il'l^l^ 
 
.^0^™^^.^. 
 
 '^% 
 
 :MR 1 1921 
 
 BT 75 .J6 1895 
 
 Johnson, E. H. 18A1-1906 
 
 An outline of systematic 
 theology 
 
 
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 
nSna ioxifidZere, to xaXdv xarej^ert. 
 
AN OUTLINE 
 
 OF 
 
 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 
 E. H. JOHNSON, D. D. 
 
 Proftssor in Crozer Theological Seminary 
 [fifth xdition] 
 
 AND OF 
 
 ECCLESIOLOGY 
 
 HENRY G. WESTON, D. D. 
 
 Frtiidtnt of Crozer Theological Seminary 
 
 PHILADSLPHIA 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY 
 
Copyright 1895 by the 
 AusiuCAN Baptist Publication Socibti 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE THIRD EDITION 
 
 A LARGE part of the second edition having been destroyed 
 by fire, an opportunity is afforded in this third edition to cor- 
 rect certain errors, retouch the text, and add a second index. 
 
 THE AUTHORS. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE SECOND EDITION 
 
 In this edition, besides many emendations, some enlarge- 
 ment, and the addition of a few footnotes, a section has been 
 added on the Limitations of Systematic Theology ; the section 
 on Conservation has been recast to meet the demands of re- 
 cent discussions, and that on Election and Calling revised 
 with careful regard to the distinction between express teach- 
 ings of Scripture and inference from various sources ; Presi- 
 dent Weston has contributed an outline of Ecclesiology, and 
 Indexes have been provided for the whole. 
 
 New Testament quotations are mostly from the version of 
 Drs. Hovey, Broadus, and Weston. 
 
 E. H. JOHNSON. 
 
 Ckozer Thbological Seminary, June, 1895. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION 
 
 This book is the basis of lecture-room expositions and 
 discussions which extend through the Middle and Senior 
 years of the regular course in the Crozer Theological Semi- 
 nary. Its statements have therefore been made as succinct 
 as possible. 
 
IV PREFACE 
 
 Except in the case of one or two important quotations, and 
 the recommendation in a footnote to Section First of works 
 for general consultation, references to theological literature 
 are reserved for the class-room, and would hardly be looked 
 for in a book so small as this. 
 
 I cannot too heartily acknowledge my obligations to my 
 own revered theological teacher, Dr. E. G. Robinson. The 
 stimulus received from him, as he meant should be the case, 
 is not the less marked at points where I have reached an 
 independent conclusion. The emphatic counsel to his stu- 
 dents, to eschew speculation and hold to facts, indicates at 
 once the path of safety and the method of real progress. 
 No one who follows this advice can escape a certain individ- 
 uality of view, especially as Systematic Theology affords 
 room for diversity of judgment within the limits of denom- 
 inational accord. 
 
 I have followed the natural and logical plan of Dr. Robin- 
 son in placing the doctrine of Inspiration in the Introduction, 
 and in deferring that of the Trinity to Soteriology. For rea- 
 sons given at the proper point, I have quite departed from 
 the customary order in treating "the doctrines of grace." 
 
 The doctrine of the church and its ordinances is not pre- 
 sented in this work, because it belongs to another department 
 of instruction, that of Practical Theology. For my views on 
 baptism and communion, I beg leave to refer to a tract of 
 eighty-eight pages lately issued by the Publication Society 
 under the title " Uses and Abuses of the Ordinances." 
 
 E. H. JOHNSON. 
 
 Crozbr Theological Sbminarv, May la, 1891. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 PART FIRST 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 1. — Definition 1 
 
 General 1 
 
 Special 1 
 
 Title- 1 
 
 2. — Rdaiion to Religion 2-4 
 
 Practical 2 
 
 Theoretical 2 
 
 Conclusion 3 
 
 3. — Possibility of Knovdng God... 4-7 
 
 I. Agnostic Positions 4 
 
 II. Keplies to Agnosticism.^... 5 
 
 1. General Refutation 5 
 
 2. Special Replies 5 
 
 III. Cautions 7 
 
 4. — Sources of Theology 7-9 
 
 1. Bible..'. 7 
 
 2. Church 8 
 
 3. Man 8 
 
 4. World 9 
 
 5. — Relations of Sources 9-19 
 
 I. World and Mind 9 
 
 First Truths and Em- 
 piricism 9 
 
 (a) Origin of First Truths 
 
 conjectural 10 
 
 (b) Validity recognizable 10 
 
 (c) Faculty of Intuition orig- 
 
 inal 10 
 
 {d) Faculty developed 10 
 
 SECT. PAOB 
 
 II. Science and Bible 1 
 
 The Issue 1 
 
 1. Subject to Evidence 1 
 
 2. Authority of Science 1 
 
 3. Work and Word of God. 1 
 
 4. Evolution not Origina- 
 
 tion 12 
 
 III. Intuition and Bible 12 
 
 1. Schleiermacher 12 
 
 2. Ne^v Theology 12 
 
 3. Conservative Orthodoxy. 12 
 
 4. Mediating View 12 
 
 Issue stated 13 
 
 Standards compared 13 
 
 1. In Intrinsic Worth 13 
 
 2. In Intelligibility 15 
 
 3. In History 16 
 
 Conclusions 17 
 
 IV. Church and Bible 18 
 
 1. As to Priority 18 
 
 2. As to Canon 19 
 
 3. As to Clerical Authority. 19 
 6. — Relations of Theological Sci- 
 ences 19-21 
 
 1. Apologetics 20 
 
 2. Isagogics 20 
 
 3. Exegesis 20 
 
 4. Biblical Theology 20 
 
 5. Historical Theology 20 
 
\i 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 ■■CT. PAOS 
 
 6. Systematic Theology 21 
 
 7. Practical Theology 21 
 
 7— Aims 21-22 
 
 1. Direct 21 
 
 2. Incidental 22 
 
 8. — Limitations 22-23 
 
 1. Finiteness 22 
 
 2. Excgeeie 22 
 
 3. Fads 23 
 
 9.— Methods 23 
 
 10. — Inspiration 24-35 
 
 I. Definitions 24 
 
 II. Evidences 24 
 
 1. Revelation 24 
 
 2. Illumination 24 
 
 3. Inspiration 25 
 
 Non-prophetic and non- 
 apostolic Writers 25 
 
 III. Phenomena of Inspiration. 26 
 
 1. Diversity of efiects 26 
 
 2. Relations of Offices 27 
 
 SECT. rA»m 
 IV. Divine and Human Ele- 
 ments 28 
 
 1. Divine Element 28 
 
 2. Human Element 29 
 
 (o) Avowed in Phrases 29 
 
 (6) Secular Sources 29 
 
 (c) Personal Idiosyncra- 
 
 sies 29 
 
 (d) Characteristics of Race 
 
 and Time 29 
 
 A Caution 30 
 
 V. Authority of Bible 31 
 
 1. Bible Infallible 31 
 
 2. Needs Interpretation 31 
 
 VI. Theories of Inspiration 31 
 
 1. Naturalistic 31 
 
 2. Partial 32 
 
 3. Plenary 33 
 
 A. Verbal 33 
 
 B. Dynamical 33 
 
 Remarks 34 
 
 PART SECOND 
 
 THEOLOGY PROPER 
 
 ■BCr. PAGE 
 
 U.—ExiMence of God 36-59 
 
 Present State of A rgument.. 36 
 Existence of God not First 
 
 Truth 36 
 
 (o) Not Self-evident 36 
 
 (b) Not General Principle... 37 
 
 (c) Not Logical Correlate.... 37 
 
 (d) Inferable from First 
 
 Truths 37 
 
 Results of Discussion 38 
 
 (a) Empiricism discredited... 38 
 
 (b) Evolutionism neutral 38 
 
 (c) Philosophy friendly 38 
 
 r. PAGE 
 
 (rf) Eiemity assumable 38 
 
 (e) Scope of Arguments 39 
 
 I. Cosmological Argument ."^O 
 
 1. Physical Phase 39 
 
 A. Process of Nature 39 
 
 B. Changes and Time 40 
 
 Theory of Cycles 41 
 
 2. Metaphysical Phase 42 
 
 (1) Questions 42 
 
 A. As to Force and 
 
 Matter 42 
 
 B. As to Divinity of 
 
 Force 42 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Vll 
 
 SKCr. PAGE 
 
 (2) Objections 43 
 
 A. Makes God change- 
 
 able 43 
 
 B. No proper Moment 
 
 for Creation 43 
 
 C. Causal judgment em- 
 
 pirical 44 
 
 II. Eutaxiological Argument.. 45 
 
 (a) From Organic Types 45 
 
 (6) From Universal Laws.... 45 
 Refutation of Material- 
 ism 45 
 
 Relations to Causal Ar- 
 gument 46 
 
 III. Teleological Argument 47 
 
 Objections 47 
 
 (1) Maker not infinite 47 
 
 (2) Design artificial 48 
 
 (3) Evolution natural 49 
 
 rV. Ontological Argument 50 
 
 1 . Idea of Perfection 50 
 
 A. Anselm 50 
 
 B. Descartes 50 
 
 2. Idea of Necessary Being.. 51 
 
 A. Cudworth 51 
 
 B. Clarke 51 
 
 V. Moral Argument 52 
 
 1. Conscience 53 
 
 2. Esthetic Sensibility 53 
 
 3. Love 54 
 
 4. Trust 54 
 
 Objections 55 
 
 (1) Desire not a Proof. ... 55 
 
 (2) Moral Faculties 
 
 evolved 55 
 
 VI. Historical Argument 56 
 
 1. God in History 56 
 
 2. Theism universal 57 
 
 3. Theism beneficial 57 
 
 4. Christianity historical... 57 
 A. Human 58 
 
 SECT. PAGB 
 
 B. Divine 58 
 
 C. Divine-human 59 
 
 Remarks on theistic Ar- 
 guments 59 
 
 1 2.— Personality of God 59-61 
 
 Definition 59 
 
 Evidence 60 
 
 Objections 60 
 
 1. Consciousness impossible. 60 
 
 2. Limitation involved 60 
 
 3. God responsible for Evil. 60 
 13.— Unity of God 61-63 
 
 1. Proved by theistic Argu- 
 
 ment 62 
 
 2. Proved from Omnipo- 
 
 tence 62 
 
 3. Self-commended 62 
 
 4. Proved from Relation of 
 
 Physical to Moral 63 
 
 li.— Attributes of God 63-76 
 
 I. Related to Duration 64 
 
 1. Eternity 64 
 
 2. Immutability 64 
 
 3. Spirituality 65 
 
 II. Related to Physical Uni- 
 verse 66 
 
 1. Omnipotence 66 
 
 2. Omniscience 67 
 
 3. Omnipresence 69 
 
 III. Related to Moral Beings... 70 
 
 1. Holiness 7r 
 
 2. Benevolence " '• 
 
 3. Justice 73 
 
 4. Minor Moral Attributes.. 75 
 Primacy among Moral 
 
 Attributes 75 
 
 15. — Divine Decrees 76-83 
 
 I. Evidences 77 
 
 1. From Natural Theology. 77 
 
 2. From Scripture 78 
 
 II. Safeguards against Miscon- 
 ception 80 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 ■KCr. PAGE 
 
 1. Decree not Fate 80 
 
 2. Decree not Necessity 80 
 
 3. Decree but one Aspect of 
 
 Truth 80 
 
 III. Theories 82 
 
 1. Hyper-calvinistic 82 
 
 2. Moderate Calvinistic 82 
 
 3. Pelagian 82 
 
 4. Moderate Arminian 83 
 
 16.— Creation 83-93 
 
 I. Testimony of Scriptures.... 84 
 II. Testimony of Metaphysics.. 85 
 III. Testimony of Natural Sci- 
 ence 86 
 
 1. As to Eternity of Matter. 86 
 
 2. As to Abiogenesis 88 
 
 3. As to Evolution 89 
 
 A. For Scriptural View... 90 
 
 B. Against Unscriptural 
 
 View 91 
 
 17. — Final Cause in Creation 93-95 
 
 1. Blessedness and Glory of 
 
 God 94 
 
 2. Well-being of Creature 94 
 
 18. — Conservation 95-101 
 
 I. Monistic Theories 95 
 
 1. Typical Pantheism 95 
 
 2. Christian Pantheism 96 
 
 A. Philosophical Evi- 
 
 dence 96 
 
 Replies 97 
 
 B. Scientific Evidence 97 
 
 Replies 98 
 
 C. Theological J>idence.. 98 
 Replies 98 
 
 II. Dualistic Theories 99 
 
 1. Semi-pantheism 99 
 
 2. Deism 100 
 
 3. Concursus 100 
 
 19.— Providence 101-105 
 
 I. General Providence 101 
 
 SECT. 9k9M 
 
 1. Scripture 101 
 
 2. History 101 
 
 3. Patriotism 101 
 
 II. Particular Providence 102 
 
 1. Scripture 102 
 
 2. General Providence 102 
 
 3. Christian Experience 103 
 
 III. Theories 103 
 
 1. Deistic 103 
 
 2. Pantheistic 103 
 
 3. Creatio continuata 103 
 
 4. Concursus 103 
 
 5. Psychical 104 
 
 Conclusion 105 
 
 20.— Prayer 105-108 
 
 I. Spiritual Benefits 106 
 
 II. Temporal Benefits 107 
 
 21.— Miracles 108-114 
 
 I. Their Nature 108 
 
 n. Credibility 109 
 
 1. Possible 109 
 
 2. Probable 109 
 
 3. Unmistakable to Wit- 
 
 nesses 109 
 
 4. Witnesses trustworthy... 110 
 
 5. Christ is risen 110 
 
 6. Miracles congruous with 
 
 Doctrine 110 
 
 m. Office Ill 
 
 1. Direct Ill 
 
 2. Indirect 112 
 
 IV. Congruity with Doctrine... 113 
 
 1. Substantiates Miracles... 113 
 
 2. Substantiates Doctrine... 113 
 
 3. Explains Cessation 114 
 
 22.— Angeh 115-119 
 
 I. Good Angels 115 
 
 1. Perceived 115 
 
 2. Notable Occasions 115 
 
 3. Real to Christ 116 
 
 4. Relation to his Doctrine. 1 1 6 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 IX 
 
 PAGE SECT. 
 
 5. Office to Saints 116 
 
 6. Place in Creation 117 
 
 7. Attested by Polytheism.. 117 
 
 11. Evil Spirits 118 
 
 1. Origin 118 
 
 2. Chief. 118 
 
 3. Activity 118 
 
 PART THIRD 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY 
 
 SKCT. PAGE 
 
 23.— Nature of Man 1 20-121 
 
 (a) Human Reason 120 
 
 (b) Capacity of Progress 121 
 
 2i.— Creation of Man 121-124 
 
 1. According to Bible 121 
 
 2. According to Science _. 122 
 
 (a) No known Ancestor 122 
 
 (6) Peculiar Anatomy 122 
 
 (c) Brain Capacity 122 
 
 (d) Faculty of Reason 123 
 
 Conclusion 123 
 
 25.— Unity of Race 124 
 
 According to Scripture 124 
 
 According to Science 124 
 
 2Q.—Constiiution of Man 124-127 
 
 I. Theories 124 
 
 1. Dichotomous 124 
 
 2. Trichotomous 125 
 
 II. Evidence for Dichotomy.... 125 
 
 1. Bible's Psychology 125 
 
 2. Paul's various Meanings. 125 
 
 3. Uniformity erroneous... 126 
 
 4. Functions not trichot- 
 
 omic 126 
 
 5. Consciousness not tri- 
 
 chotomic 126 
 
 V— Origin of Souls 127-129 
 
 Pre-existence 127 
 
 Traducianism preferred to 
 Crcationism 127 
 
 1. Scriptures 127 
 
 2. Heredity 128 
 
 3. Psycho-physics 128 
 
 4. Burden of Proof 128 
 
 Objections answered 128 
 
 28.— Ivmge of God in Man 129-130 
 
 1. Personality 129 
 
 2. Original Innocence 129 
 
 3. Dominion over Beasts 130 
 
 29. — Original C ondition of 
 
 Man 130-131 
 
 1. Bible 130 
 
 2. Archaeology 130 
 
 3. History 130 
 
 30.— Low of God 131-135 
 
 I. Idea of Law 131 
 
 1. Definition 131 
 
 2. Distinctions 131 
 
 3. Inferences 132 
 
 II. Source of Law 133 
 
 1. The Creator 133 
 
 2. His Nature 133 
 
 III. Obligation of Law 134 
 
 1. Moral 134 
 
 2. Religious 134 
 
 Remarks 134 
 
 Sl.-Sin 135-138 
 
 L Definition 135 
 
 1. Act 135 
 
 2. Principle 136 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 8»CT. PAGE 
 
 3. State 136 
 
 11. Essence 136 
 
 1. Sensuality? 136 
 
 2. Evolution? 136 
 
 3. Finiteness? 137 
 
 4. Selfishness? 137 
 
 5. Abnormality? 138 
 
 32.—FallofMan 138-141 
 
 I. Biblical Account 139 
 
 II. Problem of Fall 139 
 
 (o) Ethical Difficulty 139 
 
 (6) Theological Difficulty.... 39 
 
 III. Theories of Fall 140 
 
 1. Ethical Necessity 140 
 
 2. Divine Causation 141 
 
 33. — Penal Consequences of Fall.l il-153 
 
 Proposed Distinction 141 
 
 I. Death 141 
 
 1. Spiritual 142 
 
 2. Physical 142 
 
 II. Native Depravity 143 
 
 1. Extent 143 
 
 2. Theories 144 
 
 A. Pelagian 144 
 
 B. Semi-pelagian, etc.... 144 
 
 C. Federalist 145 
 
 D. Realistic 146 
 
 III. Loss of Moral Freedom .... 146 
 
 1. Theories 147 
 
 1. Of Will 147 
 
 2. Of Freedom 147 
 
 A. Self-determination 
 
 of Will 147 
 
 SECT. p^ei 
 
 B. Self-determination 
 
 of Ego 147 
 
 2. Objections 148 
 
 A. Necessitarian 148 
 
 B. Libertarian 150 
 
 3. Conclusions 161 
 
 A. Ego chooses 151 
 
 B. Ego conditioned 151 
 
 C. Freedom and Neces- 
 
 sity Coincide 151 
 
 D. Present Freedom 
 
 formal 151 
 
 E. Future Freedom real 152 
 IV. Derangement of Conscience 152 
 
 34. — Inability and Responsibil- 
 ity 153-155 
 
 I. Inability 153 
 
 1. Error as to Ability 153 
 
 2. Error as to Choice 154 
 
 II. Responsibility 154 
 
 1. Choice actual 154 
 
 2. Represents character 154 
 
 3. Even with God 154 
 
 4. Penalty inevitable 154 
 
 5. Ethically justifiable 155 
 
 6. Theologically inexplic- 
 
 able 156 
 
 35. — Salvation of Infants 156 
 
 1. Infants morally incom- 
 
 petent 156 
 
 2. Blessed by Christ 156 
 
 3. Christ parallel to Adam ... 156 
 
 4. Vision of Christ at Death ... 156 
 
 PART FOURTH 
 
 SOTERIOLOGY 
 
 3ft. — Preparation for Coming of 
 
 Christ 157-158 
 
 I. Preparation to accept Gos- 
 pel .„„.,.....,........ 157 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XI 
 
 «CT. PAGE 
 
 1. Judaism 157 
 
 2. Heathenism 157 
 
 II. Provision to extend Gospel. 158 
 
 1. Roman Empire 158 
 
 2. Greek Language 168 
 
 3. Oppositions 158 
 
 37. — Humanity of Christ 158-159 
 
 38.— Divinity of Christ 159-166 
 
 I. Methods of Inquiry 159 
 
 1. Textual 159 
 
 2. Historical 159 
 
 II. Evidence 160 
 
 (I) To Mary 160 
 
 (II) To Disciples 161 
 
 1. What they saw 161 
 
 2. What Jesus said 162 
 
 (III) To Apostolic Church... 163 
 
 1. From Holy Spirit 163 
 
 2. From Offices of Christ 163 
 
 3. From Old Testament. 164 
 Resultant Titles 164 
 
 (IV) To Post-apostolic 
 
 Church 165 
 
 1. Offices received from 
 
 Christ 165 
 
 2. Response of Christian 
 
 Piety 165 
 
 (V) The Christ of History... 165 
 
 III. Theories as to Nature of 
 
 Christ 165 
 
 1. Docetism 166 
 
 2. Humanitarianism 166 
 
 3. Subordinationism 166 
 
 39. — Relation of Two Natures in 
 
 Christ 167-178 
 
 1. Apollinarism 167 
 
 2. Nestorianism 168 
 
 3. Eutychianism 168 
 
 4. Chalcedon - Constanti- 
 
 nople 168 
 
 6. Realism 169 
 
 SECT. PAOK 
 
 6. Kenotism 170 
 
 7. Progressive Incarnation.. 171 
 
 8. Physiological Theory 172 
 
 (1) One Person 172 
 
 (2) One Species 173 
 
 (3) One Soul 174 
 
 Cautions 177 
 
 iO.—Two States of Christ 178-180 
 
 I. Humiliation 178 
 
 1. Limitations 178 
 
 2. Discipline 179 
 
 3. Rejection 179 
 
 IL Exaltation 179 
 
 1. Basis 179 
 
 2. Relation to Humanity.... 179 
 
 3. Offices 180 
 
 il.—Holy Spirit 181-183 
 
 L Divinity 181 
 
 1. Divine Name 181 
 
 2. Divine Attributes 181 
 
 3. Divine Prerogatives 181 
 
 4. Christian Consciousness... 181 
 IL Personality 181 
 
 1. Earlier Biblical Usage... 181 
 
 2. Later Biblical Usage 182 
 
 42.— Offices of Holy Spirit 184-188 
 
 I. Dispensation of the Spirit... 184 
 
 IL General Office 185 
 
 in. Offices under Old Covenant 185 
 
 1. Symbols 185 
 
 2. Prophecy 186 
 
 3. Regeneration 186 
 
 IV. Offices under the New 
 
 Covenant 186 
 
 1. Attest Claims of Christ... 186 
 
 2. Unfold his Mission 187 
 
 3. Renew and sanctify 187 
 
 4. Organize Church 187 
 
 5. Make it Temple of God... 187 
 
 6. Assure the Inheritance... 188 
 4S.— Trinity 188-196 
 
Xll 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 8BCT. PAOB 
 
 I. Definition 189 
 
 II. Evidence 189 
 
 1. From New Testament... 189 
 
 2. From Old Testament 191 
 
 3. P'rom Psychology 191 
 
 III. Relations of Persons 192 
 
 1. Sabellian 193 
 
 2. Nicene 194 
 
 3. Biblical 195 
 
 U.-Offieee of Christ 196-197 
 
 1. TheOflSces 196 
 
 2. Interdependence 196 
 
 3. Doctrines classi6ed by 
 Offices 197 
 
 45. — Atonement 197-236 
 
 Part First: Historical Survey.. 198 
 
 I. Patristic Theory 198 
 
 II, Satisfaction Theory 198 
 
 Anselm 198 
 
 Scholastics 199 
 
 Roman Church 199 
 
 Reformers 200 
 
 Federalists 200 
 
 (I) Defects of Anselmic Form 201 
 (II) Objections to Federalist 
 
 Form 201 
 
 1. Unbiblical 201 
 
 2. Factitious 201 
 
 3. Morally insufficient 202 
 
 4. Morally objectionable... 203 
 m. Morallnfluence Theory 203 
 
 Earlier Form 203 
 
 Later Forms. 203 
 
 The Issue 204 
 
 1. Requirement of Con- 
 
 science 204 
 
 2. Requirement of God 205 
 
 3. Christian Experience 205 
 
 4. Moral Penalties 206 
 
 IV. Governmental Theory 206 
 
 1. Typical Form 206 
 
 SKCT. TAmn 
 
 2. Arminian Form... 207 
 
 3. Objections 208 
 
 (o) Against divine Nature 208 
 
 (b) Against Law 208 
 
 (c) Histrionic 208 
 
 (d) Utilitarian 208 
 
 (e) Political 208 
 
 V. Realistic Theories 208 
 
 1. Pantheistic 209 
 
 2. Man ward Efficiency 209 
 
 3. God ward Efficiency 209 
 
 A. Merits 210 
 
 B. Defects 210 
 
 VI. Conclusions 211 
 
 1. Effects of Philosophies... 211 
 
 2. Truths and Errors 211 
 
 3. False Exclusiveness 212 
 
 Part Second : Biblical Statement. 213 
 
 I. Christ a Gift of Love 213 
 
 n. Crucifixion expiatory 213 
 
 1. Sacrifices 213 
 
 2. Prophecy 214 
 
 3. Doctrine of Jesus 214 
 
 4. Doctrine of Apostles 215 
 
 III. Resurrection piacular 216 
 
 1. Acts 216 
 
 2. Epistles 217 
 
 IV. Atonement morally Effica- 
 
 cious 218 
 
 1. Sacrifices 218 
 
 2. Required Repentance 219 
 
 3. Words of Christ 219 
 
 4. Cross of Christ 220 
 
 5. Resurrection of Christ... 223 
 Summary of Biblical 
 
 Teaching 223 
 
 Part Third : Theoretical State- 
 ment 223 
 
 Postulates 224 
 
 I. Christ a Representative 224 
 
 1. Of God 224 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Xlll 
 
 *SCT. PAGB 
 
 2. Of Man 224 
 
 A. In his divinity 225 
 
 B. In his humanity 227 
 
 11. The Representative a Sin- 
 bearer 229 
 
 1. Historically 229 
 
 2. Ethically 229 
 
 III. The Sin-bearer expiates. ... 231 
 
 1. Sin-bearing expiatory. .. . 232 
 
 2. Expiation adequate. 232 
 
 IV. The Expiation Regener- 
 
 ates 234 
 
 1. By Teaching 234 
 
 2. By Lordship 234 
 
 3. By Crucifixion 235 
 
 4. By Resurrection 235 
 
 Theoretic Conclusions 235 
 
 (1) Objective Efficacy 235 
 
 (2) Subjective Efficacy 236 
 
 (3) Counter Efiects recon- 
 
 ciled 236 
 
 46. — Necessity of A tonement . . . 236-239 
 
 Why the Incarnation ? 236 
 
 I. Necessary to God? 237 
 
 1. According to his Nature.. 237 
 
 2. Limits of Knowledge 237 
 
 n. Necessary to Man? 238 
 
 1. Fact of Atonement 238 
 
 2. Demand of Justice 238 
 
 3. Needs of Government.... 238 
 
 4. Means of Moral Re- 
 
 newal 238 
 
 5. Fitness to Ancient 
 
 Worthies 239 
 
 47. —Extent of A tonement 239-240 
 
 1. In Respect of Purpose... 239 
 
 2. In Respect of Provision.. 240 
 
 48. — Intercession of Christ 241-242 
 
 49.— Ordo Scdutis 242-243 
 
 50.— Election and Calling 243-251 
 
 The Controversy 243 
 
 SBCT. PAOB 
 
 L Fact of Election 244 
 
 1. The Elect 244 
 
 2. The non-elect 245 
 
 n. Conditions of Election 247 
 
 1. Foreknowledge 247 
 
 2. Not Merit 248 
 
 3. Not Caprice 248 
 
 4. Faith? 248 
 
 III. Execution of Election — the 
 
 Divine Calling 249 
 
 The Problem 249 
 
 Solution unnecessary 250 
 
 51. — Repentance and Faith.... 251-260 
 I. Repentance 252 
 
 1. New View 252 
 
 2. New Feeling 252 
 
 3. New Life 253 
 
 IL Faith 253 
 
 1. Nature of Faith 253 
 
 A. Discerning 254 
 
 B. Realizing 255 
 
 C. Trusting 256 
 
 2. Offices of Faith 256 
 
 (1) As Discernment 256 
 
 (2) As Realization 257 
 
 (3) As Trust 258 
 
 A. Objective Office 258 
 
 B. Subjective Office 258 
 
 52. —Justification 260-265 
 
 I. Nature of Justification 260 
 
 II. Evidence of Justification..., 260 
 
 in. Difficulties in Doctrine 261 
 
 1. Acquittal of Guilty 261 
 
 2. Acceptance of Wicked... 262 
 
 IV. Relation to Regeneration... 262 
 L As Fiat 262 
 
 2. As Forgiveness 263 
 
 3. As Adoption 263 
 
 4. As procured by Atone- 
 
 ment 263 
 
 5. As conditioned by Faith. 263 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 ■BCr. FAQE 
 
 6. As reconciling Texts 263 
 
 Conclusion 264 
 
 53.— Regeneration 265-272 
 
 I. Nature of Regeneration.... 265 
 
 1. Scriptural View 266 
 
 2. Errors 266 
 
 A. Of Sacramentalists 266 
 
 B. Of Annihilationists 267 
 
 C. Of Plymouth Breth- 
 
 ren 267 
 
 n. Agent and Means of Re- 
 generation 268 
 
 1. Agent 268 
 
 2. Means 269 
 
 in. Necessity of Regeneration.. 270 
 
 1. Relation to Atonement... 270 
 
 2. Importance of Result 270 
 
 rV. Evidences of Regeneration. 270 
 
 1. As to Father 270 
 
 ■■or. tA9t 
 
 2. As to Son 270 
 
 3. As to Spirit 271 
 
 4. Dutifulness 271 
 
 5. Love 271 
 
 6. Understanding 272 
 
 M.—Sanctificati<m 272-278 
 
 I. Possible Extent 273 
 
 1. Gradual 273 
 
 2. Complete at Death 273 
 
 3. Not complete before 
 
 Death 273 
 
 11. Provision for Sanctifica- 
 
 tion 274 
 
 III. Errors 274 
 
 1. Perfectionism 275 
 
 2. Higher Life 277 
 
 55. —Perseverance 279-281 
 
 1. Human Aspect 279 
 
 2. Divine Aspect 280 
 
 FART FIVE 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 •ECT. PAQK 
 
 56.— Conditions of Inquiry 282-283 
 
 Obscurity of Data 282 
 
 1. Beyond Experience 282 
 
 2. Enigmatic Credentials 282 
 
 3. Prophetic Perspective 283 
 
 4. Contingent Predictions... 283 
 
 5. Problem of the Apoca- 
 
 lypse 283 
 
 57.— Death 283-285 
 
 1. Testimony of Scripture.... 284 
 
 2. Testimony of Conscious- 
 
 ness 285 
 
 3. Testimony of Science 285 
 
 68.— IntermediaU State 286-287 
 
 1. Of Wicked 286 
 
 2. Of Righteous 286 
 
 A Conjecture 287 
 
 59.—Second Coming of Christ... 287 -292 
 
 I. The Advent 287 
 
 n. Relation to Millennium.... 288 
 
 1. Rival Opinions 288 
 
 2. Contrasted Histories 288 
 
 3. Counter Arguments 290 
 
 4. Suspended Verdict 291 
 
 60. —Resurrection 292-297 
 
 I. Scriptural Teaching 292 
 
 1. Fact of Resurrection 292 
 
 2. Subjects of Resurrection. 292 
 
 3. Nature of Resurrection.. 292 
 U. Theories of Resurrection... 294 
 
 1. Identity of Material 294 
 
 2. Rise in Spirit 295 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XV 
 
 ■KCT. PASS 
 
 3. Ethereal Enswathement. 295 
 
 4. Organic Identity.. 296 
 
 m. Conclusions 296 
 
 1. Theories imperil Faith.. 296 
 
 2. Theories lower the Doc- 
 
 trine 297 
 
 61.— Last Judgment 297-298 
 
 1. The Event 297 
 
 2. The Judge 297 
 
 3. The Procedure 297 
 
 4. The Criterion 298 
 
 62.— Final State 299-309 
 
 I. Of Wicked 299 
 
 1. Eternal Punishment 299 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 2. Its Sources 299 
 
 3. Its Nature 299 
 
 4. Errors 300 
 
 (1) Annihilationism 300 
 
 (2) Eternity of Pliysical 
 
 Death 300 
 
 (3) Restorationism 301 
 
 (4) Future Probation 304 
 
 II. Of the Righteous 306 
 
 1. Bodily State 306 
 
 2. Mental State 307 
 
 3. Moral State 307 
 
 4. Social State 307 
 
 5. Beatific Vision 308 
 
AN OUTLINE 
 
 OF 
 
 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 
 PART I 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 § I. Definition. 
 
 Theology is an orderly statement of beliefs concerning 
 God and his relations to his works. If those beliefs are 
 accurately stated, and their order determined by their rela- 
 tions, Theology may claim the rank of a science. 
 
 In this general sense of the term, Theology may present 
 the beliefs of a false religion ; but theism accepts a true and 
 reasoned faith concerning God as the highest achievement of 
 philosophy, while Christian Theology sets forth the teachings 
 of revealed religion and vindicates their trustworthiness. 
 
 Christian Theology takes special forms which are termed, 
 according to their sources. Natural, Biblical, Historical, Dog- 
 matic ; or, according to their aims, Apologetic, Polemic, 
 Practical. Systematic Theology, consulting all accredited 
 sources, and aiming to present a complete view of Christian 
 truth, owes its title to its method : it tests and arranges 
 doctrines by their logical relations.^ 
 
 The following works, representing different schools of belief, are worth having 
 at hand for consultation : 
 
8 RELATION TO RELIGION 
 
 § 2. Relation to Religion. 
 
 Doctrines, or inculcated beliefs, are indispensable to relig- 
 ion. Religion, in its practical aspect, is the service of God ; 
 but the service offered must correspond to what are believed 
 to be the natures of God and of man. 
 
 The importance of doctrine to religion more fully appears 
 in the defense of religion as reasonable. Every one-sided 
 attempt has proved injurious. The scholastic subjection of 
 faith and conduct to authority led to a contentious but un- 
 fruitful dogmatism, and finally provoked revolt. On the 
 other hand, to emancipate religion from authority is to con- 
 
 1. Apologetics and Christian Evidences. — Martineau, Study of Religion; 
 Diman, Theistic Argument ; Harris, Philosophical Basis of Theism ; Fisher, 
 Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief; Christlieb, Modem Doubt and Chris- 
 tian Belief; Footman, Reassuring Hints; Robinson, Christian Evidences. 
 
 2. Biblical Theology. — Oehler, Old Testament Theology; Weiss, Biblical 
 Theology of New Testament ; Van Oosterzee, Theology of New Testament. 
 
 3. Historical Theology. — Hagenbach, History of Doctrine ; Shedd, History 
 of Doctrine ; Crippen, History of Doctrine ; Lichtenberger, History of German 
 Theology in the Nineteenth Century ; Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. 
 
 4. Systematic Theology. — Baptist : Robinson, Christian Theology ; Strong, 
 Systematic Theology ; Hovey, Manual of Theology and Ethics ; Clarke, Outline 
 of Christian Theology. 
 
 Presbyterian and Congregationalist : H. B. Smith, System of Christian Doc- 
 trine ; Shedd, Dogmatic Theology ; Chas. Hodge, Systematic Theology ; Fair- 
 child, Elements of Theology ; Progressive Orthodoxy (New Theology) . 
 
 Modern Reformed and Lutheran : Domer, System of Christian Doctrine ; 
 Martensen, Christian Dogmatics ; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics. 
 
 Methodist : Miley, Systematic Theology. 
 
 Unitarian : Farley, Unitarianism Defined ; Parker, Discourse of Religion. 
 
 Roman Catholic : Catholic Dictionary; Mohler, Symbolism. 
 
 5. Monographs. — Miiller, Doctrine of Sin ; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord ; 
 Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ ; Bruce, Humiliation of 
 Christ ; Fairbaim, Place of Christ in Modem Theology ; Ritschl, History of Doc- 
 trine of Justification and Reconciliation. 
 
 Encyclopedias, etc. — Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ; Cremer, Biblico-Theo- 
 logical Lexicon of New Testament Greek. 
 
RELATION TO REUGION 3 
 
 sign it to the vagaries of rationalism. Kant's reduction of 
 religion to the fulfillment of moral duties as divine require- 
 ments could not but produce an ethical rationalism, vulgarly 
 embodied in the saying that, if a man does right, it matters 
 not what he believes. Hegel's dialectical treatment of relig- 
 ion as idea, while flouting the rationalism then current, 
 involved an idealistic rationalism of its own. The deduction 
 by Schleiermacher of all religious truth from the sense of 
 dependence and help begat the now popular rationalism of 
 the feelings. The protest of Lechler, as against all these, 
 that religion is essentially an act of God, a communication of 
 himself to man, re-opens the way to a rationalistic mysticism. 
 Finally, the futile attempt of Agnosticism to foster the wor- 
 ship of an unknown God, and of Secularism to devise a relig- 
 ion with no God, emphasizes the necessity of religious doc- 
 trine to a religious life. No real religion is purely ethical. 
 Not even the Sermon on the Mount is the foundation for any 
 Christian sect. 
 
 The truth in each of the theories concerning religion is 
 needed as a safeguard to the truth in the other theories. It 
 would seem that, in order to religion, first, man must be con- 
 stitutionally capable, on the one hand, of feeling dependence 
 and obligation, and, on the other hand, of recognizing help 
 and duty when presented ; secondly, for the guidance of man- 
 kind, depraved and ignorant, the truth concerning God must 
 be explicitly and supernaturally revealed ; thirdly, since even 
 in recognizing the Divine command and grace, the human 
 heart is unable to accept them, God must impart ability so to 
 do ; and thus, fourthly, man at length fulfills his religious 
 function : he trusts, loves, adores, and obeys God. It is the 
 convictions wrought into the mind during this process that 
 Systematic Theology attempts to elucidate and classify. 
 
4 THE POSSIBILITY OF KNOWING GOD 
 
 Such an account of the relations of religion to theology 
 suggests the inquiries whether it is possible to know God, 
 and what are the sources of that knowledge. 
 
 § 3. The Possibility of Knowing God. 
 
 Theology is withstood at the threshold by modern Agnos- 
 ticism, the denial either that it can be known whether there 
 is a God, or else that it can be known what sort of being he 
 is. Agnosticism thus replaces atheism in opposing Chris- 
 tianity, but claims to be a friend of religion. Whether the 
 existence of God can be known is a subject for later con- 
 sideration. Assuming that he exists, the present question is, 
 Can finite minds form correct ideas concerning an infinite 
 Being .■* 
 
 I. AGNOSTIC POSITIONS. 
 
 The denial that they can is due to postulates which 
 modern scientists have accepted from metaphysicians. Kant 
 taught that, inasmuch as all knowledge is through relations, 
 and relations are determined by the mind itself, therefore we 
 cannot know things as they are, and our knowledge is valid 
 only for ourselves. Hegel insisted that the Absolute includes 
 all reality, even moral evil, to the confusion of theological no- 
 tions. Sir William Hamilton argued that, since all knowledge 
 is through relations or conditions of the knowing subject and 
 of the object known, it is impossible to know the Uncondi- 
 tioned — that is, the Absolute or Infinite. Dean Mansel 
 urged that to ascribe causation to the Absolute or quality to 
 the Infinite is to think of these as limited, and therefore it is 
 in the interest of faith itself to relinquish all attempts at a 
 rational theology. Herbert Spencer turned these admissions 
 against the doctrine of a personal God, but insisted that, 
 
THE POSSIBILITY OF KNOWING GOD 5 
 
 although religion and science alike lead to the Unknowable, 
 we are compelled to think of this as the actual and absolute 
 substance and force, the ground and the cause of all that can 
 be known. 
 
 II. REPLIES TO AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 1. General Refutation, 
 
 Though subtle, these speculations attempt too much. 
 Denying on a priori grounds that it is possible to know God, 
 they claim to have invalidated thus the a posteriori evidence 
 as to his nature. But, on the contrary — 
 
 {a) If inference from the infinite is untrustworthy, it is for 
 that very reason incompetent to set aside the testimony of 
 the works of God. In order to do this — 
 
 {b) Agnosticism would need to show that, if God exists 
 and is in any relation whatever to the universe, whether as its 
 creator, architect, upholder, or energizer, still these relations 
 are incapable of affording to rational creatures the least in- 
 timation as to what kind of being he is ; in other words, that 
 what God does signifies nothing. But, however difficult the 
 problems in which the Absolute or the Infinite is a factor, it 
 is inevitable that the works of God should reveal him. 
 
 {c) As we shall see, it is an exhibition of Divine attributes 
 that alone goes to prove the Divine existence ; any way of 
 knowing, a priori or a posteriori, that there is a God, is a way 
 of knowing what he is. To admit his existence and deny his 
 attributes is self-contradiction. 
 
 Agnosticism, then, though professed by men of science, is 
 unwarrantably speculative. Facts would not suggest it. 
 
 2. Special Replies. 
 
 Besides this general evidence in rebuttal, it is perhaps not 
 
6 THE POSSIBILITY OF KNOWING GOD 
 
 impossible to detect the fallacy in each of the agnostic posi- 
 tions above stated. Thus it may be replied — 
 
 (a) To Kant, that to deny the objectivity of relations is to 
 deny what the structure of the mind obliges it to affirm, and 
 what is attested by every step in the progress of natural 
 science. The so-called " forms of thought " are really illus- 
 trations of the mind's competence intimately to know •' things . 
 in themselves." E. g., to know the phenomenon of extension ' 
 is to know in part what matter essentially is. 
 
 {b) To Hegel, that absolute perfection, not metaphysical 
 illimitability, is the determinative reality in God ; but per- 
 fection is definite, knowable, and excludes every form of 
 evil. 
 
 {c) To Hamilton, because there neither is nor can be any 
 evidence that a being necessarily unrelated, and therefore 
 strictly unknowable, exists, his objections do not apply to 
 ideas concerning a Supreme Being of whose existence we 
 have proof. 
 
 {d) To Mansel, as to the Absolute : he is the self-existent, 
 the Being to whom no relations are necessary, on whom all 
 other beings depend, and who through this relation is know- 
 able. As to the Infinite : God is not infinite in all respects, 
 but only in all excellencies ; he is perfect ; but perfection is 
 delimitation, hence knowable. As to both the Absolute and 
 the Infinite : it is conceivable that God, in constituting rela- 
 tions, has voluntarily accepted limitations, and thus brought 
 himself within that range of knowledge which agnostics 
 themselves admit. 
 
 (e) To Spencer, that the distinction between substance and 
 quality, phenomenon and noumenon, is purely logical ; that to 
 know phenomena or qualities is to know substances as related 
 to the organ of knowledge, and does not imply that so much 
 
SOURCES OF THEOLOGY 7 
 
 as thus becomes known would be contradicted by further 
 knowledge through fuller relations. 
 
 III. CAUTIONS. 
 
 Due regard to the difficulties which may be discovered in 
 each position from the opposite point of view suggests the 
 following cautions : 
 
 1. Our verifiable knowledge of God is not necessarily suf- 
 ficient to solve all problems in theology. On the contrary, 
 since God is infinite, he can be known but in part ; and finite 
 intelligence should expect to find its just conceptions merging 
 into the inscrutable. We may hold that every excellence of 
 God is boundless without venturing to infer what, in any 
 given case, his boundless excellence will lead him to do. 
 When the obscurity of a theological problem is unmistakably 
 due to the factor of the infinite, it is unreasonable to believe 
 that the problem can be thoroughly solved. This need not 
 be charged to incorrectly apprehending, but to inability of 
 comprehending, the infinite. 
 
 2. On the other hand, if our necessary conceptions of God 
 are invalidated by antinomies which they involve, then ulti- 
 mate ideas in mental and physical science are invalidated by 
 corresponding antinomies, and all knowledge is at an end. 
 If divine things must be excluded from the realm of science, 
 nescience is virtually extended over every sphere ; and thus, 
 as always heretofore, agnosticism refutes itself. 
 
 § 4. Sources of Theology. 
 
 Every unmistakable representation of himself which God 
 has afforded must be consulted by Systematic Theology. 
 
 I. The Bible was given expressly in order to declare the 
 actual and purposed relations of God to man. The Bible 
 
8 SOURCES OF THEOLOGY 
 
 therefore necessarily is what it has proved to be, the direct 
 source and the final standard of Christian doctrine. 
 
 2. The Christian Church keeps alive a consciousness of 
 the facts with which the New Testament deals, a conscious- 
 ness which makes its teachings seem momentous truths. Such 
 presupposed facts are human sinfulness, weakness, salvability, 
 and actual experience of redemption through means of which 
 the New Testament is a record. 
 
 Hence the church is properly entrusted with the oracles 
 of God, and has progressively interpreted them. As a further 
 consequence, the formal definitions and the current tradition 
 of its faith are an actual source of the views accepted in any 
 denomination of Christians, and must be consulted, in order 
 to secure the fruits of biblical study during the past Chris- 
 tian centuries. 
 
 3. Man was made in the image of God, and that image, 
 so far as it remains, is a revelation of God in every indi- 
 vidual : 
 
 {a) Man's moral constitution affords assurance that his 
 Maker was a moral being. The law of God awakens a re- 
 sponse in his heart (Rom. 2 : 14, i 5), and is written afresh in 
 the hearts of believers (Heb. 10 : 16). If, then, our ethical 
 convictions were a demonstrably correct reading of the laws 
 inscribed in our moral constitution, they would be an authori- 
 tative criterion in theology ; but, whether normal or perverted, 
 they remain an actual standard, a medium through which we 
 view the moral nature of God. It remains to be seen how far 
 they are a safe standard. 
 
 {b) Similarly, the laws of human thought supply argu- 
 ments for the existence of God, and in so doing shape our 
 conception of the corresponding aspects in his nature. Theo- 
 logians, it is true, may claim without warrant that certain 
 
RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 9 
 
 ideas are required by the very nature of mind, and it may be 
 a grave question what inference to draw from ideas unmistak- 
 ably necessary ; but the opposite of necessary ideas being 
 unthinkable, it is as idle to deny their authority in theology 
 as in other spheres of thought. 
 
 4. The physical universe rQ.vQ2t[s\ts CxQBXor. "The invis- 
 ible things of him . . . are perceived through the things 
 that are made " (Rom. i : 20). So far as this revelation is 
 correctly apprehended, it must be accepted. 
 
 § 5. Relations of the Sources. 
 
 The rapid progress of the natural sciences has been at- 
 tended with so important modifications, or attempts at modi- 
 fication, in psychology, ethics, and theism, as to call for fresh 
 inquiry into the relative authority of the accepted sources of 
 theology. 
 
 I. THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND THE HUMAN MIND. 
 
 Every adequate defense of theism avowedly assumes the 
 validity of primary beliefs or first truths : such as that every 
 event has a cause, and that there is a real antithesis between 
 right and wrong. Since these conceptions are primary, they 
 can neither be analyzed and defined, nor, if disputed, can they 
 be proved. They are accepted because at once self-evident 
 and necessary ; that is, they are ideas the contrary of which 
 cannot be believed. As self-evident they are apprehended by 
 intuition ; that is, immediately, not by inference. 
 
 But empirical philosophers, including many evolutionists, 
 deny that first truths are cognized by an original and neces- 
 sary intuition. The elder empiricists held that they are the 
 individual's inferences from his own experience, at most cor- 
 roborated by the experience of other individuals ; while many 
 
lO RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 
 
 evolutionists explain them as impressions inherited, accord- 
 ing to a physiological law, from the cumulative experience of 
 our ancestors. Herbert Spencer therefore regards primary 
 beliefs as intuitive to the individual, empirical to the race. 
 
 In reply we may insist that it is not necessary to trace the 
 rise in consciousness of first truths or primary beliefs in order 
 to establish their authority. On the contrary, we notice 
 that : 
 
 (a) Their origin can only be conjectured. It is impossible 
 for memory to go back so far, or for observation to penetrate 
 so deeply into the operations of a child's mind, as to discover 
 whether these ideas arise for the first time as inferences from 
 particular cases, or as intuitions of a general truth underlying 
 judgment upon a particular case. 
 
 (d) However primary beliefs originate, their validity is now 
 recognized by a faculty of knowledge as prompt and unerring 
 as any we possess. To doubt them would be to stultify one's 
 self. It is impossible rationally to hold the contrary of neces- 
 sary ideas. 
 
 (c) The faculty by which first truths are known must have 
 been an original endowment of the human mind. How it was 
 trained is a question for psychology, not for theology. But 
 we note — 
 
 (d) That development of intellect and conscience is marked 
 by a wider apprehension and deeper appreciation of first 
 truths is a fact that strengthens their authority. So far from 
 indicating that they were framed through a factitious associa- 
 tion of ideas while man was in a savage state, it goes to show 
 that they are verities, late it may be, like many of nature's 
 simplest and highest laws, in coming to full light, and perhaps 
 at first accepted upon the authority of persons fittest to 
 
RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES II 
 
 judge, but fitted to win the rank of universal and changeless 
 convictions, and thenceforth to be regulative of all judgments 
 within their sphere. Evolution confirms their authority. 
 
 II. NATURAL SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 The student of natural science is in many cases disposed 
 not only to undermine the authority of those first truths 
 which serve as the philosophical postulates of theism, but also 
 to deny the doctrines of revealed religion, in particular the 
 reality of special creation, providence, and miracle. He 
 objects to these as contrary to the known method of nature, 
 and supports his objection by an attempt to trace the biblical 
 doctrines through a process of natural evolution to purely 
 natural sources. The detailed relations of natural science to 
 theology will be considered under the topics affected. We 
 now note in general — 
 
 1. The naturalist must not beg the question; but to 
 reject Divine interventions in the order of nature on the 
 ground that all events are due to purely natural causes, is to 
 take for granted the very point at issue. The issue must be 
 decided by evidence. We admit that special creations and 
 miracles require the most cogeat proof, that science has no 
 means by which to detect the presence of God in his works, 
 and that it must not announce his agency merely because 
 unable to discover another agent ; at the same time, science 
 is not competent to deny that God has interposed until it has 
 shown that purely natural agencies are capable of effecting 
 all that has taken place. 
 
 2. The authority of natural science is complete within its 
 sphere ; but the conjectures of scientists, although entitled 
 to respect, are of no authority whatever. 
 
 3. God did not conceal in his works a contradiction to 
 
12 RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 
 
 what he would afterward declare in his word. Thus far, 
 each has proved to be in important particulars the interpreter 
 of the other. 
 
 4. To exhibit a process is not to account for the origin of 
 the process. A development of Christian doctrine can be 
 traced, because growth of ideas is a law of the human mind ; 
 but the seed-thoughts may have been planted by the hand of 
 God. For example, Christ did not come until the fullness of 
 times, but the times could not have produced Christ. Again, 
 his teachings have been unfolded by human study ; but human 
 study did not invent his teachings. 
 
 III. INTUITION AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 If intuitions are a trustworthy basis for theism, what is 
 their authority in theology ? Various answers have been 
 given. 
 
 1. Schleiermacher, living in an age of unbelief, and deny- 
 ing the infallibility of Scripture, found in Christian conscious- 
 ness the source and certification of Christian doctrine. 
 
 2. Not a few members of evangelical churches in Ger- 
 many, England, and America, revolting from certain orthodox 
 teachings, have justified their protest by according a qualified 
 authority to religious feeling. " The New Theology," so called, 
 insists that Christian consciousness, progressively enlightened, 
 must be accepted as the interpreter of the Bible. 
 
 3. Conservative orthodoxy replies that the alleged affirma- 
 tions of Christian consciousness, or of religious feeling, are 
 not, properly speaking, intuitions, but the ever-changing 
 caprices of " The spirit of the times," and that to follow 
 them is to subvert, not to interpret the Scriptures. 
 
 4. Mediating between these extremes, we may urge that 
 man finds in his moral convictions a criterion to which all 
 
REI^ATIONS OF the; SOURCES 13 
 
 religious doctrines are inevitably submitted. But his moral 
 convictions constantly need rectifying. Even admitting their 
 correctness, we might find the range of their applicability no 
 wider than the simple affirmations at the basis of theism. 
 Although an actual standard in theology, they are not a safe 
 standard. The Bible remains the only trustworthy rule of 
 faith and practice. 
 
 It is evident that, if too great reliance is placed on Chris- 
 tian consciousness, the authority of the Bible is impaired ; if 
 too little, then Christian experience is disparaged. The fourth 
 of the foregoing positions avoids both extremes. In seeking 
 to vindicate it we notice that the issue can be more accu- 
 rately defined. Consciousness is the being aware that one 
 thinks, feels, or acts ; in one word, has an experience. Chris- 
 tian consciousness is the being aware of a Christian experi- 
 ence ; what the Bible declares as truth, the Christian experi- 
 ences as fact. Hence the alleged " intuitions," or affirmations 
 of "reason," of "religious feeling," of "Christian conscious- 
 ness," or of "Christian experience," are but judgments formed 
 in each case by comparing a proposed doctrine with the 
 standard which a man finds in himself. The issue then, is 
 not between the Bible and intuitions, properly so called, but 
 between interpretations of the Bible and interpretations of 
 human nature and experience, or even between inferences 
 from interpretations. In order thoroughly to understand this 
 by no means simple problem, it must be studied from differ- 
 ent points of view. We will consider in turn — 
 
 I. The Intrinsic Worth of the two Standards. 
 
 A. In behalf of the Bible it should be remarked — 
 
 {a) That the distinctive beliefs of Christendom concerning 
 
14 RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 
 
 God, the oniy beliefs which can there find acceptance, are un- 
 mistakably traceable to the Scriptures. The fact that we 
 owe to the Bible a view of God and his relations to men 
 which human reason never otherwise reached, but cannot re- 
 ject, shows the ascendency of the one over the other, 
 
 {b) That the Bible has proved to be a unique source of 
 knowledge concerning God is due to the fact that it is an 
 express revelation for that purpose from God himself. This 
 gives it higher authority than all which only indirectly and in- 
 cidentally reveals God, 
 
 B, In behalf of the standard in man himself we note 
 that— 
 
 {a) Man was made in the image of God, so that any state- 
 ment concerning God may appropriately be tested by so much 
 of that image as remains, 
 
 {b) Man was made for active relations to God. All our 
 highest faculties may have dealings with him. They need 
 adequate employment, and this need awakens appetencies 
 which can be satisfied only in God. Whatever doctrine, 
 therefore, fails to satisfy these appetencies is spontaneously 
 discredited as misrepresenting him. 
 
 {c) The New Testament recognizes a subjective standard 
 in man. Paul traces his authority over the Corinthians to 
 his manifestation of the truth to every man's conscience, 
 not their acceptance of the truth to the manifestation of his 
 authority (2 Cor, 4 : 2), The truth thus finds attestation 
 even in the unconverted (i Cor. 14 : 24, 25). Both Paul 
 and Christ refused to teach those in whom the standard was 
 hopelessly debased (Matt. 7:6; John 3:12; i Cor. 3 : i, 2), 
 It is repeatedly and emphatically stated that spiritual men 
 are especially qualified by the Holy Spirit to judge spiritual 
 things (Acts 16 : 14; i Cor. 2 : 10-16 ; 12 : 3, 8 ; 14 : 29; 
 
RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 1 5 
 
 2 Cor. 4 : 6; 2 Tim. 1:12; i John 5 : 10). Our Lord went 
 so far as to say that to have an obedient spirit was to be 
 qualified to decide whether even his own teachings were from 
 God (John 7 : 1 7 ; cf. 1 7 : 7, 8). 
 
 The authority of the subjective standard would be unim- 
 peachable, if that standard were unimpaired. But sin has 
 marred the image of God, so that men have ascribed to their 
 deities their own passions and vices (Rom. i : 23-25); the 
 ruling idea or appetency concerning God, the ever-changing 
 fashion in religious tastes, shifts the emphasis with every 
 generation from doctrine to doctrine, instead of holding it 
 firmly upon all truth which corresponds to the moral nature 
 in man. The New Testament, on the contrary, is unfalsified 
 by sin. Thus intrinsically of highest authority, the Script- 
 ures may claim a further advantage in respect to — 
 
 2. Ease and Accuracy of Interpretation. 
 
 The exegesis of many passages is still unsettled ; and yet 
 to understand the Bible is as much easier than to understand 
 the intimations of our nature concerning God, as to under- 
 stand an adequate book on any obscure subject is easier than 
 to write the book. The Bible tells us what is true ; from the 
 Christian consciousness we would have yet to discover what 
 is true. Therefore, even if the image of God in man were 
 uninjured, if our religious faculties were normal and all 
 equally alert, the Bible would still have the marked advantage 
 over the Christian consciousness of being more readily, more 
 exactly, and more fully comprehended. 
 
 The sharp contrast of competence and disability thus far 
 recognized in Christian consciousness, and, on the other 
 hand, the pre-eminent authority of Scripture, leave it still 
 uncertain what is the actual value of the standard found in 
 
l6 RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 
 
 our mental and moral constitution, especially after its renewal 
 by the Holy Spirit. This value may be learned from — 
 
 3. The Historical Relations of the Bible and Christian 
 Consciousness. 
 
 A. As matter of fact, these standards have proved to be 
 in accord. On the one hand, the essential doctrines of 
 Christianity are too plainly set forth by Scripture to be in 
 doubt. No one questions whether the Bible teaches that 
 God is one and all-perfect, that man is a sinner, that Christ 
 is in some sense divine and our Saviour, that the Holy Spirit 
 regenerates and sanctifies, that the benefits of the gospel are 
 to be secured through faith, and that men are to be judged 
 according to their deeds. But neither does Christian experi- 
 ence ever fail to attest these fundamental teachings. 
 
 On the other hand, as to all points on which the meaning 
 of Christian experience is uncertain, the exegetes also fail to 
 agree. These undecided issues relate to subordinate facts of 
 the gospel, or to theories about fundamental facts — the mat- 
 ters upon which Christian denominations have divided. 
 
 B. Again, an authoritative revelation is indispensable in 
 practice. Rationalism has never devised a working religion. 
 Men feel the need of express instruction from God himself 
 as to what they should do in his service. 
 
 Yet, conversely, deference to Christian consciousness has 
 led many followers of Schleiermacher to faith in the Bible. 
 The ideas which he attributed to the continuity of Christian 
 consciousness were originally imparted by Christ and his 
 apostles, and are recorded in the word of God ; hence the 
 word answers so satisfactorily the questions raised by experi- 
 ence as gradually to recover, among men of evangelical spirit, 
 a large part of its proper authority. Trust in the affirma 
 
RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 17 
 
 £ions of religious feeling or Christian consciousness seems to 
 mediate between rationalism and orthodoxy. At whichever 
 point its follower is found, it may incline him to the other. 
 Like a bridge, to borrow a figure, it leads toward the opposite 
 shore. 
 
 C. History proves that neither standard can be neglected 
 with impunity. Exclusive regard to "the formal element" 
 in Christianity, that is, to the sacred Scriptures or to a sup- 
 posed authoritative tradition, affects Christianity as phari- 
 seeism affected the religion of Israel. On the other hand, 
 unreserved deference to "the material element" in Christi- 
 anity, that is, to the new life and its spiritual insight, fosters 
 pietistic heresy, fanaticism, and the rationalism of " the inner 
 light." 
 
 This review of the relations between the Bible and the 
 standard found by the Christian in himself justifies the fol- 
 lowing conclusions : 
 
 {a) To deny the doctrines accepted by both exegesis and 
 Christian consciousness is permissible only to the sceptic 
 who rejects the authority of both ; since a believer in either 
 would have to take the absurd position that the standard he 
 trusts has always and by everybody else been misunder- 
 stood, 
 
 {b) It is not absurd to contest those interpretations of 
 either the Bible or Christian experience which have always 
 been in dispute. 
 
 (c) If any unmistakable teaching of Scripture fails to com- 
 mend itself, the question arises whether the protest of re- 
 ligious feeling is normal ; whether, indeed, the protest is not 
 due to misapprehending what the subjective standard teaches. 
 In any case, the plain sense of the Bible must be accepted. 
 
l8 RELATIONS OF THE SOURCES 
 
 and hope may be indulged that fuller insight into both 
 standards will discover their real agreement. 
 
 But, on the other hand, a doctrine which is out of accord 
 with our deepest convictions, although accepted in our creed, 
 cannot hold a place among those convictions. Christian con- 
 sciousness, while not a criterion of the truth of doctrines, is 
 a test of their effectiveness. It alone can give force to re- 
 ligious principle and heartiness to religious belief. 
 
 {d) Hence an invaluable guarantee for the permanence 
 and triumph of Christianity is found in its self-evidencing 
 power. Hostile criticism may raise against the Bible doubts 
 which we do not know how to resolve ; but the church has 
 tested its contents and found them true. It was after a large 
 religious experience that Paul was able to write : " I know 
 whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to 
 keep that which I have committed to him " (2 Tim. i : 12). 
 
 IV, THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Acknowledging the authority of an unbroken consensus 
 between Scripture and Christian experience, the question 
 arises how the consensus is to be ascertained. It is a ques- 
 tion of the highest moment. Unless we can infallibly know 
 what the Bible means, the Bible's infallibility practically goes 
 for nothing. 
 
 Romanism claims that the church decided what Scriptures 
 are canonical, has secured the safe transmission both of these 
 and of apostolic tradition, progressively unfolds their mean- 
 ing, and by the mouth of the pope infallibly pronounces on all 
 questions of faith and discipline. But neither Scripture nor 
 history justifies the claim. On the contrary — 
 
 I. While it must be conceded that, until the New Testa- 
 ment was written, the teachings of Christianity could be 
 
RELATIONS TO BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE 1 9 
 
 authoritatively learned only from apostles or other especially 
 qualified men ; yet after the New Testament was provided, 
 it became a fixed and unimpeachable standard of final appeal. 
 
 2. The canonicity of the sacred writings was and is de- 
 termined by the best historical evidence, and from the char- 
 acter of the writings themselves. 
 
 3. Although the doctrines fundamental to Christianity 
 have always been implicitly if not explicitly accepted ; 
 although express definition of these doctrines has been se- 
 cured only through consultation, and the official teachers of 
 the church have ever been the recognized expounders of its 
 faith, yet ordination to ecclesiastical office never conferred 
 ability to determine and declare what are the tenets of the 
 church. That common belief may be readily ascertained 
 from the history of doctrine. Creeds have expressed the 
 views of their day ; sometimes of only a party in their day. 
 
 Thus, by its unerring recognition of what the Bible pre- 
 sents as the essentials of Christianity, and by the persuasive 
 attestation to these which its experience affords, "the church 
 of the living God" becomes "the pillar and ground of the 
 truth " (1 Tim. 3:15). 
 
 § 6. Relations to other Branches of Theological 
 
 Science. 
 
 The place of Systematic Theology in a curriculum is not 
 fixed by its logical relations ; but a recognition of these 
 materially aids the production of a scheme of sound doc- 
 trines. All departments of theological science are now con- 
 stantly re-explored, and in certain of them great progress 
 has recently been made. The influence of this fact upon 
 Systematic Theology cannot be inconsiderable. 
 
40 RELATIONS TO BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE 
 
 1. Apologetics is better prepared than ever before to justify 
 belief in the existence of God, and the evidence for a written 
 revelation has not been weakened. At the same time, Natural 
 Theology is more cautious about affirming doctrines which 
 are actually derived from the Bible, and, at most, corroborated 
 by Nature. 
 
 2. In the department of Isagogics, reinvestigation of the 
 canon has not displaced any one of the sacred books ; the 
 Higher Criticism, or determination of the authorship of 
 the Scriptures and the methods of their composition, is fol- 
 lowed with intense and widening interest, while at the same 
 time it is becoming more guarded in claim and more con- 
 servative in spirit ; meanwhile the Lower Criticism, or settle- 
 ment of the text, has assured us that for doctrinal purposes 
 it is safe to consult any text now in use. 
 
 3. Exegesis finds in the fruits of modern philological and 
 archaeological research important aid toward a scientifically 
 exact interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 4. Biblical Theology is providing a statement of the doc- 
 trinal characteristics of each writer, or group of writers, to- 
 gether with an estimate of the correspondences or contrasts 
 found in their teachings, and a review of the causes of the 
 same. Biblical Theology thus warns Systematic Theology 
 against a mistaken use of proof-texts, recalls it from over- 
 bold speculation, and guards it against the tempting inference 
 of dogma from dogma. 
 
 5. Historical Theology, in exhibiting the actual process by 
 which doctrines, true or false, came into full light, vindicates 
 the importance of truth by pointing out the effects of doc- 
 trine upon life, of life upon doctrine, and shows the unmis- 
 takable trend of controversy toward a defensible unity of 
 belief. The fruit of historical studies, perhaps most impor- 
 
AIMS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 21 
 
 tant to Systematic Theology is twofold : a breadth of view 
 which refuses to ascribe any great and lasting movement in 
 religion to error alone, combined with heedfulness against 
 accepting as a discovery in theology any notion which his- 
 tory shows to be a long exploded heresy. 
 
 Quite in keeping with the methods and aims of historical 
 studies in Christian doctrine, the modern science of Com- 
 parative Theology adds emphasis to the doctrines cherished 
 by the common faith of mankind, and reassures us of the 
 pre-eminence of Christianity. 
 
 6. Systematic Theology may now present in due order 
 the doctrines which the Scriptures yield to the advancing 
 insight of the church, and which are found to be in accord 
 with the historic "analogy of faith." So long as it is heed- 
 ful of the results reached by other , methods, Systematic 
 Theology remains conservative in spirit, progressive in 
 thought ; but without such deference, it ever tends to force 
 upon conscience dogmas unwarranted by Scripture, and due 
 only to specious inference. 
 
 7. Practical Theology teaches the art of using Christian 
 doctrine for the conversion and edification of men. The 
 pastoral office often reacts strongly on Systematic Theology, 
 exalting doctrines which can be effectively preached, and dis- 
 paraging others without a recognition of which all doctrine 
 is misconceived. Practical Theology has an eye to the rela- 
 tive importance of doctrines, while Systematic Theology 
 vindicates their interdependence. 
 
 § 7. Aims of Systematic Theology. 
 
 These are either direct or incidental. 
 
 I. The direct aims of Systematic Theology are — 
 
 {a) To gather from the sacred Scriptures and from all 
 
22 LIMITATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 
 trustworthy collateral sources, true views as to God and as to 
 man in his relations to God. 
 
 {b) To present Christian doctrine in a logical system. 
 Without system there is no science ; without science, no 
 thorough knowledge. 
 
 2. Incidental to constructing a scheme of doctrines are — 
 
 (a) The establishment of a few fundamental principles 
 which will not only aid in fixing the order of the system, but 
 afford insight into the doctrines themselves. Such determ- 
 inative principles are the scientific conception of law and the 
 realistic view of human nature, 
 
 {b) Acquaintance with living issues, and with the way to 
 seek a decision, when a decision cannot yet be reached. 
 
 {c) That devout joy and deepening sense of responsibility 
 which ought to attend every advance in religious knowledge. 
 
 § 8. Limitations of Systematic Theology, 
 
 Systematic Theology has been run out into so much detail 
 on disputed points, and the detail so insisted upon, as to 
 provoke suspicion about the trustworthiness of all its con- 
 clusions. More careful discrimination is needed between 
 speculation and knowledge ; and such a discrimination will 
 result in a considerable unloading of Systematic Theology, 
 The limitations on human knowledge of divine things are 
 chiefly the following : 
 
 1. The impossibility of safe inference with regard to the 
 infinite. Truth unmistakably revealed in Scripture and cor- 
 roborated in Christian experience may be too far beyond 
 comprehension to furnish a safe basis for speculation. On 
 such matters we may claim to know only so much as the 
 Bible explicitly teaches. 
 
 2. The difficulty of interpreting Scripture. Biblical The- 
 
METHODS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 23 
 
 ology, in tracing the historical order of revelation, calls 
 attention to the fact that revelation proceeds to a note- 
 worthy extent under the conditions of a human development 
 of ideas. It thus becomes in some cases a grave problem 
 how to make due allowance for the human conditions with- 
 out bringing into question the revealed truth. 
 
 3. The influence of "the spirit of the times." A preva- 
 lent relish for any given type of doctrine should put the 
 student on his guard against following a passing fashion or 
 "fad " in theology. 
 
 § 9. Methods of Systematic Theology. 
 
 The Analytical method, beginning with man either as lost 
 or as saved, details the means for his redemption, the history 
 of his fall, and the revelation of God both in these processes 
 and in the work of creation. 
 
 The Christological method, finding in the historic Christ 
 the sum of all truth, treats the facts concerning God and 
 man as presupposed by the incarnation. 
 
 The Trinitarian method, classifies doctrines according to 
 the offices of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The Federalist method, states what has taken place, and is 
 yet to find place under the alleged covenants of works and of 
 redemption. 
 
 The Historical method, accepts the order in which doc- 
 trines were revealed. 
 
 The Synthetic method, presents in turn the doctrines of 
 God, of man, of redemption, and of the last things. Other 
 methods besides these have occasionally been employed ; but 
 the Synthetic is generally preferred, and will herein be fol- 
 lowed, on account of its simplicity, historical correctness, and 
 logical progression. 
 
24 INSPIRATION 
 
 § lo. Inspiration. 
 Accepting the Bible as the ultimate standard in Christian 
 doctrine, before adducing its lessons on other topics we in- 
 quire what it teaches concerning itself, 
 
 I. DEFINITIONS. 
 
 Inspiration is the conventional name for the special influ- 
 ences by which the Holy Spirit qualified select persons to 
 declare the mind of God to man. This is the general sense 
 of the term ; but inspiration includes three offices : 
 
 1. Revelation, or the supernatural impartation of truth to 
 the human messenger of God. In a more general sense, all 
 the works of God are a revelation of him to rational beings. 
 
 2. Illumination, or insight conferred by the Holy Spirit 
 into the truth, from whatever source derived. 
 
 3. Inspiration, in a narrower sense, is divine guidance of 
 the messenger in delivering his message. 
 
 II, EVIDENCES. 
 
 1, Claims to Revelation abound in Scripture. Moses de- 
 clared that he received the law from God. The prophets 
 insisted that God spake by their mouths. The apostles, in- 
 cluding Paul (Acts 9 : 1-17; Gal. i : 11, 12; 2 Cor. 12 : 
 I -1 2), had personal acquaintance with him who was the em- 
 bodied revelation of God. Jesus promised that the Holy 
 Spirit would make further revelations (John 16: 13-15). 
 Even wicked men like Balaam in some cases received a reve- 
 lation (Num. 22-24; I Kings 13 : 11-22). 
 
 2. Evidences of Illumination also are abundant. Paul 
 assures spiritual men that the Holy Spirit aids them all in 
 some degree to understand spiritual things (i Cor. 2 : 14, 15 ; 
 Eph. I : 17, 18) ; but he claims special insight for himself and 
 certain co laborers (i Cor. 3:1,2; 12 : 8, 10 ; 14 : 6, 29). 
 
INSPIRATION 25 
 
 3. Evidences of Inspiration, in the sense of the Holy 
 Spirit's control over the announcement of the truth, are 
 partly direct, chiefly inferential : 
 
 {a) Certain texts expressly claim that the prophets re- 
 ceived divine aid in utterance (Exod. 4 : 10-12; Deut. 18 : 
 18 ; Jer. i : 6-9) ; Jesus promised that, when his apostles were 
 summoned before magistrates, the Spirit would teach them 
 not only what, but how to speak (Matt. 10:19, 20) ; apostles 
 recognized this element in the writings of prophets (2 Tim. 
 3 : 16 ; 2 Peter i : 21), and Paul once unequivocally claimed 
 it for his own (i Cor. 2 : 13). 
 
 ip) Thought and language are so closely united that, 
 when utterance attends revelation, the Holy Spirit, in im- 
 parting ideas, necessarily confers more or less ability to 
 express them. The Psalms were evidently composed under 
 a present impulse and aid of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 (c) When the record was subsequent to the revelation, as 
 was the case with almost the entire Bible, it is reasonable to 
 infer that, inasmuch as the truth was revealed to prophets 
 and apostles for the very purpose of having it published to 
 men, no help required for a safe delivery of the message 
 would be withheld. 
 
 The evidences above cited apply to prophets and apostles. 
 What claim does the Bible make in behalf of writers who 
 were neither apostles nor prophets } Notwithstanding that 
 the sacred books which have been left to us by non-prophet- 
 ical and non-apostolic writers lay no direct claim to inspira- 
 tion in any form, still the Bible virtually testifies in their 
 behalf : 
 
 A. The unknown writers of the Old Testament were be- 
 lieved by the Jews to have written under the supervision, and 
 
26 INSPIRATION 
 
 therefore with the endorsement, of prophets. But neither 
 Christ nor his apostles objected to the popular regard for the 
 entire old Testament. On the contrary, they expressly en- 
 dorsed the elder Scriptures as a whole (Matt. 5 : 17, 18; 
 Luke 24 : 44 ; John 5 : 39 ; 10:35; 2 Tim. 3 : 16 ; 2 Peter 
 I : 19-21). 
 
 B. As to non-apostolic writers of the New Testament, we 
 should bear in mind that the prophecy of Joel and the 
 promise of our Lord were fulfilled at Pentecost by the be- 
 stowal of the Spirit's miraculous gifts upon many besides 
 apostles (Joel 2 : 28, 29 ; John 14 : \6, passim ; Acts 2 : 1-18), 
 and that prophecy was a not uncommon gift during the 
 apostolic period (Acts 11 : 27, 28 ; 21 : 4, 9-11 ; i Cor. 14). 
 It is therefore presumable that the non-apostolic writers of 
 the New Testament had all necessary supernatural aid for 
 the preparation of their momentous records. 
 
 It is an early tradition that Mark attended upon Peter, 
 and Luke upon Paul, giving in their Gospels the substance 
 of the narrative which they were used to hearing from an 
 apostle's lips. The Epistle to the Hebrews was evidently 
 written under a distinctly Pauline influence. 
 
 III. PHENOMENA OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 I. The effects produced by the offices of inspiration, 
 whether singly or combined, exhibit the diversity which Paul 
 said was a characteristic of spiritual gifts (i Cor. 12 : 4-11). 
 The bewildering ecstasy that more than once overpowered 
 King Saul (i Sam. 10 : 9-12 ; 19 : 20-24) — a phenomenon 
 not altogether unlike the gift of tongues as known to the 
 Corinthian Church (i Cor. 14 : 2-19) ; the reluctant but 
 conscious prophecies of Balaam (Num. 23, 24) ; the malicious 
 yet unwitting prediction of Caiaphas (John 1 1 : 49-52) — 
 
INSPIRATION 27 
 
 anomalous inspirations of bad men — are not more dissimilar 
 to each other and to the results of inspiration in good men 
 than are cases of the latter kind, each to each. The " mouth 
 to mouth " communications with Moses are expressly distin- 
 guished from "visions" and "dark speeches" granted to 
 prophets (Num. 12 : 5-8). These, again, are in broad con- 
 trast with the lyrical effusions of piety in the Psalms, with 
 the gloomy philosophy of Ecclesiastes, with the shrewd, 
 satiric, sometimes cynical advice of the Proverbs (18 : 16; 
 23 : I, 2), with the now argumentative, now impassioned 
 epistles of Paul, and with the narrative portions of both 
 Testaments. A unique opportunity for comparing the 
 various products of inspiration in the case of a single writer 
 is afforded by the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Revelation 
 of John. 
 
 2. The several offices of revelation, illumination, and in- 
 spiration are not always distinguishable, and, when distin- 
 guishable, not always separate. This is of special importance 
 in view of the fact that the offices of Christ came to the 
 knowledge of the apostles largely through illumination — a 
 gift which they shared with all spiritual men. Revelation 
 alone could make known that Christ existed before the incar- 
 nation, that he created and upholds, that he rules and will 
 judge the world ; but repeated revelations from his own lips 
 failed to give his most intimate disciples an idea of his re- 
 demptive work. This idea was attained at length, we know 
 not how slowly, through illumination, that is, through insight 
 into earlier revelations. The Holy Spirit " brought to re- 
 membrance" what Jesus had said (John 14 : 26), when at 
 length the Master's words could be dwelt upon in the light 
 of his completed mission. 
 
 Paul alone seems to owe to a fresh revelation his knowl- 
 
a8 INSPIRATION 
 
 edge of atonement and justification (Gal. i : ii, 12). And 
 not even Paul maintains a sharp distinction between revela- 
 tion and illumination, but gives the name of revelation to any 
 process by which the Holy Spirit makes known the truth. In 
 I Cor. 2 : 7-10, knowledge of the atonement is expressly at- 
 tributed to revelation; but ver. 11-16 immediately explain 
 the revelation as an illumination, which latter is indeed the 
 theme of almost the entire chapter. 
 
 But that illumination is nevertheless distinct from revela- 
 tion is proved by the facts that — 
 
 (a) Illumination, or spiritual-mindedness, is proportioned 
 to obedience and piety (Ps. 25:14; i ig : 99 ; John 7:17; 
 8 : 43 ; I Cor. 2 : 14-16), whereas the wicked sometimes re- 
 ceived revelations, although ordinarily these are given but to 
 the faithful (John 15 : 15). 
 
 (d) Neither prophets (Zech. 4:5; Dan. 12 : 8, 9 ; i Peter 
 I : 10, 11) nor apostles (Matt. 16 : 21-23 > John 13-16, pas- 
 sim) always understood the revelations which they received ; 
 but to confer understanding is precisely the function of illu- 
 mination. 
 
 IV. DIVINE AND HUMAN ELEMENTS. 
 
 Inquiry whether the Bible corresponds to its claims has 
 brought to light its dual nature. The Bible exhibits marks 
 of its dual origin. 
 
 I. T/tc divine element is perhaps to be found in the very 
 words reported by a prophet, notably in the Decalogue. It 
 may safely be credited with the general style of psalmists, 
 prophets, and apostles, at once full, free, and elevated, sober, 
 simple, and precise. It is certainly recognizable in the sus- 
 tained superiority of the Bible in respect of contents over the 
 sacred literature of other peoples, especially over Jewish and 
 
INSPIRATION 29 
 
 Christian writings near its own period ; in a unity of concep- 
 tion and aim which covers documents strongly individualized 
 and produced centuries apart ; above all, in adequately pre- 
 senting the matchless character, teachings, and career of 
 Jesus. 
 
 2. The human element would be taken for granted in docu- 
 ments that bear the names of human writers. But — 
 
 (a) It is sometimes avowed in such phrases as " David 
 himself saith in the book of Psalms " (Luke 20 : 42), " the 
 book of the words of Isaiah the prophet " (Luke 3 : 4), " I 
 Paul say unto you" (Gal. 5 : 2), "we also believe, and there- 
 fore speak" (2 Cor. 4 : 13), "I speak as a man" (Rom. 
 3 : 5), •' I speak not after the Lord," " I speak as a fool " (2 
 Cor. II : 17, 23). 
 
 (b) It acknowledges human sources of information, such as 
 the poetic book of Jasher (Josh. 10 : 13), the royal records 
 cited by the books of the Kings and Chronicles, and Luke's 
 "eye-witnesses" (i : 2). These citations are appeals to au- 
 thority. That the Bible depends upon official records or popu- 
 lar poetry, for none of which inspiration was claimed, does not 
 exclude the divine element from the Book ; but it shows how 
 noteworthy is the human element in its historical portions. 
 
 {c) The human element is manifest in the rhetorical style 
 peculiar to each writer ; also in the color imparted by per- 
 sonal idiosyncrasy to the contents of ancient hymns and 
 prophecies, to apostolic doctrine, and to the choice and ar- 
 rangement of historical materials, notably in the case of the 
 Gospel narratives. 
 
 {d) Characteristics of an Oriental people and a former age 
 appear in the references of the Old Testament to physical 
 phenomena (Gen. i : 7 ; 7 : 1 1 ; Ps. 50 : i ; 93 : i), and to 
 movements of the Divine mind (Gen. 6 '.6; Exod. 32 : 14, cf. 
 
30 
 
 INSPIRATION 
 
 Num. 23 : 19 ; also cf. i Sam. i 5 : 29 with ver. 35 and Rom. 
 1 1 : 29) ; in the application of round numbers to historical 
 periods {e. g., of forty years, Deut. 2:7; Judg. 3:11; 
 5 : 3 1 ; 8 : 28 ; 13:1; i Sam. 4:18; i Kings 2 : 1 1 ; 1 1 : 
 42 ; 2 Chron. 24 : i) ; to armies and battles (2 Chron. 13:3, 
 17), and to the genealogy of our Lord, which Matthew gives 
 in three divisions, each alleged to consist of just fourteen 
 generations (Matt, i : 17); in the freedom of New Testa- 
 ment quotations from the elder Scriptures (cf. Matt. 27 : 9 
 with Zech. 11 : 12, 13 ; Acts 7 : 16 with Gen. 23 : 17-20 ; 
 33 : 18, 19; 50 : 13; also cf. i Cor. 10 : 8 with Num. 25 : 
 9; and Heb. 10 : 5 with Ps. 40 : 6); in the familiar diffi- 
 culty of harmonizing various accounts of the sayings or acts 
 of Christ ; in the use of arguments which, however convincing 
 in their day, can hardly be as effective now (Gal. 3 : 16; 4 : 
 24-26) ; in the Oriental and antique hyperbole which charac- 
 terizes not a few of our Lord's own precepts (Matt. 5 : 
 39-42 ; Luke 6 : 30 ; 14 : 12, 13 ; cf. John 5:31 with 8 : 
 14) ; finally, in the imperfect morality of the Old Testament, 
 as explained in a typical case by Christ himself (Matt. 19 : 
 3-9), and as rebuked by him when it reappeared in a venge- 
 ful plan quite of the old type, proposed by two among his 
 own disciples (Luke 9 : 54-56 ; cf. Ps, 69 : 21-28 with Luke 
 23 : 34)- 
 
 In attempting to distinguish between the divine and the 
 human elements in Scripture, reverent caution is imperative. 
 It is a grave error, on the one hand, to attribute to express 
 dictation by the Holy Spirit those forms of conception and 
 statement which supplied the divine message with a vehicle 
 more serviceable in a former age than now ; or, on the other 
 hand, hastily to set down as human errors statements which 
 
INSPIRATION 31 
 
 may yet signally evince the care of the All-knowing Spirit. 
 The one course would furnish weapons against the Bible ; the 
 other, would throw away a weapon for its defense. 
 
 V. AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 1. When we consider the aid of every sort which the Holy 
 Spirit afforded for the writing of the Bible, the endorsement 
 of the Old Testament by our Lord and his pledge to the 
 writers of the New, we conclude that, to those who accept the 
 claims of the Scriptures in their own behalf, they infallibly ex- 
 press what it was the will of God to declare (i Thess. 2:13). 
 
 2. On the other hand, when we recognize, without being 
 able to separate, elements divine and human, we see that the 
 use of a medium available for ancient peoples requires a his- 
 torical and critical, because reverent, study, in order to its 
 correct interpretation. To distinguish the divine from the 
 human, the substance from the form, is only a matter of in- 
 terpretation, requires only the approved canons of interpreta- 
 tion, and is rarely a difficult task. 
 
 VI. THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 The most important of these are : 
 
 I. The Naturalistic, or the theory of Intuition; namely, 
 that God dwells in all men, and reveals the truth to all in 
 proportion to their character and genius. This theory is 
 favored especially by pantheists and anti-Christian students 
 of Comparative Theology. 
 
 Obviously, this is not the Bible's account of its own in- 
 spiration. The Bible does not admit that pagan teachings 
 bring, like its own, a divine endorsement. It admits, how- 
 ever, that the heathen have the light of nature (Ps. 19 : 1-6; 
 Rom. 1:19, 20), and allows us to believe that they are not 
 
32 INSPIRATION 
 
 altogether without supernatural enlightenment (Num. 22-24; 
 Matt. 2 : I, 2, 12). 
 
 2. The theory of Illumination, or Partial Inspiration ; 
 namely, that, while God is revealed in nature, in man, and 
 especially in Jesus Christ, direct impressions of truth upon 
 the mind must be rejected as magical ; that illumination, or 
 insight into objective revelation, is the only form of inspira- 
 tion ; and that, since illumination varies with the enlighten- 
 ment and piety of the person inspired, not only the histori- 
 cal, but also the moral and religious teachings of Scripture 
 are encumbered with errors. This theory is expressed in the 
 formula : ** The Bible is not the word of God, but contains 
 the word of God." 
 
 It is the theory of Broad Churchmen and " New Theolo- 
 gians " generally. In the hands of some it can hardly be dis- 
 tinguished from the theory of Intuition, while as held by others 
 it claims almost entire inerrancy for the religious teachings 
 of the Bible. In all its forms it is open to the objections : 
 
 {a) The testimony for revelation above presented shows 
 that illumination is not the only means by which the Holy 
 Spirit makes the truth known. 
 
 {b) The same testimony shows that knowledge of truth by 
 inspired men was not always proportioned to their moral and 
 religious character. 
 
