudlish,  Martin,  Smeaton,  in  Great 
Britain,  advocate  for  substance  the  view  of  Anselm,  as  indeed  it  was  held  by  Calvin 
before  them.  In  America,  the  theory  is  represented  by  Nathanael  Emmons,  A.  Alex- 
ander, and  Charles  Hodge  ( Syst.  Theol.,  2 :  470-540 ). 

To  this  theory  we  make  the  following  objections  : 

( a  )  While  it  contains  a  valuable  element  of  truth,  in  its  representation 
of  the  atonement  as  satisfying  a  principle  of  the  divine  nature,  it  conceives 
of  this  principle  in  too  formal  and  external  a  manner, —  making  the  idea  of 
the  divine  honor  or  majesty  more  prominent  than  that  of  the  divine  holi- 
ness, in  which  the  divine  honor  and  majesty  are  grounded. 

The  theory  hits  been  called  the  "Criminal  theory"  of  the  Atonement,  as  the  old 
patristic  theory  of  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan  has  been  called  the  "  Military  theory."  It 
had  its  origin  in  a  time  when  exaggerated  ideas  prevailed  respecting  the  authority  of 
popes  and  emperors,  and  when  dishonor  done  to  their  majesty  ( crimen  lcB8(B  nvagestatis ) 
was  the  highest  offence  known  to  law.  See  article  by  Cramer,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1880  :  7,  on  Wurzeln  des  Anselm'schen  Satisf  actionsbegriffes. 

Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  88,  89— "From  the  point  of  view  of  Sovereignty,  there 
could  be  no  necessity  for  atonement.  In  Mohammedanism,  where  sovereignty  is  the 
supreme  and  sole  theological  principle,  no  need  is  felt  for  satisfying  the  divine  justice. 
God  may  pardon  whom  he  will,  on  whatever  grounds  his  sovereign  will  may  dictate.  It 
therefore  constituted  a  great  advance  in  Latin  theology,  as  also  an  evidence  of  its 
immeasurable  superiority  to  Mohammedanism,  when  Anselm  for  the  first  time,  in  a 
clear  and  emphatic  manner,  had  asserted  an  inward  necessity  in  the  being  of  God  that 
his  justice  should  receive  satisfaction  for  the  affront  which  had  been  offered  to  it  by 
human  sinfulness." 

Henry  G  eorge.  Progress  and  Poverty,  481  — •"  In  the  days  of  feudalism,  men  thought 
of  heaven  as  organized  on  a  feudal  basis,  and  ranked  the  first  and  second  Persons  of 
the  Trinity  as  Suzerain  and  Teuant-iu-Chief."  William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious 
Experience,  329,  830 — "  The  monarchical  type  of  sovereignty  was,  for  example,  so  inerad- 
icably  planted  in  the  mind  of  our  forefathers,  that  a  dose  of  cruelty  and  arbitrariness 
in  their  Deity  seems  positively  to  have  been  required  by  their  imagination.    They  called 


ANSELMIC   THEORY   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  749 

the  cruelty  'retributive  justice,'  and  a  God  without  it  would  certainly  not  have  struck 
them  as  sovereign  enough.  But  to-day  we  abhor  the  very  notion  of  eternal  suffering- 
inflicted  ;  and  that  arbitrary  dealing-  out  of  salvation  and  damnation  to  selected  indi- 
viduals, of  which  Jonathan  Edwards  cou^d  persuade  himself  that  he  had  not  only  a  con- 
viction, but  a  '  delightful  conviction,'  as  of  a  doctrine  '  exceeding  pleasant,  bright,  and 
sweet,'  appears  to  us,  if  sovereignly  anything,  sovereignly  irrational  and  mean." 

(  b  )  In  its  eagerness  to  maintain  the  atoning  efficacy  of  Christ's  passive 
obedience,  the  active  obedience,  qnite  as  clearly  expressed  in  Scripture,  is 
insufficiently  emphasized  and  well  nigh  lost  sight  of. 

Neither  Christ's  active  obedience  alone,  nor  Christ's  obedient  passion  alone,  can  save 
us.  As  we  shall  see  hereafter,  in  our  examination  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification, 
the  latter  was  needed  as  the  ground  upon  which  our  penalty  could  be  remitted;  the 
former  as  the  ground  upon  which  we  might  be  admitted  to  the  divine  favor.  Calvin 
has  reflected  the  passive  element  in  Anselm's  view,  in  the  following  passages  of  his 
Institutes  :  II,  17  :  3  —  "  God,  to  whom  we  were  hateful  through  sin,  was  appeased  by 
the  death  of  his  Son,  and  was  made  propitious  to  us."  ...  II,  16 :  7 — "  It  is  necessary  to 
consider  how  he  substituted  himself  in  order  to  pay  the  price  of  our  redemption. 
Death  held  us  undo-  its  yoke,  but  he,  in  our  place,  delivered  himself  into  its  power,  that 
he  might  exempt  us  from  it."  .  .  .  II,  16:2  —  "  Christ  interposed  and  bore  what,  by  the 
just  judgment  of  God,  was  impending  over  sinners  ;  with  his  own  blood  expiated  the 
sin  which  rendered  them  hateful  to  God;  by  this  expiation  satisfied  and  duly  propitia- 
ted the  Father;  by  this  interession  appeased  his  anger;  on  this  basis  founded  peace 
between  God  and  men  ;  and  by  this  tie  seemed  the  divine  benevolence  toward  them." 

It  has  been  said  that  Anselm  regarded  Christ's  death  not  as  a  vicarious  punishment, 
but  as  a  voluntary  sacrifice  in  compensation  for  which  the  guilty  were  released  and 
justified.  So  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Dogmas  (Bonn),  2:517,  understands  Anselm  to 
teach  "the  necessity  of  aeatisfactio  viearia  activu,"  and  says:  "  We  do  not  find  in  his 
writing's  the  doctrine  of  a  satisfactio  passiva;  he  nowhere  says  that  Christ  had  endured 
the  punishment  of  men."  Shedd,  Hist.  Christ.  Doctrine,  2  :  282,  thinks  this  a  misunder- 
standing of  Anselm.  The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  takes  the  view  of  Shedd,  when  it 
speaks  of  Christ's  sufferings  as  penalty:  "The  justice  of  man  demands  satisfaction  ; 
and  as  an  insult  to  infinite  honor  is  itself  infinite,  the  satisfaction  must  be  infinite,  i.  e., 
it  must  outweigh  all  that  is  not  God.  Such  a  penalty  can  only  be  paid  by  God  himself, 
and,  as  a  penalty  for  man,  must  be  paid  under  the  form  of  man.  Satisfaction  is  only 
possible  through  the  God-man.  Now  this  God-man,  as  sinless,  is  exempt,  from  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin  ;  his  passion  is  therefore  voluntary,  not  given  as  due.  The  merit  of  it  is 
therefore  iufiuite ;  God's  justice  is  thus  appeased,  and  his  mercy  may  extend  to  man." 
The  truth  then  appears  to  be  that  Anselm  held  Christ's  obedience  to  be  passive,  in  that 
he  satisfied  God's  justice  by  enduring  punishment  which  the  sinner  deserved  ;  but  that 
he  held  this  same  obedience  of  Christ  to  be  active,  in  that  he  endured  this  penalty 
voluntarily,  when  there  was  no  obligation  upon  him  so  to  do. 

Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  2  :  431,  461,  462  — "Christ  not  only  suffered  the  penalty, 
but  obeyed  the  precept,  of  the  law.  In  this  case  law  and  justice  get  their  whole  dues. 
But  when  lost  man  011I3'  suffers  the  penalty,  but  does  not  obey  the  precept,  the  law  is 
defrauded  of  apart  of  its  dues.  No  law  is  completely  obeyed,  if  only  its  penalty  is 
endured.  .  .  .  Consequently,  a  sinner  can  never  completely  and  exhaustively  satisfy 
the  divine  law,  however  much  or  long  he  may  suffer,  because  he  cannot  at  one  and  the 
same  time  endure  the  penalty  and  obey  the  precept.  He  owes  'ten  thousand  talents '  and  has 
'not  wherewith  to  pay'  (  Mat.  18  :  24,  25  ).  But  Christ  did  both,  and  therefore  he  'magnified  the  law 
and  made  it  honorable '  ( Is.  42  :  21 ),  in  an  infinitely  higher  degree  than  the  whole  human  family 
would  have  done,  had  they  all  personally  suffered  for  their  sins."  Cf.  Edwards,  Works, 
1:406. 

(  c  )  It  allows  disproportionate  weight  to  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  represent  the  atonement  under  commercial  analogies,  as  the  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  or  ransom,  to  the  exclusion  of  those  which  describe  it 
as  an  ethical  fact,  whose  value  is  to  be  estimated  not  quantitatively,  but 
qualitatively. 

Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  3  :  209-212— "  Die  he,  or  justice  must,  unless  for  him  Some 
other,  able  and  as  willing,  pay  The  rigid  satisfaction,  death  for  death."    The  main  text 


750  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION. 

relied  upon  by  the  advocates  of  the  Commercial  theory  is  Mat.  20  :  28  —  "give  his  life  a  ransom 
for  many."  Pfleiderer,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  1  :  257 —  "  The  work  of  Christ,  as  Anselm 
construed  it,  was  in  fact  nothing  else  than  the  prototype  of  the  meritorious  perform- 
ances and  satisfactions  of  the  ecclesiastical  saints,  and  was  therefore,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  mediaeval  church,  thought  out  quite  logically.  All  the  more  remarkable  is 
it  that  the  churches  of  the  Reformation  could  be  satisfied  with  this  theory,  notwith- 
standing that  it  stood  in  complete  contradiction  to  their  deeper  moral  consciousness. 
If,  according  to  Protestant  principles  generally,  there  are  no  supererogatory  meritor- 
ious works,  then  one  would  suppose  that  such  cannot  be  accepted  even  in  the  case  of 
Jesus." 

E.G.Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  258 — "The  Anselmic  theory  was  rejected  by 
Abelard  for  grounding  the  atonement  in  justice  instead  of  benevolence,  and  for  taking 
insufficient  account  of  the  power  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  in  procuring  a  sub- 
jective change  in  man."  Encyc.  Brit.,  2  :  93  (art.:  Anselm) — "This  theory  has  exei-- 
cised  immense  influence  on  the  form  of  church  doctrine.  It  is  certainly  an  advance  on 
the  older  patristic  theory,  in  so  far  as  it  substitutes  for  a  contest  between  God  and 
Satan,  a  contest  between  the  goodness  and  justice  of  God ;  but  it  puts  the  whole  rela- 
tion on  a  merely  legal  footing,  gives  it  no  ethical  bearing,  and  neglects  altogether  the 
consciousness  of  the  individual  to  lie  redeemed.  In  this  respect  it  contrasts  unfavor- 
ably with  the  later  theory  of  Abelard." 

(  (I )  It  represents  the  atonement  as  having  reference  only  to  the  elect, 
and  ignores  the  Scripture  declarations  that  Christ  died  for  all. 

Anselm,  like  Augustine,  limited  the  atonement  to  the  elect.  Yet  Leo  the  Great,  in 
461,  had  affirmed  that  "  so  precious  is  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood  for  the  unjust,  that 
if  the  whole  universe  of  captives  would  believe  in  the  Redeemer,  no  chain  of  the  devil 
could  hold  them"  (Crippen,  132).  Bishop  Gailor,  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  heard 
General  Booth«at  Memphis  say  in  1903 :  "  Friends,  Jesus  shed  his  blood  to  pay  the  price, 
and  he  bought  from  God  enough  salvation  to  go  round."  The  Bishop  says:  "  I  f<  It 
that  his  view  of  salvation  was  different  from  mine.  Yet  such  teaching,  partial  as  it  is, 
lifts  men  by  the  thousand  from  the  mire  and  vice  of  sin  into  the  power  and  purity  of  a 
new  life  in  Jesus  Christ." 

Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  221  — "Anselm  does  not  clearly  connect  the  death 
of  Christ  with  the  punishment  of  sin,  since  he  makes  it  a  supererogatory  work  volun- 
tarily done,  in  consequence  of  which  it  is  'fitting '  that  forgiveness  should  be  bestowed 
on  sinners.  .  .  .  Yet  his  theory  served  to  hand  down  to  later  theologians  the  great  idea 
of  the  objective  atonement." 

(  6  )  It  is  defective  in  holding  to  a  merely  external  transfer  of  the  merit 
of  Christ's  work,  while  it  does  not  clearly  state  the  internal  ground  of  that 
transfer,  in  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ. 

This  needed  supplement,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  the  Union  of  the  Believer  with 
Christ,  was  furnished  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  Sum  ma,  pars  3,  qmes.  8.  The  Anselmic 
theory  is  Romanist  in  its  tendency,  as  the  theory  next  to  be  mentioned  is  Protestant  in 
its  tendency.  P.  S.  Moxom  asserts  that  salvation  is  not  by  substitution,  but  by  incorpo- 
ration. We  prefer  to  say  that  salvation  is  by  substitution,  but  that  the  substitution 
is  by  incorporation.  Incorporation  involves  substitution,  and  another's  pain  inures  to 
my  account.  Christ  being  incorporate  with  humanity,  all  the  exposures  and  liabilities 
of  humanity  fell  upon  him.  Simon,  Reconciliation  by  Incarnation,  is  an  attempt  to 
unite  the  two  elements  of  the  doctrine. 

Lidgett,  Spir.  Prin.  of  Atonement,  132-189  —  "As  Anselm  represents  it,  Christ's  death 
is  not  ours  in  any  such  sense  that  we  can  enter  into  it.  Bushnell  justly  charges  that  it 
leaves  no  moral  dynamic  in  the  Cross."  For  criticism  of  Anselm,  see  John  Caird, 
Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2  :  172-193:  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  III,  2: 
230-241 ;  Phiiippi,  Glaubenslehre,  IV,  2 :  70.svy.;  Raur,  Doginengeschiehte,  2 :  416 sq.;  Shedd, 
Hist.  Doct.,  2  :  273-286;  Dale,  Atonement,  279-292;  Mcllvaine,  Wisdom  of  Holy  Script- 
ure, 196-199 ;  Kreibig,  Versohnungslehre,  176-178. 

6th.     The  Ethical  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

In  propounding  what  we  conceive  to  he  the  true  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment, it  seems  desirable  to  divide  our  treatment  into  two  parts.  No  theory 


ETHICAL   THEOKY    OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  751 

can  be  satisfactory  which  does  not  furnish  a  solution  of  the  two  problems  : 
1.  What  did  the  atonement  accomplish  ?  or,  in  other  words,  what  was  the 
object  of  Christ's  death  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  must  be  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  atonement  in  its  relation  to  holiness  in  God.  2.  What  were  the 
means  used?  or,  in  other  words,  how  could  Christ  justly  die  ?  The  answer 
to  this  question  must  be  a  description  of  the  atonement  as  arising  from 
Christ's  relation  to  humanity.  We  take  up  these  two  parts  of  the  subject 
in  order. 

Edwards,  Works,  1 :  609, says  that  two  things  make  Christ's  sufferings  a  satisfaction 
for  human  guilt:  ( 1 )  their  equality  or  equivalence  to  the  punishment  that  the  sinner 
deserves;  (2)  the  union  between  him  and  them,  or  the  propriety  of  his  being  accepted, 
in  suffering,  as  the  representative  of  the  sinner.  Christ  bore  God '8  wrath :  (1)  by  the 
sight  of  sin  and  punishment;  (2)  by  enduring  the  effects  of  wrath  ordered  by  God. 
See  also  Edwards,  Sermon  on  th<-  Satisfaction  of  Christ.  These  statements  of  Cdwards 
suggest  the  two  points  of  view  from  which  we  regard  the  atonement ;  but  they  come 
short  of  the  Scriptural  declarations,  in  thai  they  do  not  distinctly  assert  Christ's  endur- 
ance of  penalty  itself .  Thus  they  leave  the  waypped  fur  the  New  School  theories  of 
the  at  in  H  •mi 'lit,  propounded  by  the  successors  of  Ed  wards. 

Adolphe  Mi  mi  id  said  well:  "  Save  flrsl  the  holy  law  of  my  Cod,  —  after  that  you  shall 
save  mi'."  Edwards  lilt  the  tir-t  of  these  needs,  fur  he  says,  in  his  Mysteries  "i  Script- 
ure, Works, 3 : 642— " The  necessity  of  Christ's  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  is,  as  it 
were,  the  centre  and  hinge  of  all  doctrines  of  pure  revelation,  other  doctrines  air 
comparatively  of  little  importance,  excepl  as  the]  have  respeel  to  this."  Ami  in  his 
Work  of  Redemption,  Works,  1  :  412— "Christ  was  burn  to  the  end  that  he  might  die; 
and  therefore  he  did,  as  it  were,  begin  to  die  as  soon  as  he  was  born."  See  John  12 :  32  — 
"And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  myself.  But  this  he  said,  signifying  by  what  manner 
ofdoath  he  should  die."  Christ  was  "lifted  up" :  1.  as  a  propitiation  to  the  holiness  of  Cod, 
which  makes  suffering  to  follow  sin,  so  affording  the  only  ground  for  pardon  without 
and  peaee  wiihin  ;  2.  as  a  power  1  o  purify  the  hearts  ami  Ifves  of  men,  Jesus  being  as 
"the  serpent  lifted  up  in  the  wilderness "  ( John  3  :  14 ),  and  we  overcoming  "because  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb" 
(Rev.  12:11), 

First, —  the  Atonement  as  related  to  Holiness  in  God. 

The  Ethical  theory  holds  that  the  necessity  of  the  atonement  is  grounded 
in  the  holiness  of  Cod,  of  which  conscience  in  man  is  a  finite  reflection. 
There  is  an  ethical  principle  in  the  divine  nature,  which  demands  that  sin 
shall  be  punished.  Aside  from  its  results,  sin  is  essentially  ill- deserving. 
As  we  who  are  made  in  God's  image  mark  our  growth  in  purity  by  the 
increasing  quickness  with  which  we  detect  impurity,  and  the  increasing 
hatred  which  we  feel  toward  it,  so  infinite  purity  is  a  consuming  fire  to  all 
iniquity.  As  there  is  an  ethical  demand  in  our  natures  that  not  only 
others'  wickedness,  but  our  own  wickedness,  be  visited  with  punishment, 
and  a  keen  conscience  cannot  rest  till  it  has  made  satisfaction  to  justice 
for  its  misdeeds,  so  there  is  an  ethical  demand  of  God's  nature  that  penalty 
follow  sin. 

The  holiness  of  God  has  conscience  and  penalty  for  its  correlates  and  consequences. 
Gordon,  Christ  of  To-day,  216  —  "  In  old  Athens,  the  rock  on  whose  top  sat  the  Court  of 
the  Areopagus,  representing  the  highest  reason  and  the  best  character  of  the  Athen- 
ian state,  had  underneath  it  the  Case  of  the  Furies."  Shakespeare  knew  human 
nature  and  he  bears  witness  to  its  need  of  atonemeut.  In  his  last  Wijl  and  Testament 
he  writes  :  "  First,  I  commend  my  soul  into  the  hands  of  Cod,  my  Creator,  hoping  and 
assuredly  believing,  through  the  only  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  my  Savior,  to  be  made 
partaker  of  life  everlasting."  Richard  III,  1 : 4— "I  charge  you,  as  you  hope  to  have 
redemption  By  Christ's  dear  blood  shed  for  our  grievous  sins,  That  you  depart  and  lay 
no  hands  on  me."  Kichard  II,  4:1  — "The  world's  Ransom,  blessed  Mary's  Son." 
Henry  VI,  2d  part,  3  :  2  —  "That  dread  King  took  our  state  upon  him,  To  free  us  from 


752  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

his  Father's  wrathful  curse."  Henry  IV,  1st  part,  1:1—"  Those  holy  fields,  Over  whose 
acres  walked  those  blessed  feet,  Which  fourteen  hundred  years  ago  were  nailed  For 
our  advantage  on  the  bitter  Cross."  Measure  for  Measure,  2:2—"  Why,  all  the  souls 
that  are  were  forfeit  once ;  And  he  that  might  the  vantage  best  have  took  Found  out 
the  remedy."  Henry  "VI,  2d  part,  1:1—"  Now,  by  the  death  of  him  that  died  for  all ! " 
All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  3:4—"  What  angel  shall  Bless  this  unworthy  husband  ?  He 
cannot  thrive  Unless  her  prayers,  whom  heaven  delights  to  hear  And  loves  to  grant, 
reprieve  him  from  the  wrath  Of  greatest  justice."  See  a  good  statement  of  the  Ethical 
theory  of  the  Atonement  in  its  relation  to  God's  holiness,  in  Denney,  Studies  in  Theol- 
ogy, 100-124. 

Punishment  is  the  constitutional  reaction  of  God's  being  against  moral 
evil  —  the  self-assertion  of  infinite  holiness  against  its  antagonist  and 
would-be  destroyer.  In  God  this  demand  is  devoid  of  all  passion,  and  is 
consistent  with  infinite  benevolence.  It  is  a  demand  that  cannot  be 
evaded,  since  the  holiness  from  which  it  springs  is  unchanging.  The 
atonement  is  therefore  a  satisfaction  of  the  ethical  demand  of  the  divine 
nature,  by  the  substitution  of  Christ's  penal  sufferings  for  the  punishment 
of  the  guilty. 

John  Wessel,  a  Reformer  before  the  Reformation  ( 1419-1489 ) :  "Ipse  deus,  ipse 
sacerdos,  ipse  hostia,  pro  se,  de  se,  sibi  satisfecit"  =  "  Himself  being  at  the  same  time 
God,  priest,  and  sacrificial  victim,  he  made  satisfaction  to  himself,  for  himself  [i.e., 
for  the  sins  of  men  to  whom  he  had  united  himself]  ,  and  by  himself  t  by  his  own  sin- 
less sufferings]."  Quarles's  Emblems :  "  O  groundless  deeps !  O  love  beyond  degree  I 
The  Offended  dies,  to  set  the  offender  free !  " 

Spurgeon,  Autobiography,  1 :  98 — "  When  I  was  in  the  hand  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  under 
conviction  of  sin,  I  had  a  clear  and  sharp  sense  of  the  justice  of  God.  Sin,  whatever  it 
might  be  to  other  people,  became  to  me  an  intolerable  burden.  It  was  not  so  much 
that  I  feared  hell,  as  that  I  feared  sin ;  and  all  the  while  I  had  upon  my  mind  a  deep 
concern  for  the  honor  of  God's  name  and  the  integrity  of  his  moral  government.  I  felt 
that  it  would  not  satisfy  my  conscience  if  I  could  be  forgiven  unjustly.  But  then 
there  came  the  question :  '  How  could  God  be  just,  and  yet  justify  me  who  had  been 
so  guilty? ' ....  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  to  my  mind  one  of  the  surest  proofs 
of  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture.  Who  would  or  could  have  thought  of  the  just 
Ruler  dying  for  the  unjust  rebel  ?  " 

This  substitution  is  unknown  to  mere  law,  and  above  and  beyond  the 
powers  of  law.  It  is  an  operation  of  grace.  Grace,  however,  does  not 
violate  or  suspend  law,  but  takes  it  ujj  into  itself  and  fulfils  it.  The  right- 
eousness of  law  is  maintained,  in  that  the  source  of  all  law,  the  judge  and 
punisher,  himself  voluntarily  submits  to  bear  the  penalty,  and  bears  it  in 
the  human  nature  that  has  sinned. 

Matheson,  Moments  on  the  Mount,  221  — "In  conscience,  man  condemns  and  is  con- 
demned. Christ  was  God  in  the  flesh,  both  priest  and  sacrificial  victim  ( Heb.  9 :  12 ).  He 
is  '  full  of  grace '  —  forgiving  grace  —  but  he  is  '  full  of  truth  '  also,  and  so  '  the  only-begotten  from  the 
Father '  ( John  1 :  14 ).  Not  forgiveness  that  ignores  sin,  not  justice  that  has  no  mercy.  He 
forgave  the  sinner,  because  he  bore  the  sin."  Kaftan,  referring  to  some  modern  the- 
ologians who  have  returned  to  the  old  doctrine  but  who  have  said  that  the  basis  of  the 
atonement  is,  not  the  juridical  idea  of  punishmeut,  but  the  ethical  idea  of  propitiation, 
affirms  as  follows :  "  On  the  contrary  the  highest  ethical  idea  of  propitiation  is  just 
that  of  punishment.  Take  this  away,  and  propitiation  becomes  nothing  but  the 
inferior  and  unworthy  idea  of  appeasing  the  wrath  of  an  incensed  deity.  Precisely  the 
idea  of  the  vicarious  suffering  of  punishment  is  the  idea  which  must  in  some  way  be 
brought  to  a  full  expression  for  the  sake  of  the  ethical  consciousness. 

*'  The  conscience  awakened  by  God  can  accept  no  forgiveness  which  is  not  experienced 
as  at  the  same  time  a  condemnation  of  sin.  .  .  .  Jesus,  though  he  was  without  sin  and 
deserved  no  punishment,  took  upon  himself  all  the  evils  which  have  come  into  the 
world  as  the  consequence  and  punishment  of  sin,  even  to  the  shameful  death  on  the 
Cross  at  the  hand  of  sinners.  .  .  .  Consequently  for  the  good  of  man  he  bore  all  that 


ETHICAL   THEORY   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  753 

which  man  had  deserve d,  and  thereby  has  man  escaped  the  final  eternal  punishment 
and  has  become  a  child  of  God.  .  .  .  This  is  not  merely  a  subjective  conclusion  upoa 
the  related  facts,  but  it  is  as  objective  and  real  as  anything:  which  faith  recognizes  ana 
knows."  t, 

Thus  the  atonement  answers  the  ethical  demand  of  the  divine  nature 
that  sin  be  punished  if  the  offender  is  to  go  free.  The  interests  of  the 
divine  government  are  secured  as  a  first  subordinate  result  of  this  satisfac- 
tion to  God  himself,  of  whose  nature  the  government  is  an  expression ; 
while,  as  a  second  subordinate  result,  provision  is  made  for  the  needs  of 
human  nature,  —  on  the  one  hand  the  need  of  an  objective  satisfaction  to 
its  ethical  demand  of  punishment  for  sin,  and  on  the  other  the  need  of  a 
manifestation  of  divine  love  and  mercy  that  will  affect  the  heart  and  move 
it  to  repentance. 

The   great   classical    passage   with   reference   to   the   atonement   is   Rom.   3  :  25,    26 

—  "whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  his  blood,  to  show  his  righteousness  because  of  the  pass- 
ing over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God ;  for  the  showing,  I  say,  of  his  righteousness  at  this 
present  season:  that  he  might  himself  he  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus."  » )r,  somewhat 
more  freely  translated,  the  passage  would  read:  —  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth  in  his  blood  as  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice,  through  faith,  to  show  forth  his  righteousness  on  account  of  the  pretermission  of  past  offences  in  the 
forbearance  of  God ;  to  declare  his  righteousness  in  the  time  now  present,  so  that  he  may  be  just  and  yet  may  justify 
him  who  believeth  in  Jesns." 

Exposition  of  Kom.  3 :  25,  26.  —  These  verses  are  an  expanded  statement  of  the  sub- 
ject of  the  epistle  —  the  revelation  of  the  "  righteousness  of  God  "  ( =  the  righteousness  which 
God  provides  and  which  God  accepts)  —  which  had  been  mentioned  in  1:17,  but  which 
now  has  new  light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  demonstration,  in  1:18  —  3 :  20,  that  both  Gen- 
tiles and  Jews  are  under  condemnation,  and  are  alike  shut  up  for  salvation  to  some 
other  method  than  that  of  works.  We  subjoin  the  substance  of  Meyer's  comments 
upon  this  passage. 

"  Verse  25.  '  God  has  set  forth  Christ  as  an  effectual  propitiatory  offering,  through  faith,  by  means  of  his  blood,' 
i.  c,  in  that  he  caused  him  to  shed  his  blood,    ei-  tu>  avrov  dinan  belongs  to  7rpoe'#«To,  not 

to  7Tto-T6<us.  The  purpose  of  this  Setting  forth  in  his  blood  is  eis  evSeift.i'  Trj?  Sucaiocrvi'T)? 
avrov,  'for  the  display  of  his  [judicial  and  punitive]  righteousness,'  which  received  its  satisfac- 
tion in  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  offering,  and  was  thereby  practically  dem- 
onstrated and  exhibited.  'On  account  of  the  passing-by  of  sins  that  had  previously  taien  place,'  i.  c, 
because  he  had  allowed  the  pre-Christian  sins  to  go  without  punishment,  whereby  his 
righteousness  had  been  lost  sight  of  and  obscured,  and  had  come  to  need  an  epSei£is,  or 
exhibition  to  men.  Omittance  is  not  acquittance.  7rape<ns,  passing-by,  is  intermediate 
between  pardon  and  punishment.  '  In  virtue  of  the  forbearance  of  God '  expresses  the  motive  of 
the  n-dpecrts.  Before  Christ's  sacrifice,  God's  administration  was  a  scandal,  —  it  needed 
vindication.    The  atonement  is  God's  answer  to  the  charge  of  freeing  the  guilty. 

"Verse  26.  eis  to  eTf«u  is  not  epexegetical  of  eis  evSeigiv,  but  presents  the  teleology  of 
the  iKaarripiov,  the  final  aim  of  the  whole  affirmation  from  hv  -npoi&eTo  to  xaipu —  namely, 
first,  God's  being  just,  and  secondly,  his  appearing  just  in  consequence  of  this.  Jxistus 
et  justificans,  instead  of  just  us  ct  condemnam,  this  is  the  mmmum  paradoxon  evangeH- 
cum.  Of  this  revelation  of  righteousness,  not  through  condemnation,  but  through 
atonement,  grace  is  the  determining  ground." 

We  repeat  what  was  said  on  pages  719,  720,  with  regard  to  the  teaching  of  the  passage, 
namely,  that  it  showr  :  ( 1 )  that  Christ's  death  is  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ;  (2)  that  its 
first  and  main  effect  is  upon  God ;  ( 3 )  that  the  particular  attribute  in  God  which 
demands  the  atonement  in  his  justice,  or  holiness;  (4)  that  the  satisfaction  of  this 
holiness  is  the  necessary  condition  of  God's  justifying  the  believer.  It  is  only  incident- 
ally and  subordinately  that  the  atonement  is  a  necessity  to  man ;  Paul  speaks  of  it  here 
mainly  as  a  necessity  to  God.  Christ  suffers,  indeed,  that  God  may  appear  righteous ; 
but  behind  the  appearance  lies  the  reality ;  the  main  object  of  Christ's  suffering  is  that 
God  may  be  righteous,  while  he  pardons  the  believing  sinner ;  in  other  words,  the 
ground  of  the  atonement  is  something  internal  to  God  himself.  See  leb.  2:10  — it 
"became  "  God  =  it  was  morally  fitting  in  God,  to  make  Christ  suffer  ;  cf.  Zech.  6  :  8 — "they  that 
go  toward  the  north  country  have  quieted  my  spirit  in  the  north  country  "  =  the  judgments  inflicted  on  Baby- 
lon have  satisfied  my  justice. 

48 


754  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION". 

Charnock:  "He  who  once  'quenched  the  violence  of  fire'  for  those  Hebrew  children,  has 
also  quenched  the  fires  of  God's  anger  against  the  sinner,  hotter  than  furnace  heated 
seven  times."  The  same  God  who  is  a  God  of  holiness,  and  who  in  virtue  of  his  holiness 
must  punish  human  sin,  is  also  a  God  of  mercy,  and  in  virtue  of  his  mercy  himself 
bears  the  punishment  of  human  sin.  Doruer,  Gesch.  prot.  Theologie,  93  — "Christ  is 
not  only  mediator  between  God  and  man,  but  between  the  just  God  and  the  merciful 
God  "  —  c/.  Ps.  85  :  10  —  "  Mercy  and  truth  are  met  together;  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other.'i 
"  Conscience  demands  vicariousness,  for  conscience  declares  that  a  gratuitous  pardon 
would  not  be  just "  ;  see  Knight,  Colloquia  Peripatetica,  88. 

Lidgett,  Spir.  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  219,  304— "The  Atonement  1.  has  Godward 
significance;  2.  consists  in  our  Lord's  endurance  of  death  on  our  behalf;  3.  the  spirit 
in  which  he  endured  death  is  of  vital  imporlar.ee  to  the  etlicacy  of  his  sacrifice,  namely, 
obedience.  .  .  .  God  gives  repentance,  yet  requires  it ;  he  gives  atonement,  yet  requires 
it.  '  Thanks  be  to  God  for  his  unspeakable  gift '  ( 2  Cor.  9  :  15  )."  Simon,  in  Expositor,  6  :  321-334  (  for 
substance  ). —  "  As  in  prayer  we  ask  God  to  energize  us  and  enable  us  to  obey  his  law, 
and  he  answers  by  entering-  our  hearts  and  obeying  in  us  and  for  us ;  as  we  pray  for 
strength  in  affliction,  and  find  him  helping  us  by  putting  his  Spirit  into  us,  and  suffer- 
ing in  us  and  for  us;  so  in  atonement,  Christ,  the  manifested  Cod,  obeys  and  suffers  in 
our  stead.  Even  the  moral  theory  implies  substitution  also.  God  in  us  obeys  his  own 
law  and  bears  the  sorrows  that  sin  has  caused.  Why  can  he  not,  in  human  nature,  also 
endure  the  penalty  of  sin?  The  possibility  of  this  cannot  be  consistently  denied  by  any 
who  believe  in  divine  help  granted  in  answer  to  prayer.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
and  the  doctrine  of  prayer  stand  or  fall  together." 

See  on  the  whole  subject,  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  272-324,  Philosophy  of  History, 
65-69,  and  Dogmatic  Theology,  2:  401-463;  Magee,  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  27,  53,  253; 
Edwards's  Works,  4 :  140  sq. ;  Weber,  Vom  Zorne  Gottes,  214-334 ;  Owen,  on  Divine 
Justice,  in  Works,  10  :  500-512 ;  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  iv,  2  :  27-114 ;  Hopkins,  Works, 
1 :  319-363;  Schoberlcin,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1845  :  267-318,  and  1847  :  7-70,  also  in 
Herzog,  Encyclopiidie,  art.:  Versohnung;  Jahrbuch  f.  d.  Theol.,  3:713,  and  8:213; 
Macdonnell,  Atonement,  115-214;  Luthardf,  Saving  Truths,  114-138;  Baird,  Elohim 
Revealed,  605-637;  Lawrence,  in  Bib.  Sac,  20:332-339;  Kreibig,  Versohnungslehre; 
Waffle,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1882 :  263-286 ;  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  641-662  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4 :  107- 
124) ;  Remensnyder,  The  Atonement  and  Modern  Thought. 

Secondly,  —  the  Atonement  as  related  to  Humanity  in  Christ. 

The  Ethical  theory  of  the  atonement  holds  that  Christ  stands  in  such 
relation  to  humanity,  that  what  God's  holiness  demands  Christ  is  under 
obligation  to  pay,  longs  to  pay,  inevitably  does  pay,  and  pays  so  fully,  in 
virtue  of  his  two-fold  nature,  that  every  claim  of  justice  is  satisfied,  and 
the  sinner  who  accepts  what  Christ  has  done  in,  his  behalf  is  saved. 

Dr.  R.  W.  Dale,  in  his  work  on  The  Atonement,  states  the  question  before  us :  "  What 
must  be  Christ's  relation  to  men,  in  order  to  make  it  possible  that  he  should  die  for 
them?"  We  would  charge  the  form  of  the  question,  so  that  it  should  read:  "What 
must  be  Christ's  relation  to  men,  in  order  to  make  it  not  only  possible,  but  just  and 
necessary,  that  he  should  die  for  them?  "  Dale  replies,  for  substance,  that  Christ  must 
have  had  an  original  and  central  relation  to  the  human  race  and  to  every  member 
of  it;  see  Denney,  Death  of  Christ,  318.  In  our  treatment  of  Ethical  Monism,  of  the 
Trinity,  and  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  we  have  shown  that  Christ,  as  Logos,  as  the  imma- 
nent God,  is  the  Life  of  humanity,  laden  with  responsibility  for  human  sin,  while  yet 
he  personally  knows  no  sin.  Of  this  race-responsibility  and  race-guilt  which  Christ 
assumed,  and  for  which  he  suffered  so  soon  as  man  had  sinned,  Christ's  obedience  and 
suffering  in  the  flesh  were  the  visible  reflection  and  revelation.  Only  in  Christ's  organic 
union  with  the  race  can  we  find  the  vital  relation  which  will  make  his  vicarious  suffer- 
ings either  possible  or  just.  Only  when  we  regard  Calvary  as  revealing  eternal  princi- 
ples of  the  divine  nature,  can  we  see  how  the  sufferings  of  those  few  hours  upon  the 
Cross  could  suffice  to  save  the  millions  of  mankind. 

Dr.  E.  Y.  Muffins  has  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  in  five  propositions : 
"  1.  In  ox'der  to  atonement  Christ  became  vitally  united  to  the  human  race.  It  was 
only  by  assuming  the  nature  of  those  he  would  redeem  that  he  could  break  the  power 
of  their  captor.  .  .  .  The  human  race  may  be  likened  to  many  sparrow's  who  had  been 
caught  in  the  snare  of  the  fowler,  and  were  hopelessly  struggling  against  their  fate. 


ETHICAL  THEORY   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  755 

A  great  eagle  swoons  down  from  the  sky,  becomes  entangled  with  the  sparrows  in  the 
net.  and  then  spreading-  his  inighty  wings  he  soars  upward  bearing  the  snare  and  cap- 
tives and  breaking  its  meshes  he  delivers  himself  and  them.  .  .  .  Christ  the  fountain 
head  of  life  imparting  his  own  vitality  t*>  the  redeemed,  and  causing  them  to  share  in 
the  experiences  of  Gethsenmne  and  Calvary,  breaking  thus  lor  them  the  power  of  sin 
and  death  —  this  is  the  atonement,  by  virtue  of  which  sin  is  put  away  and  man  is  united 
to  God." 

Dr.  Mullins  properly  regards  this  view  of  atonement  as  too  narrow,  inasmuch  as  it 
disregards  the  differences  between  (  hrist  and  men  arising  from  his  sinlessness  and  his 
deity.  He  adds  therefore  that  "  2.  Christ  became  the  substitute  for  sinners  ;  3.  became 
the  representative  of  men  before  God;  4.  gained  power  over  human  hearts  to  win 
them  from  sin  and  reconcile  them  to  Cod  ;  and  5.  became  a  propitiation  and  satisfac- 
tion, rendering  the  remission  of  sins  consistent  with  the  divine  holiness."  If  Christ's 
union  with  the  race  be  one  which  begins  with  creation  and  antedates  the  Fall,  all  of 
the  later  points  in  the  above  scheme  are  only  natural  correlates  and  consequences  of 
the  first,  —  substitution,  representation,  reconciliation,  propitiation,  satisfaction,  are 
only  different  aspects  of  the  work  which  Christ  does  for  us,  by  virtue  <>f  the  fact  that 
he  is  the  immanent  God,  the  Life  of  humanity,  priest  and  victim,  condemning' and  con- 
demned, atoning  ami  atoned. 

We  have  seen  liow  God  can  justly  demand  satisfaction ;  we  now  show 
how  Christ  can  justly  make,  it ;  or,  iu  other  words,  how  tin;  inuocent  can 
justly  suffer  for  the  guilty.  The  solution  of  the  problem  lies  in  Christ's 
uuion  with  humanity.  The  first  result  of  that  union  is  obligation  to  Suffer 
for  men  ;  since,  being  one  with  the  race,  Christ  had  a  share  in  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  race  to  the  law  and  the  justice  of  Cod.  In  him  humanity 
was  created  ;  at  every  stage  of  its  existence  humanity  was  upheld  by  his 
power  ;  as  the  immanent  Cod  he  was  the  life  of  the  race  and  of  every 
member  of  it.  Christ's  sharing  of  man's  life  justly  and  inevitably  sub- 
jected him  to  man's  exposures  and  liabilities,  and  especially  to  God's 
condemnation  on  account  of  sin. 

In  the  seventh  chapter  of  Elsie  Venner,  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  makes  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Honey  wood  lay  aside  an  old  sermon  on  Human  Nature,  and  write  one  on  The 
Obligations  of  an  infinite  Creator  to  a  finite  Creature.  A.J.  1'.  Behrenda  grounded 
our  Lord's  representative  relation  not  in  his  human  nature  but  in  his  divine  nature. 
"He  is  our  representative  not  because  he  was  in  the  loins  of  Adam,  but  because  we, 
Adam  included,  were  iu  his  loins.  Personal  created  existence  is  grounded  in  the 
Logos,  so  that  God  must  deal  with  him  as  well  as  with  every  individual  sinner,  and  sin 
and  guilt  and  punishment  must  smite  the  Logos  as  well  as  the  sinner,  and  that,  whether 
the  sinner  is  saved  or  not.  This  is  not,  as  is  often  charged,  a  denial  of  grace  or  of  free- 
dom in  grace,  for  it  is  no  denial  of  freedom  or  grace  to  show  that  they  are  eternally 
rational  and  conformable  to  eternal  law.  In  the  ideal  sphere,  necessity  and  freedom, 
daw  and  grace,  coalesce."  J.  C.  C.  Clarke,  Man  and  his  Divine  Father,  337 — "  Vicarious 
atonement  does  not  consist  in  any  single  act.  .  .  .  No  one  act  embraces  it  all,  and  no 
one  definition  can  compass  it."  In  this  sense  we  may  adopt  the  words  of  Forsyth :  "  In 
the  atonement  the  Holy  Father  dealt  with  a  world's  sin  on  ( not  in)  a  world-soul." 

G.  15.  Foster,  on  Mat.  26  :  53,  54  —  "Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  beseech  my  Father,  and  he  shall  even  now 
send  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ?  How  then  should  the  Scriptures  be  falfilkd,  that  thus  it  must  be  ?  "  "  On 
this  '  must  be '  the  Scripture  is  based,  not  this  'must  be '  on  the  Scripture.  The  '  must  be  '  was 
the  ethical  demand  of  his  connection  with  the  race.  It  would  have  been  immoral  for 
him  to  break  away  from  the  organism.  The  law  of  the  organism  is:  From  each 
according  to  ability;  to  each  according  to  need.  David  in  song,  Aristotle  in  logic, 
Darwin  in  science,  are  under  obligation  to  contribute  to  the  organism  the  talent  they 
have.  Shall  they  be  under  obligation,  and  Jesus  go  scot-free?  But  Jesus  can  con- 
tribute atonement,  and  because  he  can,  he  must.  Moreover,  he  is  a  member,  not  only 
of  the  whole,  but  of  each  part,— Rom.  12  :  5—  'members  one  of  another.'  As  membership  of  the 
whole  makes  him  liable  for  the  sin  of  the  whole,  so  his  being  a  member  of  the  part 
makes  him  liable  for  the  sin  of  that  part." 

1'airbairn,  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  483,  484  — "There  is  a  sense  in  which 
vne  Patripassian  theory  is  right ;  the  Father  did  suffer ;  though  it  was  not  as  the  Sou 


756  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

that  he  suffered,  but  in  modes  distinct  and  different.  .  .  .  Through  his  pity  the  misery 
of  man  became  his  sorrow.  .  .  .  There  is  a  disclosure  of  his  suffering  in  the  surrender 
of  the  Son.  This  surrender  represented  the  sacrifice  and  passion  of  the  whole  Godhead. 
Here  degree  and  proportion  are  out  of  place ;  were  it  not,  we  might  say  that  the 
Father  suffered  more  in  giving  than  the  Son  in  being  given.  He  who  gave  to  duty  had 
not  the  reward  of  him  who  rejoiced  to  do  it.  .  .  .  One  member  of  the  Trinity  could  not 
suffer  without  all  suffering.  .  .  .  The  visible  sacrifice  was  that  of  the  Son  ;  the  invisible 
sacrifice  was  that  of  the  Father."  The  Andover  Theory,  represented  in  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,  43-53,  affirms  not  only  the  Moral  Influence  of  the  Atonement,  but  also  that 
the  whole  race  of  mankind  is  naturally  in  Christ  and  was  therefore  punished  in  and  by 
his  suffering  and  death ;  quoted  in  Hovey,  Manual  of  Christian  Theology,  269 ;  see 
Hovey's  own  view,  270-276,  though  he  does  not  seem  to  recognize  the  atonement  as 
existing  before  the  incarnation. 

Christ's  share  in  the  responsibility  of  the  race  to  the  law  and  justice  of 
God  was  not  destroyed  by  his  incarnation,  nor  by  his  purification  in  the 
wornh  of  the  virgin.  In  virtue  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race,  each  mem- 
ber of  the  race  since  Adam  has  been  born  into  the  same  state  into  which 
Adam  fell.  The  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  both  to  himself  and  to  his 
posterity,  are  :  ( 1 )  depravity,  or  the  corruption  of  human  nature  ;  ( 2 ) 
guilt,  or  obligation  to  make  satisfaction  for  sin  to  the  divine  holiness ; 
( 3  )  penalty,  or  actual  endurance  of  loss  or  suffering  visited  by  that  holi- 
ness upon  the  guilty. 

Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  117— "Christ  had  taken  upon  him,  as  the  living 
expression  of  himself,  a  nature  which  was  weighed  down,  not  merely  by  present  inca- 
pacities, but  by  present  incapacities  as  part  of  the  judicial  necessary  result  of  accepted 
and  inherent  sinfulness.  Human  nature  was  not  only  disabled  but  guilty,  and  the 
disabilities  were  themselves  a  consequence  and  aspect  of  the  guilt";  see  review  of 
Moberly  by  Rashdall,  in  Jour.  Theol.  Studies,  3  :  198-211.  Lidgett,  Spir.  Princ.  of  Atone- 
ment, 166-168,  criticizes  Dr.  Dale  for  neglecting  the  fatherly  purpose  of  the  Atonement 
to  serve  the  moral  training  of  the  child  —  punishment  marking  ill-desert  in  order  to 
bring  this  ill-desert  to  the  consciousness  of  the  offender,  —  and  for  neglecting  also  the 
positive  assertion  in  the  atonement  that  the  law  is  holy  and  just  and  good  —  something 
more  than  the  negative  expression  of  sin's  ill-desert.  See  especially  Lidgett's  chapter 
on  the  relation  of  our  Lord  to  the  human  race,  351-378,  in  which  he  grounds  the  atone- 
ment in  the  solidarity  of  mankind,  its  organic  union  with  the  Son  of  God,  and  Christ's 
immanence  in  humanity. 

Bowne,  The  Atonement,  101  —  "  Something  like  this  work  of  grace  was  a  moral  neces- 
sity with  God.  It  was  an  awful  responsibility  that  was  taken  when  our  human  race 
was  launched  with  its  fearful  possibilities  of  good  and  evil.  God  thereby  put  himself 
under  infinite  obligation  to  care  for  his  human  family ;  and  reflections  upon  his  position 
as  Creator  and  Ruler,  instead  of  removing  only  make  more  manifest  this  obligation. 
So  long  as  we  conceive  of  God  as  sitting  apart  in  supreme  ease  and  self-satisfaction,  he 
is  not  love  at  all,  but  only  a  reflex  of  our  selfishness  and  vulgarity.  So  long  as  we  con- 
ceive him  as  bestowing  upon  us  out  of  his  infinite  fulness  but  at  no  real  cost  to  himself, 
he  sinks  before  the  moral  heroes  of  the  race.  There  is  ever  a  higher  thought  possible, 
until  we  see  God  taking  the  world  upon  his  heart,  entering  into  the  fellowship  of  our 
sorrow,  and  becoming  the  supreme  burclenbearer  and  leader  in  all  self-sacrifice.  Then 
only  are  the  possibilities  of  grace  and  love  and  moral  heroism  and  condescension  filled 
up,  so  that  nothing  higher  remains.  And  the  work  of  Christ  himself,  so  far  as  it  was 
an  historical  event,  must  be  viewed,  not  merely  as  a  piece  of  history,  but  also  as  a  man- 
ifestation of  that  Cross  which  was  hidden  in  the  divine  love  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  and  which  is  involved  in  the  existence  of  the  human  world  at  all." 

John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2  :  90,  91  —  "  Conceive  of  the  ideal  of  moral 
perfection  incarnate  in  a  human  personality,  and  at  the  same  time  one  who  loves  us 
with  a  love  so  absolute  that  he  identifies  himself  with  us  and  makes  our  good  and  evil 
his  own  —  bring  together  these  elements  in  a  living,  conscious  human  spirit,  and  you 
have  in  it  a  capacity  of  shame  and  anguish,  a  possibility  of  bearing  the  burden  of 
human  guilt  and  wretchedness,  which  lost  and  guilty  humanity  can  never  bear  for 
imeli." 


ETHICAL   THEORY    OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  757 

If  Christ  had  been  born  into  the  world  by  ordinary  generation,  he  too 
would  have  had  depravity,  guilt,  penalty.  But  he  was  not  so  born.  In  the 
womb  of  the  Virgin,  the  human  nature  which  he  took  was  purged  from  its 
depravity.  But  this  purging  away  of  depravity  did  not  take  away  guilt,  or 
j>enalty.  There  was  still  left  the  just  exposure  to  the  penalty  of  violated 
law.  Although  Christ's  nature  was  purified,  his  obligation  to  suffer  yet 
remained.  He  might  have  declined  to  join  himself  to  humanity,  and  then 
he  need  not  have  suffered.  He  might  have  sundered  his  connection  with 
the  race,  and  then  he  need  not  have  Buffered.  But  once  born  of  the  Virgin, 
once  possessed  of  the  human  nature  that  was  under  the  curse,  he  was  bound 
to  suffer.  The  whole  mass  and  weight  of  God's  displeasure  against  the  race 
fell  on  him,  when  once  he  became  a  member  of  the  race. 

Because  Christ  is  essential  humanity,  the  universal  man,  the  life  of  the  race,  he  is  the 
central  brain  to  which  and  through  which  all  ideas  must  pass.  He  is  the  central  heart 
to  which  and  through  which  all  pains  must  be  communicated.  You  cannot  telephone 
to  your  friend  across  the  town  without  lirst  ringing  up  the  central  office.  You  cannot 
injure  your  neighbor  without  first  injuring-  Christ.  Each  one  of  us  can  say  of  him  : 
"Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned"  (Ps.  51 :  4  ).  Because  of  his  central  and  all-inclusive  human- 
ity, he  must  bear  in  his  own  person  all  the  burdens  of  humanity,  and  must  be  "the  Lamb 
ofGod,  that"  takcth,  and  so  "  taketh  away,  the  sin  of  the  world  "  (Johnl:29).  Simms  Reeves,  the 
great  English  tenor,  said  that  the  passion-music  was  too  ni^ch  for  him  ;  he  was  found 
completely  overcome  after  singing  the  prophet's  words  i n  Lam.  1 :  12 —  "  Is  it  nothing  to  you, 
all  ye  that  pass  by  ?  Behold,  and  see  if  there  be  any  sorrow  like  unto  my  sorrow,  which  is  brought  upon  me,  Wherewith 
Jehovah  hath  affl;cted  me  in  the  day  of  his  fierce  anger." 

Father  Damien  gave  his  life  in  ministry  to  the  lepers'  colony  of  the  Hawaian  Islands. 
Though  free  from  the  disease  when  he  entered,  he  was  at  last  himself  s<  ricken  with  the 
leprosy,  and  then  wrote:  "I  must  now  slay  with  my  own  people. "  Once  a  leper,  there 
was  no  release.  When  Christ  once  joined  himself  to  humanity,  all  the  exposures  and 
liabilities  of  humanity  fell  upon  him.  Through  himself  personally  without  sin,  he  was 
made  sin  for  us.  Christ  inherited  guilt  and  penalty.  leb.  2  :  14, 15 — "Since  then  the  children  are 
sharers  in  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  in  like  manner  partook  of  the  same ;  that  through  death  he  might  bring  to  naught 
him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and  might  deliver  all  them  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their 
life -time  subject  to  bondage." 

Only  God  can  forgive  sin,  because  only  God  can  feel  it  in  its  true  heinousness  and  rate 
ir  at  its  true  worth.  Christ  could  forgive  sin  because  he  added  to  the  divine  feeling 
with  regard  to  sin  the  anguish  of  a  pure  humanity  on  account  of  it.  Shelley,  Julian  and 
Maddolo:  "Mi',  whose  heart  a  stranger's  tear  might  wear,  As  water-drops  the  sandy 
fountain-stone  ;  Me,  who  am  as  a  nerve  o'er  which  do  creep  The  Else  unl'elt  oppressions 
of  the  earth."  S.  W.  Culver:  "  We  cannot  be  saved,  as  we  are  taught  geometry,  by 
lecture  and  diagram.  No  person  ever  yet  saved  another  from  drowning  by  standing 
coolly  by  and  telling  him  the  importance  of  rising  to  the  surface  and  the  necessity  of 
respiration.  No,  he  must  plunge  into  the  destructive  clement,  and  take  upon  himself 
the  very  condition  of  the  drowning  man,  and  by  the  exertion  of  his  own  strength,  by 
the  vigor  of  his  own  life,  save  him  from  the  impending  death.  When  your  child  is 
encompassed  by  the  flames  that  consume  your  dwelling,  you  will  not  save  him  by  call- 
ing to  him  from  without.  You  must  make  your  way  through  the  devouring  tlame,  till 
you  come  personally  into  the  very  conditions  of  his  peril  and  danger,  and,  thence 
returning,  bear  him  forth  to  freedom  and  safety." 

Notice,  however,  that  this  guilt  which  Christ  took  upon  himself  by  his 
union  with  humanity  was  :  (  1  )  not  the  guilt  of  personal  sin  —  such  guilt 
as  belongs  to  every  adult  member  of  the  race;  (2)  not  even  the  guilt  of 
inherited  depravity  —  such  guilt  as  belongs  to  infants,  and  to  those  who 
have  not  come  to  moral  consciousness  ;  but  (  3  )  solely  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin,  which  belongs,  prior  to  personal  transgression,  and  apart  from  inherited 
depravity,  to  every  member  of  the  race  who  has  derived  his  life  from  Adam. 
This  original  sin  and  inherited  guilt,  but  without  the  depravity  that  ordina- 


758  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

rily  accompanies  them,  Christ  takes,  and  so  takes  away.  He  can  justly 
bear  penalty,  because  he  inherits  guilt.  And  since  this  guilt  is  nut  his  per- 
sonal guilt,  but  the  guilt  of  that  one  sin  in  which  "all  sinned" — the  guilt 
of  the  common  transgression  of  the  race  in  Adam,  the  guilt  of  the  root-sin 
from  which  all  other  sins  have  sprung  —  he  who  is  personally  pure  can 
vicariously  bear  the  penalty  due  to  the  sin  of  all. 

Christ  was  conscious  of  innocence  in  his  personal  relations,  but  not  in  his  race  rela- 
tions. He  gathered  into  himself  all  the  penalties  of  humanity,  as  Winkelried  gathered 
into  his  own  bosom  at  Sempach  the  pikes  of  the  Austrians  and  so  made  a  way  for  the 
victorious  Swiss.  Christ  took  to  himself  the  shame  of  humanity,  as  the  mother  takes 
upon  her  the  daughter's  shame,  repenting  of  it  and  suffering  on  account  of  it.  But  this 
could  not  be  in  the  case  of  Christ  unless  there  had  been  a  tie  uniting  him  to  men  far 
more  vital,  organic,  and  profound  than  that  which  unites  mother  and  daughter.  Christ 
is  naturally  the  life  of  all  men,  before  he  becomes  spiritually  the  life  of  true  believers. 
Matheson,  Spir.  Devel.  of  St.  Paul,  WT-215,  244,  speaks  of  Christ's  secular  priesthood,  of 
an  outer  as  well  as  an  inner  membership  in  the  body  of  Christ.  He  is  sacrificial  head  of 
the  world  as  well  as  sacrificial  head  of  the  church.  In  Paul's  latest  letters,  he  declares 
of  Cli  rist  that  he  is  "  the  Savior  of  all  men,  specially  of  them  that  believe  "  ( 1  Tim.  4 :  10  ).  There  is  a  grace 
that  "hath  appeared,  bringing  salvation  to  all  men"  (Tit.  2  :  11 ).  He  "gave  gifts  unto  men"  (Eph.  4:8),  "Yea, 
among  the  rebellious  also,  that  Jehovah  God  might  dwell  with  them  "  ( Ps.  68  :  18 ).  "  Every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and 
nothing  is  to  be  rejected"  (1  Tim.  4:4). 

Royce,    World   and    Individual,  2  :  408  —  "Our  sorrows  are  identically  God's  own 

sorrows I  sorrow,  but  the  sorrow  is  not  only  mine.    This  same  sorrow,  just  as  it 

is  for  me,  is  God's  sorrow The  divine  fulfilment  cau  be  won  only  through  the 

sorrows  of  time.  .  .  .  Unless  God  knows  sorrow,  he  knows  not  the  highest  good,  which 
consists  in  the  overcoming  of  sorrow."  Godet,  in  The  Atonement,  331-301  —  "Jesus 
condemned  sin  as  God  condemned  it.  "When  he  felt  forsaken  on  the  Cross,  he  per- 
formed that  act  by  which  the  offender  himself  condemns  his  sin,  and  by  that  condemna- 
tion, so  far  as  it  depends  on  himself,  makes  it  to  disappear.  There  is  but  one  conscience 
in  all  moral  beings.  This  echo  in  Christ  of  God's  judgment  against  sin  was  to  re-echo 
in  all  other  human  consciences.  This  has  transformed  God's  love  of  compassion  into 
a  love  of  satisfaction.  Holiness  joins  suffering  to  sin.  But  the  element  of  reparation 
in  the  Cross  was  not  in  the  suffering  but  in  the  submission.  The  child  who  revolts 
against  its  punishment  has  made  no  reparation  at  all.  We  appropriate  Christ's  work 
when  we  by  faith  ourselves  condemn  sin  and  accept  him." 

If  it  be  asked  whether  this  is  not  simply  a  suffering  for  his  own  sin,  or 
rather  for  his  own  share  of  the  sin  of  the  race,  we  reply  that  his  own  share 
in  the  sin  of  the  race  is  not  the  sole  reason  why  he  suffers ;  it  furnishes 
only  the  subjective  reason  and  ground  for  the  proper  laying  upon  him  of 
the  sin  of  all.  Christ's  union  with  the  race  in  his  incarnation  is  only  the 
outward  and  visible  expression  of  a  prior  union  with  the  race  which  1  >egau 
when  he  created  the  race.  As  "in  him  were  all  things  created,"  and  as 
"in  him  all  things  consist,"  or  hold  together  (Col.  1  :  16,  17),  it  follows 
that  he  who  is  the  life  of  humanity  must,  though  jjersonally  pure,  be 
involved  in  responsibility  for  all  human  sin,  and  "it  was  necessary  that  the 
Christ  should  suffer  "  ( Acts  17:3).  This  suffering  was  an  enduring  of  the 
reaction  of  the  divine  holiness  against  sin  and  so  was  a  bearing  of  penalty 
( Is.  53  :  6  ;  Gal.  3  :  13  ),  but  it  was  also  the  voluntary  execution  of  a  plan 
that  antedated  creation  ( Phil.  2  :  6,  7  ),  and  Christ's  sacrifice  in  time  showed 
what  had  been  in  the  heart  of  God  from  eternity  ( Heb.  9  :  14  ;  Rev.  13  : 8 ). 

Our  treatment  is  intended  to  meet  the  chief  modern  objection  to  the  atonement. 
Greg,  Creed  of  Christendom,  2  :  2J2,  speaks  of  "  the  strangely  inconsistent  doctrine  that 
God  is  so  just  that  he  could  not  let  sin  go  unpunished,  yet  so  unjust  that  he  could  punish 

it  in  the  person  of  the  innocent It  is  for  orthodox  dialectics  to  explain  how  the 

divine  justice  can  be  impugned  by  pardoning  the  guilty,  and  yet  vindicated  by  punish- 


ETHICAL   THEORY    OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  759 

ing  the  innocent  "  ( quoted  in  Lias,  Atonement,  16 ).  In  order  to  meet  this  difficulty,  the 
following  accounts  of  <  hrisl  's  idenl  ification  witli  humanity  have  been  given : 

1.  That  of  Isaac  Watts  I  see  Bib.  Sac.,  1875  :  421  ).  This  holds  that  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  both  in  body  and  soul,  preexistednbefore  the  incarnation,  and  was  manifested  to 
the  patriarchs.  We  reply  that  Christ's  human  nature  is  declared  to  be  derived  from  the 
Virgin-. 

2.  That  of  R.  W.  Dale  ( Atonement,  265-440 ).  This  holds  that  Christ  is  responsible  for 
human  sin  because,  as  the  Upholder  and  Lite  of  all,  he  is  naturally  one  with  all  men,  and 
is  spiritually  one  with  all  believers  (Acts  17  :  28  —  "in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being"  ;  Col. 
1 :  17 — "  in  him  all  things  consist "  ;  John  H  :  20  — "I  am  in  my  Father,  and  je  in  me,  and  I  in  you  ").  If  Christ's 
bearing  our  sins,  however,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ, 
the  effect  is  made  to  explain  the  cause,  and  Christ  could  have  died  only  for  the  elect 
(see  a  review  of  Dale,  iu  Brit.  Quar.  Rev.,  Apr.,  1876  :  221-225).  The  union  of  Christ  with 
the  race  by  creation  —  a  union  which  recognizes  Christ's  purity  and  man's  sin —  still 
remains  as  a  most  valuable  element  of  truth  in  the  theory  of  Dr.  Dale. 

3.  That  of  Edward  Irving.  Christ  has  a  corrupted  nature,  an  inborn  infirmity  and 
depravity,  which  he  gradually  o\  ercomes.  But  the  Scriptures,  on  the  contrary,  assert 
his  holiness  and  separatenesa  from  sinners.    (See  references,  on  pages  714-747.) 

4.  That  of  John  Miller,  Theology,  114-128;  also  in  his  chapter:  Was  Christ  in  Adam  ? 
in  Questions  Awakened  by  the  Bible.  Christ,  as  to  his  human  nature,  although  created 
pure,  was  yet,  as  one  of  Adam's  posterity,  conceived  of  as  a  sinner  in  Adam.  To  him 
attached  "the  guilt  of  the  act  in  which  all  men  stood  together  in  a  federal  relation.  .  .  . 
He  Mas  decreed  to  be  guilty  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind."  Although  there  is  a  truth 
Contained  iu  this  statement,  it  is  vitiated  by  Miller's  federalism  and  creatianism.  Arbi- 
trary imputation  and  legal  fiction  do  not  help  us  here.  We  need  such  an  actual  union 
of  Christ  with  humanity,  and  such  a  derivation  of  the  substance  of  his  being,  by  natural 
generation  from  Adam,  as  will  make*  him  not  simply  the  constructive  heir,  but  the 
natural  heir,  of  the  guilt  of  the  race.  We  come,  therefore,  to  what  we  regard  as  the 
true  view,  namely : 

5.  That  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  not  a  new  creation,  but  was  derived  from  Adam, 
through  Mary  his  mother;  so  that  Christ,  so  far  as  his  humanity  was  concerned, was  in 
Adam  just  as  we  were,  and  had  the  same  race-responsibility  with  ourselves.  As  Adam's 
descendant,  he  was  responsible  for  Adam's  Bin,  like  every  other  member  of  the  race; 
the  chief  difference  being,  that  while  we  inherit  from  Adam  both  guilt  and  depravity, 
he  whom  the  Holy  spirit  purified,  Inherited  not  the  depravity,  but  only  the  guilt.  Christ 
took  to  himself,  not  sin  (depravity),  but  the  consequences  of  sin.  In  him  there  was 
abolition  of  sin,  without  abolition  of  obligation  to  sutler  for  sin  j  while  in  the  believer, 
there  is  abolition  of  obligation  to  sutler,  without  abolition  of  sin  itself. 

The  justice  of  Christ's  sufferings  has  been  imperfect  lv  illustrated  by  the  obligation  of 
the  silent  partner  of  a  business  firm  to  pay  debts  of  the  firm  which  he  did  noi  personally 
contract;  or  by  the  obligation  of  the  husband  to  pay  the  del  its  of  his  wife;  or  by  the 
obligation  of  a  purchasing  country  to  assume  the  debts  of  the  province  which  it  pur- 
chases (  Win.  Ashmore).  There  have  been  men  who  have  spent  the  strength  of  a  life- 
time in  Clearing  off  the  indebtedness  Of  an  insolvent  father,  long  since  deceased.  They 
recognized  an  organic  unity  of  the  family,  which  morally,  if  not  legally,  made  their 
father's  liabilities  their  own.  So,  it  is  said,  Christ  recognized  the  organic  unity  of  the 
race,  and  saw  that,  having  become  one  of  that  sinning  race,  he  had  involved  himself  in 
all  its  liabilities,  even  to  the  suffering  of  death,  the  great  penalty  of  sin. 

The  fault  of  all  the  analogies  just  mentioned  is  that  they  are  purely  commercial.  A 
transference  of  pecuniary  obligation  is  easier  to  understand  than  a  transference  of 
criminal  liability.  I  cannot  justly  bear  another's  penalty,  unless  I  can  in  some  way 
share  his  guilt.  The  theory  we  advocate  shows  how  such  a  sharing  of  our  guilt  on  the 
part  of  Christ  was  possible.  All  believers  in  substitution  hold  that  Christ  bore  our 
guilt:  " My  soul  looks  back  to  see  The  burdens  thou  didst  bear  When  hanging  on  the 
accursed  tree.  And  hopes  her  guilt  was  there."  But  we  claim  that,  by  virtue  of  Christ's 
union  with  humanity,  that  guilt  was  not  only  an  imputed,  but  also  an  imparted,  guilt. 

With  Christ's  obligation  to  suffer,  there  were  connected  two  other,  though  minor, 
results  of  his  assumption  of  humanity:  first,  the  longing  to  suffer;  and  secondly,  the 
inevitableness  of  his  suffering.  He  felt  the  longing  to  suffer  which  perfect  love  to  God 
must  feel,  in  view  of  the  demands  upon  the  race,  of  that  holiness  of  God  which  he 
loved  more  than  he  loved  the  race  itself;  which  perfect  love  to  man  must  feel,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  bearing  the  penalty  of  man's  sin  was  the  only  way  to  save  him.  Hence 
we  see  Christ  pressing  forward  to  the  cross  with  such  majestic  determination  that  the 


7GU  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OP    REDEMPTION. 

disciples  were  amazed  and  afraid  ( Mark  10  :  32 ).  Hence  we  hear  him  saying  :  "  With  desire  have 
I  desired  to  eat  this  passover "  ( Luke  23  :  15 ) ;  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it, 
be  accomplished !  "  ( Luke  12  :  50  ). 

Here  is  the  truth  in  Campbell's  theory  of  the  atonement.  Christ  is  the  great  Penitent 
before  God,  making-  confession  of  the  sin  of  the  race,  which  others  of  that  race  could 
neither  see  nor  feel.  But  the  view  we  present  is  a  larger  and  completer  one  than 
that  of  Campbell,  in  that  it  makes  this  confession  and  reparation  obligatory  upon 
Christ,  as  Campbell's  view  does  not,  and  recognizes  the  penal  nature  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings, which  Campbell's  view  denies.  Lias,  Atonement,  79 — "  The  head  of  a  clan,  himself 
intensely  loyal  to  his  king,  finds  that  his  clan  have  been  involved  in  rebellion.  The  more  . 
intense  and  perfect  his  loyalty,  the  more  thorough  his  nobleness  of  heart  and  affection 
for  his  people,  the  more  inexcusable  and  flagrant  the  rebellion  of  those  for  whom  he 
pleads,—  the  more  acute  would  be  his  agony,  as  their  representative  and  head.  Nothing 
would  be  more  true  to  human  nature,  in  the  best  sense  of  those  words,  than  that  the 
conflict  between  loyalty  to  his  king  and  affection  for  his  vassals  should  induce  him  to 
offer  his  life  for  theirs,  to  ask  that  the  punishment  they  deserved  should  be  inflicted 
on  him." 

The  second  minor  consequence  of  Christ's  assumption  of  humanity  was,  that,  being 
such  as  he  was,  he  could  not  help  suffering;  in  other  words,  the  obligatory  and  the 
desired  were  also  the  inevitable.  Since  he  was  a  being  of  perfect  purity,  contact  with 
the  sin  of  the  race,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  necessarily  involved  an  actual  suffering, 
of  an  intenser  kind  than  we  can  conceive.  Sin  is  self-isolating,  but  love  and  righteous- 
ness have  in  them  the  instinct  of  human  unity.  In  Christ  all  the  nerves  and  sensibilities 
of  humanity  met.  He  was  the  only  healthy  member  of  the  race.  When  life  returns  to 
a  frozen  limb,  there  is  pain.  So  Christ,  as  the  only  sensitive  member  of  a  benumbed 
and  stupefied  humanity,  felt  all  the  pangs  of  shame  and  suffering  which  rightfully 
belonged  to  sinners ;  but  which  they  could  not  feel,  simply  because  of  the  depth  of  their 
depravity.  Because  Christ  was  pure,  yet  had  united  himself  to  a  sinful  and  guilty  race, 
therefore  "it  must  needs  be  that  Christ  should  suffer"  ( A.  V.)  or,  "  it  behooved  the  Christ  to  suffer  "  (  Rev. 
Vers.,  Acts  17  :  3  );  see  also  John  3  :  14 — "  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up  "  =  "  The  Incarnation, 
under  the  actual  circumstances  of  humanity,  carried  with  it  the  necessity  of  the 
Passion  "    (  Westcott,  in  Bib.  Com.,  in  lovn ). 

Compare  John  Woolman's  Journal,  4,  5  —  "  O  Lord,  my  God,  the  amazing  horrors  of 
darkness  were  gathered  about  me,  and  covered  me  all  over,  and  I  saw  no  way  to  go 
forth ;  I  felt  the  depth  and  extent  of  the  misery  of  my  follow  creatures,  separated 
from  the  divine  harmony,  and  it  was  greater  than  I  could  bear,  and  I  was  crushed  down 
under  it;  I  lifted  up  my  head,  I  stretched  out  my  arm,  but  there  was  none  to  help  me ; 
I  looked  round  about,  and  was  amazed.  In  the  depths  of  misery,  I  remembered  that 
thou  art  omnipotent  and  that  I  had  called  thee  Father."  He  had  vision  of  a  "  dull, 
gloomy  mass,"  darkening  half  the  heavens,  and  he  was  told  that  it  was  "human  beings, 
in  as  great  misery  as  they  could  be  and  live ;  and  he  was  mixed  with  them,  and  hence- 
forth he  might  not  consider  himself  a  distinct  and  separate  being." 

This  suffering  in  and  with  the  sins  of  men,  which  Dr.  Bushnell  emphasized  so  strongly, 
though  it  is  not,  as  he  thought,  the  principal  element,  is  notwithstanding  an  indispen- 
sable element  in  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Suffering  in  and  with  the  sinner  is  one  way, 
though  not  the  only  way,  in  which  Christ  is  enabled  to  bear  the  wrath  of  God  which 
constitutes  tbe  real  penalty  of  sin. 

Exposition  of  2  Cor.  5  :  21. —  It  remains  for  us  to  adduce  the  Scriptural  proof  of 
this  natural  assumption  of  human  guilt  by  Christ.  We  find  it  in  2  Cor.  5 :  21  — "  Him  who  knew 
no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf ;  that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. ' '  "  Righteousness ' '  here 
cannot  mean  subjective  purity,  for  then  " made  to  be  sin "  would  mean  that  God  made 
Christ  to  be  subjectively  depraved.  As  Christ  was  not  made  unholy,  the  meaning 
cannot  be  that  we  are  made  holy  persons  in  him.  Meyer  calls  attention  to  this  parallel 
between  "righteousness"  and  "sin": — "That  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him "=  that  we 
might  become  justified  persons.  Correspondingly,  "  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf"  must  =  made 
to  be  a  condemned  person.  "Him  who  knew  no  sin "=  Christ  had  no  experience  of  sin  —  this 
was  the  necessary  postulate  of  his  work  of  atonement.  "  Made  sin  for  us,"  therefore,  is  the 
abstract  for  the  concrete,  and  =  made  a  sinner,  in  the  sense  that  the  penalty  of  sin  fell 
upon  him.    So  Meyer,  for  substance. 

We  must,  however,  regard  this  interpretation  of  Meyer's  as  coming  short  of  the  full 
meaning  of  the  apostle.  As  justification  is  not  simply  remission  of  actual  punishment, 
but  is  also  deliverance  from  the  obligation  to  suffer  punishment,— in  other  words,  as 
"righteousness"  in  the  text  =  persons  delivered  from  the  guilt  as  well  as  from  the  penalty 


ETHICAL  THEORY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  761 

of  sin, — so  the  contrasted  term  "sin,"  in  tlie  text,  =  a  person  not  only  actually  punished, 
but  also  under  obligation  to  suffer  punishment  ; —  in  other  won  Is,  ( hrist  is  "mads  sin,  not 
only  in  the  sense  of  being1  put  under  penalty,  but  also  in  the  sense  of  being-  put  under 
guilt.    (Cf.  Symington,  Atonement,  17.) 

In  a  note  to  the  last  edition  of  Meyer,  this  is  substantially  granted,  "it  is  to  be 
noted,"  he  says,  "that  anapTiav,  like  xardpa  in  Gal.  3  :  13,  necessarily  includes  in  itself  the 
notion  of  guilt."  Meyer  adds,  however:  "The  guilt  of  whi<  h  Christ,  appears  as  bearer 
was  not  his  own  (mt  ytorra  aixapriav) ;  hence  the  guilt  of  men  was  transferred  to  him  ; 
consequently  the  justification  of  men  is  imputative."  Here  the  implication  that  the 
guilt  which  Christ  bears  is  his  simply  by  imputation  seems  to  us  contrary  to  the  analogy 
of  faith.  As  Adam's  sin  is  ours  only  because  we  are  actually  one  with  Adam,  and  as 
Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us  only  as  we  are  act  ually  united  to  Christ,  so  our 
sins  are  imputed  to  Christ  only  as  Christ  is  actually  one  wit  h  the  race.  He  was  "made sin  " 
by  being  made  one  with  the  sinners  ;  he  took  our  guilt  by  taking  our  nature.  He  who 
"knew  no  sin  "  came  to  be  "sin  for  us"  by  being  born  ut  a  Sinful  stock;  by  inheritance  the 
common  guilt  of  the  race  became  his.  Guilt  was  not  simply  imputed  to  Chris*  ;  it  was 
imparted  also. 

This  exposition  may  be  made  more  clear  by  putting  the  two  contrasted  thoughts  in 
parallel  columns,  as  follows  : 


Made  righteousness  in  him  = 
righteous  persons ; 
justified  persons ; 
freed  from  guilt,  or  obligation  to 

suffer  ; 
by  spiritual  union  with  Christ. 


Made  sin  for  us= 

a  sinful  person ; 

a  condemned  person  ; 

put  under  guilt,  or  obligation  to 

suffer  ; 
by  natural  union  with  the  race. 


For  a  good  exposition  of  2  Cor.  5:21,  6aL3:13,  and  Rom.  3 : 25,  26,  see  Denney,  Studies  in 
Theology,  10!)- 1  24. 

The  Atonement,  then,  on  the  part  of  God,  has  its  ground  (1)  in  the 
holiness  of  God,  which  must  visit  .sin  with  condemnation,  even  though  this 
condemnation  brings  death  to  his  Son  ;  and  (2 )  in  the  love  of  God,  which 
itself  provides  the  sacrifice,  by  suffering  in  and  with  his  Son  for  the  sins  of 
men,  but  through  that  suffering  opening  a  way  and  means  of  salvation. 

The  Atonement,  on  the  part  of  man,  is  accomplished  through  (1)  the 
solidarity  of  the  race;  of  which  (2)  Christ  is  the  life,  and  so  its  repre- 
sentative and  surety;  (3)  justly  yet  voluntarily  bearing  its  guilt  and 
shame  and  condemnation  as  his  own. 

Melanchthon  :  "  Christ  was  made  sin  for  us,  not  only  in  respect  to  punishment,  but 
primarily  by  being  chargeable  with  guilt,  also  (  rui)„i  ,  t  r<  Otua  )  "  —  quoted  by  Tlioma- 
sius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  ;J:'J5,  KG,  103,  107;  also  1  :307,  314  .-•</.  Thomasius  says 
that  "Christ  bore  the  guilt  of  the  race  by  imputation;  but  as  in  the  case  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  us,  imputation  of  our  sins  to  I  Ihrist  presupposes  a  r<  al 
relationship.  Christ  appropriated  our  sin.  He  sank  himself  into  our  guilt."  Dorner, 
Glaubenslehre,  2:442  (  Syst.  Doct.,  3:350,  351),  agrees  with  Thomasius,  that  "Christ 
entered  into  our  natural  mortality,  which  for  us  is  a  penal  condition,  and  into  the 
state  of  collective  guilt,  so  far  as  it  is  an  evil,  a  burden  to  be  borne;  not  that  he  had 
personal  guilt,  but  rather  that  he  entered  into  our  guilt -laden  common  life,  not  as  a 
stranger,  but  as  one  actually  belonging  to  it  — put  under  its  law,  according  to  the  will 
of  the  Father  and  of  his  own  love." 

When,  and  how,  did  Christ  take  this  guilt  and  this  penalty  upon  him?  With  regard 
to  penalty,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  answering  that,  as  his  whole  life  of  suffering  was 
propitiatory,  so  penalty  rested  upon  him  from  the  very  beginning  of  his  life.  This 
penalty  was  inherited,  and  was  the  consequence  of  Christ's  taking  human  nature  (  Gal. 
4 : 4,  5  —  "  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law  "  ).  But  penalty  and  guilt  are  correlates  ;  if  Christ 
inherited  penalty,  it  must  have  been  because  he  inherited  guilt.  This  subjection  to 
the  common  guilt  of  the  race  was  intimated  in  Jesus'  circumcision  ( Luke  2 :  21 ) ;  in  his 
ritual  purification  (Luke  2:22— "  their  purification"  —  i.  e.,  the  purification  of  Mary  and  the 
oabe;  see  Lange,  Life  of  Christ;  Commentaries  of  Alford,  Webster  and  Wilkinson  ; 
».nd  An.  Par.  Bible);  in  his  legal  redemption  (Luke  2: 23,  24;  cf.  Bi.  13:2,  13);  and  in  his 
baptism  (Mat.  3:15— "thus  it  beeometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness").    The  baptized  person  went 


762  CHRISTOLOGY,,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

down  into  the  water,  as  one  laden  with  sin  and  guilt,  in  order  that  this  sin  and  guilt 
might  be  buried  forever,  and  that  he  might  rise  from  the  typical  grave  to  a  new  and 
holy  life.  (  Ebrard :  "  Baptism  =  death." )  So  Christ's  submission  to  John's  baptism  of 
repentence  was  not  only  a  consecration  to  death,  but  also  a  recognition  and  confes- 
sion of  his  implication  in  that  guilt  of  the  race  for  which  death  was  the  appointed  and 
inevitable  penalty  ( <•/.  Mat.  10  :  38  ;  Luke  12: 50  ;  Mat.  26  .  39  ) ;  and,  as  his  baptism  was  a  pre- 
figuration  of  his  death,  we  may  learn  from  his  baptism  something  with  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  his  death.    See  further,  under  The  Symbolism  of  Baptism. 

As  one  who  had  had  guilt,  Christ  was  "justified  in  the  spirit "  ( 1  Tim.  3 :  16 ) ;  and  this  justifica- 
tion appears  to  have  taken  place  after  he  "  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  "  ( 1  Tim.  3  :  16 ),  and  when 
"  he  was  raised  for  our  justification  "  (Rom.4:25).  Compare  Rom. 1:4 — "declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from  tho  dead"  ;  6:  7-10  —  "he  that  hath  died  is  justified 
from  sin.  But  if  we  died  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him ;  knowing  that  Christ  being  rais'd 
from  the  dead  dieth  no  more ;  death  no  more  hath  dominion  over  him.  For  the  death  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin 
once:  but  the  life  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God"  —  here  all  Christians  are  conceived  of  as  ideally 
justified  in  the  justification  of  Christ,  when  Christ  died  for  our  sins  and  rose  again. 
8:3  —  "God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh"  —  here 
Meyer  says:  "The  sending  does  not  precede  the  condemnation;  but  the  condemnation 
is  effected  in  and  with  the  sending."    John  16  :  10  —  "  of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to  the  Father  "  ;  19 :  30 

—  "It  is  finished."    On  1  Tim.  3 :  16,  see  the  Commentary  of  BengeL 

If  it  be  asked  whether  Jesus,  then,  before  his  death,  was  an  unjustified  person,  we 
answer  that,  while  personally  pure  and  well-pleasing  to  God  ( Mat.  3 :  17 ),  he  himself  was 
conscious  of  a  race- responsibility  and  a  race-guilt  which  must  be  atoned  for  (John  12: 27 

—  "Now  is  my  soul  troubled  ;  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour.  But  for  this  cause  came  I  unto 
this  hour");  and  that  guilty  human  nature  in  him  endured  at  the  last  the  separation 
from  God  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  death,  sin's  penalty  ( Mat.  27 : 46  —  "My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me ?"  ).  We  must  remember  that,  as  even  the  believer  must  "be 
judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh  "  (1  Pet.  4:6),  that  is,  must  suffer  the  death  which  to  unbe- 
lievers is  the  penalty  of  sin,  although  he  "live  according  to  God  in  the  Spirit,"  so  Christ,  in  orfler 
that  we  might  be  delivered  from  both  guilt  and  penalty,  was  "  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 
made  alive  in  the  spirit"  (3:18);— in  other  words,  as  Christ  was  man,  the  penalty  due  to 
human  guilt  belonged  to  him  to  bear;  but,  as  he  was  God,  he  could  exhaust  that  pen- 
alty, and  could  be  a  proper  substitute  for  others. 

If  it  be  asked  whether  he,  who  from  the  moment  of  the  conception  "sanctified  himself" 
(John  17:19),  did  not  from  that  moment  also  justify  himself,  we  reply  that  although, 
through  the  retroactive  efficacy  of  his  atonement  and  upon  the  ground  of  it,  human 
nature  in  him  was  purged  of  its  depravity  from  the  moment  that  he  took  that  nature ; 
and  although,  upon  the  ground  of  that  atonement,  believers  before  his  advent  were 
both  sanctified  and  justified ;  yet  his  own  justification  could  not  have  proceeded  upon 
the  ground  of  his  atonement,  and  also  his  atonement  have  proceeded  upon  the  ground 
of  his  justification.  This  would  be  a  vicious  circle  ;  somewhere  we  must  have  a  begin- 
ning. That  beginning  was  in  the  cross,  where  guilt  was  first  purged  ( Heb.  1:3  —  "  when  he 
had  made  purification  of  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  "  ;  Mat.  27  :  42 —  "  Ho  saved  others; 
himself  he  cannot  save  "  ;  cf.  Rev.  13 : 8  —  "  the  lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  ). 

If  it  be  said  that  guilt  and  depravity  are  practically  inseparable,  and  that,  if  Christ 
had  guilt,  he  must  have  had  depravity  also,  we  reply  that  in  civil  law  we  distinguish 
between  them,  —  the  conversion  of  a  murderer  would  not  remove  his  obligation  to 
suffer  upon  the  gallows;  and  we  reply  further,  that  in  justification  we  distinguish 
between  them,  —  depravity  still  remaining,  though  guilt  is  removed.  So  we  may  say 
that  Christ  takes  guilt  without  depravity,  in  order  that  we  may  have  depravity  with- 
out guilt.  See  page  645  ;  also  Bohl,  Incarnation  des  gottlichen  Wortes ;  Pope,  Higher 
Catechism,  118;  A.  H.  Strong,  on  the  Necessity  of  the  Atonement,  in  Philosophy  and 
Religion,  213-219.    Per  contra,  see  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  59  note,  82. 

Christ  therefore,  as  incarnate,  rather  revealed  the  atonement  than  made 
it.  The  historical  work  of  atonement  was  finished  upon  the  Cross,  but 
that  historical  work  only  revealed  to  men  the  atonement  made  both  before 
and  since  by  the  extra-mundane  Logos.  The  eternal  Love  of  God  Buffer- 
ing the  necessary  reaction  of  his  own  Holiness  against  the  sin  of  his 
creatures  and  with  a  view  to  their  salvation  —  this  is  the  essence  of  the 
Atonement. 


ETHICAL   THEORY    OF   THE   ATONEMENT.  763 

Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  252,  253—  "  Christ,  as  God's  atonement,  is  the  revelation 
and  discovery  of  the  fact  that  sacrifice  is  as  deep  in  God  as  his  being.  He  is  a  holy 
Creator. . .  .  He  must  take  upon  himself  the  shame  and  pain  of  sin."  The  earthly 
tabernacle  and  its  sacrifices  were  only  tne  shadow  of  those  in  the  heavens,  and  Muses 
was  bidden  to  make  the  earthly  after  the  pattern  which  he  saw  in  the  mount.  So  the 
historical  atonement  was  but  the  shadowing'  forth  to  dull  and  finite  minds  of  an 
infinite  demand  of  the  divine  holiness  and  an  infinite  satisfaction  rendered  by  the 
divine  love.  Godet,  S.  S.  Times,  Oct.  10,  188G  —  "Christ  so  identified  himself  with  the 
race  he  came  to  save,  by  sharing  its  life  or  its  very  blood,  that  when  the  race  itself  was 
redeemed  from  the  curse  of  sin,  his  resurrection  followed  as  the  first  fruits  of  that 
redemption  "  ;  Rom.  4 :  25  —  "  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses raised  for  our  justification." 

Simon,  Redemption  of  Man,  322  — "If  the  Logos  is  generally  the  Mediator  of  the 
divine  immanence  in  Creation,  especially  in  man;  if  men  are  differentiations  af  the 
effluent  divine  energy  ;  and  if  the  Logos  is  the  immanent  controlling  principle  of  all 
differentiation,  i.  c,  the  principle  of  all  form  —  must  not  the  self-perversion  of  these 
human  differentiations  necessarily  react  on  him  who  is  their  constitutive  principle? 
339  —  Remember  that  men  have  not  first  to  engraft  themselves  into  Christ,  the  living 
whole.  ...  They  subsist  naturally  in  him,  and  they  have  1"  separate  themselves,  cut 
themselves  off  from  him,  if  they  are  to  be  separate.  This  is  the  mistake  made  in  the 
'  Life  in  Christ '  theory.  Men  are  treated  as  in  some  sense  out  of  Christ,  and  as  having 
to  get  into  connection  with'Christ. ...  It  is  not  that  we  have  to  create  the  relation, — 
we  have  simply  to  accept,  to  recognize,  to  ratify  it.  Rejecting  Christ  is  not  so  much 
refusal  to  become  one  with  Christ,  as  it  is  refusal  to  remain  one  with  him,  refusal  to 
let  him  be  our  life." 

A.  II.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  33,  172— "When  God  breathed  into  man's  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life,  he  eommunicated  freedom,  and  made  possible  the  creature's  self- 
chosen  alienation  from  himself ,  the  giver  nf  thai  life.  While  man  could  never  break 
the  oatural  bond  which  united  him  to  God,  he  could  break  the  spiritual  bond,  and 
could  introduce  even  into  the  life  df  Cud  a  principle  of  discord  and  evil.  Xieaoord 
tightly  about  your  finger;  you  partially  isolate  t  lie  Bnger,  diminish  its  nutrition,  bring 
about  atrophy  and  disease.  Yet  the  life  of  the  whole  system  rouses  itself  to  put  away 
the  evil,  to  untie  the  cord,  to  free  the  diseased  and  suffering  member.  The  illustration 
is  far  from  adequate;  but  it  helps  at  a  single  point.  There  has  been  given  to  each 
intelligent  and  moral  agent  the  power,  spiritually,  to  isolate  himself  from  God,  while 
yet  he  is  naturally  joined  to  God,  and  is  wholly  dependent  upon  Cod  for  the  removal 
of  the  sin  which  has  so  separated  him  from  his  Maker.  Sin  is  the  act  of  the  creature, 
but  salvation  is  the  act  of  the  Creator. 

"If  you  could  imagine  a  finger  endowed  with  free  will  and  trying  to  sunder  its  con- 
nection with  the  body  by  tying  a  string  around  itself,  you  would  have  a  picture  of 
man  trying  to  sunder  his  connection  with  Christ.  What  is  the  result  of  such  an 
attempt?  Why,  pain,  decay;  possible,  nay,  incipient  death,  to  the  finger.  'By  what 
law?  By  the  law  of  1  he  organism,  which  is  so  constituted  as  to  maintain  itself  against 
its  own  disruption  by  the  revolt  of  the  members.  The  pain  and  death  of  the  finger  is 
the  reaction  of  the  whole  against  the  treason  of  the  part.  The  finger  suffers  pain. 
Bui  are  there  no  results  of  pain  to  the  body?  Does  not  the  body  feel  pain  also?  How 
plain  it  is  that  no  such  pain  can  be  confined  to  the  single  part !  The  heart  feels,  aye, 
the  whole  organism  feels,  because  all  the  parts  are  members  one  of  another.  It  not  only 
suffers,  but  that  suffering  tends  to  remedy  the  evil  and  to  remove  its  cause.  The  body 
summons  its  forces,  pours  new  tides  of  life  into  the  dying  member,  strives  to  rid  the 
finger  of  the  ligature  that  binds  it.  So  through  all  the  course  of  history,  Christ,  the 
natural  life  of  the  race,  has  been  afflicted  in  the  affliction  of  humanity  and  has  suffered 
for  human  sin.  This  suffering  has  been  an  atoning  suffering,  since  it  hits  been  due  to 
righteousness.  If  God  had  not  been  holy,  if  God  had  not  made  all  nature  express  the 
holiness  of  his  being,  if  God  had  not  made  pain  and  loss  the  necessary  consequences 
of  sin,  then  Christ  would  not  have  suffered.  But  since  these  things  are  sin's  penalty 
and  Christ  is  the  life  of  the  sinful  race,  it  must  needs  be  that  Christ  should  suffer. 
There  is  nothing  arbitrary  in  laying  upon  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all.  Original  grace, 
like  original  sin,  is  only  the  ethical  interpretation  of  biological  facts."  See  also  Ames, 
on  Biological  Aspects  of  the  Atonement,  in  Methodist  Review,  Nov.  1905:943-953. 

In  favor  of  the  Substitutionary  or  Ethical  view  of  the  atonement  we  may 
urge  the  following  considerations : 


764  CHRISTOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    REDEMPTION. 

(a)  It  rests  upon  correct  philosophical  principles  with  regard  to  the 
nature  of  will,  law,  sin,  penalty,  righteousness. 

This  theory  holds  that  there  are  permanent  states,  as  well  as  transient  acts,  of  the 
will ;  and  that  the  will  is  not  simply  the  faculty  of  volitions,  but  also  the  fundamental 
determination  of  the  being  to  an  ultimate  end.  It  regards  law  as  having  its  basis,  not 
in  arbitrary  will  or  in  governmental  expediency,  but  rather  in  the  nature  of  God,  and 
as  being  a  necessary  transcript  of  God's  holiness.  It  considers  sin  to  consist  not  simply 
in  acts,  but  in  permanent  evil  states  of  the  affections  and  will.  It  makes  the  object  of 
penalty  to  be,  not  the  reformation  of  the  offender,  or  the  prevention  of  evil  doing,  but 
the  vindication  of  justice,  outraged  by  violation  of  law.  It  teaches  that  righteousness 
is  not  benevolence  or  a  form  of  benevolence,  but  a  distinct  and  separate  attribute  of 
the  divine  nature  which  demands  that  sin  should  be  visited  with  punishment,  apart 
from  any  consideration  of  the  useful  results  that  will  flow  therefrom. 

(  b  )  It  combines  in  itself  all  the  valuable  elements  in  the  theories  before 
mentioned,  while  it  avoids  their  inconsistencies,  by  showing  the  deeper 
principle  upon  which  each  of  these  elements  is  based. 

The  Ethical  theory  admits  the  indispensableness  of  Christ's  example,  advocated  by 
the  Soeinian  theory ;  the  moral  influence  of  his  suffering!  urged  by  the  Bushnellian 
theory ;  the  securing  of  the  safety  of  government,  insisted  on  by  the  Grotian  theory ; 
the  participation  of  the  believer  in  Christ's  new  humanity,  taught  by  the  Irvinsian 
theory ;  the  satisfaction  to  God's  majesty  for  the  elect,  made  so  ir.ueh  of  by  the  Ansel- 
mic  theory.  But  the  Ethical  theory  claims  that  all  these  other  theories  require,  as  a 
presupposition  for  their  effective  working,  that  ethical  satisfaction  to  the  holiness  of 
God  which  is  rendered  in  guilty  human  nature  by  the  Sou  of  God  who  took  that  nature 
to  redeem  it. 

( c )  It  most  fully  meets  the  requirements  of  Scripture,  by  holding  that 
the  necessity  of  the  atonement  is  absolute,  since  it  rests  upon  the  demands 
of  immanent  holiness,  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God. 

Acts  17:3  —  "it  behooved  the  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  again  from  the  dead  "  —  lit. :  " it  was  necessary  for  the 
Christ  to  suffer  "  ;  Luke  24  :  26  —  "  Behooved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory  ?  "  — 
lit. :  "  Was  it  not  necessary  that  the  Christ  should  suffer  these  things  ?  "  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that 
Christ  must  suffer  in  order  that  the  prophecies  might  be  fulfilled.  Why  was  it  proph- 
esied that  he  should  suffer?  Why  did  God  purpose  that  he  should  suffer?  The  ulti- 
mate necessity  is  a  necessity  in  the  nature  of  God. 

Plato,  Republic,  2: 361  — "  The  righteous  man  who  is  thought  to  be  unrighteous  will 
be  scourged,  racked,  bound ;  will  have  his  eves  put  out ;  and  finally,  having  endured 
all  sorts  of  evil,  will  be  impaled."  This  means  that,  as  human  society  is  at  present 
constituted,  even  a  righteous  person  must  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  "Mors 
mortis  Morti  mortem  nisi  morte  dedisset,  iEternae  vitae  janua  clausa  f oret  "  —  "Had 
not  the  Death-of-death  to  Death  his  death-blow  given,  Forever  closed  were  the  gate, 
the  gate  of  life  and  heaven." 

(  d  )  It  shows  most  satisfactorily  how  the  demands  of  holiness  are  met ; 
namely,  by  the  propitiatory  offering  of  one  who  is  personally  jmre,  but 
who  by  union  with  the  human  race  has  inherited  its  guilt  and  penalty. 

"  Quo  non  ascendant  ?  "  — "  Whither  shall  I  not  rise  ?  "  exclaimed  the  greatest  minister 
of  modern  kings,  in  a  moment  of  intoxication.  "  Whither  shall  I  not  stoop  ?  "  says  the 
Lord  Jesus.  King  Humbert,  during  the  scourge  of  cholera  in  Italy :  "  In  Casteham- 
mare  they  make  merry ;  in  Naples  they  die :  I  go  to  Naples." 

Wrightnour:  "  The  illustration  of  Powhatan  raising  his  club  to  slay  John  Smith, 
while  Pocahontas  flings  herself  between  the  uplifted  club  and  the  victim,  is  not  a  good 
one.  God  is  not  an  angry  being,  bound  to  strike  something,  no  matter  what.  If  Pow- 
hatan could  have  taken  the  blow  himself,  out  of  a  desire  to  spare  the  victim,  it  would 
be  better.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  one.  Bronson  Alcott,  in  his  school  at  Concord, 
when  punishment  was  necessary,  sometimes  placed  the  rod  in  the  hand  of  the  offender 
and  bade  him  strike  his  ( Alcott's )  hand,  rather  than  that  the  law  of  the  school  should 
be  broken  without  punishment  following.    The  result  was  that  very  few  rules  were 


ETHICAL  THEORY   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  765 

roken.    So  God  in  Christ  bore  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  endured  the  penalty  for 
an's  violation  of  his  law." 

(  e  )  It  furnishes  the  only  proper^explanation  of  the  sacrificial  language 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old,  considered  as 
prophetic  of  Christ's  atoning  work. 

Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  207-211  —  "  The  imposition  of  hands  on  the  head 
of  the  victim  is  entirely  unexplained,  except  in  the  account  of  the  great  day  of  Atone- 
ment, when  by  the  same  gesture  and  by  distinct  confession  the  sins  of  the  people  were 
'  put  upon  the  head  of  the  goat '  ( Lev.  16 :  21 )  to  be  borne  away  into  the  wilderness.  The  blood 
was  sacred  and  was  to  be  poured  out  before  the  Lord,  evidently  in  place  of  the  forfeited 
life  of  the  sinner  which  should  have  been  rendered  up."  Watts,  New  Apologetics,  205 
— " 'The  Lord  will  provide'  was  the  truth  taught  when  Abraham  found  a  ram  provided  bj 
God  which  he  'offered  up  as  a  burnt  offering  in  the  stead  of  his  son '  (  Gen.  22 :  13, 14 ).  As  the  ram  was 
not  Abraham's  ram,  the  sacrifice  of  it  could  not  teach  that  all  Abraham  had  belonged 
to  God,  and  should,  with  entire  faith  in  his  goodness,  be  devoted  to  him;  but  it  did 
teach  that  'apart  from  shedding  of  blood  th.re  is  no  remission'  (Heb.  9:22)."  2  Chron.  29:27 — "when  the 
burnt  offering  began,  the  song  of  Jehovah  began  also." 

(/)  It  alone  gives  proper  place  to  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  central 
feature  of  his  work, — set  forth  in  the  ordinances,  and  of  chief  power  in 
Christian  experience. 

Martin  Luther,  when  he  had  realized  the  truth  of  the  Atonement,  was  found  sobbing 
before  a  crucifix  and  moaning:  "  Fiir  mich  !  fur  mich  1 "  —  " For  me!  for  me!" 
Elisha  Kane,  the  Arctic  explorer,  while  searching  for  signs  of  Sir  John  Franklin  and 
his  party,  sent  out  eight  or  ten  men  to  explore  the  surrounding  region.  After  several 
days  three  returned,  almost  crazed  with  the  cold — thermometer  fifty  degrees  below 
zero  —  and  reported  that  the  other  men  were  dying  miles  away.  Dr.  Kane  organized 
a  company  of  ten,  and  though  suffering  himself  with  an  <>ld  heart-trouble,  led  them  to 
the  rescue.  Three  times  lie  fainted  during  t  lie  eighteen  hours  of  marching  and  su tier- 
ing; but  he  found  the  men.  "  We  knew  you  would  come!  we  knew  you  would  come, 
brother!"  whispered  one  of  them,  hardly  able  to  speak.  Why  was  he  sure  Dr.  Kane 
would  come?  Because  he  knew  I  he  stuff  Dr.  K'ane  was  made'  of,  and  knew  that  lie 
would  risk  his  life  for  any  one  of  them.  It  is  a  parable  of  Christ's  illation  to  our  sal- 
vation. He  is  our  elder  brother,  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  he  not 
only  risks  death,  but  he  endures  death,  in  order  to  save  us. 

(,(/  )  It  gives  us  the  only  means  of  understanding  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross,  or  of  reconciling  them  with  the  divine 
justice. 

Kreibig,  Versohnungslehre  :  "  Man  has  a  guilt  that  demands  the  punitive  sufferings 
of  a  mediator.  Christ  shows  a  suffering  that  cannot  be  justified  except  by  reference  to 
some  other  guilt  than  his  own.  Combine  these  two  facts,  and  you  have  the  problem 
of  the  atonement  solved."  J.  G.  Whittier:  "Through  all  the  depths  of  sin  and  loss 
Drops  the  plummet  of  the  Cross  ;  Never  yet  abysf  was  found  Deeper  than  the  Cross 
could  sound."  Alcestis  purchased  life  for  Admetus  her  husband  by  dying  in  his  stead ; 
Marcus  Curtius  saved  Rome  by  leaping  into  the  yawning  chasm ;  the  Russian  servant 
threw  himself  to  the  wolves  to  rescue  his  master.  Berdoe,  Robert  Browning,  47  —  "  To 
know  God  as  the  theist  knows  him  may  suffice  for  pure  spirits,  for  those  who  have 
never  sinned,  suffered,  nor  felt  the  need  of  a  Savior ;  but  for  fallen  and  sinful  men  the 
Christ  of  Christianity  is  an  imperative  necessity;  and  those  who  have  never  surrend- 
ered themselves  to  him  have  never  known  what  it  is  to  experience  the  rest  he  gives  to 
the  heavy-laden  soul." 

(  h )  As  no  other  theory  does,  this  view  satisfies  the  ethical  demand  of 
human  nature  ;  pacifies  the  convicted  conscience  ;  assures  the  sinner  that 
he  may  find  instant  salvation  in  Christ ;  and  so  makes  possible  a  new  life 
of  holiness,  while  at  the  same  time  it  furnishes  the  highest  incentives  to 
such  a  life. 


706  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION. 

Shedd  ;  "  The  offended  party  ( 1 )  permits  a  substitution  ;  ( 2 )  provides  a  substitute ; 
(3)  substitutes  himself."  George  Eliot :  "Justice  is  like  the  kingdom  of  God;  it  is 
not  without  us,  as  a  fact ;  it  is  '  within  us,'  as  a  great  yearning."  But  it  is  both  without 
and  within,  and  the  inward  is  only  the  reflection  of  the  outward;  the  subjective 
demands  of  conscience  only  reflect  the  objective  demands  of  holiness. 

And  yet,  while  this  view  of  the  atonement  exalts  the  holiness  of  God,  it  surpasses 
every  other  view  in  its  moving  exhibition  of  God's  love  —  a  love  that  is  not  satisfied 
with  suffering  in  and  with  the  sinner,  or  with  making  that  suffering  a  demonstration 
of  God's  regard  for  law  ;  but  a  love  that  sinks  itself  into  the  sinner's  guilt  and  bears 
his  penalty,  —  comes  down  so  low  as  to  make  itself  one  with  him  in  all  but  his  deprav- 
ity—  makes  every  sacrifice  but  the  sacrifice  of  God's  holiness  — a  sacrifice  which  God 
could  not  make,  without  ceasing  to  be  God  ;  see  1  John  4 ;  10—  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." 

The  soldier  who  had  been  thought  reprobate  was  moved  to  complete  reform  when 
he  was  once  foi-given.  William  Huntington,  in  his  Autobiography,  sas's  that  one  of 
his  sharpest  sensations  of  pain,  after  he  had  been  quickened  by  divine  grace,  was  that 
he  felt  such  pity  for  God.  Never  was  man  abused  as  God  has  been.  Rom.  2:4  —  " the  good- 
ness of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance  "  ;  12 : 1  —  "  the  mercies  of  God  "  lead  you  "  to  present  your  bodies  a  living 
sacrifice  " ;  2  Cor.  5 :  14,  15  —  "  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us ;  because  we  thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  there- 
fore all  died ;  and  he  died  for  all,  that  they  that  live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  who  for  their 
sakes  died  and  rose  again."  The  effect  of  Christ's  atonement  on  Christian  character  and  life 
may  be  illustrated  from  the  proclamation  of  Garabaldi :  "  He  that  loves  Italy,  let  him 
follow  me  1  I  promise  him  hardship,  I  promise  him  suffering,  I  promise  him  death. 
But  he  that  loves  Italy,  let  him  follow  me ! " 

D.     Objections  to  the  Ethical  Theory  of  the  Atonement. 

On  the  general  subject  of  these  objections,  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  rv,  2 :  156-180, 
remarks:  (1)  that  it  rests  with  God  alone  to  say  whether  he  will  pardon  sin,  and  in 
what  way  he  will  pardon  it ;  (2)  that  human  instincts  are  a  very  unsafe  standard  by 
which  to  judge  the  procedure  of  the  Governor  of  the  universe ;  and  ( 3 )  that  one  plain 
declaration  of  God,  with  regard  to  the  plan  of  salvation,  proves  the  fallacy  and  error 
of  all  reasonings  against  it.  We  must  correct  our  watches  and  clocks  by  astronomic 
standards. 

(  a )  That  a  God  who  does  not  pardon  sin  without  atonement  must  lack 
either  omnipotence  or  love.  — We  answer,  on  the  one  hand,  that  God's 
omnipotence  is  the  revelation  of  his  nature,  and  not  a  matter  of  arbitrary 
will  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  God's  love  is  ever  exercised  consistently 
with  his  fundamental  attribute  of  holiness,  so  that  while  holiness  demands 
the  sacrifice,  love  provides  it.  Mercy  is  shown,  not  by  trampling  upon 
the  claims  of  justice,  but  by  vicariously  satisfying  them. 

Because  man  does  not  need  to  avenge  personal  wrongs,  it  does  not  follow  that  God 
must  not.  In  fact,  such  avenging  is  forbidden  to  us  upon  the  ground  that  it  belongs  to 
God  ;  Rom.  12 :  19  —  "  Avenge  not  yourselves,  beloved,  but  give  place  unto  wrath :  for  it  is  written,  Vengeance 
belongeth  unto  me ;  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord."  But  there  are  limits  even  to  our  passing  over 
of  offences.  Even  the  father  must  sometimes  chastise ;  and  although  this  chastisement 
is  not  properly  punishment,  it  becomes  punishment,  when  the  father  becomes  a  teacher 
or  a  governor.  Then,  other  than  personal  interests  come  in.  "  Because  a  father  can 
forgive  without  atonement,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  state  can  do  the  same  "  ( Shedd ). 
But  God  is  more  than  Father,  more  than  Teacher,  more  than  Governor.  In  him,  person 
and  right  are  identical.  For  him  to  let  sin  go  unpunished  is  to  approve  of  it ;  which  is 
the  same  as  a  denial  of  holiness. 

Whatever  pardon  is  granted,  then,  must  be  pardon  through  punishment.  Mere 
repentance  never  expiates  crime,  even  under  civil  government.  The  truly  penitent 
man  never  feels  that  his  repentance  constitutes  a  ground  of  acceptance ;  the  more  he 
repents,  the  more  he  recognizes  his  need  of  reparation  and  expiation.  Hence  God 
meets  the  demand  of  man's  conscience,  as  well  as  of  his  own  holiness,  when  he  provides 
a  substituted  punishment.  God  shows  his  love  by  meeting  the  demands  of  holiness, 
and  by  meeting  them  with  the  sacrifice  of  himself.    See  Mozley  on  Pedestination,  390. 

The  publican  prays,  not  that  God  may  be  merciful  without  sacrifice,  but :  "God  be  pro- 
pitiated toward  me,  the  sinner ! "  ( Luke  18 :  13 ) ;  in  other  words,  he  asks  for  mercy  only  through 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    ETHICAL  THEORY.  76? 

and  upon  the  ground  of,  sacrifice.  We  cannot  atone  to  others  for  the  wrong-  we  have 
done  them,  nor  can  we  even  atone  to  our  own  souls.  A  third  party,  and  an  infinite 
being-,  must  make  atonement,  as  we  cannot.  It  is  only  upon  the  ground  that  God 
himself  has  made  provision  for  satisfying^the  claims  of  justice,  that  we  are  bidden  to 
f i >rgive  others.  Should  Othello  then  forgive  Iago?  Yes,  if  Iago  repents;  Lukel7:3  — 
"  If  thy  brother  sin,  rebuke  him  ;  and  if  ho  repent,  forgive  him."  But  if  he  does  not  repent?  Yes,  so 
far  as  Othello's  own  disposition  is  concerned.  He  must  not  hate  Iago,  but  must  wish 
him  well;  Luke  6: 27  —  "  Love  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  pray  for 
them  that  despitefully  use  you."  But  he  cannot  receive  Iago  to  his  fellowship  till  he  repents. 
On  the  duty  and  ground  of  forgiving  one  another,  see  Martineau,  Scat  of  Authority, 
613,  Oil ;  Straffen,  Hulsean  Lectures  on  the  Propitiation  for  Sin. 

(b)  That  satisfaction  and  forgiveness  are  mutually  exclusive.  —  We 
answer  that,  since  it  is  not  a  third  party,  but  the  Judge  himself,  who  makes 
satisfaction  to  his  own  violated  holiness,  forgiveness  is  still  optional,  and 
may  be  offered  upon  terms  agreeable  to  himself.  Christ's  sacrifice  is  not 
a  pecuniary,  but  a  penal,  satisfaction.  The  objection  is  valid  against  the 
merely  commercial  view  of  the  atonement,  not  against  the  ethical  view  of  it. 

Forgiveness  is  something  beyond  the  mere  taking  away  of  penalty.  When  a  man 
bears  the  penalty  of  his  crime,  has  the  community  no  right  to  be  indignant  with  hirnY 
There  is  a  distinction  between  pecuniary  and  penal  satisfaction.  Pecuniary  satisfac- 
tion has  respect  only  to  the  ihing  due ;  penal  satisfaction  has  respect  also  to  the  person 
of  the  offender.  If  pardon  is  a  matter  of  justice  in  God's  government,  it  is  so  only  as 
respects  Christ.  To  the  recipient  it  is  only  mercy.  "  Faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins  " 
( 1  John  1:9)  =  faithful  to  his  promise,  and  righteous  to  Christ.  Neither  the  atonement, 
nor  the  promise,  gives  the  offender  any  personal  claim. 

Philemon  must  forgive  Onesimus  the  pecuniary  debt,  when  Paul  pays  it ;  not  so 
with  the  personal  injury  Onesimus  has  done  to  Philemon  ;  there  is  no  forgiveness  of 
this,  until  Onesimus  repents  and  asks  pardon.  An  amucsty  may  be  offered  to  all,  but 
upon  conditions.  Instance  Amos  Lawrence's  offering  to  the  forger  the  forged  paper 
he  had  bought  up,  upon  condition  that  he  would  confess  himself  bankrupt,  and  put  all 
his  affairs  into  the  hands  of  his  benefactor.  So  the  fact  that  Christ  has  paid  our  debts 
does  not  preclude  his  offering  to  us  the  benefit  of  what  he  has  done,  upon  condition  of 
our  repentance  and  faith.  The  equivalent  is  not  furnished  by  man,  but  by  God.  God 
mas'  therefore  offer  the  results  of  it  upon  his  own  terms.  Did  then  the  entire  race 
fairly  pay  its  penalty  when  one  suffered,  just  as  all  incurred  the  penalty  when  one 
sinned?  Yes, —  all  who  receive  their  life  from  each  — Adam  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Christ  on  the  other.  See  under  Union  with  Christ  —  its  Consequences;  see  also  Shedd, 
Discourses  and  Essays,  295  note,  321,  and  Dogm.  Theol.,  2:383-369;  Dorner,  Glauben- 
slehre,  2 :  614-615  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4 :  82, 83 ).    Versus  Current  Discussions  in  Theology,  5 :  281. 

Hovey  calls  Christ's  relation  to  human  sin  a  vice-penal  one.  Just  as  vice-regal  posi- 
tion carries  with  it  all  the  responsibility,  care,  and  anxiety  of  regal  authority,  so  does  a 
vice-penal  relation  to  sin  carry  with  it  all  the  suffering  and  loss  of  the  original  punish- 
ment. The  pei-son  on  whom  it  falls  is  different,  but  his  punishment  is  the  same,  at 
least  in  penal  value.  As  vice-regal  authority  may  be  superseded  by  regal,  so  vice- 
penal  suffering,  if  despised,  may  be  superseded  by  the  original  penalty.  Is  there  a 
waste  of  vice-penal  suffering  when  any  are  lost  for  whom  it  was  endured  ?  On  the 
same  principle  we  might  object  to  any  suffering  on  the  part  of  Christ  for  those  who 
refuse  to  be  saved  by  him.  Such  suffering  may  benefit  others,  if  not  those  for  whom 
it  was  in  the  first  instance  endured. 

If  compensation  is  made,  it  is  said,  there  is  nothing  to  forgive;  if  forgiveness  is 
granted,  no  compensation  can  be  required.  This  reminds  us  of  Narvaez,  who  saw  no 
reason  for  forgiving  his  enemies  until  he  had  shot  them  all.  When  the  offended  party 
furnishes  the  compensation,  he  can  offer  its  benefits  upon  his  own  terms.  Dr.  Pente- 
cost :  "  A  prisoner  in  Scotland  was  brought  before  the  Judge.  As  the  culprit  entered 
the  box,  he  looked  into  the  face  of  the  Judge  to  see  if  he  could  discover  mercy  there. 
The  Judge  and  the  prisoner  exchanged  glances,  and  then  there  came  a  mutual  recog- 
nition. The  prisoner  said  to  himself :  '  It  is  all  right  this  time,'  for  the  Judge  had 
been  his  classmate  in  Edinburgh  University  twenty-five  years  before.  When  sentence 
was  pronounced,  it  was  five  pounds  sterling,  the  limit  of  the  law  for  the  misdemeanor 
charged,  and  the  culprit  was  sorely  disappointed  as  he  was  led  away  to  prison.    But 


768  CHRISTOLOGY,   OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

the  Judge  went  at  once  and  paid  the  flue,  telling  the  clerk  to  write  the  man's  discharge. 
This  the  Judge  delivered  in  person,  explaining  that  the  demands  of  thelawmust.be 
met,  and  having  been  met,  the  man  was  free." 

(  c  )  That  there  can  be  no  real  propitiation,  since  the  judge  and  the  sacri- 
fice are  one.  — We  answer  that  this  objection  ignores  the  existence  of  per- 
sonal relations  within  the  divine  nature,  and  the  fact  that  the  God-man  is 
distinguishable  from  God.  The  satisfaction  is  grounded  in  the  distinction 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  while  the  love  in  which  it  originates  belongs 
to  the  unity  of  the  divine  essence. 

The  satisfaction  is  not  rendered  to  a  part  of  the  Godhead,  for  the  whole  Godhead  is 
in  the  Father,  in  a  certain  manner;  as  omnipresence  =totU8  in  omni  parte.  So  the 
offering  is  perfect,  because  the  whole  Godhead  is  also  in  Christ  (2  Cor.  5:19  — "God  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself" ).  Lyman  Abbott  says  that  the  word  "  propitiate  "  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  the  middle  voice,  to  show  that  God  propitiates 
himself.  Lyttelton,  in  Lux  Mundi,  302  —  "The  Atonement  is  undoubtedly  a  mystery 
but  all  forgiveness  is  a  mystery.  It  avails  to  lift  the  load  of  guilt  that  presses  upon  an 
offender.  A  change  passes  over  him  that  can  only  be  described  as  regenerative,  life- 
giving  ;  and  thus  the  assurance  of  pardon,  however  conveyed,  may  be  said  to  obliterate 
in  some  degree  the  consequences  of  the  past.  310 —  Christ  bore  sufferings,  not  that  we 
might  be  freed  from  them,  for  we  have  deserved  them,  but  that  we  might  be  enabled 
to  bear  them,  as  he  did,  victoriously  and  in  unbroken  union  with  God." 

( d )  That  the  suffering  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  is  not  an  execution 
of  justice,  but  an  act  of  manifest  injustice.  — We  answer,  that  this  is  true 
only  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Son  bears  the  penalty  of  our  sins,  not 
voluntarily,  but  compulsorily ;  or  upon  the  supposition  that  one  who  is 
personally  innocent  can  in  no  way  become  involved  in  the  guilt  and  penalty 
of  others,  —  both  of  them  hypotheses  contrary  to  Scripture  and  to  fact. 

The  mystery  of  the  atonement  lies  in  the  fact  of  unmerited  sufferings  on  the  part  of 
Christ.  Over  against  this  stands  the  corresponding  mystery  of  unmerited  pardon  to 
believers.  We  have  attempted  to  show  that,  while  Christ  was  personally  innocent,  he 
was  so  involved  with  others  in  the  consequences  of  the  Fall,  that  the  guilt  and  penalty 
of  the  race  belonged  to  him  to  bear.  When  we  discuss  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  we 
Bhall  see  that,  by  a  similar  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  Christ's  justification 
bscomes  ours. 

To  one  who  believes  in  Christ  as  the  immanent  God,  the  life  of  humanity,  the  Crea- 
tor and  Upholder  of  mankind,  the  bearing  by  Christ  of  the  just  punishment  of  human 
sin  seems  inevitable.  The  very  laws  of  nature  are  only  the  manifestation  of  his  holi- 
ness, and  he  who  thus  reveals  God  is  also  subject  to  God's  law.  The  historical  process 
which  culminated  on  Calvary  was  the  manifestation  of  an  age-long  suffering  endured 
by  Christ  on  account  of  his  connection  with  the  race  from  the  very  first  moment 
of  their  sin.  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  80-83  —  "  A  God  of  love  and  holiness 
must  be  a  God  of  suffering  just  so  certainly  as  there  is  sin.  Paul  declares  that  he  fills 
up  "that  which  is  lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  ....  for  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church  "  ( CoL  1  :  24 ) ; 
in  other  words,  Christ  still  suffers  in  the  believers  who  are  his  body.  The  historical  suf- 
fering indeed  is  ended;  the  agony  of  Golgotha  is  finished;  the  days  when  joy  was 
swallowed  up  in  sorrow  are  past;  death  has  no  more  dominion  over  our  Lord.  But  sorrow 
for  sin  is  not  ended  ;  it  still  continues  and  will  continue  so  long  as  sin  exists.  But  it 
does  not  now  militate  against  Christ's  blessedness,  because  the  sorrow  is  overbalanced 
and  overborne  by  the  infinite  knowledge  and  glory  of  his  divine  nature.  Bushnell  and 
Beecher  were  right  when  they  maintained  that  suffering  for  sin  was  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  Christ's  relation  to  the  sinning  creation.  They  were  wrong  in  mistaking 
the  nature  of  that  suffering  and  in  not  seeing  that  the  constitution  of  things  which 
necessitates  it,  since  it  is  the  expression  of  God's  holiness,  gives  that  suffering  a  penal 
character  and  makes  Christ  a  substitutionary  offering  for  the  sins  of  the  world." 

(  e  )  That  there  can  be  no  transfer  of  punishment  or  merit,  since  these 
are  personal. — We  answer  that  the  idea  of  rejoresentation  and  suretyship 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    ETHICAL   THEORY.  7G9 

is  coiuinon  in  liuman  society  and  government ;  and  that  such  representa- 
tion and  suretyship  are  inevitable,  wherever  there  is  community  of  life 
between  the  innocent  and  the  guilty.  When  Christ  took  our  nature,  he 
could  not  do  otherwise  than  take  our  responsibilities  also. 

Christ  became  responsible  for  the  humanity  with  which  he  was  organically  one. 
Both  poets  and  historians  have  recognized  the  propriety  of  one  member  of  a  house,  or 
a  race,  answering  for  another.  Antigone  expiates  the  crime  of  her  house.  Marcus 
Curtius  holds  himself  l'eady  to  die  for  his  nation.  Louis  XVI  has  been  called  a  "sacri- 
ficial lamb,"  offered  up  for  the  crimes  of  his  race.  So  Christ's  sacrifice  is  of  benefit  to 
the  whole  family  of  man,  because  he  is  one  with  that  family.  But  here  is  the  limita- 
tion also.  It  does  not  extend  to  angels,  because  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of 
angels  (Heb.  2  :  16  —  "  For  verily  not  of  the  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he  taketh  hold  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  "  ) 

"A  strange  thing  happened  recently  in  one  of  our  courts  of  justice.  A  young  man 
was  asked  why  the  extreme  penalty  should  not  be  passed  upon  him.  At  that  moment, 
a  gray-haired  man,  his  face  furrowed  with  sorrow,  stepped  into  the  prisoner's  box 
unhindered,  placed  his  hand  affectionately  upon  the  culprit's  shoulder,  and  said: 
'  Your  honor,  we  have  nothing  to  say.  The  verdict  which  has  been  found  against  us 
is  just.  We  have  only  to  ask  for  mercy.'  'We!'  There  was  nothing  against  this  old 
lather.  Yet,  at  that  moment  he  lost  himself.  He  identified  his  very  being  with  that 
of  his  wayward  boy.  Do  you  not  pity  the  criminal  son  because  of  your  pity  for  hia 
aged  and  sorrowing  father?  Because  he  has  so  suffered,  is  not  your  demand  that  the 
son  suffer  somewhat  mitigated?  Will  not  the  judge  modify  his  sentence  on  that 
account  ?  Nature  knows  no  forgiveness ;  but  human  nature  does ;  and  it  is  not  nature, 
but  human  nature,  that  is  made  in  the  image  of  God  "  ;  see  Prof.  A.  S.  Coats,  in  The 
Examiner,  Sept.  12, 1889. 

(/)  That  remorse,  as  a  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin,  could  not  have  been 
suffered  by  Christ. —  We  answer,  on  the  one  hand,  that  it  may  not  be  essen- 
tial to  the  idea  of  penalty  that  Christ  should  have  borne  the  identical 
pangs  which  the  lost  would  have  endured  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
we  do  not  know  how  completely  a  perfectly  holy  being,  possessed  of  super- 
human knowledge  and  love,  might  have  felt  even  the  pangs  of  remorse  for 
the  condition  of  that  humanity  of  which  he  was  the  central  conscience  and 
heart. 

Instance  the  lawyer,  mourning  the  fall  of  a  star  of  his  profession ;  the  woman,  filled 
with  shame  by  the  degradation  of  one  of  her  own  sex  :  the  father,  anguished  by  his 
daughter's  waywardness;  the  Christian,  crushed  by  the  sins  of  the  church  and  the 
world.  The  self-isolating  spirit  cannot  conceive  how  perfectly  love  and  holiness  can 
make  their  own  the  sin  of  the  race  of  which  they  are  a  part. 

Simon,  Reconciliation,  ;366  —  "  Inasmuch  as  the  sin  of  the  human  race  culminated  in 
the  crucifixion  whieh  crowned  Christ's  own  sufferings,  clearly  the  hfe  of  humanity 
entering  him  subconsciously  must  have  been  most  completely  laden  with  sin  and  with 
the  fear  of  death  which  is  its  fruit,  at  the  very  moment  when  he  himself  was  enduring 
death  in  its  most  terrible  form.  Of  necessity  therefore  he  felt  as  if  he  were  the  sinner 
Of  sinners,  and  cried  out  in  agony  :  'My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?    (  Mat.  27  :  46)." 

Christ  could  realize  our  penal  condition.  Beings  who  have  a  like  spiritual  nature  can 
realize  and  bear  the  spiritual  sufferings  of  one  another.  David's  sorrow  was  not 
unjust,  when  he  cried  :  "  Would  I  had  died  for  thee,  0  Absalom,  my  son,  my  son !  "  (2  Sam.  18  :  33  ).  Mob- 
erly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  117  —  "  Is  penitence  possible  in  the  personally  sinless  ? 
We  answer  that  only  one  who  is  perfectly  sinless  can  perfectly  repent,  and  this  identi- 
fication of  the  sinless  with  the  sinner  is  vital  to  the  gospel."  Lucy  Larcoin  :  "  There  be 
sad  women,  sick  and  poor.  And  those  who  walk  in  garments  soiled  ;  Their  shame,  their 
sorrow  I  endure ;  By  their  defeat  my  hope  is  foiled ;  The  blot  they  bear  is  on  my  name  ; 
Who  sins,  and  I  am  not  to  blame?" 

(g  )  That  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  finite  in  time,  do  not  constitute  a 
satisfaction  to  the  infinite  demands  of  the  law. — We  answer  that  the  infi- 
nite dignity  of  the  sufferer  constitutes  his  sufferings  a  full  equivalent,  in 
the  eye  of  infinite  justice.     Substitution  excludes  identity  of  suffering  ;  it 
49 


770  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION". 

does  not  exclude  equivalence.  Since  justice  aims  its  penalties  not  so  much 
at  the  person  as  at  the  sin,  it  may  admit  equivalent  suffering,  when  this  if? 
endured  in  the  very  nature  that  has  sinned. 

The  sufferings  of  a  dog,  and  of  a  man,  have  different  values.  Death  is  the  wagep  of 
sin ;  and  Christ,  in  suffering  death,  suffered  our  penalty.  Eternity  of  suffering  is  unes- 
sential to  the  idea  of  penalty.  A  finite  being  cannot  exhaust  an  infinite  curse ;  but  an 
infinite  being  can  exhaust  it,  in  a  few  brief  hours.  Shedd,  Discourses  and  Essays,  307— 
"A  golden  eagle  is  worth  a  thousand  copper  cents.  The  penalty  paid  by  Christ  is 
strictly  and  literally  equivalent  to  that  which  the  sinner  would  have  borne,  although  it 
is  not  identical.  The  vicarious  bearing  of  it  excludes  the  latter."  Andrew  Fuller 
thought  Christ  would  have  had  to  suffer  just  as  much,  if  only  one  sinner  were  to  have 
been  saved  thereby. 

The  atonement  is  a  unique  fact,  only  partially  illustrated  by  debt  and  penalty.  Yet 
the  terms  'purchase  '  and  'ransom'  are  Scriptural,  and  mean  simply  that  the  justice 
of  God  punishes  sin  as  it  deserves ;  and  that,  having  determined  what  is  deserved,  God 
cannot  change.  See  Owen,  quoted  in  Campbell  on  Atonement,  58,  59.  Christ's  sacrifice, 
since  it  is  absolutely  infinite,  can  have  nothing  added  to  it.  If  Christ's  sacrifice  satis- 
fies the  Judge  of  all,  it  may  well  satisfy  us. 

(  h  )  That  if  Christ's  passive  obedience  made  satisfaction  to  the  divine 
justice,  then  his  active  obedience  was  superfluous. — We  answer  that  the 
active  obedience  and  the  passive  obedience  are  inseparable.  The  latter  is 
essential  to  the  former ;  and  both  are  needed  to  secure  for  the  sinner,  on 
the  one  hand,  pardon,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  which  goes  beyond 
pardon,  namely,  restoration  to  the  divine  favor.  The  objection  holds  only 
against  a  superficial  and  external  view  of  the  atonement. 

For  more  full  exposition  of  this  point,  see  our  treatment  of  Justification ;  and  also, 
Owen,  in  Works,  5  :  175  204.  Both  the  active  and  the  passive  obedience  of  Christ  are 
insisted  on  by  the  apostle  Paul.  Opposition  to  the  Pauline  theology  is  opposition  to 
the  gospel  of  Christ.  Charles  Cuthbert  Hall,  Universal  Elements  of  the  Christian 
Religion,  140  —  "  The  effects  of  this  are  already  appearing  in  the  impoverished  religious 
values  of  the  sermons  produced  by  the  younger  generation  of  preachers,  and  the 
deplorable  decline  of  spiritual  life  and  knowledge  in  many  churches.  Results  open  to 
observation  show  that  the  movement  to  simplify  the  Christian  essence  by  discarding 
the  theology  of  St.  Paul  easily  carries  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  pulpit  to  a  position 
where,  for  those  who  submit  to  that  teaching,  the  characteristic  experiences  of  the 
Christian  life  became  practically  impossible.  The  Christian  sense  of  sin ;  Christian 
penitence  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross;  Christian  faith  in  an  atoning  Savior;  Christian 
peace  with  God  through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ  —these  and  other  experiences, 
which  were  the  very  life  of  apostles  and  apostolic  souls,  fade  from  the  view  of  the 
ministry,  have  no  meaning  for  the  younger  generation." 

( i )  That  the  doctrine  is  immoral  in  its  practical  tendencies,  since 
Christ's  obedience  takes  the  place  of  ours,  and  renders  ours  unnecessary.  — 
We  answer  that  the  objection  ignores  not  only  the  method  by  which  the 
benefits  of  the  atonement  are  appropriated,  namely,  repentance  and  faith, 
but  also  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  power  bestowed  upon  all  who 
believe.  Faith  in  the  atonement  does  not  induce  license,  but  "works by 
love  "  (  Gal.  5:6)  and  "  cleanses  the  heart "  ( Acts  15  :  9 ). 

Water  is  of  little  use  to  a  thirsty  man,  if  he  will  not  drink.  The  faith  which  accepts 
Christ  ratifies  all  that  Christ  has  done,  and  takes  Christ  as  a  new  principle  of  life.  Paul 
bids  Philemon  receive  Onesimus  as  himself,—  not  the  old  Onesimus,  but  a  new  Ouesimus 
into  whom  the  spirit  of  Paul  has  entered  (  Philemon  17).  So  God  receives  us  as  new  crea- 
tures in  Christ.  Though  we  cannot  earn  salvation,  we  must  take  it ;  and  this  taking  it 
involves  a  surrender  of  heart  and  life  which  ensures  union  with  Christ  and  moral  pro- 
gress. 

What  shall  be  done  to  the  convicted  murderer  who  tears  up  the  pardon  which  his 
wife's  prayers  and  tears  have  secured  from  the  Governor?    Nothing  remains  but  to 


EXTENT   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  771 

execute  the  sentence  of  the  law.  Hon.  George  F.  Danforth,  Justice  of  the  Now  York 
State  Court  of  Appeals,  ina  private  letter  says:  "Although  it  may  be  stated  in  a  general 

way  that  a  pardon  reaches  both  the  punishment  prescribed  for  the  offence  and  theguilt 
of  the  offender,  so  that  in  the  eye  of  the  ftlw  he  is  as  innocent  as  if  he  had  never  com- 
mitted the  offence,  the  pardon  making  him  as  it  were  a  new  man  with  a  new  credit  and 
capacity,  yet  a  delivery  of  the  pardon  is  essential  to  its  validity,  and  delivery  is  not 
complete  without  acceptance.  It  cannot  be  forced  upon  him.  In  that  respect  it  is 
like  a  deed.  The  delivery  maybe  in  person  to  the  offender  or  to  his  agent,  and  its 
acceptance  may  be  proved  by  circumstances  like  any  other  fact." 

(j  )  That  if  the  atonement  requires  faith  as  its  complement,  then  it  Joes 
not  in  itself  furnish  a  complete  satisfaction  to  God's  justice. — We  answer 
that  faith  is  not  the  ground  of  our  acceptance  'with  God,  as  the  atonement 
is,  and  so  is  not  a  work  at  all ;  faith  is  only  the  medium  of  appropriation. 
We  are  saved  not  by  faith,  or  on  account  of  faith,  but  only  through  faith. 
It  is  not  faith,  but  the  atonement  which  faith  accepts,  that  satisfies  the 
justice  of  God. 

Illustrate  by  the  amnesty  granted  to  a  city,  upon  conditions  to  be  accepted  by  each 
inhabitant.  The  acceptance  is  not  the  ground  upon  which  the  amnesty  is  granted ;  it  is 
the  medium  through  which  the  benefits  of  the  amnesty  are  enjoyed.  With  regard  to 
the  difficulties  connected  with  the  atonement,  we  may  say,  in  conclusion,  with  Bishop 
Butler :  "If  the  Scripture  has,  as  surely  it  has,  left  this  matter  of  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  mysterious,  left  somewhat  in  it  unrevealcd,  all  conjectures  about  it  must  be,  if 
not  evidently  absurd,  yet  at  least  uncertain.  Nor  has  any  one  reason  to  complain  for 
want  of  further  information,  unless  he  can  show  his  claim  to  it."  While  we  cannot  say 
with  President  Stearns :  "Christ's  work  removed  the  hindrances  in  the  eternal  justice 
of  the  universe  to  the  pardon  of  the  sinner,  but  how  we  cannot  tell "  —  cannot  say  this, 
because  we  believe  the  main  outlines  of  the  plan  of  salvation  to  be  revealed  in  Script- 
ure—yet we  grant  that  many  questions  remain  unsolved.  But,  as  bread  nourishes 
even  those  who  know  nothing  of  its  chemical  constituents,  or  of  the  method  of  its 
digestion  and  assimilation,  so  t  be  atonement  of  Christ  saves  those  who  accept  it,  even 
though  they  do  not  know  how  it  saves  them.  Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  ~*»-t— ~67  — 
"Heat  was  once  thought  to  be  a  form  of  matter;  now  it  is  regarded  as  a  mode  of 
motion.  We  can  get  the  good  of  it,  whichever  theory  we  adopt,  or  even  if  we  have 
no  theory.  Bo  we  may  get  the  good  of  reconciliation  with  God,  even  though  we  differ 
as  to  our  theory  of  tlic  Atonement."  — "  One  of  the  Roman  Emperors  commanded  his 
fleet  to  bring  from  Alexandria  sand  for  the  arena,  although  his  people  at  Rome  were 
visited  with  famine.  But  a  certain  shipmaster  declared  that,  whatever  the  emperor 
commanded,  his  ship  should  bring  wheat.  So,  whatever  sand  others  may  bring  to 
starving  human  souls,  let  us  bring  to  them  the  wheat  of  the  gospel  —  the  substitution- 
ary atonement  of  Jestis  Christ."  For  answers  to  objections,  see  Philippi,  Glaubens- 
lehre,  iv,  2:156-180;  Crawford,  Atonement,  384-468;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2:536-543; 
Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  623  sq.;  Wm.  Thomson,  The  Atoning  Work  of  Christ;  Hop- 
kins, Works,  1 :  321. 

E.     The  Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

The  Scriptures  represent  the  atonement  as  having  been  made  for  all  men, 
and  as  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all.  Not  the  atonement  therefore  is 
limited,  but  the  application  of  the  atonement  through  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Upon  this  principle  of  a  universal  atonement,  but  a  special  application 
of  it  to  the  elect,  we  must  interpret  such  passages  as  Eph.  1  :  4,  7  ;  2  Tim. 
1:9,  10;  John  17  :  9,  20,  24  —  asserting  a  special  efficacy  of  the  atone- 
ment in  the  case  of  the  elect ;  and  also  such  passages  as  2  Pet.  2  :  1  ;  1  John 
2:2;  Tim.  2  :  6 ;  4 :  10  ;  Tit.  2  :  11— asserting  that  the  death  of  Christ 
is  for  all. 

Passages  asserting  special  efficacy  of  the  atonement,  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  are  the 
following  :    Eph.  1:4—  "chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without 


772  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REUEMPTION". 

blemish  before  him  in  love  " ;  7  — "  in  whom  we  have  our  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  our  tres- 
passes, according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace ;"  2  Tim.  1  :  9,  10  —  God  "  who  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling, 
not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before 
times  eternal,  but  hath  now  been  manifested  by  the  appearing  of  our  Savior  Christ  Jesus,  who  abolished  death,  and 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel ";  John  17  :  9  — "I  pray  for  them :  I  pray  not  for  the  world, 
but  for  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me";  20 — "Neither  for  these  only  do  I  pray,  but  for  them  also  that  believe  on  me 
through  their  word  ";  24  — "Father,  that  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  desire  that  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with 
me  ;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me," 

Passages  asserting  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  for  all  are  the  following: :  2  Pet.  2:1  — 
"false  teachers,  who  shall  privily  bnng  in  destructive  heresies,  denying  even  the  Master  that  bought  them";  1  John 
2:2 — "and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world";  ITim.  2:6  — 
Christ  Jesus  "  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all ";  4  :  10  — "  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  specially 
of  them  that  believe  ";  Tit.  2  :  11  — "For  the  grace  of  God  hath  appeared,  bringing  salvation  to  all  men."  Rom.  3  :  22 
( A.  V. ) — "  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe" — has  sometimes  been  interpreted  as  meaning; 
"  unto  all  men,  and  upon  all  believers"  ( eis  =  destination ;  €tu  =  extent).  But  the  Rev. 
Vers,  omits  the  words  "and  upon  all,"  and  Meyer,  who  retains  the  words,  remarks  that 
tous  Tri(TT(vovTa<;  belongs  to  rrai'ra?  in  both  instances. 

Unconscious  participation  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  by  virtue  of  our  common 
humanity  in  him,  makes  us  the  heirs  of  much  temporal  blessing.  Conscious  participa- 
tion in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  by  virtue  of  our  faith  in  him  and  his  work  for  us,  gives 
us  justification  and  eternal  life.  Matthew  Henry  said  that  the  Atonement  is  "  sufficient 
for  all;  effectual  for  many."  J.  M.  Whiton,  in  The  Outlook,  Sept.  25,  18'J7— "It  was 
Samuel  Hopkins  of  Rhode  Island  (1721-1803)  who  first  declared  that  Christ  had  made 
atonement  for  all  men,  not  for  the  elect  part  alone,  as  Calviuists  affirmed."  We  should 
say  "as  some  Calvinists  affirmed"  ;  for,  as  we  shall  see,  John  Calvin  himself  declared 
that  "  Christ  suffered  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  Alfred  Tennyson  once  asked  an 
old  Methodist  woman  what  was  the  news.  "  Why,  Mr.  Tennyson,  there  's  only  one  piece 
of  news  that  I  know,—  that  Christ  died  for  all  men."  And  he  said  to  her :  "  That  is  old 
news,  and  good  news,  and  new  news." 

If  it  be  asked  in  what  sense  Christ  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  we  reply : 
(  a )     That  the  atonement  of  Christ  secures  for  all  men  a  delay  in  the 
execution  of  the  sentence  against  sin,  and  a  space  for  repentance,  together 
with  a  continuance  of  the  common  blessings  of  life  which  have  been  for- 
feited by  transgression. 

If  strict  justice  had  been  executed,  the  race  would  have  been  cut  off  at  the  first  sin. 
That  man  lives  after  sinning,  is  due  wholly  to  the  Cross.  There  is  a  pretermission,  or 
"passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God  "  (  Rom.  3  :  25),  the  justification  of  which 
is  found  only  in  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary.  This  "passing  over,"  however,  is  limited  in  its 
duration  :  see  Acts  17  :  30,  31  —  "  The  times  of  ignorance  therefore  God  overlooked  ;  but  now  he  commandeth  men 
that  they  should  all  everywhere  repent:  inasmuch  as  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath  ordained." 

One  may  get  the  benefit  of  the  law  of  gravitation  without  understanding  much  about 
its  nature,  and  patriarchs  and  heathen  have  doubtless  been  saved  through  Christ's 
atonement,  although  they  have  never  heard  his  name,  but  have  only  cast  themselves  as 
helpless  sinners  upon  the  mercy  of  God.  That  mercy  of  God  was  Christ,  though  they 
did  not  know  it.  Our  modern  pious  Jews  will  experience  a  strange  surprise  when  they 
find  that  not  only  forgiveness  of  sin  but  every  other  blessing  of  life  has  cdhie  to  them 
through  the  crucified  Jesus.  Matt.  8  :  11 — "many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Dr.  G.  W.  Northrup  held  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  universal  in  three  respects :  1.  It 
reconciled  God  to  the  whole  race,  apart  from  personal  transgression  ;  2.  It  secured  the 
bestowment  upon  all  of  common  grace,  and  the  means  of  common  grace ;  3.  It  rendered 
certain  the  bestowment  of  eternal  life  upon  all  who  would  so  use  common  grace  and 
the  means  of  common  grace  as  to  make  it  morally  possible  for  God  as  a  wise  and  holy 
Governor  to  grant  his  special  and  renewing  grace. 

(  6 )  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  has  made  objective  provision  for  the 
salvation  of  all,  by  removing  from  the  divine  mind  every  obstacle  to  the 
pardon  and  restoration  of  sinners,  except  their  wilful  opposition  to  God 
and  refusal  to  turn  to  him. 


Christ's  work  of  intercession.  773 

Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  604 — "On  God's  side,  all  is  now  taken  away  which  could 
make  a  separation, —  unless  any  should  themselves  choose  to  remain  separated  from 
him."  The  gospel  message  is  not :  God  will  forgive  if  you  return  ;  but  rather :  God  has 
shown  mercy;  only  believe,  and  it  is  your  portion  in  Christ. 

Ashmore,  The  New  Trial  of  the  Sinner,  in  Christian  Review,  26  :  245-264— "The  atone- 
ment has  come  to  all  men  and  upon  all  men.  Its  coe'xtensiveness  with  the  effects  of 
Adam's  sin  is  seen  in  that  all  creatures,  such  as  infants  and  insane  persons,  incapable  of 
refusing  it,  are  saved  without  their  consent,  just  as  they  were  involved  in  the  sin  of 
Adam  without  their  consent.  The  reason  why  others  are  not  saved  is  because  when  the 
atonement  comes  to  them  and  upon  them,  instead  of  consenting  to  be  included  in  it, 
they  reject  it.  If  they  are  born  under  the  curse,  so  likewise  they  are  born  under  the 
atonement  which  is  intended  to  remove  that  curse ;  they  remain  under  its  shelter  till 
they  are  old  enough  to  repudiate  it ;  they  shut  out  its  influences  as  a  man  closes  his 
window-blind  to  shut  out  the  beams  of  the  sun  ;  they  ward  them  off  by  direct  opposi- 
tion, as  a  man  builds  dykes  around  his  field  to  keep  out  the  streams  which  would  other- 
wise flow  in  and  fertilize  the  soil." 

(  c  )  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  has  procured  for  all  men  the  powerful 
incentives  to  repentance  presented  in  the  Cross,  and  the  combined  agency 
of  the  Christian  church  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  these  incentives 
are  brought  to  bear  upon  them. 

Just  as  much  sun  and  rain  would  be  needed,  if  only  one  farmer  on  earth  were  to  be 
benefited.  <  'hrist  would  not  need  to  suffer  more,  if  all  were  to  be  saved.  His  sufferings, 
as  we  have  seen,  were  not  the  payment  of  a  pecuniary  debt.  Having  endured  the  pen- 
alty of  the  sinner,  justice  permits  the  sinner's  discharge,  butdoes  not  require  it,  except 
as  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise  to  his  substitute,  and  then  only  upon  the  appointed  con- 
dition of  repent ance  and  faith.  The  atonement  is  unlimited,— the  whole  human  race 
might  be  saved  through  it;  the  application  of  the  atonement  is  limited,— only  those 
who  repent  and  believe  are  actually  saved  by  it. 

Robert  G.  Farley:  "The  prospective  mother  prepares  a  complete  and  beautiful 
outfit  for  her  expected  child.  But  the  child  is  still-born.  Yet  the  outfit  was  prepared 
just  the  same  as  if  it  had  lived.  And  Christ's  work  is  completed  as  much  for  one  man 
as  for  another,  as  much  for  the  unbeliever  as  for  the  believer." 

Christ  is  specially  the  Savior  of  those  who  believe,  in  that  he  exerts  a 
special  power  of  his  Spirit  to  procure  their  acceptance  of  his  salvation. 
This  is  not,  however,  a  part  of  his  work  of  atonement ;  it  is  the  application 
of  the  atonement,  and  as  such  is  hereafter  to  be  considered. 

Among  those  who  hold  to  a  limited  atonement  is  Owen.  Campbell  quotes  him  as 
saying :  "  Christ  did  not  die  for  all  the  sins  of  all  men ;  for  if  this  were  so,  why  are  not 
all  freed  from  the  punishment  of  all  their  sins?  You  will  say, '  Because  of  their  unbe- 
lief,— they  will  not  believe.'  But  this  unbelief  is  a  sin,  and  Christ  was  punished  for  it. 
Why  then  does  this,  more  than  other  sins,  hinder  them  from  partaking  of  the  fruits 
of  his  death  V  " 

So  also  Turretin,  loc.  4,  quses.  10  and  17 ;  Symington,  Atonement,  184-234 ;  Candlish  on 
the  Atonement;  Cunnningliam,  Hist.  Theol.,  2:323-370;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  464- 
480.  For  the  view  presented  in  the  text,  see  Andrew  Fuller,  Works,  2  :  373,  374  ;  689-698  ; 
706-709;  Wardlaw,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  485-549;  Jenkyn,  Extent  of  the  Atonement  ;  E.  P. 
Griffin,  Extent  of  the  Atonement;  Woods,  Works,  2:490-521;  Richards,  Lectures  on 
Theology,  302-327. 

2.     Christ's  Intercessor)/    Work. 

The  Priesthood  of  Christ  does  not  cease  with  his  work  of  atonement,  but 
continues  forever.  In  the  presence  of  God  he  fulfils  the  second  office  of 
the  priest,  namely  that  of  intercession. 

Heb.  7  :  23-25 — "priests  many  in  number,  because  that  by  death  they  are  hindered  from  continuing:  but  he,  because 
he  abideth  forever,  hath  his  priesthood  unchangeable.  Wherefore  also  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  them  that  draw 
near  unto  God  through  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them."    C.  H.  M.  on  Ex.  17  :  12  — "  The 


774  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    REDEMPTION. 

hands  of  our  great  Intercessor  never  hang  down,  as  Moses'  did,  nor  does  he  need  any 
one  to  hold  them  up.  The  same  rod  of  God's  power  which  was  used  by  Moses  to  smite 
the  rock  ( Atonement )  was  in  Moses'  hand  on  the  hill  ( Intercession )." 

Denney's  Studies  in  Theology,  166  — "  If  we  see  nothing  unnatural  in  the  fact  that 
Christ  prayed  for  Peter  on  earth,  we  need  not  make  any  difficulty  about  his  praying 
for  us  in  heaven.  The  relation  is  the  same ;  the  only  difference  is  that  Christ  is  now 
exalted,  and  prays,  not  with  strong  crying  and  tears,  but  in  the  sovereignty  and  pre- 
vailing power  of  one  who  has  achieved  eternal  redemption  for  his  people." 

A.  Nature  of  Christ's  Intercession.  —  This  is  not  to  be  conceived  of 
either  as  an  external  and  vocal  petitioning,  nor  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech 
for  the  natural  and  continuous  influence  of  his  sacrifice  ;  bat  rather  as  a 
special  activity  of  Christ  in  securing,  upon  the  ground  of  that  sacrifice, 
whatever  of  blessing  comes  to  men,  whether  that  blessing  be  temporal  or 
spiritual. 

1  John  2:1  —  "if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous"  ;  Rom.  8:34  —  "It 
is  Jesus  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather,  that  was  raised  from  the  dead,  who  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us "  —  here  Meyer  seems  to  favor  the  meaning  <  >f  external  and  vocal  petition- 
ing, as  of  the  glorified  God-man:  Heb.  7:25  —  "ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them."  On  the 
ground  of  this  effectual  intercession  he  can  pronounce  the  true  sacerdotal  benediction  ; 
and  all  the  benedictions  of  his  ministers  and  apostles  are  but  fruits  and  emblems  of 
this  (  see  the  Aaronic  benediction  in  Num.  6 :  24-26,  and  the  apostolic  benedictions  in  1  Cor. 
1 : 3  and  2  Cor.  13  :  14). 

B.  Objects  of  Christ's  Intercession. — We  may  distinguish  (a)  that 
general  intercession  which  secures  to  all  men  certain  temporal  benefits  of 
his  atoning  work,  and  ( b )  that  special  intercession  which  secures  the 
divine  acceptance  of  the  persons  of  believers  and  the  divine  bestowmeut 
of  all  gifts  needful  for  their  salvation. 

( a )  General  intercession  for  all  men  :  Is.  53 :  12  —  "  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for 
the  transgressors  "  ;  Luke  23  :  34  —  "And  Jesus  said,  Father,  forgive  them;  for  they  know  not  what  they  do" — a 
beginning  of  his  priestly  intercession,  even  while  he  was  being  nailed  to  the  cross. 

(b)  Special  intercession  for  his  saints:  Mat.  18:19,  20  —  "if  two  of  you  shall  agree  on  earth  as 
touching  anything  that  they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  For  where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them  "  ;  Luke  22 :  31,  32  —  "Simon,  Simon,  behold, 
Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  made  supplication  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not "  ; 
John  14  :  16  —  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter  "  ;  17:9  —  "  I  pray  for  them ;  Ipray 
not  for  the  world,  but  for  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me "  ;  Acts  2 : 33  —  "Being  therefore  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  hath  poured  forth  this,  which  ye  see  and 
hear";  Eph.  1:6  —  "the  glory  of  his  grace,  which  he  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved  "  ;  2:18 — "through  him 
we  both  have  our  access  in  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father  "  ;  3 :  12  —  "  in  whom  we  have  boldness  and  access  in  confidence 
through  our  faith  in  him  ' ;  Heb.  2 :  17, 18  —  "  Wherefore  it  behooved  him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  his  breth- 
ren, that  he  might  become  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  people.  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted  "  ; 
4 :  15,  16  —  "  For  we  have  not  a  high  priest  that  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  but  one  that  hath 
been  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.  Let  us  therefore  draw  near  with  boldness  unto  the  throne  of 
grace,  that  we  may  receive  mercy,  and  may  find  grace  to  help  us  in  time  of  need "  ;  1  Pet.  2:5 —  "a  holy  priesthood, 
to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Rev.  5:6  —  "  And  I  saw  in  the  midst  of  the 
throne  ....  a  Lamb  standing,  as  though  it  had  been  slain,  having  seven  horns,  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven 
Spirits  of  God,  sent  forth  into  all  the  earth  "  ;  7: 16, 17  —  "They  shall  hunger  no  more,  neither  thirst  any  more  ;  neither 
shall  the  sun  strike  upon  them,  nor  any  heat:  for  the  Lamb  that  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  shall  be  their  shepherd, 
and  shall  guide  them  unto  fountains  of  waters  of  life :  and  God  shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes." 

C.  Relation  of  Christ's  Intercession  to  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  —  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  an  advocate  within  us,  teaching  us  how  to  pray  as  we  ought; 
Christ  is  an  advocate  in  heaven,  securing  from  the  Father  the  answer  of 
our  prayers.  Thus  the  work  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  com- 
plements to  each  other,  and  parts  of  one  whole. 

John  14  :  26 —  "But  the  Comforter,  even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that  I  said  unto  you"  ;  Rom.  8:26  —  "And  in  like  manner  the  Spirit 


THE   KINGLY   OFFICE   OF   CHRIST.  775 

also  helpeth  our  infirmity :  for  we  know  not  how  to  pray  as  we  ought ;  but  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered "  ;  27 — "and  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit,  because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God." 

The  intercessiun  of  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  illustrated  by  the  work  of  the  mother, 
who  teaches  her  child  to  pray  by  putting  words  into  his  mouth  or  by  suggesting-  sub- 
jects for  prayer.  "  The  whole  Trinity  is  present  in  the  Christian's  closet;  the  Father 
hears ;  the  Son  advocates  his  cause  at  the  Father's  rig-ht  hand  ;  the  Holy  Spirit  inter- 
cedes in  the  heart  of  the  believer."  Therefore  "  When  God  inclines  the  heart  to  pray. 
He  hath  an  ear  to  hear."  The  impulse  to  prayer,  within  our  hearts,  is  evidence  that 
Christ  is  urging  our  claims  in  heaven. 

D.  Kelatiou  of  Christ's  Intercession  to  that  of  saints.  —  All  trae  inter- 
cession is  either  directly  or  indirectly  the  intercession  of  Christ.  Chris- 
tians are  organs  of  Christ's  Spirit.  To  suppose  Christ  in  us  to  offer  prayer 
to  one  of  his  saints,  instead  of  directly  to  the  Father,  is  to  blaspheme 
Christ,  and  utterly  misconceive  the  nature  of  prayer. 

Saints  on  earth,  by  their  union  with  Christ,  the  great  high  priest,  are  themselves 
constituted  intercessors  ;  and  as  the  high  priest  of  old  bore  upon  his  bosom  the  breast- 
plate engraven  with  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  (Ei.  28:9-12),  so  the  Christian  is  to 
bear  upon  his  heart  in  prayer  before  God  the  interests  of  his  family,  the  church,  and 
the  world  ( 1  Tim.  2 : 1  —  "  I  exhort  therefore,  first  of  all,  that  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  thanksgivings 
be  made  for  all  men").  See  Symington  on  Intercession,  in  Atonement  and  Intercession, 
236-303;  Milligan,  Ascension  ami  Heavenly  Priesthood  of  our  Lord. 

Luckock,  After  Heath,  finds  evidence  of  belief  in  the  intercession  of  the  saints  in 
heaven  as  early  as  the  second  century.  Invocation  of  tin'  saints  lie  regards  as 
beginning  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  century.  Re  approves  the  doctrine  that  the 
saints  pray /or  us,  but  rejects  the  doctrine  that  we  are  to  pray  Uithcm.  Prayers  for  the 
dead  he  strongly  advocates.  I  {ram  hall,  Works,  1:57— Invocation,  of  the  saints  is  "  not 
necessary,  for  two  reasons :  first,,  no  saint  doth  love  us  so  well  as  Christ ;  no  saint  hath 
given  US  such  assurance  Of  his  love,  or  dune  so  much  for  us  as  Christ;  no  saint  is  so 
willing  to  help  us  as  Christ ;  and  s<  condly,  we  ha\  e  no  command  from  God  to  invocate 
them."  A.  B.  Cave  :  "  The  system  of  human  mediation  falls  away  in  the  advent  to  our 
souls  of  the  living  Christ.    Who  wants  stars,  or  even  the  moon,  after  the  sun  is  up  ?  " 

III.     The  Kingly  Office  of  Chrtst. 

This  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  sovereignty  which  Christ  originally 
possessed  in  virtue  of  his  divine  nature.  Christ's  kingship  is  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  divine-human  Redeemer,  which  belonged  to  him  of  right 
from  the  moment  of  his  birth,  but  which  was  fully  exercised  only  from  the 
time  of  his  entrance  upon  the  state  of  exaltation.  By  virtue  of  this  kingly 
office,  Christ  rules  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  for  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  execution  of  God's  purpose  of  salvation. 

(  a )  With  respect  to  the  universe  at  large,  Christ's  kingdom  is  a  king- 
dom of  power  ;  he  upholds,  governs,  and  judges  the  world. 

Ps.  2:6-8  —  "I  have  set  my  king  ....  Thou  art  my  son  ...  .  uttermost  Darts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession " ; 
8:6  —  "  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands  ;  Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet "  ;  cf. 
Heb.  2 : 8,  9  —  "  we  see  not  yet  all  things  subjected  to  him.  But  we  behold  ....  Jesus  ....  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor  "  ;  Mat.  25 :  31,  32  —  "  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  coma  in  bis  glory  ....  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory :  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations  "  ;  28  :  18  —  "  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth " ;  Heb.  1:3  —  "upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power  " ;  Rev.  19  :  15,  16  —  " smite  the  nations 
....  rule  them  with  a  rod  of  iron  ....  King  of  Kings,  and  Lord  of  Lords." 

Julius  Miiller,  Proof-texts,  34,  says  incorrectly,  as  we  think,  that "  the  regnum  ngtwrce 
of  the  old  theology  is  unsupported,  —there  are  only  the  regnum  graticr,  and  the  regnum 
gloria'."  A.  J.  Gordon  :  "  Christ  is  now  creation's  sceptre-bearer,  as  he  was  once  crea- 
tion's burden-bearer." 

( b )  With  respect  to  his  militant  church,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  grace ;  he 

founds,  legislates  for,  administers,   defends,  and  augments  his  church  on 

earth. 


776  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   REDEMPTION. 

lake  2  :  11  —  " born  to  you  ....  a  Savior,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord  "  ;  19 :  38  —  "Blessed  is  the  King  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  "  ;  John  18: 36,  37 —  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ....  Thou  say  est  it,  for  I  am  a  king 
....  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice  "  ;  Eph.  1 :  22  —  "  he  put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet, 
and  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all"  ; 
Heb.  1:8  —  "  of  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2 :  677  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4 :  142, 143 )  —  "  All  great  men  can  be  said 
to  have  an  after-influence  ( Nachwirhung)  after  their  death,  but  only  of  Christ  can  it 
be  said  that  he  has  an  after-activity  ( Fortwirkuny).  The  sending  of  the  Spirit  is  part 
of  Christ's  work  as  King."  P.  S.  Moxom,  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1886 :  25-36  —  "  Preemi- 
nence of  Christ,  as  source  of  the  church's  being  ;  ground  of  the  church's  unity  ; 
source  of  the  church's  law;  mould  of  the  church's  life."  A.  J.  Gordon:  "As  the 
church  endures  hardness  and  humiliation  as  united  to  him  who  was  on  the  cross,  so 
she  should  exhibit  something  of  supernatural  energy  as  united  with  him  who  is  on  the 
throne."  Luther:  "  We  tell  our  Lord  God,  that  if  he  will  have  his  church,  he  must 
look  after  it  himself.  We  cannot  sustain  it,  and,  if  we  could,  we  should  become  the 
proudest  asses  under  heaven.  ...  If  it  had  been  possible  for  pope,  priest  or  minister  to 
destroy  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  would  have  been  destroyed  iong  ago."  Luther, 
watching  the  proceedings  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  made  a  noteworthy  discovery. 
He  saw  the  stars  bestud  the  canopy  of  the  sky,  and  though  there  were  no  pillars  to 
hold  them  up  they  kept  their  place  and  the  sky  fell  not.  The  business  of  holding  up 
the  sky  and  its  stars  has  been  on  the  minds  of  men  in  all  ages.  But  we  do  not  need  to 
provide  props  to  hold  up  the  sky.  God  will  look  after  his  church  and  after  Christian 
doctrine.  For  of  Christ  it  has  been  written  in  1  Cor.  15  :  25  —  "For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all 
bis  enemies  under  his  feet." 

"  Thrice  blessed  is  he  to  whom  is  given  The  instinct  that  can  tell  That  God  is  in  the 
field  when  he  Is  most  invisible."  Since  Christ  is  King,  it  is  a  duty  never  to  despair  of 
church  or  of  the  world.  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  declared  that  Christian  character  was 
never  more  complete  than  now,  nor  more  nearly  approaching  the  ideal  man.  We  may 
add  that  modern  education,  modern  commerce,  modern  invention,  modern  civilization, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  the  revelations  of  Christ,  the  Light  of  the  world,  and  the  Ruler 
of  the  nations.  All  progress  of  knowledge,  government,  society,  is  progress  of  his 
truth,  and  a  prophecy  of  the  complete  establishment  of  his  kingdom. 

(  c  )  With  respect  to  his  church  triumphant,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  glory  ; 
he  rewards  his  redeemed  people  with  the  full  revelation  of  himself,  upon 
the  completion  of  his  kingdom  in  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment. 

John  17 :  24  —  "Father,  that  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  desire  that  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with  me,  that 
they  may  behold  my  glory  "  ;  1  Pet.  3-21,  22  — "Jesus  Christ;  who  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  having  gone  into 
heaven ;  angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being  made  subject  unto  him  "  ;  2  Pet  1  :/l  —  "  thus  shall  becrichly  supplied 
unto  you  the  entrance  into  the  eternal  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ."  See  Andrew  Murray, 
With  Christ  in  the  School  of  Prayer,  preface,  vi  —  "  Rev.  1:6  —  '  made  us  to  be  a  kingdom,  to  be 
priests  unto  his  God  and  Father.'  Both  in  the  king  and  the  priest,  the  chief  thing  is  power, 
influence,  blessing.  In  the  king,  it  is  the  power  coming  downward ;  in  the  priest,  it  is 
the  power  rising  upward,  prevailing  with  God.    As  iu  Christ,  so  in  us,  the  kingly  power 

is  founded  on  the  priestly  :  Heb.  7  :  25  —  'able  to  save  to  the  uttermost seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make 

intercession '." 

Watts,  New  Apologetic,  preface,  ix  —  "We  cannot  have  Christ  as  King  without 
having  him  also  as  Priest.  It  is  as  the  Lamb  that  he  sits  upon  the  throne  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse; as  the  Lamb  that  he  conducts  his  conflict  with  the  kings  of  the  earth  ;  and  it 
is  from  the  throne  of  God  on  which  the  Lamb  appears  that  the  water  of  life  flows  forth 
that  carries  refreshing  throughout  the  Paradise  of  God." 

Luther:  "Now  Christ  reigns,  not  in  visible,  public  manner,  but  through  the  word, 
just  as  we  see  the  sun  through  a  cloud.  We  see  the  light,  but  not  the  sun  itself.  But 
when  the  clouds  are  gone,  then  we  see  at  the  same  time  both  light  and  sun."  AVe  mav 
close  our  consideration  of  Christ's  Kingship  with  two  practical  remarks :  1.  We  never 
can  think  too  much  of  the  cross,  but  we  may  think  too  little  of  the  throne.  2.  We  can 
not  have  Christ  as  our  Prophet  or  our  Priest,  unless  we  take  him  also  as  our  King1.  On 
Christ's  Kingship,  see  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  iv,  2 :  342-351 ;  Van  Oosterzee.,  Dogma- 
tics, 586  sq. ;  Garbett,  Christ  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  2 :  243-438 ;  J.  M.  Mason,  Ser- 
mon on  Messiah's  Throne,  in  Works,  3:241-275. 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 

VOLUME  III. 


CHAPTEE  II. 


THE  RECONCILIATION  OF  MAN  TO  GOD,  OR  THE 

APPLICATION  OF  REDEMPTION  THROUGH 

THE  WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


SECTION"   I. —THE    APPLICATION"   OF   CHRIST'S   REDEMPTION 
IN    ITS    PREPARATION. 

(  a  )  In  tliis  Section  we  treat  of  Election  and  Calling  ;  Section  Second 
being  devoted  to  the  Application  of  Christ's  Redemption  in  its  Actual 
Beginning, —  namely,  in  Union  with  Christ,  Regeneration,  Conversion,  and 
Justification;  while  Section  Third  has  for  its  subject  the  Application  of 
Christ's  Redemption  in  its  Continuation, — namely,  in  Sanctificatiou  and 
Perseverance. 

The  arrangement  of  topics,  in  the  treatment  of  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God,  is 
taken  from  Julius  Miiller,  Proof- texts,  35.  "  Revelation  to  us  aims  to  bring  about reve- 
lation  in  us.  In  any  being  absolutely  perfect,  God's  intercourse  with  us  by  faculty, 
and  by  direct  teaching,  would  absolutely  coalesce,  and  the  former  be  just  as  much 
God's  voice  as  the  latter"  (  Hutton,  Essays). 

(  b  )  In  treating  Election  and  Calling  as  applications  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion, we  imply  that  they  are,  in  God's  decree,  logically  subsequent  to  that 
redemption.  In  this  we  hold  the  Sublapsarian  view,  as  distinguished  from 
the  Supralapsarianism  of  Brza  and  other  hyper-Calviuists,  which  regarded 
the  decree  of  individual  salvation  as  preceding,  in  the  order  of  thought,  the 
decree  to  permit  the  Fall.  In  this  latter  scheme,  the  order  of  decrees  is 
as  follows :  1.  the  decree  to  save  certain,  and  to  reprobate  others  ;  2.  the 
decree  to  create  both  those  who  are  to  be  saved  and  those  who  are  to  be 
reprobated  ;  3.  the  decree  to  permit  both  the  former  and  the  latter  to  fall  ; 
i.   the  decree  to  provide  salvation  only  for  the  former,  that  is,  for  the  elect. 

Richards,  Theology,  303-307,  shows  that  Calvin,  while  in  his  early  work,  the  Institutes, 
he  avoided  definite  statements  of  bis  position  with  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment, yet  in  his  latter  works,  the  Commentaries,  acceded  to  the  theory  of  universal 
atonement.  Supralapsarianism  is  therefore  hyper-Calvinistic,  rather  than  Calvinistic. 
Sublapsarianism  was  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  Dort  (1618,  1619 ).  By  Supralapsarian  is 
meant  that  form  of  doctrine  which  holds  the  decree  of  individual  salvation  as  preceding 
the  decree  to  permit  the  Fall ;  Sublapsarian  designates  that  form  of  doctrine  which 
holds  that  the  decree  of  individual  salvation  is  subsequent  to  the  decree  to  permit  the 
Fall. 

777 


778  SOTEHIOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    SALVATION. 

The  progress  in  Calvin's  thought  may  be  seen  by  comparing  some  of  his  earlier  with 
his  later  utterances.  Institutes,  2 :  23 : 5— "  I  say,  with  Augustine,  that  the  Lord  created 
these  who,  as  he  certainly  foreknew,  were  to  go  to  destruction,  and  he  did  so  because 
he  so  willed."  But  even  then  in  the  Institutes,  3  :  23 :  8,  he  affirms  that  "the  perdition 
of  the  wicked  depends  upon  the  divine  predestination  in  such  a  manner  that  the  cause 
and  matter  of  it  are  found  in  themselves.  Man  falls  by  the  appointment  of  divine 
providence,  but  he  falls  by  his  own  fault."  God's  blinding,  hardening,  turning  the  sinner 
he  describes  as  the  consequence  of  the  divine  desertion,  not  the  divine  causation.  The 
relation  of  God  to  the  origin  of  sin  is  not  efficient,  but  permissive.  In  later  days  Calvin 
wrote  in  his  Commentary  on  1  John  2  :  2  — "  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but 
also  for  the  whole  world  "—  as  follows :  "  Christ  suffered  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and 
in  the  goodness  of  God  is  offered  unto  all  men  without  distinction,  his  blood  being  shed 
not  for  a  part  of  the  world  only,  but  for  the  whole  human  race  ;  for  although  in  the 
world  nothing  is  found  worthy  of  the  favor  of  God,  yet  he  holds  out  the  propitiation  to 
the  whole  world,  since  without  exception  he  summons  all  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  which 
is  nothing  else  than  the  door  unto  hope." 

Although  other  passages,  such  as  Institutes,  3  :  21 :  5,  and  3  :  23  : 1,  assert  the  harsher 
view,  we  must  give  Calvin  credit  for  modifying  his  doctrine  with  maturer  reflection 
and  advancing  years.  Much  that  is  called  Calvinism  would  have  been  repudiated  by 
Calvin  himself  even  at  the  beginning  of  his  career,  and  is  really  the  exaggeration  of  his 
teaching  by  more  scholastic  and  less  religious  successors.  Renan  calls  Calvin  "  the  most 
Christian  man  of  his  generation."  Dorner  describes  him  as  "  equally  great  in  intellect 
and  character,  lovely  in  social  life,  full  of  tender  sympathy  and  faithfulness  to  his 
friends,  yielding  and  forgiving  toward  personal  offences."  The  device  upon  his  seal  is 
a  llaming  heart  from  which  is  stretched  forth  a  helping  hand. 

Calvin's  share  in  the  burning  of  Servetus  must  be  explained  by  his  mistaken  zeal  for 
God's  truth  and  by  tlie  universal  belief  of  his  time  that  this  truth  was  to  be  defended  by 
the  civil  power.  The  following  is  the  inscription  on  the  expiatory  monument  which 
European  Calvinists  raised  to  Servetus:  "  On  October  27,  1553,  died  at  the  stake  at 
(  hainpel,  Michael  Servetus,  of  Villeneuve  d'Aragon,  born  September  29, 1511.  Reverent 
and  grateful  sons  of  Calvin,  our  great  Reformer,  but  condemning  an  error  which  was 
that  of  his  age,  and  steadfastly  adhering  to  liberty  of  conscience  according  to  the  true 
principles  of  the  Reformation  and  of  the  gospel,  we  have  erected  this  expiatory  monu- 
ment, on  the  27th  of  October,  1903:" 

John  DeWitt,  in  Princeton  Theol.  Rev.,  Jan.  1904  :  95  —  "Take  John  Calvin.  That 
fruitful  conception  — more  fruitful  in  church  and  state  than  any  other  conception 
which  has  held  the  English  speaking  world  —  of  the  absolute  and  universal  sovereignty 
of  the  holy  God,  as  a  revolt  from  the  conception  then  prevailing  of  the  sovereignty 
of  t  he  human  head  of  an  earthly  chinch,  was  historically  the  mediator  and  instaurator 
of  Ins  spiritual  career."  On  Calvin's  theological  position,  see  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
1  :  409,  note. 

(  c  )  But  the  Scriptures  teach  that  men  as  sinners,  and  not  men  irrespec- 
tive of  their  sins,  are  the  objects  of  God's  saving  grace  in  Christ  ( John  15  : 
9  ;  Rom.  11 :  5,  7  ;  Eph.  1  :  4-6  ;  1  Pet.  1:2).  Condemnation,  moreover, 
is  an  act,  not  of  sovereignty,  but  of  justice,  and  is  grounded  in  the  guilt  of 
the  condemned  (Rom.  2  :  6-11 ;  2  Thess.  1 :  5-10).  The  true  order  of  the 
decrees  is  therefore  as  follows  :  1.  the  decree  to  create  ;  2.  the  decree  to 
permit  the  Fall;  3.  the  decree  to  provide  a  salvation  in  Christ  sufficient  for 
the  needs  of  all ;  4.  the  decree  to  secure  the  actual  acceptance  of  this  sal- 
vation on  the  part  of  some, — or,  in  other  words,  the  decree  of  Election. 

That  saving  grace  presupposes  the  Fall,  and  that  men  as  sinners  are  the  objects  of  it, 
appears  from  John  15  :  19  —"If  ye  were  of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  'ts  own :  but  because  ye  are  not  of  the 
world,  but  I  chose  you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you ' ' ;  Rom.  11  :  5-7  — "  Even  so  then  at  this  present 
time  also  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  But  if  it  is  by  grace,  it  is  no  more  of  works:  otherwise 
grace  is  no  more  grace.  What  then  ?  That  which  Israel  seeketh  for.  that  he  obtained  not ;  bat  the  election  obtained  i«, 
and  the  rest  were  hardened."  Eph.  1  :  4-6  — "  even  as  he  chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we 
should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  before  him  in  love :  having  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as  sons  through  Jesus 
Christ  unto  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  which  he  freely 
bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved  ";  1  Pet.  1:2  —  elect,  "  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus :  Grace  to  you  and  peace  be  multiplied." 


ELECTION".  779 

That  condemnation  is  not  an  act  of  sovereignty,  but  of  justice,  appears  from  Rom.  2  : 
6-9  — "  who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works  ....  wrath  and  indignation  ....  upon  every  sou]  of 
man  that  worketh  evil "  :  2  Thess.  1 : 6-9 — "a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  affliction  to  them  that  afflict  yon 
....  rendering  vengeance  to  them  that  know  not  God  and  to  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus :  who 
shall  suffer  punishment."  Particular  persons  are  elected,  not  to  have  Christ  die  for  them,  but 
to  have  special  influences  of  the  Spirit  bestowed  upon  them. 

(d)  Those  Sublapsarians  who  hold  to  the  Anselmic  view  of  a  limited 
Atonement,  make  the  decrees  3.  and  4.,  just  mentioned,  exchange  places, — 
the  decree  of  election  thus  preceding  the  decree  to  provide  redemption. 
The  Scriptural  reasons  for  preferring  the  order  here  given  have  been 
already  indicated  in  our  treatment  of  the  extent  of  the  Atonement  (pages 
771-773  ). 

When  '3'  and  '4  '  thus  change  places,  '3'  should  be  made  to  read:  "The  decree  to 
provide  in  Christ  a  salvation  sufficient  for  the  elect  ";  and  '4,'  should  read :  "  The  decree 
that  a  certain  number  should  be  saved, —  or,  in  other  words,  t'.ie  decree  of  Election." 
Suhlapsarianism  of  the  first  sort  may  be  found  in  Turretin,  loc.  4,  quaes.  'J;  Cunning- 
ham, Hist.  Theol.,  416-439.  A.  J.  F.  Bebrends  :  "  The  divine  decree  is  our  last  void  in 
theology,  notour  first  word.  It  represents  the  terminus  adquem,  not  the  terminus  a  quo. 
Whatever  comes  about  in  the  exercise  of  human  freedom  and  of  divine  grace  —  that 
God  has  decreed."  Yet  we  must  grant  that  Calvinism  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  a 
more  express  statement  of  God's  <ove  for  the  world.  Herrick  Johnson:  "Across  the 
Westminster  Confession  could  justly  be  written  :  'The  Gospel  for  theelect  only.'  That 
Confession  was  written  under  the  absolute  dominion  of  one  idea,  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination. It  does  not  contain  one  of  three  truths:  God's  love  for  a  lost  world; 
Christ's  compassion  for  a  lost  world,  and  the  gospel  universal  for  a  lost  world." 

I.     Election. 

Election  is  that  eternal  act  of  God,  by  which  in  his  sovereign  pleasure, 
and  on  account  of  no  foreseen  merit  in  them,  ho  chooses  certain  out  of  the 
number  of  sinful  men  to  be  the  recipients  of  the  special  grace  of  his  Spirit, 
and  so  to  be  made  voluntary  partakers  of  Christ's  salvation. 

1.    Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Election. 

A.     From  Scripture. 

"We  here  adopt  the  words  of  Dr.  Hovey  :  "The  Scriptures  forbid  us  to 
find  the  reasons  for  election  in  the  moral  action  of  man  before  the  new 
birth,  and  refer  us  merely  to  the  sovereign  will  and  mercy  of  God ;  that  is, 
they  teach  the  doctrine  of  personal  election."  Before  advancing  to  the 
proof  of  the  doctrine  itself,  we  may  claim  Scriptural  warrant  for  three  pre- 
liminary statements  (which  we  also  quote  from  Dr.  Hovey),  namely: 

First,  that  "God  has  a  sovereign  right  to  bestow  more  grace  upon  one 

subject  than  upon  another, —  grace  being  unmerited  favor  to  sinners." 

Mat.  20  :  12-15 — "These  last  have  spent  but  one  hour,  and  thou  hast  made  them  equal  unto  us  ...  .  Friend,  I  do 
thee  no  wrong  ....  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  with  mine  own  ?  "  Rom.  9  :  20,  21  —  "  Shall  the  thing 
formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  Why  didst  thou  make  me  thus  ?  Or  hath  not  the  potter  a  right  over  the  clay,  from  the 
same  lump  to  make  ono  part  a  vessel  unto  honor,  and  another  unto  dishonor  ?  " 

Secondly,  that  "  God  has  been  pleased  to  exercise  this  right  in  dealing 
with  men." 

Ps.  147  :  20  — "He  hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  nation  ;  And  as  for  his  ordinances,  they  have  not  known  them  ".  Rom. 
"<  1,2  —  "What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew  ?  or  what  is  the  profit  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every  way :  first  of  all, 
:bat  they  were  intrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God  ";  John  15 :  16  — "  Ye  did  not  choose  me,  but  I  chose  you,  and  appointed 
you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bear  fruit ";  Acts  9  :  15  — "  he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to  bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles 
and  kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel." 

Thirdly,  that  "God  has  some  other  reason  than  that  of  saving  as  many  as 

possible  for  the  way  in  which  he  distributes  his  grace. " 


780  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION". 

Mat.  11 :  21  —  Tyre  and  Sidon  "would  have  repented,"  if  they  had  had  the  grace  bestowed  upon 
Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  ;  Rom.  9  :  22-25  —  "  What  if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power 
known,  endured  with  much  longsuffering  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto  destruction :  and  that  he  might  make  known  the 
riches  of  his  glory  upon  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  afore  prepared  unto  glory  ?  " 

The  Scripture  passages  which  directly  or  indirectly  support  the  doctrine 
of  a  particular  election  of  individual  men  to  salvation  may  be  arranged  as 
follows : 

(  a  )    Direct  statements  of  God's  purpose  to  save  certain  individuals  : 

Jesus  speaks  of  God's  elect,  as  for  example  in  Mark  13  27—"  then  shall  he  send  forth  the  angels, 
and  shall  gather  together  his  elect ";  Luke  18  :  7  —  "  shall  not  God  avenge  his  elect,  that  cry  to  him  day  and  night  ?  " 

Acts  13:48 — "as  many  as  were  ordained  (Teray/xtVoi )  to  eternal  life  believed  " — here  Whedou  translates: 
**  disposed  unto  eternal  life,"  referring  to  KaT7jpTio>ieVa  in  verse  23,  where  " fitted  "  =  " fitted 
themselves.'*  The  only  instance,  however,  whei'e  rdaa-to  is  used  in  a  middle  sense  is  in 
1  Cor.  16:15 — "set  themselves";  but  there  the  object,  eavrous,  is  expressed.  Here  we  must  com- 
pare Rom.  13  : 1  — "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  ( Te-ra-yiueVai )  of  God  ";  see  also  Acts  10  :  42  — "  this  is  he 
who  is  ordained  (  wpio-/j.eVos  )  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  tho  dead." 

Rom.  9  :  11-16 —  "for  the  children  be^ng  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  anything  good  or  bad,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth  ....  I  will  have  mercy  upon  whom  I  have 
mercy  ....  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  hath  mercy  "  ;  Eph.  1 : 4,  5, 
9,  11  —  "  chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  [  not  beeause  we  were,  or  were  to  be,  holy, 
but]  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  before  him  in  love :  having  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as  sons 
through  Jesus  Christ  unto  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will  ....  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to 
h:s  good  pleasure  ....  in  whom  also  we  were  made  a  heritage,  having  been  foreordained  according  to  the  purpose  of  him 
who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  will  "  ;  Col.  3  :  12  —  "God's  elect";  2Thess.2:13  —  "God  chose  you 
from  the  beginning  unto  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 

( b )  In  connection  with  the  declaration  of  God's  foreknowledge  of  these 
persons,  or  choice  to  make  them  objects  of  his  special  attention  and  care ; 

Rom.  8  :  27-30  —  "  called  according  to  his  purpose.  For  whom  he  foreknew,  he  also  foreordained  to  be  conformed  to 
tha  image  of  his  Son  "  ;  1  Pet.  1:1,2  —  "  elect  ....  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  On  the  passage  in  Romans,  Shedd, 
in  his  Commentary,  remarks  that  "foreknew,"  in  the  Hebraistic  use,  "  is  more  than  simple 
prescience,  and  something  more  also  than  simply  'to  fix  the  eye  upon,' or  to 'select.' 
It  is  this  latter,  but  with  the  additional  notion  of  a  benignant  and  kindly  feeling  toward 
the  object."  In  Rom.  8 :  27-30,  Paul  is  emphasizing  the  divine  sovereignty.  The  Christian 
life  is  considered  from  the  side  of  the  divine  care  and  ordering,  and  not  from  the  side 
of  human  choice  and  volition.  Alexander,  Theories  of  the  Will,  87,  88—  "  If  Paul  is 
here  advocating  indeterminism,  it  is  strange  that  in  chaptor  9  lie  should  be  at  pains  to 
answer  objections  to  determinism.  The  apostle's  protest  in  chapter  9  is  not  against  pre- 
destination and  determination,  but  against  the  man  who  regards  such  a  theory  as 
impugning  the  righteousness  of  God." 

That  the  word  "know,"  in  Scripture,  frequently  means  not  merely  to  "  apprehend  intel- 
lectually," but  to  "  regard  with  favor,"  to  "  make  an  object  of  care,"  is  evident  from 
Gen.  18  :  19 —  "I  have  known  him,  to  the  end  that  he  may  command  his  children  and  his  household  after  him,  that  they 
may  keep  the  way  of  Jehovah,  to  do  righteousness  and  justice";  Ex.2:  25  —  "And  God  saw  the  children  of  Israel,  and  God 
took  knowledge  of  them  " ;  cf.  verse  24 —  "  God  heard  their  groaning,  and  God  remembered  bis  covenant  with  Abraham, 
with  Isaac,  and  with  Jacob  "  ;  Ps.  1  :  6  —  "For  Jehovah  knoweth  the  way  of  the  right  .ous ;  But  the  way  of  the  wicked 
shall  perish"  ;  101:4,  marg.  —  "I  will  know  no  evil  person "  ;  Hosea  13:5  —  "I  did  know  thee  in  the  wilderness,  in 
the  land  of  great  drought.  According  to  their  pasture,  so  were  they  filled  "  ;  Nahum  1  :  7  —  "he  knoweth  them  that 
take  refuge  in  him  "  ;  Amos  3:2 —  "  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  "  ;  Mat.  7  :  23 —  "then 
will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew  you  "  ;  Rom.  7  :  15  —  "  For  that  which  I  do  I  know  not";  1  Cor.  8  :  3  —  "if 
any  man  loveth  God,  the  same  is  known  by  him  ;  Gal.  i  9  —  "  now  that  ye  have  come  to  know  God,  or  rather,  to  be 
known  by  God  "  ;  1  Thess.  5 :  12, 13  —  "  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them  that  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you 
in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you;  and  to  esteem  them  exceeding  highly  in  love  for  their  work's  sake."    So  the  word 

foreknow":  Rom.  11:2 — "  God  did  not  cast  off  his  people  whom  he  foreknew  "  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  20  —  Christ,  "who 
was  foreknown  indeed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

3roadus  on  Mat.  7  :  23  —  "  I  never  knew  you  "  —  says ;  "  Not  in  all  the  passages  quoted  above, 
nor  elsewhere,  is  there  occasion  for  the  oft-repeated  arbitrary  notion,  derived  from  the 
Fathers,  that  'know'  conveys  the  additional  idea  of  approve  or  regard.  It  denotes 
acquaintance,  with  all  its  pleasures  and  advantages ;  'knew,'  i.  c,  as  mine,  as  my  people.' 


ELECTION".  781 

But  this  last  admission  seems  to  grant  what  Broadus  had  before  denied.  See  Thayer, 
Lex.  N.  T.,  on  ywuxrKw :  "  With  ace.  of  person,  to  recognize  as  worthy  of  intimacy  and 
love ;  so  those  whom  God  has  judged  worthy  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  are  said 
inrb  tou  iJeoS  Yuw/ce<rt?ai  (1  Cor.  8:3;  Gal.  4:9);  negatively  in  the  sentence  of  Christ: 
oOSen-oTe  i yvutv  iifias,  "  I  never  knew  you,"  never  had  any  acquaintance  with  you."  On  7rpo-yin«J- 
<7(cw,  Rom.  8  :  29  —  oi)s  irpoeyvu>,  "  whom  he  foreknew,"  see  Denney,  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testa- 
ment, in  loco:  "Those  whom  he  foreknew  —  in  what  sense?  as  persons  who  would 
answer  his  love  with  love?  This  is  at  least  irrelevant,  and  alien  to  Paul's  general 
method  of  thought.  That  salvation  begins  with  God,  and  begins  in  eternity,  are 
fundamental  ideas  with  him,  which  he  here  applies  to  Christians,  without  raising  any 
of  the  problems  involved  in  the  relation  of  the  human  will  to  the  divine.  Yet  we  may 
be  sure  that  npoiyvui  has  the  pregnant  sense  that  yuWicw  often  has  in  Scripture,  e.  g.,  in 
Ps.  1:6;  Amos  3:  2;  hence  we  may  render:  'those  of  whom  God  took  knowledge  from 
eternity  (Eph.  1  :4)." 

In  Rom.  8 :  28-30,  quoted  above,  "  foreknew  "  =  elected  —  that  is,  made  certain  individuals, 
in  the  future,  the  objects  of  his  love  and  care;  "foreordained"  describes  God's  designation 
of  these  same  individuals  to  receive  the  special  gift  of  salvation.  In  other  words,  "fore- 
knowledge" is  of  persons  :  "  foreordination  "  is  of  blessings  to  be  bestowed  upon  them. 
Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.,  appendix  to  book  V,  (  vol.  2 :  751 )  —  "' whom  he  did  foreknow '  (know 
before  as  his  own,  wil  h  determination  to  be  forever  merciful  to  them )  'he  also  predestinated 
to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son'  —  predestinated,  not  to  opportunity  of  conformation,  but 
to  conformation  itself."  So,  for  substance,  Calvin.  Btickert,  DeWette,  Stuart,  Jowett, 
Vaughan.  On  l  Pet.  1:1, 2,  see  Com.  of  Plumptre.  The  Arminian  interpretation  of  "whom 
he  foreknew  "( Rom.  8  :  29 )  would  require  the  phrase  "as  conformed  to  the  image  of  his 
Son  "  to  be  conjoined  with  it.  Paul,  however,  makes  conformity  to  Christ  to  be  the; 
result,  not  the  foreseen  condition,  of  God's  foreordination;  see  Commentaries  of 
Hodge  and  Lange. 

C  e )  With  assertions  that  this  choice  is  matter  of  grace,  or  unmerited 
favor,  bestowed  in  eternity  past : 

Eph.  1:5-8—  "  foreordained  ....  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glorv  of  his  grace, 
which  he  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved  ....  according  to  the  r;ches  of  his  grace  "  ;  2:8  —  "by  grace  have  ye 
been  saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  tha  gift  of  God"  —  here  "and  that"  (neuter  toOto, 
verse8)  refers,  not  to  "  faith  "  but  to  "salvation."  But  faith  is  elsewhere  represented 
as  having  its  source  in  God,  —  see  page  782,  <  /. ).  2  Tim.  1 :  9  — "  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which 
was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  times  eternal."  Election  is  not  because  of  our  merit.  McLaren: 
"  God's  own  mercy,  spontaneous,  undeserved,  condescending,  moved  him.  God  is  his 
own  motive.  His  love  is  not  drawn  out  by  our  loveableness,  but  wells  up,  like  an 
artesian  spring,  from  the  depths  of  his  nature." 

(  d)  That  the  Father  has  given  certain  persons  to  the  Son,  to  be  his 
peculiar  possession  : 

John  6  :  37  —  "All  that  which  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  unto  me  "  ;  17 :  2  —  "  that  whatsoever  thou  hast  given 
him,  to  them  he  should  give  eternal  life  "  ;  6  —  "I  manifested  thy  name  unto  the  men  whom  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the 
world :  thine  they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  to  me "  ;  9  —  "I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  those  whom  thou  has^ 
given  me"  ;  Eph.  1 :14 —  "unto  the  redemption  of  God's  own  possession";  1  Pet.  2:  9  —  "a  people  for  God's  own 
possession." 

(  e )  That  the  fact  of  believers  being  united  thus  to  Christ  is  due  wholly 
to  God : 

John  6  :  44  —  "  No  man  can  come  to  me,  eicept  the  Father  that  sent  me  draw  him  "  ;  10  :  26  —  "  ye  believe  not, 
because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep  "  ;  1  Cor.  1  :  30  —  "of  him  [  God  ]  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus  "  =  your  being,  as 
Christians,  in  union  with  Christ,  is  due  wholly  to  God. 

(/)  That  those  who  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life,  and  they 
only,  shall  be  saved  : 

Phil.  4  :  3  —  "the  rest  of  my  fellow- workers,  whose  names  are  in  the  book  of  life  "  ;  Rev.  20  :  15  —  "  And  if  any 
was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life,  he  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire " ;  21  :  27  — "  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into 
it  anything  unclean  ...  but  only  they  that  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life  "  =  God's  decrees  of  elect- 
ing grace  in  Christ. 


782  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

(g)    That  these  are  allotted,  as  disciples,  to  certain  of  God's  servants  : 

Acts  17:4  —  ( literally  )  —  "  some  of  them  were  persuaded,  and  were  allotted  [  by  God  ]  to  Paul  and  Silas " — 
as  disciples  ( so  Meyer  and  Grimm  ) ;  18  :  9, 10  —  "  Be  not  afraid,  but  speak  and  hold  not  thy  peace :  for  I 
am  with  thee,  and  no  man  shall  set  on  thee  to  harm  thee :  for  I  have  much  people  in  this  city." 

(h)    Are  made  the  recipients  of  a  special  call  of  God  : 

Rom.  8  :  28,  30  — "called  according  to  his  purpose whom  he  foreordained,  them  he  also  called " ;  9 :  23, 24  — 

"  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  afore  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  whom  he  also  called,  not  from  the  Jews  only,  hut  also 
from  the  Gentiles  "  ;  11 :  29  —  " for  the  gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  not  repented  of"  ;  1  Cor.  1 :  24-29  —  "unto 
them  that  are  called  ....  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  ...  .  For  behold  your  calling,  brethren, 
....  the  things  that  are  despised,  did  God  choose,  yea  and  the  things  that  are  not,  that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the 
things  that  are :  that  no  flesh  should  glory  before  God  "  ;  Gal.  1 :  15,  16  —  "  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  who 
separated  me,  even  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  through  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  m  me  "  ;  cf.  James  2 :  23 
—  "  and  he  [  Abraham  ]  was  called  [  to  be  ]  the  friend  of  God." 

(  i )  Are  born  into  God's  kingdom,  not  by  virtue  of  man's  will,  but  of 
God's  will : 

John  1 :  13  —  "  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  "  ;  James  1  :  18  —  "Of 
his  own  will  he  brought  us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth  "  ;  1  John  4  :  10  —  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but 
that  he  loved  us."  S.  S.  Times,  Oct.  14,  1899  —  "The  law  of  love  is  the  expression  of  God's 
loving  nature,  and  it  is  only  by  our  participation  of  the«divine  nature  that  we  are 
enabled  to  render  it  obedience.  '  Loving-  God,'  says  Bushnell, '  is  but  letting-  God  love 
us.'  So  John's  great  saying- may  be  rendered  in  the  present  tense :  '  not  that  we  love 
God,  but  that  he  loves  us.'  Or,  as  Madame  Guyon  sings  :  '  I  love  my  God,  but  with  no 
love  of  mine,  For  I  have  none  to  give ;  I  love  thee,  Lord,  but  all  the  love  is  thine,  For 
by  thy  life  I  live'." 

(,/*)     Receiving  repentance,  as  the  gift  of  God  : 

Acts  5  :  31  —  "  Him  did  God  exalt  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Savior,  to  givo  repentance  to  Israel,  and 
remission  of  sins  "  ;  11:18  —  "  Then  to  the  Gentiles  also  hath  God  granted  repentance  unto  life  "  ;  2Tim.2:25  —  "cor-  ' 
reding  them  that  oppose  themselves ;  if  peradventure  God  may  give  them  repentance  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth." 
Of  course  it  is  true  that  God  mig-ht  give  repentance  simply  by  inducing-  man  to  repent 
by  the  agency  of  his  wind,  Ins  providence  and  his  Spirit.  But  more  than  this  seems  to 
hi  ■  meant  when  the  Psalmist  prays  :  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God ;  And  renew  a  right  spirit  within 
m)"  (Ps.  51:10). 

(  k  )    Faith,  as  the  gift  of  God  : 

John  6  :  65  —  "no  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  it  be  givon  unto  him  of  the  Father  "  ;  Acts  15  :  8,  9  —  "God  .  .  .  . 
giving  them  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  .  cleansing  their  hearts  by  faith  "  ;  Rom.  12  :  S  —  "according  as  God  hath  dealt  to  each 
man  a  measure  of  faith  "  ;  1  Cor.  12 :  9  —  "  to  another  faith,  in  the  same  Spirit";  Gal.  5  :  22 — "the  fruit  of  the  Spirit 
s  .  .  .  faith  "  (  A.  V.) ;  Phil.  2  :  13  —  In  all  fait  h,  "  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for 
his  good  pleasure";  Eph.  6  :  23  —  "  Peace  be  to  the  brethren,  and  .ove  with  faith,  from  God  the  Father  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ "  ;  John  3  :  8  —  "The  Spirit  breatheth  where  he  wills,  and  thou  [as  a  consequence  ]  hearest  his 
voice  "  (  so  Bengel ) ;  see  A.J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  166 ;  1  Cor.  12 : 3  — "No  man  can  say, 
Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  —  but  calling  Jesus  "Lord"  is  an  essential  part  of  faith, — faith 
therefore  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  Tit.  1 : 1  —  "  the  faith  of  God's  elect  "=  election  is  not  in 
consequence  of  faith,  but  faith  is  in  consequence  of  election  (Ellicott).  If  they  get 
their  faith  of  themselves,  then  salvation  is  not  due  to  grace.  If  God  gave  the  faith, 
then  it  was  in  his  purpose,  and  this  is  election. 

(  I )  Holiness  and  good  works,  as  the  gift  of  God. 

Eph.  1:4  —  "chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  "  ;  2:9, 10  — "not  of  works, 
that  no  man  should  glory.  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore  pre- 
pared that  we  should  walk  in  them  " ;  1  Pet.  1:2  —  elect  "  unto  obedience."  On  Scripture  testimony,  see 
Hovey,  Manual  of  Theol.  and  Ethics,  258-261 ;  also  art.  on  Predestination,  by  Warfield, 
in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

These  passages  furnish  an  abundant  and  conclusive  refutation,  on  the 
one  hand,  of  the  Lutheran  view  that  election  is  simply  God's  determina- 
tion from  eternity  to  provide  an  objective  salvation  for  universal  humanity; 


ELECTION".  783 

and,  on  the  other  hand,  of  the  Arniinian  view  that  election  is  God's  deter- 
mination from  eternity  to  save  certain  individuals  upon  the  ground  of 
their  foreseen  faith. 

Roughly  stated,  we  may  say  that  Schleiermacher  elects  all  men  subjectively ; 
Lutherans  all  men  objectively  ;  Arminians  all  believers  ;  Augustinians  all  foreknown 
as  God's  own.  Schleiermacher  held  that  decree  logically  precedes  foreknowledge,  and 
that  election  is  individual,  not  national.  But  he  made  election  to  include  all  men,  the 
ouly  difference  between  them  being  that  of  earlier  or  of  later  conversion.  Thus  in 
his  system  Calvinism  and  Restorationism  go  hand  in  hand.  Murray,  in  Hastings' 
Bible  Dictionary,  seems  to  take  this  view. 

Lutheranism  is  the  assertion  that  original  grace  preceded  original  sin,  and  that  the 
Quia  Yoluit  of  Tertullian  and  of  Calvin  was  based  on  wisdom,  in  Christ.  The  Lutheran 
holds  that  the  believer  is  simply  the  non-resistant  subject  of  common  grace ;  while  the 
Arniinian  holds  that  the  believer  is  the  cooperant  subject  of  common  grace.  Luther- 
anism  enters  more  fully  than  Calvinism  into  the  nature  of  faith.  It  thinks  more  of  the 
human  agency,  while  Calvinism  thinks  more  of  the  divine  purpose.  It  thinks  more 
of  the  church,  while  Calvinism  thinks  more  of  Scripture.  The  Arminian  conception 
is  that  God  has  appointed  men  to  salvation,  just'as  he  has  appointed  them  to  condem- 
nation, in  view  of  their  dispositions  and  acts.  As  Justification  is  in  view  of  present 
faith,  so  the  Arminian  regards  Election  as  taking  place  in  view  of  future  faith. 
Arminianism  must  reject  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  as  well  as  that  of  election,  and 
must  in  both  cases  make  the  act  of  man  precede  the  act  of  God. 

All  varieties  of  view  may  be  found  upon  this  subject  among  theologians.  John 
Milton,  in  his  Christian  Doctrine,  holds  that  "  there  is  no  particular  predestination  or 
election,  but  only  general. .  . .  There  can  be  non-probation  of  individuals  from  all  eter- 
nity." Archbishop  Sumner:  "  Election  is  predestination  of  communities  and  nations 
to  external  knowledge  and  to  the  privileges  of  thegospeL"  Archbishop  Whately : 
"  Election  is  the  choice  of  individual  men  to  membership  in  the  external  church  and 
the  means  of  grace."  Gore,  in  Lux  Mundi,  330— "The  elect  represent  not  the  special 
purpose  of  God  for  afew,  but  the  universal  purpose  which  under  the  circumstances 
can  only  be  realized  through  a  few."  It.  V.  Foster,  a  Cumberland  Presbyterian, 
opposed  to  absolute  predestination,  says  in  his  Systematic  Theology  that  the  divine 
decree  "  is  unconditional  in  its  origin  and  conditional  iu  its  application." 

B.  From  Reason. 

(  a )  What  God  does,  he  has  eternally  purposed  to  do.  Since  he  bestows 
special  regenerating  grace  on  some,  he  must  have  eternally  purposed  to 
bestow  it,  — in  other  words,  must  have  chosen  them  to  eternal  life.  Thus 
the  doctrine  of  election  is  only  a  special  application  of  the  doctrine  of 
decrees. 

The  New  Haven  views  are  essentially  Arminian.  See  Fitch,  on  Predestination  and 
Election,  in  Christian  Spectator,  3  :G22  —  "  God's  foreknowledge  of  what  would  be  the 
results  of  his  present  works  of  grace  preceded  in  the  order  of  nature  the  purpose  to 
pursue  those  works,  and  presented  the  grounds  of  that  purpose.  Whom  he  foreknew  — 
as  the  people  who  would  be  guided  to  his  kingdom  by  his  present  works  of  grace,  in 
which  result  lay  the  whole  objective  motive  for  undertaking  those  works  —  he  did  also, 
by  resolving  on  those  works,  predestinate."  Here  God  is  very  erroneously  said  to 
foreknow  what  is  as  yet  included  in  a  merely  possible  plan.  As  we  have  seen  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  Decrees,  there  can  be  no  foreknowledge,  unless  there  is  something  fixed,  in 
the  future,  to  be  foreknown;  and  this  fixity  can  be  due  only  to  God's  predetermina- 
tion.   So,  in  the  present  case,  election  must  precede  prescience. 

The  New  Haven  views  are  also  given  in  N.  W.  Taylor,  Revealed  Theology,  373-444  ; 
for  criticism  upon  them,  see  Tyler,  Letters  on  New  Haven  Theology,  172-180.  If  God 
desired  the  salvation  of  Judas  as  much  as  of  Peter,  how  was  Peter  elected  in  distinct- 
ion from  Judas?  To  the  questiou,  "Who  made  thee  to  differ?"  the  answer  must  be,  "Not 
God,  but  my  own  will."  See  Finney,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1877:711  — "God  must  have  fore- 
known whom  he  could  wisely  save,  prior  in  the  order  of  nature  to  his  determining  to 
save  them.  But  his  knowing  who  would  be  saved,  must  have  been,  in  the  order  of 
nature,  subsequent  to  his  election  or  determination  to  save  them,  and  dependent  upon 


784  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION. 

that  determination."    Foster,  Christian  Life  and  Theology,  70—  "  The  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion is  the  consistent  formulation,  suh  specie  etemitatis,  of  prevenient  grace 86  — 

With  the  doctrine  of  prevenient  grace,  the  evangelical  doctrine  stands  or  falls." 

(  b  )  This  purpose  cannot  be  conditioned  upon  any  merit  or  faith,  of 
those  who  are  chosen,  since  there  is  no  such  merit,  —  faith  itself  being 
God's  gift  and  foreordained  by  him.  Since  man's  faith  is  foreseen  only 
as  the  result  of  God's  work  of  grace,  election  proceeds  rather  upon  fore- 
seen unbelief.  Faith,  as  the  effect  of  election,  cannot  at  the  same  time  be 
the  cause  of  election. 

There  is  an  analogy  between  prayer  and  its  answer,  on  the  one  hand,  and  faith  and 
salvation  on  the  other.  God  has  decreed  answer  in  connection  with  prayer,  and  salva- 
tion in  connection  with  faith.  But  he  does  not  change  his  mind  when  men  pray,  or 
when  they  believe.  As  he  fulfils  his  purpose  by  inspiring  true  prayer,  so  he  fulfils 
his  purpose  by  giving  faith.  Augustine :  "  He  chooses  us,  not  because  we  believe, 
but  that  we  may  believe :  lest  we  should  say  that  we  first  chose  him."  ( John  15  :  16  —  "  Ye 
did  not  choose  me,  but  I  chose  you  "  ;  Rom.  9 :  21  —  "from  the  same  lump  "  ;  16  —  "  not  of  him  that  willeth  "  ). 

Here  see  the  valuable  discussion  of  Wardlaw,  Systematic  Theol.,  2 :  485-549  —  "  Elec- 
tion and  salvation  on  the  ground  of  works  foreseen  are  not  different  in  principle  from 
election  and  salvation  on  the  ground  of  works  performed."  Cf.  Prov.  21:1  —  "The  king's 
heart  is  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah  as  the  watercourses;  He  tumeth  it  whithersoever  he  will" — as  easily  as  the 
rivulets  of  the  eastern  fields  are  turned  by  the  slightest  motion  of  the  hand  or  the  foot 
of  the  husbandman  ;  Ps.  110  : 3  —  "  Thy  people  offer  themselves  willingly  In  the  day  of  thy  power." 

(  r  )  The  depravity  of  the  human  will  is  such  that,  without  this  decree  to 
bestow  special  divine  influences  upon  some,  aU,  without  exception,  would 
have  rejected  Christ's  salvation  after  it  was  offered  to  them ;  and  so  all, 
without  exception,  must  have  perished.  Election,  therefore,  may  be 
viewed  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  God's  decree  to  provide  an  objective 
redemption,  if  that  redemption  is  to  have  any  subjective  result  in  human 
salvation. 

Before  the  prodigal  son  seeks  the  father,  the  father  must  first  seek  him, —  a  truth 
brought  out  in  the  preceding  parables  of  the  lost  money  and  the  lost  sheep  ( Lukt  15  ). 
Without  election,  all  are  lost.  Newman  Smyth,  Orthodox  Theology  of  To-day,  56  — 
"  The  worst  doctrine  of  election,  to-day,  is  taught  by  our  natural  science.  The  scien- 
tific doctrine  of  natural  selection  is  the  doctrine  of  election,  robbed  of  all  hope,  and 
without  a  single  touch  of  human  pity  in  it." 

Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2 : 335  — " Suppose  the  deistic  view  be  true:  God  created  men 
and  left  them  ;  surely  no  man  could  complain  of  the  results.  But  now  suppose  God, 
foreseeing  these  very  results  of  creation,  should  create.  Would  it  make  any  difference, 
if  God's  purpose,  as  to  the  futurition  of  such  a  world,  should  precede  it?  Augustine 
supposes  that  God  did  purpose  such  a  world  as  the  deist  supposes,  with  two  exceptions : 
( 1)  he  interposes  to  restrain  evil ;  (2)  he  intervenes,  by  providence,  by  Christ,  and  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  save  some  from  destruction."  Election  is  simply  God's  determina- 
tion that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  shall  not  be  in  vain  ;  that  all  men  shall  not  be  lost ; 
that  some  shall  be  led  to  accept  Christ ;  that  to  this  end  special  influences  of  his  Spirit 
shall  be  given. 

At  first  sight  it  might  appear  that  God's  appointing  men  to  salvation  was  simply 
permissive,  as  was  his  appointment  to  condemnation  ( 1  Pet.  2:8),  and  that  this  appoint- 
ment was  merely  indirect  by  creating  them  with  foresight  of  their  faith  or  their  dis- 
obedience. But  the  decree  of  salvation  is  not  simply  permissive,  —  it  is  efficient  also. 
It  is  a  decree  to  use  special  means  for  the  salvation  of  some.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular 
Lectures,  143 — "The  dead  man  cannot  spontaneously  originate  his  own  quickening, 
nor  the  creature  his  own  creating,  nor  the  infant  his  own  begetting.  Whatever  man 
may  do  after  regeneration,  the  first  quickening  of  the  dead  must  originate  with  God." 

Hovey,  Manual  of  Theology,  287  — "Calvinism,  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is  elec- 
tion of  believers,  not  on  account  of  any  foreseen  conduct  of  theirs,  either  before  or  in 
the  act  of  conversion,  which  would  be  spiritually  bettor  than  that  of  others  influenced 
by  the  same  grace,  but  on  account  of  their  foreseen  greater  usefulness  in  manifesting 
the  glory  of  God  to  moral  beings  and  of  their  foreseen  non-commission  of  the  sin 


ELECTION-.  785 

against  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  even  here  we  must  attribute  the  greater  usefulness  and 
the  abstention  from  fatal  sin,  not  to  man's  unaided  powers  but  to  the  divine  decree  : 
see  Eph.  2:10 —  "For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore  prepared  that 
we  should  walk  in  them." 

(d)  The  doctrine  of  election  becomes  more  acceptable  to  reason  when 
we  remember  :  first,  that  God's  decree  is  eternal,  and  in  a  certain  sense  is 
contemporaneous  with  man's  belief  in  Christ ;  secondly,  that  God's  decree 
to  create  involves  the  decree  of  all  that  in  the  exercise  of  man's  freedom 
will  follow  ;  thirdly,  that  God's  .decree  is  the  decree  of  him  who  is  all  in 
all,  so  that  our  willing  and  doing  is  at  the  same  time  the  working  of  him 
who  decrees  our  willing  and  doing.  The  whole  question  turns  upon  the 
initiative  in  human  salvation  :  if  this  belongs  to  God,  then  in  spite  of  dif- 
ficulties we  must  accept  the  doctrine  of  election. 

The  timeless  existence  of  God  may  be  the  source  of  many  of  our  difficulties  with 
regard  to  election,  and  with  a  proper  view  of  God's  eternity  these  difficulties  might  be 
removed.  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel,  349-351—  "  Eternity  is  commonly  thought  of  as 
if  it  were  a  state  or  series  anterior  to  time  and  to  be  resumed  again  when  time  comes 
to  an  end.    This,  however,  only  reduces  eternity  to  time  again,  and  puts  the  life  of  God 

in  the  same  hue  with  our  own,  only  coming  from  further  back At  present  we  do 

not  see  how  time  and  eternity  meet.'' 

Royce,  World  and  Individual,  2 :374 — "  God  does  not  temporally  foreknow  anything', 
except  so  far  as  he  is  expressed  in  us  finite  beings.  The  knowledge  that  exists  in  time 
is  the  knowledge  that  finite  beings  possess,  in  so  far  as  they  are  finite.  And  no  sucb 
foreknowledge  can  predict  the  special  features  of  individual  deeds  precisely  so  far  as 
they  are  unique.  Foreknowledge  in  time  is  possible  only  of  the  general,  and  of  the 
causally  predetermined,  and  not  of  the  unique  and  free.  Hence  neii  her  God  nor  man 
can  foreknow  perfectly,  at  any  temporal  moment,  what  a  free  will  agent  is  yet  to  do. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Absolute  possesses  a  perfect  knowledge  at  one  glance  of  the 
whole  of  the  temporal  order,  past,  present  and  future.  This  knowledge  is  ill  called 
foreknowledge.  It  is  eternal  knowledge.  And  as  there  is  an  eternal  knowledge  of  all 
individuality  and  of  all  freedom,  free  acts  are  known  as  occurring,  like  the  chords  in 
the  musical  succession,  precisely  when  and  how  they  actually  occur."  While  we  see 
much  truth  in  the  preceding  statement,  we  find  in  it  no  bar  to  our  faith  that  God  can 
translate  his  eternal  knowledge  into  finite  knowledge  aud  can  thus  put  it  for  special 
purposes  in  possession  of  his  creatures. 

E.  H.  Johnson,  Theology,  2d  ed.,  2.~0  —  "  Foreknowing  what  his  creatures  would  do, 
God  decreed  their  destiny  when  he  decreed  their  creation  ;  and  this  would  still  be  the 
case,  although  every  man  had  the  partial  control  over  his  destiny  that  Arminians 
aver,  or  even  the  complete  control  that  Pelagians  claim.  The  decree  is  as  absolute  as 
if  there  were  no  freedom,  but  it  leaves  them  as  free  as  if  there  were  no  decree."  A.  H. 
Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  40,  42  — "As  the  Logos  or  divine  Reason,  Christ  dwells  in 
humanity  everywhere  and  constitutes  the  principle  of  its  being.  Humanity  shares 
with  Christ  in  the  image  of  God.  That  image  is  never  wholly  lost.  It  is  completely 
restored  in  sinners  when  the  Spirit  of  Christ  secures  control  of  their  wills  and  leads 
them  to  merge  their  life  in  his. ...  If  Christ  be  the  principle  and  life  of  all  things, 
then  divine  sovereignty  and  human  freedom,  if  they  are  not  absolutely  reconciled,  at 
least  lose  their  ancient  antagonism,  and  we  can  rationally  '  work  out  our  own  salvation,'  for 
the  ver y  reason  that  '  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  us,  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure '  (  Phil. 
2:12,13)." 

2.     Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Election. 

(a)  It  is  unjust  to  those  who  are  not  included  in  this  purpose  of  salva- 
tion.— Answer  :  Election  deals,  not  simply  with  creatures,  but  with  sinful, 
guilty,  and  condemned  creatures.  That  any  should  be  saved,  is  matter  of 
pure  grace,  and  those  who  are  not  included  in  this  purpose  of  salvation 
suffer  only  the  due  reward  of  their  deeds.  There  is,  therefore,  no  injustice 
in  God's  election.  We  may  better  praise  God  that  he  saves  any,  than  charge 
him  with  injustice  because  he  saves  so  few. 
50 


786 


SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 


God  can  say  to  all  men,  saved  or  unsaved,  "Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong  ....  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me 
to  do  what  I  will  with  mine  own  ?  "  ( Mat.  20  :  13, 15 ).  The  question  is  not  whether  a  father  will  treat 
his  children  alike,  but  whether  a  sovereign  must  treat  condemned  rebels  alike.  It  is 
not  true  that,  because  the  Governor  pardons  one  convict  from  the  penitentiary,  he 
must  therefore  pardon  all.  When  he  pardons  one,  no  injury  is  done  to  those  who  are 
left.  But,  in  God's  government,  there  is  still  less  reason  for  objection ;  for  God  offers 
pardon  to  all.  Nothing  prevents  men  from  being  pardoned  but  their  unwillingness  to 
accept  his  pardon.  Election  is  simply  God's  determination  to  make  certain  persons 
willing  to  accept  it.    Because  justice  cannot  save  all,  shall  it  therefore  save  none  ? 

Augustine,  De  Predest.  Sanct.,  8— "  Wliy  does  not  God  teach  all?  Because  it  is  in 
mercy  that  he  teaches  all  whom  he  does  teach,  while  it  is  in  judgment  that  he  does  not 
teach  those  whom  he  does  not  teach."  In  his  Manual  of  Theology  and  Ethics,  2G0, 
Hovey  remarks  that  Rom.  9  :  20— "who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God?"— teaches,  not  that  might 
makes  right,  but  that  God  is  morally  entitled  to  glorify  either  his  righteousness  or  his 
mercy  in  disposing  of  a  guilty  race.  It  is  not  that  he  chooses  to  save  only  a  few  ship- 
wrecked and  drowning  creatures,  but  that  he  chooses  to  save  only  a  part  of  a  great 
company  who  are  bent  on  committing  suicide.  Prov,  8  :  36  — "  he  that  sinneth  against  me  wmngcth 
his  own  soul :  All  they  that  hate  me  love  death."  It  is  best  for  the  universe  at  large  that  some  should 
be  permitted  to  have  their  own  way  and  show  how  dreadful  a  thing  is  opposition  to 
God.    See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Thcol.,  1 :  455. 

{b)  It  represents  God  as  partial  in  his  dealings  and  a  respecter  of  per- 
sons.— Answer  :  Since  there  is  nothing  in  men  that  determines  God's  choice 
of  one  rather  than  another,  the  objection  is  invalid.  It  would  equally  apply 
to  God's  selection  of  certain  nations,  as  Israel,  and  certain  individuals,  as 
Cyrus,  to  be  recipients  of  special  temporal  gifts.  If  God  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  partial  in  not  providing  a  salvation  for  fallen  angels,  he  cannot 
be  regarded  as  partial  in  not  providing  regenerating  influences  of  his  Spirit 
for  the  whole  race  of  fallen  men. 

Ps.  44  :  3  — "  For  they  gat  not  the  land  in  possession  by  their  own  sword,  Neither  did  their  own  arm  save  them  ;  But 
thy  right  hand,  and  thine  arm,  and  the  light  of  thy  countenance,  Because  thou  wast  favorable  unto  them  ";  Is.  45  : 1,  4, 5 
— "Thus  saith  Jehovah  to  his  anointed,  to  Cyrus,  whose  right  hand  I  have  holden,  to  subdue  nations  before  him  ....  For 
Jacob  my  servant's  sake,  and  Israel  my  chosen,  I  have  called  thee  by  thy  name:  I  have  surnamed  thee,  though  thou 
hast  not  known  me";  Luke  4  :  25-27— "There  were  many  widows  m  Israel  ....  and  unto  none  of  them  was  Elijah 
sent,  but  only  to  Zarephath,  in  the  land  of  Sidon,  unto  a  woman  that  was  a  widow.  And  there  were  many  lepers  in 
Israel  ,  ,  ,  .  and  none  of  them  was  cleansed,  but  only  Naaman  the  Syrian";  1  Cor.  4  :  7  —"For  who  maketh  thee  to 
differ  ?  and  what  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?  but  if  thou  didst  receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory,  as  if  thou 
hadst  not  received  it?"  2  Pet.  2  :  4 — "God  spared  not  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell ";  Heb. 
2  :  16  — "  For  verily  not  to  angels  doth  he  give  help,  but  he  giveth  help  to  the  seed  of  Abraham." 

Is  God  partial,  in  choosing  Israel,  Cyrus,  Naaman?  Is  God  partial,  in  bestowing  upon 
some  of  his  servants  special  ministerial  gifts?  Is  God  partial,  in  not  providing  a  salva- 
tion for  fallen  angels  ?  In  God's  providence,  one  man  is  born  in  a  Christian  land,  the 
son  of  a  noble  family,  is  endowed  with  beauty  of  person,  splendid  talents,  exalted 
opportunities,  immense  wealth.  Another  is  born  at  the  Five  Points,  or  among  the 
Hottentots,  amid  the  degradation  and  depravity  of  actual,  or  practical,  heathenism. 
We  feel  that  it  is  irreverent  to  complain  of  God's  dealings  in  providence.  What  right 
have  sinners  to  complain  of  God's  dealings  in  the  distribution  of  his  grace  ?  Hovey : 
"  We  have  no  reason  to  think  that  God  treats  all  moral  beings  alike.  We  should  be  glad 
to  hear  that  other  races  are  treated  better  than  we." 

Divine  election  is  only  the  ethical  side  and  interpretation  of  natural  selection.  In  the 
latter  God  chooses  certain  forms  of  the  vegetable  aud  animal  kingdom  without  merit 
of  theirs.  They  are  preserved  while  others  die.  In  the  matter  of  individual  health, 
talent,  property,  one  is  taken  and  the  other  left.  If  we  call  all  this  the  result  of  system, 
the  reply  is  that  God  chose  the  system,  knowing  precisely  what  would  come  of  it. 
Bruce,  Apologetics,  201 — "  Election  to  distinction  in  philosophy  or  art  is  not  incompre- 
hensible, for  these  are  not  matters  of  vital  concern  ;  but  election  to  holiness  on  the 
part  of  some,  and  to  unholiness  on  the  part  of  others,  would  be  inconsistent  with  God's 
owl  holiness."  But  there  is  no  such  election  to  unholiness  except  on  the  part  of  man 
himself.    God's  election  secures  only  the  good.    See  ( c )  below. 

J.  J.  Murphy,  Natural  Selection  and  Spiritual  Freedom,  73— "The  world  is  ordered 
on  a  basis  of  inequality ;  in  the  organic  world,  as  Darwin  has  shown,  it  is  of  inequality  — 


ELECTION".  787 

of  favored  races  — that  all  progress  comes;  history  shows  the  same  to  be  true  of  the 
human  and  spiritual  world.  All  human  progress  is  due  to  elect  human  individuals,  elect 
not  only  to  be  a  blessing  to  themselves,  but  still  more  to  be  a  blessing  to  multitudes  of 
others.  Any  superiority,  whether  in  the  natural  or  in  the  mental  and  spiritual  world, 
becomes  a  vantage-ground  for  gaining  a  greater  superiority.  ...  It  is  the  method  of 
the  divine  government,  acting  in  the  provinces  both  of  nature  and  of  grace,  that  all 
benefit  should  come  to  the  many  through  the  elect  few." 

(c)  It  represents  God  as  arbitrary. — Answer:  It  represents  God,  not 
as  arbitrary,  but  as  exercising  tlie  free  choice  of  a  wise  and  sovereign  will,  in 
ways  and  for  reasons  which  are  inscrutable  to  us.  To  deny  the  possibility 
of  such  a  choice  is  to  deny  God's  personality.  To  deny  that  God  has 
lease  >ns  for  his  choice  is  to  deny  his  wisdom.  The  doctrine  of  election  finds 
these  reasons,  not  in  men,  but  in  God. 

When  a  regiment  is  decimated  for  insubordination,  the  fact  that  every  tenth  man  is 
chosen  for  death  is  for  reasons;  but  the  reasons  are  not  in  the  men.  In  one  ease,  the 
reason  for  God's  choice  seems  revealed :  1  Tim.  1  :  16 — "howbeit  for  this  cause  I  obtained  mercy,  that 
in  me  as  chief  might  Jesus  Christ  show  forth  all  his  longsuffering,  for  an  ensample  of  them  that  should  thereafter  believe 
en  h'.m  unto  eternal  life " — here  Paul  indicates  that  the  reason  why  God  chose  him  was  that 
he  was  so  great  a  sinner  :  verse  15  —  "Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners ;  of  whom  I  am  chief." 
Hovey  remarks  that  "the  uses  to  which  God  can  put  men,  as  ressels  of  grace,  may 
determine  his  selection  of  them."  But  since  the  naturally  weak  are  saved,  as  well  as 
the  naturally  strong,  we  cannot  draw  any  general  conclusion,  or  discern  any  general 
rule,  in  God's  dealings,  unless  it  be  this,  that  in  election  God  seeks  to  illustrate  the 
greatness  and  the  variety  of  his  grace,— the  reasons  lying,  therefore,  not  in  men,  but 
in  Cod.  We  must  remember  that  God's  sovereignty  is  the  sovereignty  of  God  —the  infi- 
nitely wise,  holy  and  loving  Cod,  in  whose  hands  the  desl  inies  of  men  can  be  left  more 
safely  than  in  the  hands  of  the  wisest,  most  just,  and  most  kind  of  his  creatures. 

We  must  believe  in  the  grace  of  sovereignty  as  well  as  in  the  sovereignty  of  grace. 
Election  and  reprobation  are  not  matters  of  arbitrary  will.  God  saves  all  whom  he  can 
wisely  save.  He  will  show  benevolence  in  the  salvation  of  mankind  just  so  far  as  he 
can  without  prejudice  to  holiness.  No  man  can  be  saved  without  God,  but  it  is  also 
true  that  there  is  no  man  whom  God  is  doI  willing  to  save.  II.  15.  Smith,  System,  511  — 
"it  may  be  that  many  of  the  finally  impenitent  resist  more  litrht  than  many  of  the 
saved."  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  401  (for  substance)— "Sovereignty  is  not  lost  in 
Fatherhood,  but  is  recovered  as  the  divine  law  of  righteous  love.  Doubtless  thou  art 
our  Father,  though  Augustine  be  ignorant  of  us,  and  Calvin  acknowledge  us  not." 
Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,  1  : 2— "They  err  who  think  that  of  God's  will  there  is  no  reason 
except  his  will."  T.  Erskine,  The  Brazen  Serpent,  259  —  Sovereignty  is  "just  a  name 
for  what  is  unrcvealcd  of  God." 

We  do  not  know  all  of  God's  reasons  for  saving  particular  men,  but  we  do  know  some 
of  the  reasons,  for  he  has  revealed  them  to  us.  These  reasons  are  not  men's  merits  or 
works.  We  have  mentioned  the  first  of  these  reasons:  (1)  Men's  greater  sin  and  need  ; 
1  Tim.  1 :  16  —  "  that  in  me  as  chief  might  Jesus  Christ  show  forth  all  his  longsuffering."  We  may  add  to  t  h  is  : 
(2)  The  fact  that  men  have  not  sinned  against  the  Holy  Spirit  and  made  themselves 
unreccptive  to  Christ's  salvation  ;  1  Tim.  1 :  13  —  "I  obtained  mercy,  because  I  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbe- 
ief"=the  fact  that  Paul  had  not  sinned  with  full  knowledge  of  what  he  did  was  a  reason 
why  God  could  choose  him.  (3)  Men's  ability  by  the  help  of  Christ  to  be  witnesses  and 
martyrs  for  their  Lord  ;  Acts  9  1 15, 16  — "  he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to  bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles 
and  kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel :  for  I  will  show  him  how  many  things  he  must  suffer  for  my  name's  sake."  As 
Paul's  mission  to  the  Gentiles  may  have  determined  God's  choice,  so  Augustine's  mis- 
sion to  the  sensual  and  abandoned  may  have  had  the  same  influence.  But  if  Paul's 
sins,  as  foreseen,  constituted  one  reason  why  God  chose  to  save  him,  why  might  not  his 
ability  to  serve  the  kingdom  have  constituted  another  reason  ?  We  add  therefore :  ( 4 ) 
Men's  foreseen  ability  to  serve  Christ's  kingdom  in  bringing  others  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  ;  John  15 :  16  — "I  chose  you  and  appointed  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bear  fruit.''  Notice  however 
that  this  is  choice  to  service,  and  not  simply  choice  on  account  of  service.  In  all  these 
eases  the  reasons  do  not  lie  in  the  men  themselves,  for  what  these  men  are  and  what 
they  possess  is  due  to  God's  providence  and  grace. 

( d )  It  tends  to  immorality,  by  representing  men's  salvation  as  inde- 
pendent of  their  own  obedience. — Answer  :  The  objection  ignores  the  fact 


788  80TERIOL0GY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

that  the  salvation  of  believers  is  ordained  only  in  connection  with  their 
regeneration  and  sanctirication,  as  means  ;  and  that  the  certainty  of  final 
triumph  is  the  strongest  incentive  to  strenuous  conflict  with  sin. 

Plutarch :  "  God  is  the  brave  man's  hope,  and  not  the  coward's  excuse."  The  pur- 
poses of  God  are  an  anchor  to  the  storm-tossed  spirit.  But  a  ship  needs  engine,  as  well 
as  anchor.  God  does  not  elect  to  save  any  without  repentance  and  faith.  Some  hold 
the  doctrine  of  election,  but  the  doctrine  of  election  does  not  hold  them.  Such  should 
ponder  1  Pet.  1 :  2,  in  which  Christians  are  said  to  be  elect,  "  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedi- 
ence and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Augustine:  "He  loved  her  [the  church]  foul,  that  he  might  make  her  fair."  Dr. 
John  Watson  ( Ian  McLaren ) :  "  The  greatest  reinforcement  religion  could  have  in  our 
time  would  be  a  return  to  the  ancient  belief  in  the  sovereignty  of  God."  This  is 
because  there  is  lack  of  a  strong  conviction  of  sin,  guilt,  and  helplessness,  still  remain- 
ing pride  and  unwillingness  to  submit  to  God,  imperfect  faith  in  God's  trustworthiness 
and  goodness.  We  must  not  exclude  Arminians  from  our  fellowship— there  are  too 
many  good  Methodists  for  that.  But  we  may  maintain  that  they  hold  but  half  the 
truth,  and  that  absence  of  the  doctrine  of  election  from  their  creed  makes  preaching 
less  serious  and  character  less  secure. 

(e)  It  inspires  pride  in  those  who  think  themselves  elect. — Answer: 
This  is  possible  only  in  the  case  of  those  who  pervert  the  doctrine.  On 
the  contrary,  its  proper  influence  is  to  humble  men.  Those  who  exalt 
themselves  above  others,  upon  the  ground  that  they  are  special  favorites  of 
God,  have  reason  to  question  their  election. 

In  the  novel,  there  was  great  effectiveness  in  the  lover's  plea  to  the  object  of  his 
affection,  that  he  had  loved  since  he  had  first  set  his  eyes  upon  her  in  her  childhood. 
But  God's  love  for  us  is  of  longer  standing  than  that.  It  dates  back  to  a  time  before 
we  were  born,— aye,  even  to  eternity  past.  It  is  a  love  which  was  fastened  upon  us, 
although  God  knew  the  worst  of  us.  It  is  unchanging,  because  founded  upon  his 
infinite  and  eternal  love  to  Christ.  Jer.  31  :  3  —  "Jehovah  appeared  of  old  unto  me,  saying,  Yea,  I  have 
loved  thoe  with  an  everlasting  love:  therefore  with  lovingkindness  have  I  drawn  thee  ";  Rom.  8  :  31-39 — "If  God  is  for 
us,  who  is  against  us?  ....  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  ?  "  And  the  answer  is,  that 
nothing  "shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  This  eternal 
love  subdues  and  humbles  :  Ps.  115  : 1 — "Not  unto  us,  0  Jehovah,  not  unto  us,  But  unto  thy  name  give  glory 
For  thy  lovingkindness,  and  for  thy  truth's  sake." 

Of  the  effect  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes.  3  :  22  : 1,  remarks 
that  "  when  the  human  mind  hears  of  it,  its  irritation  breaks  all  restraint,  and  it  dis- 
covers as  serious  and  violent  agitation  as  if  alarmed  by  the  60und  of  a  martial 
trumpet."  The. cause  of  this  agitation  is  the  apprehension  of  the  fact  that  one  is  an 
enemy  of  God  and  yet  absolutely  dependent  upon  his  mercy.  This  apprehension  leads 
normally  to  submission.  But  the  conquered  rebel  can  give  no  thanks  to  himself, —  all 
thanks  are  due  to  God  who  has  chosen  and  renewed  him.  The  affections  elicited  are 
not  those  of  pride  and  self-complacency,  but  of  gratitude  and  love. 

Christian  hymnology  witnesses  to  these  effects.  Isaac  Watts  ( 1 1748) :  "  Why  was  I 
made  to  hear  thy  voice  And  enter  while  there  s  room,  When  thousands  make  a  wretched 
choice.  And  rather  starve  than  come.  'T  was  the  same,  love  that  spread  the  feast  That 
sweetly  forced  me  in ;  Else  I  had  still  refused  to  taste,  And  perished  in  my  sin.  Pity 
the  nations,  O  our  God!  Constrain  the  earth  to  come;  Send  thy  victorious  word 
abroad.  And  bring  the  wanderers  home."  Josiah  Conder  (t  1855):  "  'Tis  not  that  I  did 
choose  thee,  For,  Lord,  that  could  not  be ;  This  heart  would  still  refuse  thee ;  But  thou 
hast  chosen  me ; —  Hast,  from  the  sin  that  stained  me,  Washed  me  and  set  me  free.  And 
to  this  end  ordained  me  That  I  should  live  to  thee.  'T  was  sovereign  mercy  called  me, 
And  taught  my  opening  mind  ;  The  world  had  else  enthralled  me,  To  heavenly  glories 
blind.  My  heart  owns  none  above  thee ;  For  thy  rich  grace  I  thirst ;  This  knowing,— 
if  I  love  thee,  Thou  must  have  loved  me  first." 

(/)  It  discourages  effort  for  the  salvation  of  the  impenitent,  whether  on 
their  own  part  or  on  the  part  of  others.  —  Answer  :  Since  it  is  a  secret 
decree,  it  cannot  hinder  or  discourage  such  effort.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  a  ground  of  encouragement,  and  so  a  stimulus  to  effort ;  for,  without 


ELECTION.  789 

election,  it  is  certain  that  all  would  be  lost  (cf.  Acts  18: 10).  While  it 
humbles  the  sinner,  so  that  he  is  willing  to  cry  for  mercy,  it  encourages 
him  also  by  showing  him  that  some  will  be  saved,  and  (  since  election  and 
faith  are  inseparably  connected  )  that  he  will  be  saved,  if  he  will  only 
believe.  While  it  makes  the  Christian  feel  entirely  dependent  on  God's 
power,  in  his  efforts  for  the  impenitent,  it  leads  him  to  say  with  Paul  that 
he  "endures  all  things  for  the  elects'  sake,  that  they  also  may  attain  the 
salvation  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  with  eternal  glory  "  ( 2  Tim.  2  :  10 ). 

God's  decree  that  Paul's  ship's  company  should  be  saved  ( Acts  27 :  24 )  did  not  obviate 
the  necessity  of  their  abiding  in  the  ship  (  verse  31 ).  In  marriage,  man's  election  does 
not  exclude  woman's;  so  God's  election  does  not  exclude  man's.  There  is  just  as  much 
need  of  effort  as  if  there  were  no  election.  Hence  the  question  for  the  sinner  is  not, 
"  Am  I  one  of  the  elect?  "  but  rather  "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  V  "  Milton  repre- 
sents the  spirits  of  hell  as  debating  foreknowledge  and  free  will,  in  wandering  mazes 
lost. 

No  man  is  saved  until  he  ceases  to  debate,  and  begins  to  act.  And  yet  no  man  will 
thus  begin  to  act,  unless  God's  Spirit  moves  him.  The  Lord  encouraged  Paul  by  say- 
ing to  him:  "I  have  much  people  in  this  city"  (Acts  18:10)  —  people  whom  I  will  bring  in  through 
thy  word.  "  Old  Adam  is  too  strong  for  young  Melanchthon."  If  God  does  not  regen- 
erate, there  is  no  hope  of  success  in  preaching:  "God  stands  powerless  before  the 
majesty  of  man's  lordly  will.  Sinners  have  the  glory  of  their  own  salvation.  To  pray 
God  to  convert  a  man  is  absurd.  God  elects  the  man,  because  lie  foresees  that  the  man 
Will  elect  himself "( see  S.K.  Mason,  Truth  [Infolded,  298-307).  The  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion does  indeed  cut  off  the  hopes  of  those  who  place  confidence  in  themselves;  but  it 
is  best  that  such  hopes  should  be  destroyed,  and  that  in  place  of  them  should  be  put  a 
hope  in  the  sovereign  grace  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  election  does  teach  man's  abso- 
lute dependence  upon  God,  and  the  impossibility  of  any  disappointment  or  disarrange- 
ment of  the  divine  plans  arising  from  the  disobedience  of  the  sinner,  and  it  humbles 
human  pride  until  it  is  willing  to  take  the  place  of  a  suppliant  for  mercy. 

Rowland  Hill  was  criticized  for  preaching  election  and  yet  exhorting  sinners  to  repent, 
and  was  told  that  he  should  preach  only  to  the  elect.  He  replied  that,  if  his  critic 
would  put  a  chalk- mark  on  all  the  elect,  he  would  preach  only  to  them.  But  this  is 
not  the  whole  truth.  We  are  not  only  ignorant  who  God's  eleel  are,  but  we  are  set  to 
preach  to  both  elect  and  non-elect  (Ez.  2:7 — "thou  shalt  speak  my  words  unto  them,  whether  they 
will  hear,  or  whether  they  will  forbear"),  with  the  certainty  that  to  the  former  our  preaching 
will  make  a  higher  heaven,  to  the  latter  a  deeper  hell  (  2  Cor.  2:15, 16  —  "For  we  are  a  sweet  savor 
of  Christ  unto  God,  in  them  that  are  saved,  and  in  them  that  perish  ;  to  the  one  a  savor  from  death  unto  death  ;  to  the 
other  a  savor  from  life  unto  life  "  ;  cf.  Luke  2  :  34  —  "this  child  is  set  for  the  falling  and  the  rising  of  many  in 
Israel"  =  for  the  falling  of  some,  and  lor  the  rising  up  of  others). 

Jesus'  own  thanksgiving  in  Mat.  11:25,  26  —  "I  thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding,  and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes :  yea,  Father,  for  so  it  was 
wel!-pleasing  in  thy  sight"  —  is  immediately  followed  by  his  invitation  in  verse  28  —  "  Come  unto  me, 
all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  There  is  no  contradiction  in  his  mind 
between  sovereign  grace  and  the  free  invitations  of  the  gospel. 

G.  W.  Northrup,  in  The  Standard,  Sept.  19, 1889  —  "1.  God  will  save  every  one  of  the 
human  race  whom  he  can  save  and  remain  God;  2.  Every  member  of  the  race  has  a 
full  and  fair  probation,  so  that  all  might  be  saved  and  would  be  saved  were  they  to  use 
aright  the  light  which  they  already  have."  . . . .  ( Private  letter ) :  "  Limitations  of  God 
in  the  bestowment  of  salvation  :  1.  In  the  power  of  God  in  relation  to  free  will ;  2.  In 
the  benevolence  of  God  which  requires  the  greatest  good  of  creation,  or  the  greatest 
aggregate  good  of  the  greatest  number;  3.  In  the  purpose  of  God  to  make  the  most 
perfect  self-limitation ;  4.  In  the  sovereignty  of  God,  as  a  prerogative  absolutely 
optional  in  its  exercise ;  5.  In  the  holiness  of  God,  which  involves  immutable  limita- 
tions on  his  part  in  dealing  with  rnoral  agents.  Nothing  but  some  absolute  impossi- 
bility, metaphysical  or  moral,  could  have  prevented  him  '  whose  nature  and  whose 
name  is  love '  from  decreeing  and  securing  the  confirmation  of  all  moral  agents  in  holi- 
ness and  blessedness  forever." 

( g )  The  decree  of  election  implies  a  decree  of  reprobation.  —  Answer  : 
The  decree  of  reprobation  is  not  a  positive  decree,  like  that  of  election, 


790  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

but  a  permissive  decree  to  leave  the  sinner  to  his  self-chosen  rebellion  and 
its  natural  consequences  of  punishment. 

Election  and  sovereignty  are  only  sources  of  good.  Election  is  not  a  decree  to 
destroy,  —  it  is  a  decree  only  to  save.  When  we  elect  a  President,  we  do  not  need  to 
hold  a  second  election  to  determine  that  the  remaining  millions  shall  be  non-Presi- 
dents. It  is  needless  to  apply  contrivance  or  force.  Sinners,  like  water,  if  simply  let 
alone,  will  run  down  hill  to  ruin.  The  decree  of  reprobation  is  simply  a  decree  to  do 
nothing  —  a  decree  to  leave  the  sinner  to  himself .  The  natural  result  of  this  judicial 
forsaking,  on  the  part  of  God,  is  the  hardening  and  destruction  of  the  sinner.  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  hardening  and  destruction  are  not  due  to  any  positive 
efficiency  of  God,  —they  are  a  self-hardening  and  a  self-destruction,  —  and  God's  judi- 
cial forsaking  is  only  the  just  penalty  of  the  sinner's  guilty  rejection  of  offered  mercy. 

See  Hosea  11 : 8  —  "How  shall  I  give  thee  up,  Ephraim  ?  ....  my  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  compassions  are 
kindled  together";  4:17  —  "Ephraim  is  joined  to  idols;  let  himalon:";  Rom.9:22,23 —  "  What  if  God,  willing  to 
show  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured  with  much  longsuffering  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto  destruction : 
and  that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  upon  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  afore  prepared  unto  glory" — 
here  notice  that "  which  he  afore  prepared"  declares  a  positive  divine  efficiency,  in  the  case  of 
the  vessels  of  mercy,  while  "fitted  unto  destruction"  intimates  no  such  positive  agency  of 
God,  —  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  themselves  for  destruction;  2  Tim,  2:20  —  "vessels.... 
some  unto  honor,  and  some  unto  dishonor  "  ;  1  Pet.  2:8  —  "they  stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient:  whereunto 
also  they  were  appointed  "  ;  Jude  4  —  "  who  were  of  old  set  forth  [  '  written  of  beforehand '  —  Am.  Rev.  ]  unto  this 
condemnation  "  ;  Mat.  25 :  34,  41  —  "  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  ....  the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  [  not  for 
you,  nor  for  men,  but  ]  for  the  devil  and  his  angels ' '  =  there  is  an  election  to  life,  but  no 
reprobation  to  death  ;  a  "  book  of  life  "  ( Rev.  21 :  27 ),  but  no  book  of  death. 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  313  —  "Reprobation,  in  the  sense  of  absolute  pre- 
destination to  sin  and  eternal  damnation,  is  neither  a  sequence  of  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, nor  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures."  Men  are  not  "appointed"  to  disobedience  and 
stumbling  in  the  same  way  that  they  are  "appointed"  to  salvation.  God  uses  positive 
means  to  save,  but  not  to  destroy.  Henry  Ward  Beecher :  "  The  elect  are  whosoever 
will ;  the  non-elect  are  whosoever  won't."  George  A.  Gordon,  New  Epoch  for  Faith, 
44  —  "  Election  understood  would  have  been  the  saving  strength  of  Israel ;  election  mis- 
understood was  its  ruin.  The  nation  felt  that  the  election  of  it  meant  the  rejection  of 
other  nations.  . . .  The  Christian  church  has  repeated  Israel's  mistake." 

The  Westminster  Confession  reads :  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  to 
everlasting  death.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreordained,  are 
particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite 
that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished.  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was 
pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth 
or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his 
creatures,  to  pass  by  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  This  reads  as  if  both  the  saved  and  the  lost  were  made 
originally  for  their  respective  final  estates  without  respect  to  character.  It  is  supra- 
lapsarianism.  It  is  certain  that  the  supralapsarians  were  in  the  majority  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  and  that  they  determined  the  form  of  the  statement,  although  there 
were  many  sublapsarians  who  objected  that  it  was  only  on  account  of  their  foreseen 
wickedness  that  any  were  reprobated.  In  its  later  short  statement  of  doctrine  the 
Presbyterian  body  in  America  has  made  it  plain  that  God's  decree  of  reprobation  is  a 
permissive  decree,  and  that  it  places  no  barrier  in  the  way  of  any  man's  salvation. 

On  the  general  subject  of  Election,  see  Mozley,  Predestination  ;  Payne,  Divine  Sover- 
eignty; Ridgeley,  Works,  1:261-324,  esp.  322;  Edwards,  Works,  2 :  527  sq. ;  Van  Qoster- 
zee,  Dogmatics,  446-458;  Martensen,  Dogmatics,  362-332;  and  especially  Wardlaw, 
Systematic  Theology,  485-549 :  H.  B.  Smith,  Syst.  of  Christian  Theology,  502-514  ;  Maule, 
Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine,  36 -56  ;  Peck,  in  Bapt.  Quar.  Rev.,  Oct.  1891 :  089-706.  On 
objections  to  election,  and  Spurgeon's  answers  to  them,  see  Williams,  Reminiscences 
of  Spurgeon,  189.  On  the  homiletical  uses  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  see  Bib.  Sac, 
Jan.  1893:79-92. 

II.     Calling. 

Calling  is  that  act  of  God  by  which  men  are  invited  to  accept,  by  faith, 
the  salvation  provided  by  Christ.  —  The  Scriptures  distinguish  between  : 


CALLING.  791 

(  a  )  Hie  general^  Of  external,  call  to  all  men  through  God's  providence, 
word,  and  Spirit. 

Is.  45 :  22  —  "Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  "  ;  55 : 6 
—  "  Seek  ye  Jehovah  while  he  may  be  found ;  call  ye  upon  him  while  ha  is  n.'ar  "  ;  65 :  12  —  "  when  I  called,  yo  did  not 
answer ;  when  I  spake,  ye  did  not  hear ;  but  ye  did  that  which  was  ovil  in  mine  eyes,  and  chose  that  wherein  I  delighted 
not "  ;  Ez.  33  :  11  —  "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked ;  but  that  the 
wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live ;  turn  ye,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways  ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of  Israel  ?  " 
Mat.  11 :  28  —  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest "  ;  22  : 3  —  "  sent  forth 
his  servants  to  call  th;m  that  were  bidden  to  the  marriage  feast :  and  they  would  not  come  "  ;  Mark  16  :  15  —  "  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation  "  ;  John  12 :  32  —  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  myself  "  —  draw,  n<  it  drag  ;  Rev.  3 :  20  —  "Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock :  if  any 
man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me." 

(6)  The  special,  efficacious  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  elect. 

Luke  14  :  23  —  "  Go  out  into  the  highways  and  hedges,  and  constrain  them  to  come  in,  that  my  house  may  be  filled  "  ; 
Rom.  1:7  —  "to  all  that  are  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  saints :  Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  ;  8  :  30  —  "  whom  he  foreordained,  them  he  also  called :  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified";  11:29  —  "For  the  gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  not  repented  of";  1  Cor.  1 :  23,  24  — "  but  we  preach 
Christ  crucified,  unto  Jews  a  stumblingblook,  and  unto  Gentiles  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  that  are  called,  both  Jews 
and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  "  ;  26  —  "  For  behold  your  calling,  brethren,  that  not  many 
wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble,  are  called  "  ;  Phil.  3 :  14  —  "I  press  on  toward  the  goal  unto  the 
prize  of  the  high  [  marg.  '  upward '  ]  calling  of  God  m  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  Eph  1  ■  18  —  "  that  ye  may  know  what  is  the  hope 
of  his  calling,  what  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints  "  ;  1  Thess.  2  •  12  —  "to  the  end  that  ye  should 
walk  worthily  of  God,  who  calleth  you  into  his  own  kingdom  and  glory  "  ;  2  Thess.  2 :  14  —  "  whereunto  he  called  you 
through  our  gospel,  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  ,  2  Tim.  1:9  —  "  who  saved  us,  and  called 
us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesus  before  times  eternal "  ;  Heb.  3:1  —  "holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling";  2  Pet.  1:10  — 
"  Wherefore,  brethren,  give  the  more  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure." 

Two  questions  only  need  special  consideration  : 

A.     Is  God's  general  call  sincere  ? 

This  is  denied,  upon  the  ground  that  such  sincerity  is  incompatible, 
first,  with  the  inability  of  the  sinner  to  obey  ;  and  secondly,  with  the 
design  of  God  to  bestow  only  upon  the  elect  the  special  grace  without 
which  they  will  not  ol  >e  v. 

(a)  To  the  first  objection  wc  reply  that,  since  this  inability  is  not  a 
physical  but  a  moral  inability,  consisting  simply  in  the  settled  perversity 
of  an  evil  will,  there  can  be  no  insincerity  in  offering  salvation  to  all,  espe- 
cially when  the  offer  is  in  itself  a  proper  motive  to  obedience. 

<  tod's  call  to  all  men  to  repent  and  to  believe  the  gospel  is  no  more  insincere  than  his 
command  to  all  men  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart.  There  is  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
men's  obediei  ire  to  the  gospel,  that  does  not  exist  to  present  their  obedience  to  the  law. 
If  it  is  proper  to  publish  the  commands  of  the  law,  it  is  proper  to  publish  the  invita- 
tions of  the  gospel.  A  human  being  may  be  perfectly  sincere  in  giving  an  invitation 
which  he  knows  will  be  refused.  He  may  desire  to  have  the  invitation  accepted,  while 
yet  he  may,  for  certain  reasons  of  justice  or  personal  dignity,  be  unwilling  to  put  forth 
special  efforts,  aside  from  the  invitation  itself,  to  secure  the  acceptance  of  it  on  the 
part  of  those  to  whom  it  is  offered.  So  God's  desires  that  certain  men  should  be  saved 
may  not  be  accompanied  by  his  will  to  exert  special  influences  to  save  them. 

These  desires  were  meant  by  the  phrase  "revealed  will"  in  the  old  theologians ;  his 
purpose  to  bestow  special  grace,  by  the  phrase  "  secret  will."  It  is  of  the  former  that 
Paul  speaks,  in  1  Tim.  2:4  —  "who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved."  Here  we  have,  not  the  active 
cTMcrai,  but  the  passive  auOrivai.  The  meaning  is,  not  that  God  purposes  to  save  all  men, 
but  that  he  desires  all  men  to  be  saved  through  repenting  and  believing  the  gospel. 
Hence  God's  revealed  will,  or  desire,  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  his  secret  will,  or  purpose,  to  bestow  special  grace  only  upon  a  certain 
number  (see,  on  1  Tim.  2:4,  Fairbairn's  Commentary  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles). 

The  sincerity  of  God's  call  is  shown,  not  only  in  the  fact  that  the  only  obstacle  to 
compliance,  on  the  sinner's  part,  is  the  sinner's  own  evil  will,  but  also  in  the  fact  that 


792  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

God  has,  at  infinite  cost,  made  a  complete  external  provision,  upon  the  ground  of 
which  "  he  that  will "  may  "  come  "  and  "  take  the  water  of  life  freely  "  (  Rev.  22 :  17 ) ;  so  that  God  run 
truly  say:  "What  could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done  in  it?"  (Is.  5:4). 
Broadus,  Com.  on  Mat.  6 :  10  —  "  Thy  will  be  done "  —  distinguishes  between  God's  will  of  pur- 
pose, of  desire,  and  of  command.  H.  B.  Smith,  Syst.  Theol.,  521— "Common  grace 
passes  over  into  effectual  grace  in  proportion  as  the  sinner  yields  to  the  divine  influ- 
ence. Effectual  grace  is  that  which  effects  what  common  grace  tends  to  effect."  See 
also  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1887 : 7  sq. 

[b)  To  the  second,  we  reply  that  the  objection,  if  true,  would  equally 
hold  agaiust  God's  foreknowledge.  The  sincerity  of  God's  general  call  is 
no  more  inconsistent  with  his  determination  that  some  shall  be  permitted 
to  reject  it,  than  it  is  with  foreknowledge  that  some  will  reject  it. 

Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  2  :  643  — -  "  Predestination  concerns  only  the  purpose  of  God  to 
render  effectual,  in  particular  eases,  a  call  addressed  to  all.  A  general  amnesty,  on  cer- 
tain conditions,  may  be  offered  by  a  sovereign  to  rebellious  subjects,  although  he 
knows  that  through  pride  or  malice  many  will  refuse  to  accept  it;  and  even  though, 
for  wise  reasons,  he  should  determine  not  to  constrain  their  assent,  supposing  that 
such  influence  over  their  minds  were  within  his  power.  It  is  evident,  from  the  nature 
of  the  call,  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  secret  purpose  of  God  to  grant  his  effect- 
ual grace  to  some,  and  not  to  others.  .  .  .  According  to  the  Augustinian  scheme,  the 
non-elect  have  all  the  advantages  and  opportunities  of  securing  their  salvation,  which, 

according  to  any  other  scheme,  are  granted  to  mankind  indiscriminately God 

designed,  in  its  adoption,  to  save  his  own  people,  but  he  consistently  offers  its  benefits 
to  all  who  are  willing  to  receive  them."  See  also  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christian 
Theology,  515-521. 

B.     Is  God's  special  call  irresistible  ? 

We  prefer  to  say  that  this  special  call  is  efficacious, —  that  is,  that  it  infal- 
libly accomplishes  its  purpose  of  leading  the  sinner  to  the  acceptance  of 
salvation.     This  impbes  two  things : 

( a )  That  the  operation  of  God  is  not  an  outward  constraint  upon  the 
human  will,  but  that  it  accords  with  the  laws  of  our  mental  constitution. 
We  reject  the  term  '  irresistible, '  as  implying  a  coercion  and  compulsion 
which  is  foreign  to  the  nature  of  God's  Avorking  in  the  soul. 

Ps.  110  :  3  —  "  Thy  people  are  freewill-offerings  In  the  day  of  thy  power :  in  holy  array,  Out  of  the  womb  of  the  morn- 
ing Thou  hast  the  dew  of  thy  youth  "  —  i.  e.,  youthful  recruits  to  thy  standard,  as  numberless  and 
as  bright  as  the  drops  of  morning  dew  ;  Phil.  2  :  12, 13  —  "Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling ;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  "  —  i.e.,  the  result  of 
God's  working  is  our  own  working.  The  Lutheran  Formula  of  Concord  properly  con- 
demns the  view  that,  before,  in,  and  after  conversion,  the  will  only  resists  the  Holy 
Spirit:  for  this,  it  declares,  is  the  very  nature  of  conversion,  that  out  of  non-willing, 
God  makes  willing,  persons  (  F.  C,  60,  581,  582,  673). 

Hos.  4  :  16  —  "  Israel  hath  behaved  himself  stubbornly,  like  a  stubborn  heifer,"  or  "  or  as  a  heifer  that  slideth  back  " 
=  when  the  sacrificial  offering  is  brought  forward  to  be  slain,  it  holds  back,  settling  on 
its  haunches  so  that  it  has  to  be  pushed  and  forced  before  it  can  be  brought  to  the 
altar.  These  are  not  "the  sacrifices  of  God  "  which  are  "a  broken  spirit,  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart'' 
( Ps.  51 :  17 ).  E.  H.  Johnson,  Theology,  2d  ed.,  250  —  "  The  N.  T.  nowhere  declares,  or  even 
intimates, ....  that  the  general  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  insufficient.  And  further- 
more, it  never  states  that  the  efficient  call  is  irresistible.  Psychologically,  to  speak  of 
irresistible  influence  upon  the  faculty  of  self-determination  in  man  is  express  contra- 
diction in  terms.  No  harm  can  come  from  acknowledging  that  we  do  not  know  God's 
uurevealed  reasons  for  electing  one  individual  rather  than  another  to  eternal  life." 
Dr.  Johnson  goes  on  to  argue  that  if,  without  disparagement  to  grace,  faith  can  be  a 
condition  of  justification,  faith  might  also  be  a  condition  of  election,  and  that  inasmuch 
as  salvation  is  received  as  a  gift  only  on  condition  of  faith  exercised,  it  is  in  purpose  a 
gift,  even  if  only  on  condition  of  faith  foreseen.  This  seems  to  us  to  ignore  the  abund- 
ant Scripture  testimony  that  faith  itself  is  God's  gift,  and  therefore  the  initiative  must 
toe  wholly  with  God. 


APPLICATION   OF   CHRIST'S    REDEMPTION".  793 

(  b  )  That  the  operation  of  God  is  the  originating  cause  of  that  new  dis- 
position of  the  affections,  and  that  new  activity  of  the  will,  by  which  the 
sinner  accepts  Christ.  The  cause  is  not  in  the  response  of  the  will  to  the 
presentation  of  motives  by  God,  nor  in  any  mere  cooperation  of  the  will  of 
man  with  the  will  of  God,  but  is  an  almighty  act  of  God  in  the  will  of  man, 
by  which  its  freedom  to  choose  God  as  its  end  is  restored  and  rightly  exer- 
cised (  John  1  :  12,  13).  For  further  discussion  of  the  subject,  see,  in  the 
next  section,  the  remarks  on  [Regeneration,  with  which  this  efficacious  call 
is  identical. 

John  1 :  12,  13 —  "But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them 
that  believe  on  his  name :  who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  bat  of  God." 
God's  saving-  grace  and  effectual  calling-  are  irresistible,  not  in  the  sense  that  they  are 
never  resisted,  but  in  the  sense  that  they  are  never  successfully  resisted.  See  Andrew 
Fuller,  Works,  2: 37:>,  513,  and  3:807;  Gill,  Body  of  Divinity,  2:121-130;  Robert  Hall, 
Works,  3  :  75. 

Matheson,  Moments  on  the  Mount,  128, 129  —  "  Thy  love  to  Him  is  to  his  love  to  thee 
what  the  sunlight  on  the  sea  is  to  the  sunshine  in  the  sky  —  a  reflex,  a  mirror,  a  diffu- 
sion ;  thou  art  giving  back  the  glory  that  has  been  cast  upon  the  waters.  In  the 
attraction  of  thy  life  to  him,  in  the  cleaving  of  thy  heart  to  him,  in  the  soaring  of  thy 
spirit  to  him,  thou  art  told  that  he  is  near  thee,  thou  hearest  the  beating  of  his  pulse 
for  thee." 

Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  302  —  "In  regard  to  our  reason  and  to  the  essence  of  our 
ideals,  there  is  no  real  dualism  bet  ween  man  and  God  ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  will  which 
constitutes  the  essence  of  each  man's  individuality,  there  is  a  real  dualism,  and  there- 
fore a  possible  antagonism  between  (he  will  of  the  dependent  spirit,  man,  and  the  will 
of  the  absolute  and  universal  spirit,  God.  Such  recti  duality  of  will,  ami  not  t  heappear- 
ance  of  duality,  as  F.  II.  Bradley  put  it,  is  the  essential  condition  of  ethics  and  religion." 


SECTION   II.  —  THE    APPLICATION   OF   CHRIST'S   REDEMPTION 
IN    ITS   ACTUAL   BEGINNING. 

Under  this  head  we  treat  of  Union  with  Christ,  Regeneration,  Conversion 
(embracing  Repentance  and  Faith ),  and  Justification.  Much  confusion 
and  error  have  arisen  from  conceiving  these  as  occurring  in  cln-onological 
order.  The  order  is  logical,  not  chronological.  As  it  is  only  "  in  Christ " 
that  man  is  "  a  new  creature  "  (2Cor.  5:17)  oris  "justified"  (Acts  13:39), 
union  with  Christ  logically  precedes  both  regeneration  and  justification ; 
and  yet,  chronologically,  the  moment  of  our  union  with  Christ  is  also  the 
moment  when  we  are  regenerated  and  justified.  So,  too,  regeneration  and 
conversion  are  but  the  divine  and  human  sides  or  aspects  of  the  same  fact, 
although  regeneration  has  logical  precedence,  and  man  turns  only  as  God 
turns  him. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  3:694  (Syst.  Doct.,  4:159),  gives  at  this  point  an  account  of 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  general.  The  Holy  Spirit's  work,  he  says,  presupposes 
the  historical  work  of  Christ,  and  prepares  the  way  for  Christ's  return.  "  As  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  principle  of  union  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  so  he  is  the  principle  of 
union  between  God  and  man.  Only  through  the  Holy  Spirit  does  Christ  secure  for  him- 
self those  who  will  love  him  as  distinct  and  free  personalities."  Regeneration  and  con- 
version are  not  chronologically  separate.  Which  of  the  spokes  of  a  wheel  starts  first? 
The  ray  of  light  and  the  ray  of  heat  enter  at  the  same  moment.  Sensation  and  percep- 
tion are  not  separated  in  time,  although  the  former  is  the  cause  of  the  latter. 


794  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

"  Suppose  a  non-elastic  tube  extending  across  the  Atlantic.  Suppose  that  the  tube  is 
completely  filled  with  an  incompressible  fluid.  Then  there  would  be  no  interval  of  time 
between  the  impulse  given  to  the  fluid  at  this  end  of  the  tube,  and  the  effect  upon  the 
fluid  at  the  other  end."  See  Hazard,  Causation  and  Freedom  iu  Willing,  33-38,  who 
argues  that  cause  and  effect  are  always  simultaneous;  else,  in  the  intervening  time, 
there  would  be  a  cause  that  had  no  effect ;  that  is,  a  cause  that  caused  nothing ;  that  is, 
a  cause  that  that  was  not  a  cause.  "  A  potential  cause  may  exist  for  an  unlimited 
period  without  producing  any  effect,  and  of  course  may  precede  its  effect  by  any  length 
of  time.  But  actual,  effective  cause  being  the  exercise  of  a  sufficient  power,  its  effect 
cannot  be  delayed ;  for,  in  that  case,  there  would  be  the  exercise  of  a  sufficient  power 
to  produce  the  effect,  without  producing  it,— involving  the  absurdity  of  its  being  both 
sufficient  and  insufficient  at  the  same  time. 

"A  difficulty  may  here  be  suggested  in  regard  to  the  flow  or  progress  of  events  in 
time,  if  they  are  all  simultaneous  with  their  causes.  This  difficulty  cannot  arise  as  to 
intelligent  effort ;  for,  in  regard  to  it,  periods  of  non-action  may  continually  intervene ; 
but  if  there  are  series  of  events  and  material  phenomena,  each  of  which  is  in  turn  effect 
and  cause,  it  may  be  difficult  to  see  how  any  time  could  elapse  between  the  first  and 

the  last  of  the  series If,  however,  as  I  suppose,  these  series  of  events,  or  material 

changes,  are  always  effected  through  the  medium  of  motion,  it  need  not  trouble  us,  for 
there  is  precisely  the  same  difficulty  in  regard  to  our  conception  of  the  motion  of  matter 
from  point  to  point,  there  being  no  space  or  length  between  any  two  consecutive  points, 
and  yet  the  body  in  motion  gets  from  one  end  of  a  long  line  to  the  other,  and  in  this 

case  this  difficulty  just  neutralizes  the  other So,  even  if  we  cannot  conceive  how 

motion  involves  the  idea  of  time,  we  may  perceive  that,  if  it  does  so,  it  may  be  a  means 
of  conveying  events,  which  depend  upon  it,  through  time  also." 

Martineau,  Study,  1 :  148-150  — "  Simultaneity  does  not  exclude  duration, "—since  each 
cause  has  duration  and  each  effect  has  duration  also.  Bowne,  Metaphysics,  106  —  "In 
t  he  system,  the  complete  ground  of  an  event  never  lies  in  any  one  thing,  but  only  in  a 
complex  of  things.  If  a  single  thing  were  the  sufficient  ground  of  an  effect,  the  effect 
would  coexist  with  the  thing,  and  all  effects  would  be  instantaneously  given.  Hence 
all  events  in  the  system  must  be  viewed  as  the  result  of  the  interaction  of  two  or  more 
things." 

The  lirst  manifestation  of  life  in  au  infant  may  be  in  the  lungs  or  heart  or  brain,  but 
that  which  makes  any  and  all  of  these  manifestations  possible  is  the  antecedent  life. 
We  may  not  be  able  to  tell  which  comes  first,  but  having  the  life  we  have  all  the  rest. 
When  the  wheel  goes,  all  the  spokes  will  go.  The  soul  that  is  born  again  will  show  it  in 
faith  and  hope  and  love  and  holy  living.  Regeneration  will  involve  repentance  and 
faith  and  justification  and  sanctification.  But  the  one  life  which  makes  regeneration 
and  all  these  consequent  blessings  possible  is  the  life  of  Christ  who  joins  himself  to  us 
in  order  that  we  may  join  ourselves  to  him.  Anne  Reeve  Aldrich,  The  Meaning :  "  I 
lost  my  life  in  losing  love.  This  blurred  my  spring  and  killed  its  dove.  Along  my  path 
the  dying  roses  Fell,  and  disclosed  the  thorns  thereof.  I  found  my  life  in  finding  God. 
In  ecstasy  I  kiss  the  rod ;  For  who  that  wins  the  goal,  but  lightly  Thinks  of  the  thorns 
whereon  he  trod  ?  " 

See  A.  A.  Hodge,  on  the  Ordo  Salutis,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  March,  1888  :  304-321.  Union 
with  Christ,  says  Dr.  Hodge,  "  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  iu  effectual  calling.  Of  this 
calling  the  parts  are  two:  (a)  the  offering  of  Christ  to  the  sinner,  externally  by  the 
gospel,  and  internally  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  (o)  the  reception  of 
Christ,  which  on  our  part  is  both  passive  and  active.  The  passive  reception  is  that 
whereby  a  spiritual  principle  is  ingenerated  into  the  human  will,  whence  issues  the 
active  reception,  which  is  an  act  of  faith  with  which  repentance  is  always  conjoined. 
The  communion  of  benefits  which  results  from  this  union  involves:  (a)  a  change  of 
state  or  relation,  called  justification  ;  and  (ft )  a  change  of  subjective  moral  character, 
commenced  in  regeneration  and  completed  through  sanctification."  See  also  Dr. 
Hodge's  Popular  Lectures  on  Theological  Themes,  310,  and  Outlines  of  Theology,  333-429. 

H.  B.  Smith,  however,  in  his  System  of  Christian  Theology,  is  more  clear  in  the  putting 
of  Union  with  Christ  before  Regeneration.  On  page  503,  he  begins  his  treatment  of  the 
Application  of  Redemption  with  the  title  :  "  The  Union  between  Christ  and  the  indi- 
vidual believer  as  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  embraces  the  subjects  of  Justifica- 
tion, Regeneration,  and  Sanctification,  with  the  underlying  topic  which  comes  first  to 
be  considered,  Election."  He  therefore  treats  Union  with  Christ  ( 531-539 )  before  Regen- 
eration (553-569).  He  says  Calvin  defines  regeneration  as  coming  to  us  by  participa- 
tion in  Christ,  and  apparently  agrees  with  this  view  ( 559 ). 


UNION   WITH   CHRIST.  795 

"This  union  [  with  Christ]  is  at  the  ground  of  regeneration  and  justification  "  ( 534). 
"The  great  difference  of  theological  systems  comes  out  here.  Since  Christianity  is 
redemption  through  Christ,  our  mode  of  conceiving  that  will  determine  the  character 
of  our  whole  theological  system"  (53ti).  "The  union  with  Christ  is  mediated  by  his 
Spirit,  whence  we  are  both  renewed  and  justified.  The  great  fact  of  objective  Chris- 
tianity is  incarnation  in  order  to  atonement ;  the  great  fact  of  subjective  Christianity 
is  union  with  Christ,  whereby  we  receive  the  atonement  "  ( ."ioT ).  We  may  add  that  this 
union  with  Christ,  in  view  of  which  Cod  elects  and  to  which  God  calls  the  sinner,  is 
begun  in  regeneration,  completed  in  conversion,  declared  in  justification,  and  proved 
in  sanctification  and  perseverance. 

I.    Union  with  Christ. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that,  through  the  operation  of  God,  there  is  con- 
stituted a  union  of  the  soul  with  Christ  different  in  kind  from  God's  natural 
and  providential  concursus  with  all  spirits,  as  well  as  from  all  unions  of 
mere  association  or  sympathy,  moral  likeness,  or  moral  influence, — a  union 
of  life,  in  which  the  human  spirit,  while  then  most  truly  possessing  its  own 
individuality  and  personal  distinctness,  is  interpenetrated  and  energized  by 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  is  made  inscrutably  but  indissolnbly  one  with  him, 
and  so  becomes  a  member  and  partaker  of  that  regenerated,  believing,  and 
justified  humanity  of  which  he  is  the  head. 

Union  with  Christ  is  not  union  with  a  System  of  doctrine,  uor  with  external  religious 
influences,  nor  with  an  organized  church,  nor  with  an  ideal  man,— but  rather,  with  a 
personal,  risen,  living,  omnipresent  Lord  (.1.  W.  .\.  Stewart ).  Dr.  J.  W.  Alexander  well 
calls  this  doctrine  of  the  Union  of  the  Believer  with  Christ  "the central  truth  of  all 
theology  and  of  all  religion."  Yet  it  receives  little  of  formal  recognition,  either  in 
dogmatic  treatises  or  in  common  religious  experience.  Quenstedt,  886-912,  has  devoted 
a  section  to  it;  A.  A.  Hodge  gives  to  it  a  chapter,  in  his  Outlines  of  Theology,  3C-9sq.,  to 
which  we  are  indebted  for  valuable  suggestions  ;  H.  15.  Smith  treats  of  it,  not  however 
as  a  separate  topic,  but  under  the  head  of  Justification  (System,  531  X19). 

The  majority  of  printed  systems  of  doctrine,  however,  contain  no  chapter  or  section 
on  Union  with  Christ,  and  the  majority  of  Christians  much  more  frequently  think  of 
Christ  as  a  Savior  outside  of  them,  than  as  a  Savior  who  dwells  within.  This  compara- 
tive neglect  of  the  doctrine  is  doubtless  a  reaction  from  the  exaggerations  of  a  false 
mysticism.  But  there  is  great  need  of  rescuing  the  doctrine  from  neglect.  For  this  we 
rely  wholly  upon  Scripture.  Doctrines  which  reason  can  neither  discover  nor  prove 
need  large  support  f  r<  >m  the  Bible.  It  is  a  mark  of  divine  wisdom  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  for  example,  is  so  inwoven  with  the  whole  fabric  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  rejection  of  the  former  is  the  virtual  rejection  of  the  latter.  The  doctrine  of 
Union  with  Christ,  in  like  manner,  is  taught  so  variously  and  abundantly,  that  to  deny 
it  is  to  deny  inspiration  itself.    See  Kahnis,  Luth.  Dogmatik,  3 :  447-450. 

1.     Scripture  Representations  of  this  Union. 

A.     Figurative  teaching.     It  is  illustrated  : 

(  a  )    From  the  union  of  a  building  and  its  foundation. 

Eph.  2  :  20-22  — ' '  being  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Jesus  himself  being  the  chief 
corner  stone ;  in  whom  each  several  building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  into  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord ;  in  whom 
ye  also  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit "  ;  Col.  2  :  7  —  "builded  up  m  him" — grounded 
in  Christ  as  our  foundation  ;  1  Pet.  2 :  4,  5  — "  unto  whom  coming,  a  living  stone,  rejected  indeed  of  men,  but 
with  God  elect,  precious,  ye  also,  as  living  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house"  —  each  living  stone  in  the 
Christian  temple  is  kept  in  proper  relation  to  every  other,  and  is  made  to  do  its  part  in 
furnishing  a  habitation  for  God,  only  by  being  built  upon  and  permanently  connected 
with  Christ,  the  chief  corner-stone.  Cf.  Ps.  118  :  22  —  "  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  Is  become 
the  head  of  the  comer  " ;  Is.  28 :  16  —  "  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone 
of  sure  foundation :  he  that  believeth  shall  not  be  in  haste." 

(  b  )  From  the  union  between  husband  and  wife. 

Rom.  7 :  4  —  "  ye  also  were  made  dead  to  the  law  through  the  body  of  Christ ;  that  ye  should  be  joined  to  another, 
even  to  him  who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  that  we  might  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God"  — here  union  with  Christ 


796  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

is  illustrated  by  the  indissoluble  bond  that  connects  husband  and  wife,  and  makes  them 
legally  and  organically  one  ;  2  Cor.  11 : 2  —  "  I  am  jealous  over  you  with  a  godly  jealousy :  for  I  espoused  you 
to  one  husband,  that  I  might  present  you  as  a  pure  virgin  to  Christ "  ;  Eph.  5 :  31,  32  —  "For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife ;  and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh.  This  mystery  is  great : 
but  I  speak  in  regard  of  Christ  and  of  the  church  "  —  Meyer  refers  verse  31  wholly  to  Christ,  and  says 
that  Christ  leaves  father  and  mother  (the  right  hand  of  God)  and  is  joined  to  the 
church  as  his  wife,  the  two  constituting  thenceforth  one  moral  person.  He  makes  the 
union  future,  however,  —  "For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother  "  —  the  consum- 
mation is  at  Christ's  second  coming.  But  the  Fathers,  as  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and 
Jerome,  referred  it  more  properly  to  the  incarnation. 

Rev.  19:7  —  "the  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is  come,  and  his  wife  hath  made  herself  ready  "  ;  22 :  17  —  "  And  the  Spirit 
and  the  bride  say,  Come";  cf.  Is.  54:5  — "For  thy  Maker  is  thine  husband";  Jer.  3:20  — "Surely  as  a  wife 
treacherously  departeth  from  her  husband,  so  have  ye  dealt  treacherously  with  me,  0  house  of  Israel,  saith  Jehovah  " ; 
Hos.  2:2-5  —  "for  their  mother  hath  played  the  harlot"—  departure  from  God  is  adultery  ;  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  as  Jewish  interpreters  have  always  maintained,  is  an  allegorical  poem  describ- 
ing, under  the  figure  of  marriage,  the  union  between  Jehovah  and  his  people :  Paul 
only  adopts  the  Old  Testament  figure,  and  applies  it  more  precisely  to  the  union  o£ 
God  with  the  church  in  Jesus  Christ. 

(  c  )  From  the  union  between  the  vine  and  its  branches. 

John  15 : 1-10  —  "I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches  :  He  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  beareth  much 
fruit :  for  apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing  "  —  as  God's  natural  life  is  in  the  vine,  that  it  may  give 
life  to  its  natural  branches,  so  God's  spiritual  life  is  in  the  vine,  Christ,  that  he  may 
give  life  to  his  spiritual  branches.  The  roots  of  this  new  vine  are  planted  in  heaven, 
not  on  earth  ;  and  into  it  the  half-withered  branches  of  the  old  humanity  are  to  be 
grafted,  that  they  may  have  life  divine.  Yet  our  Lord  does  not  say  "  I  am  the  root." 
The  branch  is  not  something  outside,  which  has  to  get  nourishment  out  of  the  root,  —  it 
is  rat  her  a  part  of  the  vine.  Rom.  6:5  —  "  if  we  have  become  united  with  him  [  av^vioi  —  '  grown 
together  '  —  used  of  t be  man  and  horse  in  the  Centaur,  Xon.,  Cyrop.,  4 : 3 :  18 ],  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  " ;  11 :  24  —  "  thou  wast  cut  out  of  that  which  is  by 
nature  a  wild  olive  tree,  and  wast  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good  olive  tree  " ;  Col.  2 : 6,  7  —  "As  therefore  ye 
received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  walk  in  him,  rooted  and  builded  up  in  him  "  —  not  only  grounded  in  Christ 
as  our  foundation,  but  thrusting  down  roots  into  him  as  the  deep,  rich,  all -sustaining 
soil.  This  union  with  Christ  is  consistent  with  individuality  :  for  the  graft  brings  forth 
fruit  after  its  kind,  though  modified  by  the  tree  into  which  it  is  grafted. 

Bishop  H.  W.  Warren,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Oct.  17,  1891  — "The  lessons  of  the  vine  are 
intimacy,  likeness  of  nature,  continuous  impartation  of  life,  fruit.  Between  friends 
there  is  intimacy  by  means  of  media,  such  as  food,  presents,  care,  words,  soul  looking 
from  the  eyes.  The  mother  gives  her  liquid  flesh  to  the  babe,  but  such  intimacy  soon 
ceases.  The  mother  is  not  rich  enough  in  life  continuously  to  feed  the  ever-enlarging 
nature  of  the  growing  man.  Not  so  with  the  vine.  It  continuously  feeds.  Its  rivers 
crowd  all  the  banks.  They  burst  out  in  leaf,  blossom,  clinging  tendrils,  and  fruit, 
everywhere.  In  nature  a  thorn  grafted  on  a  pear  tree  bears  only  thorn.  There  is  not 
pear-life  enough  to  compel  change  of  its  nature.  But  a  wild  olive,  typical  of  depraved 
nature,  grafted  on  a  good  olive  tree  finds,  contrary  to  nature,  that  there  is  force 
enough  in  the  growing  stock  to  change  the  nature  of  the  wild  scion." 

(  d  )  From  the  union  between  the  members  and  the  head  of  the  body. 

1  Cor.  6 :  15, 19  —  "  Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  members  of  Christ  ?  . . . .  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  a 
temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God  ?  "  12 :  12 — "  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath 
many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ;  so  also  is  Christ "  —  here  Christ  is 
ideni  ilied  with  the  church  of  which  he  is  the  head;  Eph.  1:22,  23  —  "he  put  all  things  in  subjection 
undar  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  fjlleth 
all  in  all  "  —  as  the  members  of  the  human  body  are  united  to  the  head,  the  source  of 
their  activity  and  the  power  that  controls  their  movements,  so  all  believers  are  mem- 
bers of  an  invisible  body  whose  head  is  Christ.  Shall  we  tie  a  string  round  the  finger 
to  keep  for  it  its  own  blood  ?  No,  for  all  the  blood  of  the  body  is  needed  to  nourish 
one  finger.  So  Christ  is  "head  over  all  things  to  [  for  the  benefit  of  ]  the  church  "  (  Tyler,  Theol. 
Greek  Poets,  preface,  ii ).  "  The  church  is  the  fulness  (  wArjpwua )  of  Christ ;  as  it  was 
not  good  for  the  first  man,  Adam,  to  be  alone,  no  more  was  it  good  for  the  second  man, 
Christ  "  (  C.  H.  M. ).  Eph.  4 :  15,  16 —  "  grow  up  in  all  things  into  him,  who  is  the  head,  even  Christ ;  from 
whom  all  the  body  ....  maketh  the  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in  love  "  ;  5  :  29,  30  —  "for  do 
man  ever  hated  his  own  flesh  ;  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  Christ  also  the  church  ;  because  we  are  mem- 
bers of  his  body." 


UNION   WITH   CHRIST.  797 

(  e )  From  the  union  of  the  race  with  the  source  of  its  life  in  Adam. 

Rom.  5 :  12,  21  —  "as  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin  ...  .  that,  as  sin  reigned  in 
death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteousnrss  unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  "  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  22, 
45,  49  —  "  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive  ....  The  first  man  Adam  became  a  living  soul. 
The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  Spirit ....  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image 
of  the  heavenly  "  — as  the  whole  race  is  one  with  the  first  man  Adam,  in  whom  it  fell  ami 
from  whom  it  has  derived  a  corrupted  and  guilty  nature,  so  the  whole  race  of  believers 
constitutes  a  new  ami  restored  humanity,  whose  justified  and  purified  nature  is  derived 
from  Christ,  the  second  Adam.  Cf.  Gen.  2:23  —  "This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh:  she 
shall  be  called  Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  Man  "  —  here  C.  H.  M.  remarks  that,  as  man  is  first 
created  and  then  woman  is  viewed  in  and  formed  out  of  him,  so  it  is  with  Christ  and 
the  church.  "  We  are  members  of  Christ's  body,  because  in  Christ  we  have  the  princi- 
ple of  our  origin  ;  from  him  our  life  arose,  just  as  the  life  of  Eve  was  derived  from 

Adam The  church  is  Christ's  helpmeet,  formed  out  of  Christ  in  his  deep  sleep  of 

death,  as  Eve  out  of  Adam  ....  The  church  will  be  nearest  to  Christ,  as  Eve  was  to 
Adam."  Because  Christ  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life  for  his  people,  he  is  called,  in 
Is.  9:6,  "  Everlasting  Father,"  and  it  is  said,  in  Is.  53  :  10,  that  "  he  shall  see  his  seed  "  ( see  page  680 ). 

B.     Direct  statements. 

(  a )  The  believer  is  said  to  be  in  Christ. 

Lest  we  should  regard  the  figures  mentioned  above  as  merely  Oriental  metaphors, 
the  fact  of  the  believer's  union  with  Christ  is  asserted  in  the  most  direct  and  prosaic 
manner.  John  14:20  —  "ye  in  me"  ;  Rom.6:ll  —  "alive  unto  God  in  Christ  Jesus";  8 : 1  —  "  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus "  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  17  —  "  if  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature  "  ;  Eph.  1:4  —  "  chose 
us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  ;  2 :  13  —  "  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye  that  once  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  in 
the  blood  of  Christ."  Thus  the  believer  is  said  to  be  "in  Christ,  as  the  element  or  atmosphere 
which  surrounds  him  with  its  perpetual  presence  and  which  constitutes  his  vital  breath  ; 
in  fact,  this  phrase  "in  Christ,"  always  meaning  "  in  union  with  Christ,"  is  the  very  key 
to  Paul's  epistles,  and  t<>  the  whole  New  Testament.  The  fact  that  the  believer  is  in 
Christ  is  symbolized  in  baptism:  we  are  "  baptized  into  Christ "  (Gal.  3  27). 

(  b  )  Christ  is  said  to  be  in  the  believer. 

John  14  •  20  —  "  I  in  you "  ;  Rom.  8-9  —  "ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwelleth  in  you.  But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his"  —  that  this  Spirit  of  Christ  is 
Christ  himself,  is  shown  frt  mi  verse  10  —  "  And  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin ;  but  the 
spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness  "  ;  Gal.  2  .  20  —  "I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me  " — here  Christ  is  said  to  be  in  the  believer,  and  so  to  live  his  life 
within  the  believer,  that  the  latter  can  point  to  this  as  the  dominating  fact  of  his 
experience,  —  it  is  not  so  much  he  that  lives,  as  it  is  Christ  that  lives  in  him.  The  fact 
that  Christ  is  in  the  believer  is  symbolized  in  the  Lord's  supper  :  "The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  a  participation  in  the  body  of  Christ  ?  "  ( 1  Cor.  10  :  16 ). 

(  c  )  The  Father  and  the  Son  dwell  in  the  believer. 

John  14 :  23  —  "  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  word  •  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto 
him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him  "  ;  cf.  10  —  "  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  the 
words  that  I  say  unto  you  I  speak  not  from  myself:  but  the  Father  abiding  in  me  doeth  his  works  "  —  the  Father 
and  the  Son  dwell  in  the  believer ;  for  where  the  Son  is,  there  always  the  Father  must 
be  also.  If  the  union  between  the  believer  and  Christ  in  John  14-23  is  to  be  interpreted 
as  one  of  mere  moral  influence,  then  the  union  of  Christ  and  the  Father  in  John  14  :  10 
must  also  be  interpreted  as  a  union  of  mere  moral  influence.  Eph.  3:17  —  "  that  Christ  may 
dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith  "  ;  1  John  4 :  16  —  "he  that  abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God,  and  God abideth  in  him." 

(  d  )  The  believer  has  life  by  partaking  of  Christ,  as  Christ  has  life  by- 
partaking  of  the  Father. 

John  6 :  53,  56,  57  —  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves 
....  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living  Father  sent  me 
and  I  live  because  of  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall  live  because  of  me"  —  the  believer  has  life 
by  partaking  of  Christ  in  a  way  that  may  not  inappropriately  be  compared  with 
Christ's  having  life  by  partaking  of  the  Father.  1  Cor.  10 :  16, 17  —  "The  cup  of  blessing  wh"'-'-  ■** 
bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body  * 
Christ? "  — here  it  is  intimated  that  the  Lord's  Supper  sets  forth,  in  the  language  of  syni- 


798  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

bol,  the  soul's  actual  participation  in  the  life  of  Christ;  and  the  margin  properly 
translates  the  word  Koivutvia,  not  "communion,"  but  "  participatioa."  ('/.  1  John  1:3  —  "our 
fellowship  ( Koivuivia. )  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  Foster,  Christian  Life  and 
Theology,  216  —  "  In  John  6,  the  phrases  call  to  mind  the  ancient  form  of  sacrifice,  and 
the  participation  therein  by  the  offerer  at  the  sacrificial  meal,  —  as  at  the  Passover." 