 {c) Divine authority is often claimed by the Scriptures, 
 and a failure of it never acknowledged on matters that re- 
 quired authoritative teaching. In support of this statement 
 we may appeal to certain texts often quoted against it ; 
 namely, i Cor. 7:25, 40, in which Paul contrasts his own 
 spiritually guided judgment (illumination) with an express 
 commandment (revelation) from Christ. But in disclaiming 
 
INSPIRATION 33 
 
 authority in this instance he assumes that, without this dis- 
 claimer, his words would be taken as authoritative (i Cor. 7 : 
 17; 14 :37; 2 Cor. 13 : 3). 
 
 {d) The errors alleged by this theory have in many cases 
 proved to be correct statements. At the most, they are to 
 be regarded as belonging merely to the form in which the 
 truth was cast for the people of an ancient day. But, if 
 errors in form only, they are not to be regarded as errors at 
 all. Of this sort are the statements that the sun rises, and 
 that God repents. 
 
 3. The theory of Plenary Inspiration, namely, that the 
 writers of Scripture were held by the Holy Spirit to absolute 
 accuracy in every respect. This theory has taken two forms : 
 
 A. Verbal Inspiratio7i, according to which every word was 
 selected by the Holy Spirit, or even dictated through a 
 human amanuensis. Once a favorite theory of English, 
 Scotch, and American theologians, it has now generally suc- 
 cumbed to the convincing array of human elements in Script- 
 ure. For example, the style of many books in the Bible is 
 as characteristic of their several writers as is the style of 
 any secular author ; and to ascribe this fact to the Holy 
 Spirit's selection of precisely the words which the writer 
 would have chosen is so violent a conjecture, and so mani- 
 festly forbidden by the "law of parsimony," that the verbal 
 theory has naturally yielded, with advocates of plenary in- 
 spiration, to — 
 
 B. The theory of Dynamical Inspiration; namely, that 
 the thought, not the language, of the Bible was inspired ; or, 
 more broadly stated, that the Holy Spirit enabled the writers 
 to declare the truth free from error, while allowing them to 
 choose their own methods of statement. 
 
34 INSPIRATION 
 
 Although thus capable of various interpretations, this 
 theory accords to the Bible full authority, and is objection- 
 able only in so far as it pretends to describe the process of 
 inspiration, concerning which the writers of the Scripture 
 say but little, and perhaps knew no more. Any attempted 
 rationale of the action of the Divine mind upon the human 
 tempts its advocate to a violent treatment of the objections 
 which it is certain to encounter. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 It is of no small moment that we should avoid the com- 
 mon error of attaching undue importance to the theories 
 about inspiration. It is a matter of speculative rather than 
 of practical interest. The issue among Christians involves 
 little but inspiration in the narrower sense. It is admitted 
 that complete revelation was afforded in the person of Jesus 
 Christ ; that the Holy Spirit conferred on the apostles in- 
 sight sufficient to acquaint them with all either they or we 
 need to know concerning Christ ; and that such aid as this 
 qualified them to tell what they knew. 
 
 If then, the writers of the New Testament had no special 
 gift of inspiration, we should be in the position of jurors 
 listening to witnesses, the competence of whose knowledge 
 and the integrity of whose intentions were assured. Like 
 such witnesses, the writers of the New Testament might fail 
 to agree in minor particulars, and as to such particulars we 
 should not know, as on any other theory we do not now know, 
 exactly what to believe ; but they would still be in agreement 
 about everything of highest moment, for it is admitted 
 that their revelations and insight were adequate as to the 
 substance of the gospel. Such a view has the advantage of 
 accounting for apparent discrepancies without imperilling the 
 
INSPIRATION 
 
 35 
 
 claims of the record, as is the case when the discrepancies 
 have to be reconciled with inspiration in the narrow sense. 
 To claim too much is to risk even more. 
 
 But, as on many other topics, an easy solution of difficul- 
 ties involves greater difficulties. The evidence is sufficient 
 for inspiration in every sense ; so that while the harm of re- 
 nouncing it in the narrower sense ought not to be exagger- 
 ated, we are entitled to believe that the accuracy of the 
 writers was secured by all necessary guidance in recording 
 the message of God to man. 
 
PART II 
 
 THEOLOGY PROPER 
 
 § II. The Existence of God. 
 
 Present State of the Theistic Argument. 
 
 Since Hume led the empirical philosophy into thorough- 
 going scepticism, and the critical method induced Kant to 
 discard all testimony to the existence of God but that of 
 conscience, the standard arguments for his existence, without 
 exception, have been persistently and unsparingly attacked 
 not only by opponents, but also by defenders of theism. 
 
 Some theists renounce the possibility of demonstrating that 
 there is a God, but assume it as a first truth. That is, they 
 hold that God can be known at first hand as an object of 
 rational intuition, as a logical prms of all other knowledge. 
 Thus he may be intuited as infinite Being correlative to finite ; 
 as absolute Being correlative to dependent ; as creative 
 Reason guaranteeing the veracity of human reason ; and as 
 a holy Law-giver, recognized in the very idea of law. The 
 position thus taken is open to the objections that — 
 
 (a) First truths are self-evident ; but self-evident ideas are 
 insusceptible of analysis, or of demonstration by any logi- 
 cally prior idea. The idea of God, on the contrary, is highly 
 complex. It can be resolved into its elements ; these can be 
 separately tested ; when tested, they must be proved capable of 
 synthesis ; and when harmoniously synthetized, they must be 
 shown to stand for a Being that exists. The existence of God 
 may be inferable from intuitions, but is not itself intuited. 
 36 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 37 
 
 {b) The authority of a rational intuition, or logical priority 
 to all other knowledge, can be claimed only for those general 
 principles, the truth of which is assumed in all particular 
 cases ; e. g., that a particular act is wrong involves the gen- 
 eral truth that there is difference between right and wrong. 
 Now the existence of God is not a general principle to be 
 intuited, but a particular fact to be proved. 
 
 {c) Knowledge of an object may logically involve the idea 
 without involving the existence of another object. The 
 existence of the second object is logically inferable only 
 when the first is known to be in nature inseparable from the 
 second. For example, knowledge of an object limited in ex- 
 tension logically involves the idea, but not the occupancy, of 
 unlimited extension. On the other hand, an object limited 
 in duration certifies the existence of some being unlimited in 
 duration to which its own existence is due ; but it remains to 
 be proved that the universe is not that eternal, self-existent, 
 absolute being. 
 
 (d) Knowledge of the Divine existence rests upon the very 
 ideas which it is said to support. For example, the trust- 
 worthiness of human logic is already taken for granted when 
 it is argued that this trustworthiness requires the existence 
 of creative Reason as its own logical prius. Or, if it be 
 replied that the existence of God is a first truth, not a fact 
 assured by argument, then the competence of the human 
 mind to know first truth intuitively is already assumed in one 
 case ; but if in one case, why not in all cases .-' Again, if the 
 idea of right and duty is not intrinsically valid, it cannot be 
 known that right is real in the case of God, or duty an actuality 
 when imposed by his will. 
 
 In other words, to urge that the validity of human reason 
 and the reality of moral distinctions require the idea of God 
 
 P 
 
38 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 as a first truth for their support is to say that first truth 
 must lie back of first truth — a contradiction of terms. 
 Knowledge of the Divine existence, therefore, instead of 
 being logically prior, is logically sequent to our valid primary 
 beliefs. 
 
 Although the protracted debate has not yet secured agree- j 
 ment among theists concerning the relative worth of the '■ 
 standard arguments, yet certain important results are becom- 
 ing manifest. Among these may be mentioned : 
 
 {(i) Since it is the business of philosophy to account for 
 the hold of primary beliefs upon the mind, reaction has set in 
 against the negative, and therefore inadequate, results of the 
 old empirical philosophy and of its modern kindred. Posi- 
 tivism. 
 
 {b) Evolutionism, whether or not true as a universal phi- 
 losophy, is synthetic and constructive, not analytic and 
 destructive. It deals with processes, not with origins ; for 
 that alone can be unfolded which is already enfolded. It is 
 now plain that Evolutionism need not, and cannot, under- 
 mine faith in God as the Creator and Ruler of the world. 
 
 ic) Until recently the influence of Kant had won for the 
 moral argument exceptional favor. Of late, sounder theories 
 of knowledge and of causation, together with the ever-widen- 
 ing discovery of order and adaptation in the world, have 
 secured a restatement and a renewed confidence in the argu- 
 ments from nature. But it is still sometimes objected that — 
 
 {d) The infinite cannot be inferred from the finite. It is 
 enough to reply that the infinite in duration, at least, must 
 be taken for granted. It is certain that something has ex- 
 isted from eternity, and the arguments from nature need only 
 show, to begin with, that the universe itself cannot have been 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 39 
 
 eternal. If it is proved that some other being than the uni- 
 verse is from eternity, the theistic argument has gained a 
 firm foothold. 
 
 (e) The limits of criticism having apparently been reached, 
 the standard arguments, with a single exception to be 
 presently noted, find their data extended and their conclu- 
 sions limited, but complementary and confirmed. 
 
 I. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 This name has been conventionally adopted, because the 
 argument accounts for the cosmos, or universe. It is more 
 strictly etiological or causal, an argument from the contin- 
 gency of phenomena to a First Cause. The argument takes 
 one of two forms, physical or metaphysical, according as it 
 relies upon analysis of physical facts, or interprets them by 
 the metaphysical notion of causation, or efficient force. 
 
 I . The Physical P \a^i . 
 
 In this forrr ':he argument makes use of but two indisput- 
 able facts in nature ; namely, matter and motion. 
 
 It is certain that something has existed from eternity. 
 But matter cannot have been eternally existent, because — 
 
 A. The present state of the material universe is a product 
 of evolution from simplicity to complexity. The process may 
 as certainly be traced back from complexity to sifnplicity. But 
 absolute simplicity excludes antecedent change, for any 
 change would be a step in the development which has taken 
 place. And since it is an axiom of physics that matter in a 
 state of quietude cannot spontaneously move, we have 
 reached a point when a Being independent of the universe 
 initiates its processes. Thus, if the supposition of matter in 
 a state of absolute simplicity were admissible we should now 
 
40 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 have found in the beginner of cosmic motion the self-moved 
 Architect of materials already in existence. 
 
 But the materials of the universe can never have been 
 in a state of absolute simplicity before which there was no 
 motion. Whatever view be taken of the constitution of 
 matter, it is certain that extension is one of its essential 
 properties, and that extension is proportioned to density. 
 But any degree of density or tenuity which has ever belonged 
 to any one of the great masses or systems of matter now in 
 existence, was a result of those " stresses " in opposite di- 
 rections which are usually called, on the one hand, the " at- 
 tractions " of gravitation and cohesion; on the other hand, 
 the molecular or intra-molar "repulsion" of heat. Matter, 
 therefore, without active properties would be without proper 
 ties essential to its existence. Rigorous physical analysis leads 
 to no possible state of things prior to the one which the first 
 motion in the universe produced, but plainly teaches that, 
 before that moment, the universe could not have existed. 
 The absolute beginning of motion was the absolute begin- 
 ning of matter. The Architect was the Creator.^ 
 
 B. Measurable changes admit only measurable time. A 
 series of such changes from eternity ought already to have 
 reached any assignable stage. In other words, in an eternal 
 
 1 It is generally regarded as settled that all bodies are made up of molecules 
 with intermolecular spaces (Cooke, "The New Chemistry," p. 37 f; Clerk Max- 
 well on Constitution of Bodies, in " Encyclopsedia Britannica"). According to 
 the prevailing theory of atoms, the properties of different substances are due to 
 their different atomic motions (Art. Atoms, by Clerk Maxwell, in " Encyclopedia 
 Britannica"; Stallo, " Concepts of Modem Physics," p. 28). Clerk Maxwell de- 
 clares the existence of atoms or molecules prior to motion " sheer delusion ' ' 
 (" Matter and Motion," p. 156, note). But appeal is not made to these doctrines 
 of modem physics, because they are more or less speculative ; whereas, the data 
 on which the argument in the text is based seem to be beyond question. 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 41 
 
 series of changes every moment is the wrong moment for any 
 given change. The idea of such a series is therefore self- 
 contradictory, and the universe, because it is changing, can- 
 not be the result of an eternal process. To deny this is but 
 to affirm that finite duration is infinite duration, since the 
 ratio between changes and time is indissoluble. 
 
 But, as matter, because it is mutable, cannot be eternal, so 
 the Creator, because he is eternal, cannot be either mutable 
 or material. From the point of view of physics we are shut 
 up to belief in a self-existent, spiritual Creator, 
 
 These conclusions are not avoided by substituting an infi- 
 nite succession of cycles for an unbroken progress from eter- 
 nity. Because — 
 
 A, The same thing may be said of any cycle which was 
 said of any given stage in a progressive development from 
 eternity ; namely, it ought to have been reached long ago, 
 and all eternity does not furnish the right time for it. 
 
 B. Cosmic changes involve enormous and ceaseless dissipa- 
 tion of energy in the form of heat. This fact encumbers 
 the theory of an eternal series of cycles with the following 
 difficulties : 
 
 {a) Each cycle begins with an immensely greater evolu- 
 tion of heat than that with which it passes into the cycle 
 next following ; therefore, its primeval nebula is correspond- 
 ingly expanded, and its history lengthened in the same ratio. 
 It follows that, an eternity ago, some cycle must have been 
 eternally long, hence is not ended yet. The theory of an 
 infinite series of cycles is therefore self-contradictory, and 
 resolves into the theory of uninterrupted development, 
 already discussed, 
 
 {b) Ceaseless dissipation of energy from eternity wouM 
 
42 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 require an infinite store of potential energy in the past. But 
 an infinite store of energy is disproved by the fact that — 
 
 An exhaustion of energy is impending, upon which the 
 solar system, for instance, will become an inert mass. But 
 the infinite is inexhaustible, A process from eternity must 
 endure unto eternity. 
 
 2. The Metaphysical Phase. , 
 
 Every change must have a cause ; but the only real cause 
 is a first cause ; therefore, the ever-changing universe must 
 have had a First Cause. 
 
 Furthermore, the idea of causation arises in the mind 
 upon the exercise of will. We have a conception of cause 
 only by virtue of the fact that, in forming volitions, we our- 
 selves are consciously causes. The First Cause must there- 
 fore be conceived by us to be a Will, that is, a Person. 
 
 (i) Questions arise as to the scope of this argument. 
 
 A. Does the origination of force involve the origination 
 of matter ? 
 
 Yes, because all properties of matter which give evidence 
 that it does, ever did, or ever could exist, are due to force. 
 For example, integration, or the production of mass, density, 
 and form, is by energy ; so are texture, temperature, and color. 
 
 B, Since all forces are convertible into each other, while 
 the sum of force is never increased, does it not follow that 
 all the operations of nature are continuous manifestations of 
 an originating divine energy } 
 
 No, because physical and mental states or acts are not 
 mutually convertible. Volition releases, but does not pass 
 into, muscular energy ; while impact upon the body awakens, 
 but does not pass into, thought. Cause and force, then, are 
 not equivalent terms. The former includes the latter. 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 43 
 
 Causation occurs in the realms of both mind and matter ; 
 force belongs only to physical objects. 
 
 (2) Metaphysical and psychological objections may be 
 raised against this phase of the argument : 
 
 A. It seems to make God changeable. If the mutability 
 of matter forbids us to consider it eternal, the immutability 
 of the eternal Spirit forbids us to regard him as the Creator, 
 since creation would be a change both for him and in him. 
 We reply — 
 
 (ci) We may consistently refer the beginning of temporal 
 events to a Being who alone is able to institute those events, 
 without pretending to explain what took place in the eternal 
 mind before time began. 
 
 {b) A posteriori conclusions are as valid against a priori 
 deductions in theology as in natural science, if from the 
 nature of the case, as when we aeal with the Infinite, the 
 a priori method is obviously inapplicable. 
 
 {c) The divine Spirit might be active from eternity to 
 eternity and yet undergo no change. This will be shown 
 when the spirituality of God is considered. 
 
 B. No motive can be imagined for selecting any moment 
 for the creative act. It is as difificult to conceive the divine 
 Spirit, after the lapse of an eternity, and subject to no im- 
 pulse from without, determining to create the world at any 
 given moment, as to conceive of an infinite succession of 
 finite phenomena. We reply — 
 
 id) It is not merely difficult but impossible to conceive of 
 any real cause which is not a first cause. 
 
 {b) While matter cannot conceivably find the cause of its 
 first movement in itself, the infinite Mind cannot conceivably 
 find a determining motive outside itself. In other words, the 
 
44 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 supposition of a self-moved, spiritual Creator is psychologi- 
 cally consistent, but the opposite supposition is unthinkable, 
 
 C. The validity of our idea of cause is denied on the 
 ground that it is a habit, not a necessity of thought ; that ex- 
 perience gives us only phenomenal succession, and that our 
 notion of cause or force is derived from fancying our own 
 will to be an originating cause, a producer of force. This 
 purely empirical but thorough-going objection may be met 
 by the following considerations. 
 
 {a) Whatever the origin of the idea of causation may be, 
 it is now impossible to think the contrary of that idea, that 
 is, to reduce cause and effect to a succession of phenomena 
 unproducing and unproduced. We are compelled to accept 
 the causal judgment as valid. 
 
 {b) No fact in experience is more certain than that in the 
 process of forming a volition, every person, whatever be the 
 range of motives which he is capable of taking into account, 
 is self-determined. We know that we "create" our own 
 volitions. 
 
 {c) Although volition does not originate but only releases 
 physical energy, it is equally certain that volition absolutely 
 causes the release. How this effort of the will escapes being 
 the creation of a releasing force we cannot understand ; but 
 its analogy to creation of force justifies ascribing the creation 
 of force to that Being whom the necessity for a real cause 
 obliges us to accept as the First Cause. 
 
 Uniting the results afforded by both phases of the cosmo- 
 logical argument, we find that the phenomena of the physical 
 universe and the laws of the human mind substantiate the 
 belief that a self-existent, personal Spirit is the Creator of 
 all. Whether we may call him God remains for other forms 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 45 
 
 of the theistic arguments to show. It is enough if they find 
 a firm basis laid for them in the etiology of the cosmos. 
 
 II. THE EUTAXIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 The argument from order has but lately received a dis- 
 tinctive name. Independent treatment of the argument is 
 also of comparatively recent date. It has usually been re- 
 garded as part of the teleological argument. 
 
 Uniform order in any sphere is a mark of controlling in- 
 telligence. Th6 universe is pervaded by laws which only 
 extreme rigor and refinement of intellectual processes can 
 ascertain and state, and thus discloses an Intelligence to 
 human conception infinite. How widely order, or law, pre- 
 vails may be gathered from the facts : 
 
 (a) All living things may be classified under various types ; 
 while the production of these classes in, upon the whole, an 
 ascending series exhibits an order inclusive of all organisms. 
 
 (b) It is yet more remarkable \}c\3X the highest physical laws 
 tnay be reduced to mathematical formulas. This is the case, 
 for example, with celestial and terrestrial mechanics, with the 
 laws of heat and electricity, light and sound, even to some 
 extent with chemistry, botany, and zoology. These formulas 
 are not the fruit of observation, but of the strictest processes 
 of abstract reasoning. They signalize the correspondence of 
 the order of nature with the order of thought. What the 
 laws of mind require us to ascribe to matter is found to be 
 true of matter. 
 
 Such a correspondence of thought to things needs no 
 explanation on any theory of monism. If materialism is 
 true, then the laws of matter include the laws of what is 
 called mind ; or, if idealism is true, then the laws of mind 
 
46 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 are those also of what passes for matter. But on the theory 
 of dualism the only possible explanation is that matter and 
 mind have a common origin. 
 
 Nevertheless, the eutaxiological argument is a heavy blow 
 at materialism. It compels this philosophy to testify against 
 itself. Materialism might account for the accord between 
 the two realms of matter and mind ; but how could it account 
 for the two realms } Attributing all phenomena, even the 
 human mind, to evolution from a primordial nebula, material- 
 ism forbids us to ascribe to an originating Mind those orderly 
 processes which, it declares, have produced finite minds. 
 But if organism could produce mind, the original capabilities 
 of matter would all the more need accounting for. 
 
 Furthermore, atomic properties, however potent, would be 
 without effect unless the atoms were fitly combined. The 
 primal combination must have provided for every detail at 
 every instant since time began. Any slip in the process 
 might have wrecked the whole scheme of nature. Whence 
 the original collocation competent to secure cosmos instead 
 of chaos ? It could not be by chance; it must have been by 
 Intelligence. 
 
 The relations of the argument from contingency and the 
 argument from order are noteworthy and important. 
 '^ (i) Eiitaxiology supports etiology : 
 
 (a) In the metaphysical form of the cosmological argu- 
 ment. This argument ascribes the universe to a creative 
 Will on the ground that causation is conceived of only 
 through the exercise of volition. But this is to assume 
 that what is necessary in thought is necessary in nature. 
 The argument from order justifies this assumption by 
 showing that the highest inductions of physical science 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 47 
 
 are expressed in the purely mental deductions of mathe- 
 matics. 
 
 [b) In the physical form of the cosmological argument. 
 The order or law which characterizes any object is due to its 
 qualities. But its qualities are grounded in its constitution ; 
 and, since things without constitution do not and cannot ex- 
 ist, therefore, to confer upon things their constitution, quali- 
 ties, and order, is to create them. 
 
 (2) Etiology supports eutaxiology : 
 
 The argument which ascribes the universe to a personal 
 Will prepares us for evidences of Intelligence. Volition 
 itself includes foresight of ends. 
 
 (3) While both arguments lead back to creation, they dijfer 
 in basis. The argument for creative Will appeals to the 
 element of change in nature ; the argument for creative 
 Intelligence appeals to the element of fixity — the one to the 
 fact of motion, the other to the fact of law. 
 
 (4) Furthermore, the will and the intelligence thus far 
 testified to by nature, tmite to form purpose, and thus lay a 
 foundation for — 
 
 III. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 This argument finds evidences of a Designer in the num- 
 berless adaptations in nature to rational ends. 
 
 But the conclusiveness of the argument has been denied 
 on various grounds : 
 
 (i) That adaptations indicate the existence, not of God, 
 but only of a demiurge, whose ability, though large enough 
 for the purposes actually achieved, is infinitely short of infi- 
 nite. And this because — 
 
 (A) Infinite power would not employ adaptations, or means, 
 but would go straight to its ends. 
 
48 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 (B) The abilities of the Designer have not sufficed to pre- 
 vent the intrusion of evil in the world. 
 
 We reply that — 
 
 (a) In a scheme of finite objects, on no matter how vast 
 a scale, adaptation of means to ends is indispensable, and 
 plainly indicative of intelligent purpose. 
 
 (d) We do not ask from the teleological argument evi- 
 dences of infinite, but only of immense, power and wisdom. 
 An inductive argument is limited by its nature to less than 
 an infinite number of data, and its conclusion must be cor- 
 respondingly limited. Nevertheless — 
 
 (c) The exhibition of wisdom and power by the uni- 
 verse is so varied and so vast as to justify the positions 
 that— 
 
 (aa) The destructive processes of nature do not indicate 
 any deficiency in the Designer, but prove the incomprehensi- 
 bility of his design, 
 
 (dd) Whether the universe is boundless or not, the re- 
 sources of its Designer are without known limit. The data 
 which the teleologist adduces prepare us at least to accept 
 testimony from some other quarter that the skill competent 
 for all things actual is equal to all things possible. 
 
 (2) Adaptation to rational ends is known to zm/>/y design 
 only in the case of artificial objects ; but since we do not 
 know that the world was made, it is unwarrantable to infer 
 that it was designed. 
 
 The answer to this objection varies with the position 
 claimed for the teleological argument. 
 
 {a) If the arguments from contingency and order are 
 either or both accepted, then the world is to be regarded as 
 a manufactured article ; and, as such, not only warrants, but 
 requires us to construe its adaptations to ends, however ob- 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 49 
 
 fCure, as evidences of design. Final cause must be ascribed 
 to personal cause. 
 
 {b) If an independent position is sought for the argument, 
 it then becomes an estimate of probabilities. This, how- 
 ever, does not seriously, if even perceptibly, weaken its force. 
 Modern jurisprudence teaches that the most conclusive testi- 
 mony as to events can claim only a higher or lower degree of 
 probability ; and yet events may be proved beyond reasonable 
 doubt. And so the teleological argument legitimately im- 
 parts to most minds a firm assurance that the numberless 
 interdependences in nature, complex yet congruous, cannot 
 be accidental, but are due to Divine forethought and control. 
 
 (3) Not a few evolutionists, regarding adaptations in nature 
 as the fruit of a purely natural process due to the properties 
 of matter, refuse to see in them any indication of design. 
 Other advocates of evolution admit that rational adaptations, 
 whatever the process through which they arise, are unequiv- 
 ocally significant of purpose and plan. 
 
 From this point of view Janet's analysis is ingenious and 
 impressive. For the most part following Janet, we observe : 
 
 When a coincidence of phenomena constantly recurs, ex- 
 planation is needed, not only of the phenomena, but of the 
 coincidence. When such a coincidence tends regularly to- 
 ward a distinct end, the end must be regarded as ideally 
 present in the production of the coincidence ; that is, the co- 
 incidence is for the sake of the end, and finality is a law of 
 nature. This being admitted, the question arises whether 
 finality is immanent or transcendent, whether nature is self- 
 led, after the analogy of automatic nerve-action and of in- 
 stinct, or follows the design of an intelligent Will which is 
 above nature. It may be answered : 
 
 («) That immanent finality does not exclude transcendent 
 
 E 
 
50 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 finality, while transcendent would naturally include immanent. 
 An intelligent contriver, if he could, would fit his invention 
 to work out his plan. 
 
 {b) To ascribe to nature automatic choice, or even instinct, 
 is to state the problem, not to solve it. Intelligent purpose 
 alone can explain the convergence of natural processes on a 
 vast scale toward rational ends. 
 
 In a word, modern science may change our conception of 
 the method of nature, but in so doing affords the more mul- 
 tiform and impressive evidence of controlling design. The 
 present tendency of theistic evolutionists is very marked to- 
 ward ascribing the entire course of nature to the constant, 
 rather than to a merely original, activity of God. 
 
 IV. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 This is a deduction of the existence of God from the idea 
 of him as perfect or as necessary. The following are typical 
 forms of the argument : 
 
 I. From the Idea of Petfection. 
 
 A. Anselm argued that we have the idea of a Being than 
 whom a more perfect cannot exist. But unless we have an 
 idea of him as existing, then we can have an idea of a Being 
 more perfect than he. We are therefore compelled to think 
 of the all-perfect Being as existing. 
 
 B. Descartes held that not mere existence, but necessary 
 existence, is a perfection, and the argument as thus amended 
 he accepted. But he used an argument drawn from his own 
 postulate that the existence of God must be assumed as a 
 guarantee of human reason : our conception of an all-perfect 
 Being is innate, and could be implanted only by such a Being. 
 
 Every argument drawn from the idea of perfection is re- 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 51 
 
 ducible to the identical proposition that, if we think of an all- 
 perfect Being at all, we must think of him as possessing every 
 perfection ; that is, if God exists, he is self-existent. It con- 
 founds a definition with a demonstration. 
 
 2. From the Idea of Necessary Existence. 
 
 A. Cudworth rejected all the earlier forms of the argu- 
 ment as involving a petitio principii, but considered his own 
 statement of it valid : A necessary Being is possible ; a nec- 
 essary Being is impossible unless he exists now. Therefore, 
 a necessary Being exists now. That is, if he can be, he 
 must be. 
 
 But this is only an appeal to ignorance. More fully stated 
 it would run : A necessary Being may or may not exist ; I 
 do not know which. If he ever existed or is to exist, he 
 must now exist. Therefore, I do not know whether a neces- 
 sary Being ^ ever did, does, or will exist. 
 
 B. Samuel Clarke mingled parts of the cosmological and 
 ontological arguments. Justly assuming that something has 
 existed from eternity, he asserted that the eternally or neces- 
 sarily existent Being could be recognized by the impossibility 
 of denying its existence without self-contradiction ; and in 
 this way he sought to identify God as the eternal and neces- 
 sary being. Infinite space and infinite duration, he said, 
 could not be denied. But these are only qualities, and there- 
 fore imply an eternal and omnipresent substance, that is, God. 
 
 Two errors may be detected in Clarke's argument : 
 {a) Infinitely extended substance cannot be inferred from 
 localized substance. The proper conclusion is the identical 
 
 ^ The existence of anything involves the necessary existence of something. 
 Cudworth' s argument is not needed to prore this, and does not prove that the 
 necessary Being is other than the universe. 
 
52 The existence of god 
 
 proposition that infinite space affords room for infinitely ex- 
 tended substance. 
 
 {b) Necessary being and being which cannot without self- 
 contradiction be denied are not interchangeable expressions. 
 The former certainly includes the latter, but may include 
 more. What the laws of mind forbid us to conceive as non- 
 existent, they obviously require us to conceive as existing. 
 But a being possessed of necessary existence may be un- 
 known to us ; or, if known, its self-existence may not be rec- 
 ognizable. Clarke, therefore, was not justified in deciding 
 against the eternity of matter merely because it could without 
 self-contradiction be thought of as not existing. 
 
 Concerning the various forms of the ontological argument, 
 it may be observed that its error is not in assuming that what 
 is necessary in thought must exist in fact, but in virtually as- 
 suming what it purports to prove ; namely, that the existence 
 of God is necessary in thought. It mistakes a thought about 
 God as necessarily existing for a necessary thought of him as 
 necessarily existing. 
 
 On the other hand, while the existence of God cannot be 
 dialectically deduced from the idea of perfect being, no being 
 less than perfect can be accepted as God by a mind which 
 already entertains the idea of perfection. And further, the 
 response of our moral sensibilities to this idea supplies what 
 many regard as the only secure basis for theistic belief; 
 to wit — 
 
 V. THE MORAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 In this argument we reach the first assurance that the 
 creator is God. As its evidence is found in the nature of 
 man, it is sometimes called the Anthropological argument, 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 53 
 
 but is distinctively moral or religious. As sometimes stated 
 it virtually claims for man an intuition, or immediate knowl- 
 edge, of God. For example, conscience testifies to the exist- 
 ence of moral law ; but recognition of law is said to be 
 recognition of a Lawgiver — a claim already commented upon. 
 It is safer to regard the moral argument as a rational infer- 
 ence of the Divine existence from moral intuitions, or from 
 the response of what may be regarded as our moral faculties 
 to the idea of an all-perfect Being. This response is mani- 
 fold and clear, or confused and weak, according to the degree 
 of our moral development and moral sensibility. Appeal to 
 the following facts would perhaps be most generally ap- 
 preciable : 
 
 1. Man intuitively knows that there is a distinction be- 
 tween right and wrong. In recognizing this distinction he 
 becomes aware of unqualified obligation to adhere to the one 
 and shun the other. But — 
 
 {a) The existence of conscience is first understood when the 
 idea is presented of an all-holy Creator who demands that we 
 shall be like himself, and who has implanted in our nature the 
 sense of obligation as a security for the fulfillment of his will. 
 
 {b) Conscience finds in an infinitely holy Person a needed 
 moral Archetype for man, an impressive measure of the ob- 
 ligation to be holy (cf. i Peter i : i6), and so the counter- 
 part of conscience. 
 
 If this is not a revelation of God in conscience, the thought 
 of him is responded to by conscience with a distinctness pro- 
 portioned to the vigor of our moral health. 
 
 2. The (Esthetic sensibility is capable of worshiping tran- 
 scendent beauty and sublimity, and desires to know that it 
 may worship them. When the exaltation of God is appre- 
 hended, admiration deepens into awe, and the demand of 
 
54 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 the aesthetic sensibility is fully met.' At such a moment 
 it is impossible to doubt the existence of the all-perfect 
 One. 
 
 This phase of the argument is allied to that from con- 
 science in two particulars : 
 
 (a) It is in his moral attributes that God is most exalted. 
 But while conscience defers to these as morally perfect, the 
 ccsthetic sensibility adores them as infinitely beautiful and 
 sublime (Ps. 29 : 2). 
 
 (d) Precisely as it would be impossible to look upon an 
 all-holy Being as one with whom we have nothing to do, so 
 the thought of an all-glorious Being is not only poetical but 
 practical. The whole energy of our aesthetic appreciation, or 
 worship, claims relations with such a Being as real. 
 
 3. T/ie hiivian heart, with love as its normal function, 
 yearns for an object worthy to employ its utmost vigor. When 
 God is so loved, our healthful affections recognize him as the 
 One for whom they exist, and insist on his reality with a con- 
 fidence entire as their devotion to him. 
 
 4. A Being who meets so varied and urgent moral needs 
 is an object of corresponding trust. The sense of dependence, 
 beginning with experience of physical limitations, and ac- 
 knowledged even by the agnostic in regard to the Unknown, 
 grows as our higher powers turn toward God, and can be felt 
 most profoundly when most amply satisfied. 
 
 In general, the demand of every moral faculty for full 
 exercise is a normal appetency ; and the satisfaction which 
 
 ' Worship is distinctively the religious function of the aesthetic faculty. It con- 
 templates God as exalted and offers homage. It is admiration, that is, aesthetic 
 appreciation. But inasmuch as there is no physical beauty or sublimity in God, 
 worship recognizes his transcendent glory as a spirit, and is expressed in praises of 
 attributes that appeal also to the conscience and the heart. 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 55 
 
 these appetencies find in the idea of God gives moral assur- 
 ance that he exists. Their testimony is not to the satisfac- 
 toriness of abstract ideals, but of a Person who embodies 
 ideals. So exclusively personal are the longings and the 
 gratifications of our moral faculties, that they certify either 
 the existence of an all-perfect Deity, or to the boundless self- 
 delusion of man. 
 
 Objections to the Moral Argument. 
 
 (i) Precisely this self-delusion is what some find in the 
 moral argument. They reduce it to an affirmation that a 
 thing exists merely because we wish it to exist. But those 
 things do exist which our organization demands. Hunger 
 notifies us of a physiological want, justifies belief that nature 
 makes provision to meet that want, and largely guides us in 
 the choice of food. The appetite for knowledge urges the 
 mind to search for truth, and is rewarded by the progressive 
 discovery of truth. Confidence may reasonably be felt that 
 the physiology of our moral powers is not in hopeless and 
 grotesque contradiction to the laws of body and mind. 
 
 (2) Nor is the authority of our moral convictions shaken by 
 the evolutionist theory of their development from a non-moral 
 sentiment of caution, of submission to the chief of a tribe, or 
 of parental concern for offspring during the long period of 
 human infancy and childhood, or from the observed fitness 
 of conduct to natural ends. On the contrary — 
 
 {a) The demands of our moral sensibilities are more urgent 
 and their authority more fully recognized with every advance 
 in moral development. 
 
 {I)) That development may have proceeded under discipline 
 of the experience which the evolutionist cites, and the dis- 
 cipline may have been able to awaken and train the con- 
 
56 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 science without being able to produce conscience. It must 
 be borne in mind that evolution is a process, not a creating. 
 Only what is involved can be evolved. In point of fact — 
 
 {c) Whatever the experience in the course of which the 
 moral quality in conduct becomes known, that moral quality 
 is not inferred from any objective fact, nor from any non- 
 moral sentiment. It is intuited in every instance, 
 
 (aa) The evolutionist has yet to show how experience of 
 pain or pleasure can evolve a sense of duty which overrides 
 all consideration of pleasure or pain ; especially, since it may 
 well be doubted whether the simple virtues of a savage would 
 not cause him, apart from the verdict of his conscience, more 
 inconvenience than his simple vices. 
 
 {bb) The evolutionist would have to show that a moral 
 estimate of a chieftain's orders as just or unjust would not be 
 already present when the sense of moral obligation to obey 
 arose. 
 
 {cc) Parental care, instead of suggesting the idea of duty, 
 would have no moral quality to suggest until the indispensa- 
 ble condition of moral quality, namely, the capacity of moral 
 discrimination, had already been developed. " I fear to " is 
 not " I ought not " ; and " I must " is not " I ought." 
 
 (dd) Fitness to normal ends is an objective fact ; its moral 
 quality exists only in personal beings, and is intuited by rea- 
 son, or not recognized at all. 
 
 VI. THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 The experience of the human race, especially the history of 
 Christianity, testifies to the existence of a God. This argu- 
 ment is closely related to the teleological and moral argu- 
 ments. 
 
 I. The teleological argument is corroborated by the move- 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 57 
 
 ment of history toward ends presumably consonant with the 
 will of an over-ruling Deity. A large perspective is ordinarily 
 needed to bring this fact into full relief ; but sometimes 
 events, each intrinsically significant, and all of them indis- 
 pensable to momentous results, arise independently, yet so 
 concurrently as to signalize the timing of them by divine plan. 
 ' Such was the provision within seventy years of the four chief 
 agencies in the intellectual, political, and religious progress 
 of the modern world. To wit : Printing with movable types 
 was introduced about the year 1450 ; Constantinople fell, and 
 Greek learning was broadcast over Europe in 1453 ; Colum- 
 bus discovered a new hemisphere for the new age in 1492; 
 Luther broke the spell of superstition, emancipated faith, and 
 provided the religious element of modern life by publishing 
 his theses at Wittenberg in i 5 1 7. A little reflection will 
 show how each of these epoch-making events played its part 
 at the right date for fullest co-operation toward the best that 
 has come from them all. 
 
 2. The moral argument is illustrated by the alleged uni- 
 versal belief in a God. Though the fact has been challenged, 
 more exact inquiry goes to establish it, with the possible ex- 
 ception, in a few cases, of extreme and unmistakable degen- 
 eracy. 
 
 3. Both the teleological and moral arguments find his- 
 torical attestation in the benefits which accrue from relig- 
 ious belief. 
 
 4. Christianity is a factor in history which must be 
 accounted for. And since its prevalence among the most 
 enlightened and progressive peoples is due, not to argumenta- 
 tion, but to evidence of various sorts which it offers in its 
 own behalf, Christianity, wherever it prevails, is the chief 
 assurance of the existence of that Being whom and whose 
 
58 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 
 
 ways it declares to men. In other words, the only adequate 
 account of Christianity as a historical phenomenon is that it 
 is true. Christianity presents itself in different phases : 
 
 A. As huvian. 
 
 {a) Christianity is a tradition competent to testify to the 
 fact that Jesus once lived, and, in no small extent, to the 
 view which his disciples took of him from the earliest times. 
 
 {h) A system of external institutions. An event of so 
 unparalleled moment as the resurrection of our Lord ought 
 to have produced corresponding effects. And the church, in 
 respect of the age it has attained and may look for, in extent 
 of territory, in the scope and penetration of its requirements, 
 is by far the most important organization of men. But the 
 church and its observances, the Lord's Day, Baptism, and the 
 Communion, are distinctly monuments to the resurrection of 
 our Lord, and to the acceptance from the first of those dis- 
 tinctive articles of Christian belief, redemption by Jesus 
 Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 B. As divine. 
 
 (a) Christianity is a Book, and as such has been unal- 
 terably set forth alike for the disciple and the critic. But 
 this Book has withstood remorseless criticism from every 
 quarter, and is established in the reverence of the civilized 
 world. 
 
 {p) A scheme of doctrines, which unfold their own mean- 
 ing, evince their own truth, and to a large extent guard their 
 own purity. 
 
 {c) A life, at once so strong, so beneficent, and so unique, 
 both in its confession of weakness and in its reliance upon 
 God, as to argue persuasively that its origin and support are 
 from God (2 Cor. 12 : 5, 9, 10; Phil. 3 : 8), and thus to 
 testify to his existence. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF GOD 59 
 
 C. As divine-hmnan. 
 
 The personal Christ claimed to be himself Christianity, 
 "the Way, the Truth, the Life." He is at once the sub- 
 stance and the support of Christianity ; that which is to be 
 proved, and the proof. All Christian traditions, institutions, 
 sacred writings, and doctrines, center in him, and are an in- 
 soluble enigma, if he was not what the church has always 
 held him to be. Christianity as a life shows the present 
 part which Christ takes in history. His influence is not 
 mainly that of his ideas, but that of a living person. As 
 such it is probably more commanding continually than the 
 influence which any other person has exercised over his im- 
 mediate followers. 
 
 In appealing to Christianity for evidence that there is a 
 God, care must be taken to rest only on historically attested 
 facts. Otherwise the argument proceeds in a circle, from an 
 assumed to an inferred existence, proving nothing. 
 
 Remarks on the Theistic Arguments. 
 
 Finally, as to all the theistic arguments it may be noted : 
 
 A. If the first be accepted, the others are conclusive. 
 
 B. Taken together, they have a cumulative force due to 
 the rapidly increasing ratio of improbability that so many 
 kinds of evidence, with so innumerable details in favor of 
 some of them, can be fallacious and misleading. 
 
 C. Our relations to God are so largely a matter for heart and 
 conscience that, when these are unresponsive, arguments valid 
 to the understanding fail to impart a feeling of assurance. 
 
 § 12. The Personality of God. 
 
 Personality consists essentially in the capacity of conscious 
 self-determination, or will. But will implies ability to dis- 
 
6o THE PERSONALITY OF GOD 
 
 criminate, not only within the narrow range of brute intelli- 
 gence, but with the broad scope of reason ; that is, capacity 
 to recognize considerations of every kind pertaining to con- 
 duct. Thus, since moral considerations are among these, 
 personality includes reason, and culminates in the capacity 
 for ethical self -judgment, or conscience. 
 
 That God is a person is assured by all the testimony to 
 his existence. The causal argument ascribes to him will ; 
 the argument from order asserts his intelligence ; these 
 views united testify to rational purpose ; the moral argument 
 expressly alleges the moral powers of God ; a divine person- 
 ality is manifested in the history of God's relations to men. 
 
 Philosophers and even theologians have sometimes at- 
 tempted to raise God above personality, chiefly on the 
 grounds that — 
 
 1. The condition of self-consciousness — namely, a dis- 
 tinction between self and not-self — did not exist prior to the 
 creation. 
 
 2. Personality involves limitation. One person cannot be 
 also another person ; but the Infinite is the all-inclusive. 
 
 3. A personal God would have been aware that he was 
 admitting evil into the universe, and must thus have 
 made himself responsible for evil. Conscious purpose in 
 man is, therefore, only a symbol of something impersonal in 
 God. 
 
 To these objections it may be replied in turn: 
 
 I. We are not bound to conjecture the mode of the Divine 
 
 existence prior to that period which gave the first intimation 
 
 that a divine Being existed. Every such intimation is of a 
 
 personal God, and the difficulty of framing a divine psychol- 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD 6l 
 
 cgy does not justify any inference against that which all the 
 facts go to show. 
 
 Some would avoid the difficulty by affirming the eternal 
 tri-personality of the Godhead. This no doubt answers such 
 a purpose, and is a doctrine warranted, as we shall see, by 
 Scripture ; but to the monotheist it is an attempt to clear up 
 an obscure doctrine by one still more obscure, and is apt to 
 turn out a mere begging of the question, an attempt to prove 
 the Trinity by the personal consciousness of God, and the 
 personal consciousness by the Trinity. 
 
 Others suggest that God might find the condition of self- 
 consciousness in distinguishing between his attributes ; or, 
 since there never was a moment when the Eternal did not 
 contemplate creating the universe, that he always had the 
 idea of a distinction between himself and his works. 
 
 2. The personality of God excludes no attribute which 
 would not itself be a limitation of the Divine perfections ; 
 and if it excludes an identification of his substance and will 
 with those of created beings, this is a result of voluntary 
 self-limitation in the act of creating. 
 
 3. The reduction of personal attributes to a symbol of 
 what is real in God either virtually admits his personality, or 
 involves a pantheistic degradation of him below personality. 
 In the latter case, the irresponsibility of God for evil is se- 
 cured only by relieving man also of his responsibility ; for 
 with the pantheist, moral distinctions vanish into grades of 
 development, human personality becomes an illusion, and, in 
 brief, the common consciousness of mankind is defied. 
 
 § 13. The Unity of God. 
 
 The effort of philosophy to unify all knowledge has often 
 proved favorable to monotheism. That effort never, perhaps, 
 
 F 
 
62 THE UNITY OF GOD 
 
 seemed so near success as to-day. Unity of the divine es- 
 sence is now part of every conception of God, whether theis- 
 tic or pantheistic. At the same time, it was never more 
 certain that duaHsm could not be fused into monism. The 
 material cannot be converted into the spiritual, nor the spir- 
 itual into the material ; therefore pantheism makes but an 
 illusory show of success. 
 
 1. All evidence for the Divine existence points to one God; 
 no evidence to more than one. 
 
 {a) God is the origin of all forces ; but the doctrine of 
 correlation and conservation of force resolves all forces into 
 one, and only one Originator is needed for one force. 
 
 (^) Universal order indicates one presiding Intelligence. 
 
 (c) Adaptations in nature do not, it is true, in all cases 
 reveal the Designer's aim, but neither do they indicate a con- 
 flict of designs. As has been well indicated by Martineau, 
 dissonances " arise upon the line of the very same law which 
 also yields the greatest harmonies " (" Study of Religion," 
 Vol. I., p. 379). 
 
 {d) The moral consciousness of the race recognizes one 
 scheme of moral law and one moral Governor. 
 
 ((?) The history of mankind exhibits one overruling Will. 
 
 2. Resistless power is a primary attribute of God alike 
 with rude and with cultured minds ; but two infinities of 
 power would equal each other, and then neither would be re- 
 sistless. They cannot co-exist. It is not plain that two in- 
 finities of any other kind would be mutually exclusive. 
 
 3. The unity of God is self-coynmended. In Christian lands 
 the objection to polytheism virtually has the force of a nec- 
 essary conviction. We may believe in no God, but not in 
 many gods. Nor is this phenomenon exclusively Christian. 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 63 
 
 Notwithstanding the frequent lapses of the Hebrew people 
 into idolatry, monotheism, once clearly conceived, has ever 
 shown an inherent force capable of overthrowing the polythe- 
 istic superstition. The more intelligent heathen opponents 
 of our missionaries protest that their doctrine is fundamen- 
 tally monotheistic. 
 
 This invincible sentiment may not with certainty be traced 
 to a source in either empirical inference or native intuition. 
 But even if it be a product of advanced civilization and re- 
 fined religious training, it is not therefore factitious, but all 
 the more evidently suitable to man. 
 
 Whatever the origin of monotheistic belief, it is fully sup- 
 ported by the conception of God as all-perfect. The senti- 
 ments which testify to the existence of such a Being require 
 that every perfection of which there is evidence shall be as- 
 cribed to him. The moral impossibility of accepting any in- 
 ferior being as God would thus appear to be the source of the 
 repugnance felt toward polytheism. The self-evidence of 
 monotheism is accordingly plainest to those who hold in 
 view the moral excellencies of God. 
 
 4. The evidences from the physical and the moral spheres 
 unite in the coincidence of physical with moral laws. To re- 
 spect the laws of our bodies is a large part of virtue, and 
 moral law receives a not insignificant sanction in the physical 
 good or ill that waits upon the doing of right or wrong. 
 
 § 14. The Attributes of God. 
 
 Regarded as conceptions in the human mind, the attributes 
 of God are the qualities which we attribute to him ; but con- 
 sidered with respect to the divine essence, they are so much 
 as we learn concerning its kind through the relations of God 
 to dependent beings. 
 
64 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 Various methods of classifying the attributes have been 
 employed, and even urged as alone suitable ; but simple and 
 satisfactory as any is that classification which follows the re- 
 lations through which the attributes become known.' 
 
 I. ATTRIBUTES RELATED TO DURATION. 
 
 1. The eternity of God. By this is meant that the exist- 
 ence of God is without beginning or end. 
 
 Infinite recession of existence into the past and infinite 
 procession into the future utterly baffle the imagination, but 
 reason exacts belief in them. Eternal existence must be as- 
 cribed to the self-existing Being. As he never began, so he 
 can never cease to be. 
 
 The Scriptures often refer to the eternally pre-existent as 
 that which " was in the beginning," or by equivalent phrases 
 (Ps. I02 : 25 ; cf. Heb. i : 10 ; John i : i, 2 ; i John i : i ; 
 Rev. I : 8). The Hebrew conception evidently was that he 
 who already existed when the worlds began was himself with- 
 out beginning. 
 
 2. Immutability was shown by the cosmological argument 
 to be a necessary attribute of the Eternal. More fully 
 stated the relation of these attributes is as follows : No pro- 
 cess of change can have taken place from eternity, because 
 no assignable stage can have an assignable date in such a 
 process. But neither can that which is liable to change be 
 eternal ; for the eternal is self-existent, or necessarily exist- 
 ent, while the changeable is essentially contingent, or de- 
 pendent. The eternity of God therefore involves his im- 
 mutability. 
 
 * This admirable principle of classification was worked out by the late Dr. E. G. 
 Robinson. Its application in the text is somewhat different from his. 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 65 
 
 But the question arises whether immutability belongs to 
 the divine essence, or to the modes of the divine Being, or to 
 both. Certainly it belongs to the essence of God, and ap- 
 parently to his mode of existence. But if a changeless essence 
 would seem to preclude changing modes, on the other hand a 
 uniform mode of existence would preclude the act of creating, 
 as well as the variety of sentiment which is involved in care 
 for the varying states of all dependent creatures, and partic- 
 ularly in concern for the diverse characters of moral beings. 
 We are certain that the divine perfection excludes immobility 
 or impassivity, so that God is active although changeless. 
 Perhaps the paradox is not to be entirely resolved, yet the 
 following considerations may be taken into account : 
 
 {a) The infinite always involves the incomprehensible. 
 
 {b) In the act of creating, God voluntarily accepted limi- 
 tations. 
 
 {c) The attribute of spirituality will throw some light upon 
 this problem. 
 
 3. Spirituality. That God is in part a spirit is assured 
 by his personality ; but that he is without body is an immedi- 
 ate inference from his eternity and immutability. The im- 
 material alone is exempt from change. 
 
 {a) There is scientific justification for believing that spirit 
 is capable of ceaseless activity without undergoing change. 
 Motion involves change in material agents because they were 
 integrated by the expenditure of energy, and this energy 
 can be recovered only through their disintegration. But 
 spirit is not an aggregate of molecules ; it is a monad, and 
 therefore essentially indivisible and unchangeable. What we 
 call growth of the human mind may be but development of the 
 organism in which the mind is lodged, particularly of the brain. 
 
66 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 {b) The declaration of Christ that '• God is Spirit " (John 
 4 : 24) means that he is without body ; otherwise true worship 
 might turn on form and place (ver. 20-23 > cf. Luke 24 : 39). 
 
 An attribute so essential to the idea of God as spirituality 
 must be taken into account in dealing with all the mysteries 
 of his nature. 
 
 II. ATTRIBUTES RELATED TO THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 
 
 I. Omnipotence is power to do all things not contrary to the 
 divine perfections. The possibility of ceasing to be perfect 
 would be a present imperfection. To purpose doing self- 
 contradictory things would be an absurdity, and God cannot 
 be absurd. 
 
 Different sources of knowledge concerning God present 
 different views of his omnipotence. 
 
 A. The physical universe — 
 
 {a) By its creation reveals power without known limit. 
 But— 
 
 (^) It does not reveal unlimited power, unless itself limit- 
 less ; as to which nothing is known. 
 
 {c) Yet, while suggesting no bound to the power of its 
 Maker, the universe lays bounds upon the activity of its 
 Ruler. While he keeps it in existence, he must deal with it 
 according to its nature. Even miracles, as we shall see, are 
 not an infraction of this self-imposed rule. 
 
 B. The moral sentiments of mankind assure us of what 
 the physical universe cannot prove, the limitlessness of the 
 divine perfection in respect of power. To the enlightened 
 worshiper, if the maker is not almighty, he is only the 
 highest of known beings — a demhirge, not the Deity. 
 
 C. The Scriptures throughout attribute all power to God ; 
 though what this means may have been less patent to the 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 67 
 
 patriarchs than to the apostles. While any trace remained of 
 the belief that Jehovah was but the God of the Hebrews, 
 and that other gods might exist for other peoples, a corre- 
 sponding defect would linger in the popular conception as to 
 his attributes, particularly as to that of omnipotence. And 
 when this ancient fancy of ethnic deities was outgrown by 
 the Hebrews is not entirely clear ; therefore we do not know 
 whether the almightiness declared by the Bible meant to its 
 first readers all that it means to us. 
 
 2. Omniscience is knowledge of all things actual and 
 possible. 
 
 A. To create the universe shows how much God needed to 
 know. The actual extent of his knowledge may be inferred 
 from the marks of foresight and reason. 
 
 B. That what may seem to us defects in the plan do not 
 prove ignorance in the Maker is assured by resort to the 
 moral argument for the reality of a Being who possesses all 
 perfections. 
 
 C. The Scriptures assert the knowledge of God in regard 
 to matters that bewilder us (Ps. 1 39 : 6 ; 147 : 4, 5). 
 
 Abstruse questions are suggested by the doctrine of divine 
 omniscience : 
 
 (A) By what method does God know all things actual and 
 possible, past, present, and future } 
 
 It is safe to say that he knows the essence and the totality 
 of everything, and consequently sees its past and future in 
 its present. 
 
 But the answer is often given that to God eternity is an 
 ever-present Now ; that, therefore, all events are to the 
 Divine mind without succession, and his knowledge of them 
 
68 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 without contingency. This view is thought to have scrip- 
 tural support in what Christ said of himself, " Before Abra- 
 ham was I am " ; and in what the Apocalypse wrote of Christ, 
 "The Lamb who is slain from the foundation of the world" 
 (Rev. 13 : 8). But— 
 
 {a) If absoluteness and infinity both of being and of 
 knowledge necessitate this conclusion, as they seem to, we 
 face here an antinomy in the idea of God as at once the 
 absolute and infinite, and yet the creator and ruler. For 
 causal relation and succession of events are facts, therefore 
 must be facts to the Divine mind. 
 
 (b) So to interpret the Scriptures quoted is contrary to 
 Scripture ; for then the slaying of the Lamb from eternity 
 must go on through eternity ; even more, Christ is just now 
 being born, doing the work which centuries ago he declared 
 to be finished, is rising, and is pronouncing final judgment on 
 men to human view yet unborn ; indeed, what he said of 
 himself must be true also of us — when Abraham was we 
 are. In brief, if the speculative conclusion that to God, who 
 knows things as they are, eternity excludes temporal suc- 
 cession, be not absurdly audacious, then it is impossible to 
 show the absurdity of any speculation whatever. An ever- 
 present is a never-present Now. 
 
 Perhaps the nearest approach to a solution is that to create 
 anything is to accept limitations. Whenever a perplexity can 
 be traced to the infinite, we know how much, in knowing how 
 little, can be known. 
 
 (B) If God foreknows all events as certain, how can man 
 be free } 
 
 It has been replied that, while God knows all possibilities 
 and provides for them, yet, in making man free, he set limits 
 not only to the fruition of his own will, but also to his 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 69 
 
 knowledge of what free agents will do. But confessedly 
 the more scriptural, and at the same time the likelier, reply 
 would be, that God knows in advance what men will do, be- 
 cause he fully knows what men are. 
 
 The divine wisdom is the knowledge of God guiding his 
 acts. Complete knowledge includes knowledge what to do. 
 
 3. Omnipresence is the presence of the personal God in 
 all his works. The undivided Godhead is everywhere. The 
 mystical formula for this doctrine was : " God is a circle whose 
 center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere." 
 
 Omnipresence is possible only because, being a spirit, God 
 is without parts, divisibility, or subjection to any spatial 
 limitations. With no unreal correspondence to the divine 
 omnipresence, the indivisible human spirit is everywhere in 
 the human body. Its function in one part is not the same as 
 in another part, except that it is the vitalizing principle of 
 the whole. 
 
 Being immaterial and unlimited by the laws of matter, the 
 personal God not only pervades all physical objects, but is 
 immanent in all spirits. His presence with us is not figura- 
 tive, a presence merely of sympathy and help, but is mysteri- 
 ous and real. 
 
 If thought can reach the boundaries of the material uni- 
 verse, God must then be conceived as extending on through 
 infinite space. Omnipresence there merges into immensity. 
 
 The scriptural argument for the omnipresence and immen- 
 sity of God is familiar, and is confirmed by the argument for 
 the existence of an all-perfect Being. 
 
70 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 III. ATTRIBUTES REVEALED THROUGH MORAL RELATIONS. 
 
 I. Holiness. One feature is common to all views of the 
 Supreme Being which are attained through moral relations, 
 namely, his moral excellence. The usual and best name for 
 this attribute is holiness. Holiness can properly be ascribed 
 to any being only when moral excellence is maintained by 
 him with all the energy of which he is capable. Theholi-'- 
 ness of God is his moral excellence maintaining itself with 
 infinite energy as of infinite worth. It is purity become 
 power. Or, since both of these descriptions are figurative, 
 the divine holiness may be defined as infinite and unchange- 
 able moral excellence. 
 
 Holiness has sometimes been defined as the sum of the 
 divine perfections, or as the sum of the moral attributes. 
 Either definition is unsatisfactory. 
 
 {(i) Holiness is not the sum of all perfections ; because, 
 whatever moral quality may attach to the acts and states of 
 a moral agent, there is much besides moral quality in them ; 
 and the moral quality of holiness cannot be the sum of 
 non-moral qualities, such as eternity, omnipresence, and re- 
 sistless power. 
 
 {b) Neither is holiness the sum of the moral perfections of 
 God ; because holiness belongs to the nature of God as such, 
 while most of his other moral attributes concern his relations 
 to his creatures. An inherent quality may control active 
 qualities, but is no more the sum of them than a being is the 
 sum of its actions or relations. 
 
 But it should not be overlooked that to allow any of the 
 divine perfections to be impaired would be the greatest im- 
 aginable evil. It would be a crime against the nature of God, 
 and fatal to his deity. Holiness, then, though not the sujh 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 71 
 
 total of divine attributes, is a defense of them all, and being 
 itself unchangeable, serves as a complete safeguard to the 
 divine immutability. In its relation to the other attributes, 
 holiness in God might be defined as his moral instinct of 
 self-preservation. 
 
 2. Benevolence is that attribute in God which leads him to 
 desire the well-being of others, that is, to love them. 
 
 By many benevolence is now regarded as, in the last 
 analysis, best descriptive of the moral excellence of God. 
 Scriptural support is thought to be found in the statements 
 that "God is love" (i John 4 : 16), and that "love is the 
 fulfilling of the law" (Rom, 13 : 10; cf. Matt. 22 : 36-40). 
 But— 
 
 {a) God is not literally love ; nor, as the words are some- 
 times paraphrased, is his nature love. A being is not a feel- 
 ing. God is a being who naturally loves. Whether this is 
 the deepest moral reality in him remains to be considered. 
 
 {b) To say that love fulfills the law is not to say that love 
 and obedience are identical. Love is the sufficient motive to 
 obey, and it is this fact which justifies the terse language of 
 Paul. But the motive to a deed ought not to be confounded 
 with the deed, nor with the quality of goodness in the motive 
 or in the deed. 
 
 At another extreme, many object to resolving holiness 
 into love, because, as they allege, these attributes are in effect 
 antithetic. Contrariety of view so pronounced ought to dis- 
 appear upon careful consideration of the nature of love and of 
 its effects. 
 
 Once more, love is commonly supposed to be incapable of 
 analysis, and therefore to have indefinable merit. Neither 
 the supposition nor the inference from it is well grounded. 
 
72 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 The questions before us are : What is love ? what is the 
 merit of love ? and, how is love related to holiness ? 
 
 (i) JV/ia^ is love? Love, or liking, is a native impulse in 
 sentient beings to fulfill their functions. In the case of 
 bodily organs, that impulsion is appetite ; with the faculties 
 of mind, it is appetency. For example, the appetite for food 
 is a natural longing of the digestive apparatus to do its office ; 
 while curiosity and zeal in study are the natural appetency of 
 the mind for knowledge. In general, we normally like or 
 love most that which is fittest to our faculties, and which 
 most fully employs without straining them. Our faculties 
 are either self-regarding or social. Correspondingly — 
 
 (A) Self-love is the impulse to fulfill functions which con- 
 cern one's self. 
 
 (B) Social love is the impulse to fulfill social functions. Of 
 these the following may be distinguished : 
 
 {a) Ability on the part of rational beings to recognize the 
 existence of both self-regarding and social faculties in others. 
 Now it is the immediate dictate of nature to discharge self- 
 regarding offices, therefore social love normally desires that 
 others should do the same. For this reason a wise benevo- 
 lence dictates that every man should rely upon his own exer- 
 tions, and loyal devotion to God would first of all have him 
 exist and act in his own behalf. 
 
 {b) Our social faculties are largely faculties of self-imparta- 
 tion ; therefore love to others impels us to give ourselves to 
 them. Such a faculty is pre-eminently that of speech. For 
 the same reason the pious offer themselves and all they have 
 to God. 
 
 (c) Some of our social faculties are faculties of acquisition. 
 Seeing and hearing are of this sort. Hence it is that social 
 love longs to possess its object. Hence also jealousy. Th^ 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 73 
 
 craving to use one's faculties of giving and of getting is 
 further stimulated by the desire that one's friend should use 
 his faculties of getting and of giving ; hence love longs for 
 love, for both acceptance of one's self and possession of one's 
 friend. The devout long to be assured that even God him- 
 self discharges his social office, that he accepts the worship- 
 ers and gives himself to them. 
 
 It should not be overlooked that, inasmuch as the social 
 faculties are the noblest faculties in man, the impulse to use 
 these might well be regarded as an impulse of the highest self- 
 interest, while to neglect or to misuse them is the deepest 
 possible injury to one's self. "Whosoever will save his life 
 shall lose it ; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake," 
 said Christ, "shall find it" (Matt. 16 : 25). 
 
 (2) W/iat is the merit of love f This is to be found partly 
 in the fact that to love is one among many normal functions, 
 but pre-eminently in the fact that love is the incentive to all 
 other normal functions, that is, to the true ends of being, as 
 these ends are determined by the natures of the beings 
 concerned. 
 
 (3) But this conclusion not only declines to resolve holi- 
 ness into benevolence ; it also sets aside the supposed anti- 
 thesis of these attributes. The moral persistence of God in 
 being what he is cannot lessen his desire that his creatures 
 should be and act according to what he made them ; and this, 
 we have seen, is precisely the aim of love. 
 
 3. Justice is the impartial award to every one of that 
 which is suitable to him, the rendering of his own to every 
 man. What is due is determined by what a man is ; and 
 
 G 
 
74 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
 
 what he is includes his capacity to become better. Conduct 
 is both an exposition of what one already is, and an intensifi- 
 cation of the same. 
 
 The real relations of justice to benevolence now appear. 
 The distinction between these attributes in the divine Being 
 is solely one of form. Strict justice cannot render to any 
 one less than that which is appropriate to him ; but neither 
 can benevolence ask any more. Benevolence intends what is 
 well for the creature ; justice insists on what is fit. But the 
 well-for-us and the fit-for-us precisely coincide. The only 
 thing well for us is the normal employment of our powers 
 and the development of our potentialities, including rela- 
 tions to ourselves, to creatures, and to God ; but to provide 
 for this is precisely what is fitting, and therefore due to us. 
 In the divine nature " mercy and truth are met together ; 
 righteousness and peace have kissed each other " (Ps. 85 : 10). 
 
 To our limited understanding these attributes often set up 
 contrary demands ; while, as a rule for our own guidance, 
 'mercy should rejoice against judgment' (James 2 : 13). 
 It is much easier to see what is well for another than what is 
 due to him, and far safer to follow the suggestions of benevo- 
 lence than of justice, for even revenge claims to be but just. 
 
 If there is no essential antagonism between the benevo- 
 lence and the justice of God, no ground exists for that dis- 
 tinction among different kinds of justice which has played 
 an important part in the theology of New England. This 
 theology taught that distributive justice, or justice proper, 
 apportions rewards and penalties — in the latter case appear- 
 ing as vindictive or punitive justice ; that commutative jus- 
 tice is equitable barter or exchange; while public justice is 
 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 75 
 
 not justice at all, but is benevolence administering govern- 
 ment wisely in the interests of the governed. These distinc- 
 tions are sometimes convenient in form, but, if supposed to 
 involve distinctions in substance, they are misleading. 
 
 (a) Justice is in each case a rendering of what is fit 
 and due. 
 
 (d) Justice is a requirement of holiness, not a contrived 
 policy in government. 
 
 4. Tke remaining moral attributes need no detailed discus- 
 sion. Mercy and grace are phases of benevolence — toward 
 the wretched, mercy ; toward the undeserving, grace. Verac- 
 ity is conformity of statement to fact — a conformity simply 
 normal in a Being who knows all reality. Blessedness is the 
 joy which God finds in being infinitely good, and in using his 
 powers according to the dictates of his perfect nature. His 
 glory is the dignity and splendor of his nature in itself (es- 
 sential glory), or as revealed in his works to rational beings 
 (declarative glory). 
 
 The Primacy Among Moral Attributes. 
 
 It should not now be difficult to show that holiness takes 
 precedence among the moral attributes of God. 
 
 (i) As between holiness and benevolence holiness is to be 
 regarded as primary ; because — 
 
 {a) Holiness is itself moral excellence, while the moral 
 excellence of benevolence can be explained. 
 
 {V) Holiness is an attribute of being, while benevolence is 
 an attribute of action ; but action presupposes and is con- 
 trolled by being. 
 
 {c) Benevolence must take counsel of holiness, since to de- 
 sire for a being aught contrary to holiness would be to wish 
 
76 THE DIVINE DECREES 
 
 him harm ; while that which holiness leads God to seek, be- 
 nevolence finds best for the creature. 
 
 {d) The Mosaic Dispensation elaborately symbolized, and 
 the Christian Dispensation makes provision to meet, the re- 
 quirements of holiness as supreme. " First pure, then [by 
 consequence] peaceable" (James 3 : 17). 
 
 (2) As between holiness and Justice it is obvious that, since 
 holiness is the moral quality which, for rational creatures, in- 
 heres in normal being, while justice is normal action toward 
 sentient beings, justice is per se subordinate to holiness. In 
 the relations of God to moral beings, whether good or bad, 
 justice is the exponent of his holiness. 
 
 (3) As between benevolence and justice the definitions show 
 such entire correspondence in nature and concurrence in aim 
 that precedence cannot be claimed for either. It is only to 
 our ignorance that either one can seem imperative and the 
 other voluntary ; for both are secure if either wins. To 
 human view, while probation lasts grace reigns, yet justice is 
 not defrauded ; and if any suffer eternally for sin, benevo- 
 lence must acquiesce. Whatever is precisely suited to any 
 one cannot be other than the best possible for him. It must 
 be so, although his plight may be so wretched that the 
 only thing in it which seems well is that the case is no 
 worse. 
 
 § 1 5. The Divine Decrees. 
 
 The decrees of God are the eternal and sovereign pur- 
 poses for which he created all things. They embrace not 
 only the universe as a whole, but every object in it ; not 
 only consummations, but every subsidiary event ; not only 
 the active furtherance of good, but the incidental permis- 
 sion of evil. 
 
the; divine decrees 77 
 
 The mention of decrees at once puts theology on the de- 
 fensive. But this is a false, and emphatically unscriptural 
 attitude. The Scriptures present this doctrine solely as a 
 ground for hope, even when it threatens the foes of Israel or 
 of the church. In truth, it affords the only assurance of 
 good to the good, the sole bond that the promises of God 
 can, and will, be kept. 
 
 I. EVIDENCES OF DECREES. 
 
 I. From Natural Theology. 
 
 Natural Theology presents the most uncompromising as- 
 pect of decrees. They cannot be dissociated from the idea 
 of God which nature furnishes. Every argument for the Di- 
 vine existence is virtually an argument for the eternal pur- 
 poses of God. Proceeding from the most complex argument 
 to the simplest, we notice : 
 
 {a) History viewed at large testifies to a divine Over-ruler. 
 But history assures us that his purposes have been accom- 
 plished, not solely by the overthrow, but in part through the 
 agency of evil. Pre-eminently, what Christ as a historical 
 personage achieved is due more to the ills he bore than to 
 the good he wrought. The greater part of his influence 
 upon history he owes to a crime of the human race against 
 himself. 
 
 {b) Our moral faculties testify to the existence of an All- 
 perfect Being, whose sovereignty is so absolute that all events, 
 however revolting, must be regarded as, in some way above 
 our understanding, appointed by his authority and permitted 
 by his goodness. 
 
 It may be objected that, as the moral argument reaches 
 the idea of sovereignty through the idea of perfection, the 
 
78 THE DIVINE DECREES 
 
 latter must condition the former, and forbid us to believe 
 that evil is in any sense included in the decree. But the 
 proper inference is that evil must not be charged upon the 
 All-perfect, although his sovereignty in the matter is com- 
 plete. The moral argument teaches us that his sovereignty 
 is as complete as his perfection, and as blameless, 
 
 (c) The teleological argument expressly declares the reign 
 of design or purpose. But adaptations to ends exhibit an in- 
 tention that some creatures shall prey upon others. The evo- 
 lutionist doctrine of progress through struggle for existence 
 intimates that physical evil was introduced that good might 
 come. The whole teaching of nature is that God entertains a 
 plan wider and farther-reaching than we can pretend to know. 
 
 (^) Order or law indicates presiding intelligence ; but it is 
 an intelligence which has incorporated in the universe, as in 
 a complex mechanism, a destiny which it must work out. 
 Laws discovered or formulated by modern science, like the 
 law of heredity, outdo in harshness the most austere theology. 
 A pantheistic view of nature is not less necessitarian than a 
 positivistic, and is optimistic only at cost of belittling evil. 
 
 (e) The proof that God is the First Cause is proof that he 
 is a Will. But he is eternal and unchangeable ; therefore 
 his purposes are changeless and eternal. 
 
 Uniting the argument for Will with the argument for In- 
 telligence, we have the most startling view of decrees. The 
 All-knowing knew in advance what would occur if he made 
 the world. To decide on creating was virtually to decide on 
 all that has followed. 
 
 2. Evidence from Scripture, 
 
 {a) A few texts expressly declare the existence of decrees; 
 e. £■., Isa 14 : 24 ; 46 : lo ; cf. Dan. 4:35; Eph. i : 11. 
 
THE DIVINE DECREES 79 
 
 {b) Prophecy represents future events, not only as foreseen, 
 but as in large part predetermined. 
 
 (t) The predestination of some men to salvation is an illus- 
 tration of decrees. But the fuller statement of this phase of 
 the doctrine belongs to soteriology, 
 
 {d) The doctrine, however, is not to be looked for so 
 much in single texts of the Bible as in its prevailing concep- 
 tion of the supremacy of the divine will. This appears in — 
 
 (aa) The acceptance of the will of God as the standard of 
 right. Acts otherwise abhorrent were performed without 
 scruple when God required them. Thus Abraham felt no 
 compunctions about offering Isaac ; no hint is given that 
 Jephthah thought himself exempt from fulfilling his rash 
 vow ; nor did the command to extirpate the Canaanites seem 
 to require any vindication at the period when either Testa- 
 ment was written. 
 
 {bb) The declaration that God instigated wicked men to 
 deeds confessedly wrong. For example, the Lord is repre- 
 sented by a prophet as sending a lying spirit to deceive Ahab 
 (i Kings 22 : 22, 23) ; as intending to send a strong delusion 
 upon the wicked that they may believe a lie (2 Thess. 2:11); 
 as hardening Pharaoh's heart that the divine name might be 
 declared in the earth (Rom. 9 : 17) ; as determining the very 
 things that should be done to Christ (Acts 4 : 28), and deliv- 
 ering him by determinate counsel and foreknowledge into the 
 wicked hands that would crucify and slay him (Acts 2 : 23) ; 
 possibly even as fitting some vessels of wrath for destruction 
 (Rom. 9 : 22), and appointing that some should stumble at 
 the gospel (i Peter 2 : 8); while, in reply to an objector, 
 Paul claims for God the right to do as he pleases with his 
 own (Rom. 9 : 19-24). 
 
 The entire artlessness of these statements, the evident un- 
 
8o THE DIVINE DECREES 
 
 consciousness of any need to justify God, — except in the 
 case of Paul, whose attempt at justification is but the widest 
 assertion of sovereign rights, — shows as plainly as express 
 statements could that the sovereignty of God's purpose un- 
 derlay the entire biblical conception of his relations to things 
 and men. 
 
 But while the Bible does not lower the conception of the 
 divine sovereignty which may be derived from nature, it never- 
 theless provides — 
 
 II. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST MISCONCEPTION OF DECREES. 
 
 1. The doctrine of decrees should not be mistaken for the 
 ancient doctrine of fate. Fate was believed to be an im- 
 personal destiny ruling men and gods. But the Scriptures 
 represent decrees as turning on the most personal element in 
 God — his will. 
 
 2. Decrees should not be mistaken for the modern doctrine 
 of necessity. Not a few physiologists urge that men are 
 under an essentially mechanical necessity of yielding to im- 
 pulses received from without. But the Bible addresses man 
 as free. What he does, he himself knows that he does be- 
 cause he chooses so to do. 
 
 3. The doctrine of decrees offers but a single aspect of the 
 case, presented for practical ends, and ought not to be ac- 
 cepted as a theoretical exposition of the whole matter. 
 
 (a) A secondary truth is misleading when mistaken for a 
 primary truth. It is true that the will of God is the proxi- 
 mate standard of right ; but the ultimate standard is the holi- 
 ness of God. 
 
 (6) God is sometimes represented as directly doing what 
 the course of his providence brings about as part of the es- 
 tablished system for correcting great evils and bestowing 
 
THE DIVINE DECREES 8l 
 
 great good. Reformers are wisely eager to see the harvest 
 of evil and good ripen, that they may separate the tares 
 from the wheat. It was thus that the heart of Pharaoh was 
 hardened, and thus that his wickedness could be defeated. 
 He hardened his own heart, and it was respite from severity 
 that led him so to do (Exod. 8 : 15, 31, 32 ; 9 : 34). Even 
 Christ could say to Judas, after Satan entered into him, . 
 •* That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13 : 27). 
 
 (c) This method of governing the world is not arbitrary, but 
 is in strict accord with the laws of the human mind. The 
 greater part of the events described in the startling texts 
 above referred to come about through the agency of habit. 
 Habit is the momentum of the mind. It is therefore econ- 
 omy of effort. We would be incapable of doing at the cost 
 of overcoming moral inertia in each instance, what we readily 
 do by habit. But it is incident to this advantage that habit- 
 ual evil also is easy and can be overcome only by what may 
 seem disproportionate violence. For this reason, to him who 
 looks for God's part in history, the human element may some- 
 times appear unimportant, while the divine is conspicuous and 
 alone significant. 
 
 (d) More than all, while the Bible casts no doubt upon the 
 supremacy of the Divine will, it lays emphasis alike upon the 
 holiness and benevolence of God, and upon the responsibility 5 
 and convertibility of man. Paul repels the notion that the 
 non-elect have " stumbled in order that they might fall " 
 (Rom. II : 11), and assures Timothy that God "would have 
 all men to be saved" (i Tim. 2:4); while Peter explains the 
 delay of vengeance by the long-suffering of God, who does 
 not wish " that any should perish, but that all should come to 
 repentance" (2 Peter 3 : 9). We know that the decree can- 
 not be capricious, for God is wise ; that it cannot be evil, for 
 
82 THE DIVINE DECREES 
 
 he is holy ; and that it cannot be unkind, for he is good. 
 Without knowing what the decree is, we might fitly entrust 
 ourselves to it and say, " It is Jehovah ; let him do what 
 seemeth him good " (i Sam. 3 : 18). 
 
 We conclude that, although the Bible does not, and per- 
 haps could not, show us how the sovereignty squares with 
 the goodness or even the holiness of God, it insists upon all 
 the divine perfections, traces the prerogatives of God to 
 these, and thus guards against one-sidedness and extrava- 
 gance of view. 
 
 III. THEORIES OF DECREES. 
 
 1. The hyper-CalvinistiCy that God eternally purposed to 
 bring about all things, including sin, by his own direct or in- 
 direct efficiency. 
 
 But to intend evil, either directly or indirectly, would be 
 incompatible with holiness and grace. There is no tenable 
 objection to believing that God directly and indirectly pro- 
 motes the good. 
 
 2. The moderate Calvinistic view, that God permitted evil 
 either — 
 
 {a) That good might come ; which is open to the same 
 objection as the preceding theory ; or — 
 
 {U) As incidental to creation. Indeed, any scheme which 
 included free moral agents would seemingly include a possi- 
 bility of sin. But since, to the foreknowledge of God, the 
 plan adopted included the certainty of sin, the difficulty 
 remains that a decree to create apparently involved respon- 
 sibility for all the consequences. 
 
 3. The Pelagian view,' which, starting with an extreme 
 doctrine of human freedom, affirms that the Divine will is 
 always conditioned by the freedom of man, and on that 
 
CREATION 83 
 
 ground denies decrees. But the present advocates of this 
 opinion in some cases admit it to be unscriptural, and make 
 little account of this fact. 
 
 4. The 7noderate Arminian insistence on human freedom 
 and admission of divine sovereignty, with a denial of decrees 
 on the grounds : 
 
 {a) That the relation of the Divine and the human wills is 
 too profound a mystery to warrant the affirmation of decrees. 
 
 But it is not unwarrantable to regard the sovereignty of a 
 person as the sovereignty of his will, or purpose. This is 
 but to push back as far as possible the frontier of impene- 
 trable mystery. Decrees expose, but do not cause, the dif- 
 ficulty. 
 
 {h) The holiness and benevolence of God forbid him to de- 
 cree even permissively the existence of evil. 
 
 But he has decreed the existence of a world to which evil 
 was a foreseen incident. 
 
 {c) The doctrine of decrees is incompatible with freedom 
 of the will in man. 
 
 But God, foreknowing what free wills would do, must be 
 regarded as including their free determination in his plan. 
 
 {d^ The doctrine of decrees leads the wicked to charge 
 upon God the responsibility for their conduct and fate. 
 
 But what God destines for any man he brings about 
 through that man's volition. God absolutely decrees a con- 
 ditional universe. His decree is as absolute as though there 
 were no freedom ; freedom is as complete as though there 
 were no decree. 
 
 § 16. Creation. 
 
 Creation may mean either the origination of spirit and 
 matter by fiat of God, or the formation by divine interven- 
 
^4 CREATION 
 
 tion of things living and non-living out of substance which 
 has existed from eternity. The Bible alone directly testifies, 
 or could directly testify to creation in either sense. 
 
 I. TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 That the Bible teaches the introduction of at least some 
 new species by special act of God, no one denies. Most per- 
 sons have also understood it to teach the absolute origination 
 of matter. The texts which may be quoted for this view are 
 not numerous, and some of them at least are capable of a 
 different interpretation. Yet no other interpretation was or 
 is natural to the reader who exalts the Almighty above the 
 universe as the Bible has taught man to do. The following 
 passages may be referred to : 
 
 (a) Gen. i : i. The Hebrew word Bard in the Kal form is 
 never used except of an act of God, and never with an accusa- 
 tive of material employed. The phrase " in the beginning " 
 would indicate, according to Hebrew idiom, that nothing but 
 God had existed before the event spoken of as " the begin- 
 ning." And the second verse represents chaos as following, 
 not as preceding the first creative act. Grammatically in- 
 deed, but not rhetorically, the first verse might be accepted 
 as a very curt epitome of the entire process about to be de- 
 tailed, and the second verse as describing a state of chaos 
 which had existed from eternity ; but this is an interpretation 
 which only necessity or adventurous ingenuity would be likely 
 to propose. 
 
 (d) Rom. 4:17 tells us that the faith of Abraham, 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 in the 
 Bible. 
 
CREATION 85 
 
 (c) I Cor. 8 : 6 teaches that God is the source of all things, 
 as Christ is the agent in their creation. 
 
 (d) In form, Heb. 11:3 merely denies that visible things 
 were made out of visible materials ; but in substance, it tells 
 what the faith of the Hebrews could grasp as to origins. 
 Three alternatives are possible : visible things were made out 
 of visible ; out of invisible ; or " out of nothing." The first is 
 expressly denied by the text ; we have no reason to suppose 
 the second was the belief of the Hebrews ; therefore this 
 text in effect declares, with all the energy of understatement, 
 that, in the view of true faith, "the word of God" made the 
 worlds "out of nothing." 
 
 II. TESTIMONY OF METAPHYSICS. 
 
 Appeal to the necessities of thought confirms the doctrine 
 of the Bible. It may be regarded as an illegitimate method 
 of seeking the truth about physical things. But it would be 
 to the confusion of science and philosophy alike to admit that 
 the laws of mind are out of harmony with those of matter. 
 That absolute reliance upon the conclusions of physical 
 science which is now the chief stimulus to its pursuit would 
 be at an end. 
 
 A. Negatively ; the most careful observations and most 
 obvious conclusions would be unworthy of acceptance, be- 
 cause reached by the use of untrustworthy faculties. 
 
 {a) Induction rests upon specimen facts, and appeals to 
 the uniformity of nature as its warrant. But the uniformity 
 of nature rests in turn upon the necessary metaphysical as- 
 sumption that objects of the same class have and must con- 
 tinue to have the same common properties ; because properties 
 inhere in substance, and so to suffer a change of properties 
 would be to become an object of another class. 
 
86 CREATION 
 
 (d) The deductions of pure mathematics would have to be 
 rejected, because its conclusions rest solely upon the validity 
 of the laws of thought. But mathematics is an indispens- 
 able organ of physical investigation ; the law of gravitation, 
 for instance, was worked out by its means. But — 
 
 B. Positively ; the progress of knowledge in all spheres, 
 while utterly failing to reduce matter and mind to one sub- 
 stance, shows with startling distinctness their intimate rela- 
 tions and the delicate harmony of their laws. It is not then 
 superfluous to recall the metaphysical phase of the cosmologi- 
 cal argument ; to wit — 
 
 It is inconceivable that a process of finite causes and effects 
 can have existed from eternity. The only real cause is a first 
 cause. There must be one absolute Being. It is idle to 
 imagine the contrary of so self-evident a fact. If it be 
 objected — 
 
 That we are unable to conceive the creation of things out 
 of nothing, — ex nihilo nihil fit, — it may be replied that the 
 doctrine of creation assumes the existence of a Power compe- 
 tent to do all things which are not contrary to his perfections ; 
 and that, although we are unable to represent in imagination 
 the absolute beginning of things, we have no difficulty in con- 
 ceiving that God could effect it — the only sense of the word 
 " conceive " pertinent to this discussion. 
 
 HI, TESTIMONY OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Natural Science is now known to be not unfavorable to a 
 theistic view of the world, but probably a majority of eminent 
 naturalists repudiate the biblical doctrine of creation. This 
 is done on various grounds. 
 
 I. Naturalists are disposed to assume tke eternity of mat- 
 
CREATION 87 
 
 ter: and for the reasons that science cannot know aught of a 
 creation ; it finds matter indestructible ; it refuses to concede 
 any addition to the forces of the universe ; it interprets caus- 
 ation by the law of continuity, as the extension and unfold- 
 ing of the cause in the effect, thus precluding an absolute 
 beginning of the universe. But, on the other hand — 
 
 A. Scientists, of all men, should not " beg the question." 
 If Science cannot know a Creator, it cannot know there was 
 none, until it has at least shown matter to be eternal — the 
 very point at issue. 
 
 B. To say that indestructibility proves eternal pre-existence 
 is again to beg the question ; because indestructibility may 
 be due, not to capacity of self-existence, but to support by the 
 power of a Creator. 
 
 C. To deny that the sum of forces has been increased is to 
 deny what there is no need to affirm. The doctrine of the 
 convertibility of force, in the name of which the denial is 
 made, cannot be urged against an addition to the sum of 
 forces, because before the creation there were no forces. 
 
 D. The law of continuity holds in an already existing uni- 
 verse, but is manifestly inapplicable to its origination. Be- 
 cause — 
 
 {a) If matter consists of solid atoms, it cannot have taken 
 eternity to reach its present state. 
 
 ip) If it consists of atomic energies, universal order proves 
 that intelligence has been associated with energy from a defi- 
 nite beginning of motion within the mass. 
 
 ic) If, in order to escape these objections, matter is re- 
 garded as a temporal form of one eternal substance having 
 two aspects, intelligence and energy, which find their unity 
 in will, the insuperable difficulty arises that the law of con- 
 tinuity cannot apply to the direction of energy by intelligence 
 
88 CREATION 
 
 without conversion of a mental state into a physical ; but 
 such a conversion is admitted to be impossible. 
 