(  e  )  All  believers  are  one  in  Christ. 

John  17 :  21-23  —  "  that  they  may  all  be  one ;  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in 
us :  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  didst  send  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me  I  have  given  unto 
them  ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one  ;  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one  "  — 
all  believers  are  one  in  Christ,  to  whom  they  are  severally  and  collectively  united,  as 
Christ  himself  is  one  with  God. 

(/)  The  believer  is  made  partaker  of  the  divine  nature. 

2  Pet.  i:  4  —  "that  through  these  [promises]  ye  may  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature" — not  by 
having  the  essence  of  your  humanity  changed  into  the  essence  of  divinity,  but  by 
having  Christ  the  divine  Savior  continually  dwelling  within,  and  iudissolubly  joined 
to,  your  human  souls. 

( g  )  The  believer  is  made  one  spirit  with  the  Lord. 

1  Cor.  6  :  17 —  "he  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit"  —  human  nature  is  so  interpenetrated 
and  energized  by  the  divine,  that  the  two  move  and  act  as  one ;  cf.  19—  "  know  ye  not  that 
your  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God  ?  "  Rom.  8 :  26  —  "  the  Spirit  also 
helpeth  our  infirmity  :  for  we  know  not  how  to  pray  as  we  ought ;  but  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered  " — the  Spirit  is  so  near  to  us,  and  so  one  with  us,  that 
our  prayer  is  called  his,  or  rather,  his  prayer  becomes  ours.  Weiss,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus, 
says  that,  in  the  view  of  Scripture,  human  greatness  does  not  consist  in  a  man's  pro- 
ducing everything  in  a  natural  way  out  of  himself,  but  in  possessing  perfect  receptiv- 
ity for  God's  greatest  gift.  Therefore  God's  Son  receives  the  Spirit  without  measure ; 
and  we  may  add  that  the  believer  in  like  manner  receives  Christ. 

2.     Nature  of  this  Union. 

We  have  here  to  do  not  only  with  a  fact  of  life,  but  with  a  unique  rela- 
tion between  the  finite  and  the  infinite.  Our  descriptions  must  therefore 
be  inadequate.  Yet  in  many  respects  we  know  what  this  union  is  not ;  in 
certain  respects  we  can  positively  characterize  it. 

It  should  not  surprise  us  if  we  And  it  far  more  difficult  to  give  a  scientific  definition 
of  this  union,  than  to  determine  the  fact  of  its  existence.  It  is  a  fact  of  life  with 
which  we  have  to  deal ;  and  the  secret  of  life,  even  in  its  lowest  forms,  no  philosopher 
has  ever  yet  discovered.  The  tiniest  flower  witnesses  to  two  facts  :  first,  that  of  its 
own  relative  independence,  as  an  individual  organism;  and  secondly,  that  of  its  ulti- 
mate dependence  upon  a  life  and  power  not  its  own.  So  every  human  soul  has  its 
proper  powers  of  intellect,  affection,  and  wiR ;  yet  it  lives,  moves,  and  has  its  being  in 
God  (  Acts  17  :  28 ). 

Starting  out  from  the  truth  of  God's  omnipresence,  it  might  seem  as  if  God's  indwell- 
ing in  the  granite  boulder  was  the  last  limit  of  his  union  with  the  finite.  But  we  see 
the  divine  intelligence  and  goodness  drawing  nearer  to  us,  by  successive  stages,  in 
vegetable  life,  in  the  animal  creation,  and  in  the  moral  nature  of  man.  And  yet  there 
are  two  stages  beyond  all  these:  first,  in  Christ's  union  with  the  believer;  and  sec- 
ondly, in  God's  union  with  Christ.  If  this  union  of  God  with  the  believer  be  only  one 
of  several  approximations  of  God  to  his  finite  creation,  the  fact  that  it  is,  equally  with 
the  others,  not  wholly  comprehensible  to  reason,  should  not  blind  us  either  to  its  truth 
or  to  its  importance. 

It  is  easier  to-day  than  at  any  other  previous  period  of  history  to  believe  in  the  union 
of  the  believer  with  Christ.  That  God  is  immanent  in  the  universe,  and  that  there  is  a 
divine  element  in  man,  is  familiar  to  our  generation.  All  men  are  naturally  one  with 
Christ,  the  immanent  God,  and  this  natural  union  prepares  the  way  for  that  spiritual 
union  in  which  Christ  joins  himself  to  our  faith.  Campbell,  The  Indwelling  Christ,  131 
—  "  In  the  immanence  of  Christ  in  nature  we  find  the  ground  of  his  immanence  in 
human  nature.  ...  A  man  may  be  out  of  Christ,  but  Christ  is  never  out  of  him.  Those 
who  banish  him  he  does  not  abandon."    John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2 :  233- 


UXIOX    WITH   CHRIST.  709 

256—  "  Cod  is  united  with  nature,  in  t  he  atoms,  in  the  trees,  in  the  olanet?.  Science  is 
seeing  nature  full  of  the  life  of  God.  God  is  united  to  man  in  body  and  soul.  The 
beating  of  liis  heart  and  the  voice  of  conscience  witness  to  God  within.  God  sleeps  in 
the  stone,  dreams  in  the  animal,  wakes  in  man." 

A.     Negatively.  —  It  is  not : 

(  a )  A  merely  natural  union,  like  that  of  God  with  all  human  spirits,  — 
as  held  by  rationalists. 

In  our  physical  life  we  are  conscious  of  another  life  within  us  which  is  not  subject  to 
our  wills :  the  heart  beats  involuntarily,  whether  we  sleep  or  wake.  But  in  our  spirit- 
ual life  we  are  still  more  conscious  of  a  life  within  our  life.  Even  the  heathen  said  : 
"  Est  Deus  in  nobis ;  agitante  calescimus  illo,"  and  the  Egyptians  held  to  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  departed  with  Osiris  (Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  185).  But  Paul  urges 
us  to  work  out  our  salvation,  upon  the  very  ground  that  "it  is  God  that  worketh"  in  us, 
"  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  "  ( Phil.  2  :  12,  13 ).  This  life  of  God  in  the  soul  is  the 
life  of  Christ. 

The  movement  of  the  electric  car  cannot  be  explained  simply  from  the  working  of 
its  own  motor  apparatus.  The  electric  current  throbbing  through  the  wire,  and  the 
dynamo  from  which  that  energy  proceeds,  are  needed  to  explain  the  result.  In  like 
manner  we  need  a  spiritual  Christ  to  explain  the  spiritual  activity  of  the  Christian. 
A.  H.  Strong,  Sermon  before  the  Baptist  World  Congress  in  London,  1905— "  We  had 
in  America  some  years  ago  a  steam  engine  all  whose  working  parts  were  made  of  glass. 
The  steam  came  from  without,  but,  being  hot  enough  to  move  machinery,  this  steam 
was  itself  invisible,  and  there  was  presented  the  curious  spectacle  of  an  engine,  trans- 
parent, moving,  and  doing  important  work,  while  yet  no  cause  for  this  activity  was 
perceptible.  So  the  church,  humanity,  the  universe,  are  all  in  constant  and  progressive 
movement,  but  the  Christ  who  moves  them  is  invisible.  Faith  comes  to  believe  where 
it  cannot  see.    It  joins  itself  to  this  invisible  Christ,  and  knows  him  as  its  very  life." 

(b)  A  merely  moral  union,  or  union  of  love  and  sympathy,  like  that 
between  teacher  and  scholar,  friend  and  friend, — as  held  by  Socinians 
ami  Arminians. 

There  is  a  mural  anion  between  different  souls:  1  Sam.  18:1  — "the soul  of  Jonathan  was  knit 
with  the  soul  of  David,  and  Jonathan  loved  him  as  his  own  soul  "  —  here  the  Vulgate  has  :  "  Aniina  Jona- 
than agglutinata  Davidi."  Aristotle  calls  friends  '"one  soul."  So  in  a  higher  sense,  in 
Acts4:32,  the  early  believers  are  said  to  have  been  "of  one  heart  and  soul."  But  in  John  17:21, 
26,  Christ's  union  with  his  people  is  distinguished  from  any  mere  union  of  love  and 
sympathy  :  "that  they  may  all  be  one  ;  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us; 
....  that  the  love  wherewith  thou  lovedst  me  may  be  in  them,  and  I  in  them."  Jesus'  aim,  in  the  whole  of 
his  last  discourse,  is  to  show  that  no  mere  union  of  love  and  sympathy  will  be  suf- 
Qoient:  "apart  from  me,"  he  says,  "ye  can  do  nothing"  (John  15:5),  That  his  disciples  maybe 
vitally  joined  to  himself,  is  therefore  t  he  subject  of  his  last  prayer. 

Dorner  says  well,  that  Arminianism  ( and  with  this  doctrine  Roman  Catholics  and  the 
advocates  of  New  School  views  substantially  agree )  makes  man  a  mere  tangent  to  the 
circle  of  the  divine  nature.  It  has  no  idea  of  the  interpenetration  of  the  one  by  the 
other.  But  the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Concord  says  much  more  correctly:  "  Damna- 
mus  sententiam  quod  non  Deus  ipse,  sed  dona  Dei  duntaxat,  in  credentibus  habitent." 

Ritsehl  presents  to  us  a  historical  Christ,  and  Pfleiderer  presents  to  us  an  ideal 
Christ,  but  neither  one  gives  us  the  living  Christ  who  is  the  present  spiritual  life  of  the 
believer.  Wendt,  in  his  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2 :  310,  comes  equally  far  short  of  a  serious 
interpretation  of  our  Lord's  promise,  when  he  says :  "This  union  to  his  person,  as  to 
its  contents,  is  nothing  else  than  adherence  to  the  message  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
brought  by  him."  It  is  not  enough  for  me  to  be  merely  in  touch  with  Christ.  He 
must  come  to  be  "  not  so  far  as  even  to  be  near."  Tennyson,  The  Higher  Pantheism  : 
"  Closer  is  he  than  breathing,  and  nearer  than  hands  or  feet."  William  Watson,  The 
Unknown  God :  "  Yea,  in  my  flesh  his  Spirit  doth  flow,  Too  near,  too  far,  for  me  to 
know." 

( c  )  A  union  of  essence,  which  destroys  the  distinct  personality  and  sub- 
sistence of  either  Christ  or  the  human  spirit,  —  as  held  by  many  of  the 
mystics. 


800  SOTERIOLOGY,    OK  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

Many  of  the  mystics,  as  Schwenkfeld,  Weigel,  Sebastian  Frank,  held  to  an  essential 
union  between  Christ  and  the  believer.  One  of  Weigel's  followers,  therefore,  could  say 
to  another :  "  I  am  Christ  Jesus,  the  living  Word  of  God ;  I  have  redeemed  thee  by  my 
sinless  sufferings.''  We  are  ever  to  remember  that  the  indwelling  of  Christ  only  puts 
the  believer  more  completely  in  possession  of  himself,  and  makes  him  more  conscious 
of  his  own  personality  and  power.  Union  with  Christ  must  be  taken  in  connection 
with  the  other  truth  of  the  personality  and  activity  of  the  Christian ;  otherwise  it 
tends  to  pantheism.  Martineau,  Study,  2 : 1B0—  "  In  nature  it  is  God's  immanent  life,  in 
morals  it  is  God's  transcendent  life,  with  which  we  commune." 

Angelus  Silesius,  a  German  philosophical  poet  (1624-1677),  audaciously  wrote:  "I 
know  God  cannot  live  an  instant  without  me;  He  must  give  up  the  ghost,  if  I  should 
cease  to  be."  Lowde,  a  disciple  of  Malebranehe,  used  the  phrase  "Godded  with  God, 
and  Christed  with  Christ,"  and  Jonathan  Edwards,  in  his  Religious  Affections,  quotes 
it  with  disapprobation,  saying  that  "  the  saints  do  not  become  actually  partakers  of  the 
divine  essence,  as  would  be  inferred  from  this  abominable  and  blasphemous  language 
of  heretics"  (Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  224).  "Self  is  not  a  mode  of  the  divine :  it  is  a 
principle  of  isolation.  In  order  to  religion,  I  must  have  a  will  to  surrender  . . .  . '  Our 
wills  are  ours,  to  make  them  thine.'. . .  .  Though  the  self  is,  in  knowledge,  a  principle  of 
unification  ;  in  existence,  or  metaphysically,  it  is  a  principle  of  isolation  "  (  Seth ). 

Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  30  —  *'  Some  of  the  mystics  went  astray  by  teaching  a  real 
substitution  of  the  divine  for  human  nature,  thus  depersonalizing  man  —  a  fatal  mistake, 
for  without  human  personality  we  cannot  conceive  of  divine  personality."  Lyman 
Abbott :  "  In  Christ,  God  and  man  are  united,  not  as  the  river  is  united  with  the  sea, 
losing  its  personality  therein,  but  as  the  child  is  united  with  the  father,  or  the  wife  with 
the  husband,  whose  personality  and  individuality  are  strengthened  and  increased  by 
the  union."  Here  Dr.  Abbott's  view  comes  as  far  short  of  the  truth  as  that  of  the 
mystics  goes  beyond  the  truth.  As  we  shall  see,  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ 
is  a  vital  union,  surpassing  in  its  intimacy  any  union  of  souls  that  we  know.  The  union 
of  child  with  father,  or  of  wife  with  husband,  is  only  a  pointer  which  hints  very 
imperfectly  at  the  interpenetrating  and  energizing  of  the  human  spirit  by  the  divine. 

(  d )  A  union  mediated  and  conditioned  by  participation  of  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  church,— as  held  by  Romanists,  Lutherans,  and  High-Church 
Episcopalians. 

Perhaps  the  most  pernicious  misinterpretation  of  the  nature  of  this  union  is  that 
which  conceives  of  it  as  a  physical  and  material  one,  and  which  rears  upon  this  basis  the 
fabric  of  a  sacramental  and  external  Christianity.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  this 
union  cannot  be  mediated  by  sacraments,  since  sacraments  presuppose  it  as  already 
existing;  both  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  designed  only  for  believers.  Only 
faith  receives  and  retains  Christ ;  and  faith  is  the  act  of  the  soul  grasping  what  is  purely 
in  visible  and  supersensible :  not  theact  of  the  body,  submitting  to  Baptism  or  partaking 
of  the  Supper. 

AVilliam  Lincoln :  "  The  only  way  for  the  believer,  if  he  wants  to  go  rightly,  is  to 
remember  that  truth  is  always  two-sided.  If  there  is  any  truth  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
has  specially  pressed  upon  your  heart,  if  you  do  not  want  to  push  it  to  the  extreme, 
ask  what  is  the  counter-truth,  and  lean  a  little  of  your  weight  upon  that ;  otherwise,  if 
you  bear  so  very  much  on  one  side  of  the  truth,  there  is  a  danger  of  pushing  it  into  a 
heresy.  Heresy  means  selected  truth ;  it  does  not  mean  error ;  heresy  and  error  are 
very  different  things.  Heresy  is  truth,  but  truth  pushed  into  undue  importance,  to  the 
disparagement  of  the  truth  upon  the  other  side."  Heresy  ( a'ipeo-is )  =  an  act  of  choice, 
the  picking  and  choosing  of  a  part,  instead  of  comprehensively  embracing  the  whole 
of  truth.    Sacramentarians  substitute  the  symbol  for  the  thing  symbolized. 

B.     Positively. — It  is  : 

(a)  An  organic  union, —  in  which  we  become  members  of  Christ  and 
partakers  of  his  humanity. 

Kant  defines  an  organism,  as  that  whose  parts  are  reciprocally  means  and  end.  The 
body  is  an  organism  ;  since  the  limbs  exist  for  the  heart,  and  the  heart  for  the  limbs.  So 
each  member  of  Christ's  body  lives  for  him  who  is  the  head ;  and  Christ  the  head  equally 
lives  for  his  members :  Eph.  5  :  29,  30  —  "  no  man  ever  hated  his  own  flesh  ;  but  nourisheth  and  oherishetn  it, 


UNION'    WITH    CHRIST.  801 

wen  as  Christ  also  the  church ;  because  we  are  members  of  his  body."  The  train-despatcher  is  a  symbol 
of  the  concentration  of  energy  ;  the  switchmen  and  conductors  who  receive  his  orders 
are  s\  rubols  of  the  localization  of  force  ;  but  it  is  all  one  organic  system. 

(  b  )  A  vital  union, — in  which  Christ's  life  becomes  the  dominating  prin- 
ciple 'within  us. 

This  union  is  a  vital  one,  in  distinction  from  any  union  of  mere  juxtaposition  or 
external  influence.  Christ  does  not  work  upon  us  from  without,  as  one  separated  from 
us,  but  from  within,  as  the  very  heart  from  which  the  life-blood  of  our  spirits  flows. 
See  Gal.  2  :  20  —  "  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me :  and  that  Life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  I  live 
in  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himsslf  up  for  me ; "  Col.  3 : 3,  4  —  " For  ye 
died,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  'When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall  ye  also  with 
him  be  manifested  in  glory."  Christ's  life  is  not  corrupted  by  the  corruption  of  his  members, 
any  more  than  the  ray  of  light  is  d. -tiled  by  the  tilth  with  which  it  comes  in  contact. 
We  may  be  unconscious  of  this  union  with  Christ,  as  we  often  are  of  the  circulation  of 
the  blood,  yet  it  may  be  the  very  source  and  condition  of  our  life. 

( c )  A  spiritual  union, — that  is,  a  union  whose  source  antl  author  is  the 

Holy  Spirit. 

By  a  spiritual  union  we  mean  a  union  not  of  body  but  of  spirit,  —  a  union,  therefore, 
which  only  the  Holy  Spirit  originates  and  maintains.  Rom.  8:9,  10  —  "ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but 
in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelieth  in  you.  But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none 
of  his.  And  if  Chr:st  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness."  The 
indwelling  of  Christ  involves  a  continual  exercise  of  efficient  power.  In  Epb.  3:16, 17, 
"strengthened  with  power  through  his  Spirit  in  the  inward  man  "  is  immediately  followed  by  "that  Christ 
may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith." 

(d)  An  indissoluble  union, —  that  is,  a  union  which,  consistently  with 
Christ's  promise  and  grace,  can  never  be  dissolved. 

Mat.  28  :  20  —  "  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world ' ' ;  John  10  :  28  —  "  they  shall  never  perish, 
and  no  one  shall  snatch  them  out  of  my  hand" ; Rom.  8:  35,  39— "Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ? 
....  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in 

Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  "  ;  1  Thess.  4  :  14,  17—"  them  also  that  are  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him 

then  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left,  shall  together  with  them  be  caught  up  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air: 
and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord." 

Christ's  omnipresence  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  be  united  to,  and  to  I*  present  in, 
each  believer,  as  perfectly  and  fully  as  if  that  believer  were  the  only  one  to  receive 
Christ's  fulness.  As  Christ's  omnipresence  makes  the  whole  Christ  present  in  every 
place,  each  believer  has  the  whole  Christ  with  him,  as  his  source  of  strength,  purity, 
life ;  so  that  each  may  say :  Christ  gives  all  his  time  and  wisdom  and  care  to  me.  Such 
a  union  as  this  lacks  every  element  of  instability.  Once  formed,  the  union  is  indis- 
soluble. Many  of  the  ties  of  earth  are  rudely  broken,— not  so  with  our  union  with 
Christ, —  that  endures  forever. 

Since  there  is  now  an  unchangeable  and  divine  element  in  us,  our  salvation  depends 
no  longer  upon  our  unstable  wills,  but  upon  Christ's  purpose  and  power.  By  temporary 
declension  from  duty,  or  by  our  causeless  unbelief,  we  may  banish  Christ  to  the  barest 
and  most  remote  room  of  the  soul's  house;  but  he  does  not  suffer  us  wholly  to  exclude 
him ;  and  when  we  are  willing  to  unbar  the  doors,  he  is  still  there,  ready  to  nil  the 
whole  mansion  with  his  light  and  love. 

(e)  An  inscrutable  union,  —  mystical,  however,  only  in  the  sense  of  sur- 
passing in  its  intimacy  and  value  any  other  union  of  souls  which  we  know. 

This  union  is  inscrutable,  indeed ;  but  it  is  not  mystical,  in  the  sense  of  being  unintel- 
ligible to  the  Christian  or  beyond  the  reach  of  his  experience.  If  we  call  it  mystical  at 
all,  it  should  be  only  because,  in  the  intimacy  of  its  communion  and  in  the  transform- 
ing power  of  its  influence,  it  surpasses  any  other  union  of  souls  that  we  know,  and  so 
cannot  be  fully  described  or  understood  by  earthly  analogies.  Eph.  5  :  32— "This  mystery  is 
great :  but  I  speak  in  regard  of  Christ  and  of  the  church  " ;  Col.  1  :  27  — "  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery  among 
the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of  glory." 

See  Diman,  Theistic  Argument,  380— "As  physical  science  has  brought  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  back  of  all  the  phenomena  of  the  material  universe  there  lies  an  invisible 
universe  of  forces,  and  that  these  forces  may  ultimately  be  reduced  to  one  all-pervad- 

51 


802  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

ing  force  in  which  the  unity  of  the  physical  universe  consists;  and  as  philosophy  has 
advanced  the  rational  conjecture  that  this  ultimate  all-pervading-  force  is  simply  will- 
force;  so  the  great  Teacher  holds  up  to  us  the  spiritual  universe  as  pervaded  by  one 
omnipotent  life  — a  life  which  was  revealed  in  him  as  its  highest  manifestation,  but 
which  is  shared  by  all  who  by  faith  become  partakers  of  his  nature.  He  was  Son  of 
God  :  they  too  had  power  to  become  sons  of  God.  The  incarnation  is  wholly  within 
the  natural  course  and  tendency  of  things.  It  was  prepared  for,  it  came,  in  the  fulness 
o."  times.  Christ's  life  is  not  something  sporadic  and  individual,  having  its  source  in 
the  personal  conviction  of  each  disciple ;  it  implies  a  real  connection  with  Christ,  the 
head.  Behind  all  nature  there  is  one  force ;  behind  all  varieties  of  Christian  life  and 
character  there  is  one  spiritual  power.  All  nature  is  not  inert  matter,—  it  is  pervaded 
by  a  living  presence.  So  all  the  body  of  believers  live  by  virtue  of  the  all-working 
Spirit  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost."  An  epitaph  at  Silton,  in  Dorsetshire,  reads :  "  Here 
lies  a  piece  of  Christ  —  a  star  in  dust,  A  vein  of  gold,  a  china  dish,  that  must  Be  used  in 
heaven  when  God  shall  feed  the  just." 

A.  H.  Strong,  in  Examiner,  1880:  "  Such  is  the  nature  of  union  with  Christ,— such  I 
mean,  is  the  nature  of  every  believer's  union  with  Christ.  For,  whether  he  knows  it  or 
not,  every  Christian  has  entered  into  just  such  a  partnership  as  this.  It  is  this  and  this 
only  which  constitutes  him  a  Christian,  and  which  makes  possible  a  Christian  church. 
We  may,  indeed,  be  thus  united  to  Christ,  without  being  fully  conscious  of  the  real 
nature  of  our  I'elation  to  him.  We  may  actually  possess  the  kernel,  while  as  yet  we 
have  regard  only  to  the  shell;  we  may  seem  to  ourselves  to  be  united  to  Christ  only  by 
an  external  bond,  while  after  all  it  is  an  inward  and  spiritual  bond  that  makes  us  his. 
God  often  reveals  to  the  Christian  the  mystery  of  the  gospel,  which  is  Christ  in  him  the 
hope  of  glory,  at  the  very  time  that  he  is  seeking  only  some  nearer  access  to  a  Redeemer 
outside  of  him.  Trying  to  find  a  union  of  cooperation  or  of  sympathy,  he  is  amazed  to 
learn  that  there  is  already  established  a  union  with  Christ  more  glorious  and  blessed, 
namely,  a  union  of  life;  and  so,  like  the  miners  in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  while  he  is 
looking  only  for  silver,  he  finds  gold.  Christ  and  the  believer  have  the  same  life.  They 
are  not  separate  persons  linked  together  by  some  temporary  bond  of  friendship,— they 
are  united  by  a  tie  as  close  and  indissoluble  as  if  the  same  blood  ran  in  their  veins.  Yet 
the  Christian  may  never  have  suspected  how  intimate  a  union  he  has  with  his  Savior  ; 
and  the  first  understanding  of  this  truth  may  be  the  gateway  through  which  he  passes 
into  a  holier  and  happier  stage  of  the  Christian  life." 

So  the  Way  leads,  through  the  Truth,  to  the  Life  (John  14  :  6 ).  Apprehension  of  an 
external  Savior  prepares  for  the  reception  and  experience  of  the  internal  Savior. 
Christ  is  first  the  Door  of  the  sheep,  but  in  him,  after  they  have  once  entered  in,  they 
find  pasture  ( John  10 :  7-9 ).  On  the  nature  of  this  union,  see  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of 
Christian  Theology,  531-539;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  601;  Wilberforce,  Incarnation, 
208-272,  and  New  Birth  of  Man's  Nature,  1-30.    Per  contra,  see  Park,  Discourses,  117-130. 

3.     Consequences  of  this   Union  as  respects  the  Believer. 

We  have  seen  that  Christ's  union  with  humanity,  at  the  incarnation, 
involved  him  in  all  the  legal  liabilities  of  the  race  to  which  he  united  him- 
self, and  enabled  him  so  to  assume  the  penalty  of  its  sin  as  to  make  for  all 
men  a  full  satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice,  and  to  remove  all  external 
obstacles  to  man's  return  to  God.  An  internal  obstacle,  however,  still 
remains  —  the  evil  affections  and  will,  and  the  consequent  guilt,  of  the 
individual  soul.  This  last  obstacle  also  Christ  removes,  in  the  case  of  all 
his  people,  by  uniting  himself  to  them  in  a  closer  and  more  perfect  manner 
than  that  in  which  he  is  united  to  humanity  at  large.  As  Christ's  union 
with  the  race  secures  the  objective  reconciliation  of  the  race  to  God,  so 
Christ's  union  with  believers  secures  the  subjective  reconciliation  of 
believers  to  God. 

In  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  607-610,  in  Owen,  on  Justification,  chap.  8,  in  Boston, 
Covenant  of  Grace,  chap.  2,  and  in  Dale,  Atonement,  265-440,  the  union  of  the  believer 
with  Christ  is  made  to  explain  the  bearing  of  our  sins  by  Christ.  As  we  have  seen  in 
our  discussion  of  the  Atonement,  however  ( page  759 ),  this  explains  the  cause  by  the 
effect,  and  implies  that  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect  (  see  review  of  Dale,  in  Brit.  Quar, 


UNION   WITH    CHRIST.  803 

Rev.,  Apr.  1876 :  221-225 ).  It  is  not  the  union  of  Christ  with  the  believe?,  but  the  anion 
of  Christ  with  humanity  at  large,  that  explains  his  taking  upon  hiin  Lunian  guin  and 
penalty. 

Amnesty  offered  to  a  rebellious  city  may  be  complete,  yet  it  may  avail  only  for  those 
who  surrender.  Pardon  secured  from  a  Governor,  upon  the  ground  of  the  services  of 
an  Advocate,  may  be  effectual  only  when  the  convict  accepts  it,— there  is  no  hope  for 
him  when  he  tears  up  the  pardon.  Dr.  II.  E.  Robins:  "The  judicial  declaration  of 
acquittal  on  the  ground  of  the  death  of  Christ,  which  comes  to  all  men  (  Rom.  5  :  IS  !,  and 
into  the  benefits  of  which  they  are  introduced  by  natural  birth,  is  inchoate  justifica- 
tion, and  will  become  perfected  justification  through  the  new  birth  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
unless  the  working- of  this  divine  ag-ent  is  resisted  by  the  personal  moral  act  ion  of  those 
who  are  lost."  What  Dr.  Robins  calls  "inchoate  justification''  we  prefer  to  call  "ideal 
justification  "  or  "attainable  justification."  Humanity  in  Christ  is  justified,  and  every 
member  of  the  race  who  joins  himself  to  Christ  by  faith  participates  in  I  Ihrist's  justifi- 
cation. H.  E.  Dudley  :  "  Adam's  sin  holds  us  all  down  just  as  gravity  holds  all,  while 
Christ's  righteousness,  though  secured  for  all  and  accessible  to  all,  Involves  an  effort  of 
will  in  climbing  and  grasping  which  not  all  will  make.'"  Justification  in  Christ  is  the 
birthright  of  humanity;  but,  in  order  to  possess  and  enjoy  it,  each  of  us  must  claim 
and  appropriate  it  by  fail  l>. 

R.  W.  Dale,  Fellowship  with  Christ,  7  — "When  we  were  created  in  Christ,  the  for- 
tunes of  the  human  race  for  good  or  evil  became  his.  The  Incarnation  revealed  and 
fulfilled  the  relations  which  already  existed  between  the  Son  of  God  and  mankind. 
From  the  beginning  Christ  had  entered  into  fellowship  with  us.  When  we  sinned,  he 
remained  in  fellowship  with  us  still.  Our  miseries  "  [we  would  add  :  our  guilt]  "were 
his,  by  his  own  choice.  .  .  .  His  fellowship  wit  li  u-  is  the  foundaf  ion  id'  our  fellowship 
with  him.  .  .  .  When  I  have  discovered  that  by  the  very  constitution  of  my  nature 
I  am  to  achieve  perfection  in  the  power  of  the  life  Of  Another—  who  is  jet  not  Another, 
but  the  very  ground  of  my  being — it  ceases  to  be  incredible  to  me  that  Auot  her  —  who 
is  yet  not  Another  — should  be  the  Atonement  for  my  sin,  and  that  his  relation  to  (bid 
should  determine  mine." 

A  tract  entitled  "The  Seven  Togethers"  sums  up  the  Scripture  testimony  with 
regard  to  the  Consequences  of  the  believer's  Union  with  Christ :  1.  Crucified  together 
with  Christ  — Sal.  2:20  — <jui'e<TTaupw/j.ai.  2.  Died  togef  her  with  Christ  —  Col.  2 : 20  aite-fiavtre, 
3.  Buried  together  with  Christ  —  Rom.  6:4  a-m.  7«.,'.,j/.ti\  '1.  Quickened  together  with 
Christ  —  Eph.  2:5  —  owe£<i>oiroiij<rei'.  5.  Raised  together  with  Christ  —  Col.  3:1 — avvTiy ip&tire. 
ti.  Sufferers  together  with  Christ  —  Rom.  8:17  —  o-vn-ndaxona'.  ;.  Glorified  together  with 
Christ  —  Rom.  8:17  —  <rvv&o^audi>ij.iv.  Union  with  Christ  results  in  common  sonship,  rela- 
tion to  Cod,  character,  influence,  and  destiny. 

Imperfect  apprehension  of  the  believer's  union  with  Christ  works  to  the  great  injury 
of  Christian  doctrine.  An  experience  of  union  with  Christ  first  enables  us  to  under- 
stand the  death  of  sin  and  separation  from  Cod  which  has  befallen  the  race  sprung 
from  the  first  Adam.  The  life  and  liberty  of  the  children  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  shows 
us  by  contrast  how  far  astray  we  bad  gone.  The  vital  and  organic  unity  of  the  new 
race  sprung  from  the  second  Adam  reveals  the  depravity  and  disintegration  which  we 
had  inherited  from  our  Hist  father.  We  Bee  t  hat  as  there  is  one  source  of  spiritual  life 
in  Christ,  so  there  was  one  source  of  corrupt  life  in  Adam  ;  and  that  as  we  are  justified 
by  reason  of  our  oneness  with  the  justified  Christ,  so  we  are  condemned  by  reason  of 
our  oneness  with  the  condemned  Adam. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  175— "If  it  is  consistent  with  evolution  that  the 
physical  and  natural  life  of  the  race  should  be  derived  from  a  single  source,  then  it  is 
equally  consistent  with  evolution  thai  the  moral  and  spiritual  life  of  the  race  should 
be  derived  from  a  singh' source.  Scripture  Is  stating  only  scientific  fact  when  it  sets 
the  second  Adam,  the  head  of  redeemed  humanity,  over  against  the  first  Adam,  the 
head  of  fallen  humanity.  We  are  told  that  evolution  should  give  us  many  Christs. 
We  reply  that  evolution  has  not  given  us  many  Adams.  Evolution,  as  it  assigns  to  the 
natural  head  of  the  race  a  supreme  and  unique  position,  must  be  consistent  with  itself, 
and  must  assign  a  supreme  and  unique  position  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  spiritual  head  of 
the  race.  As  there  was  but  one  Adam  from  whom  all  the  natural  life  of  the  race  was 
derived,  so  that  there  can  be  but  one  Christ  from  whom  all  the  spiritual  life  of  the 
race  is  derived." 

The  consequences  of  union  'with  Christ  may  be  summarily  stated  as 
follows  : 


804  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    SALVATION. 

(  a  )  Union  with  Christ  involves  a  change  in  the  dominant  affection  of 
the  soul.  Christ's  entrance  into  the  soul  makes  it  a  new  creature,  in  the 
sense  that  the  ruling  disposition,  which  before  was  sinful,  now  becomes 
holy.     This  change  we  call  Regeneration. 

Rom.  8:2  —  "  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death  "  ;  2  Cor. 
5  :  17  _  "  if  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature ' '  ( niarg.  — ' '  there  is  a  new  creation  "  ) ;  Gal.  1:15, 16 — "  it 
was  the  good  pleasure  of  God  ...  .  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me  "  ;  Eph.  2 :  10  —  "  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  for  good  works."  As  we  derive  our  old  nature  from  the  first  man  Adam,  by  birth, 
so  we  derive  a  new  nature  from  the  second  man  Christ,  by  the  new  birth.  Union  with 
Christ  is  the  true  "  transfusion  of  blood."  "  The  death-struck  sinner,  like  the  wan, 
ansemic,  dying  invalid,  is  saved  by  having  poured  into  his  veins  the  healthier  blood  of 
Christ"  (  Drummond,  Nat.  Law  in  the  Spir.  World ).  God  regenerates  the  soul  by  unit- 
ing it  to  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  Johnston  Harvester  Works  at  Batavia,  when  they  paint  their  machinery,  they 
do  it  by  immersing  part  after  part  in  a  great  tank  of  paint,  —  so  the  painting  is  instan- 
taneous and  complete.  Our  baptism  into  Christ  is  the  outward  picture  of  an  inward 
immersion  of  the  soul  not  only  into  his  love  and  fellowship,  but  into  his  very  life,  so 
that  in  him  we  become  new  creatures  ( 2  Cor.  5 :  17 ).  As  Miss  Sullivan  surrounded  Helen 
Kellar  with  the  influence  of  her  strong  personality,  by  intelligence  and  sympathy  and 
determination  striving  to  awaken  the  blind  and  dumb  soul  and  give  it  light  and  love, 
so  Jesus  envelops  us.  But  his  Spirit  is  more  encompassing  and  more  penetrating  than 
any  human  influence  however  powerful,  because  his  life  is  the  very  ground  and  prin- 
ciple of  our  being. 

Tennyson :  "  O  for  a  man  to  arise  in  me,  That  the  man  that  I  am  may  cease  to  be ! " 
Emerson :  "  Himself  from  God  he  could  not  free  ;  He  builded  better  than  he  knew." 
Religion  is  not  the  adding  of  a  new  department  of  activity  as  an  adjunct  to  our  own 
life  or  the  grafting  of  a  new  method  of  manifestation  upon  the  old.  It  is  rather  the 
grafting  of  our  souls  into  Christ,  so  that  his  life  dominates  and  manifests  itself  in  all 
our  activities.  The  magnet  which  left  to  itself  can  lift  only  a  three  pound  weight, 
will  lift  three  hundred  when  it  is  attached  to  the  electric  dynamo.  Expositor's  Greek 
Testament  on  1  Cor.  15 :  45,  46 —  "  The  action  of  Jesus  in  ' breathing  '  upon  his  disciples  while 
he  said,  'Receive  the  Holy  Sprit'  (John  20:22  .s<y. )  symbolized  the  vitalizing  relationship  which 
at  this  epoch  he  assumed  towards  mankind;  this  act  raised  to  a  higher  potency  the 
original  'breathing'  of  God  by  which  '  man  became  a  living  soul'  (Gen.  2:7)." 

(  b  )  Union  with  Christ  involves  a  new  exercise  of  the  soul's  powers  in 
repentance  and  faith  ;  faith,  indeed,  is  the  act  of  the  soul  by  which,  under 
the  operation  of  God,  Christ  is  received.  This  new  exercise  of  the  soul's 
powers  we  call  Conversion  ( Repentance  and  Faith  ).  It  is  the  obverse  or 
human  side  of  Regeneration. 

Eph.  3 :  17  —  "  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith  "  ;  2  Tim.  3 :  15  —  "  the  sacred  writings  which  are 
able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  Faith  is  the  soul's  laying  hold 
of  Christ  as  its  only  source  of  life,  pardon,  and  salvation.  And  so  we  see  what  true 
religion  is.  It  is  not  a  moral  life ;  it  is  not  a  determination  to  be  religious  ;  it  is  not 
faith,  if  by  faith  we  mean  an  external  trust  that  somehow  Christ  will  save  us  ;  it  is 
nothing  less  than  the  life  of  the  soul  in  God,  through  Christ  his  Son.  To  Christ  then 
we  are  to  look  for  the  origin,  continuance  and  increase  of  our  faith  (  Luke  17:5  —  "said 
unto  the  Lord,  Increase  our  faith  "  ).  Our  faith  is  but  a  part  of  "  his  fulness  "  of  which  "  we  all  received, 
and  grace  for  grace  "  ( John  1 :  16 ). 

A.  H.  Strong,  Sermon  before  the  Baptist  World  Congress,  London,  1905  —  "  Christian- 
ity is  summed  up  in  the  two  facts :  Christ  for  us,  and  Christ  in  us  —  Christ  for  us  upon 
the  Cross,  revealing  the  eternal  opposition  of  holiness  to  sin,  and  yet,  through  God's 
eternal  suffering  for  sin  making  objective  atonement  for  us ;  and  Christ  in  us  by  his 
Spirit,  renewing  in  us  the  lost  image  of  God,  and  abiding  in  us  as  the  all-sufficient 
source  of  purity  and  power.  Here  are  the  two  foci  of  the  Christian  ellipse  :  Christ 
for  us,  who  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  and 
Christ  in  us,  the  hope  of  glory,  whom  the  apostle  calls  the  mystery  of  the  gospel. 

"  We  need  Christ  in  us  as  well  as  Christ  for  us.  How  shall  I,  how  shall  society,  find  heal- 
ing and  purification  within  ?  Let  me  answer  by  reminding  you  of  what  they  did  at  Chi- 
cago. In  all  the  world  there  was  no  river  more  stagnant  and  fetid  than  was  Chicago  River. 


UNION    WITH    CHRIST.  805 

Its  sluggish  stream  received  the  sweepings  of  the  watercraft  and  the  offal  of  the  city, 
and  there  was  no  current  to  carry  the  detritus  away.  There  it  settled,  and  bred 
miasma  and  fever.  At  last  it  was  suggested  that,  by  cutting  through  the  low  ridge 
between  the  city  and  the  De.splaines  River,  the  current  could  be  set  running  in  the 
opposite  direction,  and  drainage  could  be  secured  into  the  Illinois  River  and  the  great 
Mississippi.  At  a  cost  of  lif  teen  millions  of  dollars  the  cut  was  made,  and  now  all  the 
water  of  Lake  Michigan  can  be  relied  upon  to  cleanse  that  turbid  stream.  What  Chi- 
cago River  could  never  do  for  itself,  the  great  lake  now  does  for  it.  So  no  human  soul 
can  purge  itself  of  its  sin;  and  what  the  individual  cannot  do,  humanity  at  large  is 
powerless  to  accomplish.  Sin  has  dominion  over  us,  and  we  are  foul  to  the  very  depths 
of  our  being,  until  with  the  help  of  God  we  break  through  the  barrier  of  our  self-will, 
and  let  the  floods  of  Christ's  purifying  life  flow  into  us.  Then,  in  an  hour,  more  is 
done  to  renew,  than  all  our  efforts  for  years  had  effected.  Thus  humanity  is  saved, 
individual  by  individual,  not  by  philosophy,  or  philanthropy,  or  self-development,  or 
self-reformation,  but  simply  by  joining  itself  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  being  filled  in 
Him  with  all  the  fulness  of  God." 

( c )  Union  with  Christ  gives  to  the  believer  the  legal  standing  and  rights 
of  Christ.  As  Christ's  union  with  the  race  involves  atonement,  so  the 
believer's  union  with  Christ  involves  Justification.  The  believer  is  enti- 
tled to  take  for  his  own  all  that  Christ  is,  and  all  that  Christ  has  done ;  and 
this  because  he  has  within  him  that  new  life  of  humanity  which  suffered  in 
Christ's  death  and  rose  from  the  grave  in  Christ's  resurrection, — in  other 
words,  because  he  is  virtually  one  person  with  the  Redeemer.  In  Christ 
the  believer  is  prophet,  priest,  and  king. 

Acts  13:  39  —  "by  him  [  lit. :  'in  him'  =  in  union  with  him  ]  every  one  that  believeth  is  justified  "  ;  Rom. 
6-7,8  —  "  he  that  hath  died  is  justified  from  sin  ....  we  died  with  Christ "  ;  7:4  —  "dead  to  the  law  through  the 
body  of  Christ";  8:1  —  "no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus"  ;  17  —  "heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs 
With  Christ "  ;  1  Cor.  1 :  30  —  "  But  of  him  ye  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  mado  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  right- 
eousness [justification  ]"  ;  3:21,  23  —  "all  things  are  yours  ....  and  ye  are  Christ's";  6:11— "ye  were 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Spirit  of  our  God  "  ;  2  Cor.  5 :  14  —  "we  thus  judge,  that  one 
died  for  all,  therefore  all  died  "  ;  21  —  "  Him  who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf ;  that  we  might  become 
the  righteousness  [  justification  ]  of  God  in  him  "  =  God's  justified  persons,  in  union  with  Christ 
(see  pages  760,  7G1). 

Gal.  2 :  20  —  "I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  "  ;  Eph.  1 : 4, 
6  —  "  chose  us  in  him  ....  to  the  pra  se  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wh-ch  he  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved ' ' ; 
2:5,  6  —  "  even  when  wo  were  dead  through  our  trespasses,  made  us  alive  together  with  Christ  ....  made  us  to  sit 
with  him  in  the  heavenly  places,  in  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  Phil.  3 : 8,  9  —  "  that  I  may  gain  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not 
having  a  righteousness  of  mine  own,  even  that  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Chrst,  the  right- 
eousness which  is  from  God  by  faith  " ;  2  Tim.  2:11  —  "  Faithful  is  the  saying :  For  if  wo  d.ed  with  him,  we  shall  also 
live  with  him."  Prophet  :  Luko  12  :  12  —  "the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  very  hour  what  ye  ought  to 
say";  Uohn2:20  —  "ye  have  an  anointing  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things."  Priest:  1  Pet.  2 : 5  — 
"a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Rev.  20 : 6  —  " they  shall  be 
priests  of  God  and  of  Christ "  ;  1  Pet.  2:9  —  "  a  royal  priesthood."  King:  Rev.  3:21  —  "  He  that  overcometh,  I  will 
give  to  him  to  sit  down  with  me  in  my  throne "  ;  5  :  10  —  "  madest  them  to  be  unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and  priests." 
The  connection  of  justification  and  union  with  Christ  delivers  the  former  from  the 
charge  of  being  a  mechanical  and  arbitrary  procedure.  As  Jonathan  Edwards  has 
said:  "The  justification  of  the  believer  is  no  other  than  his  being  admitted  to  com- 
munion in,  or  participation  of,  this  head  and  surety  of  all  believers." 

( d  )  Union  with  Christ  secures  to  the  believer  the  continuously  trans- 
forming, assimilating  power  of  Christ's  life,  —  first,  for  the  soul ;  secondly, 
for  the  body,  —  consecrating  it  in  the  present,  and  in  the  future  raising  it 
up  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  glorified  body.  This  continuous  influence, 
so  far  as  it  is  exerted  in  the  present  life,  we  call  Sancti  fixation,  the  human 
side  or  aspect  of  which  is  Perseverance. 

For  the  soul:  John  1:16  —  "of  his  fulness  we  all  received,  and  grace  for  grace"  —  successive  and 
increasing  measures  of  grace,  corresponding  to  the  soul's  successive  and  increasing 
needs  ;  Rom.  8 :  10  —  "  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteous- 


806  SOTERIOLOGi,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    SALVATION. 

r.ess"  ;  1  Cor.  15  :45 —  "The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit"  ;  Phil.  2:5  —  "Have  this  mind  in  you,  which 
•was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  1  John  3: 2 — "if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him."  "Can  Christ  let 
the  believer  fall  out  of  his  hands?    No,  for  the  believer  is  his  hands." 

For  the  body  :  1  Cor.  6 :  17-20  —  "  he  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit  .  ,  .  .  know  ye  not  that  your 
body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you  ...  .  glorify  God  therefore  in  your  body  "  ;  1  Thess.  5 :  23  —  "  And 
the  God  of  peace  himself  sanctify  you  wholly  ;  and  may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire,  without 
blame  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Rom.  8:11  —  "  shall  give  life  also  to  your  mortal  bodies  through  his 
Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you  "  ;  1  Cor.  15:49  —  "as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy  [man],  we  shall  also  bear 
the  image  of  the  heavenly  [  man  ]  "  ;  Phil.  3  :  20,  21  —  "  For  our  citizenship  is  in  heaven ;  from  whence  also  we  wait 
for  a  Savior,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation,  that  it  may  be  conformed  to 
the  body  of  his  glory,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subject  all  things  unto  himself." 

Is  there  a  physical  miracle  wrought  for  the  drunkard  in  his  regeneration?  Mr. 
Moody  says,  Yes ;  Mr.  Gough  says,  No.  We  prefer  to  say  that  the  change  is  a  spiritual 
one ;  but  that  the  "  expulsive  power  of  a  new  affection  "  indirectly  affects  the  body,  so 
that  old  appetites  sometimes  disappear  in  a  moment ;  and  that  often,  in  the  course  of 
years,  great  changes  take  place  even  in  the  believer's  body.  Tennyson,  Idylls:  "  Have 
ye  looked  at  Edyrn  ?  Have  ye  seen  how  nobly  changed  ?  This  work  of  his  is  great  and 
wonderful;  His  very  face  with  change  of  heart  is  changed."  "Christ  in  the  soul 
fashions  the  germinal  man  into  his  own  likeness,  — this  is  the  embryology  of  the  new 
life.  The  cardinal  error  in  religious  life  is  the  attempt  to  live  without  proper  environ- 
ment" (see  Drummoud,  Natural  Law  in  Spiritual  World,  253-284).  Human  life  from 
Adam  does  not  stand  the  test, —  only  divine-human  life  in  Christ  can  secure  us  from 
falling.  This  is  the  work  of  Christ,  now  that  he  has  ascended  and  taken  to  himself  his 
power,  namely,  to  give  his  life  more  and  more  fully  to  the  church,  until  it  shall  grow 
up  in  all  things  into  him,  the  Head,  and  shall  fitly  express  his  glory  to  the  world. 

As  the  accomplished  organist  discloses  unsuspected  capabilities  of  his  instrument,  so 
Christ  brings  into  activity  all  the  latent  powers  of  the  human  soul.  "  I  was  live  years 
in  the  ministry,"  said  an  American  preacher,  "before  I  realized  that  my  Savior  is 
alive"  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  has  left  on  record  the  almost  unutterable  feelings  that  stirred 
his  soul  when  he  first  realized  this  truth  ;  see  Walker,  The  Spirit  and  the  Incarnation, 
preface,  v.  Many  have  struggled  in  vain  against  sin  until  they  have  admitted  Christ 
to  their  hearts,  —  then  they  could  say  :  "  this  is  the  victory  that  hath  overcome  the  world,  even  our  faith" 
( 1  John  5:4).  "Go  out,  God  will  go  in  ;  Die  thou,  and  let  him  live  ;  Be  not,  and  he  will 
be ;  Wait,  and  he  '11  all  things  give."  The  best  way  to  get  air  out  of  a  vessel  is  to 
pour  water  in.  Only  in  Christ  can  we  find  our  pardon,  peace,  purity,  and  power.  He  is 
"  made  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  justification  and  sanctification,  and  redemption  "  ( i  Cor.  1:30).  A  medical 
man  says:  "The  only  radical  remedy  for  dipsomania  is  religiomania "  (quoted  in 
William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  268 ).  It  is  easy  to  break  into  an 
empty  house  ;  the  spirit  cast  out  returns,  finds  the  house  empty,  brings  seven  others, 
and  "  the  last  state  of  that  man  beconieth  worse  than  the  first"  ( Mat.  12 :  45 ).  There  is  no  safety  in  simply 
expelling  sin  ;  we  need  also  to  bring  in  Christ ;  in  fact  only  he  can  enable  us  to  expel 
not  only  actual  sin  but  the  love  of  it. 

Alexander  McLaren  :  "  If  we  are  'in  Christ,'  we  are  like  a  diver  in  his  crystal  bell,  and 
have  a  solid  though  invisible  wall  around  us,  which  keeps  all  sea-monsters  off  us,  and 
communicates  with  the  upper  air,  whence  we  draw  the  breath  of  calm  life  and  can 
work  in  security  though  in  the  ocean  depths."  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas,  2 :  98  —  "  How 
do  we  know  that  the  life  of  God  has  not  departed  from  nature  ?  Because  every  spring 
we  witness  the  annual  miracle  of  nature's  revival,  every  summer  and  autumn  the 
waving  corn.  How  do  we  know  that  Christ  has  not  departed  from  the  world  ?  Because 
he  imparts  to  the  soul  that  trusts  him  a  power,  a  purity,  a  peace,  which  are  beyond  all 
that  nature  can  give." 

(e)  Union  with  Christ  brings  about  a  fellowship  of  Christ  with  the 
believer, —  Christ  takes  part  in  all  the  labors,  temptations,  and  sufferings 
of  his  people  ;  a  fellowship  of  the  believer  with  Christ, —  so  that  Christ's 
whole  experience  on  earth  is  in  some  measure  reproduced  in  him  ;  a  fellow- 
ship of  all  believers  with  one  another, —  furnishing  a  basis  for  the  spiritual 
unity  of  Christ's  people  on  earth,  and  for  the  eternal  communion  of  heaven. 
The  doctrine  of  Union  with  Christ  is  therefore  the  indispensable  prepara- 
tion for  Ecclesiology ,  and  for  Eschatology, 


UNION    WITH    CHRIST,  807 

Fellowship  of  Christ  with  the  believer :  Phil.  4  :  13  — "  I  can  do  all  things  in  him  that  strengthened 
me  ";  Heb.  4  :  15  — "  For  we  have  not  a  high  priest  that  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  ";  cf.  Is. 
63  : 9 — "In  all  their  affliction  he  was  afflicted."  Heb.  2  :  18 — "in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is 
able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted  "=are  being  tempted,  are  under  temptation.  Bp.  Words- 
worth :  "  By  his  passion  he  acquired  compassion."  2  Cor.  2  :  14  — "thanks  be  unto  God,  who  always 
leadeth  us  in  triumph  in  Christ "  =  Christ  leads  us  in  triumph,  but  his  triumph  is  ours,  even  if 
it  be  a  triumph  over  us.  One  with  him,  we  participate  in  his  joy  and  in  his  sovereignty. 
Rev.  3  :21  — "  He  that  overcometh,  I  will  give  to  him  to  sit  down  with  me  in  my  throne."  \V.  F.  Taylor  on  Rom.  8 :  9 
— "  The  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  .  .  .  .  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his  "— "  Christ 
dwells  in  us,  says  the  apostle.  But  do  we  accept  him  as  a  resident,  or  as  a  ruler? 
England  was  first  represented  at  King  Thebau's  court  by  her  resident.  This  official 
could  rebuke,  and  even  threaten,  but  no  more,—  Thebau  was  sovereign.  Burma  knew 
DO  peace,  till  England  ruled.  So  Christ  does  not  consent  to  be  represented  by  a  mere 
resident.  He  must  himself  dwell  within  the  soul,  and  he  must  reign."  Christina 
llossetti.  Thee  Only  :  "  Lord,  we  are  rivers  running  to  thy  sea,  Our  waves  and  ripples 
all  derived  from  thee;  A  nothing  we  should  have,  a  nothing  be,  Except  for  thee.  Sweet 
are  the  waters  of  thy  shoreless  sea;  Make  sweet  our  waters  that  make  haste  to  thee; 
Pour  in  thy  sweetness,  that  ourselves  may  be  Sweetness  to  thee  !  " 

Of  the  believer  wit  h  Christ:  Phil.  3  :  10 — "that  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  and 
the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  becoming  conformed  unto  his  death";  Col.  1  :  24 — "fill  up  on  my  part  that  wiiich  is 
lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  in  my  flesh  for  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church  ";  1  Pet.  4  :  13  — "  partakers  of 
Christ's  sufferings."  The  Christian  reproduces  Christ's  life  in  miniature,  and,  in  a  true  sense, 
lives  it  over  again.  Only  upon  the  principle  of  union  with  Christ  can  we  explain  how 
the  Christian  instinetively  applies  to  himself  the  prophecies  and  promises  which  origi- 
nally and  primarily  were  uttered  with  reference  to  Christ : "  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol ; 
Neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  holy  one  to  see  corruption  "  (  Ps.  16  :  10,  '1 ).  This  fellowship  is  the  ground  of 
the  promises  made  to  believing  prayer :  John  14: 13  -"whatsueveryeshallaskinmy  name,  that  will  I 
iln";  Wescott,  Mill.  Com.,  luloco:  "  The  meaning  of  the  phrase;  L'in  my  name]  is  'as  being 
one  with  me  even  as  I  am  revealed  to  you.'  Its  two  correlatives  are  'in  me'  and  the 
Pauline 'in  Christ'."  "  All  things  are  yours  "( 1  Cor.  3  :  21 ),  because  Christ  is  universal  King,  and 
all  believers  are  exalted  to  fellowship  with  him.  After  the  battle  of  Sedan,  King 
William  asked  a  wounded  Prussian  officer  whether  it  were  well  with  him.  "  All  is  well 
where  your  majesty  leads  !  "  was  the  reply.  Phil.  1  :  21 — "For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is 
gain."   Paul  indeed  uses  the  words  'Christ'  and  'church  '  as  interchangeable  terms:  ICor 

12  :  12 — "as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members, so  also  is  Christ."    Deuney,  Studies  in  The-, 

ology,  171— "There  is  not  in  the  N.  T.  from  beginning  to  end,  in  the  record  of  the 
original  and  genuine  Christian  life,  a  single  word  of  despondency  or  gloom.  It  is  the 
most  buoyant,  exhilerating  and  joyful  book  in  the  world."  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  writers  believe  in  a  living  and  exalted  Christ,  and  know  themselves  to  be  one  with 
him.  They  descend  crowned  into  the  arena.  In  the  Soudan,  every  morning  for  half  an 
hour  before  General  Gordon's  tent  there  lay  a  white  handkerchief.  The  most  pressing 
message,  even  on  matters  of  life  and  death,  waited  till  that  handkerchief  was  with- 
drawn.   It  was  the  signal  that  Christ  and  Gordon  were  in  communion  with  each  other. 

Of  all  believers  with  one  another:  John  17  :  21—  "that  they  may  all  be  one";  1  Cor.  10  :  17 — "we, 
who  are  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread  ";  Eph.  2  :  15  — "  create  in  himself  of  the 
two  one  new  man,  so  making  peace  "  ;  1  John  1  :  3  — "  that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us :  yea,  and  our  fellow- 
ship is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ"  —  here  the  word  Koivuvia.  is  used.  Fellowship 
with  each  other  is  the  effect  and  result  of  the  fellowship  of  each  with  God  in  Christ. 
Compare  John  10  :  16 — "they  shall  become  one  flock,  one  shepherd";  Westcott,  Bib.  Com., -in  loco:  "The 

bond  of  fellowship  is  shown  to  lie  in  the  common  relation  to  one  Lord Nothing 

is  said  of  one  '  fold '  under  the  new  dispensation."  Here  is  a  unity,  not  of  external 
organization,  but  of  common  life.  Of  this  the  visible  church  is  the  consequence  and 
expression.  But  this  communion  is  not  limited  to  earth, —  it  is  perpetuated  beyond 
death:  1  Thess.  4  :  17 — "so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord";  Heb.  12  :  23 — "  to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
tha  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven,  and  to  God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect ";  Rev.  21 
and  22  — the  city  of  God,  the  new  Jerusalem,  is  the  image  of  perfect  society,  as  well 
as  of  intensity  and  fulness  of  life  in  Christ.  The  ordinances  express  the  essence  of 
Ecclesiology  —  union  with  Christ  —  for  Baptism  symbolizes  the  incorporation  of  the 
believer  in  Christ,  while  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  the  incorporation  of  Christ  in  the 
believer.  Christianity  is  a  social  matter,  and  the  true  Christian  feels  the  need  of  being 
with  and  among  his  brethren.  The  Romans  could  not  understand  why  "  this  new  sect " 
must  be  holding  meetings  all  the  time  — even  diily  meetings.  Why  could  they  not  go 
singly,  or  in  families,  to  the  temples,  and  make  offerings  to  their  God,  and  then  come 


808  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

away,  as  the  pagans  did  ?  It  was  this  meeting  together  which  exposed  them  to  persecu- 
tion and  martyrdom.  It  was  the  natural  and  inevitable  expression  of  their  union  with 
Christ  and  so  of  their  union  with  one  another. 

The  consciousness  of  union  with  Christ  gives  assurance  of  salvation.  It  is  a  great 
stimulus  to  believing  prayer  and  to  patient  labor.  It  is  a  duty  to  "know  what  is  the  hope  of 
his  calling,  what  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints,  and  what  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power 
to  us- ward  who  believe  "  ( Bph.  1 :  18, 19 ).  Christ's  command,  "  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  yon  "  (  John  15  :  4  ), 
implies  that  we  are  both  to  realize  and  to  confirm  this  union,  by  active  exertion  of  our 
own  wills.  We  are  to  abide  in  him  by  an  entire  consecration,  and  to  let  him  abide  in  us 
by  an  appropriating  faith.  We  are  to  give  ourselves  to  Christ,  and  to  take  in  return  the 
Christ  who  gives  himself  to  us,— in  other  words,  we  are  to  believe  Christ's  promises  and 
to  act  upon  them.  All  sin  consists  in  the  sundering  of  man's  life  from  God,  and  most 
systems  of  falsehood  in  religion  are  attempts  to  save  man  without  merging  his  life  in 
God's  once  more.  The  only  religion  that  can  save  mankind  is  the  religion  that  fills  the 
whole  heart  and  the  whole  life  with  God,  and  that  aims  to  interpenetrate  universal 
humanity  with  that  same  living  Christ  who  has  already  made  himself  one  with  the 
believer.  This  consciousness  of  union  with  Christ  gives  "boldness"  (nappyfaia — Acts  4: 13; 
1  John  5  :  14)  toward  men  and  toward  God.  The  word  belongs  to  the  Greek  democracies. 
Freemen  are  bold.  Demosthenes  boasts  of  his  frankness.  Christ  frees  us  from  the  hide- 
bound, introspective,  self-conscious  spirit.  In  him  we  become  free,  demonstrative, 
outspoken.  So  we  find,  in  John's  epistles,  that  boldness  in  prayer  is  spoken  of  as  a 
virtue,  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  urges  us  to  "draw  near  with  boldness 
unto  the  throne  of  grace "  ( Heb.  4  :  16 ).  An  engagement  of  marriage  is  not  the  same  as  marriage. 
The  parties  may  be  still  distant  from  each  other.  Many  Christians  get  just  near  enough 
to  Christ  to  be  engaged  to  him.  This  seems  to  be  the  experience  of  Christian  in  the  Pil- 
grim's Progress.  But  our  privilege  is  to  have  a  present  Christ,  and  to  do  our  work  not 
only  for  him,  but  in  him.  "  Since  Christ  and  we  are  one,  Why  should  we  doubt  or  fear  ?  " 
"  We  two  are  so  joined,  He'll  not  be  in  heaven,  And  leave  me  behind." 

We  append  a  few  statements  with  regard  to  this  union  and  its  consequences,  from 
noted  names  in  theology  and  the  church.  Luther:  "By  faith  thou  art  so  glued  to 
Christ  that  of  thee  and  him  there  becomes  as  it  were  one  person,  so  that  with  confidence 
thou  canst  say  :  '  I  am  Christ,—  that  is,  Christ's  righteousness,  victory,  etc.,  are  mine ; 
and  Christ  in  turn  can  say :  '  I  am  that  sinner,— that  is,  his  sins,  his  death,  etc.,  are  mine, 
because  he  clings  to  me  and  I  to  him,  for  we  have  been  joined  through  faith  into  one 
flesh  and  bone.'  "  Calvin  ;  "  I  attribute  the  highest  importance  to  the  connection 
between  the  head  and  the  members ;  to  the  inhabitation  of  Christ  in  our  hearts ;  in  a 
word,  to  the  mystical  union  by  which  we  enjoy  him,  so  that,  being  made  ours,  he  makes 
us  partakers  of  the  blessings  with  which  he  is  furnished."  John  Bunyan  :  "  The  Lord 
led  me  into  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  union  with  Christ,  that  I  was  joined  to 
him,  that  I  was  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh.  By  this  also  my  faith  in  him  as 
my  righteousness  was  the  more  confirmed ;  for  if  he  and  I  were  one,  then  his  righteous- 
ness was  mine,  his  merits  mine,  his  victory  also  mine.  Nowcouldlsee  myself  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  at  once  — in  heaven  by  my  Christ,  my  risen  head,  my  righteousness  and 
life,  though  on  earth  by  my  body  or  person."  Edwards  :  "Faith  is  the  soul's  active 
uniting  with  Christ.  God  sees  fit  that,  in  order  to  a  union's  being  established  between 
two  intelligent  active  beings,  there  should  be  the  mutual  act  of  both,  that  each  should 
receive  the  other,  as  entirely  joining  themselves  to  one  another."  Andrew  Fuller :  "  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  presupposes  a  union  with 
him ;  since  there  is  no  preceivable  fitness  in  bestowing  benefits  on  one  for  another's 
sake,  where  there  is  no  union  or  relation  between." 

See  Luther,  quoted,  with  other  references,  in  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk, 
3  :  335.  See  also  Calvin,  Institutes,  1 :  660 ;  Edwards,  Works,  4 :  66,  09,  70 ;  Andrew  Fuller, 
Works,  2  :  685;  Pascal,  Thoughts,  Eng.  trans.,  429;  Hooker,  Eccl.  Polity,  book  5,  ch. 
56 ;  Tillotson,  Sermons,  3  :  307 ;  Trench,  Studies  in  Gospels,  284,  and  Christ  the  True 
Vine,  in  Hulsean  Lectures;  Schb'berlein,  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1847  :  7-69 ;  Caird,  on 
Union  with  God,  in  Scotch  Sermons,  sermon  2  ;  Godet,  on  the  Ultimate  Design  of  Man, 
in  Princeton  Rev.,  Nov.  1880  — the  design  is  "God  in  man,  and  man  in  God";  Baird, 
Elohim  Revealed,  590-617 ;  Upham,  Divine  Union,  Interior  Life,  Life  of  Madame  Guyon 
and  Fenelon;  A.  J.  Gordon,  In  Christ;  McDuff,  In  Christo ;  J.  Denham  Smith,  Life- 
truths,  25-98;  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  220-225;  Bishop  Hall's  Treatise  on 
The  Church  Mystical ;  Andrew  Murray,  Abide  in  Christ ;  Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian 
Experience,  145,  174,  179;   F.  B.  Meyer,  Christian  Living— essay  on  Appropriation  of 


REGENERATION  809 

Christ,  vs.  mere  imitation  of  Christ. ;  Sanday,  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  supplementary 
essay  on  the  Mystic  Union ;  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  531 ;  J.  M.  Campbell,  The 
Indwelling  Christ. 

II.     Regeneration. 

Regeneration  is  that  act  of  God  by  which  the  governing  disposition  of 
the  sonl  is  made  holy,  and  by  which,  through  the  truth  as  a  means,  the  first 
holy  exercise  of  this  disposition  is  secured. 

Regeneration,  or  the  new  birth,  is  the  divine  side  of  that  change  of  heart 
which,  viewed  from  the  human  side,  we  call  conversion.  It  is  God's  turn- 
ing the  soul  to  himself, —  conversion  being  the  soul's  turning  itself  to  God, 
of  which  God's  turning  it  is  both  the  accompaniment  and  cause.  It  will  be 
observed  from  the  above  definition,  that  there  are  two  aspects  of  regener- 
ation, in  the  first  of  which  the  soul  is  passive,  in  the  second  of  which  the 
soul  is  active.  God  changes  the  governing  disposition, —  in  this  change  the 
soul  is  simply  acted  up<  >n.  God  secures  the  initial  exercise  of  this  disposi- 
tion in  view  of  the  truth, — in  this  change  the  soul  itself  acts.  Yet  these 
two  parts  of  God's  operation  are  simultaneous.  At  the  same  moment  that 
he  makes  the  soul  sensitive,  he  pours  in  the  fight  of  his  truth  and  induces 
the  exercise  of  the  holy  disposition  he  has  imparted. 

This  distinction  bet  weeen  the  passive  and  the  active  aspects  of  regeneration  is  neces- 
sitated, as  we  shall  sec,  by  the  two  told  method  of  representing  the  change  in  Scripture. 
In  many  passages  the  change  Is  ascribed  wholly  to  the  power  of  God  ;  the  change  is  a 
change  in  the  fundament;:  I  disposition  of  the  soul ;  there  is  no  use  of  means.  In  other 
passages  we  find  truth  referred  to  as  au  agency  employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
mind  acts  in  view  of  this  truth.  The  distinct  ion  between  these  two  aspects  of  regen- 
eration seems  to  be  intimated  inBph.3:5, 6 — "made  us  alive  together  with  Christ,"  and  "raised  us  up 
with  him.''  Lazarus  must  first  be  made  alive,  and  in  this  he  could  no/  cooperate;  but  he 
must  also  come  forth  from  the  tomb,  and  in  this  he  could  be  active.  In  *.ne  old  photog- 
raphy, the  plate  was  1irsf  made  sensitive,  and  in  this  the  plate  was  passive;  then  it  was 
exposed  to  the  object,  and  now  the  plate  actively  seized  upon  the  rays  of  light  which 
the  object  emitted. 

Availing  ourselves  of  the  illustration  from  photography, we  may  compare  God's 
initial  work  in  the  soul  to  the  sensitizing  of  the  plate,  his  next  work  to  the  pouring  in 
of  the  light  and  the  product  ion  of  the  picture.  The  soul  is  first  made  receptive  to  the 
truth  ;  then  it  is  enabled  actually  to  receive  the  truth.  Hut  the  illustration  tails  in  one 
respect, —  it  represents  the  two  aspects  of  regeneration  as  successive.  In  regeneration 
there  is  no  chronological  succession.  At  the  same  instant  that  God  makes  the  soul 
sensitive,  he  also  draws  out  its  new  sensibility  in  view  of  the  truth.  Let  us  notice  also 
that,  as  in  photography  the  picture  however  perfect  needs  to  be  developed,  and  this 
development  takes  time,  so  regeneration  is  only  the  beginning  of  God's  work  ;  not  all 
the  dispositions,  but  only  the  governing  disposition,  is  made  holy;  there  is  still  need 
that  sanetitication  should  follow  regeneration;  and  sanctifieation  is  a  work  of  God 
which  lasts  for  a  whole  lifetime.  We  may  add  that  "heredity  affects  regeneration 
as  the  quality  of  the  film  affects  photography,  and  environment  affects  regeneration  as 
the  focus  affects  photography  "  (  W.  T.  Thayer). 

Sacramentarianism  has  so  obscured  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  that  many  persons  who 
gave  no  evidence  of  being  regenerate  are  quite  convinced  that  they  are  Christians.  Uncle 
John  Vassar  therefore  never  asked  :  "  Are  you  a  Christian?  "  but  always :  "  Have  you 
ever  been  born  again  ?  "  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The  doctrine  of  regeneration,  aside  from 
sacramentarianism,  was  not  apprehended  by  Luther  or  the  Reformers,  was  not  indeed 
wrought  out  till  Wesley  taught  that  God  instantaneously  renewed  the  affections  and 
the  will."  We  get  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  mainly  from  the  apostle  John,  as  we 
get  the  doctrine  of  justification  mainly  from  the  apostle  Paul.  Stevens,  Johannine 
Theology,  366— "Paul's great  words  are,  justification,  and  righteousness;  John's  are, 
birth  f  rom  God,  and  life.    But,  for  both  Paul  and  John,  faith  is  life-union  with  Christ." 

Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  134 — "The  sinful  nature  is  not  gone,  but 
its  power  is  broken ;  sin  no  longer  dominates  the  life ;  it  has  been  thrust  from  the  centre 


810  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

to  the  circumference ;  it  has  the  sentence  of  death  in  itself ;  the  man  is  freed,  at  least  in 
potency  and  promise.  218  —  An  activity  maybe  immediate,  yet  not  unmediated.  God's 
action  on  the  soul  may  be  through  the  sense,  yet  still  be  immediate,  as  when  finite 
spirits  communicate  with  each  other."  Dubois,  in  Century  Magazine,  Dec.  1894 :  233  — 
"  Man  has  made  his  way  up  from  physical  conditions  to  the  consciousness  of  spiritual 
needs.  Heredity  and  environment  fetter  him.  He  needs  spiritual  help.  God  provides 
a  spiritual  environment  in  regeneration.  As  science  is  the  verification  of  the  ideal  in 
nature,  so  religion  is  the  verification  of  the  spiritual  in  human  life."  Last  sermon  of 
Seth  K.  Mitchell  on  Rev.  21 :  5  —"Behold,  I  make  all  things  new"—  "  God  first  makes  a  new  man, 
then  gives  him  a  new  heart,  then  a  new  commandment.  He  also  gives  a  new  body,  a 
new  name,  a  new  robe,  a  new  song,  and  a  new  home." 

1.     Scripture  Representations. 

(a)    Regeneration  is  a  change  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of  the  sinner. 

John  3 :  7  — "  Ye  must  be  born  anew  ";  Gal.  6  :  15—"  neither  is  circumcision  anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new 
oreature  "  ( marg. — "  creation  "  ) ;  cf.  Heb.  12  :  14  — "  the  sanctifieation  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord ' ' 
—  regeneration,  therefore,  is  yet  more  necessary  to  salvation ;  Bph.  2  : 3 — "  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  even  as  the  rest ";  Rom.  3 :  11  — "  There  is  none  that  understandeth,  There  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God  ";  John 
6  :  44,  65 — "No  man  can  come  to  me,  eicept  the  Father  that  sent  me  draw  him  ....  no  man  can  come  unto  me,  except 
it  be  given  unto  him  of  the  Father  ";  Jer.  13  :  23  — "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots  ?  then 
may  ye  also  do  good,  that  are  accustomed  to  do  evD." 

(  b  )     It  is  a  change  in  the  inmost  principle  of  life. 

John  3  :  3  — "  Eicept  one  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ";  5  :  21  — "as  the  Father  raiseth  the  dead 
and  giveth  them  life,  even  so  the  Son  also  giveth  life  to  whom  he  will ";  Rom.  6  :  13  — "present  yourselves  unto  God, 
as  alive  from  the  dead  ";  Eph.  2  : 1  —"And  you  did  he  make  alive,  when  ye  were  dead  through  your  trespasses  and 
sins  ";  5  :  14  — "  Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee.' '  In  John  3:3  — 
"born  anew"=not,  "altered,"  "influenced,"  "reinvigorated,"  "reformed";  but  a  new 
beginning,  a  new  stamp  or  character,  a  new  family  likeness  to  God  and  to  his  children. 
"  So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit "  ( John  3  :  8 )  =  1.  secrecy  of  process  ;  2.  independence  of 
the  will  of  man ;  3.  evidence  given  in  results  of  conduct  and  life.  It  is  a  good  thing  to 
remove  the  means  of  gratifying  an  evil  appetite ;  but  how  much  better  it  is  to  remove 
the  appetite  itself !  It  is  a  good  thing  to  save  men  from  frequenting  dangerous  resorts 
by  furnishing  safe  places  of  recreation  and  entertainment;  but  far  better  is  it  to 
implant  within  the  man  such  a  love  for  all  that  is  pure  and  good,  that  he  will  instinc- 
tively shun  the  impure  and  evil.    Christianity  aims  to  purify  the  springs  of  action. 

(  c  )    It  is  a  change  in  the  heart,  or  governing  disposition. 

Mat.  12  :  33,  35  — "  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  its  fruit  good ;  or  make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  its  fruit  corrupt :  for 

the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit The  good  man  out  of  his  good  treasure  bringcth  forth  good  things :  and  the  evil 

man  out  of  his  evil  treasure  bringeth  forth  evil  things  ";  15 :  19  — "  For  out  of  the  heart  come  forth  evil  thoughts,  murders, 
adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  railings";  Acts  16  :  14  — "And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia  .... 
heard  us :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  to  give  heed  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul";  Rom.  6  :  17— "But 
thanks  be  to  God,  that,  whereas  ye  were  servants  of  sin,  ye  became  obedient  from  the  heart  to  that  form  of  teaching  where- 
unto  ye  were  delivered  ";  10  :  10— "with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness"  ;  cf.  Ps.  51 :  10  —"Create  in  me 
a  clean  heart,  0  God;  And  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me  ";  Jer.  31 :33  — "  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and 
\n  their  hearts  will  I  write  it";  Ez.  11  :  19— "And  I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you; 
»d  I  will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give  them  a  heart  of  flesh." 

Horace  Mann  :  "  One  former  is  worth  a  hundred  reformers."  It  is  often  said  that  the 
redemption  of  society  is  as  important  as  the  regeneration  of  the  individual.  Yes,  we 
reply  ;  but  the  regeneration  of  society  can  never  be  accomplished  except  through  the 
regeneration  of  the  individual.  Reformers  try  in  vain  to  construct  a  stable  and  happy 
community  from  persons  who  are  selfish,  weak,  and  miserable.  The  first  cry  of  such 
reformers  is :  "  Get  your  circumstances  changed  !  "  Christ's  first  call  is :  "  Get  your- 
selves changed,  and  then  the  things  around  you  will  be  changed."  Many  college  settle- 
ments, and  temperance  societies,  and  self-reformations  begin  at  the  wrong  end.  They 
are  like  kindling  a  coal-fire  by  lighting  kindlings  at  the  top.  The  fire  soon  goes  out. 
We  need  God's  work  at  the  very  basis  of  character  and  not  on  the  outer  edge,  at  the 
very  beginning,  and  not  simply  at  the  end.  Mat.  6 :  33— "seek  ye  first  his  kingdom,  and  his  righteous- 
ness ;  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you." 

(  d)    It  is  a  change  in  the  moral  relations  of  the  soul. 


REGENERATION".  811 

Eph.  2  :  5 — "when  we  were  dead  through  our  trespasses,  made  us  alive  us  together  with  Christ ";  4  :  23,  24 — "  that 
jo  he  renewod  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind,  and  put  on  the  new  man,  that  after  God  hath  been  created  in  righteousness  and 
holiness  of  truth";  Col.  1 :  13 — "who  delivered  ns  oat  of  the  power  of  darkness,  and  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of 
the  Son  of  his  love."  William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  608,  finds  the  features 
belonging'  to  all  religions :  1.  an  uneasiness;  and  3.  its  solution.  1.  The  uneasiness, 
reduced  to  its  simplest  terms,  is  a  sense  that  there  is  sonu  tinny  wrong  about  us,  as  we 
naturally  stand.  2.  The  solution  is  a  sense  that  we  are  saved  from  the  ivrongness  by 
making  proper  connection  with  the  higher  powers. 

( c )     It  is  a  change  wrought  in  connection  with  the  use  of  truth  as  a 

means. 

James  1  :  18 — "Of  his  own  will  he  brought  us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth  "—  here  in  connection  with  the 
special  agency  of  God  (not  of  mere  natural  law  )  the  truth  is  spoken  of  as  a  means; 
1  Pet.  1  :  23 — "having  been  begotten  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  through  the  word  of  God,  which 
liveth  and  abideth";  2  Pet.  1  :  4 — "his  precious  and  exceeding  great  promises;  that  through  these  ye  may  become 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature  ";  cf.  Jer.  23  :  29  —"Is  not  my  word  like  fire  ?  saith  Jehovah ;  and  liko  a  hammer  that 
breaketh  the  rock  in  pieces  ?  "  John  15  :  3  — "  Already  ye  are  clean  because  of  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto 
you  ";  Eph.  6  :  17— "the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  wheh  is  the  word  of  God  ";  H.'b.  4  :  12—"  For  the  word  of  God  is  living, 
and  active,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  and  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and 
marrow,  and  quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart ";  1  Pet.  2  :  9  — "  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his 
marvellous  light."  An  advertising  sign  reads  :  "  F<a-  spaces  and  ideas,  apply  to  Johnson  and 
Smith."  In  regeneration,  we  need  both  the  open  mind  and  the  truth  to  insi  ruct  it,  and 
we  may  apply  to  God  for  both. 

(/)    It  is  a  change  instantaneous,  secretly  wrought,  and  knowrn  only  in 

its  results. 

John  5  :  24  —"He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judg- 
ment, but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life  ";  cf.  Mat.  6  :  24  —"No  man  can  serve  two  masters :  for  either  he  will 
hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  one,  and  despise  the  other."  John  3  :  8 — "The  wind  bloweth 
where  it  will,  and  and  thou  hearost  the  voiro  thereof,  but  knowest  not  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  :  so  is 
every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit ";  cf.  Phil.  2  :  12,  13  -  "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  ;  for 
it  is  God  who  workcth  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  "  ;  2  Pet.  1  :  10  —  "  Wherefore,  brethren, 
give  the  more  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure." 

(  g  )    It  is  a  change  wrought  1  »y  God. 

John  1  :  13  — "who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ";  3  :  5  — 
"Except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;"  3  :  8,  niarg.-  "The  Spirit 
brcatheth  where  it  will " ;  Eph.  1  :  19,  20  — "  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power  to  us- ward  who  believe,  according  to 
that  working  of  the  strength  of  his  might  which  he  wrought  in  Christ,  when  ha  rais  d  him  fr  im  the  dead,  and  made  him 
to  sit  at  his  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places  ";  2  :  10  — "  Par  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good 
works,  which  God  afore  prepared  that  wo  should  walk  in  them  ";  1  Pet.  1  :  3  --"  Blessed  bo  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesns  Christ,  who  according  to  his  great  mercy  begat  us  again  unto  a  living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead  ";  cf.  1  Cor.  3  :  6,  7  —"I  planted,  Apollos  watered  ;  but  God  gave  the  increase.  So  then  neither  is  he  that 
planteth  anything,  neither  ho  that  watereth ;  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase." 

We  have  seen  thai  ire  are  "bsgotten  again  ....  through  the  word  "( 1  Pet.  1 :  23 ).  In  the  revealed 
truth  with  regard  to  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  there  is  a  divine  adaptation  to  the 
work  of  renewing  our  hearts.  But  truth  in  itself  is  powerless  to  regenerate  and 
sanctify,  unless  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  it— "the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God"  (Eph. 
6:17).  Hence  regeneration  is  ascribed  preeminently  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  men  are  said 
to  be  "  born  of  the  Spirit "  (John3  :  8).  When  Robert  Morrison  started  for  China,  an  incred. 
ulcus  American  said  to  him  :  "  Mr.  Morrison,  do  you  think  you  can  make  any  impres- 
sion on  the  Chinese?  "    "  No,"  was  the  reply ;  "  but  I  think  the  Lord  can." 

(  h )     It  is  a  change  accomplished  through  the  union  of  the  soul  with 

Christ. 

Rom.  8  :  2— "For  the  law  of  the  Sprit  of  Ire  in  Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death";  2  Cor. 
5: 17 —"if  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature"  (  marg. — "there  is  a  new  creation ") ;  Gal.  1 :15, 16 — "it  was 
the  good  pleasure  of  God  ....  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me  ";  Eph.  2 :  10  — "  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  for  good  works."  On  the  Scriptural  representations,  see  E.  D.  Griffin,  Divine  Efficiency, 
117-164;  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  553-569  — "  Regeneration  involves  union  with 
Christ,  and  not  a  change  of  heart  without  relation  to  him." 

Eph.  3  :  14, 15  — "the  Father,  from  whom  every  fatherhood  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named."  But  even  here 
God  works  through  Christ,  and  Christ  himself  is  called  " Everlasting-  Father  "  (Is.  9:6 ).  The  real 


812  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OP   SALVATION. 

basis  of  our  sonship  and  unity  is  in  Christ,  our  Creator,  and  Upholder.  Sin  is  repudi- 
ation of  this  filial  relationship.  Regeneration  by  the  Spirit  restores  our  sonship  by 
joining  us  oace  more,  ethically  and  spiritually,  to  Christ  the  Sun,  and  so  adopting  us 
again  into  God's  family.  Hence  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  reveal  himself,  but  Christ. 
The  Spirit  is  light,  and  light  does  not  reveal  itself,  but  all  other  things.  I  may  know 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  working  within  me  whenever  I  more  clearly  perceive  Christ. 
Sonship  in  Christ  makes  us  not  only  individually  children  of  God,  but  also  members  of 
a  commonwealth.  Ps.  87  :  4  — "  Yea,  of  Zion  it  shall  be  said,  This  one  and  that  one  was  born  in  her"  ="  the 
most  glorious  thing  to  be  said  about  them  is  not  something  pertaining  to  their 
separate  history,  but  that  they  have  become  members,  by  adoption,  of  the  city  of 
God  "  ( Pei-owne ).  The  Psalm  speaks  of  the  adoption  of  nations,  but  it  is  equally  true 
of  individuals. 

2.     Necessity  of  Regeneration. 

That  all  men  without  exception  need  to  lie  changed  in  moral  character,  is 
manifest,  not  only  from  Scripture  passages  already  cited,  1  >ut  from  the  fol- 
lowing rational  considerations : 

( a  )  Holiness,  or  conformity  to  the  fundamental  moral  attribute  of  God, 
is  the  indispensable  condition  of  securing  the  divine  favor,  of  attaining 
peace  of  conscience,  and  of  preparing  the  soul  for  the  associations  and 
employments  of  the  blest. 

Phillips  Brooks  seems  to  have  taught  that  regeneration  is  merely  a  natural  forward 
step  in  man's  development.  See  his  Life,  2  :  353— "The  entrance  into  this  deeper  con- 
sciousness of  sonship  to  God  and  into  the  motive  power  which  it  exercises  is  Regenera- 
tion, the  new  birth,  not  merely  with  reference  to  time,  but  with  reference  also  to 
profoundness.  Because  man  has  something  sinful  to  cast  away  in  order  to  enter  this 
higher  life,  therefore  regeneration  must  beg-in  with  repentance.  But  that  is  an  incident. 
It  is  not  essential  to  the  idea.  A  man  simply  imperfect  and  not  sinful  would  still  have 
to  be  born  again.  The  presentation  of  sin  as  guilt,  of  release  as  forgiveness,  of  conse- 
quence as  punishment,  have  their  true  meaning  as  the  most  personal  expressions  of 
man's  moral  condition  as  always  measured  by,  and  man's  moral  changes  as  always 
dependent  upon,  God."  Here  imperfection  seems  to  mean  depraved  condition  as  dis- 
tinguished from  conscious  transgression ;  it  is  not  regarded  as  sinful ;  it  needs  not  to  be 
repented  of.  Yet  it  does  require  regeneration.  In  Phillips  Brooks's  creed  there  is  no 
article  devoted  to  sin.  Baptism  he  calls  "  the  declaration  of  the  universal  fact  of  the 
sonship  of  man  to  God.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  the  declaration  of  the  universal  fact  of 
man's  dependence  upon  God  for  supply  of  life.  It  is  associated  with  t  he  death  of  Jesus, 
because  in  that  the  truth  of  God  giving  himself  to  man  found  its  completest  manifes- 
tation." 

Others  seem  to  teach  regeneration  by  education.  Here  too  there  is  no  recognition  of 
inborn  sin  or  guilt.  Man's  imperfection  of  nature  is  innocent.  He  needs  training  in 
order  to  tit  him  for  association  with  higher  intelligences  and  with  God.  In  the  evolu- 
tion of  his  powers  there  comes  a  natural  crisis,  like  that  of  graduation  of  the  scholar, 
and  this  crisis  may  be  called  conversion.  This  educational  theory  of  regeneration  is 
represented  fey  Starbuck,  Psychology  of  Religion,  and  by  Coe,  The  Spiritual  Life.  What 
human  nature  needs  however  is  not  evolution,  but  involution  and  revolution  —  involu- 
tion, the  communication  of  a  new  life,  and  revolution,  change  of  direction  resulting 
from  that  life.  Human  nature,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  treatment  of  sin,  is  not  a  green 
apple  to  be  perfected  by  mere  growth,  but  an  apple  with  a  worm  at  the  core,  which  left 
to  itself  will  surely  rot  and  perish. 

President  G.  Stanley  Hall,  in  his  essay  on  The  Religious  Affirmations  of  Psychology, 
says  that  the  total  depravity  of  man  is  an  ascerlained  fact  apart  from  the  teaching-s  of 
the  Bible.  There  had  come  into  his  hands  for  inspection  several  thousands  of  letters 
written  to  a  medical  man  who  advertised  that  he  would  give  confidential  advice  and 
treatment  to  all,  secretly.  On  the  strength  of  these  letters  Dr.  Hall  was  prepared  to 
say  that  John  Calvin  had  not  told  the  half  of  what  is  true.  He  declared  that  the  neces- 
sity of  regeneration  in  order  to  the  development  of  character  was  clearly  established 
from  psychological  investigation. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Sermon,  1904—"  Here  is  the  danger  of  some  modern  theories 
of  Christian  education.    They  give  us  statistics,  to  show  that  the  age  of  puberty  is  the 


REGENERATION.  813 

age  of  strongest  religious  impressions ;  and  the  inference  is  drawn  that  conversion  is 
nothing  but  a  natural  phenomenon,  a  regular  stage  of  development.  The  free  will,  and 
the  evil  bent  of  that  will,  are  forgotten,  and  the  absolute  dependence  of  perverse  human 
nature  upon  the  regenerating  spirit  of  God.  The  age  of  puberty  is  the  age  of  the 
strongest  religious  impressions?  Yes,  but  it  is  also  the  age  of  the  strongest  artistic  and 
social  and  sensuous  impressions,  and  only  a  new  birth  from  above  can  lead  the  soul  to 
seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God." 

( b  )  The  condition  of  universal  humanity  as  by  nature  depraved,  and, 
■when  arrived  at  moral  consciousness,  as  guilty  of  actual  transgression,  is 
precisely  the  opposite  of  that  holiness  without  which  the  sold  cannot  exist 
in  normal  relation  to  God,  to  self,  or  to  holy  beings. 

Plutarch  has  a  parable  of  a  man  who  tried  to  make  a  dead  body  stand  upright,  but 
who  finished  his  labors  saying:  "  Deest  aliquid  intus"  — "  There's  something  lacking 
inside."  Ribot,  Diseases  of  the  Will,  53  —  "  In  the  vicious  man  the  moral  elements  are 
lacking.  If  the  idea  of  amendment  arises,  it  is  involuntary.  .  .  .  But  if  a  first  element 
is  not  given  by  nature,  and  with  it  a  potential  energy,  nothing  results.  The  theologi- 
cal dogma  of  grace  as  a  free  gift  appears  to  us  therefore  founded  upon  a  much  more 
exact  psychology  than  the  contrary  opinion."  "  Thou  art  chained  to  the  wheel  of  the 
foe  I$y  links  which  a  world  cannot  Bever:  With  thy  tyrant  through  storm  and  through 
calm  thou  shall  go,  And  thy  sentence  is  bondage  forever." 

Martensen,  Christian  Ethics :  "  When  Kant  treats  of  the  radical  evil  of  human  nature, 
he  makes  the  remarkable  statement  that,  if  a  good  will  is  to  appear  in  us,  this  cannot 
happen  through  a  partial  improvement,  nor  through  any  reform,  but  only  through  a 
revolution,  a  total  overturn  within  us,  that  is  to  be  compared  to  a  new  creation." 
Those  who  hold  that  man  may  attain  perfection  by  mere  natural  growth  deny  this 
radical  evil  of  human  nature,  and  assume  that  our  nature  is  a  good  seed  which  needs 
only  favorable  external  influences  of  moisture  and  sunshine  to  bring  forth  good  fruit. 
But  human  nature  is  a  damaged  seed,  and  what  comes  of  it  will  be  aborted  and  stunted 
like  itself.  The  doctrine  of  mere  development  denies  God's  holiness,  man's  sin,  the 
need  of  Christ,  the  necessity  of  atonement,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  justice  <>f 
penalty.  Kant's  doctrine  of  the  radical  evil  of  human  nature,  like  Aristotle's  doctrine 
that  man  is  born  on  an  inclined  plane  and  subject  to  a  downward  gravitation,  is  not 
matched  by  a  corresponding  doctrine  of  regeneration.  Only  the  apostle  Paul  can  tell 
us  how  we  came  to  be  in  this  dreadful  predicament,  and  where  is  the  power  that  can 
deliver  us ;  see  Stearns,  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience,  274. 

Dean  Swift's  worthy  sought  many  years  for  a  method  of  extracting  sunbeams  from 
cucumbers.    We  cannot  cure  the  barren  tree  by  giving  it  new  bark  or  new  branches, 

—  it  must  have  new  sap.  Healing  snakebites  is  not  killing  the  snake.  Poetry  and 
music,  the  uplifting  power  of  culture,  the  inherent  nobility  of  man,  the  general  mercy 
of  God  —  no  one  of  these  will  save  the  soul.  Horace  Bushnell:  "The  soul  of  all  improve- 
ment is  the  improvement  of  the  soul."  Frost  cannot  be  removed  from  a  window  pane 
simply  by  scratching  it  away,  —  you  must  raise  the  temperature  of  the  room.  It  is  as 
impossible  to  get  regeneration  out  of  reformation  as  to  get  a  harvest  out  of  a  field  by 
mere  plowing.  Reformation  is  plucking  bitter  apples  from  a  tree,  and  in  their  place 
tying  good  apples  on  with  a  string  (  Dr.  Pentecost ).    It  is  regeneration  or  degradation 

—  the  beginning  of  an  upward  movement  by  a  power  not  man's  own,  or  the  continu- 
ance and  increase  of  a  downward  movement  that  can  end  only  in  ruin. 

Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  shows  that  in  humanity  itself  there  resides  no  power  of  prog- 
ress. The  ocean  steamship  that  has  burned  its  last  pound  of  coal  may  proceed  on  its 
course  by  virtue  of  its  momentum,  but  it  is  only  a  question  of  the  clock  how  soon  it 
will  cease  to  move,  except  as  tossed  about  by  the  wind  and  the  waves.  Not  only  is 
there  power  lacking  for  the  good,  but  apart  from  God's  grace  the  evil  tendencies  con- 
stantly became  more  aggravated.  The  settled  states  of  the  affections  and  will  practi- 
cally dominate  the  life.  Charles  H.  Spurgeon :  "If  a  thief  should  get  into  heaven 
unchanged,  he  would  begin  by  picking  the  angels'  pockets."  The  land  is  full  of  exam- 
ples of  the  descent  of  man,  not  from  the  brute,  but  to  the  brute.  The  tares  are  not 
degenerate  wheat,  which  by  cultivation  will  become  good  wheat, —they  are  not  only 
useless  but  noxious,  and  they  must  be  rooted  out  and  burned.  "  Society  never  will  be 
better  than  the  individuals  who  compose  it.  A  sound  ship  can  never  be  made  of  rotten 
timber.    Individual  reformation  must  precede  social  reconstruction."    Socialism  will 


814  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

always  be  a  failure  until  it  becomes  Christian.  "We  must  be  born  from  above,  as  truly 
as  we  have  been  begotten  by  our  fathers  upon  earth,  or  we  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

(  c  )  A  radical  internal  change  is  therefore  requisite  in  every  human  soul 
—  a  change  in  that  which  constitutes  its  character.  Holiness  cannot  be 
attained,  as  the  pantheist  claims,  by  a  merely  natural  growth  or  develop- 
ment, since  man's  natural  tendencies  are  wholly  in  the  direction  of  selfish- 
ness. There  must  be  a  reversal  of  his  inmost  dispositions  and  principles 
of  action,  if  he  is  to  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Men's  good  deeds  and  reformation  may  be  illustrated  by  eddies  in  a  stream  whose 
general  current  is  downward  ;  by  walking  westward  in  a  railway-car  while  the  train  is 
going  east ;  by  Capt.  Parry's  traveling  noi'th,  while  the  ice-floe  on  which  he  walked 
was  moving  southward  at  a  rate  much  more  rapid  than  his  walking.  It  is  possible  to 
be  "ever  learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth"  (2  Tim.  3:7).  Better  never  have 
been  born,  than  not  be  born  again.  But  the  necessity  of  regeneration  implies  its  pos- 
sibility :  John  3:7  —  "Ye  must  be  born  anew "  =  ye  may  be  born  anew,  —  the  text  is  not  merely 
a  warning  and  a  command,  —  it  is  also  a  promise.  Every  sinner  has  the  chance  of 
making  a  new  start  and  of  beginning  a  new  life. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  The  Holy  Spirit  and  Christian  Service,  57  —  "  Emerson  says  that  the 
gate  of  gifts  closes  at  birth.  After  a  man  emerges  from  his  mother's  womb  he  can 
have  no  new  endowments,  no  fresh  increments  of  strength  and  wisdom,  joy  and  grace 
within.  The  only  grace  is  the  grace  of  creation.  But  this  view  is  deistic  and  not 
Christian."  Emerson's  saying  is  true  of  natural  gifts,  but  not  of  spiritual  gifts.  He 
forgot  Pentecost.  He  forgot  the  all-encompassing  atmosphere  of  the  divine  person- 
ality and  love,  and  its  readiness  to  enter  in  at  every  chink  and  crevice  of  our  voluntary 
being.  The  longing  men  have  to  turn  over  a  new  leaf  in  life's  book,  to  break  with  the 
past,  to  assert  their  better  selves,  is  a  preliminary  impulse  of  God's  Spirit  and  an  evi- 
dence of  prevenient  grace  preparing  the  way  for  regeneration.  Thus  interpreted  and 
yielded  to,  these  impulses  warrant  unbounded  hope  for  the  future.  "  No  star  is  ever 
lost  we  once  have  seen  ;  We  always  may  be  what  we  might  have  been ;  The  hopes  that 
lost  in  some  far  distance  seem  May  be  the  truer  life,  and  this  the  dream." 

The  greatest  minds  feel,  at  least  at  times,  their  need  of  help  from  above.  Although 
Cicero  uses  the  term  '  regeneration '  to  signif  y  what  wo  should  call  naturalization,  yet 
he  recognizes  man's  dependence  upon  God:  "Nemo  vir  magnus,  sine  aliquo  divino 
afftatu,  unquam  f  uit."  Seneca :  "  Bonus  vir  sine  illo  nemo  est."  Aristotle :  "  Wicked- 
ness perverts  the  judgment  and  makes  men  err  with  respect  to  practical  principles,  so 
that  no  man  can  be  wise  and  judicious  who  is  not  good."  Goethe:  "  Who  ne'er  his 
bread  in  sorrow  ate,  Who  ne'er  the  mournful  midnight  hours  Weeping  upon  his  bed 
has  sate,  He  knows  you  not,  ye  heavenly  Powers."  Shakespeare,  King  Lear :  "  Is  there 
a  reason  in  nature  for  these  hard  hearts?"  Robert  Browning,  in  Halbert  and  Hob, 
replies :  "  O  Lear,  That  a  reason  out  of  nature  must  turn  them  soft,  seems  clear." 

John  Stuart  Mill  (see  Autobiography,  133-142)  knew  that  the  feeling  of  interest  in 
others'  welfare  would  make  him  happy,  — but  the  knowledge  of  this  fact  did  not  give 
him  the  feeling.  The  "enthusiasm  of  humanity  "  — un3elflsh  love,  of  which  we  read 
in  "  Ecce  Homo"—  is  easy  to  talk  about ;  but  how  to  produce  it,  —  that  is  the  question. 
Drummond,  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  61-94  —  "  There  is  no  abiogenesis  in  the 
spiritual,  more  than  in  the  natural,  world.  Can  the  stone  grow  more  and  more  living 
until  it  enters  the  organic  world  ?  No,  Christianity  is  a  new  life,  —  it  is  Christ  in  you." 
As  natural  life  comes  to  us  mediately,  through  Adam,  so  spiritual  life  comes  to  us 
mediately,  through  Christ.  See  Bushnell,  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  220-249 ;  Ander- 
son, Regeneration,  51-88 ;  Bennet  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  340-354. 

3.     The  Efficient  Cause  of  Regeneration. 

Three  views  only  need  be  considered,  —  all  others  are  modifications  of 
these.  The  first  view  puts  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration  in  the  human 
will ;  the  second,  in  the  truth  considered  as  a  system  of  motives ;  the  third, 
in  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

John  Stuart  Mill  regarded  cause  as  embracing  all  the  antecedents  to  an  event. 
Hazard,  Man  a  Creative  First  Cause,  12-15,  shows  that,  as  at  any  given  instant  the 


REGENERATION".  815 

whole  past  is  everywhere  the  same,  the  effects  must,  upon  this  view,  at  each  instant  be 
everywhere  one  and  the  same.  "  The  theory  that,  of  every  successive  event,  the  real 
cause  is  the  whole  of  the  antecedents,  does  not  distinguish  between  the  passive  condi- 
tions acted  upon  and  changed,  and  the  active  agencies  which  act  upon  and  change 
them ;  does  not  distinguish  what  produces,  from  what  merely  precedes,  change." 

We  prefer  the  definition  given  by  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  592 — Cause  is  "the  most 
conspicuous  and  prominent  of  the  agencies,  or  conditions,  that  produce  a  result "  ;  or 
that  of  Dr.  Mark  Hopkins:  "Any  exertion  or  manifestation  of  energy  that  produces 
a  change  is  a  cause,  and  nothing  else  is.  We  must  distinguish  cause  from  occasion,  or 
material.  Cause  is  not  to  be  defined  as  '  everything  without  which  the  effect  could  not 
be  realized.'  "  Better  still,  perhaps,  may  we  say,  that  efficient  cause  is  the  competent 
producing  power  by  which  the  effect  is  secured.  James  Martineau,  Types,  1 :  preface, 
xiii  — "  A  cause  is  that  which  determines  the  indeterminate."  Not  the  light,  but  the 
photographer,  is  the  cause  of  the  picture ;  light  is  but  the  photographer's  servant.  So 
the  "  word  of  God  "  is  the  "  sword  of  the  Spirit "  ( Eph.  6 :  17 ) ;  the  Spirit  uses  the  word  as  his  instru- 
ment ;  but  the  Spirit  himself  is  the  cause  of  regeneration. 

A.     The  liumaii  will,  as  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration. 

This  view  takes  two  f<  >rms,  according  as  the  will  is  regarded  as  acting 
apart  from,  or  in  conjunction  with,  special  influences  of  the  truth  applied 
by  God.     Pelagians  hold  the  former ;  Arminians  the  latter. 

( a )  To  the  Pelagian  view,  that  regeneration  is  solely  the  act  of  man,  and 
is  identical  with  self-reformation,  we  object  that  the  sinner's  depravity, 
since  it  consists  in  a  fixed  state  of  the  affections  which  determines  the 
settled  character  of  the  volitions,  amounts  to  a  moral  inability.  Without 
a  renewal  of  the  affections  from  which  all  moral  action  springs,  man  will 
not  choose  holiness  nor  accept  salvation. 

Man's  volitions  are  practically  the  shadow  of  his  affections.  It  is  as  useless  to  think  of 
a  man's  volitions  separating  themselves  from  his  affections,  and  drawing  him  towards 
God,  as  it  is  to  think  of  a  man'.-,  shadow  separating  itself  from  him,  and  leading  him 
in  t  lie  opposite  direction  to  that  in  which  he  is  going.  Man's  affections,  to  use  Calvin's 
words,  are  like  horses  that  have  thrown  off  the  charioteer  and  are  running  wildly, 
—  they  need  a  new  hand  to  direct  them.  In  disease,  we  must  be  helped  by  a  physician. 
We  do  not  stop  a  locomotive  engine  by  applying  force  to  the  wheels,  but  by  reversing 
the  lever.  So  the  change  in  man  must  be,  not  in  the  transient  volitions,  but  in  the 
deeper  springs  of  action  —  the  fundamental  bent  of  the  affections  and  will.  See  Hens- 
low,  Evolution,  134.  Shakespeare,  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  2:1:149  — "It  is  not  so 
with  Him  that  all  things  knows,  As  'tis  with  us  that  square  our  guess  with  shows; 
But  most  it  is  presumption  in  us  when  The  help  of  heaven  we  count  the  act  of  men." 

Henry  Clay  said  that  he  did  not  know  for  himself  personally  what  the  change  of 
heart  spoken  of  by  Christians  meant ;  but  he  had  seen  Kentucky  family  feuds  of  long 
standing  healed  by  religious  revivals,  and  that  whatever  could  heal  a  Kentucky  family 
feud  was  more  than  human.  —  Mr.  Peter  Harvey  was  a  lifelong  friend  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster. He  wrote  a  most  interesting  volume  of  reminiscenses  of  the  great  man.  He  tells 
how  one  John  Colby  married  the  oldest  sister  of  Mr.  Webster.  Said  Mr.  Webster  of 
John  Colby:  "Finally  he  went  up  to  Andover,  New  Hampshire,  and  bought  a  farm, 
and  the  only  recollection  I  have  about  him  is  that  he  was  called  the  wickedest  man  in 
the  neighborhood,  so  far  as  swearing  and  impiety  went.  I  used  to  wonder  how  my 
sister  could  marry  so  profane  a  man  as  John  Colby."  Years  afterwards  news  comes  to 
Mr.  Webster  that  a  wonderful  change  has  passed  upon  John  Colby.  Mr.  Harvey  and 
Mr.  Webster  take  a  journey  together  to  visit  John  Colby.  As  Mr.  Webster  enters  John 
Colby's  house,  he  sees  open  before  him  a  large-print  Bihle,  which  he  has  just  been  read- 
ing. When  greetings  have  been  interchanged,  the  first  question  John  Colby  asks  of 
Mr.  Webster  is,  "Are  you  a  Christian  V"  And  then,  at  John  Colby's  suggestion,  the 
two  men  kneel  and  pray  together.  When  the  visit  is  done,  this  is  what  Mr.  Webster 
says  to  Mr.  Harvey  as  they  ride  away  :  "  I  should  like  to  know  what  the  enemies  of 
religion  would  say  to  John  Colby's  conversion.  There  was  a  man  as  unlikely,  humanly 
speaking,  to  become  a  Christian  as  any  man  I  ever  saw.  He  was  reckless,  heedless, 
impious,  never  attended  church,  never  experienced  the  good  influence  of  associating 
with  religious  people.    And  here  he  has  been  living  on  in  that  reckless  way  until  he 


816  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION". 

has  got  to  be  an  old  man,  until  a  period  of  life  when  you  naturally  would  not  expect 
his  habits  to  change.  And  yet  he  has  been  brought  into  the  condition  in  which  we 
have  seen  him  to-day,  —  a  penitent,  trusting,  humble  believer."  "Whatever  people 
may  say,"  added  Mr.  Webster,  "  nothing  can  convince  me  that  anything  short  of  the 
grace  of  Almighty  God  could  make  such  a  change  as  I,  with  my  own  eyes,  have  wit- 
nessed in  the  life  of  John  Colby."  When  they  got  back  to  Franklin,  New  Hampshire, 
in  the  evening,  they  met  another  lifelong  friend  of  Mr.  Webster's,  John  Taylor,  stand- 
ing- at  his  door.  Mr.  Webster  called  out :  "  Well,  John  Taylor,  miracles  happen  in  these 
latter  days  as  well  as  in  the  days  of  old."  "  What  now.  Squire?  "  asked  John  Taylor. 
"  Why,"  replied  Mr.  Webster,  "John  Colby  has  become  a  Christian.  If  that  is  not  a 
miracle,  what  is  ?  " 

(  b  )  To  the  Anninian  view,  that  regeneration  is  the  act  of  man,  cooper- 
ating with  divine  influences  applied  through  the  truth  (synergistic  the- 
ory ),  we  object  that  no  beginning  of  holiness  is  in  this  way  conceivable. 
For,  so  long  as  man's  selfish  and  perverse  affections  are  unchanged,  no 
choosing  God  is  possible  but  such  as  proceeds  from  supreme  desire  for 
one's  own  interest  and  happiness.  But  the  man  thus  supremely  bent  on 
self -gratification  cannot  see  in  God,  or  his  service,  anything  productive  of 
happiness;  or,  if  he  could  see  in  them  anything  of  advantage,  his  choice 
of  God  and  his  service  from  such  a  motive  would  not  be  a  holy  choice,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  a  beginning  of  holiness. 

Although  Melauchthon  ( 1497-1560  /  preceded  Armiuius  ( 1560-1G09 ),  his  view  was  sub- 
stantially the  same  with  that  of  the  Dutch  theologian.  Melauchthon  never  experienced 
the  throes  and  travails  of  a  new  spiritual  life,  as  Luther  did.  H  is  external  and  internal 
development  was  peculiarly  placid  and  serene.  This  Preceptor  Germanise  had  the 
modesty  of  the  genuine  scholar.  He  was  not  a  dogmatist,  and  he  never  entered  the 
ranks  of  the  ministry.  He  never  could  be  pursuaded  to  accept  the'degree  of  Doctor  of 
Theology,  though  he  lectured  on  theological  su  bjects  to  audiences  of  thousands.  Dorner 
says  of  Melauchthon :  "  He  held  at  first  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  primary,  and  the 
word  of  God  the  secondary,  or  instrumental,  agency  in  conversion,  while  the  human 
will  allows  their  action  and  freely  yields  to  it."  Later,  he  held  that  "  conversion  is  the 
result  of  the  combined  action  (copulatio)  of  three  causes,  the  truth  of  God,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  will  of  man."  This  synergistic  view  in  his  last  years  involved  the  theo- 
logian of  the  German  Reformation  in  serious  trouble.  Luthardt :  "  He  made  a  facultas 
out  of  a  mere  capacitas."  Dorner  says  again:  "Man's  causality  is  not  to  be  coordi- 
nated with  that  of  God,  however  small  the  influence  ascribed  to  it.  It  is  a  purely 
receptive,  not  a  productive,  agency.  The  opposite  is  the  fundamental  Romanist  error." 
Self-love  will  never  induce  a  man  to  give  up  self-love.  Selfishness  will  not  throttle 
and  cast  out  selfishness.  "  Such  a  choice  from  a  selfish  motive  would  be  unholy, 
when  judged  by  God's  standard.  It  is  absurd  to  make  salvation  depend  upon  the  exer- 
cises of  a  wholly  unspiritual  power";  see  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2:716-720  (Syst. 
Doct.,  4:179-183).  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2:505  — "Sin  does  not  first  stop,  and  then 
holiness  come  in  place  of  sin ;  but  holiness  positively  expels  sin.  Darkness  does  not 
first  cease,  and  then  light  enter;  but  light  drives  out  dai-kness."  On  the  Arininian 
view,  see  Bib.  Sac,  19 :  265,  266. 

John  Wesley's  theology  was  a  modified  Arminianism,  yet  it  was  John  Wesley  who 
did  most  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  regeneration.  He  asserted  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
acts  through  the  truth,  in  distinction  from  the  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Spirit  works 
solely  through  the  ministers  and  sacraments  of  the  church.  But  in  asserting  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  individual  soul,  he  went  too  far  to  the  opposite  extreme  of 
emphasizing  the  ability  of  man  to  choose  God's  service,  when  without  love  to  God 
there  was  nothing  in  God's  service  to  attract.  A.  H.  Bradford,  Age  of  Faith:  "It  is 
as  if  Jesus  had  said :  If  a  sailor  will  properly  set  his  rudder  the  wind  will  flU  his  sails. 
The  will  is  the  rudder  of  the  character;  if  it  is  turned  in  the  right  direction,  all  the 
winds  of  heaven  will  favor;  if  it  is  turned  in  the  wrong  direction,  they  will  oppose." 
The  question  returns :  What  shall  move  the  man  to  set  his  rudder  aright,  if  he  has  no 
desire  to  reach  the  proper  haven?  Here  is  the  need  of  divine  power,  not  merely  to 
cooperate  with  man,  after  man's  will  is  set  in  the  right  direction,  but  to  set  it  in  the 
right  direction  in  the  first  place.  Phil.  2 :  13  —  "it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work, 
for  his  good  pleasure." 


REGENERATION.  817 

Still  another  modification  of  Arminian  doctrine  is  found  in  the  Revealed  Theology 
of  ><■  W.  Taylor  of  New  Haven,  who  maintained  that,  antecedently  to  regeneration, 
the  selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart,  and  that  then,  prompted  by  self- 
love,  he  uses  the  means  of  regeneration  from  motives  that  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy. 
He  held  that  all  men,  saints  and  sinners,  have  their  own  happiness  for  their  ultimate 
end.  Regeneration  involves  no  change  in  this  principle  or  motive,  but  only  a  change 
in  the  governing  purpose  to  seek  this  happiness  in  God  rather  than  in  the  world.  Dr. 
Taylor  said  that  man  could  turn  to  God,  whatever  the  Spirit  did  or  did  not  do.  He 
could  turn  to  God  if  he  would  ;  but  he  could  also  turn  to  God  if  he  would  n't.  In  other 
words,  he  maintained  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  while  yet  affirming  the  certainty 
that,  without  the  Holy  Spirit's  influences,  man  would  always  choose  wrongly.  These 
doctrines  caused  a  division  in  the  Congregational  body.  Those  who  opposed  Taylor 
withdiew  their  support  from  New  Haven,  and  founded  the  Easl  Windsor  Seminary  in 
1834.  For  Taylor's  view,  see  N.  W.  Taylor,  Revealed  Theology,  369-406,  and  in  The 
Christian  Spectator  for  1829. 

The  chief  opponent  of  Dr.  Taylor  was  Dr.  Bennet  Tyler.  He  replied  to  Dr.  Taylor 
that  moral  character  has  its  seat,  not  in  the  purpose,  but  in  the  affections  back  of  the 
purpose.  Otherwise  every  Christian  must  be  in  a  state  of  sinless  perfection,  for  his 
governing  purpose  is  to  serve  God.  But  we  know  that  there  are  affections  and  desires 
not  under  control  of  this  purpose  — dispositions  not  in  conformity  with  the  predomi- 
nant disposition.  How,  Dr.  Tyler  asked,  can  a  sinner,  completely  selfish,  from  a  selfish 
motive,  resolve  not  to  be  selfish,  and  so  suspend  his  selfishness?  "Antecedently  to 
regeneration,  there  can  be  no  suspension  of  the  .selfish  principle.  It  is  said  that,  in 
suspending  it,  the  sinner  is  actuated  by  self-love.  But  is  it  possible  that  the  sinner, 
while  destitute  of  love  to  God  and  every  particle  of  genuine  benevolence,  should  love 
himself  at  all  aud  not  love  himself  supremely?  He  loves  nothing  more  than  self.  He 
does  not  regard  God  or  the  universe,  except  as  they  tend  to  promote  his  ultimate  end, 
his  own  happiness.  No  sinner  ever  suspended  this  selfishness  until  subdued  by  divine 
grace.  We  can  not  become  regenerate  by  preferring  God  to  the  world  merely  from 
regard  to  our  own  interest.  There  is  no  necessity  of  tin-  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  the 
heart,  if  self-love  prompts  men  to  turn  from  the  world  to  God.  On  the  view  thus  com- 
bated, depravity  consists  simply  in  ignorance.  All  men  need  is  enlightenment  as  to 
the  best  means  of  securing  their  own  happiness.  Regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is, 
therefore,  not  necessary."  See  Bennet  Tyler,  Memoir  and  Lectures,  316-381,  esp.  334, 
3TD,  371;  Letters  on  the  New  Haven  Theology,  21-72,  143-163;  review  of  Taylor  and 
Fitch,  by  E.  D.  Griffin,  Divine  Efficiency,  13-54;  Martineau,  Study,  2:9  — "By  making 
it  a  man's  interest  to  be  disinterested,  do  you  cause  him  to  forget  himself  and  put  any 
love  into  his  heart?  or  do  you  only  break  him  in  and  cause  him  to  turn  this  way  and 
that  by  the  bit  and  lash  of  a  driving  necessity  ?  "  The  sinner,  apart  from  the  grace  of 
God,  cannot  see  the  truth.  Wilberforce  took  Pitt  to  hear  Cecil  preach,  but  Pitt 
declared  that  he  did  not  understand  a  word  that  Cecil  said.  Apart  from  the  grace  of 
God,  the  sinner,  even  when  made  to  see  the  truth,  resists  it  the  more,  the  more  clearly 
he  sees  it.  Then  the  Holy  Spirit  overcomes  his  opposition  and  makes  him  willing  in 
the  day  of  God's  power  (  Psalm  110 : 3 ). 

B.     The  truth,  as  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration. 

According  to  this  view,  the  truth  as  a  system  of  motives  is  the  direct  and 
immediate  cause  of  the  change  from  unholiness  to  holiness.  This  view  is 
objectionable  for  two  reasons  : 

(  a )  It  erroneously  regards  motives  as  wholly  external  to  the  mind  that 
is  influenced  by  them.  This  is  to  conceive  of  them  as  mechanically  con- 
straining the  will,  and  is  indistinguishable  from  necessitarianism.  On  the 
contrary,  motives  are  compounded  of  external  presentations  and  internal 
dispositions.  It  is  the  soul's  affections  which  render  certain  suggestions 
attractive  and  others  repugnant  to  us.    In  brief,  the  heart  makes  the  motive. 

(  b )  Only  as  truth  is  loved,  therefore,  can  it  be  a  motive  to  holiness. 
But  we  have  seen  that  the  aversion  of  the  sinner  to  God  is  such  that  the 
truth  is  hated  instead  of  loved,  and  a  thing  that  is  hated,  is  hated  more 
52 


818  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION. 

intensely,  the  more  distinctly  it  is  seen.  Hence  no  mere  power  of  the 
trnth  can  be  regarded  as  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration.  The  contrary 
view  implies  that  it  is  not  the  truth  which  the  sinner  hates,  but  rather  some 
element  of  error  which  is  mingled  with  it. 

Lyman  Beecher  and  Charles  G.  Finney  held  this  view.  The  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  differs  from  that  of  the  preacher  only  in  degree,—  both  use  only  moral  suasion  ; 
both  do  nothing-  more  than  to  present  the  truth ;  both  work  upon  the  soul  from  without. 
"  Were  I  as  eloquent  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  could  convert  sinners  as  well  as  he,"  said  a 
popular  preacher  of  this  school  (see  Bennct  Tyler,  Letters  on  New  Haven  Theology, 
161-171).  On  this  view,  it  would  be  absurd  to  pray  to  God  to  regenerate,  for  that  is 
more  than  he  can  do,—  regeneration  is  simply  the  effect  of  truth. 

Miley,  in  Meth.  Quar.,  July,  1881 :  434-462,  holds  that  "the  will  cannot  rationally  act 
without  motive,  but  that  it  has  always  power  to  suspend  action,  or  defer  it,  for  the 
purpose  of  rational  examination  of  the  motive  or  end,  and  to  consider  the  opposite 
motive  or  end.  Putting  the  old  end  or  motive  out  of  view  will  temporarily  break  its 
power,  and  the  new  truth  considered  will  furnish  motive  for  right  action.  Thus,  by 
using  our  faculty  of  suspending  choice,  and  of  fixing  attention,  we  can  realize  the 
permanent  eligibility  of  the  good  and  choose  it  against  the  evil.  This  is,  however,  not 
the  realization  of  a  new  spiritual  life  in  regeneration,  but  the  election  of  its  attain- 
ment. Power  to  do  this  suspending  is  of  grace  [  grace,  however,  given  equally  to  all  ]. 
Without  this  power,  life  would  be  a  spontaneous  and  irresponsible  development  of  evil." 

The  view  of  Miley,  thus  substantially  given,  resembles  that  of  Dr.  Taylor,  upon 
which  we  have  already  commented ;  but,  unlike  that,  it  makes  truth  itself,  apart  from 
the  affections,  a  determining  agency  in  the  change  from  sin  to  holiness.  Our  one  reply 
is  that,  without  a  change  in  the  affections,  the  truth  can  neither  be  known  nor  obeyed. 
Seeing  cannot  be  the  means  of  being  born  again,  for  one  must  first  be  born  again  in 
order  to  see  the  kingdom  of  God  (John  3:3).  The  mind  will  not  choose  God,  until  God 
appears  to  be  the  greatest  good. 

Edwards,  quoted  by  Griffin,  Divine  Efficiency,  64— "Let  the  sinner  apply  his  rational 
powers  to  the  contemplation  of  divine  things,  and  let  his  belief  be  speculatively  cor- 
rect ;  still  he  is  in  such  a  state  that  those  objects  of  contemplation  will  excite  in  him  no 
holy  affections."  The  Scriptures  declare  (Rom.  8:7)  that  "the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  "— not 
against  some  error  or  mistaken  notion  of  God  — but  "is  enmity  against  God."  It  is  God's 
holiness,  mandatory  and  punitive,  that  is  hated.  A  clearer  view  of  that  holiness  will 
only  increase  the  hatred.  A  woman's  hatred  of  spiders  will  never  be  changed  to  love  by 
bringing  them  close  to  her.  Magnifying  them  with  a  compound  oxy-hydrogen  micro- 
scope will  not  help  the  matter.  Tyler :  "  All  the  light  of  the  last  day  will  not  subdue 
the  sinner's  heart."  The  mere  presence  of  God,  and  seeing  God  face  to  face,  will  be  hell 
to  him,  if  his  hatred  be  not  first  changed  to  love.  See  E.  D.  Griffin,  Divine  Efficiency, 
105-116,  203-221 ;  and  review  of  Griffin,  by  S.  it.  Mason,  Truth  Unfolded,  383-407. 

Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  239  — " Christianity  puts  three  motives 
before  men :  love,  self-love,  and  fear."  True,  but  the  last  two  are  only  preliminary 
motives,  not  essentially  Christian.  The  soul  that  is  moved  only  by  self-love  or  by  fear 
has  not  yet  entered  into  the  Christian  life  at  all.  And  any  attention  to  the  truth  of  God 
which  originates  in  these  motives  has  no  absolute  moral  value,  and  cannot  be  regarded 
as  even  a  beginning  of  salvation.  Nothing  but  holiness  and  love  are  entitled  to  be 
called  Christianity,  and  these  the  truth  of  itself  cannot  summon  up.  The  Spirit  of  God 
must  go  with  the  truth  to  impart  right  desires  and  to  make  the  truth  effective.  E.  G. 
Robinson  :  "The  glory  of  our  salvation  can  no  more  be  attributed  to  the  word  of  God 
only,  than  the  glory  of  a  Praxiteles  or  a  Canova  can  be  ascribed  to  the  chisel  or  the 
mallet  with  which  he  wrought  into  beauty  his  immortal  creations." 

C.  The  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  efficient  cause  of 
regeneration. 

In  ascribing  to  the  Holy  Spirit  the  authorship  of  regeneration,  we  do 
not  affirm  that  the  divine  Spirit  accomplishes  his  work  without  any  accom- 
panying instrumentality.  We  simply  assert  that  the  power  which  regen- 
erates is  the  power  of  God,  and  that  although  conjoined  with  the  use  of 
means,  there  is  a  direct  operation  of  this  power  upon  the  sinner's  heart 


REGENERATION.  819 

which  changes  its  moral  character.    We  add  two  remarks  by  way  of  further 
explanation  : 

( a  )  The  Scriptural  assertions  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
of  his  mighty  power  in  the  soid  forbid  us  to  regard  the  divine  Spirit  in 
regeneration  as  coming  in  contact,  not  with  the  soul,  but  only  with  the 
truth.  The  phrases,  "to  energize  the  truth,"  "to  intensify  the  truth," 
"to  illuminate  the  truth,"  have  no  proper  meaning  ;  since  even  God  cannot 
make  the  truth  more  true.  If  any  change  is  wrought,  it  must  be  wrought, 
not  in  the  truth,  but  in  the  soul. 

The  maxim,  "  Truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail,"  is  very  untrue,  if  God  be  left  out  of 
the  account.  Truth  without  God  is  an  abstraction,  and  not  a  power.  It  is  a  mere  instru- 
ment, useless  without  an  agent.  "  The  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God  "  ( Eph.  6  :  17 },  must 
be  wielded  by  the  Holy  .Spirit  himself.  And  the  Holy  Spirit,  cornea  in  contact,  not 
simply  with  the  instrument,  but  with  the  soul.  To  all  moral,  and  especially  to  all  relig- 
ious truth,  there  is  au  inward  insusceptibility, arising  from  *  he  perversity  of  the  affec- 
tions and  the  will.  This  blindness  and  hardness  of  heart  must  be  removed,  before  the 
soul  can  perceive  or  be  moved  by  the  truth.  Hence  the  Spirit  must  deal  directly  with 
the  soul.  Denovan:  "Our  natural  hearts  are  hearts  of  stone.  The  word  of  God  is 
good  seed  sown  on  the  hard,  trodden,  macadamized  highway,  which  the  horses  of 
passion,  the  asses  of  self-will,  the  wagons  of  imaginary  treasure,  have  made  impene- 
trable.   Only  the  Holy  Spirit  can  soften  and  pulverize  this  soii." 

The  Psalmist  prays:  "Incline  my  heart  unto  thy  testimonies"  (Ps.  119:36),  while  of  l.ydia  it  is 
said  :  "  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  to  give  heed  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul "  ( Acts  16  :  14  ),  We 
may  say  of  the  Holy  Spirit  :  "  He  freezes  and  then  melts  the  soil,  tie  breaks  the  hard, 
cold  stone,  Kills  out  the  rooted  weeds  so  vile,— All  this  he  docs  alone ;  And  every  virtue 
we  possess.  And  every  victory  won,  And  every  thought  of  holiness,  Are  his,  and  his 
alone."  Hence,  in  Ps.  90  :  16,  17,  the  Psalmist  says,  first :  "Let  tlnj  work  appear  unto  thy  servants"; 
then  "establish  thou  the  work  of  our  hands  upon  us" — God's  work  is  first  to  appear,—  then  man's 
work,  which  is  God's  work  carried  out  by  human  instruments.  At  Jericho,  the  force 
was  not  applied  to  the  rams'  horns,  hut  to  the  walls.  When  Jesus  healed  the  blind  man, 
his  power  was  applied,  not  to  the  spittle,  but  to  the  eyes.  The  impression  is  prepared, 
not  by  heating  the  seal,  but  by  softening  the  wax.  So  God's  power  acts,  not  upon  the 
truth,  but  upon  the  sinner. 

Ps.  59  :  10 — "My  God  with  his  lovingkindness  will  meet  me";  A.  V. —  "The  God  of  my  mercy  shall  prevent  me," 
i.  c,  go  before  me.  Augustine  urges  this  text  as  proof  that  the  grace  of  God  precedes  all 
merit  of  man  :  "  What  didst  thou  find  in  me  but  only  sins  ?  Before  I  do  anything  good, 
his  mercy  will  go  before  me.  What  will  unhappy  Pelagius answer  here  ? "  Calvin  how- 
ever says  this  may  be  a  pious,  but  it  is  not  a  fair,  use  of  the  passage.  The  passage  does 
teach  dependence  upon  God;  but  God's  anticipation  of  our  action,  or  in  other  words, 
the  doctrine  of  pre  veuient  grace,  must  be  derived  from  other  portions  of  Scripture,  such 
as  John  1 :  13,  and  Eph.  2  :  10.  "  The  enthusiasm  of  humanity"  to  which  J.  R.  Seeley,  the 
author  of  Eece  Homo,  exhorts  us,  is  doubtless  the  secret  of  happiness  and  usefulness,— 
unfortunately  he  does  not  tell  us  whence  it  may  come.  John  Stuart  Mill  felt  the 
need  of  it,  but  he  did  not  get  it.  Arthur  Hugh  Clough,  Clergyman's  First  Tale: 
"  Would  I  could  wish  my  wishes  all  to  rest,  And  know  to  wish  the  wish  that  were  the 
best."  Bradford,  Heredity,  228— "God  is  the  environment  of  the  soul,  yet  man  has  free 
will.  Light  fills  the  spaces,  yet  a  man  from  ignorance  may  remain  in  a  cave,  or  from 
choice  may  dwell  in  darkness."  Man  needs  therefore  a  divine  influence  which  will 
beget  in  him  a  disposition  to  use  his  opportunities  arighi . 

We  may  illustrate  the  philosophy  of  revivals  by  the  canal  boat  which  lies  before  the 
gate  of  a  lock.  No  power  on  earth  can  open  the  lock.  But  soon  the  lock  begins  to  fill, 
and  when  the  water  has  reached  the  proper  level,  the  gate  can  be  opened  almost  at  a 
touch.  Or,  a  steamer  runs  into  a  sandbar.  Tugs  fail  to  pull  the  vessel  off.  Her  own 
engines  cannot  accomplish  it.  But  when  the  tide  comes  in,  she  swings  free  without 
effort.  So  what  we  need  in  religion  is  au  influx  of  spiritual  influence  which  will  make 
easy  what  before  is  difficult  if  not  impossible.  The  Superintendent  of  a  New  York 
State  Prison  tells  us  that  the  common  schools  furnish  83  per  cent.,  and  the  colleges  and 
academies  over  4  per  cent.,  of  the  inmates  of  Auburn  and  Sing  Sing.  Truth  without 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  apply  it  i6  like  sunshine  without  the  actinic  ray  which  alone  can  give 
it  vitalizing  energy. 


820  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

(  b  )  Even  if  truth  could  be  energized,  intensified,  illuminated,  there 
would  still  be  needed  a  change  in  the  moral  disposition,  before  the  soul 
could  recognize  its  beauty  or  be  affected  by  it.  No  mere  increase  of  light 
can  enable  a  blind  man  to  see  ;  the  disease  of  the  eye  must  first  be  cured 
before  external  objects  are  visible.  So  God's  work  in  regeneration  must 
be  performed  within  the  soul  itself.  Over  and  above  all  influence  of  the 
truth,  there  must  be  a  direct  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  heart. 
Although  wrought  in  conjunction  with  the  presentation  of  truth  to  the 
intellect,  regeneration  differs  from  moral  suasion  in  being  an  immediate 
act  of  God. 

Before  regeneration,  man's  knowledge  of  God  is  the  blind  man's  knowledge  of  color* 
The  Scriptures  call  such  knowledge  "ignorance"  ( Eph.  4  :  18 ).  The  heart  does  not  appreciate 
God's  mercy.  Regeneration  gives  an  experimental  or  heart  knowledge;  see  Shedd, 
DoR-m.  Theol.,  2  :  495.  Is.  50  :  4  —  God  "  wakeneth  mine  ear  to  hear."  It  is  false  to  say  that  soul 
can  come  in  contact  with  soul  only  through  the  influence  of  truth.  In  the  intercourse 
of  dear  friends,  or  in  the  discourse  of  the  orator,  there  is  a  personal  influence,  distinct 
from  the  word  spoken,  which  persuades  the  heart  and  conquers  the  will.  We  sometimes 
call  it  "  magnetism,"—  but  we  mean  simply  that  soul  reaches  soul,  in  ways  apart  from 
the  use  of  physical  intermediaries.  Compare  the  facts,  imperfectly  known  as  yet,  of 
second  sight,  mind-reading,  clairvoyance.  But  whether  these  be  accepted  or  not,  it 
still  is  true  that  God  has  not  made  the  human  soul  so  that  it  is  inaccessible  to  himself. 
The  omnipresent  Spirit  penetrates  and  pervades  all  spirits  that  have  been  made  by 
him.    See  Lotze,  Outlines  of  Psychology  (  Ladd ),  142, 143. 

In  the  primary  change  of  disposition,  which  is  the  most  essential  feature  of  regene- 
ration, the  Spirit  of  God  acts  directly  upon  the  spirit  of  man.  In  the  securing  of  the 
initial  exercise  of  this  new  disposition  — which  constitutes  the  secondary  feature  of 
God's  work  of  regeneration  —  the  truth  is  used  as  a  means.  Hence,  perhaps,  in  James 
1 :  18,  we  read :  "  Of  his  own  will  he  brought  us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth  "  instead  of  "  he  begat  us  by 
the  word  of  truth,"  —  the  reference  being  to  the  secondary,  not  to  the  primary,  feature 
of  regeneration.  The  advocates  of  the  opposite  view  —  the  view  that  God  works  only 
through  the  truth  as  a  means,  and  that  his  only  influence  upon  the  soul  is  a  moral 
influence  —  very  naturally  deny  the  mystical  union  of  the  soul  with  Christ.  Squier, 
for  example,  in  his  Autobiog.,  343-378,  esp.  360,  on  the  Spirit's  influences,  quotes  John 
16 :  8  —  he  "  will  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin  "  —  to  show  that  God  regenerates  by  applying 
truth  to  men's  minds,  so  far  as  to  convince  them,  by  fair  and  sufficient  arguments, 
that  they  are  sinners. 

Christ,  opening  blind  eyes  and  unstopping  deaf  ears,  illustrates  the  nature  of  God's 
operation  in  regeneration,  —  in  the  case  of  the  blind,  there  is  plenty  of  light,  —  what 
is  wanted  is  sight.  The  negro  convert  said  that  bis  conversion  was  due  to  himself  and 
God  :  he  fought  against  God  with  all  his  might,  and  God  did  the  rest.  So  our  moral 
successes  are  due  to  ourselves  and  God,  —we  have  done  only  the  fighting  against  God, 
and  God  has  done  the  rest.  The  sand  of  Sahara  would  not  bring  forth  flowers  and 
fruit,  even  if  you  turned  into  it  a  hundred  rivers  like  the  Nile.  Man  may  hear  sermons 
for  a  lifetime,  and  still  be  barren  of  all  spiritual  growths.  The  soil  of  the  heart  needs 
to  be  changed,  aud  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom  needs  to  be  planted  there. 

For  the  view  that  truth  is  "energized"  or  "intensified"  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  see 
Fhelps,  New  Birth,  61,  121 ;  Walker,  Philosophy  of  Plan  of  Salvation,  chap.  18.  Per  con- 
tra, see  Wardlaw,  Syst.  Theol.,  3:24,  25;  E.  D.  Griffin,  Divine  Efficiency,  73-116 ;  Ander- 
son, Regeneration,  123-168 ;  Edwards,  Works,  2 :  547-597 ;  Chalmers,  Lectures  on  Romans, 
chap.  1;  Payne,  Divine  Sovereignty,  lect.  23:363-367;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  3:3-37,  466- 
485.  On  the  whole  subject  of  the  Efficient  Cause  of  Regeneration,  see  Hopkins,  Works, 
1:454;  Dwight,  Theology,  2:418-429;  John  Owen,  Works,  3:282-297,  366-538;  Robert 
Hall,  Sermon  on  the  Cause,  Agent,  and  Purpose  of  Regeneration. 

4.     The  Instrumentality  used  in  Regeneration. 

A.  The  Roman,  English  and  Lutheran  churches  hold  that  regeneration 
is  accomplished  through  the  instrumentality  of  baptism.  The  Disciples, 
or  followers  of  Alexander  Campbell,  make  regeneration  include  baptism, 


REGENERATION.  821 

as  well  as  repentance  and  faith.  To  the  view  that  baptism  is  a  means  of 
regeneration  we  urge  the  following  objections : 

(  a  )  The  Scriptures  represent  baptism  to  be  not  the  means  but  only  the 
sign  of  regeneration,  and  therefore  to  presuppose  and  follow  regeneration. 
For  this  reason  only  believers  —  that  is,  persons  giving  credible  evidence 
of  being  regenerated — were  baptized  (Acts  8 :  12).  Not  external  baptism, 
but  the  conscientious  turning  of  the  soul  to  God  which  baptism  symbolizes, 
saves  us  (1  Pet.  3:21  —  awecSr]aeug  aya&rjs  knsp&iqiia).  Texts  like  John 
3  : 5,  Acts  2  :  38,  Col.  2  :  12,  Tit.  3  :  5,  are  to  be  explained  upon  the  princi- 
ple that  regeneration,  the  inward  change,  and  baptism,  the  outward  sign 
of  that  change,  were  regarded  as  only  different  sides  or  aspects  of  the  same 
fact,  and  either  side  or  aspect  might  therefore  be  described  in  terms 
derived  from  the  other. 

(  h  )  Upon  this  view,  there  is  a  striking  incongruity  between  the  nature 
of  the  change  to  be  wrought  and  the  means  employed  to  produce  it.  The 
change  is  a  spiritual  one,  but  the  means  are  physical.  It  is  far  more 
rational  to  suppose  that,  in  changing  the  character  of  intelligent  beings, 
God  uses  means  which  have  relation  to  their  intelligence.  The  view  we 
are  considering  is  part  and  parcel  of  a  general  scheme  of  mechanical  rather 
than  moral  salvation,  and  is  more  consistent  with  a  materialistic  than  with 
a  spiritual  philosophy. 

Acts  8  :  12  —  "  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  good  tidings  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  were  baptized  "  ;  1  Pet.  3 :  21  —  "  which  also  alter  a  true  likeness  doth  now  save  you,  even  baptism,  not  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  fl.sh,  but  the  interrogation  [  marg. —  '  inquiry ',  '  appeal '  ]  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God"  =  the  inquiry  of  the  soul  after  God,  the  conscientious  turning  of  the  soul  to  God. 

Plumptre,  however,  makes  €i-epwTj)/uia  a  forensic  term  equivalent  to  "examination," 
and  including  both  question  and  answer.  It  means,  then,  the  open  answer  of  alle- 
giance to  Christ,  given  by  the  new  convert  to  the  constituted  officers  of  the  church. 
"  That  which  is  of  the  essence  of  the  saving  power  of  baptism  is  t  he  confession  and  the 
profession  which  precede  it.  If  this  comes  from  a  conscience  that  really  renounces  sin 
and  believes  on  Christ,  then  baptism,  as  the  channel  through  which  the  grace  of  the 
new  birth  is  conveyed  and  the  convert  admitted  into  the  church  of  Christ,  'saves  us,' 
but  not  otherwise."  We  may  adopt  this  statement  from  Plumptre's  Commentary, 
with  the  alteration  of  the  word  "conveyed"  into  "symbolized"  or  "manifested." 
Plumptre's  intepretation  is,  as  be  seems  to  admit,  in  its  obvious  meaning  inconsistent 
with  infant  baptism;  to  us  it  seems  equally  inconsistent  with  any  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration. 

Scriptural  regeneration  is  God's  ( 1 )  changing  man's  disposition,  and  (2)  securing  its 
first  exercise.  Regeneration,  according  to  the  Disciples,  is  man's  ( 1 )  repentance  and 
faith,  and  (2)  submission  to  baptism.  Alexander  Campbell,  Christianity  Restored: 
"  We  plead  that  all  the  converting  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  exhibited  in  the  divine 
Record."  Address  of  Disciples  to  Ohio  Baptist  State  Convention,  1871 :  "  With  us 
regeneration  includes  all  that  is  comprehended  in  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism,  and 
so  far  as  it  is  expressive  of  birth,  it  belongs  more  properly  to  the  last  of  these  than  to 
either  of  the  former."  But  if  baptism  be  the  instrument  of  regeneration,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  patriarchs,  or  the  penitent  thief,  could  have  been  regenerated.  Luke 
23:43  —  "This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise."  Bossuet :  "  'This  day'  —  what  promptitude  I 
'With  me'  — what  companionship  !  'In  Paradise' —  what  rest!"  Bersier:  "'This  day'-^ 
what  then  ?  no  flames  of  Purgatory  ?  no  long  period  of  mournful  expiation  ?  "This  day ' 
—  pardon  and  heaven  ! " 

Baptism  is  a  condition  of  being  outwardly  in  the  kingdom  ;  it  is  not  a  condition  oi 
being  inwardly  in  the  kingdom.  The  confounding  of  these  two  led  many  in  the  early 
church  to  dread  dying  unbaptized,  rather  than  dying  unsaved.  Even  Pascal,  in  later: 
times,  held  that  participation  in  outward  ceremonies  might  lead  to  real  conversion. 
He  probably  meant  that  an  initial  act  of  holy  will  would  tend  to  draw  others  in  its  train. 
Similarly  we  urge  unconverted  people  to  take  some  step  that  will  manifest  religious 


822  SOTERIOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION". 

interest.  We  hope  that  in  taking1  this  step  a  new  decision  of  the  will,  inwrought  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  may  reveal  itself.  But  a  religion  which  consists  only  in  such  out- 
ward performances  is  justly  denominated  a  cutaneous  religion,  for  it  is  only  skin-deep. 

On  John  3:5  —  "  Except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ;  Acts  2 :  38 
—  "Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins"  ;  Col. 
2 :  12  —  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  "  ;  Tit.  3:5  —  "  saved  us, 
through  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  "  —  see  further  discussion  and  expo- 
sition in  our  chapter  on  the  Ordinances.  Adkins,  Disciples  and  Baptists,  a  booklet 
published  by  the  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  Society,  is  the  best  statement  of  the  Baptist  position, 
as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  Disciples.  It  claims  that  Disciples  overrate  the 
externals  of  Christianity  and  underrate  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Per  contra,  see 
Gates,  Disciples  and  Baptists. 

B.  The  Scriptural  view  is  that  regeneration,  so  far  as  it  secures  an 
activity  of  man,  is  accomplished  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth. 
Although  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  in  any  way  illuminate  the  truth,  he 
does  illuminate  the  mind,  so  that  it  can  perceive  the  truth.  In  conjunc- 
tion with  the  change  of  man's  inner  disposition,  there  is  an  appeal  to  man's 
rational  nature  through  the  truth.     Two  inferences  may  be  drawn  : 

(  a  )  Man  is  not  wholly  passive  at  the  time  of  his  regeneration.  He  is 
passive  only  with  respect  to  the  change  of  his  ruling  disposition.  With 
respect  to  the  exercise  of  this  disposition,  he  is  active.  Although  the  effi- 
cient power  which  secures  this  exercise  of  the  new  disposition  is  the  power 
of  God,  yet  man  is  not  therefore  uncouscious,  nor  is  he  a  mere  machine 
worked  by  God's  fingers.  On  the  other  hand,  his  whole  moral  nature 
under  God's  working  is  alive  and  active.  "We  reject  the  "exercise-system," 
which  regards  God  as  the  direct  author  of  all  man's  thoughts,  feelings, 
and  volitions,  not  only  in  its  general  tenor,  but  in  its  special  application  to 
regeneration. 

Shedd,  Dogrn.  Theol.,  2:503 — "A  dead  man  cannot  assist  in  his  own  resurrection." 
This  is  true  so  far  as  the  giving  of  life  is  concerned.  But  once  made  alive,  man  can, 
like  Lazarus,  obey  Christ's  command  and  "  come  forth  "  ( John  11 :  43  ).  In  fact,  if  he  does  not 
obey,  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  is  spiritual  life.  "  In  us  is  God ;  we  burn  but  as 
he  moves  "  —  "  Est  deus  in  nobis ;  agitante  calescimus  illo."  Wireless  telegraphy 
requires  an  attuned  receiver;  regeneration  attunes  the  soul  so  that  it  vibrates  respon- 
sivelyto  God  and  receives  the  communications  of  his  truth.  When  a  convert  came 
to  Rowland  Hill  and  claimed  that  she  had  been  converted  in  a  dream,  he  replied :  "  We 
will  see  how  you  walk,  now  that  you  are  awake." 

Lord  Bacon  said  he  would  open  every  one  of  Argus's  hundred  eyes,  before  he  opened 
one  of  Briareus's  hundred  hands.  If  God  did  not  renew  men's  hearts  in  connection 
with  our  preaching  of  the  truth,  we  might  well  give  up  our  ministry.  E.  G.  Robinson  : 
"  The  conversion  of  a  soul  is  just  as  much  according  to  law  as  the  raising  of  a  crop  of 
turnips.''  Simon,  Reconciliation,  377  —  "Though  the  mere  jrreaching  of  the  gospel  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  conversion  and  revivification  of  men,  it  is  a  necessary  condition  — 
as  necessary  as  the  action  of  light  and  heat,  or  other  physical  agencies,  are  on  a  germ, 
if  it  is  to  develop,  grow,  and  bear  its  proper  fruit." 

(  b  )  The  activity  of  man's  mind  in  regeneration  is  activity  in  view  of 
the  truth.  God  secures  the  initial  exercise  of  the  new  disposition  which 
he  has  wrought  in  man's  heart  in  connection  with  the  use  of  truth  as  a 
means.  Here  we  perceive  the  link  between  the  efficiency  of  God  and  the 
activity  of  man.  Only  as  the  sinner's  mind  is  brought  into  contact  with 
the  truth,  does  God  complete  his  regenerating  work.  And  as  the  change 
of  inward  disposition  and  the  initial  exercise  of  it  are  never,  so  far  as  we 
know,  separated  by  any  interval  of  time,  we  can  say,  in  general,  that 
Christian  work  is  successful  only  as  it  commends  the  truth  to  every  man's 
conscience  in  the  sight  of  God  ( 2  Cor.  4:2). 


REGENERATION.  823 

In  Eph.  1:17,  IS,  there  is  recognized  the  divine  illumination  of  the  mind  to  behold  the 
truth  —  "may  give  unto  you  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him  ;  having  the  eyes  of  your 
heart  enlightened,  that  ye  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  call.ng."  On  truth  as  a  means  of  regenera- 
tion, see  Hovey,  Outlines,  l'J2,  who  quotes  Cunningham,  Historical  Theology,  1 :617 — 
"  Regeneration  may  be  taken  in  a  limited  sense  as  including  only  the  first  importation 
of  spiritual  life  .  .  .  .  or  it  may  be  taken  in  a  wider  sense  as  comprehending  the  whole 
of  that  process  by  which  he  is  renewed  or  made  over  again  in  the  whole  man  after  the 
image  of  God, —  i.  c,  as  including  the  production  of  saving  faith  and  union  to  Christ. 
Only  in  the  first  sense  did  the  Reformers  maintain  that  man  in  the  process  was  wholly 
passive  and  not  active  ;  for  they  did  not  dispute  that,  before  the  process  in  the  second 
and  more  enlarged  sense  was  completed,  man  was  spiritually  alive  and  active,  and  con- 
tinued so  ever  after  during  the  whole  process  of  his  sanctiti cation." 

Dr.  Hovey  suggests  an  apt  illustration  of  these  two  parts  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work 
and  their  union  in  regeneration  :  At  the  same  time  that  God  makes  the  photographic 
plate  sensitive,  he  pours  in  the  light  of  truth  whereby  the  image  of  Christ  is  formed  in 
the  soul.  Without  the  "  sensitizing  "  of  the  plate,  it  would  never  fix  the  rays  of  light 
60  as  to  retain  the  image.  In  the  process  of  "  sensitizing,"  the  plate  is  passive  ;  under 
the  influence  of  light,  it  is  active.  In  both  the  "  sensitizing"  and  the  taking  of  the  pic- 
ture, the  real  agent  is  not  the  plate  nor  the  light,  but  the  photographer.  The  photog- 
rapher cannot  perform  both  operations  at  the  same  moment.  God  can.  He  gives  the 
new  affection,  and  at  the  same  instant  he  secures  its  exercise  in  view  of  the  truth. 

For  denial  of  the  instrumentality  of  truth  in  regeneration,  see  Pierce,  in  Bap.  Quar., 
Jan.  1872:52.  Per  contra,  see  Anderson,  Regeneration,  89-122.  H.  B.  Smith  holds  mid- 
dle ground.  He  says :  "  In  adults  it  [  regeneration  ]  is  wrought  most  frequently  by  the 
word  of  God  as  the  instrument.  Believing  that  Infants  may  be  regenerated,  we  cannot 
assert  that  it  is  tied  to  the  word  of  God  absolutely."  We  prefer  to  say  that,  if  infants 
arc  regenerated,  they  also  are  regenerated  in  conjunction  with  some  influence  of  truth 
upon  the  mind,  dim  as  the  recognition  of  it  may  be.  Otherwise  we  break  the  Script- 
ural connection  between  regeneration  and  conversion,  and  open  the  way  for  faith  in 
a  physical;  magical,  sacramental  salvation.  Squier,  Autobiog.,  368,  says  well,  of  the 
theory  of  regeneration  which  makes  man  purely  passive,  thai  it  has  a  benumbing 
effect  upon  preaching:  "The  lack  of  expectation  unnerves  the  efforts  of  the  preacher; 
an  impression  of  the  fortuitous  presence  neutralizes  his  engagedness.  Thisantinomian 
dependence  on  the  Spirit  extracts  all  vitality  from  the  pulpit  and  sense  of  responsi- 
bility from  the  hearer,  and  makes  preaching  an  opus  operatum,  like  the  baptismal 
regeneration  of  the  formalist."  Only  of  the  first  element  in  regeneration  are  Shedd's 
words  true :  "  A  dead  man  cannot  assist  in  his  own  resurrection  "  ( Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  503 ). 

Squier  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  regarding  the  truth  alone  as  the  cause  of 
regeneration.  His  words  are  none  the  less  a  valuable  protest  against  the  view  that 
regeneration  is  so  entirely  due  t<>  God  that  in  no  part  of  il  is  man  active.  It  was  with 
a  better  view  that  Luther  cried:  "O  that  we  might  multiply  living  books,  that  is, 
preachers!"  And  the  preacher  is  successful  only  as  he-  possesses  and  unfolds  the 
truth.  John  took  the  little  book  from  the  Covenant-angel's  hand  and  ate  it  ( Rav.  10 : 8- 
11).  So  he  who  is  to  preach  God's  truth  must  teed  upon  it,  until  it  has  become  his  own. 
For  the  Exercise-system,  see  Emmons,  Works,  4 : 339-411 ;  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  2:439. 

5.     The  Nature  of  (lu:  Cha>i</<  wrought  in  Regeneration. 

A.  It  is  a  change  in  which  the  governing  disposition  is  made  holy. 
This  implies  that : 

(  a  )  It  is  nut  a  change  in  the  substance  of  either  body  or  soul.  Regen- 
eration is  not  a  physical  change.  There  is  no  physical  seed  or  germ 
implanted  in  man's  nature.  Regeneration  does  not  add  to,  or  subtract 
from,  the  number  of  man's  intellectual,  emotional  or  voluntary  faculties. 
But  regeneration  is  the  giving  of  a  new  direction  or  tendency  to  powers 
of  affection  which  man  possessed  before.  Man  had  the  faculty  of  love 
before,  but  his  love  was  supremely  set  on  self.  In  regeneration  the  direc- 
tion of  that  faculty  is  changed,  and  his  love  is  now  set  supremely  upon 
God. 


824  SOTERIOLOGY,  or  the  doctrine  of  salvation. 

Eph.  2:10  —  " created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works"  —  does  not  imply  that  the  old  soul  is  anni- 
hilated, and  a  new  soul  created.  The  "old  man"  which  is  " crucified  "  — ( Rom.  6 : 6 )  and  "put 
away  "  (  Eph.  4 :22 )  is  simply  the  sinful  bent  of  the  affections  and  will.  When  this  direc- 
tion of  the  dispositions  is  changed,  and  becomes  holy,  we  can  call  the  change  a  new 
birth  of  the  old  nature,  because  the  same  faculties  that  acted  before  are  acting  now, 
the  only  difference  being  that  now  these  faculties  are  set  toward  God  and  purity.  Or, 
regarding  the  change  from  another  point  of  view,  we  may  speak  of  man  as  having  a 
"new  nature,"  as  "recreated,"  as  being  a  "new  creature,"  because  this  direction  of 
the  affection  and  will,  which  ensures  a  different  life  from  what  was  led  before,  is  some- 
thing totally  new,  and  due  wholly  to  the  regenerating  act  of  God.  In  1  Pet.  1:23  — "begot- 
ten again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible"  —  all  materialistic  inferences  from  the  word 
"seed,"  as  if  it  implied  the  implantation  of  a  physical  germ,  are  prevented  by  the  follow- 
ing explanatory  words  :  "  through  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth." 

So,  too,  when  we  describe  regeneration  as  the  communication  of  a  new  life  to  the 
soul,  we  should  not  conceive  of  this  new  life  as  a  substance  imparted  or  infused  into  us. 
The  new  life  is  rather  a  new  direction  and  activity  of  our  own  affections  and  will. 
There  is,  indeed  a  union  of  the  soul  with  Christ;  Christ  dwells  in  the  renewed  heart; 
Christ's  entrance  into  the  soul  is  the  cause  and  accoini>animoit  of  its  regeneration. 
But  this  entrance  of  Christ  into  the  soul  is  not  itself  regeneration.  We  must  distin- 
guish the  effect  from  the  cause ;  otherwise  we  shall  be  in  danger  of  a  pantheistic  con- 
founding of  our  own  personality  and  life  with  the  personality  and  life  of  Christ.  Christ 
is  indeed  our  life,  in  the  sense  of  being  the  cause  and  supporter  of  our  life,  but  he  is 
not  our  life  in  the  sense  that,  after  our  union  with  him,  our  individuality  ceases.  The 
effect  of  union  with  Christ  is  rather  that  our  individuality  is  enlarged  and  exalted  (John 
10  :  10  —  "1  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and  may  have  it  abundantly."     See  page  799,  ( c ). 

We  must  therefore  take  with  a  grain  of  allowance  the  generally  excellent  words  of 
A.  J.  Gordon,  Twofold  Life,  22 —  "Regeneration  is  the  communication  of  the  divine 
nature  to  man  by  the  operation  of  the  H oly  Spirit  through  the  word  ( 2  Pet.  1:4).  .  .  .  As 
Christ  was  made  partaker  of  human  nature  by  incarnation,  that  so  he  might  enter  into 
truest  fellowship  with  us,  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  by  regeneration, 
that  we  may  enter  into  truest  fellowship  with  God.  Regeneration  is  not  a  change  of 
nature,  i.  e.,  a  natural  heart  bettered.  Eternal  life  is  not  natural  life  prolonged  into 
endless  duration.  It  is  the  divine  life  imparted  to  us,  the  very  life  of  God  communi- 
cated to  the  human  soul,  and  bringing  forth  there  its  proper  fruit."  Dr.  Gordon's 
view  that  regeneration  adds  a  new  substance  or  faculty  to  the  soul  is  the  result  of 
literalizing  the  Scripture  metaphors  of  creation  and  life.  This  turning  of  symbol  into 
fact  accounts  for  his  tendency  toward  annihilation  doctrine  in  the  case  of  the  unre- 
generate,  toward  faith  cure  and  the  belief  that  all  physical  evils  can  be  removed  by 
prayer.  E.  II.  Johnson,  The  Holy  Spirit :  "  Regeneration  is  a  change,  not  in  the  quan- 
tity, but  in  the  quality,  of  the  soul."  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  320  — 
"  Regeneration  consists  in  a  divinely  wrought  change  in  the  moral  affections." 

So,  too,  we  would  criticize  the  doctrine  of  Drummond,  Nat.  Law  in  the  Spir.  World : 
"  People  forget  the  persistence  of  force.  Instead  of  transforming  energy,  they  try  to 
create  it.  We  must  either  depend  on  environment,  or  be  self-sufficient.  The  'cannot  bear 
fruit  of  itself  ( John  15 :  4 )  is  the  '  cannot '  of  natural  law.  Natural  fruit  flourishes  with  air  and 
sunshine.  The  difference  between  the  Christian  and  the  non-Christian  is  the  difference 
between  the  organic  and  the  inorganic.  The  Christian  has  all  the  characteristics  of 
life:  assimilation,  waste,  reproduction,  spontaneous  action."  See  criticism  of  Drum- 
mond, by  Murphy,  in  Brit.  Quar.,  1884: 118-125  —  "  As  in  resurrection  there  is  a  physical 
connection  with  the  old  body,  so  in  regeneration  there  is  a  natural  connection  with  the 
old  soul."  Also,  Brit.  Quar.,  July,  1880,  art. :  Evolution  Viewed  in  Relation  to  Theol- 
ogy —  "  The  regenerating  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  symbolized,  not  by  the  vital- 
ization  of  dead  matter,  but  by  the  agency  of  the  organizing  intelligence  which  guides 
the  evolution  of  living  beings."  Murphy's  answer  to  Drummond  is  republished. 
Murphy's  Natural  Selection  and  Spiritual  Freedom,  1-33— "The  will  can  no  more 
create  force,  either  muscular  or  mental,  than  it  can  create  matter.  And  it  is  equally 
true  that  for  our  spiritual  nourishment  and  spiritual  force  we  are  altogether  depend- 
ent on  our  spiritual  environment,  which  is  God."    In  tk  dead  matter  "  there  is  no  sin. 

Drummond  would  imply  that,  as  matter  has  no  promise  or  potency  of  life  and  is 
not  responsible  for  being  without  life  (or  "  dead,"  to  use  his  misleading  word),  and  if 
it  ever  is  to  live  must  wait  for  the  life-giving  influence  to  come  unsought,  so  the 
human  soul  is  not  responsible  for  being  spiritually  dead,  cannot  seek  for  life,  must 
passively  wait  for  the  Spirit.    Plymouth  Brethren  generally  hold  the  same  view  with 


REGENERATION".  825 

Drummond,  that  regeneration  adds  something  — as  vitality  —  to  the  substance  of  the 
soul.  Christ  is  transsu  Instantiated  into  the  soul's  substance ;  or,  the  irveviJ.a.  is  added. 
But  we  have  given  over  talking  of  vitality,  as  if  it  were  a  substance  or  faculty.  We 
regard  it  as  merely  a  mode  of  action.  Evolution,  moreover,  uses  what  already  exists, 
so  far  as  it  will  go,  instead  of  creating  new ;  as  in  the  miracle  of  the  loaves,  and  as  in  the 
original  creation  of  man,  so  in  his  recreation  or  regeneration.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  also 
makes  the  same  mistake  in  calling  regeneration  an  "  origination  of  the  principle  of  tho 
spirit  of  life,  just  as  literal  and  real  a  creation  as  the  origination  of  the  principle 
of  natural  life."  This,  too,  literalizes  Scripture  metaphor,  and  ignores  the  fact  that 
the  change  accomplished  in  regeneration  is  an  exclusively  moral  one.  There  is  indeed 
a  new  entrance  of  Christ  into  the  soul,  or  a  new  exercise  of  his  spiritual  power  within 
the  soul.  But  the  effect  of  Christ's  working  is  not  to  add  any  new  faculty  or  sub- 
stance, but  only  to  give  new  direction  to  already  existing  powers. 

( b )  Regeneration  involves  an  enlightenment  of  the  understanding  and 
a  rectification  of  the  volitions.  But  it  seems  most  consonant  with  Scripture 
and  with  a  correct  psychology  to  regard  these  changes  as  immediate  and 
necessary  consequences  of  the  change  of  disposition  already  mentioned, 
rather  than  as  the  primary  and  central  facts  in  regeneration.  The  taste  for 
truth  logically  precedes  perception  of  the  truth,  and  love  for  God  logically 
precedes  obedience  to  God ;  indeed,  without  love  no  obedience  is  possible. 
Reverse  the  lever  of  affection,  and  this  moral  locomotive,  without  further 
change,  will  move  away  from  sin,  and  toward  truth  and  God. 

Texts  which  seem  to  imply  that  a  right  taste,  disposition,  affection,  logically  precedes 
both  knowledge  of  God  and  obedience  to  God,  are  the  following:  Ps.  34:8— "Oh  teste  and  see 
that  Jehovah  is  good  "  ;  119.36  —  "Incline  my  heart  unto  thy  testimonies";  Jer,  21:7 — "I  will  give  them  a  heart 
to  know  me";  Mat.  5:8  —  "Blessed  are  the  pnre  in  heart:  for  they  shall  see  God";  John  7:17 — "If  any  man 
willeth  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of  God  "  ;  Acts  16:14  —  of  Lydia  it,  is  said  : 
"  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  to  give  heed  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul "  ;  Eph.  1 :  18  —  "  having  the 
eyes  of  your  heart  enlightened."  "  Change  the  centre  of  a  circle  and  you  change  the  place  and 
direction  of  all  its  radii." 

The  text  John  1 :  12, 13  —  "But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  him  the  right  to  become  children  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name :  who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God"  —  seems  at  first  sight  to  imply  that  faith  is  the  condition  of  regeneration, 
and  therefore  prior  to  it.  "  But  if  i£ovo-iav  here  signifies  the  'right'  or  'privilege'  of 
sonship,  it  is  a  right  which  may  presuppose  faith  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  regenera- 
tion—  a  work  apart  from  which  no  genuine  faith  exists  in  the  soul.  But  it  is  possible 
that  John  means  to  say  that,  in  the  case  of  all  who  received  Christ,  their  power  to 
believe  was  given  to  them  by  him.  In  the  original  the  emphasis  is  on  'gave,'  and  this  is 
shown  by  the  order  of  the  words"  ;  see  Hovey,  Manual  of  Theology,  345,  and  Com.  on 
John  1 :  12, 13  —  "  The  meaning  would  then  be  this  :  '  Many  did  not  receive  him  ;  but  some 
did  ;  and  as  to  all  who  received  him,  he  <jave  them  grace  by  which  they  were  enabled 
to  do  this,  and  so  to  become  God's  children.'  " 

Ruskiu :  "  The  first  and  last  and  closest  trial  question  to  any  living  creature  is, 
1  What  do  you  like?1  Go  out  into  the  street  and  ask  the  first  man  you  meet  what  his 
taste  is,  and,  if  he  answers  candidly,  you  know  him,  body  and  soul.  What  we  like 
determines  what  we  are,  and  is  the  sign  of  what  we  are ;  and  to  teach  taste  is  inevitably 
to  form  character."  If  the  taste  here  spoken  of  is  moral  and  spiritual  taste,  the  words 
of  Ruskin  are  sober  truth.  Regeneration  is  essentially  a  changing  of  the  fundamental 
taste  of  the  soul.  But  by  taste  we  mean  the  direction  of  man's  love,  the  bent  of  his 
affections,  the  trend  of  his  will.  And  to  alter  that  taste  is  not  to  impart  a  new  faculty, 
or  to  create  a  new  substance,  but  simply  to  set  toward  God  the  affections  which 
hitherto  have  been  set  upon  self  and  sin.  We  may  illustrate  by  the  engineer  who 
climbs  over  the  cab  into  a  runaway  locomotive  and  who  changes  its  course,  not  by 
adding  any  new  rod  or  cog  to  the  machine,  but  simply  by  reversing  the  lever.  The 
engine  slows  up  and  soon  moves  in  an  opposite  direction  to  that  in  which  it  has  been 
going.  Man  needs  no  new  faculty  of  love  ;  he  needs  only  to  have  his  love  set  in  a  new 
and  holy  direction  ;  this  is  virtually  to  give  him  a  new  birth,  to  make  him  a  new  crea- 
ture, to  impart  to  him  a  new  life.  But  being  born  again,  created  anew,  made  alive 
from  the  dead,  are  physical  metaphors,  to  be  interpreted  not  literally  but  spiritually. 


826  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

(c)  It  is  objected,  indeed,  that  we  know  only  of  mental  substance  and  of 
mental  acts,  and  that  the  new  disposition  or  state  just  mentioned,  since  it 
is  not  an  act,  must  be  regarded  as  a  new  substance,  and  so  lack  all  moral 
quality.  But  we  reply  that,  besides  substance  and  acts,  there  are  habits, 
tendencies,  proclivities,  some  of  them  native  and  some  of  them  acquired. 
They  are  voluntary,  and  have  moral  character.  If  we  can  by  repeated 
acts  originate  sinfid  tendencies,  God  can  surely  originate  in  us  holy  ten- 
dencies. Such  holy  tendencies  formed  a  part  of  the  nature  of  Adam,  as 
he  came  from  the  hand  of  God.  As  the  result  of  the  Fall,  we  are  born 
with  tendencies  toward  evil  for  which  we  are  responsible.  Eegeneration 
is  a  restoration  of  the  original  tendencies  toward  God  which  were  lost  by 
the  Fall.  Such  holy  tendencies  (tastes,  dispositions,  affections )  are  not 
only  not  unmoral — they  are  the  only  possible  springs  of  right  moral  action. 
Only  in  the  restoration  of  them  does  man  become  truly  free. 

Mat.  12  :  33  —  "  Make  the  tree  good,  and  its  fruit  good  "  ;  Eph.  2 :  10  —  "  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works." 
The  tree  is  first  made  good  — the  character  renewed  in  its  fundamental  principle,  love 
to  God  — in  the  certainty  that  when  this  is  done  the  fruit  will  be  good  also.  Good 
works  are  the  necessary  result  of  regeneration  by  union  with  Christ.  Regeneration 
introduces  a  new  force  into  humanity,  the  force  of  a  new  love.  The  work  of  the 
preacher  is  that  of  cooperation  with  God  in  the  importation  of  a  new  life  — a  work  far 
more  radical  and  more  noble  than  that  of  moral  reform,  by  as  much  as  the  origination 
of  a  new  force  is  more  radical  and  more  noble  than  the  guidance  of  that  force  after  it 
has  been  originated.  Does  regeneration  cure  disease  and  remove  physical  ills?  Not 
primarily.  Mat.  1 :21  —  "thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus ;  for  it  is  he  that  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins." 
Salvation  from  sin  is  Christ's  first  and  main  work.  He  performed  physical  healing 
only  to  illustrate  and  further  the  healing  of  the  soul.  Hence  in  the  case  of  the  para- 
lytic, when  he  was  expected  to  cure  the  body,  he  said  first:  "thy  sins  are  forgiven "( Mat. 
9:2);  but,  that  they  who  stood  by  might  not  doubt  his  power  to  forgive,  he  added  the 
raising  up  of  the  palsied  man.  And  ultimately  in  every  redeemed  man  the  holy  heart 
will  bring  in  its  train  the  pei-fected  body  :  Rom.  8  :  23  —  "  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  waiting 
for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body." 

On  holy  affection  as  the  spring  of  holy  action,  see  especially  Edwards,  Religious 
Affections,  in  Works,  3 : 1-21.  This  treatise  is  Jonathan  Edwards's  Confessions,  as  much 
as  if  it  were  directly  addressed  to  the  Deity.  Allen,  his  biographer,  calls  it  "a  work 
which  will  not  suffer  by  comparison  with  the  work  of  great  teachers  in  theology, 
whether  ancient  or  modern."  President  Timothy  Dwight  regarded  it  as  most  worthy 
of  preservation  next  to  the  Bible.  See  also  Hodge,  Essays  and  Reviews,  1:48;  Owen 
on  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  Works,  3:297-336;  Charnock  on  Regeneration;  Andrew  Fuller, 
Works,  2:461-471,  512-5(50,  and  3:790;  Bellamy,  Works,  2:502;  Dwight,  Works,  2:418; 
Woods,  Works,  3 : 1-21 ;  Anderson,  Regeneration,  21-50. 

B.  It  is  an  instantaneous  change,  in  a  region  of  the  soul  below  con- 
sciousness, and  is  therefore  known  only  in  its  results. 

( a )  It  is  an  instantaneous  change.  —  Regeneration  is  not  a  gradual 
work.  Although  there  may  be  a  gradual  work  of  God's  providence  and 
Spirit,  preparing  the  change,  and  a  gradual  recognition  of  it  after  it  has 
taken  place,  there  must  be  an  instant  of  time  when,  under  the  influence  of 
God's  Spirit,  the  disposition  of  the  soul,  just  before  hostile  to  God,  is 
changed  to  love.  Any  other  view  assumes  an  intermediate  state  of  indeci- 
sion which  has  no  moral  character  at  all,  and  confounds  regeneration  either 
with  conviction  or  with  sanctification. 

Conviction  of  sin  is  an  ordinary,  if  not  an  invariable,  antecedent  of  regeneration.  It 
results  from  the  contemplation  of  truth.  It  is  often  accompanied  by  fear,  remorse, 
and  cries  for  mercy.  But  these  desires  and  fears  are  not  signs  of  regeneration.  They 
are  selfish.    They  are  quite  consistent  with  manifest  and  dreadful  enmity  to  God. 


REGENERATION.  827 

They  have  a  hopeful  aspect,  simply  because  they  are  evidence  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
striving-  with  the  soul.  But  this  work  of  the  Spirit  is  not  yet  regeneration  ;  at  most,  it 
is  preparation  for  regeneration.  So  far  as  the  sinner  is  concerned,  he  is  more  of  a  sin- 
ner than  ever  before ;  because,  under  more  light  than  has  ever  before  been  given  him, 
he  is  still  rejecting  Christ,  and  resisting  the  Spirit.  The  word  of  God  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  appeal  to  lower  as  well  as  to  higher  motives  ;  most  nun's  concern  about  religion 
is  determined,  at  the  outset,  by  hope  or  fear.    See  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  512. 

All  these  motives,  though  they  are  not  the  highest,  are  yet  proper  motives  to  influ- 
ence the  soul ;  it  is  right  to  seek  God  from  motives  of  serf-interest,  and  because  we 
desire  heaven.  But  the  seeking  which  not  only  begins,  but  ends,  upon  this  lower  plane, 
is  never  successful.  Until  the  soul  gives  itself  to  God  from  motives  of  love,  it  is  never 
saved.  And  so  long  as  these  preliminary  motives  rule,  regeneration  has  not  yet  taken 
place.  Bible-reading,  and  prayers,  and  church-attendance,  and  partial  reformations, 
are  certainly  better  than  apathy  or  outbreaking  sin.  They  may  be  signs  that  God  is 
working  in  the  soul.  But  without  complete  surrender  to  God,  they  may  be  accompa- 
nied with  the  greatest  guilt  and  the  greatest  danger;  simply  because,  under  such 
influences,  the  withholding-  of  submission  implies  the  most  active  hatred  to  God,  and 
opposition  to  his  will.  Instance  eases  of  outward  reformation  that  preceded  regenera- 
tion, —  like  that  of  John  Bunyan,  who  left  off  swearing  before  his  conversion.  Park  : 
"The  soul  is  a  monad,  and  must  turn  all  at  once.  If  we  are  standing  on  the  line,  we 
are  yet  unregenerate.  We  are  regenerate  only  when  we  cross  It."  There  is  a  preve- 
nient  grace  as  well  as  a  regenerating  grace,  WVndelius  indeed  distinguished  five  kinds 
of  grace,  namely,  prevenient,  preparatory,  operant,  cooperant,  and  perfecting. 

While  in  some  cases  God's  preparatory  work  occupies  a  long  time,  there  are  many 
cases  in  which  ho  cuts  short  his  work  in  righteousness  (Rom.  9:28).  Some  persons  are 
regenerated  in  infancy  or  childhood,  cannot  remember  a  time  when  they  did  not  love 
Christ,  and  yet  take  long  to  ham  that  they  arc  regenerate.  Others  are  convicted  and 
converted  suddenly  in  mature  years.  Tin-  best  proof  of  regeneration  is  not  the  mem- 
ory of  a  past  experience,  however  vivid  and  startling,  but  rather  a  present  inward 
love  for  Christ,  his  holiness,  his  servants,  his  work,  and  his  word.  Much  sympathy 
should  be  given  to  those  who  have  been  early  converted,  but  who,  from  timidity,  self- 
distrust,  or  the  faults  of  inconsistent  church  members,  have  been  deterred  from  join- 
ing themselves  with  Christian  people,  and  so  have  lost  all  hope  and  joy  in  their  religious 
lives.  Instance  the  man  who,  though  converted  in  a  revival  of  religion,  was  injured 
by  a  professed  Christian,  and  became  a  recluse,  but  cherished  the  memory  of  his  dead 
wife  anil  child,  kept  the  playthings  of  the  one  and  the  clothing  of  the  other,  and  left 
directions  to  have  them  buried  with  him. 

As  there  is  danger  of  confounding  regeneration  with  preparatory  influences  of  God's 
Spirit,  so  there  is  danger  of  confounding  regeneration  with  sanctification.  Saucti- 
fication,  as  the  development  of  the  new  affection,  is  gradual  and  progressive.  But 
no  bcijhuting  is  progressive  or  gradual;  and  regeneration  is  a  beginning  of  the  new 
affection.  We  may  gradually  come  to  the  knowledge  that  a  uewaffection  exists,  but  the 
knowledge  of  a  beginning  is  one  thing ;  the  beginning  itself  is  another  thing.  Luther 
had  experienced  a  change  of  heart,  long  before  he  knew  its  meaning  or  could  express 
his  new  feelings  in  scientific  form.  It  is  not  in  the  sense  of  a  gradual  regeneration, 
but  in  the  sense  of  a  gradual  recognition  of  the  fact  of  regeneration,  and  a  progressive 
enjoyment  of  its  results,  that  "  the  path  of  the  righteous  "  is  said  to  be  "  as  the  dawning  light"—  the 
morning-dawn  that  begins  in  faintness,  but—  "that  shineth  more  and  more  unto  the  perfeet  day  " 
(Prov.  4:18).  Cf.  2  Cor.  4:4  —  "the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  the  unbelieving,  that  the  light  of 
the  gospel  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  not  dawn  upon  them."  Here  the  recognition 
of  God's  work  is  described  as  gradual;  that  the  work  itself  is  instantaneous,  appears 
from  the  following  verse  6  —  "Seeing  it  is  God,  that  said,  L-ght  shall  shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shined  in  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Illustrate  by  the  unconscious  crossing  of  the  line  which  separates  one  State  of  the 
Federal  Union  from  another.  From  this  doctrine  of  instantaneous  regeneration,  we 
may  infer  the  duty  of  reaping  as  well  as  of  sowing :  John  4 :  38  —  "I  sent  you  to  reap."  "  It  is 
a  mistaken  notion  that  it  takes  God  a  long  time  to  give  increase  to  the  seed  planted  in 
a  sinner's  heart.  This  grows  out  of  the  idea  that  regeneration  is  a  matter  of  training  ; 
that  a  soul  must  be  educated  from  a  lost  state  into  a  state  of  salvation.  Let  us  remem- 
ber that  three  thousand,  whom  in  the  morning  Peter  called  murderers  of  Christ,  were 
before  night  regenerated  and  baptized  members  of  his  church."  Drummond,  in  his 
Nat.  Law  in  the  Spir.  World,  remarks  upon  the  humaneness  of  sudden  conversion.    As 


828  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

self-limitation,  self-mortification,  suicide  of  the  old  nature,  it  is  well  to  have  it  at  once 
done  and  over  with,  and  not  to  die  by  degrees. 

( b )  This  change  takes  place  in  the  region  of  the  soul  below  conscious- 
ness. —  It  is  by  no  means  true  that  God's  work  in  regeneration  is  always 
recognized  by  the  subject  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  never  directly 
perceived  at  all.  The  working  of  God  in  the  human  soul,  since  it  contra- 
venes no  law  of  man's  being,  but  rather  puts  him  in  the  full  and  normal 
possession  of  his  own  powers,  is  secret  and  inscrutable.  Although  man  is 
conscious,  he  is  not  conscious  of  God's  regenerating  agency. 

We  know  our  own  natural  existence  only  through  the  phenomena  of  thought  and 
sense.  So  we  know  our  own  spiritual  existence,  as  new  creatures  in  Christ,  only 
through  the  new  feelings  and  experiences  of  the  soul.  "  The  will  does  not  need  to  act 
solitarily,  in  order  to  act  freely."  God  acts  on  the  will,  and  the  resulting  holiness  is 
true  freedom.  John  8  :  36  —  "If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed."  We  have 
the  consciousness  of  freedom  ;  but  the  act  of  God  in  giving  us  this  freedom  is  beyond 
or  beneath  our  consciousness. 

Both  Luther  and  Calvin  used  the  word  regeneration  in  a  loose  way,  confounding  it 
with  sanctiflcation.  After  the  Federalists  made  a  distinct  doctrine  of  it,  Calvinists 
in  general  came  to  treat  it  separately.  And  John  Wesley  rescued  it  from  identification 
with  sacraments,  by  showing  its  connection  with  the  truth.  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Regen- 
eration is  in  one  sense  instantaneous,  in  another  sense  not.  There  is  necessity  of  some 
sort  of  knowledge  in  regeneration.  The  doctrine  of  Christ  crucified  is  the  fit  instru- 
ment. The  object  of  religion  is  to  produce  a  sound  rather  than  an  emotional  experi- 
ence. Revivals  of  religion  are  valuable  in  just  the  proportion  in  which  they  produce 
rational  conviction  and  permanently  righteous  action."  Rut  none  are  left  unaffected 
by  them.  "  An  arm  of  the  magnetic  needle  must  be  attracted  to  the  magnetic  pole  of 
the  earth,  or  it  must  be  repelled, —there  is  no  such  thing  as  indifference.  Modern 
materialism,  refusing  to  say  that  the  fear  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom,  is  led  to 
declare  that  the  hate  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  "  ( Diesselhoff,  Die  klassische 
Poesie,  8 ). 

(  c )  This  change,  however,  is  recognized  indirectly  in  its  results.  —  At 
the  moment  of  regeneration,  the  soul  is  conscious  only  of  the  truth  and  of 
its  own  exercises  with  reference  to  it.  That  God  is  the  author  of  its  new 
affection  is  an  inference  from  the  new  character  of  the  exercises  which  it 
prompts.  The  human  side  or  aspect  of  regeneration  is  Conversion.  This, 
and  the  Sanctiflcation  which  follows  it  ( including  the  special  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ),  are  the  sole  evidences  in  any  particular  case  that  regenera- 
tion is  an  accomplished  fact. 

Regeneration,  though  it  is  the  birth  of  a  perfect  child,  is  still  the  birth  of  a  child. 
The  child  is  to  grow,  and  the  growth  is  sanctiflcation  ;  in  other  words,  sanctiflcation,  as 
we  shall  see,  is  simply  the  strengthening  and  development  of  the  holy  affection  which 
begins  its  existence  in  regeneration.  Hence  the  subject  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  — 
salvation  by  faith  —  includes  not  only  justification  by  faith  ( chapters  1-7),  but  sanctiflca- 
tion by  faith  ( chapters  8-16 ).  On  evidences  of  regeneration,  see  Anderson,  Regeneration, 
169-214,  227-295;  Woods,  Works,  44-55.  The  transition  from  justification  by  faith  to 
sanctiflcation  by  faith  is  in  chapter  8  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  That  begins  by  declaring 
that  there  is  wo  condemnation  in  Christ,  and  ends  by  declaring  that  there  is  no  sepa/rct- 
tion  from  Christ.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  follows  upon  the  work  of  Christ.  See 
Godet  on  the  epistle. 

The  doctrine  of  Alexander  Campbell  was  a  protest  against  laying  an  unscriptural 
emphasis  on  emotional  states  as  evidences  of  regeneration  —  a  protest  which  certain 
mystical  and  antinomian  exaggerations  of  evangelical  teaching  very  justly  provoked. 
But  Campbell  went  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  practically  excluding  emotion  from 
religion,  and  of  confining  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  conscious  influence  of  the 
truth.  Disciples  need  to  recognize  a  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  exerted  below  conscious- 
ness, in  order  to  explain  the  conscious  acceptance  of  Christ  and  of  his  salvation. 


CONVERSION1.  829 

William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  271  —  "  If  we  should  conceive  that 
the  human  mind,  with  its  different  possibilities  of  equilibrium,  mig-ht  be  like  a  many 
sided  solid  with  different  surfaces  on  which  it  could  lie  flat,  we  mig-ht  liken  mental 
revolutions  to  the  spatial  revolutions  of  such  a  body.  As  it  is  pried  up,  say  by  a  lever, 
from  a  position  in  which  it  lies  on  surface  A,  for  instance,  it  will  linger  for  a  time 
unstably  half  way  up,  and  if  the  lever  cease  to  urge  it,  it  will  tumble  back  or  relapse, 
under  the  continued  pull  of  gravity.  But  if  at  last  it  rotate  far  enough  for  its  centre 
of  gravity  to  pass  beyond  the  surface  A  altogel  her,  t  he  body  will  fall  over,  on  surface 
B,  say,  and  will  aliide  there  permanently.  The  pulls  of  gravity  towards  A  have  van- 
ished, and  may  now  be  disregarded.  The  polyhedron  has  become  immune  against 
further  attraction  from  this  direction." 

III.     Conversion. 

Conversion  is  that  voluntary  change  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner,  in  which 
he  turns,  on  the  one  hand,  from  sin,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  Christ. 
The  former  or  negative  element  in  conversion,  namely,  the  turning  from 
sin,  we  denominate  repentance.  The  latter  or  positive  element  in  conver- 
sion, namely,  the  turning  to  Christ,  we  denominate  faith. 

For  account  of  repentance  and  faith  as  elements  of  conversion,  see  Andrew  Fuller, 
Works,  1:G6G;  Luthardt,  Compendium  der  Dogma tik, 3d  ed.,  201-206.  The  two  elements 
of  conversion  seem  to  be  in  the  ruind  of  Paul,  when  he  writes  in  Rom.  6:11  —  "reckon  ye  also 
yourselves  to  be  dead  unto  sla,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Chr.st  Jesus  "  ;  Col.  3  : 3  —  "ye  di;d,  and  your  life  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God."  Cf.  atroa-rpi^ui,  in  Acts  3  :  26  —  "in  turning  away  every  one  of  yo i  from  your  iniquities,"  with 
<=7rio-Tpe'<f>u>  in  Acts  11 :  21 —  "bel.eved  "  and  "turned  unto  the  L<rd."  A  candidate  for  ordination  was 
once  asked  which  came  lirst :  regeneration  or  conversion.  He  replied  very  correctly  : 
"Regeneration  and  conversion  arc  like  the  cannon-ball  and  the  hole— they  both  go 
through  together."  This  is  true  however  only  as  to  their  chronological  relation. 
Logically  the  ball  is  first  and  causes  the  hole,  not  the  hole  first  and  causes  the  ball. 

(a)  Conversion  is  the  human  side  or  aspect  of  that  fundamental  spirit- 
ual change  which,  as  viewed  from  the  divine  side,  we  call  regeneration. 
It  is  simply  man's  turning.  The  Scriptures  recognize  the  voluntary  activ- 
ity of  the  human  son!  in  this  change  as  distinctly  as  they  recognize  the 
causative  agency  of  God.  While  God  turns  men  to  himself  (Ps.  85  :  4  ; 
Song  1:4;  Jer.  31 :  18  ;  Lam.  5 :  21 ),  men  are  exhorted  to  turn  themselves 
to  God  (  Prov.  1 :  23  ;  Is.  31 :  6  ;  59  :  20  ;  Ez.  14  :  6  ;  18  :  32  ;  33  :  9,  11 ; 
Joel  2  :  12—14).  While  God  is  represented  as  the  author  of  the  new  heart 
and  the  new  spirit  ( Ps.  51  :  10  ;  Ez.  11 :  19  ;  36  :  26  ),  men  are  commanded 
to  make  for  themselves  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  (  Ez.  18  :  31 ;  2  Cor. 
1:1;  cf.  Phil.  2  :  12,  13 ;  Eph.  5  :  14 ). 

Ps.  85  : 4  —  "  Turn  us,  0  God  of  our  salvation  "  ;  Song  1:4—"  Draw  me,  we  will  ran  after  thee  " ;  Jer.  31 :  18  — 
"  turn  thou  me,  and  I  shall  be  turned  "  ;  lam.  5  :  21  —  "Turn  thou  us  unto  thee,  0  Jehovah,  and  we  shall  be  turned." 

Prov.  1 :  23  — "  Turn  you  at  my  reproof:  Behold,  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  unto  you  "  ;  Is.  31 : 6 —  "  Turn  ye  unto 
him  from  whom  ye  have  deeply  revolted,  0  children  of  Israel  "  ;  59 :  20  —  "  And  a  Redeemer  will  come  to  Zion,  and  unto 
them  that  turn  from  transgression  in  Jacob  "  ;  Ez.  14  :  6  —  "  Return  ye,  and  turn  yourselves  from  your  idols  "  ;  18 :  32 
—  "  turn  yourselves  and  live  "  ;  33  :  9  —  "if  thou  warn  the  wicked  of  his  way  to  turn  from  it,  and  he  turn  not  from 
his  way,  he  shall  die  in  his  iniquity  "  ;  11  —  "turn  ye,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of 
Israel  ?  "  Joel  2 :  12-14  —  "  turn  ye  unto  me  with  all  your  heart." 

Ps.  51:10 — "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God;  And  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me"  ;  Ez.  11:19 — "And  I  will  give 
them  one  heart,  and  I  will  put  a  n::w  spirit  w.thin  you ;  and  I  will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give 
them  a  heart  of  flesh  "  ;  36  :  26  —  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  g.ve  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you." 

Ez.  18:31  —  "Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions,  wherein  ye  have  transgressed;  and  make  you  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit :  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of  Israel?"  2  Cor.  7:1  —  "Having  therefore  these  promises, 
beloved,  let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defilement  of  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God  "  ;  cf.  Phil. 
2  :  12,  13  —  "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  ;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  "  ;  Eph.  5 :  14  —  "  Awake,  thou  that  steepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Chris 
shall  shine  upon  thee." 


830  SOTERIOLOGY,    Oil   THE    DOCTRINE   OP   SALVATION. 

When  asked  the  way  to  heaveu,  Bishop  Wilberf  orce  replied  :  "  Take  the  first  turn  to 
the  right,  and  go  straight  forward."  Phillips  Brooks's  conversion  is  described  by  Pro- 
fessor Allen,  Life,  1 :  2fi6,  as  consisting  in  the  resolve  "  to  be  true  to  himself,  to  renounce 
nothing  which  he  knew  to  be  good,  and  yet  bring  all  things  captive  to  the  obedience 
of  God,  ....  the  absolute  surrender  of  his  will  to  God,  in  accordance  with  the  exam- 
ple of  Christ :  'Lo,  I  am  come  ....  to  do  thy  will,  0  God '  (  Heb.  10  :  7)." 

(b)  This  twofold  method  of  representation  can  be  explained  only  when 
we  remember  that  man's  powers  may  be  interpenetrated  and  quickened  by 
the  divine,  not  only  without  destroying  man's  freedom,  but  with  the  result 
of  making  man  for  the  first  time  truly  free.  Since  the  relation  between 
the  divine  and  the  human  activity  is  not  one  of  chronological  succession, 
man  is  never  to  wait  for  God's  working.  If  he  is  ever  regenerated,  it  must 
be  in  and  through  a  movement  of  his  own  will,  in  which  he  turns  to  God 
as  unconstrainedly  and  with  as  little  consciousness  of  God's  operation  upon 
him,  as  if  no  such  operation  of  God  were  involved  in  the  change.  And  in 
preaching,  we  are  to  press  upon  men  the  claims  of  God  and  their  duty  of 
immediate  submission  to  Christ,  with  the  certainty  that  they  who  do  so 
submit  will  subsequently  recognize  this  new  and  holy  activity  of  their  own 
wills  as  due  to  a  working  within  them  of  divine  power. 

Ps.  110  : 3  —  "  Thy  people  offer  themselves  willingly  in  the  day  of  thy  power."  The  act  of  God  is  accom- 
panied by  an  activity  of  man.  Dorner  :  "  God's  act  initiates  action."  There  is  indeed 
an  original  changing  of  man's  tastes  and  affections,  and  in  this  man  is  passive.  But 
this  is  only  the  first  aspect  of  regeneration.  In  the  second  aspect  of  it  — the  rousing  of 
man's  powers  —  God's  action  is  accompanied  by  man's  activity,  and  regeneration  is  but 
the  obverse  side  of 'conversion.  Luther's  word:  "Man,  in  conversion,  is  purely  pas- 
sive," is  true  only  of  the  first  part  of  the  change ;  and  here,  by  "  conversion,"  Luther 
means  " regeneration."  Melanchthon  said  better ;  "  Non  est  euim  coiictio,  ut  voluntas 
non  possit  repugnare :  trahit  Deus,  sed  volentem  fcrahit."  See  Meyer  on  Rom.  8:14  — "led 
hy  the  Spirit  of  God  "  :  "  The  expression,"  Meyer  says,  "  is  passive,  t  hough  without  prejudice 
to  the  human  will,  as  verse  13  proves  :  '  by  the  Spirit  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body.'  " 

As,  by  a  well  known  principle  of  hydrostatics,  the  water  contained  in  a  little  tube  can 
balance  the  water  of  a  whole  ocean,  so  God's  grace  can  be  balanced  by  man's  will.  As 
sunshine  on  the  sand  produces  nothing  unless  man  sow  the  seed,  and  as  a  fair  breeze 
does  not  propel  the  vessel  unless  man  spread  the  sails,  so  the  iniluences  of  God's  Spirit 
require  human  agencies,  and  work  through  them.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  sovereign,  —  he 
bloweth  where  he  listeth.  Even  though  there  be  uniform  human  conditions,  there  will 
not  be  uniform  spiritual  results.  Results  are  often  independent  of  human  conditions 
as  such.  This  is  the  truth  emphasized  by  Andrew  Fuller.  But  this  does  not  prevent  us 
from  saying  that,  whenever  God's  Spirit  works  in  regeneration,  there  is  always  accom- 
panying it  a  voluntary  change  in  man,  which  we  call  conversion,  and  that  this  change 
is  as  free,  and  as  really  man's  own  work,  as  if  there  were  no  divine  influence  upon  him. 

Jesus  told  the  man  with  the  withered  hand  to  stretch  forth  his  hand ;  it  was  the  man's 
duty  to  stretch  it  forth,  not  to  wait  for  strength  from  God  to  do  it.  Jesus  told  the 
man  sick  of  the  palsy  to  take  up  his  bed  and  walk.  It  was  that  man's  duty  to  obey  the 
command,  not  to  pray  for  power  to  obey.  Depend  wholly  upon  God?  Yes,  as  you 
depend  wholly  upon  wind  when  you  sail,  yet  need  to  keep  your  sails  properly  set. 
"  Work  out  your  own  salvation"  comes  first  in  the  apostle's  exhortation;  "  for  it  is  God  who  work  eth 
in  you"  follows  ( Phil.  2 :  12, 13 ) ;  which  means  that  our  first  business  is  to  use  our  wills  in 
obedience  ;  then  we  shall  find  that  God  has  goue  before  us  to  prepare  us  to  obey. 

Mat.  11 :  12  —  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  men  of  violence  take  it  by  force."  Conversion  is 
like  the  invasion  of  a  kingdom.  Men  are  not  to  wait  for  God's  time,  but  to  act  at 
once.  Not  bodily  exercises  are  required,  but  impassioned  earnestness  of  soul.  Wendt, 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  2 :  49-56  —  "  Not  injustice  and  violence,  but  energetic  laying  hold  of 
a  good  to  which  they  can  make  no  claim.  It  is  of  no  avail  to  wait  idly,  or  to  seek  labor- 
iously to  earn  it ;  but  it  is  of  avail  to  lay  hold  of  it  and  to  retain  it.    It  is  ready  as  a  gift 

of  God  for  men,  but  men  must  direct  their  desire  and  will  toward  it The  man 

who  put  on  the  wedding  garment  did  not  earn  his  share  of  the  feast  thereby,  yet  he  did 
show  the  disposition  without  which  he  was  not  permitted  to  partake  of  it." 


CONVERSION.  831 

James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  12  — "The  two  main  phenomena  of  religion, 
they  will  say,  are  essentially  phenomena  of  adolescence,  and  therefore  synchronous 
with  the  development  of  sexual  life.  To  which  the  retort  is  easy :  Even  were  the 
asserted  synchrony  unrestrictedly  true  as  a  fact  ( which  it  is  not ),  it  is  not  only  the 
sexual  life,  but  the  entire  higher  mental  life,  which  awakens  during  adolescence.  One 
might  thou  as  well  set  up  the  thesis  that  the  interest  in  mechanics,  physics,  chemistry, 
logic,  physiology  and  sociology,  which  springs  up  during  adolescent  years  along  with 
that  in  poetry  and  religion,  is  also  a  perversion  of  the  sexual  instinct,  but  this  would 
be  too  absurd.  Moreover,  if  the  argument  from  synchrony  is  to  decide,  what  is  to  be 
done  with  the  fact  that  the  religious  age  par  excellence  would  seem  to  be  old  age,  when 
the  uproar  of  the  sexual  life  is  past  i  " 

( e )  From  the  fact  that  the  word  '  conversion  '  means  simply  '  a  turning,' 
every  turning  of  the  Christian  from  sin,  subsequent  to  the  first,  may,  in  a 
subordinate  sense,  be  denominated  a  conversion  (Luke  22  :  32 ).  Since 
regeneration  is  not  complete  sanctification,  and  the  change  of  governing 
disposition  is  not  identical  with  complete  purification  of  the  nature,  such 
subsequent  turnings  from  sin  are  necessary  consequences  and  evidences  of 
the  first  (r/.  John  13  :  10).  But  they  do  not,  like  the  first,  imply  a  change 
in  the  governing  disposition,  —  they  are  rather  new  manifestations  of  a 
disposition  already  changed.  For  this  reason,  conversion  proper,  like  the 
regeneration  of  which  it  is  the  obverse  side,  can  occur  but  once.  The 
phrase  '  second  conversion,'  even  if  it  does  not  imply  radical  misconception 
of  the  nature  of  conversion,  is  misleading.  We  prefer,  therefore,  to 
describe  these  subsequent  experiences,  not  by  the  term  'conversion,'  but 
by  such  phrases  as  'breaking  off,  forsaking,  returning  from,  neglects  or 
transgressions,'  and  'coming  back  to  Christ,  trusting  anew  in  him.'  It  is 
with  repentance  and  faith,  as  elements  in  that  first  and  radical  change  by 
which  the  soul  enters  upon  a  state  of  salvation,  that  we  have  now  to  do. 

Luke  22 :  31,  32  —  "  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  made  sup- 
plication for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not;  and  do  thou,  when  once  thoa  hast  turned  again  [A.  V. :  'art  converted'  ], 
establish  thy  brethren  "  ;  John  13:10— "He  that  is  bathed  [has  taken  a  full  bath]  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his 
feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit  [ as  a  whole]."  Notice  thai  Jesus  here  announces  that  only  one 
regeneration  is  needed,— what  follows  is  not  conversion  but  sanctification.  Spurgeon 
said  he  believed  in  regeneration,  but  not  in  re-regeneration.  Second  blessing?  Yes, 
and  a  forty-second.  The  stages  in  the  Christian  life  are  like  ice,  water,  invisible  vapor, 
steam,  all  successive  and  natural  results  of  increasing  temperature,  seemingly  different 
from  one  another,  yet  all  forms  of  the  same  element. 

On  the  relation  between  the  divine  and  the  human  agencies,  we  quote  a  different  view 
from  another  writer :  "God  decrees  to  employ  means  which  in  every  case  are  sufficient, 
and  which  in  certain  cases  it  is  foreseen  will  be  effectual.  Human  action  converts  a 
sufficient  means  into  an  effectual  means.  The  result  is  not  always  according  to  the 
varying  use  of  means.  The  power  is  all  of  God.  Man  has  power  to  resist  only.  There 
is  a  universal  influence  of  the  Spirit,  but  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  vary  in  different 
cases,  just  as  external  opportunities  do.  The  love  of  holiness  is  blunted,  but  it  still 
lingers.  The  Holy  Spirit  quickens  it.  When  this  love  is  wholly  lost,  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  results.  Before  regeneration  there  is  a  desire  for  holiness,  an  apprehension 
of  its  beauty,  but  this  is  overborne  by  a  greater  love  for  6in.  If  the  man  does  not 
quickl3'  grow  worse,  it  is  not  because  of  positive  action  on  his  part,  but  only  because 
negatively  he  does  not  resist  as  he  might.  'Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock.'  God  leads  at 
first  bv  a  resistible  influence.  When  man  yields,  God  leads  by  an  irresistible  influence. 
The  second  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  confirms  the  Christian's  choice.  This  second 
influence  is  called  '  sealing.'  There  is  no  necessary  interval  of  time  between  the  two. 
Prevenient  grace  comes  first ;  conversion  comes  after.'' 

To  this  view,  we  would  reply  that  a  partial  love  for  holiness,  and  an  ability  to  choose 
it  before  God  works  effectually  upon  the  heart,  seem  to  contradict  those  Scriptures 
which  assert  that  "the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  Sod  "  (  Rom.  8:7),  and  that  all  good  works 
are  the  result  of  God's  new  creation  ( Eph.  2 :  10 ).  Conversion  does  not  precede  regenera- 
tion, —  it  chronologically  accompanies  regeneration,  though  it  logically  follows  it. 


832  SOTERIOLOGY,    OB   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

1.     Repentance. 

Repentance  is  that  voluntary  change  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner  in  which 
he  turns  from  sin.  Being  essentially  a  change  of  mind,  it  involves  a 
change  of  view,  a  change  of  feeling,  and  a  change  of  purpose.  We  may 
therefore  analyze  repentance  into  three  constituents,  each  succeeding  term 
of  which  includes  and  implies  the  one  preceding  : 

A.  An  intellectual  element,  —  change  of  view  —  recognition  of  sin  as 
involving  personal  guilt,  defilement,  and  helplessness  (Ps.  51  :  3,  7,  11). 
If  unaccompanied  by  the  following  elements,  this  recognition  may  mani- 
fest itself  in  fear  of  punishment,  although  as  yet  there  is  no  hatred  of  sin. 
This  element  is  indicated  in  the  Scripture  phrase  kiriyvuoig  dfiapriag  (Eom. 
3  :  20  ;  ef.  1  :  32  ). 

Ps.  51 :  3, 11  —  "For  I  know  my  transgressions ;  And  my  sin  is  ever  before  me Cast  me  not  away  from  thy 

presence,  And  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me  "  ;  Rom.  3  :  20  —  "through  the  law  cometh  the  knowledge  of  sin  "  ;  cf. 
1 :  32  —  "  who,  knowing  the  ordinance  of  God,  that  they  that  practise  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  the 
same,  but  also  consent  with  them  that  practise  them." 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  God  requires  us  to  cherish  no  views  or  emotions  that 
contradict  the  truth.  He  wants  of  us  no  false  humility.  Humility  ( h  umus  )  =  ground- 
ness — a  coming  down  to  the  hard-pan  of  facte  — a  facing  of  the  truth.  Repentance, 
therefore,  is  not  a  calling  ourselves  by  hard  names.  It  is  not  cringing,  or  exaggerated 
self-contempt.  It  is  simple  recognition  of  what  we  are.  The  "  'umble"  Uriah  Heep 
is  the  arrant  hypocrite.    If  we  see  ourselves  as  God  sees  us,  we  shall  say  with  Job  42:5,  6 

—  "I  haJ  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear  ;  But  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee  :  Wherefore  I  abhor  myself,  And  repent 
in  dust  and  ashes." 

Apart  from  God's  working  in  the  heart  there  is  no  proper  recognition  of  sin,  either 
in  people  of  high  or  low  degree.  Lady  Huntington  invited  the  Duchess  of  Bucking- 
ham to  come  and  hear  Whitefield,  when  the  Duchess  answered  :  "  It  is  monstrous  to  be 
told  that  you  have  a  heart  as  sinful  as  the  common  wretches  that  crawl  on  the  earth, 

—  it  is  highly  offensive  and  insulting."  Mr.  Moody,  after  preaching  to  the  prisoners  in 
the  jail  at  Chicago,  visited  them  in  their  cells.  In  the  first  cell  he  found  two,  playing 
cards.  They  said  false  witnesses  had  testified  against  them.  In  the  second  cell,  the 
convict  said  that  the  guilty  man  had  escaped,  but  that  he,  a  mere  accomplice,  had  been 
caught.  In  the  last  cell  only  Mr.  Moody  found  a  man  crying  over  his  sins.  Henry 
Drummond,  after  hearing  the  confessions  of  inquirers,  said  :  "  I  am  sick  of  the  sins  of 
these  men,  —  how  can  God  bear  it  ?  " 

Experience  of  sin  does  not  teach  us  to  recognize  sin.  We  do  not  learn  to  know  chlo- 
roform by  frequently  inhaling  it.  The  drunkard  does  not  understand  the  degrading 
effects  of  drink  so  well  as  his  miserable  wife  and  children  do.  Even  the  natural  con- 
science does  not  give  the  recognition  of  sin  that  is  needed  in  true  repentance.  The 
confession  "I  have  sinned  "  is  made  by  hardened  Pharaoh  ( Ex.  9  : 27 ),  double  minded  Balaam 
( Num.  22  :  34  ),  remorseful  Achan  ( Josh.  7 :  20  ),  insincere  King  Saul  ( 1  Sam.  15  :  24 ),  despairing 
Judas  ( Mat.  27 : 4 ) ;  but  in  no  one  of  these  cases  was  there  true  repentance.  True  repent- 
ance takes  God's  part  against  ourselves,  has  sympathy  with  God,  feels  how  unworthily 
the  Euler,  Father,  Friend  of  men  has  been  treated.  It  does  not  ask,  "  What  will  my  sin 
bring  to  me?"  but,  "What  does  my  sin  mean  to  God?"  It  involves,  in  addition  to 
the  mere  recognition  of  sin  : 

B.  An  emotional  element,  —  change  of  feeling  —  sorrow  for  sin  as  com- 
mitted against  goodness  and  justice,  and  therefore  hateful  to  God,  and 
hateful  in  itself  ( Ps.  51 : 1,  2,  10,  14 ).  This  element  of  repentance  is  indi- 
cated in  the  Scripture  word  /xeTafj-slofiac.  If  accompanied  by  the  following 
element,  it  is  a  7d>irri  Kara  9e6v.  If  not  so  accompanied,  it  is  a  ^vtttj  tov  koo/uov 
=  remorse  and  despair  (  Mat.  27  :  3 ;  Luke  18  :  23  ;  2  Cor.  7  :  9,  10  ). 

Ps.  51 : 1,  2,  10,  14  —  "  Have  mercy  upon  me  ...  .  blot  out  my  transgressions.    Wash  me  thoroughly  from  mine 

iniquity,  And  cleanse  me  from  my  sin Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God ; Deliver  me  from  bloodguiltiness, 

0  God "  ;  Mat.  27 : 3  —  "Then  Judas,  who  betrayed  him,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  condemned,  repented  himself,  and 
brought  back  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  betrayed  innocent 


CONVERSION.  833 

blood  "  ;  Luke  If  ''J  —  "when  he  heard  these  things,  he  became  exceeding  sorrowful ;  for  he  was  very  rich  "  ;  2  Cor. 
7:9,  10  —  "I  now  rejoice,  not  that  ye  were  made  sorry,  bnt  that  ye  were  made  sorry  unto  repentance ;  for  ye  were  made 
sorry  after  a  godly  sort  ....  For  godly  sorrow  worketh  repentance  unto  salvation,  a  repentance  which  bringeth  no 
regret :  but  the  sorrow  of  the  world  worketh  death.''  We  must  distinguish  sorrow  for  siu  from  shame 
on  account  of  it  and  fear  of  its  consequences.  These  last  are  selfish,  whilijgodly  sorrow 
is  disinterested.  "  A  man  may  be  angry  with  himself  and  may  despise  himself  without 
any  humble  prostration  before  God  or  confession  of  his  guilt  "  ( Shedd,  Dogni.  Theol., 
2:535,  note). 

True  repentance,  as  illustrated  in  Ps.  51,  does  not  think  of  1.  consequences,  2.  other 
men,  3.  heredity,  as  an  excuse  ;  but  it  sees  sin  as  1.  transgression  against  God,  2.  per- 
sonal guilt,  3.  defiling  the  inmost  being.  Perowne  on  Ps.  51:1  — "In  all  godly  sorrow 
there  is  hope.  Sorrow  without  hope  may  be  remorse  or  despair,  but  it  is  not  repent- 
ance." Much  so-called  repentance  is  illustrated  by  the  little  girl's  prayer:  "O  God, 
make  me  good, —  not  real  good,  but  just  good  enough  so  that  I  won't  have  to  be 
whipped!"  Shakespeare,  Measure  for  Measure,  2:3— "'T  is  meet  so,  daughter;  but 
lest  you  do  repent  As  that  the  sin  hath  brought  you  to  this  shame,  Which  sorrow  is 
always  towards  ourselves,  nut  heaven,  Showing  we  would  not  spare  heaven  as  we  love 

it,  Hut  as  we  stand  in  fear I  do  repent  me  as  it  is  an  evil,  And  take  the  shame 

with  joy."  Tinipest,  3  :3 — "  For  which  foul  deed,  the  Powers  delaying,  not  forgetting, 

Have  incensed  the  seas,  and  shores,  yea,  all  the  creatures,  Against  your  peace 

Whose  wrath  to  guard  you  from  ....  is  nothing  but  heart's  sorrow  And  a  clear  life 
ensuing." 

Simon,  Reconciliation,  195,  379  — "At  the  very  bottom  it  is  God  whose  claims  are 
advocated,  whose  part  is  taken,  by  that  in  us  which,  whilst  most  truly  our  own,  yea, 
our  very  selves,  is  also  most  truly  his,  and  of  him.  The  divine  energy  and  idea  which 
constitutes  us  will  not  let  its  own  rout  and  source  suffer  wrong  unatoned.  God  intends 
us  to  be  givers  as  well  as  receivers,  givers  even  to  him.  We  share  in  his  image  that  we 
may  be  creators  and  givers,  not  from  compulsion,  but  in  love."  Such  repentance  as 
this  is  wrought  only  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Conscience  indeed  is  present  in  every  human 
heart,  but  only  the  Holy  Spirit  convinces  of  sin.  Why  is  the  Holy  Spirit  needed?  A.  J. 
Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  189-201  — "Conscience  is  the  witness  to  the  law;  the 
Spirit  is  the  witness  to  grace.  Conscience  brings  legal  conviction ;  the  Spirit  brings 
evangelical  conviction.  The  one  begets  a  conviction  unto  despair;  the  other  a 
conviction  unto  hope.  Conscience  convinces  of  sin  committed,  of  righteousness 
impossible,  of  judgment  impending;  the  Comforter  convinces  of  sin  committed,  of 
righteousness  imputed,  of  judgment  accomplished— in  Christ.  God  alone  can  reveal 
the  divine  view  of  sin,  and  enable  man  to  understand  it."  But,  however  agonizing  the 
sorrow,  it  will  not  constitute  true  repentance,  unless  it  leads  to,  or  is  accompanied  by : 

C  A  voluntary  element, —  change  of  purpose  —  inward  turning  from 
sin  and  disposition  to  seek  pardon  and  cleansing  ( Ps.  51  :  5,  7,  10 ;  Jer. 
25  :  5 ).  This  includes  and  implies  the  two  preceding  elements,  and  is 
therefore  the  most  important  aspect  of  repentance.  It  is  indicated  in  the 
Scripture  term  fierdvoia  (Acts  2  :  38  ;  Rom.  2:4). 

Ps.  51 : 5,  7, 10  —  "  Behold,  I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity  ;  And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me Purge  me 

with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean :  Wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God ; 

And  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me  "  ;  Jer.  25 : 5  —  "  Return  ye  now  every  one  from  his  evil  way,  and  from  the  evil  of 
your  doings  "  ;  Acts  2  :  38  —  "  And  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ "  ;  Rom.  2:4  —  "  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance  and  longsuffering,  not  knowing 
that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance  ?  " 

Walden,  The  Great  Meaning  of  Metanoia,  brings  out  well  the  fact  that "  repentance  " 
is  not.  the  true  translation  of  the  word,  but  rather  "  change  of  mind  " ;  indeed,  he 
would  give  up  the  word  "  repentance  "  altogether  in  the  N.  T.,  except  as  the  translation 
of  ju.6TafieA.eia.  The  idea  of  ue-roVoia  is  abandonment  of  sin  rather  than  sorrow  for  sin,  — 
an  act  of  the  will  rather  than  a  state  of  the  sensibility.  Repentance  is  participation  in 
Christ's  revulsion  from  sin  and  suffering  on  account  of  it.  It  is  repentance  from  sin, 
not  of  sin,  nor  for  siu  —  always  otto  and  eV,  never  ircpi  or  e«'.  The  true  illustrations  of 
repentance  are  found  in  Job  ( 42 : 6  —  "I  abhor  myself;  And  repent  in  dust  and  ashes "  ) ;  in  David  ( Ps. 
51:10  —  "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart;  And  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me");  in  Peter  (John  21:17  —  "thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee  "  ) ;  in  the  penitent  thief  ( Luke  23  :  42  —  "  Jesus,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  in 
thy  kingdom  "  ) ;  in  the  prodigal  son  (  Luke  15 :  18  —  "  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  Father  "  ). 

53 


834  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION. 

Repentance  implies  free  will.  Hence  Spinoza,  who  knows  nothing  of  free  will, 
knows  nothing  of  repentance.  In  book  4  of  his  Ethics,  he  says :  "  Repentance  is  not  a 
virtue,  that  is,  it  does  not  spring  from  reason ;  on  the  contrary:  the  man  who  repents 
of  what  he  has  done  is  doubly  wretched  or  impotent."  Still  he  urges  that  for  the  good 
of  society  it  is  not  desirable  that  vulgar  minds  should  be  enlightened  as  to  this  matter ; 
see  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  315.  Determinism  also  renders  it  irrational  to  feel  right- 
eous indignation  either  at  the  misconduct  of  other  people  or  of  ourselves.  Moral 
admiration  is  similarly  irrational  in  the  determinist;  see  Balfour,  Foundations  of 
Belief,  24. 

In  broad  distinction  from  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  we  find  the  Romanist 
view,  which  regards  the  three  elements  of  repentance  as  the  following : 
( 1 )  contrition ;  ( 2  )  confession ;  ( 3 )  satisfaction.  Of  these,  contrition  is 
the  only  element  properly  belonging  to  repentance ;  yet  from  this  contri- 
tion the  Eomanist  excludes  all  sorrow  for  sin  of  nature.  Confession  is  con- 
fession to  the  priest ;  and  satisfaction  is  the  sinner's  own  doing  of  outward 
penance,  as  a  temporal  and  symbolic  submission  and  reparation  to  violated 
law.  This  view  is  false  and  pernicious,  in  that  it  confounds  repentance 
with  its  outward  fruits,  conceives  of  it  as  exercised  rather  toward  the  church 
than  toward  God,  and  regards  it  as  a  meritorious  ground,  instead  of  a  mere 
condition,  of  pardon. 

On  the  Romanist  doctrine  of  Penance,  Thornwell  ( Collected  "Writings,  1 : 423 ) 
remarks:  "The  culpa  may  be  remitted,  they  say,  while  the  poena  is  to  some  extent 
retained."  The  priest  absolves,  not  declaratively,  but  judicially.  Denying  the  great- 
ness of  the  sin,  it  makes  man  able  to  become  his  own  Savior.  Christ's  satisfaction,  for 
sins  after  baptism,  is  not  sufficient ;  our  satisfaction  is  sufficient.  But  performance  of 
one  duty,  we  object,  cannot  make  satisfaction  for  the  violation  of  another. 

We  are  required  to  confess  one  to  another,  and  specially  to  those  whom  we  have 
wronged :  James  5  :  16 —  "  Confess  therefore  your  sins  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be 
healed."  This  puts  the  hardest  stress  upon  our  natural  pride.  There  are  a  hundred  who 
will  confess  to  a  priest  or  to  God,  where  there  is  one  who  will  make  frank  and  full 
confession  to  the  aggrieved  party.  Confession  to  an  official  religious  superior  is  not 
penitence  nor  a  test  of  penitence.  In  the  Confessional  women  expose  their  inmost 
desires  to  priests  who  are  forbidden  to  marry.  These  priests  are  sometimes,  though 
gradually,  corrupted  to  the  core,  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  taught  in  the  Confes- . 
sional  precisely  to  what  women  to  apply.  In  France  many  noble  families  will  not 
permit  their  children  to  confess,  and  their  women  are  not  permitted  to  incur  the  danger. 

Lord  Salisbury  in  the  House  of  Lords  said  of  auricular  confession:  "It  has  been 
injurious  to  the  moral  independence  and  virility  of  the  nation  to  an  extent  to  which 
probably  it  has  been  given  to  no  other  institution  to  affect  the  character  of  mankind." 
See  Walsh,  Secret  History  of  the  Oxford  Movement ;  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the 
Spirit,  111  —  "  Asceticism  is  an  absolute  inversion  of  the  divine  order,  since  it  seeks  life 
through  death,  instead  of  finding  death  through  life.  No  degree  of  mortification  can 
ever  bring  us  to  sanctification."  Penance  can  never  effect  true  repentance,  nor  be 
other  than  a  hindrance  to  the  soul's  abandonment  of  sin.  Penance  is  something  exter- 
nal to  be  done,  and  it  diverts  attention  from  the  real  inward  need  of  the  soul.  The 
monk  does  penance  by  sleeping  on  an  iron  bed  and  by  wearing  a  hair  shirt.  When 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  died,  his  under  garments  were  found  alive  with  vermin  which 
the  saint  had  cultivated  in  order  to  mortify  the  flesh.  Dr.  Pusey  always  sat  on  a  hard 
chair,  traveled  as  uncomfortably  as  possible,  looked  down  when  he  walked,  and  when- 
ever he  saw  a  coal-fire  thought  of  hell.  Thieves  do  penance  by  giving  a  part  of  their 
ill-gotten  wealth  to  charity.  In  all  these  things  there  is  no  transformation  of  the 
inner  life. 

In  further  explanation  of  the  Scripture  representations,  we  remark : 
(a)  That  repentance,  in  each  and  all  of  its  aspects,  is  wholly  an  inward 

act,  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  change  of  life  which  proceeds  from  it. 
True  repentance  is  indeed  manifested  and  evidenced  by  confession  of  sin 

before  God  ( Luke  18  :  13  ),  and  by  reparation  for  wrongs  done  to  men 


CONVERSION".  885 

(  Luke  19  :  8  ).  But  tliese  do  not  constitute  repentance  ;  they  are  rather 
fruits  of  rej)entance.  Between  '  repentance '  and  '  fruit  worthy  of  repent- 
ance,' Scripture  plainly  distinguishes  (Mat.  3:8). 

Luke  18 :  13  —  "  But  the  publican,  standing  afar  off,  would  not  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes  unto  heaven,  but  smote  his 
breast,  saying,  God,  be  thou  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  [  'be  propitiated  to  me  the  sinner1  ]  "  ;  19:8 —  "And 
Zacchaeus  stood,  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  Behold,  Lord,  the  half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor ;  and  if  I  have  wrongfully 
eiacted  aught  of  any  man,  I  restore  fourfold  "  ;  Mat.  3 : 8  —  "  Bring  forth  therefore  fruit  worthy  of  repentance."  Fru  it 
worthy  of  repentance,  or  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  are:  1.  Confession  of  sin ;  2.  Sur- 
render to  Christ;  3.  Turning1  from  sin ;  4.  Reparation  for  wrongdoing;  5.  Right  moral 
conduct ;  6.  Profession  of  Christian  faith. 

On  Luke  17:3  —  "if  thy  brother  sin,  rebuke  him;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him"  —  Dr.  B.  H.  Carroll 
remarks  that  the  law  is  uniform  which  makes  repentance  indispensable  to  forgiveness. 
It  applies  to  man's  forgiveness  of  man,  as  well  as  to  God's  forgiveness  of  man,  or  the 
church's  forgiveness  of  man.  But  I  must  be  sure  that  I  cherish  toward  the  offender 
the  spirit  of  love,  whether  he  repents  or  not.  Freedom  from  all  malice  toward  him, 
however,  and  even  loving  prayerful  labor  to  lead  him  to  repentance,  is  not  forgiveness. 
This  I  can  grant  only  when  he  actually  repents.  If  I  do  forgive  him  without  repent- 
ance, then  I  impose  my  rule  on  God  when  I  pray  :  "Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  also  have  forgiven 
our  debtors"  (Mat.  6:12). 

On  the  question  whether  the  requirement  i  hat  we  forgive  without  atonement  implies 
that  God  does,  see  Brit,  and  For.  Kvang.  Rev.,  Oct.  1881:678-691— "Answer :  1.  The 
present  constitution  of  things  is  based  upon  atonement.  Forgiveness  on  our  part  is 
required  upon  the  ground  of  the  Cross,  without  which  the  world  would  be  hell.  2.  God 
is  Judge.  We  forgive,  as  brethren.  When  he  forgives,  it  is  as  Judge  of  all  the  earth, 
of  whom  all  earthly  judges  are  representatives.  If  earthly  judges  may  exact  justice, 
much  more  God.  The  argument  that  would  abolish  atonement  would  abolish  all  civil 
government.  3.  I  should  forgive  my  brother  on  the  ground  of  God's  love,  and  Christ's 
bearing  of  his  sins.  4.  God,  who  requires  atonement,  is  the  same  being  that  provides 
it.  This  is  'handsome  and  generous.'  But  I  can  never  provide  atonement  for  my 
brother.  I  must,  therefore,  forgive  freely,  only  upon  the  ground  of  what  Christ  has 
done  for  him." 

(b)  That  repentance  is  only  a  negative  condition,  and  not  a  positive 
means  of  salvation. 

This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  repentance  is  no  more  than  the  sinner's 
present  duty,  and  can  furnish  no  offset  to  the  claims  of  the  law  on  account 
of  past  transgression.  The  truly  penitent  man  feels  that  his  repentance  has 
no  merit.  Apart  from  the  positive  element  of  conversion,  namely,  faith  in 
Christ,  it  would  be  only  sorrow  for  guilt  unremoved.  This  very  sorrow, 
moreover,  is  not  the  mere  product  of  human  will,  but  is  the  gift  of  God. 

Acts  5  :  31  —  "Him  did  God  exalt  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Savior,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and 
remission  of  sins  "  ;  11:18 — "Then  to  the  Gentiles  also  hath  God  granted  repentance  unto  life  "  ;  2Tim.2:25 — "if 
peradventure  God  may  give  them  repentance  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  The  truly  penitent  man 
recognizes  the  fact  that  his  sin  deserves  punishment.  He  never  regards  his  penitence 
as  offsetting  the  demands  of  law,  and  as  making  his  punishment  unjust.  Whitefield  : 
"  Our  repentance  needeth  to  be  repented  of,  and  our  very  tears  to  be  washed  in  the 
blood  of  Christ."  Shakespeare,  Henry  V,  4 : 1  —  "  More  will  I  do  :  Though  all  that  I  can 
do  is  nothing  worth,  Since  that  my  penitence  conies  after  all,  Imploring  pardon"  — 
imploring  pardon  both  for  the  crime  and  for  the  imperfect  repentance. 

(c)  That  true  repentance,  however,  never  exists  except  in  conjunction 
with  faith. 

Sorrow  for  sin,  not  simply  on  account  of  its  evil  consequences  to  the 
transgressor,  but  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  hatefulness  as  opposed  to  divine 
holiness  and  love,  is  practically  impossible  without  some  confidence  in 
God's  mercy.  It  is  the  Cross  which  first  makes  us  truly  penitent  ( of.  John 
12  :  32,  33  ).    Hence  all  true  preaching  of  repentance  is  implicitly  a  preach- 


836  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION. 

ing  of  faith  (Mat.  3  : 1-12 ;  e/.  Acts  19  :  4),  and  repentance  toward  God 
involves  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Acts  20 :  21 ;  Luke  15  :  10,  24; 
19:8,  9;  c/.  Gal.  3:7). 

John  12 :  32,  33  —  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  onto  myself.  But  this  he  said,  signify- 
ing by  what  manner  of  death  he  should  die."  Mat.  3:1-12  — John  the  Baptist's  preaching-  of  repent- 
ance was  also  a  preaching-  of  faith  ;  as  is  shown  by  Acts  19 : 4  —  "John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of 
repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Jesus." 
Repentance  involves  faith  :  Acts  20 :  21  —  "  testifying  both  to  Jews  and  to  Greeks  repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  ;  Luke  15  :  10,  24  —  "there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sin- 
ner that  repenteth this  my  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive  again ;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found  "  ;  19:8,9  —  "the  half 

of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor ;  and  if  I  have  wrongfully  exacted  aught  of  any  man,  I  restore  fourfold.  And  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  To-day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house,  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham  "  — the  father  of  all 
believers  ;  cf.  Gal.  3  :  6,  7  —  "  Even  as  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness.  Know 
therefore  that  they  that  aro  of  faith,  the  same  are  sons  of  Abraham." 

Luke  3: 18  says  of  John  the  Baptist :  "he  preached  the  gospel  unto  the  people,"  and  the  gospel  mes- 
sage, the  glad  tidings,  is  more  than  the  command  to  repent, —  it  is  also  the  offer  of 
salvation  through  Christ ;  see  Prof.  Wm.  Arnold  Stevens,  on  John  the  Baptist  and  his 
Gospel,  in  Studies  on  the  Gospel  according  to  John.  2  Chron.  34:19  — "And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
the  king  had  heard  the  words  of  the  law,  that  he  rent  his  clothes."  Moberly ,  Atonement  and  Personality, 
44-46  — "Just  in  proportion  as  one  sins,  does  he  render  it  impossible  for  him  truly  to 
repent.  Repentance  must  be  the  work  of  another  in  him.  Is  it  not  the  Spirit  of  the 
Crucified  which  is  the  reality  of  the  penitence  of  the  truly  penitent  ?  "  If  this  be  true, 
then  it  is  plain  that  there  is  no  true  repentance  which  is  not  accompanied  by  the  faith 
that  unites  us  to  Christ. 

(d)  That,  conversely,  wherever  there  is  true  faith,  there  is  true  repent- 
ance also. 

Since  repentance  and  faith  are  but  different  sides  or  aspects  of  the  same 
act  of  turning,  faith  is  as  inseparable  from  repentance  as  repentance  is  from 
faith.  That  must  be  an  unreal  faith  where  there  is  no  repentance,  just  as 
that  must  be  an  unreal  repentance  where  there  is  no  faith.  Yet  because 
the  one  aspect  of  his  change  is  more  prominent  in  the  mind  of  the  convert 
than  the  other,  we  are  not  hastily  to  conclude  that  the  other  is  absent. 
Only  that  degree  of  conviction  of  sin  is  essential  to  salvation,  which  carries 
with  it  a  forsaking  of  sin  and  a  trustful  surrender  to  Christ. 

Bishop  Hall :  "  Never  will  Christ  enter  into  that  soul  whore  the  herald  of  repentance 
hath  not  been  before  him."  2  Cor.  7 :  10  —  "  repentance  unto  salvation."  In  consciousness,  sensa- 
tion and  perception  are  in  inverse  ratio  to  each  other.  Clear  vision  is  hardly  conscious 
of  sensation,  but  inflamed  eyes  are  hardly  conscious  of  anything  besides  sensation.  So 
repentance  and  faith  are  seldom  equally  prominent  in  the  consciousness  of  the  con- 
verted man ;  but  it  is  important  to  know  that  neither  can  exist  without  the  other. 
The  truly  penitent  man  will,  sooner  or  later,  show  that  he  has  faith ;  and  the  true 
believer  will  certainly  show,  in  due  season,  that  he  hates  and  renounces  sin. 

The  question,  how  much  conviction  a  man  needs  to  insure  his  salvation,  may  be 
answered  by  asking  how  much  excitement  one  needs  on  a  burning  steamer.  As,  in  the 
latter  case,  just  enough  to  prompt  persistent  effort  to  escape  ;  so,  in  the  former  case, 
just  enough  remorseful  f eeling  is  needed,  to  induce  the  sinner  to  betake  himself  believ- 
ingly  to  Christ. 

On  the  general  subject  of  Repentance,  see  Anderson,  ltegeneration,  279-288;  Bp. 
Ossory,  Nature  and  Effects  of  Faith,  40-48,  311-318;  Woods,  Works,  3:68-78;  Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre,  5:1-10,  208-246;  Luthardt,  Compendium,  3d  ed.,  206-208;  Hodge,  Out- 
lines of  Theology,  375-381;  Alexander,  Evidences  of  Christianity,  47-60;  Crawford, 
Atonement,  413-419. 

2.     Faith. 

Faith  is  that  voluntary  change  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner  in  which  he 
turns  to  Christ.     Beiiig  essentially  a  change  of  mind,  it  involves  a  change 


CONVERSION.  837 

of  view,  a  change  of  feeling,  and  a  change  of  purpose.  We  may  therefore 
analyze  faith  also  into  three  constituents,  each  succeeding  term  of  which 
includes  and  implies  the  preceding  : 

A.  An  intellectual  element  (notitia,  credere  Deum), — recognition  of 
the  truth  of  God's  revelation,  or  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  salvation 
provided  by  Christ.  This  includes  not  only  a  historical  belief  in  the  facts 
of  the  Scripture,  but  an  intellectual  belief  in  the  doctrine  taught  therein 
as  to  man's  sinfulness  and  dependence  upon  Christ. 

John  2 :  23,  24  —  "  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  passover,  during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  his  name, 
beholding  his  signs  which  he  did.  But  Jesus  d:d  not  trust  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew  all  men  "  ;  cf.  3:2  — 
Nicodemus  has  this  external  faith  :  "no  one  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him." 
James2:19 — "  Thou  believest  that  God  is  one  ;  thou  doest  well :  the  demons  also  believe,  and  shudder."  Even  this 
historical  faith  is  not  without  its  fruits.  It  is  the  spring  of  much  philanthropic  work. 
There  were  no  hospitals  in  ancient  Rome.  Much  of  our  modern  progress  is  due  to  the 
leavening  influence  of  Christianity,  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  not  personally 
accepted  Christ. 

McLaren,  S.  S.  Times,  Feb.  22,  1902: 107  — "  Luke  does  not  hesitate  to  say,  in  Acts  8: 13, 
that 'Simon  Magus  also  himself  believed.'  But  he  expects  us  to  understand  that  Simon's  belief 
was  not  faith  that  saved,  but  mere  credence  in  the  gospel  narrative  as  true  history.  It 
ha'l  no  ethical  or  spiritual  worth.  He  was  'amazed,'  as  the  Samaritans  had  been  at  his 
juggleries.  It  did  not  lead  to  repentance,  or  confession,  or  true  trust.  He  was  only 
'amazed'  at  Philip's  miracles,  and  there  was  no  salvation  in  that."  Merely  historical 
faith,  such  as  Disciples  and  Ritschliane  hold  to,  lacks  the  element  of  affection,  and 
besides  this  lacks  the  present  reality  of  Christ  himself.  Faith  that  does  not  lay  hold  of 
a  present  Christ  is  not  saving  faith. 

B.  An  emotional  element  (assensus,  credere  Deo),  —  assent  to  the 
revelation  of  God's  power  and  grace  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  applicable  to  the 
present  needs  of  the  soul.  Those  in  whom  this  awakening  of  the  sensibili- 
ties is  unaccompanied  by  the  fundamental  decision  of  the  will,  which  con- 
stitutes the  next  element  of  faith,  may  seem  to  themselves,  and  for  a  time 
may  appear  to  others,  to  have  accepted  Christ. 

Mat.  13 :  20,  21  —  "  he  that  was  sown  upon  the  rocky  places,  this  is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  straightway  with 
joy  recciveth  it ;  yet  hath  ho  not  root  in  himself,  but  endureth  for  a  while  ;  and  when  tribulation  or  persecution  ariseth 
because  of  the  word,  straightway  he  stumbleth  "  ;  cf .  Ps.  106 :  12,  13 —  "  Then  believed  they  his  words ;  they  sang  his 
praise.  They  soon  forgat  his  works ;  they  waited  not  for  his  counsel  "  ;  Ez.  33 :  31,  32  —  "  And  they  come  unto  thee  as 
the  people  cometh,  and  they  sit  before  thee  as  my  people,  and  they  hear  thy  words,  but  do  them  not ;  for  with  their 
mouth  they  bhow  much  love,  but  their  heart  goeth  after  their  gain.  And,  lo,  thou  art  unto  them  as  a  very  lovely  song 
of  one  that  hath  a  pleasant  voice,  and  can  play  well  on  an  instrument ;  for  they  hear  thy  words,  but  they  do  them  not ' '  ; 
John  5 :  35  —  Of  John  the  Baptist :  "  He  was  the  lamp  that  burnetii  and  shineth  ;  and  ye  were  willing  to  rejoice 
for  a  season  in  his  light  "  ;  8  :  30,  31  —  "  As  he  spake  these  things,  many  believed  on  him  (  eis  ai/rov  ).  Jesus  there- 
fore said  to  those  Jews  that  had  believed  him  (  avrw  i,  If  ye  abide  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  truly  my  disciples."  They 
believed  him,  but  did  not  yet  believe  on  him,  that  is,  make  him  the  foundation  of  their 
faith  and  life.  Yet  Jesus  graciously  recognizes  this  first  faint  foreshadowing  of  faith. 
It  might  lead  to  full  and  saving  faith. 

''  Proselytes  of  the  gate  "  were  so  called,  because  they  contented  themselves  with 
sitting  in  the  gate,  as  it  were,  without  going  into  the  holy  city.  "  Proselytes  of  right- 
eousness" were  those  who  did  their  whole  duty,  by  joining  themselves  fully  to  the 
people  of  God.  Not  emotion,  but  devotion,  is  the  important  thing.  Temporary  faith  is 
as  irrational  and  valueless  as  temporary  repentance.  It  perhaps  gained  temporary 
blessing  in  the  way  of  healing  in  the  time  of  Christ,  but,  if  not  followed  by  complete 
surrender  of  the  will,  it  might  even  aggravate  one's  sin  ;  see  John  5 :  14  —  " Behold,  thou  art 
made  whole ;  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  befall  thee."  The  special  faith  of  miracles  was  not  a  high, 
but  a  low,  form  of  faith,  and  it  is  not  to  be  sought  in  our  day  as  indispensable  to  the 
progress  of  the  kingdom.  Miracles  have  ceased,  not  because  of  decline  in  faith,  but 
because  the  Holy  Spirit  has  changed  the  method  of  his  manifestations,  and  has  led  the 
church  to  seek  more  spiritual  gifts. 


838  CHRISTOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   REDEMPTION. 

Saving  faith,  however,  includes  also  : 

C.     A  voluntary  element  (fiducia,  credere  in  Deum  ),  —  trust  in  Christ 
as  Lord  and  Savior ;  or,  in  other  words — to  distinguish  its  two  aspects : 
(a)  Surrender  of  the  soul,  as  guilty  and  defiled,  to  Christ's  governance. 

Mat.  11 :  28,  29  —  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke 
upon  you,  and  learn  of  me "  ;  John  8 :  12  —  "I  am  the  light  of  the  world :  he  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  the 
darkness";  14: 1--  "Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled:  believe  in  God,  beliove  also  in  me";  Acts  16:31  —  "Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Instances  of  the  use  of  7u<rTevu>,  in  the  sense  of  trustful 
committance  or  surrender,  are :  John  2 :  24  —  "But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew 
all  men  "  ;  Rom.  3:2  —  "  they  were  intrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God  " ;  Gal.  2:7  —  "  when  they  saw  that  I  had  been 
intrusted  with  the  gospel  of  the  uncircumeision."  jri<rris  =  "  trustful  self-surrender  to  God ''  ( Meyer ). 

In  this  surrender  of  the  soul  to  Christ's  governance  we  have  the  guarantee  that  the 
gospel  salvation  is  not  an  unmoral  trust  which  permits  continuance  in  sin.  Aside  from 
the  fact  that  saving  faith  is  only  the  obverse  side  of  true  repentance,  the  very  nature 
of  faith,  as  submission  to  Christ,  the  embodied  law  of  God  and  source  of  spiritual  life, 
makes  a  life  of  obedience  and  virtue  to  be  its  natural  and  necessary  result.  Faith  is 
not  only  a  declaration  of  dependence,  it  is  also  a  vow  of  allegiance.  The  sick  man's 
faith  in  his  physician  is  shown  not  simply  by  trusting  him,  but  by  obeying  him.  Doing 
what  the  doctor  says  is  the  very  proof  of  trust.  No  physician  will  long  care  for  a 
patient  who  refuses  to  obey  his  orders.  Faith  is  self -surrender  to  the  great  Physician, 
and  a  leaving  of  our  case  in  his  hands.  But  it  is  also  the  taking  of  his  prescriptions, 
and  the  active  following  of  his  directions. 

We  need  to  emphasize  this  active  element  in  saving  faith,  lest  men  get  the  notion 
that  mere  indolent  acquiescence  In  Christ's  plan  will  save  them.  Faith  is  not  simple 
receptiveness.  It  gives  itself,  as  well  as  receives  Christ.  It  is  not  mere  passivity,  —  it 
is  also  self -committal.  As  all  reception  of  knowledge  is  active,  and  there  must  be 
attention  if  we  would  learn,  so  all  reception  of  Christ  is  active,  and  there  must  be  intel- 
ligent giving  as  well  as  taking.  The  Watchman,  April  30,  18U6—  "  Faith  is  more  than 
belief  and  trust.  It  is  the  action  of  the  soul  going  out  toward  its  object.  It  is  the 
exercise  of  a  spiritual  faculty  akin  to  that  of  sight ;  it  establishes  a  personal  relation 
between  the  one  who  exercises  faith  and  the  one  who  is  its  object.  When  the  intel- 
lectual feature  predominates,  we  call  it  belief;  when  the  emotional  element  predomi- 
nates, we  call  it  trust.  This  faith  is  at  once  '  An  affirmation  and  an  act  Which  bids 
eternal  truth  be  present  fact.'  " 

There  are  great  things  received  in  faith,  but  nothing  is  received  by  the  man  who  does 
not  first  give  himself  to  Christ.  A  conquered  general  came  into  the  presence  of  his 
conqueror  and  held  out  to  hiin  his  hand  :  ".Your  sword  first,  sir !  "  was  the  response. 
But  when  General  Lee  offered  his  sword  to  General  Grant  at  Appomattox,  the  latter 
returned  it,  saying :  "  No,  keep  your  sword,  and  go  to  your  home."  Jacobi  said  that 
"  Faith  is  the  reflection  of  the  divine  knowing  and  willing  in  the  finite  spirit  of  man." 
G.  B.  Foster,  in  Indiana  Baptist  Outlook,  June  10, 1903  —  "  Catholic  orthodoxy  is  wrong 
in  holding  that  the  authority  for  faith  is  the  church ;  for  that  would  be  an  external 
authority.  Protestant  orthodoxy  is  wrong  in  holding  that  the  authority  for  faith  is 
the  book ;  for  that  would  be  an  external  authority.  Liberalism  is  wrong  in  holding 
that  the  reason  is  the  authority  for  faith.  The  authority  for  faith  is  the  revelation  of 
God."  Faith  in  this  revelation  is  faith  in  Christ  the  Revealer.  It  puts  the  soul  in  con- 
nection with  the  source  of  all  knowledge  and  power.  As  the  connection  of  a  wire  with 
the  reservoir  of  electric  force  makes  it  the  channel  of  vast  energies,  so  the  smallest 
measure  of  faith,  any  real  connection  of  the  soul  with  Christ,  makes  it  the  recipient  of 
divine  resources. 

While  faith  is  the  act  of  the  whole  man,  and  intellect,  affection,  and  will  are  involved 
in  it,  will  is  the  all-inclusive  and  most  important  of  its  elements.  No  other  exercise  of 
will  is  such  a  revelation  of  our  being  and  so  decisive  of  our  destiny.  The  voluntary 
element  in  faith  is  illustrated  in  marriage.  Here  one  party  pledges  the  future  in  per- 
manent self-surrender,  commits  one's  self  to  another  person  in  confidence  that  this 
future,  with  all  its  new  revelations  of  character,  will  only  justify  the  decision  made. 
Yet  this  is  rational ;  see  Holland,  in  Lux  Mundi,  46-48.  To  put  one's  hand  into  molten 
iron,  even  though  one  knows  of  the  "  spheroidal  state"  that  gives  impunity,  requires 
an  exertion  of  will ;  and  not  all  workmen  in  metals  are  courageous  enough  to  make 
the  venture.  The  child  who  leaped  into  the  dark  cellar,  in  confidence  that  her  father's 
arms  would  be  open  to  receive  her,  did  not  act  irrationally,  because  she  had  heard  her 


CONVERSION.  839 

father's  command  and  trusted  his  promise.  Though  faith  in  Christ  is  a  leap  in  the 
dark,  and  requires  a  mighty  exercise  of  will,  it  is  nevertheless  the  highest  wisdom, 
because  Christ's  word  is  pledged  that  "him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  oast  out"  ( John  6 :  37 ). 
J.  W.  A.  Stewart :  "  Faith  is  1.  a  bond  between  persons,  trust,  confidence ;  2.  it  makes 
ventures,  takes  much  for  granted  ;  3.  its  security  is  the  character  and  power  of  him  in 
whom  we  believe,  —  not  our  faith,  but  his  fidelity,  is  the  guarantee  that  our  faith  is 
rational."  Kant  said  that;nothing  in  the  world  is  srood  but  the  good  will  which  freely 
obeys  the  law  of  the  good.  Ptleiderer  defines  faith  as  the  free  surrender  of  the  heart 
to  the  gracious  will  of  God.  Kaftan,  Dogmatik,  21,  declares  that  the  Christian  religion 
is  essentially  faith,  and  that  this  faith  manifests  itself  as  1.  doctrine ;  2.  worship  ;  3. 
morality. 

(  h  )  Eeception  and  appropriation  of  Christ,  as  the  source  of  pardon  and 
spiritual  life. 

John  1 :  12  —  "as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
bel.eve  on  his  name  "  ;  4  :  14  —  "  whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst ;  but  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  become  in  him  a  well  of  water  springing  up  unto  eternal  life  "  ;  6 :  53  —  "Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves"  ;  20:31  —  "these. are  written,  that 
ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name  "  ;  Eph.  3  :  17 
—  "that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith "  ;  Heb.  11:1  —  " Now  faith  is  assurance  of  things  hoped  for, 
a  convict;on  of  things  not  seen  ' ' ;  Rev.  3  :  20  —  "  Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock :  if  any  man  hear  my  voice  and 
open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me." 

The  three  constituents  of  faith  may  be  illustrated  from  the  thought,  feeling,  and 
action  of  a  person  who  stands  by  a  boat,  upon  a  little  island  which  the  rising  stream 
threatens  to  submerge.  He  first  regards  the  boat  from  a  purely  intellectual  point  of 
view, —  it  is  merely  an  actually  existing  boat.  A*  the  Stream  rises,  he  looks  at  it,  sec- 
ondly, with  some  accession  of  emotion,— his  prospective  danger  awakens  in  him  the 
conviction  that  it  is  a  good  '»■"'  for'a  time  of  need,  though  he  is  not  yet  ready  to  make 
use  of  it.  Bat,  thirdly,  when  he  feels  that  the  rushing  tide  must  otherwise  sweep  him 
away,  a  volitional  element  is  added,  he  gets  into  the  boat,  trusts  himself  to  it,  accepts 
it  as  his  present,  and  only,  means  of  safety.  Only  this  last  faith  in  the  boat  is  faith  that 
saves,  although  this  last  includes  both  the  preceding'.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  get- 
ting into  the  boat  may  actually  save  a  man,  while  at  the  same  time  he  may  be  full  of 
fears  that  the  boat  will  never  bring  him  to  shore.  These  fears  may  be  removed  by  the 
boatman's  word.  So  saving  faith  is  not  necessarily  assurance  of  faith  ;  but  it  becomes 
assurance  of  faith  when  the  Holy  Spirit  "beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God  " 
<  Rom.  8: 16 ).  On  the  nature  of  this  assurance,  and  on  the  distinction  between  it  and  saving 
faith,  see  pages  844-846. 

"  Coming  to  Christ,"  "  looking  to  Christ,"  "receiving  Christ,"  arc  all  descriptions  of 
faith,  as  arc  also  the  phrases  :  " surrender  to  Christ,"  "submission  to 4 Ihrist,"  "  dosing 
in  with  Christ."  Paul  refers  to  a  confession  of  faith  in  Rom.  10:9 — "  if  thou  shaft  confess  with 
thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord."  Faith,  then,  is  a  taking  of  Christ  as  both  Savior  and  Lord  ;  and  it 
includes  both  appropriation  of  Christ,  and  consecration  to  Christ.  The  voluntary  ele- 
ment in  fai'h,  however,  is  a  giving  as  well  as  a  taking.  The  giving,  or  surrender,  is 
illustrated  in  baptism  by  submergence;  the  taking,  or  reception,  by  emergence.  See 
further  on  the  Symbolism  of  Baptism.  McCosh,  Div.  Government :  "  Saving  faith  is  the 
consent  of  the  will  to  the  assent  of  the  understanding,  and  commonly  accompanied  with 
emotion."  Pies.  Hopkins,  in  Princeton  Rev.,  Sept.  1878:511-540— "  In  its  intellectual 
element,  faith  is  receptive,  and  believes  that  God  is ;  in  its  affectional  element,  faith  is 
assimilative,  and  believes  that  God  is  a  rewarder;  in  its  voluntary  element,  faith  is 
operative,  and  actually  conic*  to  God  ( Heb.  11 :6 )." 

Where  the  element  of  surrender  is  emphasized  and  the  element  of  reception  is  not 
understood,  the  result  is  a  legalistic  experience,  with  little  hope  or  joy.  Only  as  we 
appropriate  Christ,  in  connection  with  our  consecration,  do  we  realize  the  full  blessing 
of  the  gospel.  Light  requires  two  things  :  the  sun  to  shine,  and  the  eye  to  take  in  its 
shining.  So  we  cannot  be  saved  without  Christ  to  save,  and  faith  to  take  the  Savior 
for  ours.  Faith  is  the  act  by  which  we  receive  Christ.  The  woman  who  touched  the 
border  of  Jesus'  garment  received  his  healing  power.  It  is  better  still  to  keep  in  touch 
with  Christ  so  as  to  receive  continually  his  grace  and  life.  But  best  of  all  is  taking  him 
into  our  inmost  being,  to  be  the  soui  of  our  soul  and  the  life  of  our  life.  This  is  the 
essence  of  faith,  though  many  Christians  do  not  yet  realize  it.  Dr.  Curry  said  well  that 
faith  can  never  be  defined  because  it  is  a  fact  of  life.    It  is  a  merging  of  our  life  in  the 


840  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

life  of  Christ,  and  a  reception  of  Christ's  life  to  interpenetrate  and  energize  ours.  In 
faith  we  must  take  Christ  as  well  as  give  ourselves.  It  is  certainly  true  that  surrender 
without  trust  will  not  make  us  possessors  of  God's  peace.  F.  L.  Anderson :  "  Faith  is 
submissive  reliance  on  Jesus  Christ  for  salvation:  1.  Reliance  on  Jesus  Christ— not 
mere  intellectual  belief;  2.  Reliance  on  him  for  salvation  — we  can  never  undo  the 
past  or  atone  for  our  sins  ;  3.  Submissive  reliance  on  Christ.  Trust  without  surrender 
will  never  save."  • 

The  passages  already  referred  to  refute  the  view  of  the  Romanist,  that 
saving  faith  is  simply  implicit  assent  to  the  doctrines  of  the  church ;  and 
the  view  of  the  Disciple  or  Campbellite,  that  faith  is  merely  intellectual 
belief  in  the  truth,  on  the  presentation  of  evidence. 

The  Romanist  says  that  faith  can  cofe'xist  with  mortal  sin.  The  Disciple  holds  that 
faith  may  and  must  exist  before  regeneration,  —  regeneration  being  completed  in  bap- 
tism. With  these  erroneous  views,  compare  the  noble  utterauce  of  Luther,  Com.  on 
Galatians,  1 :  191,  347,  quoted  in  Thomasius,  in,  2 :  183  —  "  True  faith,"  says  Luther,  "  is 
that  assured ■  trust  and  Arm  assent  of  heart,  by  which  Christ  is  laid  hold  of, —  so  that 
Christ  is  the  object  of  faith.  Yet  he  is  not  merely  the  object  of  faith  ;  but  in  the  very 
faith,  so  to  speak,  Christ  is  present.  Faith  lays  hold  of  Christ,  and  grasps  him  as  a  pres- 
ent possession,  just  as  the  ring  holds  the  jewel."  Edwards,  "Works,  4 :  71-73 ;  2 :  601-641  — 
"  Faith,"  says  Edwards,  "  includes  the  whole  act  of  unition  to  Christ  as  a  Savior.  The 
entire  active  uniting  of  the  soul,  or  the  whole  of  what  is  called  coming  to  Christ,  and 
receiving  of  him,  is  called  faith  in  the  Scripture."  See  also  Belief,  What  Is  It  ?  150-179, 
290-298. 

Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  530  — "Faith  began  by  being:  1.  a  simple  trust  in  God; 
then  followed,  2.  a  simple  expansion  of  that  proposition  into  the  assent  to  the  proposi- 
tion that  God  is  good,  and,  3.  a  simple  acceptance  of  the  proposition  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  his  Son ;  then,  4.  came  in  the  definition  of  terms,  and  each  definition  of  terms 
involved  a  new  theory ;  finally,  5.  the  theories  were  gathered  together  into  systems, 
and  the  martyrs  and  witnesses  of  Christ  died  for  their  *aith,  not  outside  but  inside  the 
Christian  sphere ;  and  instead  of  a  world  of  religious  belief  which  resembled  the  world 
of  actual  fact  in  the  sublime  unsymmetry  of  its  foliage  and  the  deep  harmony  of  its 
discords,  there  prevailed  the  most  fatal  assumption  of  all,  that  the  symmetry  of  a 
system  is  the  test  of  its  truth  and  the  proof  thereof."  We  regard  this  statement  of 
Hatch  as  erroneous,  in  that  it  attributes  to  the  earliest  disciples  no  larger  faith  than 
that  of  their  Jewish  brethren.  We  claim  that  the  earliest  faith  involved  an  implicit 
acknowledgement  of  Jesus  as  Savior  and  Lord,  and  that  this  faith  of  simple  obedience 
and  trust  became  explicit  recognition  of  our  Lord's  deity  and  atonement  just  so  soon 
as  persecution  and  the  Holy  Spirit  disclosed  to  them  the  real  contents  of  their  own 
consciousness. 

An  illustration  of  the  simplicity  and  saving  power  of  faith  is  furnished  by  Principal 
J.  R.  Andrews,  of  New  London,  Conn.,  Principal  of  the  Bartlett  Grammar  School.  When 
the  steamer  Atlantic  was  wrecked  off  Fisher's  Island,  though  Mr.  Andrews  could  not 
swim,  he  determined  to  make  a  desperate  effort  to  save  his  life.  Binding  a  life-preserver 
about  him,  he  stood  on  the  edge  of  the  deck  waiting  his  opportunity,  and  when  he  saw 
a  wave  moving  shoreward,  he  jumped  into  the  rough  breakers  and  was  borne  safely  to 
land.  He  was  saved  by  faith.  He  accepted  the  conditions  of  salvation.  Forty  perished 
in  a  scene  where  he  was  saved.  In  one  sense  he  saved  himself ;  in  another  sense  he 
depended  upon  God.  It  was  a  combination  of  personal  activity  and  dependence  upon 
God  that  resulted  in  his  salvation.  If  he  had  not  used  the  life-preserver,  he  would  have 
perished  ;  if  he  had  not  cast  himself  into  the  sea,  he  would  have  perished.  So  faith  in 
Christ  is  reliance  upon  him  for  salvation ;  but  it  is  also  our  own  making  of  a  new  start 
in  life  and  the  showing  of  our  trust  by  action.  Tract  357,  Am.  Tract  Society — "What 
is  it  to  believe  on  Christ  ?  It  is :  To  feel  your  need  of  him ;  To  believe  that  he  is  able 
and  willing  to  save  you,  and  to  save  you  now ;  and  To  cast  yourself  unreservedly  upon 
his  mercy,  and  trust  in  him  alone  for  salvation." 

In  further  explanation  of  the  Scripture  representations,  we  remark  : 

(  a  )  That  faith  is  an  act  of  the  affections  and  will,  as  truly  as  it  is  an  act 
of  the  intellect, 


CONVERSION.  841 

It  lias  been  claimed  that  faith  and  unbelief  are  purely  intellectual  states, 
■which  are  necessarily  determined  by  the  facts  at  any  given  time  presented 
to  the  mind  ;  and  that  they  are,  for  this  reason,  as  destitute  of  moral  quality 
and  as  far  from  being  matters  of  obligation,  as  are  our  instinctive  feelings 
of  pleasure  and  pain.  But  this  view  unwarrantably  isolates  the  intellect, 
and  ignores  the  fact  that,  in  all  moral  subjects,  the  state  of  the  affections 
and  will  affects  the  judgment  of  the  mind  with  regard  to  truth.  In  the 
intellectual  act  the  whole  moral  nature  expresses  itself.  Since  the  tastes 
determine  the  opinions,  faith  is  a  moral  act,  and  men  are  responsible  for 
not  believing. 

John  3  :  18-20  —  "  He  that  believeth  on  hiiri  is  not  judged :  he  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he 
hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light ;  for  their  works  were  evil.  For  every  one  that  doeth  evil 
hateth  the  light,  and  cometh  not  to  the  light,  lest  his  works  should  be  reproved  "  ;  5  :  40  —  "ye  will  not  come  to  me, 
that  ye  may  have  life"  ;  16 : 8,  9  —  "And  he,  when  he  is  come,  will  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin  ...  .  of  sin, 
because  they  believe  not  on  me"  ;  Rev.  2 :  21  —  "  she  willeth  not  to  repent."  Notice  that  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion very  frequently  subst  it  utes  the  voluntary  and  active  terms  "disobedience"  and  "disobe- 
dieat"  for  the  "unbelief"  and  "unbelieving"  of  the  Authorized  Version, — as  in  Rom.  15:31 ;  Heb. 
3 :  18 ;  4 : 6, 11 ;  11 :  31.    See  Park,  Discourses,  45,  46. 

Savages  do  not  know  that  they  are  responsible  for  their  physical  appetites,  or  that 
there  is  any  right  and  wrong  in  matters  of  sense,  until  they  come  under  the  influence 
of  Christianity.  In  like  manner,  even  men  of  science  can  declare  that  the  intellectual 
sphere  has  no  part  in  man's  probation,  and  that  we  are  no  more  responsible  for  our 
opinions  and  beliefs  than  we  are  for  the  color  of  our  skin.  But  faith  is  not  a  merely 
intellectual  act,—  the  affections  and  will  give  it  quality.  There  is  no  moral  quality  in 
the  belief  that  2  -f  2  =  4,  because  we  can  not  help  that  belief.  But  in  believing  on  Christ 
there  is  moral  quality,  because  there  is  the  element  of  choice.  Indeed  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned, whether,  in  every  judgment  upon  moral  things,  there  is  not  an  act  of  will. 

Hence  on  John  7 :  17 — "If  any  man  willeth  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of  God,  or 
whether  I  speak  from  myself" — F.  L.  Patton  calls  attention  to  the  two  common  errors:  (1) 
that  obedience  will  certify  doctrine,— which  is  untrue,  because  obedience  is  the  result 
of  faith,  not  rice  versa  ;  (2)  that  personal  experience  is  the  ultimate  test  of  faith,— 
which  is  untrue,  because  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  it  is  one  thing  to  receive 
truth  through  the  feelings,  but  quite  another  to  test  truth  by  the  feelings.  The  text 
really  means,  that  if  any  man  is  willing  to  do  God's  will,  he  shall  know  whether  it  be  of 
Cod;  and  the  two  lessons  to  be  drawn  are:  (1)  the  gospel  needs  no  additional  evidence; 
(2)  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  hope  of  the  world.  On  responsibility  for  opinions  and  beliefs, 
Bee  Mozley,  on  Blanco  White,  in  Essays  Philos.  mid  Historical,  2:142;  T.  T.  Smith,  Hul- 
sean  Lectures  for  1839.  Wilfrid  Ward,  The  Wish  to  Believe,  quotes  Shakespeare :  "  Thy 
wish  was  father,  Harry,  to  that  thought";  and  Thomas  Arnold:  "They  dared  not 
lightly  believe  what  they  so  much  wished  to  be  true." 

Pascal:  "Faith  is  an  act  of  the  will."  Emerson,  Essay  on  Worship:  "A  man  bears 
beliefs  as  a  tree  bears  apples.  Man's  religious  faith  is  the  expression  of  what  he  is." 
Bain:  "In  its  essential  character,  belief  is  a  phase  of  our  active  nature,  otherwise 
called  the  will."  Nash,  Ethics  and  Revelation,  2">7  —  "Faith  is  the  creative  human 
answer  to  the  creative  divine  offer.  It  is  not  the  passive  acceptance  of  a  divine  favor. 
....  By  faith  man,  laying  hold  of  the  personality  of  God  in  Christ,  becomes  a  true 
person.  And  by  the  same  faith  he  becomes,  under  God,  a  creator  and  founder  of  true 
society."  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  52— "Faith  begins  with  an  experiment  and  ends 
with  an  experience.  But  even  the  power  to  make  the  experiment  is  given  from  above. 
Eternal  life  is  not  yiwis,  but  the  state  of  acquiring  knowledge  —  Iva  yt.yvu>oKwai.v.  It  is 
significant  that  John,  who  is  so  fond  of  the  verb  '  to  know,'  never  uses  the  substantive 
ytwis."  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  148—  "  '  I  will  not  obey,  because  I  do  not  yet 
know'?  But  this  is  making  the  intellectual  side  the  only  side  of  faith,  whereas  the 
most  important  side  is  the  will-side.  Let  a  man  follow  what  he  does  believe,  and  he 
shall  be  led  on  to  larger  faith.  Faith  is  the  reception  of  the  personal  influence  of  a 
living  Lord,  and  a  corresponding  action." 

William  James,  Will  to  Believe,  61  — "  This  life  is  worth  living,  since  it  is  what  we 

make  it,  from  the  moral  point  of  view Often  enough  our  faith  beforehand  in  an 

uncertified  result  is  the  only  thing  that  makes  the  result  come  true If  your  heart 


842  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION". 

does  not  want  a  world  of  moral  reality,  your  head  will  assuredly  never  make  you  believe 

in  one Freedom  to  believe  covers  only  living  options  which  the  intellect  cannot 

by  itself  resolve We  are  not  to  put  a  stopper  on  our  heart,  and  meantime  act  as 

if  religion  were  not  true";  Psychology,  2:282,321  —  "Belief  is  consent,  willingness, 
turning  of  our  disposition.  It  is  the  mental  state  or  function  of  cognizing  reality.  We 
never  disbelieve  anything  except  for  the  reason  that  we  believe  something  else  which 
contradicts  the  first  thing.    We  give  higher  reality  to  whatever  things  we  select  and 

emphasize  and  turn  to  with  a  will We  need  only  in  cold  blood  act  as  if  the  thing 

in  question  were  real,  and  keep  acting  as  if  it  were  real,  and  it  will  infallibly  end  by 
growing  into  such  a  connection  with  our  life  that  it  will  become  real.  Those  to  whom 
God  and  duty  are  mere  names,  can  make  them  much  more  than  that,  if  they  make  a 
little  sacrifice  to  them  every  day." 

E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Campbellism  makes  intellectual  belief  to  be  saving  faith.  But  sav- 
ing faith  is  consent  of  the  heart  as  well  as  assent  of  the  intellect.  On  the  one  hand 
there  is  the  intellectual  element:  faith  is  belief  upon  the  ground  of  evidence;  faith 
without  evidence  is  credulity.  But  on  the  other  hand  faith  has  an  element  of  affection ; 
the  element  of  love  is  always  wrapped  up  in  it.  So  Abraham's  faith  made  Abraham 
like  God ;  for  we  always  become  like  that  which  we  trust."  Faith  therefore  is  not 
chronologically  subsequent  to  regeneration,  but  is  its  accompaniment.  As  the  soul's 
appropriation  of  Christ  and  his  salvation,  it  is  not  the  result  of  an  accomplished  renewal, 
but  rather  the  medium  through  which  that  renewal  is  effected.  Otherwise  it  would 
follow  that  one  who  had  not  yet  believed  ( i.  e.,  received  Christ )  might  still  be  regen- 
erate, whereas  the  Scripture  represents  the  privilege  of  sonship  as  granted  only  to 
believers.  See  John  1 :  12, 13  —  "But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of 
God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  :  who  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God  " ;  also  3 : 5,  6, 10-15 ;  Gal.3:26;  2  Pet.  1:3;  cf.  1  John  5 : 1. 

( h  )  That  the  object  of  saving  faith  is,  in  general,  the  whole  truth  of  God, 
so  far  as  it  is  objectively  revealed  or  made  known  to  the  soul;  but,  in  par- 
ticular, the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  constitutes  the  centre 
and  substance  of  God's  revelation  (Acts  17  :  18 ;  1  Cor.  1 :  23 ;  Col.  1 :  27  ; 
Eev.  19:10). 

The  patriarchs,  though  they  had  no  knowledge  of  a  personal  Christ,  were 
saved  by  believing  in  God  so  far  as  God  had  revealed  himself  to  them ;  and 
whoever  among  the  heathen  are  saved,  must  in  like  manner  be  saved  by 
casting  themselves  as  helpless  sinners  upon  God's  plan  of  mercy,  dimly 
shadowed  forth  in  nature  and  providence.  But  such  faith,  even  among  the 
patriarchs  and  heathen,  is  implicitly  a  faith  in  Christ,  and  would  become 
explicit  and  conscious  trust  and  submission,  whenever  Christ  were  made 
known  to  them  ( Mat.  8  :  11,  12  ;  John  10  :  16 ;  Acts  4 :  12 ;  10  :  31,  34,  35, 
44;  16:31). 

Acts  17 :  18  —  "he  preached  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  "  ;  1  Cor.  1 : 23  —  "we  preach  Christ  crucified "  ;  Col.  1 :  27 — 
"this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of  glory:  whom  we  proclaim"  ;  Rev.  19:10 — "the 
testimony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy."  Saving  faith  is  not  belief  in  a  dogma,  but  personal 
trust  in  a  personal  Christ.    It  is,  therefore,  possible  to  a  child.    Dorner :  "  The  object  of 

faith  is  the  Christian  revelation  — God  in  Christ Faith  is  union  with  objective 

Christianity  — appropriation  of  the  real  contents  of  Christianity."  Dr.  Samuel  Hop- 
kins, the  great  uncle,  defined  faith  as  "an  understanding,  cordial  receiving  of  the 
divine  testimony  concerning  Jesus  Christ  and  the  way  of  salvation  by  him,  in  which 
the  heart  accords  and  conforms  to  the  gospel."  Dr.  Mark  Hopkins,  the  great  nephew, 
defined  it  as  "  confidence  in  a  personal  being."  Horace  Bushnell :  "  Faith  rests  on  a 
person.  Faith  is  that  act  by  which  one  person,  a  sinner,  commits  himself  to  another 
person,  a  Savior."  In  John  11 :  25  — "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life "—  Martha  is  led  to  substitute 
belief  in  a  person  for  belief  in  an  abstract  doctrine.  Jesus  is  "the  resurrection,"  because  he 
is  "the  life."  All  doctrine  and  all  miracle  is  significant  and  important  only  because  it  is 
the  expression  of  the  living  Christ,  the  Revealer  of  God. 

The  object  of  faith  is  sometimes  represented  in  the  N.  T.,  as  being  God  the  Father. 
John  5:24 — "He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life"  ;  Rom.  4 : 5  —  " to  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness."    We  can 


CONVERSION.  843 

explain  those  passages  only  when  we  remember  that  Christ  is  God  "  manifested  in  the  flesh ' 
(1  Tim.  3 :  16 ),  and  that  "he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (Johnl4:9).  Man  may  receive  a 
gift  without  knowing  from  whom  it  comes,  or  how  much  it  has  cost.  So  the  heathen, 
who  casts  himself  as  a  sinner  upon  God's  mercy,  may  receive  salvation  from  the  Cruci- 
fied One,  without  knowing  who  is  the  giver,  or  that  the  gift  was  purchased  by  agony 
and  blood.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  154  —"No  N.  T.  writer  ever  remem  bered  Christ. 
They  never  thought  of  him  as  belonging  to  the  past.  Let  us  not  preach  about  the  his- 
torical Christ,  but  rather,  about  the  living  Christ ;  nay,  let  us  preach  him,  present  and 
omnipotent.  Jesus  could  say:  '  Whither  I  go,  ye  know  the  way'  (John  14:4);  for  they  knew  Itiiii, 
and  he  was  both  the  end  and  the  wan." 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  unduly  restricts  the  operations  of  grace  to  the  preaching  of  the 
incarnate  Christ :  Syst.  Theol.,2:6i8  —"There  is  no  faith  where  the  gospel  is  not  heard; 
and  where  there  is  no  faith,  there  is  no  salvation.  This  is  indeed  an  awful  doctrine." 
And  yet,  in  2 :  608,  he  says  most  inconsistently  :  "As  God  is  everywhere  present  in  the 
material  world,  guiding  its  operations  according  to  the  laws  of  nature ;  so  he  is  every- 
where present  with  the  minds  of  men,  as  the  Sp.'rit  of  truth  and  goodness,  operating  on 
them  according  to  laws  of  their  free  moral  agency,  inclining  them  to  good  and  restrain- 
ing them  from  evil."  This  presence  and  revelation  of  God  we  hold  to  lie  through  Christ, 
the  eternal  Word,  and  so  we  interpret  the  prophecy  Of  <  aiaphas  as  referring  to  the  work 
of  the  personal  Christ  :  John  11:51,  52— "he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation;  and  not  for  tut 
nation  only,  but  that  he  might  also  gather  together  into  one  the  children  of  God  that  are  scattered  abroad." 

Since  Christ  is  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Truth  of  God,  he  may  be  received  even  by 
those  who  have  not  heard  of  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh.  A  proud  and  self-righteous 
morality  is  inconsistent  with  saving  faith;  but  a  uumple  and  penitent  reliance  upon 
God,  as  a  Savior  from  sin  and  a  guide  of  conduct,  is  an  implicit  faith  in  Christ;  for  such 
reliance  casts  itself  upon  Cod,  so  far  as  God  has  revealed  himself,  — and  the  only 
ltevealer  of  God  is  Christ.  We  have,  therefore,  the  hope  that  even  among  the  heathen 
there  may  be  some,  like  Socrates,  who,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  working 
through  the  truth  of  nature  and  conscience,  have  found  the  way  of  life  and  salvation. 

The  number  of  such  is  so  small  as  in  no  degree  to  weaken  the  claims  of  the  missionary 
enterprise  upon  us.  But  that  there  are  such  seems  to  be  intimated  in  Scripture:  Mat. 
8 :  11,  12 — "  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven :  but  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  forth  into  the  outer  darkness  "  ;  John  10  :  16  — "  And  othei 
she  'p  1  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold :  them  also  I  mist  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice  ;  and  they  shall  become 
one  flock,  one  shepherd  ";  Acts  4 :  12  — "  And  in  none  other  is  there  salvation :  for  neither  is  there  any  other  name  under 
heaven,  that  is  given  among  men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved  ";  10 :  31,  34,  35,  44  —  "  Cornelius,  thy  prayer  is  heard, 
and  thine  alms  are  had  in  remembrance  in  the  sight  of  God.  ....  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons : 

but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him While  Peter  yet  spake 

these  words,  the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the  word";  16:  31  —  " Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  thou  and  thy  house. " 

And  instances  are  found  of  apparently  regenerated  heathen;  see  in  Godot  on  John  7 :  17, 
note  (  vol.  2:277),  the  account  of  the  so-called  "Chinese  hermit,"  who  accepted  Christ, 
saying:  "This  is  the  only  Buddha  whom  men  ought  to  worship!"  Edwards,  Life  of 
Brainard,  173-175,  gives  an  account  "  of  one  who  was  a  devout  and  zeflous  reformer,  or 
rather  restorer,  of  what  he  supposed  was  the  ancient  religion  of  the  .ndians. "  After 
a  period  of  distress,  he  says  that  God  "comforted  his  heart  and  showed  him  what  he 
should  do,  and  since  that  time  he  had  known  God  and  tried  to  serve  him ;  and  loved  all 
men,  be  they  who  they  would,  so  as  he  never  did  before.  "  See  art.  by  Dr.  Lucius  E. 
Smith,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1881 :  623-645,  on  the  question  :  "Is  salvation  possible  without 
a  knowledge  of  the  gospel  ?  "  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  323,  note,  rightly  bases  hope  for  the 
heathen,  not  on  morality,  but  on  sacrifice. 

A  chief  of  the  Camaroons  in  S.  W.  Africa,  fishing  with  many  of  his  tribe  long  before 
the  missionaries  came,  was  overtaken  by  a  storm,  and  while  almost  all  the  rest  were 
drowned,  he  and  a  few  others  escaped.  He  gathered  his  people  together  afterwards 
and  told  the  story  of  disaster.  He  said :  "  When  the  canoes  upset  and  I  found  myself 
battling  with  the  waves,  I  thought:  To  whom  shall  I  cry  for  help?  I  knew  that  the 
god  of  the  hills  could  not  help  me ;  I  knew  that  the  evil  spirit  would  not  help  me.  So 
I  cried  to  the  Great  Father,  Lord,  save  me !  At  that  moment  my  feet  touched  the 
sand  of  the  beach,  and  I  was  safe.  Now  let  all  my  people  honor  the  Great  Father,  and 
let  no  man  speak  a  word  agaiust  him,  for  he  can  help  us. "  This  chief  afterwards  used 
every  effort  to  prevent  strife  and  bloodshed,  and  was  remembered  by  those  who  came 
after  as  a  peace-maker.    His  son  told  this  story  to  Alfred  Saker,  the  missionary,  saying 


844  SOTERIOLOGY,    OB    TB '"    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

"  Why  did  you  not  come  sooner?    My  fy^.her  longed  to  know  what  you  have  told  us; 
he  thirsted  for  the  knowledge  of  God."    Mr.  Saker  told  this  in  England  in  1879. 

John  Fiske  appends  to  his  book,  The  Idea  of  God,  168,  169,  the  following  pathetic 
words  of  a  Kafir,  named  Sekese,  in  conversation  with  a  French  traveler,  M.  Arbrou- 
seille,  on  the  subject  of  the  Christian  religion:  "Your  tidings,  "  said  this  uncultured 
barbarian,  "are  what  I  want,  and  I  was  seeking  before  I  knew  you,  as  you  shall  hear 
and  judge  for  yourself.  Twelve  years  ago  I  went  to  feed  my  flocks ;  the  weather  was 
hazy.  I  sat  down  upon  a  rock,  and  asked  myself  sorrowful  questions ;  yes,  sorrowful, 
because  I  was  unable  to  answer  them.  Who  has  touched  the  stars  with  his  hands  — on 
what  pillars  do  they  rest?  I  asked  myself.  The  waters  never  weary,  they  know  no 
other  law  than  to  flow  without  ceasing  from  morning  till  night  and  from  night  till 
morning ;  but  where  do  they  stop,  and  who  makes  them  flow  thus?  The  clouds  also 
come  and  go,  and  burst  in  water  over  the  earth.  Whence  come  they  —  who  sends  them  ? 
The  diviners  certainly  do  not  give  us  rain ;  for  how  could  they  do  it  ?  And  why  do  I  not 
see  them  with  my  own  eyes,  when  they  go  up  to  heaven  to  fetch  it?  I  cannot  see  the 
wind ;  but  what  is  it?  Who  brings  it,  makes  it  blow  and  roar  and  terrify  us?  Bo  I 
know  how  the  corn  sprouts?  Yesterday  there  was  not  a  blade  in  my  field  ;  to-day  I 
returned  to  my  field  and  found  some  ;  who  can  have  giv5i  to  the  earth  the  wisdom  and 
the  power  to  produce  it  ?    Then  I  buried  my  head  in  both  hands. " 

On  the  question  whether  men  are  ever  led  to  faith,  without  intercourse  with  living 
Christians  or  preachers,  see  Life  of  Judson,  by  his  sou,  84  The  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  publish  a  statement,  made  upon  the  authority  of  Sir  Bartle  Frere,  that 
he  met  with  "an  instance,  which  was  carefully  investigated,  in  which  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of- a  remote  village  in  the  Deccan  had  abjured  idolatry  and  caste,  removed  from 
their  temples  the  idols  which  had  been  worshiped  there  time  out  of  mind,  and  agreed  to 
profess  a  form  of  Christianity  which  they  had  deduced  from  the  careful  perusal  of  a 
single  Gospel  and  a  few  tracts.  "  Max  Miiller,  Chips,  4 :  177-189,  apparently  proves  that 
Buddha  is  the  original  of  St.  Josaphat,  who  has  a  day  assigned  to  him  in  the  calendar 
of  both  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  churches.    "  Sanctc  Socrates,  ora  pro  nobis.  " 

The  Missionary  Review  of  the  World,  July,  1896:  519-523,  tells  the  story  of  Adiri, 
afterwards  called  John  King,  of  Maripastoon  in  Dutch  Guiana.  The  Holy  Spirit 
wrought  in  him  mightily  years  before  he  heard  of  the  missionaries.  He  was  a  coal-black 
negro,  a  heathen  and  a  fetish  worshiper.  He  was  convicted  of  sin  and  apparently  eon- 
verted  through  dreams  and  visions.  Heaven  and  hell  were  revealed  to  him.  He  was 
sick  unto  death,  and  One  appeared  to  him  declaring  himself  to  be  the  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  and  telling  him  to  go  to  the  missionaries  for  instruction.  He  was  perse- 
cuted, but  he  won  his  tribe  from  heathenism  and  transformed  them  into  a  Christian 
community. 

S.  W.  Hamblen,  missionary  to  China,  tells  of  a  very  earnest  and  consistent  believer 
who  lived  at  rather  an  obscure  town  of  about  280)  people.  The  evangelist  went  to  visit 
him  and  found  that  he  was  a  worthy  example  to  those  around  him.  He  had  become  a 
Christian  before  he  had  seen  a  single  believer,  by  reading  a  Chinese  New  Testament. 
Although  till  the  evangelist  went  to  his  house  he  had  never  met  a  Baptist  and  did  not 
know  that  there  were  any  Baptist  churches  in  existence,  yet  by  reading  the  New  Tes- 
tament he  had  become  not  only  a  Christian  but  a  strong  Baptist  in  belief,  so  strong  that 
he  could  argue  with  the  missionary  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 

The  Rev.  K.  E.  Malm,  a  pioneer  Baptist  preacher  in  Sweden,  on  a  journey  to  the  dis- 
trict as  far  north  as  Gestrikland,  met  a  woman  from  Lapland  who  was  on  her  way  to 
Upsala  in  order  to  visit  Dr.  Fjellstedt  and  converse  with  him  as  to  how  she  might 
obtain  peace  with  God  and  get  rid  of  her  anxiety  concerning  her  sins.  She  said  she  had 
traveled  60  ( =  240  English )  miles,  and  she  had  still  far  to  go.  Malm  improved  the 
opportunity  to  speak  to  her  concerning  the  crucified  Christ,  and  she  found  peace  in 
believing  on  his  atonement.  She  became  so  happy  that  she  clapped  her  hands,  and  for 
joy  could  not  sleep  that  night.  She  said  later:  "Now  I  will  return  home  and  tell  the 
people  what  I  have  found."  This  she  did,  and  did  not  care  to  continue  her  journey  to 
Upsala,  in  order  to  get  comfort  from  Dr.  Fjellstedt. 

( c )   That  the  ground  of  faith  is  the  external  word  of  promise.     The 
ground  of  assurance,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  inward  witness  of  the  Spirif' 
that  we  fulfil  the  conditions  of  the  promise  (  Rom.  4  :  20,  21 ;  8  :  16 ;  Epl/ 
1 :  13 ;  1  John  4  :  13  ;  5  :  10 ).    This  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  not  a  new  reW 


CONVERSION.  845 

lation  from  God,  but  a  strengthening  of  faith  so  that  it  becomes  conscious 
and  indubitable. 

True  faith  is  possible  without  assurance  of  salvation.  But  if  Alexander's 
view  were  correct,  that  the  object  of  saving  faith  is  the  proposition  :  "God, 
for  Christ's  sake,  now  looks  with  reconciling  love  on  me,  a  sinner,"  no  one 
could  believe,  without  being  at  the  same  time  assured  that  he  was  a  saved 
person.  Upon  the  true  view,  that  the  object  of  saving  faith  is  not  a  propo- 
sition, but  a  person,  we  can  perceive  nut  only  the  simplicity  of  faith,  but 
the  possibility  of  faith  even  where  the  soul  is  destitute  of  assurance  or  of 
joy.  Hence  those  who  already  believe  are  urged  to  seek  for  assurance 
(Heb.  6:11;  2  Peter  1:10). 

Rom.  4  :  20,  21  —  "  looking  unto  the  promise  of  God,  he  wavered  not  through  unbelief;  but  waxed  strong  through  faith, 
giving  glory  to  God,  and  being  fully  assured  that  what  he  had  promised,  he  was  able  also  to  perform  "  ;  8 :  16  —  "  The 
Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God";  Eph.  1: 13 — "in  whom,  having  also 
believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Boly  Spirit  of  promise"  ;  1  John  4 :  13 — "hereby  we  know  that  we  abide  in  him,  and 
he  in  us,  because  he  hath  given  us  of  his  Spirit "  ;  5 :  10  — "  He  that  believoth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  him." 
This  assurance  is  not  of  the  essence  of  faith,  because  believers  arc  exhorted  to  attain  to 
it:  Heb.  6:11 — "And  we  dosire  that  each  one  of  you  may  show  the  same  diligence  unto  the  fulness  of  hope  [marg. 
— '  full  assurance '  ]  even  to  the  end  "  ;  2  Pet.  1 :  10  —  "  Wherefore,  brethren,  give  the  more  diligence  to  make  your 
calling  and  election  sure."    Cf.  Prov.  14 :  14  — " a  good  man  shall  be  satisfied  from  himself." 

There  is  need  to  guard  the  doctrine  of  assurance  from  mysticism.  The  witness  of 
the  Spirit  is  not  a  new  and  direct  revelation  from  God.  It  is  a  strengthening  of  pre- 
viously existing-  faith  until  he  who  possesses  this  faith  cannot  any  longer  doubt  that 
he  possesses  it.  It  is  a  general  rule  that  all  our  emotions,  when  they  become  exceed- 
ingly strong,  also  become  conscious.    Instance  affection  between  man  and  woman. 

Edwards,  Religious  Affections,  in  Works,  3 :  83-91,  says  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  not 
a  new  word  or  suggestion  from  God,  hut  an  enlightening  and  sanctifying  influence,  so 
that  the  heart  is  drawn  forth  to  embrace  the  truth  already  revealed,  and  to  perceive 
that  it  embraces  it.  "  Bearing  witness  "  is  not  in  this  case  to  declare  and  assert  a  thing 
to  be  true,  but  to  hold  forth  evidence  from  which  a  thing  may  be  proved  to  be  true  : 

G  od  "  beareth  witness by  signs  and  wonders  "  (Heb. 2:4)     So  the  "seal  of  the  Spirit"  is  not 

a  voice  or  suggestion,  but  a  work  or  effect  of  the  Spirit,  left  as  a  divine  mark  upon  the 
soul,  to  be  an  evidence  by  which  God's  children  may  be  known.  Seals  had  engraved 
upon  them  the  image  or  name  of  the  persons  to  whom  they  belonged.  The  "seal  of 
the  Spirit,  "  the  "  earnest  of  the  Spirit,"  the  "  witness  of  the  Spirit,  "  are  all  one  thing. 
The  childlike  spirit,  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  Holy  Spirit's  witness  or  evidence 
in  us. 

See  also  illustration  of  faith  and  assurance,  in  C.  S.  Robinson's  Short  Studies  for 
S.  S.  Teachers,  179, 180.  Faith  should  be  distinguished  not  only  from  assurance,  but  also 
from  feeling  or  joy.  Instance  Abraham's  faith  when  he  went  to  sacrifice  Isaac ;  and 
Madame  Guyon's  faith,  when  God's  face  seemed  hid  from  her.  See,  on  the  witness  of 
the  Spirit,  Short,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1846;  British  and  For.  Evan.  Rev.,  1888:617-631. 
For  the  view  which  confounds  faith  with  assurance,  see  Alexander,  Discourses  on  Faith, 
63-118. 

It  is  important  to  distinguish  saving  faith  from  assurance  of  faith,  for  the  reason 
that  lack  of  assurance  is  taken  by  so  many  real  Christians  as  evidence  that  they  know 
nothing  of  the  grace  of  God.  To  use  once  more  a  well-wom  illustration :  It  is  getting 
into  the  boat  that  saves  us,  and  not  our  comfortable  feelings  about  the  boat.  What 
saves  us  is  faith  in  Christ,  not  faith  in  our  faith,  or  faith  in  the  faith.  The  astronomer 
does  not  turn  his  telescope  to  the  reflection  of  the  sun  or  moon  in  the  water,  when  he 
can  turn  it  to  the  sun  or  moon  itself.  Why  obscure  our  faith,  when  we  can  look  to 
Christ '( 

The  faith  in  a  distant  Redeemer  was  the  faith  of  Christian,  in  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's 
Progress.  Only  at  the  end  of  his  journey  does  Christian  have  Christ's  presence.  This 
representation  rests  upon  a  wrong  conception  of  faith  as  laying  hold  of  a  promise  or  a 
doctrine,  rather  than  as  laying  hold  of  the  living  and  present  Christ.  The  old  Scotch 
woman's  direction  to  the  inquirer  to  "  grip  the  promise  "  is  not  so  good  as  the  direction 
to  "grip  Christ."    Sir  Francis  Drake,  the  great  English  sailor,  had  for  his  crest  an 


846  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

anchor  with  a  cable  running  up  into  the  sky.  A  poor  boy,  taught  in  a  mission  school  in 
Ireland,  when  asked  what  was  meant  by  saving  faith,  replied :  "  It  is  grasping  God  with 
the  heart." 

The  view  of  Charles  Hodge,  like  that  of  Alexander,  puts  doctrine  before  Christ,  and 
makes  the  formal  principle,  the  supremacy  of  Scripture,  superior  to  the  material  prin- 
ciple, justification  by  faith.  The  Shorter  Catechism  is  better  :  "  Faith  in  Christ  is  a  sav- 
ing grace,  whereby  we  receive  and  rest  on  him  alone  for  salvation,  as  he  is  offered  to  us 
in  the  gospel.  "  If  this  relation  of  faith  to  the  personal  Christ  had  been  kept  in  mind, 
much  religious  despondency  might  have  been  avoided.  Murphy,  Natural  Selection  and 
Spiritual  Freedom,  30,  31,  tells  us  that  Fiances  Ridley  Havergal  could  never  fix  the 
date  of  her  conversion.  From  the  age  of  six  to  that  of  fourteen  she  suffered  from  relig- 
ious fears,  and  did  not  venture  to  call  herself  a  Christian.  It  was  the  result  of  con- 
founding being  at  peace  with  God  and  being  conscious  of  that  peace.  So  the  mother  of 
Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  an  admirable  and  deeply  religious  woman,  endured  long 
and  deep  mental  suffering  from  doubts  as  to  her  personal  election. 

There  is  a  witness  of  the  Spirit,  with  some  sinners,  that  they  are  not  children  of  God, 
and  this  witness  is  through  the  truth,  though  the  sinner  does  not  know  that  it  is  the 
Spirit  who  reveals  it  to  him.  We  call  this  work  of  the  Spirit  conviction  of  sin.  The 
witness  of  the  Spirit  that  we  are  children  of  God,  and  the  assurance  of  faith  of  which 
Scripture  speaks,  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  the  former  designation  only  emphasizing 
the  source  from  which  the  assurance  springs.  False  assurance  is  destitute  of  humility, 
but  true  assurance  is  so  absorbed  in  Christ  that  self  is  forgotten.  Self-consciousness, 
and  desire  to  display  one's  faith,  are  not  marks  of  true  assurance.  When  we  say :  "  That 
man  has  a  great  deal  of  assurance,"  we  have  in  mind  the  false  and  self-centered  assur- 
ance of  the  hypocrite  or  the  self -deceiver. 

Allen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  231  — "  It  has  been  said  that  any  one  who  can  read  Edwards's 
Religious  Affections,  and  still  believe  in  his  own  conversion,  may  well  have  the  highest 
assurance  of  its  reality.  But  how  few  there  were  in  Edwards's  time  who  gained  the 
assurance,  may  be  inferred  from  the  circumstance  that  Dr.  Hopkins  and  Dr.  Emmons, 
disciples  of  Edwards  and  religious  leaders  in  New  England,  remained  to  the  last  uncer- 
tain of  their  conversion."  He  can  attribute  this  only  to  the  semi-deistic  spirit  of  the 
time,  with  its  distant  God  and  imperfect  apprehension  of  the  omnipresence  and  omni- 
potence of  Christ.  Nothing  so  clearly  marks  the  practical  progress  of  Christianity  as 
the  growing  faith  in  Jesus,  the  only  Revealer  of  God  in  nature  and  history  as  well  as 
in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  As  never  before,  faith  comes  directly  to  Christ,  abides  in 
him,  and  finds  his  promise  true:  "Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  "  (Mat.  28:20). 
"  Nothing  before,  nothing  behind ;  The  steps  of  faith  Fall  on  the  seeming  void  and  find 
The  Rock  beneath." 

(d)  That  faith  necessarily  leads  to  good  works,  since  it  embraces  the 
whole  truth  of  God  so  far  as  made  known,  and  ajipropriates  Christ,  not  only 
as  an  external  Savior,  but  as  an  internal  sanctifying  power  (Heb.  7  :  15,  16  ; 
Gal.  5:6). 

Good  works  are  the  proper  evidence  of  faith.  The  faith  which  does  not 
lead  men  to  act  upon  the  commands  and  promises  of  Christ,  or,  in  other 
words,  does  not  lead  to  obedience,  is  called  in  Scripture  a  "dead,"  that  is, 
an  unreal,  faith.  Such  faith  is  not  saving,  since  it  lacks  the  voluntary  ele- 
ment— actual  appropriation  of  Christ  (James  2  :  14-26). 

Heb.  7 :  15, 16  — "  another  priest,  who  hath  been  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after  the  power 
of  an  endless  life  "  ;  Gal.  5  :  6  — "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision  ;  but 
faith  working  through  love  "  ;  James  2  :  14,  26  — "  What  doth  it  profit,  my  brethren,  if  a  man  say  he  hath  faith,  but 
have  not  works?  Can  that  faith  save  him?  ....  For  as  the  body  apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead,  even  so  faith  apart 
from  works  is  dead." 

The  best  evidence  that  I  believe  a  man's  word  is  that  I  act  upon  it.  Instance  the 
bank-cashier's  assurance  to  me  that  a  sum  of  money  is  deposited  with  him  to  my 
account.  If  I  am  a  millionaire,  the  communication  may  cause  me  no  special  joy.  My 
faith  in  the  cashier's  word  is  tested  by  my  going,  or  not  going,  for  the  money.  So  my 
faith  in  Christ  is  evidenced  by  my  acting  upon  his  commands  and  promises.  We  may 
illustrate  also  by  the  lifting  of  the  trolley  to  the  wire,  and  the  resulting  light  and  heat 
and  motion  to  the  car  that  before  stood  dark  and  cold  and  motionless  upon  the  track. 


CONVERSION".  847 

Salvation  by  works  is  like  petting-  to  one's  destination  by  pushing  the  car.  True  faith 
depends  upon  God  for  energy,  but  it  results  in  activity  of  all  our  powers.  Rom.  3 :  28  — 
"  We  reckon  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  the  works  of  the  law."  We  are  saved  only  by 
faith,  yet  this  faith  will  be  sure  to  bring  forth  good  works;  see  Gal.  5:6 — "  faith  working 
through  loye."  Dead  faith  might  be  illustrated  by  Abraham  Lincoln's  Mississippi  steam- 
boat, whose  whistle  was  so  big  that,  when  it  sounded,  the  boat  stopped.  Confession 
exhausts  the  energy,  so  that  none  is  left  for  action. 

A.  J.  Gordon,  The  First  Thing  in  the  World,  or  The  Primacy  of  Faith :  "  David  Brain- 
ard  speaks  with  a  kind  of  suppressed  astonishment  of  what  he  observed  among  the 
degraded  North  American  Indians ;  how,  preaching  to  them  the  good  uews  of  salvation 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  persuading  them  to  accept  it  by  faith,  and  then 
hastening  on  in  his  rapid  missionary  tours,  he  found,  on  returning  upon  his  track  a 
year  or  two  later,  that  the  fruits  of  righteousness  and  sobriety  and  virtue  and  broth- 
erly love  were  everywhere  visible,  though  it  had  been  possible  to  impart  to  them  only 
the  slightest  moral  or  ethical  teaching." 

(e)  That  faith,  as  characteristically  the  inward  act  of  reception,  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  love  or  obedience,  its  fruit. 

Faith  is,  in  the  Scriptures,  called  a  work,  only  in  the  sense  that  man's 
active  powers  are  engaged  in  it.  It  is  a  work  which  God  requires,  yet 
which  God  enables  man  to  perform  (John  6 :  29 — ipyov  tov  Oeov.  Qf.  Kom. 
1 :  17 — Stucuoovvij  Oeov  ).  As  the  gift  of  God  and  as  the  mere  taking  of  unde- 
served mercy,  it  is  expressly  excluded  from  the  category  of  works  upon  tlio 
basis  of  which  man  may  claim  salvation  (Rom.  3  :  28 ;  4  :  4,  5,  16).  It  is 
not  the  act  of  the  full  soul  bestowing,  but  the  act  of  an  empty  soul  receiv- 
ing. Although  this  reception  is  prompted  by  a  drawing  of  heart  toward 
God  inwrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  this  drawing  of  heart  is  not  yet  a  con- 
scious and  developed  love:  such  love  is  the  result  of  faith  (Gal.  5:6). 
What  precedes  faith  is  an  unconscious  and  undeveloped  tendency  or  dispo- 
sition toward  God.  Conscious  and  developed  affection  toward  God,  or  love 
proper,  must  always  follow  faith  and  be  the  product  of  faith.  So,  too, 
obedience  can  be  rendered  only  after  faith  has  laid  hold  of  Christ,  and  with 
him  has  obtained  the  spirit  of  obedience  (Rom.  1  :  5  —  vkokot/v  7r/<rrewc  = 
"obedience  resulting  from  faith " ).  Hence  faith  is  not  the  procuring  cause 
of  salvation,  but  is  only  the  instrumental  cause.  The  procuring  cause  is 
the  Christ,  whom  faith  embraces. 

John  6  :  29  — " This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent " ;  cf.  Rom.  1:17  — "For  therein 
is  revealed  a  righteousness  of  God  from  faith  unto  faith  :  as  it  is  written,  But  the  righteous  shaii  live  by  faith  "  ;  Rom. 
3  :  28  — "  We  reckon  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  the  works  of  the  law "  ;  4  : 4,  5,  16  — "Now 
to  him  that  worketh,  the  reward  is  not  reckoned  as  of  grace,  bnt  as  of  debt.    But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth 

on  h'm  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness For  this  cause  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  may 

be  according  to  grace  "  ;  Gal.  5:6  — "For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  nncircumcision ; 
but  faith  working  through  love";  Rom.  1:5 — "through  whom  we  received  grace  and  aposlleship,  unto  obedience  of 
faith  among  all  the  nations." 

Faith  stands  as  an  intermediate  factor  between  the  unconscious  and  undeveloped 
tendency  or  disposition  toward  God  inwrought  in  the  soul  by  God's  regenerating  act, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  conscious  and  developed  affection  toward  God  which  is  one 
of  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  conversion,  on  the  other.  Illustrate  by  the  motherly 
instinct  shown  in  a  little  girl's  care  for  her  doll,—  a  motherly  instinct  which  becomes  a 
developed  mother's  love,  only  when  a  child  of  her  own  is  born.  This  new  love  of  the 
Christian  is  an  activity  of  his  own  soul,  and  yet  it  is  a  " fruit  of  the  Spirit "  <  Gal.  5 :  22 ).  To 
attribute  it  wholly  to  himself  would  be  like  calling  the  walking  and  leaping  of  the  lame 
man  ( Acts  3:8)  merely  a  healthy  activity  of  his  own.  For  illustration  of  the  priority  of 
faith  to  love,  see  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  533,  note ;  on  the  relation  of  faith  to  love,  see 
Julius  Miiller,  Doct.  Sin,  1:116, 117. 

The  logical  order  is  therefore :  1.  Unconscious  and  undeveloped  love ;  2.  Faith  in 
Christ  and  his  truth;  3.  Conscious  and  developed  love;  4.  Assurance  of  faith.    Faith 


848  SOTERIOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION". 

and  love  act  and  react  upon  one  another.  Each  advance  in  the  one  leads  to  a  corre- 
sponding advance  in  the  other.  But  the  source  of  all  is  in  God.  God  loves,  and  there- 
fore he  gives  love  to  us  as  well  as  receives  love  from  us.  The  unconscious  and 
undeveloped  love  which  he  imparts  in  regeneration  is  the  root  of  all  Christian  faith. 
The  Roman  Catholic  is  right  in  affirming  the  priority  of  love  to  faith,  if  he  means  by 
love  only  this  unconscious  and  undeveloped  affection.  But  the  Protestant  is  also  right 
in  affirming  the  priority  of  faith  to  love,  if  he  means  by  love  a  conscious  and  developed 
affection.  Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  368  — "  Faith  is  not  a  mere  passive  receptivity. 
As  the  acceptance  of  a  divine  life,  it  involves  the  possession  of  a  new  moral  energy. 
Faith  works  by  love.  In  faith  a  new  life-force  is  received,  and  new  life-powers  stir 
within  the  Christian  man." 

We  must  not  confound  repentance  with  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  nor  faith  with 
fruits  meet  for  faith.  A.  J.  Gordon,  The  First  Thing  in  the  World :  "  Love  is  the  great- 
est thing  in  the  world,  but  faith  is  the  first.  The  tree  i3  greater  than  the  root,  but  let 
it  not  boast:  'ifthoa  gloriest,  it  is  not  thou  that  bearest  the  root,  but  the  root  thee '  (Rom.  11:18).  Love  has 
no  power  to  branch  out  and  bear  fruit,  except  as,  through  faith,  it  is  rooted  in  Christ 
ind  draws  nourishment  from  him.  1  Pet.  1:5  — '  who  by  the  power  of  God  are  guarded  through  faith  unto 
«.  salvation  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last  time ' ;  1  Cor.  13 :  13  — '  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love ' ;  Heb.  10 :  19-25  — 
'  draw  near  ....  in  fulness  of  faith  ....  hold  fast  the  confession  of  our  hope  ....  provoke  unto  love  and  good 
wits' ;  Rom.  5:1-5 — 'justified  by  faith  ....  rejoice  in  hope  ....  love  of  God  hath  been  shed  abroad  in  our 
Hearts ' ;  1  Thess.  1 : 1,  2  — '  work  of  faith  and  labor  of  love  and  patience  of  hope.'  Faith  is  the  actinic  ray,  hope 
the  luminiferous  ray,  love  the  calorific  ray.  But  faith  contains  the  principle  of  the 
divine  likeness,  as  the  life  of  the  parent  given  to  the  child  contains  the  principle  of  like- 
ness to  the  father,  and  will  insure  moral  and  physical  resemblance  in  due  time." 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  112  — "  '  The  love  of  the  Spirit '  (  Rom.  15 :  30  )  is  the  love  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  it  is  given  us  for  overcoming  the  world.  The  divine  life  is  the 
source  of  the  divine  love.  Therefore  the  love  of  God  is  '  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  is  given  unto  us '  (  Rom.  5:5).  Because  we  are  by  nature  so  wholly  without  heavenly 
affection,  God,  through  the  indwelling  Spirit,  gives  us  his  own  love  with  which  to  love 
himself."  A.  H.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  286, 287,  points  out  that  in  2  Cor.  5 :  14  — " the  love 
of  Christ  constraineth  us "  — the  love  of  Christ  is  "  not  our  love  to  Christ,  for  that  is  a  very 
weak  and  uncertain  thing;  nor  even  Christ's  love  to  us,  for  that  is  still  something 
external  to  us.    Each  of  these  leaves  a  separation  between  Christ  and  us,  and  fails  to 

act  as  a  moving  power  within Not  simply  our  love  to  Christ,  nor  simply  Christ's 

love  to  us,  but  rather  Christ's  love  in  us,  is  the  love  that  constrains.  This  is  the  thought 
of  the  apostle."  The  first  fruit  of  this  love,  in  its  still  unconscious  and  undeveloped 
state,  is  faith. 

(/)  That  faith  is  susceptible  of  increase. 

This  is  evident,  whether  we  consider  it  from  the  human  or  from  the  divine 
side.  As  an  act  of  man,  it  has  an  intellectual,  an  emotional,  and  a  voluntary 
element,  each  of  which  is  capable  of  growth.  As  a  work  of  God  in  the  soul 
of  man,  it  can  receive,  through  the  presentation  of  the  truth  and  the  quick- 
ening agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  continually  new  accessions  of  knowledge, 
sensibility,  and  active  energy.  Such  increase  of  faith,  therefore,  we  are  to 
seek,  both  by  resolute  exercise  of  our  own  powers,  and  above  all,  by  direct 
application  to  the  source  of  faith  in  God  ( Luke  17:5). 

Luke  17 : 5  — "  And  the  apostles  said  unto  the  Lord,  Increase  our  faith."  The  adult  Christian  has  more 
faith  than  he  had  when  a  child,—  evidently  there  has  been  increase.  1  Cor.  12 : 8,  9  —"For  to 
one  is  given  through  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  ....  to  another  faith,  in  the  same  Spirit."  In  this  latter 
passage,  it  seems  to  be  intimated  that  for  special  exigencies  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  to  his 
servants  special  faith,  so  that  they  are  enabled  to  lay  hold  of  the  general  promise  of 
God  and  make  special  application  of  it.  Rom.  8 :  26,  27  —"the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmity  .... 
"uaketh  intercession  for  bs  .  .  .  .  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God  "  ;  1  John  5 :  14,  15  — 
"And  this  is  the  bjianess  which  we  have  toward  him,  that,  if  we  ask  anything  according  to  his  will,  he  heareth  us:  and 
if  we  kn:w  that  he  heareth  us  v/hatsoever  we  ask,  we  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  which  we  have  asked  of  him." 
Only  when  we  begin  to  believe,  do  we  appreciate  our  lack  of  faith,  and  the  great  need 
of  its  increase.  The  little  beginning  of  light  makes  known  the  greatness  of  the  sur- 
rounding darkness.  Mark  9  :  24  —"I  believe ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief"—  was  the  utterance  of  one 
who  recoguized  both  the  need  of  faith  and  the  true  source  of  supply. 


JUSTIFICATION.  849 

On  the  general  eubject  of  Faith,  see  Kiistlin,  Die  Lehre  von  dem  Glauben,  13-85, 301- 
341,  and  in  Jahrbuch  f.  d.  Theol.,  4 :  177  sq. ;  Romaine  on  Faith,  9-89 ;  Bishop  of  Ossory, 
Nature  and  Effects  of  Faith,  1-40;  Venn,  Characteristics  of  Belief,  Introduction; 
Nitzsch,  System  of  Christ.  Doct.,  294. 

IV.     Justification. 

1.     Definition  of  Justification. 

By  justification  we  mean  that  judicial  act  of  God  by  -which,  on  account  of 
Christ,  to  whom  the  sinner  is  united  by  faith,  he  declares  that  sinner  to  be 
no  longer  exposed  to  the  penalty  of  the  law,  bnt  to  be  restored  to  his  favor. 
Or,  to  give  an  alternative  definition  from  which  all  metaphor  is  excluded : 
Justification  is  the  reversal  of  God's  attitude  toward  the  sinner,  because  of 
the  sinner's  new  relation  to  Christ.  God  did  condemn ;  he  now  acquits. 
He  did  repel ;  he  now  admits  to  favor. 

Justification,  as  thus  defined,  is  therefore  a  declarative  act,  as  distin- 
guished from  an  efficient  act;  an  act  of  God  external  to  the  sinner,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  an  act  within  the  sinner's  nature  and  changing  that  nature ; 
a  judicial  act,  as  distinguished  from  a  sovereign  act ;  an  act  1  tased  np<  >n  and 
logically  presupposing  the  sinner's  union  with  Christ,  as  distinguished  from 
an  act  which  causes  and  is  followed  by  that  union  with  Christ. 

The  word  '  declarative '  does  not  imply  a  '  spoken '  word  on  God's  part,— much  less 
that  the  sinner  hears  God  speak.  That  justification  is  sovereign,  is  held  by  Arminians, 
and  by  those  who  advocate  a  governmental  theory  of  the  atonement.  On  any  such 
theory,  justification  must  be  sovereign ;  since  Christ  bore,  not  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
but  a  substituted  suffering-  which  God  graciously  and  sovereignly  accepts  in  place  of 
our  suffering  and  obedience. 

Auselm,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  1100,  wrote  a  tract  for  the  consolation  of  the 
dying,  who  were  alarmed  on  account  of  sin.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  it: 
'*  Question.  Dost  thou  believe  that  the  Lord  Jesus  died  for  thee?  Answer.  I  believe  it. 
Qit.  Dost  thou  thank  him  for  his  passion  and  death?  Ans.  I  do  thank  him.  Qu.  Dost 
thou  believe  that  thou  canst  not  be  saved  except  by  his  death?  Ans.  I  believe  it." 
And  then  Anselm  addresses  the  dying  man :  "  Come  then,  while  life  remaineth  in  thee ; 
in  his  death  alone  place  thy  whole  trust ;  in  naught  else  place  any  trust ;  to  his  death 
commit  thyself  wholly ;  with  this  alone  cover  thyself  wholly  ;  and  if  the  Lord  thy  God 
will  to  judge  thee,  say, '  Lord,  between  thy  judgment  and  me  I  present  the  death  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  no  otherwise  can  I  contend  with  thee.'  And  if  he  shall  say  that  thou 
art  a  sinner,  say  thou :  '  Lord,  I  interpose  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between 
my  sins  and  thee.'  If  he  say  that  thou  hast  deserved  condemnation,  say :  '  Lord,  I  set 
the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  my  evil  deserts  and  thee,  and  his  merits  I 
offer  for  those  which  I  ought  to  have  and  have  not.'  If  he  say  that  he  is  wroth  with 
thee,  say:  'Lord,  I  oppose  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  thy  wrath  and 
me.'  And  when  thou  hast  completed  this,  say  again :  '  Lord,  I  set  the  death  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  between  thee  and  me.'  "  See  Anselm,  Opera  (Migne),  1:686,  687.  The 
above  quotation  gives  us  reason  to  believe  that  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  was  implicitly,  if  not  explicitly,  held  by  many  pious  souls  through  all 
the  ages  of  papal  darkness. 

2.     Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification. 

A.     Scripture  proofs  of  the  doctrine  as  a  whole  are  the  following : 

Rom.  1:17 — "a  righteousness  of  God  from  faith  unto  faith"  ;  3:24-30— "being  justified  freely  by  bis  grace  through 

the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ....  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus We  reckon  therefore 

that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  the  works  of  the  law justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  the  uncir- 

cumcision  through  faith  " ;  Gal.  3  :  11  — "  Now  that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  law  before  God,  is  evident :  for,  The  right- 
eous shall  live  by  faith ;  and  the  law  is  not  of  faith ;  but,  He  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them"  ;  Eph.  i :  7 — "in 
whom  we  have  our  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  our  trespasses,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace  "  ; 

54 


850  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

Heb.  11 : 4,  7 — "By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain,  through  which  he  had  witness  born* 

to  him  that  he  was  righteous By  faith  Noah  ....  moved  witn  godly  fear,  prepared  an  ark  ....  became  heir 

of  the  righteousness  which  is  according  to  faith  "  ;  cf.  Gen.  15 :  G  — "  And  he  believed  in  Jehovah ;  and  he  reckoned  it  to 
him  for  righteousness";  Is.  7:9 — "If  ye  will  not  believe,  surely  ye  shall  not  be  established  "  ;  28:16 — "he  that 
believeth  shall  not  be  in  haste "  ;  flab.  2  :  4  —"the  righteous  shall  live  by  his  faith." 

Ps.  85  :  8  —  "He  will  speak  peace  unto  his  people."  God's  great  word  of  pardon  includes  all  else_ 
Peace  with  him  implies  all  the  covenant  privileges  resulting  therefrom.  1  Cor.  3:21-23  — 
"all  things  are  yours,  "  because  "  ye  are  Christ's ;  and  Christ  is  God's.  "  This  is  not  salvation  by  law, 
nor  by  ideals,  nor  by  effort,  nor  by  character ;  although  obedience  to  law,  and  a  loftier 
ideal,  and  unremitting  effort,  and  a  pui-e  character,  are  consequences  of  justification. 
Justification  is  the  change  in  God's  attitude  toward  the  sinner  which  makes  all  these 
consequences  possible.  The  only  condition  of  justification  is  the  sinner's  faith  in  Jesus, 
which  merges  the  life  of  the  sinner  in  the  life  of  Christ.  Paul  expresses  the  truth  in 
GaL  2 :  16,  20  —  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law  but  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  even  we 

believed  on  Christ  Jesus,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law I  have 

been  crucified  with  Christ ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me :  and  that  life  which  I  now  live  in  the 
flesh  I  live  in  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  up  for  me." 

With  these  observations  and  qualifications  we  may  assent  to  much  that  is  said  by 
Whiton,  Divine  Satisfaction,  64,  who  distinguishes  between  forgiveness  and  remission : 
"  Forgiveness  is  the  righting  of  disturbed  personal  relations.  Remission  is  removal  of 
the  consequences  which  in  the  natural  order  of  thing's  have  resulted  from  our  fault. 
God  forgives  all  that  is  strictly  personal,  but  remits  nothing  that  is  strictly  natural  in 
sin.  He  imparts  to  the  sinner  the  power  to  bear  his  burden  and  work  off  his  debt  of 
consequences.  Forgiveness  is  not  remission.  It  is  introductory  to  remission,  just  as 
conversion  is  not  salvation,  but  introductory  to  salvation.  The  prodigal  was  received 
by  his  father,  but  he  could  not  recover  his  lost  patrimony.  He  could,  however,  have 
been  led  by  penitence  to  work  so  hard  that  he  earned  more  than  he  had  lost. 

"Here  is  an  element  in  justification  which  Protestantism  has  ignored,  and  which 
Romanism  has  tried  to  retain.  Debts  must  be  paid  to  the  uttermost  farthing.  The 
scars  of  past  sins  must  remain  forever.  Forgiveness  converts  the  persistent  energy  of 
past  sin  from  a  destructive  to  a  constructive  power.  There  is  a  transformation  of 
energy  into  a  new  form.  Genuine  repentance  spurs  us  up  to  do  what  we  can  to  make 
up  for  time  lost  and  for  wrong  done.  The  sinner  is  clothed  anew  with  moral  power. 
We  are  all  to  be  judged  by  our  works.  That  Paul  had  been  a  blasphemer  was  ever 
stimulating  him  to  Christian  endeavor.  The  faith  which  receives  Christ  is  a  peculiar 
spirit,  a  certain  moral  activity  of  love  and  obedience.  It  is  not  mere  reliance  on  what 
Christ  was  and  did,  but  active  endeavor  to  become  and  to  do  like  him.  Human  justice 
takes  hold  of  deeds;  divine  righteousness  deals  with  character.  Justification  by  faith 
is  justification  by  spirit  and  inward  principle,  apart  from  the  merit  of  works  or  per- 
formances, but  never  without  these.  God's  charity  takes  the  will  for  the  deed.  This 
is  not  justification  by  outward  conduct,  as  the  Judaizers  thought,  but  by  the  godly 
spirit."  If  this  new  spirit  be  the  Spirit  of  Christ  to  whom  faith  has  united  the  soul,  we 
can  accept  the  statement.  There  is  danger  however  of  conceiving  this  spirit  as  purely 
man's  own,  and  justification  as  not  external  to  the  sinner  nor  as  the  work  of  God, 
but  as  the  mere  name  for  a  subjective  process  by  which  man  justifies  himself. 

B.  Scripture  use  of  the  special  words  translated  "justify  "  and  "justifi- 
cation "  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Testament. 

(  a )  Simi6u  —  uniformly,  or  with  only  a  single  exception,  signifies,  not  to 
make  righteous,  but  to  declare  just,  or  free  from  guilt  and  exposure  to  pun- 
ishment. The  only  O.  T.  passage  where  this  meaning  is  questionable  is 
Dan.  12  : 3.  But  even  here  the  proper  translation  is,  in  all  probability,  not 
'they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness,'  but  'they  that  justify  mauy,'  i.  e., 
cause  many  to  be  justified.  For  the  Hiphil  force  of  the  verb,  see  Girdle- 
stone,  O.  T.  Syn.,  257,  258,  and  Delitzsch  on  Is.  53  :  11 ;  cf.  James  5  :19,  20. 

O.  T.  texts :  Ex.  23 : 7  — "  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked  "  ;  Deut.  25  : 1  — "  they  [  the  judges  ]  shall  justify  the 
righteous,  and  condemn  the  wicked";  Job  27:5  — "Far  be  it  from  me  that  I  should  justify  you";  Ps.  143:2 — "in  thy 
sight  no  man  living  is  righteous  " ;  Prov.  17 :  15  —  "  He  that  just.fieth  the  wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the  righteous, 
Both  of  them  alike  are  an  abomination  to  Jehovah  ";  Is.  5 :  23  —'that  just.fy  the  wicked  for  a  bribe,  and  talie  away  the 
ighteousness  of  the  righteous  from  him";  50:8  —  "He  is  near  that  justifieth  me  "  ;  53:11 — "  by  the  knowledge  of 


JUSTIFICATION.  851 

himself  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many ;  and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities  "  ;  Dan.  12 : 3  — ,:  and  they  that  turn 
many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever  "  ( 'they  that  justify  many,'  i.  e.,  cause  many  to 
be  justified ) ;  cf.  James  5  :  19,  20  — "  My  brethren,  if  any  among  you  err  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert  him; 
let  him  know,  that  he  who  converteth  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  cover  a 
multitude  of  sins." 

The  Christian  minister  absolves  from  sin,  only  as  he  marries  a  couple:  he  does  not 
join  them,  —  he  only  declares  them  joined.  So  he  declares  men  forgiven,  if  they  have 
complied  with  the  appointed  divine  conditions.  Marriage  may  be  invalid  where  these 
conditions  are  lacking-,  but  the  minister's  absolution  is  of  no  account  where  there  is  no 
repentance  of  sin  and  faith  in  Christ;  see  G.  D.  Boardman,  The  Church,  178.  We  are 
ever  to  remember  that  the  term  justification  is  a  forensic  term  which  presents  the 
change  of  God's  attitude  toward  the  sinner  in  a  pictorial  way  derived  from  the  pro- 
cedure of  earthly  tribunals.  The  fact  is  larger  and  more  vital  than  the  figure  used  to 
describe  it. 

McCounell,  Evolution  of  Immortality,  134, 135  —  "  Christ's  terms  are  biological ;  those 
of  many  theologians  are  legal.  It  may  be  ages  before  we  recover  from  the  misfortune 
of  having  had  the  truth  of  Christ  interpreted  and  fixed  by  jurists  and  logicians,  instead 
of  by  naturalists  and  men  of  science.  It  is  much  as  though  the  rationale  of  the  circula- 
tion of  the  blood  had  been  wrought  out  by  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  or  the  germ  theory  of 
disease  interpreted  by  Blackstone,  or  the  doctrine  of  evolution  formulated  by  a  legis- 
lative council The  Christ  is  intimately  and  vitally  concerned  with  the  eternal  life 

of  men,  but  the  question  Involved  is  of  their  living  or  perishing,  not  of  a  system  of  judi- 
cial rewards  and  penalties."  We  must  remember  however  that  even  biology  gives  us 
only  one  side  of  the  truth.  The  forensic  conception  of  justification  furnishes  its  com- 
plement and  has  its  rights  also.  The  Scriptures  represent  both  sides  of  the  truth.  Paul 
gives  us  the  judicial  aspect,  John  the  vital  aspect,  of  justification. 

In  Rom.  6:7  —  o  yap  cnrodavuv  SeftiKaiurai  cnvo  rijff  d/naprlag  =  '  he  that  once 
died  with  Christ  was  acquitted  from  the  service  of  sin  considered  as  a  pen- 
ality. '  In  1  Cur.  4:4  —  ovdev  yap  kfiat/rd)  avvoida.  aTJi1  ovk  ev  tovt^  dedimiu/iai 
=  '  I  am  conscious  of  no  fault,  1  rat  that  does  not  in  itself  make  certain  God's 
acquittal  as  respects  this  particular  charge.'  The  usage  of  the  epistle  of 
James  does  not  contradict  this  ;  the  doctrine  of  James  is  that  we  are  justi- 
fied only  by  such  faith  as  makes  us  faithfid  and  brings  forth  good  works. 
"  He  uses  the  word  exclusively  in  a  judicial  sense  ;  he  combats  a  mistaken 
view  of  ttigt ic,  not  a  mistaken  view  of  fiiKaiSu  ";  see  James  2  :  21,  23,  24,  and 
Cremer,  N.  T.  Lexicon,  Eng.  trans.,  182,  183.  The  only  N.  T.  passage 
where  this  meaning  is  questionable  is  Rev.  22  :11 ;  but  here  Alford,  with 
N,  A  and  B,  reads  ^iKaioaiivTjv  Troi7/adru. 

N.  T.  texts :  Mat.  12 :  37  — "For  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  condemned "; 
Luke7:29 — "And  all  the  people  ....  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John";  10:29 — "But  he, 
desiring  to  justify  himself  said  unto  Jesus,  And  who  is  my  neighbor  ?  "  16 :  15  —  "  Ye  are  they  that  justify  yourselves  in 
the  sight  of  men ;  but  God  knoweth  your  hearts  "  ;  18 :  14 —  "This  man  went  down  to  his  house  justified  rather  than  the 
other";  c/.13  (lit. )  "God,  be  thou  propitiated  toward  me  the  sinner";  Rom.  4:6-8 — "Even  as  David  also  pronounceth 
blessing  upon  the  man,  unto  whom  God  reckoneth  righteousness  apart  from  works,  saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniqui- 
ties are  forgiven,  And  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin  "  ;  cf.  Ps.  32 : 
1,  2,  —  "Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,  Whose  sin  is  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  Jehovah 
imputeth  not  iniquity,  And  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile." 

Rom.  5:18,  19  —  "So  then  as  through  one  trespass  the  judgment  came  unto  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  through 
one  act  of  righteousness  the  free  gift  came  unto  all  men  to  juctification  of  life.  For  as  through  the  one  man's  disobedience 
the  many  were  made  sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedience  of  the  one  shall  the  many  be  made  righteous";  8  :33,  34  — 
"Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?    It  is  God  that  justifieth ;  who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  "  2  Cor.  5: 

19,  21  —  "God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  reckoning  unto  them  their  trespasses Him 

who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf;  that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  [  God's  justi- 
fied persons]  in  him";  Rom.  6:7 — "he  that  hath  died  is  justified  from  sin";  1  Cor.  4:4 — "  For  I  know  nothing 
against  myself;  yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified  :  but  he  that  judgeth  me  is  the  Lord  "  (on  this  last  text,  see 
Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  in  loco  ). 

James  2 :  21,  23,  24  —  "  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works,  in  that  he  offered  up  Isaac  his  son  upon  the 
altar  ?  ,  .  .  .  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness Ye  see  that  by  works 


852  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    SALVATION. 

a  man  is  justified,  and  not  only  by  faith. "  James  is  denouncing  a  dead  faith,  while  Paul  is  speak- 
ing of  the  necessity  of  a  living  faith;  or,  rather,  James  is  describing  the  nature  of 
faith,  while  Paul  is  describing  the  instrument  of  justification.  "  They  are  like  two  men 
beset  by  a  couple  of  robbers.  Back  to  back  each  strikes  out  against  the  robber  oppo- 
site him,  — each  having  a  different  enemy  in  his  eye"  (Win.  M.  Taylor).  Neander  on 
James  2 :  14-26  — "  James  is  denouncing  mere  adhesion  to  an  external  law,  trust  in  intellect- 
ual possession  of  it.  With  him,  law  means  an  inward  principle  of  life.  Paul,  contrast- 
ing law  as  he  does  with  faith,  commonly  means  by  law  mere  external  divine  requisition^ 
....  James  does  not  deny  salvation  to  him  who  has  faith,  but  only  to  him  who  falsely 
professes  to  have.  When  he  says  that '  by  works  a  man  is  justified,'  he  takes  into  account  the 
outward  manifestation  only,  speaks  from  the  point  of  view  of  human  consciousness. 
In  works  only  does  faith  show  itself  as  genuine  and  complete."  Rev.  22 :  11  —  "he  that  is 
righteous,  let  him  do  righteousness  still "  —  not,  as  the  A.  V.  seemed  to  imply,  "  he  that  is  just,  let 
him  be  justified  still "  —  i.  c,  made  subjectively  holy. 

Christ  is  the  great  Physician.  The  physician  says:  "If  you  wish  to  be  cured,  you 
must  trust  me."  The  patient  replies :  "I  do  trust  you  fully."  But  the  physician  con- 
tinues :  "  If  you  wish  to  be  cured,  you  must  take  my  medicines  and  do  as  I  direct."  The 
patient  objects :  "  But  I  thought  I  was  to  be  cured  by  trust  in  you.  Why  lay  such  stress 
on  what  I  do?  "  The  physician  answers:  "  You  must  show  your  trust  in  me  by  your 
action.  Trust  in  me,  without  action  in  proof  of  trust,  amounts  to  nothing"  (S.  S. 
Times ).  Doing  without  a  physician  is  death ;  hence  Paul  says  works  cannot  save.  Trust 
in  the  physician  implies  obedience ;  hence  James  says  faith  without  works  is  dead. 
Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  153-155— "Paul  insists  on  apple-tree  righteousness,  and 
warns  us  against  Christmas-tree  righteousness."  Sagebecr,  The  Bible  in  Court,  77,  78— 
"  By  works,  Paul  means  works  of  law ;  James  means  by  works,  works  of  faith."  Hovey, 
in  The  Watchman,  Aug.  27, 1891  —  "  A  difference  of  emphasis,  occasioned  chiefly  by  the 
different  religious  perils  to  which  readers  were  at  the  time  exposed." 

(5)  dinaiuoic — is  the  act,  in  process,  of  declaring  a  man  just, —  that  is, 
acquitted  from  guilt  and  restored  to  the  divine  favor  ( Rom.  4 :  25 ;  5  :  18  ). 

Rom.  4 :  25  —  "  who  was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses,  and  was  raised  for  our  justification  "  ;  5  :  18  —  "  unto  al 
men  to  justification  of  life."  Griffith-Jones,  Asctmt  through  Christ,  367,  368 —  "  Raised  for  our 
justification  "—Christ's  death  made  our  justification  possible,  but  it  did  not  consum- 
mate it.  Through  his  rising  from  the  dead  he  was  able  to  come  into  that  relationship 
to  the  believer  which  restores  the  lost  or  interrupted  sonship.  In  the  church  the  fact 
of  the  resurrection  is  perpetuated,  and  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  is  realized. 

(e)  SiKalu/j.a  —  is  the  act,  as  already  accomplished,  of  declaring  a  man 
just, —  that  is,  no  longer  exposed  to  penalty,  but  restored  to  God's  favor 
( Rom.  5  :  16,  18  ;  cf.  1  Tim.  3  :  16).  Hence,  in  other  connections,  Simiu/za 
has  the  meaning  of  statute,  legal  decision,  act  of  justice  (  Luke  1:6;  Rom. 
2:26;  Heb.  9:1). 

Rom.  5  :  16, 18  —"of  many  trespasses  unto  justification  ....  through  one  act  of  righteousness  " ;  cf.  1  Tim.  3  :  16  — 
"justified  in  the  spirit."  The  distinction  between  SikouWis  and  Sixaico/xa  may  be  illustrated  by 
the  distinction  between  poesy  and  poem, —  the  former  denoting  something  in  process, 
an  ever-working  spirit ;  the  latter  denoting  something  fully  accomplished,  a  completed 
work.  Hence  Sucai'to^a  is  used  in  Luke  1 : 6  — "ordinances  of  the  Lord  "  ;  Rom.  2 :  26  — "  ordinances  of  the 
law  "  ;  leb.  1 :  9  — "  ordinances  of  divine  service." 

(cZ)  dinaioavvj/  —  is  the  state  of  one  justified,  or  declared  just  (  Rom.  8: 
10  ;  1  Cor.  1 :  30).  In  Rom.  10  : 3,  Paid  inveighs  against  ryv  iSLav  6maioavvr]v 
as  insufficient  and  false,  and  in  its  place  would  put  t?/v  tov  Oeov  dinaioovvriv, — 
that  is,  a  diKatoavvq  which  God  not  only  requires,  but  provides  ;  which  is  not 
only  acceptable  to  God,  but  proceeds  from  God,  and  is  appropriated  by 
faith, — hence  called  dimwovvTi  itiotsuc  or  e«  tt'icsteuc.  "The  primary  significa- 
tion of  the  word,  in  Paul's  writings,  is  therefore  that  state  of  the  believer 
which  is  called  forth  by  God's  act  of  acquittal, — the  state  of  the  believer  as 
justified,"  that  is,  freed  from  punishment  ami  restored  to  the  divine  favor. 


JUSTIFICATION".  853 

Rom.  8:10 — "the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness"  1  Cor.  1 :30 — ,: Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us 
....  righteousness  "  ;  Rora.  10  : 3 — "being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  seeking  to  establish  their  own,  they 
did  not  subjoct  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God."  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  5)2  — "  The  '  righteousness 
of  God '  is  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  incarnate  God."  See,  on  Sucaioowr),  Cremer, 
N.  T.  Lexicon,  Eug.  trans.,  174;  Meyer  on  Romans,  trans.,  68-70— " SiKaiocrvvri  &eov  (gen. 
of  origin,  emanation  from )  —  Tightness  which  proceeds  from  God  —  the  relation  of  being 
right  into  which  man  is  put  by  God  ( by  an  act  of  God  declaring  him  righteous )." 

E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian  Theology,  304  — "  When  Paul  addressed  those  who  trusted 
in  their  own  righteousness,  he  presented  salvation  as  attainable  only  through  faith  in 
another;  when  he  addressed  Gentiles  who  were  conscious  of  their  need  of  a  helper,  the 
forensic  imagery  is  not  employed.  Scarce  a  trace  of  it  appears  in  his  discourses  as 
recorded  in  the  Acts,  and  it  is  noticeably  absent  from  all  the  epistles  except  the 
Romans  and  the  Galatians." 

Since  this  state  of  acquittal  is  accompanied  by  changes  in  the  character 
aud  conduct,  ducaioavivj  conies  to  mean,  secondarily,  the  moral  condition  of 
the  believer  as  resulting  from  this  acquittal  and  inseparably  connected  with 
it  (  Rom.  14  :  17 ;  2  Cor.  5  :  21 ).  This  righteousness  arising  from  justifica- 
tion becomes  a  principle  of  action  (  Mat.  3  :  15  ;  Acts  10  :  35  ;  Rom.  6  :  13, 
18).  The  term,  however,  never  loses  its  implication  of  a  justifying  act 
upon  which  this  principle  of  action  is  based. 

Rom.  14 :  17  — "  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  eating  and  drinking,  but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Spir.t "  ;  2  Cor.  5 :  21  — "  that  we  m  ght  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him  ' ' ;  Mat.  3  :  15  — "  Suffer  it  now  :  for 
this  it  beconieth  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness"  ;  Acts  10:35 — "in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh 
righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him " ;  Rem.  6:13 — "present  yourselves  unto  God,  as  alive  from  the  dead,  and  your 
mmbers  as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God."  Meyer  on  Rom.  3  :23  — "  Every  mode  of  concep- 
tion which  refers  redemption  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  not  to  a  real  atonement 
through  the  death  of  Christ,  but  subjectively  to  the  dying-  and  reviving  with  him  guar- 
anteed and  produced  by  that  death  ( Schleiermacher,  Nitzsch,  Hofinann),  is  opposed 
to  the  N.  T.,— a  mixing-  up  of  justification  and  sauctification." 

On  these  Scripture  terms,  see  Bp.  of  Ossory,  Nature  and  Effects  of  Faith,  436-49G ; 
Lang-e,  Com.,  on  Romans  3  :  24 ;  Buchanan  on  Just  ifieat  ion,  226-249.  1  "erSMS  Moehler,  Sym- 
bolism, 102 — "The  forgiveness  of  sins  ....  is  undoubtedly  a  remission  of  the  guilt  and 
the  punishment  which  Christ  hath  taken  and  borne  upon  himself;  but  it  is  likewise  the 
transfusion  of  his  Spirit  into  us"  ;  Newman,  Lectures  on  Justification,  68-143;  Knox, 
Remains ;  N.  W.  Taylor,  Revealed  Theology,  310-372. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  in  method  to  derive  the  meaning  of  5i'k<uo?  from  that  of  Bucaioo-vvri, 
and  not  vice,  verso.  Wm.  Arnold  Stevens,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  April,  16U~  — 
"  fiiKcuoowj),  righteousness,  in  all  its  meanings,  whether  ethical  or  forensic,  has  back 
of  it  the  idea  of  hur ;  also  the  idea  of  violated  law  ;  it  derives  its  forensic  sense  from  the 
verb  SiKaiou  and  its  cognate  noun  iWatWis  ;  Si/catoo-ufj/  therefore  is  legal  acceptableness, 
the  status  before  the  law  of  a  paraom  d  sinner." 

I)i  nney,  in  Expos.  Gk.  Test.,  2:585— "In  truth,  'sin,'  'the  law,'  'the  curse  of  the 
law,'  'death,'  are  names  for  something  which  belongs  not  to  the  Jewish  but  to  the 
human  conscience;  and  it  is  only  because  this  is  so  that  the  gospel  of  Paul  is  also  a 
gi  ispc  1  for  us.  Before  Christ  came  and  redeemed  the  world,  all  men  were  at  bottom  on 
the  same  footing :  Pharisaism,  legalism,  moralism,  or  whatever  it  is  called,  is  in  the 
last  resort  the  attempt  to  be  good  without  God,  to  achieve  a  righteousness  of  our  own, 
without  an  initial  all-inclusive  immeasurable  debt  to  him;  in  other  words,  without 
submitting,  as  sinful  men  must  submit,  to  be  justified  by  faith  apart  from  works  of 
our  own,  and  to  find  in  that  justification,  and  in  that  only,  the  spring  and  impulse  of 
all  good." 

It  is  worthy  of  special  observation  that,  in  the  passages  cited  above,  the 
terms  "justify"  and  "justification"  are  contrasted,  not  with  the  process  of 
depraving  or  corrupting,  but  with  the  outward  act  of  condemning  ;  and  that 
the  expressions  used  to  explain  and  illustrate  them  are  all  derived,  not  from 
the  inward  operation  of  purifying  the  soul  or  infusing  into  it  righteousness, 
but  from  the  procedure  of  courts  in  their  judgments,  or  of  offended  persons 
in  their  forgiveness  of  offenders.     We  conclude  that  these  terms,  wherever 


854  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

they  have  reference  to  the  sinner's  relation  to  God,  signify  a  declarative  and 
judicial  act  of  God,  external  to  the  sinner,  and  not  an  efficient  and  sovereign 
act  of  God  changing  the  sinner's  nature  and  making  him  subjectively 
righteous. 

In  the  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  session  6,  chap.  9  is  devoted  to  the 
refutation  of  the  "  inanis  htereticorum  fidueia  "  ;  and  Canon  13  of  the  session  anathe- 
matizes those  who  say:  "fidem  justificantem  nihil  aliud  esse  quam  fiduciam  divinas 
misericordiae,  peccata  remittentis  propter  Chi-istum";  or  that  "justifying  faith  is 
nothing  but  trust  in  the  divine  mercy  which  pardons  sins  for  Christ's  sake."  The 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  on  the  contrary  maintains  that  the  ground  of  justification  is 
not  simply  the  faith  by  which  the  sinner  appropriates  Christ  and  his  atoning  work,  but 
is  also  the  new  love  and  good  works  wrought  within  him  by  Christ's  Spirit.  This  intro- 
duces a  subjective  element  which  is  foreign  to  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  justification. 

Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  taught  that  justification  consists  of  three  elements:  1.  Acquittal; 
2.  Restoration  to  favor ;  3.  Infusion  of  righteousness.  In  this  he  accepted  a  fundamental 
error  of  Romanism.  He  says  :  "  Justification  and  sanctiflcation  are  not  to  be  distin. 
guished  as  chronologically  and  statically  different.  Justification  and  righteousness  ai-e 
the  same  thing  from  different  points  of  view.  Pardon  is  not  a  mere  declaration  of  for- 
giveness—a  merely  arbitrary  thins-.  Salvation  introduces  a  new  law  into  our  sinful 
nature  which  annuls  the  law  of  sin  and  destroys  its  penal  and  destructive  consequences. 
Forgiveness  of  sins  must  be  in  itself  a  gradual  process.  The  final  consequences  of  a 
man's  sins  are  written  indelibly  upon  his  nature  and  remain  forever.  When  Christ 
said :  'Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  ',  it  was  an  objective  statement  of  a  subjective  fact. 
The  person  was  already  in  a  state  of  living  relation  to  Christ.  The  gospel  is  damnation 
to  the  damnable,  and  invitation,  love  and  mercy  to  those  who  feel  their  need  of  it.  We 
are  saved  through  the  enforcement  of  law  on  every  one  of  us.  Forgiveness  consists  in 
the  removal  from  consciousness  of  a  sense  of  ill-desert.  Justification,  aside  from  its 
forensic  use,  is  a  transformation  and  a  promotion.  Sense  of  forgiveness  is  a  sense  of 
relief  from  a  hated  habit  of  mind."  This  seems  to  us  dangerously  near  to  a  denial  that 
justification  is  an  act  of  God,  and  to  an  affirmation  that  it  is  simply  a  subjective  change 
in  man's  condition. 

E.  H.  Johnson:  "If  Dr.  Robinson  had  been  content  to  say  that  the  divine  fiat  of 
justification  had  the  man  ward  effect  of  regeneration,  he  would  have  been  correct;  for 
the  verdict  would  be  empty  without  this  man  ward  efficacy.  But  unfortunately,  he 
made  the  effect  a  part  of  the  cause,  identifying  the  divine  justification  with  its  human 
fruition,  the  clearance  of  the  past  with  the  provision  for  the  future."  We  must  grant 
that  the  words  inward  and  outward  are  misleading,  for  God  is  not  under  the  law  of 
space,  and  the  soul  itself  is  not  in  space.  Justification  takes  place  just  as  much  in  man 
as  outside  of  him.  Justification  and  regeneration  take  place  at  the  same  moment,  but 
logically  God's  act  of  renewing  is  the  cause  and  God's  act  of  approving  is  the  effect, 
i  )i-  we  may  say  that  regeneration  and  justification  are  both  of  them  effects  of  our  union 
with  Christ.  Lake  1 :  37  —"For  no  word  from  God  shall  be  void  of  power."  Regeneration  and  justifica- 
tion may  be  different  aspects  of  God's  turning  —  his  turning  us,  and  his  turning  himself. 
But  it  still  is  true  that  justification  is  a  change  in  God  and  not  in  the  creature. 

3.     Elements  of  Justification. 

These  are  two  : 

A.     Bemission  of  punishment. 

(  a )  God  acquits  the  ungodly  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  declares  them 
just.  This  is  not  to  declare  them  innocent, — that  would  be  a  judgment 
contrary  to  truth.  It  declares  that  the  demands  of  the  law  have  been  satis- 
fied with  regard  to  them,  and  that  they  are  now  free  from  its  condemnation. 

Rom.  4  :  5  — "But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  reckoned  for 
righteousness";  cf.  John  3: 16  —"gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish  "  ; 
see  page  856,  ( a ),  and  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2  :  5-19.  Rom.  5:1— "Being  therefore  justified  by  faith, 
we  have  peace  with  God  " — not  subjective  peace  or  quietness  of  mind,  but  objective  peace  or 
reconciliation,  the  opposite  of  the  state  of  war,  in  which  we  are  subject  to  the  divine 
wrath.    Dale,  Ephesians,  67 —  "  Forgiveness  may  be  defined:  1.  in  personal  terms,  as 


JUSTIFICATION-.  855 

a  cessation  of  the  anger  or  moral  resentment  of  God  against  sin;  2.  in  ethical  terms, 
as  a  release  from  the  guilt  of  sin  which  oppresses  the  conscience  ;  3.  in  legal  terms,  as  a 
remission  of  the  punishment  of  sin,  which  is  eternal  death." 

(  b )  This  acquital,  ia  so  far  as  it  is  the  act  of  God  as  judge  or  executive, 
administering  law,  may  be  denominated  pardon.  In  so  far  as  it  is  the  act 
of  God  as  a  father  personally  injured  and  grieved  by  sin,  yet  showing  grace 
to  the  sinner,  it  is  denominated  forgiveness. 

Micah  7 :  18  — "  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  thee,  that  pardoneth  iniquity,  and  passeth  over  the  transgression  of  the  remnant 
of  h:s  heritage ?  "  Ps.  130 :  4  — " But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee,  That  thou  mayst  be  feared."  It  is  hard  for  us 
to  understand  God's  feeling  toward  sin.  Forgiveness  seems  easy  to  us,  largely  because 
we  are  indifferent  toward  sin.  But  to  the  holy  One,  to  whom  sin  is  the  abominable 
thing  which  he  hates,  forgiveness  involves  a  fundamental  change  of  relation,  and 
nothing  but  Christ's  taking  the  penalty  of  sin  upon  him  can  make  it  possible.  B.  Fay 
Mills :  "  A  tender  spirited  follower  of  Jesus  Christ  said  to  me,  not  long  ago,  that  it  had 
taken  him  twelve  years  to  forgive  an  injury  that  had  been  committed  against  him." 
How  much  harder  for  God  to  forgive,  since  he  can  never  become  indifferent  to  the 
nature  of  the  transgression  1 

(  e)  In  an  earthly  tribunal,  there  is  no  acquittal  for  those  who  are  proved 
to  be  transgessors, —  for  such  there  is  only  conviction  and  punishment. 
But  in  God's  government  there  is  remission  of  punishment  for  believers, 
even  though  they  are  confessedly  offenders ;  and,  in  justification,  God 
declares  this  remission. 

There  is  no  forgiveness  in  nature.  F.  W.  Robertson  preached  this.  But  he  ignored 
the  vis  medtcatrix  of  the  gospel,  in  which  forgiveness  is  off  ered  to  all.  The  natural  con- 
science says:  "  I  must  pay  my  debt."  But  the  believer  finds  that  "  Jesus  paid  it  all." 
Illustrate  by  the  poor  man,  who  on  coming  to  pay  his  mortgage  finds  that  the  owner  at 
death  had  ordered  it  to  be  burned,  so  that  now  there  is  nothing  to  pay.  Ps.  34:22  — 
"Jehovah  redeemeth  the  soul  of  his  servant,  And  none  of  them  that  take  refuge  in  him  shall  be  condemned." 

A  child  disobeys  his  father  and  breaks  his  arm.  His  sin  involves  two  penalties,  the 
alienation  from  his  father  and  the  broken  arm.  The  father,  on  repentance,  may  forgive 
his  child.  The  personal  relation  is  re-established,  but  the  broken  bone  is  not  therefore 
at  once  reknit.  The  father's  f orgi  veness,  however,  will  assure  the  father's  helD  toward 
complete  healing.  So  justification  does  not  ensure  the  immediate  removal  of  all  the 
natural  consequences  of  our  sins.  It  does  ensure  present  reconciliation  and  future 
perfection.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  3fU— "  Justification  is  not  equivalent  to  acquit- 
tal, for  acquittal  declares  that  the  man  has  not  done  wrong.  Justilication  is  rather  the 
acceptance  of  a  man,  on  sufficienl  grounds,  although  he  has  done  wrong."  As  the  Ply- 
mouth Brethren  say  :  "  It  is  not  the  .si/i-question,  but  the  So/j -question."  "Their  sins  and 
their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more  "  (Heb.  10:17).  The  father  did  not  allow  the  prodigal  to  com- 
plete the  confession  he  had  prepared  to  make,  but  interrupted  him,  and  dwelt  only  upon 
his  return  home  ( Luke  15 :  22 ). 

(  cl )  The  declaration  that  the  sinner  is  no  longer  exposed  to  the  penalty 
of  law,  has  its  ground,  not  in  any  satisfaction  of  the  law's  demand  on  the 
part  of  the  sinner  himself,  but  solely  in  the  bearing  of  the  penalty  by 
Christ,  to  whom  the  sinner  is  united  by  faith.  Justification,  in  its  first 
element,  is  therefore  that  act  by  which  God,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  acquits 
the  transgressor  and  suffers  him  to  go  free. 

Acts  13  :  38,  39  — "  Be  it  known  unto  you  therefore,  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  proclaimed  unto  you  remission 
of  sins :  and  by  him  [lit. :  '  in  him  '  ]  every  one  that  beLeveth  is  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses ' ' ;  Rom.  3 :  24,  26  — "  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jes'is  ....  that  he  might  himself  e  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus "  ;  1  Cor.  6  :  11  — 
"  but  ye  were  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  ;  Eph.  1:7 —  "in  whom  we  have  our  redemption  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  our  trespasses,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace." 

This  acquittal  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  the  sovereign  act  of  a  Governor,  but  rather 
as  a  judicial  procedure.   Christ  secures  a  new  trial  for  those  already  condemned — a  trial 


856  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRIKE   OF  SALVATIOH. 

in  which  he  appears  for  the  guilty,  and  sets  over  against  their  sin  his  own  righteous- 
ness, or  rather  shows  them  to  be  righteous  in  him.  C.  H.  M. :  "  When  Balak  seeks  to 
curse  the  seed  of  Abraham,  it  is  said  of  Jehovah  ;  '  He  hath  not  beheld  iniquity  in  Jacob,  Neither  hath 
he  seen  perverseness  in  Israel '  ( Nam.  23 :  21 ).  When  Satan  stands  forth  to  rebuke  Joshua,  the  word 
is:  'Jehovah  rebuke  thee,  0  Satan  ....  is  not  this  a  brand  plucked  out  of  the  fire?'  (Zech.3:2).  Thus  he  ever 
puts  himself  between  his  people  and  every  tongue  that  would  accuse  them.  'Touch  not  mine 
anointed  ones,'  he  says,  'and  do  my  prophets  no  harm'  (Ps.  405:15).  'It  is  God  that  justifieth;  who  is  he  that 
condemneth?'  (Rom.  8  :  33,  34)."  It  is  not  sin,  then,  that  condemns,— it  is  the  failure  to  ask 
pardon  for  sin,  through  Christ.  Illustrate  by  the  ring  presented  by  Queen  Elizabeth  to 
the  Earl  of  Essex.  Queen  Elizabeth  did  not  forgive  the  penitent  Countess  of  Notting- 
ham for  withholding  the  ring  of  Essex  which  would  have  purchased  his  pardon.  She 
shook  the  dying  woman  and  cursed  her,  even  while  she  was  imploring  forgiveness. 
There  is  no  such  failure  of  mercy  in  God's  administration. 

Kaftan,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  4:698  — "The  peculiar  characteristic  of  Christian 
experience  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  reconciliation  —  a  forgiveness  which  is  con- 
ceived as  an  unmerited  gift  of  God,  which  is  bestowed  on  man  independently  of  his 
own  moral  worthiness.  Other  religions  have  some  measure  of  revelation,  but  Chris- 
tianity alone  has  the  clear  revelation  of  this  forgiveness,  and  this  is  accepted  by  faith. 
And  forgiveness  leads  to  a  better  ethics  than  any  religion  of  works  can  show." 

B.     Eestoration  to  favor. 

(a)  Justification  is  more  than  remission  or  acquittal.  These  would 
leave  the  sinner  simply  in  the  position  of  a  discharged  criminal, —  law 
requires  a  positive  righteousness  also.  Besides  deliverance  from  punish- 
ment, justification  implies  God's  treatment  of  the  sinner  as  if  he  were,  and 
had  been,  personally  righteous.  The  justified  person  receives  not  only 
remission  of  penalty,  but  the  rewards  promised  to  obedience. 

Luke  15 :  22-24  —  "Bring  forth  quickly  the  best  robe,  and  put  it  on  him ;  and  put  a  ring  on  his  hand,  and  shoes  on 
his  feet :  and  bring  the  fatted  ca!f,  and  kill  it,  and  let  us  eat,  and  make  merry  •  for  this  my  son  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again ;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found  "  ;  John  3  :  16  —  "  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should 
....  have  eternal  life  "  ;  Rom.  5  : 1,  2  — "  Being  therefore  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  through  whom  also  we  have  had  our  access  by  faith  into  this  grace  wherein  we  stand ;  and  we  rejoice  in 
hope  of  the  glory  of  God"— "this  grace"  being  a  permanent  state  of  divine  favor;  1  Cor.  1 :30 — "But 
of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness  and  sanctification,  and  redemp- 
tion :  that,  according  as  it  is  written,  He  that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord  " ;  2  Cor.  5 :  21  —  "  that  we  might 
become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him." 

Gal.  3:6  —  "Ever  as  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness"  ;  Eph.  2:7  —  " the 
exceeding  riches  of  his  grace  in  kindness  toward  us  in  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  3 :  12  — "  in  whom  we  have  boldness  and  access  in 
confidence  through  our  faith  in  bim"  ;  Phil.  3  :  8,  9 —  "I  count  all  things  to  be  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  ....  the  righteousness  which  is  from  God  by  faith  "  ;  CoL  1 :  22  —  "reconciled  in  the  body  of 
his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you  holy  and  without  blemish  and  unreprovable  before  bim";  Tit.  3:4,  7 —  "the 
kindness  of  God  our  Savior  ....  that,  being  justified  by  his  grace,  we  might  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of 
eternal  life  " ;  Rev.  19 :  8  —  "  And  it  was  given  unto  her  that  she  should  array  herself  in  fine  linen,  bright  and  pure :  for 
the  fine  linen  *s  2ne  righteous  acts  of  the  saints." 

Justification  is  setting  one  right  before  law.  But  law  requires  not  merely  freedom 
from  offence  negatively,  but  all  manner  of  obedience  and  likeness  to  God  positively. 
Since  justification  is  in  Christ  and  by  virtue  of  the  believer's  union  with  Christ,  it  puts 
the  believer  on  the  same  footing  before  the  law  that  Christ  is  on,  namely,  not  only 
acquittal  but  favor.  1  Tim.  3 :  16 —  Christ  was  himself  "justified  in  the  spirit,"  and  the  believer 
partakes  of  7ns  justification  and  of  the  whole  of  it,  i.  c,  not  only  acquittal  but  favor. 
Acts  13: 39  —  "in  him  every  one  that  believeth  is  justified"  i.  e.,  in  Christ ;  1  Cor.  6  :11  —  "justified  in  the  name  Of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  ;  Gal.  4:5  —  "that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  "  —  a  part  of  justification  ; 
Rom.  5 :  11  —  "through  whom  we  have  now  received  the  reconciliation "  —  in  justification  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  21  —  "that 
we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him  "  ;  Phil.  3:9—  'the  righteousnes  which  is  from  God  by  faith  "  ;  John 
1:12 — "to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God  " — emphasis  on  "gave"  —  intimation  that 
the  "becoming  children  "  is  not  subsequent  to  the  Justin  cation,  but  is  a  part  of  it. 

Ellicott  on  Tit.  3:  7— "  SiKcuotfefTe?,  'justified,'  in  the  usual  and  more  strict  theological 
sense;  not  however  as  implying  only  a  mere  outward  non-imputation  of  sin,  but  as 
involving  a  '  mutationem  status,'  an  acceptance  into  new  privileges,  and  an  enjoyment 
of  the  benefits  thereof  ( Waterland,  Justif ,  vol.  vi,  p.  5 ) ;  in  the  words  of  the  same  writer : 


JUSTIFICATION".  857 

'  Justification  cannot  be  conceived  without  some  work  of  the  Spirit  in  conferring  a  title 
to  salvation.'  "  The  prisoner  who  has  simply  served  out  his  term  escapes  without  fur- 
ther punishment  and  that  is  all.  But  the  pardoned  man  receives  back  in  his  pardon 
the  full  rights  of  citizenship,  can  again  vote,  serve  on  juries,  testify  in  court,  and  exer- 
cise all  his  individual  liberties,  asthe  discharged  convict  cannot.  The  Society  of  Friends 
is  so  called,  not  because  they  are  friends  to  one  another,  but  because  they  regard  them- 
selves as  f  riends  of  God.  So,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  Master  Eckart,  John  Tauler,  Henry 
Suso,  called  themselves  the  friends  of  God,  after  the  pattern  of  Abraham  ;  2Chron. 20:7  — 
"  Abraham  thy  friend  "  ;  James  2 :  23  — "Abraham  bel.eved  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness ;  and 
he  was  called  the  friend  of  God  ",  i.  e.,  one  not  merely  acquitted  from  the  charge  of  sin,  butalso 
admitted  into  favor  and  intimacy  with  God. 

( b  )  This  restoration  to  favor,  viewed  in  its  aspect  as  the  renewal  of  a 
broken  friendship,  is  denominated  reconciliation  ;  viewed  in  its  aspect  as  a 
renewal  of  the  soul's  true  relation  to  God  as  a  father,  it  is  denominated 
adoption. 

John  1 :  12  — "  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  tha 
believe  on  his  name  "  ;  Rom.  5 :  11  —''and  not  only  so,  but  we  also  rejo.ee  in  God  through  our  Lord  Je_us  Christ,  through 
whom  we  have  now  received  the  reconciliation  " ;  Gal.  4  :  4,  5  — "  born  under  the  law,  that  he  might  rede  •m  them  tha' 
were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons"  ;  Eph.  1 : 5  —  "  having  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as 
sons  through  Jesus  Christ  unto  himself"  ;  cf.  Rom.  8  :23  — "even  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  our 
adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body ' '  —  that  is,  this  adoption  is  completed,  so  far  as  the  body 
is  concerned,  at  the  resurrection. 

Luther  called  Psalms32,  51, 130, 143,  "the  Pauline  Psalms,"  because  these  declare  forgive- 
ness to  be  granted  to  the  believer  without  law  and  without  works.  Ps.  130  :  3,  4— "If  thou, 
Jehovah,  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  0  Lord,  who  could  stand?  But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee,  That  thou  mayest  be 
feared"  is  followed  by  verses  7,  8 — "  0  Israel,  hope  in  Jehovah ;  For  with  Jehovah  there  is  lovingkindness,  And 
with  him  is  plenteous  redemption.  And  he  will  redeem  Israel  From  all  his  iniquities."  Whitefleld  was  rebuked 
for  declaring  in  a  discourse  that  Christ,  would  receive  even  the  devil's  castaways ;  but 
that  very  day,  while  at  dinner  at  Lady  Huntington's,  he  was  called  oul  to  meet  two 
women  who  were  sinners,  and  to  whose  broken  hearts  and  blasted  lives  that  remark 
gave  hope  and  healing. 

(  c )  In  an  earthly  pardon  there  are  no  special  helps  bestowed  upon  the 
pardoned.  There  are  no  penalties,  but  there  are  also  no  rewards  ;  law  can- 
not churn  anything  of  the  discharged,  but  then  they  also  can  claim  nothing 
of  the  law.  But  what,  though  greatly  needed,  is  left  unprovided  by  human 
government,  God  does  provide.  In  justification,  there  is  not  only  acquittal, 
but  approval ;  not  only  pardon,  but  promotion.  Remission  is  never  sepa- 
rated from  restoration. 

After  serving  a  term  in  the  penitentiary,  the  convict  goes  out  with  a  stigma  upon 
him  and  with  no  friends.  His  past  conviction  and  disgrace  follow  him.  He  cannot 
obtain  employment.  He  cannot  vote.  Want  often  leads  liim  to  commit  crime  again  ; 
and  then  the  old  conviction  is  brought  up  as  proof  of  bad  character,  and  increases  his 
punishment.  Need  of  Friendly  Inns  and  Refuges  for  discharged  criminals.  But  the 
justified  sinner  is  differently  treated.  He  is  not  only  delivered  from  God's  wrath  and 
eternal  death,  but  he  is  admitted  to  God's  favor  and  eternal  life.  The  discovery  of  this 
is  partly  the  cause  of  the  convert's  joy.  Expecting  pardon,  at  most,  he  is  met  with 
unmeasured  favor.  The  prodigal  finds  the  father's  house  and  heart  open  to  him,  and 
more  done  for  him  than  if  he  had  never  wandered.  This  overwhelms  and  subdues  him. 
The  two  elements,  acquittal  and  restoration  to  favor,  are  never  separated.  Like  the 
expulsion  of  darkness  and  restoration  of  light,  they  always  go  together.  No  one  can 
have,  even  if  he  would  have,  an  incomplete  justification.  Christ's  justification  is  ours ; 
and,  as  Jesus'  own  seamless  tunic  could  not  be  divided,  so  the  robe  of  righteousness 
which  he  provides  cannot  be  cut  in  two. 

Failure  to  apprehend  this  positive  aspect  of  justification  as  restoration  to  favor  is  the 
reason  why  so  many  Christians  have  little  joy  and  little  enthusiasm  in  their  religious 
lives.  The  preaching  of  the  magnanimity  and  generosity  of  God  makes  the  gospel  "the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation"  (Rom.  1 :16).  Edwin  M.  Stanton  had  ridden  roughshod  over  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  in  the  conduct  of  a  case  at  law  in  which  they  had  been  joint  counsel. 


858  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    SALVATION. 

Stanton  had  become  vindictive  and  even  violent  when  Lincoln  was  made  President. 
But  Lincoln  invited  Stanton  to  be  Secretary  of  War,  and  he  sent  the  invitation  by 
Harding,  who  knew  of  all  this  former  trouble.  When  Stanton  heard  it,  he  said  with 
streaming-  eyes :  "  Do  you  tell  me,  Harding,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  sent  this  message  to  me  ? 
Tell  him  that  such  magnanimity  will  ma  lie  me  work  with  him  as  man  was  never  served 
before!" 

( d  )  The  declaration  that  the  sinner  is  restored  to  God's  favor,  has  its 
ground,  not  in  the  sinner's  personal  character  or  conduct,  but  solely  in  the 
obedience  and  righteousness  of  Christ,  to  whom  the  sinner  is  united  by 
faith.  Thus  Christ's  work  is  the  procuring  cause  of  our  justification,  in 
both  its  elements.  As  we  are  acquitted  on  account  of  Christ's  suffering  of 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  so  on  account  of  Christ's  obedience  we  receive  the 
rewards  of  law. 

All  this  comes  to  us  in  Christ.  We  participate  in  the  rewards  promised  to  his  obedi- 
ence :  John  20  :  31  —"that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name  "  ;  1  Cor.  3  :  21-23  —"For  all  things  are  yours ; 
....  all  are  yours;  and  ye  are  Christ's;  and  Christ  is  God's."  Denovan,  Toronto  Baptist,  Dec.  1883, 
maintains  that  "  grace  operates  in  two  ways :  ( 1 )  for  the  rebel  it  provides  a  scheme  of 
justification,—  this  is  judicial,  matter  of  debt;  (2)  for  the  child  it  provides  pardon,— 
fatherly  forgiveness  on  repentance."  Heb.  7:19 — "  the  law  made  nothing  perfect  ....  a  bringing  in 
thereupon  of  a  better  hope,  through  which  we  draw  nigh  unto  God."  This  "better  hope"  is  offered  to  us  in 
Christ's  death  and  resurrection.  The  veil  of  the  temple  was  the  symbol  of  separation 
from  God.  The  rending1  of  that  veil  was  the  symbol  on  the  one  hand  that  sin  had  been 
atoned  for,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  unrestricted  access  to  God  was  now  permitted 
us  in  Christ  the  great  forerunner.  Bonar's  hymn,  "Jesus,  whom  angel  hosts  adore," 
has  for  its  concluding  stanza :  "  'T  is  finished  all :  the  veil  is  rent.  The  welcome  sure,  the 
access  free :  —  Now  then,  we  leave  our  banishment,  O  Father,  to  return  to  thee ! "  See 
pages  749  ( b ),  770  ( 7i ). 

James  Russell  Lowell :  "  At  the  devil's  booth  all  things  are  sold.  Each  ounce  of  dross 
costs  its  ounce  of  gold ;  For  a  cap  and  bells  our  lives  we  pay :  Bubbles  we  buy  with  a 
whole  soul's  tasking ;  'T  is  heaven  alone  that  is  given  away,  'T  is  only  God  may  be  had 
for  the  asking."  John  G.  Whittier  :  "  The  hour  draws  near,  howe'er  delayed  and  late, 
When  at  the  Eternal  Gate,  We  leave  the  words  and  works  we  call  our  own,  And  lift 
void  hands  alone  For  love  to  fill.  Our  nakedness  of  soul  Brings  to  that  gate  no  toll ; 
Giftless  we  come  to  him  who  all  things  gives,  And  live  because  he  lives." 

H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  523,  524— "Justification  and  pardon  are 
not  the  same  in  Scripture.  We  object  to  the  view  of  Emmons  ( Works,  vol.  5 ),  that  'jus- 
tification is  no  more  nor  less  than  pardon,'  and  that  '  God  rewards  men  for  their  own, 
and  not  Christ's,  obedience,'  for  the  reason  that  the  words,  as  used  in  common  life,  relate 
to  wholly  different  things.  If  a  man  is  declared  just  by  a  human  tribunal,  he  is  not 
pardoned,  he  is  acquitted ;  his  own  inherent  righteousness,  as  respects  the  charge 
against  him,  is  recognized  and  declared.  The  gospel  proclaims  both  pardon  and  justifi- 
cation. There  is  no  significance  in  the  use  of  the  word  'justify,'  if  pardon  be  all  that 
is  intended.  .  .  . 

"  Justification  involves  what  pardon  does  not,  a  righteousness  which  is  the  ground  of 
the  acquittal  and  favor  ;  not  the  mere  favor  of  the  sovereign,  but  the  merit  of  Christ, 
is  at  the  basis  —  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God.  The  ends  of  the  law  are  so  far  sat- 
isfied by  what  Christ  has  done,  that  the  sinner  can  be  pardoned.  The  law  is  not  merely 
set  aside,  but  its  great  ends  are  answered  by  what  Christ  has  done  in  our  behalf.  God 
might  pardon  as  a  sovereign,  from  mere  benevolence  ( as  regard  to  happiness ) ;  but  in 
the  gospel  he  does  more,—  he  pardons  in  consistency  with  his  holiness, —  upholding  that 
as  the  main  end  of  all  his  dealings  and  works.  Justification  involves  acquittal  from  all 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  the  inheritance  of  all  the  blessings  of  the  redeemed  state. 
The  penalty  of  the  law  — spiritual,  temporal,  eternal  death  — is  all  taken  away;  and  the 
opposite  blessings  are  conferred,  in  and  through  Christ  — the  resurrection  to  blessed- 
ness, the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  eternal  life.  .  .  . 

"  H  justification  is  forgiveness  simply,  it  applies  only  to  the  past.  If  it  is  also  a  title  to 
life,  it  includes  the  future  condition  of  the  soul.  The  latter  alone  is  consistent  with  the 
plan  and  decrees  of  God  respecting  redemption  —  his  seeing  the  end  from  the  beginning. 
The  reason  why  justification  has  been  taken  as  pardon  is  two-fold :  first,  it  does  involve 


JUSTIFICATION".  859 

pardon,— this  is  its  negative  side,  while  it  has  a  positive  side  also  — the  title  to  eternal 
life ;  secondly,  the  tendency  to  resolve  the  gospel  into  an  ethical  system.  Only  our  acts 
of  choice  as  meritorious  could  procure  a  title  to  favor,  a  positive  reward.  Christ  might 
remove  the  obstacle,  but  the  title  to  heaven  is  derived  only  from  what  we  ourselves  do. 

"  Justification  is,  therefore,  not  a  merely  governmental  provision,  as  it  must  be  on 
any  scheme  that  denies  that  Christ's  work  has  direct  respect  to  the  ends  of  the  law- 
Views  of  the  atonement  determine  the  views  on  justification,  if  logical  sequence  is 
observed.  We  have  to  do  here,  not  with  views  of  natural  justice,  but  with  divine 
methods.  If  we  regard  the  atonement  simply  as  answering  the  ends  of  a  governmental 
scheme,  our  view  must  be  that  justification  merely  removes  an  obstacle,  and  the  end  of 
it  is  only  pardon,  and  not  eternal  life." 

But  upon  the  true  view,  that  the  atonement  is  a  complete  satisfaction  to  the  holiness 
of  God,  justification  embraces  not  merely  pardon,  or  acquittal  from  the  punishments  of 
law,  but  also  restoration  to  favor,  or  the  rewards  promised  to  actual  obedience.  See 
also  Quenstedt,  3 :  524 ;  Philippi,  Active  Obedience  of  Christ ;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
2 :  432,  433. 

4.     Relation  of  Justification  to  OorVs  Laro  and  Holiness. 

A.  Justification  has  been  shown  to  he  a  forensic  term.  A  man  may, 
indeed,  he  conceived  of  as  just,  in  either  of  two  senses  :  ( a )  as  just  in 
moral  character, —  that  is,  absolutely  holy  in  nature,  disposition,  and  con- 
duct ;  (/>)  as  justin  relation  to  law, — or  as  free  from  all  obligation  to  suffer 
penalty,  and  as  entitled  to  the  rewards  of  obedience. 

So,  too,  a  man  may  be  conceived  of  as  justified,  in  either  of  two  senses  : 
(  a)  made  just  in  moral  character  ;  or,  ( />)  made  just  in  his  relation  to  law. 
But  the  Scriptures  declare  that  there  does  not  exist  on  earth  a  just  man,  in 
the  first  of  these  senses  (  Eccl.  7  :  20).  Even  in  those  who  are  renewed  in 
moral  character  and  united  to  Christ,  there  is  a  remnant  of  moral  depravity. 

If,  therefore,  there  be  any  such  thing  as  a  just  man,  he  must  be  just,  not 
in  the  sense  of  possessing  an  unspotted  holiness,  but  in  the  sense  of  being 
delivered  from  the  penalty  of  law,  and  made  partaker  of  its  rewards.  If 
there  be  any  such  thing  as  justification,  it  must  be,  not  an  act  of  God 
which  renders  the  sinner  absolutely  holy,  but  an  act  of  God  whicli  declares 
the  sinner  to  be  free  from  legal  penalties  and  entitled  to  legal  rewards. 

Justus  is  derived  from  rus,  and  suggests  the  idea  of  courts  and  legal  procedures.  The 
fact  that  'justify  '  is  derived  from  Justus  and  facto,  and  might  therefore  seem  to  imply 
tlic  making  of  a  man  subjectively  righteous,  should  not  blind  us  to  its  forensic  use.  The 
ph  rases  "  sanctify  the  Holy  One  of  Jacob  "  ( Is.  29  :  23 ;  cf.  1  Pet.  3  :  15  — "  sanctify  in  your  hearts  Christ  as  Lord ' ' ) 
ami  " glorify  God "  (1  Cor.  6:20)  do  not  mean,  to  make  God  subjectively  holy  or  glorious,  for 
this  he  is,  whatever  we  may  do  ;  they  mean  rather,  to  declare,  or  show,  him  to  be  holy  or 
glorious.  So  justification  is  not  making  a  man  righteous,  or  even  pronouncing  him 
righteous,  for  no  man  is  subjectively  righteous.  It  is  rather  to  count  him  righteous  so 
far  as  respects  his  relations  to  law,  to  treat  him  as  righteous,  or  to  declare  that  God  will, 
for  reasons  assigned,  so  treat  him  (Payne).  So  long  as  any  remnant  of  sin  exists,  no 
justification,  in  the  sense  of  making  holy,  can  be  attributed  to  man:  EccL  7;  20— "Surely 
there  is  not  a  righteous  man  upon  earth,  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not."  If  no  man  is  just,  in  this  sense, 
then  God  cannot  pronounce  him  just,  for  God  cannot  lie.  Justification,  therefore,  must 
signify  a  deliverance  from  legal  penalties,  and  an  assignment  of  legal  rewards.  O.  P. 
Giff ord :  There  is  no  such  thing  as  "salvation  hj/  character  "  ;  what  men  need  is  salva- 
tion from  character.  The  only  sense  in  which  salvation  by  character  is  rational  or 
Scriptural  is  that  suggested  by  George  Harris,  Moral  Evolution,  409— "Salvation  by 
character  is  not  self-righteousness,  but  Christ  in  us."  But  even  here  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Christ  in  us  presupposes  Christ  for  us.  The  objective  atonement  for  sin 
must  come  before  the  subjective  purification  of  our  natures.  And  justification  is  upon 
the  ground  of  that  objective  atonement,  and  not  upon  the  ground  of  the  subjective 
cleansing. 


8G0  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

The  Jews  had  a  proverb  that  if  only  one  man  could  perfectly  keep  the  whole  law  even 
for  one  day,  the  kingdom  of  Messiah  would  at  once  come  upon  the  earth.  This  is  to 
state  in  another  form  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  in  Rom.  7 : 9  — "  When  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived, 
and  I  died."  To  recognize  the  impossibility  of  being  justified  by  Pharisaic  works  was  a 
preparation  for  the  gospel ;  see  Bruce,  Apologetics,  419.  The  Germans  speak  of  Werk-, 
Lehre-,  Buchstaben-,  Negations-,  Parteigerechtigkeit ;  but  all  these  are  forms  of  self- 
righteousness.  Berridge :  "  A  man  may  steal  some  gems  from  the  crown  of  Jesus  and 
be  guilty  only  of  petty  larceny,  ....  but  the  man  who  would  justify  himself  by  his 
own  works  steals  the  crown  itself,  puts  it  on  his  own  head,  and  proclaims  himself  by 
his  own  conquests  a  king  in  Zion." 

B.  The  difficult  feature  of  justification  is  the  declaration,  on  the  part  of 
God,  that  a  sinner  whose  remaining  sinfulness  seems  to  necessitate  the  vin^ 
dicative  reaction  of  God's  holiness  against  him,  is  yet  free  from  such  reaction 
of  holiness  as  is  expressed  in  the  penalties  of  the  law. 

The  fact  is  to  be  accepted  on  the  testimony  of  Scripture.  If  this  testimony 
be  not  accepted,  there  is  no  deliverance  from  the  condemnation  of  law.  But 
the  difficulty  of  conceiving  of  God's  declaring  the  sinner  no  longer  exposed 
to  legal  penalty  is  relieved,  if  not  removed,  by  the  three-fold  consideration : 

( a )  That  Christ  has  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  sinner's  stead. 

Gal.  3 :  13 — "Christ  redeemed  ns  from  the  cnrse  of  the  law,  having  become  a  curse  for  us."  Donovan :  "  We 
are  justified  by  faith,  hist  rumentally,  in  the  same  sense  as  a  debt  is  paid  by  a  good  note 
or  a  check  on  a  substantial  account  in  a  distant  bank.  It  is  only  the  intelligent  and 
honest  acceptance  of  justification  already  provided."  Rom.  8:3 — "God,  sending  his  own  Son 
....  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  "=the  believer's  sins  were  judged  and  condemned  on  Calvary. 
The  way  of  pardon  through  Christ  honors  God's  justice  as  well  as  God's  mercy  ;  cf.  Rom, 
3 :  26  — "  that  he  might  himself  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus." 

(6)  That  the  sinner  is  so  united  to  Christ,  that  Christ's  life  already  con- 
stitutes the  dominating  principle  within  him. 

Gal.  2 :  20  — "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  God 
does  not  justify  any  man  whom  he  does  not  foresee  that  he  can  and  will  sanctify.  Some 
prophecies  produce  their  own  fulfilment.  Tell  a  man  he  is  brave;  and  you  help  him  to 
become  so.  So  declaratory  justification,  when  published  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  helps  to  make  men  just.  Harris,  God  the  Creator,  2 :  332 — "The  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  insists  that  justification  must  be  conditioned,  not  on 
faith,  but  on  right  character.  But  justification  by  faith  is  itself  the  doctrine  of  a  justi- 
fication conditioned  on  right  character,  because  faith  in  God  is  the  only  possible  begin- 
ning of  right  character,  either  in  men  or  angels."  Goidd,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  67-79,  in  a 
similar  manner  argues  that  Paul's  emphasis  is  on  the  spiritual  effect  of  the  death  of  our 
Lord,  rather  than  on  its  expiatory  effect.  The  course  of  thought  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  seems  to  us  to  contradict  this  view.  Sin  and  the  objective  atonement  for  sin 
are  first  treated  ;  only  after  justification  comes  the  sanctiflcation  of  the  believer.  Still 
it  is  true  that  justification  is  never  the  sole  work  of  God  in  the  soul.  The  same  Christ 
in  union  with  whom  we  are  justified  does  at  that  same  moment  a  work  of  regeneration 
which  is  followed  by  sanctiflcation. 

(  c )  That  this  life  of  Christ  is  a  power  in  the  soul  which  will  gradually, 
but  infallibly,  extirpate  all  remaining  depravity,  until  the  whole  physical 
and  moral  nature  is  perfectly  conformed  to  the  divine  holiness. 

Phil.  3 :  21  — "  who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation,  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his  glory, 
according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subject  all  things  unto  himself" ;  Col.  3 : 1-4  — '  If  then  ye  were 
raised  together  with  Christ,  seek  the  things  that  are  above,  where  Christ  is,  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Set  your 
mind  on  the  things  that  are  above,  not  on  the  things  that  are  upon  the  earth.  For  ye  died,  and  your  life  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God.    When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall  ye  also  with  him  be  manifested  in  glory." 

Truth  of  fact,  and  ideal  truth,  are  not  opposed  to  each  other.  F.  W.  Robertson,  Lec- 
tures and  Addresses,  256  —  "When  the  agriculturist  sees  a  small,  white,  almond-like 
thing  rising  from  the  ground,  he  calls  that  an  oak ;  but  this  is  not  a  truth  of  fact,  it  is 


JUSTIFICATION.  861 

an  ideal  truth.  The  oak  is  a  large  tree,  with  spreading  branches  and  leaves  and  acorns; 
but  that  is  only  a  thing  an  inch  long,  and  imperceptible  in  all  its  development ;  yet  the 
agriculturist  sees  in  it  the  idea  of  what  it  shall  be,  and,  if  I  may  borrow  a  Scriptural 
phrase,  he  imputes  to  it  the  majesty,  and  excellence,  and  glory,  that  is  to  be  hereafter." 
This  method  of  representation  is  effective  and  unobjectionable,  so  long  as  we  remember 
that  the  force  which  is  to  bring  about  this  future  development  and  perfection  is 
not  the  force  of  unassisted  human  nature,  but  rather  the  force  of  Christ  and  his 
indwelling  Spirit.     See  Philippi,  Glaubenslehre,  v,  1:201-208. 

Gore,  Incarnation,  224—"  'Looking  at  the  mother,'  wrote  George  Eliot  of  Mrs.  Garth 
in  The  Mill  on  the  Floss, '  you  might  hope  that  the  daughter  would  become  like  her — 
which  is  a  prospective  advantage  equal  to  a  dowry  — the  mother  too  often  standing 
behind  the  daughter  like  a  malignant  prophecy:  Such  as  I  am,  she  will  shortly  be.' 
George  Eliot  imputes  by  anticipation  to  the  daughter  the  merits  of  the  mother,  because 
her  life  is,  so  to  speak,  of  the  same  piece.  Now,  by  new  birth  and  spiritual  union,  our 
life  is  of  the  same  piece  with  the  life  of  Jesus.  Thus  he,  our  elder  brother,  stands 
behind  us,  his  people,  as  a  prophecy  of  all  good.  Thus  God  accepts  us,  deals  with  us, 
'in  the  Beloved,'  rating  us  at  something  of  his  value,  imputing  to  us  his  merits,  because  in 
fact,  except  we  be  reprobates,  he  himself  is  the  most  powerful  and  real  force  at  work 
in  us." 

5.  Relation  of  Justification  to  Union  with  Christ  and  the  Work  of 
the  Spirit. 

A.  Since  the  sinner,  at  the  moment  of  justification,  is  not  yet  com- 
pletely transformed  in  character,  we  have  seen  that  God  can  declare  him 
just,  not  on  account  of  what  he  is  in  himself,  but  only  on  account  of  what 
Christ  is.  The  ground  of  justification  is  therefore  not,  (  a  )  as  the  Ilomanists 
hold,  a  new  righteousness  and  love  infused  into  us,  and  now  constituting 
our  moral  character  ;  nor,  (  b  )  as  Osiander  taught,  the  essential  righteous- 
ness of  Christ's  divine  nature,  which  has  become  ours  by  faith  ;  but  (  C  )  the 
satisfaction  aud  obedience  of  Christ,  as  the  head  of  a  new  humanity,  and 
as  embracing  in  himself  all  believers  as  his  members. 

Ritsehl  regarded  justification  as  primarily  an  endowment  of  the  church,  in  which  the 
individual  participated  only  so  far  as  he  belonged  to  the  church;  see  Pfteiderer,  Die 
ltitsehl'sehe  Theologie,  70.  Here  Kitsch]  committed  an  error  like  that  of  the  Romanist, 
— the  church  is  the  door  to  Christ ,  instead  of  <  'hrist  being  the  door  to  the  church.  Jus- 
tification belongs  primarily  to  Christ,  then  to  all  who  join  themselves  to  Christ  by  faith, 
and  the  church  is  the  natural  and  voluntary  aggregation  of  those  who  in  Christ  are 
thus  justified.  Hence  the  necessity  for  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  "  For  as  the  ministry  of  Enoch  was  sealed  by  his  reception  into  heaven,  and  as 
the  ministry  of  Elijah  was  also  abundantly  proved  by  his  translation,  so  also  the  right- 
eousness and  innocence  of  Christ.  But  it  was  necessary  that  the  ascension  of  Christ 
should  be  more  fully  attested,  because  upon  his  righteousness,  so  fully  proved  by  his 
ascension,  we  must  depend  for  all  our  righteousness.  For  if  God  had  not  approved  him 
after  his  resurrection,  and  he  had  not  taken  his  seat  at  his  right  hand,  we  could  by  no 
means  be  accepted  of  God  "  (  Cartwright ). 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  46,  193, 195,  206—"  Christ  must  be  justified  in  the 
spirit  and  received  up  into  glory,  before  he  can  be  made  righteousness  to  us  and  we  can 
become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  Christ's  coronation  is  the  indispensable  con- 
dition of  our  justification Christ  the  High  Priest  has  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies 

in  heaven  for  us.  Until  he  comes  forth  again  at  the  second  advent,  how  can  we  be 
assured  that  his  sacrifice  for  us  is  accepted  ?  We  reply :  By  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  presence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  church  is  the  proof  of  the  presence  of  Christ  before 

the  throne The  Holy  Spirit  convinces  of  righteousness,  'because  I  go  unto  the  Father,  and 

ye  see  me  no  more '  ( John  16  :  10  ).  We  can  only  know  that  '  we  have  a  Paraclete  with  the  Father,  even  Jesus 
Christ  the  Righteous '  ( 1  John  2 : 1 ),  by  that  '  other  Paraclete '  sent  forth  from  the  Father,  even  the 
Holy  Spirit  (John  14: 25,  26;  15:26).  The  church,  having  the  Spirit,  reflects  Christ  to  the 
world.  As  Christ  manifests  the  Father,  so  the  church  through  the  Spirit  manifests 
Christ.  So  Christ  gives  to  us  his  name, '  Christians,'  as  the  husband  gives  his  name  to 
the  wife." 


802  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  SALVATION". 

As  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  not  because  Adam  is  in  us,  but  because 
we  were  in  Adam ;  so  Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  not  because 
Christ  is  in  us,  but  because  we  are  in  Christ, — that  is,  joined  by  faith  to 
one  whose  righteousness  and  life  are  infinitely  greater  than  our  power  to 
appropriate  or  contain.  In  this  sense,  we  may  say  that  we  are  justified 
through  a  Christ  outside  of  us,  as  we  are  sanctified  through  a  Christ  within 
us.  Edwards :  "  The  justification  of  the  believer  is  no  other  than  his  being 
admitted  to  communion  in,  or  participation  of,  this  head  and  surety  of  all 
believers." 

1  Tim.  1 :  14  — " faith  and  love  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus "  ;  3 :  16  — "He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  Justified  in 
the  spirit ' ' ;  Acts  13 ;  39  — "  and  by  him  [  lit. :  '  in  him '  ]  every  one  that  beLeveth  is  justified  from  all  things,  from 
which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses " ;  Rom.  4 :  25  — "  who  was  delivered  up  for  oar  trespasses,  and  was 
raked  for  our  justiScation "  ;  Eph.  1 :  6 — "accepted  in  the  Beloved"— Rev.  Vers. :  "free'y  bestowed  on  us  in  the 
Beloved  "  ;  1  Cor.  6  :  11  — "justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  "  We  in  Christ  "  is  the  formula 
of  our  justification  ;  "  Christ  in  us  "  is  the  formula  of  our  sanctification.  As  the  water 
which  the  shell  contains  is  little  compared  with  the  great  ocean  which  contains  the 
shell,  so  the  actual  change  wrought  within  us  by  God's  sanctifying  grace  is  slight  com- 
pared with  the  boundless  freedom  from  condemnation  and  the  state  of  favor  with 
God  into  which  we  are  introduced  by  justification ;  Rom.  5:1,  2— "Being  therefore  justified  by 
faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  through  whom  also  we  have  had  our  access  by  faith  into 
this  grace  wherein  we  stand  ;  and  we  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God." 

Here  we  have  the  third  instance  of  imputation.  The  first  was  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  us ;  and  the  second  was  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ.  The  third 
is  now  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us.  In  each  of  the  former  cases,  we 
have  sought  to  show  that  the  legal  relation  presupposes  a  natural  relation.  Adam's  sin 
is  imputed  to  us,  because  we  are  one  with  Adam  ;  our  sins  are  imputed  to  Christ,  because 
Christ  is  one  with  humanity.  So  here,  we  must  hold  that  Christ's  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  us,  because  we  are  one  with  Christ.  Justification  is  not  an  arbitrary  trans- 
fer  to  us  of  the  merits  of  another  with  whom  we  have  do  real  connection.  This  would 
make  it  merely  a  legal  fiction  ;  and  there  are  no  legal  fictions  in  the  divine  government. 

Instead  of  this  external  and  mechanical  method  of  conception,  we  should  first  set 
before  us  the  fact  of  Christ's  justification,  after  he  had  borne  our  sins  and  risen  from  the 
dead.  In  him,  humanity,  for  the  first  time,  is  acquitted  from  punishment  and  restored 
to  the  divine  favor.  But  Christ's  new  humanity  is  the  germinal  source  of  spiritual  life 
for  the  race.  ]  le  was  justified,  not  simply  as  a  private  person,  but  as  our  representative 
and  head.  By  becoming  partakers  of  the  new  life  in  him,  we  share  in  all  he  is  and  all 
lie  has  done ;  and,  first  of  all,  we  share  in  his  justification.  So  Luther  gives  us,  for  sub- 
stance, the  formula  :  "Wo  in  Christ  =  justification;  Christ  in  us  =  sanctification."  And 
in  harmony  with  this  formula  is  the  statement  quoted  in  the  text  above  from  Edwards, 
Works,  4 :  66. 

See  also  H.  B.  Smith,  Presb.  Rev.,  July,  1881—  "Union  with  Adam  and  with  Christ  is 
the  ground  of  imputation.  But  the  parallelism  is  incomplete.  While  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed  to  us  because  it  is  ours,  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  simply 
because  of  our  union  with  him,  not  at  all  because  of  our  personal  righteousness.  In 
the  one  case,  character  is  taken  into  the  account ;  in  the  other,  it  is  not.  In  sin,  our 
demerits  are  included ;  in  justification,  our  merits  are  excluded."  For  further  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Smith,  see  his  System  of  Christian  Theology,  5^4-552. 

C.  H.  M.  on  Genesis,  page  78—"  The  question  for  every  believer  is  not '  What  am  I? ' 
but '  What  is  Christ  ? '  Of  Abel  it  is  said  :  '  God  testified  of  his  gifts '  ( Heb.  11 : 4,  A.  V. ).  So  God 
testifies,  not  of  the  believer,  but  of  his  gift, —  and  his  gift  is  Clu-ist.  Yet  Cain  was  angry 
because  he  was  not  received  in  Ms  sin.%  while  Abel  was  accepted  in  his  gift.  This  was 
right,  if  Abel  was  justified  in  himself ;  it  was  wrong,  because  Abel  was  justified  only  in 
Christ."  See  also  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  384-388, 39'.! ;  Baird,  Elohim  Revealed,  448. 

B.  The  relation  of  justification  to  regeneration  and  sanctification,  more- 
over, delivers  it  from  the  charges  of  externality  and  immorality.  God  does 
not  justify  ungodly  men  in  their  ungodliness.  He  pronounces  them  just 
only  as  they  are  united  to  Christ,  who  is  absolutely  just,  and  who,  by  his 


JUSTIFICATION-.  8G3 

Spirit,  can  make  theiri  just,  not  only  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  but  in  moral 
character.  The  very  faith  by  which  the  sinner  receives  Christ  is  an  act  in 
which  he  ratifies  all  that  Christ  has  done,  and  accepts  God's  judgment 
against  sin  as  his  own  (John  16  :  11). 

John  16 :  11  — "  of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world  hath  been  judged  "—  the  Holy  Spirit  leads  the 
believer  to  ratify  God's  judgment  against  sin  and  Satan.  Accepting  Christ,  the  believer 
accepts  Christ's  death  for  sin,  and  resurrection  to  life  for  his  own.  If  it  were  otherwise, 
the  first  act  of  the  believer,  after  his  discharge,  might  be  a  repetition  of  his  offences. 
Such  a  justification  would  offend  against  the  fundamental  principles  of  justice  and  the 
safety  of  government.  It  would  also  fail  to  satisfy  the  conscience.  This  clamors  not 
only  for  pardon,  but  for  renewal.  Union  with  Christ  has  one  legal  fruit— justification ; 
but  it  has  also  one  moi-al  fruit  —  sanctification. 

A  really  guilty  man,  when  acquitted  by  judge  and  jury,  does  not  cease  to  be  the  vic- 
tim of  remorse  and  fear.  Forgiveness  of  sin  is  not  in  itself  a  deliverance  from  sin. 
The  outward  acquittal  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  an  inward  change  to  be  really  effect- 
ive. Pardon  for  sin  without  power  to  overcome  sin  would  be  a  mockery  of  the  criminal. 
Justification  for  Christ's  sake  therefore  goes  into  effect  through  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  see  E.  H.  Johnson,  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1892 :  362. 

A  Buddhist  priest  who  had  st  udied  some  years  in  England  printed  in  Shanghai  not  long 
ago  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Justification  by  Faith  the  only  true  Basis  of  Morality."  It 
argues  that  any  other  foundation  is  nothing  but  pure  selfishness,  but  that  morality,  to 
have  any  merit,  must  be  unselfish.  Justification  by  faith  supplies  an  unselfish  motive, 
because  we  accept  the  work  done  for  us  by  another,  and  we  ourselves  work  from  grat- 
itude, which  is  not  a  selfish  motive.  After  laying  down  this  Christian  foundation,  the 
writer  erects  the  structure  of  faith  in  the  Amida  incarnation  of  Buddha.  Buddhism 
opposes  to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a  creative  Person,  only  a  creative  process ;  sin  has 
relation  only  to  the  man  sinning,  and  has  no  relation  to  Amida  Buddha  or  to  the  eter- 
nal law  of  causation;  salvation  by  faith  in  Amida  Buddha  is  faith  in  one  who  is  the 
product  of  a  process,  and  a  product  may  perish.  Tennyson:  "They  are  but  broken 
lights  of  Thee,  And  thou,  O  Christ,  art  more  than  they." 

Justification  is  possible,  therefore,  because  it  is  always  accompanied  by 
regeneration  and  union  with  Christ,  and  is  followed  by  sauctification.  But 
this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  Romanist  confounding  of  justification 
and  sanctification,  as  different  stages  of  the  same  process  of  making  the 
sinner  actually  holy.  It  holds  fast  to  the  Scripture  distinction  between 
justification  as  a  declarative  act  of  God,  and  regeneration  and  sanctification 
as  those  efficient  acts  of  God  by  which  justification  is  accompanied  and  fol- 
lowed. 

Both  history  and  our  personal  observation  show  that  nothing  can  change  the  life  and 
make  men  moral,  like  the  gospel  of  free  pardon  in  Jesus  Christ.  Mere  preaching  of 
morality  will  effect  nothing  of  consequence.  There  never  has  been  more  insistence 
upon  morality  than  in  the  most  immoral  times,  like  those  of  Seneca,  and  of  the  English 
deists.  As  to  their  moral  fruits,  we  can  safely  compare  Protestant  with  Roman  Catho- 
lic systems  and  leaders  and  countries.  We  do  not  become  right  by  doing  right,  for  only 
those  can  do  right  who  have  become  right.  The  prodigal  son  is  forgiven  before  he 
actually  confesses  and  amends  ( Luke  15 .- 20,  21 ).  Justification  is  always  accompanied  by 
regeneration,  and  is  followed  by  sanctification ;  and  all  three  are  results  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  But  the  sin-offering  must  precede  the  thank-offering.  We  must  first  be 
accepted  ourselves  before  we  can  offer  gifts ;  Heb.  11 : 4— "By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excel- 
lent sacrifice  than  Cain,  through  'which  he  had  witness  borne  to  him  that  he  was  righteous,  God  bearing  witness  in  respect 
of  his  gifts." 

Hence  we  read  in  Eph.  5 :  25,  26  —  "  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  up  for  it ;  that  he  might 
sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  =  [  after  he  had  cleansed  ]  it  by  the  washing  of  water  with  the  word  "  [  =  regen- 
eration ]  ;  1  Pet.  1:1,  2 —  "elect  ....  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit  [regeneration],  unto  obedience  [  conversion]  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  [justifica- 
tion ]  "  ;  1  John  1:7  —  "  if  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood 
of  Jesus  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  "  —  here  the  '  cleansing '  refers  primarily  and  mainly  to 


8G4  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

justification,  not  to  sanctification  ;  for  the  apostle  himself  declares  in  verse  8  —  "  If  we  saj 
that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us." 

Quenstedt  says  well,  that  "justification,  since  it  is  an  act,  outside  of  man,  in  God, 
cannot  produce  an  intrinsic  change  in  us."  And  yet,  he  says,  "  although  faith  alone 
justifies,  yet  faith  is  not  alone."  Melanchthon  :  "  Sola  fides  justificat ;  sed  fides  non  est 
sola."  With  faith  go  all  manner  of  gifts  of  the  Spirit  and  internal  graces  of  character. 
But  we  should  let  go  all  the  doctrinal  gains  of  the  Reformation  if  we  did  not  insist  that 
these  gifts  and  graces  are  accompaniments  and  consequences  of  justification,  instead 
of  being  a  part  or  a  ground  of  justification.  See  Girdlestone,  O.  T.  Synonyms,  104, 
note—"  Justification  is  God's  declaration  that  the  individual  sinner,  on  account  of  the 
faith  which  unites  him  to  Christ,  is  taken  up  into  the  relation  which  Christ  holds  to 
the  Father,  and  has  applied  to  him  personally  the  objective  work  accomplished  for 
humanity  by  Christ." 

6.     Relation  of  Justification  to  Faith. 

A.  We  are  justified  by  faith,  rather  than  by  love  or  by  any  other  grace : 
(a)  not  because  faith  is  itself  a  work  of  obedience  by  which  we  merit 
justification, — for  this  would  be  a  doctrine  of  justification  by  works ;  (  6 ) 
nor  because  faith  is  accepted  as  an  equivalent  of  obedience,  —  for  there  is 
no  equivalent  except  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ ;  ( c )  nor  because 
faith  is  the  germ  from  which  obedience  may  spring  hereafter, —  for  it  is 
not  the  faith  which  accepts,  but  the  Christ  who  is  accepted,  that  renders 
such  obedience  possible ;  but  (  d )  because  faith,  and  not  repentance,  or 
love,  or  hope,  is  the  medium  or  instrument  by  which  we  receive  Christ  and 
are  united  to  him.  Hence  we  are  never  said  to  be  justified  6ta  it'ictlv,  =  on 
account  of  faith,  but  only  6ia  tvioteuc,  =  through  faith,  or  ek  irtorEuc,  = 
by  faith.  Or,  to  express  the  same  truth  in  other  words,  while  the  grace 
of  God  is  the  efficient  cause  of  justification,  and  the  obedience  and  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  are  the  meritorious  or  procuring  cause,  faith  is  the  mediate 
or  instrumental  cause. 

Edwards,  Works,  4 : 69-73  —  "  Faith  justifies,  because  faith  includes  the  whole  act  of 
unition  to  Christ  as  a  Savior.  It  is  not  the  nature  of  any  other  graces  or  virtues 
directly  to  close  with  Christ  as  a  mediator,  any  further  than  they  enter  into  the  con- 
stitution of  justifying  faith,  and  do  belong  to  its  nature";  Observations  on  Tri  ity 
64-67  —  "  Salvation  is  not  offered  to  us  upon  any  condition,  but  freely  and  for  nothing. 
We  are  to  do  nothing  for  it, — we  are  only  to  take  it.  This  taking  and  receiving  is 
faith."  H.  B.  Smith,  System,  524  —  "  An  internal  change  is  a  sine  qua  non  of  justifica- 
tion, but  not  its  meritorious  ground."  Give  a  man  a  gold  mine.  It  is  h is.  He  has  not 
to  work  for  it;  he  has  only  to  work  it.  Working  for  life  is  one  thing;  working  from 
life  is  quite  another.  The  marriage  of  a  poor  girl  to  a  wealthy  proprietor  makes  her 
possessor  of  his  riches  despite  her  former  poverty.  Yet  her  acceptance  has  not  pur- 
chased wealth.  It  is  hers,  not  because  of  what  she  is  or  has  done,  but  because  of  what 
her  husband  is  and  has  done.  So  faith  is  the  condition  of  justification,  only  because 
through  it  Christ  becomes  ours,  and  with  him  his  atonement  and  righteousness.  Sal- 
vation comes  not  because  our  faith  saves  us,  but  because  it  links  us  to  the  Christ  who 
saves ;  and  believing  is  only  the  link.  There  is  no  more  merit  in  it  than  in  the  beggar's 
stretching  forth  his  hand  to  receive  the  offered  purse,  or  the  drowning  man's  grasping 
the  rope  that  is  thrown  to  him. 

The  Wesleyan  scheme  is  inclined  to  make  faith  a  work.  See  Dabney,  Theology,  637. 
This  is  to  make  faith  the  cause  and  ground,  or  at  least  to  add  it  to  Christ's  work  as  a 
joint  cause  and  ground,  of  justification ;  as  if  justification  were  Ua  irio-Tiv,  instead  of 
Sia  n-<.'<rreu)s  or  <=«  7ri'crT6tos.  Since  faith  is  never  perfect,  this  is  to  go  back  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  uncertainty  of  salvation.  See  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :744,  745  ( Syst.  Doct* 
4 :  206,  207 ).  C.  H.  M.  on  Gen.  3:7  —  "  They  made  themselves  aprons  of  fig-leaves,  before 
God  made  them  coats  of  skin.  Man  ever  tries  to  clothe  himself  in  garments  of  his  own 
righteousness,  before  he  will  take  the  robe  of  Christ's.  But  Adam  felt  himself  naked 
when  God  visited  him,  even  though  he  had  his  fig-leaves  on  him." 


JUSTIFICATION-.  865 

We  are  justified  efficiently  by  the  grace  of  Got!,  meritoriously  by  Christ,  instrument- 
ally  by  faith,  evidentially  by  works.  Faith  justifies,  as  roots  bring- plant  and  soil 
together.  Faith  connects  man  with  the  source  of  life  in  Christ.  "When  the  boatman 
with  his  hook  grapples  the  rock,  he  does  not  pull  the  shore  to  the  boat,  but  the  boat  to 
the  shore ;  so,  when  we  by  faith  lay  hold  on  Christ,  we  do  not  pull  Christ  to  us,  but  our- 
selves to  him."  Faith  is  a  coupling ;  the  train  is  drawn,  not  by  the  coupling,  but  by  the 
locomotive ;  yet  without  the  coupling  it  would  not  be  drawn.  Faith  is  the  trolley  that 
reaches  up  to  the  electric  wire;  when  the  connection  is  sundered,  not  only  does  the 
car  cease  to  move,  hut  the  heat  dies  and  the  lights  go  out.  Dr.  John  Duncan :  "  I  have 
married  the  Merchant  and  all  his  wealth  is  mine !  " 

H.  C.  Trumbull :  "  If  a  man  wants  to  cross  the  ocean,  he  can  either  try  swimming,  or 
he  can  trust  the  captain  of  a  ship  to  carry  him  over  in  his  vessel.  By  or  through  his 
faith  in  that  captain,  the  man  is  carried  safely  to  the  other  shore;  yet  it  is  the  ship's 
captain,  not  the  passenger's  faith,  which  is  to  be  praised  for  the  carrying."  So  the 
Sick  man  trusts  his  case  in  the  hands  of  hi?  physician,  and  his  life  is  saved  by  the  physi- 
cian,—yet  by  or  through  the  patient's  faith.  This  faith  ;8  indeed  an  inward  act  of 
allegiance,  and  no  mere  outward  performance.  Whiton,  Divine  Satisfaction,  92— 
"The  Protestant  Reformers  saw  that  it  was  by  an  inward  act,  not  by  penances  or  sac- 
raments that  men  were  justified.  But  they  halted  in  the  crude  notion  of  a  legal  court 
room  process,  a  governmental  procedure  external  to  us,  whereas  it  is  an  educational, 
inward  process,  the  awakening  through  Christ  of  the  filial  spirit  in  us,  which  in  the 
midst  of  imperfections  strives  for  likeness  more  and  more  to  the  Son  of  God.  Justifi- 
cation by  principle  apart  from  performance  makes  Christianity  the  religion  of  the 
spirit."  We  would  add  that  such  justification  excludes  education,  and  is  an  act  rather 
than  a  process,  an  act  external  to  the  sinner  rather  than  internal,  an  act  of  God  rather 
than  an  act  of  man.  The  justified  person  can  say  to  Christ,  as  Ruth  said  to  Boaz : 
"Why  have  I  found  favor  in  thy  sight,  that  thou  shouldest  take  knowledge  of  me,  seeing  I  am  a  foreigner?" 
(  Ruth  2 :  10  ). 

B.  Siuce  the  ground  of  justification  is  only  Christ,  to  whom  we  are 
united  by  faith,  the  justified  pel  son  has  peace.  If  it  were  anything  in 
ourselves,  our  peace  must  needs  be  proportioned  to  our  holiness.  The 
practical  effect  of  the  Eomanist  mingling  of  works  with  faith,  as  a  joiut 
ground  of  justification,  is  to  render  all  assurance  of  salvation  impossible. 
( Council  of  Trent,  9th  chap.:  "Every  mau,  by  reason  of  his  own  weak- 
ness and  defects,  must  be  in  fear  and  anxiety  about  his  state  of  grace. 
Nor  can  any  one  know,  with  infallible  certainty  of  faith,  that  he  has 
received  forgiveness  of  God." ).  But  since  justification  is  an  instantaneous 
act  of  God,  complete  at  the  moment  of  the  sinner's  first  believing,  it  has 
no  degrees.  "Weak  faith  justifies  as  perfectly  as  strong  faith  ;  although, 
since  justification  is  a  secret  act  of  God,  weak  faith  does  not  give  so  strong 
assurance  of  salvation. 

Foundations  of  our  Faith,  216  —  "  The  Catholic  doctrine  declares  that  justification  is 
not  dependent  upon  faith  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  and  granted  thereto, 
but  on  the  actual  condition  of  the  man  himself.  But  there  remain  in  the  man  an  undeni- 
able amount  of  fleshly  lusts  or  inclinations  to  sin,  even  though  the  man  be  regenerate. 
The  Catholic  doctrine  is  therefore  constrained  to  assert  that  these  lusts  are  not  in  them- 
selves sinful,  or  objects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  They  are  allowed  to  remain  in  the 
man,  that  he  may  struggle  against  them ;  and,  as  they  say,  Paul  designates  them  as  sin- 
ful, only  because  they  are  derived  from  sin,  and  incite  to  sin ;  but  they  only  become 
sin  by  the  positive  concurrence  of  the  human  will.  But  is  not  internal  lust  displeasing 
to  God  ?  Can  we  draw  the  line  between  lust  and  will  ?  The  Catholic  favors  self  here, 
and  makes  many  things  lust,  which  are  really  will.  A  Protestant  is  necessarily  more 
earnest  in  the  work  of  salvation,  when  he  recognizes  even  the  evil  desire  as  sin,  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  precept." 

All  systems  of  religion  of  merely  human  origin  tend  to  make  salvation,  in  larger  or 
smaller  degree,  the  effect  of  human  works,  but  only  with  the  result  of  leaving  man  in 
despair.  See,  in  Ecclesiasticus  3 :  30,  an  Apocryphal  declaration  that  alms  make  atone- 
ment for  sin.  So  Romanism  bids  me  doubt  God's  grace  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
55 


866  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION". 

See  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theol.,  228,  229,  and  his  quotations  from  Luther.  "  But  if  the 
Romanist  doctrine  is  true,  that  a  man  is  justified  only  in  such  measure  as  he  is  sancti- 
fied, then :  1.  Justification  must  be  a  matter  of  degrees,  and  so  the  Council  of  Trent 
declares  it  to  be.  The  sacraments  which  sanctify  are  therefore  essential,  that  one  may 
be  increasingly  justified.  2.  Since  justification  is  a  continuous  process,  the  redeeming 
death  of  Christ,  on  which  it  depends,  must  be  a  continuous  process  also ;  hence  its  pro- 
longed reiteration  in  the  sacrifice  by  the  Mass.  3.  Since  sanctification  is  obviously 
never  completed  In  this  life,  no  man  ever  dies  completely  justified ;  hence  the  doctrine 
of  Purgatory."  For  the  substance  of  Romanist  doctrine,  see  Moehler,  Symbolism,  79- 
190;  Newman,  Lectures  on  Justification,  253-345;  Ritschl,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication, 121-226. 

A  better  doctrine  is  that  of  the  Puritan  divine:  "  It  is  not  the  quantity  of  thy  faith 
that  shall  save  thee.  A  drop  of  water  is  as  true  water  as  the  whole  ocean.  So  a  little 
faith  is  as  true  faith  as  the  greatest.  It  is  not  the  measure  of  thy  faith  that  saves 
thee, —  it  is  the  blood  that  it  grips  to  that  saves  thee.  The  weak  hand  of  the  child,  that 
leads  the  spoon  to  the  mouth,  will  feed  as  well  as  the  strong  arm  of  a  man  ;  for  it  is  not 
the  hand  that  feeds,  but  the  meat.  So,  if  thou  canst  grip  Christ  ever  so  weakly,  he  will 
not  let  thee  perish."  I  am  troubled  about  the  money  I  owe  in  New  York,  until  I  find 
that  a  friend  has  paid  my  debt  there.  When  I  find  that  the  objective  account  against 
me  is  cancelled,  then  and  only  then  do  I  have  subjective  peace. 

A  child  may  be  heir  to  a  vast  estate,  even  while  he  does  not  know  it ;  and  a  child  of 
God  may  be  an  heir  of  glory,  even  while,  through  the  weakness  of  his  faith,  he  is 
oppressed  with  painful  doubts  and  fears.  No  man  is  lost  simply  because  of  the  great- 
ness of  his  sins;  however  ill-deserving  he  may  be,  faith  in  Christ  will  save  him. 
Luther's  climbing  the  steps  of  St.  John  Lateran,  and  the  voice  of  thunder :  "  The  just 
shall  live  by  faith,"  are  not  certain  as  historical  facts ;  but  they  express  the  substance 
of  Luther's  experience.  Not  obeying,  but  receiving,  is  the  substance  of  the  gospel. 
A  man  cannot  merit  salvation  ;  he  cannot  buy  it ;  but  one  thing  he  must  do, —  he  must 
take  it.    And  the  least  faith  makes  salvation  ours,  because  it  makes  Christ  ours. 

Augustine  conceived  of  justification  as  a  continuous  process,  proceeding  until  lovo 
and  all  Christian  virtues  fill  the  heart.  There  is  his  chief  difference  from  Paul.  Augus- 
tine believes  in  sin  and  grace.  But  he  has  not  the  freedom  of  the  children  of  God,  as 
Paul  has.  The  influence  of  Augustine  upon  Roman  Catholic  theology  has  not  been 
wholly  salutary.  The  Roman  Catholic,  mixing  man's  subjective  condition  with  God's 
grace  as  a  ground  of  justification,  continually  wavers  between  self -righteousness  and 
uncertainty  of  acceptance  with  God,  each  of  these  being  fatal  to  a  healthful  and  stable 
religious  life.  High-church  Episcopalians,  and  Sacramcntalists  generally,  are  afflicted 
with  this  distemper  of  the  Romanists.  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  remarks  with  regard  to  Dr. 
Pusey  :  "  The  absence  of  joy  in  his  religious  life  was  only  the  inevitable  effect  of  his 
conception  of  God's  method  of  saving  men;  in  parting  with  the  Lutheran  truth  con- 
cerning justification,  he  parted  with  the  springs  of  gladness."  Spurgeon  said  that  a 
man  might  get  from  London  to  New  York  provided  he  took  a  steamer ;  but  it  made 
much  difference  in  his  comfort  whether  he  had  a  first  class  or  a  second  class  ticket.  A 
new  realization  of  the  meaning  of  justification  in  our  churches  would  change  much  of 
our  singing  from  the  minor  to  the  major  key ;  would  lead  us  to  pray,  not  for  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ,  but  from  the  presence  of  Christ ;  would  abolish  the  mournful  upward 
inflections  at  the  end  of  sentences  which  give  such  unreality  to  our  preaching ;  and 
would  replace  the  pessimistic  element  in  our  modern  work  and  worship  with  the  notes 
of  praise  and  triumph.  In  the  Pilgrim's  Progress,  the  justification  of  the  believer  is 
symbolized  by  Christian's  lodging  in  the  Palace  Beautiful  whose  window  opened  toward 
thesuurising. 

Even  Luther  did  not  fully  apprehend  and  apply  his  favorite  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  Harnack,  Wesen  des  Christenthums,  168  sq.,  states  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  Protestantism  as :  "  1.  The  Christian  religion  is  wholly  given  in  the  word  of 
God  and  in  the  inner  experience  which  answers  to  that  word.  2.  The  assured  belief 
that  the  Christian  has  a  gracious  God.  '  Nun  weisz  und  glaub'  ich  's  f  este,  Ich  riihm  's 
auch  ohue  Scheu,  Dasz  Gott,  der  hochst'  und  bcste,  Mein  Freund  und  Vater  sei ;  Und 
dasz  in  alien  Fallen  Er  mir  zur  Rechten  steh',  Und  dampfe  Sturm  und  Wellen, 
Und  was  mir  bringet  Well'.'  3.  Restoration  of  simple  and  believing  worship,  both 
public  and  private.  But  Luther  took  too  much  dogma  into  Christianity ;  insisted  too 
much  on  the  authority  of  the  written  word;  cared  too  much  for  the  means  of  grace, 
such  as  the  Lord's  Supper ;  identified  the  church  too  much  with  the  organized  body." 


JUSTIFICATION".  SB7 

Yet  Luther  talked  of  beating;  the  heads  of  the  Wittenbcrgers  with  the  Bible.  Sj 
get  the  great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  into  their  brains.    "  Why  do  j  ou  t  :ach 
your  child  the  same  thing  twenty  times?"  he  said.    "Because  I  find  that  nineteen 
times  is  not  sufficient." 

C.  Justification  is  instantaneous,  complete,  and  final :  instantaneous, 
since  otherwise  there  would  be  an  interval  during  which  the  soul  was 
neither  approved  nor  condemned  by  God  (Mat.  6  :24)  ;  complete,  since 
the  soul,  united  to  Christ  by  faith,  becomes  partaker  of  his  complete  satis- 
faction to  the  demands  of  law  (Col.  2  :  9,  10  )  ;  and  final,  since  the  union 
with  Christ  is  indissoluble  (  John  10  :28,  29).  As  there  are  many  acts  of 
sin  in  the  life  of  the  Christian,  so  there  are  many  acts  of  pardon  following 
them.  But  all  these  acts  of  pardon  are  virtually  implied  in  that  first  act 
by  which  he  was  finally  and  forever  justified ;  as  also  successive  acts  of 
repentance  and  faith,  after  such  sins,  are  virtually  implied  in  that  first 
repentance  and  faith  which  logically  preceded  justification. 

Mat.  6  :  24  —  "  No  man  can  serve  two  masters  "  ;  Col.  2:9, 10  —  "in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily,  and  in  him  ye  are  made  full,  who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power";  John  10:  28, 29 — "they  shall 
never  perish,  and  no  one  shall  snatch  them  out  of  my  hand.  My  Father,  who  hath  given  them  unto  me,  is  greater  than 
all ;  and  no  one  is  able  to  snatch  them  out  of  the  Father's  hand. " 

Plymouth  Brethren  say  truly  that  the  Christian  has  sin  in  him,  but  not  on  him, 
because  Christ  had  sin  on  him,  but  not  in  him.  The  Christian  has  sin  but  not  guilt, 
because  Christ  had  guilt  but  not  sin.  All  our  sins  are  buried  in  the  grave  with  Christ, 
and  Christ's  resurrection  is  our  resurrection.  Toplady :  "  From  whence  this  fear  and 
unbelief?  Hast  thou,  O  Father,  put  to  grief  Thy  spotless  Son  for  me?  And  will  the 
righteous  Judge  of  men  Condemn  me  for  that  debt  of  sin,  Which,  Lord,  was  laid  on 
thee?  If  thou  hast  my  discharge  procured,  And  freely  in  my  room  endured  The  whole 
of  wrath  divine.  Payment  God  cannot  twice  demand,  First  at  my  bleeding  Surety's 
hand.  And  then  again  at  mine.  Complete  atonement  thou  hast  made,  And  to  the 
utmost  farthing  paid  Whate'er  thy  people  owed;  How  then  can  wrath  on  me  take 
place,  If  sheltered  in  thy  righteousness  And  sprinkled  with  thy  blood?  Turn,  then,  my 
soul,  unto  thy  rest;  The  merits  of  thy  great  High-priest  Speak  peace  and  liberty; 
Trust  in  his  efficacious  blood,  Nor  fear  thy  banishment  from  God,  Since  Jesus  died  for 
thee!" 

Justification,  however,  is  not  eternal  in  the  past.  We  are  to  repent  unto  the  remis. 
sion  of  our  sins  (Act  2: 38).  Remission  comes  after  repentance.  Sin  is  not  pardoned 
before  it  is  committed.  In  justification  God  grants  us  actual  pardon  for  pastsin,  but 
virtual  pardon  for  future  sin.  Edwards,  Works,  i  :  101  — "  Future  sins  are  respected,  in 
thai  uist  justification,  no  otherwise  than  as  future  faith  and  repentance  are  respected 
in  it ;  and  future  faith  and  repentance  are  looked  upon  by  him  that  justifies  as  virtually 
implied  in  that  first  repenutnce  and  faith,  in  the  same  manner  that  justification  from 
future  sins  i£  Implied  in  that  first  justification." 

A  man  is  not  justified  from  his  sins  before  he  has  committed  them,  nor  is  he  saved 
before  he  is  born.  A  remarkable  illustration  of  the  extreme  to  whichhyper-Calvinism 
may  go  is  found  in  Tobias  Crisp,  Sermons,  1  :o58  —  "The  Lord  hath  no  more  to  lay  to  the 
charge  of  an  elect  person,  yet  in  the  height  of  iniquity,  and  in  the  excess  of  riot,  and 
committing  all  the  abomination  that  can  be  committed  ....  than  he  has  to  the  charge 
of  the  saint  triumphant  in  glory."  A  far  better  statement  is  found  in  Moberly,  Atone- 
ment and  Personality,  61 — "As  there  is  upon  earth  no  consummated  penitence,  so 

neither  is  there  any  forgiveness  consummated Forgiveness  is  the  recognition,  by 

anticipation,  of  something  which  is  to  be,  something  toward  which  it  is  itself  a  mighty 
quickening  of  possibilities,  but  something  which  is  not,  or  at  least  is  not  perfectly,  yet. 

....  Present  forgiveness  is  inchoate,  is  educational It  reaches  its  final  and 

perfect  consummation  only  when  the  forgiven  penitent  has  become  at  last  personally 
and  completely  righteous.  If  the  consummation  is  not  reached  but  reversed,  then  for- 
giveness is  forfeited  { Mat.  18 :  32-35 )."  This  last  exception,  however,  as  we  shall  see  in 
our  discussion  of  Perseverance,  is  only  a  hypothetical  one.  The  truly  forgiven  do  not 
finally  fall  away. 


868  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  SALVATION". 

7,  Advice  to  Inquirers  demanded  by  a  Scriptural  Vieiv  of  Justification. 

(  a )  Where  conviction  of  sin  is  yet  lacking,  our  aim  should  be  to  show 
the  sinner  that  he  is  under  God's  condemnation  for  his  past  sins,  and  that 
no  future  obedience  can  ever  secure  his  justification,  since  this  obedience, 
even  though  perfect,  coidd  not  atone  for  the  past,  and  even  if  it  could,  he 
is  unable,  without  God's  help,  to  render  it. 

With  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  conviction  of  sin  may  be  roused  by  presentation  of 
the  claims  of  God's  perfect  law,  and  by  drawing  attention,  first  to  particular  overt 
transgressions,  and  then  to  the  manifold  omissions  of  duty,  the  general  lack  of  supreme 
and  all-pervading  love  to  God,  and  the  guilty  rejection  of  Christ's  offers  and  commands. 
"  Even  if  the  next  page  of  the  copy  book  had  no  blots  or  erasures,  its  cleanness  would 
not  alter  the  smudges  and  misshapen  letters  on  the  earlier  pages."  God  takes  no  notice 
of  the  promise  "Have  patience  with  me,  and  I  will  pay  tkee  "  ( Mat.  18 :  29 ),  for  he  knows  it  can  never 
be  f  ulfdled. 

( 6  )  Where  conviction  of  sin  already  exists,  our  aim  should  be,  not,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  secure  the  performance  of  external  religious  duties, 
such  as  prayer,  or  Scripture-reading,  or  uniting  with  the  church,  but  to 
induce  the  sinner,  as  his  first  and  all-inclusive  duty,  to  accept  Christ  as  his 
only  and  sufficient  sacrifice  and  Savior,  and,  committing  himself  and  the 
matter  of  his  salvation  entirely  to  the  hands  of  Christ,  to  manifest  this  trust 
and  submission  by  entering  at  once  upon  a  life  of  obedience  to  Christ's 
commands. 

A  convicted  sinner  should  be  exhorted,  not  first  to  prayer  and  then  to  faith,  but  first 
to  faith,  and  then  to  the  immediate  expression  of  that  faith  in  prayer  and  Christian 
activity.  He  should  pray,  not  for  faith,  but  in  faith.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the 
sinner  never  sins  against  so  much  light,  and  never  is  in  so  great  danger,  as  when  he 
is  convicted  but  not  converted,  when  he  is  moved  to  turn  but  yet  refuses  to  turn.  No 
such  sinner  should  be  allowed  to  think  that  he  has  the  right  to  do  any  other  thing  what- 
ever before  accepting  Christ.  This  accepting  Christ  is  not  an  outward  act,  but  an  inward 
act  of  mind  and  heart  and  will,  although  believing  is  naturally  evidenced  by  immediate 
outward  action.  To  teach  the  sinner,  however  apparently  well  disposed,  how  to  believe 
on  Christ,  is  beyond  the  power  of  man.  God  is  the  only  giver  of  faith.  But  Scripture 
instances  of  faith,  and  illustrations  drawn  from  the  child's  taking  the  father  at  his  word 
and  acting  upon  it,  have  often  been  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  means  of  leading  men 
themselves  to  put  faith  in  Christ. 

Beugel:  "Those  who  are  secure  Jesus  refers  to  the  law;  those  who  are  contrite  he 
consoles  with  the  gospel."  A  man  left  work  and  came  home.  His  wife  asked  why. 
"Because  I  am  a  sinner."  "Let  me  send  for  the  preacher."  "I  am  too  far  gone  for 
preachers.  If  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  does  not  save  me  I  am  lost."  That  man  needed 
only  to  be  pointed  to  the  Cross.  There  he  found  reason  for  believing  that  there  was 
salvation  for  him.  In  surrendering  himself  to  Christ  he  was  justified.  On  the  general 
subject  of  Justification,  _  see  Edwards,  Works,  I  :  64-132;  Buchanan  on  Justification, 
250-411;  Owen  on  Justification,  in  Works,  vol.  5;  Bp.  of  Ossory,  Nature  and  Effects  of 
Faith,  48-152;  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  3  :  114-212;  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk, 
3  :  133-200 ;  Herzog,  Encyclopadie,  art. :  Rechtfertigung ;  Bushnell,  Vicarious  Sacrifice, 
416-420,  435. 


SECTION    III. — THE    APPLICATION    OF    CHRIST'S    REDEMPTION 
IN    ITS    CONTINUATION. 

Under  this  head  we  treat  of  Sanctification  and  of  Perseverance.  These 
two  are  but  the  divine  and  the  human  sides  of  the  same  fact,  and  they 
bear  to  each  other  a  relation  similar  to  that  which  exists  between 
Regeneration  and  Conversion. 


SANCTIFI  CATION".  869 

I.     Sanctificatton. 

1.     Definition  of  Sanetification. 

Sanetification  is  that  continuous  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which 
the  holy  disposition  imparted  in  regeneration  is  maintained  and  strength- 
ened. 

Godet :  "  The  work  of  Jesus  in  the  world  is  twofold.  It  is  a  work  accomplished  for 
us,  destined  to  effect  reconciliation  between  God  and  man ;  it  is  a  work  accomplished  in 
US,  with  the  object  of  effecting  our  sa/nctification.  By  the  one,  a  right  relation  is  estab- 
lished between  God  and  us ;  by  the  other,  the  fruit  of  the  reestablished  order  is  secured. 
By  the  former,  the  condemned  sinner  is  received  into  the  state  of  grace ;  by  the  latter, 
the  pardoned  sinner  is  associated  with  the  life  of  God How  many  express  them- 
selves as  if,  when  forgiveness  with  the  peace  which  it  procures  has  been  once  obtained, 
all  is  finished  and  the  work  of  salvation  is  complete  !  They  seem  to  have  no  suspicion 
that  salvation  consists  in  the  health  of  the  soul,  and  that  the  health  of  the  soul  consists 
in  holiness.  Forgiveness  is  not  the  reSstablishment  of  health;  it  is  the  crisis  of  con- 
valescence. If  God  thinks  tit  to  declare  the  sinner  righteous,  it  is  in  order  that  he  may 
by  that  means  restore  him  to  holiness."  O.  P.  Gilford  :  "  The  steamship  whose  machinery 
is  broken  may  be  brought  into  port  and  made  fast  to  the  dock.  She  is  safe,  but  not 
sound.  Repairs  may  last  a  long  time.  Christ  designs  to  make  us  both  safe  and  sound. 
Justification  gives  the  first  —  safety;  sanetification  gives  the  second  —  soundness." 

Bradford,  Heredity  and  Christian  Problems,  220— "To  be  conscious  that  one  is  for- 
given, and  yet  that  at  the  same  time  he  is  so  polluted  that  he  cannot  beget  a  child  with- 
out handing  on  to  that  child  a  nature  which  will  be  as  bad  as  if  his  father  had  never 
been  forgiven,  is  not  salvation  in  any  mil  sense."  Wewouldsay:  Is  not  salvation  in 
any  complete  sense.  Justification  needs  sanctificatiou  to  follow  it.  Man  needs  God  to 
continue  and  preserve  his  spiritual  life,  just  as  much  as  he  needed  I  tod  to  begin  it  at  the 
first.  Creation  in  the  spiritual,  as  well  as  in  the  natural  world,  needs  to  he  supple- 
mented by  preservation  ;  sec  quotation  from  Jonathan  Edwards,  in  Allen's  biography 
of  him,  371. 

Regeneration  is  instantaneous,  but  sanetification  takes  time.  The  "developing  "  of 
the  photographer's  picture  may  illustrate  God's  process  of  sanctifying  the  regenerate 
soul.  But  it  is  development  by  new  access  of  truth  or  light,  while  the  photographer's 
picture  is  usually  developed  in  the  dark.  This  development  cannot  be  accomplished  in 
amoment.  "We  try  in  our  religious  lives  to  practise  instantaneous  photography.  One 
minute  for  prayer  will  give  us  a  vision  of  God,  and  we  think  that  is  enough.  Our  pic- 
tures are  poor  because  our  negatives  are  weak.  We  do  not  give  God  a  long  enough 
sitting  to  get  a  good  likeness." 

Salvation  is  something  past,  something  present,  and  something  future ;  a  past  fact, 
justification ;  a  present  process,  sanetification;  a  future  consummation,  redemption 
and  glory.  David,  in  Ps.  51:1,  2,  prays  not  only  that  God  will  blot  out  his  transgressions 
( justification ),  but  that  God  will  wash  him  thoroughly  from  his  iniquity  (sanetifica- 
tion). E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Sanetification  consists  ru  gativt  ly,  in  the  removal  of  the  penal 
consequences  of  sin  from  the  moral  nature;  positively,  in  the  progressive  implanting 

and  growth  of  a  new  principle  of  life The  Christian  church  is  a  succession  of 

eo]  )ies  of  the  cha  raet  er  of  Christ.  Paul  never  says  s  '  be  ye  imitators  of  me  '  ( 1  Cor.  4:16),  except 
when  writing  to  those  who  had  no  copies  of  the  New  Testament  or  of  the  Gospels." 

Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  366— "Sanetification  does  not  mean  perfection  reached, 
but  the  progress  of  the  divine  life  toward  perfection.  Sanetification  is  the  Christianiz- 
ing of  the  Christian."  It  is  not  simply  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  the 
development  of  a  divine  life  that  conquers  sin.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  343  — 
"Any  man  who  thinks  he  is  a  Christian,  and  that  he  has  accepted  Christ  for  justification, 
when  he  did  not  at  the  same  time  accept  him  for  sanetification,  is  miserably  deluded  in 
that  very  experience." 

This  definition  implies : 

(a)  That,  although  in  regeneration  the  governing  disposition  of  the  soul 
is  made  holy,  there  still  remain  tendencies  to  evil  which  are  unsubdued. 

John  13: 10 — "  He  that  is  bathed  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit  [  i.  e.,  as  a  whole]"  ; 
Rom.  6  :  12 — "Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that  ye  should  obey  the  lusts  thereof "  — sin  dwells 


870  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

in  a  believer,  but  it  reigns  in  an  unbeliever  ( C.  H.  M. ).  Subordinate  volitions  in  the 
Christian  are  not  always  determined  in  character  by  the  fundamental  choice ;  eddies  in 
the  stream  sometimes  run  counter  to  the  general  course  of  the  current. 

This  doctrine  is  the  opposite  of  that  expressed  in  the  phrase :  "  the  essential  divinity 
of  the  human."  Not  culture,  but  crucifixion,  is  what  the  Holy  Spirit  prescribes  for  the 
natural  man.  There  are  two  natures  in  the  Christian,  as  Paul  shows  in  Romans  7.  The 
one  flourishes  at  the  other's  expense.  The  vine  dresser  has  to  cut  the  rank  shoots  from 
self,  that  all  our  force  may  be  thrown  into  growing  fruit.  Deadwood  must  be  cut  out ; 
living  wood  must  be  cut  back  ( John  15 : 2 ).  Sanctiflcati<  >n  is  not  a  matter  of  course,  which 
will  go  on  whatever  we  do,  or  do  not  do.  It  requires  a  direct  superintendence  and 
surgery  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand  a  practical  hatred  of  evil  on  our  part 
that  cooperates  with  the  husbandry  of  God. 

(  b  )  That  the  existence  in  the  believer  of  these  two  opposing  principles 
gives  rise  to  a  conflict  which  lasts  through  life. 

Gal. 5 :  17 — "For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh ;  for  these  are  contrary  the  one  to 
the  other ;  that  yo  may  not  do  the  things  that  ye  would '  —  not,  as  the  A.  V.  had  it,  '  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the 
things  that  ye  would';  the  Spirit  who  dwells  in  believers  is  represented  as  enabling  them 
successfully  to  resist  those  tendencies  to  evil  which  naturally  exist  within  them ;  James  4 : 5 
( the  marginal  and  better  reading )  —  "  That  spirit  which  he  made  to  dwellin  us  yearneth  fur  us  even  unto 
jealous  envy"  —  i,  e.,  God's  love,  like  all  true  love,  longs  to  have  its  objects  wholly  for  its 
own.  The  Christian  is  two  men  in  one ;  but  he  is  to  "put  away  tho  old  man"  and  "put  on  the  new 
man  "  ( Eph.  4 :  22,  23 ).  Compare  Ecclesiastieus  2 : 1  — "  My  son,  if  thou  dost  set  out  to  serve 
the  Lord,  prepare  thy  soul  for  temptation." 

1  Tim.  6:12 — "  Fight  the  good  fight  of  the  faith  "  —  i.yu>vi£ov  rov  kcKov  ayu>va  rijs  wio-Tews  =  the  beau- 
tiful, honorable,  glorious  fight ;  since  it  has  a  noble  helper,  incentive,  and  reward.  It 
is  the  commonest  of  all  struggles,  but  the  issue  determines  our  destiny.  An  Indian 
received  as  a  gift  some  tobacco  in  which  he  found  a  half  dollar  hidden.  He  brought  it 
back  next  day,  saying  that  good  Indian  had  fought  all  night  with  bad  Indian,  one  tell- 
ing him  to  keep,  the  other  telling  him  to  return. 

(  c )  That  in  this  conflict  the  Holy  Spirit  enables  the  Christian,  through 
increasing  faith,  more  fully  and  consciously  to  appropriate  Christ,  and  thus 
progressively  to  make  conquest  of  the  remaining  sinfulness  of  his  nature. 

Rom.  8 :  13,  14  — "  for  if  ye  live  after  the  flash,  ye  must  die ;  but  if  by  the  Spirit  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body, 
ye  shall  live.  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  tho  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God  "  ;  1  Cor.  6 :  11  — "  but  ye  were  washed, 
but  ye  were  sanctified,  but  ye  were  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Spirit  of  our  God";  James  1:26 
—  "If  any  man  thinketh  himself  to  be  religious,  while  he  bridleth  not  his  tongue  but  deceiveth  his  heart,  this  man's 
religion  is  vain" — see  Com.  of  Neander,  in  loco —  "That  religion  is  merely  imaginary,  seem- 
ing, unreal,  which  allows  the  continuance  of  the  moral  defects  originally  predominant 
in  the  character."  The  Christian  is  "  crucified  with  Christ "  (  Gal.  2  ;  20  ) ;  but  the  crucified  man 
docs  not  die  at  once.  Yet  he  is  as  good  as  dead.  Even  after  the  old  man  is  crucified 
we  are  still  to  mortify  him,  or  put  him  to  death  (Rom.  8  :  13 ;  Col.  3:5).  We  are  to  cut 
down  the  old  rosebush  and  cultivate  only  the  new  shoot  that  is  grafted  into  it.  Here 
is  our  probation  as  Christians.  So  "die  Scene  wird  zum  Tribunal"— the  play  of  life 
becomes  God's  judgment. 

Dr.  Hastings :  "  When  Bourdaloue  was  probing  the  conscience  of  Louis  XIV,  apply- 
ing to  him  the  words  of  St.  Paul  and  intending  to  paraphrase  them  :  'For  the  good  which  I 
would,  I  do  not,  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do,'  'I  find  two  men  in  me'—  the  King  interrupted  the 
great  preacher  with  the  memorable  exclamation  :  'Ah,  these  two  men,  I  know  them 
well!'  Bourdaloue  answered :  'It  is  already  something  to  know  them,  Sire;  but  it  is 
not  enough, —  one  of  the  two  must  perish.'  "  And,  in  the  genuine  believer,  the  old  does 
little  by  little  die,  and  the  new  takes  its  place,  as  "David  waxed  stronger  and  stronger,  but  the  house 
of  Said  waxed  weaker  and  weaker"  (2  Sam.  3:1).  As  the  Welsh  minister  found  himself  after 
awhile  thinking  and  dreaming  in  English,  so  the  language  of  Canaan  becomes  to  the 
Christian  his  native  and  only  speech. 

2.     Explanations  and  Scripture  Proof, 
(a)  Sanctification  is  the  work  of  God. 

1  Thess.  5  :23 — "And  the  God  of  peace  himself  sanctify  you  wholly."  Much  of  our  modern  literature 
ignores  man's  dependence  upon  God,  and  some  of  it  seems  distinctly  intended  to  teach 


SANCTIFICATIOST.  871 

the  opposite  doctrine.  Auerbaeta's  "  On  the  Heights,"  for  example,  teaches  that  man 
can  make  his  own  atonement;  and  "The  Villa  on  the  Rhine,"  by  the  same  author, 
teaches  that  man  can  sanctif y  himself.  The  proper  inscription  for  many  modern  French 
novels  is :  "  Entertainment  here  for  man  and  beast."  The  Tcndenziwvdlc  of  Germany 
has  its  imitators  in  the  sceptical  novels  of  England.  And  no  doctrine  in  these  novels  is 
so  common  as  the  doctrine  that  man  needs  no  Savior  but  himself. 

(  b  )  It  is  a  continuous  process. 

Phil.  1 :  6 — "being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  who  began  a  good  work  in  yon  will  perfect  it  until  the  day 
of  Jesus  Christ "  ;  3 :  15  — "  Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  are  perfect,  be  thus  minded :  and  if  in  anything  ye  are  other- 
wise minded,  this  also  shall  God  reveal  unto  you  "  ;  Col.  3 :  9, 10  —"lie  not  one  to  another ;  seeing  that  ye  have  put  off 
the  old  man  with  his  doings,  and  have  put  on  the  new  man,  that  is  being  renewed  unto  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
him  that  created  him";  cf.  Acts 2:  47  —  "those  that  were  being  saved";  1  Cor.  1:18 — "unto  us  who  are  being 
saved";  2  Cor.  2:15 — "in  them  thataro  being  saved";  1  Thess.  2:12 — "God,  who  calleth  you  into  his  own  kingdom 
and  glory." 

C.  H.  Parkhurst:  "The  yeast  does  not  strike  through  the  whole  lump  of  dough  at  a 
flash.  We  keep  finding  unsuspected  lumps  of  meal  that  the  yeast  has  not  yet  seized 
upon.  We  surrender  to  God  in  instalments.  We  may  not  mean  to  do  it,  but  we  do  it. 
Conversion  lias  got  to  be  brought  down  to  date."  A  student  asked  the  President  of 
Oberliu  College  whether  he  could  not  take  a  shorter  course  than  the  one  prescribed. 
"Oh  yes,"  replied  the  President,  "but  then  it  depends  on  what  you  want  to  make  of 
yourself.  When  God  wants  to  make  an  oak,  he  takes  a  hundred  years,  but  when  he 
wants  to  make  a  squash,  he  takes  six  months." 

(  c )  It  is  distinguished  from  regeneration  as  growth  from  birth,  or  as  the 
strengthening  of  a  holy  disposition  from  the  original  impartation  of  it. 

Eph.  4  :  15 — "speaking  the  truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  him,  who  is  the  head,  even  Christ" ;  t 
Thess.  3  :  12  — "  the  Lord  make  you  to  increase  and  abound  in  lovo  one  toward  another,  and  toward  all  men  "  ;  2  Pet. 
3 :  18  — "  But  grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ ' ' ;  cf.  1  Pet.  1 :  23  — "  begotten 
again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  through  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth"  •  1  John  3 :  9 
— "'Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth  in  him :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  begot- 
ten of  God."  Not  sin  only,  but  holiness  also,  is  a  germ  whose  nature  is  to  grow.  The  new 
love  in  the  believer's  heart  follows  the  law  of  all  life,  in  developing  and  extending  itself 
under  God's  husbandry.  George  Eliot :  "  The  reward  of  one  duty  done  is  the  power  to 
do  another."  J.  W.  A.  Stewart :  "  When  the  21st  of  March  has  come,  we  say  '  The  back 
of  the  winter  is  broken.'  There  will  still  be  alternations  of  frost,  but  the  progress  will 
be  towards  heat.  The  coming  of  summer  is  sure, — in  germ  the  summer  is  already  here." 
Regeneration  is  the  cri.si<  of  a  disease  ;  sanctilication  is  the  progress  of  convalescence. 

Yet  growth  is  not  a  uniform  thing  in  the  tree  or  in  the  Christian.  In  some  single 
months  there  is  more  growl  b  t  han  in  all  the  year  besides.  During  the  rest  of  the  year, 
however,  there  is  solidification,  without  which  the  green  timber  would  be  useless.  The 
period  of  rapid  growth,  when  woody  fibre  is  actually  deposited  between  the  bark  and 
the  trunk,  occupies  but  four  to  six  weeks  in  May,  June,  and  July.  2  Pet.  1 :  5 — "adding  on 
your  part  all  diligence,  in  your  faith  supply  virtue ;  and  in  your  virtue  knowledge  "  =  adding  to  the  central 
grace  all  those  that  are  complementary  and  subordinate,  till  they  attain  the  harmony 

Of  a  chorUS  (  €7nxopT)y»j<raTe  ), 

( cl )  The  operation  of  God  reveals  itself  in,  and  is  accompanied  by,  intel- 
ligent and  voluntary  activity  of  the  believer  in  the  discovery  and  mortifica- 
tion of  sinful  desires,  and  in  the  bringing  of  the  whole  being  into  obedience 
to  Christ  and  conformity  to  the  standards  of  his  word. 

John  17 :  17  — "  Sanctify  them  in  the  truth :  thy  word  is  truth  "  ;  2  Cor.  10 : 5  — "  casting  down  imaginations,  and 
every  high  thing  that  is  exalted  against  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  bringing  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience 
of  Christ ' ' ;  PbiL  2 :  12, 13  — "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you 
both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure  " ;  1  Pet.  2 : 2  — "  as  new-born  babes,  long  for  the  spiritual  milk  which 
is  without  guile,  that  ye  may  grow  thereby  unto  salvation."  John  15  : 3  — "Already  ye  are  clean  because  of  the  word 
which  I  have  spoken  unto  you."  Regeneration  through  the  word  is  followed  by  sanctification 
through  the  word.  Eph.  5  : 1  —"Be  ye  therefore  imitators  of  God,  as  beloved  children."  Imitation  i3  at 
first  a  painful  effort  of  will,  as  in  learning  the  piano ;  afterwards  it  becomes  pleasurable 
and  even  unconscious.  Children  unconsciously  imitate  the  handwriting  of  their  par- 
ents.   Charles  Lamb  sees  in  the  mirror,  as  he  is  shaving,  the  apparition  of  his  dead 


872  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

father.  So  our  likeness  to  God  comes  out  as  we  advance  in  years.  Col.  3 : 4—"  Whon  Christ 
who  is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall  ye  also  with  him  he  manifested  in  glory." 

Horace  Bushnell  said  that,  if  the  stars  did  not  move,  they  would  rot  in  the  sky.  The 
man  wh  )  rides  the  bicycle  must  either  go  on,  or  go  off.  A  large  part  of  sanctification 
consists  in  the  formation  of  proper  habits,  such  as  the  habit  of  Scripture  reading,  of 
secret  prayer,  of  church  going,  of  efforts  to  convert  and  benefit  others.  Baxter: 
"  Every  man  must  grow,  as  trees  grow,  downward  and  upward  at  once.  The  visible 
outward  growth  must  be  accompanied  by  an  invisible  inward  growth."  Drummond : 
"  The  spiritual  man  having  passed  from  death  to  life,  the  natural  man  must  pass  from 
life  to  death."  There  must  be  increasing  sense  of  sin  :  "  My  sins  gave  sharpness  to  the 
nails,  And  pointed  every  thorn."  There  must  be  a  bringing  of  new  and  yet  newer 
regions  of  thought,  feeling,  and  action,  under  the  sway  of  Christ  and  his  truth.  There 
is  a  grain  of  truth  even  in  Macaulay's  jest  about  "  essentially  Christian  cookery." 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  63, 109-111  — "  The  church  is  Christian  no  more 
than  as  it  is  the  organ  of  the  continuous  passion  of  Christ.  We  must  Buffer  with  sinning 
and  lost  humanity,  and  so  'fill  up  ...  .  that  which  is  lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ'  (Col.  1 : 24 ). 
Christ's  crucifixion  must  be  prolonged  side  by  side  with  his  resurrection.  Thereare 
three  deaths :  1.  death  in  sin,  our  natural  condition ;  2.  death  for  sin,  our  judicial  con- 
dition ;  3.  death  to  sin,  our  sanctified  condition As  the  ascending  sap  in  the  tree 

crowds  off  the  dead  leaves  which  in  spite  of  storm  and  frost  cling  to  the  branches  al1 
the  winter  long,  so  does  the  Holy  Spirit  within  us,  when  allowed  full  sway,  subdue  and 
expel  the  remnants  of  our  sinful  nature." 

(e)  The  agency  through,  which  God  effects  the  sanctification  of  the 
believer  is  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  Christ. 

John  14: 17,  18 — "the  Spirit  of  truth  ....  he  abideth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.  I  will  not  leave  you  desolate 
I  come  unto  you  "  ;  15 : 3-5  — "  Already  ye  are  clean  ....  Abide  in  me  ...  .  apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing  ' ' 
Rom.  8:9, 10  —  "the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.  But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  And 
if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness  "  ;  1  Cor.  1:2,  30  — 
"  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus  ....  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us  ....  sanctification";  6:19 — "know  ye  not 
that  your  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God?"  Gal.  5:16 — "Walk  by  the 
Spirit,  and  ye  shall  not  fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh  " ;  Eph.  5 :  18  — "  And  be  not  drunken  with  wine,  wherein  is  riot,  but 
be  filled  with  the  Spirit"  ;  Col.  1 :  27-29  —"the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ 
in  you,  the  hope  of  glory :  whom  we  proclaim,  admonishing  every  man  and  teaching  every  man  in  all  wisdom,  that  we 
may  present  every  man  perfect  in  Christ;  whereunto  I  labor  also,  striving  according  to  his  working,  which  worketh  in 
me  mightily  "  ;  2  Tim.  1 :  14  — "That  good  thing  which  was  committed  unto  tbee  guard  through  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
dwelleth  in  us." 

Christianity  substitutes  for  the  old  sources  of  excitement  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Here  is  a  source  of  comfort,  energy,  and  joy,  infinitely  superior  to  any  which 
the  sinner  knows.  God  does  not  leave  the  soul  to  fall  back  upon  itself.  The  higher  up 
we  get  in  the  scale  of  being,  the  more  does  the  new  life  need  nursing  and  tending,— 
compare  the  sapling  and  the  babe.  God  gives  to  the  Christian,  therefore,  an  abiding 
presence  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,— not  only  regeneration,  but  sanctification.  C.  E. 
Smith,  Baptism  of  Fire:  "The  soul  needs  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former  rain,  the 
sealing  as  well  as  the  renewing  of  the  Spirit,  the  baptism  of  fire  as  well  as  the  baptism 
of  water.  Sealing  gives  something  additional  to  the  document,  an  evidence  plainer 
than  the  writing  within,  both  to  one's  self  and  to  others." 

"  Few  flowers  yield  more  honey  than  serves  the  bee  for  its  daily  food."  So  we  must 
first  live  ourselves  off  from  our  spiritual  diet ;  only  what  is  over  can  be  given  to  nour- 
ish others.  Thomas  A  Kempis,  Imitation  of  Christ :  "  Have  peace  in  thine  own  heart; 
else  thou  wilt  never  be  able  to  communicate  peace  to  others."  Godet :  "  Man  is  a  ves- 
sel destined  to  receive  God,  a  vessel  which  must  be  enlarged  in  proportion  as  it  is  filled, 
and  filled  in  proportion  as  it  is  enlarged."  Matthew  Arnold,  Morality:  "We  cannot 
kindle  when  we  will  The  Are  which  in  the  heart  resides ;  The  Spirit  bloweth  and  is  still ; 
In  mystery  our  soul  abides.  But  tasks  in  hours  of  insight  willed  Can  be  in  hours  of 
gloom  fulfilled.  With  aching  hands  and  bleeding  feet,  We  dig  and  heap,  lay  stone  on 
stone ;  We  bear  the  burden  and  the  heat  Of  the  long  day,  and  wish  't  were  done.  Not 
till  the  hours  of  light  return  All  we  have  built  do  we  discern." 

(/)  The  mediate  or  instrumental  cause  of  sanctification,  as  of  justifica- 
tion, is  faith. 


SANCTIFICATIfVNr.  873 

Acts  15 : 9  — " cleansing  their  hearts  by  faith  "  ;  Rom.  i :  17  — "For  therrn  is  revealed  a  righteousness  ot  Goq  from 
fa  th  unto  faith :  as  it  is  written,  But  the  righteous  shall  live  from  faith."  The  righteousm  sa  includes  sane- 
fcificatiOD  as  well  as  justification  ;  and  the  subject  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not 
simply  justification  by  faith,  but  rather  righteousness  by  faith,  or  salvation  by  faith. 
Justification  by  faith  is  the  subject  of  chapters  1-7;  sanctification  by  faith  is  the  subject  of 
chapters  8-16.  We  are  not  sanctified  by  efforts  of  our  own,  any  more  than  we  are  justified 
by  efforts  of  our  own. 

God  does  not  share  with  us  the  glory  of  sanctification,  any  more  than  he  shares  with 
US  the  glory  of  justification.  He  must  do  all.  or  nothing-.  William  Law:  "Arootset 
in  the  finest  soil,  in  the  best  climate,  and  blessed  with  all  that  sun  and  air  and  rain  can 
do  for  it,  is  not  in  so  sure  a  way  of  its  growth  to  perfection,  as  every  man  may  be  whose 
spirit  aspires  after  all  that  which  God  is  ready  and  infinitely  desirous  to  give  him.  For 
the  sun  meets  not  the  springing  bud  thai  stretches  toward  him  with  half  that  certainty 
as  God,  the  source  of  all  good,  communicates  himself  to  the  soul  that  longs  to  partake 
of  him." 

(r/)  The  object  of  this  faith  is  Christ  himself,  as  the  head  of  a  new 
humanity  and  the  source  of  truth  and  life  to  those  united  to  him. 

2  Cor.  3  :  18  — "  we  all,  with  unveiled  face,  beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  transformed  into  the 
same  image  from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  from  the  Lord  the  Spirit";  Eph.4:13 — "till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of 
the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  fullgrown  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness 
of  Christ."  Faith  here  is  of  course  much  more  than  intellectual  faith,— it  is  the  reception 
of  Christ  himself.  As  Christianity  furnishes  a  new  source  of  Ufe  and  energy  — in  the 
Holy  Spirit:  so  itgives  a  new  object  of  attention  and  regard  — the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
As  we  get  air  out  of  a  vessel  by  pouring  in  water,  so  we  can  drive  sin  out  only  by  bring- 
ing Christ  in.  Pee  Chalmers'  Sermon  on  The  Expulsive  Power  of  a  New  Affection. 
Drummond,  Nat.  Law  in  the  Bpir.  World,  123-140 —  "Man  does  not  grow  by  making 
efforts  to  grow,  but  by  putting  himself  into  the  conditions  of  growth  by  living  in 
(  Iwist." 

1  John  3 : 3  — "  every  one  that  hath  this  hope  set  on  him  ( «'  avriZ )  pnrineth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure."  Sanc- 
titication  does  not  begin  from  within.  The  objective  Savior  must  come  first.  The  hope 
based  on  him  must  give  the  motive  and  the  standard  of  self-purification.  Likeness 
comes  from  liking.  We  grow  to  be  like  that  w  hich  we  like.  Hence  we  use  the  phrase 
"I  like,"  as  a  synonym  for  "I  love."  We  cannot  remove  frost  from  our  window  by 
rubbing  the  pane;  we  need  to  kindle  a  fire.  Growth  is  noi  the  product  of  effort,  but 
of  life.  "Taking  thought,"  or  "being  aniious"  (Mat.  6:27  ).  is  not  t  he  way  to  grow.  Only  take 
t  he  hindrances  out  of  t  he  way,  and  we  grow  without  care,  as  I  he  I  ree  does.  The  moon 
makes  no  effort  to  shine,  nor  has  it  any  power  of  its  own  to  shine.  It  is  only  a  burnt 
out  cinder  in  the  sky.  It  shines  only  as  it  reflects  the  light  of  the  sun.  So  we  can  shine 
"as  lights  in  the  world"  (Phil.  2  :  15  t.  only  as  we  reflect,  Christ,  who  is  "the  Sun  of  Righteousness"  (  Mul. 
4:2)  and  "the  Light  of  the  world"  (John  8:12). 

(h)  Though  the  weakest  faith  perfectly  justifies,  the  degree  of  sanctifica- 
tion is  measured  by  the  strength  of  the  Christian's  faith,  and  the  persist- 
ence with  which  he  apprehends  Christ  in  the  various  relations  which  the 
Scriptures  declare  him  to  sustain  to  us. 

Mat.  9 :  29  — "  According  to  your  faith  be  it  done  unto  you  " ;  Luke  17  : 5  — "  Lord,  increase  our  faith  "  ;  Rom.  12 :  2 
— "  be  not  fashioned  according  to  this  world :  but  be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  that  ye  may  prove 
what  is  the  good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  will  of  God  " ;  13 :  14 — "  Rut  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  not 
provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof"  ;  Eph.  4:24 — "put  on  the  new  man,  that  after  God  hath  been  created 
in  righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth"  ;  1  Tim.  4:  7 — "eiercise  thyself  unto  godliness."  Leightou  :  "  None  of 
the  children  of  God  are  born  dumb."  Milton:  "Good,  the  more  communicated,  the 
more  abundant  grows."  Faith  can  neither  be  stationary  nor  complete  (  Westcott,  Bible 
Com.  on  John  15:8—  "so  shall  ye  become  my  disciples"  ).  Luther:  "  He  who  «  a  Christian  is  m> 
Christian  "  ;  "Christianus  non  in  esse,  sed  in  fieri."  In  a  Bible  that  belonged  to  Oliver 
Cromwell  is  this  inscription:  "O.  C.  Hi44.  Qui  cessat  esse  meliorcessat  esse  bonus"— 
"  He  who  ceases  to  be  better  ceases  to  be  good."  Story,  the  sculptor,  when  asked  which 
of  his  works  he  valued  most,  replied  :  "  My  next."  The  greatest  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  perfecting  of  Christian  character. 

Ool.  1:10 — "Increasing  by  the  knowledge  of  God"— here  the  instrumental  dative  represents  the 
knowledge  of  Hod   as  the  dew  or  rain  which   nurtures  the  growth  of  the  plant  (Light- 


874  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION". 

foot ).  Mr.  Gladstone  had  the  habit  of  reading  the  Bible  every  Sunday  afternoon  to  old 
women  on  his  estate.  Tholuck:  "I  have  but  one  passion,  and  that  is  Christ."  This  is 
an  echo  of  Paul's  words:  "  to  me  to  live  is  Christ "  (Phil.  1:21).  But  Paul  is  far  from  thinking 
that  he  has  already  obtained,  or  is  already  made  perfect.  He  prays  "  that  I  may  gain  Christ, 
..  .  that  I  may  know  him"  (Phil.  3:8, 10). 

(£)  From  the  lack  of  persistence  in  using  the  means  appointed  for 
Christian  growth  —  such  as  the  word  of  God,  prayer,  association  with  other 
believers,  and  personal  effort  for  the  conversion  of  the  ungodly — sanctifi- 
cation  does  not  always  proceed  in  regular  and  unbroken  course,  and  it  k 
never  completed  in  this  life. 

Phil.  3  :  12 — "Not  that  I  have  already  obtained,  or  am  already  made  perfect :  but  I  press  on,  if  so  be  that  I  may  lay 
hold  on  that  for  which  also  I  was  laid  hold  on  by  Jesus  Christ"  ;  1  John  1 :  8  —"If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we 
deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  Carlyle,  in  his  Life  of  John  Sterling,  chap.  8,  says  of 
Coleridge,  that  "  whenever  natural  obligation  or  voluntary  undertaking  made  it  his 
duty  to  do  anything,  the  fact  seemed  a  sufficient  reason  for  his  not  doing  it."  A  regular, 
advancing  sanctification  is  marked,  on  the  other  hand,  by  a  growing  habit  of  instant 
and  joyful  obedience.  The  intermittent  spring  depends  upon  the  reservoir  in  the  moun- 
tain cave,—  only  when  the  rain  fills  the  latter  full,  does  the  spring  begin  to  flow.  So  to 
secure  unbroken  Christian  activity,  there  must  be  constant  reception  of  the  word  and 
Spirit  of  God. 

Galen :  "  If  diseases  take  hold  of  the  body,  there  is  nothing  so  certain  to  drive  them 
out  as  diligent  exercise."  Williams,  Principles  of  Medicine:  "Want  of  exercise  and 
sedentary  habits  not  only  predispose  to,  but  actually  cause,  disease."  The  little  girl 
who  fell  out  of  bed  at  night  was  asked  how  it  happened.  She  replied  that  she  went  to 
Sleep  too  near  where  she  got  in.  Some  Christians  lose  the  joy  of  their  religion  by  ceas- 
ing their  Christian  activities  too  soon  after  conversion.  Yet  others  cultivate  their 
spiritual  lives  from  mere  selfishness.  Selfishness  follows  the  line  of  least  resistance.  It 
is  easier  to  pray  in  public  and  to  attend  meetings  for  prayer,  than  it  is  to  go  out  intc 
the  unsympathetic  world  and  engage  iu  the  work  of  winning  souls.  This  is  the  fault  of 
monasticism.  Those  grow  most  who  forget  themselves  in  their  work  for  others.  The 
discipline  of  life  is  ordained  in  God's  providence  to  correct  tendencies  to  indolence. 
Even  this  discipline  is  often  received  in  a  rebellious  spirit.  The  result  is  delay  in  the 
process  of  sanctification.  Bengel :  "  Deus  habet  horas  et  moras  "— "'  God  has  his  hours 
and  his  delays."  German  proverb :  "Gut  Ding  will  Weile  haben  "— "A  good  thing 
requires  time." 

(j)  Sanctification,  both  of  the  soul  and  of  the  body  of  the  believer,  is 
completed  in  the  life  to  come, — that  of  the  former  at  death,  that  of  the 
latter  at  the  resurrection. 

Phil.  3 :  21  — "  who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation,  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his  glory, 
according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subject  all  things  unto  himself"  ;  Col.  3 : 4  — "  When  Christ,  who  is 
our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall  we  also  with  him  be  manifested  in  glory"  ;  Heb.  12: 14,  23— "Follow  after  peace 
with  all  men,  and  the  sanctification  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ....  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect "  ; 
1  John  3:2  — "  Beloved,  now  are  we  children  of  God,  and  it  is  not  yet  made  manifest  what  we  shall  be.  We  know  that, 
if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be  like  him ;  for  we  shall  see  him  even  as  he  is  " ;  Jude  24  — "  able  to  guard  you  from 
stumbling,  and  to  set  you  before  the  presence  of  his  glory  without  blemish  in  exceeding  joy"  ;  Rev.  14  : 5 — "And  in 
their  month  was  found  no  lie :  they  are  without  blemish." 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  121,  puts  the  completion  of  our  sanctification, 
not  at  death,  but  at  the  appearing  of  the  Lord  "a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,  ...  .  unto  salvation " 
( Heb.  9 :  28 ;  1  Thess.  3 :  13 ;  5 :  23 ).  When  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is,  instantaneous  photograph- 
ing of  his  image  in  our  souls  will  take  the  place  of  the  present  slow  progress  from  glory 
to  glory  (2  Cor. 3:18;  1  John 3: 2).  If  by  sanctification  we  mean,  not  a  sloughing  off  of 
remaining  depravity,  but  an  ever  increasing  purity  and  perfection,  then  we  may  hold 
that  the  process  of  sanctification  goes  on  f  orever.  Our  relation  to  Christ  must  always 
be  that  of  the  imperfect  to  the  perfect,  of  the  finite  to  the  infinite ;  and  for  finite  spirits, 
progress  must  always  be  possible.   Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  373—"  Not  even  at  death 

can  sanctification  end The  goal  lies  far  beyond  deliverance  from  sin There 

is  no  such  thing  as  bringing  the  divine  life  to  such  completion  that  no  further  progress 
is  possible  to  it Indeed,  free  and  unhampered  progress  can  scarcely  begin  until 


SANCTIFICATION.  875 

Bin  is  left  behind."  "0  snows  so  pure,  O  peaks  so  high!  I  shall  not  reach  you  till  I  die  !" 
As  Jesus'  resurrection  was  prepared  by  holiness  of  life,  so  the  Christian's  resurrection 
is  prepared  by  sanctiflcation.  When  our  souls  are  freed  from  the  last  remains  of  sin, 
then  it  will  not  be  possible  for  us  to  be  holden  by  death  ( of.  Acts  2: 24 ).  See  Gordon,  The 
Twofold  Life,  or  Christ's  Work  for  us  and  in  us;  Brit,  and  For.  Evang.  Rev.,  April, 
1884 :  205-229 ;  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  657-662. 

3.  Erroneous  Views  refuted  by  these  Scripture  Passages. 

A.  The  Antinoinian,  —  which  holds  that,  since  Christ's  obedience  and 
sufferings  have  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  law,  the  believer  is  free  from 
obligation  to  observe  it. 

The  Antinomian  view  rests  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  Rom.  6 :  14  —  "  Ye  are  not  under  law, 
but  under  grace."  Agricola  and  Amsdorf  ( 155!) )  were  representatives  of  this  view.  Ams- 
dorf  said  that  "good  works  are  hurtful  to  salvation."  Hut  Melanchthon's  words  fur- 
nish the  reply:  "  Sola  fides  jttstiflcat,  sed  fides  non  est  sola."  F.  W.  Robertson  states 
it:  "Faith  alone  justifies,  but  not  the  faith  that  is  alone."  And  he  illustrates:  "Light- 
ning alone  strikes,  but  not  the  lightning  which  is  without  thunder  ;  for  that  is  summer 
lightning  and  harmless."  See  Browning's  poem,  Johannes  Agricola  in  Meditation,  in 
Dramatis  Persona-,  300  —  "  I  have  God's  warrant,  Could  I  blend  All  hideous  sins  as  in 
a  cup,  To  drink  the  mingled  venoms  up,  Secure  my  nature  will  convert  The  draught 
to  blossoming  gladness."  Agricola  said  that  Moses  ought  to  be  hanged.  This  is  Sanc- 
tiflcation without  Perseverance. 

Sandeman,  the  founder  of  the  sect  called  Sandemanians,  asserted  as  his  fundamental 
principle  the  deadliness  of  all  doings,  the  necessity  for  inactivity  to  let  God  do  his  work 
in  the  soul.  See  his  essay,  Theron  and  Aspasia,  referred  to  by  Allen,  in  his  Life  of 
Jonathan  Edwards,  114.  Anne  Hutchinson  was  excommunicated  and  banished  by  the 
Puritans  from  Massachusetts,  in  1037,  for  holding  "two  dangerous  errors :  1.  The  Holy 
Spirit  personally  dwells  in  a  justified  person;  2.  No  sanctiflcation  can  evidence  to  us 
our  justification."  Here  the  latter  error  almost  destroj  ed  the  influenceof  the  former 
truth.  There  is  a  little  Ant  inomianisni  in  the  popular  hymn:  "Lay  your  deadly  doings 
down,  Down  at  Jesus'  feet  ;  Doing  is  a  deadly  thing;  Doing  ends  in  death."  The 
colored  preacher's  poetry  only  presented  the  doctrine  in  the  concrete  :  "  You  may  rip 
and  te-yar,  You  may  cuss  and  swe-yar.  But  you  're  jess  as  sure  of  heaven,  '  S  if  you  'd 
done  gone  de-yar."  Plain  Andrew  Fuller  in  England  ( 1754-1815 )  did  excellent  service 
in  overthrowing  popular  Antinomianism. 

To  this  view  we  urge  the  following  objections  : 

( a )  That  siuco  the  law  is  a  transcript  of  the  holiness  of  God,  its  demands 
as  a  moral  rule  are  unchanging.  Only  as  a  system  of  penalty  and  a  method 
of  salvation  is  the  law  abolished  in  Christ's  death. 

Mat.  5:17-19  —  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  Far 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  law, 
till  all  things  be  accomplished.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men 
so,  shall  be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  he  shall  be  called  great  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  j  48  —  "  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect "  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  16  —  "Ye 
shall  be  holy ;  for  I  am  holy  "  ;  Rom.  10  :  4  —  "For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  anto  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
believeth"  ;  Gal.  2:20 —  "I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ"  ;  3:13  —  "  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
having  bjoome  a  curse  for  us  "  ;  Col.  2  :  14  —  "  having  blotted  out  the  bond  written  in  ordinances  that  was  against  us, 
which  was  contrary  to  us:  and  he  hath  taken  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross";  Heb.2:15  —  "deliver  all 
them  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage." 

( b )  That  the  union  between  Christ  and  the  believer  secures  not  only 
the  bearing  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  by  Christ,  but  also  the  impartation 
of  Christ's  spirit  of  obedience  to  the  believer,  —  in  other  words,  brings 
him  into  communion  with  Christ's  work,  and  leads  him  to  ratify  it  in  his 
own  experience. 

Rom.  8 :  9, 10, 15  —  "ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,-  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.  But  if 
any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.    And  if  Christ  is  in  70U,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin ;  but 


876  S0TER10L0GY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  SALVATION. 

the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness For  ye  received  not  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  unto  fear :  but  ye 

received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father  ";  Gal.  5 :  23-25  — "  But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  .joy, 
peace,  longsuffenng,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  self-control ;  against  such  there  is  no  law.  And  they 
that  are  of  Christ  Jesus  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  the  passions  and  the  lusts  thereof"  ;  1  John  1:6  —  "If  we  say  that 
we  have  fellowship  with  him  and  walk  in  the  darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth  "  ;  3:6  —  "  Whosoever  abideth  in 
him  sinneth  not :  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  knoweth  him." 

(c)  That  the  freedom  from  the  law  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak,  is 
therefore  simply  that  freedom  from  the  constraint  and  bondage  of  the  law, 
which  characterizes  those  who  have  become  one  with  Christ  by  faith. 

Ps.  119 :  97  —  "  0  how  love  I  thy  law !  it  is  my  meditation  all  the  day  " ;  Rom.  3  : 8,  31  —  "and  why  not  ( as  we  are 
jslanderously  reported,  and  as  some  affirm  that  we  say),  Let  us  doovil,  that  good  may  come?  whose  condemnation  is 

ust Do  we  then  make  tho  law  of  none  effect  through  faith  ?    God  forbid :  nay,  we  establish  the  law  "  ;  6 :  14,  15, 

22  —  "  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you  :  for  ye  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace.  What  then  ?  shall  we 
sin,  because  we  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace  ?  God  forbid  ....  now  being  made  free  from  sin  and  become 
sorvants  to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  sanct.fication,  and  the  end  eternal  life  "  ;  7:6  —  "  But  now  we  have  been  dis- 
charged from  the  law,  having  died  to  that  wherein  we  were  held ;  so  that  we  serve  in  newness  of  the  spirit,  and  not  in 
oldness  of  the  letter"  ;  8  :4 —  "that  the  ordinance  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh, 
but  after  the  Spirit."  ;  1  Cor. 7 :  22 — "he  that  was  called  in  the  Lord  being  a  bondservant,  is  the  Lord's  freedman"; 
Gal.  5:1  —  "  For  freedom  did  Christ  set  us  free :  stand  fast  therefore,  and  be  not  entangled  again  in  a  yoke  of  bond- 
age "  ;  1  Tim.  1:9  —  "law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  unruly  "  ;  James  1 :  25  —  "the 
perfect  law,  the  law  of  liberty." 

To  sum  up  the  doctrine  of  Christian  freedom  as  opposed  to  Antinomian- 
ism,  we  may  say  that  Christ  does  not  free  us,  as  the  Antinomian  believes, 
from  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life.  But  he  does  free  us  (  1  )  from  the  law  as  a 
system  of  curse  and  penalty  ;  this  he  does  by  bearing  the  curse  and  penalty 
himself.  Christ  frees  us  (  2  )  from  the  law  with  its  claims  as  a  method  of 
salvation  ;  this  he  does  by  making  his  obedience  and  merits  ours.  Christ 
frees  us  (  3  )  from  the  law  as  an  outward  and  foreign  compulsion  ;  this  he 
does  by  giving  to  us  the  spirit  of  obedience  and  sonship,  by  which  the 
law  is  progressively  realized  within. 

Christ,  then,  does  not  free  us,  as  the  Antinomian  believes,  from  the  law  as  a  rule  of 
life.  But  he  does  free  us  (1 )  from  the  law  as  a  system  of  curse  and  penalty.  This  he 
does  by  bearing:  the  cui'se  and  penalty  himself.  Just  as  law  can  do  nothing-  with  a  man 
after  it  has  executed  its  death-penalty  upon  him,  so  law  can  do  nothing-  with  us,  now 
that  its  death-penalty  has  been  executed  upon  Christ.  There  are  some  insects  that 
expire  in  the  act  of  planting-  their  sting  ;  and  so,  when  the  law  gathered  itself  up  and 
planted  its  sting  in  the  heart  of  Christ,  it  expended  all  its  power  as  a  judge  and  aveng-er 
over  us  who  believe.  In  the  Cross,  the  law  as  a  system  of  curse  and  penalty  exhausted 
itself ;  so  we  were  set  free. 

Christ  frees  us  (2)  from  the  law  with  its  claims  as  a  method  of  salvation  :  in  other 
words,  he  frees  us  from  the  necessity  of  trusting-  our  salvation  to  an  impossible  future 
obedience.  As  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  apart  from  any  sufferings  of  ours,  deliver  us 
from  eternal  death,  so  the  merits  of  Christ,  apart  from  any  merits  of  ours,  give  us  a 
title  to  eternal  life.  By  faith  in  what  Christ  has  done  and  simple  acceptance  of  his 
work  for  us,  we  secure  a  right  to  heaven.  Obedience  on  our  part  is  no  longer  rendered 
painfully,  as  if  our  salvation  depended  on  it,  but  freely  and  gladly,  in  gratitude  for 
what  Christ  has  done  for  us.  Illustrate  by  the  English  nobleman's  invitation  to  his 
park,  and  the  regulations  he  causes  to  be  posted  up. 

Christ  frees  us  ( 3)  from  the  law  as  an  outward  and  foreign  compulsion.  In  putting 
an  end  to  legalism,  he  provides  agrinst  license.  This  he  does  by  giving  the  spirit  of 
obedience  and  sonship.  He  puts  lo  7e  in  the  place  of  fear;  and  this  secures  an  obedi- 
ence more  intelligent,  more  thorough,  and  more  hearty,  than  could  have  been  secured 
by  mere  law.  So  he  frees  us  from  the  burden  and  compulsion  of  the  law,  by  realizing 
the  law  within  us  by  his  Spirit.  The  freedom  of  the  Christian  is  freedom  in  the  law, 
such  as  the  musician  experiences  when  the  scales  and  exercises  have  become  easy,  and 
work  has  turned  to  play.  See  John  Owen,  Works,  3 :  366-651 ;  6 : 1-313 ;  Campbell,  The 
Indwelling  Christ,  73-81. 


SANCTIFICATION.  877 

Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  193  —  "The  supremacy  of  those  hooks  which  contain  t .ho 
words  of  Jesus  himself  [  i.  c,  the  Synoptic  Gospels  ]  is  that  they  incorporate,  with  the 
other  elements  of  the  religious  life,  the  regulative  will.  Here  for  instance  [in  John  ] 
is  the  gospel  of  the  contemplative  life,  which,  'beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is 
changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory  to  glory,  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord '  ( 2  Cor.  3:18).  The  belief  is  that, 
with  this  beholding,  life  will  take  care  of  itself.  Life  will  never  take  care  of  Itself. 
Among  other  things,  after  the  most  perfect  vision,  it  has  to  ask  what  aspirations,  prin- 
ciples, affections,  belong  to  life,  and  then  to  cultivate  the  will  to  embody  these  thing's. 
Here  is  the  common  defect  of  all  religions.  They  fail  to  marry  religion  to  the  common 
life.  Christ  did  not  stop  short  of  this  final  word  ;  but  if  we  leave  him  for  even  the  great- 
est of  his  disciples,  we  are  in  danger  of  missing  it."  This  utterance  of  Gould  is  sur- 
prising in  several  ways.  It  attributes  to  John  alone  the  contemplative  attitude  of 
mind,  which  the  quotation  given  shows  to  belong  also  to  Paul.  It  ignores  the  constant 
appeals  in  John  to  the  will :  "He  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me  " 
(John  14: 21).  It  also  forgets  that  "life"  in  John  is  the  whole  being,  including  intellect, 
affection,  and  will,  and  that  to  have  Christ  for  one's  life  is  absolutely  to  exclude  Anti- 
nomianism. 

B.  The  Perfectionist,  —  which  liol ds  that  the  Christian  may,  in  this 
life,  become  perfectly  free  from  sin.  This  view  was  held  by  John  Wesley 
in  England,  and  by  Mahan  and  Finney  in  America. 

Finney,  Syst.  Theol.,  500,  declares  regeneration  to  be  "  an  instantaneous  change  from 
entire  sinfulness  to  entire  holiness."  The  claims  of  Perfectionists,  however,  have  been 
modified  from  "freedom  from  all  sin,"  to  "freedom  From  all  known  sin,"  then  to 
"entire  consecration,"  and  finally  to  "Christian  assurance."  11.  W.  Webb-Peploe,  in 
8.  S.  Times,  June 25,  1898— "The  Keswick  teaching  is  that  no  true  Christian  need  wil- 
fully or  knowingly  sin.  Yet  this  is  not  sinless  perfection.  It  is  simply  according  to 
our  faith  that  we  receive,  ami  faith  only  draws  from  God  according  to  our  present 
possibilities.  These  arc  limited  by  the  presence  of  indwelling  corruption;  and,  while 
never  needing  to  sin  within  the  sphere  of  the  light  we  possess,  there  are  to  the  last 
hour  of  our  life  upon  the  earth  powers  of  corruption  within  every  man,  which  defile 
his  best  deeds  and  give  to  even  his  holiest  efforts  that'  nature  of  sin  '  of  which  the  9th 
Article  in  the  Church  of  England  Prayerbook  speaks  so  strongly."  Yet  it  is  evident 
that  this  corruption  is  not  regarded  as  real  sin,  and  is  called  'nature  of  sin'  only  in 
some  non-natural  sense. 

Dr.  George  Peck  says :  "In  the  life  of  the  most  perfect  Christian  there  is  every  day 
renewed  occasion  for  self-abhorrence,  for  repentance,  for  renewed  application  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,  for  application  of  the  rekindling  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  why  call 
this  a  state  of  perfection  ?  F.B.  Meyer:  "Weneversay  that  selfisdead;  were  we  to 
do  so,  self  would  be  laughing  at  us  round  the  corner.  The  teaching  of  Romans  6  is, 
not  that  self  is  dead,  but  that  the  renewed  will  is  dead  to  self,  the  man's  will  saying  Yes 
to  Christ,  and  No  to  self;  through  the  Si  lirit's  grace  it  constantly  repudiates  and  morti- 
fies the  p-'^er  of  the  flesh."  For  statements  of  the  Perfectionist  view,  see  John  Wesley's 
Christian  Theology,  edited  by  Thornley  Smith,  265-273;  Mahan,  Christian  Perfection, 
and  art.  in  Bib.  Repoo.  2d  Series,  vol.  iv,  Oct.  1840:  408-428;  Finney,  Systematic  Theol- 
ogy, 586-766 ;  Peck,  Christian  Perfection ;  Ritechl,  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1878 :  65B ;  A.  T.  Pierson, 
The  Keswick  Movement. 

In  reply,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe  : 

( a )  That  the  theory  rests  upon  false  conceptions  :  first,  of  the  law,  —  as 
a  sliding-scale  of  requirement  graduated  to  the  moral  condition  of  creatures, 
instead  of  being  the  unchangeable  reflection  of  God's  holiness ;  secondly, 
of  sin, —  as  consisting  only  in  voluntary  acts  instead  of  embracing  also  those 
dispositions  and  states  of  the  soul  which  are  not  conformed  to  the  divine 
holiness  ;  thirdly,  of  the  nitman  will, —  as  able  to  choose  God  supremely 
and  persistently  at  every  moment  of  life,  and  to  fulfil  at  every  moment  the 
obligations  resting  upon  it,  instead  of  being  corrupted  and  enslaved  by  the 
Fall. 

This  view  reduces  the  debt  to  the  debtor's  ability  to  pay, —  a  short  and  easy  method 
of  discharging  obligations.     I  can  leap  over  a  church  steeple,  if  I  am  only  permitted  to 


878  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

make  the  church  steeple  low  enough;  and  I  can  touch  the  stars,  if  the  stars  will  only 
come  down  to  my  hand.  The  Philistines  are  quite  equal  to  Samson,  if  they  may  only 
cut  off  Samson's  locks.  So  I  can  obey  God's  law,  if  I  may  only  make  God's  law  what 
I  want  it  to  be.  The  fundamental  error  of  perfectionism  is  its  low  view  of  God's  law ; 
the  second  is  its  narrow  conception  of  sin.  John  Wesley :  "  I  believe  a  person  filled  with 
love  of  God  is  still  liable  to  involuntary  transgressions.  Such  transgressions  you  may 
call  sins,  if  you  please  ;  I  do  not."  The  third  error  of  perfectionism  is  its  exaggerated 
estimate  of  man's  power  of  contrary  choice.  To  say  that,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  habits  of  the  past  and  whatever  may  be  the  evil  affections  of  the  present,  a  man  is 
perfectly  able  at  any  moment  to  obey  the  whole  law  of  God,  is  to  deny  that  there  are 
such  things  as  character  and  depravity.  Finney,  Gospel  Themes,  383,  indeed,  disclaimed 
"  all  expectations  of  attaining  this  state  ourselves,  and  by  our  own  independent, 
unaided  efforts."    On  the  Law  of  God,  see  pages  537-544. 

Augustine :  "  Every  lesser  good  has  an  essential  element  of  sin."  Anything  less 
than  the  perfection  that  belongs  normally  to  my  present  stage  of  development  is  a 
coming  short  of  the  law's  demand.  R.  W.  Dale,  Fellowship  with  Christ,  359—  "  For  us 
and  in  this  world,  the  divine  is  always  the  impossible.  Give  me  a  lav/  for  individual 
conduct  which  requires  a  perfection  that  is  within  my  reach,  and  I  am  sure  that  the 
law  does  not  represent  the  divine  thought.  'Not  that  I  have  already  obtained,  or  am  already  made 
perfect :  but  I  press  on,  if  so  be  that  I  may  lay  hold  on  that  for  which  also  I  was  laid  hold  on  by  Christ  Jesus '  ( Phil. 
3 .  12 )  —  this,  from  the  beginning,  has  been  the  confession  of  saints."  The  Perfectionist 
is  apt  to  say  that  we  must  "  take  Christ  twice,  once  for  Justification  and  once  for  sauc- 
titication."  But  no  one  can  take  Christ  for  justification  without  at  the  same  time 
taking  him  for  sanctiiication.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  calls  this  doctrine  "  Neonomianism," 
because  it  holds  not  to  one  unchanging,  ideal,  and  perfect  law  of  God,  but  to  a  second 
law  given  to  human  weakness  when  the  first  law  has  failed  to  secure  obedience. 

( 1 )  The  law  of  God  demands  perf ection.  It  is  a  transcript  of  God's  nature.  Its  object 
is  to  reveal  God.  Anything  less  than  the  demand  of  perfection  would  misrepresent 
God.  God  could  not  give  a  law  which  a  sinner  could  obey.  In  the  very  nature  of  the 
case  there  can  be  no  sinlessness  in  this  life  for  those  who  have  once  sinned.  Sin  brings 
incapacity  as  well  as  guilt.  All  men  have  squandered  a  part  of  the  talent  intrusted  to 
them  by  God,  and  therefore  no  man  can  come  up  to  the  demands  of  that  law  which 
requires  all  that  God  gave  to  humanity  at  its  creation  toget  her  with  interest  on  the 
investment.  (2)  Even  the  best  Christian  comes  short  of  perfection.  Regeneration 
makes  only  the  domiuant  disposition  holy.  Many  affections  still  remain  unholy  and 
require  to  be  cleansed.  Only  by  lowering  the  demands  of  the  law,  making  shallow 
our  conceptions  of  sin,  and  mistaking  temporary  volition  for  permanent  bent  of  the 
will,  can  we  count  ourselves  to  be  perfect.  (3)  Absolute  perfection  is  attained  not  in 
this  world  but  in  the  world  to  come.  The  best  Christians  count  themselves  still  sin- 
ners, strive  most  earnestly  for  holiness,  have  imputed  but  not  inherent  sanctification, 
are  saved  by  hope. 

(6)  That  the  theory  finds  no  support  in,  but  rather  is  distinctly  contra- 
dicted by,  Scripture. 

First,  the  Scriptures  never  assert  or  imply  that  the  Christian  may  in  this 
life  live  without  sin ;  passages  like  1  John  3  :  6,  9,  if  interpreted  consist- 
ently with  the  context,  set  forth  either  the  ideal  standard  of  Christian 
living  or  the  actual  state  of  the  believer  so  far  as  respects  his  new  nature. 

1  John  3  :  6  — "  Whosoever  abideth  in  him  sinneth  not :  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  knoweth  him  " ; 
9  — "  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth  in  him :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is 
begotten  of  God."  Ann.  Par.  Bible,  in  loco  : — "John  is  contrasting  the  states  in  which  sin 
and  grace  severally  predominate,  without  reference  to  degrees  id  either,  showing  that 
all  men  are  iu  one  or  the  other."  Neander :  "  John  recognizes  no  intermediate  state,  no 
gradations.  He  seizes  upon  the  radical  point  of  difference.  He  contrasts  the  two  states 
in  their  essential  nature  and  principle.  It  is  either  love  or  hate,  light  or  darkness,  truth 
or  a  lie.  The  Christian  life  in  its  essential  nature  is  the  opposite  of  all  sin.  If  there  be 
sin,  it  must  be  the  afterworking  of  the  old  nature."  Yet  all  Christians  are  required  in 
Scripture  to  advance,  to  confess  sin,  to  ask  forgiveness,  to  maintain  warfare,  to  assume 
the  attitude  of  ill  desert  in  prayer,  to  receive  chastisement  for  the  removal  of  imper- 
fections, to  regard  full  salvation  as  matter  of  hope,  not  of  present  experience. 


SANCTIFICATION".  879 

John  paints  only  in  hlack  and  white ;  there  are  no  intermediate  tints  or  colors.  Take 
the  words  in  fJohn  3  : 6  literally,  and  there  never  was  and  never  can  be  a  regenerate  per- 
son. The  words  are  hyperbolical,  as  Paul's  words  in  Rom.  6  : 2— "We  who  died  to  sin,  how  shall 
we  any  longer  live  therein" — are  metaphorical;  see  E.  H.  Johnson,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1892:375,  note. 
The  Emperor  William  refused  the  request  for  an  audience  prepared  by  a  German- 
American,  sas'ing  that  Germans  born  in  Germany  but  naturalized  in  America  became 
Americans:  "  Ich  kenne  Amerikaner,  Ich  kenne  Deutsche,  aber  Deutsch-Amerikaner 
kenne  Ich  nicht "— "  I  know  Americans,  I  know  Germans,  but  German-Americans  I  do 
not  know." 

Lowi'ie,  Doctrine  of  St.  John,  110  — "  St.  John  uses  the  noun  si?i  and  the  verb  to  sin  in 
two  senses :  to  denote  the  power  or  principle  of  sin,  or  to  denote  concrete  acts  of  sin. 

The  latter  sense  he  generally  expresses  by  the  plural  sins The  Christian  is  guilty 

of  particular  acts  of  sin  for  which  confession  and  forgiveness  are  required,  but  as  he 
has  been  freed  from  the  bondage  of  sin  he  cannot  habitually  practise  it  nor  abide  in  it, 
still  less  can  he  be  guilty  of  sin  in  its  superlative  form,  by  denial  of  Christ." 

Secondly,  the  apostolic  admonitions  to  the  Christians  and  Hebrews  show 
that  no  such  state  of  complete  (^notification  had  been  generally  attained  by 
the  Christians  of  the  first  century. 

Rom.  8 :  24  — "  For  in  hope  were  we  saved :  but  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope :  for  who  hopeth  for  that  which  he  seoth  ?  " 
The  party  feeling,  selfishness,  and  immorality  found  among  the  members  of  the  Corin- 
thian church  are  evidence  that  tiny  were  far  from  a  state  of  entire  sanctiflcation. 

Thirdly,  there  is  express  record  of  sin  committed  by  the  most  perfect 
characters  of  Scripture — as  Noah,  Abraham,  Job,  David,  Peter. 

We  are  urged  by  perfectionists  "  to  keep  up  the  standard."  We  do  this,  not  by  calling 
certain  men  perfect,  but  by  calling  Jesus  Christ  perfect.  In  proportion  to  our  sancti- 
iic  at  ion,  we  are  absorbed  in  Christ,  not  in  ourselves.  Self-consciousness  and  display 
are  a  poor  evidence  of  sanctiflcation.  The  best  characters  of  Scripture  put  their  trust 
in  a  standard  higher  than  they  have  ever  realized  in  their  own  persons,  even  in  the 
righteousness  of  God. 

Fourthly,  the  word  rl/lwor,  as  applied  to  spiritual  conditions  already 
attained,  can  fairly  be  held  to  signify  only  a  relative  perfection,  equivalent 
to  sincere  piety  or  maturity  of  Christian  judgment. 

1  Cor.  2 :  6  — "  We  speak  wisdom,  however,  among  the  perfect,"  or,  as  the  Am.  Revisers  have  it,  "among 
them  that  are  fullgrown  "  ;  Phil.  3 :  15  — "Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  are  perfect,  be  thus  minded."  Men  are  often 
called  perfect,  when  free  from  any  fault  which  strikes  the  eyes  of  the  world.  See  Gen. 
6:9 — "  Noah  was  a  righteous  man,  and  perfect";  Job  1 : 1 — "that  man  was  perfect  and  upright."  On  Te'Aetos,  see 
Trench,  Syn.  N.  T.,  1 :  110. 

The  Te'Aeioi  are  described  in  Heb.  5 :  14  — "Solid  food  is  for  the  mature  ( TeAeiW )  who  on  account  of  habit 
have  their  perceptions  disciplined  for  the  discriminating  of  good  and  evil"  (  Dr.  Kendriek's  translation). 
The  same  word  "perfect "  is  used  of  Jacob  in  Gen.  25:27 — "Jacob  was  a  quiet  man,  dwelling  in  tents  "  = 
a  harmless  man,  exemplary  and  well-balanced,  as  a  man  of  business.  Genung,  Epic  of 
the  Inner  Life,  132—  "  'Perfect'  in  Job  =  Horace's  'integer  vitas,1  being  the  adjective  of 
which  'integrity'  is  the  substantive." 

Fifthly,  the  Scriptures  distinctly  deny  that  .any  man  on  earth  fives  with- 
out sin. 

1  K.  8 :  46  — "  there  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not "  ;  Eccl.  7 :  20  — "  Surely  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  upon  earth,  that 
doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not";  James  3  :  2—  "For  in  many  things  we  all  stumble.  If  any  stumbleth  not  in  word,  the 
same  is  a  perfect  man,  able  to  bridle  the  whole  body  also  "  ;  1  John  1 : 8  — "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us." 

T.  T.  Eaton,  Sanctiflcation  :  "  1.  Some  mistake  regeneration  for  sanctiflcation.  They 
have  been  unconverted  church  members.  When  led  to  faith  in  Christ,  and  finding 
peace  and  joy,  they  think  they  are  sanctified,  when  they  are  simply  converted.  2.  Some 
mistake  assurance  of  faith  for  sanctiflcation.  But  joy  is  not  sanctiflcation.  3.  Some 
mistake  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  sanctiflcation.  But  Peter  sinned  grievously 
at  Antioch,  after  he  had  received  that  baptism.  4.  Some  think  that  doing  the  best  one 
can  is  sanctiflcation.    But  he  who  measures  by  inches,  for  feet,  can  measure  up  weLL 


880  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 

5.  Some  regard  sin  as  only  a  voluntary  act,  whereas  the  sinful  nature  is  the  fountain. 
Stripping  off  the  leaves  of  the  Upas  tree  does  not  answer.  6.  Some  mistake  the  power 
of  the  human  will,  and  fancy  that  an  act  of  will  can  free  a  man  from  sin.  They  ignore 
the  settled  bent  of  the  will,  which  the  act  of  will  does  not  change." 

Sixthly,  the  declaration  :  "ye  were  sanctified  "  ( 1  Cor.  6  :  11 ),  and  the 
designation :  "saints "  (  1  Cor.  1:2),  applied  to  early  believers,  are,  as  the 
"whole  epistle  shows,  expressive  of  a  holiness  existing  in  germ  and  anticipa- 
tion ;  the  expressions  deriving  their  meaning  not  so  much  from  what  these 
early  believers  were,  as  from  what  Christ  was,  to  whom  they  were  united 
by  faith. 

When  N.  T.  believers  are  said  to  be  "sanctified,"  wo  must  remember  the  O.  T.  use  of  the 
word.  '  Sanctify  '  may  have  either  the  meaning  '  to  make  holy  outwardly,'  or  '  to  make 
holy  inwardly.'  The  people  of  Israel  and  the  vessels  of  the  tabernacle  were  made  holy 
in  the  former  sense ;  their  sanctification  was  a  setting  apart  to  the  sacred  use.  Num.  8 :  17 
— "all  the  firstborn  among  the  children  of  Israel  are  mine  ....  I  sanctified  them  for  myself"  ;  Deut.  33: 3 — "Yea,  he 
loveth  the  people ;  all  his  saints  are  in  thy  hand";  2  Chron.  29:19 — "all  the  vessels  ....  have  we  prepared  and 
sanctified."  The  vessels  mentioned  were  first  immersed,  and  then  sprinkled  from  day  to 
day  according  to  need.  So  the  Christian  by  his  regeneration  is  set  apart  for  God's  service, 
and  in  this  sense  is  a  "saint"  and  "sanctified."  More  than  this,  he  has  iu  him  the  beginnings 
of  purity, —  he  is  "clean  as  a  whole,"  though  he  yet  needs  "to  wash  his  feet  "  (John  13: 10)  — that  is, 
to  be  cleansed  from  the  recurring  defilements  of  his  daily  life.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol., 
2:551— "The  error  of  the  Perfectionist  is  that  of  confounding  iminitcd  sanctification 
with  inherent  sanctification.  It  is  the  latter  which  is  mentioned  iu  1  Cor.  1 :  30  — '  Christ  Jesus, 
who  was  made  unto  us  ...  .  sanctification.'  " 

Water  from  the  Jordan  is  turbid,  but  it  settles  in  the  bottle  and  seems  pure  —  until  it 
is  shaken.  Some  Christians  seem  very  free  from  sin,  until  you  shake  them, —  then  they 
get  "riled."  Clarke,  Christian  Theology,  371  — "  Is  there  not  a  higher  Christian  life? 
Yes,  and  a  higher  life  beyond  it,  and  a  higher  still  beyond.  The  Christian  life  is  ever 
higher  and  higher.  It  must  pass  through  all  stages  between  its  beginning  and  its  per- 
fection." C.  D.  Case :  "  The  great  objection  to  [  this  theory  of  ]  complete  sanctification 
is  that,  if  possessed  at  all,  it  is  not  a  development  of  our  own  character." 

(  c )  That  the  theory  is  disapproved  by  the  testimony  of  Christian  expe- 
rience.—  In  exact  proportion  to  the  soul's  advance  in  holiness  does  it  shrink 
from  claiming  that  holiness  has  been  already  attained,  and  humble  itself 
before  God  for  its  remaining  apathy,  ingratitude,  and  unbelief. 

Phil.  3 :  12-14 — "Not  that  I  have  already  obtained,  or  am  already  made  perfect:  but  I  press  on,  if  so  be  that  I  may 
lay  hold  on  that  for  which  also  I  was  laid  hold  on  by  Christ  Jesus."  Some  of  the  greatest  advocates  of 
perfectionism  have  been  furthest  from  claiming  any  such  perfection  ;  although  many 
of  their  less  instructed  followers  claimed  it  for  them,  and  even  professed  to  have 
attained  it  themselves. 

In  Luke  7 : 1-10,  the  centurion  does  not  think  himself  worthy  to  go  to  Jesus,  or  to  have 
him  come  under  his  roof,  yet  the  elders  of  the  Jews  say :  "  He  is  worthy  that  thou  shouldest  do 
this" ;  and  Jesus  himself  says  of  him  :  "I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel."  "Holy  to  Jeno- 
Yah  "  was  inscribed  upon  the  mitre  of  the  high  priest  ( Ex.  28: 36  ).  Others  saw  it,  but  he 
saw  it  not.  Moses  knew  not  that  his  face  shone  (Ex.  34 :  29 ).  The  truest  holiness  is  that 
of  which  the  possessor  is  least  conscious ;  yet  it  is  his  real  diadem  and  beauty  ( A.  J. 
Gordon ).  "  The  nearer  men  are  to  being  sinless,  the  less  they  talk  about  it "  ( Dwight 
L.  Moody ).  "  Always  strive  for  perfection :  never  believe  you  have  reached  it "  ( Arnold 
of  Rugby ).  Compare  with  this,  Ernest  Renan's  declaration  that  he  had  nothing  to  alter 
in  his  life.  "  I  have  not  sinned  for  some  time,"  said  a  woman  to  Mr.  Spurgeon.  "  Then 
you  must  be  very  proud  of  it,"  he  replied.  "  Indeed  lam!"  said  she.  A  pastor  says : 
"No  one  can  attain  the  '  Higher  Life,' and  escape  making  mischief."  John  Wesley 
lamented  that  not  one  in  thirty  retained  the  blessing. 

Perfectionism  is  best  met  by  proper  statements  of  the  nature  of  the  law 
and  of  sin  (  Ps.  119  :  96  ).  While  we  thus  rebuke  spiritual  pride,  however, 
we  should  be  equally  careful  to  point  out  the  inseparable  connection  between 
justification  and  sanctification,  and  their  equal  importance  as  together  mak- 


PERSEVERANCE.  881 

ing  up  the  Biblical  idea  of  salvation.  While  we  show  no  favor  to  those  who 
would  make  sanctification  a  sudden  anil  paroxysmal  act  of  the  human  will, 
we  should  hold  forth  the  holiness  of  God  as  the  standard  of  attainment,  and 
the  faith  in  a  Christ  of  infinite  fulness  as  the  medium  through  which  that 
standard  is  to  be  gradually  but  certainly  realized  iu  us  (2  Cor.  3  :  18). 

Weshould  imitate  Lyman  Beecher's  method  of  opposing  perfectionism  —  by  search- 
ing expositions  of  God's  law.  When  men  know  what  the  law  is,  they  will  say  with  the 
Psalmist:  "  I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  perfection ;  thy  commandment  is  exceeding  broad"  (Ps.  119:96).  And  yet 
we  are  earnestly  and  hopefully  to  seek  in  Christ  for  a  continually  increasing  measure 
of  sanctification  :  1  Cor.  1 :  30  — "Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  ns  .  .  .  .  sanctification"  ;  2  Cor.  3  :  18  — 
"But  we  all,  with  unveiled  face  beholding  as  in  a  mirror  the  glory  of  tht  Lord,  are  transformed  into  the  same  image 
from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  from  the  Lord  the  Spirit."  Arnold  of  Rugby :  "  Always  expect  to  succeed, 
and  never  think  you  have  succeeded." 

Mr.  Finney  meant  by  entire  sanctification  only  that  it  is  possible  for  Christians  in  this 
life  by  the  grace  of  God  to  consecrate  themselves  80  unreservedly  to  his  service  as  to 
live  without  conscious  and  wilful  disobedience  to  the  divine  commands.  He  did  not 
claim  himself  to  have  reached  this  point;  he  made  at  times  very  impressive  confessions 
of  his  own  sinfulness;  he  did  noi  encourage  others  to  make  for  themselves  the  claim  to 
have  lived  without  conscious  fault.  He  held  howeverthal  such  a  state  is  attainable, 
and  therefore  that  its  pursuit  is  rational.  He  also  admitted  thai  such  a  state  is  one,  not 
of  absolute,  but  only  of  relative,  sinlessness.  His  error  was  in  calling  it  a  state  of  entire 
sanctification.    See  A.  II.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation,  377-384. 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  116 — "  It  is  possible  that  one  may  experience  a 
great  crisis  in  his  spiritual  life,  in  which  there  is  such  a  total  surrender  of  self  to  God 
and  such  an  infilling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  is  freed  from  the  bondage  of  sinful 
appetites  and  habits,  and  enabled  to  have  constant  victory  over  self  instead  of  suffering 

constant  defeat If  the  doctrine  of  sinless  perfection  is  a  heresy,  the  doctrine  of 

contentment  with  sinful  imperfection  is  a  greater  heresy It  is  not  an  edifying 

spectacle  to  see  a  Christian  worldling  throwing  stones  at  a  Christian  perfectionist." 
Caird,  Evolution  of  Religion,  1: 138—  "If,  according  to  the  German  proverb,  it  is  pro- 
vided that  the  trees  shall  not  grow  into  the  sky,  it  is  equally  provided  that  they  shall 
always  grow  toward  it ;  and  the  sinking  of  the  roots  into  the  soil  is  inevitably  accom- 
panied by  a  further  expansion  of  the  branches." 

See  Hovej-,  Doctrine  of  the  Higher  Christian  Life,  Compared  with  Scripture,  also 
novey.  Higher  Christian  Life  Examined,  in  Studies  in  Ethics  and  Theology,  344-427  ; 
Snodgrass,  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sanctification  ;  Princeton  Essays,  1 : 335-365 ;  Hodge, 
Syst.  Theol.,  3:213-258;  Calvin,  Institutes,  in,  11:6;  Bib.  Repos.,  2d  Series,  1:44-58; 
2  :  143-166 ;  Woods,  Works,  4 :  465-533  ;  II.  A.  Boardman,  The  "  Higher  Life  "  Doctrine  of 
Sanctification ;  William  Law,  Practical  Treatise  on  Christian  Perfection ;  E.  H.  John- 
son, The  Highest  Life. 

LT.     Perseverance. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that,  in  virtue  of  the  original  purpose  and  contin- 
uous operation  of  God,  all  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith  will  infallibly 
continue  in  a  state  of  grace  and  will  finally  attain  to  everlasting  life.  This 
voluntary  continuance,  on  the  part  of  the  Christian,  in  faith  and  well-doing 
we  call  perseverance.  Perseverance  is,  therefore,  the  human  side  or  aspect 
of  that  spiritual  process  which,  as  viewed  from  the  divine  side,  we  call  sanc- 
tification. It  is  not  a  mere  natural  consequence  of  conversion,  but  involves 
a  constant  activity  of  the  human  will  from  the  moment  of  conversion  to  the 
end  of  life. 

Adam's  holiness  was  mutable ;  God  did  not  determine  to  keep  him.  It  is  otherwise 
with  believers  in  Christ ;  God  has  determined  to  give  them  the  kingdom  ( Luke  12 :  32 ) . 
Yet  this  keeping  by  God,  which  we  call  sanctification,  is  accompanied  and  followed  by  a 
keeping  of  himself  on  the  part  of  the  believer,  which  we  call  perseverance.  The  former 
is  alluded  to  in  John  17: 11,  12— "keep  them  in  thy  name  ....  I  kept  them  in  thy  name  ....  I  guarded  them, 
and  not  one  of  them  perished,  but  the  son  of  perdition  "  ;  the  latter  is  alluded  to  in  1  John  5 :  18  — "he  that  was 

56 


882  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION". 

begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself."  Both  are  expressed  in  Jude  21,  24 — "Keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God 
....  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  guard  you  from  stumbling  .  .  .  ." 

A  German  treatise  on  Pastoral  Theology  is  entitled:  "  Keep  What  Thou  Hast "— an 
allusion  to  2  Tim.  1 ;  14 — "That  good  thing  which  was  committed  unto  thee  guard  through  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
dwelleth  in  us."  Not  only  the  pastor,  but  every  believer,  has  a  charge  to  keep  ;  and  the 
keeping-  of  ourselves  is  as  important  a  point  of  Christian  doctrine  as  is  the  keeping  of 
God.  Both  are  expressed  in  the  motto  :  Teneo,  Teneor  —  the  motto  on  the  front  of  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  building-  in  Boston,  underneath  a  stone  cross,  firmly  clasped  by  two  hands. 
The  colored  preacher  said  that  "  Perseverance  means :  1.  Take  hold ;  2.  Hold  on ;  3. 
Never  let  go." 

Physically,  intellectually,  morally,  spiritually,  there  is  need  that  we  persevere.  Paul, 
in  1  Cor.  9 :  27,  declares  that  he  smites  his  body  under  the  eye  and  makes  a  slave  of  it,  lest 
after  having  preached  to  others  he  himself  should  be  rejected ;  and  in  2  Tim.  4: 7,  at  the 
end  of  his  career,  he  rejoices  that  he  has  "kept  the  faith."  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the 
Spirit,  115  — "  The  Christian  is  as  'a  tree  planted  by  the  streams  of  water,  that  bringeth  forth  its  fruit  in  its 
season'  (  Ps.  1 : 3 ),  but  to  conclude  that  his  growth  will  be  as  irresistible  as  that  of  the  tree, 
coming-  as  a  matter  of  course  simply  because  he  has  by  regeneration  been  planted  in 
Christ,  is  a  grave  mistake.  The  disciple  is  required  to  be  consciously  and  intelligently 
active  in  his  own  growth,  as  the  tree  is  not, '  to  give  all  di'igence  to  make  his  calling  and  election  sure ' 
(2  Pet.  1 :  10 )  by  surrendering  himself  to  the  divine  action."  Clarke,  Christian  Theology, 
379— "Man  is  able  to  fall,  and  God  is  able  to  keep  him  from  falling;  and  through  the 
various  experiences  of  life  God  will  so  save  his  child  out  of  all  evil  that  he  will  be 
morally  incapable  of  falling." 

1.     Proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  Perseverance. 

A.  From  Scripture. 

John  10  :  23,  29  —  "  they  shall  never  porish,  and  no  one  shall  snatch  them  out  ol  my  hand.  My  Father,  who  hath 
given  them  unto  me,  is  greater  than  ail ;  and  no  one  is  able  to  snatch  them  out  of  the  Father's  hand  "  ;  Rom.  11 :  29  — 
"  For  the  gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance  "  ;  1  Cor.  13 : 7  —  "  endurelh  all  things  "  ;  cf.  13  —  "  But 
now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love  "  ;  Phil.  1 : 6 —  "being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  who  began  a  good  work  in  you 
will  perfect  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ "  ;  2  Thess.  3  : 3  —  "  But  the  Lord  is  faithful,  who  shall  establish  you,  and 
guard  you  from  the  evil  one  "  ;  2  Tim.  1:12  —  "I  know  him  whom  I  have  believed,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able 
to  guard  that  which  I  have  committed  unto  him  against  that  day";  1  Pet.  1:5  —  "who  by  the  power  of  God  are 
guarded  through  faith  unto  a  salvation  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last  time " ;  Rev.  3 :  10  —  "  Because  thou  didst  keep 
the  word  of  my  patience,  I  also  will  keep  thee  from  the  hour  of  trial,  that  hour  which  is  to  come  upon  the  whole  world, 
to  try  them  that  dwell  upon  the  earth." 

2  Tim.  1 :  12  —  tij^  irapa&riK.i)v  fj.ov  —  Ellicott  translates:  "the  trust  committed  to  me,"  or  "my  deposit" 
=  the  office  of  preaching  the  gospel,  the  stewardship  entrusted  to  the  apostle  ;  cf.  1  Tim. 
6:20 —  "0  Timothy,  keep  thy  deposit"—  tt)v  TrapadriK-qv ;  and  2  Tim.  1:14 — "Keep  the  good  deposit" — where 
the  deposit  seems  to  be  the  faith  or  doctrine  delivered  to  him  to  preach.  Nicoll,  The 
Church's  One  Foundation,  211  —  "  Some  Christians  waken  each  morning  with  a  creed 
of  fewer  articles,  and  those  that  remain  they  are  ready  to  surrender  to  a  process  of 
argument  that  convinces  them.    But  it  is  a  duty  to  keep.    '  Ye  have  an  anointing  from  the  Holy 

One,  and  ye  know '  ( 1  John  2 :  20  ) Ezra  gave  to  his  men  a  treasure  of  gold  and  silver  and 

sacrificial  vessels,  and  he  charged  them  :  'Watch  ye,  and  keep  them,  until  ye  weigh  them  ....  in 
thy  chambers  of  the  house  of  Jehovah '  (Ezra8:29)."  See  in  the  Autobiography  of  C.  H.  Spurgeon, 
1 :  225,  256,  the  outline  of  a  sermon  on  John  6:37  —  "  All  that  which  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  unto 
me ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  Mr.  Spurgeon  remarks  that  this  text  can 
give  us  no  comfort  unless  we  see :  1.  that  God  has  given  us  his  Holy  Spirit;  2.  that  we 
have  given  ourselves  to  him.  Christ  will  not  cast  us  out  because  of  our  great  sins,  our 
long  delays,  our  trying  other  saviors,  our  hardness  of  heart,  our  little  faith,  our  poor 
dull  prayers,  our  unbelief,  our  inveterate  corruptions,  our  frequent  backslidings,  nor 
finally  because  every  one  else  passes  us  by. 

B.  From.  Iteason. 

(a)  It  is  a  necessary  inference  from  other  doctrines, — such  as  election, 
union  with  Christ,  regeneration,  justification,  sanctification. 

Election  of  certain  individuals  to  salvation  is  election  to  bestow  upon  them  such 
influences  of  the  Spirit  as  will  lead  them  not  only  to  accept  Christ,  but  to  persevere  and 
be  saved.  Union  with  Christ  is  indissoluble ;  regeneration  is  the  beginning  of  a  work  of 
new  creation,  which  is  declared  in  justification,  and  completed  in  sanctification.    All 


PERSEVERANCE.  883 

these  doctrines  are  parts  of  a  genera!  scheme,  which  would  come  to  naught  if  any 
single  Christian  were  permitted  to  fall  away. 

(  b )  It  accords  with  analogy, —  God's  preserving  care  being  needed  by, 
and  being  granted  to,  bis  spiritual,  as  well  as  his  natural,  creation. 

As  natural  life  cannot  uphold  itself,  but  we  "  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being  "  in  God  ( Acts 
17:28),  so  spiritual  life  cannot  uphold  itself,  and  Cod  maintains  the  faith,  love,  and  holy 
activity  which  he  has  originated.  If  he  preserves  our  natural  life,  much  more  may  we 
expect  him  to  preserve  the  spiritual.  1  Tim.  6  :13  —  "I  charge  thee  before  God  who  preserveth  all 
things  alive"  (R.  V.  marg. )  —  ^oyot-oOi'i-os  t<x  ndvTa—  the  great  Preserver  of  all  enables  us  to 
persist  in  our  Christian  course. 

(  c  )  It  is  implied  in  all  assurance  of  salvation,  —  since  this  assurance  is 
given  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  based  not  upon  the  known  strength  of 
human  resolution,  but  upon  the  purpose  and  operation  of  God. 

S.  R.  Mason:  "If  Satan  and  Adam  both  fell  away  from  perfect  holiness,  it  is  a  million 
to  one  that,  in  a  world  Cull  of  temptations  and  with  all  appetites  and  ha  hits  against  me, 
I  shall  fall  away  from  imperfect  holiness,  unless  Cod  by  his  almighty  power  keep  me." 
It  is  in  the  power  and  purpose  of  (Iod,  )  hen,  that  the  believer  puts  his  trust.  But  since 
this  trust  is  awakened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  must  be  thai  fch<  re  is  a  divine  fact  corre- 
sponding to  it;  namely,  God's  purpose  to  exert  his  power  in  such  a  way  that  the 
Christian  shall  persevere.  Sec  Wardlaw,  Syst.  Theol.,  2:550-578;  N.  W.  Taylor,  Revealed 
Theology,  415-460. 

Job  6 :  11  —  "  What  is  my  strength,  that  I  should  wait?  And  what  is  mine  end,  that  I  should  be  patient  ?  " 
"  Here  isa  note  of  self-distrust.  To  be  patient  without  any  outlook, to  endure  with- 
out divine  support — Job  does  not  promise  it,  ami  he  trembles  at  the  prospect;  but 
none  the  less  he  sets  his  feet  on  the  toilsome  way  "  (  C  em  nig).  Dr.  Lyman  Beccher  was 
asked  whether  he  believed  in  the  perseverance  of  the  saints.  He  replied  :  "  I  do,  except 
when  the  wind  is  from  the  East."  But  the  value  of  the  doctrine  is  that  we  can  believe 
it  even  when  the  wind  i.s  from  the  East.  It  is  well  to  hold  on  to  Cod's  hand,  but  it  is 
better  to  have  God's  hand  hold  on  to  us.  When  we  are  weak,  and  forgetful  and  asleep, 
we  need  to  be  sure  of  God's  care.  Like  the  child  who  thought  he  was  driving,  but  who 
found,  after  the  trouble  was  over,  that  his  lather  after  all  had  been  holding  the  reins, 
we  too  find  when  danger  comes  that  behind  our  hands  are  the  hands  of  (iod.  The  Per- 
severance of  the  Saints,  looked  at  from  the  divine  side,  is  the  Preservation  of  the 
Saints,  and  the  hymn  that  expresses  the  Christian's  faith  is  the  hymn:  "How  firm  a 
foundation,  ye  saints  of  the  Lord,  Is  laid  for  your  faith  in  his  excellent  word  1 " 

2.     Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Perseverance. 

These  objections  are  urged  chiefly  by  Arminians  and  by  Eomanists. 

A.  That  it  is  inconsistent  with  human  freedom.  —  Answer  :  It  is  no 
more  so  than  is  the  doctrine  of  Election  or  the  doctrine  of  Decrees. 

The  doctrine  is  simply  this,  that  God  wiR  bring  to  bear  such  influences  upon  all  true 
believers,  that  they  will  freely  persevere.  Moule,  Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine,  47  — 
"  Is  grace,  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  ever  finally  withdrawn  ?  Yes,  if  by  grace  is  meant 
any  free  gift  of  God  tending  to  salvation;  or,  more  specially,  any  action  of  the  Holy 

Spirit  tending  in  its  nature  thither But  if  by  grace  be  meant  the  dwelling  and 

working  of  Christ  in  the  truly  regenerate,  there  is  no  indication  in  Scripture  of  the 
withdrawal  of  it." 

B.  That  it  tends  to  immorality.  —  Answer  :  This  cannot  be,  since  the 
doctrine  declares  that  God  will  save  men  by  securing  their  perseverance  in 
holiness. 

2  Tim.  2:19  —  "  Howbeit  the  firm  foundation  of  God  standeth,  having  this  seal,  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his  • 
and,  Let  every  one  that  nameth  the  name  of  the  Lord  depart  from  unrighteousness "  ;  that  is,  the  temple  of 
Christian  character  has  upon  its  foundation  two  significant  inscriptions,  the  one  declar- 
ing God's  power,  wisdom,  and  purpose  of  salvation  ;  the  other  declaring  the  purity  and 
holy  activity,  on  the  part  of  the  believer,  through  which  God's  purpose  is  to  be  f ul- 


884  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    SALVATION. 

filled  ;  1  Pet.  1:1,  2  —  "  elect  ....  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit, 
unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ ";  2  Pet.  1 :  10, 11  — "  Wherefore,  brethren,  give  the  more  dili- 
gence to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure :  for  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  stumble  :  for  thus  shall  be  richly 
supplied  unto  you  the  entrance  inlo  the  eternal  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ." 

C.  That  it  leads  to  indolence.  —  Answer  :  This  is  a  perversion  of  the 
doctrine,  continuously  possible  only  to  the  unregeuerate  ;  since,  to  the 
regenerate,  certainty  of  success  is  the  strongest  incentive  to  activity  in  the 
conflict  with  sin. 

1  John 5:4  —  "For  whatsoever  is  begotten  of  God  overcometh  the  world  :  and  this  is  the  victory  that  hath  overcome 
the  world,  even  our  faith."  It  is  notoriously  untrue  that  confidence  of  success  inspires  timid- 
ity or  indolence.  Thomas  Fuller:  "Your  salvation  is  his  business;  his  service  your 
business."  The  only  prayers  God  will  answer  are  those  we  ourselves  cannot  answer. 
For  the  very  reason  that  "  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good  pleasure,"  the 
apostle  exhorts :  "  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  "  ( Phil.  2 :  12, 13 ). 

T>.  That  the  Scripture  commands  to  persevere  and  warnings  against 
apostasy  show  that  certain,  even  of  the  regenerate,  will  fall  away.  — 
Answer : 

(a)  They  show  that  some,  who  are  apparently  regenerate,  will  fall  away. 

Mat.  18 : 7  —  "  Woe  unto  the  world  because  of  occasions  of  stumbling !  for  it  must  needs  be  that  the  occasions  come ; 
but  woe  to  that  man  through  whom  the  occasion  comsth";  1  Cor.  11:19  — "For  there  must  be  also  factions  [  lit. 
'  heresies '  ]  among  you,  that  they  that  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest  among  you  ";  1  John  2 :  19  —  "  Thoy  went 
out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us ;  for  if  thoy  had  been  of  us,  they  would  have  continued  with  us :  but  they  went 
out,  that  they  might  be  made  manifest  that  they  all  are  not  of  ns."  Judas  probably  experienced  strong' 
emotions,  and  received  strong'  impulses  toward  good,  under  the  influence  of  Christ. 
The  only  falling  from  grace  which  is  recognized  in  Scripture  is  not  the  falling  of  the 
regenerate,  but  the  falling  of  the  unregenerate,  from  influences  tending  to  lead  them 
to  Christ.  The  Rabbins  said  that  a  drop  of  water  will  suffice  to  purify  a  man  who  has 
accidently  touched  a  creeping  thing,  but  an  ocean  will  not  suffice  for  his  cleansing  so 
long  as  he  purposely  keeps  the  creeping  thing  in  his  hand. 

(  b  )  They  show  that  the  truly  regenerate,  and  those  who  are  only  appar- 
ently so,  are  not  certainly  distinguishable  in  this  life. 

Mai.  3  :  18  — "  Then  shall  ye  roturn  and  discern  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  between  him  that  serveth 
God  and  him  that  serveth  him  not "  ;  Mat.  13 :  25,  47  —  "  while  men  slept,  his  enemy  came  and  sowed  tares  also  among 
the  wheat,  and  went  away  ....  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  Lke  unto  a  net,  that  was  cast  into  the  sea,  and 
gathered  of  every  kind"  ;  Rom.  9:6,  7  —  "For  they  are  not  all  Israel,  that  are  of  Israel:  neither,  because  they  are 
Abraham's  seed,  are  they  all  children "  ;  Rev.  3:1  —  "I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  hast  a  name  that  thou  livest,  and 
thou  art  dead."  The  tares  were  never  wheat,  and  the  bad  fish  never  were  good,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  their  true  nature  was  not  for  a  while  recognized. 

( c )  They  show  the  fearful  consequences  of  rejecting  Christ,  to  those 
who  have  enjoyed  special  divine  influences,  but  who  are  only  apparently 
regenerate. 

Heb.  10:26-29  —  "For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no 
more  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  expectation  of  judgment,  and  a  fierceness  of  fire  which  shall  devour  the 
adversaries.  A  man  that  hath  set  at  nought  Moses'  law  dieth  without  compassion  on  the  word  of  two  or  three  witnesses : 
of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  think  ye,  shall  he  be  judged  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and 
hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified  an  unholy  thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the 
Sprit  of  grace?"  Here  "  sanctified  "=  external  sanctification,  like  that  of  the  ancient  Israel- 
ites, by  outward  connection  with  God's  people;  cf.  1  Cor.  7:14 — "the  unbelieving  husband  is 
sanctified  in  the  wife." 

In  considering  these  and  the  following  Scripture  passages,  much  will  depend  upon 
our  view  of  inspiration.  If  we  hold  that  Christ's  promise  was  fulfilled  and  that  his 
apostles  were  led  into  all  the  truth,  we  shall  assume  that  there  is  unity  in  their  teach- 
ing, and  shall  recognize  in  their  variations  only  aspects  and  applications  of  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Lord ;  in  other  words,  Christ's  doctrine  in  John  10 :  28, 29  will  be  the  norm  for  the 


PERSEVERANCE.  8S5 

Interpretation  of  seemingly  diverse  and  at  first  sight  inconsistent  passages.  There  was 
a  "faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  thj  saints,''  and  for  this  primitive  faith  we  are  exhorted 
"  to  contend  earnestly  "  ( Jude  3 ). 

(  d)  They  show  what  the  fate  of  the  truly  regenerate  would  be,  iu  case 
they  should  not  persevere. 

Heb.  6:4-6  —  "  For  as  touching  those  who  were  once  enlightened  and  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made 
partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,  and  then  fell  away, 
it  is  impossible  to  renew  them  again  unto  repentance ;  seeing  they  cruc.fy  to  themsiives  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put 
him  to  an  open  shame."  This  is  to  be  understood  as  a  hypothetical  case,— as  is  clear  from 
verse  9  which  follows  :  "  But,  beloved,  weare  pors'iaded  better  things  of  you,  and  things  which  accompany  salva- 
tion, though  we  thus  speak."  Dr.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  Coin,  in  loco:  "In  the  phrase  'once 
enlghtened,'  the  'once'  is  anag=  once  for  all.  The  text  describes  a  condition  subjectively 
possible,  and  therefore  needing  to  be  held  up  in  earnest  warning  to  the  believer,  while 

objectively  and  in  the  absolute  purpose  of  God,  it  never  occurs If  passages  like 

this  teach  the  possibility  of  falling  from  grace,  they  teacfa  also  the  impossibility  of 
restoration  to  it.  The  saint  who  once  apostatizes  lias  apostatized  forever."  So  Ez. 
18 :  24  —  "when  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity  ....  in  them  shall  he 
die  "  ;  2  Pet.  2 :  20  —  "  For  if,  after  they  have  ercap^d  the  defilements  of  the  world  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  they  are  again  entangled  therein  and  overcome,  the  last  state  is  become  worse  with  them  than 
the  first."  So,  in  Mat.  5:13 —  "if  the  salt  have  lost  its  savor,  wherewith  shall  it  be  salted?"—  if  this  teaches 
that  the  regenerate  may  lose  their  religion,  it  also  teaches  that  they  can  never  recover 
it.  It  really  shows  only  that  Christians  who  do  not  perform  their  proper  functions  as 
Christians  become  harmful  and  contemptible  (  Broadus,  in  toco  ). 

(e)  They  show  that  the  perseverance  of  the  truly  regenerate  may  be 
secured  by  these  very  commands  and  warnings. 

1  Cor.  9 : 27  —  "I  buffet  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  bondage :  lest  by  any  means,  after  that  I  have  preached  to  others, 
I  myself  should  be  rejected"  —  or,  to  bring  out  the  meaning  more  fully:  "  I  beat  my  body  blue  [  or, 
'  strike  it  under  the  eye  '  ],  and  make  it  a  slave,  lest  after  having  been  a  herald  to  others,  I  myself  should  be 
rejected"  ( 'unapproved,'  '  counted  unworthy  of  the  prize');  10:12  —  "  Wherefore  let  hm  that 
thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall."  Quarles,  Emblems:  "The  way  to  be  safe  is  never  to 
be  secure."  Wrightnour:  "Warning  a  traveler  to  keep  a  certain  path,  and  by  this 
means  keeping  him  in  that  path,  is  no  evidence  that  he  will  ever  fall  into  a  pit  by  the 
side  of  the  path  simply  because  he  is  warned  of  it." 

(/)  They  do  not  show  that  it  is  certain,  or  possible,  that  any  truly 
regenerate  jjerson  will  fall  away. 

The  Christian  is  like  a  man  making  his  way  up-hill,  who  occasionally  slips  back,  yet 
always  has  his  face  set  toward  the  summit.  The  unregenerate  man  has  his  face  turned 
downwards,  and  he  is  slipping  all  t  he  way.  C.  II.  Spurgeon  :  "  The  believer,  like  a  man 
on  shipboard,  may  fall  again  and  again  on  the  deck,  but  he  will  never  fall  overboard." 

E.     That  we  have  actual  examples  of  such  apostasy.  — We  answer  : 

(a)     Such  are  either  men  once   outwardly  reformed,  like  Judas  and 

Ananias,  but  never  renewed  in  heart ; 

But,  per  contra,  instance  the  experience  of  a  man  iu  typhoid  fever,  who  apparently 
repented,  but  who  never  remembered  it  when  he  was  restored  to  health.  Sick-bed  and 
death-bed  conversions  are  not  the  best.  There  was  one  penitent  thief,  that  nonemight 
despair  ;  there  was  but  one  penitent  thief,  that  none  might  presume.  The  hypocrite 
is  like  the  wire  that  gets  a  second-hand  electricity  from  the  live  wire  running 
parallel  with  it.  This  second-hand  electricity  is  effective  only  within  narrow  limits, 
and  its  efficacy  is  soon  exhausted.  The  live  wire  has  connection  with  the  source  of 
power  in  the  dynamo. 

(  b  )  Or  they  are  regenerate  men,  who,  like  David  and  Peter,  have  fallen 
into  temporary  sin,  from  which  they  will,  before  death,  be  reclaimed  by 
God's  discipline. 

Instance  the  young  profligate  who,  in  a  moment  of  apparent  drowning,  repented, 
was  then  rescued,  and  afterward  lived  a  long  life  as  a  Christian.    If  he  had  not  been 


88G  SOTERIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SALVATION. 

rescued,  his  repentance  would  never  have  been  known,  nor  the  answer  to  his  mother's 
prayers.  So,  in  the  moment  of  a  backslider's  death,  God  can  renew  repentance  and 
faith.  Cromwell  on  his  death-bed  questioned  his  Chaplain  as  to  the  doctrine  of  final 
perseverance,  and,  on  being-  assured  that  it  was  a  certain  truth,  said :  "  Then  I  am 
happy,  for  I  am  sure  that  I  was  once  in  a  state  of  grace."  But  reliance  upon  a  past 
experience  is  like  trusting-  in  the  value  of  a  policy  of  life  insurance  upon  which  several 
years'  premiums  have  been  unpaid.  If  the  policy  has  not  lapsed,  it  is  because  of 
extreme  grace.  The  only  conclusive  evidence  of  perseverance  is  a  present  experience 
of  Christ's  presence  and  indwelling-,  corroborated  by  active  service  and  purity  of  life. 

On  the  g-eneral  subject,  see  Edwards,  Works,  3 :  509-532,  and  4  :  104 ;  Ridg-eley,  Body  of 
Divinity,  2:164-194;  John  Owen,  Works,  vol.  11;  Woods,  Works,  3:231-246;  Van 
Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  662-666. 


PART  VII. 

ECCLESIOLOGY,  OR  THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE   CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    CHURCH.    OR   CHURCH    POLITY. 

I.     Definition  of  the  Church. 

(  a  )  The  church  of  Christ,  in  its  largest  signification,  is  the  whole  com- 
pany of  regenerate  persons  in  all  times  and  ages,  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
( Mat.  16  :  18  ;  Eph.  1  :  22,  23  ;  3  :  10  ;  5  :  24,  25  ;  Col.  1  :  18  ;  Heb.  12  :  23  ). 
In  this  sense,  the  church  is  identical  with  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  God  ; 
both  signify  that  redeemed  humanity  in  which  God  in  Christ  exercises 
actual  spiritual  dominion  (  John  3  :  3,  5  ). 

Mat.  16 :  18  —  "thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail 
against  it"  ;  Eph.  1 :  22,  23  —  "and  he  put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all 
things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  fllleth  all  in  all  " ;  3  :  10  —  "to  the  intent  that  now  unto 
the  principalities  and  the  powers  in  the  heavenly  places  might  be  made  known  through  the  church  the  manifold  wisdom 
of  God  "  ;  5  :  24,  25  —  "  But  as  the  church  is  subject  to  Christ,  so  let  the  wives  also  be  to  their  husbands  in  everything. 
Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  tho  church,  and  gave  himself  up  for  it "  ;  Col.  1:18  —  "  And  he  is 
the  head  of  the  body,  the  church :  who  is  the  beginning,  the  firstborn  from  the  dead  ;  that  in  all  things  he  might  have  the 
preeminence";  Heb.  12:23  —  "the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven  "  ;  John 

3 : 3,  5  —  "  Eicept  one  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  tho  kingdom  of  God Except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the 

Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Cicero's  words  apply  here :  "Una  navis  est  jam  bonorum  omnium  "  —  all  good  men 
are  in  one  boat.  Cicero  speaks  of  the  state,  but  it  is  still  more  true  of  the  church 
invisible.  Andrews,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  18S3 :  14,  mentions  the  following  differences 
between  the  church  and  kingdom,  or,  as  we  prefer  to  say,  between  the  visible  church 
and  the  invisible  church  :  (1)  the  church  began  with  Christ, —  the  kingdom  began 
earlier;  (2)  the  church  is  confined  to  believers  in  the  historic  Christ, —  the  kingdom 
includes  all  God's  children  ;  (3)  the  church  belongs  wholly  to  this  world  — not  so  the 
kingdom;  (4)  the  church  is  visible, —not  so  the  kingdom;  (5)  the  church  has  quasi 
organic  character,  and  leads  out  into  local  churches,  —  this  is  not  so  with  the  kingdom. 
On  the  universal  or  invisible  church,  see  Cremer,  Lexicon  N.  T.,  transl.,  113,  114,  331 ; 
Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  12. 

H.  C.  Vedder :  "  The  church  is  a  spiritual  body,  consisting  only  of  those  regenerated 
by  the  Spirit  of  God."  Yet  the  Westminster  Confession  affirms  that  the  church 
"  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children."  This  definition  includes  in  the  church  a  multitude  who  not  only 
give  no  evidence  of  regeneration,  but  who  plainly  show  themselves  to  be  unregenerate. 
In  many  lands  it  practically  identifies  the  church  with  the  world.  Augustine  indeed 
thought  that  "the  field,"  in  Mat.  13:38,  is  the  church,  whereas  Jesus  says  very  distinctly 
that  it  "is  the  world."    Augustine  held  that  good  and  bad  alike  were  to  be  permitted  to 

887 


888  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

dwell  together  in  the  church,  without  attempt  to  separate  them;  see  Broadus,  Com.  in 
loco.  But  the  parable  gives  a  reason,  not  why  we  should  not  try  to  put  the  wicked  out 
of  the  church,  but  why  God  does  not  immediately  put  them  out  of  the  world,  the 
tares  being  separated  from  the  wheat  only  at  the  final  judgment  of  mankind. 

Yet  the  universal  church  includes  all  true  believers.  It  fulfils  the  promise  of  God  to 
Al  iraham  in  Gen.  15 : 5  —  "  Look  now  toward  heaven,  and  number  the  stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  number  them :  and 
he  said  unto  him,  So  shall  thy  seed  be."  The  church  shall  be  immortal,  since  it  draws  its  life  from 
Christ:  Is.  65 :  22  —  "  as  the  days  of  a  tree  shall  be  the  days  of  my  people";  Zech.  4:2,  3  — "a  candlestick  all  of 
gold  .  and  two  olive-trees  by  it."  Dean  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  2 :  242,  243  —  "  A  Spanish 
Roman  Catholic,  Cervantes,  said :  '  Many  are  the  roads  by  which  God  carries  his  own 
to  heaven.'  Dollinger :  '  Theology  must  become  a  science  not,  as  heretofore,  for  mak- 
ing war,  but  for  making  peace,  and  thus  bringing  about  that  reconciliation  of  churches 
for  which  the  whole  civilized  world  is  longing.'  In  their  loftiest  moods  of  inspiration, 
the  Catholic  Thomas  a  Kempis,  the  Puritan  Milton,  the  Anglican  Keble,  rose  above 
their  peculiar  tenets,  and  above  the  limits  that  divide  denominations,  into  the  higher 
regions  of  a  common  Christianity.  It  was  the  Baptist  Bunyan  who  taught  the  world 
that  there  was  'a  common  ground  of  communion  which  no  difference  of  external  rites 
could  efface.'  It  was  the  Moravian  Gambold  who  wrote  :  '  The  man  That  could  sur- 
round the  sum  of  things,  and  spy  The  heart  of  God  and  secrets  of  his  empire,  Would 
speak  but  love.  With  love,  the  bright  result  Would  change  the  hue  of  intermediate 
things,  And  make  one  thing  of  all  theology.'  " 

(  b )  The  clrarcli,  in  this  large  sense,  is  nothing  less  than  the  body  of 
Christ  —  the  organism  to  which  he  gives  spiritual  life,  and  through  "which 
he  manifests  the  fulness  of  his  power  and  grace.  The  church  therefore 
cannot  be  defined  in  merely  human  terms,  as  an  aggregate  of  individuals 
associated  for  social,  benevolent,  or  even  spiritual  purposes.  There  is  a 
transcendent  element  in  the  church.  It  is  the  great  company  of  persons 
whom  Christ  has  saved,  in  whom  he  dwells,  to  whom  and  through  whom 
he  reveals  God  (Eph.  1  :22,  23  ). 

Eph.  1 :  22,  33  —  "the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  fllleth  all  in  all."  He  who  is  the  life 
of  nature  and  of  humanity  reveals  himself  most  fully  in  the  great  company  of  those 
who  have  joined  themselves  to  him  by  faith.  Union  with  Christ  is  the  presupposition 
of  the  church.  This  alone  transforms  the  sinner  into  a  Christian,  and  this  alone  makes 
possible  that  vital  and  spiritual  fellowship  between  individuals  which  constitutes  the 
organizing  principle  of  the  church.  The  same  divine  life  which  ensures  the  pardon  and 
the  perseverance  of  the  believer  unites  him  to  all  other  believers.  The  indwelling 
Christ  makes  the  church  superior  to  and  more  permanent  than  all  humanitarian  organi- 
zations; they  die,  but  because  Christ  lives,  the  church  lives  also.  Without  a  proper 
conception  of  this  sublime  relation  of  the  church  to  Christ,  we  cannot  properly  appre- 
ciate our  dignity  as  church  members,  or  our  high  calling  as  shepherds  of  the  flock.  Not 
"  ubi  ecclesia,  ibi  Christus,"  but  "ubi  Christus,  ibi  ecclesia,"  should  be  our  motto. 
Because  Christ  is  omnipresent  and  omnipotent,  "  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  yea  and  forever  " 
( Heb.  13 :  8 ),  what  Burke  said  of  the  nation  is  true  of  the  church :  It  is  "  indeed  a  partner- 
ship, but  a  partnership  not  only  between  those  who  are  living,  but  between  those 
who  ai'e  living,  those  who  are  dead,  and  those  who  are  yet  to  be  born." 

McGiffert,  Apostolic  Church,  501  — "  Paul's  conception  of  the  church  as  the  body  of 
Christ  was  first  emphasized  and  developed  by  Ignatius.  He  reproduces  in  his  writings 
the  substance  of  all  the  Pauliuism  that  the  church  at  large  made  permanently  its  own  : 
the  preexisteuce  and  deity  of  Christ,  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ  without 
which  the  Christian  life  is  impossible,  the  importance  of  Christ's  death,  the  church  the 
body  of  Christ.  Rome  never  fully  recognized  Paul's  teachings,  but  her  system  rests 
upon  his  doctrine  of  the  church  the  body  of  Christ.  The  modern  doctrine  however 
makes  the  kingdom  to  be  not  spiritual  or  future,  but  a  reality  of  this  world."  The 
redemption  of  the  body,  the  redemption  of  institutions,  the  redemption  of  nations, 
are  indeed  aU  purposed  by  Christ.  Christians  should  not  only  strive  to  rescue  individ- 
ual men  from  the  slough  of  vice,  but  they  should  devise  measures  for  draining  that 
slough  and  making  that  vice  impossible ;  in  other  words,  they  should  labor  for  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  society.  But  this  is  not  to  identify  the  church  with 
politics,  prohibition,  libraries,  athletics.    The  spiritual  fellowship  is  to  be  the  fountain 


DEFINITION"   OF   THE    CHURCH.  889 

from  which  all  these  activities  spring,  while  at  the  same  time  Christ's  "  kingdom  is  not  of 
this -world"  (John  18: 36). 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  24,  25,  207  —  "  As  Christ  is  the  temple  of  God,  so 
the  church  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  God  could  be  seen  only  through  Christ, 
so  the  Holy  Spirit  can  be  seen  only  through  the  church.  As  Christ  was  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  so  the  church  is  appointed  to  be  the  image  of  the  invisible  Christ, 
and  the  members  of  Christ,  when  they  are  glorified  with  him,  shall  be  the  express  image 

of  his  person The  church  and  the  kingdom  are  not  identical  terms,  if  we  mean 

by  the  kingdom  the  visible  reign  and  government  of  Jesus  Christ  on  earth.  In  another 
sense  they  are  identical.  As  is  the  kin^r,  so  is  the  kingdom.  The  king  is  present  now 
in  the  world,  only  invisibly  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  so  the  kiugdom  is  now  present 
invisibly  and  spiritually  in  the  hearts  of  believers.  The  king  is  to  come  again  visibly 
and  gloriously  ;  so  shall  the  kingdom  appear  visibly  and  gloriously.  In  other  words, 
the  kingdom  is  already  here  in  mystery:  it  is  to  be  here  in  manifestation.  Now  the 
spiritual  kingdom  is  administered  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  it  extends  from  Pentecost  to 
Parousia.  At  the  Parousia  —  the  appearing  of  the  Son  of  man  in  glory  —  when  he  shall 
take  unto  himself  his  great  power  and  reign  (Rov.  11:17),  when  he  who  lias  now  gone 
into  a  far  country  to  be  invested  with  a  kingdom  shall  return  and  enter  upon  his 
government  (Luke  19  :  15  ),  then  the  invisible  shall  give  way  to  the  visible,  the  kingdom  in 
mystery  shall  emerge  into  the  kingdom  in  manifestation,  and  the  Holy  Spirit's  admin- 
istration shall  yield  to  that  of  Christ." 

( c  )  The  Scriptures,  however,  distinguish  between  this  invisible  or  uni- 
versal church,  and  the  individual  church,  in  which  the  universal  church 
takes  local  and  temporal  form,  and  in  which  the  idea  of  the  church  as  a 
whole  is  concretely  exhibited. 

Mat.  10 :  32 —  "  Every  one  therefore,  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  confess  before  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven  "  ;  12  :  34,  35  —  "out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  spsaketh.  Tho  good  man  out  of  his  good 
treasure  bringeth  forth  good  things ' ' ;  Rom.  10 : 9,  10  —  "  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the  doad,  thou  shalt  be  saved :  for  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness;  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation";  James  1:18  —  "Of  his  own  will  he  brought 
us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  his  creatures  "  — we  were  saved,  QOt 
for  ourselves  only,  but  as  parts  and  beginnings  of  an  organic  kingdom  of  God;  believers 
are  called  "firstfruits,"  because  from  them  the  blessing  shall  spread,  until  the  whole 
world  shall  be  pervaded  with  the  new  life  ;  Pentecost,  us  the  feast  of  first-fruits,  was 
but  the  beginning  of  a  stream  that  shall  continue  to  flow  until  the  whole  race  of  man 
is  gathered  in. 

R.  S.  Storrs:  "When  any  truth  becomes  central  and  vital,  there  comes  the  desire  to 
utter  it,"  —  and  we  may  add,  not  only  in  words,  but  in  organization.  So  beliefs  crystal- 
lize into  institutions.  But  Christian  faith  is  something  more  vital  than  the  common 
beliefs  of  the  world.  Linking  the  soul  to  Christ,  it  brings  Christians  into  living  fellow- 
ship with  one  another  before  any  bonds  of  outward  organization  exist;  outward 
organization,  indeed,  only  expresses  and  symbolizes  this  inward  union  of  spirit  to  Christ 
and  to  one  another.  Horatius  Bonar:  "  Thou  must  be  true  thyself ,  If  thou  the  truth 
wouldst  teach ;  Thy  soul  must  overflow,  if  thou  Another's  soul  wouldst  reach  ;  It  needs 
the  overflow  of  heart  To  give  the  lips  full  speech.  Think  truly,  and  thy  thoughts  Shall 
the  world's  famine  feed  ;  Spea  k  I  ruly,  and  each  word  of  thine  Shall  be  a  fruitful  seed  ; 
Live  truly,  and  thy  life  shall  be  A  great  and  noble  creed." 

Contentio  Veritatis,  128, 129  —  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  first  a  state  of  the  individual 
soul,  and  then,  secondly,  a  society  made  up  of  those  who  enjoy  that  state."  Dr.  F.  L. 
Patton:  "The  best  way  for  a  man  to  serve  the  church  at  large  is  to  serve  the  church 
to  which  he  belongs."  Herbert  Stead  :  "The  kingdom  is  not  to  be  narrowed  down  to 
the  church,  nor  the  church  evaporated  into  the  kingdom."  To  do  the  first  is  to  set  up 
a  monstrous  ecclesiasticism ;  to  do  the  second  is  to  destroy  the  organism  through 
which  the  kingdom  manifests  itself  and  does  its  work  in  the  world  ( W.  R.  Taylor ). 
Prof.  Dalman,  in  his  work  on  The  Words  of  Jesus  in  the  Light  of  Postbiblical  Writing 
and  the  Aramaic  Language,  contends  that  the  Greek  phrase  translated  "  kingdom  of 
God  "  should  be  rendered  "  the  sovereignty  of  God."  He  thinks  that  it  points  to  the  reign 
of  God,  rather  than  to  the  realm  over  which  he  reigns.  This  rendering,  if  accepted, 
takes  away  entirely  the  support  from  the  Ritschlian  conception  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  an  earthly  and  outward  organization. 


890         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

( d )  The  individual  clmrch  may  be  denned  as  that  smaller  company  of 
regenerate  persons,  who,  in  any  given  community,  unite  themselves  volun- 
tarily together,  in  accordance  with  Christ's  laws,  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  complete  establishment  of  his  kingdom  in  themselves  and  in  the 
world. 

Mat.  18 :  17  — "  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church :  and  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  church  also,  let  him 
be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the  publican  "  ;  Acts  14 :  23  —"appointed  for  them  elders  in  every  church  "  ;  Rom.  16 : 5 
—"salute  the  church  that  is  in  their  house"  ;  1  Cor.  1:2— "the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth";  4:17— "even 
E3  I  teach  everywhere  in  every  church  "  ;  1  Thess.  2 :  14— "the  churches  of  God  which  are  in  Judaa,  in  Christ  Jesus." 

We  do  not  define  the  church  as  a  body  of  "  baptized  believers,"  because  baptism  is  but 
one  of  "Christ's  laws,"  iu  accordance  with  which  believers  unite  themselves.  Since 
these  laws  are  the  laws  of  church-organization  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  no 
Sunday  School,  Temperance  Society,  or  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  is  properly 
a  church.  These  organizations  1.  lack  the  transcendent  element  —  they  are  instituted 
and  managed  by  man  only ;  2.  they  are  not  confined  to  the  regenerate,  or  to  those  alone 
who  give  credible  evidence  of  regeneration  ;  3.  they  presuppose  and  require  no  partic- 
ular form  of  doctrine;  4.  they  observe  no  ordinances ;  5.  they  are  at  best  mere  adjuncts 
and  instruments  of  the  church,  but  are  not  themselves  churches;  6.  their  decisions 
therefore  are  devoid  of  the  divine  authority  and  obligation  which  belong  to  the  decis- 
ions of  the  church. 

The  laws  of  Christ,  in  accordance  with  which  believers  unite  themselves  into  churches, 
may  be  summarized  as  follows :  1.  the  sufficiency  and  sole  authority  of  Scripture  as  the 
rule  both  of  doctrine  and  polity  ;  ( 2 )  credible  evidence  of  regeneration  and  conversion 
as  prerequisite  to  church-membership;  (3)  immersion  only,  as  answering  to  Christ's 
command  of  baptism,  and  to  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the  ordinance ;  (  4 )  the  order  of 
the  ordinances,  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  of  divine  appointment,  as  well  as 
the  ordinances  themselves ;  ( 5 )  the  right  of  each  member  of  the  church  to  a  voice  iu  its 
government  and  discipline;  (6)  each  church,  while  holding  fellowship  with  other 
churches,  solely  responsible  to  Christ;  (7)  the  freedom  of  the  individual  conscience, 
and  the  total  independence  of  church  and  state.  Hovey  in  his  Restatement  of  Denom- 
inational Principles  (  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  Society  )  gives  these  principles  as  follows :  1.  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures  in  matters  of  religion ;  2.  personal  accountability 
to  God  in  religion;  3.  union  with  Christ  essential  to  salvation;  4.  a  new  life  the  only 
evidence  of  that  union  ;  5.  the  new  life  one  of  unqualified  obedience  to  Christ.  The 
most  concise  statement  of  Baptist  doctrine  and  history  is  that  of  Vedder,  iu  Jackson's 
Dictionary  of  Religious  Knowledge,  1 :  74-85. 

With  the  lax  views  of  Scripture  which  arc  becoming  common  among  us  there  is  a 
tendency  in  our  day  to  lose  sight  of  the  transcendent  element  in  the  church.  Let  us 
remember  that  the  church  is  not  a  humanitarian  organization  resting  upon  common 
human  brotherhood,  but  a  supernatural  body,  which  traces  its  descent  from  the  second, 
not  the  first,  Adam,  and  which  manifests  the  power  of  the  divine  Christ.  Mazzini  in 
Italy  claimed  Jesus,  but  repudiated  his  church.  So  modern  socialists  cry:  "  Liberty, 
Equality,  Fraternity,"  and  deny  that  there  is  need  of  anything  more  than  human  unity, 
development,  and  culture.  But  God  has  made  the  church  to  sit  with  Christ  "in  the  heavenly 
places"  (Eph.  2:6).  It  is  the  regeneration  which  comes  about  through  union  with  Christ 
which  constitutes  the  primary  and  most  essential  element  in  ecclesiology.  "  We  do  not 
stand,  first  of  all,  for  restricted  communion,  nor  for  immersion  as  the  only  valid  form 
of  baptism,  nor  for  any  particular  theory  of  Scripture,  but  rather  for  a  regenerate 
church  membership.  The  essence  of  the  gospel  is  a  new  life  in  Christ,  of  which  Chris- 
tian experience  is  the  outworking  and  Christian  consciousness  is  the  witness.  Christian 
life  is  as  important  as  conversion.  Faith  must  show  itself  by  works.  We  must  seek 
the  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  salvation  of  men,  and  the  salvation  of  society  also  " 
( Leighton  Williams ). 

E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Christ  founded  a  church  only  proleptically.  Iu  Mat.  18 :  17,  eKicA>]<n'a 
is  not  used  technically.  The  church  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  though 
its  method  and  economy  are  different.  There  was  little  or  no  organization  at  first. 
Christ  himself  did  not  organize  the  church.  This  was  the  work  of  the  apostles  after 
Pentecost.  The  germ  however  existed  before.  Three  persons  may  constitute  a  church, 
and  may  administer  the  ordinances.  Councils  have  only  advisory  authority.  Diocesan 
episcopacy  is  antiscriptural  and  antichristian." 


DEFINITION   OF   THE   CHURCH.  891 

The  principles  mentioned  above  are  the  essential  principles  of  Baptist  churches, 
although  other  bodies  of  Christians  have  come  to  recognize  a  portion  of  them.  Bodies 
of  Christians  which  refuse  to  accept  these  principles  we  may,  in  a  somewhat  loose  and 
modified  sense,  call  churches ;  but  we  cannot  regard  them  as  churches  organized  in  all 
respects  according  to  Christ's  laws,  or  as  completely  answering  to  the  New  Testament 
model  of  church  organization.  We  follow  common  usage  when  we  address  a  Lieutenant 
Colonel  as  "  Colonel,"  and  a  Lieutenant  Governor  as  "  Governor."  It  is  only  courtesy 
to  speak  of  pedobaptist  organizations  as  "  churches,"  although  we  do  not  regard  these 
churches  as  organized  in  full  accordance  with  Christ's  laws  as  they  are  indicated  to  us 
in  the  New  Testament.  To  refuse  thus  to  recognize  them  would  be  a  discourtesy  like 
that  of  the  British  Commander  in  Chief,  when  he  addressed  General  Washington  as 
"  Mr.  Washington." 

As  Luther,  having  found  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  could  not  recognize 
that  doctrine  as  Christian  which  taught  justification  by  works,  but  denounced  the 
church  which  held  it  as  Antichrist,  saying,  "  Here  I  stand ;  I  cannot  do  otherwise,  God 
help  me,"  so  we,  in  matters  not  indifferent,  as  feet-washing,  but  vitally  affecting  the 
existence  of  the  church,  as  regenerate  church-membership,  must  stand  by  the  New 
Testament,  a. id  refuse  to  call  any  other  body  of  Christians  a  regular  church,  that  is  not 
organized  according  to  Christ's  laws.  The  English  word  '  church  *  like  the  Scotch  '  kirk ' 
and  the  German  '  KTtrcftc,1  is  derived  from  the  Greek  Kvpia<crj,  and  means  'belonging  to 
the  Lord.'  The  term  itself  should  teach  us  to  regard  only  Christ's  laws  as  our  rule  of 
organization. 

(e)  Besides  these  two  significations  of  the  term  'church,'  there  are 
properly  in  the  New  Testament  no  others.  The  word  iiwtyoia  is  indeed 
used  in  Acts  7  :  38 ;  19  :  32,  39 ;  Heb.  2  :  12,  to  designate  a  popular  assem- 
bly ;  but  since  this  is  a  secular  use  of  the  term,  it  doe3  not  here  concern  us. 
In  certain  passages,  as  for  example  Acts  9:31  [Eiucfajoia,  sing.,  Nabc), 
1  Cor.  12  :28,  Phil.  3  :  0,  audi  Tim.  3  :  15,  £KK,fo)ola  appears  to  be  used  either 
as  a  generic  or  as  a  collective  term,  to  denote  simply  the  body  of  indepen- 
dent local  churches  existing  in  a  given  region  or  at  a  given  epoch.  But 
since  there  is  no  evidence  that  these  churches  were  bound  together  in  auy 
outward  organization,  this  use  of  the  term  £KK?j/oia  cannot  be  regarded  as 
adding  any  new  sense  to  those  of  'the  universal  church' and  'the  local 
church '  already  mentioned. 

Acts  7: 38 — "the  church  [  marg. '  congregation ']  in  the  wilderness  "= the  whole  body  of  the  people  of 
Israel ;  19 :  32  — "  the  assembly  was  in  confusion  " —  the  tumultuous  mob  in  the  theatre  at  Ephesus ; 
39  — "  the  regular  assembly  "  ;  9 :  31  —"So  the  church  throughout  all  Judaea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria  had  peace,  being 
edified"  ;  1  Cor.  12:28 — "And  God  hath  set  somo  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers"  ; 
Phil.  3  :  6 — "  as  touching  zeal,  persecuting  the  church  "  ;  1  Tim.  3  :  15 — "that  thou  mayest  know  how  men  ought  to 
behave  themselves  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth." 

In  the  original  use  of  the  word  €K<cAi7<na,  as  a  popular  assembly,  there  was  doubtless  an 
allusion  to  the  derivation  from  e«  and  koA«u,  to  call  out  by  herald.  Some  have  held  that 
the  N.  T.  term  contains  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  the  members  of  Christ's  church  are 
called,  chosen,  elected  by  God.  This,  however,  is  more  than  doubtful.  In  common  use, 
the  term  had  lost  its  etymological  meaning,  and  signified  merely  an  assembly,  how  .  er 
gathered  or  summoned.  The  church  was  never  so  large  that  it  could  not  aSt^mble 
The  church  of  Jerusalem  gathered  for  the  choice  of  deacons  ( Acts  6 : 2, 5 ),  and  the  church 
of  Antioch  gat  hered  to  hear  Paul's  account  of  his  missionary  journey  ( Acts  14 :  27 ). 

It  is  only  by  a  common  figure  of  rhetoric  that  many  churches  are  spoken  of  together 
in  the  singular  number,  in  such  passages  as  Acts  9:31.  We  speak  generically  of 'man,' 
meaning  the  whole  race  of  men  ;  and  of  '  the  horse,'  meaning  all  horses.  Gibbon,  speak- 
ing of  the  successive  tribes  that  swept  down  upon  the  Roman  Empire,  uses  a  noun  in 
the  singular  number,  and  describes  them  as  "  the  several  detachments  of  that  immense 
army  of  northern  barbarians,"— yet  he  does  not  mean  to  intimate  that  these  tribes  had 
any  common  government.  So  we  may  speak  of  "  the  American  college  "  or  "  the  Amer- 
ican theological  seminary,"  but  we  do  not  thereby  mean  that  the  colleges  or  the 
seminaries  are  bound  together  by  any  tie  of  outward  organization. 

So  Paul  says  that  God  has  set  in  the  church  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  ( 1  Cor.  12 : 
28),  but  the  word  '  church '  is  only  a  collective  term  for  the  many  independent  churches. 


892  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

In  this  same  sense,  we  may  speak  of  "  the  Baptist  church  "  of  New  York,  or  of  Amer- 
ica ;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  use  the  term  without  any  such  implication  of 
common  government  as  is  involved  in  the  phrases  '  the  Presbyterian  church,'  or  '  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church,'  or  'the  Roman  Catholic  church';  with  us,  in  this  con- 
nectiou,  the  term  '  church '  means  simply  '  churches.' 

Broadus,  in  his  Com.  on  Mat.,  page  359,  suggests  that  the  word  eicicAi7<n'a  in  Acts  9 :  31. 
"denotes  the  original  church  at  Jerusalem,  whose  members  were  by  the  persecution 
widely  scattered  throughout  Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  held  meetings  where- 

ever  they  were,  but  still  belonged  to  the  one  original  organization When  Paul 

wrote  to  the  Galatians,  nearly  twenty  years  later,  these  separate  meetings  had  been 
organized  into  distinct  churches,  and  so  he  speaks  (  Gal.  1 :  22 )  in  reference  to  that  same 
period,  of  "the  churches  of  Judaea  which  were  in  Christ."  On  the  meaning  of  eK/cArjcria,  see  Cremer, 
Lex.  N.  T.,  329 ;  Trench,  Syn.  N.  T.,  1:18;  Girdlestone,  Syn.  O.  T.,  367 ;  Curtis,  Progress 
of  Baptist  Principles,  301 ;  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  25 ;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  100- 
120 ;  Robinson,  N.  T.  Lex.,  suh  voce. 

The  prevailing  usage  of  the  N.  T.  gives  to  the  term  iKKlrjaia  the  second 
of  these  two  significations.  It  is  this  local  church  only  which  has  definite 
and  temporal  existence,  and  of  this  alone  we  henceforth  treat.  Our  defini- 
tion of  the  individual  church  implies  the  two  following  particulars : 

A.  The  church,  like  the  family  and  the  state,  is  an  institution  of 
divine  appointment.  This  is  plain:  (a)  from  its  relation  to  the  church 
universal,  as  its  concrete  embodiment ;  (  b )  from  the  fact  that  its  necessity 
is  grounded  in  the  social  and  religious  nature  of  man  ;  (c)  from  the  Script- 
ure,—  as  for  example,  Christ's  command  in  Mat.  18  :  17,  and  the  designa- 
tion '  church  of  God,'  applied  to  individual  churches  ( 1  Cor.  1:2). 

President  Wayland :  "  The  universal  church  comes  before  the  particular  church. 
The  society  which  Christ  has  established  is  the  foundation  of  every  particular  associa- 
tion calling  itself  a  church  of  Christ."  Andrews,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1883:35-58,  on  the 
conception  iKKkrjala  in  the  N.  T„  says  that  "  the  '  church '  is  the  prius  of  all  local 
'  churches.'  ex/cAijo-ia  in  Acts  9: 31  =  the  church,  so  far  as  represented  in  those  provinces. 
It  is  ecumenical-local,  as  in  1  Cor.  10:33.  The  local  church  is  a  microcosm,  a  specialized 
localization  of  the  universal  body.  1T\\),  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  Targums,  means  the 
whole  congregation  of  Israel,  and  then  secondarily  those  local  bodies  which  were  parts 
and  representations  of  the  whole.  Christ,  using  Aramaic,  probably  used  7HP  in  Mat- 
18 :  17.  He  took  his  idea  of  the  church  from  it,  not  from  the  heathen  use  of  the  word 
iKK\r]aia,  which  expresses  the  notion  of  locality  and  state  much  more  than  7ilp.  The 
larger  sense  of  ixKX-qala  is  the  primary.  Local  churches  are  points  of  consciousness  and 
activity  for  the  great  all-inclusive  unit,  and  they  are  not  themselves  the  units  for  an 
ecclesiastical  aggregate.    They  are  faces,  not  parts  of  the  one  church." 

Christ,  in  Mat.  18 :  17,  delegates  authority  to  the  whole  congregation  of  believers,  and  at 
the  same  time  limits  authority  to  the  local  church.  The  local  church  is  not  an  end  in 
itself,  but  exists  for  the  sake  of  the  kingdom.  Unity  is  not  to  be  that  of  merely  locaj 
churches,  but  that  of  the  kingdom,  and  that  kingdom  is  internal,  "cometh  not  with  obsorva- 
tioii''  (  Luke  17:  20),  but  consists  in  "righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Rom.  14:17).  The 
word  church,"  in  the  universal  sense,  is  not  employed  by  any  other  N.  T.  writer  before 
Taul.  Paul  was  interested,  not  simply  in  individual  conversions,  but  in  the  growth  of 
the  church  of  God,  as  the  body  of  Christ.  He  held  to  the  unity  of  all  local  churches 
with  the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem.  The  church  in  a  city  or  in  a  house  is  merely  a 
local  manifestation  of  the  one  universal  church  and  derived  its  dignity  therefrom. 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles:  "As  this  broken  bread  was  scattered  upon  the 
mountains,  and  being  gathered  became  one,  so  may  thy  church  be  gathered  together 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy  kingdom." 

Sabatier,  Philos.  Religion,  92— "The  social  action  of  religion  springs  from  its  very 
essence.  Men  of  the  same  religion  have  no  more  imperious  need  than  that  of  praying 
and  worshiping  together.    State  police  have  always  failed  to  confine  growing  religious 

sects  within  the  sanctuary  or  the  home God,  it  is  said,  is  the  place  where  spirits 

blend.  In  rising  toward  him,  man  necessarily  passes  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  indi- 
viduality.   He  feels  instinctively  that  the  principle  of  his  being  is  the  principle  of  the 


DEFINITION"    OF   THE    CHURCH.  893 

life  of  his  brethren  also,  that,  that  which  gives  him  safety  must  give  it  to  all."  Rothe 
held  that,  as  men  reach  the  full  development  of  their  nature  and  appropriate  the  per- 
fection of  the  Savior,  the  separation  between  the  religious  and  the  moral  life  will  van- 
ish, and  the  Christian  state,  as  the  highest  sphere  of  human  life  representing  all  human 
functions,  will  displace  the  church.  "  In  proportion  as  the  Savior  Christianizes  the 
state  by  means  of  the  church,  must  the  progressive  completion  of  the  structme  of  the 
church  prove  the  cause  of  its  abolition.  The  decline  of  the  church  is  not  therefore  to 
be  deplored,  but  is  to  be  recognized  as  the  consequence  of  the  independence  and  com- 
pleteness of  the  religious  life  "( En  eye.  Brit.,  21  :?).  But  it  might  equally  be  maintained 
that  the  state,  as  well  as  the  church,  will  pass  away,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  is  fully 
come  ;  see  John  4 :  21  — "the  hour  cometh,  when  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  in  Jerusalem,  shall  yo  worship  the 
Father  " ;  1  Cor.  15 :  24  — "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  h«  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ;  when 
he  shall  have  abolished  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power ' ' ;  Rev.  21 :  22 — "  And  I  saw  no  temple  therein :  for  the  Lord 
God  the  Almighty,  and  the  Lamb,  are  the  temple  thersof." 

B.  The  church,  unlike  the  family  and  the  state,  is  a  voluntary  society, 
(a)  This  results  from  the  fact  that  the  local  church  is  the  outward  expres- 
sion of  that  rational  and  free  life  in  Christ  which  characterizes  the  church 
as  a  whole.  In  this  it  differs  from  those  other  organizations  of  divine 
appointment,  entrance  into  which  is  not  optional.  Membership  in  the 
church  is  not  hereditary  or  compulsory.  (6)  The  doctrine  of  the  church, 
as  thus  defined,  is  a  necessary  outgrowth  of  the  doctrine  of  regeneration. 
As  this  fundamental  spiritual  change  is  mediated  not  by  outward  appli- 
ances, but  by  inward  and  conscious  reception  of  Christ  and  his  truth,  union 
with  the  church  logically  follows,  not  precedes,  the  soul's  spiritual  union 
with  Christ. 

We  have  seen  that  the  church  is  the  body  of  Christ.  We  now  perceive  that  the  church 
la,  by  the  irupartation  to  it  of  Christ's  life,  made  a  living  body,  with  duties  and  powers 
of  its  own.  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  spirit,  53,  emphasizes  the  preliminary  truth. 
He  shows  that  the  definition :  The  church  a  voluntary  association  of  believers,  united 
together  for  the  purposes  of  worship  and  edification,  is  most  inadequate,  not  to  say 
incorrect.  It  is  no  more  true  than  that  hands  and  feet  are  voluntarily  united  in  the 
human  body  for  the  purposes  of  locomotion  and  work.  The  church  is  formed  from 
within.  Christ,  present  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  regenerating  men  by  the  BOvereign  action 
of  the  Spirit,  and  organizing  them  into  himself  as  the  living  centre,  is  the  only  princi- 
ple that  can  explain  the  existence  of  the  church.  The  Head  and  the  body  are  therefore 
one  —  oue  in  fact,  and  one  in  name.  He  whom  God  anointed  and  fiUed  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  called  "the  Christ"  ( 1  John  5 :  i  — " Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  begotten  of  God  "  ) ; 
and  the  church  which  is  his  body  and  fulness  is  also  called  " the  Christ "  (1  Cor.  12:12— "a'l  the 
members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body :  so  also  is  the  Christ " ). 

Dorner  includes  under  his  doctrine  of  the  church:  (1)  the  genesis  of  the  church, 
through  the  new  birth  of  the  Spirit,  or  Regeneration ;  ( 2 )  the  growth  and  persistence 
of  the  church  through  the  continuous  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  means  of  grace,  or 
Ecciesiology proper, as  others  call  it;  (3)  the  completion  of  the  church,  or  Eschatology. 
While  this  scheme  seems  designed  to  favor  a  theory  of  baptismal  regeneration,  we 
must  commend  its  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  the  church  grows  out  of 
the  doctrine  of  regeneration  and  is  determined  in  its  nature  by  it.  If  regeneration  has 
id  ways  conversion  for  its  obverse  side,  and  if  conversion  always  includes  faith  in  Christ, 
it  is  vain  to  speak  of  regeneration  without  faith.  And  if  union  with  the  church  is 
but  the  outward  expression  of  a  preceding  union  with  Christ  which  involves  regene- 
ration and  conversion,  then  involuntary  church-membership  is  an  absurdity,  and  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  whole  method  of  salvation. 

The  value  of  compulsory  religion  may  be  illustrated  from  David  Hume's  experience. 
A  godly  matron  of  the  Canongate,  so  runs  the  story,  when  Hume  sank  in  the  mud  in 
her  vicinity,  and  on  account  of  his  obesity  could  not  get  out,  compelled  the  sceptic  to 
say  the  Lord's  Prayer  before  she  would  help  him.  Amos  Kendall,  on  the  other  hand, 
concluded  in  his  old  age  that  he  had  not  been  acting  on  Christ's  plan  for  saving  the 
world,  and  so,  of  his  own  accord,  connected  himself  with  the  church.  Martineau,  Study, 
1 :  319—"  Till  we  come  to  the  State  and  the  Church,  we  do  not  reach  the  highest  organ- 


894  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

ism  of  human  life,  into  the  perfect  working  of  which  all  the  disinterested  affections 
and  moral  enthusiasms  and  noble  ambitions  flow." 

Socialism  abolishes  freedom,  which  the  church  cultivates  and  insists  upon  as  the 
principle  of  its  life.  Tertullian:  "Nee  l-eligionis  est  cogere  religionem "  —  " It  is  not 
the  business  of  religion  to  compel  religion."  Vedder,  History  of  the  Baptists:  "The 
community  of  goods  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem  was  a  purely  voluntary  matter ;  see 
Acts  5:4  —  '  While  it  remained,  did  it  not  remain  thine  own  ?  and  after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thy  power  ? '  The 
community  of  goods  does  not  seem  to  have  continued  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
after  the  temporary  stress  had  been  relieved,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any 
other  church  in  the  apostolic  age  practised  anything  of  the  kind."  By  abolishing 
freedom,  socialism  destroys  all  possibility  of  economical  progress.  The  economical 
principle  of  socialism  is  that,  relatively  to  the  enjoyment  of  commodities,  the  individ- 
ual shall  be  taken  care  of  by  the  community,  to  the  effect  of  his  being  relieved  of  the 
care  of  himself.  The  communism  in  the  Acts  was:  1.  not  for  the  community  of 
mankind  in  general,  but  only  for  the  church  within  itself;  2.  not  obligatory,  but  left 
to  the  discretion  of  individuals  ;  3.  not  permanent,  but  devised  for  a  temporary  crisis. 
On  socialism,  see  James  MacGregor,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1892:35-68. 

Schurman,  Agnosticism,  106—  "Few  things  are  of  more  practical  consequence  for 
the  future  of  religion  in  America  than  the  duty  of  all  good  men  to  become  identified 
with  the  visible  church.  Liberal  thinkers  have,  as  a  rule,  underestimated  the  value  of 
the  church.  Their  point  of  view  is  individualistic,  'as  though  a  man  were  author  of 
himself,  and  knew  no  other  kin.'  'The  old  is  for  slaves,' they  declare.  But  it  is  also 
true  that  the  old  is  for  freedmen  who  know  its  true  uses.  It  is  the  bane  of  the  religion 
of  dogma  that  it  has  driven  many  of  the  choicest  religious  souls  out  of  the  churches. 
In  its  purification  of  the  temple,  it  has  lost  sight  of  the  object  of  the  temple.  The 
church,  as  an  institution,  is  an  organism  and  embodiment  such  as  the  religion  of  spirit 
necessarily  creates.  Spiritual  religion  is  not  the  enemy,  it  is  the  essence,  of  institu- 
tional religion." 

II.     Organization  of  the  CnuRCH. 

1.     The  fact  of  organization. 

Organization  may  exist  without  knowledge  of  writing,  without  written 
records,  lists  of  members,  or  formal  choice  of  officers.  These  last  are  the 
proofs,  reminders,  and  helps  of  organization,  but  they  are  not  essential  to 
it.  It  is  however  not  merely  informal,  but  formal,  organization  in  the 
church,  to  which  the  New  Testament  bears  witness. 

That  there  was  such  organization  is  abundantly  shown  from  (a)  its  stated 
meetings,  (  b  )  elections,  and  ( c  )  officers  ;  (  d  )  from  the  designations  of  its 
ministers,  together  with  (  e ")  the  recognized  authority  of  the  minister  and 
of  the  church;  (/)  from  its  discipline,  (g)  contributions,  (h)  letters  of 
commendation,  (i)  registers  of  widows,  (j)  uniform  customs,  and  (k) 
ordinances  ;  (  I )  from  the  order  enjoined  and  observed,  (  m  )  the  qualifi- 
cations for  membership,  and  (  n  )  the  common  work  of  the  whole  body. 

(  a )  Acts  20 : 7  —  "  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  discoursed 
with  them"  ;  Heb.  10 :  25  —  "not  forsaking  our  own  assembling  together,  as  the  custom  of  some  is,  but  exhorting  one 
another." 

( h )  Acts  1 :  23-26  —  the  election  of  Matthias ;  6 : 5,  6  —  the  election  of  deacons. 

(c)  Phil.  1:1 —  "the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons." 

(d)  Acts  20: 17,  28— "the  elders  of  the  church  ....  the  flock,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops 
[  marg. :  '  overseers '  ]." 

( e )  Mat.  18:17—  "  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church  :  and  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  church  also, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the  publican":  1  Pet.  5  : 2— "Tend  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
exercising  the  oversight,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly,  according  to  the  will  of  God." 

(/ )  1  Cor.  5 : 4,  5, 13  —  "  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  ye  being  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus Put  away  the  wicked  man  from  among  yourselves." 

(  q  )  Rom.  15  :  26  —  "For  it  hath  been  the  good  pleasure  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  make  a.  certain  contribution  for 
the  oor  among  the  saints  that  are  at  Jerusalem  "  ,  1  Cor.  16 :  L,  2  —  "Now  concerning  the  collection  for  the  saints,  as  I 


ORGANIZATION   OF  THE  CHURCH.  895 

gave  ord'r  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  so  also  do  ye.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  let  each  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in 
store,  as  he  may  prosper,  that  no  collection  be  made  when  I  come." 

(  h  )  Acts  18 :  27 —  "  And  when  he  was  minded  to  pass  over  into  Achaia,  the  brethren  encouraged  him,  and  wrote  to 
the  disciples  to  receive  him  "  ;  2  Cor.  3:1  —  "Are  we  beginning  again  to  commend  ourselves?  or  need  we,  as  do  some, 
epistles  of  commendation  to  you  or  from  you  ?" 

( i )  1  Tim.  5:9  —  "Let  none  be  enrolled  as  a  widow  under  threescore  years  old"  ;  cf.  Acts  6:1  —  " there  arose  a 
murmuring  of  the  Grecian  Jews  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration." 

(j)  1  Cor.  11:16  —  "But  if  any  man  seemeth  to  be  contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches  of 
God." 

(k)  Acts  2: 41  —  "They  then  that  received  his  word  were  baptized";  1  Cor.  11:23-26  —  "For  I  received  of  the 
Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you"  —  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

(I)  1  Cor.  14  :  40  —  "let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order  "  ;  Col.  2:5  —  "For  though  I  am  absent  in  the 
flesh,  yet  am  I  with  you  in  the  spirit,  joying  and  beholding  your  order,  and  the  stedfastness  of  your  faith  in  Christ." 

(  in  )  Hat.  28 :  19  —  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  ;  Acts  2:47  —  "And  the  Lord  added  to  them  day  by  day  those  that  were 
being  saved." 

(  n  )  Phil.  2 :  30  —  "  because  for  the  work  of  Christ  he  came  nigh  unto  death,  hazarding  his  life  to  supply  that  which 
was  lacking  in  your  service  toward  me." 

As  indicative  of  a  developed  organization  in  the  N.  T.  church,  of  which 
only  the  germ  existed  before  Christ's  death,  it  is  important  to  notice  the 
progress  in  names  from  the  Gospels  to  the  Epistles.  In  the  Gospels,  the 
word  "disciples"  is  the  common  designation  of  Christ's  followers,  but  it  is 
not  once  found  in  the  Epistles.  In  the  Epistles,  there  are  only  "  saints," 
"brethren,"  "  churches."  A  consideration  of  the  facts  here  referred  to  is 
sufficient  to  evince  the  unscriptural  nature  of  two  modern  theories  of  the 
church  : 

A.  The  theory  that  the  church  is  an  exclusively  spiritual  body,  destitute 
of  all  formal  organization,  and  bound  together  only  by  the  mutual  relation 
of  each  believer  to  his  indwelling  Lord. 

The  church,  upon  this  view,  so  far  as  outward  bonds  are  concerned,  is 
only  an  aggregation  of  isolated  units.  Those  believers  who  chance  to 
gather  at  a  particular  place,  or  to  live  at  a  particular  time,  constitute  the 
church  of  that  place  or  time.  This  view  is  held  by  the  Friends  and  by  the 
Plymouth  Brethren.  It  ignores  the  tendencies  to  organization  inherent  in 
human  nature;  confounds  the  visible  with  the  invisible  church  ;  and  is 
directly  opposed  to  the  Scripture  representations  of  the  visible  church  as 
comprehending  some  who  are  not  true  believers. 

Acts  5: 1-11  —  Ananias  and  Sapphira  show  that  the  visible  church  comprehended  some 
who  were  not  true  hfilievers;  lCor.l4:23  —  "If  therefore  the  whole  church  be  assembled  together  and  all 
speak  with  tongues,  and  there  come  in  men  unlearned  or  unbelieving,  will  they  not  say  that  ye  are  mad  ?  "  —  here, 
if  the  church  had  been  an  unorganized  assembly,  the  unlearned  visitors  who  came  in 
would  have  formed  a  part  of  it ;  Phil.  3  :  18  —  "For  many  walk,  of  whom  I  told  you  often,  and  now  tell 
you  even  weeping,  that  they  are  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ." 

Some  years  ago  a  book  was  placed  upon  the  Index,  at  Rome,  entitled  :  "  The  Priest- 
hood a  Chronic  Disorder  of  the  Human  Race."  The  Plymouth  Brethren  dislike  church 
organizations,  for  fear  they  will  become  machines  ;  they  dislike  ordained  ministers,  for 
fear  they  will  become  bishops.  They  object  to  praying-  for  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  he 
was  given  on  Pentecost,  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  church  after  Pentecost  so  prayed  : 
see  Acts  4:31  —  "  And  when  they  had  prayed,  the  place  was  shaken  wherein  they  were  gathered  together ;  and  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  they  spake  the  word  of  God  with  boldness."  What  we  call  a  giving  or 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  omnipresent,  only  a  manifestation 
of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  certainly  may  be  prayed  for ;  see  Luke  11:13  — 
"  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father 
give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him  ?  " 

The  Plymouth  Brethren  would  "  unite  Christendom  by  its  dismemberment,  and  do 
away  with  all  sects  by  the  creation  of  a  new  sect,  more  narrow  and  bitter  in  its  hostility 


896  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

to  existing-  sects  than  any  other."  Yet  the  tendency  to  organise  is  so  strong-  in  human 
nature,  that  even  Plymouth  Brethren,  when  they  meet  regularly  together,  fall  into  an 
informal,  if  not  a  formal,  organization  ;  certain  teachers  and  leaders  are  tacitly  recog- 
nized as  officers  of  the  body ;  committees  and  rules  are  unconsciously  used  for  facilitat- 
ing business.  Even  one  of  their  own  writers,  C.  H.  M.,  speaks  of  the  "  natural  tendency 
to  association  without  God,  —  as  in  the  Shinar  Association  or  Babel  Confederacy  of  Gen. 
11,  which  aimed  at  building  up  a  name  upon  the  earth.  The  Christian  church  is  God's 
appointed  association  to  take  the  place  of  ail  these.  Hence  God  confounds  the  tongues 
in  Gen.  11  ( judgment ) ;  gives  tongues  in  Acts  2  ( grace ) ;  but  only  one  tongue  is  spoken  in 
Rev.  7  (glory)." 

The  Nation,  Oct.  16, 1890 :  303  —  "  Every  body  of  men  must  have  one  or  more  leaders. 
1  f  these  are  not  provided,  they  will  make  them  for  themselves.  You  cannot  get  fifty 
men  together,  at  least  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  without  their  choosing  a  presiding 
officer  and  giving  him  power  to  enforce  rules  and  order."  Even  socialists  and  anar- 
chists have  their  leaders,  who  often  exercise  arbitrary  power  and  oppress  their  fol- 
lowers. Lyman  Abbott  says  nobly  of  the  community  of  true  believers :  "  The  grandest 
river  in  the  world  has  no  banks ;  it  rises  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico ;  it  sweeps  up  through 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  along  our  coast;  it  crosses  the  Atlantic,  and  spreads  out  in  great 
broad  fanlike  form  along  the  coast  of  Europe  ;  and  whatever  land  it  kisses  blooms  and 
blossoms  with  the  fruit  of  its  love.  The  apricot  and  the  fig  are  the  witness  of  its  fertil- 
izing power.  It  is  bound  together  by  the  warmth  of  its  own  particles,  and  by  nothing 
else."  This  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  invisible  church,  and  of  its  course  through 
the  world.  But  the  visible  church  is  bound  to  be  distinguishable  from  uuregenerate 
humanity,  and  its  inner  principle  of  association  inevitably  leads  to  organization. 

Dr.  Wm.  Rcid,  Plymouth  Brethrenism  Unveiled,  79-143,  attributes  to  the  sect  the 
following  Church-principles :  ( 1 )  the  church  did  not  exist  before  Pentecost ;  ( 2 )  the 
visible  and  the  invisible  church  identical;  (3)  the  one  assembly  of  God ;  (4)  the  presi- 
dency of  the  Holy  Spirit;  (5)  rejection  of  a  one-man  and  man-made  ministry;  (6)  the 
church  is  without  government.  Also  the  following  heresies:  (1)  Christ's  heavenly 
humanity;  (2)  denial  of  Christ's  righteousness,  as  being  obedience  to  law ;  (3)  denial 
that  Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  ;  ( 4 )  justification  in  the  risen  Christ ;  ( 5 )  Christ's 
non-atoning  sufferings ;  (6)  denial  of  moral  law  as  rule  of  life;  (7)  the  Lord's  day  is 
nut  the  Sabbath;  (8)  perfectionism;  (9)  secret  rapture  of  the  saints, —  caught  up  to  be 
with  Christ.    To  these  we  may  add  ;  ( 10)  premilk-nial  advent  of  Christ. 

On  the  Plymouth  Brethern  and  their  doctrine,  see  British  Quar.,  Oct.  1873:  202; 
Princeton  Rev.,  1872:48-77  ;  H.  M.  King,  in  Baptist  Review,  1881 :  438-405 ;  Fish,  Ecclesi- 
ology,  314-316 ;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  80-83;  R.  H.  Carson,  The  Brethren,  8-14;  J.  C.  L. 
Carson,  The  Heresies  of  the  Plymouth  Brethren  ;  Croskery,  Plymouth  Brethrenism ; 
Teulon,  Hist,  and  Teachings  of  Plymouth  Brethren. 

B.  The  theory  that  the  form  of  church  organization  is  not  definitely 
prescribed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  is  a  matter  of  expediency,  each  body 
of  believers  being  permitted  to  adopt  that  method  of  organization  which 
best  suits  its  circumstances  and  condition. 

The  view  under  consideration  seeins  in  some  respects  to  be  favored  by 
Neander,  and  is  often  regarded  as  incidental  to  his  larger  conception  of 
church  history  as  a  progressive  development.  But  a  proper  theory  of 
development  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  a  church  organization  already 
complete  in  all  essential  particulars  before  the  close  of  the  inspired  canon, 
so  that  the  record  of  it  may  constitute  a  providential  example  of  binding 
authority  upon  all  subsequent  ages.  The  view  mentioned  exaggerates  the 
differences  of  practice  among  the  N.  T.  churches  ;  underestimates  the  need 
of  divine  direction  as  to  methods  of  church  union  ;  and  admits  a  principle 
of  'church  powers,'  which  may  be  historically  shown  to  be  subversive  of 
the  very  existence  of  the  church  as  a  spiritual  body. 