 2. Many biologists hold to the spontaneous generation of 
 life on the ground that mechanical and chemical forces must 
 be considered adequate to effect all that has taken place in 
 the world. It may be replied — 
 
 A. This general assumption would carry with it the anti- 
 creationist doctrine a priori. But no account of the origin of 
 life can be accepted without proof. The origination of life, 
 either creatively or spontaneously, is a departure from the 
 observed course of nature. It is unscientific to insist on the 
 one or on the other of these marvels without conclusive evi- 
 dence, and the naturalist is no more at liberty than the theo- 
 logian to beg the question, 
 
 B. The presumption is strong against the identity of the 
 vital principle and inorganic force. This presumption is due 
 to the facts that — 
 
 {a) Spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, has never been 
 artificially secured, although artifice can provide favorable 
 conditions with far greater readiness than nature could. 
 
 {b) The vital principle is plainly distinguishable from 
 chemical and mechanical forces throughout the entire life- 
 history of an organism. The vital principle constrains phys- 
 ical forces into the service of building or restoring organic 
 tissues ; but when the vital principle declines and is finally 
 lost, physical forces begin to tear apart what they had put 
 together. 
 
 {c) The vital principle is not itself a force, although it 
 controls forces. In this respect the vital are like the volun- 
 tary functions of a sentient being : in neither case is there 
 any evidence that the psychical is convertible with the phys- 
 
CREATION 8g 
 
 ical. The same law extends to the vital principle in plants : 
 it is not convertible with physical energy, and therefore is 
 not a physical energy. 
 
 We conclude then that, while the presumption is against 
 supernatural interventions in our day, it is against sponta- 
 neous generation formerly ; and if it does not tell against 
 descent of species, it is because in this case, as we shall see, 
 the process of evolution has left its traces. 
 
 C. If abiogenesis were proved, creation would not be dis- 
 proved. The inorganic would then be known to possess that 
 power of begetting the organic which organisms themselves 
 exhibit in the ordinary propagation of individuals, creation 
 would be mediate instead of immediate, in the one case as it 
 is in the other ; but in both cases alike involution must pre- 
 cede evolution. 
 
 3. Evolutionists of all schools reject the doctrine that 
 every species was produced by a special creative interposi- 
 tion. The account given in Genesis is thought by respect- 
 able exegetes not to require this interpretation, but to be 
 even better understood as teaching that the four creations of 
 living things produced but the earliest members of a class, 
 and laid upon nature the charge of evolving all the included 
 species. The biblical cosmogony so far accords with evolution 
 that it needs no hardihood to accept the agreement as inten- 
 tional. 
 
 Evolution has not been proved ; but the tendency is very 
 marked among scientific men to accept it as an article of 
 scientific faith ; and, thus far, the not unscriptural derivation 
 of species by descent from forms introduced through a few 
 divine interpositions has more evidence in its favor, and is 
 freer from difficulties than any other view. 
 
90 CREATION 
 
 A. Evidence in favor of a not unscriptural doctrine of 
 Evolution is — 
 
 (a) The correspondence of embryonic to race development, 
 of ontogenesis to phylogenesis. The embryo of an individual 
 takes successive forms characteristic of simpler types, and 
 which possibly sketch the descent of its type from other 
 types. 
 
 (d) The existence of homologues, or anatomical identity 
 with functional difference ; for instance, as found in the pec- 
 toral fin of a fish, the wing of a bird, the pastern and hoof 
 of a horse, and the hand of a man. 
 
 (c) The significant occurrence of rudimentary or abortive 
 organs. These organs were once useful to an earlier and 
 presumably ancestral species, but have become atrophied 
 through disuse by the species in which they appear as rudi- 
 mentary. 
 
 (d) The geographical distribution of related species over 
 related territory. Notably the restriction of the sloths to 
 South America, and of the singular duck-bill or ornithorhyn- 
 chus to Australia. 
 
 (e) The geological succession in isolated territories, like 
 New Zealand, of existing species to related but not identical 
 fossil species ; e. g:, the allied apteryx and dinornis. 
 
 (/) The enormous presumption that nature has done what- 
 ever has occurred within her realm. This presumption makes 
 miracles in our day well-nigh incredible, and weighs almost 
 equally against miracles and supernatural creations in any 
 former period. To deny them on this account would be, as 
 above urged, to beg the question ; but cogent testimony is 
 needed in order to overcome this negative evidence. 
 
 All the foregoing evidence is prima facie favorable to 
 various theories of evolution. That it is available only for a 
 
CREATION 91 
 
 theory not out of harmony with the Scriptures may be seen 
 from — 
 
 B. The Evidence against theories of Evolution, which are 
 less accordant with Scripture. 
 
 {a) Especially unthinkable is a purely natural transition 
 from insensible plants feeding on inorganic matter to sentient 
 animals feeding on organic matter. Nor is the difficulty set 
 aside by the fact that the mechanical movements of some 
 "sensitive plants" are not distinguishable from those of some 
 animals which lack a nervous system ; nor by the further 
 fact that the fungi constitute a class of vegetables which, like 
 animals, feed on organisms. To natural science the origin 
 of animal life is still a matter of speculation, not of knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 {b) The Darwinian theory of Natural Selection is based on 
 the observed tendency of species to variation. It is claimed 
 that, during the struggle for existence in former ages, those 
 varieties survived which were fittest to their environment, 
 and that the slow accumulation of differences produced new 
 species. This theory is widely felt to be open to the ob- 
 jections : 
 
 [aa) The tendency to variation has not produced a clearly 
 new animal species since man appeared upon the earth. 
 
 {bb) Few variations afford any advantage in the struggle 
 for existence. 
 
 {cc) Varieties show a tendency to infertility as departure 
 from the type of their species becomes marked. The actual 
 tendency is to revert to type. 
 
 {dd) Persistence of type is further illustrated by the ina- 
 bility of animal hybrids to perpetuate a breach in species. 
 
 {c) The theory of Gradual Evolution self-guided, upon the 
 
92 CREATION 
 
 whole, toward improvement of species is liable in common 
 with the theory of Natural Selection, to the objections : 
 
 (aa) Sudden changes in the earth's crust have destroyed 
 many forms of life and been followed by long periods of quiet, 
 during which species at first rapidly multiplied and afterward 
 gradually became fewer. 
 
 {bb) The want of transitional forms is too marked to war- 
 rant in all cases the hypothesis of a gradual evolution. This 
 want is greater among fossils than at present, when new spe- 
 cies are not beyond question formed. For example, the am- 
 phioxus or lancelet is a living form intermediate between ver- 
 tebrates and mollusks, and the ornithorhynchus, or duck-bill, 
 is a link between saurians and mammals ; but neither of 
 these, nor any other transitional form leading up either to 
 vertebrates or to mammals, is found among fossils. 
 
 To escape these objections, the theory has been proposed 
 of— 
 
 {d) Heterogenesis, or descent of species by sudden leaps, 
 or modifications in embryo, somewhat after the analogy of 
 certain lower orders of animals, like the tape-worm or the 
 plant-louse. But facts cannot be quoted for the possibility 
 of such changes ; because — 
 
 {aa) In all existing cases heterogenesis proceeds in a circle, 
 always reproducing the original parental form. 
 
 {bb) The arrest of the series at one of the intermediate 
 points would be a degradation of species ; whereas, the pro- 
 traction of embryological life until a higher species than that 
 of the parents is formed is wholly without example or any- 
 thing analogous to example. 
 
 (e) The theory of Primitive Generation, denying all deri- 
 vation of species from species, whether slowly or suddenly, 
 affirms that primitive germs developed indifferently into forms 
 
THE FINAL CAUSE IN CREATION 93 
 
 which had only the characteristics common both to plants 
 and animals ; that from these were evolved forms representa- 
 tive in turn of the larger divisions in each kingdom, of classes, 
 orders, genera, and that these last produced the various and 
 unalterable species. 
 
 But this bold theory has little in its favor except its 
 boldness. 
 
 The difficulties attending a naturalistic evolution of man 
 are deferred to the doctrine of his creation. Meantime it is 
 distinctly probable that, while the greater number of species 
 have been developed from other species. Divine interposition 
 was required at the opening of the several periods when the 
 most important transitions took place. 
 
 § 17. The Final Cause in Creation. 
 
 It is necessary to believe that God, as a rational Being, had 
 some ultimate purpose in creation. That all-inclusive pur- 
 pose must comply with an important moral condition : it must 
 be wide enough to cover the counter-processes of good and 
 evil ; it must be intimately connected with what passes 
 under our view, and yet, like the sun amid its planets, remote 
 enough to serve as a common center for these apparently 
 erratic movements. 
 
 We are met also by a metaphysical condition, the singular 
 paradox that the self-sufficiency of the all-perfect One would 
 bar every motive for the creation which makes him known. 
 We find a universe demanding a Cause, a Cause precluding 
 a universe. The only end which seems not wholly incom- 
 patible with the divine perfectness is the normal desire of 
 God to employ his powers and to see a reflection of himself 
 in his works. But the activity of God constitutes in large 
 part his blessedness, and the reflection of his attributes is his 
 
94 I^E FINAt CAUSE IN CREATION 
 
 declarative, as distinguished from his essential, glory. So 
 that we conclude — 
 
 1. The final cause of the creation is the blessedness and 
 glory of God. Uniting these two ends we may say that God 
 made all things primarily for himself. 
 
 This is distinctly the teaching of the Bible. God cared 
 for his ancient people "for his own sake" (Isa. 37 : 35 ; 43 : 
 25 ; Ezek. 20 : 9) ; he teaches inspired men to ask blessings 
 " for his name's sake " (Ps. 2 5 : 1 1 ; 3 1 : 3 ; Dan. 9 : 19), and 
 makes even the wrath of his enemies to praise him (Ps. 76 : 
 10 ; 46 : 10 ; Rom. 9 : 17). The glory of the Father was the 
 aim of Christ (John 12: 28; 17: i, 4); and Paul taught 
 Christians, " whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God " 
 (i Cor. 10 : 31). 
 
 If it be objected that all-engrossing selfishness is thus at- 
 tributed to God, we reply — 
 
 {a) The objector needs to exalt his conception of God 
 until the Supreme Being attains in his view a worth so high 
 that he cannot fitly make any object other than his own 
 glory his end, or any criterion except his own preference his 
 guide. 
 
 (^) The blessedness and glory of God are the only com- 
 plete security for the well-being of the creature. We there- 
 fore notice — 
 
 2. The secondary object of God in creation is to confer 
 benefits on sentient beings, in particular upon man. This is 
 assured by the facts : 
 
 {a) If the Creator seeks blessedness in normal activity, he 
 must find exercise for his justice and benevolence ; but these 
 contemplate what is suitable and beneficial to his creatures. 
 
. CONSERVATION 95 
 
 {b) The full glory of God is reflected in rational beings 
 only when they are most like himself ; and thus to secure his 
 own glory is to provide for their highest advantage. 
 
 {c) The song of the angels at the birth of our Lord an- 
 nounced the union of glory to God with blessing to men 
 (Luke 2 : 14). 
 
 § 18. Conservation. 
 
 The Bible teaches that the source of existence is also its 
 supporter. In some passages creation and conservation are 
 so closely associated as to intimate that the latter office is 
 involved in the former (Acts 17 : 28 ; cf. Neh. 9:6;! Cor. 
 ^:6\ Col. I : 16, 17 ; Heb. i : 2, 3 ; 2 Peter 3 : 5, 7). It is 
 easy to believe that to keep things from lapsing into nothing 
 is akin to bringing them into being out of nothing. 
 
 The nature of the relation by virtue of which God main- 
 tains all being and forces has not been revealed and is not to 
 be discovered. Opinion always tends either to a pantheistic 
 identification, or to a deistic isolation, of the Creator and 
 creation. At present the movement is strongly toward a 
 pantheistic or semi-pantheistic account. Theories of conser- 
 vation may be classed as monistic and dualistic. 
 
 I. MONISTIC THEORIES. 
 
 These teach that there is but one substance in the uni- 
 verse ; accordingly, matter and mind are essentially identical, 
 and unless the existence of God is denied, this one substance 
 is divine. 
 
 I. The typical Pantheistic theory, denying any real per- 
 sonality in God, regards all the processes of nature and of 
 human history as a self-evolution of the One who is the all. 
 That all-embracing Being is conceived either as absolute Idea, 
 which ultimately comes to light as reason knowing itself, or 
 
96 CONSERVATION 
 
 as indeterminate Substance, a " two-faced entity " which, in 
 exhibiting the property of extension, appears as matter, or, 
 in exhibiting the property of thought, appears as mind ; which 
 in man first attains to consciousness, and in Christ, as some 
 pantheists admit, first knows itself as God. 
 
 This theory cannot claim to be scriptural. It decidedly 
 antagonizes the scriptural doctrines of the true personality of 
 God and man, of God's priority to his works and of his dis- 
 tinctness from them. That God is distinct from the world 
 and that he is a person are the warp and the woof of bibli- 
 cal theology. The Bible makes the universe depend upon 
 God ; pantheism makes God depend upon the universe. 
 
 2. A patitheisni zvhich claims to be Christian and has gained 
 some degree of credence, insists that God is the only sub- 
 stance in the universe, but affirms his personality. The chief 
 grounds on which it is maintained are — 
 
 A. Philosophical. 
 
 {a) Reason demands unity in the substance, that there 
 may be unity in the system, of the universe. 
 
 {b) Things become known only through force resident in 
 them ; therefore, we know only force, and matter is presum- 
 ably only a congeries of atomic forces ; but force is spiritual, 
 so that matter and spirit are essentially one. 
 
 {c) There is unbroken continuity between cause and effect ; 
 therefore matter and mind, which constantly produce effects 
 on each other, must be one continuous substance, and the 
 First Cause must be identical with the universe. To causa- 
 tion without us corresponds — 
 
 {d) The causal process within us. The mind creates its 
 own volitions, and these direct the body. In thus e.xerting 
 its own energy the mind discovers a type of all energy, and 
 necessarily refers all efficient cause to will. All that occurs 
 
CONSERVATION 97 
 
 in nature is therefore the direct result of divine volition be- 
 come habitual. 
 
 But monism secures unity of system at cost of the facts. 
 For — 
 
 (i) To say that, because we know matter only through its 
 forces therefore we know only force, is to overlook that we 
 know force only through the motions of matter/ This is 
 true alike of masses and of atoms. 
 
 (2) If matter and mind were but different forms of one 
 substance, they might conceivably be converted into each 
 other ; whereas physicists admit that not even their energies 
 are interconvertible. Now, since convertibility prevails be- 
 tween all energies, it is certain that the mind is not the seat 
 of energy, but of a wholly incomprehensible ability to control 
 the body's energy. We have no reason to believe that a dif- 
 ferent relation exists between God and the universe ; in 
 whatever way he maintains it, neither its substance nor its 
 energy is divine. 
 
 B. Scientific. 
 
 (a) Science has vindicated, and unhesitatingly builds upon, 
 that unity in the system of the universe which reason tries 
 to make out by aid of philosophy ; the laws of matter and of 
 mind are in strictest accord. Monism infers that matter and 
 mind are of one substance. 
 
 (d) All monistic schemes are thoroughly evolutionistic ; 
 hence monism claims the support that science now accords to 
 evolution. The creation and conservation of the universe 
 
 ^ We are acquainted with matter only as that which may have energy com- 
 municated to it from other matter, and which may, in its turn, communicate energy 
 to other matter. Energy, on the other hand, we know only as that which, in all 
 natural phenomena, is continually passing from one portion of matter to another. 
 . . . Energy cannot exist except in connection with matter. — ■_/. C/eri Max- 
 well, " Matter and Motion^' pp. 164-5. 
 
 I 
 
98 CONSERVATION 
 
 thus become at once natural and supernatural. To these 
 arguments we reply — 
 
 (i) The unity of the universe is in its source. That matter 
 and mind have one Creator fully accounts for the accord of 
 their laws ; and this explanation is free from the insurmount- 
 able objection to monism ; namely, that matter and mind 
 have not a single property in common, and can be described 
 only by denying of one everything, except that they exist. 
 To act is not the same in both. 
 
 (2) The evidence is against a spontaneous origination of 
 life, and against the evolution of all organic species without 
 any special divine intervention. 
 
 C. Theological. 
 
 A theological rather than a biblical support is claimed for 
 monism in the improvement which it is thought to make in 
 Christian doctrine. Thus to monism creation did not take 
 place " out of nothing," but was God's presentation of him- 
 self in new form ; conservation becomes a phase of the Di- 
 vine self-existence, instead of the support of alien substances ; 
 incarnation was a full revelation of the essential divinity of 
 all things ; atonement was a provision, justification and re- 
 generation an achievement, within the Godhead in its own 
 behalf ; while belief that three divine persons are one God 
 forbids the trinitarian to deny the possibility of innumerable 
 human personalities in God. 
 
 Objections to the theology of monism are — 
 
 (1) In effect, it makes matter essentially divine and there- 
 fore eternal, which is counter to the intimations of both 
 science and Scripture. 
 
 (2) Against monism as a theory of conservation the script- 
 ural objection to typical pantheism here recurs : the Bible 
 does not represent the Supporter as the supported. 
 
CONSERVATION 
 
 99 
 
 (3) The ego is too well assured of its substantiality, its dis- 
 tinctness from the non-ego, its freedom and its sinfulness, to 
 accept a resolution, in any sense or degree, of its substance 
 and its self-determinations into those of God.' 
 
 (4) Postponing discussion of soteriological doctrines, we 
 may here remind the trinitarian monist that, in order to 
 meet unitarian objections, orthodoxy has always had to take 
 the ground that more than one person in one substance is 
 possible to the Infinite alone ; and we cannot now apply to 
 our own experience that which is admissible only because 
 its sphere is outside our experience. 
 
 II. DUALISTIC THEORIES. 
 
 These teach that matter and mind are essentially different, 
 but that God made and upholds them both. 
 
 I. A kind of dynamic pantheism is proposed by some who 
 shrink from declaring the substance of the universe divine. 
 In its scholastic form it was a doctrine of creatio co7itinnata, 
 that God supports the universe by a continual exercise of cre- 
 ative energy. In its modern form it is a theory of the di- 
 vine immanence, and holds either that the whole energy of 
 the universe is divine, or that all physical motion is directly 
 due to divine activity, while the spirit of man is self- 
 moved. 
 
 {a) To continuous creation the objection holds that it denies 
 all causal relation between successive states of things. To 
 
 ^ Monism shows opposite tendencies ; it tends to exalt the nature, but also to de- 
 preciate the personality of man ; it makes him divine in essence, yet less important 
 as an individual. One of these tendencies may prevail against the other. Thus 
 the theology which regards all force as divine has not infrequently, both in ancient 
 and modern times, set up high claims for freedom of the human will. In such 
 cases it is more concerned to emphasize the divinity of man's nature than to make 
 light, as quite as logically it might, of his personality; metaphysical consistency is 
 sacrificed to a theological interest. 
 
100 CONSERVATION 
 
 refer these states to divine causation is to set aside the dis- 
 tinct testimony of self-consciousness and observation that 
 the causal nexus binds together the successive states them- 
 selves ; and thus our belief in causation itself would be re- 
 duced to a delusion. 
 
 (b) Dynamic resolves into substantive pantheism. To re 
 gard all force as divine is to make all substance divine. On 
 the one hand, all cognizable properties of matter are due to 
 force ; if then force is divine, matter has the property of di- 
 vinity. On the other hand, since force has no known or con- 
 ceivable existence apart from matter, then matter, on the ex- 
 istence of which divine force is dependent, cannot itself be 
 less than divine. This objection applies, whether or not 
 man is regarded as self-moved. 
 
 2. Deism taught that God, in creating the universe, en- 
 dowed it with self-maintaining substance, forces, and laws ; 
 hence all events in the history of things and men have come 
 about without divine interference. Natural science cannot 
 raise any conclusive objection to this theory, but — 
 
 {a) The theistic student of nature finds a weighty pre- 
 sumption against it in the mysterious and apparently spirit- 
 ual nature of force, and is predisposed rather to a panthe- 
 istic view. 
 
 {b) The deistic theory virtually denies that God preserves 
 the universe, and it could not be mistaken for a scriptural 
 representation of this divine office. 
 
 3. Conciirsns of divine energy with natural forces, in the 
 sense that the former perpetuates and directs the latter, 
 represents God as immanent and active in all things, but 
 identified with none. This was a favorite explanation of 
 scholastics, and is probably the popular view. Indeed, if th* 
 toregoing theories are rejected, conservation must be repre- 
 
PROVIDENCE lOI 
 
 sented under the form of a concursns, or not at all. It is 
 wisest to frame no theory as to a matter on which both the 
 Bible and science are silent. 
 
 It is worthy of note that, while the autonomy of nature is 
 so analogous to the freedom of human will as to commend 
 the deistic theory to some early Arminians, monism, on the 
 contrary, logically involves a necessitarianism more rigorous 
 than any surviving Calvinistic scheme, 
 
 § 19. Providence. 
 
 God not only maintains all things in existence, but he di- 
 rects all things toward the ends for which he made them. 
 And, since his own glory and blessedness are secured through 
 the well-being of his creatures, the divine providence is not 
 improperly conceived as in effect his care for his creatures, 
 in particular for man. Providence is distinguished as Gen- 
 eral and Particular. 
 
 I. GENERAL PROVIDENCE. 
 
 The provision which God in his government of the world 
 makes for the human race as a whole, or for nations and com- 
 munities, is his general providence. 
 
 Evidence of general providence is furnished — 
 
 1. By the Old Testament expressions of interest in the 
 Hebrew people, and by the New Testament account of what 
 God has done, yet does, and will do in behalf of his church 
 and of mankind. 
 
 2. Events which history adduces in proof of the existence 
 of God equally attest his general providence. 
 
 3. To patriotism public interests so transcend private that 
 it is frequently attended by solemn and religious exaltation of 
 feeling, and those who do not pray for themselves invoke the 
 
I02 PROVIDENCE 
 
 intervention of the Almighty for a cause which seems to them 
 not unworthy of his care. 
 
 II. PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE. 
 
 Particular or special providence is the divine care over in- 
 dividuals. It covers all our personal interests, as well as 
 those of God's own kingdom so far as the individual can affect 
 these, and has regard to the minutest conditions involved, 
 physical as well as spiritual. The name of " special provi- 
 dence " is restricted to a conspicuous show of divine care, 
 but represents no distinction except of impressiveness. 
 
 Proof of particular providence may be found in — 
 
 1. The Scriptures. These testify that — 
 
 (a) The favor of God toward the Hebrew people was largely 
 due to his love for an individual patriarch, judge, or king. 
 
 {b) The New Testament characteristically assures every 
 man that he enjoys continually the special care of God. 
 
 (c) Certain texts explicitly state that God attends to the 
 smallest details (Ps. 37 : 23-25 ; Prov. 16 19, 33 ; Matt. 10 : 
 29-31 ; Luke 12 : 22-30 ; Rom. 8 : 28). 
 
 2. General providence includes many particulars. It is 
 true that the interests of some individuals might conceivably 
 be disregarded, as soldiers must perish if victory is to be 
 won ; but an abundant compensation is assured to every right- 
 eous man for any sacrifice which God exacts for the com- 
 mon weal (Mark 8:35; 10 : 29, 30). 
 
 It is especially noteworthy that movements of the highest 
 importance in history turn on the training and fortunes of 
 individuals. The names of Moses and Paul, of Luther and 
 Judson in the Church, of Charlemagne and Mirabeau, of 
 Washington and Lincoln in the State, suggest that, whatever 
 
PROVIDENCE 103 
 
 might have been accomplished apart from these men, momen- 
 tous issues hung upon their life or death, 
 
 3. If general providence is the more credible to the irreli- 
 gious, to the believer particular providence is a matter of 
 experience. A wise and trustful spirit recognizes continually 
 the guiding hand of a Heavenly Father. 
 
 III. THEORIES OF PROVIDENCE. 
 
 These are closely related to those of conservation, and are 
 not more satisfactory. 
 
 1. A modification of the Deistic theory is that God provided 
 in the original constitution of things for every contingency 
 which would arise. But — 
 
 ia) The constitution of the universe could not furnish either 
 the Holy Spirit or divine forgiveness, in answer to prayer. 
 These gifts are always special interventions. 
 
 {b) Nor is it easy to believe that God has placed the uni- 
 verse beyond his own reach. 
 
 2. Pantheism really excludes divine providence, for it 
 regards all processes as an unforeseen and necessary develop- 
 ment. Or, if any unconscious bent of nature toward progress 
 is affirmed, this is but a blind sort of general providence, which 
 subordinates each stage of the process to the stages that fol- 
 low, and in a manner cares for the whole at cost of the parts. 
 
 3. Creatio continnata, or an extreme theory of divine im- 
 manence, theoretically involves incessant direction of nature ; 
 but— 
 
 {a) In effect it acknowledges only natural processes, for it 
 identifies the divine activity with the natural. Hence — 
 
 ip) This theory, like that of predestinated provision, fur- 
 nishes no basis for an adequate account of prayer. 
 
 4. Coneursus, or co-operation of divine with natural forces, 
 
I04 PROVIDENCE 
 
 also looks to steady intervention. Thus God makes natme 
 do continually what it would not. But the objection to it is 
 the reverse of that to continuous creation — 
 
 (a) It leaves no place for the regular exhibition of natural 
 law. This objection does not lie against it as a theory of 
 conservation, but as a theory of providence, that is, as an ac- 
 count of God's direction of all natural events to the service 
 of his will. Observation does not tolerate an account of the 
 course of nature which requires it to be deflected as continu- 
 ously as would be necessary if all special providences were 
 special interruptions. 
 
 It might, indeed, be alleged that God would rule over 
 nature and man according to an order prescribed by the con- 
 stitution of his own mind. But — 
 
 (i>) Such is the order of nature itself. The theory on this 
 supposition is embarrassed by ascribing to divine overruling 
 precisely what it needs no overruling to bring to pass. This 
 is, of course, prohibited by the law of parsimony. 
 
 5. So large a proportion of human events is determined by 
 the will of man, that the range of divine providence has been 
 restricted by another theory to the injliience of the Holy 
 Spirit upon the human viind and heart. 
 
 It is certain that the Christian has been taught to look for 
 such guidance ; but as a rationale of divine providence this 
 theory docs not provide for the facts : 
 
 {a) Mind is so related to matter that, in order to control 
 over either, the other must be controlled. 
 
 {b) While the Divine Spirit certainly introduces order into 
 the moral sphere, and does this through the instrumentality 
 of ideas, it is impossible to understand how he could bring 
 anything but confusion into the mental sphere if he interferes 
 with the natural movement of thought to the extent which 
 
PRAYER 
 
 105 
 
 this theory asserts as to mind, but denies to be admissible as 
 to matter. Assuredly it cannot be admitted that the laws of 
 thought are less inviolable than the laws of things. 
 
 Without venturing a theory about matters clearly beyond 
 explication, it may be possible to find in each theory as much 
 to approve as to condemn. With the deist we can believe 
 that most events which the providence of God brings about 
 might be assured by pre-arrangement ; with the pantheist and 
 the semi-pantheist we may well refuse to accept the isolation 
 of God from his works ; with the believer in concursus we 
 may recognize the reality of natural substances and forces 
 without debarring the Maker from control over them ; and 
 with the advocate of a spiritual interpretation of events, we 
 may welcome the agency of the Holy Spirit at large in the 
 affairs of men. But it is impossible to account for all provi- 
 dential aids in any one of these ways, or to accept either of 
 them as a clear path through the mystery of God's dealings 
 with the world and with its inhabitants. 
 
 § 20. Prayer. 
 
 Prayer asks the favor and help of God in the spiritual and 
 in the secular concerns of man. 
 
 In addition to the difficulties met in the doctrine of provi- 
 dence, the doctrine of prayer faces the further question how 
 an all-wise and unchangeable Sovereign can be affected by 
 the petitions of men. 
 
 Taking for granted as too familiar to need proof that the 
 Scriptures encourage men at all times to pray, and postpon- 
 ing to another division of theology inquiry as to the inter- 
 cession of Christ and the office of faith for those who pray, 
 we notice here : 
 
I06 PRAYER 
 
 I. THE RELATION OF PRAYER TO SPIRITUAL BENEFITS. 
 
 No reason can be given for supposing that this relation is 
 outside the domain of law. The contrary is shown by the 
 scriptural warnings : " If I regard iniquity in my heart, the 
 Lord will not hear me" (Ps. 66 : i8); "Ye ask and receive 
 not, because ye ask amiss" (James 4 : 3). Clearly, the effi- 
 cacy of prayer is limited by moral propriety, ' 
 
 The most general law of prayer was stated by our Lord : 
 "Every one that asketh receiveth " (Matt. 7 : 8). That this 
 is not an arbitrary appointment but is an indispensable condi- 
 tion of receiving spiritual benefits, is plain. 
 
 (a) Spiritual benefits must at least be desired, or they can- 
 not be accepted when offered ; and desire for benefits from 
 God is the essence of prayer. A prayer is revoked by a 
 changing desire. 
 
 [d) The normal relation to God involves consciousness of 
 dependence upon him. The more he is to us, the deeper our 
 felt need of him. To lack the sense of dependence is of itself 
 to repel spiritual good. 
 
 (r) Our Lord teaches us that the heart of God is amen- 
 able to the appeal of trust (Luke 11 : 5-13 ; cf. Matt. 7 : 11). 
 Neither articulate nor even self-understood longing is requi- 
 site. Though " we know not what to pray for as we ought, 
 the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings 
 which cannot be uttered. 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 " 
 (Rom. 8 : 26, 27). 
 
 Indeed, so obvious is the connection between asking and 
 obtaining spiritual good, that the benefits of prayer are by 
 some ascribed solely to its reflex influence. 
 
PRAYER 107 
 
 But this extreme attempt to remove God from our reach, 
 and us from the reach of God, is warranted neither by Script- 
 ure nor by Christian experience. The moral re-action of 
 prayer may be one of the means, yet is not the only means, 
 employed in answering prayer. Forgiveness, adoption, re- 
 generation, are not the accumulated results made upon the 
 petitioner by a series of his own prayers ; they are distinctly 
 acts of God. 
 
 II. THE RELATION OF PRAYER TO TEMPORAL BENEFITS. 
 
 This relation is too obscure to be explained. So far as the 
 interests of the body and estate are promoted by peace of 
 mind, by purity, and by moral vigor, the utility of prayer for 
 temporal good is as clear as that of prayer for spiritual good. 
 But so far as benefits can reach us only through providential 
 furtherance, the utility of prayer for temporal blessings is 
 obscure as the method of divine providence. 
 
 Many have urged that the Creator provided some unknown 
 natural agents as his own means of directing nature, just as 
 the use of other natural agents is open to man. Others have 
 preferred the supposition that in the original ordering of the 
 universe the temporal good we desire was timed to arrive just 
 when we should ask for it. But while neither of these pro- 
 visions is impossible, neither can be certified, and the second 
 is of the mechanical, deistical sort which finds little favor in 
 any quarter to-day. 
 
 But we need not doubt that God has an indulgent regard 
 for the desires of those who love him. It is right to lay all 
 our innocent wishes before God, without feeling bound to 
 decide for him whether it would be well to gratify us (Phil. 4 : 
 6). We may and should accept the assurance of Christ, " If 
 ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what 
 
I08 MIRACLES 
 
 ye will and it shall be done unto you " (John 15 : 7), with 
 such limitation only as he laid upon his own petition, " Not 
 my will but thine be done " (Matt. 26 : 39, 42, 44 ; cf. Heb. 
 5:7; Luke 11:2). 
 
 § 21. Miracles. 
 
 God has seen fit from time to time to claim the attention 
 of men by those extraordinary manifestations of his power 
 and purpose generally called Miracles. 
 
 L THEIR NATURE. 
 
 A miracle is a phenomenon apart from the ordinary course 
 of nature and unmistakably due to superhuman power. A 
 divine miracle is manifestly wrought by God. Unless an ex- 
 traordinary event can with certainty be referred to a power 
 above man's, it cannot be distinguished from a prodigy or 
 from jugglery, and its miraculous character must be denied. 
 
 Although a miracle is such an event as natural agencies 
 could not of themselves produce, it does not follow that it is 
 either a violation or a suspension of the laws of nature. We 
 have no reason to doubt that all the forces which are con- 
 cerned with the object upon which a miracle is wrought are 
 operative according to their several laws ; and, if the usual 
 effect is not seen, this is because those normally working 
 forces are counteracted by some other force, either natural or 
 supernatural, applied by a superhuman will, precisely as when 
 artificial results are wrought by man. Miracle is divine arti- 
 fice. 
 
 But while the properties and forces characteristic of an 
 object are always a factor in the result, the miracle itself 
 may or may not be due to the use of natural means. 
 When a wind swept the Red Sea from its bed and back 
 again for the rescue of the children of Israel, the obvious 
 
MIRACLES 109 
 
 miracle was that the wind obeyed Moses ; but no known 
 natural agency made the Jordan part at the touch of the 
 priests' feet. So to the notice of a passer-by the miraculous 
 drafts of fishes might be the gift of chance, for the only 
 certain supernatural element in the case was the Lord's 
 knowledge that the fish would be caught ; while, on the con- 
 trary, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was appar- 
 ently due to creative power alone. 
 
 It follows that a miracle can be distinguished from a special 
 providence, not by the absence of natural agencies, but only 
 by the indubitable presence of divine agency. 
 
 II. CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 
 
 If miracles are credible it is because — 
 
 1. Miracles are /^j-i-/^^/^. Two conditions must be met : 
 (a) Power capable of working miracles must be possible. 
 
 So far, miracles are possible if the existence of God is pos- 
 sible. Were his existence in question, the occurrence of 
 miracles would set that question at rest. 
 
 {b) There must be a course of nature. Without a rule 
 there can be no exceptions, without a natural order no 
 miracles. Otherwise, supernatural would be indistinguish- 
 able from natural phenomena. 
 
 2. Miracles were probable when God had sufficient reason 
 for revealing himself by their means. Whether they are 
 probable now can better be considered after determining their 
 office. 
 
 3. Biblical miracles were unmistakable to their witjiesses. 
 It can never be demonstrated that the unknown forces of 
 nature are incapable of working any result, however pro- 
 digious. But for a witness of the Bible miracles to explain 
 them in this way would be the infatuation of unbelief. In 
 
no MIRACLES 
 
 such cases scepticism would be credulity. It is possible to 
 give a superstitious credit to nature. 
 
 4. The trustworthiness of the witnesses to miracles is as- 
 sured by the genuineness and authenticity of the Bible. 
 That records, which we have sufficient reason to accept as 
 written at the time and by the persons alleged, could be false 
 is rendered incredible by — 
 
 {a) The notable sobriety, simplicity, and candor which guar- 
 antee to literary criticism the honesty of the writers ; and it 
 is impossible, if they were spectators, as some of them claim 
 to have been, that they could merely fancy they had seen 
 such marvels as they describe. 
 
 (b) The absurdity of such tales in the face of a generation 
 which knew them to be untrue. 
 
 {c) The fact that no other great religious teacher has pre- 
 tended to miracles. How then does it happen that Moses, 
 Jesus, and Paul, confessedly the chief among the world's 
 religious guides, claim or were credited with wonders which 
 they did not perform .-' 
 
 But the burden of proof does not rest on the Bible alone. 
 Extra-biblical evidence is not wanting. For example — 
 
 5. The resurrection of Christ is at once the best attested 
 and the all-attesting miracle of Christianity. Its occurrence 
 is proved by the existence of the church, of its ordinances, 
 and its beliefs. But in accepting the resurrection of our 
 Lord we accept his divinity ; and with his divinity all the 
 miracles of the New Testament become not only credible, 
 but indispensable. If he is the Son of God, he must prove 
 it beyond reasonable doubt. 
 
 6. The congruity of the miracles with the teachings of Jesus 
 lends support to both. But this theme must be postponed 
 until we have determined what is — ' 
 
MIRACI,ES III 
 
 III. THE OFFICE OF MIRACLES. 
 
 This is indicated by their nature. Unmistakably wrought 
 by God, miracles necessarily call attention to him, and tend 
 to an all-inclusive end — namely, to establish his kingdom 
 among men. 
 
 As to how they serve this purpose, there has been and is 
 no little dispute. The exegete naturally looks for a deep and 
 varied significance in the miracles ; whereas, the expounder of 
 Christian Evidences, finding miracles a stumbling-block rather 
 than an aid to faith for the modern sceptic, seeks to show 
 that the truth of doctrine does not turn on the acceptance 
 of miracles, and that their office was to certify a messenger to 
 earlier days, not to intimate nor vindicate his message to our 
 day. 
 
 But these offices are not mutually exclusive. A miracle 
 may attest a messenger and also convey a message of its own ; 
 it may be in itself profoundly significant, yet not lose its 
 validity as a credential. That these two offices are in thor- 
 ough accord is assured by the fact that they are but direct 
 and indirect methods of approaching the same end. Under 
 the Old Dispensation the method of miracles was for the 
 most part, but not solely, direct ; under the New Dispensa- 
 tion it was chiefly, yet far from exclusively, indirect. 
 
 I. The theocracy was a kingdom of this world, and its 
 miracles in large part did directly the work of carnal weapons. 
 The plagues which compelled Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, 
 the engulfing of their pursuers, the pillar of cloud and fire to 
 guide them, the bread from heaven on which they fed, the 
 public giving of the law, the crossing of the Jordan, the fall 
 of the walls of Jericho, the series of miraculous victories by 
 which the land of promise was won, or in after centuries 
 
112 MIRACLES 
 
 held, the fire from heaven upon Elijah's sacrifice to convince 
 the people anew that Jehovah was God — all these served the 
 theocracy in the directest way. 
 
 Under the New Dispensation the kingdom is spiritual, and 
 such was the intended effect of its miracles. By displaying 
 the kindness of God in the healing of disease and the feed- 
 ing of the hungry ; by drawing faith to Jesus as the Son of 
 God in the stilling of the tempest ; by proving his right to 
 forgive sins in the healing of a palsied man ; by revealing 
 him as the source of life in the raising of Lazarus ; finally, by 
 establishing his own divinity and assuring our justification in 
 the miracle of his rising, miracles were so far a direct exposi- 
 tion of the gospel, and contributed immediately to the reign 
 of grace among men. 
 
 2. But they also fulfilled their office indirectly by certify- 
 ing or by preserving a messenger of God. The burning 
 bush, the change of Moses' rod into a serpent, the budding 
 of Aaron's rod, the test of a wet and a dry fleece granted to 
 Gideon, the security of Daniel in the lions' den — these mira- 
 cles either furnished the times with a prophet or served as 
 his credentials. 
 
 In the gospel age, so far as miracles attested that Christ 
 and his apostles bore a divine commission, so far they con- 
 tributed but mediately to the new kingdom. This is all that 
 miracles meant to Nicodemus (John 3 : 2), and was the 
 utmost that Jesus for some time expected the Jews to learn 
 from them (John 5 : 36). Testimony of the same kind was 
 afforded to the apostles (Acts 15 : 12; Heb. 2 : 4). 
 
 In some cases the same miracle served both directly and 
 indirectly. All Israel was the prophet of God, and every 
 conspicuous miracle in its favor claimed a hearing for its testi- 
 mony to the true God. Similarly our Lord summoned his 
 
MIRACLES 
 
 113 
 
 friend from the grave in order to reveal himself to Martha as 
 the ruler of life, but with a view to win from the Jews merely 
 an admission that God had sent him and would hear him 
 when he prayed (John 11 : 25, 42). 
 
 IV. CONGRUITY OF MIRACLES WITH DOCTRINE. 
 
 Miracles, whether pretended or real, always correspond to 
 the doctrine of those who perform them. This is because 
 the words and the works of men alike represent their char- 
 acter. It is a fact of high importance in studying the mira- 
 cles of Jesus. 
 
 1 . It greatly enhances the credibility of his iniracles alike for 
 his age and for ours ; because it sharply distinguishes them 
 from diabolical miracles, from magic,' and from jugglery. 
 Mischief or moral emptiness marks the latter ; dignity and 
 deep significance characterize the former. Revealing at once 
 divine goodness and power, the miracles of Jesus illustrate 
 the good tidings which he brought. If this correspondence 
 were lacking, miracles would be a burden to faith ; its pres- 
 ence adapts them to win the trust of both simple and wise. 
 
 2. Conversely, this congruity substafitiates the truth of our 
 Lord's teachings; and it does this while turning away the 
 reproach that Christian doctrine is too unreasonable to be 
 accepted without pretence of miracles. It is not unreason- 
 able to believe that God is willing to save men by the sacri- 
 fice of his Son ; we can even find something becoming to 
 God in such a sacrifice (Heb. 2 : 10) ; but it would be un- 
 reasonable to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, unless 
 
 > Magic pretended to be both science and art : as science, it claimed occult 
 knowledge ; as art, it claimed to control preternatural beings. Miracle is neither 
 science nor art. It is wholly superhuman, for it is granted by a Being superior to 
 man. Spiritualistic " manifestations," if superhuman, are magic, not miracles. 
 
114 MIRACLES 
 
 he wrought miracles significant of his nature and mission 
 (John 5:31, 36). The supernatural basis of Christianity re- 
 quired a supernatural attestation (John 20 : 30, 31). 
 
 Argument from correspondence of miracles to doctrine is 
 not arguing in a circle, but appeals to a mark of genuineness 
 without which neither miracles nor doctrines would be 
 credible. 
 
 3. This correspondence throws light on the question 
 whether miracles may be expected in the present age. 
 
 (a) It shows why they have ceased. Having certified the 
 claims of Jesus, miracles may well leave his grace to com- 
 mend itself to our needs. If long continued, miracles would 
 have ceased to be signs (John 6 : 26), and have proved a dis- 
 turbance and a demoralization ; the spiritual aims of Christi- 
 anity would have been sacrificed to the degrading hope of 
 leading an idle life, and our religion itself have become a 
 gazing-stock. The evils inseparable from wonder-working 
 often led our Lord to conceal his miracles as far as possible, 
 and furnished reason enough why he should not again show 
 himself to the world after his resurrection. The same grave 
 consideration led Paul to turn the desires of the Corinthians 
 away from the startling gift of tongues to the edifying office 
 of prophecy. There is no reason to suppose that miracles 
 continued longer than necessary, but the history of the 
 church shows that they ceased none too soon, and that their 
 return is not to be desired while the present order of things 
 endures. 
 
 (^) On the other hand, when the personal reappearing of 
 our Lord is near, signs and wonders are again to be looked 
 for. It is natural that belief in "faith cures " as supernatural 
 interpositions should often be associated with expectation of 
 the early coming of Christ, 
 
ANGELS 115 
 
 § 22. Angels. 
 
 The Bible makes known the existence of a class of beings 
 superior to man (Ps. 103 : 20 ; Matt. 24 : 36); in essence 
 spiritual (Heb. i : 14) ; in origin severally created, not gen- 
 erated (Matt. 22 : 30; Col. i : 16); immortal, and either 
 holy and happy, or wicked and miserable forever. 
 
 Both angels and demons (or devils) are clothed with a mys- 
 tery so stimulating to imagination that they became in for- 
 mer times a theme of fantastic speculation, but for the same 
 reason are now regarded with sceptical indifference. Neither 
 kind of treatment is warranted by the Scriptures, which are 
 the only trustworthy source of information. 
 
 I. GOOD ANGELS. 
 
 So far from exhibiting Oriental fancifulness when treating 
 of angels, the Bible shows in connection with no other topic 
 a more veracious simplicity, or more divinely guarded reserve. 
 
 1. Although sometimes appearing in visions, they were re- 
 peatedly presented to the senses, and not infrequently to more 
 than one person at once. Angels were seen and heard by 
 Abraham and Sarah, by Lot and the men of Sodom (Gen. 
 18, 19); an angel withstood Balaam, first invisibly, then vis- 
 ibly and audibly (Num. 22 : 22-35); the angel which released 
 Peter from prison was expressly distinguished by him from a 
 vision (Acts 12 19, 11). 
 
 2. Ordinarily they are represented as sent only to some 
 fiotable person, or oti some momentous errand. Thus, at the 
 burning bush the angel of Jehovah revealed the divine name 
 to Moses, and commissioned him to undertake the exodus 
 (Exod. 3); the law was ordained by angels (Gal. 3 : 19; cf. 
 Acts 7 : 53 ; Heb. 2:2); the Angel of the Covenant an- 
 nounced himself as captain of the Lord's host when Joshua 
 
no ANGELS 
 
 led the tribes into Canaan (Josh. 5 : 13-15), and reappeared at 
 various emergencies in the history of Israel (Judg. 6 : 11- 
 23; 13 : 3-20; 2 Sam. 24 : 16; 2 Kings 19 : 35 ; Dan 3 ; 
 28 ; 6 : 22). Angels repeatedly interposed during the in- 
 fancy of the church (Acts 5 : 19 ; 8 : 26; 10 : 3-7 ; 12:7- 
 II, 23. 
 
 3. Angels were 7'eal beings to Christ. They were sent on 
 frequent messages in connection with the birth of our Lord 
 (Matt. I : 20-24 ; 2 : 1 3, 19 ; Luke i : 1 1-20, 26-38 ; 2 : 9-1 5) ; 
 they ministered to Jesus after the temptation (Matt. 4:11), 
 and during the agony in Gethsemane (Luke 22 : 43) ; at- 
 tended his resurrection (Matt. 28 : 2 ; Luke 24 : 4, 23 ; John 
 20 : 12); and his ascension (Acts i : 10). 
 
 4. The references of our Lord to them are peculiarly sig- 
 nificant. His protest against contempt for lowly disciples 
 (or possibly children) was, " Their angels do always behold 
 the face of my Father" (Matt. 18 : 10). In order to correct 
 gross views of the future life he said, they that " rise from 
 the dead are . . . as the angels" (Matt. 22 : 30). Inquisitive- 
 ness about the day and hour of his own second coming is 
 checked by the statement that no man knows it, " no, not the 
 angels of heaven " (Matt. 24 : 36). How great its glory shall 
 be we learn from this, that " all the holy angels shall be with 
 him" (Matt. 25 : 31). And how willingly he gave himself 
 for us is plain when he says that, if he prays now, the Father 
 will give him " more than twelve legions of angels " (Matt. 
 
 26 : 53)- 
 
 5. Disregard and unbelief as to these pure and exalted 
 beings are revolting when we reflect that they are " all minis- 
 tering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be 
 heirs of salvation" (Heb. i : 14) How they exercise their 
 ministry, whether by unaccountable persuasions to righteous- 
 
ANGELS 117 
 
 1 
 ness, or warnings against what proves to be a mortal peril, as 
 
 some think, is a matter on which too little has been revealed 
 to support a confident assertion, and too much has been inti- 
 mated to justify a sweeping denial. 
 
 6. Angels fill a wide gap between man and his Maker in 
 the ever-ascending hierarchy of being. Rising from inor- 
 ganic matter through all grades of living things, the rational 
 and impressive order of nature, if there are no angels, breaks 
 off at man. But a race of beings allied to us by the posses- 
 sion of rational spirits, while above us in their independence 
 of bodies, and themselves, according to Scripture, holding 
 various ranks (Col. i : 16; i Thess. 4 : 16; Jude 9; Rev. 
 12:7), meets the demand of analogy — an analogy singularly 
 enough emphasized by the modern naturalistic account of the 
 close relation of species. 
 
 7. The proneness of most peoples to multiply divinities, demi- 
 gods, and lesser superhuman beings, upon the whole corrob- 
 orates, rather than puts under suspicion, the doctrine of an- 
 gels. It is true that opinions differ on this point. As Com- 
 parative Theology brings into view correspondences of relig- 
 ious belief among diverse and widely separated races, some 
 find in this a proof of universal superstition ; others welcome 
 it as an evidence that the Spirit of God, or the tradition of a 
 primitive revelation, or the sure intuition of the religious 
 nature in man, or even in some degree each of these, has led 
 men in all lands and ages into partial knowledge of the 
 highest things. Those who reverence the Bible should not 
 be dismayed to find that it embraces every universal, perhaps 
 every deeply rooted ethnic belief. 
 
 But if the polytheistic tendency is not regarded as nor- 
 mal enough to strengthen the Christian belief in angels, it 
 has sometimes proved strong enough to convert angels into 
 
Il8 ANGELS 
 
 objects of unlawful worship (Col. 2 : 18); and this result 
 has had not a little to do with the neglect into which the 
 doctrine on this subject has fallen among strict Protestants. 
 
 II. EVIL SPIRITS, DEVILS OR DEMONS. 
 
 These are as plainly revealed in the Bible, and as widely 
 testified to by the belief of mankind, as are good angels. 
 
 1. Concerning /'//T^/rc'r/^/;/ little is known. It seems to be 
 understood by inspired men that God would not create any 
 evil being, and that therefore the demons, or devils, are " the 
 angels that sinned," of whom Peter writes (2 Peter 2 : 4), 
 " the angels who kept not their first estate," according to 
 Jude (Jude 6). 
 
 2. Their chief is Satan. Although many hold him to be 
 a copy of the Persian Ahriman, he is at least abundantly 
 recognized in the Bible. Others suppose him to be a person- 
 ification of the principle of wickedness ; but this does violence 
 to the uniformity of the Scripture's representation of him as 
 a being with the attributes and names of personality, such 
 as "the adversary," "the tempter," "the accuser" ; it gives 
 quite too little weight to the Saviour's recognition and re- 
 jection of him in the wilderness, and to the terrifying desig- 
 nation of him as lord over the region to which all the wicked 
 shall be consigned. 
 
 3. Concerning the activities of the devil we know that — 
 {a) The most formidable is his opposition to the truth 
 
 (Matt. 13 : 19, 25, 39; 2 Cor. 4 : 4), and his effort to entice 
 men into sin (Luke 22 131; Acts 5:3; Eph. 6:11; i 
 Peter 5 : 8) 
 
 {B) He had some not clearly defined " power of death," 
 now destroyed through the part which our Lord took in flesh 
 and blood (Heb. 2:14). 
 
ANGELS 119 
 
 (c) Some even suggest that, as demoniacal possessions were 
 once allowed in punishment of gross sin, suffering of the 
 same kind may not be unknown to our times. It is an opin- 
 ion equally difficult to substantiate or disprove. 
 
 (d) Jesus predicted that false Christs and false prophets 
 would " show great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it 
 were possible, they should deceive the very elect " (Matt. 
 24 : 24). Paul, having apparently the same events in mind, 
 ascribes to the "working of Satan" the "lying wonders" 
 which were to appear (2 Thess. 2 : 9). Accordingly, the 
 practice of magic and witchcraft was formerly attributed to 
 alliance with Satan, and not a few are satisfied that the mys- 
 tifying and mischievous performances of modern " mediums " 
 are due to a power not less hostile to man than that of the 
 " Evil One." It is wise to suspend judgment so long as the 
 alternatives of expert trickery, or of some obscure but not 
 superhuman means of communication between the spirits of 
 living persons, remain a possible explanation of these equiv- 
 ocal doings. 
 
PART III 
 ANTHROPOLOGY 
 
 § 23. The Nature of Man. 
 
 An account of the powers which distinguish man from the 
 brute will be of service in the further study of anthropology. 
 Of the many definitions which have been proposed, perhaps 
 the best is that man is a rational animal. Reason includes or 
 involves all which sets up an ineffaceable distinction between 
 man and other animals. 
 
 [a) Reason is the faculty of knowing abstract truth. By 
 memory and comparison a brute is able to recognize that a 
 sensible object is like other objects of the same class, as a 
 man, a dog, a whip ; but there is no sufficient evidence that a 
 brute can carry about a general notion of the class itself, for 
 example, man, dog, whip ; even less can it abstract from con- 
 crete instances the qualities of which it has had experience, 
 such as cruelty, kindness, courage ; less still have any idea 
 of moral difference ; least of all, can it rise to a synthesis of 
 ideals in God. 
 
 Man, on the contrary, can mentally analyze and synthetize ; 
 can test his results inductively by comparison with single in- 
 stances, or deductively by reference to still more general 
 notions ; among these he can intuitively know first principles 
 as true ; among first principles he can use for self-judgment 
 the idea of moral distinctions ; finally, he can ascribe all infi- 
 nite excellencies to a Person of whose existence he is assured 
 as the moral complement of himself, and whom, therefore, he 
 120 
 
THE CREATION OF MAN 121 
 
 feels bound to worship and serve as his own Archetype and 
 Lord. 
 
 {b) The possession of reason excludes all limit to the pos- 
 sible improvement of the human mind short of the infinite; 
 but, however surprising the tricks or the service which beasts 
 can be trained to perform, their intelligence never passes 
 "from reasoning into reason, nor their susceptibility to fear 
 and shame into a sense of moral wrong. 
 
 The three pre-eminent faculties, or powers, which man is 
 seen to possess, reason, will, and conscience, are all mutually 
 inclusive. If asked what is highest in man, we must assign 
 this rank to the capacity of moral self -judgment and its at- 
 tendant sense of obligation to obey an all-holy God ; if sen- 
 tient creatures, which lack consciousness of self, are to be 
 distinguished, quoad hoc, from man, we adduce his personal- 
 ity, of which will, or the faculty of conscious self-determina- 
 tion, is the nucleating element ; but if his claim to supremacy 
 over animate and inanimate nature is demanded, this preroga- 
 tive can be found in the generic faculty of reason. 
 
 The question of the elements in his constitution is quite 
 distinct from that concerning his powers, and will be sepa- 
 rately considered. 
 
 § 24. The Creation of Man. 
 
 I. The Scriptures accord to man a different origin from 
 that of the beasts. The waters and the earth were called 
 upon to bring forth all living creatures below man ; but man 
 was made by a special act of the Creator. 
 
 Of the two passages in Genesis which give an account of 
 the creation of man, i : 26, 27 states after what pattern he 
 was made, and gives his rank among creatures : he was made 
 
 L 
 
122 THE CREATION OF MAN 
 
 in the image of God, and set as lord over all earthly beings. 
 Genesis 2 : 7 intimates in part the method of his creation : 
 taking care not to import into this simple story distinctively 
 modern ideas, we find in it the primitive notion that God 
 molded the human body from earthly materials and then 
 caused it to live. That the soul, or immortal principle, was 
 thought of by the writer (cf. " breath of life," in 7 : 22), or 
 that he regarded it as an efflux from the Godhead, are com- 
 mon but doubtful interpretations. 
 
 2, Natural Science has not only failed to make out a purely 
 natural origin for man, but is really favorable to his special 
 creation, for it is unable otherwise to account for him. 
 
 {ci) No trace is found of an ancestor for man among living 
 or extinct species of simians.^ 
 
 (^) The differences in the bony framework of these types 
 are marked. In man the posture is erect, in the extant apes 
 it is prone. The arm of man is not adapted to locomotion, 
 nor has his foot a thumb, like the ape's. Even admitting 
 that these and other differences might be gradually produced 
 by evolution, there is no sufficient evidence that this has 
 taken place. 
 
 {c) It does not seem possible that a human brain could be 
 developed from the simian. The largest measured cranial 
 capacity in the skull of living apes is thirty-four cubic inches ; 
 the least in a human idiot is forty-six inches ; that of the low- 
 est type of man is sixty-eight inches ; while the largest 
 known is one hundred and eighteen inches. That is, a brain 
 ample enough for the formidable gorilla, or for the amiable 
 
 * This may still be affirmed, notwithstanding the recent discovery in Java of re- 
 mains which belonged to an ape of erect posture and somewhat larger brain than 
 any heretofore known. This creature was unmistakably a simian, not a human, 
 nor half-himian. 
 
THE CREATION OF MAN 123 
 
 and clever chimpanzee, is one quarter too small for a human 
 idiot, and one-half too small for the most degraded savage/ 
 It is unthinkable that nature could protect an imbecile tran- 
 sition-race through ages of struggle for existence. 
 
 (d) The development of brute intelligence into reason is 
 not alone without any facts to support it, but is really incon- 
 ceivable. 
 
 How serious this difficulty is felt to be finds illustration in 
 the plausible but unscientific conjecture that nature produced 
 the brain, while God bestowed the soul of man. When 
 nature furnishes an organ we must ascribe to her the functions 
 which the organ is fitted to perform. Especially ought the 
 evolutionist to acknowledge the force of this objection, since 
 he holds that organs rise to higher functions by the exercise 
 of the highest they are capable of. If then nature evolved 
 the human brain, it evolved the thinking inhabitant of that 
 brain. 
 
 The considerations which favor the descent of species 
 from species, with the exceptions above noted, are applicable 
 to man. Especially indicative of a genetic relation to some 
 unknown simian is the general correspondence of the human 
 body to that of apes, and the presence in it of many abortive 
 organs.^ It is probable that God specially guided the rapid 
 
 ^ The brain of Cuvier weighed 65 ounces, and had a bulk of 108 cubic inches, 
 with cranial capacity of 1 1 8. In comparing averages, the brain of the gorilla 
 weighs only one-third, of the orang and chimpanzee only one-fourth, that of man ; 
 while in these apes the ratio of brain-weight to body-weight is i to 100, and in 
 man i to 40 or 50. — V. art. "Physiology,'' End. Brit. 
 
 ^ That the human race is subject to the alleged law of evolution is intimated by 
 the fact that variation has already gone far enough to approximate specific differ- 
 ence. Thus half-breeds are comparatively sterile, while the persistence of exist- 
 ing types is shown by the occasional birth of a very dark child to parents nearly 
 white, or of a very white child to parents nearly black. 
 
124 UNITY — CONSTITUTION 
 
 transformation of some humbler animal's body, and at th* 
 same time lodged in it a human soul. This probable con- 
 jecture does not antagonize the biblical account of our origin, 
 providing that we accept the account as pictorial and primi- 
 tive. Such a view is perhaps generally taken of the whole 
 biblical cosmogony ; thus, for instance (Gen. 2 : 7), God has 
 no breath to impart nor mouth to breathe from, 
 
 § 25. The Unity of the Human Race. 
 
 The book of Genesis seems to teach that the entire race is 
 descended from one pair. Paul declared to the race-proud 
 Athenians that God had made of one every nation (Acts 17 : 
 26). He also traces sin and death to Adam as the common 
 father of all men (Rom. 5 : 12-19; ^ Cor. 15 : 21, 22). 
 
 Natural science has as yet found no means of determining 
 whether the race is of dual or plural origin ; yet it does not 
 accept the existence of varieties in the human species as dis- 
 proof of a common parentage. On the other hand, anatomy, 
 physiology, psychology, philology, and comparative theology, 
 demonstrate that men are of one species, and raise a strong 
 presumption in favor of descent from one pair. 
 
 § 26. Constitution of Man. 
 
 The Scriptures ordinarily represent man as consisting of 
 soul and body ; but Paul and Luke together with the Pauline 
 writer to the Hebrews, distinguish in man spirit, soul, and 
 body (nveufia, (/fvxij, ffw/io). What is meant by the threefold 
 distinction ? And is man dichotomous or trichotomous ? 
 
 I, what is the difference between spirit and soul } 
 
 I. T/ie titc/iotomous view is ordma.n\y accepted in our day. 
 According to this view a human soul i? the spirit regarded as 
 dwelling in a body ; a human spirit is the soul not contem- 
 
CONSTITUTION OF MAN 125 
 
 plated in its relations to a body. Accordingly, when the 
 words soul and spirit {^psyche and pneuma) occur together, 
 either in the Scriptures or elsewhere, soul is the immaterial 
 part of man engaged in those offices to which the body intro- 
 duces it ; while spirit is the same immaterial part concerned 
 with realities which are beyond the reach of sense ; such as 
 God, heaven, and holiness. Thus Luke i : 46, 47 ; i Thess. 
 5 : 23 ; Heb. 4:12, include both our lower and higher powers, 
 and so give a comprehensive view of man. 
 
 2. According to trichotomists, the soul, or psyche, is the 
 seat of animal life, intelligence, and feeling ; while the spirit, 
 or pneiima, is a distinct immaterial substance, to which alone 
 all the higher and Godward functions of man pertain. 
 
 As to the relations between the soul and spirit, trichot- 
 omists differ. According to some the psyche is the prin- 
 ciple of animal life, and perishes at death ; while the pneuma 
 is the rational principle, and will be reunited with the body 
 at the resurrection. Others take the psyche to be a product 
 of the pneuma s union with the body ; and Delitzsch holds 
 that the psyche is the forth-breathing of the pneuma, as the 
 Holy Spirit is breathed forth by the Father. 
 
 II. IS MAN DICHOTOMOUS OR TRICHOTOMOUS } 
 
 In favor of the dichotomic view we notice : 
 
 1. The few New Testament writers who use trichotomic 
 language do not necessarily intend to teach an authoritative 
 psychology different frtfm that common to other writers of 
 Scripture, and to the greater part of mankind. 
 
 2. Paul does not use soul and spirit, psychical and pneu- 
 matic, with uniform meanings. In i Cor. 2 : 14 the psych- 
 ical is the unregenerate, the pneumatic the regenerate ; but 
 in 1 5 : 46 the psychical is the mortal, the pneumatic the im- 
 
126 CONSTITUTION OF MAN 
 
 mortal. Or if, in order to secure uniformity of meaning, we 
 identify the unregenerate with the mortal and the regener- 
 ate with the immortal, then — 
 
 3. We must accept an unscriptural view concerning the 
 nature of regeneration ; namely, that this change consists 
 either in imparting or in awakening the immortal spirit. 
 That is, either man is not immortal until after regenera- 
 tion, or the very part of his nature which deals with God 
 needs not to be purified, but only aroused — precisely the 
 reverse of the scriptural teaching (Eph. 2:3). A still 
 more startling result should be, that the body of the regener- 
 ate would at once become spiritual and deathless. 
 
 4. Man's God ward functions cannot be ascribed exclu- 
 sively to the pnenvia. Understanding and affection, psych- 
 ical powers which we share with the beasts, are directly en- 
 gaged in our relations to God. The beasts themselves show 
 to a master the reverence and fidelity which men owe to their 
 Maker. In Luke i : 46, 47, Mary's psyche magnifies the 
 Lord, as her pneuma rejoices in God ; and in 2 Cor. 12:15 
 Paul declares his willingness to spend and be spent for the 
 psyches of the Corinthians (b-Kzp xibv 4<oxu>v viiaiv), assuredly not 
 for the animal in them, but for the religious part, if for any 
 mere part. That distribution of offices which is indispensable 
 to the trichotomous theory cannot be made out. 
 
 5. Consciousness notifies us of the absolute unity and 
 indivisibility of the personal self. Psychological analysis 
 detects no trace of a duality in the immaterial part of man. 
 
 Nor does the consciousness of the biblical writers contra- 
 dict ours. If we are to take literally Paul's statement in 
 Rom. 7:17 (cf. ver, 25), "It is no more I that do it, but sin 
 that dwelleth in me," if we are to accept this as affirming a 
 partition in the immaterial part of Paul, then we must take 
 
THE ORIGIN OF SOULS 1 27 
 
 literally his other saying in Gal. 2 : 20, — " I have been cruci- 
 fied with Christ ; and I no longer live, but Christ liveth in 
 me," — and must hold it to teach that the personal Paul 
 had been destroyed and his body occupied by the personal 
 Christ. But this view, to which some devout people make 
 a near approach, is a doctrine of the annihilation of Chris- 
 tian souls, and a panchristic conception of the regenerate, 
 which has all the faults without any of the recommendations 
 of pantheism, 
 
 § 27. The Origin of Souls. 
 
 Three views are held concerning the origin of the soul ; 
 namely, that it enters the body from a pre-existent state ; 
 that it is specially created in the case of every person ; that 
 it is propagated together with the body. 
 
 It is admitted that no direct scriptural evidence can be 
 cited for the theory of pre-existence. It is advocated as the 
 only solution of the paradox that man is sinful by inheritance, 
 and yet responsible, and is further recommended on the 
 ground that it secures a probation in time for spirits that fell 
 in a timeless state. But the advantage to a fallen spirit of 
 subjection to the temptations of sense is not obvious. 
 
 The theory of propagation of souls, or traducianism, is pref- 
 erable to creationism for the following reasons : 
 
 I. It is more scriptural. While mediate creation through 
 traduction will justify the title "Father of spirits" (Heb. 
 12 19), immediate creation of individual souls is excluded by 
 the statements that God finished his creative work in six 
 days (Gen. 2:2; Exod. 20 : 11); that the unregenerate state 
 of man is something propagated (John 3:6); that all men 
 actually, not virtually, sinned in Adam (Rom. 5 : 12); that 
 
128 THE ORIGIN OF SOULS 
 
 in Adam all die (i Cor. 15 : 22) ; and that Levi, while in the 
 loins of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec (Heb. 7 : 9). 
 
 2. The mental and moral characteristics of men as a race, 
 as tribes, and as families, indicate propagation of souls as un- 
 equivocally as physical characteristics indicate propagation of 
 bodies. 
 
 3. Psycho-physics is demonstrating with ever-increasing 
 distinctness the close connection of soul and body, A 
 man is the synthesis of both. Because the body is indispen- 
 sable to the soul's full equipment, it will be restored at the 
 resurrection ; and because the soul is the animating principle 
 of the body, to propagate the body alive is to propagate the 
 vitalizing soul. 
 
 4. The presumption is in favor of traducianism. An event 
 is to be regarded as purely natural unless there is irresistible 
 evidence of divine intervention. The burden of proof there- 
 fore rests upon the theory that every soul is specially created. 
 
 But it is objected to traducianism that it seems to imply a 
 materialistic division of soul, and that, according to this 
 theory, the children of regenerate parents should not require 
 a "new birth." 
 
 A. To the first objection it may be replied — 
 
 (a) Since the soul is so exempt from the limitations of 
 matter that it can act without change in substance, it can 
 also be propagated without partition. 
 
 {b) The same objection would hold against the propagation 
 of animals and vegetables. The vital principle in these is im- 
 material, and yet it will scarcely be pretended that it must 
 be specially created in the case of every beast and plant. 
 
 B. To the second objection it may be replied — 
 
 {a) If our first parents had not sinned, their children would 
 
IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN 129 
 
 have been innocent by birth ; and if the children of regen- 
 erate parents need the new birth, what follows is that regen- 
 eration does not restore the original innocence of man. 
 
 {b) An even more weighty rejoinder is that, according to 
 creationism, the souls of men, being severally created, had 
 no connection with the primal sin, and yet they are natu- 
 rally depraved. 
 
 C. To all objections it may be responded, the propagation 
 of the species is so mysterious that the evident facts with re- 
 gard to it ought not to be denied on the ground that they are 
 not understood. 
 
 § 28. Image of God in Man. 
 Different theologies find this in human personality, in orig- 
 inal holiness, in dominion over the beasts. Neither view taken 
 alone is satisfactory ; for something of likeness to God can 
 be found in each of the alleged particulars, 
 
 1. The image of God in which man was made was nothing 
 less than a fundamental distinction between the natures of 
 men and beasts. That fundamental distinction is personality. 
 Accordingly, that the divine image survived the fall is taught 
 not only by Gen. 5 : 1-3, as interpreted by 9 : 6, but also by 
 I Cor. 11:7 and James 3 : 9. Therefore — 
 
 2. The original moral excellence of man did not constitute 
 the image of God in him. It was, however, a particular in 
 which man was made like his Maker. The likeness was de- 
 faced though not effaced, by the fall. A sinful person is a 
 marred image of the Creator. 
 
 But the original innocence of man must not be mistaken 
 for an original holiness. Holiness is positive, innocence is 
 negative. And while we may ascribe to the unfallen Adam 
 positive moral excellence, holiness involves devotion to right- 
 
130 ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN 
 
 eousness of the whole moral energy, and is a condition of 
 fixity which, even in the faultless, only trial can bring about 
 (John 17 : 19; Heb. 2 : 10; cf. Matt. 4 : i). 
 
 3. Man's dominion over the beasts is a faint copy of the 
 divine lordship (Gen. i : 26). But since the ascendency of 
 man is due to the powers which distinguish him from mere 
 animals, it is a product and sign of the divine image, rather 
 than itself that very image. 
 
 § 29. Original Condition of Man. 
 
 The elder theologians taught that man possessed before 
 the fall the highest refinement and an ideal civilization. Evo- 
 lutionists, on the contrary, generally insist that our race has 
 painfully struggled upward from a state of brutal savagery. 
 Neither view is supported by conclusive evidence. 
 
 1. The testimony of Scripture is that Adam was neither a 
 savage nor highly civilized. The practice of husbandry, which 
 he followed in Eden, is neither the lowest nor the highest of 
 occupations (Gen. 2 : 15, 19, 20). 
 
 2. The earliest fossil remains indicate a development of 
 body and of mind decidedly above the most degraded type of 
 savages. These latter then are probably degenerate wan- 
 derers, not aborigines. But although the earliest men, as 
 judged by their known remains, were above the lowest, they 
 were below the highest of the historic races. 
 
 3. The history of civilization is of the same purport. On 
 the one hand, civilization is not indigenous, but is borrowed, 
 at least in germ. This process may be traced back with con- 
 siderable certainty to the not ignoble arts of Western Asia, 
 the earliest known habitat of man within historic time. 
 
 On the other hand, culture is a product of cultivation. 
 
the: law of god 131 
 
 The beginnings of a civilization may be traceable to an earlier 
 people until the earliest traditional peoples are reached ; but ^ 
 high state of civilization is the elaborated product of the 
 society in which it is found. It is not then conceivable that 
 modern knowledge and modern arts belonged to our first 
 parents ; while it is equally improbable that God created the 
 primal pair but little above the brutes. 
 
 § 30. The Law of God. 
 i. the idea of law. 
 
 1. Definition. Law was originally a political term, and 
 meant a rule of conduct prescribed by authority. To modern 
 science, law is an order of facts determined by their nature. 
 
 2. Distinctions. A true idea and correct use of the term 
 are secured only by careful discrimination in several particu- 
 lars. 
 
 {a) Law is an order of facts, not efficient force, nor a force 
 regulative of efficient forces. 
 
 {b) Law is an existing, not merely an observed order, for 
 order or law existed before it was observed. Nor is law, 
 strictly speaking, the statement of an order which has be- 
 come known ; the statement is one thing, the fact stated is 
 another. 
 
 {c) Law belongs to the nature of facts, and is not imposed 
 on them by a restraining will. Hence — 
 
 id) Law is fixed, for to change the nature of a thing is to 
 make it something else. The observed order may change ; 
 but this only reveals more fully the nature of the thing ob- 
 served. It is a further discovery, not a repeal of its law. 
 For instance, the successive modes of existence in a but- 
 terfly. 
 
 {e) Sentient beings normally exhibit a varying order ; be- 
 
132 THE LAW OF GOD 
 
 cause their bodily, mental, and volitional powers contain a 
 structural provision for more or less choice of action. 
 
 (J') Sentient beings may violate law, for their organs are 
 not perfectly co-ordinated ; and each, while acting according 
 to its own form, may either repress or strain other organs, 
 or disturb their normal relations, and thus impair the or- 
 ganism. 
 
 This solves the problem how physical law can be inviolable 
 and moral law violable, although law in both cases is a con- 
 stituent principle. Physical law cannot be broken, because 
 to break a physical law would be to change the nature of a 
 physical object, that is, to put it out of existence; while 
 organic law, of which moral law is a variety, can be broken, 
 because organisms as such are destructible. 
 
 [g) It is the office of reason to recognize the proper rela- 
 tion of organic functions, and to preside over their exercise. 
 The lack of structural exclusion of disorder is met in rational 
 beings by a provision for its voluntary exclusion ; so that for 
 reason to rule is still to secure an order of facts prescribed 
 by the nature of the facts. 
 
 3. hiferences. The conception of law as determined by the 
 natures of things involves momentous results. 
 
 {a) To know the laws of things is to know the innermost 
 and the utmost that can be known. 
 
 (b) The scientific conception of law is applicable to all 
 spheres, for all things possess some definite nature, some 
 essential constitution. In geometry the facts are continuous, 
 and their law is the constant ratio between them ; for exam- 
 ple, between the angles and sides of a triangle. In mechanics 
 and chemistry the facts may be successive, and their law is 
 the method of the force which produces the changes observed. 
 
THE LAW OF GOD 1 33 
 
 In organisms, or living things, a law is that order of pro- 
 cesses, whether vital or voluntary, which the structure of 
 the organism prescribes. Social laws are the constitutive 
 methods of the social faculties. Statutes or positive laws, 
 whether of divine or human government, are, if just, merely 
 a publication of laws grounded in the nature of man at a given 
 stage of development. Ceremonial requirements in religion 
 represent either a transient state of pupilage which looks 
 toward its own termination, as in the case of Levitical rites, 
 or a permanent dependence of mind upon the suggestions of 
 sense, as in case of the Christian institutions and ordinances. 
 Even God is under the law of his own nature, so that what- 
 ever he does for us must be done in harmony with law, or it 
 is a violation both of our nature and his own. Even to for- 
 give infractions of law is according to law, because grace is a 
 normal divine function, and repentance a normal human con- 
 dition of forgiveness. How atonement is according to law 
 will be hereafter considered. If any theological theory fails 
 to illustrate law in the simple but searching idea of it com- 
 mon to all sciences, then the theory is inadequate or even 
 false, and the nature of the case but meagerly understood. 
 
 II. THE SOURCE OF LAW. 
 
 1. Since law is a constituent of forces and things, its origin 
 is in their Creator. In appointing their natures he fixed their 
 laws. 
 
 2. But in what sense is God the source of law ? May it be 
 traced to his will, to his benevolence, or to his nature .'' Un- 
 doubtedly to his nature. His will is the immediate source 
 of law, and benevolence certainly guided his will ; but both 
 will and benevolence belong to his nature, must be exer- 
 cised in harmony with his entire nature, and therefore the 
 
 M 
 
134 THE LAW OF GOD 
 
 primary and determinative source of law is the perfect nature 
 of God. 
 
 All laws then which God has instituted are " transcripts 
 of the divine nature " — moral laws, of its moral aspects ; 
 mental laws, of its intellectual aspect ; physical laws, of the 
 wisdom of God in creating physical objects fitted to his designs. 
 
 III. THE OBLIGATION OF LAW. { 
 
 e 
 
 1. T/ie moral obligation. This is found in the fact that 
 laws are the normal mode of action. For a rational being to 
 use his powers in harmony with their norm is to attain the 
 true end of his existence. This is the ultimate obligation in 
 ethics, an obligation due even from the divine Being to him- 
 self. Conversely, for a rational being to violate his norm is a 
 crime against nature, an ultimate evil, requiring no analysis, 
 and admitting of none. 
 
 2. The religions obligation. Since the all-perfect Being 
 is per se the ultimate standard of right, the ethical obligation 
 to normality, which our own nature prescribes, rises into the 
 religious obligation to normality, in order that we may con- 
 form to the divine nature. 
 
 In accepting the holy nature of God as the supreme stand- 
 ard of right we have not rendered the antithesis between 
 right and wrong more complete ; right is not more certainly 
 that which ought to be done, nor wrong more essentially that 
 which ought not to be done. No right deed can be cited on 
 the part of man or of God which is not a normal deed, or 
 which is right for any other reason than that it is normal ; no 
 wrong can be found which is not abnormal, or which is wrong 
 for any other reason than that it is abnormal. To question 
 the intrinsic Tightness of the normal in man would be to 
 
SIN 135 
 
 raise the same question against the intrinsic moral excellence 
 of God, whose changeless normality is his holy perfection. 
 
 What we have gained in accepting the divine as the cri- 
 terion of human goodness is the impressiveness of the obli- 
 gation to be good. The high worth of moral excellence is 
 felt when it is witnessed in a good man ; its boundless im- 
 portance is felt when it is witnessed in an infinitely holy God. 
 It is the function of reason to know the truth of the abstract 
 idea of right ; but it is the function of moral sensibility to 
 be stirred by the concrete exhibition of righteousness in a 
 person. 
 
 § 31- Sin. 
 i. definition. 
 
 We have seen that any violation of the constitutive laws 
 of a rational being in the view of ethics is wrong, and in the 
 view of religion is wicked. The word sin belongs to the ter- 
 minology of religion, and the usual definition of it may be 
 accepted : Sin is want of conformity to the law of God. 
 
 If this definition, as interpreted by the idea of law, seems 
 inapplicable to violations of ceremonial or merely positive 
 requirements, it should be borne in mind that it is normal to 
 obey God, and that these requirements are fitly ordained by 
 God because they are suitable to man as they find him, and 
 therefore to break them \%per se sinful. 
 
 Since the law of God corresponds to the constitution of 
 the ideal man, sin takes as many phases as there are forms of 
 departure from that ideal. Consequently, to begin with the 
 concrete, sin is — 
 
 I. An act of disobedience to the law (i John 3:4; d.vo[i(a, 
 lawlessness, iniquity, either of disposition or acts). But an 
 act of transgression is the fruit of a bad ruling principle ; 
 hence sin is — 
 
136 SIN 
 
 2. A principle of self-willed opposition to God (John 8 ; 
 34; Rom. 6 : 12-14; 7 passim ; Eph. 2 : 3). But a control- 
 ling principle of conduct reveals a corresponding moral state ; 
 hence sin is — 
 
 3. A state of moral unlikeness to God (Matt. 15 : 18; 
 Luke 6 : 44, 45 ; Rom. 7 : 14; Eph. 2 : 3).' 
 
 II. THE ESSENCE OF SIN. 
 
 Various theories have been proposed and are still current 
 upon this subject. The more important are — 
 
 1. The essence of sin is sensuality. But — 
 
 [a) The normal indulgence of appetites is not sinful ; while 
 the abnormal, ascetic restraint of them is certainly a blunder 
 and of doubtful morality. 
 
 (b) Sensuality does not account for vices of the mind 
 either in men or demons. 
 
 {c) Paul cannot be quoted in support of this theory ; for, 
 although he uses the word " flesh " as a bold symbol for sin, 
 he includes among its works witchcraft, hatred, etc., offenses 
 not distinctly sensual (Gal. 5 : 20 ; cf. " desires of the flesh 
 and of the mind," Eph. 2 : 3). 
 
 2. The evolutionist view is that we inherit from brute 
 progenitors not only vices of sense, but those of the mind, 
 such as vanity, deceitfulness, malice, revenge. These pro- 
 pensities are regarded as immoral in man, because experience 
 shows him that they are injurious alike to himself and to 
 others. Evolutionism thus declares the essence by account- 
 ing for the origin of sin. Both phases of the theory must 
 be considered, if either. 
 
 A. As an account of the origin of sin we note that — 
 
 > This distinction is accepted from Dr. E. G. Robinson, and will be found a key 
 to many difficult problems. 
 
SIN 137 
 
 (a) The evolution of man from the beasts is an unproved 
 speculation ; but a divinely guided evolution is a probable 
 speculation. 
 
 (d) The theory can relieve the problem of the fall only by 
 modifying the current doctrine of original innocence. But, 
 at the same time, if the Scriptures teach that man was 
 originally good, they teach that the beasts also, with their 
 rudimentary vices, were "good." And since the beasts could 
 become human only as changed by the Creator, it is not cer- 
 tain that the first men would inherit any further proclivity to 
 sin than they unquestionably possessed in desires which could 
 be solicited to evil. 
 
 B. As a theory of the essence of sin evolutionism is open 
 to the more serious objection that misconduct is not wrong be- 
 cause it is injurious, but is both injurious and wrong because 
 it is abnormal. What is normal in a brute may be abnormal 
 in a rational being. 
 
 3. Finiteiiess or limitation is said to be the essence of sin, 
 because the Infinite alone is perfect. 
 
 (a) But it is not the privilege of the Infinite alone to be 
 good, A finite being that spontaneously fulfills the ends for 
 which he was created is without fault. 
 
 {B) Sins are not mere limitations, but the active expres- 
 sions of a perverse nature. 
 
 ic) This is essentially the pantheistic doctrine that " evil 
 is good in the making," that the distinction between good 
 and bad is one of quantity rather than quality, and hence, as 
 pantheists show a marked disposition to hold, that might 
 makes right. 
 
 4. Selfishness is the essence of sin. This is probably the 
 most widely accepted theory. It is, however, open to the 
 objections ; 
 
138 THE FALL OF MAN 
 
 (a) It is maintained on the ground that love is the essence 
 of obedience, as well as a motive to it, and is subject to the 
 criticisms which hold against resolving holiness into benevo- 
 lence. 
 
 (p) Selfishness is a principle of conduct, and cannot be the 
 essence of sin as a state. 
 
 (c) Even as a principle of conduct selfishness is not an un- 
 resolvable essence, but may be further analyzed. Selfishness ' 
 is excessive self-love. The wrong element in it is its excess. 
 But self-love is excessive only when it goes beyond the 
 bounds set for it in the constitution of man as a being fitted 
 for social relations. 
 
 Or, since enlightened self-love would lead one to exercise 
 his high social faculties, selfishness might be defined as a 
 misdirected self-love, and the evil element in it would be its 
 irrationality. Self-interest is in being unselfish. 
 
 From either point of view the evil in selfishness is seen to 
 be its want of conformity to the law, or method of conduct, 
 prescribed by the constitution of the ideal or typical man. 
 Hence we conclude that — 
 
 5. The essence of sin is its abnor>nality . It is essentially 
 a violation of the nature which God gave to man and of the 
 divine nature after which man was patterned. In the case of 
 rational beings, capable of recognizing the relations of con- 
 duct to constitutive law, moral quality, good or bad, inheres 
 in such relations. This we know by intuition, and there- 
 fore cannot, and need not, prove. The enormity of sin is its 
 
 abnormity. 
 
 § 32. The Fall of Man. 
 
 God made man faultless (Gen. 1:31; Eccl. 7 : 29 ; Rom. 
 5 : 12). He was spontaneously correct in all relations. 
 Toward God his natural relation was one of reverence, sub- 
 
THE FALL OF MAN 
 
 139 
 
 mission, trust, and love ; toward human beings it was one of 
 love, respect, and helpfulness ; toward inferior creatures one 
 of kindness and authority ; for himself it was the propor- 
 tionate exercise of all his powers, and distaste for excess in 
 the use of any. 
 
 Deliberate and repeated choice of right would have tended 
 to fixity in righteousness ; but, when subjected to the inevi- 
 table test, he fell. 
 
 I. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE FALL. 
 
 The account given in Gen. 3 : 1-6, whether taken literally 
 or symbolically, is luminous and intrinsically probable. The 
 tempter suggested that there was a conflict between the 
 natural demands of human nature and the known inhibition 
 of God. The lower appetites of the palate and the eye, with 
 the higher longings of the mind (3 : 6), were incited against 
 fidelity to the highest function of man, confiding submission 
 to God ; self-will was provoked ; distrust of God followed ; 
 and sin was outwardly consummated in an act of disobedience. 
 
 n. THE PROBLEM OF THE FALL. 
 
 The scriptural account of the process through which man 
 was led into sin does not make it possible to understand how 
 a rational and upright being could do himself the extreme 
 violence of setting his will against the will of God. Nor does 
 it make it plain how God could permit the fall. 
 
 (a) The ethical difficulty is that every determination of the 
 will actually and, so far as we can see, necessarily corresponds 
 to character. The dilemma is obvious : either the primal sin 
 shows that Adam was sinful before the fall ; or his previous 
 innocence shows that the fall was innocent. 
 
 (d) The theological difficulty is that God foreknew what 
 
140 THE FALL OF MAN 
 
 man would do. He knew that the entire human race would 
 fall victim to the evil which he most compassionates and most 
 abhors. The problem of the fall is insoluble. 
 
 III. THEORIES OF THE FALL. 
 
 But the insolubility of the problem has not deterred either 
 philosophers or theologians from renewed attempts upon it. 
 The objections to ascribing the fall to carnal appetites, to 
 bestial inheritance, or to finiteness, were involved in the dis- 
 cussion of corresponding theories as to the essence of sin. It 
 remains to notice the following proposed solutions : 
 
 I. In morals as in physics nothing is achieved except by 
 overcoming resistance. Sin is thus contemplated as a kind 
 of moral inertia. Without actual sin, therefore, there could 
 be no positive righteousness. 
 
 {a) But moral acts would necessarily meet with moral re- 
 sistance only in case they constituted a class distinct and 
 apart from acts of intellect, sensibility, and will ; whereas 
 moral excellence is but a quality inherent in all normal con- 
 duct of a rational being. Whatever, therefore, the resistance 
 to any normal function, the moral excellence of the function 
 could not increase the resistance, but would be supremely at- 
 tractive to an unfallen being. 
 
 (p) The only condition precedent of moral choice before 
 the fall was an idea of something that ought to be avoided ; 
 and this idea was provided by the law of the forbidden fruit. 
 It is true that full knowledge of either good or evil can be 
 obtained only by experience of its opposite, so that the " tree 
 of knowledge " stands for something ethically real. But, what- 
 ever it stands for, it cannot mean that our first parents had 
 no knowledge at all of good or evil until they fell ; for they 
 knew that divine commands ought to be obeyed, and to have 
 
PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL I4I 
 
 an idea of duty is to have an idea of the right and of its op- 
 posite. 
 
 2. The Calvinistic theory that God decreed sin either effi- 
 ciently or permissively. 
 
 But the moral perfections of God forbid us to believe that 
 he actively caused sin (James i : 13); while to say that he 
 permitted it, is still to leave open the question how it was 
 efficiently caused. 
 
 § 33. Penal Consequences of the Fall. 
 
 Some theologians distinguish between the natural conse- 
 quences and the penalties of the fall. They may be distin- 
 guished in idea, but are not distinct in fact. 
 
 {a) All penalties are natural consequences. The wrath of 
 God is as natural as the reproaches of conscience ; and the 
 suffering which he inflicts is as natural a result of his wrath 
 as any harm which the sinner does to himself. 
 
 {V) All the natural consequences of the fall are penalties. 
 They are the sanctions which belong to law as an element in 
 the constitution of moral beings ; so that inwrought evils are 
 as manifest agencies of the divine government as are statutory 
 punishments. 
 
 Indeed, law appears all the more sacred, and penalty the 
 more solemn, when we consider that sin inevitably draws a 
 penalty upon itself from every source, and that such penalties 
 are in no case arbitrarily imposed. 
 
 Of the penal consequences of the primal sin the following 
 are the more important : 
 
 I. death. 
 
 This was the penalty expressly threatened for disobedience 
 
142 PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 
 
 of the sole restraint imposed in Eden (Gen. 2 : 17). Death 
 as a consequence of the fall is both physical and spiritual, but 
 pre-eminently spiritual. 
 
 1. Spiritual death is loss of harmony with God. That 
 man was naturally mortal and death chiefly spiritual is assured 
 by the facts : 
 
 {a) The tree of life was provided in order to secure the 
 unfallen Adam from physical death. 
 
 (b) Christ removes the penalty of sin. In so doing he re- 
 stores the soul to union with God (Eph, 2 : 4-6), but does not 
 prevent its severance from the body. 
 
 {c) The New Testament characteristically represents life 
 and death as spiritual. 
 
 {d) Geology teaches that physical death long preceded the 
 creation of man, and physiology affords no reason for suppos- 
 ing that the body of man was ever deathless. 
 
 2. Physical death, or separation of the soul from the body, 
 is also a penalty of the fall. 
 
 {a) Access to the tree of life was cut off in consequence of 
 the fall. . 
 
 (b) The sting of physical death is sin ; and so far as this is 
 removed, the penalty of physical death is removed (i Cor. 
 
 15 : 55-57)- 
 
 {c) In the end, Christ will deliver his people from physical 
 
 'death (i Cor. 15 : 22). As man is dual, so life in Christ is 
 
 dual. The resurrection of the body is peculiarly associated 
 
 with a vital relation to Christ (Rom. 8:11; Phil. 3:11, 12). 
 
 If it be objected that physical death cannot be a penalty 
 of sin, for the reason that the threatened penalty was to 
 be suffered on the day when the forbidden fruit was eaten ; 
 we reply — 
 
 Death is twofold. Spiritual death was suffered at once^ 
 
PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 14^ 
 
 physical death was at once made certain ; precisely as life is 
 twofold, and the promise of Christ, '• Whosoever liveth and 
 believeth in me shall never die " (John 1 1 : 26), is fulfilled at 
 once for the spirit, but is not yet applicable to the body (i 
 Cor. 1 5 : 54). 
 
 II. NATIVE DEPRAVITY, OR ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 Recalling the distinction between sin as a state, principle, 
 and act, we may define Native Depravity as (a) an inborn 
 state of moral debasement, marked by (d) an irresistible 
 proneness to (^) acts of sin. Because this debasement be- 
 longs to every man from the beginning of his individual ex- 
 istence, it is not improperly called Original Sin. It is an 
 inherited penalty of the fall. 
 
 I. Extent of Depravity. 
 
 Is native depravity partial or is it total ? The doctrine of 
 Total Depravity is often understood to be that there is only 
 wickedness in man. It has even been argued that he is con- 
 tinually as wicked as possible. But such opinions defy the 
 common conscience, and the doctrine which they misrepre- 
 sent shares their disrepute. It is not true that all the mo- 
 tives and acts of the unregenerate are entirely wrong. Pos- 
 sibly no act or motive is utterly wrong. Conscience approves 
 in one's self, and the noblest sentiment of mankind un- 
 stintedly lauds many of the acts and, so far as they appear, 
 the motives of men whom no one regards as regenerate. 
 We must not conclude that the common conscience is in 
 error, or that God entirely condemns what men thus unite to 
 honor and love. 
 
 At the same time a defensible meaning can be found for 
 the conventional title, Total Depravity to wit — 
 
144 PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 
 
 (a) No unconverted man loves God supremely, and his 
 motives are always wrong by defect. But he loves his own 
 way supremely, and when the law of God demands the sur- 
 render of his will he finds his will perverse (Rom. 7 : 7-24). 
 
 (d) All his powers are disordered by sin. This is so 
 familiarly true of the appetites that " tJie flesW in scriptural 
 and in popular language is used concretely for sin. The 
 " understanding also is darkened," men are •' alienated from 
 the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them " 
 (Eph. 4 : 18), "the things of the Spirit of God . . . are 
 foolishness unto them" (i Cor. 2 : 14); and the judgment 
 against them is that they even " loved the darkness rather 
 than the light " (John 3 : 19). 
 
 2. Theories of Native Depravity. 
 
 Sharp conflict of opinion has long prevailed over this 
 theme. The following views require notice : 
 
 A. The Pelagian, that the posterity of Adam are born as 
 he was created, neither good nor bad, that they severally de- 
 termine their own moral state and receive from the fall of 
 Adam no other injury than the influence of an evil example. 
 
 But this theory is openly opposed to the teaching of Script- 
 ure that we are " by nature," that is by birth, " the children 
 of wrath" (Eph. 2 : 3 ; cf. Rom. 5 : 12, 19). 
 
 B. Semi-pelagian, Arminian and New School theologians 
 agree that men inherit a bias toward sin, but deny that 
 Adam's sin is imputed, that depravity is a penalty of the 
 fall, or that it is reckoned as sin until the will yields to the 
 propensity sinward. 
 
 To the Semi-pelagian, depravity is a sickness, not a sinful- 
 ness. To the evangelical Arminian or Wesleyan, it is a cor 
 ruption or vitiosity, and disables man from turning to right- 
 
PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL I45 
 
 eousness ; but, on the other hand, it is not punishable, and the 
 disability it causes is corrected through the atonement by the 
 restoration of the Holy Spirit to all men. To the New 
 School theologian, the vitiosity is sinful because it leads to 
 sin, but is not itself sin, for sin is a voluntary violation of a 
 known law ; sin consists in sinning. 
 
 Against these kindred views it must be urged that — 
 
 (a) An inborn state which turns our wills against God is 
 itself a state of sin. 
 
 (d) Our consciences condemn what we are as well as what 
 we do. We repent, not indeed of Adam's sin, but of the 
 moral condition into which it brought us. 
 
 (c) That condition is not only a penal consequence of the 
 fall, but itself offensive to God — a penalty all the more gre\ 
 ous because itself punishable. The mischiefs wrought by sin 
 increase by multiplication into themselves. 
 
 C. T/ie Federalist theory that a covenant of works was 
 formed with Adam, according to which he was appointed fed- 
 eral head of the race, and the race was granted a probation 
 in him. The covenant stipulated that, if Adam continued in 
 obedience, the race should be maintained in righteousness ; 
 whereas if he fell, his sin should be imputed immediately to 
 his posterity, and as a consequence they should be born de- 
 praved. Sufficient objections to this view are : 
 
 {a) It necessitates the creationist theory concerning the 
 origin of souls. 
 
 (^) The Scriptures say nothing of such a covenant. 
 
 {c) They do not reveal so violent and entirely arbitrary an 
 arrangement as that God by sheer exercise of sovereignty im- 
 putes to Adam's posterity an act in which, as the theory in- 
 sists, they had no share. 
 
 {d) Nor do the Scriptures warrant the harsh idea that wc 
 
146 PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALI, 
 
 are punished with depravity in consequence of the imputation 
 by legal fiction of another's sin. The texts quoted for the 
 federalist view more readily suggest another : 
 
 D. The theory of Natural Headship in Adam. All hu- 
 man nature was in our first parents when they fell, and was 
 subsequently propagated in the state to which they had 
 brought it. This view involves the traducianist theory as to 
 the origin of souls. That native depravity is a consequence 
 of the natural headship of Adam is supported by — 
 
 {a) The Scriptures. It was in consequence of the ger- 
 minal inclusion of the race in its natural head that Paul could 
 say, in Rom. 5 : 1 2, " By one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sin," adding at once the explanatory statement, 
 "And so death passed upon all men because (^0' '<D) all sinned," 
 (aorist, ilfiaprov) ; could in verse 19 repeat the explanation, "By 
 one man's disobedience the many were made (xaT£ffTd&7j<Tav= 
 constituted not reckoned ; cf. Greek text of James. 3:6; 
 4 : 4; 2 Peter i : 8) sinners" ; and in i Cor. 15 : 22 could 
 curtly trace the all-inclusive penalty of sin to the first man, 
 " In Adam all die " (cf. Ps. 5 1 : 5). 
 
 (d) Historical evidence. The universality of sin testifies 
 that depravity is inborn, and, if inborn, inherited, as dis- 
 tinctly as it is possible for experience to testify to any native 
 and hereditary peculiarities of mankind. 
 
 III. LOSS OF MORAL FREEDOM. 
 
 Man possesses formal freedom, because he prefers the 
 course which he follows ; but he has lost real freedom, be- 
 cause the preference for sin is a bondage which he cannot 
 break. Some inquiry as to the nature of the will and of its 
 freedom is necessary in order to show the correctness and 
 the importance of this distinction. 
 
PENAI. CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALt 14^ 
 
 I. Theories of Will and Freedom. 
 
 1. The Will is that faculty of conscious self-determination 
 which belongs to every rational being. 
 
 2. As to Freedom of the Will two views only need attention. 
 
 A. Self-determination is a function of the will itself ; that 
 is, the will is able to decide between rival motives, uncon- 
 trolled either by external restraints or by personal prefer- 
 ences. This is the so-called "power of contrary choice." 
 
 Sufficient objections to this view are : 
 
 (a) Since the will is the egos power of self-determination, 
 self-determination belongs to the ego, not to the will. In 
 other words, volitions are not self-determined, but are self- 
 determinations. 
 
 {b) Volition executes choice ; choice is net preference ; 
 preference invariably conforms to character. A volition not 
 determined by character is without example, is inconceivable, 
 and would be irresponsible. 
 
 These objections suggest the alternative view : 
 
 B. Freedom of the will is self-direction, or freedom of the 
 mind in willing, and consists in the very fact that a being 
 can will. To will unfreely would be not to will at all. 
 
 That freedom inheres in the capacity of conscious self- 
 determination is apparent from the process of forming voli- 
 tions. The idea of ends may be forced upon the mind 
 through the senses ; but it furnishes only the occasion, not 
 the cause of motives. Motives are the conflicting desires 
 or repulsions of any kind which arise within the mind upon 
 the contemplation of ends among which to choose. Choice 
 is the final predominance of a single or a complex motive ; 
 that is, choice is net preference. Volition is decision to act 
 for the chosen end. 
 
148 PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 
 
 Now in every step of this process after the first — the rise 
 of the idea of ends — the mind is self-moved.' To have mo- 
 tives is for the mind itself to desire or dislike various ends. 
 To make choice is for the mind itself to prefer, on whatever 
 account, one end rather than any alternative end. To form 
 a volition is for the mind to purpose the attainment of what 
 it chooses. At each step of the process it is the mind itself 
 that acts, and it acts from itself. Man is a first cause in 
 willing. 
 
 2. Objections. 
 
 A. Oti the Part of Necessitarianism. 
 
 It is urged that to ascribe to man self-determination, or 
 primary causation, is to violate both the necessary conviction 
 that every event must have a cause, and the induction of 
 physics that energy is never created, but only transmuted. 
 It may be replied : 
 
 {a) Inasmuch as the only real cause is a first cause, the 
 causal judgment fully stated is. Every event must have a first 
 cause. To hold that the mind is self-moved in willing is not 
 merely in harmony with the causal judgment, but it indicates 
 the very experience through which an idea of causation be- 
 comes possible. 
 
 {b) Mechanical laws are not applicable alike to the material 
 and the immaterial. We have already noticed that the law 
 now under consideration, that of the convertibility of energy, 
 is inapplicable to the mental sphere ; in other words, phys- 
 
 » Are motives the cause of choice ? The Edwardean says Yes ; the Hbertarian 
 says No, choice or volition, so far from being caused is the ground of our notion of 
 cause. The fact is that in the entire conative series (idea of ends, desire, etc.) no 
 member of the series is an entity, and capable of being a cause, but is a stage in 
 the activity of the soul ; and the soul, in passing from stage to stage, acts from it- 
 self, finding in each of its acts the occasion, not the cause of the next act. 
 
PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 149 
 
 ical motion is not interchangeable with states of conscious- 
 ness. The case should be restated from the present point 
 of view. 
 
 {ad) Physical energy through all its transmutations is the- 
 oretically, and to some extent practically, measurable in foot- 
 pounds ; but no state of consciousness can even imaginably 
 be reduced to foot-pounds, or otherwise expressed in terms 
 of physics. Thoughts are not so many linear feet deep, 
 or square feet in surface ; feelings are not literally so many 
 pounds strong, or liquid measures full. 
 
 {bb) Changes in states of consciousness may accompany 
 physical changes ; but concomitance is not convertibility. 
 Thus, when impact upon the body is attended by an idea or 
 emotion, the entire energy applied to the body is taken up in 
 producing physical results ; none of it is abstracted and con- 
 verted into an idea or emotion. The body reacts upon the 
 impinging agent, and transmits an impulse to the objects 
 which form its own support ; but the idea or emotion does 
 not in strictness react upon, the body, and is not transmitted 
 to any object behind itself. 
 
 Conversely, the will may release energy stored in the nerves 
 and muscles, but it does not produce energy. 
 
 {cc) If the volition were caused by the impact, if physical 
 energy were converted through sensation into volition, 
 through volition into action, then the circuit up the sensory 
 nerves and down the motor nerves would always be a closed 
 circuit, and the impact would invariably be followed by a 
 proportionate release of muscular energy ; but it is admitted 
 that the will may or may not cause a responsive movement. 
 
 In other words, the mind, in being subjected to impres- 
 sions, is a terminus ad quern; in forming volitions it is a 
 terminus a quo. 
 
1^^ PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 
 
 B. On the part of Libertarianism. 
 
 Against the position that choice always corresponds to 
 character it is argued : 
 
 {a) Adam must have had power of contrary choice before 
 the fall, because he then decided contrary to the whole bent 
 of his nature. 
 
 {b) Fallen men retain power of contrary choice within 
 certain limits. The will, considered as the general movement 
 of the soul, cannot be changed by us ; but the will, as faculty 
 of single volitions, has power of contrary choice in indifferent 
 matters, and even in moral concerns is sufficiently free to 
 modify character. 
 
 (f) The will can control motives by directing attention to 
 one rather than to another motive. 
 
 {d) Consciousness distinctly testifies that we can decide 
 either for or against any given motive, however strong. 
 
 In reply, we note : 
 
 {ad) The theory of the will must describe the conative 
 powers of man as he now is, not as he was in a state from 
 which he has lapsed, and which is confessedly inexplicable. 
 An account of the will which accounted for the fall would 
 undo the fall, and thus would prove its own undoing. 
 
 {bb) However indifferent an action may seem to be, it re- 
 mains for one voluntary act to be pointed out which in no 
 way corresponds to what the agent was when he decided upon 
 it. On any theory, acts which express character intensify the 
 characteristics they express. 
 
 {cc) In holding the attention to one motive rather than 
 another, the will must be acting under the influence of some 
 motive and be exhibiting a marked difference between man 
 and man. 
 
 {dd) The mind is not conscious that it is free to like what 
 
PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 151 
 
 it dislikes ; it is conscious that it can have a preference. It 
 is not conscious that likings are at our command. 
 
 (ee) If unchangeability of preference excludes freedom, 
 then to prefer with all one's strength is not to prefer at all, 
 and to love so much that one cannot help loving is to love no 
 longer. That is to say, because God is love he does not love, 
 and because he cannot choose to sin he does not choose to 
 be holy. 
 
 (ff) The testimony of consciousness and experience can 
 be reconciled. If a man knew himself as God knows him, 
 his choices would seem to be as certain as they really are ; 
 but while they seem to be uncertain they must equally seem 
 to be free. Responsibility could not be predicated of man if 
 this were not so. 
 
 This review of theories leads to the following — 
 
 3. Conclusions. 
 
 A. The ego is self-determined and ipso facto free. It can 
 form, and knows that it can form, a preference. 
 
 B. All free self-determinations or volitions are conditioned 
 by the capabilities of the self, and, in moral quality, represent 
 the moral state of the self. This is the reign of determinism, 
 or inherent necessity. 
 
 C. Necessity and freedom coincide in the fact that voli- 
 tions correspond to character. Necessity is seen herein, that 
 a moral being tnust, freedom is seen herein, that he may, 
 will conformably to what he is. No stricter necessity 
 can be conceived than that a man's volitions are deter- 
 mined by his character ; and yet no larger liberty can be 
 imagined than that a man can have choices distinctively his 
 own. 
 
 D. As to formal freedom we now see that, if a moral being 
 
152 PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL 
 
 is depraved, right volitions are impeded by wrong desires, an:I 
 wrong volitions are opposed by conscience, by reason, indeed 
 by the very constitution which he would violate. In this case 
 he is still formally free, since his volition follows his actual 
 preference ; but he is not really free, because some aroused 
 faculty ever resists his choice. 
 
 E. As to real freedom we may feel assured that, in th6 
 state of innocence lost, or of holiness to be attained, all 
 desires are normal and all functions harmoniously fulfilled. 
 This is real freedom, not merely because it is morally good, 
 but because moral goodness involves exemption from restraint 
 and full co-operation of all one's powers toward a preferred 
 end. The " law of liberty " is spontaneous obedience to law 
 (James i : 25 ; i Cor. 9 : 21). 
 
 IV. DERANGEMENT OF CONSCIENCE. 
 
 In depraving the affections the fall has impaired the func- 
 tion of moral self-judgment. Every step in the process is 
 disordered. 
 
 The following steps are recognizable : Intuition that there 
 is a difference between right and wrong ; moral standards 
 furnished by the normal requirements of our own constitu- 
 tion, by the sacred Scriptures, by the instructions of parents 
 or of priests, by social convention ; judgment, or comparison 
 of moral states, desires, or acts with the accepted standard ; 
 a feeling of duty or sense of obligation to take the course, 
 whether of action or inaction, which the judgment has pro- 
 nounced to be the right course ; and, subsequent to con- 
 duct, a verdict that we have observed or have violated the 
 recognized standard, together with a correspondent feeling 
 of complacency or compunction. 
 
 Theology is not concerned with deciding whether the name 
 
INABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY I53 
 
 conscience should be given to this entire congeries of facul- 
 ties and functions, according to popular usage, or is more 
 strictly applied to the faculty of moral self -judgment ; we are 
 here concerned to observe that — 
 
 The fall, and the sins which the fall has entailed, have dis- 
 ordered every element in the case. The intuition that right 
 and wrong are contraries cannot be annulled, but it may be 
 disregarded ; the standard accepted is often vitiated ; the judg- 
 ment is generally confused, the feeling of obligation more or 
 less dulled, and compunction for evil correspondingly en- 
 feebled. 
 
 § 34. Inability and Responsibility. 
 
 If man is born without ability to obey God, is he respon- 
 sible for disobedience .'' 
 
 New School theologians answer that responsibility is no 
 greater than ability ; but that man is responsible because, 
 although morally unable, he is naturally able to obey. Old 
 School theologians answer that responsibility is greater than 
 ability, because our inability is due to the sin which the entire 
 race committed in Adam as either its federal or natural head. 
 
 The issue can be more readily decided after some further 
 consideration of the terms inability and responsibility. 
 
 I. inability. 
 
 The doctrine of the New School, or New England, theology, 
 rests on the proposed distinction between natural and moral 
 ability. By natural ability is meant the ability to obey God 
 if one chooses ; moral inability is the inability to choose. 
 But the weakness of this position is that — 
 
 I. The converse is equally true : a man cannot obey unless 
 he can choose to obey. If then he cannot choose to obey, 
 his hypothetical natural ability is actually natural inability. 
 
154 INABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 
 
 2. This theory mistakes ability to choose some alternative, 
 that is, to form a preference, for ability to choose or prefer 
 either of opposite alternatives. Inborn likes and dislikes but 
 make the choice more decided. The New School vindication 
 of responsibility is therefore inadequate. 
 
 The Old School view finds support in the nature of — 
 
 n. RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 The usual defense of the Old School position, namely, that 
 the race is responsible for the issue of its probation in Adam 
 may be a sound defense ; but the ethical element is so prom- 
 inent in the case as it stands that it is more satisfactory to 
 consider it as it stands. From this point of view we argue 
 that men are responsible for the sinfulness from which they 
 cannot free themselves, on the grounds that — 
 
 1. Men actually choose evil. If they are so wicked that 
 they cannot help so choosing, this does not neutralize the 
 wickedness of such a choice ; otherwise the more wicked one 
 grows the less wicked he is, and Satan himself has become 
 blameless. 
 
 2. Men are responsible for wrong choices precisely be- 
 cause these choices represent their characters. " Either 
 make the tree good, and its fruit good ; or make the tree cor- 
 rupt, and its fruit corrupt : for the tree is known by its 
 fruit " (Matt. I2 : 33). If human nature is helplessly evil, its 
 condition is not only the more pitiable, but morally the worse, 
 
 3. If the fact that man cannot eradicate the propensity to 
 sin destroys responsibility for sin, then the fact that God can- 
 not escape the preference for good destroys the merit of his 
 holiness (James i : 13, 17). 
 
 4. If law were but precept and all penalty were imposed, 
 if right and wrong were merely what the Divine will exacts or 
 
INABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 155 
 
 forbids, then we might well ask whether it is not arbitrary to 
 lay an impracticable law upon men born depraved, and to 
 punish them for sin which they cannot avoid. But if law is 
 in the nature of being, and if penalty is the natural conse- 
 quence of violating law, then responsibility must be inter- 
 preted from the point of view which these facts supply. We 
 notice, therefore, that — 
 
 While responsibility or answerability literally means liabil- 
 ity to be called to account and punished, it is really a figura- 
 tive term, and that which it stands for is, in the last analysis, 
 the fact that consequences are inseparable from character 
 and conduct. An evil nature entails misery both by force of 
 its abnormal, self-injurious activities, and through the repug- 
 nance which it cannot but awaken in moral beings, above 
 all in a holy God. Responsibility then resides in the nature 
 of the case, and cannot be lifted from the race, so long as the 
 race is depraved (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2 : 3). 
 
 5. To say that it is not right for consequences so im- 
 measurably evil to follow the fall of the first pair, is to forget 
 that right is conformity to the natures of the things concerned. 
 It is precisely because law belongs to our nature, that penalty 
 is provided for in the same way. If then it is unnatural and 
 wrong to sin, it is natural and right to be punished. God's 
 aversion to the inherently bad is normal, not arbitrary. The 
 reverse would be arbitrary and abnormal. 
 
 6. But if the question is asked, why God allowed the race 
 to be propagated after it fell, no answer can be given until 
 one is found for the question why he created our first parents, 
 foreknowing that they would fall. The problem of human 
 responsibility thus merges into the insoluble moral enigma of 
 the existence of evil, and the solemn but faith-inviting mys- 
 tery of the decrees of a personal and righteous God. 
 
156 THE SALVATION OF INFANTS 
 
 § 35. The Salvation of Infants. 
 
 If infants share a depravity which necessarily leads to acts 
 of sin, are dying infants saved ? The Scripture does not 
 state that they are saved, but it justifies such an inference. 
 
 1. It recognizes the inability of children to distinguish be- 
 tween right and wrong, and permits us to believe that this 
 places them under the favorable judgment of God (Deut. i : 
 39 ; Jonah 4:11; Rom. 9:11). 
 
 2. Our Saviour warned his followers that, unless they 
 became as little children, they should not enter into the king- 
 dom of heaven (Matt. 18 : 3), and on another occasion he 
 blessed the little children, saying, " of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven" (Matt. 19 : 14). He did not say "of these is the 
 kingdom of heaven," but " of such " as these. But it is not 
 easy to believe that he could take the children in his arms, 
 bless them, and promise heaven to those that become like 
 them, if he had known that dying infants go to perdition. 
 
 3. The parallel in Rom. 5 : 12-21 between the effects of 
 Adam's sin and of Christ's obedience — especially the intima- 
 tion in verse 14, that as Adam brought death upon some who 
 did not sin as he had sinned, so Christ, in conferring benefits, 
 would be found the antitype of Adam — and the distinct state- 
 ment of verse 20, that "where sin abounded, grace super- 
 abounded," warrant the conviction that any harm which Adam 
 did to those who do not themselves choose the ways of sin is 
 a harm for which Christ has provided a remedy. 
 
 4. As a view of Jesus at death entirely transforms into his 
 likeness those who already love him (i John 3 : 2), so the 
 Holy Spirit may change the heart of a child as he goes hence 
 by a vision of him who won the trust of children while on 
 earth. 
 
PART IV 
 
 SOTERIOLOGY 
 § 36. Preparation for the Coming of Christ. 
 Our Saviour came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4 : 4). 
 
 I. PREPARATION TO ACCEPT THE GOSPEL. 
 
 1. Judaism. 
 
 (a) The Hebrew people had acquired and were propagating 
 faith in the unity and the perfections of God. 
 
 (d) The Law had taught how strict and how hopeless were 
 the requirements of God. A soulless legalism would have 
 remained as its shriveled fruit, had not help come. 
 
 The strongly symbolical character of the Levitical institu- 
 tions was already degrading even legalism into formalism, 
 until only fulfillment of types by the Antitype could lift the 
 Jews out of a half-conscious hypocrisy or a quite conscious 
 disobedience. 
 
 (c) Prophecy pointed to this period, and gave rise among 
 many beside Jews to an intent expectation of the Messiah. 
 
 2. Heathenism. 
 
 (a) As a religion, heathenism had lost its power to encour- 
 age virtue, and had sunk into a vicious superstition, rejected 
 by the wise. At an earlier period heathen religions were 
 local and the national gods were tenaciously adhered to as a 
 point of patriotic duty and pride ; but even the popular regard 
 for them had now become weakened by the intermingling of 
 peoples and customs. 
 
 (6) As a philosophy, heathenism had passed its creative 
 
 o 157 
 
158 HUMANITY OF CHRIST 
 
 period without providing any clear assurance as to God, 
 virtue, or immortality ; was now expending its strength in 
 wild conjectures or in vain disputes, and giving over the 
 greater part of its disciples to pride, to luxury, or to despair. 
 
 II. PROVISIONS TO EXTEND THE GOSPEL. 
 
 1. The Roman Empire was in its early prime, and the 
 world was at peace. Attention could now be given to the 
 religion of peace, and security was afforded for the journeys 
 of its messengers. 
 
 2. The Greek language had been despoiled of its purity by 
 the Macedonian ascendency, by Egyptian and Oriental use, 
 and especially, for the writers of the New Testament, by the 
 inroad of Hebraisms ; but these very changes rendered it a 
 better vehicle of Christian ideas, while its wide diffusion as- 
 sured to the gospel an adequate medium for publication. 
 
 3. As usual upon the introduction of new and needed 
 truth, existing beliefs and institutions antagonised Christi- 
 anity. The very advantages with which it began its work 
 speedily turned into formidable obstacles. Yet, in so doing, 
 they but afforded a higher service. Jewish bigotry hastened 
 the spread of the Good News among the Gentiles ; the con- 
 tempt of philosophers stimulated the development of Chris- 
 tian evidences, and by necessity of doctrine ; Roman tyranny, 
 while demonstrating the vitality of the new faith, purged and 
 compacted the church. 
 
 § 37. Humanity of Christ. 
 
 All who saw Christ knew that he was a man. 
 {a) He possessed and exercised both the bodily and spiritual 
 faculties of a man. 
 
 {b) He ran a man's career. He was born of a woman, 
 
DIVINITY OF CHRIST I59 
 
 grew in every way as a child (Luke 2 : 52), and died as men 
 die. 
 
 (c) That all this was not illusion is assured by his calling 
 himself both " man " (John 8 : 40), and " Son of man " (Matt. 
 8 : 20). 
 
 But Christ was so superior to other men as to suggest 
 some mysterious difference from them. Although the ideal 
 man is a miniature image of God, yet when that unique image 
 appeared in Christ, it could not but raise the question now to 
 be considered, whether he was no more than a man. 
 
 § 38. Divinity of Christ. 
 I. method of inquiry. 
 
 1. Textual method. Belief in the divinity of our Lord 
 underlies the entire New Testament representation of him. 
 Numerous texts, when interpreted without prejudice, declare 
 special aspects of his divinity. Yet reliance upon proof-texts 
 alone is open to the objection that each one of them can be 
 made to mean something else than the deity or proper divin- 
 ity of Christ. 
 
 2. Historical method. But we may adopt the method by 
 which the followers of Christ in his own and every subsequent 
 age have reached their persuasion that he is very God. It is 
 the method of becoming acquainted with him, the critico-his- 
 torical method upon which all recent portrayals of his career 
 and estimates of his character have been formed. It is not 
 limited to citation of passages that offer direct evidence to his 
 proper divinity. It studies every hint which will help to place 
 us among his immediate followers, and open our minds to the 
 impressions they received. 
 
l6o DIVINITY OF CHRIST 
 
 (a) Its results. An idea concerning Christ formed in this 
 way will not be wavering and vague. While romancers are 
 fated to rob their heroes of reality in proportion as they exalt 
 them, and while laudation of historical characters provokes 
 doubt, the perfections of Jesus give us a clear conception of 
 him, and make his image as substantial as it is unique. But 
 as our conception of his personality grows clear and firm, 
 insight into his nature deepens, and his divinity is revealed 
 before our eyes. 
 
 (d) Its facility. It is not a hard method to apply. Any 
 attentive reader may share the daily wonderment of the dis- 
 ciples, their efforts at insight, their consultations, and some- 
 times rapidly crystallizing convictions, as they saw the proofs 
 that their leader could not be less than the church since that 
 day has steadily held him to be. 
 
 This advantage is fully experienced only upon detailed 
 study of the Master's life. The most that can here be at- 
 tempted is to classify the more important data which such a 
 method of study brings to view. 
 
 II. EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 (I) Mary knew Jesus was divine. 
 
 She knew that he was begotten by God ; she was aware 
 of the marvels that attended his birth ; had learned from 
 his own lips, when he was a lad of twelve, that he was 
 himself conscious of a unique relation to God ; " kept all 
 these sayings in her heart " (Luke 2:51), and was ready, when 
 he attended the wedding at Cana, for some extraordinary oc- 
 currence. 
 
 Yet her officiousness both then (John 2 : 3, 4) and later 
 (Matt. 12 : 46-50) shows that, having grown familiar with 
 
DIVINITY OF CHRIST l6l 
 
 Jesus In ordinary relations, and not yet knowing how his di- 
 vinity bore upon his mission, she did not appreciate his 
 divinity as a fact. Possibly this explains in part why Mary's 
 knowledge seems not to have been for any one of his disci- 
 ples the basis of belief in Christ. Although at a later date 
 felt to be of the deepest importance, it is doubtful whether 
 her testimony to the miraculous conception would at first have 
 been accepted. 
 
 (II) The Disciples became satisfied of his divinity: 
 
 I . From what they witnessed in him. 
 
 {a) The impressiveness of his personality was felt by his 
 immediate followers from the beginning, and drew them 
 after him at his call. 
 
 (b) His original knowledge of God, with the boldness and 
 evident truth of his teaching, astonished even chance hear- 
 ers (Matt. 7 : 28, 29) ; while his own claim but gave form 
 to the conviction that he had such knowledge as only the 
 Son of God could possess (Matt. 11 127; John 6 : 46 ; 7 : 
 15. 16 ; 9 : 5 ; 16 : 30). The Master showed habitually an 
 understanding of man too complete to be regarded as merely 
 human (Matt. 9:4; John 2 : 24, 2 5 ; 6 : 64), and which be- 
 came especially impressive when it was exercised upon the 
 disciples themselves. Witness the cases of Nathanael and 
 Peter (John i : 48, 49 ; 2 1 : 1 7). 
 
 {c) His power to work miracles, although used under the 
 Father's direction (John 5 : 19, 30; 6 : 38 ; 10 : 18), was 
 inherent, not derived (Matt. 8:3; Luke 6 : 19; 8 146; 
 John II : 22, cf. 25). Some who did not recognize this 
 fact were led by his miracles to wonder at him (Mark 4:41; 
 6 : 2), others to acknowledge that he was a prophet (John 2 : 
 23 ; 3:2), and his disciples at length to worship him as the 
 
1 62 DIVINITY OF CHRIST 
 
 Son of God. Compare the effects on their minds of the 
 first and second stillings of the tempest (Matt. 8 : 27 ; 14 : 
 
 33)- 
 
 {d) The sinlessness of Jesus, which he challenged men 
 to deny (John 8 : 29, 46, 55 ; 14 : 30 ; cf. Matt. 27 : 4 ; 2 
 Cor. 5 : 21), was never before seen in man, won even from 
 demons the title "the Holy One of God" (Luke 4 : 34), 
 from his disciples that of " the Holy One and the Just " 
 (Acts 3 : 14; cf. 2 : 27 ; 7 : 52), and must have deepened 
 profoundly the conviction that he was more than man. 
 
 (e) Three of his disciples witnessed his divine glories at 
 his transfiguration, and were charged by a voice from heaven 
 to listen to him as the beloved Son of God (Matt. 17 : 1-5 ; 
 cf. John I : 14; 2 Peter i : 16-18). 
 
 (/) The superhuman dignity as well as extremity of his 
 sufferings, which deeply impressed even the centurion and 
 the soldiers (Matt. 27 : 54), made it easy for believers after- 
 ward to glory in the cross. 
 
 (^) The resurrection was the supreme attestation of his 
 divinity (Rom. i : 4). His followers so accepted it, and wor- 
 shiped him (Matt, 28 : 9, 17; Luke 24 : 52). Thomas, 
 when satisfied that Jesus had really risen, hailed him as Lord 
 and God (John 20 : 28. See Alford's Greek Testament, in 
 loco, for a thorough refutation of the attempts to belittle 
 this confession). 
 
 The ascension visibly completed the process of the resur- 
 rection and was regarded as an enthronement of Jesus (Acts 
 2 : 33, 34)- 
 
 2. What Jesus from time to time asserted concerning himself 
 strengthened and justified the impression made by his char- 
 acter and acts. He claimed — 
 
DIVINITY OF CHRIST 163 
 
 (a) The divine attributes of eternity, — and in the words, 
 ••Before Abraham was I am," he assumed the divine title re- 
 vealed unto Moses (John 8 : 58 ; cf. Exod. 3 : 14; John i : 
 I ; 17 : 5) ; of omnipotence (Matt. 28 : 18 ; John $ : 21 ; 10 : 
 28) ; of omnipresence (Matt. 28 : 20). 
 
 [d) The divine prerogatives of lordship over the Sabbath 
 (Mark 2 : 28) ; of forgiving sin (Matt. 9:6; Luke 7 : 48, cf. 
 Ps. 130 : 4) ; of answering prayer (John 14 : 13, 14) ; of send- 
 ing forth the Holy Spirit (Luke 24 : 49 ; John 1 5 : 26 ; 16 : 7). 
 
 (c) Oneness with God not reducible to mere agreement of 
 purpose (John 10 : 30 ; 14:9; 16:15; 17:10); 
 
 (d) Unique relation to his followers. In his own person 
 Christ was Christianity, its means of access to God, its doc- 
 trine, its vitalizing energy (John 14 : 6, cf. 6 : 35, 53-5.8 ; 
 10 : 9; II : 25). 
 
 (Ill) Evidence to the Apostolic Church. 
 
 1. The Holy Spirit testifies that Christ is divine. It was 
 his special office to do this (John i 5 : 26 ; 16:14); and this 
 office he accomplished — 
 
 {a) By his miraculous gifts, an attestation which Christ 
 had promised (John 14:12; Acts 2 : 33 ; 3 : 16 ; Heb. 2 : 4). 
 
 {b) By imparting life in Christ, and thus witnessing at 
 once to the divinity of Jesus and the sonship of believers (i 
 Cor. 12 : 3 ; i John 4 :^2 ; 5 :.9-ii ; cf. John 16 : 14, 15 ; 
 Rom. 8 : 16, 17). 
 
 2. The Offices of Christ evidently involved divinity, 
 
 {a) This was felt to be the case with his redemptive offices. 
 Thus, his service as a ransom (Matt. 20 : 28 ; i Tim. 2 : 6), 
 the sufficiency of his sacrifice (Heb. 7 : 35-28 ; 9 : 13, 14), 
 and the efficacy of his intercession (Rom. 8 : 34 ; Heb. 7 : 
 25), alike imply his divinity. 
 
l64 DIVINITY OF CHRIST 
 
 (p) It was clear that his more general relations as creator 
 (John 1:3; Col. I : 16; Heb. i : 2), sustainer (John 1:4; 
 Col. 1:17; Heb. I : 3), ruler (Matt. 28 : 18 ; i Cor. 15 : 24, 
 25; Phil. 2 : 9-11), judge (Matt. 25 : 31-46; John 5 : 22 ; 
 Acts 10 : 42 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 10), by whatever means they be- 
 came known, must be regarded as prerogatives of Deity. 
 
 3. Now, at length the Old Testament yielded its hidden 
 meanings, and was constantly appealed to in support of the 
 claims of Christ. 
 
 {a) The " Angel of the Covenant " was referred to by the 
 Pentateuch in a way which must have perplexed the monothe- 
 istic Jews, now as a messenger of Jehovah, now as Jehovah 
 himself (Gen. 16 : 7, 13 ; 18 : 1-3, 13, 14, 17, 20; Exod. 3 : 
 2-6, 14 ; 13 : 21, cf. 14 : 19 ; Josh. 5 : 13-15 ; Isa. 63 : 9- 
 14). Both Malachi (3:1) and Paul (i Cor. 10 : 4, 9) identify 
 him with the Messiah. 
 
 {b) Certain of the Messianic Psalms exalt Christ as divine 
 (Ps. 2, no). Passages in Isaiah (9-1 1), Micah (5 : 1-5), and 
 Daniel (7 : 9-14) are quoted by the New Testament for the 
 divinity of our Lord. 
 
 The conclusions reached concerning the nature of their 
 Master the disciples embodied in titles. Having received so 
 varied and progressive evidence thfit he was divine, it was 
 quite naturally and significantly that they applied to him the 
 titles of Deity, such as God (John i : i ; 20 : 28 ; Rom. 9:5; 
 Titus 2:13; Heb. i : 8), Lord, the Septuagint equivalent 
 for Jehovah (Mark i : 3, cf. Isaiah 40 : 3 ; Rom. 10 : 13, cf. 
 Joel 2 : 32 ; Heb. i : 10, cf. Ps. 102 ; 25), Son of God (Matt. 
 16 : 16; Luke i : 32, 35; John 5 : 18; Acts 9 : 20, the 
 Gospel and First Epistle of John with the epistles of Paul 
 
DIVINITY OF CHRIST 165 
 
 passim), Alpha and Omega (Rev. i : 8, 11, 17 ; 21 : 6). Such 
 titles, used unhesitatingly by those upon whom the person- 
 ality of the man Christ Jesus had made its impression, can- 
 not be refined into emptiness, but were quite as unmistakably 
 meant, when used by them as when used by us, to exalt him 
 as divine. 
 
 (IV) Evidence to the Post-apostolic Church. 
 
 1. In all ages the church has received from Christ the 
 redemption which assured the apostolic church of his divinity. 
 
 2. In all ages it has felt bound to render him a faith, love, 
 and obedience which may lawfully be yielded to God alone. 
 Unmistakably the Christian consciousness has always deified 
 Christ, and has been persuaded that in honoring the Son, it 
 honored also the Father who sent him (John 5 : 23). 
 
 This persuasion, renewed in every generation, the church 
 passes on to successive generations, constantly reinforced by 
 its experience, and embodied in its Confessions, preaching, 
 and hymns. 
 
 (V) The " Chfist of History " is divine. 
 
 Assurance of the divinity of Christ, which grew up and has 
 been justified in the ways above described, is confirmed by 
 the fact that, from beginnings so obscure and with a life so 
 brief, Christ could introduce and largely control a new era in 
 the history of mankind. It is unhistorical and even irrational 
 to ascribe to delusion the benefits which Christendom has 
 enjoyed, and now sees steadily increase, in proportion as our 
 Lord is acknowledged and obeyed. 
 
 HI. THEORIES CONCERNING THE NATURE OF CHRIST. 
 
 The more important theories concerning our Lord will be 
 noticed in connection with that phase of Christology to which 
 
1 66 DIVINITY OF CHRIST 
 
 they specially pertain. Heretical doctrines as to his nature 
 are — 
 
 1. Docetisni, which denied the humanity of Christ, and as- 
 serted that his body was only a phantom. The first Epistle 
 of John indicates that this opinion was attracting notice even 
 in his day (i John i : 1-3 ; 4 : 2, 3 ; 5:6, 20). The deci- 
 sion at Nicea in favor of the proper divinity of our Lord so 
 emphasized this side of his nature as practically to disparage 
 his humanity ; and with such effect that even Anselm could 
 take the essentially docetic position that our Lord did not 
 really increase in wisdom, but only seemed to. 
 
 2. Humanitarianism, the doctrine that Christ was in na- 
 ture exclusively human, although exceptionally endued with 
 divine influence. This view was held under various forms by 
 the early Jewish-Christian sects of Ebionites and Nazareans, 
 by the Socinians of the Reformation period, and is adopted 
 by most modern Unitarians — although Unitarianism as such 
 denies only the Trinity, not necessarily the divinity of Christ. 
 
 3. Subordinationisvi, the doctrine that Christ was more 
 than man but less than God. This doctrine has taken the 
 following forms : 
 
 {ci) The doctrine of Origen, that the Son was eternally gen- 
 erated from the substance of the Father, hence was dependent 
 and subordinate ; 
 
 {b) Artanism, the doctrine that the Son was created out of 
 nothing, and was of different substance from the Father ; that 
 he was subordinate to the Father, but above all creatures ; 
 divine, but not Deity ; 
 
 (c) Scmi-Arianisvi, that the Son, generated before all 
 worlds by the ivill of the Father, in distinction from an im- 
 manent process of generation, was of like substance with the 
 Father. 
 
REIvATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 167 
 
 § 39. Relations of the Two Natures in Christ. 
 
 No theme has been more fruitful of over-bold dogmatizing, 
 both heretical and orthodox. This is the result of an a priori 
 method. Accepting the true humanity and divinity of Christ, 
 theologians have inferred the relations of his natures. But 
 the divinity of our Lord, on the one hand, is too large a matter 
 to be handled a priori ; while, on the other hand, although 
 the human nature of Jesus was subject to well-known, and 
 to-day more considered laws, little account of these has been 
 made in framing the familiar doctrines upon this topic. If 
 we strictly apply the inductive method, if we make our appeal 
 to facts, and interpret these by the accepted canon that an 
 event is not to be regarded as miraculous unless expressly de- 
 clared or unmistakably implied to be such, then the venerable 
 dogmas of the church, as well as the theories of heretics, will 
 be found more or less at fault, and a tentative modification of 
 the current view will be suggested. 
 
 I. Apollinaris undertook to reconcile the differences be- 
 tween Arians and Athanasians as to the divinity of Christ by 
 compromising about the relation of his natures. To the 
 Arians he would concede that the Logos took the place in 
 Jesus of a rational human spirit ; and with the Athanasians 
 he would hold that the Logos was very God. The theory 
 had the merit of simplicity, and has been repeatedly revived. 
 It involved a trichotomous view of human nature, and was 
 open to the objections : 
 
 {a) It provided for an incarnation, but not for an assump- 
 tion of our nature. This objection is curiously reinforced 
 by- 
 
 {b) The known laws of propagation. Apollinarism could 
 be true only on the supposition that the rational element in 
 
1 68 RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 
 
 men is derived solely from fathers, and the animal element 
 exclusively from mothers. But children owe as much of the 
 higher as of the lower elements of their natures to mothers, 
 and as much of the lower as of the higher to fathers. 
 
 2. Nestorianism, arising in the proposal to call Mary the 
 Mother of Christ instead of the Mother of God, was probably 
 at first not very different from the opinion still frequently 
 heard, that the two natures of Christ were so far independent 
 as that it was now the divine and now the human that spake 
 or acted ; but the orthodox saw, and the Nestorians presently 
 admitted, that this virtually made Christ to consist of two 
 persons. The objections are obvious : 
 
 (a) Christ was visibly as compact, single-minded, and 
 totally engaged a being in all he did as is any being of one 
 personality. 
 
 {b) Physiology raises the objection that one brain can serve 
 for but one person. 
 
 3. The heat of the Nestorian controversy hastened the de- 
 velopment of a theory already proposed in germ by Cyril of 
 Alexandria, to wit, the theory of Eutyches, or monophysitism, 
 that Christ had but one nature, the human at his birth being 
 at once absorbed by the divine. 
 
 This proposal went so far toward docetism as to find the 
 facts in the career of our Lord arrayed against it, and quickly to 
 incur the reproach of heresy. But some of the early Luther- 
 ans approached nearly to this point in advocating consub- 
 stantiation as a theory of the Eucharist. 
 
 4. The council of Chalccdon in 451 decreed that the one 
 person of Christ was formed by the union of two complete 
 
RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 1 69 
 
 and distinct natures, the divine and the human — the doctrine 
 of diophysitism. The council held 680-1 in Constantinople 
 added that each nature in Christ had its distinct will, the 
 human will behig held in constant subjection to the divine — 
 the doctrine of diothelitism. The decision of Constantinople 
 is but the logical completion of that formulated at Chalcedon ; 
 and the Chalcedonian decree, thus rounded out, is still re- 
 garded as orthodox. But the unflinching exegetical and his- 
 torical methods of our day have re-opened the problem, and 
 grave objections are felt to accepting the elaborate formula of 
 Chalcedon and Constantinople. 
 
 (a) To modern psychology, will is the core of personality ; 
 consequently, to affirm two wills while denying two persons is 
 to sink the deductive exposition of Christ's nature into a con- 
 tradiction in terms. 
 
 (d) Evidence that each nature in Christ was perfect and 
 entire is abundant and conclusive ; but to conceive each as 
 distinct from the other is to ascribe to Christ two souls. 
 
 (c) In addition then to the first objection, modern physi- 
 ology protests that one human body can serve but one soul ; 
 and no insufficiency or extra sufficiency peculiar to our Lord's 
 physical organism is hinted in the New Testament. 
 
 5. A realistic modification of the Chalcedonian doctrine is 
 that, while Christ possessed two complete and also distinct 
 natures, his human nature was generic and impersonal, so that 
 he had but one will. This theory emphasizes the distinction 
 between nature and person. 
 
 The main difficulty connected with such a theory is onto- 
 logical ; namely, that, convenient as it may sometimes be to 
 distinguish in thought between nature and person, they are 
 never separated in point of fact. Indeed, it is perhaps as 
 
 P 
 
lyo RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 
 
 unthinkable that a complete human nature should exist with- 
 out a human personality, as that a human personality should 
 exist apart from a human nature. For how can that human 
 nature be complete which lacks the personal faculties of in- 
 tellect, sensibility, and will, or either of these ? To affirm, 
 then, a merely generic and impersonal human nature is tanta- 
 mount to denying that Christ was in reality a man. 
 
 i 
 
 6. An overstrained theory of Kenosis ; namely, that the 
 Logos surrendered at the incarnation either (according to 
 Thomasius) his relative attributes, omnipotence, omniscience, 
 omnipresence, or (according to Gess) all attributes of divinity, 
 including the moral ; and that the Logos, thus depotentiated 
 and become essentially human, was united to a human soul, as 
 Thomasius held, or, as Gess taught, took the place of a human 
 soul in a human body which he derived from Mary. 
 
 A. The theory of Thomasius is open to the objections, that — 
 {a) While the New Testament represents the Logos as ac- 
 cepting limitations upon the exercise of his powers, it shows 
 with equal distinctness that they existed and were employed 
 upon occasion under direction of the Father. 
 
 {b) The humanizing of the Logos would lodge two finite 
 souls in one body, and all the objections from the data of the 
 Gospels and from the evidently applicable laws of psycho- 
 physics, as heretofore noticed, apply at this point. 
 
 B. In the form which Gess gave to the theory it is open to 
 the special objections, that — 
 
 ici) While we cannot know a priori that a suspension of 
 infinite powers, including the moral, is impossible, the pre- 
 sumption is that to lay them aside, or put them to sleep, would 
 be equivalent to surrendering the divinity of the essence in 
 which these attributes inhere. 
 
RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST I '/I 
 
 (b) This theory allows no place to the immaterial element 
 in Jesus which mothers bestow, and the New Testament gives 
 no intimation that it was suppressed by miracle. 
 
 (c) In consequence of this defect, the theory does not pro- 
 vide for such a union of the Logos with our nature as the 
 atonement requires. 
 
 7. ' Theory of progressive incarnation, of which Dorner is 
 to Americans the best known representative. Based on the 
 assumptions that the Logos can neither be depotentiated nor 
 grow in power, and that his cosmic offices were uninterrupted 
 by the incarnation, this theory teaches that at the miraculous 
 conception the Logos was hypostatically united to a human 
 nature ; that as the human in Jesus developed, the Logos im- 
 parted himself more and more in the same proportion ; and 
 that at the resurrection the human threw off all limitations 
 and the union with the Logos became complete. 
 
 (a) The ingenuity of this theory, especially its careful adap- 
 tation to supposed a priori demands of the divine, is too 
 marked not to expose it to suspicion of being less suited to 
 facts in the life of our Lord. 
 
 {V) We do not know that it was impossible for the Logos 
 to accept limitation of attributes, as he certainly accepted 
 limitation upon their exercise ; consequently we do not know 
 but that, as Kenotists teach, he gradually recovered the use 
 of powers laid aside. 
 
 {c) The New Testament does not by so much as one word tell 
 us that the cosmic offices of the Logos were continued during 
 the life of Christ upon earth, but rather implies that they 
 were suspended (Matt. 28 : 18 ; John 17 : 5 ; 2 Cor. 8:9; 
 Phil. 2 : 6, 7). 
 
 {d) The theanthropos grew, and in all things acted as a 
 
172 RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 
 
 unit. The theory is therefore confronted by the difficulty 
 which it sought most of all to avoid ; namely, so far as the 
 incarnation proceeded, the Logos was still subject to the 
 limitations which the human imposed until after the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 (e) A question is provoked concerning the effect of a pro- 
 gressive incarnation upon the personality of Jesus : as the 
 incarnation progressed was that personality more complete 
 any day than the day before ? Is there any sign that it was 
 ever less or more entire than that of an ordinary man ? From 
 the point of view of the relation of nature to person we look 
 in vain for facts or laws which warrant this conjectured erec- 
 tion of a personality. 
 
 (/) So far as the development of the human in our Lord 
 was either physical, mental, or moral, so far the divine in him 
 might find the human its increasingly facile instrument ; but 
 this no more implies the progressive incarnation of the Logos 
 than the training of a human body implies the progressive in- 
 carnation of an ordinary human soul. 
 
 8. Theory that the divine and human natures in Christ 
 were petfect and complete, but not mivierically distinct ; or, 
 since the theory takes its cue from the ordinary laws of 
 human propagation, it may for convenience be called the 
 physiological theory. The points covered by this view are the 
 following : 
 
 I. One person in Christ. 
 
 The Logos, having personally existed from eternity, neces- 
 sarily formed the basis of the personal consciousness of 
 Christ. The Logos thus knew himself as Jesus. But our 
 Lord repeatedly testified that his consciousness reached back 
 
RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 1 73 
 
 into the pre-incarnate state ; therefore Jesus knew himself as 
 the Logos. 
 
 2. One species in Christ. 
 
 As to the qualitative relationship of the divine and human 
 natures the following statements may be made with some 
 degree of confidence : 
 
 {a) The divine and human spirits are similar in kind, for 
 man was made in the image of God. 
 
 ib) Similarity constituted God and man, together with 
 angels, a class of personal beings apart from all other orders 
 of living things. 
 
 if) Among personal beings God and man were akin, be- 
 cause the divine and the human could unite in Christ, as the 
 father and the mother elements unite in men. 
 
 {d) This kinship was so close as to be indistinguishable 
 from identity in species. Though the human and the divine 
 factors were immediately from distinct sources, their specific 
 oneness can be made out from — 
 
 {aa) The unequivocal testimony of Scripture on this very 
 point. The purport of the statement in Gen 5 : 1-3, that 
 God created man in the likeness of God, and that Adam be- 
 gat Seth in his own likeness, would seem to be that, as the 
 image of Adam was reproduced by propagating his nature, 
 so the nature of God was reproduced by creating his image. 
 Clearly, this idea was not repugnant to primitive anthropo- 
 morphism, and is steadily winning its way in modern Christ- 
 ology. Again, the same formula which Luke uses to state 
 the relation of each son to his father in the genealogy of 
 Jesus, he employs to declare the relation of Adam to his 
 Maker (Luke 3 : 23-38). We must not infer that Adam 
 was actually the son of God, but it is plain that Luke did 
 
174 RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 
 
 not consider the first man to be of alien species from the 
 Creator. The angels also are called " the sons of God " 
 (Job I : 6 ; 38 : 7). 
 
 {bb) The facts as to Christ himself. Jesus was not a 
 hybrid, or monstrous offspring of two alien species. The 
 divine could normally take on the human ; the human was 
 capable of hypostatic union with the divine. Therefore 
 Christ never seemed the less divine for being the son of 
 Mary, nor the less human because he was the Son of God. 
 
 {cc) If the powers of a holy human spirit could be ex- 
 tended out to infinity, such a spirit would be recognized as 
 divine ; because essences which have the same attributes are 
 of the same nature. On the other hand, so far as the in- 
 finite powers of God actually came under human limitations, 
 so far the Logos showed his specific identity with man. 
 
 3. One sojil in Christ. 
 
 Mary contributed to her son precisely so much as other 
 mothers do, both of body and spirit ; while God conferred 
 the Logos in place of the usual paternal element in the soul 
 of a child, and perhaps created the paternal factor in the 
 body of Jesus. 
 
 Thus our Lord was perfectly divine, because the Logos 
 was such ; and perfectly human, because his nature was 
 ' derived from a human mother and from a Father not spe- 
 cifically different from a human. 
 
 Yet these two complete natures were not also distinct, 
 because each parent, like other parents, contributed only 
 enough to constitute unitedly one body with one soul ; 
 whereas, the natures could not be distinct as well as complete 
 unless each parent, contrary to all example and all informa- 
 tion, contributed to Jesus a soul. 
 
RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 175 
 
 This view is both expanded and attested by the following 
 data : 
 
 {a) The idea of the annunciation, as reported by the phy- 
 sician Luke (I : 35), is distinctly physiological, and notified 
 the virgin that a divine and spiritual would be substituted 
 for a human and carnal generative act. At the same time 
 the New Testament affords no hint that the mother's func- 
 tion was in any respect different from that of other mothers. 
 
 {b) The theanthropic soul of Christ performed for his 
 body the usual vital functions of a human soul. 
 
 {c) Since Christ had but one soul, one body was its suf- 
 ficient organ ; and this theory escapes the physiological 
 objections to the current theory. 
 
 [d) Since he had but one soul, he had but one will ; and 
 the theory is free from the psychological objection to the 
 usual view. 
 
 {e) The noteworthy quantitative effects of the incarnation 
 are thus accounted for. As in all other cases so in this case 
 the Father and the mother determined in some way the 
 powers of their child. The union of elements which consti- 
 tuted the soul of Christ could not but equip him with powers 
 greater than those of a mere man, but in exercise, at least, 
 less than divine. It was because the divine enlarged the 
 capacity of the human that Christ had insight into men's 
 hearts and sympathy with their lot impossible to a mere man 
 (John 2 : 24, 25 ; Heb. 2 : 17, 18). On the other hand, he 
 did not know all that God knew (Mark 13 : 32), nor speak 
 aught than what God gave him to speak (John 12 : 49, 50), 
 nor do anything except what God appointed (John 5 : 19, 
 20, 30 ; 10 : 18), nor, although one with the Father (John 
 10 : 30), did he ever claim as God-man to be equal with God 
 (John 14 : 28). 
 
176 RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES iN CHRlST 
 
 (/) Since the very existence of the divine-human soul of 
 Christ involved the inseparable union of the two natures, 
 each took part in all that the other did or bore. It thus be- 
 came possible for temptation to address even the consciously 
 divine in Christ (Matt 4 : 3, 6, 9 ; Heb. 2 : 17, 18 ; 4 : 15), 
 for the divine in him to suffer (Heb. 2:10; 5:8); and 
 even for the divine to experience death in the only ways pos- 
 sible to a human soul ; namely, in the form of spiritual death, 
 or conscious separation from God (Matt. 27 : 46), and in the 
 form of natural death, or disruption from that organism 
 which serves as its normal instrument and is essential to 
 man's completeness. That death in this latter sense was a 
 real deprivation to the entire theanthropic soul of Christ is 
 proved by the fact that his body was re-assumed. 
 
 While both natures took part in the entire life of our 
 Lord, he not infrequently spoke of one or the other side of 
 his nature (cf. Matt. 4 : 4 with 11 : 27 ; John 8 : 40 with 
 ver. 58). But how violent the fancy is of separate action on 
 the part of either nature may be tested with the seventeenth 
 chapter of John, where the constant transitions required by 
 such a theory would be incongruous and intolerable.' 
 
 ^ The physiological theory may, for convenience, be summarized as follows : 
 
 1. Every embryo, at the first moment of its existence, consists essentially of 
 two cells, one paternal, the other maternal. In the case of our Lord the maternal 
 cell was from Mary, and the paternal cell was either miraculously created, or 
 miraculously dispensed with. 
 
 2. Both cells are alive, and owe their vitality to their respective sources. As 
 the cells unite to form a new organism, the parental contributions of vitality unite 
 to form the vital principle of the new organism. In a human organism this 
 vitalizing principle is the sobI. In the case of our Lord, Mary furnished the 
 maternal element of soul, and the Father furnished the Logos as the paternal 
 element. Thus Christ had one soul from two parental sources. 
 
 3. His one soul was served by one organism and had one set of faculties. It 
 was one in intellect, in sensibility, in will. 
 
REI<ATIONS OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST 1 77 
 
 Cautions. 
 
 The physiological theory, like every other, may be made 
 ihe basis of inferences that are contrary to the Bible. These 
 might be due to errors in logic ; or, a strictly logical deduc- 
 tion from a correct theory might be misleading, because the 
 nature of Christ is too profound a mystery to justify specu- 
 lation. In either case the proper corrective is found in the 
 method on which the theory itself has been constructed ; 
 namely, the submission of every opinion concerning our 
 Lord to the unmistakable data of the New Testament. 
 Hence — 
 
 1. If the question arise how a human nature derived in 
 part from Mary could escape depravity, it is not enough to 
 respond with an a priori assurance that the Father would 
 guard his Son from the taint of original sin ; but these oppo- 
 site demands are reconciled by the facts stated in the New 
 Testament, that Christ was liable " in all points to be 
 tempted like as we are," while, on the other hand, he claimed 
 to be free from sin. 
 
 2. If the energy of the divine in him seems to invite the 
 Eutychian inference that the divine absorbed the human as 
 a drop of honey is absorbed by the sea, the safeguard to 
 faith in the real humanity of Christ is the unequivocal testi- 
 mony of Scripture that he was no less human than divine. 
 
 3. If the idea that the two natures of Christ were not of 
 different species seems to favor a pantheistic identification of 
 all men with God, this tendency must be withstood by the 
 
 4. It was perfect in divinity, because the Logos is so, and perfect in humanity, 
 because the divine and the human are not alien in species. 
 
 5. Both elements in the soul of Christ modified each other's powers, and both 
 were engaged in all he did or bare, because neither existed in him apart from the 
 other. 
 
178 THE TWO STATES OF CHRIST 
 
 fact that the Bible always represents the divine essence as 
 numerically distinct from that of created beings. 
 
 § 40. The Two States of Christ. 
 
 i. his humiliation. 
 
 This consisted in — 
 
 I. The acceptance by the Logos of human limitations. 
 The most important Scripture upon this subject is Phil. 2 •. 
 6-8 (cf. John I : 14). According to this classic passage, be- 
 fore the incarnation the Logos was " in the form of God " ; 
 but by the incarnation he " emptied himself, taking the form 
 of a servant." 
 
 We cannot with entire confidence adopt either interpreta- 
 tion of the kenosis ; to wit, that the Logos laid aside some, if 
 not all of his attributes ; or that he retained them all, and in- 
 cessantly repressed their exercise, excepting when the Father 
 bade him use them. Against the first supposition stands the 
 difficulty of laying aside divine attributes without relinquish- 
 ing also the divinity in which they inhere. Against the oppo- 
 site view is the apparent teaching of the passage above 
 quoted, that the kenosis took place in, not after, the assump- 
 tion of our nature ; the unnaturalness of so constant and 
 tremendous a self-suppression ; especially the absence of any 
 sign of constraint in the bearing of our Lord, and the pres- 
 ence of that spontaneity and freedom which constitute a large 
 part of his charm and power. 
 
 But the passage above cited, taken in connection with other 
 Scriptures, seems unequivocally to teach that — 
 
 (a) To be " in the form of God " was to follow a mode of 
 existence precisely opposite to that of a servant ; it was to 
 exercise without restraint the divine attributes, and to enjoy 
 in full the divine possessions (2 Cor. 8 : 9). 
 
'The two states of christ 179 
 
 {b) To empty himself was correspondingly to " become 
 poor " by relinquishing those possessions (Matt. 8 : 20), and 
 to submit to some restraint at least of our nature, such as 
 bodily weariness and sleep (Mark 4 : 38 ; John 4 : 6), the 
 mind's ignorance of the future (Mark 13 : 32), and a moral 
 need of prayer (Mark i : 35). It was to live as a servant 
 lives ; that is, to subordinate his activities, as men should, 
 to the divine direction (Matt. 4 : 4, 7, 10; John 5 : 19, 36; 
 8 : 28 ; 12 : 49, 50). In accepting human limitations — 
 
 2. The theanthropos came under the conditions of growth 
 from childhood to manhood (Luke 2 : 52), was subjected to 
 earthly parents (Luke 2 : 51), and to the discipline of pain 
 (Heb. 5 : 8, 9 ; cf. 2 : 10; Matt. 4 : i ; 26 : 39-44; John 
 17 : 19). 
 
 3. Devotion to the mission on which he was sent (Matt. 
 20 : 28 ; John 12 : 27) required him to accept what men ac- 
 count humiliation (Isa. 53 : 1-9; Luke 22 : 37), and even as 
 a man to humble himself and become obedient unto the death 
 of the cross (Phil. 2 : 8). 
 
 II. HIS EXALTATION. 
 
 1. This included not only restoration to the glory which he 
 had with the Father before the world was (John 17 : 5), but 
 additional honor earned through submission to God (John 1 3 : 
 31, 32 ; Phil. 2 : 9, 10), and by his sacrificial death in behalf 
 of men (Rev. 5 : 12-14). 
 
 2. The relation of his humanity to his exaltation is not 
 entirely clear. Lutherans believe that the human in Christ 
 received divine attributes, so that even his body is ubiquitous. 
 This is thought to be assured by his promise to be with his 
 disciples (Matt. 28 : 20), by Paul's explanation that Christ 
 ascended to heaven, in order that " he might fill all things " 
 
l8o I'HE TWO STATES OF CHRIST 
 
 (Eph. 4:10), and by his bodily presence with the bread and 
 wine in the communion. On the other hand, the final sub- 
 jection of the Son to the Father (i Cor. 15 : 27, 28) cannot 
 be understood of his human nature alone, for all things are 
 not "subdued unto" his human nature alone; nor of an in- 
 trinsic subordination of the Logos, for this is an inadmissible 
 Arianism ; nor of official subordination as Mediator, since his 
 subjection is to follow the surrender of these offices. It 
 must then be understood either of the subordinate offices 
 which belonged to the pre-incarnate Logos, or to an eternal 
 conditioning of the divine by the human in his nature. 
 
 This latter explanation would be in harmony with Paul's 
 unmistakable and usual recognition that the Father is also 
 the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, now as when upon earth 
 (Rom. 15:6, Revised Version ; i Cor. 3:23; 11 : 3 ; 2 Cor. 
 11:31; Eph. 1:3,1 7). Especially ought it to be borne in mind 
 that the New Testament never states that the human nature 
 of Christ will cease to be finite ; on the contrary, it promises 
 that the bodies of the saints shall be like the glorified body of 
 our Lord (Phil. 3 : 21), and it is unwarrantable to expect ubiq- 
 uity for these. But as the passage which foretells the final 
 subjection of Christ is unique, it is safer not to assert how 
 his exaltation affects the relations in him of the divine and 
 the human. 
 
 3. But the relation of his humanity to the offices of his ex- 
 alted state is sufficiently plain. It is as God-man that Christ 
 dispenses forgiveness (Acts 5 : 31), intercedes for Christians 
 (Rom. 8 : 34), is Head of the church (Eph. 4 : i 5, 16 ; Col. 
 I : 18; 2 : 19), overrules all things in the interests of his 
 church (Matt. 28 : 18-20; Eph. i : 22), will judge all men 
 (John 5 : 22), and will finally put down all enemies (i Cor. 1 5 : 
 25 ; Heb. 10 : 12, 13), including death (i Cor. 15 : 26). 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT l8l 
 
 41. The Holy Spirit. 
 
 I. HIS DIVINITY. 
 
 This is practically undisputed. If his personality were not 
 insisted upon, his divinity would not be denied. Both Testa- 
 ments abound in phraseology which shows that the Spirit of 
 God, or the Holy Spirit, was identified with the Most High. 
 
 1. He is called God (Luke i : 32, 35 ; Acts 5 : 3, 4 ; i 
 Cor. 3 : 16). 
 
 2. Divine attributes are recognized in him : eternity (Heb. 
 9 : 14), omnipotence (Matt. 12 : 28), omniscience (i Cor. 2 : 
 10), omnipresence (Ps. 139 : 7-10; i Cor. 12 : 11). 
 
 3. Divine prerogatives and acts are ascribed to him : 
 blasphemy of the Spirit cannot be forgiven (Matt. 12 : 31), 
 he creates (Gen. i : 2), regenerates (John 3:6; Rom. 8 : 2), 
 sanctifies (Rom. 15:16; i Cor. 6 : 11), raises the dead (Rom. 
 8 : 11). 
 
 4. Christian consciousness corroborates the testimony of 
 Scripture. The change experienced in regeneration, the suc- 
 cor and aid afforded for sanctification would have to be 
 ascribed to the recuperative powers of man's own will, if the 
 Bible had not authorized us to look for such blessings from 
 the Holy Spirit ; but having this authorization, we joyously 
 acknowledge the benefits to be divine. 
 
 II. PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 This is denied by all who deny the divinity of our Lord. 
 It is the latest and least explicit revelation concerning the 
 Godhead, whether we consult the representations of the Bible, 
 or the intimations of Christian experience. 
 
 I . Earlier Biblical Usage. 
 
 Under the Old Dispensation the Spirit of God was under- 
 
 Q 
 
l83 THE HOLY SPIRIT 
 
 stood to be what the name Spirit, or breath, implies, an 
 august and powerful influence which emanates from God. 
 And this idea seems to have prevailed until the latter part of 
 our Saviour's ministry. For example in the angel's annun- 
 ciation to Mary (Luke 1:35) the name " Holy Ghost " must 
 be interpreted by the parallel title, "the power of the High- 
 est." This interpretation is confirmed by the statement 
 which precedes, that Jesus should be " called the Son of the 
 Highest," and by that which follows, that he should be "called 
 the Son of God" ; for the New Testament nowhere intimates, 
 what any other interpretation would require, that Jesus was 
 begotten by the Third instead of the First Person in the 
 Trinity. Indeed, the sole reason for regarding the Father as 
 a person in a Trinity is that Christ is his Son. Similarly, our 
 Lord's denunciation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
 (Matt. 12:31, 32), if applicable only to a Third Person in a 
 Trinity, would have been without meaning to those who 
 heard it ; but when understood as referring to an obstinate 
 defiance of that power or influence from God which mani- 
 festly wrought in Christ, the rebuke became fearfully intel- 
 ligible. 
 
 2. Later Biblical Usage. 
 
 The Master's assurance that another Comforter would 
 take his place was the first explicit revelation of the Holy 
 Spirit's personality. The evidence in fuller detail is as 
 follows : 
 
 {a) The title Paraclete, or Comforter, is expressly personal. 
 
 (b) As one who was to fill the place of the personal Jesus, 
 the Holy Spirit must be a person (John 14 : 16, 17 ; 15: 26). 
 
 {c) Although Uvtutia is neuter, the masculine pronoun 
 ixeivoc is used with it in the promise of John 16 : 13, 14. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT 183 
 
 (a) Christ and the apostles ascribe to the Holy Spirit the 
 personal faculties of mind, for he teaches (John 14 : 26 ; 16 : 
 13 ; Acts 20 : 23 ; i Cor. 2 : 10-13 ; i John 5 : 6) ; of will, 
 since he exercises authority (Acts 8 : 29 ; 10 : 20 ; 16 : 6, 7 ; 
 I Cor. 12 : 11); of feeling, because he can be grieved (Eph. 
 4 : 30). 
 
 (e) The Spirit's subordination in office to the Father 
 and to the Son implies personality. He is sent by the Son 
 from the Father (John i 5 : 26) ; he speaks only what is given 
 him to speak (John 16 : 13-1 5) ; he intercedes for the saints 
 according to the will of God (Rom. 8 : 27). 
 
 (/) The Old Testament foreshadows this doctrine. See 
 especially the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel. 
 
 (£■) Christ promised that his disciples should know the 
 Holy Spirit as dwelling in them (John 14 : 17); Christian 
 experience, therefore, finds in " the fruits of the Spirit " a 
 corroboration of his personality. It is true that we cannot 
 distinguish two persons in our breast ; still less can we tell 
 apart one and another Person of the Trinity. Solely by the 
 activity of our own faculties can we know that the Holy 
 Spirit is dwelling in us. 
 
 And these must be unquestionably normal activities. 
 Fanaticism has rioted on the error that lively impressions are 
 personal communications from God. Too often a strong im- 
 pulse to some course is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, because 
 no reason except the strength of the impulse can be found 
 for taking such a course. 
 
 It ought not to be overlooked that, if we knew the Holy 
 Spirit as apart from ourselves, and distinguished his activity 
 from our own, we would not truly know him at all ; for we 
 would miss what we most need, namely, that he should reveal 
 himself in animating and guiding our powers. 
 
l84 OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 
 
 § 42. Offices of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 This doctrine, more perhaps than any other of soteriology, 
 lacks thorough investigation. Opinion among Protestants 
 ranges all the way from the Friends' mystical belief in " the 
 inner light " to the frigid theory of some Disciples that the 
 Holy Spirit comes to men through the inspired word alone, 
 exactly as the spirit of a man is carried by his words ; and 
 from the extreme high church doctrine of a divinely guided 
 episcopate to the disorganizing fancy of " the presidency of 
 the Spirit," as taught by Plymouth Brethren. 
 
 I. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 All agree that the present is in some important sense the 
 Dispensation of the Holy Spirit. This view is justified by 
 the prophecy of John the Baptist that Jesus would baptize 
 in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Matt. 3 : 11); by the promise 
 of Jesus that, when he had gone away, he would send the 
 Comforter (John 16 : 7); by the repetition of this promise 
 after his resurrection (Luke 24 : 49, cf. Acts i : 4, 5, 8), and 
 by the abundant and varied gifts of the Spirit to the apos- 
 tolic church from the day of Pentecost onward. 
 
 Whatever the offices are by which the Holy Spirit gives 
 pre-eminence to the New Dispensation over the Old, it is cer- 
 tain that those offices were not withheld from Israel when 
 they might as well have been bestowed. Our Lord alone has 
 intimated a reason why the influences of the Holy Spirit are 
 so much more copious after than before his own mission : 
 " If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; 
 but if I depart, I will send him unto you " (John 16:7). 
 While Christ was yet upon earth he could not send the Holy 
 Spirit ; first, because he was still himself a servant, and as 
 such could not fitly send the Third Person in the Godhead 
 
OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 185 
 
 (John 7 : 39 ; Acts 2 : 33) ; secondly, because the redemp- 
 tive work, to which the Holy Spirit was to testify and which 
 it was thus to crown, had not yet been completed, 
 
 II. GENERAL OFFICE. 
 
 All effects upon character are made through the mediation 
 of ideas, bad or good. Especially when faith is the condi- 
 tion of benefits, must we have an idea of the object of faith. 
 " Salvation (is) in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of 
 the truth " (2 Thess. 2:13; Gal. 3 : 2). Hence — 
 
 To minister the truth, that is, to reveal and apply the 
 truth, is the all-inclusive function of the Holy Spirit. The 
 special form and the extent of the ministration depend upon 
 the nature and the range of applicability in the truth to be 
 administered. 
 
 III. OFFICES UNDER THE OLD COVENANT. 
 
 I. The people of God were in a state of pupilage and 
 habitually instructed by symbols. The effect of such instruc- 
 tion was two-fold. 
 
 {a) The immediate result was the limitation of a highly 
 ritualistic religion to a ritually prepared people. The priestly 
 race of Israel alone could participate in the Levitical rites. 
 Mosaism in large part shut off the Gentiles from the truth, 
 and so far from the ministry of the Spirit. 
 
 {b) The remoter consequence was that, for many of the 
 chosen people themselves, the symbol displaced the truth it 
 symbolized. The inherent weakness of a religion embodied 
 in object lessons is that the better adapted they are to set 
 forth truth, the worse adapted they are to keep it before the 
 mind ; the more the symbols show, the more they may hide. 
 As there is less to dread in a simple cross than in the too 
 
l86 OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 
 
 significant crucifix, so the very expressiveness of the ancient 
 ceremonial necessitated an abandonment of it. 
 
 (c) The trend of the priesthood which administers a ritual 
 is not toward simplicity, but toward an elaboration which 
 magnifies the priestly function, limits that of the people, 
 and, alike for people and priest, requires of the mind the 
 least possible share in religious observances. Quite the re- 
 verse is the tendency of — 
 
 2. T/ie prophetic office. This deals in ideas, hence is sug- 
 gestive, progressive, and radical. The prophet emphasized 
 the reality, sometimes not hesitating to disparage the form 
 (Ps. 50 : 8-14 ; 51 : 16, 17 ; Joel 2:13; Micah 6 : 6-8 ; cf. 
 Deut. 10 : 12). He turned the thoughts of the people toward 
 the future, and prepared for a complete revelation in the 
 Messiah. 
 
 3. But, whether by symbols or by prophecy, the Holy 
 Spirit used the truth for the renewal of men s hearts under 
 the Ancient Dispensation. In this way alone, then as now, 
 could any become the children of God (Rom. 8 : 7, cf. John 
 3 : 3-10 with Ps. 51 : 10 and Ezek. 11 : 19, 20 ; 36 : 26, 27). 
 
 IV. OFFICES UNDER THE NEW COVENANT. 
 
 The work of our Lord by introducing the antitype closed 
 the period of types and restrictive ordinances. The truth as 
 it is in Jesus, while first declared to the Jews, was of univer- 
 sal applicability. The graces of the Spirit were bestowed 
 upon all believers ; and, to mark this fact, the miraculous 
 charisms were for a time conferred upon all (Acts 2 : 1-4, 17, 
 18 ; 10 : 47 ; i Cor. 12 : 7-1 1). 
 
 More specifically, the oflfices of the Holy Spirit under this 
 Dispensation are — 
 
 I . To prove the claims of Jesus. The miraculous gifts of 
 
OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 187 
 
 Pentecost and of the immediately following years, as well as 
 more distinctively spiritual influences, were the Father's testi- 
 mony to the resurrection and divinity of his Son. 
 
 This was the only practicable evidence. No good purpose 
 would have been served, had the Lord shown himself to the 
 world after his resurrection. If some had been convinced, 
 others would have caviled ; and the direct evidence to future 
 generations would be just what it is, that of his disciples. 
 But in the lives of spiritual men the Holy Spirit is affording 
 the fittest and the most persuasive testimony that the Lord is 
 risen indeed. 
 
 2. The apostles were enabled by the Holy Spirit to recall 
 the teacJiing (John 14 : 26), and interpret the mission (Acts 
 I : 8 ; I Cor. 2 14, 10) of Jesus to converts of the new faith 
 and to the world. 
 
 A permanent office of authoritative teaching has been 
 only less important to later generations than to that of the 
 apostles. Spiritual men have been enabled in every age to 
 apprehend and to teach the substance of Christian truth. 
 
 3. The Holy Spirit used and still uses the truth thus 
 taught for the conviction of sinners, the renewing, enlighten- 
 ing, sanctifying, and assuring of believers. 
 
 4. Naturally allied by participation in a new faith, new life, 
 and new aims, converts were organised into the church by 
 the authority and under the direction of the Spirit (i Cor. 
 12 : 28, cf. Rom. 12 : 6-Z ; Eph. 4:11,12). 
 
 5. The church became "an habitation of God through the 
 Spirit" (Eph. 2 : 22, cf. Matt. 18 : 20). Beyond the mystery 
 of the Spirit's relation to the individual (John 3 : 8), it is not 
 necessary to believe that he holds a mystic relation to the 
 church as an organic whole. Eph. 5 : 32, "This mystery is 
 great ; but I am speaking of Christ and of the church," does 
 
l88 THE TRINITY 
 
 not mean that the relation of Christ and the church is ob- 
 scure, but that marriage is a mystic symbol of that relation. 
 
 But quite apart from a questionable mystery in the rela- 
 tion, we can see that the Holy Spirit makes use of the power- 
 ful agency of the social faculties for the mutual edification 
 of believers through the truth (i Cor. 12 : 13 f. ; 14 : 12, 26), 
 and for the extension of the same privileges by the same 
 means to all mankind (i Cor. 14 : 24, 25, cf. Matt. 28 ; 19, 
 20). 
 
 6. The resurrection by the Holy Spirit of those in whom he 
 dwells (Rom. 8:11), is an essentially ethical phase of the 
 future life (Phil. 3 : 8-11), and the most satisfactory. Thus, 
 in making us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the 
 saints in light, it is also the office of the Holy Spirit to be 
 "the earnest of our inheritance" (Eph. i : 14 ; 2 Cor. i : 22 ; 
 5:5). 
 
 § 43. The Trinity, 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly enunciated by 
 the Scriptures, but the data on which it rests are afforded in 
 the biblical account of the divine offices in redemption. This 
 economic aspect of the Trinity being early recognized, as we 
 know from the Ebionite protests against the divinity of our 
 Lord, the conviction began to form in many minds that the 
 historical distinctions expressed by the titles Father, Son, and 
 Spirit, correspond to eternal distinctions in the Godhead. In 
 order to end the disputes on this subject, the Council of 
 Nicea in the year 325 defined the doctrine of the Son, and in 
 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the Nicene creed 
 the article concerning the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity aims simply to present in one 
 view the facts revealed in the plan of grace concerning the 
 
The; trinity 189 
 
 mode cf the divine existence. In this necessary effort of 
 speculative Christian thought the conclusion reached is — 
 
 I. DEFINITION. 
 
 In the one personal God there are three personal distinc- 
 tions, or quasi persons. "Person" cannot be used of the 
 Godhead and of the three hypostases in the Godhead in the 
 same sense ; for it would be self-contradictory to say even of 
 God that, without change of meaning in the word, three per- 
 sons constitute one person. When used of the Deity as a 
 whole, the word " person " implies self-consciousness, and 
 substance distinct from that of other persons ; while, as ap- 
 plied to the three hypostases in the Deity, it means self-con- 
 sciousness, with numerical identity of substance. 
 
 The ordinary formula for this doctrine, " three persons in 
 one God," avoids using a term in two senses, but at the cost 
 of ascribing to God only tripersonality ; whereas, the doctrine 
 which pervades the elder Scriptures, and is never in the least 
 disguised in the new, is that God is one person, in the ordi- 
 nary meaning of the term. The unipersonality of the God- 
 head then is the expressly taught doctrine of the Bible ; 
 while the doctrine of tripersonality is a valid, but purely 
 human induction from facts given in the Bible. It is a meta- 
 physic, and this metaphysic is peculiarly Christian ; but it is 
 the Christianity of the church, and not of the Bible in such a 
 sense as to justify insistence that the theory of Tri-unity was 
 fully developed in the mind of any New Testament writer. 
 
 II. EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 I. Evidence from the New Testament. 
 
 Besides the texts which have already been cited to prove 
 the unity and personality of God, the divinity and personality 
 
190 1*HE TRINITV 
 
 of the Word and the Spirit, certain other texts associate the 
 Father, Son, and Spirit as divine, yet distinguish them as per- 
 sons. They are so associated and distinguished — 
 
 (a) By their several parts in the scheme of redemption. 
 According to i Peter i : 2 the Father elects, the Son sprinkles 
 with blood, the Spirit sanctifies (cf. ver, 17-22); 
 
 (d) By their relations to the individual believer. He has 
 access through Christ, in one Spirit, unto the Father (Eph. 
 2:18). He is exhorted, by praying in the Holy Spirit, to 
 keep himself in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 20, 21); 
 
 (f) By their offices to the church. The church is built 
 together in Christ Jesus for an habitation of God in the 
 Spirit (Eph. 2 : 20-22). It constitutes one body with one 
 Spirit, even as it has one Lord, one God and Father of all 
 (Eph. 4 : 4-6). Its varied gifts are from the same Spirit ; 
 its different services are under one Lord ; its diversities of 
 workings are by the same God, who worketh all in all (i Cor. 
 12 :4-6); 
 
 (d) By the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit from 
 the Father (John i 5 : 26, cf. 14 : 26; Luke 24 : 49 ; Acts i : 
 
 4; 2 : 33); 
 
 (e) By the formula of baptism, according to which the be- 
 liever assumes obligations alike to Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit (Matt. 28 : 19); 
 
 (/) By the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13 : 14), which 
 invokes blessings from each person of the Trinity as from 
 God ; 
 
 (g) By the baptism of Jesus, at which the distinctions in 
 the Godhead were revealed to the senses. The Spirit was 
 seen descending like a dove, while the voice of God was 
 heard acknowledging Jesus as his Son (Luke 3 : 22). 
 
THE TRINITY I9I 
 
 2. Evidence from the Old Testament. 
 
 Strict monotheism was so thoroughly adopted by the Jews 
 during the Babylonian captivity as to prove a serious obstacle 
 to the spread of Christianity among them. And yet, read in 
 the light of Christianity, the Old Testament not only pre- 
 intimated the divinity and personality of the Word and the 
 Spirit, but is thought by some to have associated the three 
 persons of the Godhead somewhat after the manner of the 
 trinitarian texts of the New Testament. 
 
 The more important passages which are believed to have 
 this character are those in which the plural Elohim is used as 
 the name of God, with a corresponding plural pronoun in the 
 account of the creation of man (Gen. i : 26), the three-fold 
 blessings in Num. 6 : 24-26, the Tersanctus of Isa. 6 : 3, 
 and even the prophetic saying in Isa. 61 : i, as interpreted by 
 our Lord himself in Luke 4 : 16-21. A trinitarian meaning 
 may possibly be latent in the Old Testament, and yet that 
 fact not be made altogether patent by quotations in the New, 
 
 3. Psychological Evidence. 
 
 To many trinitarians human consciousness itself, bold as 
 the suggestion is, seems to afford evidence that the God- 
 head is tripersonal. While the doctrine could not be erected 
 upon so narrow a basis, it is not impossible that it may de- 
 rive some real support from a class of facts which are thought 
 by some to overthrow it altogether. Accordingly it is urged — 
 
 A. Self-consciousness is possible only through distinction 
 of self from not-self. Hence from eternity the self-con- 
 sciousness of God required a self, to wit, the Father ; a not- 
 self who should still be in substance one with the Father, 
 namely, the Son ; and a medium of communication between 
 these two, that is, the Spirit. But — 
 
192 THE TRINITY 
 
 (a) While the argument is not without plausibility so far 
 as it provides for duality, yet, when it requires a third person 
 as a means of communication between the first two, the 
 question arises why a fourth is not equally needed to mediate 
 between three persons, and so on ad infinitum. 
 