Dr.  Galusha  Anderson  finds  the  theory  of  optional  church  government  in  Hooker's 
Ecclesiastical  Polity,  and  says  that  not  until  Bishop  Bancroft  was  there  claimed  a 
divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  Hunt,  also,  in  his  Religious  Thought  in  England,  1 :  57,  says 
that  Hooker  gives  up  the  divine  origin  of  Episcopacy.    So  Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  the 


ORGANIZATION    OF   THE   CHURCH.  897 

N.  T.,  and  Hatch,  Organization  of  Early  Christian  Churches,  —  both  Jacob  and  Hatch 
belonging-  to  the  Church  of  England.  Hooker  identified  the  church  with  the  nation  , 
see  Ecel.  Polity,  book  viii,  chap.  1 :  7  ;  4  :  (5 ;  8 :  9.  He  held  that  the  state  has  committed 
itself  to  the  church,  and  that  therefore  the  church  has  no  right  to  commit  itself  to  the 
state.  The  assumption,  however,  that  the  state  has  committed  itself  to  the  church  is 
entirely  unwarranted;  see  Gore,  Incarnation,  209,  210.  Hooker  declares  that,  even  if 
the  Episcopalian  order  were  laid  down  in  Scripture,  which  he  denies,  it  would  still  not 
be  unalterable,  since  neither  "God's  being  the  author  of  laws  for  the  government  of 
his  church,  nor  his  committing  them  unto  Scripture,  is  any  reason  sufficient  wherefore 
all  churches  should  forever  be  bound  to  keep  them  without  change." 

T.  M.  Lindsay,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Oct.  1895 :  548-503,  asserts  that  there  were  at  least  five 
different  forms  of  church  government  in  apostolic  times :  1.  derived  from  the  seven 
wise  men  of  the  Hebrew  village  community,  representing  the  political  side  of  the 
synagogue  system  ;  2.  derived  from  the  en-ic/con-os,  the  director  of  the  religious  or  social 
club  among  the  heathen  Greeks ;  3.  derived  from  the  patrouate  (  npoardTrj^,  7rpoia-ran<: ros  ) 
known  among  the  Romans,  the  churches  of  Rome,  Corinth,  Thessaloniea,  being  of  this 
sort;  4.  derived  from  the  personal  preeminence  of  one  man,  nearest  in  family  to  our 
Lord,  James  bring  president  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  ;  5.  derived  from  temporary 
superintendents  ( rjvoii/u.ei'oi ),  or  leaders  of  the  band  of  missionaries,  as  in  Crete  and 
Ephesus.  Between  all  these  churches  of  different  polities,  there  was  intercommuni- 
cation and  fellowship.  Lindsay  holds  that  the  unity  was  wholly  spiritual.  It  seems  to 
us  that  he  has  succeeded  merely  in  proving  five  different  varieties  of  one  generic  type 
—  the  generic  type  being  only  democratic,  with  two  orders  of  officials,  and  two  ordi- 
nances—in  other  words,  in  showing  that  the  simple  N.  T.  model  adopts  itself  to  many 
changing  conditions,  while  the  main  outlines  do  not  change.  Upon  any  other  theory, 
church  polity  is  a  matter  of  individual  taste  or  of  temporary  fashion.  Shall  mission- 
aries conform  church  order  to  the  degraded  ideas  of  the  nations  among  which  they 
labor?  Shall  church  government  be  despotic  in  Turkey,  a  limited  monarchy  in  Eng- 
land, a  democracy  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  two-headed  in  Japan?  For 
the  development  theory  of  Neander,  see  his  Church  History,  1 :  179-190.  On  the  general 
subject,  see  Hitchcock,  in  Am.  Theol.  Rev.,  I860: 28-54;  Davidson,  Eccl.  Polity,  1-42  ; 
Harvey,  The  Church. 

2.     The  nature  of  this  organization. 

The  nature  of  any  organization  may  be  determined  by  asking,  first  :  who 
constitute  its  members?  secondly:  for  what  object  has  it  been  formed  ? 
and,  thirdly  :  what  are  the  laws  which  regulate  its  operations  ? 

The  three  questions  with  which  our  treatment  of  the  nature  of  this  organization 
begins  are  furnished  us  by  Pres.  Way  land,  in  his  Principles  and  Practices  of  Baptists. 

A.  They  only  can  properly  be  members  of  the  local  church,  who  have 
previously  become  members  of  the  church  universal,  — or,  in  other  words, 
have  become  regenerate  persons. 

Only  those  who  have  been  previously  united  to  Christ  are,  in  the  New  Testament, 
permitted  to  unite  with  his  church.  See  Acts  2:47 — "And  the  Lord  added  to  them  day  by  day  those 
that  were  being  saved  [  Am.  Rev. :  'those  that  were  saved '  ]  "  ;  5  :  14  —  "and  believers  were  the  more  added  to 
the  Lord";  1  Cor.  1 :  2  —  "  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  even  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to 
be  saints,  with  all  that  call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  every  place,  their  Lord  and  ours." 

From  this  limitation  of  membership  to  regenerate  persons,  certain 
results  follow : 

(a)  Since  each  member  bears  supreme  allegiance  to  Christ,  the  church 
as  a  body  must  recognize  Christ  as  the  only  lawgiver.  The  relation  of  the 
individual  Christian  to  the  church  does  not  supersede,  but  furthers  and 
expresses,  his  relation  to  Christ. 

1  John  2  :20  —  "And  ye  have  an  anointing  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things"  — see  Neander,  Com., 
in  loco  —  "  No  believer  is  at  liberty  to  forego  this  maturity  and  personal  independence, 
bestowed  in  that  inward  anointing  [of  the  Holy  Spirit],  or  to  place  himself  in  a  depend- 
ent relation,  inconsistent  with  this  birthright,  to  any  teacher  whatever  among  men. 
57 


808  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

....  This  inward  anointing-  furnishes  an  element  of  resistance  to  such  arrogated 
authority."  Here  we  have  reproved  the  tendency  on  the  part  of  miuisters  to  take  the 
place  of  the  church,  in  Christian  work  and  worship,  instead  of  leading-  it  forward  in 
work  and  worship  of  its  own.  The  missionary  who  keeps  his  converts  in  prolonged 
and  unnecessary  tutelage  is  also  untrue  to  the  church  organization  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  untrue  to  Christ  whose  aim  in  church  training  is  to  educate  his  followers  to 
the  bearing  of  responsibility  and  the  use  of  liberty.  Macaulay  :  "  The  only  remedy  for 
the  evils  of  liberty  is  liberty."  "  Malo  periculosam  libertatem  "— "  Liberty  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred with  all  its  dangers."  Edwin  Burritt  Smith  :  "  There  is  one  thing  better  than 
good  government,  and  that  is  self-government."  By  their  own  mistakes,  a  self-govern- 
ing people  and  a  self-governing  church  will  finally  secure  good  government,  whereas 
the  "good  government"  which  keeps  them  in  perpetual  tutelage  will  make  good 
government  forever  impossible. 

Ps.  144 :  12  —  "  our  sons  shall  be  as  plants  grown  up  in  their  youth."  Archdeacon  Hare :  "  If  a  gentle- 
man is  to  grow  up,  it  must  be  like  a  tree :  there  must  be  nothing  between  him  and 
heaven."  What  is  true  of  the  gentleman  is  true  of  the  Christian.  There  need  to  be 
encouraged  and  cultivated  in  him  an  independence  of  human  authority  and  a  sole 
dependence  upon  Christ.  The  most  sacred  duty  of  the  minister  is  to  make  his  church 
self-governing  and  self-supporting,  and  the  best  test  of  his  success  is  the  ability  of  the 
church  to  live  and  prosper  after  he  has  left  it  or  after  he  is  dead.  Such  ministerial 
work  requires  self-sacrifice  and  self-effacement.  The  natural  tendency  of  every  min- 
ister is  to  usurp  authority  and  to  become  a  bishop.  He  has  in  him  an  undeveloped 
pope.  Dependence  on  his  people  for  support  curbs  this  arrogant  spirit.  A  church 
establishment  fosters  it.  The  remedy  both  for  slavishness  and  for  arrogance  lies  in 
constant  recognition  of  Christ  as  the  only  Lord. 

(  b )  Since  each  regenerate  man  recognizes  in  every  other  a  brother  in 
Christ,  the  several  members  are  upon  a  footing  of  absolute  equality  (  Mat. 
23:8-10). 

Mat.  23 :  8-10 — "  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi :  for  one  is  your  teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call  no  man 
your  father  on  the  earth :  for  one  is  your  Father,  even  he  who  is  in  heaven  "  ;  John  15 : 5  — "I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the 
branches" — no  one  branch  of  the  vine  outranks  another;  one  may  be  more  advanta- 
geously situated,  more  ample  in  size,  more  fruitful;  but  all  are  alike  in  kind,  draw 
vitality  from  one  source.  Among  the  planets  "  one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in  glory  "  ( 1  Cor. 
15 :  41 ),  yet  all  shine  in  the  same  heaven,  and  draw  their  light  from  the  same  sun.  "  The 
serving-man  may  know  more  of  the  mind  of  God  than  the  scholar."  Christianity  has 
therefore  been  the  foe  to  heathen  castes.  The  Japanese  noble  objected  to  it,  "  because 
the  brotherhood  of  man  was  incompatible  with  proper  reverence  for  rank."  There  can 
be  no  rightful  human  lordship  over  God's  heritage  (1  Pet.  5:3  — " neither  as  lording  it  over  the 
charge  allotted  to  you,  but  making  yourselves  ensamples  to  the  flock  "  ). 

Constantine  thought  more  highly  of  his  position  as  member  of  Christ's  church  than 
of  his  position  as  head  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Neither  the  church  nor  its  pastor  should 
be  dependent  upon  the  unregenerate  members  of  the  congregation.  Many  a  pastor  is 
in  the  position  of  a  lion  tamer  with  his  head  in  the  lion's  mouth.  So  long  as  he  strokes 
the  fur  the  right  way,  all  goes  well ;  but,  if  by  accident  he  strokes  the  wrong  way,  off 
goes  his  head.  Dependence  upon  the  spiritual  body  which  he  instructs  is  compatible 
with  the  pastor's  dignity  and  faithfulness.  But  dependence  upon  those  who  are  not 
Christians  and  who  seek  to  manage  the  church  with  worldly  motives  and  in  a  worldly 
way,  may  utterly  destroy  the  spiritual  effect  of  his  ministry.  The  pastor  is  bound  to 
be  the  impartial  preacher  of  the  truth,  and  to  treat  each  member  of  his  church  as  of 
equal  importance  with  evei-y  other. 

( c )  Since  each  local  church  is  directly  subject  to  Christ,  there  is  no 
jurisdiction  of  one  church  over  another,  but  all  are  on  an  equal  footing, 
and  all  are  independent  of  interference  or  control  by  the  civil  power. 

Mat.  22 :  21  — "  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's ;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's  "  ; 
Acts  5:29— "We  must  obey  God  rather  than  men."  As  each  believer  has  personal  dealings  with 
Christ  and  for  even  the  pastor  to  come  between  him  and  his  Lord  is  treachery  to  Christ 
and  harmful  to  his  soul,  so  much  more  does  the  New  Testament  condemn  any  attempt 
to  bring  the  church  into  subjection  to  any  other  church  or  combination  of  churches, 
or  to  make  the  church  the  creature  of  the  state.    Absolute  liberty  of  conscience  under 


ORGANIZATION   OF   THE   CHURCH.  899 

Christ  has  always  been  a  distinguishing  tenet  of  Baptists,  as  it  is  of  t  be  New  Testament 
(  c  f.  Rom.  14 : 4  — "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  the  servant  of  another  ?  to  his  own  lord  he  stuudelh  or  falietn.  Yea,  he 
shall  be  made  to  stand;  for  the  Lord  hath  power  to  make  him  stand"  ).  John  Locke,  100  years  before 
American  independence:  "The  Baptists  were  the  first  and  only  propouoders  of  abso- 
lute liberty,  just  and  true  liberty,  equal  and  impartial  liberty."  George  Bancroft  says 
of  Roger  Williams:   "He  was  the  Brat  person  in  modern  Christendom  to  assert  the 

doctrine  of  liberty  of  conscience  in  religion Freedom  of  conscience  was  from 

the  first  a  trophy  of  the  Baptists Their  history  is  written  in  blood." 

On  Roger  Williams,  see  John  Flske,  The  Beginnings  of  New  England:  "Such  views 
are  to-day  quite  generally  adopted  by  the  more  civilized  portions  of  the  Protestant 
world  ;  but  it  is  needless  to  say  that  they  were  not  the-  views  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
in  Massachusetts  or  elsewhere."  Cotton  Mather  said  that  Roger  Williams  "  carried  a 
windmill  in  his  head,"  and  even  John  Quincy  Adams  called  him  "  conscientiously  con- 
tentious." Cotton  Mather's  windmill  was  one  that  he  remembered  or  had  heard  of  in 
Holland.  It  had  run  so  fast  in  a  gale  as  to'set  itself  and  a  whole  town  on  lire.  Leonard 
Bacon,  Genesis  of  the  New  England  Churches,  vii,  says  of  Baptist  churches:  "  It  lias 
been  claimed  for  these  churches  that  from  the  age  of  the  Reformation  onward  they 
have  been  always  foremost  and  always  consistent  in  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  relig- 
ious liberty.  Let.  me  not  be  understood  as  calling  in  question  their  right  to  so  great  an 
honor." 

Baptists  hold  that  the  province  of  the  state  is  purely  secular  and  civil,— religious 
matters  are  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  Vet  lor  economic  reasons  and  to  ensure  its  own 
prescrvation.it  may  guarantee  to  its  citizens  their  religious  rights,  and  may  exempt 
all  churches  equally  from  burdens  at  taxation,  in  the  same  way  in  which  it  exempts 
schools  and  hospitals.  The  state  has  holidays,  but  no  holy  days.  Hall  Caine,  in  The 
Christian,  calls  the  state,  not  the  pillar  of  the  church,  but  the  caterpillar,  that  eats  the 
vitals  out  of  it.  It  is  this,  when  it  transcends  its  sphere  and  compels  or  forbids  any 
particular  form  of  religious  teaching.  On  the  charge  that  Roman  Catholics  were 
deprived  of  equal  rights  in  Rhode  Island,  see  Am.  Cath.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1894:160-177. 
This  restriction  was  not  in  the  original  law,  bill  was  a  note  added  by  revisers,  to  bring 
the  state  law  into  conformity  with  the  law  of  the  mother  country.  Ezra  8:22  — "I  was 
ashamed  to  ask  of  the  king  a  hand  of  soldiers  and  horsemen  ....  because  ....  The  hand  of  our  God  is  upon  all  them 
that  seek  him,  for  good  "—is  a  model  for  the  churches  of  every  age.  The  church  as  an  organ- 
ized body  should  be  ashamed  to  depend  lor  revenue  upon  the  state,  although  its  mem- 
bers as  citizens  may  justly  demand  thai  the  state  protect  then,  in  (heir  rights  of 
worship.  On  State  and  Church  in  1492 and  1802,  see  A.  II.  Strong,  Christ  in  Creation, 
^it'.i  246,  csp.  239-241.  On  taxation  of  chinch  property, and  opposing  it, see  H.  C.  Vedder, 
in  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  Feb.  1890:265-272. 

B.  The  sole  object  of  the  local  church  is  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  com- 
plete establishment  of  his  kingdom,  both  in  the  hearts  of  believers  and  in 
tbe  world.     This  object  is  to  be  promoted  : 

(a)  By  united  worship, — including  prayer  and  religious  instruction; 
(6)  by  mutual  watchcare  and  exhortation  ;  ( c)  by  common  labors  for  the 
reclamation  of  the  impenitent  world. 

( a  )  Heb.  10 :  25  — "  not  forsaking  our  own  assembling  together,  as  the  custom  of  some  is,  but  exhorting  one  another." 
One  burning  coal  by  itself  will  soon  grow  dull  and  go  out,  but  a  hundred  together  will 
give  a  fury  of  flame  that  will  set  tire  to  others.  Notice  the  value  of  "  the  crowd  "  in 
politics  and  in  religion.  One  may  get  an  education  without  going  to  school  or  college, 
and  may  cultivate  religion  apart  from  the  church ;  but  the  number  of  such  people  will 
be  small,  and  they  do  not  choose  the  best  way  to  become  intelligent  or  religious. 

(/ill  Thess.  5 :  11  —"Wherefore  exhort  one  another,  and  build  each  other  up,  even  as  also  ye  do  "  ;  Heb.  3 :  13  — 
"  Exhort  one  another  day  by  day,  so  long  as  it  is  called  To-day ;  lest  any  one  of  you  be  hardened  by  the  deceitfulness  of 
sin."  Churches  exist  in  order  to  :  1.  create  ideals;  2.  supply  motives;  3.  direct  ener- 
gies. They  are  the  leaven  hidden  in  the  three  measures  of  meal.  But  there  must  be 
life  in  the  leaven,  or  no  good  will  come  of  it.  There  is  no  use  of  taking  to  China  a  lamp 
that  will  not  burn  in  America.  The  light  that  shines  the  furthest  shines  brightest 
nearest  home. 

(c)  Mat.  28:19—  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations  "  ;  Acts  8:4— "They  therefore  that  were 
scattered  abroad  went  about  preaching  the  word  "  ;  2  Cor.  8  :  5—  "and  this,  not  as  we  had  hoped,  but  first  they  gave 
their  own  selves  to  the  Lord,  and  to  us  through  the  will  of  Sod  "  ;  Jude  23  —"And  on  some  have  mercy,  who  are  in 


900  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

doubt ;  and  some  save,  snatching  them  out  of  the  fire."  Inscribed  upon  a  mural  tablet  of  a  Christian 
church,  in  Aneityuin  in  the  South  Seas,  to  the  memory  of  Dr.  John  Geddie,  the  pioneer 
missionary  in  that  field,  are  the  words:  "  When  he  came  here,  there  were  no  Chris- 
tians; when  he  went  away,  there  were  no  heathen."  Inscription  over  the  grave  of 
David  Livingstone  in  Westminster  Abbey :  "  For  thirty  years  his  life  was  spent  in  an 
unwearied  effort  to  evangelize  the  native  races,  to  explore  the  undiscovered  secrets,  to 
abolish  the  desolating  slave  trade  of  Central  Africa,  where  with  his  last  words  he 
wrote:  '  All  I  can  add  in  my  solitude  is.  May  Heaven's  richest  blessing  come  down  on 
everyone,  American,  English  or  Turk,  who  will  help  to  heal  this  open  sore  of  the 
world.'  " 

C.  The  law  of  the  church  is  simply  the  will  of  Christ,  as  expressed  in 
the  Scriptures  and  interpreted  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     This  law  respects  : 

(a)  The  qualifications  for  membership. — These  are  regeneration  and 
baptism,  i.  e.,  spiritual  new  birth  and  ritual  new  birth  ;  the  surrender  of 
the  inward  and  of  the  outward  life  to  Christ ;  the  spiritual  entrance  into 
communion  with  Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  formal  profession 
of  this  to  the  world  by  being  buried  with  Christ  and  rising  with  him  in 
baptism. 

(  b )  The  duties  imposed  on  members. — In  discovering  the  will  of  Christ 
from  the  Scriptures,  each  member  has  the  right  of  private  judgment,  being 
directly  responsible  to  Christ  for  his  use  of  the  means  of  knowledge,  and 
for  his  obedience  to  Christ's  commands  when  these  are  known. 

How  far  does  the  authority  of  the  church  extend  ?  It  certainly  has  no  right  to  say 
what  its  members  shall  eat  and  drink ;  to  what  societies  they  shall  belong ;  what 
alliances  in  marriage  or  in  business  they  shall  contract.  It  has  no  right,  as  an  organ- 
ized body,  to  suppress  vice  in  the  community,  or  to  regenerate  society  by  taking  sides 
in  a  political  canvass.  The  members  of  the  church,  as  citizens,  have  duties  in  all  these 
lines  of  activity.  The  function  of  the  church  is  to  give  them  religious  preparation  and 
stimulus  for  their  work.  In  this  sense,  however,  the  church  is  to  influence  all  human 
relations.  It  follows  the  model  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth  rather  than  that  of  the 
Greek  state.  The  Greek  tt6\l<;  was  limited,  because  it  was  the  affirmation  of  only  per- 
sonal rights.  The  Jewish  commonwealth  was  universal,  because  it  was  the  embodiment 
of  the  one  divine  will.  The  Jewish  state  was  the  most  comprehensive  of  the  ancient 
world,  admitting  freely  the  incorporation  of  new  members,  and  looking  forward  to  a 
worldwide  religious  communion  in  one  faith.  So  the  Romans  gave  to  conquered  lands 
the  protection  and  the  rights  of  Rome.  But  the  Christian  church  is  the  best  example 
of  incorporation  in  conquest.  See  Westcott,  Hebrews,  38(5,  387 ;  John  Fiske,  Beginnings 
of  New  England,  1-20 ;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  74-99 ;  Curtis  on  Communion,  1-61. 

Abraham  Lincoln :  "  This  country  cannot  be  half  slave  and  half  free  "=the  one  part 
will  pull  the  other  over ;  there  is  an  Irrepressible  conflict  between  them.  So  with  the 
forces  of  Christ  and  of  Antichrist  in  the  world  at  large.  Alexander  Duff :  "  The  church 
that  ceases  to  be  evangelistic  will  soon  cease  to  be  evangelical."  We  may  add  that  the 
church  that  ceases  to  be  evangelical  will  soon  cease  to  exist.  The  Fathers  of  New 
England  proposed  "  to  advance  the  gospel  in  these  remote  parts  of  the  world,  even  if 
they  should  be  but  as  stepping-stones  to  those  who  were  to  follow  them."  They  little 
foresaw  how  their  faith  and  learning  would  give  character  to  the  great  West.  Church 
and  school  went  together.  Christ  alone  is  the  Savior  of  the  world,  but  Christ  alone 
cannot  save  the  world.  Zinzendorf  called  his  society  "The  Mustard-seed  Society" 
because  it  should  remove  mountains  (  Mat.  17 :  20 ).  Hermann,  Faith  and  Morals,  91,  238  — 
"  It  is  not  by  meaus  of  things  that  pretend  to  be  imperishable  that  Christianity  con- 
tinues to  live  on  ;  but  by  the  fact  that  there  are  always  persons  to  be  found  who,  by 
their  contact  with  the  Bible  traditions,  become  witnesses  to  the  personality  of  Jesus 
and  follow  him  as  their  guide,  and  therefore  acquire  sufficient  courage  to  sacrifice 
themselves  for  others." 

3.     The  genesis  of  this  organization. 

(a)  The  church  existed  in  germ  before  the  day  of  Pentecost, —  otherwise 
there  would  have  been  nothing  to  which  those  converted  upon  that  day 


ORGANIZATION    OF  THE   CHURCH.  901 

could  have  been  "added"  (Acts  2  :  47).  Among  the  apostles,  regenerate 
as  they  were,  united  to  Christ  by  faith  and  in  that  faith  baptized  (Acts  19  : 
4 ),  under  Christ's  instruction  and  engaged  in  common  work  for  him,  there 
were  already  the  beginnings  of  organization.  There  was  a  treasurer  of  the 
body  (John  13  :  29),  and  as  a  body  they  celebrated  for  the  first  time  the 
Lord's  Supper  (  Mat.  26  :  26-29 ).  To  all  intents  and  purposes  they  consti- 
tuted a  church,  although  the  church  was  not  yet  fully  equipped  for  its  work 
by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  (Acts  2 ),  and  by  the  appointment  of  pastors 
and  deacons.  The  church  existed  without  officers,  as  in  the  first  days  suc- 
ceeding Pentecost. 

Acts  2 :  47—"  And  the  Lord  added  to  them  [  marg. :  '  together '  ]  day  by  day  those  that  were  being  saved  "  ;  19 :  4 
—"And  Paul  said,  John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
that  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Jesus  "  ;  John  13  :  29  —"For  some  thought,  because  Judas  had  the  bag,  that  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  Buy  what  things  we  have  need  of  for  the  feast ;  or,  that  he  should  give  something  to  the  poor"  ;  Mat. 
26  :  26-29 — "And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread  ....  and  he  gave  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat  ...  . 
And  he  took  a  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it"  ;  Acts  2  —  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
poured  out.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Christ  himself  is  the  embodied  union  between 
God  and  man,  the  true  temple  of  God's  indwelling.  So  soon  as  the  lirst  believer  joined 
himself  to  Christ,  the  church  existed  in  miniature  and  germ. 

A.  J.  Gordon.  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  55,  quotes  Acts  2 :  41  — " and  there  were  added,"  not  to 
them,  or  to  the  church,  but,  as  in  Acts  5:14,  and  11:24— "to  the  Lord."  This,  Dr.  Gordon 
declares,  means  not  a  mutual  union  of  believers,  but  their  divine  coiiniting  with  Christ  ; 
not  voluntary  association  of  Christians,  but  their  sovereign  incorporation  into  the 
Head,  and  this  incorporation  effected  by  the  Head,  through  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  old 
proverb,  "Tres  faoiunt  eeclcsiam,"  is  always  true  when  one  of  tin-  throe  is  Jesus  (Dr. 
Deems).  Cyprian  was  wrong  when  he  said  that  "he  who  has  not  the  church  lor  his 
mother,  has  not  God  lor  his  Fat  her  " ;  for  this  could  not  account  for  the  conversion  of 
the  first  Christian,  and  it  makes  Salvation  dependent  upon  the  church  rather  than  upon 
Christ.  The  Cambridge  Platform,  1648,  chapter  6,  makes  officers  essential,  not  to  the 
being,  but  only  to  the  well  being,  of  churches,  and  declares  that  elders  and  deacons 
are  the  only  ordinary  officers  ;  see  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  439. 

Fish,  Ecclesiology,  14-11,  by  a  striking  analogy,  distinguishes  three  periods  of  the 
church's  life:  (1)  the  pre-natal  period,  in  which  the  church  is  not  separated  from 
Christ's  bodily  presence;  (~)  the  period  of  childhood,  in  which  the  church  is  under 
tutelage,  preparing  for  an  independent  life;  (3)  the  period  of  maturity,  in  which  the 
church,  equipped  with  doctrines  and  officers,  is  ready  for  self-government.  The  three 
periods  may  be  likened  to  bud,  blossom,  and  fruit.  Before  Christ's  death,  the  church 
existed  in  bud  only. 

( b )  That  provision  for  these  offices  was  made  gradually  as  exigencies 
arose,  is  natural  when  we  consider  that  the  church  immediately  after  Christ's 
ascension  was  under  the  tutelage  of  inspired  apostles,  and  was  to  be  pre- 
pared, by  a  process  of  education,  for  independence  and  self-government. 
As  doctrine  was  communicated  gradually  yet  infallibly,  through  the  oral 
and  written  teaching  of  the  apostles,  so  we  are  warranted  in  believing  that 
the  church  was  gradually  but  infallibly  guided  to  the.  adoption  of  Christ's 
own  plan  of  church  organization  and  of  Christian  work.  The  same  promise 
of  the  Spirit  which  renders  the  New  Testament  an  unerring  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faith,  renders  it  also  an  unerring  and  sufficient  rule  of  practice,  for 
the  church  in  all  places  and  times. 

John  16 :  12-26  is  to  be  interpreted  as  a  promise  of  gradual  leading  by  the  Spirit  into  all 
the  truth  ;  1  Cor.  14  :  37 — "the  things  which  I  write  unto  you  ...  .  they  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord." 
An  examination  of  Paul's  epistles  in  their  chronological  order  shows  a  progress  in  defi- 
niteness  of  teaching  with  regard  to  church  polity,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  doctrine  in 
general.  In  this  matter,  as  in  other  matters,  apostolic  instruction  was  given  as  provi- 
dential exigencies  demanded  it.    Iu  the  earliest  days  of  the  church,  attention  was  paid 


902  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

to  preaching  rather  than  to  organization.  Like  Luther,  Paul  thought  more  of  church 
order  in  his  later  days  than  at  the  beginning  of  his  work.  Yet  even  in  his  first  epistle 
we  find  the  germ  which  is  afterwards  continuously  developed.    See : 

(1)1  Thess.  5 :  12,  13  (  A.  D.  52  )  — "  But  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them  that  labor  among  you,  and  are 
over  you  ( 7rpoio-TafAtVous )  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you ;  and  to  esteem  them  exceeding  highly  in  love  for  their 
work's  sake," 

(2)1  Cor.  12 :  28  (  A.  D.  57 )  — "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,  then  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps  [  ai-TiAr,i|/eis  =  gifts  needed  by  deacons],  governments 
[  (cv(3epv7J(Teis  =  gifts  needed  by  pastors  J,  divers  kinds  of  tongues." 

( 3  )  Rom.  12 :  6-8  (  A.  D.  58  )  — "  And  having  gifts  differing  according  to  the  graGe  that  is  given  to  us,  whether 
prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  our  faith ;  or  ministry  [  o'laKoyiae  ],  let  us  give  ourselves  to 
our  ministry ;  or  he  that  teacheth,  to  his  teaching ;  or  he  that  eihorteth,  to  his  exhorting :  he  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it 
with  liberality ;  he  that  ruleth  [  o  irpoiaratiivos  ],  with  diligence ;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness." 

(  4)  Phil.  1: 1  (  A.  1).  62)— "Paul  and  Timothy,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that  are 
at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  [  i-mako-nois,  marg.  :  '  overseers '  ]  and  deacons  [  Siaicoi'ois  ]." 

( 5 )  Eph.  4:11  (  A.  D.  63 )  — "  And  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles  ;  and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers  [  7r<x.;u.e'>'as  ko.\  6iSaa/caAou5  ]." 

(6)1  Tim.  3 : 1,  2  (  A.  D.  66  )  —  "If  a  man  seeketh  the  office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.  Tho  bishop 
[tox  eirt'o-KOTToi-  ]  therefore  must  be  without  reproach."  On  this  last  passage,  Huther  in  Meyer's  Com 
remarks  :  "  Paul  in  the  beginuiug  looked  at  the  church  in  its  unity,  —  only  gradually 
does  he  make  prominent  its  leaders.  We  must  not  infer  that  the  churches  in  earlier 
time  were  without  leadership,  but  only  that  in  the  later  time  circumstances  were  such 
as  to  require  him  to  lay  emphasis  upon  the  pastor's  office  and  work."  See  also  Schaff, 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  62-75. 

McGiffert,  in  his  Apostolic  Church,  puts  the  dates  of  Paul's  Epistles  considerably 
earlier,  as  for  example  :  1  Thess.,  circ.  48  ;  1  Cor.,  e.  51,52 ;  Rom.,  52,  53  ;  Phil.,  56-58  ;  Eph.,  52,  53, 
or  56-58 ;  1  Tim.,  56-58.  But  even  before  the  earliest  Epistles  of  Paul  comes  James  5 :  14  —  "  Is 
any  among  you  sick  ?  let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church  "  —  written  about  48  A.  D.,  and  showing 
that  within  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  our  Lord  there  had  grown  up  a  very  defi- 
nite form  of  church  organization. 

On  the  question  how  far  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  in  the  organization  of  the  church, 
availed  themselves  of  the  synagogue  as  a  model,  see  Neauder,  Planting  and  Training, 
28-34.  The  ministry  of  the  church  is  without  doubt  an  outgrowth  and  adaptation  of  the 
eldership  of  the  synagogue.  In  the  synagogue,  there  were  elders  who  gave  themselves 
to  the  study  and  expounding  of  the  Scriptures.  The  synagogues  held  united  prayer, 
and  exercised  discipline.  They  were  democratic  in  government,  and  independent  of 
each  other.  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  election  of  officers  by  the  membership  of 
the  church  came  from  the  Greek  iKKK-qaia,  or  popular  assembly.  But  Edersbeim,  Life 
and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  1 :438,  says  of  the  elders  of  the  synagogue  that  "their 
election  depended  on  the  choice  of  the  congregation."  Talmud,  Berachob,  55  a:  "No 
ruler  is  appointed  over  a  congregation,  unless  the  congregation  is  consulted." 

(c  )  Any  number  of  believers,  therefore,  may  constitute  themselves  into 
a  Christian  church,  by  adopting  for  their  rule  of  faith  and  practice  Christ's 
law  as  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  by  associating  themselves 
together,  in  accordance  with  it,  for  his  worship  and  service.  It  is  impor- 
tant, where  practicable,  that  a  council  of  churches  be  previously  called,  to 
advise  the  brethren  proposing  this  union  as  to  the  desirableness  of  consti- 
tuting a  new  and  distinct  local  body  ;  and,  if  it  be  found  desirable,  to 
recognize  them,  after  its  formation,  as  being  a  church  of  Christ.  But  such 
action  of  a  council,  however  valuable  as  affording  ground  for  the  fellowship 
of  other  churches,  is  not  constitutive,  but  is  simply  declaratory  ;  and, 
without  such  action,  the  body  of  believers  alluded  to,  if  formed  after  the 
N.  T.  example,  may  notwithstanding  be  a  true  church  of  Christ.  Still 
further,  a  band  of  converts,  among  the  heathen  or  providentially  precluded 
from  access  to  existing  churches,  might  rightfully  appoint  one  of  their 
number  to  baptize  the  rest,  and  then  might  organize,  de  novo,  a  New 
Testament  church. 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE   CHUKCH.  903 

The  church  at  Antioch  was  apparently  self-created  and  self-directed.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  any  human  authority,  outside  of  the  converts  there,  was  invoked  to 
constitute  or  to  organize  the  church.  As  John  Spillsbury  put  it  about  1640  :  "  Where 
there  is  a  beginning,  sonic  must  be  first."  The  init  iative  lies  in  the  individual  convert, 
and  in  his  duty  to  obey  the  commands  of  Christ.  No  body  of  Christians  can  excuse 
itself  for  disobedience  upon  the  plea  that  it  has  no  officers.  It  can  elect  its  own 
officers.  Councils  have  no  authority  to  constitute  churches.  Their  work  is  simply 
that  of  recognizing  the  already  existing  organization  and  of  pledging  the  fellowship  of 
the  churches  which  they  represent.  If  God  can  of  the  stones  raise  up  children  unto 
Abraham,  he  can  also  raise  up  pastors  and  teachers  from  within  the  company  of 
believers  whom  he  has  converted  and  saved. 

Hagenbaeh,  Hist.  Doct.,  2:294,  quotes  from  Luther,  as  follows:  "If  a  company  of 
pious  Christian  laymen  were  captured  and  sent  to  a  desert  place,  and  had  not  among 
them  an  ordained  priest,  and  were  all  agreed  in  the  matter,  and  elected  one  and  told 
him  to  baptize,  administer  the  Mass,  absolve,  and  preach,  such  a  one  would  be  as  true 
a  priest  as  if  all  the  bishops  and  popes  bad  ordained  him."  Dexter,  Congregationalism, 
51 -"Luther  came  near  discovering  and  reproducing  Congregationalism.  Three 
things  checked  him:  1.  he  undervalued  polity  as  compared  with  doctrine;  2.  he 
reacted  from  Anabaptist  fanaticisms;  3.  he  thought  Providence  indicated  that  princes 
should  lead  and  people  should  follow.  So,  while  he  and  Zwingle  alike  held  the  Bible 
to  teach  that  all  ecclesiastical  power  inheres  under  Christ  in  the  congregation  of 
believers,  the  matter  ended  in  an  organization  of  superintendents  and  consistories, 
which  gradually  became  fatally  mixed  up  with  the  state." 

ELI.     Government  of  the  Church. 

1.     Nature  of  this  government  in  general. 

It  is  evident  from  the  direct  relation  of  each  member  of  the  church,  and 
so  of  the  church  as  a  whole,  to  Christ  as  sovereign  and  lawgiver,  that  the 
government  of  the  church,  so  far  as  regards  the  source  of  authority,  is  an 
absolute  monarchy. 

In  ascertaining  the  will  of  Christ,  however,  and  in  applying  his  com- 
mands to  providential  exigencies,  the  Holy  Spirit  enlightens  one  member 
through  the  counsel  of  another,  and  as  the  result  of  combined  deliberation, 
guides  the  whole  body  to  right  conclusions.  This  work  of  the  Spirit  is 
the  foundation  of  the  Scripture  injunctions  to  unity.  This  unity,  since  it 
is  a  unity  of  the  Spirit,  is  not  an  enforced,  but  an  intelligent  and  willing, 
unity.  While  Christ  is  sole  king,  therefore,  the  government  of  the  church, 
so  far  as  regards  the  interpretation  and  execution  of  his  will  by  the  body, 
is  an  absolute  democracy,  in  which  the  whole  body  of  members  is  intrusted 
with  the  duty  and  responsibility  of  carrying  out  the  laws  of  Christ  as 
expressed  in  his  word. 

The  seceders  from  the  established  church  of  Scotland,  on  the  memorable  18th  of  May, 
1813,  embodied  in  their  protest  the  following  words:  We  go  out  " from  an  establish- 
ment which  we  loved  and  prized,  through  interference  with  conscience,  the  dishonor 
done  to  Christ's  crown,  and  the  rejection  of  his  sole  and  supreme  authority  as  King  in 
his  church."  The  church  should  be  rightly  ordered,  since  it  is  the  representative  and 
guardian  of  God's  truth  —  its  "  pillar  and  ground  "  ( 1  Tim.  3 :  15 )  —  the  Holy  Spirit  working  in 
and  through  it. 

But  it  is  this  very  relation  of  the  church  to  Christ  and  his  truth  which  renders  it 
needful  to  insist  upon  the  right  of  each  member  of  the  church  to  his  private  judgment 
as  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture;  in  other  words,  absolute  monarchy,  in  this  case, 
requires  for  its  complement  an  absolute  democracy.  President  Wayland  :  "  No  indi- 
vidual Christian  or  number  of  individual  Christians,  no  individual  church  or  number  of 
individual  churches,  has  original  authority,  or  has  power  over  the  whole.  None  can 
add  to  or  subtract  from  the  laws  of  Christ,  or  interfere  with  his  direct  and  absolute 
sovereignty  over  the  hearts  and  lives  of  his  subjects."    Each  member,  as  equal  to  every 


904  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

other,  has  right  to  a  voice  in  the  decisions  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  no  action  of  the 
majority  can  bind  him  against  his  conviction  of  duty  to  Christ. 

John  Cotton  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  1643,  Questions  and  Answers  :  "  The  royal  govern- 
ment of  the  churches  is  in  Christ,  the  stewardly  or  ministerial  in  the  churches  them- 
selves." Cambridge  Platform,  1648,  10th  chapter  — "So  far  as  Christ  is  concerned, 
church  government  is  a  monarchy  ;  so  far  as  the  brotherhood  of  the  church  is  con- 
cerned, it  resembles  a  democracy."  Unfortunately  the  Platform  goes  further  and 
declares  that,  in  respect  of  the  Presbytery  and  the  Elders'  power,  it  is  also  an  aristo- 
cracy. 

Herbert  Spencer  and  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  held  diverse  views  in  philosophy,  were 
once  engaged  in  controversy.  While  the  discussion  was  running  through  the  press, 
Mr.  Spencer,  forced  by  lack  of  funds,  announced  that  he  would  be  obliged  to  discon- 
tinue the  publication  of  his  promised  books  on  science  and  philosophy.  Mr.  Mill  wrote 
him  at  once,  saying  that,  while  he  could  not  agree  with  him  in  some  things,  he  realized 
that  Mr.  Spencer's  investigations  on  the  whole  made  for  the  advance  of  truth,  and  so 
he  himself  would  be  glad  to  bear  the  expense  of  the  remaining  volumes.  Here  in  the 
philosophical  world  is  an  example  which  may  well  be  taken  to  heart  by  theolo- 
gians. All  Christians  indeed  are  bound  to  respect  in  others  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment while  stedfastly  adhering  themselves  to  the  truth  as  Christ  has  made  it  known  to 
them. 

Loyola,  founder  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  dug  for  each  neophyte  a  grave,  and  buried 
him  all  but  the  head,  asking  him  :  "Art  thou  dead  ?  "  When  he  said  :  "  Yes !  "  the  Gen- 
eral added  :  "  Rise  then,  and  begin  to  serve,  for  I  want  only  dead  men  to  serve  me." 
Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  wants  only  living  men  to  serve  him,  for  he  gives  life  and  gives 
it  abundantly  (John  10:10).  The  Salvation  Army,  in  like  manner,  violates  the  principle 
of  sole  allegiance  to  Christ,  and  like  the  Jesuits  puts  the  individual  conscience  and 
will  under  bonds  to  a  human  master.  Good  intentions  may  at  first  prevent  evil  results; 
but,  since  no  man  can  be  trusted  with  absolute  power,  the  ultimate  consequence,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Jesuits,  will  be  the  enslavement  of  the  subordinate  members.  Such 
autocracy  does  not  find  congenial  soil  in  America,  —  hence  the  rebellion  of  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Ballington  Booth. 

A.  Proof  that  the  government  of  the  church  is  democratic  or  congre- 
gational. 

(  a  )  From  the  duty  of  the  whole  church  to  preserve  unity  in  its  action. 

Rom.  12 :  16  —  "  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  toward  another  "  ;  1  Cor.  1 :  10  —  "  Now  I  beseech  you  ....  that  ye  all 
speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you ;  but  that  ye  be  perfected  together  in  the  same  mind  and 
in  the  same  judgment "  ;  2  Cor.  13:11  —  "beofthe  same  mind";  Eph.  4:3 — "giving  diligence  to  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  "  ;  Phil.  1 :27  —  "that  ye  stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with  one  soul  striving  for  the  faith  of 
the  gospel "  ;  1  Pet.  3:8 —  "  be  ye  all  likeminded." 

These  exhortations  to  unity  are  not  mere  counsels  to  passive  submission,  such  as 
might  be  given  under  a  hierarchy,  or  to  the  members  of  a  society  of  Jesuits;  they  are 
counsels  to  cooperation  and  to  harmonious  judgment.  Each  member,  while  forming 
his  own  opinions  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  is  to  remember  that  the  other  mem- 
bers have  the  Spirit  also,  and  that  a  final  conclusion  as  to  the  will  of  God  is  to  be 
reached  only  through  comparison  of  views.  The  exhortation  to  unity  is  therefore  an 
exhortation  to  be  open-minded,  docile,  ready  to  subject  our  opinions  to  discussion,  to 
welcome  new  light  with  regard  to  them,  and  to  give  up  any  opinion  when  we  find  it  to 
be  in  the  wrong.  The  church  is  in  general  to  secure  unanimity  by  moral  suasion  only  ; 
though,  in  case  of  wilful  and  perverse  opposition  to  its  decisions,  it  may  be  necessary 
to  secure  unity  by  excluding  an  obstructive  member,  for  schism. 

A  quiet  and  peaceful  unity  is  the  result  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  in  the  hearts  of 
Christians.  New  Testament  church  government  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that 
Christ  dwells  in  all  believers.  Baptist  polity  is  the  best  possible  polity  for  good  people. 
Christ  has  made  no  provision  for  an  unregenerate  church-membership,  and  for 
Satanic  possession  of  Christians.  It  is  best  that  a  church  in  which  Christ  does  not 
dwell  should  by  dissension  reveal  its  weakness,  and  fall  to  pieces;  and  any  outward 
organization  that  conceals  inward  disintegration,  and  compels  a  merely  formal  union 
after  the  Holy  Spirit  has  departed,  is  a  hindrance  instead  of  a  help  to  true  religion. 

Congregationalism  is  not  a  strong  government  to  look  at.  Neither  is  the  solar  system. 
Its  enemies  call  it  a  rope  of  sand.  It  is  rather  a  rope  of  iron  filings  held  together  by  a 
magnetic  current.  Wordsworth :  "  Mightier  far  Than  strength  of  nerve  or  sinew,  or  the 


GOVERNMENT   OF  THE   CHURCH.  905 

sway  Of  magic  poi-tent  over  sun  and  star,  Is  love."  President  Wayland :  "  We  do  not 
need  any  hoops  of  iron  or  steel  to  hold  us  together."  At  high  tide  all  the  little  pools 
along  the  sea  shore  are  fused  together.  The  unity  produced  by  the  inflowing  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  is  better  than  any  mere  external  unity,  whether  of  organization  or  of 
creed,  whether  of  Romanism  or  of  Protestantism.  The  times  of  the  greatest  external 
unity,  as  under  Hildebrand,  were  times  of  the  church's  deepest  moral  corruption.  A 
revival  of  religion  is  a  better  cure  for  church  quarrels  than  any  change  in  church 
organization  could  effect.  In  the  early  church,  though  there  was  no  common  govern- 
ment, unity  was  promoted  by  active  intercourse.  Hospitality,  regular  delegates,  itin- 
erant apostles  and  prophets,  apostolic  and  other  epistles,  still  later  the  gospels,  perse- 
cution, and  even  heresy,  promoted  unity  —  heresy  compelling  the  exclusion  of  the 
unworthy  and  factious  elements  in  the  Christian  community. 

Dr.  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia  :  "  Not  a  word  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 

exhibits  the  one  ecclesia  as  made  up  of  many  ecclesicv The  members  which  make 

up  the  one  ecclesia  are  not  communities,  but  individual  men The  unity  of  tin: 

universal  ecclesia  ....  isatiuth  of  theology  and  religion,  not  a  fact  of  what  we  call 

ecclesiastical  politics The  ecclesia  itself,  i.  e.,  the  sum  of  all  its  male  members,  is 

the  primary  body,  and,  it  would  seem,  even  the  primary  authority Of  officers 

higher  than  elders  we  find  nothing  that  points  to  an  institution  or  system,  nothing  like 

the  Episcopal  system  of  later  times The  monarchical  principle  receives  practical 

though  limited  recognition  in  the  position  ultimately  held  by  St.  James  at  Jerusalem, 
and  in  the  temporary  functions  entrusted  by  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus."  On  this 
last  statement  Bartlett,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  July,  1897,  says  that  James  held  an  unique 
position  as  brother  of  our  Lord,  while  Paul  left  the  communities  organized  by  Timothy 
and  Titus  to  govern  themselves,  when  once  their  organization  was  set  agoing.  There 
was  no  permanent  diocesan  episcopate,  in  which  ODe  man  presided  over  many  churches. 
The  ecdesim  had  for  their  officers  only  bishops  and  deacons. 

Should  not  the  majority  rule  in  a  Baptist  church  ?  No,  not  a  bare  majority,  when  there 
are  opposing  convictions  on  the  part  of  a  large  minority.  What  should  rule  is  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit.  What  indicates  his  mind  is  the  gradual  unification  of  conviction  and 
opinion  on  the  part  of  the  whole  body  in  support  of  some  definite  plan,  so  that  the 
whole  church  moves  together.  The  large  church  has  the  advantage  over  the  small 
church  in  that  the  single  crotchety  member  cannot  do  so  much  harm.  One  man  in  a 
small  boat  can  easily  upset  it,  but  not  so  in  the  great  ship.  Patient  waiting,  persuasion, 
and  prayer,  will  ordinarily  win  over  the  recalcitrant.  It  is  not  to  be  denied,  however, 
that  patience  may  have  its  limits,  and  that  unity  may  sometimes  need  to  be  purchased 
by  Becession  and  the  forming  of  a  new  local  church  whose  members  can  work  harmon- 
iously together. 

(b)  From  the  responsibility  of  the  whole  church  for  maintaining  pure 
doctrine  and  practice. 

1  Tun.  3:15 — "the  church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth";  Jude3  —  "exhorting  you  to 
contend  earnestly  for  the  faiih  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  sa:nts  "  ;  Rev.  2  and  3  —  exhortations  to 
the  seven  churches  of  Asia  to  maintain  pure  doctrine  and  practice.  In  all  these  pas- 
sages, pastoral  charges  are  given,  not  by  a  so-called  bishop  to  his  subordinate  priests, 
but  by  an  apostle  to  the  whole  church  and  to  all  its  members. 

In  1  Tim.  3:15,  Dr.  Hort  would  translate  "a  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth" — apparently  refer- 
ring to  the  local  church  as  one  of  many.  Eph. 3: 18  —  "strong  to  apprehend  with  all  saints  what  is  the 
breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth."  Edith  Wharton,  Vesalius  in  Zante,  in  N.  A.  Rev.,  Nov. 
1892  —  "Truth  ismany-tongued.  What  one  man  failed  to  speak,  another  finds  Another 
word  for.  May  not  all  converge,  In  some  vast  utterance  of  which  you  and  I,  Fallopius, 
were  but  the  halting  syllables  ?  "  Bruce,  Training  of  the  Twelve,  shows  that  the 
Twelve  probably  knew  the  whole  O.  T.  by  heart.  Paudita  Ramabai,  at  Oxford,  when 
visiting  Max  Miiller,  recited  from  the  Rig  Veda  passim,  and  showed  that  she  knew 
more  of  it  by  heart  than  the  whole  contents  of  the  O.  T. 

(  c  )  From  the  committing  of  the  ordinances  to  the  charge  of  the  whole 
church  to  observe  and  guard.  As  the  church  expresses  truth  in  her  teach- 
ing, so  she  is  to  express  it  in  symbol  through  the  ordinances. 

Mat.  28 :  19,  20  —  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  ....  teaching  them  " ;  cf. 
Luke  24  :  33  —  "  And  they  rose  up  that  very  hour  ....  found  the  eleven  gathered  together,  and  them  that  were  with 


90G  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

them  " ;  Acts  1 :  15  —  "  And  in  these  days  Peter  stood  up  in  the  midst  of  the  brethren,  and  said  ( and  there  was  a  multi- 
tude of  persons  gathered  together,  about  a  hundred  and  twenty)";  1  Cor.  15:6  — "then  he  appeared  to  above  five 
hundred  brethren  at  once  "  —  those  passages  show  that  it  was  not  to  the  eleven  apostles  alone 
that  Jesus  committed  the  ordinances. 

1  Cor.  11 : 2  —  "  Now  I  praise  you  that  ye  remember  me  in  all  things,  and  hold  fast  the  traditions,  even  as  I  delivered 
them  to  you  " ;  cf.  23,  24  —  "  For  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread ;  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  This  is  my  body, 
which  is  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me  "  —  here  Paul  commits  the  Lord's  Supper  into  the 
charge,  not  of  the  body  of  officials,  liut  of  the  whole  church.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  therefore,  are  not  to  be  administered  at  the  discretion  of  the  individual  min- 
ister. He  is  simply  the  organ  of  the  church  ;  and  pocket  baptismal  and  communion 
services  are  without  warrant.  See  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  399 ;  Robinson, 
Harmony  of  Gospels,  notes,  1 170. 

( d  )  From  the  election  by  the  whole  church,  of  its  own  officers  and  dele- 
gates. In  Acts  14  :  23,  the  literal  interpretation  of  xEll'0T0V'/aavT£C  is  not  to 
be  pressed.  In  Titus  1:5,  "  when  Paul  empowers  Titus  to  set  presiding 
officers  over  the  communities,  this  circumstance  decides  nothing  as  to  the 
mode  of  choice,  nor  is  a  choice  by  the  community  itself  thereby  necessarily 
excluded." 

Acts  1 :  23,  26  —  "  And  they  put  forward  two  ....  and  they  gave  lots  for  them  ;  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias ;  and 
he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles  "  ;  6  : 3,  5  —  "  Look  ye  out  therefore,  brethren,  from  among  you  seven  men  of 
good  report  ....  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude :  and  they  chose  Stephen,  ....  and  Philip,  and  Pro- 
chorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolaus" — as  deacons  ;  Acts  13:2,  3  —  "And  as  they 
ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Spirit  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have 
called  them.    Then,  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away." 

On  this  passage,  see  Meyer's  comment :  "  '  Ministered '  here  expresses  the  act  of  celebrat- 
ing divine  service  on  the  part  of  the  whole  church.  To  refer  ai>Tu>i>  to  the  'prophets  and 
teachers'  is  forbidden  by  the  d^opio-are  —  and  by  verse  3.  This  interpretation  would  confine 
this  most  important  mission-act  to  five  persons,  of  whom  two  were  the  missionaries 
sent ;  and  the  church  would  have  had  no  part  in  it,  even  through  its  presbyters.  This 
agrees,  neither  with  the  common  possession  of  the  Spirit  in  the  apostolic  church,  nor 
with  the  concrete  cases  of  the  choice  of  an  apostle  (jsh.  1 )  and  of  deacons  ( ch.  6 ).  Com- 
pare 14:27,  where  the  returned  missionaries  report  to  the  church.  The  imposition  of 
hands  ( verse  3 )  is  by  the  presbyters,  as  representatives  of  the  whole  church.  Thesubject 
in  verses  2  and  3  is  'the  church '  —  (represented  by  the  presbyters  in  this  ca9e ).  The  church 
sends  the  missionaries  to  the  heathen,  and  consecrates  them  through  its  elders." 

Acts  15  : 2,  4,  22,  30  —  "  the  brethren  appointed  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other  of  them,  should  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  ....  And  when  they  were  oome  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  of  the  church  and  the  apostles  and  the 
elders  ....  Then  it  seemed  good  to  the  apostles  and  the  elders,  with  the  whole  church,  to  choose  men  out  of  their 
company,  and  send  them  to  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  ....  So  they  ....  came  down  to  Antioch ;  and  having 
gathered  the  multitude  together,  they  delivered  the  epistle  "  ;  2  Cor.  8 :  19  —  "  who  was  also  appointed  by  the  churches 
to  travel  with  us  in  the  matter  of  this  grace"— the  contribution  for  the  poor  in  Jerusalem  ;  Acts 
14 :  23  —  "  And  when  they  had  appointed  (  xetpoToi'Tjo-at'Te?  )  for  them  elders  in  every  church  "  —  the  apostles 
announced  the  election  of  the  church,  as  a  College  President  confers  degrees,  i.  e.,  by 
announcing  degrees  conferred  by  the  Boaid  of  Trustees.  To  this  same  effect  witnesses 
the  newly  discovered  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  chapter  15 :  "  Appoint  there- 
fore for  yourselves  bishops  and  deacons." 

The  derivation  of  xeipoToi^o-ai'Tes,  holding  up  of  hands,  as  in  a  popular  vote,  is  not  to  be 
pressed,  any  more  than  is  the  derivation  of  eKxArjo-ia  from  KaAe'co.  The  former  had  come 
to  mean  simply  'to  appoint,'  without  reference  to  the  manner  of  appointment,  as  the 
latter  had  come  to  mean  an  'assembly,'  without  reference  to  the  calling  of  its  mem- 
bers by  God.  That  the  church  at  Antioch  "separated"  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  that 
this  was  not  done  simply  by  the  five  persons  mentioned,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that, 
when  Paul  and  Barnabas  returned  from  the  missionary  journey,  they  reported  not  to 
these  five,  but  to  the  whole  church.  So  when  the  church  at  Antioch  sent  delegates  to 
Jerusalem,  the  letter  of  the  Jerusalem  church  is  thus  addressed  :  "The  apostles  and  the  elders, 
brethren,  unto  the  brethren  who  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch  and  Syria  and  Cilicia  "  (  Acts  15 :  23 ).  The  Twelve 
had  only  spiritual  authority.  They  could  advise,  but  they  did  not  command.  Hence 
they  could  not  transmit  government,  since  they  had  it  not.  They  could  demand  obedi- 
ence, only  as  they  convinced  their  hearers  that  their  word  was  truth.  It  was  not  they 
who  commanded,  but  their  Master. 


GOVERNMENT  OP  THE   CHURCH.  90? 

Hackett,  Com.  on  Acts  —  "  xetpoToi-jjaavre?  is  not  to  be  pressed,  since  Faul  and  Barnaoas 
constitute  the  persons  ordaining-.  It  may  possibly  indicate  a  concurrent  appointment, 
in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice  of  universal  suffrage ;  but  the  burden  of  proof 
lies  on  those  who  would  so  modify  the  meaning  of  the  verb.  The  word  is  frequently 
used  in  the  sense  of  choosing,  appointing,  with  reference  to  the  formality  of  raising 
the  hand."  Per  contra,  see  Meyer,  in  loco:  "The  church  officers  were  elective.  As 
appears  from  analogy  of  6:2-6  (election  of  deacons),  the  word  xeLPOTOl'1)(ral"r^  retains 
its  et yinological  sense,  and  does  not  mean  '  constituted '  or  '  created.'  Their  choice  was 
a  recognition  of  a  gift  already  bestowed,  —  not  the  ground  of  the  office  and  source  of 
authority,  but  merely  the  means  by  which  the  gift  becomes  [known,  recognized,  and] 
an  actual  office  in  the  church." 

Baumgarten,  Apostolic  History,  1:456  — "They  — the  two  apostles  — allow  presbyters 
to  be  chosen  for  the  community  by  voting."  Alexander,  Com.  on  Acts  —  "  The  method 
of  election  here,  as  the  expression  xiLPOTO,'^<Tavzi'^  indicates,  was  the  same  as  t  hat  in  Acts 
6:5,6,  where  the  people  chpse  the  seven,  and  the  twelve  ordained  them."  Barnes,  Com. 
on  Acts:  "The  apostles  presided  in  the  assembly  where  the  choice  was  made,— 
appointed  them  in  the  usual  way  by  the  suffrage  of  the  people."  Dexter,  Congregation- 
alism, PS8 —"' Ordained '  means  here  'prompted  and  secured  the  election'  of  elders  in 
every  church."  SoiuTitusl:5 — "  appoint  elders  in  every  city."  Compare  the  Latin:  "dictator 
consules  creavit "  =  prompted  and  secured  t  he  election  of  consuls  by  the  people.  See 
Neander,  Church  History,  1:189;  Guericke,  Church  History,  1:110;  Meyer,  on  Acts  13: 2. 

The  Watchman,  Nov.  7, 1901  — "The  root-difficulty  with  many  schemes  of  statecraft 
is  to  be  found  in  deep-seated  distrust  of  the  capacities  and  possibilities  of  men.  Wen- 
dell Phillips  once  said  that  n<  ithing  so  impressed  him  with  the  power  of  the  gospel  to 
solve  our  problems  as  the  sight  of  a  prince  and  a  peasant  kneeling  side  by  side  in  a 
European  Cathedral."  Dr.  W.  R.  Huntington  makes  the  strong  points  of  Congrega- 
tionalism to  be:  1.  a  lofty  estimate  of  the  value  of  trained  intelligence  in  the  Christian 
ministry ;  2.  a  clear  recognition  of  the  duty  of  every  lay  member  of  a  church  to  take  an 
active  interest  in  its  affairs,  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual.  He  regards  the  weaknesses  of 
Congregationalism  to  be  :  1.  a  certain  incapacity  for  expansion  beyond  the  territorial 
limits  within  which  it  is  indigenous  ;  2.  an  undervaluation  of  the  mystical  or  sacra- 
mental, as  contrasted  with  the  doctrinal  and  practical  sides  of  religion.  He  argues  for 
the  object-symbolism  as  well  as  the  verbal-symbolism  of  the  real  presence  and  grace  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Dread  of  idolatry,  he  thinks,  should  not  make  us  indifferent  to 
the  value  of  sacraments.  Baptists,  we  reply,  may  fairly  claim  that  they  escape  both  of 
these  charges  against  ordinary  Congregationalism,  in  that  they  have  shown  unlimited 
capacity  of  expansion,  and  in  that  they  make  very  much  of  the  symbolism  of  the 
ordinances. 

(e)  From  the  power  of  the  whole  church  to  exercise  discipline.  Pas- 
sages which  show  the  right  of  the  whole  body  to  exclude,  show  also  the 
right  of  the  whole  body  to  admit,  members. 

Mat.  18 :  17  —  "  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church :  and  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  church  also,  let 
him  be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the  publican.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  What  things  soever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth 
shall  ba  bound  in  heaven ;  and  what  things  soever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven ' '  —  words  often 
inscribed  over  Roman  Catholic  confessionals,  but  improperly,  since  they  refer  not  to 
the  decisions  of  a  single  priest,  but  to  the  decisions  of  the  whole  body  of  believers 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Mat.  18:17,  quoted  above,  we  see  that  the  church  has 
authority,  that  it  is  bound  to  take  cognizance  of  offences,  and  that  its  action  is  final. 
If  there  had  been  in  the  mind  of  our  Lord  any  other  than  a  democratic  form  of  govern- 
ment, he  would  have  referred  the  aggrieved  party  to  pastor,  priest,  or  presbytery,  and, 
in  case  of  a  wrong  decision  by  the  church,  would  have  mentioned  some  synod  or 
assembly  to  which  the  aggrieved  person  might  appeal.  But  he  throws  all  the  responsi- 
bility upon  the  whole  body  of  believers.  Cf.  Num.  15:35  — "all  the  congregation  shall  stone  him 
with  stones "  —  the  man  who  gathered  sticks  on  the  Sabbath  day.  Every  Israelite  was  to 
have  part  in  the  execution  of  the  penalty. 

1  Cor.  5:4,  5,  13 — "ye  being  gathered  together  ....  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  ....  Put  away  the 
wicked  man  from  among  yourselves "  ;  2  Cor.  2  :  6,  7  —  "Sufficient  to  such  a  one  is  this  punishment  which  was  inflicted 
by  the  many;  so  that  contrariwise  ye  should  rather  forgive  him  and  comfort  him"  ;  7: 11 —  "For  behold,  this  self- 
same thing  ....  what  earnest  care  it  wrought  in  you,  yea,  what  clearing  of  yourselves  ....  In  every  thing  ye 
approved  yourselves  to  be  pure  in  the  matter  "  ;  2  Thess.  3 :  6,  14, 15  —  "  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that 


908  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

walketh  disorderly  ....  if  any  man  obeyeth  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  that  ye  have  no  company 
with  him,  to  the  end  that  he  may  be  ashamed.  And  yet  count  him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother." 
The  evils  in  the  church  at  Corinth  were  such  as  could  exist  only  in  a  democratic  body, 
and  Paul  does  not  enjoin  upon  the  church  a  change  of  government,  but  a  change  of 
heart.  Paul  does  not  himself  excommunicate  the  incestuous  man,  but  he  urges  the 
church  to  excommunicate  him. 

The  educational  influence  upon  the  whole  church  of  this  election  of  pastors  and 
deacons,  choosing  of  delegates,  admission  and  exclusion  of  members,  management  of 
church  finance  and  general  conduct  of  business,  carrying  on  of  missionary  operations 
and  raising  of  contributions,  together  with  responsibility  for  correct  doctrine  and 
practice,  cannot  be  overestimated.  The  whole  body  can  know  those  who  apply  for 
admission,  better  than  pastors  or  eiders  can.  To  put  the  whole  government  of  the 
church  into  the  hands  of  a  few  is  to  deprive  the  membership  of  one  great  means  of 
Christian  training  and  progress.  Hence  the  pastor's  duty  is  to  develop  the  self-govern- 
ment of  the  church.  The  missionary  should  not  command,  but  advise.  That  minister 
is  most  successful  who  gets  the  whole  body  to  move,  and  who  renders  the  church  inde- 
pendent of  himself.  The  test  of  his  work  is  not  while  he  is  with  them,  but  after  he 
leaves  them.  Then  it  can  be  seen  whether  he  has  taught  them  to  follow  him,  or  to 
follow  Christ;  whether  he  has  led  them  to  the  formation  of  habits  of  independent 
Christian  activity,  or  whether  he  has  made  them  passively  dependent  upon  himself. 

It  should  be  the  ambition  of  the  pastor  not  "  to  run  the  church,"  but  to  teach  the 
church  intelligently  and  Scripturally  to  manage  its  own  affairs.  The  word  "  minister  " 
means,  not  master,  but  servant.  The  true  pastor  inspires,  but  he  does  not  drive.  He 
is  like  the  trusty  mountain  guide,  who  carries  a  load  thrice  as  heavy  as  that  of  the 
man  he  serves,  who  leads  in  safe  paths  and  points  out  dangers,  but  who  neither  shouts 
nor  compels  obedience.  The  individual  Christian  should  be  taught :  1.  to  realize  the 
privilege  of  church  membership;  2.  to  fit  himself  to  use  his  privilege;  3.  to  exercise 
his  rights  as  a  church  member ;  4.  to  glory  in  the  New  Testament  system  of  church 
government,  and  to  defend  and  propagate  it. 

A  Christian  pastor  can  either  rule,  or  he  can  have  the  reputation  of  ruling ;  but  he 
can  not  do  both.  Real  ruling  involves  a  sinking  of  self,  a  working  through  others,  a 
doing  of  nothing  that  some  one  else  can  be  got  to  do.  The  reputation  of  ruling  leads 
sooner  or  later  to  the  loss  of  real  influence,  and  to  the  decline  of  the  activities  of  the 
church  itself.  See  Coleman,  Manual  of  Prelacy  and  Ritualism,  87-125;  and  on  the 
advantages  of  Congregationalism  over  every  other  form  of  church-polity,  see  Dexter, 
Congregationalism,  236-296.  Dexter,  290,  note,  quotes  from  Belcher's  Religious  Denomi- 
nations of  the  U.  S.,  184,  as  follows :  "  Jefferson  said  that  he  considered  Baptist  church 
government  the  only  form  of  pure  democracy  which  then  existed  in  the  world,  and 
had  concluded  that  it  wi  >u  Id  be  the  best  plan  of  government  for  the  American  Colonies. 
This  was  eight  or  ten  years  before  the  American  Revolution."  On  Baptist  democracy, 
see  Thomas  Armitage,  in  N.  Amer.  Rev.,  March,  1887 :  232-243. 

John  Fiske,  Beginnings  of  New  England  :  "  In  a  church  based  upon  such  a  theology 
[  that  of  Calvin  ],  there  was  no  room  for  prelacy.  Each  single  church  tended  to  become 
iin  independent  congregation  of  worshipers,  constituting  one  of  the  most  effective 
schools  that  has  ever  existed  for  training  men  in  local  self-government."  Schurman, 
Agnosticism,  100  —  "  The  Baptists,  who  are  nominally  Calvinists,  are  now,  as  they  were 
at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  second  in  numerical  rank  [  in  America  ] ;  but  their 
fundamental  principle  —  the  Bible,  the  Bible  only  —  taken  in  connection  with  their 
polity,  has  enabled  them  silently  to  drop  the  old  theology  and  unconsciously  to  adjust 
themselves  to  the  new  spiritual  environment."  We  prefer  to  say  that  Baptists  have 
not  dropped  the  old  theology,  but  have  given  it  new  interpretation  and  application ; 
see  A.  H.  Strong,  Our  Denominational  Outlook,  Sermon  in  Cleveland,  1904. 

B.  Erroneous  views  as  to  church,  government  refuted  by  the  foregoing 
passages. 

(  a  )  The  world-church  theory,  or  the  Komanist  view.  —  This  holds  that 
all  local  churches  are  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  the  successor  of  Peter  and  the  infallible  vicegerent  of  Christ, 
and,  as  thus  united,  constitute  the  one  and  only  church  of  Christ  on  earth. 
We  reply : 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE   CHURCH.  909 

First, — Christ  gave  no  such  supreme  authority  to  Peter.  Mat.  16  :  18, 19, 
simply  refers  to  the  personal  position  of  Peter  as  first  confessor  of  Christ 
and  preacher  of  his  name  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Hence  other  apostles 
also  constituted  the  foundation  ( Eph.  2  :  20  ;  Rev.  21  :  14  ).  On  one  occa- 
sion, the  counsel  of  James  was  regarded  as  of  equal  weight  with  that  of 
Peter  (Acts  15  :  7-30),  while  on  another  occasion  Peter  was  rebuked  by  Paul 
(  Gal.  2  :  11 ),  and  Peter  calls  himself  only  a  fellow-elder  (1  Pet.  5:1). 

Mat.  16  :  18, 19  —  "And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  chureh  ;  and  the 
gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  tho  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shail  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  loose  on  earth  shalt  be  loosed  in  heaven." 
Peter  exercised  tliis  power  of  the  keys  for  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  by  being-  the  first 
to  preach  Christ  to  them,  and  so  admit  them  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  "rock  "  is 
a  confessing-  heart.  The  confession  of  Christ  makes  Peter  a  rock  upon  which  the 
church  can  be  built.  Plumptre  on  Epistles  of  Peter,  Introd.,  14  —  "He  was  a  stone  — 
one  with  that  rock  with  which  he  was  now  joined  by  an  indissoluble  union."  But 
others  conic  to  06  associated  with  him:  Eph.  2 : 20  — "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Christ  Jesus  bim:elf  being  the  chief  corner  stone";  Rev.  21:14  —  "And  the  wall  of  the  city  had  twelvo 
foundations,  and  on  them  twelve  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb."  Acts  15:7-30--  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem.  'Gal.  2: 11  —"But  when  Cephas  came  to  Antioch,  I  resisted  him  to  the  face,  because  he  stood  con- 
demned" ;  1  Pet.  5:1  —  "The  elders  therefore  among  you  I  eihort,  who  am  a  fellow-elder." 

Here  it  should  be  remembered  that  three  things  were  necessary  to  constitute  an 
apostle:  ( l)he  must  have  seen  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  bo  as  to  be  a  witness  to  the 
fact  that  Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead;  ( :„* )  he  must  be  a  worker  of  miracles,  to 
certify  that  he  was  Christ's  messenger ;  (3)  he  must  be  an  inspired  teacher  of  Christ's 
truth,  so  that  his  final  utterances  are  the  very  word  of  Cod.  in  Rom.  16:7 — "  Salute  Aadro- 
nicus  and  Junias,  my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles"  means  simply  ; 
'  who  axe  highly  esteemed  among,  or  by,  the  apostles.'  Barnabas  is  called  an  apostle, 
in  the  etymological  sense  of  a  messenger  :  Acts  13  : 2,  3  —  "Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 
whereunto  I  have  called  them.  Then,  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them 
away  "  ;  Heb.  3:1  —  "  consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  confession,  even  Jesus."  In  this  latter  sense, 
the  number  of  the  apostles  was  not  limited  to  twelve. 

Protestants  err  in  denying  the  reference  in  Mat.  16:18  to  Peter;  Christ  recognizes 
Peter's  personality  in  the  founding  of  his  kingdom.  But  Romanists  equally  err  in 
ignoring  Peter's  confession  as  constituting  him  the  ''rock."  Creeds  and  confessions  alone 
will  never  convert  the  world;  they  need  to  be  embodied  in  living  personalities  in 
order  to  save;  this  is  the  grain  of  correct  doctrine  in  Romanism.  On  the  other  hand, 
men  without  a  faith,  which  they  are  willing  to  confess  at  every  cost,  will  never  eon- 
vert  the  world;  there  must  be  a  substance  of  doctrine  with  regard  to  sin,  and  with 
regard  to  Christ  as  the  divine  Savior  from  sin  ;  this  is  the  just  contention  of  Protest- 
antism. Baptist  doctrine  combines  the  merits  of  both  systems.  It  has  both  personal- 
ity and  confession.  It  is  not  hierarchical,  but  experiential.  It  insists,  not  upon 
abstractions,  but  upon  life.  Truth  without  a  body  is  as  powerless  as  a  body  without 
truth.  A  flag  without  an  army  is  even  worse  than  an  army  without  a  flag.  Phillips 
Brooks:  "The  truth  of  God  working  through  the  personality  of  man  has  been  the 
salvation  of  the  world."  Pascal :  "  Catholicism  is  a  church  without  a  religion ;  Protest- 
antism is  a  religion  without  a  church."    Yes,  we  reply,  if  church  means  hierarchy. 

Secondly,  —  If  Peter  had  such  authority  given  him,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  had  power  to  transmit  it  to  others. 

Fisher,  Hist.  Christian  Church,  247— ""William  of  Occam  (1280-1347)  composed  a 
treatise  on  the  power  of  the  pope.  He  went  beyond  his  predecessors  in  arguing  that 
the  church,  since  it  has  its  unity  in  Christ,  is  not  under  the  necessity  of  being  subject 
to  a  single  primate.  He  placed  the  Emperor  and  the  General  Council  above  the 
pope,  as  his  judges.  In  matters  of  faith  he  would  not  allow  infallibility  even  to  the 
General  Councils.  '  Only  Holy  Scripture  and  the  beliefs  of  the  universal  church  are  of 
absolute  validity.'"  W.  Rauschenbusch,  in  The  Examiner,  July  28, 1892— "The  age 
of  an  ecclesiastical  organization,  instead  of  being  an  argument  in  its  favor,  is  presump- 
tive evidence  against  it,  because  all  bodies  organized  for  moral  or  religious  ends  mani- 
fest such  a  frightful  inclination  to  become  corrupt Marks  of  the  true  church 


910         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

are :  present  spiritual  power,  loyalty  to  Jesus,  an  unworldly  morality,  seeking  and 
saving-  the  lost,  self-sacrifice  and  self-crucifixion." 

Romanism  holds  to  a  transmitted  infallibility.  The  pope  is  infallible :  1.  when  he 
speaks  as  pope  ;  2.  when  he  speaks  for  the  whole  church ;  3.  when  he  defines  doctrine, 
or  passes  a  final  judgment ;  4.  when  the  doctrine  thus  defined  is  within  the  sphere  of 
faith  or  morality  ;  see  Brandis,  in  N.  A.  Rev.,  Dec.  1892  :  654.  Schurman,  Belief  in  God, 
114—"  Like  the  Christian  pope,  Zeus  is  conceived  in  the  Homeric  poems  to  be  fallible 
as  an  individual,  but  infallible  as  head  of  the  sacred  convocation.  The  other  gods  are 
only  his  representatives  and  executives."  But,  even  if  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff were  acknowledged,  there  would  still  be  abundant  proof  that  he  is  not  infallible. 
The  condemnation  of  the  letters  of  Pope  Honorius,  acknowledging  monothelism  and 
ordering  it  to  be  preached,  by  Pope  Martin  I  and  the  first  Council  of  Lateran  in  049, 
shows  that  both  could  not  be  right.  Yet  both  were  ex  cathedra  utterances,  one  denying 
what  the  other  affirmed.  Perrone  concedes  that  only  one  error  committed  by  a  pope  in 
an  ex  cathedra  announcement  would  be  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility. 

Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  139,  140,  gives  instances  of  papal  inconsistencies  and 
contradictions,  and  shows  that  Roman  Catholicism  does  not  answer  to  either  one  of  its 
four  notes  or  marks  of  a  true  church,  viz. :  1.  unity;  2.  sanctity;  3.  universality;  4. 
apostolicity.  Dean  Stanley  had  an  interview  with  Pope  Pius  IX,  and  came  away  saying 
that  the  infallible  man  had  made  more  blunders  in  a  twenty  minutes'  conversation  than 
any  person  he  had  ever  met.  Dr.  Fairbairn  facetiously  defines  infallibility,  as  "inability 
to  detect  errors  even  where  they  are  most  manifest."  He  speaks  of  "  the  folly  of  the  men 
who  think  they  hold  God  in  their  custody,  and  distribute  him  to  whomsoever  they  will." 
The  Pope  of  Rome  can  no  more  trace  his  official  descent  from  Peter  than  Alexander 
the  Great  could  trace  his  personal  descent  from  Jupiter. 

Thirdly, — There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome, 
much  less  that  he  was  bishop  of  Rome. 

Clement  of  Rome  refers  to  Peter  as  a  martyr,  but  he  makes  no  claim  for  Rome  as  the 
place  of  his  martyrdom.  The  tradition  that  Peter  preached  at  Rome  and  founded  a 
church  there  dates  back  only  to  Dionysius  of  Corinth  and  Irenaeus  of  Lyons,  who  did 
not  write  earlier  than  the  eighth  decade  of  the  second  century,  or  more  than  a  hundred 
years  after  Peter's  death.  Professor  Lepsius  of  Jena  submitted  the  Roman  tradition  to 
a  searching  examination,  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  Peter  was  never  in  Italy. 

A.  A.  Hodge,  in  Princetoniana,  129  — "  Three  unproved  assumptions:  1.  that  Peter 
was  primate ;  2.  that  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome ;  3.  that  Peter  was  primate  and  bishop 
of  Rome.  The  last  is  not  unimportant;  because  Clement,  for  instance,  might  have 
succeeded  to  the  bishopric  of  Rome  without  the  primacy ;  as  Queen  Victoria  came  to 
the  crown  of  England,  but  not  to  that  of  Hanover.  Or,  to  come  neai-er  home,  Ulysses 
S.  Grant  was  president  of  the  United  States  and  husband  of  Mrs.  Grant.  Mr.  Hayes 
succeeded  him,  but  not  in  both  capacities  !  " 

On  the  question  whether  Peter  founded  the  Roman  Church,  see  Meyer,  Com.  on 
Romans,  transl.,  vol.  1 :  23  — "  Paul  followed  the  principle  of  not  interfering  with  another 
apostle's  field  of  labor.  Hence  Peter  could  not  have  been  laboring  at  Rome,  at  the  time 
when  Paul  wrote  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  from  Ephesus  ;  cf.  Acts  19 :  21 ;  Rom.  15  :  20 ;  2  Cor. 
10 :  16,"  Meyer  thinks  Peter  was  martyred  at  Rome,  but  that  he  did  not  found  the  Roman 
church,  the  origin  of  which  is  unknown.  "  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,"  he  says,  "since 
Peter  cannot  have  labored  at  Rome  before  it  was  written,  is  a  fact  destructive  of  the 
historical  basis  of  the  Papacy  "  ( p.  28 ).    See  also  Elliott,  Horae  Apocalypticae,  3 :  560. 

Fourthly, — There  is  no  evidence  that  he  really  did  so  appoint  the  bishops 
of  Rome  as  his  successors. 

Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  191— "The  church  was  first  the  company  of  those 
united  to  Christ  and  living  in  Christ ;  then  it  became  a  society  based  on  creed  ;  finally 
a  society  based  on  clergy."  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  130—"  The  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  real '  Vicar  of  Christ.'  Would  any  one  desire  to  find  the  clue  to  the  great  apostasy 
whose  dark  eclipse  now  covers  two  thirds  of  nominal  Christendom,  here  it  is:  The 
rule  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ignored  in  the  church  ;  the  servants  of  the  house 
assuming  mastery  and  encroaching  more  and  more  on  the  prerogatives  of  the  Head, 
till  at  last  one  man  sets  himself  up  as  the  administrator  of  the  church,  and  daringly 
usurps  the  name  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ."   See  also  R.  V.  Littledale,  The  Petrine  Claims. 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  911 

The  secret  of  Baptist  success  and  progress  is  in  putting  truth  before  unity.  James  3 :  17 
— "the  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable."  The  substitution  of  external  for  internal 
unity,  of  which  the  apostolic  succession,  so  called,  is  a  sign  and  symbol,  is  of  a  piece 
with  the  whole  sacramental  scheme  of  salvation.  Men  cannot  be  brought  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  nor  can  they  be  made  good  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  priestly 
manipulation.  The  Frankish  wholesale  conversion  of  races,  the  Jesuitical  putting  of 
obedience  instead  of  life,  the  identification  of  the  church  with  the  nation,  are  all  false 
methods  of  dill  using  Christianity.  The  claims  of  Home  need  irrefragible  proof,  if  they 
are  to  be  accepted.  But  they  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture  or  in  history.  Methodist 
Review :  "  As  long  as  t  he  Bible  is  recognized  to  be  authoritative,  the  church  wiil  face 
Homeward  as  little  as  Leo  X  will  visit  America  to  attend  a  Methodist  campmeeting,  or 
Justin  D.  Fulton  be  elected  as  his  successor  in  the  Papal  chair."  See  Gore,  Incarnation, 
208,  209. 

Fifthly, — If  Peter  did  so  appoint  the  bishops  of  Eome,  the  evidence  of 
continuous  succession  since  that  time  is  lacking. 

On  the  weakness  of  the  argument  for  apostolic  succession,  see  remarks  with  regard 
to  the  national  church  theory,  below.  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  715— "To  spiritu- 
alize and  evangelize  Romanism,  or  High  Churchism,  will  be  to  Congregationalize  it." 
If  all  the  Roman  Catholics  who  have  eome  to  America  had  remained  Roman  Catholics, 
there  would  be  sixteen  millions  of  them,  whereas  there  are  actually  only  eight  millions. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  remainder  have  no  religion,  we  reply  that  they  have  just  as  much 
religion  as  they  had  before.  American  democracy  has  freed  t  hem  from  the  domination 
of  the  priest,  but  it  has  not  deprived  them  of  anything  but  external  connection  with  a 
corrupt  church.  It  has  given  them  opportunity  for  the  first  time  to  come  in  contact 
with  the  church  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  accept  the  offer  of  salvation  through 
simple  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

"  Romanism,"  says  Borner,  "  identifies  the  church  and  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  pro- 
fessedly perfect  hierarchy  is  it  self  the  church,  or  it  9  ''-setae."  Yet  Moehler,  the  greatest 
modern  advocate  of  the  Romanist  system,  himself  acknowledges  that  there  were  popes 
before  the  Reformation  "whom  hell  has  swallowed  up";  see  Borner,  Hist.  Prot.  Theol., 
Introd.,  ad  finem.  If  the  Romanist  asks:  "  Where  was  your  church  before  Luther  1 " 
the  Protestant  may  reply :  "  Where  was  your  face  this  morning  before  it  was  washed  ?" 
Disciples  of  Christ  have  sometimes  kissed  the  feet  of  Antichrist,  but  it  recalls  an  ancient 
story.  When  an  Athenian  noble  thus,  in  old  times,  debased  himself  to  the  King  of  Per- 
sia, his  fellow-citizens  at  Athens  doomed  him  todeath.  See  Coleman,  Manual  on  Prelacy 
and  Ritualism,  265-271 ;  Park,  in  Rib.  Sac,  2: 451 ;  Princeton  Rev.,  Apr.  1876:265. 

Sixthly, — There  is  abundant  evidence  that  a  hierarchical  form  of  church 
government  is  corrupting  to  the  church  and  dishonoring  to  Christ. 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  131-140—"  Catholic  writers  claim  that  the  Pope, 
as  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  is  the  only  mouthpiece  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  the  Spirit  has 
been  given  to  the  church  as  a  whole,  that  is,  to  the  body  of  regenerated  believers,  and 
to  every  member  of  that  body  according  to  his  measure.  The  sin  of  sacerdotalism  Is, 
that  it  arrogates  for  a  usurping  few  that  which  belongs  to  every  member  of  Christ's 
mystical  body.  It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  the  name  KAijpo?, '  the  charge  allotted  to  you,'  which 
Peter  gives  to  the  church  as  'the  flock  of  God'  (1  Pet.  5:2),  when  warning  the  elders  against 
being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  now  appears  in  ecclesiastical  usage  as 'the  clergy,' 
with  its  orders  of  pontiff  and  prelates  and  lord  bishops,  whose  appointed  function  it  is 

to  exercise  lordship  over  Christ's  flock But  committees  and  majorities  may  take 

the  place  of  the  Spirit,  just  as  perfectly  as  a  pope  or  a  bishop This  is  the  reason 

why  the  light  has  been  extinguished  in  many  a  candlestick The  body  remains, 

but  the  breath  is  withdrawn.    The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  Administrator." 

Canon  Melville:  "Make  peace  if  you  will  with  Popery,  receive  it  into  your  Senate, 
enshrine  it  in  your  chambers,  plant  it  in  your  hearts.  But  be  ye  certain,  as  certain  as 
there  is  a  heaven  above  you  and  a  God  over  you,  that  the  Popery  thus  honored  and 
embraced  is  the  Popery  that  was  loathed  and  degraded  by  the  holiest  of  your  fathers  ; 
and  the  same  in  haughtiness,  the  same  in  intolerance,  which  lorded  it  over  kings, 
assumed  the  prerogative  of  Beity,  crushed  human  liberty,  and  slew  the  saints  of  God." 
On  the  strength  and  weakness  of  Romanism,  see  Harnack,  What  is  Christianity  ?  246-263. 


912         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

( b  )  The  national-church  theory,  or  the  theory  of  provincial  or  national 
churches. — This  holds  that  all  members  of  the  church  in  any  province  or 
nation  are  bound  together  in  provincial  or  national  organization,  and  that 
this  organization  has  jurisdiction  over  the  local  churches.     We  reply  : 

First, — the  theory  has  no  support  in  the  Scriptures.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  the  word  £KK?,?/<jia  in  the  New  Testament  ever  means  a  national 
church  organization.  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  Phil.  3  :  6,  and  1  Tim.  3  :  15,  may  be 
more  naturally  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  generic  church.  In  Acts  9  : 
31.  kuKlrjoia  is  a  mere  generalization  for  the  local  churches  then  and  there 
existing,  and  implies  no  sort  of  organization  among  them. 

1  Cor.  12 :  28  — "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  then  miracles, 
then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  governments,  divers  kinds  of  tongues  "  ;  Phil.  3  : 6  — "  as  touching  zeal,  persecuting  the 
church  "  ;  1  Tim.  3  :  15  — "  that  thou  mayest  know  how  men  ought  to  behave  themselves  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is 
the  church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth";  Acts  9:  31— "So  the  church  throughout  all  Judaea  and 
Galilee  and  Samaria  had  peace,  being  edified."  For  advocacy  of  the  Presbyterian  system,  see  Cun- 
ning-ham, Historical  Theology,  2:514-556;  McPherson,  Presbyterianism.  Per  contra, 
see  Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  9  — "  There  is  no  example  of  a  national  church  in  the 
New  Testament.  " 

Secondly, —  It  is  contradicted  by  the  intercourse  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment churches  held  with  each  other  as  independent  bodies, — -for  example 
at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts.  15  : 1-35) 

Acts  15 : 2,  6,  13,  19,  22  — "  the  brethren  appointed  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other  of  them,  should  go  up  to 

Jerusalem  unto  the  apostles  and  elders  about  this  question And  the  apostles  and  the  elders  were  gathered  together 

to  consider  of  this  matter James  answered  ....  my  judgment  is,  that  we  trouble  not  them  that  from  among  the 

Gentiles  turn  to  God it  seemed  good  to  the  apostles  and  the  elders,  with  the  whole  church,  to  choose  men  out  of 

their  company,  and  send  them  to  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas." 

McGiffert,  Apostolic  Church,  645  — " The  steps  of  developing  organization  were:  1. 
Recognition  of  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  as  exclusive  standard  and  norm  of  Christian 
truth  ;  2.  Confinement  to  a  specific  office,  the  Catholic  office  of  bishop,  of  the  power  to 
determine  what  is  the  teaching  of  the  apostles ;  3.  Designation  of  a  specific  institution, 
the  Catholic  church,  as  the  sole  channel  of  divine  grace.  The  Twelve,  iu  the  church  of 
Jerusalem,  had  only  a  purely  spiritual  authority.  They  could  advise,  but  they  did  not 
command.  Hence  they  were  not  qualified  to  transmit  authority  to  others.  They  had 
no  absolute  authority  themselves." 

Thirdly, —  It  has  no  practical  advantages  over  the  Congregational  polity, 
but  rather  tends  to  formality,  division,  and  the  extinction  of  the  principles 
of  self-government  and  direct  responsibility  to  Christ. 

E.  6.  Robinson  :  "  The  Anglican  schism  is  the  most  sectarian  of  all  the  sects."  Prin- 
cipal Rainey  thus  describes  the  position  of  the  Episcopal  Church:  "They  will  not 
recognize  the  church  standing  of  those  who  recognize  them ;  and  they  only  recognize 
the  church  standing  of  those,  Greeks  and  Latins,  who  do  not  recognize  them.  Is  not 
that  an  odd  sort  of  Catholicity?  "  "  Every  priestling  hides  a  popeling."  The  elephant 
going  through  the  jungle  saw  a  brood  of  young  partridges  that  had  just  lost  their 
mother.  Touched  with  sympathy  he  said  :  "I  will  be  a  mother  to  you,"  and  so  he  sat 
down  upon  them,  as  he  had  seen  their  mother  do.  Hence  we  speak  of  the  "incum- 
bent "  of  such  and  such  a  parish. 

There  were  no  councils  that  claimed  authority  till  the  second  century,  and  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  churches  was  not  given  up  until  the  third  or  fourth  century.  In  Bp. 
Lightfoot's  essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  in  the  appendix  to  his  Com.  on  Philippians, 
progress  to  episcopacy  is  thus  described :  "  In  the  time  of  Ignatius,  the  bishop,  then 
primus  inter  pares,  was  regarded  only  as  a  centre  of  unity ;  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  as 
a  depositary  of  primitive  truth ;  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  as  absolute  vicegei'ent  of  Christ 
in  things  spiritual."  Nothing  is  plainer  than  the  steady  degeneration  of  church  polity 
in  the  hands  of  the  Fathers.  Archibald  Alexander:  "A  better  name  than  Church 
Fathers  for  these  men  would  be  church  babies.  Their  theology  was  infantile."  Luther : 
"  Never  mind  the  Scribes, —  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  " 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  913 

Fourthly,— It  is  inconsistent  with  itself,  in  binding  a  professedly  spiritual 
church  by  formal  and  geographical  lines 

Instance  the  evils  of  Pz-esbyterianism  in  practice.  Dr.  Park  says  that  "the  split 
between  the  Old  and  the  New  School  was  due  to  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  majority 

to  impose  their  will  on  the  minority The  Unitarian  defection  in  New  England 

would  have  ruined  Presbyterian  churches,  but  it  did  not  ruin  Congregational  churches. 
A  Presbyterian  church  may  be  deprived  of  the  minister  it  has  chosen,  by  the  votes  of 
neighboring  churches,  or  by  the  few  leading  men  who  control  them,  or  by  one  single 
vote  in  a  close  contest."  We  may  illust  rate  l>y  the  advantage  of  the  adjustable  card- 
catalogue  over  the  old  method  of  keeping  track  of  books  in  a  library. 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  137,  note—"  By  the  candlesticks  in  the  Revelation 
being  seven,  instead  of  one  as  in  the  tabernacle,  we  are  taught  that  whereas,  in  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  God's  visible  church  was  one,  in  the  Gentile  dispensation  there 
are  many  visible  churches,  and  that  Christ  himself  recognizes  them  alike"  (quoted 
from  Garratt,  Com.  on  Rev.,  32).  Bishop  Moule,  Veni  Creator,  131,  after  speaking  of 
the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  goes  on  to  say :  "  Blessed  will  it  be  for  the  church  and  for  the 
world  when  these  principles  shall  so  vastly  prevail  as  to  find  expression  from  within 
in  a  harmonious  counterpart  of  order ;  a  far  different  thinj*  from  what  is,  I  cannot  but 
think,  an  illusory  prospect  —  the  attainment  of  such  internal  unity  by  a  previous 
exaction  of  exterior  governmental  uniformity." 

Fifthly, — It  logically  leads  to  the  theory  of  Komanism.  If  two  churches 
need  a  superior  authority  to  control  them  and  settle  their  differences,  then 
two  countries  and  two  hemispheres  need  a  common  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment,—  and  a  world-church,  under  one  visible  head,  is  Komanism. 

Hatch,  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  Organization  of  Early  Christian  Churches,  with- 
out discussing  the  evidence  from  the  New  Testament,  proceeds  to  treat  of  the  post- 
apostolic  development  of  organization,  as  if  the  existence  of  a  germinal  Episcopacy 
very  soon  after  the  apostles  proved  such  a  system  to  be  legitimate  or  obligatory.  In 
reply,  we  would  ask  whether  we  are  under  moral  obligation  to  conform  to  whatever 
succeeds  in  developing  itself.  If  so,  then  the  priests  of  Baal,  as  well  as  the  priests  of 
Rome,  had  just  claims  to  human  belief  and  obedience.  Prof.  Black :  "  We  have  no 
objection  to  antiquity,  if  they  will  only  go  back  far  enough.  We  wish  to  listen,  not 
only  to  the  fathers  of  the  church,  but  also  to  the  grandfathers." 

Phillips  Brooks  speaks  of  "the  fantastic  absurdity  of  apostolic  succession."  And 
with  reason,  for  in  the  Episcopal  system,  bishops  qualified  to  ordain  must  be  :  (1)  bap- 
tized persons ;  (2)  notscandalouslyimmoral;  (3)  not having  obtained  office  by  bribery  ; 
( 4 )  must  not  have  been  deposed.  In  view  of  these  qualifications,  Archbishop  Whatoly 
pronounces  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession  untenable,  and  declares  that  "  there  is 
no  Christian  minister  existing  now,  who  can  trace  up  with  complete  certainty  his  own 
ordination,  through  perfectly  regular  steps,  to  the  time  of  the  apostles."  See  Macaulay 's 
Review  of  Gladstone  on  Church  and  State,  in  his  Essays,  4 :  165-178.  There  are  breaks  in 
the  line,  and  a  chain  is  only  as  strong  as  its  weakest  part.  See  Presb.  Rev.,  1886 :  89-126. 
Mr.  Flanders  called  Phillips  Brooks  "an  Episcopalian  with  leanings  toward  Chris- 
tianity." Bishop  Brooks  replied  that  he  could  not  be  angry  with  "such  a  dear  old  moth- 
eaten  angel."  On  apostolic  succession,  see  C.  Anderson  Scott,  Evangelical  Doctrine, 
37-48,267-288. 

Apostolic  succession  has  been  called  the  pipe-line  conception  of  divine  grace.  To 
change  the  figure,  it  may  be  compared  to  the  monopoly  of  communication  with  Europe 
by  the  submarine  cable.  But  we  are  not  confined  to  the  pipe-line  or  to  the  cable.  There 
are  wells  of  salvation  in  our  private  grounds,  and  wireless  telegraphy  practicable  to 
every  human  soul,  apart  from  any  control  of  corporations. 

We  see  leanings  toward  the  world-church  idea  in  Pananglican  and  Panpresbyterian 
Councils.  Human  nature  ever  tends  to  substitute  the  unity  of  external  organization 
for  the  spiritual  unity  which  belongs  to  all  believers  in  Christ.  There  is  no  necessity 
for  common  government,  whether  Presbyterian  or  Episcopal ;  since  Christ's  truth  and 
Spirit  are  competent  to  govern  all  as  easily  as  one.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the 
Baptist  denomination,  without  external  bonds,  has  maintained  a  greater  unity  in  doc- 
trine, and  a  closer  general  conformity  to  New  Testament  standards,  than  the  churches 
which  adopt  the  principle  of  episcopacy,  or  of  provincial  organization.  With  Abp. 
Whately,  we  find  the  true  symbol  of  Christian  unity  in  "  the  tree  of  life,  bearing  twelve  maimer  of 
58 


914  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

fruits"  (  Rev.  22:2).  Cf.  John  10:16  —  yevyaovTat.  /xta  wol^vrj,  e's  Ttotixrjv — "they  shall  become  one  flock,  one 
shepherd  "=  not  one  fold,  not  external  unity,  but  one  flock  in  many  folds.  See  Jacob, 
Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  130 ;  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  236 ;  Coleman,  Manual  on  Prelacy 
and  Ritualism,  128-264 ;  Albert  Barnes,  Apostolic  Church. 

As  testimonies  to  the  adequacy  of  Baptist  polit y  to  maintain  sound  doctrine,  we  quote 
from  the  Congregationalism  Dr.  J.  L.  Withrow:  "There  is  not  a  denomination  of 
evangelical  Christians  that  is  throughout  as  sound  theologically  as  the  Baptist  denom- 
ination. There  is  not  an  evangelical  denomination  in  America  to-day  that  is  as  true  to 
the  simple  plain  gospel  of  God,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  word,  as  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion." And  the  Presbyterian,  Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  in  a  private  letter  dated  Oct.  1, 1886, 
writes  as  follows :  "Among  the  denominations,  we  all  look  to  the  Baptists  for  steady 
and  firm  adherence  to  sound  doctrine.  You  have  never  had  any  internal  doctrinal 
conflicts,  and  from  year  to  year  you  present  an  undivided  front  in  defense  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  faith.  Having  no  judicatures  and  regarding  the  local  church  as  the  unit,  it  is 
remarkable  that  you  maintain  such  a  unity  and  solidarity  of  belief.  If  you  could 
impart  your  secret  to  our  Congregational  brethren,  I  think  that  some  of  them  at  least 
would  thank  you." 

A.  H.  Strong,  Sermon  in  London  before  the  Baptist  World  Congress,  July,  1905  — 
"  Cooperation  with  Christ  involves  the  spiritual  unity  not  only  of  all  Baptists  with  one 
another,  but  of  all  Baptists  with  the  whole  company  of  true  believers  of  every  name. 
We  cannot,  indeed,  be  true  to  our  convictions  without  organizing  into  one  body  those 
who  agree  with  us  in  our  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  Our  denominational  divisions 
are  at  present  necessities  of  nature.  But  we  regret  these  divisions,  and,  as  we  grow  in 
grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  we  strive,  at  least  in  spirit,  to  rise  above  them. 
In  America  our  farms  are  separated  from  one  another  by  fences,  and  in  the  springtime, 
when  the  wheat  and  barley  are  just  emerging  from  the  earth,  these  fences  are  very 
distinguishable  and  uupleasing  features  of  the  landscape.  But  later  in  the  season,  when 
the  corn  has  grown  and  the  time  of  harvest  is  near,  the  grain  is  so  tall  that  the  fences 
are  entirely  hidden,  and  for  miles  together  you  seem  to  see  only  a  single  field.  It  is 
surely  our  duty  to  confess  everywhere  and  always  that  we  are  first  Christians  and  only 
secondly  Baptists.  The  tie  which  binds  us  to  Christ  is  more  important  in  our  eyes  than 
that  which  binds  us  to  those  of  the  same  faith  and  order.  We  live  in  hope  that  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  in  us,  and  in  all  other  Christian  bodies,  may  induce  such  growth  of  mind 
and  heart  that  the  sense  of  unity  may  not  only  overtop  and  hide  the  fences  of  division, 
but  may  ultimately  do  away  with  these  fences  altogether. " 

2.     Officers  of  the  Church. 

A.  The  number  of  offices  in  the  church  is  two :  —  first,  the  office  of 
bishop,  presbyter,  or  pastor ;  and,  secondly,  the  office  of  deacon. 

(a)  That  the  appellations  'bishop,'  ' presbyter, '  and  'pastor'  designate 
the  same  office  and  order  of  persons,  may  be  shown  from  Acts  20  :  28  — 
E-rriondnovg  notfiaiveiv  (  cf.  17  —  ■Kpmfivjipovc ) ;  Phil.  1 : 1 ;  1  Tim.  3  : 1,  8  ;  Titus 
1:5,  7 ;  1  Pet.  5:1,  2  —  lYpeafivTEpovc  ....  TrapanaAu  6  avfi7Tpeofii>T£pog  .... 
TtoLfiavare  irolfiviov  ....  kmanonovvTEC.  Conybeare  and  Howson  :  ' '  The  terms 
'bishop'  and  '  elder'  are  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  equivalent, —  the 
former  denoting  ( as  its  meaning  of  overseer  implies )  the  duties,  the  latter 
the  rank,  of  the  office."  See  passages  quoted  in  Gieseler,  Church  History, 
1  :  90,  note  1 — as,  for  example,  Jerome:  "  Apud  veteres  iidem  episcopi  et 
presbyteri,  quia  illud  nomen  dignitatis  est,  hoc  setatis.  Idem  est  ergo 
presbyter  qui  episcopus." 

Acts  20: 28 — "Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops 
[  marg.  'overseers'],  to  feed  [lit.  'to  shepherd,'  'be  pastors  of]  the  church  of  the  Lord  which  he  purchased 
with  his  own  blood";  cf.  17  —  "the  elders  of  the  church"  are  those  whom  Paul  addresses  as 
bishops  or  overseers,  and  whom  he  exhorts  to  be  good  pastors.  Phil.  1:1  —  "bishops  and 
deacons  "  ;  1  Tim.  3  : 1,  8 — "If  a  man  seeketh  the  office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work  ....  Deacons  in  like 
manner  must  be  grave "  ;  Tit.  1:5,  7  —  "appoint  elders  in  every  city  ....  For  the  bishop  must  be  blameless "  ;  1  Fet 
5:1,  2 — "The  elders  therefore  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  a  fellow-elder  ....  Tend  [lit.  'shepherd,'  'be  pastors 
of  ]  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  exercising  the  oversight  [acting  as  bishops],  not  of  constraint,  but 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  915 

willingly,  according  to  the  will  of  God."  In  this  last  passage,  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  Tischen- 
dorf ' s  8th  edition,  follow  X  and  B  in  omitting  eirio-xoTroOj'Tes.  Tregelles  and  our  Revised 
Version  follow  A  and  N<=  in  retaining  it.  Rightly,  we  think ;  since  it  is  easy  to  see  how, 
in  a  growing  ecclesiasticism,  it  should  have  been  omitted,  from  the  feeling  that  too 
much  was  here  ascribed  to  a  mere  presbyter. 

Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Philippiaus,  95-99—  "It  is  a  fact  now  generally  recognized  by 
theologians  of  all  shades  of  opinion  that  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T.  the  same  officer 
in  the  church  is  called  indifferently  'bishop'  ( <=jrio-K07ros )  and  'elder'  or  'presbyter'  ( npeafivTepo^ ). 
....  To  these  special  officers  the  priestly  functions  and  privileges  of  the  Christian 
people  are  never  regarded  as  transferred  or  delegated.  They  are  called  stewards  or 
messengers  of  God,  servants  or  ministers  of  the  church,  and  the  like,  but  the  sacerdotal 
is  never  once  conferred  upon  them.  The  only  priests  under  the  gospel,  designated  as 
such  in  the  N.  T.,  are  the  saints,  the  members  of  the  Christian  brotherhood."  On  Titus 
1:5,  7 — "appoint  elders ....  For  the  bishop  must  be  blameless  " —  Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  150,  remarks: 
"  Here  the  word  'for'  is  quite  out  of  place  unless  bishops  and  elders  are  identical.  All 
these  officers,  bishops  as  well  as  deacons,  are  confined  to  the  local  church  in  their  juris- 
diction. The  charge  of  a  bishop  is  not  a  diocese,  but  a  church.  The  functions  are 
mostly  administrative,  the  teaching  office  being  subordinate,  and  a  distinction  is  made 
between  teaching  elders  and  others,  implying  that  the  teaching-  function  is  not  common 
to  them  all." 

Dexter,  Congregationalism,  1H,  shows  that  bishop,  elder,  pastor  are  names  for  the 
same  office:  (l)from  the  significance  of  the  words ;  (~)  from  the  fact  thai  the  same 
qualifications  are  demanded  from  all;  (3)  from  the  fact  that  the  same  duties  are 
assigned  to  all;  (4 )  from  the  tact  I  hat  the  texts  held  to  prove  higher  rank  of  the  bishop 
do  not  support  that  claim.  Plumptre,  in  Pop.  Com.,  Pauline  Epistles,  555,  550 — "  There 
cannot  be  a  shadow  of  doubt  that  the  two  titles  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  in  the 
Apostolic  Age  interchangeable." 

(  b  )  The  only  plausible  objection  to  the  identity  of  the  presbyter  and  the 
bishop  is  that  first  suggested  by  Calvin,  on  the  ground  of  1  Tim.  5  :  17. 
But  this  text  only  shows  that  the  one  office  of  presbyter  or  bishop  involved 
two  kinds  of  labor,  and  that  certain  presbyters  or  bishops  were  more  suc- 
cessful in  one  kind  than  in  the  other.  That  gifts  of  teaching  and  ruling 
belonged  to  the  same  individual,  is  clear  from  Acts  20  :  28-31 ;  Eph.  4:11; 
Heb.  13  :  7 ;  1  Tim.  3  :  2 — knianonov  6i.6witi.k6v. 

1  Tim.  5: 17 — "Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  those  who  labor  in  the 
word  and  ia  teaching  "  ;  Wilson,  Primitive  Government  of  Christian  Churches,  concedes  that 
this  last  text  "  expresses  a  diversity  in  the  exercise  of  the  Presbyterial  office,  but  not  in 
the  office  itself  "  ;  and  although  he  was  a  Presbyterian,  he  very  consistently  refused  to 
have  any  ruling  elders  in  his  church. 

Acts  20:28,  31 — "bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  the  lord  ....  wherefore  watch  ye";  Eph.  4:11 — "and  some, 
pastors  and  teachers" — here  Meyer  remarks  that  the  single  article  binds  the  two  words 
together,  and  prevents  us  from  supposing  that  separate  offices  arc  intended.  Jerome : 
"Nemo  ....  pastoris  sibi  nomen  ass  u  mere  debet,  nisi  possit  docere  quos  pascit."  Heb. 
13:7 — "  Remember  them  that  had  the  rule  over  you,  men  that  spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God";  lTim.3:2 — "The 
bishop  must  be  ....  apt  to  teach."  The  great  temptation  to  ambition  in  the  Christian  ministry 
is  provided  against  by  having  no  gradation  of  ranks.  The  pastor  is  a  priest,  only  as 
every  Christian  is.  See  Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  56 ;  Olshausen,  on  1  Tim.  5 :  17 ;  Hackett 
on  Acts  14 :  23 ;  Presb.  Rev.,  1886 :  89-126. 

Dexter,  Congregationalism,  52 — "Calvin  was  a  natural  aristocrat,  not  a  man  of  the 
people  like  Luther.  Taken  out  of  his  own  family  to  be  educated  in  a  family  of  the 
nobility,  he  received  an  early  bent  toward  exclusiveness.  He  believed  in  authority 
and  loved  to  exercise  it.  He  could  easily  have  been  a  despot.  He  assumed  all  oil  izens 
to  be  Christians  until  proof  to  the  contrary.  He  resolved  church  discipline  into  police 
control.  He  confessed  that  the  eldership  was  an  expedient  to  which  he  was  driven  by 
circumstances,  though  after  creating  it  he  naturally  enough  endeavored  to  procure 
Scriptural  proof  in  its  favor."  On  the  question.  The  Christian  Ministry,  is  it  a  Priest- 
hood ?  see  C.  Anderson  Scott,  Evangelical  Doctrine,  205-224. 

(  c )  In  certain  of  the  N.  T.  churches  there  appears  to  have  been  a  plu- 
rality of  elders  ( Acts  20  :  17  ;  Phil.  1:1;  Tit.  1:5).     There  is,  however, 


916  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

no  evidence  that  the  number  of  elders  was  uniform,  or  that  the  plurality 
which  frequently  existed  Avas  due  to  any  other  cause  than  the  size  of  the 
churches  for  which  these  elders  cared.  The  N.  T.  example,  while  it  per- 
mits the  multiplication  of  assistant  pastors  according  to  need,  does  not 
require  a  plural  eldership  in  every  case ;  nor  does  it  render  this  eldership, 
where  it  exists,  of  coordinate  authority  with  the  church.  There  are  indica- 
tions, moreover,  that,  at  least  in  certain  churches,  the  pastor  was  one,  while 
the  deacons  were  more  than  one,  in  number. 

Acts  20  :  17  —  "  And  from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  to  him  the  elders  of  the  church  "  ;  Phil.  1:1  —  "  Paul 
and  Timothy,  servants  of  Christ  Jesus,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  dea- 
cons "  ;  Tit.  1:5  —  "For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting, 
and  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  gave  thee  charge."  See,  however,  Acts  12:17  —  "Tell  these  things  unto 
James,  and  to  the  brethren  " ;  15 :  13  —  "And  after  they  had  held  their  peace,  James  answered,  saying,  Brethren,  hearken 
nnto  me  "  ;  21 :  18  —  "  And  the  day  following  Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James ;  and  all  the  elders  were  present "  ;  Gal. 
1 :19  —  "But  other  of  the  apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James  the  Lord's  brother  "  ;  2: 12  —  "certain  came  from  James." 
These  passages  seem  to  indicate  that  James  was  the  pastor  or  president  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  an  intimation  which  tradition  corroborates. 

1  Tim.  3:2  —  "The  bishop  therefore  must  be  without  reproach  "  ;  Tit.  1:7  —  "For  the  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as 
God's  steward  "  ;  cf.  1  Tim.  3 :  3, 10, 12  —  "  Beacons  in  like  manner  must  be  grave  ....  And  let  these  also  first  be 
proved ;  then  let  them  serve  as  deacons,  if  they  be  blameless  ....  Let  deacons  be  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their 
children  and  their  own  housos  well"  —  in  all  these  passages  the  bishop  is  spoken  of  in  the  singular 
number,  the  deacons  in  the  plural.  So,  too,  in  Rev.  2:1,  8,  12,  18  and  3 : 1,  7, 14,  "  the  angel  of  the 
church  "  is  best  interpreted  as  meaning  the  pastor  of  the  church ;  and,  if  this  be  correct, 
it  is  clear  that  each  church  had,  not  many  pastors,  but  one. 

It  would,  moreover,  seem  antecedently  improbable  that  every  church  of  Christ,  how- 
ever small,  should  be  required  to  have  a  plural  eldership,  particularly  since  churches 
exist  that  have  only  a  single  male  member.  A  plural  eldership  is  natural  and  advan- 
tageous, only  where  the  church  is  very  numerous  and  the  pastor  needs  assistants  in  his 
work  :  and  only  in  such  cases  can  we  say  that  New  Testament  example  favors  it.  For 
advocacy  of  the  theory  of  plural  eldership,  see  Fish,  Ecclesiology,  2^9-249 ;  Ladd,  Prin- 
ciples of  Church  Polity,  22-29.  On  the  whole  subject  of  offices  in  the  church,  see  Dexter, 
Congregationalism,  77-98;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  241-286;  Lightfoot  on  the  Christian 
Ministry,  appended  to  his  Commentary  on  Pliilippians,  and  published  in  his  Disserta- 
tions ou  the  Apostolic  Age. 

B.     The  duties  belonging  to  these  offices. 

(  a  )  The  pastor,  bishop,  or  elder  is  : 

First,  —  a  spiritual  teacher,  in  public  and  private  ; 

Acts  20 :  20,  21,  35  —  "  how  I  shrank  not  from  declaring  unto  you  anything  that  was  profitable,  and  teaching 
yon  publicly,  and  from  house  to  house,  testifying  both  to  Jews  and  to  Greeks  rep3ntance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ....  In  all  things  I  gave  you  an  example,  that  so  laboring  ye  ought  to  help  the  weak,  and 
to  remember  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  he  himself  said,  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  "  ;  1  Thess.  5 :  12 
—  "  But  we  beseech  you,  brothren,  to  know  them  that  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  yon  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish 
you  "  ;  leb.  13  : 7, 17  —  "  Remember  them  that  had  the  rule  over  you,  men  that  spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God ;  and 

considering  the  issue  of  their  life,  imitate  their  faith Ob^y  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  to  them: 

for  they  watch  in  behalf  of  your  souls,  as  they  that  shall  give  account." 

Here  we  should  remember  that  the  pastor's  private  work  of  religious  conversation 
and  prayer  is  equally  important  with  his  public  ministrations ;  in  this  respect  he  is  to 
be  an  example  to  his  flock,  and  they  are  to  learn  from  him  the  art  of  winning  the 
unconverted  and  of  caring  for  those  who  are  already  saved.  A  Jewish  Rabbi  once 
said  :  "  God  could  not  be  every  where,  — therefore  he  made  mothers."  We  may  sub- 
stitute, for  the  word  '  mothers,'  the  word  '  pastors.'  Bishop  Ken  is  said  to  have  made  a 
vow  every  morning,  as  he  rose,  that  he  would  not  be  married  that  day.  His  own  lines 
best  express  his  mind:  "A  virgin  priest  the  altar  best  attends;  our  Lord  that  state 
commands  not,  but  commends." 

Secondly,  —  administrator  of  the  ordinances  ; 

Mat.  28  :  19, 20 —  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded";  1  Cor.  1 :  16, 17  — 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  917 

"  And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas :  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other.  For  Christ  sent  me 
not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel.''  Here  it  is  evident  that,  although  the  pastor  administers 
the  ordinances,  this  is  not  his  main  work,  nor  is  the  church  absolutely  dependent  upon 
him  in  the  matter.  He  is  not  set,  like  an  O.  T.  priest,  to  minister  at  the  altar,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel.  In  an  emergency  any  other  member  appointed  by  the  church  may 
administer  them  with  equal  propriety,  the  church  always  determining  who  are  tit  sub- 
jects of  the  ordinances,  and  constituting  him  their  organ  in  administering  them.  Any 
other  view  is  based  on  sacramental  notions,  and  on  ideas  of  apostolic  succession.  All 
Christians  are  "priests  unto  ....  God"  (Rev.l:6).  "This  universal  priesthood  is  a  priest- 
hood, not  of  expiation,  but  of  worship,  and  is  bound  to  no  ritual,  or  order  of  times 
and  places"  (  P.  S.  Moxom). 

Thirdly,  — superintendent  of  the  discipline,  as  well  as  presiding  officer  at 
the  meetings,  of  the  church. 

Superintendent  of  discipline  :  1  Tim.  5:17  —  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honor,  especially  those  who  labor  in  the  word  and  in  teaching "  ;  3:5  —  "if  a  man  knoweth  not  how  to  rule  his  own 
house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  ?  "  Presiding  officer  at  meetings  of  the  church  :  1  Cor. 
12:28  —  "governments"  —  here  Kv^pvr,<rti.<i,  or  "governments,"  indicating  the  duties  of  the  pastor, 
are  the  counterpart  of  imArji/zet?,  or  "helps,"  which  designate  the  duties  of  the  deacons  ; 
1  Pet.  5  : 2,  3  —  "  Tend  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  exercising  the  oversight,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly, 
according  to  the  will  of  God ;  nor  yet  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind  ;  neither  as  lording  it  over  the  charge  allotted 
to  you,  but  making  yourselves  ensamples  to  the  flock." 

In  the  old  Congregational  churches  of  New  England,  an  authority  was  accorded  to 
the  pastor  which  exceeded  the  New  Testament  standard.  "  Dr.  Bellamy  could  break  in 
upon  a  festival  which  he  deemed  improper,  and  order  the  members  of  his  parish  to  their 
homes."  The  congregation  rose  as  the  minister  entered  the  church,  and  stood  uncov- 
ered as  he  passed  out  of  the  porch.  We  must  not  hope  or  desire  to  restore  the  New 
England  regime.  The  pastor  is  to  take  responsibility,  to  put  himself  forward  when 
there  is  need,  but  he  is  to  rule  only  by  moral  suasion,  and  that  only  by  guiding,  teach- 
ing, and  carrying  into  effect  the  rules  imposed  by  Christ  and  the  decisions  of  the  church 
in  accordance  with  those  rules. 

Dexter,  Congregationalism,  115,  155,  157  — "The  Governor  of  New  York  suggests  to 
the  Legislature  such  and  such  enactments,  and  then  executes  such  laws  as  they  please 
to  pass.  He  is  chief  ruler  of  the  State,  while  the  Legislature  adopts  or  rejects  what  he 
proposes."  So  the  pastor's  functions  are  not  legislative,  but  executive.  Christ  is  the 
only  lawgiver.  In  fulfilling  this  office,  the  manner  and  spirit  of  the  pastor's  work  are 
of  as  great  importance  as  are  correctness  of  judgment  and  faithfulness  to  Christ's  law. 
"The  young  man  who  cannot  distinguish  the.  wolves  from  the  dogs  should  not  think 
of  becoming  a  shepherd."  Gregory  Nazianzen  :  "Either  teach  none,  or  let  your  life 
teach  too."  See  Harvey,  The  Pastor;  Wayland,  Apostolic  Ministry;  Jacob,  Eccl. 
Polity  of  N.  T.,  99 ;  Samson,  in  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  261-288. 

(/>)  The  deacon  is  helper  to  the  pastor  and  the  church,  in  both  spiritual 
and  temporal  things. 

First, — relieving  the  pastor  of  external  labors,  informing  him  of  the 
condition  and  wants  of  the  church,  and  forming  a  bond  of  union  between 
pastor  and  people. 

Acts  6:1-6  —  "  Now  in  these  days,  when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplying,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the 
Grecian  Jews  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration.  And  the  twelve 
called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  fit  that  we  should  forsake  the  word  of  God,  and  serve 
tables.  Look  ye  out  therefore,  brethren,  from  among  you  seven  men  of  good  report,  full  of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom, 
whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.  But  we  will  cont.nue  stedfastly  in  prayer,  and  in  the  ministry  of  the  word. 
And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude  :  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolaus  a  proselyte  of  Antioch ;  whom  they  set 
before  the  apostles :  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  upon  them  "  ;  cf.  8-20  —  where  Stephen 
shows  power  in  disputation  ;  Rom.  12 :  7  —  "or  ministry  [  SuaKoviav  ],  let  us  give  ourselves  to  our  minis- 
try "  ;  1  Cor.  12 : 28  —  "helps"  —  here  avTiAiji/d-is,  "helps,"  indicating  the  duties  of  deacons,  are 
the  counterpart  of  Kvpcpvrjcreis,  "governments,"  which  designate  the  duties  of  the  pastor; 
Phil.  1:1  —  "  bishops  and  deacons." 

Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson  did  not  regard  the  election  of  the  seven,  in  Acts  6 : 1-4,  as  marking 
the  origin  of  the  diaconate,  though  he  thought  the  diaconate  grew  out  of  this  election. 


918  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

The  Autobiography  of  C.  H.  Spurgeon,  3:22,  gives  an  account  of  the  election  of 
"  elders  "  at  the  Metropolitan  Tabernacle  in  London.  These  "  elders  "  were  to  attend 
to  the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  church,  as  the  deacons  were  to  attend  to  the  temporal 
affairs.  These  "  elders  "  were  chosen  year  by  year,  while  the  office  of  deacon  was  per- 
manent. 

Secondly,  —  helping  the  church,  by  relieving  the  poor  and  sick  and 
ministering  in  an  informal  way  to  the  church's  spiritual  needs,  and  by 
performing  certain  external  duties  connected  with  the  service  of  the 
sanctuary. 

Since  deacons  are  to  be  helpers,  it  is  not  necessary  in  all  cases  that  they  should  be  old 
or  rich ;  in  fact,  it  is  better  that  among  the  number  of  deacons  the  various  differences 
in  station,  age,  wealth,  and  opinion  in  the  church  should  be  represented.  The  qualifi- 
cations for  the  diaconate  mentioned  in  Acts  6 : 1-4  and  1  Tim.  3 : 8-13,  are,  in  substance  :  wis- 
dom, sympathy,  and  spirituality.  There  are  advantages  in  electing  deacons,  not  for 
life,  but  for  a  term  of  years.  While  there  is  no  New  Testament  prescription  in  this 
matter,  and  each  church  may  exercise  its  option,  service  for  a  term  of  years,  with 
re-election  where  the  office  has  been  well  discharged,  would  at  least  seem  favored  by 
1  Tim.  3:10  —  "  Let  these  also  first  be  proved ;  then  let  them  serve  as  deacons,  if  they  be  blameless  " ;  13  —  "  For  they 
that  have  served  well  as  deacons  gain  to  themselves  a  good  standing,  and  great  boldness  in  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus." 

Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  on  Acts  5 : 6,  remarks  that  those  who  carried  out  and 
buried  Ananias  are  called  oi  eeaJrepoi  —  "  the  young  men  "  —  and  in  the  case  of  Sapphira  they 
were  oi  veavicrxot.  —  meaning  the  same  thing.  "Upon  the  natural  distinction  between 
npeafivTepoi  and  veurepoi — elders  and  young  men — it  may  well  have  been  that  official 
duties  in  the  church  were  afterward  based."  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  thought  that  the 
apostles  included  the  whole  membership  in  the  "we,"  when  they  said:  "It  is  not  fit  that  we 
should  forsake  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables."  The  deacons,  on  this  interpretation,  were  chosen 
to  help  the  whole  church  in  temporal  matters. 

In  Rom.  16 : 1,  2,  we  have  apparent  mention  of  a  deaconess  —  "I  commend  unto  you  Phoebe  our 
sister,  who  is  a  servant  [  marg.  :  '  deaconess '  ]  of  the  church  that  is  at  Cenchreae  ....  for  she  herself  also  hath  been 
a  helper  of  many,  and  of  mine  own  self."  See  also  1  Tim.  3:11  —  "Women  in  like  manner  must  be  grave,  not 
slanderers,  temperate,  faithful  in  all  things  "  —  here  Ellicott  and  Alford  claim  that  the  word  "  women  " 
refers,  not  to  deacons'  wives,  as  our  Auth.  Vers,  had  it,  but  to  deaconesses.  Dexter, 
Congi*egationallsm,  69, 132,  maintains  that  the  office  of  deaconess,  though  it  once  existed, 
has  passed  away,  as  belonging  to  a  time  when  men  could  not,  without  suspicion,  minis- 
ter to  women. 

This  view  that  there  are  temporary  offices  in  the  church  does  not,  however,  commend 
itself  to  us.  It  is  more  correct  to  say  that  there  is  yet  doubt  whether  there  was  such  an 
office  as  deaconess,  even  in  the  early  church.  Each  church  has  a  right  in  this  matter 
to  interpret  Scripture  for  itself,  and  to  act  accordingly.  An  article  in  the  Bap.  Quar., 
1869 :  40,  denies  the  existence  of  any  diaconal  rank  or  office,  for  male  or  female.  Fish, 
in  his  Ecclesiology,  holds  that  Stephen  was  a  deacon,  but  an  elder  also,  and  preached  as 
elder,  not  as  deacon,  —  Acts  6 : 1-4  being  called  the  institution,  not  of  the  diaconate,  but  of 
the  Christian  ministry.  The  use  of  the  phrase  Siaicoveiv  Tpa.7re'<,*ais,  and  the  distinction 
between  the  diaconate  and  the  pastorate  subsequently  made  in  the  Epistles,  seem  to 
refute  this  interpretation.  On  the  fitness  of  women  for  the  ministry  of  religion,  see 
F.  P.  Cobbe,  Peak  of  Darien,  199-262  ;  F.  E.  Willard,  Women  in  the  Pulpit ;  B.  T.  Rob- 
erts, Ordaining  Women.  On  the  general  subject,  see  Howell,  The  Deaconship  ;  Williams, 
The  Deaconship ;  Robinson,  N.  T.  Lexicon,  imAr)^?.  On  the  Claims  of  the  Christian 
Ministry,  and  on  Education  for  the  Ministry,  see  A.  II.  Strong-,  Philosophy  and  Religion, 
2ti9~318,  and  Christ  in  Creation,  314-331. 

C.     Ordination  of  officers. 

( a  )  What  is  ordination  ? 

Ordination  is  the  setting  apart  of  a  person  divinely  called  to  a  work  of 
special  ministration  in  the  church.  It  does  not  involve  the  communication 
of  power,  —  it  is  simply  a  recognition  of  powers  previously  conferred  by 
God,  and  a  consequent  formal  authorization,  on  the  part  of  the  church,  to 
exercise  the  gifts  already  bestowed.     This  recognition  and  authorization 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  919 

should  not  only  be  expressed  by  the  vote  in  which  the  candidate  is 
approved  by  the  church  or  the  council  -which  represents  it,  but  should  also 
be  accompanied  by  a  special  service  of  admonition,  prayer,  and  the  laying- 
on  of  hands  (Acts  6: 5,  6;  13:2,  3;  14:23;  ITim.  4:14;  5:22). 

Licensure  simply  commends  a  man  to  the  churches  as  fitted  to  preach. 
Ordination  recognizes  him  as  set  apart  to  the  work  of  preaching  and 
administering  ordinances,  in  some  particular  church  or  in  some  designated 
field  of  labor,  as  representative  of  the  church. 

Of  his  call  to  the  ministry,  the  candidate  himself  is  to  be  first  persuaded 
( 1  Cor.  9  :  16  ;  1  Tim.  1  :  12 )  ;  but,  secondly,  the  church  must  be  per- 
suaded also,  before  he  can  have  authority  to  minister  among  them  (  1  Tim. 
3:2-7;  4:14;  Titus  1 :  6-9. 

The  word  '  ordain  '  has  come  to  have  a  technical  signification  not  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  There  it  means  simply  to  choose,  appoint,  set  apart.  In  1  Tim.  2:7  —  "where- 
unto  I  was  appointed  [  £t*6t)v  ]  a  preacher  and  an  apostle  ....  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  in  faith  and  truth  "  —  it 
apparently  denotes  ordination  of  God.  In  the  following  passages  we  read  of  an  ordina- 
tion by  the  church  :  Acts  6:5,6  —  "And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude:  and  they  chose  Stephen 
....  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolaus  ....  whom  they  set  before  the 
apostles :  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  upon  them  "  —  the  ordination  of  deacons  ;  13:2,  3 
—  "And  as  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Spirit  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 
whereunto  I  have  called  them.  Then,  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them 
away  " ;  14 :  23  —  "And  when  they  had  appointed  for  them  elders  in  every  church,  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they 
commended  them  to  the  lord,  on  whom  they  had  believed  "  ;  1  Tim.  4 :  14  —  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery";  5:22 — "  Lay  hands  hastily  on  no 
man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's  sins." 

Cambridge  Platform,  1648,  chapter  9— "Ordination  is  nothing  else  but  the  solemn 
putting  of  a  man  into  his  place  and  office  in  the  church  whereunto  he  had  right  before 
by  election,  being  like  the  installing'  of  a  Magistrate  in  the  Commonwealth."  Ordina- 
tion confers  no  authority— it  only  recognizes  authority  already  conferred  by  God. 
Since  it  is  only  recognition,  it  can  be  repeated  as  often  as  a  man  changes  his  denomi- 
national relations.  Leonard  Bacon:  "The  action  of  a  Council  has  no  more  authority 
than  the  reason  on  which  it  is  based.  The  church  calling  the  Council  is  a  competent 
court  of  appeal  from  any  decision  of  the  Council." 

Since  ordination  is  simply  choosing,  appointing,  setting  apart,  it  seems  plain  that  in 
the  case  of  deacons,  who  sustain  official  relations  only  to  the  church  that  constitutes 
them,  ordination  requires  no  consultation  with  other  churches.  But  in  the  ordination 
of  a  pastor,  there  are  three  natural  stages  :  (  I  )  the  call  of  the  church  ;  (2)  the  decision 
of  a  council  ( the  council  being  virtually  only  the  church  advised  by  its  brethren  ) ;  (3) 
the  publication  of  this  decision  by  a  public  service  of  prayer  and  the  laying-on  of 
hands.  The  prior  call  to  be  pastor  may  be  said,  in  the  case  of  a  man  yet  unordained,  to 
be  given  by  the  church  conditionally,  and  in  anticipation  of  a  ratification  of  its  action 
by  the  subsequent  judgment  of  the  council.  In  a  well-instructed  church,  the  calling 
of  a  council  is  a  regular  method  of  appeal  from  the  church  unadvised  to  the  church 
advised  by  its  brethren;  and  the  vote  of  the  council  approving  the  candidate  is  only 
the  essential  completing  of  an  ordination,  of  which  the  vote  of  the  church  calling  the 
candidate  to  the  pastorate  was  the  preliminary  stage. 

This  setting  apart  by  the  church,  with  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  council,  is  all 
that  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  New  Testament  words  which  are  translated  "  ordain  "  ; 
and  such  ordination,  by  simple  vote  of  church  and  council,  could  not  be  counted 
invalid.  But  it  would  be  irregular.  New  Testament  precedent  makes  certain  accom- 
paniments not  only  appropriate,  but  obligatory.  A  formal  publication  of  the  decree 
of  the  council,  by  laying-on  of  hands,  in  connection  with  prayer,  is  the  last  of  the 
duties  of  this  advisory  body,  which  serves  as  the  organ  and  assistant  of  the  church. 
The  laying-on  of  hands  is  appointed  to  be  the  regular  accompaniment  of  ordination,  as 
baptism  is  appointed  to  be  the  regular  accompaniment  of  regeneration  ;  while  yet  the 
laying-on  of  hands  is  no  more  the  substance  of  ordination,  than  baptism  is  the  sub- 
stance of  regeneration. 

The  imposition  of  hands  is  the  natural  symbol  of  the  communication,  not  of  grace, 
but  of  authority.    It  does  not  make  a  man  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  any  more  than 


920  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

coronation  makes  Victoria  a  queen.  What  it  does  signify  and  publish,  is  formal 
recognition  and  authorization.  Viewed  in  this  light,  there  not  only  can  be  no  objec- 
tion to  the  imposition  of  hands  upon  the  ground  that  it  favors  sacramentalism,  but 
insistence  upon  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  every  council  of  ordination. 

Mr.  Spurgeon  was  never  ordained.  He  began  and  ended  his  remarkable  ministry  as 
a  lay  preacher.  He  revolted  from  the  sacramentalism  of  the  Church  of  England,  which 
seemed  to  hold  that  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in  ordination  divine  grace  trickled  down 
through  a  bishop's  finger  ends,  and  he  felt  moved  to  protest  against  it.  In  our  judgment 
it  would  have  been  better  to  follow  New  Testament  precedent,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
instruct  the  churches  as  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  laying-on  of  hands.  The  Lord's 
Supper  had  in  a  similar  manner  been  interpreted  as  a  physical  communication  of  grace, 
but  Mr.  Spurgeon  still  continued  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper.  His  gifts  enabled  him 
to  carry  his  people  with  him,  when  a  man  of  smaller  powers  might  by  peculiar  views 
have  ruined  his  ministry.  He  was  thankful  that  he  was  pastor  of  a  large  church, 
because  he  felt  that  he  had  not  enough  talent  to  be  pastor  of  a  small  one.  He  said  that 
when  he  wished  to  make  a  peculiar  impression  on  his  people  he  put  himself  into  his 
cannon  and  fired  himself  at  them.  He  refused  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity,  and 
said  that  "  D.  D."  often  meant  "Doubly  Destitute."  Dr.  P.  S.  Henson  suggests  that 
the  letters  mean  only  "  Fiddle  Dee  Dee."  For  Spurgeon's  views  on  ordination,  see  his 
Autobiography,  1 :  355  sq. 

John  Wesley's  three  tests  of  a  call  to  preach :  "  Inquire  of  applicants,"  he  says,  "  1.  Do 
they  know  God  as  a  pardoning  God  ?  Have  they  the  love  of  God  abiding  in  them  ?  Do 
they  desire  and  see  nothing  but  God  ?  And  are  they  holy,  in  all  manner  of  conversa- 
tion ?  2.  Have  they  gifts,  as  well  as  grace,  for  the  work  ?  Have  they  a  clear  sound 
understanding?  Have  they  a  right  judgment  in  the  things  of  God?  Have  they  a  just 
conception  of  salvation  by  faith  ?  And  has  God  given  them  any  degree  of  utterance? 
Do  they  speak  justly,  readily,  clearly  ?  3.  Have  they  fruit  ?  Are  any  truly  convinced 
of  sin,  and  converted  to  God,  by  their  preaching?  "  The  second  of  these  qualifications 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  little  girl  who  said  that  the  bishop,  in  laying 
hands  on  the  candidate,  was  feeling  of  his  head  to  see  whether  he  had  brains  enough  to 
preach.  There  is  some  need  of  the  preaching  of  a  "  trial  sermon  "  by  the  candidate,  as 
proof  to  the  Council  that  he  has  the  gifts  requisite  for  a  successful  ministry.  In  this 
respect  the  Presbyteries  of  Scotland  are  in  advance  of  us. 

(  b  )  Who  are  .to  ordain  ? 

Ordination  is  the  act  of  the  church,  not  the  act  of  a  privileged  class  in 
the  church,  as  the  eldership  has  sometimes  wrongly  been  regarded,  nor  yet 
the  act  of  other  churches,  assembled  by  their  representatives  in  council. 
No  ecclesiastical  authority  higher  than  that  of  the  local  church  is  recognized 
in  the  New  Testament.  This  authority,  however,  has  its  limits  ;  and  since 
the  church  has  no  authority  outside  of  its  own  body,  the  candidate  for 
ordination  should  be  a  member  of  the  ordaining  church. 

Since  each  church  is  bound  to  recognize  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  in 
other  rightly  constituted  churches,  and  its  own  decisions,  in  like  manner, 
are  to  be  recognized  by  others,  it  is  desirable  in  ordination,  as  in  all 
important  steps  affecting  other  churches,  that  advice  be  taken  before  the 
candidate  is  inducted  into  office,  and  that  other  churches  be  called  to  sit 
with  it  in  council,  and  if  thought  best,  assist  in  setting  the  candidate  apart 
for  the  ministry. 

Hands  were  laid  on  Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch,  not  by  their  ecclesiastical  supe- 
riors, as  High  Church  doctrine  would  require,  but  by  their  equals  or  inferiors, as  simple 
representatives  of  the  church.  Ordination  was  nothing  more  than  the  recognition  of 
a  divine  appointment  and  the  commending  to  God's  care  and  blessing  of  those  so 
appointed.  The  council  of  ordination  is  only  the  church  advised  by  its  brethren,  or 
a  committee  with  power,  to  act  for  the  church  after  deliberation. 

The  council  of  ordination  is  not  to  be  composed  simply  of  ministers  who  have  been 
themselves  ordained.  As  the  whole  church  is  to  preserve  the  ordinances  and  to  main- 
tain sound  doctrine,  and  as  the  unordained  church  member  is  often  a  more  sagacious 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  921 

judge  of  a  candidate's  Christian  experience  than  his  own  pastor  would  be,  there  seems 
no  warrant,  either  in  Scripture  or  in  reason,  for  the  exclusion  of  lay  delegates  f rom 
ordaining  councils.  It  was  not  merely  the  apostles  and  elders,  but  the  whole  church  at 
Jerusalem,  that  passed  upon  the  matters  submitted  to  them  at  the  council,  and  others 
than  ministers  appear  to  have  been  delegates.  The  theors'  that  only  ministers  can 
ordain  has  in  it  the  beginnings  of  a  hierarchy.  To  make  the  ministry  a  close  corpora- 
tion is  to  recognize  the  principle  <>f  apostolic  succession,  to  deny  the  validity  of  all  our 
past  ordinations,  and  to  sell  to  an  ecclesiastical  caste  the  liberties  of  the  church  of  God. 
Very  great  importance  attaches  to  decorum  and  settled  usage  in  matters  of  ordination. 
To  secure  these,  the  following  suggestions  are  made  with  regard  to 

I.  Preliminary  Arrangements  to  be  attended  to  by  the  candidate :  1.  His  letter  of 
dismission  should  be  received  and  acted  upon  by  the  church  before  the  Council  con- 
venes. Since  the  church  has  no  jurisdiction  outside  of  its  own  membership,  the  candi- 
date should  be  a  member  of  the  church  which  proposes  to  ordain  him.  2.  The  church 
should  vote  to  call  the  Council.  3.  It  should  invite  all  the  churches  of  its  Association. 
4.  It  should  send  printed  invitations,  asking  written  responses.  5.  Should  have  printed 
copies  of  an  Order  of  Procedure,  subject  to  adoption  by  the  Council.  »;.  The  candidate 
may  select  one  or  two  person-;  to  officiate  at  the  public  service,  subject  to  approval  of 
the  Council.  7.  The  clerk  of  the  church  should  be  instructed  to  be  present  with  the 
records  of  the  church  and  the  minutes  of  the  Association,  so  that  lie  may  call  to  order 
and  ask  responses  from  delegates.  8.  Ushers  should  be  appointed  to  ensure  reserved 
seats  for  the  Council.  9.  Another  room  should  be  provided  for  the  private  session  of 
the  Council.  10.  The  choir  should  be  instructed  that  one  anthem,  one  hymn,  and  one 
doxology  will  suffice  for  the  public  service.  11.  Entertainment  of  the  delegates  should 
be  provided  for.  12.  A  member  of  the  church  should  be  chosen  to  present  the  candi- 
date to  the  Council.  13.  The  church  should  be  urged  on  the  previous  Sunday  to  attend 
the  examination  of  the  candidate  as  well  as  the  public  service. 

II.  The  Candidate  at  trk  Cot/NCIL:  1.  His  demeanor  should  be  that  of  an  appli- 
cant. Since  he  asks  the  Favorable  judgment  of  his  brethren, a  modesl  bearing  and  great 
patience  in  answering  their  questions,  are  becoming  to  his  position.  2.  Let  him  stand 
during  his  narration,  and  during  questions,  unless  for  reasons  of  ill  health  or  fatigue  he  is 
specially  excused.  3.  It  will  lie  well  to  divide  his  narration  into  15  minutes  for  his  Chris- 
tian experience,  10  minutes  for  his  call  to  the  ministry,  and  36  minutes  for  his  views  of 
doctrine.  4.  A  viva  voce  statement  of  all  these  three  is  greatly  preferable  to  an  elabo- 
rate written  account.  5.  In  the  relation  of  his  views  of  doctrine :  («)  the  more  fully  he 
states  them,  the  less  need  there  will  lie  for  questioning;  ( /* )  his  Statement  should  be 
positive,  not  negative  —  not  what  he  does  tint  believe,  but  what  he  does  believe  ;  (  c  )  he 
is  not  required  to  tell  the  reason*  for  his  belief,  unless  he  is  specially  questioned  with 
regard  to  these;  (d)  he  should  elaborate  the  later  and  practical,  not  the  earlier  and 
theoretical,  portions  of  his  theological  system;  (e)  he  may  well  conclude  each  point 
of  his  statement  with  a  Single  text  of  Scripture  proof. 

III.  The  Duty  of  the  COUNCIL  :  1.  It  should  not  proceed  to  examine  the  candidate 
until  proper  credentials  have  been  presented.  2.  Ii  should  in  every  case  give  to  the 
candidate  a  searching  examination,  in  order  1  hat  this  may  not  seem  invidious  in  other 
cases.  3.  Its  vote  of  approval  should  read  :  "  We  do  now  set  apart,"  and  "  We  will  hold 
a  public  service  expressive  of  this  fact."  4.  Strict  decorum  should  be  observed  in 
every  stage  of  the  proceedings,  remembering  that  the  Council  is  acting  for  Christ  the 
great  head  of  the  church  and  is  transacting  business  for  eternity.  5.  The  Council 
should  do  no  other  business  than  that  for  which  the  church  has  summoned  it,  and 
when  that  business  is  done,  the  Council  should  adjourn  sine  die. 

It  is  always  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  power  to  ordain  rests 
with  the  church,  and  that  the  church  may  proceed  without  a  Council,  or 
even  against  the  decision  of  the  Council.  Such  ordination,  of  course,  would 
give  authority  only  within  the  bounds  of  the  individual  church.  Where  no 
immediate  exception  is  taken  to  the  decision  of  the  Council,  that  decision  is 
to  be  regarded  as  virtually  the  decision  of  the  church  by  which  it  was 
called.  The  same  rule  applies  to  a  Council's  decision  to  depose  from  the 
ministry.  In  the  absence  of  immediate  protest  from  the  church,  the  decis- 
ion of  the  Council  is  rightly  taken  as  virtually  the  decision  of  the  church. 


922  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

In  so  far  as  ordination  is  an  act  performed  by  the  local  church  with  the 
advice  and  assistance  of  other  rightly  constituted  churches,  it  is  justly 
regarded  as  giving  formal  permission  to  exercise  gifts  and  administer  ordi- 
nances within  the  hounds  of  such  churches.  Ordination  is  not,  therefore, 
to  be  repeated  upon  the  transfer  of  the  minister's  pastoral  relation  from 
one  church  to  another.  In  every  case,  however,  where  a  minister  from  a 
body  of  Christians  not  Scripturally  constituted  assumes  the  pastoral  rela- 
tion in  a  rightly  organized  church,  there  is  peculiar  propriety,  not  only  in 
the  examination,  by  a  Council,  of  his  Christian  experience,  call  to  the 
ministry,  and  views  of  doctrine,  but  also  in  that  act  of  formal  recognition 
and  authorization  which  is  called  ordination. 

The  Council  should  be  numerous  anil  impartially  constituted.  The  church  calling  the 
Council  should  be  represented  in  it  by  a  fair  number  of  delegates.  Neither  the  church, 
nor  the  Council,  should  permit  a  prejudgment  of  the  case  by  the  previous  announce- 
ment of  an  ordination  service.  While  the  examination  of  the  candidate  should  be 
public,  all  danger  that  the  Council  be  unduly  influenced  by  pressure  from  without 
should  be  obviated  by  its  conducting  its  deliberations,  and  arriving  at  its  decision,  in 
private  session.  We  subjoin  the  form  of  a  letter  missive,  calling  a  Council  of  ordina- 
tion ;  an  order  of  procedure  after  the  Council  has  assembled ;  and  a  programme  of 
exercises  for  the  public  service. 

Letter  Missive.  —  The church  of to  the church  of :  Dear  Brethren  : 

By  vote  of  this  church,  you  are  requested  to  send  your  pastor  and  two  delegates  to 

meet  with  us  in  accordance  with  the  following  resolutions,  passed  by  us  on  the , 

19  _  :  Whereas,  brother ,  a  member  of  this  church,  has  offered  himself  to  the  work 

of  the  gospel  ministry,  and  has  been  chosen  by  us  as  our  pastor,  therefore,  Resolved,  1. 
That  such  neighboring  churches,  in  fellowship  with  us,  as  shall  be  herein  designated, 
be  requested  to  send  their  pastor  and  two  delegates  each,  to  meet  and  counsel  with  this 

church,  at— o'clock— .  M.,  on ,  19 ,  and  if,  after  examination,  he  be  approved, 

that  brother be  set  apart,  by  vote  of  the  Council,  to  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that 

a  public  service  be  held,  expressive  of  this  fact.  Resolved,  3.  That  the  Council,  if  it 
do  so  ordain,  be  requested  to  appoint  two  of  its  number  to  act  with  the  candidate,  in 
arranging  the  public  services.  Resolved,  3.  That  printed  letters  of  imitation,  embody- 
ing these  resolutions,  and  signed  by  the  clerk  of  this  church,  be  sent  to  the  following 

churches, ,  and  that  these   churches  be  requested  to  furnish  to 

their  delegates  an  officially  signed  certificate  of  their  appointment,  to  be  presented  at 

the  organization  of  the  Council.    Resolved,  4.  That  Rev. ,  and  brethren ,  be 

also  invited  by  the  clerk  of  the  church  to  be  present  as  members  of  the  Council. 
Resolved,  5.  That  brethren ,  ,  and ,  be  appointed  as  our  delegates,  to  repre- 
sent this  church  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Council ;  and  that  brother be  requested 

to  present  the  candidate  to  the  Council,  with  an  expression  of  the  high  respect  and 
warm  attachment  with  which  we  have  welcomed  him  and  his  labors  among  us.  In 
behalf  of  the  church, ,  Clerk.    ,  19  — . 

Order,  of  Procedure.— 1.  Reading,  by  the  clerk  of  the  church,  of  the  letter-missive, 
followed  by  a  call,  in  their  order,  upon  all  churches  and  individuals  invited,  to  present 
responses  and  names  in  writing ;  each  delegate,  as  he  presents  his  credentials,  taking 
his  seat  in  a  portion  of  the  house  reserved  for  the  Council.  2.  Announcement,  by  the 
clerk  of  the  church,  that  a  Council  has  convened,  and  call  for  the  nomination  of  a 
moderator,  —  the  motion  to  be  put  by  the  clerk, —  after  which  the  moderator  takes 
the  chair.  3.  Organization  completed  by  election  of  a  clerk  of  the  Council,  the  offering 
of  prayer,  and  an  invitation  to  visiting  brethren  to  sit  with  the  Council,  but  not  to  vote. 
4.  Reading,  on  behalf  of  the  church,  by  its  clerk,  of  the  records  of  the  church  concern- 
ing the  call  extended  to  the  candidate,  and  his  acceptance,  together  with  documentary 
evidence  of  his  licensure,  of  his  present  church  membership,  and  of  his  standing  in 
other  respects,  if  coming  from  another  denomination.  5.  Vote,  by  the  Council,  that 
the  proceedings  of  the  church,  and  the  standing  of  the  candidate,  warrant  an  exami- 
nation of  his  claim  to  ordination.  6.  Introduction  of  the  candidate  to  the  Council,  by 
Borne  representative  of  the  church,  with  an  expression  of  the  church's  feeling  respect- 
ing him  and  his  labors.  7.  Vote  to  hear  his  Christian  experience.  Narration  on  the 
part  of  the  candidate,  followed  by  questions  as  to  any  features  of  it  still  needing  eluci- 
dation.     8.  Vote  to  hear  the  candidate's  reasons  for  believing  himself  called  to  the 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE    CHURCH.  923 

ministry.  Narration  and  questions.  9.  Vote  to  hear  the  candidate's  views  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine.  Narration  and  questions.  10.  Vote  to  conclude  the  public  examination, 
and  to  withdraw  for  private  session.  11.  In  private  session,  after  prayer,  the  Council 
determines,  by  three  separate  votes,  in  order  to  secure  separate  consideration  of  each 
question,  whether  it  is  satisfied  with  the  candidate's  Christian  experience,  rail  to  the 
ministry,  and  views  of  Christian  doctrine.  12.  Vote  that  the  candidate  be  hereby  set 
apart  to  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that  a  public  service  be  held,  expressive  of  this  fact ; 
that  for  this  purpose,  a  committee  of  two  be  appointed,  to  act  with  the  candidate,  in 
arranging- such  service  of  ordination,  and  to  report  before  adjournment.  13.  Reading 
of  minutes,  by  clerk  of  Council,  and  correction  of  them,  to  prepare  for  presentation  at 
the  ordination  service,  and  for  preservation  in  the  archives  of  the  church.  14.  Vote  to 
give  the  candidate  a  certificate  of  ordination,  signed  by  the  moderator  and  clerk  of  the 
Council,  and  to  publish  an  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the  journals  of  the  denomi- 
nation.   15.  Adjourn  to  meet  at  the  service  of  ordination. 

Programme  of  Public  Service  (two  hours  in  length).  — 1.  Voluntary— five  min- 
utes. 2.  Anthem  — five.  3.  Reading  minutes  of  the  Council,  by  the  clerk  of  the 
Council  — ten.  4.  Prayer  of  in  vexation —  five.  5.  Reading  of  Scripture  — five.  6.  Ser- 
mon—twenty-five.  7.  Prayer  of  ordination,  with  laying-on  of  hands— fifteen.  8. 
Hymn  — ten.  9.  Right  hand  of  fellowship  —  five.  10.  < 'harge  to  the  candidate  — fifteen. 
11.  Charge  to  the  church  —  fifteen.  12.  Doxology — five.  13.  Benediction  by  the  newly 
ordained  pastor. 

The  tenor  of  the  N.  T.  would  seem  to  indicate  that  deacons  should  be  ordained  with 
prayer  and  the  laying-on  of  hands,  though  not  by  council  or  public  service.  Evangel- 
ists, missionaries,  ministers  serving  as  secretaries  of  benevolent  societies,  should  also 
beordained,  since  they  arc  organs  of  t  be  church,  set  apart  for  special  religious  work  on 
behalf  of  the  churches.  The  same  rule  applies  to  those  who  are  set  to  be  teachers  of 
the  teachers,  the  professors  of  t  heological  seminaries.  Philip,  bapl  tzing  the  eunuch,  is 
to  be  regarded  as  an  organ  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  Both  home  missionaries  and 
foreign  missionaries  are  evangelists;  and  both,  as  organs  of  the  home  churches  to 
which  they  belong,  are  not  under  obligation  to  take  letters  of  dismission  to  the  churches 
they  gather.  George  Adam  Smith,  in  his  Life  of  Henry  Drummond,  205,  says  that 
Drummond  was  ordained  to  his  professorship  by  the  laying-on  oi  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery :  "  The  rite  is  the  same  in  the  case  whether  of  a  minister  or  of  a  professor,  for 
the  church  of  Scotland  recognizes  no  difference  between  her  teachers  and  her  pastors, 
but  lays  them  under  the  same  vows,  and  ordains  them  all  as  ministers  of  Christ's  gospel 
and  of  his  sacraments." 

Rome  teaches  that  ordination  is  a  sacrament,  and  "once  a  priest,  always  a  priest," 
but  only  when  Rome  confers  the  ordination.  It  is  going  a  great  deal  further  than 
Rome  to  maintain  the  indelibility  of  all  orders  —at  least,  of  all  orders  conferred  by  an 
evangelical  church.  At  Dover  in  England,  a  medical  gentleman  declined  to  pay  his 
doctor's  bill  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  not  the  custom  of  his  calling  to  pay  one 
another  for  their  services.  [(  appeared  however  that  he  was  a  retired  practitioner,  and 
upon  that  ground  he  lost  his  case.  Ordination,  like  vaccination,  may  run  out.  Ret  he- 
men  t  from  the  office  Of  public  teacher  should  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  official  character. 
The  authorization  granted  by  the  Council  was  based  upon  a  previous  recognition  of  a 
divine  call.  When  by  reason  of  permanent  withdrawal  from  the  ministry,  and  devo- 
tion to  wholly  secular  pursuits,  there  remains  no  longer  any  divine  call  to  be  recog- 
nized, allauthority  and  standing  asa  Christian  minister  should  cease  also.  Wetherefore 
repudiate  the  doctrine  of  the  "indelibility  of  sacred  orders,"  and  the  corresponding 
maxim  :  "Once  ordained,  always  ordained  "  ;  although  we  do  not,  with  the  Cambridge 
Platform,  confine  the  ministerial  function  to  the  pastoral  relation.  That  Platform 
held  that  "  the  pastoral  relation  ceasing,  the  ministerial  function  ceases,  and  the  pastor 
becomes  a  layman  again,  to  be  restored  to  the  ministry  only  by  a  second  ordination, 
called  installation.  This  theory  of  the  ministry  proved  so  inadequate,  that  it  was  held 
scarcely  more  than  a  single  generation.  It  was  rejected  by  the  Congregational 
churches  of  England  ten  years  after  it  was  formulated  in  New  England." 

"The  National  Council  of  Congregational  Churches,  in  1880,  resolved  that  any  man 
serving  a  church  as  minister  can  be  dealt  with  and  disciplined  by  any  church,  no  mat- 
ter what  his  relations  may  be  in  church  membership,  or  ecclesiastical  affiliations.  If  the 
church  choosing  him  will  not  call  a  council,  then  any  church  can  call  one  for  that  pur- 
pose"; see  New  Englander,  July,  1883:461-491.  This  latter  course,  however,  pre- 
supposes that  the  steps  of  fraternal  labor  and  admonition,  provided  for  in  our  next 
section  on  the  Relation  of  Local  Churches  to  one  another,  have  been  taken,  and  have 


924  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

been  insufficient  to  induce  proper  action  on  the  part  of  the  church  to  which  such 
minister  belongs. 

The  authority  of  a  Presbyterian  church  is  limited  to  the  bounds  of  its  own 
denomination.  It  cannot  ordain  ministers  for  Baptist  churches,  any  more  than 
it  can  ordain  them  for  Methodist  churches  or  for  Episcopal  churches.  When  a 
Presbyterian  minister  becomes  a  Baptist,  his  motives  for  making  the  change  and  the 
conformity  of  his  views  to  the  New  Testament  standard  need  to  be  scrutinized  by 
Baptists,  before  they  can  admit  him  to  their  Christian  and  church  fellowship  ;  in  other 
words,  he  needs  to  be  ordained  by  a  Baptist  church.  Ordination  is  no  more  a  discour- 
tesy to  the  other  denomination  than  Baptism  is.  Those  who  oppose  reordination  in 
such  cases  virtually  hold  to  the  Romish  view  of  the  sacredness  of  orders. 

The  Watchman,  April  17, 1902 — "  The  Christian  ministry  is  not  a  priestly  class  which 
the  laity  is  bound  to  support.  If  the  minister  cannot  find  a  church  ready  to  support 
him,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  his  entering  another  calling.  Only  ten  per  cent,  of  the 
men  who  start  in  independent  business  avoid  failure,  and  a  much  smaller  proportion 
achieve  substantial  success.  They  are  not  failures,  for  they  do  useful  and  valuable 
work.  But  they  do  not  secure  the  prizes.  It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  proportion  of 
ministers  securing  prominent  pulpits  is  small.  Many  men  fail  in  the  ministry.  There 
is  no  sacred  character  imparted  by  ordination.  They  should  go  into  some  other  avoca- 
tion. '  Once  a  minister,  always  a  minister '  is  a  piece  of  Popery  that  Protestant  churches 
should  get  rid  of."  See  essay  on  Councils  of  Ordination,  their  Powers  ami  Duties,  by 
A.  II.  Strong,  in  Philosophy  and  Religion,  259-268;  Waylaud,  Principles  and  Practices 
of  Baptists,  114;  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  136, 145, 146, 150, 151.  Per  contra,  see  Fish, 
Ecclesiology,  365-399 ;  Presb.  Rev.,  1886 :  89-126. 

3.     Discipline  of  the  Church. 

A.  Kinds  of  discipline. — Discipline  is  of  two  sorts,  according  as  offences 
are  private  or  public.  ( a )  Private  offences  are  to  be  dealt  with  according 
to  the  rule  in  Mat.  5  :  23,  24;  18  :  15-17. 

Mat.  5:  23,  24 — "If  therefore  thou  art  offering  thy  gift  at  tho  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy  brother  hath 
aught  against  thee,  leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way,  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and  then 
come  and  offer  thy  gift " — here  is  provision  for  self-discipline  on  the  part  of  each  offender  ; 
18 :  15-17  — "And  if  thy  brother  sin  against  thee,  go,  show  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone  :  if  he  hear  thee, 
thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  hear  thee  not,  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  at  the  mouth  of  two 
witnesses  or  three  every  word  may  be  established.  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church :  and  if  h9 
refuse  to  hear  the  church  also,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the  publican" — here  is,  first,  private 
discipline,  one  of  another;  and  then,  only  as  a  last  resort,  discipline  by  the  church. 
Westcott  and  Hort.  however  omic  the  eis  o-e— "against  thee" — in  Mat.  18:15,  and  so  make  each 
Christiau  responsible  for  bringing  to  repentance  every  brother  whose  sin  he  becomes 
cognizant  of.    This  would  abolish  the  distinction  between  private  and  public  offences. 

When  a  brother  wrongs  me,  I  am  not  to  speak  of  the  offence  to  others,  nor  to  write 
to  him  a  letter,  but  to  go  to  him.  If  the  brother  is  already  penitent,  he  will  start  from 
his  house  to  see  me  at  the  same  time  that  I  start  from  my  house  to  see  him,  and  we 
will  meet  just  half  way  between  the  two.  There  would  be  little  appeal  to  the  church, 
and  little  cherishing  of  ancient  grudges,  if  Christ's  disciples  would  observe  his  simple 
rules.  These  rules  impose  a  duty  upon  both  the  offending  and  the  offended  party. 
When  a  brother  brings  a  personal  matter  before  the  church,  he  should  always  be  asked 
whether  he  has  obeyed  Christ's  command  to  labor  privately  with  the  offender.  If  he 
has  not,  he  should  be  bidden  to  keep  silence. 

( b )  Public  offences  are  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  rule  in  1  Cor. 

5  :  3-5,  13,  and  2  Thess.  3  :  6. 

1  Cor.  5:  3-5,  13 —  "For  I  verily,  being  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit,  have  already  as  though  I  were  present 
judged  him  that  hath  so  wrought  this  thing,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  ye  being  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit, 
with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus Put  away  the  wicked  man  from  among  yourselves." 

Notice  here  that  Paul  gave  the  incestuous  person  no  opportunity  to  repent,  confess, 
or  avert  sentence.  The  church  cau  have  no  valid  evidence  of  repentance  immediately 
upon  discovery  and  arraignment.  At  such  a  time  the  natural  conscience  always  reacts 
in  remorse  and  self-accusation,  but  whether  the  sin  is  hated  because  of  its  inherent 
wickedness,  or  only  because  of  its  unfortunate  consequences,  cannot  be  known  at  once. 
Only  fruits  meet  for  repentance  can  prove  repentance  real.   But  such  fruits  take  time. 


GOVERNMENT   OF   THE   CHURCH.  925 

And  the  church  has  no  time  to  wait.  Its  good  repute  in  the  community,  and  its  influence 
over  its  own  members,  are  at  stake.  These  therefore  demand  the  instant  exclusion  of 
the  wrong-doer,  as  evidence  that  the  church  clears  its  skirts  from  all  complicity  with 
the  wrong.  In  the  case  of  gross  public  offences,  labor  with  the  offender  is  to  come,  not 
before,  but  after,  his  excommunication  ;  cf.  2  Cor.  2 : 6-8 — 'Sufficient  to  such  a  one  is  this  punishment 
which  was  inflicted  by  the  many ;  ,  .  .  .  forgive  him  and  comfort  him  ;  .  .  .  .  confirm  your  love  toward  him." 

The  church  is  not  a  Mut  ual  Insurance  Company,  whose  object  is  to  protect  and  shield 
its  individual  members.  It  is  a  society  whose  end  is  to  represent  Christ  iu  the  world, 
and  to  establish  his  truth  and  righteousness.  Christ  commits  his  honor  to  its  keeping. 
The  offender  who  is  only  anxious  to  escape  judgment,  and  who  pleads  to  be  forgiven 
without  delay,  often  shows  that  he  cares  nothing  for  the  cause  of  Christ  which  he  has 
injured,  but  that  he  has  at  heart  only  his  own  selfish  comfort  and  reputation.  The 
truly  penitent  man  will  rather  beg  the  church  to  exclude  him,  in  order  that  it  may  free 
itself  from  the  charge  of  harboring  iniquity.  He  will  accept  exclusion  with  humility, 
will  love  the  church  that  excludes  him,  will  continue  to  attend  its  worship,  will  in  due 
time  seek  and  receive  restoration.  There  is  always  a  way  back  into  the  church  for 
those  who  repent.  But  the  Scriptural  method  of  ensuring  repentance  is  the  method  of 
immediate  exclusion. 

In  2  Cor.  2 :  6-8  — "  inflicted  by  the  many  "  might  at  first  sight  seem  to  imply  that,  although  the 
offender  was  excommunicated,  it  was  only  by  a  majority  vote,  some  members  of  the 
church  dissenting.  Some  interpreters  think  he  had  not  been  excommunicated  at  all, 
but  that  only  ordinary  association  with  him  had  ceased.  But,  if  Paul's  command  in  the 
first  epistle  to  "put  away  the  wicked  man  from  among  yourselves"  (1  Cor.  5:13)  had  been  thus  dis- 
obeyed, the  apostle  would  certainly  have  mentioned  and  rebuked  the  disobedience.  On 
the  contrary  he  praises  them  that  they  had  done  as  he  had  advised.  The  action  of  the 
church  at  Corinth  was  blessed  by  God  to  the  quickening  of  conscience  and  the  purifi- 
cation of  life.  In  many  a  modern  church  the  exclusion  of  unworthy  members  has  in 
like  manner  given  to  Christians  a  new  sense  of  their  responsibility,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  has  convinced  worldly  people  that  the  church  was  in  thorough  earnest.  The 
decisions  of  the  church,  indeed,  when  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  nothing  less  than 
an  anticipation  of  the  judgments  of  the  last  day;  see  Mat.  18:18 — "  What  things  soever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  what  things  soever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  In 
John  8:7,  Jesus  recognizes  the  sin  and  urges  repentance,  while  he  challenges  the  righl  of 
the  moli  to  execute  judgment,  and  does  away  with  the  traditional  stoning.  His  gracious 
treatment  of  the  sinning  woman  gave  no  hint  as  to  the  proper  treatment  of  her  case 
by  the  regular  synagogue  authorities. 

2  Thess  3  : 6  — "  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from 
every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  they  received  of  us."  The  mere  "  drop- 
ping" of  names  from  the  list  of  members  seems  altogether  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
N.  T.  polity.  That  recognizes  only  three  methods  of  exit  from  the  local  church  :  ( 1 ) 
exclusion;  (2)  dismission;  (3)  death.  To  provide  for  the  case  of  memliers  whose 
residence  has  long  been  unknown,  it  is  well  for  the  church  to  have  a  standing  rule  that 
all  members  residing  at  a  distance  shall  report  each  year  by  letter  or  by  contribution, 
and,  in  case  of  failure  to  report  for  two  successive  years,  shall  be  subject  to  discipline. 
The  action  of  the  church,  in  such  cases,  should  take  the  form  of  an  adoption  of  preamble 
and  resolution  :  "  Whereas  A.  B.  has  been  absent  from  the  church  for  more  than  two 
years,  and  has  failed  to  comply  with  the  standing  rule  requiring  a  yearly  report  or 
contribution,  therefore,  Resolved,  that  the  church  withdraw  from  A.  B.  the  hand  of 
fellowship." 

In  all  cases  of  exclusion,  the  resolution  may  uniformly  read  as  above ;  the  preamble 
may  indefinitely  vary,  and  should  always  cite  the  exact  nature  of  the  offence.  In  this 
way,  neglect  of  the  church  or  breach  of  covenant  obligations  may  be  distinguished  from 
offences  against  common  morality,  so  that  exclusion  upon  the  former  ground  shall  not 
be  mistaken  for  exclusion  upon  the  latter.  As  the  persons  excluded  are  not  commonly 
present  at  the  meeting  of  the  church  when  they  are  excluded,  a  written  copy  of  the 
preamble  and  resolution,  signed  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Church,  should  always  be  imme- 
diately sent  to  them. 

B.  Relation  of  the  pastor  to  discipline. —  (a)  He  has  no  original  author- 
ity;  ( b )  but  is  the  organ  of  the  church,  and  ( c )  superintendent  of  its 
labors  for  its  own  purification  and  for  the  reclamation  of  offenders ;  and 


926         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE  09  THE   CHURCH. 

therefore  (  d )  may  best  do  the  work  of  discipline,  not  directly,  by  consti- 
tuting himself  a  sjjecial  policeman  or  detective,  but  indirectly,  by  securing 
proper  labor  on  the  part  of  the  deacons  or  brethren  of  the  church. 

The  pastor  should  regard  himself  as  a  judge,  rather  than  as  a  prosecuting  attorney. 
He  should  press  upon  the  officers  of  his  church  their  duty  to  investigate  cases  of  immor- 
ality and  to  deal  with  them.  But  if  he  himself  makes  charges,  he  loses  dignity,  and 
puts  it  out  of  his  power  to  help  the  offender.  It  is  not  well  for  him  to  be,  or  to  have 
the  reputation  of  being,  a  f'erreter-out  of  misdemeanors  among  his  church  members. 
It  is  best  for  him  in  general  to  serve  only  as  presiding  officer  in  cases  of  discipline, 
instead  of  being  a  partisan  or  a  counsel  for  the  prosecution.  For  this  reason  it  is  well 
for  him  to  secure  the  appointment  by  his  church  of  a  Prudential  Committee,  or  Com- 
mittee on  Discipline,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  at  a  fixed  time  each  year  to  look  over  the  list 
of  members,  initiate  labor  in  the  case  of  delinquents,  and,  after  the  proper  steps  have 
been  taken,  present  proper  preambles  and  resolutions  in  cases  where  the  church  needs  to 
take  action.  This  regular  yearly  process  renders  discipline  easy  ;  whereas  the  neglect  of 
it  for  several  successive  years  results  in  an  accumulation  of  cases,  in  each  of  which  the 
person  exposed  to  discipline  has  friends,  and  these  are  tempted  to  obstruct  the  church's 
dealing  with  others  from  fear  that  the  taking-  up  of  any  other  ease  may  lead  to  the 
taking  up  of  that  one  in  which  they  are  most  nearly  interested.  The  church  which 
pays  no  regular  attention  to  its  discipline  is  like  the  farmer  who  milked  his  cow  only 
once  a  year,  in  order  to  avoid  too  great  a  drain  ;  or  like  the  small  boy  who  did  not  see 
how  any  one  could  bear  to  comb  his  hair  every  day, —  he  combed  his  own  only  once  in 
six  weeks,  and  then  it  nearly  killed  him. 

As  the  Prudential  Committee,  or  Committee  on  Discipline,  is  simply  the  church  itself 
preparing  its  own  business,  the  church  may  well  require  all  complaints  to  be  made  to 
it  through  the  committee.  In  this  way  it  may  be  made  certain  that  the  preliminary 
steps  of  labor  have  been  taken,  and  the  disquieting  of  the  church  by  premature  charges 
may  be  avoided.  Where  the  committee,  after  proper  representations  made  to  it,  fails 
to  do  its  duty,  the  individual  member  may  appeal  directly  to  the  assembled  church; 
and  the  difference  between  the  New  Testament  order  and  that  of  a  hierarchy  is  this, 
that  according  to  the  former  all  final  action  and  responsibility  is  taken  by  the  church 
itself  in  its  collective  capacity,  whereas  on  the  latter  the  minister,  the  session,  or  the 
bishop,  so  far  as  the  individual  church  is  concerned,  determines  the  result.  See  Savage, 
Church  Discipline,  Formative  and  Corrective ;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  208-274.  On  church 
discipline  in  cases  of  remarriage  after  divorce,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Relig- 
ion, 431-442. 

IV.     Relation  of  Local  Churches  to  one  another. 

1.  The  general  nature  of  this  relation  is  that  of  fellowship  between 
equals. — Notice  here  : 

(a)  The  absolute  equality  of  the  churches. — No  church  or  council  of 
churches,  no  association  or  convention  or  society,  can  relieve  any  single 
church  of  its  direct  responsibility  to  Christ,  or  assume  control  of  its  action. 

(6)  The  fraternal  fellowship  and  cooperation  of  the  churches. — No 
church  can  properly  ignore,  or  disregard,  the  existence  or  work  of  other 
churches  around  it.  Every  other  church  is  presumptively  possessed  of  the 
Spirit,  in  equal  measure  with  itself.  There  must  therefore  be  sympathy 
and  mutual  furtherance  of  each  other's  welfare  among  churches,  as  among 
individual  Christians.  Upon  this  principle  are  based  letters  of  dismission, 
recognition  of  the  jjastors  of  other  churches,  and  all  associational  unions, 
or  unions  for  common  Christian  work. 

H.  O.  Rowlands,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  Oct.  1891 :  669-677,  urges  the  giving  up  of  special 
Councils,  and  the  turning  of  the  Association  into  a  Permanent  Council,  not  to  take 
original  cognizance  of  what  cases  it  pleases,  but  to  consider  and  judge  such  questions 
as  may  be  referred  to  it  by  the  individual  churches.  It  could  then  revise  and  rescind 
its  action,  whereas  the  present  Council  when  once  adjourned  can  never  be  called 


RELATION"   OP   LOCAL  CHURCHES    TO   ONE  ANOTHER.  92? 

together  again.  This  method  would  prevent  the  packing  of  a  Council,  and  the  Council 
when  once  constituted  would  have  greater  influence.  We  feel  slow  to  sanction  such  a 
plan,  not  only  for  the  reason  that  it  seems  destitute  of  New  Testament  authority  and 
example,  but  because  it  tends  toward  a  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government.  All 
permanent  bodies  of  this  sort  gradually  arrogate  to  themselves  power ;  indirectly  if  not 
directly  they  can  assume  original  jurisdiction;  their  decisions  have  altogether  too 
great  influence,  if  they  go  further  than  personal  persuasion.  The  independence  of  the 
individual  church  is  a  primary  clement  of  polity  which  must  not  be  sacrificed  or  endan- 
gered for  the  mere  sake  of  inter-ecclesiastical  harmony.  Permanent  Councils  of  any 
sort  are  of  doubtful  validity.  They  need  to  be  kept  under  constant  watch  and  criticism , 
lest  they  undermine  our  Baptist  church  government,  a  fundamental  principle  of  which 
is  that  there  is  no  authority  on  earth  above  that  of  the  local  church. 

2.  This  felloivship  involves  the  duty  of  special  consultation  with 
regard  to  matters  affecting  the  common  interest. 

(a)  The  duty  of  seeking  advice.  —  Since  the  order  and  good  repute  of 
each  is  valuable  to  all  the  others,  cases  of  grave  importance  and  difficulty  in 
internal  discipline,  as  well  as  the  question  of  ordaining  members  to  the  min- 
istry, should  be  submitted  to  a  council  of  churches  called  for  the  purpose. 

(6)  The  duty  of  taking  advice. — For  the  same  reason,  each  church 
should  show  readiness  to  receive  admonition  from  others.  So  long  as  this 
is  in  the  nature  of  friendly  reminder  that  the  church  is  guilty  of  defects 
from  the  doctrine  or  practice  enjoined  by  Christ,  the  mutual  acceptance  of 
whose  commands  is  the  basis  of  all  church  fellowship,  no  church  can  justly 
refuse  to  have  such  defects  pointed  out,  or  to  consider  the  Scripturalness  of 
its  own  proceeding.  Such  admonition  or  advice,  however,  whether  coming 
from  a  single  church  or  from  a  council  of  churches,  is  not  itself  of  bind- 
ing authority.  It  is  simply  in  the  nature  of  moral  suasion.  The  church 
receiving  it  has  still  to  compare  it  with  Christ's  laws.  The  ultimate  decis- 
ion rests  entirely  with  the  church  so  advised  or  asking  advice. 

Churches  should  observe  comity,  and  should  not  draw  away  one  another's  members. 
Ministers  should  bring  churches  together,  and  should  teach  their  members  the  larger 
unity  of  the  whole  church  of  God.  The  pastor  should  not  confine  his  interest  to  his 
own  church  or  even  to  his  own  Association.  The  State  Convention,  the  Education 
Society,  the  National  Anniversaries,  should  all  claim  his  attention  and  that  of  his  people. 
He  should  welcome  new  laborers  and  helpers,  instead  of  regarding  the  ministry  as  a 
close  corporation  whose  numbers  are  to  be  kept  forever  small.  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The 
spirit  of  sectarianism  is  devilish.  It  raises  the  church  above  Christ.  Christ  did  not 
say  :  '  Rlessed  is  the  man  who  accepts  the  Westminster  Confession  or  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles.'  There  is  not  the  least  shadow  of  churchism  in  Christ.  Churchism  is  a 
revamped  and  whitewashed  Judaism.  It  keeps  up  the  middle  wall  of  partition  which 
Christ  has  broken  down." 

Dr.  P.  H.  Mell,  in  his  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice,  calls  Church  Councils  "  Com- 
mittees of  Help."  President  James  C.  Welling  held  that  "  We  Baptists  are  not  true  to 
our  democratic  polity  in  the  conduct  of  our  collective  evangelical  operations.  In  these 
matterswe  are  simply  a  bureaucracy,  tempered  by  individual  munificence."  A.  J.  Gor- 
don, Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  149,  150,  remarks  on  Mat.  18:19  — "If  two  of  you  shall  agree"— 
crvixQtovriauHriv,  from  which  our  word  'symphony'  comes:  "If  two  shall 'accord,' or 
'symphonize '  in  what  they  ask,  they  have  the  promise  of  being  heard.  But,  as  in  tuning 
an  organ,  all  the  notes  must  be  keyed  to  the  standard  pitch,  else  harmony  were  impos- 
sible, so  in  prayer.  It  is  not  enough  that  two  disciples  agree  with  each  other, —  they 
must  agree  with  a  Third  —  the  righteous  and  holy  Lord,  before  they  can  agree  in  inter- 
cession There  may  be  agreement  which  is  in  most  sinful  conflict  with  the  divine  will : 
'How  is  it  that  ye  have  agreed  together' — <rwe<l>tovrjdri  —  the  same  word — 'to  try  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord?' 
says  Peter  ( Acts  5:9).    Here  is  mutual  accord,  but  guilty  discord  with  the  Holy  Spirit." 


928  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

3.  This  fellowship  may  be  broken  by  manifest  departures  from  the 
faith  or  practice  of  the  Scriptures,  on  the  part  of  any  church. 

In  suck  case,  duty  to  Christ  requires  the  churches,  whose  labors  to  reclaim 
a  sister  church  from  error  have  proved  unavailing,  to  withdraw  their  fellow- 
ship from  it,  until  such  time  as  the  erring  church  shall  return  to  the  path 
of  duty.  In  this  regard,  the  law  which  applies  to  individuals  applies  to 
churches,  and  the  polity  of  the  New  Testament  is  congregational  rather 
than  independent. 

Independence  is  qualified  by  interdependence.  While  each  church  is,  in  the  last  resort 
thrown  upon  its  own  responsibility  in  ascertaining-  doctrine  and  duty,  it  is  to  acknowl- 
edge the  indwelling'  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  other  churches  as  well  as  in  itself,  and  the 
value  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  churches  as  an  indication  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
The  church  in  Antioch  asked  advice  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  although  Paul  himself 
was  at  Antioch.  Although  no  church  or  union  of  churches  has  rightful  jurisdiction 
over  the  single  local  body,  yet  the  Council,  when  rightly  called  and  constituted,  has 
the  power  of  moral  influence.  Its  decision  is  an  index  to  truth,  which  only  the  gravest 
reasons  will  justify  the  church  in  ignoring  or  refusing  to  follow. 

Dexter,  Congregationalism,  695 — "  Barrowism  gave  all  power  into  the  hands  of  the 
elders,  and  it  would  have  no  Councils.  Congregationalism  is  Brownism.  It  has  two 
foci :  Independence  and  Interdependence."  Charles  S.  Scott,  on  Baptist  Polity  and  the 
Pastorate,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  July,  1890 :  291-297  — "  The  difference  between  the  polity  of 
Baptist  and  of  Congregational  churches  is  in  the  relative  authority  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Council.  Congregationalism  is  Councilism.  Not  only  the  ordination  and  first  settle- 
ment of  the  minister  must  be  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  a  Council,  but  every 
subsequent  unsettlement  and  settlement."  Baptist  churches  have  regarded  this  depend- 
ence upon  Councils  after  the  minister's  ordination  as  extreme  and  unwarranted. 

The  fact  that  the  church  has  always  the  right,  for  just  cause,  of  going  behind  the 
decision  of  the  Council,  and  of  determining  for  itself  whether  it  will  ratify  or  reject  that 
decision,  shows  conclusively  that  the  church  has  parted  with  no  particle  of  its  original 
independence  or  authority.  Yet,  though  the  Council  is  simply  a  counsellor  —  an  organ 
and  helper  of  the  church,—  the  neglect  of  its  advice  may  involve  such  ecclesiastical  or 
moral  wrong  as  to  justify  the  churches  represented  in  it,  as  well  as  other  churches,  in 
withdrawing,  from  the  church  that  called  it,  their  denominational  fellowship.  The 
relation  of  churches  to  one  another  is  analogous  to  the  relation  of  private  Christians  to 
one  another.  No  meddlesome  spirit  is  to  be  allowed ;  but  in  matters  of  grave  moment, 
a  church,  as  well  as  an  individual,  may  be  justified  in  giving  advice  unasked. 

Lightf  oot,  in  his  new  edition  of  Clemens  Romanus,  shows  that  the  Epistle,  instead  of 
emanating  from  Clement  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  is  a  letter  of  the  church  at  Rome  to  the 
Corinthians,  urging  them  to  peace.  No  pope  and  no  bishop  existed,  but  the  whole 
church  congregationally  addressed  its  counsels  to  its  sister  body  of  believers  at  Corinth. 
Congregationalism,  in  A.  D.  95,  considered  it  a  duty  to  labor  with  a  sister  church  that 
had  in  its  judgment  gone  astray,  or  that  was  in  danger  of  going  astray.  The  only  pri- 
macy was  the  primacy  of  the  church,  not  of  the  bishop ;  and  this  primacy  was  a  primacy 
of  goodness,  backed  up  by  metropolitan  advantages.  All  this  fraternal  fellowship  fol- 
lows from  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  local  church  as  the  concrete  embodiment 
of  the  universal  church.  Park :  "  Congregationalism  recognizes  a  voluntary  coopera- 
tion and  communion  of  the  churches,  which  Independency  does  not  do.  Independent 
churches  ordain  and  depose  pastors  without  asking  advice  from  other  churches." 

In  accordance  with  this  general  principle,  in  a  case  of  serious  disagreement  between 
different  portions  of  the  same  church,  the  council  called  to  advise  should  be,  if  possible, 
a  mutual,  not  an  ex  parte,  council ;  see  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  2,  3,  61-61.  It  is  a 
more  general  application  of  the  same  principle,  to  say  that  the  pastor  should  not  shut 
himself  in  to  his  own  church,  but  should  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  other  pastors 
and  with  other  churches,  should  be  present  and  active  at  the  meetings  of  Associations 
and  State  Conventions,  and  at  the  Anniversaries  of  the  National  Societies  of  the  denom- 
ination. His  example  of  friendly  interest  in  the  welfare  of  others  will  affect  his  church. 
The  strong  should  be  taught  to  help  the  weak,  after  the  example  of  Paul  in  raising 
contributions  for  the  poor  churches  of  Judea. 


RELATION   OF   LOCAL   CHURCHES   TO    ONE   ANOTHER.  929 

The  principle  of  church  independence  is  not  only  consistent  with,  but  it  absolutely 
requires  under  Christ,  all  manner  of  Christian  cooperation  with  other  churches;  and 
Social  and  mission  Unions  to  unify  the  work  of  the  denomination,  to  secure  the  start- 
ing of  new  enterprises,  to  prevent  one  church  from  trenching  upon  the  territory  or 
appropriating  the  members  of  another,  are  only  natural  outgrowths  of  the  principle. 
President  Wayland's  remark,  "  He  who  is  displeased  with  everybody  and  everything 
gives  the  best  evidence  that  his  own  temper  is  defective  and  that  he  is  a  bad  associate," 
applies  to  churches  as  well  as  to  individuals.  Each  church  is  to  remember  that,  though 
it  is  honored  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Lord,  it  constitutes  only  a  part  of  that  great  body 
of  which  Christ  is  the  head. 

See  Davidson,  Eccl.  Pobty  of  the  N.  T. ;  Ladd,  Principles  of  Church  Polity;  and  on 
the  general  subject  of  the  Church,  Hodge,  Essays,  201 ;  Flint,  Christ's  Kingdom  on 
Earth,  53-82;  Hooker,  Ecclesiastical  Polity;  The  Church,— a  collection  of  essays  by 
Luthardt,  Kahnis,  etc.;  Hiscox,  Baptist  Church  Directory;  Ripley,  Church  Polity; 
Harvey,  The  Church  ;  Crowell,  Church  Members'  Manual ;  R.  W.  Dale,  Manual  of  Con- 
gregationa]  Principles;  Lightfoot,  Coin,  on  Philippians,  excursus  on  the  Christian 
Ministry  ;  Ross,  The  Church-Kingdom  —  Lectures  on  Congregationalism  ;  Dexter,  Con- 
gregationalism, 681-716,  as  seen  in  its  Literature;  Allison,  Baptist  Councils  in  America. 
For  a  denial  that  there  is  any  real  apostolic  authority  for  modern  church  polity,  see 
O.  J.  Thatcher,  Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 


59 


CHAPTEE  II. 


THE   ORDINANCES   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

By  the  ordinances,  we  mean  those  outward  rites  which  Christ  has 
appointed  to  be  administered  in  his  church  as  visible  signs  of  the  saving 
truth  of  the  gospel.  They  are  signs,  in  that  they  vividly  express  this  truth 
and  confirm  it  to  the  believer. 

In  contrast  with  this  characteristically  Protestant  view,  the  Bomanist 
regards  the  ordinances  as  actually  conferring  grace  and  producing  holiness. 
Instead  of  being  the  external  manifestation  of  a  preceding  union  with 
Christ,  they  are  the  physical  means  of  constituting  and  maintaining  this 
union.  With  the  Bomanist,  in  this  particular,  sacramentalists  of  every 
name  substantially  agree.  The  Papal  Church  holds  to  seven  sacraments  or 
ordinances: — ordination,  confirmation,  matrimony,  extreme  unction,  pen- 
ance, baptism,  and  the  eucharist.  The  ordinances  prescribed  in  the  N.  T. , 
however,  are  two  and  only  two,  viz.  : — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  will  be  well  to  distinguish  from  one  another  the  three  words :  symbol,  rite,  and 
ordinance.  1.  A  symbol  is  the  sign,  or  visible  representation,  of  an  invisible  truth  or 
idea;  as  for  example,  the  lion  is  the  symbol  of  strength  and  courage,  the  lamb  is  the 
symbol  of  gentleness,  the  olive  branch  of  peace,  the  sceptre  of  dominion,  the  wedding 
ring  of  marriage,  and  the  flag  of  country.  Symbols  may  teach  great  lessons  ;  as  Jesus' 
cursing  the  barren  flgtree  taught  the  doom  of  unfruitful  Judaism,  and  Jesus'  washing  of 
the  disciples'  feet  taught  his  own  coming  down  from  heaven  to  purify  and  save,  and  the 
humble  service  required  of  his  followers.  2.  A  rite  is  a  symbol  which  is  employed  wit  b 
regularity  and  sacred  intent.  Symbols  became  rites  when  thus  used.  Examples  of 
authorized  rites  in  the  Christian  Church  are  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination,  and 
the  giving  of  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  3.  An  ordinance  is  a  symbolic  rite  which 
sets  forth  the  central  truths  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  which  is  of  universal  and  per- 
petual obligation.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  rites  which  have  become 
ordinances  by  the  specific  command  of  Christ  and  by  their  inner  relation  to  the  essential 
truths  of  his  kingdom.  No  ordinance  is  a  sacrament  in  the  Romanist  sense  of  confer- 
ring grace ;  but,  as  the  sacramentum  was  the  oath  taken  by  the  Roman  soldier  to  obey 
his  commander  even  unto  death,  so  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  sacraments,  in 
the  sense  of  vows  of  allegiance  to  Christ  our  Master. 

President  H.  G.  Weston  has  recorded  his  objections  to  the  observance  of  the  so-called 
1  Christian  Year,'  in  words  that  we  quote,  as  showing  the  danger  attending  the  Romanist 
multiplication  of  ordinances.  "  1.  The  '  Christian  Year '  is  not  Christian.  It  makes 
everything  of  actions,  and  nothing  of  relations.  Make  a  day  holy  that  God  has  not 
made  holy,  and  you  thereby  make  all  other  days  unholy.  2.  It  limits  the  Christian's 
view  of  Christ  to  the  scenes  and  events  of  his  earthly  life.  Salvation  comes  through 
spiritual  relations  to  a  living  Lord.  The  *  Christian  Year '  makes  Christ  only  a  memory, 
and  not  a  living,  present,  personal  power.  Life,  not  death,  is  the  typical  word  of  the 
N.  T.  Paul  craved,  not  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  but  of  the  power  of 
it.  The  New  Testament  records  busy  themselves  most  of  all  with  what  Christ  is  doing 
now.  3.  The  appointments  of  the  'Christian  Year'  are  not  in  accord  with  the  N.  T. 
These  appointments  lack  the  reality  of  spiritual  life,  and  are  contrary  to  the  essential 
spirit  of  Christianity."  We  may  add  that  where  the  "Christian  Year  "  is  most  generally 
and  rigi ^./ observed,  there  popular  religion  is  most  formal  and  destitute  of  spiritual 
power. 

930 


BAPTISM.  931 

I.     Baptism. 

Christian  Baptism  is  the  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water,  in  token  of  his 

previous  entrance  into  the  communion  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection, 

or,  in  other  words,  in  token  x>i  his  regeneration  through  union  with  Christ. 

1.     Baptism  an  Ordinance  of  Christ. 

A.     Proof  that  Christ  instituted  an  external  rite  called  baptism. 

(a)  From  the  words  of  the  great  commission;  (  6)  from  the  injunctions 
of  the  apostles;  (c)  from  the  fact  that  the  members  of  the  New  Testament 
churches  were  baptized  believers;  (d)  from  the  universal  practice  of  such 
a  rite  in  Christian  churches  of  subsequent  times. 

( a  )  Mat.  28 :  19  — "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit";  Mark  16:16— "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  "—we  hold, 
with  Westcott  and  Hort,  that  Mark  16:  9-20  is  of  canonical  authority,  though  probably  Dot 
written  by  Mark  himself.  (  h  )  Acts  2 :  38 — "And  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins"  ;  (c)  Rom.  6:  3-5  — "Or  are  ye  ignorant  that 
all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death?  We  were  buried  therefore  with  him  through 
baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  become  united  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of 
his  resurrection  "  ;  Col.  2  :  11,  12 — "in  whom  ye  were  also  circumcised  with  a  circumcision  not  made  with  hands,  in  the 
putting  off  of  the  body  of  the  flesh,  in  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  having  been  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye 
were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the  working  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  (  d)  The  only 
marked  exceptions  to  the  universal  requisition  of  baptism  are  found  in  the  Society  of 
Friends,  and  in  the  Salvation  Army.  The  Salvation  Army  does  not  regard  the  ordinance 
as  having-  any  more  permanent  obligation  than  feet-washing-.  General  Booth:  "We 
teach  our  soldiers  that  every  time  they  break  bread,  they  are  to  remember  the  broken 
body  of  the  Lord,  and  every  time  they  wash  the  body,  they  are  to  remind  themselves  of 
the  cleansing'  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ  and  of  the  indwelling  Spirit."  The  Society 
of  Friends  regard  Christ's  commands  as  fulfilled,  not  by  any  outward  baptism  of  water, 
but  only  by  the  inward  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

B.  This  external  rite  intended  by  Christ  to  be  of  universal  and  per- 
petual obligation. 

( a )  Christ  recognized  John  the  Baptist's  commission  to  baptize  as 
derived  immediately  from  heaven. 

Mat.  21 :  25  — "  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it  ?  from  heaven  or  from  men  ?  "—  here  Jesus  clearly  inti- 
mates that  John's  commission  to  baptize  was  derived  directly  from  God ;  cf.  John  1 :  25  — 
the  delegates  sent  to  the  Baptist  by  the  Sanhedrin  ask  him :  "Whythen  baptizest  thou,  ifthou  art 
not  the  Christ,  neither  Elijah,  neither  the  prophet?  "  thus  indicating  that  John's  baptism,  either  in  its 
form  or  its  application,  was  a  new  ordinance  that  required  special  divine  authorization, 

Broadus,  in  his  American  Com.  on  Mat.  3 : 6,  claims  that  John's  baptism  was  no  modifi- 
cation of  an  existing  rite.  Proselyte  baptism  is  not  mentionetin  the  Mishna  (A.  D.  300) ; 
the  first  distinct  account  of  it  is  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  ( Gemara)  written  in  the 
fifth  century ;  it  was  not  adopted  from  the  Christians,  but  was  one  of  the  Jewish  puri- 
fications which  came  to  be  regarded,  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  as  a  peculiar 
initiatory  rite.  Then  •  is  no  mention  of  it,  as  a  Jewish  rite,  in  the  O.  T.,  N.  T.,  Apocrypha, 
Philo,  or  Josephus. 

For  the  view  that  proselyte-baptism  did  not  exist  among  the  Jews  before  the  time  of 
John,  see  Schneekenburger,  Ueber  das  Alter  der  jiidischen  Proselytentaufe ;  Stuart,  in 
Bib.  Repos.,  1833:338-355;  Toy,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  1872 :  301-332.  Dr.  Toy,  however, 
in  a  private  note  to  the  author  <  1884 ),  says :  "lam  disposed  now  to  regard  the  Christian 
rite  as  borrowed  from  the  Jewish,  contrary  to  my  view  in  1872."  So  holds  Edersheim, 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesus,  2 :  742-744 — "  We  have  positive  testimony  that  the  baptism  of 
proselytes  existed  in  the  times  of  Hillel  and  Shammai.  For,  whereas  the  school  of 
Shammai  is  said  to  have  allowed  a  proselyte  who  was  circumcised  on  the  eve  of  the 
Passover,  to  partake,  after  baptism,  of  the  Passover,  the  school  of  Hillel  forbade  it. 
This  controversy  must  be  regarded  as  proving  that  at  that  time  [  previous  to  Christ  ] 
the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  customary." 


932  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

Porter,  on  Proselyte  Baptism,  Hastings'  Bible  Diet.,  4 :  132 — "  If  circumcision  was  the 
decisive  step  in  the  case  of  all  male  converts,  there  seems  no  longer  room  for  serious 
luestion  that  a  bath  of  purification  must  have  followed,  even  though  early  mention  of 
such  proselyte  baptism  is  not  found.  The  law  ( Lev.  11-15 ;  Num.  19 )  prescribed  such 
baths  in  all  cases  of  impurity,  and  one  who  came  with  the  deep  impurity  of  a  heathen 
life  behind  him  could  not  have  entered  the  Jewish  community  without  such  cleansing." 
Plummer,  on  Baptism,  Hastings'  Bible  Diet.,  1 :239— "  What  is  wanted  is  direct  evidence 
that,  before  John  the  Baptist  made  so  remarkable  a  use  of  the  rite,  it  was  the  custom 
to  make  all  proselytes  submit  to  baptism;  and  such  evidence  is  not  forthcoming. 
Nevertheless  the  fact  is  not  really  doubtful.  It  is  not  credible  that  the  baptizing  of 
proselytes  was  instituted  and  made  essential  for  their  admission  to  Judaism  at  a  period 
subsequent  to  the  institution  of  Christian  baptism ;  and  the  supposition  that  it  was 
borrowed  from  the  rite  enjoined  by  Christ  i?  monstrous." 

Although  the  O.  T.  and  the  Apocrypha,  Joseph  us  and  Philo,  are  silent  with  regard  to 
proselyte  baptism,  it  is  certain  that  it  existed  among  the  Jews  in  the  early  Christian 
centuries ;  and  it  is  almost  equally  certain  that  the  Jews  could  not  have  adopted  it  from 
the  Christians.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  an  application 
to  Jews  of  an  immersion  which,  before  that  time,  was  administered  to  proselytes  from 
among  the  Gentiles ;  and  that  it  was  this  adaptation  of  the  rite  to  a  new  class  of  subjects 
and  with  a  new  meaning,  which  excited  the  inquiry  and  criticism  of  the  Sanhedrin.  We 
must  remember,  however,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  likewise  an  adaptation  of  certain' 
portions  of  the  old  Passover  service  to  a  new  use  and  meaning.  See  also  Kitto,  Bib. 
Cyclop.,  3: 593. 

( 6 )  In  his  own  submission  to  John's  baptism,  Christ  gave  testimony  to 
the  binding  obligation  of  the  ordinance  (Mat.  3  :  13-17).  John's  baptism 
was  essentially  Christian  baptism  (Acts  19  :  4),  although  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  it  was  not  understood  until  after  Jesus'  death  and  resurrection 
( Mat.  20  :  17-23 ;  Luke  12  :  50 ;  Eom.  6  :  3-6 ). 


Mat.  3:13-17 — "Suffer  it  now:  for  thus  it  bocometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness";  Acts  19: 4 — "Johnl 
•with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  that  should  ctmie  after  him,  that 
is,  on  Jesus  ";  Mat.  20 :  18,  19,  22  — "the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the  chief  priests  and  scribes ;  and  they  shall 

condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him  unto  the  Gentiles  to  mock,  and  to  scourge,  and  to  crucify Are  ye 

able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  am  about  to  drink  ?  "  Luke  12  :  50  — "  But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  ;  and 
how  am  I  straitened  til!  it  be  accomplished  !  "  Rom.  6:3,  4  — "  Or  are  ye  ignorant  that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into 
Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  We  were  buried  therefore  with  him  through  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

Robert  Hall,  Works,  1 :  367-399,  denies  that  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  and 
holds  that  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  all  the  apostles  were  baptized.  The  fact 
that  John's  baptism  was  a  baptism  of  faith  in  the  coming  Messiah,  as  well  as  a  baptism 
of  repentance  for  past  and  present  sin,  refutes  this  theory.  The  only  difference  between 
John's  baptism,  and  the  baptism  of  our  time,  is  that  John  baptized  upon  profession  of 
faith  in  a  Savior  yet  to  come ;  baptism  is  now  administered  upon  profession  of  faith  in 
a  Savior  who  has  actually  and  already  come.  On  John's  baptism  as  presupposing  faith 
in  those  who  received  it,  see  treatment  of  the  Subjects  of  Baptism,  page  950. 

(c)  In  continuing  the  practice  of  baptism  through  his  disciples  (John 
4:1,2),  and  in  enjoining  it  upon  them  as  part  of  a  work  which  was  to  last 
to  the  end  of  the  world  (Mat.  28  :  19,  20),  Christ  manifestly  adopted  and 
appointed  baptism  as  the  invariable  law  of  his  church. 

John  4: 1,  2— "When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  was  making  and  baptizing 
more  disciples  than  John  ( although  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples ) ";  Mat.  28  :  19,  20  — "Go  ye  therefore, 
and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit : 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world." 

(d)  The  analogy  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  also  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  baptism  is  to  be  observed  as  an  authoritative  memorial  of 
Christ  and  his  truth,  until  his  second  coming. 


BAPTISM.  933 

1  Cor.  11 :  26 — "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come." 
Baptism,  like  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  teaching  ordinance,  and  the  two  ordinances  together 
furnish  an  indispensable  witness  to  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 

(e)  There  is  no  intimation  whatever  that  the  command  of  baptism  is 
limited,  or  to  be  limited,  in  its  application,  —  that  it  has  been  or  ever  is  to 
be  repealed  ;  and,  until  some  evidence  of  such  limitation  or  repeal  is  pro- 
duced, the  statute  must  be  regarded  as  universally  binding. 

On  the  proof  that  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  see  Pepper,  in  Madison  Avenue 
Lectures,  85-114;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  9-21. 

2.     The  Mode  of  Baptism. 

This  is  immersion,  and  immersion  only.  This  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations : 

A.     The  command  to  baptize  is  a  command  to  immerse. — We  show  this : 
(a)  From  the  meaning  of  the  original  word  flanTiC,u.     That  this  is  to 

iniinerse,  appears: 

First, — from  the  usage  of  Greek  writers — including  the  church  Fathers, 

when  they  do  not  speak  of  the  Christian  rite,  and  the  authors  of  the  Greek 

version  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Liddell  and  Scott,  Greek  Lexicon:  "flajm'^w,  to  dip  in  or  under  water ;  Lat. immer- 
f/ere."    Sophocles,  Lexicon  of  Greek  Usage  in  the  Roman  and  Byzantine  Periods,  140 

B.  C.  to  1000  A.  D.— " panri^ui,  to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  sink There  is  do  evidence 

that  Luke  and  Paul  and  the  other  writers  of  the  N.  T.  put  upon  this  verb  meanings  not 
recognized  by  the  Greeks."    Thayer,  N.  T.  Lexicon:  " Po.titIC,ui,  literally  to  dip,  to  dip 

repeatedly,  to  immerge,  to  submerge,  ....  metaphorically,  to  overwhelm 

jSan-Tia-na,  immersion,  submersion  ....  a  rite  of  sacred  immersion  commanded  by 
Christ,"  Prof.  Goodwin  of  Harvard  University,  Feb.  13,  1895,  says:  "The  classical 
meaning  of  |3a7rTi'<,*a>,  which  seldom  occurs,  and  of  the  more  common  /San-™,  is  dip 
( literally  or  metaphorically  ),  and  I  never  heard  of  its  having  any  other  meaning  any- 
where. Certainly  I  never  saw  a  lexicon  which  gives  either  sprinkle  or  pour,  as  meanings 
of  either.  I  must  be  allowed  to  ask  why  I  am  so  often  asked  this  question,  which  seems 
to  me  to  have  but  one  perfectly  plain  answer." 

In  the  International  Critical  Commentary,  see  Plum mer  on  Luke,  p.  86—  "It  is  only 
when  baptism  is  administered  by  immersion  that  its  full  significance  is  seen";  Abbott 
on  Colossians,  p.  261— "The  figure  was  naturally  suggested  by  the  immersion  in  bap- 
tism "  ;  see  also  Gould  on  Mark,  p.  127  ;  Sanday  on  Romans,  p.  154-157.  No  one  of  these 
four  Commentaries  was  written  by  a  Baptist.  Thetwo  latest  English  Bible  Dictionaries 
agree  upon  this  point.  Hastings,  Bib.  Diet.,  art. :  Baptism,  p.Sl.'i  a — "The  mode  of  using 
was  commonly  immersion.  The  symbolism  of  the  ordinance  required  this"  ;  Cheyne, 
Encyc.  Biblica,  1 :  473,  while  arguing  from  the  Didache  that  from  a  very  early  date  "a 
triple  pouring  was  admitted  where  a  sufficiency  of  water  could  not  be  had,"  agrees  that 
"  such  a  method  [  as  imm<  rsion  ]  is  presupposed  as  the  ideal,  at  any  rate,  in  Paul's  words 
about  death,  burial  and  resurrection  in  baptism  (  Rom.  6 : 3-5 )." 

Conant,  Appendix  to  Bible  Union  Version  of  Matthew,  1-64,  has  examples  "  drawn 
from  writers  in  almost  every  department  of  literature  and  science ;  from  poets,  rheto- 
ricians, philosophers,  critics,  historians,  geographers;  from  writers  on  husbandry,  on 
medicine,  on  natural  history,  on  grammar,  on  theology  ;  from  almost  every  form  and 
style  of  composition,  romances,  epistles,  orations,  fables,  odes,  epigrams,  sermons,  nar- 
ratives: from  writers  of  various  nations  and  religions.  Pagan,  Jew,  and  Christian, 
belonging  to  many  countries  and  through  a  long  succession  of  ages.  In  all,  the  word 
has  retained  its  ground-meaning  without  change.  From  the  earliest  age  of  Greek 
literature  down  to  its  close,  a  period  of  nearly  two  thousand  years,  not  an  example  has 
been  found  in  which  the  word  has  any  other  meaning.  There  is  no  instance  in  which  it 
signifies  to  make  a  partial  application  of  water  by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  or  to  cleanse, 
to  purify,  apart  from  the  literal  act  of  immersion  as  the  means  of  cleansing  or  purify- 
ing."   See  Stuart,  in  Bib.  Repos.,  1833 :  313 ;  Broadus  on  Immersion,  57,  note. 


934  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OE   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Dale,  in  his  Classic,  Judaic,  Christie,  and  Patristic  Baptism,  maintains  that  Pan-Tw  alone 
means  'to  dip,'  and  that  /3a.7n-ic;<o  never  means  'to  dip,'  but  only  'to  put  within,'  giving 
no  intimation  that  the  object  is  to  be  taken  out  again.  But  see  Review  of  Dale,  by 
A.  C.  Kendriek,  in  Bap.  Quarterly,  1869 :  129,  and  by  Harvey,  in  Bap.  Review,  1879 :  141- 
163.  "  Plutarch  used  the  word  BairT^oi,  when  he  describes  the  soldiers  of  Alexander  on  a 
riotous  march  as  by  the  roadside  dipping  (lit. :  baptizing  )  with  cups  from  huge  wine 
jars  and  mixing  bowls,  and  drinking  to  one  another.  Here  we  have  B*tttLC,<»  used  where 
Dr.  Dale's  theory  would  call  for  pdnm.  The  truth  is  that  8anTi£u>,  the  stronger  word, 
came  to  be  used  in  the  same  sense  with  the  weaker ;  and  the  attempt  to  prove  a  broad 
and  invariable  difference  of  meaning  between  them  breaks  down.  Of  Dr.  Dale's  three 
meanings  of  /3a7rn'£a)  —  (1)  intusposition  without  influence  (stone  in  water),  (2)  intus- 
position  with  influence  ( man  drowned  in  water),  (3)  influence  without  intusposition, 
—  the  last  is  a  figment  of  Dr.  Dale's  imagination.  It  would  allow  me  to  say  that  when 
I  burned  a  piece  of  paper,  I  baptized  it.  The  grand  result  is  this:  Beginning  with  the 
position  that  baptize  means  immerse,  Dr.  Dale  ends  by  maintaining  that  immersion  is 
not  baptism.  Because  Christ  speaks  of  drinking  a  cup,  Dr.  Dale  infers  that  this  is  bap- 
tism."   For  a  complete  reply  to  Dale,  see  Ford,  Studies  on  Baptism. 

Secondly, — every  passage  -where  the  -word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 

either  requires  or  allows  the  meaning  'immerse.' 

Mat.  3:6, 11  — "  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water  unto  ropentance  ....  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  holy  Spirit  and  in 
fire  " ;  cf.  2  Kings  5 :  14  — "  Then  went  he  [  Naaman  ]  down,  and  dipped  himself  [  iBanrioaTo  ]  seven  times  in  the 

Jordan";  Mark  1:5,  9 — "they  were  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins Jesus  came  from 

Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  into  the  Jordan  " ;  7 :  4  — "and  when  they  come  from  the  market-place, 
except  they  bathe  [lit.:  'baptize']  themselves,  they  eat  not:  and  many  other  things  there  are,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  washings  [lit. :  'baptizings'  ]  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  braseu  vessels"  — in  this  verse,  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  with  X  and  b,  read  pavriaoivrai.,  instead  of  Ba-K7i<ru>vTa.i. ;  but  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  subsequent  ignorance  of  Pharisaic  scrupulousness  might  have  changed 
j3a7TTicruji'Tat  into  pavriawvTai ;  but  not  easy  to  see  how  pavTicrtovTai.  should  have  been 
changed  into  BaTrriauivTat.  On  Mat.  15  :2  (aud  the  parallel  passage  Mark  7:4),  see  Broad  us, 
Com.  on  Mat.,  pages  332,  333.  Herodotus,  2:  47,  says  that  if  any  Egyptian  touches  a 
swine  in  passing,  with  his  clothes,  he  goes  to  the  river  and  dips  himself  from  it. 

Meyer,  Com.  in  loco —  "  zo.v  pvq  Bamio-uji'Tai.  is  not  to  be  understood  of  washing  the 
hands  (  Lightfoot,  Wetstein  ),  but  of  immersion,  which  the  word  in  classic  Greekand  in 
the  N.  T.  everywhere  means;  here,  according  to  the  context,  to  take  a  bath."  The 
Revised  Version  omits  the  words  "and  couches,"  although  Maimonides  speaks  of  a 
Jewish  immersion  of  couches ;  see  quotation  from  Maimonides  in  Ingham,  Handbook 
of  Baptism,  373  —  "  Whenever  in  the  law  washing  of  the  flesh  or  of  the  clothes  is  men- 
tioned, it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dipping  of  the  whole  body  in  a  laver ;  for  if  any 
man  dip  himself  all  over  except  the  tip  of  his  little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness. 
....  A  bed  that  is  wholly  deflled,  if  a  man  dip  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure."  Watson, 
in  Annotated  Par.  Bible,  1126. 

Luke  11 :  38  —  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  bathed  [  Jit.  :  'baptized'  ]  himself 
before  dinner" ;  cf.  Bcclesiasticus  31 :  25  —  "  He  that  washeth  himself  after  the  touching  of 
a  dead  body  "  ( BawTi£6ixei>os  anb  vexpov ) ;  Judith  12  :  7  —  "  washed  herself  [  l/JanTifero  ]  in 
a  fountain  of  water  by  the  camp";  Lev.  22 : 4-6  —  "  Whoso  toucheth  anything  that  is  unclean  by  the 
dead  ....  unclean  until  the  even  ....  bathe  his  flesh  in  water."  Acts  2: 41  —  "They  then  that  received  his 
word  were  baptized:  and  there  were  added  unto  them  in  that  day  about  three  thousand  souls."  Although  the 
water  supply  of  Jerusalem  is  naturally  poor,  the  artificial  provision  of  aqueducts,  cis- 
terns, and  tanks,  made  water  abundant.  During  the  siege  of  Titus,  though  thousands 
died  of  famine,  we  read  of  no  suffering  from  lack  of  water.  The  following  are  the 
dimensions  of  pools  in  modern  Jerusalem:  King's  Pool,  15  feet  x  16  x  3;  Siloam,  53  x  18 
x  19 ;  Hezekiah,  240  x  140  x  10 ;  Bethesda  ( so-called ),  3ti0  x  130  x  75 ;  Upper  Gihon,  316  x 
218  x  19  ;  Lower  Gihon,  592  x  200  x  18  ;  see  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches,  1 :323-348,  and 
Samson,  Water-supply  of  Jerusalem,  pub.  by  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  8oc.  There  was  no  difficulty 
in  baptizing  three  thousand  in  one  day ;  for,  in  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  when  all  can- 
didates of  the  year  were  baptized  in  a  single  day,  three  thousand  were  once  baptized; 
and,  on  July  3, 1878,  2222  Telugu  Christians  were  baptized  by  two  administrators  in  nine 
hours.  These  Telugu  baptisms  took  place  at  Velumpilly,  ten  miles  north  of  Ongole. 
The  same  two  men  did  not  baptize  all  the  time.  There  were  six  men  engaged  in  bap- 
tizing, but  never  more  than  two  men  at  the  same  time. 

Acts  16 :  33  —  "And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes  ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his, immediately  "  —the  prison  was  doubtless,  as  are  most  large  edifices  in  the  East,  wLether 


BAPTISM.  935 

public  or  private,  provided  with  tank  and  fountain.  Pee  Gtemet,  Lexicon  of  N.  T 
Greek,  suh  voce  —  "flanri£ui,  immersion  or  submersion  for  a  religious  purpose.-'  Grimm's 
ed.  of  Wilke—  "/San-W^co,  1.  Immerse,  submerge;  2.  Wash  or  bathe,  by  immersing-  or 
submerging-  (Mark  7:4,  also  Naaman  and  Judith);  3.  Figuratively,  to  overwhelm,  as 
with  debts,  misfortunes,  etc"  In  the  N.  T.  rite,  he  says  it  denotes  "an  immersion  in 
water,  intended  as  a  sig-n  of  sins  washed  away,  and  received  by  those  who  wished  to  be 
admitted  to  the  benefits  of  Messiah's  reign." 

Db'llinger,  Kirche  und  Kireheu,  337  —  "  The  Baptists  are,  however,  from  the  Protes 
tant  point  of  view,  unassailable,  since  for  their  demand  of  baptism  by  submersion  they 
have  the  clear  Bible  text ;  and  the  authority  of  the  church  and  of  her  testimony  is  not 
regarded  by  either  party  "  —  i.  e.,  by  either  Baptists  or  Protestants,  generally.  Prof. 
Harnack,  of  Giessen,  writes  in  the  Independent,  Feb.  19, 1885—"  1.  linptizeinun6ou\  itedly 
Signifies  immersion  ( e&nta/uchen ).  3.  No  proof  can  be  found  that  it  signifies  anything 
else  in  the  N.  T.  and  in  the  most  ancient  Christian  literature.  The  suggestion  regard- 
ing- a  'sacred  sense  '  is  out  of  the  question.  3.  There  is  no  passage  in  the  N.  T.  which 
suggests  the  supposition  that  any  New  Testament  author  attached  to  the  word  bap- 
tize in  any  other  sense  than  •  /intauchi m  =  mitrrtduchcii  ( immeree,  submerge)."  See 
Com.  of  Meyer,  and  Cunningham,  Croall  Lectures. 

Thirdly,  —  the  absence  of  any  use  of  the  word  in  the  passive  voice  with 
'water'  as  its  subject  confirms  our  conclusion  that  its  meaning  is  "to 
immerse."    Water  is  never  said  to  be  baptized  upon  a  man. 

( b  )  From  the  use  of  the  verb  (lanTifa  with  prepositions  : 
First,  —  with'-.  (Mark  1:9  —  where  'lopdavtjv  is  the  element  into  which 
the  person  passes  in  the  act  of  being  bajitized  ). 

Mark  1 :  P,  marg. —  "JAnd  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of 
John  into  the  Jordan." 

Secondly,  —  with  b>  (  Mark  1  :5,  8  ;  cf.  Mat.  3  :  11.     John  1  :  26,  31,  33  ; 

cf.  Acts  2  :2,  4).  In  these  texts,  h>  is  to  be  taken,  not  in strumen tally,  but 
as  indicating  the  element  in  which  the  immersion  takes  place. 

Mark  1 : 5,  8  —  "  they  were  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins  ....  I  baptized  you  in  water ; 
but  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit "  —  here  see  Meyer's  Com.  on  Mat.  3  :  11  —  "  kv  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  meaning  of  PaiTTi£u  ( immerse ),  not  to  be  understood  instrumentally,  but 
on  the  contrary,  in  the  sense  of  the  element  in  which  the  immersion  takes  place." 
Those  who  pray  for  a  '  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit '  pray  for  such  a  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit  as  shall  fill  the  place  and  permit  them  to  be  flooded  or  immersed  in  his  abundant 
presence  and  power ;  see  C.  B.  Smith,  Baptism  of  Fire,  1881 :  305-311.  Plumptre  :  "  The 
baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  would  imply  that  the  souls  thus  baptized  would  be 
plunged,  as  it  were,  in  that  creative  and  informing  Spirit,  which  was  the  source  of 
li^iit  and  holiness  and  wisdom." 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  67  —  "  The  upper  room  became  the  Spirit's  bap- 
tistery.   His  presence  'filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting'  (Acts  2:2) Baptism  in  the 

Holy  Spirit  was  given  once  for  all  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Paraclete  came  in 
person  to  make  his  abode  in  the  church.  It  does  not  follow  that  every  believer  has 
received  this  baptism.  God's  gift  is  one  thing,  —  our  appropriation  of  that  gift  is  quite 
another  thing.  Our  relation  to  the  second  and  to  the  third  persons  of  the  Godhead  is 
exactly  parallel  in  this  respect.  ' God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son '  ( John  3 :  16 ). 
'But  as  many  as  re  wived  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name '  ( John  1 :  12 ).  "We  are  required  to  appropriate  the  Spirit  as  sons,  in  the  same  way 
that  we  are  required  to  appropriate  Christ  as  sinners  .  .  .  .  '  He  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Receive  ye '  —  take  ye,  actively  — '  the  Holy  Spirit '  ( John  20 :  22 )." 

(  c  )  From  circumstances  attending  the  administration  of  the  ordinance 
(  Mark  1 :  10  —  avafiaivcxv  ek  tov  vcaroc ;  John  3  :  23  —  vcara  nolla  ;  Acts  8  :  38, 
39  —  Karefitjaav  ele  to  vdup  ....  avefir/oav  in  tov  vdaroc). 

Mark  1 :  10 — "coming  up  out  of  the  TJater";  John  3:23 — "And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Jlnon  near  to  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there  "  — a  sufficient  depth  of  water  for  baptizing  ;  see  Prof.  W.  A. 


936  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Stevens,  on  _<Enon  near  to  Salim,  in  Journ.  Soc.  of  Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  Dec.  1883. 

Acts  8 :  38,  39  —  "and  they  both  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  he  baptized  him.    And 

when  they  came  up  out  of  the  water "    In  the  case  of  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  President 

Timothy  Dwight,  in  S.  S.  Times,  Aug.  27,  1892,  says :  "  The  baptism  was  apparently  by 
immersion."  The  Editor  adds  that  "  practically  scholars  are  agreed  that  the  primitive 
meaning  of  the  word  '  baptize '  was  to  immerse." 

(  d  )  From  figurative  allusions  to  the  ordinance. 

Mark  10 :  38  —  "  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink  ?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with  ?  "  —  here  the  cup  is  the  cup  of  suffering  in  CJethsemane ;  cf.  Luke  22 :  42  —  "  Father,  if  thou 
be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from  me " ;  and  the  baptism  is  the  baptism  of  death  on  Calvary,  and 
of  the  grave  that  was  to  follow  ;  cf.  Luke  12 :  50  —  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with ;  and  how  am  I 
straitened  till  it  be  accomplished!"  Death  presented  itself  to  the  Savior's  mind  as  a  baptism, 
because  it  was  a  sinking  under  the  floods  of  suffering.  Rom.  6  :  4  — "  We  were  buried  therefore 
with  him  through  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so 
we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life"  —  Cony  beare  and  Howson,  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
say,  on  this  passage,  that  "  it  cannot  be  understood  without  remembering  that  the 
primitive  method  of  baptism  was  by  immersion."  On  Luke  12 :  49,  marg.—  "  I  came  to  cast  fire  upon 
the  earth,  and  how  would  I  that  it  were  already  kindled !  "  —  see  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2  :225— "  He 
knew  that  he  was  called  to  bring  a  new  energy  and  movement  into  the  world,  which 
mightily  seizes  and  draws  everything  towards  it,  as  a  hurled  firebrand,  which  where- 
ever  it  falls  kindles  a  flame  which  expands  into  a  vast  sea  of  fire"—  the  baptism  of 
fire,  the  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

1  Cor.  10: 1,  2—  "our  fathers  were  all  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea";  Col.  2:12-  "having  been  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also 
raised  with  him  "  ;  Heb.  10 :  22  —  "  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  having  our  body  washed 
[  AeAou/neVoi  ]  with  pure  water"  — here  Trench,  N.  T.  Synonyms,  210,  217,  says  that  "  Aovw 
implies  always,  not  the  bathing  of  a  part  of  of  the  body,  but  of  the  whole."  1  Pet.  3 :  20, 
21  —  "  saved  through  water :  which  also  after  a  true  likeness  doth  now  save  you,  even  baptism,  not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  interrogation  of  a  good  conscience  toward  Sod,  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ "  — 
as  the  ark  whose  sides  were  immersed  in  water  saved  Xoah,  so  the  immersion  of 
believers  typically  saves  them;  that  is,  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  the  turning 
of  the  soul  to  God,  which  baptism  symbolizes.  "  In  the  ritual  of  Moses  and  Aaron, 
three  things  were  used :  oil,  blood,  and  water.  The  oil  was  poured,  the  blood  was 
sprinkled,  the  water  was  used  for  complete  ablution  first  of  all,  and  subsequently  for 
partial  ablution  to  those  to  whom  complete  ablution  had  been  previously  adminis- 
tered "  ( Win,  Ashmore ). 

(  e )  From  the  testimony  of  church  history  as  to  the  practice  of  the  early 
church. 

Tertullian,  De  Baptismo,  chap.  12  — "Others  make  the  suggestion  (forced  enough, 
clearly )  that  the  apostles  then  served  the  turn  of  baptism  when  in  their  little  ship  they 
were  sprinkled  and  covered  with  the  waves;  that  Peter  himself  also  was  immersed 
enough  when  he  walked  on  the  sea.  It  is  however,  as  I  think,  one  thing  to  be  sprinkled 
or  intercepted  by  the  violence  of  the  sea  ;  another  thing  to  be  baptized  in  obedience  to 
the  discipline  of  religion."  Fisher,  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  565—  "Baptism,  it  is  now 
generally  agreed  among  scholars,  was  commonly  administered  by  immersion."  Schaff, 
History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  570—  "  Respecting  the  form  of  baptism,  the  impartial 
historian  is  compelled  by  exegesis  and  history  substantially  to  yield  the  point  to  the 
Baptists."  Elsewhere  Dr.  Schaff  says :  "  The  baptism  of  Christ  in  the  Jordan,  and  the 
illustrations  of  baptism  used  in  the  N.  T.,  are  all  in  favor  of  immersion,  rather  than  of 
sprinkling,  as  is  freely  admitted  by  the  best  exegetes,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  English 
and  German.  Nothing  can  be  gained  by  unnatural  exegesis.  The  persistency  and 
aggressiveness  of  Baptists  have  driven  pedobaptists  to  opposite  extremes." 

Dean  Stanley,  in  his  address  at  Eton  College,  March,  1879,  on  Historical  Aspects  of 
American  Churches,  speaks  of  immersion  as  "  the  primitive,  apostolical,  and,  till  the  13th 
century,  the  universal,  mode  of  baptism,  which  is  still  retained  throughout  the  Eastern 
churches,  and  which  is  still  in  our  own  church  as  positively  enjoined  in  theory  as  it  is 
universally  neglected  in  practice."  The  same  writer,  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Oct. 
1879,  says  that  "  the  change  from  immersion  to  sprinkling  has  set  aside  the  larger  part 
of  the  apostolic  language  regarding  baptism,  and  has  altered  the  very  meaning  of  the 
word."    Neander,  Church  Hist.,  1 :310— "  In  respect  to  the  form  of  baptism,  it  was,  in 


BAPTISM.  937 

Conformity  with  the  original  institution  and  the  original  import  of  the  symbol,  per- 
formed by  immersion,  as  a  sign  of  entire  baptism  into  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  being1  entirely 

penetrated  by  the  same It  was  only  with  the  sick,  where  exigency  required  it, 

that  any  exception  was  made.  Then  it  was  administered  by  sprinkling;  but  many 
superstitious  persons  imagined  such  sprinkling  to  be  not  fully  valid,  and  stigmatized 
those  thus  baptized  as  clinics." 

Until  recently,  there  has  been  no  evidence  that  clinic  baptism,  i.  e.,  the  baptism  of  a 
sick  or  dying  person  in  bed  by  pouring  water  copiously  around  him,  was  practised 
earlier  than  the  time  of  Novatian,  in  the  third  century;  and  in  these  cases  there  is  good 
reason  to  believe  that  a  regenerating  efficacy  was  ascribed  to  the  ordinance.  We  are 
now,  however,  compelled  to  recognize  a  departure  from  N.  T.  precedent  somewhat 
further  back.  Important  testimony  is  that  of  Prof.  Harnack,  of  Giessen,  in  the  Inde- 
pendent of  Feb.  19,  1*85  — "Up  to  the  present  moment  we  possess  no  certain  proof  from 
the  period  of  the  second  century,  in  favor  of  the  fact  that  baptism  by  aspersion  was 
then  even  facultatively  administered;  for  Tertullian  f  De  Poenit.,  6,  and  De  Baptismo, 
12  )  is  uncertain  ;  and  the  age  of  those  pictures  upon  which  is  represented  a  baptism  by 
aspersion  is  not  certain.  The  'Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,'  however,  has  now 
instructed  us  that  already,  in  very  early  times,  people  in  the  church  took  no  offence 
when  aspersion  was  put  in  place  of  immersion,  when  any  kind  of  outward  circum- 
stances might  render  immersion  impossible  or  impracticable But  the  rule  was 

also  certainly  maintained  that  immersion  was  obligatory  if  the  outward  conditions  of 
such  a  performance  were  at  hand."  This  seems  to  show  that,  while  the  corruption  of 
the  N.  T.  rite  began  soon  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  baptism  by  any  other  form 
than  immersion  was  even  then  a  rare  exception,  which  those  who  introduced  the 
change  sought  to  justify  upon  the  plea  of  necessity.  See  Schaff,  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  39—57,  and  other  testimony  in  Coleman,  Christian  Antiquities,  275; 
Stuart,  in  Bib.  Repos.,  1883:?55-363. 

The  '  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,'  section  7,  reads  as  follows :  "  Baptize 

in  living  water.  And  if  thou  have  no  living  water,  baptize  in  other  water  ;  and  if  thou 
canst  not  in  cold,  then  in  warm.  And  if  thou  have  neither,  pour  water  upon  the  head 
thrice."  Here  it  is  evident  that  'baptize  '  means  only  'immerse,'  but  if  water  be  scarce 
pouring  may  be  substituted  fur  baptism.  Dr.  A.  H.  Newman,  Antipedobaptism,  5, 
says  that'  3?he  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles'  may  possibly  belong  to  the  second 
half  of  the  second  century,  but  in  its  present  form  is  probably  much  later.  It  does  not 
explicitly  teach  baptismal  regeneration,  but  this  viewseems  to  be  implied  in  the  require- 
ment, in  case  of  an  absolute  hick  of  a  sufficiency  of  water  of  any  kind  for  baptism 
proper,  that  pouring  water  on  the  bead  three  times  be  resorted  to  as  a  substitute. 
Catechetical  instruction,  repentance,  fasting,  and  prayer,  must  precede  the  baptismal 
rite. 

Dexter,  in  his  True  Story  of  John  Smyth  and  Sebaptism,  maintains  that  immersion 
was  anew  thing  in  England  in  1041.  But  if  so,  it  was  new,  as  Congregationalism  was 
new— a  newly  restored  practice  and  ordinance  of  apostolic  times.  For  replyto  Dexter, 
see  Long,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  Jan.  1881:  12,  13,  who  tells  us,  on  the  authority  of  Blunt's  Ann. 
Book  of  Com.  Prayer,  that  from  1086  to  1549,  the  'Salisbury  Use'  was  the  accepted 
mode,  and  this  provided  for  the  child's  trine  immersion.  "  The  Prayerbook  of  Edward 
VI  succeeded  to  the  Salisbury  T'se  in  1549;  but  in  this  too  immersion  has  the  place  of 
honor  —  affusion  is  only  for  the  weak.  The  English  church  has  never  sanctioned 
sprinkling  (  Blunt,  2-6).  In  1604,  the  Westminster  Assembly  said 'sprinkle  or  pour, ' 
thus  annulling  what  Christ  commanded  1600  years  before.  Queen  Elizabeth  was 
immersed  in  1533.  If  in  1641  immersion  had  been  so  generally  and  so  long  disused  that 
men  saw  it  with  wonder  and  regarded  it  as  a  novelty,  then  the  more  distinct,  emphatic, 
and  peculiarly  their  own  was  the  work  of  the  Baptists.  They  come  before  the  world, 
with  no  partners,  or  rivals,  or  abettors,  or  sympathizers,  as  the  restorers  and  preservers 
of  Christian  baptism." 

(/)  From  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Greek  church. 

De Stourdza,  the  greatest  modern  theologian  of  the  Greek  church,  writes:  "0a7TTt'£<o 
signifies  literally  and  always  '  to  plunge.'  Baptism  and  immersion  are  therefore  identi- 
cal, and  to  say  '  baptism  by  aspersion  '  is  as  if  one  should  say  '  immersion  by  aspersion,' 
or  any  other  absurdity  of  the  same  nature.  The  Greek  church  maintain  that  the  Latin 
church,  instead  of  a  /3a7rTi<riu.6;,  practice  a  mere  pai/no-fids,  — instead  of  baptism,  a  mere 
sprinkling"— quoted  in  Conant  on  Mat.,  appendix,  99.  See  also  Broadus  on  Immer- 
sion, 18. 


938  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  evidence  that  immersion  is  the  original  mode  of  baptism  is  well  summed  up  by 
Dr.  Marcus  Dods,  in  his  article  on  Baptism  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles.  Dr.  Dods  defines  baptism  as  "a  rite  wherein  by  immersion  in  water  the  par- 
ticipant symbolizes  and  signalizes  his  transition  from  an  impure  to  a  pure  life,  his  death 
to  a  past  he  abandons,  and  his  birth  to  a  future  he  desires."  As  regards  the  "  mode  of 
baptism,"  he  remarks :  "That  the  normal  mode  was  by  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
may  be  inferred  (  a)  from  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  which  is  the  intensive  or  frequen- 
tative form  of  bapto,  'I  dip,'  and  denotes  to  immerse  or  submerge  — the  point  is,  that 
1  dip  '  or  '  immerse  '  is  the  primary,  '  wash  '  the  secondary  meaning  of  bapto  or  baptizo. 
(  b )  The  same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the  law  laid  down  regarding  the  baptism 
of  proselytes :  '  As  soon  as  he  grows  whole  of  the  wound  of  circumcision,  they  bring 
him  to  baptism,  and  being  placed  in  the  water,  they  again  instruct  him  in  some  weight- 
ier and  in  some  hghter  commands  of  the  Law,  which  being  heard,  he  plunges  himself 
and  comes  up,  and  behold,  he  is  an  Israelite  in  all  things '  (  Lightf  oot's  Horae  Hebraicae ). 
To  use  Pauline  language,  his  old  man  is  dead  and  buried  in  water,  and  he  rises  from  this 
cleansing  grave  a  new  man.  The  full  significance  of  the  rite  would  have  been  lost  had 
immersion  not  been  practised.  Again,  it  was  required  in  proselyte  baptism  that  'every 
person  baptized  must  dip  his  whole  body,  now  stripped  and  made  naked,  at  one  dipping. 
And  wheresoever  in  the  Law  washing  of  the  body  or  garments  is  mentioned,  it  means 
nothing  else  than  the  washing  of  the  whole  body.'  ( c )  That  immersion  was  the  mode 
of  baptism  adopted  by  John  is  the  natural  conclusion  from  his  choosing  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Jordan  as  the  scene  of  his  labors ;  and  from  the  statement  of  John  3 ;  23 
that  he  was  baptizing  in  Enon  'because  there  was  much  water  there.'  (d)  That  this 
form  was  continued  in  the  Christian  Church  appears  from  the  expression  Loutron 
palingenesias  ( bath  of  regeneration,  Titus  3:5),  and  from  the  use  made  by  St.  Paul  in 
Romans  6  of  the  symbolism.  This  is  well  put  by  Bingham  (Antiquities  xi.  2)."  The 
author  quotes  Bingham  to  the  effect  that  "  total  immersion  under  water  "  was  the  uni- 
versal practice  during  the  early  Christian  centuries  "  except  in  some  particular  cases  of 
exigence,  wherein  they  allow  of  sprinkling,  as  in  the  case  of  a  clinic  baptism,  or  where 
there  is  a  scarcity  of  water."  Dr.  Dods  continues :  "  This  statement  exactly  reflects 
the  ideas  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  the  'Didache'"  (Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles). 

The  prevailing  usage  of  any  word  determines  the  sense  it  bears,  when 
found  in  a  command  of  Christ.  We  have  seen,  not  only  that  the  prevail- 
ing usage  of  the  Greek  language  determines  the  meaning  of  the  word 
'  baptize  '  to  be  '  immerse,'  but  that  this  is  its  fundamental,  constant,  and 
only  meaning.  The  original  command  to  baj^tize  is  therefore  a  command 
to  immerse. 

As  evidence  that  quite  diverse  sections  of  the  Christian  world  are  coming  to  recog- 
nize the  original  form  of  baptism  to  be  immersion,  we  may  cite  the  fact  that  a  memo- 
rial to  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  has  recently  been  erected  in  the  parish 
church  of  Lambeth,  and  that  it  is  in  the  shape  of  a  "  font-grave,"  in  which  a  believer 
can  be  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism  ;  and  also  that  the  Rev.  G.  Campbell  Morgan  has 
had  a  baptistery  constructed  in  the  newly  renovated  Westminster  Congregational 
Church  in  London. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  2:211  —  "As  in  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  did 
Baptism  also  first  receive  its  sacramental  significance  through  Paul.  As  he  saw  in  the 
immersing  under  water  the  symbolical  repetition  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  baptism  appeared  to  him  as  the  act  of  spiritual  dying  and  renovation,  or 
regeneration,  of  incorporation  into  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  that '  new  creation.' 
As  for  Paul  the  baptism  of  adults  only  was  in  question,  faith  in  Christ  is  already  of 
course  presupposed  by  it,  and  baptism  is  just  the  act  in  which  faith  realizes  the  decisive 
resolution  of  giving  one's  self  up  actually  as  belonging  to  Christ  and  his  community. 
Yet  the  outward  act  is  not  on  that  account  a  mere  semblance  of  what  is  already- 
present  in  faith,  but  according  to  the  mysticism  common  to  Paul  with  the  whole 
ancient  world,  the  symbolical  act  effectuates  what  it  typifies,  and  therefore  in  this 
case  the  mortification  of  the  carnal  man  and  the  animation  of  the  spiritual  man.''  For 
the  view  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  constitutes  valid  baptism,  see  Hall,  Mode  of  Bap- 
tism. Per  contra,  see  Hovey,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  April,  1875 ;  Wayland,  Principles 
and  Practices  of  Baptists,  85 ;  Carson,  Noel,  Judson,  and  Pengilly,  on  Baptism  ;  especi- 
ally recent  and  valuable  is  Burrage,  Act  of  Baptism. 


BAPTISM.  939 

B.  No  church  has  the  right  to  modify  or  dispense  with  this  command 
of  Christ.     This  is  plain  : 

( a )  From  the  nature  of  the  church.     Notice: 

First, — that,  besides  the  local  church,  no  other  visible  church  of  Christ 
is  known  to  the  New  Testament.  Secondly, — that  the  local  church  is  not 
a  legislative,  but  is  simply  an  executive,  body.  Only  the  authority  which 
originally  imposed  its  laws  can  amend  or  abrogate  them.  Thirdly, — that 
the  local  church  cannot  delegate  to  any  organization  or  council  of  churches 
any  power  which  it  does  not  itself  rightfully  possess.  Fourthly, — that  the 
opposite  principle  puts  the  church  above  the  Scriptures  and  above  Christ, 
and  would  sanction  all  the  usurpations  of  Eome. 

Mat.  5 :  19  — "  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  shall  be  called 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  he  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  "  ;  cf.  2  Sam.  6:7  —  "  And  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  kindled  against  TJzzah ;  and  God  smote  him  there  for  his 
error ;  and  there  he  died  by  the  ark  of  God."  Shakespeare,  Henry  VI,  Part  1,2:4  —  "  Faith,  I  have 
been  a  truant  in  the  law,  And  never  yet  could  frame  my  will  to  it,  And  therefore  frame 
the  lawunto  my  will."  As  at  the  Reformation  believers  rejoiced  to  restore  communion 
in  both  kinds,  so  we  should  rejoice  to  restore  baptism  as  to  its  subjects  and  as  to  its 
meaning.  To  administer  it  to  a  wailing-  and  resisting  infant,  or  to  administer  it  in  auy 
other  form  than  that  prescribed  by  Jesus*  command  and  example,  is  to  desecrate  and 
destroy  the  ordinance. 

(  b  )  From  the  nature  of  God's  command  : 

First, — as  forming  a  part,  not  only  of  the  law,  but  of  the  fundamental 
law,  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  power  claimed  for  a  church  to  change 
it  is  not  only  legislative  but  constitutional.  Secondly, — as  expressing  the 
wisdom  of  the  Lawgiver.  Power  to  change  the  command  can  be  claimed 
for  the  church,  only  on  the  ground  that  Christ  has  failed  to  adapt  the 
ordinance  to  changing  circumstances,  and  has  made  obedience  to  it  unneces- 
sarily difficult  and  humiliating.  Thirdly, — as  providing  in  immersion  the 
only  adequate  symbol  of  those  saving  truths  of  the  gospel  which  both  of 
the  ordinances  have  it  for  their  office  to  set  forth,  and  without  winch  they 
la-come  empty  ceremonies  and  forms.  In  other  words,  the  church  has  no 
right  to  change  the  method  of  administering  the  ordinance,  because  such  a 
change  vacates  the  ordinance  of  its  essential  meaning.  As  this  argument, 
however,  is  of  such  vital  importance,  we  present  it  more  fully  in  a  special 
discussion  of  the  Symbolism  of  Baptism. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  in  his  debates  with  Douglas,  ridiculed  the  idea  that  there  could  be 
any  constitutional  way  of  violating  the  Constitution.  F.  L.  Anderson:  "In  human 
governments  we  change  the  constitution  to  conform  to  the  will  of  the  people ;  in  the 
divine  government  we  change  the  will  of  the  people  to  conform  to  the  Constitution." 
For  advocacy  of  the  church's  right  to  modify  the  form  of  an  ordinance,  see  Coleridge, 
Aids  to  Reflection,  in  "Works,  1 :  333-348  — "  Where  a  ceremony  answered,  and  was 
intended  to  answer,  several  purposes  which  at  its  first  institution  were  blended  in 
respect  of  the  time,  but  which  afterward,  by  change  of  circumstances,  were  necessarily 
disunited,  then  either  the  church  hath  no  power  or  authority  delegated  to  her,  or  she 
must  be  authorized  to  choose  and  determine  to  which  of  the  several  purposes  the  cere- 
mony should  be  attached."  Baptism,  for  example,  at  the  first  symbolized  not  only 
entrance  into  the  church  of  Christ,  but  personal  faith  in  him  as  Savior  and  Lord.  It  is 
assumed  that  entrance  into  the  church  and  personal  faith  are  now  necessarily  disunited. 
Since  baptism  is  in  charge  of  the  church,  she  can  attach  baptism  to  the  former,  and 
not  to  the  latter. 

We  of  course  deny  that  the  separation  of  baptism  from  faith  is  ever  necessary.  "We 
maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  thus  to  separate  the  two  is  to  pervert  the  ordinance, 


940  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

and  to  make  it  teach  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  church  membership  and  salvation  by 
outward  manipulation  apart  from  faith.  We  say  with  Dean  Stanley  (  on  Baptism,  in 
the  Nineteenth  Century,  Oct.  1879),  though  not,  as  he  does,  with  approval,  that  the 
change  in  the  method  of  administering  the  ordinance  shows  "  how  the  spirit  that  lives 
and  moves  in  human  society  can  override  the  most  sacred  ordinances."  We  cannot 
with  him  call  this  spirit  "the  free  spirit  of  Christianity,"— we  regard  it  rather  as  an 
evil  spirit  of  disobedience  and  unbelief.  "  Baptists  are  thei-efore  pledged  to  prosecute 
the  work  of  the  Reformation  until  the  church  shall  return  to  the  simple  forms  it 
possessed  under  the  apostles"  (G.  M.  Stone).  See  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Princi- 
ples, 234-245. 

Objections :  1.  Immersion  is  often  impracticable.— We  reply  that,  when  really  imprac- 
ticable, it  is  no  longer  a  duty.  Where  the  will  to  obey  is  present,  but  providential 
circumstances  render  outward  obedience  impossible,  Christ  takes  the  will  for  the  deed. 

2.  It  is  often  dangerous  to  health  and  life.—  We  reply  that,  when  it  is  really  danger- 
ous, it  is  no  longer  a  duty.  But  then,  we  have  no  warrant  for  substituting  another 
act  for  that  which  Christ  has  commanded.  Duty  demands  simple  delay  until  it  can  be 
administered  with  safety.  It  must  be  remembered  that  ardent  feeling  nerves  even  the 
body.  "  Brethren,  if  your  hearts  be  warm,  Ice  and  snow  can  do  no  harm."  The  cold 
climate  of  Russia  does  not  prevent  the  universal  practice  of  immersion  by  the  Greek 
church  of  that  country. 

3.  It  is  indecent.— We  reply,  that  there  is  need  of  care  to  prevent  exposure,  but  that 
wi;h  this  care  there  is  no  indecency,  more  than  in  fashionable  sea-bathing.  The  argu- 
ment is  valid  only  against  a  careless  administration  of  the  ordinance,  not  against 
immersion  itself. 

4.  It  is  inconvenient.—  We  reply  that,  in  a  matter  of  obedience  to  Christ,  we  are  not 
to  consult  convenience.  The  ordinance  which  symbolizes  his  sacrificial  death,  and  our 
spiritual  death  with  him,  may  naturally  involve  something  of  inconvenience,  but  joy 
in  submitting  to  that  inconvenience  will  be  a  test  of  the  spirit  of  obedience.  When  the 
act  is  performed,  it  should  be  performed  as  Christ  enjoined. 

5.  Other  methods  of  administration  have  been  blessed  to  those  who  submitted  to 
them.— We  reply  that  God  has  often  condescended  to  human  ignorance,  and  has  given 
his  Spirit  to  those  who  honestly  sought  to  serve  him,  even  by  erroneous  forms,  such  as 
the  Mass.  This,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  divine  sanction  of  the  error,  much  less 
as  a  warrant  for  the  perpetuation  of  a  false  system  on  the  part  of  those  who  know  that 
it  is  a  violation  of  Christ's  commands.  It  is,  in  great  part,  the  position  of  its  advocates, 
as  representatives  of  Christ  and  his  church,  that  gives  to  this  false  system  its  power 
for  evil. 

3.     The  Symbolism  of  Baptism. 

Baptism  symbolizes  the  previous  entrance  of  the  believer  into  the  com- 
munion of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection, — or,  in  other  words,  regenera- 
tion through  union  with  Christ. 

A.  Expansion  of  this  statement  as  to  the  symbolism  of  baptism.  Bap- 
tism, more  particularly,  is  a  symbol : 

(  a )  Of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

Rom.  6:3 — "Or  are  ye  ignorant  that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death?" 
f  f .  Mat.  3  :  13  — "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  the  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him  " ;  Mark  10 :  38  — 
"  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink  ?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?  " ;  Luke  12 : 
50 — "But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished !  "  Col.  2:12  — 
"buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the  working  of  God,  who  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  For  the  meaning  of  these  passages,  see  note  on  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
under  B.  ( a ),  pages  942,  943. 

Denney,  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  on  Rom.  6:3-5— "The  argumentative  require- 
ments of  the  passage  ....  demand  the  idea  of  an  actual  union  to,  or  incorporation  in 

Christ We  were  buried  with  him  [in  the  act  of  immersion]  through  that  baptism 

into  his  death If  the  baptism,  which  is  a  similitude  of  Christ's  death,  has  had  a 

reality  answering  to  its  obvious  import,  so  that  we  have  really  died  in  it  as  Christ  died, 
then  we  shall  have  a  corresponding  experience  of  resurrection.  Baptism,  inasmuch  as 
one  emerges  from  the  water  after  being  immersed,  is  a  similitude  of  resurrection  as 
weii  as  of  death." 


BAPTISM.  941 

(6)  Of  the  purpose  of  that  death  and  resurrection. — namely,  to  atone 
for  sin,  and  to  deliver  sinners  from  its  penalty  and  power. 

Rom.  6 :  4  — "  We  were  buried  therefore  with  him  through  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from 
Ihe  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life  "  ;  cf.  7,  10,  11—"  for  he  that  hath 

died  is  justified  from  sin For  the  death  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once  :  but  the  life  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth 

unto  God.  Even  so  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Christ  Jesus "  ;  2  Cor.  5 :  14  — 
"  we  thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died."  Baptism  is  therefore  a  confession  of  evangelic- 
al faith  both  as  to  sin,  and  as  to  the  drily  and  atonement  of  Christ.  No  one  is  properly 
a  Baptist  who  does  not  acknowledge  these  truths  which  baptism  signifies. 

T.  W.  Chambers,  in  Presb.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  Jan.  1890: 113-118,  objects  that  this  view  of 
the  symbolism  of  baptism  is  based  on  two  texts,  Rom.  6:4  and  Col.  2:12,  which  are  illus- 
trative and  not  explanatory,  while  the  great  majority  of  passages  make  baptism  only 
an  act  of  purification.  Yet  Dr.  Chambers  concedes :  "  It  is  to  be  admitted  that  nearly 
all  modern  critical  expositors  (Meyer,  Godet,  Alford,  Conybeare,  Lightfoot,  Beet) 
consider  that  there  is  a  reference  here  [in  Rom.  6:4]  to  the  act  of  baptism,  which,  as 
the  Bishop  of  Durham  says,  'is  the  grave  of  the  old  man  and  the  birth  of  the  new  —  an 
image  of  the  believer's  participation  both  in  the  death  and  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
....  As  he  sinks  beneath  the  baptismal  waters,  the  believer  buries  there  all  his  corrupt 
affections  and  past  sins;  as  he  emerges  thence,  he  rises  regenerate,  quickened  to  new 
hopes  and  a  new  life.'  " 

(e)  Of  the  accomplishment  of  that  purpose  in  the  person  baptized, — 
who  thus  professes  his  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  spiritual  life. 

Gal.  3:27— "For  as  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ";  1  Pet.  3  :21  — "which  [water] 
also  after  a  truo  likeness  doth  now  save  you,  even  baptism,  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  inter- 
rogation of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Chr:st";  cf.  Gal.  2:19,  20 — "For  I  through 
the  law  died  unto  the  law,  that  I  might  live  unto  God.  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that 
live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  ■  and  that  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  I  live  in  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of 
God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  up  for  me  " ;  Col.  3:3  —  "For  ye  died,  and  your  Lfe  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 

C.  H.  M. :  "A  truly  baptized  person  i3  one  who  has  passed  from  the  old  world  into  the 

new The  water  rolls  over  his  person,  signifying  that  his  place  in  nature  is  ignored, 

that  his  old  nature  is  entirely  set  aside,  in  short,  that  he  is  a  dead  man,  that  the  flesh 
with  all  that  pertained  thereto  — its  sins  and  its  liabilities  — is  buried  in  the  grave  of 

Christ  and  can  never  come  into  God's  sight  again When  the  believer  rises  up 

from  the  water,  expression  is  given  to  the  truth  that  he  comes  up  as  the  possessor  of  a 
new  life,  even  the  resurrection  life  of  Christ,  to  which  divine  righteousness  inseparably 
attaches." 

(d)  Of  the  method  in  which  that  purpose  is  accomplished, — by  union 
with  Christ,  receiving  him  and  giving  one's  self  to  him  by  faith. 

Rom.  6 :  5  — "  For  if  we  have  become  united  [  o-v^utoi  ]  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in 
the  likeness  of  his  resurrection"—  o-v^i/toi,  or  (Tv^ne<f>vK^,  is  used  of  the  man  and  the  horse  as 
grown  together  in  the  Centaur,  by  Lucian.  Dial.  Mort,  16:4,  and  by  Xenophon,  Cyrop., 
4  :  3  :  18,  Col.  2  :  12  — "  having  been  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised  with  him  through 
faith  in  the  working  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Dr.  N.  S.  Burton  :  "The  oneness  of  the 
believer  and  Christ  is  expressed  by  the  fact  that  the  one  act  of  immersion  sets  forth 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  both  Christ  and  the  believer."  As  the  voluntary  element 
in  faith  has  two  parts,  a  giving  and  a  taking,  so  baptism  illustrates  both.  Submer- 
gence =  surrender  to  Christ;  emergence  =  reception  of  Christ;  see  page  839,  (b).  "Putting 
on  Christ"  (  Gal.  3:  27  )  is  the  burying  of  the  old  life  and  the  rising  to  a  new.  Cf.  the  active 
and  the  passive  obedience  of  Christ  (pages  749,  770),  the  two  elements  of  justification 
\ pages  854-859),  the  two  aspects  of  formal  worship  (page  23),  the  two  divisions  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer. 

William  Ashmore  holds  that  incorporation  into  Christ  is  the  root  idea  of  baptism, 
union  with  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  being  only  a  part  of  it.  We  are  "baptized  into 
Christ"  (Rom.  6:3),  as  the  Israelites  were  "baptized  into  Moses"  (1  Cor.  10:2).  As  baptism  sym- 
bolizes the  incorporation  of  the  believer  into  Christ,  so  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  the 
incorporation  of  Christ  into  the  believer.  We  go  down  into  the  water,  but  the  bread 
goes  down  into  us.  We  are  "in  Christ,"  and  Christ  is  "in  us."  The  candidate  does  not 
baptize  himself,  but  puts  himself  wholly  into  the  hands  of  thv.  administrator.    This 


942  ECCLESIOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

seems  symbolic  of  his  committing  himself  entirely  to  Christ,  of  whom  the  administrator 
is  the  representative.  Similarly  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  Christ  who  through  his 
representative  distributes  the  emblems  of  his  death  and  life. 

E.  G.  Robinson  regarded  baptism  as  implying :  1.  death  to  sin ;  2.  resurrection  to 
new  life  in  Christ ;  3.  entire  surrender  of  ourselves  to  the  authority  of  the  triune  God. 
Baptism  "into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  (  Mat.  28:19)  cannot  imply 
supreme  allegiance  to  the  Father,  and  only  subordinate  allegiance  to  the  Son.  Baptism 
therefore  is  an  assumption  of  supreme  allegiance  to  Jesus  Christ.  N.  E.  Wood,  in  The 
Watchman,  Dec.  3,  1896  15— "Calvinism  has  its  five  points;  but  Baptists  have  also  their 
own  five  points:  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  Regeneration,  Baptism,  and  an  inspired 
Bible.    All  other  doctrines  gather  round  these." 

(  e)  Of  the  consequent  union  of  all  believers  in  Christ. 

Eph.  4:5 — "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism";  1  Cor.  12:13 — "For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  Jews  or  Greeks,  whether  bond  or  free ;  and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit"  ;  cf.  10 : 3,  4  —"and 
did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  food ;  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink  :  for  they  drank  of  a  spiritual  rock  that 
followed  them:  and  the  rock  was  Christ." 

In  Eph.  4: 5,  it  is  noticeable  that,  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  baptism,  is  ref erred  to  as 
the  symbol  of  Christian  unity.  A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Sermon,  1904— "Our  fathers 
lived  in  a  day  when  simple  faith  was  subject  to  serious  disabilities.  The  establishments 
frowned  upon  dissent  and  visited  it  with  pains  and  penalties.  It  is  no  wonder  that 
believers  iu  the  New  Testament  doctrine  and  polity  felt  that  they  must  come  out  from 
what  they  regarded  as  an  apostate  church.  They  could  have  no  sympathy  with  those 
who  held  back  the  truth  in  unrighteousness  and  persecuted  the  saints  of  God.  But our 
doctrine  has  leavened  all  Christendom.  Scholarship  is  on  the  side  of  immersion.  Infant 
baptism  is  on  the  decline.  The  churches  that  once  opposed  us  now  compliment  us  on 
our  stedfastuess  in  the  faith  and  on  our  missionary  zeal.  There  is  a  growing  spirit- 
uality in  these  churches,  which  prompts  them  to  extend  to  us  hands  of  fellowship. 
And  there  is  a  growing  sense  among  us  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  wider  than  our 
own  membership,  and  that  103'alty  to  our  Lord  requires  us  to  recognize  his  presence 
and  blessing  even  iu  bodies  which  we  do  not  regard  as  organized  in  complete  accord- 
ance with  the  New  Testament  model.  Faith  in  the  larger  Christ  is  bringing  us  out 
from  our  denominational  isolation  into  an  inspiring  recognition  of  our  oneness  with 
the  universal  church  of  God  throughout  the  world." 

(/)  Of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  body,— which  will  complete 
the  work  of  Christ  in  us,  and  which  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  assure 
to  all  his  members. 

1  Cor.  15 :  12,  22 — "Now  if  Christ  is  preached  that  he  hath  been  raised  from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that 
there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  ....  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Chnst  shall  all  be  made  alive."  In  the 
Scripture  passages  quoted  above,  we  add  to  the  argument  from  the  meaning  of  the 
word  0a7i-Ti'£a>  the  argument  from  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance.  Luther  wrote,  in  his 
Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church,  section  103  ( English  translation  in  Wace  and  Bueh- 
heim,  First  Principles  of  the  Reformation,  192 ):  "  Baptism  is  a  sign  both  of  death  and 
resurrection.  Being  moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  that  are  baptized  to  be 
altogether  dipped  into  the  water,  as  the  word  means  and  the  mystery  signifies."  See 
Calvin  on  Acts  8 :  38 ;  Conybeare  and  Howson  on  Rom.  6:4;  Boardman,  in  Madison  Avenue 
Lectures,  115-135. 

B.     Inferences  from  the  passages  referred  to  : 

(a)  The  central  truth  set  forth  by  baptism  is  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ, — and  our  own  death  and  resurrection  only  as  connected  with  that. 

The  baptism  of  Jesus  in  Jordan,  equally  with  the  subsequent  baptism  of  his  follow- 
ers, was  a  symbol  of  his  death.    It  was  his  death  which  he  had  in  mind,  when  he  said : 

"  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink  ?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?  "  (  Mark 
10:38);  "But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  1 "  (Luke  12:50). 
The  being  immersed  and  overwhelmed  in  waters  is  a  frequent  metaphor  in  all  languages 
to  express  the  rush  of  successive  troubles;  compare  Ps.  69:2— "I  am  come  into  deep  waters, 
where  the  floods  overflow  me  " ;  42:7— "All  thy  waves  and  thy  billows  are  gon9  over  me";  124:4,  5— "Then  the 
waters  had  overwhelmed  us,  The  stream  had  gone  over  our  soul ;  Then  the  proud  waters  had  gone  over  our  soul." 


BAPTISM.  943 

So  the  suffering,  death,  and  burial,  which  were  before  our  Lord,  presented  themselves 
to  his  mind  as  a  baptism,  because  the  very  idea  of  baptism  was  that  of  a  complete  sub- 
mersion under  the  floods  of  waters.  Death  was  not  to  be  poured  upon  Christ, —  it  was 
no  mere  sprinkling  of  suffering'  which  he  was  to  endure,  but  a  sinking'  into  the  mighty 
waters,  and  a  being-  overwhelmed  by  them.  It  was  the  giving  of  himself  to  this,  which 
he  symbolized  by  his  baptism  in  Jordan.  That  act  was  not  arbitrary,  or  formal,  or 
ritual.  It  was  a  public  consecration,  a  consecration  to  death,  to  death  for  the  sins  of 
the  world.  It  expressed  the  essential  nature  and  meaning  of  his  earthly  work:  the 
baptism  of  water  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  consciously  and  designedly  prefigured 
the  baptism  of  death  with  which  that  ministry  was  to  close. 

Jesus'  submission  to  John's  baptism  of  repentance,  the  rite  that  belonged  only  to 
sinners,  can  be  explained  only  upon  the  ground  that  he  was  "made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf" 
(2  Cor.  5  :  21 ).  He  had  taken  our  nature  upon  him,  without  its  hereditary  corruption 
indeed,  but  with  all  its  hereditary  guilt,  that  he  might  redeem  that  nature  and  reunite 
it  to  God.  As  one  with  humanity,  he  had  in  his  unconscious  childhood  submitted  to 
the  rites  of  circumcision,  purification,  and  legal  redemption  ( Luke  2:  21-24 ;  cf.  Ex.  13 : 2, 13 
see  Lange,  Alford,  Webster  and  Wilkinson  on  Luke  2:24)  —  all  of  them  rites  appointed 
for  sinners.  "  Made  in  the  likenoss  of  men  "  ( Phil.  2:7),  "the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  "  ( Rom.  8  :  3 ),  he  was  "  t'J 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacriflco  of  himself"  ( Heb.  9 :  26  ). 

In  his  baptism,  therefore,  he  could  say,  " Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness "( Mat.  3:15) 
because  only  through  the  final  baptism  of  suffering  and  death,  which  this  baptism  in 
Water  foreshadowed,  could  he  "make  an  end  of  sins  "  and  "bring  in  everlasting  righteousness"  (  Dan 
9:24)  to  the  condemned  and  ruined  world.  He  could  not  be  "the  Lord  our  Righteousness" 
(Jer.  23:6)  except  by  first  suffering  the  death  due  to  the  nature  he  had  assumed,  thereby 
delivering  it  from  its  guilt  and  perfecting  it  forever.  All  this  was  indicated  in  that  act 
by  which  he  was  first  "made  manifest  to  Israel"  (John  1 :  31 ).  In  his  baptism  in  Jordan,  he  was 
buried  in  the  likeness  of  his  coming  death,  and  raised  in  the  likeness  of  his  coming 
resurrection.  Uohn5:6 — "This  is  he  that  came  by  water  and  blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  in  the  water  only, 
but  in  the  water  and  in  the  blood  "=  in  the  baptism  of  water  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry, 
and  in  the  baptism  of  blood  with  which  that  ministry  was  to  close. 

As  that  baptism  pointed  forward  to  Jesus'  death,  so  our  baptism  points  backward  to 
the  same,  as  the  centre  and  substance  of  his  redeeming  work,  the  one  death  by  which 
we  live.  We  who  are  "baptized  into  Christ"  arc  "baptized  into  his  death"  (Rom.  6:3),  that  is,  into 
spiritual  communion  and  participation  in  that  death  which  he  died  for  our  salvation; 
in  short,  in  baptism  we  declare  in  symbol  that  his  death  has  become  ours.  On  the  Bap- 
tism of  Jesus,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  226-237. 

(h)  The  correlative  truth  of  the  believer's  death  and  resurrection,  set 
forth  in  baptism,  implies,  first, — confession  of  sin  and  humiliation  on 
account  of  it,  as  deserving  of  death;  secondly, — declaration  of  Christ's 
death  for  sin,  and  of  the  believer's  acceptance  of  Christ's  substitutionary 
work;  thirdly,  —  acknowledgment  that  the  soid  has  become  partaker  of 
Christ's  life,  and  now  lives  only  in  and  for  him. 

A  false  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance  has  so  obscured  the  meaning  of  baptism 
that  it  has  to  multitudes  lost  all  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  assumed  to  be  the  only  ordinance  which  is  intended  to  remind  us  of  the  atoning  sacri- 
fice to  which  we  owe  our  salvation.  For  evidence  of  this,  see  the  remarks  of  President 
Woolsey  in  the  Sunday  School  Times :  "  Baptism  it  [ the  Christian  religion  ]  could  share 
in  with  the  doctrine  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  if  a  similar  rite  had  existed  under  the 
Jewish  law,  it  would  have  been  regarded  as  appropriate  to  a  religion  which  inculcated 
renunciation  of  sin  and  purity  of  heart  and  life.  But  [in  the  Lord's  Supper]  we  go 
beyond  the  province  of  baptism,  to  the  very  penetrate  of  the  gospel,  to  the  efficacy  and 
meaning  of  Christ's  death." 

Baptism  should  be  a  public  act.  We  cannot  afford  to  relegate  it  to  a  corner,  or  to 
celebrate  it  in  private,  as  some  professedly  Baptist  churches  of  England  are  said  to  do. 
Like  marriage,  the  essence  of  it  is  the  joining  of  ourselves  to  another  before  the  world. 
In  baptism  we  merge  ourselves  in  Christ,  before  God  and  angels  and  men.  The  Moham- 
medan stands  five  times  a  day,  and  prays  with  his  face  toward  Mecca,  caring  not  who 
sees  him.  Luke  12: 8 — "  Every  one  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  shall  the  Son  of  man  also  confess  before 
the  angels  of  God." 


944         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

( c  )  Baptism  symbolizes  purification,  but  purification  in  a  peculiar  and 
divine  way, — namely,  through  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  entrance  of  the 
soul  into  communion  with  that  death.  The  radical  defect  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring  as  a  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance,  is  that  it  does  not  point 
to  Christ's  death  as  the  procuring  cause  of  our  purification. 

It  is  a  grievous  thing  to  say  by  symbol,  as  those  do  say  who  practice  sprinkling  in 
place  of  immersion,  that  a  man  may  regenerate  himself,  or,  if  not  this,  yet  that  his 
regeneration  may  take  place  without  connection  with  Christ's  death.  Edward  Beecher's 
chief  argument  against  Baptist  views  is  drawn  from  John  3 :  22-25  — "  a  questioning  on  the  part  of 
John's  disciples  with  a  Jew  about  purifying."  Purification  is  made  to  be  the  essential  meaning  of 
baptism,  and  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that  any  form  expressive  of  purification  will 
answer  the  design  of  the  ordinance.  But  if  Christ's  death  is  the  procuring  cause  of  our 
purification,  we  may  expect  it  to  be  symbolized  in  the  ordinance  which  declares  that 
purification ;  if  Christ's  death  is  the  central  fact  of  Christianity,  we  may  expect  it  to  be 
symbolized  in  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity. 

(  d)  In  baptism  we  show  forth  the  Lord's  death  as  the  original  source  of 
holiness  and  life  in  our  souls,  just  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper  we  show  forth 
the  Lord's  death  as  the  source  of  all  nourishment  and  strength  after  this 
life  of  holiness  has  been  once  begun.  As  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes 
the  sanctifying  power  of  Jesus'  death,  so  baptism  symbolizes  its  regener- 
ating power. 

The  truth  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  is  a  precious  jewel,  and  it  is  given  us  in 
these  outward  ordinances  as  in  a  casket.  Let  us  care  for  the  casket  lest  we  lose  the 
gem.  As  a  scarlet  thread  runs  through  every  rope  and  cord  of  the  British  navy,  testi- 
fying that  it  is  the  property  of  the  Crown,  so  through  every  doctrine  and  ordinance  of 
Christianity  runs  the  red  line  of  Jesus'  blood.  It  is  their  common  reference  to  the 
death  of  Christ  that  binds  the  two  ordinances  together. 

( e )  There  are  two  reasons,  therefore,  why  nothing  but  immersion  will 
satisfy  the  design  of  the  ordinance  :  first, — because  nothing  else  can  sym- 
bolize the  radical  nature  of  the  change  effected  in  regeneration — a  change 
from  spiritual  death  to  spiritual  life  ;  secondly, — because  nothing  else  can 
set  forth  the  fact  that  this  change  is  due  to  the  entrance  of  the  soul  into 
communion  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

Christian  truth  is  an  organism.  Part  is  bound  to  part,  and  all  together  constitute  one 
vitalized  whole.  To  give  up  any  single  portion  of  that  truth  is  like  maiming  the  human 
body.  Life  may  remain,  but  one  manifestation  of  life  has  ceased.  The  whole  body  of 
Christian  truth  has  lost  its  symmetry  and  a  part  of  its  power  to  save. 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  2 :  212—"  In  the  Eleusinian  mysteries,  the  act  of  reception 
was  represented  as  a  regeneration,  and  the  hierophant  appointed  to  the  temple  service 
had  to  take  a  sacramental  bath,  out  of  which  he  proceeded  as  a  '  new  man '  with  a  new 
name,  which  signifies  that,  as  they  were  wont  to  say,  'the  first  one  was  forgotten,'— 
that  is,  the  old  man  was  put  off  at  the  same  time  with  the  old  name.  The  parallel  of 
this  Eleusinian  rite  with  the  thoughts  which  Paul  has  written  about  Baptism  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  therefore  from  Corinth,  is  so  striking  that  a  connection 
between  the  two  may  well  be  conjectured ;  and  ail  the  more  that  even  in  the  case  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  Paul  has  brought  in  the  comparison  with  the  heathen  festivals,  in 
order  to  give  a  basis  for  his  mystical  theory." 

(/)  To  substitute  for  baptism  anything  which  excludes  all  symbolic 
reference  to  the  death  of  Christ,  is  to  destroy  the  ordinance,  just  as  substi- 
tuting for  the  broken  bread  and  poured  out  wine  of  the  communiou  some 
form  of  administration  which  leaves  out  all  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ 
would  be  to  destroy  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  to  celebrate  an  ordinance  of 
human  invention. 


BAPTISM.  945 

Baptism,  like  the  Fourth  of  July,  the  Passover,  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  historical 
monument.  It  witnesses  to  the  world  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again.  In  celebrating 
it,  we  show  forth  the  Lord's  death  as  truly  as  in  the  celebration  of  the  Supper.  But  it 
is  more  than  a  historical  monument.  It  is  also  a  pictorial  expression  of  doctrine.  Into 
it  are  woven  all  the  essential  truths  of  the  Christian  scheme.  It  tells  of  the  nature  and 
penalty  of  sin,  of  human  nature  delivered  from  sin  in  the  person  of  a  crucified  and 
risen  Savior,  of  salvation  secured  for  each  human  soul  that  is  united  to  Christ,  of 
obedience  to  Christ  as  the  way  to  life  and  glory.  Thus  baptism  stands  from  age  to  age 
as  a  witness  for  God  —  a  witness  both  to  the  facts  and  to  the  doctrine  of  Christianity. 
To  change  the  form  of  administering  the  ordinance  is  therefore  to  strike  a  blow  at 
Christianity  and  at  Christ,  and  to  defraud  the  world  of  a  part  of  God's  means  of  salva- 
tion. See  Ebrard's  view  of  Baptism,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  1869 :  257,  and  in  Olshausen's 
Com.  on  N.  T.,  1 :2T0,  and  3  :  594.    Also  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Colossians  2 :  20,  and  3:1. 

Ebrard:  "  Baptism  =  Death."  So  Sanday,  Com.  on  Rom.  6 — "  Immersion=Death  ;  Sub- 
mersion=  Burial  ( the  ratification  of  death  ) ;  Emergence=Resurrection  ( the  ratification 
of  life)."  William  Ashmore:  "  Solomon's  Temple  had  two  monumental  pillars :  Jachin, 
'he  shall  establish,'  and  Boaz,  'in  it  is  strength.'  In  Zechariah's  vision  were  two  olive 
trees  on  either  side  of  the  golden  candlestick.  In  like  manner,  Christ  has  left  two 
monumental  witnesses  to  testify  concerning  himself —  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper." 
The  lady  in  the  street  car,  who  had  inadvertently  stuck  her  parasol  iuto  a  man's  eye, 
very  naturally  begged  his  pardon.  But  he  replied :  "  It  is  of  no  consequence,  madame ; 
I  have  still  one  eye  left."  Our  friends  who  sprinkle  or  pour  put  out  one  eye  of  the 
gospel  witness,  break  down  one  appointed  monument  of  Christ's  saving  truth, ■-  shall 
we  be  content  to  say  that  we  have  still  one  ordinance  left?  At  t  he  Rappahannock  one 
of  the  Federal  regiments,  just  because  its  standard  was  shot  away,  was  mistaken  by 
our  own  men  for  a  regiment  of  Confederates,  and  was  subjected  to  a  murderous  enfi- 
lading fire  that  decimated  its  ranks.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  two  flags 
of  Christ's  army, —  we  cannot  afford  to  lose  either  one  of  them. 

4.     The  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

The  proper  subjects  of  baptism  are  those  only  who  give  credible  evidence 
that  they  have  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, — or,  in  other  words, 
have  entered  by  faith  into  the  communion  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 

A.  Proof  that  only  persons  giving  evidence  of  being  regenerated  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  : 

( a )  From  the  command  and  example  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  which 
show  : 

First,  that  those  only  are  to  be  baptized  who  have  previously  been  made 
disciples. 

Mat.  28 :  19 — "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit";  Acts  2 :  41  — "  They  then  that  received  his  word  were  baptized." 

Secondly,  that  those  only  are  to  be  baptized  who  have  previously 
repented  and  believed. 

Mat.  3 : 2,  3,  6  — "  Repent  ye  ...  .  make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord  ....  and  they  were  baptized  of  him  in  the 
river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins  "  ;  Acts  2 :  37,  38— "Now  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart, 
and  said  unto  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  Brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  And  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  ye,  and 
be  baptized  every  one  of  you  "  ;  8:12—"  But  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  good  tidings  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women"  ;  18:8— "And  Crispus,  the  ruler  of 
the  synagogue,  believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house ;  and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing  believed,  and  were  bap- 
tized "  ;  19  :  4  — "  John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
that  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Jesus." 

( o  )  From  the  nature  of  the  church — as  a  company  of  regenerate  persons. 

John  3:5—"  Except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ;  Rom.  6:13  — 
"  neither  present  ycur  members  unto  sin  as  instruments  of  unrighteousness ;  but  present  yourselves  unto  God,  as  alive 
from  the  dead,  and  your  members  as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God," 

60 


946  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OE   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

(c)  From  the  symbolism  of  the  ordinance, — as  declaring  a  previous 
spiritual  change  in  him  who  submits  to  it. 

Acts  10 :  47  — "  Can  any  man  forbid  the  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  well  as  we  ?  "  Rom.  6 :  2-5  — "  We  who  died  to  sin,  how  shall  we  any  longer  live  therein  ?  Or  are  ye  ignorant  that 
all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  We  were  buried  therefore  with  him  through 
baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  become  united  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  Ms  resurrection  "  ;  Gal.  3 :  26,  27  — "  For  ye  are  all  sons  of  God,  through  faith,  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you 
as  were  baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ." 

As  marriage  should  never  be  solemnized  except  between  persons  who  are  already 
joined  in  heart  and  with  whom  the  outward  ceremony  is  only  the  sign  of  an  existing 
love,  so  baptism  should  never  be  administered  except  in  the  case  of  those  who  are 
already  joined  to  Christ  and  who  signify  in  the  ordinance  their  union  with  him  in  his 
death  and  resurrection.  See  Dean  Stanley  on  Baptism,  24  —  "  In  the  apostolic  age  and 
in  the  three  centuries  which  followed,  it  is  evident  that,  as  a  general  rule,  those  who 
came  to  baptism  came  in  full  age,  of  their  own  deliberate  choice.  The  liturgical  ser- 
vice of  baptism  was  framed  for  full-grown  converts,  and  is  only  by  considerable  adap- 
tation applied  to  the  case  of  infants"  ;  Wayland,  Principles  and  Practices  of  Baptists, 
93;  Robins,  in  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  136-159. 

B.  Inferences  from  the  fact  that  only  persons  giving  evidence  of  being 
regenerate  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism : 

( a )  Since  only  those  who  give  credible  evidence  of  regeneration  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  baptism  cannot  be  the  means  of  regeneration. 
It  is  the  appointed  sign,  but  is  never  the  condition,  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins. 

Passages  like  Mat.  3:11;  Mark  1:4;  1G  :  16 ;  John  3:5;  Acts  2  :  38 ;  22  : 
16  ;  Eph.  5  :  26  ;  Titus  3:5;  and  Heb.  10  :  22,  are  to  be  explained  as  par- 
ticular instances  "of  the  general  fact  that,  in  Scripture  language,  a  single 
part  of  a  complex  action,  and  even  that  part  of  it  ■which  is  most  obvious 
to  the  senses,  is  often  mentioned  for  the  whole  of  it,  and  thus,  in  this  case, 
the  whole  of  the  solemn  transaction  is  designated  by  the  external  symbol." 
In  other  words,  the  entire  change,  internal  and  external,  spiritual  and 
ritual,  is  referred  to  in  language  belonging  strictly  only  to  the  outward 
aspect  of  it.  So  the  other  ordinance  is  referred  to  by  simply  naming  the 
visible  "breaking  of  bread,"  and  the  whole  transaction  of  the  ordination 
of  ministers  is  termed  the  "imposition  of  hands "  ( cf.  Acts  2  :  42 ;  1  Tim. 
4:14). 

Mat.  3 :  11  — "  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water  unto  repentance"  ;  Mark  1 : 4  — "the  baptism  of  repentant  unto  remis- 
sion of  sins "  ;  16 :  16  — "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ' ' ;  John  3:5  — " Except  one  be  born  of  waler 
and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "—  here  Nicodemus,  who  was  familiar  with 
John's  baptism,  and  with  the  refusal  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  recognize  its  claims,  is  told 
that  the  baptism  of  water,  which  he  suspects  may  be  obligatory,  is  indeed  necessary  to 
that  complete  change  by  which  one  enters  -outwardly,  as  well  as  inwardly,  into  the 
kingdom  of  God;  but  he  is  taught  also,  that  to  "be  born  of  water"  is  worthless  unless  it  is 
the  accompaniment  and  sign  of  a  new  birth  of  "the  Spirit" ;  and  therefore,  in  the  further 
statements  of  Christ,  baptism  is  not  alluded  to  ;  see  verses  6,  8 — "that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit 
is  spirit  ....  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 

Acts  2:38 — "Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  ....  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins" — on  this  passage  see 
Hackett:  "The  phrase  'in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins'  we  connect  naturally  with 
both  the  preceding  verbs  ('repent'  and  'be  baptized').  The  clause  states  the  motive  or 
object  which  should  induce  them  to  repent  and  be  baptized.  It  enforces  the  entire 
exhortation,  not  one  part  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  "— i.  e.,  they  were  to  repent  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  quite  as  much  as  they  were  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Acts  22: 16  — "arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  his  name"  ;  Eph.  5:26 — "that  he 
might  sanctify  it  [the  church],  having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water  with  the  word";   Tit  3:5  — 


BAPTISM.  947 

"according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  through  the  washing  of  regeneration  [  baptism  ]  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
[the  new  birth  ]"  ;Eeb.  10  :  22—  "having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  [  regeneration  ]  rand 
having  our  body  washed  with  pure  water  [  1  laptism  J  "  ;  cf.  Acts  2  :  42 — "the  breaking  of  bread "  ;  1  Tim.  4 :  14 
—  "the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery." 

Dr.  A.  C.  Keudrick:  "Considering-  how  inseparable  they  were  in  the  Christian  pro- 
fession —  believe  and  be  baptized,  and  how  imperative  and  absolute  was  the  requisition 
upon  the  believer  to  testify  his  allegiance  by  baptism,  it  could  not  be  deemed  singular 

that  the  two  should  be  thus  united,  as  it  were,  in  one  complex  conception We 

have  no  more  right  to  assume  that  the  birth  from  water  involves  the  birth  from  the 
Spirit  and  thus  do  away  with  the  one,  than  to  assume  that  the  birth  from  the  Spirit 
involves  the  birth  from  water,  and  thus  do  away  with  the  other.  We  have  got  to  have 
them  both,  each  in  its  distinctness,  in  order  to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  membership  in 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Without  baptism,  faith  is  like  the  works  of  a  clock  that  has  no 
dial  or  hands  by  which  one  can  tell  the  time  ;  or  like  the  political  belief  of  a  man  who 
refuses  to  go  to  the  polls  and  vote.  Without  baptism,  discipleship  is  ineffective  and 
incomplete.  Theinward  change  —  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  — may  have  occurred,  but 
the  outward  change      I  Ihristian  profession—  is  yet  lacking. 

Campbellism,  however,  holds  that  instead  of  regeneration  preceding  baptism  and 
expressing  itself  in  baptism,  it  is  completed  only  in  baptism,  so  that  baptism  is  a  means 
of  regeneration.  Alexander  Campbell :  "I  am  bold  to  affirm  that  every  One  of  them 
who  in  the  belief  of  what  the  apostle  spoke  was  immersed,  did,  in  the  very  instant  in 
which  he  was  put  under  water,  receive  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins  and  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Hut  Peter  commanded  that  men  should  be  baptized  because  they  had 
already  received  the  Holy  Spirit  :  Acts  10  :  47  —  "Can  any  man  forbid  the  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  we?"  Baptists  baptize  Christians;  Disciples 
baptize  sinners,  and  in  baptism  think  to  make  them  Christians.  With  this  form  of 
sacramcntalism.  Baptists  are  necessarily  less  in  sympathy  than  with  pedobaptism  ox- 
wit  h  sprinkling.  The  view  of  the  Disciples  confines  the  divine  efficiency  to  the  word 
(see  quotation  from  Campbell  on  page  821 ).  It  was  anticipated  by  Claude  Pa.jon,  the 
Reformed  theologian,  in  b>7:>:  see  Dorner,  Gesch.  prot.  Theologie,  448-450.  That  this 
was  not  the  doctrine  ol"  John  the  Baptist  would  appear  from  Josephus,  Ant.,  18:5  :2, 
who  in  speaking  of  John's  bapl  ism  says  :  "  Baptism  appears  acceptable  to  God,  not  iu 
order  that  those  who  were  baptized  might  get  tree  from  certain  sins,  but  in  order  that 
the  body  might  be  sanctified,  because  the  soul  beforehand  had  already  been  purified 
through  righteousness." 

Disciples  acknowledge  no  formal  creed,  and  they  differ  so  greatly  among  themselves 
that  we  append  the  following  statements  of  their  founder  and  of  later  representatives. 
Alexander  Campbell,  Christianity  Restored,  138  (in  The  Christian  Baptist,  5  :  100) :  "In 
and  by  the  act  of  immersion,  as  soon  as  our  bodies  are  put  under  water,  at  that  very 

instant  our  former  or  old  sins  are  washed  away Immersion  and  regeneration 

are  Bible  names  for  the  same  act It  is  not  our  faith  in  God's  promise  of  remis- 
sion, but  our  going  down  into  the  water,  that  obtains  the  remission  of  sins."  W.  E. 
Garrison,  Alexander  Campbell's  Theology,  247-299  — "  Baptism,  like  naturalization,  is 
the  formal  oath  of  allegiance  by  which  an  alien  becomes  a  citizen.  In  neither  case 
does  the  form  in  itself  effect  any  magical  change  in  the  subject's  disposition.  In  both 
cases  a  change  of  opinion  and  of  affections  is  presupposed,  and  the  form  is  the  culmi- 
nation of  a  process It  is  as  eas3r  for  God  to  forgive  our  sins  iu  the  act  of  immer- 
sion as  in  any  other  way."  All  work  of  the  Spirit  is  through  the  word,  only  through 
sensible  means,  emotions  being  no  criterion.  God  is  transcendent ;  all  authority  is 
external,  enforced  only  by  appeal  to  happiness  —  a  thoroughly  utilitarian  system. 

Isaac  Eiret  is  perhaps  the  most  able  of  recent  Disciples.  In  his  tract  entitled  "  Our 
Position,"  published  by  the  Christian  Publishing  Company,  St.  Louis,  he  says  :  "  As  to 
the  design  of  baptism,  we  part  company  with  Baptists,  and  find  ourselves  more  at 
home  on  the  other  side  of  the  house  ;  yet  we  cannot  say  that  our  position  is  just  the 
same  with  that  of  any  of  them.  Baptists  say  they  baptize  believers  because  they  are 
forgiven,  and  they  insist  that  they  shall  have  the  evidence  of  pardon  before  they  are 
baptized.  But  the  language  used  in  the  Scriptures  declaring  what  baptism  is  for,  is  so 
plain  and  unequivocal  that  the  great  majority  of  Protestants  as  well  as  the  Roman 
Catholics  admit  it  in  their  creeds  to  be,  in  some  sense,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  The 
latter,  however,  and  many  of  the  former,  attach  to  it  the  idea  of  regeneration,  and 
insist  that  in  baptism  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  actually  conferred.  Even  the 
Westminster  Confession  squints  strongly  in  this  direction,  albeit  its  professed  adher- 
ents of  the  present  time  attempt  to  explain  away  its  meaning.    We  are  as  far  from 


948         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF  "THE   CHURCH. 

this  ritualistic  extreme  as  from  the  anti-ritualism  into  which  the  Baptists  have  been 
driven.  With  us,  regeneration  must  be  so  far  accomplished  before  baptism  that  the 
subject  is  changed  in  heart,  and  in  faith  and  penitence  must  have  yielded  up  his  heart 
to  Christ  —  otherwise  baptism  is  nothing  but  an  empty  form.  But  forgiveness  is  some- 
thing distinct  from  regeneration.  Forgiveness  is  an  act  of  the  Sovereign  —  not  a  change 
of  the  sinner's  heart ;  and  while  it  is  extended  in  view  of  the  sinner's  faith  and  repent- 
ance, it  needs  to  be  offered  in  a  sensible  and  tangible  form,  such  that  the  sinner  can 
seize  it  and  appropriate  it  with  unmistakable  defluiteness.  In  baptism  he  appropriates 
God's  promise  of  forgiveness,  relying  on  the  divine  testimonies:  '  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved '  ;  '  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 
He  thus  lays  hold  of  the  promise  of  Christ  and  appropriates  it  as  his  own.  He  does  not 
merit  it,  nor  procure  it,  nor  earn  it,  in  being  baptized;  but  he  appropriates  what  the 
mercy  of  God  has  provided  and  offered  in  the  gospel.  We  therefore  teach  all  who  are 
baptized  that,  if  they  bring  to  their  baptism  a  heart  that  renounces  sin  and  implicitly 
trusts  the  power  of  Christ  to  save,  they  should  rely  on  the  Savior's  own  promise  — 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  " 

All  these  utterances  agree  in  making  forgiveness  chronologically  distinct  from 
regeneration,  as  the  concluding  point  is  distinct  from  the  whole.  Regeneration  is  not 
entirely  the  work  of  God,  —  it  must  be  completed  by  man.  It  is  not  wholly  a  change  of 
heart,  it  is  also  a  change  in  outward  action.  We  see  in  this  system  of  thought  the 
beginnings  of  sacramentalism,  and  we  regard  it  as  containing  the  same  germs  of  error 
which  are  more  fully  developed  in  pedobaptist  doctrine.  Shakespeare  represents  this 
view  in  Henry  V,  1 : 2  —  "  What  you  speak  is  in  your  conscience  washed  As  pure  as  sin 
with  baptism  ";  Othello,  2:3  —  Desdemona  could  "  Win  the  Moor  —  were  '  t  to  renounce 
his  baptism  —  All  seals  and  symbols  of  redeemed  sin.'' 

Dr.  G.  W.  Lasher,  in  the  Journal  and  Messenger,  holds  that  Mat.  3:11  — "I  indeed  baptize 
you  in  water  unto  (  ei? )  repentance  "  —  does  not  imply  that  baptism  effects  the  repentance ;  the 
baptism  was  became  of  the  repentance,  for  John  refused  to  baptize  those  who  did  not 
give  evidence  of  repentance  before  baptism.  Mat.  10:42 — "whosoever  shall  give  ....  a  cup  of 
cold  water  only,  in  ( etc )  the  name  of  a  disciple  "  —  the  cup  of  cold  water  does  not  put  one  into  the 
name  of  a  disciple,  or  make  him  a  disciple.  Mat.  12  :  41  —  "Tn«  men  of  Nineveh  ....  repented  at 
(  eis )  the  preaching  of  Jonah  "  =  because  of.  Dr.  Lasher  argues  that,  in  all  these  cases,  the  mean- 
ing of  eis  is  "in  respect  to,"  "with  reference  to."  So  he  would  translate  Acts  2:38  — 
"  Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  ....  with  respect  to,  in  reference  to,  the  remission  of  sins."  This  is  also  the  view 
of  Meyer.  He  maintains  that  ^airri^iv  ei?  always  means  "baptize  with  reference  to  (cf.  Mat. 
28:19;  1  Cor.  10:12;  Gal.  3:27;  Acts  2:  38;  8:16;  19:5).  We  are  brought  through  baptism,  he 
would  say,  into  fellowship  with  his  death,  so  that  we  have  a  share  ethically  in  his 
death,  through  the  cessation  of  our  life  to  sin. 