 (p) Again, if the Father and the Son are identical in sub- 
 stance, the need of any means of communication can hardly 
 be demonstrated ; nor, without raising a presumption against 
 the spirituality of the Godhead, is it easy to see how a third 
 hypostasis could better serve in such a way. 
 
 B. God is essentially love. From eternity he must have 
 had an object to love not inferior to himself, yet neither per- 
 sonally identical with nor separate from himself. This ob- 
 ject of love the Father found in the Son. But their com- 
 mon love to the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, 
 was needed, in order to save their own personalities from 
 being lost through the energy of a mutual self-surrender. 
 
 This argument has substantially the same merits, and is 
 open to much the same exceptions as the former. Duality 
 would obviously provide eternal employment for love ; but 
 that the divine love was either kept from doing the Godhead 
 a harm, or, as others prefer to put the argument, was inten- 
 sified, by the regard of two divine persons for their common 
 offspring, provokes dissent by its assumption of insight into 
 the profoundest mystery of the Divine nature. 
 
 III. RELATIONS WITHIN THE TRINITY. 
 
 The humanitarian and the subordinationist theories pre- 
 clude inter-trinitarian relations by denying the proper divinity 
 of our Lord. Doctrines which acknowledge his deity, but 
 offer different accounts of personal relations within the God- 
 head are the following : 
 
fHE TRINITY 193 
 
 1, According to Sabellins (about the middle of the third 
 century) God before the creation rested in himself and was 
 silent. In the work of creation he uttered himself and be- 
 came the Word. But as Word the total Godhead presented 
 himself in three consecutive aspects : during the Dispensa- 
 tion of Law he appeared as Father ; withdrawing this rela- 
 tion, he reappears in the incarnation as Son ; after the ascen- 
 sion he comes a third time as Holy Spirit, and, when sancti- 
 fication of the church is complete, he will return to absolute 
 unity forever. 
 
 Sabellianism was distinguished from the earlier patripas- 
 sianism by recognizing a distinct manifestation of God as 
 Holy Spirit. It has been variously modified by recent 
 writers, but its essence in all ages is the denial of an imma- 
 nent trinity, especially of eternal distinctions before the in- 
 carnation, while admitting the form or mode of successive per- 
 sonal distinctions during the course of God's relations to men. 
 
 In reviewing the evidence as to Sabellianism — 
 
 {a) We admit that the title Father is used in both Testa- 
 ments of the Deity as such ; and that some passages which 
 distinguish between the Father and Jesus Christ refer to the 
 historical Christ, and not to the pre-existent Logos. For ex- 
 ample, in the promise to send the Comforter, it is the God- 
 man, and not the Logos that speaks (John 1 5 : 26). 
 
 {b) Nevertheless, there are numerous texts in which the 
 pre-incarnate Logos is distinguished from the Father. Here 
 belong the passages in which Christ speaks of himself as 
 coming into this world from another sphere (John 7 : 29 ; 8 : 
 42; 10 : 36 ; 16 : 28); in which the Epistles refer to his 
 mission (Rom. 8 : 3 ; i Tim. 1:15; Heb. i : 6 ; i John 4 : 
 3, 9, 10); and passages that tell of his state before the incar- 
 nation (John 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2 : 6). 
 
194 THE TRINITY 
 
 (c) Several passages distinguish the Father, Word, and 
 Spirit, not as successive modes in the existence of one divine 
 person, but as three contemporaneous persons in one God. 
 These passages have already been cited as evidence for the 
 Trinity. 
 
 (d) How utterly modalism fails to interpret the facts of 
 the Christian economy would appear on an attempt to trans- 
 late in terms of modalism Paul's swift but comprehensive 
 sketch of the three states of Christ before, during, and after 
 his earthly life (Phil. 2 : 6-10). 
 
 2. T/ie Nicenc, or usual orthodox theory, is that godhead 
 resides in the Father, that the Father eternally generates the 
 Son from his own substance by a process immanent in his 
 nature, not dependent on his will, and that by another imma- 
 nent process the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the 
 Father and the Son. Since the persons of the Trinity 
 are of numerically identical substance, they are necessarily 
 co-equal, and hypostatic distinctions do not involve tritheism. 
 Accordingly, the so-called Athanasian creed tersely insists 
 that " we worship the Trinity in Unity, neither confounding 
 the persons nor dividing the substance." As to this vener- 
 able and generally accepted view we notice : 
 
 {a) The eternal generation of the Son, and the eternal pro- 
 cession of the Spirit are not facts of Scripture, but interpre- 
 tations of scriptural facts by the Neo-platonic theory of 
 emanation. 
 
 The Scriptures afford no proof that the Logos was a de- 
 rived being. The title Son of God was assigned by the angel 
 of the annunciation on the ground that God was the Father 
 of the historical person, Jesus. The title once fixed was 
 naturally carried back to the pre-incarnate Word, just as the 
 name Christ Jesus was and is still carried back, although 
 
THK TRINITY I95 
 
 neither part of it is strictly applicable (Phil. 2 : 5), In Col. 
 I : 15 he is called "the first-born of every creature," in ver. 
 18 "the first-born from the dead," and in both cases by way 
 of "pre-eminence" (ver. 18, cf. Ps. 89 : 27). "First-born" 
 certainly does not mean eternally begotten, and would not be 
 so understood except under pressure of a theological exigency. 
 If anything like a literal meaning is here insisted upon, it 
 must be Arian, rather than orthodox. 
 
 In John 15 : 26 the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the 
 Father ; but this is so distinctly after the Old Testament con- 
 ception of him as breath or influence from God, as rather to 
 mark the use of familiar though impersonal forms of thought 
 and speech (8 ixnopouerac), than to reveal an ontological rela- 
 tion of Persons (John 7 : 39). 
 
 (d) The ideas of eternal generation and eternal procession 
 are not only extra-scriptural, but are incompatible with that 
 equality between persons of the Godhead which the doctrine 
 of Nicea itself insists upon. They are ideas of subordination, 
 because they represent the very existence of the Son and of 
 the Spirit as dependent upon a process. 
 
 (c) This theory undermines the personality of the Son and 
 the Spirit ; since, in representing them as eternally becoming, 
 it denies their real being. 
 
 The metaphysical element in the Nicene definition is thus 
 seen to be a futile and self-contradictory effort to provide a 
 philosophical explanation of matters necessarily above human 
 understanding. Discarding, then, all ontological speculation, 
 and consulting only the facts of Scripture, it is warrantable 
 for us to hold and teach that — 
 
 3. The titles Father, Son, and Spirit are afforded by eco- 
 nomic offices ; the economic offices pertain to eternal distinc- 
 tions of person ; the offices are so appropriate to the persons, 
 
196 THE OFFICES OF CHRIST 
 
 that they are not to be thought of as interchangeable. Essen- 
 tial equality with official inequality may be unhesitatingly af- 
 firmed ; but as to ontological relations of the three persons in 
 one God, the Scriptures reveal little, and speculation is worse 
 than useless. 
 
 § 44. The Offices of Christ. 
 
 1. The Offices. 
 
 Since the Reformation these have been distinguished as 
 prophecy, priesthood, and kingship. As prophet, Christ im- 
 parts the truth, of which he was, indeed, the embodiment. 
 As priest, he mediates between God and man, effecting a 
 mutual reconciliation and establishing a covenant by offering 
 himself in sacrifice. As king, he reigns in the hearts and 
 orders the lives of his people, presides as head of the church, 
 and will finally subdue all things unto himself. 
 
 2. Interdependetice of Offices. 
 
 Each of these offices is emphasized by some important 
 school of Christian thought at the expense of the other 
 offices. Rationalism insists on the prophetic office, evangeli- 
 cal belief rests upon the priestly, and high-churchism knows 
 no salvation outside of the organized kingdom of our Lord, 
 One-sidedness and misconception of the Redeemer's offices 
 can be avoided only by recognizing their interdependence. 
 But this relation, though somewhat discussed between Lu- 
 therans and Reformed, has never been thoroughly studied. 
 Little, however, is risked, if proper scope is given to the 
 meaning of terms, in holding — 
 
 {a) As to the prophetic and priestly offices, that Christ 
 teaches by saving, and saves by teaching ; 
 
 {b) As to the prophetic and kingly, that he teaches by rul- 
 ing, and rules by teaching ; 
 
THE ATONEMENT I97 
 
 {c) As to his priesthood and kingship, that he saves by 
 ruling, and rules by saving. 
 
 3. Doctrines Classified by Offices. 
 
 With the fact of interdependence in view, we cannot so 
 readily restrict to one or another office of Christ those acts 
 of divine grace which form the subject of Christian doctrine. 
 And yet the familiar distinction is not to be disregarded. We 
 may say that the atonement included the prophetic and priestly 
 functions, and aimed at the fulfillment of the kingly ; that in- 
 tercession is an office of royal priesthood ; that election and 
 justification in Christ depend on his priesthood ; that calling, 
 regeneration, sanctification, perseverance, and the entire series 
 of eschatological events pertain more directly to the kingship 
 which Christ exercises in sending the Holy Spirit, and in 
 bringing on the final consummation. 
 
 § 45. The Atonement. 
 
 The atonement is the provision made by Christ to deliver 
 men from sin and its penalties. It is the task of theology to 
 determine in what the provision consists, and to what its effi- 
 cacy is due. 
 
 There is a marked tendency to accept the atonement as a 
 fact while discarding all theories concerning it. But belief in 
 the fact involves some recognition of its nature, and is so far 
 a theory or view of the atonement. On the other hand, doubt 
 of its meaning tends to shadow its reality. 
 
 It is not then untimely to review the theories which have 
 been piously wrought, to classify the unmistakable data of 
 Scripture, and to attempt an explanation of these data in the 
 light of former investigations. Our inquiry will therefore be 
 threefold : historical, biblical, and theoretical, 
 
198 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Part First. — Historical Survey. 
 
 I. THE patristic DOCTRINE. 
 
 The Apostolic Fathers intimated without formulating their 
 view of the atonement ; they taught that Christ gave himself 
 for our sins. Their successors until the beginning of the 
 twelfth century held every variety of opinion, and on this 
 subject variety was tolerated. The most popular view was 
 that the atonement was a victory over Satan. 
 
 Origen (died 254) converted this idea into the theory of a 
 ransom paid to Satan. On the one hand, men had surren- 
 dered to Satan, and could not be delivered from captivity 
 without his consent ; on the other hand, Satan was deluded 
 into accepting Christ as a ransom. The humanity of Christ 
 was commonly spoken of as the bait, and his divinity as the 
 hook by which Satan was caught. Fearing the effect on his 
 captives of the life and teachings of Jesus, and seeing the 
 divine glory of our Lord through the veil of his flesh so ob- 
 scurely as to be deceived — by divine intention deceived — 
 Satan undertook to rid himself of the danger by putting 
 Christ to death. But to cause the crucifixion was to accept 
 the ransom ; the captives were released, and their Deliverer 
 likewise escaped. 
 
 Although in harmony with the ancient usages of war, such 
 a theory could be regarded as scriptural only because con- 
 troversy had not yet secured a thorough study of the atone- 
 ment. No one now imagines that Satan has rights over 
 man ; that his supposed rights would be conserved by cheat- 
 ing him ; or that God would practise a strategic deceit upon 
 the Father of lies. 
 
 II. THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 
 
 The patristic theory of ransom paid to Satan was confuted 
 
THE ATONEMENT I99 
 
 at the beginning of the twelfth century by Anselm, and after- 
 ward obtained but a modified support from Bernard and 
 Peter Lombard. Anselm proposed the theory still called by 
 his name, the theory of Satisfaction. In brief, his doctrine 
 was that sin was a debt to the Divine honor ; that either ven- 
 geance or satisfaction must be exacted ; that, adequate satis- 
 faction being impossible from a being so inferior to God as man 
 is, the Son of God became man, and, owing no debt on his 
 own account, by his death paid our debt, receiving as the fur- 
 ther reward of his merit, the forgiveness of our sins. 
 
 In the way of affirmation, modification, or dissent, the 
 theory of Anselm has determined the course of all subsequent 
 discussion. Abelard objected that the wrath of man, not of 
 God, needed propitiating, so that the atonement, instead of 
 being an offering to justice, was a winning exhibition of love. 
 Stoutly denied by Bernard, the theory of Abelard did not 
 then found an enduring school, but has often been revived 
 and is at present widely influential. More acceptable to the 
 Scholastics were the rival views of their greatest theologians, 
 Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Aquinas, denying, as 
 against Anselm, the absolute necessity of the kind of atone- 
 ment provided, and emphasizing the idea of merit, adapted 
 the doctrine of satisfaction to the Romanist system. Christ, 
 he held, is Head of the church, and his merit, both in keep- 
 ing the law and in suffering for sin, avails for his body 
 through the sacraments. According to Scotus, God might 
 sovereignly forgive without any reparation for sins. The 
 merit of the sacrifice depended upon the divine acceptance, 
 not the divine acceptance upon the merit of the sacrifice. 
 Yet the more gratitude is due to Christ for accepting pain 
 which it was not needful that he should bear. 
 
 Without deciding the question at issue between Anselm, 
 
200 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Aquinas, and Scotus, whether the atonement was necessary 
 absolutely, relatively, or not at all, the Roman Church teaches 
 that the crucifixion avails to delete or undo all sin, original 
 and actual, previous to baptism ; while as to sins after bap- 
 tism, it enables the penitent to escape eternity of penalty 
 and make propitiation for himself by the use of other sacra- 
 ments, and through the endurance of purgatorial fire. 
 
 The Reformation, disregarding the notions of Anselm as to 
 debt and honor, accepted the single fact of satisfaction as a 
 basis for justification by faith — orthodox Lutherans and Cal- 
 vinists differing chiefly with respect to the purposed extent 
 of the atonement. 
 
 The accepted view was developed by the Calvinist Cocceius 
 into a formal scheme of covenants known as the Federal 
 theory, and this theory has been insisted upon by most Pres- 
 byterians of the elder school in English-speaking lands as 
 essential to orthodoxy. It claims that there was a covenant 
 of works between God and Adam before the fall, and a corre- 
 sponding covenant of grace with Christ or with the elect, or 
 a covenant of redemption with Christ, and of grace with the 
 elect. By the covenant of works Adam was made federal 
 head of the race. This relation was due, not to the fact that 
 Adam was father of the race, although that fact was a condi- 
 tion of federal headship, but to sovereign appointment. In 
 Adam, the race had a probation under the most favorable cir- 
 cumstances. With his fall, the covenant of works ended, but 
 left the race in ruin. The guilt of Adam's sin, not its moral 
 turpitude but its liability to punishment, is imputed to his 
 posterity. The penalty incurred is that men are born de- 
 praved. 
 
 By the covenant of grace and redemption Christ was ap- 
 pointed federal head of the elect, and undertook in their 
 
THE ATONEMENT 20I 
 
 behalf to obey the law and to bear the penalty of their sins, 
 so far as applicable to him, the sinless. His obedience, both 
 active and passive, is imputed to the elect. In consequence 
 of this imputation the Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates 
 them without the use of means ; faith springs up in the re- 
 generate heart, and they are justified. 
 
 (I) The doctrine of Satisfaction, uncomplicated with a doc- 
 trine of covenants, is an incomplete philosophy of atonement. 
 That Christ was offered unto God in satisfaction for sins may 
 be accepted as a fact, but not as a fact explained. To say 
 with Anselm that he took our place by being both divine and 
 human is true ; but how is it true .'' Failing to explain, the 
 Anselmic theory so far fails to vindicate, the actually repre- 
 sentative or substitutionary position of Christ, and in conse- 
 quence has been not unfairly charged with leaving unsolved 
 the problem how either justice could lay on the Innocent the 
 curse of the guilty, or how it could benefit them if their curse 
 were thus borne. 
 
 (II) The Federalist form of the theory, though logically 
 complete, is more than negatively objectionable. 
 
 1. No such covenants are mentioned in the Bible. 
 
 2. Federalism makes the economies of law and of grace 
 turn on sovereig^i appointment, instead of on the nature and 
 relations of God and men. In point of fact, the calamitous 
 results of the fall are incurred by our race, not merely be- 
 cause God decreed that it should be so, but through the in- 
 evitable transmission of moral qualities by descent; while 
 blessings issue from the atonement, not in consequence of a 
 gracious attachment of these results to such measures, but, 
 as we shall see, by virtue of the fundamentally real represen- 
 
202 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 tation of sinners in Christ, and through an organic, not a 
 factitious, means of communication with believers. 
 
 These objections hold against the Federalist account of the 
 atonement's efficiency both Godward and manward. 
 
 3. Special difficulties lie in the way of its alleged manward 
 effects. 
 
 A. Here the first step is imputation to the elect of the 
 active obedience of Christ. Such imputation neither has * 
 adequate support in Scripture, nor is to be inferred from the 
 endurance by Christ of our woes. Participation in our woes 
 would attend his acceptance of our estate ; but the imputa- 
 tion to us of his active obedience would not naturally follow. 
 If one does harm to another by his misdeeds, it is not a mat- 
 ter of course that he will be credited with the other's virtues. 
 
 B. The second step is the sovereign renewal of those to 
 whom the active obedience of Christ is imputed. The atone- 
 ment is not regarded as an instrument of that renewal ; it only 
 impetrates or procures it. But in such case, the atonement 
 does not do its proper work. 
 
 {a) The atonement is intended to remove the divine dis- 
 pleasure. But subjective penalties, incurred by the sinner 
 according to divinely constituted law, are, equally with any 
 objective inflictions, a mark of Divine displeasure. According 
 to the Federalist the atonement turns away the stroke of ven- 
 geance, but leaves the inwrought mischiefs of sin to be repaired 
 in some other way — namely, by a regeneration in which the 
 atonement takes no part. 
 
 {b) Inwrought penalties cannot be set aside in consequence 
 of a merely external event, like the fulfillment for us of a 
 covenant ; they must be counteracted by the remedial efficacy 
 of an inward process. The atonement, applied by the Holy 
 Spirit, must be appropriated through faith. But, according 
 
THE ATONEMENT 203 
 
 to the Federalist, regeneration is not by appropriation of the 
 atonement, and precedes faith. Yet, until moral renewal is 
 effected, conscience itself warns us that the atonement is only 
 an antecedent provision waiting to be applied. 
 
 4. The Federalist theory, by referring the establishment 
 and the operation of the covenants to sheer sovereignty, while 
 denying all participation to the known, the organic, the suf- 
 ficient relations of the parties involved, incurs the grave 
 charge that, not being according to nature and law, the atone- 
 ment is against these, and must consequently be both injuri- 
 ous and wrong. Although chiefly urged by the unevangelical, 
 this objection is often felt by evangelical Christians. It is 
 not easy to see how its force can be escaped. 
 
 III. THE MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY. 
 
 On the grounds which Abelard took against Anselm, the 
 Socinians attacked the Reformers, and their arguments are 
 urged by rationalistic and kindred schools in our day, Jus- 
 tice, it is affirmed, demands merely that men should abandon 
 sin, while love provides a Mediator who by instruction and 
 example brings sinners to repentance and a new life. 
 
 Recent advocates of this theory among both Unitarians 
 and Trinitarians find a deeper significance in the work and 
 sufferings of Christ. According to Ritschl, the mission of 
 Christ was to found the church, which would perpetuate a 
 consciousness of the love of God to men. Maurice regarded 
 the atonement as a perfect example of self-sacrifice to God, 
 and at the same time as an invitation to believe that God had 
 already forgiven human sin. According to Bushnell, Christ 
 bore the burden of our sins upon his heart, and thus became 
 a true sacrifice, the just for the unjust, that he might bring 
 us to God by the persuasive influence of mutual sympathy. 
 
204 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 McLeod Campbell offered a mediating view : Christ, througk 
 the completeness of his sympathy with both God and man, 
 makes confession unto God of human sins, is " a perfect 
 Amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of 
 man," thus expiating human guilt ; and this service becomes 
 available for any who accept it as their own confession, and 
 are won by it to righteousness. 
 
 The real issue with the theory of moral influence is as to 
 the necessity of an expiation for sin. If a sinner becomes 
 righteous, justice, it is claimed, does not demand his punish- 
 ment for past offenses ; in fact, moral penalties become 
 wholly inapplicable, and no other penalties would be worthy 
 of God. The theory then rests on ethical rather than on 
 scriptural grounds. In reviewing it from this point of view, 
 we notice : 
 
 I . The initial problem is not whether men already recon- 
 ciled to God must furnish an expiation for past offenses, but 
 whether without any expiation men can be reconciled. It 
 may be unhesitatingly affirmed that — 
 
 {a) Sinners cannot hold themselves to the service of God 
 while burdened with a sense of sins unforgiven ; 
 
 {F) If any decree of conscience be practically universal and 
 normal, it is that forgiveness ought not even to be accepted 
 without reparation made ; 
 
 {c) No present fidelity can cancel past obligations, for 
 we can never do more than it is our duty to do (Luke 
 17 : 10); 
 
 {d) The clearing vision of the saintliest, as he passes hence, 
 sees full well the sole sufficiency of that offering for sin on 
 which, as a penitent, he first laid his trust (cf. Gal. 2 : 21). 
 
 This law of our nature assures us of — - 
 
THE ATONEMENT ^05 
 
 2. A correspojident law in the nature of the Law-giver (i 
 John 3 : 20). Made in his image, we cannot but regard 
 the necessary demand of conscience as the counterpart of an 
 imperative requirement of God. He who feels the normal 
 impulse to offer a sacrifice for his sins, readily admits that 
 the divine justice yet more requires this. 
 
 But some deny that their consciences make such a demand, 
 and they justify themselves by David's protestation : "Thou 
 desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. . . The sacrifices 
 of God are a broken spirit" (Ps. 51 : 16, 17). But it should 
 be borne in mind that — 
 
 {a) The vagaries of individual consciences under special 
 influences do not shake the authority of the moral judgment 
 of mankind ; 
 
 [U] The law of Moses did not, in point of fact, require 
 sacrifices but punishment for grave moral offenses, and pub- 
 lic punishment was visited upon David in this very case (2 
 Sam. 12 : 12); so that, while he had no refuge except the 
 mercy of God, his confident appeal cannot be quoted for the 
 doctrine that justice exacts for sin no other satisfaction than 
 contrition ; 
 
 {c) The evangelical justification of David's trust is fur- 
 nished by Paul, when, with such cases in mind, he writes of 
 " the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set 
 forth ... to show his righteousness because of the passing 
 over of sins done aforetime" (Rom. 3 : 24, 25). 
 
 Thus both human conscience and divine justice require an 
 atonement for sins that are past ; but furthermore — 
 
 3. Instead of repentance being a ground of forgiveness, 
 the ojfer of forgiveness is the occasion of repentance. It is 
 " the goodness of God that leads to repentance" (Rom. 2:4); 
 '* we love him because he first loved us " (i John 4 : 19; cf. 
 
 s 
 
2o6 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Ps. 1 30 : 4). But unless we believe in his abhorrence of sin, 
 we have no measure of his love to sinners. A measure both 
 of his holiness and his love is supplied in the propitiatory 
 offering of his Son. •' Herein is love, not that we loved God, 
 but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation 
 for our sins " (i John 4 : 10, cf. 3 : 16 ; Rom. 5 : 8). 
 
 4. Moral penalties are very far from being inapplicable to 
 repentant and reformed sinners. 
 
 {a) The power of temptation habitually yielded to is not 
 often completely neutralized by repentance. As a rule, it 
 sooner or later makes the reformed offender smart for his 
 long-abandoned misdeeds. To his horror he finds that he 
 must suffer again from the stress of temptations to which he 
 no longer yields. 
 
 (b) Painful regret for past sins is peculiarly characteristic 
 of one who has been delivered from the bondage of sin. A 
 good man may well doubt whether he can ever forgive himself. 
 Indeed, if he feels the exceeding sinfulness of sin, he cannot 
 forgive himself until he so identifies himself with Christ that 
 he can look upon the sacrifice of Christ as his own offering. 
 
 {c) God's displeasure too is most keenly felt precisely when 
 the heart is no longer hardened against God. This sense of 
 one's own detestableness in the sight of God was heartily ex- 
 pressed by David when he awoke to the enormity of his crime 
 'against a fellow-man (Ps. 51 14). The cross alone, in assur- 
 ing the penitent of divine forgiveness, removes a moral 
 penalty of sin. 
 
 IV. THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY. 
 
 I . Typical form. 
 
 A theory devised against the Socinians by the publicist 
 Grotius has been revived in New England against the Uni- 
 
THE ATONEMENT ioy 
 
 versalists and Unitarians. This theory holds that govern- 
 ment is for the sake of the governed. It is in the interest of 
 the governed themselves that the stability of the government 
 should not be imperiled by the forgiveness of sinners with- 
 out an exhibition of God's rectoral displeasure against sin. 
 But such an exhibition was afforded to all moral beings in 
 the crucifixion of our Lord. The ends of public justice, of 
 benevolence guided by wisdom in the public interest, are fully 
 met, and distributive justice, or justice proper, need not press 
 its claims. 
 
 The atonement, according to the advocates of this theory, 
 has a Godward efficiency, because it makes it safe for God to 
 forgive sin ; but as this safety is wholly due to an impression 
 made upon moral beings, the efficiency of the atonement 
 Godward reduces to an efficiency manward. On this account 
 the theory has been pronounced by more than one critic a 
 theory of moral influence. But it is not a theory of the same 
 kind of moral influence as that to which the Socinian theory 
 reduces the work of Christ. The latter is toward repent- 
 ance ; the former is toward a sense of the divine authority. 
 Socinians insist that the nature of God does not require an 
 atonement ; Governmentalists urge that his character of ruler 
 exacts what his nature does not demand. 
 
 2. Arminian form. 
 
 This combines features of the Anselmic, Scotist, and Gro- 
 tian views. With Anselm, it teaches that Christ was offered 
 unto the offended majesty and holiness of God. With Duns 
 Scotus, it holds that the sacrifice of Christ, like the Leviti- 
 cal sacrifices, owes its efficacy to the divine acceptance 
 (acceptilation). It thus agrees with Grotius that Christ 
 bore neither the penalty of human sin nor an equivalent to 
 
2o8 THE ATONEMENl* 
 
 it ; while it dissents from his position that the crucifixion was 
 a mere exhibition of rectoral displeasure against the sedition 
 of sinners. 
 
 Objections. 
 
 (a) Distributive justice is the necessary reaction of divine 
 holiness against sin, and to waive its claims would be to im- 
 pair the moral integrity of God. 
 
 (d) In teaching that penalties may be set aside at the 
 discretion of the Supreme Ruler, the theory disregards the 
 indissoluble connection between law and its penal sanctions. 
 By the constitution of moral beings subjective penalties in- 
 evitably attend the infraction of moral laws ; and it is un- 
 warrantable to suppose that any ultimate objective expres- 
 sions of divine wrath will be found merely discretionary and 
 factitious. 
 
 (c) In proportion as it is made to appear that the sufferings 
 of Christ were histrionic, or only intended to create an im- 
 pression, they lose impressiveness. In other words, the better 
 the atonement is understood the less it is worth. 
 
 (d) The doctrine that the government of God is shaped to 
 the interests of the governed, and not to the demands of holi- 
 ness, involves a utilitarian theory of morals demoralizing to 
 the individual, and rejected by the general sense when society 
 is affronted by gross misdeeds. 
 
 (e) The doctrine is essentially political rather than script- 
 ural. 
 
 V. REALISTIC THEORIES. 
 
 To whatever the present tendency to realism is due, it un- 
 questionably exists. The nominalistic doctrines of crea- 
 tionism and imputationism are giving way to the realistic 
 conception of a community of nature between Adam, Christ, 
 
THE ATONEMENT 209 
 
 and the human race. This tendency is strengthened by 
 natural science, as we shall see, and is in harmony with the 
 general character of Schleiermacher's teaching that the native 
 feeling of dependence is met by a new life historically trace- 
 able through the church to Christ. 
 
 While realism is especially in keeping with the idea that 
 Christ saves men by imparting his own life, it is capable of 
 embracing every conception of the atonement, from moral in- 
 fluence to expiation. Representative forms of realistic doc- 
 trine are the following : 
 
 1. The pantJieistic. Pantheism regards man as the highest 
 development of that universal substance which is at once 
 God and nature. Christ was the first of the human race to 
 become fully aware of his identity with God, and his gospel is 
 the announcement that all men, like himself, are essentially 
 divine. To accept this good news is to bring consciousness 
 into harmony with fundamental reality, and thus to make an 
 end of that imperfect and confused stage of development 
 known as sin. 
 
 2. The realistic theory with subjective intention. This 
 teaches that Christ was not a man but man ; that he assumed 
 not personal but impersonal, generic, human nature, and by 
 bearing up that nature against its liability, or even its ten- 
 dency to sin, purified and redeemed it — his crucifixion being 
 the sacrifice of that self-love which in men becomes selfish- 
 ness. By faith, or by sympathy, or by enlightenment, the 
 Christian recognizes and participates in the victory of Christ 
 over evil. 
 
 3. With objective intention the realistic theory accepts and 
 emphasizes the subjective view, but adds that Christ, in tak- 
 ing generic human nature, assumed all the penalties attaching 
 to its fallen state, and these penalties culminated at the cross, 
 
2IO THE ATONEMENT 
 
 on which human nature in Christ was offered as a sacrifice for 
 sin, in Christ making atonement for itself unto God. Faith 
 now enables the Christian to endure and to exhaust the in- 
 evitable subjective penalties of sin. 
 
 A. The realistic theory, in one or another of its forms, has 
 the signal merits : 
 
 (a) Of seeking to ground the atonement in relations of be- 
 ing, instead of in a factitious, or a merely sympathetic rela- 
 tion of Christ to men ; 
 
 (d) Of setting forth Christ himself as the immediate object 
 of faith ; 
 
 (c) Of emphasizing the subjective value and validity of 
 atonement. 
 
 B. Its defects correspond to its merits : 
 
 {a) Since realism cannot account for expiation without 
 ascribing to Christ the totality of human nature, not merely 
 in the sense that his humanity was complete, but in the sense 
 that he took the whole race upon himself ; and since this sum- 
 mation of mankind in him is possible to the view of only the 
 most highly speculative realism, the doctrine of universalia 
 ante rem ; therefore, the alleged relation of Christ to the race 
 has no greater degree of certainty than can be claimed by a 
 generally discarded doctrine of philosophy. 
 
 {b) In presenting the personal Christ as the object of faith, 
 this theory in all its forms is apt to disparage the objective 
 value of what he did and bore. 
 
 {c) In emphasizing the participation of the believer in the 
 Master's victory over sin, the theory fails to show how such 
 an advantage could be shared by the worthies who lived and 
 died before our common nature had been rescued by the God- 
 man. This defect is fatal when the atonement is declared to 
 
THE ATONEMENT 211 
 
 possess only a subjective efficacy, unless we adopt the Roman 
 Catholic doctrine of a limbo patrnni. 
 
 VI. CONCLUSIONS FROM REVIEW OF THEORIES. 
 
 1. All theories of the atonement vary with the philosophy 
 of their times, metaphysical, physical, political, or military. 
 Nominalistic philosophy underlies the Federalist view that the 
 headships of Adam and of Christ were due not to relations of 
 being, but to divine appointment. Realism is the basis or 
 every theory which regards human nature capable of receiv- 
 ing Christ into the community of its ills, and of sharing in 
 him a common life. Scientific conceptions of law give an 
 ethical character to all recent views. Doctrines of political 
 expediency shaped the Grotian and New England theory. 
 The rigorous mediaeval demand of satisfaction for affronted 
 honor was met in the Twelfth Century tenet of Anselm. 
 The ancient law of war which gave a conqueror property in 
 his captives begat the patristic fancy of a ransom paid to 
 Satan. 
 
 Every man holds some sort of philosophy. Every thought- 
 ful man perceives that his philosophy bears in some way upon 
 the facts involved in the atonement. But the history of 
 speculation on this subject warns us not to put undue con- 
 fidence in theories concerning it ; for, until a final philosophy 
 is reached and correctly applied, no theory can be more than 
 tentative. 
 
 2. Closely allied truth and error are found in the funda- 
 mental assumptions of each theory ; and, as a consequence, 
 each provides for a special end, both scriptural and indispen- 
 sable, while in nearly every case denying an equally valuable 
 end proposed by some other theory. The mingling of true 
 and false in fundamentals, together with the good ends con- 
 
2i^ *rHE ATONEMENT* 
 
 templated by the several theories, may be illustrated as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 It was a fundamental error of the Fathers that Satan had 
 a right to his captives ; yet it was fundamentally true that he 
 held men captive, and Christ achieved the end of "destroy- 
 ing through death him that had the power of death, that is, 
 the devil." While we reject the Federalist's postulate that 
 the relations of God to man turn on merely ordained head- 
 ships of Adam and of Christ, he correctly teaches that Christ 
 represented both God and man officially, and thus reached the 
 end of providing an expiation conformable to the claims of 
 justice. We cannot assume with the Governmentalist that 
 penalties are imposed and removed at discretion ; yet he 
 rightly takes for granted that moral laws and awards declare 
 a personal demand of God, are administered in personal good 
 will and wisdom toward the governed, and that the atonement 
 aims to give play to the divine benevolence by magnifying 
 the divine authority. The speculative Realist is unable to 
 prove the existence of generic human nature, in the sense re- 
 quired by the piacular phase of realistic theory ; but he 
 properly insists that the representative offices of Christ were 
 grounded in a representative nature, and that the atonement 
 effects, through faith, a vital relation between the believer 
 and Christ. The Socinian denies without warrant the in- 
 trinsic necessity for an expiation of sins, but urges with truth 
 a fact equally fundamental, that God will not reject the sacri- 
 fice of a broken heart, and finds a purposed fruit of the 
 atonement in the motives which it supplies to piety and 
 virtue. 
 
 3. Since theories pretend to exclusiveness precisely on ac- 
 count of error in their foundations, suspicion is invited by 
 any theory which fails either to recognize the fundamental 
 
THE ATONEMENT 213 
 
 truths, or to cover the ends which have found a wide ana 
 enduring acceptance with faithful students of the word of 
 God. Our endeavor must be, by closest adhesion to the 
 scriptural data, and by a minimum of theorizing, to reach a 
 doctrine at once biblical, comprehensive, and philosophically 
 defensible. 
 
 Part Second. — Biblical Statement. 
 
 i. the mission of christ was pre-eminently a gift of 
 the divine love. 
 
 As a holy Being, God would necessarily wish to extirpate 
 sin ; but, as benevolent, he sought also to save the sinner. 
 Prolonged discussion of the atonement has given to its fitness 
 for meeting the claims of justice a prominence in dogmatics 
 which the Bible accords to it as an expression of the divine 
 love. 
 
 Characteristic statements are : " God so loved the world 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 in him should not perish, but have everlasting life " (John 3 : 
 16) ; " God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we 
 were yet sinners, Christ died for us " (Rom. 5:8); " Herein 
 is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent 
 his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (i John 4 : 10). 
 
 But the love of God was employed, as we have just seen, 
 in furnishing a " propitiation for our sins " (cf. i John 2 : 2). 
 Hence we notice, as the further teaching of Scripture — 
 
 II. CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT BE 
 CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE FOR GOD TO FORGIVE SIN. 
 
 The Old Testament forecasts, and the New Testament pro- 
 gressively unfolds, this gracious provision. 
 
 I. Some at least of the Levitical sacrifices, especially the 
 
214 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 sin-offering and the trespass-offering, were declared to be a 
 covering for the offenses to which they were applied (Lev. ch. 
 4, 5 ; 6 : 1-7 ; 7 : 7 ; i6 ; 17 : 1 1 ; cf. Job 42 : 7, 8). Whether 
 or not limited to the purgation of ceremonial defilement, they 
 bred in the Hebrew mind a con\'iction that " without shedding 
 of blood is no remission " (Heb. 9 : 22). Thus, both by typi- 
 cal significance and by inherent insufficiency, the Levitical 
 expiations prefigured that adequate sacrifice which, al the end 
 of the age, was to be offered once for all (Heb. 7 : 27 ; ch. 9 ; 
 10 : 1-22). 
 
 2, What the law prefigured the prophets foretold. Isaiah 
 said of the Messiah, "The chastisement of our peace was 
 upon him" (ch. 53) ; Daniel, that he shall "be cut off, and 
 shall have nothing" (9 : 24-27) ; Zechariah, that "the sword 
 . . . shall smite the shepherd" (13 : 7), and that the people 
 of Jerusalem " shall look unto me whom they have pierced " 
 (12 : 10). Certain Messianic psalms are to the same effect 
 (Ps. 22 and 41). Finally, John the Baptist not only an- 
 nounced the kingdom, and, by a strangely significant rite con- 
 secrated the King (Matt. 3 : 13-15), but pointed him out as 
 " the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world " 
 (John r : 29, cf. ver. 36). 
 
 3. Jesus himself, when fully recognized by his disciples as 
 the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 16 : 16), began to declare 
 the necessity for his death and resurrection (ver. 21). Some- 
 what later he interpreted this necessity by saying that he 
 "came ... to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10 : 
 45, cf. I Tim. 2 : 6). On the eve of his betrayal he called 
 the cup which he blessed " the cup of the covenant," and bade 
 all drink of it, because " it is shed for many unto remission of 
 sins" (Matt. 26 : 28). Finally, after the resurrection, he 
 again showed how " that the Christ should suffer, and should 
 
THE ATONEMENT 8I5 
 
 rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and 
 remission of sins should be preached in his name " (Luke 24 : 
 46, 47). 
 
 If the Gospels contain but few passages which declare that 
 Christ must die for the remission of sins, these passages are 
 sufficiently explicit. It may be said of them, as of proof- 
 texts adduced from the same books for the divinity of our 
 Lord, that we have little concern with the many meanings 
 they can be made to cover, but much interest in the meaning 
 they naturally convey. It is also worthy of note that, with 
 the possible exception of the description of Jesus as "the 
 Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world," every 
 express attribution to his cross of an expiatory function is 
 found in the Synoptists, with whom, according to popular 
 opinion, we are not to look for the deeper truths of the 
 gospel. 
 
 4. The Epistles fully disclose the piacular design of the 
 crucifixion. The burden of the first five chapters in the Epis- 
 tle to the Romans is that we are "justified by grace through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; whom God set forth 
 to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to show his 
 righteousness, because of the passing over of sins done afore- 
 time " (3 : 24, 25 ; cf. 5 : 6, 8). 
 
 Why it was that Paul would know among the Corinthians 
 nothing "save Jesus Christ, and him crucified " (i Cor. 2 : 2), 
 may be learned from his own words (i 5 : 3), " I delivered unto 
 you first of all . . . that Christ died for our sins." Quite 
 startling is his language in the second epistle (5 : 14), "that 
 one died for all, therefore all died " ; that is, all have in Christ 
 borne the penalty of their own offenses. 
 
 The Epistle to the Galatians is an argument for justifica- 
 tion through the sufferings of Christ. " Christ redeemed us 
 
21 6 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 from the curse of the law " by becoming on the cross " a curse 
 for us" (Gal. 3 : 13). 
 
 In the letter to the Ephesians (1:7, cf. Col. 1:14) Christ 
 is said to bestow " redemption through his blood, the forgive- 
 ness of our trespasses." 
 
 Peter, in his first epistle, bases an exhortation to patience 
 on the ground that Christ " bore our sins in his own body on 
 the tree" (2 : 24), and "because Christ also suffered for 
 sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous" (3 : 18, cf. i : 
 18, 19). 
 
 The tersest putting of this doctrine is by John : " He is 
 a propitiation for our sins" (i John 2 : 2, cf. 4 : 10 ; i : 7). 
 
 The amplest statement, in terminology of the Old Testa- 
 ment, is afforded by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which 
 elaborately argues the superiority of Jesus Christ over all 
 whom the Jews most honored from the complete sufficiency, 
 among other things, of his high-priestly service in offering 
 himself unto God once for all for sins (7 : 27 ; ch. 9 ; 10 : 
 1-22). 
 
 III. THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD HAD A SHARE IN 
 PROCURING FORGIVENESS. 
 
 I. This is a marked peculiarity of the book of Acts. The 
 reported theme of Peter's preaching is the Messiah, wickedly 
 crucified, triumphantly exalted, and, as magnanimous con- 
 queror, graciously disposed to forgive those who repent of 
 their rebellion. In none of his addresses does Peter in terms 
 ascribe forgiveness to the sacrifice, but repeatedly gives as- 
 surance of it through the enthronement of our Lord. Be- 
 cause the people had crucified him, they ought to repent ; 
 but because God had exalted him, let them accept him as 
 their Prince and Saviour (cf. 2 : 23 with 36, 38 ; 3 : 14, 15 
 
THE ATONEMENT 217 
 
 with 19; 4 : 10 with 11, 12; 5 : 30 with 31 ; 10 : 39 with 
 
 40-43)- 
 
 Paul's addresses, as here reported, are almost as exclusively 
 devoted to the procurement of forgiveness by the resurrec- 
 tion. In the earliest on record, that at Antioch in Pisidia, a 
 historical review after the manner of Stephen leads to a state- 
 ment of the crucifixion, a discussion of the resurrection, and 
 an offer for the first time of justification by faith from all 
 things from which men "could not be justified by the law of 
 Moses" (13 : 16-39). The ground of justification is not 
 stated, but the offer follows directly upon the exposition of 
 the resurrection. The sole explicit reference in the Acts to 
 the efficacy of the blood of Christ occurs in Paul's farewell at 
 Miletus to the Ephesian elders, to whom he commends the 
 church of God (or of the Lord) as " purchased by his blood " (20 : 
 28). Preaching at Thessalonica(i7 : 3), confronting the coun- 
 cil (2 3 : 6), accounting to Felix for the uproar in the council (24 : 
 15), explaining his doctrine to Festus (25 : 19), and defending 
 it to Agrippa (26 : 8-23), Paul ever, as at Athens, chooses 
 for his theme "Jesus and the resurrection" (17 : 18, 31).^ 
 
 2. The Epistles furnish a more fully developed doctrine of 
 the resurrection as well as of the crucifixion. In Rom. 4:25 
 he who "was delivered for our offenses " is said to have been 
 "raised again for our justification." In 8 : 34 escape from 
 condemnation is assured by the fact that " it is Christ Jesus 
 that died, yea rather that was raised from the dead." In 10 : 
 9 salvation is promised to him who believes in his heart that 
 God raised Christ from the dead. 
 
 1 It is no unimportant mark of historical veracity that the book of Acts does not 
 represent the disciples as catching the import of the crucifixion during that early 
 period when all minds were taken up with the resurrection of Jesus, and with its at- 
 testation of his claims. 
 
 T 
 
2l8 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 To the Corinthians Paul argues, " If Christ be not risen 
 your faith is in vain ; ye are yet in your sins " (i Cor. 15:17, 
 cf. ver. 14; John 10 : 17) — a statement which can hardly be 
 so interpreted as to deny to the resurrection all part in secur- 
 ing the remission of sins. 
 
 Again, Paul wrote to the Ephesians (4 : 8) concerning 
 benefits bestowed by Christ, that it was " when he ascended 
 on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." 
 
 The intercession of Christ is secured by his resurrection, 
 as Paul notices in Rom. 8 : 34 ; and it is the intercession of 
 Christ which provides the hope " sure and steadfast and enter- 
 ing into that within the veil" (Heb. 6 : 19, 20). We are 
 satisfied that he is "able to save to the uttermost . . . seeing 
 he ever liveth to make intercession" (Heb. 7 : 25). 
 
 IV. THE ATONEMENT HAS EFFICACY FOR THE MORAL RE- 
 NEWAL OF BELIEVERS. 
 
 In this way the priesthood of Jesus most directly contrib- 
 utes to his kingship, and here too, the prophetic oflfice is 
 seen to merge into the priestly — relations little attended 
 to in dogmatic inquiry, but brought into full view by the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 I. The ancient Sacrifices prefigure in Christ a subjective 
 as well as objective, a purifying as well as piacular, service. 
 Recognizing at the appointment of the burnt-offering inci- 
 dental reference to expiation through the shedding of blood 
 (Lev. I : 4), we find that this sacrifice was pre-eminently an 
 act of devotion, whereby a man offered himself, and wherein 
 God accepted the worshiper. It was the nation's daily act of 
 worship. (See directions for the burnt-offering in E.xodus and 
 Leviticus, also references to it in later writings ; e. g. Ps. 50 : 
 8-15 ; 51 : 19; Isa. i : 11 ; 56 : 7 ; Mark 12 : 33 ; Rom. 
 
THE ATONEMENT 219 
 
 12 : I.) The Passover also was to be explained to the chil- 
 dren at its celebration as meaning that, because God had 
 spared all the first-born of Israel when he destroyed all the 
 first-born of Egypt, all first-born males of man or beast be- 
 long unto the Lord (Exod. 13 : 14, i 5). This idea is brought 
 forward by Paul, when he exhorts the Corinthians to purify 
 themselves because " our passover also, Christ, was sacrificed " 
 (I Cor. 5 : 7). 
 
 2. The frequent and ethically close association in both 
 Testaments of repentance with forgiveness shows that forgive- 
 ness of sins and abandonment of sinning are inseparable, that 
 change of a man's character is involved in a change of his 
 relations to God. 
 
 3. Our Lord unequivocally claims that his teaching has 
 power to transform men. He thus accords it a part in the 
 atonement, and shows that he identifies salvation with right- 
 eousness of life (Luke 8 : 12; John 5 : 34). Unhappily, 
 orthodox theology has left this large and vital part of the 
 Master's doctrine to be emphasized by heretics ; apparently 
 from a fear that to honor his teaching might be to disparage 
 his cross, as has certainly been done. But this danger is 
 averted for those who bear in mind that the Saviour's words 
 do not claim to have, and could not have, a Godward or ex- 
 piatory office, but an efficacy manward and renovating. 
 
 {a) In closing the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus held out 
 a promise to those who keep his sayings, and a warning 
 to the disobedient (Matt. 7 : 24-29), which cannot be con- 
 strued into a Pauline intimation that obedience is impossible 
 and ruin certain. Especially in the beatitudes, " Blessed 
 are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for 
 they shall be filled " ; " Blessed are the pure in heart, 
 for they shall see God"; or in that inimitable invitation, 
 
220 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 " Come unto me . . . take my yoke . . . learn of me . . , 
 and ye shall find rest " (Matt. 1 1 : 28-30), it would be 
 intolerable to find only the stern and almost mocking for- 
 mula of the law, " Cursed is every one that continueth 
 not in all the things written in the book of the law, to do 
 them " (Gal. 3 : 10). We are to understand rather from 
 these sayings of Christ a doctrine correspondent to the stage 
 reached in the unfolding of his plans ; namely, that to accept 
 him as Master and Teacher was to do " the work of God " 
 (John 6 : 29), to find peace, and to be in the way of receiving 
 whatever good his mission might thereafter provide. 
 
 {b) The transforming power of the Saviour's teaching is a 
 special theme of the Gospel according to John. " The 
 words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life * 
 (6 : 63). " Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
 you free" (8 : 32). In the end he could assure his disciples, 
 "Already ye are clean because of the word which I have 
 spoken unto you" (15 : 3). He even said, "This is life 
 eternal, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ whom thou didst send" (17 : 3). Clearly Christ did 
 not restrict his sayings to the pedagogic service found by 
 Paul in the law of Moses (Gal. 3 : 23, 24). Instead, there- 
 fore, of the frequent explanation of these claims, that the 
 teachings of Jesus fall under the ancient Dispensation of 
 Law, and prepare for the gospel by deepening the sense of 
 condemnation, it is better to recognize that they belong to 
 the Dispensation of Grace, and that they avowedly promote 
 the redemption of man so far as that consists in delivering 
 him from sin. Still more noteworthy is it that — 
 
 4. A transforming power is claimed for the cross. 
 
 (a) This again is characteristic of John. Apart from the say- 
 ing of John the Baptist, " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh 
 
The atonement 221 
 
 away the sin of the world" (i : 29), and possibly without ex- 
 cepting this passage, the Gospel according to John ascribes 
 to the death of Christ the office, not of expiation, but of im- 
 parting spiritual life. The key to the entire Gospel is, " In 
 him was life" (i : 4, cf. ver. 12, 13). The heavenly mystery 
 revealed to Nicodemus was that, as the serpent was lifted up 
 in the wilderness for a symbol both of sin and suffering 
 together put away, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, and 
 for the like purpose, to give eternal life {3 : 14, 15). God 
 gave his only begotten Son that believers might have life, not 
 forgiveness (ver. 16). Often styling himself the Bread of 
 life, the Water of life (4 : 10, 14 ; 6 : 33, 35, 48-58 ; 7 : 37), 
 Jesus claims for his cross this extreme of moral influence, " I, 
 if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself " 
 (12 : 32). 
 
 {b) The more important Epistles also ascribe life-giving 
 power to the cross. In the Epistle to the Romans the kernel 
 of the sixth chapter is, " Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead 
 to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus " (ver. 1 1). The 
 first part of the seventh chapter, using the law of marriage 
 for illustration, describes the believer as dead to the law by 
 the body of Christ, and married to him who is raised from the 
 dead (ver. 4) ; while the second part of this chapter, after re- 
 hearsing with unequaled force and pathos the hopeless strug- 
 gle against sin, breaks into a groan of despair, "Wretched 
 man, who will deliver me.-*" and in the next breath into an 
 outcry of triumph, " I thank God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord" (ver. 24, 25). The eighth chapter then follows with 
 an unbroken song of joy that "the law of the spirit of life in 
 Christ Jesus set me free from the law of sin and of death " 
 (ver. 2-4). 
 
 The testimony of the second Epistle to the Corinthians is 
 
222 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 particularly significant. Chapter five, verse fourteen, pre- 
 sents the objective service of the cross in an extreme form : 
 " That one died for all, therefore all died " ; but the next verse 
 assigns a subjective purpose : " He died for all, that they who 
 live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who 
 for their sakes died and rose again." Once more, ver. 19 de- 
 clares that God was in Christ forgiving sins ; ver. 2 1 that 
 Christ vicariously bore our sins, being " made to be sin on 
 our behalf " ; and still the object was "that we might become 
 the righteousness of God in him." 
 
 Paul nowhere else insists with so indignant emphasis upon 
 the Godward sufficiency of the atonement as in writing to the 
 Galatians ; yet nowhere else expresses so complete and lov- 
 ing subjection of himself to its life-giving power. " I have 
 been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ 
 liveth in me" (2 : 20, cf. 6 : 14, 15). 
 
 The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians liken 
 the moral results of the atonement to the naturalizing of 
 aliens (Eph. 2 : 13-19; Col. i : 21, 22, cf. Titus 2 : 14). 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews represents the work of Christ 
 as the establishment of a new covenant by which believers 
 are brought into a new alliance with God, the formal ratifica- 
 tion of which according to ancient custom was in blood, the 
 blood of our Lord (8 : 6-9 : 28). Again, it contrasts out- 
 ward purgations by animal sacrifices with inward cleansing 
 by the blood of Christ, so that conscience is cleansed " from 
 dead works to serve the living God" (9 : 14, cf. 2 : 17, 18). 
 
 The well-known doctrine of James is that the gospel saves 
 by securing good works through faith (2 : 14-26). 
 
 Even Peter's strikingly objective language always takes a 
 subjective turn. Christ " bore our sins in his body on the 
 tree " — an emphatically objective view of his work ; but it 
 
THE ATONEMENT 223 
 
 was done in order " that we, having died to sins, might live 
 to righteousness " (i Peter 2 : 24). " Christ also suffered for 
 sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might 
 bring us to God " (3:18, cf. i : 17-19 ; 4 : i, 2). 
 
 The first Epistle of John contains, as we have seen, that 
 notice of expiation which is wanting in his Gospel ; but its 
 prevailing theme is still the same : " He that hath the Son 
 hath the life" (5 : 12). 
 
 5. The resurrection of Christ is an especially accredited 
 source and support of the new life. Thus it is said that even 
 when we " were dead through our trespasses, God quickened 
 us together with Christ . . . and raised us up with him " 
 (Eph. 2 : 5, 6, cf. I : 19, 20; Col. 3 : i). God "begat us 
 again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 from the dead " (i Peter 1:3). 
 
 Accordingly in baptism, as submersion signifies being 
 buried with Christ, so emergence is a symbol of coming into 
 life with him (Rom. 6 :4-i i ; Col. 2 : 12, 13 ; i Peter 3 : 21). 
 
 From this survey we infer that the teaching of the Bible 
 concerning the atonement may be summarized as follows : 
 The Lord Jesus, by what he was and is, by what he did and 
 bore, has made every provision required by the holy nature of 
 God and the fallen estate of man to deliver men from the do- 
 minion and the penalties of sin. 
 
 Part Third. — Theoretical Statement. 
 
 The distinguishing features of any theory concerning the 
 atonement are fixed, in a synthetic scheme, by the doctrines 
 already treated. It could not be otherwise, for these doc- 
 trines and that rest on common foundations. It is not, there- 
 fore, unwarrantable to announce as already settled certain 
 
224 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 postulates which will aid in determining what each factor in 
 the atoning work effected, and how it was effectual. 
 
 These postulates are the following : 
 
 (a) The atonement is as distinctly the voluntary gift of a 
 personal God as though no law were in the universe. 
 
 {b) It is in as strict accord with law as though there were 
 no personal God. And, since law inheres in the natures of 
 things, therefore — 
 
 {c) The possibility and the provision for an atonement must 
 be looked for in the natures and relations of the beings imme- 
 diately concerned, namely, Christ and men. 
 
 The method of redemption involves the following particu- 
 lars : I. In nature and office Christ was the real representa- 
 tive both of God and man ; II. As such he actually bore 
 the sins of mankind; III. In bearing sin he made expiation 
 for it unto God ; IV. In bestowing expiation his atoning 
 work effects, through the Holy Spirit, the moral renewal of 
 believers. 
 
 I. Christ was the actual representative of both God and 
 man : that is, what he did was to all intents the act both of 
 God and of man. 
 
 1. That his words and deeds are to be accepted as those of 
 the Father follows from his office as an ambassador of God. 
 Jesus always made such a claim (Matt. lo : 40 ; John 3 : 34 ; 
 5 : 23 ; 6 : 29 ; 14 : 9), and Christians do not dispute it. 
 But this relation, though practically uncontested, offers to the 
 theory of atonement a light too little regarded, and of which 
 we will presently seek to make use, 
 
 2. The always open question is how the works and suffer- 
 ings of Christ may be construed as those of mankind. Many 
 
THE ATONEMENT 225 
 
 deny the benefits of a vicarious sacrifice, because they cannot 
 see the possibility of a vicarious relation. If, as above postu- 
 lated, a real representation of us by Christ must be grounded 
 in the relations of his being to ours, it should be looked for 
 in both the elements of his being, the divine and the human. 
 An ontological relation, a relation of being, then is to be 
 sought — 
 
 A. In the fundamental reality of the theanthropic nature, 
 iti the personal Word of God. 
 
 {a) The scope and variety of his relations are seen in the 
 offices of the pre-existent Logos to the universe : by him all 
 things were created (John i : 3, lo ; Col. i : 16 ; Heb. 1:2); 
 in him all things subsist (John 1:4; Col. i : 17; Heb. i : 
 3) ; through him God rules over all (Matt. 28 : 18 ; John 16 : 
 15 ; Eph. I : 22 ; Col. 1:18; Heb. i : 6, 8 ; i Peter 3 : 22); 
 summed up in him (avaxtfakatuxjaa&aC) all things shall accom- 
 plish their final cause (Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:16, cf. Rom. 14 : 
 
 [b) These are connected relations. The originator of the 
 universe is its proper support ; having all things in his hands, 
 he necessarily controls all ; complete acceptance of his sway 
 must be for his creatures, as well as for him, their final con- 
 summation. 
 
 (c) These relations are the closest that can exist. To de- 
 pend upon the Logos for the origin and continuation of exist- 
 ence, to be subject to his will, and to find in him the goal 
 and perfection of being, is to be represented by him in the 
 fullest degree conceivable short of a pantheistic identification 
 of substance. 
 
 One of the passages above referred to (Col. i : 14-22) sets 
 forth all four relations ; sums them up in the significant dec- 
 laration, " it pleased the Father that in him should all the 
 
226 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 fullness dwell " ; while, at its beginning and its ending, it con- 
 nects these cosmic offices with "our redemption" and the 
 reconciliation of " all things to himself, having made peace 
 through the blood of his cross." As Rom. 3 : 24-26 most 
 completely sets forth what the atonement did for us Godward, 
 so this passage is unique in showing the ontologic relations 
 which made an atonement possible. 
 
 These relations between the Logos and the universe are 
 all-inclusive up to the point of interposing for the redemption 
 of man ; is it possible that at this point they cease to be per- 
 tinent ? Certainly they are deep and wide enough to furnish 
 room for any service whatever which the Logos may under- 
 take in our behalf. 
 
 Nor can they be excluded from consideration on the ground 
 that they involve a pantheistic ontology ; because we add 
 nothing to the express and accepted doctrine of the Bible as 
 to each of the four relations, when we claim them as a basis 
 for the vicarious relation of Christ to beings whom he would 
 redeem. 
 
 (d) In all these relations the Logos represents his crea- 
 tures before God. It is for God that he creates and sustains ; 
 he directs and subjects that " God may be all in all " (i Cor. 
 8:6; 1 5 : 24, 28). He acts in all only as agent and viceroy 
 of the Supreme Being. 
 
 We might hesitate to say that he is responsible to the Su- 
 preme Being both for his own proceedings and for the acts of 
 those over whom he is appointed to rule ; because it is possi- 
 ble for them as persons to choose what course they will pur- 
 sue. Nevertheless — 
 
 (aa) We recognize a fitness in the appointment of the 
 Second Person in the Trinity, instead of the First, or the 
 Third, to the task of recovering a revolted province ; and — 
 
THE ATONEMENT 227 
 
 (bb) Presumably what our Lord said of the completion of 
 his mission may be carried back to its assignment, *' This 
 commandment I received from my Father" (John lo : i8). 
 Though not without his own acquiescence, he was " sent into 
 the world" (John 3:17; 7 : 29 ; 8 : 42). 
 
 Most substitutionists have felt that the divinity of Christ 
 was essential to his vicarious offices for men ; they have ever 
 insisted that, if he were only man, instead of taking our place, 
 he would merely have accepted his own place ; but that his 
 representative relations depended upon his divinity has been 
 felt, rather than adequately shown. Christ was further quali- 
 fied to stand in our place before God — 
 
 B. By assumiiig our nature. In becoming man the Logos 
 specialized relations already existing. What he now under- 
 takes has particular reference to the race whose nature he has 
 put on. 
 
 All-inclusive as those pre-existent offices were, there is no 
 one of them which has not attained through the incarnation 
 a higher significance, a completer efficiency. The Word was 
 maker ; in this more intimate relation he creates men anew. 
 He sustained existence ; now he is our life. He had a right 
 to reign ; but it is the Son of Man to whom every knee shall 
 bow, and whom every tongue shall confess as Lord. Lastly, 
 those strange prophecies about the final consummation, which 
 a pantheist might so easily understand of a re-absorption of 
 the all into the One (Eph. i : 10; Col. i : 16-20), were writ- 
 ten concerning him who bore the name of Jesus and under- 
 took for men the office of the Christ. Thus the relation of 
 the Logos to mankind was both drawn closer and enlarged 
 when he became man. 
 
 How this was possible can be most easily understood from 
 the fact that human nature is so organically one as to consti- 
 
228 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 tute every man a member of a corporate whole, much more 
 to receive into oneness with all its members him who already 
 stood as the ground and end of their being. This explana- 
 tion need not be embarrassed with the profound and engag- 
 ing, but altogether speculative and questionable, realism of 
 the Middle Ages, which teaches that generic human nature 
 exists so apart from individual men, — univcrsalia ante rem, — 
 that the Logos could take up the totality of it and enable it 
 to offer itself on the cross for its own offenses. Yet there 
 is a scientific realism which sees in human nature the com- 
 mon basis of all human existence, — luiiversalia in re, — a real- 
 ism which finds in Christ's assumption of our nature the con- 
 dition of bearing our evils and even of drawing more closely 
 that earlier and divine bond, by virtue of which, primarily, 
 he might stand in our place before God. We notice then : 
 
 (a) Natural science is essentially realistic. The descent of 
 individuals from a common origin testifies that species is 
 more than a succession of individuals ; it is an entity per- 
 petuated through individuals. The real existence of species 
 is testified positively by the persistence of type, negatively 
 by the uniform inability of animal hybrids to perpetuate a 
 breach of type. This physical evidence for the entity of 
 race is corroborated by — 
 
 {b) The moral sentiment of solidarity. Instinctive in sav- 
 ages, it is highly developed in the civilized. Nor does it rest 
 solely on the physical fact of a common origin. It would 
 acknowledge as a man a creature just like ourselves from any 
 world. It is also a wise and honorable sentiment ; because — 
 
 (c) The highest and best of our faculties as earthly beings 
 are the social faculties whose activities knit us together. We 
 are next to nothing except as parts of a whole. 
 
 In no hazy, speculative sense, then, but in conscious and 
 
THE ATONEMENT 229 
 
 felt reality, human nature is a vast unit, capable of receiving 
 the divine Logos, and suitable for him to put on. As he did 
 so, pre-existent relations of his being to ours made it impos- 
 sible for Christ to be merely a specimen man, or less than 
 the Son of Man, the second Adam, the true representative 
 of all human kind. Being therefore in deepest reality the 
 representative of both God and man — 
 
 II. Christ actually bore the sins of men. 
 
 1. As matter of history Christ bore the sin of the world. 
 Coming to recover a revolted race, he first declared in full 
 the law of God, and demanded submission to himself as the 
 Anointed of God. Such demands drove rebellion to extremi- 
 ties. The husbandmen said, " This is the heir ; let us kill 
 him, and the inheritance shall be ours." Then sin culmi- 
 nated in the crucifixion. 
 
 It was a bearing of all sin, not through a reckoning to 
 Christ of our several acts of sin, but by virtue of the fact that 
 sin, as a principle of antagonism to God, went all lengths 
 against him whom God had sent (John 6 : 29, cf. 3 : 18). 
 Instead of the perplexing artifice of an immediate imputa- 
 tion, we meet here the deepest reality. The only impulse 
 which drives any one into sinning, that common impulse which 
 makes the breaking of one law the breaking of all law (James 
 2 : 10), the impulse of self-willed opposition to the holy God, 
 broke forth in the hour and the power of darkness against 
 Christ as the representative of God ; and so, in the literal- 
 ness of a historically working principle, was " laid on him the 
 iniquity of us all " (Isa. 53 : 6). 
 
 2. Ethically also Christ bore the sin of the world. 
 
 (a) As one of the limitations imposed by the human upon 
 the divine in his person, Christ accepted whatever moral 
 
230 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 evils were compatible with his paternity. The only such evil 
 of which we have evidence was his liability to be tempted in 
 all points like as we are. " The likeness of sinful flesh " 
 (Rom. 8 : 3) was not a likeness but a reality of flesh, and a 
 likeness, not a reality, of sin. This likeness without the 
 reality of sin was a participation in our moral liabilities. 
 
 How extreme this constitutional penalty was may be seen 
 in the fact that temptation addressed Jesus as the con- 
 sciously divine. Such were the temptations in the wilder- 
 ness, renewed at the close of his mission, each corresponding 
 to each, in the suggestion that possibly the cup might pass 
 from him ; in the knowledge that twelve legions of angels 
 were ready to deliver him ; and in the peculiarly Satanic 
 challenge of priests and scribes, " Let him now come down 
 from the cross and we will believe on him " (Matt. 27 : 42). 
 That to be thus tempted was inconceivably painful, none can 
 doubt. He "suffered being tempted" (Heb. 2 : 18). But 
 that the consciousness of divinity should expose him to such 
 trials was possible only under human limitation of the divine. 
 It was the dreadful penalty of union with our nature (James 
 I : 1 3) ; and so by the very constitution of his person he 
 bore the sins of the race ethically. 
 
 (d) But that union which imposed limitations upon the 
 divine so enlarged the powers of the human that Christ bore 
 the burden of human sin upon his sympathies to an extent 
 impossible for a mere man. Identifying himself with us, and 
 undertaking to deliver us from sin, he felt the extent of the 
 calamity which he sought to repair. Many recent thinkers 
 find in his sympathy the only endurance of our guilt. We 
 welcome the insight they offer into the heart of our Lord, 
 but cannot limit the burden of sin to his grief at it. 
 
 (c) A woe for which we cannot with certainty account, and 
 
THE ATONEMENT 23I 
 
 at which he was himself astonished, deepens the mystery of 
 his death : he lost the sense of his Father's presence. The 
 fact is not affected by attempted explanations. Whether 
 from a consciously vicarious relation to sinners, or from com- 
 pleteness of sympathy with them ; whether from horror at 
 death as due to sinners, but violently unnatural to the Holy 
 One and the Just, or from mere physical exhaustion ; it is 
 certain that at the last his soul was filled with horror of " the 
 outer darkness." In any case this was occasioned by the 
 sins of men. Human guilt could lay on him no further bur- 
 den. He had tasted of the second death and the sacrifice 
 was complete. 
 
 It is not necessary to suppose that the anger of God was 
 poured out upon him, as many orthodox theologians, without 
 warrant of Scripture, have overboldly asserted. On the con- 
 trary, the Father loved him because he laid down his life (John 
 10 : 17). Nor was Jesus suffering remorse for our sins. Re- 
 morse is an extremely painful sense of personal wickedness. 
 Yet the outcry of Jesus showed that consciousness of inno- 
 cence did not save him from feeling that he was forsaken. 
 
 Now when the enmity of sinners broke forth upon the Son 
 of God, it would seem that uttermost vengeance must fall 
 upon our ruined race. The cross was in fact the condem- 
 nation of sin. This was uniformly proclaimed in the early 
 preaching of Peter, Stephen, and Paul, and was understood 
 by their hearers. It is therefore necessary to inquire how, in 
 bearing our sins — 
 
 III. Christ offered an acceptable sacrifice for sin. The in- 
 quiry is twofold : (i) How the bearing of sin could serve as 
 an expiation ; (2) why the expiation may be regarded as 
 complete. 
 
232 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 I. The sin-bearing ivas expiatory. That it had not solely 
 the etfect of condemning sinners is assured by the facts that 
 " God commendeth his own love toward us in that while we 
 were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom. 5 8, cf. i John 
 4: 10); and that, though in laying down his life Christ ful- 
 filled a commandment received from the Father (John 
 10 : 18), he no less laid it down of himself. The voluntariness 
 df the sacrifice may not show how the crucifixion was an 
 offering for sin, but it assures us of the fact. He " came . . . 
 to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45, cf. John 
 
 How the crucifixion was an expiation as well as a con- 
 demnation is to be gathered from the doubly representative 
 nature and ofifices of Christ. Primarily it condemned sin, 
 because it was inflicted upon the representative of God ; but 
 it was also a sacrifice for sin, inasmuch as it was accepted 
 by the representative of man. When Christ died for all, then 
 all died. 
 
 Though the effects of these relations are contrasted, they 
 are inseparable. Christ acted and suffered in man's place, 
 only when he acted and suffered as representing God. He 
 bore for us historically the consequences of sin, the extreme 
 outrage of wickedness, precisely in this, that wickedness was 
 directed against the Anointed of God. The cross became a 
 propitiation by being a condemnation. The common factor 
 of these contraries was the suffering for sin. It was a suf- 
 fering for all sin, since all sin was summed up in the violent 
 rejection of the Christ ; and the evils thus borne were an ex- 
 piation, because they came upon our actual representative. 
 
 2. Was the offering adequate f This is in every way 
 assured. 
 
THE ATONEMENT 233 
 
 (a) Since he came to give his life a ransom, it is incredible 
 that the ransom should be insufficient. Before the cruci- 
 fixion the disciples thought too highly of him to endure his 
 own attempts to prepare them for his death ; after the resur- 
 rection they thought so much more highly of him that they 
 could not well regard the cross as less than an adequate 
 sacrifice for the sins of the world. And in our day many 
 who protest that the atonement is to them a complete mys- 
 tery, yet so honor Christ that they gladly rest in the suffi- 
 ciency of whatever he actually undertook. 
 
 (d) More specifically, if the dignity of his person deepened 
 the outrage of the cross, it heightened the worth of the sac- 
 rifice. That the sufficiency of the sacrifice is due to the 
 infinite worth of the sufferer is elaborately argued in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. We may affirm of the procuring 
 cause in redemption as well as of the goodness which gave 
 it, that "where sin abounded, grace superabounded." 
 
 (c) The Father's approval of the Son secures the accept- 
 ance of the offering. Grace is " freely bestowed on us in the 
 beloved." (We are "accepted in the beloved." A. V. Eph. 
 I : 6). Those early Socinians were not altogether wrong who 
 affirmed that God rewarded the obedience of Christ with the 
 privilege of forgiving sinners. And quite at the opposite 
 pole of theology, they who regard the active obedience of 
 Christ as imputed to the elect cannot be mistaken thus far : 
 to wit, that the approved person of the intercessor adds effect 
 to his intercession. 
 
 (d) The resurrection of our Lord gives completeness to 
 his propitiatory work. Had he sunk under the burden of our 
 sins to rise no more, that result would have been fatal to 
 sinners also. If Christ be not raised, our faith is vain, we 
 are yet in our sins (i Cor. 15 : 17). But "he exhausted thQ 
 
234 "^^^ ATONEMENT 
 
 penalty." The pains of death could not hold him (Acts 
 2 : 24) ; and when " he ascended on high he led captivity 
 captive " (Eph. 4 : 8). 
 
 Thus we see that, while in laying their offenses upon 
 Christ as the representative of God, men have completed 
 their own condemnation, Christ in accepting that burden as 
 the representative of mankind has offered an adequate ex- 
 piation. But whether the sinner shall be condemned or 
 redeemed by the cross, depends upon his own attitude. If 
 he persists in rejecting Christ, he identifies himself with the 
 crucifiers ; but through submission and trust he himself is 
 "crucified with Christ" (Gal. 2 : 20). We note, therefore, — 
 
 IV. 77^1? atonement is adapted to the moral retiewal of 
 believers. The entire work of Christ is fitted to this end. 
 
 1. His teachings have a renovating power which did not 
 belong to the ancient law. So long as the law but partially 
 reveals God it has an appearance of arbitrariness, takes the 
 form of positive requirement, and so far renders obedience 
 constrained and irksome. On the contrary, the thorough- 
 going and heart-searching requirements of Jesus are felt to 
 be the appropriate and necessary demands of a holy God, 
 until now at length all men acknowledge their charm. The 
 teaching and example of Christ, in thus furnishing the ideal 
 and begetting the desire for righteousness, prepare the first 
 condition and provide a fit instrument for the moral renewal 
 of men. The truth makes the disciples free (John 8 : 32). 
 
 2. In thus fully and authoritatively revealing God, Jcstis 
 becomes the Master. It would be impossible to depend upon 
 any one for instruction on so all-important matters, and 
 avoid accepting his control. The disciples of Christ in all 
 
THE ATONEMENT 235 
 
 ages call him Lord, and joyfully accept his transforming 
 power. 
 
 3. Both the teaching and the personal ascendency of Christ 
 culminate at the cross. 
 
 (a) Here, he completes the revelation, on the one hand, of 
 the holiness and the grace of God ; on the other hand, of the 
 wickedness but also ^f the worth of man. 
 
 (Jf) Here, by making propitiation for sinfulness unto holi- 
 ness, the Crucified establishes himself in our hearts as Lord, 
 fulfilling the deep and beautiful thought of the psalm : 
 "There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared " 
 (Ps. 1 30 : 4). Every step of the process is of profound im- 
 portance. The assurance of forgiveness heals the paralysis 
 of guilt ; detestation for sin crucifies the world unto us, us 
 unto the world ; gratitude persuades to obedience, and faith 
 passes from a mere acceptance of pardon into a transforming 
 energy. 
 
 4. Finally, we may understand in part how the resurrection 
 of Christ is a source to us of spiritual life. Enthroning the 
 Messiah (Rom. 1:4; Eph. i :2o; Phil. 2:9-11), it sum- 
 mons us to submission (Acts 5 : 31); completing the atone- 
 ment (John 10 : 17 ; Rom. 4:25; 8 : 34; Eph. 4 : 8), and 
 showing that it is complete (Heb. 10 : 12, cf. 9 : 28), it invites 
 our faith (Rom. 8 : 34; Heb. 6 : 19, 20; 7:25; i Peter i : 
 3); assuring us of immortality in Christ (i Cor. i 5 : 20), it is 
 a pledge of the always associated idea of a true ethical life in 
 him (John 14 : 19, 20; Rom, 6 : 8-1 1 ; 8 : 2, 10, 1 1 ; Eph. 
 2:5; Phil. 3 : 10-12; Col. 3 :3, 4). 
 
 We conclude in general : 
 
 I. Since Christ, the actual representative of men, by bear- 
 ing the penal consequences of sin made full expiation for it, 
 
236 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT 
 
 God withdraws all objective marks of his displeasure from 
 those who accept his grace. 
 
 2. The subjective penalties of sin are removed by the re- 
 medial energy of a new life, derived from Christ through the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 3. The cross, considered solely as imposed upon the 
 Anointed of God, demands the destruction of our guilty race ; 
 considered solely as accepted by the substitute of the race, it 
 would ensure impunity for sin. Its counter-demands are 
 reconciled in acceptance of Christ and in the attendant sub- 
 mission to him/ 
 
 § 46. Necessity of the Atonement. 
 
 It has long been urged that, even if man had not sinned, 
 the incarnation would have been needed either for the per- 
 fecting of the universe or for the full revelation of God. But 
 there are grave objections : 
 
 (a) The Scripture indicates no occasion for the incarnation 
 other than sin. 
 
 (d) It is hard to believe that God could not bring his works 
 to perfection without subjecting the Logos to the limitations 
 of our nature. The incarnation was to retrieve from a lapse, 
 not to cure an inherent defect ; it was an intervention, not 
 an evolution. 
 
 As to the necessity of atonement an important distinction 
 must be made. 
 
 ' Whether the four propositions in which an attempt has been made to set forth 
 a theory of the atonement are satisfactory in that view or not, they call attention 
 to facts, a recognition of which is of moment to the preacher as well as the theo- 
 logian. It is matter of fact that Christ by virtue of both his natures stood a.s our 
 representative before God; it is matter of fact that he bare our sins; it is sheer 
 fact that the cross which condemned all sin offers expiation for all ; it is a fact 
 that the atonement avails to transform our affections as well as to purge our guilt. 
 
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT 237 
 
 By it may be meant either that God was in some way coH' 
 strained to furnish atonement, or that without an atonement 
 men could not be saved. 
 
 I. If it be asked whether an atonement was due from God, 
 we may confidently reply that it was not due to man. Man 
 can claim justice, but by justice he is condemned. Relatively 
 to the sinner, atonement is a free gift (Rom. 5 : 15-17). 
 
 But was God under any obligation to furnish a means of 
 redemption which men could not claim } To answer this 
 question we must recollect that the ultimate standard of 
 moral obligation is the nature of God himself. Thus the 
 question becomes, Was God constrained by his own nature to 
 give his Son } We reply — 
 
 1 . We know that God, self-moved ( i John 4 : 9), and in 
 fulfillment of his own eternal purpose (Acts 2:23; i Peter 
 I : 19, 20; Rev. 13 : 8), has provided an atonement which 
 reveals his power, wisdom, holiness, and love. Justice also 
 required atonement as a condition of forgiving sin ; but did 
 justice impel God to meet that condition by providing the 
 atonement .'' When we recollect that what is well for any 
 being cannot be anything else than what is fit for him, we are 
 assured that benevolence and justice move under different 
 impulsions toward the same end.^ But if the question 
 arise — 
 
 2. Would it have been compatible with the nature of God 
 to withhold the atonement .-* We must reply that the Script- 
 ure is silent on this point, and conjecture would be hazardous, 
 if not unlawful. The utmost we are at liberty to say is that, 
 
 1 In God is complete unity of necessity and freedom. Grace is necessary only 
 as it is free in him ; it is free only as it is necessary to him ; but the necessity and 
 the freedom are found in the divine spontaneity. God must act out himseJ^ 
 
238 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT 
 
 having undertaken to bring many sons unto glory, " it became 
 him (^k'rtfjenz aurtfi) for whom and by whom are all things [that 
 is, it was suitable to his nature and relations] to make the 
 author of their salvation perfect through sufferings " (Heb 
 2 : 10). If the atonement was costly, we are warranted in 
 holding that to make a costly sacrifice was as appropriate in 
 God as it was requisite for man. 
 
 II. That the atonement is indispensable for the redemption 
 of man is evident from the facts : 
 
 1. An atonement was provided. Paul assures the Galatians 
 that, •• If a law had been given which could make alive, verily 
 righteousness would have been of the law" (Gal. 3 : 21). 
 And Peter says, " Neither is there any other name under 
 heaven, that is given among men in which we must be saved " 
 (Acts 4 : 12); that is, it is necessary to man to be saved by 
 this name. Our Lord himself demanded of his disciples after 
 his resurrection, "Was it not necessary that the Christ 
 should suffer these things, and enter into his glory " (Luke 
 24 : 26). 
 
 2. T/ie claims of Justice would still hold against the sinner, 
 if Christ had not actually and adequately taken his place (Rom. 
 3:26; Gal. 3:13)- 
 
 Now, in declaring the righteousness of God by means of a 
 "propitiation (Rom. 3:25), the atonement met the further dif- 
 ficulty that — 
 
 3. To forgive sinners without an expiation would be to im- 
 pefil the divine government. But through the cross of Christ 
 God " magnified the law and made it honorable " (Isa. 42 : 
 21 ; Rom. 10 : 4). 
 
 4. The purpose of God as a holy Being, as a sovereign 
 Ruler or as a gracious Benefactor would remain unfulfilled. 
 
EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT 239 
 
 and human needs unmet, if believers were to continue in sin. 
 The atonement is the only effective instrument to break, 
 through the Holy Spirit, the bonds of sin (Rom. 6 : i-i i ; 2 
 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2 : 20 ; i Peter 3 : 18). 
 
 5. If the question arise how the needs of the Old Testa- 
 ment worthies were met in the atonement, we may reply 
 that — 
 
 {a) So far as the atonement has Godward efficacy, as an 
 offering to the divine justice, it is retroactive. Paul says ex- 
 pressly that it had reference to "sins done aforetime" (Rom. 
 3:25, cf. Heb. 9:15, 26). 
 
 {b) So far as its efficacy is man ward, that is, serves to win 
 men from sin, the atonement cannot help those who never 
 hear the good news (Rom. 10 : 13-15), whether they are 
 ancient Israelites or modern heathen. In this regard the 
 greatest among them is less than " the least in the kingdom 
 of heaven" (Matt. 11 : 11, cf. Heb. 11 : 39, 40). And yet 
 those who, in any age and under any degree of ignorance, are 
 persuaded of the divine love, may love God because he first 
 loved us (I John 4 : 19). 
 
 § 47. Extent of the Atonement. 
 
 In the discussion of this topic, two questions are involved : 
 I. Was the atonement intended for all men } 2. Was it ade- 
 ' quate for all .■* 
 
 I. In respect of the divine purpose, the atonement may be 
 called either "general" or "particular." The new Testa- 
 ment declares with equal distinctness that Christ died for all 
 men, and that he died in a special sense for some men. Thus, 
 on the one hand, we are told that " God so loved the world 
 that he gave his only begotten Son " (John 3 : 16, cf. i John 
 4 : 14) ; that "he died for all" (2 Cor. 5:15, cf. ver. 19), 
 
240 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT 
 
 that he "gave himself a ransom for all " (i Tim. 2 • 6) ; that 
 God "wishes all men to be saved " (i Tim. 2 : 4), and that 
 Jesus, " by the grace of God, might taste death for every 
 one " (Heb. 2 : 9). On the other hand, Christ said, " I lay 
 down my life for the sheep" (John 10 : 15), and Paul wrote 
 that Christ "loved the church and gave himself for it " (Eph. 
 5 : 25, cf. Acts 20 : 28). Both aspects of the case are 
 presented together in i Tim. 4 : 10; "the living God . . . 
 is Saviour of all men, especially of believers." 
 
 Without pretending to know how these different phases of 
 truth harmonize, we conclude that the purpose of the atone- 
 ment is general, in so far as God is " not wishing that any 
 should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 
 Peter 3:9); and that it is particular, in so far as human 
 destiny " is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, 
 but of God that hath mercy" (Rom. 9 : 16). 
 
 2, As to the adequacy of the atonement for all men there 
 can be no reasonable doubt. Recalling its provisions — 
 
 {a) We do not find that the burden laid upon Christ was 
 graduated to the number of persons who were to be saved. 
 On the contrary, we are expressly assured of its sufficiency 
 for all : " One died for all, therefore all died " (2 Cor. 5 : 14); 
 Jesus Christ " is a propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
 only, but also for the whole world " (i John 2 : 2). 
 
 {b) The gospel is as fit an instrument for the spiritual re- 
 newal of all as of any, who do not reject it. 
 
 The summary statement long familiar among Calvinists is 
 therefore satisfactory ; namely, that the atonement is suffi- 
 cient for all men, efficient for the elect.' 
 
 * Is the atonement applicable to other fallen races in other worlds ? Whether 
 God means to save such races, if such there be, is matter of speculation ; but as 
 to the fitness of the atonement we may say — 
 
THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST 
 
 241 
 
 § 48. The Intercession of Christ. 
 
 Having finished on earth the priestly function of sacrifice, 
 Christ assumed in heaven the priestly office of intercession 
 (Rom. 8 : 34). He began to exercise this office while yet 
 upon earth, although he had not yet completed the work on 
 which the special efficacy of his intercession depends. He 
 prayed for Simon that his faith might not fail (Luke 22 : 32), 
 and the seventeenth chapter of John is his prayer of inter- 
 cession for the church. 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews elaborates this doctrine from 
 the point of view furnished by the law of Moses. On the 
 great Day of Atonement, while the high priest was making 
 expiation in the Holy of Holies, all other sacrifices were sus- 
 pended in deference to the sufficiency of that in which the 
 high priest was engaged, and no one besides him was per- 
 mitted in the tabernacle (Lev, 16 : 17). In like manner 
 Christ, the perpetual high priest, alone and continually pre- 
 sents to God in the true temple the sufficient sacrifice which 
 he had made once for all (Heb. 7 : 24-28 ; 8 : i to 10 : 22). 
 
 In I John 2 ; i the intercession of Christ is represented 
 as that of an advocate for his clients. 
 
 These various representations ought not to be taken liter 
 ally. Christ is not to be regarded as incessantly making peti- 
 tion for his saints, all and each ; nor as endorsing at the same 
 instant to th« Father the various prayers which are inces- 
 
 (a) Col. I : 20 states that the reconciliation is wide as the universe; Phil. 2 : 9- 
 1 1 that, in consequence of his humiliation, all beings shall bow to Christ and con- 
 fess him Lord ; while Eph. 3 : 10 tells us that the wise plan of redemption is 
 made known in the heavenly realms through the church. It would therefore seem 
 applicable to all whom God may will to save, and may make it known to. 
 
 (6) It is hard to believe that God would submit the Son to a succession of incar- 
 nations and deaths, to an accumulation of natures, or to the abandonment of his 
 humao nature. In a word, if speculation on this theme is idle, it is not formidable. 
 
 V 
 
242 THE ORDO SALUTIS 
 
 santly offered in his name ; nor as perpetually recalling to the 
 Father's notice the sacrifice made on Calvary. And yet his 
 intercession is equivalent to all this. It may perhaps be best 
 conceived as so complete an identification of Christ with be- 
 lievers that, on the one hand, he is their perpetual surety 
 unto God ; and, on the other hand, a sufficient assurance to 
 them that God will accept the petitions which they offer in 
 the name of Christ, as if he were offering them for himself 
 (John 14 : 13, 14 ; 16 : 24, 26 ; Eph, 5 : 20 ; Heb. 7 : 22 ; 
 I John 2 : 12). 
 
 If the completeness of the atonement would seem to make 
 intercession unnecessary, on the other hand, atonement iden- 
 tifies us with Christ and makes intercession appropriate. 
 