The  better  parallel,  however,  in  our  judgment,  is  found  in  Rom.  10:10  — "with  the  heart 
man  believeth  unto  ( ei?)  righteousness ;  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  (  eis  )  salvation,"  — where 
evidently  salvation  is  the  end  to  which  works  the  whole  change  and  process,  including' 
both  faith  and  confession.  So  Broadus  makes  John's  '  baptism  unto  repentance '  mean  baptism 
in  order  to  repentance,  repentance  including  both  the  purpose  of  the  heart  and  the 
outward  expression  of  it,  or  baptism  in  order  to  complete  and  thorough  repentance. 
Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  on  Acts  2: 38  —  "unto  the  remission  of  your  sins"  :  "  ei?,  unto,  signify- 
ing- the  aim."  For  the  High  Church  view,  see  Sadler,  Church  Doctrine,  41-124.  On 
F.  W.  Robertson's  view  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  see  Gordon,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  1809 :  405. 
On  the  whole  matter  of  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  see  Gates,  Baptists  and  Dis- 
ciples (advocating  the  Disciple  view);  Willmarth,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  1877:1-26  (verging 
toward  the  Disciple  view) ;  and  per  contra,  Adkins,  Disciples  and  Baptists,  booklet  pub. 
by  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  Society  (the  best  brief  statement  of  the  Baptist  position);  Bap. 
Quar.,  1877  :  476-489 ;  1872  :  314 ;  Jacob,  Eccl.  Pol.  of  N.  T.,  255,  256. 

( 6 )  As  the  profession  of  a  spiritual  change  already  -wrought,  baptism  is 
primarily  the  act,  not  of  the  administrator,  but  of  the  person  baptized. 

Upon  the  person  newly  regenerate  the  command  of  Christ  first  ter- 
minates ;  only  upou  his  giving  evidence  of  the  change  -within  him  does  it 
become  the  duty  of  the  church  to  see  that  he  has  opportunity  to  follow 
Christ  in  baptism.  Since  baptism  is  primarily  the  act  of  the  convert,  no 
lack  of  qualification  on  the  part  of  the  administrator  invalidates  the  bap- 


BAPTISM.  949 

tism,  so  long  as  the  proper  outward  act  is  performed,  -with  intent  on  the 
part  of  the  person  baptized  to  express  the  fact  of  a  preceding  spiritual 
renewal  ( Acts  2  :  37,  38). 

Acts  2 :  37,  38  —  "  Brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  ...  .  Repent  ye  and  be  baptized."  If  baptism  be  primarily 
the  act  of  the  administrator  or  of  the  church,  then  invalidity  in  the  administrator  or 
the  church  renders  the  ordinance  itself  invalid.  But  if  baptism  be  primarily  the  act  of 
the  person  baptized  —  an  act  which  it  is  the  church's  business  simply  to  scrutinize  and 
further,  then  nothing  but  the  absence  of  immersion,  or  of  an  intent  to  profess  faith  in 
Christ,  can  invalidate  the  ordinance.  It  is  the  erroneous  view  that  bapt  ism  is  the  act  of 
the  administrator  winch  causes  the  anxiety  of  High  Church  Baptists  to  deduce  their 
Baptist  lineage  from  regularly  baptized  ministers  all  the  way  back  to  John  the  Baptist, 
and  which  induces  many  modern  endeavors  of  pedobaptists  to  prove  that  the  earliest 
Baptists  of  England  and  the  Continent  did  not  immerse.  All  these  solicitudes  are 
unnecessary.  We  have  no  need  to  prove  a  Baptist  apostolic  succession.  If  we  can 
derive  our  doctrine  and  practice  from  t  lie  New  Testament,  it  is  all  we  require. 

The  Council  of  Trent  was  right  in  its  Canon:  "If  any  one  saith  that  the  baptism 
which  is  even  given  by  heretics  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  with  the  intention  of  doing  what  the  church  doeth,  is  not  true  baptism, 
let  him  be  anathema."  Dr.  Norman  Fox :  "  It  is  no  more  important  who  baptizes  a 
man  than  who  leads  him  to  Christ."  John  Spilsbury,  first  pastor  of  the  church  of  Par- 
ticular Baptists,  holding  to  a  limited  atonement,  in  London,  was  newly  baptized  in  16:13, 
on  the  ground  that  "  baptizedness  is  not  essential  to  the  administrator,"  and  he  repu- 
diated the  demand  for  apostolic  succession,  as  leading  logically  to  the  "popedom  of 
Rome."  In  1041,  immersion  foUowed,  though  two  or  three  years  before  this,  or  in 
March,  1639,  Roger  Williams  was  baptized  by  Ezekiel  Holliman  in  Rhode  Island. 
Williams  afterwards  doubted  its  validity,  thus  clinging  still  to  the  notion  of  apostolic 
succession. 

(  c )  As  intrusted  with  the  administration  of  the  ordinances,  however,  the 
church  is,  on  its  part,  to  require  of  all  candidates  for  baptism  credible  evi- 
dence of  regeneration. 

This  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  church  and  its  duty  to  maintain  its 
own  existence  as  an  institution  of  Christ.  The  church  which  cannot  restrict 
admission  into  its  membership  to  such  as  are  like  itself  in  character  and 
aims  must  soon  cease  to  be  a  church  by  becoming  indistinguishable  from 
the  world.  The  duty  of  the  church  to  gain  credible  evidence  of  regenera- 
tion in  the  case  of  every  person  admitted  into  the  body  involves  its  right  to 
require  of  candidates,  in  addition  to  a  profession  of  faith  with  the  lips, 
some  satisfactory  proof  that  this  profession  is  accompanied  by  change  in 
the  conduct.  The  kind  and  amount  of  evidence  which  would  have  justified 
the  reception  of  a  candidate  in  times  of  persecution  may  not  now  constitute 
a  sufficient  proof  of  change  of  heart. 

If  an  Odd  Fellows'  Lodge,  in  order  to  preserve  its  distinct  existence,  must  have  its 
own  rules  for  admission  to  membership,  much  more  is  this  true  of  the  church.  The 
church  may  make  its  own  regulations  with  a  view  to  secure  credible  evidence  of  regen- 
eration. Yet  it  js  bound  to  demand  of  the  candidate  no  more  than  reasonable  proof  of 
his  repentance  and  faith.  Since  the  church  is  to  be  convinced  of  the  candidate's  fitness 
before  it  votes  to  receive  him  to  its  membership,  it  is  generally  best  that  the  experience 
of  the  candidate  should  be  related  before  the  church.  Yet  in  extreme  cases,  as  of 
sickness,  the  church  may  hear  this  relation  of  experience  through  certain  appointed 
representatives. 

Baptism  is  sometimes  figuratively  described  as  "  the  door  into  the  church."  The 
phrase  is  unfortunate,  since  if  by  the  church  is  meant  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  God, 
then  Christ  is  its  only  door ;  if  the  local  body  of  believers  is  meant,  then  the  faith  of  the 
candidate,  the  credible  evidence  of  regeneration  which  he  gives,  the  vote  of  the  church 
itself,  are  all,  equally  with  baptism,  the  door  through  which  he  enters.  The  door,  in 
this  sense,  is  a  double  door,  one  part  of  which  is  his  confession  of  faith,  and  the  other 
his  baptism. 


950  ECCLESIOLOC4Y,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

(d)  As  the  outward  expression  of  the  inward  change  by  which  the 
believer  enters  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  baptism  is  the  first,  in  point  of 
time,  of  all  outward  duties. 

Regeneration  and  baptism,  although  not  holding  to  each  other  the  rela- 
tion of  effect  and  cause,  are  both  regarded  in  the  New  Testament  as  essen- 
tial to  the  restoration  of  man's  right  relations  to  God  and  to  his  people. 
They  properly  constitute  parts  of  one  whole,  and  are  not  to  be  unnecessarily 
separated.  Baptism  should  follow  regeneration  with  the  least  possible 
delay,  after  the  candidate  and  the  church  have  gained  evidence  that  a 
spiritual  change  has  been  accomplished  within  him.  No  other  duty  and  no 
other  ordinance  can  properly  precede  it. 

Neither  the  pastor  nor  the  church  should  encourage  the  convert  to  wait  for  others' 
qompany  before  being  baptized.  We  should  aim  continually  to  deepen  the  sense  of 
individual  responsibility  to  Christ,  and  of  personal  duty  to  obey  his  command  of  bap- 
tism just  so  soon  as  a  proper  opportunity  is  afforded.  That  participation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  cannot  properly  precede  Baptism,  will  be  shown  hereafter. 

(e)  Since  regeneration  is  a  work  acconrplished  once  for  all,  the  baptism 
which  symbolizes  this  regeneration  is  not  to  be  repeated. 

Even  where  the  persuasion  exists,  on  the  part  of  the  candidate,  that  at 
the  time  of  baptism  he  was  mistaken  in  thinking  himself  regenerated,  the 
ordinance  is  not  to  be  administered  again,  so  long  as  it  has  once  been  sub- 
mitted to,  with  honest  intent,  as  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  We  argue 
this  from  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  second  baptisms  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  from  the  grave  practical  difficulties  attending  the  opposite 
view.  In  Acts  19  :  1-5,  we  have  an  instance,  not  of  rebaptism,  but  of  the 
baptism  for  the  first  time  of  certain  persons  who  had  been  wrongly  taught 
with  regard  to  the  nature  of  John  the  Baptist's  doctrine,  and  so  had  igno- 
rantly  submitted  to  an  outward  rite  which  had  in  it  no  reference  to  Jesus 
Christ  and  expressed  no  faith  in  him  as  a  Savior.  This  was  not  John's 
baptism,  nor  was  it  in  any  sense  true  baptism.  For  this  reason  Paul  com- 
manded them  to  be  "baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Tu  the  respect  of  not  being  repeated,  Baptism  is  unlike  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
symbolizes  the  continuous  sustaining  power  of  Christ's  death,  while  baptism  symbolizes 
ils  power  to  begin  a  new  life  within  the  soul.  In  Acts  19:1-5,  Paul  instructs  the  new 
disciples  that  the  real  baptism  of  John,  to  which  they  erroneously  supposed  they  had 
submitted,  was  not  only  a  baptism  of  repentance,  but  a  baptism  of  faith  in  the  coming 
Savior,  "And  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  —  as  they  had  not 
been  before.  Here  there  was  no  rebaptism,  for  the  mere  outward  submersion  in  water 
to  which  they  had  previously  submitted,  with  no  thought  of  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
was  no  baptism  at  all  —  whether  Johannine  or  Christian.  See  Brooks,  in  Baptist  Quar- 
terly, April,  1867,  art. :  Rebaptism. 

Whenever  it  is  clear,  as  in  many  cases  of  Campbellite  immersion,  that  the  candidate 
has  gone  down  into  the  water,  not  with  intent  to  profess  a  previously  existing  faith, 
but  in  order  to  be  regenerated,  baptism  is  still  to  be  administered  if  the  person  subse- 
quently believes  on  Christ.  But  wherever  it  appears  that  there  was  intent  to  profess 
an  already  existing  faith  and  regeneration,  there  should  be  no  repetition  of  the  immer- 
sion, even  though  the  ordinance  has  been  administered  by  the  Campbellites. 

To  rebaptize  whenever  a  Christian's  faith  and  joy  are  rekindled  so  that  he  begins  to 
doubt  the  reality  of  his  early  experiences,  would,  in  the  case  of  many  fickle  believers, 
require  many  repetitions  of  the  ordinance.  The  presumption  is  that,  when  the  profes- 
sion of  faith  was  made  by  baptism,  there  was  an  actual  faith  which  needed  to  be  pro- 
fessed, and  therefore  that  the  baptism,  though  followed  by  much  unbelief  and  many 
wanderings,  was  a  valid  one.  Rebaptism,  in  the  case  of  unstable  Christians,  tends*  to 
bring  reproach  upon  the  ordinance  itself. 


BAPTISM.  951 

(/)  So  long  as  the  mode  and  the  subjects  are  such  as  Christ  has  enjoined, 
mere  accessories  are  matters  of  individual  judgment. 

The  use  of  natural  rather  than  of  artificial  baptisteries  is  not  to  be  elevated 
into  an  essential.  The  formula  of  baptism  prescribed  by  Christ  is  "into 
the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. " 

Mat.  28 :  19 —  "baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  ;  cf.  Acts  8 :  16 
—  "  they  had  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus "  ;  Rom.  6:3  —  "Or  are  ye  ignorant  that  all  we  who  were 
baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  "  Gal.  3 :  27  —  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into 
Christ  did  put  on  Christ."  Baptism  is  immersion  into  God,  into  the  presence,  communion,  life 
of  the  Trinity ;  see  Com.  of  Clark,  and  of  Lange,  on  Mat.  28: 19 ;  also  C.  E.  Smith,  in  Bap. 
Rev.,  1881:305-311.  President  Wayland  and  the  Revised  Version  read,  "into  the  name." 
Per  contra,  see  Meyer  (transl.,  1:281,  note)  on  Rom.  6:3;  cf.  Mat.  10 :  41 ;  18:20;  in  all  which 
passages,  as  well  as  in  Mat.  28 :  19,  he  claims  that  eis  to  ovo/xa  signifies  "  with  reference  to  the 
name."  In  Acts  2:38,  and  10:48,  we  have  "in  the  name."  For  the  latter  translation  of  Mat. 
28:19,  see  Conant,  Notes  on  Mat.,  171.  On  the  whole  subject  of  this  section,  see  Dagg, 
Church  Order,  13-73 ;  Ingham,  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

C.     Infant  Baptism. 

This  we  reject  and  reprehend,  for  the  following  reasons : 

(  a )  Infant  baptism  is  without  warrant,  either  express  or  implied,  in  the 
Scripture. 

First, — there  is  no  express  command  that  infants  should  be  baptized. 
Secondly, — there  is  no  clear  example  of  the  bajitism  of  infants.  Thirdly, — 
the  passages  held  to  imply  infant  baptism  contain,  when  fairly  interpreted, 
no  reference  to  such  a  practice.  In  Mat.  19  :  14,  none  would  have  '  forbid- 
den,' if  Jesus  and  his  disciples  had  been  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  infants. 
From  Acts  16  :  15,  cf.  40,  and  Acts  16  :  33,  cf.  34,  Neander  says  that  we 
cannot  infer  infant  baptism.  For  1  Cor.  16  :  15  shows  that  the  whole 
family  of  Stephanas,  baptized  by  Paul,  were  adults  (1  Cor.  1  :  16).  It  is 
impossible  to  suppose  a  whole  heathen  household  baptized  upon  the  faith 
of  its  head.  As  to  1  Cor.  7  :  14,  Jacobi  calls  this  text  "a  sure  testimony 
against  infant  baptism,  since  Paul  would  certainly  have  referred  to  the 
baptism  of  children  as  a  proof  of  their  holiness,  if  infant  baptism  had  beeu 
practised."  Moreover,  this  passage  would  in  that  case  equally  teach  the 
baptism  of  the  unconverted  husband  of  a  believing  wife.  It  plainly  proves 
that  the  children  of  Christian  parents  were  no  more  baptized  and  had  no 
closer  connection  with  the  Christian  church,  than  the  unbelieving  partners 
of  Christians. 

Mat.  19  :  14  —  "Suffer  the  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me :  for  to  such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  "  ;  Acts  16 :  15  —  "  And  when  she  [  Lydia  ]  was  baptized,  and  her  household  "  ;  cf.  40  —  "And  they  went  out 
of  the  prison,  and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia :  and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them,  and 
departed."  Acts  16:33  —  The  jailor  "was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  immediately";  cf.  34  — "And  he  brought 
them  up  into  his  house,  and  set  food  before  them,  and  rejoiced  greatly,  with  all  his  house,  having  believed  in  God  "  ;  1 
Cor.  16:15  —  "ye  kn>w  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first.'ruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  set  themselves 
to  minister  unto  the  saints";  1:16  — "And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas  "  ;  7:14 — "  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  in  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  in  the  brother :  else  were  your  children  unclean  ; 
but  now  are  they  holy"  —  here  the  sanctity  or  holiness  attributed  to  unbelieving-  members  of 
the  household  is  evidently  that  of  external  connection  and  privilege,  like  that  of  the 
O.  T.  Israel. 

Broadus,  Am.  Com.,  on  Mat.  19 :  14  —  "  No  Greek  Commentator  mentions  infant  baptism 
in  connection  with  this  passage,  though  they  all  practised  that  rite."  Schleiermacher, 
Glaubenslehre,  2 :383—  "All  the  traces  of  infant  baptism  which  it  has  been  desired  to 
find  in  the  New  Testament  must  first  be  put  into  it."    Pfleiderer,  Grundriss,  184r-187 — 


952  ECCLESIOLOGYj    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

"  Infant  baptism  cannot  be  proved  from  the  N.  T.,  and  according  to  1  Cor.  7 :  14  it  is  ante- 
cedently improbable  ;  yet  it  was  tbe  logical  consequence  of  the  command,  Mat.  28 :  19  sq., 
in  which  the  church  consciousness  of  the  2d  century  prophetically  expressed  Christ's 
appointment  that  it  should  be  the  universal  church  of  the  nations Infant  bap- 
tism represents  one  side  of  the  Biblical  sacrament,  the  side  of  the  divine  grace ;  but  it 
needs  to  have  tbe  other  side,  appropriation  of  that  grace  by  personal  freedom,  added 
in  confirmation." 

Dr.  A.  S.  Crapsey,  formerly  an  Episcopal  rector  in  Rochester,  made  the  following' 
statement  in  the  introduction  to  a  sermon  in  defence  of  infant  baptism :  "  Now  in 
support  of  this  custom  of  the  church,  we  can  bring  no  express  command  of  the  word 
of  God,  no  certain  warrant  of  holy  Scripture,  nor  can  we  be  at  all  sure  that  this 
usage  prevailed  during  the  apostolic  age.  From  a  few  obscure  hints  we  may  conject- 
ure that  it  did,  but  it  is  only  conjecture  after  all.  It  is  true  St.  Paul  baptized  the 
household  of  Stephanas,  of  Lydia,  and  of  the  jailor  at  Philippi,  and  in  these  households 
there  may  have  been  little  children  ;  but  we  do  not  know  that  there  were,  and  these 
inferences  form  but  a  poor  foundation  upon  which  to  base  any  doctrine.  Better  say 
at  once,  and  boldly,  that  infant  baptism  is  not  expressly  taught  in  holy  Scripture.  Not 
only  is  the  word  of  God  silent  on  this  subject,  but  those  who  have  studied  the  subject 
tell  us  that  Christian  writers  of  the  very  first  age  say  nothing  about  it.  It  is  by  no 
means  sure  that  this  custom  obtained  in  the  church  earlier  than  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century."  Dr.  C.  M.  Mead,  in  a  private  letter, 
dated  May  27, 1895 — "Though  a  Congregationalist,  I  cannot  find  any  Scriptural  author- 
ization of  pedobaptism,  and  I  admit  also  that  immersion  seems  to  have  been  the  prev- 
alent, if  not  the  universal,  form  of  baptism  at  the  first." 

A  review  of  the  passages  held  by  pedobaptists  to  support  their  views  leads  us  to  the 
conclusion  expressed  in  the  North  British  Review,  Aug.  1852:211,  that  infant  baptism 
is  utterly  unknown  to  Scripture.  Jacob,  Eecl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  270-275—  "  Infant  bap- 
tism is  not  mentioned  in  the  N.  T.    No  instance  of  it  is  recorded  there ;  no  allusion  is 

made  to  its  effects ;  no  directions  are  given  for  its  administration It  is  not  an 

apostolic  ordinance."  See  also  Neander's  view,  in  Kitto,  Bib.  Cyclop.,  art. :  Baptism  ; 
Kendrick,  in  Christian  Rev.,  April,  186:1 ;  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  96  ; 
Wayland,  Principles  and  Practices  of  Baptists,  125;  Cunningham,  lect.  on  Baptism,  in 
Croall  Lectures  for  1886. 

(  b  )  Infant  baptism  is  expressly  contradicted  : 

First, — by  the  Scriptural  prerequisites  of  faith  and  repentance,  as  signs 
of  regeneration.  In  the  great  commission,  Matthew  speaks  of  baptizing 
disciples,  and  Mark  of  baptizing  believers ;  but  infants  are  neither  of  these. 
Secondly, — by  the  Scrii^tural  symbolism  of  the  ordinance.  As  we  should 
not  bury  a  person  before  his  death,  so  we  should  not  symbolically  bury  a 
person  by  baptism  until  he  has  in  spirit  died  to  sin.  Thirdly, — by  the 
Scriptural  constitution  of  the  church.  The  church  is  a  company  of  persons 
whose  union  with  one  another  prestq^posos  and  expresses  a  previous  con- 
scious and  voluntary  union  of  each  with  Jesus  Christ.  But  of  this  conscious 
and  voluntary  union  with  Christ  infants  are  not  capable.  Fourthly, — by 
the  Scriptural  prerequisites  for  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Parti- 
cijmtion  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  right  only  of  those  who  can  discern 
the  Lord's  body  (  1  Cor.  11  :  29).  No  reason  can  be  assigned  for  restrict- 
ing to  intelligent  communicants  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  which  would 
not  equally  restrict  to  intelligent  believers  the  ordinance  of  Baptism. 

Infant  baptism  has  accordingly  led  in  the  Greek  church  to  infant  communion.  This 
course  seems  logically  consistent.  If  baptism  is  administered  to  unconscious  babes, 
they  should  participate  in  the  Lord's  Supper  also.  But  if  confirmation  or  any  intelli- 
gent profession  of  faith  is  thought  necessary  before  communion,  why  should  not  such 
confirmation  or  profession  be  thought  necessary  before  baptism  ?  On  Jonathan 
Edwards  and  the  Halfway  Covenant,  see  New  Englander,  Sept.  1884:601-614;  G.  L. 
Walker,  Aspects  of  Religious  Life  of  New  England,  61-82 ;  Dexter,  Congregationalism, 
487,  note  —  "  It  has  been  often  intimated  that  President  Edwards  opposed  and  destroyed 


BAPTISM.  953 

the  Halfway  Covenant.  He  did  oppose  Stoddardism,  or  the  doctrine  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  converting'  ordinance,  and  that  unconverted  men,  because  they  are  such' 
should  be  encouraged  to  partake  of  it."  The  tendency  of  his  system  was  adverse  to  it ; 
but,  for  all  that  appears  in  his  published  writings,  he  could  have  approved  and  admin- 
istered that  form  of  the  Halfway  Covenant  then  current  among-  the  churches.  John 
Fiske  says  of  Jonathan  Edwards's  preaching:  "The  prominence  he  gave  to  spiritual 
conversion,  or  what  was  called  '  change  of  heart,'  brought  about  the  overthrow  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Halfway  Covenant.  It  also  weakened  the  logical  basis  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and  led  to  the  winning  of  hosts  of  converts  by  the  Baptists." 

Other  pedobaptist  bodies  than  the  Greek  Church  save  part  of  the  truth,  at  the  expense 
of  consistency,  by  denying  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  to  those  baptized  in  infancy 
until  they  have  reached  years  of  understanding  and  have  made  a  public  profession  of 
faith.  Dr.  Charles  E.  Jefferson,  at  the  International  Congregational  Council  of  Boston, 
September,  1899,  urged  that  the  children  of  believers  are  already  church  members,  and 
that  as  such  they  are  entitled,  not  only  to  baptism,  but  also  to  the  Lord's  Supper  -"an 
assertion  that  started  much  thought  "  !  Baptists  may  well  commend  Congregational- 
ists  to  the  teaching  of  their  own  Increase  Mather,  The  Order  of  the  Gospel  ( 1700),  11  — 
"The  Congregational  Church  discipline  is  not  suited  for  a  worldly  interest  or  for  a 
formal  generation  of  professors.     It  will  stand  or  fall  as  godliness  in  the  power  of  it 

does  prevail,  or  otherwise If  the  begun  Apostacy  should  proceed  as  fast  the 

next  thirty  years  as  it  has  done  these  last,  surely  it  will  come  that  in  New  England 
( except  the  gospel  itself  depart  with  the  order  of  it )  that  the  most  conscientious 
people  therein  will  think  themselves  concerned  to  gather  churches  out  of  churches." 

How  much  of  Judaistic  externalism  may  linger  among  nominal  Christians  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  Armenian  Church  animal  sacrifices  survived,  or  were  permitted 
to  converted  heathen  priests,  in  order  they  might  not  lose  their  livelihood.  These 
sacrifices  continued  in  other  regions  of  Christendom,  particularly  in  the  Greek  church, 
and  Pope  Gregory  the  Croat  permit  led  them  ;  sec  Conybeare,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology, 
Jan.  1893:  62  90.  In  The  Key  of  Truth,  a  manual  of  the  Paulician  Church  of  Armenia, 
whose  date  in  its  present  form  is  between  the  seventh  and  the  ninth  centuries,  we  have 
the  Adoptianist  view  of  Christ's  person,  and  of  the  subjects  and  the  mode  of  baptism: 
"Thus  also  the  Lord,  having  learned  from  the  Father,  proceeded  to  teach  us  to  per- 
form baptism  and  all  other  commandments  at  the  age  <>f  full  growth  and  at  no  other 

time For  some  have  broken  and  destroyed  the  holy  and  precious  canons  which 

by  the  Father  Almighty  were  delivered  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  have  trodden 
them  underfoot  with  their  devilish  teaching,  ....  baptizing  those  who  arc  irrational, 
and  communicating  the  unbelieving." 

Minority  is  legally  divided  into  three  septennates :  1.  From  the  first  to  the  seventh 
year,  the  age  of  complete  irresponsibility,  in  which  the  child  cannotcommita  crime;  2. 
from  the  seventh  to  the  fourteenth  year,  the  age  of  partial  responsibility,  in  which 
intelligent  consciousness  of  the  consequences  of  actions  is  not  assumed  to  exist,  but 
may  be  proved  in  individual  instances ;  3.  from  the  fourteenth  to  the  twenty-first  year, 
the  age  of  discretion,  in  which  the  person  is  responsible  for  criminal  action,  may  choose 
a  guardian,  make  a  will,  marry  with  consent  id'  parents,  make  business  contracts  not 
wholly  void,  but  is  not  yet  permitted  fully  to  assume  the  free  man's  position  in  the 
State.  The  church  however  is  not  bound  by  these  hard  and  fast  rules.  Wherever  it 
has  evidence  of  conversion  and  of  Christian  character,  it  may  admit  to  baptism  and 
church  membership,  even  at  a  very  tender  age. 

(c)  The  rise  of  infant  baptism  in  the  history  of  the  church  is  due  to 
sacramental  conceptions  of  Christianity,  so  that  all  arguments  in  its  favor 
from  the  writings  of  the  first  three  centuries  are  equally  arguments  for 
baptismal  regeneration. 

Neander's  view  may  be  found  in  Kit  to.  Cyclopaedia,  1 :  287  —  "Infant  baptism  was 
established  neither  by  Christ  nor  by  his  apostles.  Even  in  later  times  TertuUian 
opposed  it,  the  North  African  church  holding  to  the  old  practice."  The  newly  dis- 
covered Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  which  Bryennios  puts  at  140-160  A.  D.,  and  Lightfoot 
at  80-110  A.  D.,  seems  to  know  nothing  of  infant  baptism. 

Professor  A.  H.  Newman,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  Jan.  1884—  "Infant  baptism  has  always  gone 
hand  in  hand  with  State  churches.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  an  ecclesiastical 
establishment  could  be  maintained  without  infant  baptism  or  its  equivalent.  We 
should  think,  if  the  facts  did  not  show  us  so  plainly  the  contrary,  that  the  doctrine  of 


954         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

justification  by  faith  alone  would  displace  infant  baptism.  But  no.  The  establishment 
must  be  maintained.  The  rejection  of  infant  baptism  implies  insistence  upon  a  bap- 
tism of  believers.  Only  the  baptized  are  properly  members  of  the  church.  Even  adults 
would  not  all  receive  baptism  on  professed  faith,  unless  they  were  actually  compelled 
to  do  so.  Infant  baptism  must  therefore  be  retained  as  the  necessary  concomitant  of 
a  State  church. 

"  But  what  becomes  of  the  justification  by  faith  ?  Baptism,  if  it  symbolizes  anything, 
symbolizes  regeneration.  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  make  the  symbol  to  forerun  the 
fact  by  a  series  of  years.  Luther  saw  the  difficulty ;  but  he  was  sufficient  for  the 
emergency.  'Yes,'  said  he,  'justification  is  by  faith  alone.  No  outward  rite,  apart 
from  faith,  has  any  efficacy.'  Why,  it  was  against  opera  nperata  that  he  was  laying  out 
all  his  strength.  Yet  baptism  is  the  symbol  of  regeneration,  and  baptism  must  be 
administered  to  infants,  or  the  State  church  falls.  With  an  audacity  truly  sublime, 
the  great  reformer  declares  that  infants  are  regenerated  in  connection  with  baptism, 
and  that  they  are  simultaneous!!/  justified  by  peisonal  faith.  An  infant  eight  days  old 
believe?  'Prove  the  contrary  if  you  can  !'  triumphantly  ejaculates  Luther,  and  his 
point  is  gained.  If  this  kind  of  personal  faith  is  said  to  justify  infants,  is  it  wonderful 
that  those  of  maturer  years  learned  to  take  a  somewhat  superficial  view  of  the  faith 
that  justifies?" 

Yet  Luther  had  written  :  "  Whatever  is  without  the  word  of  God  is  by  that  very  fact 
against  God";  see  his  Briefe,  ed.  DeWette,  II :  392 ;  J.  G.  Walch,  De  Fide  in  Utero. 
There  was  great  discordance  between  Luther  as  reformer,  and  Luther  as  conservative 
churchman.  His  Catholicism,  only  half  overcome,  broke  into  all  his  views  of  faith. 
In  his  early  years,  he  stood  for  reason  and  Scripture ;  in  his  later  years  he  fought  rea- 
son and  Scripture  in  the  supposed  interest  of  the  church. 

Mat.  18 :  10  —  "See  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones  "  —  which  refers  not  to  little  children  but 
to  childlike  believers,  Luther  adduces  as  a  proof  of  infant  baptism,  holding  that  the 
child  is  said  to  believe — "little  ones  that  believe  on  me"  (verse  6)  — because  it  has  been  circum- 
cised and  received  into  the  number  of  the  elect.  "And  so,  through  baptism,  children 
become  believers.  How  else  could  the  children  of  Turks  and  Jews  be  distinguished 
from  those  of  Christians  ?  "  Does  this  involve  the  notion  that  infants  dying  unbaptized 
are  lost  ?  To  find  the  very  apostle  of  justification  by  faith  saying  that  a  little  child 
becomes  a  believer  by  being  baptized,  is  humiliating  and  disheartening  (so  Broadus. 
Com.  on  Matthew,  page  3S4,  note). 

Pfleiderer,  Philos.  Religion,  2 :  342-345,  quotes  from  Lang  as  follows :  "  By  mistaking 
and  casting  down  the  Protestant  spirit  which  put  forth  its  demands  on  the  time  in 
Carlstadt,  Zwingle,  and  others,  Luther  made  Protestantism  lose  its  salt ;  he  inflicted 
wounds  upon  it  from  which  it  has  not  yet  recovered  to-day ;  and  the  ecclesiastical 
struggle  of  the  present  is  just  a  struggle  of  spiritual  freedom  against  Lutherism." 
E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Infant  baptism  is  a  rag  of  Romanism.  Since  regeneration  is  always 
through  the  truth,  baptismal  regeneration  is  an  absurdity."  See  Christian  Review, 
Jan.  1851 ;  Neander,  Church  History,  1:311,  313 ;  Coleman,  Christian  Antiquities,  258-260 ; 
Arnold,  in  Bap.  Quarterly,  18G9  :32  ;  Hovey,  in  Bap.  Quarterly,  1871 :  75. 

( d )  The  reasoning  by  -which  it  is  supported  is  unscriptural,  unsound, 
and  dangerous  in  its  tendency  : 

First, — in  assuming  the  power  of  the  church  to  modify  or  abrogate  a 
command  of  Christ.  This  has  been  sufficiently  answered  above.  Secondly, 
— in  maintaining  that  infant  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision  under 
the  Abrahamic  covenant.  To  this  we  reply  that  the  view  contradicts  the 
New  Testament  idea  of  the  church,  by  making  it  a  hereditary  body,  in 
which  fleshly  birth,  and  not  the  new  birth,  qualifies  for  membership.  "As 
the  national  Israel  typified  the  spiritual  Israel,  so  the  circumcision  wbich 
immediately  followed,  not  preceded,  natural  birth,  bids  us  baptize  children, 
not  before,  but  after  spiritual  birth."  Thirdly, — in  declaring  that  baptism 
belongs  to  the  infant  because  of  an  organic  connection  of  the  child  with 
the  parent,  which  permits  the  latter  to  stand  for  the  former  and  to  make 
profession  of  faith  for  it, — faith  already  existing  germinally  in  the  child  by 
virtue  of  this  organic  union,  and  certain  for  the  same  reason  to  be  developed 


BAPTISM.  055 

as  the  child  grows  to  maturity.  "A  law  of  organic  connection  as  regards 
character  subsisting  between  the  parent  and  the  child, — such  a  connection 
as  induces  the  conviction  that  the  character  of  the  one  is  actually  included 
in  the  character  of  the  other,  as  the  seed  is  formed  in  the  capsule."  We 
ol  »ject  to  this  view  that  it  unwarrantably  confounds  the  personality  of  the 
child  with  that  of  the  parent ;  practically  ignores  the  necessity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  regenerating  influences  in  the  case  of  children  of  Christian  parents  ; 
and  presumes  in  such  children  a  gracious  state  which  facts  conclusively 
show  not  to  exist. 

What  takes  the  place  of  circumcision  is  not  baptism  but  regeneration.  Paul  defeated 
the  attempt  to  fasten  circumcision  on  the  church,  when  he  refused  to  have  that  rite 
performed  on  Titus.  But  later  Judaizers  succeeded  in  perpetuating  circumcision  under 
the  form  of  infant  baptism,  and  afterward  of  infant  sprinkling  (McGarvey,  Com.  on 
Acts).  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Circumcision  is  not  a  type  of  baptism:  1.  It  is  purely  a  gra- 
tuitous assumption  that  it  is  so.  There  is  not  a  word  in  Scripture  to  authorize  it; 
2.  Circumcision  was  a  national,  a  theocratic,  and  not  a  personal,  religious  rite;  3.  If 
circumcision  be  a  type,  why  <li<l  Paul  circumcise  Timothy  ?  Why  did  he  not  explain,  on 
an  occasion  so  naturally  calliug  for  it,  that  circumcision  was  replaced  by  baptism  ?  " 

On  the  theory  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  see  Pepper,  Baptist 
Quarterly,  April,  1857  ;  Palmer,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  1K71 :  314.  The  Christian  Church  is 
either  a  natural,  hereditary  body,  or  it  was  merely  typified  by  the  Jewish  people.  In 
the  former  case,  bapi  ism  belongs  to  all  children  of  Christian  parents,  and  the  church  is 
indistinguishable  from  the  world.  In  the  latter  case,  it-  belongs  only  to  spiritual 
descendants,  and  therefore  only  to  true  believers.  "That  Jewish  Christians,  who  of 
course  had  been  circumcised,  were  also  baptized,  and  that  a  large  number  of  them 
insisted  that  Gentiles  who  had  been  baptized  should  also  be  circumcised,  shows  con- 
clusively that  baptism  did  QOt  take  the  place  of  circumcision The  notion  that 

the  family  is  the  unit  of  society  is  a  re  lie  of  barbarism.  This  appears  in  the  Roman  law, 
which  was  good  for  property  but  not  for  persons.  It  left  none  but  a  servile  station  to 
wifeorson,  thus  degrading  society  at  the  fountain  of  family  life.  To  gain  freedom, 
the  Roman  wile  had  to  accept  a  form  of  marriage  which  opened  the  way  for  unlimited 
liberty  of  divorce." 

Hereditary  church-membership  is  of  the  same  piece  with  hereditary  priesthood,  and 
both  are  relics  of  Judaism.  J.J.  Murphy,  Nat.  Selection  and  Spir.  Freedom,  81  —  "  The 
institution  of  hereditary  priesthood,  which  was  so  deeply  rooted  in  the  religions  of 
antiquity  and  was  adopted  into  Judaism,  has  found  no  place  in  Christianity  ;  there  is 
not,  I  believe,  any  church  whatever  calling  itself  by  the  name  of  Christ,  in  which  the 
ministry  is  hereditary."  Yet  there  is  a  growing  disposition  to  find  in  infant  baptism 
the  guarantee  of  hereditary  church  membership.  Washington  Gladden,  What  is  Left? 
352-254— "Solidarity  of  the  generations  finds  expression  in  infant  baptism.  Families 
ought  to  be  Christian  and  not  individuals  only.  In  the  Society  of  Friends  every  one 
born  of  parents  belonging  to  the  Society  is  a  birthright  member.  Children  of  Christian 
parents  are  heirs  of  the  kingdom.  The  State  recognizes  that  our  children  are  organi- 
cally connected  with  it.  When  parents  are  members  of  the  State,  children  are  not 
aliens.  They  are  not  called  to  perform  duties  of  citizenship  until  a  certain  age,  butthe 
rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  are  theirs  from  the  moment  of  their  birth.  The 
State  is  the  mother  of  her  children  ;  shall  the  church  be  less  motherly  than  the  State  ? 
....  Baptism  does  not  make  the  child  God's  child ;  it  simply  recognizes  and  declares 
the  fact." 

Another  illustration  of  what  we  regard  as  a  radically  false  view  is  found  in  the  ser- 
mon of  Bishop  Grafton  of  Fond  du  Lac,  at  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Nicholson  in 
Philadelphia :  "  Baptism  is  not  like  a  function  in  the  natural  order,  like  the  coronation 
of  a  king,  an  acknowledgment  of  what  the  child  already  is.  The  child,  truly  God's 
loved  offspring  by  way  of  creation,  is  in  baptism  translated  into  the  new  creation  and 
incorporated  into  the  Incarnate  One,  and  made  his  child."  Yet,  as  the  great  majority 
of  the  inmates  of  our  prisons  and  the  denizens  of  the  slums  have  received  this  '  bap- 
tism,' it  appears  that  this  '  loved  offspring '  very  early  lost  its  '  new  creation  '  and  got 
*  translated '  in  the  wrong  direction.  We  regard  infant  baptism  as  only  an  ancient 
example  of  the  effort  to  bring  in  the  kingdom  of  God  by  externals,  the  protest  against 


956  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH: 

which  brought  Jesus  to  the  cross.  Our  modern  methods  of  salvation  by  sociology  and 
education  and  legislation  are  under  the  same  indictment,  as  crucifying  the  Son  of  God 
afresh  and  putting  him  to  open  shame. 

Prof.  Moses  Stuart  urged  that  the  form  of  baptism  was  immaterial,  but  that  the 
temper  of  heart  was  the  thing  of  moment.  Francis  Wayland,  then  a  student  of  his, 
asked  :  "  If  such  is  the  case,  with  what  propriety  can  baptism  be  administered  to  those 
who  cannot  be  supposed  to  exercise  any  temper  of  heart  at  all,  and  with  whom  the 
form  must  be  everything  ?  "  —  The  third  theory  of  organic  connection  of  the  child  with 
its  parents  is  elaborated  by  Bushnell,  in  his  Christian  Nurture,  90-223.  Per  contra,  see 
Bunsen,  Hippolytus  and  his  Times,  179,  211;  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  262. 
Hezekiah's  sou  Manasseh  was  not  godly ;  and  it  would  be  rash  to  say  that  all  the 
drunkard's  children  are  presumptively  drunkards. 

(e)  The  lack  of  agreement  among  pedobaptists  as  to  the  warrant  for 
infant  baptism  and  as  to  the  relation  of  baptized  infants  to  the  church, 
together  with  the  manifest  decline  of  the  practice  itself,  are  arguments 
against  it. 

The  jn-opriety  of  infant  baptism  is  variously  argued,  says  Dr.  Bushnell, 
upon  the  ground  of  ' '  natural  innocence,  inherited  depravity,  and  federal 
holiness  ;  because  of  the  infant's  own  character,  the  parent's  piety,  and  the 
church's  faith  ;  for  the  reason  that  the  child  is  an  heir  of  salvation  already, 

and  in  order  to  make  it  such No  settled  opinion  on  infant  baptism 

and  on  Christian  nurture  has  ever  been  attained  to. " 

Quot  homines,  tot  sententia?.  The  belated  traveler  in  a  thunderstorm  prayed  for  a 
little  more  light  and  less  noise.  Bushnell,  Christian  Nurture, 9-89,  denies  original  sin, 
denies  that  hereditary  connection  can  make  a  child  guilty.  But  he  seems  to  teach 
transmitted  righteousness,  or  that  hereditary  connection  can  make  a  child  holy.  He  dis- 
parages "  sensible  experiences  "  and  calls  them  "  explosive  conversions."  But  because 
we  do  not  know  the  time  of  conversion,  shall  we  say  that  there  never  was  a  time  when 
the  child  experienced  God's  grace?  See  Bib.  Sac,  1872:665.  Bushnell  said:  "I  don't 
know  what  right  we  have  to  say  that  a  child  can't  be  born  again  before  he  is  born  the 
first  time."  Did  not  John  the  Baptist  preach  Christ  before  he  was  born?  (Luke  1:15,  41,44). 
The  answer  to  Bushnell  is  simply  this,  that  regeneration  is  through  the  truth,  and  an 
unborn  child  cannot  know  the  truth.  To  disjoin  regeneration  from  the  truth,  is  to 
make  it  a  matter  of  external  manipulation  in  which  the  soul  is  merely  passive  and  the 
whole  process  irrational.  There  is  a  secret  work  of  God  in  the  soul,  but  it  is  always 
accompanied  by  an  awakening  of  the  soul  to  perceive  the  truth  and  to  accept  Christ. 

Are  baptized  infants  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  We  answer  by  citing 
the  following  standards  :  1.  The  Confession  of  Faith,  25 : 2 — "The  visible  church  .... 
consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with 
their  children."  2.  The  Larger  Catechism,  62—  "  The  visible  church  is  a  society  made 
up  of  all  such  as  in  all  ages  and  places  of  the  world  do  profess  the  true  religion,  and  of 
their  children."  166  —  "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  not  of  the 
visible  church  ....  till  they  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him:  but 
infants  descending  from  parents  either  both  or  but  one  of  them  professing  faith  in 
Christ  and  obedience  to  him  are  in  that  respect  within  the  covenant  and  are  to  be  bap- 
tized." 3.  The  Shorter  Catechism,  96  —  "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that 
are  out  of  the  visible  church,  till  they  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him : 
but  the  infants  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible  church  are  to  be  baptized." 
4.  Form  of  Government,  3  —  "A  particular  church  consists  of  a  number  of  professing 
Christians,  with  their  offspring."  5.  Directory  for  Worship,  1  — "  Children  born  within 
the  pale  of  the  visible  church  and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism  are  under  the  inspection 

and  government  of  the  church When  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  if  they 

be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to 
discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be  informed  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege 
to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper." 

The  Maplewood  Congregational  Church  of  Maiden,  Mass.,  enrolls  as  members  all 
children  baptized  by  the  church.  The  relation  continues  until  they  indicate  a  desire 
either  to  continue  it  or  to  dissolve  it.  The  list  of  such  members  is  kept  distinct  from 
that  of  the  adults,  but  they  are  considered  as  members  under  the  care  of  the  church. 


BAPTISM.  957 

Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd :  "  The  infant  of  a  believer  is  born  into  the  church  as  the  infant  of  a 
citizen  is  born  into  the  State.  A  baptized  cbiid  in  adult  years  may  renounce  his  bap- 
tism, become  an  infidel,  and  join  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  but  until  he  does  this,  he 
must  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ." 

On  the  Decline  of  Infant  Baptism,  see  Vedder,  in  Baptist  Review,  April,  1882: 173-189, 
who  shows  that  in  fifty  years  past  the  proportion  of  infant  baptisms  to  communicants 
in  general  has  decreased  from  one  in  seven  to  one  in  eleven ;  among  the  Reformed, 
from  one  in  twelve  to  one  in  twent3' ;  among  the  Presbyterians,  from  one  in  fifteen  to 
one  in  thirty-three  ;  among  the  Methodists,  from  one  in  twenty-two  to  one  in  twenty- 
nine  ;  among  the  Congregationalists,  from  one  in  fifty  to  one  in  seventy-seven. 

(/)  The  evil  effects  of  infant  baptism  are  a  strong  argument  against  it : 
First, — in  forestalling  the  voluntary  act  of  the  child  baptized,  and  thus 
practically  pi'eventing  his  personal  obedience  to  Christ's  commands. 

The  person  baptized  in  infancy  has  never  performed  any  act  with  intent  to  obey 
Christ's  command  to  be  baptized,  never  has  put  forth  a  single  volition  looking  toward 
obedience  to  that  command  ;  see  Wilkinson,  The  Baptist  Principle,  10-4tJ.  Every  man 
has  the  right  to  choose  his  own  wife.  So  every  man  has  the  right  to  choose  his  own 
Savior. 

Secondly, — in  inducing  superstitious  confidence  in  an  outward  rite  as 
possessed  of  regenerating  efficacy. 

French  parents  still  regard  infants  before  baptism  as  only  animals  (  Stanley ).  The 
haste  with  which  the  minister  is  summoned  to  baptize  the  dying  child  shows  thai  super- 
stition still  lingers  in  many  an  otherwise  evangelical  family  in  our  own  country.  The 
English  Prayerbook  declares  that  in  baptism  the  infant  is  "  made  a  child  of  God  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Even  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Catechism, 
28:6,  holds  that  grace  is  actually  conferred  in  baptism,  though  the  efficacy  of  it  is 
delayed  till  riper  years.  Mercersburg  Review  :  "The  objective  medium  or  instrumental 
cause  of  regeneration  is  baptism.  Men  are  not  regenerated  outside  the  church  and 
then  brought  into  it  for  preservation,  but  they  are  regenerated  by  beins  incorporated 
with  or  engrafted  into  the  church  through  the  sacrament  of  baptism."  Catholic 
Review :  "  Unbaptized,  these  little  ones  go  Into  darkness ;  but  baptized,  they  rejoice  in 
the  preseuce  of  God  forever," 

Dr.  Beebe  of  Hamilton  went,  after  a  minister  to  baptize  his  sick  child,  but  before  he 
returned  the  child  died.  Reflection  made  him  a  Baptist,  and  the  Editor  of  The 
Examiner.  Baptists  unhesitatingly  permit  converts  to  die  unbaptized,  showing  plainly 
that  they  do  not  regard  baptism  as  essential  to  salvation.  Baptism  no  more  makes 
one  a  Christian,  than  putting  a  crown  on  one's  head  makes  him  a  king.  Zwingle  held 
to  a  symbolic  interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  he  clung  to  the  sacramental 
conception  of  Baptism.  E.  H.  Johuson,  Uses  and  Abuses  of  Ordinances,  33,  claims 
that,  while  baptism  is  not  a  justifying  or  regenerating  ordinance,  it  is  a  sanctifying 
ordinance,  —  sanctifying,  in  the  sense  of  setting  apart.  Yes,  we  reply,  but  only  as 
church  going  and  prayer  are  sanctifying  ;  the  efficacy  is  not  in  the  outward  act  but  in 
the  spirit  which  accompanies  it.  To  make  it  signify  more  is  to  admit  the  sacramental 
principle. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  the  baptism  of  bells  and  of  rosaries  shows  how  infant 
baptism  has  induced  the  belief  that  grace  can  be  communicated  to  irrational  and  even 
material  things.  In  Mexico  people  bring  caged  birds,  cats,  rabbits,  donkeys,  and  pigs, 
for  baptism.  The  priest  kneels  before  the  altar  in  prayer,  reads  a  few  words  in  Latin, 
then  sprinkles  the  creature  with  holy  water.  The  sprinkling  is  supposed  to  drive  out 
any  evil  spirit  that  may  have  vexed  the  bird  or  beast.  In  Key  West,  Florida,  a  town 
of  22,000  inhabitants,  infant  baptism  has  a  stronger  hold  than  anywhere  else  at  the 
South.  Baptist  parents  had  sometimes  gone  to  the  Methodist  preachers  to  have  their 
children  baptized.  To  prevent  this,  the  Baptist  pastors  established  the  custom  of  lay- 
ing their  hands  upon  the  heads  of  infants  in  the  congregation,  and  'blessing'  them, 
i.  e.,  asking  God's  blessing  to  rest  upon  them.  But  this  custom  came  to  be  confounded 
with  christening,  and  was  called  such.  Now  the  Baptist  pastors  are  having  a  hard 
struggle  to  explain  and  limit  the  custom  which  they  themselves  have  introduced. 
Perverse  human  nature  will  take  advantage  of  even  the  slightest  additions  to  N.  T. 
prescriptions,  and  will  bring  out  of  the  germs  of  false  doctrine  a  fearful  harvest  of 
evil.    Obsta  principiis  —  "  Resist  beginnings." 


958         ECCLESIOLOGY,    Oil   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

Thirdly, — in  obscuring  and  corrupting  Christian  truth  with  regard  to 
the  sufficiency  of  Scripture,  the  connection  of  the  ordinances,  and  the 
inconsistency  of  an  impenitent  life  with  church-membership. 

Infant  baptism  in  England  is  followed  by  confirmation,  as  a  matter  of  course» 
whether  there  has  been  any  conscious  abandonment  of  sin  or  not.  In  Germany,  a 
man  is  always  understood  to  be  a  Christian  unless  he  expressly  states  to  the  contrary  — 
in  fact,  he  feels  insulted  if  his  Christianity  is  questioned.  At  the  funerals  even  of 
infidels  and  debauchees  the  pall  used  may  be  inscribed  with  the  words :  "  Blessed  are 
the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord."  Confidence  in  one's  Christianity  and  hopes  of  heaven 
based  only  on  the  fact  of  baptism  in  infancy,  are  a  great  obstacle  to  evangelical 
preaching  and  to  the  progress  of  true  religion. 

Wordsworth,  The  Excursion,  596,  602  ( book  5 )  —  "  At  the  baptismal  font.  And  when 
the  pure  And  consecrating  element  hath  cleansed  The  original  stain,  the  child  is  thus 
received  Into  the  second  ark,  Christ's  church,  with  trust  That  he,  from  wrath  redeemed 
therein  shall  float  Over  the  billows  of  this  troublesome  world  To  the  fair  land  of  ever- 
lasting life The  holy  rite  That  lovingly  consigns  the  babe  to  the  arms  Of  Jesus 

and  his  everlasting  care."  Infant  baptism  arose  in  the  superstitious  belief  that  there 
lay  in  the  water  itself  a  magical  efficacy  for  the  washing  away  of  sin,  and  that  apart 
from  baptism  there  could  be  no  salvation.  This  was  and  still  remains  the  Roman 
Catholic  position.  Father  Doyle,  in  Anno  Domini,  2:182  —  "  Baptism  regenerates.  By 
means  of  it  the  child  is  born  again  into  the  newness  of  the  supernatural  life."  Theo- 
dore Parker  was  baptized,  but  not  till  he  was  four  years  old,  when  his  "  Oh,  don't  I  "  — 
in  which  his  biographers  have  found  prophetic  intimation  of  his  mature  dislike  for  all 
conventional  forms — was  clearly  the  small  boy's  dislike  of  water  on  his  face;  see 
Chadwick,  Theodore  Parker,  6,  7.  "  How  do  you  know,  my  dear,  that  you  have  been 
christened  ?  "    "  Please,  mum,  'cos  I ' ve  got  the  marks  on  my  arm  now,  mum  !  " 

Fourthly, —  in  destroying  the  church  as  a  spiritual  body,  by  merging  it 
in  the  nation  and  the  world. 

Ladd,  Principles  of  Church  Polity :  "  Unitarianism  entered  the  Congregational 
churches  of  New  England  through  the  breach  in  one  of  their  own  avowed  and  most 
important  tenets,  namely,  that  of  a  regenerate  church-membership.  Formalism, 
iudifierentism,  neglect  of  moral  reforms,  and,  as  both  cause  and  results  of  these,  an 
abundance  of  unrenewed  men  and  women,  were  the  causes  of  their  seeming  disasters 
in  that  sad  epoch."  But  we  would  add,  that  the  serious  and  alarming  decline  of 
religion  which  culminated  in  the  Unitarian  movement  in  New  England  had  its  origin 
in  infant  baptism.  This  introduced  into  the  church  a  multitude  of  unregenerate 
persons  and  permitted  them  to  determine  its  doctrinal  position. 

W.  B.  Matteson :  "  No  one  practice  of  the  church  has  done  so  much  to  lower  the  tone 
of  its  life  and  to  debase  its  standards.  The  first  New  England  churches  were  estab- 
lished by  godly  and  regenerated  men.  They  received  into  their  churches,  through 
infant  baptism,  children  presumptively,  but  alas  not  actually,  regenerated.  The  result 
is  well  known  —  swift,  startling,  seemingly  irresistible  decline.  '  The  body  of  the  rising 
generation,'  writes  Increase  Mother,  'is  a  poor  perishing,  inconverted,  and,  except  the 
Lord  pour  out  his  Spirit,  an  undone  generation.'  The  '  Halfway  Covenant '  was  at  once 
a  token  of  preceding,  and  a  cause  of  further,  decline.  If  God  had  not  indeed  poured 
out  his  Spirit  in  the  great  awakening  under  Edwards,  New  England  might  well,  as  some 
feared,  'be  lost  even  to  New  England  and  buried  in  its  own  ruins.'  It  was  the  new 
emphasis  on  personal  religion  — an  emphasis  which  the  Baptists  of  that  day  largely 
contributed  —  that  gave  to  the  New  England  churches  a  larger  life  and  a  larger  useful- 
ness. Infant  baptism  has  never  since  held  quite  the  same  place  in  the  polity  of  those 
churches.  It  has  very  generally  declined.  But  it  is  still  far  from  extinct,  even  among 
evangelical  Protestants.  The  work  of  Baptists  is  not  yet  done.  Baptists  have  always 
stood,  but  they  need  still  to  stand,  for  a  believing  and  regenerated  church-member- 
ship." 

Fifthly, — in  putting  into  the  place  of  Christ's  command  a  commandment 
of  men,  and  so  admitting  the  essential  principle  of  all  heresy,  schism,  and 
false  religion. 


THE   LORD'S  SUPPER.  959 

There  is  therefore  no  logical  halting-place  between  the  Baptist  and  the  Romanist 
positions.  The  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  Hughes  of  New  York,  said  well  to  a  Pres- 
byterian minister :  "  We  have  no  controversy  with  you.  Our  controversy  is  with  the 
Baptists."  Lange  of  Jena :  "  Would  the  Protestant  church  fulfil  and  attain  to  its  final 
destiny,  the  baptism  of  infants  must  of  necessity  be  abolished."  The  English  Judge 
asked  the  witness  what  his  religious  belief  was.  Reply :  "  I  haven't  any."  "  Where  do 
you  attend  church?"  "Nowhere."  "Put  him  down  as  belonging  to  the  Church  of 
England."  The  small  child  was  asked  where  her  mother  was.  Reply:  "She  has  gone 
to  a  Christian  and  devil  meeting."  The  child  meant  a  Christian  Endeavor  meeting. 
Some  systems  of  doctrine  and  ritual,  however,  answer  her  description,  for  they  are  a 
mixture  of  paganism  and  Christianity.  The  greatest  work  favoring  the  doctrine  which 
we  here  condemn  is  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism.  For  the  Baptist  side  of  the 
controversy  see  Arnold,  in  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  160-182 ;  Curtis,  Progress  of  Bap- 
tist Principles,  274,  275 ;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  144-202. 

II.     The  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  that  outward  rite  in  which  the  assembled  church 
eats  bread  broken  and  drinks  wine  poured  forth  by  its  appointed  represen- 
tative, in  token  of  its  constant  dependence  on  the  once  crucified,  now  risen 
Savior,  as  source  of  its  spiritual  life ;  or,  in  other  words,  in  token  of  that 
abiding  communion  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  through  which  the 
life  begun  in  regeneration  is  sustained  and  perfected. 

Norman  Fox,  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal,  31,  33,  says  that  the  Scripture  nowhere  speaks 
of  t  lie  wine  as  "poured  forth  ";  and  in  1  Cor.  11 :  24 — "my  body  which  is  broken  for  you,"  the  Revised 
Version  omits  the  word  "broken  ";  while  on  the  other  hand  the  Gospel  according  to  John 
(19:36)  calls  especial  attention  to  the  fact  that  Christ's  body  was  not  broken.  We  reply 
that  Jesus,  in  giving  his  disciples  the  cup,  did  speak  of  his  blood  as  "poured  out"  (Mark 
14:24) ;  aud  it  was  not  the  body,  but  "a  bone  of  him,"  which  was  not  to  be  broken.  Many 
ancient  manuscripts  add  the  word  "broken  "  in  1  Cor.  11 :  24.  On  the  Lord's  Supper  in  general, 
see  Weston,  in  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  183-195;  Dagg,  Church  Order,  203-214. 

lc      The  Lord's  Supper  an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ. 

(a)  Christ  appointed  an  outward  rite  to  be  observed  by  his  disciples  in 
remembrance  of  his  death.  It  was  to  be  observed  after  his  death;  only 
after  his  death  could  it  completely  fulfil  its  pui^ose  as  a  feast  of  commem- 
oration. 

Luke  22 :  19  — "  And  he  took  bread,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  ho  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  saying,  This  is  my 
body  which  is  given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  And  the  cup  in  like  manner  after  supper,  saying,  This 
c.ip  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,  even  that  which  is  poured  out  for  you  "  ;  1  Cor.  11 :  23-25  — "  For  I  received  of  the 
Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread ;  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  This  is  my  body,  which  is  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  In 
like  manner  also  the  cup,  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood :  this  do,  as  often  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me."  Observe  that  this  communion  was  Christian  communion  before 
Christ's  death,  just  as  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism  before  Christ's  death. 

(6)  From  the  apostolic  injunction  with  regard  to  its  celebration  in  the 
church  until  Christ's  second  coming,  we  infer  that  it  was  the  original  inten- 
tion of  our  Lord  to  institute  a  rite  of  perpetual  and  universal  obligation. 

1  Cor.  11 :  26  — "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come  "  ;  cf. 
Mat.  26  :  29  — "But  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall  not  drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it 
new  with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom  "  ;  Mark  14 :  25 — "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God."  As  the  paschal  supper  continued 
until  Christ  came  the  first  time  in  the  flesh,  so  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  continue  until  he 
comes  the  second  time  with  all  the  power  and  glory  of  God. 

( c  )  The  uniform  practice  of  the  N.  T .  churches,  and  the  celebration  of 
such  a  rite  in  subsecpient  ages  by  almost  all  churches  professing  to  be 


960         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Christian,  is  best  explained  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
an  ordinance  established  by  Christ  himself. 

Acts  2 :  42  — "  And  they  continued  stedfastly  in  the  apostles'  teaching  and  fellowship,  in  the  breaking  of  bread  and 
the  prayers"  ;  46  — "And  day  by  day,  continuing  stedfastly  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home, 
hey  took  their  food  with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart " —  on  the  words  here  translated  "at  home "  (  kolt' 
oIkov),  but  meaning,  as  Jacob  maintains,  "from  one  worship-room  to  another,"  see 
page  961.  Acts  20  •  7 — "And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
discoursed  with  them  "  ;  i  Cor.  10 :  16  --"The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  seeing  that  we,  who  are  many,  are 
one  bread,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread." 

2.     The  Mode  of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper. 
(  a  )  The  elements  are  bread  and  wine. 

Although  the  bread  which  Jesus  broke  at  the  institution  of  the  ordinance  was  doubt- 
less the  unleavened  bread  of  the  Passover,  there  is  nothing  in  the  symbolism  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  which  necessitates  the  Romanist  use  of  the  wafer.  Although  the  wine 
which  Jesus  poured  out  was  doubtless  the  ordinary  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  symbolism  of  the  oi'dinance  which  forbids  the  use  of  unfermented 
juice  of  the  grape,— obedience  to  the  command  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  me"  (Luke 22: 19) 
requires  only  that  we  should  use  the  "  fruit  of  the  vine "  (  Mat.  26 :  29 ). 

Huguenots  and  Roman  Catholics,  among  Parkman's  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New 
World,  disputed  whether  the  sacramental  bread  could  be  made  of  the  meal  of  Indian 
corn.  But  it  is  only  as  food,  that  the  bread  is  symbolic.  Dried  fish  is  used  in  Green- 
land. The  bread  only  symbolizes  Christ's  life  and  the  wine  only  symbolizes  his  death. 
Any  food  or  drink  may  do  the  same.  It  therefore  seems  a  very  conscientious  but 
unnecessary  literalism,  when  Adoniram  Judson  (Life  by  his  Son,  352)  writes  from 
Burma:  "No  wine  to  be  procured  in  this  place,  on  which  account  we  are  unable  to 
meet  with  the  other  churches  this  day  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  For  proof 
that  Bible  wines,  like  all  other  wines,  are  fermented,  see  Presb.  Rev.,  1881 :  80-114;  1882: 
78-108,  394-399,  586;  Hovey,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  April,  1887: 152-180.  Per  contra,  see  Sam- 
son, Bible  Wines.    On  the  Scripture  Law  of  Temperance,  see  Presb.  Rev.,  1882 :  287-324. 

(b)  The  communion  is  of  both  kinds, — that  is,  communicants  are  to 
partake  both  of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  withholds  the  wine  from  the  laity,  although  it  considers 
the  whole  Christ  to  be  present  under  each  of  the  forms.  Christ,  however,  says :  "Drink 
ye  all  of  it"  (Mat.  26:27).  To  withhold  the  wine  from  any  believer  is  disobedience  to  Chi-ist, 
and  is  too  easily  understood  as  teaching  that  the  laity  have  only  a  portion  of  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  death.  Calvin:  "As  to  the  bread,  he  simply  said  'Take,  eat.'  Why  does  he 
expressly  bid  them  all  drink?  And  why  does  Mark  explicitly  say  that 'they  all  drank  of  it' 
(Mark  14:23)?"  Bengel:  Does  not  this  suggest  that,  if  communion  in  " one  kind  alone 
were  sufficient,  it  is  the  cup  which  should  be  used?  The  Scripture  thus  speaks,  fore- 
seeing what  Rome  would  do."  See  Expositor's  Greek  Testament  on  1  Cor.  11: 27,  In  the 
Greek  Church  the  bread  and  wine  are  mingled  and  are  administered  to  communicants, 
not  to  infants  only  but  also  to  adults,  with  a  spoon. 

(c)  The  partaking  of  these  elements  is  of  a  festal  nature. 

The  Passover  was  festal  in  its  nature.  Gloom  and  sadness  are  foreign  to  the  spirit  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  The  wine  is  the  symbol  of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  of  that  death  by 
which  we  live.  It  reminds  us  that  he  drank  the  cup  of  suffering  in  order  that  we  might 
drink  the  wine  of  joy.  As  the  bread  is  broken  to  sustain  our  physical  life,  so  Christ's 
body  was  broken  by  thorns  and  nails  and  spear  to  nourish  our  spiritual  life. 

1  Cor.  11 :  29  — "  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh,  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  himself,  if  he  discern  not  the 
body."  Here  the  Authorized  Version  wrongly  had  "  damnation  "  instead  of  "judgment."  Not 
eternal  condemnation,  but  penal  judgment  in  general,  is  meant.  He  who  partakes  "in 
an  unworthy  manner"  ( verse  27 ),  i.  e.,  in  hypocrisy,  or  merely  to  satisfy  bodily  appetites,  and 
not  discerning  the  body  of  Christ  of  which  the  bread  is  the  symbol  (verse  29),  draws 
down  upon  him  God's  judicial  sentence.  Of  this  judgment,  the  frequent  sickness  and 
death  in  the  church  at  Corinth  was  a  token.    See  verses  30-34,  and  Meyer's  Com. ;  also 


the  lord's  supper.  96! 

Gould,  in  Am.  Cora,  on  1  Cor.  11:27— "unworthily"— "  This  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
referring  to  the  airworthiness  of  the  person  himself  to  partake,  but  to  the  unworthy 

manner  of  partaking The  failure  to  recognize  practically  the  symbolism  of  the 

elements,  and  hence  the  treatment  of  the  Supper  as  a  common  meal,  is  just  what  the 
apostle  has  pointed  out  as  the  fault  of  the  Corinthians,  and  it  is  what  he  characterizes 
as  an  unworthy  eating  and  drinking."  The  Christian  therefore  should  not  be  deterred 
from  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  by  any  feeling  of  his  personal  unworthiness, 
so  long  as  he  trusts  Christ  and  aims  to  obey  him,  for  "All  the  fitness  he  requireth  Is  to 
feel  our  need  of  him." 

(  d)  The  communion  is  a  festival  of  commemoration, — not  simply  bring- 
ing Christ  to  our  remembrance,  but  making  proclamation  of  his  death  to 
the  world. 

1  Cor.  11 :  24,  26 — "this  do  in  remembrance  of  me For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye 

proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  As  the  Passover  commemorated  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
from  Egypt,  and  as  the  Fourth  of  July  commemorates  our  birth  as  a  nation,  so  the 
Lord's  Supper  commemorates  the  birth  of  the  church  in  Christ's  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. As  a  mother  might  bid  her  children  meet  over  her  grave  and  commemorate  her, 
so  Christ  bids  his  people  meet  and  remember  him.  Rut  subjective  remembrance  is  not 
its  only  aim.  It  is  public  proclamation  also.  Whether  it  brings  perceptible  blessing  to 
us  or  not,  it  is  to  be  observed  as  a  means  of  confessing  Christ,  testifying  our  faith,  and 
publishing  the  fact  of  his  death  to  others. 

( e )  It  is  to  be  celebrated  by  the  assembled  church.  It  is  not  a  solitary 
observance  on  the  part  of  individuals.  No  "showing  forth"  is  possible 
except  in  company. 

Acts  20:7— "gathered  together  to  break  bread";  1  Cor.  11 :  18,  20,  22,  33,  34— "when  ye  come  together  in  the 
church  ....  assemble  yourselves  together  ....  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church 

of  God,  and  put  them  to  shame  that  have  not  ?  ...  .  when  ye  come  together  to  eat If  any  man  is  hungry,  let 

him  eat  at  home ;  that  your  coming  together  be  not  unto  judgment. " 

Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  191-194,  claims  that  in  Acts  2:46— "breaking  bread  at  home"  — 
where  we  have  oTko?,  not  oinia,  ot/cos  is  not  a  private  house,  but  a  '  worship-room,'  and 
that  the  phrase  should  be  translated  "breaking  bread  from  one  worship-room  to 
another,"  or  "in  various  worship-rooms."  This  meaning  seems  very  apt  in  Acts  5:42 — 
"And  every  day,  in  the  temple  and  at  home  [  rather,  'in  various  worship-rooms'  ],  they  ceased  not  to  teach  and  to 
preach  Jesus  as  the  Christ"  ;  8:  3 — "But  Saul  laid  waste  the  church,  entering  into  every  house  [  rather,  'every 
worship-room '  ]  and  dragging  men  and  women  committed  them  to  prison  " ;  Rom.  16 : 5  — "  salute  th e  church  that  is  in 
their  house  [rather,  'in  their  worship-room']";  Titus  1:11 — "men  who  overthrow  whole  houses  [rather, 
'  whole  worship-rooms'  ],  teaching  things  which  they  ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre's  sake."  Per  contra,  however, 
see  1  Cor.  11 :  34  — "  let  him  eat  at  home,"  where  oIkos  is  contrasted  with  the  place  of  meeting  ;  so 
also  1  Cor.  14 :  35  and  Acts  20 :  20,  where  oIko?  seems  to  mean  a  private  house. 

The  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  each  family  by  itself  is  not  recognized  in  the 
New  Testament.  Stanley,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  May,  1878,  tells  us  that  as  infant  com- 
munion is  forbidden  in  the  Western  Church,  and  evening  communion  is  forbidden  by 
the  Roman  Church,  so  solitary  communion  is  forbidden  by  the  English  Church,  and 
death-bed  communion  by  the  Scottish  Church.  E.  G.Robinson:  "No  single  indi- 
vidual in  the  New  Testament  ever  celebrates  the  Lord's  Supper  by  himself."  Mrs. 
Browning  recognized  the  essentially  social  nature  of  the  ordinance,  when  she  said  that 
truth  was  like  the  bread  at  the  Sacrament  — to  be  passed  on.  In  this  the  Supper  gives 
us  a  type  of  the  proper  treatment  of  all  the  goods  of  life,  both  temporal  and  spiritual. 

Dr.  Norman  Fox,  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal,  claims  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  no  more 
an  exclusively  church  ordinance  than  is  singing  or  prayer;  that  the  command  to 
observe  it  was  addressed,  not  to  an  organized,  church,  but  only  to  individuals ;  that  every 
meal  in  the  home  was  to  be  a  Lord's  Supper,  because  Christ  was  remembered  in  it.  But 
we  reply  that  Paul's  letter  with  regard  to  the  abuses  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
addressed,  not  to  individuals,  but  to  "the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth."  (ICor.  1:2).  Paul 
reproves  the  Corinthians  because  in  the  Lord's  Supper  each  ate  without  thought  of 
others  :  "  What,  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God,  and  put  them  to  shame 
that  have  not  ?  "  ( 11 :  22 ).  Each  member  having  appeased  his  hunger  at  home,  the  members  of 
the  church  "  come  together  to  eat "  ( 11 :  30  ),  as  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ.  All  this  shows  that 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  an  appendage  to  every  ordinary  meal. 
61 


962  ECCLESIOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OP   THE   CHURCH. 

In  Acts  20: 7 — "upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  discoursed  with 
them  "  —  the  natural  inference  is  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  sacred  rite,  observed  apart 
from  any  ordinary  meal,  and  accompanied  by  religious  instruction.  Dr.  Fox  would  go 
back  of  these  later  observances  to  the  original  command  of  our  Lord.  He  would  elimi- 
nate all  that  we  do  not  find  in  Mark,  the  earliest  gospel.  But  this  would  deprive  us  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  and  the  discourses  of  the 
fourth  gospel.  McGiffert  gives  A.  D.  53,  as  the  date  of  Paul's  first  letter  to  the  Corin- 
thians, and  this  ante-dates  Mark's  gospel  by  at  least  thirteen  years.  Paul's  account  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  at  Corinth  is  therefore  an  earlier  authority  than  Mark. 

(/)  The  responsibility  of  seeing  that  the  ordinance  is  properly  adminis- 
tered rests  with  the  church  as  a  body ;  and  the  pastor  is,  in  this  matter,  the 
proper  representative  and  organ  of  the  church.  In  cases  of  extreme 
exigency,  however,  as  where  the  church  has  no  pastor  and  no  ordained 
minister  can  be  secured,  it  is  competent  for  the  church  to  appoint  one  from 
its  own  number  to  administer  the  ordinance. 

1  Cor.  11 : 2,  23  — "  Now  I  praise  you  that  ye  remember  me  in  all  things,  and  hold  fast  the  traditions,  even  as  I  delivered 
them  to  you  ....  For  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread."  Here  the  responsibility  of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  laid  upon  the  body  of  believers. 

(g)  The  frequency  with  which  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  administered 
is  not  indicated  either  by  the  N.  T.  precept  or  by  uniform  N.  T.  example. 
We  have  instances  both  of  its  daily  and  of  its  weekly  observance.  "With 
respect  to  this,  as  well  as  with  respect  to  the  accessories  of  the  ordinance, 
the  church  is  to  exercise  a  sound  discretion. 

Acts  2 :  46  —  "  And  day  by  day,  continuing  stedfastly  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home 
[or  perhaps,  'in  various  worship-rooms']";  20:7  — "And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were 
gathered  together  to  break  bread."  In  1878,  thirty-nine  churches  of  the  Establishment  in  London 
held  daily  communion ;  in  two  churches  it  was  held  twice  each  day.  A  few  churches  of 
the  Baptist  faith  in  England  and  America  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  on  each  Lord's 
day.  Carlstadt  would  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  only  in  companies  of  twelve,  and 
held  also  that  every  bishop  must  marry.  Reclining  on  couches,  and  meeting  in  the 
evening,  are  not  commanded ;  and  both,  by  their  inconvenience,  might  in  modern 
times  counteract  the  design  of  the  ordinance. 

3.     TJie  Symbolism  of  the  Lord's  Sniper. 

The  Lord's  Supper  sets  forth,  in  general,  the  death  of  Christ  as  the 
sustaining  power  of  the  believer's  lif e. 

A.     Expansion  of  this  statement. 

(a)  It  symbolizes  the  death  of  Christ  for  our  sins. 

1  Cor.  11 :  26  —  "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come "  ; 
cf.  Mark  14  .  24  —  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many  "  —the  blood  upon  which 
the  covenant  between  God  and  Christ,  and  so  between  God  and  us  who  are  one  with 
Christ,  from  eternity  past  was  based.  The  Lord's  Supper  reminds  us  of  the  covenant 
which  ensures  our  salvation,  and  of  the  atonement  upon  which  the  covenant  was 
based  ;  cf.  Heb.  13  :  20  —  "  blood  of  an  eternal  covenant." 

Alex.  McLaren:  "The  suggestion  of  a  violent  death,  implied  in  the  doubling  of  the 
3ymbols,  by  which  the  body  is  separated  from  that  of  the  blood,  and  still  further 
implied  in  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  is  made  prominent  in  the  words  in  reference  to 
the  cup.  It  symbolizes  the  blood  of  Jesus  which  is  'shed.'  That  shed  blood  is  cove- 
nant blood.  By  it  the  New  Covenant,  of  which  Jeremiah  had  prophesied,  one  article 
of  which  was,  "  Their  sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more,"  is  sealed  and  rati- 
fied, not  for  Israel  only  but  for  an  indefinite  '  many,'  which  is  really  equivalent  to  all. 
Could  words  more  plainly  declare  that  Christ's  death  was  a  sacrifice?  Can  we  under- 
stand it,  according  to  his  own  interpretation  of  it,  unless  we  see  in  his  words  here  a 
reference  to  his  previous  words  (Mat.  20:28)  and  recognize  that  in  shedding  his  blood 


the  lord's  supper.  963 

'  for  many,'  he  '  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many '  ?  The  Lord's  Supper  is  the  stand- 
ing witness,  voiced  by  Jesus  himself,  that  he  regarded  his  death  as  the  very  centre  of 
his  work,  and  that  he  regarded  it  not  merely  as  a  martyrdom,  but  as  a  sacrifice  by  which 
he  put  away  sins  forever.  Those  who  reject  that  view  of  that  death  are  sorely  puzzled 
what  to  make  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

( b )  It  symbolizes  our  personal  appropriation  of  the  benefits  of  that  death. 

1  Cor.  11 :  24  —  "  This  is  my  body,  which  is  for  you  "  ;  cf.  1  Cor.  5 :  7  —  "  Christ  oar  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  "  ; 
or  It.  V.  —  "our  passover  also  hath  been  sacrificed,  even  Christ"  ;  here  it  is  evident  not  only  that  the 
showing- forth  of  the  Lord's  death  is  the  primary  meaning-  of  the  ordinance,  but  that 
our  partaking  of  the  benefits  of  that  death  is  as  clearly  taught  as  the  Israelites'  deliver- 
ance was  symbolized  in  the  paschal  supper. 

(  c )  It  symbolizes  the  method  of  this  appropriation,  through  union  with 
Christ  himself. 

1  Cor.  10 :  16  —  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  [  marg. :  '  participation  in '  ]  the 
blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  [  marg. :  '  participation  in '  ]  the  body  of 
Christ?"  Here  "is  it  not  a  participation  "  ='does  it  not  symbolize  the  participation?'  So  Mat 
26:26  —  "  this  is  my  body ' '  ='  this  symbolizes  my  body.' 

(rl)  It  symbolizes  the  continuous  dependence  of  the  believer  for  all 
spiritual  life  upon  the  once  crucified,  now  living,  Savior,  to  whom  he  is 
thus  united. 

Cf.  John  6  :53  —  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  eicept  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  not  life  in  yourselves  "  —  here  is  a  statement,  not  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  but 
with  regard  to  spiritual  union  with  Christ,  which  the  Lord's  Supper  only  symbolizes ; 
see  page  905,  (a).  Like  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper  presupposes  and  implies  evangelical 
faith,  especially  faith  in  the  Deity  of  Christ;  not  that  ail  who  partake  of  it  realize  its 
full  meaning,  but  that  this  participation  logically  implies  the  five  great  truths  of 
Christ's  preexist  erne,  his  supernatural  birth,  his  vicarious  atonement,  his  literal  resur- 
rection, and  his  living  presence  with  his  followers.  Because  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson 
perceived  that  the  Lord's  Supper  implied  Christ's  omnipresence  and  deity,  he  would  no 
longer  celebrate  it,  and  so  broke  with  his  church  and  with  the  ministry. 

(V)  It  symbolizes  the  sanctification  of  the  Christian  through  a  spiritual 
reproduction  in  him  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 

Rom.  8 :  10  —  "  And  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteous- 
ness " ;  Phil.  3 :  10  —  "  that  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings, 
becoming  conformed  unto  his  death ;  if  by  any  means  I  may  attain  unto  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  The  bread 
of  life  nourishes ;  but  it  transforms  me,  not  I  it. 

(/)  It  symbolizes  the  consequent  union  of  Christians  in  Christ,  their 
head. 

1  Cor.  10 :  17  —  "seeing  that  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread."  The 
Roman  Catholic  says  that  bread  is  the  unity  of  many  kernels,  the  wine  the  unity  of 
many  berries,  and  all  are  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ.  We  can  adopt  the  former 
part  of  the  statement,  without  taking  the  latter.  By  being  united  to  Christ,  we  become 
united  to  one  another  ;  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  it  symbolizes  our  common  partaking 
of  Christ,  symbolizes  also  the  consequent  oneness  of  all  in  whom  Christ  dwells.  Teach- 
ing of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  ix  —  "  As  this  broken  bread  was  scattered  upon  the 
mountains,  and  being  gathered  together  became  one,  so  may  thy  church  be  gathered 
together  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy  kingdom." 

(g )  It  symbolizes  the  coming  joy  and  perfection  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Luke  22:18  — "for  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall  not  drink  from  henceforth  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  the  kingdom  of 
God  shall  come  "  ;  Mark  14 :  25  —  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  untU  that  day 
when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ;  Mat.  26 :  29  —  "  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall  not  drink  henceforth  of  this 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  dnnk  it  new  with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom." 

Like  Baptism,  which  points  forward  to  the  resurrection,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  antici- 


964         ECCLESI0L0C4Y,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

patory  also.  It  brings  before  us,  not  simply  death,  but  life ;  not  simply  past  sacrifice, 
but  future  glory.  It  points  forward  to  the  great  festival,  "  the  marriage  supper  of  the  lamb  " 
( Rev.  19:  9  J.  Dorner :  "  Then  Christ  will  keep  the  Supper  anew  with  us,  and  the  hours 
of  highest  solemnity  in  this  life  are  but  a  weak  foretaste  of  the  powers  of  the  world  to 
come."  See  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  176-^16 ;  The  Lord's  Supper,  a  Clerical  Sympo- 
sium, by  Pressense,  Luthardt,  and  English  Divines. 

B.     Inferences  from  this  statement. 

( a )  The  connection  between  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism  consists  in 
this,  that  they  both  and  equally  are  symbols  of  the  death  of  Christ.  In 
Baptism,  we  show  forth  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  procuring  cause  of  our 
new  birth  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  show  forth 
the  death  of  Christ  as  the  sustaining  power  of  our  spiritual  life  after  it  has 
once  begun.  In  the  one,  we  honor  the  sanctifying  power  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  as  in  the  other  we  honor  its  regenerating  power.  Thus  both  are 
parts  of  one  whole,  —  setting  before  us  Christ's  death  for  men  in  its  two 
great  purposes  and  results. 

If  baptism  symbolized  purification  only,  there  would  be  no  point  of  connection 
between  the  two  ordinances.  Their  common  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ  binds  the 
two  together. 

(  b )  The  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  often  repeated,  —  as  symbolizing  Christ's 
constant  nourishment  of  the  soul,  whose  new  birth  was  signified  in  Baptism. 

Tet  too  frequent  repetition  may  induce  superstitious  confidence  in  the  value  of  com- 
munion as  a  mere  outward  form. 

( c )  The  Lord's  Supper,  like  Baptism,  is  the  symbol  of  a  previous  state 
of  grace.  It  Las  in  itself  no  regenerating  and  no  sanctifying  power,  but  is 
the  symbol  by  which  the  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ,  his  sanctifier,  is 
vividly  expressed  and  strongly  confirmed. 

We  derive  more  help  from  the  Lord's  Supper  than  from  private  prayer,  simply 
because  it  is  an  external  rite,  impressing  the  sense  as  well  as  the  intellect,  celebrated  in 
company  with  other  believers  whose  faith  and  devotion  help  our  own,  and  bringing 
before  us  the  profoundest  truths  of  Christianity  —  the  death  of  Christ,  and  our  union 
with  Christ  in  that  death. 

(d)  The  blessing  received  from  participation  is  therefore  dependent 
upon,  and  proportioned  to,  the  faith  of  the  communicant. 

In  observing  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  need  to  discern  the  body  of  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  11 :  29 ) 
—  that  is,  to  recognize  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  ordinance,  and  the  presence  of 
Christ,  who  through  his  deputed  representatives  gives  to  us  the  emblems,  and  who 
nourishes  and  quickens  our  souls  as  these  material  tilings  nourish  and  quicken  the 
body.    The  faith  which  thus  discerns  Christ  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(  e)  The  Lord's  Supper  expresses  primarily  the  fellowship  of  the  believer, 
not  with  his  brethren,  but  with  Christ,  his  Lord. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  like  Baptism,  symbolizes  fellowship  with  the  brethren  only  as 
consequent  upon,  and  incidental  to,  fellowship  with  Christ.  Just  as  we  are  all  baptized 
''into  one  body  "  ( 1  Cor.  12 :  13 )  only  by  being  "baptized  into  Christ "  (  Rom.  6  : 3  ),  so  we  commune  with 
other  believers  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  only  as  we  commune  with  Christ.  Christ's  words : 
"this  do  in  remembrance  of  me"  (1  Cor.  11:24),  bid  us  think,  not  of  our  brethren,  but  of  the 
Lord.  Baptism  is  not  a  test  o  f  personal  worthiness.  Nor  is  the  Lord's  Supper  a  test  of 
personal  worthiness,  either  our  own  or  that  of  others.  It  is  not  primarily  an  expression 
of  Christian  fellowship.  Nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  is  it  called  a  communion  of 
Christians  with  one  another.  But  it  is  called  a  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  ( 1  Cor.  10 :  16 )  —  or,  in  other  words,  a  participation  in  him.  Hence  there  is  not  a 
single  cup,  but  many :  "divide  it  among  .yourselves  "  ( Luke  22 :  17 ).    Here  is  warrant  for  the  indi- 


the  lord's  supper.  965 

vidual  communion-cup.  Most  churches  use  more  than  one  cup :  if  more  than  one 
why  not  many  ? 

1  Cor.  11 : 26  —  "as  often  as  ye  eat  ...  .  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  "  —  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  teach- 
ing  ordinance,  and  is  to  be  observed,  not  simply  for  the  good  that  comes  to  the  com- 
municant and  to  his  brethren,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  witness  which  it  gives  to  the 
world  that  the  Christ  who  died  for  its  sins  now  lives  for  its  salvation.  A.  H.  Ballard, 
in  The  Standard,  Aug.  18,  19iX),  on  1  Cor.  11 :  29  —  "  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  himself,  if  he  dis- 
cern not  the  body  "  —  "  He  who  eats  and  drinks,  and  does  not  discern  that  he  is  redeemed  by 
the  offering  of*the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all,  eats  and  drinks  a  double  condem- 
nation, because  he  does  not  discern  the  redemption  which  is  symbolized  by  the  things 
which  he  eats  and  drinks.  To  turn  his  thought  away  from  that  sacrificial  body  to  the 
company  of  disciples  assembled  is  a  grievous  error  —  the  error  of  all  those  who  exalt 
the  idea  of  fellowship  or  communion  in  the  celebration  of  the  ordinance." 

The  offence  of  a  Christian  brother,  therefore,  even  if  committed  against  myself, 
should  not  prevent  me  from  remembering  Christ  and  communing  with  the  Savior.  I 
could  not  commune  at  all,  if  I  had  to  vouch  for  the  Christian  character  of  all  who  sat 
with  me.  This  does  not  excuse  the  church  from  effort  to  purge  its  membership  from 
unworthy  participants  ;  it  simply  declares  that  the  church's  failure  to  do  this  does  not 
absolve  any  single  member  of  it  from  his  obligation  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper.  See 
Jacob,  Eccl.  Polity  of  N.  T.,  285. 

4.     Erroneous  views  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

A.  The  Roinanist  view, — that  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  by 
priestly  consecration  into  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  this  con- 
secration is  a  new  offering  of  Christ's  sacrifice ;  and  that,  by  a  physical 
partaking  of  the  elements,  the  communicant  receives  saving  grace  from 
God.     To  this  doctrine  of  ' '  transubstantiation"  we  reply : 

(a)  It  rests  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  Scripture.  In  Mat.  26:26, 
"  this  is  my  body  "  means :  "  this  is  a  symbol  of  my  body."  Since  Christ 
was  with  the  disciples  in  visible  form  at  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  he 
could  not  have  intended  them  to  recognize  the  bread  as  being  his  literal 
body.  "  The  body  of  Christ  is  present  in  the  bread,  just  as  it  had  been  in 
the  passover  lamb,  of  which  the  bread  took  the  place  "  (John  6  :  53  contains 
no  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  although  it  describes  that  spiritual  union 
with  Christ  which  the  Supper  symbolizes ;  cf.  63.  In  1  Cor.  10  :  16,  17, 
Koivu'at)  tov  oufiarog  tov  Xpia-ov  is  a  figurative  expression  for  the  spiritual 
partaking  of  Christ.  In  Mark  8  :  33,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  Peter  was 
actually  "  Satan,"  nor  does  1  Cor.  12  :  12  prove  that  we  are  all  Christs.  Cf. 
Gen.  41:26;  1  Cor.  10:4). 

Mat.  26:28— "This  is  my  blood  ....  which  is  poured  out,"  cannot  be  meant  to  be  taken  literally, 
since  Christ's  blood  was  not  yet  shed.  Hence  the  Douay  version  (  Roman  Catholic ), 
without  warrant,  changes  the  tense  and  reads,  "which  shall  be  shed."  At  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Supper,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  Christ  should  hold  his  body  in  his 
own  hands,  and  then  break  it  to  the  disciples.  There  were  not  two  bodies  there. 
Zwingle  :  "  The  words\>f  institution  are  not  the  mandatory  '  become ' :  they  are  only  an 
explanation  of  the  sign."  When  I  point  to  a  picture  and  say  :  "  This  is  George  Wash- 
ington," I  do  not  mean  that  the  veritable  body  and  blood  of  George  Washington  are 
bef<  >re  me.  So  when  a  teacher  points  to  a  map  and  says :  "  This  is  New  York,"  or  when 
Jesus  refers  to  John  the  Baptist,  and  says  :  "  this  is  Elijah,  that  is  to  come  "  ( Mat.  11 :  14 ).  Jacob, 
The  Lord'sSupper,  Historically  Considered  — "  It  originally  marked,  not  a  real  presence, 
but  a  real  absence,  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  made  man  "—that  is,  a  real  absence  of 
his  //od.iy.  Therefore  the  Supper,  reminding  us  of  his  body,  is  to  be  observed  in  the 
church  "  till  he  come  "  ( 1  Cor.  11 :  26 ). 

John  6  :  53  — "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves  "  must 
be  interpreted  by  verse  63  — "  It  is  the  spirit  that  giveth  life ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the  words  that  I  have 
spoken  unto  yon  are  spirit,  and  are  life."  1  Cor.  10 :  16  —"The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion. 
of  f  mtrg.  :  '  participation  in '  ]  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  [  niarg. 


966  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   CHURCH. 

participation  in'  ]  the  body  of  Christ?"  —see  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  in  loco  ;  Mark  8: 33^ 
•'But  he    turning  about,  and  seeing  his  disciples,  rebuked    Peter,  and  saith,   Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan"  ;1  Cor. 

12 ;  12 "  for  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one 

body  ;  so  also  is  Christ.' '  cf.  Gen.  41 :  26  — "  The  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years ;  and  the  seven  good  ears  are  seven 
years :  the  dream  is  one ;  "  1  Cor.  10 : 4  — "  they  drank  of  a  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them  j  and  the  rock  was  Christ.' 

Queen  Elizabeth  :  "  Christ  was  the  Word  that  spake  it :  He  took  the  bread  and  brake 
it ;  And  what  that  Word  did  make  it,  That  I  believe  and  take  it."  Yes,  we  say ;  but 
what  docs  the  Lord  make  it  ?  Not  his  body,  but  only  a  symbol  of  his  body.  Sir  Thomas 
More  went  back  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  which  the  wisdom  of  his  age 
was  almost  unanimous  in  rejecting.  In  his  Utopia,  written  in  earlier  years,  he  had 
made  deism  the  ideal  religion.  Extreme  Romanism  was  his  reaction  from  this  former 
extreme.  Bread  and  wine  are  mere  remembrancers,  as  were  the  lamb  and  bitter  herbs 
at  the  Passover.  The  partaker  is  spiritually  affected  by  the  bread  and  wine,  only  as 
was  the  pious  Israelite  in  receiving  the  paschal  symbols ;  see  Norman  Fox,  Christ  in  the 
Daily  Meal,  25,  42. 

E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The  greatest  power  in  Romanism  is  its  power  of  visible  represen- 
tation. Ritualism  is  only  elaborate  symbolism.  It  is  interesting  to  remember  that  this 
prostration  of  the  priest  before  the  consecrated  wafer  is  no  part  of  even  original 
Roman  Catholicism."  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  2  :  213  -"The  pope,  when  he  celebrates 
the  communion,  always  stands  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction  [to  that  of  modern 
ritualists],  not-with  his  back  but  with  his  face  to  the  people,  no  doubt  following  the 
primitive  usage."  So  in  Raphael's  picture  of  the  Miracle  of  Bolsina,  the  priest  is  at  the 
north  end  of  the  table,  in  the  very  attitude  of  a  Protestant  clergyman.  Pfleiderer, 
Philos.  Religion,  2:211— "The unity  of  the  bread,  of  which  each  enjoys  a  part,  repre- 
sents the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which  consists  in  the  community  of  believers. 
If  we  are  to  speak  of  a  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  can 
only  be  thought  of,  in  the  sense  of  Paul,  as  pertaining  to  the  mystical  body,  i.  e.,  the 
Christian  Community.  Augustine  and  Zwingle,  who  have  expressed  most  clearly  this 
meaning  of  the  Supper,  have  therefore  caught  quite  correctly  the  sense  of  the  Aposl  le." 

Norman  Fox,  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal,  40-53—  "The  phrase  'consecration  of  the  ele- 
ments' is  unwarranted.  The  leaven  and  the  mustard  seed  were  in  no  way  consecrated 
when  Jesus  pronounced  them  symbols  of  divine  things.  The  bread  and  wine  are  not 
arbitrarily  appointed  remembrancers,  they  are  remembrancers  in  their  very  nature. 
There  is  no  change  in  them.  So  every  other  loaf  is  a  symbol,  as  well  as  that  used  in  the 
Supper.  When  St.  Patrick  held  up  the  shamrock  as  the  symbol  of  the  Trinity,  he 
meant  that  every  such  sprig  was  the  same.  Only  the  bread  of  the  daily  meal  is  Christ's 
body.  Only  the  washing  of  dirty  feet  is  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's  command.  The  loaf 
not  eaten  to  satisfy  hunger  is  not  Christ's  symbolic  body  at  all."  Here  we  must  part 
company  with  Dr.  Fox.  We  grant  the  natural  fitness  of  the  elements  for  which  he 
contends.  But  we  hold  also  to  a  divine  appointment  of  the  bread  and  wine  for  a 
special  and  sacred  use,  even  as  the  "bow  in  the  cloud  "  ( Gen.  9 :  13  ),  because  it  was  a  natural 
emblem,  was  consecrated  to  a  special  religious  use. 

(6)  It  contradicts  the  evidence  of  the  senses,  as  well  as  of  all  scientific 
tests  that  can  be  applied.  If  we  cannot  trust  our  senses  as  to  the  unchanged 
material  qualities  of  bread  and  wine,  we  cannot  trust  them  when  they 
report  to  us  the  words  of  Christ. 

Gibbon  was  rejoiced  at  the  discovery  that,  while  the  real  presence  is  attested  by  only 
a  single  sense  —  our  sight  [  as  employed  in  reading  the  words  of  Christ  ]  —  the  real  pres- 
ence is  disproved  by  three  of  our  senses,  sight,  touch,  and  taste.  It  is  not  well  to  pur- 
chase faith  in  this  dogma  at  the  price  of  absolute  scepticism.  Stanley,  on  Baptism,  in 
his  Christian  Institutions,  tells  us  that,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  belief  that 
the  water  of  baptism  was  changed  into  the  blood  of  Christ  was  nearly  as  firmly  and 
widely  fixed  as  the  belief  that  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  communion  were  changed  into 
his  flesh  and  blood.  Dollinger  ;  "  When  I  am  told  that  I  must  swear  to  the  truth  of 
these  doctrines  [  of  papal  infallibility  and  apostolic  succession  ],  my  feeling  is  just  as  if 
I  were  asked  to  swear  that  two  and  two  make  five,  and  not  four."  Teacher:  "Why 
did  Henry  VIII  quarrel  with  the  pope  ?"  Scholar :  "Because  the  pope  had  commanded 
him  to  put  away  his  wife  on  pain  of  transubstantiation.  "  The  transubstantiation  of 
Henry  VIII  is  quite  as  rational  as  the  transubstantiation  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the 
Eucharist. 


THE   LORD'S   St'PPER.  967 

(  c )  It  involves  the  denial  of  the  completeness  of  Christ's  past  sacrifice, 
and  the  assumption  that  a  human  priest  can  repeat  or  add  to  the  atonement 
made  by  Christ  once  for  all  (Heb.  9  :  28 — airaf  npooevexdtiq).  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  never  called  a  sacrifice,  nor  are  altars,  priests,  or  consecrations 
ever  spoken  of,  in  the  New  Testament.  The  priests  of  the  old  dispensation 
are  expressly  contrasted  with  the  ministers  of  the  new.  The  former 
"ministered  about  sacred  things,"  i.  e.,  performed  sacred  rites  and  waited 
at  the  altar;  but  the  latter  "preach  the  gospel"  (1  Cor.  9  :  13,  14). 

Heb.  9:28— "so  Christ  also,  having  been  once  offered"  — here  ana£  means'  once  for  all,'  asinJude  3  — 
"  the  faith  which  was  ODce  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints  "  ;  1  Cor.  9 :  13, 14  — "  Know  ye  not  that  they  that  minister 
about  sacred  things  eat  of  the  things  of  the  temple,  and  they  that  wait  upon  the  altar  have  their  portion  with  the 
altar'?  Even  so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they  that  proclaim  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel."  Romanism 
introduces  a  mediator  between  the  soul  and  Christ,  namely,  bread  and  wine,  —  and  the 
priest  besides. 

Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  H80-G87  ( Syst.  Doct.,  4 :  146-163 )  —  "  Christ  is  thought  of  as  at 
a  distance,  and  as  represented  only  by  the  priest  who  offers  anew  his  sacrifice.  But 
Protestant  doctrine  holds  to  a  perfect  Christ,  applying-  the  benefits  of  the  work  which 
he  long  ago  and  once  for  all  completed  upon  the  cross.  "  Chillingworth  :  "  Romanists 
hold  that  the  validity  of  every  sacrament  but  baptism  depends  upon  its  administration 
by  a  priest ;  and  without  priestly  absolution  there  is  no  assurance  of  forgiveness.  But 
the  intention  of  the  priest  is  essential  in  pronouncing  absolution,  and  the  intention  of 
the  bishop  is  essential  in  consecrating  the  priest.  How  can  any  human  being  know 
that  these  conditions  are  fulfilled  ?  "  In  the  New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  Christ 
appeal's  as  the  only  priest,  and  each  human  soul  has  direct  access  to  him. 

Norman  Fox,  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal,  22  — "  The  adherence  of  the  first  Christians  to 
the  Mosaic  law  makes  it  plain  that  they  did  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  modern  Church 
of  Rome  that  the  bread  of  the  Supper  is  a  sacrifice,  the  table  an  altar,  and  the  minister 
a  priest.  For  the  old  altar,  the  old  sacrifice,  and  the  old  priesthood  still  remained,  and 
were  still  in  their  view  appointed  media  of  atonement  with  God.  Of  course  they  could 
not  have  believed  in  two  altars,  two  priesthoods  and  two  contemporaneous  sets  of 
sacrifices."  Christ  is  the  only  priest.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Popular  Lectures,  257  — "  The  three 
central  dangerous  errors  of  Romanism  and  Ritualism  are:  1.  the  perpetuity  of  the 
apostolate  ;  2.  the  priestly  character  and  offices  of  Christian  ministers  ;  3.  the  sacra- 
mental principle,  or  the  depending  upon  sacraments,  as  the  essential,  initial,  and  ordi- 
nary channels  of  grace."  "  Hierarchy,"  says  another,  "is  an  infraction  of  the  divine 
order ;  it  Imposes  the  weight  of  an  outworn  symbolism,  on  the  true  vitalities  of  the 
gospel  ;  it  is  a  remnant  rent  from  the  shroud  of  the  dead  past,  to  enwrap  the  limbs  of 
the  living  present." 

(d)  It  destroys  Christianity  by  externalizing  it.  Romanists  make  all 
other  service  a  mere  appendage  to  the  communion.  Physical  and  magical 
salvation  is  not  Christianity,  but  is  essential  paganism. 

Council  of  Trent,  Session  vn,  On  Sacraments  in  General,  Canon  iv :  "I«f  any  one 
saith  that  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  but  are 
superfluous,  and  that  without  them,  and  without  the  desire  thereof,  men  attain  of 
God,  through  faith  alone,  the  grace  of  justification  ;  though  all  [  the  sacraments  1  are 
not  indeed  necessary  for  every  individual :  let  him  be  anathema."  On  Baptism,  Canon 
i  v  :  "  If  any  one  saith  that  the  baptism  which  is  even  given  by  heretics  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  with  the  intention  of  doing  what  the  church  doth, 
is  not  true  baptism,  let  him  be  anathema."  Baptism,  in  the  Romanist  system,  is  neces- 
sary to  salvation  :  and  baptism,  even  though  administered  by  heretics,  is  an  admis- 
sion to  the  church.  All  baptized  persons  who,  through  no  fault  of  their  own,  but  from 
lack  of  knowledge  or  opportunity,  are  not  connected  outwardly  with  the  true  church, 
though  they  are  apparently  attached  to  some  sect,  yet  in  reality  belong  to  the  soul  of  the 
true  church.  Many  belong  merely  to  the  body  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  are  counted 
as  its  members,  but  do  not  belong  to  its  soul.  So  says  Archbishop  Lynch,  of  Toronto  ; 
and  Pius  IX  extended  the  doctrine  of  invincible  ignorance,  so  as  to  cover  the  case  of 
every  dissentient  from  the  church  whose  life  shows  faith  working  by  love. 


968  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

Adoration  of  the  Host  (  Latin  hostia,  victim )  is  a  regular  part  of  the  service  of  the 
Mass.  If  the  Romanist  view  were  correct  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  actually 
changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  we  could  not  call  this  worship  idolatry. 
Christ's  body  in  the  sepulchre  could  not  have  been  a  proper  object  of  worship,  but  it 
was  so  after  his  resurrection,  when  it  became  animated  with  a  new  and  divine  life. 
The  Romanist  error  is  that  of  holding  that  the  priest  has  power  to  transform  the  ele- 
ments ;  the  worship  of  them  follows  as  a  natural  consequence,  and  is  none  the  less 
idolatrous  for  being  based  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  really 
Christ's  body  and  blood. 

The  Roman  Catholic  system  involves  many  absurdities,  but  the  central  absurdity  is 
that  of  making  religion  a  matter  of  machinery  and  outward  manipulation.  Dr.  R.  S. 
Mac  Arthur  calls  sacramentalism  "  the  pipe-line  conception  of  grace.''  There  is  no 
patent  Romanist  plumbing.  Dean  Stanley  said  that  John  Henry  Newman  "  made 
immortality  the  consequence  of  frequent  participation  of  the  Holy  Communion."  Even 
Faber  made  game  of  the  notion,  and  declared  that  it  "  degraded  celebrations  to  be  so 
many  breadfruit  trees."  It  is  this  transformation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  into  the  Mass 
that  turns  the  church  into  "  the  Church  of  the  Intonement."  "Cardinal  Gibbons,"  it 
was  once  said,  "  makes  his  own  God  —  the  wafer."  His  error  is  at  the  root  of  the  super- 
sanctity  and  celibacy  of  the  Romanist  clergy,  and  President  Garrett  forgot  this  when 
he  made  out  the  pass  on  his  railway  for  "Cardinal  Gibbons  and  wife."  Dr.  C.  H- 
Parkhurst :  "  There  is  no  more  place  for  an  altar  in  a  Christian  church  than  there  is 
for  a  golden  calf."  On  the  word  "  priest  "  in  the  N.  T.,  see  Gardiner,  in  O.  T.  Student, 
Nov.  1889 :  285-291 ;  also  Bowen,  in  Theol.  Monthly,  Nov.  1889  :  316-329.  For  the  Romanist 
view,  see  Council  of  Trent,  session  xm,  canon  in  :  per  contra,  see  Calvin,  Institutes, 
2 :  585-602  ;  C.  Hebert,  The  Lord's  Supper :  History  of  Uninspired  Teaching. 

B.  The  Lutheran  and  High  Church  view, — that  the  communicant,  in 
partaking  of  the  consecrated  elements,  eats  the  veritable  body  and  drinks 
the  veritable  blood  of  Christ  in  and  with  the  bread  and  wine,  although  the 
elements  themselves  do  not  cease  to  be  material.  To  this  doctrine  of 
"  consubstantiation  "  we  object : 

(a)  That  the  view  is  not  required  by  Scripture. — All  the  passages  cited 
in  its  support  may  be  better  interpreted  as  referring  to  a  partaking  of  the 
elements  as  symbols.  If  Christ's  body  be  ubiquitous,  as  this  theory  holds, 
we  partake  of  it  at  every  meal,  as  really  as  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 

(6)  That  the  view  is  inseparable  from  the  general  sacramental  system  of 
which  it  forms  a  part. — In  imposing  physical  and  material  conditions  of 
receiving  Christ,  it  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  justification  only  by  faith  ; 
changes  the  ordinance  from  a  sign,  into  a  means,  of  salvation  ;  involves  the 
necessity  of  a  sacerdotal  order  for  the  sake  of  properly  consecrating  the 
elements ;  and  logically  tends  to  the  Eomanist  conclusions  of  ritualism  and 
idolatry. 

( c )  That  it  holds  each  communicant  to  be  a  partaker  of  Christ's  veritable 
body  and  blood,  whether  he  be  a  believer  or  not, —  the  result,  in  the  absence 
of  faith,  being  condemnation  instead  of  salvation.  Thus  the  whole  char- 
acter of  the  ordinance  is  changed  from  a  festival  occasion  to  one  of  mystery 
and  fear,  and  the  whole  gospel  method  of  salvation  is  obscured. 

Encyc.  Britannica,  art. :  Luther,  15 :  81  — "  Before  the  peasants'  war,  Luther  regarded 
the  sacrament  as  a  secondary  matter,  compared  with  the  right  view  of  faith.  In  alarm 
at  this  war  and  at  Carlstadt's  mysticism,  he  determined  to  abide  by  the  tradition  of  the 
church,  and  to  alter  as  little  as  possible.  He  could  not  accept  transubstantiation,  and 
besought  a  via  media.  Occam  gave  it  to  him.  According  to  Occam,  matter  can  be 
present  in  two  ways,  first,  when  it 'occupies  a  distinct  place  by  itself,  excluding  every 
other  body,  as  two  stones  mutually  exclude  each  other ;  and,  secondly,  when  it  occupies 
the  same  space  as  another  body  at  the  same  time.  Everything  which  is  omnipresent 
must  occupy  the  same  space  as  other  things,  else  it  could  not  be  ubiquitous.    Hence 


TFB    LORD'S   SUPPER.  969 

consubstantiation  involved  no  miracle.  Christ's  body  was  in  the  bread  and  wine 
nut  urally,  and  was  not  brought  into  the  elements  by  the  priest.  It  brought  a  blessing, 
not  because  of  Christ's  presence,  but  because  of  God's  promise  that  this  particular 
presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  should  bring  blessings  to  the  faithful  partaker." 
Broadus,  Am.  Com.  on  Mat.,  529  —  "  Luther  does  not  say  how  Christ  is  in  the  bread  and 
wine,  but  his  followers  have  compared  his  presence  to  that  of  heat  or  magnetism  in 
iron.    But  how  then  could  this  presence  be  in  the  bread  and  wine  separately  ?  " 

For  the  view  here  combated,  see  Gerhard,  x  :  352—"  The  bread,  apart  from  the  sacra- 
ment instituted  by  Christ,  is  not  the  body  of  Christ,  and  therefore  it  is  iproAarpia  (  bread- 
worship)  to  adore  the  bread  in  these  solemn  processions"  (of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church  ).  397  —  "  Faith  does  not  belong  to  the  substance  of  the  Eucharist ;  hence  it  is 
not  the  faith  of  him  who  partakes  that  makes  the  bread  a  communication  of  the  body 
of  Christ ;  nor  on  account  of  unbelief  in  him  who  partakes  does  the  bread  cease  to  be  a 
communication  of  the  body  of  Christ."  See  also  Sadler,  Church  Doctrine,  124-199 ; 
Pusey,  Tract  No.  90,  of  the  Tractarian  Series;  Wilberforce,  New  Birth;  Nevins,  Mys- 
tical Presence. 

Per  contra,  see  Calvin,  Institutes,  2 :  525-584 ;  G.  P.  Fisher,  in  Independent,  May  1, 1884 
—  "  Calvin  differed  from  Lather,  in  holding  that  Christ  is  received  only  by  the  believer. 
He  differed  from  Zwingle,  in  holding  that  Christ  is  truly,  though  spiritually,  received." 
See  also  E.  G.  Robinson,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  1869:  85-109;  Rogers,  Priests  and  Sacra- 
ments. Consubstantiation  accounts  for  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession  and  for 
the  universal  ritualism  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  how- 
ever, is  not,  as  has  been  sometimes  maintained,  a  relic  of  the  papal  worship  of  the 
Real  Presence,  but  is  rather  a  reminiscence  of  the  fourth  century,  when  controversies 
about  the  person  of  Christ  rendered  orthodox  Christians  peculiarly  anxious  to 
recognize  Christ's  deity. 

"There  is  no  'corner'  in  divine  grace"  (C.  H.  Parkhurst).  "  All  notions  of  a  needed 
4  priesthood,"  to  bring  us  into  connection  with  Christ,  must  yield  to  the  truth  that 
Christ  is  ever  with  us  "  (  E.  G.  Robinson  ).  "  The  priest  was  the  conservative,  the  pro- 
phet the  progressive.  Hence  the  conflict  between  them.  Episcopalians  like  the  idea 
of  a  priesthood,  but  do  not  know  what  to  do  with  that  of  prophet."  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon  : 
"  Ititualism,  like  eczema  in  t  he  human  body,  is  generally  a  symptom  of  a  low  state  of 
the  blood.  Asa  rule,  when  t  he  church  becomes  secularized,  it  becomes  ritualized,  while 
great  revivals,  pouring  through  the  church,  have  almost  always  burst  the  liturgical 
bands  and  have  restored  it  to  the  freedom  of  the  Spirit." 

Pnseyism,  as  defined  by  I'usey  himself,  means:  1.  high  thoughts  of  the  two  sacra- 
ments; 2.  high  estimate  of  Episcopacy  as  God's  ordinance;  3.  high  estimate  of  the 
visible  church  as  the  body  wherein  we  are  made  and  continue  to  be  members  of 
Christ ;  4.  regard  for  ordinances  as  directing  our  devotions  and  disciplining  us,  such  as 
daily  public  prayers,  fasts  and  leasts;  5.  regard  for  the  visible  part  of  devotion,  such 
as  the  decoration  of  the  house  of  God,  which  acts  insensibly  on  the  mind;  6.  reverence 
for  and  deference  to  the  ancient  church,  instead  of  the  reformers,  as  the  ultimate 
expounder  of  the  meaning  of  our  church."  Pusey  declared  that  he  and  Maurice  wor- 
shiped different  Gods. 

5.  Prerequisites  to  Participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
A.  There  are  prerequisites.  This  we  argue  from  the  fact : 
(a)  That  Christ  enjoined  the  celebration  of  the  Supper,  not  upon  the 
world  at  large,  but  only  upon  his  disciples ;  (  b  )  that  the  apostolic  injunc- 
tions to  Christians,  to  separate  themselves  from  certain  of  their  number, 
imply  a  limitation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  a  narrower  body,  even  among 
professed  believers ;  ( c )  that  the  analogy  of  Baptism,  as  belonging  only  to 
a  specified  class  of  persons,  leads  us  to  believe  that  the  same  is  true  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

The  analogy  of  Baptism  to  the  Lord's  Supper  suggests  a  general  survey  of  the  con- 
nections between  the  two  ordinances:  1.  Both  ordinances  symbolize  primarily  the 
death  of  Christ ;  then  secondarily  our  spiriUial  death  to  sin  because  we  are  one  with 
him  ;  it  being  absurd,  where  there  is  no  such  union,  to  make  our  Baptism  the  symbol 
of  his  death.  2.  We  are  merged  in  Christ  first  in  Baptism  ;  then  in  the  Supper  Christ 
is  more  and  more  taken  into  us;  Baptism  =  we  in  Christ,  the  Supper  =  Christ  in  us. 


970  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF  THE   CHURCH. 

3.  As  regeneration  is  instantaneous  and  sanctification  continues  in  time,  so  Baptism 
should  be  for  once,  the  Lord's  Supper  often ;  the  first  single,  the  second  frequent.  4.  If 
one  ordinance,  the  Supper,  requires  discernment  of  the  Lord's  body,  so  does  the  other, 
the  ordinance  of  Baptism  ;  the  subject  of  Baptism  should  know  the  meaning  of  his  act. 
5.  The  order  of  the  ordinances  teaches  Christian  doctrine,  as  the  ordinances  do  ;  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  before  being  baptized  is  to  say  in  symbol  that  one  can  be 
sanctified  without  being  regenerated.  6.  Both  ordinances  should  be  public,  as  both 
"  show  forth  "  the  Lord's  death  and  are  teaching  ordinances;  no  celebration  of  either 
one  is  to  be  permitted  in  private.  7.  In  both  the  administrator  does  not  act  at  his  own 
option,  but  is  the  organ  of  the  church ;  Philip  acts  as  organ  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
when  he  baptizes  the  eunuch.  8.  The  ordinances  stand  by  themselves,  and  are  not  to 
be  made  appendages  of  other  meetings  or  celebrations ;  they  belong,  not  to  associations 
or  conventions,  but  to  the  local  church.  9.  The  Lord's  Supper  needs  scrutiny  of  the 
communicant's  qualifications  as  much  as  Baptism  ;  and  only  the  local  church  is  the 
proper  judge  of  these  qualifications.  10.  We  may  deny  the  Lord's  Supper  to  one  whom 
we  know  to  be  a  Christian,  when  he  walks  disorderly  or  disseminates  false  doctrine, 
just  as  we  may  deny  Baptism  to  such  a  person.  It.  Fencing  the  tables,  or  warning  the 
unqualified  not  to  partake  of  the  Supper,  may,  like  instruction  with  regard  to  Baptism, 
best  take  place  before  the  actual  administration  of  the  ordinance ;  and  the  pastor  is 
not  a  special  policeman  or  detective  to  ferret  out  offences.  See  Expositor's  Greek 
Testament  on  1  Cor.  10 : 1-6. 

B.  The  prerequisites  are  those  only  which  are  expressly  or  implicitly 
laid  down  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

(a)  The  church,  as  possessing  executive  but  not  legislative  power,  is 
charged  with  the  duty,  not  of  framing  rules  for  the  administering  and 
guarding  of  the  ordinance,  but  of  discovering  and  applying  the  rules  given 
it  in  the  New  Testament.  No  church  has  a  right  to  establish  any  terms  of 
communion  ;  it  is  responsible  only  for  making  known  the  terms  established 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  (6)  These  terms,  however,  are  to  be  ascer- 
tained not  only  from  the  injunctions,  but  also  from  the  precedents,  of  the 
New  Testament.  Since  the  apostles  were  inspired,  New  Testament  prece- 
dent is  the  "  common  law  "  of  the  church. 

English  law  consists  mainly  of  precedent,  that  is,  past  decisions  of  the  courts.  Imme- 
morial customs  may  be  as  binding  as  are  the  formal  enactments  of  a  legislature.  It  is 
New  Testament  precedent  that  makes  obligatory  the  observance  of  the  first  day, 
instead  of  the  seventh  day,  of  the  week.  The  common  law  of  the  church  consists, 
however,  not  of  any  and  all  customs,  but  only  of  the  customs  of  the  apostolic  church 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  its  principles,  or  the  customs  universally  binding  because 
sanctioned  by  inspired  apostles.  Has  New  Testament  precedent  the  authority  of  a 
divine  command?  Only  so  far,  we  reply,  as  it  is  an  adequate,  complete  and  final 
expression  of  the  divine  life  in  Christ.  This  we  claim  for  the  ordinances  of  Baptism 
and  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  the  order  of  these  ordinances.  See  Proceedings  of 
the  Baptist  Congress,  1896  :  23. 

The  Mennonites,  thinking  to  reproduce  even  the  incidental  phases  of  N.  T.  action, 
have  adopted :  1.  the  washing  of  feet ;  2.  the  marriage  only  of  members  of  the  same 
faith ;  3.  non-resistance  to  violence ;  4.  the  use  of  the  ban,  and  the  shunning  of 
expelled  persons ;  5.  refusal  to  take  oaths ;  6.  the  kiss  of  peace  ;  7.  formal  examination 
of  the  spiritual  condition  of  each  communicant  before  his  participation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper;  8.  the  choice  of  officials  by  lot.  And  they  naturally  break  up  into  twelve 
sects,  dividing  upon  such  points  as  holding  all  things  in  common  ;  plainness  of  dress, 
one  sect  repudiating  buttons  and  using  only  hooks  upon  their  clothing,  whence  their 
nickname  of  Hookers;  the  holding  of  services  in  private  houses  only;  the  asserted 
possession  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  ( A.  S.  Carman ). 

C.  On  examining  the  New  Testament,  we  find  that  the  prerequisites  to 
participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  four,  namely : 


the  lord's  supper.  971 

First, — Regeneration. 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  the  outward  expression  of  a  life  in  the  believer, 
nourished  and  sustained  by  the  life  of  Christ.  It  cannot  therefore  be  par- 
taken of  by  one  who  is  "dead  through  ....  trespasses  and  sins."  We 
give  no  food  to  a  corpse.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  never  offered  by  the 
apostles  to  unbelievers.  On  the  contrary,  the  injunction  that  each  com- 
municant "examine  himself  "  implies  that  faith  which  will  enable  the  coni- 
nmnicant  to  "discern  the  Lord's  body"  is  a  prerequisite  to  participation. 

1  Cor.  11 :  27-29  —  "  Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread  or  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  in  an  unworthy  manner, 
shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  aad  the  blood  of  the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  prove  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  the  bread,  and 
drink  of  the  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh,  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  himself,  if  he  discern  not  the 
Lord's  body."  Schaff,  in  his  Church  History,  2 :  517,  tells  us  that  in  the  Greek  Church,  in  the 
seventh  and  eighth  centuries,  the  bread  was  dipped  in  the  wine,  and  both  elements 
were  delivered  in  a  spoon.  Sec  Edwards,  on  Qualifications  for  Full  Communion,  in 
Works,  1:81. 

Secondly, —  Baptism. 

In  proof  that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  urge 
the  following  considerations  : 

(a)  The  ordinance  of  baptism  was  instituted  and  administered  long 
before  the  Supper. 

Mat.  21 :  25  —  "  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it  ?  from  heaven  or  from  men  ?  "  —  Christ  here  intimates 
that  John's  baptism  had  been  instituted  by  God  before  his  own. 

( b )  The  apostles  who  first  celebrated  it  had,  in  all  probability,  been 

baptized. 

Acts  1 :  21,  22  —  "Of  the  men  therefore  that  have  companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went 
out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John  ....  of  these  must  one  become  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resur- 
rection'' :  19  :4 — "John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
that  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Jesus." 

Several  of  the  apostles  were  certainly  disciples  of  John.  If  Christ  was  baptized, 
much  more  his  disciples.  Jesus  recognized  John's  baptism  as  obligatory,  and  it  is  not 
probable  t  bat  he  would  take  his  apostles  from  among-  those  who  had  not  submitted  to 
it.  John  tin;  Baptist  himself,  the  nisi  administrator  of  baptism,  must  have  been  him- 
self unbaptized.  Hut  the  t  welve  could  fitly  administer  it,  because  they  had  themselves 
received  it  at  John's  hands.    See  Arnold,  Terms  of  Communion,  17. 

( c  )  The  command  of  Christ  fixes  the  place  of  baptism  as  first  in  order 

after  discipleship. 

Mat.  28  :  19,  20  —  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you"  —  here 
the  first  duty  is  to  make  disciples,  the  second  to  baptize,  the  third  to  instruct  in  right 
Christian  living.  Is  it  said  that  there  is  no  formal  command  to  admit  only  baptized 
persons  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  We  reply  that  there  is  no  formal  command  to  admit 
only  regenerate  persons  to  baptism.  In  both  cases,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and  the 
general  connections  of  Christian  doctrine  are  sufficient  to  determine  our  duty. 

(  d )  All  the  recorded  cases  show  this  to  have  been  the  order  observed  by 

the  first  Christians  and  sanctioned  by  the  apostles. 

Acts  2 :  41,  46  —  "They  then  that  received  bis  word  were  baptized  ....  And  day  by  day,  continuing  stedfastly  with 
one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home  [  rather,  '  in  various  worship-rooms '  ]  they  took  their  food 
with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart";  8:12  — "But  when  they  believed  Philip  ....  they  were  baptized  " ;  10: 
47p  48  _  "  Can  any  man  forbid  the  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well 
as  we?  Andhe  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ";  22 :  16  — "  And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ? 
arisb,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  his  name." 

(  e )  The  symbolism  of  the  ordinances  requires  that  baptism  should  pre- 
cede the  Lord's  Supper.     The  order  of  the  facts  signified  must  be  expressed 


972  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

in  the  order  of  the  ordinances  which  signify  them  ;  else  the  -world  is 
tanght  that  sauctification  may  take  place  without  regeneration.  Birth  innst 
come  before  sustenance — 'nascimur,  pascimur.'  To  enjoy  ceremonial 
privileges,  there  must  be  ceremonial  qualifications.  As  none  but  the 
circumcised  could  eat  the  passover,  so  before  eating  with  the  Christian 
family  must  come  adoption  into  the  Christian  family. 

As  one  must  be  "  bora  of  the  Spirit "  before  he  can  experience  the  sustaining  influence  of 
Christ,  so  he  must  be  "  bom  of  water"  before  he  can  properly  be  nourished  by  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Neither  the  unborn  nor  the  dead  can  eat  bread  or  drink  wine.  Only  when 
Christ  had  raised  the  daughter  of  the  Jewish  ruler  to  life,  did  he  say :  "Give  her  to  eat." 
The  ordinance  which  symbolizes  regeneration,  or  the  impartation  of  new  life,  must  pre- 
cede  the  ordinance  which  symbolizes  the  strengthening  and  perfecting  of  the  life 
already  begun.  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  dating  back  to  the  second  half 
of  the  second  century,  distinctly  declares  (9 :5, 10  )  —"Let  no  one  eat  or  drink  of  your 
Eucharist  except  those  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  for  as  regards  this  also  the 

Lord  has  said  :  '  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs  ' The  Eucharist  shall 

be  given  only  to  the  baptized.'' 

(/)  The  standards  of  all  evangelical  denominations,  with  unimportant 
exceptions,  confirm  the  view  that  this  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture  requirements  respecting  the  order  of  the  ordinances. 

"  The  only  protest  of  note  has  been  made  by  a  portion  of  the  English  Baptists."  To 
these  should  be  added  the  comparatively  small  body  of  the  Free  Will  Baptists  in 
America.  Pedo baptist  churches  in  general  refuse  full  membership,  office-holding, 
and  the  ministry*  to  unbaptized  persons.  The  Presbyterian  church  does  not  admit  to 
the  communion  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  Not  one  of  the  great  evangelical 
denominations  accepts  Robert  Hall's  maxim  that  the  only  terms  of  communion  are 
terms  of  salvation.  If  individual  ministers  announce  this  principle  and  conform  their 
practice  to  it,  it  is  only  because  they  transgress  the  standards  of  the  churches  to  which 
they  belong. 

See  Tyerman's  Oxford  Methodists,  preface,  page  vi—  "Even  in  Georgia,  Wesley 
excluded  dissenters  from  the  Holy  Communion,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  not  been 
properly  baptized ;  and  he  would  himself  baptize  only  by  immersion,  unless  the  child  or 
person  was  in  a  weak  state  of  health."  Baptist  Noel  gave  it  as  his  reason  for  submit- 
ting to  baptism,  that  to  approach  the  Lord's  Supper  conscious  of  not  being  baptized 
would  be  to  act  contrary  to  all  the  precedents  of  Scripture.  See  Curtis,  Progress  of 
Baptist  Principles,  304. 

The  dismission  of  Jonathan  Edwards  from  his  church  at  Northampton  was  due  to  his 
opposing  the  Half  way  Covenant,  which  admitted  unregenerate  persons  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  step  on  the  road  to  spiritual  life.  He  objected  to  the  doctrine  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  "a  converting  ordinance."  But  these  very  unregenerated  persons 
had  been  baptized,  and  he  himself  had  baptized  many  of  them.  He  should  have 
objected  to  infant  baptism,  as  well  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  case  of  the  unre- 
generate. 

(g)  The  practical  results  of  the  opposite  view  are  convincing  proof 
that  the  order  here  insisted  on  is  the  order  of  nature  as  well  as  of  Scripture. 
The  admission  of  unbaptized  persons  to  the  communion  tends  always  to, 
and  has  frequently  resulted  in,  the  disuse  of  baptism  itself,  the  obscuring 
of  the  truth  which  it  symbolizes,  the  transformation  of  Scripturally  consti- 
tuted churches  into  bodies  organized  after  methods  of  human  invention, 
and  the  complete  destruction  of  both  church  and  ordinances  as  Christ 
originally  constituted  them. 

Arnold,  Terms  of  Communion,  76  —  The  steps  of  departure  from  Scriptural  precedent 
have  not  unf requently  been  the  following  :  ( 1 )  administration  of  baptism  on  a  week- 
day evening,  to  avoid  giving  offence;  (2)  reception,  without  baptism,  of  persons 
renouncing  belief  in  the  baptism  of  their  infancy ;  ( 3 )  giving  up  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as 


the  lord's  supper.  973 

non-essential,— to  be  observed  or  not  observed  by  each  individual,  according  as  he 
fluds  it  useful;  (4)  choice  of  a  pastor  who  will  not  advocate  Baptist  views  ;  (5)  adop- 
tion of  Congregational  articles  of  faith;  (6)  discipline  and  exclusion  of  members  for 
propagating  Baptist  doctrine.  John  Bunyan's  church,  once  either  an  open  communion 
church  or  a  mixed  church  both  of  baptized  and  unbaptized  believers,  is  now  a  regular 
Congregational  body.  Armitage,  History  of  the  Baptists,  482  sq.,  claims  that  it  was 
originally  a  Baptist  church.  Vedder,  however,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  1886  :289,  says  that 
"The  church  at  Bedford  is  proved  by  indisputable  documentary  evidence  never  to 
have  been  a  Baptist  church  in  any  strict  sense."  The  results  of  the  principle  of  open 
communion  are  certainly  seen  in  the  Regent's  Park  church  in  Loudon,  where  some  of 
the  deacons  have  never  been  baptized.  The  doctrine  that  baptism  is  not  essential  to 
church  membership  is  simply  the  logical  result  of  the  previous  practice  of  admitting 
unbaptized  persons  to  the  communion  table.  If  they  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  then  there  is  no  bar  to  their  admission  to  the  church.  See  Proceedings  of  the 
Baptist  Congress,  Boston,  November,  1902;  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles, 
296-298, 

Thirdly, — Church  membership. 

(a)  The  Lord's  Supper  is  ;i  church  ordinance,  observed  by  churches  of 
Christ  as  such.  For  this  reason,  membership  in  the  church  naturally  pre- 
cedes communion.  Since  communion  is  a  family  rite,  the  participant 
should  first  be  a  member  of  the  family. 

Acts  2 :  46  47  —  "  breaking  bread  at  horn"  [  rather,  '  in  various  worship-rooms '  ]  "  ( see  Com.  of  Meyer  ) ; 
20:7— "upon  trie  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break  bread"  ;  1  Cor.  11: 18,  22 — "when  ye 
come  together  in  the  church  .  .  .  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God,  and  put 
them  to  shame  that  havo  not?  " 

(  6  )    The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol  of  church  fellowship.     Excommu- 
nication implies  nothing,  if  it  does  not  imply  exclusion  from  the  commun- 
ion.    If  the  Supper  is  simply  communion  of  the  individual  with  Christ, 
'  then  the  church  has  no  right  to  exclude  any  from  it. 

1  Cor.  10 :  17  — "  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread."  Though  the 
Lord's  Supper  primarily  symbolizes  fellowship  with  Christ,  it  symbolizes  secondarily 
fellowship  with  the  church  of  Christ.  Not  all  believers  in  Christ  were  present  at  the 
first  celebration  of  the  Supper,  but  only  those  organized  into  a  body  —  the  apostles.  I 
can  invite  proper  persons  to  my  tea-table,  but  that  does  not  give  them  the  right  to  come 
uninvited.  Each  church,  therefore,  should  invite  visiting  members  of  sister  churches 
to  partake  with  it.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  an  ordinance  by  itself,  and  should  not  be 
celebrated  at  conventions  and  associations,  simply  to  lend  dignity  to  something  else. 

The  Panpresbyterian  Council  at  Philadelphia,  in  1880,  refused  to  observe  the  Lord's 
Supper  together,  upon  the  ground  that  the  Supper  is  a  church  ordinance,  to  be  observed 
only  by  those  who  are  amenable  to  the  discipline  of  the  body,  and  therefore  not  to  be 
observed  by  separate  church  organizations  acting  together.  Substantially  upon  this 
ground,  the  Old  School  General  Assembly  long  before,  being  invited  to  unite  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  the  New  School  body  with  whom  they  had  dissolved  ecclesiastical 
relations,  declined  to  do  so.  See  Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  304;  Arnold. 
Terms  of  Communion,  36. 

Fourthly, — An  orderly  walk. 

Disorderly  walking  designates  a  course  of  life  in  a  church  member  which 
is  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  the  gospel.  It  is  a  bar  to  participation  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  sign  of  church  fellowship.  With  Arnold,  we  may  class 
disorderly  walking  under  four  heads  :  — 

(  a )  Immoral  conduct. 

1  Cor.  5 : 1-13  —  Paul  commands  the  Corinthian  church  to  exclude  the  incestuous  person : 
"  I  wrote  unto  you  in  my  epistle  to  have  no  company  with  fornicators ;  .  .  .  .  but  now  I  write  unto  you  not  to  keep 
company,  if  any  man  that  is  named  a  brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  reviler,  or  a  drunkard,  or 


974         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

an  extortioner ;  with  such  a  one  no,  not  to  eat Put  away  the  wicked  man  from  among  yourselves."  —  Here  it 

is  evident  that  the  most  serious  forms  of  disorderly  walking-  require  exclusion  not  only 
from  church  fellowship  but  from  Christian  fellowship  as  well. 

(  b  )   Disobedience  to  the  commands  of  Christ. 

1  Cor,  14:37 — "  If  any  man  thinketh  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  take  knowledge  of  the  things 
which  I  write  unto  yon,  that  they  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  "  ;  2  Thess.  3  : 6,  11,  15  — "  Now  we  command  you, 

brethren that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition 

which  they  received  of  us For  we  hear  of  some  that  walk  among  you  disorderly,  that  work  not  at  all,  but  are 

busybodies And  if  any  man  obeyeth  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  that  ye  have  no  company  with 

him,  to  the  end  that  he  may  be  ashamed.  And  yet  count  him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother,"  —  Here 
is  exclusion  from  church  fellowship,  and  from  the  Lord's  Supper  its  sign,  while  yet  the 
offender  is  not  excluded  from  Christian  fellowship,  but  is  still  counted  "a  brother." 
Versus  G.  B.  Stevens,  in  N.  Englander,  1887 :  40-47. 

In  these  passages  Paul  intimates  that  "  not  to  walk  after  the  tradition  received  from 
him,  not  to  obey  the  word  contained  in  his  epistles,  is  the  same  as  disobedience  to  the 
commands  of  Christ,  and  as  such  involves  the  forfeiture  of  church  fellowship  and  its 
privileged  tokens  "  ( Arnold,  Prerequisites  to  Communion,  68 ).  Since  Baptism  is  a 
command  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  we  cannot  properly  commune  with  the  unbaptized. 
To  admit  such  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  give  the  symbol  of  church  fellowship  to  those 
who,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  Christian  brethren,  are,  though  perhaps  uncon- 
sciously, violating  the  fundamental  law  of  the  church.  To  withhold  protest  against 
plain  disobedience  to  Christ's  commands  is  to  that  extent  to  countenance  such  disobe- 
dience. The  same  disobedience  which  in  the  church  member  we  should  denominate 
disorderly  walking  must  a  fortiori  destroy  all  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  not  members  of  the  church. 

( c  )    Heresy,  or  the  holding  and  teaching  of  false  doctrine. 

Titus  3  :  10  — "  A  man  that  is  heretical  [  Am.  Revisers  :  '  a  factious  man  '  ]  after  a  first  and  second  admonition 
refuse "  ;  see  Ellicott,  Com.,  in  loco :  "  aipen/cb^  ivSpunro^  =one  who  gives  rise  to  divisions  by 
erroneous  teaching,  not  necessarily  of  a  fundamentally  heterodox  nature,  but  of  the 
kind  just  described  in  verse  9."  C/.  Acts  20  :  30 — "fromamong  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise, speaking 
perverse  things,  to  draw  away  the  disciples  after  them  "  ;  1  John  4 : 2,  3  — "  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God  :  every 
spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God  :  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  Jesus  is  not 
of  God  :  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  the  antichrist."  B.  B.  Bosworth  :  "  Heresy,  in  the  N.  T.,  does  not 
necessarily  mean  the  holding  of  erroneous  opinions,—  it  may  also  mean  the  holding  of 
correct  opinions  in  an  unbrotherly  or  divisive  spirit."  We  grant  that  the  word  'heretical ' 
may  also  mean  'factious' ;  but  we  claim  that  false  doctrine  is  the  chief  source  of  division, 
and  is  therefore  in  itself  a  disqualification  for  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Factiousness  is  an  additional  bar,  and  we  treat  it  under  the  next  head  of  Schism. 

The  Panpresbyterian  Council,  mentioned  above,  refused  to  admit  to  their  body  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterians,  because,  though  the  latter  adhei-e  to  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  church  government,  they  are  Arminian  in  their  views  of  the  doctrines  of  grace.  As 
we  have  seen,  on  pages  940-942,  that  Baptism  is  a  confession  of  evangelical  faith,  so 
here  we  see  that  the  Lord's  Supper  also  is  a  confession  of  evangelical  faith,  and  that  no 
one  can  properly  participate  in  it  who  denies  the  doctrines  of  sin,  of  the  deity,  incarna- 
tion and  atonement  of  Christ,  and  of  justification  by  faith,  which  the  Lord's  Supper 
symbolizes.    Such  denial  should  exclude  from  all  Christian  fellowship  as  well. 

There  is  heresy  which  involves  exclusion  only  from  church  fellowship.  Since  pedo- 
baptists  hold  and  propagate  false  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  church  and  its  ordinances 
—  doctrines  which  endanger  the  spirituality  of  the  church,  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  lordship  of  Christ  —we  cannot  properly  admit  them  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  To  admit  them  or  to  partake  with  them,  would  be  to  treat  falsehood  as  if  it 
were  truth.  Arnold,  Prerequisites  to  Communion,  72  — "  Pedobaptists  are  guilty  of 
teaching  that  the  baptized  are  not  members  of  the  church,  or  that  membership  in  the 
church  is  not  voluntary ;  that  there  are  two  sorts  of  baptism,  one  of  which  is  a  profes- 
sion of  faith  of  the  person  baptized,  and  the  other  is  profession  of  faith  of  another  per- 
son; that  regeneration  is  given  in  and  by  baptism,  or  that  the  church  is  composed  in 
great  part  of  persons  who  do  not  give,  and  were  never  supposed  to  give,  any  evidence 
of  regeneration ;  that  the  church  has  a  right  to  change  essentially  one  of  Christ's  insti- 
tutions, or  that  it  is  unessential  whether  it  be  observed  as  he  ordained  it  or  in  some 
other  manner ;   that  baptism  may  be  rightfully  administered  in  a  way  which  makes 


the  lord's  supper.  975 

much  of  the  language  in  which  it  is  described  in  the  Scriptures  wholly  unsuitable  ami 
inapplicable,  and  which  does]  not  at  all  represent  the  facts  and  doctrines  which  baptism 
is  declared  in  the  Scriptures  to  represent ;  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  in  all  religious 
matters  the  sufficient  and  only  binding  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

{d  )  Schism,  or  the  promotion  of  division  and  dissension  in  the  church. 
—  This  also  requires  exclusion  from  church  fellowship,  and  from  the  Lord's 
Supper  which  is  its  appointed  sign. 

Rom.  16 :  17  — "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  that  are  causing  the  divisions  and  occasions  of  stumbling 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  learned:  and  turn  away  from  them."  Since  pedobaptists,  by  their 
teaching  and  practice,  draw  many  away  from  Scripturally  constituted  churches, —  thus 
dividing  true  believers  from  each  other  and  weakening  the  bodies  organized  after  the 
model  of  the  New  Testament,— it  is  imperative  upon  us  to  separate  ourselves  from  them, 
so  far  as  regards  that  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  which  is  the  sign  of  church  fellow- 
ship. Mr.  Spurgeon  admits  pedobaptists  to  commune  with  his  church  "for  two  or 
three  months."  Then  they  are  kindly  asked  whether  t  bey  are  pleased  with  the  church, 
its  preaching,  doctrine,  form  <>f  government,  etc  If  they  say  they  are  pleased,  they 
are  asked  if  they  are  not  disposed  to  be  baptized  and  become  members?  If  so  inclined, 
all  is  well ;  but  if  not,  they  arc  kindly  told  that  it  is  not  desirable  for  them  to  commune 
longer.  Thus  baptism  is  held  to  precede  church  membership  and  permanent  commun- 
ion, although  temporary  communion  is  permitted  without  it. 

Arnold,  Prerequisites  to  Communion,  80— "It  may  perhaps  be  objected  that  the  pas- 
sages cited  under  the  four  preceding  subdivisions  refer  to  church  fellowship  in  a 
general  way,  wit  bout  any  specific  reference  to  tin  ■  Lord's  Supper.  In  reply  to  this  objec- 
tion, I  would  answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  having  endeavored  previously  to  estab- 
lish the  position  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  ordinance  to  be  celebrated  in  the  church, 
and  expressive  of  church  fellowship,  I  felt  at  liberty  to  use  the  passages  that  enjoin  the 
withdrawal  of  that  fellowship  as  constructively  enjoining  exclusion  from  the  Commun- 
ion, which  is  its  chief  token.  I  answer,  secondly,  that  the  principle  here  assumed  seems 
to  me  to  pervade  the  Scriptural  teachings  so  thoroughly  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  to 
lay  down  any  Scriptural  terms  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  except  upon  the 
admission  that  the  ordinance  is  inseparably  connected  with  church  fellowship.  To  treat 
the  subject  otherwise,  would  be,  as  it  appears  tome,  a  violent  putting  asunder  of  what 
the  Lord  has  joined  together.  The  objection  suggests  an  additional  argument  in  favor 
of  our  position  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  ehv/rch  ordinance. "  "Who  Christ's  body 
doth  divide,  Wounds  afresh  the  <  'rucitied  ;  Who  Christ's  people  doth  perplex,  Weakens 
faith  and  comfort  wrecks  ;  Who  Christ's  order  doth  not  see,  Works  in  vain  for  unity  ; 
Who  Christ's  word  doth  take  for  guide,  With  the  Bridegroom  loves  the  Bride." 

D.  The  local  church  is  the  judge  whether  these  prerequisites  are  ful- 
filled in  the  case  of  persons  desiring  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. — 
This  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 

( a  )  The  command  to  observe  the  ordinance  was  given,  not  to  individu- 
als, but  to  a  company. 

(  b  )  Obedience  to  this  command  is  not  an  individual  act,  but  is  the  joint 
act  of  many. 

(  c )  The  regular  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  be  secured, 
nor  the  qualifications  of  persons  desiring  to  participate  in  it  be  scrutinized, 
unless  some  distinct  organized  body  is  charged  with  this  responsibility. 

(  d )  The  only  organized  body  known  to  the  New  Testament  is  the  local 
church,  and  this  is  the  only  body,  of  any  sort,  competent  to  have  charge  of 
the  ordinances.     The  invisible  church  has  no  officers. 

(  e )  The  New  Testament  accounts  indicate  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
observed  only  at  regular  appointed  meetings  of  local  churches,  and  was 
observed  by  these  churches  as  regularly  organized  bodies. 


976         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

(/)  Since  the  duty  of  examining  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for 
baptism  and  for  membership  is  vested  in  the  local  church  and  is  essential 
to  its  distinct  existence,  the  analogy  of  the  ordinances  would  lead  us  to 
believe  that  the  scrutiny  of  qualifications  for  participation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  rests  with  the  same  body. 

( g  )  This  care  that  only  proper  persons  are  admitted  to  the  ordinances 
should  be  shown,  not  by  open  or  forcible  debarring  of  the  unworthy  at  the 
time  of  the  celebration,  but  by  previous  public  instruction  of  the  congre- 
gation, and,  if  needful  in  the  case  of  persistent  offenders,  by  subsequent 
private  and  friendly  admonition. 

""What  is  everybody's  business  is  nobody's  business."  If  there  be  any  power  of 
effective  scrutiny,  it  must  be  lodged  in  the  local  church.  The  minister  is  not  to  adminis- 
ter the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  at  his  own  option,  any  more  than  the  ordinance 
of  Baptism.  He  is  simply  the  organ  of  the  church.  He  is  to  follow  the  rules  of  the 
church  as  to  invitations  and  as  to  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  ordinance,  of  course 
instructing  the  church  as  to  the  order  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the  case  of  sick  mem- 
bers who  desire  to  communicate,  brethren  may  be  deputed  to  hold  a  special  meeting  of 
the  church  at  the  private  house  or  sick  room,  and  then  only  may  the  pastor  officiate. 
If  an  invitation  to  the  Communion  is  given,  it  may  well  be  in  the  following  form  : 
"  Members  in  good  standing  of  other  churches  of  like  faith  and  practice  are  cordially 
invited  to  partake  with  us."  But  since  the  comity  of  Baptist  churches  is  universally 
acknowledged,  and  since  Baptist  views  with  regard  to  the  ordinances  are  so  generally 
understood,  it  should  be  taken  for  grauted  that  all  proper  persons  will  be  welcome  even 
if  no  invitation  of  any  sort  is  given. 

Mr.  Spurgeou,  as  we  have  seen,  permitted  unbaptized  persons  temporarily  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  unchallenged,  but  if  there  appeared  a  disposition  to  make  partici- 
pation habitual,  one  of  the  deacons  in  a  private  interview  explained  Baptist  doctrine 
and  urged  the  duty  of  baptism.  If  this  advice  was  not  taken,  participation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  naturally  ceased.  Dr.  P.  S.  Henson  proposes  a  middle  path  between  open  and 
close  communion,  as  follows ;  "  Preach  and  urge  faith  in  Jesus  and  obedience  to  him. 
Leave  choice  with  participants  themselves.  It  is  not  wise  to  set  up  a  judgment-seat  at 
the  Lord's  table.  Always  preach  the  Scriptural  order—  1.  Faith  in  Jesus;  2.  Obedi- 
ence in  Baptism  ;  3.  Observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  J.  B.  Thomas :  "  Objections 
to  strict  communion  come  with  an  ill  grace  from  pedobaptists  who  withhold  commun- 
ion from  their  own  baptized,  whom  they  have  forcibly  made  quasi-members  in  spite  of 
the  only  protest  they  are  capable  of  offering,  and  whom  they  have  retained  as  subject* 
of  discipline  without  their  consent." 

A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Sermon  on  Our  Denominational  Outlook,  May  19,  1904  —  "  If 
I  am  asked  whether  Baptists  still  hold  to  restricted  communion,  I  answer  that  our 
principle  has  not  changed,  but  that  many  of  us  apply  the  principle  in  a  different  man- 
ner from  that  of  our  fathers.  We  believe  that  Baptism  logically  precedes  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  birth  precedes  the  taking  of  nourishment,  and  regeneration  precedes  sanc- 
tiflcation.  We  believe  that  the  order  of  the  ordinances  is  an  important  point  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  itself  teaches  Christian  doctrine.  Hence  we  proclaim  it  and 
adhere  to  it,  in  our  preaching  and  our  practice.  But  we  do  not  turn  the  Lord's  Supper 
into  a  judgment-seat,  or  turn  the  officers  of  the  church  into  detectives.  We  teach  the 
truth,  and  expect  that  the  truth  will  win  its  way.  We  are  courteous  to  all  who  come 
among  us  ;  and  expect  that  they  in  turn  will  have  the  courtesy  to  respect  our  convic- 
tions and  to  act  accordingly.  But  there  is  danger  here  that  we  may  break  from  our 
moorings  and  drift  into  indiffereutism  with  regard  to  the  ordinances.  The  recent 
advocacy  of  open  church-membership  is  but  the  logical  consequence  of  a  previous  con- 
cession of  open  communion.  I  am  persuaded  that  this  new  doctrine  is  confined  to  very 
few  among  us.  The  remedy  for  this  false  liberalism  is  to  be  found  in  that  same  Christ 
who  solves  for  us  all  other  problems.  It  is  this  Christ  who  sets  the  solitary  in  families, 
and  who  makes  of  one  every  nation  that  dwells  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Christian 
denominations  are  at  least  temporarily  his  appointment.  Loyalty  to  the  body  which 
seems  to  us  best  to  represent  his  truth  is  also  loyalty  to  him.  Love  for  Christ  does  not 
involve  the  surrender  of  the  ties  of  family,  or  nation,  or  denomination,  but  only 
consecrates  and  ennobles  them. 


the  lord's  supper.  97? 

"  Yet  Christ  is  King  in  Zion.  There  is  but  one  army  of  the  living  God,  even  though 
there  are  many  divisions.  We  can  emphasize  our  unity  with  other  Christian  bodies, 
rather  than  the  differences  between  us.  We  can  regard  them  as  churches  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  even  though  they  are  irregularly  constituted.  As  a  marriage  ceremony  may  be 
valid,  even  though  performed  without  a  license  and  by  an  unqualified  administrator ; 
and  as  an  ordination  may  be  valid,  even  though  the  ordinary  laying-on  of  hands  be  omit- 
ted ;  so  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  administered  in  pedobaptist  churches 
may  be  valid,  though  irregular  in  its  accompaniments  and  antecedents.  Though  we 
still  protest  against  the  modern  perversions  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  as  to  the 
subjects  and  mode  of  Baptism,  we  hold  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  that  irregu- 
larity is  not  invalidity,  and  that  we  may  recognize  as  churches  even  those  bodies 
which  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  without  having  been  baptized.  Our  faith  in  the 
larger  Christ  is  bringing  us  out  from  our  denominational  isolation  into  an  inspiring 
recognition  of  our  oneness  with  the  universal  church  of  God  throughout  the  world.'' 
On  the  whole  subject,  see  Madison  Avenue  Lectures,  217-200;  and  A.  H.  Strong,  on 
Christian  Truth  and  its  Keepers,  in  Philosophy  and  Religion,  238-244. 

E.     Special  objections  to  open  communion. 

The  advocates  of  this  view  claim  that  baptism,  as  not  being  an  indispen- 
sable term  of  salvation,  cannot  properly  be  made  an  indispensable  term  of 
communion. 

Robert  Hall,  Works,  1:285,  held  that  there  can  be  no  proper  terms  of  communion 
whicli  are  not  also  terms  of  salvation.  He  claims  that  "  we  are  expressly  commanded 
to  tolerate  in  the  church  all  those  diversities  of  opinion  which  are  not  inconsistent  wit  h 
salvation."  For  the  open  communion  view,  see  also  .lohn  M.  Mason,  Works,  1 :369; 
Princeton  Review,  Oct.  1850 ;  Bib.  Sac,  21 :  4ti> ;  24:482;  26:401;  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, 
6 :  103, 142.  But,  as  Curtis  remarks,  in  his  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles,  2!>2,  this  prin- 
ciple would  utterly  frustrate  the  very  objects  for  which  visible  churches  were  founded 
—  to  be  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  "  ( 1  Tim.  3  :  15) ;  for  truth  is  set  forth  as  forcibly  in 
ordinances  as  in  doctrine. 

In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  said,  we  reply  : 
(  a  )  This  view  is  o<  mtrary  to  the  belief  and  practice  of  all  but  an  insig- 
nificant fragment  of  organized  Christendom. 

A  portion  of  the  English  Baptists,  and  the  Free  Will  Baptists  in  America,  are  the  only 
bodies  which  in  their  standards  of  faith  accept  and  maintain  the  principles  of  open 
communion.  As  to  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  denomination, 
the  New  York  Christian  Advocate  states  the  terms  of  communion  as  being:  1.  Disciple- 
ship  ;  2.  Baptism  ;  3.  Consistent  church  life,  as  required  in  the  "  Discipline  ";  and  F.  G. 
Hibbard,  Christian  Baptism,  174,  remarks  that,  "  in  one  principle  the  Baptist  and  pedo- 
baptist churches  agree.  Thes-  both  agree  in  rejecting  from  the  communion  at  the  table 
of  the  Lord,  and  denying  the  rights  of  church  fellowship  to  all  who  have  not  been  bap- 
tized. Valid  baptism,  they  consider,  is  essential  to  constitute  visible  church  member- 
ship.      This  also  we  [  Methodists]  hold The  charge  of  close  communion  is  no 

more  applicable  to  the  Baptists  than  to  us." 

The  Interior  states  the  Presbyterian  position  as  follows :  "  The  difference  between 
our  Baptist  brethren  and  ourselves  is  an  important  difference.  We  agree  with  them, 
however,  in  saying  that  uubaptized  persons  should  not  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Close  communion,  in  our  judgment,  is  a  more  defensible  position  than  open  com- 
munion." Dr.  John  Hall :  "  If  I  believed,  with  the  Baptists,  that  none  are  baptized 
but  those  who  are  immersed  on  profession  of  faith,  I  should,  with  them,  refuse  to  com- 
mune with  any  others." 

As  to  the  views  of  Congregationalists,  we  quote  from  Dwight,  Systematic  Theology, 
sermon  160 — "  It  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this  ordinance  that  the  candidate 
for  communion  be  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  in  full  standing.  By 
this  I  intend  that  he  should  be  a  man  of  piety ;  that  he  should  have  made  a  public  pro- 
fession of  religion  ;  and  that  he  should  have  been  baptized."  The  Independent :  "  We 
have  never  been  disposed  to  charge  the  Baptist  church  with  any  special  narrowness  or 
bigotry  in  their  rule  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  table.  We  do  not  see  how  it  differs 
from  that  commonly  admitted  and  established  among  Presbyterian  churches." 
62 


978         ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  Episcopal  standards  and  authorities  are  equally  plain.  The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  Order  of  Confirmation,  declares:  "There  shall  none  be  admitted  to  the  holy 
communion,  until  such  time  as  he  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desirous  to  be  con- 
firmed "—confirmation  always  coming  after  baptism.  Wall,  History  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, part  2,  chapter  9  —  "  No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  persons  before 
they  were  baptized.  Among'  all  the  absurdities  that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  main- 
tained that  any  person  should  partake  of  the  communion  before  he  was  baptized." 

(  b )  It  assumes  an  unscriptural  inequality  between  the  two  ordinances. 
The  Lord's  Supper  holds  no  higher  rauk  in  Scripture  than  does  Baptism. 
The  obligation  to  commune  is  no  more  binding  than  the  obligation  to  pro- 
fess faith  by  being  baptized.  Open  communion,  however,  treats  baptism 
as  if  it  were  optional,  while  it  insists  upon  communion  as  indispensable. 

Robert  Hall  should  rather  have  said :  "  No  church  has  a  right  to  establish  terms  of  bap- 
tism which  are  not  also  terms  of  salvation,"  for  baptism  is  most  frequently  in  Scripture 
connected  with  the  things  that  accompany  salvation.  We  believe  faith  to  be  one  pre- 
requisite, but  not  the  only  one.  We  may  hold  a  person  to  be  a  Christian,  without 
thinking  him  entitled  to  commune  unless  he  has  been  also  baptized. 

Ezra's  reform  in  abolishing  mixed  marriages  with  the  surrounding  heathen  was  not 
narrow  nor  bigoted  nor  intolerant.  Miss  Willard  said  well  that  from  the  Gerizim  of 
holy  beatitudes  there  comes  a  voice:  "Blessed  are  the  inclusive,  for  they  shall  be 
included,"  and  from  Mount  Ebal  a  voice,  saying:  "Sad  are  the  exclusive,  for  they 
shall  be  excluded."  True  liberality  is  both  Christian  and  wise.  We  should  be  just  as 
liberal  as  Christ  himself,  and  no  more  so.  Even  Miss  Willard  would  not  include  rum- 
sellers  in  the  Christian  Temperance  Union,  nor  think  that  town  blessed  that  did  not  say 
to  saloon  keepers :  "  Repent,  or  go."  The  choir  is  not  narrow  because  it  does  not 
include  those  who  can  only  make  discords,  nor  is  the  sheepfold  intolerant  that  refuses 
to  include  wolves,  nor  the  medical  society  that  excludes  quacks,  nor  the  church  that 
does  not  invite  the  disobedient  and  schismatic  to  its  communion. 

( c  )  It  tends  to  do  away  with  baptism  altogether.  If  the  highest  privi- 
lege of  church  membership  may  be  enjoyed  without  baptism,  baptism  loses 
its  place  and  importance  as  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the  church. 

Robert  Hall  would  admit  to  the  Lord's  Supper  those  who  deny  Baptism  to  be  perpetu- 
ally binding  on  the  church.  A  foreigner  may  love  this  country,  but  he  cannot  vote  at 
our  elections  unless  he  has  been  naturalized.  Ceremonial  rites  imply  ceremonial  quali- 
fications. Dr.  Meredith  in  Brooklyn  said  to  his  great  Bible  Class  that  a  man,  though 
not  a  Christian,  but  who  felt  himself  a  sinner  and  needing  Christ,  could  worthily  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  the  logic  of  open  communion.  The  Supper  is  not 
limited  to  baptized  persons,  nor  to  church  members,  nor  even  to  converted  people,  but 
belongs  also  to  the  unconverted  world.  This  is  not  only  to  do  away  with  Baptism,  but 
to  make  the  Lord's  Supper  a  converting  ordinance. 

( d )  It  tends  to  do  away  with  all  discipline.  When  Christians  offend, 
the  church  must  withdraw  its  fellowship  from  them.  But  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  open  communion,  such  withdrawal  is  impossible,  since  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  highest  expression  of  church  fellowship,  is  open  to  every 
person  who  regards  himself  as  a  Christian. 

H.  F.  Colby:  "  Ought  we  to  acknowledge  that  evangelical  pedobaptists  are  qualified 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper?  We  are  ready  to  admit  them  on  precisely  the  same 
terms  on  which  we  admit  ourselves.  Our  communion  bars  come  to  be  a  protest,  but 
from  no  plan  of  ours.  They  become  a  protest  merely  as  every  act  of  loyalty  to  truth 
becomes  a  protest  against  error."  Constitutions  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  book  2,  section 
7  (about  250  A.  D. )  — "But  if  they  [those  who  have  been  convicted  of  wickedness] 
afterwards  repent  and  turn  from  their  error,  then  we  receive  them  as  we  receive  the 
heathen,  when  they  wish  to  repent,  into  the  church  indeed  to  hear  the  word,  but  do  not 
receive  them  to  communion  until  they  have  received  the  seal  of  baptism  and  are  made 
complete  Christians." 


the  lord's  supper.  979 

(e)  It  tends  to  do  away  with  the  visible  church  altogether.  For  no 
visible  church  is  possible,  unless  some  sign  of  membership  be  required,  in 
addition  to  the  signs  of  membership  in  the  invisible  church.  Open  com- 
munion logically  leads  to  open  church  membership,  and  a  church  member- 
ship open  to  all,  without  reference  to  the  qualifications  required  in 
Scripture,  or  without  examination  on  the  part  of  the  church  as  to  the 
existence  of  these  qualifications  in  those  who  unite  with  it,  is  virtually 
an  identification  of  the  church  with  the  world,  and,  without  protest  from 
Scripturally  constituted  bodies,  would  finally  result  in  its  actual  extinction. 

Dr.  Walcott  Calkins,  in  Andover  Review  :  "  It  has  never  been  denied  that  the  Puri- 
tan way  of  maintaining  the  purity  and  doctrinal  soundness  of  the  churches  is  to  secure 
a  soundly  converted  membership.  There  is  one  denomination  of  Puritans  which  has 
never  deviated  a  hair's  breadth  from  this  way.  The  Baptists  have  always  insisted  that 
regenerate  persons  only  ought  to  receive  the  sacraments  of  t  he  church.  And  they  have 
depended  absolutely  upon  this  provision  for  the  purity  and  doctrinal  soundness  of 
their  churches." 

At  the  Free  Will  Baptist  Convention  at  Providence,  Oct.,  1874,  the  question  came  up 
of  admitting  pedobaptiats  to  membership.  This  was  disposed  of  by  resolving  that 
"Christian  baptism  is  a  persona]  act  of  public  consecration  to  <  Ihrist,  and  that  believers' 
baptism  and  immersion  alone,  as  baptism,  are  fundamental  principles  of  the  denomina- 
tion." In  other  words,  unimmersed  believers  would  not  be  admitted  to  membership. 
But  is  it  not  the  Lord's  church  ?  Have  we  a  right  to  exclude?  Is  this  not  bigotry? 
The  Free  Will  Baptist  answers :  "  No,  it  is  only  loyalty  to  truth." 

We  claim  that,  upon  the  same  principle,  he  should  go  further,  and  refuse  to  admit  to 
the  communion  those  whom  he  refuses  to  admit  to  church  membership.  The  reasons 
assigned  for  acting  upon  the  opposite  principle  are  sentimental  rather  than  rational. 
See  John  Stuart  Mill's  definition  of  sentimentality,  quoted  in  Martineau's  Essays, 
1:94  —  "Sentimentality  consists  in  setting  the  sympathetic  aspect  of  things,  or  their 
loveableness,  above  their  sesthetic  aspect,  their  beauty  ;  or  above  the  moral  aspect  of 
them,  their  right  or  wrong." 

Objections  to  Strict  Communion,  and  Answers  to  them  (condensed  from 
Arnold,  Terms  of  Communion,  8:.' ) : 

"1st.  Primitive  rules  are  not  applicable  now.  Reply:  (1)  The  laws  of  Christ  are 
unchangeable.    (  2 )  The  primitive  order  ought  to  be  restored. 

"2d.  Baptism,  as  an  external  rite,  is  of  less  importance  than  tore.  Reply:  (1)  It  is 
not  inconsistent  with  love,  but  the  mark   of  love,  to  keep  Christ's  commandments. 

( 2 )  Love  for  our  brethren  requires  protest  against  their  errors. 

"3d.  PedobaptisU  think  tliemselves  baptized.  Reply:  (1)  This  is  a  reason  why  they 
should  act  as  if  they  believed  it,  not  a  reason  why  we  should  act  as  if  it  were  so.  ( 2 ) 
We  cannot  submit  our  consciences  to  their  views  of  truth  without  harming  ourselves 
and  them. 

"  4th.  Strict  communion  is  a  hindrance  to  union  among  Christians.  Reply :  ( 1 )  Christ 
desires  only  union  in  the  truth.    (2)  Baptists  are  not  responsible  for  the  separation. 

(3 )  Mixed  communion  is  not  a  cure  but  a  cause  of  disunion. 

"  5th.  The  rule  excludes  from  the  communion  baptized  members  of  pedobaptist  churches. 
Reply:  (1)  These  persons  are  walking  disorderly,  in  promoting  error.  (2)  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  symbol  of  church  fellowship,  not  of  fellowship  for  individuals,  apart  from 
their  church  relations. 

"6th.  ^l  plea  for  disi>e7}sing  with  the  rule  exists  in  extreme  cases  where  persons  must 
commune  unth  us  or  not  at  all.  Reply:  (1)  It  is  hard  to  fix  limits  to  these  exceptions: 
they  would  be  likely  to  encroach  more  and  more,  till  the  rule  became  merely  nominal. 
(  2 )  It  is  a  greater  privilege  and  means  of  grace,  in  such  circumstances,  to  abstain  from 
communing,  than  contrary  to  principle  to  participate.  (3)  It  is  not  right  to  partici- 
pate with  others,  where  we  cannot  invite  them  reciprocally. 

"7.  Alleged  inconsistency  of  our  practice.  —  (a)  Since  we  expect  to  commune  in 
heaven.  Reply  :  This  confounds  Christian  fellowship  with  church  fellowship.  Wi  do 
commune  with  pedobaptists  spiritually,  here  as  hereafter.  We  do  not  expect  to  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  them,  or  with  others,  in  heaven,  (b)  Since  we  reject 
the  better  and  receive  the  worse.  Reply:  We  are  not  at  liberty  to  refuse  to  apply 
Christ's  outward  rule,  because  we  cannot  equally  apply  his  inward  spiritual  rule  of 


980  ECCLESIOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

character.  Pedobaptists  withold  communion  from  those  they  regard  as  unbaptized, 
though  they  may  be  more  spiritual  than  some  in  the  church,  (c  )  Since  we  recognize 
pedobaptists  as  brethren  in  union  meetings,  exchange  of  pulpits,  etc.  Reply :  None 
of  these  acts  of  fraternal  fellowship  imply  the  church  communion  which  admission  to 
the  Lord's  table  would  imply.  This  last  would  recognize  them  as  baptized:  the  for- 
mer do  not. 

"  8th.  Alleged  impolicy  of  our  practice.  Reply :  (1 )  This  consideration  would  be  per- 
tinent, only  if  we  were  at  liberty  to  change  our  practice  when  it  was  expedient,  or  was 
thought  to  be  so.  ( 2 )  Any  particular  truth  will  inspire  respect  in  others  in  proportion 
as  its  advocates  show  that  they  respect  it.  In  England  our  numbers  have  diminished, 
compared  with  the  population,  in  the  ratio  of  33  per  cent. ;  here  we  have  increased  50 
per  cent,  in  proportion  to  the  ratio  of  population. 

"  Summary.  Open  communion  must  be  justified,  if  at  all,  on  one  of  four  grounds : 
First,  that  baptism  is  not  prerequisite  to  communion.  But  this  is  opposed  to  the  belief 
and  practice  of  all  churches.  Secondly,  that  immersion  on  profession  of  faith  is  not 
essential  to  baptism.  But  this  is  renouncing  Baptist  principles  altogether.  Thirdly, 
that  the  individual,  and  not  the  church,  is  to  be  the  judge  of  his  qualifications  for 
admission  to  the  communion.  But  this  is  contrary  to  sound  reason,  and  fatal  to  the 
ends  for  which  the  church  is  instituted.  For,  if  the  conscience  of  the  individual  is  to 
be  the  rule  of  the  action  of  the  church  in  regard  to  his  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
why  not  also  with  regard  to  his  regeneration,  his  doctrinal  belief,  and  his  obedience  to 
Christ's  commands  generally?  Fourthly,  that  the  church  has  no  responsibility  in 
regard  to  the  qualifications  of  those  who  come  to  her  communion.  But  this  is  aban- 
doning the  principle  of  the  independence  of  the  churches,  and  their  accouutableness  to 
Christ,  and  it  overthrows  all  church  discipline." 

See  also  Hovey,  in  Bib.  Sac,  1862:133;  Pepper,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  1867:216;  Curtis  on 
Communion,  292;  Howell,  Terms  of  Communion  ;  Williams,  The  Lord's  Supper;  Theo- 
dosia  Ernest,  pub.  by  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  Soc. ;  Wilkinson,  The  Baptist  Principle.  In  con- 
cluding our  treatment  of  EcclesioJogy,  we  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Jacob,  the  English  Churchman,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the  N.  T.,  and  Cunning- 
ham, the  Scotch  Presbyterian,  in  his  Croall  Lectures  for  1886,  have  furnished  Baptists 
with  much  valuable  material  for  the  defence  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the 
Church  and  its  Ordinances.  In  fact,  a  complete  statement  of  the  Baptist  positions 
might  easily  be  constructed  from  the  concessions  of  their  various  opponents.  See 
A.  H.  Strong,  on  Unconscious  Assumptions  of  Communion  Polemics,  in  Philosophy  and 
Religion,  245-249. 


PART    Till. 

ESCHATOLOGY,  OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF  FINAL  THINGS. 

Neither  the  individual  Christian  character,  nor  the  Christian  church  as  a 
■whole,  attains  its  destined  perfection  in  this  life  ( Rom.  8  :24).  This  per- 
fection is  reached  in  the  world  to  come  (  1  Cor.  13  :  10 ).  As  preparing  the 
way  for  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  completeness,  certain  events  are  to  take 
jilace,  such  as  death,  Christ's  second  coming,  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
the  general  judgment.  As  stages  in  the  future  condition  of  men,  there  is 
to  be  an  intermediate  and  an  ultimate  state,  both  for  the  righteous  and  for 
the  wicked.  We  discuss  these  events  and  states  in  what  appeal's  from 
Scripture  to  be  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

Rom.  8 :  24  — "in  hope  were  we  saved :  bat  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope  :  for  who  hopeth  for  that  which  he  seeth  ?  " 
1  Cor.  13 :  10  — "  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in  part  shall  ba  done  away. "  Original  sin  is 
not  wholly  eradicated  from  t  lie  Christian,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  yet  sole  ruler.  So, 
too,  the  church  is  still  in  a  state  of  conllict,  and  victory  is  hereafter.  Hut  as  the  Chris- 
tian life  attains  its  completeness  only  in  the  future,  so  with  the  life  of  sin.  Death  begins 
here,  but  culminates  hereafter.  James  1 :  15—  "the  sin,  when  it  is  full  grown,  bringeth  forth  death.'' 
The  wicked  man  lure  has  only  a  foretaste  of  "the  wrath  to  come"  (  Mat.  3-7).  We  may  "lay 
up  ...  ,  treasures  in  heaven  "  ( Mat.  6  :  20 ),  but  we  may  also  "  treasure  up  for  ourselves  wrath  "  (  Rom.  25), 
i.  c,  lay  up  treasures  in  In  11. 

Dorner :  "  To  the  actuality  of  the  consummation  of  the  church  belongs  a  cessation  of 
reproduction  through  which  there  is  constantly  renewed  a  world  which  the  church 

must  subdue The  mutually  external  existence  of  spirit  and  nature  must  give 

way  to  a  perfect  internal  existence.  Their  externality  to  each  other  is  the  ground  of 
the  mortality  of  the  natural  side,  and  of  its  being' a  means  of  temptation  to  the  spiritual 
side.    For  in  this  externality  the  natural  side  has  still  too  great  independence  and  exerts 

a  determining  power  over  the  personality Art,  the  beautiful,  receives  in  the 

future  state  its  special  place ;  for  it  is  the  way  of  art.  to  delight  in  visible  presentation, 
to  achieve  the  classical  and  perfect  with  unlettered  play  of  its  powers.  Every  one 
morally  perfect  will  thus  wed  the  good  to  the  beautiful,  la  the  rest,  there  will  be  no 
inactivity  ;  and  in  t  he  activity  also,  no  unrest." 

Bchleiermacher  :  "  Eschatology  is  essentially  prophetic ;  and  is  therefore  vague  and 
indefinite,  like  all  unfulfilled  prophecy ."  Schiller's  Thckla  :  "  Every  thought  :>f  beau- 
tiful, trustful  seeming  Stands  fulfilled  in  Heaven's  eternal  day;  Shrink  not  then  from 
erring  and  from  dreaming, —  Lofty  sense  lies  oft  in  childish  play."  Frances  Power 
Cobbe,  Peak  of  Darien,  rif>5  — "  Human  nature  is  a  ship  with  the  tide  out ;  when  the  tide 
of  eternity  comes  in,  we  shall  see  the  purpose  of  the  ship.-'  Eschatology  deals  with  the 
precursors  of  Christ's  second  coming,  as  well  as  with  the  second  coming  itself  We  are 
to  labor  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  society  as  well  as  in  the  individual 
and  in  the  church,  in  the  present  life  as  well  as  in  the  life  to  come. 

Kidd,  in  his  Principles  of  Western  Civilization,  says  that  survives  which  helps  the 
greatest  number.  But  the  greatest  number  is  always  in  the  future.  The  theatre  has 
become  too  wide  for  the  drama.  Through  the  roof  the  eternal  stars  appear.  The  image 
of  God  in  man  implies  the  equality  of  all  men.  Political  equality  implies  universal 
suffrage ;  economic  equality  implies  universal  profit.  Society  has  already  transcended 
first,  city  isolation,  and  secondly,  state  isolation.  The  United  States  presents  thus  far 
the  largest  free  trade  area  in  history.  The  next  step  is  the  unity  of  the  English  speak- 
ing peoples.    The  days  of  separate  nationalities  are  numbered.    Laissez  faire  =  surviv- 

981 


982         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

ing  barbarism.  There  are  signs  of  larger  ideas  in  art,  ethics,  literature,  philosophy, 
science,  politics,  economics,  religion.  Competition  must  be  moralized,  and  must  take 
into  account  the  future  as  well  as  the  present.  See  also  Walter  Rauschenbusch, 
Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis. 

George  B.  Stevens,  in  Am.  Jour.  Theology,  Oct.  1902  :  660-084,  asks :  "  Is  there  a  self- 
constituted  New  Testament  Eschatology  ?  "  He  answers,  for  substance,  that  only  three 
things  are  sure  :  1.  The  certain  triumph  of  the  kingdom  —  this  being  the  kernel  of 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  second  coming  ;  2.  the  victory  of  life  over  death  —  the 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  ;  3.  the  principle  of  judgment  — the  truth  at 
the  basis  of  the  belief  in  rewards  and  punishments  in  the  world  to  come.  This  meagre 
and  abstract  residuum  argues  denial  both  of  the  unity  and  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture. 
Our  view  of  inspiration,  while  it  does  not  assure  us  of  minute  details,  does  notwith- 
standing give  us  a  broad  general  outline  of  the  future  consummation,  and  guarantees 
its  trustworthiness  by  the  word  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

Faith  in  that  consummation  is  the  main  incitement  to  poetic  utterance  and  to  lofty 
achievement.  Shairp,  Province  of  Poetry,  28 — "  If  poetry  be  not  a  river  fed  from  the 
clear  wells  that  spring  on  the  highest  summits  of  humanity,  but  only  a  canal  to  drain 
off  stagnant  ditches  from  the  flats,  it  may  be  a  very  useful  sanitary  contrivance,  but 
has  not,  in  Bacon's  words,  any  '  participation  of  divineness.'  "  Shakespeare  uses  prose 
for  ideas  detached  from  emotion,  such  as  the  merrymaking  of  clowns  or  the  maunder- 
ing of  fools.  But  lofty  thought  with  him  puts  on  poetry  as  its  singing  robe.  Savage, 
Life  beyond  Death,  1-5  — "  When  Henry  D.  Thoreau  lay  dying  at  Concord,  his  friend 
Parker  Pillsbury  sat  by  his  bedside.  He  leaned  over,  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  said : 
'  Henry,  you  are  so  near  to  the  border  now,  can  you  see  anything  on  the  other  side  ?  ' 
And  Thoreau  answered  :  '  One  world  at  a  time,  Parker  ! '  But  I  cannot  help  asking 
about  that  other  world,  and  if  I  belong  to  a  future  world  as  well  as  to  this,  my  life  will 
be  a  very  different  one. "  Jesus  knew  our  need  of  certain  information  about  the 
future,  and  therefore  he  said  :  "  In  my  Father's  house  are  maay  mansions ;  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have 
told  you ;  for  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you  "  ( John  14 :  2  ). 

Hutton,  Essays,  2  :  211  — "  Imagination  maybe  powerful  without  beingfertile ;  it  may 
summon  up  past  scenes  and  live  in  them  without  being  able  to  create  new  ones. 
National  unity  and  supernatural  guidance  were  beliefs  which  kept  Hebrew  poetry 
from  being  fertile  or  original  in  its  dealings  with  human  story  ;  for  national  pride  is 
conservative,  not  inventive,  and  believers  in  actual  providence  do  not  care  to  live  in 
a  world  of  invention.  The  Jew  saw  in  history  only  the  illustration  of  these  two  truths. 
He  was  never  thoroughly  stirred  by  mere  individual  emotion.  The  modern  poet  is  a 
student  of  beauty  ;  the  O.  T.  poet  a  student  of  God.  To  the  latter  all  creation  is  a  mere 
shadow  ;  the  essence  of  its  beauty  and  the  sustaining  power  of  its  life  are  in  the  spirit- 
ual world.  Go  beyond  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  and  the  sympathy  of  the  Hebrew 
poet  is  dried  up  at  once.  His  poetry  was  true  and  divine,  but  at  the  expense  of  vari- 
ousness  of  insight  and  breadth  of  sympathy.  It  was  heliocentric,  rather  than  geocentric. 
Only  Job,  the  latest,  is  a  conscious  effort  of  the  imagination."  Apocalyptic  poetry 
for  these  reasons  was  most  natural  to  the  Hebrew  mind. 

Balfour,  Foundations  of  Belief,  00— "  Somewhere  and  for  some  Being, there  shines  an 
unchanging  splendor  of  beauty,  of  which  in  nature  and  in  art  we  see,  each  of  us  from 
his  own  standpoint,  only  passing  gleams  and  stray  reflections,  whose  different  aspects 
we  cannot  now  coordinate,  whose  import  we  cannot  fully  comprehend,  but  which  at 
least  is  something  other  than  the  chance  play  of  subjective  sensibility  or  the  far-off 
echo  of  ancestral  lusts."  Dewey,  Psychology,  200  — "  All  products  of  the  creative 
imagination  are  unconscious  testimonials  to  the  unity  of  spirit  which  binds  man  to 
man,  and  man  to  nature,  in  one  organic  whole."  Tennyson,  Idylls  of  the  King :  "  As 
from  beyond  the  limit  of  the  world.  Like  the  last  echo  born  of  a  great  cry,  Sounds, 
as  if  some  fair  city  were  one  voice  Around  a  king  returning  from  his  wars."  See,  on 
the  whole  subject  of  Eschatology,  Luthardt,  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  and  Saving 
Truths  of  Christianity;  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  3:713-880;  Hovey,  Biblical 
Eschatology ;  Heagle,  That  Blessed  Hope. 

I.     Physical  Death. 

Physical  death  is  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body.  We  distin- 
guish it  from  spiritual  death,  or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  God ;  and 
from  the  second  death,  or  the  banishment  from  God  and  final  misery  of  the 
reunited  soul  and  body  of  the  wicked. 


PHYSICAL  DEATH.  983 

Spiritual  death  :  Is.  59  •  2  — "but  your  iniquities  have  separated  b'tween  you  and  your  God,  and  your  sins  have 
hid  his  face  from  you,  so  that  he  will  not  hear  "  ;  Rom.  7 :  24  — "  Wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  out  of 
the  body  of  this  death?"  Eph.  2: 1  —"dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sin-. "  The  second  death. :  Rev. 2: 
11 — "He  that  overcometh  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  sscond  death  "  ;  20  :  14 — "And  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the 
ake  of  fire.  This  is  the  second  death,  even  the  lake  of  fire  " ;  21 :  8  — "  But  for  tho  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and  abom- 
inable, and  murderers,  and  fornicators,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  their  part  shall  be  in  the  lake  that 
buraeth  with  fire  and  brimstone ;  wliichis  the  second  death." 

Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  3 :  303 —"  Spiritual  death,  the  inner  discord  and 
enslavement  of  the  soul,  and  the  misery  resulting'  therefrom,  to  which  belongs  that 
other  death,  the  second  death,  an  outward  condition  corresponding  to  that  inner 
slavery."  Trench,  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches,  151 — "This  phrase  ['second  death']  is 
itself  a  solemn  protest  against  the  Saddueeeisin  and  Epicureanism  which  would  make 
natural  death  the  be-all  and  the  end-all  of  existence.  As  there  is  a  life  beyond  the 
present  life  lor  the  faithful,  so  there  is  death  beyond  that  which  falls  under  our  eyes 
for  the  wicked."  E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  The  second  death  is  the  continuance  of  spiritual 
death  in  another  and  timeless  existence."  Hudson,  Scientific  Demonstration  of  a 
Future  Life,  323  — "  If  a  man  has  a  power  that  transcends  the  senses,  it  is  at  least  pre- 
sumptive evidence  that  it  docs  not  perish  when  the  senses  are  extinguished The 

activity  of  the  subjective  mind  is  in  inverse  proportion  to  that  of  the  body,  though  the 
objective  mind  weakens  with  the  body  and  perishes  wit  h  the  brain." 

Prof.  H.  II.  Bawdcn  :  "Consciousness  is  simply  the  growing  of  an  organism,  while 
the  organism  is  just  that  which  grows.  Consciousness  is  a  function,  not  a  thing,  not 
an  order  of  existence  at  all.  It  is  the  universe  coming  to  a  focus,  flowering  so  to  speak 
in  a  finite  centre.  Society  is  an  organ  ism  in  the  same  sense  that  the  human  being  is  an 
organism.  The  spatial  separation  of  the  elements  of  the  social  organism  is  relatively 
no  greater  than  the  separat  ion  of  the  unit  factors  of  the  body.  As  the  neurone  cannot 
deny  the  consciousness  which  is  the  function  of  the  body,  so  the  individual  member  of 
society  has  no  reason  for  denying  the  existence  of  a  cosmic  life  of  the  organism  which 
we  call  society." 

EmmaM.  Caillard,  on  Man  in  the  Light  of  Evolution,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1893: 
878 — "Man  is  nature  risen  into  the  consciousness  of  its  relationship  to  the  divine. 
There  is  no  receding  from  this  point.  When  'that  which  drew  from  out  the  boundless 
deep  turns  again  home,'  the  persistence  of  each  personal  life  is  necessitated.  Human 
life,  as  it  is,  includes,  though  it  transcends  the  lower  forms  through  which  it  has  devel- 
oped. Human  life,  as  it  will  be,  must  include  though  it  may  transcend  its  present  mani- 
festatiou,  otz.,  personality."  "  Sometime,  when,  all  life's  lessons  have  been  learned,  And 
suns  and  stars  forevermore  have  set,  And  things  which  our  weak  judgments  here  have 
spurned,  The  things  o'er  which  we  grieved  with  lashes  wet,  Will  flash  before  us  through 
our  life's  dark  night,  As  stars  shine  most  in  deepest  tints  of  blue  :  And  we  shall  see  how 
all  (lod's  plans  were  right.  And  most  that  seemed  reproof  was  love  most  true  :  And  if 
sometimes  commingled  with  life's  wine  We  find  the  wormwood  and  rebel  and  shrink, 
Be  sure  a  wiser  hand  than  jours  or  mine  Pours  out  this  portion  for  our  lips  to  drink. 
And  If  some  friend  we  love  13  lying  low,  Where  human  kisses  cannot  reach  his  face,  O 
do  not  blame  tlie  loving  Father  so,  But  wear  your  sorrow  with  obedient  grace;  And 
you  shall  shortly  know  that  lengthened  breath  Is  not  the  sweetest  gift  God  sends  his 
friend,  And  that  sometimes  the  sable  pall  of  death  Conceals  the  fairest  boon  his  love 
can  send.  If  we  could  push  ajar  the  gates  of  life.  And  stand  within,  and  all  God's  work- 
ing see,  We  could  interpret  all  this  doubt  and  strife.  And  for  each  mystery  find  a  key." 

Although  physical  death  falls  upon  the  unbeliever  as  the  original  penalty 
of  sin,  to  all  who  are  united  in  Christ  it  loses  its  aspect  of  penalty,  and 
becomes  a  means  of  discipline  and  of  entrance  into  eternal  life. 

To  the  Christian,  physical  death  is  not  a  penalty  :  see  Ps.  116 :  15— "Precious  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah 
Is  the  death  of  his  saints  "  ;  Rom.  8 :  10— "And  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin ;  but  the  spirit  is  life 
because  of  righteousness  "  ;  14  : 8 — "For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord  ;  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the 
Lord  :  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's  "  ;  1  Cor.  3  :22  — "  whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the 
world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to  come  ;  all  are  yours"  ;  15-55  —  "0  death,  where  i?  thy 
victory  ?  0  death,  where  is  thy  sting  ?  "  1  Pet.  4 : 6  — "  For  unto  this  end  was  the  gospel  preached  even  to  the  deadi 
that  they  might  be  judged  indeed  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit"  ;  cf.  Rom. 
1 :  18— "For  the  wrath  of  Sod  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  who  hinder 
the  truth  in  unrighteousness  "  ;  8 : 1,  2  — "  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  For 
the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death";  Heb.  12  : 6— "For 
whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth." 


984        ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Dr.  Hovey  says  that "  the  present  sufferings  of  believers  are  in  the  nature  of  disci- 
pline, with  an  aspect  of  retribution  ;  while  the  present  sufferings  of  unbelievers  are 
retributive,  with  a  g-lance  toward  reformation."  We  prefer  to  say  that  all  penalty  has 
been  borne  by  Christ,  and  that,  for  him  who  is  justified  in  Christ,  suffering  of  whatever 
kind  is  of  the  nature  of  fatherly  chastening,  never  of  judicial  retribution  ;  see  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  Penalty  of  Sin,  pages  653-660. 

"  We  see  but  dimly  through  the  mists  and  vapors  Amid  these  earthly  damps ;  What  are 
to  us  but  sad  funereal  tapers  May  be  Heaven's  distant  lamps.  There  is  no  death,— what 
seems  so  is  transition  ;  This  life  of  mortal  breath  Is  but  a  suburb  of  the  life  Elysian 
Whose  portal  men  call  death."  "  'T  is  meet  that  we  should  pause  awhile,  Ere  we  put  off 
this  mortal  coil,  And  in  the  stillness  of  old  age,  Muse  on  our  earthly  pilgrimage." 
Shakespeare,  Romeo  and  Juliet,  4:5—"  Heaven  and  yourself  Had  part  in  this  fair  maid ; 
now  Heaven  hath  all,  And  all  the  better  is  it  for  the  maid  :  Your  part  in  her  you  could 
not  keep  from  death.  But  Heaven  keeps  his  part  in  eternal  life.  The  most  you  sought 
was  her  promotion,  For  't  was  your  heaven  she  should  be  advanced  ;  And  weep  ye  now, 
seeing  she  is  advanced  Above  the  clouds,  as  high  as  Heaven  itself  ?  "  Phoebe  Cary's 
Answered:  "  I  thought  to  find  some  healing  clime  For  her  I  loved  ;  she  found  that 
shore,  That  city  whose  inhabitants  Are  sick  and  sorrowful  no  more.  I  asked  for  human 
love  for  her ;  The  Loving  knew  how  best  to  still  The  infinite  yearning  of  a  heart  Which 
but  infinity  could  fill.  Such  sweet  communion  had  been  ours,  I  prayed  that  it  might 
never  end  ;  My  prayer  is  more  than  answered  ;  now  I  have  an  angel  for  my  friend.  I 
wished  for  perfect  peace  to  soothe  The  troubled  anguish  of  her  breast ;  And  numbered 
with  the  loved  and  called  She  entered  on  untroubled  rest.  Life  was  so  fair  a  thing  to 
her,  I  wept  and  pleaded  for  its  stay  ;  My  wish  was  granted  me,  for  lo  !  She  hath  eternal 
life  to-day  !  " 

Victor  Hugo :  "The  tomb  is  not  a  blind  alley ;  it  is  a  thoroughfare.    It  closes  with 

the  twilight,  to  open  with  the  dawn I  feel  that  I  have  not  said  the  thousandth 

part  of  what  is  in  me The  thirst  for  infinity  proves  infinity."      Shakespeare : 

"Nothing  is  here  for  tears;  nothing  to  wail,  Or  knock  the  breast;  no  weakness,  no 
contempt,  Dispraise  or  blame;  nothing  but  well  and  fair."  O.  W.  Holmes:  "Build 
thee  more  stately  mansions,  O  my  soul,  As  theswift  seasons  roll !  Leave  thy  low-vaulted 
past !  Let  each  new  temple,  nobler  than  the  last  Shut  thee  from  heaven  with  a  dome 
more  vast,  Till  thou  at  length  art  free,  Leaving  thine  outgrown  shell  by  life's  unrest- 
ing sea !  "  J.  G.  Whittier :  "  So  when  Time's  veil  shall  fall  asunder,  The  soul  may  know 
No  fearful  change  or  sudden  wonder,  Nor  sink  the  weight  of  mystery  under,  But  with 
the  upward  rise,  and  with  the  vastness  grow." 

To  neither  saint  nor  sinner  is  death  a  cessation  of  being.  This  we  main- 
tain, against  the  advocates  of  annihilation  : 

1.      Upon  rational  grounds. 

(a)  The  metaphysical  argument.  —  The  soul  is  simple,  not  compounded. 
Death,  in  matter,  is  the  separation  of  parts.  But  in  the  sold  there  are  no 
parts  to  be  separated.  The  dissolution  of  the  body,  therefore,  does  not 
necessarily  work  a  dissolution  of  the  soul.  But,  since  there  is  an  immate- 
rial principle  in  the  brute,  and  this  argument  taken  by  itself  might  seem  to 
prove  the  immortahty  of  the  animal  creation  equally  with  that  of  man,  we 
pass  to  consider  the  next  argument. 

The  Gnostics  and  the  Manichasans  held  that  beasts  had  knowledge  and  might  pray. 
The  immateriality  of  the  brute  mind  was  probably  the  consideration  which  led  Leib- 
nitz, Bishop  Butler,  Coleridge,  John  Wesley,  Lord  Shaftesbury,  Mary  Somerville, 
James  Hogg,  Toplady,  Lamartine,  and  Louis  Agassiz  to  encourage  the  belief  in  animal 
immortality.  See  Bp.  Butler,  Analogy,  part  i,  chap,  i  ( Bohn's  ed.,  81-91 ) ;  Agassiz, 
Essay  on  Classification,  99  —  "  Most  of  the  arguments  for  the  immortality  of  man  apply 
equally  to  the  permanency  of  this  principle  in  other  living  beings."  Elsewhere  Agas- 
siz says  of  animals :  "  I  cannot  doubt  of  their  immortality  any  more  than  I  doubt 
of  my  own."  Lord  Shaftesbury  in  1881  remarked  :  "  I  have  ever  believed  in  a  happy 
future  for  animals ;  I  cannot  say  or  conjecture  how  or  where ;  but  sure  I  am  that  the 
love,  so  manifested  by  dogs  especially,  is  an  emanation  from  the  divine  essence,  and  as 
such  it  can,  or  rather,  it  will,  never  be  extinguished."    St.  Francis  of  Assisi  preached 


PHYSICAL   DEATH.  985 

to  birds,  and  called  sun,  moon,  earth,  fire,  water,  stones,  flowers,  crickets,  and  death, 
his  brothers  and  sisters.  "  He  knew  not  if  the  brotherhood  His  homily  had  under- 
stood;  He  only  knew  that  to  one  ear  The  meaning-  of  his  words  was  clear"  (Long- 
fellow, The  Sermon  of  St.  Francis  —  to  the  birds  ).  "  If  death  dissipates  the  sagacity  of 
the  elephant,  why  not  that  of  his  captor?"  See  Buckner,  Immortality  of  Animals; 
William  Adams  Brown,  Christian  Theology  in  Outline,  240. 

Mausel,  Metaphysics,  371,  maintains  that  all  this  argument  proves  is  that  the  objector 
cannot  show  the  soul  to  be  compound,  and  so  cannot  show  that  it  is  destructible. 
Caiderwood,  Moral  Philosophy,  259  — "The  facts  which  point  toward  the  termination 
of  ou'  present  state  of  existence  are  connected  with  our  physical  nature,  not  with  our 
rnertal."  John  Fiske,  Destiny  of  the  Creature,  110—  "  With  his  illegitimate  hypothesis 
of  annihilation,  the  materialist  transgresses  the  bounds  of  experience  quite  as  widely 
as  the  poet  who  sings  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  with  its  river  of  life  and  its  streets  of 
gold  Scientifically  speaking,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  for  either  view." 
John  Fiske,  Life  Everlasting,  80-85  —  "How  could  immortal  man  have  been  produced 
through  heredity  from  an  ephemeral  brute?  We  do  not  know.  Nature's  habit  is  to 
make  prodigious  leaps,  but  only  after  long  preparation.  Slowly  rises  the  water  in  the 
tank,  inch  by  inch  through  many  a  weary  hour,  until  at  length  it  overflows,  and 
straightway  vast  systems  of  machinery  are  awakened  into  rumbling  life.  Slowly 
the  ellipse  becomes  eccentric,  until  suddenly  the  finite  ellipse  becomes  an  infinite 
paraboloid." 

Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  306  — "The  ideas  of  dividing  up  or  splitting  off  are  not 
applicable  to  mind.  The  argument  for  the  indestructibility  of  mind  as  growing  out  of  its 
mdiscerptibility,  and  the  argument  by  which  Kant  confuted  it,  arc  alike  absurd  within 
the  realm  of  mental  phenomena."  Adeney,  Christianity  and  Evolution,  127— "Nature, 
this  argument  shows,  has  nothing  to  say  against  the  immortality  of  that  which  is  above 
the  range  of  physical  structure."  Lottie:  "Bverything  which  has  once  originated 
will  endure  forever  so  soon  as  it  possesses  an  unalterable  value  for  the  coherent  sys- 
tem of  the  world  ;  but  it  will,  as  a  matter  of  course,  in  turn  cease  to  be,  if  this  is  not 
the  case."  Bowne,  Int.  to  Psych.  Theory,  315-318— "Of  what  use  would  brutes  be 
hereafter?  We  may  reply  :  Of  what  use  are  they  here  V  ....  Those  things  which  have 
perennial  significance  for  the  universe  will  abide."     Bixby,  Crisis  in  Morals,  303  —  "In 

living  beings  there  is  always  a  pressme  toward  larger  and  higher  existence The 

plant  must  grow,  must  bloom,  must  sow  its  seeds,  or  it  withers  away The  aim  is 

to  bring  forth  consciousness,  and  in  greatest  fulness Beasts  of  prey  and  other 

enemies  to  the  ascending  path  of  life  are  to  be  swept  out  of  the  way." 

But  is  not  the  brute  a  part  of  that  Nature  which  has  been  subjected  to  vanity,  which 
groans  and  travails  in  pain,  and  which  waits  to  be  redeemed?  The  answer  seems  to  be 
that  the  brute  is  a  mere  appendage  to  man,  has  no  independent  value  in  the  creation, 
is  incapable  of  ethical  life  or  of  communion  with  God  the  source  of  life,  and  so  has  no 
guarantee  of  continuance.  Man  on  the  other  hand  is  of  independent  value.  But  this 
is  to  anticipate  the  argument  which  follows.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  point  out  that 
there  is  no  proof  that  consciousness  is  dependent  upon  the  soul's  connection  with  a 
physical  organism.  McLane,  Evolution  in  Religion,  2til  — "As  the  body  may  preserve 
its  form  and  be  to  a  degree  made  to  act  after  the  psychic  element  is  lost  by  removal  of 
the  brain,  so  this  psychic  element  may  exist,  and  act  according  to  its  nature  after  the 
physical  element  ceases  to  exist."  Hovey,  Bib.  Eschatology,  19—  "If  I  am  in  a  house, 
I  can  look  upon  surrounding  objects  only  through  its  windows;  but  open  the  door 
and  let  me  go  out  of  the  house,  and  the  windows  are  no  longer  of  any  use  to  me." 
Shaler,  Interpretation  of  Nature,  295  —  "  To  perpetuate  mind  after  death  is  less  surpris- 
ing than  to  perpetuate  or  transmit  mind  here  by  inheritance."  See  also  Martineau, 
Study,  2  :  333-337,  303-3tJ5. 

William  James,  in  his  Essay  on  Human  Immortality,  argues  that  thought  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  product  ice  function  of  the  brain  ;  it  may  rather  be  a  permissive  or  transmissive 
function.  Thought  is  not  made  in  the  brain,  so  that  when  the  brain  perishes  the  soul 
dies.  The  brain  is  only  the  organ  for  the  transmission,  of  thought,  just  as  the  lens 
transmits  the  light  which  it  does  not  produce.  There  is  a  spiritual  world  behind  and 
above  the  material  world.  Our  brains  are  thin  and  half  transparent  places  in  the  veil 
through  which  knowledge  comes  in.  Savage,  Life  after  Death,  389  —  "  You  may  attach 
a  dynamo  for  a  time  to  some  particular  machine.  When  you  have  removed  the  machine, 
you  have  not  destroyed  the  dynamo.  You  may  attach  it  to  some  other  machine  and 
find  that  you  have  the  old  time  power.  So  the  soul  may  not  be  confined  to  one  body." 
These  analogies  seem  to  us  to  come  short  of  proving  personal  immortality.       They 


986         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL  TIIINGS. 

belong  to  "psychology  without  a  soul,"  and  while  they  illustrate  the  persistence  of 
some  sort  of  life,  they  do  not  render  more  probable  the  continuance  of  my  individual 
consciousness  beyond  the  bounds  of  death.  They  are  entirely  consistent  Avith  the  pan- 
theistic theory  of  a  remerging  of  the  personal  existence  in  the  great  whole  of  which  it 
forms  a  part.  Tennyson,  In  Memoriam  ;  "That  each,  who  seems  a  separate  whole 
Should  move  his  rounds  and,  fusing  all  The  skirts  of  self  again,  should  fall  Remerging 
in  the  general  Soul,  Is  faith  as  vague  as  all  unsweet."  See  Pfleiderer,  Die  Ritschl'sche 
Theologie,  12;  Howison,  Limits  of  Evolution,  279-312. 

Seth,  Hegelianism  :  "  For  Hegel,  immortality  is  only  the  permanence  of  the  Absolute, 
the  abstract  process.  This  is  no  more  consoling  than  the  continued  existence  of  the 
chemical  elements  of  our  bodies  in  new  transformations.  Human  self-consciousness  is  a 
spark  struck  in  the  dark,  to  die  away  on  the  darkness  whence  it  has  arisen."  This  is  the 
only  immortality  of  which  George  Eliot  conceived  in  her  poem,  The  Immortal  Choir: 
"  O  may  I  join  the  choir  invisible  Of  those  immortal  dead  who  live  again  In  minds  made 
better  by  their  presence;  live  In  pulses  stirred  to  generosity,  In  deeds  of  daring  recti- 
tude, in  scorn  For  miserable  aims  that  end  in  self,  In  thoughts  sublime  that  pierce  the 
night  like  stars,  And  with  their  mild  persistence  urge  man's  search  To  vaster  issues." 
Those  who  hold  to  this  unconscious  immortality  concede  that  death  is  not  a  separation 
of  parts,  but  rather  a  cessation  of  consciousness ;  and  that  therefore,  while  the  substance 
of  human  nature  may  endure,  mankind  may  ever  develop  into  new  forms,  without 
individual  immortality.  To  this  we  reply,  that  man's  self-consciousness  and  self-deter- 
mination are  different  in  kind  from  the  consciousness  and  determination  of  the  brute. 
As  man  can  direct  his  self-consciousness  and  self-determination  to  immortal  ends,  we 
have  the  right  to  believe  this  self-consciousness  and  self-determination  to  be  immortal. 
This  leads  us  to  the  next  argument. 

(  b )  The  teleological  argument.  —  Man,  as  an  intellectual,  moral,  and. 
religious  being,  does  not  attain  the  end  of  his  existence  on  earth.  His 
development  is  imperfect  here.  Divine  wisdom  will  not  leave  its  work 
incomplete.  There  must  be  a  hereafter  for  the  full  growth  of  man's  powers, 
and  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  aspirations.  Created,  unlike  the  brute,  with 
infinite  capacities  for  moral  progress,  there  must  be  an  immortal  existence 
in  which  those  capacities  shall  be  brought  into  exercise.  Though  the 
wicked  forfeit  all  claim  to  this  future,  we  have  here  an  argument  from 
God's  love  and  wisdom  to  the  immortality  of  the  righteous. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  it  has  been  said  that  many  right  wishes  are  vain.  Mill, 
Essays  on  Religion,  294  —  "Desire  for  food  implies  enough  to  eat,  now  and  forever? 
hence  an  eternal  supply  of  cabbage?"  But  our  argument  proceeds  upon  three  pro- 
suppositions  :  ( 1 )  that  a  holy  and  benevolent  God  exists ;  ( 2 )  that  he  has  made  man  in 
his  image;  (3)  that  man's  true  end  is  holiness  and  likeness  to  God.  Therefore,  what 
will  answer  the  true  end  of  man  will  be  furnished ;  but  that  is  not  cabbage  — it  is  holi- 
ness and  love,  i.  e.,  God  himself.    See  Martineau,  Study,  2  :  370-381. 

The  argument,  however,  is  valuable  only  in  its  application  to  the  righteous.  God 
will  not  treat  the  righteous  as  the  tyrant  of  Florence  treated  Michael  Angelo,  when  he 
bade  him  carve  out  of  ice  a  statue,  which  would  melt  under  the  first  rays  of  the  sun. 
In  the  case  of  the  wicked,  the  other  law  of  retribution  comes  in  — the  taking  away 
of  "  even  that  -which  he  hath  "  (  Mat,  25 :  29 ).  Since  we  are  all  wicked,  the  argument  is  not  satis- 
factory, unless  we  take  into  account  the  further  facts  of  atonement  and  justification 
—  facts  of  which  we  learn  from  revelation  alone. 

But  while,  taken  by  itself,  this  rational  argument  might  be  called  defective,  and 
could  never  prove  that  man  may  not  attain  his  end  in  the  continued  existence  of  the 
race,  rather  than  in  that  of  the  individual,  the  argument  appears  more  valuable  as  a 
rational  supplement  to  the  facts  already  mentioned,  and  seems  to  render  certain  at 
least  the  immortality  of  those  upon  whom  God  has  set  his  love,  and  in  whom  he  has 
wrought  the  beginnings  of  righteousness. 

Lord  Erskine :  "  Inferior  animals  have  no  instincts  or  faculties  which  are  not  subser- 
vient to  the  ends  and  purposes  of  their  being.  Man's  reason,  and  faculties  endowed 
with  power  to  reach  the  most  distant  worlds,  would  be  useless  if  his  existence  were 
to  terminate  in  the  grave."  There  would  be  wastefulness  in  the  extinction  of  great 
minds ;  see  Jackson,  James  Martineau,  439.    As  water  is  implied  by  the  organization  of 


PHYSICAL   DEATH.  987 

the  fish,  and  air  by  that  of  the  bird,  so  "  the  existence  of  spiritual  power  within  us  is 
likewise  presumption  that  some  fitting  environment  awaits  the  spirit  when  it  shall  be 
=<t  free  and  perfected,  and  sex  and  death  can  be  dispensed  with"  ( Newman  Smyth, 
Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  [06  ).  Nilgeli,  the  German  botanist,  says  that  Nature  tends 
to  perfection.  Yet  the  mind  hardly  begins  to  awake,  ere  the  bodily  powers  decline 
( George,  Progress  and  Poverty,  505 ).  "  Character  grows  firmer  and  solider  as  the  body 
ages  and  grows  weaker.  Can  character  be  vitally  implicated  in  the  act  of  physical 
dissolution  ?  "  ( Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  35:? ).  If  a  rational  and  moral  Deity  has  caused 
the  gradual  evolution  iu  humanity  of  the  ideas  of  right  and  wrong,  and  has  added  to  it 
the  faculty  of  creating  ethical  ideals,  must  he  not  have  provided  some  satisfaction  for 
the  ethical  needs  which  this  development  has  thus  called  into  existence  ?  ( Balfour, 
Foundations  of  Relief,  351 ). 

Royce,  Conception  of  God,  50,  quoted  LeConte  as  follows:  "Nature  is  the  womb  in 
which,  and  evolution  the  process  by  which,  arc  generated  sons  of  God.  Without 
immortality  this  whole  process  is  balked  —the  whole  process  of  cosmic  evolution  is 
futile.  Shall  God  be  so  long  and  at  so  great  pains  to  achieve  a  spirit,  capable  of  com- 
muning with  himself,  and  then  allow  it  to  lapse  again  into  nothingness?  "  John  Fiske, 
Destiny  of  Man,  UC,  accepts  the  immortality  of  the  soul  by  "a  supreme  act  of  faith  In 
the  reasonableness  of  God's  work."  If  man  is  the  end  of  the  creative  process  and  the 
object  of  God's  care,  then  the  soul's  career  cannot  be  completed  with  its  present  life 
upon  the  earth  (  Newman  Smyth,  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  92,  93  ).  Bowne,  Philos- 
ophy of  Theism,  254—  "  Neither  God  nor  the  future  life  is  needed  to  pay  us  for  present 
virtue,  but  rather  as  the  condition  without  which  our  nature  falls  Into  irreconcilable 
discord  with  itself,  and  passes  on  to  pessimism  ami  despair.    High  and  continual  effort 

is  impossible  without  correspondingly  high  and  abiding  hopes It  is  no  more 

selfish  to  desire  to  live  hereafter  than  it  is  to  desire  to  live  to-morrow."  Dr.  M.  B. 
Anderson  used  to  say  that  there  must  be  a  heaven  for  canal  horses,  washerwomen, 
ami  college  presidents,  because  they  do  not  get  t  heir  deserts  in  this  life. 

Life  is  a  series  of  commencements  rather  than  of  accomplished  ends.  Longfellow,  on 
Charles  Sumner  :  "  Death  takes  us  by  surprise,  And  stays  our  hurrying  feet ;  The  great 
design  unfinished  lies,  Our  lives  are  incomplete.  But  in  the  dark  unknown  Perfect 
their  circles  seem,  Even  as  a  bridge's  arch  of  stone  Is  rounded  in  the  stream."  Robert 
Browning,  AbtVogler:  "  There  never  shall  be  one  lost  good  " ;  Prospice;  "No  work 
begun  shall  ever  pause  for  deatli  ";  "Pleasure  must  succeed  to  pleasure,  else  past 
pleasure  turns  to  pain;  And  this  first  life  claims  a  second,  else  I  count  its  good  no 
gain";  Old  Pictures  in  Florence:  "  We  arc  faulty  —  why  not?  We  have  time  in  store  "  ; 
Grammarian's  Funeral :  "  What 's  time  ?  Leave  Now  for  doga  and  apes,—  Man  has  For- 
ever." Robert  Browning  wrote  in  his  wife's  Testament  the  following  testimony  of 
Dante:  "Thus  I  believe,  thus  I  affirm,  thus  I  am  certain  it  is,  that  from  this  life  I 
shall  pass  to  another  better,  there  where  that  lady  lives,  of  whom  my  soul  was  enam- 
ored." And  Browning  says  in  a  letter:  "It  is  a  great  thing  — the  greatest  —  that  a 
human  being  should  have  passed  the  probation  of  life,  and  sum  up  its  experience  in  a 

witness  to  the  power  and  love  of  God I  sec  even  more   reason  to  hold  by  the 

same  hope." 

(  c)  The  ethical  argument. — Man  is  not,  in  this  world,  adequately  pun- 
ished for  his  evil  deeds.  Our  sense  of  justice  leads  us  to  believe  that  God's 
moral  administration  will  be  vindicated  in  a  life  to  come.  Mere  extinction 
of  being  would  not  be  a  sufficient  penalty,  nor  would  it  permit  degrees  of 
punishment  corresponding  to  degrees  of  guilt.  This  is  therefore  an  argu- 
ment from  God's  justice  to  the  immortality  of  the  wicked.  The  guilty  con- 
science demands  a  state  after  death  for  punishment. 

This  is  an  argument  from  God's  justice  to  the  immortality  of  the  wicked,  as  the  pre- 
ceding was  an  argument  from  God's  love  to  the  immortality  of  the  righteous. 
"  History  defies  our  moral  sense  by  giving  a  peaceful  end  to  Sulla."  Louis  XV  and 
Madame  Pompadour  died  in  their  beds,  after  a  life  of  extreme  luxury.  Louis  XVI  and 
his  queen,  though  far  more  just  and  pure,  perished  by  an  appalling  tragedy.  The  fates 
of  these  four  cannot  be  explained  by  the  wickedness  of  the  latter  pair  and  the  virtue 
of  the  former.  Alexander  the  Sixth,  the  worst  of  the  popes,  was  apparently  prosper- 
ous and  happy  in  his  iniquities.  Though  guilty  of  the  most  shameful  crimes,  he  was 
serenely  impenitent,  and  to  the  last  of  his  days  he  defied  both  God  and  man.    Since 


988         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

there  is  not  an  execution  of  justice  here,  we  feel  that  there  must  be  a  "judgment  to  come," 
such  as  that  which  terrified  Felix  (Acts  24:25).  Martineau,  Study,  2:383-388.  Stopford 
A.  Brooke,  Justice  :  "  Three  men  went  out  one  summer  night,  No  care  had  they  or 
aim,  And  dined  and  drank.  '  Ere  we  go  home  We'll  have,'  they  said, '  a  game.'  Three 
girls  began  that  summer  night  A  life  of  endless  shame,  And  went  through  drink,  disease, 
and  death  As  swift  as  racing  flame.  Lawless  and  homeless,  foul,  they  died  ;  Rich,  loved 
and  praised,  the  men :  But  when  they  all  shall  meet  with  God,  And  Justice  speaks,— 
what  then?"  See  John  Caird,  Fund.  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2: 255-297.  G.  F.  Wilkin, 
Control  in  Evolution  :  "  Belief  in  immortalit3'  is  a  practical  necessity  of  evolution. 
If  the  decisions  of  to-day  are  to  determine  our  eternal  destiny,  then  it  is  vastly  more 
important  to  choose  and  act  aright,  than  it  is  to  preserve  our  earthly  life.  The  martyrs 
were  right.  Conscience  is  vindicated.  We  can  live  for  the  ideal  of  manhood. 
Immortality  is  a  powerful  reformatory  instrument."  Martineau,  Study  of  Religion, 
2  :388  —"If  Death  gives  a  final  discharge  to  the  sinner  and  the  saint  alike,  Conscience  has 
told  us  more  lies  than  it  has  ever  called  to  their  account."  Shakespeare,  Henry  V, 
4:2 — "If  [transgressors]  have  defeated  the  law  and  outrun  native  punishment, 
though  they  can  outstrip  men,  they  have  no  wings  to  fly  from  God";  Henry  VI,  2d 
part,  5  : 2—  "Can  we  outrun  the  heavens  ?  "  Addison,  Cato  :  "  It  must  be  so, —  Plato, 
thou  reasonest  well.—  Else  whence  this  pleasing  hope,  this  fond  desire,  This  longing 
after  immortality  ?  Or  whence  this  secret  dread  and  inward  horror  Of  falling  into 
naught  ?  WThy  shrinks  the  soul  Back  on  herself  and  startles  at  destruction  ?  'T  is  the 
divinity  that  stirs  within  us,  'Tis  Heaven  itself  that  points  out  a  hereafter,  And  inti- 
mates eternity  to  man." 

Gildersleeve,  in  The  Independent,  March  30,  1899  —  "  Plato  in  the  Phasdo  argues  for 
immortality  from  the  alternation  of  opposites  :  life  must  follow  death  as  death  follows 
life.  But  alternation  of  opposites  is  not  generation  of  opposites.  He  argues  from 
reminiscence.  But  this  involves  pre-existence  and  a  cycle  of  incarnations,  not  the 
immortality  which  we  crave.  The  soul  abides,  as  the  idea  abides,  but  there  is  no  guar- 
antee that  it  abides  forever.  He  argues  from  the  uncompouuded  nature  of  the  soul. 
But  we  do  not  know  the  soul's  nature,  and  at  most  this  is  an  analogy  :  as  soul  is  like 
God,  invisible,  it  must  like  God  abide.  But  this  is  analogy,  and  nothing  more." 
William  James,  Will  to  Believe,  87  — "  That  our  whole  physical  life  may  lie  soaking  in  a 
spiritual  atmosphere,  a  dimension  of  being  which  we  at  present  have  no  organ  for 
apprehending,  is  vividly  suggested  to  us  by  the  analogy  of  the  life  of  our  domestic  ani- 
mals. Our  dogs,  for  example,  are  in  our  human  life,  but  are  not  of  it.  They  bite,  but 
do  not  know  what  it  means  ;  they  submit  to  vivisection,  and  do  not  know  the  meaning 
of  that." 

George  Eliot,,  walking  with  Frederic  Myers  in  the  Fellows'  Garden  at  Trinity,  Cam- 
bridge, "stirred  somewhat  beyond  her  wont,  and  taking  as  her  text  the  three  words 
which  have  been  used  so  often  as  the  inspiring  trumpet-calls  of  men —  the  words  God, 
Immortality,  Duty  —  pronounced  with  terrible  earnestness  how  ineonceivable  was  the 
first,  how  unbelievable  the  second,  and  yet  how  peremptory  and  absolute  the  third." 
But  this  idea  of  the  infinite  nature  of  Duty  is  the  creation  of  Christianity  —  the  last 
in  Unite  would  never  have  attained  its  present  range  and  intensity,  had  itnotbeenindis- 
solubly  connected  with  the  other  two  (  Forrest,  Christ  of  History  and  Experience,  16). 
This  ethical  argument  has  probably  more  power  over  the  minds  of  men  than  any 
other.  Men  believe  in  Minos  and  Ilhadamanthus,  if  not  in  the  Elysiau  Fields.  But 
even  here  it  may  be  replied  that  the  judgment  which  conscience  threatens  may  be, 
not  immortality,  but  extinction  of  being.  We  shall  see,  however,  in  our  discussion 
of  the  endlessness  of  future  punishment,  that  mere  annihilation  cannot  satisfy  the 
moral  instinct  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  this  argument.  That  demands  a  punishment 
proportioned  in  each  case  to  the  guilt  incurred  by  transgression.  Extinction  of  being 
would  be  the  same  to  all.  As  it  would  not  admit  of  degrees,  so  it  would  not,  in  any 
case,  sufficiently  vindicate  God's  righteousness.  F.  W.  Newman:  "If  man  be  not 
immortal,  God  is  not  just." 

But  while  this  argument  proves  life  and  punishment  for  the  wicked  after  death,  it 
leaves  us  dependent  on  revelation  for  our  knowledge  how  long  that  life  and  punish- 
ment will  be.  Kant's  argument  is  that  man  strives  equally  for  morality  and  for  well- 
being  ;  but  morality  often  requires  the  sacrifice  of  well-being  ;  hence  there  must  be  a 
future  reconciliation  of  the  two  in  the  well-being  or  reward  of  virtue.  To  all  of  which 
it  might  be  answered,  first,  that  there  is  no  virtue  so  perfect  as  to  merit  reward  ;  and 
secondly,  that  virtue  is  its  own  reward,  and  so  is  well-being. 


PHYSICAL   DEATH.  989 

(  d  )  The  historical  argument.  — The  popular  belief  of  all  nations  and 
ages  shows  that  the  idea  of  immortality  is  natural  to  the  human  mind.  It 
is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  this  indicates  only  such  desire  for  continued 
earthly  existence  as  is  necessary  to  self-preservation  ;  for  multitudes  expect 
a  life  beyond  death  without  desiring  it,  and  multitudes  desire  a  heavenly 
life  without  caring  for  the  earthly.  This  testimony  of  man's  nature  to 
immortality  may  be  regarded  as  the  testimony  of  the  God  who  made  the 
nature. 

Testimonies  to  this  popular  belief  are  given  in  Bartlett,  Life  and  Death  Eternal,  pref- 
ace :  The  arrow-heads  and  earthen  vessels  laid  by  the  side  of  the  dead  Indian  ;  the 
silver  obolus  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  dead  Greek  to  pay  Charon's  passage  money  ;  the 
furnishing  of  the  Egyptian  corpse  with  the  Book  of  the  Dead,  the  papyrus-roll  con- 
taining the  prayer  he  is  to  offer  and  the  chart  of  his  journey  through  the  unseen  world. 
The  Gauls  did  not  hesitate  to  lend  money,  on  the  sole  condition  that  he  to  whom  they 
lent  it  would  return  it  to  them  in  the  other  life,  —  so  sure  were  they  that  they  should 
get  it  again  (  Valerius  Maximus,  quoted  in  Boissier,  La  Religion  Romaine,  1 :  264 ).  The 
Laplanders  bury  fliut  and  tinder  with  the  dead,  to  furnish  light  for  the  dark  journey. 
The  Norsemen  buried  the  horse  and  armor  for  the  dead  hero's  triumphant  ride.  The 
Chinese  scatter  paper  images  of  sedan  porters  over  the  grave,  to  help  along  in  the 
sombre  pilgrimage.  The  Greenlanders  bury  with  the  child  a  dog  to  guide  him  ( George 
Dana  Boardman,  Sermon  on  Immortality  ). 

Savage,  Life  after  Death,  1-18 — M  Candles  at  the  head  of  the  casket  are  the  modern 
representatives  of  the  primitive  man's  fire  which  was  to  light  the  way  of  the  soul  on  its 

dark  journey Ulysses  talks  in  the  underworld  with  the  shade  of   Hercules 

though  the  real  Hercules,  a  demigod,  had  been  transferred  to  Olympus,  and  was  there 

living   in  companionship  with  the  gods The  Brahman  desired  to  escape  being 

reborn.  Socrates :  '  To  die  and  be  released  is  better  for  me.'  Here  I  am  walking  on  a 
plank.  It  reaches  out  into  the  fojr,  and  I  have  got  to  keep  walking.  I  can  see  only  ten 
feet  ahead  of  me.  I  know  1  hat  pretty  soon  I  must  walk  over  the  end  of  that  plank,—  I 
haven't  the  slightest  idea  into  what,  and  I  don't  believe  anybody  else  knows.  And  I 
don't  like  it."  Matthew  Arnold :  "Is  there  no  other  life?  Pitch  this  one  high."  But 
without  positive  revelation  most  men  will  say  :  "Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die" 
( 1  Cor.  15  :  32 ). 

"  By  passionately  loving  life,  we  make  Loved  life  unlovely,  hugging  her  to  death." 
Theodore  Parker :    "  The  intuition  of  mortality  is  written  in  the  heart  of  man  by  a 

Hand  that  writes  no  falsehoods There  is  evidence  of  a  summer  yet  to  be,  in  the 

buds  which  lie  folded  through  our  northern  winter — efflorescences  in  human  nature 
unaccountable  if  the  end  of  man  is  in  the  grave."  But  it  may  be  replied  that  many 
universal  popular  impressions  have  proved  false,  such  as  belief  in  ghosts,  and  in  the 
moving  of  the  sun  round  the  earth.  While  the  mass  of  men  have  believed  in  immor- 
tality, some  of  the  wisest  have  been  doubters.  Cyrus  said:  "I  cannot  imagine  that 
the  soul  lives  only  while  it  remains  in  this  mortal  body.''  But  the  dying  words  of 
Socrates  were  :  "  We  part ;  I  am  going  to  die,  and  you  to  live :  which  of  us  goes  the 
better  way  is  known  to  God  alone."  Cicero  declared :  "  Upon  this  subject  I  entertain 
no  more  than  conjectures ;  "  and  said  that,  when  he  was  reading  Plato's  argument  for 
immortality,  he  seemed  to  himself  convinced,  but  when  he  laid  down  the  book  he 
found  that  all  his  doubts  returned.  Farrar,  Darkness  and  Dawn,  134  — "  Though  Cicero 
wrote  his  Tusculan  Disputations  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  he  spoke  of 
that  doctrine  in  his  letters  and  speeches  as  a  mere  pleasing  speculation,  which  might 
be  discussed  with  interest,  but  which  no  one  practically  held." 

Aristotle,  Nic.  Ethics,  3 :  9,  calls  death  "  the  most  to  be  feared  of  all  things  ....  for  it 
appears  to  be  the  end  of  everything ;  and  for  the  deceased  there  appears  to  be  no  longer 
either  any  good  or  any  evil.  "  ^Eschylus  :  "  Of  one  once  dead  there  is  no  resurrection.  " 
Catullus  :  "  When  once  our  brief  day  has  set,  we  must  sleep  one  everlasting  night." 
Tacitus  :  "  If  there  is  a  place  for  the  spirits  of  the  pious  ;  if,  as  the  wise  suppose,  great 
souls  do  not  become  extinct  with  their  bodies."  "In  that  if,  "  says  Uhlhorn,  "  lies  the 
whole  torturing  uncertainty  of  heathenism.''  Seneca,  Ep.  liv. — "Mors  est  nonesse'' 
—"Death  is  not  to  be"  :  Troades,  V,  393—"  Post  mortem  nihil  est,  ipsaque  mors 
nihil  "  — "  There  is  nothing  after  death,  and  death  itself  is  nothing."  Marcus  Aurelius : 
"  What  springs  from  earth  dissolves  to  earth  again,  and  heavenborn  things  fly  to  their 


990         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  FINAL  THINGS. 

native  seat."  The  Emperor  Hadrian  to  his  soul :  "  Animula,  vagula,  blandula,  Hospes 
comesque  corporis,  Qute  nunc  abibis  in  loca?  Pallidula,  rigida,  nudula."  Classic 
writers  might  have  said  of  the  soul  at  death  :  '•'  We  know  not  where  is  that  Promethean 
torch  That  can  its  light  relume." 

Chadwick,  184  —  "  With  the  growth  of  all  that  is  best  in  man  of  intelligence  and  affec- 
tion, there  goes  the  development  of  the  hope  of  an  immortal  life.  If  the  hope  thus 
developed  is  not  a  valid  one,  then  we  have  a  radical  contradiction  in  our  moral  nature. 
The  survival  of  the  littest  points  in  the  same  direction."  Andrew  Marvell  ( 1G21-1678  )— 
"At  my  back  I  always  hear  Time's  winged  chariot  hurrying  near;  And  yonder  all 
before  us  lie  Deserts  of  vast  Eternity."  Goethe  in  his  last  days  came  to  be  a  profound 
believer  in  immortality.  "  You  ask  me  what  are  my  grounds  for  this  belief  ?  The 
weightiest  is  this,  that  we  cannot  do  without  it."  Huxley  wrote  in  a  letter  to  Morley : 
"  It  is  a  curious  thing  that  I  find  my  dislike  to  the  thought  of  extinction  increasing  as  I 
get  older  and  nearer  the  goal.  It  flashes  across  me  at  all  sorts  of  time  that  in  1900  I  shall 
probably  know  no  more  of  what  is  going  on  than  I  did  in  1800.  I  had  sooner  be  in  hell, 
a  great  deal,— at  any  rate  in  one  of  the  upper  circles,  where  climate  and  the  company 
are  not  too  trying." 

The  book  of  Job  shows  how  impossible  it  is  for  man  to  work  out  the  problem  of  per- 
sonal immortality  from  the  point  of  view  of  merely  natural  religion.  Shakespeare,  in 
Measure  for  Measure,  represents  Claudio  as  saying  to  his  sister  Isabella  :  "  Aye,  but  to 
die,  and  go  we  know  not  where  ;  To  lie  in  cold  obstruction  and  to  rot ;  This  sensible 
warm  motion  to  become  A  kneaded  clod."  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre,  2  :  739 — "  The  other 
world  is  in  all  men  the  one  enemy,  in  its  aspect  of  a  future  world,  however,  the  last 
enemy,  which  speculative  criticism  has  to  fight,  and  if  possible  to  overcome."    Omar 

Khayyam,  Rubaiyat,  Stanzas  28-35  — "  I  came  like  Water,  and  like  Wind  I  go Up 

from  Earth's  Centre  through  the  seventh  gate  I  rose,  and  on  the  throne  of  Saturn  sate, 
And  many  a  knot  unravelled  by  the  Road,  But  not  the  master-knot  of  human  fate. 
There  was  the  Door  to  which  I  found  no  Key  ;  There  was  the  Veil  through  which  I 
might  not  see  :  Some  little  talk  awhile  of  Me  and  Thee  There  wa3, —  And  then  no  more 
of  Thee  and  Me.  Earth  could  not  answer,  nor  the  Seas  that  mourn,  In  flowing  purple, 
of  their  Lord  forlorn;  Nor  rolling  Heaven,  with  all  his  signs  revealed,  And  hidden  by 
the  sleeve  of  Night  and  Morn.  Then  of  the  Thee  in  Me,  who  works  behind  The  veil,  I 
lifted  up  my  hands  to  find  A  Lamp,  amid  the  darkness;  and  I  heard  As  from  with- 
out —  '  The  Me  within  Thee  blind.'  Then  to  the  lip  of  this  poor  earthen  Urn  I  leaned, 
the  secret  of  my  life  to  learn  ;  And  Lip  to  Lip  it  murmur'd— '  While  you  live,  Drink  !  — 
for,  once  dead,  you  never  shall  return  ! '  "  So  "  The  Phantom  Caravan  has  reached  The 
Nothing  it  set  out  from."  It  is  a  demonstration  of  the  hopelessness  and  blindness  and 
sensuality  of  man,  when  left  without  the  revelation  of  God  and  of  the  life  to  come. 

The  most  that  can  be  claimed  for  this  fourth  argument  from  popular  belief  is  that  it 
indicates  a  general  appentency  for  continued  existence  after  death,  and  that  the  idea  is 
congruous  with  our  nature.  W.  E.  Forster  said  to  Harriet  Martineau  that  he  would 
rather  be  damned  than  annihilated ;  see  F.  P.  Cobbe,  Peak  of  Darien,  44.  But  it  may 
be  replied  that  there  is  reason  enough  for  this  desire  for  life  in  the  fact  that  it  ensures 
the  earthly  existence  of  the  race,  which  might  commit  universal  suicide  without  it. 
There  is  reason  enough  in  the  present  life  for  its  existence,  and  we  are  not  necessitated 
to  infer  a  f  uture  life  therefroin.  This  objection  cannot  be  fully  answered  from  reason 
alone.  But  if  we  take  our  argument  in  connection  with  the  Scriptural  revelation  con- 
cerning God's  making  of  man  in  his  image,  we  may  regard  the  testimony  of  man's 
nature  as  the  testimony  of  the  God  who  made  it. 

We  conclude  our  statement  of  these  rational  proofs  with  the  acknowledg- 
ment that  they  rest  upon  the  presupposition  that  there  exists  a  God  of  truth, 
wisdom,  justice,  and  love,  who  has  made  man  in  his  image,  and  who  desires 
to  commune  with  his  creatures.  "We  acknowledge,  moreover,  that  these 
proofs  give  us,  not  an  absolute  demonstration,  but  only  a  balance  of  proba- 
bility, in  favor  of  man's  immortality.  We  turn  therefore  to  Scripture  for 
the  clear  revelation  of  a  fact  of  which  reason  furnishes  us  little  more  than 
a  presumption. 

Everett,  Essays,  76,  77  — "  In  his  Traume  eines  Geistersehers,  Kant  foreshadows  the 
Method  of  his  Kritik.  He  gives  us  a  scheme  of  disembodied  spirits,  and  calls  it  a  bit  of 
mystic  ( geheimen )  philosophy;  then  the  opposite  view,  which  he  calls  a  bit  of  vulgar 


PHYSICAL   DEATH.  991 

(gemeimen  )  philosophy.  Then  he  says  the  scales  of  the  understanding  are  not  quite 
impartial,  and  the  one  that  has  the  inscription  '  Hope  for  the  future  '  has  a  mechani- 
cal advantage.  He  says  he  cannot  rid  himself  of  this  unfairness.  He  suffers  feeling-  to 
determine  the  result.  Th  is  is  intellectual  agnosticism  supplemented  by  religious  faith." 
The  following  liues  have  been  engraved  upon  the  tomti  of  Professor  Huxley  :  "  And  if 
there  be  no  meeting  past  the  grave,  If  all  is  darkness,  silence,  yet  'tis  rest.  Be  not 
afraid,  ye  waiting  hearts  that  Aveep,  For  God  still  giveth  his  beloved  sleep.  And  if  an 
endless  sleep  he  wills,  so  best."  Contrast  this  consolation  with  :  "let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled :  ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me.  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions  :  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would 
have  told  you.  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you  And  If  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you.  I  will  come  again,  and  receive 
you  unto  myself,  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also  "  (  John  14  : 1-3. 

Dorner:  "There  is  no  rational  evidence  -which  compels  belief  In  immortality. 
Immortality  has  its  pledge  in  God's  making  man  in  his  image,  and  in  God's  will  of  Love 
for  communion  with  men."  Luthardt,  Compendium,  289— "The  truth  in  these  proofs 
from  reason  is  the  idea  of  human  personality  and  its  relation  to  God.  Belief  in  God  is 
the  universal  presupposition  and  foundation  of  the  universal  belief  in  immortality." 
When  Strauss  declared  that  this  belief  In  immortality  is  the  last  enemy  which  is  to  be 
destroyed,  he  forgot  that  belief  in  God  is  more  ineradicable  still.  Frances  Power  Cobbe, 
Life,  92—"  The  doctrine  of  immortality  is  to  me  the  indispensable  corollary  of  that  of 
the  goodness  of  God." 

Hadley,  Essays,  Philological  and  Critical,  392-379  — "  The  claim  of  immortality  may  be 
based  on  one  or  the  other  of  two  assumptions :  (1)  The  same  organism  will  be  repro- 
duced hereafter,  and  the  same  functions)  or  part  of  them,  again  manifested  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  and  accompanied  with  consciousness  of  continued  identity;  or,  (2)  The 
same  functions  may  be  exercised  and  accompanied  with  consciousness  of  identity^ 
though  not  connected  with  the  same  organism  as  before  ;  may  in  fact  go  on  without, 
interruption,  without  being  even  suspended  by  death,  though  no  longer  manifested  to 
us."  The  conclusion  is :  "  The  light  of  nature,  when  all  directed  to  this  question,  does 
furnish  a  presumption  in  favor  of  immortality,  but  not  so  strong  a  presumption  as  to 
exclude  great  and  reasonable  doubts  upon  the  subject.'' 

For  an  excellent  synopsis  of  arguments  and  objections,  see  Hase,  Hut  terns  Redivivus, 
276.  See  also  Bowen,  Metaph.  and  Ethics,  417-441 ;  A.  M.  Fairbairn,  on  Idea  of  Immor- 
tality, in  Studies  in  Philos.  of  Religion  and  of  History;  Wordsworth,  Intimations  of 
Immortality ;  Tennyson,  Two  Voices;  Alger,  Critical  History  of  Doctrine  of  Future 
Life,  with  Appendix  by  Ezra  Abbott,  containing  a  Catalogue  of  Works  relating  to  the 
Nature,  Origin,  and  Destiny  of  the  Soul ;  [ngersoll  Lectures  on  Immortality,  by  George 
A.  Gordon,  Josiah  Royce,  William  James,  Dr.  Osier,  John  Flake,  B.  I.  Wheeler,  Hyslop, 
Miinsterberg,  Crothars. 

2.      Upon  scriptural  grounds. 

(  a  )  The  account  of  man's  creation,  and  the  subsequent  allusions  to  it 
in  Scripture,  show  that,  while  the  body  was  made  corruptible  aud  subject 
to  death,  the  sold  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  incorruptible  and 
immortal. 

Sen.  1 :  26,  27  — "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  "  ;  2:7  — "  And  Jehovah  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul"  —  here,  as  was  shown  in 
our  treatment  of  Man's  Original  State,  page  523,  it  is  not  the  divine  image,  but  the 
body,  that  is  formed  of  dust ;  and  into  this  body  the  soul  that  possesses  the  divine  image 
is  breathed.  In  the  Hebrew  records,  the  animating  soul  is  everywhere  distinguished 
from  the  earthly  body.  Gen.  3  :  22,  23  — "  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil ; 
and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for  ever  :  therefore  Jehovah  God 
sent  him  forth  from  the  garden  of  Eden  "  —  man  had  immortality  of  soul,  and  now,  lest  to  this  he 
add  immortality  of  body,  he  is  expelled  from  the  tree  of  life.  Eccl.  12 :  7  — "  the  dust  returneth 
to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  returneth  unto  God  who  gave  it";  Zech.  12 : 1 — "Jehovah,  who  stretcheth  forth 
the  heavens,  and  layeth  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him." 

Mat.  10 :  28  — "  And  be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  who 
is  able  to  destroy  Doth  soul  and  body  In  hell  "  ;  Acts  7 ;  59 — "  And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  the  Lord,  and 
saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit  " :  2  Cor.  12  :  2  — "  I  know  a  man  in  Christ,  fourteen  vears  ago  (  whether  in  the 
body,  I  know  not;  or  whether  out  of  the  body,  I  know  not;  God  knowet'h  ),  such  a  one  caught  up  even  to  the  third 
heaven";  1  Cor.  15:45,46 — "  The  first  man  Adam  became  a  living  soul.  The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit_ 
Howbeit  that  is  not  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural ;  then  that  which  is  spiritual "  =  the  first 


992         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Adam  was  made  a  being  whose  body  was  psychical  and  mortal— a  body  of  flesh  and 
blood,  that  could  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  So  Paul  says  the  spiritual  is  not 
first,  but  the  psychical ;  but  there  is  no  intimation  that  the  soul  also  was  created 
mortal,  and  needed  external  appliances,  like  the  tree  of  life,  before  it  could  enter  upon 
immortality. 

But  it  may  be  asked :  Is  not  aU  this,  in  1  Cor.  15,  spoken  of  the  regenerate  —  those  to 
whom  a  new  principle  of  life  has  been  communicated  ?  We  answer,  yes ;  but  that  does 
not  prevent  us  from  learning  from  the  passage  the  natural  immortality  of  the  soul ;  for 
in  regeneration  the  essence  is  not  changed,  no  new  substance  is  imparted,  no  new 
faculty  or  constitutive  element  is  added,  and  no  new  principle  of  holiness  is  infused. 
The  truth  is  simply  that  the  spirit  is  morally  readjusted.  For  substance  of  the  above 
remarks,  see  Hovey,  State  of  Impenitent  Dead,  1-27. 

Savage,  Life  after  Death,  46,  53  — "  The  word  translated  '  soul ',  in  Gen.  2:7,  is  the 
same  word  which  in  other  parts  of  the  O.  T.  is  used  to  denote  the  life- principle  of 
animals.    It  does  not  follow  that  soul  implies  immortality,  for  then  all  animals  would 

be  immortal The  firmament  of  the  Hebrews  was  the  cover  of  a  dinner-platter, 

solid,  but  with  little  windows  to  let  the  rain  through.  Above  this  firmament  was 
heaven  where  G  od  and  angels  abode,  but  no  people  went  there.  All  went  below.  But 
growing  moral  sense  held  that  the  good  could  not  be  imprisoned  in  Hades.  So  came  the 

idea  of  resurrection If  a  force,  a  universe  with  God  left  out,  can  do  all  that  has 

been  done,  I  do  not  see  why  it  cannot  also  continue  my  existence  through  what  is 
called  death." 

Dr.  EL  Heath  Bawden  :  "  It  is  only  the  creature  that  is  born  that  will  die.  Monera 
and  Amoeba?  are  immortal,  as  Weismann  tells  us.  They  do  not  die,  because  they  never 
are  born.  The  death  of  the  individual  as  a  somatic  individual  is  for  the  sake  of  the 
larger  future  life  of  the  individual  in  its  germinal  immortality.  So  we  live  ourselves 
spiritually  into  our  children,  as  well  as  physically.  An  organism  is  nothing  but  a 
centre  or  focus  through  which  the  world  surges.  What  matter  if  the  irrelevant  somatic 
portion  is  lost  in  what  we  call  death  I  The  only  immortality  possible  is  the  immortality 
of  function.  My  body  has  changed  completely  since  I  was  a  boy,  but  I  have  become  a 
larger  self  thereby.  Birth  and  death  simply  mark  steps  or  stages  in  the  growth  of 
such  an  individual,  which  in  its  very  nature  does  not  exclude  but  rather  includes 
within  it  the  lives  of  all  other  individuals.  The  individual  is  more  than  a  passive  mem- 
ber, he  is  an  active  organ  of  a  biological  whole.  The  laws  of  his  life  are  the  social 
organism  functioning  in  one  of  its  organs.  He  lives  and  moves  and  has  his  being  in  the 
great  spirit  of  the  whole,  which  comes  to  a  focus  or  flowers  out  in  his  conscious  life." 

(  b )  The  account  of  the  curse  in  Genesis,  and  the  subseqtient  allusions  to 
it  in  Scripture,  show  that,  while  the  death  then  incurred  includes  the  dis- 
solution of  the  body,  it  does  not  include  cessation  of  being  on  the  part  of 
the  soul,  but  only  designates  that  state  of  the  soul  which  is  the  opposite 
of  true  life,  viz.,  a  state  of  banishment  from  God,  of  unholiness,  and  of 
misery. 

Gen.  2:17— "in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die"  ;  cf.  3  :  8  —"the  man  and  his  wife  hid 
themselves  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah  God  "  ;  16-19—  the  curse  of  pain  and  toil :  22-24  —  banishment 
from  the  garden  of  Eden  and  from  the  tree  of  life.    Mat.  8: 22— "Follow  me  ;  and  leave  the  dead 

to  bury  their  own  dead  "  ;  25  :  41,  46 — "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  the  eternal  fire These  shall  go  away 

into  eternal  punishment "  ;  Luke  15 :  32  — "  this  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  is  alive  again  ;  and  was  lost,  and  is  found  "  ; 
John  5 :  24  — "  He  that  hearetb  my  word,  and  believeth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment, 

but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life  "  ;  6 :  47,  53,  63  —"He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life Except  ye  eat  the 

flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves  ....  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  • 
you  are  spirit,  and  are  life  "  :  8 :  51  — "  If  a  man  keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  see  death." 

Rom.  5 :  21  — "  that,  as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  "  ; 
8  :  13  — "  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  must  die ;  but  if  by  the  Spirit  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live  "  ; 
Eph.  2:1 — "dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins"  ;  5:14  — "Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead, 
and  Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee "  ;  James  5 :  20  — "he  who  converteth  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a 
soul  from  death,  and  shall  cover  a  multitude  of  sins "  ;  1  John  3  :  14  — "  We  know  that  we  have  passed  out  of  death  into 
life,  because  we  love  the  brethren  "  ;  Rev.  3  : 1  — "I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  hast  a  name  that  thou  livest,  and  thou 
art  dead." 

We  are  to  interpret  O.  T.  terms  by  the  N.  T.  meaning  put  into  them.  We  are  to 
interpret  the  Hebrew  by  the  Greek,  not  the  Greek  by  the  Hebrew.  It  never  would  do  to 


PHYSICAL    DEATH.  993 

interpret  our  missionaries'  use  of  the  Chinese  words  for  "  God  ",  "spirit  ",  "  holiness  ", 
by  the  use  of  those  words  among  the  Chinese  before  the  missionaries  came.  By  the 
later  usage  of  the  N.  T.,  the  Holy  Spirit  shows  us  what  he  meant  by  the  usage  of  the 
O.  T. 

(  c  )  The  Scriptural  expressions,  held  by  annihilationists  to  imply  cessa- 
tion of  being  on  the  part  of  the  wicked,  are  used  not  only  in  connections 
where  they  cannot  bear  this  meaning  (Esther  4:16),  but  in  connections 
where  they  imply  the  opposite. 

Esther  4  :  16  — "  if  I  perish,  I  perish  "  ;  Gen.  6 :  11  — "  And  the  earth  was  corrupt  before  God  "  —  here,  in  the 
LXX,  the  word  €<|)C»api),  translated  "was  corrupt,  "  is  the  same  word  which  in  other  places  is 
interpreted  by  annihilationists  as  meaning  extinction  of  being.  In  Ps.  119:176,  "I  have  gone 
astray  like  a  lost  sheep  "  cannot  mean  "  I  have  gone  astray  like  an  annihilated  sheep."  Is.  49 :  17 
— "  thy  destroyers  [  anuihilators  ?  ]  and  they  that  made  thee  waste  shall  go  forth  from  thee  "  ;  57 : 1,  2  — "  The 
righteous  perisheth  [  is  annihilated  ?  ]  and  no  man  layeth  it  to  heart;  and  merciful  men  are  taken  away,  none 
considering  that  the  righteous  is  taken  away  from  the  evil  to  come.  He  entereth  into  peace ;  they  rest  in  their  beds,  each 
one  that  walketh  in  his  uprightness  " ;  Dan.  9  :  26  — "  And  after  the  three  score  and  two  weeks  shall  the  anointed  one  be 
cut  off  H  annihilated  ?  ]." 

Mat.  10  :  6,  39,  42  — "the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  ....  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it  ...  . 
he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward  " — in  these  verses  we  cannot  substitute  "annihilate"  for 
"lose";  Acts  13: 41 — "Behold,  ye  despisers,  and  wonder,  and  perish";  cf.  Mat.  6  :  16 — "for  they  disfigure  their 
faces" — where  the  same  word  a<t>avi£<*>  is  used.  1  Cor.  3:17  —  'If  any  man  destroyeth  [annihi- 
lates ?  ]  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  destroy  "  ;  2  Cor.  7 : 2  — "  we  corrupted  no  man  "  —  where  the  same 
word  (j>deip(u  is  used.  2  Thess.  1:9 — "who  shall  suffer  punishment,  even  etornal  destruction  from  the  face  of 
the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  might "  =  the  wicked  shall  be  driven  out  from  the  presence  of 
Christ.  Destruction  is  not  annihilation.  "Destruction  from"  =  separation  ;  (per  contra,  see 
Prof.  W.  A.  Stevens,  Com.  in  loco  :  "from"  =  the  source  from  which  the  "destruction"  pro- 
ceeds ).  "A  ship  engulfed  in  quicksands  is  destroyed  ;  a  temple  broken  down  and 
deserted  is  destroys  1 "  ;  see  I.illie,  Com.  in  loco.  2  Pet.  3  : 7 — "day  of  judgment  and  destruction  of 
ungodly  men"  — here  the  word  "destruction"  (an-wAt-ia?)  is  the  same  with  that  used  of  t  lie  end 
of  t  he  present  order  of  things,  ami  t  ranslated  "perished"  (  an-uiAeTo  )  in  verse  6.  "  We  cannot 
accordingly  infer  from  it  that  the  ungodly  will  cease  to  exist,  but  only  that  there  will 
be  a  great,  and  penal  change  in  their  condition  "  (  Plumptre,  Com.  in  loco  ). 

(d)  The  passages  held  to  prove  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked  at  death 
cannot  have  this  meaning,  since  the  Scriptures  foretell  a  resurrection  of  the 
unjust  as  well  as  of  the  just ;  and  a  second  death,  or  a  misery  of  the  reunited 
sotd  and  body,  in  the  case  of  the  wicked. 

Acts  24 :  15  — "  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  unjust ' ' ;  Rev.  2:11  — "  He  that  overcometh  shall  not 
be  hurt  of  the  second  death  "  ;  20 :  14,  15  — "And  death,  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This  i6  the  second 
death,  even  the  lake  of  fire.  And  if  any  was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life,  he  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  "  ; 
21:8 —"their  part  shall  be  in  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone;  which  is  the  second  death."  The 
"  second  death  "  is  the  first  death  intensified.  Having  one's  "  part  in  the  lake  of  fire  "  is  not  anni- 
hilation. 

In  a  similar  manner  the  word  "life"  is  to  be  interpreted  not  as  meaning  continuance 
of  being,  but  as  meaning  perfection  of  being.  As  death  is  the  loss  not  of  life,  but  of  all 
that  makes  life  desirable,  so  life  is  the  possession  of  the  highest  good.  1  Tim.  5:6— "She 
that  giveth  herself  to  pleasure  is  dead  while  she  liveth  "  —  here  the  death  is  spiritual  death,  and  it  is 
implied  that  true  life  is  spiritual  life.  John  10:10— "I  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and  may  have  it 
abundantly  "  — implies  that  "  life  "  is  not :  1.  mere  existence,  for  they  had  this  before  Christ 
came ;  nor  2.  mere  motion,  as  squirrels  go  in  a  wheel,  without  making  progress ;  nor  3. 
mere  possessions,  "  for  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  things  which  he  possesseth  "  (Luke  12 :  loj. 
But  life  is  :  1.  right  relation  of  our  powers,  or  holiness;  2.  right  use  of  our  powers, 
or  love  ;  3.  right  number  of  our  powers,  or  completeness;  4.  right  intensity  of  our 
powers,  or  energy  of  will.;  5.  right  environment  of  our  powers,  or  society  ;  6.  right 
source  of  our  powers,  or  God. 

( e )  The  words  used  in  Scripture  to  denote  the  place  of  departed  spirits 
have  in  them  no  implication  of  annihilation,  and  the  allusions  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  departed  show  that  death,  to  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  the  New 

63 


994       ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Testaments,  although  it  was  the  termination  of  man's  earthly  existence, 
was  not  an  extinction  of  his  "being  or  his  consciousness. 

On  bw  Sheol,  Gesenius,  Lexicon,  10th  ed.,  says  that,  though  SlNti'  is  commonly 
explained  as  infinitive  of  b0,  to  demand,  it  is  undoubtedly  allied  to  btflff  ( root  biff  ), 
to  he  sunk,  and  ='  sinking/'  depth,'  or  'the  sunken,  deep,  place."  AiS,s,  Hades,=  not 
'  hell, '  but  the  'unseen  world,'  conceived  by  the  Greeks  as  a  shadowy,  but  not  as  an 
unconscious,  state  of  being.  Genung,  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life,  on  Job  7 : 9  -"  Sheol,  the 
Hebrew  word  designating  the  unseen  abode  of  the  dead  ;  a  neutral  word,  presupposing 
neither  misery  nor  happiness,  and  not  infrequently  used  much  as  we  use  the  word  '  the 
grave',  to  denote  the  final  undefined  resting-place  of  all." 

Gen.  25  : 8  9 Abraham  "  was  gathered  to  his  people.    And  Isaac  and  Ishmael  his  sons  buried  hirn  in  the  cave 

of  Machpelah."  "  Yet  Abraham's  father  was  buried  in  Haran,  and  his  more  remote  ances- 
tors in  Urof  the  Chaldees.  So  Joshua's  generation  is  said  to  be  'gathered  to  their  fathers' 
though  the  generation  that  preceded  them  perished  in  the  wilderness,  and  previous 
generations  died  in  Egypt "  ( W.  H.  Green,  in  S.  S.  Times ).  So  of  Isaac  in  Gen.  35  :  29,  and 
of  Jacobin  19: 29,  33,  —  all  of  whom  were  gathered  to  their  fathers  before  they  were  bur- 
ied. Num.  20 :  24  — "  Aaron  shall  be  gathered  unto  his  people  "  —  here  it  is  very  plain  that  being  "  gathered 
unto  his  people  "  was  something  different  from  burial.  Deut.  10  : 6  —  "  There  Aaron  died,  and  there  he  was 
buried."    Job  3 :  13  18— "Fornow  should  I  have  lain  down  and  been  quiet ;  Ishouldhave  slept;  then  had  I  been  at 

rest There  the  prisoners  are  at  ease  together  ;  They  hear  not  the  voice  of  the  taskmaster"  ;  7  :9— "  As  the  cloud 

is  consumed  and  vanisheth  away,  So  he  that  goeth  down  to  Sheol  shall  come  up  no  more  "  ;  14 :  22  — "  But  his  flesh  upon 
him  hath  pain,  And  his  soul  within  him  mourneth." 

gZi  32 .  21 "  The  strong  among  the  mighty  shall  speak  to  him  out  of  the  midst  of  Sheol  "  ;  Luke  16: 23  — "  And  in 

Hades  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments,  and  seeth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom  "  ;  23 :  43  — "  To-day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise  "  ;  cf.  1  Sam.  28 :  19  —  Samuel  said  to  Saul  in  the  cave  of  Endor  : 
"  to-morrow  shalt  thou  and  thy  sons  be  with  me "—  evidently  not  in  an  unconscious  state.  Many 
of  these  passages  intimate  a  continuity  of  consciousness  after  death.  Though  Sheol  is 
unknown  to  man,  it  is  naked  and  open  to  God  (Job  26: 6);  he  can  find  men  there  to 
redeem  them  from  thence  (  Ps.  49 :  15 )  —  proof  that  death  is  not  annihilation.  See  Girdle- 
stone,  O.  T.  Synonyms,  447. 

(/)  The  terms  and  phrases  which  have  been  held  to  declaie  absolute 
cessation  of  existence  at  death  are  frequently  metaphorical,  and  an  exami- 
nation of  them  in  connection  with  the  context  and  Avith  other  Scriptures  is 
sufficient  to  show  the  untenableness  of  the  literal  interpretation  put  upon 
them  by  the  annihilationists,  and  to  prove  that  the  language  is  merely  the 
language  of  appearance. 

Death  is  often  designated  as  a  "sleeping"  or  a  "  falling  asleep  " ;  see  John  11 :  11, 14— "Our  friend 

Lazarus  is  fallen  asleep ;  but  I  go,   that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep Then  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them 

plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead."  Here  the  language  of  appearance  is  used  ;  yet  this  language  could 
not  have  been  used,  if  the  soul  had  not  been  conceived  of  as  alive,  though  sundered 
from  the  body  ;  see  Meyer  on  1  Cor.  1 :  18.  So  the  language  of  appearance  is  used  in  Eccl. 
9 :  10  —  "  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom,  in  Sheol  whither  thou  goest "  —  and  in  Ps.  146 : 4  — 
"  His  breath  goeth  forth ;  he  returneth  to  his  earth ;  In  that  very  day  his  thoughts  perish. ' ' 

See  Mozley,  Essays,  2  :  171  — "  These  passages  often  describe  the  phenomena  of  death 
as  it  presents  itself  to  our  eyes,  and  so  do  not  enter  into  the  reality  which  takes  place 
beneath  it."  Bart  left,  Life  and  Death  Eternal,  189-358  — "  Because  the  same  Hebrew 
word  is  used  for  '  spirit '  and  '  breath, '  shall  we  say  that  the  spirit  is  only  breath  ? 
'  Heart '  in  English  mia-ht  in  like  manner  be  made  to  mean  only  the  material  organ  ;  and 
David's  heart,  panting,  thirsting,  melting  within  him,  would  have  to  be  interpreted 
literally.  So  a  man  may  be  '  eaten  up  with  avarice,'  while  yet  his  being  is  not  only  not 
extinct,  but  is  in  a  state  of  frightful  activity." 

(  g  )  The  Jewish  belief  in  a  conscious  existence  after  death  is  proof  that 
the  theory  of  annihilation  rests  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  Scripture. 
That  such  a  belief  in  the  immortahty  of  the  soul  existed  among  the  Jews  is 
abundantly  evident :  from  the  knowledge  of  a  future  state  possessed  by  the 
Egyptians  ( Acts  7  :  22  )  ;  from  the  accounts  of  the  translation  of  Enoch  and 


PHYSICAL  DEATH.  995 

of  Elijah  (  Gen.  5  :  21  ;  cf.  Heb.  11  :  5.  2  K.  2  :  11) ;  from  the  invocation 
of  the  dead  which  was  practised,  although  forbidden  by  the  law  ( 1  Sam. 
28  :  7-14  ;  cf  Lev.  20  :  28  ;  Deut.  18  :  10,  11 )  ;  from  allusions  in  the  O.  T. 
to  resurrection,  future  retribution,  and  life  beyond  the  grave  ( Job 
19  :  25-27  ;  Ps.  16  : 9-11 ;  Is.  2G  :  19  ;  Ez.  37  : 1-14 ;  Dan.  12  :  2,  3,  13 )  ; 
and  from  distinct  declarations  of  such  faith  by  Philo  and  Josephus,  as  well 
as  by  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  (Mat.  22  :31,  32  ;  Acts  23  : 6  ;  26  :  6-8  ; 
Heb.  11  :  13-16  ). 

The  Egyptian  coffin  was  called  "  the  chest  of  the  living."  The  Egyptians  called  their 
houses  "hostelries,"  while  their  tombs  they  called  their  "eternal  homes"  (Butcher, 
Aspects  of  Greek  Genius,  30 ).  See  the  Book  of  the  Dead,  translated  by  Birch,  in  Bunsen's 
Egypt's  Place,  123-383 :  The  principal  ideas  of  the  first  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  are 
"  living  again  alter  death,  and  being  born  again  as  the  sun,"  which  typified  the  Egyp- 
tian resurrection  ( 188 ).  "The deceased  lived  again  after  death"  (134).  "TheOsiris 
lives  after  he  dies,  like  the  sun  daily  ;  for  as  the  sun  died  and  was  born  yesterday,  so 
ihe  Osiris  is  born"  (104).  Yet  the  immortal  part,  in  its  continued  existence,  was 
dependent  for  its  blessedness  upon  the  preservation  of  the  body  ;  and  for  this  reason  the 
body  was  embalmed.  Immortality  of  the  body  is  as  important  as  the  passage  of  the 
soul  to  the  upper  regions.  Growth  or  natural  reparation  of  the  body  is  invoked  as 
earnestly  as  the  passage  of  the  soul.  "  There  is  not  a  limb  of  him  without  a  god  ; 
Thoth  is  vivifying  his  limbs  "  ( 197  ). 

Maspero,  Kecueil  de  Travaux,  gives  the  following  readings  from  the  inner  walls  of 
pyramids  twelve  miles  south  of  Cairo:  "  O  Unas,  thou  hast  gone  away  dead,  but  liv- 
ing "  ;  "  Teti  is  the  living  dead  "  ;  "  Arise,  O  Teti,  to  die  no  more  " ;  "  O  Pepi,  thou  diest 
no  more";  — these  inscriptions  show  that  to  the  Egyptians  there  was  life  beyond 
death.  "  The  life  of  Unas  is  duration  ;  his  period  is  eternity  "  ;  "  They  render  thee 
happy  throughout  all  eternity  "  ;  "He  who  has  given  thee  life  and  eternity  is  Ra  " ;  — 
here  we  see  that  the  life  beyond  death  was  eternal.  "  Rising  at  his  pleasure,  gathering 
his  members  that  are  in  the  tomb,  Un;is  goes  forth  "  ;  "  Unas  has  his  heart,  his  legs,  his 
arms"  ;  this  asserts  reunion  with  the  body.  "  Reunited  to  thy  soul,  thou  takest  dis- 
place among  the  stars  of  heaven  ";"  the  soul  is  thine  within  thee";  —  there  was 
reunion  with  the  soul.  "A  god  is  born,  it  is  Unas";  "<>  Ha,  thy  son  comes  to  thee, 
this  Unas  comes  to  thee  "  ;  "O  Father  of  Unas,  grant  that  he  may  bo  included  in  the 
number  of  the  perfect  and  wise  gods";  hero  it  is  taught  that  the  reunited  soul  and 
body  becomes  a  god  and  dwells  with  the  gods. 

Howard  Osgood  :  "  Osiris,  the  son  of  gods,  came  to  live  on  earth.  His  life  was  a  pat- 
tern for  others.  He  was  put  to  death  by  the  god  of  evil,  but  regained  his  body,  lived 
again,  and  became,  in  the  other  world,  the  judge  of  all  men."  Tiele,  Egyptian  Keligion, 
280  —  "  To  become  like  god  Osiris,  a  benefactor,  a  good  being,  persecuted  but  justified, 
judged  but  pronounced  innocent,  was  looked  upon  as  the  ideal  of  every  pious  man,  and 
as  the  condition  on  which  alone  eternal  life  could  be  obtained,  and  as  the  means  by 
which  it  could  be  continued."  Ebers,  Etudes  Archeologiques,  21 —  "The  texts  in  the 
pyramids  show  ns  that  under  the  Pharaohs  of  the  5th  dynasty  (  before  2500  B.  C.  )  the 
doctrine  that  the  deceased  became  god  was  not  only  extant,  but  was  developed  more 
thoi-oughly  and  with  far  higher  flight  of  imagination  than  we  could  expect  from  the 
simple  statements  concerning  the  other  world  hitherto  known  to  us  as  from  that  early 
time."  Revillout,  on  Egyptian  Ethics,  in  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1890:304  —  "An  almost  abso- 
lute sinlessness  was  for  the  Egyptian  the  condition  of  becoming  another  Osiris  and 
enjoying  eternal  happiness.  Of  the  penitential  side,  so  highly  developed  in  the  ancient 
Babylonians  and  Hebrews,  which  gave  rise  to  so  many  admirable  penitential  psalms, 
we  find  only  a  trace  among  the  Egyptians.  Sinlessness  is  the  rule, —the  deceased 
vaunts  himself  as  a  hero  of  virtue."  See  Uarda,  by  Ebers ;  Dr.  Howard  Osgood,  on 
Resurrection  among  the  Egyptians,  in  Hebrew  Student,  Feb.  1885.  The  Egyptians, 
however,  recognized  no  transmigration  of  souls;  see  Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
181-184. 

It  is  morally  impossible  that  Moses  should  not  have  known  the  Egyptian  doctrine  of 
immortality :  Acts  7 :  22  —  "  And  Moses  was  instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians."  That  Moses  did 
not  make  the  doctrine  more  prominent  in  his  teachings,  may  be  for  the  reason  that  it 
was  so  connected  with  Egyptian  superstitions  with  regard  to  Osiris.  Yet  the  Jews 
believed  in  immortality  :  Gen.  5 :  24  —  "  and  Enoch  walked  with  God  :  and  he  was  not ;  for  Gud  took  him  " ; 


996        ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

cf.  Heb.  11 : 5  —  "By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see  death  "  ;  2  Kings  2 :  11  —  "Elijah  went  up  by 
a  whirlwind  into  heaven  "  ;  1  Sam.  28 :  7-14  —  the  invocation  of  Samuel  by  the  woman  of  Endor ; 
cf.  lev.  20 : 27 —  "A  man  also  or  a  woman  that  hath  a  familiar  spirit,  or  that  is  a  wizard,  shall  surely  be  pat  to 
death"  ;  Dent.  18  :  10, 11 —  "There  shall  not  be  found  with  thee  ....  a  consulter  with  a  familiar  spirit,  or  a  wizard' 
or  a  necromancer." 

Job  19 :  25-27  —  "I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  And  at  last  he  will  stand  up  upon  the  earth :  And  after  my  skin, 
even  this  body,  is  destroyed,  Then  without  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God  ;  Whom  I,  even  I,  shall  see,  on  my  side,  And  mine 
eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  as  a  stranger.  My  heart  is  consumed  within  me  "  ;  Ps.  16 : 9-11  —  "  Therefore  my  heart  is 
glad,  and  my  glory  rejoiceth :  My  flesh  also  shall  dwell  in  safety.  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol ;  Neither 
wilt  thou  suffer  thy  holy  one  to  see  corruption.  Thou  wilt  show  me  the  path  of  life :  In  thy  presence  is  fulness  of  joy ; 
In  thy  right  hand  there  are  pleasures  for  evermore";  Is.  26:19 — "Thy  dead  shalt  live;  my  dead  bodies  shall  arise. 
Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  forth  the  dead ' ' ; 
Ez.  37 : 1-14  —  the  valley  of  dry  bones  —  "I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  com6  up  out  of  your 
graves,  0  my  people " — a  prophecy  of  restoration  based  upon  the  idea  of  immortality  and 
resurrection  ;  Dan.  12 : 2,  3, 13  —  "  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they  that  are  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the 
firmament,  and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever.  ....  But  go  thou  thy  way  till  the 
end  be  :  for  thou  shalt  rest,  and  shalt  stand  in  thy  lot,  at  the  end  of  the  days." 

Josephus,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  in  Antiquities,  xvui :  1 :  3,  and  Wars  of 
the  Jews,  n  :  8 :  10-14 —  "  Souls  have  an  immortal  vigor.  Under  the  earth  are  rewards 
and  punishments.  The  wicked  are  detained  in  an  everlasting  prison.  The  righteous 
shall  have  power  to  revive  and  live  again.  Bodies  are  indeed  corruptible,  but  souls 
remain  exempt  from  death  forever.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees  is  that  souls 
die  with  their  bodies."  Mat.  22:  31,  32  —  "But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that 
which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob? 
God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living." 

Christ's  argument,  in  the  passage  last  quoted,  rests  upon  the  two  implied  assump- 
tions: first,  that  love  will  never  suffer  the  object  of  its  affection  to  die;  beings  who  have 
ever  been  the  objects  of  God's  love  will  be  so  forever ;  secondly,  that  body  and  soul 
belong  normally  together ;  if  body  and  soul  are  temporarily  separated,  they  shall  be 
united;  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  living,  and  therefore  they  shall  rise  again.  It 
was  only  an  application  of  the  same  principle,  when  Robert  Hall  gave  up  his  early 
materialism  as  he  looked  down  into  his  father's  grave  :  he  felt  that  this  could  not  be 
the  end  ;  cf.  Ps.  22 :  26  —  "  Your  heart  shall  live  forever."  Acts  23  : 6  —  "I  am  a  Pharisee,  a  son  of  Pharisees  : 
touching  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am  called  in  question";  26:7,8  — "And  concerning  this  hope  I  am 
accused  by  the  Jews,  0  king !  Why  is  it  judged  incredible  with  you,  if  God  doth  raise  the  dead  ?  "  Heb.  11 :  13-16  4- 
the  present  life  was  reckoned  as  a  pilgrimage  ;  the  patriarchs  sought  "a  better  country,  that 
is,  a  heavenly"  ;  cf.  Gen.  47:9.  On  Jesus'  argument  for  the  resurrection,  see  A.  H.  Strong, 
Christ  in  Creation,  406-421. 

The  argument  for  immortality  itself  presupposes,  not  only  the  existence  of  a  God, 
but  the  existence  of  a  truthful,  wise,  and  benevolent  God.  We  might  almost  say  that 
God  and  immortality  must  be  proved  together,  —  like  two  pieces  of  a  broken  crock, 
when  put  together  there  is  proof  of  both.  And  yet  logically  it  is  only  the  existence 
of  God  that  is  intuitively  certain.  Immortality  is  an  inference  therefrom.  Henry 
More:  "But  souls  that  of  his  own  good  life  partake  He  loves  as  his  own  self;  dear  as  his 
eye  They  are  to  him :  he  '11  never  them  forsake ;  When  they  shall  die,  then  God  himself 
shall  die ;  They  live,  they  live  in  blest  eternity."  God  could  not  let  Christ  die,  and  he 
cannot  let  us  die.  Southey:  "They  sin  who  tell  us  love  can  die.  With  life  all  other 
passions  fly ;  All  others  are  but  vanity.  In  heaven  ambition  cannot  dwell,  Nor  avarice 
in  the  vaults  of  hell ;  They  perish  where  they  had  their  birth ;  But  love  is  indestruc- 
tible." 

Emerson,  Threnody  on  the  death  of  his  beloved  and  gifted  child  :  "  What  is  excellent, 
As  God  lives,  is  permanent :  Hearts  are  dust,  hearts'  loves  remain  ;  Heart's  love  will 
meet  thee  again."  Whittier,  Snowbound,  200  sq.—  "  Yet  Love  will  dream,  and  Faith  will 
trust  (  Since  He  who  knows  our  need  is  just ),  That  somehow,  somewhere,  meet  we  must. 
Alas  for  him  who  never  sees  The  stars  shine  through  his  cypress  trees  !  Who  hopeless  lays 
his  dead  away,  Nor  looks  to  see  the  breaking  day  Across  his  mournful  marbles  play  I 
Who  hath  not  learned,  in  hours  of  faith,  The  truth  to  flesh  and  sense  unknown,  That  Life 
is  ever  lord  of  death,  And  Love  can  never  lose  its  own."  Robert  Browning,  Evelyn 
Hope  :  "  For  God  above  Is  great  to  grant  as  mighty  to  make,  And  creates  the  love  to 
reward  the  love ;  I  claim  you  still  for  my  own  love's  sake  1  Delayed  it  may  be  for  more 
lives  yet.  Through  worlds  I  shall  traverse  not  a  few ;  Much  is  to  learu  and  much  to  for- 
get, Ere  the  time  be  come  for  taking  you." 


PHYSICAL  DEATH.  997 

The  river  St.  John  in  New  Brunswick  descends  seventeen  feet  between  the  city  and 
the  sea,  and  shirs  cannot  overcome  the  obstacle,  but  when  the  tide  comes  in,  it  turns 
the  current  the  other  way  and  bears  vessels  on  mightily  to  the  city.  So  the  laws  of 
nature  bring  death,  but  the  tides  of  Christ's  life  counteract  them,  and  bring- life  and 
immortality  (Dr.  J.  W.  A.  Stewart).  Mozley,  Lectures,  20-59,  and  Essays,  2:169  — 
"  True  religion  among  the  Jews  had  an  evidence  of  immortality  in  its  possession  of 
God.  Paganism  was  hopeless  in  its  loss  of  friends,  because  affection  never  advanced 
beyond  its  earthly  object,  and  therefore,  in  losing  it,  lost  all.  But  religious  love,  which 
loves  the  creature  in  the  Creator,  has  that  on  which  to  fall  back,  when  its  earthly 
object  is  removed." 

(  h  )  The  most  impressive  and  conclusive  of  all  proofs  of  immortality, 
however,  is  afforded  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  —  a  work  accom- 
plished by  his  own  power,  and  demonstrating  that  the  spirit  lived  after  its 
.reparation  from  the  body  (  John  2  :  19,  21 ;  10  :  17,  18  ).  By  coming  back 
from  the  tomb,  he  proves  that  death  is  not  annihilation  (  2  Tim.  1  :  10). 

John  2 :  19,  21  —  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  -will  raise  it  up 

But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body  "  ;  10  :  17,  18  —  "  Therefore  doth  the  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life, 

that  I  may  take  it  again I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again  "  ;  2  Tim.  1 :  10  — 

"  our  Savior  Christ  Jesus,  who  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel "  —  that 
is,  immortality  had  been  a  truth  dimly  recognized,  suspected,  longed  for,  before  Christ 
came;  but  it  was  he  who  first  brought  it  out  from  obscurity  and  uncertainty  iniucl.  lar 
daylight  and  convincing  power.  Christ's  resurrection,  moreover,  carries  with  it  the 
r<  suit  ection  of  his  people :  "  We  two  are  so  joined,  He'll  not  be  in  glory  and  leave  me 
behind." 

Christ  taught  immortality:  (1)  By  exhibiting  himself  the  perfect  conception  of  a 
human  life.  Who  could  believe  that  Christ  could  become  forever  extinct?  (2)  By 
actually  coming  back  from  beyond  the  grave.  There  were  many  speculations  about  a 
trans- Atlantic  continent  i»  fore  !  192,  but  these  were  of  little  worth  compared  with  the 
actual  word  which  Columbus  brought  of  a  new  world  beyond  the  sea.  (3)  By  provid- 
ing a  way  through  which  his  own  spiritual  life  and  victory  may  he  ours ;  so  that, 
though  we  pass  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  we  may  fear  no  evil.  (  4) 
By  thus  gaining  authority  to  teach  us  of  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  and  of  the 
wicked,  as  he  actually  does.  Christ's  resurrection  is  not  only  the  best  proof  of  immor- 
tality, but  we  have  no  certain  evidence  of  immortality  without  it.  Hume  held  that  the 
same  lojric  which  proved  immortality  from  reason  alone,  would  also  prove  preexist. 
ence.  "In  reality,"  he  said,  "it  is  the  Gospel,  and  the  Gospel  alone,  that  has  brought 
Immortality  to  light."    It  was  truth,  though  possibly  spoken  in  jest. 

There  was  need  of  this  revelation.  The  fear  of  death,  even  after  Christ  has  come, 
shows  how  hopeless  humanity  is  by  nature.  Krupp,  the  great  German  maker  of  can- 
non, would  not  have  death  mentioned  in  his  establishment.  He  rau  away  from  his  own 
dying  relatives.  Vet  he  died.  Hut  to  the  Christian,  death  is  an  exodus,  an  unmoor- 
injj-,  a  home-coming.  Here  we  are  as  ships  on  the  stocks;  at  death  we  are  launched 
into  our  true  clement.  Before  Christ's  resurrection,  it  was  twilight;  it  is  sunrise 
now.  'Balfour:  "  Death  is  the  fall  of  the  curtain,  not  at  the  end  of  the  piece,  but 
at  the  end  of  the  act."  George  Dana  Doardman  :  "  Christ  is  the  resurrection  and  the 
life.  Being  himself  the  Son  of  man  —  the  archet ypal  man,  the  representative  of  human 
nature,  the  head  and  epitome  of  mankind  — mankind  ideally,  potentially,  virtually 
rose,  when  the  Son  of  man  rose.  He  is  the  resurrection,  because  he  is  the  life.  The 
body  does  not  give  life  to  itself,  but  life  takes  on  body  and  uses  it." 

George  Adam  Smith,  Yale  Lectures:  "Some  of  the  Psalmists  have  only  a  hope  of 
corporate  immortality.  But  this  was  found  wanting.  It  did  not  satisfy  Israel.  It  can- 
not satisfy  men  to-day.  The  O.  T.  is  of  use  in  reminding  us  that  the  hope  of  immortality 
is  a  secondary,  subordinate,  and  dispensable  element  of  religious  experience.  Men  had 
better  begin  and  work  for  God's  sake,  and  not  for  future  reward.  The  O.  T.  develop- 
ment of  immortality  is  of  use  most  of  all  because  it  deduces  all  immortality  from 
God."  Athanasius:  "Man  is,  according  to  nature,  mortal,  as  a  being  who  has 
been  made  of  things  that  are  perishable.  But  on  account  of  his  likeness  to  God 
he  can  by  piety  ward  off  and  escape  from  his  natural  mortality  and  remain  indes- 
tructible if  he  retain  the  knowledge  of  God,  or  lose  his  incorruptibility  if  he 
lose  his  life  in  God"  (quoted  in  McConnell,  Evolution  of  Immortality,  viii,  46-48). 
Justin  Martyr,  1  Apol.,  17,  expects  resurrection  of  both  just  and  unjust;  but  in  Dial. 


998         ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Tryph.,  5,  he  expressly  denounces  and  dismisses  the  Platonic  doctrine  that  the  soul  is 
immortal.  Athenagoras  and  Tertullian  hold  to  native  immortality,  and  from  it  argue 
to  bodily  resurrection.  So  Augustine.  But  Theophilus,  Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  with  Athanasius,  counted  it  a  pagan  error.  For  the  annihilation  theory,  see 
Hudson,  Debt  and  Grace,  and  Christ  our  'Life ;  also  Dobney,  Future  Punishment.  Per 
contra,  see  Hovey,  State  of  the  Impenitent  Dead,  1-27,  and  Manual  of  Theology  and 
Ethics,  153-168;  Luthardt,  Compendium,  289-292;  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psych.,  397-407 ;  Herzog, 
Encyclop.,  art. :  Tod  ;  Splittgerber,  Schlaf  und  Tod ;  Estes,  Christian  Doctrine  of  the 
Soul;  Baptist  Review,  1879:411-439;  Presb.  Rev.,  Jan.  1882:  203. 

II.     The  Intermediate  State. 

The  Scriptures  affirm  the  conscious  existence  of  both  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked,  after  death,  and  prior  to  the  resurrection.  In  the  intermediate 
state  the  soul  is  without  a  body,  yet  this  state  is  for  the  righteous  a  state 
of  conscious  joy,  and  for  the  wicked  a  state  of  conscious  suffering. 

That  the  righteous  do  not  receive  the  spiritual  body  at  death,  is  plain 
from  1  Thess.  4:16,  17  and  1  Cor.  15  :  52,  where  an  interval  is  intimated 
between  Paul's  time  and  the  rising  of  those  who  slept.  The  rising  was  to 
occur  in  the  future,  "at  the  last  trump."  So  the  resurrection  of  the 
wicked  had  not  yet  occurred  in  any  single  case  (  2  Tim.  2  :  18  —  it  was  an 
error  to  say  that  the  resurrection  was  "past  already  "  )  ;  it  was  yet  future 
(John  5:28-30  —  "the  hour  cometh  "  —  eft%£Tiu  upa,  not  nal  vvv  eariv — 
"  now  is,"  as  in  verse  25  ;  Acts  24  :  15  —  "  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  "  — 
avdaraaiv  h&Heiv  eaeodai ) .  Christ  was  the  firstfruits  ( 1  Cor.  15  :  20,  23 ).  If 
the  saints  had  received  the  spiritual  body  at  death,  the  patriarchs  would 
have  been  raised  before  Christ. 

1.     Of  the  righteous,  it  is  declared  : 

(a)  That  the  soul  of  the  believer,  at  its  separation  from  the  body, 
enters  the  presence  of  Christ. 

2  Cor.  5 : 1-8 —  "  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle  be  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  from  God,  a  house  not  made 
•with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens.  For  verily  in  this  we  groan,  longing  to  be  clotkad  upon  with  our  habitation  which 
is  from  heaven :  if  so  be  that  being  clothed  we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For  indeed  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do 
groan,  being  burdened ;  not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  that  we  would  be  clothed  upon,  that  what  is  mortal 
may  be  swallowed  up  of  life.  .  .  .  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  at  home  with  the  Lord"  — 
Paul  hopes  to  escape  the  violent  separation  of  soul  and  body  —  the  being  "unclothed"  — 
by  living  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  then  putting  on  the  heavenly  body,  as  it  were, 
over  the  present  one  (  ZirevSvo-ao-dai.) ;  yet  whether  he  lived  till  Christ's  coming  or  not, 
he  knew  that  the  soul,  when  it  left  the  body,  would  be  at  home  with  the  Lord. 

Luke  23 :  43  —  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise  "  ;  John  14 : 3  —  "And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you, 
I  come  again,  and  willreceive  you  unto  myself;  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also"  ;  2  Tim.  4:18 —  "The  Lord 
will  deliver  me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  save  me  unto  [or,  'into']  his  heavenly  kingdom"  —  will  save  me 
and  put  me  into  his  heavenly  kingdom  (Ellicott),  the  characteristic  of  which  is  the 
visible  presence  of  the  King  with  his  subjects.  It  is  our  privilege  to  be  with  Christ 
here  and  now.  And  nothing  shall  separate  us  from  Christ  and  his  love,  "  neither  death,  nor 
life  ....  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come  "  ( Rom.  8 :  38 ) ;  for  he  himself  has  said  :  "  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  unto  the  consummation  of  the  age  "  ( Mat.  28 :  20 ). 

(  b )  That  the  spirits  of  departed  believers  are  with  God. 

Heb.  12:  23  —  Ye  are  come  "to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven, 
and  to  God  the  Judge  of  all "  ;  cf.  Eccl.  12 :  7  —  "  the  dust  returneth  to  the  earth  as  it  was.  and  the  spirit  retnrneth  unto 
God  who  gave  it";  John  20: 17  —  "  Touch  me  not ;  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father"— probably  means  : 
"my  body  has  not  yet  ascended."  The  soul  had  gone  to  God  during:  the  interval 
between  death  and  the  resurrection,  as  is  evident  from  Luke  23: 43,  46  —  "  with  me  in  Paradise 
....  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 

(  c )  That  believers  at  death  enter  paradise. 


THE    INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  999 

Lake  23 :  42,  43  —  "  And  he  said,  Jesus,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom.  And  he  said  unto  him, 
Eerily  I  say  onto  thee,  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise";  cf.2  Cor.l2:4 — "caught  up  into  Paradise,  and 
heard  unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  man  to  utter";  Rev.  2  :  7  —  "To  him  that  overcometh,  to  him 
will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  Life,  which  is  in  the  Paradise  of  God  "  ;  Gen.  2:8  —  "And  Jehovah  God  planted  a  gar- 
den eastward,  iu  Eden;  and  there  he  put  the  man  whom  he  had  formed."  Paradise  is  none  other  than  the 
abode  of  God  and  the  blessed,  of  which  the  primeval  Eden  was  the  type.  If  the  peni- 
tent thief  went  to  Purgatory,  it  was  a  Purgatory  with  Christ,  which  was  better  than  a 
Heaven  without  Christ.  Paradise  is  a  place  which  Christ  has  gone  to  prepare,  perhaps 
by  taking  our  friends  there  before  us. 

(  d  )  That  their  state,  inirnediately  after  death,  is  greatly  to  be  preferred 
tc  that  of  faithful  aud  successful  laborers  for  Christ  here. 

Phil.  1 :  23  —  "  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  the  two,  having  the  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ ;  for  it  is  very  far 
bewV  —  here  Hackettsays :  "ai'aAG<rai=  departing,  cut t  my  loose,  as  if  to  put  to  sea,  fol- 
lowed ty  <tvv  Xptarw  etvai,  as  if  Paul  regarded  one  event  as  immediately  subsequent  to 
the  other."  Paul,  with  his  burning  desire  to  preach  Christ,  would  certainly:  have  pre- 
ferred to  live  aud  labor,  even  amid  great  suffering,  rather  than  to  die,  if  death  to  him 
had  been  a  state  of  unconsciousness  and  inaction.  See  Edwards  the  younger,  Works, 
2 :530,  531 ;  Hovcy,  Impenitent  Dead,  61. 

(  e  )  That  departed  saints  are  truly  alive  and  conscious. 

Mat.  22:32— "God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living";  Luke  16 :  22  —  "  carried  away  by  the  angels  into 
Abraham's  bosom "  ;  23:43  —  " To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise"  —  "with  me"  =  in  the  same  state, 
—  unless  Christ  slept  in  unconsciousness,  we  cannot  think  that  the  penitent  thief  did; 
John  11:26 — "whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  on  me  shall  never  die";  1  Thess.  5 :  10 — "who  died  for  us,  that, 
whether  we  wake  or  sleep,  we  should  live  together  with  him  "  ;  Rom.  8 :  10  —  "And  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is 
dead  because  of  sin;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness."  Life  and  consciousness  Clearly 
belong  to  the  "  souls  under  the  altar"  mentioned  under  the  next  head,  for  they  cry:  "How 
long?"  PhiLl:6  —  "  he  who  began  a  good  work  in  you  will  perfsct  it  until  the  day  of  Jcsus^hrist"  —seems  to 
imply  a  progressive  sanctiflcation,  through  the  Intermediate  State,  up  to  the  time  of 
Christ's  second  coming.  This  state  in  :  1.  a  conscious  state  (  "God  of  the  living"  ) ;  2.  a  fixed 
state  ( no  "passing  from  thence" ) ;  3.  an  incomplete  state  (  "  not  to  be  unclothed"  ). 

(/)   That  they  are  at  rest  and  blessed. 

Rev.  6  :  9-11 — "I  saw  underneath  the  altar  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  slain  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the 
testimony  which  they  held .  and  they  cried  with  a  great  voice,  saying,  How  long,  0  Master,  the  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not 
judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  th^m  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  And  there  was  given  them  to  each  one  a  white  robe ;  and 
it  was  said  unto  them,  that  they  should  rest  yet  for  a  little  time,  until  their  fellow-servants  also  and  their  brethren,  who 
should  be  killed  even  as  they  were,  should  have  fulfilled  their  co'-irse  "  ;  14:  13 —"Blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the 
Lord  from  henceforth :  yea,  sai'.h  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors ;  for  their  works  follow  with 
them"  ;  20  :  14— "And  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire"  —  see  Evans,  in  Presb.  Rev.,  1883: 
303  — "  The  shadow  of  death  lying  upon  Hades  is  the  penumbra  of  Hell.  Hence  Hades 
is  associated  with  death  in  the  final  doom. " 

2.     Of  the  wicked,  it  is  declared  : 

(a)  That  they  are  in  prison, — that  is,  are  under  constraint  and  guard 
(  1  Peter  3:19  —  (pv?MKT/ ). 

1  Pet.  3 :  19  — "In  which  [  spirit  ]  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison  "  —  there  is  no  need 
of  putting  unconscious  spirits  under  guard.  Hovey  :  "  Restraint  implies  power  of 
action,  and  suffering  implies  consciousness." 

(6)  That  they  are  in  torment,  or  conscious  suffering  (Luke  16:23  — 
kv  j3a.oa.voig), 

Luke  16 :  23  — "  And  in  Hades  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments,  and  seeth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his 
bosom.  And  he  cried  and  said,  Father  Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his 
finger  in  water,  and  cool  my  tongue ;  for  I  am  in  anguish  in  this  flame." 

Here  many  unanswerable  questions  may  be  asked :  Had  the  rich  man  a  body  before 
the  resurrection,  or  is  this  representation  of  a  body  only  figurative  ?  Did  the  soul  still 
feel  the  body  from  which  it  was  temporarily  separated,  or  have  souls  in  the  interme- 
diate state  temporary  bodies  ?  However  we  may  answer  these  questions,  it  is  certain 


1000     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

that  the  rich  man  suffers,  while  probation  still  lasts  for  his  brethren  on  earth.  Fire  is 
here  the  source  of  suffering,  but  not  of  annihilation.  Even  though  this  be  a  parable,  it 
proves  conscious  existence  after  death  to  have  been  the  common  view  of  the  Jews,  and 
to  have  been  a  view  sanctioned  by  Christ. 

(  c  )    That  they  are  under  punishment  (  2  Pet.  2:9  —  nola^ofihovr ). 

2  Pet.  2: 9 — "the  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptation,  and  to  keep  the  unrighteous  under  punish- 
ment unto  the  day  of  judgment"  —  here  "  the  unrighteous  "  =  not  only  evil  angels,  but  ungodly  men  ;  of. 
verse  4 — "For  if  God  spared  not  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  committed  them  to  pits  of 
darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment." 

In  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  the  body  is  buried,  yet  still  the  tor- 
ments of  the  soul  are  described  as  physical.  Jesus  here  accommodates  his  teaching' to  the 
conceptions  of  his  time,  or,  better  still,  uses  material  figures  to  express  spiritual  reali- 
ties. Surely  he  does  not  mean  to  say  that  the  Rabbinic  notion  of  Abraham's  bosom  is 
ultimate  truth.  "  Parables,  "  for  this  reason  among  others,  "  may  not  be  made  primary 
sources  and  seats  of  doctrine.  "  Luckock,  Intermediate  State,  20  — "  May  the  parable 
of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  be  an  anticipatory  picture  of  the  final  state  ?  But  the  rich 
man  seems  to  assume  that  the  judgment  has  not  yet  come,  for  he  speaks  of  his  brethren 
as  still  undergoing  their  earthly  probation,  and  as  capable  of  receiving  a  warning  to 
avoid  a  fate  similar  to  his  own. " 

The  passages  cited  enable  us  properly  to  estimate  two  opposite  errors. 

A.  They  refute,  on  the  one  hand,  the  view  that  the  souls  of  both  right- 
eous and  wicked  sleep  between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

This  view  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  possession  of  a  physical 
organism  is  indispensable  to  activity  and  consciousness  —  an  assumption 
which  the  existence  of  a  God  who  is  piu-e  spirit  ( John  4  :  24  ),  and  the 
existence  of  angels  who  are  probably  pure  spirits  (Heb.  1  :  14 ),  show  to  be 
erroneous.  Although  the  departed  are  characterized  as  *  spirits '  ( Eccl.  12  : 
7  ;  Acts  7  :59  ;  Heb.  12  :  23  ;  1  Pet.  3  :  19  ),  there  is  nothing  in  this  '  absence 
from  the  body  '  (  2  Cor.  5:8)  inconsistent  with  the  activity  and  conscious- 
ness ascribed  to  them  in  the  Scriptures  above  referred  to.  When  the  dead 
are  spoken  of  as  «  sleeping  '  (  Dan.  12  :2  ;  Mat.  9  :  24  ;  John  11  :  11 ;  1  Cor. 
11  :  30  ;  15  :  51 ;  1  Thess.  4  :  11 ;  5  :  10  ),  we  are  to  regard  this  as  simply  the 
language  of  appearance,  and  as  literally  applicable  only  to  the  body. 

John  4 :  24  — "  God  is  a  Spirit  [  or  rather,  as  margin,  'God  is  spirit']"  ;  Heb.  1 :  14— "  Are  they  [angels  ] 
not  all  ministering  spirits  ?  "  Eccl.  12:7  — "the  dust  returnath  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  returneth  unto 
God  who  gave  it"  ;  Acts  7:59 — "And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  the  Lord,  and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit"  ;  Heb.  12:23  —"to  God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect"  ;  1  Pot.  3:19 — "in  which 
also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison";  2  Cor.  5:8— "we  are  of  good  courage,  I  say,  and  are  willing  rather 
to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  at  home  with  the  Lord  "  ;  Dan.  12 : 2  — "many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 
earth  shall  awake  "  ;  Mat.  9: 24  — "  the  damsel  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth  "  ;  John  11 :  11  — "Our  friend  Lazarus  is  fallen 
asleep ;  but  I  go,  that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep  "  ;  1  Cor.  11 :  30  — "  For  this  cause  many  among  you  are  weak  and 
sickly,  and  not  a  few  sleep  "  ;  1  Thess.  4 :  14  — "For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so  them  also  that 
are  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him"  ;  5:10  —"who  died  for  us,  that,  whether  we  wake  or  sleep,  we  should 
live  together  with  him." 

B.  The  passages  first  cited  refute,  on  the  other  hand,  the  view  that  the 
suffering  of  the  intermediate  state  is  purgatorial. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  "all  who  die 
at  peace  with  the  church,  but  are  not  perfect,  pass  into  purgatory."  Here 
they  make  satisfaction  for  the  sins  committed  after  baptism  by  suffering  a 
longer  or  shorter  time,  according  to  the  degree  of  their  guilt.  The  church 
on  earth,  however,  has  power,  by  prayers  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  to 
shorten  these  sufferings  or  to  remit  them  altogether.  But  we  urge,  in 
reply,  that  the  passages  referring  to  suffering  in  the  intermediate  state  give 


THE    INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  1001 

no  indication  that  any  true  believer  is  subject  to  this  suffering,  or  that  the 
church  has  any  power  to  relieve  from  the  consequences  of  sin,  either  in  this 
world  or  in  the  world  to  come.  Only  God  can  forgive,  and  the  church  is 
simply  empowered  to  declare  that,  upon  the  fulfilment  of  the  appointed 
conditions  of  repentance  and  faith,  he  does  actually  forgive.  This  theory, 
moreover,  is  inconsistent  with  any  proper  view  of  the  completeness  of 
Christ's  satisfaction  ( Gal.  2  :  21  ;  Heb.  9  :  28 )  ;  of  justification  through  faith 
alonU  (Rom.  3  :  28 )  ;  and  of  the  condition  after  death,  of  both  righteous 
and  wicked,  as  determined  in  this  life  (  Eccl.  11  :  3  ;  Mat.  25  :  10  ;  Luke  16  : 
26;Heb.-»:27;  Rev.  22:11). 

Against  this  doctrine  we  quote  the  following1  texts :  Gal.  2 :  21  — "I  do  not  make  void  the  grace 
of  God :  for  if  righteousness  is  through  the  law,  then  Christ  died  for  nought "  ;  Heb.  9  :  28  — "so  Christ  also,  having 
been  once  [  or,  'once  for  all'  ]  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  tha 
wait  for  him,  unto  salvation  "  ;  Rom.  3 :  28  —  "We  reckon  therefore  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  the 
works  of  the  law  "  ;  Eccl.  11 :  3  — "  if  a  tree  fall  toward  the  south  or  toward  the  north,  in  the  place  where  the  tree  falleth 
there  shall  it  be  "  ;  Mat.  25 :  iO  — "  And  while  they  went  away  tc  buy,  the  bridegroom  came ;  and  they  that  were  ready 
went  in  with  him  to  the  marriage  feast :  and  the  door  was  shut "  ;  Luke  16 :  26  — "And  besides  all  this,  between  us  and 
you  there  is  a  great  gulf  filed,  that  they  that  would  pass  from  hence  to  you  may  not  be  able,  and  that  none  may  cross 
ovar  from  thence  to  us  "  ;  Heb.  9:27 — "it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  this  cometh  judgment"  ;  Rev. 
22: 11  — "He  that  is  u  /-.righteous,  let  him  do  unrght"ousness  still:  and  he  that  is  filthy,  let  him  be  made  filthy  still:  and 
he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  do  righteousness  still :  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be  made  holy  still. " 

Rome  teaches  that  t  he  agonies  of  purgatory  are  intolerable.  They  differ  from  the  pains 
of  the  damned  only  in  this,  that  there  is  a  limit  to  the  one,  not  the  other.  Bellarmine,  l)e 
Purgatorio,  2  :  14—"  The  pains  of  purgal  ory  are  very  severe,  surpassing  any  endured  in 
this  life.  "  Since  none  hut  actual  saints  escape  the  pains  of  purgatory,  this  doctrine 
gives  to  the  death  and  the  funeral  of  the  Roman  Catholic  a  dreadful  and  repellent 
aspect.  i>  al  li  is  not  t  he  coming  of  Christ  to  take  his  disciples  home,  but  is  rather  the 
ushering  of  the  shrinking  soul  into  a  place  of  unspeakable  suffering.  This  suffering 
makes  satisfaction  for  guilt.  Having  paid  their  allot  ted  penalty,  the  souls  of  the  purified 
pass  into  Heaven  without  awaiting  the  day  of  judgment.  The  doctrine  of  purgatory 
gives  hope  that  men  may  be  saved  alter  death  ;  prayer  for  the  dead  has  influence;  the 
priest  is  authorized  to  offer  this  prayer;  so  the  church  sells  salvation  for  money. 
Amory  H.  Bradford,  Ascent  of  the  Soul,  267-387,  argues  in  favor  of  prayers  for  the  dead. 
Such  prayers,  he  says,  help  us  to  keep  in  mind  the  fact  that  they  are  living  still.  If 
the  dead  are  tree  beings,  they  may  still  choose  good  or  evil,  and  our  prayers  may  help 
them  to  choose  the  good.  We  should  he  thankful,  he  believes,  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  lor  keeping  up  such  prayers.  We  reply  that  no  doctrine  of  Rome  has  done  so 
much  to  pervert  the  gospel  and  to  enslave  the  world. 

For  the  Romanist  doctrine,  see  Perrone,  Pntlectiones  Theologicae,  2:391-420.  Per 
contra,  see  Bodge,  Systematic  Theology,  3 :  743-770 ;  Barrows,  Purgatory.  Augustine, 
Encheiridion,  69,  suggests  the  possibility  of  purgatorial  fire  in  the  future  for  some 
believers.  Whiton,  Is  Eternal  Punishment  Endless  '/"page  69,  says  that  Tertulliau  held 
to  a  delay  of  resurrection  in  the  case  of  faulty  Christians  ;  Cyprian  first  stated  the  notion 
of  a  middle  state  of  purification  ;  Augustine  thought  it  "  not  incredible  "  ;  Gregory  the 
Great  called  it  "  worthy  of  belief  "  ;  it  is  now  one  of  the  most  potent  doctrines  of  the 
lioman  Catholic  Church  ;  that  church  has  been,  from  the  third  century,  for  all  souls 
who  accept  her  last  consolations,  practically  restorationist.  Gore,  Incarnation,  18  — 
"In  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  '  peradventure '  of  an  Augustine  as  to  purgatory  for 
the  imperfect  after  death— 'non  redarguo',  he  says,  'quia  forsitan  verum  est,'  — has 
become  a  positive  teaching  about  purgatory,  full  of  exact  information." 

Elliott,  Hora?  Apocalypticoe,  1 :  410,  adopts  Hume's  simile,  and  says  that  purgatory 
gave  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  what  Archimedes  wanted,  another  world  on  which 
to  fix  its  lever,  that  so  fixed,  the  church  might  with  it  move  this  world.  We  must 
remember,  however,  that  the  Roman  church  teaches  no  radical  change  of  character  in 
purgatory,  —  purgatory  is  only  a  purifying  process  for  believers.  The  true  purgatory 
is  only  in  this  world,  — for  only  here  are  sins  purged  away  by  God's  sanctifying  Spirit ; 
and  in  this  process  of  purification,  though  God  chastises,  there  is  no  element  of  penalty. 
On  Dante's  Purgatory,  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  515-518. 


1002     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

Luckoqk,  After  Death,  is  an  argument,  based  upon  the  Fathers,  against  the  Romanist 
doctrine.  Yet  he  holds  to  progress  in.  sanctification  in  the  intermediate  state,  though 
the  work  done  in  that  state  will  not  affect  the  final  judgment,  which  will  be  for  the 
deeds  done  in  the  body.  He  urges  prayer  for  the  departed  righteous.  In  his  book 
entitled  The  Intermediate  State,  Luckock  holds  to  mental  and  spiritual  development  in 
that  state,  to  active  ministry,  mutual  recognition,  and  renewed  companionship.  He 
does  not  believe  in  a  second  probation,  but  in  a  first  real  probation  for  those  who  have 
had  no  proper  opportunities  in  this  life.  In  their  reaction  against  purgatory,  the  West- 
minister divines  obliterated  the  Intermediate  State.  In  that  state  there  is  gradual 
purification,  and  must  be,  since  not  all  impurity  and  sinfulness  are  removed  at 
death.  The  purging  of  the  will  requires  time.  White  robes  were  given  to  them  while 
they  were  waiting  (Rev.  6:11).  But  there  is  no  second  probation  for  those  who  have 
thrown  away  their  opportunities  in  this  life.  Robert  Browning,  The  Ring  and  the 
Book,  232  ( Pope,  2129 ),  makes  the  Pope  speak  of  following  Guido  "  Into  that  sad, 
obscure,  sequestered  state  Where  God  unmakes  but  to  remake  the  soul  He  else  made 
first  in  vain  ;  which  must  not  be.  "  But  the  idea  of  hell  as  permitting  essential  change 
of  character  is  foreign  to  Roman  Catholic  doctrine. 

We  close  our  discussion  of  tins  subject  with  a  single,  but  an  important, 
remark, — this,  namely,  that  while  the  Scriptures  represent  the  intermediate 
state  to  be  one  of  conscious  joy  to  the  righteous,  and  of  conscious  pain  to 
the  wicked,  they  also  represent  this  state  to  be  one  of  incompleteness.  The 
perfect  joy  of  the  saints,  and  the  utter  misery  of  the  wicked,  begin  only 
with  the  resurrection  and  general  judgment. 

That  the  intermediate  state  is  one  of  incompleteness,  appears  from  the  following 
passages  :  Mat.  8 :  29  — "'What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Son  of  God  ?  art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  us  before 
the  time  ?  "  2  Cor.  5  :  3,  4  — "if  so  he  that  being  cluthed  we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For  indeed  we  that  are  in  this 
tabernacle  do  groan,  being  burdened ;  not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  that  w;  would  be  clothed  upon,  that  what  is 
mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of  life  "  ;  cf.  Rom.  8:23  —"And  not  only  so,  but  ourselves  also,  who  have  the  first-fruits 
of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body" ; 
Phil.  3:11 — "  if  by  any  means  I  may  attain  unto  the  resurreition  from  the  dead";  2  Pet.  2:9 — "the  Lord  knoweth 
how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptation,  and  to  keep  the  unrighteous  under  punishment  unto  the  day  of  judgment "  ; 
Rev.  6:10 — "and  they  [  the  souls  underneath  the  altar]  cried  with  a  great  voice,  saying,  How  long,  0 
Master,  the  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  " 

In  opposition  to  Locke,  Human  Understanding,  2 : 1 :  10,  who  said  that  "the  soul 
thinks  not  always  ";  and  to  Turner,  Wish  and  Will,  48,  who  declares  that  "  the  soul 
need  not  always  think,  any  more  than  the  body  always  move ;  the  essence  of  the  soul  is 
potentiality  for  activity  "  ;  Descartes,  Kant,  Jouffroy,  Sir  William  Hamilton,  all 
maintain  that  it  belongs  to  mental  existence  continuously  to  think.  Upon  this  view, 
the  intermediate  state  would  be  necessarily  a  state  of  thought.  As  to  the  nature  of 
that  thought,  Dorner  remarks  in  his  Eschatology  that  "in  this  relatively  bodiless 
state,  a  still  life  begins,  a  sinking  of  the  soul  into  itself  and  into  the  ground  of  its 
being,  —  what  Steffens  calls  'involution,'  and  Martensen  'self-brooding.'  In  this 
state,  spiritual  things  are  the  only  realities.  In  the  unbelieving,  their  impurity,  discord, 
alienation  from  God,  are  laid  bare".  If  they  still  prefer  sin,  its  form  becomes  more 
spiritual,  more  demoniacal,  and  so  ripens  for  the  judgment." 

Even  here,  Dorner  deals  in  speculation  rather  than  in  Scripture.  But  he  goes  further, 
and  regards  the  intermediate  state  as  one,  not  only  of  moral  progress,  but  of  elimina- 
tion of  evil ;  and  holds  the  end  of  probation  to  be,  not  at  death,  but  at  the  judgment,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  all  non-believers  who  are  not  incorrigible.  We  must  regard  this  as 
a  practical  revival  of  the  Romanist  theory  of  purgatory,  and  as  contradicted  not  only 
by  all  the  considerations  already  urged,  but  also  by  the  general  tenor  of  Scriptural 
representation  that  the  decisions  of  this  life  are  final,  and  that  character  is  fixed  here 
for  eternity.  This  is  the  solemnity  of  preaching,  that  the  gospel  is  "  a  savor  from  life  unto 
life, "  or  "a  savor  from  death  unto  death  "  ( 2  Cor.  2  •  16 ). 

Descartes :  "  As  the  light  always  shines  and  the  heat  always  warms,  so  the  soul 
always  thinks."  James,  Psychology,  1:164-175,  argues  against  unconscious  mental 
states.  The  states  were  conscious  at  the  time  we  had  them  ;  but  they  have  been  for- 
gotten. In  the  Unitarian  Review,  Sept.  1884,  Prof.  James  denies  that  eternity  is  given 
at  a  stroke  to  omniscience.  Lotze,  in  his  Metaphysics,  268,  in  opposition  to  Kant,  con- 
tends for  the  transcendental  validity  of  time.    Green,  on  the  contrary,  in  Prolegomena 


THE   SECOND    COMING   OF   CHRIST.  1003 

to  Ethica,  book  1,  says  that  every  act  of  knowledge  in  the  case  of  man  is  a  timeless  act. 
In  comparing  the  different  aspects  of  the  stream  of  successive  phenomena,  the  mind 
must,  he  says,  be  itself  out  of  time.  Upton,  Hibbert  Lectures,  30(5,  denies  this  timeless 
eonsciousness  even  to  God,  and  apparently  agrees  with  Martineau  in  maintaining  that 
God  does  not  foreknow  free  human  acts. 

De  Quincey  called  the  human  brain  a  palimpsest.  Each  new  writing  seems  to  blot 
out  all  that  went  before.  Yet  in  reality  not  one  letter  has  ever  been  effaced.  Loeb, 
Physiology  of  the  Brain,  213,  tells  us  that  associative  memory  is  imitated  by  machined 
like  t  ie  phonograph.  Traces  left  by  speech  can  be  reproduced  in  speech.  Loeb  calls 
memoi;-  a  matter  of  physical  chemistry.  Stout,  Manual  of  Psychology,  8  — "  Conscious- 
ness inehBk*  ijOL  only  awareness  of  our  own  states,  but  these  states  themselves 
whether  we  are  aware  of  them  or  not.  If  a  man  is  angry,  that  is  a  state  of  conscious- 
ness, even  though  he  does  not  know  that  he  is  angry.  If  he  does  know  that  he  is  angry, 
that  is  another  modification  of  consciousness,  and  not  the  same.  "  On  unconscious 
mental  action,  see  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  378-382' — "Cerebration  cannot  be  iden- 
tified with  psychical  processes.  If  it  could  be,  materialism  would  triumph.  If  the  brain 
can  do  these  things,  why  not  do  all  the  phenomena  of  consciousness?  Consciousness 
becomes  a  mere  epiphenomenon.  Unconscious  cerebration  =  wooden  iron  or  uncon- 
scious consciousness.  What  then  becomes  of  the  soul  in  its  intervals  of  unconscious- 
ness? Answer:  Unconscious  finite  minds  exist  only  in  the  World-ground  in  which  all 
minds  and  things  have  their  existence.  " 

On  the  whole  subject,  see  Hovey,  State  of  Man  after  Death  ;  Savage,  Souls  of  the 
Righteous;  Julius  Midler,  Doct.Sin,  2:  304-440  ;  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  482-48 1  ; 
Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psychologie,  407-448;  Bib.  Sac,  13:153;  Methodist  Rev.,  34:240;  Chris- 
Man  Rev.,  20  :  381 ;  Herzog,  Encyolop.,  art.  :  Hades  ;  Stuart,  Essays  on  Future  Punish- 
ment ;  Whately,  Future  State ;  Hovey,  Biblical  Eschatology,  79-144. 

III.     The  Second  Coming  of  Christ. 

While  the  Scriptures  represent  great  events  in  the  history  of  the  individ- 
ual Christian,  like  death,  and  great  events  in  the  history  of  the  church,  like 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
as  comings  of  Christ  for  deliverance  or  judgment,  they  also  declare  that 
these  partial  and  typical  comings  shall  be  concluded  by  a  final,  triumphant 
return  of  Christ,  to  punish  the  wicked  and  to  complete  the  salvation  of  his 
people. 

Temporal  comings  of  Christ  are  indicated  in  :  Mat.  24:  23,  27,  34— "Then  if  any  man  shall  say  unto 
you,  Lo,  here  is  the  Christ,  or,  Here ;  believe  it  not  ...  .  For  as  the  lightning  conieth  forth  from  tho  east,  and  is  seen 

even  unto  the  west;  so  shall  be  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall  not 

pass  away,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished"  ;  16  :  23 — "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  are  some  of  them  that  stand 
here,  who  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom  "  ;  John  14  : 3,  18  — "  And 
if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  myself;  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may 
be  also  ....  I  will  not  leave  you  desolate :  I  come  unto  you  "  ;  Rev.  3 :  20  —  "  Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock : 
if  any  man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me." 
So  the  Protestant  Reformation,  the  modern  missionary  enterprise,  the  battle  against 
papacy  in  Europe  and  against  slavery  in  this  country,  the  great  revivals  under  White- 
field  in  England  and  under  Edwards  in  America,  were  all  preliminary  and  typical 
comings  of  Christ.  It  was  a  sceptical  spirit  which  indited  the  words :  "  God's  new 
Messiah,  some  great  Cause  "  ;  yet  it  is  true  that  in  every  great  movement  of  civiliza- 
tion we  are  to  recognize  a  new  coming  of  the  one  and  only  Messiah,  "Jesus  Christ,  the  same 
yesterday  and  to-day  and  forever"  (  H«b.  13:8).  Schaff,  Hist.  Christ.  Church,  1 :  840  — "  The  com- 
ing began  with  his  ascension  to  heaven  (cf.  Mat.  26:64 — 'henceforth  [w  apri.,  from  tunc] 
ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  Power,  and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven '  )."  Matheson, 
Spir.  Devel.  of  St.  Paul,  286— "  To  Paul,  in  his  later  letters,  this  world  is  already  the 
scene  of  the  second  advent.  The  secular  is  not  to  vanish  away,  but  to  be  permanent, 
transfigured,  pervaded  by  the  divine  life.  Paul  began  with  the  Christ  of  the  resurrec- 
tion ;  he  ends  with  the  Christ  who  already  makes  all  things  new. "  See  Metcalf, 
Parousiaw.  Second  Advent,  in  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1907  :  61-65. 

The  final  coming  of  Christ  is  referred  to  in  :  Mat.  24:30 —  "they  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
on  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory.    And  he  shall  send  forth  his  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a 


1004      ESOHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

trumpet,  and  thoy  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other"  ;  25  :  31  — 
"  But  when  the  Sou  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  wi:h  h:m,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory"  ;  Acts  1 :  11  —  "Ye  nm  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye  looking  into  heaven  ?  this  Jesus,  who  was  received  up  from 
you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  beheld  him  going  into  heaven  "  ;  1  Thess.  4 :  16  —  "  For  the  Lord 
himself  shall  descend  from  heaven,  with  a  shout,  with  the  vcice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God  "  ;  2  Thess. 
1 :  7, 10  —  "the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with  the  angels  of  his  power  ....  when  he  shall  come  to  be 
glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  marvelled  at  in  all  them  that  believed  "  ;  Heb.  9  :  28  --  "  so  Christ  also,  having  been 
once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  him,  unto  salva- 
tion "  ;  Rev.  1:7  —  "Behold,  he  coineth  with  the  clouds ;  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  that  pierced  him ;  and 
all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  sliall  mourn  over  him."  Dr.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  O >m.  on  Heb.  1:6  —  *  And  when 
he  shall  conduct  back  again  into  the  inhabited  world  the  First-born,  he  saith,  And  let 
all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  "  =  in  the  glory  of  the  second  coming  Christ's 
superiority  to  angels  will  be  signally  displayed  —  a  contrast  to  the  humiliation  of  his 
first  coming. 

The  tendency  of  our  day  is  to  interpret  this  second  class  of  passages  in  a  purely  meta- 
phorical and  spiritual  way.  But  prophecy  can  have  more  than  one  fulfilment.  Jesus' 
words  are  pregnant  words.  The  present  spiritual  coining  docs  not  exhaust  their 
meaning.  His  coming  in  the  great  movements  of  history  does  not  preclude  a  final  and 
literal  coming,  in  which  "every  eye  shall  see  him"  (Rev.  1:7).  With  this  proviso,  we  may 
assent  to  much  of  the  following  quotation  from  Gould,  Bib.  Theol.  N.  T.,  44-56  — "  The 
last  things  of  which  Jesus  speaks  are  not  the  end  of  the  world,  but  of  the  age— the 

end  of  the  Jewish  period  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem After 

the  entire  statement  is-in,  including  both  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  coming 
of  the  Lord  which  is  to  follow  it,  it  is  distinctly  said  that  that  generation  was  not  to 
pass  away  until  all  these  things  are  accomplished.  According  to  this,  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man  must  be  something  other  than  a  visible  coming.  In  O.  T.  prophecy  any 
divine  interference  in  human  affairs  is  represented  under  the  figure  of  God  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven.  Mat.  26 :  64  says  :  '  From  this  time  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  seated  ....  aud 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven. '  Coming  and  judgment  are  both  continuous.  The  slow  growth 
in  the  parables  of  the  leaven  and  the  mustard  seed  contradicts  the  idea  of  Christ's  early 
coming.  'After  a  long  time  the  Lord  of  these  servants  cometh  '  (Mat.  25:19).  Christ  came  in  one  sense 
at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  in  another  sense  all  great  crises  in  the  history  of  the 
world  are  comings  of  the  Son  of  man.  These  judgments  of  the  nations  are  a  part  of 
the  process  for  the  final  setting  up  of  the  kingdom.  But  this  final  act  will  not  be  a 
judgment  process,  but  the  final  entire  submission  of  the  will  of  man  to  the  will  of  God. 
The  end  is  to  be,  not  judgment,  but  salvation.  "  We  add  to  this  statement  the  declara- 
tion that  the  final  act  here  spoken  of  will  not  be  purely  subjective  and  spiritual,  but 
will  constitute  an  external  manifestation  of  Christ  comparable  to  that  of  his  first  com- 
ing in  its  appeal  to  the  senses,  but  unspeakably  more  glorious  than  was  the  coming  to 
the  manger  and  the  cross.    The  proof  of  this  we  now  proceed  to  give. 

1.     The  nature  of  this  coming. 

Although  without  doubt  accompanied,  iu  the  case  of  the  regenerate,  by 
inward  and  invisible  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  second  advent  is  to 
be  outward  and  visible.     This  we  argue  : 

(  a  )  From  the  objects  to  be  secured  by  Christ's  return.  These  are  partly 
external  (  Bom.  8  :  21,  23  ).  Nature  and  the  body  are  both  to  be  glorified. 
These  external  changes  may  well  be  accompanied  by  a  visible  manifestation 
of  him  who  '  makes  all  things  new  '  (  Rev.  21  :  5  ). 

Rom.  8  :  10-23  — "  in  hope  that  the  creation  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of 
the  glory  of  the  children  of  God  ...  .  wa  ting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body  "  ;  Rev.  21  : 5  — 
"Behold,  I  make  all  things  new."  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  49 — "  We  must  not  con- 
found the  Paraclete  and  the  Parousia.  It  has  been  argued  that,  because  Christ  came 
in  the  person  of  the  Spirit,  the  Redeemer's  advent  iu  glory  has  already  taken  place. 
But  in  the  Paraclete  Christ  comes  spiritually  and  invisibly;  in  the  Parousia  he  comes 
bodily  and  gloriously. " 

( b )  From  the  Scriptural  comparison  of  the  mauner  of  Christ's  return 
with  the  manner  of  his  departure   (Acts   1:11)  —  see   Commentary  of 


THE   SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST.  1005 

Hackett,  in  loco  :  — "  bv  rpoxov  =  visibly,  and  in  the  air.  The  expression  is 
never  employed  to  affirm  merely  the  certainty  of  one  event  as  compared 
with  another.  The  assertion  that  the  meaning  is  simply  that,  as  Christ  had 
departed,  so  also  he  would  return,  is  contradicted  by  every  passage  in 
which  the  phrase  occurs. " 

Acts  1 :  11  —  'this  Jesus,  who  was  received  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  beheld  him 
going  into  hea /en";  cf.  Acts  7:  28 — "wouldest  thou  kill  me,  as  [  6i> Tp6noi> ~\  thou  killedst the  Egyptian  yester- 
day ?  "  Mat.  23 :  37 — "h.w  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  [  ov  rpoirov  ]  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings  "  ;  2  Tim.  3 : 8  — "  as  [  6i>  rpoizov  ]  Jannes  and  Jambres  withstood  Moses,  so  do  these  also 
withstand  the  truth."  Lyman  Abbott  refers  to  Mai  23 :  37,  and  Luke  13:35,  as  showing- that,  in 
Acts  1:11,  "in  like  manner"  means  only  "to  like  reality."  So,  he  says,  the  Jews  expected 
Elijah  to  return  in  form,  according  to  Mai.  4 : 5,  whereas  he  returned  only  in  spirit.  Jesus 
similarity  returned  at  Pentecost  in  spirit,  and  has  been  coming  again  ever  since.  The 
remark  of  Dr.  Hackett,  quoted  in  the  text  above,  is  sufficient  proof  that  this  interpre- 
tation is  wholly  unexegetical. 

(c  )  From  the  analogy  of  Christ's  first  coining.  If  this  was  a  literal  and 
visible  coming,  we  may  expect  the  second  coming  to  be  literal  and  visible 
also. 

1  Thess.  4  :16— "For  the  Lord  hims'lf  [  =>in  his  own  person  ]  shall  descend  from  heaven,  with  a  shout 
[something  beard  ],  with  the  voice  of  th>  ar-hangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God"  —see  Com.  of  Prof.  W. 
A.Stevens:  "Sodifferenl  from  Luke  17: 20,  where 'the  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation. " 
The 'shoot' is  not  necessarily  the  voice  of  Christ  himself  ( lit. 'in  a  shout, '  or  '  in  shouting '  ). 
'Voice  of  the  archangel'  and 'trump  of  God' are  appositional,  not  additional."  Rev.  1 : 7— "every  eye 
shall  see  him "  ;  as  every  ear  shall  hear  him  :  John  5  :  28,  29— "all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his 
voice  "  ;  2  Thess.  2  :  2 — "to  tho  end  that  ye  be  not  quickly  shaken  from  your  mind,  nor  yet  be  troubled  ....  as  that 
thedayofthe  Lord  is  now  present  "  —  they  may  have  "thought  that  the  first  gathering  of  the 
saints  to  Christ  was  a  quiet,  im  isible  one  — a  stealthy  advent,  like  a  thief  in  the  night" 
(  l.illie).  2John7 — "For  many  deceivers  are  gone  forth  into  the  world,  even  they  that  confess  not  that  JestiS  Cflrisi 
cometh  in  the  flesh " — here  denial  of  a  future  second  coming  of  Christ  is  declared  to  be  the 
mark  of  a  deceiver. 

Alfordand  Alexander,  in  their  Commentaries  on  Acts  1:11,  agree  with  the  view  of 
Hackett  quoted  above  Warren,  l'arousia,  (il-ii"i,  L06-114,  controverts  tins  view  and  says 
that  "  an  omnipresent  divine  being  can  come,  only  in  the  sense  of  manifestation"  He 
regards  the  porousia,  or  coming  of  Christ,  as  nothing  but  Christ's  spiritual  presence.  A 
writer  in  the  Presb.  Review,  1883:221,  replies  that  Warren's  view  is  contradicted  "by 
the  fact  that  the  apostles  often  spoke  of  the  parousia  as  an  event  yet  future,  long  after 
the  promise  of ,  the  Redeemer's  spiritual  presence  with  his  church  had  begun  to  be 
fulfilled,  and  by  tlie  fact  that  Paul  expressly  cautions  the  Thessaloniaus  against  the 
belief  that  the  parousiu  was  just  at  hand."  We  do  not  know  how  all  men  at  one  time 
can  see  a  bodily  (  'hrist ;  but  we  also  do  not  know  the  nature  of  Christ's  body.  The  day 
exists  undivided  in  many  places  at  the  same  time.  The  telephone* has  made  it  possible 
for  men  widely  separated  to  hear  the  same  voice,— it  is  equally  possible  that  all  men 
may  see  the  same  Christ  coming  to  the  clouds. 

2.     The  time  of  Christ's  coming. 

( a )  Although  Christ's  prophecy  of  this  event,  in  the  twenty-fourth  chap- 
ter of  Matthew,  so  connects  it  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  that  the 
apostles  and  the  early  Christians  seem  to  have  hoped  for  its  occurrence 
during  their  life-time,  yet  neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  definitely  taught 
when  the  end  should  be,  but  rather  declared  the  knowledge  of  it  to  be 
reserved  in  the  counsels  of  God,  that  men  might  ever  recognize  it  as 
possibly  at  hand,  and  so  might  live  in  the  attitude  of  constant  expectation. 

1  Cor.  15 :  51  — "  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed  "  ;  1  Thess.  4:17  — "  then  we  that  are  alive,  that 
are  left,  shall  together  with  them  be  caught  up  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the 
lord  "  ;  2  Tim.  4:8—"  henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  the  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous 
judge,  shall  give  to  me  at  that  day  :  and  not  only  to  me,  but  also  to  all  them  that  have  loved  his  appearing  "  ;  James 


1006      ESCHATOLOGY,    OK   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

5 :7_"Be  patient  therefore,  brethren,  until  the  coming  of  the  Lord  "  ;  1  Pet.  4:7—  "Bat  the  end  of  all  things  is  at  hand : 
be  ye  therefore  of  sound  mind,  and  be  sober  unto  prayer  "  ;  1  John  2 :  18  — "  Little  children,  it  is  the  last  hour:  and  as  ye 
heard  that  antichrist  cometh,  even  now  have  there  risen  many  antichrists;  whereby  we  know  that  it  is  the  last  hour." 

Phil.  4 :  5  —  "The  Lord  is  at  hand  (  eyyu's).  In  nothing  be  anxious"  — may  mean  "  the  Lord  is  near  " 
(in  space  ),  without  any  reference  to  the  second  coming.  The  passages  quoted  above, 
expressing  as  they  do  the  surmises  of  the  apostles  that  Christ's  coming  was  near,  while 
yet  abstaining  from  all  definite  fixing  of  the  time,  are  at  least  sufficient  proof  that 
Christ's  advent  may  not  be  near  to  our  time.  We  should  be  no  more  warranted  than 
they  were,  in  inferring  from  these  passages  alone  the  immediate  coming  of  the  Lord. 

Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2 :  349-350,  maintains  that  Jesus  expected  his  own  speedy 
second  coming  and  the  end  of  the  world.  There  was  no  mention  of  the  death  of  his  dis- 
ciples, or  the  importance  of  readiness  for  it.  No  hard  and  fast  organization  of  his  dis- 
ciples into  a  church  was  contemplated  by  him,  —  Mat.  16 :  18  and  18 :  17  are  not  authentic.  No 
separation  of  his  disciples  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Jewish  religion  was  thought  of. 
He  thought  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  the  final  judgment.  Yet  his  doctrine 
would  spread  through  the  earth,  like  leaven  aud  mustard  seed,  though  accompanied  by 
suffering  on  the  part  of  his  disciples.  This  view  of  Wendt  can  be  maintained  only  by 
an  arbitrary  throwing  out  of  the  testimony  of  the  evangelist,  upon  the  ground  that 
Jesus'  mention  of  a  church  does  not  befit  so  early  a  stage  in  the  evolution  of  Christi- 
anity. Wendt's  whole  treatment  is  vitiated  by  the  presupposition  that  there  can  be 
nothing  in  Jesus'  words  which  is  inexplicable  upon  the  theory  of  natural  development. 
That  Jesus  did  not  expect  speedily  to  return  to  earth  is  shown  in  Mat.  25  :19  —"After  a  long 
time  the  Lord  of  those  servants  cometh  "  ;  and  Paul,  in  2  Thess.,  had  to  correct  the  mistake  of  those 
who  interpreted  him  as  having  in  his  first  Epistle  declared  an  immediate  coming  of  the 
Lord. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Cleveland  Sermon,  1904  :  27  — "  The  faith  in  a  second  coining  of  Christ  has 
lost  its  hold  upon  many  Christians  in  our  day.  But  it  still  serves  to  stimulate  and 
admonish  the  great  body,  and  we  can  never  dispense  with  its  solemn  and  mighty  influ- 
ence. Christ  comes,  it  is  true,  in  Pentecostal  revivals  aud  in  destructions  of  Jerusalem, 
in  Reformation  movements  and  in  political  upheavals.  But  these  are  only  precursors  of 
another  and  literal  and  final  return  of  Christ,  to  punish  the  wicked  and  to  complete  the 
Salvation  of  his  people.  That  day  for  which  all  other  days  are  made  will  be  a  joyful  day 
for  those  who  have  fought  a  good  fight  and  have  kept  the  faith.  Let  us  look  for  and 
hasten  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God.  The  Jacobites  of  Scotland  never  ceased  their 
labors  and  sacrifices  for  their  king's  return.  They  never  tasted  wine,  without  pledging 
their  absent  prince;  they  never  joined  in  song,  without  renewing  their  oaths  of  alle- 
giance. In  many  a  prison  cell  and  on  many  a  battlefield  they  rang  out  the  strain  : 
'  Follow  thee,  follow  thee,  wha  wadna  follow  thee?  Long  hast  thou  lo'ed  and  trusted 
us  fairly:  Chairlie,  Chairlie,  wha  wadna  folLpw  thee?  King  o'  the  Highland  hearts, 
bonnie  Prince  Chairlie ! '  So  they  sang,  so  they  invited  him,  until  at  last  he  came. 
But  that  longing  for  the  day  when  Charles  should  come  to  his  own  again  was  faint  and 
weak  compared  with  the  longing  of  true  Christian  hearts  for  the  coming  of  their  King. 
Charles  came,  only  to  suffer  defeat,  and  to  bring  shame  to  his  country.  But  Christ  will 
come,  to  putan  end  to  the  world's  long  sorrow,  to  give  triumph  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
to  bestow  everlasting  reward  upon  the  faithful.  '  Even  so,  Lord  Jesus,  come !  Hope  of 
all  our  hopes  the  sum,  Take  tby  waiting  people  home  !  Long,  so  long,  the  groaning 
earth,  Cursed  with  war  and  flood  and  dearth,  Sighs  for  its  redemption  birth.  Therefore 
come,  we  daily  pray ;  Bring  the  resurrection-day  ;  Wipe  creation's  curse  away ! ' " 

(  b  )  Hence  we  find,  in  immediate  connection  with  many  of  these  predic- 
tions of  the  end,  a  reference  to  intervening  events  and  to  the  eternity  of 
God,  which  shows  that  the  prophecies  themselves  are  expressed  in  a  large 
way  which  befits  the  greatness  of  the  divine  plans. 

Mat.  24 :  36  — "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father 
only";  Mark  13: 32 — "But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but 
heFather.  Take  ye  heed,  watch  and  pray :  for  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is  "  ;  Actsl:7 — "And  he  said  unto  them,  It 
is  not  for  you  to  know  times  or  seasons,  which  the  Father  hath  set  within  his  own  authority  "  ;  1  Cor.  10 :  11  — "  Sow 
these  things  happened  unto  them  by  way  of  example ;  and  they  were  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of 
the  ages  are  come"  ;  16:22 — "Maranatha[marg.:  that  is,  0  Lord,  come !]" ;  2  Thess.  2:1-3—  "Now  we  beseech  you, 
brethren,  touching  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  our  gathering  together  unto  him;  to  the  end  that  ye  be  not 
quickly  shaken  from  your  mind,  nor  yet  be  troubled  ....  as  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  now  pressnt  [  Am.  Rev. : 


THE   SECOND   COMING    OF   CHRIST.  1007 

is  just  at  hand '  ]  ;  let  no  man  beguile  you  in  any  wise :  for  it  will  not  be,  except  the  falling  away  come  first,  and  the 
man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition." 

James  5: 8,  9 — "Be  ye  also  patient;  establish  your  hearts:  for  the  coining  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand.  Murmur  not, 
brethren,  one  against  another,  that  ye  be  not  judged :  behold,  the  judge  standsth  before  the  doors  "  :  2  Pet.  3 : 3-12  —"in 
the  last  days  mockers  shall  come  ....  saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?  for,  from  the  day  that  the  fathers 
fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.  For  this  they  wilfully  forget,  that  there 
were  heavens  fr  .m  of  old  .  .  .  .  But  forget  not  this  one  thing,  beloved,  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years, 
and  a  thousand  )  ears  as  one  day.  The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise  ....  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come 
as  a  thief  ....  wL-t manrj  of  persons  ought  ye  to  be  in  all  holy  living  and  godliness,  looking  for  and  earnestly 
desiring  [marg.:  'haswning']  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God  "  —  awaiting-  it,  and  hastening  its  coming 
by  your  prayer  and  labor. 

Rev.  1 : 3  — "Blessed  is  he  that  readeth,  and  they  that  hear  the  words  of  the  prophecy,  and  keep  the  things  that  are 
written  therein :  for  the  time  is  at  hand  "  :  22 :  12,  20  — "  Behold,  I  come  quickly  ;  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  render 
to  each  man  according  as  his  work  is  ....  He  who  testifieth  these  things  saith,  Tea :  I  come  quickly.  Amen :  come, 
Lord  Jesus."  From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  the  apostles  did  not  know  the  time 
of  the  end,  and  that  it  was  hidden  from  Christ  himself  while  here  in  the  flesh,  ne,  there- 
fore, who  assumes  to  know,  assumes  to  know  more  than  Christ  or  lus  apostles  — 
assumes  to  know  the  very  thing  which  Christ  declared  it  was  not  for  us  to  know  1 

Gould,  Bill.  Theol.  N.  'J'.,  153— "  The  expectation  "1  our  Lord's  coming  was  one  of  the 
elements  and  moti/8  of  that  generation,  and  the  delay  of  the  event  caused  some  ques- 
tioning. Hut  there  is  never  any  indication  that  it  may  fee  indefinitely  postponed.  The 
early  church  never  had  to  lace  the  difficulty  forced  upon  the  church  to-day,  of  belief  in 
his  second  coming,  founded  upon  a  prophecy  of  his  coming  during  the  lifetime  of  a 
generation  long  since  dead.  And  until  this  Epistle  [2  Peter],  we  do  not  find  any  traces  of 
this  exegetical  legerdemain  as  such  a  situation  would  require.  But  here  we  have  it  full- 
grown  ;  just  such  a  specimen  of  harmonistic  device  as  orthodox  Interpretation  famil- 
iarizes us  with.  The  definite  statement  that  the  advent  is  to  be  within  that  generation 
is  met  with  the  general  principle  that  'one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years 
asoneday'  (2Pet  3:8)."  We  must  regard  this  comment  of  Dr.  Gould  as  an  unconscious 
fulfilment  of  the  prediction  that  "in  the  last  days  mockers  shall  come  with  mockery  "  (2  Pet.  3:3  ).  A 
better  understanding  of  prophecy,  as  divinely  pregnant  utterance,  would  have  enabled 
the  critic  to  believe  that  the  Words  of  Christ  might  be  partially  fulfilled  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles,  but  fully  accomplished  only  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

(c)  In  this  we  discern  a  striking  parallel  between  the  predictions  of 
Christ's  first,  and  the  predictions  of  his  sec<  >nd,  advent.  In  both  cases  the 
event  was  more  distant  and  more  grand  than  those  imagined  to  whom  the 
prophecies  first  came.  Under  both  dispensations,  patient  waiting  for  Christ 
was  intended  to  discipline  the  faith,  and  to  enlarge  the  conceptions,  of  God's 
true  servants.  The  fact  that  every  age  since  Christ  ascended  has  had  its 
Chiliasts  and  Second  Adventists  should  turn  our  thoughts  away  from 
curious  and  fruitless  prying  into  the  time  of  Christ's  coming,  and  set  us  at 
immediate  and  constant  endeavor  to  be  ready,  at  whatsoever  hour  he  may 
appear. 

Gen.  4 : 1  — "  And  the  man  knew  Eve  his  wife ;  and  she  conceived,  and  bare  Cain,  and  said,  I  have  gotten  a  man  with 
the  help  of  Jehovah  [lit.:  'Ihave  gotten  a  man,  even  Jehovah ']  "  —  an  intimation  that  Eve  fancied  her 
first-born  to  be  already  the  promised  seed,  the  coming  deliverer ;  see  MacWhorter, 
Jahveh  Christ.  Deut.  18 :  15  — "Jehovah  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy 
brethren,  like  unto  me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken"  —  here  is  a  prophecy  which  Moses  may  have 
expected  to  be  fulfilled  in  Joshua,  but  which  God  designed  to  be  fulfilled  only  in  Christ. 
Is.  7 :  14, 16  —"Therefore  the  Lord  himself  will  give  you  a  sign :  behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and 

shall  call  his  name  Immanuel For  before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil,  and  choose  the  good,  the  land 

whose  two  kings  thou  abhorrest  shall  be  forsaken"  — a  prophecy  which  the  prophet  may  have 
expected  to  be  fulfilled  in  his  own  time,  and  which  was  partly  so  fulfilled,  but  which  God 
intended  to  be  fulfilled  ages  thereafter. 

Luke2:25 — "  Simeon ;  and  this  man  was  righteous  and  devout,  looking  for  the  consolation  of  Israel "  — Simeon 
was  the  type  of  holy  men,  in  every  age  of  Jewish  history,  who  were  waiting  for  the  ful- 
filment of  God's  promise,  and  for  the  coming  of  the  deliverer.  So  under  the  Christian 
flispensation.  Augustine  held  that  Christ's  reign  of  a  thousand  years,  which  occupies 
the  last  epoch  of  the  world's  history,  did  not  still  lie  in  the  future,  but  began  with  the 


1008     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

founding  of  the  church  (  Ritschl,  Just,  and  Ileconc,  286  ).  Luther,  near  the  time  of  his 
death,  said  :  "  God  forbid  that  the  world  should  last  fifty  years  longer  !  Let  him  cut 
matters  short  with  his  last  judgment !  "  Melanchthon  put  the  end  less  than  two  hun- 
dred years  from  his  time.  Calvin's  motto  was  :  "  Domine,  qaausque  f  "  —  "  O  Lord,  how 
long?"  Jonathan  Edwards,  before  and. during  the  great  Awakening,  indulged  high 
expectations  as  to  the  probable  extension  of  the  movement  until  it  should  bring  the 
world,  even  in  his  own  lifetime,  into  the  love  and  obedience  of  Christ  (  Life,  by  Allen, 
234).  Better  than  any  one  of  these  is  the  utterance  of  Dr.  Broadus :  "  If  I  am  always 
ready,  I  shall  be  ready  when  Jesus  comes."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Hovey,  in 
Baptist  Quarterly,  Oct.  1877  :  41^432;  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  041-646  ;  Stevens,  in  Am. 
Com.  on  Thessalonians,  Excursus  on  The  Parousia,  and  notes  on  1  Thess.  4 :  13, 16 ;  5 :  11 ;  2 
Thess.  2 : 3, 12 ;  Goodspeed,  Messiah's  Second  Advent;  Heagle,  That  Blessed  Hope. 

3.     The  "precursors  of  Christ's  coming. 

(a)  Through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  all  the  world,  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  is  steadily  to  enlarge  its  boundaries,  until  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike 
become  possessed  of  its  blessings,  and  a  millennial  period  is  introduced  in 
which  Christianity  generally  prevails  throughout  the  earth. 

Dan.  2:44,  45 — "And  in  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be 
destroyed,  nor  shall  the  sovereignty  thereof  be  left  to  another  people ;  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these 
kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever.  Forasmuch  as  thou  sawest  that  a  stone  was  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without 
hands,  and  that  it  brake  in  pieces  the  iron,  the  brass,  the  clay,  the  silver,  and  the  gold  ;  the  great  God  hath  made  known 
to  the  king  what  shall  come  to  pass  hereafter:  and  tne  dream  is  certain,  and  the  interpretation  thereof  sure." 

Mat.  13  :  31,  32  —  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  ....  which  indeed  is  less  than  all 
seeds ;  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  greater  than  the  herbs,  and  becometh  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  heaven  come  and 
lodge  in  the  branches  thereof "  —  the  parable  of  the  leaven,  which  follows,  apparently  illustrates 
the  intensive,  as  that  of  the  mustard  seed  illustrates  the  extensive,  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  ;  and  it  is  as  impossible  to  confine  the  reference  of  the  leaven  to  the 
spread  of  evil  as  it  is  impossible  to  confine  the  reference  of  the  mustard  seed  to  the 
spread  of  good. 

Mat.  24 :  14  —  "  And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole  world  for  a  testimony  unto  all  the 
nations;  and  then  shall  the  end  come " ;  Rom.  11 :  25,  26  —  "a  hardening  in  part  hath  befallen  Israel,  until  the  fulness 
of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in ;  and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  ' ' ;  Rev.  20 :  4-6  — ' '  And  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  upon 
them,  and  judgment  was  given  unto  them  :  and  I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded  for  the  testimony  of 
Jesus,  and  for  the  word  of  God,  and  such  as  worshipped  not  the  beast,  neither  his  image,  and  received  not  the  mark  upon 
their  forehead  and  upon  their  hand ;  and  they  lived,  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years." 

Col.  1:23  —  "the  gospel  which  ye  heard,  which  was  preached  in  all  creation  under  heaven"  —  Paul's  phrase 
here  and  the  apparent  reference  in  Mat.  24 :  14  to  A.  D.  70  as  the  time  of  the  end,  should 
rest  rain  theorizers  from  insisting  that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  cannot  occur  until 
this  text  has  been  fulfilled  with  literal  completeness  ( Broadus ). 

(  b )  There  will  be  a  corresponding  development  of  evil,  either  extensive 
or  intensive,  whose  true  character  shall  be  manifest  not  only  in  deceiving 
many  professed  followers  of  Christ  and  in  persecuting  true  believers,  but  in 
constituting  a  personal  Antichrist  as  its  representative  and  object  of  worship. 
This  rapid  growth  shall  continue  until  the  millennium,  during  which  evil, 
in  the  person  of  its  chief,  shall  be  temporarily  restrained. 

Mat.  13 :  30,  38  —  "  Let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest :  and  in  the  time  of  the  harvest  I  will  say  to  the  reapers, 
Gather  up  first  the  tares,  and  bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them :  but  gather  the  wheat  into  my  barn  ....  the  field 
is  the  world ;  and  tho  good  seed,  these  are  the  sons  of  the  kingdom ;  and  the  tares  are  the  sons  of  the  evil  one  "  ;  24  : 5, 
11, 12,  24  —  "For  many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am  the  Christ ;  and  shall  load  many  astray  ....  And  many 
false  prophets  shall  arise,  and  shall  lead  many  astray.  And  because  iniquity  shall  be  multiplied,  the  love  of  the  many 
shall  wax  cold  ....  For  there  shall  arise  false  Christs,  and  false  prophets,  and  shall  show  great  signs  and  wonders;  so 
as  to  lead  astray,  if  possible,  even  the  elect." 

Luke  21 :  12 —  "But  before  all  these  things,  they  shall  lay  their  hands  on  you,  and  shall  persecute  you,  delivering  you 
up  to  the  synagogues  and  prisons,  bringing  you  before  kings  and  governors  for  my  name's  sake  "  ;  2  Thess.  2 : 3,  4, 7, 8, 
—  "it  will  not  be,  except  the  falling  away  come  first,  and  the  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition,  he  that 
opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  against  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God, 
setting  himself  forth  as  God For  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  doth  already  work :  only  there  is  one  thatrestraineth 


THE   SECOND    COMING    OF   CHRIST.  1009 

now,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way.  And  then  shall  be  revealed  the  lawless  one,  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  slay  v,  ith 
the  breath  of  bis  mouth,  and  bring  to  nought  by  the  manifestation  of  his  coming." 

Elliott,  Hone  Apocalyptica?,  1:65,  holds  that  "Antichrist  means  another  Christ,  a 
pro-Christ,  a  vice-Christ,  a  pretender  to  the  name  of  Christ,  and  in  that  character,  an 
usurper  and  adversary.  The  principle  of  Antichrist  was  already  sown  in  the  time  of 
Paul.  But  a  certain  hindrance,  I.  < .,  the  Roman  Empire  as  then  constituted,  needed 
lirst  to  be  removed  out  <  if  t  be  way,  befi  are  n  ><  >m  could  be  made  for  Antichrist's  devel- 
opment." Antichrist,  according-  to  this  view,  is  t  he  hierarchical  spirit,  which  found  its 
final  and  most  complete  expression  in  the  Papacy.  Dante,  Hell,  19: 100-117,  speaks  of 
the  Papacy,  or  rather  the  temporal  power  of  the  Popes,  as  Antichrist :  "  To  you  St. 
John  referred,  O  shepherds  vile,  When  she  who  sits  on  many  waters,  had  Been  seen 
with  kings  her  person  to  defile  "  ;  see  A.  H.  Strong,  Philosophy  and  Religion,  507. 

It  has  been  objected  that  a  simultaneous  growth  both  of  evil  and  of  good  is  incon- 
ceivable, and  that  the  progress  of  the  divine  kingdom  implies  a  diminution  in  the 
power  of  the  adversary.  Only  a  slight  reflection  however  convinces  us  that,  as  the 
population  of  the  world  is  always  Increasing,  evil  men  may  increase  in  numbers,  even 
though  there  is  increase  in  the  numbers  of  tin;  good.  But  we  must  also  consider  that 
evil  grows  in  intensity  just  in  proportion  to  the  light  which  good  throws  upon  it. 
"Wherever  God  erects  a  house  of  prayer.  The  devil  always  builds  a  chapel  there." 
Every  revival  of  religion  stirs  up  the  forces  of  wickedness  to  opposition.  As  Christ's 
lirst  advent  occasioned  an  unusual  out  burst  of  demoniac  malignity,  so  ( 'h list's  second 
advent  will  be  resisted  by  a  final  desperate  effort  of  the  evil  one  to  overcome  the  forces 
of  good.  The  great  awakening  in  New  England  under  Jonathan  Edwards  caused  on 
the  one  hand  a  most  remarkable  increase  in  the  number  of  Baptist  believers,  but  also 
on  the  other  hand  the  rise  of  modem  CTnitarianiam.  The  optimistic  Presbyterian  pas- 
tor at  Auburn  argued  with  the  pessimistic  chaplain  of  tin;  State's  Prison  t  hat  the  world 
was  certainly  growing  better,  because  his  congregation  was  increasing;  whereupon 
the  chaplain  replied  that  his  own  congregation  was  increasing  also. 

(  c  )  At  the  close  of  this  millemiial  period,  evil  "will  again  be  permitted 
to  exert  its  utmost  power  in  a  final  conflict  with  righteousness.  This  spir- 
itual struggle,  moreover,  will  he  accompanied  and  symbolized  by  political 
convulsions,  and  by  fearful  indications  of  desolation  in  the  natural  world. 

Mat.  24  :  29,  30  —  "But  immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days  the  sun  shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall 
not  give  her  light,  and  the  stars  shall  fall  from  heayen,  and  the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken :  and  then  shall 
appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven";  Luke  21 : 8-28  — false  prophets;  wars  and  tumults ; 
earthquakes;  pestilences;  persecutions;  signs  in  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars;  "And  then 
sball  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  a  cloud  with  power  and  great  glory.  But  when  these  things  begin  to  come  to 
pass,  look  up,  and  lift  up  your  heads ;  because  your  redemption  draweth  nigh." 

Interpretations  of  the  book  of  Revelation  are  divided  into  three  classes:  (1)  the 
Prceterist  (held  by  Grotius,  Moses  Stuart,  and  Warren  ),  which  regards  the  prophecy  as 
mainly  fulfilled  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  the  time  of  the  apostles  ( 666  =Neron 
Kaisar);  (2)  the  Continuous  (held  by  Isaac  Newton,  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Elliott,  Kelly, 
and  Cumming ),  which  regards  the  whole  as  a  continuous  prophetical  history,  extend- 
ing from  the  first  age  until  the  end  of  all  things  (<;06  =  Lateinos);  Hengstenberg and 
Alford  hold  substantially  this  view,  though  they  regard  the  seven  seals,  trumpets,  and 
vials  as  synchrouological,  each  succeeding  set  going  over  the  same  ground  and  exhibit- 
ing it  in  some  special  aspect;  (3)  the  Futurist  ( held  by  Maitland  and  Todd),  which 
considers  the  book  as  describing  events  yet  to  occur,  during  the  times  immediately 
preceding  and  following  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 

Of  all  these  interpretations,  the  most  learned  and  exhaustive  is  that  of  Elliott,  in  his 
four  volumes  entitled  Horse  Apocalyptica'.  The  basis  of  his  interpretation  is  the  "time 
and  times  and  half  a  time"  of  Dan.  7:25,  which  according  to  the  year-day  theory  means  1260 
years  — the  year,  according  to  ancient  reckoning,  containing  360  days,  and  the  "time" 
being  therefore  360  years  [360  +  (2X360)  +  180=  1260 ].  This  phrase  we  find  recurring 
with  regard  to  the  woman  nourished  in  the  wilderness  (Rey.  12 :  14  >.  The  blasphemy  of 
the  beast  for  forty  and  two  months  ( Rey.  13 : 5 )  seems  to  refer  to  the  same  period  [  42  X  30 
=  1260,  as  before  ].  The  two  witnesses  prophecy  1260  days  ( Rev.  11 : 3 ) ;  and  the  woman's 
time  in  the  wilderness  is  stated  (Rev.  12:  6)  as  1260  days.  This  period  of  1260  years  is 
regarded  by  Elliott  as  the  time  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy. 

There  is  a  twofold  terminus  a  quo,  and  correspondingly  a  twofold  termi>ius  ad  quern. 
The  first  commencement  is  A.  D.  531,  when  in  the*edict  of  Justinian  the  dragon  of  the 
61 


1010     ESCHATOLOGT,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

Roman  Empire  gives  its  power  to  the  beast  of  the  Papacy,  and  resigns  its  throne  to  the 
rising  Antichrist,  giving  opportunity  for  the  rise  of  the  ten  horns  as  European  kings 
( Rev.  13 : 1-3 ).  The  second  commencement,  adding  the  seventy-five  supplementary  years 
of  Daniel  12 :  12  [  1335  —  1260=  75  ],  is  A.  D.  606,  when  the  Emperor  Phocas  acknowledges  the 
primacy  of  Rome,  and  the  ten  horns,  or  kings,  now  diademed,  submit  to  the  Papacy 
(Rev.  17 :  12, 13 ).  The  first  ending-point  is  A.  D.  1791,  when  the  French  Revolution  struck 
the  first  blow  at  the  independence  of  the  Pope  [  531  + 1200  =  1791  ].  The  second  ending- 
point  is  A.  D.  1866,  when  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope  was  abolished  at  the  unifica- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  Italy  [606  +  1260  =  1860  ].  Elliott  regards  the  two-horned  beast 
( Rev.  13 :  11 )  as  representing  the  Papal  Clergy,  and  the  image  of  the  beast  ( Rev.  13 :  14, 15 )  as 
representing  the  Papal  Councils. 

Unlike  Hengstenberg  and  Alford,  who  consider  the  seals,  trumpets,  and  vials  as  syn- 
chronological,  Elliott  makes  the  seven  trumpets  to  be  an  unfolding  of  the  seventh  seal, 
and  the  seven  vials  to  be  an  unfolding  of  the  seventh  trumpet.  Like  other  advocates 
of  the  premillennial  advent  of  Christ,  Elliott  regards  the  four  chief  signs  of  Christ's 
near  approach  as  being  :  ( 1 )  the  decay  of  the  Turkish  Empire  ( the  drying  up  of  the 
river  Euphrates  —  Rev.  16:12);  (2)  the  Pope's  loss  of  temporal  power  (the  destruction 
of  Babylon  — Rev.  17:19);  (3)  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  and  their  return  to  their  own 
land(Ez.37;  Rom.  11 :  12-15,  25-27— but  on  this  last,  see  Meyer);  (4)  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  ( the  way  of  the  kings  of  the  East  —  Rev. 
16 :  12 ;  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  —  Rom.  11 :  25  ). 

Elliott's  whole  scheme,  however,  is  vitiated  by  the  fact  that  he  wrongly  assumes  the 
book  of  Revelation  to  have  been  written  under  Dornitian  (  94  or  90),  instead  of  under 
Nero  ( 67  or  68).  His  terminus  a  quo  is  therefore  incorrect,  and  his  interpretation  of 
chapters  5-9  is  rendered  very  precarious.  The  year  1860,  moreover,  should  have  been  the 
time  of  the  end,  and  so  the  terminus  ad  quern  seems  to  be  clearly  misunderstood  — 
unless  indeed  the  seventy-five  supplementary  years  of  Daniel  are  to  be  added  to  1866. 
We  regard  the  failure  of  this  most  ingenious  scheme  of  Apocalyptic  interpretation  as 
a  practical  demonstration  that  a  clear  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  prophecy  is, 
before  the  event,  impossible,  and  we  are  confirmed  in  this  view  by  the  utterly  untenable 
nature  of  the  theory  of  the  millennium  which  is  commonly  held  by  so-called  Second 
Adventists,  a  theory  which  we  now  proceed  to  examine. 

A  long  preparation  may  be  followed  by  a  sudden  consummation.  Drilling-  the  rock 
for  the  blast  is  a  slow  process ;  firing  the  charge  takes  but  a  moment.  The  woodwork 
of  the  Windsor  Hotel  in  New  York  was  in  a  charred  and  superheated  state  before  the 
electric  wires  that  threaded  it  wore  out  their  insulation,  —  then  a  slight  Increase  of 
voltage  turned  heat  into  flame.  The  Outlook,  March  30,  1895  —  "  An  evolutionary  con- 
ception of  the  Second  Coming,  as  a  progressive  manifestation  of  the  spiritual  power 
and  glory  of  Christ,  may  issue  in  a  denouement  as  unique  as  the  first  advent  was  which 
closed  the  preparatory  ages." 

Joseph  Cook,  on  A.  J.  Gordon  :  "  There  is  a  wide  distinction  between  the  flash-light 
theory  and  the  burning-glass  theory  of  missions.  The  latter  was  Dr.  Gordon's  view. 
When  a  burning-glass  is  held  over  inflammable  material,  the  concentrated  rays  of  the 
sun  rapidly  produce  in  it  discoloration,  smoke,  and  sparks.  At  a  certain  instant,  after 
the  sparks  have  been  sufficiently  diffused,  the  whole  material  suddenly  bursts  into 
flame.  There  is  then  no  longer  any  need  of  the  burning-glass,  for  fire  has  itself  fallen 
from  on  high  and  is  able  to  do  its  own  work.  So  the  world  is  to  be  regarded  as  inflam- 
mable material  to  be  set  on  fire  from  on  high.  Our  Lord's  life  on  earth  is  a  burning- 
glass,  concentrating  rays  of  light  and  heat  upon  the  souls  of  men.  When  the  heating 
has  gone  on  far  enough,  and  the  sparks  of  incipient  conflagration  have  been  sufficiently 
diffused,  suddenly  spiritual  flame  will  burst  up  everywhere  and  will  fill  the  earth.  This 
is  the  second  advent  of  him  who  kindled  humanity  to  new  life  by  his  first  advent.  As  I 
understand  the  premilleuarian  view  of  history,  the  date  when  the  sparks  shall  kindle 
into  flame  is  not  known,  but  it  is  known  that  the  duty  of  the  church  is  to  spread  the 
sparks  and  to  expect  at  any  instant,  after  their  wide  diffusion,  the  victorious  descent 
of  millennial  flame,  that  is,  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  personal  and  visible  reign  over 
the  whole  earth."  See  article  on  Millenarianism,  by  G.  P.  Fisher,  in  McClintock  and 
Strong's  Cyclopaedia;  also  by  Semisch,  in  Schaff-Herzog,  Cyclopaedia;  cf.  Schaff, 
History  of  the  Christian  Church,  1 :  840. 

4.     Relation  of  Christ's  second  coming  to  the  millennium. 
The  Scripture  foretells  a  period,  called  in  the  language  of  prophecy  "  a 
thousand  years,"  when  Satan  shall  be  restrained  and  the  saints  shall  reign 


THE   SECOND    COMING    OF   CHRIST.  1011 

with  Christ  on  the  earth.  A  comparison  of  the  passages  bearing  on  this 
subject  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  this  millennial  blessedness  and 
dominion  is  prior  to  the  second  advent.  One  passage  only  seems  at  first 
sight  to  teach  the  contrary,  viz.  :  Rev.  20  : 4-10.  But  this  supports  the 
theory  of  a  prernillennial  advent  only  when  the  passage  is  interpreted  with 
the  barest  literalness.  A  better  view  of  its  meaning  will  be  gained  by 
considering  : 

(a)  That  it  constitutes  a  part,  and  confessedly  an  obscure  part,  of  one 
of  the  most  figurative  books  of  Scripture,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  inter- 
preted by  the  plainer  statements  of  the  other  Scriptures. 

We  quote  here  the  passage  alluded  to  :  Rev.  20  :  4-10  —  "  And  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  upon  them, 
and  judgment  was  given  nnto  them  ;  and  I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  and 
for  the  word  of  God,  and  such  as  worshipped  not  the  beast,  neither  his  image,  and  received  not  the  mark  upon  their 
forehead  and  upon  their  hand ;  and  th»y  lived,  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.  The  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not 
until  the  thousand  years  should  be  finished.  This  is  the  first  resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that  hath  part  in  the 
first  resurrection  :  over  these  the  second  death  hath  no  power ;  but  they  shall  be  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and  shall 
reign  with  him  a  thousand  years." 

Emerson  and  Parker  met  a  Second  Advenlist  who  warned  them  that  the  end  of  the 
world  was  near.  Parker  replied:  "My  friend, that  does  not  concern  me;  I  live  in 
Boston.'1  Emerson  said  :  "Well,  1  think  I  can  fret  along  without  it."  A  similarly 
cheerful  view  is  taken  by  Dcnney,  Studies  in  Theology,  233  — "  Christ  certainly  comes, 
according  to  the  picture  in  Revelation,  before  the  millennium;  but  the  question  of 
importance  is,  whether  the  conception  of  the  millennium  itself,  related  as  it  is  to 
Ezekiel,  is  essential  to  faith.  I  cannot  think  that  it  is.  The  religious  content  of  the 
passages  —  what  the}-  offer  for  faith  to  grasp  — is,  F  should  say,  simply  this  :  that  until 
the  end  the  conflict  between  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  the  world  must 
go  on  ;  that  as  the  end  approaches  it  becomes  e\  er  more  intense,  progress  in  humanity 
not  being  a  progress  in  goodness  merely  or  in  badness  only,  but  iu  the  antagonism 
between  the  two;  and  that  the  necessity  for  conflict  is  sure  to  emerge  even  alter  the 
kingdom  of  (Sod  has  won  its  greatest  triumphs.  I  frankly  confess  that  to  seek  more 
than  this  in  such  Scriptural  indications  seems  to  me  trilling." 

(  b  )  That  the  other  Scriptures  contain  nothing  with  regard  to  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  righteous  which  is  widely  separated  in  time  from  that  of  the 
wicked,  but  rather  declare  distinctly  that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is 
immediately  connected  both  with  the  resurrection  of  the  just  and  the 
unjust  and  with  the  general  judgment. 

Mat.  16  :  27 —  "For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  shall  he  render 
unto  every  man  according  to  his  deeds  "  ;  25  :  31-33  —  "But  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the 
angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory :  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations :  and  he 
shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  the  shepherd  separateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats "  ;  John  5 :  28,  29  —  "  Marvel 
not  at  this :  for  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judgment"  ;  2  Cor. 
5 :  10  —  "  For  we  must  all  be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  that  each  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  the  body,  according  to  what  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad"  ;  2  Thess.  1 : 6-10  —  "if  so  be  that  it  is 
a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  affliction  to  them  that  afflict  you,  and  to  you  that  are  afflicted  rest  with  us,  at 
the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with  the  angels  of  his  power  in  flaming  fire,  rendering  vengeance  to  thorn 
that  know  not  God,  and  to  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus :  who  shall  suffer  punishment,  even  eternal 
destruction  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  might,  when  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  bis  saints, 
and  to  be  marvelled  at  in  all  them  that  believed." 

2  Pet.  3  : 7, 10  —  "the  day  of  judgment  and  destruction  of  ungodly  men  ....  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as 
a  thief;  in  the  »hich  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  be  dissolved  with  fervent 
heat,  and  the  earth  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up";  Rev.20:ll-15 — "  And  I  saw  a  great  white 
throne,  and  him  that  sat  upon  it,  from  whose  face  the  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away  ;  and  there  was  found  no  place  for 
them.  And  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great  and  the  small,  standing  before  the  throne ;  and  books  were  opened :  and  another 
book  wss  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life :  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  the  things  that  w:re  written  in  the  books, 
according  to  their  works.    And  the  s?a  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in  it ;  and  doath  and  Hades  gave  up  the  dead  that 


1012      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

were  in  them :  and  they  were  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works.  And  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake 
of  fire.  This  is  the  second  death,  even  the  lake  of  fire.  And  if  any  was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life,  he  was 
cast  into  the  lake  of  fire." 

Here  is  abundant  evidence  that  there  is  no  interval  of  a  thousand  years  between  the 
second  coming-  of  Christ  and  the  resurrection,  general  judgment,  and  end  of  all  things. 
All  these  events  come  together.  The  only  answer  of  the  premillennialists  to  this 
objection  to  their  theory  is,  that  the  day  of  judgment  and  the  millennium  may  be  con- 
temporaneous,—in  other  words,  the  day  of  judgment  may  be  a  thousand  years  long. 
Elliott  holds  to  a  conflagration,  partial  at  the  beginning  of  this  period,  complete  at  its 
close,  —  Peter's  prophecy  treating  the  two  conflagrations  as  one,  while  the  book  of 
Revelation  separates  them  ;  so  a  nearer  view  resolves  binary  stars  into  two.  But  we 
reply  that,  if  the  judgment  occupies  the  whole  period  of  a  thousand  years,  then  the 
coming  of  Christ,  the  resurrection,  and  the  final  conflagration  should  all  be  a  thousand 
years  also.  It  is  indeed  possible  that,  in  this  case,  as  Peter  says  in  connection  with  his 
prophecy  -of  judgment,  "  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years" as  one  day  " 
/  2  Pet.  3:8).  But  if  we  make  the  word  "day"  so  indefinite  in  connection  with  the  judg- 
ment, why  should  we  regard  it  as  so  definite,  when  we  come  to  interpret  the  1360 days? 

(  c  )  That  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  passage  —  holding,  as  it  does, 
to  a  resurrection  of  bodies  of  flesh  and  blood,  and  to  a  reign  of  the  risen 
saints  in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  world  as  at  present  constituted — is  inconsist- 
ent -with  other  Scriptural  declarations  with  regard  to  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  resurrection-body  and  of  the  coming  reign  of  Christ. 

1  Cor.  15 :  44,  50  —  "it  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that 

flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  me  kingdom  of  Sod  ;  neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption."  These  passages 
are  inconsistent  with  the  view  that  the  resurrection  is  a  physical  resurrection  at  the 
beginning  of  the  thousand  years — a  resurrection  to  be  followed  by  a  second  lite  of  tlie 
saints  in  bodies  of  flesh  and  blood.  They  are  not,  however,  inconsistent  with  the  true 
view,  soon  to  be  mentioned,  that  "the  first  resurrection  "  is  simply  the  raising  of  the  church 
to  a  new  life  and  zeal.  Westcott,  Bib.  Com.  on  John  14:18,19 — "I  will  not  leave  you  desolate 
[niarg. :  'orphans']:  I  come  unto  you.  Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  beholdeth  me  no  more  ;  but  ye  behold 
me":  —  " Tho  words  exclude  the  error  of  those  who  suppose  that  Christ  will  'come* 
under  the  same  conditions  Of  earthly  existence  as  those  to  which  he  submitted  at  his 
first  coming."    See  Hovey,  Bib.  Eschatology,  06-78. 

(d)  That  the  literal  interpretation  is  generally  and  naturally  connected 
with  the  expectation  of  a  gradual  and  necessary  decline  of  Christ's  kingdom 
upon  earth,  until  Christ  comes  to  bind  Satan  and  to  introduce  the  millen- 
nium. This  view  not  only  contradicts  such  passages  as  Dan.  2  :  34,  35,  and 
Mat.  13  :  31,  32,  but  it  begets  a  passive  and  hopeless  endurance  of  evil, 
whereas  the  Scriptures  enjoin  a  constant  and  aggressive  warfare  against  it, 
upon  the  very  ground  that  God's  power  shall  assure  to  the  church  a 
gradual  but  constant  progress  in  the  face  of  it,  even  to  the  time  of  the  end. 

Dan.  2  :  34,  35  —  "  Thou  sawest  till  that  a  stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  which  smote  the  image  upon  its  feet  that 
were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  in  pieces.  Then  was  the  iron,  the  clay,  the  brass,  the  silver,  and  the  gold,  broken 
:n  pieces  together,,  and  became  like  the  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing-floors ;  and  the  wind  carried  them  away,  so  that  no 
place  was  found  for  them ,  and  the  stone  that  smote  the  image  became  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth  "  ; 
Mat.  13:31,  32  —  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  whicha  man  took,  and  sowed  in  his 
ibid  :  which  indeed  is  lcEo  than  all  seeds,  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  greater  than  the  herbs,  and  becometh  a  tree,  so 
that  the  birds  of  the  heaven  come  and  l"dge  in  the  branches  thereof."  In  both  these  figures  there  is  no 
sign  of  cessation  or  of  backward  movement,  but  rather  every  indication  of  continuous 
advance  to  complete  victory  and  dominion.  The  premillennial  theory  supposes  that  for 
the  principle  of  development  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  God  will  substi- 
tute a  reign  of  mere  power  and  violence.  J.  B.  Thomas :  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  not  like  a  can  of  nitro-glycerine."  Leightou  Williams  : 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  realized  on  earth,  not  by  a  cataclysm,  apart  fr"om  effort 
and  will,  but  through  the  universal  dissemination  of  the  gospel  all  but  lost  to  the 
world."  E.  G.  Robinson :  "  Second  Adventism  stultifies  the  system  and  scheme  of 
Christianity."    Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon  could  not  deny  that  the  early  disciples  were  mistaken 


THE    SECOND    COMING   OP   CHRIST.  1013 

in  expecting  the  end  of  the  world  in  their  day.  So  we  maybe.  Scripture  does  not 
declare  that  the  end  should  come  in  the  •lifetime  of  the  apostles,  and  no  definite  date  is 
set.  "After  a  long  time"  (  Mat.  25:19)  and  "the  falling  away  come  first"  (2  Thess.  2:3  )  are  expressions 
which  postpone  indefinitely.  Yet  a  just  view  of  Christ's  coming-  as  ever  possible  in  the 
immediate  future  may  make  us  as  faithful  as  were  the  original  disciples. 

The  theory  also  divests  Christ  of  all  kingly  power  until  the  millennium,  or,  rather, 
maintains  that  the  kingdom  has  not  yet  been  given  to  him  ;  see  Elliott,  Horae  Apoca- 
lypticae,  1:94  —  where  Luke  19:12  —  "A  certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far  country,  to  receive  for  himself  a 
kingdom, and  to  return"  — is  interpreted  as  follows:  "Subordinate  kings  went  to  Rome  to 
receivethe  investiture  to  their  kingdoms  from  the  Roman  Emperor,  and  then  returned 
to  occupy  them  aud  reign.  So  Christ  received  from  his  Father,  alter  his  ascension,  the 
investiture  to  his  kingdom;  but  with  the  intention  not  to  occupy  it,  till  his  return  at 
his  second  coming.  In  token  of  this  investiture  he  takes  his  seat  as  the  Lamb  o.n  the 
divine  throne  "  ( Rev.  5:6-8).  But  this  interpretation  contradicts  Mat.  28 :  18, 20—  "All  authority 
hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  .  ...  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
See  Preeb.  Rev.,  1883:028.  On  the  effects  of  the  premillennial  view  in  weakening 
Christian  endeavor,  see  J.  H.  Seelye,  Christian  Missions,  94-127 ;  per  contra,  see  A.J. 
Gordon,  in  Independent,  Feb.  ]&S6. 

(  c)  We  may  therefore  best  interpret  Rev.  20  :  4-10  as  teaching  in  highly 
figurative  language,  not  a  preliminary  resurrection  of  the  body,  in  the  case 
of  departed  saints,  but  a  period  iu  the  later  days  of  the  church  militant 
when,  uuder  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  spirit  of  the  martyrs 
shall  appear  again,  true  religion  be  greatly  quickened  and  revived,  and  the 
members  of  Christ's  churches  become  so  conscious  of  their  strength  in 
Christ  that  they  shall,  to  an  extent  unknown  before,  triumph  over  the 
powers  of  evil  both  within  and  without.  So  the  spirit  of  Elijah  appeared 
again  in  John  the  Baptist  (  Mai  4:5;  <■/.  Mat.  11 :  13,  14).  The  fact  that 
only  the  spirit  of  sacrifice  and  faith  is  to  be  revived  is  figuratively  indicated 
iu  the  phrase  :  "The  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  again  until  the  thousand 
years  should  be  finished  "  =  the  spirit  of  persecution  and  unbelief  shall  be, 
as  it  were,  laid  to  sleep.  Since  resurrection,  like  the  coming  of  Christ 
and  the  judgment,  is  twofold,  first,  spiritual  (the  raising  of  the  soid  to 
spiritual  life),  and  secondly,  physical  (the  raising  of  the  body  from  the 
grave ),  the  words  in  He  v.  20  :  5  —  "this  is  the  first  resurrection  "  —  seem 
intended  distinctly  to  preclude  the  literal  interpretation  we  are  combating. 
In  short,  we  hold  that  Rev.  20  :  4-10  does  not  describe  the  events  commonly 
called  the  second  advent  and  resurrection,  but  rather  describes  great  spirit- 
ual changes  in  the  later  history  of  the  church,  which  are  typical  of,  and 
preliminary  to,  the  second  advent  and  resurrection,  and  therefore,  after 
the  prophetic  method,  are  foretold  in  language  literally  applicable  only  to 
those  final  events  themselves  (c/.  Ez.  37  :  1-14  ;  Luke  15  :  32). 

Mai.  4  : 5  — "  Behold,  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  Jehovah  come  " ;  cf.  Mat. 
11 :  13,  14  — "  For  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until  John.  And  if  ye  are  willing  to  receive  it,  this  is  Elijah, 
that  is  to  come";  Ez.  37:1-14  — the  vision  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones = either  the  political  or 
the  religious  resuscitation  of  the  Jews  ;  Luke  15 :  32  — "  this  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  is  alive  again  "— 
of  the  prodigal  son.  It  will  help  us  in  our  interpretation  of  Rev.  20  :  4-10  to  notice  that 
death,  judgment,  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  resurrection,  are  all  of  two  kinds,  the 
first  spiritual,  and  the  second  literal : 

( 1 )  First,  a  spiritual  death  ( Eph.  2:1—"  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins  " ) ;  and  secondly,  a 
physical  and  literal  death,  whose  culmination  is  found  in  the  second  death  ( Rev.  20 :  14  — 
"And  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.    This  is  the  second  death,  even  the  lake  of  fire  "  ). 

(2)  First,  a  spiritual  judgment  (Is.  26:9—  "when  thy  judgments  are  in  the  earth  "  ;  John  12 :  31  — "  Now 
is  the  judgment  of  this  world:  now  shall  the  prince  ol  this  world  be  cast  out "  ;  3:18— "he  that  believeth  not  hath  been 
judged  already  "  ) ;  and  secondly,  an  outward  and  literal  judgment  ( Acts  17 :  31  — "  hath  appointed  a 
day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath  ordained  " ). 


1014      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF    FINAL   THINGS. 

(3)  First,  the  spiritual  and  in  visible  coming  of  Christ  (Mat.  16:28— "shall  in  no  wise  taste  of 
death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  com.ng  in  his  kingdom  "—  at  the.  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  John  14 :  16, 
18  —"another  Comforter  ....  I  come  unto  you"  —  at  Pentecost ;  14  :3 — "And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you> 
I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  myself"  — at  death  ) ;  and  secondly,  a  visible  literal  coming 
(  Mat,  25 :  31  — "  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him  "  ). 

(  4 )  First,  a  spiritual  resurrection  ( John  5  :  25  — "  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear 
the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live  "  ) ;  and  secondly,  a  physical  and  literal  resur- 
rection (John  5  :28,  29  — "  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judg- 
ment " ).    The  spiritual  resurrection  foreshadows  the  bodily  resurrection. 

This  twofolduess  of  each  of  the  four  terms,  death,  judgment,  coming  of  Christ,  resur- 
rection,  is  so  obvious  a  teaching  of  Scripture,  that  the  apostle's  remark  in  Rev.  20: 5 — "This 
is  the  first  resurrection  " — seems  distinctly  intended  to  warn  the  reader  against  drawing  the 
prcmillenarian  inference,  and  to  make  clear  the  fact  that  the  resurrection  spoken  of  is 
the  first  or  spiritual  resurrection, —  an  interpretation  which  is  made  indubitable  by  his 
proceeding,  further  on,  to  describe  the  outward  and  literal  resurrection  in  verse  13  —  "And 
the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in  it:  and  death  and  Hades  gave  up  the  dead  that  were  in  them."  This 
physical  resurrection  takes  place  when  "  the  thousand  years  "  are  "  finished  "  ( verse  5  ). 

This  interpretation  suggests  a  possible  way  of  reconciling  the  premillenarian  and 
postmillenarian  theories,  without  sacrificing  any  of  the  truth  in  either  of  them. 
Christ  may  come  again,  at  the  beginning  of  the  millennium,  in  a  spiritual  way,  and  his 
saints  may  reign  with  him  spiritually,  in  the  wonderful  advances  of  his  kingdom ;  while 
the  visible,  literal  coming  may  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  thousand  years.  Dorner's 
view  is  postmillennial,  in  this  sense,  that  the  visible  coming  of  Christ  will  be  after  the 
thousand  years.  Hengstenberg  curiously  regards  the  millennium  as  having  begun  in 
the  Middle  Ages  (800  — 1800  A.  D.).  This  strange  view  of  an  able  interpreter,  as  well  as 
the  extraordinary  diversity  of  explanations  given  by  others,  convinces  us  that  no 
exegete  has  yet  found  the  key  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Apocalypse.  Until  we  know 
whether  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  the  whole  world  (Mat.  24:14)  isto  be  a  preaching 
to  nations  asa  whole,  or  to  each  individual  in  each  nation,  we  cannot  determine  whether 
the  millennium  has  already  begun,  or  whether  it  is  yet  far  in  the  future. 

The  millennium  then  is  to  be  the  culmination  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  uni- 
versal revival  of  religion,  a  nation  born  in  a  day,  the  kings  of  the  earth  bringing  their 
glory  and  honor  into  the  city  of  God.  A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  211  — 
"  After  the  present  elective  work  of  the  Spirit  has  been  completed,  there  will  come  a 
time  of  universal  blessing,  when  the  Spirit  shall  literally  be  poured  out  upon  all  flesh, 

when  that  which  is  perfect  shall  come  and  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away 

The  early  rain  of  the  Spirit  was  at  Pentecost ;  the  latter  rain  will  be  at  the  Parcusia." 

A.  H.  Strong-,  Sermon  before  the  Baptist  World  Congress,  London,  July  12, 1905  — "  Let 
us  expect  the  speedy  spiritual  coming  of  the  Lord.  I  believe  in  an  ultimate  literal  and 
visible  coming  of  Christ  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  raise  the  dead,  to  summon  all  men 
to  the  judgment,  and  to  wind  up  the  present  dispensation.  But  I  believe  that  this 
visibleand  literal  coming-  of  Christ  must  be  preceded,  and  prepared  for,  by  his  in  visit  >le 
and  spiritual  coming- and  by  a  resurrection  of  faith  and  love  in  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
'This  is  the  first  resurrection'  (Rev.  20:5).  I  read  in  Scripture  of  a  spiritual  second  coming  that 
precedes  the  literal,  an  inward  revelation  of  Christ  to  his  people,  a  restraining  of  the 
powers  of  darkness,  a  mighty  augmentation  of  the  forces  of  righteousness,  a  turning 
to  the  Lord  of  men  and  nations,  such  as  the  world  has  not  yet  seen.  I  believe  in  a  long 
reign  of  Christ  on  earth,  in  which  his  saints  shall  in  spirit  be  caught  up  with  him,  and 
shall  sit  with  him  upon  his  throne,  even  though  this  muddy  vesture  of  decay  com" 
passes  them  about,  and  the  time  of  their  complete  glorification  has  not  yet  come.  Let 
us  hasten  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God  by  our  faith  and  prayer.  *  When  the  Son  of  man 
cometh,  shall  he  find  faith  on  the  earth  ?  '  ( Luke  18 : 8 ).  Let  him  find  faith,  at  least  in  us.  Our  faith 
can  certainly  secure  the  coming  of  the  Lord  into  our  hearts.  Let  us  expect  that  Christ 
will  be  revealed  in  us,  as  of  old  he  was  revealed  in  the  Apostle  Paul." 

Our  own  interpretation  of  Rev.  20 : 1-10,  was  first  given,  for  substance,  by  Whitby.  He 
was  followed  by  Vitringa  and  Faber.  For  a  fuller  elaboration  of  it,  see  Brown,  Second 
Advent,  206-259;  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  447-453.  For  the  postmillennial  view 
generally,  see  Kendrick,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  Jan.  1870;  New  Englander,  1874 :  356 ;  1879 :  47-49, 
114-147 ;  Pepper,  in  Bap.  Rev.,  1880:15;  Princeton  Review,  March,  1879:415-434;  Presb. 
Rev.,  1883:221-252;  Bib.  Sac,  15 :  381, 625 ;  17 :  111 ;  Harris,  Kingdom  of  Christ,  220-237; 
Waldegrave,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1854,  on  the  Millennium  ;  Neander,  Planting  and 
Training,  526,  527  ;  Cowles,  Dissertation  on  Premillennial  Advent,  in  Com.  on  Jeremiah 


THE   RESURRECTION".  1015 

and  Ezekiel;  Weiss,  Preniiliennial  Advent;  Crosby,  Second  Advent;  Fairbairn  on 
Prophecy,  432-4S0 ;  Woods,  Works,  3:267  ;  Abp,  Wbately,  Essays  on  Future  State.  For 
the  premillennial  view,  Bee  Elliott,  Hone  Apocalyptic*.  4:140-196;  William  Kelly, 
Advent  of  Christ  Premillennial  ;  Taylor,  Voice  of  the  Church  on  the  Coming-  and  King- 
dom of  the  Redeemer ;  Litch,  Christ  Yet  to  Come. 

IV.     The  Resurrection. 

While  the  Scriptures  describe  the  importation  of  new  life  to  the  soul  in 
regeneration  as  a  spiritual  resurrection,  they  also  declare  that,  at  the  second 
coming  of  Christ,  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  a  reunion 
of  the  body  to  the  soul  from  which,  during  the  intermediate  state,  it  has 
been  separated.  Both  the  just  and  the  unjust  shall  have  part  in  the  resur- 
rection. To  the  just,  it  shall  be  a  resurrection  unto  life  ;  and  the  body  shall 
be  a  body  like  Christ's — a  body  fitted  for  the  uses  of  the  sanctified  spirit. 
To  the  unjust,  it  shall  be  a  resurrection  unto  condemnation  ;  and  analogy 
would  seem  to  indicate  that,  here  also,  the  outward  form  will  fitly  represent 
the  inward  state  of  the  soul  —  being  corrupt  and  deformed  as  is  the  sotd 
which  inhabits  it.  Those  who  are  living  at  Christ's  coming  shall  receive 
spiritual  bodies  without  passing  through  death.  As  the  body  after  corrup- 
tion and  dissolution,  so  the  outward  world  after  destruction  by  fire,  shall  be 
rehabilitated  and  fitted  for  the  abode  of  the  saints. 

Passages  describing  a  spiritual  resurrection  are:  John 5: 24-27,  especially  25— "The  hour 
Cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live  "  ;  Rom.  6 :  4, 5  — 
"as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  become  united  with  him  by  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  by  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  "  ;  Eph. 
2 : 1,  5,  6  — "  And  you  did  he  make  alive,  when  ye  were  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins  ....  even  when  we 
were  dead  through  our  trespasses,  made  us  alive  together  with  Christ  ....  and  raised  us  up  with  him,  and  made  us 
to  sit  with  him  in  the  heavenly  places,  in  Christ  Jesus  "  ;  5 :  14  — "  Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead, 
and  Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee."  Phil.  3  :  10  — "  that  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection  "  ;  Col.  2 :  12 
13  — "  having  been  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the  working  of 
God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you,  being  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh, 
you,  I  say,  did  he  make  alive  together  with  him";  cf.  Is.  26 :  19  —  "  Thy  dead  shall  live  ;  my  dead  bodies  shall  arise. 
Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  forth  the  dead  "  ; 
Ez.  37: 1-11  —  the  valley  of  dry  bones  :  "  I  *ill  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves, 
0  my  people ;  and  I  will  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel." 

Passages  describing  a  literal  and  physical  resurrection  are  :  Job  14:12-15 — "So  man  lieth  down 
and  riseth  not :  Till'the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake,  Nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep.  Oh  that  thou  wouldest 
hide  me  in  Sheol,  That  thou  wouldest  keep  me  secret,  until  thy  wrath  be  past,  That  thou  wouldest  appoint  me  a  set  time, 
and  remember  me !  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?  All  the  days  of  my  warfare  would  I  wait,  Till  my  release  should 
come.  Thou  wouldest  call,  and  I  would  answer  thee:  Thou  wouldest  have  a  desire  to  the  work  of  thy  hands";  John 
5:28,29 — ''the  hour  cometh,  in  wh.ch  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shalt  come  forth :  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  thi  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judgment." 

Acts  24:15 — "  having  hope  toward  God  ....  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  unjust"  :  1  Cor. 

15  :  13,  17, 22,  42,  51,  52 — "  if  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  neither  hath  Christ  been  raised  ....  and  if  Christ 
hath  not  been  raised,  your  faith  is  vain ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins  ....  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive  ....  it  is  sown  in  corruption  :  i  t  is  raised  in  incorruption  ....  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  incorruptible  "  ;  Phil.  3 :  21  — "  who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humilation,  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the 
body  of  his  glory,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subject  all  things  unto  himself"  ;  1  Thess.  4 :  14- 

16  — "  For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  d.ed  and  rose  again,  even  so  them  also  that  are  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring 
with  him.  For  this  we  say  unto  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  the 
lord,  shall  in  no  wise  precede  them  that  are  fallen  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." 

2  Pet.  3  : 7, 10,  13  — "  the  heavens  that  now  are,  and  the  earth,  by  the  same  word  have  been  stored  up  for  fire,  being 
reserved  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  dastruction  of  ungodly  men  ....  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a 
thief:  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  be  dissolved  with  fervent 
heat,  and  the  earth  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up  ...  .  But,  according  to  his  promise,  we  look  for 
new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness "  ;  Rev.  20 :  13  — "  And  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  that  were 


1016      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

in  it ;  and  death  and  Hades  gave  tip  the  dead  that  were  in  them  "  ;  21 : 1,  5 — "  And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  ai  d  a  ne> 
earth :  for  the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth  are  passed  away ;  and  the  sea  is  no  more  ....  And  he  that  sitteth  on  the 
throne  said,  Behold,  I  make  all  things  new." 

The  smooth  face  of  death  with  the  lost  youth  restored,  and  the  pure  white  glow  of  the 
marble  statue  with  all  passion  gone  and  the  lofty  and  heroic  only  visible,  are  indications 
of  what  is  to  be.  Art,  in  its  representations  alike  of  the  human  form,  and  of  an  ideal 
earth  and  society  in  landscape  and  poem,  is  prophetic  of  the  future,  —  it  suggests  the 
glorious  possibilities  of  the  resurrection-morning.  Nicoll,  Life  of  Christ :  "  The  river 
runs  through  the  lake  and  pursues  its  way  beyond.  So  the  life  of  faith  passes  through 
death  and  is  only  purified  thereby.  As  to  the  body,  all  that  is  worth  saving  will  be 
saved.  Other  resurrections  [  such  as  that  of  Lazarus  ]  were  resurrections  to  the  old 
conditions  of  earthly  life ;  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  revelation  of  new  life." 

Stevens,  Pauline  Theolog3T,  357  note — "If  we  could  assume  with  confidence  that  the 
report  of  Paul's  speech  before  Felix  accurately  reproduced  his  language  in  detail,  the 
apostle's  belief  in  a  'resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust'  (  Acts 24 :  15  )  would  be  securely 
established:  but,  in  view  of  the  silence  of  his  epistles,  this  assumption  becomes  a  pre- 
carious one.  Paul  speaks  afterwards  of  'attaining  to  the  resurrection  from  the  dead'  (  Phil.  3  :  11 ),  as 
if  this  did  not  belong  to  all."  The  scepticism  of  Prof.  Stevens  seems  to  us  entirely 
needless  and  unjustified.  It  is  the  blessed  resurrection  to  which  Paul  would  "  attain,  " 
and  which  he  has  in  mind  in  Philippians,  as  in  1  Cor.  15  —  a  fact  perfectly  consistent  with 
a  resurrection  of  the  wicked  to  "  shame  and  everlasting  contempt "  ( Daniel  12  :  2 ;  John  5 :  29  ). 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  205,  W>—  "  The  rapture  of  the  saints  ( 1  Thess.  4:17 ) 
is  the  earthly  Christ  rising  to  meet  the  heavenly  Christ;  the  elect  church,  gathered  in 
the  Spirit  and  named  6  Xpto-ro?  ( 1  Cor.  12 :  12 ),  taken  up  to  be  united  in  glory  with  Christ 
the  head  of  the  church,  '  himself  the  Savior  of  the  body  '  (  Eph.  5  :  23 ).  It  is  not  by  acting  upon  the 
body  of  Christ  from  without,  but  by  energizing  it  from  within,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will 
effect  its  glorification.  In  a  word,  the  Comforter,  who  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  came 
down  to  form  a  body  out  of  flesh,  will  at  the  Parousia  return  to  heaven  in  that  body, 

having  fashioned  it  like  unto  the  body  of  Christ  ( Phil.  3 :  31 ) Here  then  is  where  the 

lines  of  Christ's  ministry  terminate,  —  in  sanctiflcation,  the  perfection  of  the  spirit's 
holiness  ;  and  in  resurrection,  the  perfection  of  the  body's  health.  " 

E.G.  Robinson:  "  Personality  is  the  indestructible  principle  —  not  intelligence,  else 
deny  that  infants  have  souls.  Personality  takes  to  itself  a  material  organization.  It  is 
a  divinely  empowered  second  cause.  This  refutes  materialism  and  annihilationism.  No 
one  pretends  that  the  individual  elements  of  the  body  will  be  raised.  The  individuality 
only,  the  personal  identity,  will  be  preserved.  The  soul  is  theorganific  power.  Medical 
practice  teaches  that  merely  animal  life  is  a  mechanical  process,  but  this  is  used  by  a 
personal  power.  Materialism,  on  the  contrary,  would  make  the  soul  the  product  of  the 
body.  Every  man,  in  becoming  a  Christian,  begins  the  process  of  resurrection.  We  do 
not  know  hut  resurrection  begins  at  the  moment  of  dissolution,  yet  we  do  not  know 
thai  it  does.  But  if  Christ  arose  with  identically  the  same  body  unchanged,  how  can  his 
resurrection  be  a  type  of  ours?  Answer:  The  nature  of  Christ's  resurrection  body  is 
an  open  question." 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  resurrection,  our  positive  information  is  derived 
wholly  from  the  word  of  God.  Further  discussion  of  it  may  be  most 
naturally  arranged  in  a  series  of  answers  to  objections.  The  objections 
commonly  urged  against  the  doctrine,  as  above  propounded,  may  be 
reduced  to  two  : 

1.  The  excgetlcal  objection, —  that  it  rests  upon  a  literalizing  of  meta- 
phorical language,  and  has  no  sufficient  support  in  Scripture.  To  this  we 
answer  : 

(a)  That,  though  the  phrase  "resurrection  of  the  body  "  does  not  occur 
in  the  New  Testament,  the  })assages  which  describe  the  event  indicate  a 
physical,  as  distinguished  from  a  spiritual,  chauge  (  John  5  :  28/  29  ;  Phil. 
3  :  21  ;  1  Thess.  4  :  13-17 ).  The  phrase  "  spiritual  body  "  ( 1  Cor.  15  :  44  ) 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  if  it  be  understood  as  signifying  'a  body  which 
is  simple  spirit.'    It    can  only  be    interpreted  as  meaning  a   material 


THE    RESURRECTION.  101? 

organism,  perfectly  adapted  to  be  the  outward  expression  and  vehicle  of  the 
purified  soul.  The  purely  spiritual  interpretation  is,  moreover,  expressly 
excluded  by  the  apostolic  denial  that  "the  resurrection  is  past  already" 
(2  Tim.  2  :  18  ),  and  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a  resurrection  of  the  unjust,  as 
well  as  of  the  just  ( Acts  24  :  15  ). 

John  5 :  28,  29  — "  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  " ;  Phil.  3 :  21  — "  who  shall  fashion 
anew  the  body  of  our  humiliat.on  "  ;  1  Thess.  4  :  16,  17  — "  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 "  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  44  — "  it  is 
sown  a  natural  [marg.:  '  psychical '  *]  body;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body";  2  Tim.2:17,  18 — "Hymenseus  and 
Philetus ;  men  who  concerning  the  truth  have  erred,  saying  that  the  resurrection  is  past  already,  and  overthrow  the  faith  of 
some ' ' ;  Acts  24 :  15  — "  Having  hope  toward  God  ....  that  thero  shall  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  the  unjust." 

In  1  Cor.  15:44,  the  word  v/>vx"c°,'>  translated  "natural"  or  "psychical,"  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  word  i/^x"),  soul,  just  as  the  word  trvevfLanicov,  translated  "spiritual,"  is  derived  from 
the  Greek  word  n-i-eO/u-a,  spirit.  Aud  as  Paul  could  not  mean  to  say  that  this  earthly 
body  is  composed  of  so}d,  neither  does  he  say  that  the  resurrection  body  is  composed  of 
spirit.  In  other  words,  these  adjectives  "psychical"  and  "spiritual"  do  not  detiue  the 
material  of  the  respective  bodies,  but  describe  those  bodies  in  their  relations  and 
adaptations,  in  their  powers  aud  uses.  The  present  body  is  adapted  and  designed  for 
the  use  of  the  soul ;  the  resurrection  body  will  be  adapted  and  designed  for  the  use  of 
the  spirit. 

2  Tim.  2 :  18  —  "  saying  that  the  resurrection  is  past  already  "  =  undue  contempt  for  the  body  came  to 
regard  the  resurrection  as  a  purely  spiritual  tiling  (  Ellicott).  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon  said 
that  the  "spiritual  body  "  means  "the  body  spiritualized."  E.  H.Johnson:  "The  phrase 
'spiritual  body'  describes  not  so  much  the  nature  of  the  body  itself,  as  its  relations  to  the 
spirit."  Savage,  Life  after  Death,  80—  "  Resurrection  does  not  mean  the  raising  up  of 
the  body,  and  it  does  no<  mean  t  he  mere  rising  of  the  soul  in  the  moment  of  death,  but 
a  rising  again  from  the  prison  house  of  the  dead,  after  going  down  at  the  moment  of 
death."  D.  H.  Goodwin,  Journ.  Soc.  Itib.  Exegesis,  1881:81  —  "The  spiritual  body  is 
/»»///,  and  not  xi>i)it,  and  t  herefore  must  come  under  the  definition  of  body.  If  it  were 
to  tic  mere  spirit,  then  every  man  in  the  future  state  would  have  two  spirits — the 
spirit  that  he  has  here  and  a  not  her  spirit  received  a<  tlio  resurrection." 

(  b  )  That  the  redemption  of  Christ  is  declared  to  include  the  bod}'  as 
weU  as  the  soul  (Rom.  8:23;  1  Cor.  6:13-20).  The  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  put  such  honor  upon  the  frail  mortal  tenement  which  he 
has  made  his  teniple,  that  Cod  would  not  permit  even  this  wholly  to  perish 
(  Rom.  8  :  11  —  Sta  to  kvoinovv  avrov  nvevfia  kv  v/iiv}  i.  e.,  because  of  his  indwell- 
ing Spirit,  God  will  raise  up  the  mortal  body  ).  It  is  this  belief  which 
forms  the  basis  of  Christian  care  for  the  dead  (Phil.  3  :21  ;  cf.  Mat.  22  :32). 

Rom.  8 :  23  —  "  waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  tho  redemption  of  our  body  "  ;  1  Cor.  6 :  13-20  — ' '  Meats  for  the  belly 
and  the  belly  for  meats :  but  God  shall  bring  to  nought  both  it  and  them.  But  the  body  is  not  for  fornication,  but  fur 
the  Lord  ;  and  the  Lord  for  the  body :  and  God  both  raised  the  Lord,  and  will  raise  up  us  through  his  power  ....  But 
he  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit  ....  Or  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God  ?  ...  .  glorify  God  therefore  in  your  body  "  ;  Rom.  8 :  11  —  "But  if  the  Spirit 
of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwelleth  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ  Jesus  from  the  dead  shall  give  life 
also  to  your  mortal  bodies  through  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you"  — here  the  Revised  Version  follows 
Tiseh.,  8th  ed.,  and  Westcott  and  Hort's  reading  of  Siarov  eyotKoOcros  axnov  np^v^aTO';. 
Tregelles,  Tisch.,  7th  ed.,  and  Meyer,  have  Sia  to  ivoiKovv  aO-roD  n-ceG/jia,  and  this  reading 
we  regard  as,  on  the  whole,  the  best  supported.  Phil  3  :  21  —  "  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our 
humiliation." 

Dr.  R.  D.  Hitchcock,  in  South  Church  Lectures,  3oS,  says  that  "  there  is  no  Scripture 
declaration  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  nor  even  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body." 
"While  this  is  literally  true,  it  conveys  a  false  idea.  The  passages  just  cited  foretell  a 
quickening  of  our  mortal  bodies,  a  raising  of  them  up,  a  changing  of  them  into  the 
likeness  of  Christ's  body.  Dorner,  Eschatology  :  "  The  New  Testament  is  not  contented 
with  a  bodiless  immortality.  It  is  opposed  to  a  naked  spiritualism,  and  accords  com- 
pletely with  a  deeper  philosophy  which  discerns  in  the  body,  not  merely  the  sheath  or 
garment  of  the  soul,  but  a  side  of  the  person  belonging  to  his  full  idea,  his  mirror  and 
organ,  of  the  greatest  importance  for  his  activity  and  history." 


1018      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

Christ's  proof  of  the  resurrection  in  Mat.  22 :  32  — "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  " — 
has  for  its  basis  this  very  assumption  that  soul  and  body  belong  normally  together,  and 
that,  since  they  are  temporally  separated  in  the  case  of  the  saints  who  live  with  God, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  shall  rise  again.  The  idealistic  philosophy  of  thirty  years 
ago  led  to  a  contempt  of  the  body  ;  the  recent  materialism  has  done  at  least  this  service, 
that  it  has  reasserted  the  claims  of  the  body  to  be  a  proper  part  of  man. 

( e )  That  the  nature  of  Christ's  resurrection,  as  literal  and  physical, 
determines  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  in  the  case  of  believers  ( Luke 
24  :  36  ;  John  20  :  27 ).  As,  in  the  case  of  Christ,  the  same  body  that  was 
laid  in  the  tomb  was  raised  again,  although  possessed  of  new  and  surpris- 
ing powers,  so  the  Scriptures  intimate,  not  simply  that  the  saints  shall 
have  bodies,  but  that  these  bodies  shall  be  in  some  proper  sense  an  out- 
growth or  transformation  of  the  very  bodies  that  slept  in  the  dust  (  Dan. 
12  :2  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  53,  54).  The  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  in 
the  case  of  believers,  leads  naturally  to  a  denial  of  the  reality  of  Christ's 
resurrection  (  1  Cor.  15  :  13  ). 

Luke  24 :  39  —  "  See  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself :  handle  me,  and  see  ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,  as  ye  behold  me  having  "  ;  John  20 :  27  —  "  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  see  my  hands  ; 
and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  put  it  into  my  side:  and  b)  not  faithless,  but  believing"  ;  Dan.  12:  2 —  "And  many  of 
them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt"  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  53,  54  —  "  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality 
But  when  this  corruption  shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  come 
to  pass  the  saying  that  is  written,  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory  "  ;  13  —  "  But  if  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
aoither  hath  Christ  been  raised." 

Sadduceau  materialism  and  Gnostic  dualism,  which  last  held  matter  to  be  evil,  both 
denied  the  resurrection.  Paul  shows  that  to  deny  it  is  to  deny  that  Christ  rose  ;  since,  if 
it  were  impossible  in  the  case  of  his  followers,  it  must  have  been  impossible  in  his  own 
case.  As  believers,  we  are  vitally  connected  with  him  ;  and  his  resurrection  could  not 
have  taken  place  without  drawing  in  its  train  the  resurrection  of  all  of  us.  Having 
denied  that  Christ  rose,  where  is  the  proof  that  he  is  not  still  under  the  bond  and  curse 
of  death?  Surely  then  our  preaching  is  vain.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was 
written  before  the  Gospels ;  and  is  therefore,  as  Hanna  says,  the  earliest  written  account 
of  the  resurrection.    Christ's  transfiguration  was  a  prophecy  of  his  resurrection. 

S.  S. Times,  March 23,  1902:161 — "The  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not  a  mere  rising 
again,  like  that  of  Lazarus  and  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain.  He  came  forth  from  the 
tomb  so  changed  that  he  was  not  at  once  or  easily  recognized,  and  was  possesses  of  such 
new  and  surprising  powers  that  he  seemed  to  bo  purespirit.no  longer  subject  to  the 
conditions  of  his  natural  body.  So  he  was  the  "first-fruits"  of  the  resurrection-harvest 
(1  Cor.  15:20).  Our  resurrection,  in  like  manner,  is  to  involve  a  change  from  a  corrup- 
tible body  to  an  incorruptible,  from  a  psychical  to  a  spiritual." 

(  d  )  That  the  accompanying  events,  as  the  second  coming  and  the  judg- 
ment, since  they  are  themselves  literal,  imply  that  the  resurrection  is  also 
literal. 

Rom.  8:19-23 — "  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creation  waiteth  for  the  revealing  of  the  sons  of  God  ....  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  txavaileth  in  pain  together  until  now  ....  even  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves, 
waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body"  —  here  man's  body  is  regarded  as  a  part  of 
nature,  or  the  "creation,"  and  as  partaking  in  Christ  of  its  deliverance  from  the  curse  ; 
Rev.  21 : 4,  5  —  "  he  shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes ;  and  death  shall  be  no  more  ....  And  he  that  sitteth 
on  the  throne  said,  Behold,  I  make  all  things  new  "  —  a  declaration  applicable  to  the  body,  the  seat  of 
pain  and  the  avenue  of  temptation,  as  well  as  to  outward  nature.  See  Hanna,  The 
Resurrection,  28 ;  Fuller,  Works,  3:291 ;  Boston,  Fourfold  State,  in  Works,  8 :  271-289. 
On  Olshausen's  view  of  immortality  as  inseparable  from  body,  see  Aids  to  the  Study 
of  German  Theology,  fi3.  On  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  see  Jahrbuch  f .  d.  Theol.,  1 :  289-317. 

2.     The  scientific  objection. —  This  is  threefold  : 

(  a )  That  a  resurrection  of  the  particles  which  compose  the  body  at 
death  is  impossible,  since  they  enter  into  new  combinations,  and  not  unfre- 


THE    RESURRECTION.  1019 

qtiently  become  parts  of  other  bodies  which,  the  doctrine  holds  to  be  raised 
at  the  same  time. 

We  reply  that  the  Scripture  not  only  does  not  compel  us  to  hold,  but  it 
distinctly  denies,  that  all  the  particles  which  exist  in  the  body  at  death  are 
present  in  the  resurrection-body  (  1  Cor.  15  :37 — ov  to  au/m  to  yevrjadfu  vov  ; 
50  ).  The  Scripture  seems  only  to  indicate  a  certain  physical  connection 
between  the  new  and  the  old,  although  the  nature  of  this  connection  is  not 
revealed.  So  long  as  the  physical  connection  is  maintained,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  even  a  germ  or  particle  that  belonged  to  the  old  body 
exists  in  the  new. 

1  Cor.  15 :  37,  38  —  "  that  which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  the  body  that  shall  be,  but  a  bare  grain,  it  may  chance 
of  wheat,  or  of  some  other  kind ;  but  God  giveth  it  a  body  even  as  it  pleased  him,  and  to  each  seed  a  body  of  its  own." 
Jerome  tells  us  that  the  risen  saints  "  habent  dentes,  veutrem,  genitalia,  et  tamen  nee 
cibia  nee  uxoribus  indigent."  This  view  of  the  resurrection  is  exposed  to  the  objection 
mentioned  above.  Poll  ok 'a  Course  of  Time  represented  the  day  of  resurrection  as  a 
day  on  which  the  limbs  that  had  been  lorn  asunder  on  earth  hurtled  through  the  air  to 
join  one  another  once  more.  The  amputated  arm  that  lias  been  buried  in  <  !hina  must 
traverse  thousands  of  miles  to  meet  the  body  of  its  former  owner,  as  it  rose  from  the 
place  of  its  burial  in  England. 

There  are  serious  difficulties  attending  this  view.  The  bodies  of  the  dead  fertilized 
the  field  of  Waterloo.  The  wheat  grown  there  lias  been  ground  and  made  into  bread, 
and  eaten  by  thousands  of  living  men.  Particles  of  one  human  body  have  become 
incorporated  with  the  bodies  of  many  others.  "The  Avon  to  the  Severn  runs,  The 
Severn  to  the  sea,  And  Wycliffe's  dust  shall  spread  abroad,  Wide  as  the  waters  lie." 
Through  the  clouds  and  the  rain,  particles  of  Wycliffe's  body  may  have  entered  into 
the  water  which  other  men  have  drunk  from  their  wells  and  fountains.  There  is  a 
propagation  of  disease  by  contagion,  or  the  transmission  of  infinitesimal  germs  from 
one  body  to  another,  sometimes  by  infection  of  the  living  from  contact  with  the  body 
of  a  friend  just  dead.  In  these  various  ways,  the  same  particle  might,  in  the  course  of 
history,  enter  into  the  constitution  of  a  hundred  living  men.  How  can  this  one  par- 
ticle, at  the  resurrection,  be  in  a  hundred  places  at  the  same  time?  "Like  the  woman 
who  had  seven  husbands,  the  same  matter  may  belong  in  succession  to  many  bodies, 
for  'they  all  had  it'"  (Smyth).  The  cannibal  and  Ins  victim  cannot  both  possess  the 
same  body  at  the  resurrection.  The  Providence  Journal  had  an  article  entitled  :  "Who 
ate  Roger  Williams?  "  When  his  remains  were  exhumed,  it  was  found  that  one  large 
root  of  an  apple  tree  followed  the  spine,  divided  at  the  thighs,  and  turned  up  at  the 
toes  of  Roger  Williams.  More  than  one  person  had  eaten  its  apples.  This  root  may  be 
seen  to-day  in  the  cabinet  of  Brown  University. 

These  considerations  have  led  some,  like  Origen,  to  call  the  doctrine  of  a  literal  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh  "the  foolishness  of  beggarly  minds,"  and  to  say  that  resurrection 
may  be  only  "  the  gathering  round  the  spirit  of  new  materials,  and  the  vitalizing  them 
into  a  new  body  by  the  spirit's  God-given  power"  ;  see  Newman  Smyth,  Old  Faiths  in  a 
New  Light,  349-391 ;  Porter,  Human  Intellect,  39.  But  this  view  seems  as  great  an 
extreme  as  that  from  which  it  was  a  reaction.  It  gives  up  all  idea  of  unity  between 
the  new  and  the  old.  If  my  body  were  this  instant  annihilated,  and  if  then,  an  hour 
hence,  God  should  create  a  second  body,  precisely  like  the  present,  r  could  not  call  it 
the  same  with  the  present  body,  even  though  it  were  animated  by  the  same  informing 
soul,  and  that  soul  had  maintained  an  uninterrupted  existence  between  the  time  of  the 
annihilation  of  the  first  body  and  the  creation  of  the  second.  So,  if  the  body  laid  in 
the  tomb  were  wholly  dissipated  among  the  elements,  and  God  created  at  the  end  of 
the  world  a  wholly  new  body,  it  would  be  impossible  for  Paul  to  say :  "this  corruptible  must 
put  on  incorruption  "  (1  Cor.  15:53),  or :  "it is  sown  in  dishonor;  it  is  raised  in  glory  "  (  verse  43  ).  In  short, 
there  is  a  physical  connection  between  the  old  and  the  new,  which  is  intimated  by 
Scripture,  but  which  this  theory  denies. 

Paul  himself  gives  us  an  illustration  which  shows  that  his  view  was  midway  between 
the  two  extremes  :  "that  which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  the  body  that  shall  be  "  ( 1  Cor.  15 :  37),  On 
the  one  hand,  the  wheat  that  springs  up  does  not  contain  the  precise  particles,  perhaps 
does  not  contain  any  particles,  that  were  in  the  seed.  On  the  other  hand,  there  has 
been  a  continous  physical  connection  between  the  6eed  sown  and  the  ripened  grain  at 
the  harvest.    If  the  seed  had  been  annihilated,  and  then  ripe  grain  created,  we  could 


1020      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OE    EINAL   THINGS. 

not  speak  of  identity  between  the  one  and  the  other.  But,  because  there  has  been  a 
constant  flux,  the  old  particles  pressed  out  by  new,  and  these  new  in  their  turn  suc- 
ceeded by  others  that  take  their  places,  we  can  say  :  "  the  wheat  has  come  up."  We 
bury  grain  in  order  to  increase  it.  The  resurrection-body  will  be  the  same  with  the 
body  laid  away  in  the  earth,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  living  stalk  of  grain  is  identical 
with  the  seed  from  which  it  germinated.  "This  mortal  must  put  on  immortality"  =  not  the 
immortal  spirit  put  on  an  immortal  body,  but  the  mortal  body  put  on  immortality, 
the  corruptible  body  put  on  incorruption  (1  Cor.  15:53).  "Ye  know  not  the  Scriptures,  nor  the 
power  of  God"  (Mark  12:  24),  says  our  Lord;  and  Paul  asks:  "Why  is  it  judged  incredible  with  you,  if  God 
doth  raise  the  dead  ?  "  (  Acts  26 : 8  ). 

Or,  to  use  another  illustration  nearer  to  the  thing  we  desire  to  illustrate :  My  body  is 
the  same  that  it  was  ten  years  ago,  although  physiologists  declare  that  every  particle  of 
the  body  is  changed,  not  simply  once  in  seven  years,  but  once  in  a  single  year.  Life  is 
preserved  only  by  the  constant  throwing  off  of  dead  matter  and  the  introduction  Of 
new.  There  is  indeed  a  unity  of  consciousness  and  personality,  without  which  I  should 
not  be  able  to  say  at  intervals  of  years :  "  this  body  is  the  same ;  this  body  is  mine." 
But  a  physical  connection  between  the  old  and  the  new  is  necessary  in  addition. 

The  nails  of  the  hands  are  renewed  in  less  than  four  months,  or  about  twenty-one 
times  in  seven  years.  They  grow  to  full  length,  an  average  of  seven  twelfths  of  an  inch, 
in  from  121  to  138  days.  Young  people  grow  them  more  rapidly,  old  people  more  slowly . 
In  a  man  of  21,  it  took  126  days ;  in  a  man  of  67,  it  took  2*14 ;  but  the  average  was  a  third 
of  a  year.  A  Baptist  pastor  attempted  to  prove  that  he  was  a  native  of  South  Carolina 
though  born  in  another  state,  upon  the  ground  that  the  body  he  brought  with  him 
from  Tennessee  had  exchanged  its  physical  particles  for  matter  taken  from  South 
Carolina.  Two  dentists,  however,  maintained  that  he  still  had  the  same  teeth  which  he 
owned  in  Tennessee  seven  years  before,  there  being  no  circulation  in  the  enamel. 
Should  we  then  say :  Every  particle  of  the  body  has  changed,  except  the  enamel  of  the 
teeth  ? 

Pope's  Martinus  Scriblerus :  "  Sir  John  Cutler  had  a  pair  of  black  worsted  stockings 
which  his  maid  darned  so  often  with  silk  that  they  became  at  last  a  pair  of  silk  stock- 
ings." Adency,  in  Christianity  and  Evolution,  122,  123 — "Herod's  temple  was  treated 
as  identical  with  the  temple  that  Haggai  knew,  because  the  rebuilding  was  gradual,  and 
was  carried  on  side  by  side  with  the  demolition  of  the  several  parts  of  the  old  struct- 
ure." The  ocean  wave  travels  around  the  world  and  is  the  same  wave ;  but  it  is  never 
in  two  consecutive  seconds  composed  of  the  same  particles  of  water. 

The  North  River  is  the  same  to-day  that  it  was  when  Hendrick  Hudson  first  discov- 
ered it;  yet  not  a  particle  of  its  current,  nor  the  surface  of  the  banks  which  that  current 
touches  now,  is  the  same  that  it  was  then.  Two  things  make  the  present  river  identical 
with  the  river  of  the  past.  The  first  is,  that  the  same  formative  principle  is  at  work,— 
the  trend  of  the  banks  is  the  same,  and  there  is  the  same  general  effect  in  the  flow  and 
direction  of  the  waters  drained  from  a  large  area  of  country.  The  second  is,  the  fact 
that,  ever  since  Hendrick  Hudson's  time,  there  has  been  a  physical  connection,  old 
particles  in  continuous  succession  having  been  replaced  by  new. 

So  there  are  two  things  requisite  to  make  our  future  bodies  one  with  the  bodies  we 
now  inhabit:  first,  that  the  same  formative  principle  beat  work  in  them  ;  and  secondly, 
that  there  be  some  sort  of  physical  connection  between  the  body  that  now  is  and  the 
body  that  shall  be.  What  that  physical  connection  is,  it  is  vain  to  speculate.  We  only 
teach  that,  though  there  may  not  be  a  single  material  particle  in  the  new  that  was  pres- 
ent in  the  old,  there  yet  will  be  such  a  physical  connection  that  it  can  be  said :  "  the  new 
has  grown  out  of  the  old";  "  that  which  was  in  the  grave  has  come  forth";  "this 
mortal  has  put  on  immortality." 

(  b )  That  a  resiirrection-body,  having  such  a  remote  physical  connection 
with  the  present  body,  cannot  be  recognized  by  the  inhabiting  soul  or  by 
other  witnessing  spirits  as  the  same  with  that  which  was  laid  in  the  grave. 

To  this  we  reply  that  bodily  identity  does  not  consist  in  absolute  same- 
ness of  particles  during  the  whole  history  of  the  body,  but  in  the  organizing 
force,  which,  even  in  the  flux  and  displacement  of  jjhysical  particles,  makes 
the  old  the  basis  of  the  new,  and  binds  both  together  in  the  unity  of  a 
single  consciousness.  In  our  recognition  of  friends,  moreover,  we  are  not 
whoily  dependent,  even  in  this  world,  upon  our  percej^tion  of  bodily  form  ; 


THE   RESURRECTION.  1021 

and  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  future  state  there  ruay  be  methods 
of  communication  far  more  direct  and  intuitive  than  those  with  which  we 
are  familiar  here. 

Cf.  Mat.  17 : 3, 4  — "  And  behold,  there  appeared  unto  them  Moses  and  Elijah  talking  with  him.  And  Peter  answered, 
and  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here :  if  thou  wilt,  I  will  make  here  three  tabernacles ;  one  for  thee,  and 
one  fur  Moses,  and  one  for  Elijah  "  —  here  there  is  no  mention  of  information  given  to  Peter  as  to 
the  names  of  the  celestial  visitants;  it  would  seem  that,  in  his  state  of  exalted  sensi- 
bility, heat  oneeknew  them.  The  recent  proceedings  of  the  English  Society  for  Psychi- 
cal Research  seem  to  indicate  the  possibility  of  communication  between  two  minds 
without  physical  intermediaries.  Hudson,  Scientific  Demonstration  of  a  Future  Life, 
294,  29"),  holds  that  telepathy  is  the  means  of  communication  in  the  future  state. 

G.  S.  Fullerton,  Sameness  and  Identity, 6,32,67 — "Heracleitus  of  Ephesus  declared 
it  impossible  to  enter  the  same  x-iver  twice.    Cratylus  replied  that  the  same  river  could 

not  be  entered  once The  kinds  of  sameness  are:    I.    Thing  same  with  itself  at 

any  one  instant ;  2.  Same  pain  to-day  I  felt  yesterday  =  a  like  pain  ;  3.  I  see  the  same 
tree  at  different  times  =  two  or  more  percepts  represent  the  same  object ;  4.  Two  plants 
belonging  to  the  same  class  are  called  the  same  ;  5.  Memory  gives  us  the  same  object 
that  we  formerly  perceived;  but  the  object  is  not  the  past,  it  is  the  memory^lmage 
which  represents  it;  6.  Two  men  perceive  the  same  Object  =  they  have  like  percepts, 
while  both  percepts  are  only  representative  of  the  same  object;  7.  External  thing 
same  with  its  representative  in  consciousness,  or  with  the  substance  or  noumenon 
supposed  to  underlie  it.'' 

Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind,  153,  2.">.j  — "  What  is  called  'remaining  the  same,' in  the  case 
of  all  organic  beings  is  just  this,—  remaining  faithful  to  some  immanent  idea,  while 

undergoing  a  great  variety  of  changes  in  the  pursuit,  as  it  were,  of  the  idea Self- 

consciousness  and  memory  are  themselves  processes  of  becoming.  The  mind  that  does 
not  change,  in  the  way  of  growth,  has  no  claim  to  be  called  mind.  One  cannot  be  con- 
scious of  change-;  wit  limit  also  being  conscious  of  being  the  very  being  that  is  changed. 
When  he  loses  this  consciousness,  we  say  that  '  he  has  lost  his  mind.'  Amid  changes  of 
its  ideas  the  ego  remains  permanent  because  it  is  held  within  limits  by  the  power  of 

some  immanent  idea Our  bodies  as  such  have  only  a  formal  existence.    They  are 

a  stream  inconstant  Sow  and  are  ever  changing.  My  body  is  only  a  temporary  loan 
from  Nature,  to  be  repaid  at  death." 

With  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  identity,"  as  applied  to  material  things,  see 
Porter,  Human  Intellect,  631—"  Bere  the  substance  is  called  the  same,  by  a  loose  anal- 
ogy taken  from  living  agents  and  their  gradual  accretion  and  growth."  The  Euphrates 
is  the  same  stream  that  flowed,  ''When  high  in  Paradise  By  the  lour  rivers  the  first 
roses  blew,"  even  though  after  that  time  the  Hood,  or  deluge,  stopped  its  flow  and 
obliterated  all  the  natural  features  of  the  landscape.  So  this  flowing  organism  which 
we  call  the  body  may  be  the  same,  after  the  deluge  of  death  has  passed  away. 

A  different  and  irss  satisfactory  view  is  presented  in  Dorner's  Eschatology :  "Identity 
involves  :  1.  Plastic  form,  which  for  the  earthly  body  had  its  moulding  principle  in  the 
soul.  That  principle  could  effect  nothing  permanent  in  the  intermediate  state;  but 
with  the  spiritual  consummation  of  the  soul,  itattains  the  full  power  which  can  appro- 
priate to  itself  the  heavenly  bod.v,  accompanied  by  a  cosmical  process,  made  like  Christ. 
2.  Appropriation,  from  the  world  of  elements,  of  what  it  needs.  The  elements  into 
which  everything  bodily  of  earth  is  dissolved,  are  an  essentially  uniform  mass,  like  an 
ocean  ;  and  it  is  indifferent  what  parts  of  this  are  assigned  to  each  individual  man.  The 
whole  world  of  substance,  which  makes  the  constant  change  of  substance  possible,  is 
made  over  to  humanity  as  a  common  possession  ( Acts  4 :  32  — '  not  ore  of  them  said  that  aught  of  the 
things  which  he  possessed  was  his  own  ;  but  they  had  all  things  common ' )." 

(  c )  That  a  material  organism  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  hindrance  to  the 
free  activity  of  the  spirit,  and  that  the  assumption  of  such  an  organism  by 
the  soul,  which,  during  the  intermediate  state,  had  been  separated  from  the 
body,  would  indicate  a  decline  in  dignity  and  power  rather  than  a  progress. 

We  reply  that  we  cannot  estimate  the  powers  and  capacities  of  matter 
when  brought  by  God  into  complete  subjection  to  the  spirit.  The  bodies 
of  the  saints  may  be  more  ethereal  than  the  air,  and  capable  of  swifter 
motion  than  the  light,  and  yet  be  material  in   their  substance.     That  the 


1022      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  FINAL  THINGS. 

soul,  clot-lied  with  its  spiritual  body,  will  liave  more  exalted  powers  and 
enjoy  a  more  complete  felicity  than  would  be  possible  while  it  maintained 
a  purely  spiritual  existence,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Paul  represents 
the  culmination  of  the  soul's  blessedness  as  occurring,  not  at  death,  but  at 
the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

Rom.  8 :  23  — "  waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body  "  ;  2  Cor.  5 : 4  — "  not  for  that  we  would  be 
unclothed,  but  that  we  would  be  clothed  upon,  that  what  is  mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of  life  '' ;  Phil.  3 :  11  — "  if  by 
any  means  I  may  attain  unto  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  Even  Ps.  86:11  — "Unite  my  heart  to  fear  thy  name"  — 
may  mean  the  collecting  of  all  the  powers  of  the  body  as  well  as  soul.  In  this  respect 
for  the  body,  as  a  normal  part  of  man's  being-,  Scripture  is  based  upon  the  truest  philos- 
ophy. Plotinus  gave  thanks  that  he  was  not  tied  to  an  immortal  body,  and  refused  to 
have  his  portrait  taken,  because  the  body  was  too  contemptible  a  thing  to  have  its 
image  perpetuated.  But  this  is  not  natural,  nor  is  it  probably  anything  more  than  a 
whim  or  affectation.  Eph.  5:29 — "no  man  ever  hated  his  own  flesh;  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it." 
What  we  desire  is  not  the  annihilation  of  the  body,  but  its  perfection. 

Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  188—"  In  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead,  the  soul  reunites 
itself  to  the  body,  with  the  assurance  that  they  shall  never  again  be  separated."  McCosh, 
Intuitions,  213— "The  essential  thing  about  the  resurrection  is  the  development, 
out  of  the  dead  body,  of  an  organ  for  the  communion  and  activity  of  the  spiritual 
life."  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  2 :  22<j-23f ,  has  interesting  remarks  upon  the  relation  of  the 
resurrection-body  to  the  present  body.  The  essential  difference  he  considers  to  be  this, 
that  whereas,  in  the  present  body,  matter  is  master  of  the  spirit,  in  the  resurrection- 
body  spirit  will  be  the  master  of  matter,  needing  no  reparation  by  food,  and  having 
control  of  material  laws.  Ebrard  adds  striking  speculations  with  regard  to  the  glorified 
body  of  Christ. 

A.  J.  Gordon,  Ministry  of  the  Spirit,  136 —  "JVoiC  the  body  bears  the  spirit,  a  slow 
chariot  whose  wheels  are  often  disabled,  and  whose  swiftest  motion  is  but  labored  and 
tardy.  Then  the  spirit  will  bear  the  body,  carrying  it  as  on  wings  of  thought  whither- 
soever it  will.  The  Holy  Ghost,  by  his  divine  inworking  will,  has  completed  in  us  the 
divine  likeness,  and  perfected  over  us  the  divine  dominion.  The  human  body  will  now 
be  in  sovereign  subjection  to  the  human  spirit,  and  the  human  spirit  to  the  divine 
Spirit,  and  God  will  lie  all  in  all."  Newman  Smyth,  Place  of  Death  in  Evolution,  112  — 
"  Weismann  maintains  that  the  living  germ  not  only  persists  and  is  potentially  immor- 
tal, but  also  that  under  favorable  conditions  it  seems  capable  of  surrounding  itself 
with  a  new  body.  If  a  vital  germ  can  do  this,  why  not  a  spiritual  germ?"  Two  martyrs 
were  led  to  the  stake.  One  was  blind,  the  other  lame.  As  the  fires  kindled,  the  latter 
exclaimed :  "  Courage,  brother  !  this  fire  will  cure  us  both  !  " 

We  may  sum  up  our  auswrers  to  objections,  and  may  at  the  same  time 
throw  light  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  by  suggesting  four  prin- 
ciples which  should  govern  our  thinking  with  regard  to  the  subject, —  these 
namely  :  1.  Body  is  in  continual  flux  ;  2.  Since  matter  is  but  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God's  mind  and  will,  body  is  plastic  in  God's  hands  ;  3.  The  soul  in 
complete  union  with  God  may  be  endowed  with  the  power  of  God ;  4.  Soul 
determines  body,  and  not  body  soul,  as  the  materialist  imagines. 

Ice,  the  flowing  stream,  the  waterfall  with  the  rainbow  upon  it,  steam  with  its  power 
to  draw  the  railway  train  or  to  burst  the  boiler  of  the  locomotive,  are  all  the  same  ele- 
ment in  varied  forms,  and  they  are  all  mah  rial.  Wundt  regards  physical  development, 
not  as  the  cause,  but  as  the  effect,  of  psychical  development.  Aristotle  defines  the  soul 
as  "the  prime  entelechy  of  the  living  body."  Swedenborg  regarded  each  soul  here  as 
fashioning  its  own  spiritual  body,  either  hideous  or  lovely.  Spenser,  A  Hymne  to 
Meautie:  "For  of  the  soul  the  body  form  doth  take,  For  soul  is  form,  and  doth  the 
body  make."  Wordsworth,  Sonnet  36,  Afterthought :  "  Far  backward,  Duddou,  as  I 
cast  my  eyes,  I  see  what  was,  and  is,  and  will  abide;  Still  glides  the  stream,  and  shall  not 
cease  to  glide ;  The  Form  remains,  the  Function  never  dies";  The  Primrose  of  the 
Rock :  "  Sin-blighted  as  we  are,  we  too.  The  reasoning  sons  of  men,  From  one  oblivious 
winter  called,  Shall  rise  and  breathe  again,  And  in  eternal  summer  lose  Our  three-score 
years  and  ten.  To  humbleness  of  heart  descends  This  prescience  from  on  high.  The 
faith  that  elevates  the  just  Before  and  when  they  die,  And  makes  each  soul  a  separate 


THE   LAST  JUDGMENT.  1023 

heaven,  A  court  for  Deity."  Robert  Browning,  Asolando:  "One  who  never  turned 
his  back,  but  marched  breastforward ;  Never  doubted  clouds  would  break;  Never 
dreamed,  though  right  were  worsted,  Wroug  would  triumph  ;  Held  we  fall  to  rise,  are 
bullk-d  to  fight  better,  Sleep  to  wake.  "  Mrs.  Browning  :  "  God  keeps  a  niche  In  heaven 
to  hold  our  idols,  and  albeit  He  broke  them  to  our  faces  and  denied  That  our  close 
kisses  should  impair  their  white,  I  know  we  shall  behold  them  raised,  complete,  The 
dust  shook  off,  their  beauty  glorified." 

On  the  spiritual  body  as  possibly  evolved  by  will,  see  Harris,  Philos.  Basis  of  Theism, 
386.  On  the  nature  of  the  resurrection-body,  see  Burnet,  State  of  the  Departed,  chaps. 
3  and  8  ;  Cudworth,  Intell.  System,  3  :310  *</. ;  Splittgerber,  Tod,  Fortleben  and  Aufer- 
stcliuiig.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  among  the  Egyptians,  see  Dr.  Howard 
Osgood,  in  Hebrew  Student,  Feb.  1885;  among  the  Jews,  see  Grobler,  in  Studien  und 
Kiitiken,  1879:  Heft  4;  DeWtlusche,  in  Jahrbuch  f.  prot.  Theol.,  1880  :  Heft  2  and  4; 
Revue  Theologique,  1881:1-17.  For  the  view  that  the  resurrection  is  wholly  spiritual 
and  takes  place  at  death,  see  Willmarth,  in  Bap.  Quar.,  October,  1808,  and  April,  1870; 
Ladd,  in  New  Kuglander,  April,  1874;  Crosby,  Second  Advent. 

On  the  whole  subject,  see  Hase,  Hutterus  Redivivus,  280 ;  Herzog,  Encyclop.,  art. : 
Auferstehung ;  Goulburn,  Hampton  Lectures  for  1850,  on  the  Resurrection ;  Cox,  The 
Resurrection ;  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  179-487,  524-526;  Nnville,  T.a  Vie  Eter- 
nelle,  253, 254  ;  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psychologic,  453-463;  Moorhouse,  Nature  and  Revelation, 
87-112;  Unseen  Universe,  33;  Hovey,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  Oct.  1807;  Westcott,  Revela- 
tion of  the  Risen  Lord,  and  in  Contemporary  Review,  vol.  30 ;  R.  W.  Macan,  Resurrec- 
tion of  Christ ;  Cremer,  Beyond  the  Grave. 

V.     The  Last  Judgment. 

While  the  Scriptures  represent  all  punishment  of  individual  transgressors 
and  all  manifestations  of  God's  vindicatory  justice  in  the  history  of  nations 
as  acts  or  processes  of  judgment,  they  also  intimate  that  these  temporal 
judgments  are  only  partial  and  imperfect,  and  that  they  are  therefore  to  be 
concluded  with  a  final  and  complete  vindication  of  God's  righteousness. 
This  will  be  accomplished  by  making  known  to  the  universe  the  characters 
of  all  men,  and  by  awarding  to  them  corresponding  destinies. 

Passages  describing  temporal  or  spiritual  judgment  are  :  Ps.  9:7 — "He  hath  prepared  his  throne 
for  judgment "  ;  Is.  26 : 9  — "  when  thy  judgments  are  in  the  earth,  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  learn  righteousness  " 
Mat.  16 :  27,  28  — "  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels ;  and  then  shall  he  render  unto 
every  man  according  to  his  deeds.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some  of  them  that  stand  here,  who  shall  in  no  wise 
•taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom  "  ;  John  3  :  18,  19  — "he  that  believeth  not  hath  been 
judged  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the  judgment,  that 
the  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light ;  for  their  works  were  evil "  ;  9 :  39  — 
'For  judgment  came  I  into  this  world,  that  they  that  see  not  may  see ;  and  that  they  that  see  may  become  blind  " ; 
12 :  31  — "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world :  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out.'' 

Passages  describing  the  final  judgment  are  :  Mat.  25  :  31-46  —"But  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come 
in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory:  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered 
ail  the  nations :  and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  the  shepherd  separateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats  . .  .  .  " 
Acts  17: 31  — "he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath 
ordained ;  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead  "  ;  Rom.  2 :  16  — "  in 
the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men,  according  to  my  gospel,  by  Jesus  Christ"  ;  2  Cor.  5  :10 — "For  we  must 
all  be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  that  each  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body,  according 
to  what  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad  "  ;  Heb.9:27,28 — "And  inasmuch  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to 
die,  and  after  this  cometh  judgment ;  so  Christ  also,  having  been  onca  offered  to  bear  the  sius  of  many,  shall  appear  a 
second  time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  him,  unto  salvation  "  ;  Rev.  20  :  12  — "  And  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great 
and  the  small,  standing  before  the  throne ;  and  books  were  opened :  and  another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of 
life :  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  the  things  which  were  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their  works." 

Delitzsch :  "  The  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  the  day  of  the  Lord,  the  bloody  and  fiery  dawn 
of  the  last  great  day  —  the  day  of  days,  the  ending-day  of  all  days,  the  settling  day  of 
sll  days,  the  day  of  the  promotion  of  time  into  eternity,  the  day  which  for  the  church 
breaks  through  and  breaks  off  the  night  of  this  present  world."  E.  G.  Robinson  : 
"  Judgment  begius  here.  The  callousing  of  conscience  in  this  life  is  a  penal  infliction. 
Punishment  begins  in  this  life  and  is  carried  on  in  the  next.  We  have  no  right  to  assert 
that  there  are  no  positive  inflictions,  but,  if  there  are  none,  still  every  word  of  Script- 


1024      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

lire  threatening'  would  stand.  There  is  no  day  of  judgment  or  of  resurrection  all  at  one 
time.    Judgment  is  an  eternal  process.    The  angels  in  2  Pet.  2: 4  — 'cast  ...  ,  down  to  hell'  — 

suffer  the  self-perpetuating  consequences  of  transgression Man  is  being  judged 

every  day.  Every  man  honest  with  himself  knows  where  he  is  going  to.  Those  who 
are  not  honest  with  themselves  are  playing  a  trick,  and,  if  they  are  not  careful,  they 
will  get  a  trick  played  on  them." 

1.     The  nature  of  the  final  judgment. 

The  final  judgment  is  not  a  spiritual,  invisible,  endless  process,  identical 
with  God's  providence  in  history,  but  is  an  outward  and  visible  event, 
occurring  at  a  definite  period  in  the  future.  This  we  argue  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations  : 

(a)  The  judgment  is  something  for  which  the  evil  are  "reserved"  (2 
Peter  2  : 4,  9  )  ;  something  to  be  expected  in  the  future  (Acts  24 :  25  ;  Heb. 
10  :  27  )  ;  something  after  death  (  Heb.  9  :  27)  ;  something  for  which  the 
resurrection  is  a  preparation  (  John  5  :  29  ). 

2  Pet.  2:4,  9 — "  God  spared  not  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell  ....  reserved  unto  judgment 
....  the  Lord  knoweth  how  ....  to  keep  the  unrighteous  unto  punishment  unto  the  day  of  judgment  "  ;  Acts  24 :  25 
—"as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  and  self-control,  and  the  judgment  to  come,  Felix  was  terrified  "  ;  Heb.  10 :  27 — "  a 
certain  fearful  expectation  of  judgment"  ;  9:27 — "it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  this  cometh  judg- 
ment "  ;  John  5  :  29  — "  the  resurrection  of  judgment.' ' 

( b  )  The  accompaniments  of  the  judgment,  such  as  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  the  resurrection,  and  the  outward  changes  of  the  earth,  are  events 
which  have  an  outward  and  visible,  as  well  as  an  inward  and  spiritual, 
aspect.  We  are  compelled  to  interpret  the  predictions  of  the  last  judgment 
upon  the  same  principle. 

John  5 -.28, 29 — "Marvel  not  at  this:  for  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice, 
&nd  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resur- 
rection of  judgment " ;  2  Pet.  3  : 7, 10—  "  the  day  of  judgment ....  the  day  of  the  Lord  .  ,  .  .  in  the  which  the  heavens 
shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  be  dissolved  with  fervent  heat "  ;  2  Thess.  1 : 7,  8,  2  :  10  — 
"  the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with  the  angels  of  his  power  in  flaming  fire,  rendering  vengeance  to 
them  that  know  not  God  ...  .  when  he  shall  come  ....  in  that  day." 

(  e )  God's  justice,  in  the  historical  and  imperfect  work  of  judgment, 
needs  a  final  outward  judgment  as  its  vindication.  "A  perfect  justice  must 
judge,  not  only  moral  units,  but  moral  aggregates ;  not  only  the  particulars 
of  life,  but  the  life  as  a  whole."  The  crime  that  is  hidden  and  triumphant 
here,  and  the  goodness  that  is  here  maligned  and  oppressed,  must  be 
brought  to  light  and  fitly  recompensed.  "  Otherwise  man  is  a  Tantalus — 
longing  but  never  satisfied " ;  and  God's  justice,  of  which  his  outward 
administration  is  the  expression,  can  only  be  regarded  as  approximate. 

Renouf,  Hibbert  Lectures,  194— "The  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead  represents  the 
deceased  person  as  standing  in  the  presence  of  the  goddess  Mafit,  who  is  distinguished 
by  the  ostrich-feather  on  her  head  ;  she  holds  the  sceptre  in  one  hand  and  the  symbol 
of  life  in  the  other.  The  man's  heart,  which  represents  his  entire  moral  nature,  is 
being  weighed  in  the  balance  in  the  presence  of  Osiris,  seated  upon  his  throne  as  judge 
of  the  dead."  Rationalism  believes  in  only  present  and  temporal  judgment ;  and  this 
:t  regards  as  but  the  reaction  of  natural  law :  "  Die  Weltgeschichte  ist  das  Weltgericht, 
—  the  world's  history  is  the  world's  judgment"  (  Schiller,  Resignation ).  But  there  is 
an  inner  connection  between  present,  temporal,  spiritual  judgments,  and  the  final, 
outward,  complete  judgment  of  God.  Nero's  murder  of  his  mother  was  not  the  only 
penalty  of  his  murder  of  Germanicus. 

Dorner:  "  With  Christ's  appearance,  faith  sees  that  the  beginning  of  the  judgment 
and  of  the  end  has  come.    Christians  are  a  prophetic  race.    Without  judgment,  Chris- 


THE   LAST   JUDGMENT.  1025 

tianity  would  involve  a  sort  of  dualism:  evil  and  good  would  be  of  equal  might  and 
worth.  Christianity  cannot  always  remain  a  historic  principle  alongside  of  the  con- 
trary principle  of  evil.  It  is  the  only  reality."  God  will  show  or  make  known  hi3 
righteousness  with  regard  to :  ( 1 )  the  disparity  of  lots  among  men ;  ( 2 )  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  ;  ( 3 )  the  permission  of  moral  evil  in  general ;  ( 4 )  the  consistency  of 
atonement  with  justice.  "  The  o-vvTe'Aeia  toO  aiwi'os  ( 'end  ofthe  world,'  Mat.  13 :  39  )  =stripping 
hostile  powers  of  their  usurped  might,  revelation  of  their  falsity  and  impotence, 
consigning  them  to  the  past.  Evil  shall  be  utterly  cut  off,  given  over  to  its  own 
nothingness,  or  made  a  subordinate  element." 

A  great  statesman  said  that  what  he  dreaded  for  his  country  was  not  the  day  of 
judgment,  but  the  day  of  no  judgment.  "  Jove  strikes  the  Titans  down,  Not  when  they 
first  begin  their  mountain-piling,  Rut  when  another  rock  would  crown  their  work." 
R.  W.  Emerson  :  "  God  said  :  I  am  tired  of  kings,  I  suffer  them  no  more ;  Up  to  my  ears 
the  morning  brings  The  outrage  of  the  poor."  Royce,  The  World  and  the  Individual, 
2  :o84  sq.  —  "  If  (iod's  life  is  given  to  free  individual  souls,  then  God's  life  can  be  given 
also  to  free  nations  and  to  a  free  race  of  men.  There  may  be  an  apostasy  of  a  family, 
nation,  race,  and  a  judgment  of  each  according  to  their  deeds." 

The  Expositor,  March,  1SP8  —  "  It  is  claimed  that  we  are  being  judged  now,  that  laws 
execute  themselves,  that  the  system  of  the  universe  is  automatic,  that  there  is  no  need 
for  future  retribution.  But  all  ages  have  agreed  that  there  is  not  here  and  now  any 
sufficient  vindication  of  the  principle  of  eternal  justice.  The  mills  of  the  gods  grind 
slowly.  Physical  immorality  is  not  proportionately  punished.  Deterioration  is  not  an 
adequate  penalty.  Telling  a  second  lie  does  not  recompense  the  first.  Punishment 
includes  pain,  and  here  is  no  pain.  That  there  is  not  punishment  here  is  due,  not  to 
law,  but  to  grace." 

Den ney.  Studies  in  Theology,  240,  241  —  "  The  dualistic  conception  of  an  endless  sus- 
pense, in  which  good  and  evil  permanently  balance  each  other  and  contest  with  each 
other  the  right  to  inherit  the  earth,  is  virtually  atheistic,  and  the  whole  Bible  is  a  pro- 
test against  it.  .  .  .  It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  power  of  the  final  judgment,  as 
a  motive,  in  the  primil  ive  church.  On  almost  every  page  of  St.  Paul,  for  instance,  we 
seethat  he  lives  in  t  he  presence  of  it ;  he  lets  the  awe  of  it  descend  into  his  heart  to 
keep  his  conscience  quick." 

2.     The  object  of  the  final  judgment. 

The  object  of  the  final  judgment  is  not  the  ascertainment,  but  the  mani- 
festation, of  character,  and  the  assignment  of  outward  condition  corre- 
sponding to  it. 

(a)  To  the  omniscient  Judge,  the  condition  of  all  moral  creatures  is 
already  and  fully  known.  The  last  day  will  be  only  "the  revelation  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God." 

They  are  inwardly  judged  when  they  die,  and  before  they  die ;  they  are  outwardly 
judged  at  the  last  day  :  Rom.  2 :  5,  6  — "  treasurest  up  for  thyself  wrath  in  the  day  cf  wrath  and  revelation  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God ;  who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works ' '  —  see  Meyer  on  this  pas- 
sage ;  not  "against  the  day  of  wrath,"  but  "in  the  day  of  wrath "=  wrath  existing  before- 
hand, but  breaking  out  on  that  day.  1  Tim.  5 :  24,  25  — "Some  men's  sins  are  evident,  going  before  unto 
judgment ;  and  some  men  also  they  follow  after.  In  like  manner  also  there  are  good  works  that  are  evident ;  and  such 
as  are  otherwise  cannot  be  hid  "  ;  Rev.  14  :  13  —"for  their  works  follow  with  them "  —  as  close  companions, 
into  God's  presence  and  judgment  ( Ann.  Par.  Bible). 

Epitaph :    "  Hie  jacet  in  expectatione  diei  supremi    ....  Qualis  erat,  dies  iste  indi- 

cabit "  — "  Here  lies,  in  expectation  of  the  last  day Of  what  sort  he  was,  that  day 

will  show."  Shakespeare,  Hamlet,  3:3— "In  the  corrupted  currents  of  this  world 
Offence's  gilded  hand  may  shove  by  justice.  But 't  is  not  so  above.  There  is  no  shuffling, 
there  the  action  lies  In  his  true  nature  ;  and  we  ourselves  compelled.  Even  to  the  teeth 
and  forehead  of  our  faults,  To  give  in  evidence"  ;  King  John,  4:2 — "  Oh,  when  the  last 
account  'twixt  heaven  and  earth  Is  to  be  made,  then  shall  this  hand  and  seal  [  the 
warrant  for  the  murder  of  Prince  Arthur]  Witness  against  us  to  damnation."  "Not 
all  your  piety  nor  wit  Can  lure  it  [  justice  ]  back  to  cancel  half  a  line,  Nor  all  your  tears 
wash  out  one  word  of  it." 

65 


1026      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    FINAL   THINGS. 

{  b  )  In  the  nature  of  man,  there  are  evidences  and  preparations  for  this 
final  disclosure.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the  law  of  memory,  by 
which  the  soul  preserves  the  records  of  its  acts,  both  good  and  evil  (  Luke 
16:25);  the  law  of  conscience,  by  which  men  involuntarily  anticipate 
punishment  for  their  own  sins  ( Rom.  2  :  15,  16  ;  Heb.  10  :  27  )  ;  the  law  of 
character,  by  which  every  thought  and  deed  makes  indelible  impress  upon 
the  moral  nature  (Heb.  3:8,  15). 

The  law  of  memory. — Luke  16:25 — "  Son,  remember !  "  See  Maclaren,  Sermons,  1 :  109-122  — 
Memory  (1 )  will  embrace  all  the  events  of  the  past  life  ;  ( 2)  will  embrace  them  all  at 
the  same  moment ;  ( 3 )  will  embrace  them  continuously  and  continually.  Memory  is  a 
process  of  self-registry.  As  every  business  house  keeps  a  copy  of  all  letters  sent  or 
orders  issued,  so  every  man  retains  in  memory  the  record  of  his  sins.  The  mind  is  a 
palimpsest ;  though  the  original  writing  has  been  erased,  the  ink  has  penetrated  the 
whole  thickness  of  the  parchment,  and  God's  chemistry  is  able  to  revive  it.  Hudson,  Dem. 
of  Future  Life,  212,213  —"Subjective  memory  is  the  retention  of  all  ideas,  however 
superficially  they  may  have  been  impressed  upon  the  objective  mind,  and  it  admits 
of  no  variation  in  different  individuals.  Recollection  is  the  power  of  recalling  ideas 
to  the  mind.  This  varies  greatly.  Sir  William  Hamilton  calls  the  former  '  mental 
latency.' " 

The  law  of  conscience. —  Rom.  2  :  15,  16— "they  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their 
conscience  bearing  witness  therewith,  and  their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them  ;  in  the  day 
when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men,  according  to  my  gospel,  by  Jesus  Christ"  ;  Heb.  10:27 — "a  certain  fearful 
expectation  of  judgment,  and  a  fierceness  of  fire  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries."  Goethe  said  that  his 
writings,  taken  together,  constituted  a  great  confession.  "Wordsworth,  Excursion, 
III :  579  — "  For,  like  a  plague  will  memory  break  out,  And,  in  the  blank  and  solitude 
of  things,  Upon  his  spirit,  with  a  fever's  strength,  Will  conscience  prey."  A  man 
who  afterwards  became  a  Methodist  preacher  was  converted  in  Whitefield's  time 
by  a  vision  of  the  judgment,  in  which  he  saw  all  men  gathered  before  the  throne, 
and  each  one  coming  up  to  the  book  of  God's  law,  tearing  open  his  heart  before  it  "  as 
one  would  tear  open  the  bosom  of  his  shirt,"  comparing  his  heart  with  the  things  writ- 
ten in  the  book,  and,  according  as  they  agreed  or  disagreed  with  that  standard,  either 
passing  triumphant  to  the  company  of  the  blest,  or  going  with  howling  to  the  company 
of  the  damned.  No  word  was  spoken  ;  the  Judge  sat  silent ;  the  judgment  was  one  of 
self-revelation  and  self-condemnation.  See  Autobiography  of  John  Nelson  ( quoted  in 
the  Diary  of  Mrs.  Kitty  Trevylyan,  207,  by  Mrs.  E.  Charles,  the  author  of  The  Schonberg- 
Cotta  Family ). 

The  law  of  character. —  Heb.  3:8, 15  — "  Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  Like  as  in  the  day  of 
the  trial  in  the  wilderness  ....  To-day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation."  Sin 
leaves  its  marks  upon  the  soul ;  men  become  "  past  feeling  "  ( Eph.  4 :  19 ).  In  England,  church- 
men claim  to  tell  a  dissenter  by  his  walk — not  a  bad  sign  by  which  to  know  a  man. 
God  needs  only  to  hold  up  our  characters  to  show  what  have  been  our  lives.  Sin  leaves 
its  scars  upon  the  soul,  as  truly  as  lust  and  hatred  leave  their  marks  upon  the  body.  So 
with  the  manifestation  of  the  good — "the  chivalry  that  does  the  right,  and  disregards 

The  yea  and  nay  of  the  world Expect  nor  question  nor  reply  At  what  we  figure 

as  God's  judgment-bar  "  (  Robert  Browning,  Ring  and  Book,  178, 202 ).  Mr.  Edison  says  : 
"  In  a  few  years  the  world  will  be  just  like  one  big  ear ;  it  will  be  unsafe  to  speak  in  a 
house  till  one  has  examined  the  walls  and  the  furniture  for  concealed  phonographs." 
But  the  world  even  now  is  "  one  big  ear  ",  and  we  ourselves  in  our  characters  are  writ- 
ing the  books  of  the  judgment.  Brooks,  Foundations  of  Zoology,  134,135,—"  Every  part 
of  the  material  universe  contains  a  permanent  record  of  every  change  that  has  taken 
place  therein,  and  there  is  also  no  limit  to  the  power  of  minds  like  ours  to  read  and 
interpret  the  record." 

Draper,  Conflict  of  Science  and  Religion :  "  If  on  a  cold  polished  metal,  as  a  new  razor, 
any  object,  such  as  a  wafer,  be  laid,  and  the  metal  breathed  upon,  and  when  the 
moisture  has  had  time  to  disappear,  the  wafer  be  thrown  off,  though  now  the  most 
critical  inspection  of  the  polished  surface  can  discern  no  trace  of  any  form,  if  we 
breathe  once  more  upon  it,  a  spectral  image  of  the  wafer  comes  plainly  into  view  ;  and 
this  may  be  done  again  and  again.  Nay,  more ;  if  the  polished  metal  be  carefully  put 
aside  where  nothing  can  injure  its  surface,  and  be  kept  so  for  many  months,  on  breath- 
ing upon  it  again,  the  shadowy  form  emerges.    A  shadow  never  falls  upon  a  wall  witn- 


THE   LAST  JUDGMENT.  102? 

out  leaving  thereon  a  permanent  trace,  a  trace  which  might  be  made  visible  by  resort- 
ing1 to  proper  processes.  Upon  the  walls  of  our  most  private  apartments,  where  we 
think  the  eye  of  intrusion  is  altogether  shut  out,  and  our  retirement  cau  never  be  pro- 
faned, there  exist  the  vestiges  of  all  our  acts.'' 

Babbage,  Ninth  Bridgewater  Treatise,  113-115— "If  we  had  power  to  follow  and 
detect  the  minutest  effects  of  any  disturbance,  each  particle  of  existing  matter  would 
furnish  a  register  of  all  that  has  happened.  The  track  of  every  canoe,  of  every  vessel 
that  has  yet  disturbed  the  surface  of  the  ocean,  whether  impelled  by  manual  force  or 
elemental  power,  remains  forever  registered  in  the  future  movement  of  all  succeeding 
particles  which  may  occupy  its  place.  The  furrow  which  it  left  is  indeed  filled  up  by 
the  closing  waters,  but  they  draw  after  them  ol  her  and  larger  portions  of  the  surround- 
ing element,  and  these  again,  once  moved,  communicate  motion  to  others  in  endless 
succession.  The  air  itself  is  one  vast  library,  in  whose  pages  are  forever  written  ail  that 
man  has  said  or  even  whispered.  There,  in  their  mutable  but  unerring  characters, 
mixed  with  the  earliest  as  well  as  the  latest  sighs  of  mortality,  stand  forever  recorded 
vows  unredeemed,  promisee  unfulfilled,  perpetuating  in  the  united  movements  of  each 
particle  the  testimony  Of  man's  changeful  will." 

(c)  Single  acts  and  words,  therefore,  are  to  l>e  brought  into  the  judg- 
ment only  as  indications  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  soul.  This  manifes- 
tation of  all  hearts  will  vindicate  not  only  God's  past  dealings,  Imt  his 
determination  of  future  destinies. 

Mat.  12 :  36  — "  And  I  say  unto  you,  that  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the 
day  of  judgment";  Luke  12 : 2,  8,  9 — "there  is  nothing  covered  up,  that  shall  not  be  revealed ;  and  hid,  that  shall  not 
be  known.  ....  Every  one  who  shall  confess  me  beforo  men,  him  snail  the  Son  of  man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
Gud  :  but  he  that  denieth  me  in  the  presence  of  men  shall  be  denied  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  "  ;  John  3  :  18  — 
"  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged :  he  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  ho  hath  not  believed 
on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  "  ;  2  Cor.  5:10  — "  For  we  must  all  be  made  manifest  [  not :  '  must  all 
appear,'  as  in  A.  Vers.  ]  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ." 

Even  the  human  judge,  in  passing  sentence,  commonly  endeavors  so  to  set  forth  the 
guilt  of  the  criminal  that  he  shall  see  his  doom  to  be  just.  So  God  will  awaken  the  con- 
sciences of  the  lost,  and  lead  t  hem  to  pass  judgment  on  themselves.  Each  lost  soul  can 
say  as  Byron's  Manfred  said  to  the  Send  that  tortured  his  closing  hour:  "I  have  not 
been  thy  dupe,  nor  am  thy  prey,  But  was  my  own  destroyer."  Thus  God's  final  judg- 
ment will  be  only  the  culmination  of  a  process  of  natural  selection,  by  which  the  unfit 
are  eliminated,  and  the  fit  are  caused  to  survive. 

O.  J.  Smith,  The  Essential  Verity  of  Religion  :  "  Belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
and  belief  in  the  accountability  of  the  soul  are  fundamental  beliefs  in  all  religion.  The 
origin  of  the  belief  in  immortality  is  found  in  the  fact  that  justice  can  be  established  in 
human  affairs  only  upon  the  theory  that  the  soul  of  man  is  immortal,  and  the  belief 
that  man  is  accountable  for  his  actions  eternally  is  based  upon  the  conviction  that 
justice  should  and  will  be  enforced.  The  central  verity  in  religion  therefore  is  eternal 
just  ice.  The  sense  of  justice  makes  us  men.  Religion  has  no  miraculous  origin,  —  it  is 
born  with  the  awakening  of  man's  moral  sense.  Friendship  and  love  are  based  on  reci- 
procity, which  is  justice.  '  Universal  justice,'  says  Aristotle,  'includes  all  virtues.'  " 
If  by  justice  hero  is  meant  the  divine  justice,  implied  in  the  awakening  of  man's  moral 
sense,  we  can  agree  with  the  above.  As  we  have  previously  intimated,  we  regard  the 
belief  in  immortality  as  an  inference  from  the  intuition  of  God's  existence,  and  every 
new  proof  that  God  is  just  strengthens  our  conviction  of  immortality. 

3.     The  Judge  in  the  final  judgment. 

God,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  to  be  the  judge.  Though  God  is 
the  judge  of  all  (  Heb.  12  :  23 ),  yet  this  judicial  activity  is  exercised  through 
Christ,  at  the  last  day,  as  well  as  in  the  present  state  (  John  5 :  22,  27  ). 

Heb.  12 :  23 — "  to  God  the  judge  of  all "  ;  John  5  :  22,  27— "For  neither  doth  the  Father  judge  any  man,  but  he  hath 
given  all  judgment  unto  the  Son  ...  .  and  he  gave  him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  a  son  of  man." 
Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  349—"  Jesus  says  that  he  judges  no  man  (John  8:15).  He 
does  not  personally  judge  men.  His  attitude  toward  men  is  solely  that  of  Savior.  It  is 
rather  his  work,  his  word,  his  truth,  which  pronounces  condemnation  against  them 
\>oth  here  and  hereafter.    The  judgment  is  that  light  is  come ;  men's  attitude  toward 


1028      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

the  light  involves  their  judgment;  the  light  judges  them,  or,  they  judge  themselves. 
....  The  Savior  does  not  come  to  judge  but  to  save  them  ;  but,  by  their  rejection  of 
salvation,  they  turn  the  saving  message  itself  into  a  judgment." 

This,  for  three  reasons  : 

(  a  )  Christ's  human  nature  enables  men  to  understand  both  the  law  and 
the  love  of  God,  and  so  makes  intelligible  the  grounds  on  which  judgment 
is  passed. 

Whoever  says  that  God  is  too  distant  and  great  to  be  understood  may  be  pointed  to 
Christ,  in  whose  human  life  the  divine  "  law  appears,  drawn  out  in  living  characters," 
and  the  divine  love  is  manifest,  as  suffering  upon  the  cross  to  save  men  from  their  sins. 

(&)  The  perfect  human  nature  of  Christ,'  united  as  it  is  to  the  divine, 
ensures  all  that  is  needful  in  true  judgment,  viz.:  that  it  be  both  merciful 
and  just. 

Acts  17 :  31  — "  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  man  whom  he  hath  ordained ;  whereof  he  hath 
<ri"en  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

As  F.  W.  Robertson  has  shown  in  his  sermon  on  "  The  Sympathy  of  Christ  ( vol.  1 : 
sermon  vii),  it  is  not  sin  that  most  sympathizes  with  sin.  Sin  blinds  and  hardens.  Only 
the  pure  can  appreciate  the  needs  of  the  impure,  and  feel  for  them. 

( c )  Human  nature,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  judgment,  ■will  afford  con- 
vincing proof  that  Christ  has  received  the  reward  of  his  sufferings,  and 
that  humanity  has  been  perfectly  redeemed.  The  saints  shall  "judge  the 
world  "  only  as  they  are  one  with  Christ. 

The  lowly  Son  of  man  shall  sit  upon  the  throne  of  judgment.  And  with  himself  he 
will  join  all  believers.  Mat,  19  :  28 — "  ye  who  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration  when  the  Son  of  man  shall 
(it  on  the  throno  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel "  ;  Luke  22  :  28-30 
— "But  ye  are  they  that  have  continued  with  me  in  my  temptations;  and  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  even  as  my  Father 
tppointed  unto  me,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom;  and  ye  shall  sit  on  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel "  ;  1  Cor.  6 : 2,  3 — "  know  ye  not  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ?  .  .  .  Know  ye  not  that  we 
6hall  judge  angels  ?  "  Rev.  3  :  21  — "  He  that  overcometh,  I  will  give  to  him  to  sit  down  with  me  in  my  throne,  as  I  also 
overcame,  and  sat  down  with  my  Father  in  his  throne." 

4.     The  subjects  of  the  final  judgment. 

The  persons  upon  whose  characters  and  conduct  this  judgment  shall  be 
passed  are  of  two  great  classes  : 

( a )  All  men  — each  possessed  of  body  as  well  as  soul,  — the  dead  having 
been  raised,  and  the  living  having  been  changed. 

1  Cor.  15 :  51,  52  — "  We  all  shall  not  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at 
the  last  trump  :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed  "  ;  1 
Thess.  4 :  16,  17 — "  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven,  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  an  archangel,  and 
with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first ;  then  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left,  shall  together  with 
them  be  caught  up  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air :  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord." 

(6)  All  evil  angels, — good  angels  appearing  only  as  attendants  and 
ministers  of  the  Judge. 

Evil  angels  :  2  Pet.  2 :  4  — "  For  if  God  spared  not  angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and 
oommitted  them  to  pits  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment "  ;  Jude  6 — "And  angels  that  kept  not  their  own 
principality,  but  left  their  proper  habitation,  he  hath  kept  in  everlasting  bonds  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day";  Good  angels  :  Mat.  13:41,  42 — "The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out 
of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  cause  stumbling,  and  them  that  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire: 
there  shall  be  the  weeping  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth  "  ;  25 :  31  — "But  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and 
all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory :  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  the  nations." 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF   THE   WICKED.    1029 

5.     The  grounds  of  the  final  judgment. 

These  will  be  two  in  number  : 

(  a )    The  law  of  God,  —  as  made  known  in  conscience  and  in  Scripture. 

John  12 :  48  — "  He  that  rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  sayings,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him :  the  -word  that  I  spake, 
the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day";  Rom.  2:12 — "For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  the  law  shall  also 
perish  without  the  law  :  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  under  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law."  On  the  self- 
registry  and  disclosure  of  sin,  see  F.  A.  Noble,  Our  Redemption,  59-70.  Dr.  Noble 
quotes  Daniel  Webster  in  the  Knapp  case  at  Salem  :  "There  is  no  refuge  from  con- 
fession but  suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession."  Thomas  Carlyle  said  to  Lord  Houghton  ; 
"  Richard  Milnes  !  in  the  day  of  judgment,  when  the  Lord  asks  you  why  you  did  not  get 
that  pension  for  Alfred  Tennyson,  it  will  not  do  to  lay  the  blame  on  your  constituents,— 
it  is  you  that  will  be  damned." 

(  b )  The  grace  of  Christ  (Rev.  20 :  12 ), — those  whose  names  are  found 
"  written  in  the  book  of  life  "  being  approved,  simply  because  of  their  union 
with  Christ  and  participation  in  his  righteousness.  Their  good  works  shall 
be  brought  into  judgment  only  as  proofs  of  this  relation  to  the  Redeemer. 
Those  not  found  "  written  in  the  book  of  life  "  will  be  judged  by  the  law  of 
God,  as  God  has  made  it  known  to  each  individual. 

Rev.  20  :  12  — "  and  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great  and  the  small,  standing  before  the  throne ;  and  books  were  opened :  and 
another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life :  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  the  things  which  were  written  in 
the  books,  according  to  their  works."  The  "book  of  life "=  the  book  of  justification,  in  which  arc 
written  the  names  of  those  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith;  as  the  "  book  of  death  " 
would  =  the  book  of  condemnation,  in  which  arc  written  the  names  of  those  who  stand 
in  their  sins,  as  unrepentant  and  unforgiven  transgressors  of  God's  law. 

Ferries,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  2  :  881  —  "  The  judgment,  in  one  aspect  or  stage 
of  it,  is  a  present  act.  For  judgment  Christ  is  come  into  this  world  (John  9:  39).  There 
is  an  actual  separation  of  men  in  progress  here  and  now.  .  .  .  This  judgment  which  is 

in  progress  now,  is  destined  to  be  perfected In  the  last  assize,  Christ  will  be  the 

Judge  as  before It  may  be  said  that  men  will  hereafter  judge  themselves.    Those 

who  are  unlike  Christ  will  find  themselves  as  such  to  be  separate  from  him.  The  two 
classes  of  people  are  parted  because  they  have  acquired  distinct  natures  like  the  sheep 

and  the  goat The  character  of  each  person  is  a  'book'  or  record,  preserving,  in 

moral  and  spiritual  effects,  all  that  he  has  been  and  done  and  loved,  and  in  the  judg- 
ment these  books  will  be  'opened,'  or  each  man's  character  will  be  manifested  as  the 

light  of  Christ's  character  falls  upon  it The  people  of  Christ  themselves  receive 

different  rewards,  according  as  their  life  has  been." 

Dr.  11.  E.  Robins,  in  his  Restatement,  holds  that  only  under  the  grace-system  can  the 
deeds  done  in  the  body  be  the  ground  of  judgment.  These  deeds  will  be  repentance 
ami  faith,  not  words  of  external  morality.  They  will  be  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  such  as 
spring  from  the  broken  and  contrite  heart.  Christ,  as  head  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom, 
will  fitly  be  the  Judge.  So  Judgment  will  be  an  unmixed  blessing  to  the  righteous. 
To  them  the  words  "  prepare  to  meet  thy  God  "  ( Amos  4 :  12 )  should  have  no  terror ;  for  to  meet 
God  is  to  meet  their  deliverance  and  their  reward.  "  Teach  me  to  live  that  I  may  dread 
The  grave  as  little  as  my  bed :  Teach  me  to  die,  that  so  I  may  Rise  glorious  at  the 
judgment  day."  On  the  whole  subject,  see  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  456,  457  ; 
Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  405,  466;  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  524-526; 
Jonathan  Edwards,  Works,  2 :  499,  500 ;  4 :  202-225 ;  Fox,  in  Lutheran  Rev.,  1S87 :  206-226. 

VI.     The  Final  States  of  the  Righteous  and  of  the  Wicked. 

1.     Of  the  righteous. 

The  final  state  of  the  righteous  is  described  as  eternal  life  (  Mat.  25  :  46  ), 
glory  (  2  Cor.  4  :  17 ),  rest  (  Heb.  4:9),  knowledge  ( 1  Cor.  13  :8-10  ),  holi- 
ness (  Rev.  21  :  27  ),  service  (  Rev.  22  : 3 ),  worshij}  (  Rev.  19  : 1 ),  society 
(Heb.  12  :  23  ),  communion  with  God  ( Rev.  21 : 3 ). 


1030      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

Mat.  25  :  46  — "  And  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment :  but  the  righteous  into  eternal  life  "  ;  2  Cor.  4 :  17  — 
"  For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  for  the  moment,  worketh  for  ns  more  and  more  exceedingly  an  eternal  weight  of 
glory  "  ;  Heb.  4 : 9  — "  There  remaineth  therefore  a  sabbath  rest  for  the  people  of  God  "  ;  1  Cor.  13  : 8-10  — "  Love  never 
faileth :  but  whether  there  be  prophecies,  they  shall  be  done  away ;  whether  there  be  tongues,  they  shall  cease ;  whether 
there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  be  done  away.  For  we  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in  part :  but  when  that  which  is 
perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away ' ' ;  Rev.  21 :  27  — "  and  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it  any- 
thing unclean,  or  he  that  maketh  an  abomination  and  a  lie :  but  only  they  that  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life " ; 
22 : 3  — "  and  his  servants  shall  serve  him  *' ;  19 : 1,  2  — "  After  thesa  things  I  h'.'ard  as  it  were  a  great  voice  of  a  great 
multitude  in  heaven,  saying,  Hallelujah ;  Salvation,  and  glory,  and  power,  belong  to  our  Sod ;  for  true  and  righteous 
are  his  judgments  "  ;  Heb.  12 :  23  — "to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  firstborn  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven ' ' ; 
Rev.  21 :  3  — "And  I  heard  a  great  voice  out  of  the  throne  saying,  Behold,  the  tabernach  of  God  is  with  men,  and  he  shall 
dwell  with  them,  and  they  shall  be  his  peoples,  and  God  himself  shall  be  with  them,  and  be  their  God." 

la.  35:7 — "The  mirage  shall  become  a  pool  "  =  aspiration  shall  become  reality;  Hos.2:15 — "I  will 
give  her  ...  .  the  valley  of  Achor  [  that  is,  Troubling  ]  for  a  door  of  hope."  Victor  Hugo :  "  If  you 
persuade  Lazarus  that  there  is  no  Abraham's  bosom  awaiting  him,  he  will  not  lie  at 
Dives'  door,  to  be  fed  with  his  crumbs,—  he  will  make  his  way  into  the  house  and  fling1 
Dives  out  of  the  window."  It  was  the  preaching-  of  the  Methodists  that  saved  England 
from  the  general  crash  of  the  French  Revolution.  It  brought  the  common  people  to 
look  for  the  redress  of  the  inequalities  and  injustices  of  this  life  in  a  future  life  —  a 
world  of  less  friction  than  this  (  S.  S.  Times ).  In  the  Alps  one  has  no  idea  of  the  upper 
valleys  until  he  enters  them.  He  may  long  to  ascend,  but  only  actual  ascending  can 
show  him  their  beauty.  And  then,  "  beyond  the  Alps  lies  Italy,"  and  the  revelation  of 
heaven  will  be  like  the  outburst  of  the  sunny  landscape  after  going  through  the  dark- 
ness of  the  St.  Gothard  tunnel. 

Robert  Hall,  who  for  years  had  suffered  acute  bodily  pain,  said  to  Wilberforce  :  "  My 
chief  conception  of  heaven  is  rest."  "Mine,"  replied  Wilberforce,  "is  love  —  lovetoGod 
and  to  every  bright  inhabitant  of  that  glorious  place."  Wilberforce  enjoyed  Bociei  v. 
Heaven  is  not  all  rest.  On  the  door  is  inscribed  :  "  No  admission  except  on  business.'' 
"  His  servants  shall  serve  him"  (Rev.  21:3).  Butler,  Things  Old  and  New,  143— "We  know  not; 
but  if  life  be  there  The  outcome  and  the  crown  of  this :  What  else  can  make  their  per- 
fect bliss  Than  in  their  Master's  work  to  share  ?  Resting,  but  not  in  slumberous  ease, 
Working,  but  not  in  wild  unrest,  Still  ever  blessing,  ever  blest,  They  see  us  as  the 
Father  sees."  Tennyson,  Crossing  the  Bar :  "  Sunset  and  evening  star,  And  one  clear 
call  for  me ;  And  may  there  be  no  moaning  of  the  bar  When  I  put  out  to  sea  !  But 
such  a  tide  as  mos  ing  seems  asleep,  Too  full  for  sound  and  foam,  When  that  which 
drew  from  out  the  boundless  deep  Turns  again  home.  Twilight  and  evening  bell,  And 
after  that  the  dark  ;  And  may  there  be  no  sadness  of  farewell,  When  I  embark.  For 
though  from  out  our  bourne  of  time  and  place  The  flood  may  bear  me  far,  I  hope  to  see 
my  Pilot  face  to  face,  When  I  have  crossed  the  bar." 

Mat.  6:20 — "lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven"  =  there  are  no  permanent  investments 
except  in  heaven.  A  man  at  death  is  worth  only  what  he  has  sen  t  on  before  him.  Christ 
prepares  a  place  for  us  (  John  14:3)  by  gathering  our  friends  to  himself.  Louise  Chand- 
ler Moulton  :  "  Some  day  or  other  I  shall  surely  come  Where  true  hearts  wait  for  me  ; 
Then  let  me  learn  the  language  of  that  home,  While  here  on  earth  I  be  ;  Lest  my  poor 
lips  lur  want  of  words  be  dumb  In  that  high  company."  Brouson  Alcott:  "  Heaven 
will  be  to  me  a  place  where  I  can  get  a  little  conversation."  Some  of  his  friends  thought 
it  would  be  a  place  where  he  could  hear  himself  talk.  A  pious  Scotchman,  when  asked 
whether  he  ever  expected  to  reach  heaven,  replied :    "  Why,  mon,  I  live  there  noo  !  " 

Summing  up  all  these,  we  may  say  that  it  is  the  fulness  and  perfection  of 
holy  life,  in  communion  with  God  and  with  sanctified  spirits.  Although 
there  will  be  degrees  of  blessedness  and  honor,  proportioned  to  the  capacity 
and  fidelity  of  each  soul  (Luke  19  :17,  19  ;  1  Cor.  3  :14,  15),  each  will 
receive  as  great  a  measure  of  reward  as  it  can  contain  ( 1  Cor.  2:9),  and 
this  final  state,  once  entered  upon,  will  be  unchanging  in  kind  and  endless 
in  duration  (  Eev.  3  :  12  ;  22  :  15  ). 

Luke  19 :  17, 19  — "  Well  done,  thou  good  servant :  because  thou  wast  found  faithful  in  a  very  Little,  have  thou  author- 
ity over  ten  cities  ...  Be  thou  also  over  five  cities"  ;  1  Cor.  3  :  14,  15  —"If  any  man's  work  shall  abide  whi.h  he 
built  thereon,  he  shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss :  but  he  himself  shall  be 
saved  ;  yet  so  as  through  fire "  ;  2:9  — "  Things  which  eye  saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  And  which  entered  not  into  the 
heart  of  man,  Whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them  that  love  him  "  ;  Rev.  3 :  12  — "  He  that  overcometh,  I  wiil  make 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS    AND    OF   THE   WICKED.    1031 

him  a  pillar  in  the  temple  of  my  Cod;  and  he  shall  go  out  thence  no  more  "  ;  22 :  15  — "  Without  are  the  dogs,  and  the 
sorcerers,  and  the  fornicators,  and  the  murderers,  and  the  idolaters,  and  every  one  that  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie." 

In  the  parable  of  the  lal  >orers  ( Mat.  20 : 1-16 ),  each  receives  a  penny.  Rewards  in  heaven 
will  be  equal,  in  the  sense  that  each  saved  soul  will  be  filled  with  good.  But  rewards 
will  vary,  in  the  sense  that  the  capacity  of  one  will  be  greater  than  that  of  another ;  and 
this  capacity  will  be  in  part  the  result  of  our  improvement  of  God's  gifts  in  the  present 
life.  The  relative  value  of  the  penny  may  in  this  way  vary  from  a  single  unit  to  a 
number  indefinitely  great,  according  to  the  work  and  spirit  of  the  recipient.  The 
penny  is  good  only  for  what  it  will  buy.  For  the  eleventh  hour  man,  who  has  done  but 
little  work,  it  will  not  buy  so  sweet  rest  as  it  buys  for  him  who  has  "  borne  the  burden  of  the 
day  and  the  scorching  heat."    It  will  not  buy  appetite,  nor  will  it  buy  joy  of  conscience. 

E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Heaven  is  not  to  be  compared  to  a  grasshopper  on  a  shingle 
floating  downstream.  Heaven  is  a  place  where  men  are  taken  up,  as  they  leave  this 
world,  and  are  eait.^-d  forward,  No  sinners  will  be  there,  though  there  may  be  incom- 
pleteness of  character.  There  is  no  intimation  in  Scripture  of  that  sudden  transforma- 
tion in  the  hour  of  dissolution  which  is  often  supposed."  Ps.  84:7 — " They  go  from  strength  to 
strength;  Every  one  of  them  appeareth  before  God  in  Zion"  —  it  is  not  possible  that  progress  should 
cease  with  our  entrance  Into  heaven  ;  rather  is  it  true  that  uninterrupted  progress  will 
then  begin.  1  Cor.  13 :  12  — "now  we  see  in  a  mirror,  darkly  ;  but  then  face  to  face."  There,  progress  is 
not  toward?,  but  within,  the  sphere  of  the  infinite.  In  this  world  we  are  like  men  living 
in  a  cave,  ami  priding  themselves  on  the  rushlights  with  which  they  explore  it,  unwill- 
ing to  believe  that  there  is  a  region  of  sunlight  where  rushlights  are  needless. 

Heaven  will  involve  deliverance  from  defective  physical  organization  and  surround- 
ings, as  well  as  from  the  remains  of  evil  in  our  hearts.  Rest,  in  heaven,  will  be  con- 
sistent with  service,  an  activity  without  weariness,  a  service  which  is  perfect  freedom. 
We  shall  be  perfect  when  we  enter  heaven,  in  the  sense  of  being  free  from  sin  ;  but  we 
shall  grow  to  greater  perfection  thereafter,  in  the  sense  of  a  larger  and  completer 
being.  The  fruit  tree  shows  perfection  at  each  stage  of  its  growth  — the  perfect  bud, 
the  perfect  blossom,  and  finally  the  perfect  fruit ;  yet  the  bud  and  the  blossom  are  pre- 
paratory and  prophetic ;  neither  one  is  a  finality.  So  "  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  that 
which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away  "  (1  Cor  13: 10  ).  A  broadshouldered  convert  at  the  Rescue 
M'sgion  said :  "I'm  the  happiest  man  in  the  room  to-night.  I  couldn't  be  any  happier 
unless  I  were  larger."  A  little  pail  can  be  as  full  of  water  as  is  a  big  tub,  but  the  tub 
will  hold  much  more  than  t  lie  pail.  To  be  "filled  unto  all  the  fulness  of  Gad"  (Eph.  3:19)  will  mean 
much  more  in  heaven  than  it  means  here,  because  we  shall  then  "be  strong  to  apprehend  with 
all  the  saints  what  is  the  breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth,  and  to  know  the  love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowl- 
edge." In  the  book  of  Revelation,  John  seems  to  have  mistaken  an  angel  for  the  Lord 
himself,  and  to  have  fallen  down  to  worship  (  Rev.22 : 8 ).  The  time  may  come  in  eternity 
when  we  shall  be  equal  to  what  wo  now  conceive  God  to  be  (1  Cor.  2:9). 

Plato's  Republic  and  More's  Utopia  are  only  earthly  adumbrations  of  St.  John's  City 
of  God.  The  representation  of  heaven  aa  a  city  seems  intended  to  suggest  security 
from  every  foe,  provision  for  every  want,  intensity  of  life,  variety  of  occupation,  and 
closeness  of  relation  to  others;  or,  as  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  1:416,  puts  it: 
"Safety,  Security,  Service."  Here,  the  greatest  degradation  and  sin  are  found  in  the 
great  cities.  There,  the  life  of  the  city  will  help  holiness,  as  the  life  of  the  city  here 
helps  wickedness.  Brotherly  love  in  the  next  world  implies  knowing  those  we  love, 
and  loving  those  we  know.  We  certainly  ehall  not  know  less  there  than  here.  If  we 
know  our  friends  here,  we  shall  know  them  there.  And,  as  love  to  Christ  here  draws 
us  nearer  to  each  other,  so  there  we  shall  love  friends,  not  less  but  more,  because  of 
our  greater  nearness  to  Christ. 

Zech.  8 : 5  — "And  the  streets  of  the  city  shall  be  fall  of  boys  and  girls  playing  in  the  streets  thereof."  Newman 
Smyth,  Through  Science  to  Faith,  125—"  As  of  the  higher  animals,  so  even  more  of  men 
and  women  it  may  be  true,  that  those  who  play  best  may  succeed  best  and  thrive 
best."  Horace  Bushuell,  in  his  essay.  Work  and  Play,  holds  that  ideal  work  is  work 
performed  so  heartily  and  joyfully,  and  with  such  a  surplus  of  energy,  that  it  becomes 
play.  This  is  the  activity  of  heaven  :  John  10 :  10 — "I  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and  may  have  it 
ibundantly."  We  enter  into  the  life  of  God:  John5:17— "My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I 
work."  A  nurse  who  had  been  ill  for  sixteen  years,  said :  "  If  I  were  well,  I  would  be  at 
the  small-pox  hospital.  I'm  not  going  to  heaven  to  do  nothing."  Savage,  Life  after 
Death,  129,  292—"  In  Dante's  universe,  the  only  reason  for  any  one's  wanting  to  get  to 
heaven  is  for  the  sake  of  getting  out  of  the  other  place.    There  is  nothing  in  heaven  for 

him  to  do,  nothing  human  for  him  to  engage  in A  good  deacon  in  his  depression 

thought  he  was  going  to  hell ;  but  when  asked  what  he  would  do  there,  he  replied  that 
he  would  try  to  start  a  prayer  meeting." 


1032      ESCKATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 
With  regard  to  lieaven,  two  questions  present  themselves,  namely  : 
(  a  )    Is  heaven  a  place,  as  well  as  a  state  ? 

We  answer  that  this  is  probable,  for  the  reason  that  the  presence  of 
Christ's  human  body  is  essential  to  heaven,  and  that  this  body  must  be 
confined  to  place.  Since  deity  and  humanity  are  indissolubly  united  in 
Christ's  single  person,  we  cannot  regard  Christ's  human  soul  as  limited  to 
place  without  vacating  his  person  of  its  divinity.  But  we  cannot  conceive 
of  his  human  body  as  thus  omnipresent.  As  the  new  bodies  of  the  saints 
are  confined  to  place,  so,  it  "would  seem,  must  be  the  body  of  their  Lord. 
But,  though  heaven  be  the  place  where  Christ  manifests  his  glory  through 
the  human  body  which  he  assumed  in  the  incarnation,  our  riding  concep- 
tion of  heaven  must  be  something  higher  even  than  this,  namely,  that  of  a 
state  of  holy  communion  with  God. 

John  14  : 2,  3  — "  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions ;  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  yon ;  for  I  go  to  pre- 
pare a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  myself;  that 
where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also";  Eeb.  12 .  14 — "Follow  after  peace  with  all  men,  and  the  sanctiflcation  without 
which  no  man  shall  »ee  the  Lord." 

Although  heaven  is  probably  a  place,  we  are  by  no  means  to  allow  this  conception  to 
become  the  preponderant  one  in  our  minds.  Milton :  "  The  mind  is  its  own  place,  and 
in  itself  Can  make  a  heaven  of  hell,  a  hell  of  heaven."  As  he  goes  through  the  gates  of 
death,  every  Christian  can  say,  as  Ca?sar  said  when  he  crossed  the  Rubicon :  "  Omnia 
mea  mecum  porto."  The  hymn  "  O  sing  to  me  of  heaven,  when  I  am  called  to  die  "  is 
not  true  to  Christian  experience.  In  that  hour  the  soul  sings,  not  of  heaven,  but  of 
Jesus  and  his  cross.  As  houses  on  river-flats,  accessible  in  time  of  flood  by  boats,  keep 
safe  only  goods  in  the  upper  story,  so  only  the  treasure  laid  up  above  escapes  the 
destroying  floods  of  the  last  day.  Dorner :  "  The  soul  will  possess  true  freedom,  in  that 
it  can  no  more  become  unfree;  and  that  through  the  indestructible  love-energy 
springing  from  union  with  God." 

Milton  :  "  What  if  earth  be  But  the  shadow  of  heaven,  and  things  therein  Each  to  the 
other  like,  more  than  on  earth  is  thought  ?  "  Omar  Khayyam,  Rubaiyat,  stanzas  60,  67 
—"I  sent  my  soul  through  the  Invisible,  Some  letter  of  that  After-life  to  spell :  And  by 

and  by  my  soul  returned  to  me,  And  answered  '  I  myself  am  Heaven  and  Hell ' 

Heaven  but  the  vision  of  fulfilled  desire.  And  Hell  the  shadow  of  a  soul  on  fire."  In 
other  words,  not  the  kind  of  place,  but  the  kind  of  people  in  it,  makes  Heaven  or  Hell, 
Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  341—  "  The  earth  is  but  a  breeding-ground  from  which 
God  intends  to  populate  the  whole  universe.  After  death,  the  soul  goes  to  that  place 
which  God  has  prepared  as  its  home.  In  the  resurrection  they  'neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage'  (Mat.  22: 30)=  ours  is  the  only  generative  planet.  There  is  no  reproduction 
hereafter.  To  incorporate  himself  into  the  race,  the  Father  must  come  to  the  repro- 
ductive planet." 

Dean  Stanley  :  "  Till  death  us  part !  So  speaks  the  heart  When  each  repeats  to  each 
the  words  of  doom  ;  Through  blessing  and  through  curse,  For  better  and  for  worse,  We 
will  be  one  till  that  dread  hour  shall  come.  Life,  with  its  myriad  grasp,  Our  yearning 
souls  shall  clasp,  By  ceaseless  love  and  still  expectant  wonder,  In  bonds  that  shail 
endure,  Indissolubly  sure,  Till  God  in  death  shall  part  our  paths  asunder.  Till  death  us 
join  !  O  voice  yet  more  divine,  That  to  the  broken  heart  breathes  hope  sublime ; 
Through  lonely  hours  and  shattered  powers,  We  still  are  one  despite  of  change  or  time. 
Death,  with  his  healing  hand,  Shall  once  more  knit  the  band,  Which  needs  but  that 
one  link  which  none  may  sever ;  Till  through  the  only  Good,  Heard,  felt  and  under- 
stood, Our  life  in  God  shall  make  us  one  forever." 

(  b  )   Is  this  earth  to  be  the  heaven  of  the  saints  ?    We  answer : 

First, —  that  the  earth  is  to  be  purified  by  fire,  and  perhaps  prepared  to 
be  the  abode  of  the  saints, — although  this  last  is  not  rendered  certain  by 
the  Scriptures. 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE   RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF   THE   "WICKED.    1033 

Rom.  8 :  19-23 — "For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creation  waitolh  for  the  revealing  of  the  sons  of  God.  For  th6 
creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  subjected  it,  in  hope  that  the  creation  itself 
also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God.  For  we  know 
that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain,  together  until  now.  And  not  only  so,  but  ourselves  also,  who 
have  the  first-fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  wit,  the 
redemption  of  our  body  "  ;  2  Pet.  3 :  12,  13  — "  looking  for  and  earnestly  desiring  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God,  by  reason 
of  which  the  heavens  being  on  fire  shall  be  dssolved,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat.  But,  according  to 
his  promise,  we  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness  "  ;  Rev.  21 : 1  — "And  I  saw  a 
new  heaven  and  a  new  oarth :  for  the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth  are  passed  away ;  and  the  sea  is  no  more." 
Dorner:  "Without  loss  of  substantiality,  matter  will  have  exchanged  its  darkness, 
hardness,  heaviness,  inertia,  and  impenetrableness,  for  clearness,  radiance,  elasticity, 
and  transparency.  A  new  stadium  will  begin  —  God's  advance  to  new  creations,  with 
the  cooperation  of  perfected  mankind." 

Is  the  earth  a  molten  mass,  with  a  thin  solid  crust?  Lord  Kelvin  says  no,  — it  is 
more  rigid  and  solid  than  steel.  The  interior  may  be  intensely  hot,  yet  pressure  may 
render  it  solid  to  the  very  centre.  The  wrinkling  of  the  surface  may  be  due  to  con- 
traction, or  "solid  flow,"  like  the  wrinkling  in  the  skin  of  a  baked  apple  that  has 
cooled.  See  article  on  The  Interior  of  the  Earth,  by  G.  F.  Becker,  in  N.  American  Rev., 
April,  1893.  Edward  S.  Holdeu,  Director  of  the  Lick  Observatory,  in  The  Forum,  Oct. 
1893  :  211-^0,  tells  us  that  "  the  star  Nova  Auriga',  which  doubtless  resembled  our  sun, 
within  two  days  increased  in  brilliancy  sixteen  fold.  Three  months  after  its  discovery 
it  had  become  invisible.  After  four  months  again  it  reappeared  ami  was  comparatively 
bright.  But  it  was  no  longer  a  star  but  a  nebula.  In  other  words  it  had  developed 
changes  of  light  and  heat  which,  if  repeated  in  the  case  of  our  own  sun,  would  mean  a 
quick  end  of  the  human  race,  and  the  utter  annihilation  of  every  vestige  of  animal 

and  other  life  upon  this  earth This  catastrophe  occured  in  December,  1891,  or 

was  announced  to  us  by  light  which  reached  us  then.  But  this  light  must  have  left 
the  star  twenty,  perhaps  titty,  years  earlier." 

Secondly,  —  that  this  fitting-up  of  the  earth  for  man's  abode,  even  if  it 
were  declared  in  Scripture,  would  not  render  it  certain  that  the  saints  are 
to  be  confined  to  these  narrow  limits  (John  14  : 2  ).  It  seems  rather  to  be 
intimated  that  the  effect  of  Christ's  work  will  be  to  bring  the  redeemed  into 
union  and  intercourse  with  other  orders  of  intelligence,  from  communion 
with  whom  they  are  now  shut  out  by  sin  (  Eph.  1  :  20  ;  Col.  1  :  20 ). 

John  14 : 2  — "  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions  "  ;  Eph.  1 :  10 — "  ontoa  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  the  times, 
to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  tin  heavens,  and  the  things  upon  the  earth  "  ;  Col.  1 :  20  — "  through  him  to 
reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross ;  through  him,  I  say,  whether  things 
upon  the  earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens.  " 

See  Dr.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  in  Bap.  Quarterly,  Jan.  1870.  Dr.  Kendrick  thinks  we  need 
local  associations.  Earth  may  be  our  home,  yet  from  this  home  we  may  set  out  on 
excursions  through  the  universe,  alter  a  time  returning  again  to  our  earthly  abodes. 
So  Chalmers,  interpreting  literally  2  Pet.  3.  We  certainly  are  in  a  prison  here,  and  look 
out  through  the  bars,  as  the  Prisoner  of  Chillon  looked  over  the  lake  to  the  green  isle 
and  the  singing  birds.  Why  are  we  shut  out  from  intercourse  with  other  worlds  and 
other  orders  of  intelligence  ?  Apparently  it  is  the  effect  of  sin.  We  are  in  an  abnormal 
state  of  durance  and  probation.  Earth  is  out  of  harmony  with  God.  The  great  harp 
of  the  universe  has  one  of  its  strings  out  of  tune,  and  that  one  discordant  string  makes 
a  jar  through  the  whole.  All  things  in  heaven  and  earth  shall  be  reconciled  when  this 
one  jarring  string  is  keyed  right  and  set  in  tune  by  the  hand  of  love  and  mercy.  See 
Leitch,  God's  Glory  in  the  Heavens,  327-330. 

2.     Of  the  ivicked. 

The  final  state  of  the  wicked  is  described  under  the  figures  of  eternal  fire 
(Mat.  25  :41 )  ;  the  pit  of  the  abyss  (  Eev.  9:2,  11 )  ;  outer  darkness  ( Mat. 
8  :  12  )  ;  torment  (  Kev.  14  :  10,  11 )  ;  eternal  punishment  (  Mat.  25  :  46)  ; 
wrath  of  God  (  Eom.  2:5);  second  death  (  Rev.  21 : 8  )  ;  eternal  destruc- 
tion from  the  face  of  the  Lord  ( 2  Thess.  1:9);  eternal  sin  (  Mark  3  :  29  ). 


1034      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

Mat.  25 :  41  — "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  "  ;  Rev. 
9:  2, 11 — "And  he  opened  the  pit  of  the  abyss;  and  there  went  up  a  smoke  out  of  the  pit,  as  the  smoke  of  a  great  furnace. 
....  They  have  over  them  as  king  the  angel  of  the  abyss :  his  name  in  Hebrew  is  Abaddon,  and  in  the  Greek  tongue  he 
hath  the  name  Apolly  on  "  ;  Mat.8:12 — "  but  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  forth  into  the  outer  darkness:  there 
shall  be  the  weeping  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth  "  ;  Rev.  14 :  10, 11  — "  he  also  shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God , 
which  is  prepared  unmixed  in  the  cup  of  his  anger  ;  and  he  shall  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in  the  presence  of 
the  holy  angels,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Lamb  :  and  the  smoke  of  their  torment  goeth  up  for  ever  and  ever"  ;  Mat. 
25  :  46 — "And these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment." 

Rom.  2:5  — "  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  for  thyself  wrath  in  the  day  of  wrath  and  revela- 
tion of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  "  ;  Rev.  21 : 8  — "  But  for  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and  abominable,  and  mur- 
derers, and  fornicators,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  their  part  shall  be  in  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fir« 
and  brimstone ;  which  is  the  second  death  "  :  2  Thess.  1:9  — "  who  shall  suffer  punishment,  even  eternal  destruction  from 
the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  might "  —  here  «to,  from,=  not  separation,  but  "  pro- 
ceeding from,"  and  indicates  that  the  everlasting-  presence  of  Christ,  once  realized, 
ensures  everlasting-  destruction  ;  Mark  3  :29 — "whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin"  —  a  text  which  implies  that  (1)  some  will  never 
cease  to  sin  ;  ( 2 )  this  eternal  sinning  will  involve  eternal  misery  ;  ( 3 )  this  eternal  misery, 
as  the  appointed  vindication  of  the  law,  will  be  eternal  punishment.  As  Uzziah,  when 
smitten  with  leprosy,  did  not  need  to  be  thrust  out  of  the  temple,  but  "himself  hasted  also 
to  go  out"  ( 2  Chron.  26 :  20 ),  so  Judas  is  said  to  go  "to  his  own  place"  (Acts  1:25;  cf.  4  :  23  —  where 
Peter  and  John,  "  being  let  go,  they  came  to  their  own  company  "  ).  Cf.  John  8 :  35  — "  the  bondservant  abideth 
not  in  the  house  forever"  =  whatever  be  his  outward  connection  with  God,  it  can  be  only  for 
a  time ;  15  :2 — "  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  it  away  "  —  at  death  ;  the  history  of 
Abraham  showed  that  one  might  have  outward  connection  with  God  that  was  only 
temporary  :  Ishmael  was  cast  out ;  the  promise  belonged  only  to  Isaac. 

Wrightnour  :  "  Gehenna  was  the  place  into  which  all  the  offal  of  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem was  swept.  So  hell  is  the  penitentiary  of  the  moral  universe.  The  profligate  is 
not  happy  in  the  prayer  meeting,  but  in  the  saloon  ;  the  swine  is  not  at  home  in  the 
parlor,  but  in  the  sty.  Hell  is  the  sinner's  own  place  ;  he  had  rather  be  there  than  in 
heaven ;  he  will  not  come  to  the  house  of  God,  the  nearest  thing  to  heaven  ;  why  should 
we  expect  him  to  enter  heaven  itself  ?  " 

Summing  up  all,  we  may  say  that  it  ia  the  loss  of  all  good,  whether 
physical  or  spiritual,  and  the  misery  of  an  evil  conscience  banished  from 
God  and  from  the  society  of  the  holy,  and  dwelling  under  God's  positive 
curse  forever.  Here  we  are  to  remember,  as  in  the  case  of  the  final  state  of 
the  righteous,  that  the  decisive  and  controlling  element  is  not  the  outward, 
but  the  inward.  If  hell  be  a  place,  it  is  only  that  the  outward  may  corres- 
pond to  the  inward.  If  there  be  outward  torments,  it  is  only  because  these 
will  be  fit,  though  subordinate,  accompaniments  of  the  inward  state  of  the 
soul. 

Every  living  creature  will  have  an  environment  suited  to  its  character  — "  its  own 
place."  "  I  know  of  the  future  judgment,  How  dreadful  so  e'er  it  be,  That  to  sit  alone 
with  my  conscience  Will  be  judgment  enough  for  me."  Calvin  :  "  The  wicked  have  the 
seeds  of  hell  in  their  own  hearts."  Chrysostom,  commenting  on  the  words  "  Depart,  ye 
cursed,"  says  :  "  Their  own  works  brought  the  punishment  on  tSem  ;  the  fire  was  not 
prepared  for  them,  but  for  Satan ;  yet,  since  they  cast  themselves  into  it, '  Impute  it  to 
yourselves,'  he  says, '  that  you  are  there.'  "  Milton,  Par.  Lost,  4  :  75  —  Satan  :  "  Which 
way  I  fly  is  hell ;  myself  am  hell."  Byron  :  "  There  is  no  power  in  holy  men,  Nor  charm 
in  prayer,  nor  purifying  form  Of  penitence,  nor  outward  look,  nor  fast.  Nor  agony,  nor, 
greater  than  all  these,  The  innate  torture  of  that  deep  despair  Would  make  a  hell  of 
heaven,  can  exorcise  From  out  the  unbounded  spirit  the  quick  sense  Of  its  own  sins." 

Phelps,  English  Style,  228,  speaks  of  "  a  law  of  the  divine  government,  by  which  the 
body  symbolizes,  in  its  experience,  the  moral  condition  of  its  spiritual  inhabitant.  The 
drift  of  sin  is  to  physical  suffering.  Moral  depravity  tends  always  to  a  corrupt  and 
tortured  body.  Certain  diseases  are  the  product  of  certain  crimes.  The  whole  cata- 
logue of  human  pains,  from  a  toothache  to  the  angina  pectoris,  is  but  a  witness  to  a 
state  of  sin  expressed  by  an  experience  of  suffering.  Carry  this  law  into  the  experience 
of  eternalsin.  The  bodies  of  the  wicked  live  again  as  well  as  those  of  the  righteous. 
You  have  therefore  a  spiritual  body,  inhabited  and  used,  and  therefore  tortured,  by  a 


FINAL   STATES   OF  THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF  THE    WICKED.    1035 

guilty  soul,— a  body,  perfeoted  in  its  sensibilities,,  inclosing  and  expressing  a  soul 
matured  in  its  depravity."  Augustine,  Confessions,  25—"  Each  man's  sin  is  the  instru- 
ment of  his  punishment,  and  his  iniquity  is  turned  into  his  torment."  Lord  Bacon  : 
"  Being,  without  well-being,  is  a  curse,  and  the  greater  the  being,  the  greater  the  curse." 

In  our  treatment  of  the  subject  of  eternal  punishment  we  must  remember 
that  false  doctrine  is  often  a  reaction  from  the  unscriptural  and  repulsive 
over-statements  of  Christian  apologists.  We  freely  concede  :  1.  that  future 
punishment  dues  not  necessarily  consist  of  physical  torments,  —  it  may  be 
wholly  internal  and  spiritual ;  2.  that  the  pain  and  suffering  of  the  future 
are  not  necessarily  due  to  positive  inflictions  of  God,  —  they  may  result 
entirely  from  the  soul's  sense  of  loss,  and  from  the  accusations  of  con- 
science ;  and  3.  that  eternal  }>unishment  does  not  necessarily  involve  end- 
less successions  of  suffering, —  as  God's  eternity  is  not  mere  endlessness,  so 
we  may  not  be  forever  subject  to  the  law  of  time. 

An  over-literal  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  symbols  has  had  much  to  do  with 
such  utterances  as  that  of  Savage,  Life  after  Death,  101— "If  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment  was  clearly  and  unmistakably  taught  in  every  leaf  of  the  Bible,  and  on 
every  leaf  of  all  the  Bibles  of  all  the  world,  I  could  not  believe  a  word  of  it.  I  should 
appeal  from  these  misconceptions  of  even  the  seers  and  the  great  men  to  the  infinite 
and  eternal  Good,  who  only  is  God,  ami  who  only  on  such  terms  could  be  worshiped.'' 

The  figurative  language  of  Scripture  is  a  miniature  representation  of  what  cannot  be 
fulb'  described  in  words.  The  symbol  is  a  symbol ;  yet  it  is  less,  not  greater,  than  the 
thing  symbolized.  It  is  sometimes  fancied  that  Jonathan  Edwards,  when,  in  his  sermon 
on  "Sinners  in  the  Hands  of  an  Angry  God,"  he  represented  the  sinner  as  a  worm  shriv- 
eling in  the  eternal  fire,  supposed  that  hell  consists  mainly  of  such  physical  torments. 
But  this  is  a  misinterpretal  ion  of  Edwards.  As  he  did  not  fancy  heaven  essentially  to 
consist  in  streets  of  gold  or  pearly  gates,  but  rather  in  holiness  and  communion  with 
Christ,  of  which  these  are  the  symbols,  so  he  did  not  regard  hell  as  consisting  in  fire 
and  brimstone,  but  rather  in  the  unholiness  and  separation  from  God  of  a  guilty  and 
accusing  conscience,  of  which  the  lire  and  brimstone  are  symbols.  He  used  the  mate 
rial  imagery,  because  he  thought  t  hat  this  best  answered  to  the  methods  of  Scripture. 
He  probably  went  bey 1  the  simplicity  of  the  Scripture  statements,  and  did  not  suffi- 
ciently explain  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  symbols  he  used;  but  we  are  persuaded 
that  lie  neither  understood  them  literally  himself,  nor  meant  them  to  be  so  understood 
by  others. 

Sin  is  self -isolating,  unsocial,  selfish.  By  virtue  of  natural  laws  the  sinner  reaps  as 
he  has  sown,  and  sooner  or  later  is  repaid  by  desert  ion  or  contempt.  Then  the  selfish- 
ness of  one  sinner  is  punished  by  the  selfishness  of  another,  the  ambition  of  one  by  the 
ambition  of  anot  her,  t  he  cruelty  of  one  by  the  cruelty  of  another.  The  misery  of  the 
wicked  hereafter  will  doubtless  be  due  in  part  to  the  spirit  of  their  companions.  They 
dislike  the  good,  whose  presence  and  example  is  a  continual  reproof  and  reminder  of 
the  height  from  which  they  have  fallen,  and  they  shut  themselves  out  of  their  company. 
The  judgment  will  bring  about  a  complete  cessation  of  intercourse  between  the  good 
and  the  bad.  Julius  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  1:239—"  Beings  whose  relations  to  God 
are  diametrically  opposite,  and  persistently  so,  differ  so  greatl3r  from  each  other  that 
other  ties  of  relationship  became  as  nothing  in  comparison." 

In  order,  however,  to  meet  opposing  views,  and  to  forestall  the  common 
objections,  we  proceed  to  state  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  in  greater 
detail : 

A.  The  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  annihilation. — In  our 
discussion  of  Physical  Death,  we  have  shown  that,  by  virtue  of  its  oiiginal 
creation  in  the  image  of  God,  the  human  soul  is  naturally  immortal  ;  that 
neither  for  the  righteous  nor  the  wicked  is  death  a  cessation  of  being  ;  that 
on  the  contrary,  the  wicked  enter  at  death  upon  a  state  of  conscious  suffer- 
ing which  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment  only  augment  and  render 


1036      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    FINAL  THINGS. 

permanent.  It  is  plain,  moreover,  that  if  annihilation  took  place  at  death, 
there  could  be  no  degrees  in  future  punishment, —  a  conclusion  itself  at 
variance  with  express  statements  of  Scripture. 

The  old  annihilationism  is  represented  by  Hudson,  Debt  and  Grace,  and  Christ  our 
Life  ;  also  by  Dobney,  Future  Punishment.  It  maintains  that  KoAcuns,  "punishment"  (  in 
Mat.  25:46— "eternal  punishment"),  means  etymologically  an  everlasting  "  cutting-off."  But 
we  reply  that  the  word  had  to  a  great  degree  lost  its  etymological  significance,  as  is 
evident  from  the  only  other  passage  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  namely, 

1  John  4:18 — "fear  hath  punishment"  (  A.  V. :  "fear  hath  torment"  ).  For  full  answer  to  the 
old  statements  of  the  annihilation-theory,  see  under  Physical  Death,  pages  991-998. 

That  there  are  degrees  of  punishment  in  God's  administration  is  evident  from  Luke  12: 
47,  48—  "And  that  servant,  who  knew  his  Lord's  wilL  and  made  not  ready,  nor  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be 
beaten  with  many  stripes  ;  but  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  fow  stripes  " ;  Rom. 

2  :  5,  6  — "  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  for  thyself  wrath  in  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God;  who  will  render  to  every  man  according  lo  his  works  "  ;  2  Cor.  5 :  10 — "For  we  must  all 
be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  that  each  one  may  rooeive  the  things  done  in  the  body,  according  to 
what  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad  "  ;  11 :  15  — "  whose  end  snail  be  according  to  their  works  "  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  14 
— "  Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  me  much  evil :  the  Lord  will  render  to  him  according  to  his  works ' ' ;  Rev.  2 :  23  — "I 
will  give  unto  each  one  of  you  according  to  your  works"  ;  18 : 5,  6 — "her  sins  have  reached  even  unto  heaven,  and  God 
hath  remembered  her  iniquities.  Render  unto  her  even  as  she  rendered,  and  double  unto  her  the  double  according  to  her 
works :  in  the  cup  which  she  mingled,  mingle  unto  her  double." 

A  French  Christian  replied  to  the  argumeut  of  his  deistical  friend  :  "  Probably  you 
are  right ;  probably  you  are  not  immortal ;  but  I  am."  This  was  the  doctrine  of  condi- 
tional immortality,  the  doctrine  that  only  the  good  survive.  We  grant  that  the  measure 
of  our  faith  in  immortality  is  the  measure  of  our  fitness  for  its  blessings  ;  but  it  is  not 
the  measure  of  our  possession  of  immortality.  We  are  immortal  beings,  whether  we 
believe  it  or  not.  The  acorn  is  potentially  an  oak,  but  it  may  never  come  to  its  full 
development.  There  is  a  saltless  salt,  which,  though  it  does  not  cease  to  exist,  is  cast, 
out  and  trodden  under  foot  of  men.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  25G — "Conditional 
immortality  denies  that  man  can  exist  after  death  without  being  united  to  Christ  by 
faith.  But  the  immortality  of  man  cannot  be  something  accidental,  something 
appended  to  his  nature,  after  he  believes  in  Christ.  It  must  be  something,  at  the  very 
lowest,  for  which  his  nature  is  constituted,  even  if  apart  from  Christ  it  can  never 
realize  itself  as  it  ought." 

Lroadus,  Com.  on  Mat.  25:  46  (  page  5U)— "  He  who  caused  to  exist  could  "keep  in 
existence.  Mark  9  :  49  —  '  Every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire  '  —  has  probably  this  meaning.  Fire  is 
usually  destructive;  but  this  unquenchable  fire  will  act  like  salt,  preserving  instead 
of  destroying.  So  Keble,  Christian  Year,  5th  Sunday  in  Lent,  says  of  the  Jews  in  their 
present  condition  :  '  Salted  with  fire,  they  seem  to  show  How  spirits  lost  in  endless 
woe  May  undecaying  live.  Oh,  sickening  thought !  Yet  hold  it  fast  Long  as  this  glit- 
tering world  shall  last,  Or  sin  at  heart  survive.'  " 

There  are  two  forms  of  the  annihilation  theory  which  are  more  plausible, 
and  which  in  recent  times  find  a  larger  number  of  advocates,  namely  : 

(a)  That  the  powers  of  the  wicked  are  gradually  weakened,  as  the 
natural  result  of  sin,  so  that  they  finally  cease  to  be. — We  reply,  first,  that 
moral  evil  does  not,  in  this  present  life,  seem  to  be  incompatible  with  a 
constant  growth  of  the  intellectual  powers,  at  least  in  certain  directions,  and 
we  have  no  reason  to  believe  the  fact  to  be  different  in  the  world  to  come  ; 
secondly,  that  if  this  theory  were  true,  the  greater  the  sin,  the  speedier 
would  be  the  relief  from  punishment. 

This  form  of  the  anniliilation  theory  is  suggested  by  Bushnell,  in  his  Forgiveness  and 
Law,  146, 147,  and  by  Martineau,  Study,  2  :  107-8.  Dorner  also,  in  his  Eschatolcgy,  seems 
to  favor  it  as  one  of  the  possible  methods  of  future  punishment.  He  says  :  "  To  the 
ethical  also  pertains  ontological  significance.  The  '  second  death '  may  be  the  dissolving 
of  the  soul  itself  into  nothing.  Estrangement  from  God,  the  source  of  life,  ends  in 
extinction  of  life.  The  orthodox  talk  about  demented  beings,  raging  in  impotent  fury, 
amounts  to  the  same — annihilation  of  their  human  character.  Evil  is  never  the  sub- 
stance of  the   soul,— this   remains  metaphysically  good."    It  is  argued  that  even  for 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE   RIGHTEOUS   AND    OF   THE   WICKED.    103? 

saved  sinners  there  is  a  loss.  The  prodigal  regained  his  father's  favor,  but  he  could 
not  regain  his  lost  patrimony.  We  cannot  get  back  the  lost  time,  nor  the  lost  growth. 
Much  more,  then,  in  the  case  of  the  wicked,  will  there  be  perpetual  loss.  Draper :  "  At 
every  return  to  the  sun,  comets  lose  a  portion  of  their  size  and  brightness,  stretching 
out  until  the  nucleus  loses  control,  the  mass  breaks  up,  and  the  greater  portion  navi- 
gates the  sky,  in  the  shape  of  disconnected  meteorites." 

To  this  argument  it  is  often  replied  that  certain  minds  grow  in  their  powers,  at  least 
in  certain  directions,  in  spite  of  their  sin.  Napoleon's  military  genius,  during  all  his 
early  years,  grew  with  experience.  Sloane,  in  his  Life  of  Napoleon,  however,  seems  to 
show  that  the  Emperor  lost  his  grip  as  he  went  on.  Success  unbalanced  his  judgment; 
he  gave  way  to  physical  indulgence ;  his  body  was  not  equal  to  the  strain  he  put  upon 
it ;  at  Waterloo  he  lost  precious  moments  of  opportunity  by  vacillation  and  inability  to 
keep  awake.  There  was  physical,  mental,  and  moral  deterioration.  But  may  this  not  be 
the  result  of  the  soul's  connection  with  a  body  V  Satan's  cunning  and  daring  seem  to  be 
on  the  increase  from  the  first  mention  of  him  in  Scripture  to  its  end.  See  Princeton 
lteview,  1882:673-694.  Will  not  this  very  cunning  and  daring,  however,  work  its  own 
ruin,  and  lead  Satan  to  his  nual  and  complete  destruction?  Does  not  sin  blunt  the 
intellect,  unsettle  one's  sober  standards  of  decision,  lead  one  to  prefer  a  trying  present 
triumph  or  pleasure  to  a  p<  rmanent  good  ? 

Gladden,  What  is  Left?  104,  105— "Evil  is  benumbing  and  deadening.  Selfishness 
weakens  a  man's  mental  grasp,  and  narrows  his  range  of  vision.  The  schemer  becomes 
less  astute  as  he  grows  older  ;  he  is  morally  sure,  before  li"  dies,  to  make  some  stupen- 
dous blunder  which  even  a  tyro  would  have  avoided The  devil,  who  has  sinned 

longest,  must  be  the  greatest  tool  in  the  universe,  and  we  need  not  be  at  all  afraid  of 
him."  To  the  view  that  this  weakening  of  powers  leads  to  absolute  extinction  of  being, 
we  oppose  the  consideration  that  its  award  of  retribution  is  glaringly  unjust  in  making 
the  greatest  sinner  the  hast  sufferer;  since  to  him  relief,  in  the  way  of  annihilation, 
comes  the  soonest. 

(b)  That  there  is  for  the  wicked,  certainly  after  death,  and  possibly 
between  death  and  the  judgment,  a  positive  punishment  proportioned  to 
their  deeds,  but  that  this  punishment  issues  in,  or  is  followed  by,  annihila- 
tion.— We  reply  first,  that  upon  this  view,  as  upon  any  theory  of  annihila- 
tion, future  punishment  is  a  matter  of  grace  as  well  as  of  justice —  a  notion 
for  which  Scripture  affords  no  warrant;  secondly,  that  Scripture  not  only 
gives  no  hint  of  the  cessation  of  this  punishment,  but  declares  in  the 
strongest  terms  its  endlessness. 

The  second  form  of  the  annihilation  theory  seems  to  have  been  held  by  Justin  Martyr 
( Trypho,  Edinb.  transl. )  — "  Some,  who  have  appeared  worthy  of  God,  never  die  ;  but 
others  are  punished  bo  long  as  God  wills  them  to  exist  and  be  punished."  The  soul 
exists  because  God  wills,  and  no  longer  than  he  wills.  "  Whenever  it  is  necessary  that 
the  soul  should  cease  to  exist,  the  spirit  of  life  is  removed  from  it,  and  there  is  no  more 
soul,  but  it  goes  back  to  the  place  from  which  it  was  taken.'' 

Schaff,  Hist.  Christ.  Church,  2:608,609 — "Justin  Martyr  teaches  that  the  wicked  or 
hopelessly  impenitent  will  be  raised  at  the  judgment  to  receive  an  eternal  punishment. 
He  speaks  of  it  in  twelve  passages  :  '  We  believe  that  all  who  live  wickedly  and  do  not 
repent  will  be  punished  in  eternal  fire.'  Such  language  is  inconsistent  with  the  annihi- 
lation theory  for  which  Justin  Martyr  has  been  claimed.  He  does  indeed  reject  the 
idea  of  the  independent  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  bints  at  the  possible  final  destruc- 
tion of  the  wicked;  but  he  puts  that  possibility  countless  ages  beyond  the  final 
judgment,  so  that  it  loses  all  practical  significance." 

A  modern  advocate  of  this  view  is  White,  in  his  Life  in  Christ.  He  favors  a  condi- 
tional immortality,  belonging  only  to  those  who  are  joined  to  Christ  by  faith  ;  but  he 
makes  a  retributive  punishment  and  pain  fall  upon  the  godless,  before  their  annihila- 
tion. The  roots  of  this  view  lie  in  a  false  conception  of  holiness  as  a  form  or  manifes- 
tation of  benevolence,  and  of  punishment  as  deterrent  and  preventive  instead  of 
vindicative  of  righteousness.  To  the  minds  of  its  advocates,  extinction  of  being  is  a 
comparative  blessing  ;  and  they,  for  this  reason,  prefer  it  to  the  common  view.  See 
Whiton,  Is  Eternal  Punishment  Endless  ? 


1038      ESCHATOLOGY.    OK   THE   DOCTRINE   OP   FINAL   THINGS. 

A  view  similar  to  that  which  we  are  opposing  is  found  in  Henry  Drummond,  Natural 
Law  in  the  Spiritual  World.  Evil  is  punished  by  its  own  increase.  Drummond,  how- 
ever, leaves  no  room  for  future  life  or  for  future  judgment  in  the  case  of  the  unre- 
generate.  See  reviews  of  Drummond,  in  "Watts,  New  Apologetic,  332  ;  and  in  Murphy, 
Nat.  Selection  and  Spir.  Freedom,  19-21,  77-124.  While  Drummond  is  an  annihilationist, 
Murphy  is  a  restorationist.  More  rational  and  Scriptural  than  either  of  these  is  the 
saying  of  Tower  :  "  Sin  is  God's  foe.  He  does  not  annihilate  it,  but  he  makes  it  the 
means  of  displaying  his  holiness ;  as  the  Romans  did  not  slay  their  captured  enemies, 
but  made  them  their  servants."  The  terms  aiajf  and  aiwi/ios,  which  we  have  still  to  con- 
sider, afford  additional  Scripture  testimony  against  annihilation.  See  also  the  argument 
from  the  divine  justice,  pages  1046-1051 ;  article  on  the  Doctrine  of  Extinction,  in  New 
Englander,  March,  1879:201-224;  Hovey,  Manual  of  Theology  and  Ethics,  153-168;  J.  S. 
Barlow,  Endless  Being  ;  W.  H.  Robinson,  on  Conditional  Immortality,  in  Report  of 
Baptist  Congress  for  1886. 

Since  neither  one  of  these  two  forms  of  the  annihilation  theory  is 
Scriptural  or  rational,  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  as 
throwing  light  upon  the  problem.  Death  is  not  degeneracy  ending  in 
extinction,  nor  punishment  ending  in  extinction,—  it  is  atavism  that  returns, 
or  tends  to  return,  to  the  animal  type.  As  moral  development  is  from  the 
brute  to  man,  so  abnormal  development  is  from  man  to  the  brute. 

Lord  Byron  :  "  All  suffering  doth  destroy,  or  is  destroyed."  This  is  true,  not  of  man's 
being,  but  of  his  well  being.  Ribot,  Diseases  of  the  Will,  115  — "  Dissolution  pursues  a 
regi-essive  course  from  the  more  voluntary  and  more  complex  to  the  less  voluntary  and 
more  simple,  that  is  to  say,  toward  the  automatic.  One  of  the  first  signs  of  mental 
impairment  is  incapacity  for  sustained  attention.  Unity,  stability,  power,  have  ceased, 
and  the  end  is  extinction  of  the  will."  We  prefer  to  say,  loss  of  the  freedom  of  the  will. 
On  the  principle  of  evolution,  abuse  of  freedom  may  result  in  reversion  to  the  brute, 
annihilation  not  of  existence  but  of  higher  manhood,  punishment  from  within  rather 
than  from  without,  eternal  penalty  in  the  shape  of  eternal  less.  Mat.  24 :  13  — "  he  that  endureth 
to  the  end,  the  same  shall  he  saved  "  —  has  for  its  parallel  passage  luke  21:19  —  "  In  your  patience  ye  shall 
win  your  souls,"  i.  e.,  shall  by  free  will  get  possession  of  your  own  being.  Losing  one's  soui 
is  just  the  opposite,  namely,  losing  one's  free  will,  by  disuse  renouncing  freedom,  becom- 
ing a  victim  of  habit,  nature,  circumstance,  and  this  is  the  cutting  off  and  annihilation 
of  true  manhood.  "  To  be  in  hell  is  to  drift ;  to  be  in  heaven  is  to  steer  "  ( Bei-nard  Shaw ). 

In  John  15 :  2  Christ  says  of  all  men  —  the  natural  branches  of  the  vine  —  "  Every  branch  in  ma 
that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  it  away  "  ;  Ps.  49  :  20  — "  Man  that  is  in  honor,  and  understandeth  not,  Is  like  the  beasts 
that  perish  "  ;  Rev.  22  :  15  — "Without  are  the  dogs."  In  heathen  fable  men  were  turned  into  beasts, 
and  even  into  trees.  The  story  of  Circe  is  a  parable  of  human  fate,—  men  may  become 
apes,  tigers,  or  swine.  They  may  lose  their  higher  powers  of  consciousness  and  will. 
By  perpetual  degradation  they  may  suffer  eternal  punishment.  All  life  that  is  worthy 
of  the  name  may  cease,  while  still  existence  of  a  low  animal  type  is  prolonged.  We  see 
precisely  these  results  of  sin  in  this  world.  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  same 
laws  of  development  will  operate  in  the  world  to  come. 

McConnell,  Evolution  of  Immortality,  85-05,  99,  124,  180  — "  Immortality,  or  survival 
after  death,  depends  upon  man's  freeing  himself  from  the  law  which  sweeps  away  the 
many,  and  becoming  an  individual  (indivisible )  that  is  fit  to  survive.  The  individual  must 
become  stronger  than  the  species.  By  using  will  aright,  he  lays  hold  of  the  infinite 
Life,  and  becomes  one  who,  like  Christ,  has  'life  in  himself'  (John  5:26).  Gravitation  and 
chemical  affinity  had  their  way  in  the  universe  until  they  were  arrested  and  turned 
about  in  the  interest  of  life.  Overproduction,  death,  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  had 
their  ruthless  sway  until  they  were  reversed  in  the  interest  of  affection.  The  supremacy 
of  the  race  at  the  expense  of  the  individual  we  may  expect  to  continue  until  something 

in  the  individual  comes  to  be  of  more  importance  than  that  law,  and  no  longer 

Goodness  can  arrest  and  turn  back  for  nations  the  primal  law  of  growth,  vigor,  and 
decline.  Is  it  too  much  to  believe  that  it  may  do  the  same  for  an  individual  man  ?  .  .  . 
Life  is  a  thing  to  be  achieved.    At  every  step  there  are  a  thousand  candidates  who  fail, 

for  one  that  attains Until  moral  sensibility  becomes  self-conscious,  all  question 

of  personal  immortality  becomes  irrelevant,  because  there  is,  accurately  speaking,  no 
personality  to  be  immortal.  Up  to  that  point  the  individual  living  creature,  whether  in 
human  form  or  not,  falls  short  of  that  essential  personality  for  which  eternal  life  can 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND    OF   THE    WICKED.    1039 

have  any  meaning-."  But  how  about  children  who  never  come  to  moral  consciousness  ? 
McConnell  appeals  to  heredity.  The  child  of  one  who  has  himself  achieved  immortality 
may  also  prove  to  be  immortal.  But  is  there  no  chance  for  the  children  of  sinners  ? 
The  doctrine  of  McConnell  leans  toward  the  true  solution,  but  it  is  vitiated  by  the  belief 
that  individuality  is  a  transient  gift  which  only  goodness  can  make  permanent.  We 
hold  on  the  other  hand  that  this  gift  of  God  is  "without  repentance"  (Rom.  11:  29),  and  that  no 
human  being  can  lose  life,  except  in  the  sense  of  losing  all  that  makes  life  desirable. 

B.  Punishment  after  death  excludes  new  probation  and  ultimate  restora- 
tion of  the  wicked. —  Some  have  maintained  the  ultimate  restoration  of  all 
human  beings,  by  appeal  to  such  passages  as  the  following  :  Mat.  19  :  28  ; 
Acts  3  :  21 ;  Eph.  1 :  9,  10. 

M  at.  19 :  28  — "in  the  regeneration  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory  "  ;  Acts  3 :  21  —  Jesus, 
"whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things"  ;  1  Cor.  15:26 — "The  last  enemy  that  shall 
be  abolished  is  death  "  ;  Eph.  1:9,  10  — "  according  to  his  good  pleasure  which  he  purposed  in  him  unto  a  dispensation 
of  the  fu!ness  of  the  times,  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  the  heavens,  and  the  things  upon  the  earth  "  ;  Phil. 
2 :  10,  11  — "  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth  and  things  under 
the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue  should  confers  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father  "  ;  2  Pet.  3  : 9, 13  — 

"not  wishing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance But,  according  to  his  promise,  we 

look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness." 

Robert  Browning  :  "That  God,  by  Cod's  own  ways  occult,  May  — doth, I  will  believe 
—  bring  back  All  wanderers  to  a  single  track."  B.  W.  Lockhart:  "  I  must  belie ve 
that  evil  is  essentially  transient  and  mortal,  or  alter  my  predicates  of  God.  And 
I  must  believe  in  the  ultimate  extinction  of  that  personality  whom  the  power  of  God 
cannot  sometime  win  to  goodness.  The  only  alternative  is  the  termination  of  a  wicked 
life  either  through  redemption  or  through  extinction."  Mulford,  Republic  of  God, 
claims  that  the  soul's  state  cannot  be  fixed  by  any  event,  such  as  death,  outside  of 
itself.  If  it  could,  the  soul  would  exist,  not  under  a  moral  government,  but  under  fate, 
and  God  himself  would  be  only  another  name  for  fate.  The  soul  carries  its  fate,  under 
God,  in  its  power  of  choice  ;  and  who  dares  to  say  that  this  power  to  choose  the  good 
ceases  at  death  ? 

For  advocacy  of  a  second  probation  for  those  who  have  not  consciously  rejected 
Christ  in  this  life,  see  Newman  Smyth's  edition  of  Dorner's  Eschatology.  For  the  theory 
of  restoration,  see  Farrar,  Eternal  Hope;  Birks,  Victory  of  Divine  Goodness;  Jukes, 
Restitution  of  All  Things;  Delitzsch,  Bib.  Psychologic,  4G9-476;  Robert  Browning, 
Apparent  Failure  ;  Tennyson,  In  Memoriam,  \  liv.  Percont/ra,  see  Hovey,  Bib.  Escha- 
tology, 95-144.    See  also,  Griffith-Jones,  Ascent  through  Christ,  406-440. 

(  a  )  These  passages,  as  obscure,  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
those  plainer  ones  which  we  have  already  cited.  Thus  interpreted,  they 
foretell  only  the  absolute  triumph  of  the  divine  kingdom,  and  the  subjec- 
tion of  all  evil  to  God. 

The  true  interpretation  of  the  passages  above  mentioned  is  indicated  in  Meyer's  note 
on  Eph.  1 : 9, 10 —  this  namely,  that  "  the  allusion  is  not  to  the  restoration  of  fallen  indi- 
viduals, but  to  the  restoration  of  universal  harmony,  implying  that  the  wicked  are  to 
be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God."  That  there  is  no  allusion  to  a  probation  after 
this  life,  is  clear  from  Luke  16 :  19-31  —  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  Here 
penalty  is  inflicted  for  the  sins  done  "  in  thy  lifetime"  ( v.  25 ) ;  this  penalty  is  unchangeable 
— "  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed  "  (v.  26);  the  rich  man  asks  favors  for  his  brethren  who  still  live 
on  the  earth,  but  none  for  himself  (v.27,28).  Joha5:25-29—  "The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the 
dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  -r  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even 
so  gave  he  to  the  Sou  also  to  have  life  in  himsolf :  and  he  gave  him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  a  son  of 
man.  Marvel  not  at  this :  for  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  until  the  resurrection  of  judg- 
ment" —  here  it  is  declared  that,  while  for  tho3e  who  have  done  good  there  is  a  resurrec- 
tion of  life,  there  is  for  those  who  have  done  ill  only  a  resurrection  of  judgment.  John, 
8 :  21,  24  — "  shall  die  in  your  sin  :  whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come  ....  except  ye  believe  that  I  am  he,  yc  shall  die  in 
your  sins"  —  sa3-ings  which  indicate  finality  in  the  decisions  of  this  life. 

Orr,  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  243—"  Scripture  invariably  represents  the 
judgment  as  proceeding  on  the  data  of  this  life,  and  it  concentrates  every  ray  of  appeal 
into  the  present."  John  9:4  —  "We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day :  the  night  cometi 


1040      ESCHATOLOGY,    OK   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

when  no  man  oan  work"  —  intimates  that  there  is  eo  opportunity  to  secure  salvation  after 
death.  The  Christian  hymn  writer  has  caught  the  meaning-  of  Scripture,  when  he  says 
of  those  who  have  passed  through  the  gate  of  death  :  "  Fixed  in  an  eternal  state,  They 
have  done  with  all  below  ;  We  a  little  longer  wait ;  But  how  little,  none  can  know." 

( b  )  A  second  probation  is  not  needed  to  vindicate  the  justice  or  the  love 
of  God,  since  Christ,  the  immanent  God,  is  already  in  this  world  present 
with,  every  human  soul,  quickening  the  conscience,  giving  to  each  man  his 
opportunity,  and  making  every  decision  between  right  and  wrong  a  true 
probation.  In  choosing  evil  against  their  better  judgment  even  the  heathen 
unconsciously  reject  Christ.  Infants  and  idiots,  as  they  have  not  consciously 
sinned,  are,  as  we  may  believe,  saved  at  death  by  having  Christ  revealed  to 
them  and  by  the  regenerating  influence  of  his  Spirit. 

Rom.  1 :  18-28  —  there  is  probation  under  the  light  of  nature  as  well  as  under  the  gospel, 
and  under  the  law  of  nature  as  well  as  under  the  gospel  men  may  be  given  up  "unto  a 
reprobate  mind";  2:6-16  —  Gentiles  shall  be  judged,  not  by  the  gospel,  but  by  the  law  of 
nature,  and  shall  "perish  without  the  law  ....  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men."  2  Cor. 
5  :  10  —  "  For  we  must  all  be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  [  not  that  each  may  have  a 
new  opportunity  to  secure  salvation,  but]  that  each  one  may  receive  the  things  dona  in  the  body, 
according  to  what  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad  "  ;  Heb.  6:8  —  "  whose  end  is  to  be  burned  "  —  not  to 
be  quickened  again  ;  9  :  27 —  "And  inasmuch  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  this  cometh 
[not  a  second  probation,  but]  judgment."  Luckock,  Intermediate  State,  22  —  "In  Heb. 
9:27,  the  word  'judgment'  has  no  article.  The  judgment  alluded  to  is  not  the  final  or 
general  judgment,  but  only  that  by  which  the  place  of  the  soul  is  determined  in  the 
Intermediate  State." 

Deuney,  Studies  in  Theology,  243  — "  In  Mat.  25,  our  Lord  gives  a  pictorial  representation 
of  the  judgment  of  the  heathen.  All  nations  — all  the  Gentiles  — are  gathered  before 
the  King  ;  and  their  destiny  is  determined,  not  by  their  conscious  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion of  the  historical  Savior,  but  by  their  unconscious  acceptance  or  rejection  of  him 

in  the  persons  of  those  who  needed  services  of  love This  does  notsquare  with  the 

idea  of  a  future  probation.  It  rather  tells  us  plainly  that  men  may  do  things  of  final 
and  decisive  import  in  this  life,  even  if  Christ  is  unknown  to  them The  real  argu- 
ment against  future  probation  is  that  it  depreciates  the  present  life,  and  denies  the 
infinite  significance  that,  under  all  conditions,  essentially  and  inevitably  belongs  to  the 
actions  of  a  self-conscious  moral  being.  A  type  of  will  may  be  in  process  of  formation, 
even  in  a  heathen  man,  on  which  eternal  issues  depend.  .  .  .  Second  probation  lowers 
the  moral  tone  of  the  spirit.  The  present  life  acquires  a  relative  unimportance.  I  dare 
not  say  that  if  I  forfeit  the  opportunity  the  present  life  gives  me  I  shall  ever  have 
another,  and  therefore  I  dare  not  say  so  to  another  man." 

For  an  able  review  of  the  Scripture  testimony  against  a  second  probation,  see  G.  F. 
Wright,  Relation  of  Death  to  Probation,  iv.  Emerson,  the  most  recent  advocate  of 
restorationism,  in  his  Doctrine  of  Probation  Examined,  42,  is  able  to  evade  these  latter 
passages  only  by  assuming  that  they  are  to  be  spiritually  interpreted,  and  that  there  is 
to  be  no  literal  outward  day  of  judgment— an  error  which  we  have  previously  dis- 
cussed and  refuted,—  see  pages  1024, 1025. 

(  c  )  The  advocates  of  universal  restoration  are  commonly  the  most  stren- 
uous defenders  of  the  inalienable  freedom  of  the  human  will  to  make  choices 
contrary  to  its  past  character  and  to  all  the  motives  which  are  or  can  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  in  this  world  that 
men  choose  sin  in  spite  of  infinite  motives  to  the  contrary.  Upon  the 
theory  of  human  freedom  just  mentioned,  no  motives  which  God  can  use 
will  certainly  accomplish  the  salvation  of  all  moral  creatures.  The  soul 
which  resists  Christ  here  may  resist  him  forever. 

Emerson,  in  the  book  just  referred  to,  says :  "  The  truth  that  sin  is  in  its  permanent 
essence  a  free  choice,  however  for  a  time  it  may  be  held  in  mechanical  combination 
with  the  notion  of  moral  opportunity  arbitrarily  closed,  can  never  mingle  with  it,  and 
iiust  in  the  logical  outcome  permanently  cast  it  off.    Scripture  presumes  and  teaches 


FINAL    STATES    OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF  THE   WICKED.    1041 

the  constant  capability  of  souls  to  obey  as  well  as  to  be  disobedient."  Emerson  is  cor- 
rect. If  the  doctrine  of  the  unlimited  ability  of  the  human  will  be  a  true  one,  then 
restoration  in  the  future  world  is  possible.  Clement  and  Origen  founded  on  this  theory 
of  will  their  denial  of  future  punishment.  If  will  be  essentially  the  power  of  contrary 
choice,  and  if  will  may  act  independently  of  all  character  and  motive,  there  can  be  no 
objective  certainty  that  the  lost  will  remain  sinful.  In  short,  there  can  be  no  finality, 
even  to  God's  allotments,  nor  is  any  last  judgment  possible.  Upon  this  view,  regenera- 
tion and  conversion  are  as  possible  at  any  time  in  the  future  as  they  are  to-day. 

But  those  who  hold  to  this  defective  philosophy  of  the  will  should  remember  that 
unlimited  freedom  is  unlimited  freedom  to  sin,  as  well  as  unlimited  freedom  to  turn  to 
God.  If  restoration  is  possible,  endless  persistence  in  evil  is  possible  also ;  and  this  last 
the  Scripture  predicts.  Whit  tier :  "  What  if  thine  eye  refuse  to  see,  Thine  ear  of  heaven's 
free  welcome  fail,  And  thou  a  willing  captive  be,  Thyself  thine  own  dark  jail  ?  " 
Swedenborg  says  that  theman  who  obstinately  refuses  the  inheritance  of  the  sons  of 
God  is  allowed  the  pleasures  of  the  beast,  and  enjoys  in  his  own  low  way  the  hell  to 
which  he  has  confined  himself.  Every  occupant  of  hell  prefers  it  to  heaven.  Dante, 
Hell,  iv  —  "All  here  together  come  from  every  clime,  And  to  o'erpass  the  river  are 
not  loth,  For  so  heaven's  justice  goads  them  on,  that  fear  Is  turned  into  desire. 
Hence  never  passed  good  spirit."  The  lost  are  HeatitoHtimoroumenoi,  or  self- 
tormentors,  to  adopt  the  title  of  Terence's  play.  See  Whedon,  in  Moth.  Quar.  Rev., 
Jan.  1884;  Robbins,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  1881 :  460-507. 

Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  255—"  The  very  conception  of  human  freedom  involves 
the  possibility  of  Its  permanent  misuse,  or  of  what  our  Lord  himself  calls 'eternal  sin'  (Mark 
3: 29 ).  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2 :  699—"  Origen 's  restorationism  grew  naturally  out  of 
his  view  of  human  liberty  "—  the  liberty  of  indifference  — "  endless  alternations  of  falls 
and  recoveries,  of  hells  and  heavens ;  so  that  praol  ically  he  taught  nothing  but  a  hell." 
J.  C.  Adams,  The  Leisure  of  God :  "  It  is  lame  1<  <a  ;ic  t<  >  maintain  the  inviolable  freedom 
of  the  will,  and.'at  the  same  time  insist  that  God  can,  through  his  ample  power,  through 
protracted  punishment,  bring  the  soul  into  a  disposition  which  it  does  not  wish  to  feel. 
There  is  no  compulsory  holiness  possible.  In  our  Civil  War  there  was  some  talk  of 
'  compelling  men  to  volunteer,'  but  the  idea  was  soon  seen  to  involve  a  self-contradic- 
tion." 

(d)  Upon  the  more  correct  view  of  the  will  which  we  have  advocated, 
the  case  is  more  hopeless  still.  Upon  this  view,  the  sinful  soul,  iu  its  very 
sinning,  gives  to  itself  a  siufid  bent  of  intellect,  affection,  and  will ;  in  other 
words,  makes  for  itself  a  character,  which,  though  it  does  not  render  neces- 
sary, yet  does  render  certain,  apart  from  divine  grace,  the  continuance  of 
sinful  action.  In  itself  it  finds  a  self-formed  motive  to  evil  strong  enough 
ti)  prevail  over  all  inducements  to  holiness  which  God  sees  it  wise  to  bring 
to  bear.  It  is  in  the  next  world,  indeed,  subjected  to  suffering.  But  suffer- 
ing has  in  itself  no  reforming  power.  Unless  accompanied  by  special 
renewing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  only  hardens  and  embitters  the 
soul.  We  have  no  Scripture  evidence  that  such  influences  of  the  Spirit  are 
exerted,  after  death,  upon  the  still  impenitent ;  but  abundant  evidence,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  moral  condition  in  which  death  finds  men  is  their 
condition  forever. 

See  Bushnell's  "  One  Trial  Better  than  Many,"  in  Sermons  on  Living  Subjects  ;  also 
see  his  Forgiveness  and  Law,  146,  147.  Bushnell  argues  that  God  would  give  us  fifty 
trials,  if  that  would  do  us  good.  But  there  is  no  possibility  of  such  result.  The  first 
decision  adverse  to  God  renders  it  more  difficult  to  make  a  right  decision  upon  the  next 
opportunity.  Character  tends  to  fixity,  and  each  new  opportunity  may  only  harden  the 
heart  and  increase  its  guilt  and  condemnation.  We  should  have  no  better  chance  of 
salvation  if  our  lives  were  lengthened  to  the  term  of  the  sinners  before  the  flood.  Mere 
suffering  does  not  convert  the  soul;  see  Martineau,  Study,  2:100.  A  life  of  pain  did 
not  make  Blanco  White  a  believer ;  see  Mozley,  Hist,  and  Theol.  Essays,  vol.  2,  essay  1. 

66 


1042      ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Edward  A.  Lawrence,  Does  Everlasting  Punishment  Last  Forever?— "If  the  deeds  of 
the  law  do  not  justify  here,  how  can  the  penalties  of  the  law  hereafter  ?  The  pain  from 
a  broken  limb  does  nothing  to  mend  the  break,  and  the  suffering  from  disease  does 
nothing  to  cure  it.  Penalty  pays  no  debts,—  it  only  shows  the  outstanding  and  unset- 
tled accounts."  If  the  will  does  not  act  without  motive,  then  it  is  certain  that  without 
motives  men  will  never  repent.  To  an  impenitent  and  rebellious  sinner  the  motive  must 
come,  not  from  within,  but  from  without.  Such  motives  God  presents  by  his  Spirit  in 
this  life;  but  when  this  life  ends  and  God's  Spirit  is  withdrawn,  no  motives  to  repent- 
ance will  be  presented.  The  soul's  dislike  for  God  will  issue  only  in  complaint  and 
resistance.  Shakespeare,  Hamlet,  3  :  4  — "  Try  what  repentance  can  ?  what  can  it  not? 
Yet  what  can  it,  when  one  cannot  repent  ?  "  Marlowe,  Faustus  :  "  Hell  hath  no  limits, 
nor  is  circumscribed  In  one  self  place ;  for  where  we  are  is  hell,  And  where  hell  is,  there 
we  must  ever  be." 

The  pressure  of  the  atmosphere  without  is  counteracted  by  the  resistance  of  the 
atmosphere  within  the  body.  So  God's  life  within  is  the  only  thing  that  can  enable  us 
to  bear  God's  afflictive  dispensations  without.  Without  God's  Spirit  to  inspire  repent- 
ance the  wicked  man  in  this  world  never  feels  sorrow  for  his  deeds,  except  as  he  realizes 
their  evil  consequences.  Physical  anguish  and  punishment  inspire  hatred,  not  of  sin, 
but  of  the  effects  of  sin.  The  remorse  of  Judas  induced  confession,  but  not  true  repent- 
ance. So  in  the  next  world  punishment  will  secure  recognition  of  God  and  of  his  jus- 
tice, on  the  part  of  the  transgressor,  but  it  will  not  regenerate  or  save.  The  penalties  of 
the  future  life  will  be  no  more  effectual  to  reform  the  sinner  than  wei-e  the  invitations 
of  Christ  and  the  strivings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  present  life.  The  transientness  of 
good  resolves  which  are  forced  out  of  us  by  suffering  is  illustrated  by  the  old  couplet : 
"  The  devil  was  sick,—  the  devil  a  monk  would  be ;  The  devil  got  well,—  the  devil  a  monk 
was  he." 

Charles  G.  Sewall :  "  Paul  Lester  Ford,  the  novelist,  was  murdered  by  his  brother 
Malcolm,  because  the  father  of  the  two  brothers  had  disinherited  the  one  who  com- 
mitted the  crime.  Has  God  the  right  to  disinherit  any  one  of  his  children  ?  We  answer 
that  God  disinherits  no  one.  Each  man  decides  for  himself  whether  he  will  accept  the 
inheritance.  It  is  a  matter  of  character.  A  father  cannot  give  his  son  an  education. 
The  son  may  play  truant  and  throw  away  his  opportunity.  The  prodigal  son  disin- 
herited himself.  Heaven  is  not  a  place,—  it  is  a  way  of  living,  a  condition  of  being.  If 
you  have  a  musical  ear,  I  will  admit  you  to  a  lovely  concert.  If  you  have  not  a  musical 
ear,  I  may  give  you  a  reserved  seat  and  you  will  hear  no  melody.  Some  men  fail  of  sal- 
vation because  they  have  no  taste  for  it  and  will  not  have  it." 

The  laws  of  God's  universe  are  closing  in  upon  the  impenitent  sinner,  as  the  iron  walls 
of  the  mediseval  prison  closed  in  night  by  night  upon  the  victim,—  each  morning  there 
was  one  window  less,  and  the  dungeon  came  to  be  a  coffin.  In  Jean  Ingelow's  poem 
"  Divided,"  two  friends,  parted  by  a  little  rivulet  across  which  they  could  clasp  hands, 
walk  on  in  the  direction  in  which  the  stream  is  flowing,  till  the  rivulet  becomes  a 
brook,  and  the  brook  a  river,  and  the  river  an  arm  of  the  sea  across  which  no  voice 
can  be  heard  and  there  is  no  passing.  By  constant  neglect  to  use  our  opportunity,  we 
lose  the  power  to  cross  from  sin  to  righteousness,  until  between  the  soul  and  God 
"  there  is  a  great  galf  fixed  "  ( Luke  16 :  26 ). 

John  G.  Whittier  wrote  within  a  twelvemonth  of  his  death  :  "  I  do  believe  that  we  take 
with  us  into  the  next  Avorld  the  same  freedom  of  will  we  have  here,  and  that  there,  as 
here,  he  that  turns  to  the  Lord  will  find  mercy  ;  that  God  never  ceases  to  follow  his  creat- 
ures with  love,  and  is  always  ready  to  hear  the  prayer  of  the  penitent.  But  I  also 
believe  that  noio  is  the  accepted  time,  and  that  he  who  dallies  with  sin  may  find  the 
chains  of  evil  habit  too  strong  to  break  in  this  world  or  the  other."  And  the  following 
is  the  Quaker  poet's  verse  :  "Though  God  be  good  and  free  be  heaven,  Not  force  divine 
can  love  compel ;  And  though  the  song  of  sins  forgiven  Might  sound  through  lowest 
hell,  The  sweet  persuasion  of  his  voice  Respects  the  sanctity  of  will.  He  giveth  day  : 
thou  hast  thy  choice  To  walk  in  darkness  still." 

Longfellow,  Masque  of  Pandora :  "  Never  by  lapse  of  time  The  soul  defaced  by  crime 
Into  its  former  self  returns  again  ;  For  every  guilty  deed  Holds  in  itself  the  seed  Of 
retribution  and  undying  pain.  Never  shall  be  the  loss  Restored,  till  Helios  Hath 
purified  them  with  his  heavenly  fires ;  Then  what  was  lost  is  won,  And  the  new  life 
begun,  Kindled  with  nobler  passions  and  desires."  Seth,  Freedom  as  Ethical  Postu- 
late, 42—"  Faust's  selling  his  soul  to  Mephistopheles,  and  signing  the  contract  with  his 
life's  blood,  is  no  single  transaction,  done  deliberately,  on  one  occasion ;  rather,  that  is 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF   THE   WICKED.    1043 

the  lurid  meaning-  of  a  life  which  consists  of  innumerable  individual  acts,— the  life  of 
evil  means  that."  See  John  Caird,  Fundamental  Ideas  of  Christianity,  2:88;  Crane, 
Religion  of  To-morrow,  315. 

(  e  )  The  declaration  as  to  Judas,  in  Mat.  26  :  24  could  not  be  true  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  a  final  restoration.  If  at  any  time,  even  after  the  lapse  of 
ages,  Judas  be  redeemed,  his  subsequent  infinite  duration  of  blessedness 
must  outweigh  all  the  finite  suffering  through  which  he  has  passed.  The 
Scripture  statement  that  "good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been 
born  "  must  be  regarded  as  a  refutation  of  the  theory  of  universal  restora- 
tion. 

Mat.  26 :  24  — "  The  Son  of  man  goeth,  even  as  it  is  written  of  him  :  bat  woe  unto  that  man  through  whom  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed !  good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born.''  G.  F.  Wright,  Relation  of  Death  to 
Probation :  "  As  Christ  of  old  healed  only  those  who  came  or  were  brought  to  him,  so 
now  he  waits  for  the  cooperation  of  human  agency.  God  has  limited  himself  to  an 
orderly  method  in  human  salvation.  The  consuming  missionary  zeal  of  the  apostles 
and  the  early  church  shows  that  they  believed  the  decisions  <>f  this  life  to  be  final  deci- 
sions. The  early  church  not  only  thought  the  heathen  world  would  perish  without. the 
gospel,  i  m  they  found  a  conscience  in  the  heathen  answering  to  this  belief .  The  solici- 
tude drawn  out  by  this  responsibility  for  our  fellows  may  be  one  means  of  securing  the 
moral  stability  of  the  future.  What  is  bound  on  earth  is  bound  in  heaven  ;  else  why  not 
pray  for  the  wicked  dead'.-"  It  is  certainly  a  remarkable  fact,  if  this  theory  be  true, 
that  we  have  in  Scripture  not  a  single  instance  of  prayer  for  the  d  sad. 

The  apocryphal 2  Maccabees  12  :  39  sq.  gives  an  instance  of  Jewish  prayer  for  t  he  dead. 
Certain  who  were  slain  had  concealed  under  their  coats  things  consecrated  to  idols. 
Judas  and  his  host  therefore  prayed  that  this  sin  might  be  forgiven  to  the  slain,  and 
they  contributed  2,000  drachmas  of  silver  to  send  a  sin  offering  for  them  to  Jerusalem. 
So  modern  Jews  pray  for  the  dead;  see  Luckock,  After  Death,  54-66  —  an  argument  for 
such  prayer.  John  Wesley,  \V.  irks,  9  :  55,  maintains  The  legality  of  prayer  for  the  dead. 
Still  it  is  true  that  we  have  no  instance  of  such  prayer  in  canonical  Scriptures.  Ps. 
132  : 1  — "Jehovah,  remember  for  David  All  his  affliction  " —  is  not  a  prayer  for  the  dead,  but  signifies  : 
"Remember  for  David',  so  as  to  fulfil  thy  promise  to  him,  "  all  his  anxious  cares"  —  with  regard  to 
the  building  of  the  temple  ;  the  psalm  having  been  composed,  In  all  probability,  for  the 
temple  dedication.  Paul  prays  that  God  will  "grant  mercy  to  the  house  of  Onesiphorus  "  (2  Tim.  1 :16), 
from  which  it  has  been  unwarrantably  inferred  that  Onesiphorus  was  dead  at  the  time 
of  the  apostle's  writing  ;  but  Paul's  further  prayer  in  verse  18 — "the  lord  grant  unto  him  to  find 
mercy  of  the  Lord  in  that  day"  —  seems  rather  to  point  to  the  death  of  Onesiphorus  as  yet  in  the 
future. 

Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2  :715  note— "Many  of  the  arguments  constructed  against 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  proceed  upon  the  supposition  that  original  sin,  or 
man's  evil  inclination,  is  the  work  of  God:  that  because  man  is  born  in  sin  (Ps.  51-5), 
he  was  created  in  sin.  All  the  strength  and  plausibility  of  John  Foster's  celebrated 
letter  lies  in  the  assumption  that  the  moral  corruption  and  impotence  of  the  sinner, 
whereby  it  is  impossible  to  save  himself  from  eternal  death,  is  not  self-originated  and 
self-determined,  but  infused  by  his  Maker.  'If,'  says  he,  'the  very  nature  of  man,  as 
createdby  the  Sovereign  Power,  be  in  such  desperate  disorder  that  there  is  no  possi- 
bility of  conversion  or  salvation  except  in  instances  where  that  Power  interposes  with 
a  special  and  redeeming  efficacy,  how  can  we  conceive  that  the  main  portion  of  the  race, 
thus  morally  impotent  (that  is,  really  and  absolutely  impotent ),  will  be  eternally  pun- 
ished for  the  inevitable  result  of  this  moral  impotence  V  '  If  this  assumption  of  con- 
created  depravity  and  impotence  is  correct,  Foster's  objection  to  eternal  retribution  is 

conclusive  and  fatal Endless  punishment  supposes  the  freedom  of  the  human 

will,  and  is  impossible  without  it.    Self-determination  runs  parallel  with  hell." 

The  theory  of  a  second  probation,  as  recently  advocated,  is  not  only  a  logical  result  of 
that  defective  view  of  the  will  already  mentioned,  but  it  is  also  in  part  a  consequence  of 
denying  the  old  orthodox  and  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race  in 
Adam's  first  transgression.  New  School  Theology  has  been  inclined  to  deride  the  notion 
of  a  fair  probation  of  humanity  in  our  first  father,  and  of  a  common  sin  and  guilt  of 
mankind  in  him.  It  cannot  find  what  it  regards  as  a  fair  probation  for  each  individual 
since  that  first  sin ;  and  the  conclusion  is  easy  that  there  must  be  such  a  fair  probation 
for  each  individual  in  the  world  to  come.    But  we  may  advise  those  who  take  this  view 


1044:     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

to  return  to  the  old  theology.  Grant  a  fair  probation  for  the  whole  race  already  passed, 
and  the  condition  of  mankind  is  no  longer  that  of  mere  unfortunates  unjustly  circum- 
stanced, but  rather  that  of  beings  guilty  and  condemned,  to  whom  present  opportunity, 
and  even  present  existence,  is  a  matter  of  pure  grace, —  much  more  the  general  provi- 
sion of  a  salvation,  and  the  offer  of  it  to  any  human  soul.  This  world  is  already  a  place 
of  second  probation  ;  and  since  the  second  probation  is  due  wholly  to  God's  mercy,  no 
probation  after  death  is  needed  to  vindicate  either  the  justice  or  the  goodness  of  God. 
See  Kellogg,  in  Presb. 'Rev.,  April,  1885:226-256;  Cremer,  Beyond  the  Grave,  preface  by 
A.  A.  Hodge,  xxxvi  sq. ;  E.  D.  Morris,  Is  There  Salvation  After  Death  ?  A.  H.  Strong, 
on  The  New  Theology,  in  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1888, —  reprinted  in  Philosophy  and 
Religion,  164-179. 

C.  Scripture  declares  this  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  to  be  eternal. 
It  does  this  by  its  use  of  the  terms  aluv,  a'tuvioq. —  Some,  however,  maintain 
that  these  terms  do  not  necessarily  imply  eternal  duration.     We  reply  : 

(a)  It  must  be  conceded  that  these  words  do  not  etymologic  ally  neces- 
sitate the  idea  of  eternity  ;  and  that,  as  expressing  the  idea  of  "  age-long," 
they  are  sometimes  used  in  a  limited  or  rhetorical  sense. 

2  Tim.  1 :  9  — "his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesns  before  times  eternal "  —  but  the 
past  duration  of  the  world  is  limited ;  Heb.  9 :  26 — "  now  once  at  the  end  of  the  ages  hath  he  been  mani- 
fested " —  here  the  aiwi^es  have  an  end  ;  Tit.  1 : 2 — "eternal  life  ....  promised  before  times  eternal "  ;  but 
here  there  may  be  a  reference  to  the  eternal  covenant  of  the  Father  with  the  Son ;  Jer. 
31  :  3  — "I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love  "  =  a  love  which  antedated  time  ;  Rom.  16 :  25,  26  — 
"the  mystery  which  hath  been  kept  in  silence  through  times  eternal  ....  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
eternal  God  "  —  here  "eternal "  is  used  in  the  same  verse  in  two  senses.  It  is  argued  that  in  Mat. 
25:46 — "  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment " — the  word  "eternal"  may  be  used  in  the  nar- 
rower sense. 

Arthur  Chambers,  Our  Life  after  Death,  222-230  —"In  Mat.  13  :  39  — '  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the 
aiu>v,'  and  in  2  Tim.  4 .  10 — ' Demas  forsook  me,  having  loved  this  present  atcic'  —  the  word  alu>v  clearly 
implies  limitation  of  time.  Why  not  take  the  word  atuv  in  this  sense  in  Mark 3  :  29 — 'hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin'  ?  We  must  not  translate  aiuiv  by  'world,'  and  SO 
express  limitation,  while  we  translate  aiconos  by  '  eternal, '  and  so  express  endlessness  which 
excludes  limitation  ;  cf.  Gen.  13 :  15  — '  all  the  land  which  thou  seest,  to  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  forever ' ; 
Num.  25:13  —  'it  shall  be  unto  him  [  Phinehas],and  to  his  seed  after  him,  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood '  ; 
Josh.  24:2 — 'your  fathers  dwelt  of  old  time  [from  eternity]  beyond  the  River';  Dent.  23:3 — 'An  Ammonite 
or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter  ....  into  the  assembly  of  Jehovah  for  ever ' ;  Ps,  24 :  7,  8  — '  be  ye  lifted  up,  ye  everlast- 
ing doors.' " 

( b  )  They  do,  however,  express  the  longest  possible  duration  of  which 
the  subject  to  which  they  are  attributed  is  capable  ;  so  that,  if  the  soul  is 
immortal,  its  punishment  must  be  without  end. 

Gen.  49:26 — "  the  everlasting  hills"  ;  17:8, 13 — "I  will  give  unto  thee  ....  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession  ....  my  covenant  [  of  circumcision  ]  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant"  ;  Ex. 
21 : 6  — "he  [  the  slave  ]  shall  serve  him  [  his  master  ]  for  ever  "  ;  2  Chron.  6 :  2  — " But  I  have  built  thee  an 
house  of  habitation,  and  a  place  forthoe  to  dwell  in  for  ever"  —  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  ;  Jude  6,  7  — 
"angels  ....  he  hath  kept  in  everlasting  bondsundirdarknessunto  thejudgmentof  the  great  day.  Even  as  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  ....  are  set  forth  as  an  example,  suffering  the  punishment  of  eternal  fire"  — here  in  Jude  6,  bonds 
which  endure  only  to  the  judgment  day  are  called  ai'Suus  (the  same  word  which  is  used 
in  Rom.  1:20 — "his  everlasting  power  and  divinity  "  ),  and  Are  which  lasts  only  till  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  are  consumed  is  called  ai<oinov.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2 : 687 — "To  hold 
land  forever  is  to  hold  it  as  long  as  grass  grows  and  water  runs,  i.  e.,  as  long  as  this 
world  or  aeon  endures." 

In  all  the  passages  cited  above,  the  condition  denoted  by  aiwiaos  lasts  as  long  as  the 
object  endures  of  which  it  is  predicated.  But  wo  have  seen  (  pages  982-998 )  that  physical 
death  is  not  the  end  of  man's  existence,  and  that  the  soul,  made  in  the  image  of  God, 
is  immortal.  A  punishment,  therefore,  that  lasts  as  long  as  the  soul,  must  be  an  ever- 
lasting punishment.  Another  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  Jude  is,  however, 
entirely  possible.  It  is  maintained  by  many  that  the  "everlasting  bonds"  of  the  fallen 
angels  do  not  cease  at  the  judgment,  and  that  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  suffer  "the  punishment 


PINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF   THE    WICKED.    1045 

of  eternal  fire"  in  the  sense  that  their  condemnation  at  the  judgment  will  be  a  continuation 

of  that  begun  in  the  time  of  Lot  (  see  Mat.  10: 15 — "It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city  "  ). 

(  e  )  If,  ■when  used  to  describe  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  they 
do  not  declare  the  endlessness  of  that  punishment,  there  are  no  words  in 
the  Greek  language  which  could  express  that  meaning. 

C.  F.  Wright,  Relation  of  Death  to  Probation :  "  The  Bible  writers  speak  of  eternity 
in  terms  of  time,  and  make  the  impression  more  vivid  by  reduplicating  the  longest 
time-words  they  had  [  r.  ij.,  eis  tous  aiiiras  t£>v  aiuiiuv  ='  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages '  ].  Plato 
contrasts  xp°>'<k  and  oiiir,  as  we  do  time  and  eternity,  and  Aristotle  says  that  eternity 
[  al^f  ]  belongs  to  God The  Scriptures  have  taught  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment as  clearly  as  t  heir  general  style  allows."  The  destiny  of  lost  men  is  bound  up 
with  the  destiny  of  evil  angels  in  Mat.  25:41  — "Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  the  eternal  fire  which  is 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  If  the  latter  are  hopelessly  lost,  then  the  former  are  hope- 
lessly lost  also. 

( rl)  In  the  great  majority  of  Scripture  passages  where  they  occur,  they 
have  unmistakably  the  signification  "everlasting."  They  are  used  to 
express  the  eternal  duration  of  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
(Kom.  16  :26  ;  1  Tim.  1  :  17  ;  Heb.  9  :14  ;  Rev.  1 :  18  ) ;  the  abiding  pres- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  all  true  believers  (  John  11 :  17  )  ;  and  the 
endlessness  of  the  future  happiness  of  the  saints  (  Mat.  19  :  29  ;  John  6  :  54, 
58;  2  Cor.  9:9). 

Rom.  16  :  26 — "  the  commandment  of  the  eternal  God  "  ;  1  Tim.  1 :  17  — "  Now  unto  the  King  eternal,  incorruptible, 
invisible,  the  only  God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever"  ;  H'b.  9:14  — "  the  eternal  Spirit "  ;  Rev.l  :17, 18 — "lam 
the  first  and  the  last,  and  the  Living  one ;  and  I  was  dead,  and  behold,  I  am  alive  for  evermore  "  ;  John  14 :  16,  17  — "  And 
I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  givey.ju  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  be  with  you  for  over,  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth  "  ;  Mat.  19 :  29 — "  every  one  that  hath  left  houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters  ....  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive 
a  hundredfold,  and  shall  inherit  eternal  life  "  ;  John  6 :  54,  58  — "  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath 
eternal  life ....  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever  "  ;  2  Cor.  9 : 9  — "  His  righteousness  abideth  for  ever ' ' ;  cf. 
Dan.  7 :  18  — "  But  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  receive  the  kingdom,  and  possess  the  kingdom  for  ever,  even  for  ever 
and  ever." 

Everlasting  punishment  is  sometimes  said  to  be  the  punishment  which  takes  place  in, 
and  belongs  to,  an  «i*',  with  no  reference  to  duration.  Put  President  Woolsey  declares, 
on  the  other  hand,  thai  "  aluvios  cannot  denote  '  pertaining  to  an  aitZv,  or  world  period.'  " 
The  punishment  of  the  wicked  cannot  cease,  any  more  than  Christ  can  cease  to  live,  or 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  abide  with  believers  ;  for  all  these  are  described  in  the  same  terms ; 
"an&nof  is  used  in  the  \.  T.  t'.ti  times.—  51  times  of  the  happiness  of  the  righteous,  2  times 
of  the  duration  of  God  and  his  glory,  0  times  where  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  its  meaning 
'eternal,'  7  times  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  ;  aiiov  is  used  95  times, —  55  times  of 
unlimited  duration,  :il  times  of  duration  that  has  limits,  '•'  times  to  denote  the  duration 
of  future  punishment."    See  Joseph  Angus,  in  Expositor,  Oct.  1887 :  274-286. 

(  e  )  The  fact  that  the  same  word  is  used  in  Mat.  25  :  46  to  describe  both 
the  sufferings  of  the  wicked  and  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  shows  that 
the  misery  of  the  lost  is  eternal,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  life  of  God  or  the 
blessedness  of  the  saved. 

Mat.  25:46 — "  And  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment :  but  the  righteous  into  eternal  life."  On  this 
passage  see  Meyer:  "  The  absolute  idea  of  eternity,  in  respect  to  the  punishments  of 
hell,  is  not  to  be  set  aside,  either  by  an  appeal  to  the  popular  use  of  aiuivios,  or  by  an 
appeal  to  the  figurative  term  '  fire  ' ;  to  the  incompatibility  of  the  idea  of  the  eternal 
with  that  of  moral  evil  and  its  punishment,  or  to  the  warning  design  of  the  representa- 
tion ;  but  it  stands  fast  exegetically,  by  means  of  the  contrasted  i^v  aiiuvLov,  which  sig- 
nifies the  endless  Messianic  life." 

(/)  Other  descriptions  of  the  condemnation  and  suffering  of  the  lost, 
excluding,  as  they  do,  all  hope  of  repentance  or  forgiveness,  render  it  cer- 


1046     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

tain  that  «Jwv  and  a'i<jvmr}  in  the  jiassages  referred  to,  describe  a  punish- 
ment that  is  "without  end. 

Mat.  12 :  31,  32  —"Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall 

not  be  forgiven it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come  '* ;  25  :  10  — "  and 

the  door  was  shut"  ;  Mark  3 :  29 — "whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is 
guilty  of  an  eternal  sin  "  ;  9:43,  48— ''to  go  into  hell,  into  the  unquenchable  fire  ...  .  where  their  worm  dieth  not, 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  —  not  the  dying-  worm  but  the  undying  worm  ;  not  the  fire  that 
is  quenched,  but  the  fire  that  is  unquenchable;  Luke  3:17  — "the  chaff  he  will  burn  up  with 
unquenchable  fire  "  ;  16 :  26  — "  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed,  that  they  that  would  pass  from  hence  to 
you  may  not  be  able,  and  that  none  may  cross  over  from  thence  to  us  "  ;  John  3  :  36  — "  he  that  obeyeth  not  the  Son  shall 
not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 

Review  of  Farrar's  Eternal  Hope,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  Oct.  1878:782— "  The  original  mean- 
ing of  the  English  word  '  hell '  and  '  damn '  was  precisely  that  of  the  Greek  words  for 
which  they  stand.  Their  present  meaning  is  widely  different,  but  from  what  did  it 
arise?  It  arose  from  the  connotation  imposed  upon  these  words  by  the  impression  the 
Scriptures  made  on  the  popular  mind.  The  present  meaning  of  these  words  is  involved 
in  the  Scripture,  and  cannot  be  removed  by  any  mechanical  process.  Change  the  words, 
and  in  a  few  years  '  judge  '  will  have  in  the  Bible  the  same  force  that '  damn '  has  at 
present.  In  fact,  the  words  were  not  mistranslated,  but  the  connotation  of  which  Dr. 
Farrar  complains  has  come  upon  them  since,  and  that  through  the  Scriptures.  This 
proves  what  the  general  impression  of  Scripture  upon  the  mind  is,  and  shows  how  far 
Dr.  Farrar  has  gone  astray." 

(g)  While,  therefore,  we  grant  that  we  do  not  know  the  nature  of 
eternity,  or  its  relation  to  time,  we  maintain  that  the  Scripture  representa- 
tions of  future  punishment  forbid  both  the  hypothesis  of  annihilation,  and 
the  hypothesis  that  suffering  will  end  in  restoration.  Whatever  eternity 
may  be,  Scripture  renders  it  certain  that  after  death  there  is  no  forgive- 
ness. 

We  regard  the  argument  against  endless  punishment  drawn  from  aiJ>i>  and  aiuii'io?  as 
a  purely  verbal  one  which  does  not  touch  the  heart  of  the  question  at  issue.  We  append 
several  utterances  of  its  advocates.  The  Christian  Union  :  "  Eternal  punishment  is 
punishment  in  eternity,  not  throughout  eternity;  as  temporal  punishment  is  punish- 
ment in  time,  not  throughout  time."  Westcott :  "  Eternal  life  is  not  an  endless  dura- 
tion of  being  in  time,  but  being  of  which  time  is  not  a  measure.  We  have  indeed  no 
powers  to  grasp  the  idea  except  through  forms  and  images  of  sense.  These  must  be 
used,  but  we  must  not  transfer  them  to  realities  of  another  order." 

Farrar  holds  that  auSios,  'everlasting  ',  which  occurs  but  twice  in  the  N.  T.  (Rom.  1 :20  and 
Jude6),  is  not  a  synonym  of  aitiwos,  'eternal',  but  the  direct  antithesis  of  it;  the  former 
being  the  unrealizable  conception  of  endless  time,  and  the  latter  referring  to  a  state 
from  which  our  imperfect  human  conception  of  time  is  absolutely  excluded.  Whiton, 
Gloria  Patri,  145,  claims  that  the  perpetual  immanence  of  God  in  conscience  makes 
recovery  possible  after  death ;  yet  he  speaks  of  the  possibility  that  in  the  incorrigible 
sinner  conscience  may  become  extinct.  To  all  these  views  we  may  reply  with  Schaff, 
Ch.  History,  2:60 — "After  the  general  judgment  we  have  nothing  revealed  but  the 

boundless  prospect  of  feonian  life  and  oconian  death Everlasting  punishment  of 

the  wicked  always  was  and  always  will  be  the  orthodox  theory." 

For  the  view  that  alJ>v  and  aiuiiaos  are  used  in  a  limited  sense,  see  DeQuincey,  Theo- 
logical Essays,  1 :  126-140 ;  Maurice,  Essays,  430;  Stanley,  Life  and  Letters,  1  :  485-488  ; 
Farrar,  Eternal  Hope,  200  ;  Smyth,  Orthodox  Theology  of  To-day,  118-123;  Chambers, 
Life  after  Death;  Whiton,  Is  Eternal  Punishment  Endless?  For  the  common  orthodox 
view,  see  Fisher  and  Tyler,  in  New  Englander,  March,  1878 ;  Gould,  in  Bib.  Sac.,  1880 : 
212-248;  Princeton  Review,  1873:620;  Shedd,  Doctrine  of  Endless  Punishment,  12-117; 
Broadus,  Com.  on  Mat.  25  :  45. 

D.  This  everlasting  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  inconsistent  with 
God's  justice,  but  is  rather  a  revelation  of  that  justice. 

(  a  )  We  have  seen  in  our  discussion  of  Penalty  ( pages  652-656  )  that  its 
object  is  neither  reformatory  nor   deterrent,  but  simply  vindicatory ;  in 


FINAL  STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND   OF   THE   WICKED.    1047 

other  words,  that  it  primarily  aims,  not  at  the  good  of  the  offender,  nor  at 
the  welfare  of  society,  but  at  the  vindication  of  law.  We  have  also  seen 
( pages  269,  291 )  that  justice  is  not  a  form  of  benevolence,  but  is  the  expres- 
sion and  manifestation  of  God's  holiness.  Punishment,  therefore,  as  the 
inevitable  and  constant  reaction  of  that  holiness  against  its  moral  opposite, 
cannot  come  to  an  end  until  guilt  and  sin  come  to  an  end. 

The  fundamental  error  of  Universalism  is  its  denial  that  penalty  is  vindicatory,  and 
that  justice  is  distinct  from  benevolence.  See  article  on  Universalism,  in  Johnson's 
Cyclopaedia  :  "  The  punishment  of  the  wicked,  however  severe  or  terrible  it  may  be,  is 
but  a  means  to  a  beneficent  end ;  not  revengeful,  but  remedial ;  not  for  its  own  sake,  but 
for  the  good  of  those  who  suffer  its  infliction."  With  this  agrees  Rev.  H.  W.  Beecher : 
"  I  believe  that  punishment  exists,  both  here  and  hereafter;  but  it  will  not  continue 
after  it  ceases  to  do  good.  With  a  God  who  could  give  pain  for  pain's  sake,  this  world 
would  go  out  like  a  candle."  Rut  we  reply  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punish- 
ment is  not  a  doctrine  of  "  pain  for  pain's  sake,"  but  of  pain  for  holiness'  sake.  Punish- 
ment could  have  no  beneficial  effect  upon  the  universe,  or  even  upon  the  offender, 
unless  it  were  just  and  right  in  itself.  And  if  just  and  right  in  itself,  then  the  reason 
for  its  continuance  lies,  not  in  any  benefit  to  the  universe,  or  to  the  sufferer,  to  accrue 
therefrom. 

F.  L.  Patton,  in  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Rev.,  Jan.  1878: 126-139,  on  the  Philosophy  of  Pun- 
ishment— "  If  the  Universalist's  position  were  true,  we  should  expect  to  findsome  mani- 
festations of  love  and  pit y  and  sympathy  in  the  infliction  of  the  dreadful  punishments 
of  the  future.  We  look  in  vain  for  this,  however.  We  read  of  God's  auger,  of  his  judg- 
ments, of  his  fury,  of  his  taking  vengeance ;  but  we  get  no  hint,  in  any  passage  which 
describes  the  sufferings  of  the  next  world,  that  they  are  designed  to  work  the  redemp- 
tion and  recovery  of  the  soul.  If  the  punishments  of  the  wicked  were  chastisements, 
we  should  expect  to  see  some  bright  outlook  in  the  Bible-picture  of  the  place  of  doom. 
A  gleam  of  light,  one  might  suppose,  might  make  its  way  from  the  celestial  city  to  this 
dark  abode.  The  sufferers  would  catch  some  sweet  refrain  of  heavenly  music  which 
would  be  a  promise  and  prophecy  of  a  far-off  but  coming  glory.  But  there  is  a  finality 
about  the  Scripture  statements  as  to  the  condition  of  the  lost,  which  is  simply  terrible." 

The  reason  for  punishment  lies  not  in  the  benevolence,  but  in  the  holiness,  of  God. 
That  holiness  reveals  itself  in  the  moral  constitution  of  the  universe.  It  makes  itself 
felt  in  conscience  — imperfectly  here,  fully  hereafter.  The  wrong  merits  punishment. 
The  right  binds,  not  because  it  is  the  expedient,  but  because  it  is  the  very  nature  of 
God.  "  But  the  great  ethical  significance  of  this  word  right  will  not  be  known,"  (  we 
quote  again  from  Dr.  Patton,)  "its  imperative  claims,  its  sovereign  behests,  its  holy 
and  imperious  sway  over  the  moral  creation  will  not  be  understood,  until  we  witness, 
during  the  lapse  of  the  judgment  hours,  the  terrible  retribution  which  measures  the  ill- 
desert  of  wrong."  When  Dr.  Johnson  seemed  overfearful  as  to  his  future,  Boswellsaid 
to  him  :  "  Think  of  the  mercy  of  your  Savior."  "  Sir,"  replied  Johnson,  "my  Savior 
has  said  that  he  will  place  some  on  his  right  hand,  and  some  on  his  left." 

A  Universalist  during  our  Civil  War  announced  his  conversion  to  Calvinism,  upon  the 
ground  that  hell  was  a  military  necessity.  "In  Rom.  12:19,  'vengeance,'  exSt'icrjcrts,  means 
primarily  'vindication.'  God  will  show  to  the  sinner  and  to  the  universe  that  the  apparent 
prosperity  of  evil  was  a  delusion  and  a  snare  "  ( Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  319 
note  ).  That  strange  book,  Letters  from  Hell,  shows  how  memory  may  increase  our 
knowledge  of  past  evil  deeds,  but  may  lose  the  knowledge  of  God's  promises.  Since  we 
retain  most  perfectly  that  which  has  been  the  subject  of  most  constant  thought,  retri- 
bution may  come  to  us  through  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  our  own  nature. 

Jackson,  James  Martineau,  193195  — "  Plato  holds  that  the  wise  transgressor  will  seek, 
not  shun,  his  punishment.  James  Martineau  painted  a  fearful  picture  of  the  possible 
lashing  of  conscience.  He  regarded  suffering  for  sin,  though  dreadful,  yet  as  altogether 
desirable,  not  to  tie  asked  reprieve  from,  but  to  be  prayed  for :  '  Smite,  Lord  ;  for  thy 
mercy's  sake,  spare  not ! '  The  soul  denied  such  suffering  is  not  favored,  but  defrauded. 
It  learns  the  truth  of  its  condition,  and  the  truth  and  the  right  of  the  universe  are  vin- 
dicated." The  Connecticut  preacher  said  :  "  My  friends,  some  believe  that  aR  will  be 
saved ;  but  we  hope  for  better  things.  Chaff  and  wheat  are  not  to  be  together  always. 
One  goes  to  the  garner,  and  the  other  to  the  furnace." 


1048     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

Shedd,  D< >gm.  Theology,  2 :  755  —  "  Luxurious  ages  and  luxurious  men  recalcitrate  at 
hell,  and  ' kick  against  the  goad '  ( Acts  26 :  14 ).  No  theological  doctrine  is  more  important  than 
eternal  retribution  to  those  modern  nations  which,  like  England,  Germany  and  the 
United  States,  are  growing  rapidly  in  riches,  luxury  and  earthly  power.  "Without  it, 
they  will  infallibly  go  down  in  that  vortex  of  sensuality  and  wickedness  that  swallowed 
up  Babylon  and  Rome.  The  bestial  and  shameless  vice  of  the  dissolute  rich  that  has 
recently  been  uncovered  in  the  commercial  metropolis  of  the  world  is  a  powerful  argu- 
ment for  the  necessity  and  reality  of  '  the  lake  that  burnetii  with  fire  and  brimstone '  (  Rev.  21 : 8  )."  The 
conviction  that  after  death  there  must  be  punishment  for  sin  has  greatly  modified  the 
older  Universalism.  There  is  little  modern  talk  of  all  men,  righteous  and  wicked  alike> 
entering  heaven  the  moment  this  life  is  ended.  A  purgatorial  state  must  intervene. 
E.  G.  Robinson  :  "  Universalism  results  from  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  atonement. 
There  is  no  genuine  Universalism  in  our  day.    Restorationism  has  taken  its  place." 

(  b  )  But  guilt,  or  ill-desert,  is  endless.  However  long  the  sinner  may 
be  punished,  he  never  ceases  to  be  ill-deserving.  Justice,  therefore,  which 
gives  to  all  according  to  their  deserts,  cannot  cease  to  punish.  Since  the 
reason  for  punishment  is  endless,  the  punishment  itself  must  be  endless. 
Even  past  sins  involve  an  endless  guilt,  to  which  endless  punishment  is 
simply  the  inevitable  correlate. 

For  full  statement  of  this  argument  that  guilt,  as  never  coming  to  an  end,  demands 
endless  punishment,  see  Shedd,  Doctrine  of  Endless  Punishment,  118-163— "Suffering 
that  is  penal  can  never  come  to  an  end,  because  guilt  is  the  reason  for  its  infliction,  and 

guilt  once  incurred,  never  ceases  to  be One  sin  makes  guilt,  and  guilt  makes 

hell."  Man  does  not  punish  endlessly,  because  he  does  not  take  account  of  God. 
"  Human  punishment  is  only  approximate  and  imperfect,  not  absolute  and  perfect  like 
the  divine.  It  is  not  adjusted  exactly  and  precisely  to  the  whole  guilt  of  the  offence, 
but  is  more  or  less  modified,  first,  by  not  considering  its  relation  to  God's  honor  and 
majesty ;  secondly,  by  human  ignorance  of  inward  motives ;  and  thirdly,  by  social 

expediency."  But  "hell  is  not  a  penitentiary The  Lamb  of  God  is  also  Lion  of  the 

tribe  of  Judah The  human  penalty  that  approaches  nearest  to  the  divine  is  capi- 
tal punishment.  This  punishment  has  a  kind  of  endlessness.  Death  is  a  finality.  It 
forever  separates  the  murderer  from  earthly  society,  even  as  future  punishment  sepa- 
rates forever  from  the  society  of  God  and  heaven."    See  Mart ineau,  Types,  2 :  65-69. 

The  lapse  of  time  does  not  convert  guilt  into  innocence.  The  verdict  "  Guilty  for  ten 
days"  was  Hibernian.  Guilt  is  indivisible  and  untransferable.  The  whole  of  it  rests 
upon  the  criminal  at  every  moment.  Richelieu  :  "  All  places  are  temples,  and  all  seasons 
summer,  for  justice."  George  Eliot :  "  Conscience  is  harder  than  our  enemies,  knows 
more,  accuses  with  more  nicety."  Shedd  :  "  Sin  is  the  only  perpetual  motion  that  has 
ever  been  discovered.  A  slip  in  youth,  committed  in  a  moment,  entails  lifelong  suf- 
fering. The  punishment  nature  inflicts  is  infinitely  longer  than  the  time  consumed  in 
the  violation  of  law,  yet  the  punishment  is  the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  the  offence." 

( c )  Not  only  eternal  guilt,  but  eternal  sin,  demands  eternal  punish- 
ment. So  long  as  moral  creatures  are  opposed  to  God,  they  deserve  pun- 
ishment. Since  we  cannot  measure  the  power  of  the  depraved  will  to  resist 
God,  we  cannot  deuy  the  possibility  of  endless  sinning.  Sin  tends  ever- 
more to  reproduce  itself.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  an  "  eternal  sin  "  (  Mark 
3  :  29  ).  But  it  is  just  in  God  to  visit  endless  sinning  with  endless  punish- 
ment. Sin,  moreover,  is  not  only  an  act,  but  also  a  condition  or  state,  of 
the  soul ;  this  state  is  impure  and  abnormal,  involves  misery  ;  this  misery, 
as  appointed  by  God  to  vindicate  law  and  holiness,  is  punishment ;  this 
punishment  is  the  necessary  manifestation  of  God's  justice.  Not  the 
punishing,  but  the  not-punishing,  would  impugn  his  justice  ;  for  if  it  is  just 
to  punish  sin  at  all,  it  is  just  to  punish  it  as  long  as  it  exists. 