 § 49. The Ordo Salutis. 
 
 Having studied the atonement and intercession of Christ, 
 we have next to consider how these become available to the 
 individual. The reply constitutes the Doctrines of Grace. 
 The order of their presentation follows whatever is regarded 
 as the true Ordo Salutis. Regeneration is often allowed 
 precedence over justification, on the ground that it is impos- 
 sible for the unrenewed heart to exercise faith, the chief con- 
 dition of being justified. 
 
 But it would seem more natural for justification to clear 
 away the ruins of the old life before regeneration lays the 
 foundation of the new life ; particularly, since the chief objec- 
 tion urged against a moral influence theory of atonement is 
 that the guilt of the past must be cancelled before future 
 obedience can either be secured, or could be accepted ; and 
 until the sinner is justified, his guilt remains. The only im- 
 perative reason for giving the first place to regeneration is 
 met, if the divine conditions of individual salvation, namely. 
 
KLECTION AND CAI^LING 24^ 
 
 election and calling, are placed before the human conditions, 
 namely, repentance and faith. 
 
 For these and other considerations the best order of study 
 would seem to be the following : Firsty the conditions of in- 
 dividual salvation: namely, the divine conditions, election 
 and calling ; the human conditions, repentance and faith ; 
 secondly, the content of individual salvation: namely, justifi- 
 cation, regeneration, and the divine and the human aspects of 
 edification, to wit, sanctification and perseverance. 
 
 § 50. Election and Calling. 
 
 The salvation provided for all is secured by but part of our 
 race. This result is referred by the Scriptures to the sover- 
 eignty of God and the depravity of man. How these factors 
 in the problem are related has been for the fifteen hundred 
 years since Augustine a theme of vehement controversy. 
 Not content with the explicit teachings of the Bible, every 
 party to the controversy has pushed its inferences into the 
 unrevealed secrets of the Divine mind, and, while it has 
 warned others that we cannot understand the relations of the 
 Infinite to the finite, has used this fact for the defense, rather 
 than for the correction, of its own theories. As to no other 
 doctrine is it more important to distinguish between what 
 the Bible plainly teaches and what is but more or less prob- 
 ably inferred from the Bible, from Christian experience, or 
 from philosophy. 
 
 The strict Calvinistic scheme teaches that God from eter- 
 nity predestined certain men to eternal life, and, passing over 
 others (pretention), condemned them to eternal death (repro- 
 bation) ; that the selection of those who are to be saved was 
 in every case a sovereign decree, uninfluenced by what God 
 foreknew concerning the elect ; and that while a general or 
 
^44 EI^ECTION AND CALLING 
 
 outward call to obedience and faith is bestowed on all men, 
 the elect are delivered from the bondage of sin by a special 
 and inward call of the Holy Spirit, a call which becomes ef- 
 fectual against native depravity only by being irresistible. 
 
 These positions have been objected to, in whole or in 
 part, by all anti-Augnstinian Romanists and anti-Calvinistic 
 Protestants : by Pelagians, on the ground that every man has 
 full power to choose or to turn from sin ; by semi-Pelagians, 
 on the ground that, although weakened by the fall, man is 
 able to attempt, and upon attempting receives divine grace to 
 achieve, his own conversion ; by the council of Trent, upon 
 the ground that the human will co-operated with the Holy 
 Spirit in regeneration ; by Lutherans, on the ground that, 
 although the human will does not co-operate with the Holy 
 Spirit, it does not in all cases reject the Spirit, and that, al- 
 though disabled by natural depravity from choosing righteous- 
 ness, man is able to choose the means of grace ; by early 
 Arminians, on the ground that man has ability by nature, 
 by Wesleyans, on the ground that, in consequence of the 
 atonement, he has ability by grace, to accept the gospel ; by 
 all objectors, on the ground that God elected, individually or 
 collectively, those who, as he foresaw, would believe in 
 Christ. 
 
 The problem is three-fold : as to individual election ; as to 
 conditions of election ; as to execution of election. 
 
 I. FACT OF ELECTION. 
 
 I. As to the Elect. 
 
 While the Scriptures teach that God predestinated certain 
 persons to special functions in his kingdom, as the Hebrew 
 patriarchs, David and his house, and the Apostle Paul, the his- 
 
ELECTION AND CALLING 245 
 
 toric doctrine of election is that God from eternity predes- 
 tined certain men to be saved. Individual election is repre- 
 sented in the New Testament as— 
 
 (a) A direct inference from the sovereignty of God. " He 
 hath mercy on whom he will " (Rom. 9:18); "foreordained 
 according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after 
 the counsel of his will " (Eph. i : 11, cf. ver. 5). 
 
 (d) The first step in salvation by grace. "Who saved 
 us . . . not according to our works, but according to his 
 own purpose, and the grace which was given us in Christ 
 Jesus before eternal ages" (2 Tim. i : 9, cf. Rom. 9 : 16). 
 "The election of grace" (Rom. 11 : 5). 
 
 (c) The security for benefits — " All things work together 
 for good to those . . . who are called according to his pur- 
 pose " (Rom. 8 : 28, cf. ver. 29, 30) — and the assurance of 
 safety — "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's 
 elect?" (Ver. 33.) Election is therefore presented as — 
 
 (dj An occasion for thanksgiving and joy. " We ought to 
 give thanks to God always for you . . . because God from 
 the beginning chose you to salvation " (2 Thess. 2:13). 
 
 So unmistakably is election of individuals unto life taught 
 in the New Testament, that the dispute among candid exe- 
 getes is rarely now concerning the fact of election, but con- 
 cerning its grounds or conditions. 
 
 2. As fo the Non-elect. 
 
 Are any foreordained to sin and perish .-* Texts are not 
 wanting which have been so understood. Thus, in the ninth 
 chapter of Romans, Paul accounts for the rejection of Israel 
 by arguing from the case of Pharaoh, whose heart God hard- 
 ened, that "whom he will he hardeneth " (ver. 17, 18), and 
 further asserts that God may be willing " to show his wrath 
 
246 ELECTION AND CALLING 
 
 and to make his power known . . . (on) vessels of wrath 
 fitted to destruction " (ver. 22, cf. i Pet. 2 : 8). 
 
 But the same narrative in Exodus (ch. 7-1 1) tells us that 
 Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and that God's share in 
 this result was simply to grant the tyrant " respite " by re- 
 moving the plagues ; while the sombre ninth of Romans 
 itself closes its account of Israel's failure by ascribing it to 
 unbelief (ver. 31, 32). As though Paul intended to warn us 
 against taking in bald literalness the sayings that lay a sin- 
 ner's ruin to the will of God, he quotes Psalm 69 : " Let 
 their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling- 
 block," and at once adds, "I say then, did they stumble in 
 order that they might fall 1 Far be it " (Rom. 11 : 9-1 1). 
 
 The question for us is not, How reconcile these seemingly 
 inharmonious passages .'' but, Why infer from any of them a 
 doctrine adverse to the general tenor of the Bible, while the 
 disproof of such an inference is afforded by the context ? 
 The expressions formerly appealed to in support of predesti- 
 nation to sin and perdition are therefore inconclusive, and not 
 the less so because they remain a mystery. 
 
 The doctrine of predestination is strongly reinforced by 
 Natural Theology. The argument is brief and cogent : God 
 foreknew what would come of creating the human race, and 
 he created it. If this does not involve a purpose to create 
 some who would be saved, and others who would be lost, 
 forethought can have no relation to purpose. But while the 
 good which falls to some must have been intended, the evil 
 which comes to others need be regarded only as allowed.* 
 
 ' Two views have been held among Calvinists as to the logical, not temporal, 
 order of decrees. 
 
 According to Supralapsarianism, God decreed that some human beings should 
 
ELECTION AND CALLING 247 
 
 II. CONDITIONS OF ELECTION. 
 
 Passing by the certainty that those who were foreordained 
 to functions were selected in view of their foreseen fitness, 
 we reach the vital issue in the controversy over election, 
 Why did God select some men to be saved rather than others } 
 The Bible does not give the answer, and reason has only con- 
 jectured it. Taking care to distinguish what we may claim 
 to know from what we only infer, we conclude : 
 
 I. Predestination to eternal Uie is p\a.in\y conditioned ii/>on 
 the foreknowledge of God. Peter calls those to whom he 
 wrote, " elect according to the foreknowledge of God " (i 
 Peter i : 2). Paul's familiar language is, " Whom he foreknew 
 he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son " 
 (Rom. 8 : 29). Whatever else " foreknow " may mean, it 
 means foreknow. This does not affect the divine autonomy 
 in election. God need not act blindly in order to act freely,* 
 
 be saved unto the glory of his grace, and others lost unto the glory of his justice ; 
 that to this end he would create the human race ; that he would permit the fall ; 
 that he would provide an atonement for the elect. This doctrine is called" Supra- 
 lapsarian," because it teaches that the decree of election logically precedes the de- 
 cree to permit the fall. 
 
 Sublapsarianism (or Infralapsarianism) holds that the decree to elect followed 
 the decree of the fall, and is the usual doctrine, so far as the order of decrees now 
 engages attention. It takes two forms : 
 
 {a) Those who hold to particular atonement place the decrees in the following 
 order : the decree to create, to permit the fall, to save some, to provide atonement 
 for the elect. 
 
 {b) For those who contend that election is in Christ, and that atonement is gen- 
 eral, the following has been proposed as the true order : the deciee to create, to 
 permit the fall, to provide atonement, to secure its acceptance by some. 
 
 ' Dr. Charles Hodge thus states the harmony of this doctrine of foreknowledge 
 with strict Calvinism : " The predestination follows and is grounded on the fore- 
 knowledge. The foreknowledge therefore expresses the act of cognition or recog- 
 nition, the fixing, so to speak, the mind upon, which involves the idea of selec- 
 tion." — Hodge on Romans, p. ^7. 
 
248 EIvECTlON AND CALLING 
 
 It is, indeed, objected that he cannot know a future event 
 as certain until it has been made certain by his decree ; but 
 the sufficient reply is, God knows how to choose only by 
 foreknowing what would be involved in the different plans 
 between which he may choose. 
 
 2. None arc elect on account of foreseen merit. Election is 
 wholly of grace. For this reason the doctrine of election is 
 prized as a "doctrine of grace." To this effect is the lan- 
 guage of Paul : " . . . the election of grace. And if by 
 grace, it is no longer of works ; otherwise the grace becomes 
 no longer grace " (Rom. 1 1 : 5, 6 ; 9 : 1 1 ; Eph. i : 6 ; 2 Tim. 
 
 1:9). 
 
 3. Although God is sovereign, he is not capricious ; he does 
 not choose without sufficient reason. As to what his reasons 
 are, two accounts have been inferred and are met by opposite 
 inferences. 
 
 {a) Because he is sovereign, his reasons cannot lie outside 
 himself ; but it is replied that, because he is unchangeable, 
 his reasons cannot exist within himself — his relations to other 
 beings must turn on differences in them. 
 
 {b) Human ill-desert proves that they cannot be in man ; 
 but, on the other hand, the gift of his Son for all proves 
 that they cannot exclude any man. Therefore — 
 
 4. Anti-Calvinists argue that the ground of selection is the 
 foreseen faith of those who are to be saved. 
 
 {a) A scripture cited is that " as many as received Christ, 
 he gave to them the right to become children of God, to 
 them that believe on his name" (John i : 12); but to this 
 it is replied that " as many as were appointed unto eternal 
 life believed" (Acts 13 : 48). If the invitations of the gos- 
 pel seem to imply that the salvation of any man turns on his 
 own free choice, it is objected that "a natural man receives 
 
ELECTION AND CALLING 249 
 
 not the things of the Spirit of God, , . . and he cannot 
 know them " (i Cor. 2:14). Support for this view is sought 
 from — 
 
 {b) The relation of election to other doctrines. Almost all 
 agree that faith itself is wrought in man by the Holy Spirit, 
 but anti-Calvinists claim that the heart is not altogether pas- 
 sive in accepting the gift of faith. We could know whether 
 faith on man's part is a condition of election, if we could 
 know whether the soul is entirely passive under the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit. To this form the issue always reduces. 
 But we reach here the third aspect of the doctrine. 
 
 in. EXECUTION OF ELECTION THE DIVINE CALLING. 
 
 The problem with which we pass to consideration of the 
 divine call cannot be solved ; we cannot know whether the 
 human will co-operates with the Holy Spirit in executing the 
 divine election, because we cannot know how the Holy Spirit 
 changes the heart. The Master himself so notified Nico^ 
 demus (John 3 : 8), and the effort to settle the long-debated 
 question is in disregard of his notification. 
 
 A special, inward, and irresistible call is inferred by Calvin- 
 ism from the total inability of the natural man to receive the 
 things of the Spirit ; while Wesleyanism infers from the atone- 
 ment that ability to accept the general call, though wanting 
 by nature, is restored to all by the Holy Spirit. For neither 
 of these positions is there any direct scriptural support. The 
 case stand thus : 
 
 (a) The coming of the Holy Spirit is ordinarily repre- 
 sented in the New Testament as a gift to the church ; yet 
 two passages inform us that he has a mission to the world. 
 Our Lord stated that this mission is to " convict the world 
 in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" 
 
250 ELECTION AND CALLING 
 
 (John 16 : 8-11). In performing this office the Spirit may 
 be resisted and repelled, as Stephen protested before the 
 council : " Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit : as your 
 fathers did, so do ye" (Acts 7 : 51). Yet the New Testa- 
 ment does not say, as Wesleyans do, that the Holy Spirit 
 confers on the world ability to accept the gospel, and that 
 this ability precedes a change of heart. But, on the other 
 hand, — 
 
 (<^) The New Testament nowhere declares, nor even inti- 
 mates, as Calvinists hold, that the general call of the Holy 
 Spirit is insufficient. And furthermore — 
 
 (c) It nowhere states that the efficient call is irresistible. 
 Psychologically, to speak of irresistible influence upon the fac- 
 ulty of self-determination in man is express contradiction in 
 terms. 
 
 No harm can come of acknowledging that we do not know 
 God's unrevealed reasons for electing one individual rather 
 than another unto eternal life. 
 
 A. The Calvinist need not deny that foreseen faith can be 
 the condition of election. 
 
 {a) His only evangelical interest is to avoid the doctrine 
 that men can be saved by works. But freedom of grace is 
 assured even though faith be a condition of election. Faith 
 is indeed a work, and a meritorious work (John 6 : 29) ; yet 
 in its relation to justification and salvation, faith is always 
 contrasted with works. Whatever its merit, that merit does 
 not here avail. Now if, without disparagement to grace, 
 faith can be the condition of justification, why might it not 
 be the condition of election } That it is such the Bible 
 nowhere states nor is there any other way of knowing ; but, 
 inasmuch as salvation is received as a gift only on condition 
 
REPENTANCE AND EAITH 25 1 
 
 of faith exercised, it is in purpose a gift, even if only on con- 
 dition of faith foreseen.^ 
 
 (b) Election is not the less sovereign if conditioned upon 
 foreknowledge of faith. 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 though men had no freedom, but it 
 leaves them as free as though there were no decree.'' 
 
 B. Anti-Calvinists need not insist that foreseen faith is the 
 condition of election. Their evangelical interest is in vindi- 
 cating the goodness of God and the possibility of salvation 
 for all. But, although the election and its grounds be as 
 secret as Calvinists insist, their secrecy does not imply that 
 they are evil, while the gift of Christ for all assures us that 
 no needful provision has been omitted (Rom. 8:32). 
 
 We conclude that individual election is certain, while the 
 conditions of election, and the processes of its execution, 
 are unknown. 
 
 § 51. Repentance and Faith. 
 
 When election by the Father has become operative through 
 effectual calling of the Holy Spirit, the sinner is enabled to 
 meet the indispensable conditions of his salvation : he repents 
 
 1 Foreseen faith would be excluded as a condition of election only in case faith, 
 which is the condition of every spiritual gift, were wrought in the sinner against 
 his will ; but against this supposition the least that can be said is that we do not 
 know it to be true. 
 
 ' Reason is confronted by the paradox that the divine decrees are at once abso- 
 lute and conditional ; the resolution of the paradox is that God absolutely decreed 
 a conditional system — a system, however, the workings of which he thoroughly 
 foreknows. 
 
252 REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
 
 of his offenses, and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. The 
 more obvious duty of repentance receives earlier prominence 
 in the Scriptures, and will be first considered. 
 
 I. REPENTANCE. 
 
 Of the two words in the New Testament for repenting, 
 fisTaiiiXoiiat is infrequently used, and signifies to feel an after- 
 care, that is, to change one's concern or interest, with regret 
 for the earlier choice. Meravoiio and fi-rd-^uia, which occur 
 many times, mean a change of mind about anything, in a 
 moral sense a changed conception, together with contrition 
 and a different course of life (see Cremer's " Bib. Thel. Lex.," 
 sud voce). These latter words thus imply the three elements 
 found in evangelical repentance ; namely, a new view, new 
 feelings, and new conduct — acts of intellect, of sensibility, 
 and of will. 
 
 1. Repentance normally begins with a fresh, even a sur- 
 prised recognition of disregarded facts ; the penitent is con- 
 victed "in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
 ment " (John 1 6 : 8). Conduct and aims are now surveyed 
 in the light in which God sees them. David received a new 
 view from Nathan's parable (2 Sam. I2 : 1-7) ; the prodigal 
 son came to a new view when " he came to himself " (Luke 
 15 : 17); new light arrested Saul of Tarsus on the road to 
 Damascus (Acts 9 : 1-9), and was so important as to be the 
 only specified cause of the most momentous conversion in 
 the history of the church. 
 
 2. Etnotiojt attends the amended estimate. It may be 
 alarm at the recognized danger of punishment, horror at the 
 enormity of sin, or longing for righteousness unattained. 
 An emotionless repentance is abnormal. 
 
 Yet a painful degree of fear, of self-reproach, or of yearn 
 
REPENTANCE AND FAITH ^53 
 
 ing for righteousness may be fruitlessly, even hurtfully, 
 suffered (Matt. 19 : 22 ; 27 : 3-5 ; 2 Cor. 7 : 10). To peni- 
 tence must therefore be added — 
 
 3. Amendment of life. Forgiveness is promised to those 
 who so deeply regret sin as to abandon it (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 
 55:7; Ezek. 33:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 1 5 : 7 ; 24 : 47 ; 
 Acts 3 : 19; 2 Cor. 7 : 10). We have distinct assurances 
 that the divine compassion is moved by thorough repentance 
 (Ps 51 : 17 ; Isa. 66 : 2 ; i John i : 9). 
 
 Yet it must not be imagined that forgiveness is earned by 
 sorrow. On the contrary, the deepest grief for sin is possible 
 only to one who has already experienced forgiveness. It is 
 the goodness of God which leads to repentance (Rom 2 : 4). 
 " Repentance toward God " springs from the same source as 
 "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20 : 21). 
 
 II. FAITH. 
 
 Faith appropriates the atonement. The doctrine of faith 
 therefore shows how the atonement does its work. It is the 
 key to soteriology. There is especial need in our day to 
 show that faith can meet the demand for ethical results, with- 
 out loosing our hold upon the Reformers' doctrine of justifi- 
 cation by faith. 
 
 I . The Nature of Evangelical Faith. 
 
 There is no obscurity as to the meaning of the word TrtVr:?, 
 or faith, as it occurs in the New Testament. It signifies 
 trust, or firm confidence in its object. But we cannot 
 entrust ourselves to an unseen Being unless he seems real to 
 us. Nor can we properly represent to ourselves as real a 
 Being of whose existence we are not reasonably assured. 
 Fa'*h, therefore, can be analyzed into three elements, the first 
 
 w 
 
254 REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
 
 of which, in the synthetic order about to be followed, is indis- 
 pensable to the second, the first and second indispensable to 
 the third. 
 
 A. Faith is primarily a kind of knowledge. It is a dis- 
 cernment of spiritual things. A purely intellectual process 
 cannot deal with such things, as it cannot with the right and 
 beautiful. And yet faith is not credence without proof : for, 
 like the right and the beautiful, spiritual things become objects 
 of knowledge through the use of an appropriate faculty.* 
 "Through faith we understand," -rziarti vood/iev (Heb. ii : 3). 
 
 Faith in this primary sense is repeatedly distinguished by 
 John from an acceptance of evidence addressed solely to the 
 intellect. On the evidence of his miracles the intellect of 
 many Jews accepted Christ as a "teacher sent from God" 
 (John 2 : 23 ; 3:2); but Christ distinguished this intellect- 
 ual certitude from the faith which discerns spiritual things, for 
 he " did not trust himself unto " those Jews (John 2 : 24) ; 
 on the contrary, he demanded of one of them, Nicodemus, 
 how he could believe if he were told of heavenly things (3 : 
 12 ; cf. 4 : 39 with 41, 42, also 12 : 37-40). 
 
 According to Paul, it is the insight of faith into spiritual 
 realities that delivers conscience from bondage to formalism 
 (Rom. 14 : I, 17, 22 ; i Cor. 8 ; GaX., passim ; Col. 2 : 6-23); 
 and to Timothy he asserts in memorable words that his own 
 fiiith amounts to knowledge (2 Tim. i : 12, cf 2 Cor. 4 : 
 2-4). Because apprehended only in this way, Christian truth 
 
 1 We cannot agree with Agnostics that religion is a matter of faith, not knowl- 
 edge ; nor with Roman Catholics, that faith is acceptance of truth beyond the 
 boundaries of knowledge ; for faith is knowledge of spiritual things by an appro- 
 priate faculty, while Agnostics and Romanists limit knowledge to intellection. The 
 error of many Disciples (Campbellites) is, contrariwise, to limit faith to intel- 
 lection. 
 
REPENTANCE AND FAITH 255 
 
 is often called "the Faith" (Eph. 4:13; i Tim. 3:914: 
 I ; 6:21; Titus I : 13, 14; 2 : 2 ; Jude 3). 
 
 Although the spiritually minded alone can search and know 
 "the deep things of God" (i Cor. 2 : 9-16), the unregener- 
 ate to some degree exercise this element of faith (i Cor. 14 : 
 24, 25). They feel assured that God exists, and their assur- 
 ance is ordinarily due not to arguments, but to insight through 
 moral feeling. And so far they apprehend the existence 
 of God as a spiritual reality, not as a merely provable fact. 
 
 We are not to infer that this cognitive element in faith is 
 the act of a special faculty. It is the act of one or more 
 among several faculties ; namely, of reason, moral sensibility, 
 aesthetic sensibility, and the affections. Thus the existence 
 of a Creator commends itself to the causal judgment ; an 
 infinitely holy being is the highest reality to conscience ; the 
 idea of a Most High is true to the faculty which wonders and 
 worships ; one worthy of all love is both demanded and rec- 
 ognized by the heart. Obviously, faith here apprehends 
 what is not cognizable by intellection alone ; yet the intel- 
 lect may reasonably admit the reality of knowledge through 
 the aid of other faculties as unhesitating and persistent as 
 itself. In this aspect faith is a " presentative " function. 
 
 B. A second element in faith is a vivid '* representation " 
 to one's self of those spiritual verities which are apprehended 
 by the first element in faith. This is sometimes called "^ 
 realizing sense*' of spiritual things. It is a religious use of 
 the imagination, an imaging not of fancies but of facts al- 
 ready verified, yet which without being thus imaged would 
 fail of their proper effect. 
 
 This is the element of faith defined in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (11 : i) as "assurance of things hoped for, convic- 
 
256 REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
 
 tion of things not seen." The entire chapter illustrates 
 this element in faith ; e. g., with Moses it was a " seeing of 
 him who is invisible" (ver. 27). It is when invisible things 
 are clearly discerned by the mind's eye that " we walk by 
 faith, not by sight " (2 Cor. 5 : 7), can forget the things be- 
 hind, and reach forth to the things before (Phil. 3 : 13), and 
 are able to " run . , . the race that is set before us, looking 
 unto Jesus" (Heb. 12 : i, 2). 
 
 C. The spiritual realities which the Holy Spirit enables us 
 both to cognize and realize become possible objects of trust — 
 the third and culminating element in faith. But this mean- 
 ing of the word is so familiar and undisputed in the usage 
 alike of the Bible and of the church, as to need no illus- 
 tration. 
 
 2. The Offices of Evangelical Faith. 
 
 These correspond to its elements. 
 
 (i) As faith is primarily an apprehension of spiritual 
 things, it offers, to begin with, every advantage that attends 
 the knowledge of such things. And as Christ is the sum of 
 Christian truth (John 14 : 6), faith first of all apprehends 
 what the "truth is in Jesus " (Eph. 4:21). Thus its primary 
 office is — 
 
 {a) To the penitent a necessary step toward " calling on 
 the name of the Lord" (Rom. 10 : 13, 14). 
 
 {b) To the believer it is a means of continual participation 
 in " eternal life," as found in knowing the only true God and 
 Jesus Christ whom he has sent (John 17:3, cf. 26). Paul 
 therefore might well " account all things to be loss for the 
 excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus " (Phil. 3 : 8, 
 cf. 2 Peter 3 : 18). 
 
REPENTANCE AND FAITH ^57 
 
 (2.) The office of faith as a realizing sense is often very im- 
 pressive : 
 
 A, To the penitent. Not only his own sinfulness and the 
 contrasted holiness of God, but also the offer of Jesus Christ 
 as his Saviour strike him as almost unheard-of realities. In- 
 deed, a lively idea of these facts is his first treatment of them 
 as real, and therefore his first opportunity to receive from 
 them a due impression. This memorable experience of 
 the "inquirer" it is the office of the religious use of the 
 imagination — 
 
 B. To render permanent for the believer. Faith as a re- 
 alizing sense makes Jesus a constant companion and his in- 
 fluence perennial (2 Cor. 3:18). It thus provides the three 
 prime factors in Christian excellence : 
 
 [a) It keeps alive the highest sentiments or ideals. These 
 it finds embodied in Christ himself. Such conceptions, when 
 steadily held before the mind, become — 
 
 (^) Powerful motives to action, and thus the faith which 
 sees fosters energy of life (Heb. 12 : i, 2 ; i John 3:3; 5 : 
 4). But transient energy is easy; the most difficult attain- 
 ment made by the second element of faith is — 
 
 {c) Untiring perseverance. It achieves this result, not 
 through extraordinary effort, but by virtue of the growing 
 attractiveness of its objects. Religion is wearisome to those 
 only who give it little thought ; it fascinates such as dwell 
 upon its aims, especially when they see these winningly 
 embodied in our Lord (Phil, 3 : 12-14; Heb. 11 : 27; i 
 Peter 1:5). 
 
 In times of trial, perseverance becomes patience for those 
 who look unto Jesus, precisely as he " for the joy set before 
 him endured the cross, despising shame" (Heb. 12 : 1-3, cf. 
 2 Cor. 4 : 16-18 ; James i : 3, 4). 
 
258 REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
 
 (3) But the most characteristic and important offices of faith 
 are discharged by its element of trust. These offices are two- 
 fold ; namely, objective and subjective. In other words, trust 
 accepts good for us, and works good in us. 
 
 A. Its objective office is the acceptance of justification 
 through Jesus Christ (Rom. 3 : 26, 28 ; Gal. 2 : 16; 3 : 24). 
 
 But trust is merely a condition, not a ground of justifica- 
 tion. However imperative as a duty, excellent as a virtue, or 
 energetic as a principle of conduct trust in God may be, it is 
 not as a good work that faith justifies ; "otherwise, grace is 
 no more grace " (Rom. 11 : 6). To accept a gift, especially 
 to accept a confessedly undeserved gift, is not to assert, but 
 to disavow a claim (Phil. 3 : 9). 
 
 And yet, trust was not arbitrarily appointed as a condition 
 of justification. 
 
 {a) It is the only way to accept a spiritual gift. Indeed, the 
 mind must accept a material gift before the hand closes upon 
 it ; and the mind's acceptance is trust that the gift is both 
 worth having and within reach. 
 
 (^) The trust of the weak and unworthy is fitted to move 
 the heart of God. The power of such an appeal is under- 
 stood, not by one who trusts, but by one who is trusted. 
 Our Lord uses this fact as an encouragement to prayer 
 (Matt. 7 : 7-1 1 ; Luke 11 : 5-13 ; 18 : 1-8). 
 
 B. TJie subjective office of trust is to promote our spiritual 
 transformation. The vigor with which this office is executed 
 may be understood from the fact that what one unreservedly 
 trusts in has complete ascendency over him. He who trusts 
 in God belongs to God ; he who trusts in evil belongs to the 
 devil. 
 
REPENTANCE AND FAITH 259 
 
 In more particularly inquiring how a Christian is trans- 
 formed through his trust in God, it is important, at a time 
 when forensic justification is decried and only the ethical 
 value of faith conceded, to note that — 
 
 (a) It is precisely in appropriating an objective justifica- 
 tion that the renovating power of trust first appears. To be 
 justified by faith is to "have peace with God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." Paul significantly adds, " through whom 
 we have had our access also by faith into this grace in which 
 we stand" (Rom. 5 : i, 2). To be at peace with God is to 
 feel one's self a new creature in a new world (2 Cor. 5:17) 
 and facing a new career. No longer bound to the past by 
 conscious guilt, the believer may " reach forth to the things 
 before" (Phil. 3 : 13). 
 
 (d) Trust in God claims novel privileges. It sees in every 
 gift from the Father something allowed, not something pro- 
 hibited. All things are ours, when we are Christ's (i Cor. 
 3 : 21-23). W^ trust in "God, who giveth us all things 
 richly for enjoyment " (i Tim. 6:17). Thus faith cures the 
 moral misunderstanding of asceticism (Gal. 4 : 9-1 1 ; Col. 2 : 
 16, 20-22), and puts the Christian in the only position where 
 he can freely sacrifice a lower good for the sake of rendering 
 a higher service (i Cor. 6:12; 9 : 19 ; 2 Cor. 8 : 8, 9 ; Phil. 
 2 : 5-8). 
 
 (c) Trust boldly claims the highest spiritual good (Rom. 
 8 : 32) ; and what it claims an active faith continually makes 
 its own. Joyous trust is more invigorating than painful self- 
 reproach or grim resolution. To all Christians, as to gentle 
 Timothy, the soundest exhortation is, " Fight the good fight 
 of faith " (i Tim. 6 : 12, A. V.). It is faith that overcomes 
 the world (i John 5 : 4, 5). 
 
 (d) Trust is the appropriate channel for divine aid. It 
 
26o JUSTIFICATION 
 
 looks to God ; it lays hold upon him ; he will not put it to 
 shame (Isa. 49 : 23 ; Ps. 27 : 14; Matt. 21 : 22 ; i Peter i : 
 5 ; James i : 6, 7 ; i John 5 : 14). 
 
 § 52. Justification, 
 i. nature of justification. 
 
 Justification is an application of the atonement to the 
 individual believer. Therefore the doctrine of justification 
 must correspond to the doctrine of atonement. We have 
 seen that the atonement provides alike for remission of sins 
 and for moral renewal. Accordingly — 
 
 Justification is the divine declaration that, the claims of 
 the law having been met for the believer, he is relieved from 
 its condemnation ; in other words, he who accepts Christ is 
 himself accepted as though he had not sinned. This is the 
 fruit of a Godward efficacy in the atonement. 
 
 The inseparable manward result is that the acquittal and 
 acceptance of the believer go into effect in the renewal of his 
 nature. 
 
 The divine fiat of justification is one thing, and its moral 
 effect in us is another ; but neither aspect of the case must 
 be dissociated from the other. While each must be con- 
 sidered in its turn, they should not be thought of as separable 
 in reality. 
 
 II. EVIDENCE FOR JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 Justification is a forensic term. The verb dtxacdio means 
 to show or to declare righteous. The former meaning is oc- 
 casional, and not especially pertinent to our doctrine (Luke 
 7 : 29 ; 10 : 29 ; Rom. 3:4;! Cor. 4:4;! Tim. 3 : 16) ; 
 the latter meaning is constantly used by Paul in the techni- 
 cal sense of the divine fiat now under consideration. In his 
 
JUSTIFICATION 26l 
 
 epistles, excepting the cases just cited, it has no other unmis- 
 takable meaning. (See an apparent exception in Rom. 6 : 7.) 
 duaiwaiq occurs but twice (Rom. 4 : 25 ; 5 : 18), and means a 
 declaring of approval. Juaioj/xa, in the sole passage (Rom. 
 5 : 16) in which justification is meant, is the act of judicial 
 approval. Aixatoffuvrj, righteousness, used nearly one hundred 
 times in the New Testament, refers sometimes to righteous- 
 ness in character and conduct, sometimes to declared right- 
 eousness, or justification. 
 
 A detailed discussion of the passages in which these words 
 occur is impracticable, and is needless. The very substance 
 of the gospel is that a believer is pronounced just, or righteous, 
 solely on account of the atonement which Christ has made 
 for his sins. And this is the easily recognizable teaching of 
 numerous passages : 
 
 (a) That one may be accounted righteous on other grounds 
 than obedience to the law, see Rom. 3 : 28, " For we reckon 
 that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law " (cf. 
 Rom. 3 : 20, 21, 27 ; 4 : 2-5 ; 11 : 6 ; Gal. 2 : 16, 21 ; 3 : 11). 
 
 (d) That he may be pronounced righteous notwithstanding 
 violations of the law, see Rom. 5 : 16, "The gift came of 
 many trespasses unto justification" (cf. Rom. 4 : 5, "Him 
 who justifies the ungodly " ). 
 
 III. DIFFICULTIES IN JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 This doctrine is challenged by two questions : 
 I. How can God, even on the ground of the atonement, 
 ca// a sinner righteous ? 
 
 We reply that the term " justify " is figurative. God does 
 not actually pronounce the guilty innocent, but he accepts 
 them as though innocent. This is simply the familiar for- 
 giveness of sins (Rom. 3 : 25 ; 4 : 6-8 ; 8 : i, 33 ; Eph. i : 7). 
 
262 JUSTIFICATION 
 
 Forgiveness, however, is more than pardon. Pardon is a 
 relation to the law ; forgiveness is a relation to a person. To 
 be pardoned is to be released from the penalties of a broken 
 law ; to be forgiven is to be released from the condemnation 
 of a person injured, and to be accepted as though one had 
 committed no offense. Among men neither pardon nor for- 
 giveness implies the other ; but with God they are insepa- 1 
 rable. What the law exacts he exacts ; what he exempts he 
 exempts according to law. Justification then is an act of per- 
 sonal grace (Rom. 3 : 24 ; 4 : 16 ; 5 : 15-18, 20, 21), but it 
 is not the less a lawful grace. " God sending his own Son 
 , . . for sin . . . that the requirement of the law might be 
 fulfilled in us " (Rom. 8 : 3, 4). " Not being without law to 
 God, but under law to Christ " (i Cor. 9:21, cf. Rom. 3 : 
 21, 25, 26; 7 : 6). 
 
 2. It will still be demanded, how can God accept the believer 
 as though he had not sinned .-• 
 
 The answer is twofold : first, as to penalties which are 
 directly caused by God's displeasure, Christ is the propitia- 
 tion for our sins ; secondly, the removal of inwrought penal- 
 ties is provided for by the way in which justification goes into 
 effect with the believer. 
 
 IV. RELATION TO REGENERATION. 
 
 Justification goes into effect manward by transforming the 
 nature of the justified. Thus it delivers him from that bond- 
 age to sin which is the extreme subjective penalty of sinning. 
 While no one is justified on account either of righteousness 
 which precedes or which will follow justification, it is va- 
 riously evident that justification takes effect in, and is incon- 
 ceivable without, a new righteousness of the believer. 
 
 I. The extreme Protestant view is that justification is a 
 
JUSTIFICATION 263 
 
 Divine fiat. But the fiat which pronounces a sinner just, 
 like every other word of God, is creative, and goes into effect 
 by making the sinner to be what God calls him, 
 
 2. Justification is primarily forgiveness ; but forgiveness 
 would be futile if it did not remove the inwrought as well as 
 any imposed penalties of sin (Ps. 1 30 : 4). 
 
 3. Justification includes adoption of the believer as though 
 he had not sinned ; but adoption would be a mockery if it did 
 not involve deliverance from the wickedness which a holy 
 God abhors. 
 
 4. The atonement is the procuring cause of justification ; 
 but we have seen that the Cross condemns those who persist 
 in sin, that it has sacrificial efficacy for those only whom it is 
 efficacious to transform. Justification, or the imputing of 
 righteousness, must involve the imparting of righteousness, 
 "the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3 : 9). 
 
 5. Faith is the formal, conditioning cause of justification ; 
 but faith can no more arise in an unrenewed heart than the 
 heart can be renewed while its wickedness is yet unpardoned. 
 Pardon and renewal, with faith, must take place together. 
 
 6. Certain perplexing Scriptures are explained by the 
 fact that justification takes effect in a moral change; for 
 example : 
 
 {a) Our Saviour's teaching that a forgiving spirit must rule 
 in him who would be forgiven (Matt. 6 : 14, 15 ; 18 : 21-35). 
 It is not that by forgiving men we earn forgiveness from God, 
 but that by refusing to forgive others, we make it morally un- 
 suitable that we should be forgiven. Implacability and vin- 
 dictiveness illustrate to the understanding of every one that 
 justification cannot go with persistence in wickedness. 
 
 ip) The passage in which James insists upon works as a 
 ground of justification (2 : 14-26). James is not here dis- 
 
264 JUSTIFICATION 
 
 cussing the justification of penitent sinners, but of alleged 
 believers ; and of these he says that their faith is dead unless 
 they show it by their works. That is, they cannot be pro- 
 nounced righteous, unless their justification goes into effect 
 in righteousness. 
 
 {c) Forgiveness of sin is closely connected even by Paul 
 with release from its power in passages which fail to draw at- 
 tention only because the apostle to the Gentiles is the recog- 
 nized defender of the claims of faith. But with Paul, to be jus- 
 tified is to be "dead to sin" (cf. Rom. 5 with 6 : i, 2); sin 
 shall not have dominion over us, because we are " not under 
 the law, but under grace " (ver. 14). That is to say, a gra- 
 cious deliverance from condemnation by the law involves be- 
 coming "the servants of righteousness" (ver. 18, cf. ver. 22 
 and 8 : 4). In closing that exposition of justification which is 
 the special doctrine of the Epistle to the Galatians, he affirms 
 that what avails for us is " a new creature " (Gal. 6 : 14, i 5) ; 
 and he says this where we would expect him to put forward 
 justification, thus offering renewal of life as an equivalent 
 fact. 
 
 While, therefore, we reject the Roman Catholic view that 
 justification is, in effect, the making of a man righteous, and 
 find only less objectionable the view of some Arminians and 
 others, that we are justified in anticipation of a righteousness 
 yet to be acquired ; and while we adhere to the distinctly 
 scriptural teaching of the Reformers, that a believer is ad- 
 judged righteous solely on account of what Christ has vicari- 
 ously done for him, we must recognize this element of truth 
 in the theories rejected : to wit, that justification and regen- 
 eration are not separable acts, but are two aspects of one ap- 
 plication of the atonement. Justification contemplates a re- 
 lation to the broken law ; regeneration is concerned with the 
 
REGENERATION 365 
 
 inward springs of future obedience to the law. We may say 
 either that the atonement, in meeting the demands of the 
 law, imparts a new life ; or that, while bestowing a new life, 
 it discharges our obligations to the law. 
 
 § 53. Regeneration. 
 
 The teachings of Scripture as to the change conventionally 
 otyled Regeneration are exposed to quite opposite perils : the 
 nature of the change is apt to be either belittled or exagger- 
 ated. The sources of these liabilities will presently be con- 
 sidered ; the doctrine is so momentous and the danger to it 
 so serious as to demand of us a study which shall be alike de- 
 vout and discriminating. 
 
 I. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION. 
 
 I . The Scriptural Doctrine. 
 
 The fact of regeneration was not first revealed in the New 
 Testament. That it was known in Old Testament times was 
 implied in the reproachful question of Christ to Nicodemus 
 (John 3 : 10, cf. Ps. 51 : 10 ; Ezek. 1 1 : 19, 20 ; 36 : 26. 27) ; 
 and that the teaching of Scripture is confirmed by experience 
 is what our Lord meant in calling this change an " earthly 
 thing" (John 3 : 12). 
 
 Concerning the nature of the change the Bible affords but 
 little knowledge, and that little is attended by virtual warn- 
 ings against a fancied knowledge. 
 
 {a) Jesus said the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration 
 is like the journeying of the wind, something that cannot be 
 told (John 3 : 8). 
 
 ip) The names given to regeneration by biblical writers are 
 highly figurative and, if taken literally, are mutually incom- 
 patible. John calls it a begetting (i John 2 : 29) ; Jesus, 
 
266 REGENERATION 
 
 John, James, and Peter call it a new birth (John 3 : 3-8 ; i : 
 13 ; James i : 18, R. V. ; i Peter i : 23) ; John and Paul de- 
 scribe it as a passing from death unto life, a resurrection (i 
 John 3:14; Eph. 2 : 5); Paul generally refers to it as a re- 
 creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10; 4 : 24) ; but 
 he also speaks of it as a painful dying (Gal. 2 : 20 ; 6 : 14), 
 and as an emancipation (Rom. 6 : 18), so does Christ himself 
 (John 8:32, 36) ; but Jesus elsewhere sets it forth as an en- 
 lightenment (Matt 1 1 : 25-27), while to James it is in one case 
 an implanting (i : 21). It cannot be at once a begetting and 
 a birth, a dying and a resurrection, a creation and an emanci- 
 pation, an implanting and an illumination. It is a change so 
 momentous that it may be figuratively designated by any of 
 these names, and so mysterious that it cannot be literally de- 
 scribed by either of them. 
 
 As to the nature of regeneration we conclude that it is a 
 moral, not literally a vital, change ; that it is a change in the 
 quality, not the quantity, of the soul ; that it so far corrects 
 the evil done by the fall (Col. 3 : 10) as to break the power 
 of sin, and incline the heart to love God supremely. The 
 known moral element in regeneration is more momentous 
 than the unknown process of regeneration ; the latter is for 
 the sake of the former. 
 
 The resultant turning of the heart to love of God and of 
 the life to his service is conversion. 
 
 2. Errors as to the Nature of Regeneration. 
 
 A. That of the sacramentalists, who credit baptism with 
 the power to regenerate. 
 
 {a) To ascribe such virtue to a religious rite is to subject 
 Christianity to ordinances — a peculiarity of Judaism from 
 which Christ set his people free. 
 
REGENERATION 267 
 
 {b) To credit baptism with this power in the case of in- 
 fants is to deepen the mystery of regeneration at cost of 
 destroying its importance ; an objection which is supported 
 by- 
 
 (c) The fact that persons baptized in infancy give no sign 
 that a real regeneration was received in that way. 
 
 B. That of the annihilationists, who hold either that the 
 soul of man was created mortal, or has become mortal through 
 the fall, and that regeneration alone imparts the immortal 
 spirit. 
 
 This error must come up again under Eschatology ; but at 
 this point it may be objected to on the grounds that — 
 
 {a) It involves a trichotomous theory of the human con- 
 stitution, 
 
 (b) The fall did not take anything from man's substance, 
 and regeneration does not add to the sum of being. 
 
 (c) The theory involves a literal interpretation of the titles 
 used for regeneration, an interpretation which we have already 
 found to be inadmissible. 
 
 C. That of Plymouth Brethren, who hold that regeneration 
 is literally the creation of a " new man," who is the real self 
 and sinless ; meanwhile the "old man" still exists in irreme- 
 diable depravity, and must be destroyed at death, or at the 
 coming of the Lord, This view is supported by a baldly 
 literal exposition of such texts as, " It is no more I that do it, 
 but sin which dwelleth in me (Rom, 7 : 20); "I have been 
 crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ liveth in 
 me" (Gal. 2 : 20, cf. 6 : 14); "That ye put away . . . the 
 old man, who waxeth corrupt . . . and put on the new man, 
 who hath been created after God in righteousness and holi- 
 ness of the truth " (Eph. 4 : 22-24, cf. Col. 3 : 1-4 ; 2 Peter 
 1:4); " Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because 
 
268 REGENERATION 
 
 his seed abideth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is 
 begotten of God " (i John 3 : 9). 
 
 {a) If we are to understand Paul literally when he denies 
 that "the old man " is any longer the self, we must take him 
 literally when he denies that even " the new man " exists ; as, 
 " I no longer live but Christ liveth in me " (Gal. 2 : 20). 
 Regeneration is thus annihilation of souls in the case of be- 
 lievers, and the re-incarnation of Christ in their bodies. 
 
 {b) If we must take John literally when he says that a re- 
 generate man does not and cannot sin, we must take him so 
 when he expressly contradicts this, and writes that if any one 
 says he is without sin, the truth is not in him (i John 1:8); 
 and then we would have to conclude that, inasmuch as the 
 same person cannot be both unable to sin and bound to own 
 that he sins, no one ever was or ever will be regenerated. 
 
 {c) The doctrine that the center of personality has passed 
 from the former soul to a newly created essence which never 
 sins, whatever the old man does, is morally dangerous, and 
 psychologically is absurd. 
 
 (d) Especially objectionable is the fancy of Luther, which 
 not a few unguardedly accept ; namely, that " the new life " 
 is literally Christ living in us and constituting part of the self. 
 This is a species of panchristism which should need only to 
 be pointed out in order to be rejected by all who understand 
 the objections to pantheism. 
 
 II. THE AGENT AND MEANS OF REGENERATION. 
 
 I. The Agent. 
 
 That man does not regenerate himself is proved — 
 {a) By the inability of the carnal mind to submit to the re- 
 quirements of God (Rom. 8 : 7), or to accept " the things of 
 the Spirit of God" (i Cor. 2 : 14); 
 
REGENERATION 269 
 
 {b) By the titles which the Scripture gives to regenera- 
 tion, all of which are inappropriate to an effect produced by a 
 man upon himself ; 
 
 {c) By the ascription of regeneration to God (Eph. 2 : 4, 5), 
 to the Father and the Son co-acting (John 5 : 21), to Christ 
 alone (Matt. 1 1 : 27-30), and to the Holy Spirit (John 3 : 5, 
 6 ; Titus 3 : 5), These representations are not contradict- 
 ory. Regeneration proceeds from the will of the Father, is 
 procured through the mediation of the Son, and wrought by 
 the operation of the Holy Spirit. It may with special pro- 
 priety be referred, as it usually is, to the Holy Spirit as the 
 agent directly engaged. 
 
 2. The Means. 
 
 Many of the stricter Calvinists insist that the Holy Spirit 
 regenerates creatively, without the use of means, because the 
 unregenerate heart is insensible to the truth. This is at best 
 but a bold speculation, for it is not supported by any explicit 
 statement of the Bible. There are various grounds for pre- 
 ferring the view that the Holy Spirit employs the truth as a 
 means of changing the heart. 
 
 {a) In all other cases God is believed to act upon the 
 human mind in accordance with its laws ; and its law as to all 
 other changes in human character and conduct is that these 
 are effected through the mediation of ideas. 
 
 ib) The person, teachings, and sufferings of our Lord are 
 so well fitted to touch every heart, that the Holy Spirit con- 
 stantly uses them, if we may at all trust the testimony of con- 
 sciousness, in changing the heart. 
 
 {c) Paul testifies that "faith cometh of hearing" (Rom. 
 10 : 17), and even tells the Corinthians, "In Christ Jesus I 
 begat you through the gospel " (i Cor. 4:15). Peter teaches 
 
270 REGENERATION 
 
 that we are " born again . . . through the word of God " (i 
 Peter i : 23) ; and James uses a similar expression, God 
 " brought us forth by the word of truth " (i : 18). 
 
 III. NECESSITY OF REGENERATION. 
 
 This may be gathered from the facts that — 
 
 1. Without regeneration the costly service of Christ is 
 barren of advantage. Except through a moral transformation 
 the objective benefit of the atonement would remain unappro- 
 priated and inappropriate (Gal. 6:15; John 3 : 5-7). In- 
 deed, unless the heart is enabled to embrace the gospel, it 
 proves "a savor from death unto death " ( 2 Cor. 2 : 16). 
 
 2. The fruitfulness of the evil corrected and of the good 
 bestowed is so immeasurable as to make a change of heart 
 indispensably necessary to man. " For the mind of the flesh 
 is death, but the mind of the Sphit is life and peace" (Rom. 
 8 :6). 
 
 IV. EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 
 
 These are numerous, and are significant in proportion as 
 they correspond to the nature of the change itself. Of this 
 kind are — 
 
 1 . A filial attitude toward God. 
 
 (a) The " spirit of adoption " claims God as Father (Rom. 
 ■ 8 : 15), and animates us with love, trust, and reverence. 
 
 (d) As children we love whatever belongs to God, his 
 works, his worship, and his name. 
 
 (c) The mind itself enjoys fellowship with God (i John 
 
 1:3). 
 
 2. A corresponding regard for Christ. The Christian finds 
 it easy to honor the Son equally with the Father (John 5 : 
 23). The regenerate are drawn to Christ by an attraction 
 
REGENERATION 27I 
 
 which overleaps an unsettled, even an heretical, Christology 
 (I John 4:15; 5:1; I Cor, 12 : 3). 
 
 When all other evidences fail, a Christian may still be able 
 to look to Jesus with abiding faith, and to say, " Whether I 
 have trusted in him before or not, I trust him now." 
 
 3. " The Spirit /iimse(f testifies with our spirit that we are 
 children of God" (Rom. 8 : 16). The witness of the Spirit 
 is not to be found in sheer confidence that we are regenerated, 
 but — 
 
 {a) The Spirit bears witness in us to Jesus Christ, and in 
 so doing testifies to our own sonship (i John $ : 7-9). •' The 
 testimony is this, that God gave to us eternal life, and this 
 life is in his Son " (ver. 11, 12). 
 
 (p) The Spirit animates us with the characteristic temper 
 and purpose of a Christian. " For as many as are /ed by the 
 Spirit of God, these are sons of God " (Rom. 8 : 14). 
 
 Such relations to God imply also — 
 
 4. Ethical fruits of regeneration. Love which secures 
 obedience is the only love that the Master accepts (John 14 : 
 21). This well-remembered test is reafiirmed by John's first 
 epistle (3:9; 5 : 3, 4), and in the pointed demand of James, 
 " Show me thy faith apart from the works, and I will show 
 thee the faith by my works "(2:1 8). 
 
 In offering this test, Jesus specified one commandment as 
 peculiarly his own, and essentially new (John 15 : 10-12). 
 Hence a specially significant proof of regeneration is — 
 
 5. Love to the disciples of Christ (John 13 : 35; i John 
 3 : 14 ; 4 : 16, 20 ; cf. per con. 5 : 2), To love the Christlike 
 is to show love for Christ. So willing is our Lord himself to 
 have love to him measured by love to his brethren, that what 
 is done to the least of these is the crucial test by which he 
 will judge all nations (Matt. 25 : 32-46). 
 
a72 SANCTIFICATION 
 
 Furthermore, as a common resemblance to Christ is a mark 
 of kinship, mutual love among Christians is but a kind of 
 family affection, instinctive in the household of faith. This 
 sense of union in Christ constitutes the newness of the love 
 which he requires (John 1 3 : 34), notifies the world that his 
 disciples are a class apart (John 13:35; 2 Cor. 6 : 14-16), 
 and even leads the world to believe that God has sent his Son 
 (John 17 : 21, 23). 
 
 6. Insight into spiritual things. This especially distin- 
 guishes a well-developed Christian (i Cor. 2 : 6-16). In many 
 cases general intelligence rapidly develops under the stimulus 
 of the new relation to God, and of a new estimate concerning 
 all things (2 Cor. 5:17). A spiritual transformation which 
 extends its influence so far, makes its own reality conspicu- 
 ous. 
 
 These are the normal fruits and signs of regeneration. 
 They are always present, at least in rudimentary form ; but 
 they develop and come to view in various, even abnormal 
 proportions. The degree of fullness and symmetry which 
 the elements of a renewed life present is dependent so largely 
 upon native peculiarities, or upon early training, as to demand 
 careful discrimination and abundant charity from those to 
 whom it may fall to test the spiritual condition of other 
 persons, 
 
 § 54. SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 Paul calls believers Kyun, saints, partly because they are 
 sacred to the service of God, being consecrated thereto by the 
 blood of Christ ; partly because they are inly purified by the 
 Holy Spirit through the same means. In the case of persons 
 an objective dedication would be meaningless, and even hypo- 
 critical (Matt. 23 : 27, 28), if it did not carry with it fidelity 
 
SANCTIFICATION 373 
 
 or righteousness of character and life. Correspondently, the 
 noun dyiaaiidq, sanctification, has either the active meaning, 
 not of an objective setting apart, but of the actual imparta- 
 tion of holiness or moral purity, or else the passive meaning 
 of the imparted moral quality. 
 
 To theology the doctrine of sanctification is the doctrine 
 of progress in holiness. Its problems are : What attainment 
 is possible .-' How can that attainment be made ? 
 
 I. THE POSSIBLE EXTENT OF SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 1. The Scriptures teach that sanctification is a gradual pro- 
 cess, comparable in its human aspect to growth (Eph. 4 : i 5 ; 2 
 Peter 3:18) and to transformation (2 Cor. 3:18), or on its 
 divine side to the finishing of a work which God himself had 
 begun (Phil, i : 6). 
 
 2. It must assuredly be perfected at death (Col. 3:4;! 
 Thess. 5 : 23, 24; Heb. 12 : 14, 23; Jude 24). Although 
 death is not, properly speaking, "a means of grace," yet it is 
 a complete arrest and an incalculable change ; so that we are 
 not surprised to read, " He that hath died is justified (or 
 freed) from sin " (Rom. 6 : 7). And it is a change which 
 brings those who already, with all their defects, love God su- 
 premely, into his open presence and under his full influence. 
 "■ We know that if he be manifested, we shall be like him ; 
 for we shall see him as he is " (i John 3 : 2). 
 
 3. Perfection is not attained on earth. On the one hand, 
 nothing less than righteousness without a flaw is required of 
 every moral being. There is no violation of law which can be 
 exempted from condemnation (Matt. 5:19). To be perfect 
 as our Heavenly Father is perfect, to be holy as the Lord our 
 God is holy (Matt. 5 : 48 ; Lev. 11 : 44, cf. i Peter 1:16), 
 are obligations which the Supreme Being could not relax 
 
274 SANCTIFICATION 
 
 without himself becoming less than perfectly holy. On the 
 other hand, against faultlessness on earth, we have to allege : 
 
 {a) The statement of John that there is no truth in the 
 man who pretends to be without sin (i John i : 8, cf. Ps. 
 119 :96). 
 
 {b) The confession of Paul that he was not perfect (Phil. 
 3 : 12, 13), and this in close connection with a passage in 
 which he implies that not a few Philippians were perfect in 
 the sense of full grown or mature (cf. ver. i 5 and i Cor, 2 : 
 6). While it does not follow that none can be perfect because 
 Paul was imperfect, the presumption is not light against those 
 who claim to be vastly better than he (2 Tim. 4 : 7, 8). We 
 are thus prepared to note : 
 
 {c) Observation shows that, while there is no approach 
 to faultlessness at which we must necessarily stop short, yet 
 such as pretend to be free from sin are marked by insensi- 
 bility to their own faults ; while the saintliest are alive, like 
 Paul, to their own shortcomings. 
 
 II. THE PROVISION FOR SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 Sanctification is in Christ (i Cor. 1:2; Col. i : 28), ^^the 
 Holy Spirit (Rom. 15 : 16 ; i Cor. 6:11), through the truth 
 (John 15 : 3 ; 17 : 17; Eph. 4 : 11, 12), upon faith (Acts 15 : 
 9; 2 Cor. 3 : 18; Eph. 4:13)- 
 
 The edifying of believers, " the perfecting of the saints," 
 is the primary reason for establishing the church (Eph. 4 : 
 16, cf. Rom. 15:2; I Thess. 5:11; Heb. 10 : 24), for ap- 
 pointing its ministers (Eph. 4:11, 12), and for conferring its 
 spiritual gifts (i Cor. 12:7; 14 : 12, 26). 
 
 III. ERRORS CONCERNING SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 Antinomianism of some kind is an element of peril in every 
 unscriptural theory of sanctification. This will appear in the 
 
SANCTIFICATION 275 
 
 special study of those theories. But the antinomianism which 
 deliberately proclaimed that believers are released from obli- 
 gation to righteousness by virtue of the fact that justification 
 is a discharge from the claims of the law, is a doctrine prac- 
 tically extinct. It could not stand, for it outraged the vig- 
 orous ethical sentiment of Christianity, and virtually set aside 
 those Scriptures which teach that holiness is the fruit of the 
 Father's grace (Rom. 6 : 1-23 ; 7 : 4 ; i Cor. 9 : 21), of love 
 to the Son (John 14 : i 5, 21, 23 ; 15 : 1-17 ; i John i : 6; 3 : 
 6), and of the Holy Spirit's indwelling (Rom. 8 : 2-14, espe- 
 cially ver. 3, 4). 
 
 The considerations which have been urged against the ac- 
 tuality of sinless perfection in the present life have not pre- 
 vented the somewhat wide diffusion of errors with regard to 
 sanctification, and chiefly for reasons which demand special 
 notice. Two such errors alone need to be reviewed. 
 
 I. Perfectionism. 
 
 Romanism, holding that justification declares a righteous- 
 ness infused from Christ, also teaches that the rigor of the 
 law has been relaxed for the faithful, so that they are able to 
 keep not only the commands, but the counsels of Christ, thus 
 accumulating works of supererogation. Wesleyans claim 
 that perfect love and perfect faith are attainable ; that they 
 constitute evangelical obedience to the exclusion of sin ; and 
 that, while infirmities may remain, these are not reckoned as 
 sins, but are provided for in the atonement. A few Calvin- 
 ists, like President Finney, argue that the divine requirement 
 has been lowered to meet the capabilities of a race weakened 
 by the fall. The singular theory of some Plymouth Brethren, 
 that personality is transferred from the hopelessly depraved 
 "old man" to the sinless "new man," also teaches that, while 
 
276 SANCTIFICATION 
 
 the " new man " is entirely fitted for heaven through the blood 
 of Christ, it may be progressively sanctified, that is, developed, 
 through " the bathing of water in the word " (Eph. 5 : 26). 
 
 The more important arguments for perfectionism are : on 
 the part of Calvinists, that it would be unjust to exact an im- 
 possible obedience ; on the part of Wesleyans, that without 
 holiness none can enter heaven, and that all things are pos- 
 sible to faith ; on the part of Plymouth Brethren, that what 
 God has begotten does not and cannot sin. 
 
 But these special arguments for perfectionism lay it open 
 to corresponding objections. They involve misconcep- 
 tions of — 
 
 A. Law. Perfectionism regards the requirements of the 
 law as subject to extension or relaxation. But this is true 
 only of statutory or revealed law. Since the law is itself a 
 transcript of the unalterable nature of God, it cannot acqui- 
 esce in anything hostile to his nature. Especially is it to be 
 noted that if, as Wesleyans teach us, infirmities are provided 
 for by the sacrifice of Christ, they must be violations of law, 
 and under condemnation of God. 
 
 B. Penalty. None enjoy immunity through inability. Pen- 
 alty is involved in the very fact of being alien from God. If 
 the alienation be so extreme as to be helpless, penalty is 
 so far deepened, not removed. Otherwise the worst beings, 
 like Satan, would avoid suffering from the Divine displeasure 
 by becoming utterly abominable to him. 
 
 C. Will. All ordinary forms of perfectionism assume that 
 the will is capable of obeying the requirements of God. But 
 real freedom was lost in the fall. Holiness must restore free- 
 dom, not be restored by it. 
 
 D. Faith. " All things are possible to him that believeth " 
 was spoken of miracles, ought not to be applied without war- 
 
SANCTIFICATION 277 
 
 rant to anything else, and is unwarrantably applied to prayer 
 for spiritual good. No degree of faith can at once secure 
 such fixity in righteousness as to render watchfulness and 
 prayer unnecessary ; no supreme effort of faith could imagin- 
 ably secure on the instant the conversion of all one's dearest 
 friends, of the whole human race, of Satan and his hosts. 
 
 E. Regeneration. The objection to the Plymouth doc- 
 trine of regeneration, namely, that it rests on a fantastic liter- 
 alness of interpretation and an impossible psychology, have 
 already been presented ; as a theory of sanctification it is in- 
 volved in the special difficulties that — 
 
 {a) It unites in the same being incurable depravity and 
 stainless purity. 
 
 (^) It denies that believers ought to pray for forgiveness, 
 and so sets aside the requirement that confession be made 
 and forgiveness sought, as well as the many urgent exhor- 
 tations to abandon sin and beware of a fall. 
 
 F. In general, while the New Testament neither affirms 
 nor denies the possibility of sinless perfection, experience is 
 against its practicability. 
 
 2. The Higher Life. 
 
 Not a few who reject the claim to sinless perfection hold 
 that it is possible to attain a state of entire self-consecration 
 and serene trust, which is as distinct in species from the ear- 
 lier state of the Christian, as this was from his unregenerate 
 condition. This state is called "the Higher Life," and is 
 believed to be conferred by a " second gift " of the Holy 
 Spirit, upon a particular exercise of faith. In brief, the 
 Higher Life is a special state, reached by a special process. 
 
 Let us gladly concede that the Christian may attain a 
 cloudless assurance and approximate an unswerving fidel- 
 
 Y 
 
278 SANCTIFICATION 
 
 ity. Nor is it uncommon to witness a rapid and large de- 
 velopment of Christian graces without known preparation. On 
 the other hand, the doctrine is open to the fatal objections : 
 
 A. If the highest practicable attainments are to be reached 
 only by a process analogous to a second regeneration, the 
 Bible ivould make a fact of such importance as plain as the 
 need and the possibility of regeneration itself. Unless the 
 Scriptures distinctly teach the doctrine, it is unwarrantable 
 to hold it. But such a warrant of Scripture is wholly 
 wanting. 
 
 B. The doctrine is really based upon a vtisinterpretation of 
 experience. So great a change in feeling, not less startling in 
 many cases than regeneration, seems to the subjects of it to 
 require an extraordinary cause. 
 
 {a) But moral changes as startling occur in the unregen- 
 erate, and might be looked for sometimes in the regenerate. 
 
 {b) Happiness is not the highest end ; and the theory of a 
 special process to gain it is unwarranted and mischievous. 
 
 The Keswick form of the doctrine represents the disciple 
 as taking seven active preparatory steps, and then passively 
 receiving an " infilling of the Spirit." 
 
 id) But in all cases, except perhaps Eph. 5:18, the Bible 
 represents the fullness of the Spirit as given for service. 
 
 {U) To promise for service a mysterious power over men is 
 to forget the diversity in spiritual gifts (i Cor. 12:4 f.). 
 
 {c) A prescribed process for sanctification has been thor- 
 oughly tried, and discredited by experience. 
 
 {d') The Keswick ideal is faulty in putting the Holy Spirit 
 into the place which belongs to Christ ; in making its disci- 
 ples a class apart from other Christians ; in mistaking aban- 
 donment of all known sin for deliverance from all sin ; and in 
 crying up "the surrendered life" instead of a devoted life. 
 
perseverance 279 
 
 § 55. Perseverance. 
 
 Perseverance is persistence until death of the life begun in 
 regeneration. All truly regenerate persons, being divinely 
 kept from apostasy, persevere unto eternal life. The entire 
 case is stated by Peter : the elect of the Father, being sancti- 
 fied of the Spirit and sprinkled with the blood of Christ, 
 " are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation " 
 (i Peter i : 2-5). 
 
 Regarded as the work of God, perseverance is the comple- 
 tion of sanctification ; but since to human observation it is 
 the fruit of steadfast faith, it is commonly called " the final 
 perseverance of the saints." 
 
 It is a peculiarity of this doctrine that experience can do 
 little either to confirm or unsettle it. Experience cannot 
 prove the doctrine, because it cannot prove that those who 
 die in sin were never regenerated ; but neither can expe- 
 rience disprove the doctrine, because it cannot show that any 
 who die in sin were ever truly renewed. We must depend 
 upon the teachings of the Bible alone. 
 
 But the Bible, on the other hand, was manifestly written 
 with a practical aim, and therefore treats the security for sal- 
 vation in one or another way according as it contemplates the 
 divine or the human factor in the problem. 
 
 I. It is always humanly possible, although improbable, 
 that a good man may at last succumb to temptation, and 
 close a holy life in sin. Certainly the end cannot be known 
 until the end is reached. The Scriptures therefore fittingly 
 appeal to the regenerate as those on whose " patient contin- 
 uance in well-doing . . . eternal life " depends (Rom. 2:7); 
 bid " him that thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall " (i 
 
28o PERSEVERANCE 
 
 Cor. 10 : 12. See also Ezek. 33 : 13 ; Matt. 10 : 22 ; John 
 15:6; Rom. II : 22\ I Cor. 9:27; 2 Peter 1:10; 2 : 
 20-22 ; Rev. ch. 2 and 3) ; and solemnly warn the vacil- 
 lating against the remediless evil of apostasy from Christ 
 (Heb. 10 : 26-29). 
 
 These exhortations and warnings do not justify the doc- 
 trinal inference that God will allow any to perish whom he 
 has begotten again ; but they imply that no one may regard 
 himself as begotten of God and safe, except while he re- 
 mains faithful. Jesus said to those Jews who had believed 
 him, " If ye abide in my word, ye are truly my disciples " 
 (John 8:31). " We have become partakers of Christ, if we 
 hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm to the end " 
 (Heb. 3:14, cf. ver. 6) ; conversely, to be unfaithful is a 
 sign that one was never Christ's. " They went out from us, 
 but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they 
 would have abode with us ; but it was in order that they 
 might be made manifest, that they are not all of us " (i John 
 2 : 19, 27 ; Heb. 6 : 9). 
 
 2. What is uncertain to men is certain to God. " The 
 Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 2 : 19). That he 
 will not allow his own to perish is variously assured : 
 
 (a) By the fixed purpose of God in election. " It is the 
 will of him that sent me," said Christ, "that of all which he 
 hath given me I should lose nothing" (John 6 : 39 ; Rom. 
 8 : 29-39 ; Phil, i : 6 ; i Thess. 5:912 Thess. 2 : 13). 
 
 (d) By the fidelity of God to his invitations. " For the 
 gifts and the calling of God are not repented of " (Rom. 1 1 : 
 29; I Cor. I : 8, 9 ; i Thess. 5 : 23, 24; Heb. 10 : 23). 
 
 (c) By the ability of God to keep his children. " No 
 man," said Jesus, " is able to pluck out of my Father's hand " 
 (John 10:29). "The Lord is able to make him stand" 
 
PERSEVERANCE 28 1 
 
 (Rom. 14 : 4). " I am persuaded that he is able to guard 
 that which I have committed to him unto that day," is the 
 conviction of Paul's old age (2 Tim. i : 12, cf. i Peter i : 
 5 ; Jude 24). 
 
 (d) By the vantage-ground of a new relation to Christ. 
 " For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through 
 the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we 
 be saved by his life" (Rom. 5 : 10). This is not merely 
 Paul's assertion of final perseverance, but his argument for it. 
 
 How practical is the interest of Scripture in this theme is 
 seen by the fact that it does not shrink from presenting 
 both phases of the doctrine together in striking paradox. 
 See for example, Phil. 2 : 12, 13 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 19 ; 2 Peter i : 
 10. The disobedient well may doubt their regeneration ; the 
 faithful have a proof and a pledge of divine aid (Phil, i : 6). 
 
PART V 
 
 eschatology 
 
 § 56, Conditions of the Inquiry 
 
 Less certainty rewards inquiry concerning the Last 
 Things than concerning any other department of Christian 
 truth. Historically or even physically attested data form the 
 basis of theology proper, of anthropology, and soteriology. 
 Unfulfilled prophecy is practically the only source of escha- 
 tology. Science, which floods with light objects immediately 
 about us, seems, like a torch in the hand, to deepen the dark- 
 ness over things far away. If prophecy too is obscure, this 
 is due to recognizable causes : 
 
 1. Some of its topics lie beyond the range of our expe- 
 rience, and therefore are necessarily incomprehensible. Such 
 topics are the intermediate state, the spiritual body, the final 
 coming of our Lord. 
 
 2. The obscurity of prophecies concerning the Messiah 
 was a real and perhaps intentional safeguard against impos- 
 ture. It certainly has prevented the success of any false 
 Christ. Our Lord told his own disciples that they could not 
 understand his predictions until fulfilled, and that these 
 should then serve as his credentials (John 13 : 19; 14 : 29; 
 16 : 4, cf. 12 : 16; 13:7; 16 : 12). The disastrous failure 
 of Jewish interpreters to override this divine precaution in 
 the case of predictions about the first coming of the Messiah, 
 warns us against similar attempts upon outstanding prophecy 
 (i Peter i : 10-12 ; Matt. 24 : 44 ; cf. Dan. 12 : 9). 
 
 282 
 
DEATH 283 
 
 3. Prophetic perspective at once simplifies and perplexes the 
 interpretation of prophecy. A single prediction covers, it 
 may be, many events of the same type, each of which fore- 
 casts all the rest ; while the last in the series is needed both 
 for the fulfillment and the complete understanding of the 
 original oracle. Thus in the Old Testament any momentous 
 event was styled a "coming of the Lord" (Amos 4 : 12). 
 In the New Testament the parable of the tares and the 
 twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew are apparently applicable 
 to more than one event. 
 
 4. Certain prophecies are contingent upon what men do. 
 Nineveh repented, and the prophecy against her remained 
 unfulfilled (cf. Jonah 3 :4 with ver. 10 and chap. 4). Jeru- 
 salem would not receive her king, and her house was left unto 
 her desolate (Matt. 23 : n, 38, cf. Zech. 6:15). It is not 
 improbable that the return of the Lord may be delayed or 
 hastened by the church (Acts 3 : 19, R. V. ; 2 Peter 3:12). 
 Prophecies which depend upon the will of men cannot be 
 interpreted with certainty in advance. 
 
 5. Apparently it cannot be settled whether the book of 
 Revelation referred only to the then present and impending 
 relations of the infant church with Pagan Rome, or to the 
 ultimate destiny of the church and the world, or to both. 
 
 It is well to bear in mind that the unmistakable and the 
 realized aims of prophecy are reformation and encouragement 
 (Jer. 44 : 4 ; John 16 : 33). Beyond this, curiosity is baffled 
 and conjecture is hazardous. 
 
 § 57. Death. 
 
 Does the soul die with the body ? Dissolution of the body 
 seems to involve the extinction of intelligence, affection, and 
 
284 DEATH 
 
 will. That it does so has not, indeed, been believed in any 
 age by any people ; yet it is thought by some to be the 
 teaching of the Bible. It is said to be involved in the state- 
 ment of Paul that God "only hath immortality" (i Tim. 6: 
 16), and in many passages which speak of Christ as bestow- 
 ing life upon believers. 
 
 But against the doctrine of conditional immortality we 
 notice : 
 
 I. The testimony of Scripture. 
 
 (a) The meaning of i Tim. 6 : 16 is not that God alone is 
 exempt from death, but that God alone is self-existent, essen- 
 tially deathless (0 [j.dvo<; k'xiov dOuvafftav), and therefore all other 
 beings depend on him for existence. But it does not follow 
 that God will permit any spirit, either an angel or the soul of 
 man, to be extinguished. 
 
 (d) The New Testament sets forth thus the relation of 
 Christ to death and life : he " abolished death, and brought 
 life and immortality to light through the gospel " (2 Tim. i : 
 10). Three meanings are here possible for the word "life," 
 and correspondent meanings for "death." By life may be 
 meant, first, bare continuance of the soul's existence ; sec- 
 ondly, human entirety, the union of the soul and body either 
 in the present or in a future state ; thirdly, spiritual life, the 
 holiness and happiness which befit a rational being. 
 
 The first of these meanings, namely, the immortality of the 
 soul, is that with which pagan philosophy was so seriously 
 occupied ; Christianity takes for granted the mere immor- 
 tality of the soul, but emphasizes both the resurrection and 
 spirituality as alike essential to its idea of life for human 
 beings. Christ confers both the bodily and spiritual life, and 
 confers them together (John 3 : 36 ; 6 : 40 ; Rom. 8:11; 
 
DEATH 285 
 
 Phil. 3 : 9-1 1 ; Col. 3 : 3, 4). Correspondingly, the death 
 which Christ abolished is pre-eminently spiritual, consists in 
 alienation from God and in misery, while the resurrection of 
 the wicked, though real, is seldom referred to. To make 
 death consist in extinction of being would thus not only mar 
 the New Testament's antithesis between life and death, but 
 would be a lapse into the low, paganistic estimate of man, 
 which failed to see in his deathless soul the image of God. 
 
 2. The testimony of Consciousness. 
 
 (a) The soul is consciously an indivisible unit ; as such it 
 is presumably undecomposable and incapable of death. 
 
 (d) The instinctive unanimity with which mankind looks 
 for existence beyond the grave, an expectation marked in 
 simple savages, but most suitable to the thoughtful and the 
 holy, is of deep significance to those who believe that we are 
 creatures of One who is both good and wise. 
 
 3. T/ie testimony of Science. 
 
 (a) Inasmuch as the vital principle is not the product of 
 organism, but organism is maintained by the vital princi- 
 ple, the vital principle does not necessarily perish with the 
 organism. 
 
 {b) The law of continuity as regards energy is the law of 
 convertibility ; but the law of convertibility does not hold 
 between mind and matter, therefore does not imply either 
 that physical energy is convertible into vital principle, or 
 vital principle into physical energy. Disregard of this fact 
 has led to great confusion. 
 
 if) The law of continuity as regards substance ensures the 
 indestructibility of matter, and equally also of spirit. But 
 spirit is essentially personal, therefore personality is essen- 
 tially imperishable. 
 
286 the; intermediate state 
 
 § 58. The Intermediate State. 
 
 Between death and the resurrection, human beings are in 
 a state of incompleteness. A body without a soul, or a soul 
 without a body, is an object of natural horror. Even Paul 
 desired " not to be unclothed, but clothed upon " (2 Cor. 
 
 5:4). 
 
 We have already seen that the soul lives after its separa- 
 tion from the body. There is sufficient reason to believe 
 that it retains consciousness, although it has not yet come 
 into possession of the spiritual body. Consciousness in the 
 intermediate state is taught in the case of — 
 
 1 . The wicked, by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus 
 (Luke 16 : 23-31, cf. 12 .-4, 5; Isa. 14 : 9, 10), and by 
 Peter's reference to "the spirits in prison" (i Peter 3 : 19), 
 who are conscious and unhappy, or death would be no more 
 a prison to them than to the righteous. 
 
 2. In the case of the righteous, the Lord's refutation of the 
 Sadducees (Matt. 22 : 32) turns on a proof from Exod. 3 : 6 
 that the spirits of the holy dead are conscious before the 
 resurrection ; that is, they are in such a state that God can 
 be God to them. The penitent thief was assured that, not in 
 the uncertain future when the Lord should come into his 
 kingdom, but that very day he should be with Christ where 
 the holy are (Luke 23 : 42, 43, cf. 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2 : 7). 
 For Paul to be "absent from the body" was to be "at 
 home with the Lord " (2 Cor. 5:8); and the " strait," of 
 which he wrote to the Philippians, was between the conviction 
 that "to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake," 
 and his "desire to depart," not that he might pass unto 
 unconsciousness, but "to be with Christ" (Phil, i : 23, 24). 
 Perhaps the most explicit declaration that the pious dead are 
 
THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 287 
 
 conscious and happy is found in the lofty assurance that we 
 " are come to . . . the general assembly and church of the 
 first born who are enrolled in heaven, . . . and to the spirits 
 of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12 : 22, 23). 
 
 Theologians who do not adhere closely to the scriptural 
 teaching in eschatology, have inferred with some show of 
 reason that the conscious spirit, while divested of its organ, 
 the body, will be shut out from free relations to things, and 
 shut in to the subjects of reflection which it finds in itself 
 and in memory. But this is little more than a conjecture. 
 We do not know enough about the mode of life which is 
 possible to a disembodied human soul unreservedly to accept 
 or to deny such a conjecture. If we may infer from the rela- 
 tions of the angels what is possible to bodiless souls of men, 
 capacity for external relations is entirely probable in the in- 
 termediate state, 
 
 § 59. The Second Coming of Christ. 
 
 i. the advent. 
 
 It is the plain teaching of the New Testament, and perhaps 
 essential to the complete fulfillment of Old Testament 
 prophecy, that Christ will return in heavenly glory to the 
 scene of his earthly humiliation. 
 
 His advent will be bodily (Acts i : 11), visible (Matt. 24 : 
 30 ; Titus 2:13), even audible (i Thess. 4 : 16), and, although 
 not without premonitory signs (Matt. 24 : 29, 30), it will be 
 sudden (Matt. 24 : 37-44 ; Luke 12 : 35-40). 
 
 It is generally agreed that this event must be preceded by 
 a proclamation of the gospel in all lands (Mark 13 : 10), by a 
 falling away of nominal Christians (2 Thess. 2 : 3), and by a 
 
288 THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 
 
 revelation of Satan's power, possibly in the domination of a 
 personal antichrist (2 Thess. 2 : 8, 9 ; i John 2 : 18). 
 
 The final coming of our Lord will prove to be not only an 
 epiphany (2 Thess. i : 10), but the overthrow of his enemies 
 (2 Thess. I : 8, 9), the establishment of his kingdom, and the 
 consummation of all things (Matt. 19 : 28 ; Acts 3:21; Rom. 
 8 : 19-23; 2 Peter 3 : 12, 13). 
 
 II, RELATION OF THE ADVENT TO THE MILLENNIUM. 
 
 Whether the second coming will precede or will follow a 
 prolonged period of righteousness and peace known as the 
 Millennium, was a point in dispute with the post-apostolic 
 Fathers, and has been more or less under discussion ever 
 since their day. 
 
 1. The Rival Opinions. 
 
 (a) Premillenarians contend that the righteous shall rise 
 •* from the dead " at the coming of the Lord, and reign with 
 him upon the earth throughout the millennium ; that the 
 general resurrection will occur at the close of the millennial 
 period, and be followed at once by the final judgment, unless, 
 as some hold, the millennium itself is a long judgment day. 
 
 (d) Postmillenarians generally look for the conversion of 
 the world as a result of the gradual spread of the gospel ; 
 hold to but one resurrection ; maintain that it will attend the 
 coming of the Lord ; will take place at the close of the 
 millennium, if any ; and be immediately followed by the last 
 judgment, and the renewal of earth and the heavens. 
 
 2. T/te contrasted Histories. 
 
 (a) In the first age of the church, until the Apocalypse had 
 become current, the last day was widely looked for ; there- 
 
THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 289 
 
 after, up to Origen, in the third century, a premillennial reign 
 was expected soon, notably by Montanists ; from Origen until 
 the close of the first thousand years of our era, chiliasm 
 was condemned ; but belief in a millennium revived in that 
 dark and disordered period, was rife until a thousand years 
 had elapsed from the reign of Constantine, and was enthusi- 
 astically preached to the crusaders, who regarded Mohammed 
 as antichrist. Premillennialism has appeared in times of com- 
 motion in the world, of corruption in the church, or of op- 
 pression by either. At the Reformation it inspired the mad An- 
 abaptists of Munster, and in the next century the Fifth Mon- 
 archy men among English Puritans. In the United States 
 William Miller began in 1833 to preach the speedy coming 
 of the Lord, and founded the sect of Second Adventists ; 
 here too, premillenarianism has furnished a plea for the 
 strangely contrasted fanaticisms of the Shakers and Mormons. 
 
 Extravagance of opinion and disorder of conduct have so 
 commonly attended the premillenarian doctrine as to account 
 in part for its general condemnation ; but in recent years it 
 has found advocates among sober-minded and devout exegetes 
 of Germany, England, and America. It is often marked by 
 zeal for a peculiar form of the missionary enterprise : its mes- 
 sengers hasten from village to village, announcing the gospel, 
 but not delaying to make converts, still less to train them. 
 It is believed that, by " witnessing for Christ " to all 
 peoples, they hasten the coming of the Lord, by which alone 
 the world can be converted. 
 
 (b) Except during limited periods, for instance from the 
 first quarter of the second to the middle of the third century, 
 and from the tenth to the fourteenth, postmillenarianism has 
 been the accepted doctrine of the church. Since it ascribes 
 the future triumphs of Christ to the agencies now employed. 
 
290 THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 
 
 it is congenial to the temper of the church in times of real 
 or fancied prosperity. 
 
 3 . The counter A rguntents. 
 
 A. The chief arguments for a premillennial advent are : 
 Rev. 20 : I -10 obviously teaches that the Lord will come and 
 the holy rise at the opening of the thousand years ; if he is 
 not to come until the close of the millennium, we cannot ful- 
 fill his command to be always watching for his advent (Matt. 
 24 : 42 ; 25 : 13 ; Mark 13 : 32-37 ; i Cor. 1:7;! Thess. 
 5:2; Titus 2 : 13); the prophecies of the Old Testament 
 concerning a literal kingdom of Christ upon earth, and the 
 strong Messianic anticipations of the apostles, would not be 
 fulfilled by a postmillennial advent ; the New Testament does 
 not promise the conversion of the world under the present 
 dispensation, but forecasts a wide growth and general decay 
 of the church. It will be seen that these arguments are ex- 
 clusively exegetical. 
 
 B. The arguments for postmillennialism are both exegeti- 
 cal and theological. 
 
 {a) On exegetical grounds it is urged : that the general 
 tenor of the New Testament, with the exception of a single 
 passage in an obscure book (Rev. 20 : i-io), is to the effect 
 that there will be but one resurrection (John 5 : 28, 29; Acts 
 24 : I 5), and that Christ will visibly re-appear only to close 
 the history of the earth and to sit in judgment upon man- 
 kind ; that Rev. 20 foretells the resurrection, not of all the 
 righteous, but of the martyrs only, and that the rising and 
 reigning of the martyrs must refer to the reanimation of the 
 church by their spirit, as Christ said that Elijah had already 
 come (Matt. 17 : 12), because John the Baptist had appeared 
 "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke i : 17, cf. Ezek. 
 
The; second coming of chrisT 291 
 
 37 : 1-14) ; that the exhortation to expect momentarily the 
 coming of the Lord is fulfilled by those who are constantly 
 in readiness for manifestations of his spiritual power, for his 
 coming to us at death, or in final judgment ; that it is the 
 day of final destruction which " will come as a thief " (2 Peter 
 3 : 10), and that the regeneration of the earth which attends 
 his coming is to follow the last judgment and final catastrophe 
 (2 Peter 3 : 11-13); finally, that when the last enemy has 
 been destroyed by the resurrection of the saints, Christ will 
 at once deliver up the kingdom, and therefore cannot reign on 
 earth after the saints arise (i Cor. 15 : 24-28). 
 
 (b) On theological grounds the objections to Chiliasm are : 
 that it disparages the gospel by teaching that Christ can pre- 
 vail only by presenting himself again to the senses ; that it 
 makes his kingdom a kingdom of this world (John 18 : 36), 
 the weapons of its warfare carnal, and sets it wrestling against 
 flesh and blood (2 Cor. 10 : 4 ; Eph. 6:12); finally, it is irrec- 
 oncilable with the fact that, so long as we are in the flesh, 
 it will continue expedient for us that our Lord's bodily pres- 
 ence should be exchanged for his spiritual presence through 
 the mediation of the Comforter (John 16 17). 
 
 4. The suspended Verdict. 
 
 As to the matters so long in debate we conclude : 
 (a) Neither party has made out its case. The conditions 
 of eschatological inquiry, emphasized by the pitiful failures 
 to override them, forbid the hope of understanding in ad- 
 vance prophecies all but contradictory in terms. 
 
 {b) The signs of the times, which so often seem to por- 
 tend the speedy manifestation of the Lord, may actually 
 have that significance, and yet the impending event prove 
 to be only one of a series, the last member of which cannot 
 
292 THE RESURRECTION 
 
 be distinguished until it arrives. Thus, as John said, that 
 "even now have there arisen many antichrists" (i John 
 2 : i8, cf. 4 : 3), so since that day any conspicuous opponent 
 of Christ may be a prophesied antichrist, and yet not the 
 final embodiment of Satan's rage. 
 
 (c) We may feel assured that Christ will come and fulfill 
 the prayers of his church. Meantime the duty of the faith- 
 ful is to be " like unto men waiting for their Lord " (Luke 
 12 : 36). 
 
 § 60. The Resurrection. 
 
 i, the scriptural teaching. 
 
 1 . Fact of the Resurrection. 
 