Mark  3  :  29  — "  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal 
sin  "  ;  Rev.  22 :  11  — "  He  that  is  unrighteous,  let  him  do  unrighteousness  still ;  and  he  that  is  filthy,  let  him  be  made  filthy 
still."    Calvin :    "  God  has  the  best  reason  for  punishing  everlasting  sin  everlastingly." 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS    AND   OF   THE    WICKED.    1049 

President  Dwight :  "  Every  sinner  is  condemned  for  his  first  sin,  and  for  every  sin  that 
follows,  though  they  continue  forever."  What  Martineau  (  Study,  2  :  106  )  says  of  this 
life,  we  may  apply  to  the  next :  "  Sin  being  there,  it  would  be  simply  monstrous  that 
there  should  be  no  suffering." 

But  we  must  remember  that  men  are  finally  condemned,  not  merely  for  sins,  but  for 
sin ;  they  are  punished,  not  simply  for  acts  of  disobodience,  butforevil  diameter.  The 
judgment  is  essentially  a  remanding  of  men  to  their  "  own  place  "  (  Acts  1 :  25 ).  The  soul  that 
is  permanently  unlike  God  cannot  dwell  with  God.  The  consciences  of  the  wicked  will 
justify  their  doom,  and  they  will  themselves  prefer  hell  to  heaven.  He  who  does  not 
love  God  is  at  war  with  himself,  as  well  as  with  God,  and  cannot  be  at  peace.  Even 
though  there  were  no  positive  inflictions  from  God's  hand,  the  impure  soul  that  has 
banished  itself  from  the  presence  of  God  and  from  the  society  of  the  holy  has  in  its 
own  evil  conscience  a  source  of  torment. 

And  conscience  gives  us  a  pledge  of  the  eternity  of  this  suffering.  Remorse  has  no 
tendency  to  exhaust  itself.  The  memory  of  an  evil  deed  grows  not  less  but  more  keen 
with  time,  and  self-reproach  grows  not  less  but  more  bitter.  Ever  renewed  affirmation 
of  its  evil  decision  presents  to  the  soul  forever  new  occasion  for  conviction  and  shame. 
F.  W.  Hobertson  speaks  of  "  the  infinite  maddening  of  remorse."  And  Dr.  Shedd,  in 
the  book  above  quoted,  remarks :  "  Though  the  will  to  resist  sin  may  die  out  of  a  mam 
the  conscience  to  condemn  it  never  can.  This  remains  eternally.  And  when  the  pro- 
cess is  complete ;  when  the  responsible  creature,  in  the  abuse  of  free  agency,  has 
perfected  his  ruin;  when  his  will  to  good  is  all  gone;  there  remain  these  two  in  his 
immortal  spirit  —  sin  and  conscience,  '  brimstone  and  lire '  ( Rev.  21 : 8)." 

E.  G.  Robinson:  "  The  fundamental  argument  for  eternal  punishment  is  the  repro- 
ductive power  of  evil.  In  the  divine  law  penalty  enforces  itself.  Rom.  6:19 — 'ye  presented 
your  members  as  servants  ....  to  iniquity  unto  iniquity.'  Wherever  sin  occurs,  penalty  is  inevitable 
No  man  of  sense  would  now  hold  to  eternal  punishment  as  an  objective  judicial  inflic- 
tion, and  the  sooner  we  give  this  up  the  better.  It  can  be  defended  only  on  the  ground 
of  the  reactionary  power  <>t  elect  ive  preference,  the  reduplicating  power  of  mural  evil. 
We  have  no  right  to  say  that  there  are  no  other  consequences  of  sin  but  natural  ones; 
but,  were  this  so,  every  word  of  threatening  in  Scripture  would  still  stand.  We  shall 
never  be  as  complete  as  if  we  never  had  sinned.  We  shall  bear  the  scars  of  our  sins 
forever.  The  eternal  law  of  wrong-doing  is  that  the  wrong-doer  is  cursed  thereby, 
and  harpies  and  furies  follow  him  into  eternity.  God  does  not  need  to  send  a  police- 
man after  the  sinner ;  the  sinner  carries  the  policeman  inside.  God  does  not  need  to  set 
up  a  whipping  post  to  punish  the  sinner ;  the  sinner  finds  a  whipping  post  wherever  he 
goes,  and  his  own  conscience  applies  the  lash." 

(  d  )  The  actual  facts  of  human  life  and  the  tendencies  of  modern  science 
show  that  this  principle  of  retributive  justice  is  inwrought  into  the  elements 
and  forces  of  the  physical  and  moral  universe.  On  the  one  hand,  habit 
begets  fixity  of  character,  and  in  the  spiritual  world  sinful  acts,  often 
repeated,  produce  a  permanent  state  of  sin,  which  the  soul,  unaided,  cannot 
change.  On  the  other  hand,  organism  and  environment  are  correlated  to 
each  other ;  and  in  the  spiritual  world,  the  selfish  and  impure  find  sur- 
roundings corresponding  to  their  nature,  while  the  surroundings  react 
upon  them  aud  confirm  their  evil  character.  These  principles,  if  they  act 
in  the  next  life  as  they  do  in  this,  will  ensure  increasing  and  unending  pun- 
ishment. 

GaL  6  : 7, 8  — "  Be  not  deceived ;  God  is  not  mocked  :  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.  For  he  that 
soweth  unto  his  own  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption"  ;  Rev.  21 :  11  —  "He  that  is  unrighteous,  let  him  do  unright- 
eousness still :  and  he  that  is  filthy,  let  him  be  made  filthy  still."  Dr.  Heman  Lincoln,  in  an  article  on 
Future  Retribution  (  Examiner,  April  2,  1885)—  speaks  of  two  great  laws  of  nature 
which  confirm  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  retribution.  The  first  is  that  "  the  tendency  of 
habit  is  towards  a  permanent  state.  The  occasional  drinker  becomes  a  confirmed  drunk- 
ard. One  who  indulges  in  oaths  passes  into  a  reckless  blasphemer.  The  gambler  who 
has  wasted  a  fortune,  and  ruined  his  family,  is  a  slave  to  the  card-table.  The  Scripture 
doctrine  of  retribution  is  only  an  extension  of  this  well-known  law  to  the  future  life." 


1050     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL   THINGS. 

The  second  of  these  laws  is  that  "  organism  and  environment  must  be  in  harmony. 
Through  the  vast  domain  of  nature,  every  plant  and  tree  and  reptile  and  bird  and  mam- 
mal has  organs  and  functions  fitted  to  the  climate  and  atmosphere  of  its  habitat.  If  a 
sudden  change  occur  in  climate,  from  torrid  to  temperate,  or  from  temperate  to  arctic ; 
if  the  atmosphere  change  from  dry  to  humid,  or  from  carbonic  vapors  to  pure  oxygen, 
sudden  death  is  certain  to  overtake  the  entire  fauna  and  flora  of  the  region  affected, 
unless  plastic  nature  changes  the  organism  to  conform  to  the  new  environment.  The 
interpreters  of  the  Bible  find  the  same  law  ordained  for  the  world  to  come.  Surround- 
ings must  correspond  to  character.  A  soul  in  love  with  sin  can  find  no  place  in  a  holy 
heaven.  If  the  environment  be  holy,  the  character  of  the  beings  assigned  to  it  must  be 
holy  also.  Nature  and  Revelation  are  in  perfect  accord."  See  Drummond,  Natural  Law 
in  the  Spiritual  World,  chapters:  Environment,  Persistence  of  Type,  and  Degradation. 

Hosea  13:9 — "It  is  thy  destruction,  0  Israel,  that  thou  art  against  me,  against  thy  help "  =  if  men  are 
destroyed,  it  is  because  they  destroy  themselves.  Not  God,  but  man  himself,  makes 
hell.  Schurman  :  "  External  punishment  is  unthinkable  of  human  sins."  Jackson, 
James  Martineau,  152—"  Our  light,  such  as  we  have,  we  carry  with  us  ;  and  he  who  in 
his  soul  knows  not  God  is  still  in  darkness  though,  like  the  angel  in  the  Apocalypse,  he 
were  standing  in  the  sun."  Crane,  Religion  of  To-morrow,  313—"  To  insure  perpetual 
hunger  deprive  a  man  of  nutritious  food,  and  so  long  as  he  lives  he  will  suffer ;  60  pain 
will  last  so  long  as  the  soul  is  deprived  of  God,  after  the  artificial  stimulants  of  sin's 
pleasures  have  lost  their  effect.  Death  has  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  for  as  long  as  the  soul 
lives  apart  from  God,  whether  on  this  or  on  another  planet,  it  will  be  wretched.  If  the 
unrepentant  sinner  is  immortal,  his  sufferings  will  be  immortal."  "  Magnas  inter  opes, 
inops"— poverty-stricken  amid  great  riches  — his  very  nature  compels  him  to  suffer. 
Nor  can  he  change  his  nature  ;  for  character,  once  set  and  hardened  in  this  world,  can- 
not be  cast  into  the  melting-pot  and  remoulded  in  the  world  to  come.  The  hell  of 
Robert  G.  Ingersoll  is  far  more  terrible  than  the  orthodox  hell.  He  declares  that  there 
is  no  forgiveness  and  no  renewal.  Natural  law  must  have  its  way.  Man  is  a  Mazeppa 
bound  to  the  wild  horse  of  his  passions ;  a  Prometheus,  into  whose  vitals  remorse,  like 
a  vulture,  is  ever  gnawing. 

(e)  As  there  are  degrees  of  human  guilt,  so  future  punishment  may 
admit  of  degrees,  and  yet  in  all  those  degrees  be  infinite  in  duration.  The 
doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment  does  not  imply  that,  at  each  instant  of 
the  future  existence  of  the  lost,  there  is  infinite  pain.  A  line  is  infinite  in 
length,  but  it  is  far  from  being  infinite  in  breadth  or  thickness.  "An 
infinite  series  may  make  only  a  finite  sum ;  and  infinite  series  may  differ 
infinitely  in  their  total  amount."  The  Scriptures  recognize  such  degrees 
in  future  punishment,  while  at  the  same  time  they  declare  it  to  be  endless 
(  Luke  12  -A7,  48  ;  Rev.  20  :  12,  13  ). 

Luke  12:  47,  48 — "And  that  servant,  who  knew  his  Lord's  will,  and  made  not  ready,  nor  did  according  to  his  will 
shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes;  but  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few 
stripes  "  ;  Rev.  20  :  12, 13  — "  And  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great  and  the  small,  standing  before  the  throne ;  and  books  were 
opened :  and  another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life :  and  the  dead  W6re  judged  out  of  the  things  which 
were  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their  works  ....  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works." 

(/)  We  know  the  enormity  of  sin  only  by  God's  own  declarations  with 
regard  to  it,  and  by  the  sacrifice  which  he  has  made  to  redeem  us  from  it. 
As  committed  against  an  infinite  God,  and  as  having  in  itself  infinite  possi- 
bilities of  evil,  it  may  itself  be  infinite,  and  may  deserve  infinite  punish- 
ment.    Hell,  as  well  as  the  Cross,  indicates  God's  estimate  of  sin. 

Cf.  Ez.  14: 23— "ye  shall  know  that  I  have  not  done  without  cause  all  that  I  have  done  in  it,  saith  the  Lord 
Jehovah."  Valuable  as  the  vine  is  for  its  fruit,  it  is  fit  only  for  fuel  when  it  is  barren. 
Every  single  sin,  apart  from  the  action  of  divine  grace,  is  the  sign  of  pervading  and  per- 
manent apostasy.  But  there  is  no  sinyle  sin.  Sin  is  a  germ  of  infinite  expansion.  The 
single  sin,  left  to  itself,  would  never  cease  in  its  effects  of  evil, —  it  would  dethrone  God. 
"  The  idea  of  disproportion  between  sin  and  its  punishment  grows  out  of  a  belittling 
of  sin  and  its  guilt.  One  who  regards  murder  as  a  slight  offence  will  think  hanging  an 
outrageous  injustice.      Theodore  Parker  hated  the  doctrine  of  eternal   punishment, 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS    AND    OF   THE    WICKED.    1051 

eecause  he  considered  sin  as  only  a  provocation  to  virtue,  a  step  toward  triumph,  a  fall 
upwards,  good  in  the  making."  But  it  is  only  when  we  regard  its  relation  to  God  that 
we  can  estimate  sin's  ill  desert.    See  Edwards  the  younger,  Works,  1 : 1-294. 

Dr.  Shedd  maintains  that  the  guilt  of  sin  is  infinite,  because  it  is  measured,  not  by 
the  powers  of  the  offender,  but  by  the  majesty  of  the  God  against  whom  it  is  com- 
mitted; see  his  Dogm.  Theology,  2:740,  749— "Crime  depends  upon  the  object  against 

whom  it  is  committed,  as  well  as  upon  the  subject  who  commits  it To  strike  is  a 

voluntary  act,  but  to  strike  a  post  or  a  stone  is  not  a  culpable  act Killing  a  dog 

is  as  bad  as  killing  a  man,  if  merely  the  subject  who  kills  and  not  the  object  killed  is 

considered As  God  is  infinite,  offence  against  him  is  infinite  in  its  culpability. 

....  Any  man  who,  in  penitent  faith,  avails  himself  ot  the  vicarious  method  of  setting 
himself  right  with  the  eternal  Nemesis,  will  find  that  it  succeeds  ;  but  he  who  rejects  it 
must  through  endless  cycles  grapple  with  the  dread  problem  of  human  guilt  in  his  own 
person,  and  alone." 

Quite  another  view  is  taken  by  others,  as  for  example  E.  G.  Robinson,  Christian 
Theology,  292—  "The  notion  that  the  qualities  of  a  finite  act  can  be  infinite— that  its 
qualities  can  be  derived  from  the  person  to  whom  the  act  is  directed  rather  than  from 
the  motives  thai  prompt  it,  needs  no  refutation.  The  notion  itself,  one  of  the  bastard 
thoughts  of  mediaeval  metaphysical  theology,  hasmaintained  its  position  in  respectable 
society  solely  by  the  services  it  has  been  regarded  as  capable  of  rendering."  Simon, 
Reconciliation,  123  — "  To  represent  sins  as  infinite,  because  God  against  whom  they  are 
committed  is  infinite,  logically  requires  us  to  say  that  trust  or  reverence  or  love 
towards  God  are  infinite,  because  God  is  infinite."  We  therefore  regard  it  as  more  cor- 
rect to  say,  that  sin  as  a  finite  act.  demands  finite  punishment,  but  as  endlessly  persisted 
in  demands  an  endless,  and  in  that  sense  an  infinite,  punishment. 

E.  This  everlasting  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  inconsistent  with 
God's  benevolence. — It  is  maintained,  however,  by  many  who  object  to 
eternal  retribution,  that  benevolence  requires  God  not  to  inflict  punish- 
ment upon  his  creatures  except  as  a  means  of  attaining  some  higher  good. 
We  reply : 

(a)  God  is  not  only  benevolent  but  holy,  and  holiness  is  his  ruling 
attribute.  The  vindication  of  God's  holiness  is  the  primary  and  sufficient 
object  of  punishnient.  This  constitutes  a  good  which  fully  justifies  the 
infliction. 

Even  love  has  dignity,  and  rejected  love  may  turn  blessing  into  cursing.  Love  for 
holiness  involves  hatred  of  utiholiness.  The  love  of  God  is  not  a  love  without  charac- 
ter.   Dorner :  "Love  may  not  throw  itself  away We  have  no  right  to  say  that 

punishment  is  just  only  when  it  is  the  means  of  amendment."  We  must  remember 
that  holiness  conditions  love  ( see  pages  296-298).  Robert  Buchanan  forgot  God's  holi- 
ness when  he  wrote :  "If  there  is  doom  for  one.  Thou,  Maker,  art  undone  !  "  Shakes- 
peare, King  John,  4:3 — "  Beyond  the  infinite  and  boundless  reach  Of  mercy,  if  thou 
didst  this  deed  of  death,  Art  thou  damned,  Hubert !  "  Tennyson  :  "  He  that  shuts  Love 
out,  in  turn  shall  be  Shut  out  from  Love,  and  on  the  threshold  lie  Howling  in  utter 
darkness."  Theodore  Parker  once  tried  to  make  peace  between  Wendell  Phillips  and 
Horace  Mann,  whom  Phillips  had  criticized  with  his  accustomed  severity.  Mann 
wrote  to  Parker :  "  What  a  good  man  you  are  !  I  am  sure  nobody  would  be  damned 
if  you  were  at  the  head  of  the  universe.  But,"  he  continued,  "I  will  never  treat  a 
man  with  respect  whom  I  do  not  respect,  be  the  consequences  what  they  may  —  so 
help  me  —  Horace  Mann  !  "  ( Chadwick,  Theodore  Parker,  330).  The  spirit  which  ani- 
mated Horace  Mann  may  not  have  been  the  spirit  of  love,  but  we  can  imagine  a  case 
in  which  his  words  might  be  the  utterance  of  love  as  well  as  of  righteousness.  For  love 
is  under  law  to  righteousness,  and  only  righteous  love  is  true  love. 

(  b )  In  this  life,  God's  justice  does  involve  certain  of  his  creatures  in 
sufferings  which  are  of  no  advantage  to  the  individuals  who  suffer  ;  as  in 
the  case  of  penalties  which  do  not  reform,  and  of  afflictions  which  only 
harden  and  embitter.    If  this  be  a  fact  here,  it  may  be  a  fact  hereafter. 


1052     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE    DOCTRINE   OF    FINAL   THINGS. 

There  are  many  sufferers  on  earth,  in  prisons  and  on  sick-beds,  whose  suffering  results 
in  hardness  of  heart  and  enmity  to  God.  The  question  is  not  a  question  of  quantity, 
but  of  quality.  It  is  a  question  whether  any  punishment  at  all  is  consistent  with  God's 
benevolence,— any  punishment,  that  is  to  say,  which  does  not  result  in  good  to  the 
punished.  This  we  maintain  ;  aud  claim  that  God  is  bound  to  punish  moral  impurity, 
whether  any  good  comes  therefrom  to  the  impure  or  not.  Archbishop  Whately  says  it 
is  as  difficult  to  change  one  atom  of  lead  to  silver  as  it  is  to  change  a  whole  mountain. 
If  the  punishment  of  many  incorrigibly  impenitent  persons  is  consistent  with  God's 
benevolence,  so  is  the  punishment  of  one  incorrigibly  impenitent  person  ;  if  the  punish- 
ment of  incorrigibly  impenitent  persons  for  eternity  is  inconsistent  with  God's  benevo- 
lence, so  is  the  punishment  of  such  persons  for  a  limited  time,  or  for  any  time  at  all. 

In  one  of  his  early  stories  William  Black  represents  a  sour-tempered  Scotchman  as 
protesting  against  the  idea  that  a  sinner  he  has  in  mind  should  be  allowed  to  escape  the 
consequences  of  his  acts :  "  What 's  the  good  of  being  good,"  he  asks,  "  if  things  are  to 
turn  out  that  way  ?  "  The  instinct  of  retribution  is  the  strongest  instinct  of  the  human 
heart.  It  is  bound  up  with  our  very  intuition  of  God's  existence,  so  that  to  deny  its 
rightfulness  is  to  deny  that  there  is  a  God.  There  is  "a  certain  fearful  expectation  of  judgment" 
(Heb.  10:27)  for  ourselves  and  for  others,  in  case  of  persistent  transgression,  without 
which  the  very  love  of  God  would  cease  to  inspire  respect.  Since  neither  annihilation 
nor  second  probation  is  Scriptural,  our  only  relief  in  contemplating  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  punishment  must  come  from :  1.  the  fact  that  eternity  is  not  endless  time,  but 
a  state  inconceivable  to  us ;  and  2.  the  fact  that  evolution  suggests  reversion  to  the 
brute  as  the  necessary  consequence  of  abusing  freedom. 

(c)  The  benevolence  of  God,  as  concerned  for  the  general  good  of  the 
universe,  requires  the  execution  of  the  full  penalty  of  the  law  upon  all  who 
reject  Christ's  salvation.  The  Scriptures  intimate  that  God's  treatment  of 
human  sin  is  matter  of  instruction  to  all  moral  beings.  The  self-chosen 
ruin  of  the  few  may  be  the  salvation  of  the  many. 

Dr.  Joel  Parker,  Lectures  on  Universalism,  speaks  of  the  security  of  free  creatures  as 
attained  through  a  gratitude  for  deliverance  "  kept  alive  by  a  constant  example  of  some 
who  are  suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire."  Our  own  race  may  be  the  only  race 
( of  course  the  angels  are  not  a  "  race  "  )  that  has  falleu  away  from  God.  As  through 
the  church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  is  made  manifest  "to  principalities  and  powers  in  tho 
heavenly  places"  (  Eph.  3: 10);  so,  through  the  punishment  of  the  lost,  God's  holiness  may  bo 
made  known  to  a  universe  that  without  it  might  have  no  proof  so  striking,  that  sin  is 
moral  suicide  and  ruin,  and  that  God's  holiness  is  its  irreconcilable  antagonist. 

With  regard  to  the  extent  and  scope  of  hell,  we  quote  the  words  of  Dr.  Shedd,  in  the 
book  already  mentioned :  "  Hell  is  only  a  spot  in  the  universe  of  God.  Compared  with 
heaven,  hell  is  narrow  and  limited.  The  kingdom  of  Satan  is  insignificant,  in  contrast 
■with  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  In  the  immense  range  of  God's  dominion,  good  is  the  rule 
and  evil  is  the  exception.  Sin  is  a  speck  upon  the  infinite  azure  of  eternity ;  a  spot  on 
the  sun.  Hell  is  only  a  corner  of  the  universe.  The  Gothic  etymon  denotes  a  covered- 
up  hole.  In  Scripture,  hell  is  a  'pit,'  a  '  lake' ;  not  an  ocean.  It  is  'bottomless, '  not  boundless. 
The  Gnostic  and  Dualistic  theories  which  make  God,  and  Satan  or  the  Demiurge,  nearly 
equal  in  power  and  dominion,  find  no  support  in  Revelation.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
there  will  always  be  some  sin  and  death  in  the  universe.  Some  angels  and  men  will 
forever  be  the  enemies  of  God.  But  their  number,  compared  with  that  of  unfallcn 
angels  and  redeemed  men,  is  small.  They  are  not  described  in  the  glowing  language  and 
metaphors  by  which  the  immensity  of  the  holy  aud  blessed  is  delineated  (  Ps.  68 :17;  Deut. 
32 : 2 ;  Ps.  103 :  21 ;  Mat.  6 :  13  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  25 ;  Rev.  14 : 1 ;  21 :  16,  24,  25. )  The  number  of  the  lost  spirits 
is  never  thus  emphasized  and  enlarged  upon.  The  brief,  stern  statement  is,  that  'the 
fearful  and  unbelieving  ....  their  part  shall  be  in  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone '  ( Rev.  21 : 8  ). 
No  metaphors  and  amplifications  are  added  to  make  the  impression  of  an  immense 
'multitude  which  no  man  can  number.'  "  Dr.  Hodge :  "  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  lost 
will  bear  to  the  saved  no  greater  proportion  than  the  inmates  of  a  prison  do  to  the  mass 
of  a  community." 

The  North  American  Review  engaged  Dr.  Shedd  to  write  an  article  vindicating  eter- 
nal punishment,  and  also  engaged  Henry  Ward  Beccher  to  answer  it.  The  proof  sheets 
of  Dr.  Shedd's  article  were  sent  to  Mr.  Beecher,  whereupon  he  telegraphed  from  Den- 


FINAL   STATES   OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS   AND    OF   THE    WICKED.    1053 

ver  to  the  Review :  "  Cancel  engagement,  Shedd  is  too  much  for  me.  I  half  believe  in 
eternal  punishment  now  myself.  Get  somebody  else."  The  article  in  reply  was  never 
written,  and  Dr.  Shedd  remained  unanswered. 

(d  )  The  present  existence  of  sin  and  punishment  is  commonly  admitted 
to  be  in  some  way  consistent  with  God's  benevolence,  in  that  it  is  made  the 
means  of  revealing  God's  justice  and  mercy.  If  the  temporary  existence  of 
sin  and  punishment  lead  to  good,  it  is  entirely  possible  that  their  eternal 
existence  may  lead  to  yet  greater  good. 

A  priori,  we  should  have  thought  it  impossible  for  God  to  permit  moral  evil,— 
heathenism,  prostitution,  the  saloon,  the  African  slave-trade.  But  sin  is  a  fact.  Who 
can  say  how  long-  it  will  be  a  fact  ?  Why  not  forever  ?  The  benevolence  that  permits 
it  now  may  permit  it  through  eternity.  And  yet,  if  permitted  through  eternity,  it  can 
be  made  harmless  only  by  visiting  it  with  eternal  punishment.  Lillie  on  Thessalonians, 
457— "If  the  temporary  existence  of  sin  and  punishment  lead  to  good,  how  can  we 
prove  that  their  eternal  existence  may  not  lead  to  greater  good  ?  "  We  need  not  deny 
that  it  causes  God  real  sorrow  to  banish  the  lost.  Christ's  weeping  over  Jerusalem 
expresses  the  feelings  of  Cod's  heart  :  Mat.  23:37,  38  — "0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  that  killeth  the 
prophets,  and  stnneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her !  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a 
hen  gathered  her  chickens  uii'ler  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not !  Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate  "  ;  vf. 
Hosea  11 :  8  —  "How  sha'l  I  give  thee  up,  Ephraim  ?  how  shall  I  cast  thee  off,  Israel  ?  how  shall  I  make  thee  as  Admah  ? 
how  shall  I  set  thee  as  Zeboiim?  my  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  compassions  are  kindled  together."  Dante, 
Hell,  iii  — the  inscription  over  the  gate  of  Hell:  "Justice  the  founder  of  my  fabric 
moved ;  To  rear  me  was  the  task  of  power  divine,  Supremest  wisdom  and  primeval 
love." 

A.  H.  Bradford,  Ago  of  Faith,  254,  267— "If  one  thinks  of  the  Deity  as  an  austere 
monarch,  having  a  care  for  his  own  honor  but  none  for  those  to  whom  he  has  given 
being,  optimism  is  impossible.  For  what  shall  we  say  of  our  loved  ones  who  have 
committed  sins?  That  splendid  boy  who  yielded  to  an  inherited  tendency  — what  has 
become  of  him?  Those  millions  who  with  little  light  and  mighty  passions  have  gone 
wrong— what  of  them?  Those  countless  myriads  who  peopled  the  earth  in  ages  past 
and  had  no  clear  nioti.ve  to  righteousness,  since  their  perception  of  God  was  dim  —  is 
this  all  that  can  lie  said  of  them  :  In  torment  they  are  exhibiting  the  glorious  holiness 
of  the  Almighty  in  his  hatred  of  sin  ?  Some  may  believe  that,  but,  thank  Cod,  the  num- 
ber is  not  large No,  penally,  remorse,  despair,  are  only  signs  of  the  deep  reme- 
dial force  in  the  nature  of  tilings,  which  has  always  been  at  work  and  always  will  he, 
and  which,  unless  counteracted,  will  result  sometime   in  universal  and   immortal 

harmony Retribution  isa  natural  law  ;  itisuniversal  initssweep;  itisatthesame 

time  a  manifestation  of  the  beneficence  that  pervades  the  universe.  This  law  must 
continue  its  operation  so  long  as  one  free  agent  violates  the  moral  order.  Neither  jus- 
tice nor  love  would  be  honored  if  one  soul  were  allowed  to  escape  the  action  of  that 
law.    But  the  sting  in  retribution  is  ordained  to  be  remedial  and'restorative  rather  than 

punitive  and  vengeful Will  any  forever  resist  that  discipline?  We  know  not;  but 

it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  can  be  willing  to  do  so,  when  the  fulness  of  the 
divine  glory  is  revealed." 

(  e  )  As  benevolence  in  God  seems  in  the  beginning  to  have  permitted 
moral  evil,  not  because  sin  was  desirable  in  itself,  but  only  because  it  was 
incident  to  a  system  which  provided  for  the  highest  possible  freedom  and 
holiness  in  the  creature  ;  so  benevolence  in  God  may  to  the  end  permit  the 
existence  of  sin  and  may  continue  to  punish  the  sinner,  undesirable  as  these 
things  are  in  themselves,  because  they  are  incidents  of  a  system  which  pro- 
vides for  the  highest  possible  freedom  and  holiness  in  the  creature  through 
eternity. 

But  the  condition  of  the  lost  is  only  made  more  hopeless  by  the  difficulty  with  which 
God  brings  himself  to  this,  his  "strange  work"  of  punishment  ( Is.  28  :  21 ).  The  sentence 
which  the  judge  pronounces  with  tears  is  indicative  of  a  tender  and  suffering  heart,  but 
it  also  indicates  that  there  can  be  no  recall.  By  the  very  exhibition  of  "eternal  judgment  '■ 
( Heb.  6:2),  not  only  may  a  greater  number  be  kept  true  to  God,  but  a  higher  degree  of 


1054     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

holiness  among  that  number  be  forever  assured.  The  Endless  Future,  published  by 
South.  Meth.  Pub.  House,  supposes  the  universe  yet  in  its  infancy,  an  eternal  liability 
to  rebellion,  an  ever-growing  creation  kept  from  sin  by  one  example  of  punishment. 
Mat.7:13,14  —  "few  there  be  that  find  it"  —  "seems  to  have  been  intended  to  describe  the  con- 
duct of  men  then  living-,  rather  than  to  foreshadow  the  two  opposite  currents  of  human 
life  to  the  end  of  time  "  ;  see  Hovey,  Bib.  Eschatology,  167.  See  Goulburn,  Everlasting 
Punishment ;  Haley,  The  Hereafter  of  Sin. 

A.  H.  Bradford,  Age  of  Faith,  239,  mentions  as  causes  for  the  modification  of  view  as 
to  everlasting  punishment :  1.  Increased  freedom  in  expression  of  convictions;  2. 
Interpretation  of  the  word  "  eternal "  ;  3.  The  doctrine  of  the  immanence  of  God,— if 
God  is  in  every  man,  then  he  cannot  everlastingly  hate  himself,  even  in  the  poor  mani- 
festation of  himself  in  a  human  creature  ;  4.  The  influence  of  the  poets,  Burns,  Brown- 
ing, Tennyson,  and  Whittier.  Whittier,  Eternal  Goodness :  "  The  wrong  that  pains  my 
soul  below,  I  dare  not  throne  above  :  I  know  not  of  his  hate, —  I  know  His  goodness 
and  his  love."  We  regard  Dr.  Bradford  as  the  most  plausible  advocate  of  restoration. 
But  his  view  is  vitiated  by  certain  untenable  theological  presuppositions  :  1.  that  right- 
eousness is  only  a  form  of  love ;  2.  that  righteousness,  apart  from  love,  is  passionate 
and  vengeful ;  3.  that  man's  freedom  is  incapable  of  endless  abuse ;  4.  that  not  all 
men  here  have  a  fair  probation ;  5.  that  the  amount  of  light  against  which  they  sin  is 
not  taken  into  consideration  by  God;  6.  that  the  immanence  of  God  does  not  leave 
room  for  free  human  action ;  7.  that  God's  object  in  his  administration  is,  not  to  reveal 
his  whole  character,  and  chiefly  his  holiness,  but  solely  to  reveal  his  love  ;  8.  that  the 
declarations  of  Scripture  with  regard  to  "an  eternal  sin"  (Mark  3:29),  "eternal  punishment" 
( Mat.  25 :  46  ),  "  eternal  destruction  "  ( 2  Thess.  1:9),  still  permit  us  to  believe  in  the  restoration  of 
all  men  to  holiness  and  likeness  to  God. 

We  regard  as  more  Scriptural  and  more  rational  the  view  of  Max  Miiller,  the  distin- 
guished Oxford  philologist :  "  I  have  always  held  that  this  would  be  a  miserable  universe 
without  eternal  punishment.  Every  act,  good  or  evil,  must  carry  its  consequences, 
and  the  fact  that  our  punishment  will  go  on  forever  seems  to  me  a  proof  of  the  ever- 
lasting love  of  God.  For  an  evil  deed  to  go  unpunished  would  be  to  destroy  the  moral 
order  of  tlie  universe."  Max  Miiller  simply  expresses  the  ineradicable  conviction  of 
mankind  that  retribution  must  follow  sin ;  that  God  must  show  his  disapproval  of  sin 
by  punishment ;  that  the  very  laws  of  man's  nature  express  in  this  way  God's  right- 
eousness; that  the  abolition  of  this  order  would  be  the  dethronement  of  God  and  the 
destruction  of  the  universe. 

F.  The  proper  preaching  of  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment  is 
not  a  hindrance  to  the  success  of  the  gospel,  but  is  one  of  its  chief  and 
indispensable  auxiliaries.  —  It  is  maintained  by  some,  however,  that,  because 
men  are  naturally  repelled  by  it,  it  cannot  be  a  part  of  the  preacher's 
message.     We  reply  : 

(  a  )  If  the  doctrine  be  true,  and  clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  no  fear  of 
consequences  to  ourselves  or  to  others  can  absolve  us  from  the  duty  of 
preaching  it.  The  minister  of  Christ  is  under  obligation  to  preach  the 
whole  truth  of  God  ;  if  he  does  this,  God  will  care  for  the  results. 

Ez.  2:7  —  "And  thou  shalt  speak  my  words  unto  them,  whether  they  will  hear,  or  whether  they  will  forbear" ; 
3 :  10, 11, 18,  19  —  "  Moreover  he  said  unto  me,  Son  of  man,  all  my  words  that  I  shall  speak  unto  thee  receive  in  thine 
heart,  and  hear  with  thine  ears.    And  go,  get  thee  to  them  of  the  capt:vity,  unto  the  children  of  thy  people,  and  speak 

unto  them,  and  tell  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah ;  whether  they  will  hear,  or  whether  they  will  forbear 

When  I  say  unto  the  wicked,  Thou  shalt  surely  die ;  and  thou  givest  him  not  warning,  nor  speakest  to  warn  the  wicked 
from  his  wicked  way,  to  save  his  life;  the  same  wicked  man  shall  die  in  his  iniquity ;  but  his  blood  will  I  require  at 
thy  hand.  Yet  if  thou  warn  the  wicked,  and  he  turn  not  from  his  wickedness,  nor  from  his  wicked  way,  he  shall  die 
in  his  iniquity  ;  but  thou  hast  delivered  thy  soul." 

The  old  French  Protestant  church  had  as  a  coat  of  arms  the  device  of  an  anvil,  around 
which  were  many  broken  hammers,  with  this  motto :  "  Hammer  away,  ye  hostile 
bands;  Your  hammers  break,  God's  anvil  stands."  St.  Jerome:  "If  an  offence  come 
out  of  the  truth,  better  is  it  that  the  offence  come,  than  that  the  truth  be  concealed." 
Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2:680— "Jesus  Christ  is  the  Person  responsible  for  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  perdition."    The  most  fearful  utterances  with  regard  to  future  punish- 


FINAL    STATES    OF   THE    RIGHTEOUS    AND    OP   THE    WICKED.    1055 

mcnt  are  those  of  Jesus  himself,  as  for  example,  Mat.  23  :  33  —  "Ye  serpents,  yt  offspring  of  vipers 
how  stall  ye  escape  the  judgment  of  hell?"  Mark  3:29  —  "whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin  " ;  Mat.  10  : 28  —  "be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  but  ar.; 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell "  ;  25 :  46  —  "  these 
shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment." 

(  b )  All  preaching  which  ignores  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  just 
so  far  lowers  the  holiness  of  God,  of  which  eternal  punishment  is  an  expres- 
sion, and  degrades  the  work  of  Christ,  which  was  needful  to  save  us  from 
it.  The  success  of  such  preaching  can  be  but  temporary,  and  must  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  disastrous  reaction  toward  rationalism  and  immorality. 

Much  apostasy  from  the  faith  begins  with  refusal  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment.  Theodore  Parker,  while  he  acknowledged  that  the  doctrine  was  taught 
in  the  New  Testament,  rejected  it,  and  came  at  last  to  say  of  the  whole  theology  which 
iucludes  this  idea  of  endless  punishment,  that  it  "sneers  at  common  sense,  spits  upon 
reason,  and  makes  God  a  devil." 

But,  if  there  be  no  eternal  punishment,  then  man's  danger  was  not  great  enough  to 
require  an  infinite  sacrifice  ;  and  we  are  compelled  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 
If  there  were  no  atonement,  there  was  no  need  that  man's  Savior  should  himself  be  more 
than  man  ;  and  we  are  compelled  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  and  with 
this  that  of  the  Trinity.  If  punishment  be  not  eternal,  then  God's  holiness  is  but  another 
name  for  benevolence  ;  all  proper  foundation  for  morality  is  gone,  and  God's  law  ceases 
to  inspire  reverence  and  awe.  If  punishment  be  not  eternal,  then  the  Scripture  writers 
who  believed  and  taught  this  were  fallible  men  who  were  not  above  the  prejudices  and 
errors  of  their  times;  and  we  lose  all  evidence  of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Bible. 
With  this  goes  the  doctrine  of  miracles ;  God  is  identified  with  nature,  and  becomes  the 
impersonal  God  of  pantheism. 

Theodore  Parker  passed  through  this  process,  and  so  did  Francis  W.  Newman.  Logi- 
cally, every  one  who  denies  the  everlasting  punishment  of  the  wicked  ought  to  reach  a 
like  result;  and  we  need  only  a  superficial  observation  of  countries  like  India,  where 
pantheism  is  rife,  to  see  how  deplorable  is  the  result  in  the  decline  of  public  and  of 
private  virtue.  Emory  Stores  :  "  When  hell  drops  out  of  religion,  justice  drops  out  of 
politics."  The  preacher  who  talks  lightly  of  sin  and  punishment  does  a  work  strikingly 
analogous  to  that  of  Satan,  when  he  told  Eve  :  "Ye  shall  not  surely  die"  (  Gen.  3:4).  Such  a 
preacher  lets  men  go  on  what  Shakespeare  calls  "  the  primrose  way  to  the  everlasting 
bonfire  "  (  Macbeth,  2  :3). 

Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2 :  671  —"Vicarious  atonement  is  incompatible  with  universal 
sal  vat  ion.    The  latter  doctrine  implies  that  suffering  for  sin  is  remedial  only,  while  the 

former  implies  that  it  is  retribution If  the  sinner  himself  is  not  obliged  by  justice 

to  suffer  in  order  to  satisfy  the  law  he  has  violated,  then  certainly  no  one  needs  suffer 
for  him  for  this  purpose."  Sonnet  by  Michael  Angelo :  "  Now  hath  my  life  across  a 
stormy  sea  Like  a  frail  bark  reached  that  wide  port  where  all  Are  bidden,  ere  the  final 
reckoning  fall  Of  good  and  evil  for  eternity.  Now  know  I  well  how  that  fond  fantasy. 
Which  made  my  soul  the  worshiper  and  thrall  Of  earthly  art,  is  vain ;  how  criminal  Is 
that  which  all  men  seek  unwillingly.  Those  amorous  thoughts  that  were  so  lightly 
dressed  —  What  are  they  when  the  double  death  is  nigh  ?  The  one  I  know  for  sure,  the 
other  dread.  Painting  nor  sculpture  now  can  lull  to  rest  My  soul  that  turns  to  his  great 
Love  on  high,  Whose  arms,  to  clasp  us,  on  the  Cross  were  spread." 

( c )  The  fear  of  future  punishment,  though  not  the  highest  motive,  is 
yet  a  proper  motive,  for  the  renunciation  of  sin  and  the  turning  to  Christ. 
It  must  therefore  be  appealed  to,  in  the  hope  that  the  seeking  of  salvation 
which  begins  in  fear  of  God's  anger  may  end  in  the  service  of  faith  and  love. 

Luke  12 :  4,  5  —  "  And  I  say  unto  you  my  friends,  Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that  have  no 
more  that  they  can  do.  But  I  will  warn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear:  Fear  him,  who  after  he  hath  killed  hath  power  to 
cast  into  hell ;  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him  "  ;  Jude  23  —  "  and  some  save,  snatching  them  out  of  the  fire."  It  is 
noteworthy  that  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  sometimes  regarded,  though  incorrectly, 
as  a  teacher  of  fear,  has  no  such  revelations  of  hell  as  are  found  in  the  New.  Only 
when  God's  mercy  was  displayed  in  the  Cross  were  there  opened  to  men's  view  the 


1056     ESCHATOLOGY,    OR   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   FINAL  THINGS. 

depths  of  the  abyss  from  which  the  Cross  was  to  save  them.  And,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  it  is  not  Peter  or  Paul,  but  our  Lord  himself,  who  gives  the  most  fearful  descrip- 
tions of  the  suffering  of  the  lost,  and  the  clearest  assertions  of  its  eternal  duration. 

Michael  Angelo's  picture  of  the  Last  Judgment  is  needed  to  prepare  us  for  Raphael's 
picture  of  the  Transfiguration.  Shedd,  Dogm.  Theology,  2 :  752  — "  What  the  human  race 

needs  is  to  go  to  the  divine  Confessional Confession  is  the  only  way  to  light  and 

peace The  denial  of  moral  evil  is  the  secret  of  the  murmuring  and  melancholy 

with  which  so  much  of  modern  letters  is  filled."  Matthew  Arnold  said  to  his  critics : 
"  Non  me  tua  fervida  terrent  dicta;  Dii  me  terrent  et  Jupiter  hostis"— "I  am 
not  afraid  of  your  violent  judgments;  I  fear  only  God  and  his  anger."  Heb.  10 : 31  — 
"It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God."  Daniel  Webster  said  ;  "  I  want  a  minister 
to  drive  me  into  a  corner  of  the  pew,  and  make  me  feel  that  the  devil  is  after  me." 

( d  )  In  preaching  this  doctrine,  while  we  grant  that  the  material  images 
used  in  Scripture  to  set  forth  the  sufferings  of  the  lost  are  to  be  spiritually 
and  not  literally  interpreted,  we  should  still  insist  that  the  misery  of  the 
soul  which  eternally  hates  God  is  greater  than  the  physical  pains  which  are 
used  to  symbolize  it.  Although  a  hard  and  mechanical  statement  of  the 
truth  may  only  awaken  opposition,  a  solemn  and  feeliug  presentation  of  it 
upon  proper  occasions,  and  in  its  due  relation  to  the  work  of  Christ  and  the 
offers  of  the  gospel,  cannot  fail  to  accomplish  God's  purpose  in  preaching, 
arid  to  be  the  means  of  saving  some  who  hear. 

Acts  20 :  31  —  "  Wherefore  watch  ye,  remembering  that  by  the  space  of  three  years  I  ceased  not  to  admonish  every 
one  night  and  day  with  tears"  ;  2  Cor.  2  :  14-17—  "  But  thanks  be  unto  God,  who  always  leadeth  us  in  triumph  in 
Christ,  and  maketh  manifest  through  us  the  savor  of  his  knowledge  in  every  place.  For  we  are  a  sweet  savor  of  Christ 
unto  God,  in  them  that  are  being  saved,  and  in  them  that  are  perishing  ;  to  the  one  a  savor  from  death  unto  death  ;  to 
the  other  a  savor  from  life  unto  life.  And  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  ?  For  we  are  not  as  the  many,  corrupting 
the  word  of  God :  but  as  of  sincerity,  but  as  of  God,  in  the  sight  of  God,  speak  we  in  Christ  "  ;  5 :  11  —  "  Knowing  there- 
fore the  fear  of  the  Lord,  we  persuade  men,  but  we  are  made  manifest  unto  God ;  and  I  hope  that  we  are  made  manifest 
also  in  your  consciences";  1  Tim.  4:16 — "Take  heed  to  thyself  and  to  thy  teaching.  Continue  in  these  things ;  for 
in  doing  this  thou  shalt  save  both  thyself  and  them  that  hear  thee." 

"  Omne  simile  claudicat "  as  well  as  "  volat  "  —  "  Every  simile  halts  as  well  as  flies." 
No  symbol  expresses  all  the  truth.  Yet  we  need  to  use  symbols,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
honors  our  use  of  them.  It  is  "  God's  good  pleasure  through  the  foolishness  of  the  preaching  to  save  them 
that  believe"  (1  Cor.  1:21).  It  was  a  deep  sense  of  his  responsibility  for  men's  souls  that 
moved  Paul  to  say  :  "woe  is  unto  me,  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel"  (1  Cor.  9:16).  And  it  was  a  deep 
sense  of  duty  fulfilled  that  enabled  George  Fox,  when  he  was  dying,  to  say:  "I  am 
clear!  lam  clear!" 

So  Richard  Baxter  wrote  :  "  I  preached  as  never  sure  to  preach  again,  And  as  a  dying 
man  to  dying  men."  It  was  Robert  McCheyne  who  said  that  the  preacher  ought  never 
to  speak  of  everlasting  punishment  without  tears.  McCheyne's  tearful  preaching  of  it 
prevailed  upon  many  to  break  from  their  sins  and  to  accept  the  pardon  and  renewal 
that  are  offered  in  Christ.  Such  preaching  of  judgment  and  punishment  were  never 
needed  more  than  now,  when  lax  and  unscriptural  views  with  regard  to  law  and  sin 
break  the  force  of  the  preacher's  appeals.  Let  there  be  such  preaching,  and  then  many 
a  hearer  will  utter  the  thought,  if  not  the  words,  of  the  Dies  Ira?,  8-10 — "  Rex  tremenda? 
majestatis,  Qui  salvandos  salvas  gratis,  Salva  me,  fons  pietatis.  Recordare,  Jesu  pie, 
Quod  sum  causa  tua?  via?  :  Ne  me  perdas  ilia  die.  Qua?rens  me  sedisti  lassus,  Redemisti 
crucem  passus  :  Tantus  labor  non  sit  cassus."  See  Edwards,  Works,  4:226-321 ;  Hodge, 
Outlines  of  Theology,  459-468 ;  Murphy,  Scientific  Bases  of  Faith,  310,  319,  464 ;  Dexter, 
Verdict  of  Reason  ;  George,  Uuiversalism  not  of  the  Bible ;  Angus,  Future  Punishment ; 
Jackson,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1875,  on  the  Doctrine  of  Retribution ;  Shedd,  Doctrine 
of  Endless  Punishment,  preface,  and  Dogm.  Theol.,  2 :  667-754. 


INDEXES 


67 


The  author  acknowledges  his  great  indebtness  to  the  Reverend 
Robert  Kerr  Eccles,  M.  D.,  of  Lemoore,  California,  for  the  pre- 
paration of  the  exceedingly  full  and  valuable  Indexes  which 
follow,  and  a  similiar  obligation  to  Mr.  Herman  K.  Phinney, 
Assistant  Librarian  of  the  University  of  Rochester,  for  his  care  in 
the  proof-reading  of  the  whole  work. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Ability,     gracious,... G02, 

natural,  of    New  School, 640, 

not  test  of  sin, 

Pelagian,  

▲biogenesis,    

Absolute,  its  denotation 

as  applied  to  divine  attributes, 

how  related  to  finite, 58, 

Reason,  an,  the  postulate  of  logical 

thought,  

Abydos,  triad  of, 

Acccptilatio,    the    Grotian,. 

Acquittal    of   believing   sinners,   from 

punishment,    

Action,  divine,  not  in  distanUa 

Acts,  evil,  God's  concurrence  with,-— 

Ad  aperturam  libri 

Adam,  his  original  righteousness  not 

immutable,   

had  power  of  contrary  choice 

not  created  undecided, 

his  love,  God  given, 

his  exercise  of  holy  will  not  merito- 
rious,   

unf alien,  according  to  Romlsb   the- 
ologians,    

his  physical   perfection 

unf  alien,  according  to  Fathers  and 

Scholastics,   

his  relations  to  lower  creation, 

his  relations  to  God 

his  surroundings  and  society, 

the  test  of  his  virtue, 

physical  immortality  possible  to, 

his  Fall,  see  Fall. 

his    twofold    death,    resulting    from 

Fall,   

his   communion   with   God  interrup- 
ted,   

his  banishment  from  God 

imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  poster- 
ity, see  Imputation, 
in   him   'the   natural,'   had   be   con- 
tinued    upright,      might     without 
death  have  obtained  'the  spiritual,' 

was  Christ  in, 

Christ,  the  Last, 

Christ,  the  Second, 

Adoption,  what  ?  


Aequale  tcmperamentum, 523 

Affections,  362,  815 

holy,  authors  on, 826 

Agency,  free,  and  divine  decrees,  —359-362 

Alexander,  unifier  of  Greek  East, 668 

Allegorical   arrangement  in  theology,    50 

Allaeosis,    686 

Altruism,  299 

Ambition,     what? 569 

American  theology, 48,    49 

Anacoloufha,    Paul's, 210 

Analytical   method,  in  theology, 45,    49 

Ancestry  of  race,  proofs  of  a  common, 

476-4S2 

'Angel  of  the  church,' 452,  916 

'Angel  of  Jehovah,'. ._  319 

Angelology  of   Scripture,  not  derived 
from  Egyptian  or  Persian  sources,  448 

'Angels'    food,' 445 

Angels,  their  class  defined, 443 

Scholastic  subtleties  regarding,  their 

Influence,   443,  444 

Mil  Ion  and   Dante  upon 443 

their  existence  a  scientific  possibili- 
ty,     444 

faith  in,  enlarges  conception  of  uni- 
verse,   441 

list  of  authors  upon, 444 

Scriptural    statements    and    intima- 
tions concerning, 441-459 

are  created  beings, 444 

are    incorporeal, 445 

are    personal, 445 

possessed    of    superhuman      intelli- 
gence,     445 

distinct  from  and  older  than  man,..  44", 

not   personifications, 445 

numerous,     447 

are  a  company,  not  a  race, 447 

were  created  holy, 450 

had  a  probation, 450 

some  preserved  their  integrity, 450 

some  fell  from  innocence, 450 

the  good,  confirmed  in  goodness, 450 

the  evil,  confirmed  in  evil, 450 

Angels,   good,   they  stand  worshiping 

God,    451 

they  rejoice  in  God's  works, 451 

they  work  in  nature, 451 


1059 


1060 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Angels,   good,   they  guide  nations, 451 

watch  over  interests  of  churches,-—  452 

assist  individual  believers, 452 

punish  God's  enemies, 452 

ministers  of  God's  special  provi- 
dences,     452 

act    within    laws    of    spiritual    and 

moral    world, 453 

their  influence  illustrated  by  psych- 
ic   phenomena, 453,  454 

Angels,  evil,  oppose  God, 454 

hinder  man's  welfare, 455 

tempt  negatively  and  positively, 455 

their    intercourse    with    Christ, 456 

execute  God's  will, 457 

their  power  not  independent  of  hu- 
man   will, 457 

limited  by   permissive  will   of   God,  458 
the    doctrine    of,    not    opposed    to 

science,    459 

not  opposed  to  right  views  of  space 

or   spirit, 459 

not    impossible    that,    though    wise, 

they  should  rebel, 460 

the  continuance  and  punishment  of 
evil,  not  inconsistent  with  divine 

benevolence,     461 

their    organization,    though    sinful, 

not    impossible, 461 

the  doctrine  of  evil,  not  hurtful,— 461,  462 
the   doctrine   of    evil,    does   not    de- 
grade   man, 462 

good,    the   doctrine  of,    its   uses, 462 

evil,  the  doctrine  of,  its  uses, 463 

fallen,    if    no    redemption    provided 

for,    why? 463 

created    in    Christ, 464 

their  salvation,  Scripture  silent  up- 
on,     464 

Anger,  sometimes  a  duty, 294 

Annihilation,  of  infants,  held  by  Em- 
mons,    609 

at  death,  inequitable, 987,  1036 

disproved  by   Scripture, 991-993 

terms  which  seemingly  teach, 993 

language    adduced    to    prove,    often 

metaphorical,   994 

old  view  of, 1036 

the  theory  that  it  is  a  result  of  the 
weakening   of  powers   of   soul   by 

sin,   considered, 1036 

'  second  death  '  regarded  as  dissolu- 
tion of  the  soul, 1036 

the  theory  that  a  positive  punish- 
ment proportioned  to  guilt  pre- 
cedes and  ends  in, 1037 

the   tenet  of,    rests  on   a  defective 

view  of  holiness, 103? 

a  part  of  the  '  conditional  immor- 
tality '     hypothesis, 1037 

as    connected    with    the    principle, 


'  Evil  is  punished  by  its  own  in- 
crease,'    1038 

Annihilationists,    4S7 

'Answer    (interrogation)     of    a    good 

conscience,'   phrase  examined, 821 

Anthropological    argument   for    God's 

existence,    80-S5 

Anthropological  method  in  theology, ._    50 
Anthropology,  a  division  of  theology.  461 

Anthropomorphism,   122,  250 

'Anthropomorphism  inverse,' 468 

Antichrist,    1009 

'Anticipative  consequences,' 403,  658 

Antinomianism,  875 

Antiquity  of  race,  relation  of  Script- 
ure to 224-226 

Apocalypse,     its     exegetic     not     yet 

found,    1011 

Apocrypha 115,  150,  865 

Apollinarianism,   487,  670,  671 

Apostasy,  man's  state  of, 533-664 

Apostasy  of  the  believer,  how  treated 

in  Scripture, 884-886 

A   posteriori  reasoning, 66,    86 

Apostles,    199-201,  909,  971 

Apotelesmaticum  genus, 686 

A    priori    argument    for    God's    exis- 
tence,  the,    see   God. 

judgments,  10 

reasons  for  expecting  a  divine  rev- 
elation,   111-111 

Arbitrium,,  557 

Argument  ad  hominem   in  Scripture,.  2:!:; 

lor   existence  of  God,   its   value, 

65-67,  71,  72.  NT -89 

Arianism,    328-330,  670 

Arminianism 362,  601-606 

Arrangement  of  material  in  theology, 

2,  49,    50 

Art,  529,  1016 

Aryan    and    Semitic    languages,    their 

connection,   479 

Ascension,  Christ's, 708-710 

Christ's   humanity,   how   related   to 

the   Logos  in, 709 

Aseity  of  God, 256,  257 

not  confined  to  Father, 342 

Assensus,  an  element  in  faith, 837 

Assurance  of  salvation, 808,  845 

'Asymptote  of  God,'  man,  the, 565$ 

Athanasian   Creed, 329  . 

Atoms, 96,  374 

Atomism,  600,  635 

Atonement,    facts    in    Christ's    suffer- 
ings which  prove,  713 

defined,  713 

satisfies    holiness,    the   fundamental 

attribute  of  God, 713 

meets  the  conditions  of  a  universe 
in  which  happiness  is  connected 
with  righteousness  and  suffering 
with   sin 714 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1061 


Atonement,  in  it  Christ  as  Logos,  the 
Ilevealer  of  God  in  the  universe, 
inflicts  the  penalty  of  sin,  while, 
as    Life   of  humanity,    he   endures 

the  infliction,  714 

humanity  has  made,  when  right- 
eousness in  Christ,  as  generic  hu- 
manity, condemns  sin,  and  love  in 

Christ  endures  the  penalty, 714 

substitutionary   and   sharing, 715 

in,  Christ  suffers  as  the  very  life  of 

man, 715 

not  made,  but  revealed,  by  Christ's 

historical   sufferings, 715 

the  sacrifice  of,  the  final  revelation 
of  the  heart  of  Clod  and  of  the  law 

of  universal   life 713 

a  model  of,  and  stimulus  to,  self- 
sacrifice,    716 

its  subjective  effects  must  not  ex- 
clude consideration  of  its  ground 

and    cause, 716 

Scripture   methods   of   representing, 

716-722 

originates  in  God's  love  and  mani- 

rests  it,. 716 

an  example  of  disinterested  love  to 
secure  our  deliverance  from  self- 
ishness,    716,  717 

a    ransom    in    which    death    is    the 

price    paid, 717 

an  act  of  obedience  to  law, 717 

an  act  of  priestly  mediation, 718-728 

a  sin-offering, 719 

a  propitiation, 719 

a    substitution, 720 

correct  views  of,  grounded  on  prop- 
er interpretation  of  the  institution 

of    sacrifice, 721 

is  it  to  be  interpreted  according  to 
notions    derived    from    Jewish    or 

heathen  sacrifices  V 72S 

theories    of, 728-766 

Socinian    (example)    theory, 728,  729 

objections  to  above 735-740 

Bushnellian  (moral  influence)  the- 
ory,   7::::  f35 

objections  to  above, 735-74) 

Grotian    (governmental)    theory   of, 

740,  741 

Irvingian  (gradually  extirpated  de- 
pravity)   theory   of, - —714,  745 

objections  to  theory 715-717 

Anselmic   (commercial)   theory  of,— 

747,  74S 

Military  theory  of,- 747 

objections   to, 1 748-750 

Criminal  theory  of, 748 

the  Ethical  theory  of, 750-771 

a  true  theory  of,  resolves  two  prob- 
lems,     750,  751 

grounded  in  holiness  of  God, 751 


Atonement,  a  satisfaction  of  an  eth- 
ical demand  of  the  divine  na- 
ture,    -751,   752,  753 

substitution  in,  an  operation  of 
grace,    752 

the  righteousness  of  law  maintained 
in,    752 

maintains,  as  a  first  subordinate  re- 
sult, the  interests  of  the  divine 
government,    753 

provides,  as  a  second  subordinate  re- 
sult, for  the  needs  of  human  nat- 
ure,    753 

the  classical  passage  with  reference 
to, — - 753 

sets  forth  Christ  as  so  related  to 
humanity  that  he  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  pay  and  does  pay, 754 

explains  how  the  innocent  can  suf- 
fer  for   the   guilty  in, 755,   756,  757 

Andover  theory  of, 756 

by  one  whose  nature  was  purified, 
but  his  obligation  to  suffer  undi- 
minished,     757 

the  guilt  resting  on  Christ  in,  what 
it  was 645,  646,  757 

as  a  member  of  the  race,  did  he  not 
suffer  in,  for  his  own  sin? 7BS 

showed  what  had  been  in  the  heart 
of  God  from  eternity 758 

explanations  of  Christ's  identifica- 
tion with  humanity  as  a  reason 
why  he  made, 759-761 

exposition  of  2  Cor.  5  :  21,— 760 

grounded  in  the  holiness  and  love 
of  God, 761 

is  accomplished  through  the  solid- 
arity of  the  race,  and  Christ  the 
common  life,  bearing  guilt  for  men,  761 

ground  of,  on  the  part  of  man, 7G1 

rather  revealed  than  made  by  in- 
carnate   Christ 762,  763 

Ethical  theory  of,  philosophically 
correct,  764 

combines  the  valuable  elements  of 
other  theories, 764 

shows  most  satisfactorily  how  de- 
mands of  holiness  are  met, 764 

presents  only  explanation  of  sacri- 
ficial   rites   and   language, 765 

alone  gives  proper  place  to  death  of 
Christ,   765 

is  best  explanation  of  sufferings  of 
Christ,  765 

satisfies  most  completely  the  ethical 
demand  of  human  nature, 765,  766 

objected  to,  as  inconsistent  with 
God's  omnipotence  or  love, 766 

objected  to,  as  presented  ideas  mu- 
tually   exclusive, 767 

objected  to,  as  obviating  real  pro- 
pitiation,  — 768 


1062 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Atonement,  objected  to,  as  an  act  of 

injustice,   76S 

objected  to,  because  transfer  of  pun- 
ishment is  impossible, 768,  760 

objected  to,  because  the  remorse  im- 
plied   in    it,     was    impossible    to 

Christ,    709 

objected  to,  because  sufferings  finite 
in  time  cannot  satisfy  infinite  de- 
mands of  law, 769,  770 

objected  to,  that  it  renders  Christ's 

active  obedience  superfluous, 770 

objected  to,  as  immoral  in  tendency,  770 
objected    to,    as    requiring    faith   to 
complete     a      satisfaction     which 

ought  to  be  itself  perfect, 771 

extent    of, 771-773 

unlimited,  771 

its  application  limited, 771 

passages  asserting  its  special  effica- 
cy,   771 

passages  asserting  its  sufficiency  for 

all,  771 

secures  for  all  men  delay  in  execu- 
tion  of   sentence   against  sin, 772 

has  made  objective  provision  for  all, 

772,  773 

has   procured   for   all   incentives   to 

repentance,    773 

limited,    advocates   of, 773 

universal,  advocates  of, 773 

Attributes,  divine,  see  God. 
mental,   higher   than  those  of  mat- 
ter, inference  from, 92 

Aurignac  Cave,  its  evidence  doubtful,  532 
Australian  languages,  their  affinities,  479 
Automatic,   mental  activity   largely,--  550 

'Automatic  excellence  or  badness,' 611 

Avarice,    defined, 560 

Avatars,  Hindu, 187 

Christ's  incarnation  unlike, 698 

Ayat   of   Koran, 213 

Baalim,   318 

Balaam,  inspired,  yet  unholy, 207 

Baptism  and  Lord's  Supper,  only  ac- 
counted for  as  monuments, 157 

the  formula  of,  correlates   Christ's 

name  with  God's 312 

according  to  Romish  church, 522 

of  Jesus,  its  import, 761,  762,  912 

Christian,  definition  of, 931 

instituted  by    Christ,- 931 

of  universal  and  perpetual  obliga- 
tion,    931 

ignored  by  Salvation  Army  and  So- 
ciety of  Friends, 931 

John's   recognized  by   Christ, 931,  932 

John's,   was  it  a   modification  of  a 

previously  existing   rite? 931,  932 

proselyte,  its  existence  dis- 
cussed,  931,  932 


Baptism,  John's,  essentially  Chris- 
tian  baptism, 732 

made  the  law  of  the  church, 932 

Christian,  complementally  related 
to  Lord's  Supper,  is  of  equal  per- 
manency,   I 932,  933 

its  mode,   immersion, 933 

meaning  of  its  original  word,  ac- 
cording to  Greek  usage, 933,  934 

meaning  of  original  word  as  deter- 
mined by  contextual  relation, 934 

meaning  of  original  word  deter- 
mined by  voice  used  with  '  water, '  935 

meaning  of  original  word  deter- 
mined by  prepositional  connec- 
tions,    935 

meaning  of  original  word  derived 
from    circumstances, 935 

original  meaning  of  word  deter- 
mined from  figurative  allusions,—  936 

original  meaning  of  word  deter- 
mined by  practice  of  early  church,  936 

occasional  change  in  its  mode  per- 
mitted for  seeming  sufficient  rea- 
son at  an  early  date, 936 

original  meaning  of  word  deter- 
mined by  usage  of  Greek  church, 
937,  938 

Dr.  Dods'  statement  as  to  its  mode,  938 

concession  to  its  original  method  of 
observance  in  the  introduction  of 
baptisteries  or  '  fontgraves  '  into 
non-Baptist  places  of  worship 938 

the  church,  being  only  an  executive 
body,  cannot  modify  Christ's  law 
concerning,    939 

the  law  of,  fundamental,  and  there- 
fore unalterable  save  by  Legisla- 
tor  himself, 939 

any  modification  of,  by  church,  im- 
plies unwisdom  in  Appointer  of 
rite,    939 

any  change  in  mode  vacates  ordi- 
nance of  its  symbolic  significance,  939 

objections  to  its  mode,  immersion,..  940 

if  its  mode  impracticable,  ordinance 
not  a  duty, r 940 

when  its  mode  dangerous,  ordinance 
not  to  be  performed, 940 

the  mode  of  baptism  decently  im- 
pressive,     940 

the  ordinance  symbolizing  suffering 
and  death  is  consistently  some- 
what inconvenient, 940 

God's  blessing  on  an  irregular  ad- 
ministration of,  no  sanction  of  ir- 
regularity,   940 

its   symbolism,— 940-945 

what  it  symbolizes  in  general, 940 

it  symbolizes  death  and  burial  of 
Christ, 940 

it    symbolizes    union    with    Christ—  941 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1063 


Baptism,  it  symbolizes  atonement  and 
redemption,    941 

it  symbolizes  to  the  believer  being 
baptized   his   spiritual    death   and 

resurrection,  "1 

it  symbolizes  union  of  believers  with 

each    other, ^- 

it  symbolizes  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  the  body, 942 

the  central  truth,  set  forth  by, 942 

a  correlative  truth  set  forth  by,— -  943 
sets  forth  purification  through  com- 
munion with  death  of  Christ 944 

symbolizes    regenerating    power    of 

Jesus'    death 941 

immersion  in,  alone  symbolizes  the 
passage  from  death  unto  life  in 
regeneration  and  communion  with 
Christ  in  his  death  and  rising,—  944 
the  substituting  for  the  correct  mode 
of,  one  which  excludes  all  refer- 
ence   to    Christ's    death    destroys 

the   ordinance, 944 

is  a  historical  monument, — —  94o 

is  a  pictorial  expression  of  doctrine.  945 

and   Lord's  Supper 91-' 

subjects  of -' '"  ';•' 

the  proper  subjects  of 94° 

those  only  to  be  baptized  who  have 

first  been  made  disciples, 945 

those  only  to  be  baptized  who  have 

repented  and  believed, 945 

those  only  to  be  baptized  who  can 

be  members  of  the  church, 945 

those  only  to  be  baptized  for  whom 

the  symbolism  is  valid, 946 

not  a  means  of  regeneration,- 940 

the  spiritual  and  the  ritual  so  com- 
bined in,  that  the  whole  ordinance 
may  be  designated  by  its  outward 

aspect,    - 94G 

as  a  being  '  born  of  water,'— 946 

connected  with  repentance  'for  the 

remission  of   sins,'— 946 

without  baptism,  discipleship  incom- 
plete, and  ineffective 947 

the  teachings  of  Campbellism  re- 
garding,     --W7.  94S 

act  of  person  baptized,. 948 

before  it  is  administered,  church 
should  require  evidence  that  can- 
didates are   regenerated, 949 

incorrectly    called    '  door    into    the 

church,'    94J 

as   expressive   of   inward   character 

of    candidate, 950 

as  regeneration  is  once  for  all,  bap- 
tism must  not  be  repeated, — 950 

as  outward  expression  of  inward 
change,  is  the  first  of  all  duties,—  950 


Baptism    should    follow    regeneration 

with    least    possible    delay, 950 

if  an  actual  profession  of  faith,  not 

to  be   repeated, 950 

accessories  to,  matters  of  individual 

judgment,   951 

its  formula, 951 

Infant,    951-959 

without  warrant  in  Scripture, 951 

has  no  express  command, 951 

has  no  clear  example.- 951 

passages  held  to  imply  it,  have  no 

reference   thereto 951 

expressly   contradicted,— 952 

in  it  the  prerequisites  of  faith  and 

repentance  impossible, 952 

in  it  the  symbolism  of  baptism  has 

lost    significance, 952 

its  practice  inconsistent  with  con- 
stitution of  the  church, 952 

is  unharmonious  with  prerequisites 

to  the  Lord's   Supper, 952 

has  led  in  Greek   Church  to  infant 

communion,  953 

denied  by  the  Faulicians, 953 

the  reasons  of  its  rise  and  spread,—  953 
a  necessary  concomitant  of  a  State 

Church,  954 

founded  on  unscriptural  and  dan- 
gerous   reasonings, 954 

it  assumes  power  of  church  to  tam- 
per with  Christ's  commands, 954 

contradicts  New  Testament  ideas  of 

church,   954 

assumes  a  connection  of  parent  and 
child  closer  and  more  influential 
than  facts  of  Scripture  and  expe- 
rience will  support, 954,  955 

its  propriety  urged  on  various  un- 
settled  grounds, —  956 

does  it  make  its  subjects  members 

of  the  chiirch? 956 

its    evil    effects, - 957-953 

forestalls  any  voluntary  act, 957 

induces  superstitious  confidence, 957 

has  led  to  baptism  of  irrational  and 

material   things, 957 

has  obscured  and  corrupted  Chris- 
tian  truth, - 95S 

is  often  an  obstacle  to  evangelical 

views,    958 

merges  church  in  nation  and  world,  958 
substitutes  for  Christ's  command  an 

invention  of  men, 958,  959 

literature    concerning, 959 

Baptismal  Regeneration,— 820-822,  946,  947 

literature    upon, —  948 

Baptist  Theology, 47 

Baptists,  English, 972,  977 

Free  Will, - 972,  977,  97a 


1064 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Believers,  and  the  '  old  man,' 870 

and  the  Intermediate  State, 998,  999 

Bewusstsein,  in  Gottesoewusstsein, 63 

Bible,  see  Scripture. 
Bishop,  office  of,  early  made  sole  in- 
terpreter of  apostles, 912 

in   his   progress   from   primus  inter 

pares  to   Christ's  vicegerent, 912 

ordaining,  his  qualifications  in  Epis- 
copal  church, 913 

'  presbyter  '  and  '  pastor  '  designate 

same    order,— 914,  915 

the   duties   of, 916,  917 

ordination  of 918-921 

Blessedness,  what? 265 

contrasted    with   glory, 265 

Bodies,  new,  of  saints,  are  confined  to 

space,    1032 

Body,  image  of  God,  mediately  or  siy- 

niftcative,   523 

honorable,    488 

suggestions  as  to  reason  why  given,  488 
immortality  of,  sought  by  Egyptians,  995 
not    indispensable    to    activity    and 

consciousness,    1000 

spiritual,  what  it  imports,_1016,  1021-1023 
resurrection  of,  see  Resurrection. 

same,  though  changed  annually, 1020 

a   '  flowing   organism,' 1021 

to  regard  it  as  a  normal  part  of 
man's  being,  Scriptural  and  philo- 
sophical,     1021,  1022 

'Bond-servant    of    sin,'    what? 509,510 

Book  may  be  called  by  name  of  chief 

author,    239 

Book  of  Mormon, 141 

of   Enoch,— 165 

of  Judges,- 166,  171 

of  the  Law,  its  finding, 107 

Books  of  O.  T.  quoted  by  Jesus, 199 

of  N.  T.  received  and  used,   in  2d 

century,    146 

Brahma,    181 

Brahmanism,   1S1 

Bread,   in   Lord's   Supper,   its  signifi- 
cance,     963 

of  life, 963 

Brethren,   Plymouth, 895,  89G 

Bride-catching,   not   primeval 528 

'  Brimstone    and    fire,'    sin    and    con- 
science,   1049 

Brute,    conscious    but    not    self-con- 
scious,     252,  467 

cannot  objectify  self, 252,  467 

is   determined  from   without, 252,  468 

none    ever    thought   '  I,  ' 467 

has   not   apperception, 487 

has   no  concepts, 467 

has    no   language, 467 

forms  no   judgments, 467 


Brute,    does    not    associate    ideas    by 

similarity,    467 

cannot  reason, 467 

has  no  general  ideas, 468 

has   no  conscience, 46S 

has  no  religious  nature 46S 

man  came  not  from  the,  but  through 

the,    467 

Buddha 181,    182,  183 

Buddhism,    its    grain    of    truth, 181 

a    missionary    religion, 181 

its    universalism, 181 

its   altruism, 181 

its  atheism, 182 

its    fatalism, 1S2 

'  Buncombe,'    17 

Burial  of  food  and  weapons  with  the 
dead  body,  why  practiced  by  some 

races,     532 

Burnt  offering,  its  significance, 726 

Byzantine   and   Italian  artists   differ 
in  their  pictures  of  Jesus  Christ,  67S 

Caesar,  writes  in  the  third  person, 151 

unifier  of   the   Latin   West, 566 

his  words  on  passing  the  Rubicon,— 1032 

'C aged-eagle  theory'  of  man's  life, 560 

Caiaphas,    inspired    yet    unholy 207 

Cain,  477 

Calixtus,  his  analytic  method  in  sys- 
tematic  theology, 45,    46 

Call  to  ministry, 919 

Calling,  efficacious, 777,  782,  790,  791, 

793,  794 

general   or   external, 791 

is  general,   sincere? 791,  792 

Calvinism,  in  history, 3GS 

Calvinistic  and  Arminian  views,  their 

approximation,    362,  368 

Cambridge  Platform, 923 

'Carnal  mind,'  its  meaning, 562 

Carthage,  Council  of  (397),  and  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews, 152 

Synod  of   (412),  and  Pelagius, 597 

Caste,   what? 181 

and  Buddhism, 181 

and    Christianity, 898 

Casualism,  427,  428 

Casuistry,  non-scriptural, 648 

Catacombs,    191 

Catechism,  Roman,  on  originalis  jus- 

titiw  donum  additum, 522 

Westminster  Assembly's,   on   Infant 

Baptism,   957 

Causality,  its  law 73 

does  not  require  a  first  cause 74 

Cause  and  effect,  simultaneity  of, 793 

Cause,    equivalent    to    '  requisite,' 44 

formal,    44 

material,    44 

efficient . 44 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


10G5 


Cause,    final, 44 

can  an  infinite,  be  inferred  from  a 
finite  universe? 79 

when  the  efficient,  gives  place  to 
the    final  ? 12.", 

various   definitions  of, S14,  815 

Causes,  Aristotle's  four, 44 

an  infinite  series  of,  does  not  re- 
quire a  cause  of   itself 74 

Celsus,  derides  the  same  religion  for 

many    peoples, 192 

Certainty  not  necessity, 362 

Chalcedon    (451)    Symbol,  on  Mary  as 

'  mother    of    God,' 671,  6S6 

condemned     Eutychianism, 672 

promulgated  orthodox  doctrine  as  to 

the  Person  of   Christ, —  673 

its  formula  negative  with  a  single 

exception, 673 

Chance  as  a  name  for  ignorance,  term 

allowable,   423 

as  implying  absence  of  causal  con- 
nection in  phenomena,  not  allow- 
able,     428 

as   undesigning  cause,   insufficient,-.  428 
Change,    orderly,    requires   intelligent 

cause,     75 

Character,  helped  by  systematic  truth,    16 
changed    rather    than    expressed   by 

some  actions, 360 

what   it  is, 506,  600 

how  a  man  may  change, 507 

extent  of  one's  responsibility  for,--  605 

sinning    makes 104 1 

sinful,   renders   certain   continuance 

in  sinful  actions, 1041 

dependent  on  habit, 1049 

Chastisement,  not  punishment, 654,  766 

Cherubim,    149,  593 

Child,   unborn,   has   promise   and    po- 
tency of  spiritual  manhood 644 

individuality  of  the 492 

visited  for  sins  of   fathers, 634 

Chiliasts  in  all  ages . 1007 

Chinese,   their   religion   a   survival  of 

patriarchial  family  worship, 180 

their  history,  its  commencement, 225 

may  have  left  primitive  abodes  while 

language  still   monosyllabic, 47S 

Choice,  of  an   ultimate   end, 504 

of    means, 504 

decision  in  favor  of  one  among  sev- 
eral conflicting  desires 505,  506 

not  creation,  our  destiny 508 

New  School  idea  of, 550 

first    moral 611 

evil,  uniformity  of,  what  it  implies,  611 

contrary,  possessed  by  Adam, 519 

not  essential  to  will, 600 

as  at  present  possessed  by  man, 605 

God's,  see   Election. 
Christ,  his  person  and  character  musi 
be   historical, 186 


Christ,  no  source  for  conception  of, 
other    thau    himself 187 

conception  of,  could  not  originate  in 
human  genius, 1S7 

acceptance  of  the  story  of,  a  proof 
of  his  existence, 1S7 

some  of  the  difficulties  in  which  the 
assumption  that  the  story  of,  is 
false,   lands  us, 1SS 

if  the  story  of,  is  true,  Christianity 
is   true, 1SS 

his  testimony  to  himself,  its  sub- 
stance,     183 

his  testimony  to  himself,  not  that  of 
an  intentional  deceiver, 1S9 

his  testimony  to  himself,  not  that 
of  insanity  or  vanity, 189 

if  neither  mentally  nor  morally  un- 
sound, his  testimony  concerning 
himself  is  true, 190 

in  his  sympathy  and  sorrow  reveals 
God's  feeling 266 

the  whole  Christ  present  in  each  be- 
liever,     281 

his  supreme  regard  for  God, 302 

recognized  as  God  in  certain  pas- 
sages,   305-308 

some  passages  once  relied  on  to 
prove  his  divinity  now  given  up 
for    textual    reasons, 308 

Old  Testament  descriptions  of  God 
applied  to  him, 309 

possesses  attributes  of  God, 309 

undelegated  works  of  God  are  as- 
cribed to   him, 310 

receives  honor  and  worship  due  only 
to  God, 311 

his  name  associated  on  equality  with 
that   of  God 312 

equality  with  God  expressly  claimed 
lor   him 312 

•  si   nun   DeU8,    lion    bmiii-s.' 313 

proofs  of  bis  divinity  in  certain 
phrases  applied  to  him, 313 

his  divinity  corroborated  by  Chris- 
tian experience, 313,  682 

his  divinity  exhibited  in  hymns  and 
prayers  of  church, 313 

his  divinity,  passages  which  seem 
inconsistent  with,  how  to  be  re- 
garded,    311 

as  pre-incarnate  Logos,  Angel  of  Je- 
hovah,   319 

in  pre-existent  state,  the  Logos, 333 

in  pre-existent  state,  the  Image  of 
God,   335 

in  pre-existent  state,  the  Effulgence 
of  God, 335 

the  centrifugal  action  of  Deity, 336 

and  Spirit,  how  their  work  differs,.-  338 

his  eternal  Sonship, 340 

if  not  God,  cannot  reveal  him, 349 


1066 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS. 


Christ,  orders  of  creation  to  be  united 
in,    444 

his  human  soul, 493 

his  character  convinces  of  sin, 539 

he  is  the  ideal  and  the  way  to  it,—  544 
not  law,  '  the  perfect  Image  '  of  God,  548 
his  holiness,  in  what  it  consisted,—  572 

in  Gethsemane  felt  for  the  race, 635 

with  him  believers  have  a  connec- 
tion of  spiritual  life, 636 

human   nature    in,   may   have  guilt 

without  depravity, 645 

educator  of  the  race, 666 

the  Person  of, 669-700 

the  doctrine  of  his  Person  stated,,—  669 
a  brief  historical  survey  of  the  doc- 
trine of  his  Person, 669 

views  of  the  Ebionites  concerning,—  669 
reality  of  his  body  denied  by  Doce- 

tse,     070 

views  of  Arians  concerning, 670 

views   of  Apollinarians  670,  671 

views  of  Nestorians, 671,  672 

views  of  Eutychians, 672 

the  two  natures  of,  their  integrity,—  673 

his  humanity  real, 673 

is   expressly   called  '  a   man,' 673 

his  genealogies, 673 

had  the  essential  elements  of  hu- 
man   nature, 674 

had  the  same  powers  and  principles 

of  normal  humanity, 674 

his   elocution, 674 

subject  to  the  laws  of  human  devel- 
opment,     675 

in  twelfth  year  seems  to  enter  on 
consciousness  of  his  divine  Son- 
ship,  675 

suffered  and  died, 675 

dies  (Stroud)  of  a  broken  heart,—  675 
lived  a  life  of  faith  and  prayer,  and 

study   of   Scripture, 673 

the  integrity  of  his  humanity, —.675-681 

supernaturally    conceived, 675 

free  from  hereditary  depravity  and 

actual   sin, 676 

his    ideal    human    nature, 673 

his  human  nature  finds  its  personal- 
ity in  union  with  the  divine, 679 

his  human  nature  germinal, 680 

the    '  Everlasting    Father,' 6S0 

the    Vine-man, 6S0 

Docetic  doctrine  concerning,  confut- 
ed,    681 

possessed  a  knowledge  of  his  own 

deity,   681 

exercised  divine  prerogatives. 682 

in  him  divine  knowledge  and  power,  682 
union  of  two  natures  in  his  oue  per- 
son,   683-700 

possesses  a  perfect  divine  and  hu- 
man   nature, 683,  684 

proof  of  this  union  of  natures  in,—  684 


Christ  speaks  of  himself  as  a   single 
person,    684 

attributes  of  both  his  natures  as- 
cribed to  one  person, 684,  68c 

Scriptural  representation  of  infinite 
value  of  atonement  and  union  of 
race  with  God  prove  him  divine,—  68" 
Lutheran  view  as  to  communion  of 

natures  in, 686 

four  genera  regarding   the   natures 

of   Christ, 686 

union  of  natures  in, 686 

theory  of  his  incomplete  humanity,  686 

objections  to  this  theory, 687,  68? 

theory   of  his   gradual    incarnation, 

688,  689 

objections  to  this  view, 689-691 

real  nature  of  union  of  persons  in, 

1 691-700 

importance  of  correct  views  of  the 

person    of, 691,  692 

chief  problems  in  the  doctrine  of  the 

person  of, 692 

why  the  union  of  the  natures  in  the 

person   of  Christ   is   inscrutable,..  693 
on  what  the  possibility  of  the  union 
of  deity  and  humanity  in  his  per- 
son is  grounded 693,  694 

no  double  personality  in, 694-696 

union  of  natures  in,  its  effect  upon 

his  humanity, 696,  697 

union  of  natures  in,  its  effect  upon 

the   divine, 697 

this  union  of  natures  in  the  person 

of,  necessary, 69? 

the  union  of  natures  in,  eternal,  698,  699 

the  infinite  and  finite  in, 699,  700 

the  two   states  of, 701-710 

the  nature  of  his  humiliation, 701-706 

not  the  union  in  him  of  Logos  and 

human    nature, 701 

his  humiliation  did  not  consist  in 
the  surrender  of  the  relative  di- 
vine attributes, 701 

objections  to  above  view 701-703 

his  humiliation  consisted  in  the  sur- 
render of  the  independent  exercise 

of  the  Divine  attributes, 703 

his  humiliation  consisted  in  the  as- 
sumption by  the  pre-existent  Lo- 
gos of  the  servant-form, 703 

his  humiliation  consisted  in  the  sub- 
mission of  the  Logos  to  the  Holy 

Spirit,    703 

his  humiliation  consisted  in  the  sur- 
render as  to  his  human  nature  of 
all    advantages    accruing    thereto 

from    union   with   deity, 703,  704 

the    five   stages   of   his   humiliation, 

704-706 

his  state  of  exaltation, — 706-710 

the  nature  of  his  exaltation, 706,  707 

the  stages  of  his  exaltation,,. 707-710 


IN  LEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1067 


Christ,    his   quickening   and    resurrec- 
tion,   707,  70S 

his  ascension 708-710 

his  offices, 710-776 

his  offices  three, 710 

his    Prophetic    work, 710-713 

prophet,   its  meaning  as   applied   to 

him,    710 

three     methods     of     fulfilling     the 

prophet's  office, 711 

his  preparatory  work  as  Logos, 711 

his   ministry   as   incarnate, 711,  712 

his  ascended  guidance  and  teaching 

of  the  church  on  earth 712 

his    final    revelation    of    the    Father 

to  tlie  saints  in  glory, 712,  71.1 

his    Priestly   office, 713-775 

in  what  respects  he  was  a  priest,—  713 
his  atoning  work,  sec  Atonement. 
as  immanent  in  the  universe,  see  Lo- 
gos. 
hearer  of  our  humanity,  life  of  our 

race,   715 

his    sufferings    not    atonement    hut 

revelation  of  atonement, 715 

his  death  a  moral  stimulus  to  men,  716 
did   he   ever   utter   the    words    'give 

his   life   a    ransom   for  many'? 717 

did  not  preach,  but  estahlished  the 

gospel,  721 

a  noble  martyr 729 

his  death  the  central  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity,  733,  764 

his  death  set  forth  by  Baptism  and 

Lord's  Supper, 733 

the  Greai   Penitent, 734,  737,  760 

the  Savior  of  all   men 739 

refused    '  the    wine     mingled     with 

myrrh,"   712 

never  makes   confession  of  sin, TIG 

a  stumbling-block  to  modern  specu- 
lation,    „ 746 

had    not    hereditary    depravity    but 

guilt, - 747.    762 

was  he  slain  by  himself  or  an- 
other?    747 

does  he  suffer  intensively  the  infi- 
nite punishment  of  sin? 717 

his    obedience,    active    and    passive, 

needed  in  salvation, 749.  770 

died  for  all, 750 

incorporate  with  humanity,  became 

our    substitute, 750 

how    '  lifted    up,' 751 

mediator  between  the  just  Goc'  and 

the  merciful  God, 754 

in  his  organic  union  with  the  race 
is  the  vital  relation  which  makes 
his  vicarious  sufferings  either  pos- 
sible or  just. 754 

as  God  immanent  in  humanity,  is 
priest  and  victim,  condemning  and 


condemned,  atoning*  and  atoned...  755 
Christ  created   humanity,   and   as  im- 
manent   God    sustains    it,    while 
it  sins,   thus  becoming  responsible 
for   its   sin 755,  769 

as  Logos  smitten  by  guilt  and  pun- 
ishment,   753 

the  '  must  be '  of  his  sufferings, 
what?   755 

his  race-responsibility  not  destroyed 
by  incarnation,  or  purification  in 
womb  of   Virgin, 756 

his  sufferings  reveal  the  cross  hid- 
den in  the  divine  love  from  foun- 
dation of  the  world, 756,  763 

in  womb  of  Virgin  purged  from  de- 
pravity, guilt  and  penalty  remain- 
ing,   _757j  753 

the  central  brain  of  our  race 
through  which  all  ideas  must 
pass,  757 

his  guilt,  what? 757 

innocent  in  personal,  but  not  race 
relations,  75$ 

his  secular  and  church  priesthood,..  75S 

did  he  suffer  only  for  his  own  share 
in  sin  of  the  race? 758 

his  incarnation  an  expression  of  a 
prior  union  with  race  beginning  at 
creation,    75^ 

various  explanations  of  his  identifi- 
cation with  race, 753 

he  longed  to  suffer, 759 

he  could  not  help  suffering, 760 

all  nerves  and  sensibilities  of  race 
meet  in  him, 760 

his  place  in  2  Cor.  5:21, 760,  761 

when  and  how  did  he  take  guilt  and 
penalty  on  himself, 761 

import  of  his  submission  to  John's 
baptism,    762 

was  he  unjustified  till  his  death?...  702 

his  guilt  first  purged  on  Cross 702 

as  incarnate,  revealed,  rather  than 
made,    atonement, 762 

the  personally  unmerited  sufferings 
of,  the  mystery  of  atonement, 763 

may  have  felt  remorse  as  central 
conscience  of  humanity, 769 

his  sufferings,  though  temporal,  met 
infinite  demands  of  law, 769 

paid  a  penalty  equivalent,  though 
not  identical, 769,  770 

how  Savior  of  all  men, 772 

specially  Savior  of  those  who  be- 
lieve,     773 

his  priesthood,  everlasting, 773 

as  Priest  he  is  intercessor,  see  In- 
tercession. 

his  Kingly  office, 775 

his  kingship  defined, 775 

his  kingdom  of  power,— 775 


1068 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS. 


Christ,  his  kingdom  of  grace 775,  776 

the    only    instance   of    Fortwirkung 

after  death, 776 

his  kingdom  of  glory, 77G 

his  kingdom,  the  antidote  to  de- 
spair concerning  church, 776 

his  kingship,  two  practical  remarks 

upon,    776 

union  with,  see  Union. 

ascended,      communicates      life      to 

church,  806 

heathen  may  receive  salvation  from 
Christ  without  knowing  giver  or 

how  gift  was  purchased, 843 

his  sufferings  secure  acquittal  from 

penalty  of  law, 858 

his  obedience  secures  reward  of  law,  858 
union  with,  secures  his  life  as  domi- 
nant principle  in  soul 860 

his    life    in    believer   will    infallibly 

extirpate  all  depravity, SCO 

'  we    in,'    Justification, 862 

'  in    us,'    Sanctiflcation, 862 

his  twofold  work  in  the  world 869 

a  new  object  of  attention  to  the  be- 
liever,     8i3 

union  with,   secures  impartation  of 

spirit  of  obedience, 875 

his  commands  must  not  be  modified 

by  any  church, 930 

submitted    to    rites    appointed    for 

sinners,    v*° 

God's     judicial     activity     exercised 

through,  1°2' 

qualified  by  his  two  natures  to  act 

as  judge 102< 

his  body  confined  to  space, 1032 

his  soul  not  limited  to  space, 1032 

Christianity,  its  triumph  over  pagan- 
ism,  the  wonder  of  history, 191-193 

its  influence  on  civilization, 103,  104 

ils  influence  on  individuals, 194,  195 

.submits  to  judgment  by  only  test  of 
a  religion,  not  ideals,  but  perform- 
ances,     19-' 

and  pantheism 282 

circumstances  favorable  to  its  prop- 

'    agation,    666 

Japanese   objection    to   its   doctrine 

of  brotherhood 80S 

Christological  method  in  theology —    50 

Christology,    665-776 

Chronology,    schemes   of, 224,  225 

Church,  its  safety  and  aggressiveness 

dependent  on  sound  doctrine, IS 

its  relation  to  truth, 33 

polity  and  ordinances  of,  their  pur- 
pose,    546 

a  prophetic  institution, 712 

doctrine  of  the, S87-980 

constitution  of  the,  or  its  Polity, 

887-929 


Church,   in   its  largest  signification,..  8S7 

and  kingdom,  difference  between, 

SS7,  889 

definition  of,  in  Westminster  Con- 
fession,   887 

the  universal,  includes  all  believers,  8S8 

universal,  the  body  of  Christ, 8S8 

a  transcendent  element  in, 8S8 

union  with  Christ,  the  presupposi- 
tion of, 8S8 

the  indwelling  Christ,  its  elevating 

privilege,  88S 

the  universal  or  invisible  distin- 
guished from  the  local  or  visible,  8S9 

individual,    defined, 890 

the  laws  of  Christ  on  which  church 

gathered,  890 

not  a  humanitarian  organization, ...  890 
the  term  employed  in  a  loose  sense,  891 
significance   of  the   term   etymologi- 

cally,    891 

the  secular  use  of  its  Greek  form,—  891 
used  as  a  generic  or  collective  term,  891 
the  Greek  term  translated,  its  deri- 
vation,     S91 

applied   by   a   figure   of   rhetoric   to 

many    churches, 891 

the  local,  a  divine  appointment, S92 

the  Hebrew  terms  for,  its  larger  and 

narrower    use, S92 

Christ  took  his  idea  of,  from  He- 
brew not  heathen  sources, 892 

exists  for  sake  of  the  kingdom, S92 

will    be    displaced    by    a    Christian 

state,    893 

the  decline  of,  not  to  be  deplored,—  893 

a  voluntary  society, 893 

membership    in,    not    hereditary    or 

compulsory,  893 

union  with,  logically  follows  union 

with    Christ, 893 

its  doctrine,  a  necessary  outgrowth 
of  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,—  803 

highest  organism  of  human  life, 894 

is  an  organism  such  as  the  religion 

of   spirit  necessarily   creates, 891 

its  organization  may  be  informal,—  894 

its  organization  may  be  formal 894 

its  organization  in  N.  T.  formal, 894 

its  developed  organization  indicated 
by  change  of  names  from  Gospels 

to    Epistles, 805 

not  an  exclusively  spiritual  organ- 
ization,   895 

doctrine  of  I*ly mouth  Brethren  con- 
cerning,     895,  896 

organization  of  the,  not  definitely 
prescribed  in  N.  T.  and  left  to  ex- 
pediency ;  an  erroneous  theory, 896 

government  of,  five  alleged  forms  in 

N.     T., 897 

regenerate  persons  only  members  of,  897 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1069 


Church,    Christ    law-giver   of, 897 

members  on  equality 898 

one  member  of,  has  no  jurisdiction 

over   another, 898 

independent  of  civil  power, 899 

local,   its  sole  object, 899 

local,  united  worship  a  duty  of, '899 

its  law,  the  will  of  Christ, 900 

membership    in,    qualifications    pre- 
scribed   for 900 

membership   in,   duties  attached  to,  900 

its  genesis, 900 

in  germ  before  Pentecost, 900 

three  periods  in  life  of 901 

officers  elected  as  occasion  demand- 
ed,    901 

Taul's  teaching  concerning,  progres- 
sive,     902 

how  far  synagogue  was  model  of,—  902 

a  new,  how  constituted 902 

in  formation  of,  a  council  not  abso- 
lutely   requisite 902,  903 

at  Antioch,  its  independent  career,.  903 

its    government, 903-926 

its  government,  as  to  source  of  au- 
thority, an  absolute  monarchy 903 

its  government,  as  to  interpretation 
and  execution  of  Christ's  law,  an 

absolute    democracy, —  903 

should  be  united  in  action 901 

union   of,   in  action   should   be,    not 
passive  submission,  but  intelligent 

co-operation.  904 

peaceful  unity  in,  result  of  Spirit's 

work,  901 

Baptist,  law  of  majority-rule  in —  901 
as  a  whole  responsible  for  doctrinal 

and  practical   purity, 905 

ordinances  committed  to  custody  of 

whole,    905 

as   a   whole,    elects    its   officers  and 

delegates,    906 

as  a  whole,  exercises  discipline 907 

the    self-government    of,    an    educa- 
tional  influence, 90S 

pastor's  duty  to, 90S 

the  world-church   or   Romanist  the- 
ory   of,    considered, 908-911 

Peter  as  foundation  of,  what  meant 

by  the  statement, 909-911 

Nee  also  Titer. 
the  hierarchical  government  of,  cor- 
rupting and  dishonoring  to  Christ,  911 
the  theory  of  a  national,  considered, 

912-914 

Presbyterian  system  of  the,  authors 


upon, 


912 


independence  of,  when  given  up, 912 

a    spiritual,    incapable    of    delimita- 
tion,   913 

officers  of  the, 914-924 

offices  in,  two 914-916 


Church,  a  plurality  of  eldership  in  the 

primitive,    occasional, 915,  916 

the  pastor,  bishop  or  elder  of   the, 

his  three  fold  duty, 916,  917 

the  deacon,   his  duties, 917,  91S 

did  women  in  the  early  church  dis- 
charge  diaconal   functions? 918 

ordination  of  officers  in, 918-924 

See  Ordination, 
local,  highest  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ty in  N.  T., 920 

discipline    of, 924-926 

See    Discipline, 
relation  of,  to  sister  churches,— 926-929 

each,  the  equal  of  any  other, 926 

each,  directly  responsible  to  Christ, 
and     with     spiritual     possibilities 

equal  to  any  other. 926 

each,  to  maintain  fraternity  and  co- 
operation with  other  churches, 926 

each,    should    seek    and    take   advice 

from  other  churches, 927 

the  fellowship  of  a,  with  another 
church  may  be  broken  by  depart- 
ures   from    Scriptural    faith    and 

practice,    928 

independence  of,  qualified  by  inter- 
dependence,    928 

what  it  ought  to  do  if  distressed  by 

serious  internal  disagreements, 928 

its  independence  requires  largest  co- 
operation with  other  churches, 929 

list  of  authorities  on  general  sub- 
ject  of  the, 929 

ordinances   of   the 930-980 

See     Ordinances,      Baptism,     and 
Lord's   Supper. 

CircuUttio,    333 

Circumcision,  of  Christ,  its  import,..  761 
its  law  and  that  of  baptism  not  the 

same,    954,  955 

Circumlncessio, 333 

Civilization,  can  its  arts  be  lost? 529 

Coffin,  called  by  Egyptians  'chest  of 

the  living,' 995 

Oogito  ergo  Deus  est, 61 

Cofjito  enjo  swm  =  cogito  scilicet  sum,    55 

Cogito  =  cogitans  sum, 55 

Cognition  of  finiteness,  dependence, 
etc.,  the  occasion  of  the  direct 
cognition  of  the  Infinite,  Absolute, 

etc.,  52 

Coming,  second,  of  Christ, 1003-1015 

the  doctrine  of,  stated, 1003 

Scriptures  describing, 1003,  1004 

statements  concerning,  not  all  spir- 
itual,     1004 

outward    and   visible 1004 

the  objects  to  be  secured  at 1004 

said   to  be  '  in   like  manner  '  to  his 

ascension,    1004,  1005 

analogous  to  his  first, 1005 


1070 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Coming,   second,  can  all  men  at  one 

time  see  Christ  at  the? 1005 

the  time  of,  not  definitely  taught,  1005 
predictions  of,  parallel  those  of  his 

first,   1007 

patient  waiting  for,  disciplinary, 1007 

precursors    of, 1008-1010 

a  general  prevalence  of  Christiani- 
ty, a  precursor  of, 100S 

a  deep  and  wide  spread  develop- 
ment of  evil,  a  precursor  of, 100S 

a    personal    antichrist,    a    precursor 

of,    1008 

four  signs  of,  according  to  some, 1010 

millennium,   prior  to, 1010,  1011 

and   millennium    as    pointed   out   in 

Rev.    20  :  4-10 1011 

immediately  connected  with  a  gen- 
eral resurrection  and  judgment,--.1011 

of  two  kinds, 1014 

a  reconciliation  of  pre-millenarian 
and  post-millenarian  theories  sug- 
gested,     1014 

is  the  preaching  which  is  to  pre- 
cede, to   nations  as  wholes,  or  to 

each  individual  in  a  nation? 1014 

the  destiny  of  those  living  at, 1015 

Comings  of  Christ,  partial  and  typi- 
cal,     UD03 

Commenting,   its  progress, 35 

Commission,    Christ's   final,   not  con- 
fined to  eleven, 906 

Commercial  theory  of  Atonement, 747 

Common    law    of    church,    what? 970 

Communion,   prerequisites   to, 9G9-9S0 

limitation  of,  commanded  by  Christ 

and    apostles, 969 

limitation  of,  implied  in  its  analo- 
gy to  Baptism, 969 

prerequisites  to,  laid  down  not  by 
church,  but  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  expressly  or  implicitly,—  970 

prerequisites  to,  are  four, 970 

Regeneration,  a  prerequisite  to, 971 

Baptism,  a  prerequisite  to, 971 

the  apostles  were  baptized  before,—  971 
the  command  of   Christ  places  bap- 
tism before, 971 

in  all  cases  recorded  in  N.  T.  bap- 
tism   precedes, 971 

the  symbolism  of  the  ordinances  re- 
quires baptism  to  precede,. 971,  972 

standards  of  principal  denomina- 
tions place  baptism  before, 972 

where  baptism  customarily  does  not 
precede,  the  results  are  unsatis- 
factory,     972 

church-membership,     a     prerequisite 

to,    973 

a   church   rite 973 

a  symbol  of  Christian  fellowship,—  973 


Communion,   an  orderly  walk,  a  pre- 
requisite to, 973 

immoral  conduct,  a  bar  to, 973,  974 

disobedience    to    the    commands    of 

Christ,  a  bar  to, 974 

heresy,  a  bar  to 974 

schism,  a  bar  to, 975 

restricted,    the    present    attitude   of 

Baptist  churches  to, 976 

local  church  under  responsibility  to 
see  its,  preserved  from  disorder,— 

975,  976 

open,     advocated    because    baptism 
cannot  be  a  term  of   communion, 

not  being  a  term  of  salvation, 977 

open,    contrary    to    the    practice    of 

organized    Christianity, 977 

no  more  binding  than  baptism, 978 

open,   tends   to   do   away   with   bap- 
tism,     978 

open,   destroys   discipline, 978 

open,    tends   to   do    away   with    the 

visible  church, 979 

strict,  objections  to,  answered  brief- 
ly,    979,  9S0 

open,    its    justification    briefly    con- 
sidered,     980 

a  list  of  authors  upon, 980 

Compact  with  Satan, 458 

Complex    act,     part     may     designate 

whole,   943 

Concept,  not  a  mental  image, 7 

in    theology,    may    be    distinguished 

by  definition  from  all  others, 15 

Concupiscence,    what? 522 

Romish  doctrine  of, 604 

Concurrence  in  all  operations  at  basis 

of    preservation, 411 

divine    efficiency    in,    does    not    de- 
stroy or  absorb  the  efficiency   as- 

'     sisted,   418 

God's,  in  evil  acts  only  as  they  are 

natural   acts, 418,  419 

Confession,  Romanist  view  of, 834 

Conflagration,    final, 1012 

Confucianism,    180,  181 

Confucius,    180,  181 

Connate    ideas, 53,    54 

Conscience,    what? 82,    83 

proves  existence  of  a  holy  Lawgiver 

and  Judge, 82 

its  supremacy, 82 

warns  of  existence  of  law, 82 

speaks  in  imperative, S2 

represents   to   itself   some   other   as 

judge,    82 

the    will    it    expresses    superior    to 

ours,    S3 

witness  against  pantheism, 103 

thirst  of,  assuaged  by  Christ's  sac- 
rifice,    297 

its   nature, 498 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1071 


Conscience,  not  a  faculty,  but  a  mode,  49S 

intellectual    element    in, 49S 

emotional  element  in, 498 

solely    judicial, 498 

discriminative,    498 

impulsive,  498 

other  menial    processes   from   which 

it  is  to  be  distinguished, 499 

the  moral  judiciary  of  the  soul, 500 

must  be  enlightened  and  cultivated,  500 

an  echo  of  God's  voice, 501 

in  its  relation  to  God  as  holy, 502 

the    organ    by    which    the    human 
spirit  finds  God  in  itself,  and  itself 

in   God, _ 503 

rendered  less   sensitive,   but  cannot 

be  annulled,  by   sin, 617 

needs  Christ's  propitiation 736 

absolute  liberty  of,  a  distinguishing 

tenet  of   Baptists 898,  899 

Consciousness,   Christian,   not   norma 

nor  mans,  but  norma  normata, 28 

defined,  63 

not  source  of  other  knowledge, 63 

self,    primarily    a   distinguishing   of 

itself   from   itself, 104 

comes  logically  before  consciousness 

of  the  world 104 

self-consciousness,    what? 252 

Consubstantiation,    968 

Contrary   choice,    in    Adam 519 

not  essential  to  will 600,  605 

its  present  limits, 60> 

Contrition,  Romish  doctrine  of 834 

Conversion,  God's  at   in  the  will  in,..  793 

sudden,     827 

defined,  — - 829 

relation  to  regeneration, 829 

voluntary,    829 

man's  relation  to  God  in, 830 

conversions  other  than  the  first. 831 

relations  of  the  divine  and   human 

in,    831 

Cosmological   argument,   see  God. 

Covetousness,    what? 569 

Cranial   capacity  of  man  and  apes,—  473 

Creatianism,   its  advocates, 491 

its  tenets, 491 

its  untenability,_ 491-493 

Creation,  attributed  to  Christ, 310 

attributed  to  Spirit, 316 

doctrine   of 371-410 

definition   of, 371,  373 

by  man  of  ideas  and  volitions  and 
indirectly    of    brain-modifications,  371 

is  change  of  energy  into  force, 371 

Lotzean,    author's   view   of, 372 

is  not  '  production  out  of  nothing,'  372 

is  not   '  fashioning,' ...372,  373 

not  an  emanation  from  divine  sub- 
stance  _  372 


Creation,   the  divine   in,  the  origina- 
tion  of   substance, __  373 

free    act    of    a    rational    will,    373 

externalization   of  God's   thought,..  373 
creation  and  '  generation  '  and  '  pro- 
cession,'     373 

is     God's    voluntary    limitation    of 

himself,    373 

how  an  act  of  the  triune  God, 373 

not  necessary  to  a   trinitarian  God,  373 
the   doctrine   of,   proved   only   from 

Scripture,   374 

direct  Scripture  statements  concern- 
ing,  discussed, 374-377 

idea  of,  originates,  when  we  think 
of    things    as    originating   in    God 

immediately,   375 

Paul's  idea  of, 376 

absolute,    heathen    had   glimpses  of,  376 

best  expressed  in  Hebrew, 376 

found  among  early  Babylonians, 376 

found     in     pre-Zoroastrian,     Vedic, 

and   early    Egyptian   religions, 376 

in   heathen   systems, 377 

literature    on, 377 

'  out  of  nothing,  '   its  origin, 377 

indirect    evidence    of,    from    Script- 
ure,     -377,  378 

theories   which   oppose, 378-391 

Dualism  opposes,  see  Dualism. - 
emanation  opposes,  see  Emanation. 
Creation  from  eternity,  theory  stated.  386 
not    necessitated   by    God's   omnipo- 
tence,  — 387 

contradictory  in  terms  and  irration- 
al,     387 

another  form  of  the  see-saw  philos- 
ophy,     387 

not  necessitated   by   God's  timeless- 

ness,  387 

inconceivable,    387 

not  consistent   with  the   conception 

of  universe  as  an  organism, 388 

not   necessitated   by   God's   immuta- 
bility,     388 

not  necessitated  by  God's  love,.. 388,  389 
inconsistent    with    God's    independ- 
ence and  personality, 389 

outgrowth  of  Unitarian   tendencies,  383 
Creation,  opposed  by  theory  of  spon- 
taneous   generation,    see    Genera- 
tion, Spontaneous. 

Mosaic    account    of,— 391-397 

asserts  originating  act  of  God  in,..  391 
makes  God  antedate  and  create  mat- 
ter,     391 

recognizes   development, 392 

lays  the  foundation  for  cosmogony,  392 
can  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with 

mediate  creation  or  evolution, 392 

not  an  allegory  or  myth, _.  394 


1072 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Creation,   Mosaic  account  of,  not  the 
blending  of  inconsistent  stories, .-  394 

not  to  be  interpreted  in  a  hyperlit- 
eral  way, 394 

does  not  use  'day'  for  a  period  of 
twenty-four  hours, 394 

is  not  a  precise  geological  record, ..  395 

its  scheme  in  detail, 395-397 

literature  upon, 396,  397 

Creation,  God's  end  in, 397-402 

God's  end  in,  his  own  glory, 398 

God's  chief  end  in,  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  glory, 398 

his  glory  most  valuable  end   in, 399 

his  glory  only  end  in,  consistent 
with  his  independence  and  sover- 
eignty,   399 

his  glory  the  end  in,  which  secures 
every  interest  of  the  universe, 400 

his  glory  the  end  in,  because  it  is 
the  end  proposed  to  his  creatures,  401 

its  final  value,  its  value  for  God,--  402 

the  doctrine  of,  its  relation  to  other 
doctrines,   402-^10 

its  relation  to  the  holiness  and  be- 
nevolence   of    God, 402 

first,  in  what  senses  '  very  good,' 402 

pain  and  imperfection  in,  before 
moral  evil,  reasons  for, 402 

sets  forth  wisdom  and  free-will  of 
God,    404 

Christ  in,  the  Revealer  of  God,  and 
the  remedy  of  pessimism, 405 

presents  God  in  Providence  and  Re- 
demption,     407 

gives  value  to  the  Sabbath, 408 

Creation  of  man,  exclusively  a  fact  of 
Scripture,    465 

Scripture  declares  it  an  act  of  God,  465 

Scripture  silent  on  method  of, 465 

Scripture  does  not  exclude  mediate 
creation  of  body,  if  this  method 
probable  from  other  sources,— 465,  491 

and   theistic  evolution, 466 

his  soul,  its  creation,  though  medi- 
ate, yet  immediate, 466,  491 

not  from  brute,  but  from  God, 
through  brute, 467,  469,  472 

the  last  stage  in  the  development  of 
life,   469 

unintelligible  unless  the  immanent 
God  is  regarded  as  giving  new 
impulses    to    the    process, 470 

as  to  soul  and  body,  in  a  sense  im- 
mediate,   470 

natural  selection,  its  relations  to,.—  470 

by  laws  of  development,  which  are 
methods  of  the  Creator, ...  472 

when  finished  presents,  not  a  brute, 
but  a  man, 472 

constitutes  him  the  offspring  of 
God,   and   God   his   Father,.. 474 


Creation  of  man,  as  taking  place 
through  Christ,  made  its  product 
a   son   of   God   by    relationship   to 

the  Eternal  Son, —  474 

theory  of  its  occurrence  at  several 

centres,    481 

and    his    new    creation    compared,--  894 
in    it   body    made    corruptible,    soul 

incorruptible,   991 

Creation,  continuous,  its  doctrine, 415 

its  advocates, 416 

the  element  of  truth  in,... 416 

its  error, 416 

contradicts  consciousness, 416 

exaggerates  God's  power  at  expense 

of  other  attributes, 417 

renders  personal  identity  inexplica- 
ble,   417 

tends  to  pantheism, 417 

Creatura,  ... 392 

Credo  quia  impossibile  est, 34 

Creeds,   18,    42 

Crime  best  prevented  by  conviction  of 

its  desert  of  punishment, 655 

Crimen  Iwsw  majestatis, 748 

Criminal   theory,.. 74S 

Criticism,   higher, 169-172 

what  it  means, 169 

influenced   by    spirit   in    which    con- 
ducted, - 169,  170 

its    teachings    on    Pentateuch    and 

Hexateuch,  170 

reveals  God's  method  in  making  up 

record  of   his   revelation, 172 

literature   upon,— 172 

Cumulative   arugment, 71 

Cur  Deus  Homo,  synopsis  of, 748 

'Curse'    in    Gal.    3:13, 760 

'  Custom,    immemorial,'    binding, 970 

'  Damn,'  its  present  connotation  ac- 
quired   from    impression   made   on 

popular  mind  by   Scriptures, 1046 

'  Damnation  '  in  1  Cor.  11 :  22,  its  mean- 
ing,    960 

Darwinism,  its  teaching, 470 

its  truth, 470 

is  not  a  complete  explanation  of  the 

history  of  life _  470 

fails  to  account   for  origin  of  sub- 
stance and  of  variations 470 

does  not  take  account  of  sudden  ap- 
pearance in   the  geological   record 

of  important  forms  of  life, 470 

leaves  gap  between  highest  anthro- 
poid and  lowest  specimen  of  man 

unspanned,  471 

fails    to    explain    many    important 

facts  in  heredity, 471 

must   admit   that   natural    selection 
has    not    yet    produced    a    species, 

as  far  as  we  know, 472 

as    its    author    understood    it,    was 
not  opposed  to  the  Christian  faith,  473 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1073 


Day  in  Gen.  1...... 33 

its  meaning,— 223,  224,  394,  395 

Deacons,  their  duties, 917,  918 

ordination    of, 919 

Deaconesses,   918 

Dead,  Christ's  preaching  to 707,  70S 

Dead,  Egyptian  Book  of  the, 995 

extracts  from, 995 

resurrection  in, 1022 

judgment  in,— 1024 

'  Deadly   sins,    the   seven,'   of   Roman- 
ism,      ,571.  .",72 

Death,  spiritual,  a  consequence  of  the 

Fall,  591 

spiritual,   in  what  it  consists 

591,  659,  660,  982 

physical,  its  nature, 656,  982 

physical,   a   part   of   the    penalty   of 

sin  proved  from  Scripture, 656,  657 

and  sin  complement;!! 657 

a  natural  law,  on  occasion  of  man's 
sin,  appelated  to  a  moral  use, —  637 

the  liberator  of  souls, 658 

the  penalty  of  sin,  proved  from  rea- 
son,  - --- 658 

its  universality  how  alone  explained 
consistently    with    idea    of    God's 

justice,    658 

not  a  necessary  law  of  organized  be- 
ing,    658 

higher   being    mij^ht    have   boon    at- 
tained without  its  Intervention,...  658 
to  Christian  not  penalty,  but  chas- 
tisement and  privilege, 659,  983,  984 

eternal,  what? 660 

second, 648,  982,  983,  1013 

not  cessation  of  being, 984 

as  dissolution,  cannot  affect  indivis- 
ible soul 984 

as  a  cessation  of  consciousness  pre- 
paratory    to     other    development, 

considered,  986 

cannot    terminate    the    development 

for  which  man  was  mado, 986 

cannot  so  extinguish  being  that  no 
future  vindication  of  God's  moral 

government  is  possible, 987 

cannot,  by  annihilation,  falsify  the 
testimony  of  man's  nature  to  im- 
mortality,   989 

man's  body  only  made  liable  to, 991 

as  applied  to  soul,  designates  an  un- 
holy and  unhappy  state  of  being...  992 
consciousness    after,     indicated    in 

many    Scriptures,. 993.  994 

a    '  sleep,' 994 

of  two  kinds .1013 

its  passionless  and  statuesque  tran- 
quility   prophetic, 1016 

Decree  to  act  not  the  act, 354,  359 

Decree,  the  divine,  permissive  in  case 
of    evil, — — 354,  365 

68 


Decree,   not  a   cause,— 360 

of  end  and  means  combined,— 353,  363,  364 
does  not  efficiently  work  evil  choices 

in  men, 365 

to  permit  sin,  and  the   fact  of  the 

permission  of  sin  equally  equitable,  365 
to   initiate   a   system    in    which   sin 
has  a  place,  how  consistent  with 

God's  holiness? 367 

Decrees  of  God,  the 353-370 

their    definition,.. 353-355 

many  to  us,  yet  in  nature  one  plan,  353 
relations  between,  not  chronological 

but    logical 353 

without  necessity, 351 

relate  to  things  outside  of  God, 353 

respect  acts,  both   of  God  and  free 

creatures,    354 

not  addressed  to  creatures, 354 

all  human  acts  covered  by, 354 

Done  of  them  read  'you  shall  sin,'_.  354 
sinful  acts  of  men,  how  related  to,  351 

how  divided, 355 

declared  by  Scripture  to  include  all 

things,  355 

declared  by   Scripture  to  deal  with 

special  things  and  events 355 

proved   from    divine    foreknowledge,  356 

respect   foreseen   results, 356 

provd  from  divine  wisdom 358 

proved    from    divine    immutability, 

358,    359 

proved  from  the  divine  benevolence,  359 

a  ground  of  thanksgiving 359 

not    inconsistent    with    man's    free 

agency,   359 

do  not  remove  motive  for  exertion,  363 

and  fate, 363 

encourage    effort, 364 

they  do  not  make  God  the  author  of 

sin,    365 

practical   uses  of  the  doctrine  of,..  368 
the  doctrine  of,  dear  to  matured  un- 
derstanding  and   deep   experience,  368 
how  the  doctrine  should  be  preached,  369 

Deism,    denned, 414 

some  of  its  advocates, 414 

an  exaggeration  of  God's  transcend- 
ence,    <14 

rests  upon  a  false  analogy, 415 

a  system  of  anthropomorphism, 415 

denies  providential  interference, 415 

tends    to    atheism - — -  415 

'  Delivering   to    Satan,'— 437 

Delphic   oracle 136 

Demons,  see  Angels,  evil. 
Depravity,    explained   by   a    personal 
act  in  the  previous  timeless  state 

of  being, 488 

of  nature,  repented  of  by  Christians,  555 

Arminian    theory    of, 601,  602 

New  School  theory  of, —606,  607 


1074 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Depravity,  Federal  theory  of, 612,  613 

Augustinian  theory  of,— 619,  620 

defined,  C37 

total,  its  meaning,.. 637-633 

is  subjective  pollution, 645,  646 

Christ  had  no 645,  756-758 

of  human   will,   requires  special   di- 
vine influence, 784 

of  all  humanity, 813 

Determinutio  est  negatio, 9 

Determinism,  362.   507-510 

Deus  nescit  se  quid  est  quia  non  est 

quid,  244 

Deuteronomy,   ..167-169,  171,  239 

Devil 454,  453 

Di.riKi   l><  i  ubique  est, 70S 

Duibolus  nullus,  nullus  Retlemptor ,...  462 

Diatoms,  and  natural  selection, 471 

Dichotomous  and  Dichotomy,  see  Man. 

Dies   Inr,  the, 645,  1056 

Dignity,  the  plural  of, 3JS 

Disciples  or  Campbellites, 821,  840,  947 

Discrepancies,    alleged,    in    .Scripture, 

107,   108,  173,  174 

Divorce,  permitted  by  Moses, 230 

Docetae,    670 

Doctor    (iwjelieus, 44 

Dot-tor     suhlilin, 45 

Doctrine, — 17,  33,    34 

Documentary    evidence, 141,  li2 

Doddridge's   dream, 453 

Dogmatic    system    implied    in    Script- 
ure,       15 

Dogmatism,  42 

Domine,    quousquef   Calvin's    motto,  1008 

Don/am  supematurale, 522 

Dort,  Synod  of, 614,  777 

Douay  version.  Mat.  26  :  28  in, 965 

Dualism,  two  forms  of, 378 

a  form  of,  holds  two  distinct  and 

co-eternal  principles, 373 

a  history  of  this  form  of, 378-380 

this  form  of,  presses  the  maxim  ex 

nihilo  nihil  fit  too  far 380 

this  form  of,  applies  the  test  of  in- 

conceivibility   too   rigidly, 380 

this  form  of,  unpb.ilosopb.icaI, 381 

this  form  of,  limits  God's  power  and 

blessedness,    381 

this   form   of,    fails    to    account   for 

moral    evil, 381 

another    form    of,    holds    the    exist- 
ence  of    two    antagonistic   spirits, 

381,  382 

this  form  of,  at  variance  with  the 

Scriptural   representation  of  God,  382 
this  form  of,  opposed  to  the  Scrip- 
tural representation  of  the  Prince 

of  Evil,. - 382 

Ducit  quemque  voUiptas 299 

Duties,  our,  not  all  disclosed  in  rev- 
elation,  545 


Ebionism,   ........ „  669 

Ebionites,    669,  670 

Ecclesiastes,   240 

Ecclesiology, 887-980 

Eden,  adapted  to  infantile  and  inno- 
cent   manhood, 583 

Education,  by  impersonal  law,  and  by 

personal    dependence, 434 

Efficacious  call,  its  nature, 792,  793 

'Effulgence,'     335 

Ego,    cognition    of    it    logically    pre- 
cedes that  of  non-ego, 104 

Egyptian  language,  old,  its  linguistic 

value,    497 

idea  of  blessedness  of  future  life  de- 
pendent on  preservation  of  body,—  995 
idea    of    permanent    union    of    soul 

and    body, 1022 

way  of  representing  God, 376,  377 

knowledge  of   future   state, 995 

i:in:i</e,   der,   every   man   is, 353 

Eldership,  plural, 915,  916 

Election,    its    relation    to    God's    de- 
crees,    355 

logically   subsequent    to    redemption  777 
not   to   share    in   atonement   but   to 

special   influence   of    Spirit 779 

doctrine   of, 779-790 

definition,  779 

proof  from  Scripture, 779-7X2 

statement   preliminary   to  proof, 779 

asserted    of    certain    individuals 780 

asserted   in   connection   with   divine 

foreknowledge,    780,  781 

asserted  to  be  a  matter  of  grace,--  781 
connected  with  a  giving  by  Father 

to   Son   of  certain   persons, 781 

connected   with   union    with    Christ,  781 
connected  with  entry  in  the  Lamb's 

Book  of  Life, 781 

conected  with  allotment  as  disciples 

to  certain  believers, 782 

conected  with  a  special  call  of  God,  782 
connected    with    a    birth    by    God's 

will, 782 

connected    with    gift    of    repentance 

and  faith,  782 

connected    with    holiness    and    good 

works   as   a  gift, 782 

Lutheran  view  of, 782,  783 

Arminian    view    of, 783 

a  group  of  views  concerning, 783 

proved    from    reason, 783-785 

is  the  purpose  or  choice  which  pre- 
cedes gift  of  regenerating  grace,—  783 
Is  not  conditioned  on  merit  or  faith 

in  chosen,  784 

needed  by  depravity  of  human  will,  784 
other  considerations  which  make  it 

more  acceptable  to  reason, 785 

objections  to,  785-790 

is  unjust,  -—  785 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1075 


Election,    is   partial, 786 

the  ethical  side  of  natural  selection,  7S6 

is  arbitrary,  7S7 

is  immoral,  7S7,  788 

fosters  pride,  7nS 

discourages  effort,  788,  789 

implies   reprobation, 789,  790 

list  of  authors  on, 790 

Elijah,  his  translation,  995 

John    the    Baptist   as . 1013 

Elizabeth,    Queen,   immersed,— -  937 

Klohim,    — - 318,  319 

Emanation   theory   of   origin   of   uni- 
verse,    378-3S3 

Empirical  theory  of  morals,  truth  in,  501 
reconciled   with    intuitional    theory,  501 
Encratites,  deny  to  woman  '  the  im- 
age of  Cod,' —  524 

Endor,  woman  of, 960 

'Enemies,'   Rom.  5:10, 719 

Energy,  mental,  life, Ir- 
resisted, force, 252 

universe    derived    from, 252 

its  change  into  force  is  creation,..    252 

dissipation  of,  374,  415 

Hnghis  and   Neanderthal  crania, 471 

Enmity   to  God,  569,  817,  818 

Enoch,  translation  of,  65S,  994 

Environment,  420,  1034,  1049 

Eophyte   and   Eozoon, —  395 

Epicureanism,  91,  1S4,  299 

Error,  systems  of,  suggest  organizing 

superhuman  Intelligences,  457 

Errors  in  Scripture,  alleged, 222-2:!''. 

Eschatology,    981-1056 

Esprit  gcle   (matter)    Schelling's  bon 

mot,    386 

Essenes,    781 

Esther,    book    of, —237,  309 

'  Eternal   sin,  an,' ..1034,  104S 

Eternity,     276 

Ethics,  how  conditioned, 3 

Christian  and  Christian  faith  insep- 
arable,   636 

Eucharist,  see  Supper,  the  Lord's. 

Eutaxiology,    75 

Eutychians    (Monophysites)   672 

Eve,  525,  526,  676 

Evidence,    principles   of,   141-144 

Evil,    - -354,  1053 

Evolution,    behind    that   of   our    own 
reason  stands  the  Supreme  Reason,    25 
and   revelation    constitute   nature,—    26 
an,     of     Scripture     as     of    natural 

science,     35 

of  ideas,  not  from  sense  to  non- 
sense,        64 

has  given  man  the  height  from 
which  he  can  discern  stars  of 
moral  truth  previously  hidden  be- 
low  the   horizon 65 

a  process,  not  a  power, 76 


Erolution,  only  a  method  of  God, 76 

spells   purpose,   76 

awake  to  ends  within  the  universe, 
but  not  to  the  great  end  of  the 
universe  itself,  76 

answers  objections  by  showing  the 
development  of  useful  collocations 
from  Initial  imperfections,  78 

has  reinforced  the  evidences  of  in- 
telligence in  the  universe,  79 

transfers  cause  to  an  immanent  ra- 
tional principle,  79 

a  materialized,   logical   process,   84 

of  universe  inexplicable  unless  mat- 
ter is  moved  from  without 92 

extension  and,  being,  having  thought 
and   will,   reveals   itself  in,.- 101 

only  another  name  tor  Christ,  109 

views  nature  as  a  progressive  or- 
der consisting  of  higher  levels  and 
phenomena  unknown  before, 121 

its  principle,  the  Logos  or  Divine 
Reason,    123 

its  continuity  that  of  plan  not  of 
force,   123 

depends  on  increments  of  force  with 
persistency   of   plan 123 

Irreconcilable  with  Deism  and  its 
distant  God,  123 

the  basis  and  background  of  a  Chris- 
tianity which  believes  in  a  dyna- 
mical universe  of  which  a  per- 
sonal and  loving  God  is  the  inner 
source  of  energy,  123 

implies  not  the  uniformity,  but  uni- 
versality  of   law,   125 

has  successive  stages,  with  new  laws 
coming  in,  and  becoming  domi- 
nant,        125 

of   Hegel,   a  fact   but  fatalistic, 176 

of  human  society  not  primarily  in- 
tellectual, but  religious,   194 

is  developing  reverence  with  its 
allied   qualities,   194 

if  not  recognized  in  Scripture  leads 
to  a  denial  of  its  unity,  217 

of  '  Truth  —  evolvable  from  the 
whole,  evolved  at  last  painfully,'—  218 

has  given  us  a  new  Bible  — a  book 
which  has  grown,  224,  230,  231 

in  a  progress  in  prophecy,  doctrine 
and  church-polity  seen  in  Paul's 
epistles,    236 

not  a  tale  of  battle,  but  a  love- 
story,  264 

the  object  of  nature,  and  altruism 
the  object  of  evolution, — 264 

explains  the  world  as  the  return  of 
the  highest  to  itself, 266 

in  the  idea  of  holiness  and  love 
exhibited    in    the    paheontological 


1076 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


struggle  for  life  and  for  the  life 
of  others, 268,  393 

Evolution,   is   God's   omnipresence    in 
time,    282 

of  his  own  being,  God  not  shut  up 

to  a  necessary, 287 

working  out  a  nobler  and  nobler 
justice  is  proof  that  God  is  just,—  292 

a  method  of  Christ's  operation, 311 

in  its  next  scientific  form  will  main- 
tain the  divineness  of  man  and 
exalt  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  an  emi- 
nence secure  and  supreme 328 

'  Father,'     more     than     symbol     of 

the  cause  of  organic 334 

and  gravitation,  all  the  laws  of,  are 
the  work  and  manifestation  of  the 

present     Christ, 337 

the  conception  of  God   in,  leads  to 

a   Trinitarian   conception 319 

theological,  are  the  heathen  trini- 
ties  stages    in? 352 

is  a  regress  terminating  in  the  nec- 
essity of  a  creator, 374 

a    self,    of    God,    so    Stoic    monism 

regarded  the  world, 389 

implies   previous   involution, 390 

assumes  initial  arrangements  con- 
taining the  possibilities  of  the  or- 
der afterwards  evolved, 390 

unable   to   create   something   out  of 

nothing,   390 

the  attempt  to  comprehend  the  world 
of  experience  in  terms  of  funda- 
mental   idealistic    postulates, 390 

that  ignores  freedom  of  God  is  pan- 
theistic,     390 

from  the  nebula  to  man,  unfolds  a 

Divine   Self, 390 

but  a  habitual  operation  of  God 390 

not    an    eternal    or    self-originated 

process,    391 

natural  selection  without  teleolog- 
ical    factors    cannot    account    for 

biological,  391 

and  creation,  no  antagonism  be- 
tween,      391 

its    limits, 392 

Spencer's   definition  of,   stated   and 

criticized,    392 

illustrated    in    progress    from    Oro- 

hippus  to  horse  of  the  present, 392 

of  inorganic  forces  and  materials. 
an,  in  this  the  source  of  animate 
species,  yet  the  Mosaic  account  of 

creation    not    discredited, 392 

in  all  forms  of  energy,  higher  and 
lower,  dependent   directly  on  will 

of  God, 393 

the  struggle  for  life  in  palreontolog- 
ical  stages  of,  the  beginning  of 
the  sense  of  right  and  justice,  268,  393 


Evolution,  the  struggle  for  the  life  of 
others    in    palseontological    stages 
of,  the  beginning  of  altruism,— 268,  393 
the     science    of,     has     strengthened 

teleology,     397 

its  flow  constitutes  the  self-revala- 

tion  of  the  Infinite  One, 413 

process  of,   easier   believed   in   as   a 
divine    self-evolution    than    as    a 

mechanical   proces, 459 

of  man,  physical  and  psychical,  no 
exception  to  process  of,  yet  faith 

in   God  intact 465 

cannot  be  explained  without  taking 
into  account  the  originating  agency 

of  God, 465 

does  not  make  the  idea  of  Creator 

superfluous,   466 

theist   must  accept,   if  he  keep  his 
argument    for    existence    of    God 

from  unity  of  design 466 

of  music  depends  on  power  of  trans- 
mitting intellectual  achievements,  466 
unintelligible    except    as    immanent 
God  gives  new  impulses  to  the  pro- 
cess,     470 

according  to  Mivart,  it  can  account 

neither  for  body  or  soul  of  man...  472 
still  incomplete,  man  is  still  on  all 

fours,  472 

an  atheistic,  a  reversion  to  the  sav- 
age   view, 473 

theistic,    regards    human    nature   as 
efflux  and  reflection  of  the  Divine 

Personality,    473 

atheistic,    satirized,— 473 

a  superior  intelligence  has  guided,--  473 
phylogenetic.  in  the  creation  of  Eve,  525 
normal,    man's    will    may    induce    a 

counter-evolution    to 591 

the  goal  of  man's,   is  Christ, 680 

the  derivation  of  spiritual  gifts  from 

the  Second  Adam  consonant  with,  681 
of  humanity,  the  whole,  depicted  in 

the  Cross  and  Passion 716 

the   process   by   which   sons  of  God 

are   generated 967 

Example,  Christ  did  not  simply  set,—  732 
Exegesis  based  on  trustworthiness  of 

verbal  vehicle  of  inspiration, 216 

Exercise-system  of  Hopkins  and  Em- 
mons,  _45,  416,  417,  584,  607,  822 

Existence    of    God,    see    God. 

Ex  nihil  o  nihil  fit 380 

Experience,   28,  63-65 

Expiation,    representative,    recognized 

among  Greeks, 723 

Ezra,   his   relation   to   O.   T., 167 

Fact  local,  truth  universal, 240 

Facts    not    to    be    neglected,    because 

relations  are  obscure, 36 

Faculties,  mental,  man's  three, 487 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


1077 


Faith,  a  higher  sort  of  knowledge,.—      3 

physical  science  rests  on, 3 

never  opposed  to  reason, 3 

conditioned  hy  holy  affection, 3 

act  of  integral  soul, 4 

can    alone    furnish    material    for    a 

scientific    theology, 4 

not   blind, 5 

its  flducia  includes  notitia, 5 

its   place  in   the   Arminian   system, 

605,  864 

in  a  truth,  possible  in  spite  of  dif- 
ficulties to  us  insoluble 629 

does  not  save,  but  atonement  which 

it  accepts 771 

saving,  is  the  gift  of  God, 7S2 

an  effect,  not  cause,  of  election 7S4 

involves     repentance S36 

defined,   836 

analyzed,   837 

an     intellectual     element      (not  it  in, 

credere  Deiim)    in, 837 

must  lay  hold  of  a  present  Christ.--  837 
an     emotional     element     (assensus, 

credere  Deo)   in 837 

a  voluntary    element     (fiducia,  cre- 
dere in  Deiim)    in, 838 

self-surrender  to  good  physician, 838 

the   reflection   of   the    Divine   know- 
ing   and    willing    in    man's    finite 

spirit,    838 

its  most  important  element,  will,.—  838 

is  a  bond  between  persons S39 

appropriates    Christ    as    source    of 

pardon  and  life. 839 

its  three  elements  illustrated, S39 

phrases   descriptive   of 839 

no  element  in,  must  be  exaggerated 

at   expense   of    the   others, 839 

views   refuted   by   a   proper   concep- 
tion  of 840 

an  act  of  the  affections  and  will,—  840 

not  a  purely  intellectual  state 811 

is  a  moral  act,  and  involves  respon- 
sibility,     841 

saving,    its   general    and    particular 

objects,  842 

is  believing  in  God  as  far  as  he  has 

revealed   himself, S42 

is     it     ever     produced     '  without     a 

preacher'?    843,  844 

its    ground    of    faith,    the    external 

word,    844 

its  ground  of  assurance,  the  Spirit's 

inward    witness, 844 

it  is  possible  without  assurance?--  845 
necessarily  leads  to  goods  works,--  S4G 
is  not  to  be   confounded   with    love 

or    obedience, 847 

a  work  and  yet  excluded  from   the 

category  of  works 847 

instrumental  cause  of  salvation, S47 


Faith,  the  intermediate  factor  be- 
tween undeveloped  tendency  to- 
ward God  and  developed  affection 

for    God, S47 

must    not    be    confounded    with    its 

fruits,    S4S 

the   actinic   ray, 848 

is  susceptible  of  increase, SIS 

authors  on  the  general  subject  of,--  S49 
why  justified   by   faith   rather   than 

other  graces? SG4 

not  with  the  work  of  Christ  a  joint 

cause  of  justification, 864 

its  relation  to  justification, 865 

the  mediate  cause  of  sanctification,  872 
secures    righteousness    (justification 

plus    sanctification), 873 

Faithfulness.  Divine,    288,  289 

Fall,  Scriptural  account  of  tempta- 
tion and, 582-585 

if  account  of,  mythical,  yet  inspired 

and  profitable, 582 

reasons    for    regarding    account   of, 

as  historical, 582,  5S3 

the  stages  of  temptation  that  pre- 
ceded,    5S4,  5S5 

how  possible  to  a  holy  being? 5S5,  586 

incorrect  explanations  of, 585 

God  not  its  author, 586 

was   man's  free  act  of  revolt  from 

God,    587 

cannot  be  explained  on  grounds  of 

reason,    587 

was  wilful  resistance  to  the  in- 
working   God, 587 

was  choice  of  supreme  love  to  the 
world  and  self  rather  than  su- 
preme   devotion    to    God, 5S7 

cannot  be  explained  psychologically,  587 

is  an  ultimate  fact 5S7 

an  immanent  preference  which  was 
first  a  choice  and  then  an  affec- 
tion,     58S 

God's  permission  of  the  temptation 

preceding,    benevolent, 58S 

not  Satanic,  because  not  self-orig- 
inated,   588 

its  temptation  objectified  in  an  em- 
bodied seducer,  an  advantage, 588 

presented  no  temptation  having 
tendency  in  itself  to  lead  astray. 

588,  5S9 

the  slightness  of   the  command   in, 

the  best  test  of  obedience 5S9 

the  command  in,  was  not  arbitrary,  589 
the    greatness    of   the    sanction    in- 
curred in,  had  been    announced  and 

should  have  deterred, 590 

the    revelation    of   a    will    alienated 

from  God,- - 590 

physical  death  a  consequence  of, 590 

brought  death  at  once, 590 


1078 


IKDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


Fall,   mortal  effects  of  the,  counter- 
acted  by    grace, 590 

death    said    by    some    not    to    be    a 

consequence  of  the, 501 

spiritual   death,  a  consequence  of,—  591 
arrested    the    original    tendency    of 

man's  whole  nature  to  God, 591 

depraved  man's  moral  and  religious 

nature,    591 

left  him  with  his  will  fundamental- 
ly inclined  to  evil, 592 

darkened  the  intuition  of  reason,...  592 
rendered   conscience  perverse  in  its 

judgments,   592 

terminated    man's    unrestrained    in- 
tercourse with  God, 592,  593 

imposed  banishment  from  the   gar- 
den,     593 

constituted  Adam's  posterity  sinful, 

see    Imputation. 
of  human  nature  could  only  occur 

in  Adam, 629 

repented  of,  because  apostasy  of  our 

common   nature, 629 

all    responsible   for    the   one   sin   of 

the,  as  race  sin, C30 

has  depraved  human  nature 637 

has  rendered  human  nature  totally 
unable  to  do  that  which  is  good 

in   God's   sight, 640 

has  brought  the  race  under  obliga- 
tion   to     render    satisfaction    for 
self-determined  violation  of  law,..  644 
Fallen    condition    of    man,    Romanist 

and  Protestant  views  of, 521,  522 

Falsehood,    what? 569 

Fatalism,     427 

Fate  and  the  decrees  of  God, 363 

Father,  God  as,  see  Trinity. 
'Father,'   how  applied  to  whole  Trin- 
ity,   333 

'our,'    import, 331 

Federal  theology, 45,  46,  50,  612-616 

Feeling, 17,  20,    21 

Fellowship,  Christian,  not  church, 979 

Fetichlsm,  56,  532 

Fiction,  the  truest,  has  no  heroes, 575 

Final  cause, 44,  52,  60,  62.  75-77 

Final  Things,  doctrine  of, 981-1056 

Finality,   75,  76,  78,    79 

Fishes,  the  earliest,  ganoids  large  and 

advanced  in  type, 470 

Flesh, 562,  588,  673 

'  Fold,'  none  under  New  Dispensation,  807 

Fons   Trinitatis, 341 

Force,  no  mental  image  of, 7 

not  the  atom,  the  real  ultimate 91 

a  property  of  matter, 91,    96 

behind   all    its   forms,    co-ordinating 

mind, 95 

atom  a  centre  of, 96 

matter  a  manifestation  of 96,  109 


Force,    expressed   in    vibrations   foun- 
dation of  all  we  know  of  extended 

world,    96 

the   only,   we   know   is   that   of   our 

own  wills, 96 

real,    lies    in   the    Divine   Being,    as 

living,    active    will, 97 

matter    and    mind    as    respectively 
external  and  internal  centres  of,—    98 

as  a  function  of  will, 99,  109,  415,  416 

all  except  that  of  men's  free  will,  is 

the  will  of  God,. 99 

the  product  of  will, 109 

in  universe  works  in  rational  ways 

and  must  be  product  of  spirit, 109 

Christ,  the  principle  of  every  man- 
ifestation   of, 109 

is    God    with   his   moral    attributes 

omitted,   259 

is  energy  under  resistance, 371 

is    energy    manifesting   itself   under 
self-conditioning      or      differential 

forms,  371 

identified  with  the  Divine  Will,  the- 
ories in  which, 412 

and  will  are  one  in  God 412 

every  natural,  a  generic  volition  of 

God,    413 

a   portion  of  God's,   disjoined  from 
him  in  the  free-will  of  intelligent 

beings,  414 

super  euncta,  subter  cuncta, 414 

not  always  Divine  will, 416 

in    its    various    differentations    ad- 
justed by  God, 436 

Foreknowledge   of   God  of  all   future 

acts    directly, 284 

acts  of  free  will  excepted  by  some, 

284,  285 

denial  of  the  absolute,  productive  of 

dread,    285 

regarded  by  some  as  insoluble, 285 

perhaps   explicable   by   the  possibil- 
ity of  an  all-embracing  present,—  2S5 
constant      teaching      of      Scripture 

favors,    285 

mediate,    what? 2S5 

immediate,   what? 2S5 

if    intuitive,    difficulty    removed, 

285,  357,  362 

rests   on   fore-ordination, 556 

preceded  logically  by  decree 356,  357 

of  undecreed  actuals   (scientia  med- 
ia),   not    possible, 357 

two  kinds  of, 358 

the  middle  knowledge  of  Molina, 358 

of  individuals, 781 

distinguished  from  fore-ordination,.  781 
Forgiveness,    not    in    nature    but    in 

grace,  548 

cannot    be    granted    unconditionally 
by  public  bodies,— 766 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1079 


Forgiveness,    more    than    the    taking 

away  of  penalty, 767 

optional    with    God   since   he   makes 

satisfaction,    767 

human  accorded  without  atonement, 

why  not   divine? 835 

defined  in  personal,  ethical  and  legal 

terms,  854,  855 

God's  act  as  Father, 855 

none  in  nature, 855 

does  not  ensure  immediate  removal 

of  natural  consequences  of  sin,—  855 
the  peculiar  characteristic  of  Chris- 
tian  experience 856 

Fore-ordination,   its  nature, 355,  381 

the  basis  of  foreknowledge 356 

distinguished  from  foreknowledge,..  7M 
Forms  of  thought  arc  facts  of  nature,    10 

Fourth  gospel,  its  genuineness, 151 

Free  agency  defined 300 

can  predict  its  action, 300 

Freedom,  man's,   consistent  with   the 

divine    decrees 359-362 

four  senses  of  word, 361 

of    indifference, 362 

of  choice,   which    is   not    Incompat- 
ible with  the  complete  bondage  of 

will,    — 509,  510 

remnants  of,  left  to  man, 510,  640 

Frewndlos     war    dcr  groeae    Welten- 

meister,   386 

Fiirsrhiui!/    and    Voraehung    combined 

in  '  Providence,' 419 

Future    life,   the   evidence   of   Jewish 

belief  in  a, 994 

Egyptian  ideas  about 995 

Moses  instructed  in  Egyptian  '  learn- 
ing '    concerning, 995 

proof-texts   for, 996 

doctrine  of  Pharisees  supports 996 

Christ's  argument  for, 996 

argument  for,  presupposes  the  exist- 
ence of  a  truthful,   wise  ami  good 

creator,  996 

the  most  conclusive  proof  of,  Christ's 

resurrection,    997 

Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of, 937 

a  revelation  of,  needed, 997 

Futurist  method  of  interpreting  Rev- 
elation,    1009 

Galton's  view  of  piety, S3 

Ganoids,  the  first  geologic  fishes, 470 

Gemoehte,  das,  sin  is 566 

Genealogies  of  Scripture, 229 

Generation,  as  applied  to  the  Son,  340-343 

spontaneous,    389 

Genuineness    of    the    Christian    docu- 
ments  143-154 

of  the  books  of  O.  T., 165-172 

Genus   apotelesmaticum, 686 

idiomaticum,    686 

majestaticum,    686 


Genus    tnpeinoticon,-.. 686 

Gesete, 533 

(iethsemane,     677,  731 

Qewordene,  das,  is  not  sin, 506 

Glory,  final  state  of  righteous, ..1029 

his  own,  why  God's  end  in  crea- 
tion?     397-402 

Gnostic  Ebionism,  669,  670 

Gnostics,    20,  378,  383,  4S7 

God,  the  subject  of  theology,  though 
apprehended  by  faith,  yet  a  sub- 
ject of  science, 3 

human  mind  can  recognize  God, 4 

though  not  phenomenal,  can  be 
known,    5 

because  of  analogies  between  his 
nature  and  ours,  can  be  known, ...      7 

though  no  adequate  image  of,  can 
be  formed,  yet  may  be  known, 7 

since  all  predicates  of  God  are  not 
negative,  he  may  be  known, 9 

so  limited  and  defined,  that  he  may 
be   known, 10 

his  laws  of  thought  ours,  and  so  he 
may  be  known, 10 

can  reveal  himself  by  external  reve- 
lation,       12 

revealed  in  nature,  history,  con- 
science,   Scripture, 14 

Christ  the  only  revealer  of, 14 

the  existence  of, 52-110 

definitions  of  the  term, 52 

his  existence  a  first  truth,  or  ration- 
al   intuition, 52 

his  existence  conditions  observation 
and  reasoning, 52 

his  existence  rises  into  conscious- 
ness on  reflection  on  phenomena 
of  nature   and   mind, 52 

knowledge  of  his  existence,  univer- 
sal,     56-58 

knowledge  of  his  existence,  neces- 
sary,     58,    59 

knowledge  of  his  existence,  logically 
independent  of  and  prior  to,  all 
other  knowledge, 59-62 

ot  her  suggested  sources  of  our  idea 
of,    62-67 

idea  of,  not  from  external  revela- 
tion,     62,    63 

idea  of,  not  from  tradition, 63 

idea  of,  not  from  experience, 63-65 

idea  of,  not  from  sense  perception 
and  reflection, 63,    64 

idea  of,  not  from  race-experience,  64,  65 

idea  of,  not  from  actual  contact  of 
our    sensitive    nature    with    God,    65 

rational  intuition  of,  sometimes  be- 
comes  presentative, 65 

idea  of,  does  not  arise  from  reason- 
ing,     65,    66 


1080 


INDEX    OP   SUBJECTS. 


God,    faith    in,    not    proportioned    to 

strength   of  reasoning  faculty, 65 

we   know   more   of,    than    reasoning 

can  furnish, 65,    66 

idea  of,  not  derived  from  inference, 

66,    67 

belief  in,  not  a  mere  working  hy- 
pothesis,        67 

intuition  of,  its  contents, 67-70 

what    he    is,    men    to    some    extent 

know  intuitively, 67 

a  preseutative  intuition  of,  possible,    67 
a  presentative  intuition  of,  perhaps 

normal  experience, 67 

loss  of  love  has  weakened  rational 

intuition    of, 67 

the  passage  of  the  intuition  of,  into 
personal  and  presentative  knowl- 
edge  68 

his    existence    not    proved    but    as- 
sumed and  declared  in   Scripture,    68 
evidence  of  his  existence  inlaid   in 

man's  nature, 68 

knowledge  of,  though  intuitive  may 
be    explicated    and    confirmed    by 

argument,  71 

the  intuition  of,  supported  by  argu- 
ments probable  and   cumulative,--    71 
the   intuition   of,   explicated    by    re- 
flection and   reasoning, 72 

arguments  for  existence  of,  classi- 
fied, — - 72 

Cosmological  Argument  for  his  ex- 
istence,    73-75 

its  proper  statement, 73 

its    defects, 73,    74 

its  value, 74,    75 

Teleological  Argument  for  his  exist- 
ence,  75-80 

its    nature, 75-78 

its  defects, 78-80 

its  value, 80 

Anthropological    Argument    for    his 

existence, 80-85 

its    nature, 80-83 

its  defects, 84 

its   value, S4,    85 

Historical  Argument  for  his  exist- 
ence,      85 

Biblical  Argument  for  his  existence,    S5 
Ontological  Argument  for  his  exist- 
ence,   S5-89 

its  three  forms, 85,    86 

its  defects, 87 

its  value, 87-89 

evidence   of  his  existence  from   the 

intellectual    starting-point, SS 

evidence   of  his   existence  from   the 

religious    starting-point, SS 

the   nature,    decrees   and    works   of, 

243-370 

the  attributes  of - - — 243-306 


God,   his   acts   and  words  arise  from 

settled    dispositions, 243 

his  dispositions  inhere  in  a  spiritual 

substance,  243 

his  attributes,   definition  of,   244 

relation  of  his  attributes  to  his  es- 
sence,   244-246 

his    attributes    have    an    objective 

existence,    244 

his    attributes    are    distinguishable 
from   his   essence  and   from   each 

other,    244 

regarded   falsely   as   being   of   abso- 
lute  simplicity, 244 

he  is  a  being  infinitely  complex, 245 

nominalistic  notion,  its  error, 245 

his  attributes  inhere  in  his  essence, 

245,  246 

is  not  a  compound  of  attributes, 245 

extreme  realism,  its  danger, 245 

attributes  of,  belong  to  his  essence,  245 
his    attributes    distinguished    from 
personal   distinctions   in   his   God- 
head,   246 

his    attributes    distinguished    from 

his    relations    to    the    world, 246 

illustrated  by   intellect  and   will   in 

man,   246 

his  attributes  essential  to  his  being,  246 
his  attributes  manifest  his  essence,-  246 
in  knowing  his  attributes,  we  know 
the  being  to  whom  attributes  be- 
long,   246 

his  attributes,  methods  of  determin- 
ing,    246,  247 

rational  method  of  determining, 247 

three  vice  of  rational  method  of  de- 
termining  his    attributes, 247 

Biblical  method, 247 

his  attributes,  how  classified, 247-249 

absolute  or  immanent 247 

his    relative   or  transitive  attributes,  247 
his   attributes,   a   threefold   division 

of  the  relative  or  transitive, 248 

his  attributes,  schedule  of, 248 

order  in  which   they  present  them- 
selves to  the  mind, 248 

his   moral    perfection   involves   rela- 
tion of  himself  to  himself, 249 

his  absolute  or  immanent  attributes, 

249-275 

his  spirituality, 249-254 

is   not  matter, 249 

is  not  dependent  upon  matter, 249 

the  material  universe,  not  his  sen- 

sorium,   250 

his    spirituality    not    denied    by    an- 
thropomorphic   Scriptures, 250 

pictures  of  him,  degrading, 250 

desire  for  an   incarnate  God,  satis- 
fied   in    Christ, 251 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1081 


God,  his  spirituality  involves  life  and 

personality,    251,  252 

life  as  an  attribute  of, 251 

life  in,  has  a  subject, _.  251 

life  in,  not  correspondence  with  en- 
vironment,     251 

life  in,  is  mental  energy,  the  source 
of  universal  being  and  activity,..  252 

personality,  an  attribute  of 252 

his  personality,  its  content, 252 

his  infinity,  its  meaning, 254 

his  infinity,  a  positive  idea, 254 

does  not  involve  identity  with  '  The 

All,'  255 

intensive  rather  than  extensive, 255 

his  infinity  enables  him  to  love  in- 
finitely   the    single    Christian, 256 

his  infinity  qualifies  his  other  at- 
tributes  256 

what  his  infinity  involves, 256-260 

his  self-existence,  what? 256 

he  is  causa  sui,  256 

his  aseity,  what? 256 

exists  by  necessity  of  his  own  be- 
ing,    257 

his  immutability,  what? SS57 

s;iid  to  change,  how  explained 257 

his  immutability  secures  his  adapta- 
tion to  the  changing  conditions  of 

his    children 258 

his  immutability  consistent  with  the 
execution    in   time   of   his   eternal 

purposes,  258 

permits  activity  and  freedom, 258 

his  unity,  what? 259 

notion   of  more   than   one,    self-con- 
tradictory and  unphilosophical,—  259 
his  unity  not  inconsistent  with  Trin- 
ity, ... 259 

his  unity,  its  lessons, 259 

his    perfection,    explanation    of  the 

term,    260 

involves  moral  attributes 260-275 

himself,   a    sufficient   object    for   his 

own    activity, 260 

his  truth,   what? - 260 

his  immanent  truth  to  be  distin- 
guished from  veracity  and  faith- 
fulness,   260 

he  is   truth,   as   the  truth   that    is 

known,    261 

his  truth,  a  guarantee  of  revelation, 
and  ground  of  eternal  divine  self- 
contemplation,  262 

his  love,  what? 203 

his    immanent    love    to    be    distin- 
guished from  mercy  and  goodness,  263 
his  immanent  love  finds  a  personal 

object  in  his  own  perfection,^ 263 

his  immanent  love,  not  his  all-inclu- 
sive ethical  attribute 263 


God,  his  immanent  love,  not  a  regard 

for   mere  being  in   general, 263 

his  immanent  love,  not  a  mere  emo- 
tional  or   utilitarian   affection, 264 

his  immanent  love,  rational  and  vol- 
untary,     264 

his  immanent  love  subordinates  its 
emotional-  element    to    truth    and 

holiness, 265 

his  immanent  love  has  its  standard 
in  his  holiness,  and  a  perfect  ob- 
ject in  the  image  of  his  own  infi- 
nite perfections, 265 

his  immanent  love,  a  ground  of  his 

blessedness,   265 

his  immanent  love  involves  the  pos- 
sibility of  his  suffering  on  account 
of  sin,  which  suffering  is  atone- 
ment,     . 266 

is   passible, 266 

blessedness  consistent  with   sorrow.  266 
a  suffering  being,  a  N.  T.  thought,..  267 

his  passibility,  authors  on, 267 

his  holiness,  self-affirming  purity,.—  268 
his  holiness,  not  its  expression,  jus- 
tice,   269 

his  holiness  is  not  an  aggregate  of 
perfections,  but  simple  and  dis- 
tinct,     269 

his  holiness  is  not  utilitarian  self- 
love,    270 

his  holiness  is  neither  love  nor  its 

manifestation,   271 

his  holiness  is  purity  of  substance,—  273 

his  holiness  is  energy  of  will 273 

his  holiness  is  God's  self -willing 274 

his  holiness  is  purity  willing  itself,  274 

his  holiness,  authors  on, 275 

his  relative  or  transitive  attributes. 

275-295 

his  eternity,  defined, 275 

his  eternity,   infinity  in  its  relation 

to    time 276 

regards  existing  time  as  an  objec- 
tive  reality 277 

in  what  sense  the  past,  present  and 
future   are    to    him    '  one    eternal 

now,'    277 

his  immensity,  what? 278 

not  under  law  of  space, 279 

is  not  in  space, -  279 

space  is  in  him, 279 

to     him     space     has    an     objective 

reality,    279 

his  omnipresence,   what? 279 

his  omnipresence  not  potential   but 

essential,   280 

in  what  sense  he  '  dwells  in  Heav- 
en,'     280 

his  omnipresence  mistaken  by  So- 
cinian  and  Deist 280 


1082 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


God,    his    whole    essence    present    in 
every  part  of  his  universe  at  the 

same    time, . 281 

his  omnipresence  not  necessary,  but 

free,  - - 283 

his    omniscience,    what? 283 

his  omniscience,  from  what  deduci- 

ble,    - 283 

its  characteristics,  as  free  from  all 

imperfections,    _  2S3 

his  knowledge  direct, 2S3 

his    omniscience,    Egyptian    symbol 

of,    283 

his  intense  scrutiny 283 

knows  things   as  they  are, 284 

foreknows  motives  and  acts  by  im- 
mediate   knowledge, 2S4 

his    prescience    not   causative, 286 

his  omniscience  embraces  the  actual 

and  the  possible, 286 

his  omniscience  called  in  Scripture 

'  wisdom,'    286 

his  omnipotence,  what? 286 

his  omnipotence  does  not  extend  to 
the  self-contradictory  or  the  con- 
tradictory   to    bis   own  nature,   _.  287 

has  power  over  his  own  power, 287 

can  do  all  he  will,  not  will  do  all  he 

can,  - 287 

has  a   will-power  over   his   nature- 

power,  287 

his    omnipotence    implies    power    of 

self-limitation,  2S8 

his  omnipotence  permits  human  free- 
dom,     288 

his    omnipotence    humbles    itself   in 

the   incarnation, 2SS 

his   attributes   which   have    relation 

to  moral  beings 288-295 

his    veracity    and    faithfulness,    or 

transitive  truth —  288 

his  veracity  secures  the  consistency 
of    his    revelations    with    himself, 

and  with  each  other, 288 

his  veracity  secures  the  fulfilment  of 
all  promises  expressed  or  im- 
plied,     289 

his  mercy  and  goodness,  or  transi- 
tive  love,    2S9 

his   mercy,   what?. 289 

his  goodness,   what? 289 

his  love  finds  its  object  in  his  own 

nature,    -  290 

his  love,  men  its  subordinate  objects  290 
his    justice     and    righteousness    or 

transitive    holiness, 290 

his  righteousness,  what? 291 

his  justice,  what? 291 

his  justice  and  righteousness  not 
mere  benevolence,  nor  so  founded 
in  the  nature  of  things  as  to  be 
apart  from   God, 291 


God,  his  justice  and  righteousness  are 
revelations  of  his  immost  nature,  292 

do  not  bestow  reward, 293 

are  devoid  of  passion  and  caprice,..  294 

revulsion  of  his  nature  from  impur- 
ity and  selfishness, 294 

bis  attributes,  rank  and  relations,-. 
— - - 295-303 

his  attributes  related, 295 

his  moral  attributes  more  jealously 
guarded  than   his  natural, 295 

his  fundamental  attribute  is  holi- 
ness,    296 

may  be  merciful,  but  must  be  holy,  296 

his  holiness  put  most  prominently 
in   Scripture, 296 

his  holiness,  its  supremacy  asserted 
by    conscience,.;. 296 

his  holiness  conditions  exercise  of 
other  attributes, 297 

his  holiness,  a  principle  in  his  na- 
ture which  must  be  satisfied  before 
he     can     redeem, 298 

his  holiness,  the  ground  of  moral  ob- 
ligation,    298-303 

commands  us  to  be  holy  on  the 
ground  of  his  own  holiness, 302 

as  holy,  the  object  of  the  love  that 
fulfils   the   law, 302 

his  holy  will,  Christ,  our  example, 
supremely  devoted  to, 302 

the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in   the 

One  God 304-352 

see  Trinity. 

is  causa  sui, 338 

is    '  self-willing    right,' 338 

relations  sustained  by,  in  virtue  of 
personal   distinctions, 343 

unity  and  tbrceness  equally  essen- 
tial   to, -  346 

independence  and  blessedness  of,  re- 
quire Trinity, 347 

Doctrine    of    bis    Decrees, 353-370 

definition  of  his  decrees,  itemized,  — 
353-355 

evil  acts,  how  objects  of  the  decrees 
of, 354 

his  permissive,  not  conditional  agen- 
cy,     354 

his  decrees,  how  classified, 355 

his  decrees  referred  to  in  Scripture 
and    supported   by   reason, 355-359 

can  preserve  from  sin  without  vio- 
lation of  moral  agency, 366 

his  works,  or  the  execution  of  his 
decrees,  371-464 

not  a  demiurge  working  on  eternal 
matter,  391 

his  supreme  end  in  creation,  his  own 
glory,  397-402 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1083 


God,  'his  own  sake,'  the  fundament- 
al   reason    of    activity    in, 399 

his    self-expression    not    selfishness, 

but  benevolence, 400 

the  only  Being  who  can  rightly  live 

for   himself, 401 

that  he  will  secure  his  end  in  crea- 
tion, the  great  source  of  comfort,.  -Jul 
his  rest,  a  new  exercise  of  power,..  411 

not  '  the  soul  of  the  universe,' 411 

the  physical  universe  in  no  sense  in- 
dependent  of, 413 

has  disjoined  in  the  free  will  of  in- 
telligent beings  a  certain  amount 

of  force  from  himself, 414 

the  perpetual   Observer, 415 

does  not  work  all,  but  all  in  all, 418 

represented    sometimes    by    Hebrew 
writers    as    doing    what    he    only 

permits,     424 

his  agency,  natural  and  moral,  dis- 
tinguished,    441 

his    Fatherhood, 474-476 

implied  in  man's  divine  souship, 471 

extends  in  a  natural  relation  to  all,  171 

provides  the  atonement, 474 

special,  towards  those  who  believe,—  474 
secures    the    natural    and    physical 

sonship   of   all    men, 474 

this    natural     sonship    preliminary 

in  some  to  a  spiritual  sonship, 474 

texts  referring  to,   in   a  natural   or 

common    sense, 474 

in  the  larger  sense,  what  it  implies,  474 

natural,    mediated    by    Christ, 474 

texts     referring    to,     in    a     special 

sense,    474,  475 

to  the  race  rudimental  to  the  actual 

realization    in    Christ 475 

extends   to  those   who   are  not  his 

children,    475 

controversy    on    the    doctrine    mere 

logomachy,.    475 

as  anonnced  by  Jesus,  a  relation  of 

love    and    holiness, 475 

if  not  true,   then  selfishness  logical,  475 
this  relationship  realized  in  a  spirit- 
ual   sense    through    atoning    and 

regenerating    grace, 475 

logical  outcome  of  the  denial  of,-. 

475,  476 

universal    ground    for    accepting,..  476 

authors    upon, 476 

our    knowledge    of,    conditioned    by 

love, 519,  520 

'  God  prays  '   fulfilled  in  Christ, 675 

reflected   in   universe. 714 

the  immanent,  is  Christ,  the  Logos,  714 
exercises    his    creative,     preserving 
and  providential  activity  through 

Christ, 714 

the  Revealer  of,  is  Christ,  the  Logos,  714 


God,   personal   existence  grounded  in 

him,    — 714 

all    perceptions    or    recognitions    of 

the  objective  through  him, 714 

as  Universal  Reason,  at  the  basis  of 
our  self-consciousness  and  think- 
ing,   714,  715 

is    the      common    conscience,     over 

finite,  individual  consciences, 715 

the  eternal  suffering  of,  on  account 
of  human  sin,  manifested  in  the 
historical  sufferings  of  the  incar- 
nate Christ, 715 

the  heart  of,  finally  revealed  in  the 

historic  sacrifice  of  Calvary, 716 

dealings  of   repentant   sinner  with, 

rather    than    with    government,..-     741 
salvation  of  all,  in  which  sense  de- 
sired by, 791,  792 

Golden  Age,   classic  references  to, 526 

Good  deeds  of  an  unregenerated  man, 
how   related    to    the    tenor  of   his 

life,   814 

Goodness,    defined, 289 

Goodness   of   God,    witness   to   among 

heathen,   113 

Gospel,     testimony     of,     conformable 

with     experience, 173 

its  initial   successes,  a  proof  of   its 

divine    origin, 191 

makes  men  moral, 863 

Gospels,  run  counter  to  Jewish  ideas,  156 
superior    in    literary    character    to 

contemporary  writings, 158 

their  relation  to  a  historical  Christ,  159 
coincidence  of  their  statements  with 

collateral  circumstances, 173,  174 

Gotteebetottsstst  in.  knowledge  of  God,    63 
Government,    common,    not    necessary 

in   church    of   Christ, 913 

Government,    church, 903-926 

Grace,    supplements    law    as    the    ex- 
pression   of   the    whole   nature   of 

the  lawgiver, 547,  548,  752 

without  works  on  the  sinner's  part, 

and    without    necessity    on    God's,  548 
an  expression  of  the  heart  of  God, 

beyond   law,   and   in   Christ, 548 

does    not    abrogate    but    reinforces 

and   fulfils    law, 548 

secures  fulfilment  of  law  by  remov- 
ing obstacles  to  pardon  in  the  di- 
vine  mind,    and   enabling   man    to 

obey,    543 

has  its  law  which  subsumes  but 
transcends    ' the   law    of    sin    and 

death,'    548 

has  its  place  between  the  Pelagian 

and  Rationalistic  ideas  of  penalty,  548 
a    revelation    partly     of    law,    but 

chiefly  of   love,. 549 

the  Pelagian  idea  of, 59S 


1084 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Grace,  universal,  according   to  Wesley,  603 
what,  from  the  Arminian  point  of 

view,     605 

may  afford  sinners  a  better  security 
for    salvation    than    if    they    were 

Adams,   633 

a    kingdom    of,— 775 

men  as  sinners,  its  objects, 77S 

certain  sinful  men  chosen  to  he  re- 
cipients of  special, 779 

'  unmerited    favor   to    sinners,' 779 

more  may  be  equitably  bestowed  on 

one  man  than  on  another, 779 

Gracious    Ability, 602-604 

Guilt,    defined, 614,  644 

how  related  to  sin, 644,  645 

how    incurred, 644 

not  mere  liability  to  penalty, 644 

constructive,  has  no  place  in  divine 

government, 644 

to  be  distinguished  from  depravity, 

645,  762 

is    obligation    to    satisfy    outraged 

holiness    of   God, 645 

of  sin,  how  set  forth  in  Scripture,—  645 
how   Christ  may   have,   without  de- 
pravity,     645 

and  depravity,  rcatus  and  macula,..  645 

of  race,  how  Christ  bears, 646,  759 

not  to  be  confounded  with  the  con- 
sciousness of, 647 

first  a  relation  to  God,  then  to  con- 
science,      647 

administers  its  own  anesthetics, 647 

degrees   of, 648-652 

degrees  of,  set  forth  in  Mosaic  rit- 
ual,     648 

casuistical    refinements    upon,    not 

to    be    regarded, 648 

variety  of  award  in   Judgment  ex- 
plained by  degrees  in, 648 

measured    by    men's    opportunities 

and    powers, 649 

measured  by  the  energy  of  evil  will,  649 
measured  by  degrees  of  unreceptive- 

ness  in  soul, 650 

of  race,  shared  in  by  Christ, 759 

imparted  and  imputed  to  Christ, 759 

Habit  and  character 1049 

'Hands  of  the  Living  God,'   what?— 539 

Hatred,    what? 569 

Heart,  its  meaning  in  Scripture 4 

Heathen,   the,    their   virtues,   what?-.  570 
may  be  saved  who  have  not  heard 

the  gospel, 664,  843 

their   religious    systems    corrupting,  666 
whatever    good    in    their    religions, 

God   in, 666 

in   proportion   to    their   culture,   be- 
come   despairing, 666 

have  an  external   revelation, 66G 


Heathen,  instances  of  apparently  re- 
generated,      843,  844 

Heathenism,    a    negative    preparation 

for    redemption, 665,  666 

partly    a    positive    preparation    for 

redemption,     665 

in  it  Christ  as  Logos  or  immanent 
God  revealed  himself  in  conscience 

and    history, 665 

had  the  starlight  of  religious  knowl- 
edge,     666 

their  religions  not  the  direct  work 

of    the    devil, 666 

authors  on  heathenism  as  an  evan- 
gelical    preparation, 666 

Heaven,  conception  of, 1030 

elements  of   its   happy   perfection,— 1031 

rewards  in,  equal  yet  various,. .1031 

is  deliverance  from  defective  physi- 
cal organization  and  circum- 
stances,     1031 

its    rest, 1031 

how  perfect  on  entering, 1031 

a   city,. 1031 

its    love, 1031 

its    activities, 1031 

is  it  a  place  as  well  as  a  state?  460,  1032 

probably  a  place, 460,  1032 

may  be  a  state, 400 

the    essential    presence    of    Christ's 

body  would  imply  place,. 1032 

is    it    on    a    purified    and    prepared 

earth?    1032,  1033 

Hebrews,  genuineness  and  authorship,  152 

anti-Ebionite,   669 

Hell,  essentially  an  inward  condition, 

460,.  1034 

the  outward  corresponds  with  in- 
ward,    1034 

the  pains  of,  not  necessarily  posi- 
tive inflictions  of  God, 1035 

is  not  an  endless  succession  of  suf- 
ferings,      . 1035 

its   extent   and    scope, 1052 

compared  with  heaven,  narrow  and 

limited,  1052 

only  a  spot,  a  corner  in  the  uni- 
verse,    1052 

Henotheism,    what? 259 

Heredity,    none    in    the    race    to    pre- 
determine   self-consciousness, 467 

some    facts    which    heredity    cannot 

explain,    471 

often  presents  a  product  differing 
from  both  the  producing  agents,—  492 

its    influence   in    Action, 492 

laws  of,  simply  descriptions  not  ex- 
planations,      493 

illustrations  of  heredity, 495,  49b 

cause  of  variations  in,  discussed, 497 

Weismann's  views  of, 466,  497,  631 

works    for    theology,- 621,  632 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


1US5 


Heredity,  is  God  working  in  us, C24 

the  law  by  which  living  beings  tend 
to   reproduce   themselves  in   their 

descendants,     625 

the  scientific  attitude  of  mind  in  re- 
gard   to, 632 

the  opposing  views  of,  illustrated,     632 
the    conclusion    best    warranted    by 

science  in  relation  to, 632 

when  modifications  are  transmitted 

by,    632 

may  be  intensified  by  individual  ac- 
tion,     632 

has  given  new  currency  to  doctrine 

of  '  Original   Sin,' 63G 

Heresy,  what? 800 

Hingeuandt  zu,   Dorner's  translation 

of  jrpos  in  John  1 :  3, 337 

Hipparion,    the    two-toed    horse, 472 

Holiness  of  God,  see  God. 

Holy   Spirit, 13,  337 

organ    of   internal    revelation, 13,  337 

recognized    as    God,— 315 

possession     of, 322,  343 

is  a  person, 323 

his  work  other  than  that  of  Christ, 

338,  339 

sin  against,. - - — 648,  650-652 

relation  to  Christ  in  his  state  of  hu- 
miliation,     669,  697,  703 

application    of   redemption    through 

work     of, 777-886 

ITonestum   and    utile 300 

nost,  Romish  adoration  of, 968 

'Host,'    Scriptural    use    of 448 

Humanity,  capable   of  religion,- 58 

full    concept    ©f,     marred    in     First 

Adam,    realized    in    Second, 678 

its  exaltation   in  Christ,   the   exper- 
ience of  his  people, 707 

justified    in    Christ's   justification,—  862 

Humanity  of  Christ, .673-6S1 

atonement  as  related  to, 754-763 

see  Christ. 

Humiliation   of   Christ —701-706 

see  Christ. 

Humility,    what? 832 

Ilyperphysical      communication      be- 
tween   minds    perhaps    possible,— 1021 

'  I  Am,'  as  a  Divine  title, 253 

Idea  of  God,  origin  of  our,. —52-70 

see  God. 

Ideal  human  nature  in  Christ, 678 

Idealism,    its   view  of   revelation,— 11,    12 

Idealism,  Materialistic, 95-100 

Ideas  have  decided  fate  of  world, 426 

Identity,   Edwards's  theory  of, 607 

what' it  consists  in 1020-1023 

Idiomatictun    genus, 686 

'  Idle    word,' 554 

Idolatry,   7,  133,  251,  457,  532,  968 

Ignorance,   sins  of, 554,  649 


Ignorance,    invincible, 967 

Ignorantia  legis  nemiiiem  excusat, 558 

Image,  what  it  suggests, 335,  514 

and  likeness, 520 

Image  of  God,  in  what  it  consisted,—  514 

its   natural   element, 514 

its   moral   element, 514 

personality,  an  element  in, 515 

holiness,  an  element  in, 515,  516 

its   original    righteousness, 517,  518 

not  confined  to  personality, 519,  520 

not  consisting  in  a  natural  capacity 

for  religion, 520-523 

reflects  itself  in  physical  form, 523 

in    soul   proprie,   in    body   significa- 

tire,    - 523 

subjects  sensuous  impulses  to  con- 
trol  of  spirit, 523,  524 

gives  dominion  over  lower  creation,  524 

secures  communion  with  God, 524,  525 

had  suitable  surroundings  and  soci- 
ety,      525 

furnished  with  tests  of  virtue, 526 

had  associated  with  it,  an  opportun- 
ity of  securing  physical  immortal- 
ity,   527 

combated  by  those  who  hold  that 
civilization    has    proceeded    from 

primitive    savagery, 527-531 

combated  by  those  who  hold  that  re- 
ligion begins  in  fetichism, 531,  532 

Immortality,    metaphysical    argument 

for.    __. 984,  9S5 

teleological  argument  for, 9S6,  987 

ethical  argument  for,.. 987,  9SS 

historical     argument, 989 

widespread  belief  in.. 989,  990 

a  general  appetency  for 990 

idea  of,  congruous  with  our  nature,  990 

authors  for  and  against 991 

maintained    on    Scriptural    grounds, 

—991-998 

an  inference  from  the  intuition  of 

the  existence  of  God, 996 

the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  the 

most  conclusive  proof  of, 997 

Christ    taught 997 

Imprecatory  Tsalms, 231 

Imputatio     metaphysial, 615 

Imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity,     593-637 

taught  in  Scripture 593 

two    questions    demanding    answer,  593 

the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 354 

has  a  realistic  basis  in  Scripture,—  594 

two    fundamental    principles    in, 595 

theories  of  New  and  Old  Schools,  596,  597 

theories    of, 597-637 

Pelagian  theory  of,  considered,— 597-601 
Arminian  theory  of,  considered,  601-606 
New  School  theory  of,  considered,— 

606-612 


1086 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


Imputation,    Federal   theory  of,   con- 
sidered,     612-616 

Mediate  theory  of,  616-619 

Augustinian    theory    of,    considered, 

619-637 

grounded  on  organic  unity  of  man- 
kind,     619 

tabular   views, 62S 

objections   to  Augustinian  theory,.. 

.629-637 

authors  on, 637 

of  sin  to  Christ,  grounded  on  a  real 

union,    758 

of     Christ's     righteousness     to     us, 

grounded   on  a   real   union, 805,  862 

Indwelling  of  God,. 693,  798 

Incwisteiitia,    333 

Infant    salvation, .602,  609 

doctrine    of, .660-664 

is    assured, 661 

its  early  advocates, 664 

leads  to  the  conclusion  that  no  one 

Is  lost  solely  for  sin  of  nature, -  664 

Infanticide  might  have  been   encour- 
aged by  too  definite  assurances  of 

infant    salvation, 663 

Infants,  their  death  proves  their  sin- 
ful   nature, 579 

are  regarded   by  some   as  animals, 

579,  611,  957 

are  unregenerate  and  in  a  state  of 

sin, 661 

relatively   innocent, 661 

objects  of  special  divine  care, 6C1,  662 

chosen  by  Christ  to  eternal  life, 662 

salvation  assured  to  those  who  die 

prior   to  moral   consciousness, 662 

in  some  way  receive  and  are  united 

to    Christ, 662 

at  final  judgment  among  the  saved,  662 
regeneration  effected  at  soul's  first 

view  of  Christ, 663 

Inference,  its  nature  and  kinds, 66 

Infinite,   9,  87,  254 

Infinity  of  God, 254-256 

see  God. 

Infirmity,  sins  of, 649,  650 

Innate   or  connate  ideas,  what? 54 

Insitw  vel  potius  innatw  cogitationes,    53 

Inspiration  of  Scripture, 196-242 

definition  of 196-198 

defined  by  result, 196 

may    include    revelation, 196 

may   include    illumination, 196 

list    of    works    on, 198 

proof  of, 198 

presumption  in  favor  of 198 

of  the  O.  T.,  vouched  for  by  Jesus,  199 

promised  by  Jesus, 199,  200 

claimed  by  the  apostles, 200,  201 

attested    by    miracle    or    prophecy,  201 


Inspiration  of  Scripture,  chief  proof 
of,    internal    characteristics, 201 

theories    of, ...202-222 

the   Intuition-theory  of, 202 

this  theory  of,  its  doctrinal  connec- 
tions.   - 202 

this  theory  of,  uses  only  man's  nat- 
ural   insight, 203 

this  theory  of,  denies  to  man's  in- 
sight, vitiated  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion and  morals,  an  indispen- 
sable  help, 203 

this  theory  of,  is  self-contradictory,  203 

is  '  the  growth  of  the  Divine  through 
the  capacities  of  the  human,' 204 

this  theory  of,  makes  moral  and 
religious  truth  purely  subjective,—  204 

this  theory  of,  practically  denies  a 
God  who  is  Truth  and  its  Reveal- 
er,    204 

the   Illumination-theory  of, 204 

this  theory  of,  its  doctrinal  connec- 
tions,    204 

this  theory  of,  principal  advocates 
of,    205 

in  some  cases  amounted  only  to  il- 
lumination,     206 

more  than  an  illumination,  which 
cannot  account  for  revelation  of 
new   truth, 206 

if  illumination  only,  cannot  secure 
writers  from  serious  error, 207 

as  mere  illumination  can  enlighten 
truth  already  imparted  but  not 
impart    it, 207 

the    Dictation-theory    of, ...  208 

this  theory  of,  its  doctrinal  connec- 
tions,     208 

this  theory  of,  its  principal  advo- 
cates,    20S 

this   theory  of,   post-reformation, 209 

this  theory  of,  covers  the  few  cases 
in  which  definite  words  were  used 
with  the  command  to  write  them 
down,    _ „__  209 

this  theory  of,  rests  on  an  imperfect 
induction  of  Scriptural  facts, 210 

this  theory  of,  fails  to  account  for 
the  human  element  in  Scripture,.-  210 

this  theory  of,  spendthrift  in 
means,  as  dictating  truth  already 
known    to    recipient, 210 

this  theory  of,  reduces  man's  high- 
est spiritual  experience  to  mechan- 
ism,   21b 

the   Dynamical    theory   of, 211-222 

distinguished  from  other  theories  of,  211 

no  theory  of,  necessary  to  Christian 
faith,    211 

union  of  the  Divine  and  human  ele- 
ments   in. 212-222 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1087 


Inspiration  of  Scripture,  its  mystery, 
the  union  of  the  divine  and  hu- 
man,     212 

and  hypnotic  suggestion,.. 212 

the  speaking  and  writing  the  words 
of  God  from  within,  in  the  con- 
scious possession  and  exercise  of 
intellect,  emotion  and  will, 212 

pressed  into  service  all  the  personal 
peculiarities,  excellencies  and  de- 
fects of  its  subjects 213 

uses  all  normal  methods  of  literary 
composition,    214 

may  use  even  myth  and  legend, 214 

a  gradual  evolution 214,  215 

the  divine  side  of  what  on  its  hu- 
man side  is  discovery, 215 

does  not  guarantee  inerrancy  in 
things  not  essential  to  its  purpose,  215 

in    it   God   uses   imperfect   means,--  215 

is  divine  truth  in  historical  and  in- 
dividually conditioned  form, 216 

did  not  directly  communicate  the 
words  which  its  subjects  employed,  216 

has  permitted  no  form  of  words 
which  would  teach  essential  error,  216 

verbal,  refuted  by  two  facts, 216 

constitutes  its  Scriptures  an  organic 
whole,    217 

develops  a  progressive  system  with 
Christ  as  centre, 217 

furnishes,  in  the  Bible  ns  a  whole, 
a  sufficient  guide  lo  truth  and  sal- 
vation,     -  218 

overstatement    of,    has    made    seep 

ties,    218 

((institutes  Scripture  an  authority, 
but    subordinate    to    the    ultimate 

authority,    Christ 210 

three  cardinal   principles   regarding,  220 
three   common   questions   regarding, 

220,  221 

objections  to  the  doctrine  of, 222-242 

objected  to,  on  the  ground  of  errors 

in  secular  matters, 222 

said  to  be  erroneous  in  its  science,—  223 
reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

223-226 

said  to  be  erroneous  in  its  history,  226 
reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

226-229 

said  to  be  erroneous  in  its  morality,  2:;0 
reply    to    above    allegation    against. 

...230-232 

said  to  be  erroneous  in  its  reason- 
ing,     232 

reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

232,  233 

said    to   be    erroneous   in    quotation 

and  interpretation, 234 

reply  to  above  allegation  against, 
234,  235 


Inspiration    of    Scripture,    said    to   be 

erroneous  in  its   prophecy, 235 

reply    to   above   allegation    against, 

..235,  236 

admits  books  unworthy   of   a   place 

as   inspired, 236 

reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

236-238 

admits  as  authentic  portions  of 
books  written  by  others  than  the 
persons  to  whom  they  are  as- 
cribed,   238 

reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

238-240 

admits  sceptical  or  fictitious  narra- 
tives,  240 

reply    to    above    allegation    against, 

240-242 

acknowledges  non-inspiration  of  its 

teachers    and    writers, 242 

reply  to  above  allegation  against, ..  242 

Intercession  of  Christ, 773-775 

see  Christ. 

Intercessors,  saints  on  earth  are, 775 

1  iitirrniii  hi  iniicatio,    333 

Intercommunion  of  the  Persons  in  the 

Trinity, 332-334 

Intermediate    State, 998-1003 

of   the   righteous, 988,  999 

of  the  wicked,.. 999,  1000 

not  a  sleep 1000 

not    purgatorial, 1000 

one  of  incompleteness, 1002 

a  state  of  thought, 1002 

siu  if  preferred  in  this  more  spirit- 
ual   state  becomes  demoniacal, 1002 

some  place  the  end  of  man's  proba- 
tion   at    the   close   of   the, ..  1002 

Intuition,. 52,  53,  67,  72,  125,  499 

Intuit  ion-theory  of  inspiration,  see 
Inspiration. 

Intuitional  theory  of  morals 501 

reconciled  with  the  empirical  the- 
ory,    501 

Intuitions,    — 52,  53,  67,  248 

Isaiah,   its  composite  character, 239 

Islam,    186,  427 

James,    the   apostle,    his    position    on 

Justification,  851 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  a  Baptist 
church  as  the  truest  form  of  dem- 
ocracy,     90S 

Jehovah,  256,  309 

Jesus,  bowing  at  the  name  of, 969 

Jews,  the  only  forward-looking  peo- 
ple,     666 

educated  in  three  great  truths,  666,  667 
above    truths    presented    by     three 

agencies,     667,  668 

this  education  first  of  all  by  law,..  667 

this    education    by    prophecy, 667 

this   education  by   judgment, 668 


1088 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Jews,    effects    of    the    exile    upon, CCG 

as   propagators   of  the  gospel, 668 

authors  on  Judaism  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  Christ, 668 

Job,  the  hook  of,  when  written, 211 

is  a  dramatic  poem, 240,  2-11 

John,  gospel  of,  differs  from  synoptics 

in  its  account  of  Jesus, 143 

its    genuineness, 151,  152 

compared    with    Revelation, 151,  152 

does  its  characteristic  I,ogos  doc- 
trine necessitate  a  later  date?  320,  321 

Judas 884,  1043 

Judex  damnatur  cum  nocens  absolvi- 

iur,   293 

Judge,  Christ  the  final, 1027,  1028 

Judgment,  the  last,  a  final  and  com- 
plete vindication  of  Cod's  right- 
eousness,    1023,   1024 

its  nature  outward,  visible,   definite 

in   time, 1024,  1025 

its  object,  the  manifestation  of 
character,  and  assignment  of  cor- 
responding condition, 1025,  1026 

evidences  of,  and  preparation  for, 
already    in    the    nature    of    man, 

....1026,  1027 

single   acts  and   words   adduced    in, 

why? 1027,  1028 

the    judge    in,    see    preceding    item, 
the  subjects  of,  men  and  evil  angels, 

1028,  1029 

the  grounds  of,  the  law  of  God  and 

grace  of  Christ, 1029 

list  of  authors  on, 1620 

Justice  of  God, 290-295 

see  God. 
Justification,   involved  in   union   with 

Christ,    805 

the  doctrine  of, 849-868 

defined,   849 

declarative   and  judicial, 849 

held  as  sovereign  by  Arminians,-S49,  855 

Scripturnl   proof  of, 849,  830 

its  nature  determined  by  Scriptural 
use  of  '  justify  '  and  its  deriv- 
atives,     S50-854 

James  and  Paul  on, 851 

includes    remission    of    punishment, 

834-856 

a  declaration  that  the  sinner  is  just 

or  free  from  condemnation  of  law,  S54 
is  pardon  or  forgiveness  as  God  is 

regarded  as  judge  or  father, 855 

is  on  the  ground  of  union  with 
Christ  who  has  borne  the  penalty,  855 

includes  restoration  to  favor, 856 

since  it  treats  the  sinner  as  per- 
sonally righteous  it  must  give  bim 

the  rewards  of  obedience, 856 

is  reconciliation  or  adoption  as  God 
is  regarded  as  friend  or  father,...  857 


Justification,  this  restoration  rests 
solely  on  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to   whom   sinner   is  united 

by   faith,   ._  858 

its  difficult  feature  stated, 859 

believed   on   testimony  of  Scripture,  860 

the  difficulty'  in,  relieved  by  three 
considerations,    860 

is  granted  to  a  sinner  in  whose 
stead  Christ  has  borne  penalty, 860 

is  bestowed  on  one  who  is  so  united 
to  Christ  as  to  have  Christ's  life 
dominating   his   being, 860 

is  declared  of  one  in  whom  the  pres- 
ent Christ  life  will  infallibly  extir- 
pate all   remaining  depravity, 860 

its  ground  is  not  the  infusion  into 
us  of  righteousness  and  love 
(Romish    view) 861 

its  ground  is  not  the  essential 
righteousness  of  Christ  become 
the  sinner's  by  faith,  (Osiander)—  861 

its  ground  is  the  satisfaction  and 
obedience  of  Christ  the  head  of  a 
new  humanity  of  which  believers 
are    members, 861 

is  ours,  not  because  Christ  is  in  us, 
but  because  we  are  in   Christ, 862 

its  relation  to  regeneration  and 
sanctification  delivers  it  from  ex- 
ternality and   immorality, 862,  863 

and  sanctification,  not  different 
stages   of  same  process, 863 

a  declarative,  as  distinguished  from 
the  efficient  acts  of  God's  grace, 
regeneration    and    sanctification,-.  863 

gifts  and  graces  accompaniments, 
not  consequences  of, 884 

why  '  by  laith  '  rather  than  other 
graces?   864 

produced  efficiently  by  grace,  meri- 
toriously by  Christ,  instrumental- 
ly  by  faith,  evidentially  by  works,  865 

as  being  complete  at  the  moment  of 
believing,  is  the  ground  of  peace,  865 

is  instantaneous,  complete  and  final,  867 

not  eternal  in  the  past, 867 

in.  Cod  grants  actual  pardon  for 
past  sin,  and  virtual  pardon  for 
future    sin, 867 

cannot  be  secured  by  future  obedi- 
ence,      868 

must  be  secured  by  accepting  Christ 
and  manifesting  trust  and  sub- 
mission by  prompt  obedience, 868 

list    of   authors    on, 868 

Justitia   civilis 639 

Justus  et  jiistificans, 753 

ICalpa,     352 

Karen    tradition, —  116 

Kenosis,    701,   704,  705 

Keri    and    Kethib —  309 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1089 


'■  Know,'    its    meaning    in    Scripture.--  TSO 
Knowledge  includes  faith  as  a  higher 

sort    of, 3,    4,    5 

analogy    to    oue"s   nature   or   exper- 
ience  not   necessary   to, 7 

is    '  recognition    and    classification,'      7 

mental  image,  not  essential  to, 7 

of   whole    not    essential    to    partial, 

and  of  a  part 8 

may    be    adequate    though    not    ex- 
haustive,          8 

involves  limitation  or  definition, 9 

illative  to  knowing  agent, 10 

is  of  the  thing  as  it  is 10 

though    imperfect,    valuable 37 

requires   pre-supposition   of   an   Ab- 
solute Reason, 61 

does  not  ensure  right  action, 111,  460 

aggravates,  but  is  not  essential   to, 

sin,    558 

two  kinds  of,  and  scicntia  media,...  357 

sins   of, 649 

final  state  of  righteous  one  of, 1029 

Koran, 115,  186 

Kung-fu-tse,   see   Confucius. 
Language,  difficulty  of  putting  spirit- 
ual   truths   into, 35 

dead  only  living 39 

not  essential  to  thought,... 216 

defined.   —  467 

is  the  effect,  not  the  cause  of  mind,  467 
Law,  cause  and  force  known  without 

mental    image, 7 

is  method,   not  cause, 76 

the  transcript  of  God's  nature, 293 

in   general, 533  5 36 

its  essential   idea 533 

its   implications, 533 

first  used  of  voluntary  agents, 533 

its    use    in    physics    implicitly    con- 
fesses a  Supreme  Will, 533 

its  derivation   in   several   languages,  533 
because  of  its  ineradicable  implica- 
tions,    '  method  '     has    been     sug- 
gested  as    a    substitute, 533 

definitions  of, 533,  534 

cannot    reign, 534 

its  generality, 534 

deals  in  general  rules, 534 

implies  power  to  enforce, 534,  535 

without  penalty  is  advice, 535 

in    the    case    of    rational    and    free 
agents  implies  duty  and  sanctions,  535 

expresses  ami   demands  nature, 535 

formulates   relations   arising  in  na- 
ture,    535 

of  God  in  particular, 536-547 

elemental,   536-544 

physical   or  natural, 536 

moral    law, 537 

moral  law,  its  implications, 537 

is  discovered,  not  made, 538 

69 


Law,   not  constituted,   but  tested,  by 

utility,     538 

of  God,  what? 538 

the  method  of  Christ, 539 

authors  upon, 539 

not    arbitrary, 539 

not  temporary,  or  provisional, 540 

not  merely  negative, 540 

as  seen  in  Decalogue, 540 

not  addressed  to  one  part  of  man's 

nature,    540 

not   outwardly    published, 540,  541 

not  limited  by  man's  consciousness 

of  it,... 541 

not    local, 541 

not  modifiable, 541 

not  violated  even  in  salvation, 541 

the  ideal  of  human  nature, 542 

reveals  love  and  mercy  mandatorily, 

542,  549 

is  all-comprehensive, 542 

is   spiritual, 543 

is  a  unit, 543 

is   not   now   proposed   as   a   method 

of  salvation, 543 

is  a  means   of  discovering  and  de- 
veloping  sin, 543,  544 

reminds    man    of   the    heights   from 

which  he  has  fallen, 544 

as  positive  enactment, 544-547 

as  shown  in  general  moral  precepts,  545 
as   shown   in   ceremonial   or  special 

injunctions,   545 

its  positive  form  a  re-enactment  of 

its  elemental  principles 545 

the  written,  why  imperfect? —  546 

the  Puritan  mistake  in  relation  to,..  546 
its    relation    to    the   grace    of    God, 

547-549 

is    a    general    expression    of    God's 

will,    — 547 

is  a  partial,  not  an  exhaustive,  ex- 
pression of  God's  nature, 547 

pantheistic  mistake   in    relation    to, 

547,   r»4S 

alone,  leaves  parts  of  God's  nature 

to  be  expressed  by  gospel, 548 

is  not,  Christ  is,  the  perfect  image 

of  God, 548 

not  abrogated  by  grace,  but  repub- 
lished   and    re-enforced,. - 54S 

of  sin  and  death, 548 

in  the  manifestation  of  grace,  com- 
bined with  a  view  of  the  personal 

love  of  the  Lawgiver, 549 

its  all-embracing  requirement, 572 

identical  with  the  constituent  prin- 
ciples of  being, 629 

all-comprehending    demand    of    har- 
mony with  God 637 

the  Mosaic,  inspired  hope  of  pardon 
and  access  to  God, — 667 


1090 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Law,  its  basis  in  the  nature  of  God,  7G4 

as  a  moral  rule  unchanging, 875 

freedom  from,  what? 876 

believer  not  free  from  obligation  to 

observe,    876 

as    a    system    of    penalty,    believer 

free  from, 876 

as  a  method  of  salvation,  believer 

free  from, 876 

as  an  outward  and  foreign  compul- 
sion, believer  free  from, 876 

not    a    sliding    scale    graduated    to 

one's    moral    condition, 877 

God's,  as  known  in  conscience  and 
Scripture,  a  ground  of  final  judg- 
ment,     - — -1029 

Laws    of  knowing  correspond   to   na- 
ture of  things, —    10 

of  theological  thought,  laws  of  God's 

thought,  —    10 

of  nature,  not  violated  in  miracle,—  121 
of    nature,    act    not    merely    singly, 

but  in  combination, 434,  435 

'  Laying-on  of  hands,'  its  significance,  920 
Letter-missive  calling  council  of  ordi- 
nation,   922 

Lex,  its  derivation, 533 

Licensure,  its  nature, 919 

Life  contains  promise  and  potency  of 

every  form  of  matter, 91 

not  produced  from  matter, 93 

as  it  ascends,  it  differentiates, 240 

not   definable, 251 

not   a  mere  process, 251 

more  than  environmental  corres- 
pondence,     251 

ascribed  to  Christ 309 

ascribed  to  Holy  Spirit,. 315 

animal,  though  propagated,  not  ma- 
terial,     495 

has  power  to  draw  from  the  putres- 
cent  material  for  its   living, 677 

its  various  relations  honored  by  be- 
ing taken  into  union  with  Divinity 

in    Christ,—. 682 

man's  physical,   conscious  of  a  life 

within  not  subject  to  will, 799 

man's    spiritual,    conscious    of    life 

within   its   life, 799 

man's   natural,    preserved    by    God, 

much   more  his   spiritual, 883 

Christian,    attains    completeness    in 

future,    981 

sinful,  attains  completeness  in  fu- 
ture,    981 

'  book  of,'  the  book  of  justification,  1029 

Lineamenta    extrema, 614 

Locutioncs     va'riw,      sed     non      con- 

trarim;  diversw,  sed  non  adversw,  227 
Logos,  the  whole,  present  in  the  man, 
Christ    Jesus, 281 


Logos,    John's   doctrine    of   the,    radi- 
cally   different   from    Philo's,„320,  321 
John's    doctrine   of    the,    related    to 

the  '  momra  '   doctrine, 320 

doctrine  of  the,  authorities  on, 321 

significance  of  term, 335 

the  pre-incarnate,  granted  to  men 
a  natural  light  of  reason  and  con- 
science,     —  603 

purged  of  depravity  that  portion  of 
human  nature  which  he  assumed 
in  Incarnation,  in  the  very  act  of 

taking    it, 677 

during  earthly  life  of  Jesus  existed 

outside  of  flesh, 704 

the  whole  present  in  Christ,  and  yet 

present  everywhere   else, 704 

can  suffer  on  earth,   and  yet  reign 

in  heaven  at  same  time, 714 

his  surrender  of  independent  exer- 
cise of  divine  attributes,  how  best 

conceived,   705 

his  part  in  evangelical  preparation,  711 

'  Lord    of   Hosts,'   its   significance, 448 

Lord's   Day,— 410 

Lord's    Supper, .959-980 

Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism,  historical 

monuments,     --  151 

Love,  necessary  to  right  use  of  reason 

with  regard  to  God 3,  29,  519,  520 

its  loss  obscures  rational  intuitions 

of   God, 67 

God's,   nature   cannot  prove   it, 84 

God's   immanent,  what? 263 

not    to    be   confounded   with    mercy 

and    goodness, 205 

God's,  finds  a  personal  object  within 

the    Trinity, 2S5 

constitutes     a     ground     of     divine 

blessedness,    285 

God's  transitive,  what? 289 

God's  transitive,  is  mercy  and  good- 
ness,     -  2S9 

distinct  from  holiness, 290,  567 

attributed  to  Christ, — 309 

attributed  to  Holy  Spirit, -  316 

revealed    in    grace    rather    than    in 

law 548 

defined,     - 567 

to    God,    all-embracing    requirement 

of    law, 572 

eternity  of  God's,  an  effective  ele- 
ment in  appeal, 788 

God's,  fixed  on  sinners  of  whom  he 

knows   the   worst, 788 

God's    unchanging, 788 

God's,    has   dignity, 1051 

brotherly,  in  heaven  implies  knowl- 
edge,     1031 

Maat,  the  Egyptian  goddess, 1024 

Maccabees,    First,   no    direct   mention 
of  God  in, - 309 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1001 


Maffiater    smtentiarum, 44 

Magnetism,    personal,    what? S20 

Majestatieum  genus, 6SG 

Malice,    what? 509 

Malum  metaphyaicum,  what? 424 

Man,  in  what  sense  supernatural 2G 

furnishes  highest  type  of  intelli- 
gence and  will  in  nature, 79 

as  to  intellect  and  freedom,  not  eter- 
nal  a  parte  ante SI 

his  intellectual  and  moral  nature, 
implies  an  intellectual  and  moral 

author,     _l_    81 

his  moral  nature  proves  existence  of 

a  holy   Lawgiver 82 

his  emotional  and  voluntary  nature 
proves  the  existence  of  a  Being 
who  may  be  a  satisfying  object  of 
human  affection  and  end  of  human 

activity, - - 83 

recognizes  in  God,  not   his  like,  but 

his    opposite 83 

mistakes  as  to  his  own  nature  lead 
him  into  mistakes  as  to  the  First 

Cause,    84,  253 

his  consciousness,   Itoyce's  view, 99 

his  will  above  nature 121 

a  concave  glass  towards  God, 2.">2 

can  objectify  self, 252 

is     self-determining,. 252 

not  explicable  from  nature 411 

a  spiritually  reproductive  agent,  yet 

God    begets 418 

a  creation,   and    child   of    God,—  465-476 

his  creation  a  fact   of  Scripture, 165 

exists  by  creative  acts  of  God 465 

though    result    of  evolution,   yet  or- 
iginating agency  of  God  needed,—  465 
whether    mediately    or    immediately 
created     Scripture     does    not     ex- 
plicitly   stale 403 

the  true  doctrine  of  evolution  con- 
sistent with  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine  of   creation, —  4G6 

certain  psychological  human  endow- 
ments cannot  have  come  from  the 

brute,  466 

God's  breathing  into  men  was  such  a 
re-inforcement  of  the  processes  of 
life    as    turned    the    animal    into 

man,   407 

and  brute,  both  created  by  the  im- 
manent God,  the  former  comes  to 
his   status   not   from   but   through 

the    latter 4G7 

the  beginnings  of  his  conscious  life,  407 
some    simple    distinctions    between 

man  and  brute, 407,  JOS 

if  of  brute  ancestry,  yet  the  off- 
spring  of    God, 469 

Scripture  teaches  that  man's  nature 
is  the  creation  of  God, 469 


Man,  his  relations  to  animals,  au- 
thors   upon, 469 

immediate  creation  of  his  body  not 
forbidden  by  comparative  physiol- 
ogy,      470 

that  his  physical  system  is  de- 
scended by  natural  generation 
from  the  simise,  an  irrational  hy- 
pothesis,     470 

as  his  soul  was  an  immediate  crea- 
tion of  God,  so,  in  this  sense,  was 
Ms  body   also, 470 

does  not  degenerate  as  we  travel 
back  in  time, 471 

no  natural  process  accounts  for  his 
informing  soul  nor  for  the  body 
informed  by  that  soul 472 

the  laws  of  development  followed 
in  man's  origin  from  a  brute  an- 
cestry are  but  methods  of  God, 
and  proofs  of  his  creatorship, 472 

comes  upon  the  scene  not  as  a  brute 
but  as  a  self-conscious,  self-deter- 
mining   being, 472 

his  original  and  new  creation,  both 
from     within, 472 

an  emanation  of  that  Divine  Life 
of  which  the  brute  was  a  lower 
manifestation,    472 

his  nature  not  an  undesigned  result 
of  atheous  evolution  but  the 
efflux   of  the  divine  personality,--  473 

natural  selection  may  account  for 
man's  place  in  nature,  but  not  for 
his  place  as  a  spiritual  being 
above   nature 473 

bis  intellectual  and  moral  faculties 
have  only  an  adequate  cause  in 
the  world  of  spirits, 473 

apart  from  the  controlling  action  of 
a  higher  intelligence,  the  laws  of 
the  material  universe  insufficient 
for   his    production, 473 

his  brute  ancestry,  list  of  authors 
on,     473,  474 

his    racial    unity, 476-483 

liis  racial  unity,  a  fact  of  Scripture,  476 

his  racial  unity  at  foundation  of 
certain    Pauline    doctrines, 476 

his  racial  unity,  the  ground  of  natu- 
ral  brotherhood, 476 

the    pre-Adamite, 476,  477 

his  racial  unity,  sustained  by  his- 
tory,     477,  478 

his  racial  unity,  sustained  by  phi- 
lology,     478,  479 

his  racial  unity,  sustained  by 
psychology,    479 

his  racial  unity,  sustained  by  physi- 
ology,     —480,  4S3 

a  single  species  under  several  vari- 
eties,   .-— - 480 


1092 


INDEX    OP    SUBJECTS. 


Man,  unity  of  species  of,  argues  unity 

of    origin, 481 

according    to    Agassiz    from    eight 

centres   of  origin, 481 

his  racial  unity,  consistent  with  all 

existing    physical    varieties, 4S1,  4S2 

physiological  change  in,  illustrated,  4S2 
his  '  originally  greater  plasticity,'--  482 
his  racial  unity,  authorities  on,  482,  4S3 
the  essental  elements  of  his  nature, 

483-4SS 

the  dichotomous  theory  of  his  na- 
ture,      483,  4S4 

the  dichotomous  theory  of,  support- 
ed hy  consciousness, 483 

the  dichotomous  theory  of,  support- 
ed hy  Scripture,— 483,  484 

the  trichotomous  theory  of  his  na- 
ture,     - 4S4-4SS 

his  >pvxy  and  ^tv^a,     484 

his  spirit  and  soul,  tests  on, 484 

trichotomous   theory   of   his  nature, 

element  of  truth  in, 484 

the  trichotomous  theory  of  his  na- 
ture   untenable, 485,  486 

the    true    relation    of  Trveu/ua  and  ^vxy 

in   his  nature, 486-188 

is  different  in  kind  from  the  brute, 
though       possessed       of       certain 

powers  in  common  with  it, 4S6 

since  spirit  is  soul  when  in  connec- 
tion with  the  body,  soul  cannot 
be  immortal  unless  with  spiritual 

body,    486 

the  trichotomous  theory  of  the  na- 
ture of,  untenable  on  psychologi- 
cal   grounds, 4SG 

a  true  view  of  the  spiritual  nature 

of,  refutes  six  errors, 486,  4S7 

some  who  have  held  the  trichoto- 
mous view  of, 487 

his  body,  why  honorable? -  4SS 

has  been  provided  with  a  fleshly 
body,   for   two    suggested   reasous,  4S8 

origin  of  his  soul, —.488-497 

the   theory    of   the   pre-existence    of 

his  soul! 488^91 

the  advocates,  ancient  and  modern, 
of  this  theory  of  soul  pre-exist- 
ence,     488,  4S3 

the  truth  at  the  basis  of  soul  pre- 
existence,    4SS 

the  theory  of  soul  pre-existence, 
founded  on  an  illusion  of  mem- 
ory,      4S8 

explanations  of  this  illusion, 4SS 

the  theory  of  the  soul's  pre-exist- 
ence, without  Scriptural  warrant, 

489,  49(1 

if  his  soul  was  conscious  and  per- 
sonal   in    the    pre-existent    state, 


why    is    recollection    even    of    im- 
portant   decisions    so    defective?-.  490 
Man,   the  pre-existence  theory  of  the 
soul  of,  is  of  no  theological  assist- 
ance,     490 

Muller's  view  of  pre-existence  stat- 
ed  and   examined, 490,  491 

the  creatian  theory  of  his  soul,  491-493 

its     advocates, 491 

Scripture   does   not  teach   that  God 

immediately  creates  his  soul, 491 

creatianism  repulsively  false  as  rep-         i 
resenting  him  as  not  father  of  his 

offspring's  noblest  part, 492 

his  individuality,  how  best  ex- 
plained,     492 

the    creatian    theory    of    his    birth 

makes   God  the  author  of  sin, 493 

the    creatian    theory    of    his    birth, 

certain  mediating  modifications  of,  493 
the   traducian   theory   of  his   birth, 

493-197 

the  traducian  theory,  its  advocates,  493 

the   traducian   theory   explained, 494 

the    traducian    theory    best    accords 

with  Scripture, 494 

the  traducian  theory  is  favored  by 
the  analogy  of  animal  and  vege- 
table   life, 495 

the  traducian  theory  supported  by 
the  transmission  of  physical,  men- 
tal,    aud     moral     characteristics, 

495,  496 

the  traducian  theory  embraces  the 
element  of  truth  in  the  creatian 
theory  in  that  it  holds  to  a  divine 
concurrence  in  the  development  of 

the  human  species, 497 

his  moral   nature 497-513 

the    powers    which    enter    into    his 

moral  nature 497 

his   conscience   defined, 498 

has    no    separate    ethical    faculty,—  498 
his    conscience    discriminative    and 

impulsive,   498 

his    conscience    distinguished    from 

related   mental   processes, 499 

his   conscience  the   moral   judiciary 

of  the  soul, 500 

his    conscience    an    echo    of    God's        I 

voice,   ... 501 

has  the  authority  of  the  personal 
God,  of  whose  nature  law  is  but 

a   transcript, 502-504 

his   will,- - —504-513 

his  will   defined 504,  505 

his  will  and  the  other  faculties, 505 

his  will  and  permanent  states,— 505,  506 

his  will  and  motives, 506,  507 

his  will  and  contrary  choice, 507,  508 

his  will  and  his  responsibility,— 509,  510 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1093 


Man,  his  responsibility  for  the  inher- 
ited .selfish  preferences  of  his 
will,   its   Scriptural   explanation,-.  510 

his  natural  bent  of  will  to  evil  so 
constant,  inveterate,  and  powerful 
that  only  regeneration  can  save 
him  from  it,.. 510 

the  hurtful  nature  of  a  determinis- 
tic  theory   of   his   will: 511-513 

and  his  will,   authors  upon, 513 

his  original  state, 514-532 

his  original  state  described  only  in 
Scripture,     514 

list  of  authors  on  his  original  state,  514 

essentials  of  his  original  state,— 514-523 

made  '  iu  the  image  of  God,'  what 
implied?  514 

made  in  natural  likeness  to  God 
or    persouality, 514 

made  in  moral  likeness  to  God  or 
holiness,    514 

the  elements  in  his  original  likeness 
to    God,    more    clearly    explicated, 
514,  515 

indwelt  by  the  Logos  or  divine  Rea- 
son,      515 

never  wholly  loses  '  the  image  of 
God,'  515 

in  a  minor  sense  '  gods '  and  '  par- 
takers   of    the    divine    nature,'    --  515 

has  '  a  deeper  depth '  rooted  and 
grounded  in   God, 51.". 

created  a  personal  being  with  power 
to  know  and  determine  self, 515 

his  natural  likeness  to  God  in- 
alienable and  the  capacity  that 
makes    redemption    possible, 515 

his  personality  further  defined, 515 

should  reverence  his  humanity,._515,  516 

originally  possesssed  such  a  direc- 
tion of  affections  and  will  as  con- 
stituted Cod  the  supreme  end  of 
his  being,  and  himself  a  finite  re- 
fiection  of  Cod's  moral  attributes,  517 

his  chief  endowment,  holiness, 517 

his  original  righteousness  as  taught 
iu    Scripture, 517 

in  what  the  dignity  of  his  human 
nature    consists 517 

his  original  righteousness  not  the 
esseuce  of  his   human    nature, 518 

his  original  righteousness  not  a 
gift  from  without  and  after  crea- 
tion,     51S 

his  original  righteousness  a  tend- 
ency of  affections  and  will  to  God,  518 

his    original     righteousness    propa- 

gable  to  descendants, 518 

his  likeness  to  God,  more  than  the 
perfect  mutual  adjustment  of  his 
spiritual    powers, 519 


Man,  his  fall  assigned  by  some  to  pre- 
existent   state, 519 

'  the  image  of  God '  in,  was,  some 
say,  merely  the  possibility  (An- 
lage)    of    real    likeness,— 519 

his  individual  will  not  the  author 
of  his  condition  of  sin  or  of  holi- 
ness,    519 

since  he  originally  knew  God,  must 
have  loved   God, 519,  520 

primal  '  image  of  God,'  not  simply 
ability  to  be  like  God,  but  actual 
likeness,   520 

if  morally  neutral,  is  a  violator  of 
God's    law,. 520 

the  original  '  image  of  God '  iu, 
more  than  capacity  for  religion,..  520 

scholastics  and  the  Romanist 
church  distinguished  between 
'  image  '  and  '  likeness  '  as  applied 
to  his  first  estate, 520 

his  nature  at  creation,  according  to 
Romanism,  received  a  donum  su- 
peradditwm  of  grace, 520 

his  progress  from  the  state  in  pitris 
naturalibus  to  the  state  spoliatus 
«  nudOj  as  the  Romish  church 
teaches,  pictorially  stated,.— 521 

the  Romish  theory  as  to  his  origi- 
nal state  considered  in  detail, 
520-523 

results  of  his  original  possession  of 
the  divine   image,.— 533-525 

his  physical  form  reflects  his  origi- 
nal   endowment, 523 

originally  possessed  an  wquale  tem- 
pera me ntttrn  of  body  and  spirit 
which,  though  physically  perfect, 
was    only    provisional, 523 

had  dominion  over  the  lower  crea- 
tion,     524 

enjoyed   communion  with    God,— 524,  525 

concomitants  of  his  possession  of 
the  divine   image, 525-532 

his  surroundings  and  society  fitted 
to  afford  happiness  and  help,— 525,  526 

his   wife  and   her  creation, 525 

was  perhaps  hermaphrodite, 526 

his  garden,   Eden, 526 

provisions  for  trying  his  virtue,  526,  527 

opportunity  for  securing  for  him- 
self   physical    immortality, 527 

the  first,  had  he  maintained  his  in- 
tegrity, would  have  been  developed 
and  transformed  without  under- 
going   death, 527 

the  Scriptural  view  of  his  original 
state  opposed  by  those  who  hold  a 
prehistoric  development  of  the 
race  from  savagery  to  civilization,  527 

the  originally  savage  condition  of, 
an  ill-founded  assumption, 527-531 


1094 


IJSTDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Man,  the  Scriptural  account  of  his 
original  state  opposed  by  those 
who  hold  the  Positivist  theory 
of  the  three  consecutive  condi- 
tions of  knowledge, 531 

tlie  assumption  that  he  must  hold 
fetichism,  polytheism,  and  mono- 
theism in  successive  steps,  if  he 
progresses  religiously,  contradict- 
ed by  facts, 531,  532 

monotheistic  before  polytheistic,  531,  532 
in   some   stocks   never   practiced  fe- 
tichism,     532 

the  earliest  discovered  sepulchral 
remains  of,  prove  by  presence  of 
food  and  weapons  an  advance  up- 
on fetichism, 532 

his  theologic  thought  not  transient 
but    rooted    in   his   intuitions    and 

desires,    — 532 

in  what  sense  a  law  unto  himself,—  539 

as  finite  needs  law, 542 

as  a  free  being  needs  moral  law,--  542 
as    a    progressive    being    needs    an 
ideal  and  infinite  standard  of  at- 
tainment,     542 

according  to  Scripture  responsible 
for  more  than  his  merely  personal 

acts,     -  634 

not  wholly  a  spontaneous  develop- 
ment of  inborn   tendencies, 649 

the   ideal,    realized   only    in    Christ, 

678,  67!) 

his   reconsiliation  to  God, 777-885 

his  perfection   reached  only   in   the 

world    to    come,- 981 

Manhood   of   Christ,    ideal, 678,  679 

Manicha?anism,    3S2,  670 

Moriolatry,  invocation  of  saints,  and 

transubstantiation,  origin  of, 673 

Marriage,  a  type  of  human  and  divine 

nature  in  Christ, 693 

'  Mary,   mother  of  God,' 671,  6S6 

Material  force  as  little  observable  as 

divine   agency, S 

organism,  not  necessarily  a  hind- 
rance to  activity  of  spirit, 1021 

Materialism,  idealism,  and  pantheism, 
arise   from   desire   after   scientific 

unity, -    90 

Materialism,   what? 90 

element  of  truth   in, 90 

objection  to,  from  intuition, 92 

objection  to,  from  mind's  attributes, 
92,    93 

cannot  explain  the  psychical  from 
the    physical, 93 

furnishes  no  sufficient  cause  for 
highest    phenomena    of    universe,    94 

furnishes  no  evidence  of  conscious- 
ness   in    others, 94,    95 


Materialism,  Sadclucean,  denies  resur- 
rection of  body, 1018 

recent,  its  services  to  proper  views 

of   body, -101S 

Ma  terialistic  Idealism, „ 95-100 

its   definition, 95 

its  development, 95-97 

defective  in  its  definition  of  matter,  97 
defective  in  its  definition  of  mind, 

97,    98 

opposed  to  the  imperative  assump- 
tions of  non-empirical,  transcend- 
ent  knowledge   of   things-in-them- 

selves,    98 

however  modified,  cumbered  with 
the  difficulties  of  pure  materialism, 

98,    99 

a  view  of,  held  by  many  Christian 

thinkers,    , —99,  100 

Mathematics,  a  disclosure  of  the  di- 
vine nature, 261 

crystallized,  the  heavens  are, 261 

Matter,  regarded  as  atoms  which  have 
force  as  a  universal  and  insepara- 
ble  property, 90,    91 

in  its  more  modern  aspect,  a  mani- 
festation of  force, 91 

the  Tyndall  and  Crookes  deliver- 
ances   regarding, 91 

mind  intuitively  regarded  as  dif- 
ferent from  it  in  kind,  and  higher 

in    rank, 92 

to    be    regarded    as    secondary    and 

subordinate   to   mind, 93 

and    mind,    relations   between, 93,    94 

does  it  provide  '  the  needful  object- 
ivity  for   God'? 347 

its  eternity  not  disprovable  by  rea- 
son,    374 

not  stuff  that  emanated  from  God,  385 
not  stuff,  but  an  activity  of  God,  3S5 
according  to  Sehelling,  esprit  yele,  386 
its  continuance  dependent  on  God,—  413 
made  by  God,  and,  therefore,  pure,  560 
its     capacities,     as     subservient     to 

spirit,   inestimable,   1021,  1022 

Memory,  its  impeccability  in  the  case 
of  the  apostles,  secured  by  pro- 
mised   Spirit,    «—  207 

a  preparation  for  the  final  judg- 
ment,     - 1026 

of    an    evil    deed,    becomes    keener 

with  time, 1029 

Memra,  relation  to  Johannine  Logos,  320 

Mendaoium  ofiieiosum, 262 

Mennonites,   970 

Mens   humana   capax  diviner, 212 

Mens   rea,   essential    to    crime, 554 

Mercy,  in  the  God  of  nature,  some  in- 
dications which  point  to, 113 

optional, —.271,    296,  297 

defined,   289 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1095 


Mercy,  divine,  a  matter  of  revelation,  29G 

election  a  matter  of, 779 

Messiah, 321,  667,  668 

Metaphysical   generation  of  the  soul,  493 

Military    theory    of   atonement, 747 

Millennium,    100S-1015 

Mind,  has  no  parts,  yet  divisible, 9 

its  organizing  instinct 15,    16 

gives  both  final  and  efficient  cause,    76 
recognizes    itself    as    another    and 
higher  than   the   material   organi- 
zation it  uses, 92 

its  attributes  and  itself  different  in 
kind  and  higher  in  rank  than  mat- 
ter,     — 92,    93 

not   transformed   physical   force, 93 

the    only    substantive    thing    in    the 

universe,   all   else   is  adjective, 94 

unsatisfactorily  defined  as  a  '  series 

of  feelings  aware  of  Itself,' 97 

Absolute,  not  conditioned  as  the  fi- 
nite mind, 104 

'  carnal,'   its  meaning, 592 

Minister,    his   chief   qualification, 17 

bis    relation    to   church    work, 898 

forfeiture  of  his  standing  as,  ..923,  924 

Miracle,  a  preliminary  definition 117 

modified     definition     suggested     by 

Babbagc,    ...117,  118 

'  signality  '  must  be  preserved  in  defi- 
nition   of,.. 11s 

preferable   definition, —118,  119 

never  regarded   in  Scripture   as   an 

infraction    of   law, 119 

natural  processes  may  be  in, 119 

the    attitude    of    some    theologians 

towards,   irrational, 120 

a  number  of  opinions  upon,  present- 
ed,  - 120 

possibility  of, 121-123 

not  beyond  the  power  of  a  God 
dwelling  in  and  controlling  the 
universe,  shown  in  some  observa- 
tions,     121-123 

possibility  of,  doubly  strong  to  those 
who  give  the  Logos  or  Divine  Rea- 
son   his    place    in    his    universe,..  122 
possible    on    Lotzean    view    of    uni- 
verse,     123 

possible    because    God    is    not    far 

away, 123 

possible  because  of  the  action  and 
reaction   between    the    world   and 

the  personal  Absolute, 123 

a   presumption   against, 124 

presupposes,   and  derives   its  value 

from,     law, 124 

a    uniformity   of   nature,   inconsist- 
ent   with    miracle,    non-existent,—  124 
no   one   is   entitled   to   say   a  priori 
that   it  is  impossible    (Huxley),..  124 


Miracle,  but  the  higher  stage  as  seen 
from   the  lower, 125 

when  the  efficient  cause  gives  place 
to   the   final   cause, 125 

exists  because  the  uniformity  of  na- 
ture is  of  less  importance  in  the 
sight  of  God  than  the  moral 
growth  of  the  human  spirit, 125 

'  the  greatest  I  know,  my  conver- 
sion'    (Vinet), 125 

our  view  of,  determined  by  our  be- 
lief in  a  moral  or  a  non-moral 
God,    126 

is  extraordinary,   never  arbitrary,-.  126 

not  a  question  of  power,  but  of  ra- 
tionality   and    love, 126 

implies  self-restraint  and  self-un- 
folding,   126 

accompanied  by  a  sacrifice  of  feel- 
ing on   the  part  of  Christ, 126 

probability  of,  greater  from  point 
of  view  of  ethical  monism, 126 

a  work  in  which  God  lovingly  limits 
himself,    126 

probability  of,  drawn  from  the  con- 
cessions   of    Huxley,.— 127 

the  amount  of  testimony  necessary 
to  prove  a, 127 

Hume's  misrepresentation  of  the  ab- 
normality   of, 127 

Hume's  argument  against,  falla- 
cious,     127 

evidential    force   of,— 128-131 

accompanies  and  attests  new  com- 
munications from  God, 128 

its  distribution  in  history, 128,  129 

its    cessation    or    continuance, 

128,     132,  133 

certifies  directly  not  to  the  truth  of 
a   doctrine,   but   of   a   teacher, 129 

must  be  supported  by  purity  of  life 
and    doctrine. 129 

to  see  in  all  nature  the  working  of 
the  living  God  removes  prejudice 
against,    130 

the  revelation  of  God,  not  the  proof 
of    that    revelation, 130 

does  not  lose  its  value  in  the  pro- 
cess of  ages, 130 

of  the  resurrection  sustains  the  au- 
thority  of   Christ   as   a   teacher,..  130 

of  Christ's  resurrection,  is  it  '  an 
obsolete  picture  of  an  eternal 
truth'  ? 130 

of  Christ's  resurrection,  has  com- 
plete  historical  attestation, 130,  131 

of  Christ's  resurrection,  not  ex- 
plicable   by    the    swoon-theory    of 

Strauss,    131 

of  Christ's  resurrection,  not  explica- 
ble by  the  spirit-theory  of  Keim,  131 


1096 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Miracle  of  Christ's  resurrection,  not 
explicable  by  the  vision-theory 
of    Renan, 131 

of  Christ's  resurrection,  its  three 
lessons,     131 

the    counterfeit, 132 

only   a   direct   act   of   God   a, 132 

the   counterfeit,   attests   the   true,—  132 

how  the  false,  may  be  distinguished 

from    the    true 132,  133 

Miracles  as  attesting  Divine  Revela- 
tion,     117-133 

Mohammedanism, 186,  347,  427 

Molecular    movement    and   thought,.-    93 

Molecules,    manufactured   articles, 77 

Molluscs,  their  beauty  inexplicable  by 

'  natural    selection,' 471 

Monarchians,    327 

Monism  presents  that  deep  force,  in 
which  effects,  psychical  and  bodi- 
ly, find  common  origin, 69 

there  must  be  a  basal, 80 

Monism,   Ethical,  defined, 105 

consistent  with  the  teachings  of 
Holy    Writ, 105 

the  faith  of  Augustine, 105 

the  faith   of  Anselm 105,  106 

embraces  the  one  element  of  truth 
in  pantheism, 106 

is  entirely  consistent  with  ethical 
fact,    106 

is  Metaphysical  Monism  qualified  by 
Psychological    Monism, 106 

is  supplanting  Dualism  in  philo- 
sophic thought,   106 

it  rejects  the  two  main  errors  of 
pantheism,    _ —107,  109 

it  regards  the  universe  as  a  finite, 
partial,  and  progressive  revelation 
of  God,  107,  108 

it  regards  matter  as  God's  limita- 
tion   under    law    of    necessity, 107 

it  regards  humanity  as  God's  self- 
limitation   under   law   of  freedom,  107 

it  regards  incarnation  and  atone- 
ment as  God's  self-limitation  un- 
der law  of  grace, 107 

regards  universe  as  related  to  God 
as  thought  to  the  thinker, 107 

regards  nature  as  the  province  of 
God's  pledged  and  habitual  caus- 
ality,     107 

is  the  doctrine  largely  of  the  poets, 
107,  108 

guarantees  individuality  and  rights 
of    each    portion    of   universe, 108 

in  moral  realm  estimates  worth  by 
the  voluntary  recognition  and  ap- 
propriation   of    the    divine, 108 

does  not,  like  pantheism,  involve 
moral  indifference  to  the  varia- 
tions  observed   in    universe, 108 


Monism,  Ethical,  does  not  regard 
saint  and  sensualist,  men  and 
mice  as  of  equal  value, 108 

it  regards  the  universe  as  a  graded 
and  progressing  manifestation  of 
God's  love  for  righteousness  and 
opposition  to  wrong, 108 

it  recognizes  the  mysterious  power 
of  selfhood  to  oppose  the  divine 
law,  108 

it  recognizes  the  protective  and  vin- 
dicatory reaction  of  the  divine 
against    evil, 10S 

it  gives  ethical  content  to  Spinoza's 
apophthegm,   '  all    things   serve,'—  108 

it  neither  cancels  moral  distinctions, 
nor   minifies    retribution, 108 

recognizes  Christ  as  the  Logos  of 
God    in    its    universal    acceptance,  109 

recognizes  as  the  Creator,  Upholder, 
and  Governor  of  the  universe,  Him 
who  in  history  became  incarnate 
and  by  death  made  atonement  for 
human  sin, 109 

rests    on     Scriptural     statements,-.  109 

secures  a  Christian  application  of 
modern  philosophical  doctrine, 109 

gives  a  more  fruitful  conception  of 
matter,  103 

considers  nature  as  the  omnipresent 
Christ, 109 

presents  Christ  as  the  unifying 
reality  of  physical,  mental  and 
moral    phenomena, 109 

its  relation  to  pantheism  and  de- 
ism,     109 

furnishes  a  foundation  for  new  in- 
terpretation in  theology  and  phi- 
losophy,      109 

helps  to  acceptance  of  Trinitarian- 
ism,    109 

teaches  that  while  the  natural  bond 
uniting  to  God  cannot  be  broken, 
the    moral    bond    may, 109,  110 

how  it  interprets  '  rejecting '  Christ,  110 

enables  us  to  understand  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  atonement, 110 

strengthens  the  probability  of  mir- 
acle,     126 

teaches  that  God  is  pure  and  per- 
fect mind  that  passes  beyond  all 
phenomena  and  is  their  ground, ..  255 

teaches  that  '  that  which  hath  been 
made   was    life    in   him,'   Christ,—  311 

teaches  that  in  Christ  all  things 
'  consist,'  hold  together,  as  cosmos 
rather  than  chaos, 311 

teaches  that  gravitation,  evolution, 
and  the  laws  of  nature  are  Christ's 
habits,  and  nature  but  his  con- 
stant   will,. - 311 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Iu9? 


Monism.  Ethical,  teaches  that  in 
Christ  is  the  intellectual  bond, 
the  uniformity  of  law,  the  unity 
of    truth, 311 

teaches  that  Christ  is  the  princi- 
ple of  induction,  the  medium  of 
interaction,  and  the  moral  attrac- 
tion of  the  universe,  reconciling 
all   things  in  heaven  and  earth,—  311 

teaches  that  God  transcendent,  the 
Father,  is  revealed  by  God  imma- 
nent,  the   Son, 314 

teaches  that  Christ  is  the  life  of 
nature,   337 

teaches  that  creation  is  thought  in 
expression,    reason    externalized,--  381 

teaches  a  dualism  that  holds  to  un- 
derground connections  of  life  be- 
tween man  and  man,  man  and  na- 
ture,  man   and   God, 386 

teaches  that  the  universe  is  a  life 
and  not  a  mechanism, 391 

teaches  that  God  personally  pres- 
ent in  the  wheat  makes  it  grow, 
and  in  the  dough  turns  it  into 
bread,    411 

teaches  that  every  man  lives,  mo 
and  has  his  being  in  God,  and  that 
whatever    has    come     into     being. 
whether  material  or  spiritual,  has 
its  life  only  in  Christ 413 

teaches  that  '  1)<  i  voluntas  est  re 
rum  natura,' 413 

teaches  that  nothing  finite  is  only 
finite,  .__. 413 

its  further  teaching  concerning  nat- 
ural forces  and  personal  beings, 
113.  414.  418,  413 

allows  of  '  second  cause.- 416 

Monogenism.  modern  science  in  favor 

of,    480 

Monophysites,   672 

see  Eutyehians. 
Monotheism,   facts  point   to  an  origi- 
nal,     56,  531 

Hebrew,  preceeds  polytheistic  sys- 
tems   of    antiquity 531,  532 

more  and  more  evident  in  heathen 
religions  as  we  trace  them  back, 
531,  532 

an   original,  authors  on, —531,  532 

Montanists, 304 

Montanus,    712 

Moral   argument  for  the  existence  of 
God,     the    designation     criticized,    81 

faculty,  its  deliverances,  evidences 
of  an  intelligent  cause, 82 

freedom,    what? 361 

nature  of  man, 497-51? 

likeness  to  himself,  how  restored  by 
God,    „  518 


Moral  law,  what? 537-544 

law,    man's   relations    to,    reach    be- 
yond  consciousness, 594 

government  of  God,  recognizes  race- 
responsibilities,  594 

union     of     human     and     divine     in 

Christ,     671 

analogies  of  atonement, 716 

evil,   see  Sin. 

obligation,   its   grounds   determined, 

298-303 

judgments,    involve   will, 841 

Morality,    Christian,    a    fruit    of   doc- 
trine,   - 16 

Of   N.   T.,   177,  17S 

Christian,  criticized  by  Mill, 179 

heathen  systems  of, 179-1X6 

of  Bible,  progressive, 230 

mere    insistence    on,    cannot    make 

men    moral, 863 

'  Morning    stars,' 445 

'  Mother  of  God,' 681 

Motive,   not   cause   but   occasion,   360,  506 
man  never  acts  without  or  contra- 
ry    to, 360 

a   ground  of  prediction, 360 

influences,     without     infringing    on 

free  agency,   360 

the    previously    dominant,    not    al- 
ways the  impulsive 360 

Motives,    man   can    choose   between,—  360 
persuade  but  never  compel,— 362,  506,  649 
not    wholly    external   to    mind    in- 
fluenced by  them 506,  817 

lower,      sometimes      seemingly      ap- 
pealed  to   in   Scripture, 826,  827 

Muratorian    Canon, 14? 

Music,  reminiscent  of  possession  lost,  526 

Mystic,    31,    81 

Mysticism,    true   and    false, 32 

Mystifc  and  Mysticiamus, 31 

Myth,    its    nature, 155 

as  distinguished   from  saga   and  le- 
gend,      155 

'  the  Divine  Spirit  can  avail  himself 

of     (Sabatier), 155 

'  may  be  made  the  medium   of  rev- 
elation '     (Denney), 214 

not  a  falsehood, 155.  214 

early  part  of  Genesis  may  be  of  the 

nature   of  a 214 

Myth-theory  of  the  origin  of  the  gos- 
pels   <  Strauss), 155-157 

described,    155,  156 

objected    to, 156,  157 

authors   on, 157 

Nachicirkung   and    Forticirkung, 776 

'  Name,  in  my,' 807 

Names     of     God,    the     five     Hebrew, 

Ewald    on, 318 

Kascimur,  pascimur, 972 


1098 


INDEX   OF    SUBJECTS. 


Natura,    392 

Natura  enim  non  nisi  parendo  vinci- 
tur,   —  511 

Natura    Jiumana    in    Christo    capax 
divinw,   694 

Natura  naturans   (Spinoza), 244,  28? 

Natura  naturata   (Spinoza),— 244,  287,  700 

Naturw  minister  et  interpres, 2 

Natural  =  psychical, 484 

Natural   insight   as   to   source  of  re- 
ligious,   knowledge, 203 

Natural   law,    advantages  of  its  gen- 
eral    uniformity, 124 

events  aside  from  its  general  fixity 
to  be  expected  if  moral  ends  re- 
quire,    125 

life,     God's     gift     of,     foreshadows 

larger     blessings, 2S9 

realism,    and    location    of    mind    in 

body,    280 

revelation  supplemented  by  Script- 
ure,         27 

Natural  Selection,  artificial  after  all,    93 

its    teaching, 470 

is    partially    true, 470 

is  not  a  complete  explanation  of  the 

history   of   life, 470 

gives  no  account  of  origin  of  sub- 
stance or  variations, 470 

by  the  survival  does  not  explain  the 

arrival  of  the  fittest,. . ._  470 

does  not  explain  the  sudden  and  ap- 
parently independent  appearance  of 

important  geologic  forms, 470 

certain  entomological  and  anatomical 
facts   are    inexplicable    upon    the 

theory  of, 471 

fails  to  explain  the  beauty  in  lower 

forms  of  life, 471 

no  species  has  as  yet  been  produced 

by  either  artificial  or, 472 

floes  not  necessarily  make  the  idea  of 

Creator  superfluous, ,.'.  473 

may  account  for  man's  place  in,  but 

not  above,  nature, 473 

requires,  according  to  Wallace,  a  su- 
perior intelligence  to  guide  in  defi- 
nite direction  or  for  special  pur- 
pose   473 

a  list  of  authors  upon, 474 

atheistically  taught,  is  election  with 

hope  and  pity  left  out, 784 

Natural  theology,  what? 260 

Nature,  its  usual  sense, 26,  121 

its  proper  sense, 26,  121 

its  witness  to  God,  outward  and  in- 
ward,     26 

argument  for  God's  existence  from 

change  in, 73-75 

argument  for  God's  existence  from 

useful  collocation  in, 75-80 

Mill's  indictment  of, 78 


Nature,  apart    from    man,  cannot    be 

interpreted,  79 

does  not  assure  us  of  God's  love  and 

provision  for  the  sinner, 113,  114 

by    itself   furnishes   a   presumption 

against  miracles, 124 

as  synonym  of  substance, 243 

according  to  Schleiermacher, 287 

its  forces,  dependent  and  independent,  414 

the  brute  submerged  in, 468 

human,  why  it  should  be  reverenced,  515 

inwhatsense  sin  a, 518 

as  something  inborn, 518,  577,  578 

the  race  has  a  corrupted  nature,..  .577-582 
Sinful  acts  and  dispositions  explained 

by  a  corrupt,... 577 

a  corrupt,  belongs  to  man  from  first 

moment  of  his  being, 578 

a  corrupt,  underlies  man's  conscious- 
ness,   578 

a  corrupt,  which  cannot  be  changed 

by  a  man's  own  power, 578 

a  corrupt,  the    common  heritage  of 

the  race, 578 

designates,  not  substance,  but  corrup- 
tion of  substance, 578 

how  responsible  for  a  depraved,  which 

one  did  not  personally  originate, 593 

human,  Pelagian  view  of, 598 

human,  semi-Pelagian  view  of, 598 

human,  Angustinian  view  of, 598 

human,  organic  view  of , 600 

human,  atomistic  view  of, 600 

the  whole  human  race  once  a  person- 
ality in  Adam, 629 

human,  can  apostatize  but  once, 630 

human,  totally  depraved, 637-639 

man  can  to  a  certain  extent  modify 

his, 642 

sin  of,  and  personal  transgression, 648 

impersonal  human, 694 

ami  person, 694,  695 

Robinson's  definition  of, 695 

human,  is    it  to    develop   into  new 

forms? 986 

'  Nature  of  things,  in  the,'  the  phrase 

examined, 357 

Nazarenes, 669 

see  Ebionites. 

Nebular  hypothesis, 395 

Necessitarian  philosophy,   correct  for 

the  brute, 468 

Negation,  involves  affirmation, 9 

Ncron  Kaisar,  and  '666', 1009 

Nescience,  divine 286 

see  God. 

Nestorians, 671 

Neutrality,   moral,    never  created  by 

God, 521 

moral,  a  sin, 521 

New  England  theology, 48,  49 

New  Haven  theology, 49 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


1099 


New  School  theology, 48,  49,  606 

its  definition  of  holiness, 271,  272 

its  definition  of  sin,  liow  it  differs  from 

that  of  Old  School,,... ....549,550 

ignores  the  unconscious  and  subcon- 
scious elements  in  human  character,  550 

its  wa  teh  word  as  to  sin, 595 

its  theory  of  imputation,  an  evasion,  596 
its  theory  of  imputation   explained, 

606,  607 

development  of  its  theory  of  inspira- 
tion,  607,  608 

modifications  of  view  within, 608 

contradicts  Scripture, 608,  609 

its  advocates  cannot  understand  Paul,  009 
rests  upon  false  philosophical  princi- 
ples,   609,  610 

impugns  the  justice  of  God, 610,  611 

inconsistent  with  facts, 611,  612 

its  aim  that  of    all  the  theories  of 

imputation, 612 

Nihil  in  iiitiUtttii  nisi  quod  ante  fin  rit 

in  eensu, 63 

Nineveh,  winged  creatures  of, 449 

Nirvana, 182 

Noblesse  oblige, S01 

Ni  mi  in  a  become  numina, 245 

Nominalism   inconsistent  with  Script- 
lire 244 

Nominalist  notion  of  God's  nature, 244 

Non-apostolic    writings  recommended 

by  apostles, 201 

Non-inspiration,    seeming,   of    certain 

fieri  ptures, 242 

Non  plcni  nasi- i  in  in;. 597 

'Nothing,  creation  out  of,' 372 

Wotitia,  an  element  in  faith, 837 

Noumenon    in    external    and   interna! 

phenomena, 6 

Nulhis  in  microcosmo  8piritus,  nullus  in 

•macrocosmo  Deus, 79 

Obduracy,  sins  of,  incomplete  and  final,  650 
Obedience,  Christ's  active  and  passive, 

719,  770 

'Obey,'  not  the  imperative  of  religion,    21 
Obligation  to  obey  law  based  on  man's 

original  ability, 541 

Offences  between  men 766 

between  church  members, 924,  925 

Old  School  theology,.. 49,  606,  607 

Omission,  sins  of, 554,  648 

Omnc  vivum  e  vivo  (exouo),. 3S9 

Omniamea  mecum  ptrrto,.. ...1(02 

Omnipotence  of  God, 280-288 

see  God. 

Omnipresence  of  God, 279-282 

see  God. 
Omnipresent,  how  God  might  cease  to 

be, 282 

Omniscience  of  God, 282-286 

see  God. 
'One  eternal  now,'  how  to  be  under- 
stood,   277 


Ontological  argument  for  existence  of 

God, 85-89 

see  God. 

Optimism, 404,  40r> 

Oracles,  ancient, 135 

Ordinances  of  the  church, 929-980 

Ordination  of  church  officers, 918-929 

Ordo  salutis, 794 

Organic  and  organized  substances, 93 

Organic,   the,  and   atomistic  views  of 

human  nature, 600 

Original  'image  of  God'  in  man,   its 

nature, 514-523 

Original    natural  likeness  to   God,  or 

personality, 515,519,  520 

moral  likeness  to  God,  man's,  or  holi- 
ness,.  516-518 

righteousness,  what? 517,  518 

knowledge  of  God,  man's,  implied  a 
direction  of  the  affections  and  will 

toward  God, 519 

sin,  as  held  by  Old  School  theologians,    49 

two-fold  problem  of, 593 

its  definition, 594,  595 

two  principles  fundamental  to   con- 
sideration of, 595 

a  correct  view  of  race-responsibility 

essential  to  a  correct  view  of, 595 

some  facts  in   connection  with  the 

guilt  of, 596 

substance  of  Scriptural  teaching  con- 
cerning,  025-627 

a  misnomer,  if  applied  to  any  theory 

but  that  of  its  author,  Augustine,..  636 
no  one  finally  condemned  merely  on 

account  of, 590,  603,  664 

state  of  man, 514-533 

essentials  of, 514-522 

results  of, 523-525 

concomitants  of, 525-532 

Romish  and  Protestant  views  of,  ...521,  522 
i >s  sublime,  manifestation    of  internal 

endowments, 523 

Pain,  physical,  existed  before  entrance 

of  moral  evil  into  world, 402 

this  supralapsarian  pain,  how  to  be 

regarded, 402 

due  not  to  God,  but  to  man, 402 

verdicts  declarative  of  the  secondary 

place  of,... 402 

cannot  explain  its  presence  here  by 

the  good  it  may  do, 403 

it  is  God's  protest  against  sin, 403 

has  its  reason  in  the  misconduct  of 

man, 403 

supralapsarian  pain  an  '  anticipative 

consequence,'  403 

God's  frown  upon  sin,  and  warning 

against  it, 403 

Palestine, 174,  421 

Pantheism,  Idealistic,  defined, 100 

the  elements  of  truth  in, 100 


iioo 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Pantheism,  Idealistic,  its  error, 100 

denies  real  existence  of  the  finite, 100 

deprives  the  infinite  of  self-conscious- 
ness and  freedom, 100 

in  it  the  worshiped  is  the  worshiper,..  100 

the  later  Brahmanism Is,-. 100 

the  fruit  of  absence  of  will  and  long- 
ing for  rest  as  end  of  existence,  as 

among  Hindus, 100 

in  Hegeliauism,  presents  the  alterna- 
tive, no  God  or  no  man, 100 

of  Hegel  and  Spinoza, 100,  101 

of  Hegel,  its  different  interpreters,-..  101 
of  Hegel,  as  modified  by  Schopen- 
hauer,   101 

its  idea  of  God  self-contradictory,  101,  102 
its  asserted  unity  of  substance  with- 
out proof,  —  102 

it  assigns    no   sufficient    cause    for 
highest  fact  of  universe,  personal 

intelligence, 102 

it  contradicts  the  affirmations  of  our 

moral  and  religious  nature, 103 

antagonizes  our  intuitive  conviction 

of  the  absolute  perfection  of  God,  104 
its   objection  that,  in   eternity  there 
was  not  not-self   over   against  the 
Infinite  to  call  forth  self-conscious- 
ness, without  foundation, 104 

denies  miracle, 122 

denies  inspiration, 204 

anti-trinitarianism  leads  to, 347 

involved  in  doctrine  of  emanation,...  383 
assumes  that  law  fully  expresses  God,  547 

should  worship  Satan, 566 

at  basis  of  Docetism, 676 

not  involved  in  doctrine  of    Union 

with  Christ 800 

Parables, 240,  784 

Paradise, 403,  998,  999 

Paradoxon  mmmum  evangelicum, 753 

Pardon,  limited  by  atonement,  objec- 
tions to,  refuted, 766 

its  conditions  can  of  right  be  assigned 

by  God, 767 

the  act  of  God  as  judge  in  justifica- 
tion,   855 

and  justification  distinguished, 858,  859 

through  Christ,  honors  God's  justice 

and  mercy, 860 

Parseeism, 185 

Parsimony,  law  of, 74,  87 

Passion,  the,  necessitated  by  Christ's 

incarnation, 760 

Passover, 157,  723,  726,  960 

Pastor, 908,  914,  915,  917 

'Pastors  and  teachers,' 915 

Patripassians, 327 

Paul, 210,  235,  851,  999 

Peace, 865 

Peccatum  alienum, 616 


Pelagianism,  a  development  of  rational- 
ism,      89 

its  theory  of  imputation, 597-601 

its  principal  author  and  present  advo- 
cates,  597 

its  exposition, 597 

its  view  of  Romans  5: 12, 597 

its  seven  points, 597 

its  sinless  men,. 597 

its'nem  pleni  nascimur,' 597 

its  misinterpretation  of  the  divine  in- 
fluence in  man, 597 

is  deism  applied  to  man's  nature, 598 

ignores  his  dignity  and  destiny, 598 

unformulated  and  sporadic, 598 

unscriptural, 598,  599 

a  survival  of  paganism, 598 

its  key  doctrine :  Homo  liboro  arbitrio 

emancipatus  a  Dm, 598 

its  unscriptural  tenets  specified,.. 598,  599 

regards  sins  as  isolated  volitions, 599 

its  method  contrasted  with  that  of 

Augustinianism, 599 

presents  an  Ebionitic  view  of  Christ,  599 

its  principles  false  in  philosophy, 600 

ignores  law  by  which  acts  produce 
states, 600 

Penalty,  what? 294,  652,  653 

Penalty, 652-660 

its  idea, 652 

more  than  natural  consequences  of 

transgression, 652 

not  essentially  reformatory, 653 

what  essentially '? 653 

not    essentially  to  secure  social  or 

governmental  safety, 653,  655 

not  essentially  deterrent, 655 

of  sin,  two-fold, 656 

of  sin,  is  physical  death, 656-659 

of  sin,  is  spiritual  death, 659,  660 

Penitence, 766 

Pentateuch  (Hexateuch),   its  author- 
ship  170-172 

literature  upon, 172 

Perfect,  as  applied  to  men, 574 

Perfection,  in  God, 9,260-275 

of   Christian   and  church  reached  in 
world  to  come,.. 981 

Perfectionism,  its  tenet, 877 

its  teachers, 877 

its  modifications, 877 

authorities  upon, 877 

its  fundamental  false  conceptions,  877,  878 

is  contradicted  by  Scripture, 878-8SG 

disproved  by  Christian  experience, 880 

how  best  met, 880,  881 

Permanent    states    of     the    faculties, 
506,  550,  551 

Perseverance,  human  side   of  sanctifi- 

cation, 868,  881 

definition, Sol 

its  proof  from  Scripture, 882 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1101 


Perseverance,  its  proof  from  reason,  882,  883 
is  not  inconsistent  with  human  free- 
dom,    883 

does  not  tend  to  immorality, 883,  884 

deefl  not  lead  to  indolence, 884 

the  Scriptural  warnings  against  apos- 
tasy do  not  oppose  it, 884,  885 

apparent  instances  of  apostasy  do  not 

oppose  it, 885,  886 

list  of  authors  on  general  subject  of,  88(5 
'Person'  in  doctrine  of   Trinity,  only 

approximately  accurate, 330 

Person,  how  communicated  in  different 

measures, 334 

Person  and  character  of  Christ,  as  proof 

of  revelation, 186-190 

Person  of  Christ,  the  doctrine  of, 669-700 

historical  survey  of  views  regarding, 

669-673 

the  two  natures  in  their  reality  and 

integrity, ...673-683 

the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  one, 

6S3-700 

Personal  identity, 93,  417 

intelligences  cannot  be  accounted  for 

by  pantheism, 103 

influence,   often  distinct  from   word 

spoken, 830 

Personalty,  defined, 

83,  :.•.-.:.',  :.':»:;,  330,  335,  515,  695 

of  God,  the  conclusion  of  the  anthro- 
pological argument, 84 

of  God,  denied  by  pantheism, 100 

the  highest  dependent  on  infiniteness,  104 
self-conscious  and  self -determining,, .  253 
triple,    in    Godhead,  consistent  with 

essential  unity, 330 

in  man,  inalienable, 515 

involves  boundless  possibilities, 515 

foundation  of  mutual    love  among 

men, 515 

constitutes  a  capacity  for  redemption,  515 

Pessim ism, 404,  405 

Peter,  how  he  differed  with  Paul, 214 

Romish  assumptions  regarding, 909 

Peter,  Second, 147,  149,  153 

Pharaoh,  the  hardening  of  his  heart, 434 

Phenomena, 6 

Philemon  and  Onesimus,  moralized,...  767 

Philosophy,  defined, 43 

Physico-theological   argument,  a  term 

of  Kant's, 75 

Physiology,  comparative,  favors  unity 

of  race, 480-483 

Pictures  of  Christ, 251 

Pte  hoc  potest  dici,  Dcum  ease  Naturam,  107 
Plasticity   of    species,  greater   toward 

origin, 482 

Plural  quantitative, 318 

Pluralis  majettatieus, 318 

Poesy  and  poem, 852 

Poetry, 536 


Polytheism, 259,  347 

Pools  of  modern  Jerusalem, 934 

Positive  Philosophy 6,  9,  535,545,  632 

Possession  by  demons, 456 

Pneterist  interpreters  of  Revelation,  __  1009 

Prayer,  relation  of  Providence  to,. 433 

its  effect,  not  solely  reflex  influence,..  433 
its  answers  not  confined  to  spiritual 

means, : 433 

not  answered  by  suspension  or  breach 

of  the  order  of  nature, 434 

has  no  direct  influence  on  nature, 434 

is  answered  by  new  combinations  of 

natural  forces, 434 

as  an  appeal  to  a  personal  and  present 

God,  it  moves  God, 435 

its  answer,  while  an  expression  of  God's 
will,  may  come  through  the  use  of 

appointed  means, 435 

God's  immanency  in  nature  helps  to  a 
solution  of  the  problem,  how  prayer 

is  answered, 436 

how  the  potency  of  prayer  may  be 

tested, 437,  438 

Prayer-book,  English,  Arminian, 46 

on  infant  baptism, 957 

Prayer-book   of  Edward  VI,  mode  of 

baptism  in, 957 

Preaching  of  doctrinal  sermons, 19 

of  the  decrees, 369 

of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race  in 

transgression, 634 

larger  part  of,  should  consist  in  ap- 
plication of  Divine  law  to  personal 

acts, 648,  649 

addressed  to  elect  and  non-elect, 789 

must  press  immediate  submission  to 

Christ, 830 

of  everlasting  punishment  an  auxil- 
iary to  the  gospel  appeal, 1053 

Pre- Adamites, 476 

Precedent,  N.  T.,  the  '  common-law '  of 

the  church, 970 

'  Preconformity  to  future  events,' 76 

Predestination, 355,  360,  781 

Pi  1  tliiitta,  not  attributes,.. 245 

Prediction,  on!y  a  part  of  prophecy,  134,  710 

'  Pre-established  harmony,' 93 

Pre-existence  of  soul, 488-491 

Preference,  immanent, 514 

'elective,' 557 

Preparation,    historical,    for     redemp- 
tion,  665-668 

Prerational  instinct, 98 

Prescience,  Divine, 286 

Presentative  intuition, 52,  53,  67 

Preservation, 410-419 

definition  of,  positive  and  negative, 

410,  411 

proofs  of,  from  Scripture  and  reason, 
411-414 


1102 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Preservation,  deism,  with  its  God  with- 
drawn, denies, - 414,415 

continuous  creation,  with  momently- 
new  universe,  inconsistent  with,  415-418 
divine  concurrence  in,  considered,  418,  419 

Pretermission  of  sin, 772 

Preventive  providence, 423 

Pride, - - 569 

'Priest' and  'minister,' 915,  967 

Priestly  office  of  Christ, 713-775 

Probability, 71 

Probation  after  death,.... 707,  1002, 1031-1044 

in  Adam, --  629 

Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  its  true 

formula, 323 

consistent  with  his  equality  in  Trinity, 

..__ 340,  341 

Progress   of    early   Christianity,   what 

principally  conduced  to? 187 

Prolegomena, 1-15 

Proof  of  Divine  Revelation,  principles 

of  evidence  applicable  to, 41-44 

Prophecy,  as  attesting  a  divine  revela- 
tion,  - 134-141 

defined  in  its  narrow  sense,.. 134,  135 

its  relation  to  miracles, 135 

requirements  in, 135 

general  features  of  Scriptural,  — 135,  136 

Messianic  in  general, 136 

as  used  by  Christ, 136-138 

the  double  sense  of, - 138-140 

evidential  force  of, 140, 141 

alleged  errors  in, 235,  236 

Christians  have  gifts  of, 712 

modern,  as  far  as  true,  what?. 712 

Prophet,  not  always  aware  of  meaning 

of  hisown  prophecies,...: 139 

later  may  elucidate  earlier  utterances, 

_._235,  236 

his  soul,  is  it  rapt  into  God's  time- 
less   existence    and    vision? 278 

larger  meaning  of  the  word, 710 

Prophetw  priores, 710 

Prophetic  office  of  Christ, 710-713 

see    Christ. 

its    nature, 710,  711 

fulfilled  in  three  ways 711 

its   four   stages,— 711-713 

in    his    Logos-work, 711 

in  his  earthly  ministry. 711,  712 

in  his  guidance  and  teaching  of  the 

church  since  his  ascension, 712 

in  his  revelations  of  the  Father  to 

the    saints   in   glory, 712,  713 

will   he    eternal, 712 

Propitiation,     719,  720 

Proprietates,    distinguished    from    at- 
tributes,      — —  246 

Proselyte-baptism,    931,  932 

Protevangelium,  Scripture  germinally,  175 

Providence,  doctrine  of, 419-443 

defined,    - — -  419 


Providence     explains    evolution    and 

progress   of  universe, 419,  420 

doctrine  of,  its  proof  from  Script- 
ure,      421-425 

a  general   providential   control,  421,  422 
a  control  extending  to  free  actions 

of  men  in  general, 422,  423 

four    sorts,    preventive,    permissive, 

directive,    determinative, 423-425 

rational    proof    of, 425-427 

arguments  a  priori, 425,  426 

arguments  a  posteriori, 426 

opposed  by  theory  of  fatalism, 427 

opposed  by   casualism, 427,  42S 

opposed  by  theory  of  a  merely  gene- 
ral    providence, 428-431 

its   relation  to  miracles  and  works 

of    grace 431^33 

its  relation  to  prayer, 433-439 

its    relation    to    Christian   activity, 

439-441 

to  evil  acts  of  free  agents, 441-443 

'  Providential    miracles,' 432 

Psychic    phenomena, 117 

Punctiliousness,    warning   against, 428 

Punishment,   implied   in  man's  moral 

nature,    82 

does   not  proceed  from   love, 272 

proceeds    from    justice, 293 

its    idea, 652,  752 

what   implied    in   its   idea, 652-656 

has  in  it,  beyond  the  natural  conse- 
quences of  transgression,  a  per- 
sonal   element, 652 

its    object    not    the    reformation    of 

the    sufferer 653 

is  the  necessary  reaction  of  divine 

holiness  against  sin, 653 

is    not    esentially    deterrent,.. 655 

of  sin  is  physical  death, 656-659 

of  sin  is  spiritual  death, 659,  660 

an  ethical  need  of  the  divine  na- 
ture,     751 

an  ethical  need  in  man's  moral  na- 
ture,     751 

of  guilty,  Christ's  sufferings  sub- 
stituted   for, 752 

is  borne  by  the  judge  and  punisher 

in  the  nature  that  has  sinned, 752 

as    presented    in    atonement,    what 

it    secures, 753 

endured  by  Christ  righteously,  be- 
cause of  his   relation  to   the   sin- 

ing    race, 754,  755 

remitted  in  justification, 854 

remitted  on  the  ground  of  what 
Christ,    to    whom    the    sinner    is 

united  by  faith,  has  done, 854,  858 

the   final,    of   the    wicked   described 

in    Scriptural    figures, -.1033, 1034 

the  final,  of  the  wicked,  summed 
up,    — 1034 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1103 


Punishment,     future,     some     conces- 
sions   regarding, 1035 

of  wicked,  the  future,  not  annihila- 
tion,     1035,  1036 

not  a  weakening  process  ending  in 

cessation  of  existence, 1036,  1037 

not     an     annihilating     punishment 

after    death 1037 

light  from  the  evolutionary  process 

thrown    on, 103S 

excludes    new    probation    and    ulti- 
mate restoration  of  the  wicked,— 1039 
declared  in  Scripture  to  be  eternal,  1044 

is  a  revelation  of  God's  justice, 1046 

as  the  reaction  of  holiness  against 
sin  must  continue  while  sin  con- 
tinues,     1046, 1047 

is  endless  since  guilt  is  endless,—  lots 

is  eternal  since  sin  is  'eternal,' 1048 

the  facts  of  human  life  and  ten- 
dencies of  scientific  thought  point 

to  the  perpetuity  of 1049 

may  have  degrees  yel  be  eternal, 1050 

may  be  eternal  as  the  desert  of  sin 

of    infinite    enormity, 1050 

not  inconsistent  with  God's  benev- 
olence,   — 1051-1054 

its    proper    preaching    not    a    hin- 
drance to  success  of  the  gospel,— 1054 
if    it    is    a    fact,    it    ought    to    be 

preached,    1054 

to     ignore     it    in     pulpit     teaching 

lowers    the   holiness   of   God 1055 

the  fear  of,   not  the   highest  but  a 

proper  motive  to  seek  salvation, 1055 

in  preaching  it,  the  misery  of  the 
soul   should  have   special  emphas- 

sis,    1056 

Purgatory 659,   866,   1000-1002 

Purification  of  Christ,  the  ritual, 

761,  942,  943 

Puritans,    546,  557 

Purpose    of   God    includes    many    de- 
crees,      353 

in   election,   what? 355 

in    reprobation,    what? 355 

to  save  individuals,  passages  which 

prove,    780-783 

to  do  what  he  does,  eternal 7S3 

to  save,  not  conditioned  upon  merit 

or    faith, 784 

Qmixi    cat  cere,    Christ    not    thus    in 

Heaven 709 

Quia   vol  u  it   of  Calvin,   not  final   an- 
swer  as   to    God's   acts, -  404 

Quickening,      Christ's,      distinguished 

from    his    resurrection, 707 

Quietism,  439,  440 

Quo     noil     ascendam  ?     not     Christ's 

query,    764 

Race,    Scripture   teaches    its    descent 
from   a   single   pair, 476 


Race,  its  descent  from  a  single  pair 

a  foundation  truth  of  Paul's, 476 

its   descent  from  a   single   pair   the 

foundation  of  brotherhood,- __  476 

its  descent  from  a  single  pair  cor- 
roborated   by    history, 477,  478 

its  descent  from  a  single  pair  corro- 
borated  by   language, 478,  479 

its  descent  from  a  single  pair  cor- 
roborated   by    psychology, 479,  4S0 

its  descent  from  a  single  pair  corro- 
borated by   physiology, —480-483 

Race-responsibility,    594-597 

Rational    intuition, 52,    67 

Rationalism   and   Scripture, 29,  30,  89 

Readings,    various, 226 

Realism,  in  relation  to  God, 245 

Reason,  definition  of, _!,    29 

its    office, __    29 

says  8do,  not  con  win 500 

moral,    depraved, 501 

Reasoning,    not    reason, 29 

not  a  source  of  the  idea  of  God, 65 

errors  of,    in    Bible 232,  233 

Recognition,  post-resurrectional,  1020,  1021 
Recollection  of  things  not  before  seen, 

the  seeming,  explained, 48S 

memory  greater  than, 705 

Reconciliation,      removal      of      God's 

wrath 719 

of   man  to   God 777-886 

objective,  secured  by  Christ's  union 

with     race, 802 

subjective,      secured      by      Christ's 

union  with  believers 802 

Redemption    and    resurrection,    what 

is   secured   by, 527 

wrought  by   Christ, 665-776 

its    meaning, 707 

legal,  of  Christ,  its  import, 761 

its   application, 777-886 

application  of,  in  its  preparation, 777-793 
application    of,    in    its    actual    be- 
ginning,      r<93-868 

application  of,   in  its  continuation, 

868-886 

Redi's    maxim, 389 

Reformed    theology, 44-46 

Regenerate,     some    apparently    such, 

will  fall  away, 884 

the  truly,  not  always  distinguish- 
able in  this  life  from  the  seem- 
ingly   so, 884 

their  fate  if  they  should  not  perse- 
vere   described, 885 

these  warnings  secure  their  perse- 
verance,      885 

Regeneration,   illustrative   of   inspira- 
tion,     —  212 

ascribed  to   Holy   Spirit, 316 

its  nature,  according  to  Romanists,  522 


1104 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Regeneration,  the  view  that  a  child 

may  be  educated  into, 606 

its  place  in  the  ord,o  salutis, 793 

does  a  physical  miracle  attend? 806 

defined,  809 

its  active  and  passive  aspects, 809 

how    represented    in    Scripture,.. 810-812 

indispensable,    810 

a    change    in    the    inmost    principle 

of    life, - 810 

a  change  in  governing  disposition,—  810 

a  change  in  moral  relations, S10,  811 

wrought  through  use  of  truth, 811 

is    instantaneous, 811 

wrought   by    God, 811 

through  union  of  soul  with  Christ, 

811,  812 

its    necessity, 812-814 

its  efficient  cause, 814-820 

the  will  not  the  efficient  cause,— 815-817 

is  more  than  self-reformation, 815 

is  not  co-operation   with   divine  in- 
fluence, which  to  the  natural  man 

is     impossible, 816 

the  truth  is  not  the  efficient  cause, 

817,  818 

the  Holy   Spirit,   the  efiicient  cause 

of,    818-S20 

the    Spirit   in,   operates  not  on  the 

truth  but  on  the  soul, 819 

the  Spirit  in,  effects  a  change  in  the 

moral    disposition, 820 

the  instrumentality  used  in, 820-823 

baptism  a  sign  of, 821 

as    a    spiritual    change    cannot    be 

effected   by   physical   means, 821 

is  accomplished  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  truth, 822 

man  not  wholly  passive  at  time  of 

his,    822 

man's    mind    at   time   of,   active    in 

view    of    truth, 822 

nature   of  the  change   wrought   in, 

823-829 

is  a  change  by  which  governing  dis- 
position  is   made  holy, 823-S23 

does  not  affect  the  quantity  but  the 

quality   of   the    soul, 824 

involves    an    enlightenment    of    the 
understanding  and   a   rectification 

of    the    volitions, 825 

an  origination  of  holy  tendencies,—  826 
an  instantaneous  change  in  soul,  be- 
low consciousness  and  known  only 

in     results, 826-829 

is  an  instantaneous  change, 826,  827 

should  not  be  confounded  with  pre- 
paratory   stages, 827 

taken   place   in   region   of   the   soul 

below   consciousness, 828 

is    recognized    indirectly    in    its    re- 
sults,     828,  829 


Regeneration,    the    growth    that    fol- 
lows, is  sanctification, .  829 

Regno,  gloria?,  gratia?  (et  natures), 775 

Reign  of  sin,  what? 553,  554 

Religion  and  theology,  how  related,..    19 

derivation  of  word, 19,    20 

false    conceptions    of    it    advocated 
by     Hegel,     Schleiermacher,     and 

Kant,    — 20,    21 

its    essential    idea, 21,    22 

there  is  but  one, 22,    23 

its    content    greater    than    that    of 

theology,     23 

distinguished  from  formal  worship, 

23,    24 

conspectus    of    the    systems    of,    in 

world,    179-186 

Remorse,     perhaps     an     element     in 

Christ's     suffering, 769 

Reparative  goodness  of  God  in  nature,  113 
Repentance,   more   for  sin  than   sins,  555 

the  gift  of  God, - 782 

described,    - —  832 

contains  an  intellectual   element, 832 

contains   an   emotional   element,  832,  833 
contains   a   voluntary   element,— 833,  834 

implies     free-will, 834 

Romish     view, 834 

wholly   an  inward  act, 834 

manifested  by  fruits  of  repentance,  835 
a  negative  and  not  a  positive  means 

of    salvation, 835 

if  true,  is  in  conjunction  with  faith,  836 

accompanies  true  faith, 836 

Reprobation,    355 

Rerum  natura  Dei  voluntas  est, 119 

Respiee,  aspice,  prospice   of  Bernard 

applied  to  prophet's  function, 710 

Responsibility    for    whatever    springs 

from     will, 509 

for  inherited  moral  evil,  its  ground,  509 
is    special    help    of    Spirit    essential 

to?    ...603,  604 

for   a  sinful   nature   which  one  did 
not  personally  originate,  a  fact,..  629 

none  for  immediate  heredities, 630 

for  belief,  authors  on, 841 

Restoration     of     all     human     beings, 

1039-1044 

Resurrection,  an  event  not  within  the 

realm   of  nature, US 

of  Christ,  the  central  and  sufficient 

evidence    of    Christianity, 138 

of   Christ,    dilemma   for   those   who 

deny,    —  130 

of   Christ,    Strauss  fails   to   explain 

belief    in, 157 

of   Christ,    attested   by    epistles    re- 
garded  as   genuine  by   Baur, 160 

of  Christ,  Renan's  view  of, 160,  161 

Christ's  argument  for,  Matt.  22  :  32, 
232,  996,  1018 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1105 


Resurrection,  attributed  to  Christ 310 

attributed  to  Holy   Spirit, 316 

of  Christ,  angel  present  at 483 

of  Christ,   gave   proof  that   penalty 

of  sin  was  exhausted 657 

a  stage  in  Christ's  exaltation 707 

proclaimed  Christ  as  perfected  and 

glorified    man 70S 

of  Christ,  the  time  of  his  justifica- 
tion  762 

secured   to   believer   by    union   with 

Christ 805,  806,  867 

relation    to    regeneration, 824 

sauetification  completed  at  the, 874 

of  Christ  and  of  the  believer,  Bap- 
tism a  symbol  of 940-945 

implied  in  symbolism  of  Lord's  Sup- 
per,     963,  964 

Christ's  body,  an  object  that  may  be 

worshiped,     968 

an  event  preparing  for  the  kingdom 

of  God, 981 

allusions  to,  in  O.  T., 995 

of  Christ,  the  only  certain  proof  of 

immortality,     997 

perfect  joy  or  misery  subsequent  to,  1002 
Scriptures   describing   a   spiritual,— 1015 
Scriptures    describing    a    physical, -.1015 
art     and     post-resurrection     possi- 
bilities,      1016 

personality  in,  being  indestructible, 

takes  to  itself  a  body 1016 

Christ's  body  in,  an  open  question,  1016 

an   exegetical  objection   to, 1016 

'  of   the   body,'    the    phrase    not    in 

N.    T., 1016 

receive  a  'spiritual  body'  in, ..1016,  1017 
the   indwelling   of    the    Holy    Spirit 

secures  preservation  of  body  in, -.1017 
the  believer's,  as  literal  and  physi- 
cal as  Christ's, 1018 

literal,    to    be    suitable    to    events 

which    accompany, 1018 

the  physical  connection  between  old 

and  new  body  in,  not  unscientific.  1019 
the  oneness  of  the  body  in,  and  our 

present  body,  rests  on  two  things,  1020 
the  body  in,  though   not  absolutely 
the   same,    will    be    identical    with 

the    present, - 1020,  1021 

the  spiritual  body  in.  will  complete 
rathen  than  confine,  the  activi- 
ties  of  spirit, 1021,  1022 

four  principles  should  influence  our 

thinking     about,- 1022,  1923 

authors  on  the  subject  in  depart- 
ments  and   entirety, 1023 

Revelation,    of    such    a    nature    as    to 

make  scientific  theology  possible.  11-15 
Revelation  in  nature  requires  supple- 
menting,     26,    27 

God     submits     to     limitations     of, 

70 


which    are    largely   those   of   the- 
ology,     34-36 

how    regarded    in    '  period    of    criti- 
cism and  speculation,' 46 

the  Scriptures  a,  from  God, 111-242 

reasons  for  expecting  from   God   a. 

111-114 

psychology    shows    that    the    intel- 
lectual and  moral  nature  of  man 

needs    a, 111,  112 

history  shows  that  man  needs  a 112 

what    we    know    of    God's    nature 

leads  to  hope  of  a, 112.  113 

(/    priori   reasons   for    expecting,  113,  114 

marks  of  the  expected, 111-117 

its    substance, 114 

its    method, 114-116 

will  have  due  attestation, 116,  117 

a  tended    by   miracles 117-131 

attested   by   prophecy, 134-H1 

principles     of     historical     evidence 

entering  into  proof  of, 111-111 

a   progress  in  the,   of   Scripture 17.") 

its  connection  with  inspiration  and 

illumination,     196,  197 

Revenge,    what? 569 

'Reversion  to  type'  never  occurs  in 

man,     411 

Rewards,  earthly,  appealed  to  in  O.  T.,  230 
proceed  from  goodness  of  God,— -290,  293 
not   bestowed   by   justice   or    right- 
eousness,      293 

goodness  to  creatures,  righteousness 

to    Christ, 293 

are  motives,  not  sanctions, 535 

Right,  abstract,  not  ground  of  moral 

obligations,    299 

God   is   self-willing, 338 

based  on  arbitrary  will  is  not  right,  338 
based    on    passive    nature,     is    not 

right,     338 

as    being   is    Father, 338 

as  willing  is  Son, 338 

Righteousness  of  God,  what? 290 

holiness  in  its  mandatory  aspect,—  291 

its  meaning  in  2  Cor.  5:21, 760 

demands   punishment   of  sin, 761 

is  justification   and  sanctification..-  873 

Romanism,    and    Scripture, 33,    34 

a  mystical  element  in, 33 

it  places  church  before  the  Bible,—    33 
would  keep  men  in  perpetual  child- 
hood,    33,    34 

Sabbath   commemorates   God's   act  of 

creation,     408 

made    at    creation    applies    to    man 

always  and  everywhere, 408 

recognized    in    Assyria    and    Baby- 
lonia,   as    far    back    as    Aceadian 

times  before  Abraham, 40S 

was  not  abrogated  by  our  Lord  or 
his   apostles,..— .  409 


1106 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


opinions    upon, _ 409 

Sabbath,  Christ's  example  and  apos- 
tolic sanction  have  transferred  it 
from  seeynth  to  first  day  of  week,  409 

Justin   Martyr  on,— 410 

authors    on, 410 

Sabellianism,    327,  328 

Sacrifice,     722-72S 

what   it   is   not 722,  723 

its    true    import, 723,  724 

pagan  and  Semitic,  its  implications, 

723,  724 

in  the  legend  of  yEschylus, 723 

of   the   Passover,   H.   C.   Trumbull's 

views     of, 723 

its  theocratical  and  spiritual  of- 
fices  724 

of  O.  T.,  when  rightly  offered,  what 

implied    in 725,  726 

cannot  present  a  formal  divine  in- 
stitution,      726 

how  Abel's  differed  from  Cain's, 727 

the  terminology  of  O.  T.  regarding, 
needful  to  correct  interpretation 
of  N.  T.  usage  regarding  atone- 
ment  of   Christ, 727 

differing  views  as  to  significance  of,  728 
Sacrifices,  Jewish,  a  tentative  scheme 

of,    725,  726 

Saints,    prayer    to, 775 

how    intercessors? 775 

as  applied  to  believers, 880 

Sanctification,  related  to  regenera- 
tion   and   justification, S62,  863 

definition     of, 869 

what   implied  in   definition   of,..869,  870 
explanations  and  Scripture  proof  of, 

870-875 

a  work  of  God, 870 

a    continuous    process, 871 

distinguished    from     regeneration...  S71 
shown  in  intelligent  and  voluntary 

activity  of  believer 871,  872 

the  agency  employed  in,  the  in- 
dwelling Spirit  of  Christ 872 

its  mediate  or  instrumental  cause  is 

faith,    872 

the    object    of    this    instrumental 

faith  is  Christ  himself, 873 

measured  by  strength  of  faith, 873 

influenced  by  lack  of  persistency  in 

using  means   of  growth 874 

completed  in  life  to  come, 874 

erroneous  views  of, 875-881 

the  Antinomian  view, 875-877 

the  Perfectionist  view, 877-881 

Sanctify,  its  twofold  meaning, SS0 

Satan,  his   personality, 447 

not    a    collective    term    for    all    evil 

beings,    447 

various   literary   conceptions   of, 447 

meaning  of  term, 454 


Satan,  opposed  by  Holy  Spirit 454 

his   temptations, 455 

has  access  to  human  mind, 455 

may      influence     through      physical 

organism, 455 

'  delivering   to,' 457 

was  specially  active  during  earthly 

ministry  of  Christ, 458 

his   power   limited, 458 

the  idea  of  his  fall  not  self-contra- 
dictory,     460 

not  irrational  to  suppose  that  by  a 
single    act    he    could    change    his 

nature,    460 

present  passion  may  lead  a  wise  be- 
ing to  enter  on  a  foolish  course, __  460 
that  God  should  create  and  uphold 
evil  spirits  no  more  inconsistent 
with  benevolence  than  similar  ac- 
tion towards  evil  men, 401 

a  ganglionic  centre  of  an  evil  sys- 
tem,     461 

the  doctrine  of,  if  given  up,  leads 
to     laxity    in     administration     of 

justice,    462 

as  tool  and  slave  of,  humanity  is 
indeed  degraded,  but  was  not  al- 
ways, nor  needs  to  be, 462 

the  fall  of,  uncaused  from  without,  585 
like  Adam,  sins  under  the  best  cir- 
cumstances,      588 

permitted  to  divide  the  guilt  with 
man  that  man  might  not  despair,  588 

grows  in  cunning  and  daring, 1037 

Satisfaction  to  an  immanent  demand 
of  divine  holiness  rendered  by 
Christ's    obedience    and    suffering, 

713,  723 

by  substitution  founded  on  incorpo- 
ration,     723 

and  forgiveness  not  mutually  ex- 
clusive because  the  judge  makes 
satisfaction    to    his    own    violated 

holiness,    767 

penal  and  pecuniary, 767 

sinner's     own     act,     according     to 

Romish    view, 834 

Scholasticism    and    Scholastics, 

..44,  45,  265,  268,  443 

Science,   defined, 2 

its    aim, 2 

on  what  its  possibility  is  grounded,      2 
requires  a  knowledge  of  more  than 

phenomena,    6 

existence    of    a    personal    God,    its 

necessary    datum, 60 

Fcicntia    media,    simplicis    intelligen- 

tiCB,     visionis, 358 

Scientific  unity,  desire  for,  its  in- 
fluence,         90 

Scio    and   conscio, 500 

Scripture  and  nature, 26 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1107 


17.", 


Scripture  and  rationalism, ...29-31 

contains  nothing  repugnant  to  a 
properly  conditioned  and  enlight- 
ened   reason, 29 

and    mysticism, 31,    32 

and     Romanism, 33,    34 

knowledge  of,  incomplete, 35 

topics  on  which  silent, 72 

supernatural  character  of  its  teach 

ing,    

its    moral    and    religious    ideas    un- 
contradicted   and    unsuperseded,..  175 
its    supernaturally    secured    unity,..  17G 
Christ  testifies   to   its  supernatural 

character,   189 

result  of  its  propagation,  -  191 

how    interpreted? 217 

authors  differ,  divine   mind  one, 217 

the  Christian  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 

tice,    — -  2is 

contains  no   scientific   untruth,   221 

not  a  code  of  practical   action,  but 

an  enunciation  of  principles 545 

Scriptures,    the,    a    revelation    from 

God,    111-242 

work  of  one  God,  and  so  organical- 
ly  articulated    (Scripture), 217 

why    so    many    interpretations    of? 
223,  221 

a  rule  in  their  interpretation, 1011 

'Sealing,' 831,  872 

Seals,  in  Revelation, 1010 

Selection,  natural,  without  teleological 

factors,  its  inadequacy, 391 

is  it  in  any  sense  the  cause  of  the  origin 

of  species? - 391 

it  has  probably  increased  the  rapidity 

of  development, 391,  392 

or  '  survival  of  the  fittest,'  how  sug- 
gested?   403 

defined, 470 

is  partially  true, 470 

it  gives  no  account  of  the  origin  of 

substance  or  variations, 470 

not  the  savior  of  the  fittest,  but  the 

destroyer  of  the  failu res, 470 

facts  that  it  cannotexplain,. 470,  471 

nor  artificial   Las    produced    a    new 

species, 471 

Self-limitation,  divine, 9,  136,  255 

Selfishness,  the  essence  of  sin, 5G7 

cannot  be  resolved  into  simpler  ele- 
ments,   568 

forms  in  which  it  manifests  itself,  568,  569 
of  unregenerate,  the  substitution  of  a 

lower  for  a  higher  end, 570 

Sentimentality, 979 

'Signality,'  in  miracle,. 118 

Sin,  God  the  author  of  free  beings  who 

are  the  authors  of, 365 

the  decree  to  permit  not  efficient, 365 


Sin,  its  permission  a  difficulty  of    all 

theistic  systems, 366 

its  permission,  how  not  to  be  ex- 
plained,   366 

its  permission,  how  it  may  be  partially 

explained, 366 

the  problem  of,  one  of  four  at  present 

not  to  be  completely  solved, 366,  367 

observations  from  many  sources  aim- 
ing to  throw  light  on  the  existence 

of  moral  evil, 367,  368 

man's,  as  suggested  from  without, 
perhaps  the  mitigating  circum- 
stance that  allows  of  his  redemption,  462 

in  what  sense  a  nature? 518 

effect  of  first,  not  a  weakening  but  a 

perversion  of  human  nature, 521 

the  first  did  more  than  despoil  man  of 

a  special  gift  of  grace, 521 

or  man's  state  of  apostasy, 533-664 

its  nature, 549-573 

defined, 549 

Old  and  New  School  views  regarding, 
their  difference  and  approximation, 

549,  550 

as  a  state,  some  psychological  notes 

explanatory  of,.. 550,  551 

as  a  state  is  counteracted  by  an  imma- 
nent   divine     power    which    leads 

towards  salvation 551 

'  total  depravity '  as  descriptive  of,  an 

out-grown  phrase, — -  552 

as  act  of  transgression  and  dispo- 
sition or  state,  proved  from  Script- 
ure  552-554 

the  words  winch  describe,  applicable 

to  dispositions  and  states, 552 

N.  T.  descriptions  of,  give  prominence 

to  states  and  dispositions, 552,  553 

and  moral  evil  in  the  thoughts,  affec- 
tions, and  heart, 553 

is  name  given  to  a  state  which  origi- 
nated wrong  desires, 553 

is  represented  as  existing  in  soul  prior 

to  consciousness  of  it, 553 

a  permanent  power  or  reigning  prin- 
ciple,   553 

Mosaic  sacrifices  for  sins  other  than 

mere  act, 554 

universally  attributed  to  disposition 

or  state, 554 

attributed  to  outward  act  only  when 
such  act  is  symptomatic  of  inward 

state, 551 

if  it  tend  from  act  to  a  state,  regarded 

as  correspondingly  blameworthy,...  554 
in  an  individual   condemned  though 
it  cannot  be  traced  back  to  a  con- 
scious originating  act, 554,  555 

when  it  becomes  fixed  and  dominant 
moral  corruption,  meets  special  dis- 
approbation,   555 


1108 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Sin,  regarded  by  the  Christian  as  a  mani- 
festation of  subconscious  depravity 
of  nature, - 555 

repented  of,  principally  as  a  depravity 
of  nature, - 555 

rather  than  'sins'  repented  of  by 
Christians  advanced  in  spiritual  cul- 
ture ;  a  conspectus  of  quotations  to 
prove  this, -  -  555-557 

its  definition  as  '  the  voluntary  trans- 
gression of  known  law  '  discussed, 
557-559 

is  not  always  a  distinct  and  conscious 
volition, 557 

intention  aggravates,  but  is  not  essen- 
tial to, 558 

knowledge  aggravates,  but  is  not 
essential  to, 558 

ability  to  fulfil  the  law,  not  essential 
to, - 558 

definition  of,  558,  559 

its  essential  principle, 559-573 

is  notsensuousness,.. 559-563 

is  not  finiteness, 563-566 

is  selfishness, 567-573 

is  universal,.. 573-582 

committed  by  every  human  being, 
arrived  at  maturity, 573 

its  universality  set  forth  in  Scripture, 
573,  574 

its  universality  proved  from  history,  574 

its  universality  proved  from  Chris- 
tian experience, 576 

the  outcome  of  a  corrupt  nature 
possessed  by  every  human  being, ...  577 

is  act  or  disposition  referred  to  a  cor- 
rupt nature, 577 

rests  on  men  who  are  called  in  Script- 
ure 'children  of  wrath,' _.  578 

its  penalty,  death,  visits  those  who 
have  never  exercised  personal  or 
conscious  choice, 579 

its  universality  proved  from  reason, 
579,  580 

testimony  of  great  thinkers  regard- 
ing,  580-582 

its  origin  in  the  personal  act  of  Adam, 
582-593 

the  origin  of  the  sinful  nature  whence 
it  comes  is  beyond  the  investiga- 
tions of  reason, 582 

Scriptural  account  of  its  origin,...  582-585 

Adam's,  its  essential  nature, 587 

of  Adam  in  resisting  inworking  God,  587 

an  immanent  preference  of  the 
world, 587 

not  to  be  accounted  for  psychologic- 
ally,   587 

the  external  temptation  to  first  sin  a 
benevolent  permission 588 

self -originated,  Satanic, 588 


Sin,  the  first  temptation  to,  had  no  tend- 
ency to  lead  astray, 58S 

the  first,  though  in  itself  small,  a  rev- 
elation of  will  thoroughly  alienated 
from  God, 590 

consequences  of  original,  as  respects 
Adam, 590-593 

physical  death,  a  consequence  of  his 
first, 590,  591 

spiritual  death,  a  consequence  of  his 
first, 591,  592 

exclusion  from  God's  presence,  a  con- 
sequence of  his  first, 592 

banishment  from  the  Garden,  a  con- 
sequence of  man's  first, 593 

the,  of  our  first  parents  constituted 
their  posterity  sinners, 593 

two  insistent  questions  regarding  the 
first,  and  the  Scriptural  answer, 593 

imputation  of,  its  true  meaning,. 594 

original,  its  meaning, 594 

man's  relations  to  moral  law  extend 
beyond  conscious  and  actual, 595 

God's  moral  government  recognizes 
race-sin, 595 

actual,  more  guilty  than  original, .  596 

no  man  condemned  for  original, 
alone, 596,  664 

the  only  ground  of  responsibility  for 
race-sin, 596 

original,  its  correlate, 596 

imputation  of  Adam's, 597-637 

see  Imputation. 

Pelagian  theory  of  the  imputation  of, 
597-601 

Arminian  theory  of  the  imputation 
of, 601-606 

New  School  theory  of  the  imputation 
of, 606-612 

Federal  theory  of  the  imputation  of, 
612-616 

Mediate  theory  of  the  imputation  of, 
---. 616-619 

Augustinian  theory  of  the  imputation 
of, 619-637 

table  of  theories  of  imputation  of,...  628 

apart  from,  and  prior  to,  conscious- 
ness,     629 

conscience  and  Scripture  attest  that 
we  are  responsible  for  our  unborn 
tendency  to, 829 

as  our  nature,  rightly  punishable  with 
resulting  sin, 632 

reproductive,  each  reproduction  in- 
creasing guilt  and  punishment, 633 

each  man  guilty  of  personal,  which 
expresses  more  than  original  de- 
pravity of  nature, 633 

is  self- perpetuating, 633 

is  self-isolating, 634 

the  nature,  and  sins  its  expression,...  635 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS. 