 At the final coming of Christ the dead and the living (i 
 Cor. 15 : 51-53) will be invested with spiritual bodies, 
 
 2. Subjects of the Resurrection. 
 
 The reanimation of the body is in nearly all cases repre- 
 sented by the New Testament as the privilege of the good. 
 This is first because it completes the victory over death, but 
 death must remain as the wages of sin (Rom. 6 : 23); sec- 
 ondly, because it is secured by Christ (Rom. 6 : 5 ; i Cor. 
 I 5 : 20-23 ; 2 Cor. 4:14; i Thess. 4 : 14), but Christ assures 
 no benefits to those who finally reject him (John 3: 18); 
 thirdly, because our mortal bodies shall be quickened through 
 the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us (Rom. 8 : 11). 
 
 In three passages, however, the New Testament teaches 
 that the wicked also shall rise (John 5 : 28, 29 ; Acts 24 : 1 5 ; 
 Rev. 20 : 13, cf. Dan. 12:2). 
 
 3. Nature of the Resurrection-body. 
 
 (a) The future body will not in all respects be identical 
 
THE RESURRECTION 393 
 
 with the present body. " Thou sowest not that body which 
 shall be" (i Cor. 15 : 37). Yet it shall be — 
 
 (b) Organically connected with the present body ; "to each 
 seed a body of its own " (ver. 38). 
 
 {c) The connection is to be more than organic ; it is in 
 some respects one of identity. Neither Enoch, Elijah, nor 
 our Lord laid aside his body ; their bodies were changed, as 
 will be the case with the saints who are alive when the Lord 
 returns (i Cor. 15 : 51). 
 
 {d) The resurrection body will be spiritual. " It is sown 
 a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (i Cor. 15 : 44). 
 The name "spiritual body" must be interpreted with cau- 
 tion. It assures us that the future body will conform to the 
 nature of the spirit, and be its perfect instrument, and there- 
 fore incorruptible (i Cor. 15 : 42). But if we seek to pene- 
 trate farther into its nature, we are at once baffled by the 
 facts : 
 
 (aa) "Spiritual body" taken literally involves a contradic- 
 tion in terms. Spirit and body have no property in common. 
 Indeed, the spirit which has only spirit for its body, has no 
 body at all. Psychical body does not consist of psyche. 
 
 (dd) The condition of our Lord's body during the forty 
 days between the resurrection and ascension is not well 
 enough understood to explain the nature of the spiritual body. 
 If he retained the natural body, no information is afforded as 
 to the spiritual body ; and if he had the spiritual body, mis 
 leading miracles repeatedly occurred. Thus he bade his dis 
 ciples notice that he had flesh and bones (Luke 24 : 39) ; but 
 "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God " (i Cor. 
 1 5 : 50), and so far his condition would invite error as to the 
 nature of the spiritual body. Again, he ate in their presence 
 (Luke 24 : 41-43) ; but food implies bodily waste. 
 
294 '^^E RESURRECTION 
 
 Apparently, the period between the resurrection and ascen- 
 sion was one of transition, its processes suspended processes, 
 and its phenomena characteristic both of the natural and the 
 spiritual bodies. We know too little of our Lord's body dur- 
 ing the forty days to justify an inference as to the nature of 
 the spiritual body. 
 
 It is remarkable that a doctrine which makes immortality , 
 easily conceivable should itself prove especially perplexing ; '^• 
 but no tenable theory of the resurrection has been proposed. 
 
 II. THEORIES OF THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 I . That the substance of the spiritual body will be the same 
 as that of the natural body, except that it will be incorrupti- 
 ble (i Cor. 15 : 42, 53). Until comparatively recent times 
 this theory was identified by friends and foes with the fact of 
 a resurrection. Curious speculations were indulged on the 
 points involved. Tertullian thought that sufficient material 
 to equip a spiritual body would be found in the indestructible 
 teeth. Augustine argued that it would contain all that had 
 ever been part of the natural body, hair-clippings, nail-parings, 
 and the like. Or, according to Aquinas, it would retain just 
 so much material, and so many members as it possessed at 
 death. 
 
 Sufficient objections to this venerable fancy are the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 (a) In the ceaseless round of decomposition and recomposi- 
 tion between the animal and the vegetable kingdoms, it is 
 entirely probable that successive human bodies contain at 
 death the same particles of matter. 
 
 {b) The notion that the same materials can be at one time 
 corruptible, at another incorruptible, involves the speculative 
 fancy on which the doctrine of transubstantiation rests ; 
 
THE RESURRECTION 295 
 
 namely, the separability of essence and accidents — a philos- 
 ophy which has no support in known facts. 
 
 (c) Paul seems to teach that the present and the future 
 bodies are not identical in material : " Thou sowest not the 
 body that shall be" (i Cor, 15 : 37). 
 
 2. The rationalistic notion that the spirits of the dead shall 
 arise for judgment, and afterward be remanded bodiless to 
 their final estate, finds no scriptural support, at least as re- 
 gards the righteous. 
 
 3. The theory that the soul already possesses, or receives 
 immediately at death, an " enswathement " of miaterials so ten- 
 uous and ethereal as to be insusceptible of decay. The resur- 
 rection is thus immediate, and n6t future. Two elements in 
 this theory require notice : 
 
 A. As to time of receiving the spiritual body, that it is 
 received at death is thought to be supported by the statements 
 of Paul that " if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dis- 
 solved, we have a building from God, a house not made with 
 hands, eternal, in the heavens" (2 Cor. 5:1); and that he 
 did not wish to "be unclothed, but . . . would be clothed 
 upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life" (ver. 
 4). This scriptural evidence is reinforced by the use of the 
 brain in all our mental activities. But it must be objected : 
 
 {(i) That the resurrection is connected by Scripture with the 
 future coming of our Lord (i Cor. 15 : 23 ; i Thess. 4 : 16) ; 
 
 {b^ That the full joy of the saints is correspondingly de- 
 ferred (Col. 3 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 4:8;! Peter 5:4;! John 
 3:2); 
 
 {c) That the passage quoted in support of an immediate as- 
 sumption of the spiritual body does not necessarily mean 
 more than that the spiritual body belongs to our heavenly 
 and eternal estate ; whereas, this very passage intimates that 
 
296 THE RESURRECTION 
 
 to be "absent from the body" is to find a compensation, not 
 in the immediate assumption of a better body, but in being 
 "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5 : 8). 
 
 {d) If a physical organism is necessary to the operations of 
 the mind, bodies would seem to be indispensable to the 
 angels, and even to the Deity. 
 
 B. As to substance of the spiritual body, objections to a 
 body composed of ether are : 
 
 {a) The ether is a hypothetical substance, the existence of 
 which is assumed because some medium is necessary to con- 
 vey the vibrations of heat and light unhindered through space. 
 But a substance which does not arrest motion, cannot accu- 
 mulate energy. An ethereal body could not store energy, 
 and — 
 
 (b) It could not release energy. According to the doctrine 
 of correlation every exhibition of energy is secured through 
 disintegration of material. A spiritual body too ethereal to 
 decay would be too ethereal to use. 
 
 4. Theory that the organific power of the soul, which 
 maintains the identity of the body through ceaseless and 
 complete changes of its materials, will at the resurrection 
 organize about itself the materials which constitute a spiritual 
 body. 
 
 But this theory overlooks that the organific process is a 
 process of nutrition, and is carried on only by means of organs 
 already in possession. No light is thus thrown upon the re- 
 sumption of a body by a disembodied soul. 
 
 The facts appealed to assure us, however, that the body, 
 when resumed, will be recognizably the same as at present. 
 
 III. CONCLUSIONS FROM THEORIES. 
 
 I. It \s a safeguard to belief in the resurrection that we 
 
THE LAST JUDGMENT 297 
 
 hold no theory concerning it. The attacks upon the fact of 
 the resurrection have been attacks upon pretended explana- 
 tions of the fact. 
 
 2. It is a mark of exaltation in the spiritual body that 
 its nature cannot be understood. Paul's account of its ad- 
 vantages contradicts present experience, because what he 
 affirms far transcends experience (i Cor. 15 142-44; Phil. 
 3 : 21). The resurrection could not be explained without 
 degrading it. We ought to be satisfied although " it was 
 never yet manifested what we shall be," since "we know that 
 if he be manifested, we shall be like him ; because we shall 
 see him as he is " (i John 3 : 2). 
 
 § 61. The Last Judgment. 
 
 1. The event. 
 
 At the general resurrection the entire fallen race of man- 
 kind QA?lXX. 25 : 31-46 ; Acts 17:31; Rom. 14 : 12 ; 2 Cor. 
 5 : 10; Heb. 9 : 27 ; Rev. 20 : 12), together with the fallen 
 angels (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6, cf. Matt. 8 : 29 ; i Cor. 6 : 3), 
 shall be assembled for judgment and the award of their final 
 estate. 
 
 2. TJie Judge. 
 
 The judge will be the Son of Man (John 5 : 22, 27 ; Acts 
 1 7 : 3 1 ; 2 Cor. 5 : i o ; 2 Tim. 4:1). It is fitting that he who 
 is at once the Saviour and the Lord of men should hold the 
 office of Judge (John 5 : 22, 23). The experience of their 
 lot which made him " a merciful and faithful high priest " 
 (Heb. 2 : 17), is assurance that he will be a competent as well 
 as a merciful judge. 
 
 3. The procedure. 
 
 The judgment will not be a prolonged trial, but an imm$- 
 
298 THE LAST JUDGMENT 
 
 diate verdict (Matt. 25 : 32, 34, 41). The Judge will not 
 need to make inquisition, and the risen dead at least will al- 
 ready have had a foretaste of their eternal state. 
 
 4. TJie grounds of judgment. 
 
 Probation having ended, men shall be judged according to 
 its results, that is, according to their character as fixed and 
 shown by the deeds done in the body (Eccl. 12 : 14; Matt. 
 12 : 36, 37 ; Rom. 2 : 6-16 ; i Cor. 4:512 Cor. 5 : 10 ; 
 Rev. 20 : 12). 
 
 The relation of men to Christ shall then be found, what it 
 has ever been, the all-inclusive reality. 
 
 (a) He that believes in Christ receives remission of sins 
 (Col. I : 14); "Cometh not into judgment, but hath passed 
 out of death into life " (John 5 : 24) ; does " the work of 
 God" (John 6 : 29) ; is "found in him . . . having . . . the 
 righteousness which is from God by faith " (Phil. 3:9); and, 
 abiding in him, " will not be ashamed before him at his com- 
 ing" (I John 2 : 28). 
 
 (b) The wicked shall be condemned "because he hath not 
 believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God" 
 (John 3 : 18). During his earthly career Christ was a touch- 
 stone (John 3 : 19-21 ; 7:7', 8 : 42 ; 9 : 39) ; and even 
 those who have never heard his name will at the last day rec- 
 ognize in him "the true light which lighteth every man" 
 (John I : 9), but which they had refused to follow. This is 
 because God's relations to the world are through the Son ; so 
 that what the Son of God is to men shows what God is to 
 them, and what they are in themselves. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we consider the relation to Christ of 
 the evil or the good, there is no incongruity between salva- 
 tion by faith and judgment by works. 
 
THE FINAL STATE 299 
 
 § 62. The Final State, 
 i. of the wicked. 
 
 1. Eternal punishment. 
 
 Condemned at the last judgment, the wicked "go away 
 into eternal punishment'' (Matt. 25 : 46, cf. Dan. 12 : 2; 
 Mark 9 : 43, 44 ; Luke 16 : 26 ; John 3 : 36 ; 2 Thess. i : 
 7-9; Rev. 14 : II ; 20 : 10). 
 
 2. Its sources. 
 
 As sin does violence to the natures alike of God and man, 
 both co-act in punishing it. The reproaches of conscience 
 deepen into remorse, and the displeasure of God cannot be 
 inoperative. The displeasure of a man of strong and ele- 
 vated character is formidable to an offender ; and that 
 of God must be appalling. " Who may abide the day of his 
 coming } and who shall stand when he appeareth ? " (Mai. 3: 
 2 ; Rev. 6 : 15-17). If God does anything for the good, he 
 may do something against the wicked (Matt. 22 : 13). 
 
 3. Its nature. 
 
 This will necessarily include remorse, and naturally pro- 
 gressive degradation. 
 
 What physical suffering the lost may have to bear we can- 
 not foresee ; but that the risen body will share the ruin of 
 the soul to which it so closely conforms would appear inevi- 
 table. Indeed, the biblical representations of future penalty 
 are chiefly physical. It is called death, the undying worm, 
 unquenchable fire, outer darkness, everlasting destruction 
 from the presence of the Lord. Taken literally, these repre- 
 sentations are mutually contradictory ; they are now gener- 
 ally regarded as figurative, and yet as essentially true. As 
 the accounts of physical delights for the good (Rev. 2 1 and 
 
300 THE FINAL STATE 
 
 22) are not taken literally, so neither need we take literally 
 accounts of physical distress for the wicked. 
 
 4. Errors as to future punishment. 
 
 ( 1 ) A nnihilationism. 
 
 This teaches that the souls as well as the bodies of the 
 wicked will be literally destroyed. It assumes either that 
 the soul is naturally mortal and that regeneration alone con- 
 fers immortality, or that suffering and the disuse of the soul's 
 normal powers issue in atrophy and final extinction of being. 
 
 Against this doctrine may be urged : 
 
 {a) The arguments already presented against the natural 
 mortality of the soul. 
 
 {p) The wicked are threatened with endless pain. Rev. 
 21:8 expressly states that to be in the lake of fire is " the 
 second death," and Rev. 14:11 that " the smoke of their tor- 
 ment goeth up forever and ever." There is one who, after 
 he has killed, can " cast into hell " (Luke 12:4, 5). 
 
 ic) If the wicked are to be annihilated, it could not be 
 good for any of them "if he had not been born " (Matt. 26 : 
 24). In fact, the penalty of the extremest sin would be the 
 ultimate reward which Buddhism accords to the loftiest 
 virtue. 
 
 (2) Eternity of physical death. 
 
 Weiss' " Biblical Theology of the New Testament " (Vol. 
 I., p. 157), says Jesus taught that the wicked are doomed to 
 an eternal deprivation of the body ; that " they remain for- 
 ever in the incorporeal and therefore shadowy condition in 
 which bodily death has placed them"; and that "the con- 
 tinued existence of the soul in this condition, . . . feared 
 
THE FINAL STATE 3OI 
 
 even as a transition state, involves the greatest wretchedness 
 when regarded as final." 
 
 While this theory meets even better than annihilationism 
 the requirements of the texts upon which annihilationism 
 rests, it is contravened by those which teach the resurrection 
 of the wicked. 
 
 (3) Restoratio7iism. 
 
 This is the universalism of the present day. It is now 
 seldom taught that righteous and wicked alike pass at death 
 into a state of happiness. The wicked, it is admitted, must 
 suffer the painful consequences of violating law ; but suffer- 
 ing in a future state is believed to purge away sin. At most, 
 those only who have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit are 
 incapable of ultimate rescue. In favor of this view — 
 
 A. A few passages of Scripture are quoted (Matt. 5 : 26 ; 
 John 12 : 32 ; Rom. 5:18; Phil. 2 : 9-1 1 ; Col. i : 20 ; 2 
 Peter 3:9;! John 2 : 2). 
 
 B. Appealing to the nature of God, restorationism urges 
 that the divine justice will not demand, nor the divine good- 
 ness permit, the eternal punishment of offenses committed 
 in time. 
 
 C. Appealing to the humane sentiments which the Bible 
 itself has fostered, it insists — 
 
 {a) That the doctrine of endless punishment is revolting ; 
 
 {b) That, if we really believed in it, we "could never smile 
 again," and — 
 
 {c) That the redeemed would be miserable in heaven, if 
 they knew that the wicked were to be tormented forever 
 in hell. 
 
 D. Appealing to human experience, the restorationist urges 
 that, when the disguises of sin and the distractions of sense 
 
 2 A 
 
^02 THE FINAL STATE 
 
 are swept away by death, the violence which sin does to the 
 godlike nature of man, and the suffering which it will be 
 found to cause, are certain to fill the sinner with horror and 
 bring him to true repentance. 
 
 We object to restorationism — 
 
 (A) On scriptural grounds : 
 
 (a) It has not made out its case. The texts appealed to 
 are obviously susceptible of its interpretation, yet this is not 
 a necessary interpretation, nor altogether a natural one to a 
 reader who is not hoping to find restorationism in the Bible. 
 
 {b) The explicit teaching of Scripture is against restora- 
 tionism. The same word, ai<i)vi»q==^' eternal," is used in the 
 same verse (Matt. 2 5 : 46) to declare the duration of blessed- 
 ness and of woe. Again, the strongest expression in the 
 New Testament for endlessness, elq ruh-: almvat; rwv aiw.'un>=" for- 
 ever and ever," is used to emphasize the eternity of God's 
 glory (Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4 : 20 ; Heb. 13 : 21 ; 
 Rev. 1:6; etc.), the perpetual exaltation of Christ (Rev. i : 
 18 ; 4:9, 10 ; etc.), the ceaseless reign with him of the saints 
 (Rev. 22 : 5), and the unending punishment of sinners (Rev. 
 20 : 10, cf. 14 : II ; 19 : 3). 
 
 Now, seeing that our only clear knowledge of the future is 
 obtained from the Bible, it is unwarrantable to make deduc- 
 tions contrary to the Bible from the infinite attributes of God, 
 ^ from Christian sentiment, or from the multiform experience 
 of mankind. And yet, like other doctrines, the teaching of 
 Scripture on this point finds extra-scriptural confirmation. 
 We notice then — 
 
 (B) As regards the divine attributes — 
 {a) Sin is revolting alike to holiness and to love. Love 
 equally with holiness is supported by the penal sanctions of 
 law ; as may be seen in the fact that God is affronted and 
 
THE FINAL STATE 3O3 
 
 the human heart hardened quite as much by repelling the di- 
 vine entreaties as by resisting the divine requirements. 
 
 (b) It is not an adequate statement of the current view 
 that God will punish eternally the sins committed in time. 
 His wrath is directed against evil in character, and against 
 evil conduct as the expression and intensification of charac- 
 ter. We conclude therefore that eternal punishment will be 
 inflicted for eternal sin, and for acts in time as involving 
 eternal sin. To object to this would be irrational. 
 
 (C) As regards Christian sentitnetit, the result is not un- 
 equivocally in favor of restorationism. 
 
 {a) Appeal to human pity is met by appeal to the self- 
 reproaches of the penitent. One who is penetrated with a 
 due sense of his sins, heartily accepts with David (Ps. 51:4) 
 the justice of any punishment which God may inflict, and 
 owns to himself that he deserves to be cast away forever. 
 
 (b) Believers in eternal punishment do not wholly deserve 
 the reproach that they are either insincere or insensible. It 
 is a beneficent anomaly of our nature that the certainty of 
 death does not often mar the enjoyment of human ties. 
 Only what the present offers is easily paramount in our im- 
 aginations and hearts. It is for this reason, in part, that 
 restorationists themselves are not deeply concerned about 
 the purgatorial sufferings of unknown intensity and duration 
 which await the wicked. 
 
 (c) The redeemed in heaven will undoubtedly accept the 
 '•judgments of Jehovah" as "true and righteous altogether"; 
 and we shall not be more loving than he (i Cor. 6 : 2). But 
 it does not follow that the blessed are indifferent to the suf- 
 ferings of the lost. Pity may be as consistent with their 
 happiness as with that of God, whose pity moved him even 
 to the sacrifice of his Son. 
 
304 THE FINAL STATE 
 
 (D) As regards the vioral experience of mankind — 
 (a) Suffering is not always reformatory. " The sorrow of 
 the world worketh death" (2 Cor. 7 : 10). It is entirely 
 within the range of experience that chastisement embitters 
 the evil-doer. Terror and distress might even be too over- 
 whelming to be reformatory. The wicked repent not, but 
 even blaspheme because of the pain (Rev. 16 : 9-1 1). 
 
 (p) Experience emphasizes the ethical importance of the 
 stern teachings of the Bible. The penalty adjudged is the 
 measure of a wrong condemned. To deny the scriptural 
 penalty for sin is to deny the scriptural estimate of the hei- 
 nousness of sin. Still further, to abate at all the heinousness 
 of sin is to subtract as much from the worth of holiness ; the 
 holiness of God will not long be regarded as supremely adora- 
 ble ; hunger and thirst after righteousness cannot remain 
 the heart's deepest longing, nor the attainment of moral like- 
 ness to God be prized as the highest destiny of the redeemed. 
 
 (4) Future Probation. 
 
 A future probation is taught only by Protestants. Accord- 
 ing to Roman Catholicism, probation ends at death, and pur- 
 gatory is " a place in which souls who depart this life in the 
 grace of God, . . . but are not pure and holy enough to see 
 God," are cleansed by suffering. The doctrine of restora- 
 tionism just discussed is a doctrine of future probation. Also 
 advocates of what is called "the New Theology" teach that 
 the period between death and judgment will probably afford 
 a probation to those who have not in this life had an oppor- 
 tunity to accept the historic Christ. This conjectural proba- 
 tion is supported by — 
 
 A. An appeal to Scripture. Esoecial reliance is placed 
 
THE FINAL STATE 305 
 
 upon the preaching of Christ to the spirits in prison (i Peter 
 3 : 18-20, cf. 4 : 6). 
 
 But this passage is inconclusive, because — 
 
 (a) I Peter i : 1 1 calls the spirit which testified in the 
 prophets "the spirit of Christ," and the passage before us 
 may refer to the Spirit which spake through Noah to the 
 men of his generation. 
 
 (b) Or, if Peter means that Christ, after the crucifixion, 
 proclaimed the gospel to those who had been drowned in the 
 flood, he does not tell us that they were delivered from prison ; 
 still less that the gospel was preached by Christ to any ante- 
 diluvian or postdiluvian sinners ; least of all that it was 
 thereafter to be offered by him to all who die without having 
 heard it. 
 
 (c) Paul, on the contrary, tells us that "as many as have 
 sinned without law shall also perish without law " (Rom. 2 : 
 12); adds that this is judgment "according to my gospel" 
 (ver. 16); warns us that all will "receive the things done in 
 the body . . . whether it be good or bad " (2 Cor. 5 : 10) ; 
 foretells that the Lord Jesus shall render "vengeance to 
 them that know not God " (heathen), " and to them that 
 obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus " (unbelieving Jews) 
 (2 Thess. I : 8). 
 
 B. An appeal to the tmiversality of Christianity. 
 
 [a) Christ came for all ; therefore all will presumably be 
 allowed an opportunity to accept him. 
 
 (b) It would be inconsistent with the compassionate love 
 of God to condemn to eternal woe any one whose character 
 is not unalterably fixed in wickedness ; but such a state is not 
 reached until the sinner has rejected the strongest incentives 
 to righteousness, and these are found only in Christ. 
 
306 THE FINAL STATE 
 
 (c) Christian consciousness has been trained by the Script 
 ures themselves to insist upon a future probation which the 
 Scriptures do not expressly declare. 
 
 These inferences are open to the objections : 
 (a) That a finite being is incompetent to judge what the 
 infinite excellencies of God lead him to do. 
 
 (d) Christian consciousness cannot be confidently appealed 
 to in support of a novel doctrine which may prove to be but 
 a passing fancy of the times. 
 
 II. OF THE RIGHTEOUS. 
 
 The Bible exhausts imagery in describing the blessedness 
 of heaven. 
 
 The happiness of the righteous will probably be as varied 
 as their capabilities. The reason for so believing is that un- 
 employed powers are a source of discomfort, while normal 
 activity always produces delight. 
 
 The bodies of the redeemed will participate in the well- 
 being of their souls. The resurrection restores completeness, 
 and is an element in their satisfaction (Ps. 17 : 15). The pos- 
 session of the spiritual body must be taken into account in 
 every attempt to conceive the estate of the blessed. 
 
 More specifically, it is either expressly taught in the Bible, 
 or it may reasonably be inferred, that — 
 
 I. T/ie spiritual body will be exempt from physical discom- 
 fort and decay (Rev. 7 : 16 ; 21 : 4). 
 
 Its local relations could be determined only by making out 
 the constitution of the spiritual body ; but the very idea of 
 body seems to involve the idea of place ; and the Bible cer- 
 tainly warrants an assured anticipation that heaven will V»e a 
 home (John 14 : 2, 3 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 8, R. V.). 
 
THE FINAL STATE 307 
 
 2. The mind will be fully employed in knowing God, and 
 in knowing all that is implied in a full knowledge of him 
 (i Cor. 13 : 12). 
 
 The spiritual body will undoubtedly be the facile organ of 
 increasing knowledge ; but in what ways and measure can 
 only be conjectured. 
 
 3. Release from sin will be due to the full development of 
 that sonship which is imparted in the new birth, and is per- 
 fected when we see the Lord (i John 3 : 2). 
 
 The moral relations of the redeemed body are highly inter- 
 esting and important. 
 
 {a) The senses will no longer tempt to sensuality, nor, pre- 
 sumably, will they distract the attention of the mind from its 
 proper employment ; since whatever is presented to the mind 
 in heaven will be a suitable object of notice. 
 
 {b) When perfection is in question, much more than deliv- 
 erance from gross offenses is required. In art, said Michael 
 Angelo, " trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle." 
 It is a physical law that the least increase in the speed of a 
 rapid runner is secured only by greatly increased effort. Anal- 
 ogously, it is of high moment to the spirit that bodily infirm- 
 ities shall be at an end ; that the spiritual body shall not 
 falter and faint under the demands of moral energy, as often 
 now, when "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." Its 
 healthful alacrity may even stimulate the willing spirit. 
 
 4. The recognition of friends in heaven is assured — 
 
 {a) By the very fact of the resurrection. To have bodies 
 is to be recognizable here, and recognizable there. Only 
 anxious affection could doubt this. The saint will know him- 
 self ; it is incredible that the spiritual body will not afford 
 him any means of making himself known. 
 
 {b) To have spiritual bodies is not improbably to be far 
 
3o8 THE FINAL STATE 
 
 more recognizable than now ; because the spiritual body by 
 serving as the perfect instrument, becomes the perfect mirror 
 of the soul. 
 
 (c) The fact that recognition must be inferred from resur- 
 rection accounts for the silence of Scripture on a point of so 
 deep and so widely felt interest. The Sadducees took it for 
 granted in the question which they put to Jesus (Matt. 22 : 
 23-29) ; and Jesus took it for granted in his reply that " in 
 the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in mar- 
 riage " (ver. 30). It would have been an obvious and a com- 
 plete answer that the wife of seven husbands could not recog- 
 nize any of them, if this were to be the case. 
 
 (d) Social relations of the blessed are involved in Paul's 
 assurance that the Thessalonian disciples would be his hope, 
 joy, crown of glorying in the presence of the Lord Jesus at 
 his coming (i Thess. 2 : 19). They were illustrated by the 
 fact that Moses and Elijah talked with Christ at his transfig- 
 uration, and were known by the disciples. 
 
 (e) Love itself, the crowning grace of the future as of the 
 present life (i Cor. 13 : 13), will be the ceaseless torment of 
 the holy, if they are never to meet and to know those whom 
 they love. So cruel and so preposterous would such a disap- 
 pointment be that our eager affections furnish the answer to 
 their own question. 
 
 5. A doctrine of Beatific Vision is taught in the New Tes- 
 tament (i Cor. 13:12; I John 3 : 2), and impressively sup- 
 ported by the elder Scriptures (Ps. 17 : 15, cf. Num. 12 : 8). 
 The Roman Catholic Church confidently defines the nature 
 of the vision of God which is permitted to his saints : she 
 holds that those who are purified from all sin behold with the 
 spirit the essence, the attributes, and the Tri-unity of the 
 Godhead. But the attempt to construe the knowledge of the 
 
THE FINAL STATE 309 
 
 Supreme Spirit which the blessed enjoy as different in kind 
 from the communion that believers now have with the Father 
 (i John I : 3) and with the Holy Spirit (John 14 : 17 ; 2 Cor. 
 13 : 14), involves self-contradictions which become the more 
 pronounced with every effort at precision of statement. 
 
 Whether, then, the spiritual body will possess faculties by 
 which it can discern the Father and the Spirit we cannot 
 know, and well may doubt. But every promise of the Sec- 
 ond Coming assures us that we shall see the Lord, behold in 
 him the glory of the Godhead (Matt. 16 : 27 ; Rev. i : 7), and 
 be satisfied (Ps. 17 : 15). 
 
INDEX TO SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 
 
 Abelard, 199,203. 
 
 Ability, natural, 153. 
 
 Abiogenesis, 88. 
 
 Abnormality, essence of sin, 138. 
 
 Adam's natural headship, 146. 
 
 Adoption, 260, 262, 263. 
 
 Agnosticism, 4. 
 
 Aims of theology, 21. 
 
 Ancient worthies, 186, 210, 239. 
 
 Angels, 115. 
 
 Annihilationism, 267, 284, 300, 
 
 Anselm, 50, 166, 199, 201. 
 
 Anthropology, 12 '. 
 
 Antinomianism, 274. 
 
 Apes, 122. 
 
 ApoUinarism, 167. 
 
 Apostolic church and Christ, 163. 
 
 Aquinas, 199. 
 
 Arminianism, 83, 144, 207. 
 
 Arianism, 166. 
 
 Attributes of God, 63 ; relations of, 75. 
 
 Atonement, 197. 
 Historical survey, 198; patristic theory, 
 198; satisfaction theory, 198; scholastic 
 theories, 199; Romish theory, 199; re- 
 former's theory, 200; federalist theory, 
 200; moral influence theory, 203; gov- 
 ernmental theory, 206 ; Arminian theory, 
 207; realistic theories, 208; comparative 
 view, 211. 
 Biblical statement, 213; gift of love, 213; 
 cross expiatory, 213, 232. 238 ; resurrection 
 piacular, 216 ; moral efficacy, 218. 
 Theoretical statement, 223 ; postulates, 224 ; 
 Christ representative, 224 ; representative 
 bears sin, 229; sin-bearing expiates, 231 , 
 expiation renews, 234, 238, 263, 270; ne- 
 cessity of atonement, 236 ; extent of 
 atonement, 239. 
 
 Beatific yision, 308. 
 
 Benevolence, 71, and justice of God, 74, 76. 
 
 Bernard, 199. 
 
 Bible : source of theology, 7 ; and science, 11 ; 
 and intuitions, 12; and church, 18; doc- 
 trine of itself, 24 ; authority, 7, 13, 17, 31. 
 
 Biology and creation, 88. 
 
 Blasphemy of Holy Spirit, 181, 182. 
 
 Bushnell on atonement, 203. 
 
 Calling, divine, 249. 
 
 Calvinism : decrees, 82 ; fall, 141 ; depravity, 
 145 ; responsibility, 154 ; atonement, 200 ; 
 extent of atonement, 240; election and 
 calling, 243, 246, 249. 
 
 Campbell, McLeod : on atonement, 204. 
 
 Causation, 42, 44, 96. 
 
 Chalcedon Christology, 168. 
 
 Change and time : ratio of, 40. 
 
 Christ : proof of a God, 59 ; humanity, 168 ; 
 divinity, 159; relations of natures, 167; 
 two states, 178; humiliation, 178; exalta- 
 tion, 179 ; offices, 19(5 ; interdependence 
 of offices, 196; atonement, 197 ; teachings, 
 219, 234 ; representative, 224 ; relations to 
 universe, 225 ; sin-bearer, 229 ; sacrifice, 
 214,231; lordship, 234; intercessor, 218, 
 241; second advent, 287 ; body after resur- 
 rection, 293; judge, 297. 
 
 Christian consciousness, 12, 16, 165, 181, 183, 
 278, 303, 306, 308. 
 
 Christian experience (see Christian conscious- 
 ness). 
 
 Christianity in history, 57. 
 
 Church : source of theoL gy, 8 ; and Bible, 18 ; 
 and Holy Spirit, 187. 
 
 Clarke, Samuel : theistic argument of^ 51. 
 
 Cocceius on atonement, 200. 
 
 Comparative theology, 21, 117. 
 
 Concursus, 100, 103. 
 
 Conditions of eschatology, 282. 
 
 Conscience, 53, 152. 
 
 Consciousness and immortality, 285. 
 
 Conservation, 95. 
 
 Constantinople christology, 169. 
 
 Constitution of man, 124. 
 
 3ii 
 
3^2 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Continuity, law of, 96. 
 
 Continuous creation, 99, 103. 
 
 Convertibility of force, 42, 97, 148, 285. 
 
 Cosmological argument, 39. 
 
 Covenants, 145, 200. 
 
 Creation, 40, 44, 47, 83; final cause in, 93; of 
 
 man, 121. 
 Creatioui.sm, 127,145. 
 
 Crucifixion: expiates, 213 ; renews, 220, 235. 
 Cud worth's theistic argument, 61. 
 Cycles : theory of, 41. 
 
 Death, 141, 283. 
 
 Decrees of God, 76; evidences of, 77; safe- 
 guards, SO; theories, 82. 
 
 Deism, 100, 103. 
 
 Demons, 118. 
 
 Depravity, 143 ; extent of, 143 ; theories, 144. 
 
 Descartes' theistic argument, 50. 
 
 Design argument, 47. 
 
 Determinism (see Necessitarianism). 
 
 Devils, 118. 
 
 Dichotomy, 124. 
 
 Diophysitism, 168. 
 
 Diothelitism, 169. 
 
 Dispensation of Holy Spirit, 184. 
 
 Dissipation of energy, 41. 
 
 Divinity of Christ, 159; evidence, 160 ; the- 
 ories, 165. 
 
 Divinity of Holy Spirit, 181. 
 
 Docetism, 166. 
 
 Dorner's christology, 171. 
 
 Dualism, 46, 99. 
 
 Duns Scotus, 199, 207. 
 
 Election and calling, 243; controrersy, 243; 
 
 fact of election, 244 ; conditions, 247 ; 
 
 execution, calling, 249. 
 Empiricism, 9, 38, 44. 
 Energy (see Force). 
 Eschatology, 282. 
 ^ysthelic sensibility, 53. 
 Eternity assumahle, 38. 
 Eternity of God, 64. 
 Eternity of matter, 11, 40, 47, 86, 98. 
 Eternal generation, 194. 
 Eternal punishment, 299. 
 Ethereal body, 295. 
 Eutaxiological argument, 45. 
 Eutychianism, 16R. 
 Evil, origin of, 82, 141, 1.55. 
 Evolution, 9, 12, 38, 39, 49, 65, 89, 122, 136. 
 
 Exaltation of Christ, 179. 
 Exegesis, 8, 15, 20. 
 Expiation, 213, 216, 232, 234, 238. 
 Extent of atonement, 239 ; purpose, 239 ; pro- 
 vision, 240. 
 
 Faith 253 : nat u re of, V53 ; offices, 2.56 ; relation 
 to election, 248; relation to regeneration, 
 263. 
 
 Fall of man, 13S: problem, 139; theories, 140; 
 penal consequences, 141. 
 
 Federalism, 145, 200, 201. 
 
 Final cause in creation, 93. 
 
 Final perseverance of saints, 279. 
 
 Final state, 299: of wicked, 299 — eternal 
 punishment, 299; errors, 300; of right- 
 eous, 306. 
 
 Finality, immanent, 49. 
 
 First cause, 42, 86, 96, 148. 
 
 First truths, 9, 10, 36, 38, 120. 
 
 Force, 41, 42, 97, 100, 108. 
 
 Foreknowledge, 67, 247. 
 
 Forgiveness, 213, 216, 263. 
 
 Freedom, 146, 151 : necessity coinciding with, 
 151 ; formal, 151 ; real, 152. 
 
 Future probation, 304. 
 
 Ood : existence, 36 ; not intuited, 36 ; in his- 
 tory, 56, 81 ; personality, 59 ; unity, 61 ; 
 attributes, 63 ; motive in creation, 93. 
 
 Governmental theory of atonement, 206. 
 
 Grotius : theory of atonement, 206. 
 
 Hamilton, Sir W. : agnosticism, 4, 6. 
 
 Heathenism, 117, 157. 
 
 Heaven, 306. 
 
 Hegel : his idea of religion, 8 ; of moral attri- 
 butes, 4, 6. 
 
 Hell, 299. 
 
 Heredity, 128. 
 
 Heterogenesis, 92. 
 
 Higher life, 277. 
 
 Historical argument for theism, 56. 
 
 Holiness of God, 70 ; primacy of, 75. 
 
 Holy Spirit: divinity of, 181; personality, 
 181; sin against, 181, 182; offices, 184— 
 under old covenant, 185; under new 
 covenant, 186 — dispensation of, 184 ; pro- 
 cession of, 195. 
 
 Human element in Bible, 29. 
 
 Humanitarianism, 166. 
 
 Humanity of Christ, 158. 
 
 Hume, 36. 
 
INDEX 
 
 313 
 
 Humilittlon of Christ, 178. 
 HypercalTlnism, 82, 141, 243, 246. 
 
 Illumination, 24, 27, 32. 
 
 Image of God in man, 8, 14, 129, 173. 
 
 Immanent finality, 49. 
 
 Immortality of soul, 284, 300. 
 
 Immutability of God, 64. 
 
 Inability and responsibility, 153. 
 
 Incarnation : reason of, 236. 
 
 Infallibility of church, 18; of Bible, 31. 
 
 Infant salvation, 156. 
 
 Infinite incomprehensible, 4, 7, 22, 43, 65, 68. 
 
 Infralapsarianism, 247. 
 
 Inspiration, 24; definitions, 24 ; evidences, 
 24; phenomena, 26; elements, 28 ; au- 
 thority, 31 ; theories, 31. 
 
 Intercession of Christ, 218, 241. 
 
 Interdependence of Christ's offices, 196. 
 
 Intermediate state, 286 ; incomplete, 286 ; 
 conscious, 286 ; activities, 287. 
 
 Intuitions (see first truths). 
 
 James' doctrine of works, 263. 
 
 Janet's teleology, 49. 
 
 Judaism, 157, 185, 191, 214, 218. 
 
 Judgment : final, 297. 
 
 Justice of God, 73, 205, 207, 213, 238. 
 
 Justification, 260 ; nature, 260 ; evidence, 260 ; 
 
 difficulties, 261 ; relation to regeneration, 
 
 262. 
 
 Kant, 3, 4, 6, 38. 
 
 Eenosis, 170. 
 
 Knowing Qod possible, i. 
 
 Last judgment, 297. 
 
 Law: universal, 45; relation to love, 71, 72; 
 relation to miracles, 108 ; of God, 131 ; 
 idea of, 131 ; source, 133 ; obligation, 134 ; 
 relation to sin, 135; relation to penalty, 
 141, 154, 208 ; relation to nature of Christ, 
 172; relation to perfectionism, 276. 
 
 Lechler's idea of religion, 3. 
 
 Libertarianism, 150. 
 
 Limits of theology, 22. 
 
 Logos, 167, 170, 171, 172, 193, 225. 
 
 Loss of moral freedom, 146. 
 
 Love: theistic inference from, 54; nature of, 
 72 ; merit, 73 ; relation to justice, 74 ; 
 relation to atonement, 213; affronted by 
 pin, 302 ; recognizes in heaven, 308. 
 
 Magic, 113. 
 
 Mansel, 4, 6. 
 
 Man : source of theology, 8 ; image of God, 
 
 8, 14, 129; nature, 120; creation, 121; 
 
 unity of race, 124; constitution, 124; 
 
 origin of soul, 127 ; original condition, 
 
 130 ; fall, 138. 
 Mary's knowledge of Christ, 160. 
 Materialism, 45. 
 
 Mathematics and theism, 45, 86. 
 Matter and force, 42, 97, 100 ; eternity of 
 
 (see Eternity of Matter) ; and motion of, 
 
 39. 
 Maurice on atonement, 203. 
 Maxwell, Clerk; on constitution of matter, 
 
 40 ; on matter and force, 97. 
 Metaphysical proof of creation, 42, 85. 
 Methods: of theology, 23; of christology, 
 
 159, 167. 
 Middle state, 286. 
 Millennium, 288. 
 Mind and world, 9, 45, 85, 96. 
 Miracles, 108; nature, 108; credibility, 109; 
 
 office, 111 ; congruity with doctrine, 113. 
 Monism, 45, 95, 99. 
 Monophysitism, 168. 
 Monotheism, 61. 
 Moral argument for theism, 52. 
 Moral freedom, 146. 
 
 Moral influence theory of atonement, 203. 
 Moral penalties, 206. 
 
 Mystical idea : of religion, 3 ; of omnipres- 
 ence, 69. 
 
 Native depravity (see Depravity). 
 
 Nature of man, 120. 
 
 Natural headship of Adam, 146. 
 
 Nature a source of theology, 9. 
 
 Necessitarianism, 148. 
 
 Necessity and freedom coincide, 151. 
 
 Necessary existence, 38, 51. 
 
 Necessity of atonement, 236 ; to God, 237 ; to 
 
 man, 238. 
 Necessity of incarnation, 236. 
 Necessity of sin, 140. 
 Nestorianism, 168. 
 
 New England theology, 74, 144, 153, 206. 
 New school (see New England theology). 
 New theology, 12, 304. 
 Nicene doctrine of Trinity, 194. 
 
 Offices of Christ, 196; interdependent, 196; 
 doctrines classified by, 197. 
 
3M 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Offices of Holy Spirit, 184. 
 
 Old School on responsibility, 153. 
 
 Omnipotence, 66. 
 
 Omnipresence, 69. 
 
 Omniscience, 67. 
 
 Ontological argument, 50. 
 
 Order, 45 (see Law). 
 
 Ordo salutis, 242. 
 
 Origen, 166, 198, 289. 
 
 Origin of evil, 76, 82, 139, 141, 155. 
 
 Origin of souls, 127. 
 
 Original condition of man, 130. 
 
 Original innocence, 129, 137. 
 
 Pantheism, 61, 95, 103, 209; Christian, 96; 
 dynamic, 42, 99. 
 
 Paul: on decrees, 79, 81; constitution of 
 man, 125; essence of sin, 136; depravity, 
 146 ; divinity of Christ, 164 ; huuiilia- 
 tion of Christ, 178; exaltation of Christ, 
 180; generation of Christ, 194; expia- 
 tion, 215 ; resurrection atones, 217 ; atone- 
 ment regenerates, 221 ; cosmic offices 
 of Christ, 225; election, 245; nature of 
 faith, 254, 256; offices of faith, 256, 258; 
 justification and regeneration, 264; per- 
 fection, 274; intermediate state, 286; 
 second coming, 291 ; spiritual body, 293, 
 297. 
 
 Pelagianism, 82, 144. 
 
 Penal consequences of fall, 141 ; death, 141 ; 
 depravity, 143; loss of freedom, 146; de- 
 rangement of conscience, 152. 
 
 Penalty : natural, 141 ; nature of, 299 ; eternal, 
 299 ; errors, 300. 
 
 Perfection : argument from for theism, 50, 
 63 ; for unity of God, 63. 
 
 Perfectionism, 275. 
 
 Perseverance of saints, 279; human aspect, 
 279 ; divine aspect, 280. 
 
 Personality of God, 59 ; also monopersonality 
 and tripersonality, 189. 
 
 Personality of Holy Spirit, 181. 
 
 Philosophy and thei8m,'38; and Christianity, 
 157; and atonement, 211. 
 
 Physiological theory of Christ, 172 ; one per- 
 son, 172; one species, 173; one soul, 174; 
 epitome, 176. 
 
 Plymouth Brethren, 267,276,277. 
 
 Polytheism and monotheism, 62; and angels, 
 117. 
 
 Poit'inlUenarianism, 3M, 
 
 Power of contrary choice, 147, 160. 
 
 Prayer, 105. 
 
 Pre-existence of souls, 127. 
 
 Pre-millenarianism, 288. 
 
 Preparation : for coming of Chriat, 157 ; for 
 
 accepting gospel, 157 ; for extending the 
 
 gospel, 158. 
 Priesthood and prophecy, 186. 
 Primacy in moral attributes, 75. 
 Primary beliefs, (see First truths). 
 Primitive generation, 92. 
 Probation, future, 304. 
 Procession of Holy Spirit, 195. 
 Progressive incarnation, 171. 
 Prophecy, 157, 186, 214, 282. 
 Providence: illustrated, 57, 102; general, 101; 
 
 particular, 102; theories, 103. 
 Punishment, (see Penalty). 
 
 Realism, 146, 169, 208, 227. 
 
 Realistic view : of depravity, 146 ; of Christ, 
 169; of atonement, 208, 227. 
 
 Reason of man, 120. 
 
 Recognition in heaven, 307. 
 
 Regeneration: under old covenant, 186; re- 
 lation to justification, 262; nature, 265; 
 errors, 266 ; agent, 268 ; means, 269 ; neces- 
 sity, 270 ; evidences, 270. 
 
 Relation of natures in Christ, 167. 
 
 Religion : relations of to theology, 2 ; theories 
 of. 3. 
 
 Repentance, 251 ; elements in, 252. 
 
 Representation in Christ, 224. 
 
 Responsibility, 154. 
 
 Restorationism, 301. 
 
 Resurrection of body, 292; theories, 294. 
 
 Resurrection of Christ: piacular, 216, 28S; 
 life-giving, 223, 235. 
 
 Revelation, 24. 
 
 Ritschl on atonement, 203. 
 
 Roman empire and gospel, 158. 
 
 Sabellianism, 193. 
 
 Sacramentalism on regeneration, 26€. 
 
 Sacrifices, 213, 218. 
 
 Salvation of infants, 156. 
 
 Sanctification, 272 ; extent, 273 ; provision for, 
 
 274 ; errors, 274. 
 Satan, 118. 
 
 Satisfaction theory, 198. 
 Schleiermacher, 3, 12, 209. 
 Science: and philosophy, 9; and Bible, 11; 
 
INDEX 
 
 315 
 
 and creation, 89, 86; etchatology, 282; 
 
 immortality, 285; resurrection, 294, 296. 
 Scotug, 199, 207. 
 Second advent, 287 ; relation to millennium, 
 
 288. 
 Self-determination of ego, 147, 151 ; of will, 
 
 147. 
 Selfishness, 137. 
 Self-regarding functions, 72. 
 Self-love, 72. 
 Semi-arianism, 166. 
 Semi-pantheism, 99. 
 Semi-pelagianism, 144. 
 Sensuality, 136. 
 Sermon on Mount, 3, 219. 
 Sin, 136 ; definition, 135 ; phases, 135 ; essence, 
 
 136. 
 Sin-bearing, 229. 
 Social functions, 72. 
 Social love, 72. 
 Social state in heaven, 307. 
 Soteriology, 157. 
 Souls : origin of, 127 ; pre-existence, 127 ; crea- 
 
 tionism and traducianism, 127. 
 Soul-sleeping, 286. 
 
 Sources of theology, 7 ; relations of, 9. 
 Special creation, 11, 89, 93. 
 Spencer, Herbert, 4, 6, 10. 
 Spirit of the times, 12, 15, 23. 
 Spiritual body, 293, 306, 307. 
 Spirituality of God, 65. 
 Spontaneous generation, 88. 
 Subordinationism, 166. 
 Sublapsarianism, 247. 
 Supralapsarianism, 246. 
 Symbols in religion, 185. 
 
 Teachings of Christ, 319. 
 
 Teleological argument, 47. 
 
 Theistic arguments, 36. 
 
 Theism universal, 57. 
 
 Theology : definition, 1 ; titles, 1 ; relation to 
 religion, 2 ; possibility, 4 ; sources, 7 ; re- 
 lation of sources, 9 ; aims, 21; limitations, 
 22 ; methods, 23 ; proper, 36. 
 
 Theological sciences, 19. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, 199. 
 
 Time and change : ratio of, 40. 
 
 Total depravity, 143. 
 
 Traducianism, 127. 
 
 Trichotomy, 125, 267. 
 
 Trinity : and divine consciousness, 61, 191 ; 
 and monism, 98; definition, 189; evi- 
 dences, 189 ; relations within, 192. 
 
 Trust, 54, 256, 258. 
 
 Two states of Christ, 178. 
 
 Unity of God, 61. 
 Unity of universe, 62, 96, 98. 
 Unity of human race, 124. 
 UniversaUsm (see restorationism). 
 Utilitarianism, 55, 56, 137, 208. 
 
 Vicariousness of Christ, 224. 
 Vital principle, 88, 285. 
 Volition and cause, 42, 44, 96. 
 
 Weiss' doctrine of second death, 300. 
 Wesleyanism, 144, 207, 244, 249, 276, 
 Will and causation {see Volition, etc.); na- 
 ture of will, 147 ; freedom of, 147, 
 Word (see Logos). 
 
 World and mind (see Mind and world). 
 World, a source of theology, 9. 
 Worship, nature of, 64. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND POLITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 
 
To him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus 
 unto all the generations of the eternal ages. Eph. j .• 21. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAOS 
 
 The Church 11-27 
 
 I. Uses of " Ecclesia" 14-24 
 
 1. In Classics 14-16 
 
 2. In Septuagint 16 
 
 3. In New Testament 17-24 
 
 A. Whole Body of Believ- 
 
 ers 17-22 
 
 B. Local Body of Believ- 
 
 ers 22-24 
 
 n. Definition of "Church" 24-27 
 
 1. Professed Believers 24, 25 
 
 2. Baptized 26 
 
 3. On Credible Profession 26 
 
 4. Purpose Stated 27 
 
 The Ordinances 27-45 
 
 A. Definition 27, 28 
 
 B. Importance 28 
 
 I. Baptism 29-35 
 
 1. From Christ 29 
 
 2. Permanent 29 
 
 3. Commemorative 29 
 
 4. Symbolical 29, 30 
 
 5. By Immersion 30, 31 
 
 (a) Classic Usage 30 
 
 (6) New Testament Usage 30 
 
 (c) As Figurative 30 
 
 (rf) As Commemorative 30 
 
 (e) As Symbolical 30 
 
 (/) Consensus of Christen- 
 dom 30, 31 
 
 II. Communion 35-45 
 
 1. Its Nature 35-38 
 
 2. Sacramental Theories of its 
 
 Nature 39-41 
 
 PAOK 
 
 (a) Zwinglian 39 
 
 (6) Calvinistic 39, 40 
 
 (c) German Reformed 40 
 
 (d) Lutheran 40, 41 
 
 (e) High Church Episcopalian 41 
 (/) Romanist 41 
 
 3. Participants 41-44 
 
 A. Why Restricted 42, 43 
 
 ^^a) Relation to Baptism 42 
 
 {i>) New Testament Ex- 
 ample 42, 43 
 
 (c) If open, subverts bap- 
 tism 43 
 
 ((/) Not consistently urged... 43 
 
 (e) Precedence of baptism 
 admitted 43 
 
 (/) Evils of open commun- 
 ion 43 
 
 B. Objections 43, 44 
 
 (a) Lord's table 43 
 
 (b) Restriction unscriptnral. 44 
 
 (c) Inconsistent 44 
 
 4. Frequency of Celebration 44 
 
 5. Title of Ordinance 44,45 
 
 Church Polity 46-76 
 
 I. Determination of a Polity.... 46-51 
 
 1. Polity an Outgrowth 46,47 
 
 (a) Of church life 46 
 
 (b) Gradual 46 
 
 (c) With divine and human 
 
 elements 47 
 
 (d) Stages of early growth.... 47 
 
 2. Scriptural Authority 47 
 
 (ct) In New Testament 47 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGK 
 
 (b) Permanently binding 47 
 
 (c) In principle, not detail 47 
 
 3. Regulative Principles 48,49 
 
 (a) Relation of Christ to 
 
 members 48 
 
 (6) Relation of Christ to 
 
 church 49 
 
 (c) Relation of members to 
 
 members.. 49 
 
 {(i) Completeness of church... 49 
 
 4. Criteria of Polity 49-51 
 
 (a) Criteria stated 49 
 
 (6) Relations of criteria 49, 50 
 
 (c) Law and liberty 50, 51 
 
 H. Officers of the Church 51-09 
 
 (I) Transient Officers ... 52-58 
 
 1. Apostles 52-56 
 
 A. Rise of Apostolate.... 52,53 
 
 B. Apostolate Transient. 53, 54 
 
 (a) Nature of office 52,53 
 
 (b) Instructions 54 
 
 (c) Qualifications 54 
 
 (d) Inauguration 55 
 
 (e) Course of Apostles 55 
 
 (/) No sign of perma- 
 nence 55 
 
 {(/) Office comprehen- 
 
 sive 55, 56 
 
 2. Prophets 56 
 
 (o) Meaning of title 56 
 
 (6) Office foretold 56 
 
 (c) Itsrank 56 
 
 {d) Its scope 56 
 
 3. Evangelists 57,68 
 
 A. Their Office 57 
 
 (a) Timothy 57 
 
 (6) Titus 57 
 
 B. Essentially Transient... 58 
 
 4. Pastors and Teachers 58 
 
 (a) Functions not desig- 
 nated 58 
 
 PAOI 
 
 (6) Pastor not a bishop 58 
 
 (c) " Angel of church " un- 
 certain 58 
 
 (II) Permanent Officers 58-69 
 
 (A) Needed 69 
 
 (B) Titles Descriptive 69 
 
 1. Bishop or Presbyter 59-68 
 
 A. Titles 58,60 
 
 B. Identity of Office 60,61 
 
 C. Divinely Appointed 61 
 
 D. Plurality of Elders 61 
 
 E. Duties 61-63 
 
 (a) To preach 61 
 
 (6) To shepherd 61,62 
 
 (c) To teach 62 
 
 (d) To lead 62 
 
 (e) To rule 62,63 
 
 (/) To preside 63 
 
 F. Qualifications 63 
 
 G. Call to Ministry 63, C4 
 
 (a) Native qualifications.... 63 
 (6) Inward vocation 63 
 
 (c) Church's approval 63 
 
 (d) Providential leadings 63, 64 
 Conclusion 64 
 
 H. Ordination 64,65 
 
 (a) Significance 64 
 
 (6) Ceremonial 65 
 
 (c) Authority to ordain 65 
 
 I. Errors as to Ministry 66-68 
 
 (A) Ruling Elders 66 
 
 (B) Priestly Functions 66,67 
 
 (C) Three Orders 67 
 
 (a) Meager history of rise 67 
 (6) Felt need of leaders... 67 
 
 (c) Example of Roman 
 
 Empire 67 
 
 (d) Foreshadowed apostasy 68 
 
 (/) Sacerdotal ideas 68 
 
 (/) Antiquity of errors 68 
 
 2. Deacons 68,69 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 (a) Origin of oflBce 68 
 
 (6) Meaning of title 68 
 
 (c) Qualifications 69 
 
 {d) Duties 69 
 
 m. Internal Government 69-73 
 
 1. Principles 72 
 
 2. Aims 72 
 
 3. Scope 72,73 
 
 4. Rules of Order 73 
 
 5. Church Discipline 69-71 
 
 (1) Excisions 69-71 
 
 A. Personal offenses 69, 7 
 
 B. Public offenses 70 
 
 (a) Scandalous sins 70 
 
 (6) Heresy 70 
 
 (c) Disorderly walk 70 
 
 C. Other Cases 71 
 
 (a) Uncharacteristic 
 
 faults 71 
 
 (6) Pecuniary disagree- 
 ments 71 
 
 (2) Restorations 71 
 
 IV. External Relations 73-76 
 
 PAQK 
 
 1. Autonomy 73,74 
 
 2. Letters of Dismission 71, 72 
 
 3. Councils 74-76 
 
 A. Nature of Council 74 
 
 (a) Mutual council 74 
 
 (6) Ex-parte council 74 
 
 B. Objects of Councils 74,75 
 
 (a) To constitute a church.. 74 
 (6) To ordain a minister.... 75 
 
 (c) To advise 75 
 
 (d) To decide an issue 75 
 
 C. Justification of Councils... 75 
 
 (a) Common interests 75 
 
 (6) Wider wisdom 75 
 
 (c) Security against preju- 
 dice 75 
 
 {d) Truth the sole authority 75 
 
 D. Conclusions 75,76 
 
 (a) As to personnel of coun- 
 cil 75 
 
 (6) As to letters missive 75 
 
 (c) As to date of ordination 76 
 
THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 It has pleased God, in his work of redemption, to select a 
 body of men to whom and through whom he might manifest 
 himself, and by whom he accomplishes the work of salva- 
 tion (John 17:6, 18, 22, 23 ; Eph. 3 : 10, 11). 
 
 The primal fact which determines the character of this 
 body is, that it is called by God to this service and function. 
 The Greek word xaXeiv (to call), with its derivatives and com- 
 pounds, connotes the distinctive characteristics of this body 
 of men. We have then : 
 
 I. KaXei)^ — to call — the first act (in time) of Christ in rela- 
 tion to his people. 
 
 And whom he predestined, them he also called ; and whom he 
 called, them he also justified ; and whom he justified, them he also 
 glorified (Rom. 8 : 30). 
 
 That he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of 
 mercy, which he before prepared unto glory ; whom he also called, 
 even us, not from Jews only, but also from Gentiles (Rom. 9 : 23, 24). 
 
 God is faithful, through whom ye were called into the fellowship 
 of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (i Cor. i : 9). 
 
 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren 
 beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you to 
 salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ; where- 
 unto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2 : 13, 14). 
 
 But ye are a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a 
 people for a possession ; that ye should show forth the excellencies of 
 him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (i Peter 
 2 :9). 
 
 II 
 
12 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 2. KX7jToi—the called. 
 
 Among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ's, to all the be- 
 loved of God that are in Rome, called to be saints : Grace to you and 
 peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. i : 6, 7). 
 
 And we know that all things work together for good to those who 
 love God, to those who are called according to his purpose (Rom 8 : 28). 
 
 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, 
 and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, 
 those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints (i Cor. i : 
 
 1.2). 
 
 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to the called, 
 beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ (Jude i). 
 
 3. KX^at^ — the calling. 
 
 For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of (Rom. 1 1 : 29). 
 
 For see your calling, brethren, that not many are wise after the flesh, 
 not many mighty, not many noble (i Cor, i : 26.) 
 
 The eyes of your heart being enlightened ; that ye may know what 
 is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inher- 
 itance in the saints (Eph. i : 18). 
 
 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, e.xhort you to walk worthy of 
 the calling with which ye were called (Eph. 4:1). 
 
 There is one body, and one Spirit, as also ye were called in one hope 
 of your calling (Eph. 4 : 4). 
 
 4. IlapdxXtjroq — the in-forming and indwelling Spirit in the 
 xXT,Toi — the Holy Spirit. 
 
 And I will ask of the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, 
 that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world 
 cannot receive, because it beholds him not, neither knows him ; ye know 
 him, because he abides with you, and will be in you (John 14 : 16, 17). 
 
 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of 
 God dwells in you. And if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he 
 is none of his (Rom. 8 : 9). 
 
 And if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH I3 
 
 in you, he who raised up Christ from the dead will make alive your 
 mortal bodies also, because of his Spirit that dwells in you (Rom. 8:11). 
 
 Know ye not that ye are God's temple, and that the Spirit of God 
 dwells in you? (i Cor. 3 : 16.) 
 
 In whom ye also are being builded together into a habitation of God 
 in the Spirit (Eph. 2 : 22). 
 
 5. EntxaXeTv — the distinctive act of the xXrjxoi — to call on, 
 invoke Christ. 
 
 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, 
 and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, 
 those who are sanctified in Jesus Christ, called to be saints, with all 
 that call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs 
 and ours (i Cor. i : i, 2). 
 
 If thou confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in thy 
 heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For 
 the same one is Lord of all, rich toward all that call on him ; for every 
 one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10 : 9, 13). 
 
 And now why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized and wash away 
 thy sins, calling on his name (Acts 22 : 16). 
 
 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call 
 on thy name (Acts 9 : 14). 
 
 And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he who 
 destroyed in Jerusalem those who call on this name .-' and had come 
 hither for this purpose, that he might bring them bound to the chief 
 priests (Acts 9 : 21). 
 
 And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young 
 man named Saul, and stoned Stephen, calling upon and saying. Lord 
 Jesus, receive my spirit (Acts 7 : 58, 59). 
 
 6. UapaxaXeJv — the act of the xkTjToi toward one another — to 
 call to, exhort, strengjthen. 
 
 But exhort one another daily, as long as it is called To-day, that no 
 one of you may be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 
 
 3 : 13)- 
 
 Not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as is the custom 
 
14 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 of some, but exhorting, and so much the more as ye see the day ap- 
 proaching (Heb. ID : 25). 
 
 And sent Timothy, our brother, and a minister of God in the gospel 
 of Christ, to establish you, and to exhort you concerning your faith 
 (i Thess. 3 : 2). 
 
 As ye know how we dealt with each one of you, as a father with his 
 own children, exhorting you, and encouraging you, and testifying, that 
 ye should walk worthy of God, who is calling you into h".s kingdom and , 
 glory (i Thess. 2 : 11, 12). * 
 
 7. ExxXrjffia — the company, body, organism of the xXrjToi — 
 the church. 
 
 Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of Hades shall 
 not prevail against it (Matt. 16 : 18). 
 
 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it to the church ; and if he neg- 
 lect to hear the church also, let him be to thee as the Gentile and the 
 publican (Matt. 18 : 17). 
 
 It is with this latter word that we have to do in Church 
 Polity. It is found (i) in the classics; (2) in the Septuagint ; 
 (3) in the New Testament. Let us examine its meaning in 
 each of these : 
 
 I. An investigation of its classical usage, shows that 
 Ecclesia — a Greek Ecclesia — is an assembly of free persons, 
 called out by legitimate authority from a larger mass of 
 people ; summoned for the transaction of public business ; 
 equal in membership, privileges, and rights ; sovereign and 
 supreme in its own domain. 
 
 The Grecian States, with few exceptions, were cities with their dis- 
 tricts, and their constitutions therefore the constitutions of cities ; the 
 Greeks designate the idea of State and city by the same word. Great 
 as the variety in the constitutions may have been, they all coincided in 
 one grand point ; they were all free institutions ; /. e., they allowed of 
 no rulers whom the people as a body, or certain classes of the people, 
 could not call to account ; he who usurped such authority was in the 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 15 
 
 language of the Greeks a tyrant. In this the idea is contained that 
 the State shall govern itself, and not be governed by an individual, and 
 of course a very different idea of the State was taken from the modern 
 European notion. — HeererU s " Researches on Ancient Greece," pp. 
 156, 157. 
 
 The will of the sovereign people was expressed in the ecclesia. 
 Here were brought before them all matters, which, as the supreme 
 power of the State, they had to order or dispose of. Indeed, there was 
 no question which could not ultimately be dealt with by the assembled 
 people, if they chose to exert their plenary authority. — Kennedy's 
 " Demosthenes," pp. 349, 350, 
 
 The inhabitants of a city and the members of the ecclesia 
 were not the same. Membership was founded sometimes on 
 birth, sometimes on property, sometimes on residence, but 
 the rights of citizenship were always defined and guarded 
 with great exactness, and the regulations regarding citizen- 
 ship were very strict. The ecclesia, though under different 
 regulations in different places, was an essential institution in 
 Greek polity, and probably existed in every city. 
 
 The selection of Greek words, and not Hebrew, to desig- 
 nate the new organism, its work and its officers — church, bap- 
 tize, apostle, communion, bishop, etc. — is very significant in 
 its relation to the question whether the church is the con- 
 tinuation of any Jewish institution. It is also significant in 
 its intimations of the character and relation of the ecclesia. 
 Until the rejection of the Kingdom of Heaven by the Jews, 
 the words pertaining to the Messianic dispensation are all of 
 Hebrew origin ; when the Kingdom of God is taken from 
 them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, 
 all the words " descriptive of polity derived from Abrahamic 
 or Mosaic customs or institutions " are discarded, and words 
 and customs adopted derived not from kingly but from demo- 
 cratic forms of government. So closely was the Christian 
 
1 6 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 ecclesia allied to the Greek that the early Christian houses 
 of worship were modeled, not after the temple but the 
 basilica, the market-place, and hall of justice. 
 
 The basilica for the most part was a parallelogram, at one of the 
 shorter sides of which, opposite to the entrance, there was a raised 
 platform destined for the accommodation of the persons engaged in 
 and connected with the distribution of justice. This portion of the 
 building was the prototype of the rounded choir, to which the name of 
 apse was given, and which is still to be seen in many churches. — 
 • ' Chambers' Cyclopcedia . ' ' 
 
 2. What light does the Septuagint throw on the word ? 
 It is found in the LXX seventy-four times, and is always 
 used as the translation of Ka/ta/, which means in the Hiphil 
 to call together ; no other word (Hebrew) is so translated. 
 KaJial is found in the Hebrew Scriptures one hundred and 
 twenty-four times, translated seventy-four times ecclesia, forty- 
 seven times simagogee, Vn'xcq pleethos, and once siinedrion. 
 
 Vitringa says that siinagogcc always means an assembly 
 gathered together, but not necessarily joined by any bond of 
 union : ecclesia [kalial) always denotes some multitude which 
 constitutes a people bound among themselves by laws and 
 obligations ; but this distinction must not be forced. Sima- 
 gogee " signifies simply an assembly without any reference 
 to the character or motives of the individuals assembled. It 
 is applied to the rebellious company that followed Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram. Ecclesia always conveys some idea of 
 the nature of the assembly — the Hebrew Kahal denotes an 
 assembly legally warned — the Jewish people when assembled 
 as a body politic to receive the law" (Deut. 9 : lo ; Acts 7 : 
 38V 
 
 » Jv^aywyij is used one hundred and thirty times for H^^. where the prominent 
 idea is that of an appointed meeting, and twenty-five times for /HD, a meeting 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 17 
 
 3. The New Testament use of the word. 
 
 In the Common Version, with three exceptions (Acts 19 : 
 32, 39, 41), it is everywhere translated "church." In one in- 
 stance (Acts 19 : T,y\ the English word "church " is found 
 where " ecclesia " is not in the original. 
 
 When applied in the New Testament to a Jewish assembly 
 (Acts 7 : 38), ecclesia always means an assembly convened for 
 a particular purpose, never a permanent body. This latter 
 is "the nation," "Israel," "Children of Israel," etc. 
 
 Our Lord uses ecclesia twice; once (Matt. 16 : 18), to de- 
 note the whole body of true Christians, and once (18 : 17), to 
 denote a local, individual body — a visible organization. These 
 are the two senses of the word. 
 
 (i) The whole body of believers in Christ, from the day of 
 Pentecost to the end of the dispensation. The church in 
 this sense is viewed in the New Testament in two aspects — 
 one from the point of view of time, (Matt. 16 : 18), the other 
 from the point of view of eternity (Eph. 3 : 9, 10, 11). 
 
 Our Lord, rejected by the Jewish nation, declares that the 
 kingdom of God shall be taken from them and given to a nation 
 bringing forth the fruits thereof. He asserts his purpose to 
 gather a church, a select body called out from the world, 
 composed of those to whom Christ is revealed by the Father ; 
 he asserts that this church shall not be dissolved by death, 
 and that to it shall be given the kingdom. The members of 
 this church were given to Christ by the Father ; they are 
 
 called together and therefore more commonly translated in LXX by iKKKijaia.. 
 — Smith' s "Bible Dictionary,^' art. Synagogue. 
 
 In Genesis, Exodus, Lycviticus, Numbers, 7np is translated by wvayayri; in Deu- 
 teronomy and the following books to Nehemiah inclusive (fifty-six times in all), 
 with only the exception of Deut. 5 : 22, it is translated by «/eXj)<ria — Hatch's 
 "Essays in Biblical Greek," p. 21. 
 
l8 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 gathered out of all nations ; they are regenerated and sanc- 
 tified by the truth ; the church shall be presented at the last 
 without spot or blemish. It differs radically and generically 
 from all other organizations ; its principle of union is un- 
 known to them ; it recognizes none of their divisions or dis- 
 tinctions. In it all national peculiarities, all diversities of 
 birth, culture, social position, or possessions are swallowed up. 
 It is not a development of the moral, religious, or social ' 
 nature of man ; it is not a product of the human intellect ; 
 it is not a school of opinion, nor a voluntary association of 
 persons of similar tastes or pursuits. It is a supernatural 
 and vital union, a new creation, a divine organism. 
 
 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away 
 from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 
 
 21 : 43)- 
 
 But ye are a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people 
 for a possession ; that ye should show forth the excellencies of him who 
 called you out of darkness into his marvelous light ; who once were 
 not a people, but are now God's people ; who had not obtained mercy, 
 but now have obtained mercy (i Peter 2 : 9, 10). 
 
 And Simon Peter answering said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God. And Jesus answering said to him, Happy art thou, Simon 
 Bar-jonah ; for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my Father 
 who is in heaven. And I also say to thee, that thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of Hades shall not 
 prevail against it (Matt. 16 : 16-18). 
 
 Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give 
 you the kingdom (Luke 12 : 32). 
 
 The church thus chosen and characterized, holding this 
 unique relation to Christ, has unique oflfices and associations. 
 It performs the same oflfices in the world which Christ per- 
 formed ; it is associated with him in his humiliation and re- 
 jection ; it has the fellowship of his sufferings and is con- 
 
THK NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IQ 
 
 formed to his death ; and being thus identified with his suf 
 ferings shall share his glory when he is revealed. 
 
 As thou didst send me into the world, I also sent them into the 
 world (John 17 : 18). 
 
 And if children, also heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; 
 if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him 
 (Rom. 8 : 17). 
 
 The church is the body of Christ. The relation of the 
 church to its Head is not merely a federal or representative, 
 or moral or ethical, but a "vital, real, and essential one, of 
 which the human body is a figure. There is between the 
 head and the body, unity of life, of spirit, of nature, and the 
 head inspires, rules, directs, sustains." The church is an or- 
 ganic unity. " It is no abstract generalization — it is a con- 
 crete reality ; it is no mere name for the aggregate of indi- 
 viduals — it is that which, including individuals, supercedes 
 their individuality, holds them in a new relation, and gifts 
 them with a new condition." The union is so intimate and 
 essential, the identity so complete, that the church is called 
 Christ — not Christ in his distinct personality, but as includ- 
 ing the church in himself as his living organism. Paul, in 
 Ephesians 5 : 30, declares that we are members of his body, 
 of his flesh, and of his bones. Ellicott calls attention to the 
 emphatic position of [j.i^ — members, " not accidental, but in- 
 tegral parts of his body." "Our real spiritual being and 
 existence is as truly, as certainly, and as actually a true native 
 extract from his own body, as was the physical derivation 
 of Eve from Adam." 
 
 So we, the many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one 
 of another (Rom. 12 : 5). 
 
 And gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his 
 body, the fulness of him who fills all in all (Eph. i : 22, 23). 
 
20 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 But speaking the truth, may in love grow up in all things into him, 
 who is the head, Christ; from whom all the body, fitly framed together 
 and compacted by means of every joint of the supply, according to the 
 working of each single part in its measure, is effecting the increase of 
 the body to the upbuilding of itself in love (Eph. 4 : 15, 16). 
 
 And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, 
 the first-born from the dead; in order that he may become in all things 
 pre-eminent (Col. i : 18). 
 
 For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members 
 of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ (i Cor. 12 : 
 12). 
 
 The church is the bride of Christ (Rom. 7 : 4 ; 2 Cor. 
 11:2; Eph. 5 : 25-30 ; Rev. 21:2, 9). This relation is 
 unique : it can exist with but one person ; it is an affection 
 which dominates all others; it is the product of choice and 
 intelligence ; and it brings a community of interest and 
 destiny. 
 
 Wherefore my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through 
 the body of Christ, that ye might be married to another, to him who 
 was raised from the dead, in order that we might bring forth fruit to 
 God (Rom. 7 : 4). 
 
 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy; for 1 betrothed you 
 to one husband, that I may present you a pure virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 
 11:2). 
 
 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He 
 that loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own 
 flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the church; be- 
 cause we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave 
 father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be 
 one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking of Christ and of 
 the church (Eph. 5 : 28-32). 
 
 The church is Christ's temple ; his habitation ; his chosen 
 dwelling place, where God reveals his presence, is worshiped, 
 and bestows his blessing. 
 
The new testament church 21 
 
 Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone ; in whom every build- 
 ing, fitly framed together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord ; in 
 whom ye also are being builded together into a habitation of God in the 
 Spirit (Eph. 2 : 20-22). 
 
 Know ye not that ye are God's temple, and that the Spirit of God 
 dwells in you ? If any one destroys the temple of God, him will God 
 destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and that ye are (i Cor. 3 : 16, 17). 
 
 To whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but with 
 God chosen, precious, ye yourselves also, as living stones, are being 
 built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (i Peter 2 : 4, 5). 
 
 It is the fullness of him who filleth all in all ; that which 
 is filled up by Christ ; " the receptacle of all the gifts, graces, 
 and blessings of Christ." 
 
 And gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his 
 body, the fulness of him who fills all in all (Eph. i : 22, 23). 
 
 It is the organic actualization of the divine life ; the pillar 
 and ground of the truth ; the representative of Christ in the 
 world ; it holds peculiar relations to other orders of beings 
 and to the universe, and is to be the grandest manifestation 
 of the noblest of the divine perfections to future ages. 
 
 In order that now, to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms 
 might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of 
 God, according to the purpose of the ages which he purposed in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord (Eph. 3 : 10, 11). 
 
 This body is not predicted in the Old Testament. It is a 
 mystery, a revelation of the New Testament. 
 
 Now to him who is able to establish you, according to my gospel and 
 the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mys- 
 tery kept in silence during eternal ages but now made manifest, and 
 
22 ^HE CONS'TITUTION 
 
 through prophetic scriptures, according to the commandment of the 
 eternal God, made known to all nations for obedience to the faith, to 
 God only wise, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever 
 (Rom. i6 : 25-27). 
 
 And to make all see what is the stewardship of the mystery, which 
 from ages has been hidden in God, who created all things (Eph. 3 : 9). 
 
 Whereby ye can, when ye read, perceive my insight in the mystery 
 of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons 
 of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets 
 in the Spirit; that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and members of the 
 same body, and joint partakers with us of the promise in Christ Jesus 
 through the gospel (Eph. 3 : 4-6). 
 
 His body, which is the church ; of which I became a minister, ac- 
 cording to the stewardship of God which was given to me for you, to 
 fulfil the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages 
 and from generations; but now it has been manifested to his saints, to 
 whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of 
 this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of 
 glory (Col. I : 24-27). 
 
 (2) A body of professed believers in Christ, baptized on a 
 credible confession of faith in him, associated for worship, 
 work, and discipline (Matt. 18 : 17 ; Acts 14:23; 16:5; i 
 Cor. 4:17; Rev. 2 and 3). 
 
 It is not essential to the definition of a church that its 
 members should meet in one place for worship. There may 
 be different congregations constituting one church. This is 
 ' often a matter of convenience, sometimes of necessity, espe- 
 cially in a sparsely settled country. There are some intima- 
 tions in the New Testament, that in the time of the apostles 
 the Christians in a city constituted one church. Whenever 
 a district or province is spoken of, after the admission of the 
 Gentiles, as Gentiles, into the church, the word is always in 
 the plural : the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2); Judea (Gal. 
 I : 22) ; Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1); Asia (i Cor. 16:19). The 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 2^ 
 
 singular is never used of a country or nation, the plural is 
 never used of a city or town. A church is never spoken of 
 as the church of any city or town, but always as the church 
 in or at the place, or else of the Christian inhabitants of the 
 town or city : the church which was at Jerusalem ^Acts 8 : 
 I ; II : 22); the church that was in Antioch (Acts 13 : i); 
 the church of God which is at Corinth (i Cor. i : 2 ; 2 Cor. 
 I : i) ; the church of the Thessalonians (i Thess. 1:1); 
 the church of the Laodiceans (Rev, 3 : 14). Rev. 2 : i, in 
 the Authorized Version, is an apparent exception, but the 
 true reading is " in " Ephesus. 
 
 It is well to remember that the English word "church," 
 like all other words, is not always employed in the same ab- 
 solute sense. In this respect it follows the universal laws of 
 language. The precise meaning in any given sentence must 
 be determined from its connection. If one is giving the defi- 
 nition of a church constituted according to the requirements 
 of the New Testament, he is compelled to adhere closely to 
 one exclusive signification of the word. It would be con- 
 trary to the usage of every other word to restrict ourselves 
 to this single meaning in every case. We have seen that it 
 may rightly be used in the two senses already noted ; it may 
 also designate that portion of a local church meeting ordi- 
 narily in any particular place (Rom. 16 : 5); it is perfectly 
 proper to use it to denote the house in which the body is ac- 
 customed to assemble, as "synagogue" in the New Testa- 
 ment means the house (Matt. 12 : g), and also the assembly 
 meeting in the house (Acts 13 143); as the word "bank" 
 designates sometimes the corporation, sometimes the building 
 in which the business is transacted. In the same manner in 
 
24 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 which we employ the word "church," now to designate the 
 universal body, now to designate a particular body, so we use 
 the word " race, " now to designate the whole human race, 
 now to designate some of the branches of the human family, 
 as the Caucasian race, etc. 
 
 Nor should we refuse religious bodies that are not or- 
 ganized according to the laws of the New Testament 
 the name of churches. In ordinary English discourse we 
 must use English words in their recognized sense ; to refuse 
 is simply to debar ourselves from all ordinary intercourse 
 with our fellow-men. When we speak of Unitarians, we do 
 not assert their scriptural right to that designation. We 
 must speak of the Congregational body, but there are other 
 congregational sects besides the one which appropriates that 
 title. There is but one living and true God, but we apply 
 the term god to false divinities, and the Scripture sanctions 
 the usage. 
 
 What is true of the church in its larger sense is true of 
 the local body, just so far as the circumstances will allow, and 
 just so far as the smaller body possesses the essential char- 
 acteristics of the larger (i Cor, 6 : 19; 12 : 27; 2 Cor. 11 : 
 2 ; Eph. 2 : 21). 
 
 Let us now examine the definition of a church in detail : 
 First. A church organized after the pattern of the New 
 Testament is composed of professed believers in Christ. 
 This is evident — 
 
 I . From the direct statements of the New Testament : 
 (a) The herald of the kingdom, John the Baptist, an- 
 nounces as the requisites for a place in the new dispensation 
 two qualifications : First, a personal character as distinguished 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 2$ 
 
 from a claim resting on hereditary descent ; second, the pro- 
 duction of credible evidence of the possession of such a quali- 
 fication (Matt. 3 : 7, 8, 9). 
 
 (b) The nature of the church (Matt. 16 : 18). The prin- 
 ciple of selection on which the new body is to be formed is 
 declared by Christ to be the divinely revealed knowledge of 
 Christ, All those to whom God makes Christ known are to 
 constitute the church. The rock on which the church is 
 founded has thus a vital relation, and not an arbitrary one ; it 
 has a perpetual relation, and not a temporary one ; it has a 
 universal relation, and not a local or limited one. In other 
 words, the foundation of the church holds as close and inti- 
 mate relation to any one member of the church, anywhere, in 
 any age, as to any other member, at any other place or time. 
 
 (c) The office and relations of the church (Matt, 5 : 13, 14 ; 
 John 17 : 18; I Cor. 3 -.9-17; Eph. 2 : 19-22 ; Phil. 2:15, 16), 
 
 (d) The characteristics of the members of a church (i Cor. 
 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Gal. 3 : 24 ; Col. 3 : 2). 
 
 2. From the example of the apostles : 
 
 (a) The course they pursued in the additions made to the 
 church (Acts 2 : 41-47). 
 
 (d) The directions they gave (Acts 2 : 38 ; i Cor. 3 : 
 10-15). 
 
 (c) There is no account in the Scripture of the admission 
 to the privileges of the church of any but professed believers, 
 
 3. The unavoidable inferences from the elemental Scripture 
 principles : 
 
 (a) The Scripture conception of the work which Christ is 
 now doing (Eph. 2 : 19-22 ; 4 : 16), 
 
 (^) The declared distinction between the church and the 
 world (2 Cor. 6 : 14-18 ; Eph. 5:11; Gal. 1:4;! John 5 : 
 19; 2 John 10, 11). 
 
26 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 (c) There is no address in the New Testament to any un- 
 converted church-members as a class — to baptized children, 
 not yet communicants. 
 
 Second. A church organized on the principles of the New 
 Testament is composed of persons baptized. This is shown — 
 
 1. From the command of Christ (Matt. 28 : 18-20; Mark 
 16 : 15, 16). 
 
 2. The direction given to the apostles (Acts 2 : 38). 
 
 3. The example of the apostles (Acts 2 : 41 ; 10 : 48 ; 16 : 
 14, 15; 16 : 31, 34; 18 : 8). 
 
 4. Necessary inferences : baptism is the recognized method 
 of confessing Christ. No one could be a member of a church 
 without making a profession of faith in Christ and attach- 
 ment to him ; there was no method appointed for this but 
 baptism. 
 
 5. The references to baptism are of such a nature that 
 they cannot be explained except on the supposition that all 
 the Christians addressed in the epistles had been baptized on 
 a confession of faith in Christ (Rom. 6 : 1-6; Col. 2 : 12; 
 Gal. 3 : 26, 27 ; i Peter 3 : 21). 
 
 Third. On a credible confession of faith in Christ. It will 
 be remembered that the church, as we have defined it, is 
 a church of Christ — a Christian church. It is not composed 
 of those who believe in God, but of those who believe in 
 Christ. This belief is avowed in baptism. It must be a 
 credible belief. More than this can neither be given 
 nor required. A believer cannot produce his inward be- 
 lief for inspection and examination : he can do no more 
 than produce evidence of its existence. No person can 
 see the belief of another or be absolutely conscious of its 
 
'THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ^7 
 
 existence. The most that is possible is to examine the 
 evidence and determine accordingly. This must be done 
 by those who are the custodians of the rite, and who are 
 responsible for its administration. 
 
 1. This is shown by the scriptural account of its first ad- 
 ministration. John the Baptist demanded of those who 
 sought baptism at his hands proof that they had repented 
 (Matt. 3 : 6-9) ; and when they would not comply with his 
 requirement, he refused to baptize them (Luke 7 : 30). 
 
 2. From the nature of baptism, which requires the concur- 
 rence of two persons, the one who is called to baptize must 
 necessarily have the power to refuse, otherwise he might be 
 compelled to administer the ordinance to the avowed scoffer 
 or profane (Matt. 7 : 6). 
 
 Fourth. Associated for worship, work, and discipline. In 
 strictness it would be sufficient to say worship, as this really 
 includes work and discipline. The three are specially 
 mentioned, because in the ordinary conception they are dis- 
 tinct. 
 
 Worship expresses in appropriate forms the Christian life, 
 conceptions, and emotions, by the ordinances, by speech, 
 by offerings (Rom. 12:1-3; i Pet. 2 : 5). 
 
 THE ORDINANCES. 
 
 In studying the New Testament account of the church, we 
 find, besides moral duties, certain acts commanded by its 
 Founder, significant of certain truths enjoined on the mem- 
 bers of the church. Such acts are called ordinances. 
 
 An ordinance is an outward institution, appointed by 
 Christ, by positive precept, to be observed by all his people 
 to the end of the age, commemorating an essential gospel 
 
28 1*HE CONSTITUTION 
 
 fact and declaring an essential gospel truth. Of these there 
 are two, Baptism and the Communion — the initiation and con- 
 summation of the Christian life. These ordinances are the 
 gospel in symbol : they commemorate, declare, and typically 
 embody the whole Christian system (i Cor. 15 : 1-5), They 
 are the true symbols of Christianity, divinely appointed and 
 all-sufficient. 
 
 These are positive institutions : positive institutions differ 
 from moral duties. 
 
 (a) In their nature. Moral duties are intrinsically holy — 
 they are commanded because they are right ; positive insti- 
 tutions are right because they are commanded. They are 
 not only of no obligation in themselves, but if they were not 
 enjoined, their performance as religious acts would be wrong. 
 
 (^) In the method of ascertaining their existence. Moral 
 duties are deduced from principles : positive institutions re- 
 quire a precept. 
 
 (c) In their extent. The former are binding on all moral 
 beings ; the latter on particular persons. 
 
 (d) In their duration. The former are of eternal obliga- 
 tion ; the latter are temporary. 
 
 The moral exists always before the positive ; the positive 
 in consequence of the moral, and by means of it. 
 
 Positive institutions are the fittest tests of obedience. 
 Obedience to them springs from no conception of inherent 
 fitness, but from submission to the will of the lawgiver. 
 The infancy of a race or an individual must learn its first 
 lesson here. 
 
 The greatest calamities have been incurred in consequence 
 of disobedience to positiv^e commandment ; the greatest 
 blessings have come in consequence of obedience to positive 
 ordinances. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 29 
 
 Moral duties require for acceptable performance moral fit- 
 ness only ; positive institutions require positive qualifications 
 in addition to moral.' 
 