1109 


Sin,  as  Adam's,  ruins,  so  Christ's   obe- 
dience saves, _ 635 

consequences  of,  to  Adam's  posterity, 

-.'. 637-664 

depravity  a  consequence  of  Adam's, 

63T-640 

in  nature,  as  'total  depravity,'  con- 
sidered,   637-640 

total    inability    a     consequence    of 

Adam's, 640-644 

guilt  a  consequence  of  Adam's, 644-652 

pi'nalty,a  consequence  of  Adam's,  653-660 

infants  in  a  state  of, 661 

venial  and  mortal,. 648 

of  nature  and  personal  transgression, 

648,649 

of  ignorance  and  of  knowledge, 649 

of  infirmity  and  of  presumption,.. 649,  650 
of  incomplete  and  final  obduracy,.. 650-052 

unto  death,  considered, 650-652 

against  Holy  Spirit,  why  unpardon- 
able,  651,  652 

penalty  of,  considered, 652-660 

infants  in  a  state  of, 661 

Christ     free     from    hereditary    and 

actual, 676-678 

Christ  responsible  for  human, 759 

Ch  rist  responsible  for  Adam's, 759 

Christ   as  great    Penitent  confesses 

race-sin, 760 

Christ,  how  made  to  be 760-763 

a  pretermission  of,  justified  in  cross,..  772 
does  not  condemn,  but  the  failure  to 

ask  pardon  for  it, 856 

judged  and  condemned  on  Calvary, ...  860 

future,  the  virtual  pardon  of, 867 

'dwelling,'  and  'reigning,' 869,  870 

expelled  by  bringing  in  Christ, 873 

does  not  most  sympathize  with  sin,..  1028 
hinders  intercourse  with  other  worlds,  1033 

'eternal,' 1033 

made  the  means  of  displaying  God's 

glory, 1038 

chosen  in  spite  of  infinite  motives  to 

the  contrary, 1040 

Sinner,  the  incorrigible,  glorifies  God  in 

his  destruction, 442 

negatively  described 637,  638 

positively  described, 639 

what  he  can  do, 640 

what  he  cannot  do, 640 

under   conviction,  .more  of  a  sinner 

than  before, 827 

has  no  right  to  do  anything  before  ac- 
cepting Christ, 868 

'Six  hundred  sixty-six,' 570 

'Slope,  the,* 580 

Society,  atomistic  theory  of, 623 

Society,  bellum.  omnium  contra    omnes 

(Hobbes), 461 

Socinianism,..47,  328,  329,  524,  558,  597,  728-733 
Solidarity, 624 


Sola  fides  justlficat,  sect,  fides  non  est  sola,..  758 

Son,' its  import  in  Trinity, 334 

Son,  the,  a  perfect  object  of  will,  know- 
ledge and  love  to  God, 275,  388 

his  eternal  generation, 341 

uncreate, 341 

his  essence  not  derived  from  essence 

of  the  Father, 341 

his  existence  eternal, 341 

exists  by  internal  necessity  of  Divine 

nature, 342 

eternal   generation   of,  a  life  move- 
ment of  the  Divine  nature, 343 

in   person  subordinate  to  person  of 

Father, 342 

in  essence  equal  with  Father, 342 

Son  of  man,   cannotes,  among  other 

things,  a  veritable  humanity, 673 

Song  of  Solomon, 233,  238 

Sonshipof  Christ,  eternal, 340 

metaphysical, 340 

authors  on, 343 

Sorrow  for  sin, 832,  833 

Soleriology, 665-894 

Soul,  what? 92 

dichotomous  view  of, 483 

trichotomous  view  of, 484 

distinguished  from  spirit, 484 

its  origin, 488 

its  pre-existence,  according  to  poets,.  489 

Croatian  theory  of, 491 

not  something  added  from  without,...  492 
introduced  into  body,  sicut  vinum  in 

vase  acctoso, 493 

metaphysical  generation  of, 493 

traducian  theory  of , 494-497 

history  of  theory, 493,  494 

observations  favorable  to, 494-497 

image  of  God,  proprie, 528 

always  active,  though  not  always  con- 
scious,   550 

may  influence  another  soul  apart  from 

physical  intermediaries, 820 

not  inaccessible  to  God's  direct  opera- 
tion,    820 

as  uncompounded  cannot  die, 984 

see  Immortality. 

'  Sovereign,  the,'  a  title  of  Messiah, 321 

Space, 278,  279 

Space  and  time, 85,  275 

Space  *in  God,' 279 

Species, -.392,  480-482,  494 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  his  teaching,  a  neces- 
sity,     27 

hides  himself, 213 

recognized  as  God, 315 

divine    characteristics   and   preroga- 
tives ascribed  to, 316 

associated  with  God, 316 

his  deity  supported  by  Christian  ex- 
perience,  316 

his  deity,  a  doctrine  of  the  church,...  316 


1110 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Spirit,  the  Holy,  his  deity  not  disproved 

by  O.  T.  limitations,.. 31? 

his  deity,  authors  on, 317 

isaperson, 323 

designations  of  personality  given  to 

him, 323 

'  the  mother-principle '  in  the  Godhead,  323 
so  mentioned  with  other  persons  as  to 

imply  personality, 323,  324 

performs  acts  of  personality, 324 

affected  by  acts  of  others,... 324 

posseses  an  emotional  nature, 325 

visibly  appears  as  distinct  from,  yet 

connected  with  Father  and  Son, 325 

ascription  to  him,  of    personal  sub- 
sistence,  325 

import  of  his  presence  in  Trinity, 334 

the  centripetal  movement  of  Deity,..  336 
and  Christ,  differences  in  their  work, 

338-340 

his  nature  and  work,  authors  on, 340 

his  eternal  procession, 340-343 

if  not  God,  God  could  not  be  appro- 
priated,    349 

a  work  of  completing  belongs  to, 313 

applies  Scriptural  truth  to  present  cir- 
cumstances,    440 

directs  the  God-man  in  his  humilia- 
tion,   696 

his  intercession, 774,  775 

his  intermediacy, 793 

witness  of,  what? 844,  845 

doctrine    of    'sealing'    distinguished 

from  mysticism, 845 

in  believer,  substitutes    old    excite- 
ments,  872 

'Spirit'  and   'soul,' 843 

Spirit,  how  applied  to  Christ,.. 333 

Spirits,  evil,  tempt, 455 

control  natural  phenomena, 455 

execute  God'splans, 457 

not  independent  of  human  will, 457,  458 

restrained  by  permissive  will  of  God,  458 

exist  and  act  on  sufferance,.. 459 

their  existence  not  inconsistent  with 

benevolence  of  God, 4(51 

are  organized, 401 

the  doctrine  of,  not  immoral, 461,  4C2 

doctrine  of,  not  degrading, 462 

their  nature  and  actions  illustrate  the 

evil  of  sin, 463 

knowledge  of  their  existence  inspires 

a  salutary  fear, 463 

sense  of  their  power  drives  to  Christ,  463 
contrasting  their  unsaved  state  with 
our  spiritual  advantages  causes  us 

to  magnify  grace  of  God, 463 

'  Spirits  in  prison,' 707,  708 

Spiritual  body, 1016,  1017 

Spiritualism, 32   132 

Spontaneous  generation, 389 

Stoicism, 184 


Style, 223 

Sublapsar ianism, 777 

Subordinationism, 342 

Substance,  known, 5 

its  characteristics,. 6 

a  direct  knowledge  of  it  as  underlying 

phenomena, 97 

Substances,  the  theory  of  two  eternal, 

378-383 

See  Dualism. 

Substant  ia  una  et  unica, 86 

Suffering,  in  itself  not  reformatory,...  104 

Suggestion, 453,  454 

'  Sunday,' used  by  Justin  Martyr, 148 

Supererogation,  works  of, 522 

Supper,  the  Lord's,  a  historical  monu- 
ment,    157 

its  ritual  and  import, 959 

instituted  by  Christ, 959,  960 

its  mode  of  administration, .960-962 

its  elements, ' 960 

its  communion  of  both  kinds, 960 

is  of  a  festal  nature, 960,  961 

commemorative, 961 

celebrated  by  assembled  church, 961 

responsibility  of  its  proper  observance 
rests  wiih  pastor  as  representative 

of  church, 962 

its  frequency  discretional, 962 

it  symbolizes  personal  appropriation 

of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death, 963 

it  symbolizes  union  with  Christ, 963 

it  symbolizes  dependence  on  Christ,...  963 
it  symbolizes  a  reproduction  of  death 

and  resurrection  in  believer, 963 

it  symbolizes  union  in  Christ, 963 

it  symbolizes  the  coming  joy  and  per- 
fection of  the  kingdom  of  God, 963 

its  connection  with  baptism, 964 

is  to  be  often  repeated, 964 

implies  a  previous  state  of  grace, 964 

the  blessing  conveyed  in  communion 

depends  on  communicant, 964 

expresses  fellowship  of  believer, 964 

the  Romanist  view  of, 965-968 

the  Lutheran  and  High  Church  view 

of, 968,  969 

there  are  prerequisites, 969,  970 

prerequisites  laid  down  by  Christ, 970 

regeneration,  a  prerequisite  to, 971 

baptism,  a  prerequisite  to, 971-973 

church  membership;  a  prerequisite  to,  973 
an  orderly  walk,  a  prerequisite  to,  973-975 
the  local  church  the  judge  as  to  the 

fulfilment  of  these  prerequisites,  975-977 
special  objections  to  open  communion 

presented, 977-980 

Supralapsarianism, 777 

Symbol,  derivation  and  meaning, 42 

less  than  thing  symbolized, 1035 

Symbolism,  period  of, 45 

Symbolum  Quicumque, 329 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


1111 


Synagogue, 902 

Synergism, 816 

Synoptic  gospels,  date, 150 

'Synthetic  idealization  of  our  exist- 
ence,'   _ 568 

Synthetic  method  in  theology,... 50 

System  of  theology,  a  dissected  map, 
some  parts  of  which  already  put  to- 
gether,     15 

Systematic  theologian,  the  first, 44 

Systematic  truth  influences  character,    16 

Tabula  rasa  theory,  at  Locke, 35 

Talmud  shows  what  the  unaided  genius 

for  religion  could  produce, 115 

Tapeinoticon  genus, 686 

'  Teaching,  the,  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,' 

159,937,  953 

Teleological  argument  for  the  existence 

of  God 75-80 

statement  of  argument 75 

called  also  'physico-theological,' 75 

divided  by  some  into  eutaxiology  and 

teleology  proper, 75 

the  major  premise  is  a  primitive  and 

immovable  conviction, 75 

the  minor  premise,  a  working  princi- 
ple of  science, 77 

it  does  not  prove  a  personal  God, — 78,  79 
it  does  not  prove  unity,  eternity,  or 

infinity  of  God, 79,  80 

adds  intelligence  and  volition  to  the 
causative     power    already   proved 

to  exist 80 

Telepathy - 1021 

Temptation,  prevented  by  God's  provi- 
dence,   423 

does   not  pervert,  but   confirms,  the 

holy  soul, 588,  589 

Adam's,  Scriptural  account  of, 5S2,  583 

Adam's,  its  course  and  result, 584,  585 

Adam's,  contrasted  with  Christ's,.  .677,  678 
Christ's,  as  possible  as  that  of  Adam,  677 
aided  by  limitations  of  his  human  in- 
telligence,   677 

aided  by  his  susceptibility  to  all  forms 

of  innocent  gratification, 67; 

in  wilderness,  addressed  to  desire, 677 

inGethsemane.  to  fear, 677 

Ucberglauhe,  Aberglavbe,     Unglaube, 

appealed  to, 677 

is  always  '  without  sin,' 677 

authors  upon, 678 

by  Satan,  negative  and  positive, 455 

Tempter's  promise,  the, 572 

Tendency-theory  of  Baur, 157-160 

Tendency,  undeveloped, .-  847 

Terminology,  a,  needed  in  progress  of  a 

science, 35 

Testament  New,  genuineness  of, 146-165 

rationalistic  theories  to  explain  origin 

of  its  gospels, 155-165 

its  moral  system, 177-186 


Testament  New,  its  morality  contrasted 

with  that  of  heathenism, 179-186 

Testament,  Old,  in  what  sense  its  works 

are  genuine, 1G2 

how  proved, 165-175 

alleged   errors  in    quoting    or  inter- 
preting,   234,  235 

Testimony,  science  assumes  faith  in, 3 

amount  of,  necessary  to  prove  miracle, 

- 127,  128 

in  general, 142-144 

statements  in,  may  conflict  without 

being  false, _ 227 

Tests,  does  God  submit  to  ? 437 

Theologian,  characteristics  of, 38-41 

Theological  Encyclopaedia, 42 

Theology,  its  definition, 1,  2 

its  aim, 2 

its  possibility, 2-15 

its  necessity, 15-19 

its  relation  to  religion, 19-24 

rests  on  God's  self-revelation, 25 

rests  on  his  revelation  in  nature 26 

natural  and  Scriptural,  how  related,  26-29 

rests  on  Scripture  and  reason, 29 

rationalism  hurtful  to, 30-31 

rests  on  Scripture  and  a  true   mysti- 
cism,     31 

a v<  lids  a  false  mysticism, 32 

accepts  history  of  doctrine  as  ancil- 
lary,     33 

declines   the  combination,  Scripture 

and  Romanism, 33,  34 

its  limitations, 34-36 

a  perfect  system  of,  impossible, 3C,  37 

is  progressive, 37 

its  method, 38-51 

requisites  to  its  study, 38-41 

see  Theologian. 

divisions  of, 41-44 

Biblical, 41 

historical, 41 

systematic, 41,  42 

practical, 42-44 

Theology,  Systematic,  its  history, 44 

in  Eastern  church, 44 

in  Western  Church, 44-46 

its  period  of  scholasticism, 44,  45 

its  period  of  symbolism, .45,  46 

its  period  of  criticism  and  speculation,    46 
a  list  of  authorities  in,  differing  from 

Protestantism, 47 

British  theology, 47,48 

Baptist  theologians, 47 

Puritan  theologians, 47,48 

Scotch  Presbyterian  theologians, 48 

Methodist  theologians, 48 

Quaker  theologians, 48 

English  Church  theologians, 48 

American  theology, 48,  49 

the  Reformed  system 48,  48 

the  older  Calvinism, 49 


1112 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Theology,  Systematic,  order  in  which  its 

subjects  may  be  treated, 49,  50 

analytic  method  ia, - 49,  50 

synthetic  method  in, .. 50 

text-books  in, - 50,  51 

Theonomy, - 83 

Theophany,  Christ  not  a  mere, 686 

'Things,'. 95,96,  254 

Thought,  does  not  go  on  in  the  brain,    93 

possible  without  language, 216 

intermittent  or  continuous? 1002 

Three  thousand  baptized  in  one  day  in 

time  of  Chrysostom, 934 

Thucydidea  never  mentions  Socrates,.. -  144 

Time,  its  definition,.., 276 

Cod  not  under  law  of,... 276 

has  objective  reality  to  God, 27*5 

his  'one  eternal  now,'   how   to    be 

understood, -  277 

can  the  human  spirit  escape  the  con- 
ditions of, 278 

authors  on  '  time '  and  'eternity,' 278 

Torments  of  wicked,  outward,  subordi- 
nate results  and  accompaniments  of 

state  of  soul, 1034 

Tradition,  and  idea  of  Cod, 63 

cannot  long  be  trusted  to  give  cor- 
rect evidence, 142 

of  a  'golden  age'  and  matters  cog- 
nate,  -- 480,  526 

Traducianism,  its  advocates  and  teach- 
ins, -493,  494 

best  accords  with  Scripture, 494,  495 

favored  by  analogy  of  vegetable  and 

animal  life, 496 

heredities,  mental,  spiritual,  and 
moral,  prove  men's  souls  of  human 

ancestry, 490 

does  not  exclude  divine  concurrence 
in  the  development  of  the  human 

species, 490 

Fathers,  who  held, 620 

Trafalgar,  omitted  in   Napoleon's  dis- 
patches,   143 

Transcendence,  divine,  denied  by  pan- 
theism,..   100 

taughtin  Scripture, 102 

deism,  an  exaggeration  of, 414 

Transgression,  a  stab  at  heart  of  God,..  541 
not  proper  translation  of  1  John  3:4,..  452 
its   universality     directly   taught   in 

Scripture, 573 

its  universality  proved  in  universal 
need    of    atonement,  regeneration, 

and  repentance, 573 

its  universality  shown  in  condem- 
nation that  rests  on  all  who  do  not 

accept  Christ, 574 

its  universality,  consistent  with  pas- 
sages which  ascribe  a  sort  of  good- 
ness to  some  men, 574 


Transgression,  its  universality  proved 
by  history,  and  individual  experi- 
ence and  observation, 574,  575 

proved  from  Christian  experience, 576 

uniformity  of  actual  trangression,  a 

proof  that  will  is  impotent, 611 

all  moral  consequences  flowing  from, 

are  sanctions  of  law, 637 

Transubstantiation,  what? 965 

rests  on  a  false  interpretation  of  Script- 
ure,  965 

contradicts  the  senses, 966 

denies  completeness  of    sacrifice  of 

Calvary, 967 

externalizes  and  destroys  Christianity, 

907,  968 

Trees  of  '  life '  and  '  knowledge,'  526, 527,  583 
Trichotomous  theory  of  man's  nature, 

484-487 

Trimurti,  Brahman  Trinity, 351 

Trinitas  dualitatem.  ad  unitatem  reducit,  338 
Trlnitatem,  I  ad  Jordanem  ct  rndehis,...  325 

Trinities,  heathen, 351 

Trinity,   renders    possible    an    eternal 

divine  self-contemplation, 262 

the  immanent  love  of  God  understood 

only  in  light  of, 265 

the  immanent  holiness  of  God  render- 
ed intelligible  by  doctrine  of,._ 274 

has  close  relations  to  doctrine  of  im- 
manent attributes, 275,  336 

doctrine  of  the,.... 304-352 

a  truth  of  revelation  only, 304 

intimated  in  O.  T.,   made  known  in 

N.T., 304 

six  main  statements  concerning, 304 

the  term  ascribed  to  Tertullian, 304 

a  designation  of  four  facts, 304 

held  implicitly,  or  in  solution,  by  the 

apostles, 304 

took  shape  in  the  Athanasian  Creed 

(8th  or  9th  century), 305 

usually   connected  with   'semi-trini- 

tarian'  Nicene  Creed  (325  A.  D. ), 305 

references  on  doctrine  of, 305 

implies  the  recognition  in  Scripture  of 

three  as  God, .305-322 

presents  proofs  from  N.  T., 305-317 

presents  Father  as  recognized  as  God,  305 
presents  Jesus  Christ  as  recognized  as 

God, 305-315 

appeals  to  Christian  experience  as  con- 
firming the  deity  of  Christ, .313,  314 

explains  certain  passages  apparently 

inconsistent  with  Christ's  deity,  314,  315 
allows  an  order  of  office  and  operation 
consistent    with   essential    oneness 

and  equality, 314,  342 

doctrine    of,   how    its  construction 

started, 314 

presents  the  Holy  Spirit  recognized  as 
God, 315-317 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


1113 


Trinity,  intimations  of,  in  the  0.  T.,  317-322 
seemingly    alluded    to    in    passages 
which  teach  a  plurality  of  some  sort 

in  the  Godhead, 317-319 

seemingly  alluded  to  in  passages  relat- 
ing to  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,.. 319 

seemingly  alluded  to  in  descriptions 

of  Divine  Wisdom  and  Word, 320,  321 

owes  nothing  to  foreign  sources, 320 

seemingly  alluded  to  in  descriptions  of 

the  Messiah 321-322 

O.  T.  contains  germ  of  doctrine  of, 322 

its  clear  revelation,  why  delayed  ?  ...  322 
insists  that  the  three  recognized    as 
God  are  presented  in  Scripture  as 

distinct  persons, ...322-326 

asserts  that  this  tripersonality  of  the 
divine    nature    is    immanent    and 

eternal, 326 

it  alleges  Scriptural  proof  that  the 
distinctions  of  personality  are  eter- 
nal,   326 

the  Sabellian  heresy  regarding,  —  337-338 

the  Arian  heresy  regarding, 388-330 

teaches  a  tripersonality  wbiota  is  not 
tritheism,  for  while  the  persons  are 

three,  the  essence  is  one, 330 

how  the  term  'person' is  used  in,  .330,  -i'-'A 
the  oneness  of  essence  explained,  ..331-334 
teaches  an  association  which  is  more 

than  partnership, 331 

presents  itself  is  the  organism  of  the 

deity, 331 

permits  intercommunion  and  mutual 

immanency  of  persons, 332,  333 

teaches  equality  of  the  three  persons, 

,384-343 

teaches  that  the  titles  belong  to  the 

persons, - 334,  335 

employs  the  personal  titles  in  a  quali- 
fied sense, - 3a5-340 

presents  to  us  life-movement  in  the 

Godhead, 3:;6-338 

teaches  a  '  generation  '  that  is  consist- 
ent with  equality, 340 

teaches  a  '  procession  '  that  is  consist- 
ent with  equality,  340 

is  inscrutable, 344 

all  analogies  inadequate  to  represent 

it, 344 

illustrations  of,  their  only  use, 345 

not  self-contradictory,. 345 

presents  faculty  and  function  at  high- 
est differentiation, 346 

its  relations  to  other  doctrines, 347 

its  acceptance  essential  to  any  proper 

theism, 347 

its  denial  leads  to  pantheism, 347 

essential  to  any  proper  revelation, 349 

evidence  of,  in  prayer, 349 

essential  to  any  proper  redemption,... .  350 


Trinity,  effects  of  its  denial  on  religious 

life, 350,351 

essential   to   any   proper    model  for 

human  life, 351 

sets  law  of  love  before  us  as  eternal,..  351 
shows  divine  pattern  of  receptive  life,  351 

authors  on  the  doctrine, 351 

Trisagion,  the, 318 

Tritheism,  inconsistent  with  idea  of  God,  330 

Trivialities  in  Scripture,  their  use, 217 

Truth,  God's,  what? 260 

immanent, 260 

amatterof  being 261 

foundation  of  truth  among  men, 261 

the  principle  and  guarantee  of  all  rev- 
elation,  362 

not  of  God's  will,  but  of  his  being, 262 

God's  transitive,. 288-290 

see  Veracity  and  Faithfulness. 

attributed  to  Christ, 309 

attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 316 

as  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration, 

817-820 

hated  by  sinner, 817 

neither  known  nor  obeyed  without  a 

change  of  the  affections, 818 

c\  en  God  cannot  make  it  more  true,..  819 
witiiout  God,  an  abstraction,  not  a 

power, ---  819 

I 'hi  carilns,  ihi  <  hi r ii us, 520 

rhi  Spiritus,  ihi  Christus, 333 

I'hi  feres  mniiti,  ihi  duo  atheri, 39 

Ubiquity  of  Christ's  human  body, 709 

relation  to  Lord's  Supper, 968 

relation  to  views  of  heaven, 1033 

Ueberglavhe,  Aherglaube*,  Unglaube,  the 

chief  avenues  of  temptation, 677 

Uhlhorn,  on  the  'if's'  of  Tacitus, 989 

Ullmann,  on  the  derivation  of  sapieniio,     4 

Una navis est  jam  banorwn  omnium, 881 

Uncaused  cause,  the  idea  of,  not  from 
logical  inference,  but  intuitive  be- 
lief,     74 

Unconditioned  being,  the  presupposi- 
tion of  our  knowing, 58 

Unconscious  mental  action,   551,  55° 

Unconscious  substance  cannot  produce 

self-conscious  and  free  beings, 102 

Understanding,  the  servant  of  the  will,  460 
UnicvA,  as  applied  to  the  divine  nature,  259 
Uniformity  of  nature,  a  presumption 

against  miracles, 134 

not  absolute  and  universal, 124 

could  only  be  asserted  on  the  ground 
of  absolute  and  universal  know- 
ledge,    124 

disproved  by  geology,. 124 

breaks  in,  illustrated, 125 

final  cause  is  beneath, 125 

of  volitional  action  rests  on  character,  509 
of  evil   choice,  implies   tendency  or 
determination, 611 


1114 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Uniformity  of  transgression,  a  demon- 
stration of  impotence  of  will, 611 

Unto  personalis, 689,  690 

Union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  one 

person  of  Christ, 683-700 

moral,  between  different  souls, 799 

with  Christ,  believer's,  and  man's  with 

Adam,  compared, 627 

with  Christ,  believer's,  wholly  due  to 

God, 781 

its  relation  to  regeneration  and  con- 
version,    793 

doctrine  of, 795-808 

reasons  for  its  neglect, 795 

Scripture  representat  ions  of, 795-798 

represented  by  building  and  founda- 
tion,   795 

represented  by  marriage  union, . .  795,  796 

represented  by  vine  and  branch, 796 

consistent  with  individuality, 796 

represented  by  head  and  members, 796 

represented  by  union  of  race  with 

Adam, 797 

believer  is  in  Christ, 797 

Christ  is  in  believer, 797 

Father  and  Son  dwell  in  believer, 797 

believer  has  life  by  Christ  as  Christ 
has  life  by  union  with  the  Father,...  797 

believers  are  one  through, 797 

believers   made   partakers  of   divine 

nature  through, 798 

by  it  believer  made  one  spirit  with  the 

Lord, 798 

nature  of, 698-802 

not  a  merely  natural  union, 799 

not  a  merely  moral  union, 799 

not  a  u  nion  of  essence, 799,  800 

in  it  believer  most  conscious  of  his 

personality  and  power, 800 

not  mediated  by  sacraments, 800 

an  organic  union, 800 

a  vital  union, 801 

a  spiritual  union, 801 

originated    and    sustained    by    Holy 

Spirit, 801 

by  virtue  of  omnipresence  the  whole 
Christ  with  each  believer,... 281,  704,  801 

inscrutable, 801 

in  what  sense  mystical, 801 

authors  on, 802 

consequences  of,  to  believer, 802-809 

removes  the  internal  obstacle  to  man's 
return  to  God,  in  the  case  of  his 

people, 802 

involves  change  in  the  dominant  affec- 
tion of  the  soul  ( Regeneration ), 804 

is  the  true  'transfusion  of  blood,' 804 

involves   a    new   exercise   of    soul's 
powers  in    Repentance  and  Faith 

(Conversion), 804 

this   phase     of,    illustrated    by    the 
depuration  of  Chicago  River, 804,  805 


Union  with  Christ  gives  to  believer 
legal  standing  and  rights  of  Christ 
(Justification), 805 

secures  to  the  believer  the  transform- 
ing, assimilating  power  of  Christ's 
life,  for  soul  and  body  ( Sanctifica- 
tion  and  Perseverance ), 805 

does  it  secure  physical  miracles  in 
deliverance  from  fleshly  besetments 
of  those  who  experience  it  ? 806 

brings  about  a  fellowship  with  Christ, 
and  thus  a  fellowship  of  believers 
wiih  one  another  here  and  hereafter 
( Ecclesiology  and  Eschatology  ),  ...  806 

secures  .among  Christians  the  unity 
not  of  external  organization,  but  of 
a  common  life, - 807 

gives  assurance  of  salvation, 808 

excerpts  upon,  from  noted  names  in 
theology, 808 

references  upon, 808,  809 

Unique,  the, 244 

Uuitarianism,  derivation  of  term, 330 

its  founders, 47 

their  relation  to  Arianism, 329 

tends  to  pantheism, 347 

fosters  lax  views  of  sin, 350 

holds  to  Pelagian  views  of  sin, 597 

holds  to  Socinian  views  of  atonement, 

728,729 

Unity  of  Scripture, 175 

Unity  of  God, 259,  304 

consistent  with  a  trinity, 259 

Unity  of  human  race,  taught  in  Script- 
ure   476 

lies  at  foundation  of  Pauline  doctrine 
of  sin  and  salvation 476 

ground  of  obligation  of  brotherhood 
among  men, 470 

various  arguments  for, 477-483 

opposed  by  theorists  who  propound 
different  centres  of  creation, 481 

opposed  on  the  ground  that  the  physi- 
cal diversities  in  the  race  are  incon- 
sistent with  a  common  origin,... 481,  482 
Universalis,  ante  and  post  rem,  and  in  re,  621 

Universalism,  its  error, 1047 

Universality  of  transgression, 573-577 

Universals, 621 

Universe,  regarded  as  thought,  must 
have  had  an  absolute  thinker, 60 

its  substance  cannot  be  shown  to  have 
had  a  beginning, 73 

has  its  phenomena  had  a  cause  within 
itself  (pantheism)? 73 

mind  in  it,  leads  us  to  infer  mind  in 
maker, 73 

if  eternal,  yet,  as  contingent  and  rela- 
tive, it  only  requires  an  eternal 
creator, - 74 

since  its  infinity  cannot  be  proved, 
why  infer  from  its  perhaps  limited 
existence  an  infinite  creator? 74 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


1115 


Universe,  its  order  and  useful  collocation 
may  be  due  to  an  impersonal  intelli- 
gence (  pantheism),  77 

its  present  harmony  proves  a  will 
and  intelligence  equal  to  its  con- 
trivance,     80 

facts  of,  erroneous  explanations  of,  90-105 
not  necessary  to  divine  blessedness,  265 
'  God's  ceaseless  conversation  with  his 

creatures,' 436 

exists  for  moral  and  spiritual  ends,...  436 
a  harp  in  which  one  string,  our  world, 

is  out  of  tune, 451,  1033 

Unu8,  as  applied  to  divine  nature, 259 

Utopia,  More's,  an  adumbration   of  St. 

John's  City  of  God, 1031 

Vacuum, 279 

Vanity,  what? 569 

Variation,  law  of, ...470,  491,  492 

Variations,  are  in  the  divine  operation, 

not  in  the  divine  plan, 258 

Vedas, 56,203,  322,  225 

Veracity  and  faithfulness  of  God,  the, 

his  transitive  truth,. 288,  289 

by  virtue  of,  his  revelations  consist 

with  his  being  and  with  each  other,  288 
by  virtue  of,  he  fulfils  all  his  promises 

expressed  or  implied,.. 289 

1'/",  employed  in  determining  the  di- 
vine attributes, 247 

Vice,  can  it  be  created  ? 520 

Virgin-birth  of  Christ,.. 675-678 

Virgin,  the  Immaculate  Conception  of, 

its  absurdity, 677 

Virtue,. 298-303 

see  Moral  obligation. 

Vishnu,  incarnations  of, __ 351 

Volition,  the  shadow  of  the  affections,... 815 

executive, 504 

a  subordinate,  not  always  determined 

by  fundamental  choice, 510,  870 

'Voluntary'  and  'volitional'  con- 
trasted,   557 

'Voluntas'  and  'arbitrium'  distin- 
guished,  557 

Vorsehung,  an  aspect  of  providence, 419 

Vulgate, 226,  799 

'  Waters,'  the  best  term  in  Hebrew  to 

express  'fluid  mass,' 395 

WeUgeschiehte,  die,  i&t  das  Weltgericht,  1024 
Wicked,  in  the  intermediate  state,  999,  1000 
in    intermediate    state,    under    con- 
straint and  guard,... 999 

in    intermediate   state,    in   conscious 

suffering, 999 

in  intermediate  state,  under  punish- 
ment,  1000 

in  intermediate  state,  their  souls  do 

not  sleep, 1000 

in  the  final  state, 1033-1056 

their  final  state,  in  Scriptural  figures,  1033 


Wicked,  their  final  state,  a  summing  up 

statement, 1034 

their  final  state  is  not  annihilation, 

1035,  1036 

their  final  state  has  in  it  no  element  of 
new  probation  or  final  restoration, 

- 1039-1043 

their   final   state,  one  of  everlasting 

punishment, _ 1044-1046 

their  final  state,  a  revelation  of  God's 

justice, 1046-1051 

their  final  state,  a  revelation  of  a 
benevolence  which  permits  the  self- 
chosen  ruin  of  a  few  to  work  for  the 

salvation  of  the  many, ...1051-1054 

their  final  state,  should  be  preached 
with  sympathy  and  solemnity,  1054-1056 
Will,  free,  not  under  law  of   physical 

causation, 26 

human,  acts  on  nature  without  sus- 
pending its  laws, 121 

human,  acts  initially  without  means,  122 

its  power  over  body, 122 

has  not  the  freedom  of  indifference,..  363 
an  act  of  pure,  unknown  to  human 

consciousness, 363,  507 

and  sensibility,  two  distinct  powers,..  363 

Christianity  gives  us  more, 440 

Holy  Spirit  emancipates  the, 440 

defined, 594 

determinism  of,  rejected, 504 

and  other  faculties, 505 

element  in  every  act  of  soul, 505 

man  is  chiefly, 504 

the  verb  has  no  imperative, 505 

and  permanent  state, 505,  506 

slight  decisions    of,  lead  to    fixation 

of  character, 506 

and  motives, 50c,  507 

permanent  states  influence, 506 

not    compelled,    but    persuaded    by 

motive, 506 

in  choosing  between  motives,  chooses 
with  a  motive,  namely  the  motive 

chosen, 507 

and  contrary  choice, _ 507,  508 

we  know  causality  only  as  we  know,  508 
a  power  of  originating  action,  limited 

by  subjective  and  social  conditions,  508 
will,  free,  chooses   between  impulses,  508 

and  responsibility, 509,  510 

naturally  exercised  with  abias, 509 

free,  gives    existence    to    duty    and 

morality, 510 

is  defeated  in  immorality, 511 

deterministic  theory  of,  objections  to,  511 
will  does  not  create  force,  but  directs 

it, — 512 

will  as  great  a  mystery  as  the  Trinity,  512 

references  on, 513 

evil,  the  man  himself, 555 

more  than  faculty  of  volitions, 600 


1116 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Will,  its  impotence  proved  by  uniform- 
ity of  transgression, --  611 

such  a  decision  of,  as  will  justify  God 

in  condemning  men,  when  found,  ..  612 
a  determination  of  the,  prior  to  indi- 
vidual consciousness  —  a  difficult  but 

fruitful  hypothesis, 624 

the  cause  of  sin  in  holy  beings, 629 

not  absolutely  as  a  man's  character, ..  633 
character    its    surest    but     not    its 

infallible  index, 633 

man's,  does  more  than  express,  it  may 

curb,  his  nature, - 633 

has  permanent  states,  as  well  as  trans- 
ient acts, 764 

God's  action,  in  conversion, 792,  793 

the     depraved,      has     inconceivable 

power  to  resist  God, 1048 

God's,  not  sole  force  in  universe, 411 

God's  'revealed'  and  'secret,' 791 

'  Will'  and  'shall,'  as  to  man's  actions, 

distinguished, 354 

WiUc  and  Wilkiir, 557 

Wisdom,  divine,  its  nature, 286 


Wisdom,  divine,  in  O.  T., 320 

in  Apocrypha, - 320 

Witness  of  Spirit 844,  845 

Word,  divine,  the  medium  and  test  of 

spiritual  communications, 32 

divine,  in  O.  T., 320 

Christ,  the, 335 

Works  of  God, 371-464 

World,  final  conflagration  and  rehabili- 
tation,   - 1015 

may    be  part  of  the  heaven  of   the 

saints, 1032,  1033 

Worship,  defined, 23 

its  relation  to  religion, 23 

depends  on  God's  glory, 255 

final  state  of  righteous  one  of,.. 1029,  1030 
Wrong,  must  be  punished  whether  good 

comes  of  it  or  not, 655 

'  Yea,    the  *   ( 2    Cor. .  1 :  20 )  =  objective 

certainty, .' 14 

'  Zechariah,'    proper  reading  for 'Jere- 
miah,' in  Mat.  27:9, 226 

Zoroastrianism,  Parseeism, 185,  190,  382 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Abbot,  Ezra, US,  152,  159,  165,  ISO,  307 

Abbott,  A.   E., 155 

Abbott,    F.    E 621 

Abbott,  Lyman, — 12S,  201,  208,  379,  524,  5S9, 

599,  694,  700,  720,  722,  732,  739,  768,  S00,  896, 

1005. 

Abbott,   T.   K 933 

Abelard,  Peter 1,  34,  44,  734 

Ackermann,   C, 666 

Adams,    J.    C, 1041 

Adams,  John,. 22S 

Adams,    Jobn    Quincy, 899 

Adams,    Nebemiab, 369 

Adams,  Tbomas 48 

Adamson,  Thomas, 133,  190,  314,  315, 

439,  675,  681. 

Addison,    Joseph 649,  988 

Adeney,  W.   F 985,  1020 

Adkins,     F., 822,  948 

.Hll'rir 505 

.Eschylus,   Hi,   543,    723,  989 

A&op,     369 

Agassi/,    Louis !  6,    181,  984 

Ahrens,    Henri, 536 

"Aids   to  Faith." 139,405 

"Aids    to    study    of    German    The- 
ology,"        74 

Albertus    Magnus 524 

Alcuin,    Flaccus 7H 

Alden,  Joseph, 6,   11,  100 

Aldrich,  Anne  Reeve,— 155,  794 

Alexander,   Archibald 51,  58,  101,  191, 

301,  364,  4SS,  553,  5:.7,  620,  644.  7S0,  912. 

Alexander,  J.  A -654,  907,  1005 

Alexander,  J.  W., 795,  845,  S46 

Alexander,  W.   L., 117,  131,  135,  151, 

155,  157,  177,  189. 

Alford,   Henry, 68,  150,  306,  377,  452,  1005 

Alger,   William   R., 2S1,   493,  991 

Allen,  A.  V.  G.. 32.  36,  44,  147,  208, 

341,  343,  361,  399,  620,  636,  748,  800,  846. 

Allen,   Grant, 57 

Allison,  W.   II., 929 

Ambrose, 25,  4S,  297,  619,  620 

American    Theological    Review 2,    15 

Amiel,   Henri   F 277,  280,  441,  599 

Ammon,  Christoph  F., 46 

Amos,   Sheldon 534,  547 

Amyraldus,    Moses, 46 


Anderson,  F.  L., S40,  939 

Anderson,    Galusha 896 

Anderson,   Martin  B.,_ „ 11,  987 

Andover  Review,— 122,  133,  C43 

Andrews,   E.  A.,_ _ 20 

Andrews,   E.   B 182.   694,  892 

Andrews,   J.    X 410 

Andrews,    J.     R S40 

Andrews,    Lancelot, 340 

Andrews,    S.    J., 229 

Angelus    Silesius, 101,  800 

Angus,     Joseph, 1045,  1056 

Annotated   Paragraph   Bible, 111.  226, 

232,   307,   423,    457,    574,    578,    650,    699,  761, 

878,  934,  1025. 
Anselm 34.  44,  86,  87,  89,  105,  279.   117, 

487,  613,  630,  631,  675,  704,  748,  834,  849. 

Apolliuaris,   671 

Apollos,    — 152 

Appleton,   Jesse, 426 

Aquinas,  Thomas, 45,  443,  569,  613,   630, 

631,  717,  750. 

Aratua,  52G 

Argyll,    Duke  of, .92,   99,  225,  389,  412, 

435,  469,  474,  483,  528,  530,  536. 
Aristotle 2.    33.   38,   40,   43,   44,   45,   58, 

97,  120,  181,  184,  241,  252,  259,  262,  284,  378, 

491,   516,   568,   579,   580,   581,    799,   814,   989, 

1045. 

Arius,    328 

Arminius,    J., 47,  602 

Armitage,    Thomas, 908,  973 

Armour,  J.  M., 120 

Armstrong,  ,  283 

Arnold,  Albert  X., ..954,  959,  971,  972, 

973,  974,  975,  979. 

Arnold,    Edwin, 182 

Arnold,   Matthew, 21,  23,  102,   118„   139, 

155,  18S,  191,  192,  207,  252,  253,  526,  575,  9S9, 

1056. 
Arnold,  Thomas, 139,  156,  207,  237, 

294,  557,   841. 

Arnot,    William, 659 

Arthur,  William 350 

Ascham,    Roger, 576 

Ashmore,   William, 292,  459,  636,   663, 

759,  773,  936,  941,  945. 

Askwith,  E.  H 56S 

Asmus,    P., _    56 


1117 


1118 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


Athanasius, 44,  3SS,  620,  748,  997 

Athenagoras,    998 

Atwater,   Lyman  II.,. 97,  368,  637 

Auber,  II., 398,  598 

Auberlen,  C.   A., 14,  131,  160 

Auerbach,    Berthold, 871 

Augustine, 33,  44,  65,  83,  105,  119,  159, 

227,  234,  276,  317,  344,  395,  413,  428,  488, 
493,  518,  520,  521,  523,  537,  545,  557,  569,  570, 
585,  586,  598,  599,  612,  613,  619,  620,  630,  631, 
633,  707,  708,  784,  786,  788,  819,  887,  998, 
1001,  1035. 

Austin,   John 293,  533,  535 

Baader,  Franz  von, 25 

Babbage,   Charles, 117 

Babcock,  Maltbie  D., 208 

Bacon,   B.   W.- -147,  148,  149,  167 

Bacon,  Francis,. 36,  40,  43,  71,  138,  262, 

298,  514,  536,  541,  547,  583,  656,  722,  822,  982 

Bacon,  L.   W.,  and  G.  B.,_ - -  410 

Bacon,  Leonard 330,  899,  918 

Bahr,   K.   C.   W.    F., 722 

Baer,  K.  E.  von —  482 

Bagehot,    Walter, -224,  658 

Bailey,  G.  E., 249 

Bain,  Alexander, 94,  96,    98 

Baird,  Samuel  J., 49,  51,  404,  418,  494, 

544,  555,  571,  576,  585,  589,  606,  607,  610, 
611,  612,  615,  616,  619,  622,  630,  637,  640, 
644,  647,  660,  680,  705,  754,  771,  802,  808. 

Baldwin,  C.  J., 109,  332,  4SS,  511,  592,  743 

Baldwin,  J.  Mark, 43 

Balfour,  A.  J., 3,  17,  IS,  25,  4::,  59, 

100,  122,  125,  215,  292,  512,  568,  771,  S34, 
982,  987,  997. 

Balfour,  R.  G 739 

Bancroft,   Bishop 896 

Bancroft,    George 899 

Baptist    Magazine, 396 

Baptist  Quarterly 658,  918,948 

Baptist  Quarterly  Review 410 

Baptist  Review, 207,  575,  998 

Barclay,    Robert, 48 

Bardesanes,  3S3 

Barlow,    J.    L 1038 

Barlow,   J.   W., 405 

Barnabas 147,  159.  235,  319 

Barnes,  Albert 741,  907,  914 

Barnes,   Stephen   G., 272 

Barrett,   Elizabeth, 571 

Barrows,  C.  M., 69 

Barrows,  E.  P., 700 

Barrows,  J.  II 27 

Barrows,    William 1001 

Barry,    Alfred, —  187 

Bartlet,  Vernon, 905 

Bartlett,   S.   C, 172,   201,  227,  532,  660, 

708,  989,  994. 

Bascom,  John, 53.  55,  632 

Basilides,  151,  160,  378,  670 

Bastian,  H.  C, 389 

Baudissin,  Count  W.  W., 275 


Baumgarten,    M„ 907 

Baur,  F.  C, -145,  155,  157,  158,  160,  328, 

382,  750. 
Bawden,  H.  H., 28,  346,  525,  616,  983, 

992. 
Baxter,  Richard, 47,  48,  205,  218,  294, 

872,  1056. 

I'.ayle,  Pierre, 47 

Bayne,   Peter, 100,  157 

Beal,  Samuel, 183 

Beale,  Lionel, 389 

IJeard,  Charles, -  209 

Beard,  G.  II., 405 

Beck,  ., 40 

Beddoes,  T.  L., 380 

Beebe,  Alexander  M., 957 

Beecher,   Edward, —  488 

Beecher,  H.  W., 42,  76,  128,  147,  269, 

369,   406,  423,   790,   1047,  1052. 

Beecher,    Lyman, 406 

Beecher,  Thomas  K., --  464 

Beecher,  Willis  J.,. —  141 

Beet,  J.  A., —  218 

Behrends,  A.  J.   F., 25,  39,  42,  102, 

367,  697,  755,  779. 

Belcher,  Joseph, T.  , 908 

Bellamy,  Joseph, 48 

Bellarmine,  R.  P 47,  522,  1001 

Benedict,  Wayland  R., 80 

Bengel,  J.  A 132,  222,  661,  6S3,  762, 

782,  960,  1009. 

Bennett,  W.  II., . 321 

Bentham,   Jeremy, 55,  439 

Berdce,    Edward, 162,  765 

Berkeley,  George, 95,  96.  436 

Bernard.  St 58,  710 

Bernard,  J.  H., 120.  128,  129,  157 

Bernard,  T.  D., 177,  221,  236 

Bernhardt,  Sarah, 544 

Bersier,  Eugene,  622,  821 

Bertrand,  H.  G.,  Count  de 682 

Beryl,    327 

Besant,  Walter, 576,  737 

Beyschlag,  Willibald, 213,  221,  310,  622, 

668. 

Beza,  Theodore- 46,  777 

Bible  Commentary, 238,  374,  375,  376, 

394,  396,  474,  583,  726. 
Bible   Dictionary,   Hastings', 118,  119, 

141,  148.  153,  165,  167,  479,  514,  933. 
Bible  Dictionary,  Smith's, 118,  139,  147, 

153,  166,  167,  447,  449,  456,  479,  728. 
Bibliotheca    Fratrum   Polonorum,— 47,  729 
Bibliotheca   Sacra 6,   11,  12,  14,  20, 

21,  29,  42,  53,  56,  62,  103,  127,  160,  162,  201, 

238,  528,  656,  790,  1046. 

Bickersteth,   Edward,. — 437 

Biedermann,  A.  Em.,. 68,  105,  119,  250 

Binet,    Alfred 454 

Bingham,    Joseph, 938 

Birch.  Samuel, 995 

Birks,  T.  R., 174,  387,  488,  588,  615,  648 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


1119 


Bismarck,   Otto  von, -194,  401 

Bissell,  Edwin  C.,. 1C6,  167,  170,  172,  309 

Bittinger,   J.    B., 650 

Bixby.  J.  T.,— -65,  292,  300,  499,  530,  538,  985 

Black,  William,. 913,  1052 

Blackie,    John    Stuart, 17 

Blackstone,  William, 656 

Bledsoe,  Albert  T., -367,  520 

Bleek,     Friedrlch. 149 

Blount,    Charles 414 

Blnnt,  John   H., -2,  86,  146,  153,  330, 

383,  414,  937. 

Blunt,  John  James, - 151 

Boardman,  George  Dana, 19,  851, 

942,  997. 

Boardman,    EL*  A - -  881 

Boardman,  W.  E., 344 

Bodemeyer,    J., 706 

Bohl,    Edward 762 

Boehme,  Jacob,— 255,  264,  524 

Boerne,    Ludwig —  561 

Boethius 2r>3>  695 

BoiSBier,  M.  L.  Gaston 989 

Bolingbroke,  Viscount, —  414 

Bonar,  Horatius, 650,  889 

Bonnet,    Charles, Hs 

"Book  of  the  Dead," —  989 

Booth,    Ballington, — —  9°4 

Booth,    William -  750 

Bose,   see   Dubose,   W.    P. 

Bossuet,  J.  B 47,  567,  821 

Boston,  Thomas 48,  50,  802,  1018 

Bowden,    John, 48 

Bowen,  Francis 11,  29,  63,  68,  98,  99, 

113,  121,   W5,  112,  991. 

Bowne,  Borden  P 6.  8.  10,  11,  43,  52, 

54,  56,  O).  61,  64,  68,  71.  72,  73.  74,  76,  7S, 
96,  'M.  99,  YC,  lfis.  U0,  125,  219.  244,  257, 
261,  267,  27::.  -7:'.  280,  282,  285,  286,  294,  300, 
381,  402,  105,  413,  IK  128,  493,  499.  507, 
508,  536,  539,  559,  625,  655,  678,  722,  756, 
794,  985,  987. 

Bovs,    Thomas, — 133 

Brace.    C.    L., — - 193 

Bradford,   A.  H., 33,  60,  106.  406,  475, 

516,  548,  594,  632,  635,  656,  677,  816,  818,  819, 
1001,  1053. 

Bradley,  P.  H.— 103,  276,  406,  505 

Bramhall,     John,— 77  5 

Brandi,  S.  M 91° 

Breckenridge.  Robert  J 49 

"Bremen    Lectures." HI 

Brereton.   C.  H.   S U6 

Bretschneider,    K.   G., 46,   523 

Brewer,   Prof 281 

Bridgman.   Laura, 113 

Briggs,    C.   A., 140,  141,   489 

Brinton,  D.  G 476 

British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review, 
231.  347,  835,  845,  875. 

British  Quarterly, 104,  116,  125,  152, 

172,  300,  896. 


British    Weekly, 738 

Broadus,   John  A., -117,  138,  216,  227, 

364,  452,  780,  888,  892,  931,  933,  934,  937, 
948,  951,  954,  1008. 

Bronson,   J.   M.,- — - -  466 

Brooke,   Stopford   A.. 988 

Brooks,    Kendall, 434,  950 

Brooks,   Phillips 42,   122,  348,  436, 

694,  700,  735,  812,  830,  909,  913. 

Brooks,   Thomas, 463 

Brooks,  W.  K.,— - 64,  124,  497,  536,  673 

Brougham,    Henry, — 140 

Brown,  David, - -105,  744,  1014 

Brown,    J.   Baldwin, - 131 

Brown,  John, - 36S 

Brown,  T.   B., — - 410 

Brown,  William  Adams, 321,  348,  596, 

612,  638. 

Brown,  W.  R 83,  221 

Browne,     Sir    Thomas,-— 143 

Browning,   Elizabeth  Barrett, 18,  59, 

107,  441,  544,  571,  1023. 

Browning,   Robert,— 5,  38,  59,  62,  64, 

107,  183,  193,  214,  218,  224,  252,  253,  262, 
266,  273,  283,  298,  299,  312,  345,  066,  367,  369, 
386,  398,  400,  403,  406,  420,  429,  439,  487, 
489,  492,  496,  501,  506,  520,  544,  546,  549, 
570,  581,  589,  642,  649,  651,  659,  692,  693, 
703,  814,  987,  996,  1002,  1023,  1039. 

Brownson.    Orestes —37,   118 

Bruce.  A.  Balmain 105.  131,  133,  139, 

145,  156,  157,  160,  186,  187,  217.  237,  238, 
274.  341,   114,  465,  666,  676,  745,  7S6,  905. 

Bruch,  J.  V., 219.  293,  489,  i91 

Bryennlos,    Philotheos,— 953 

Buchanan,    James, 95,    853 

Buchanan,   Robert 1051 

Buckle,   II.   T.. - 43S 

Buckley,    J.    M 133 

Buckner,   E.   D 985 

Bilchner,   Louis,— 91 

Biickmann,  R., 128 

Buddeus,  J.  P., 46,  270 

Bull,   Bishop  George 217 

Bulwer,  Edward,  Lord  Lytton,— 645 

Bunsen,  J.   C.   C, -447,  956,  995 

Bunyan,  John, 40,  47,  221,  330,  462, 

483,  544,  743,  827,  845,  888. 

Burbauk,    Luther,-— —  632 

Burgess,  Ezenezer, 157,  477 

Burgesse,  Anthony, 630,     631 

Burke,    Edmund 135 

Burnet,    Gilbert, 48 

Burnet,    Thomas, - —  1023 

Burnham,   Sylvester, 582 

Burns,  Robert, 525,  560,  575 

Burrage,   Henry   S., 938 

Burroughs,  John, 469 

Burton.  E.   D., 158,  376,  571,  941 

Burton,  N.  S., o49,  941 

Bushnell,  Horace, 15,  26,  48,  103,   1I8, 

133,   187,   245,   271,   294,   327,   335,   340,   369, 


1120 


INDEX   OP   AUTHORS. 


403,  433,  447,  502,  530,  541,  660,  668,  679,  728, 

733,   734,  735,   736,   737,  738,  739,   813,  814, 

956,  1036,  1041. 

Butcher,  S.  H .. 38,  115,  406 

Butler,  Joseph, 30,  51,  71,  82,  114, 

124,  232,  296,  300,  36S,  417,  427,  668,  727,  771, 

984. 

Butler,   William   Archer, 317 

Buttervvorth,     II., 437 

Buttmann,    Philip 717 

Byrom,   John, 553 

Byron,    George    Gordon,    Lord, 369 

387,  404,  578. 
C.   H.  M.,  see  Macintosh,   C.  II. 

Caesar,    Julius, 151,  1032 

Caillard,    Emma    Marie, 108,    470, 

561,  679,  983. 

Caine,  T.  H.  Hall, 495,  899 

Caird,  Edward,. 6,  43,  5S,  110 

Caird,  John, 6,  21,  22,  29,  101,  103, 

255,   258,    261,   277,   346,   352,   361,   386,   400, 

415,   514,   542,   567,   571,  572,   577,   623,   638, 

641,   647,   685,   691,   694,   702,   756,  798,    806, 

988,  1043. 

Cairns,   John, —  141 

Calderwood,  Henry 5,  9,  10,  29,  34,  51, 

58,  66,  67,  68,  74,  79,  85,  86,  87,  89,  93,  95, 

101,  279,  302,  362,  437,  468,  500,  696,  985. 

Calixtus,  Georgius, 45,  49,  50 

Calkins,  P.  W., 149 

Calkins,  Walcott 979 

Calovius,  Abraham, 45,  52 

Calthrop,    Dr., 348 

Calvin,  John 28,  38,  45,  51,  53,  107,  140, 

227,   234,    334,   344,  409,   419,   420,   514,   558, 

569,   612,    613,   621,   644,   663,  664,   749,   772, 

777,  781,  783,  788,  794,  808,  881,  942,  960,  969, 

1008,  1034,  1048. 

"Cambridge    Platform," -904,  919 

Campbell,  Alexander, 821,  947 

Campbell,  George, 12S 

Campbell,   James   M., 798 

Campbell,    John    M., 537,    548,    734, 

737,  760. 

Canaletto, 143 

Candlish,   James   S., 45,   340,  713 

Candlish,  Robert  S., 476,  664,  726,  773 

Canning,  George, 135 

Canus,    Melchior, 47 

Capes,  J.  M., 185 

Carey,    H.    C, 536 

Carlisle,  Bishop  of, 1 

Carlyle,    Jane 745 

Carlyle,  Thomas,- 8,  40,  251,  277,  299, 

309,  329,  406,  414,  469,  575. 

Carman,    A.    S., 358,    410,    416 

Caro,  E.  M.,. 101 

Carpenter,  W.  B., 11,  156,  277 

Carson,  Alexander, 938 

Carson,    J.    C.    L., 896 

Carson,   R.    H., 896 

Carter,  Franklin, 63S 


Carus,   Paul, 349 

Cary,   Phoebe, 9S7 

Case,  Mary   E., 102,  276,  279,  530 

Catechism,  Larger, 956 

Racovian, 47,  524 

Roman, 522 

Shorter, 846,    956 

Westminster, 52,   664,  957 

Catholic    Review, 957 

Cattell,  J.  M., 43 

Catullus, 989 

Cave,  A.  B., 775 

Cave,    Arthur, 205 

Celsus, .192,  274 

Chadbourne,  P.  A., 469 

Chadwick,  J.  W., -8,  126,  188, 

198,  237,  304,  330,  473,  958,  990,  1051. 

Chalmers,   Thomas, 48,   50,   124,   128, 

141,   302,    394,   404,  415,   435,   616,   640,    820, 
873,  1033. 

Chamberlain,  Jacob, 431,  575 

Chamberlin,   T.   C, 254,  510 

Chambers,   Arthur, 1044 

Chambers,   T.   W., 17,   726,  941 

Chamier,    Daniel, 46 

Chandler,   Arthur, 582,  590 

Channing,  William  E.,. —12,  125,  694 

Chapman,  James, ...330,  474 

Charles,    Elizabeth, - 1026 

Charles,  R.  H., 165 

Charnock,    Stephen, 244,   249,   259,  282, 

283,  288,  362,  754,  826. 

Charteris,  A.  H., 200 

Chase,  D.  P., 5S0 

Chase,  F.  H., 154 

Chatham,    Lord 190 

Chaucer,    Geoffrey, 549 

Chemnitz,    Martin, 45 

Cheyne,  T.  K., 137,  250,  697,  933 

Cliiba,  Yugoro, 180 

Chillingworth,   W., 20 

Chitty,  Joseph, 38 

Christian  Review, 747,  954,  1003 

Christian    Union, 1046 

Christlieb,  Theodor, 5,  53,  95,  105,  117, 

131,  132,  157,  160,  162,  351,  414. 

Chrysostom,  John, 39,  148,  796,  934 

Church  Quarterly  Review, 704 

Cicero, iv.,  40,  53,  300,  425,  429,  516, 

575,  589,  598,  647,  814,  887,  989. 

Clark,  G.  W., 951 

Clarke,  Dorus, 16 

Clarke,  J.  C.  C.,. 246,  286,  755 

Clarke,  J.  Freeman,. 58,  179,  186,  205, 

329,  376,  394,  664,  729. 

Clarke,  Samuel, 73,  85,  86,  279,  301,  330 

Clarke,  W.  N 4,  22,  43,  63,  68,  76,  88, 

116,  145,  205,  210,  221,  255,  264,  269,  271,  280, 

284,  286,  295,  387,  721,  855. 

Clay,  Henry, 815 

Clement  of  Alexandria, 44,  154.   167, 

235,  998,  1041. 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


1121 


Clement  of  Rome 149,  152,  153,  159, 

312,  910,  928. 

Clifford,    W.   K 399,  511 

Clough,  A.  II 259,  819 

Coats,  A.  S., 769 

Cobbe,  Frances  Power, 216,  404,  918, 

981,   990,  991. 

Cocceius,  Johannes, —46,  50,  612,  613 

Cocker,  B.  F 63,  414 

Coe,  E.  B.,_ 275 

Coe,  G.  A., 599,  812 

Colby,   H.   F., 978 

Colegrove,   F.   W., 488,  489 

Coleman,  Lyman 908,  911,  914,  937,  954 

Coleridge,    Hartley, 437,  495 

Coleridge,  Lord 345 

Coleridge,    Samuel   T 4,   18,   24,   30, 

54,  72,  124,  203,  205,  252,    124,  4S8,  562,  581, 

611,  939. 

Colestock,  H.  T., 294,  721 

Comte,  Auguste, 6,  11,  57,  531,  567 

Conant,  T.  J., 224,  225,  933,  937,  951 

Conder,  Josiab 78S 

Condillac,  E.  B.  de 91 

Cone,    Orello 610 

Congdon,   H.   W 449 

Constantine, 898 

Constantinople,  Council  of, 695 

"Constitution  of  the  Holy  Apostles,"  978 

Contemporary   Review, 95,    97 

Conybeare  and  Howson, .668,  914,  936, 

942. 
Cook,  Joseph, 304,  344,  482,  537,  558, 

1010. 

Cooke,  J.  P., 34,  IM,  436,  468,  676 

Corelli,    Marie, 283,  542 

Correggio,  729 

Cotterill,    Henry, 397 

Cotton,  John 904 

Cousin,  Victor, 55,  61,  63,    97 

Cowper,  B.   H., 159 

Cox,    Samuel, 122,   156,   397,   437,  1023 

Craig,    Oscar, 8 

Cramer,   H., 748 

Cranch,  C.  P., 578 

Crane,  Frank,.— 21,  217,  230,  411,  425,  447, 

599,  691,  841,   1047,  1050. 

Crapsey,  A.   S., 952 

Crawford,  Thomas  J., 476,  721,  722, 

727,  733,  735,  736,  744,  771,  836. 
Cremer,  H.,- 221,  291,  484,  717,  721,  851, 

887,  892,  935. 

Crippen,  T.  G., 748,  75u 

Crooker,  J.  H -217.  315 

Crookes,    William, 252 

Crooks  and  Hurst 42 

Crosby,    Alpheus, 1015,  1023 

Crosby,  Fannie  J., 515 

Crosby,    Howard 710 

Croskery,   Thomas, 896 

Crowell,    William 929 

Cudworth,  Ralph, 321,  376,  380,  1025 

71 


Culver,   S.  W., 757 

dimming,  John, 140 

Cunningham,  John, 935,  952,  980 

Cunningham,  William, 41,  368,  523, 

614,  619,  640,  644,  744,  773,  779,  823,  912. 

Curry,  Daniel 285,  745 

"  Current   Discussions  in   Theology,"  626, 

695,  767. 

Curtis,  E.  L., 167 

Curtis,   T.    F 89,    157,   179,   723,   892, 

900,  906,  940,  952,  956,  959,  972,  973,  977,  980 

Curtiss,  S.  I., 538 

Curtius,   Georg, 20 

Cuvier,    Georges, 77,    444 

Cyprian, 33,  152,  620,  901,  1001 

Cyril, 342 

Cyrus 989 

Dabney,  R.   L., 49,  41S,  497,  601,  603, 

616,  864. 
Dagg,  J.  L., 892,  896,  900,  926,  933,  951, 

959. 

Daggett,    Dr., 518 

Dale,   J.   W, 934 

Dale,  R.  W —42,  148,  238,  272,  369,  592, 

632,   636,   654,    680,   721,   735,   750,   754,   759, 

802,  S03,  806,  854,  929. 

Dalgairns,   J.   B., 8 

Dalman,   G.  IT., -313,  889 

Damien,    Peter 364,  757 

Dana,    James   D., 224,   395,   396,   403, 

473,  481. 

Danforth,  G.   F., 771 

Dannhauer,  J.  C, 45,    50 

Dante  Alighieri 45,  138,  256,  263,  277, 

443,  447,  451,  492,  569,  653,  987,  1001,  1009, 

1041,  1053. 

D'Arcy,  C.  F., 35,  291,  332 

Darwin,    Charles, 36,   57,    64,    468,   473, 

480,  526,  534. 

Darwin,  G.   H., 477 

Daub,    Carl, 46 

Davids,  Rhys, 182 

Davidson,  A.  B 134,  217,  667 

Davidson,    Samuel, 897,   929 

Davis,    J.    W., 652 

Dawkins,  W.  Boyd, 532 

Dawson,  J.  W., 64,  412,  4S2,  525,  532 

Day,  H.  N 24,  213,  345,  501 

Declaratory    Act,    Free    Cliurch    of 

Scotland,   641 

DeCoverley,    Sir    Roger, 649 

Deems,  C.  F., 901 

Defoe,    Daniel, —  431 

Delbceuf,  Joseph, 550 

Delitzsch,  Franz, 137,  227,  477,  484,  487, 

510,  520,  644,  647,  697,  701,  850,  998,  1003, 

1023,  1039. 

De  Marchi,  Joseph, 191 

Denney,   James, 18,  214,   237,  339,   590, 

596,   633,   639,    640,    650,   721,   734,    738,   774, 

781,  843,  853,  910,  940,  1011,  1025,  1040,  1041 


1122 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


Denovan,  Joshua, 339,  548,  710,  711, 

819,  858,  860. 

De  Quincey,  Thomas, 128,  1003 

Descartes,  Rene\ 55,  262,  279,  299,  1002 

Deutsch,  Emanuel, 675 

DeWette,    W.    M.    L., 15,    41,    46,    153, 

517,  614,  661,  781. 
Dewey,  John, 22,  40,  43,  51,  251,  252, 

281,  300,  502,  505,  506,  982. 

De  Witt,  John, 43,  778 

Dexter,  Henry  M., 892,  901,  903,  907, 

911,   914,  916,   917,   918,   924,  928,   929,   937, 

952,   1056. 

Dick,    John, 48,    269,    353,   358 

Dickens,    Charles, 223,    492 

Dickey,   F.   O., 663 

Dickson,  W.  P., 562 

Didache, 159,  311,  410.  892,  906,  937, 

938. 

Diestel,  Ludwig, 56 

Dillmann,  August, 169,  268,  375,  377 

Diman,  J.  L 6,  66,  72,  76,  77,  79,  82, 

84,  95,  104,  113,  129,  414,  433,  435,  438,  532, 

535,  801. 

Dinsmore,  C.  A., 646 

Diognetus, 147,  311 

Dionysius,  274,  910 

Dippel,  J.  K., 744 

Disraeli,  Benjamin, 135,  447 

Dix,    Morgan., 103 

Dobney,  H.  H., 998,  1036 

Doddridge,    Philip, 453 

Dodge,    Ebenezer, 146,    448,  590 

Dods,  Marcus, 158,  181,  321,  337, 

394,  938. 

Doederlein,  L -    4C 

Dollinger,  J.  J.   I., 888,  935 

Dorner,  A.  J., 523 

Dorner,  I.  A 5,  13,  18.  21,  29,  30,  33, 

34,  46,  51,  62,  69,  87,  104,  106,  118,  159,  1S7, 

208,  238,  245,  253,  259,  265,  271,  274,  275,  278, 

282,  296,  305,  309,  320,  324,  328,  331,  333, 
337,  338,  344,  386,  388,  408,  411,  412,  413, 
418,  439,  493,  523,  549,  550,  555,  565,  569,  596, 
598,  599,  600,  604,  615,  620,  621,  631,  651,  654, 
656,  669,  670,  671,  672,  673,  676,  677,  680,  683, 
685,  688,  689,  693,  694.  695,  698,  699,  702,  707, 
709,  721,  737,  741,  746,  754,  761,  767,  776,  793, 
799,  S16,  830,  842,  864,  866,  893,  911.  947,  964, 
967,  981,  991,  1002,  1014,  1017,  1021,  1024, 
1036,  1039,   1051. 

Douglas,   Frederick, 439 

Dove,  Patrick  E., 2,  3,  29,  39,  66,   71, 

85,  86,  87,  103. 

Doyle,    Father, 958 

Dreiauglein,  253 

Driver,  S.  R., 164,  166,  223 

Drummond,   Henry, 26,   34,   224,  264, 

266,   401,   441,   466,   528,   539,    804,    806,   814, 

824,  827,  923. 

Dubois,  A.  J., 60,  122,  810 

Dubois,    Eugene, -  471 


Dubose,   W.   T., IS 

Dudley,  H.  E., 803 

Diisselfhoff, 338,    828 

Duff,  Alexander, 900 

Duncan,  G.  M., 66 

Duncan,    John,- 105,  213 

Dunn,  Martha  Baker, 364 

Duns    Scotus,    Johannes, 45,   244,   262, 

299. 

Du    Prel,   Karl, 550 

Duryea,    Dr., 364 

Dwight,  Timothy, 48,  300,  323,  573, 

593,  608,  820,  826,  936,  977,  1049. 

Dwinell,  J.   E., 550 

Eaches,  O.  P., 222 

Ebers,    Geors, 995 

Ebrard.    J.    H.    A., 21,   46,    52,    62,   72, 

174,  217,  338,  449,  462,  477,  485,  493,  514,  679, 
686,  762,  945,  1022. 

Eccles,  Robert  Kerr, 37,    84 

Eddy,  Mary  Baker  G., 573 

Edersheim,  Alfred 141,  172,  227,  902 

Edison,  Thomas  A., 206 

Edwards,  Jonathan 19,  36,  48,  49,  50, 

51,  208,  219,  263,  265,  270,  271,  278,  290, 
299,  300,  333,  342,  362,  364,  365,  366,  399, 
401,  402,  416,  417,  442,  461,  494,  504,  507, 
518,  554,  555,  556,  557,  571,  577,  582,  585, 
586,  593,  594,  595,  607,  612,  613,  619,  622, 
637,  644,  668,  683,  699,  751,  754,  790,  800, 
805,  808,  818,  820,  826,  840,  843,  845,  862,  S64, 
867,  868,  886,  952,  953,  971,  1008,  1029,  1035, 
1056. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  Jr., 275,  278,  358, 

362,  504,  999,  1051. 

Eichhorn,   Carl, 105,  253 

Elam,    Charles, 635 

Elder,    William, 118,   121 

Eliot,    Gooi'Ke 210.    492,    561,    575,    766, 

988,  1048. 

Ellicott,  C.  J., 35,  307,  318,  341,  450,  782, 

856,  1017. 

Elliott.   E.   B 139,  151,  449,  910,   1001, 

1009,  1010,  1013,  1015. 

Ellis,  George  E., 308,  350,  598,  729 

Emerson,  G.  H, 1010 

Emerson,  R.  W., 4,  39,  97,  107,  119.  139. 

151,  175,  203,  207,  256,  287,  296,  330,  406,  409, 
416,  441,  496,  539,  567,  575,  609,  613,  643, 
653,  724,  730,  804,  841,  1025,  1041. 

Emmons,   Nathanael,   48,  359,  415,  416, 

585,   606,    607,   608,   613,   823. 

Empedocles,  7 

Encyclopaedia  Britannica 96,  149,  156, 

191,  300,  411,  524,  586,  749,  750,  893. 

"  Endless   Future,   The," 1054 

Epictetus,    185,  425 

Epicurus,  184,  299 

Epiphanius,    319,  669 

Episcopius,    Simon 47,    602 

Erasmus, 36,     39 

Erdmann,  J.  E.,- 101 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


1123 


Ernesti,  II.  P.  T.  L 491,  563 

Envtt.     Isaac, 947 

Erskine,  Lord, 986 

Erskine,  Thomas, 351,  787 

Estes,    H.    C.,— 998 

Euripides,  5S2 

Eusebius,  410 

Evans,  Christmas 245 

Evans,   L.  J.,.— 229,  706,  999 

Everett,  C.   C, 2,   6,  695,   731,  990 

Bwald,  J.  L., 318 

Expositor,    1025 

Expositor's  Greek  Testament 135, 

699,  719,  948. 

Faber,    F.    W., - ....301,   334,   776 

Faber,  G.    S 1014 

Fabri,    Friedrich 91 

Fairbairn,  A.   M 20,  59,  62,  63,  125, 

159,  186,  335,  3f,  1 .  366,  I"::,  507,  536,  579,  755, 

910,  991. 
Fairbairn,    Patrick 15,    135,    449,    66S, 

726,  791,  1015. 

Fairchild.   James   II 300,  504,  559 

"Faith  and    Free   Thought," 232 

"  Faiths  of   the   World," 179 

Farley,   Robert   G., 773 

Farrar,   A.   S., 53,  132,  135,  158,   403, 

420,  427,  433,  459. 
Farrar,   F.   W 112,  124,  129,  132,  135, 

141,  157,  160,  179.  187,  193,  385,  428,  451,  456, 

479,  585,  666,  679,  989,  1039,  1046. 

Farrer,  J.  A 180 

Faunce,  D.  W 501 

Faunce,   W.    II.    P 221 

Fechner,    G.    T 281 

Felix   of   Urgella c 744 

Ferguson,   W.    L 152 

Ferrier,    J.    F., 469 

Feuerbach,    L 14,   83,   91 

Fichte,  J.  G., 3,  40,  97,  407,  467, 

510,  616. 

Fick,     August 20 

Finney,   C.   G -—48,   238,   262,  278,  291, 

299,  300,  367,  546,  783,  SIS.  877. 

Firmilianus,   153 

Fischer,    Kuno, 512 

Fish,  E.  J 8!>6.  901.  916,  91S,  924 

Fisher,   G.   P 2,   4.    15,   21,  22,  34,  37, 

40,    41,    49,    51,    53,    58,    60,    65,     70,    71, 

72.  79,  87,  102,  115,   117.   121.  130,  131,  132, 

150,  152,  179,  189,  191,  202,  228,  231.  237,  305, 

424,    453,   456,    50S.    532,    545,    580,   607.   60S, 

613,  615,  616,  617,  664,  668,  936,  969,  1046. 

Fiske,  D.  T., 358 

Fiske,  John. 97,  104,  369,  559,  S44,  899, 

900,  908,  953,  985,  9S7. 

Fitch,   E.   T 365,   554,   783 

Fitzgerald,    Prof 416 

Fleming,  William 6,  33,  53,  539 

Flint,    Austin 389 

Flint,   Robert 6,  58,  63,  66,  73,   75,  79, 

80,  31,  85,  100,  112,  367,  404,  929. 


Fock,    Otto, 733 

Fonsegrive,   G.    L., 512 

Forbes,    Archibald, 22S 

Forbes,   G.   M., 12,   43,   102,   291,  360 

Forbes,    John, 360 

Ford,    David    B., 934 

Formula  of  Concord 792 

Formula  of  Consensus 209 

Forrest,  D.  W., 1S9,   675,  988 

Forrest,   Edwin, 577 

Forster,  W.  E., 990 

Forsyth,  P.  T., 26,  755 

Foster,  G.  B., 120,  197.  201,  299,  305, 

311,  444,  720,  733,  741,  750,  755,  765,  798. 

Foster,    John, 35.    12S,    1043 

Foster,  R.  V., 22S,  783 

"  Foundations  of  our  Faith," 5,  79,  865 

Fox,  Caroline, 461 

Fox,    George, ...48,    1056 

Fox,  L.  A., 1029 

Fox,  Norman, 215,  663,  949,  959 

Francis   de   Sales, 32 

Francis  of  Assisi,. 33,  984 

Frank,  F.  H.  R., 4 

Frank,     Sebastian, 800 

Franklin,   Benjamin, 363,  431 

Fraser,  A.  C, 63,  417 

Freer,   G., 744 

French,   Clara,. 261 

Frere,   B., 844 

Froschammer,    J 491,    493,  494 

Frothingham,  A.  L.,— 3S0 

Froude,  James  A., 368,  438,  564 

Fiirst,  Julius, 669 

Fuller,  Andrew, 15,  47,  50,  51,  52,  368, 

77::.   793,   808,   826,  829,  1018. 

Fuller,   Margaret, 369 

Fuller,  Thomas. 128,  290.  633 

Fullerton,  G.  S., 255,  1021 

Galton,  Francis, 83,  439,  492,  495,  496, 

632. 

Gambold,    John 88S 

Gannett,  W.   C.,- 202,  290 

Ganse,    H.    G., 351 

Garbett,  Edward, 112,  177,  179,  193 

Garbett,    James, 776 

Gardiner,    F., 137,   139,   227,   322 

Gardiner,    II.   N 104,   137 

Garibaldi,    Giuseppe, 766 

Garrison.  W.   E 947 

Garvie,  A.  E., 6,  270 

Gassendi,    Pierre, 298,  373 

Gates,    Errett, 948 

Gaussen,    L., 209 

Gear,    II.    L., 344 

Geddie,  John, '. 900 

Geikie,   Archibald 225 

Geikie,  Cunningham, 156,  661 

Gemara 931 

Genung,  J.  F 115,  300,  459,  994 

George,   Henry, 530,  748 

George,  N.  D„ 1056 


1124 


INDEX    OP   AUTHORS. 


Gerhard,  John, 4,  45,  244,  261,  969 

Gerhardt,    Paul, 282 

Gerhart,  E.  V 200 

Gesenius,    William, 944 

Gess,  W.   F., 102,  686,  687,  688,  704 

Geulinx,    Arnold, 94 

Gibbon,   Edward, 47,  192,  204,  682,  966 

Giesebrecht,    Friedrich, 134 

Gieseler,   J.   C.   L., 382,  914 

Gifford,  Lord, 413 

Gifford,   O.  P., 58 

Gilbert,   George  II 321 

Gilder,   R.   W., 683 

Gildersleeve,  B.  L., 988 

Gilfillan,   George, 410 

Gill,    John, -47,  793 

Gillespie,  William   II.,. 62,  73,  85 

Girdlestone,  R.  B., 850,  864,  892 

Gladden,  Washington,- 56,  120,  122,  140, 

141,  237,  956. 

Gladstone,  W.  E., 44,  122,  223,  314,  396 

Glennie,  J.  S.  Stuart-, 527 

Gloatz,    Paul, 122 

Godet,  F., 21,  131,  150,  152,  158,  258, 

261,  309,  335,  337,  448,  487,  584,  758,  763. 

Goschel,  C.   F., 110,  484,  491 

Goethe,    J.   W.   von 3,   20,   21,   24,   39, 

40,  60,  101,  117,  120,  188,  224,  309,  386,  444, 

455,  458,  511,  517,  520,  542,  558,  561,  562,  575, 

645,  691,  814,  990. 

Goodwin,  D.  R., 483,  485,  1017 

Goodwin,    Thomas, -  576 

Goodwin,  W.  W., 933 

Gordon,    A.    3 128,   133,   138,   140,   216, 

234,    274,   281,   285,   333,    359,   475,   529,    604, 

705,  732,  737,  775,  776,  782,  824,  834,  847,  848, 

889,   893,   901,   910,   911,   913,   927,   935,  948, 

1004,  1013,  1014,  1016,  1022. 
Gordon,  George  A., 17,  19,  28,  65,  188, 

346,  348,  397,  402,  405,  415,  492,  502,  542,  732, 

751,   790. 

Gordon,    H.    A., 283 

Gore.   Charles, 12,  16,  25,  33,  112,  113, 

120,    121,    129,   164,    173,    187,   198,    214,    218, 

229,  240,  305,  321,  329,  333,  340,  351,  389,  414, 

500,  598,  671,  673,  679,  783,  911,  1001. 

Gough,  John  B.,_ — 641 

Goulbourn,  E.  M., 1023,  1054 

Gould,    E.   P., -720,  1046 

Gould,   S.  Baring-, 316,  326,  377,  457, 

562,  722,  733,  915,  933,  1004,  1007. 

Grafton,  Bishop, 955 

Grant,  U.  S., 430 

Gratry,   , 267 

Grau,    R.    F., . 5 

Gray,   Asa, 470,  478 

"  Great  Religions  of  the  World," 1S6 

Green,    J.    R., 149,    557 

Green,  T.  H., 19,  43,  176,  505,  615 

Green,   W.   II., .167,   172,   225,   231,   375, 

477,  994. 
Greenleaf,  Simon, 141 


Greg,    W.    R., 135,   548,  758 

Gregorovius,    Ferdinand, 651 

Gregory  the  Great, 1001 

Gregory,  D.   S., 302,  447,  504 

Gregory  Nazianzen, 1,  748,  917 

Gregory    Nyssenus, 44,  493,  620,  747 

Gretillat,  Augustin, 49 

Grey,  Lady  Jane, 33 

Griffin,   E.   P., 733 

Grimm,  K.  L.  W., —  782 

Grimm-Wilke, 717,  935 

Grisi,    Mme., 650 

Grobler,    Paul 1023 

Grote,    George, 156,    214 

Grotius,  Hugo, 47,  740,  741,  1009 

Gubelmann,  J.  S., 317 

Guericke,  H.   E.  F., 330,  379,  382,  384, 

672,  744,  907. 

Guizot,   F., 193,  409 

Gulick,  J.  T., 530 

Gulliver,  Julia  H., 506 

Gunsaulus,  F.  W., 4,  122,  350 

Guyon,  Mme.  de  la  Motte, 32,  782 

Guyot,  Arnold,. 224,  374,   395,   477 

Gwatkin,    Henry, 329 

Hackett,  H.  B., 27,  113,  157,  452,  733, 

907,  915,  946,  999,  1005. 

Iladley,    James, 585,   586,    991 

Hadrian,    990 

Ilaeckel,  Ernst, 343,  471,  496 

Hagenbach,  K.  P., 14,  36,  41,  44,  49,  50, 

51,  321,  323,  331,  382,  523,  601,    603,  607,  621, 

744,  833,  903. 

Ilahn,  Aaron, 89 

Hahn,  G.  L., 4S3 

Hales,    WHliam,— 224 

Haley,    John    W 174.   228,  1054 

Hall,   Charles  Cuthbert, 770 

Hall,    Edwin, 93S 

Hall,  G.  Stanley, — -  812 

Hall,   James, 482 

Hall,  John, 589,  977 

Hall,    Joseph, —  836 

Hall,  Robert, 47,  70,  74,  463,  793,  820, 

932,  972,  977,  978,  996. 
Ilallam,  A.  II., 115,  214,  303,  368,  437, 

703. 

Hailer,  , - 229 

Hamerton,  P.  G., 20 

Hamilton,  D.  H., 121,  437$ 

Hamilton,  Sir  Wm., 3,  7,  8,  9,  10,  31,  - 

39,  40,  66,  74,  96,   98,  121,  153,  516,  1002.      ' 

Hamlin,   Cyrus, 350 

Hammond,   W.   A., —281,   590 

Ilanna,  W.  T.  C, 153 

Hanna,   William, 699,   101S 

Ilanne,  J.  W., -105,  415 

Hare,  Julius  Charles, —317,  556,  89S 

Harnack,  A., 46,  125,  130,  148,  152,  153, 

154,    158,    163,   208,   379,   433,   446,   456,    598, 

621,  683,  722,  729,  911,  935,  937. 
Harnoch,  G.  A., -  382 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


1125 


Harris, 


467 


Harris,  George, 26,  203,  293,  494,  571, 

701,  7S7. 

Harris,  J.  II., 103,  303 

Harris,    J.    Rendel, 151 

Harris,    Samuel, 11,   51,   52,  60,   64,   65, 

67,   69,   72,   92,  100,   133,   180,   204,   253,   255, 

291,    468,   486,    509,   572,    600,   654,   695,   700, 

1014,   1023. 

Harris.  W.  T., 43,  62,  86 

Harrison,   Frederick 19,    57 

Hart,  A.  S., 458 

Ilartmann,  E.  von 78,  80,  105,  404 

Ilartmann,  Robert, 473 

Harvey,  H 42,  897,   917,  929,  934 

Harvey,    Lord, 229 

Hase,   Karl 49,  50,  51,   158,  518,  558, 

583,  621,  686,  702,  991,  1023. 
Hastings'   Bible   Dictionary, US.  119, 

141,  148,  153,  165,  167,  394,  479.  514,  933. 
Hatch,  Edwin 27,  44,  146,  255,  321,  389, 

666,  700,  840,  897,  913. 

Hang.    Martin, 382 

Haven,  Joseph,. —301,  437,  504 

Hawthorne,    Nathaniel, 363,    400,    405, 

496,  578,  645. 

Hay,  John, - 587 

Hazard,  R.  G 39,  279,  362,  504.  794,  814 

Heagle,    David 982 

Heard,  J.  B., 4S4 

Heber,    Reginald, 2 

Hebert,  C, 968 

Hedge,  F.  H., 75,  377,  404 

Hegel,  G.   W.  F 20,  27,  42,  55,  100, 

101,  115,  176,  344,  378,  407,  550,  581,  653. 

Heine,   Heinrich, 23,  104,  345,  562,  567 

Helmholtz,  H.   L.  F.,— 94 

Hemphill,   Samuel 148,  149,  151 

Henderson,   E 128,   198,  199,  200,  204, 

210,  216,  322,  614. 
Hengstenberg.    E.    W., 319,   659,   668, 

1009,  1010,  1014. 

Henly,  William  Ernest 507 

Henry    VIII, 20 

Henry,    Matthew,- 525,   743,   772 

Henslow,  George 469,  815 

Henson,  P.   S., 122,  920 

Heraclitus 222,    506 

Herbert  of  Cherbury,  Lord  Edward,--    37, 

414. 

Herbert,  George 15,  34,  37,  355,  414 

Herbert,   Thomas   M 11,   66,    94 

Herder,  J.   G., 46,  230 

Hermann,  , -46,  900 

Hermas -  159,  312 

Herodotus 181,   250.  934 

Herrick,    C.    I 252 

Herrick,    Robert,. — 362 

Herron,    G.    D.,_ — 570 

Herschel,   J.    F.    W., 91,   99,   412 

Hersey,  H.  E., 194,  436 


Hershon,  P.   I. 501 

Hervey,  Arthur  C, 229 

Herzog,     Encyclopaedia, 21,  33,  91,  158, 

1S7,  36S,  377,  382,  404,  444,  617,  670,  686,  700, 
754,  868,  99S,  1003,  1023. 

Hesiod,  391,  526 

Hickok,   L.  P., 10,  43,  53,  301 

Hicks,   L.   E., 75,   225,   403 

Hilary    (Hilarius) 619,  620 

Ilildebrand,   903 

Hilgenfeld,  A.  B.  C.  C.,~ 161 

Hill,  D.  J.,... 8,  51,  58,  98,  120,  195,  319, 

467,  586. 

Hill,  George, 358,  368 

Hill,    Rowland, 577,    789 

Hill,    Thomas, 92 

Hillel,    - 931 

Hilprecht,  II.  V 532 

Hinton,    James, —.5,    308 

Hippolytus,    159 

Hiscox,  Edward  T., 929 

Hitchcock,  Edward, 124 

Hitchcock,   R.   D., 897,   1017 

Hobbes,  Thomas, 40,  124,  298,  461,  567 

Hodge,  A.  A 49,  50,  121,  198,  323,  353, 

362,  435,  486,  557,  586,  644,  688,  693,  710, 
712,  728,  784,  794,  795,  836,  862,  910,  1014, 
1029,  1044,  1056. 

Hodge,  Charles 1,  21,  27,  2S,  30,  33, 

49,  51,  52,  53,  100,  103,  132,  198,  213,  217, 
272,  300,  328,  362,  397,  404,  413,  418,  420, 
V,?,,  480,  491,  514,  557,  559,  582,  587,  602,  612, 
614,  616,  619,  622,  643,  655,  664,  686,  688,  691, 
696,  706,  70S,  741,  771,  781,  784,  792,  820,  825, 
843,  846,  868,  881,  929,  982,  1001,  1052. 

Hodge,   C.   W 6 

Hodgson,  S.  H, 5,  15,  100,  2S8,  512 

Hoffding,  H, 458,  467 

Hofmann,   J.   C.  K.   von,. -41,  68,  320, 

519,  686,  722. 

nofmann,  R.  H.,— 503 

Holbach,   Baron   Paul   H.   d\ 91 

Holland,  H.   S., 22,  838 

Holland,  J.  G., 91,  246 

Hollaz,   David 45,  261,  558,  615 

Holliman,    Ezekiel, 949 

Holmes,  O.   W., 369,  405,  496,  643,  755, 

984. 

Holzmann,    161 

Homer 161,    404 

Hood,    Thomas 36 

Hooker,    Richard, 48,    209,    218,    518, 

538,  548,  584,  686,  700,  781,  787,  808,  896 
897,  929. 

Hopkins.  Mark 4,  6,  25,  58,  77,  79,  93 

95,  120,  121,  122,  251,  270,  300,  301,  374,  380 
404,  405,  406,  416,  434,  435,  438,  450,  469 
503,  524,  525,  529,  537,  571,  679,  815,  839, 
842. 

Hopkins,  Samuel, 48,  271,  415,  416,  417 

467,  494,  518,  567,  593.  606,  607,  608,  613 
643,  754,  771,  772,  820,  842, 


1126 


INDEX    OF   AUTHOKS. 


Horace, 124,  156,  190,  294,  581 

Hort,  F.  J.  A., — 154,  905 

Hovey,   Alvah, 5,   34,  45,   50,   102,   114, 

147,  153,  155,  197,  223,  227,  230,  255,  273, 
307,  316,  388,  404,  469,  4S6,  544,  567,  618,  624, 
629,  636,  662,  681,  688,  696,  697,  700,  702,  708, 
721,  735,  738,  739,  756,  779,  782,  784,  786,  787, 
823,  825,  852,  881,  890,  938,  954,  960,  980,  982, 
984,  985,  992,  998,  999,  1003,  1008,  1012,  1023, 
1038,   1039,   1054. 

Howard,   George  B., 530 

Howe,  John, 47,  48,  52,  333,  334,  516 

Howell,  R.  B.  C,  - — - — 918,  980 

Howland,   S.   W„ 526 

Howson,  J.  S., 160 

Hudson,  C.  F., 998,  1036 

Hudson,  Thomas  J., 465 

Hudson,    Thompson    J., 281,    381,    454, 

458,  983. 

Hughes,  Archbishop,— 959 

Hughes,    Thomas, 570,    679 

Hugo,  Victor, 56,  453,  984 

Humboldt,  Alexander  von, 1,  259,  412, 

480. 

Hume,   David, 43,   57.  73,   95,  121,  127, 

135,  175,  433,  893,  997,  1001. 

Hunt,  A.  E., -  529 

Hunt,  John, 100,  896 

Huntingdon,  Wm., 766,  907 

Hurter,    II 47 

Huther,  J.  E 307,  902 

Hutter,    Leonhard, 45 

Hutton,   R.   II., 27,  59,  67,  70,  82,  100, 

125,  131,  160,  162,  192,  204,  347,  351,  408,  440, 
511,  561,  564,  565,  571,  646,  667,  777,  982. 

Huxley,  Thomas, 57,  60,  76,  83,  94,  96, 

124,  127,  389,  392,  396,  466,  468,  470,  471, 
472,  480,  502,  575,  990. 

Hyde,  W.   D., 433 

Hyslop,  James   II 654 

Iamblicus,  HI 

Ignatius, 44,  149,  159,  311,  312 

Illingworth,  J.   R., 4,  53,  72,  128,  253, 

346. 

Immer,   A., 177 

Independent,  977 

Inge,   W.   R., 31,   33,  237,  311,   800,   841 

Ingelow,    Jean, 1042 

Ingersoll,  Robert  G., 38,  135,  159,  365, 

496,  570,  1050. 

Ingham,  Richard, 934,  951 

Interior,  977 

Ireland,   W.   W 207,  281 

Irenaeus, 147,  152,  319,  620,  910,  998 

Irving,    Edward,- -132,    439,    744,    745, 

746,  747,  759. 

Isocrates, 180,  222 

Issel,    Ernst, 274 

Iverach,  James,.. 11,  79,  97 

Jackson,  A.  V.  W., 382 

Jackson,   A.  W 103,  407,  501,  649,  1047 


Jackson,   William, 1056 

Jacob,    G.    A., 887,    896,    912,    914,    915, 

917,  948,  952,  960,  961,  965,  980. 

Jacobi,  F.  H., 14,  29,  46,  61,  81,  838,  951 

Jahn,   Johann, 722 

Jahrbuch  fur  deutsche  Theologie, 708, 

754,  101S. 
James,  William, 4,  33,  42,  55,  94,  96,  98, 

111,   122,    182,    274,    276,   281,   338,    403,   435, 

467,   468,    488,   504,   511,   536,   748,   806,   811, 

829,  831,  841,  985,  988,  1002. 
Janet,  Paul, 62,  75,  79,  91,  262,  401,  404, 

435,  504. 

Janosik,  , 525 

Jansen,    Cornelius, 47 

Jastrow,   Morris,   Jr., 40S 

Jefferson,   Charles   E., 953 

Jellett,   J.    II., 232,  437 

Jenkyn,  Thomas  W., 773 

Jensen,    , 408 

Jerome, 148,  152,  159,  429,  491,  597, 

796,  914,  915. 

Jerrold,  Douglas, 42 

Jevons,  W.  S., 66,  124 

John  of  Damascus, „44,  344,  487,  671, 

673,  695. 

John  the  Evangelist, 1 

Johns,   C.   H.   W., 169 

Johnson,  E.  II., 201,  281,  293,  297,  339, 

340,  347,  357,  376,  377,  383,  743,  785,  792,  821, 

854,  957,  1017. 

Johnson,  F.  II., 25,  407,  470 

Johnson,  Franklin, 153,  235,  403 

Johnson,   Herrick, 779 

Johnson,  Samuel, 36,  297,  525,  560,  575, 

1047. 

Johnson's     Cyclopaedia, 1047 

Johnstone,  Robert, —  708 

Jones,  E.  Griffith-, 119,  466,  528,  583, 

625,  657,  852. 
Jones,   Henry, 101,  103,  108,  266,  291, 

406,    540. 

Jonson,     Ben, 461 

Josephus, 144,   166,   226,   448,   947,   996 

Jouffroy,  T.   S 301,  1002 

Journal  of  Christian  Philosophy, 96 

Jowctt,  Benjamin, 728,  781 

Judson,  Adoniram, 194,  938,  960 

Jukes,  Andrew, 726,  1039 

Julian,    598 

Justin   Martyr, 148,   152,   319,  410,   665, 

671,  675,  747,  997. 

Juvenal,  156 

Kiihler,    Martin, 503 

Kaftan,  J.  W.  M., 5,  14,  21,  25,  45,  46, 

207,   274,   520,   568,   569,   574,    649,   752,   839, 

856. 
Kahnis,   K.   F.   A., 14.  20,  46,  52,  200, 

243,   247,   261,   491,   493,    652,    696,   702,   705, 

795,  929. 
Kane,   Elisha  Kent, -40,  765 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS. 


112? 


Kant,  Immanuel 4,  6,  10,  21,  29,  43,  46, 

53,  55,  61,  73,  75,  77,  79,  82,  85,  86,  87,  95, 
401,  427,  488,  489,  498,  502,  504,  510,  536, 
545,  581,  643,  655,  800,  813,  839,  988,  1002. 

Keane,  A.  H.,~ —471,  477,  530 

Keats,  John, 120 

Keble,   John, 139,  526,  583,  675 

Kedney,  J.   S., 379 

Keen,  W.  W., 59,  731 

Keil,  J.  K.  F., 477,  722 

Keim,  Theodor, 131 

Keller,  Helen 66,  216,  478 

Kellogg,  S.  H„ 182,  352,  1044 

Kelly,    William, 1009,  1015 

Kelso,    J.    A 169 

Kempis,  Thomas  a 32,  556 

Ken,    Thomas,-- 916 

Kendall,   Amos, 893 

Kendall,    Henry 622 

Kendrick,    A.    C 132,  234,  316,  627, 

661,  699,  708,  934,  947,  952,  1004,  1014,  1033. 

Kennard,  J.  S., 648 

Kennedy,  John, 131 

Kenyon,   F.   G 141,   169 

Kidd,   Benjamin, —17,   194,   426,   567, 

S13,  981. 

Kilpatrirk,   T.    B 164 

King.  II.  C, 125,  328 

King,    II.    M., 427,  896 

Kingsley,  Charles 183,  305,  421,  442,  473 

Kipling,     Rudyard, 420 

Kirk.    Dr., 291 

Kitto,    John, 932 

Kloppenburg,   John. 614 

Knapp,  Georg  Christian, 46 

Knight,   William    A 43,  53,  59,  73,  104, 

105,   327,  387,  434,   754. 

Knobel,   August.— 726 

Knox,    Alexander, 853 

Knox,    John, 134 

Kohler,   H.   O 621 

Koran,  420,  578 

Krabbe,   Otto, 660 

Krauth,  C.  F., 664 

Kreibig,   G.,- 298,   403,   569,  633,   659,   750, 

754,  765. 

Kriiger,    Paul 344 

Kulpe,   Oswald, 43 

Kuenen,  A., 134,   155.  170,  171,  199 

Kurtz,  J.  H -51,  168,  172,  320,  394,  415, 

660,  667,  668,  677. 

Kuyper,   Abraham 338,  667 

Lachelier,   J.    E.    N 62 

Lacouperie,  A.  Terrien  de, 479 

Lactantius, 2,  20 

Ladd,  G.  T 4,  10,  43,  55,  56,  61,  66,  70, 

91,  106,  110,  121,  198,  205,  249,  263,  275,  361, 
416,  459,  486,  495,  498,  499,  506,  509,  534,  537, 
550,  916,  929,  958,  985,  1003,  1023. 

Lamb,  Charles, 312,  644 

Lang,  G.  A.,— 298,  531 

Lange,    F.    A.,- 91 

Lange,  J.  L.   F.,  20,  46,  273 


Lange,  J.  P 51,  333,  3S2,  661,  722, 

761,  781,  S53,  951. 

Lanier,   Sidney, 194 

Lankester,    E.    Ray, 229,  528 

Lao-tze,    351 

La  Place,  P.  S.  de, 250 

Lardner,  Nathaniel 150 

Lasaulx,  Ernest  von, 727 

Lasher,  G.  W., 948 

Laurie,  S.  S., 511 

Law,  William, 303,  557 

Lawrence,  E.  A 697,  754,  1042 

Lawrence,    William, 133 

Laycock,  Thomas 95 

Leathes,  Stanley 140.  16S,  177,  221 

LeBon,    Gustave 48S 

Lecky,  W.  E.  II 294 

LeConte,    Joseph,- 77,    110,    225,    250, 

395,  396,  469,  474. 

Lee,  G.  S., 125,  237,  264,  362 

LeFanu,    Joseph    S 575 

Legge,  James, '. 56,  180,  225,  531 

Leibnitz,  G.  W.,-— 29,  43,  46,  63,  404,  405, 

563. 

Leighton,  Robert, 401,  873 

Leitch,    William, 450,  1033 

Lemmo,    Ludwig, 652 

Lenormant,    F., 224,  225,  377 

Leo  the   Great, 750 

Lepsius,    K.     K 910 

Lessing,   G.   E 30,  173,   510,  520 

Letson,  see  LeBon,  Gustave. 

Lewes,  G.  H., 64,  194,  251,  380,  533 

Lewis,  Mrs.  A.  S., 151 

Leydecker,    Melchior, -.46,    49,    50 

Lias,  J.  J., 759,  760 

Lichtenberg,  , 98 

Lichtenberger,   F., 748 

Liddell   and   Scott, 933 

Liddon,  Henry  P., 21,  51,  58,  190,  307, 

309,  311,  314,  315,  321,  437,  491,  683. 
Lidgett,   J.   S., 295,   52S,   726,   732,   750, 

754,  756. 

Liebner,  Th.   A.,-— -686,  690,  702 

Life,    - 512 

Lightfoot,  J.   B., 24,  35,  151,  160,  187, 

311,  335,  341,  379,  379,  452,  485,  706,  912,  915, 

916,  928,  929,  934,  938,  945,  953. 

Lightfoot,    John, 452 

Lishtwood,    J.    M., 535 

Lillie,   Arthur, 183 

Lillie,    John,— 294,  993,  1005,  1053 

Lilly,  W.   S., H2 

Limborch,  Philipp  von 47,  524,  602 

Lincoln,    Abraham, 231,    272,    516,    517, 

596,  847,  900,  939. 

Lincoln,    Heman 1049 

Lincoln,    William, 800 

Lindsay,    T.   M., 897 

Lindsay,   W.   L., 469 

Lindsley,  Philip, 39 

Lipsius,    Richard   A., 46,  380,  404 


1128 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


Lisle,  W.   M * 17,   486,  561 

Litch,   Josiah,   1015 

Litton,  E.  A., 48 

Livingstone,    David, 56,    900 

Lobstein,    Paul, 676 

Locke,  John, 43,  54,  63,  73,  81,  95,  213, 

444,   899,   1002. 

Lockhart,   B.   W., -330,   560,  736 

Lockhart,  John  G., 449 

Lockyer,  J.  N., 229 

Lodge,   Oliver  J., 416,  512 

Loeb,    Jacques, —119,  525,  676,    1003 

Loisy,  Alfred, 683 

Lombard,  Peter, 44,  613,  704 

Lombroso,    Cesare, 498 

Long,  J.  C, 44,  937 

Longfellow,   H.   W., 224,   400,  984,   985, 

987,  1042. 

Lopp,    W.    T., 477 

"  Lord's   Supper,   The,   A   Clerical 

Symposium,"    964 

Lorimer,   James, 536 

Lorimer,    P., —  160 

Lotz,    Gulielmus, 410 

Lotze,  Hermann 4,  6,  8,  12,  38,  53,  89, 

96,  99,  100,  104,  254,  273,  279,  2S2,  2S5,  332, 

385,    388,   416,   418,   495,   512,   513,   695,   820, 

985,  1002. 

Louis  XIV., 567 

Louis,  St.,  of  France, 192 

Love,    William    D., 70S 

Lovelace,    Richard, 507 

Lowde,  , 80° 

Lowell,  James  R., 13,  151,  407,  426, 

500,  503,  633. 

Lowndes,   R.,— 52,   67,   97,   279 

Lowrie,  Walter, 159,  261,  310,  719 

Loyola,  Ignatius, 33,  904 

Lubbock,    John, 5^7 

Lucan,  700 

Lucian,  194,  941 

Luckock,    II.    M., 659,  775, 

1000,   1002,   1043. 

Lucretius, 91,  255,  299,  380 

Liinemann,  G 377,  485 

Luthardt.  C.  E 2,  14,  22,  30,  44,  46,  51, 

68,  84,  112,  222,  245,  249,  341,  404,  408,  530, 

559,  575,  668,  723,  754,  816,  829,  836,  929,  982, 

991,  998. 
Luther,   Martin, 45,  156,  205,   209,   226, 

237,   240,  251,   329,     344,   364,   409,   437,  441. 

458,    487,   494,    556.   562,    569,    650,    654,   692, 

747,   776,    808,    823,    830,    840,   891,    902,   903, 

912,  942,  954,  969,  1008. 

Lutheran   Quarterly 300 

Lyall,   William, 508 

Lyell,  Charles - 65,  374,  532 

Lynch,    Archbishop, 967 

Lysias,   Claudius 240 

Lyltelton,  Arthur 647,  722 

Lytton,  Edward  Bulwer, 645 

M.,   C.  H.,  see  Macintosh,   C.  H. 


Macan,   R.  W., 1023 

Macaulay,  T.  B., 40,  47,  406,  659,  872, 

898,  913. 

McCabe,    L.    D., 285,   357,    358,  359 

McCane,  John  Y., 577 

McCheyne,  Robert  Murray, 1056 

McClintock  and  Strong, 51,  603,  644 

McConnell,   S.   D., 851 

McCosh,  James, 6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  43, 

54,  67,  70,  73,  77,  78,  87,  93,  94,  95,  102,  339, 

403,  427,  437,  839,  1022. 

MacDonald,   A., 2 

MacDonald,    G 491,  569 

Macdonnell,  J.  C, 754 

McDuff,  J.   R 808 

McGarvey,  J.  W 534,  955 

McGiffert,  A.   C, 44,  S88,  902 

MacGregor,  James, 894 

Mcllvaine,   C.    P 146,   150,  191 

Mcllvaine,  J.  II.,— .193,  231,  394,  474,  583, 

644,   744,   750. 
Macintosh,    C.    H 234,    410,    454,    548, 

583,   584,   727,   773,   796,   797,   856,   862,   864, 

870,   896,  941. 

McKim,  W.   D., 656 

Mackintock,  Hugh  R 224 

McLane,  W.  W., 985 

McLeod,    Norman, 459 

MacLaren,  Alexander, 29,  114,  139,  177, 

259,   319,   456,   458,    524,   544,   581,   726,   731, 

733,  781,  806,  837,  1026. 
Maclaren,   Ian.  see  Watson,  John. 

Macmillan,   Hugh, 145 

McPherson,   John, 912 

MacWhorter,    A., 668 

Magee,   William, —  754 

Mahaffy,  J.  P 18 

Mahan,    Asa, 877 

Maimonides,  Moses, 934 

Maine,  Henry   Sumner, 535 

Mair,  Alexander, 129,  154,  161 

Maistre,  Joseph  de, 576 

Maitland,  S.  R 1009 

Malebranche,  Nicolas  de, 100.  279 

Malm,    K.    E., 844 

Mani,   382 

Manly,   Basil 198,  210 

Mann,    Horace 810,  1051 

Manning,  II.  E 317 

Manning,  J.  M 100 

Mansel,   Henry  L 7,   8,  9.  52,  54,  58, 

70,    121,    253,    254,    278,    379,    384,    385,    469, 

504,  546,  985. 

Manton,  Thomas 48,  458 

Marchi,  Joseph  de, 191 

Marcion,  147,  383,  385 

Marck,  Jobann 614 

Marcus    Aurelius, 185,  989 

Margoliouth,    Mosos 450 

Marheinecke,  P.  C, 46 

Marlowe,   Christopher, 449,  560,  1042 

Marsh,    W.  II.  II., 128 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


1129 


MartenseB,  IT.  L., 34,  49,  50,  245,  266, 

274,  285,  2s:<.  349,  380,  381,  386,  392,  445,  460, 
474,  491,  556,  576,  593,  601,  622.  647,  668, 
694,  712,  790,  813,  1002,  1003,  1029. 

Martin,   Hugh, "39 

Martin,  W.  A.  P 531 

Martineau,  Harriet, 990 

Martineau,   James, 6,  7,  8,   10,  U,  12, 

14,  15,  21,  26,  37,  51,  53,  57,  59,  64,  66,  68,  72, 
73,  76,  78,  81,  83,  85,  92,  94,  95,  97,  98,  99, 
100,  102,  105,  107,  112,  114,  125,  141,  152,  159, 
202,  230,  231,  245,  250.  279,  2S5,  293,  296,  298, 
299,  301,  303,  347,  34S,  359,  362,  365,  386,  399, 
402,  403,  412,  413,  417,  426,  430,  437,  469,  485, 
504,  512,  532,  534,  535.  536,  538,  542,  567,  571, 
573,  647,  655,  658,  682,  729,  794,  800,  815, 
817,  893,  979,  985,  986,  988,  1003,  1036,  1041, 
1047,  1048,  1049. 

Marvell,    Andrew 990 

Mason,   ,T.    M 776 

Mason,  Otis  T., 417,  529 

Mason,  S.  R., 48,  259,  277,  316,  328,  337, 

338,  348,  403,  406,  415.  446,  450,  451,  476, 
492,  509,  5S8,  670,  672,  677,  679,  685,  688, 
696,  704,  707,  717,  734,  743,  785,  789,  818, 
883. 

Blaspero,    G 377>  "5 

Masson,  David 385,  447 

Mather,    Cotton.. 899 

Mather,    Increase, 953,    958 

Matheson,  George 8.   12.   23,   US,  180, 

183,  1S5,  298,  338,  339,  382,  436,  452,  543, 
584,   682,   752,  793,   1003. 

Matteson,  W.  B 958 

Maudsley,   Henry -416,   511,  554 

Maupas,  E.,— - 494-  591 

Maurice,    F.   D., 11,   410,   446,   594,   728, 

734,   1046. 

Maxwell,   James  Clerk 77 

Mazzini,   Giuseppe, 890 

Mead,  C.  M., 11,  14,  120,  263,  279,  475, 

681,  952. 

Meehan,  Thomas, 480 

Melanchthon,  Philip 45,  344,  414,  441, 

558,  562,  613,  699.  761,  7S9,  816,  830,  864, 
875,  1008. 

Melito,  150 

Mell,  P.  H., 927 

Melvill,    Henry, 911 

Menken,  Gottfried 744 

Menzies,   Allan, 20 

Mercersburgh   Review 957 

Meredith,    , 978 

Methodist  Quarterly  Review, 58,  75, 

477,  911,   1003. 

Meyer,   F.   B 32 

Meyer.  H.  A.   W —15,  51.  68.  138,   199, 

210,  242,  306,  309,  335,  337,  340,  452,  456, 
457,  474,  485,  487.  517.  562.  -579,  633.  657, 
658,  661,  706,  707,  717,  719,  720,  752.  760, 
761,  782.  838.  853.  902,  906,  907,  910.  915, 
934,  935,  948.  951,  960,  973,  994,  1010,  1039, 
1045. 


Meze,    S.   E 277 

Michael    Angelo 986,  1055 

Michaelis,   J.   D., 46 

Miley,  J., SIS 

Mill,  James, 114,  299 

Mill,   J.    S., 11,   7S,   SO,  S3,  S5,  96,   127, 

130,  131,  179,  188,  190,  299,  378,  379,  381,  402, 

506,  532,  533,  814,  904,  979,  986. 

Miller,    Edward, 741 

Miller,   G.   C.,— - 257,  270 

Miller,   Hugh, 394 

Miller,  John, 30,  53,  397,  708,  759 

Millet,  J.  F., 256 

Milligan,  William 131,  151 

Mills,    B.    Fay, 855 

Mills,  L.  II., 383 

Milton,  John, 37,  237,  2S4,  286,  292,  329, 

360,  385,  409,  443,  453,  494,  523,  560,  572,  583, 

587,    589,   620,   647,  742,   749,   783,   789,    873, 

1032,  1034. 

Mind, -468,    509 

Minton,  H.  C, - 6,  26,  348 

Mishna,    931 

Mitchell,  Arthur 529 

Mitchell,    E.    C., 147 

Mitchell,  J.  M 1S2,  185 

Mitchell,  Seth  K 810 

Mivart,  St.  George, 9,  78,  97,  104,  283, 

3S0,  468,   470,  472,  474,  528. 
Moberly,   R.   C, 253,  260,  288,  291,  323, 

328,   331,   333,   343,   345,   594,   654,   674,   684, 

691,  737,  756,  769,  836. 
Moehler,  J.  A.,- 47,  207,  518,  522,  853, 

866,  911. 

Moffat,   Robert, 56 

Molina,    Luis, 358 

Moltke,  Count  H.  von, —  401 

Momerie,   A.    W 700 

Monod,  Adolphe 41,  541,  751 

Monrad,   D.   G 437 

Montesquieu,  S., 535 

Moody,  D.  L., 188,  313,  506 

Moore,  A.  L 416 

Moore,   Aubrey, 492 

Moore,  E.  M., 481 

Moorhouse.  James, 679,  1023 

More,  Sir  Thomas, 654,  1031 

Morell,  J.  D 4,  12,  20,  33,  88, 

93,  202,  510. 

Morgan,   L.   H., 527,  530 

Morison,    James, 14S,    149 

Mormon,  Book  of, 141 

Morris.  E.  D 45,  708,  1044 

Morris,    George   S 43,  253,  345 

Morris.    II.    W 4S3 

Morrison,  C.  R 131 

Morton,    S.    G 4«0 

Mosheim,    J.    L.    von, 376 

Moule,  H.  C.  G 48,  340,  485,  790,  913 

Moulton,  Richard  G 651 

Moxom.    P.    S., 273,   302,   349,   495,   637, 

750,  776. 
Mozart,  W.   A., - 276 


1130 


INDEX   OF    AUTHORS. 


Mozley,  J.  B.,- 3,  75,  100,  117,  118,  124, 

126,  129,  130,  132,  231,  432,  546,  570,  620, 
622,  631,  766,  790,  841,  994,  997,  1041. 

Mozoomdar,  678 

Miiller,  G.  C, 377 

Miiller,  George, 438,  439 

Miiller,    Gustav   A., 144 

Miiller,  Julius, 10,  21,  22,  31,  46,  51,  53, 

74,  82,  105,  245,  257,  263,  278,  285,  341,  388, 
418,  488,  489,  490,  507,  519,  544,  552,  557,  559, 
562,  563,  566,  567,  569,  571,  577,  579,  582,  585, 
600,  605,  606,  611,  612,  616,  618,  621,  634,  643, 
644,  647,  651,  654,  657,  660,  661,  676,  677, 
706,   775,  777,   847,  983,   1003. 

Miiller,    P.   Max, 20,  56,  101,  193,  225, 

260,  309,  335,  469,  478,  479,  531,  668,  844. 

Muir,  William, 157,  186 

Mulford,  Elisha, 101 

Mullins,  E.  Y., 717,  738,  754,  755 

Murphy,    J.    G., 445 

Murphy,  J.  J -4,  7,.  8,  10,  11,  16,  71,  73, 

76,  79,  80,  82,  99,  103,  121,  129,  276,  401, 
412,  512,  538,  544,  548,  576,  606,  622,  786,  824, 
846,  955,  1056. 

Murray,   Andrew, 317 

Murray,  J.  C, 98 

Murray,  T.  C, 172,  479 

Murray,  W.  H.  H., 447 

Myers,    F.   W.   H., 69,   120,   134,  206, 

457,  677. 

Myers,  Frederic, 205 

Nageli,  C.   von, 9S7 

Nagelsbach,   C.   F., 723 

Nagelsbach,   K.  W.   E., 239 

Nansen,  F 431 

Napoleon,  143,  349,  421,  512,  561,  682 

Nash,   H.   S., 150,  157,  691,  763,  841 

Nation,   The, 896 

Nature,  471 

Naville,    Ernest, 508,    622,    1023 

Neander,  J.  A.  W., 40,  41,  305,  335,  384, 

487,  563,  587,  600,  621,  661,  670,  749,  852,  870, 
S78,  896,  897,  902,  907,  936,  951,  952,  953,  954, 
1003,  1014,  1023,  1029. 

Nelson,  Horatio, 577 

Nelson,   John, 1026 

Nestorius,  671 

Nevin,  J.  W., 969 

Nevius,  J.  L., 445,  453,  456,  457,  461 

New  Englander, 5,  6,  8,  38,  62,  74,  94, 

98,  181,  185,  207,  27S,  314,  413,  532,  616,  666, 
923,  952,  1014,  1038. 

New  World, 507 

Newman,   A.    H., 44,   379,   382,   385, 

937,  953. 

Newman,  F.  W., 12,  37,  202,  585,  988,  1055 

Newman,  J.  H., 5,  17,  33,  37,  114,  202, 

208,  222,  451,  584,  586,  853,  866. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac, 60,  139,  3U,  1009 

Newton,  John, 576 

Newton,    Thomas, 135 


Nicoll,   W.    R., 130,   155,   161,   313,   659, 

708,  746,  1016. 

Niese,    B.,1. — -  144 

Nippold,  Friedrich, 740 

Nitzsch,  Carl   I., 14,  20,  22,  31,  41,  46, 

53,  59,  72,  269,  485,  519,  559,  583,  652,  849. 

Noel,   Baptist  W., 938,  972 

Noetus,  327 

Nordau,   Max   S., 40 

Nordell,   P.   A., 290 

North  British  Review, 363,  952 

Northrup,    G.    W 255,    293,    474,   614, 

640,  662,  772,  789. 

Norton,   Andrews, 150 

Norton,    C.    E., 138 

Norton,  John, 539 

Nott,  J.  C,  and  G.  R.  Gliddon, 480 

Novalis,  43,  526 

Novatian,    937 

Noyes,  G.   R., 548 

Occam,   William  of, 45,  244,  298, 

299,  909. 

CEdipus, 469 

Oehler,  G.  F., 137,  375,  376,  585,  725 

Oetinger,    F.    C, 216 

Oldenberg,    Hermann, 183 

Oliphant,   Mrs.   M.    O.    W., 744 

Olshausen,    Hermann, 945 

Omar  Khayyam, 407,  511,  542,   990 

Oosterzee,  J.  J.   Van,  see  Van 

Oosterzee,  J.  J. 
Origen,   15,   44,   53,   146,   153,   328,   386, 

409,  451,  488,  4S9,  734,  1019,  1041. 

Orr,  James, 6,  30,  141,  172,  298 

Osgood,  Howard, 18,  172,  226,  995,  1023 

Ossory,    Bishop    of, 836,    849,    853,    868 

Outlook,  The, 305,  350,  650,  718,  744 

Ovid, 416,  523,  575,  723 

Owen,  John, 47,  295,  297,  326,  340,  343, 

613,  663,  697,  754,  770,  773,  802,  820,  826,  868, 

876,  886. 

Owen,  Richard, 77,  98,  389,  396,  480 

Owen,  Robert  Dale, 506 

Paine,  L.  L., .44,  148,  262,  305,  30S,  328, 

500,  718. 

Paine,  Thomas, 112,  564 

Pajon,  Claude, 947 

Paley,   William, 174,  299,  409,  534 

Palmer,  Frederic, 203,  342,  659,  701 

Talmer,  G.  II., 182 

Palmer,    T.    R., 955 

Papias,   148,   149,  159 

Park,  E.  A., 197,  231,  271,  278,  290,  301, 

304,   342,    354,   367,    401,    605,   608,   609,    637, 
675,  727,  740,  743,  827,  911,  913,  928. 

Parker,   Edwin  P., 711 

Parker,  Joel, 1052 

Parker,    Joseph, 317 

Parker,  Theodore, 12,  320,  186,  202,  446, 

501,  958,  989,  1050,  1055. 

Parkhurst,  Charles  H., 22,  242,  486,  584 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS. 


1131 


Pascal,  Blaise 4,  21,  38,  40,  47,  62,  120, 

129,  205,  403,  469,  516,  581,  635,  691,  808,  821, 
841,  009. 

Paton,   John   G., 32,  76,   195,   423 

Pattison,   S.   R 225 

Pattison,  T.  II., 24,  42,  200 

Pattou,   F.  L., 63,  70,  79,  172,  212,  297, 

300,  368,  655,  841,  889,  1047. 

Patton,  W.   \V 437,  708 

Paulsen,    Friedrieh, 281 

Payne,   B.    H 651 

Payne,  George, 617,  790,  820 

Peabody,  A.  P 22,  29,  51,  60,  89,  112, 

146,  157,  230,  503,  672. 

Peabody,  Ephraim, US 

Pearson,  John, 48,  708 

Pearson,   Thomas, 415 

Peck,  A.  C.,— 790 

Peck,   George, 877 

Peirce,   Benjamin,— 396 

Pelagius, 491,  597 

Pengilly,    R 938 

Penn,    William, 48 

Pentecost,  G.   F., 767,  813 

Pepper,   G.   D.   B., 102,   124,  286,  353, 

357,  425,  537,  629,  933,  955,  980,  1014. 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S., 172,  231,  403,  412, 

451,  812,  833. 

Perrone,  J., 47,  523 

Persius, 380,  647 

Peschel,    O.,- 58 

Petavius,   Dionysius, 47 

Petor  Lombard, 44,  613,  704,  747 

Peter  Martyr 46,  524 

Peters,  , 507 

Peyrerius,  — 476 

Pezzi,    D., - 479 

Pfleiderer,  Otto 5,  8,  10,  12,  21,  54,  59, 

60,  61,  63,  74.  87,  104,  111,  116,  120,  122,  134, 
156,  15S,  164.  182,  216,  2:57,  269,  328, '332,  365, 
383,  SSG,  388,  406,  447,  466,  490,  492,  519,  530, 
559,  571,  585,  586,  603,  608,  681,  700,  717,  718, 
719,  721,  72S,  750,  799,  S39,  938,  951,  954. 

Phelps,  Austin 437,  496,  820,  1034 

Philippi,  F.  A 4,  20,  46,  51,  222,  257, 

273,  287,  378,  418,  420,  442,  444,  462,  463,  491, 
514,  516,  519,  520,  523,  539,  549,  563,  566.  571, 
579,  585,  592,  606,  612,  622,  671,  673,  688,  690, 
696,  697,  706,  708,  709,  710,  713,  721,  733,  750, 
754,  766,  771,  776,  836,  859. 

Phillips,   Wendell, 907 

Philo, 126,   166,   203,    244,   320,   321,    335, 

340,  377,  488,  489,  722,  995. 

Pickering,  Charles, 477,  480 

Pictet,    Benedict, 46 

Pierce,  Nehemiah, 823 

Pierret,  Paul, 377 

Pillsbury,   Parker, 982 

Pinches,   T.   G.,_- 531 

Placeus,   Joshua, 46,  616,  617 


Plato,- -16,  25,  29,  33,  67,  68,  111,  112, 

143,  183,  203,  261,  262,  302,  310,  335,  364,  461, 

488,  489,  516,  526,  560,  581,  647,  660,  700,  764, 

989,  1031. 

Pliny, 191,  313 

Plummer,    A., —  932 

Plumptre,    E.    H., 153,   158,   700,  708, 

821,  909,  915,  935,  993. 

Plutarch, 113,  429,  537,  575,  788,  813,  934 

Polanus,    A., 491 

Pollok,    Robert, 1019 

Polycarp,  147,  149,  150 

Pomeroy,  John, 536 

Pond,    Enoch, 207 

Pope,   Alexander, 77,  102,  404,  430,  1020 

Pope,   W.   B., 48,  68,  394,  562,  578, 

583,  602,  706,  762. 

Porter,  Frank  C, 152,  934 

Porter,   Noah, 6,   7,  8,   9,   10,   11,   14, 

20,  43,  51,  52,  53,  54,  56,  60,  63,  66,  67,  73, 

75,  78,  82,  86,  93,  96,  100,  125,  179,  253,  254, 

257,   275,   27S,   279,   280,   412,   417,   469,   4S6, 

508,  516,  524,  695,  815,  1019,  1021. 

Poteat,  E.  M., — .  108 

Pott,  A.  F., 478 

Tot  win,   Lemuel  S., 735 

Powell,  Baden, 434,  548 

Praxeas,  327 

Prayer  Book,  English, 46,  937,  957,  978 

Prentiss,   George  L.,_ 664 

Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,--    26 
Presbyterian  Quarterly  Review, 5,  96, 

132,    133,   182,    477,    614,   913,   915,   924,   960, 

998,  1005,  1013,  1014. 

•'  Present    Day    Tracts," .162,  177 

Pressense,    E.    D.    de, 130,    162,    187, 

321,  666. 

Prestwich,   Joseph, 226 

Preyer,  W.  T 43 

Price,    Richard, 301 

Prichard,  J.  C, 480,  483 

Priestley,   Joseph 198,   300 

Prime,  Samuel  Irenseus, 437 

Princeton    Essays 304,   330,  343,  359, 

401,  555,  598,  600,  601,  611,  612,  613,  619,  644, 

707,  733,  744.  881. 
Princeton   Review, 5,  11,  78,  216,  469, 

481,  622,  640,  708,  747,  896,  911,  977,  1014, 

1037,  1046. 

Proudhon,  , 1 

Ptah-hotep,    169 

Pusey,   E.  B., 429,  518,  834,  969 

Pym,    John, 419 

Pythagoras, —112,  183,  190,  3S6 

Quarles,   Francis, 752 

Quatrefages,  A.   de, 474,  477,  4S0 

Quenstedt,   J.   A., 45,  208,  244,  269, 

444,  669,  795,  859,  864. 

Racovian    Catechism,— 47,    524 

Rainy,   Robert, 12,   177,   221,  912 

Ramabai,    Pundita 161,  905 

Ranke,  Leopold  von, 369 


1132 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


Ratzel,    Friedrich,— 530 

Rauschenbusch,    Augustus, 410 

Rauscuenbusch,   Walter, 540,  909,  982 

Rawlinson,  George, 56,  191,  225,  229, 

351,  482,  483,  529,  531,  532. 
Raymond,   Miner, 48,  53,  358,  362,  519, 

602,  605,  606,  611,  621,  644. 

Reade,  Winwood, 403 

Records  of  the  Past, 377 

Redford,  R.  A.,  141 

Reid,  Thomas, 276,  279 

Reid,   William, 896 

Reinhard,  F.  V., 46 

Renan,  Ernest, 57,  115,  131,  160,  161, 

162,  174,  18S,  666. 
Renouf,   P.   Le  Page, 57,  58,  103,   351, 

377,  397,  79,  482,  799,  995,  1022,  1024. 

Renouvior,    C.   B., 512 

Reubelt,    John    A., 686 

Reusch,     F.    II., 397 

Reuss,   E., 41,  147,  579,  670 

Reville,  Jean, 177,  321 

Revillout,    Eugene, 226,  995 

Revue    Thcologique, 1023 

Reynolds,  Edward, 622 

Rhees,  Rush, 144,  190,  315 

Ribot,  Th., 497,  505,  625,  813 

Rice,   W.   N., 120 

Richards,  James, 555,  644,  773,  777 

Richardson,  J.   H., 525 

Richelieu,    104S 

Rlchter,  Jean  Paul,-— 105,  204,  467,  553,  641 

Riddle,  M.   B., 152,  227 

Rider,  C.  E., 173 

Riggenbach,  C.  J., 485 

Ridgeley,  Thomas, 47,  48,  664,  696,  790,  886 

Ripley,   Henry   J., 923 

Ritchie,   D.   G., 12,   16,   60,  572,   615 

Ritschl,  Albrecht, 5,  6,  11,   14,  21,   41, 

46,  120,  245,  264,  291,  579,  622,  732,  734,  737, 

799,  866,  877,  1008. 

Ritter.    Ileinrich 79 

Robbins,  R.  D.  C, 1041 

Roberts,  B.  T., 918 

Roberts,     W.     Page-, 496 

Robertson,    F.   W., 39,   205,   253,   344, 

346,   378,    379,   469,   548,   567,   570,   654,    656, 

679,  682,  695,  734,  855,  860,  948,  1028,  1049. 

Robertson,  J.  D., 814 

Robertson,    James, 121,    143,    169,    668, 

724. 

Robie,  Edward, - 351 

Robin,    C.   P., 2S1 

Robins,    H.    E., 647,   649,   663,   674,   697, 

706,  803,  946. 

Robinson,  C.  S., 845 

Robinson,    Edward, 227,   8^2,   906,   918, 

934. 
Robinson,  Ezekiel  G., 3,  16,  18,  26,  31, 

34,  39,  40,  42,  51,  68,  119,  129,  130,  156,  157, 

162,  177,  205,  228,  231,  244,  268,  270,  273,  278, 
287,  297,  299,  301,  302,  304,  314,  316,  319,  322, 


326,  334,  342,  356,  357,  360,  367,  3S3,  398, 
429,  432,  434,  436,  444,  458,  498,  499,  504,  512, 
519,  536,  539,  540,  544,  550,  572,  586,  589, 
594,  615,  638,  644,  662,  666,  667,  701,  709,  723, 
729,  730,  736,  740,  747,  750,  776,  818,  822,  824, 
828,  842,  853,  854,  890,  912,  917,  942,  954, 
955,  969,  983,  1016,  1023,  1048,  1049,  1051. 

Robinson,   John, 35,  222 

Robinson,  Willard  II., — 1038 

Rogers,    Henry, 12,    115,   116,    156,   189, 

204,  232,  282,  288. 

Rogers,  J.  G., 969 

Romaine,   W., 437,  849 

Romanes,  G.  J., 22,  69,  94,  250,  346,  466, 

469,  470,  478,  510,  631,  676. 

Roscelin,    Jean, 44 

Ross,   A.   H., 929 

Rossetti,  Dante  Gabriel, 489 

Rossetti,   Maria   F., 443 

Rothe,    Richard, 50,   216,   244,  249,   285, 

287,  416,  493,  559,  689,  740,  893. 

Rousseau,  J.  J., 562,  576,  577 

Row,   C.   A., 51,  121,  131,  152,  157,  160, 

179,  187,  204,  233,  433. 

Rowland,  H.  A., 60 

Rowlands,  H.  O., 926 

Rowley,    F.    H., 476 

Royce,  Josiah, 16,  32,  54,  55,  56,  60,  69, 

99,  110,  124,  261,  267,  276,  277,  283,  284,  2S6, 
349,  357,  380,  405,  407,  442,  511,  558,  594, 
615,  758,  785,  987,  1025. 

Ruckert,   L.    J., .517,781 

Ruskin,  John 59,  415,  443,  482,  648,  825 

Russell,    John 287 

Ryle,   H.    E., 16S 

Saarschmidt,  see  Schaarschmidt,  Karl. 

Sabatier,   L.   A., 21,  128,  137,   155,  205, 

666,  697,  892. 

Sabellius,  327 

Sadler,  M.  F., 948,  969 

Sagebeer,  J.  E., 141,  153,  653,  852 

Sainte-Beuve,  C.  A., 561 

Saintine,  X.  B., 145 

Saisset,  Emil, 86,  101 

Saker,    Alfred, - 843 

Sakya-Mouni,     _ 161 

Sale,    George, 143 

Salisbury,     Lord, 834 

Salmon,  George, 154,  160,  549 

Salmond,  S.  D.  F., 70S 

Salter,  W.  M., 300,  538,  541 

Samson,  G.  W., 464,  917,  934,  960 

Sanday,  William, 146,  152,  164,  165,  198, 

203,  209,  228,  236,  307,  933,  945. 

Sanders,   F.   W 427 

Sanderson,  J.  S.  Burdon-, 251 

Santayana,   George, 269,  510 

Sartorius,  Ernest, 693,  695,  705 

Saturninus,    383 

Savage,  Eleazer, 926 

Savage,   M.   J., 69,  432,  447,  985,  989, 

992,  1017. 
Savage,  W.  R., 1003 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


1133 


Savonarola,   Girolamo,-- 135 

Sayce,  A.  H., 57,  376,  40S,  47S,  479 

Schaarschmidt,   Karl, 512 

Sch&fer,  Bernhard, 240 

Schaffer,  C.  F., 329 

Schaffi,   Philip, 44,   46,  50,  131,   189,  341, 

598,  599,  622,  637,  652,  668,  670,  678,  682,  696, 

902,  936,  937,  971,  1003. 

Schelling,  F.  W.  J.   von 101,  252,  3S6 

Schenkel,  Dank'l 503 

Scherer,  E 460 

Schiller,   Friedrkh 74,  303,  386,  633, 

644,  981. 
Schleiermacher,  F.  E.  D., 14,  20,  34,  42, 

46,  244,  287,  314,  327,  461,    486,  503,  519,  559, 

563,  734,  740,  783,  951,  981. 

Schliemann,    H., 529 

Schmid,    C.    F 41,  68 

Schinid,    H., 699 

Schmid,  Rudolph 397,  479,  482 

Schneckeuhurgrr,    M 931 

Schoddc,  George  M., 165 

Schoberlein,   D.   L., 697,    754,   80S 

Scholz,    Paul, 56 

Schopenhauer,    A 54,    78,    l"l.    105,  404 

Schrader,    Eberhard 408 

Schiirer,  Emil, 244 

Schurman,  J.  G 8,  !>.  13,  25,  55,  63,  67, 

94,  99,  129,  i::o.  254,  268,  332,  398,  439,  466, 

470,  615,  894,  90S.  910,   L050. 

Schwegler,   A., 345,  504 

Schweizer,  A., 12,  245 

Schwenkfeld,  Caspar 800 

Scott,  C.  Anderson, 913,  915 

Scott,  C.  S., 928 

Scott,    Thomas 35 

Scott,    Pres.    Walter 444 

Scott,  Sir  Walter 177,  350,  489 

Scotus  Erigena,   John 44,  244,  524 

Scotus,  Novanticus, 511 

Scribner,  G.  H., 478 

Sears,   E.   H.,_ 227 

Secreta.n,  Charles, 74,  621,  666 

Seeley,  J.  R., 295,  576,  819 

Seelye,   J.    H.,. 528,   1013 

Semler,  J.  S., 46 

Seneca,   M.  Annanis, 83,  112,   177,   185, 

398,  404,  516,  575,  814,  863,  989. 

Sennacherib.   143 

Septuagint,    . 166 

Serapion,  150 

Servetus,     Michel. 778 

Seth,   James, 61,   64,   97,   101,   104,   105, 

416,  418,  503,  505,  512,  536,  655,  678,  800,  S86, 

1042. 

Sewall,    C.    G., 1042 

Shaftesbury,   Lord '. 984 

Shairp,   J.  C, 70,  982 

Shakespeare,    William 17,   19,   23,   120, 

170,   28S,   2S9,    369,    426,   439,   442,   450,   452, 

463,   472,    492,   502,   506,   511,   516,   526,    562, 

569,  572,  575,  581,  633,  638,  645,  647,  651,  703, 


732,  751,  767,  814,  815,  833,  835,  841,  939, 
948,  984,  988,  990,  1042,  1051,  1055. 

Shaler,    N.    S., 112,    119,    194,    225,   432, 

435,  468,  492,  529,  632. 

Shammai,    931 

Shaw,  Benjamin, 78 

Shedd,   W.   G.  T.,- 5,  10,  16,  21,  26,  41, 

49,  51,  56,  57,  58,  69,  87,  95,  101,  105,  118, 
119,  125,  243,  246,  253,  255,  261,  262,  268, 
273,  277,  278,  290,  294,  296,  297,  298,  305,  314, 
315,  328,  332,  333,  334,  338,  341,  343,  345, 
348,  356,  367,  368,  373,  376,  380,  3S4,  400, 
408,  472,  474,  481,  494,  504,  517,  518,  522,  523, 
528,  537,  555,  557,  562,  564,  576,  578,  582,  585, 
5S6,  588,  592,  601,  602,  607,  619,  621,  622, 
625,  627,  630,  631,  635,  637,  640,  643,  645, 
647,  655,  671,  678,  679,  683,  696,  700,  704,  709, 
713,  719,  733,  737,  744,  749,  750,  754,  762,  766, 
767,  770,  773,  780,  786,  816,  820,  822,  823,  827, 
833,  847,  853,  880,  914,  957,  1041,  1043,  1044, 
1046,  1048,  1049,  1051,  1052,  1056. 

Sheldon,  D.  N., 598,  729 

Sheldon,    II.   C, 384,   603,  625 

Shelley,   P.   B., 57,  526,   757 

Shipley,  Orby, 572 

Short,    Augustus, 845 

Sibbes,   Richard, 48 

Sidgwick,   Henry 64,  510 

Siegfried,  C, 321 

Silvernail,   J.   I' 674 

Simon,  D.  W., 16,  110,  266,  285,  293,  295, 

346,  475,  541,  560,  625,  649,  671,  681,  719,  730, 
750,  754,  763,  769,  822,  833,  1051. 

Small,  A.  W., 106 

Smalley,  John 49,  608 

Smeaton,  George, 726 

•Smith,  Adam, _.  301 

Smith,  C.   E., 340,  872,  935,  951 

Smith,    Edwin    B., 898 

Smith,    George, 377 

Smith,  George  Adam 122,  145,  203,  266, 

422,  582,  724,  923,  997. 

Smith,  Goldwin, 303,  422,  429 

Smith,   II.   B., 2,   3,  11,  42,  46,  49,  50, 

55,  62,  66,  87,  101,  117,  130,  157,  162,  251,  273, 
303,  350,  447,  503,  504,  513,  538,  546,  556,  570, 
578,  579,  581,  583,  5S7,  595,  604,  607,  609, 
612,  617,  621,  631,  634,  639,  656,  677,  691,  787, 
790,  792,  794,  795,  811,  823,  843,  858,  862,  864 

Smith,  H.  P., 116,  172,  209,  228,  238,  240 

Smith,  J.  A., 368 

Smith,   J.   Denham, 808 

Smith,  J.  Pyo, 319,  394 

Smith,    Lucius    E., 843 

Smith,    Philip, 532 

Smith,  R.  B., 427 

Smith,   R.    Payne, 135,   172,239 

Smith,  R.  T., 98,  113,  502,  503,  509,  642 

Smith,   T.   T., 841 

Smith,   Thornley, 48 

Smith,    W.   Robertson, 134,   171,   221, 

275,  318. 


1134 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


Smith,  William, 118,  147 

Smyth,  Newman, 13,  30,  37,  62,  63,  65, 

122,  265,  271,  289,  291,  296,  302,  304,  335,  402, 
448,  591,  657,  784,  987,  1019,  1022,  1039,  1046 

Smyth,  Thomas, 477,  479,  480,  483 

Snodgrass,  W.  D., 881 

Society   of   Biblical   Archaeology, 408 

Socinus,   Faustus, 47,  284,  329,  729 

Socinus,   Laelius,— — 47,  729 

Socrates,— -Ill,  112,  143,  177,  183,  505, 

653,  989. 

"  Solar  Hieroglyphics," 344 

Solly,  Thomas, 276,  545 

Solon,    - 57 

Sophocles, 57,  141,  144,  469,  540 

Sophocles,  E.  A., 933 

Smith,    Robert, 128,    524,  705 

Southall,  James  C, 529 

Southampton,  Bishop  of, 119,  130,  432 

Southey,  Robert, -32,  996 

Spear,  Samuel  T., 736 

Spectator,  London, 170,  399 

Spencer,  Herbert, 7,  8,  9,  10,  22,  29,  43, 

57,  63,  73,  74,  94,  96,  98,  187,  223,  245,  251, 
294,  301,  331,  416,  426,  438,  508,  528,  532,  566, 
722,  904. 

Spencer,  John, 722 

Spencer,    Otto, 251 

Spenser,    Edmund, 257,  463 

Spilsbury,  J., 903,  949 

Spinoza,  Benedict  de, 9,  30,  43,  55,  86, 

94,  103,  244,  2S7,  415,  559,  563,  682,  834. 

Splittgerber,   F., 998,  1023 

Spurgcon,    Charles   II., 17,   27,   28,   247, 

364,  369,  458,  589,  752,  813,  918,  920,  975, 
976. 

Squier,  Miles  P., 820,  823 

Stahlin,    Leonhard, 6 

Stael,  Madame  de, 23 

Stahl,   F.  J., 636,  723 

Stalker,  James, 691 

Stallo,  J.   B., 91,  397 

Stanley,  A.  P., 35,  193,  227,  230,  239, 

242,  427,  691,  888,  910,  936,  940,  946,  957,  966 

Stanley,  Henry  M., 427,  430 

Stanley,  Hiram  M., 278 

Stapfer,  J.  F., -20,  619 

Starbuck,  E.  D., 812 

Starkie,  Thomas, 128,  141,  144,  174 

Statement  of   Doctrine   of  Presbyte- 
rian   Church   in   America,   A    Short,  790 

Staupitz,    Johann, 556 

Stead,  Herbert, 889 

Stearns,   L.    F., 5,  28,   33,   68,  125,  130, 

140,  635,  637,  771. 

Steffens,    H., 1002 

Stephen,  J.  F 656 

Stephen,  Leslie 114,  596 

Sterrett,  J.  M 20,  21,  23,  101,  407,  624 

Steudel,  J.   C.   F., 41 

Stevens,   G.    B 31,   270,   296,   525,   579, 

609,  623,  738,  848,  974,  982,  1016. 


Stevens,  W.  A., 138,  149,  157,  294,  485, 

569,  572,  623,  836,  853,  936,  993,  1005,  1008. 

Stevenson,    R.    L., —  643 

Stewart,  Dugald, 285,  427,  571 

Stewart,   J.  W.  A., 21,  261,  339,  795, 

839,  997. 

Stirling,   J.   H., 100,  176,  389 

Stirling,    John 40 

Stone,  G.  M., 940 

Storr,  G.  C, 46 

Storrs,    Emory, 1055 

Storrs,  R.   S., 19,  889 

Story,  W.   W., 36 

Stourdza,  A.  de, 937 

Stout,  G.   F., 43,  295,  1003 

Stowe,  Calvin  E., 205 

Straffen,   G.   M., 560 

Strauss,  D.  F., 46,  57,  131,  135,  155,  156, 

349,  405,  407,  460,  523,  547,  708,  990. 

Stoops,  J.  D., 571 

Strong,  Augustus  H., 3,  5,  10,  25,  29, 

35,  38,  39,  40,  45,  46,  53,  95,  97.  106,  110,  117, 
118,  123,  138,  140,  163,  164,  176,  193,  220,  221, 
252,  259,  262,  264,  268,  275,  277,  287,  294,  297, 
311,  340,  350,  356,  358,  362,  389,  440,  501,  504, 
520,  560,  569,  572,  596,  634,  644,  646,  651, 
674,  681,  683,  692,  693,  716,  762,  763,  768,  785, 
799,  802,  804,  808,  812,  848,  899,  908,  914, 
918,  924,  926,  942,  943,  977,  980,  1001,  1006, 
1009,   1044. 

Strong,   Charles   A., 97,  98,  281 

Strong,  John   II., 472 

Stroud,    William, 675,   731 

Stuart,    Moses, 327,   328,   602,   615,   931, 

933,  937,  956,  1003,  1009. 

Studien   und   Kritiken 75,  747,  792 

Sully,    James 488 

Sumner,   Charles, 409 

Sumner,    J.    B., 783 

Sunday  School  Times, 122,  292,  301, 

46S,  498,  502,  523,  549,  574,  589,  650,  782, 
852,  1018. 

"  Supernatural    Religion," 130,    151,   158 

Swayne,   W.    S., 315,   699 

Swedenborg,  Emmanuel, 32,  207,  251, 

383,  386,   1041. 

Swift,    Jonathan, 405 

Symington,  William, 761,  773,  775 

Tacitus, 191,   192,   442,   487,   569,   989 

Taine,  II.  A., 581 

Talbot,    Samson 39,   94,  98,   301,   302, 

508.  694. 

Talleyrand,  Prince  de, 176 

Talmage,   T.   DeW., 464 

Talmud, 282,    902 

Tatian, 151,  383 

Taylor,    Bayard.- 525 

Taylor.   D.   T., 1015 

Taylor,  Father  Edward  T., 453 

Taylor,  Herbert, 403 

Taylor,  Isaac, 382,  422,  440,  526 

Taylor,  Jeremy, 352,  651 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS. 


1135 


Taylor,  John, 416,  602 

Taylor,  John  M., 396 

Taylor,  N.  W., 39,  48,  126,  295,  299,  351, 

367,  420,  535,  567,  579,  607,  608,  7S3,  817, 
853. 

Taylor,  W.  M.,~ 852 

Taylor,  W.  R., — — - —  889 

"  Teaching  of  the  Twelve,  The," 159, 

311,  410,  S92,  906,  937,  938. 
Temple,  Frederick,..!!,  59,  77,  115,  118,  474 

Ten  Broeke,  James 45,  184,  414 

Tennyson,  Alfred. 3,  8,  37,  57,  62,  65, 

245,  252,  253,  256,  259,  276,  280,  284,  294, 
301,  383,  400,  413,  424,  443,  444,  467,  489, 
509,  515,  520,  525,  528,  571,  577,  581,  633, 
653,  659,  679,  711,  772,  799,  804,  806,  982,  986, 
991,  1039,  1051. 

Terence,  698 

Tertullian, 34,  146,  150,  152,  159,  191, 

493,  599,  619,  620,  665,  783,  894,  936,  937, 
953,  998,  1001. 

Teulon,  J.  S 896 

Thackeray,  \V.   M 151,  575 

Thatcher,  O.  J., 929 

Thayer,   J.   H., 150,   152,   205,  22S,   306, 

717,  933. 

"  Theodosia    Ernest," 9S0 

Theodoret 319,  796 

Theological  Eclectic 160,  739 

Theophilus, 147,  319,  998 

Thirlwall,  Connop 205 

Tholuck,  F.   A.  G., 33.  46.  56,  68,  132, 

205,  260,  275,  307,  379,  440,  485,  576,  578, 
666. 

Thomas  a  Kempis, 24,  32,  190,  556 

Thomas,    B.    D., 36 

Thomas,   J.   B., 653 

Thomasius,  G., 46,  50,  51,  245,  249,  257, 

261,   263,   270,    273,   274,   288,   297,   315,    328, 
338,  342,  349,  487,  514,  527.  556,  579,  622,  647, 
668,  678,  683,  690.  701,  750,  761,  808,  868. 
Thompson,  Chief  Justice    (Pennsyl- 
vania),    581 

Thompson,  Joseph  D 340,  651 

Thompson,  R.  A 81,  S7 

Thompson,  R.  E 237,  473 

Thomson,  J.   Radford 405 

Thomson,   Archbishop  William, 66,   744 

Thomson,  William 771 

Thomson,  William,  Lord  Kelvin, 36,  473 

Thoreau,   H.  D 982 

Thornton,    W.    S 128,   439,   654 

Thornwell,  James  H 2,  49,  303,  600,  616, 

618,  621,  631,  644,  647,  648,  834. 

Thucydides,   144 

Tiele,    C.   P., 995 

Tillotson,    John 808 

Tindal,    Matthew 414 

Tischendorf,  Constantinus, 142.  915 

Titchener.    E.    B 43 

Titcomb,    J.    H., 177 

Todd,  J.   H., 1009 


TfJHner,  J.  G., 576 

Tophel,   G 571 

Toplady,   A.   M 369 

Townsend,  W.  J., 45 

Toy,    C.    H., ..235,  931 

Tract  No.  357,   American  Tract   Soci- 
ety,     840 

Tracy,    Frederick, 43 

Treffrey,    R . 343 

Tregelles   ,S.    P 147,  915 

Trench,  R.  C, 24,  120,  294,  432,  436,  447, 

456,  462,  588,  680,  808,  892,  936,  983. 

Trendelenburg,  F.  A., 62 

Trent,    Canons    and    Decrees    of    the 

Council    of, 521,  854 

Trumbull,  H.  Clay, 723 

Tulloch,   John 6,   53,   77,   96,   379,   384, 

405,  546,  563. 

Turnbull,  Robert, 66 

Turner,  G.  L., 126,  1002 

Turner,  J.  M.  W-, 143 

Turretin,   P., 46,  356,  491,  612, 

613,  614,  644,  652,  686,  773,  779. 

Twesten,  A.  D.  C, 22,  28,  31,  46,  328, 

338,  348,  350,  414. 

Tyerman,    L., 972 

Tyler,    Bennet, 358,    359,   360,   364,    367, 

567,  579,  608,  644,  783,  796,  814,  817,  818. 

Tyler,  C.  M., 57 

Tyler,  W.  S 155,  276,  352,  442,  526,  679, 

723,  796,  1046. 

Tylor,  E.  B., 58,  477,  480,  528,  529,  530 

Tyndall.   John 14,   60,   83,   94,   96,   252, 

311,  433. 

Tyng,   S.   H., 744 

Deberweg,    Friedrich, 36 

Uhlhorn,   Gerhard, 162,  989 

LTlmann,  K., 4,  189,  203,  678,  747 

Ulpian,   535 

Ulrici,   II., 53,  58,  93,  368 

"  Unseen  Universe,  The," 374,  379,  1023 

Upham,  L.  C, 32,  439,  808 

Upton,  C.  B.,. 22,  54,  73,  94,  385,  393,  413, 

415,  435,  468,  505,  512,  S34,  987. 

Urban  II., 192 

Ursinus,   Z., 50 

Ussher,    James, 224 

Valentinus, 151,  160,  378,  670 

Valerius    Maximus, 989 

Van  Dyke,  Henry,. 236 

Vanigek,    Alois, 20 

Van  Oosterzee,  J.  J., 5,  20,  22,  23,  42, 

51,  66,  72,  311,  460,  462,  514,  523,  555,  556, 
581,  593,  608,  651,  668,  696,  706,  709,  710,  773, 
77G.  790,  875,  886. 

Vatke,  J.  K.   W 155 

Vaughan,  C.  J 781 

Vaughan,  Henry 276,  48!) 

Vaughan,  R.  A 33,  207 

Vauvenargues,  40 

Vedas,  56 


1136 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS, 


redder,   II.   C, 887,  890,  894,  899,  957, 

97.3. 

Yciti-h,   John, 97,  380 

Venn,    J.,- 849 

Vincent,   Marvin   R., 133 

Vinci,   Leonardo   da, 190 

Vinet,   Alexander, 38,  125,  267 

Virchow,    Rudolph, 471 

Virgil, 57,  176,  400,  526,  615,  698,  723 

Vischer,   E., 152 

Vitringa,  Campegius, 1009,  1014 

Volkruar,    Gustav, 165 

Voltaire, 57,  77,  462 

Vos,   Geerhardus, 263 

Waffle,  A.  E., 407,  410,  754 

Wagner,  ■ , 480 

Wagner,    Richard, 512 

Walch,  J.  G.,. -  954 

Waldegrave,    L., 1014 

Walden,    Treadwell, 833 

Walker,  G.  L., 952 

Walker,  J.  B., 151,  317,  668,  820 

Walker,  W.    L., 316,  349 

Wall,    William, 959,  978 

Wallace,    A.    R 99,   402,  403,  412,  413, 

470,  471,  473,  528,  632. 

Wallace,    Henry, 725 

Walton,  Isaak, 192 

Ward,  .lames, 110,  124,  534 

Ward,    Clara    B 263 

Ward,  Mrs.  Humphrey, 568,  580,  633 

Ward,  Lydia  A.  Coonley, 596 

Ward,     Wilfrid 841 

Wardlaw,  Ralph 1,  135,  269,  374,  741, 

773,  784,  790,  820. 

Warfleld,  B.  I? 7:;:.,  782 

Warner,  Charles  Dudley, 229 

Warren,  H.  W., 796 

Warren,  I.  P., 1005,  1009 

Warren,  W.  P., 532 

Watchman,  The, 425,  907 

Waterland,  Daniel, 856 

Watkins,  II.  W.,- 34,  152 

Watson,  John, 58 

Watson,  John  (Ian  McLaren), 19,    42 

237,  369,  439,  788. 
Watson,  Richard- 48,  343,  350,  358,  404, 

593,  602,  934. 

Watson,  William, .35,  417,  420 

Watts,  Isaac, 288,  688,  759 

Watts,  J.   P., 508 

Watts,  Robert, 170,  172,  216,  218,  229,  352, 

735,  765,  776. 
Wayland,   Francis, 301,  504,  533,  892, 

897,   903,   905,   917,   924,   929,   938,    946,   951, 

952,  956. 

Webb,  C.  C.  J., 104,  253 

Weber,  P.  A., 294,  726 

Webster,  Daniel, 815,  1056 

Webster,  II.   E., 262 

Webster,  W., 761 

Wedgwood,  J., vt2 


Wegscheider,  J.  A.  L., 46 

Weigel,  Valentine, 800 

Weismann,  A., 229,  466,  470,  497,  530, 

558,    590,    631,    650,    992. 
Weiss,  Bernhard, 68,  149,  157,  100,  174, 

343,  579,  798. 

Weiss,    , 1015 

Weisse,  C.  H., 660 

Wellhausen,  Julius, 171,  526 

Welling,  J.  C, — -  927 

Wellington,    Duke    of, 506 

Wendelius,    827 

Wendt,    H.    II., 223,    262,   321,   379,   446, 

448,   475,   517,   546,   661,   721,   729,   743,   799, 

830,  936,  1006. 

Wenley,  R.   M., 38 

Wesse!,  John, 752 

Wesley,  Charles, 33,  368,  692 

Wesley,  John, 33,  48,  368,  369,  443,  602, 

603,  816,  877,  878,  920,  972,  984,  1043. 

West,    Nathaniel, 131 

Westcott,  B.   P., 21,   122,  139,   147,  149, 

152,  153,  156,  160,  233,  256,  306,  311,  312,  320, 

336,  341,  342,  424,  495,  678,  680,  709,  722,  723, 

727,   731,   760,   807,   873,    900,   915,   924,   934, 

1012,  1046. 

Westermarck,  E.  A., 530 

Westervelt,   Z.    P., 216 

Westminster  Catechism, 52,  664,  957 

Westminster  Confession, 145,  599,  613, 

643,  779,  790,  887,  937. 

Weston,  Henry  G., 930,  959 

Wette,  He,  see  De  Wette,  W.  M.  L. 

Wetzer  und  Welte, 572 

Wharton,  Edith 905 

Wharton,    Francis, 656 

Whately,   Richard, 39,   62,   66,   74,   12S, 

143,  174,  444,  528,  783,  913,  1003,  1015,  1052. 
Whedon,   D.   D., 48,  262,   273,   286,  354, 

362,  520,  559,  602,  603,  604,  606,  780,  1041. 

Whewell,   William, 2,  74,  77,  500 

Whitby,    Daniel, 602,  1014 

White,  Blanco 37,  570,  1041 

White,   Edward,  1037 

Whitefield,  George 368,  835 

Whitehouse,  Owen  C, 461 

Whitman,    Walt 567 

Whitney,   Adeline   I).   T 439 

Whitney,  William  D., 185,  217,  479 

Whiton,   J.    M., 119,  208,   297,   305,  334, 

336,    342,   343,   348,    413,   516,   542,   633,   680, 

684,  699,  743,  772,  850,  1001,  1037,  1046. 
Whit  tier,   John   G., 369,   678,   765,   984, 

996,  1041,  1042. 

Wlcksteed,  P.   H., 277 

Wii'seler,    Karl, 144 

Wiggers,  G.  P., — .597,  644 

Wilberforce,    R.    I.,. 671,   679,  680,  693, 

696,  697,  698,  969. 

Wilberforce,  Samuel 472,  830 

Wilder,    Burt   G 470 

Wilkin,   G-   P., 591,  988 


INDEX    OF   AUTHORS. 


1137 


Wilkinson,  W.  C. 40,  182,  197,  294,  398, 

641,  957,  980. 

Wilkinson,  W.  F., TCI 

Wilkinson,  W.  F., 96 

Willard,  Frances  E., 918,  978 

William    III,— 512 

William  of  Occam, 45,  244,  298,  299,  909 

Williams,    A.    P., 980 

Williams,  , 918 

Williams,    Leighton 208,    890 

William,  M.  Stonier, 183,  352,  382 

Williams,  N.  M 577 

Williams,    Roger 369,  949 

Williams,   Rowland, 100 

Williams,  W., 790 

Willis,  N.   P., 570 

Willmarth,  J.  W., 948,  1023 

Wilson,  C.  T 915 

Wilson,  J.   M 719 

Wilson,  Woodrow 2 

Winchell,    Alexander. 476 

Windelhand,    Wilhelm 379 

Winer,  G.  B., 523,  717 

Winslow,    Edward, 227 

Withrow,  J.   I 914 

Witsius,     II -' 46,    50 

Wiirter,    Friedrieli. 598 

Wollaston,    William, 361 

Wood,  N.  E 942 

Wood,   N.   R.,— - - 381 

Wood,  W.  C..~ - 410 

Woods,   F.   H 171 

Woods,    Leonard 48.   49,  268,   608,  773, 

826,  828,  836,  881,  886,  1015, 


Woolman,  John — 760 

Woolsey,    T.    D 229,   741,   943,   1045 

Wordsworth,  C 68,  441,  458,  622 

Wordsworth,    William 30,   39,   58,   59, 

103,  252,  380,  406,  441,  489,  501,  568,  576,  599, 

958,  991,  1022. 

Wortman,  J.  L., 478 

Wotton,    Henry, 523 

Wright,  Charles  II.  II., 167,  405,  476 

Wright,  Chauncey, 76,  428 

Wright,   G.    F 130,   154,   224,   225,   357, 

432,  469,  471,  478,  708,  1040,  1043,  1045. 

Wright,  T.  II., 120,  454,  456 

Wrightnonr,  J.  S.,— 214,  667,  699,  764 

Wu   Ting  Fang, 180 

Wiinsche,  Aug.  de, 726 

Wundt,  Wilhelm, 43,  281,  505 

Wuttke,   Adolph 62,  179,  182,  184,  185, 

302,  516,  539,  581. 

Wynne.   F.   II., 154,  159 

Xenophon, 143,  148,  941 

Young,  Edward 296,  557 

Young,  John 189,  190,  367,  728,  734 

Zahn,    , 278 

Zahn,     A., -  735 

Zahn,  Th., 707,  735 

Zeller,  Edward 38,  512 

Zeno,    - 184 

Zinzendorf,  Count  N.  L., 900 

Zockler,   Otto 42,   225,   377,   397,  474, 

478,  482,  514. 

Zoroaster,  - -- 382 

Zwlngle,  Ulrica, 45,  237,  621,  903,  957 


72 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


GENESIS. 

CJ 

t        VK    B9B. 

PAGE,                 . 

CH.      VEBSg. 

PAGE. 

1: 
1 :    1 

35. 
309,    326, 

3:20 

476,    477. 

19:24 

318. 

333. 

3:  21 

726. 

19:26 

432. 

1 :   2 

68,    134, 

223, 

3:22 

523,    524,    585. 

19  :  30-38 

230. 

287,    316, 

318, 

3  :  22,   23 

991. 

20:    6 

423. 

324,    326, 

339, 

3:24 

449. 

'M:    7 

710. 

378,    446. 

4:    1 

194,    665. 

20:  12 

447. 

4  :    3 

ID*. 

20:  13 

318. 

1:    1-3 

286. 

418. 

4  •   :;.  4 

593,    726. 

22:    8-14 

421. 

1 :  11 

4  :  14 

476. 

22  :  11 

464. 

1  :  24 
1:26, 

465. 
318,    524. 

4  :  16 
4:  17 

593. 
476. 

22  :  11-16 
22  :  13 

319. 

725. 

1  :  26,  27 

514,    991. 
465. 

4:26 

311. 

22:  16 

266. 

1  :  27 

5  :    3 

494,    517. 

24  :    9 

51. 

1 :  27,  28 

ITU,    494. 

5:    6 

225. 

25:    8,9 

994. 

1 :  27-31 
1:31 

490. 

450,    488, 
521. 

514, 

5:24 
6:    1,2 

995. 
476. 

27  :  19-24 
28: 

230. 
134. 

6:    2 

445. 

28:    5 

280. 

2:    2 

412,    494. 
408. 

6:    3 

324,    604,    652. 

28:12 

463. 

2  :    3 

6:    6 

258,    266. 

29  :  27,  28 

408. 

2:    4 

395. 

7  :  19 

223. 

31 :  11,  13 

319. 

2:   7 

197,    19S, 

340, 

S:    1 

258. 

31:24 

423. 

465,    469, 

494, 

8 :  10-12 

408. 

32:    1,2 

463. 

523,   550, 

991. 

8  :  20,  21 

725. 

32:    2 

448. 

2  :   7,  22 

476. 

9:    2,  3 

524. 

32  :  13,  14 

765. 

2:    8 

999. 

9:    6 

515. 

32:20 

720. 

2:   9 

526,    527. 

9:13 

396. 

32:24 

463. 

2:16 

524. 

9:19 

476. 

32  :  24-28 

258. 

2:17 

584,    590. 

656, 

9:20-27 

230. 

35  :    1,  6,  9 

259. 

660,    992. 

9:  25 

365. 

35:    7 

318. 

2  :  19,  20 

524. 

10  :    6,  13,  15, 

16   224. 

35:18 

483. 

2:23 

797. 

11: 

896. 

35:29 

994. 

3:    1 

584. 

11:    5 

523. 

39  :  19 

318. 

3:   1,4 

454. 

11:    7 

318. 

40:    1 

318. 

3:   1,5 

455. 

13:15 

1044. 

41:    8 

483. 

3:   1-7 

582. 

15:    5 

888. 

41 :  41-44 

318. 

3:   1-15 

448. 

15:    6 

850. 

46:  26 

494. 

3:   3 

584,    590. 

15:13 

227. 

47:    9 

996. 

3:   4 

461. 

15  :  16 

638. 

47:31 

234. 

3:   4,5,6 

584. 

16:    9-13 

319. 

48:15,   16 

319. 

3:    5 

572. 

16:  13 

283,    284. 

48:  16 

463. 

3:    8 

523,    524, 

992. 

17:    1 

286. 

49: 

134. 

3:    9 

592. 

17  :    8-13 

1044. 

49:26 

1044. 

3:  10 

224. 

18:    2 

451. 

50:20 

355,    365, 

424 

3:12 

566. 

18  :    2,  13 

319. 

3:14 

450. 

18:    8 

443. 

EXODUS. 

3:15 

175,    667 

676. 

18:14 

287. 

3 :  16-19 

992. 

18:15 

523. 

1:16 

442. 

3  :  17-19 

658. 

18:19 

780. 

2  :  24,  25 

780. 

3:  19 

656. 

18:25 

290. 
1139 

3:   2 

451. 

1140 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


CH.      YE  BSE. 

PASS. 

CH.      TERSE. 

PAGE. 

JOSHUA. 

3:    2,4,5 

319. 

11:44 

269. 

3:    4 

209. 

12:    8 

554. 

2:    1-24 

230. 

3:    5 

319. 

13:45 

555. 

2:18 

234. 

3:  12 

713. 

14:17 

732. 

7:20 

832. 

3:  14 

253, 

257,    275. 

16:    1-34 

725. 

10  :  12,  13 

223. 

4  :    4-16 

200. 

16:    8 

448. 

24:    2 

1044. 

4:  16 

307. 

16 :  16,  21 

552. 

4:21 

424. 

16:21 

765. 

JUDGES. 

6:    3 

257. 

16:21,   22 

720. 

7:    1 

200, 

307. 

17:  12 

725. 

4  :  17-22 

230. 

7:12 

733. 

20:27 

996. 

5:24 

230. 

7:  13 

424. 

20:28 

995. 

5:30 

231. 

8:    8,15 

424. 

22:    4-6 

934. 

6  :  17,  36-40          116. 

9:27 

832. 

9  :  14,  15 

241. 

10:28 

459. 

NUMBERS 

13 :  20-22 

319. 

12:36 

422. 

13 :  24,  25 

197. 

12:40,  41 

227. 

5:    1 

432. 

14:12 

408. 

13  :    2,  13 

761. 

6  :  24-26 

318. 

20:18 

552. 

14:14 

241. 

6  :  24,  26 

774. 

14:23 

1050. 

7:89 

209. 

1 

SAMUEL. 

15:11 

268. 

8:    1 

209. 

16:    5 

408. 

12:    6-8 

203. 

1: 

136. 

18:20 

630, 

644. 

14:34 

718. 

1:11 

448. 

19  :  10-16 

268. 

16:22 

465, 

484. 

6:  19 

226. 

20:    1-17 

545. 

15:35 

907. 

9:27 

199. 

20:    3 

319. 

16:29 

656. 

10: 

136. 

20:    8 

408, 

558. 

16:30 

377. 

15:  11 

258. 

20:12 

230. 

19  :  29,  33 

994. 

15:24 

832. 

20:  22 

13. 

23:    5 

197, 

207. 

15:29 

258. 

20:23 

169. 

23:19 

258, 

288. 

16:    1 

421. 

20:24 

169. 

23:21 

454, 

856. 

18:    1 

799. 

20:25 

545. 

25:    9 

227. 

18:  10 

424. 

21:    6 

1044. 

25:13 

719, 

1044. 

23:12 

282. 

22:28 

307. 

25:28 

552. 

24:  18 

422. 

23:    7 
28:    9-12 
28:22 

850. 

775. 
653. 

27:   3 
27:16 

657. 
465. 

28:    7-14 
28:19 
29  :   4 

995,    996. 

994. 

719. 

31:    2,3 

197. 

32:23 

295. 

32:19 

540. 

33:    2 

169. 

2 

SAMUEL. 

32:  24 

418. 

32  :  30,  32 

725. 

DEUTERONOMY. 

6:    7 

939. 

33:18 

256. 

11 : 1-A 

230. 

33  :  18,  20 

150. 

1:    6,  7 

549. 

12:23 

662. 

33  :  31,  32 

837. 

1:39 

661. 

14:20 

445. 

34:10 

337. 

4:19 

448. 

16:  10 

423. 

35:25 

4. 

6:    4 

259. 

18:33 

769. 

36:21,  22 

367, 

397,    653. 

8:    2 

423. 

23:23 

206. 

39:   7 

397. 

8:    3 
10:    6 

421. 
994. 

24:   1 

423,    424. 

LEVITICUS. 

16:    2,6 

719. 

1  KINGS. 

17:    3 

448. 

1:    3 

554. 

18 :  10, 11 

996. 

1:27 

278. 

1:    4 

725. 

18:15 

139, 

711. 

8:27 

105,    254,   281 

4  :  14,  20,  31 

554. 

21:    1-8 

725. 

523. 

4  :  20,  31,  35 

725. 

21:23 

718. 

8:46 

573. 

5:    5,  6 

554. 

23:    3 

1044. 

11:    9 

294. 

5  :  10-16 

725. 

25:    1 

850. 

12:15-24 

355. 

5:11 

554. 

29:29 

36, 

364. 

17:    4,9 

443. 

5:  17 

652, 

647,   718. 

32:   4 

260, 

290. 

17:21 

483. 

.6:    7 

725. 

32:40 

275. 

18  :  36-38 

116. 

11:15 

932. 

33:   2 

447, 

452. 

18 :  36-38 

116,   437. 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


1141 


JS  :  42-45 
19:    5 
19:15 
22: 
22:ia 
22:  23 


433. 
162. 

433. 
136. 
448. 
457. 


2     KINGS. 


2:11 

4:    1-7 

5:14 

5:26 

6:17 
17  :    6,  24,  26, 

28.33 
19  :  35 
22:    8 
23:    2 


995,    996. 
465. 
934. 
13. 
451,    459. 

167. 
167. 
167. 
167. 


1    CHRONIC  I.  KS. 


21:  1 
22:14 
28:  16 


448. 
226. 
225. 


2     CHRONICLES. 


6:    2 
13  :    3, 17 

16  :  12,  13 

17  :  14-19 
18:18 
29:27 
32:31 
34:  19 
36:22 


1044. 
226. 
439. 
226. 
448. 
765. 
423. 

543,    836. 
197 


EZRA. 


1 

4 
8 
9 

3 

22 
6 

27. 
167. 
899. 
634. 

NEHEMIAH. 

1 

8 
9 

6 

12, 
6 

594,    634 
18              409. 

412,    448. 

ESTHER. 

6 

1 

309. 
429. 

JOB. 


CH.      VKRSK. 

1  :    9 
1  :    9,  11 
1:  11 
1:  12 

1  :  12,  16, 19 
2:    4,  5 
2:    5 
2:    6 
2:    7 
3:    3 

3  :  13,  IS 

4  :  18 
7:  9 
7:20 

11:  7 
11 :  7,  9 
12:23 
14  :  4 
14  :  5 
15:15 
19:25 
19  :  25,  27 
21:  7 
23:  10 
23:  13 
23  :  13,  14 
24:  1 
25:  5 
26:  6 
26:14 
27:  3 
27:  5 
27  :  5,  6 
31  :37 
32:    8 

32:18 
33:    4 
34  :  14.  15 
37  :    5.  10 
38:    7 
42  :    5,  6 
42:    6 
42:    7-9 


1:    5 
1:    6 

1:    6-12 


725. 
454. 
448. 


Tkr.K. 
461. 

454. 
459. 
425. 
455. 
454. 
459. 
425. 
455. 
406. 
994. 
445. 
994. 

282,    412. 
34. 
254. 
421. 

578.    661. 
355. 
445. 
667. 

995,    996. 
113. 
431. 

252,    359. 
259. 
113. 
445. 
994. 

143,    287. 
483. 
850. 
275. 
275. 

197,  198,  469, 
483. 
338. 
484. 
338. 
421. 

446,    451,    453. 
543,    832. 
833. 
725. 


PSALMS. 


1 

6 

2 

1-4 

2 

6-8 

2 

7 

2 

7-8 

4 

4 

4 

8 

5 

5 

5 

12 

7 

9-12 

7 

11 

7 

12,13 

8:    3,  4 


780,   781. 

541. 

775. 

318,    322,    340. 

356. 

234. 

421. 

290. 

421. 

290. 

245,   258,    645. 

421. 

706. 

249. 


CH. 

VFR^H. 

P1GK. 

8 

4-8 

678. 

8 

5 

515. 

8 

5-8 

697. 

8 

5-8 

524. 

8 

6 

775. 

9 

7 

1023. 

10 

3 

817. 

11 

6 

421. 

11 

10 

63. 

14 

1 

217. 

16 

675. 

16 

7 

32. 

16 

9-11 

995, 

996. 

17 

113. 

17 

13,14 

423. 

18 

24-26 

290. 

18 

30 

260. 

19 

26. 

19: 

1 

27, 

256. 

19 

1-6 

26. 

19 

7 

538. 

19 

12 

553, 

647. 

558,    578, 

19 

12,13 

650. 

19 

13 

423. 

22 

20 

458. 

22 

26 

996. 

22 

28 

421. 

23 

2 

364. 

24 

7,8 

1044. 

25 

11 

314, 

401. 

25 

14 

40. 

26 

9 

1023. 

29: 

1,2 

451. 

29. 

3 

424. 

31 

5 

746. 

32: 

431. 

32: 

1 

552. 

32: 

1.2 

851. 

32: 

6 

700. 

32: 

8 

440. 

33: 

6 

318, 

326,    448. 

33: 

9 

377. 

33: 

13-15 

282. 

33: 

14,15 

422. 

34: 

7 

463. 

34: 

8 

4, 

825. 

36: 

1 

40. 

36: 

6 

412. 

36: 

9 

350. 

37: 

113. 

37: 

7 

439. 

40: 

5 

283. 

40: 

6-8 

234. 

42: 

6 

483. 

42  : 

7 

694, 

942. 

44: 

3 

369, 

786. 

45: 

2 

678. 

4.",: 

6 

318. 

45: 

6,7 

322. 

49  : 

113. 

1143 


INDEX    OP    SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


CH.      VEB6B. 

49:15 

49:20 

50:   5 

51: 

51 :   1,  2, 10, 14 

51:   2 

51 :    3,  7, 11 

51:   4 

51:    4-6 

51:    5 

51:    6 

51:   6,7 

51 :  10 

51:11 
51 :  17 
56:  8 
58:  3 
59:10 
63:  8 
66:  7 
68:10 
68  :  17 
68:18 
69:  2 
69:  9 
71:15 
72:  6 
72:15 
72:18 
73: 
74:  5 
75:  6,7 
76:10 
77 :  19,  20 
78:25 
78:41 
78:49 
81 :  12, 13 
82:  1 
82:  6 
S2:  6,7 
82:  7 
84:  11 
85:  4 
85:  8 
85:  9 
85:10 
85  :  10,  11 
86:11 
87:  4 
88:35 
89:  3 
89:  7 
90:  2 
90  :  7,  8 
90:  7-9 
90:  8 
90 :  16, 17 


PACE. 

994. 

642. 

719. 

833. 

832. 

552. 

832. 

573,    646,    757. 

645. 

578,    661.  1043. 

555,    558,    578, 

647. 

578. 

519,   782,    810, 

829,    833. 

317. 

792. 

282. 

578. 

364,   819. 

421. 

421. 

421. 

447, 1052. 

309,    758. 

942. 

724. 

256. 

518. 

314. 

445. 

113. 

155. 

421. 

424. 

119. 

443,    445. 

256. 

457. 

423. 

307. 

380,   515. 

307. 

614. 

289,    336. 

829. 

850. 

687. 

298,   754. 

245. 

346. 

812. 

399. 

256. 

450. 

275,    377. 

658. 

657. 

577. 

819. 


91:  11 
93:    1 
94:    9,    10 
94  :  10 
96:  10 
97:    2 
97:    7 
97:10 
97:  11 
99  :    4,  5,  9 
101:    4 
101 :    5,  6 
102  :  13,  14 

102  :  27 

103  :  11, 12,  17 
103 :  19 

103  :  20 
104: 
104:    4 

104  :  14 
104  :  16 
104  :  21,  28 
104:24 
104  :  26 

104  :  29,  30 

105  :  15 

106  :  12, 13 
106  :  13 

106  :  30 

107  :  20 
107  :  23,  28 

3 

4-6 

5 

5,6 

1 

3 

1-8 


110: 

113: 

113: 

113: 

114: 

115: 

116: 

116  :  15 

118: 

118 :  22 

118  :  22,  23 

119  :  18 
119  :  36 
119:89 
119  :  89-91 
119  :  96 
121:    3 
123:    1 
124:    2 
124  :    4,  5 
130:    4 
1.32:    1 
135  :    6,  7 
138:    2 
139:    2 
139:    6 
139:    7 
139  :  12 
139  :  13,  14 
139  :  15, 16 


452. 

223. 

68. 

666. 

403. 

272,  292,  296. 

306. 

294,  646,  743. 

667. 

296. 

780. 

294. 

275. 

257,  275. 


421. 

445,  451. 
412. 
451. 
421. 
421. 
421. 
282. 
412. 
412. 

710,  856. 
837. 
440. 
737. 
320. 
431. 

784,  792, 
256. 

105,  280. 
249,  255, 
401,  788. 
122,  287. 
437. 
983. 
675. 
795. 
138. 
35. 

519,  819, 
298,  320. 
355. 
542. 
421. 
280. 
425. 
942. 
855. 
1043. 
421. 


S30. 


288. 


825. 


282. 

282. 

105,  280, 

283. 

491. 

495. 


IN 


CH.   VERSE. 

139  :  16 
139  : 1 
140:  5 
143:  2 
143  :  11 
144:  12 
145:  3 
145:  5 
146:  4 
147:  4 
147  :  15-18 
147  :  20 
148:  2-5 
149:  6 


421. 

284. 

377. 

573,   850. 

397. 

898. 

254. 

292. 

994. 

282. 

320. 

779. 

444. 

646. 


PROVERBS. 


23 

6 

19 
18 
22 

8:    1 

8  :  22,  30, 

8 :  22-31 

8:23 

8:36 
14:  9 
14:  13 
16:  1 
16:  4 
16:  14 
16:32 
16:33 
17:  15 
19:21 
20:  9 
20:24 
20:27 
21:  1 
30:  4 
31:  4 
31  :  6-7 


31 


829. 
440. 
320. 
827. 

633,    652. 
320. 
320. 
341. 

309,  378. 
786. 
649. 
294. 
422. 
397. 
720, 
288. 
421. 
850. 
423. 
573. 
423. 

22,    486. 
423,    784. 
318,    341. 
231. 
231. 


ECCLESIASTES. 


2:11 

404. 

3:21 

485. 

7:20 

573. 

7:29 

517. 

9:10 

994. 

11:    3 

1001. 

12:    7 

469,    483,    490 

991,  1000. 

SONG  OF  SOLOMON. 


1:  4 


829. 


INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


1143 


IS, 

<iIAH. 

CH.       VERS*. 

PAGE. 

CH.       VgKSI. 

PIGS. 

45:    5 

197, 

421. 

13:23 

810. 

1  :    1 

239. 

45  :    7,  8 

377. 

14:20 

594. 

1:    5 

553. 

45:22 

791. 

17:    9 

553,    578. 

4:    5 

377. 

46  :   9,  10 

282. 

18:    8 

136. 

4:  11 

661. 

46  :  10, 11 

355. 

20:    7 

240. 

5:    4 

404, 

792. 

48:11 

397. 

23:    6 

943. 

5:13 

135. 

48:16 

318. 

23  :  23,  24 

105,    280. 

5:16 

269. 

4S:18 

284. 

23:29 

811. 

5:18 

650. 

49:    1-12 

696, 

697. 

24:    7 

4,    825. 

5:23 

850. 

49  :  50,  61 

675. 

25:   5 

833. 

6:   1 

309. 

50:    2 

850. 

26 :  13, 19 

136. 

6:    3 

256, 

268,   296, 

52:    2 

678. 

31:   3 

788, 1044. 

318. 

52:10 

256. 

31:18 

829. 

G:    5 

555, 

634. 

53: 

137, 

138. 

31:22 

377. 

6:    5,  7 

268. 

53:    1-12 

725. 

31:33 

810. 

6:    8 

318. 

53  :    4,  10 

423. 

32:18 

634. 

7  : 

136. 

53 :   5 

732. 

36:23 

540. 

7:    9 

850. 

53  :    5,  6 

720. 

44:    4 

295,   418,   652. 

7  :  10-13 

437. 

53:    6 

265. 

45:    5 

410. 

7  :  14-16 

138, 

1007. 

53:   6-12 

719. 

55  :  34,  44 

241. 

S: 

136. 

53:  10 

680, 

797. 

8:20 

114. 

440. 

53  :  10, 11 

697. 

LAMENTATIONS. 

9:   6 

322. 

680,    697, 

53:  11 

850. 

797, 

811. 

53:12 

774. 

1:  12 

757. 

9:   6,  7 

138, 

310. 

54:    5 

•796. 

3  :  39^5 

634. 

10:   5 

424. 

55:    6 

791. 

5:    7 

718. 

10:   5,7 

442. 

57:     2 

439. 

5:21 

829. 

13:16 

136. 

57:15 

105, 

280. 

14:   7 

221. 

57:16 

491. 

EZEKTEL. 

14:12 

518. 

"•7  :  19 

377 

14  :  26,  27 

355. 

59  :    2 

198, 

983. 

1: 

449. 

17:    1 

136. 

59  :  20 

829. 

1:    5, 12 

449. 

24:22 

139. 

60:21 

397. 

2:    7 

789. 

25:   4 

669. 

61 :    1 

137. 

10: 

449. 

25:  7 

666. 

61:    3 

397. 

11:19 

810,    829. 

26:19 

995, 

996. 

63 :   7, 10 

318. 

14:    6 

829. 

28:16 

795, 

850. 

63:   9 

266. 

18:    4 

633. 

28:21 

126, 

1053. 

63:10 

324. 

18:31 

829. 

31:  6 

829. 

64  :    4 

421. 

18:32 

829. 

37  :  34-37 

136. 

65:  12 

791. 

20:    5 

630. 

38  :  17,  18 

657. 

65  :  17 

377. 

26:    7-14 

136. 

40:    3 

309, 

506. 

65:22 

888. 

28  :  14-19 

450. 

40:18 

119, 

2S8. 

65:24 

364. 

28:22 

272. 

40 :  15, 16 

399. 

66:    1 

254. 

29  :  17-20 

136. 

40:66 

239. 

66:11 

523. 

32:21 

994. 

41:   4 

275. 

66:13 

323. 

33:    9,11 

829. 

41:   8 

136. 

33:  11 

791. 

41:20 

377. 

JEREMIAH. 

36 :  21,  22 

272. 

41 :  21,  22 

285. 

36:26 

829. 

41:23 

135. 

1:    4 

27. 

37:    1-14 

995,   996. 

42:    1 

138, 

485. 

l:    5 

421. 

37:   6 

449. 

42:    1-7 

137, 

697. 

3:15 

16. 

37:   9-14 

339. 

42:    9 

135. 

3:20 

796. 

42:  16 

426, 

441. 

3:25 

394. 

DANIEL. 

42:  19 

649. 

9:    9 

485. 

42:21 

740, 

749. 

9  :  23,  24 

245. 

2 :  28,  36 

711. 

43:    7 

397. 

9:24 

3. 

2:45 

141. 

44:    6 

259. 

10:10 

245, 

251. 

3:18 

426. 

44:24 

286. 

10:23 

423. 

3 :  25,  28 

319. 

44:28 

136, 

197,   282, 

10:24 

272, 

653. 

4:31 

209. 

355. 

13:21 

578. 

4:35 

355,   431. 

1144 


INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


CH. 

YKBSE. 

PAGE. 

NAHUM. 

CH.       VBR8B. 

PAGE 

6 

22 

452. 

3:  15 

717, 

761, 

S53, 

7 

10 

449. 

1 

7 

780. 

943. 

7 

13 

141, 

678,    682. 

3:16 

696. 

9 

27 

141. 

HABAKKUK. 

3  :  16,  17 

325. 

10 

14 

139. 

3:17 

148, 

209, 

216, 

10 

19 

445. 

1 

13 

418 

341, 

762. 

11 

31 

141. 

2 

4 

850. 

4:    1-11 

677. 

11 

36 

138, 

454. 

3 

4 

143. 

4:    2 

674. 

12 

1 

141. 

3 

20 

713. 

4:    3 

461. 

12 

2 

1000, 

1018. 

4  :    3,  6,  9 

455. 

12 

2,3, 

13           995, 

996. 

HAGGAI 

4:   4 

16, 

412. 

12 

3 

850. 

4  :   4,  6,  7 

199. 

12 

8,9 

139. 

1 

13 

319. 

4:    6,  7 
4:10 

217. 
677. 

HOSEA 

ZECHARIAH. 

4:11 

452, 

453. 

5:    1 

227. 

1 

7 

318. 

3 

1 

454. 

5:    1-12 

554. 

2 

2-5 

796. 

3 

1-3 

448. 

5:    3 

669. 

2 

6 

423. 

3 

2 

454, 

458,    856. 

5:    7 

37. 

4 

17 

424, 

652,   790. 

4 

2,3 

888. 

5-8: 

545. 

4 

18 

792. 

5 

1 

355. 

5:    8 

4, 

67, 

246, 

6 

7 

614. 

6 

8 

753. 

524, 

825. 

8 

1,2 

614. 

9 

1-1 

239. 

5:10 

230. 

11 

1 

138, 

235. 

12 

1 

469, 

483,    491, 

5-7: 

711. 

11 

8 

790, 

1053. 

-    991. 

5:17 

718. 

12 

3,  4 

463. 

12 

10 

717. 

5  :  17,  18 

545. 

13 

5 

780. 

5:18 

199, 

288. 

13 

9 

1050. 

1 

MALACHI 

5  :  19 
5  :  21,  22 

939. 

545, 

645. 

JOEL. 

1 
2 

6 
10 

638, 
474. 

639. 

5:22 
5  :  27,  28 
5  :  23,  24 

553. 
545. 

719, 

924. 

2 

12-14 

829. 

2 

15 

256. 

5  :22,  28 

545. 

2 

28 

587. 

3 
3 

1 

6 

322. 

257, 

259. 

5:28 
5  :  32 

553. 
242. 

AMOS. 

3 
3 

10 
16 

2S7, 
282. 

438. 

5  :  33,  34 
5:  34 

545. 
306. 

1 

136. 

4 

4 

114. 

5  :  38,  39 

545. 

1 

2 

135. 

5  :  39-12 

546. 

2 

136. 

MA1 

5:  44 

264. 

3 

2 

780, 

781. 

5 :  14,  i5 

289, 

475. 

6 

8 

485. 

1 

1 

225. 

5:  45 

421. 

9 

9 

136. 

1 

1-16 

687. 

5:  48 

260, 

290, 

302, 

9 

14 

136. 

1 

1-17 

673. 

543, 

545. 

1 

12 

826. 

6:    8 

282, 

421. 

JONAH. 

1 

20 

319, 

6S6. 

6  :    9,  10 

272. 

1 

22,23 

138. 

6:  10 

368, 

434, 

450, 

2 

9 

137. 

2 

15 

138, 

235. 

792. 

3 

3 

241. 

2 ; 

22 

717. 

6:12 

645, 

835. 

3 

4 

136. 

3 

1-12 

836. 

6  :  12-14 

573. 

3: 

4,10 

258. 

3 

:    2,3, 

6           945. 

6:13 

256, 

450. 

3: 

10 

136. 

3- 

3 

309. 

6:16 

288. 

4: 

11 

661. 

3: 

6 

934. 

6:20 

981. 

3: 

6-11 

934. 

6  :  22,  23 

486, 

501. 

MICAH. 

3: 

7 

981. 

6:24 

811. 

3: 

8 

835. 

6:26 

421, 

440. 

3: 

12 

138. 

3: 

9 

287. 

6:30 

421. 

5: 

2 

322. 

3: 

11 

287, 

935. 

6  :  32,  33 

421. 

6: 

8 

299. 

3: 

13 

940. 

6:33 

289, 

401, 

810. 

7: 

3 

650. 

3: 

13,17 

932. 

7:11 

578. 

7: 

18 

855. 

3: 

14 

674. 

7:22 

117, 

780. 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


1145 


CH.       VERSE. 

Fii.lt 

CH 

TEBSE. 

FACE. 

CH.      VERSE. 

PAGE 

7:23 

780. 

12 :  43,  45 

458. 

20  :  17-23 

932. 

8:  11 

772. 

12:45 

806. 

20:22 

743. 

8  :  11,  12 

842, 

843. 

13:    5,6 

589. 

20:28 

483, 

673, 

637 

8:22 

659, 

902, 

992. 

13:19 

27, 

450,    506. 

717, 

750. 

8:24 

674. 

13:20 

281. 

20  :  30 

210, 

227. 

8:28 

227, 

446. 

13  :  20,  21 

837. 

21:    2 

681. 

8:29 

457, 

1002. 

13:23 

462. 

21:21 

437. 

8:31 

445. 

13:24 

310. 

21:25 

931. 

9:    2 

826. 

13  :24-30 

354. 

21:42 

138. 

9:    4 

310. 

13:28 

588. 

22:   3 

791. 

9:   5 

128. 

13:30 

234. 

22:21 

898. 

9:    6 

682. 

13 :  30,  38 

1008. 

22:23 

131. 

9:  12 

192. 

13 :  31,  32 

1008. 

22:30 

445, 

447. 

9  :  12.  13 

574. 

13:33 

234. 

22 :  31,  32 

995, 

996. 

9:24 

1000. 

13:38 

592, 

887. 

22:32 

999, 

1017. 

9:36 

674. 

13:39 

454, 

KM. 

22:37 

302. 

9:56 

129. 

13:52 

19, 

41. 

22  :  37-39 

572. 

10:    1 

201. 

13:57 

711. 

22  :  37-40 

545. 

10:15 

649, 

1045. 

14  :  19 

465. 

22:42 

669. 

10  :  17, 19,  20 

207. 

14:23 

674. 

22:43 

314. 

10:20 

206. 

15:    2 

934. 

23:   8,10 

898. 

10:26 

283. 

15  :  13, 14 

42. 

23:23 

638. 

10:28 

459, 

483, 

660, 

15:18 

506. 

23:32 

648. 

991, 

1055. 

15  :  19 

553, 

810. 

23:33 

1055. 

10:29 

282, 
991. 

421. 

851, 

16  :  15 
16:18 

851. 
887. 

23:35 
23:37 

315. 

1005. 

10:30 

282, 

120, 

421. 

16  :  18,  19 

909. 

23  :  37,  38 

1053. 

10:32 

645, 

889. 

Hi  :  25 

642. 

24  : 

138. 

10:38 

718, 

762. 

16:26 

717. 

24  :    2 

681. 

10:40 

516. 

16:27 

1011. 

24:    5,11,12,24 

1008. 

10:41 

951. 

16  :  27,  28 

1023. 

24  :  14 

1008. 

10:42 

948. 

16:28 

1003. 

24:15 

141. 

11:    3,4,5 

156. 

17:    1-8 

678. 

24:23 

1003. 

11:   9 

710. 

17:   2 

696. 

24  :  29,  30 

1009. 

11:10 

199. 

17:    5 

210. 

24:  30 

1003. 

11:  12 

830. 

17:    8 

234. 

24:34 

138. 

11:  19 

320. 

17  :  15,  18 

456. 

24:35 

350. 

11:21 

780. 

17:  17 

126. 

24:36 

445, 

1006. 

11:23 

282. 

17:20 

900. 

25: 

138. 

11:24 

638. 

17:34 

1021. 

25:    1-13 

234. 

11 :  25,  26 

789. 

18  :    5,  6,  10,  14 

661. 

25:  10 

1001, 

1046. 

11:27 

163, 

681, 

246, 
681. 

334, 

18:10 

450, 
954. 

451,   452, 

25:19 
25:24 

1006. 
293. 

11 :  28 

611. 

6S3, 

744, 

18 

•  14 

662, 

851. 

25:27 

540. 

791. 

18 

:  15-17 

924. 

25:29 

986. 

11 :  28,  29 

838. 

18 

•17 

890, 

892,    907. 

25:31 

138, 

315, 

453, 

11:29 

189. 

18 

18 

925. 

1004. 

12  :  10-13 

541. 

18 

19 

927. 

25 :  31,  32 

310, 

683, 

775. 

12:28 

129, 

316. 

18 

19,20 

774. 

25  :  31-39 

1011. 

12:31 

324. 

18 

20 

951. 

25  :  31,  46 

1023. 

12 :  31,  32 

464, 

650, 

1046. 

18 

24,25 

749. 

25:32 

163. 

12:32 

652. 

19 

3-10 

242. 

25:34 

790. 

12:33 

507, 

826. 

19 

8 

545. 

25:41 

448, 

455, 

457, 

12  :  33-35 

810. 

19 

14 

648, 

661,    951. 

464, 

660, 

790. 

12:34 

578. 

19 

17 

894. 

25  :  41-46 

992. 

12  :  34,  35 

889. 

19 

19 

264. 

25:45 

648. 

12:36 

554. 

19 

26 

2S7. 

25  :  45,  46 

662. 

12:37 

851. 

19 

29 

1045. 

25:46 

293, 

1044, 

1045, 

12:  39 

126. 

137, 

438. 

20 

3 

489. 

1055. 

12:41 

948. 

20 

12-15 

779. 

26:24 

365, 

L043. 

12:43 

445. 

20 

13,15 

786. 

26  :  26,  28 

674. 

1146 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


CH.      YEBSE. 

PAGE 

CH.      VERSE. 

PASS. 

CH.      VERBS. 

PAGE. 

26 :  26,  29 

901. 

7:14 

738. 

2  :  40,  46,  49, 

52   675. 

26:27 

960. 

7:15 

546. 

3:18 

836. 

26:28 

210, 

719. 

7:34 

126. 

3  :  21,  22 

325. 

26:29 

959, 

960. 

8:   4 

190. 

3:22 

216. 

26:34 

681. 

8:27, 

29 

175. 

3  :  23-38 

673. 

26:37 

325. 

8:36, 

37 

485. 

3:38 

474, 

475. 

26:38 

674. 

8:38 

450. 

4 :  4-12 

199. 

26:39 

298, 

438, 

698, 

9:24 

848. 

4:13 

677. 

718, 

762. 

9:25 

456. 

4:14 

325. 

26  :  39,  53 

677. 

9:29 

458. 

4:22 

678. 

26:53 

448, 

703. 

9:43, 

48 

1046. 

4  :  25-27 

786. 

26 :  53,  54 

755. 

10:    2 

546. 

4  :  34 

445. 

26  :  60-75 

230. 

10:    5 

545. 

5:    1 

27. 

26  :  63-64 

313. 

10:11 

242. 

5  :    6-9 

681. 

26:64 

141. 

10:18 

302. 

5:    8 

296, 

555. 

27:    3,4 

832. 

10:21 

638, 

674. 

5  :  20,  21 

696. 

27:    9 

226. 

10 :  21, 

22 

571. 

6:17 

227. 

27:18 

310. 

10:23 

269. 

6:  19 

696. 

27:  37 

228. 

10:32 

678, 

760. 

6  :  43^5 

578. 

27:42 

677, 

762. 

10:38 

940, 

942. 

7:13 

130. 

27:46 

742, 

743, 

762. 

10:39 

936. 

7:  29 

851. 

27:50 

483. 

10:45 

717. 

7:35 

320. 

28:    1 

410. 

11 :  24 

433. 

8  :  30,  31 

456. 

28:    2 

453. 

12  :  29, 

30 

543. 

9  :  22-24 

716. 

28:    4 

445. 

12:30 

4&5. 

9:24 

943. 

2S:  IS 

163, 

775. 

n  :  30, 

31 

543. 

10  :  17,  IS 

456. 

28  :  18-20 

708. 

13  :  19 

S7S. 

10  :  27 

346. 

28:19 

219, 

316, 

895, 

13:27 

780. 

10  :  30-37 

574. 

899, 

931, 

942, 

13:32 

314, 

446.    677, 

10:31 

428. 

945, 

948, 

951, 

695, 

1006. 

11:11 

717. 

952. 

14:15 

681. 

11 :  13 

573, 

895. 

28  :  19,  20 

905, 

916, 

932. 

14:23 

960. 

11:20 

118. 

28:20 

163, 

242, 

310, 

14:24 

210, 

959. 

11:27 

448. 

460, 

685, 

697, 

14:25 

959. 

11 :  27,  28 

208. 

699, 

801, 

846, 

14:27 

199. 

11:29 

131. 

998. 

15:23 

742. 

11:49 

320. 

28:29 

324. 

15  :  26 

228. 

12  :    4,  5 

1055. 

2S:64 

1003. 

15:45 

131. 

12:12 

324, 

805. 

16:   9- 

20 

239, 

573.    931. 

12:  14 

241. 

MARK. 

16:15 
16:16 

604, 
573, 

791. 
662,    931. 

12:47,   48 
12  :  48 

648, 

558. 

649, 1050. 

1:    5,  8 

935. 

16:19 

708. 

12:49 

936. 

1:    5,  9 

934. 

LUKE. 

12:  50 

645, 

718,    762 

1:   9,10 

935. 

932, 

936,    940 

1:41 

118. 

1:   1-4 

238. 

942. 

2:    7 

682. 

1:    6 

852. 

12:56 

760. 

2:27 

409, 

546. 

1:34, 

35 

675. 

13:    2,  3 

630. 

3:    5 

674, 

677. 

1:35 

309, 

325,    339, 

13:    4 

645. 

3  :  11,  12 

456. 

677, 

686,    689. 

13 :  11, 16 

455. 

3:17 

152. 

1:37 

854. 

13:17 

1046. 

3:29 

463, 

650, 

1041, 

1:38 

934. 

13:23,   24 

35. 

1046, 

1048, 

1055. 

1:46 

485. 

13:33 

711. 

4:15 

455. 

1:52 

421. 

14:23 

234, 

791. 

4  :39 

682. 

2:11 

776. 

15: 

516, 

7S4. 

5:    2,  4 

456. 

2:13 

448, 

453. 

15:    8 

515. 

5:    9 

455. 

2:14 

397. 

15 :  10,  24 

836. 

5:19 

190. 

2:21 

943. 

15  :  11-32 

241, 

474. 

5  :  39,  40 

659. 

2:21, 

22, 

23,24    761. 

15  :  12,  13 

572. 

5:41 

696. 

2:24 

554, 

943. 

15:17 

338, 

558. 

7:   4 

934. 

2:25 

1007. 

15:18 

833. 

7:13 

199. 

2:34 

789. 

15 :  23,  24 

856. 

INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


1147 


CH,      VERSE. 

Pir.E. 

CH. 

ri) 

PAr.E. 

CH.       VERSE 

PAGK. 

15:32 

659, 

992. 

1 

4 

309, 

584, 

694. 

3:16 

245,    264, 

289, 

16  :    1-8 

241. 

1 

4, 

9 

715. 

856,   935. 

16:18 

242. 

1 

5 

603. 

3:18 

645. 

16  :  22 

452. 

999. 

1 

9 

68, 

109, 

134, 

3  :  18,  19 

1023. 

16:23 

994, 

999. 

197, 

571, 

603, 

3  :  18-20 

841. 

16:23 

994, 

999. 

666, 

681, 

744. 

3  :  18-36 

574,    645. 

16:26 

1001, 

1042, 

1046. 

1 

12 

475, 

839, 

935. 

3:21 

5. 

16:  32 

446. 

1 

12, 

13 

474, 

793, 

825, 

3:23 

935. 

17:    3 

835. 

842. 

3:33 

288. 

17:    5 

804, 

848. 

1 

13 

495, 

598, 

642, 

3:34 

696. 

17  :    7-10 

293. 

782, 

811, 

819. 

3:36 

645, 1046. 

17:20 

892. 

1 

14 

109, 

160, 

234, 

4:   1 

32. 

18:   7 

780. 

322, 

341, 

673, 

4:    1,2 

932. 

IS:  13 

55G, 
834. 

720, 

741, 

1 

15 

684, 
310. 

686, 

687. 

4:6 
4:9 

314,    674. 

167. 

18:23 

832. 

1 

16 

256, 

804, 

805. 

4:  10 

289. 

18:35 

210, 

227. 

1 

17 

262, 

548. 

4:  14 

839. 

19:    8 

835. 

1 

18 

14, 

246, 

306, 

4  :  17-19,    39 

681. 

19:    8,  9 

836. 

322, 

326, 

337, 

4:21 

280,    893. 

19:23 

541. 

33S, 

341, 

349. 

4:24, 

250,    305, 

338, 

19:38 

776. 

1 

19 

109. 

540, 1000. 

20:13 

681. 

1 

23 

938. 

4:29 

176. 

20:36 

445, 

447. 

1 

25 

931. 

4:38 

827. 

21 :    8-28 

1009. 

1 

26 

935. 

4:39 

711. 

21:  12 

1008. 

1 

29 

206, 

554, 

646, 

4:48 

117. 

21:19 

959. 

647, 

719, 

728, 

5:    3,  4 

239. 

22:19 

960. 

744. 

757. 

5:  14 

837. 

22:20 

210. 

1 

31 

935, 

943. 

5:17 

253,    259, 

412, 

22  :  22 

355. 

1 

33 

935. 

419,    426. 

22  :  31 

457. 

1 

41 

137. 

5  :  17,  19 

333. 

22 :  31,  32 

774, 

831. 

1 

42, 

43 

681. 

5:18 

313. 

22  :  31,  40 

458. 

1 

47-50 

681. 

5:  19 

302. 

22:37 

720. 

1 

50 

256. 

5  :  20-29 

1024. 

22:42 

695, 

936. 

2  : 

2 

685, 

771. 

5:21 

680,    810. 

22:43 

445, 

453. 

2: 

7- 

10 

465. 

5:22 

333- 

22:44 

675. 

2: 

11, 

24,25 

696. 

5:23 

311. 

23:15 

760. 

2 

19 

131. 

5:24 

659,    811, 

842, 

23:34 

325, 

162, 

463, 

2 

19, 

21 

234. 

992. 

649. 

677; 

774. 

2 

21 

131. 

5:26 

245,    251, 

309. 

23:38 

228. 

2 

23, 

24 

837. 

5:27 

678,    6S2. 

23:42 

833. 

2 

24 

838. 

5  :  27-29 

310. 

23:43 

821, 

994, 

998. 

2 

24, 

25 

310, 

682. 

5:2S 

350. 

23:43-46 

998, 

999. 

3 

2 

837. 

5  :  28,  29 

1005, 1011, 

1017. 

23  :  46  . 

311. 

746, 

3 

3 

36, 

810, 

818, 

5  :  28-30 

998. 

24:25 

4. 

887. 

5:29 

1042. 

24:26 

646. 

764. 

3 

3- 

5 

573. 

5:30 

302,    572, 

677. 

24:27 

114, 

137. 

3 

5 

642, 

811, 

821. 

5  :  32-37 

322. 

24  :33 

905. 

822, 

887, 

945. 

5:  35 

837. 

24:36 

1018. 

Q 

5, 

6,  10-13 

842. 

5:39 

19. 

24:39 

131, 

674, 

691. 

3 

6 

495, 
599, 

496, 
661, 

578, 
6S7. 

5  :  39,  40 

5:40 

20. 
841. 

JOHN. 

3 
3 

7 
7, 

14 

677, 
729. 

810, 

814. 

5:42 
5:44 

639. 
259. 

1:  1 

2. 

151, 

305, 

3 

8 

258, 

287, 

316, 

5:46 

239,    314. 

309, 

335, 

336, 

324, 

338, 

340, 

6:14 

711. 

337, 

378, 

388. 

782, 

810, 

811. 

6:19 

210. 

1:    1,2 

326. 

3 

:11 

684. 

6:  20 

846. 

1:    1-4 

109. 

3 

12 

681. 

6:27 

293,    305. 

1:    1-18 

320. 

3 

:13 

681, 

686. 

6:32 

206. 

1:    3 

275, 

310, 

326. 

3 

:  It 

751, 

760. 

6:37 

781,   839. 

1:   3,  4 

311. 

3 

:  11. 

15 

733. 

6 :  41,  51 

686. 

1148 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


CH. 

TERSE. 

FAGZ. 

CH. 

VERSE. 

PAGE. 

CH. 

VERSK. 

PAGE. 

6:44 

78, 

642. 

11 

43 

822. 

16 

8, 

9 

841. 

6:44, 

65 

810. 

11 

49-52 

207. 

16 

8-11 

338. 

6:47, 

52,  63 

992. 

11 

51, 

52 

843. 

16 

9 

350. 

6:50 

573. 

12 

24 

680. 

16: 

10 

762. 

6:53 

839. 

12: 

27 

483, 

731, 

762. 

16 

11 

448. 

6:53, 

56,  57 

797. 

12 

31 

1023. 

16 

12 

35. 

6:54, 

58 

1045. 

12 

32 

311, 

791. 

16 

12, 

13 

164. 

6:55 

297. 

12 

32, 

33 

835. 

16 

12, 

26 

901. 

6:62 

310. 

12 

33 

315, 

681. 

16: 

13 

31, 

134, 

137, 

6:64 

315. 

12 

41 

309. 

206, 

207. 

6:65 

782. 

12 

44 

350. 

16: 

13, 

14 

316. 

6:69 

309. 

12 

47 

241, 

573. 

16 

14 

134, 

323, 

324, 

7:17 

4, 

20,  584, 

13 

1 

315. 

326. 

825, 

841. 

13 

7 

35. 

16 

14, 

15 

317. 

7:18 

552, 

572. 

13 

8 

571, 

733. 

1(5: 

15 

313, 

349. 

7 

39 

317. 

13 

10 

831. 

16 

IS 

242. 

7 

53 

638. 

12 

21 

483. 

16 

26 

698. 

8 

1-11 

239, 

638. 

12 

27 

424, 

455, 

674. 

16 

28, 

30 

310. 

8 

7 

925. 

13 

29 

901. 

17 

2 

781. 

8 

9 

638. 

13 

33 

680. 

17 

3 

3, 

67, 

259, 

8 

12 

838. 

11 

1 

838. 

260, 

261, 

691. 

8 

29 

269. 

14 

1-3 

991. 

17: 

4 

324, 

746. 

8 

30, 

31 

837. 

14 

3 

659, 

998. 

17 

4, 

5 

310. 

8 

31-36 

509. 

14: 

3-18 

1003. 

17: 

5 

256, 

309, 

314, 

8 

34 

553 

642. 

U 

6 

28, 

251, 

260, 

326, 

378, 

698, 

8 

35 

475. 

309, 

802. 

699, 

703. 

8 

36 

509, 

828. 

14 

9 

14, 

313, 

333, 

17 

6 

787. 

8 

40 

673. 

349, 

699, 

845. 

17 

8 

207. 

8 

41-44 

475. 

14 

9, 

10 

681. 

37 

9 

774, 

781. 

8 

44 

450, 

583,  657. 

14 

Ht. 

23 

797. 

17 

9, 

20,24 

771. 

8 

46 

677. 

14 

11 

117, 

333. 

17 

10 

313. 

8 

51 

659, 

992. 

11 

12 

120. 

17 

11 

272, 

313. 

8 

57 

348, 

678. 

14 

14 

311. 

17 

12 

430, 

475. 

8 

58 

163, 

310,  326, 

14 

16 

774. 

17 

19 

674, 

762. 

681, 

695. 

14 

16, 

17 

323, 

339. 

IT 

21-23 

798. 

9:  2, 

3 

630. 

14 

16-18 

323. 

17 

22 

313. 

- 

9  :  3 

645. 

14 

17 

288, 

604, 

1045. 

17 

22, 

23 

301. 

9:  30 

1023. 

14 

IS 

323, 

333, 

680. 

17 

23 

245, 

684. 

10:  3 

364. 

11 

20 

759, 

797. 

17 

24 

263, 

310, 

326, 

10:  7 

34. 

14 

21 

256. 

776. 

10:  7-9 

802. 

11 

26 

207, 

323, 

744. 

17 

25 

274. 

10:10 

824. 

11 

28 

314, 

342. 

18 

4 

682. 

10:11 

720. 

14 

30 

448, 

677. 

18 

8, 

9 

430. 

10:16 

842, 

843,  914. 

15 

1 

516, 

680, 

796. 

18 

11 

743. 

10  :  17, 

18 

703. 

15 

3 

811. 

18 

32 

681. 

10:18 

131. 

15 

4, 

5 

642. 

is 

36 

889. 

10:28 

781, 

801. 

15 

4-6 

110. 

IS 

3»3, 

37 

776. 

10:30 

313, 

695. 

15 

5 

331, 

898. 

is 

37 

262, 

633. 

10 :  34-36 

307, 

515. 

15 

6 

474, 

475. 

18 

38 

156. 

10:35 

199. 

15 

7 

438. 

IS 

11 

648, 

649. 

10:36 

234, 

322,  669. 

15 

9 

778. 

19 

19 

228. 

10:41 

131, 

156. 

15 

10 

331. 

19 

28 

674. 

11:11 

1000. 

15 

15 

21, 

440, 

737. 

19 

30 

733, 

762. 

11 :  11-14 

994. 

15 

1G 

598, 

779, 

784, 

19 

30, 

34 

675. 

11:14 

681. 

787. 

19 

36 

959. 

11:25 

842. 

15 

26 

323, 

333, 

341. 

20 

17 

680, 

681, 

707, 

11:26 

660, 

999. 

15 

26, 

27 

207. 

998. 

11 :  33, 

35 

674. 

16 

2 

192. 

20 

22 

?09, 

935. 

11:35 

738. 

k; 

7 

323, 

604, 

697. 

20 

26 

410. 

11 :  35. 

43 

130. 

16 

8 

316, 

324, 

339, 

20 

27 

691, 

1018. 

11 

:36 

264. 

454, 

856. 

20 

28 

306, 

311. 

INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


1149 


CH. 

VERSE. 

FA..E. 

CH.      VERSE. 

PAGE 

CR, 

VERSE. 

PAGE. 

20:31 

839. 

6:    8-20 

917. 

15 

8 

282. 

21:  6 

681. 

7:    2 

256. 

15 

8,  9 

782. 

21:17 

833. 

7:   6 

127. 

15 

9 

770. 

21:19 

315, 

355, 

681. 

7:16 

226. 

15 

18 

282. 

7:22 

169, 

994, 

995. 

15 

23 

906. 

ACTS. 

7:28 
7:38 

1004. 
891. 

15 
16 

28 
6,  7 

324. 
324. 

1:    1 

150, 

164. 

7  :  39,  53 

448. 

16 

14 

810, 

819, 

825 

1:    2 

315, 

316, 

410, 

7:42 

448. 

16 

15 

951. 

696, 

703. 

7:51 

32. 

16 

16 

456. 

1:   7 

1006. 

7:53 

452. 

16 

31 

843. 

1 

10 

453. 

7:55 

708. 

16 

33 

934. 

1 

11 

1004. 

7:59 

311, 

991, 

1000. 

16 

33,  34,  40 

951. 

1 

15, 

21, 

26      906. 

7:60 

595, 

659. 

17 

22. 

1 

23-26 

894. 

8:    4 

899. 

17 

3 

110, 

760, 

764. 

J 

24 

310. 

8:12 

821. 

945. 

17 

4 

782. 

1 

25 

660, 1049. 

8:  13 

837. 

17 

18 

842. 

2 

896, 

901. 

8:16 

948, 

951. 

17 

21-26 

494. 

2 

2 

287. 

8:25 

27. 

17 

22 

23. 

2 

4 

324. 

8:26 

319. 

17 

23 

27. 

2 

22 

117, 

673. 

8:29 

324. 

17 

25-27 

113. 

2 

23 

258, 

282, 

355, 

8  :  38,  39 

935, 

936. 

17 

26 

115, 

355, 

421, 

675. 

9:    5 

209. 

476, 

691, 

692. 

2:24, 

31 

707. 

9:15 

779. 

17 

27 

68. 

2:31 

131. 

9  :  15, 16 

787. 

17 

27,  28 

105, 

280, 

571 

2:33 

774. 

9:31 

891, 

892, 

912. 

17 

28 

254, 

412, 

471 

2:37, 

3S 

945, 

949. 

10 :  19,  20 

324. 

503, 

715, 

798. 

2:38 

821, 

822, 

833, 

10 :  31-14 

843. 

17 

29 

759. 

931, 

946, 

948, 

10  :  34,  35 

23. 

17 

30 

573, 

649, 

652 

951. 

10:  35 

574, 

853. 

17 

31 

333, 

405. 

2:41 

934. 

10:38 

315, 

316, 

325, 

18 

8 

945. 

2:42 

946, 

959. 

960. 

455, 

696, 

700, 

18 

9,  10 

782. 

2:46 

959, 

960. 

703. 

18 

10 

789. 

2:47 

895, 

897, 

901. 

10:42 

780. 

18 

14 

152. 

3:13, 

26 

697. 

10:43 

137. 

18 

26 

547. 

3:18 

646. 

10:48 

951. 

18 

27 

895. 

3:22 

137, 

711. 

11:18 

782, 

835. 

19 

1-5 

950. 

3:26 

829. 

11:  21 

829. 

19 

4 

836, 

901, 

932 

4:12 

573, 

842, 

843. 

11:24 

901. 

945. 

4:27, 

28 

424. 

11:  28 

137. 

19 

5 

948. 

4:27, 

30 

697. 

12:    7 

319. 

19 

10,  20 

27. 

4:31 

895. 

12:15 

452. 

19 

21 

910. 

4:32 

799. 

12:23 

452. 

19 

32,  39 

981. 

5:    3 

455. 

13:    2 

324. 

907. 

20 

7 

410, 

894, 

960. 

5:    3, 

4 

315, 

458. 

13:    2,3 

906, 

909, 

919. 

20 

17 

914. 

5:   3, 

4, 

9          324. 

13  :  33,  34,  35 

340, 

341. 

20 

20,  21 

916. 

5:    4 

894. 

13  :  38,  39 

855. 

20 

21 

836. 

5:    6 

918. 

13:39 

793, 

805. 

20 

28 

137, 

894, 

914 

5:    7-11 

585. 

13:48 

780. 

20 

28-31 

915. 

5:   9 

927. 

13 :  48,  49 

27. 

20 

31 

1056. 

5:11 

895. 

14: 

22. 

20 

35 

265, 

916. 

5:14 

897, 

901. 

14  :15 

23. 

21 

9 

547. 

5:29 

898, 

14  :  16 

424. 

21 

10 

137. 

5:31 

782, 

835. 

14  :  16,  17 

666. 

21 

31-33 

240. 

5:36 

228. 

14  :  17 

26, 

32, 

113. 

22 

16 

946. 

6:    1-4 

918. 

14:23 

890, 

906, 

919. 

22 

26-29 

240. 

6:    1-6 

917. 

14  :  27 

891, 

906. 

23 

5 

242. 

6:   2 

891. 

15:    1-35 

912. 

23 

6 

995, 

996. 

6:   3, 

5 

906. 

15  :    2,  4,  22, 

30    906. 

23 

26-30 

240. 

6:   5 

891. 

15:    6-11 

215. 

24 

15 

998. 

6 

:    5, 

6 

894, 

919. 

15:    7-30 

909. 

24 

25 

988, 

1024. 

1150 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


CH.      VKF.8E. 

PjlfiB. 

CH.       VERSE. 

FAGS. 

CH. 

TERSE. 

PAuS. 

26:    6-8 

995. 

3  :  24-30 

849. 

7  :  11,  13, 14, 17 

26  :    7,  8 

996. 

3:  25 

112,    405, 

423, 

20 

553. 

26:    9 

500. 

714. 

7:14 

540. 

26  :  .23 

646. 

3  :  25,  26 

718,    719, 

753. 

7:15 

780. 

26  :  24,  25 

31. 

3:26 

298,    846. 

7:17 

552. 

27:10 

137. 

3:28 

847,  1001. 

7:18 

562, 

639, 

642, 

27  :  21-26 

137. 

3:31 

548. 

687. 

27  :  22-24 

364. 

4  :    4-16 

847. 

7:23 

581, 

639, 

646. 

27:24 

789. 

4:    5 
4:    6,8 

842,    854. 
851. 

7:24 

555, 
983. 

578, 

642, 

ROMANS. 

4:17 

287,    376, 

377. 

8: 

1 

646, 

647, 

659. 

1:    3 
1:    3,4 
1:    4 
1  :   5 
1:   7 

684. 
340. 
129, 
847. 
791. 

676, 

762. 

4  :  20,  21 

4  :  24,  25 
4:25 

5:    1 
5:    1-2 

5  :    5 

844. 

15,    657. 
717,    7G3, 
854. 
856. 
848. 

852. 

8: 
8: 
8: 

8: 

1-2 

1-17 
2 

3 

983. 
805. 
316, 

804, 
341, 
714, 

548, 
811. 
677, 
718, 

590, 

706, 
762, 

1:13 
1:16 

495. 

746. 

5:    6-8 
5  :    8 

720. 
290,   726. 

8  :    3. 10, 11 

943. 

657. 

1:  17 
1 :  17-20 

847, 
26. 

849. 

5:  10 
5  :  11 

544,   719. 
856. 

8: 
8: 

4 

7 

548. 
562, 

571, 

573, 

1:18 
1:19 

266, 
13. 

644, 

983. 

5:12 

39,    210, 

490, 

580, 

639, 

818, 

495,    593, 

604, 

831. 

1 :  19-21,  28,  32 

68. 

609,    610, 

613, 

8:   7.  8 

645. 

1  :  19-25 
1:20 

319. 

26, 
69, 

32, 
1044, 

68, 
104G. 

5  :  12-14 

614,    620, 
579. 

658. 

8 
8 

9,10 
10 

797, 
805, 

801. 
852, 

983, 

1:23 
1:24 

256. 
633. 

5  :  12-17 
5  :  12-19 

637. 
15,    476, 

477, 

8:11 

999. 

316, 

324, 

339, 

603,    625. 

488, 

806, 

1017. 

1  :  24,  28 
1:25 
1:28 
1:32 

2:   4 

2:   5 
2:    5-6 
2:   6 
2:    6-11 
2:   7 
2:12 
2:14 

2  :  14,  15 

424. 
288. 

68. 

26, 
113, 
776, 
981. 
662, 
290, 
778. 
917. 
558, 
574, 
541. 

5  :  12-21 

622,    660, 

797. 

8 

13 

659, 

992. 

649, 

289, 
833. 

1025. 
648. 

832. 
571, 

5:  13 

5:  14 

5  :  14,  18,  21 

5:15 

5:16 

5  :  16-18 

5  :  19 

5:20 

5:21 

594. 

661,    662, 
660. 
673. 
593. 

619,    852. 
593,    614, 
543. 
553,    992. 

686. 
718. 

8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 

14 

14.15 

16 

18-23 

19 

20,21 

20-23 

21-23 

23 

339, 

474. 

502, 
1018. 

797. 

402, 

658. 
1004. 

826, 

441, 
839, 

403. 

1002, 

830. 
844. 

1017, 

649. 
638. 

6:    3 
6:    3-5 
6:    3-6 
6  :    4 

940,    941, 
931. 
932. 
936,    941. 

951. 

8:24 
8:  26 

1022. 
9S1. 
323, 
338, 

324, 
339, 

325, 
439, 

2  :  14,  19 
2:15 

538. 
26, 

68. 

6:    5 
6  :    6 

796,    941. 
824. 

8  :  26.  27 

454, 
438, 

798. 
774, 

848. 

2:10 

1023. 

6  :    7 

851. 

8 

:  27 

349. 

2:26 
3:   1,2 
3:   2 

617, 
779. 
838. 

852. 

6:7,8 

805. 

S 

:  27-30 

780. 

6:    7-10 

762. 

8 

:28 

353, 

368, 

421, 

3:    4 
3:   9 

.288. 
574, 

639. 

6:    9,10 
6:11 
6  :  12 

657. 

797,    829. 
553. 

8 
8 

:  28,  29,  30 
:30 

443. 

781. 
791. 

3:10-12 

3:11 

3:12 

3:15 

3:19 

573. 
810. 
115. 
68. 
645. 

6:13 

810,    945. 

8 

:  31-39 

788. 

6  :  13,  18 

853. 

8 

:32 

265, 

266, 

289, 

6  :  15-23 

6:17 

509. 
31,    810. 

8:34 

341, 
544, 

405. 

774. 

3  :  19,  20,  23 

573. 

6:  19 

633,  1049. 

8  :  35-39 

801. 

3:20 

543, 

832. 

6:23 

293,    645, 

657. 

8:38 

998. 

3:22 

772. 

7:    4 

805. 

8:39 

278. 

3:23 

542, 

610. 

7:    7,  8 

544. 

9: 

780. 

3  :  24-26 

855. 

7  :    8,  9, 10 

553. 

9:   1 

502. 

3:25 

772. 

7  :  10-11 

941. 

9 

:  5 

306. 

INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


1151 


CH.      VERSK. 

9:  11 
9  :  11-16 
9:16 
9:17 
9 :  17. 18 
9  :  17,  22,  23 
18 
20 

20,21 
21 

22,23 
22-25 
9:23 
9  :  23,  24 
28 
3 
4 

6-7 
6-8 
7 
9 


9 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10  :    9,  10 

10  :   9,  12 

10:10 

11:   2 

11:    5-7 

11:    8 

11:13 

11:  16 

11:18 

11:25 

11 :  25,  26 

11:29 

11:32 

11:33 

11:36 

11:38 

12:    1 

12:    2 

12:   3 

12:   5 

12:    6-8 

12:  15 

12:16 

12:19 

13:   1 

13:   5 

13:    8-10 


13:  10 
14:  4 
14:  7 
14:  8 
14:14 
14:17 
14:23 


15:19 
15:20 
15:26 
15:30 


661. 
780. 
784. 
397. 
424. 
397. 
296. 
786. 
779. 
784. 
790. 
780. 
256. 
782. 
827. 
852. 
544. 
280. 
282. 
707. 

309,   839. 
889. 
311. 

810,  948. 
780. 
778. 
152. 
254. 
397. 
848. 
668. 
1008. 

198,    7S2,   791 
423. 

34,  282. 
275,  337. 
378. 

32,   776. 

40,  260. 
782. 
755. 
902. 
615. 
904. 
776. 

117,   780. 
780. 
572. 
302. 


572. 
983. 

241. 

853,  892 
32,  553. 
265,  546, 
572,  724. 
324,  325. 
910. 


568. 


CH.       VERSE. 

15:31 
16:  1,2 
16:  5 
16:  7 
16:22 
16 :  25,  26 
16:26 
19:23 
20:   4-10 


841. 

918. 

890. 

909. 
1006. 
1044. 
1045. 

662. 
1011. 


263,    316,    324. 


1    CORINTHIANS. 


1:   2 


3 

9 
10 
16 

16,17 
18 
21 
23 

23,24 
23,  24,  26 
24-29 
26 
28 
30 


1:31 

2:  4 
2:  7 
2:  7-16 
2:  9 
2:  9-13 
2:10 
2:10-12 
2:11 
2  :  11,  12 
2:  13 
2:14 

2  :  14, 16 
2:28 

3:  1,2 
3:  6 
3:  6,  7 
3:  10 

3  :  10-15 
3:16 
3:21 

3  :  21,  23 
3:22 
4:  4 
5 
7 

13 

15 

17 

3 

3-5 
4,5 


201,  890, 
897. 
774. 
288. 
904. 

210,  951. 
916. 
27. 

4,  1056. 
842. 


892, 


5 
9 

13 
21 

37,38 
3 

11 

13-20 
15,19 
6:17 
6:  19 
6:20 
7  :  10,  12 
7:14 


8:  6 


746. 

8: 

12 

791. 

9: 

16 

782. 

10: 

1-2 

562. 

10  : 

2 

377. 

10: 

3,4 

710, 

781,    805, 

10: 

8 

806, 

852. 

10: 

11 

152. 

10: 

12 

325. 

10: 

13 

275, 

356. 

10 

16,17 

250. 

10: 

20 

36, 

289. 

10 

31 

206. 

10 

33 

253, 

316. 

11 

2 

13, 

324. 

11 

3 

253, 

316,    483. 

11 

5 

40. 

11 

7 

19, 

35. 

11 

8 

4, 

484,    642. 

11 

10 

203. 

11 

11,12 

917. 

u 

16 

16. 

11 

23 

574. 

11 

23,24 

811. 

11 

23-25 

31, 

338. 

11 

23-26 

16. 

11 

24 

315, 

316. 

11 

24-25 

40. 

11 

26 

805. 

11 

27 

983. 

11 

29 

851. 

11 

30 

310, 

894. 

12 

3 

604, 

786. 

12 

:   4,6 

894. 

12 

4,  8, 11 

418. 

12 

:    6 

890. 

12 

:   8-11 

483. 

12 

:  9 

200, 

924. 

12 

:11 

907. 

12 

:12 

457. 

145, 

907, 

646, 

426. 

445, 

805. 
1017. 

796. 

798. 

315, 

717. 

242. 

597, 

951, 

201, 

717. 

242. 

520, 

259, 

15, 

419, 

501. 

919, 

936. 

941. 

942. 

227. 
1006. 

948. 

425, 

797. 

457. 

401. 

892. 

906. 

342, 

547. 

515. 

494. 

452. 

525. 

895. 

200. 

906. 

959. 

895. 

959. 

311. 

546, 

960. 

952, 
1000. 

309, 

315. 

325. 

418. 

324. 

782. 

316. 

796, 


150. 

924,  925. 
747. 

446. 


609,  661, 

952. 

806. 


780,  781. 

446,  457. 

310,  378, 
700. 


1056. 


458. 


515,  680, 


933,  959. 
960. 

782. 


893. 


1152 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTUUE  TEXTS. 


H.      VERSE. 

PAGE. 

CH. 

VEBSB. 

PAGE. 

GALATIANS. 

e12 :  13 

942. 

2: 

16 

1002. 

12:28 

401, 

710, 

891, 

3: 

1 

895. 

1: 

2 

200. 

902, 

912, 

917. 

3: 

5 

643. 

1: 

4 

716, 

718. 

13: 

35. 

3: 

6 

35, 

324. 

1: 

7 

475. 

13:   4 

325. 

3: 

15,16 

5. 

1: 

12 

200. 

13:10 

981. 

3: 

17,18 

326, 

333, 

697. 

1: 

15,16 

421, 

782, 

804, 

13:12 

8, 
219. 

35, 

143, 

3: 

18 

219, 

678. 

315, 

663, 

1: 

16 

811. 
12. 

13:13 

848. 

4: 

2 

822. 

1: 

22 

892. 

14:23 

895. 

4: 

4 

517, 

518, 

827. 

2: 

7 

838. 

14:25 

546. 

4: 

6 

286, 

336, 

337. 

2: 

10 

715. 

14:37 

901. 

4: 

7 

213. 

2: 

11 

215, 

909. 

14 :  37,  38 

200. 

4: 

17 

256, 

402. 

2: 

15 

578. 

14:40 

895, 

5: 

1-8 

998. 

2  : 

16-20 

850. 

15:   3,4 

15. 

5: 

1-9 

659. 

2: 

19-20 

941. 

15:    6 

906. 

5: 

3,4 

1002. 

2: 

20 

514, 

572. 

643, 

15:   8 

131. 

5: 

4 

235. 

797, 

801, 

805. 

15:12 

942. 

5: 

8 

1000. 

2. 

21 

1000. 

15  :  20,  23 

680, 

998. 

5 

10 

1011, 

1023. 

3. 

6 

856. 

15:21 

673. 

5- 

11 

1056. 

3 

7 

836. 

15 :  21,  22 

476, 

657. 

5: 

13 

31. 

3 

10 

152. 

15:22 

495, 

593, 

603, 

5 

14 

622, 

623, 

805, 

3 

11 

849. 

622, 

942, 

998. 

941. 

3 

11-13 

242. 

15 :  22,  45 

686. 

5 

14,15 

766. 

3 

13 

430, 

657, 

718, 

35  :  22,  45,  49 

797. 

5 

15 

572, 

662, 

716. 

728. 

15:24 

893. 

5 

17 

793, 

797, 

804, 

3 

17 

227. 

15:25 

356, 

776. 

811. 

3 

19 

448, 

452, 

453. 

15:26 

590. 

5 

18,19 

719. 

3 

22 

573. 

15:28 

314, 

397, 

698, 

5 

19 

333, 

686, 

699, 

3 

24 

544. 

699. 

714, 

718, 

768. 

3 

26 

'    334, 

474, 

842. 

15:32 

989. 

5 

21 

645, 

677, 

718, 

3 

26,27 

946. 

15:34 

68. 

731, 

743, 

760. 

3 

27 

797, 

941, 

948, 

15  :  37,  38 

1019. 

5 

21 

718, 

731, 

743, 

951. 

15  :  38,  40 

563. 

805, 

853, 

856. 

4 

1-7 

475. 

15:40 

806. 

043. 

4 

3 

665. 

15  :  40,  45 

678. 

6 

17 

474. 

4 

4 

258, 

322, 

341, 

15:41 

898. 

7 

1 

'     268, 

639, 

829. 

388, 

665. 

15  :  42,  50 

658. 

7 

9,10 

832. 

4 

4,5 

761. 

15:44 

484, 

488, 

1016. 

7 

10 

836. 

4 

5 

338, 

717. 

15:45 

316, 

333, 

527, 

7 

11 

294, 

907. 

4 

6 

322, 

323, 

333, 

697, 

805. 

8 

5 

899. 

334, 

474. 

15  :  45,  46 

802, 

991. 

8 

6 

334. 

4 

9 

780, 

781. 

15:46 

524. 

8 

9 

703. 

4 

19 

13. 

15:51 

658, 

1005. 

8 

19 

705, 

906. 

1 

25 

310. 

15  :  53,  54 
15  :  54-57 

1018. 
659. 

9 
9 

9 
15 

1045. 
754. 

4 

28 

577. 

15  :  55 

983. 

in 

5 

543. 

5 

6 

770, 

846, 

847. 

16  :    1,  2 

894. 

10 

16 

910. 

5 

11 

746. 

16:15 

780, 

951. 

11 

1 

210. 

5 

14 

572. 

16:22 

329, 

1006. 

11 

2 

796. 

5 

19 

554. 

11 

14 

450. 

5 

22 

554, 

782, 

847. 

2    CORINTHIANS 

12 

2 

991. 

6 

1 

650. 

12 

4 

35, 

999. 

6 

7,8 

1049. 

1:  20 

288. 

12 

7 

438. 

455. 

6 

15 

810. 

1:24 

205. 

12 

8,9 

848. 

2:    6,  7 

907. 

12 

9 

6S7. 

EPIIESIANS. 

2:6-8 

925. 

12 

10 

10, 

317. 

2:11 

464. 

13 

4 

708. 

1 

355. 

2:  14 

431. 

13 

11 

904. 

1 

2,3 

685. 

2  :  14-17 

1056. 

13 

12 

201. 

1 

3 

592. 

2  :  15,  16 

789. 

13 

14 

306, 

324, 

774. 

1 

23 

697. 

INDEX    OP   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


1153 


PAfiK. 

CH.       VFHSE. 

PACK, 

CH. 

VERSE. 

FAGI. 

275 

309, 

388, 

3  :  10,  11 

356. 

1:    9 

265, 

297,    440. 

781 

782, 

797. 

3:11 

353. 

1:19 

333. 

780 

3  :  12 

774. 

1 :  21,  23 

659. 

778 

805. 

3  :  14,  15 

334, 

448, 

474, 

1:23 

731, 

999. 

771 

811. 

1:27 

904. 

334 

335. 

3  :  16, 17 

801. 

2:    5 

806. 

474 

3:  17 

797, 

804, 

339. 

2:    6 

30S, 

313,    314, 

39/ 

3 :  18 

905. 

326, 

336,    703, 

781 

3:19 

8. 

718. 

774 

3  :  2D 

287. 

2:    6,  7 

249, 

703. 

11) 

849, 

855. 

4:    3 

904. 

2:    6-11 

702, 

706. 

253 

1  :    5 

758, 

941. 

2:    7 

314, 

572,    689, 

780 

4  :    5,  6 

259. 

943. 

444 

150, 

680. 

4  :    6 

102, 

333. 

2 

7,8 

288. 

253 

287, 

353, 

4:    7-8 

309. 

2 

10 

314. 

355 

121, 

4:    8 

340. 

2 

10,11 

311. 

844 

4  :  10 

685, 

708. 

2 

12 

829. 

781 

4  :  11 

19, 

745, 

902, 

2 

12,13 

258, 

356,    364 

823 

915. 

418, 

641,    715 

4 

69, 

825, 

4  :  15.  16 

796. 

785, 

792,    799 

791 

4  :18 

639, 

820. 

811, 

830. 

287 

1  :  18,  19 

647. 

2:13 

423, 

782,    816 

811 

1  :  20 

261. 

2:16 

33. 

699 

1  :  SI 

824. 

2:30 

895. 

776 

A  :  22-24 

639. 

3:    6 

891, 

912. 

109 

685, 

708, 

4:23 

484, 

633. 

3:    8 

706. 

796 

887, 

888. 

4  :  23.  24 

811. 

3:    8,  9 

544, 

805. 

163 

310, 

418. 

4:  24 

514, 

517. 

3  :    8,  10 

691. 

521 

643, 

659, 

4  :  26 

234, 

294, 

743. 

3:    9 

856. 

810 

983, 

992. 

4:30 

266, 

316, 

324, 

3:11 

1002. 

448 

461, 

455, 

325. 

3:14 

791. 

642 

4:  32 

314. 

3:15 

574. 

459 

475, 

495, 

5:    1 

543. 

3:18 

895. 

578 

593, 

5:    2 

719, 

736. 

3  :  20,  21 

806. 

603 

609, 

645, 

5:   9 

31. 

3:21 

678, 

1015, 1017. 

661 

810. 

5  :  10 

32. 

- 

4  :    3 

547, 

781. 

811 

5:  14 

659, 

810, 

829, 

4:    5 

236, 

1006. 

805 

992. 

4:13 

512. 

890 

5:18 

164. 

4:  19 

421. 

781 

5  :  21 

311. 

643 

5  :  23 

680. 

COLOSSIAXS. 

355 

364, 

42:;, 

.".  :  2).  1-5 

887. 

it:, 

521, 

598, 

5  :  25,  27 

717. 

1  :    9,  10 

111). 

782 

785, 

804, 

5  :  26 

940. 

1  :  13 

811. 

811 

819. 

824, 

5:27 

739. 

1  :  15 

313, 

336,    340, 

826 

831. 

5:29 

1022. 

341, 

515. 

68 

5  :  29,  30 

800. 

1  :  15, 17 

326. 

19   719 

5:  31 

706. 

1:16 

16, 

310,    326, 

797 

5  :  31,  32 

796. 

378, 

382,    397, 

545 

5:32 

801. 

444, 

445,    448, 

22    685 

6:11 

458. 

474, 

475,    679. 

77) 

0:  12 

382, 

445, 

455. 

1  :  16,  17 

109. 

377.    404. 

710 

909. 

6:16 

458. 

1  :  17 

110, 

310,    311, 

795 

6:  17 

17, 

32, 

220, 

378. 

412.    759. 

338 

811. 

sir,. 

819. 

1  :  18 

150, 

678,   680, 

431 

6:  23 

782. 

887. 

710 

1:  19 

313. 

27 

113, 

378. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

1:20 

109, 

310.    388, 

282 

446, 

450, 

450, 

719. 

460 

713, 

887, 

1:    1 

894, 

902, 

914. 

1  :22 

717. 

1052 

1:    6 

999. 

1: 

23 

1008. 

73 


1154 


INDEX    OP    SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


CH. 

VKR8E. 

PAGE 

CH. 

VERSE. 

PAGE 

CH. 

VEB 

PAGE. 

1:  24 

716. 

1 

:    6-10 

1011. 

5 

6 

659. 

1:27 

19, 

691, 

SOI, 

1 

:    7 

445. 

5 

9 

895. 

842. 

1 

:   7, 

10 

1004. 

5 

17 

915, 

917. 

1:28 

260. 

1 

:    9 

660. 

5 

21 

447, 

450,    452 

2:    2 

691. 

2 

:    1, 

2 

138, 

140. 

5 

22 

919. 

2:    2,  3 

109. 

2 

:    1, 

3 

1006. 

5 

24 

650. 

2:    3 

28, 

310. 

2 

:    2 

150, 

1005. 

6 

4 

39. 

2:   5 

895. 

2 

:    3 

137, 

138. 

6 

13 

412. 

2:    7 

795. 

2 

:    3, 

4 

572. 

5 

15 

259, 

445. 

2:    9 

109, 

30S, 

313, 

2 

•    3, 

4,7,8 

1008. 

6 

16 

14, 

246,    262 

348, 

680, 

686, 

2 

3, 

4,9 

454. 

275, 

444. 

692. 

2 

3-5 

236. 

6 

20 

39, 

149. 

2  :    9,  10 

32, 

253. 

2 

7 

425, 

587. 

2:  10 
2  :  11,  12 

444. 
931. 

2 
2 

8 
9 

457. 
132, 

133, 

457. 

2  TIMOTHY. 

2:  12 

821, 
940, 

822, 
941. 

926, 

2 
2 

10 
11, 

12 

1024. 
423. 

1 

9 

771, 
1044. 

131, 
67, 
18. 

1  AC\ 

781,    791 

2:15 
2:  18 

442, 
446, 

459. 
452, 

453. 

2 
2 

13 

14 

780. 
791. 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 

10 
12 
13 

590. 
149. 

2  :  20,  21,  22 

217. 

3 

6 

924, 

925. 

2:21 

216. 

3 

11 

140. 

3:    2 
3:    3 
3:    3,  4 

941. 
829. 
810. 

3 

14, 

15               907. 
1    TIMOTHY. 

16-18             1043. 
18                    318. 
3                      1° 

3:  10 
3:11 
3:12 

514, 
546. 
780. 

517. 

1 

1 

3 

10 

787. 
39. 

2 

2 

10 
11 
15 
18 
20 
25 

26 
2 
4 

789. 
805. 
-      19. 
998, 
790. 
17, 
835. 
445, 
572, 
639. 

4  :  16                    201. 

1    THESSALONIANS. 

1:   1,2               848. 
1:    6                    294. 
1:    9                   251. 
2  :  10                    294. 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 

11 
12 
13, 
15 
16 
17 
20 
4 
5 
5 

15,  16 

245. 
919. 
649. 
556, 
787. 
259, 
457. 
797. 
308, 
308, 
698. 
717, 
546. 
680. 
914. 
902. 
19, 
919. 
912. 
917. 
914. 
918. 

787. 
275, 

1045. 

2 
2 

2 

2 
3 
3 

1017. 

451,    782 

835. 
639. 

2:12 
2:14 
2:  18 

791. 
890. 
455. 

673, 
673, 

685, 
685, 

3 
3 
3 

7 
13 
15 

814. 
633, 

218. 

638. 
804. 

3:    5 
3:13 

455. 
268, 

303. 

2 

6 

11. 

15 
1 
1, 

2 
2- 

5 
8 

8- 

12 

771. 

3 

4 

16 

2 

197, 
19. 

200,    205. 

4:    2,  8 

200. 

4: 

6 

236. 

4:    7 

268. 

3 
3 
3 

3 
3 
3 
3 

4 

8 

1000, 

1005. 

4  :  13-17 

1017. 

2 

7 

4 

13 

217. 

4  :  14 
4  :  14-16 
4  :  16 
4  :  14, 17 

4  :  15-17 

1000. 
1015. 
1004, 

801. 

137, 

1005. 
235. 

39, 

915. 

4 

4 

16 
18 

594. 
311, 

TITUS. 

998. 

4  :  16 

44S, 
1005. 
1005. 

999, 

998, 

1004, 

13 

1 

1 

782. 

3 

11 

918. 

1 

2 

288, 

1044. 

4 
5 

LI 

10 

1000. 

3 

15 

18, 
903, 

33. 
905, 

891, 

977. 

1: 
1 

5 
6 

906, 
919. 

914. 

5 
5 
5 

5 
5 

11 

12 

12,  13 

22 

23 

24 

899. 
916. 
780, 
732. 

484, 
288. 

902. 
485, 

806. 

3 

4 
4 
4 

16 

2 

4 
10 

15, 
718, 

852, 
501. 
758. 
758, 

686, 
762, 
856. 

771. 

691, 
843, 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 
2 

7 
9 

12 
15 
10 
11 

914. 
19. 
165, 
639. 
333. 
758, 

919. 
696. 

771. 

2    THESSALONIANS. 

4 
4 

14 

16 

919, 
1056. 

946. 

2 
2 

13 

14 

307. 
717. 

1 

5-10 

778. 

5 

2 

464. 

3 

4 

289. 

INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   TETXS. 


1153 


i   H 

VERSE. 

PAGE 

en 

.     VERSE 

PAGE. 

en 

VERSE 

PAGE. 

3 

5 

316, 
946. 

821, 

822, 

6 
6 
6 

2 
10 
11 

1053. 
399. 
844. 

12 
12 

9 
14 

465, 
491, 
296. 

474, 
495. 

483, 

HEBREWS. 

6 

18 

288. 

12 

19 

209. 

6 

18, 

19 

485. 

12 

20 

234. 

1 

1 

214, 

221. 

7 

10 

494. 

12 

22, 

23 

446. 

1 

2 

160, 
333, 

320, 

378. 

326, 

7 

7 

15, 
L6 

16 

6S0, 
309. 

694, 

846. 

12 

23 

333, 
509, 

367, 

887, 

483, 
998, 

1: 

2.3 

109. 

412. 

685. 

7 

2:"!. 

25 

773. 

1000. 

1 

3 

165. 

256, 

2S6, 

7 

24, 

25 

698. 

12 

29 

268, 

272, 

653. 

310, 

313, 

320, 

7 

25 

639, 

698, 

774, 

13 

7 

915, 

916. 

336, 

419, 

515, 

776. 

13 

8 

163, 

309, 

888, 

762, 

775. 

7 

26 

309, 

646, 

677. 

1003. 

1 

5,6 

340. 

8 

2 

260. 

13 

17 

916. 

1 

6 

307, 

311, 

1004. 

8 

5 

152, 

310. 

13 

21 

311. 

1 

7 

457. 

8 

8, 

9 

614. 

13 

33 

680. 

1 

8 

307, 
776. 

318, 

598, 

8 
9 

13 
1 

152. 
852. 

JAMES. 

1 

9 

266. 

9 

11. 

12 

718. 

1 

10 

310, 

326. 

9 

13, 

14 

724. 

1 

5 

265, 

440. 

1 

11 

310. 

9 

14 

298, 

415, 

316, 

1 

13, 

14 

562. 

1 

14 

445, 

452, 

1000. 

317, 

326, 

338, 

1 

11. 

15 

562. 

2 

2 

448, 

452. 

341, 

378, 

677, 

1 

15 

*      573. 

585, 

633 

2 

2,3 

648. 

696, 

703, 

736, 

981. 

2: 

3 

153. 

1045. 

1 

17 

256, 

257, 

359 

2 

4 

845. 

9 

14, 

2:.'. 

25       719. 

1 

18 

782, 

811, 

889 

2 

6 

653. 

9 

15 

718. 

1 

21 

485. 

2 

6-10 

678. 

9 

22 

645, 

760. 

1 

23, 

24 

543. 

2 

7 

315, 

706. 

9 

26 

943, 

1044. 

1 

23-25 

219, 

681. 

2 

8,9 

405, 

775. 

9 

27 

1001, 

1024. 

1 

27 

24. 

2 

9 

716, 

743. 

9 

27, 

28 

1023. 

2 

8 

572. 

2 

10 

675, 

745. 

9 

28 

718, 

1001, 

1004. 

2 

10 

543. 

2 

11 

476, 

680, 

692. 

10 

5-7 

234. 

2 

14-26 

846. 

2 

12 

891. 

10 

7 

830. 

2 

19 

457, 

837. 

2 

13 

697. 

10 

9 

539. 

2 

21, 

23, 

24        851. 

o 

14 

455, 

459, 

670, 

10 

12 

936. 

2 

23 

782. 

685. 

10 

19-25 

848. 

2 

25 

230. 

2 

14,15 

757. 

10 

22 

501, 

946. 

2 

26 

483. 

2 

16 

448, 

453, 

455, 

10 

25 

894, 

899. 

3: 

2 

573. 

464. 

476. 

687, 

10 

26, 

29. 

350. 

3 

9 

515. 

768, 

786. 

10 

27 

1052. 

3 

17 

297, 

911. 

2 

17 

720. 

10 

28 

650. 

4  : 

7 

458. 

2 

17,  18 

698, 

774. 

10 

31 

539, 

652, 

660, 

4 

12 

543. 

2 

18 

675. 

1056. 

4 

13-15 

423. 

3 

1 

791, 

909. 

4 

17 

542, 

553, 

648 

10 

38 

485. 

3 

3,  4 

310. 

5 

7 

1006. 

3 

12 

553, 

639. 

11 

1 

839. 

5 

8, 

9 

1007. 

3 

13 

899. 

11 

2 

675. 

5 

9 

236. 

3 

14,  16 

674. 

11 

3 

377. 

5 

11 

241. 

3 

18 

841. 

11 

•    4 

726. 

5 

14 

902. 

4 

4 

153. 

11 

:   4-7 

850. 

5 

16 

834. 

4 

6,  11 

841. 

11 

5 

995, 

996. 

c 

19, 

20 

850. 

4 

5-9 

410. 

11 

:   6 

643. 

c 

20 

660, 

992. 

4 

12 

484 

485, 

811. 

11 

•   8 

280,    441. 

4 

13 

282. 

11 

12 

234. 

L  PETER 

4 

15 

677. 

11 

:  13-16 

995, 

996. 

4 

15,   16 

698, 

774. 

11 

:31 

230, 

841. 

1 

1, 

2 

324, 

450, 

780 

5 

7 

674 

11 

:34, 

38 

165. 

781. 

5 

8 

675 

12 

:    2 

266. 

1 

2 

305, 

316, 

324 

5 

14 

16. 

12 

:   2, 

16 

717. 

778, 

782, 

788 

6 

1,2 

15. 

12 

6 

272, 

983. 

1 

3 

418, 

811. 

1156 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


L'H.    VERSE. 

PAGE. 

CH 

.    VE 

RSB. 

PAGE. 

CH 

.    VERSE. 

PAGE. 

1:    5 

848. 

2 

4 

296, 

382, 

450, 

5:    7 

261, 

288. 

1:  10, 

11 

235. 

464, 

786. 

5:  10 

200, 

844. 

1:  11 

134, 

137, 

id/, 

•1 

1, 

9 

1024. 

5:14, 

15 

848. 

206. 

•1 

9 

. 

1000, 

1002. 

5:16, 

17 

650. 

1:11, 

12 

200. 

2 

11 

445. 

5:17 

553. 

1:12 

445, 

450. 

3 

2 

200. 

5:18, 

19 

450. 

1:16 

290, 

296, 

302, 

3 

3-12 

1007. 

5:  19 

574. 

543. 

3 

4 

236. 

5:20 

260, 

308. 

1:18 

719. 

3 

5 

509, 

558. 

1:19 

677. 

3 

7, 

10 

1011, 

1024. 

2 

JOHN. 

1:  19, 

20 

266. 

3 

7, 

10,  13       1015. 

1:20 

780. 

3 

7-13 

287. 

7 

686, 

1005. 

1:23 

33, 

811, 

824. 

3 

15, 

16 

201. 

8 

293. 

2:    4, 

5 

795. 

3 

16 

200. 

2:    5 

774. 

3 

18 

16, 

311. 

3 

JOHN. 

2:    5, 

9 

805. 

2:    8 

355, 

784, 

790. 

] 

JOHN. 

2 

483. 

2:    9 

401, 

781, 

811. 

1 

1 

674. 

2:  17 

515. 

1 

3 

797. 

JUDE. 

2:21 

678, 

729, 

732. 

1 

5 

250, 

269, 

273, 

2:21, 

24 

717. 

344. 

3 

42, 

200,    202 

2:22 

677. 

1: 

7 

719. 

9<W. 

3:    1, 

2 

914. 

1 

7, 

8 

645. 

4 

790. 

3:    8 

904. 

1 

8 

573. 

6 

165, 

450,    458 

3:15 

311, 

739. 

1 

9 

289, 

739. 

1046. 

3:  16 

501. 

1 

12 

856. 

6, 

7 

1044. 

3:  18 

685, 

720, 

762. 

2 

1 

322, 

339, 

739, 

9 

165, 

448. 

3:18, 

20 

707, 

708. 

774. 

19 

484, 

485. 

3:19 

999, 

1000. 

2 

1, 

2 

323. 

21 

324. 

3:21 

501, 
941. 

776, 

821, 

2 
2 

2 
7 

720. 
40. 

23 
25 

899. 
275, 

388. 

3:32 

444. 

2 

7, 

8 

263. 

28 

1055. 

4:    6 

657, 

762, 

9S3. 

2 

18 

1006. 

4:   7 

236, 

1006. 

2 

20 

805, 

897. 

REVELATION. 

4:11 

401, 

641. 

3 

1, 

2 

474. 

4:  14 

256. 

3: 

2 

524, 

663, 

705, 

1 

1 

140. 

4:19 

288. 

806. 

1 

3 

1007. 

5:    1 

909. 

Q 

3 

678. 

1 

6 

776, 

917. 

5:    2 

894, 

911. 

3: 

3-6 

263. 

1 

7 

460, 

710,  1004, 

5:   2, 

3 

917. 

3 

4 

552. 

1005. 

5:    3 

898. 

3: 

5-7 

677. 

1:    8 

275, 

310. 

a:    6 

288. 

3: 

8 

459. 

1:  10 

410. 

5:    8 

454, 

455. 

3 

9 

418. 

1  :  10, 

11 

209. 

5:    9 

458. 

3 
3 

14 
16 

660, 

309. 

992. 

1  :  18 
1:  20 

1045. 
452. 

2 

PETER 

3: 
4: 
4: 

20 
1 
2 

647, 
440. 
674, 

722. 
684, 

686. 

2 : 

2:    1 
2:    6 

905. 
916. 
310. 

1:   3 

289, 

842. 

4: 

7 

68, 

152, 

570. 

2:    7 

999. 

1:    4 

475, 

515, 

592, 

4: 

7, 

8 

4. 

2:    8 

916. 

685, 

693, 

797, 

4: 

8 

250, 

263, 

336, 

2:  11 

983. 

811. 

520. 

2:12 

916. 

1:  10 

311 

791 

844. 

4: 

9 

716. 

2:  13 

448. 

1:  11 

776. 

4: 

10 

720, 

776. 

2:  18 

916. 

1:  16 

157. 

4: 

13 

844. 

2:21 

841. 

1:  19 

112. 

4: 

16 

797. 

3:    1 

916, 

992. 

1:19, 

20 

139. 

4  : 

19 

694. 

3:    7 

309, 

916. 

1:21 

137, 

197, 

200, 

4: 

21 

460. 

3:  14 

310, 

916. 

205, 

317, 

325, 

5: 

1 

893. 

3:20 

464, 

791,    839, 

339. 

5: 

4 

732. 

1003. 

2:  1 

717, 

771. 

5: 

6 

943. 

3: 

21 

805. 

INDEX    OF   SCRITTURE   TEXTS. 


1157 


1 II 

VERSE. 

PAGE. 

i  ii 

VERSE. 

PAGE. 

CH.    VERSE. 

PAGE. 

4 

3 

272. 

13: 

8 

266, 

285,   298, 

20:12 

1023. 

4 

6-8 

449. 

762. 

20:  12, 

13 

1023, 

1050. 

4 

8 

296. 

14 

10 

464. 

20:13 

1015. 

4 

11 

397, 

406. 

14: 

11 

660. 

20:14 

983, 

999. 

5 

1,7,9 

356. 

It 

13 

999. 

20:15 

781. 

5: 

6 

333, 

774. 

15 

1^ 

273, 

653. 

21:   4, 

5 

1018. 

5 

9 

449. 

15 

2 

274. 

21:   5 

209, 

810, 

1004. 

5 

10 

805. 

15 

8 

275. 

21:  8 

983, 

1048. 

5 

11 

447. 

15: 

13 

325. 

21:   9 

1048. 

5 

12 

140. 

16 

3 

485. 

21:10 

310. 

5 

13,  14 

311. 

16 

5 

273, 

653. 

21:11 

1049. 

5 

20 

665. 

16 

10 

448. 

21 :  14 

909. 

6 

9 

483, 

485. 

17 

17 

355. 

21:17 

781. 

6 

9-11 

999. 

18 

13 

445, 

516. 

21:22 

893. 

6 

10,  11 

1002. 

19 

2 

273, 

653. 

21:23 

256, 

712. 

6 

16 

350. 

19 

5 

653. 

22:   2 

914. 

896. 

19 

7 

796. 

21:27 

790. 

7 

16 

251. 

19 
19 

9 
10 

209. 
S42. 

22:    4 

67. 

7 

16,17 

77 1. 

19 

14 

448. 

22:   6 

200, 

465. 

8 

28,  29 

782. 

19 

15,  16 

775. 

22  :    8, 

9 

319, 

453, 

515. 

10: 

6 

278. 

20 

1-5 

403, 

1015. 

22:   9 

446. 

10 

8-11 

823. 

20 

2 

382, 

455. 

22:11 

851, 

852, 

1001, 

11 

11 

251. 

20 

2,  3 

425. 

1048. 

11 

17 

889. 

20 

2-10 

445. 

22:12, 

20 

1007. 

12 

9-12 

457. 

20 

4-6 

1008. 

22 :  13, 

14 

326. 

12 

10 

454. 

20 

6 

805. 

22:14 

527. 

12 

11 

732, 

751. 

20 

10 

382, 

457,   464, 

22:16 

680, 

697. 

12 

12 

445, 

461, 

20 

11-15 

1011. 

22:17 

392, 

547, 

796 

INDEX  OF  APOCRYPHAL  TEXTS. 


1    ESDKAS. 


CH.    VERSE. 

1:28 
1:38 

4:35-38 
6:  1 


PAGE. 
166. 

361. 
320. 
261. 


2    ESDRAS. 


3:  7 
3:21 

6  :  55,  66 

7:11 

7:46 

7:48 

7:118 

9:19 


626. 
626. 
156. 
626. 
626. 
626. 
626. 


Tobit. 
4  :  15  181. 

Judith. 
12 :  71  934. 


Esther,  Continuation  op. 


CH.    VERSE. 

1:   1 


PAGE. 

309. 


Wisdom. 


2 :  23,  24 

7:26 

7:28 

9 : 9, 10 
11:16 
11:17 


626. 
320. 
320. 
320. 
633. 
377. 


ECCLESIASTICUS,  Or  SlRACH. 


Prolog-ue 

2:   1 

2:30 
18:  1 
24  :  23-27 
25:24 
31:25 
48:24 


166. 

870. 


166. 
626. 
934. 
166. 


Baruch. 


CH.     VERSE. 

2:21 


PAGE. 

166. 


Bel  and  the  Dragon. 
Book  of  115. 

1  Maccabees. 


Book  of 

12:    9 


165,  309. 
166. 


2  Maccabees. 
2  :  13-15    <  167. 

6  :  23  166. 

7  :  28  377. 
12  :  o9                          1043. 

Book  op  Enoch. 
165. 
Assumption  of  Moses. 
Book  of  165. 


v.  9 


658. 


1158 


INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS. 


d  olSiv, 67 

aya69is, 821 

dya06i>, 562,  687 

ayandio, 261 

aya-nr), 35,  312 

ayainr-;  ri)i',  1  John  3: 16,  =  the  persona] 

Love, 309 

dyyt'Aous, 706 

dyidiju), 728 

ayviotriav  ©eou  Ttpes  4\ov<riv, _  68 

ayuiv a, 870 

aywvC^ov, 870 

aypa<f>os  vd/uos, 511 

dSi^'a, 552 

dfleoi  iv  xcp  k6<t^w,  forsaken  of  God, 68 

aBepdnevTov , 67 1 

'Aiorjs, 991 

dtfios, 1041,  1016 

aVjuaTi, 753 

alptnicbs  av8pu>no<;,  meaning  in  Titus  3 :  10,  971 

aipa>v,  its  meaning-  in  John  1 :  29, 719 

aio-Srjo-is,   spiritual    discernment,    Phil. 

1:9, 440 

aitiv, 1038,1044,1045,1016 

aiu>ra, . 307 

alamos, 1038,  1014,  1015,  1016 

aitoros, 1025 

oiuj ioj i",  Trpb  T<I>r, _ 275 

dAjjfleia, 204,  549 

<1Aj)0?js,  the  Veracious, 260 

<iAT,0t«k,  1  John  5 :  20, 151,  260,  308 

dAAo  ko\  dAAo  and  the  cis, 671 

dAAo?  kcu  dAAos  and  the  avvd<pna., 671 

aixapTdviiv,  Kom.  5 :  12,  19, 626 

ap-apTdvovaiv, 626 

inaprCa, 552,  657,  706,  714,  761,  832,  851 

dfiap  no  Aoi  KaTecrTaflrja'at', 627 

dfiapTiu\bv  yiyveaBai. 626 

dfifos, 151 

di'd, 523 


dvafiaivuiv, 

dyaKe^aAaiioo-ao-Oat, 

d  caACcrai, 

dvd(TTa<Ti.v  jue'AAeii',  ecreaflai, 


935 
680 
999 

998 


av&pos, 494 

avtfiriaav,  __ 935 

di-rjp,    ... 666 

dp0pion-u'7js  <TO(j)ias, JSIO 


drflpwn-os, 506,  523,  974 

dvoixia,  the  state  of, 552 

di'TdWayixa, 717,  721 

avrC, 717,  720 

'SfcUaplnts, * 903,  917,  918 

di'TiAuTpor, 717 

dvvnodTaala, 673,  679 

dvo>, 523 

dn-'dpn,  ._ 1003 

d7ra|,  once  for  all, ....200,  885,  967 

dna£  Xtydfitvov, 222 

diravyacr/xa,  ._ 336 

dweBdvere, 803 

dneL0rj<ra<riv,  1  Tet.  3:20, 708 

dirrikddrif, 233 

dirrjKyrjKOTei, 647 

dn-Aiis  eV,  to, 245 

d™,.. 833,  1034 

dwb  6  oil', „  151 

diroKa\vnT£70Li, ._ 26 

dn-OKaAvi/iis, .  13 

aTro/JLvrjIxoi'^vixaTa, mm  148 

dwo&uHTei,  aTro&uiri, .  231 

diroOavwi', 851 

dTrocrTacria, 552,  1008 

dnompifyui, 829 

d7roTc'Aeo-|uia,  genus  apotclcsmaticum, 686 

d7rpoo"Aj)7TToi'  /ecu  dflepdjrei/TOP,  to,  a  patristic 

dictum, 671 

dirtZXeia, 721,  993 

<?.7rioAeTO, 993 

dpviov, 151 

dpTt, 1003 

dpTO  AaTpta, 

dp^dyyeAos, 


a-PXV- 


310, 


<*PXV,  E"i 

"PX^'i 

dpx'^pev9, - 

do-e'(3eio, 

aTTlKl^WI', 

auTo/adnj, 

a  vto?, 

auTcp, 

avTajp, 

d^aW^a), .. 

d(f>opi'craTe, . 

paTrT;$u>,_ 933,  931,  935,  937,  938,  912, 


320 
675 
309 
450 
320 
552 
665 
393 
310 
837 
906 
993 
906 
948 


1159 


1160 


INDEX   OF    GREEK    WORDS. 


/3curTi<Tp.a,_ 933 

fio.TTTicrij.6s, 937 

jSaTTTo), 933,  934,  938 

j3dpj3apoi, 579 

fiacrdvOLS,  ev, 999 

fia.o~ikev6vTa>v, 445 

/3acriAevs  t£>v  aiiuvoiv, 275 

06e'Au-yp.a  tt)s  epij/ucoo-etos, 151 

)3oiA>),  arb itrium,  Willklir, 557 

j3pox<5  ti,  its  translation  in  Heb.  2:7, 706 

yeyovev, _ 311 

yiypaTTTai, _   148 

yei'yjcrontiioi', 1019 

yivijcrovTai, _  914 

•yei-dp-eras, _. 705 

■y«-os, _ 681 

yy, - - 393 

yjjs  £iJ.r)<;  o7T7)Aa07ji', 233 

yiyvuMTKWcrii', __  841 

yivuiCKfcrdai, » 781 

yivuxjKia, 781 

yvoVra, 701 

y^w, 221 

y»wis,  1  Tim.  6 :  20 ;   cf.  eViyi'coo-is,  2  Pet. 

1:2, 31,  841 

yvtocrrov  rov  6eov, 26    68 

vpa0>i,  r),  singular  denotes  unity, 199 

8<t'Vw", 500 

cieSciccu'w/iiai,  SeSiKaiiaTai, __  851 

Seu'rtpos  Oeds,  applied    by    Pbilo   to  his 

Log-os, 320 

Sefap.ei'ot,  1  Thess.  1 :  6, 708 

Sid    ttCcttiv,    justification    not,  but    Sid 

Jricrrecos  or  «  wicrTeius, 864 

Sid    TO     tvOlKOVV      and       Sid      TOU     eVoiKOUl'TOS 

Rom.  8:11, 488,  1017 

Sid  toOto,  Rom.  5  ;  12, 39 

Sia.9rJKT]v, _ qh 

SiaKoveiv  Tpan^ais, _ gj8 

SiaKovia, 90^  g17 

SlaKovos, QA'T 

cUd/SoAos, __ _ 454 

SlSaKTlKOV, nlK 

SlSaKTOlS, 2]0 

StfidcTKaAos,. 909 

Sir)\0ev,  _ _ goo 

Sixaioi  KaTacrTadrjcrovTai, _     027 

cu/caios, oqi 

SiKciioo-vvr,, 852,  853 

SiKa.io<rvvri     &eov,    that     required  and 

provided  for  by  God, 847,  852,  853 

SiKaiocrvvrji'  Troirjcr&Tia, _  851 

SiKaiocrvvtjv,  tt)V  iSiav,  repudiated  by  Paul,  852 

SiKaiocrvvrj  jri'o-rea)5,  or  etc  7ricrT6<os, 852 

Si/caioa-vi'Tjs, 753 

*««"><«,  - 850,  851,  853 

SiKaimOei'Ta, 85a 

Si/caiio/ia, 852 

Si/caiWis, 852,  853 

8tXai - 483 

M"?", - 151 

So/cfi,.- _ 242,  670 

s°$Wi - -  307,  336 


SouAeuco, . 576 

SouAoi, _ 579 

Spd/covTa,  toV,  6  oc/>is, 151 

Suvd/xeis, 117 

Siio, 345 

eavTov,  LXX,  for  Hebrew  'his  soul,' 485 

eauTous, 780 

eyyu's,  Phil.  4:  5,. 1006 

eyeVeTO, _ .  687 

eyvixiv, „   781 

ziSov  oxAos  rroAu's, 151 

eUiiv, 335 


^at,rb, 377, 

einev  aiiTcu, 

e?s, ' 313,  627, 

cis, 935, 

eisand  em,  Rom.  3:22, 

eis  avTov, 

eis  oi'Ofna,  .. 

eis  ere, 

eij  to  ovo/ua, 

ei?  t'ov  KoAnw,  John  1:  18, 


eV, 833, 

'E/cSocas     d/cpi(3i)s     t^s     op8oS6£ov      7rio"Teios, 

earliest  work  on  Systematic  The- 
ology,  '. 

ciceiVos,  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,. 


753 
306 
671 
948 
722 
837 
312 
924 
951 
337 
891 


e/ceVtocrev,  Phil.  2  :  7, 

e/oypujei-,. 

iKK\r>o-ia, 890,  891,  892,  905,  906, 

etcic\r}criav, 

cAevOepias, 

e\rj\v8oTa, . 

eAAoyaTcu, . 

eV, 313, 

«V,  its  force  with  jSairricJu), 

eV  dpxfj,  John  1:1, 

€P  crapKi  £\y}\v66tcl, 

EVfieifis,  Rom.  3:25, 

tl'OlKOVV,  €I'Ol*oG»'TOS, 

evvTroo~Tao~ia., . 

eViocris, - 

eVa>0"is  vTTOO~TaTiKrj7 

e£  dfi6p<j)ov  iiArjs,. ..  , 

efaKoAevfJe'w, _ 

c^TjyijcraTO, 

eJiAdcro/ica, . 729, 

e'f  ovk  oi'Ttoi',  c.c  nihilo,  2  Maccabees  7 :28, 

igovo-iav,  John  1 :  12, 

€7r'  avTip, 

incvSvcrao-eai,  2  Cor.  5  :  2,  4, 235, 

irrepiuTrjixa., 

i-rri, 772, 

cjri'yi'wcus,  2  Pet.  1:12;  cf.  y>'u)o-t9, 1  Tim. 

6  :  20,  31,  iniyi'tacTis  djuaprias, 

eTriBvixia,  state, -- 

en-io-KOTros, 897,  902,  914, 

eTTlCTKOTTOVl'Te';, 914, 

e7rtcrTpe'c/)a>, 

erriTayri  Kvpt'ou, 

liTiifidveia, _ 

entxoprjyriaaTe, 

eP7a, 


44 
323 
701 

707 
912 
308 
549 
687 
594 
352 
935 
309 
687 
753 

1017 
679 
671 
673 
377 
157 
349 
737 

,  377 
825 
873 
998 
821 

,  833 

832 
552 
915 
915 
829 
221 
307 
871 
117 


INDEX   OF   GREEK    WORDS. 


1161 


ipyov  tou  ©eou, _ __  _ 

!pXeT<u  ^Pa.  John  5  :  28-30, 

io-Krji'toaev,  John  1:14, - 234, 

forriv, 310,  562. 

iriBrfv,  _  _ 

«uAoy7)Tds,  Rom.  9:5, 

eipefleis,  Phil.  2 :  8, 

e<*>' <?,  Rom.  5 :  12, 39, 

e(j>aveput0T), 

i<pddPr),  Gen.6: 11,  LXX, 

€\Spa,  state, 

heP°i, 

£i£diaa, 

(u>r„  ... 311,  626, 

£u>oyot>ovvTOS  TO.  TravTa, 412, 

rjyovjiti'Oi, 

>)0os  ai>6pu)mp  Sa.ip.toi', 

»}AdTT(oo"as, 

foapTov, 610,  622,  623,  625, 

>V, 309, 

riptp-ia,  rest,  sum  mi  t  of  AristotleVslope" 

(JaraTos, 

0a><aT<o0eis, 

0*la, 

0etov, 57, 

fleios  dtrjp, 

6i\r\p.a,  voluntas,  Willc, 

fleo7ri'eii(TT05, 197, 

fleds,.._.57,  305,  306,  307,  308,  309,  321,  342, 

OtoD, 731,  781, 

9r,piov, 

0prjO~K€ia., 

Opdfos, 

0vaiat . 

tepujTaTOS, 

c Ad<TKO/iat,  __ 

l\aapos, . 

iAao-Tr}pio»', 

'IopSdnji/, 

'\aaa.K, 

jcadaipcu, 

Kafloparai,  __ 

Katpat, .... 

KaKia, __ 

KaAew, 891, 

KaAdr, 

Kaviuv,  .  _ 

Kap7rotpopei, 

K.O.T  oIkov,  Acts  2:  46, 960, 

icaTa|3oAr)s  Koo-p-ov,  ?rpd,_ 

KaTapa, 

KaTacrTaBrjo-ovTai, . 

KaTe<TTOL0^(Tav, 

/caTe(3rjO"a»', 

KarrjpTio-jUeW,  Rom.  9  :  23, 

icei'Tvpi'wi', 

K-npvvo-civ,  1  Pet.  3: 18-20, 

(cAijpos, 

(coiiwta,  1  Cor.  10 :  16,  17 ;  1  John  1 :  3, 
798,  807, 

KoAa£op.tVovs,  2  Pet.  2:9, 

K6\ao-f;,  Mat.  25 :  46  ;  1  John  4 :  18, 

/CoA7TO>, 


847 
998 
687 
687 
919 
306 
705 
626 
308 
993 
552 
719 
149 
1045 
883 
897 
506 
106 
626 
310 
580 
626 
708 
166 
681 
666 
557 
205 
517 
847 
151 

24 
307 
728 
203 
728 
728 
753 
935 
517 
728 

68 
753 
552 
896 
870 
145 
393 
961 
275 
761 
627 
627 
935 
780 
151 
707 
911 

965 
1000 
1036 

337 


KOU/X05, 

KOtTfiOS  yOTlTOS, 

Koap-ov, 

KTiVews, 

KTiVts,  creatura, 

ktL<jti}<;,  ov  Te^i'tTT)?, ._ 

(cvjSep.'.jo-ets,  1  Cor.  12  :  28, 902, 

Kvpiaicri,  Kirche,  kirk,  church, 

KVpitVOVTOiV, 

Kdpios, .  306, 

KVplOV, ._ 

Kvpiov  Ili-ed/ua-ros,  2  Cor.  3  :  18, 

Aa0ui.',  Phil.  2:7, 

AeAovjaeVot, 

Adyta, 

Aoyiiav  KvptaKioy  c£»7y>]cri9, 

Aoyttrfleiji, 

Adyos,  2,  305,  306,   321,    335,   342,   549,  665, 
687, 

Adyos  (taTr)\r;TiKbs  d  /tis'ya;,  by    Gregory  of 

Nyssa, 

Adyos  o*Trtp/xaTi«ds, 

Adyos  o~oc/>tas, 

Adyo;  Tt'Aeios, 

Adyou  ©ciou  Tiros, 

Aodw, 

Ai/7rj)  Kara  ©cop, 

AuTTTl  TOU  KOtTp-OV, 

Al/TpOl',  __ 717,    720, 

jae'yas  #eds,  d, 

/xecriTT)?, 

/u.£Ta/3oAij, -- - 

|U£Ta/oLeAeia, 

p.erapi\opLaL, - 

/xerdroia, - 

jut]  yrdi'Ta  apapTiav, 

fir;  ovtos, - 

p.6vr)  dpx>], 

/u.oi'oyei'>js, 

p.oi'oyei'rjs  ©cds,  variant  in  John  1 :  18,  306, 
p.op4>fi  ©eoO,  Phil.  2:  6, 

pop(ji tjv  SodAou, 

fiV0OC5, 

p.v<nr\piov, 

/xdui, - 

Mwo-rjs  cmiKi^iav, 

veaviaKOi, 

pe/cpou, 

v£p.ti>, ..... 

i/etorepoi, . - 

1/d/u.os, - 533, 

vd/uos  re'Aetos,  JaS.  1 :  25,.- 

voadf, 

vooup.eva,  Rom.  1  :  19-21, 

voOs, 33,  68,  352,  394,  670, 

?/0c   €<TTlV, 

6,  in  John  1:1  and  4: 24, 

dSrjyeil', 

oi  wdi'Tes,  2  Cor.  5:14, 

oi  jroAAot,  Rom.  5:18, 

016'ei', 

otKet, 

oiKi'a, . . . 


563 

320 

275 

341 

392 

388 

917 

891  , 

445  ! 

309 

308 

315 

705 

936 

148 

149 

594 

700 

4i 
665 
200 
549 
111 
936 
832 
832 
721 

57 
710 
672 
833 
832 
833 
761 
377 
327 
336 
341 
705 
705 
157 
691 

31 

665- 
918 
934 
533 
918 
541 
549 

39 

68 
671 
998 
305 
151 
623 
627 

67 
562 
961 


1162 


INDEX    OF    GREEK    AVORDS. 


o'/co?, 960,  9G1 

6p.oiovo-i.ov  and  6/u.oou<riof, 339,  336,  700 

6/ioiuj/j.aTi  (rap/cos  dp.apTi'as,  eV, 706 

op.oi<os, 626 

iivrpoirov,  Acts  1:11, 1004 

bvopa, 951 

6pv>j,  Rom.  1:18, 26 

opicrfleVros, 341 

6p0u>s  irpoaeviyKjfs,  Gen.  4 :  7, 727 

on  oISei>, .     67 

oil  ra£et, .  149 

ovSef  i/xavTw  avvoiSa, 851 

ovSe'irore, 781 

ovpavos, 309 

ovpa.v-o, 681,  686,  697 

ovtri'a, 333,  578,  673 

outus,  Rom.  5:  12, 626 

JTaTs, 697 

™i/,to, 102,  392 

■ndvTa,  Ta, 103 

ndvra  Si'  O.VTOV  iyevtro, 311 

7rafTas, __ 772 

navrti  ijp.apToe,  Rom.  5 :  12, 622,  623,  626 

jrapa, 337,  341 

•japa^aivrnv, 614 

T-o.pa.0rJKT)v, 149,  882 

n-apaxaAii, 914 

TrapaKATjros, 323,  339,  710 

TrapaKorj,  Rom.  5: 19, 627 

7rdp€<ris, .  753 

wopprjeria, 808 

rrai-rjp, _ 448 

7raTpta, 334,  448 

7rec.ro  v, 151 

7re7ri'(7TeuKas, 306 

nepi, 210,  714.  833 

Ilepi  'Apxuv,  of  Origen, 44,  489 

Ilepi    toO  IlvOayopiKov  ftiov,  of    IambliCUS,  111 

7repi77<iTeu', 151 

7repix">pi7<ris, 333 

ntVpu), 149 

jret/>vKds, 580 

■mo-TtvovTas, 772 

7TK7Tei;'co, 838 

Jiio-Ttcos, 753,  847,  864,  870 

Tmrrts, 838,  851 

Ttkr)pmp.a, 348,  796 

Trvei^a,   213,   323,   483-488,    490,    491,    562, 

670,  671,  686,  687,  688,  707,  1017 

jri'eujuaTi, 708 

■nvtvp-txTucov,  ..i 1017 

JTl'tlip.aTOS, 210 

jroieiV, 151 

TTOtrj/iacTlJ',  rots, 68 

Troip-aiVeif, 151,  914 

jroip-dVaTe, 914 

7rotp.eVas, 903 

7r<H/u.r}f,  eis, 914 

Ttoipvy),  p-ta, 914 

■rtoip.vi.ov, 964 

iroiVr), 652 

ttoAcs, 337,  900 

7roAAoi, ... ...... 637 


tioWovs, 627 

voKKi-v, 717,  720 

jroAup.epui?,.. i  221 

TToAl/TpOTTlOS, 214 

iroiripia, 55? 

jrpacriai  7rpacriai, ]51 

rrpeaPurepo';, 914,  915 

TrpoyivuiaKia, 781 

npoiyvto, 781 

TrpoeOero ..  753 

TrpoicrTdp.evos, 897,  903 

Trpds,  John  1:1, 337 

Ttpoo~eveyKT)S, 727 

TTpocrei'exO'eis, 967 

7rpocTTdTr)s, 897 

rrpocr<f>opd, 728 

TrpdtrwTTor, 333,  673 

7rpoi£rJT7is, 710 

WpiOTOTOKOS, 341 

pavTio-tovTat.,  variant  in  Mark  7  : 4, 934 

pai'Tt<rp.ds, 937 

tropica, 307 

o-apKi, 562,  687 

crapKos, 687,  706 

<rap£, 552,  562,  563,  687 

o-€, - 924 

trccroiptcTp.e'i'Oi.s, _ 157 

0-qp.elov, 11" 

o~K7)voiiv  iv, 151 

votpi^eti', 157 

tTTTCKOuAaTlOp, 151 

CTTrep/iaTiKOS, 665 

o-neppaTuiv, 233 

ovyxvo-is, 672 

<TV/jt3oAAeii', 42 

o~vp.Traoicop.ev, „ 803 

<ji/p.7re(pu/cios, 941 

■TVp.TTpiafivTtpO<-, 914 

<rup.<puTos, 796,  941 

<rvp.e/>unrjt9j),  avp<i>u>vrio--oo'iv, 927 

trvv  Xpt<TT<p  cicat, 999 

cri/ydtpcia, 671 

■rvvSo^ao-0-op.tv, 803 

0~VVtC,-00T!oiT)O~tV, 803 

<tui'€L(St)o'€u>9  a.ya6r)<;  €7repcoT>jp.a, 821 

■TvveoTavpuip.a.1, 803 

■rvverd(prip.€v, 803 

■Twrjyep0riTe, 803 

awTe'Aeia,  Mat.  13:39, 1025 

crXoAjj, 38 

o-i-p-a, 484,  487.  671,  1019 

CTlUliaTOS  TOV   XpiCTTOU, .    965 

<ra>crai  and  crwSiji'ai, 791 

<ru)Tr}pos  rjpuiv, 307 

o-^p-ov,  1  Tim.  3  :  2, 39 

Tafa, 149 

Ta<7<ru>, <80 

TeAeios, 8(9 

Tf  Aos, Wo 

Tipvia,.. 483,  484 

117 


repara,.. . 

Teray-ievot,  Act8  13:43,. 
T-\Tpa\i\\.ia  p.iva, 


780 
283 


INDEX    OF   GKEEK    WORDS. 


11G3 


Te^viTr)?,  _  . 388 

Tijun, 71" 

TO  ■yroXTTOl'  TOU  ©€o0, 26 

to  oe  ko.9'  els,  to  6e  Ka.9'  era, 151 

toG  6i6oVtos  ®eo0, 255,  440 

toOto, 781 

Tpaire^ac;, 918 

Tpi\a, 484 

TpOTTOl", 1005 

u/3pis, 569 

Gyi»J9,  - 39 

uoaTa,  iiSaTos,    935 

vSiap, - 935 

mo.*, 307 

utofleai'a, 335 

Ski,, 321,  378,  700 

viraKOiij, 62* 

vnaKorj  jri'<TTe<us, 847 

iirep, 210,  710 

imip  and  ai'Ti, 717 

iintpfidWovcra  Trjs  yriocreu>s, 31 

u7roo"Tdo*ews, 336 

V7rdoTaa'is, ■-- 333,  6i3 

imo<TTa<TTtKri, 673 

vartpov  IltTpO), . 149 


Go"TepoCl'T<H, «...    6*v3 

(paye'ptoo-is,  Kom.  1 :  19,  20, 13 

(pepdM^oi,  2  Pet.  1:21, 205 

(pOei'pw, 993 

<piAeu>, 264 

(puAaKr},  eV, 99b 

<puo-is,  natwra, 392,  579 

Xapa/cTnp,  Heb.  1:3, 336 

Xaptv  afTi  ^dptTO^, **5o 

Xa-P'S  and  opyrj,  __ - 26 

XeipoTorrjo'ai'Tes, 90b,  907 

Xpio-Tds, 1016 

Xpio-ToG, 965 

Xpovos  and  atiu^, -- 1045 

Ytopi?, ... .. oil,     *  O  l 

\pv\ai, . 4oD 

<pvXri,   352,  385,  483-487,  490,  491,  671,  717,  1017 

\j/v\iKoi, 48a 

i//u\aK<>,'» - 1017 

£„, 349,  681,  686,  697 

uipa, 998 

(ipto>eVos,  Acts  10:  42 780 

(OS  a  l'0p<O7TOS, 614 

i^,, 523 


INDEX   OF   HEBREW  WORDS. 


K,  Codex  Sinaiticus, 306,  308,  449,  08 1 

697,  Sol,  891,  915,  9154. 
|V3N,  'poor,'  whence  term  '  Ebionite,* ... 

DHN,   HoS.  6:7,  D1N3,   w«  ariJpwTros  LXX, 

"like  men  that  break  a  covenant," 

'rw, .... 

n;nx.  Exod.  3:14, 1  am, 252, 

7N,  a  singular  noun,  might  have  been 

used  instead  of  D'H/X, 

rwX,  to  fear,  to  adore,  root  of  D'Tl^X, 
DTt^X, 

employed  with  singular  verb, 

applied  to  Son, 

not  a  pluralis  majestaticus, 

according  to  Oehler, "  a  quantitative 
plural," 

its  deri vati«  >n, 

tOS,  implies  production  of  effect  with- 
out natural  antecedent, 

in  Kal  used  only  of  God, 

never  has  accusative  of  material,. . . 

used,  in  Gen.  1  and  2,  to  mark  intro- 
duction of  world  of  matter,  life, 
and  spirit, 

distinguished  from  words  signify- 
ing '  to  make'  and  'to  form,' 

in  Gen.  1 : 2,  must  mean  '  calling  into 
being,' 

the  original  signification  'to  cut,' 
though  retained  in  Piel,  does  not 
militate  against  a  more  spiritual 
sense  in  other  species, 

the  only  word  for  absolute  creation 
in  Hebrew, 

the  meaning  '  creation  by  law  '  sug- 
gested,  


374 


;>75 


375 


::;•; 


376 


i,    fHMi  '  the  likeness  of  God,'  according 
to  Moehler :  '  the  pious  exercise  of 

DSv ,  the  religious  faculty,' 522 

according  to  Romanist  theologians, 

a  product  of  man's  obedience, 520 

ou»  j        a  synonym  of  D^/lf, 521 

257    JTtf,  "seed,"  Gen.  22:18,  referred  to  in 

Gal.  3:16, 233 

Nipn,  i/j-apravoi,  Hiphil,  to  make  a  miss, 

Judges  20:16, 552 

riXDn,  i^apWa,  missing,  failure,  appli- 
cable not  merely  to  act  but  like- 
wise to  state, 552 

Hl'iT,  309 

Dl'\  'day,'  Gen.  1, 35 

its  hyperliteral  interpretation, 394 

often  used  for  a  period  of  indefinite 

duration, 394 

theory    that    'six    days'    indicates 

series  merely, _    395 

a  scheme  harmonizing  the   Mosaic 
'six  days'  creation  with  the  order 

of  the  geologic  record, 393-397 

"Oft - — .  375 

D'Dn3,  Ez.  1,  Ex.  37:6-9,  Gen.  3:24, 449 

to  be  identified  with  the 'seraphim  ' 

and  'the  living  creatures,' 449 

are  temporary  symbolic  figures, 449 

symbols  of  human  nature  spiritual- 
ized and  sanctified, 449 

exalted  to  be  the  dwelling-place  of 

God, 449 

symbols  of  mercy, 449 

angels    and    cherubim    never    to- 
gether,   449 


392 

1165 


1166 


INDEX    OF   HEBREW    WORDS. 


D'3n3  (continued), 

in  closing  visions  of  Revelation  no 

longer  seen, 449 

some  regard  them  as  symbols   of 

divine  government, 449 

list  of  authorities  on, 449 

3TG, 309 

JTIJT  ^JX 7P'  identifies  himself  with  Je- 
hovah,  319 

is  so  identified  by  others,. 319 

accepts  divine  worship, 319 

with  perhaps  single  exception  in 
O.  T.,  designates  pre-incarnate  Lo- 
gos,   319 

|1J?,  dSiKia  lxx,  bending,  perverseness, 
iniquity,  referring  to  state  as  well 

as  act, 552 

nt!M?, 375 

lp3,  judicial  visitation,  punishment,...  657 
p&D,  a<re'/3cia  lxx,  separation  from,  re- 
bellion, indicative  of  state  as  well 

as  act, 552 

D  7V,  Gen.  1 :  26,  according  to  Moehler, 

'the  religious  faculty,' 522 

according  to  Bellarmine, '  ipsa  natu- 
ra  mentis  et  voluntatis ' 522 


D7¥  (continued), 

according  to  Scholastic  and  Roman- 
ist theologians,  alone  belonged  to 

man's  nature  at  its  creation, 

required  addition    of   supernatural 
grace  that  it  might  possess  original 

righteousness, 

a  synonym  of  rUO"!,  

p"jl>,  Hiphil  form  in  Dan.  12 : 3,  best  ren- 
dered 'they  that  justify  many,'... 
7ilp,  its  meaning  in  O.  T.and  Targums, 
perhaps  used  by  Christ  in  Mat.  18 :  17, 
how  it  differs  from  exKAqai'a, 

^'  

JH,  bad,  evil, 

j?Bn,  a  wicked  person, 

7N£%  an  alleged  root  of  Sheol, 

b^ttf,  a  probable  root  of  Sheol, 

bvf, 

7l'Kttf,  its  derivation, 

its  root-meaning, 

the  soul  is  still  conscious  in, 

God  can  recover  men  from, 

D'SntP,  Is.  6:2,  to  be  identified  with  the 
'cherubim'  of  Genesis,  Exodus 
and  Ezekiel,  and  with  '  the  living 
creatures'  of  Revelation, 


580 


520 
521 

850 
892 
892 
892 
309 
552 
552 
994 
994 
994 
994 
994 
994 


449