 I. BAPTISM. 
 
 The first ordinance of the Christian church is Baptism. 
 
 1. The rite was commanded by Christ. 
 
 2. It is of permanent obligation ; it runs to the end of the 
 dispensation ; no power is given to any one to repeal it ; and 
 no hint is anywhere given that it will ever cease. 
 
 3. It commemorates the burial and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 4. It symbolizes the death of the Christian to his old life, 
 and his entrance on a new life, with all that is included in 
 these two truths — the confession of utter sinfulness, of de- 
 served condemnation, the utter helplessness of any change 
 short of a new creation, the radical separation of the old life 
 and the new, the union with Christ, the source of the new 
 life, etc. 
 
 It is the believer's acceptance of the terms of salvation, 
 his confession of repentance and faith : Godward, it is the 
 declaration of forgiveness ; manward, it is the declaration of 
 faith in Christ. 
 
 And Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, All 
 authority was given to me in heaven and on earth. Go 
 therefore, and disciple 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 whatever I commanded 
 you : and, behold, I am with you always, unto the end of the 
 age (Matt. 28 : 18-20). 
 
 And he said to them, Go into all the world, and preach the 
 gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved ; but he that disbelieves shall be con- 
 demned (Mark 16 : 15, 16). 
 
 1 Butler's " Analogy," part II., chap, i, pp. 225, 229. 
 
30 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 Are ye ignorant, that all we who were baptized into Christ 
 Jesus were baptized into his death ? We were buried there- 
 fore with him through the baptism into his death ; that just 
 as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the 
 Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6 : 
 
 3. 4). 
 
 Having been buried with him in your baptism, wherein ye 
 were also raised with him through faith in the working of 
 God, who raised him from the dead (Col. 2 : 12). 
 
 Which in an antitype, baptism, now saves you also (not 
 the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the require- 
 ment of a good conscience toward God), through the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ (i Peter 3 : 21). 
 
 5. Baptism is immersion in water in the name of the Trin- 
 ity, on a confession of faith in Christ, That it is immersion 
 is shown : 
 
 1 . By the meaning of the word baptizo in the classics. In 
 this all standard lexicographers agree. 
 
 2. By its meaning in the New Testament ; its signification 
 here can be seen from the prepositions by which it is accom- 
 panied, and from the impossibility of translating it by an 
 English word which means "to sprinkle" or "to pour." 
 
 3. By the figurative allusions ; rather by the figures applied 
 to baptism, and allusions to the rite. These can be inter- 
 preted consistently only on the supposition that in the times 
 of the apostles immersion was the universal practice (Rom. 
 6 : 1-6). 
 
 4. By what it commemorates — the burial and resurrection 
 of the founder of the Christian faith. 
 
 5. By its symbolism and design. 
 
 6. By the practice or acknowledgment of the majority of 
 Christendom. The Eastern Church has always practised 
 immersion, the Roman Catholic declares that it was the 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 3I 
 
 primitive practice, that the church has rightfully changed it, 
 and the best scholars of all creeds are united in the assertion 
 that immersion was the practice of the primitive Christians, 
 and that the Greek word means to immerse, 
 
 TO WHOM SHALL BAPTISM BE ADMINISTERED ? 
 
 Baptism is to be administered to those only who make a 
 credible confession of faith in Christ. 
 
 1. The command is to baptize those who believe. No in- 
 timation is given that any others are to be baptized, and from 
 the nature of a positive institution, whatever is not commanded 
 is forbidden. 
 
 2. There is no instance in the New Testament of any but 
 professed believers receiving baptism, 
 
 3. The passages of Scripture which are relied upon to 
 support the opposing theory disprove it. From Paul's asser- 
 tion (i Cor. 7 : 14), for example: "Else were your children 
 unclean, but now are they holy," it is argued that the holi- 
 ness of children entitles them to baptism. But the holiness 
 here predicated of children is equally predicated of unbe- 
 lieving husbands and wives. If on the ground of this holi- 
 ness of relation children are proper subjects of baptism irre- 
 spective of personal faith, so are unbelieving husbands and 
 wives who have believing partners. Unbelievers, whether 
 infants or adults, stand on precisely the same footing. Had 
 infant baptism been practised in Corinth, Paul's argument 
 would have no force. 
 
 4. If infant baptism comes in the room of circumcision, 
 as evangelical Pedobaptists claim, the prolonged and bitter 
 controversies in the Acts and Epistles on the perpetual obli- 
 gation of circumcision cannot be explained. A single sen- 
 tence — " Circumcision is not binding on Christians because 
 
32 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 baptism has taken its place " — would have settled the dispute 
 at once and forever. 
 
 5. A statement of the grounds of infant baptism consist- 
 ent with evangelical belief cannot be framed. 
 
 6. Evangelical Pedobaptists, when they are contending 
 for spiritual Christianity, avow principles which directly deny 
 the scripturalness of infant baptism. A few examples out 
 of many that might easily be selected will illustrate this. 
 
 " The Way of Life," by Charles Hodge, Professor in the 
 Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J., American Sunday- 
 school Union, is one of the best books published by that ex- 
 cellent Society. It is full of evangelical truth, admirably 
 expressed. The following quotations are from the chapter 
 on " Profession of Religion " : 
 
 The Scriptures teach that sacraments are efficacious, not to every re- 
 cipient, but to the believer ; to those who already have the grace which 
 these sacraments represent (p. 261). 
 
 That the sacraments are not designed to convey grace to those who 
 have it not is plain, because the Scriptures require those who are ad- 
 mitted to these ordinances to make a profession of their faith and re- 
 pentance (p. 265). 
 
 The Scriptures also teach that these ordinances are not appointed to 
 convey, in the first instance, pardon and sanctification, but to be signs 
 and seals of these blessings to the penitent believer ; and that to him, 
 and to him only, are they efficacious means of grace (p. 267). 
 
 Thus a knowledge of the truth concerning God, concerning sin, 
 atonement, and regeneration, is essential to a proper participation of the 
 ordinance of baptism (p. 279). 
 
 In the " British and Foreign Evangelical Review," October, 
 i860, is an article by Principal Cunningham, Principal and 
 Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh, on 
 " Zwingli and the Doctrine of the Sacraments." The article, 
 with others from the same author, has been republished in a 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 33 
 
 volume entitled " The Reformers and Theology of the Re- 
 formation." Principal Cunningham argues that the Reformers 
 in preparing their Confessions of Faith, " proceeded on the 
 assumption that those partaking in the ordinances were duly 
 qualified and rightly prepared ; and more particularly that the 
 persons baptized, in whom the true and full operation of 
 baptism was exhibited, were adults — adult believers." In 
 support of this position he quotes Martin Vitringa's " com- 
 plete and comprehensive summary of the doctrine of the 
 Reformed churches upon this point " : "That the sacraments 
 have been instituted only for those who have already received 
 the grace of God— the called, the regenerate, the believing, 
 the converted, those who are in covenant with God " (p. 264). 
 Vitringa has produced his evidence at length. His quota- 
 tions fill about twenty pages, and are certainly amply suffi- 
 cient to establish his position. They prove that the quota- 
 tion we have produced contains a correct summary of the 
 doctrine of the Reformed churches in regard to the proper 
 subjects of the sacraments. Vitringa gives extracts from 
 eight or ten of the Confessions of the Reformation period, 
 and from above fifty of the most eminent divines of that and 
 the succeeding century (pp. 265, 266). Two or three of his 
 authorities we quote : 
 
 Samuel Rutherford: " Baptism is not that whereby we are entered into 
 Christ's mystical and invisible body as such, for it is presupposed we be 
 members of Christ's body, and our sins pardoned already, before bap- 
 tism comes to be a seal of sins pardoned " ^ (p. 279). 
 
 Thomas Boston : " The sacraments are not converting but confirming 
 
 1 " Rutherford and Gillespie are, literally and without exception, just the two very 
 highest authorities that could be brought to bear upon a question of this kind, at 
 once from their learning and ability as theologians, and from the place they held 
 and the influence they exerted in the actual preparation of the documents under 
 consideration." 
 
34 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 ordinances ; they are appointed for the use and benefit of God's chil- 
 dren, not of others ; they are given to behevers as behevers, so that none 
 others are capable of the same before the Lord " (p. 282). 
 
 Dr. John Erskine, ' ' probably the greatest divine in the Church of Scot- 
 land in the latter part of the last century " : " Baptism, then, is a seal of 
 spiritual blessings ; and spiritual blessings it cannot seal to the uncon- 
 verted " (p. 283). 
 
 7. The practice of infant baptism, unchecked by other in- 
 fluences and continued for a sufficient length of time, will 
 destroy the New Testament idea of the ordinances, of the 
 church, and of Christianity. Let it prevail universally in any 
 country for generations, and believer's baptism necessarily is 
 unknown. The communion is made to supply in part the 
 place of baptism, and instead of an end becomes a means. 
 The distinction between the church and the world is obliter- 
 ated, for all the subjects of the State are members of the 
 church. Spiritual regeneration is denied, and all the dis- 
 tinctive doctrines of Christianity disappear. This is the 
 history of all countries where infant baptism has universally 
 prevailed for a number of generations. 
 
 Ought baptism, which has once been administered on a 
 credible confession of faith, to be repeated if the recipient 
 afterward supposes he was not regenerated at that time .-• 
 No. I. By so doing baptism is removed from its true position 
 as an ordinance of the church, and becomes an individual 
 matter, something which the church cannot enforce, and the 
 neglect of which she cannot punish. 
 
 2. In the repetition there is only what there was in the 
 first instance — a credible confession. 
 
 3. Consistency would require the repetition of baptism 
 numberless times if the recipient demanded it ; baptism 
 would then be what it was made by Mr. Beecher, a rite to be 
 
The new testament church 35 
 
 administered as often as the recipient fancied it would be for 
 his spiritual benefit. 
 
 By whom is baptism administered ? The ordinance is in 
 the custody and under the control of the church, and may be 
 administered by any one appointed by a church. It is not 
 an individual act ; it is not a ministerial act ; it is a church 
 act. 
 
 II. THE COMMUNION. 
 
 This rite was 
 
 1. Instituted by Christ (Matt. 26 : 26-30; Mark 14:22- 
 24 ; Luke 22 : 17-20). 
 
 2. It is of perpetual obligation (i Cor. 10 : 15-17). 
 
 3. It consists of eating bread and drinking wine by a 
 church in obedience to the command of Christ. 
 
 4. It commemorates the death of our Lord. 
 
 5. It symbolizes the sustentation of spiritual life. It sets 
 forth the one body and the union of the church with its 
 head. It is the culmination of Christian worship. 
 
 And as they were eating, Jesus took a loaf, and blessed, 
 and broke, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this 
 is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave 
 to them, saying. Drink of it, all of you. For this is my 
 blood of the covenant, which is shed for many, unto remission 
 of sins (Matt. 26 : 26-28). 
 
 And taking a loaf, he gave thanks, and broke 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 cup is the new covenant in my blood, 
 which is shed for you (Luke 22 : 19, 20). 
 
 For I received from the Lord, what I also delivered to you, 
 that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, 
 took a loaf ; and having given thanks, he broke it, and said, 
 This is my body, which is for you ; this do in remembrance 
 
36 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 of me. In like manner also the cup, after they had supped, 
 saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood ; this do, 
 as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often 
 as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's 
 death till he come (i Cor. 1 1 : 23-26). 
 
 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion 
 of the blood of Christ ? The loaf which we break, is it not a 
 communion of the body of Christ ? Because we, the many, 
 are one loaf, one body ; for we all share in the one loaf (i 
 Cor. 10 : 16, 17). 
 
 I. It declares Christ's death. The fundamental truth of 
 salvation is that Christ died for our sins (i Cor. 15 : 3). His 
 death is the ground of our forgiveness (Eph. 1:7); of our 
 redemption from the bondage of law (Rom. 7:4); and of 
 sin (Heb. 9 : 26-28) ; of our reconciliation to God (Col. 
 I : 21-23) I ^nd of our life in him (2 Cor. 5:1$; Col. 3 : 3). 
 Out of his death arise all our spiritual relations, present and 
 future. It is not the dying of the Lord Jesus that is de- 
 clared by this ordinance, but his death. The phrase "broken 
 for you," in the commonly received version (i Cor. 11 : 24), 
 is regarded by the best critical editors as an interpolation, 
 and if it be genuine, cannot refer to the physical body of 
 Christ, for it was expressly predicted that this should not be 
 broken (John 19 : 36). The theory that makes the com- 
 munion a recalling of the dying act of Christ, which has as 
 its highest idea of the emotions suitable to the occasion the 
 reproduction of the sorrows of those who were enveloped in 
 the shrouding darkness of Calvary, as well as the theory that 
 makes the communion a sacramental repetition of that act — 
 an ever recurring crucifixion — has no support in Scripture, 
 and misses the true import of the ordinance. It is the death 
 of Christ that we proclaim until he comes, that death in 
 which he made his soul an offering for sin, that death which 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ^7 
 
 was the necessary precedent of the life he now lives, the life 
 which he imparts to his people. 
 
 2. This memorial is a covenant. This cup is the new 
 covenant in my blood (Luke 22 : 20). It is essential to the 
 proper observance of the ordinance that we eat the bread and 
 drink the wine, and thus become partakers of the Lord's 
 table (i Cor. 1 1 : 26). In all Oriental countries, and through- 
 out the Bible, two ideas are associated with eating and drink- 
 ing together ; one, the obligation of protection and defense 
 on the part of the entertainer, an obligation of the most 
 binding and inviolable character ; the other, the idea of the 
 highest common enjoyment, so that the consummated bless- 
 edness of heaven is continually set forth under the figure of 
 a feast. This memorial covenant is of a still more sacred 
 character than that which arises from a common participation 
 in a meal ; it asserts a far higher relation. It is not only a 
 covenant of bread, but of blood. Such a covenant is the 
 closest and most indissoluble possible. It carries with it on 
 both sides a complete and loving surrender, and a consecra- 
 tion of all that each can use in the service of the other. For 
 their sakes, says Christ, I consecrate myself (John 17 : 19). 
 Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom 
 from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemp- 
 tion (I Cor. I : 30). Hence, as both he that sanctifies and 
 they that are sanctified are all of one (Heb. 2 : 11) it neces- 
 sarily follows that this memorial is — 
 
 3. A communion. The cup of blessing which we bless, is 
 it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The loaf 
 which we break, is it not the communion of the body of 
 Christ ? (i Cor. 10 : 16). The communion thus set forth is 
 indispensable to spiritual life ; unless we eat the flesh of the 
 Son of man and drink his blood we have no life in us (John 
 
38 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 6 : 53). The blood is the life (Lev. 17 : 11), and drinking 
 his blood we become partakers of a common life ; I no longer 
 live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in 
 the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
 me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2 : 20). The same com- 
 munion, union, and unity are declared by Christ in John 17 : 
 23, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected 
 in one ; and again in John 6 : 56, he that eats my flesh, 
 and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. We are 
 partakers of Christ (Heb. 3 : 14); partakers of the Holy 
 Spirit (Heb. 6:4); partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12 : 10); 
 partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter i : 4). This memorial 
 sets forth our most intimate communion and union with 
 Christ ; that our life is hid in him, dependent on him, con- 
 tinually nourished by him. Union with Christ necessitates 
 the unity of the body of Christ. This is Paul's argument : 
 we, the many, are one loaf, one body, for we are all partakers 
 of the one loaf (i Cor. 10 : 17). 
 
 The three truths then proclaimed in this ordinance are : 
 forgiveness, covenant, communion, all springing from the 
 death of Christ. The ultimate and highest truth furilishes 
 its appropriate name (i Cor. 10 : 16). 
 
 The communion is the highest act of worship by the 
 church. By it are declared all the distinctive truths of 
 Christianity : that Christ became man ; that he died for us ; 
 that he now lives at the right hand of God ; that he is com- 
 ing again ; that the redeemed and forgiven constitute the 
 body of Christ, one with him and with the Father, living in 
 him, on him, and for him. By it are expressed all the dis- 
 tinctive Christian emotions : penitence, faith, peace, love, 
 gratitude, joy. Each participation in it is a wordless confes- 
 sion of faith's basal principles. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 39 
 
 SACRAMENTAL THEORIES OF THE COMMUNION. 
 
 There are six principal theories, other than the Baptist, on 
 the communion. 
 
 1. The Zwinglian. " The communion is the commemora- 
 tion by appropriate emblems of the sacrificial death of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 "There is no real presence of Christ's body and blood in 
 the ordinance ; the benefit is produced by the truth pre- 
 sented to the mind in the emblems, exciting religious emo- 
 tions in the truly worthy communicant, and strengthening 
 virtuous resolutions." 
 
 "The sacraments are signs or symbols, emblematically or 
 figuratively representing or signifying scriptural truths or 
 spiritual blessings ; the reception of these is a commemora- 
 tion of what Christ has done for sinners, and a profession 
 which men make before the church and one another of the 
 views which they entertain of the great doctrines of Scrip- 
 ture, as well as a public pledge to follow out consistently the 
 views thus professed." 
 
 2. The Calvinistic. " A sacrament is a holy ordinance 
 instituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs Christ and 
 the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and 
 applied to believers." ' 
 
 " Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, 
 not only signifying or representing Christ and the benefits 
 of the new covenant, but sealing and confirming them, and, 
 in some sense, applying them to the believer." " 
 
 '* Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible ele- 
 ments of the sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, 
 really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spirit- 
 
 * Shorter Catechism. * " Reformers and Theology of the Reformation." 
 
40 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 ually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits 
 of his death ; the body and blood of Christ being not then 
 corporally or carnally in, with, or under the wine and bread ; 
 yet as really, but spiritually, as the elements themselves are 
 to their outward senses." ' 
 
 '• It is declared to be an efficacious means of grace ; but 
 the efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue in it, 
 nor in him who administers it, but solely to the attendant 
 operation of the Holy Ghost, precisely as in the case of the 
 word. It has indeed the moral objective power of signifi- 
 cant emblems and seals of divine appointment, just as the 
 word has its inherent moral power, but its power to convey 
 grace depends entirely, as in the case of the word, on the co- 
 operation of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 3. The German Reformed. "The sacrament is a real com- 
 munion of the believer with the whole person of Christ, who 
 is truly present by the Holy Ghost. The sacrament com- 
 municates grace, and the invisible grace communicated is the 
 substantial life of the Saviour himself, particularly in his 
 human nature." 
 
 " Christ is not with or under the consecrated elements, but 
 in the entire sacramental transaction, including the formal 
 institution, the administration by the minister, and the actual 
 receiving in faith of the consecrated bread and wine by the 
 communicant ; Christ does not communicate himself to the 
 unbelieving and unconverted, but to believers only, who are 
 partakers of his true body and blood, not by the mouth, but 
 by faith." ^ 
 
 4. The Lutheran. " The true body and blood of Christ are 
 the sacramental objects. The sacramental objects are truly 
 present in the Lord's Supper. ^ Their true presence is under 
 
 * Westminster Confession. * " Bib, Sac," Jan., 1863. ' Heidelberg Catechism. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 41 
 
 the form of bread and wine. Under this form or species 
 they are communicated. Thus communicated they are re- 
 ceived by all communicants." ^ *' True," as opposed to his 
 mystical body ; his true body, his natural body, his glorified 
 body are one and the same in identity. " Truly present," 
 as opposed to the Calvinistic idea that they are present in 
 efficacy by the Holy Spirit in the believing elect. 
 
 5. The High Church Episcopalian. " The bread and wine 
 become by consecration, really and sacramentally — though 
 in an inconceivable manner which cannot be explained by 
 earthly similitudes or illustrations — the body and blood of 
 our Lord." 
 
 6. The Roman. The substance of the bread is changed 
 into the body of Christ, that of the wine into the blood of 
 Christ, the accidents remaining the same ; under each species 
 (form, kind,) the entire Christ is present ; and is received by 
 all who partake of the sacrament ; by concomitance the blood 
 of Christ is no less under the species of bread than it is 
 under the species of wine, and so of the other. 
 
 To whom should the communion be administered ? 
 
 To a church of baptized believers. From the nature of 
 the ordinance it can be observed properly only by a church. 
 This commemoration of Christ is not an individual duty 
 to be discharged when and how any one may deem proper. 
 Simply individual duties are not under the control or 
 supervision of the church ; no church may order the time 
 or occasion or circumstances of individual prayer, or 
 call any one to account for not praying. The commun- 
 ion is committed to the church and enjoined on the 
 church. A member cannot be allowed to celebrate it when 
 
 1 Krauth's " Conservative Reformation." 
 
42 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 and how he will. This most solemn act of the body of 
 Christ is the divinely appointed way of setting forth the 
 unity of Christ, the unity of the body, and the unity of the 
 body and of the Head. Hence, the church cannot throw 
 open the doors of the communion, and put the responsibility 
 of partaking upon any who may choose to draw nigh. The 
 church is the custodian and guardian. It must have the op- 
 portunity of forming a judgment as to the possession of the 
 qualifications required by the New Testament — union to 
 Christ, and union with the body of Christ ; and it may 
 rightly invite only those whose fitness has been passed upon 
 by a church whose principles of admission and discipline are 
 those of the New Testament. Privilege and control must 
 go together. In fealty to him who has erected this memorial 
 of himself, the church must see that the vital conditions 
 which inhere in the ordinance are preserved just as far as 
 human judgment will allow. 
 
 III. PARTICIPANTS OF THE COMMUNION. THE ARGUMENTS FOR 
 
 RESTRICTED COMMUNION, 
 
 The communion should be administered to the members 
 in good standing of a church of baptized believers ; or more 
 concisely, to a church of baptized believers ; this is shown : 
 
 1, From the nature of the two ordinances. Baptism, by 
 Christ's command, is placed at the beginning of the Chris- 
 tian life ; it is the public avowal of the change in the sin- 
 ner's relation to Christ ; the first act, normally, after belief. 
 Coming after the communion, it has no meaning. It would 
 be an introduction after acts of intimate association and 
 friendship. 
 
 2. From the examples on record in the New Testament. 
 In the original institution only the Twelve were present. 
 
the; new testament church 43 
 
 Certainly, then, the invitation was not to all who love the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 In Acts 2 : 42, the necessary implication is that all were 
 baptized ; in Acts 20 : 7, the necessary implication is that all 
 the communicants were members of the church ; in i Cor. 
 II : 28, the same is true. These are all the instances of 
 communion in the New Testament. 
 
 3. The consequences of any other course. Baptism will 
 be taken from the church, and the result will be, that in a 
 Baptist church baptism will be the only duty that the church 
 cannot enforce. 
 
 4. There is no consistent and tenable ground which 
 the advocates of open communion will adopt, and to which 
 they will adhere. They ask us to abandon a platform which 
 can be comprehended and which we can carry out consist- 
 ently, but they offer us nothing in its place. 
 
 5. There is a general agreement throughout Christendom 
 that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the com- 
 munion. The advocates of unrestricted communion demand 
 that we assume a position which never has been taken but 
 by a few insignificant sects, which no Pedobaptist church is 
 now willing to take — a position opposed to all the standards 
 in all ages. 
 
 6. The results of unrestricted communion. It renders 
 discipline impossible ; it has a very unfavorable influence on 
 brotherly love. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. That it is the Lord's table. That it is the Lord's tabic 
 requires us to invite according to the Lord's order. The 
 very fact of giving an invitation presupposes that only certain 
 classes are allowed and expected to come. If the table were 
 open to all an invitation would be superfluous. What belongs 
 
44 THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 equally to all is not the subject of any man's invitation. The 
 invited in such a case would resent an invitation as an im- 
 pertinence. The invitation in every case implies the right 
 to exclude. 
 
 2. That there is no specific prohibition of the communion 
 to the unbaptized. There is no specific prohibition of baptism 
 to the unbeliever ; and if the communion must be open to 
 the unbaptized because there is no prohibition, then baptism 
 is open to the unbeliever for the same reason. There is no 
 express prohibition of baptism to infants, but we do not 
 thence conclude that we may not deny baptism to infants. 
 
 3. That consistency requires us to abstain from any par- 
 ticipation in any Christian service with those whom we do 
 not invite to the communion. 
 
 This objection proceeds on the false assumption that the 
 positive exists before the moral and in order to it. On the 
 contrary the moral exists before the positive and in order to 
 it ; e. g., repentance and faith exist before baptism and in 
 order to it. Our principle and practice are consistent ; we 
 recognize the moral in things thit are moral ; we recognize 
 the positive in things that are positive. When that which is 
 moral exists without the positive, we give it recognition in 
 the things that are moral. 
 
 How often should the communion be administered .<* As 
 often as may be considered in the judgment of the church 
 expedient. There are some intimations in the New Testa- 
 ment that the breaking of bread was originally a part of every 
 season of public worship, but this is by no means certain. 
 
 The Scripture name for this ordinance is " the Communion." 
 This is often strenuously denied, and the appellation " Lord's 
 Supper," as strongly claimed. There is no objection to the 
 uame " Lord's Supper," but when it is asserted that this is 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 45 
 
 the only scriptural designation, and that the name " Com- 
 munion " is forbidden, we demur. 
 
 1. The ordinance is not called "the Lord's Supper" in the 
 New Testament. In i Cor. 11 : 20, where the phrase occurs, 
 the apostle is not giving a proper name ; if he were, the order 
 of the Greek words would be different. 
 
 2. The ordinance is not called " the Lord's Supper " in any 
 Christian writer extant until the close of the fourth century, 
 and then in commenting on i Cor. i r : 20.^ 
 
 3. Aeinvov cannot mean a morsel of bread and a sup of 
 wine. 
 
 4. The exclusion of the name " Communion " would require 
 a change in all our religious vocabulary. The word has be- 
 come interwoven into our speech in such a way that even 
 those who professedly reject it are compelled to use it. 
 
 5. The ordinance is expressly called a communion in i Cor. 
 10 : 16. 
 
 ' The third Council of Carthage (a. d. 418) speaks of one day in the year in 
 which the Lord's Supper was celebrated ; so in the Trullan Council — twent} -ninth 
 canon (A. D. 683). — '♦ Waterland on the Eucharist" p. 21. 
 
CHURCH POLITY 
 
 The Greek word noXtrsia, from which the English word , 
 "polity" is derived, signifies first, the relation of a citizen to 
 a State ; second, the business of a statesman ; hence, govern- 
 ment administration. It is in this latter sense that we use 
 the word in the discussion of Church Polity. 
 
 The members and ordinances of the church have thus far 
 been considered. These are determined from the beginning 
 by positive enactment, by express and definite statute, and 
 are essential to the existence and character of the church. 
 The methods of administration and work, which we are now 
 to discuss, are not determined by minute and positive state- 
 ments, but spring from the nature of the church's constitu- 
 tion, and hence will be developed according to internal 
 spiritual relations. The polity of the church must be the 
 expression of its own life, not a shape imposed from without. 
 The organization of the church being thus innate and organic, 
 the development and perfection of the outward form will 
 keep pace with the development of the inward life. The 
 true methods of the church come, not revealed seriatim, as 
 the Jews received the law from Sinai or the rules of the 
 temple worship, but as a living organism assumes its form by 
 the law of its own growth. 
 
 It necessarily follows that the organization and laws of the 
 church will be gradually manifested. If the methods of the 
 church are to be true and permanent, they must come from 
 the assimilation of the truth. 
 46 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 47 
 
 In this the divine and the human must work together, so 
 that under the guidance of the Spirit the church will be led 
 to its fullness by growth, by experience, by conflicts, by dis- 
 sensions. The infant has in itself all of humanity ; there is 
 nothing in the man that there was not in the child, but the 
 child and the man are years apart. To know what the church 
 is in its polity, we must study the training of the church in 
 the Acts and Epistles. Its development, complete and 
 mature, awaits the consummation of the age. 
 
 In the early growth of the church three stages may be 
 noticed ; the first, in which the divine element preponderates ; 
 the second, in which the divine and human walk together, 
 but manifestly distinct ; the third, in which they are so united 
 that the different action cannot be distinguished, the union of 
 the divine and human, which is the ideal of Christianity. 
 
 It follows : I. That if the polity of the church is the true 
 product and manifestation of its life and principle, there must 
 be a New Testament polity. 
 
 2. That this polity is binding at all times and in all cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 3. That it will not be found detailed in rigid, minute, and 
 unvarying directions in the New Testament ; if it is a life 
 and growth, it must necessarily have a form flexible and 
 variant, the variations never departing from the essentials of 
 Christianity, but caused and determined by them. There are 
 two opposite errors on this subject against which we must 
 guard. The first is, that there is no church polity obligatory 
 on Christians ; the second, that everything in church life is 
 so ordained in the New Testament that in every church, 
 everywhere, and in all time, minute particulars must be 
 identical. 
 
 The church, being thus the organic realization of the divine 
 
48 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 life, " the organic form being innate, shaping and developing 
 itself from within, the fullness of its development being one 
 and the same with the perfection of its outward form," the 
 importance of a strict adherence to a scriptural organization 
 and practice is evident. The intimate connection between 
 these is not only asserted by philosophy but attested by his- 
 tory. A given theology and a given polity are rarely dis- 
 sociated. The external constitution of a church is the fruit 
 and exponent of its inner principle of belief, while " the out- 
 ward form and constitution of a church, its worship and dis- 
 cipline, its offices, its ritual, react with great force on its 
 inner life and on the doctrine which it teaches." A scheme 
 of doctrine leads to a cognate theory of the church. The 
 relation is uniform. All depreciation of attention to the 
 methods of church organization is as irrational as it is un- 
 scriptural. 
 
 In this respect the church is like the New Testament, 
 which is not a book of rules, a code of laws, but a book of 
 principles.^ 
 
 What are the principles which must be conserved and 
 developed in all church polity ? What are the ideas which 
 lie at the very source and center of the church ? 
 
 I. The vital relation of Christ to each member and of 
 each member to Christ. Each member sustains as close a 
 relation to Christ as any other member ; there is an essential 
 and vital equality of the members, so that there can be no 
 sacerdotal class, no class with special privileges, or permitted 
 
 * The precepts of the Lord Jesus Christ are all of a kind to enlighten the con- 
 science and not merely to control the will. They are useless as long as the 
 principles of which they are the expression do not shine in their own light. They 
 are positively mischievous to those who try to obey them as rules, instead of using 
 them freely as aids to the apprehension of great ethical and spiritual laws. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 49 
 
 any special access to Christ, or endowed with any special 
 function. The members of the church are all kings and 
 priests. 
 
 2. The living and continuous relation of Christ to the 
 church. The life of the church is not something deposited, 
 a store of grace, to be distributed by the ofificers or received 
 in the sacraments ; it is a living Christ, a person and a pres- 
 ence to whom the church is united as the body is united to 
 the head ; as the branches are united to the vine. 
 
 3. The organic relation of members to one another and to 
 the body. They are one, not by voluntary combination, but 
 by a common birth, a common nature, and a common life. 
 
 4. The completeness of each church, first, as related to 
 Christ ; second, as related to one another ; third, as related 
 to the world. 
 
 Or, succinctly, a living Saviour : a living church ; an or- 
 ganic church ; a complete church. 
 
 With these fundamental principles, a church composed of 
 persons all of whom are judged to be regenerate, to each one 
 of whom Christ has been divinely revealed by the Father, 
 all of whom are anointed as kings and priests unto God, all 
 endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, and with Christ as the 
 vital, present, indwelling, governing power, we proceed to 
 inquire how we are to ascertain the will of God concerning 
 the church as it is revealed in the New Testament. 
 
 We are governed, first, by express Scripture precept ; 
 second, by apostolic example, when that conduct sprang from 
 precept or from the organic principles of the church ; third, 
 by the practice of the primitive churches while under apostolic 
 direction ; fourth, by the necessary deductions from admitted 
 principles. 
 
 Scripture commands, Scripture examples, Scripture prin- 
 
50 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 ciples, all are, as regards their authority, on precisely the 
 same basis, and are subject to the same limitations. An 
 important question relating to a commandment — and the 
 same would apply to an example — is, Did the commandment 
 or conduct rest upon a principle common to all men in all 
 conditions, or on principles or facts peculiar to certain men, 
 to certain times, and to certain circumstances ? 
 
 That apostolic example is binding, circumstances being 
 equal, is evident from the fact that our Lord commissioned 
 his disciples to found and perpetuate the church, and prom- 
 ised them inspiration in so doing ; and from the added fact 
 that the apostles in carrying out their commission have left us 
 few commands, but given us examples of what they under- 
 stood as the law and spirit of Christ. 
 
 In determining what is apostolic practice, we are to see, 
 first, that what they did was in the line of their work ; this 
 is that in which they were promised inspiration, not in their 
 personal action in other matters ; second, that there is a clear 
 record of their action in Scripture — no tradition or custom of 
 post-apostolic times will answer. The action and the record 
 must both be inspired. We must distinguish between that 
 which belongs to the church and that which belongs to a 
 church ; between that which is clearly permanent and that 
 which as clearly belongs to the formative period. 
 
 We have thus the most exact conformity and still the 
 widest liberty — conformity to all that is commanded, to all 
 that is essential to the life of the church, and that is in ac- 
 cordance with its spirit ; liberty of spirit and action ; under 
 no bondage to mere details or to the letter. This liberty is 
 Christian liberty, arising from the nature of — 
 
 I . The New Testament, which is a book of principles and 
 not of rules. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 5 1 
 
 2. Of the church, whose members are sons and not ser- 
 vants ; governed by love and not by law ; walking after the 
 Spirit and not after the flesh. 
 
 3. Of spiritual growth, which demands the incessant ap- 
 plication of moral principles to cases which daily arise. In 
 the application of principles and not of rules lies one great 
 principle of sonship rind means of moral growth. 
 
 CHURCH FUNCTIONS AND OFFICERS. 
 
 In tracing the development of church organization and 
 church polity in the inspired record, we find various func- 
 tions, various offices, and various names. In no place is 
 there any formal and exhaustive enumeration. Some of 
 these are expressly declared to be temporary, adapted to the 
 first years of the church, and intended to disappear as the 
 canon of revelation was completed, and the perfect will of 
 God made known to the church. While these are evidently 
 needed for the infantile state, others are as evidently de- 
 signed for the ordinary work and worship of a regularly or- 
 ganized church. In some of these offices or functions the 
 supernatural qualifications are the first to come into view, 
 and are so prominent as almost to drive the natural out of 
 sight ; in the others, the natural are first named and demanded. 
 The exercise of some of these gifts was occasional, not at the 
 will of the person ; of the others, constant and voluntary. 
 For the perpetuation of some of these provision is made ; for 
 others no direction is given. 
 
 The most exhaustive enumeration of gifts and functions 
 we find in i Cor. 12 : 28 and in Eph. 4:11. The first seems 
 to combine diverse classes ; the second similar. Let us ex- 
 amine it: "And he gave some to be apostles, and some 
 prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 
 
52 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 with a view to the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
 ministration, for the building up of the body of Christ." 
 
 We have seen that the Christian church was not organized 
 until the day of Pentecost ; that its character is such that 
 we must look for an organization as new as its character. 
 From the principles already established, it will be natural to 
 expect that there will be authorities, endowments, instrumen- 
 talities, provisions, which will cease as the conditions in which 
 they come into being cease. 
 
 THE APOSTLES.^ 
 
 After it became evident that our Lord would be rejected 
 by the Jews, he left Judea and began his ministrations in 
 Galilee. Here he chose twelve men, to whom he gave the 
 remainder of his life. He taught them in public and in 
 private. He made them his companions, and when they had 
 acquired the knowledge of God — of himself, of his person 
 aud his work — which was necessary for the establishment of 
 his church, he gave up his life on Calvary. After his resur- 
 rection he gave further instruction to his disciples ; committed 
 to them the work of imparting to others that which they had 
 received from him ; assured them of his immanent presence; 
 ascended to heaven ; sent the Holy Spirit to vivify the church 
 and to take up his abode with the disciples, and sat down at 
 the right hand of God. 
 
 In our Lord's Judean ministry he presented himself to the 
 
 ' The word airorroAot, in the first instance, is an adjective signifying dispatched, 
 or sent forth. Applied to a person it mears more than 5yy»Ao«. The apostle is 
 not only the messenger, but the delegate of the person who sends him. He is 
 entrusted with a mission ; has powers conferred upon him. Beyond this the 
 classical usage of the verm gives no aid toward understanding the meaning of the 
 Christian's apostolate. — '^Lightfoo* on Jalatians" f. gj. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 53 
 
 nation as their Messiah. John the Baptist formally an- 
 nounced and declared him to the Sanhedrin, the legal repre- 
 sentatives of the nation (John i : 19-27). Our Lord asserts 
 his position and relation by significant actions (John 2 : 14- 
 16). He begins to baptize by the hands of his disciples 
 (John 3 : 22). So far as we know he does not go about preach- 
 ing and working miracles, but awaits the verdict of the nation. 
 His first recognition by the Galileans does not come from 
 works done in Galilee, but from those done in Jerusalem, 
 which were so inoperative in the case of the Jews (John 4:45). 
 
 After the imprisonment of John the Baptist our Lord turns 
 from his work in Judea, and begins his work in Galilee, de- 
 voting himself to his twelve disciples, the nucleus of the 
 church.^ The former had reference to the Jewish nation, the 
 latter to a church to be gathered out of all nations. 
 
 L That the apostolic office was not designed to be trans- 
 mitted is shown — 
 
 1. By the nature and design of the office. What this is 
 we have already considered. 
 
 2. By the qualification for it. 
 
 3. By the method of inauguration. 
 
 4. By the course pursued by the apostles after the day of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 5. There is no provision made for the perpetuation of the 
 office by human means, and there are no directions given with 
 regard to filling the office. 
 
 1 In all that he does during this period there is apparently no step looking for- 
 ward to the abrogation of the Mosaic institutions, and to the formation of a church 
 on a new foundation. Although assisted in his work by a few who early dis- 
 cerned in him the Messiah, he seems to have done nothing that indicated a pur- 
 pose to gather out a few from the nation at large. The whole Judean ministry is 
 an appeal to the people to receive him as their Messiah through the divinely con- 
 stituted heads. — Andrew' i '■^Life of our Lord," p. ijo. 
 
54 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 6. It includes in itself every office and gift of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 7. By the instructions given them. When our Lord ad- 
 dresses the Twelve apart from the mass of the people, those 
 addresses are of a strongly marked character. They belong to 
 the church as a body. We have a specimen of these instruc- 
 tions at the beginning of their career, during its progress, at 
 its close. An examination of the 10th chapter of Matthew as 
 a specimen of the first ; of John 14-17, as a specimen of the 
 second; of Matt. 28: 16-20, as a specimen of the last, will 
 show that these instructions and promises are not addressed 
 to them personally, nor to them as ministers, but to the whole 
 church i-n all ages. 
 
 II. The qualifications for the apostolic office. 
 
 1. A personal call from Christ to the work (Luke 6:13- 
 16 ; Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; Gal. i : i). 
 
 2. A personal knowledge of Christ's resurrection (Acts i : 
 21, 22 ; 2 : 32 ; 4 : 33 ; 10 : 39-42 ; i Cor. 9 : i ; 15 : 8 ; 2 
 Peter i : 18). 
 
 3. A special endowment — ability to impart spiritual gifts 
 (Acts I : 8 ; 8:1 5-19 ; 19:6; Rom. i : 1 1). 
 
 4. A universal commission to organize churches, to institute 
 offices, to exercise authority, never confined to a single church 
 or to a single work. 
 
 ^ 5. Personal gifts and qualities which made their work not 
 impersonal, temporary, or official (like the ancient prophet, 
 preacher, etc.), but personal, inalienable, and all-comprehen- 
 sive (i Cor. 4:16; 1 1 : I ; i Thess. i : 6 ; 2 Thess. 3 : 7, 9 ; 
 2 Cor. 3 : 1-3). While prophets are said to exhort, evangel- 
 ists to preach, and others to teach, the apostles alone are said 
 to witness or testify. Paul preached a long time before he 
 assumed the duties of an apostle. The apostles Christ-ward 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 55 
 
 represented the church ; church-ward they represented 
 Christ. 
 
 III. The only outward inauguration of the apostles into 
 office was that remarkable and significant act of Christ when 
 he breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." 
 
 ^ The vivifying and vitalizing principle and power of the church 
 is the Holy Spirit. When Christ thus spoke to them he ad- 
 dressed them as the church (John 20 : 22). This was the 
 symbolic impartation of the life of the church fulfilled on the 
 day of Pentecost. 
 
 IV. The course pursued by them after the assumption of 
 the duties of their office illustrates the same fact. If any 
 were trained by Christ as preachers simply or chiefly, why is 
 there so little manifestation of their performance of this duty ? 
 Peter, as the representative of the apostolic college, lays the 
 foundation of the church in Jerusalem, but the apostles as 
 individuals are scarcely noticed. When the church was scat- 
 tered abroad by the persecution that arose about Stephen, 
 the members went everywhere preaching the word, except 
 the apostles. They remained at Jerusalem (Acts 3 : 1-4). 
 When new places received the word the apostles sent dele- 
 gates (Acts 8 : 14). When differences of opinion arose, em- 
 bassies were sent to the apostles. It is evident that the 
 apostles considered it their duty not to go abroad preaching, 
 
 ' but to remain as a body in Jerusalem, the center of unity, 
 and the source of instruction and strength. 
 
 V. There is no provision for the perpetuation of the office, 
 nor any directions given as to the character of those who are 
 to be chosen to occupy the position. 
 
 VI. In the apostolic office was expressly included every 
 office and gift of the Christian church : bishop (Acts i : 20) ; 
 elder (i Peter 5 : i ; 2 John i ; 3 John i); deacon (Acts 1:25; 
 
$6 CHURCH POLiTV 
 
 6:2); prophet (Acts 13:1). It is evident from the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians that they had the gifts of miracles, of 
 prophecy, of government, of teaching, of tongues, of min- 
 istration. 
 
 PROPHETS. 
 
 A prophet, in Scripture language, is one who is authorized 
 to speak for another (Exod. 7:1). The "pro" is local, not 
 temporal ; although the prophet often predicted future events, 
 this is not essential to the office. In the East the monarch 
 uttered his commands through his vizier or officer who stood 
 before him ; God's prophet is one who speaks under special 
 divine inspiration. The Old Testament prophets came with 
 a special commission from God to declare his will, to rebuke, 
 arouse, direct, comfort. 
 
 It was predicted that there should be prophets under the 
 New Dispensation (Acts 2 : 17, 18). John was a prophet 
 (Matt. II : g; 14:5; 21 : 26). Jesus was a prophet (Luke 
 13 '• 33)- Christ declared that he would send prophets (Matt. 
 23 : 34 ; Luke 11 : 49). Prophets were recognized in the 
 church (Acts 11 : 27; 19 : 6; 15 : 32). Prophets held a 
 very important position and discharged a very important 
 office in the establishment of the church (Rom. 16 : 26 ; 
 Eph. 2 : 19, 22 ; 3:5; 2 Peter i : 19). 
 
 While this office was one of great importance and benefit 
 to the church, it is inferior to that of the apostle. The gift 
 was widely diffused, was capable of perversion and abuse. 
 There were many pretenders to it (i John 4 : i, 2), by which 
 some were led astray and others caused to depreciate the 
 gift (i Thess. 5 : 19, 20); and it was to disappear when the 
 canon of revelation was complete (i Cor. 13 : 8-13).^ 
 
 ' Bleek says vpo<f>r)T(ia " denotes the communication of all manner of knowledge 
 which has not been acquired in a natural way, by tradition, or by perception of the 
 
THE NKW TESTAMENT CHURCH 57 
 
 EVANGELISTS. 
 
 It would be natural in the formative period of the church 
 that there should be an officer for discharging duties delegated 
 by the apostles and under their direction. The instructions 
 given Timothy and Titus are such as would be appropriate to 
 an officer of this character. Timothy is called an evangelist 
 (2 Tim. 4:5); he had received special spiritual gifts (i Tim. 
 
 4 : 14;; special authority was conferred on him (i Tim. 6:1; 
 
 5 : 1-2 1); he was attached to Paul's person and under his 
 control, not placed over any particular church (2 Tim. 4:9); 
 so also Titus i : 5.* 
 
 senses, or by reflection, but by immediate revelation.' ' In the New Testament it 
 is often the declaration of what is hidden in men's hearts, and admonition, ex- 
 hortation, and warning connected therewith. 
 
 1 It is a conception of a later age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus 
 and Titus as bishop of Crete. St. Paul's own language implies that the position 
 they held was temporary. In both cases their term of office is drawing to a close 
 when the apostle writes. (See I Tim. 1:3; 3:14; 2 Tim. 4 : 9, 21.) — ^'■Light- 
 foot on P/iilippia7is,^' J>. ig). 
 
 It follows, from i Tim. i : 3, that he and his master, after the release of the 
 latter from his imprisonment, revisited proconsular Asia ; that the apostle continued 
 his journey to Macedonia, while the disciple remained half reluctantly, even weep- 
 ing at the separation (2 Tim. i : 4) at Ephesus, to check, if possible, the outgrowth 
 of heresy and licentiousness which had sprung up there. The time during which 
 he was thus to exercise authority as the delegate of an apostle — vicar apostolic, 
 rather than a bishop — was of uncertain duration (i Tim. 3 ; 14). The position in 
 which he found himself might well make him anxious. He had to rule presbyters 
 most of whom were older than himself (i Tim. 4 : 12) ; to assign to each a stipend 
 in proportion to his work (5 : 17) ; to receive and decide on charges that might be 
 brought against them (5:1, 19, 20) ; to regulate the almsgiving and sisterhood of 
 the church (5 : 3-10); to ordain presbyters and deacons (3 : 1-13). — Sviith' s 
 •' Bible Dictionary" III., 3234, 
 
 Of Titus we learn that he was left in Crete, to complete what Paul had been 
 obliged to leave unfinished, and he is to organize churches throughout the island by 
 appointing presbyters in every city (i : 5). Instructions are given as to the suit- 
 able character of such presbyters (i : 6-9) ; and we learn further that we have here 
 the repetition of instructions previously furnished by word of mouth (ver. 5). Next 
 
58 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 The nature of the work, and its relation to the apostolic 
 office, show that it must cease when the apostolic office ceases. 
 This is confirmed by the fact that no provision is made for 
 appointment to the office, and there is no mention anywhere 
 of the qualifications for the office. 
 
 PASTORS AND TEACHERS. 
 
 There is no indication in the New Testament as to the pe- 
 culiar nature of the offices thus designated, or as to the special 
 duties assigned to them. The most that can be conjectured 
 is that the titles of the office were significant of the duties. 
 
 The title " pastor " is never applied in the New Testament 
 to the bishop of a local church. 
 
 The meaning of "the angel of the church," used only in 
 Rev. I : 20; 2 : I, 8, 12, 18; 3 : I, 7, 14, is so uncertain that 
 no satisfactory explanation can be given of it. It is unwise 
 to attempt to prove by the Apocalypse a doctrine or practice 
 not clearly established in other parts of the Scripture.' 
 
 BISHOPS OR PRESBYTERS. 
 
 In the state of Christianity when the extraordinary had 
 given way to the permanent, and local churches were estab- 
 lished, we find two classes of functions. They are such as 
 
 he is to control and bridle (ver. ii) the restless and mischievous Judaizere, and he 
 is to be peremptory in so doing (ver. 13). Injunctions in the same spirit are reiter- 
 ated (2 : 1, 15 ; 3 : 8). He is to urge the duties of a decorous Christian life upon 
 the women (2 : 3, 5), some of whom possibly had something of an official char- 
 acter (2 : 3, 4). He is to be watchful over his own conduct (2:7); he is to im- 
 press upon the slaves the peculiar duties of their position (2 : 9, 10) ; he is to check 
 all social and political influence (3 : i), also all wild theological speculations (3 : 
 9), and to exercise discipline over the heretical (3 : 10). — Smith's "Bible Dic- 
 tionary, '' III., p. 3267. 
 
 •On the angel of the church, vide "Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1855, *°<i 
 "Lightfoot on Philippians." 
 
l^HE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH S9 
 
 would naturally grow out of the nature and constitution of a 
 church ; such as would promote its design and develop its 
 true character : the first having to do more especially with 
 the spiritual, and the second with the temporal (Rom. 12 : 
 6-8; I Cor. 12 .-4-30; i Thess. 5 : 12, 14; i Peter 4 : 10). 
 
 As these ministries are a function of the church, and do 
 not come by arbitrary enactment, we should expect the names 
 at first to be descriptive, derived from the work, applied 
 widely, and only in course of time settling down into official 
 restricted appellations. Thus didxovoq — deacon, servitor, 
 would be applied to all who served ; to all Christians (John 
 12 : 26) ; to the apostles (Acts i : 17, 25) ; to Paul (20 : 24) ; 
 to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5); to the ministry in general (Eph. 
 4 : 12) ; finally to the special class (i Tim. 3 : 8). 
 
 Bishop ' and elder (presbyter) are the names which are at 
 last the titles of the presiding officer and teachers of the 
 church. Elder or presbyter is the Jewish term, bishop or 
 overseer the Greek. The use of the word presbyter, elder, 
 as an official designation to denote one who had authority or 
 leadership, arose from the patriarchal origin of government 
 among the Hebrew-Semitic nation. In the most natural 
 way, elder came to mean officer, without any reference to 
 age. We have the same form in our word alderman, elder- 
 man. 
 
 In the Septuagint the word is common. In some places it 
 signifies inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters (2 Kings 
 11:15; 2 Chron. 34 : 11-17 ; Isa. 60 : 17) ; in others it is a 
 
 * 'Etrt'o-KOTTo;, bishop, was an official title among the Greeks. In Athenian lan- 
 guage, it was used specially to designate commissioners appointed to regulate a 
 new colony or acquisition. The title, however, is not confined to Attic usage. 
 It is the designation, e. g., of the inspectors whose business it was to report to 
 the India kings ; of the commissioners appointed by Mithradates to settle affairs 
 in Ephesus. — Lightfoot. 
 
6o CHURCH POLITY 
 
 higher title, captains or presidents (Neh. 1 1 : 9). Antiochus 
 Epiphanes appointed bishops over all the people to see that 
 his orders were obeyed. " Thus beyond the fundamental 
 idea of inspection which lies at the root of the word bishop, 
 its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also : i. Responsi- 
 bility to a superior power ; 2. The introduction of a new 
 order of things." 
 
 Presbyter is the Jewish term. Peter and James, in their 
 epistles, say elder, not bishop.^ 
 
 In the New Testament, bishop is used four times, elder 
 seventeen times, to denote an officer in a church. 
 
 That these titles bishop and presbyter are equivalent and 
 are used interchangeably, is shown : 
 
 1. From their employment in the same connection to desig- 
 nate the same office and work (Acts 20 : 17 cf. with 20 : 28; 
 Titus I : 5 cf. with 1:7;! Peter 5 : i, 2); and also by those 
 passages in which bishops and deacons seem to comprise all 
 the officers of a church. In i Tim. 3 : 1-13. e. g., the quali- 
 fications of bishops and deacons are given without any refer- 
 ence to an intermediate class; in Phil. 1:1, the bishops 
 and deacons are addressed as if they included all the church 
 officers. 
 
 2. From the identity of qualifications required for the 
 office (i Tim. 3 : 2-7 compared with Titus i : 5-9). . 
 
 ' " Presbyter appears first in connection with the mother church at Jerusalem 
 (Acts II : 30). From this time forward all official communications with the 
 mother church are carried on through their intervention. To the presbyters 
 Barnabas and Saul bear the alms contributed by the Gentile churches. The 
 presbyters are persistently associated with the apostles : in convening the congress, 
 in the superscription of the decree, and in the general settlement of the dispute 
 between the Gentile and the Jewish Christians. By the presbyters Paul is received 
 many years later, on his last visit to Jerusalem, and to them he gives an account 
 of his missionary labors and triumphs." 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH $1 
 
 3. From the identity of the duties required, shown by the 
 preceding references. 
 
 4. This proposition is further proved by the overwhelming 
 testimony of learned men of all denominations in modern and 
 ancient times. It would be impossible to quote this testi- 
 mony. In Dexter's "Congregationalism" will be found a 
 copious list of authorities ; see also Coleman's " Manual of 
 Prelacy and Ritualism," and Lightfoot on the " Epistle to the 
 Philippians." 
 
 That the office of the ministry is of divine appointment is 
 evident : 
 
 1. From the direct assertions of the Scripture (Acts 20 : 
 28 ; I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus i : 5-9). 
 
 2. From the prescribed qualifications for the office. 
 
 3. From the divine ordinance for its support (Luke 10:7; 
 I Cor. 9:14; 2 Cor. 1 1 : 7-9 ; Gal. 6 : 6). 
 
 4. From the directions given relative to the conduct of 
 members of the church toward those set over them in the 
 Lord (Heb. 13:17; i Thess. 5:13, 14). 
 
 THE DUTIES OF A BISHOP. 
 
 His first duty is to preach ; both to proclaim and to teach. 
 
 The whole work of instruction in the truths of revelation, 
 of the declaration, explanation, illustration, application, and 
 enforcement of scriptural truths, is committed to him. To 
 this all other work must be subordinate ; he must not shun 
 to declare the whole counsel of God ; to instruct, warn, re- 
 buke with all authority. No range of Christian tru*:h, no 
 department of Christian life, but comes within the range of 
 his teaching. 
 
 He is to shepherd the flock of Christ (John 21 : 15-17); 
 to watch over, protect, govern, provide for, defend ; he is to 
 
63 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 defend his flock from all spiritual enemies, from the attacks 
 and assaults of Satan, from the influence of the world, from 
 every form of evil which he can withstand (John lo : 1 1, etc.). 
 There may be bad men, designing men, troublesome men, 
 strife-breeders, preachers of error, whom he must steadfastly 
 resist in the faith. He is to provide, control, direct the work 
 of the church, to develop the whole church life, to inspire, 
 and inspect the whole worship, work, and discipline. He is 
 to sustain pastoral relations not only to the whole church, 
 but to the individual members ; taking individual and per- 
 sonal care and oversight ; imparting instruction, admonition, 
 comfort, as may be needed in each case. He must be able 
 to say in some degree, " I know my sheep and am known of 
 mine, and they hear my voice and they follow me. I am 
 come that they may have life, and may have it more abun- 
 dantly." 
 
 He is to be a teacher in the widest sense : rightly dividing 
 the word of truth (2 Tim. 2 : 1 5) ; a scribe instructed in the 
 kingdom of heaven, bringing out of his treasury things new 
 and old (Matt. 13 : 52). 
 
 He is to be a leader of the church (Heb. 13 : 7, 17, 24), an 
 example in all his actions, methods, deportment, spirit, and in- 
 fluence to the flock (i Tim. 4:12). 
 
 He is to rule the church (Rom. 12:8; i Tim. 5:17; i 
 Thess. 5 : 12; i Tim. 3 : 4, 5). The nature of the rule 
 of the bishop must be remembered ; it is always character- 
 ized, determined, and limited by the relation which gives its 
 birth. It is like all rightful authority, when rightly admin- 
 istered by one duly qualified and organized, not only sub- 
 mitted to, but welcomed and prized. It is to be observed 
 that this is strictly pastoral authority and obedience. The 
 subjection of a child to a parent is one thing ; that of a wife 
 
THB NKW TESTAMENT CHURCH 63 
 
 to the husband is another ; that of a member of a delibera- 
 tive body to the presiding officer another ; that of a mem- 
 ber of a church to the pastor another. No man is humihated 
 in submitting to the proper officer of the body to which he 
 belongs, or in recognizing the relation. 
 
 It is the duty of the bishop to officiate publicly as the rep- 
 resentative and leader of the church in public and formal 
 acts of worship by the church. 
 
 THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A BISHOP. 
 
 The qualifications for the office grow out of the duties of 
 the office. He must be a converted man ; he must possess 
 those Christian graces which are demanded for the right dis- 
 charge of the work of the ministry — patience, long-suffering, 
 gentleness, meekness, humility ; he must also have the quali- 
 fications set forth in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus ; he 
 must be a man of estimable private character, of unquestioned 
 integrity of conduct ; he must be apt to teach ; must have 
 ability to rule ; must be of suitable age and experience ; and 
 must have a good reputation among the unconverted. 
 
 CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 
 
 If a man is called to the work of feeding the flock of 
 Christ, of being a leader, guide, instructor of God's people, 
 he will possess the necessary qualifications : 
 
 1. The physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual endow- 
 ments. 
 
 2. The witness in his own spirit of a call to the work, 
 manifested in ways which will vary with each individual. 
 
 3. The judgment of the church, as to his possession of 
 the requisite spiritual gifts, and the expediency of their 
 exercise. 
 
 4. The concurring providence of God, in opening the way, 
 
64 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 in removing all obstacles to the recognition and exercise of 
 the gift. 
 
 Hence no man can claim the right to perform ministerial 
 functions simply on the ground of his own convictions. If 
 one is called by the Spirit to assume an office in the body of 
 Christ, the fact will be made evident to others besides the 
 one who supposes he is so called. No one should undertake 
 the discharge of this function unless there is the concurrent 
 testimony of providence, of the church, and of himself. 
 David was anointed king of Israel by the prophet in obe- 
 dience to the divine command, but he did not enter on the 
 duties of his office until the people recognized the divine ap- 
 pointment, and chose him as their sovereign. There is no 
 indication of any one in New Testament times exercising the 
 ministerial .office without the consent of the church (Acts 
 13:2; I Tim. 4 : 14; 2 Tim. i : 6). In the exercise of 
 spiritual gifts, the prophets must preserve self-control, and 
 must obey the church (i Cor. 14 : 17-40). 
 
 ORDINATION. 
 
 The word •' ordination " does not occur in our ordinary 
 version. The verb " ordain," when used in the sense 
 of to appoint a person, is the translation of six Greek 
 words: noiiw (Mark 3 : 14); yivofiat (Acts i : 22) ; xadigrrini 
 (Titus 1:5); 6piZ(i) (Acts 17 : 31); ridfifii (I Tim 2 : y) ; 
 xeipoToviw (Acts 14 : 23). This last word is also used in Acts 
 10 : 41, translated "chosen." Of these only two, xadiarriin 
 and -j^etpuToviw, are spoken of the ordination of Christian elders. 
 In the apparent sense of the word, as now used to denote a 
 public, ceremonious induction in^o office, the word occurs 
 but twice, but in neither of these cases (Acts 14 : 23 ; Titus 
 I : 5) can the word bear that meaning. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 65 
 
 Ordination, in the sense in which we are now using the 
 word, is an act by which the church publicly and formally 
 declares that one of its members has been regularly called to 
 the work of the ministry, by which it gives its sanction to 
 the performance of official acts by him, and solemnly in- 
 vokes on him the blessing of God in the performance of 
 his work. 
 
 The laying on of hands, which now generally accompanies 
 the public service, seems to have been the act ordinarily 
 attending the solemn commending of a person to the bless- 
 ing of the Lord (Matt. 19 : 13 ; Acts 13 : 1-3). The Romish 
 and Episcopal idea of ordination is (i) the impressing on the 
 soul a spiritual character or stamp, which is so indelible that 
 he who is once made a priest can never return to the condi- 
 tion of a layman ; and (2) the conferring of grace, not sancti- 
 fying, but ministerial, for the valid performance of sacerdotal 
 functions. 
 
 WHO ORDAINS.? 
 
 The church of which the candidate is a member ; but inas' 
 much as this church has fraternal relations with churches of 
 the same faith and order, so that its acts are respected, and 
 inasmuch as the church wishes the recognition and sanction 
 of its minister by other churches, it is at once the dictate of 
 justice and courtesy that neighboring churches be requested 
 to examine the candidate, and advise the church as to his fit- 
 ness to represent the sisterhood of churches. If any church 
 undertakes to decide without consultation on the fitness of 
 the candidate for office, manifestly it can and ought to decide 
 for itself solely. It would be very dishonest to send forth 
 such a man as a minister endorsed and recognized by the 
 denomination. 
 
66 CHURCH POUTY 
 
 OTHER THEORIES. 
 
 The Presbyterians claim a ruling eldership ; but there is 
 no scriptural warrant for such an office, as distinct from a 
 preaching eldership. Dr. James P. Wilson, of Philadelphia, 
 says : " Of presbyters without authority to preach, neither a 
 word nor an example is found, from the demise of the last 
 apostle to the Reformation in Switzerland ; they neither ex- 
 isted in the original form of government; nor in the second- 
 ary, which was parochial episcopacy ; nor in that which ab- 
 sorbed the rest, the diocesan." Calvin founded the doctrine 
 of ruling elders first on the governments, i Cor. 12 : 28, and 
 afterward on i Tim. 5:17; but for a thorough examination 
 of the whole subject, and conclusive proof that there is no 
 support of this theory in the New Testament, see an article 
 by Dr. Hitchcock, in the " American Presbyterian Review," 
 1868. If the single text, now quoted in support of this view 
 (i Tim. 5 : 17) be obeyed, then those who consider that it 
 refers to lay-elders ought to give them double the salary 
 given to the bishops. 
 
 In some cases in the New Testament, a plurality of elders in 
 a church would appear (Acts 11 : 30 ; 14 : 23 ; Phil. 1:1; 
 Titus 1:5). On the other hand, in the Pastoral Epistles the 
 elder is mentioned in the singular, while the deacons are in 
 the plural. In like manner the qualifications of a bishop are 
 spoken of — -he must rule well, etc., etc. 
 
 The ministry is in no sense a priesthood, apart from the 
 priestly character of every believer. In no possible sense 
 are the ministry of the Christian church successors of the 
 priests of the Levitical dispensation. The priestly words, 
 Up^o^, ■f^uaia, etc., are never mentioned in the New Testament 
 in connection with the work or office of a bishop. They are 
 applied to Christ and to Christians (Rom. 12:1; i Peter 2 : 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH Sf 
 
 5), and many other places. There is no intimation in the 
 New Testament of the existence of a sacred caste ; but that 
 " teachers had obtained in Paul's day a fixed official position, 
 is manifest from Gal. 6 : 6 and i Cor. 9:14, where he claims 
 for them a right to a worldly maintenance." 
 
 If the New Testament is so clear as to the absolute parity 
 of the ministry, and to the existence of but one order of the 
 ministry, how can we account for the fact that by the third 
 century, episcopacy, with its three orders, so universally 
 appears ? 
 
 The theory that this was the product simply of ambition 
 on the part of the bishops is a very shallow one. Read 
 "Lea's Studies in Church History." There are some con- 
 siderations that are worthy to be borne in mind. 
 
 1. The utter want of authentic history during this period. 
 We have no account of the transactions of that age, of which 
 above all others we desire exact information. There is a wide 
 gulf between the close of the inspired history, and the begin- 
 ning of the records of Christian antiquity. The methods of 
 the transformation from the simple forms of the apostles to 
 diocesan episcopacy are all unseen by us. 
 
 2. The want of recognized leadership after the death of 
 the apostles must have been very deeply felt. This would 
 be all the more prevalent by reason of the character of the 
 early Christians. They were children ; they could believe, 
 could live, suffer, and die, but they had no mature Christian 
 judgment ; they had not been accustomed to the exercise of 
 those faculties essential to self-government. 
 
 3. The influence of the political constitution of the 
 Roman empire was always very powerful. This was ever 
 pervasive and present. 
 
68 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 4. There was the foreshadowing of the apostasy, the work- 
 ing of that principle which cannot trust to the simplicity of 
 the gospel, and demands an organization adapted to worldly 
 ideas.* 
 
 5. The demand of the human heart always and everywhere 
 for a--sacramental and sacerdotal religion. 
 
 6. There is no error in the papal system, the date of whose 
 introduction can be shown. As far back as you can trace 
 any definite system in the church, you can find substantially 
 the sacramental system. 
 
 DEACONS. 
 
 The apostolic office, as we have seen, included all others. 
 The first of which the apostles would divest themselves 
 would be the lowest. It is possible that an account of this 
 is given in the sixth chapter of the Acts. It is possible, 
 also, that this is not an account of the original institution, 
 but of the appointment of Hellenistic deacons. It is pos- 
 sible, also, that this chapter contains merely the account of 
 the provision made to meet a special emergency. It is 
 worthy of note that the word deacon is not found here, al- 
 though the verb " to serve " is. As an official designation, 
 the word appears in Phil, i : i and in i Tim. 3 : 8-13. 
 
 The word dtdxnvw; always implies subordination, and as 
 uniformly the first grade of subordination.' 
 
 ' " Christianity," says Dr. Arnold, " shared the common lot of all great moral 
 changes ; perfect as it was in itself, its nominal adherents were often neither wise 
 nor good. The seemingly incongruous evils of the thoroughly corrupt society of 
 the Roman empire, superstition and skepticism, ferocity and sensual profligacy, 
 often sheltered themselves under the name of Christianity ; and hence the heresies 
 of the first age of the Christian church." 
 
 * See " Baptist Quarterly," January, 1869. See also Smith's " Bible Diction- 
 ary," article on " Deacons." 
 
The new testament church . 69 
 
 The moral qualifications for the oflfice are substantially the 
 same which bishops are to possess, with the exception of apt- 
 ness to teach and hospitality. Their domestic arrangements 
 and relations are to be exemplary ; their business is to be 
 reputable ; they are to be wise in the mysteries of the faith, 
 eminent for piety and conscientiousness, and of proved char- 
 acter and talent. In the primitive churches there were dea- 
 conesses ; this is without doubt the class referred to by the 
 word "wives " in the version of King James (i Tim. 3:11). 
 
 The duties of the deacons, whether men or women, were 
 to serve the church in all ways which did not fall within the 
 province of the bishop. 
 
 CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 
 
 That the church is required to exercise a due discipline 
 over its members, and that this discipline is entrusted to the 
 members and not to the officers of a church, is seen from 
 Matt. 18 : 15-17; I Cor. 5:3,4; i Tim. i : 1 9, 20 ; Titus 3 : 
 10 ; 2 Thess. 3 : 6. The two great branches of discipline, 
 excision and restoration, are specifically directed to be per- 
 formed by the church in i Cor. 5 : 3-8 and 2 Cor. 2 : 5-10. 
 In the first of these, Paul, though an apostle, does not him- 
 self excommunicate the offender, but directs the church at 
 its regular gathering to cut him off ; and in the latter, when 
 Paul is convinced that the ends of discipline have been an- 
 swered, he does not himself restore the offender, but directs 
 the church to receive him again to its fellowship. 
 
 The offenses which the church should notice may be di- 
 vided into two great classes — personal offenses and public 
 offenses. 
 
 I. Personal offenses. These are provided for in Matt. 18 :' 
 15-17. 
 
70 CHURCH POLI'ry 
 
 An act or a course of conduct made by a church the 
 basis of action under the rule given by our Lord in this 
 chapter, must deserve the notice and action of a church, 
 and must be susceptible of proof. These characteristics 
 being ascertained, then it must appear to the church that 
 the directions of our Lord have been followed in the spirit 
 and in the letter. No deviation from this can be allowed. 
 It must also be observed that the final step is taken in 
 consequence of the refusal to hear the church. 
 
 II. Public offenses. 
 
 1. Scandalous sins. Gross immorality. In the case of 
 these sins the offender should be immediately separated from 
 the church. The only prerequisite is clear proof of guilt. 
 No profession of penitence should stay the action of the 
 church ; the honor of Christianity requires that no assertion 
 of sorrow or of a determination to lead a new life suffices to 
 continue a murderer or other notorious and abandoned man 
 in the fellowship of a church of professed members of Christ. 
 Where the guilt cannot be denied, the formality of a trial 
 need not take place. 
 
 2. Heresy : which is faction-leading, inculcating religious 
 error, and persisting in so doing to the grief of the church. 
 Erroneous belief is no ground for church discipline ; the 
 error must be maintained in such way as to destroy the 
 unity and fellowship of the church (Rom. 16:17; i Tim. 6 : 
 3-5; Titus 3 : 10, 11). The apostle's direction is, Give 
 these strife-breeders the first and second admonition, and if 
 these do not suffice, exclude them. 
 
 3. Disorderly walking (2 Thess. 3:6). A life not in 
 accordance with the commands of the New Testament ; idle- 
 ness, meddlesomeness, disregard of family obligation. The 
 dictate of sound judgment would seem to be in such cases to 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 71 
 
 pursue the spirit of the injunction in the case of the trouble- 
 maker, and give a warning and admonition ; if this does not 
 suffice, suspend from church privileges, and, finally, exclude. 
 
 There are other cases for which special provision is made 
 (Gal. 6:1). If a man be overtaken in a fault, caught in the 
 act ; if under the pressure of sudden and unexpected temp- 
 tation the man has yielded, and the circumstances are such 
 that there is no probability that it will be repeated ; then the 
 spiritual ought to restore such a one without any public action. 
 Oftentimes an offense is committed which is contrary to the 
 real character of the person offending. It is wise to take 
 no notice of such an act. Church action should never be 
 undertaken, when the purposes of church action can better 
 be accomplished without it. 
 
 The case of pecuniary difficulties and disagreements is 
 provided for in i Cor. 6:1-8; James 2 : 1-9. Members of 
 a church are never to be allowed to go to law with one an- 
 other. This does not forbid amicable suits, where the only 
 method of arriving at the proper course to be pursued, as in 
 intricate cases of trusteeship and guardianship, is to secure a 
 legal decision. 
 
 Restoration to the fellowship of the church ensues when 
 the object of discipline is accomplished. The'se objects are 
 two-fold -to vindicate the character of the church as a moral 
 and spiritual body, and to secure the reformation of the of- 
 fender. When these are accomplished, the offender should 
 be restored. 
 
 LETTERS OF DISMISSION. 
 
 These are given to members at their request, when for any 
 sufficient reason they wish to transfer their membership from 
 one church to another. A letter of dismission may be ad- 
 dressed to any specifically named church, c^x it may be 
 
72 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 addressed to any church of the same faith and order. After 
 the letter has been given, and while the individual still holds 
 it, the person dismissed is under the supervision and jurisdic- 
 tion of the church, so far as general Christian character is 
 concerned, but is not obliged to perform specific church duties 
 in connection with that particular church. He cannot be re- 
 quired, e. g. to attend communion there, or to contribute to 
 the support of public worship. But as far as the letter 
 vouches for him, that is as a man worthy to be received 
 into any Christian church, so far is he accountable to the 
 church while he retains the letter. If he is guilty of con- 
 duct which forfeits Christian character, it is the duty of 
 the church whose letter he holds to recall that letter, and 
 take the necessary steps of investigation and discipline. 
 After the letter has been granted, as he is under no obliga- 
 tions to the church for any duties to the church, so he cannot 
 exercise the privileges of a member. While he holds the 
 letter he cannot vote in any church. 
 
 INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The principles which determine the constitution of a 
 church are no less applicable to its government. It must 
 spring out of the idea of the church, must hold vital relations 
 to the church, and must be that which in its workings will 
 most naturally develop the idea of the church. 
 
 The church exists for three things, as far as our present 
 discussion is concerned : the worship of God, the growth of 
 Christians, and the spread of the gospel. 
 
 The functions of the church which relate to its internal 
 regulations are judicial and executive, not legislative. In all 
 that relates to the admission of members, for example, it can- 
 not make any change in the terms laid down in the New 
 
THi: NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 72, 
 
 Testament. It has no right to require an identity of vdews, 
 or any pledge to any particular line of conduct as a basis of 
 admission. 
 
 In order to carry out the purposes of church organization, 
 it is legitimate for the church to adopt any rules which are in 
 accordance with the mind of Christ, which will best accom- 
 plish that end ; rules for the transaction of business, for the 
 .ime and place of meeting, for the choice of a pastor, for the 
 obtaining the evidence of the regenerate character of appli- 
 cants for baptism, etc. 
 
 In all regulations care should be taken not to transgress 
 the laws of Christ, not to transgress the spirit of the gospel, 
 and not require rigid literal conformity to the rules of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 EXTERNAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Is there any earthly, ecclesiastical authority superior to 
 that of a local church f 
 
 In the New Testament there is no appearance of any ec- 
 clesiastical body above a church, to which the local church is 
 amenable. Each church is supreme in its own jurisdiction, 
 subject only to Christ. There is in the Scripture no appear- 
 ance of any universal organization, any ecclesiastical judica- 
 tory, holding relation to several churches. There is no out- 
 ward centre of unity, no periodical assemblies. Each church 
 performs its own duties, without reference to any foreign 
 oversight or review. This is illustrated by the directions of 
 Christ in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew ; of Paul to the 
 churches to which he wrote ; of the Spirit to the seven 
 churches of Asia. In the eleventh chapter of the Acts we 
 have an account of the church at Antioch, evidently not gov- 
 erned by the church at Jerusalem or by any other body. In 
 
74 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 tlie council held at Jerusalem, whose doings are recorded in 
 the fifteenth chapter of Acts, questions were referred to the 
 apostles and elders and brethren at Jerusalem ; there was no 
 decree promulgated, but a compromise recommended for the 
 time being, which had no obligatory character. Paul does 
 not scruple to discuss freely one of the points at issue, that 
 touching meats offered to idols. 
 
 In its worship, in the admission of members, the choice of 
 officers, in the exercise of discipline and the management of its 
 affairs, each church is free from subjection to any other church. 
 
 COUNCILS. 
 
 A council is an assemblage of members of churches, con- 
 vened at the request of a church, of a member of a church, 
 or of a number of members. The persons composing the 
 council may be appointed by the churches of which they are 
 members, or they may be individually selected and invited by 
 those who call the council. 
 
 A mutual council is one called and whose members are 
 chosen by the common consent of all persons whose position 
 or doings are to be submitted to the council for deliberation 
 and decision. 
 
 An ex parte council is one called by an aggrieved person 
 or persons, when the church or churches whose action is the 
 subject of complaint refuse to call a mutual council. This 
 latter ought to be resorted to only in extreme and very rare 
 cases. The instance of an ex parte council resulting in good 
 can hardly be produced. Even where clear injustice has 
 been done, it is generally better to suffer the wrong and wait 
 the vindication of time. 
 
 COUNCILS ARE CALLED 
 
 For the constitution and recognition of churches, for the 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH 75 
 
 ordination of ministers, for advice in questions of perplexity, 
 for a formal opinion in cases referred to their judgment. 
 
 They are called : 
 
 On the ground of common interest and fellowship. 
 
 To secure a wider wisdom and experience than that pos- 
 sessed by a single church. 
 
 To secure a church against a judgment unconsciously 
 biased by personal or party interest. 
 
 The power of a council is not in any inherent or delegated 
 authority to make laws or regulations, or to enforce its deci- 
 sion, but in the power of the truth on regenerate men ; in the 
 power of the Spirit, which is craved by the council in such 
 cases, and which is specially promised to those that seek it ; 
 and in the influence of men of acknowledged probity, impar- 
 tiality, discretion, wisdom, and spirituality. 
 
 Hence, in all cases of difficulty and perplexity the council, 
 as far as possible, should be composed of men unprejudiced, 
 of known integrity, capable of forming a judgment on the 
 matters entrusted to them, and of acknowledged spirituality. 
 In the selection of members, the utmost care should be taken 
 to have the council command respect for its evident impar- 
 tiality and ability. A council that has the appearance of hav- 
 ing been selected to give a particular verdict will have no 
 weight. 
 
 The letters missive should always state the purpose for 
 which the council is called, and should give the names of all 
 the churches and persons who are invited to become mem- 
 bers of the council. The business of the council is restricted 
 to the matter or matters named in the letters missive, and 
 the members to the persons appointed by the churches, or 
 invited in the letters. The council, after it has convened, 
 
76 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 cannot admit other members. It may invite them to a seat, 
 and to assist in the deliberations, but it cannot empower them 
 to vote. 
 
 If possible, councils called for the purpose of determining 
 the fitness of a candidate for ordination should not proceed 
 to the public exercises of the ordination the same day. In 
 other words, the decision of the council should not be pre- 
 judged. 
 
 410 
 
INDEX 
 
 Angel of chiirch, 58. 
 
 Antiquity of errors, 68. 
 
 Apostasy foreshadowed, 68 
 
 AjKJstolate: rise. 52; duration, 53, 55; 
 qualifications, 54 ; inauguration, 55 ; 
 comprehensive, 55. 
 
 Authority : for church, 18 ; immersion, 30 ; 
 restricted communion, 42 ; church pol- 
 ity, 47 ; councils, 75. 
 
 Autonomy of church, 73. 
 
 Baptism : appointed, 29 ; significance, 29, 
 30 ; mode, 30 ; consensus as to mode, 
 30 ; subjects, 31 ; precedent to com- 
 munion, 42. 
 
 Believers : whole body, 17 ; local body, 22. 
 
 Bishop : not pastor and teacher, 58 ; titles, 
 59; identity with presbyter, 60; di- 
 Tinely appointed, 61 ; duties, 61 ; qual- 
 ifications, 63; call, 63; ordination, 
 64 ; plurality, 66. 
 
 Call to ministry, 63. 
 
 Calvinistic theory of communion, 39. 
 
 Church : derivation of Greek term, 11 ; 
 classic use, 14 ; Septuagint use, 16 ; 
 New Testament use, 17; defined, 17, 
 22; composed of professed believers, 
 24 ; baptized, 26 ; on credible profes- 
 sion, 26; why associated, 27; ordi- 
 nances, 27 ; polity, 46 ; life, 46 ; early 
 stages, 47 ; authority for, 47 ; organic, 
 47 ; fundamental principles, 48 ; regu- 
 lated liberty. .50; functions and offi- 
 cers, 51 (aee officers of church) ; tran- 
 sient officers, 52 ; permanent officers, 
 58 ; approval of minister's call, 63 ; 
 discipline, 69 ; letters of dismissal, 71 ; 
 internal government, 72 ; external re- 
 lations, 73 ; autonomy, 73 ; councils, 74. 
 
 Close communion (see restricted com- 
 munion). 
 
 Communion : nature, 35 ; theories, 39- 
 41 ; Zwinglian, 39 ; Calvinistic, 39 ; 
 
 German Reformed, 40; Lutheran, 40 
 
 High Church Episcopalian, 41 ; Ro 
 
 manist, '41 ; participants of, 41, 42; 
 
 why restricted, 42 ; relation to bap. 
 
 tism, 42 ; objections to restriction, 43 ; 
 
 frequency, 44 ; title, 44. 
 Constituting a church, 74. 
 Councils : nature, 74 ; mutual, 74 ; exparte, 
 
 74 ; objects, 74 ; grounds of call, 75 j 
 
 scope of authority, 75 ; personnel, 75 ; 
 
 letters missive, 75; date of ordina^ 
 
 tion, 76. 
 Criteria of church polity, 49. 
 
 Date of ordination, 76. 
 
 Deacons : origin, 68 ; meaning of titl«, 
 68 ; qualifications, 69 ; duties, 69. 
 
 Detail of New Testament polity not bind- 
 ing, 47. 
 
 Determination of polity, 46. 
 
 Disagreements, pecuniary, 71. 
 
 Discipline : excisions, 69 : for personal 
 offenses, 69 ; public offenses, 70 ; other 
 cases, 71. 
 
 Dismission : letters of, 71. 
 
 Disorderly walk, 70. 
 
 Duties: of bishop or elder, 61; of deju 
 con, 69. 
 
 Ecclesia, 14. 
 
 Elders : ruling, 66 : plurality, 66 ; 
 
 Elements of church life, 48. 
 
 Episcopalian theory of communion, high 
 church, 41. 
 
 Errors : as to ministry, 66 ; ruling elders, 
 66; priestly functions, 66: three or- 
 ders, 67. 
 
 Evangelists : office, 57 ; transient, 58. 
 
 Evils of open communion, 43. 
 
 Faults, uncharacteristic, 71. 
 Frequency of communion, 44. 
 
 German Reformed theory of communion, 
 40. 
 
 77 
 
78 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Government of church: discipline, 69; 
 
 internal, 72; principles, 72 ; aimts, 72; 
 
 scope, 72 : rules of order, 73. 
 Growth of polity, 46. 
 
 Heresy, 70. 
 
 High church theory of communion, 41. 
 
 Human elements of church life, 47. 
 
 Immersion : cla.ssic Greek, 30 ; New Tes- 
 tament, 30; significance, 30; consen- 
 sus for, 30. 
 
 Inauguration of apostolate, 55. 
 
 Instructions to apostles, 51. 
 
 Internal government of church, 72. 
 
 Inward vocation to ministry, 63. 
 
 Kalein (Ka\(lv) and its derivatives, 11. 
 
 Law and liberty, 50. 
 
 Leading, duty of bishops or presbyters, 62. 
 
 Leadings to ministry, 63. 
 
 Letters : of dismission, 71 ; missive for 
 
 council, 75. 
 Liberty and law, 50. 
 Lord's table, 43. 
 
 Lutheran theorj' of communion, 40. 
 Ministry : call, 63 ; ordination, 64 ; errors 
 
 about, 66. 
 Mutual council, 74. 
 
 Native qualifications for ministry, 63. 
 
 Nature : of positive laws, 28 ; of baptism, 
 30 ; of communion, 35 ; of apostolate, 
 52. 
 
 New Testament: usage of as to baptism, 
 30; examples of restricted commun- 
 ion, 42 ; church polity, 47. 
 
 Offenses: personal, 69; public, 70; scan- 
 dalous, 70; heresy, 70; disorderly 
 walk, 70. 
 
 Officers of church : 51 ; transient, 52 ; apos- 
 tles, 52; prophets, 56; evangelists, 
 57; pastors and teachers, 58; "angel 
 of church," 58 ; permanent, 58 ; bishop 
 or presbyter, 58 ; deacons, 68. 
 
 Open communion : subverts baptism, 43 ; 
 not consistently urged, 43; evils, 43; 
 arguments for, 43. 
 
 Orders of ministrj' not three, 67. 
 
 Ordinances: defined, 27; positive, 28: im- 
 portance, 28; baptism, 29; commun- 
 ion, 35. 
 
 Outgrowth of church life, 46. 
 
 Participants in communion, 41. 
 
 Pastors and teachers, 58 ; not bishops, SS. 
 
 Pecuniary disagreements, 71. 
 
 Permanent oflScers of church, 58; needed, 
 59. 
 
 Personnel of council, 75. 
 
 Polity of church: determination of, 46; 
 an outgrowth, 46; stages, 47 ; princi- 
 ples, 48; source, 50; conformity and 
 liberty, 50. 
 
 Positive institutions, 28. 
 
 Preaching, a duty of bishop or presbyter, g 
 61. 
 
 Precedence of baptism admitted, 43. 
 
 Presbyter (see Bishop). 
 
 Presiding, a duty of bishop or presbyter, 
 63. 
 
 Priestly functions, GO. 
 
 Principles of polity binding, 47. 
 
 Prophets : meaning of title, 56 ; office fore- 
 told, 56; rank, 56; termination, 56. 
 
 Providential leadings to ministry, 63. 
 
 Qualifications : for apostle, 54 ; bishop or 
 presbyter, 63; for minister, 63; for 
 deacon, 69. 
 
 Regulative principles of polity, 48. 
 Relations : of baptism to communion, 42 ; 
 
 of Christ to believer, 48 ; of Christ to 
 
 church, 49; of church-members, 49; 
 
 of criteria as to polity, 49. 
 Restorations, 71. 
 Restricted communion: reasons for, 42; 
 
 objections to, 43. 
 Rise of apostolate, 52. 
 Roman empire, example of polity, 67. 
 Romanist theory of communion, 41. 
 Ruling, a duty of bishop or presbyter, 62. 
 
 Sacerdotal ideas, 68. 
 
 Sacramental theoriesof communion, 39. 
 
 Scandalous sins, 70. 
 
 Scriptural authority for church polity, 47. 
 
 Shepherding, a duty of bishop or presby- 
 ter, 61. 
 
 Sins, scandalous, 70. 
 
 Stages of growth in early church, 47. 
 
 Strict communion (see Restricted com- 
 munion). 
 
 Table, the Lord's, 43. 
 
 Teaching, a duty of bishop or presbyter. 
 
 62. 
 
Teachers, 58. 
 Three ordere of ministry, 67. 
 Timothy, 57. 
 
 Titles : of bishop or presbyter, 59 ; of dea- 
 con, 68. 
 Titus, 57. 
 
 INDEX 79 
 
 Truth, sole authority of councils, 75. 
 
 Uncharacteristic faults, 71. 
 Vocation to ministry, 63. 
 Zwinglian theory of communion, 39. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45115 
 
Th«oto9'Cal S*fntnary-Sp**f Lt6f«r> 
 
 1 1012 01016 7825 
 
 :i;,i:,i;ni,iiii!!lll!l!li!lir 
 
 'I . Ii i 
 
 -ii 
 
 'n'l! 
 ,:'!', lilliiilllii 
 
 ;;;i i!